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 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