Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 74-09; Notice 34]

RIN 2127-AE80

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document amends labeling and other requirements of

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, ``Child Restraint

Systems,'' for rear-facing infant restraint systems. It requires that

warning labels for these systems include a warning against using the

restraint in any vehicle seating position equipped with an air bag. It

also requires that printed instructions for rear-facing restraints

include safety information about air bags.

DATES: This rule is effective on August 15, 1994. Petitions for

reconsideration of the rule must be received by March 18, 1994.

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 SW.,

Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. George Mouchahoir, Office of

Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic safety

Administration, 400 Seventh St. SW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone

202-366-4919).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document amends labeling and other

requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, ``Child

Restraint Systems,'' for rear-facing infant restraint systems. The

amendments made by this document were proposed in a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) published on April 16, 1993 (58 FR 19792). Rear-

facing restraints are currently required by Standard 213 to be labeled

with warnings and other information about their proper use (S5.5.1 and

S5.52). This rule requires that the warning label for rear-facing

restraints include a warning against using the restraint in any vehicle

seating position equipped with an air bag. This document also requires

that printed instructions for these seats include safety information

about air bags.

``Rear-facing infant restraint system,'' as used in this document,

refers to an infant restraint system (except a car bed) which is

positioned in a vehicle so that the restrained infant faces the rear of

the vehicle. In a frontal crash, the crash forces are spread evenly

across the infant's back and shoulders, the strongest part of an

infant's body.

When the 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.

In the Fall of 1991, the agency evaluated air bag/infant restraint

interactions by conducting 30 mph dynamic sled tests with top and mid-

mounted air bags. (The data from these tests are available in Docket

No. 74-09, General Reference.) NHTSA's findings from these tests

indicate that air bags generally produce substantial increases in the

values for the head injury criterion (HIC) and chest acceleration of

dummies seated in rear-facing restraints, compared to the values for

dummies in rear-facing restraints tested with no air bag.

To reduce the likelihood that an infant restraint would be placed

in a vehicle seating position that has an air bag, the agency is

requiring each infant restraint to be labeled with a warning against

such use. The warning must state either:

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.

or

Warning: Place this restraint in a vehicle seat that does not have

an air bag.

The former warning is used for convertible infant seats, i.e., seats

that can use rear-facing for infants and forward-facing for older

children. The latter is for seats that can be used only rear-facing for

infants.

The warning must be labeled on a red, orange or yellow background

and be visible to a person installing the restraint.

NHTSA is also requiring that infant restraint manufacturers provide

information on the air bag/infant restraint interaction issue in their

printed instructions accompanying the infant restraint. The

manufacturers must provide a warning against using rear-facing

restraints in seating positions equipped with air bags, and explain the

reasons for, and consequences of, not following the warning.

NHTSA has already required vehicle manufacturers to provide

warnings and information about the interaction of air bags and rear-

facing infant restraints. This information must be placed on the sun

visors in vehicles with air bags and provided in the vehicle owner's

manual. (This requirement is included in the rule implementing the

provision in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act

requiring the agency to mandate air bags at all front outboard seating

positions in passenger cars, and in light trucks and multipurpose

vehicles. 58 FR 46551, September 1, 1993.) Today's rule supplements

that requirement to increase the likelihood that parents will be made

aware of the possible effect of a deploying air bag on an infant

restraint. Further, when the vehicle itself is labeled, parents will be

provided the safety information even if the infant restraint they are

using lacks the label required by today's final rule (which could

happen if the infant restraint were manufactured before the effective

date of today's rule).

The requirements adopted in today's document are substantially

similar to those NHTSA proposed in the April 1993 NPRM. The text

proposed in the notice for convertible seats (which are designed for

use by both an infant and toddler) and infant restraints read,

respectively:

Warning: When this restraint is used in a rear-facing mode, do not

place in the front seat of a vehicle that has a passenger side air bag.

and,

Warning: Do not use this infant restraint in the front seat of a

vehicle that has a passenger side air bag.

With the goal of having the warning be conspicuous, NHTSA proposed

that the message be on a yellow background, and be visible when the

restraint is installed rear-facing in the vehicle. The agency requested

comments on whether the message should be required to be visible to a

person in the driver's seat when the restraint is so installed.

The agency received 16 comments on the NPRM. Commenters included

child seat manufacturers (Century, Fisher Price, Cosco), vehicle

manufacturers (Volkswagen, Ford), state safety agencies (Michigan, New

York), the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the American

Academy of Pediatrics, consumer groups (SafetyBeltSafe, Advocates for

Highway and Auto Safety), business groups (Insurance Institute for

Highway Safety, National Automobile Dealers Association), and private

individuals. All the commenters generally supported the NPRM; several

had suggested changes.

Most of the comments related to issues about the wording of the

label. Comments were also received on the label's conspicuity, and on

the proposal that child seat manufacturers provide information about

air bags in the consumer instructions accompanying each restraint. In

addition, some commenters were concerned about the possible effect of

the labeling and informational requirements on the possible development

of infant restraints that can be safely used in an air bag-equipped

vehicle seating position.

Wording of the Label

Commenters addressed various issues about the wording of the

warning label.

One issue is whether specific wording should be mandated. The

proposed regulatory text contained the exact wording of the label. Like

the other safety warnings required by Standard 213, the air bag/infant

restraint warning would have to be printed word for word as set forth

in the standard. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates)

believed the exact wording should be specified. ``It would not be

appropriate to leave the wording of a safety warning label, which must

be concise, clear, accurate, and uniform, to manufacturer discretion.''

Commenters such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Jerome

Koziatek and Robert Potter, Jr. conferred that the wording should be

mandated, and suggested changes to the wording to improve it. Ford

opposed mandating the wording, believing that the prescribed wording

may limit the flexibility of manufacturers, especially if it became

possible for a child seat manufacturer to recommend use of an infant

restraint in an air bag-equipped seating position under certain

circumstances. (This issue of the future development of infant

restraints is further discussed below.) Ford stated that the wording

currently specified in Standard 213 ``can be altered as needed.''

The specific wording of the safety warnings currently required by

Standard 213 to be marked on a child seat is mandated. Notwithstanding

Ford, all other commenters appeared to understand that the wording of

the air bag warning must appear on the restraint as stated in the

standard. It is for that reason that comments were requested and

submitted on the efficacy and appropriateness of the wording. NHTSA has

decided to mandate the wording of the new air bag warning for the

reasons explained in the NPRM. Those reasons are consistent with

Advocates' view, quoted above, that the wording must be carefully

crafted so as to reduce as much as possible the possibility that the

warning is misunderstood. As explained in the NPRM:

[T]he message should be brief, alerting consumers to and

reminding them about a safety concern without causing ``information

overload.'' The message also should not inadvertently induce the

consumer to misuse a restraint, such as might happen if the message

were so loosely worded that consumers might conclude they could

avoid the problem by simply turning the restraint around so that the

child is forward-facing when the restraint is used in an air bag

equipped seating position. The message also should be conspicuous.

58 FR at 19793.

To further clarify Standard 213's labeling requirements for Ford,

NHTSA notes that the safety warnings required by the standard may not

be ``altered as needed'' by a manufacturer. If a manufacturer believes

the wording should be altered, it must submit a petition for rulemaking

to change the requirements in Standard 213.

Cosco expressed concern that Standard 213 already requires too many

warnings, and that another warning would compound the complexity and

confusion of the labeling. That child seat manufacturer is concerned

that consumers may not pay attention to or understand the warnings

because there are simply too many warnings. Cosco suggested that NHTSA

review the labeling required by the standard and possibly condense some

of the required information. Fisher-Price also suggested that NHTSA

undertake a ``complete reconsideration'' of Standard 213's labeling

requirements, ``to assure that on-seat markings are not rendered

ineffectual because of the excess of required information.''

NHTSA agrees that a significant amount of information is required

to be labeled on an infant restraint, and is willing to consider, in a

future rulemaking, suggestions for ways in which the information could

be edited or condensed. The agency believes that the air bag warning is

needed now notwithstanding that it will be another item of information

that competes for the attention of the consumer. However, the agency

will review Standard 213's labeling requirements as Cosco and Fisher-

Price suggested.

Commenters were divided on whether the proposed wording was

sufficiently clear. SafetyBeltSafe and the IIHS believed the statements

were clear; however, some other commenters believed the clarity of the

wording could be improved. The AAP believed that, in response to the

proposed wording for convertible seats, some consumers might mistakenly

turn the restraint so that the infant is forward-facing in an air bag

position. 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

precedent for the warning not to use the restraint in an air-bag

equipped seating position. NHTSA agrees the wording should refer to the

baby's size and has made appropriate changes.

Some commenters objected to certain words in the proposed warning.

AAP suggested the word ``position'' should be used instead of ``mode''

in the term ``rear-facing mode,'' since the former word is more

commonly recognized than the latter. Cosco said that adding ``mode''

following ``rear-facing'' is unnecessary. NHTSA has removed ``mode''

from the wording. Cosco also suggested the references to ``front seat''

or ``passenger side'' in ``passenger side air bag'' are unnecessary,

since they do not add any relevant information. The agency agrees. Mr.

Koziatek suggested the label should direct the consumer to ``secure''

the restraint instead of ``place'' it on the vehicle seat, to increase

the likelihood that the restraint will be fastened to the seat. NHTSA

declines to make the change, because ``secure'' might distract a

consumer from the purpose of the air bag warning.

Some comments suggested adding more text to the warning label. Mr.

Koziatek recommended that the label include a statement directing the

consumer to check the vehicle owner's manual for information about

where the infant restraint should be placed in the vehicle. The

statement is not needed on the label. Child seat labels already must

refer consumers to the printed instructions for information on securing

the child seat to the vehicle (S5.5.2(g)). Also, NHTSA is requiring the

printed instructions for child seats to include a statement that owners

of vehicles with passenger side air bags should refer to their vehicle

owner's manual for child seat installation instructions. Moreover,

NHTSA's September 1993 rule mandating air bags in passenger vehicles

will require the sun visor on vehicles with passenger side air bags to

be labeled with a statement referring the consumer to the vehicle

owner's manual for information about the warning not to use a rear-

facing infant restraint in a vehicle seating position equipped with an

air bag. Placing the same information on the child seat would be

redundant, and would further crowd the child seat label.

Other suggestions were made for adding additional text to the

warning label. Mr. Potter believed a statement describing the possible

consequences of not following the warning is needed, such as by

referring to the possibility of ``serious injury or death.'' NHTSA

disagrees, since this rule already requires the use instructions to

contain information on the consequences of not following the warning.

SafetyBeltSafe suggested that the label should include a warning in

Spanish. NHTSA is not requiring the bilingual labeling for the reasons

discussed at 55 FR 48262 (denial of Mattox petition to require Spanish

installation instructions, November 20, 1990). Thus, the standard

requires manufacturers to supply the information in English. However,

once this requirement is met, manufacturers may supply the same

information in other languages, so long as the presence or location of

the translation does not confuse consumers.

Several commenters responded to the agency's request for comments

on the merits of requiring a symbol (or graphic) warning about using

rear-facing restraints with an air bag. New York's Department of Motor

Vehicles supported the use of a symbol because ``a symbol would assist

adults who are reading disabled or who speak a foreign language.'' The

AAP believed it would be desirable to have a symbol of a child

restraint on the vehicle dashboard, ``if a non-confusing symbol can be

designed.'' Century commented that a symbol can increase the

effectiveness of the warning label ``as long as it adequately

identifies and warns of the hazard.'' Cosco expressed reservations

about requiring a symbol. That commenter believed a symbol would draw

an excessive amount of attention to the issue of the air bag's possible

effect on a rear-facing restraint ``over others that may be as bad or

worse,'' such as, Cosco believes, the incompatibility of vehicle belts

with certain child seats. Cosco also stated that the effectiveness of a

symbol depends on the ability of the consumer to recognize it. ``If

NHTSA requires such a symbol, it should be prepared to publicize it.''

The agency has decided not to require use of a symbol. Had it been

required, the symbol would have been in addition to the words. NHTSA

believes that the words will draw sufficient attention to the label,

especially since the warning will be subject to the conspicuity

requirements discussed in the next section. In response to New York's

comment that a symbol would assist adults who are reading disabled or

who speak a foreign language, the agency is concerned that there is no

universally recognized symbol for effectively communicating the warning

at this time. The lack of such familiarity with a symbol would reduce

the symbol's effectiveness and could cause confusion.

Conspicuity of the Label

The conspicuity of the label is ensured by requirements concerning

its location, color and font style.

The aspect of promoting the conspicuity of the label that

engendered the most comments was the location of the warning label,

i.e., whether the message should be required to be visible to a person

in the driver's seat if the restraint were installed rear-facing in the

front outboard passenger seating position. Seven commenters responded

to this issue. The IIHS concurred that the label should be visible to

the driver. Century, Advocates, SafetyBeltSafe, Fisher-Price, and the

AAP objected to the driver's side approach. These commenters believed

locating the label so that it is visible to the driver reduces the

effectiveness of the warning, since the warning would be readable only

when the restraint is improperly installed. The commenters believed a

driver noticing the label on an improperly installed restraint would be

unlikely to take the time to exit the vehicle and move the restraint to

the rear seat of the vehicle. Mr. Potter suggested the label should be

placed on the shoulder harness/webbing of the restraint.

NHTSA agrees that the warning should be visible to the installer

while the restraint is being installed. The agency thinks that there is

merit in the commenters' belief that a driver who noticed the warning

could be reluctant to stop the vehicle to move a rear-facing infant

restraint to the vehicle's rear seat after the infant restraint is

installed. Further, the driver would already have been provided a

warning as a result of the September 1993 rule mandating air bags in

passenger vehicles. The rule requires the driver's side sun visor on

vehicles with passenger side air bags to be labeled with a warning

against using rear-facing child restraints with the passenger side air

bag. Accordingly, NHTSA is requiring that the warning on the child

restraint be visible to a person who is standing adjacent to the front

outboard passenger seat of a vehicle and installing the rear-facing

infant restraint system in that seat.

The requirement concerning the color of the contrasting background

for the warning has been changed from the proposal in response to a

comment from Ford. Ford suggested that red and orange be permitted in

addition to yellow. NHTSA is permitting those similarly bright and

attention-attracting colors. Ford also suggested that the color be

required only for the word ``WARNING'' at the beginning of the required

statement, instead of the entire statement. NHTSA is requiring the

entire statement to be printed against the color contrasting background

to maximize the conspicuity of the warning.

Volkswagen objected to the requirement that the letters be

capitalized, stating that manufacturers should be allowed to decide on

the print format. NHTSA disagrees. Standard 213 requires important

safety messages on the proper use of child restraints to be

capitalized. These include a warning that the consequences of failing

to follow the manufacturer's use instructions can result in the child

striking the vehicle's interior in a crash (S5.5.2(g)), and directions

on snugly adjusting the child restraint belts around the child

(S5.5.2(h)) and on placing an infant restraint so that it is rear-

facing (S5.5.2(k)). The air bag warning is as important as these

messages. Requiring the information to be capitalized is consistent

with the present labeling requirement of S5.5.2 to capitalize such

information, and increases the likelihood that the consumer will notice

and read the information. However, NHTSA will revisit this issue when

it reviews all labeling requirements.

Printed Instructions

This rule amends S5.6.1 to add a requirement that the printed

instructions for rear-facing infant restraints must provide a warning

against using rear-facing restraints at seating positions equipped with

air bags and must explain the reasons for the warning and consequences

of not following it. NHTSA is also requiring that the instructions

include a statement that owners of vehicles with front passenger side

air bags should refer to their vehicle owner's manual for child seat

installation instructions. The agency adopted the latter requirement in

response to a suggestion from Volkswagen. Effective March 1994, the

owner's manual of each vehicle having a front passenger side air bag

must include information on the proper positioning of occupants,

including children, at seating positions equipped with an air bag. The

information must include any necessary precautions that should be

heeded for the safety of those occupants. The requirement adopted today

for infant restraint instructions complements the requirement for the

vehicle owner's manual.

Effect on Future Designs

The agency believes that the label and information requirements

adopted today will be effective in warning consumers against using a

rear-facing infant restraint in a vehicle seating position equipped

with an air bag. The warning is needed because data have indicated that

unacceptably high forces are produced by a deploying air bag on present

designs of rear-facing infant restraints.

Several commenters, however, expressed concern that the

requirements adopted today might impede the development of rear-facing

infant restraints that are safe to use in an air bag equipped seating

position. These commenters indicated that manufacturers are undertaking

efforts to develop infant restraints that can be used in an air bag-

equipped seating position. Ford said that the warning statement may

limit the flexibility of infant restraint manufacturers to recommend

using a rear-facing system in an air bag-equipped seating position

under limited circumstances, such as if the vehicle seat were adjusted

to a certain position. Century stated that NHTSA should ensure that the

warning label requirement does not prevent future child seat designs

that work adequately with an air bag. Century suggested that NHTSA

should begin defining a test procedure and performance criteria for

testing the interaction of child restraints with air bags.

NHTSA does not intend for this rule to impede the development of

rear-facing restraints that are compatible with an air bag. As

discussed in the NPRM, the agency has been closely monitoring the work

of a task force on Child Restraint and Air Bag Interaction (CRABI)

formed by the Society of Automotive Engineers. The task force is

comprised of motor vehicle and child seat manufacturers and highway

safety researchers. It has developed guidelines consisting of test

procedures and test configurations (e.g., test dummies and a test

fixture) that can be used for evaluating the interactions between child

restraints and air bags. Moreover, NHTSA has developed, for research

and evaluation purposes, procedures that were used in the Fall 1991

test program of air bags and rear-facing infant restraints. NHTSA will

continue to closely monitor the work of CRABI, especially regarding the

development of test procedures evaluating the performance of an infant

restraint when used with a passenger side air bag. If CRABI were to

develop a test procedure from its guidelines, NHTSA would evaluate it

to determine whether the procedure is appropriate for Standard 213.

Among other things, the procedure would have to be suitable for testing

all types of infant restraints, and be able to provide test results

that assess the performance of the restraint in the real world. The

agency will consider a test procedure for incorporation into Standard

213 as soon as a suitable one is developed.

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 prepared a

regulatory evaluation for this action which discussed the potential

costs, benefits and other impacts of this rule. A copy of this

evaluation has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking action.

Interested persons may obtain copies of it by writing to the docket

section at the address provided at the beginning of this notice.

To briefly summarize the evaluation, NHTSA estimates that the

consumer cost of the labeling requirements of this rule ranges from

$0.09 to $0.17 per rear-facing infant restraint. The total annual cost

for all infant restraints will range from $350,280 to $661,640. This

cost is expected to be even smaller if the warning statement is placed

on the existing FMVSS No. 213 label.

The evaluation also estimates that, assuming that the warning is

effective at preventing any placing of rear-facing restraints in air

bag positions, 2 to 4 lives will be saved and 445 injuries will be

reduced a year.

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. As to vehicle

manufacturers that produce and install built-in restraints, most of

those restraints are forward-facing restraints and are installed in a

rear seating position. Further, those manufacturers are generally not

considered small businesses.

Regardless of the number of small entities, the rule will not have

a significant economic impact on these entities. Infant restraints

range in cost between $20 and $70, with the average price about $39.

Convertible seats range in cost between $45 and $120, with the average

price about $79. If the entire $0.17 cost of the rule were added to the

cost of the restraint, the typical infant restraint will increase in

price by only 0.44 percent and the typical convertible seat, by only

0.22 percent. Small organizations and governmental jurisdictions might

be affected by the rule if these entities procure child restraint

systems for programs such as loaner programs. While the cost of the

restraint could increase, loaner program procurements will not be

significantly affected. A program that had a fixed amount of money for

procuring child restraints will have its procurements reduced by only

0.34 to 0.57 percent. Thus, regardless of the number of small

organizations and governmental jurisdictions, NHTSA concludes the rule

will not have a significant economic impact on these entities.

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

103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety

Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety

standard is in effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety

standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not

identical to the Federal standard, except to the extent that the state

requirement imposes a higher level of performance and applies only to

vehicles procured for the State's use. Section 105 of the Safety Act

(15 U.S.C. 1394) 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.

In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as

set forth below:

PART 571--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407; delegation of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Sec. 571.213 [Amended]

2. Section 571.213 is amended by revising S5.5.2(k) and adding

S5.6.1.8, to read as follows:

Sec. 571.213 Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems.

* * * * *

S5.5.2 * * *

(k) In the case of each child restraint system that can be used in

a rear-facing position, the following statements:

(i) Either ``PLACE THIS CHILD RESTRAINT IN A REAR-FACING POSITION

WHEN USING IT WITH AN INFANT,'' or ``PLACE THIS INFANT RESTRAINT IN A

REAR-FACING POSITION WHEN USING IT IN THE VEHICLE,'' and,

(ii) Either of the following statements, as appropriate, 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 rear-facing child restraint system in the front passenger seat:

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.

or

Warning: Place this restraint in a vehicle seat that does not have

an air bag.

* * * * *

S5.6.1.8 In the case of each child restraint system that can be

used in a position so that it is facing the rear of the vehicle, the

instructions shall provide a warning against using rear-facing

restraints at seating positions equipped with air bags, and shall

explain the reasons for, and consequences of not following the warning.

The instructions shall also include a statement that owners of vehicles

with front passenger side air bags should refer to their vehicle

owner's manual for child restraint installation instructions.

Issued on February 8, 1994.

Christopher A. Hart,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 94-3252 Filed 2-14-94; 10:00 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-M