Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection |
|---|
| Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
Barry Felrice
[Federal Register: October 7, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 74-14; Notice 92]
RIN 2127-AF30
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to allow manufacturers the option of
installing a manual device that motorists could use to deactivate the
front passenger-side air bag in a vehicle without rear seats for the
purpose of allowing them to place rear-facing infant restraints in the
front seat. NHTSA research indicates that rear-facing infant restraints
should not be placed in the front seat of a vehicle equipped with a
passenger-side air bag. This poses a problem because manufacturers are
beginning to install, and soon will be required to install, passenger-
side air bags in passenger cars and light trucks, some of which have
only front seats.
DATES: Comment Dates: Comments must be received by December 6, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice number of
this notice and be submitted to: Docket Section, Room 5109, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590. (Docket Room hours are 9:30 a.m.-4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Daniel Cohen, Chief, Frontal Crash
Protection Division, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NRM-12,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2264.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
This notice proposes to allow manufacturers the option of
installing a manual device (hereafter referred to as a ``cutoff
device'') that motorists could use to deactivate the front passenger
air bag in a vehicle without rear seats for the purpose of allowing
them to place rear-facing infant restraints in the front seat. (``Rear-
facing infant restraint,'' as used in this notice, 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.) NHTSA is
issuing this proposal because one particular type of child restraint,
i.e., a rear-facing infant restraint, should not be placed in the front
seat of a vehicle equipped with a passenger air bag. This poses a
problem because manufacturers are beginning to install, and soon will
be required to install, passenger air bags in vehicles, some of which
have only front seats.
On September 2, 1993, NHTSA published a final rule amending
Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, to specify that
manufacturers must install air bags to satisfy the standard's automatic
crash protection requirements (58 FR 46551). This rule was required by
49 U.S.C. 30127 (recently codified and previously cited as Section 2508
of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991). These
requirements for driver and passenger air bags are phased-in for both
passenger cars and other vehicles. The phase-in percentage for
passenger cars is 95 percent by model year 1997, and all passenger cars
beginning with model year 1998. The phase-in percentage for trucks,
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (other than walk-in van-type
trucks and vehicles designed to be exclusively sold to the United
States Postal Service) with a gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500
pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less
(collectively referred to as ``light trucks'' throughout the remainder
of this preamble) is 80 percent by model year 1998 and all light trucks
beginning with model year 1999.
NHTSA has already released several documents and completed several
rulemaking actions addressing the air bag/infant restraint interaction
problem. Based on the preliminary results of the testing done regarding
this problem, NHTSA issued a Consumer Advisory on December 10, 1991,
warning owners of rear-facing infant restraints not to use such a
restraint in the front seat of a vehicle equipped with a passenger air
bag.
Since issuing the 1991 Consumer Advisory, NHTSA has intensified its
efforts to work closely and cooperatively with interested parties on
this issue. For example, NHTSA has worked to bring about a better
understanding of rear-facing infant restraint/air bag interaction
through the auspices of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and
its technical committees on child safety issues. As a result of mutual
concerns on the part of government and industry, the SAE was able to
publish consensus guidelines dealing broadly with the interaction of
child restraint systems (including rear-facing infant restraints) and
air bags. The agency worked with State and local governments to
disseminate the information about the latest, mutually arrived at,
recommendations concerning rear-facing infant restraint/air bag
interaction. NHTSA has also worked with the American Academy of
Pediatrics (AAP), a group of doctors who specialize in the care of
children. As a result, the AAP has disseminated the warnings about air
bags and rear-facing infant restraints to its 40,000 members through
its newsletter and Family Shopping Guide for Car Seats.
In addition, the agency has reemphasized its commitment to
educating the public on this issue. In April 1992, the agency reissued
its Consumer Information Bulletin, ``Transporting Your Children
Safely.'' This bulletin provides several pages of guidelines on the use
of child restraints in vehicles, including a chart depicting the
optimum restraint type for various sizes and weights for children. For
example, the bulletin recommends that from birth to 9-12 months or 20
pounds, a rear-facing infant restraint be used. The bulletin also
states: ``Rear-facing child safety seats should always go in the rear
seat in cars equipped with passenger-side air bags.''
In October 1992, based on the final results of the testing
mentioned above, NHTSA published a final report describing child
restraint/passenger air bag interactions (Child Restraint/Passenger Air
Bag Interaction Strategies, DOT HS 808-004, October 1992). The report
concluded that rear-facing infant restraints should not be placed in
the front seat of a vehicle with a passenger air bag.
In response to the October 1992 final report, NHTSA amended several
safety standards to require warnings concerning the interaction of air
bags and rear-facing infant restraints. In the September 1993 final
rule, as described above, the agency required that specified
information, including information about the proper placement of rear-
facing infant restraints, be placed on labels in vehicles equipped with
air bags. This warning label must be on the sun visor of any vehicle
equipped with an air bag manufactured after September 1, 1994. It also
required that additional, more detailed information about air bags be
provided in the owner's manual. Consumers were again cautioned by the
Department not to use rear-facing infant restraints in seating
positions protected by air bags in an October 28, 1993 news release.
On February 16, 1994, the agency took a further step to try to
alert parents to the issue of air bag/rear-facing infant restraint
interaction. It published in the Federal Register a final rule amending
Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (59 FR 7643). The amended
Standard No. 213 requires that the warning label for a rear-facing
infant restraint include a warning against using the restraint in any
vehicle seating position equipped with an air bag. It also requires
that the printed instructions for a rear-facing infant restraint
include safety information about air bags.
Believing that steps in addition to providing consumers with
information were needed, members of the American Automobile
Manufacturers Association (AAMA) met with NHTSA on January 24, 1994.
AAMA asked for the meeting to explore the possibility of installing an
air bag cutoff device to allow rear-facing infant restraints to be
placed in air bag-equipped passenger seating positions. AAMA
representatives discussed the general concept of an air bag cutoff
device, which could be either automatic or manual. However, the
representatives emphasized that the industry is not quite ready to
install automatic devices because automatic cutoff technology is not
yet ready for production. At the meeting, AAMA asked whether Standard
No. 208 would permit such devices and, if not permitted, whether the
agency would consider initiating rulemaking to permit such devices.
II. Scope of this Notice
NHTSA is concerned that despite its efforts to provide warnings to
not place an infant in a rear-facing infant restraint in the right
front seat of a vehicle that has a passenger air bag, these warnings
will provide minimal benefit if a parent chooses to transport his/her
infant in a vehicle that is physically unable to accommodate a child
any place other than the front seat, e.g., a vehicle that has no rear
seat. Examples of such vehicles are a two-seater sports car and a light
duty truck with only a front seat. It is exclusively for this minority
of vehicles that this notice is intended. NHTSA believes that allowing
manufacturers the option to install a manual cutoff device would not
unduly diminish the ability of these vehicles to provide crash
protection to the adult population and would avoid the potential
problem of air bag/infant seat interaction.
III. Legality of Air Bag Cutoff Devices
After the January 1994 meeting with AAMA, the agency examined
whether Standard No. 208 currently permits a vehicle to be equipped
with an air bag cutoff device.
Standard No. 208 currently requires the front outboard seating
positions in passenger cars and light trucks to be equipped with
automatic crash protection systems which protect their occupants by
means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the
automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is
determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with
specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph
barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection
currently offered are automatic safety belts (whose automatic nature
helps to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts
and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). The
September 1993 final rule will require manufacturers to comply with the
automatic crash protection requirements by installing air bags.
Two types of cutoff devices are possible. The first type involves
manual technology such as an ``on-off'' switch to disable the operation
of the passenger air bag by moving the switch to the ``OFF'' position.
To reactivate, the switch is then moved to the ``ON'' position. This
reactivation may take place manually or it may occur automatically,
e.g., after deactivation the system reactivates the next time that the
ignition is turned on or when a door is opened. The second type of
cutoff device is one that automatically deactivates and reactivates the
air bag.
In past agency interpretations of the safety standards, NHTSA has
stated that if (1) there are two possible conditions during a
compliance test (e.g., whether a particular device is in the ``ON'' or
``OFF'' position), and (2) the standard does not specify which test
condition is to be used, and (3) the language of the standard as a
whole and the standard's purpose do not imply a limit that would make
one of those conditions inappropriate, there is a presumption that the
requirements have to be met in both test conditions.
With regard to automatic cutoff devices, the agency expects that
manufacturers would design these devices so that they would
automatically ensure that the front passenger air bag is activated
during the barrier crash test because a 50th percentile adult male
dummy is in the seat. Thus, there would not be two possible test
conditions under those circumstances. Therefore, if so designed,
automatic cutoff devices would be allowed by Standard No. 208.
With regard to manual cutoff devices, two test conditions are
possible. In one, the device is in the ``ON'' position and the air bag
is deactivated. In the other, the device is in the ``OFF'' position and
the air bag is activated. The position of a cutoff device is not
specified in Standard No. 208, so the presumption arises that the
Standard must be met regardless of whether the device is in the ``ON''
or ``OFF'' position.
However, before reaching such a conclusion, the agency considers
the language and purpose of the standard to see if any limits on the
test condition are implied. In the past, the agency has found such
limits when one or more of the possible conditions could not occur
under normal driving conditions. The purpose of Standard No. 208 is for
a vehicle to provide automatic protection for vehicle occupants at all
times when the vehicle is operating. Therefore, if the cutoff device
could be used when the vehicle is being operated, there is no implied
limit on the position of the device during the test. Since the injury
criteria presumably would not be met when the air bag has been
deactivated, the device would result in a noncompliance with Standard
No. 208. Therefore, the agency concludes that manual cutoff devices are
not currently permitted by Standard No. 208.
The above conclusion about manual cutoff devices applies only to
vehicles that comply with the automatic protection requirement by means
of air bags. If a vehicle is voluntarily equipped with air bags, as
some light trucks are, the installation of a manual cutoff device is
permitted.
IV. Decision to Allow Manual Cutoff Devices
NHTSA believes that a regulatory dilemma now exists because drivers
of two-seater vehicles, i.e., vehicles which have no designated rear
seating positions, might be forced to ignore the cautions against
placing an infant in the front seat. Although some manufacturers may be
able to devise an air bag system that would accommodate an infant in a
rear-facing infant restraint placed in close proximity to the dashboard
of a vehicle equipped with a passenger air bag, concerns voiced by the
AAMA indicate that, in general, most vehicle manufacturers are
concerned that existing air bag designs do not currently provide the
special type of protection needed to avoid injury to infants in rear-
facing infant restraints placed on the front seat.
Because the automatic technologies now under consideration appear
too immature for immediate application to the problem, the agency is
proposing to amend Standard No. 208 to permit a manual cutoff device.
NHTSA has concluded that manual cutoff devices should be optional; they
should not be mandated. A mandatory installation requirement could
penalize manufacturers that have produced, or intend to produce, a
passenger air bag that is not harmful to infants in rear-facing infant
restraints. The agency believes that a mandatory requirement would
needlessly stifle innovations and could impede future advances in air
bag technology. In addition, the agency believes that some vehicles
with only one row of seats may allow the seat to be moved far enough
rearward so that the combination of air bag type and design and vehicle
seat position does not pose a threat to a child in a rear-facing infant
restraint. Thus, a cutoff device would not be necessary in the vehicle.
V. Details of Proposal
A. Affected Vehicles
NHTSA is proposing to allow manual cutoff devices in passenger cars
and light trucks since, as noted above, these vehicles are required to
have passenger air bags by the late 1990s. NHTSA has also tentatively
concluded that manual cutoff devices should be allowed only in
passenger cars and light trucks which do not have forward-facing rear
seats. If vehicles are equipped with at least one rear seating
position, that position can be used for a rear-facing infant restraint.
Even in vehicles without air bags, NHTSA recommends the rear seat as
the optimum location for any child restraint. Accordingly, NHTSA does
not believe that manual cutoff devices should be allowed in vehicles
with a forward-facing rear seat.
B. Means of Activation
NHTSA is proposing to require the use of a key to activate the
cutoff device. This would make the device simple and easy to use, but
still require conscious thought and deliberate action on the part of
the user. The agency is proposing use of the ignition key to ensure
that the driver of the vehicle is the person most likely to activate
the cutoff device, and thereby minimize the likelihood of accidental
activation. This approach is similar to that used in Standard No. 118,
Power Operated Window, Partition and Roof Panel Systems, to ensure the
safe operation of electrically operated devices. NHTSA requests
comments on mandating the use of the ignition key.
NHTSA requests comments on other means that would guard against the
inadvertent deactivation of the air bag, while avoiding the possible
complexity or inconvenience of the ignition key based approach.
Examples of other means include a separate key from the ignition key,
``keyless'' entry technology responding to personal identification
numbers, the use of ``protected'' switches that require removing or re-
positioning a special safety cap in two or more steps, or other such
devices. NHTSA will consider all comments regarding the means to
deactivate the passenger air bag, and will adopt the most practicable
approach possible which is consistent with the philosophy that the
device be as simple and easy to use as possible, consistent with the
goal of preventing inadvertent deactivation.
C. Air Bag Reactivation
NHTSA is proposing to require that manual cutoff devices be
designed so that, once the cutoff device has been used to deactivate
the air bag, the air bag will remain deactivated until it is manually
reactivated. Mandating manual reactivation would ensure that once an
air bag has been deactivated for the safety of an infant being
transported in a rear-facing child restraint in the front seat, it
would remain deactivated for subsequent trips with the child. NHTSA is
concerned, for example, that if it instead allowed a manually
deactivated air bag to be automatically reactivated, motorists making
stop-and-go shopping trips with infants might forget, after making one
of their stops, that the air bag has been automatically reactivated and
needs to be manually deactivated again. The infants would then be at
risk if the vehicles were involved in crashes that deployed the air
bags.
At the same time, the agency is concerned that the air bag be
operational whenever it is needed by a non-infant occupant. In an
attempt to ensure that air bag protection would be ready when needed,
NHTSA also proposes to require a yellow warning light which would be
clearly visible to the driver and any adult passenger (see Section D,
Warning Light, below). It would illuminate the words, ``AIR BAG OFF,''
whenever the air bag has been manually deactivated. This warning light
would serve as a reminder that the cutoff device should be reset
whenever the vehicle is no longer carrying an infant.
Notwithstanding its proposal to require that manually deactivated
air bags reactivate by manual means only, NHTSA requests comments on
whether it should address the problem of ensuring both infant and non-
infant safety by mandating that a manually deactivated air bag be
automatically reactivated upon the occurrence of some subsequent event.
The subsequent event that triggers the automatic reactivation of the
air bag could be the next restarting of the vehicle. However, such a
design could pose an unnecessary burden and risk in the example given
above of motorists making stop-and-go shopping trips. The motorists
must restart their vehicles numerous times on such trips. The
combination of that fact and the automatic reactivation of the air bag
each time the vehicles are restarted would multiply the occasions on
which the motorists might forget to protect their infants by
deactivating the air bag. To address this problem, NHTSA requests
comments on whether, if it were to adopt a requirement for automatic
reactivation, it should qualify that requirement further, by requiring
that the air bag be reactivated only when the restarting of the vehicle
occurs after the ignition has been off for more than some minimum
period, perhaps a period of several hours.
The ultimate decision whether to mandate manual or automatic
reactivation of the air bag will depend in large measure on the
agency's assessment of the relative effects of each method of
reactivation on the safety of the infant and non-infant occupants of
the front right passenger seating position in the vehicles affected by
this rulemaking. Using data from the National Accident Sampling System
(NASS) and Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS), the agency has
attempted to quantify the potential safety trade-offs in its
preliminary regulatory evaluation for this rulemaking. NHTSA seeks
comments and information that would enable the agency to refine its
estimates of those trade-offs.
D. Warning Light
NHTSA is proposing to require a telltale light on the dashboard
that is clearly visible from both the driver and front passenger
seating positions and that is illuminated whenever the passenger air
bag has been deactivated by means of the cutoff device. This light
would be separate from the air bag readiness indicator already required
by Standard No. 208. NHTSA is proposing that the color of the telltale
be yellow, with the words ``AIR BAG OFF'' clearly visible on the
telltale when the passenger side air bag has been deactivated.
NHTSA believes that the indicator should be visible to the driver
as a reminder that the passenger air bag is, or is not, functioning.
NHTSA believes that the indicator should be also visible from the
passenger seating position as a warning to non-infant occupants that
they are not protected by their air bag.
While the agency is requiring a warning light that is visible to
the passenger, its effectiveness may be limited by whether a passenger
actually looks at, or for, the light, and understands its message. The
agency seeks comment on whether a supplemental or additional warning
for passengers would minimize instances in which the air bag was
unintentionally not reactivated.
NHTSA is concerned that the level of illumination should be
consistent with the ambient light condition, and is therefore requiring
that the warning light indicator provide at least two levels of
brightness, one of which is barely discernible to a driver who has
adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions. In addition, NHTSA is
specifying that the warning light indicator shall not be adjustable
under any driving condition to a level that is invisible.
E. Air Bag Readiness Indicator
Currently, S4.5.2 of FMVSS No. 208 requires that every vehicle
equipped with an air bag also be equipped with an air bag readiness
indicator that informs the driver about the operational status of the
air bag system. Specifically, S4.5.2 states:
An occupant protection system that deploys in the event of a
crash shall have a monitoring system with a readiness indicator. The
indicator shall monitor its own readiness and shall be clearly
visible from the driver's designated seating position. * * *
NHTSA is not aware of any manufacturer which complies with this
requirement by installing separate readiness indicators, one for the
driver air bag and another for the passenger air bag. If a single
readiness indicator for two air bags were used on a vehicle with an air
bag cutoff device, the indicator would indicate the non-functioning of
an air bag whenever the passenger air bag was deactivated. NHTSA is
concerned that, under those circumstances, the driver would have no
means of knowing the operational status of the driver air bag. NHTSA
considered proposing to amend S4.5.2 to require separate readiness
indicators for the driver and passenger side air bags. Instead, NHTSA
is proposing to amend S4.5.2 to limit the operation of a single
readiness indicator when the cutoff device is ``on'' so that the
indicator monitors only the air bag that is not deactivated, i.e., the
driver air bag. When the cutoff device is ``off,'' the passenger air
bag would be activated, and the readiness indicator would monitor the
readiness of both the driver air bag and the passenger air bag.
F. Owner's Manual
NHTSA is also proposing to require that manufacturers include
information concerning the cutoff device in the owner's manual. NHTSA
is not proposing specific language which must be included in the
owner's manual. NHTSA is proposing to require the owner's manual to
include instructions on the operation of the cutoff device, a statement
that the cutoff device should only be used when a rear-facing infant
restraint is installed in the front passenger seating position, and a
warning about the safety consequences of using the cutoff device at
other times.
G. Labels
Currently, Standard No. 208 requires that by September 1, 1994, air
bag-equipped vehicles will bear a label on the sun visor that warns, in
part:
DO NOT INSTALL REARWARD-FACING CHILD SEATS IN ANY FRONT PASSENGER SEAT
POSITION
Also, Standard No. 213 has been amended to require either of the
following labels on rear-facing infant seats or on child restraints
that can be converted for use in a rear-facing infant mode:
WARNING: PLACE THIS RESTRAINT IN A VEHICLE SEAT THAT DOES NOT HAVE AN
AIR BAG
or
WARNING: WHEN YOUR BABY'S SIZE REQUIRES THAT THIS RESTRAINT BE USED SO
THAT YOUR BABY FACES THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE, PLACE THE RESTRAINT IN A
VEHICLE SEAT THAT DOES NOT HAVE AN AIR BAG
The first warning is to be used for child seats that are rear-facing
only, and the second warning is to be used for infant seats that
convert from forward-facing to rear-facing.
NHTSA has tentatively concluded that the language of these labels need
not be amended. Manufacturers of child restraint systems are required
to state in the printed instructions accompanying the restraint that
the safest location for any child restraint is in the rear seat,
regardless of whether the vehicle has an air bag. In addition, NHTSA is
concerned that changing the language to clarify that the warning does
not apply when the air bag can be deactivated will lessen the impact of
the message on the public. Since not all vehicles may be equipped with
cutoff devices, NHTSA is concerned that the result of lessening the
impact of the message would be the placement of an infant in a seating
position with an air bag that cannot be deactivated.
VI. Phase-out of Manual Cutoff Devices
The agency has tentatively concluded that use of manual cutoff
devices should not be permitted indefinitely. The agency has also
tentatively concluded that vehicles with air bags having manual cutoff
devices should not be counted toward compliance with the phase-in for
air bags. Further, manual cutoff devices should be prohibited in all
passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1997, and all
light trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1998. These are the
dates on which 100 percent compliance is required by 49 U.S.C. 30127.
To implement these proposals, NHTSA would amend S4.1.5.1(b)'s
definition of an ``inflatable restraint system,'' a term used in the
paragraphs relating to the air bag requirements, to state that it does
not include an air bag that can be deactivated by a manual cutoff
device.
This several year period would give manufacturers time to develop
and introduce automatic devices. Automatic technology would reduce the
potential problem with either intentional or accidental misuse of these
devices to deactivate an air bag at times other than when a rear-facing
infant restraint is in the seat. The agency is optimistic that new
automatic sensing technology will soon be available to deactivate an
air bag in certain situations, or to modify the deployment rate of the
air bag according to the speed of the impact or the distance between
the air bag and the occupant to be protected. NHTSA encourages vehicle
manufacturers and suppliers to continue and accelerate their efforts to
develop such technology.
VII. Automatic Cutoff Devices
As discussed previously, NHTSA has concluded that Standard No. 208
currently allows automatic cutoff devices. NHTSA requests comments on
whether the agency should regulate automatic cutoff devices. As part of
this rulemaking proceeding, NHTSA requests comments on whether any or
all of the proposals in this notice relating to warning lights,
readiness indicators, owner's manuals, and labels should also apply to
vehicles equipped with automatic cutoff devices. NHTSA believes that
the vehicle manufacturers, in developing automatic cutoff devices, will
attempt to guard against the possibility of air bags being
automatically deactivated when they should be providing protection.
Nevertheless, for the purpose of possible future rulemaking, the agency
requests comments on the necessity for NHTSA's taking steps to ensure
that air bag protection remains activated at all appropriate times.
VIII. Consumer Education
The agency actively works with consumer groups to promote child
safety, and has been instrumental in reversing the stance long held by
the American Academy of Pediatrics that infant restraints may be placed
in the front seat. Additional consumer education is a necessary
ingredient toward a successful attainment of the philosophy embodied in
this rulemaking. Toward that end, NHTSA will work actively with the
interested parties to further promote infant safety and to minimize any
risk to infants from passenger side air bag. NHTSA invites comments in
this important area.
IX. Proposed Effective Date
If adopted, the proposed amendments would become effective 30 days
following publication of the final rule.
X. 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.
Absent this rulemaking, and given a vehicle population in which all
cars and light trucks are equipped with driver and passenger air bags,
an estimated 1,050 air bag deployments a year will occur in pickup
trucks and two-seater vehicles when a front passenger seat is occupied
by an infant in a rear-facing infant seat. The level of the injuries
resulting from these deployments are uncertain, but may well be severe.
In an effort to assess the potential for safety trade-offs resulting
from the failure to reactivate the air bag after it has been
deactivated for the benefit of infant passengers, the agency estimated
that only about one percent of the vehicles which would be permitted to
have a cutoff device are likely to be carrying an infant. If one
assumes for the purpose of analysis that the older occupants of 10
percent of these vehicles did not reactivate the air bag for the
benefit of non-infant passengers, approximately 3 occupants who are at
least one year old may receive AIS 2-5 (survivable) injuries. In
addition, for every one percent of all affected vehicles in which the
older occupants deliberately turn off the air bag, 1-3 fatalities and
23-32 additional injuries could occur each year. Since the agency
believes that the percentage of vehicles in which the passenger air bag
is inadvertently or deliberately deactivated would be fairly small, the
number of infants who would avoid potentially serious injury far
exceeds the number of non-infants who might be injured.
NHTSA estimates that the per vehicle price impact for the addition
of a passenger air bag cutoff device is $10.15 in 1993 dollars. This
cost reflects a cost of $5.15 for the cutoff device and $5.00 for the
light sensor that allows the warning light to have variable levels of
brightness. NHTSA has not estimated the annual costs of this proposal,
as that figure is dependent on the number of vehicles voluntarily
equipped with manual cutoff devices.
A preliminary regulatory evaluation has been prepared for this
rulemaking. A more detailed explanation of the costs and benefits can
be found in that document.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this notice under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. As explained above, NHTSA does not anticipate a
significant economic impact from this rulemaking action.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-
511), there are no requirements for information collection associated
with this proposed rule.
D. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has also analyzed this proposed rule under the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have a
significant impact on the human environment.
E. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
NHTSA has analyzed this proposal in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that this
proposed rule would not have significant federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
F. Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule would 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.
XI. Submission of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal.
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal
will be available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue
to file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket
after the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons
continue to examine the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that 49 CFR Part
571 be amended as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for Part 571 of Title 49 would continue
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 would be amended by revising sections
S4.1.5.1(b) and S4.5.2 and adding new sections S4.5.4 through S4.5.4.4,
to read as follows:
571.208 Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.
* * * * *
S4.1.5.1 Front/angular automatic protection system.
* * * * *
(b) For the purposes of sections S4.1.5 through S4.1.5.3 and S4.2.6
through S4.2.6.2, an inflatable restraint system means an air bag that
is activated in a crash, other than an air bag that can be deactivated
by a manual cutoff device permitted by S4.5.4 of this standard.
* * * * *
S4.5.2 Readiness Indicator. An occupant protection system that
deploys in the event of a crash shall have a monitoring system with a
readiness indicator. The indicator shall monitor its own readiness and
shall be clearly visible from the driver's designated seating position.
If the vehicle is equipped with a single readiness indicator for both a
driver and passenger air bag, and if the vehicle is equipped with a
cutoff device permitted by S4.5.4 of this standard, the readiness
indicator shall monitor only the readiness of the driver air bag when
the passenger air bag has been deactivated by means of the cutoff
device. A list of the elements of the system being monitored by the
indicator shall be included with the information furnished in
accordance with S4.5.1 but need not be included on the label.
* * * * *
S4.5.4 Passenger Air Bag Cutoff Device. Passenger cars, trucks,
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles may be equipped with a
device that deactivates the air bag installed at the right front
passenger position in the vehicle, if all of the conditions in S4.5.4.1
through S4.5.4.4 are satisfied.
S4.5.4.1 The vehicle has no forward-facing designated seating
positions to the rear of the front seating positions.
S4.5.4.2 The device is operable only by means of the ignition key
for the vehicle. The device shall be separate from the ignition switch
for the vehicle, so that the driver must take some action with the
ignition key other than inserting it in the ignition switch to
deactivate the passenger air bag. Once deactivated, the passenger air
bag shall remain deactivated until it is reactivated by means of the
ignition key.
S4.5.4.3 A telltale light on the dashboard shall be clearly visible
from all front seating positions and shall be illuminated whenever the
passenger air bag is deactivated. The telltale:
(a) Shall be yellow;
(b) Shall have the identifying words ``AIR BAG OFF'' on the
telltale;
(c) Shall remain illuminated for the entire time that the passenger
air bag is deactivated;
(d) Shall not be illuminated at any time when the passenger air bag
is not deactivated;
(e) Shall not be combined with the readiness indicator required by
S4.5.2 of this standard; and
(f) Shall be adjustable to provide at least two levels of
brightness, one of which is barely discernable to a driver who has
adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, and shall not be adjustable
under any driving condition to a level that is invisible.
S4.5.4.4 The vehicle owner's manual shall provide, in a readily
understandable format:
(a) Complete instructions on the operation of the cutoff device;
(b) A statement that the cutoff device should only be used when a
rear-facing infant restraint is installed in the front passenger
seating position; and,
(c) A warning about the safety consequences of using the cutoff
device at other times.
* * * * *
Issued on October 3, 1994.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 94-24841 Filed 10-5-94; 12:01 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
|