Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 63651

law. Thus, each person who considers

himself or herself to be aggrieved by a

NHTSA rule or standard must file a

timely petition for reconsideration or a

timely petition for judicial review in

order to preserve his or her ability to

challenge the underlying rule.

NHTSA wishes to emphasize two

additional points. First, this amendment

does not preclude any person who is

aggrieved by the agency’s action in

response to a petition for

reconsideration from seeking judicial

review of that response, since such a

response is itself a reviewable agency

action. Second, a person who files a

petition for reconsideration may obtain

judicial review of all aspects of the

original order, not merely the portion of

that order on which he or she sought

reconsideration. See Bellsouth Corp., 17

F.3d at 1489–90. However, persons who

did not seek timely reconsideration or

timely judicial review of the original

agency action may only challenge the

actions taken by the agency in response

to the petition for reconsideration. All

other issues were final as to the

nonpetitioning parties at the time of the

original action. Therefore, any court

challenge by nonpetitioning parties to

agency actions not affected by the

response to the petition for

reconsideration must be made within 59

days of the original agency action.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This rulemaking was not reviewed

under E.O. 12866. NHTSA has analyzed

this rulemaking determined that it is not

‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of the

Department of Transportation’s

regulatory policies and procedures.

Because the changes are only procedural

in nature, they will not have any cost

impacts.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has also considered the

impacts of this final rule under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. For reasons

discussed above, I hereby certify that

this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

There are no requirements for

information collection associated with

this final rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has also analyzed this final

rule under the National Environmental

Policy Act and determined that it will

not have a significant impact on the

human environment.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

NHTSA has analyzed this rule in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and

has determined that this rule will not

have significant federalism implications

to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment. No State laws

will be affected.

Civil Justice Reform

This final rule does not have any

retroactive or preemptive effect.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 553

Administrative practice and

procedure.

PART 553—RULEMAKING

PROCEDURES

In consideration of the foregoing, 49

CFR part 553 is amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 553

of title 49 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 1657, 30103,

30122, 30124, 30125, 30127, 30146, 30162,

32303, 32502, 32504, 32505, 32705, 32901,

32902, 33102, 33103, and 33107; delegation

of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

2. Section 553.39 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 553.39 Effect of petition for

reconsideration on time for seeking judicial

review.

The filing of a timely petition for

reconsideration of any rule issued under

this part postpones the expiration of the

statutory period in which to seek

judicial review of that rule only as to the

petitioner, and not as to other interested

persons. For the petitioner, the period

for seeking judicial review will

commence at the time the agency takes

final action upon the petition for

reconsideration.

Issued on: December 5, 1995.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–30034 Filed 12–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 74–09; Notice 43]

RIN 2127–AF02

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, delay of compliance

date.

SUMMARY: This document delays until

September 1, 1996, the date on which

manufacturers of add-on (portable) child

restraint systems must comply with a

final rule that was published July 6,

1995 (60 FR 35126), and corrected

September 29, 1995 (60 FR 50477). The

rule amended Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213,

‘‘Child Restraint Systems,’’ to add a

greater array of sizes and weights of test

dummies for use in compliance tests.

Today’s document responds to those

requests in petitions for reconsideration

of the rule relating to the compliance

date. It provides needed leadtime to

manufacturers of add-on (portable) child

restraint systems to make necessary

design changes to conform to the new

requirements.

The agency will respond to the

remaining requests in the petitions for

reconsideration in another document

that will be published in the Federal

Register in the near future.

DATES: The effective date (i.e., the date

on which the text of the CFR is changed)

of the final rule published July 6, 1995

(60 FR 35126) and corrected September

29, 1995 (60 FR 50477), remains January

3, 1996.

For manufacturers of built-in child

restraint systems, the compliance date

for the amendments remains September

1, 1996.

However, for manufacturers of add-on

child restraint systems, the compliance

date for the amendments made by those

rules (i.e., the date on which these

manufacturers must begin complying

with the amendments) is changed to

September 1, 1996.

Petitions for reconsideration of the

rule must be received by January 11,

1996.

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: For

nonlegal issues: Dr. George Mouchahoir,

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards

(telephone 202–366–4919).

For legal issues: Ms. Deirdre Fujita,

Office of the Chief Counsel (202–366–

2992). Both can be reached at the

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

This document delays until

September 1, 1996, the date on which

manufacturers of add-on (portable) child
63652 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

restraint systems must begin complying

with the amendments made by a final

rule that was published Thursday, July

6, 1995 (60 FR 35126), and corrected

September 29, 1995 (60 FR 50477). The

July 1995 final rule amended Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)

No. 213, ‘‘Child Restraint Systems,’’ by

adding a greater array of sizes and

weights of test dummies for use in

compliance tests. The rule, which

completed a substantial upgrade of the

standard long envisioned by the agency,

also responded to the NHTSA

Authorization Act of 1991 (sections

2500–2509 of the Intermodal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act

(‘‘ISTEA’’)). That Act directed NHTSA

to initiate rulemaking on child seat

safety. The notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) for the rule was

published March 16, 1994 (59 FR

12225).

Current Requirements

Standard 213 applies to any device,

except Type I (lap) or Type II (lap/

shoulder) seat belts, designed for use in

a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain,

seat, or position children whose mass is

23 kilograms (kg) (50 pounds) or less.

The standard evaluates the performance

of child restraint systems in dynamic

tests under conditions simulating a

frontal crash of an average automobile at

48 kilometers per hour (kph) (30 miles

per hour (mph)).

The dynamic tests are conducted

using a test dummy. Currently, Standard

213 (S7) specifies that a dummy

representing a 6-month-old child be

used for testing a child restraint system

that is recommended by its

manufacturer for use by children in a

mass range that includes children

whose mass is 9 kg or less (weighing 20

pounds or less). That dummy, which is

not instrumented, is specified in subpart

D of 49 CFR part 572. A dummy whose

mass is 15 kg (weighing 33 pounds),

representing a 3-year-old child, is used

for testing a child restraint system that

is recommended for children whose

mass is 9 kg or more (weighing 20 or

more pounds). This dummy is

instrumented with accelerometers for

measuring accelerations in the head and

chest during impacts, and is specified in

49 CFR Part 572, subpart C.

The requirements to be met by a child

restraint in the dynamic testing include

maintaining its structural integrity,

retaining portions of the dummy within

specified excursion limits (limits on

how far specified portions of the body

may move forward), and in the case of

the 3-year-old dummy, limiting the

forces exerted on the head and chest of

the dummy in the crash. These

requirements reduce the likelihood that

the child using a child seat will be

injured by the collapse or disintegration

of the seat, by contact with the interior

of the vehicle, or by imposition of

intolerable forces by the seat.

July 1995 Final Rule

The July 1995 final rule amended

Standard 213 to add three dummies,

representing a newborn infant, 9-monthold and 6-year-old child, for use in

compliance testing under the standard.

The rule removed the 6-month-old child

dummy currently used, since the need

for it was eliminated by the addition of

the new dummies.

The additional dummies provide a

better evaluation of the ability of child

restraint systems to restrain and protect

the range of children recommended for

those systems. As a result of the rule,

child restraints must meet the

performance requirements of the

standard while tested with dummies

more representative of the range of

children for whom the restraints are

recommended. As a result, the

performance of child restraints is more

thoroughly evaluated. A dummy

representing children at the lower end

of the weight ranges recommended for

a restraint evaluates the ability of the

restraint to restrain its occupant. In

other words, it evaluates the ability of

a restraint to prevent a smaller child

from slipping out of the restraint. A

dummy at the higher end approximates

the heaviest load that the restraint will

have to bear in a crash and thus is

particularly useful in evaluating the

structural integrity of the restraint.

The rule adopted the following

provisions specifying which of the new

dummies NHTSA will use in the

compliance testing of child restraint

systems:

If the range of children recommended by a child restraint’s manufacturer includes any children in the

following range

The following

dummy(ies)

is(are) used in

the compliance

testing of that

restraint

Birth—5 kg or less (Birth—

11 lb or less).

Newborn.

More than 5 kg–10 kg (22

lb).

Newborn.

9-month-old.

More than 10 kg–18 kg (40

lb).

9-month-old.*

3-yr-old.

More than 18 kg or 40 lb .... 6-yr-old.

*This dummy is not to be used to test

booster seats.

Compliance Dates

The rule was drafted to have one

compliance date for add-on child

restraint systems, and another for builtin systems. The compliance date for

add-on child restraint systems was

January 3, 1996 (which is 180 days after

the publication date of the rule), and for

built-in systems, September 1, 1996.

Rationale for Different Dates

Different compliance dates were

established due to NHTSA’s belief, at

the time, that add-on restraint

manufacturers did not need so much

time to comply with the amendments as

did built-in restraint manufacturers. In

the apparent absence of comments

objecting to the proposed 180 day

effective date, the agency concluded

that manufacturers of add-on systems

could comply with the proposed period

of 180 days. In contrast, there were

comments indicating that a 180-day

effective date would be insufficient for

built-in restraint manufacturers. In

commenting on the NPRM, an

individual built-in restraint

manufacturer (Ford) and a association of

built-in restraint manufacturers

(American Automobile Manufacturers

Association) requested a September 1,

1996 compliance date for amending the

standard with regard to built-in systems.

Ford stated that the proposed 180-day

period would not provide enough time

for it to test all its built-in systems to the

adopted requirements and make any

needed design changes. Ford also said

that 180 days is insufficient to enable it

to modify the labeling of its built-in

restraints, or to change the vehicle

owner’s guides of the vehicles equipped

with built-in systems, in accordance

with the rule. Ford indicated that a

September 1, 1996 compliance date

would better allow it to incorporate

necessary changes in the vehicle

owner’s manual, since the manuals are

usually printed in June or July of the

model year. NHTSA concluded that a

September 1, 1996 compliance date for

built-in restraints ‘‘gives motor vehicle

manufacturers sufficient leadtime to

evaluate their products and make any

necessary changes to them, and prepare

the labels and owners manuals for the

new model vehicles without

unnecessary burdens.’’ 60 FR 35138.

Correction of Effective Date

As noted above, the agency drafted

the rule so that the ‘‘effective date’’ for

add-on child restraint systems was

January 3, 1996, and the ‘‘effective date’’

for built-in systems was September 1,

1996. This wording did not conform to

the drafting practices of the Federal

Register. Based on the language of 49

U.S.C. 30101 et seq. (formerly the

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle

Safety Act), NHTSA has traditionally

used the term ‘‘effective date’’ to mean
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 63653

the date on and after which any vehicle

or item of equipment subject to a rule

must comply with the requirements of

the rule. The Federal Register uses

different terminology. It calls this date

the rule’s ‘‘compliance date,’’ not its

‘‘effective date.’’ For Federal Register

purposes, the ‘‘effective date’’ of a rule

is the date on which the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) is amended to reflect

the changes set forth in the rule. Since

the amendments of a rule appear in the

CFR on the ‘‘effective date’’ of the rule,

amendments cannot vary in effective

date by subject matter, e.g., a rule

cannot have one effective date for addon systems and another for built-in

systems.

On September 29, 1995 (60 FR 50477),

NHTSA corrected the error by correcting

the DATES section of the final rule to

specify that the rule is effective (as the

Federal Register uses that term) on

January 3, 1996, with two provisos. The

provisos, relating to the compliance

dates of the rule, are as follows:

However, manufacturers of built-in child

restraint systems may comply with existing

requirements for built-in systems (as of July

6, 1995) until September 1, 1996.

Manufacturers of add-on child restraint

systems may comply with existing

requirements for add-on systems (as of July

6, 1995) until January 3, 1996.

The correction conformed the

wording of the DATES section to Federal

Register drafting practices. It did not

affect the compliance date of the

amendments made by the rule. Thus,

beginning January 3, 1996, each add-on

restraint would have to meet the

performance criteria and labeling

requirements specified in the standard

when tested with the test dummies

specified by the rule, including, if

appropriate for a particular restraint, the

newly-adopted dummies.

Petitions for Reconsideration of

Compliance Date

Cosco Inc. and Gerry Baby Products

Company, two manufacturers of add-on

child restraint systems, petitioned for

reconsideration of the January 3, 1996

compliance date for add-on restraints.

Both manufacturers requested NHTSA

to change the date to September 1, 1996,

to make the compliance date the same

as that for built-in restraint

manufacturers.

In support of its petition, Cosco said

it needs a leadtime longer than 180 days

to test its products and make needed

design and tooling changes. Cosco

disagreed with NHTSA’s statement in

the final rule that ‘‘No comment was

received on leadtime for add-on

restraints.’’ (60 FR at 35137) Cosco said

it had commented on the issue, and

quoted a statement in its comment

which stated: ‘‘Whatever changes are

made to the standard, Cosco reminds

NHTSA that manufacturers need

enough time to deplete inventories of

printed materials (at least 6 months) or

develop complying designs (up to 2

years).’’ In its petition, Cosco said that:

While this two year time period may be

compressed to some degree, certain critical

elements of the design, development, tooling

and testing of a new add-on child restraint

cannot be accelerated. For instance, the

tooling time for the mold for an add-on child

restraint shell is approximately six months.

This does not include time for fine tuning the

tool after it is completed and for testing the

first production adequately to ensure that

safety guidelines and compliance with

FMVSS 213 are met. * * *

Cosco believed there is no reason to

have a compliance date for add-on

systems that differed from that for builtin systems. It stated:

The discussion in the final rule regarding

Ford’s comments essentially reflects the same

concerns that Cosco raised in response to the

NPRM. * * * This arbitrary distinction will

have an unnecessary, negative impact on

add-on restraint manufacturers and should be

amended as requested.

Gerry Baby Products raised similar

concerns in its petition. Gerry said that

180 days does not provide enough time

for it to sufficiently test its products to

the new requirements and implement

any necessary design changes. Gerry

also stated:

This short phase-in time period may result

in Gerry Baby and other child restraint

manufacturers pulling a significant

percentage of shield type booster seats (for

which head excursion limits may be an issue)

from the market. Thus, the end result of the

180-day effective date could be a significant

time period in which the retail market would

have minimal, if any, shield-type booster

seats available. Consumers with Type I seat

belt systems in the rear seats of their vehicles

would thus probably have no child restraints

available to restrain their 40 to 60 pound

children.

Gerry requested that the compliance

date for add-on restraints and built-in

restraints be the same, September 1,

1996.

Agency Decision

NHTSA has reviewed the petitions

and has decided that, for add-on

systems, the compliance date for the

July rule should be changed to

September 1, 1996. NHTSA adopted a

180-day compliance date, as proposed,

for the rule for add-on systems because

a longer leadtime did not seem

necessary. In its petition for

reconsideration, Cosco and Gerry have

provided information explaining why

they believe that the rule’s original

compliance date ‘‘is not practicable, is

unreasonable, or is not in the public

interest.’’ 49 CFR 553.35. The agency

agrees that, similar to built-in restraint

manufacturers, manufacturers of add-on

systems need sufficient time to evaluate

their products and make any necessary

changes to them. As noted by Gerry,

shield boosters, in particular, will likely

need to be redesigned to meet Standard

213’s head excursion requirement when

tested with the 6-year-old dummy.

Shield boosters, used for older children

who have outgrown a convertible or

toddler seat, enables a Type I (lap only)

vehicle belt to more properly fit the

child by preventing the belt from riding

up across the child’s stomach.

NHTSA is therefore extending the

compliance date for add-on systems to

ensure that adequate time is provided

add-on restraint manufacturers to test

their seats and implement necessary

design changes. This will also ensure

the continued availability of shield

booster seats. The compliance date of

the July 1995 final rule, as corrected

September 29, 1995, is delayed to

September 1, 1996 for add-on restraints.

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 impacts of this

rulemaking action and has determined

that this action is not ‘‘significant’’

within the meaning of the Department

of Transportation’s regulatory policies

and procedures. NHTSA has further

determined that the effects of this

rulemaking are so minimal that

preparation of a full preliminary

regulatory evaluation is not warranted.

The agency believes that manufacturers

will be minimally affected by this

rulemaking because it only extends the

compliance date of the July 6, 1995 final

rule, which amended Standard 213.

There will be no additional costs

associated with this final rule.

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. Since this

document simply extends the

compliance date of a previously-issued

rule, no costs are associated with it.

Accordingly, the agency has not

prepared a regulatory flexibility

analysis.
63654 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

This rulemaking action has been

analyzed in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in

Executive Order 12612, and 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.

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

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

Issued on December 7, 1995.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–30233 Filed 12–7–95; 2:11 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Parts 672 and 675

[Docket No. 950905226–5282–02; I.D.

083095A]

RIN 0648–AH00

Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska;

Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea

and Aleutian Islands Area; Extension

of Allocations to Inshore and Offshore

Components

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: NMFS is implementing

Amendment 38 to the Fishery

Management Plan (FMP) for the

Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea

and Aleutian Islands Area (BSAI) and

Amendment 40 to the Fishery

Management Plan for Groundfish of the

Gulf of Alaska (GOA). Amendment 38

implements an allocation of pollock for

processing by the inshore and offshore

components in the BSAI management

area from January 1, 1996, through

December 31, 1998. Amendment 40

implements an allocation of Pacific cod

for processing by the inshore and

offshore components, and an allocation

of pollock for processing by the inshore

component in the GOA from January 1,

1996 through December 31, 1998. It also

continues the Western Alaska

Community Development Quota (CDQ)

Program for pollock for the same period

of time. This action is necessary to

continue the management measures that

were contained in Amendments 18 and

23 to the BSAI and GOA FMPs,

respectively. The intended effect of this

final rule is to promote management and

conservation of groundfish, enhance the

stability in the fisheries, and further the

goals and objectives contained in the

FMPs that govern these fisheries.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendments 38

and 40, and the environmental

assessment/regulatory impact review/

final regulatory flexibility analysis (EA/

RIR/FRFA) prepared for Amendments

38 and 40 are available from the North

Pacific Fishery Management Council,

605 West 4th Avenue, room 306,

Anchorage, AK 99501–2252; telephone:

907–271–2809.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Ham, 907–586–7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

groundfish fisheries in the exclusive

economic zone (EEZ) off Alaska are

managed under the BSAI and GOA

FMPs. Both FMPs were prepared by the

North Pacific Fishery Management

Council (Council) under authority of the

Magnuson Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (Magnuson Act). The

BSAI FMP is implemented by

regulations appearing at 50 CFR 611.93,

50 CFR part 675, and 50 CFR part 676;

for the GOA FMP, regulations are found

at 50 CFR 611.92, 50 CFR part 672, and

50 CFR part 676. General regulations

that also pertain to U.S. fisheries appear

at 50 CFR part 620. The fisheries for

pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) and

Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) and

the affected human environment are

described in the FMPs, in the

environmental impact statements

prepared by the Council for each FMP,

and in the EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for

this action.

Amendments 38 and 40 will extend

the provisions of Amendment 18 to the

BSAI FMP and Amendment 23 to the

GOA FMP, respectively.

Amendments 18 and 23 and their

implementing regulations expire on

December 31, 1995. The Council has not

yet completed development of its

comprehensive plan to address

problems caused by the open access

nature of the Alaska groundfish

fisheries. Therefore, the Council voted

unanimously at its June 1995 meeting to

extend the provisions of the expiring

amendments through December 31,

1998, by Amendments 38 and 40. A

notice of availability of Amendments 38

and 40 was published at 60 FR 46572

(September 7, 1995).

Amendments 38 and 40 are

essentially the same as amendments 18

and 23, with minor changes. A full

discussion of these changes is listed in

the proposed rule for amendments 38

and 40 (60 FR 48087, September 18,

1995).

Amendments 38 and 40 were

approved by NMFS on November 28,

1995, under section 304(b) of the

Magnuson Act. Upon reviewing the

reasons for Amendments 38 and 40 and

the comments on the proposed rule to

implement it, NMFS has determined

that this final rule extending the

allocation between inshore and offshore

components is necessary for fishery

conservation and management.

Changes in the Final Rule From the

Proposed Rule

This final rule includes the following

changes from the proposed rule:

1. In § 675.27(e)(1)(iii), the date that

the annual budget reconciliation report