Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 7461

§ 97.21 Application for a modified or

renewed license.

(a) * * *

(3) May apply for renewal of the

license for another term. (The FCC may

mail to the licensee an FCC Form 610–

R that may be used for this purpose.)

(i) When the license does not show a

call sign selected by the vanity call sign

system, the application may be made on

FCC Form 610–R if it is received from

the FCC. If the Form 610–R is not

received from the FCC within 30 days

of the expiration date of the license for

an operator/primary station license, the

application may be made on FCC Form

610. For a club, military recreation, or

RACES station license, the application

may be made on FCC Form 610–B. The

application may be submitted no more

than 90 days before its expiration to:

FCC, 1270 Fairfield Road, Gettysburg,

PA 17325–7245. When the application

for renewal of the license has been

received by the FCC at 1270 Fairfield

Road, Gettysburg, PA 17325–7245 prior

to the license expiration date, the

license operating authority is continued

until the final disposition of the

application.

(ii) When the license shows a call sign

selected by the vanity call sign system,

the application must be filed as

specified in § 97.19(b).

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–3025 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 74–09; Notice 39]

RIN 2127–AF39

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Child Restraint Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions

for reconsideration.

SUMMARY: In response to petitions for

reconsideration of a February 1994 final

rule, this rule amends labeling

requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard (FMVSS) 213, Child

Restraint Systems. The final rule

requires each rear-facing infant restraint

system to bear a label warning against

using the restraint in any vehicle seating

position equipped with an air bag. This

document increases the effectiveness of

that warning.

DATES: This rule is effective May 9,

1995.

Petitions for reconsideration of the

rule must be received by March 10,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration

should refer to the docket and number

of this document and be submitted to:

Administrator, Room 5220, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington,

D.C., 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

George Mouchahoir, Office of Vehicle

Safety Standards, National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, 400

Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C.,

20590 (telephone 202–366–4919).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 16, 1994 (59 FR 7643),

NHTSA published a final rule amending

Standard 213. The amendment required,

inter alia, that each add-on child

restraint system designed to be used

while it and its occupant are rearward

facing (referred to as a ‘‘rear-facing

infant restraint’’) bear a label warning

against using the restraint while it is

rearward-facing on any vehicle seat

equipped with an air bag.

For a rear-facing restraint designed to

be used only while rearward facing and

only for infants (referred to below as an

‘‘infant-only restraint’’), the rule

required the warning to state:

WARNING: PLACE THIS RESTRAINT IN A

VEHICLE SEAT THAT DOES NOT HAVE AN

AIR BAG.

For a convertible child restraint (i.e.,

one that is adjustable so that in one

adjustment position, it can be placed on

a seat and used rearward facing by an

infant and in another position, it can be

used forward facing by a toddler), the

rule required the warning to state:

WARNING: WHEN YOUR BABY’S SIZE

REQUIRES THAT THIS RESTRAINT BE

USED SO THAT YOUR BABY FACES THE

REAR OF THE VEHICLE, PLACE THE

RESTRAINT IN A VEHICLE SEAT THAT

DOES NOT HAVE AN AIR BAG.

The rule required the warning to be

placed on a red, yellow or orange

contrasting background so that it would

be conspicuous to the user.

The purpose of the warning is to

reduce the likelihood that an infant

would be injured or possibly killed by

a deploying air bag. The rule explained

why a rear-facing restraint must not be

installed on a seat equipped with an air

bag:

When a rear-facing infant restraint is

placed on a vehicle seat, the restraint’s seat

back projects forward, far in front of the

vehicle seat back. If the vehicle seating

position is a front passenger one equipped

with an air bag, the forward-projecting seat

back of the infant restraint may rest on or be

located close to the part of the vehicle

instrument panel containing the air bag.

Placing a rear-facing restraint on such a

vehicle seat raises a safety concern of the

interaction between those restraints and air

bags. An air bag must inflate quickly to create

a protective cushion that protects occupants

during frontal crashes. The quickly deploying

air bag might injure an infant when it strikes

the seat back of a rear-facing infant restraint.

59 FR at 7643.

Petitions for Reconsideration

NHTSA received timely petitions for

reconsideration from Kolcraft

Enterprises and Jerome Koziatek &

Associates. Evenflo Juvenile Furniture

Company, Century Products Company,

and Ms. Kathy Weber of the University

of Michigan Child Protection Program

(UM–CPP) submitted petitions for

reconsideration after the date such

petitions were due. Under NHTSA’s

procedures for the adoption and

amendment of rules, 49 CFR 553.35,

these petitions were too late to be

considered petitions for reconsideration

and are considered instead petitions for

rulemaking.

All the parties responding to the rule

raised almost identical concerns in their

petitions. None of them disagreed with

the agency’s conclusion in the rule that

a safety need exists for the warning

label, or objected to the rule’s

requirement to place a label on each

affected child restraint. Instead, the

petitioners expressed misgivings about

particular aspects of the wording of the

warning, particularly the warning for

convertible child restraints.

The warning for convertible restraints

was more elaborate than that for infantonly restraints, because convertible

restraints are more complex in design

than infant-only restraints. As noted

above, a convertible restraint is used

rearward-facing with an infant and

forward-facing with a toddler or older

child. An infant must be positioned

rear-facing so that, in a crash, the forces

are spread evenly across the infant’s

back and shoulders, the strongest part of

an infant’s body.

In issuing the final rule, NHTSA was

concerned that consumers might

respond to a warning not to use a

convertible restraint rear-facing with an

air bag by turning the convertible

restraint forward so that the infant is

forward-facing in an air bag equipped

seating position, or by not using any

child restraint at all. To reduce the

likelihood of those responses, NHTSA

adopted a suggestion made in a
7462 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

comment on the rulemaking from the

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

AAP suggested that the warning

should be clearer that an infant restraint

must be used rear-facing, regardless of

the presence of an air bag. To

accomplish this, AAP suggested that the

warning include the statement, ‘‘When

your baby’s size requires that this

restraint be used in a rear-facing

position * * *’’ as a condition for the

instruction not to use the restraint in an

air-bag equipped seating position.

NHTSA agreed the wording should refer

to the baby’s size and adopted a

requirement that the warning use that

specific language.

Kolcraft petitioned for reconsideration

of the requirement to label convertible

restraints with the phrase ‘‘When your

baby’s size requires that this restraint be

used in a rear-facing position * * *.’’

The petitioner concurred that the

warning label should not inadvertently

encourage parents to turn convertible

restraints to the forward-facing position

when used for infants. However,

Kolcraft believed that the new language

may exacerbate the risk that parents will

mistakenly reverse the orientation of a

convertible restraint, because ‘‘the

language seems to focus on whether the

baby’s size ‘requires’ the baby to be

rearward facing.’’ ‘‘[T]his will confuse

parents, and appear to introduce a new

criterion for deciding whether to orient

a convertible seat front-facing or rearfacing.’’ Kolcraft petitioned NHTSA to

delete the reference to a baby’s size, or

replace it with ‘‘When using this

restraint with an infant, the restraint

must be rear facing * * *.’’

Mr. Koziatek petitioned for

reconsideration of three aspects of the

warning. First, similar to Kolcraft, Mr.

Koziatek believed that NHTSA should

reconsider the rule’s reference to

‘‘baby’s size’’ as a condition for

positioning a convertible restraint to

face the rear of the vehicle. The

petitioner faulted the rule for giving no

information as to when the child

restraint system should be used rearfacing, and suggested remedying that

shortcoming by beginning the warning

with ‘‘This restraint must face the rear

for infants less than 20 pounds.’’

Second, Mr. Koziatek believed that the

warning is too limited in that it implies

that the front center seating position in

a vehicle equipped with a passengerside air bag is suitable for a rear-facing

child restraint. The petitioner was

concerned that future air bag designs

may encompass the widespread use of

an air bag system that deploys from the

passenger side position, yet inflates

widely enough to protect an occupant in

the front center seating position. (The

petitioner apparently was alluding to an

air bag system like General Motor’s

advertised ‘‘air bank’’ system for the

Cadillac line.) Mr. Koziatek suggested

broadening the language of the warning

to warn against using a rear-facing child

restraint ‘‘in the front seat with a

passenger side air bag.’’ Third, Mr.

Koziatek said that the agency should

reconsider its decision not to require the

label to specify the consequences of not

following the warning against using the

child restraint with an air bag. The

petitioner believed that the

consequences have to be spelled out for

the public because ‘‘The general public

has been conditioned to expect an air

bag to be life-saving and not lifethreatening.’’

Agency Decision

NHTSA has decided to grant the

petitions for reconsideration of Kolcraft

and Mr. Koziatek, and is amending the

labeling requirement of S5.5.2(k) of

Standard 213 in accordance with the

petitioners’ suggestions. With regard to

the suggestion that the warning label

should provide better information to the

consumer about when an infant should

face rearward, the agency agrees that

such information is desirable. The

information would reduce the

likelihood that consumers would

misinterpret the warning as instructing

them to face an infant (weighing less

than 20 pounds) forward rather than

rearward in an air bag equipped seating

position. Accordingly, this rule requires

the warning for convertible restraints to

include the statement, ‘‘PLACE THIS

CHILD RESTRAINT IN A REARFACING POSITION WHEN USING IT

WITH AN INFANT WEIGHING LESS

THAN (insert a recommended weight

that is not less than 20 pounds).’’ As

noted in the highlighted text,

manufacturers would insert a

recommended weight that is not less

than 20 pounds.

The 20 pound minimum criterion is

in accordance with established practice

and advice in the child passenger safety

community that infants weighing less

than 20 pounds must face rearward. The

American Academy of Pediatrics

recommends that parents ‘‘[us]e the

infant car seat until your child reaches

17–20 pounds or until your child’s head

reaches the top of the car seat. If your

baby outgrows it before 20 pounds, use

a rear-facing convertible car seat until

your child weighs 20 pounds.’’ As noted

above in this preamble, infants weighing

less than 20 pounds lack the skeletal

and muscular structure to withstand

crash forces in a forward-facing

position. All rear-facing child restraint

manufacturers currently specify that

their child restraints must be used rearfacing until the child is at least 20

pounds.

With regard to the concern that the

warning should not imply that the front

center seating position in a vehicle

equipped with a passenger-side air bag

is suitable for a rear-facing child

restraint, NHTSA concurs that the

implication should be avoided. Not

enough is known about the interaction

of ‘‘air bank’’ type systems with rearfacing child restraints to warrant

discounting the possibility that an air

bank system might be incompatible with

a rear-facing restraint. Accordingly, the

agency has amended the warning to

state, ‘‘WHEN THIS RESTRAINT IS

USED REAR-FACING, DO NOT PLACE

IT IN THE FRONT SEAT OF A

VEHICLE THAT HAS A PASSENGER

SIDE AIR BAG.’’

Finally, NHTSA agrees with Mr.

Koziatek that the warning label should

specify the consequences of using the

child restraint with an air bag. NHTSA

decided against such a requirement in

the final rule, since the rule requires the

use instructions accompanying the child

restraint to contain this information. 59

FR at 7645. On reconsideration, NHTSA

concludes that placing a description of

the consequences next to the warning

would help alert consumers to the

importance of the warning. The agency

concurs with the petitioner that the fact

that an air bag can cause injury is

counter-intuitive to the public generally.

Information about the consequences of

placing a rear-facing restraint near an air

bag could more convincingly

communicate the important safety need

for placing the child in the rear seat.

Accordingly, this rule amends the

warning statement for convertible and

infant-only restraints to require

manufacturers to insert a statement that

describes the consequences of not

following the warning. NHTSA has not

prescribed the exact language that must

be used and instead is providing

manufacturers the flexibility to describe

the consequences in their own words.

The agency anticipates that the

description will accurately describe the

potentially grave consequences of not

following the warning, yet will avoid

frightening consumers into not using a

rear-facing restraint with an infant.

The three changes adopted today were

also sought by the parties who, because

their petitions for reconsideration were

untimely, were deemed under the

agency’s rulemaking procedures to have

submitted petitions for rulemaking. The

requests in the petitions for rulemaking

are, with one exception, substantially

the same as the requests made by the

reconsideration petitions granted today.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 7463

The granting of the petitions for

reconsideration thus serves as final

action on these requests.

One issue raised in Evenflo’s

rulemaking petition was not addressed

by the petitions for reconsideration.

Evenflo said that Cosco Inc., a child

restraint manufacturer, ‘‘joins’’ in

Evenflo’s petition and has asked that

NHTSA not require the air bag warning

to be placed on a color contrasting

background. According to Evenflo,

Cosco believes that the requirement

‘‘gives the airbag language undue

emphasis over the other labels required

by FMVSS 213. Highlighting one

warning de-emphasizes and somewhat

negates other equally important

warnings and labels.’’ Since a Cosco

representative did not sign the Evenflo

petition, NHTSA considers the request

to be Evenflo’s.

The rulemaking request is denied.

The purpose of the requirement that the

air bag warning label be on a color

contrasting background is to make the

warning conspicuous. This is important

because, as noted above, the agency is

concerned that, in the words of Mr.

Koziatek, consumers have been

conditioned to expect an air bag to be

life-saving and not life-threatening.

Moreover, there is little information

indicating consumers are aware of the

potential safety problems between air

bags and rear-facing child restraints. Air

bags are typically and usually correctly

associated with ‘‘safety.’’ Accordingly,

without a conspicuous warning to

negate this association, consumers may

seek to place an infant in an air bag

equipped seating position, thinking that

the air bag will protect the child in a

crash. Since the association between air

bags and safety is strong and may

induce consumers to engage unwittingly

in behavior that is contrary to safety,

NHTSA concludes that this rule must

require highlighting of the warning

against use of a rear-facing child

restraints in air bag equipped positions.

Accordingly, since there is no

reasonable possibility that the agency

would issue the requested amendment

at the conclusion of a rulemaking

proceeding, the petition is denied.

Effective Date

This amendment is effective in 90

days. An effective date earlier than 180

days after the date of issuance of this

rule is in the public interest for the

following reasons. The effective date of

the labeling requirement reconsidered

in today’s rule was August 15, 1994.

Thus, rear-facing child restraints

manufactured on or after that date must

be labeled with the warning specified in

the earlier rule. There is good cause for

having today’s amendments of the

earlier rule become effective as early as

possible since NHTSA believes today’s

rule clarifies the required warning and

increases its effectiveness. Yet, a 90-day

effective date is distant enough to

provide manufacturers sufficient

leadtime to print revised warning labels.

Also, a 90-day effective date will

provide some time for manufacturers to

use existing stocks of labels that met the

previous rule’s requirement.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory

Planning and Review) and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This rulemaking document was not

reviewed under E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory

Planning and Review.’’ The agency has

considered the impact of this

rulemaking action under the

Department of Transportation’s

regulatory policies and procedures, and

has determined that it is not

‘‘significant’’ under them. NHTSA has

further determined that the effects of

this rulemaking are minimal and that

preparation of a full final regulatory

evaluation is not warranted. The effects

of today’s rule are minor because it only

makes slight changes to the labeling

required by the February 1994 final rule.

The costs of that earlier final rule

requiring a specific warning to be

labeled on rear-facing child restraints

was estimated to range from $0.09 to

$0.17 per rear-facing restraint.

(NHTSA’s regulatory evaluation for that

rule was placed in docket 74–09, notice

34.) Today’s rule does not change those

costs. The agency also anticipated that

the earlier rule could save 2 to 4 lives

and could reduce 445 injuries a year,

assuming that the warning is effective at

preventing any placing of rear-facing

restraints in air bag positions. NHTSA

believes today’s rule could improve the

potential effectiveness of the warning.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has considered the effects of

this rulemaking action under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby

certify that it will 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

vehicle manufacturers that produce and

install built-in restraints), there are three

that qualify as small businesses. This is

not a substantial number of small

entities.

Regardless of the number of small

entities, NHTSA believes the economic

impact on them is not significant since

today’s rule only makes minor changes

to the existing labeling requirements for

rear-facing restraints. The agency

believes this rule has no impact on the

cost of child restraint systems, and that

small organizations and governmental

jurisdictions that purchase the systems

will therefore not be significantly

affected by the rule. In view of the

above, the agency has not prepared a

final regulatory flexibility analysis.

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 rule does 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 will not have any significant

impact on the quality of the human

environment.

Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice

Reform)

This rule does 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

forth a procedure for judicial review of

final rules establishing, amending or

revoking Federal motor vehicle safety

standards. That section does not require

submission of a petition for

reconsideration or other administrative

proceedings before parties may file suit

in court.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles.

PART 571—[AMENDED]

In consideration of the foregoing,

NHTSA amends 49 CFR Part 571 as set

forth below.

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.
7464 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

§ 571.213 [Amended]

2. Section 571.213 is amended by

revising S5.5.2(k) to read as follows:

§ 571.213 Standard No. 213, Child

Restraint Systems.

* * * * *

S5.5.2 * * *

(k)(1) In the case of each rear-facing

child restraint system that is designed

for infants only, the following

statements—

(i) ‘‘PLACE THIS INFANT

RESTRAINT IN A REAR-FACING

POSITION WHEN USING IT IN THE

VEHICLE.’’

(ii) ‘‘WARNING: DO NOT PLACE

THIS RESTRAINT IN THE FRONT

SEAT OF A VEHICLE THAT HAS A

PASSENGER SIDE AIR BAG. (Insert a

statement that describes the

consequences of not following the

warning.)

(2) In the case of a child restraint

system that is designed to be used

rearward-facing for infants and forward

facing for older children, the following

statements—

(i) ‘‘PLACE THIS CHILD RESTRAINT

IN A REAR-FACING POSITION WHEN

USING IT WITH AN INFANT

WEIGHING LESS THAN (insert a

recommended weight that is not less

than 20 pounds).’’

(ii) ‘‘WARNING: WHEN THIS

RESTRAINT IS USED REAR-FACING,

DO NOT PLACE IT IN THE FRONT

SEAT OF A VEHICLE THAT HAS A

PASSENGER SIDE AIR BAG. (Insert a

statement that describes the

consequences of not following the

warning.)’’

(3) The statements required by

paragraphs (k)(1)(ii) and (k)(2)(ii) shall

be on a red, orange or yellow contrasting

background, and placed on the restraint

so that it is on the side of the restraint

designed to be adjacent to the front

passenger door of a vehicle and is

visible to a person installing the rearfacing child restraint system in the front

passenger seat.

* * * * *

Issued on February 2, 1995.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–3038 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P