Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 18723

1Corrected December 4, 1996 (61 FR 64297),

December 11, 1996 (61 FR 65187), and January 2,

1997 (62 FR 31).

sand applied, and includes

recommendations for increasing the

effectiveness of street cleaning

operations.

3. Section 52.332 is amended by

adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§ 52.332 Moderate PM10 Nonattainment

Area Plans.

* * * * *

(f) On March 30, 1995, and November

17, 1995, the Governor of Colorado

submitted the moderate PM10

nonattainment area plan for the Denver

area. The March 30, 1995 submittal was

made to satisfy those moderate PM10

nonattainment area SIP requirements

due for the Denver PM10 nonattainment

area on November 15, 1991. The

November 17, 1995 submittal was also

made to satisfy the PM10 contingency

measure requirements which were due

for Denver on November 15, 1993.

[FR Doc. 97–9948 Filed 4–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 74–14; Notice 116]

RIN 2127–AG14

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

Child Restraint Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Interim final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This document amends

Standard No. 213, ‘‘Child Restraint

Systems,’’ to modify the air bag warning

label which rear-facing child seats are

required to bear beginning May 27,

1997. This document responds to a

request from Mercedes-Benz, asking that

the standard allow for additional

wording in the required text of the label.

NHTSA by this document makes final

on an interim basis the amendment

requested by Mercedes, which would

clarify the warning and which would

not lessen the safety of child restraints.

The agency also solicits comments on

this amendment. Because this

amendment will clarify the required

warning label and will relieve a

restriction currently imposed by the

standard, NHTSA has determined that it

is in the public interest to make the

changes effective immediately on an

interim basis. Assuming that a final rule

is issued, the final rule would respond

to any comments and would be effective

upon publication in the Federal

Register.

DATES: Effective April 11, 1997.

Comments must be received by June 2,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

the docket and notice numbers above

and be submitted to: Docket Section,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street,

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Docket

hours are 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday.

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For nonlegal issues: Mary Versailles,

Office of Safety Performance

Standards, NPS–31 , telephone (202)

366–2057.

For legal issues: Deirdre Fujita, Office of

the Chief Counsel, NCC–20, telephone

(202) 366–2992.

Both can be reached at the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington,

D.C., 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

document amends Standard No. 213,

‘‘Child Restraint Systems,’’ on an

interim basis to modify the air bag

warning label which rear-facing child

seats are required to bear beginning May

27, 1997. This document also solicits

comments on this amendment. The

requirement for the label was adopted

by a November 27, 1996 final rule (61

FR 60206),1 which also adopted new

warning label requirements for vehicles

with air bags. The labels will help

reduce the adverse effects of air bags,

especially for children, by increasing

the number of people who place child

restraints in the rear seat instead of the

front.

The requirement for the enhanced

child seat label is set forth in S5.5.2(k)

of Standard 213. The requirement

specifies, among other things, the exact

content of the message that must be

provided by the label. The message of

the label must be preceded by a heading

(‘‘WARNING’’), with an alert symbol,

and state the following:

DO NOT place rear-facing child seat

on front seat with air bag.

DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY can

occur.

The back seat is the safest place for

children 12 and under. Also required for

the label is a pictogram showing a rearfacing child seat being impacted by an

air bag, surrounded by a red circle with

a slash across it. Flexibility as to the

content of the label is not provided;

thus, additional wording is not

permitted.

On April 2, 1997, Mercedes asked

NHTSA to amend the warning label for

child restraints that meet certain

criteria. Mercedes has developed a rearfacing child restraint system that has a

device that automatically cuts off the

passenger-side air bag in vehicles

designed to respond to such a device.

Mercedes intends to market this child

restraint initially to customers

purchasing vehicles without rear seats,

and that are equipped with the cutoff

feature. The cutoff feature makes it

possible to safely use a child restraint

system on the front seat of these

vehicles without subjecting the child to

risk of injury from an air bag

deployment. While NHTSA

recommends that any child be in the

rear seat of a vehicle equipped with one,

if Mercedes later installs the cutoff

feature in vehicles with rear seat, the

cutoff feature will avoid the risk of

injury from an air bag deployment if a

rear-facing child seat in used on the

front seat. Mercedes believes that the

first statement (‘‘DO NOT place rearfacing child seat on front seat with air

bag’’) is inappropriate for child

restraints with a feature to turn off the

air bag. It could also be potentially

confusing to owners of these vehicles

who have such a child restraint, when

they have been instructed that the child

restraint will automatically deactivate

the air bag and thus can be used on the

front seat. The amendment requested by

Mercedes would amend the sentence

stating ‘‘DO NOT place rear-facing child

seat on front seat with air bag’’ by

adding the phrase ‘‘unless air bag is

off.’’

The statements on the air bag warning

label were designed to improve the

likelihood that people will read the

label, understand its message, and place

child restraint systems in the rear seat.

The required phrase ‘‘DO NOT place

rear-facing child seat on front seat with

air bag’’ is incomplete and possibly

confusing for child restraint systems,

such as the Mercedes system, that

automatically deactivate the air bag in

vehicles, since those child restraints are

intended for use on and marketed as

appropriate for front seat positions on

vehicles equipped with complimentary

air bag cutoff devices. Adding the

phrase ‘‘unless air bag is off’’ at the end

of the statement clarifies the message

and tailors it more appropriately for a

system such as the one offered by

Mercedes. Moreover, NHTSA already

permits vehicles that have manual

cutoff switches for the passenger-side
18724 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

air bag to add the phrase ‘‘unless air bag

is off’’ to the end of a warning about

never placing a rear-facing child

restraint in the front seat. (S4.5.1(b)(2) of

Standard No. 208, as amended

November 11, 1996.) Since NHTSA can

see no diminution of safety resulting

from this change, the agency tentatively

amends the standard to accommodate

Mercedes’ request.

The following restrictions would be

placed on the ability to add the words.

The phrase ‘‘unless air bag is off’’ may

be added to a label on a child restraint,

provided that the restraint is equipped

with a device that—

(a) automatically deactivates the

passenger-side air bag; and

(b) activates a telltale light in the

vehicle that complies with S4.5.4.3 of

Standard 208.

NHTSA believes these conditions are

needed to ensure that a rear-facing child

restraint will be safely used on a

passenger seat with an air bag. These

conditions reduce the likelihood that a

child restraint would be used with an

active air bag.

Because this amendment clarifies a

requirement and avoids possible

confusion resulting from the required

labeling, NHTSA finds for good cause

that an immediate amendment of the

requirement is in the public interest.

Submission of Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on this rule. It is

requested but not required that 10

copies be submitted.

All comments must not exceed 15

pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).

Necessary attachments may be

appended to these submissions without

regard to the 15-page limit. This

limitation is intended to encourage

commenters to detail their primary

arguments in a concise fashion.

If a commenter wishes to submit

certain information under a claim of

confidentiality, three copies of the

complete submission, including

purportedly confidential business

information, should be submitted to the

Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street

address given above, and seven copies

from which the purportedly confidential

information has been deleted should be

submitted to the Docket Section. A

request for confidentiality should be

accompanied by a cover letter setting

forth the information specified in the

agency’s confidential business

information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.

All comments received before the

close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above for the

notice will be considered, and will be

available for examination in the docket

at the above address both before and

after that date. To the extent possible,

comments filed after the closing date

will also be considered. Comments

received too late for consideration in

regard to the final rule will be

considered as suggestions for further

rulemaking action. Comments on the

notice will be available for inspection in

the docket. The NHTSA will continue to

file relevant information as it becomes

available in the docket after the closing

date, and it is recommended that

interested persons continue to examine

the docket for new material.

Those persons desiring to be notified

upon receipt of their comments in the

rules docket should enclose a selfaddressed, stamped postcard in the

envelope with their comments. Upon

receiving the comments, the docket

supervisor will return the postcard by

mail.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

NHTSA has considered the impact of

this rulemaking action under E.O. 12866

and the Department of Transportation’s

regulatory policies and procedures. This

rulemaking document was not reviewed

under E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning

and Review.’’ This action has been

determined to be ‘‘nonsignificant’’

under the Department of

Transportation’s regulatory policies and

procedures. The amendments pertain to

optional label changes that are minor in

nature. The agency concludes that the

impacts of the amendments are so

minimal that a full regulatory evaluation

is not required.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has also considered the

impacts of this notice under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby

certify that this rule does not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The rule will not impose any new

requirements or costs on manufacturers,

but instead will permit a manufacturer

to use an optional label on its child

restraint if conditions on the use of the

label are met. Further, since no price

increases are associated with the rule,

small organizations and small

governmental units are not be affected

in their capacity as purchasers of child

restraints.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96–511),

there are no requirements for

information collection associated with

this rule.

D. National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has also analyzed this rule

under the National Environmental

Policy Act and determined that it will

not have a significant impact on the

human environment.

E. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

NHTSA has analyzed this rule in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and

has determined that this rule will not

have significant federalism implications

to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

F. Civil Justice Reform

This rule has no any retroactive effect.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a

Federal motor vehicle safety standard is

in effect, a State may not adopt or

maintain a safety standard applicable to

the same aspect of performance which

is not identical to the Federal standard,

except to the extent that the state

requirement imposes a higher level of

performance and applies only to

vehicles procured for the State’s use. 49

U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for

judicial review of final rules

establishing, amending or revoking

Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

That section does not require

submission of a petition for

reconsideration or other administrative

proceedings before parties may file suit

in court.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles.

In consideration of the foregoing,

NHTSA amends 49 CFR Part 571 as set

forth below.

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

1. The authority citation for Part 571

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

2. Section 571.213 is amended by

revising the introductory text of

S5.5.2(k), revising the introductory text

of paragraph S5.5.2(k)(4), and adding

S5.5.2(k)(5), to read as follows:

§ 571.213 Standard No. 213, Child

Restraint Systems.

* * * * *

S5.5.2 * * *

(k) At the manufacturer’s option,

child restraint systems manufactured

before May 27, 1997 may comply with
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 18725

the requirements of S5.5.2(k)(4) or

S5.5.2(k)(5) as appropriate, instead of

the requirements of S5.5.2(k)(1)(ii) or

S5.5.2(k)(2)(ii).

* * * * *

(4) Except as provided in (k)(5) of this

section, in the case of each child

restraint system that can be used in a

rear-facing position and is manufactured

on or after May 27, 1997, instead of the

warning specified in S5.5.2(k)(1)(ii) or

S5.5.2(k)(2)(ii) of this standard, a label

that conforms in content to Figure 10

and to the requirements of S5.5.2(k)(4)(i)

through S5.5.2(k)(4)(iii) of this standard

shall be permanently affixed to the outer

surface of the cushion or padding in or

adjacent to the area where a child’s head

would rest, so that the label is plainly

visible and easily readable.

* * * * *

(5) If a child restraint system is

equipped with a device that

automatically deactivates the passengerside air bag in a vehicle and activates a

telltale light in the vehicle that complies

with S4.5.4.3 of FMVSS No. 208, the

label specified in Figure 10 may include

the phrase ‘‘unless air bag is off’’ after

‘‘on front seat with air bag.’’

* * * * *

Issued on April 11, 1997.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–9879 Filed 4–11–97; 4:59 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 961126334–7025–02; I.D.

041497A]

Fisheries of the Economic Exclusive

Zone Off Alaska; Deep-Water Species

Fishery by Vessels Using Trawl Gear in

the Gulf of Alaska

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed

fishing for species that comprise the

deep-water species fishery by vessels

using trawl gear in the Gulf of Alaska

(GOA). This action is necessary because

the second seasonal bycatch allowance

of Pacific halibut apportioned to the

deep-water species fishery in the GOA

has been caught.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 1200 hrs, Alaska local

time (A.l.t.), April 14, 1997, until 1200

hrs, A.l.t., July 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Pearson, 907–486–6919.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive

economic zone is managed by NMFS

according to the Fishery Management

Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of

Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North

Pacific Fishery Management Council

under authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act. Fishing by U.S.

vessels is governed by regulations

implementing the FMP at subpart H of

50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The prohibited species bycatch

mortality allowance of Pacific halibut

for the GOA trawl deep-water species

fishery, which is defined at

§ 679.21(d)(3)(iii)(B), was established by

the Final 1997 Harvest Specifications of

Groundfish for the GOA (62 FR 8179,

February 24, 1997) for the second

season, the period April 1, 1997,

through June 30, 1997, as 300 mt.

In accordance with § 679.21(d)(7)(i),

the Administrator, Alaska Region,

NMFS, has determined that the second

seasonal apportionment of the 1997

Pacific halibut bycatch mortality

allowance specified for the trawl deepwater species fishery in the GOA has

been caught. Consequently, NMFS is

prohibiting directed fishing for the

deep-water species fishery by vessels

using trawl gear in the GOA. The

species and species groups that

comprise the deep-water species fishery

are: all rockfish of the genera Sebastes

and Sebastolobus, Greenland turbot,

Dover sole, Rex sole, arrowtooth

flounder, and sablefish.

Maximum retainable bycatch amounts

may be found in the regulations at

§ 679.20(e) and (f).

Classification

This action is required by 50 CFR

679.21 and is exempt from review under

E.O. 12866.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Dated: April 14, 1997.

Bruce C. Morehead,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–9961 Filed 4–14–97; 3:29 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F