Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 74-14; Notice 103]

RIN 2127-AG14

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: As one method of reducing the adverse effects of air bags,

especially for children, NHTSA is requiring new, attention getting

labels. This rule requires vehicles with air bags to bear three new

warning labels. Two of the labels replace existing labels on the sun

visor. The third is a temporary label on the dash. These new labels

would not be required on vehicles having a ``smart'' passenger-side air

bag, i.e., an air bag that would automatically shut off or adjust its

deployment so as not to adversely affect children. This rule also

requires rear-facing child seats to bear a new, enhanced warning label

to replace the existing label. The labels will help reduce the adverse

effects by increasing the number of people who read and understand the

message of the warning labels.

DATES: Effective Date: The amendments made in this rule are effective

December 27, 1996.

Compliance Dates: Passenger cars, light trucks, and vans that are

equipped with passenger air bags that do not qualify as ``smart'' air

bags that are manufactured on or after February 25, 1997 must include

the new, attention- getting labels specified in this rule.

Child restraint systems that can be used in a rear-facing position

and are manufactured on or after May 27, 1997 must include the new,

attention-getting label specified in this rule.

Manufacturers may voluntarily substitute the new labels for the

currently required labels prior to these dates.

Petition Date: Any petitions for reconsideration must be received

by NHTSA no later than Janaury 13, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Any petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket

and notice number of this notice and be submitted to: Administrator,

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590:

For non-legal issues: Mary Versailles, Office of Safety Performance

Standards, NPS-31, telephone (202) 366-2057, facsimile (202) 366-4329,

electronic mail ``[email protected]''.

For legal issues: J. Edward Glancy, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-

20, telephone (202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820, electronic mail

``[email protected]''.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. Currently Required and Proposed Vehicle Labels

A. Labels on Sun Visor

B. Label on Passenger-Side End of Vehicle Dash or on Door Panel

C. Label in the Middle of the Dash Panel

III. Current and Proposed Labels for Rear-Facing Child Seats

IV. Summary of Comments on Proposal

V. Focus Groups

VI. General Issues Applicable to All Labels

A. Vehicles with Smart Passenger-Side Air Bags or Manual Cutoff

Switches for Passenger-Side Air Bags

B. Flexibility

C. Headings

D. Color

E. Pictogram

VII. Sun Visor Alert Label

VIII. Sun Visor Warning Label

[[Page 60207]]

IX. Label on Passenger-Side End of Vehicle Dash or on Door Panel

X. Label in the Middle of the Dash Panel

XI. Child Seat Label

XII. Letters to Owners of Existing Vehicles

XIII. Leadtime and Costs

XIV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and

Procedures

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

D. National Environmental Policy Act

E. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

F. Civil Justice Reform

I. Background

On August 6, 1996, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM) on Standard No. 208, ``Occupant Crash Protection,'' (49 CFR

571.208) and Standard No. 213, ``Child Restraint Systems,'' (49 CFR

571.213). The NPRM proposed several amendments to these standards to

reduce the adverse effects of air bags, especially those on children.

One of the proposed steps involved new, attention-getting warning

labels for vehicles without smart passenger-side air bags \1\ and for

rear-facing child seats.

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

\1\ The NPRM identified three types of smart passenger-side air

bags: (1) systems that provide an automatic means to ensure that the

air bag does not deploy when a child seat or a child with a total

mass of 30 kg or less is present on the front outboard passenger

seat, (2) systems using sensors, other than or in addition to weight

sensors, which automatically prevent the air bag from deploying in

situations where it might have an adverse effect on children, and

(3) systems designed to deploy in a manner that does not create a

risk of serious injury to children very near the bag.

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

II. Current and Proposed Vehicle Labels

NHTSA's current vehicle labeling requirements for vehicles with air

bags require the following information, coupled with the signal phrase

``CAUTION, TO AVOID SERIOUS INJURY:,'' to be labeled on the sun visors:

For maximum safety protection in all types of crashes, you must

always wear your safety belt.

Do not install rearward-facing child restraints in any front

passenger seat position.

Do not sit or lean unnecessarily close to the air bag.

Do not place any objects over the air bag or between the air bag

and yourself.

See the owner's manual for further information and explanations.

The standard allows the word ``WARNING'' to be used in lieu of

``CAUTION.'' In addition, the owner's manual must include appropriate

additional information in each of these areas. The coloring of the

lettering must contrast with the background of the label. No minimum

size dimensions are specified.

In addition, NHTSA requires an ``air bag alert label'' if the sun

visor warning label is not visible when the sun visor is in its stowed

position. The air bag alert label can either be on the air bag cover or

on the side of the sun visor visible when the visor is in the stowed

position. To the best of the agency's knowledge, to date, all

manufacturers have placed the alert label on the visible side of the

sun visor. This alert label must read, ``Air bag. See other side.''

Again, the coloring of the lettering must contrast with the background

of the label. No minimum size dimensions are specified.

NHTSA proposed four new labels for vehicles without smart

passenger-side air bags. Two of the proposed labels would replace the

currently required labels. One of the new labels would be a permanent

label on the passenger-side end of the vehicle dash or on the adjacent

area of the door panel. The other new label would be a temporary label

on the middle of the vehicle dash.

A. Labels on Sun Visor

NHTSA proposed to enhance the warning labels currently required on

sun visors for vehicles which lack smart passenger-side air bags. The

current warning labels on sun visors would no longer be required. In

their place, enhanced alert labels and warning labels would be

required. Manufacturers would continue to be permitted to provide a

warning label only, if that label is visible when the sun visor is in

its stowed position.

For the alert label, NHTSA proposed to require that a new permanent

label be affixed to the side of the visor that is visible when the

visor is in its stowed position. The label would be required on that

side of the visor above every seating position equipped with an air

bag. The label would have a black background. On the left side of the

proposed alert label would be a pictogram showing an inflating air bag

striking a rear-facing child seat, with a red slash through that. On

the right side of the proposed alert label would be yellow letters

reading ``AIR BAG WARNING.'' Underneath that warning, in much smaller

yellow letters, would appear text reading ``FLIP VISOR OVER.'' The

agency proposed that all the new labels, including the alert label, be

at least at least 140 mm long and 65 mm high. However, NHTSA asked for

comments on labels that were 75 percent, 50 percent, and 25 percent of

the proposed size.

For the warning label to be permanently affixed on the side of the

visor visible when the visor was turned down in the deployed position

(unless the manufacturer chooses to place the warning label on the side

of the visor visible in its stowed position), NHTSA proposed there

would be a white pictogram on a black background in the lower left

corner of this label. The pictogram would be a representation of a

belted adult occupant in front of a deploying air bag. The background

for the rest of the proposed label would be yellow. In red across the

top of the label would appear a triangle with an exclamation mark

inside it followed by the word ``WARNING'' in large type. In smaller

red type beneath that heading, the phrase ``Severe injury or death can

occur'' would appear. Beneath that, in black type, would appear the

phrase ``Air bags need room to inflate.'' Beneath that, the proposed

label would have had four bullets in black type reading:

Never put a rear-facing child seat in the front.

Unbelted children can be killed by the air bag.

Don't sit close to the air bag.

Always use seat belts.

For vehicles with a manual cutoff switch, the first bullet on the

label for the stowed side of the sun visor would be modified to read

``Never put a rear-facing child seat in the front UNLESS the air bag is

off.''

The agency also proposed to carry forward the current prohibition

against sun visors showing any other information about air bags or the

need to wear seat belts, except for air bag maintenance information and

the utility vehicle label required by NHTSA's consumer information

regulations. Finally, the agency asked whether a sun visor label should

be required for vehicles with smart passenger-side air bags.

B. Label on Passenger-Side End of Vehicle Dash or on Door Panel

NHTSA currently has no requirements for any safety labels in these

locations. However, the International Organization for Standardization

(ISO) has a proposed label featuring a pictogram showing a rear-facing

child seat positioned in front of an air bag, with a red slash through

the visual. The proposed location is on the passenger-side end of the

dash, which is visible only when the passenger door is opened. An

alternative location is on the door panel in a location that is also

visible only when the door is opened.

NHTSA proposed to require a label either on the passenger-side end

of the dash or on the door panel, for vehicles which lack smart

passenger-side air bags. The proposed label would have

[[Page 60208]]

been identical to the label proposed for child seats (see below in

section III). It would be a permanent label with the same minimum

dimensions, the same yellow and red colors, and the same content,

including the visual with the red slash through it. If the vehicle had

a manual cutoff switch for the passenger air bag, the label would be

modified to read ``Danger! Do not place rear-facing child seat on front

seat with air bag UNLESS the air bag is off.''

C. Label in the Middle of the Dash Panel

NHTSA currently has no requirements for a safety label in this

location. The label NHTSA proposed was a very visible label to be

placed in the middle of the dash of all new vehicles equipped with air

bags, if they lack smart passenger-side air bags. However, this label

would have been permitted to be readily removable. If removable, the

label would have been required on new vehicles when they are delivered

to consumers, but could have then been removed by consumers after they

have had a chance to read it. As proposed, the top half of this label

would have a yellow background with the phrase ``Make sure all children

wear seat belts'' in red type. The bottom half of this label would have

a white background. In black type, the bottom half of the proposed

label would say, ``Unbelted children and children in rear-facing child

seats may be KILLED or INJURED by passenger-side air bag.'' To make the

proposed label as effective as possible, the signal word ``WARNING''

would be placed at the beginning of the label to highlight the

importance of the message.

III. Current and Proposed Labels on Rear-Facing Child Seats

NHTSA currently requires a warning to be labeled on each child

restraint that can be used in a rear-facing position. Specifically,

S5.5.2(k)(ii) of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR

571.213) requires:

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.

NHTSA proposed to move and enhance the warning label currently

required on child restraint systems that can be used in a rear-facing

position. As proposed, a new permanent label would be affixed to each

child restraint system that can be used in a rear-facing position. The

label would be located in the area where a child's head would rest.

This new label would have a yellow background for the text portion. On

that yellow background, there would first appear a heading in red that

said ``DANGER!'' Under that heading, the text of the proposed label

would appear in black as:

DO NOT place rear-facing child seat on a vehicle seat with air

bag.

DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur.

Opposite the text, this warning label would have a pictogram showing an

inflating air bag striking a rear-facing child seat, with a red slash

through that.

IV. Summary of Comments on Proposal

Over 50 of the comments received in response to the NPRM addressed

labeling issues. Except for General Motors (GM), vehicle manufacturers

were not strongly opposed to the concept of labels. However, nearly all

manufacturers asked NHTSA to specify the exact language and content of

labels, but to allow flexibility in other areas. Manufacturers also

raised concerns about adhesive residue from the temporary label and

leadtime.

In general, child seat manufacturers had stronger objections to the

labeling proposal, feeling that they and child seat purchasers would

bear a disproportionate share of the economic burden when the air bag,

not the child seat, was the hazard. Some child seat manufacturers

expressed concerns with the proposed location for the label, citing

visibility, durability, and child comfort concerns. Some child seat

manufacturers also were concerned that the proposed format and location

might falsely lead users to conclude that this warning was more

important than other warnings.

Insurance groups, consumer advocacy groups, and parents generally

supported more conspicuous labels. Some of these commenters felt the

proposed labels were not conspicuous enough. Some of these commenters

also were concerned that proposed labels did not make it clear that all

children should be in the rear seat.

Finally, comments were received concerning harmonization with a

proposed symbol from the International Organization for Standardization

(ISO) and with the series of Z535 standards from the American National

Standards Institute (ANSI).

V. Focus Groups

The labels proposed in the NPRM were developed in part based on the

results of six focus groups the agency conducted in March 1996. GM in

particular criticized the agency's reliance on the results of focus

groups. GM requested an analysis of the proposed labels from Dr. Jane

T. Welch, a human factors and communications consultant, and attached a

copy of her report to the GM comment. The report states, ``NHTSA has

seen fit to toss aside 20 years of research in favor of the opinions of

54 naive lay people.''

Much of GM's criticism of the labeling proposal is an incorrect

impression that NHTSA believes improved labels guarantee that all

people would act correctly in response to the warning. Dr. Welch

referred to 20 years of human factors studies reportedly demonstrating

that warning labels on products have produced ``very little reduction

in accident rates.'' NHTSA does not believe that labels by themselves

will solve the adverse effects of air bags. In its August 6 proposal,

NHTSA acknowledged that no label works perfectly for all people and

that different people prefer different label concepts. However, even if

GM and Dr. Welch are correct in their assertion that labels will

produce only a ``very little'' reduction in fatalities and injuries,

NHTSA believes it should do all it can to present a ``warning'' message

frequently and prominently so as to achieve whatever reduction is

possible.

Further, the agency stated in the August 6 proposal that it had

used the ``focus groups with the aim of designing a label which would

improve substantially the likelihood that people will read the label

and understand its message.'' NHTSA recognized that even if motorists

received the message, there was not any assurance that people would act

on the message. GM and Dr. Welch concede that some people will act on

the message. The agency has used focus groups to help ensure the label

will be conspicuous enough to attract more people's attention and the

message will be clear and powerful enough to increase the likelihood

that more people will act in accordance with the message.

Finally, NHTSA appreciates the inputs from GM and other commenters

about the content of the labels. The agency has used the public's

inputs to help it modify and better define the message these labels

will convey. NHTSA agrees that human factors knowledge is extremely

valuable in deciding whether a label can be used to

[[Page 60209]]

help address a problem and what the message and purpose of the label

should be. However, once these decisions have been made, NHTSA believes

that focus groups are a valid and helpful technique to see if a

proposed label design is effective; i.e., whether the label design

succeeds in attracting the user's attention and whether the label

clearly conveys the intended message.

Consistent with this belief, NHTSA has conducted six more focus

groups in three cities to test consumer reaction to fine tuning changes

suggested by the comments on the proposed labels. The contractor's

final report on the second focus group study has been placed in the

docket for this rulemaking. What follows is a brief overview of the

second study.

Focus groups were conducted in San Diego, CA on October 29, 1996,

in Chicago, IL on October 30, 1996, and in Baltimore, MD on November 4,

1996. The study involved six focus groups. The Baltimore, MD groups

each had eight participants, the San Diego groups each had nine

participants, and the Chicago groups had nine and ten participants, for

a total of 53 participants. The composition of the groups reflected the

population as a whole in terms of gender, ethnic background, and level

of education. All participants had at least one child under 13, made

several trips per week with one or more children in the car, drove at

least 7,500 miles per year, were 25-45 years of age, had no connection

with the automotive industry or with market research, and had not

participated in a focus group during the preceding six months.

The focus groups lasted approximately two hours. The first half-

hour of each focus group was spent discussing their current actions and

beliefs regarding children riding in cars, use of seat belts, air bags,

and awareness of any warning labels currently in vehicles. Most of the

remaining time was devoted to evaluating three different sets of

prototype labels. The San Diego and Chicago groups evaluated a total of

12 labels, while the Baltimore groups evaluated a total of 15 labels.

For the sun visor warning label, the San Diego and Chicago groups

evaluated the currently required label, the proposed label, and three

new labels based on the comments. The new labels used the proposed

pictogram, the ISO pictogram, and a pictogram included in Chrysler's

comments. The colors tested were the colors specified in the ANSI

standards (see below), except that both yellow and orange headings were

tested. The text of the new labels was also revised from the proposal.

The Baltimore group also evaluated two additional labels, based on

results from the first two focus groups. One of the these labels had

the heading in red on a yellow background. This color combination was

preferred by both the San Diego and Chicago focus groups instead of the

heading in black on the yellow background, as specified by ANSI

labeling guidelines. Both of these additional labels had new, more

specific text.

For the temporary label on the middle of the dash, the groups

evaluated the proposed label and three new labels. The colors of the

new labels were those specified in the ANSI standards, except that both

yellow and orange headings were tested. The text of the new labels was

also revised. The text of one of the new labels was further modified

for the Baltimore group to give more specific advice concerning the age

below which children are at special risk from deploying air bags.

For the child seat label, the San Diego and Chicago groups

evaluated the proposed label and two new labels. The new labels include

the new pictograms and the new color combinations of the previous

labels, and revised text. The Baltimore group tested an additional new

label with an all yellow background.

In general, there were not major differences among the six groups.

Generally, the members were well-informed and very interested in

automobile safety. Every group had heard that the rear seat was the

safest place for children. Almost every participant had heard of the

dangers to children from air bags. However, the groups did indicate

that most of their information was from the media and that they were

interested in obtaining information from the government and the motor

vehicle industry. The participants indicated that they would be very

interested in receiving clear, unambiguous statements of the risks from

the government and industry, along with guidance on how to minimize

those risks. The reactions of the focus groups to specific labels or

label features are discussed later in this notice.

VI. General Issues Applicable to all Labels

A. Vehicles With Smart Passenger-Side Air Bags or Manual Cutoff

Switches for Passenger-Side Air Bags

As an incentive for vehicle manufacturers to equip their vehicles

with smart passenger-side air bags, the agency proposed to limit the

requirement for the new labels to vehicles lacking such air bags.

The public comments focused on the proposed definition for ``smart

passenger air bag.'' A definition is needed if the labeling requirement

is to be limited to vehicles without smart bags. Many commenters argued

that the proposed definition was not specific enough, and that test

procedures should be specified. IIHS, however, stated that the agency

should not develop a definition so as not to restrict developments in

technology. Commenters raised a variety of concerns about the portion

of the definition associated with weight suppression, which specified

that the air bag be suppressed ``when a child seat or child with a

total mass of 30 kg or less is present on the front outboard passenger

seat.'' GM, for example, argued that the definition is ambiguous and

does not provide sufficient information. That company stated that some

child seats and booster seats with children would exceed the 30 kg

minimum and that, assuming a 20 percent sensor error, a person with a

standing weight of 152 pounds could suppress the air bag. Various

commenters addressed the different levels of effectiveness that might

occur for simpler versus more advanced smart systems, and limitations

associated with simpler systems. AAMA expressed concern that use of the

term ``smart air bag'' could mislead the public into believing they

have no responsibility in the performance of restraint systems.

In the absence of significant adverse comments about excepting

vehicles with smart passenger-side air bags from the requirements for

new labels, the agency is adopting that exception. Absent any evidence

that warnings are necessary for vehicles with smart air bags, or what

those warnings would be, NHTSA is not specifying any warning labels for

vehicles with smart passenger-side air bags. Manufacturers may provide

any information or warnings that would be appropriate for their smart

air bag designs. NHTSA recognizes that the term ``smart air bag'' is

still very general. The issue of more specific criteria and other

issues relating to smart air bags will be addressed in a rulemaking in

the near future.

In recognition of the fact that some vehicles are currently

permitted to have manual cutoff switches for the passenger-side air

bag, NHTSA is specifying optional label language for those vehicles.

The absolute language about never placing a rear-facing child restraint

in the front seat is not necessary for a vehicle in which the

passenger-side air bag can be turned off.

[[Page 60210]]

The optional language for those vehicles is as follows: ``NEVER put a

rear-facing child seat in the front unless air bag is off.''

B. Flexibility

NHTSA's proposal would have required labels to conform in content,

format, size, and color to the proposed labels. Manufacturers agreed

that NHTSA should specify the label content and prohibit additional

labels. However, they asked for more flexibility in the areas of format

and size. Manufacturers also asked to be allowed to present the label

text not only in English, but also in other languages.

Generally, manufacturers asked for flexibility to rearrange the

information to fit tight spaces in the vehicle interior. For example,

manufacturers asked to be able to make the label vertical rather than

horizontal, with the pictogram above the message, or to round the

corners and make the label oval.

The purpose of the enhanced labels is to make them more noticeable

and more explicit. NHTSA believes that arrangement and shape of the

labels is irrelevant to these purposes, and therefore, is amending the

regulatory language to allow such changes.

The proposal specified rectangular labels with a minimum size of

140 x 65 mm. The NPRM asked for comments on labels that were 75%,

50%, and 25% of the proposed size. Most commenters said the proposed

labels were larger than needed to be more conspicuous than existing

labels, and larger than practicable, given space considerations at some

locations. A visor supplier and some vehicle manufacturers asked NHTSA

to specify a 75% label. One manufacturer asked for a 50% label. Other

manufacturers asked NHTSA to specify a minimum area for the pictogram

and a minimum area for text, to allow the manufacturer flexibility in

the overall shape and layout of the label.

NHTSA has re-examined the labels, and the proposed vehicle

locations for the labels, and agrees that there would be issues at some

locations about the sufficiency of the space for the placement of

labels of the proposed size. With the exception of the air bag alert

label discussed below, NHTSA has decided to reduce the size of the

labels to 75% of the proposed size because this size is still

conspicuous. Consistent with the above decision on format, NHTSA has

also decided to adopt the suggestion to specify the minimum areas of

the message text and pictogram only. To determine the size, NHTSA

measured the size of these areas on a label that was 75% of the

proposed size. Based on these measurements, NHTSA is specifying that

the pictogram must be a minimum of 30 mm in diameter, and the English

text must be minimum of 30 square cm.

With respect to the size of the text, NHTSA learned from the focus

groups that the public generally prefers larger fonts in label text

because it is easier to read. This helps ensure the labels will

effectively convey the message to the reader. NHTSA considered

mandating a minimum font size for the text, but has not done so for two

reasons. First, it is hard to specify a single font size that would

assure ease of reading with all possible typefaces. Second, NHTSA does

not think it is necessary to specify a regulatory requirement for font

size to assure that manufacturers will make the message large enough to

be easily read. The agency expects that manufacturers will ensure the

English text of each label fills the 30 square cm text area, instead of

using smaller font size and leaving most of the text area blank

(white).

NHTSA did not intend to reverse its current policy of allowing a

required message to be stated in additional languages once the required

English language message was provided. In a March 10, 1994 notice,

NHTSA stated:

NHTSA interprets the labeling requirements * * * as requiring

manufacturers to supply the information in English. Once this

requirement is met, manufacturers may supply the same information in

other languages, so long as it does not confuse consumers. As long

as the non-English language label is a translation of the required

information, NHTSA does not interpret it to be ``other

information.'' (59 FR 11200, at 11201-202).

The proposed sun visor label language also included the prohibition

about ``other information.'' NHTSA would again not consider

translations of the required label message to be ``other information.''

However, all the requirements for the English label message must be

met, including size. The proposed provisions regarding the other

proposed labels did not include a prohibition against other

information; therefore, it would be permitted.

C. Headings

As proposed, three of the labels would use the word ``warning,''

while two (the label for the child seat and the end of the dash) would

use the word ``danger.'' Commenters pointed out that the labels should

use only one of these words. Other commenters asked to be allowed the

option to continue using either ``warning'' or ``caution.'' Two

commenters also asked for the agency to harmonize the proposed labels

with ANSI standards.

The ANSI standards specify the use of various words in the heading

of a label based on the degree of hazard and risk (ANSI Z535.4-1991,

section 4.15). The word ``danger'' should be used when there is an

imminent hazard that could result in death or serious injury. The word

``warning'' should be used when there is a potential hazard that could

result in death or serious injury. The word ``caution'' should be used

when there is a potential hazard that could result in minor or moderate

injury. The ANSI standards also specify that, when multiple hazards are

being addressed by a label, the word for the highest level of hazard

among those hazards should be used (ANSI Z535.4-1991, section 5.3).

Finally, the ANSI standards allow the use of an ``alert symbol'' in the

heading (ANSI Z535.4-1991, section 7.2). The symbol is a triangle with

an exclamation point inside, as shown on the proposed sun visor warning

label.

NHTSA originally allowed either ``warning'' or ``caution'' on the

current label because either word would achieve the goal of attracting

attention to the label (59 FR 11200, at 11202; March 10, 1994). NHTSA

continues to believe that the word choice for the heading will not

change the effectiveness of the label. However, a recent Federal law

encourages agencies to harmonize their standards with existing

standards (Pub.L. 104-113; March 7, 1996). One of the stated purposes

of the ANSI standards is ``to achieve application of a national uniform

system for the recognition of potential personal injury hazards for

those persons using products'' (ANSI Z535.4-1991, section 2.2). Given

the Federal law and this purpose, and absent strong evidence that

argues against following the ANSI standards, NHTSA has decided to

adhere to them with respect to the heading.

Under the ANSI standard, the hazards associated with air bags are

appropriately classified as potential hazards, since they only exist if

there is a crash of sufficient severity to cause the air bags to

deploy. For children, the risk associated with the hazard is clearly

death or serious injury. Therefore, NHTSA will require that all labels

use the word ``warning.'' NHTSA will also specify the use of the alert

symbol allowed by the ANSI standards (i.e., an exclamation mark inside

a triangle, preceding the text of the heading). Participants in the

recent focus groups noted that this symbol was very effective in

drawing attention to the label, and also made the warning appear more

official.

[[Page 60211]]

D. Color

Two commenters again asked NHTSA to harmonize the colors with the

ANSI standards (ANSI Z535.4, section 7). Commenters also raised

concerns about the readability of certain color combinations for

persons with vision difficulties. In particular, commenters noted that

black was easier to read than red on a yellow background, or that black

was easier to read on white background rather than a yellow background.

Other commenters, though, specifically stated that it was the

colorfulness of the proposed labels that contributed to their

effectiveness.

The ANSI standards specify that, when ``warning'' is used in the

heading, the background color should be orange, the text black, and the

alert symbol should be a black triangle with an orange exclamation

point. Pictograms should be black on white, with occasional uses of

color for emphasis. Message text should be black on white. The color

yellow used in NHTSA's proposed labels is associated with the word

``caution'' in the ANSI standards.

Yellow was the overwhelming color preference of the participants in

the focus groups. Only two of the 53 participants preferred orange.

Participants generally stated that yellow was more eye-catching than

orange. Participants also noted that red (stop) and yellow (caution)

had meaning to them, but not orange. Participants in San Diego and

Chicago preferred the red on yellow headings in some of the tested

labels, because they were very eye-catching. However, the participants

in Baltimore preferred the black headings, as recommended by ANSI, on a

yellow background, stating that this color combination was easier to

read. Participants in San Diego and Chicago also indicated that the all

yellow labels were more eye-catching than labels in which the message

text had a white background. However, the Baltimore participants

thought the all yellow labels were ``too much'' and suggested that the

color on the heading was sufficient to attract their attention.

NHTSA is requiring that all pictograms be black on a white

background with a red circle and slash. While some of the proposed

labels were white on black background, NHTSA believes that the two

versions are equally visible, and therefore, is harmonizing with the

ANSI standards. NHTSA is also requiring that the message text be black

on white. This color combination is consistent with ANSI standards.

NHTSA agrees this may be easier to read for some people.

However, NHTSA has decided not to follow the ANSI standards with

respect to the background color for the heading ``Warning.'' Instead of

the orange specified in the ANSI standards, NHTSA is requiring that

yellow be used as the background for the heading. The focus group

evidence overwhelmingly suggests that yellow would be a more effective

color than orange for attracting attention to the label. As noted

above, 51 participants said yellow was significantly more eye-catching

and effective than orange, while only 2 participants said orange was

more effective than yellow. NHTSA takes very seriously the importance

of making sure these labels do all they can to help avoid preventable

deaths. Given the importance of this task and the focus group results,

NHTSA has concluded that it should specify that the background color

for the header of these labels be yellow.

E. Pictogram

The proposed labels included two pictograms: one showing an adult

and an inflating air bag, and the other showing a rear-facing child

seat being impacted by an air bag surrounded by a red circle with a

slash across it. Commenters criticized the first pictogram for

representing an adult (instead of a child) and for the lack of a

visible shoulder belt. Transport Canada asked if the agency had

considered the proposed ISO pictogram for the child seat pictogram, and

asked if the agency would consider proposing its pictogram to ISO for

use internationally. Other commenters also asked the agency to

harmonize with the proposed ISO pictogram. Commenters criticized the

proposed child pictogram because there was too little of the vehicle to

give a context for the picture, because there was no visible seat belt,

and because the lines around the child's head looked like the rays of

the sun. Chrysler's comment included some suggested labels which used a

different, but similar, child pictogram. The Chrysler pictogram

modifies the proposed pictogram by showing more of the vehicle seat for

context, by having the child seat broken by the inflating air bag, and

by having the air bag bending around the child seat. Finally, many

commenters noted that the red slash went in different directions on

different labels and asked the agency to specify the standard upper

left-to-lower right orientation.

The participants in the second round of focus groups examined the

proposed child pictogram, the ISO pictogram, and the Chrysler

pictogram. The participants indicated that a pictogram was important to

attract attention, and that even a bad pictogram would get them to read

the label. The ISO pictogram was the least liked by these groups.

Participants indicated that it was too peaceful, and didn't convey a

sense of danger. One of the Chicago groups also indicated that the

pictogram was misleading, as it suggested that a fully inflated air bag

never touched a rear-facing child seat. Of the remaining two

pictograms, the Chrysler pictogram was preferred. However, some

participants found this pictogram too graphic and harsh. Others

indicated that it was one of the most effective pictograms they had

seen because it enabled the viewer to understand the harm without

reading the text. The one change suggested by the focus groups was to

increase the relative size of the child seat in the pictogram, similar

to the proposed pictogram.

Because the most serious air bag side effects relate to infants and

children, NHTSA is amending the labels to require a child (infant)

pictogram on all labels. However, at least one participant in five of

the six focus groups expressed concern that pictogram showing air bag

danger to infants in rear-facing child seats might imply that an air

bag poses no danger to children in forward-facing seats, booster seats,

or children using vehicle belts. These participants were concerned that

a pictogram focusing entirely on infants in rear-facing child seats

would mislead the public with regard to the hazards of current air bag

designs.

NHTSA agrees this is a legitimate concern. However, after further

agency analysis of this area, NHTSA has decided to keep a pictogram

showing an infant in a rear-facing child seat. First, it would place an

extraordinary burden on a pictogram to rely exclusively on it to show

all possible hazards instead of using the pictogram to communicate some

hazards and the accompanying text to communicate others. For instance,

the recognized symbol for ``no smoking'' shows a lit cigarette with a

red slash through it. One might misinterpret this symbol to mean no

cigarette smoking, but that smoking a cigar or a pipe is permitted by

the symbol. One of the participants in a Chicago focus group commented

that the concerns about the infant pictogram are demanding too much of

a pictogram. According to this participant, the job of the pictogram is

simply to attract the reader's interest and attention to the text of

the warning label.

NHTSA agrees with the participant's judgment that one significant

purpose of the pictogram is to attract the reader's attention. In

addition to this, NHTSA

[[Page 60212]]

expects a good pictogram to identify a significant portion of the

hazard and to depict that portion accurately. The agency concludes that

the pictogram showing the hazard posed by an air bag to a child in a

rear-facing child seat meets all of these purposes. While the pictogram

does not depict the larger group at risk, the focus groups all found

that the pictogram of the child in the rear-facing seat would be

effective at attracting people's attention to the label and getting

them to read the label. Again, based on the focus group results, NHTSA

believes the language of the labels makes it very clear that a larger

group of children are at risk.

NHTSA is not adopting the ISO pictogram for its label. NHTSA

thoroughly examined the ISO pictogram when developing the proposed

pictograms. NHTSA decided to propose its pictogram, which the agency

believes represents a significant improvement to the ISO pictogram by

making the diagram more dynamic and by depicting the harm more clearly.

NHTSA tested the ISO pictogram in its second round of focus groups and

found that only one out of 53 participants liked it. More

significantly, most of the participants did not understand what it was

attempting to show and most said it would not attract their attention

to the label. Given these results, NHTSA does not believe it would be

appropriate to use the ISO pictogram. NHTSA staff are involved with the

ISO committee working on this pictogram. The agency representatives

will suggest that the ISO committee consider replacing its current

pictogram with the pictogram NHTSA is requiring on its labels.

NHTSA was impressed by the pictogram included with the comment from

Chrysler, as were the recent focus groups. Participants in the focus

groups preferred the Chrysler pictogram by a substantial margin. Some

participants even said the Chrysler pictogram was ``perfect,'' and that

``you understand the problem before you've read one word of the

label.'' This was not a universally shared sentiment. Some participants

said the Chrysler pictogram was ``too harsh,'' ``too violent,'' and

``too scary.'' However, even those participants who said it was too

graphic agreed that it was very effective at drawing attention to the

label. Therefore, NHTSA is specifying this pictogram for use on the air

bag warning labels. In addition, this rule corrects the slash on the

air bag alert label pictogram so that it follows the standard

convention.

VII. Sun Visor Alert Label

NHTSA proposed an alert label for the side of the sun visor visible

when the visor is in the stowed position. A manufacturer did not have

to provide this label if the other proposed sun visor warning label

were placed by the manufacturer so that is visible when the visor is in

the stowed position. Ford commented that manufacturers would only use

one sun visor label unless the alert label were smaller than the

warning label. Manufacturers also pointed out that there were

additional size concerns with this side of the visor as it was the most

common location used for another mandatory warning label in utility

vehicles. Some manufacturers wanted to keep the current alert label.

NHTSA has decided that the alert label can be reduced to 50% of the

proposed size, rather than to 75% as for other labels. Because this

label has fewer words than other labels, it will still be very visible.

This should alleviate some of the concerns about space for other

required labels. In addition, because the new labels are so colorful,

NHTSA is concerned about public objections if manufacturers were to

place the warning label so that it was visible for extended periods of

time. To be consistent with other size changes, NHTSA is specifying

that the pictogram have a minimum diameter of 20 mm, and the text area

be no smaller than 20 square cm.

The new alert label replaces the current alert label. NHTSA

believes that the addition of the pictogram and the word ``warning,''

are more likely to attract the attention of vehicle occupants and

induce them to look for the label on the other side of the visor.

VIII. Sun Visor Warning Label

The proposed sun visor warning label stated, ``Unbelted children

can be killed by the air bag.'' Commenters said that this statement was

too narrow, since improperly belted, and perhaps even some properly

belted, children can be injured or killed by the air bag. The proposed

label stated, ``Never put a rear-facing child seat in the front.''

Again, commenters said this statement was too narrow, that all children

should be in the rear seat. The proposed label stated, ``Don't sit

close to the air bag.'' Commenters preferred the current statement,

``Do not sit or lean unnecessarily close to the air bag,'' because

people may believe that it is unnecessary to worry about leaning or

being thrown forward so long as their seat is moved back from the air

bag. Finally, some commenters said that air bags have adverse effects

for adults and that the label placed too much emphasis on children.

NHTSA believes that many of the suggestions regarding wording

changes have merit, and is making some changes to the labels. NHTSA

tested some of the recommendations in the focus groups. After reviewing

the comments and the focus group results, NHTSA has decided that the

message of the new label will read:

DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur.

Children 12 and under can be killed by the air bag.

The BACK SEAT is the SAFEST place for children.

NEVER put a rear-facing child seat in the front.

Sit as far back as possible from the air bag.

ALWAYS use SEAT BELTS and CHILD RESTRAINTS.

The addition of the sentence that all children are safest in the

back reflects the emphasis of the agency's public education campaign.

NHTSA has removed the modifier ``unbelted'' in front of children. NHTSA

agrees that this statement was too narrow. Focus group participants

generally asked for guidance about when occupants are no longer to be

regarded as ``children.'' This rule responds to this concern by adding

the age range ``12 and under.'' Finally, focus group participants found

the statement ``don't sit close to the air bag'' vague and asked for

more guidance about how close was too close. In response to these

concerns, NHTSA provided the Baltimore focus groups with labels

containing the following guidance: ``sit as far back as possible from

the air bag.'' The participants found this much more helpful.

Accordingly, this rule makes the same change to the sun visor warning

label.

NHTSA is not changing the emphasis on children. The primary thrust

of the proposed changes was the adverse effects on children. NHTSA

believes this focus is necessary as long as the current threat to

children remains as serious as it is now. Both the first and second

rounds of focus groups indicated that they were much more likely to

read and heed a label that tells them of a hazard to children and how

to protect children than they would be to read a general hazard

warning. Thus, the focus on children helps make the label more

effective in communicating warnings relevant to adults as well as

children. NHTSA notes that the advice in the last two bullets of this

label is applicable to anyone, and would reduce the risk for those

occupants. The focus groups correctly understood that these last two

bullets applied to all occupants, not just children. Thus, there was no

indication in the focus groups that the label's

[[Page 60213]]

emphasis on children leaves the public with the erroneous impression

that only children face risks from air bags or that the general

occupant safety messages in the last two bullets are limited to

children.

IX. Label on Passenger-Side End of Vehicle Dash or on Door Panel

As discussed in the NPRM, none of the 66 participants in the

original focus groups noticed this label on the vehicle they were

shown. This was the proposed label that generated the most comments on

size concerns from manufacturers. Manufacturers noted that the

available space was very small on some vehicles, and that the area

sometimes has vents or access panels. Manufacturers also asked that the

label be harmonized with the proposed ISO label. General Motors stated

that the agency should only require one new label. Finally, Advocates

for Highway and Auto Safety stated that the label was likely to be

ineffective and should not be required.

NHTSA has decided not to require this label. The agency's focus

groups provided no indications that a label in this location would be

effective. In addition, NHTSA agrees that too many labels can reduce

the impact of all the labels. Not including the end-of-dash label in

the final rule will help address concerns expressed in the comments

about the number of new labels NHTSA is requiring and the potential

conflict if ISO adopts its proposed end-of-dash label.

X. Label in the Middle of the Dash Panel

As proposed, this label was to be a temporary label. Many advocacy

groups and individuals stated that this should be a permanent label.

Manufacturers expressed concerns with adhesive residue marring the

vehicle surface, and asked for alternatives such as hang tags from the

mirror or other non-adhesive labels. Manufacturers also stated that the

middle of the dash could have instruments which would make it difficult

to place even a temporary label there, and asked if the label could be

placed on other areas of the dash such as the glove compartment door.

NHTSA is not making this label permanent. NHTSA does not want the

labels to become a source of irritation to consumers. The label in the

middle of the dash is an additional means to reach a new vehicle buyer

and ensure that the buyer knows that the vehicle has air bags and that

there are warnings associated with this equipment. Since air bags are

still a new feature for many buyers, NHTSA believes this additional

reminder will be useful. However, this is not the only, or even the

primary, means to warn consumers about the adverse effects of air bags.

Indeed, the permanent sun visor warning label contains the warning that

``Children 12 and under can be killed by air bag.''

NHTSA is relaxing the location requirements for this label. NHTSA

proposed the middle of the dash to ensure the label was in a highly

visible location. NHTSA agrees that there are other very conspicuous

locations in a vehicle, and will allow the label to be anywhere on the

dash or the steering wheel hub where the label will be clearly visible

to the driver. NHTSA is not allowing the label to be a hang tag from

the rearview mirror, however. NHTSA is concerned that this location

would cause visibility concerns during a test drive and the label would

very likely be removed from the vehicle before it reaches the

purchaser.

NHTSA is also relaxing the requirement that the label be

``affixed,'' so that manufacturers do not need to use adhesives.

Manufacturers would be allowed to use other means of attaching the

label to the dash, such as clips in available openings.

After reviewing the comments and the second round of focus group

results, the agency has decided that the text of the new removable

label will read:

Children Can be KILLED or INJURED by Passenger Air Bag.

The back seat is the safest place for children 12 and under.

Make sure all children use seat belts or child seats.

The second round of focus groups examined three alternative

versions of removable labels that differed in some respect from the

text of the proposed label. For two of the new alternatives, the

changes moved the statement ``make sure all children wear seat belts''

to the end of the label and added the phrase ``or child seats.'' Some

commenters indicated that the original statement might lead people to

use seat belts for children that should be in child seats. The message

was changed so that the warning about the possibility of death or

injury is not limited to unbelted children or children in rear-facing

child seats. Finally, a statement that the back seat is safest was

added. The third alternative removable label tested in these focus

groups used the language suggested by the Parent's Coalition for Air

Bag Warnings (``WARNING. Do not seat children in the front passenger

seat. Air bag deployment can cause serious injury or death to

children.'').

The focus groups preferred the label design that began, ``WARNING--

Children can be KILLED or INJURED by Passenger Air Bag.'' The

participants indicated that this was ``more informative'' than the

proposed removable label and that the message was ``quick and to the

point.'' Again, some participants thought this language was

``strident'' and ``scary,'' but the participants nearly unanimously

agreed that this opening would induce people to read the rest of the

label to learn more about the problem. NHTSA is adopting this as the

first line of the removable label required by this rule.

The next line of this removable label explains that ``The back seat

is the safest place for children 12 and under.'' This language was

suggested in the comments of National Safe Kids Campaign. NHTSA has

added an age definition to more clearly explain the meaning of the word

``children,'' as suggested by the focus groups in San Diego and

Chicago. The final line in the label advises ``Make sure all children

use seat belts or child seats.''

The label suggested by the Parents' Coalition was the second choice

of the focus group participants. It was the preferred choice for those

participants who found the ``children can be killed'' message too

strident. However, a number of participants reacted by saying the

opening ``Do not seat children in the front passenger seat'' was ``too

preachy'' and that they ``didn't like someone telling them what to

do.'' Others observed that they might not even read the second sentence

about air bags causing serious injury or death, because the opening

sentence here does not ``draw you into'' the label. The participants

agreed that both the Parents' Coalition label and the label required in

this rule convey essentially the same message. However, the focus group

participants found the required label conveyed the message more

effectively for them.

XI. Child Seat Label

NHTSA proposed to require the enhanced warning label on a rear-

facing child seat to be affixed in the area where a child's head would

rest. Many commenters stated that this location would not be so visible

as the area on the cushion adjacent to where the head would rest.

Commenters noted that many parents place the child in the seat before

placing the seat in a vehicle, and therefore the warning would not be

visible when placing the seat in the vehicle. Commenters also expressed

concern with durability in this area or with the possibility that the

label could irritate a child's head. Child seat manufacturers were also

concerned that the prominence of this label would lead

[[Page 60214]]

users to conclude ``falsely'' that this warning was more important than

other warnings.

NHTSA is requiring that an enhanced child seat warning label be

placed on the upper portion of the child seat cushion. While NHTSA

agrees that other issues are important, at this time, the air bag

warning is the most important issue to communicate to consumers.

However, NHTSA will allow some flexibility in the location on the

cushion. The label can be either where the child's head rests or

adjacent to that area. The purpose of the new location is to ensure

that parents see the label each time they place the seat in a vehicle.

This modification may make the label more visible and will ease some of

the burden on child seat manufacturers.

The recent focus groups tested new versions of this label. The

focus groups tested two new labels: (1) a label with the ISO pictogram,

and the ANSI color scheme, except that the heading had a yellow

background, and (2) a label with the Chrysler pictogram, the ANSI color

scheme, and an additional line of text that the back seat is the safest

place for children. The focus groups preferred the latter version of

the label, if the heading were yellow instead of orange.

Based on the comments and focus groups results, the message of the

new label will read:

WARNING:

DO NOT place rear-facing child seat on front seat with air bag.

DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY can occur.

The back seat is the safest place for children 12 and under.

XII. Letters to Owners of Existing Vehicles

NHTSA is aware that some manufacturers intend to send letters to

current owners of vehicles with passenger-side air bags. These letters

may include copies of the new warning labels. NHTSA encourages

manufacturers to do this.

The warning labels now on vehicles were put on in compliance with

Standard No. 208. Thus, vehicle owners or others might wonder whether

placing a new warning label over the existing warning label would be a

violation of the statutory prohibition against ``making inoperative''

items, including labels, installed in compliance with a safety

standard. NHTSA would like to assure the public that no statutory

prohibition would be violated by placing a new warning label over an

existing warning label. Obviously, there is no violation if a person

decides to do this to his or her own vehicle, because the Federal

prohibition does not apply to owners of vehicles, but only to

commercial businesses like manufacturers, dealers, and repair

businesses. If a manufacturer, dealer, or repair shop were to place a

new warning label over the existing warning labels, that act would not

constitute a ``making inoperative'' violation. NHTSA has long said

that, with respect to a safety standard requirement that has changed

since a vehicle was manufactured, modifying the vehicle so that it no

longer complies with the requirement in effect when the vehicle was

manufactured is not a violation of this prohibition if the modification

brings the vehicle into compliance with the requirement currently in

effect. Thus, commercial businesses do not need to be concerned about

potential violations of this prohibition.

The NHTSA focus groups indicated that the inclusion of a label in a

letter from a vehicle manufacturer would increase significantly the

likelihood that they would read the letter. Based on this, NHTSA

strongly encourages manufacturers to consider including labels with any

letters they may send existing owners. The letter will give the

manufacturers an additional opportunity to inform the public about this

problem and to offer more detailed advice than can be expressed on a

label.

XIII. Leadtime and Costs

NHTSA proposed to require the new or enhanced vehicle labels for

vehicles manufactured on or after a date 60 days after publication of

the final rule. The agency also proposed that enhanced labels be

affixed to all child restraints that can be used in a rear-facing

position and that are manufactured on or after a date 180 days after

publication of the final rule. This longer lead time for child seat

manufacturers was an acknowledgment that these manufacturers will have

to change their manufacturing process to include some means of

permanently labeling the padding or cushion, something they do not do

presently, to the best of the agency's knowledge.

No child seat manufacturers asked for longer leadtime. Therefore,

NHTSA is adopting the proposed leadtime of 180 days after publication

of this final rule.

Most vehicle manufacturers asked for longer leadtime, ranging from

90 to 180 days. NHTSA has decided to allow 90 days leadtime for vehicle

labels. The proposed 60 day leadtime reflected NHTSA's desire for

expedited action on this issue. Both suppliers and manufacturers have

said that 60 days is not feasible. The adopted leadtime is at the low

end of the estimates of feasible leadtime from the commenters. Because

NHTSA has decided not to adopt one of the proposed labels, the leadtime

needed by manufacturers should be reduced. In view of the immediate

need to alert the public to the adverse effects of air bags on

children, NHTSA finds that a lead time of less than 180 days is in the

public interest.

Finally, to encourage the earliest possible installation of the new

enhanced labels, NHTSA is allowing manufacturers to install the new

labels before the required date.

NHTSA estimates that the total incremental costs of the vehicle

labels will be $0.11 to $0.35 per vehicle. Based on an estimated 15

million passenger cars and light trucks sold annually, the cost of this

rule will be $1.65 to $5.25 million. For the child seat label, NHTSA

estimates that the total incremental costs will be $0.30 to $0.60 per

child seat. Based on an estimate that 3.9 million of the 5.1 million

child restraints sold annually are capable of being used rear-facing,

the annual cost of this rule will be $1.17 to $2.34 million. Thus, the

total cost of this rule is estimated to be $2.82 to $7.59 million

annually. A complete discussion of the agency's cost estimate can be

found in the Final Regulatory Evaluation placed in the docket for this

rulemaking.

XIV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under

E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies

and procedures. This rulemaking document was reviewed under E.O. 12866,

``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This action has been determined to

be ``significant'' under the Department of Transportation's regulatory

policies and procedures. This action is considered significant because

of the degree of public interest in this subject. This action is not

economically significant. The total cost of this rule is estimated to

be $2.82 to $7.59 million annually. A complete discussion of the

agency's cost estimate can be found in the Final Regulatory Evaluation

placed in the docket for this rulemaking.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this final rule under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this rule will not

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities. This final rule affects motor vehicle manufacturers and child

seat manufacturers. Almost all motor vehicle manufacturers do not

qualify as small

[[Page 60215]]

businesses. The agency knows of eight manufacturers of child seats, two

of which NHTSA considers to be small business. However, since this rule

involves only labeling changes, the rule will not have any significant

economic impact.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-

511), there are no requirements for information collection associated

with this final rule.

D. National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has also analyzed this final rule under the National

Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have a

significant impact on the human environment.

E. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

NHTSA has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that this rule

will not have significant federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

F. Civil Justice Reform

This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under 49

U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in

effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable

to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal

standard, except to the extent that the State requirement imposes a

higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for

the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial

review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor

vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a

petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before

parties may file suit in court.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 571 is amended as

follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

1. The authority citation for Part 571 of Title 49 continues to

read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

2. Section 571.208 is amended by redesignating S4.5.1(e) as

S4.5.1(f), by revising S4.5.1, S4.5.1(b) and S4.5.1(c), and by adding a

new S4.5.1(e) and a new S4.5.5, to read as follows:

Sec. 571.208 Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

* * * * *

S4.5.1 Labeling and owner's manual information. The labels

specified in S4.5.1(b), (c), and (e) of this standard are not required

for vehicles that have a smart passenger air bag meeting the criteria

specified in S4.5.5 of this standard.

(a) * * *

(b) Sun visor warning label.

(1) Vehicles manufactured before February 25, 1997. Each vehicle

shall comply with either S4.5.1(b)(1)(i) or S4.5.1(b)(1)(ii), and with

S4.5.1(b)(1)(iii). At the manufacturer's option, the vehicle may comply

with the requirements of S4.5.1(b)(2), instead of the requirements of

S4.5.1(b)(1).

(i) Each front outboard seating position that provides an

inflatable restraint shall have a label permanently affixed to the sun

visor for that seating position on either side of the sun visor, at the

manufacturer's option. Except as provided in S4.5.1(b)(1)(v), this

label shall read:

CAUTION--TO AVOID SERIOUS INJURY:

For maximum safety protection in all types of crashes, you must

always wear your safety belt.

Do not install rearward-facing child seats in any front

passenger seat position.

Do not sit or lean unnecessarily close to the air bag.

Do not place any objects over the air bag or between the air bag

and yourself.

See the owner's manual for further information and explanations.

(ii) If the vehicle is equipped with a cutoff device permitted by

S4.5.4 of this standard, each front outboard seating position that

provides an inflatable restraint shall have a label permanently affixed

to the sun visor for such seating position on either side of the sun

visor, at the manufacturer's option. Except as provided in

S4.5.1(b)(1)(v), this label shall read:

CAUTION--TO AVOID SERIOUS INJURY:

For maximum safety protection in all types of crashes, you must

always wear your safety belt.

Do not install rearward-facing child seats in any front

passenger seat position, unless the air bag is off.

Do not sit or lean unnecessarily close to the air bag.

Do not place any objects over the air bag or between the air bag

and yourself.

See the owner's manual for further information and explanations.

(iii) The coloring of the label shall contrast with the background

of the label.

(iv) If the vehicle does not have an inflatable restraint at any

front seating position other than that for the driver, the statement

``Do not install rearward-facing child seats in any front passenger

seat position'' may be omitted from the label.

(v) At the manufacturer's option, the word ``warning'' may replace

the word ``caution'' in the labels specified in S4.5.1(b)(1)(i) and

S4.5.1(b)(1)(ii).

(2) Vehicles manufactured on or after February 25, 1997. Each

vehicle shall have a label permanently affixed to either side of the

sun visor, at the manufacturer's option, at each front outboard seating

position that is equipped with an inflatable restraint. The label shall

conform in content to the label shown in either Figure 6a or 6b of this

standard, as appropriate, and shall comply with the requirements of

S4.5.1(b)(2)(i) through S4.5.1(b)(2)(iii).

(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.

(3) Except for the information on an air bag maintenance label

placed on the visor pursuant to S4.5.1(a) of this standard, no other

information shall appear on the same side of the sun visor to which the

sun visor warning label is affixed. Except for the information in an

air bag alert label placed on the visor pursuant to S4.5.1(c) of this

standard, or in a utility vehicle label that contains the language

required by 49 CFR 575.105(c)(1), no other information about air bags

or the need to wear seat belts shall appear anywhere on the sun visor.

(c) Air bag alert label--(1) Vehicles manufactured before February

25, 1997. If the label required by S4.5.1(b)(1) for a sun visor (other

than the sun visor for the driver seating position) is not visible when

the sun visor is in the stowed position, an air bag alert label shall

be permanently affixed either to that visor so that the label is

visible when the visor is in that position or to the cover of the air

bag for that seating position, at the option of the manufacturer. An

air bag alert label affixed to an air bag cover pursuant to this

paragraph shall read ``Air Bag. See Sun Visor.'' An air bag alert label

affixed to a sun visor pursuant to this paragraph shall read ``Air Bag.

See Other Side.'' The color of the label shall contrast with the

background of the label. If a manufacturer chooses to comply with

[[Page 60216]]

the requirements of S4.5.1(b)(2) rather than the requirements of

S4.5.1(b)(1), the air bag alert label shall comply with the

requirements of S4.5.1(c)(2).

(2) Vehicles manufactured on or after February 25, 1997. If the

label required by S4.5.1(b)(2) is not visible when the sun visor is in

the stowed position, an air bag alert label shall be permanently

affixed to that visor so that the label is visible when the visor is in

that position. The label shall conform in content to the sun visor

label shown in Figure 6c of this standard, and shall comply with the

requirements of S4.5.1(c)(2)(i) and S4.5.1(c)(2)(ii).

(i) The message area shall be black with yellow text. The message

area shall be no less than 20 square cm.

(ii) The pictogram shall be black with a red circle and slash on a

white background. The pictogram shall be no less than 20 mm in

diameter.

* * * * *

(e) Label on the dash. Each vehicle manufactured on or after

February 25, 1997 that is equipped with an inflatable restraint for the

passenger position shall have a label attached to a location on the

dashboard or the steering wheel hub that is clearly visible from all

front seating positions. The label need not be permanently affixed to

the vehicle. This label shall conform in content to the label shown in

Figure 7 of this standard, and shall comply with the requirements of

S4.5.1(e)(2)(i) and S4.5.1(e)(2)(ii).

(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.

* * * * *

S4.5.5 Smart passenger air bags. For purposes of this standard, a

smart passenger air bag is a passenger air bag that:

(a) Provides an automatic means to ensure that the air bag does not

deploy when a child seat or child with a total mass of 30 kg or less is

present on the front outboard passenger seat, or

(b) Incorporates sensors, other than or in addition to weight

sensors, which automatically prevent the air bag from deploying in

situations in which it might have an adverse effect on infants in rear-

facing child seats, and unbelted or improperly belted children, or

(c) Is designed to deploy in a manner that does not create a risk

of serious injury to infants in rear-facing child seats, and unbelted

or improperly belted children.

* * * * *

3. Section 571.208 is amended by adding new figures 6a, 6b, 6c, and

7 at the end of the section as follows:

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 60217]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27NO96.010

[[Page 60218]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27NO96.011

[[Page 60219]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27NO96.012

[[Page 60220]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27NO96.013

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

4. Section 571.213 is amended by adding S5.5.2(k) introductory

text' and adding a new section S5.5.2(k)(4) to read as follows:

Sec. 571.213 Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems.

* * * * *

S5.5.2

* * * * *

(k) At the manufacturer's option, child restraint systems that can

be used in a rear-facing position may comply with the requirements of

S5.5.2(k)(4), instead of the requirements of S5.5.2(k)(1)(ii) or

S5.5.2(k)(2)(ii).

(1) * * *

* * * * *

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

a rear-facing position and is manufactured on or after May 27, 1997,

instead of the warning specified in S5.5.2(k)(1)(ii) or

S5.5.2(k)(2)(ii) of this standard, a label that conforms in content to

Figure 10 and to the requirements of S5.5.2(k)(4)(i) through

S5.5.2(k)(4)(iii) of this standard shall be permanently affixed to the

outer surface of the cushion or padding in or adjacent to the area

where a child's head would 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.

* * * * *

5. Section 571.213 is amended by adding a new figure 10 at the end

of the section as follows:

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 60221]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27NO96.014

Issued on November 22, 1996.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96-30362 Filed 11-22-96; 4:01 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C