[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 213 (Friday, November 2, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55623-55633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-27545]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2001-10916]
RIN 2127-AI55
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA has been mandated by Congress to consider whether to
prescribe clearer and simpler labels and instructions for child
restraints. This notice reviews research NHTSA has conducted on child
restraint labels and proposes changes to those labels and to the
written instructions that accompany child restraints. NHTSA is
proposing changes to the format, location, and content of some of the
existing requirements. NHTSA is also proposing a new labeling
requirement for harness slots.
DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them not later than January 2, 2002.
ADDRESSES: You should mention the docket number of this document in
your comments and submit your comments in writing to: Docket
Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC,
20590.
You may call Docket Management at 202-366-9324. You may visit the
Docket from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call
Mary Versailles of the NHTSA Office of Planning and Consumer Programs,
at 202-366-2057.
For legal issues, you may call Deirdre Fujita of the NHTSA Office
of Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
You may send mail to both of these officials at National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC,
20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
II. TREAD
III. Current Requirements
A. Labels
B. Written Instructions
IV. History
A. 1978 NPRM and 1979 Final Rule
B. 1995 Public Meeting
C. 1996 Air Bag Warning Label
D. 2000 Public Meeting
E. 2000 Plan
1. Labels
2. Harness Slots
V. Research
A. Child Restraint Focus Groups
B. Passive Evaluation of Child Restraint Labels
VI. Proposed Changes to the Label Requirements
A. Permanence and Location
B. English Language
C. Typeface
D. Background
E. Color
F. All Capitals
VII. Proposed Changes to Label Contents
A. Statement Regarding Height and Weight
B. Warning Regarding the Consequences of Not Following
Instructions
C. Belt Use Statement
D. Installation Diagram
E. Registration Statement and Card
F. Harness Slot Labeling
G. Reading Level Requirement
H. Other Information
VIII. Future Research
IX. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulation) and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
E. National Environmental Policy Act
F. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
X. Comments
I. Overview
NHTSA has been mandated by Congress to consider whether to
prescribe clearer and simpler labels and instructions for child
restraints. This notice reviews research NHTSA has conducted on child
restraint labels and proposes changes to those labels and to the
written instructions that accompany child restraints. NHTSA is
proposing changes to the format, location, and content of some of the
existing requirements. Specifically, NHTSA is proposing (1) a
requirement that some information be molded into or heat embossed to
the shell to improve durability, (2) changes to existing location
requirements for some labels, (3) a uniform font specified for all
labels on all child restraints, (4) a requirement that most labels be
white with black text, and (5) color-coding of installation information
to distinguish forward-facing from rear-facing information.
[[Page 55624]]
With regard to content, NHTSA is proposing (1) a reworded warning
statement, (2) a requirement that all mandated statements related to
use be arranged below that statement in a bulleted form, and (3)
rewording of some of these statements to simplify their language. With
regard to written instructions, NHTSA is proposing conforming changes
with those proposed for labels and a new requirement for information to
assist owners in determining the meaning of the term ``snugly'' used on
child restraint labels. Last, NHTSA is proposing a new labeling
requirement for harness slots.
II. Tread
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has been
mandated by Congress to consider whether to prescribe clearer and
simpler labels and instructions for child restraints (Transportation
Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act,
November 1, 2000, Pub.L. 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800). Section 14 of the
TREAD Act directed NHTSA to initiate a rulemaking for the purpose of
improving the safety of child restraints by November 1, 2001, and to
complete it by issuing a final rule or taking other action by November
1, 2002.
III. Current Requirements
A. Labels
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213 (49 CFR
571.213) requires that all currently manufactured add-on child
restraint systems\1\ must be labeled with the following information
(S5.5.2): the model name or number, the manufacturer's (or
distributor's) name, the statement ``manufactured in (month, year),''
the place of manufacture (or location of the distributor's principal
office), a certification statement, a statement concerning the
manufacturer's recommendations for maximum mass and height of children
who should use the child restraint, a warning statement concerning the
consequences of failing to follow the instructions, statements about
proper use of belts or other restraints as appropriate, an air bag
warning label if the child restraint can be used rear-facing, an
installation diagram, a registration statement for recalls, and a
statement about use in motor vehicles and/or aircraft as
appropriate.\2\ This information must be in English, lettered not
smaller than 10 point type, and on contrasting background, except the
air bag warning label has very specific requirements for location and
size.\3\ The warning statement to follow the instructions, the
statements about proper use of belts and other restraints, and the air
bag warning must also be visible when the restraint is installed in a
vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Please note that the requirements for built-in child
restraint systems are not summarized here. Factory-installed built-
in's are required to have some, but not all, of the information
required for add-on's, primarily due to the lack of need for
warnings about proper installation. While this section of the
preamble will only discuss requirements in terms of add-on's, this
NPRM is proposing conforming changes to the built-in labeling
requirements. These changes can be found in the proposed regulatory
text for paragraphs S5.5.4, S5.5.5, S5.5.5(f), S5.5.5(g), S5.5.5(J),
and S5.5.5(m). NHTSA is also proposing conforming changes to written
instruction requirements in S5.6.1 and S5.6.2(a).
\2\ The use statement must be in red lettering and placed after
the certification statement.
\3\ These requirements can be found in S5.5.2(k)(4).
\4\ See 49 CFR 571.225.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Written Instructions
Each add-on child restraint system must have printed installation
instructions (an owner's manual) that includes a step-by-step
procedure, including diagrams, for installing the system in motor
vehicles, securing the system in the vehicles, positioning a child in
the system, and adjusting the system to fit the child (S5.6). The
installation instructions must include information on attaching the
child restraint to a tether anchorage or a child restraint anchorage
system\4\ if appropriate. The owner's manual must also include a
statement that children are safer in rear seating positions;
information about the types of vehicles, seats and seat belts with
which the restraint can or cannot be used; a statement about the
consequences of not following the warnings; a statement that the
restraint should be secured in the vehicle even when not occupied, an
air bag warning statement, and a registration statement for recalls.
There are also some specific statements about proper use required for
various types of restraints. Finally, the child restraint must have a
location on the restraint for storing the owner's manual.
IV. History
A. 1978 NPRM and 1979 Final Rule
On May 18, 1978, NHTSA proposed to upgrade and extend the
applicability of then Standard No. 213, Child Seating Systems (43 FR
21470). Included was a proposal for new labeling requirements to
encourage proper use of child restraints. So that information would
serve as a constant reminder, NHTSA proposed information on the correct
use of the restraint be visible on the child restraint when it is
installed in a vehicle and include a diagram showing the restraint
properly installed, height and weight limits, warnings to use and
snugly adjust all belts, and to secure the restraint according to
instructions. The proposal also required the label to identify the
manufacturer; make of the child restraint; month, year and place of
manufacture; and a statement that the child restraint complies with all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Also included was a
proposal that an instruction sheet accompany all child restraints.
On December 13, 1979, NHTSA published a final rule establishing a
new Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (44 FR 72131). In
response to manufacturer concerns about the limited space available for
labels visible when the child restraint is installed, only some of the
new labeling requirements had to be visible. Depending on the design,
the following information had to be visible when the child restraint
was installed: a warning to secure the restraint with the vehicle lap
belt, a warning to snugly adjust all belts provided with the restraint,
a warning to correctly attach the top tether strap, a warning to only
use a restraint adjustment position which is intended for use in a
motor vehicle, a warning to not use rear-facing infant restraints in
any other position, and a statement about the primary consequences of
misusing the restraint. The following information did not have to be
visible when the child restraint was installed: manufacturer, model,
date and place of manufacture, and the certification statement. Because
of the complexity of showing a diagram for all types of belt systems,
NHTSA only required two diagrams--a diagram showing the restraint
correctly installed with a continuous loop lap/shoulder belt and a
diagram showing the restraint correctly installed in the center rear
seating position with a lap belt. For restraints with top tethers, the
diagram had to show the tether correctly attached. The agency adopted
the instruction sheet requirement, but, based on comments also added a
requirement that the restraint include a place to store it.
B. 1995 Public Meeting
On April 2, 1995, NHTSA held a public meeting in Indianapolis,
Indiana regarding the misuse of child restraint systems. In the notice
announcing the meeting, NHTSA asked
* * *child seat labeling requirements have often been criticized as
overwhelming the consumer with long and complex warnings
[[Page 55625]]
and instructions. How can these labeling requirements be improved?
Which aspects of the labeling requirements should be retained, and
which should be abolished, and why? (60 FR 12192, 12193; March 6,
1995)
A number of commenters to the public docket for this notice
criticized existing labels as difficult for consumers to read. One
commenter noted that the cloth cover sometimes conceals seat belt
routing slots and labels, resulting in misuse when consumers only use
the visible routing slots. Commenters suggested that the labels be
written for a lower reading comprehension level, and suggested point-
by-point or numbered instructions accompanied by pictures.
C. 1996 Air Bag Warning Label
On November 27, 1996, NHTSA issued a final rule requiring rear-
facing child restraints to bear a new, enhanced warning label to
replace the existing label (61 FR 60206). The labels were developed
using focus groups, with the aim to make the labels clearer and easier
to understand. Because the goal of this rulemaking is to make child
restraint labels clearer and easier to understand also, and because of
the tight deadline set for completing this rulemaking action, the air
bag warning label on rear-facing child restraints will not be
considered in this rulemaking.
D. 2000 Public Meeting
On February 9, 2000, NHTSA conducted a public meeting in
Washington, DC, to discuss the safety performance of child restraint
systems and options for providing consumers with information on the
safety performance of different child restraints. In the notice
announcing the meeting, improved labeling was one of the listed topics
(65 FR 1224, January 7, 2000).
While most of the comments submitted to the docket, and most of the
presentations at the public meeting focused on child restraint ratings,
some labeling issues were also raised. The most common issue discussed
was permanency of labels, particularly the labels with identifying
information and date of manufacturer. Most notably, Transport Canada
gave a presentation about their on-going research on possible
performance criteria and tests to ensure that labels will be permanent.
SafetyBeltSafe noted that 26% of the child restraints checked by the
Family Safety in the Car program from 1992 to 1998 had no readable
manufacture date. The Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association noted
that some of the language required by NHTSA on child restraint labels
requires up to a 12th grade education to read and understand. Other
issues raised were the need for an additional warning that a restraint
should not be used after even a minor crash, clearer wording, and a
requirement that recommended heights and weights be limited to the size
of the dummy used for certification.
E. 2000 Plan
1. Labels
On November 27, 2000, NHTSA published a notice requesting comments
on a draft Child Restraint Systems Safety Plan (65 FR 70687). With
regard to labels, the agency indicated that it would have current
labels analyzed to determine whether to propose changes to the existing
labels. The agency also indicated that it would consider proposing a
requirement for basic identifying information to be permanently molded
into the shell of the restraint at a specific location. Finally, the
agency indicated that it would monitor ongoing research being conducted
by Transport Canada on the durability of child restraint labels.
The agency did not receive extensive comments on aspects of the
plan concerning child restraint labels. One commenter stated that the
height and weight limits labeled on child restraints should not be
allowed to exceed the size of the dummy used for certification. Another
commenter requested that NHTSA prohibit additional information on child
restraints and that NHTSA consider the space constraints when
developing its proposal.
2. Harness Slots
In the draft Child Restraint Systems Safety Plan, NHTSA also
indicated that it planned to study alternatives to address misuse of
adjustable child restraint systems regarding child size and seat
orientation. One of the suggested alternatives was a label requiring
height indicator lines for each harness slot. One commenter, the
American Academy of Pediatrics, addressed the issue of labeling harness
slots. That commenter recommended a performance standard rather than a
labeling requirement, as incorrect harness slot usage is believed to be
a widespread problem.
V. Research
In anticipation of conducting research, NHTSA contacted child
restraint manufacturers to obtain samples of currently used child
restraint labels. Of the labels provided to the agency, three sets of
labels were chosen by the agency to use in our research. The labels
were chosen because they provide three distinctly different styles of
child restraint labels. Each had a different amount of text ranging
from extensive text to little text. Each uses graphic elements
differently and has a differing amount of graphics. Additionally, each
label uses color differently.
Our research on the readability of child restraint labels consisted
of two phases: consumer focus group testing and a passive evaluation.
Passive evaluation refers to an evaluation based on the characteristics
of the language, vocabulary and visual presentation of the information
using standard readability measures, rather than an evaluation based on
consumer feedback. Copies of the full report on each research phase are
available in the docket for this notice.
A. Child Restraint Focus Groups
Four focus groups were conducted in the suburbs of Chicago, IL, and
Phoenix, AZ during the week of February 12, 2001. The purpose of this
research was to explore parent/guardian perceptions about current child
restraint labels. While many group participants admitted that they did
not read the written instructions or labels that came with the child
restraints, at least until they perceived they were having a problem,
they also felt that it was important to have such information readily
available. Participants also noted, that while they felt the language
on the labels or instructions was clear when they read them, it was
often difficult to translate the information into action. One of the
most common problems noted was knowing for sure that the vehicle safety
belt was threaded through the correct location. Of the samples shown,
some of the features that participants felt made the instructions
easier to understand were: color-coded distinction between forward- and
rearward-facing use instructions, clear illustrations showing the
vehicle belt path, numbered installation steps, dark copy on white
background, positioning of the labels to indicate placement of the
vehicle belts\5\, strongly worded warnings, use of color to highlight
warnings, illustrations which are ``see-through'' so it is clear where
the belts path is, and good illustrations of what the restraint should
look like when properly installed. Some common criticisms were: vague
words such as ``snugly,'' unfamiliar words like ``child restraint''
rather than ``child seat,'' other words with which they
[[Page 55626]]
were not familiar and that were not defined, not enough specifics about
the risks of improper use, and lack of illustrations of what the child
should look like in the restraint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Note: While the participants were not shown the labels on
child restraints, it was clear that some of the labels would be
positioned on the child restraint to mark belt paths. For example,
one label states: ``Belt here forward facing 20-40 lbs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Passive Evaluation of Child Restraint Labels
The vocabulary and syntax of the sample labels were evaluated using
standard readability tests, including: Flesch Reading Ease Score,
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Score, and the Simple Measure of
Gobbledegook (SMOG). The written language was also reviewed for overall
tone, overall information organization, presence of subordinate clauses
and other potential hindrances, presence of distant or formal language,
presence of prescriptive or negative language, and presence of
patronizing language. The labels were also evaluated based on visual
examination using criteria that screen for: visual tone, visual
appearance and justification of written material, typeface selection,
arrangement of written and illustrative information, graphic
discrimination, presence of subheadings, bullets and other visual aids,
and presence of illustrations, photographs and other visual references.
A team of reading and language experts performed the readability
analysis. Because child restraints are used by a wide variety of
persons with a wide variety of literacy, including persons with less
than 8 years of formal education and persons whose first language is
not English, readability was evaluated against a Grade 5 reading level.
The passive evaluation found that the most clear and ``readable''
samples were characterized by:
Distinctive color-coding of information and illustrations
to indicate importance and to lead the reader
Simplicity of language
Clear integration of written and visual information
High contrast type/background relationships
Clear, easy-to-follow illustrations
Heavy use of ``white space''
The least ``readable'' samples were characterized by:
Dull, monochromatic visual appearance
Densely packed written information
Low contrast combinations of type, illustration and
background.
While the language on the samples required by FMVSS No. 213 fell
within the desirable ranges on many of the standard readability tests,
it was found that the information is not written for a suitably low
grade level. The Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level analysis found that
the mandatory information required between a 10.9 and an 11.1 grade
reading level to comprehend.\6\ The SMOG test found the 3 sets of
sample labels to require 8th, 9th, and 11th grade reading levels. The
evaluators noted that information added beyond the mandatory statements
tended to use more readable language. The visual considerations varied
widely however. Some of the features criticized were: full
justification, sans serif typefaces, arrangements which made it
difficult to distinguish warnings information from other less critical
information, gray backgrounds and densely packed labels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The mandatory language on the three samples scored
differently depending on how the manufacturer had organized the
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Proposed Changes to the General Label Requirements
The following sections discuss format requirements for mandatory
labels. NHTSA requests comments on whether NHTSA should require
additional voluntary labels to comply with the any or all of these
requirements.
A. Permanence and Location (S5.5.1, S5.5.3 and S5.5.4)
NHTSA currently requires that mandatory information be
``permanently labeled'' on the child restraint. One of the most common
criticisms about child restraint labels is that they are not permanent.
Unlike vehicle labels that are often printed directly on the vehicle
component, child restraint labels are usually paper glued to the shell.
As such, they fade from exposure to sunlight and peel off restraints.
Because NHTSA does not have performance criteria for permanence in
FMVSS No. 213, enforcing the existing requirement is difficult.
NHTSA also requires the warning statement about failure to follow
the instructions, the statements about proper use of belts and other
restraints, and the air bag warning to be visible when the restraint is
installed in a vehicle. Location is not specified for other mandatory
information.
Transport Canada is currently conducting research to develop an
objective test for permanence. NHTSA is monitoring that activity, and
depending on its outcome, may consider proposing criteria for
permanence in the future.
In the interim, NHTSA is proposing to require the model name or
number, manufacturer name, manufacturing date, and place of manufacture
to be permanently molded into the rear surface of the structure
supporting the child's back or on the side of the restraint if the
restraint does not have a back. While focus group participants felt
this was important information, NHTSA does not believe that it is as
critical that this information be visible when the child restraint is
installed in the vehicle. However, by standardizing the location,
recall notices and announcements can direct owners to the location of
this information. A requirement that the information be molded into the
shell similar to the way tire information is molded should ensure that
the information is always available in case of a recall.
NHTSA requests comments on whether the specification that this
information be permanently molded is design restrictive in that it
assumes that the child restraint shell is made out of a material such
as plastic. Are there shells made out of materials that could not be
molded? How else could NHTSA ensure the permanence of this information?
Would other technologies better achieve the goals of this proposal?
Would molding create problems with readability unless the molded
material is color contrasted with the child restraint plastic?
NHTSA is proposing that all other required information be labeled
on the child restraint so that it is visible when the restraint is
installed in a motor vehicle. This is a change for the requirements for
the certification statement, height and weight labeling, the
installation diagram, the registration statement, and the statement
about use in motor vehicles and/or aircraft, which are not currently
required to be visible by FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA believes that this is
important information that should be readily available to the user.
NHTSA also notes that most, if not all, child restraint labels are
currently visible, even when not required by NHTSA. Because most are
already visible, and because as discussed in the previous section NHTSA
is proposing that some information be located in a new location, it
does not believe that this new requirement will cause space problems.
B. English language (S5.5.2, S5.5.5, and S5.5.6)
NHTSA is keeping the English language requirement for child
restraints. However, NHTSA notes that many manufacturers also label
child restraints in Spanish or other languages. NHTSA applauds these
attempts to convey the information to owners who do not speak English,
or for whom English is not their first language. NHTSA does not intend
to restrict in any way a manufacturer's ability to also label child
restraints in one or more
[[Page 55627]]
additional languages as long as the required information is labeled in
English. NHTSA also requests comments on whether Spanish should be
required on child restraint labels.
C. Typeface (S5.5.2 and S5.5.5)
NHTSA currently requires information to be in letters and numbers
that are not smaller than 10 point type. While we have not had any
complaints about font size on existing labels, NHTSA notes that
specifying a point size without also specifying a font does not
guarantee legibility. In addition, the passive evaluation criticized
the labels that were reviewed because all used a sans serif font, and
serif fonts are considered easier to understand. NHTSA's graphics
department has indicated that the most common serif font in
publications and graphics is Times New Roman. Therefore, NHTSA is
proposing to require all labels to be in Times New Roman and no less
than 10 point.
D. Background (S5.5.2 and S5.5.5)
NHTSA currently requires the information to be labeled ``on a
contrasting background.'' Both the passive evaluation and the focus
group participants noted the difficulty in reading the sample labels
that were on a gray background or conversely, the ease of reading the
labels with a white background. For this reason, unless specified
otherwise, NHTSA is proposing to require all information to be in black
text on a white background.
E. Color (S5.5.2(l), S5.5.5(j), and S5.6.5)
NHTSA currently has minimal color requirements for child restraint
labels. Other than the air bag warning, the only color requirement is
that the statement about use in motor vehicles and/or aircraft must be
in red lettering (S5.5.2(n)). NHTSA is not proposing changes to either
of these requirements, however we are proposing a new color
requirement.
Focus group participants preferred sample labels which used
different colors to indicate different instructions for forward- or
rearward-facing use. Distinctive color coding was also mentioned as a
desirable attribute in the passive evaluation. European Regulation 44
(4.3) requires that ``the correct routing of the webbing shall be
clearly indicated by means of a drawing,'' and the routing diagram must
be color coded red for forward-facing and blue for rearward-facing. The
same colors are required for labels ``that illustrate the methods of
use.''
NHTSA is proposing a new requirement that illustrations and
instructions for forward-facing use be enclosed within a red box, and
that illustrations and instructions for rearward-facing use be enclosed
within a blue box. NHTSA is also proposing to require vehicle belt
routing to be indicated in red for forward-facing, and in blue for
rearward-facing.
F. All Capital Letters
While the text required by FMVSS No. 213 is shown in all capital
letters in the standard, capitalization is not generally required if
not expressly required by the standard. However, because ``block
letters'' are generally more difficult to read, NHTSA is proposing to
delete this requirement. In this proposal the only requirement for all
capital letters is the heading for the warnings.
VII. Proposed Changes To Label Contents
In the following subsections, NHTSA discusses possible changes and
additions to mandated language for child restraint labels. NHTSA
requests comments on whether instead of mandating specific language
NHTSA should mandate only that specific information be provided,
leaving the wording to each individual manufacturer. For example,
S5.5.2(f) of FMVSS No. 213 mandates that child restraints be labeled
with one of three statements regarding height and weight limits. As an
alternative, NHTSA could require only that manufacturers label child
restraints with either the maximum weight and height or a permissible
range of weight and height.
A. Statement Regarding Height and Weight (S5.5.2(f) and S5.5.5(f))
NHTSA has made minor changes to simply the language. Currently each
option states, ``This child (infant) restraint is designed for use only
by children * * *'' NHTSA is proposing to revise the options to read,
``Use only with children * * *'' NHTSA further asks for comments on
deleting the height references in these statements to further simplify
them.
B. Warning Regarding the Consequences of Not Following Instructions
(S5.5.2(g) and S5.5.5(g))
NHTSA currently requires the following statement to be on each
child restraint:
WARNING! FAILURE TO FOLLOW EACH OF THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS CAN
RESULT IN YOUR CHILD STRIKING THE VEHICLE'S INTERIOR DURING A SUDDEN
STOP OR CRASH. SECURE THIS CHILD RESTRAINT WITH A VEHICLE BELT AS
SPECIFIED IN THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS LOCATED __________.
Both the passive analysis and the focus group participants criticized
this statement as difficult to understand and too indirect about the
risks. Consumer feedback after the changes to the air bag warning label
indicate that the new air bag labels were noticed. Therefore, NHTSA is
proposing to require the following similar statement on child
restraints:
WARNING! DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY CAN OCCUR
Follow all instructions on this child restraint and in the
written instructions located __________
This would be followed with additional bullets for any additional
mandated statements, including the statement about maximum height and
weight, and the statements about use of belts or other restraints.
NHTSA is also proposing to require the heading (Warning! Death or
Serious Injury Can Occur) to be in black text on a yellow background.
NHTSA also requests comments on whether it should require or allow the
alert symbol used on the air bag warning label (see Figure 10 in FMVSS
No. 213).
C. Belt Use Statement (S5.5.2(h), S5.5.5(h) and S5.6.6)
Focus group participants criticized the term ``snugly'' used on
child restraint labels as being too vague. NHTSA has not changed this
language, because it would be difficult to have a more accurate
description of how tightly belts should be adjusted on a label.
However, NHTSA is requiring the following information to be included in
the written instructions. This information is used in NHTSA's
Standardized Child Passenger Safety Training Curriculum.
--A snug harness should not allow any slack. A snug harness should not,
however, be so tight as to press into the child's body.
--A ``snug'' strap lies in a relatively straight line without sagging,
but neither does it press on the child's flesh or push the child's body
into an unnatural position.
D. Installation Diagram (S5.5.2(l))
NHTSA currently requires an installation diagram showing the child
restraint installed in a seating position with a continuous-loop lap/
shoulder belt and another diagram showing the child restraint installed
in a seating position equipped with a lap belt. NHTSA is proposing to
require an additional installation diagram showing the child restraint
installed in a seating position with a child restraint anchorage
system. By September 1, 2002, all child
[[Page 55628]]
restraints are required to have attachments that work with these
anchorages. Most new vehicles will have the child restraint anchorage
system by the same date. NHTSA requests comments on whether the
requirement for a diagram showing the child restraint installed in a
seating position equipped with a lap belt can be deleted.
E. Registration Statement and Card (S5.5.2(m), S5.5.5(k) and S5.8)
Some focus group participants indicated that they would like to be
able to register their child restraint via the internet. Currently,
NHTSA requires a child restraint to be labeled with a statement about
how to register the child restraint. NHTSA also requires a registration
card to be attached to the child restraint that conforms to a specified
format. In order to inform owners about the ability to register a child
restraint via the internet, child restraint manufacturers could
currently add an additional statement to a label or they could attach a
separate card to the child restraint. Child restraint manufacturers
could not modify the mandatory registration card. NHTSA requests
comments on the availability now or in the future of online
registration to determine whether the current requirements related to
registration be modified to allow child restraint manufacturers the
option of informing purchasers about this method of registration. Given
that the current return rate on child restraint registrations is
approximately 33%, NHTSA believes that anything which improves the
number of registrations should be considered.
F. Harness Slot Labeling (S5.5.2(o) and S5.5.5(m))
NHTSA has decided to propose a requirement that all harness slot
positions be labeled with information indicating the maximum height and
weight of the children who should be restrained by the harness in the
slot position. Child restraints are often misused because parents do
not use the correct harness slots for the size child and/or seat
orientation. In the event of a crash, the force of an older child
loading harness strap slots that were designed only for the weight of
an infant can result in structural damage to the child restraint and
cause severe injury to the child.
A performance requirement is likely to have much higher costs than
a labeling requirement. NHTSA also believes that more obviously
available information about which harness slots to use can correct the
misuse problem. In looking at labels and written instructions, NHTSA
has found that this advice is often buried in the written instructions.
As focus group participants stated, consumers often fail to read the
written instructions unless they believe that they are having
difficulty with the restraint. For these reasons, NHTSA has decided
that it would be preferable to propose labeling to see if that can
reduce the incidence of misuse. NHTSA will use child restraint fitting
stations to determine if labeling has reduced the incidence of harness
slot misuse, and if the problem continues will revisit the issue.
G. Reading Level Requirement
In the passive evaluation, sample labels were evaluated using the
Flesch Reading Ease Score, the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Score, and
the Simple Measure of Gobbledegook (SMOG). The Flesch Reading Ease
Score, highly validated since its introduction in 1943, rates text on a
100-point scale in which the higher the score the easier it is to
understand the material. The State of Indiana mandates that insurance
policies sold in the state must have a Flesch Readability Ease score of
40 or better. The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Score converts the Reading
Ease score to a U.S. grade-school level. The SMOG test is similarly
based on a U.S. grade-school level and is intended to predict 90-100%
comprehension. It is used extensively in health oriented literature.
NHTSA requests comments on whether it should mandate a minimum
score on one or more of these standard tests. NHTSA believes such a
requirement may be particularly useful if the final rule were to
replace mandatory statements with requirements that certain topics are
covered by labeling.
H. Other Information
In their comments on the child plan, Graco asked the agency to
prohibit any labeling on child restraints other than that which is
required or design specific instructions. NHTSA is not proposing such a
prohibition. NHTSA prohibits information from being given to consumers
in some limited situations. For example, vehicle manufacturers are
prohibited from labeling sun visors with air bag information other than
that required by NHTSA regulation because of concern that other
information in close proximity to the required warnings would detract
from the attention paid to those warnings. However, a broad prohibition
such as Graco suggests would prevent manufacturers from providing
supplementary information that could enhance the correct use of child
restraints, or mitigate a safety problem that present labels do not
address. Because supplementary information can benefit consumers, NHTSA
is generally not prohibiting additional labeling. However, such
supplementary labeling must not obscure or confuse the meaning of the
required labeling, or be otherwise misleading to the consumer.
NHTSA has been asked in the past to limit the maximum height and
weight recommendations to the size of the dummy used in the
certifications tests. NHTSA has declined to make such a change in the
past, and is not proposing such a change at this time either. In 1996,
NHTSA denied a petition for reconsideration from Consumers Union (61 FR
30824, June 18, 1996). At the time, NHTSA expressed concerns that such
a change would actually detract from safety, stating:
Because 20 pounds is the weight of an average nine-month-old child,
CU's approach would continue to limit weight recommendations in such
a way as to possibly mislead consumers into thinking that an infant
must be switched to face forward when the baby is only nine months
old. This is likely to be before the infant's bones and muscular
system have developed sufficiently to make seating the child in a
forward facing position appropriate. Thus, CU's approach could have
the unintended effect of detracting from the real-world safety needs
of older infants (ages nine- to 12-months) to make such a change to
the labeling requirements. (61 FR 30824, 30827)
NHTSA continues to believe this is true.
VIII. Future Research
Because of the tight deadline set for completion of this rulemaking
action, NHTSA did not conduct additional research on the proposed
changes to child restraint labels. NHTSA is confident that the proposed
formatting and content changes to the mandatory warnings have reduced
the grade level needed to read the labels. Figure 1 shows a label that
is similar to some seen on child restraints today. Figure 2 shows an
example of how the new warnings would look for an infant restraint. In
addition, after reviewing the comments NHTSA may want to make further
changes to the mandatory language and final version is the version that
should be evaluated. NHTSA intends to conduct further passive analysis,
at a minimum, prior to issuance of a final rule to verify that the
changes have reduced the reading level necessary to comprehend the
labels.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 55629]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO01.000
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
[[Page 55630]]
IX. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulation) 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. In the ``Final Economic
Assessment, FMVSS No. 213, FMVSS No. 225, Child Restraint Systems,
Child Restraint Anchorage Systems,'' February 1999, the agency
estimated that there were 68 fatalities and 874 injuries caused
annually by misuse of child restraints. We are unable to estimate the
effectiveness of these proposals on this target population, but by
providing clearer instructions we expect to reduce misuse.
NHTSA anticipates that the cost of changing the location and text
of the labels to be minor. There is a cost for adding color, estimated
to be $.01 to $.03 per label. NHTSA requests comments on the cost of
technologies such as molding or other technologies which would be used
to meet the requirements of proposed S5.5.1 and S5.5.4.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-354), as
amended, requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their
proposed and final rules on small businesses, small organizations and
small governmental jurisdictions. Section 603 of the Act requires
agencies to prepare and make available for public comment a preliminary
regulatory flexibility analysis (PRFA) describing the impact of
proposed rules on small entities. NHTSA has not included a PRFA in the
PRE for this proposal. Of the 10 current child restraint manufacturers,
4 are small business. However, we do not believe this proposal adds a
significant economic cost to child restraints.
Business entities are generally defined as small businesses by the
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code, for the
purposes of receiving Small Business Administration assistance. One of
the criteria for determining size, as stated in 13 CFR 121.201, is the
number of employees in the firm. To qualify as a small business in the
Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Category (NAICS 336360) or the
All Other Transportation Equipment Manufacturing Category (NAICS
336999), the firm must have fewer than 500 employees. The agency has
considered the small business impacts of this proposed rule based on
this criterion.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Department of Transportation has not submitted an information
collection request to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The
affected public is 10 child restraint manufacturers. Except for the
proposal for harness slot labeling, this rule does not impose any new
information collection requirements on manufacturers. NHTSA does not
anticipate a significant change to the hour burden or costs associated
with child restraint labels and written instructions.
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable
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 compliance 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, the agency
consults with State and local governments, or the agency consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. NHTSA also may 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.
We have analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132 and have
determined that this proposal does not have sufficient Federal
implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or
the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. The proposed
rule would not have any substantial impact on the States, or on the
current Federal-State relationship, or on the current distribution of
power and responsibilities among the various local officials.
E. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that
implementation of this action would not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.
F. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. A
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceeding will
not be a prerequisite to an action seeking judicial review of this
proposed rule. This proposed rule would not preempt the states from
adopting laws or regulations on the same subject, except that it would
preempt a state regulation that is in actual conflict with the Federal
regulation or makes compliance with the Federal regulation impossible
or interferes with the implementation of the Federal statute.
X. Comments
How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
ADDRESSES.
How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
[[Page 55631]]
How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential
business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)
Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date.
How Can I Read the Comments Submitted By Other People?
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are
indicated above in the same location.
You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments
on the Internet, take the following steps:
I. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the Department
of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
II. On that page, click on ``search.''
III. On the next page type in the four-digit docket number shown at the
beginning of this document. Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-
1999-1234,'' you would type ``1234.'' After typing the docket number,
click on ``search.''
IV. On the next page, which contains docket summary information for the
docket you selected, click on the desired comments.
You may download the comments. However, since the comments are imaged
documents, instead of word processing documents, the downloaded
comments are not word searchable.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems.
PART 571--[AMENDED] FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 571 as set forth below.
1. The authority citation for part 571 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166 and 30177;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.213 would be amended by revising S5.5.1, the
introductory text of S5.5.2, S5.5.2(f), S5.5.2(g), S5.5.2(k),
S5.5.2(l), S5.5.3, S5.5.4, the introductory text of S5.5.5, S5.5.5(f),
S5.5.5(g), and S5.5.5(j); and adding new sections S5.5.2(o), S5.5.5(m),
S5.6.5, and S5.6.6 to read as follows:
Sec. 571.213 Standard No. 213; Child restraint systems.
* * * * *
S5.5.1 Each add-on child restraint system shall be permanently
labeled with the information specified in S5.5.2(a) through (o). The
information specified in (a) through (d) shall be molded or heat
embossed on the shell on the rear surface of the structure supporting
the child's back, or on the side of the restraint if the restraint does
not have a back.
S5.5.2 The information specified in paragraphs (a) through (o) of
this section shall be stated in the English language and lettered and
numbered using Times New Roman font not smaller than 10 point. Unless
otherwise specified, the information shall be labeled on a white
background with black text.
* * * * *
S5.5.2(f) One of the following statements, inserting the
manufacturer's recommendations for the maximum mass and height of
children who can safely occupy the system, except that booster seats
shall not be recommended for children whose masses are less than 13.6
kg:
(1) Use only with children who weigh __ pounds (__ kg) or less and
whose height is (insert values in English and metric units; use of word
``mass'' in label is optional) or less; or
(2) Use only with children who weigh between __ and __ pounds
(insert appropriate English and metric values; use of word ``mass'' is
optional) and whose height is (insert appropriate values in English and
metric units) or less and who are capable of sitting upright alone; or
(3) Use only with children who weigh between __ and __ pounds
(insert appropriate metric values; use of word ``mass'' is optional)
and whose height is (insert appropriate values in English and metric
units) or less.
S5.5(g) The following statement specified in paragraphs (1) through
(3):
(1) The statement WARNING! DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY CAN OCCUR in all
capitalized letters and in yellow with black text. This statement will
be followed by the bulleted statements in the following order:
(i) Follow all instructions on this child restraint and in the
written instructions located (insert storage location on the restraint
for the manufacturer's installation instruction booklet or sheet).
(ii) Secure this child restraint with the vehicle's child restraint
anchorage system if available or with a vehicle belt.
(2) As appropriate, the statements required by the following
sections will be bulleted and placed after the statements required by
5.5.2(g)(1) in the following order: 5.5.2(k)(1)(i) or 5.5.2(k)(2)(i),
5.5.2(f), 5.5.2(h), 5.5.2(j), and 5.5.2(i).
(3) The statements required by 5.5.2(g)(1) and 5.5.2(g)(2) will be
followed by the following statement:
Register your child restraint with the manufacturer.
* * * * *
S5.5(k)(1) In the case of each rear-facing child restraint system
that is designed for infants only, the statement: Place this infant
restraint in a rear-facing position when using it in the vehicle.
(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 statement: 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).
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (k)(4) of this section, each
child restraint system that can be used in a rear-facing position shall
have a label that conforms in content to Figure 10 of this section and
to the requirements of S5.5.2(k)(3)(i) through S5.5.2(k)(3)(iii) of
this standard permanently affixed to the outer surface of the cushion
or padding in or adjacent to the area where a child's head would
[[Page 55632]]
rest, so that the label is plainly visible and easily readable.
(i) The heading area shall be yellow with the word ``warning'' and
the alert symbol in black.
(ii) The message area shall be white with black text. The message
area shall be no less than 30 square cm.
(iii) The pictogram shall be black with a red circle and slash on a
white background. The pictogram shall be no less than 30 mm in
diameter.
(4) If a child restraint system is equipped with a device that
deactivates the passenger-side air bag in a vehicle when and only when
the child restraint is installed in the vehicle and provides a signal,
for at least 60 seconds after deactivation, that the air bag is
deactivated, the label specified in Figure 10 of this section may
include the phrase ``unless air bag is off'' after ``on front seat with
air bag.''
S5.5.2(l) Installation diagrams and instructions.
(1) An installation diagram showing the child restraint system
installed in:
(i) A seating position equipped with a continuous-loop lap/shoulder
belt;
(ii) A seating position equipped with only a lap belt, as specified
in the manufacturer's instructions; and
(iii) A seating position equipped with a child restraint anchorage
system.
(2) Any installation diagrams and installation instructions labeled
on child restraints shall be outlined in red for forward-facing use and
blue for rearward-facing use. No other color shall be used for each
orientation position.
* * * * *
S5.5.2(o) Except for child restraints with a single position for
the harness straps, each child restraint system that has belts designed
to restrain children using them shall have one of the following
statements, inserting the manufacturer's recommendations for the
maximum mass and height of children:
(1) Use only with children who weigh __ pounds (__ kg) or less and
whose height is (insert values in English and metric units; use of word
``mass'' in label is optional) or less; or
(2) Use only with children who weigh between __ and __ pounds
(insert appropriate English and metric values; use of word ``mass'' is
optional) and whose height is (insert appropriate values in English and
metric units) or less; or
(3) Use only with children who weigh more than ____ pounds (insert
appropriate English and metric values; use of word ``mass'' is
optional) and whose height is more than (insert appropriate values in
English and metric units).
S5.5.3 The information specified in S5.5.2(e) through (j) and
S5.5.2(l) through (n) shall be located on the add-on child restraint
system so that it is visible when the system is installed as specified
in S5.6.1.
S5.5.4 (a) Each built-in child restraint system other than a
factory-installed built-in restraint shall be permanently labeled with
the information specified in S5.5.5 (a) through (m). The information
specified in (a) through (d) shall be molded or heat embossed on the
shell. The information specified in S5.5.5(a) through (l) shall be
visible when the system is activated for use. The information specified
in S5.5.5(a) through (d) shall be located on the rear surface of the
structure supporting the child's back, or on the side of the restraint
if the restraint does not have a back.
(b) Each factory-installed built-in child restraint shall be
permanently labeled with the information specified in S5.5.5(f) through
(m), so that the information is visible when the restraint is activated
for use. The information shall also be included in the vehicle owner's
manual.
S5.5.5 The information specified in paragraphs (a) through (m) of
this section that is required by S5.5.4 shall be in English and
lettered in letters and numbers using Times New Roman Font not smaller
than 10 point. Unless specified otherwise, the information shall be
labeled on a white background with black text.
* * * * *
(f) One of the following statements, inserting the manufacturer's
recommendations for the maximum mass and height of children who can
safely occupy the system, except that booster seats shall not be
recommended for children whose masses are less than 13.6 kg:
(1) Use only with children who weigh ____ pounds (____ kg) or less
and whose height is (insert values in English and metric units; use of
word ``mass'' in label is optional) or less; or
(2) Use only with children who weigh between ____ and ____ pounds
(insert appropriate English and metric values; use of word ``mass'' is
optional) and whose height is (insert appropriate values in English and
metric units) or less and who are capable of sitting upright alone; or
(3) Use only with children who weigh between ____ and ____ pounds
(insert appropriate English and metric values; use of word ``mass'' is
optional) and whose height is (insert appropriate values in English and
metric units) or less.
(g) The following statement specified in paragraph (1), and if
appropriate, the statements in paragraph (2) and (3):
(1) The statement WARNING! DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY CAN OCCUR in all
capitalized letters and in yellow with black text. This statement will
be followed by the bulleted statement: Follow all instructions on this
child restraint and in the written instructions located (insert
location).
(2) In the case of each built-in child restraint system which is
not intended for use in motor vehicles in certain adjustment positions
or under certain circumstances, an appropriate statement of the
manufacturers restrictions regarding those positions or circumstances.
(3) As appropriate, the statements required by the following
sections will be bulleted and placed after the statement required by
5.5.5(g)(1) in the following order: 5.5.5(g)(2), 5.5.5(f), S5.5.5(h)
and S5.5.5(i).
* * * * *
(j) Installation diagrams and instructions.
(1) A diagram or diagrams showing the fully activated child
restraint system in infant and/or child configurations.
(2) Any installation diagrams and installation instructions labeled
on child restraints shall be outlined in red for forward-facing use and
blue for rearward-facing use. No other color shall be used for each
orientation position.
* * * * *
(m) Except for child restraints with a single position for the
harness straps, each child restraint system that has belts designed to
restrain children using them shall have one of the following
statements, inserting the manufacturer's recommendations for the
maximum mass and height of children:
(1) Use only with children who weigh ____ pounds (____ kg) or less
and whose height is (insert values in English and metric units; use of
word ``mass'' in label is optional) or less; or
(2) Use only with children who weigh between ____ and ____ pounds
(insert appropriate English and metric values; use of word ``mass'' is
optional) and whose height is (insert appropriate values in English and
metric units) or less; or
(3) Use only with children who weigh more than ____ pounds (insert
appropriate English and metric values; use of word ``mass'' is
optional) and whose height is more than (insert
[[Page 55633]]
appropriate values in English and metric units).
* * * * *
S5.6.5 Any installation diagrams and installation instructions
included in the written instructions shall be outlined in red for
forward-facing use and blue for rearward-facing use. No other color
shall be used for each orientation position.
S5.6.6 The printed instructions for each child restraint system
shall include the following statement:
(a) A snug harness should not allow any slack. A snug harness
should not, however, be so tight as to press into the child's body.
(b) A ``snug'' strap lies in a relatively straight line without
sagging, but does not press on the child's flesh or push the child's
body into an unnatural position.
* * * * *
Issued on October 29, 2001.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 01-27545 Filed 10-30-01; 3:26 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P