30696 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 111 / Friday, June 9, 1995 / Proposed Rules

(iii) The requirements of (b)(2)(iii) are

met; and

(iv) The child restraint system has one

or more of the labels described in

paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) through

paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C).

(3) This section does not prohibit the

certificate holder from providing child

restraint systems or, consistent with safe

operating practices, determining the

most appropriate passenger seat location

for the child restraint system.

* * * * *

PART 135—AIR TAXI OPERATORS

AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS

7. The authority citation for part 135

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. app. 1354(a), 1355(a),

1421 through 1431, and 1502; 49 U.S.C.

106(g).

8. Section 135.128 is amended by

removing the sentence in paragraph

(a)(2)(ii)(A) that begins with ‘‘Vest-

* * *’’, by removing the final ‘‘and’’ in

paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(C), by revising

paragraph (a)(1) and the introductory

text of paragraph (a)(2)(ii), by adding a

new paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(D), and by

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 135.128 Use of safety belts and child

restraint systems.

(a) * * *

(1) Be held by an adult who is

occupying an approved seat or berth,

provided the child has not reached his

or her second birthday and the child

does not occupy or use any restraining

device; or

(2) * * *

(ii) Except as provided in

subparagraph (b)(2)(ii)(D) of this section,

the approved child restraint system

bears one or more labels as follows:

* * * * *

(D) Notwithstanding any other

provision of this section, booster-type

child restraint systems (as defined in

Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 213

(49 CFR 571.213)), vest- and harnesstype child restraint systems, and lap

held child restraints are not approved

for use in aircraft; and

(b) Except as provided in paragraph

(b)(3), the following prohibitions apply

to certificate holders:

(1) No certificate holder may permit a

child, in an aircraft, to occupy a boostertype child restraint system, a vest-type

child restraint system, a harness-type

child restraint system, or a lap held

child restraint system during take off,

landing, and movement on the surface.

(2) Except as required in paragraph

(b)(1) of this section, no certificate

holder may prohibit a child, if requested

by the child’s parent, guardian, or

designated attendant, from occupying a

child restraint system furnished by the

child’s parent, guardian, or designated

attendant provided:

(i) The child holds a ticket for an

approved seat or berth or such seat or

berth is otherwise made available by the

certificate holder for the child’s use;

(ii) The requirements or paragraph

(a)(2)(i) are met;

(iii) The requirements of (a)(2)(iii) are

met; and

(iv) The child restraint system has one

or more of the labels described in

paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A) through

paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(C).

(3) This section does not prohibit the

certificate holder from providing child

restraint systems or, consistent with safe

operating practices, determining the

most appropriate passenger seat location

for the child restraint system.

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 19,

1995.

William J. White,

Acting Director, Flight Standards Service.

[FR Doc. 95–12800 Filed 6–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 74–09; Notice 41]

RIN 2127–AF46

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Child Restraint Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This proposed rule, and a

companion proposed rule issued by the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

address the use of child harnesses and

backless child restraints in aircraft. This

document proposes to amend a

provision in Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard No. 213, ‘‘Child

Restraint Systems,’’ that permits those

restraints to be certified for use in both

motor vehicles and aircraft.

Under the current FAA regulations,

aircraft-certified child restraints may be

used on aircraft. However, because

testing has raised concerns about the

safety of using harnesses and backless

child restraint systems on the types of

seats found in aircraft, FAA is

publishing, in today’s Federal Register,

an NPRM that would prohibit the use of

booster seats, and vest- and harness-type

child restraint systems on aircraft even

if they are certified for aircraft use.

NHTSA is, in turn, concerned that if

FAA were to ban harnesses and backless

booster seats from being used on

aircraft, continuing to permit the

certification of those restraints for

aircraft use could be confusing to the

public. Accordingly, this document

proposes to require manufacturers to

label these restraints as not being for

aircraft use.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received by the agency no later

than July 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

the docket number and notice number

and be submitted in writing to: Docket

Section, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC

20590. Telephone: (202) 366–5267.

Docket hours are 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

George Mouchahoir, Office of Vehicle

Safety Standards (telephone 202–366–

4919), or Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Office of

the Chief Counsel (202–366–2992),

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20590. For information

on FAA’s proposal, contact Ms. Donell

Pollard (AFS–203), Air Transportation

Division, Flight Standards Service

(telephone 202–267–3735), Federal

Aviation Administration, 800

Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC 20591.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

document proposes to amend the

provision in Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard No. 213, ‘‘Child

Restraint Systems,’’ that permits child

restraint systems to be certified for use

in both motor vehicles and aircraft. This

rule complements an FAA proposal,

published elsewhere in today’s Federal

Register, that would prohibit the use of

booster seats, and vest- and harness-type

child restraint systems on aircraft even

if the restraints are certified for aircraft

use.

The types of child restraint systems

that are the subject of this NPRM are

harnesses and backless child restraints.

A harness typically consists of a vest or

a series of straps that form a vest-like

garment, that attaches at the back of the

harness to a vehicle seat’s lap belt.

Harnesses are generally intended for

children who weigh from 25 to 50

pounds, and some require the use of a

tether strap to supplement the lap belt.

A backless child restraint system is a

type of child booster seat that has a

structural element (typically a shield)

designed to restrain forward motion of

the child’s torso in a frontal crash.

Backless child restraint systems are

generally intended for children

weighing from 30 to 60 pounds.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 111 / Friday, June 9, 1995 / Proposed Rules 30697

1One type of child restraint, the ‘‘belt

positioning’’ booster seat, is not eligible for such

certification. These restraints, which are intended

for use by children weighing from 30 to 60 pounds,

are designed for use with a lap/shoulder belt

system. FMVSS No. 213 does not permit these

restraints to be certified for aircraft use because

aircraft passenger seats typically lack shoulder

belts. See amendment of FMVSS 213 to permit

manufacture of belt-positioning child seats (59 FR

37167; July 21, 1994). In its NPRM, the FAA

proposes to ban the use of belt-positioning booster

seats on airplanes.

(‘‘Backless child restraint system’’ is

defined in S4 of FMVSS 213; see, 59 FR

37167, July 21, 1994). Backless child

restraint systems are also known as

‘‘backless booster seats’’ or ‘‘shieldtype’’ booster seats.

Background

Standard 213 permits manufacturers

to certify their restraints 1 for aircraft use

if they are certified for use in motor

vehicles and meet an additional

requirement, an inversion test. The

provisions permitting such certification

were added to the standard in 1984 (49

FR 34357; August 30, 1984), partly in

response to suggestions of the National

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) that

DOT simplify its standards for the

performance of child restraints on

aircraft by combining all technical

requirements into a single standard

(NTSB Safety Recommendations A–83–

1, February 24, 1983). Prior to the

amendment, FAA had its own child

restraint standard, Technical Standard

Order C100 (TSO C100). TSO C100 and

FMVSS 213 had different performance

requirements, methods of certification

and testing procedures.

In the 1984 rulemaking, NHTSA and

FAA concluded that the DOT child

restraint requirements should be

consolidated in FMVSS 213 and that a

TSO C100 inversion test was the only

performance requirement from the FAA

standard that needed to be incorporated

into FMVSS 213. In the inversion test,

the combination of a child restraint, test

dummy and aircraft passenger seat is

rotated to an inverted position and held

there. During the test, the child restraint

must not experience any failure or

deformation that could seriously injure

or prevent the subsequent removal of

the occupant.

Prior to the 1984 rulemaking, a

manufacturer wishing to designate a

child restraint model as suitable for

aircraft had to submit information to

FAA to obtain its approval of the model.

As a result of this pre-1984 approval

process, there was a disparity between

the number of child restraints available

for use in motor vehicles and the

number available for use in aircraft. In

1984, approximately 28 models of child

restraints were produced under FMVSS

213 for use in motor vehicles. The child

restraint manufacturers obtained TSO

authorizations for only five of the 28

models, or only 16 percent of the total

production of child restraints.

The lack of FAA approval of most

motor vehicle child restraints for use in

aircraft aroused several safety concerns.

One was that some families traveling by

air were discouraged from taking

unapproved child restraints with them

and thus did not have them available for

use at their destination to protect their

children while the family was driving.

The other concern was that those

families who nevertheless took their

unapproved child restraints on trips had

to stow the restraints in the aircraft

cargo compartment, and thus were not

able to use them to protect their

children during the flight.

The effect of the 1984 rulemaking was

to speed certification of child restraints

for use in aircraft, and thereby increase

the availability of aircraft-certified child

restraints. Since then, manufacturers

have been able, under FMVSS 213, to

‘‘self-certify’’ their child restraints for

aircraft use by ensuring that they pass

all of the standard’s motor vehicle

requirements and the inversion test. As

a result, there has been a tremendous

increase in the number of child

restraints certified for use in aircraft.

FAA complemented NHTSA’s

rulemaking by amending its Federal

Aviation Regulations (FARs) (14 CFR

Parts 91, 121, 125 and 135) to provide

for the in-flight use of aircraft-certified

child restraints. The amendments

required the air carriers to allow the use

of any child restraint having a labeling

indicating that it is certified to FMVSS

213, manufactured under the standards

of the United Nations, or approved by

a foreign government, as long as the

restraint can be secured to a forwardfacing passenger seat. An infant or child

who is accompanied by a parent,

guardian, or properly designated

attendant and who is properly placed in

a device that meets the labeling

requirements of the FARs and that, in

turn, is properly secured in an approved

aircraft seat using the safety belt, has

been considered by FAA to comply with

its regulations requiring each person to

occupy an approved seat during takeoff

and landing.

There are currently many different

types of child restraint systems that are

certified as complying with FMVSS

213’s motor vehicle and aircraft

requirements, and thus permitted by

FAA for use on aircraft. In addition to

harnesses and shield boosters, these

systems included ‘‘infant seats,’’ which

position an infant so that the baby faces

toward the rear of the motor vehicle or

aircraft; ‘‘car beds,’’ which position the

child laterally across the vehicle or

aircraft seat; and ‘‘convertible’’ child

seats, which convert so that they can be

used rear-facing with infants and

forward-facing with toddlers. In

addition, there are restraint systems,

such as the ‘‘belly belt,’’ that are

certified for use in airplanes by foreign

countries. Belly belts restrain a small

child on the lap of an adult and consist

of a short loop of webbing with buckle

hardware on the ends. The belt is

buckled around the child’s abdomen

and is secured to the adult’s safety belt

by routing the adult’s safety belt through

a small loop of webbing sewn on the

belly belt. Belly belts are certified for

airplane use by the Civil Aviation

Authority of the United Kingdom.

However, belly belts cannot meet the

performance requirements of FMVSS

213 and therefore have not been

certified for use in the United States.

FAA Withdrawal of Approval

Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register,

FAA is proposing to withdraw approval

for the use of harnesses and booster

seats on aircraft. The FAA is also

emphasizing the existing prohibition in

all aircraft against the use of lap held

child restraints, including belly belts.

The action responds to recent research

by FAA’s Civil Aeromedical Institute

(CAMI). The practical effect of that

amendment would be to ban all use of

these restraints on aircraft.

The CAMI research is discussed in a

report entitled, ‘‘The Performance of

Child Restraint Devices in Transport

Airplane Passenger Seats,’’ a copy of

which has been placed in the NHTSA

rulemaking docket for this notice.

(Persons wishing to obtain a copy of the

report should contact FAA at the

address given in the ‘‘For Further

Information’’ section at the beginning of

this final rule document.) CAMI

dynamically tested six types of

restraining devices: Child harnesses,

booster seats, rear-facing infant seats,

convertible child restraint systems,

airplane seat lap belts, and belly belts.

The first four devices were evaluated for

their ability to fit and adjust to an

airplane passenger seat and lap belt. The

lap belt was evaluated for its ability to

secure test dummies representative of

children two and three years old. Fit

and adjustment was not considered an

issue for the installation of the belly

belt. All of the devices were evaluated

for their performance in aircraft seats

with and without ‘‘breakover’’ seat

backs (a breakover feature allows the

seat back to rotate forward easily when

impacted by an occupant from behind).
30698 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 111 / Friday, June 9, 1995 / Proposed Rules

They were also evaluated, using

anthropomorphic test dummies

representing children, for their ability to

limit occupant head excursion, head

and chest acceleration and abdominal

forces. In addition, the test program

evaluated the effect that the impact load

of an ‘‘aft row occupant’’ had on the

performance of a child restraint located

in an aircraft seat immediately in front

of the aft row occupant. The aft row

occupant impact load was generated in

tests called ‘‘double row tests,’’ using an

adult test dummy placed in the aft row

seat.

Booster Seat Tests

CAMI tested four models of shieldtype booster seats in six dynamic tests,

three of which involved single row tests,

and the other three, double row tests.

With regard to fit and adjustment of the

booster seats to the airplane seat, CAMI

found that three had fit and adjustment

problems. One booster seat had

problems fitting an airplane seat

because of the limited width between

arm rests on the passenger seat. This

may have occurred because of the

difference in width between the

representative aircraft seat (about 20

inches wide) used in FMVSS 213 and

the aircraft seat (17.25 inches wide)

used in the CAMI testing. Two booster

seats had incompatibility problems

between the buckle/webbing path

molded in the front shield and the

airplane web path and buckle position

of the lap belt on the airplane passenger

seat used by CAMI. In fact, the webbing

could not be installed over the front

shield in accordance with the

positioning instruction of the booster

seats’ manufacturers. CAMI also found

that one of the four booster seats failed

structurally, and two of the others

allowed forward head excursion in

excess of the 32-inch distance permitted

by FMVSS 213.

CAMI also found a problem with the

loads that the child dummies restrained

in the tested booster seats experienced

when the boosters were on a seat with

a breakover seat back and exposed to

loads from the aft row occupant. Its tests

showed that loads from an aft row adult

occupant resulted in an increase in

abdominal loading of the dummy in a

booster seat, as compared to the

abdominal loading of a dummy in an

aircraft lap belt with an adult aft-row

occupant. The CAMI study states that,

when placed in a seat with a breakover

seat back, the booster seat encounters

problems because:

With no back shell, the typical booster seat

does not provide protection from the forces

transmitted by the airplane seat back during

horizontal impact conditions. Traditionally,

restraint systems in airplanes have been

designed to avoid loads transmitted to the

soft tissues of the abdomen. A child

restrained in a booster seat may be forced

against the rigid shield due to the seat back

breakover action. For the intended size of

children in booster seats, the load path of

these breakover forces may include the

abdominal region.

It is to be noted that CAMI also found

that the abdominal loads on a child

dummy placed in a shield-type booster

seat secured to an airplane seat with a

locked seat back were higher than on a

child dummy secured in a typical

airplane seat lap belt with a locked seat

back. The FAA recognizes in its NPRM,

however, that there are no accepted

criteria to assess the relationship

between differences in measured levels

of abdominal loadings and any resulting

risk of abdominal injury, and the type

and severity of such injury.

Harness Tests

CAMI tested one type of harness

restraint. The restraint consisted of a

torso vest with straps over the shoulders

and around the waist, and a crotch

strap. The shoulder and abdomen straps

were attached to a rectangular metal

plate on the back of the restraint. The

airplane lap belts were routed through

a loop of webbing attached to the metal

back plate on the restraint.

The restraint was tested with a threeyear-old test dummy in two single row

tests. CAMI found incompatibility

problems between the harness and the

airplane seat lap belts: ‘‘With the lap

belts adjusted to the minimum length,

the [harness] could be moved forward

approximately 7 inches before tension

was developed in the belts. This was

considered unsatisfactory for testing.’’

CAMI also found grossly excessive

excursion of the child anthropomorphic

test dummy(ATD) restrained in the

harness:

The ATD moved forward and over the front

edge of the seat cushion and proceeded to

submarine toward the floor. Elasticity in the

webbing of the harness and the lap belts then

heaved the ATD rearward. The force pulling

the ATD back into the seat appeared to be

applied by the Gz [crotch] strap directly

through the pubic symphysis of the pelvic

bone.

Based on this finding, CAMI

concluded that a harness performs

poorly in protecting the child occupant.

NHTSA Proposal

NHTSA has tentatively concluded

that, if FAA were to adopt its proposed

ban on the use of harnesses and backless

booster seats on aircraft, consumers

would be confused if manufacturers

were to continue nevertheless to certify

these types of restraints for aircraft use.

Accordingly, NHTSA proposes to

amend FMVSS 213 to require

manufacturers to label these child

restraint systems as not being for use on

aircraft. The standard already requires

that belt-positioning booster seats be so

labeled.

In issuing this proposal, NHTSA

believes that it is important to

emphasize several points about the use

and performance of child restraints.

First, there are significant differences

between the seating environment of

motor vehicles and that of aircraft.

Second, because of those differences,

the problems encountered with child

restraint use in aircraft are not

encountered with child restraint use in

motor vehicles. Therefore,

notwithstanding this proposal, the use

of harnesses and booster seats in motor

vehicles continues to be important for

child safety.

The problems reported by CAMI, i.e.,

the combined effects of aircraft seatback

breakover designs and aft occupant

impacts, are not encountered in motor

vehicles. The seat back in a motor

vehicle is designed to remain fixed in a

crash and not ‘‘breakover’’ in the

manner of an airplane seat. Also, a

vehicle seat containing a child restraint

is less likely to be impacted from the

rear by an adult than is an aircraft

containing a child restraint. There are

several reasons for this. First, child

restraints are recommended for use in

the rear vehicle seating positions. Thus,

if a child restraint is installed as

recommended, there will not, in most

cases, be any passenger rearward of the

child restraint who could impact and

load the seat containing the child

restraint in the event of a frontal crash.

Exceptions would be in vehicles, such

as vans and some station wagons, which

have three rows of seats. Second, if

there were a passenger seated behind

the seat containing a child restraint, and

that person were sitting in an outboard

seating position, the person would have

a lap/shoulder belt system available for

use. Most aircraft lack shoulder belts. If

the vehicle passenger were restrained by

that belt system, the person would not

load the seat with the child restraint in

the manner observed in the CAMI study.

Third, given the number of persons

typically carried in a motor vehicle, it

is unlikely there would be an adult

seated behind a child in a child

restraint, regardless of the number or

pattern of seats in the vehicle.

Further, harnesses and other child

restraints are tested under FMVSS 213

on a seat assembly that is representative

of a motor vehicle seat, and that is

equipped with a safety belt
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 111 / Friday, June 9, 1995 / Proposed Rules 30699

representative of the lap belt in the

center rear seating position. In its

compliance testing, the agency has not

found a problem between the vehicle

lap belt and a child harness such as that

found by CAMI between an airplane lap

belt and a harness. In addition, NHTSA

has not found in its compliance testing

the type of fit and adjustment problems

between booster seats and the vehicle

seats that CAMI found between booster

seats and the aircraft seats.

Booster seats could fit better on

vehicles than aircraft in part because of

the design of the belt restraints with

which the boosters are attached to the

vehicle. The position of the buckle for

an aircraft seat belt assembly is very

different from that of a buckle for a

vehicle seat belt assembly. An aircraft

seat belt assembly is designed so that

when it is buckled, the buckle is located

midway between the anchorages, in

front of the user’s abdomen. A motor

vehicle lap/shoulder belt or lap-only

belt is designed so that the buckle is

located to the side of the user’s torso,

near the hip, when the belt is buckled.

Another reason for believing that the

problems reported by CAMI are not

indicative of the performance of child

restraints in motor vehicles is the

difference between the crash pulse used

by CAMI and the crash pulse used in

FMVSS 213 testing. In its testing of head

excursion, head and chest acceleration

and abdominal forces, CAMI used a

crash pulse appropriate for aircraft.

FMVSS 213 testing, by contrast,

involves the use of a motor vehicle

crash pulse.

In view of the problems revealed by

the CAMI testing, NHTSA and FAA will

consider whether there is a need for

future rulemaking to improve FMVSS

213’s requirements for aircraft-certified

child restraints other than harnesses and

booster seats. The agencies are

developing possible requirements and

procedures that could improve the

assessment of the performance of child

restraint systems in the aircraft

environment. Among other issues, the

agencies will consider whether the seat

assembly used under FMVSS 213 in

testing child restraints for aircraft use

sufficiently represents an aircraft

passenger seat. Child restraints certified

as complying with FMVSS 213’s aircraft

requirements are currently tested on a

‘‘representative aircraft passenger seat’’

(S7.3 of FMVSS 213). FMVSS 213 also

specifies that FAA approved aircraft

safety belts are used to test child

restraints that are certified to the aircraft

requirements.

Proposed Effective Date

The proposed effective date is 90 days

after the publication of a final rule in

the Federal Register.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory

Planning and Review) and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

NHTSA has evaluated the impacts of

this proposal and has determined that it

is significant within the meaning of the

Department of Transportation’s

regulatory policies and procedures. The

rulemaking action is significant because

of the substantial public interest in

issues involving child seats on aircraft.

This rule is a significant regulatory

action under E.O. 12866.

While this action is significant

because of the public interest associated

with it, NHTSA tentatively concludes

that a rule resulting from this notice

would have minimal impacts. In 1991,

there were an estimated 1,200,000

booster seats produced. The consumer

cost of a label is estimated to be $0.09

to $0.17, and total annual costs of a

separate label range from $108,000 to

$204,000. However, adding a sentence

to the existing label, most likely the

course of action taken in response to

this rulemaking, would cost much less.

This cost might be $0.01 per label,

resulting in a total annual cost of

$12,000. There is an added economic

benefit of this proposed rule. Since

booster seats would no longer be

permitted to be certified for aircraft,

there would be no need to perform the

inversion test. Thus, testing costs to the

child restraint manufacturer would be

slightly reduced.

The agency is concerned whether this

rulemaking action could affect

consumers’ use of booster seats before

and after the air portion of their trips.

In the 1984 rulemaking that allowed

child restraints to be certified for use on

motor vehicles and aircraft, NHTSA

recognized that parents might not use

child restraints to transport their

children to and from the airport if the

child restraint could not be used on the

aircraft. The data indicated that child

safety was not a critical issue for aircraft

in terms of the number of child deaths,

but that it was a large problem for motor

vehicles before and after the flight.

Many State laws that require the use of

child seats in motor vehicles do not

cover all the ages of children that might

use booster seats. If booster seats may

not be used on aircraft, and if parents

are not willing to stow them with their

luggage, NHTSA is concerned about the

possibility that they could be left home

altogether. As a result, the number of

child injuries in motor vehicle accidents

might increase. NHTSA requests

comments on how it should assess this

issue. The agency is particularly

interested in information concerning

how many of these booster seats are

currently in use and on the availability

of booster seats at car rental agencies.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has considered the effects of

this proposal under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this

rule, if adopted, would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Of

the 11 current child restraint

manufacturers known to the agency (not

counting manufacturers of built-in

restraints), there are six that qualify as

small businesses. This is not a

substantial number of small entities.

Regardless of the number of small

entities, the proposed rule would not

have a significant economic impact on

these entities. As noted above, the

labeling costs associated with this

rulemaking would be minimal. Further,

the agency believes sales of booster seats

would be minimally affected by this

rulemaking, if at all. NHTSA believes

almost all consumers decide to purchase

a child restraint based on their intent to

use the restraint in a motor vehicle, not

in aircraft.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

This rulemaking action has been

analyzed in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in

Executive Order 12612. The agency has

determined that this proposed rule

would not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking

action for the purposes of the National

Environmental Policy Act. The agency

has determined that implementation of

this action would not have any

significant impact on the quality of the

human environment.

Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice

Reform)

This proposed rule would not have

any retroactive effect. Under section 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
30700 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 111 / Friday, June 9, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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.

Submission of Comments on This

Proposal

There is a 30-day comment period for

this notice. The FAA provides a 30-day

comment period for its proposal.

NHTSA believes the comment period

for the agencies’ proposals should be

identical since the two rulemaking

actions complement each other. The

comment period is shorter than 60 days

so that FAA can expeditiously assess

what action should be taken to address

what that agency has tentatively

concluded to be a possible safety

problem.

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on this proposed 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 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

proposal will be considered as

suggestions for further rulemaking

action. Comments 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.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles.

In consideration of the foregoing,

NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR Part

571 as set forth below.

PART 571—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 571

would continue 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 would be amended

by revising S5.5.2(n) to read as follows:

§ 571.213 Standard No. 213, Child

Restraint Systems.

* * * * *

S5.5.2 * * * * *

(n) Child restraint systems, other than

belt-positioning seats, harnesses and

backless child restraint systems, that are

certified as complying with the

provisions of section S8, shall be

labeled with the statement ‘‘This

Restraint is Certified for Use in Motor

Vehicles and Aircraft.’’ Belt-positioning

seats, harnesses and backless child

restraint systems shall be labeled with

the statement ‘‘This Restraint is Not

Certified for Use in Aircraft.’’ The

statement required by this paragraph

shall be in red lettering and shall be

placed after the certification statement

required by paragraph (e) of this section.

* * * * *

Issued on May 19, 1995.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 95–12801 Filed 6–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P