Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53569 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state negative declaration, 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. This rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. 

In reviewing section 111(d)/129 

negative declaration submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the state to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a section 111(d)/129 

negative declaration related submission 

for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a 111(d)/129 plan 

related submission, to use VCS in place 

of a negative declaration that otherwise 

satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air 

Act. Thus, the requirements of section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. This rule is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by November 8, 

2005. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this rule for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action, approving the 

MDE’s negative declaration for CISWI 

units, may not be challenged later in 

proceedings to enforce its requirements. 

(See section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Aluminum, 

Fertilizers, Fluoride, Intergovernmental 

relations, Paper and paper products 

industry, Phosphate, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Sulfur acid plants, Waste 

treatment and disposal. 

Dated: September 1, 2005. 

Richard J. Kampf, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

■ 40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows: 

PART 62—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 62 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart V—Maryland 

■ 2. A new center heading, after 

§ 62.5122, consisting of § 62.5127 is 

added to read as follows: 

Emissions From Existing Commercial 

and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator 

(CISWI) Units—Negative Declaration 

§ 62.5127 Identification of plan—Negative 

Declaration 

May 12, 2005 Maryland Department 

of the Environment letter certifying that 

existing CISWI units, subject to 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart DDDD, have been 

permanently shut down and have been 

dismantled in the state. 

[FR Doc. 05–17929 Filed 9–8–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Parts 571 and 588 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2005–22324] 

RIN 2127–AI95 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Child Restraint Systems; 

Child Restraint Systems 

Recordkeeping Requirements 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document amends 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

No. 213, ‘‘Child restraint systems,’’ to 

permit information regarding online 

product registration to be included on 

the owner registration form required 

under the standard. This amendment 

enhances the opportunity of restraint 

owners to register their restraints online, 

which may increase registration rates 

and the effectiveness of recall 

campaigns. The final rule also better 

enables manufacturers to supplement 

(but not replace) recall notification via 

first-class mail with e-mail notification, 

which increases the likelihood that 

owners learn of a recall. The agency is 

also requiring that the telephone 

number required on child restraint 

labels for the purpose of enabling 

consumers to register by telephone be a 

U.S. number. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

November 8, 2005. 

Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration 

must be received by October 24, 2005 

and should refer to this docket and the 

notice number of this document and be 

submitted to: Administrator, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 

20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

following persons at the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration: 

For non-legal issues: Mr. Tewabe 

Asebe of the NHTSA Office of 

Rulemaking at (202) 366–2365. 

For legal issues: Mr. Christopher 

Calamita of the NHTSA Office of Chief 

Counsel at (202) 366–2992. 

You may send mail to both of these 

officials at the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., 

SW., Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

53570 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

1The final rule establishing the registration 

requirement was published September 10, 1992 and 

became effective March 9, 1993. (57 FR 41428). 

2The September 2001 U.S. Census Bureau report, 

Home Computer and Internet Use in the United 

States: August 2000, revealed that forty-two percent 

of all households had at least one household 

member who used the Internet at home in 2000. 

II. Final Rule 

a. Changes to the Current Registration Card 

1. Providing Manufacturer’s Internet 

Address 

2. Collecting E-mail Addresses 

A. Space on the Card for Consumers’ Email Addresses 

B. Consequences of Having the Information 

C. Use of Consumer Information 

b. The Electronic Registration Form (eform) 

c. Registration by Telephone 

d. Child Restraint Label and Printed 

Instructions 

III. New NHTSA Hotline Number 

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

I. Background 

FMVSS No. 213 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child 

restraint systems (49 CFR 571.213), 

establishes an owner registration 

program for child restraint systems. 

NHTSA implemented the program to 

improve the effectiveness of 

manufacturer campaigns to recall child 

restraint systems that contain a safetyrelated defect or that fail to conform to 

FMVSS No. 213. By increasing the 

number of identified child restraint 

owners, the program increases the 

manufacturers’ ability to inform owners 

of restraints about defects or 

noncompliances in those restraints. 

Under the standard, child restraint 

manufacturers are required to provide a 

registration form attached to each child 

restraint (S5.8). The registration form 

must conform in size, content and 

format to forms depicted in the standard 

(figures 9a and 9b). Each form must 

include a detachable postage-paid 

addressed postcard that provides a 

space for the consumer to record his or 

her name and address, and must be 

preprinted with the restraint’s model 

name or number and its date of 

manufacture. Except for information 

that distinguishes a particular restraint 

from other systems, no other 

information is permitted to appear on 

the postcard. Child restraint 

manufacturers have not been prohibited 

from using the internet in their owner 

registration programs. However, 

wording about registering online was 

not permitted on the card. 

Child restraint manufacturers are also 

required to supply a telephone number 

on child restraint system labels to 

enable owners (particularly secondhand owners) to register over the 

telephone. 

NHTSA requires manufacturers to 

keep a record of registered owner 

information along with the relevant 

child restraint system information 

(restraint model, serial number, and 

manufactured dates) for not less than six 

years from the date of manufacture of 

the child restraint system (49 CFR part 

588, Child restraint systems 

recordkeeping requirements). 

In the event of a recall, manufacturers 

must send notification by first-class 

mail to the registered child restraint 

owners. (Public notice of the recall can 

be also required.) Prior to the 

registration requirement 1, an estimated 

3 percent of consumers registered their 

child restraints. Currently, according to 

data from NHTSA’s Office of Defects 

Investigation, the registration rate is at 

27 percent. 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

In an effort to increase the registration 

rate and in response to the public’s 

increasing access to the Internet 2, the 

agency proposed to permit child 

restraint manufacturers to include 

information regarding online 

registration of a child restraint on the 

registration card required under S5.8 of 

FMVSS No. 213 (69 FR 32954; June 14, 

2004). NHTSA believed that the rapid 

growth of the Internet and of Internet 

access provided an opportunity to 

improve the child restraint registration 

rate, which in turn could improve the 

effectiveness of child restraint recall 

campaigns. To facilitate the registration 

of owners who seek to register by 

telephone, the NPRM also proposed to 

require that the telephone number that 

manufacturers must provide on child 

restraint labels be a U.S. number. 

Comments 

In response to the NPRM, the agency 

received comments from National Safe 

Kids Campaign (Safe Kids); American 

Academy of Pediatrics; Advocates for 

Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), 

child restraint manufacturers Evenflo 

Company, Inc. (Evenflo) and Graco; 

American Automobile Association 

(AAA); and Locker Greenberg & Brainin, 

P.C., representing the Juvenile Products 

Manufacturers Association (JPMA). All 

of the commenters were generally 

supportive of the proposed amendments 

to FMVSS No. 213. Commenters 

representing child restraint 

manufacturers generally requested that 

additional flexibility be provided in the 

method of recall notification, while 

consumer groups stressed that the first 

class mail requirement be maintained. 

Consumer groups also commented that 

any revision include a requirement for 

child restraint manufacturers to 

maintain the privacy of customer 

information. Commenters also provided 

several alternative suggestions for the 

format of the paper registration card and 

the online registration form. 

II. Final Rule 

This final rule adopts the proposals of 

the June 2004 notice, with minor 

changes. We are amending FMVSS No. 

213 to permit child restraint 

manufacturers the option of including 

specified wording in the child restraint 

paper registration card to provide for 

online registration of child restraints. 

The minor changes relate to where on 

the form certain information must be 

provided, and to the information 

required to be in the child restraint 

owners manual. Today’s rule also 

requires that manufacturers provide a 

U.S. phone number for purposes of 

facilitating registration by telephone. 

Today’s rule does not amend the 

notification requirements, i.e., 

manufacturers must still provide recall 

notification via first-class mail. A 

manufacturer may choose to 

supplement this notification via an email message, but it is not required to 

do so. 

The purpose of the rulemaking is to 

facilitate registration of child restraints, 

to increase registration rates. For those 

child restraint owners with access to the 

Internet, online registration may be a 

preferred method of registering a child 

restraint. Providing for another means of 

registration may increase registration 

rates, which may increase the number of 

owners learning of a recall and 

responding to it. A related purpose of 

this rule is to improve how consumers 

currently register. As stated by Evenflo, 

Graco, and the JPMA in their comments 

to the NPRM, permitting manufacturers 

the option of including electronic 

registration information on the paper 

registration card will help minimize 

errors and omissions in consumer 

information that now occur as a result 

of transcribing information submitted 

on paper cards, difficulty in reading 

consumers’ handwriting, or cards 

damaged in the mail. In addition, this 

final rule also enhances manufacturers’

abilities to notify owners of a safety 

recall. Manufacturers may supplement 

recall notification via first-class mail 

with voluntary e-mail notification. 

NHTSA is not mandating online 

registration because such a requirement 

would implicitly require manufacturers 

to have and maintain an Internet 

registration system. While over forty 

percent of U.S. households had Internet 

access in 2000, a majority did not. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53571 

3 ‘‘Evaluation of Child Safety Seat Registration,’’

DOT HS 809 518, NHTSA Technical Report 

(October 2002). 

Further, it is uncertain how many 

households in that forty percent had 

consistent access to the Internet. At 

present, Internet access is not so 

prevalent as to justify mandating 

electronic registration. 

a. Changes to the Current Registration 

Card 

Under today’s final rule, a 

manufacturer is permitted to add to the 

registration card attached to the child 

restraint (referred to in this preamble as 

the ‘‘the paper registration card’’): (a) 

Specified statements informing child 

restraint owners that they may register 

online; (b) the Internet address for 

registering with the company; (c) 

specified statements reflecting use of the 

Internet to register; and (d) a space for 

the consumer’s e-mail address. 

This final rule provides 

manufacturers the option of including 

electronic registration information on 

the paper registration card. However, if 

a manufacturer does provide such 

information, the information must be 

provided as prescribed in today’s final 

rule. The reason for this requirement is 

to ensure that the paper registration card 

continues to be standardized in size, 

content, and format, so that it is easy to 

read and clutter-free. 

1. Providing Manufacturer’s Internet 

Address 

To prevent the consumer from having 

to search for an electronic registration 

form (referred to in this document as the 

‘‘e-form’’) on a manufacturer’s Web site, 

we proposed that manufacturers that 

choose to provide electronic registration 

information on the paper registration 

card must provide an Internet address 

that directly links to the e-form. We 

stated that this would likely increase the 

ease and convenience of registering. We 

also proposed that this Internet address 

should be placed on the mail-in portion 

of the paper registration card. 

In its comments, Safe Kids suggested 

that the required location for a 

manufacturer’s Internet address should 

be the portion of the paper registration 

card that is kept by the consumer. It 

stated that this would allow a child 

restraint owner to register online even 

after the paper registration card was 

mailed and may facilitate the 

registration of subsequent owners, if this 

portion of the card were transferred 

with the child restraint. 

We agree with Safe Kids that the 

Internet registration address should be 

placed on the portion of the paper card 

retained by the owner. This will provide 

the consumer a quick reference for 

locating the electronic registration site. 

Therefore, under today’s final rule, the 

required location for the Internet 

address is placed on the portion of the 

paper registration card maintained by 

the consumer. 

Graco recommended that language be 

included on the paper registration card 

to indicate that the customer should 

have the card available when he or she 

registers online and that the card 

includes information on the model 

number, serial number, and the date of 

manufacture, i.e., information that 

would be required to register the 

restraint. 

We do not agree to this request. The 

information required to be provided on 

the paper registration card is 

intentionally very limited and 

standardized to provide only the most 

critical information necessary to the 

consumer. Providing the information 

suggested by Graco would potentially 

clutter the card and overload the reader. 

Further, as explained later in this 

preamble, we have made provisions to 

include this information on the e-form. 

If a consumer attempts to register online 

and does not have the paper registration 

card at hand, then he or she will be 

directed to locate the necessary 

information by either locating the card, 

or by getting the information from the 

label on the child restraint. As such, we 

are not requiring any additional 

language for the paper registration card. 

2. Collecting E-mail Addresses 

A. Space on the Card for Consumers’ Email Addresses 

The agency proposed to permit 

manufacturers to include a space on the 

paper registration card for a customer’s 

e-mail address. This was consistent with 

an agency October 2002 report on the 

registration program, which stated that: 

‘‘Adding a space for an e-mail address 

on the registration form could make 

initial recall notification faster. It could 

also be helpful in locating seat owners 

that have changed residence but 

retained their e-mail address.’’ 3 Under 

the proposal, if a manufacturer were to 

collect e-mail addresses, it would be 

required to maintain a record of all 

collected e-mail addresses for a period 

of 6 years, just as with the other 

registration information. 

We are adopting this provision as 

proposed. Under today’s final rule, 

manufacturers are permitted to provide 

a space for a child restraint owner’s email address. This space must specify 

that providing an e-mail address is not 

required. By permitting the collection of 

e-mail addresses on the child restraint 

registration form, manufacturers would 

have the ability to provide e-mail 

notification of a recall in conjunction 

with the mandatory first-class mail 

notification. Providing an additional 

method of notifying child restraint 

owners of a recall would increase the 

likelihood of a recalled child restraint 

being remedied. 

B. Consequences of Having the 

Information 

In the proposal, we requested 

comment on whether a manufacturer 

that has voluntarily collected a 

customer’s e-mail address should be 

required to provide a recall notification 

via e-mail, as well as via first-class mail. 

We noted that use of customer e-mail 

addresses could also make initial recall 

notification faster. Conversely, firstclass mail notification can take up to 

several days to reach the intended 

customer, and even longer if the letter 

must be forwarded to a new address. 

Further, a child restraint owner may 

maintain the same e-mail address even 

after moving to a new street address, 

resulting in an e-mail notification 

reaching the owner even if mail 

forwarding has been discontinued. 

Commenters generally recognized the 

potential benefits of e-mail notification, 

but raised a variety of concerns. Safe 

Kids, Advocates and AAA 

recommended that manufacturers be 

provided the option of supplementing 

first-class mail notification with an email message. Advocates noted that 

computer e-mail users may change 

services, and thus their e-mail 

addresses, while remaining at the same 

street address. Safe Kids noted that with 

the sizable amount of junk e-mails that 

most people receive, there is the 

potential for electronic notifications to 

go unread or be deleted. Evenflo further 

noted that mass corrective action emailings may be blocked by filtering 

software as unsolicited e-mails. Evenflo 

was also concerned that unassociated 

advertising e-mails, or ‘‘spoof’’ e-mails 

may be formatted to appear as legitimate 

consumer contacts from a child restraint 

manufacturer. 

Both Evenflo and the JPMA expressed 

concern that the development of State or 

Federal ‘‘anti-spam’’ legislation may 

complicate mass consumer e-mail 

contacts, even for legitimate purposes 

such as a recall notification. JPMA and 

Graco commented that customers 

should be provided the option of 

choosing the method of contact, i.e., 

first-class mail or electronic notification. 

The requirement for notification of a 

defect or noncompliance via first class 

mail is prescribed by statute (49 U.S.C. 

30119(d)). That requirement to provide 

53572 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

4Under 49 U.S.C. 30119(d)(2), the agency can 

require a manufacturer of equipment to provide 

public notice to effectuate the recall of a defective 

or noncompliant product. In the past, child restraint 

manufacturers have provided notice through a 

variety of means including, but not limited to, 

retailers, child safety centers, pediatricians, and the 

media. 

5 In developing the mail-in registration form, the 

agency found that focus groups ‘‘widely and 

enthusiastically accepted the text and format of the 

parts of the form that did not vary among the 

proposed options.’’ 57 FR 414321. 

notification by first class mail is 

unchanged by today’s final rule. With 

regard to e-mail notification, we 

recognize the potential difficulties 

raised by commenters. Therefore, we are 

not generally requiring manufacturers to 

send electronic notification of a defect 

or noncompliance if manufacturers 

collect consumer e-mail addresses. 

However, manufacturers are not 

prohibited from using electronic 

notification as a supplement to 

notification by first class mail. 

(Additionally, the agency could compel 

electronic notification as a supplement 

if the traditional means of notifying the 

public of a recall (first class mail, public 

notices) are insufficient.4 This 

determination would be made on a caseby-case basis.) As e-mail services evolve 

and develop, we may further assess at 

a future date the merits of electronic 

notification. 

C. Use of Consumer Information 

In the notice of proposed rulemaking, 

we stated that we would expect that 

manufacturers would not use any 

registration information, including 

e-mail addresses, for commercial 

purposes. We noted that in developing 

the original registration requirements, 

focus groups reacted favorably to the 

idea of being assured by the 

manufacturer that information retained 

in these records would not be used for 

commercial mailing lists. We expected 

that the public would respond similarly 

to assurances that a registered e-mail 

address would not result in unsolicited 

e-mails. 

Safe Kids, Advocates, and AAA 

commented that safeguards against 

commercial use of registration 

information should be mandated. Safe 

Kids requested that the agency require 

registration materials to contain 

language stating that information would 

not be used for commercial purposes. 

Advocates raised the possibility of 

instituting penalties for violations of 

such a requirement. 

Graco, Evenflo, and the JPMA all 

supported restricted use of a consumer’s 

e-mail address obtained through child 

restraint registration. Graco and Evenflo 

suggested that manufacturers be 

permitted to have a field on the e-form 

that would provide consumers the 

option of receiving product information. 

As stated in the preamble of the 

proposed rulemaking, NHTSA expects 

that manufacturers will respect owners’

preferences that this information, along 

with other registration information, will 

be kept separate from other customer 

lists. To date, we have not received 

complaints from consumers that would 

indicate manufacturers were doing 

otherwise. Accordingly, at this time we 

do not see the need to change the status 

quo by instituting the safeguards 

suggested by Safe Kids and Advocates. 

Nonetheless, while manufacturers 

may provide avenues for customers to 

receive additional product information, 

manufacturers must provide this 

separate from the registration process. 

That is, whether that process be via the 

paper registration card, telephone 

registration, or electronic registration, 

those processes must be absent any 

solicitation of the consumer for 

commercial purposes. As stated above, 

the information required to be provided 

to customers for purposes of registration 

is intentionally very limited and 

standardized to provide only the most 

critical information necessary to the 

consumer. This conveys the importance 

of registration in a clear manner. 

b. The Electronic Registration Form 

(E-form) 

To increase the likelihood that owners 

will find electronic registration userfriendly, we proposed a standardized 

appearance of the online registration 

form (e-form) presented to the 

consumer. That is, similar to the 

standardized mail-in registration form,5

the only fields that would be permitted 

on an e-form would be those for: (a) The 

owner’s name and address; (b) the 

restraint model and serial number; (c) 

date of manufacture of the child 

restraint; and (d) at the manufacturer’s 

option, the owner’s e-mail address. 

Under the proposal, the e-form would 

be required to contain relevant portions 

of the standardized warnings and other 

information mandated for paper 

registration forms. The only additional 

information permitted on the e-form 

would be information identifying the 

manufacturer and a link to the 

manufacturer’s Web site home page. We 

requested comment on whether some 

additional information should be 

permitted or required on the form, e.g., 

instructions to the consumer as to where 

the restraint’s model name and number 

can be found. 

Commenters were generally 

supportive of the format of the e-form 

proposed by the agency. The 

manufacturers requested that a prompt 

be permitted to notify an owner if the 

e-form was not filled out completely. 

The prompt would be generated upon 

clicking a ‘‘confirm’’ or ‘‘submit’’ field, 

which could be located next to the 

manufacturer’s logo or link to the 

manufacturer’s homepage. Graco and 

Evenflo also recommended that the 

e-form inform consumers what child 

restraint specific information is required 

to properly fill out the form and where 

that information can be located. 

We are adopting the proposed e-form 

format requirements, with a few changes 

suggested by the commenters and with 

other minor additions. We are 

permitting manufacturers to use a 

prompt to indicate that a form has not 

been fully completed. We note however, 

that as with the paper registration card, 

the e-form must indicate that inclusion 

of a consumer’s e-mail address may be 

provided at the consumer’s option. 

Further, manufacturers are prevented 

from having additional screens or 

advertisement banners appear as a result 

of a child restraint owner accessing the 

Web page that contains the e-form (e.g., 

‘‘pop-up advertisements’’ are 

prohibited). By preventing additional 

information or advertising from 

appearing on the registration page or as 

a result of accessing the e-form, the 

benefits of a standardized registration 

form are maintained, helping to improve 

the rate of registration. 

The JPMA requested that a statement 

be included on the electronic 

registration form informing readers that 

the registration is not applicable to 

consumers outside the U.S. The JPMA 

expressed concerns with potential 

conflicts with the laws of non-U.S. 

jurisdictions and child restraints 

purchased outside of the U.S. 

We concur with the suggested change. 

Paper registration cards now 

accompanying child restraints do not 

need such language because only child 

restraints manufactured for sale in the 

U.S. are required to have registration 

cards. In contrast, an electronic 

registration form available on a 

manufacturer’s Web site may be 

accessed anywhere in the world. 

Persons purchasing a child restraint 

outside of the U.S. may not know that 

the FMVSS No. 213 registration program 

is limited to the U.S. Therefore, we have 

included a statement on the electronic 

registration form that clarifies its 

applicability to child restraints 

purchased in the U.S. 

Advocates requested that the agency 

require that the electronic registration 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53573 

6This amendment arose out of a concern about 

the potential use of non-U.S. phone numbers for 

registration purposes. http://www.nhtsa/dot.gov/ 

cars/rules/interps/files/002775cmc_phoneno.html. 

7A manufacturer is not charged a fee by the post 

office for a postage pre-paid postcard until the card 

is actually sent through the mail. 

information be encrypted. Advocates 

stated that encrypting the data would 

protect the information from being 

accessed by third parties. 

We are not including an ‘‘encryption’’

requirement for electronic registration. 

The registration form does not entail the 

submission of financial information or 

other identifiers such as a Social 

Security number. The information 

provided is the same information that 

commonly can be obtained through a 

telephone directory. Further, because 

technology changes at such a rapid 

pace, any level of encryption required 

by the agency would likely become 

obsolete in a short time frame. 

Manufacturers’ means of securing the 

information they now receive from 

consumers should be adequate to 

protect the registration information they 

will receive through the electronic 

registration program. 

c. Registration by Telephone 

When the agency established the 

current child restraint registration 

program (requiring the paper 

registration card), we also established a 

requirement for child restraint 

manufacturers to label each child 

restraint with a telephone number that 

consumers could use to register their 

restraints as an alternative to the mailin form. A phone number was 

particularly important for persons 

owning secondhand restraints, since the 

original registration card would likely 

be missing from such restraints. 

The NPRM proposed that the 

telephone number must be a U.S. 

number.6 No opposing comments were 

received on this issue. This final rule 

adopts the proposed restriction. While 

we are unaware of any manufacturer 

currently providing a non-U.S. 

telephone number, this rule will ensure 

that a non-U.S. number is not provided 

in the future. A non-U.S. telephone 

number would present a high cost to a 

child restraint owner seeking to register 

a child restraint and would be a 

disincentive for consumers, particularly 

second-hand owners, to register. 

d. Child Restraint Label and Printed 

Instructions 

The NPRM would have permitted the 

printed instructions accompanying a 

restraint to include a discussion on 

registering via the Internet, but would 

not have required the Web site address 

be included in the instructions even if 

a manufacturer opted to include a Web 

site on the paper registration card. In its 

comments, Safe Kids suggested that 

Internet registration information be 

include in the instruction manual. We 

agree with Safe Kids that including the 

Internet address in the printed 

instructions may facilitate registration 

by owners’ who have misplaced the 

paper registration card, who have 

changed address, or by subsequent 

owners. Therefore, under today’s final 

rule, if a manufacturer opts to include 

an Internet address on the paper 

registration card, it must also include 

the Internet address in the printed 

instructions. 

In their comments, the JPMA and 

Evenflo recommended that the agency 

include language on the child restraint 

label and in the instruction manual 

directed specifically at second-hand 

owners and owners who have moved 

since registering their child restraint. 

The suggested language stated: ‘‘If you 

have moved or are not the original 

purchaser of this child restraint, please 

contact (manufacturer) to register this 

restraint.’’

We are not adopting such a 

requirement. Child restraint labels 

already require general language on the 

importance of product registration 

(‘‘Register your child restraint with the 

manufacturer,’’ see e.g., S5.5.2(g)(iv)). 

Space on the labels is limited, and in 

order to maintain the effectiveness of 

the information contained on the labels, 

we need to limit the required 

information. Also, the requested 

information is already provided in 

instruction manuals. The manuals are 

required to provide information on the 

importance of registration (‘‘You must 

register this restraint to be reached in a 

recall,’’ S5.6.1.7), and, under today’s 

final rule, if a manufacturer opts to 

include an Internet address on the paper 

registration card, it must also include 

the Internet address in the printed 

instructions. Manufacturers are not 

prohibited from supplementing the 

information with a statement as 

suggested by the commenters. 

III. New NHTSA Hotline Number 

Child restraint manufacturers are 

required to provide the telephone 

number for the U.S. Government’s 

(NHTSA’s) Auto Safety Hotline on both 

child restraint labels and the 

accompanying printed instructions. (See 

FMVSS No. 213, S5.5.1(m), S5.5.5(k), 

S5.6.1.7, S5.6.2.2.) The Auto Safety 

Hotline provides child restraint owners 

with information on product recalls. 

Until recently, FMVSS No. 213 

required two phone numbers; a toll-free 

number and a number for the District of 

Columbia area. The separate phone 

number for the District of Columbia area 

is no longer needed, as the toll-free 

number now functions for the entire 

U.S. Accordingly, child restraint labels 

and instructions only need refer to the 

toll-free number. Thus, on June 21, 

2005, the agency published a technical 

amendment that replaced the required 

telephone number in FMVSS No. 213 

with 1–888–327–4236 (70 FR 35556; 

Docket No. NHTSA–2005–21564). The 

technical amendment is effective June 

21, 2006. Early compliance is permitted. 

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

NHTSA has considered the impact of 

this rule under Executive Order 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. We do not anticipate this 

final rule to result in any costs for child 

restraint system manufacturers. The 

final rule does not establish any new 

requirements for manufacturers of child 

restraint systems unless a manufacturer 

voluntarily chooses to collect e-mail 

addresses or provide an Internet address 

for electronic registration on the child 

restraint registration card. If a 

manufacturer voluntarily collects 

customer e-mail addresses and provides 

for electronic registration of restraints, 

the anticipated costs for the 

recordkeeping requirements are 

minimal. 

Many child restraint system 

manufacturers already provide an 

electronic product registration service 

and by encouraging electronic 

registration, manufacturers could reduce 

the number of postage-paid registration 

cards returned, thereby reducing 

postage fees for the manufacturer.7

Manufacturers that collect customer 

e-mail addresses could incorporate this 

information into the registration records 

currently maintained. Also, child 

restraint system owner information 

submitted online would be in electronic 

format, minimizing the data entry 

burden required to record owner 

information and reduce recordkeeping 

costs. 

While the use of online resources for 

child restraint system registration has 

the potential for increased child 

restraint registration and enhanced 

recall notification, we are not requiring 

53574 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

manufacturers to have a means by 

which consumers can register their 

restraint via the Internet. We want to 

avoid imposing potentially prohibitive 

costs on manufacturers not currently 

equipped to incorporate Internet 

resources into child restraint system 

registration. Manufacturers not 

currently situated for Internet 

registration would have the cost of 

developing an Internet system to 

process registrations as well as the costs 

associated with revising the mandated 

registration forms and modifying 

recordkeeping procedures. If and when 

Internet and e-mail access becomes 

more universal, the benefit of 

mandatory Internet registration 

provisions can be evaluated. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency is required 

to publish a notice of rulemaking for 

any proposed or final rule, it must 

prepare and make available for public 

comment a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes the effect of the 

rule on small entities (i.e., small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions). The 

Small Business Administration’s 

regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a 

small business, in part, as a business 

entity ‘‘which operates primarily within 

the United States.’’ (13 CFR 121.105(a)). 

No regulatory flexibility analysis is 

required if the head of an agency 

certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

I certify that this final rule does not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The following is the agency’s statement 

providing the factual basis for the 

certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). 

The final rule directly affects child 

restraint manufacturers. According to 

the Small Business Administration’s 

small business size standards (see 5 CFR 

121.201), a child restraint manufacturer 

(NAICS code 336360, Motor Vehicle 

Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturer) 

must have 500 or fewer employees to 

qualify as a small business. Most if not 

all of the affected manufacturers are 

small businesses under this definition. 

However, the final rule does not impose 

any new requirements on manufacturers 

that produce child restraint systems. 

The final rule provides flexibility in 

child restraint system registration by 

allowing manufacturers to promote 

electronic registration. Given the final 

rule does not impose any new 

requirements, a regulatory flexibility 

analysis was not prepared. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the procedures established by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a 

person is not required to respond to a 

collection of information by a Federal 

agency unless the collection displays a 

valid OMB control number. The final 

rule reconfigures the information 

collection and recordkeeping 

requirements of FMVS No. 213 and 49 

CFR part 588, which have been 

approved under OMB No. 2127–0576. 

The agency does not anticipate this 

reconfiguration to increase the cost or 

burden of the approved collection. 

Agency: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA). 

Title: Voluntary Child Safety 

Registration Form. 

Type of Request: Reconfiguration of 

existing collection. 

OMB Clearance Number: 2127–0576. 

Form Number: None. 

Summary of the Collection of 

Information: Under the final rule in this 

document, if a child restraint 

manufacturer voluntarily collects an 

e-mail address as part of the child 

restraint registration, then the 

manufacturer is required to maintain a 

record of that information. The 

recordkeeping format and retention 

requirements for child restraint owner 

e-mail addresses are identical to the 

format and retention requirements 

mandated for owner registration under 

49 CFR part 588. The final rule also 

requires that if a manufacturer 

voluntarily provides for electronic 

registration, then the manufacturer is 

required to use a standardized format 

similar to the format currently required 

for the postage-paid registration form. 

The final rule does not mandate the 

collection of e-mail addresses or the use 

of electronic registration. 

Description of the Need for the 

Information and Use of the Information: 

Public access and use of the Internet has 

increased exponentially since its 

inception. The proposed rule would 

permit manufacturers to take advantage 

of this growth in technology and use 

electronic registration as a supplement 

to registration by mail. This provides 

child restraint system owners with an 

additional option for registering a child 

restraint system and potentially 

increases the number of child restraint 

systems registered. By increasing the 

number of identified child restraint 

purchasers, the program increases the 

manufacturers’ ability to inform owners 

of restraints about defects or 

noncompliances in those restraints. 

Description of the Likely Respondents 

(Including Estimated Number, and 

Proposed Frequency of Response to the 

Collection of Information): NHTSA 

estimates that twenty-three child 

restraint manufacturers are subject to 

the reconfigured collection 

requirements. If a manufacturer 

voluntarily collects a child restraint 

system owner’s e-mail address as part of 

the child restraint registration, then the 

manufacturer is required to record and 

maintain that e-mail address along with 

the registration information currently 

recorded and maintained. If a child 

restraint manufacturer provides for 

electronic registration, the electronic 

registration form is required to be in a 

format similar to the format for the 

postage-paid form. 

Estimate of the Total Annual 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden 

Resulting From the Collection of 

Information: NHTSA does not anticipate 

a significant change to the hour burden 

or costs associated with child restraint 

registration. By allowing manufacturers 

the ability to promote online 

registration, we anticipate a reduction in 

the collection and recordkeeping 

burden. Internet registration reduces a 

manufacturer’s postage costs by 

reducing the number of postage-paid 

registration cards sent through the mail. 

Registration information collected on 

the Internet is in an electronic form, 

which can be transferred more easily 

and stored than paper registration cards. 

Registration information received in 

electronic form reduces the data entry 

burden of child restraint system 

manufacturers. This reduction in 

burden offsets any burden created by 

the e-mail recordkeeping requirement 

and the standardized Internet 

registration form. 

Manufacturers commented that by 

permitting electronic registration, data 

will be provided in a more usable 

format and as well as improve the 

accuracy of the data. Manufacturers did 

not provide additional comment 

regarding the collection of information 

requirements or the associated 

recordkeeping burden. 

D. National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this rule for the 

purposes of the National Environmental 

Policy Act and determined that it will 

not have any significant impact on the 

quality of the human environment. The 

subject of this rule is the labeling and 

registration information requirements of 

child restraint systems. 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

Executive Order 13132 requires 

NHTSA to develop an accountable 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53575 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, the agency may 

not issue a regulation with federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct costs, and that is not required by 

statute, unless the Federal government 

provides the funds necessary to pay the 

direct compliance costs incurred by 

State and local governments, or the 

agency consults with State and local 

officials early in the process of 

developing the proposed regulation. 

NHTSA may also not issue a regulation 

with federalism implications and that 

preempts State law unless the agency 

consults with State and local officials 

early in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation. 

The agency has analyzed this 

rulemaking action in accordance with 

the principles and criteria contained in 

Executive Order 13132 and has 

determined that it does not have 

sufficient federalism implications to 

warrant consultation with State and 

local officials or the preparation of a 

federalism summary impact statement. 

The rule will have no substantial effects 

on the States, or on the current FederalState relationship, or on the current 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

This rule will 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. Section 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. 

G. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–

113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 

directs us to use voluntary consensus 

standards in regulatory activities unless 

doing so would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies, such as the 

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). 

The NTTAA directs us to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when we decide not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. 

The agency searched for, but did not 

find any voluntary consensus standards 

relevant to this rule. 

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 

requires Federal agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

more than $100 million in any one year 

(adjusted for inflation with base year of 

1995). Before promulgating a rule for 

which a written statement is needed, 

section 205 of the UMRA generally 

requires NHTSA to identify and 

consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives and adopt the 

least costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule. The 

provisions of section 205 do not apply 

when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 

allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative 

other than the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative if the agency publishes with 

the final rule an explanation why that 

alternative was not adopted. 

This final rule will not impose any 

unfunded mandates under the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. This rule will not result in costs 

of $100 million or more to either State, 

local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. Thus, 

this rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. 

I. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

J. Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all submissions 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://dms.dot.gov. 

List of Subjects 

49 CFR Part 571 

Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Tires, 

Incorporation by Reference. 

49 CFR Part 588 

Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA is amending 49 CFR part 571 as 

follows: 

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFTEY 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 to 

revise paragraph (m) of S5.5.2, 

paragraph (k) of S5.5.5, S5.6.1.7, 

S5.6.2.2, S5.8, and Figures 9(a) and 9(b), 

and 

■ 3. Section 571.213 is amended by 

adding S5.8.1 and S5.8.2, to read as 

follows: 

§ 571.213 Standard No. 213; Child restraint 

systems. 

* * * * * 

S5.5.2 * * * 

(m) One of the following statements, 

inserting an address and a U.S. 

telephone number. If a manufacturer 

opts to provide a Web site on the 

registration card as permitted in Figure 

9a of this section, the manufacturer 

must include the statement in part (ii): 

53576 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(i) ‘‘Child restrains could be recalled 

for safety reasons. You must register this 

restraint to be reached in a recall. Send 

your name, address, e-mail address if 

available [preceding four words is 

optional] and the restraint’s model 

number and manufacturing date to 

(insert address) or call (insert a U.S. 

telephone number). For recall 

information, call the U.S. Government’s 

Auto Safety Hotline at 1–800–424–

9393.’’

(ii) ‘‘Child restraints could be recalled 

for safety reasons. You must register this 

restraint to be reached in a recall. Send 

your name, address, e-mail address if 

available [preceding four words are 

optional], and the restraint’s model 

number and manufacturing date to 

(insert address) or call (insert a U.S. 

telephone number) or register online 

(insert Web site for electronic 

registration form). For recall 

information, call the U.S. Government’s 

Auto Safety Hotline at 1–800–424–

9393.’’

* * * * * 

S5.5.5 * * * 

(k) One of the following statements, 

inserting an address and a U.S. 

telephone number. If manufacturer opts 

to provide a Web site on the registration 

card as permitted in Figure 9a of this 

section, the manufacturer must include 

the statement in part (ii): 

(i) ‘‘Child restraints could be recalled 

for safety reasons. You must register this 

restraint to be reached in a recall. Send 

your name, address, e-mail address if 

available (optional), and the restraint’s 

model number and manufacturing date 

to (insert address) or call (insert a U.S. 

telephone number). For recall 

information, call the U.S. Government’s 

Auto Safety Hotline an 1–800–424–

9393.’’

(ii) ‘‘Child restraints could be recalled 

for safety reasons. You must register this 

restraint to be reached in a recall. Send 

your name, address, e-mail address if 

available (optional), and the restraint’s 

model number and manufacturing date 

to (insert address) or call (insert 

telephone number) or register online at 

(insert Web site for electronic 

registration form). For recall 

information, call the U.S. Government’s 

Auto Safety Hotline at 1–800–424–

9393.’’

* * * * * 

S5.6.1.7 One of the following 

statements, inserting an address and a 

U.S. telephone number. If a 

manufacturer opts to provide a Web site 

on the registration card as permitted in 

Figure 9a of this section, the 

manufacturer must include the 

statement in part (ii): 

(i) ‘‘Child restraints could be recalled 

for safety reasons. You must register this 

restraint to be reached in a recall. Send 

your name, address, e-mail address if 

available (optional), and the restraint’s 

model number and manufacturing date 

to (insert address) or call (insert a U.S. 

telephone number). For recall 

information, call the U.S. Government’s 

Auto Safety Hotline at 1–800–424–

9393.’’

(ii) ‘‘Child restraints could be recalled 

for safety reasons. You must register this 

restraint to be reached in a recall. Send 

your name, address, e-mail address if 

available (optional), and the restraint’s 

model number and manufacturing date 

to (insert address) or call (insert 

telephone number) or register online at 

(insert Web site for electronic 

registration form). For recall 

information, call the U.S. Government’s 

Auto Safety Hotline at 1–800–424–

9393.’’

* * * * * 

S5.6.2.2 The instructions for each 

built-in child restraint system other than 

a factory-installed restraint, shall 

include one of the following statements, 

inserting an address and a U.S. 

telephone number. If a manufacturer 

opts to provide a Web site on the 

registration card as permitted in Figure 

9a of this section, the manufacturer 

must include the statement in part (ii): 

(i) ‘‘Child restraints could be recalled 

for safety reasons. You must register this 

restraint to be reached in a recall. Send 

your name, address, e-mail address if 

available (optional), and the restraint’s 

model number and manufacturing date 

to (insert address) or call (insert a U.S. 

telephone number). For recall 

information, call the U.S. Government’s 

Auto Safety Hotline at 1–800–424–

9393.’’

(ii) ‘‘Child restraints could be recalled 

for safety reasons. You must register this 

restraint to be reached in a recall. Send 

your name, address, e-mail address if 

available (optional), and the restraint’s 

model number and manufacturing date 

to (insert address) or call (insert U.S. 

telephone number) or register online at 

(insert Web site for electronic 

registration form). For recall 

information, call the U.S. Government’s 

Auto Safety Hotline at 1–800–424–

9393.’’

* * * * * 

S5.8 Information requirements—

attached registration form and electronic 

registration form. 

S5.8.1 Attached registration form. 

(a) Each child restraint system, except 

a factory-installed built-in restraint 

system, shall have a registration form 

attached to any surface of the restraint 

that contacts the dummy when the 

dummy is positioned in the system in 

accordance with S6.1.2 of Standard 213. 

(b) Each attached form shall: 

(1) Consist of a postcard that is 

attached at a perforation to an 

informational card; 

(2) Conform in size, content and 

format to Figures 9a and 9b of this 

section; and 

(3) Have a thickness of at least 0.007 

inches and not more than 0.0095 inches. 

(c) Each postcard shall provide the 

model name or number and date of 

manufacture (month, year) of the child 

restraint system to which the form is 

attached, shall contain space for the 

purchaser to record his or her name, 

mailing address, and at the 

manufacturer’s option, e-mail address, 

shall be addressed to the manufacturer, 

and shall be postage paid. No other 

information shall appear on the 

postcard, except identifying information 

that distinguishes a particular child 

restraint system from other systems of 

that model name or number may be 

preprinted in the shaded area of the 

postcard, as shown in figure 9a. 

(d) Manufacturers may voluntarily 

provide a web address on the 

informational card enabling owners to 

register child restraints online, provided 

that the Web address is a direct link to 

the electronic registration form meeting 

the requirements of S5.8.2 of this 

section. 

S5.8.2 Electronic registration form. 

(a) Each electronic registration form 

must meet the requirements of this 

S5.8.2. Each form shall: 

(1) Contain the following statements 

at the top of the form: 

(i) ‘‘FOR YOUR CHILD’S 

CONTINUED SAFETY’’ (Displayed in 

bold type face, caps, and minimum 12 

point type.) 

(ii) ‘‘Although child restraint systems 

undergo testing and evaluation, it is 

possible that a child restraint could be 

recalled.’’ (Displayed in bold typeface, 

caps and lower case, and minimum 12 

point type.) 

(iii) ‘‘In case of a recall, we can reach 

you only if we have your name and 

address, so please fill in the registration 

form to be on our recall list.’’ (Displayed 

in bold typeface, caps and lower case, 

and minimum 12 point type.) 

(iv) ‘‘In order to properly register your 

child restraint system, you will need to 

provide the model number, serial 

number and date of manufacture. This 

information is printed on the 

registration card and can also be found 

on a white label located on the back of 

the child restraint system.’’ (Displayed 

in bold typeface, caps and lower case, 

and minimum 12 point type.) 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53577 

(v) ‘‘This registration is only 

applicable to child restraint systems 

purchased in the United States.’’

(Displayed in bold typeface, caps and 

lower case, and minimum 12 point 

type.) 

(2) Provide as required registration 

fields, space for the purchaser to record 

the model name or number and date of 

manufacture (month, year) of the child 

restraint system, and space for the 

purchaser to record his or her name and 

mailing address. At the manufacturer’s 

option, a space is provided for the 

purchaser to record his or her e-mail 

address. 

(b) No other information shall appear 

on the electronic registration form, 

except for information identifying the 

manufacturer or a link to the 

manufacturer’s home page, a field to 

confirm submission, and a prompt to 

indicate any incomplete or invalid 

fields prior to submission. Accessing the 

web page that contains the electronic 

registration form shall not cause 

additional screens or electronic banners 

to appear. 

(c) The electronic registration form 

shall be accessed directly by the web 

address that the manufacturer printed 

on the attached registration form. The 

form must appear on screen when the 

consumer has inputted the web address 

provided by the manufacturer, without 

any further keystrokes on the keyboard 

or clicks of the mouse. 

* * * * * 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

53578 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 


ER09SE05.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53579 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

* * * * * 

PART 588—CHILD RESTRAINT 

SYSTEMS RECORDKEEPING 

REQUIREMENTS 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA is amending 49 CFR part 588 as 

follows: 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 588 

reads as follows: 

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

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

■ 2. Section 588.5 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 588.5 Records. 

Each manufacturer, or manufacturer’s 

designee, shall record and maintain 

records of the owners of child restraint 

systems who have submitted a 

registration form. The record shall be in 

a form suitable for inspection such as 

computer information storage devices or 

card files, and shall include the names, 

mailing addresses, and if collected, 

se-mail addresses of the owners, and the 

model name or number and date of 

manufacture (month, year) of the 

owner’s child restraint systems. 

Issued on: August 31, 2005. 

Jacqueline Glassman, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 05–17844 Filed 9–8–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


ER09SE05.001</GPH>