Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
Federal RegisterAug 6, 1996
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 74-14; Notice 100]
RIN 2127-AG14
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes amendments to NHTSA's occupant crash
protection standard and child restraint standard to reduce the adverse
effects of air bags, especially those on children. Eventually, either
through market forces or government regulation, NHTSA expects that
smart passenger-side air bags will be installed in passenger cars and
light trucks to mitigate these adverse effects. For purposes of this
document, the agency considers smart air bags to include any system
that automatically prevents an air bag from injuring the two groups of
children that experience has shown to be at special risk from air bags:
infants in rear-facing child seats, and children who are out-of-
position (because they are unbelted or improperly belted) when the air
bag deploys.
The agency is proposing that vehicles without smart passenger-side
air bags would be required to have new, attention-getting warning
labels and permitted to have a manual cutoff switch for the passenger-
side air bag. By limiting the labeling requirement to vehicles without
smart air bags, NHTSA hopes to encourage the introduction of the next
generation of air bags as soon as possible. NHTSA proposes to define
smart air bags broadly to give manufacturers flexibility in making
design choices. The agency is specifically requesting comments
concerning whether it should require installation of smart air bags
and, if so, on what date such a requirement should become effective.
NHTSA is also requesting comments on whether it should, as an
alternative, set a time limit on the provision permitting manual cutoff
switches in order to assure the timely introduction of smart air bags.
NHTSA is also proposing to require rear-facing child seats to bear
new, enhanced warning labels.
Finally, this document discusses the agency's research on other air
bag issues, such as research on technology to reduce arm and other
injuries to drivers.
DATES: Comments must be received by September 20, 1996.
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: For non-legal issues: Stephen R.
Kratzke, Office of Safety Performance Standards, NPS-31, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Kratzke can be reached by telephone at (202)
366-5203 or by fax at (202) 366-4329.
For legal issues: J. Edward Glancy, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-
20, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
SW, Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Glancy can be reached by telephone at
(202) 366-2992 or by fax at (202) 366- 3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Overview and Summary.
II. Existing Requirements for Air Bags.
III. Agency Monitoring of Air Bag Effectiveness.
IV. Actions by NHTSA to Improve Air Bag Safety.
V. November 1995 Request for Comments.
VI. Summary of Comments.
A. Smart Bags.
B. Tag Systems.
C. Improvements to Labeling.
D. Manual Cutoff Switches.
E. Other Issues.
VII. Proposal.
A. Summary.
B. Defining Smart Air Bags.
C. Possibility of Mandating Smart Passenger Air Bags and Timing
of a Mandate.
D. New Warning Label Requirements for Vehicles Which Lack Smart
Passenger-side Air Bags.
1. Child Seat Labels.
2. Label on Passenger-Side End of Vehicle Dash or Door Panel.
3. Label on Sun Visor.
4. Label in the Middle of the Dash Panel.
5. Possible Sun Visor Labeling Requirement for Vehicles With
Smart Passenger-side Air Bags.
6. Leadtime and Costs.
E. Manual Cutoff Switch Option for Vehicles Which Lack Smart
Passenger-side Air Bags.
VIII. Future Agency Considerations.
IX. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices.
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act.
C. National Environmental Policy Act.
D. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism).
E. Civil Justice Reform.
X. Comments.
I. Overview and Summary
While air bags are providing significant overall safety benefits,
NHTSA is very concerned that current designs have adverse effects in
some situations. Of particular concern, NHTSA has identified 21
relatively low speed crashes in which the deployment of the passenger-
side air bag resulted in fatal injuries to a child. NHTSA believes that
these children would not have died if there had been no air bag.
All of these deaths occurred under circumstances in which the
child's upper body was very near the air bag when it deployed. The
children sustained fatal head or neck injuries, as a result of the
deploying air bag. Six of these deaths involved infants in rear-facing
child seats, where the infant's head was located very near the
instrument panel and the air bag. The 15 other children appear to have
been unbelted or improperly belted (e.g., wearing only the lap belt
with the shoulder belt behind them) at the time of the crash. During
pre-impact braking, these children slid or leaned forward so that they
were too close to the instrument panel and air bag at the time of
deployment.
The most direct solution to the problem of child fatalities from
air bags is for children to be properly belted and placed in the back
seat. This necessitates increasing the percentage of children who are
properly restrained by child safety seats and improving the current 67
percent rate of seat belt usage by a combination of methods, including
the encouragement of State primary seat belt laws. The most direct
technical solution to the problem of child fatalities from air bags is
the
[[Page 40785]]
development and installation of smart passenger-side air bags that
automatically protect children from the adverse effects that can occur
from close proximity to a deploying bag. However, until these smart air
bags can be incorporated in production vehicles, behavioral changes
based on improved information and communication of potential hazards
and simpler, manually operated technology appear to be the best means
of addressing child fatalities from air bags.
To partially implement these tentative conclusions, NHTSA is
proposing the following for passenger cars and light trucks whose
passenger-side air bag lacks smart capability: (1) To require new,
enhanced warning labels; and (2) to permit manual cutoff switches for
the passenger-side air bags (to accommodate parents who need to place
rear-facing child seats in the front seat). By limiting the labeling
requirement to vehicles without smart air bags, NHTSA hopes to
encourage the introduction of those air bags as soon as possible. For
purposes of this notice, NHTSA considers smart passenger-side air bags
to include ones designed so that they automatically avoid injuring the
two groups of children shown by experience to be at special risk from
air bags: infants in rear-facing child seats, and children who are out-
of-position (because they are unbelted or improperly belted) when the
air bag deploys.
The agency is also proposing to require vehicles and rear-facing
child seats to bear new, enhanced warning labels. The proposed labels
would warn that unbelted children and children in those child seats may
be seriously injured or killed by the passenger-side air bag.
This notice discusses other issues relating to the introduction of
smart passenger-side air bags. NHTSA is requesting comments on whether
to assure the timely introduction of those air bags by requiring their
installation, and if so, by what date. As an alternative, the agency is
also requesting comments on whether it should specify an expiration
date for the manual cutoff switch option in order to encourage smart
passenger-side air bags.
Vehicle manufacturers and air bag suppliers are working on an array
of systems that might qualify as smart air bags. These systems fall
into two categories: (1) Ones which would prevent the air bag from
deploying in situations where it might have an adverse effect, based,
for example, on the weight, size and/or location of the occupant, and
(2) ones designed so that they would deploy in a manner that does not
create a risk of serious injury to occupants very near the bag, e.g.,
deploying at a slower speed when an occupant is very near the air bag
and/or deploying less aggressively as a result of being stowed with an
improved fold pattern.
While previous comments from vehicle manufacturers suggest that
ultimate product development and incorporation of most types of smart
air bags in production vehicles is a number of years away, NHTSA is
aware of one system that apparently would automatically protect
children and that is in production now. This system uses a weight
sensor that activates the air bag only if more than a specified amount
of weight is present on the passenger seat. While this technology is
currently being used to prevent the unnecessary and costly deployment
of a passenger air bag when no passenger is present, commenters have
suggested that the same technology could be used to prevent deployment
of the air bag when either no passenger or only a child of less than a
specified weight (e.g., 30 kilograms or 66 pounds) is present.
While it is possible for the agency to base a definition of smart
air bags on an automatic system incorporating a weight sensor, NHTSA
does not wish its definition to unnecessarily limit design choices. The
agency wishes to give manufacturers and suppliers broad latitude in
designing smart air bags and seeks comments suggesting objective,
workable criteria that would be broadly inclusive of technologies
capable of protecting children automatically. If possible, smart air
bags should be defined to include any system that automatically
prevents an air bag from injuring infants in rear-facing child seats,
and unbelted or improperly belted children.
NHTSA recognizes that, were it to require smart passenger-side air
bags, its leadtime decision would have to take into consideration the
differing leadtimes for the various kinds of smart bags under
development, and the fact that the longest leadtimes will be those for
the more advanced smart bags potentially offering the greatest net
benefits. The agency also recognizes the engineering challenge of
incorporating new air bag design features in the entire passenger car
and light truck fleet.
At the same time, given the growing toll of child fatalities, and
the apparent near term availability of at least one smart bag design
(i.e., the one using a weight sensor), NHTSA believes that it should
take steps now to encourage the introduction of smart passenger-side
air bags as soon as possible. The agency also believes that, as a
practical matter, the longer the time needed to develop and implement
the most advanced smart bags, the greater the need would be to
implement interim designs that would protect children automatically.
II. Existing Requirements for Air Bags
Under Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (``Motor Vehicle
Safety''), NHTSA is authorized to set Federal motor vehicle safety
standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles
and new motor vehicle equipment. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash
Protection, one of the original Federal motor vehicle safety standards
issued under this statute, has long required motor vehicle
manufacturers to install safety belts in most vehicle types to protect
occupants during a crash. More recently, the standard has required
manufacturers to provide automatic protection for frontal crashes.
In establishing Standard No. 208's current automatic protection
requirements for passenger cars in 1984, and later extending those
requirements to light trucks, NHTSA expressly permitted a variety of
methods of providing automatic protection, including automatic belts
and air bags. However, the agency included a number of provisions to
encourage manufacturers to install air bags. These included extra
credit during the standard's phase-in period for vehicles using air
bags and allowing vehicles with a driver air bag system to count, for a
limited period of time, as a vehicle meeting the standard's automatic
protection requirements.
Ultimately, however, consumer demand led to the installation of air
bags throughout the new car fleet. By the beginning of this decade,
manufacturers were developing plans to install air bags in all of their
passenger cars and light trucks.
Congress included a provision in the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) directing NHTSA to
prescribe an amendment to Standard No. 208 to require, by the late
1990's, that all passenger cars and light trucks provide automatic
protection by means of air bags. The Act required at least 95 percent
of each manufacturer's passenger cars manufactured on or after
September 1, 1996 and before September 1, 1997 to be equipped with an
air bag and a manual lap/shoulder belt at both the driver's and right
front passenger's seating positions. Every passenger car manufactured
on or after September 1, 1997 must be so equipped. The same basic
requirements are phased-in for light trucks one year
[[Page 40786]]
later.1 The final rule implementing this provision of ISTEA was
published in the Federal Register (58 FR 46551) on September 2, 1993.
Essentially, ISTEA eliminated non-air bag means of providing automatic
occupant protection because of Congress's belief that air bags provide
the greatest level of such protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 At least 80 percent of each manufacturer's light trucks
manufactured on or after September 1, 1997 and before September 1,
1998 must be equipped with an air bag and a manual lap/shoulder
belt. Every light truck manufactured on or after September 1, 1998
must be so equipped.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The vehicle manufacturers are far ahead of the ISTEA implementation
schedule. Nearly every 1996 model year passenger car will be equipped
with both driver- and passenger-side air bags as standard equipment,
even though the statutory requirement for air bags has not yet taken
effect. A large number of model year 1996 light trucks are also
equipped with air bags.
Standard No. 208's automatic protection requirements, whether for
air bags or (until the provisions of ISTEA take effect) for automatic
belts, are performance requirements. The standard does not specify the
design of an air bag. Instead, vehicles must meet specified injury
criteria, including criteria for the head and chest, measured on test
dummies, during a barrier crash test, at speeds up to 30 mph. These
criteria must be met for air-bag equipped vehicles both when the
dummies are belted and when they are unbelted. The latter test
condition ensures that a vehicle provides ``automatic protection,''
i.e., protection by means that require no action by vehicle occupants.
These requirements apply to the performance of the vehicle as a
whole, and not to the air bag as a separate item of motor vehicle
equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to ``tune'' the
performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific
attributes of each of their vehicles and leaves them free to select
specific attributes for their air bags, such as dimensions, actuation
time, and the like.
III. Agency Monitoring of Air Bag Effectiveness
NHTSA has been monitoring the real world performance of air bags,
including any adverse effects, for more than a decade. NHTSA published
an Evaluation Plan for front-seat occupant protection in January 1990
(55 FR 1586; January 17, 1990), which calls for periodic interim
analyses of their effectiveness. A final evaluation of effectiveness
will not be possible until after air bags have been standard equipment
for some time on high production volume cars. An Interim Evaluation
Report, including analyses of fatality and injury reductions, was
published in June 1992. The agency also submitted Reports to Congress
on this subject in November 1992 and February 1996.
In evaluating air bag effectiveness, it must be remembered that air
bags are supplemental restraints. Therefore, the agency has long
emphasized in information provided to the public that the presence of
an air bag does not mean it is less important for occupants to use
their safety belts. The safety belt, which provides protection in all
kinds of crashes, is the primary means of occupant restraint. Air bags
only work in frontal crashes.
The agency's studies of air bag effectiveness conclude that current
air bags are approximately 30 percent effective in reducing fatalities
in pure frontal crashes (12 o'clock impacts), and, looking at all
impacts, air bags reduce fatalities by 10 percent. These fatality
effectiveness estimates are with safety belts ``as used;'' that is,
they are a comparison of fatality rates in cars with and without air
bags regardless of whether the safety belt was used.
Air bags reduce the likelihood of injury to an occupant's head,
neck, face, chest, and abdomen, in frontal crashes, compared to the
injuries received when only a lap/shoulder belt is used. Injuries to
these parts of the body are much more likely to be life threatening. An
air bag combined with a lap/shoulder belt reduces the injury risk to
these parts of the body by 59 percent compared to 47 percent for manual
lap/shoulder belts alone. These analyses also show that driver-side air
bags can be associated with increased risk of arm injury. NHTSA is
conducting additional analyses and research to further address these
issues.
Almost all of the experience in evaluating air bag effectiveness
has been based on driver-side air bags. The number of passenger-side
air bags has been too small to conduct statistically significant
evaluations of their life-saving benefits. As the dual air bag fleet
continues to grow, such studies will become possible. Currently, only
anecdotal information, located and developed by NHTSA's Special Crash
Investigation program, is available on passenger-side air bags.
Although the safety benefits of air bags are documented, there are
situations in which air bags can have adverse effects. As more vehicles
have been equipped with air bags, these effects have become better
known to researchers. The table below shows, in no particular order,
the types of situations in which the agency has some information
suggesting that there may be a risk of serious injury to vehicle
occupants from the air bag.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seating position Probable cause of
Group affected of primary risk problem
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unrestrained Small Statured Driver Position.. Proximity to Air Bag
and/or Older People. at Time of
Deployment.
Infants in Rear-Facing Child Passenger Proximity to Air Bag
Seats. Position. at Time of
Deployment.
Children Unrestrained in Front Passenger Proximity to Air Bag
Seat. Position. at Time of
Deployment.
Out-of-Position Occupants..... Driver and Proximity to Air Bag
Passenger at Time of
Position. Deployment.
Persons with Disabilities..... Driver Position.. Proximity to Air Bag
at Time of
Deployment; Adaptive
Equipment between
Air Bag and Driver;
Safety Features in
Vehicle Must be
Modified to
Accommodate Adaptive
Equipment.
Persons Experiencing Extremity Driver and Unknown; Under Study.
Injuries. Passenger
Position.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown on this table, the risks of adverse effects from air bags
primarily relate to occupants who are very near the air bag at the time
of deployment. As of June 1996, NHTSA's Special Crash Investigation
program had identified 18 minor to moderate severity crashes where the
deployment of the driver-side air bag resulted in fatal injuries to the
[[Page 40787]]
driver. Fourteen out of 18 of these drivers appear to have been
unrestrained or out-of-position (slumped over the wheel) at the time of
the crash. In addition, the National Accident Sampling System has
identified five high speed crashes where the driver sustained fatal
injuries attributable to the air bag. However, due to the high speed of
the crash, fatal injuries might have occurred in the absence of the air
bag.
As of June 1996, NHTSA's Special Crash Investigation program had
identified 21 crashes in which the deployment of the passenger-side air
bag resulted in fatal injuries to a child. Six of these deaths were to
infants in rear-facing child seats. The 15 other children appear to
have been unrestrained or improperly restrained (e.g., wearing only the
lap belt with the shoulder belt behind them) at the time of the crash.
All of these cases involved pre-impact braking. This combination of no,
or improper, belt use and pre-impact braking resulted in the forward
movement of the children such that they were close to the instrument
panel and the air bag system at the time of the crash and the
deployment of the air bag. Because of this proximity, the children
appear to have sustained fatal head or neck injuries from the deploying
passenger-side air bag.
IV. Actions by NHTSA to Improve Air Bag Safety
As noted above, looking at all crashes, air bags reduce fatalities
by approximately 10 percent. This occurs because of their high
effectiveness in purely frontal crashes, where they also reduce the
likelihood of injury to an occupant's head, neck, face, chest, and
abdomen.
NHTSA is extremely concerned, however, about deaths caused by air
bags. Moreover, the agency recognizes that, if there is no change in
occupant behavior or in the technology of air bags, injuries and
fatalities such as those described in the preceding section will
increase as the number of vehicles equipped with air bags increases.
For air bag-equipped vehicles already on the road or being produced
in the near future, behavioral changes comprise the most realistic hope
for improvement and would bring the most immediate benefit. The agency
has taken a number of steps in the past to warn drivers of the
potential adverse effects caused by air bags, and how those effects can
be minimized or eliminated. Moreover, NHTSA is intensifying its efforts
in these areas.
In December of 1991, NHTSA issued a Consumer Advisory warning
owners of rear-facing child seats not to use such a restraint in the
front seat of a vehicle equipped with a passenger air bag. This warning
was based on preliminary results of testing regarding this problem. At
that time, no casualties to infants had occurred. Since that time,
NHTSA has issued at least six additional News Releases on the subject.
In the September 1993 final rule implementing ISTEA's provisions
concerning air bags, NHTSA required vehicles equipped with air bags to
bear labels on the sun visors providing four specific cautions,
including a statement not to install rearward-facing child seats in
front passenger positions, and advising the occupant to see the owner's
manual for further information and explanations. The sun visor label
requirement became effective on September 1, 1994, and the owner's
manual requirement became effective on March 1, 1994.
On February 16, 1994, NHTSA published in the Federal Register a
final rule amending Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, to
require rear-facing child seats manufactured on or after August 15,
1994 to include a warning against using the restraint in any vehicle
seating position equipped with an air bag. 59 FR 7643. The rule also
requires the printed instructions for such restraints to include safety
information about air bags.
In addition, on May 23, 1995, NHTSA published a final rule amending
Standard No. 208 to allow manufacturers, beginning June 22, 1995, the
option of installing a manual device that motorists could use to
deactivate the front passenger-side air bag in vehicles in which rear-
facing child seats can only fit in the front seat. 60 FR 27233. A more
complete description of the various steps NHTSA took during the early
1990's to address the problem of the interaction between rear-facing
child seats and air bags can be found in the notice of proposed
rulemaking which preceded the May 1995 final rule. See 59 FR 51158,
51159, October 7, 1994.
On October 27, 1995, because of the incidence of several fatalities
to improperly restrained children in air bag-equipped positions, NHTSA
issued a strong warning in a press release, ``SAFETY AGENCY ISSUES
WARNING ON AIR BAG DANGER TO CHILDREN.'' It ``warned that children who
are not protected by a seat belt could be seriously injured or killed
by an air bag, and in the strongest possible terms urged parents to
insist that their children ride belted in the back seat whenever
possible.'' This release repeated prior agency warnings of the dangers
of placing a rear-facing seat in front of an air bag, and broadened the
previous warnings to apply to older children and even adults who may
ride unrestrained. To ensure that infants and children ride safely,
with or without a passenger-side air bag, this warning and advisory
urges care givers to follow three ``rules'':
Make sure all infants and children are properly restrained
in child safety seats or lap and shoulder belts for every trip.
The back seat is the safest place for children of any age.
Infants riding in rear-facing child safety seats should
never be placed in the front seat of a vehicle with a passenger-side
air bag.
On November 9, 1995, NHTSA published a request for comments to
inform the public about NHTSA's efforts to reduce the adverse effects
of air bags, and to invite the public to share information and views
with the agency. 60 FR 56554. The request for comments focused on
possible technological changes to air bags to reduce their adverse
effects, including possible regulatory changes, and is discussed more
fully in the next section of this document.
Since publishing its October 1995 warning and November 1995 request
for comments, NHTSA has intensified its efforts to educate the public
about air bag performance and the campaign to properly restrain
children. A large part of the agency's plan is to increase information
to the affected public through the traffic safety community throughout
the country. With this support, the agency will be able to extend the
reach of its safety messages to a wider population.
A few of the agency's many activities include: an article in the
Center for Disease Control's ``Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report''
reached the public health community nationwide and attracted
substantial press coverage. An article in the Food and Drug
Administration's bulletin (circulation 1.2 million) reached all
physicians. The American Academy of Pediatrics notified all
pediatricians through its newsletter and also issued a special media
alert. The International Association of Chiefs of Police and the
National Sheriffs' Association informed all law enforcement agencies
nationwide. The agency has also conducted a national press event for
National Child Passenger Safety Awareness Week at the National
Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) Convention in February 1996,
featuring a display on air bags and child safety information.
[[Page 40788]]
To expand public education even further, a recent National
Conference, ``Safety Belts, Air Bags, & Passenger Safety: A Call to
Action,'' was held in January 1996, in partnership with the National
Safety Council to develop a plan to inform the public about the
potential dangers of air bags to unrestrained and improperly restrained
occupants. Of main concern was the need to immediately increase the
proper use of safety restraints by children and adults.
NHTSA believes national safety belt use rates can be increased
significantly beyond the current national average of 67 percent. The
agency knows, for example, from its own research and demonstration
efforts and the efforts of the insurance and automobile industries,
that three ingredients are essential to increasing safety belt use: (1)
strengthening current state safety belt use laws to allow for primary
enforcement; (2) implementing periodic, highly visible enforcement
programs in the states so that the public will know these laws are
important and are being enforced; and (3) conducting public information
and education programs to reinforce these efforts and alert the public
to the dangers of riding unrestrained or improperly restrained.
On May 21, 1996, Secretary of Transportation Federico Pena
announced the formation of a coalition of automobile manufacturers, air
bag suppliers, insurance companies, safety organizations, and the
Federal government to prevent injuries and fatalities which may be
inadvertently caused by air bags, especially to children. Coalition
members pledged almost $10 million to pursue a three-point program:
An extensive national effort to educate drivers, parents
and care-givers about seat belt and child safety seat use in all motor
vehicles, with special emphasis on those equipped with air bags.
A campaign to convince states to pass ``primary'' seat
belt use laws.
Activities at state and local levels to increase
enforcement of all seat belt and child seat use laws, such as increased
public information and use of belt checkpoints.
V. November 1995 Request for Comments
As indicated in the preceding section, NHTSA published a request
for comments in November 1995 concerning the need to reduce the adverse
effects of air bags. The request for comments in particular sought
information about possible technological changes to air bags to reduce
the adverse effects, including possible regulatory changes.
The request for comments noted the agency's belief that, for
vehicles manufactured far enough in the future to incorporate
significant design changes, there will be technological enhancements
available that could minimize the adverse effects of air bags. NHTSA
noted that the vehicle manufacturers and air bag suppliers are working
on ``smart bags,'' which could include advanced technologies for
occupant sensing, phased deployment of air bags, and so forth. These
technologies will be able to perform a number of functions, including
preventing air bag deployment when they sense that an occupant is too
close to the point of deployment, inflating the air bag at different
speeds according to the severity of the crash, and preventing the
passenger-side air bag from deploying when that seat is not occupied.
NHTSA stated that, based on discussions with suppliers and vehicle
manufacturers, it anticipates these types of smart bags will eventually
be widely incorporated into production. The agency indicated that it
will step up its monitoring of manufacturer efforts to develop and use
smart bags, the technologies being explored, the practicability and
reliability of smart bag systems, and the timetables for availability
of smart bag systems.
NHTSA recognized that while it anticipates that these smart bag
systems will substantially reduce adverse effects of air bags in the
relatively near future, this still leaves the question of what can be
done in addition to public education for the near future. NHTSA stated
that manufacturers may be able to make adjustments to existing air bag
system designs, and, further, that the agency may make temporary
adjustments to its regulations if it is shown to be appropriate to
enable manufacturers to reduce any adverse effects during this period.
In the notice, NHTSA noted that Ford has requested that the agency
reduce Standard No. 208's unbelted test speed from 30 mph to 25 mph.
According to Ford, this change would permit it to produce less
aggressive air bags, thereby reducing air-bag induced injuries. The
agency requested comments on a detailed technical assessment of the
issues raised by Ford's request.
NHTSA also asked a number of specific questions in the following
subject areas: field experience with air bags, crash sensing, air bag
inflators, air bag designs, proximity considerations, near-term
considerations, future plans, obstacles to near- and long-term plans,
and air bag issues related to persons with disabilities.
NHTSA stated that it hoped that its request for comments would help
the agency obtain the information needed to make reasoned decisions
about whether some regulatory changes are appropriate for the interim
period, whether some relatively simple technological fixes are
available to reduce adverse effects until smart bags become a reality,
or whether other activities, such as consumer information, offer the
best chance of effectively reducing these adverse effects.
VI. Summary of Comments
NHTSA received more than 50 comments, totaling over 1600 pages of
text, from auto manufacturers, manufacturer organizations, suppliers of
air bags and other automotive equipment, insurance companies, consumer
groups, medical groups, research organizations, other government
agencies, and private individuals. NHTSA has carefully analyzed the
information provided in the comments, and its proposals are based on
this analysis and agency research. In addition, the agency has held
meetings with several vehicle manufacturers, air bag suppliers,
consumer and insurance groups, and other associations. This section
provides a summary of the most significant comments, focusing on those
related to possible regulatory changes. For purposes of brevity, the
summary cites representative comments.
A. Smart Bags
Commenters generally confirmed that vehicle manufacturers and air
bag suppliers are developing smart air bags that would incorporate
advanced technologies such as variable inflation rates, occupant seat
sensors, proximity detection/sensing, dual or multi-stage inflators/
sensors, dual or variable venting, and the like. However, it was not
clear from the comments how quickly these various technologies will be
introduced into production vehicles.
Ford, for example, stated that it expects these advanced air bag
technologies to be incorporated gradually during the first half of the
next decade as new vehicle programs are introduced. GM stated that many
technologies for automatic occupant sensing systems are being
investigated, but that no supplier has yet demonstrated a ``production-
ready'' system. According to GM, once production-feasible systems are
available, at least two years of further development to achieve
reliability levels demanded by the public will be
[[Page 40789]]
required to integrate and validate in a vehicle.
Mercedes identified a possible short term solution for children.
That company noted that it already uses a pressure sensitive mat in the
passenger-side seat of some vehicles to deactivate the passenger-side
air bag when the seat is unoccupied. Mercedes stated that if the
recognition threshold for the system was increased to 66 pounds, the
passenger air bag would not deploy for children up to this weight
sitting in that seat or for rear-facing child seats with infants. That
company stated that such a decision could not be made by a vehicle
manufacturer alone, and would be possible only in compliance with a
Federal regulation.
B. Tag Systems
Several commenters addressed the possibility of using rear-facing
child seat detection ``tag'' systems. Such systems would deactivate the
air bag when they detect a rear-facing child seat equipped with a
special tag. Several suppliers are working on tag concepts, and
Mercedes-Benz (Mercedes) and BMW expect to introduce such a feature in
Europe for model year 1997. Toyota stated that standardization of
tagging methods, as well as requirements for the same, would need to be
mandated by the government or an appropriate institution. GM cited a
number of issues surrounding the use of a tag system, including the
need for special tagged rear-facing child seats, the use of untagged
rear-facing child seats, retrofitting of existing rear-facing child
seats with tags, potential for multiple tag technologies, and
availability of tagged rear-facing child seats at low volume for used
vehicles once tag systems are superseded.
C. Improvements to Labeling
Nine commenters expressly addressed labeling and other public
information activities in their comments. These commenters included the
National Automobile Dealers Association, the American Association of
Motor Vehicle Administrators, the National Association of Pediatric
Nurse Associates and Practitioners, the Shriners Hospital--Cincinnati
Unit, the Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (which represents both
manufacturers of air bags and manufacturers of safety belts), and
several members of the public. All the commenters that addressed this
subject suggested that the current labels should be studied to see if
the safety information could be conveyed more effectively to the
American public. As part of its comments, the National Transportation
Safety Board submitted its November 2, 1995 Safety Recommendation that
NHTSA develop and implement a highly visible multimedia campaign to
advise the public how to minimize the risks of air bag-induced injuries
to children.
D. Manual Cutoff Switches
Commenters addressed a number of issues related to manual cutoff
switches, including whether the current option for manual switches
should be extended for a longer period of time, to more vehicles, and
to air bags on the driver side.
Several commenters, including Ford, GM, Toyota, and air bag
manufacturer TRW, stated that the agency should permit passenger-side
manual cutoff switches for a longer period of time. GM also requested
that the option for manual cutoff switches be extended to all vehicles.
Subsequently, in a petition for rulemaking dated June 24, 1996, GM
formally petitioned NHTSA to allow manual cutoff devices indefinitely.
Ford stated that it considers the manual cutoff switch to be an
interim solution until technology can provide a better solution that is
not as dependent on operator activation. That company stated that it
would support an extension of the time period during which manual
cutoff switches are permitted, but its goal is to adopt automatic
passenger air bag deactivation along with other technological
approaches to mitigate the injury risk from aggressive air bag
inflation.
Some advocates of extending cutoff switches indicated that placing
a rear-facing child seat in the front seat of a vehicle is sometimes
necessary for medical reasons. For example, the parents of an infant
with medical problems commented that those medical problems require
them to be able to monitor the child and that cannot be done with the
child in the back seat. The National Association of Pediatric Nurse
Associates & Practitioners submitted a comment identifying a number of
medical conditions for which infants would need to be monitored
closely, which would require those children to be transported in the
front seat.
Toyota stated that, assuming the consumer understood the existence
and operation of a manual cutoff switch, and correctly used the switch
only to disable the air bag when a rear-facing child seat is installed
in the front passenger position, it believes that this is the most
effective measure at the moment.
Several commenters expressed concerns about extending the option
for manual cutoff switches. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
(IIHS) stated that it strongly opposes changing Standard No. 208 to
allow the indiscriminate installation of manual switches in vehicles
equipped with passenger air bags to address the problems of rear-facing
child seats or unrestrained child passengers. According to IIHS,
parents or guardians who allow their children to ride unrestrained in
vehicles are the least likely group to use a switch correctly, and this
clearly would not be an effective solution to the problem. IIHS stated
that the agency should facilitate coordination among restraint and auto
manufacturers to encourage the quick adoption of technologies that
reliably detect rear-facing child seats in the front passenger seat and
temporarily deactivate the passenger air bag, modifying Standard No.
208 as appropriate to encourage these technologies.
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) stated that the
major benefits of air bags can only be achieved when air bags are fully
operational and are available to function as passive restraints during
all hours of operation. For this reason, it strongly opposes any
general application of an on/off switch for air bags.
Chrysler stated that even if the agency were to modify Standard No.
208 to permit the extended use of manual cutoff switches for air bags,
it would be concerned with the potential for user error in setting, or
remembering to set such switches.
E. Other Issues
Commenters addressed many other issues. These issues included
possible regulatory changes to permit or facilitate less aggressive air
bags, raising the threshold speed at which air bags deploy, special
issues faced by persons with disabilities, and various possible changes
to air bag and vehicle designs to reduce air bag aggressivity.
With respect to possible regulatory changes, several changes were
discussed, but none represented a consensus position. A number of
commenters, including many vehicle manufacturers (Chrysler, Ford, BMW,
Volkswagen, Porsche, and Toyota), an air bag supplier (Autoliv
Development AB), and IIHS, expressed support for Ford's recommendation
to reduce the test speed for the unbelted test from 30 mph to 25 mph.
These commenters stated that this change would allow an approximate 30%
reduction in the kinetic energy required in the air bag system, and
that lower kinetic energy in the air bag would lower the risk of air
bag- induced injuries to vehicle occupants.
[[Page 40790]]
Other vehicle manufacturers had different views on the Ford
recommendation. GM commented that it agreed with the theory of the Ford
recommendation and said that it was ``directionally correct.'' However,
GM said that it has not been shown that a reduction in the unbelted
test speed to 25 mph would allow manufacturers to reduce the kinetic
energy in air bag systems enough to influence the actual frequency of
air bag-induced injuries to vehicle occupants. Nissan went further,
saying that it would not anticipate any major changes in air bag
deployment specifications because of a reduction in the unbelted test
speed from 30 to 25 mph. Nissan suggested that the unbelted test speed
would have to be reduced to 20 mph to reduce the risk of air bag-
induced injuries in the real world.
NHTSA also sought comment on another possible way of permitting or
facilitating less aggressive air bag designs. This approach would raise
the chest deceleration limits during unbelted testing from the current
60 g limit to 80 g's. NHTSA indicated that recent biomechanical data
suggest that the human tolerance to acceleration for serious chest
injury may be higher for air bags than for belts, because the air bag
delivers a more broadly distributed, uniform loading to the chest than
does a safety belt. BMW enthusiastically supported this concept but
suggested the limit be raised to 75 g's. If this were done, BMW said it
would attempt to recertify all of its vehicles with less aggressive air
bags within one year.
Other commenters were less certain about this approach. GM said an
80 g limit would not appear likely to permit any appreciable reduction
in inflator output, so GM doubted it would reduce significantly the
potential for air bag-induced injuries. Ford said such a change might
permit reductions in air bag aggressivity, but to a much less
significant extent than the Ford recommendation. Chrysler stated that
it could not comment on an 80 g limit because it had no data to analyze
the effects of such a change.
In a presentation to the agency and supplemental comment submitted
after the comment closing date, GM suggested an alternative regulatory
change that it argued would be effective at reducing air bag-induced
injuries. GM suggested keeping the unbelted testing speed at 30 mph,
but adopting a crash pulse to better reflect the crash pulse in real
world crashes and using a sled test for unbelted testing.
No manufacturer argued that downloading air bags would solve the
adverse effects associated with children. GM provided the results of a
depowered air bag inflator study. Based on that study, GM concluded
that depowered inflators are ``directionally correct,'' but that
deactivation is needed to meet injury assessment reference values for
passengers who are at or near the instrument panel, particularly
children due to lower injury tolerance.
Not all commenters believed that Standard No. 208 should be
changed. Takata Corporation (Takata), an air bag manufacturer, argued
that restraint system technology that has recently become available,
combined with further improvements that are scheduled to be available
within the next 24 months, will significantly reduce air bag injuries
without the need for any changes to Standard No. 208. Takata stated
that it is concerned that the process of developing improved technology
to eliminate air bag injuries will be delayed if Standard No. 208 is
changed in response to the present concerns.
Advocates opposed reducing Standard No. 208's unbelted test speed.
That organization stated that there are several flaws in the Ford
recommendation. According to Advocates, altering the inflation rate of
air bags may only address a portion of the problem, may not make any
difference at all, or may even create other safety concerns. Advocates
also stated that the Ford recommendation is based entirely on static
computer modeling that is limited to a single variable, air bag
inflator rise rates, and that the recommendation is modeled on only an
adult driver. Advocates stated that NHTSA should be reluctant to
predicate major regulatory changes on anything less than clear and
convincing evidence that a modification will improve safety.
NHTSA also asked for comments on increasing the minimum vehicle
speed at which an air bag deploys, a change the agency said could be
made relatively quickly. The agency believes that an increase in the
deployment threshold would yield a decrease in the number of air bag
deployments and, therefore, a decrease in the number of air bag-induced
injuries.
The comments did not reflect any consensus on this approach either.
Volkswagen commented that an increase in the deployment threshold would
be feasible. GM, however, commented that until further analyses are
completed, it is not apparent that raising the deployment threshold is
necessarily directionally correct. GM stated that its general approach
to crash sensing is the result of its goal to deploy air bags only when
they are likely to reduce the potential for serious injuries, and that
major facial bone fractures are regarded as serious injuries and are
typically the deciding factor in establishing the upper limit
deployment threshold. Chrysler suggested that raising the deployment
threshold might result in fewer deployments but more aggressive
deployments when the air bag was triggered later in the crash event.
VII. Proposal
A. Summary
As discussed earlier in this notice, NHTSA is taking a number of
different steps to address the adverse effects of air bags. The agency
is initially emphasizing reducing the adverse effects associated with
children.
The most direct solution to the problem of child fatalities from
air bags is for children to be properly belted and placed in the back
seat. This necessitates increasing the percentage of children who are
properly restrained by child safety seats and improving the current 67
percent rate of seat belt usage by a combination of methods, including
the encouragement of State primary seat belt laws. The most direct
technical solution to the problem of child fatalities from air bags is
the development and installation of ``smart air bags'' that protect
children automatically from the adverse effects that can occur from
close proximity to a deploying bag. However, until these smart air bags
can be incorporated in production vehicles, behavioral changes based on
improved labeling and simpler, manually operated technology appear to
be the best means of addressing child fatalities from air bags.
Ultimately, NHTSA expects that smart passenger-side air bags will
be installed in passenger cars and light trucks. In the meantime,
vehicles without smart passenger-side air bags would be required to
have new, attention-getting warning labels and permitted to have a
manual cutoff switch for the passenger-side air bag. The labeling
requirement would be limited to vehicles without smart air bags. NHTSA
believes this limitation will encourage the introduction of those air
bags as soon as possible. In addition, rear-facing child seats would be
required to have new warning labels.
More specifically, NHTSA is proposing, for passenger cars and light
trucks whose passenger-side air bag lacks smart capability, to (1)
require new, enhanced warning labels; and (2) permit manual cutoff
switches for the passenger-side air bags (to accommodate parents who
need to place rear-facing child seats in the front seat). The agency
[[Page 40791]]
is also proposing to require rear-facing child seats to bear new,
enhanced warning labels. The proposed vehicle and rear-facing child
seat labels would warn that unbelted children and children in those
child seats may be killed by the passenger-side air bag.
NHTSA is requesting comments on whether, and if so on what date, to
require smart passenger-side air bags that automatically prevent the
air bag from injuring the two groups of children that experience has
shown to be at special risk from air bags: children in rear-facing
child seats, and unbelted or improperly belted children. Alternatively,
the agency is also requesting comments on whether it should endeavor to
encourage smart passenger-side air bags by specifying an expiration
date for the manual cutoff switch option.
B. Defining Smart Air Bags
Since the presence of a smart passenger-side air bag would obviate
the label requirement, and since NHTSA is seeking comments on whether
to require smart passenger-side air bags, it is necessary to define
smart bags, e.g., specify appropriate tests and performance
requirements. For purposes of this rulemaking, NHTSA is seeking to
define smart passenger-side air bags sufficiently broadly to include
any system that automatically prevents an air bag from injuring the two
groups of children that experience has shown to be at special risk from
air bags: infants in rear-facing child seats, and unbelted or
improperly belted children. At the same time, NHTSA would like to
accomplish this goal without increasing the risks to those who would
benefit from an air bag.
Vehicle manufacturers and air bag suppliers are working on a number
of different systems which might qualify under appropriate criteria.
These systems fall into two categories: (1) ones which would prevent
the air bag from deploying in situations where it might have an adverse
effect, based, for example, on the weight, size and/or location of the
occupant, and (2) ones designed so that they would deploy in a manner
that does not create a risk of serious injury to occupants very near
the bag, e.g., deploying at a slower speed when an occupant is very
near the air bag and/or deploying less aggressively as a result of
being stowed in an improved fold pattern.
NHTSA is seeking comments whether the following categories of
passenger air bags would be considered smart air bags:
(1) the passenger-side air bag system incorporates an automatic
means (e.g., a weight sensor) to ensure that the air bag does not
deploy when a mass of 30 kg or less is present on the front passenger
seat (thus ensuring that the air bag would not deploy when either of
the two specially at-risk groups of children are present; i.e., when
that seat is occupied by an infant in a rear-facing child seat or an
unbelted child weighing less than 30 kg);
(2) the passenger-side air bag system incorporates other automatic
means (e.g., an occupant size or proximity-to-dashboard sensor) to
ensure that the air bag does not deploy when an infant in a rear-facing
child seat or an unbelted or improperly belted child is present in the
front passenger seat; and
(3) the passenger-side air bag designed to deploy when an infant in
a rear-facing child seat or to an unbelted or improperly belted child
is present, but does so in a way that is not dangerous to the child.
All of these categories are reflected in the proposed regulatory
text as obviating the label requirements and the permissive manual
cutoff switch option. However, specific language is only proposed for
the first category. See proposed amendments to S4.5.5(a). NHTSA
requests comments on the most appropriate means of expressing the
second and third categories in a manner that permits objective
identification of qualifying air bags. See proposed amendments to
S4.5.5 (b) and (c). NHTSA also requests comments on appropriate test
procedures for use in determining satisfaction of the criteria for each
of the three categories of smart air bags.
In its response to the November 1995 request for comments,
Mercedes-Benz indicated that it has a weight sensor in the passenger
seat that automatically prevents deployment of the passenger-side air
bag unless a specified mass is present in the seat. The purpose of this
sensor as currently employed by Mercedes, which is set at 26 pounds, is
to ensure that the air bag only deploys if the passenger seat is
occupied. Mercedes suggested that a possible short term solution for
addressing problems with children would be to raise the threshold for
deployment to a higher level, such as 30 kilograms (66 pounds) or more.
For vehicles that do not already have such a sensor, the cost of adding
one would be about $20 to $35 per vehicle, depending on volume,
according to Mercedes.
Since receiving Mercedes' comment suggesting use of a weight sensor
as a possible short-term solution for children, NHTSA has obtained
additional information about the sensor currently used by that company.
The agency has obtained information both from Mercedes and from the
manufacturer of the sensor, IEE.
IEE calls its weight sensor a ``passenger presence detection
system.'' According to IEE, the product has been used by European auto
manufacturers since 1994, and one million sensors are now in use. A
representative of IEE indicated that the sensor (which resembles a mat)
adapts easily to any seat form or contour, and is unaffected by user-
placed seat covers or cushions. IEE added that while the sensor is
currently designed to detect forces greater than 26 pounds, there would
be no difficulty in designing it to detect a different weight, such as
the 66 pound weight suggested by Mercedes. NHTSA is placing additional
information provided by IEE in the docket.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ NHTSA notes that IEE also provided information about a
``child-seat presence and orientation detection system.'' This is a
form of tag system. It works only with special child seats and
should not be confused with the possibility of raising the weight
threshold of the weight sensor to 66 or so pounds. The agency also
notes that while it has information about the particular weight
sensor manufactured by IEE, there may be other suppliers of weight
sensor technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA notes that GM, in its June 24, 1996 petition concerning
manual cutoff switches, stated that it is reviewing and evaluating a
variety of automatic suppression technologies, including the one
identified by Mercedes. GM stated that ``this concept appears
feasible.'' However, GM has not completed its analysis and is therefore
``uncertain whether the technology can become a production capable,
highly reliable, automatic suppression system.''
NHTSA would construe a weight sensor as an automatic means of
preventing air bag deployment, and a system incorporating such a sensor
as a smart air bag. Further, NHTSA has tentatively concluded that
Mercedes suggestion of 30 kilograms as the threshold is appropriate.
This threshold would deactivate the air bag when a child in a child
restraint or other child weighing less than 66 pounds was positioned in
the seat. This 30 kilogram threshold corresponds to the weight of a
50th percentile 10-year old and a 95th percentile 7-year-old. However,
the threshold is far enough below the weight of a 5th percentile adult
female (approximately 46 kilograms) to avoid inadvertently deactivating
the air bag when a small adult is occupying the seat.
NHTSA asks the public for comments on this approach to deactivate
the passenger-side air bag automatically in the presence of a child,
and also on the proposed threshold of 30 kilograms for deactivation.
The agency recognizes that
[[Page 40792]]
there are possible safety trade-offs with this approach, since the air
bag would not deploy in the presence of some children who might benefit
from the air bag. However, this concern must be weighed against the
number of fatalities and serious injuries for children in rear-facing
seats and unbelted children in the front seat. Quantitative data on
these tradeoffs are specifically requested. The agency also requests
comments on whether a warning light should be required to indicate when
the air bag is off.
Commenters on the November 1995 notice and NHTSA anticipate a
number of other approaches to this problem to emerge, some more
technologically sophisticated than a seat sensor, that would also
qualify as smart air bags.
Other approaches for automatically preventing the deployment of the
passenger-side air bag in situations where deployment might injure
children include size sensors and position sensors. NHTSA requests
comments on these approaches as well, and how they might be reflected
in an objective definition of smart air bag. The agency notes that
there appear to be particular engineering challenges in designing a
system that relies on position-sensing alone. This is because, in order
to be effective in a pre-crash braking situation, the system would need
to both sense a change in occupant position and deactivate the air bag
in an extremely short period of time. NHTSA is particularly interested
in comments on how such a system could be evaluated in a test
procedure.
Still another approach for protecting children is the development
of passenger-side air bags that deploy in such a manner that they do
not create a risk of serious injury to occupants very near the air bag.
These systems might deploy at a slower speed when the occupant is very
near the air bag and/or deploy less aggressively as a result of being
stowed with an improved fold pattern.
Some of these more sophisticated approaches could possibly be
evaluated using the out-of-position tests established by the ISO. The
ISO out-of-position tests involve a series of tests in which a test
dummy is positioned up against the passenger-side air bag cover.
However, the ISO tests do not include any recommended ``pass/fail''
level nor any dummy specifications.
Most of the manufacturers that responded to the November 1995
request for comments indicated that they use the ISO tests or some
variation of those tests to assess how well they have reduced the risks
to out-of-position occupants with current air bag designs. To use the
ISO tests as a starting point for a new regulatory requirement, NHTSA
must develop appropriate criteria to assess performance in the tests.
Among other things, NHTSA must determine appropriate tolerance levels
for the injury criteria and decide whether additional injury criteria
and/or additional dummy sizes are needed to assess this problem. At
this time, the agency does not have enough information to propose any
performance criteria. The agency has initiated a testing program
described later in this notice that will help the agency answer this
question. NHTSA is asking the public at this time to provide relevant
child test dummy, positioning, and injury tolerance data which could be
used to define a benign air bag. Alternatively, NHTSA asks for comments
concerning other approaches to developing a definition of smart air bag
that incorporates a wide range of technologies.
The more advanced approaches to automatic deactivation have
advantages over the simple weight sensor, because they would presumably
have fewer safety tradeoffs and potentially reduce adverse effects of
air bags for occupants other than children, as well as for children.
Several commenters described a tag-system for deactivating the
passenger-side air bag. For these tag systems, a circuit is present in
the vehicle that is capable of deactivating the passenger-side air bag.
The circuit is accessed either by a wire from the child restraint or by
means of a sensor that picks up a signal (possibly magnetic) from the
child restraint. When the circuit detects the presence of a child
restraint, it deactivates the air bag. These systems, by themselves,
would not be considered smart air bags, because they work only with
child restraints that have a particular piece of equipment installed in
them and there is no assurance that such devices would be used in these
vehicles.
NHTSA also received a request for interpretation from Porsche
describing a system that can deactivate the passenger-side air bag when
a special rear-facing child seat is installed at the front passenger
seat. This child seat has a special separate latch plate that can be
engaged in a buckle under the passenger seat. When the buckle is so
engaged, the passenger-side air bag would be deactivated. This system
also would not be considered a smart bag, because it works only with a
particular type of child seat and because it requires an affirmative
action by the parent (fastening the latch plate to the buckle) to
deactivate the air bag.
C. Possibility of Mandating Smart Passenger Air Bags and Timing of a
Mandate.
A significant issue that NHTSA is considering in this rulemaking is
whether to mandate smart passenger-side air bags, and the appropriate
date on which the proposed requirement for a smart passenger-side air
bag would replace the requirement for enhanced vehicle labeling (as
well as the permissive provision for cutoff switches).
In evaluating these issues, the agency recognizes that leadtimes
will differ for the various kinds of smart bags under development, and
that the longest leadtimes will be those for the more advanced smart
bags potentially offering the greatest net benefits. The agency also
recognizes the engineering challenge of incorporating new air bag
design features in the entire passenger car/light truck fleet.
At the same time, given the growing toll of child fatalities, and
the apparent near-term availability of at least one smart bag design
(i.e., the one using a weight sensor), NHTSA believes that it should
take steps now to encourage the early introduction of smart air bags.
The agency also believes that, as a practical matter, the longer the
time needed to develop and implement the most advanced smart bags, the
greater the need would be to implement interim designs that would
automatically protect children.
NHTSA also notes that use of a weight sensor with a threshold of 66
pounds as an automatic means of preventing air bag deployment is
allowed now under Standard No. 208. Mercedes indicated, however, that
without a Federal requirement, it would not raise the weight threshold
on its system for deactivating the air bag because of product liability
concerns.
In order to assist in deciding whether to require smart passenger-
side air bags and, if so, when, NHTSA requests comments on the
following questions:
1. What are the costs, benefits, and leadtime of installing smart
passenger-side air bags? Please address this question separately for
weight sensors and other technologies.
2. To what extent will today's proposal result in the early
introduction of the various types of smart air bags? NHTSA plans to use
this information to, among other things, develop better estimates of
the benefits and costs of this rulemaking action.
3. How would vehicle manufacturer plans differ if smart passenger
air bags were required on a date certain? In answering this question,
please address
[[Page 40793]]
dates of September 1, 1998, September 1, 1999, and September 1, 2000;
the number and types of smart passenger bags that would be installed
and when; and the extent to which manual cutoff switches would be
installed for vehicles without smart passenger bags.
4. Taking account of the answer to question 3, how would different
dates for requiring smart passenger air bags affect overall benefits
and costs?
5. Are product liability concerns discouraging early introduction
of smart air bags that could result in net benefits to children? If so,
how would regulatory action by NHTSA affect this situation?
6. Taking account of the considerations discussed above, and any
other considerations that commenters regard as relevant, please address
whether the agency should mandate smart passenger air bags.
7. If NHTSA were to mandate smart passenger air bags, what is the
appropriate date they should be required?
D. New Warning Label Requirements for Vehicles Which Lack Smart
Passenger-side Air Bags
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.
In establishing this requirement in September 1993, NHTSA believed
the air bag warning label required on new vehicles would be effective.
The agency was satisfied that the required label identifies the four
most important factors to reduce the possibility of adverse side
effects from air bags. Experience since that time confirms that these
four factors are the most important things occupants should do to
minimize the risk of adverse effects from air bags.
The agency also believed that the required sun visor label conveyed
the information to vehicle occupants clearly and with the proper sense
of its importance. And there is evidence to suggest that NHTSA's
current labeling requirements are effectively reaching significant
numbers of people. For instance, in response to the November 1995
request for comments, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)
presented a survey which reported that 74 percent of respondents knew
that it was unsafe to install a rear-facing child seat at a seating
position equipped with an air bag. More than half of these respondents
indicated that they had learned this information either from the
vehicle owner's manual or from the labels on the vehicle sun visor or
the child restraint.
Unfortunately, the experience with unrestrained or improperly
restrained children and with children in rear-facing child seats
suggests that the current air bag warning label is not reaching enough
consumers. Given this, NHTSA wanted to explore whether improvements to
the current label could make it even more effective.
In order to improve the current label, NHTSA used focus groups to
test the effectiveness of several new label designs and locations. The
agency specifically looked at three particular types of labels that
could supplement and/or improve the current label design. The first was
a label with a picture and words that would go on the side of the dash
panel covered by the passenger-side front door when the door is closed
or on the door itself. With the door open to install a rear-facing
child seat, this location should be very visible. The International
Organization for Standardization (ISO), a group that proposes voluntary
standards, has proposed the installation of a warning label at this
location. NHTSA is proposing that such a label be in addition to the
current sun visor label.
The second type of label examined by the agency was a highly
visible label in the middle of the dash panel that would warn that the
safest place for all children was the back seat and that all children
must be restrained. NHTSA's preliminary consideration of such location
is that this would attract more attention than the current sun visor
label and therefore be more likely to alter people's behavior regarding
children in the front seat. This label would also be in addition to the
sun visor label.
The third type of label examined by the agency was a label in the
current location on the sun visor, but with enhanced colors and
graphics to attract attention and make the message more effective.
Based on the results of the focus groups, NHTSA is proposing to
modify the existing labeling requirements. The agency began its
investigation of improved labeling with two basic premises. First,
there is no label that has been or can be designed so that every person
will act in accordance with the warnings or instructions on the label.
Given this, NHTSA does not believe that any label will by itself
eliminate adverse effects of air bags for children.
Instead, NHTSA used 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. Once people have received the
information, the agency has to depend on them to take the appropriate
actions based upon the label information.
Second, the literature on labeling makes it clear that there is no
single perfect label that a safety agency such as NHTSA could propose
or should seek. In other words, choosing a design for a warning label
is not a multiple choice test in which there is one ``correct'' answer
and all the other choices are ``wrong.'' Because the identification of
the ``best'' label by a subject is an expression of personal
preference, some members of the public would react best to one label
design and other members would react best to different label designs.
Accordingly, any pursuit of the single ``best'' label would necessarily
be quixotic.
Again, this is why NHTSA has used the focus groups to get guidance
about peoples' reactions to different label designs. The agency can now
use this information to propose labels that could be significantly more
effective than the labels currently on vehicles and on child seats.
The contractor's final report on the focus group study has been
placed in the docket for this rulemaking. What follows is a brief
overview of the study. NHTSA's focus group study was conducted in three
cities in three different regions of the country. Focus groups were
conducted in Baltimore, MD on March 26, 1996, in Atlanta, GA on March
27, 1996, and in Denver, CO on March 28, 1996. 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 in the
preceding six months.
The main part of the study involved six focus groups, each with
nine people and lasting about two hours. The composition of the groups
reflected the
[[Page 40794]]
population as a whole in terms of gender, ethnic background, and level
of education. The participants reported driving a wide variety of
vehicles, including passenger cars, vans, trucks, and sport utility
vehicles. Of the 54 people in the groups, 18 said they had a passenger-
side air bag.
Before starting the discussions with the focus groups, a secondary
study was conducted. Each participant was taken one by one to a car
with a rear-facing child seat installed in the front passenger seat.
The participants were asked to place an infant-sized doll into the
child seat, secure the buckle, and then remove the doll from the child
seat. Prototype warning labels were placed on the side of the child
seat and on the right end of the dashboard in the area that is covered
when the door is closed. These labels included the colors red and
yellow, a graphic showing a rear-facing child seat in front of a
deploying air bag with a red international ``NO'' slash, and the
heading ``Danger to Life!'' in red letters. The label on the child seat
was 100 millimeters long and 65 millimeters high (roughly 4 and 2\1/2\
inches, respectively). The label on the car dash was slightly larger,
at 140 millimeters long and 65 millimeters high (roughly 5\1/2\ and \1/
2\ inches, respectively). After the participants had put the doll into
and removed the doll from the rear-facing child seat, they were given a
brief questionnaire asking if they had noticed and could describe the
two new labels.
After they had responded to that questionnaire, the participants
returned inside for a discussion. The first half-hour was spent
discussing 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, with a total of 36
labels evaluated by these focus groups.
The results from the focus groups were striking. A total of 66
people participated in the exercise of installing a doll in a rear-
facing child seat to learn if the participants noticed new, brightly
colored warning labels on the side of the dash in the vehicle and on
the side of the child seat. These 66 people included the 54 who were in
the group discussions and another 12 who were invited to ensure that
nine people would be in each focus group. None of these 66 people
noticed the new label on the side of the dash. Two of the 66 claimed to
have seen the new label on the child seat, but one did not know the
color or shape of the new label on the child seat.
With respect to warning labels, the focus groups generally offered
the following suggestions:
Use colors in the label, especially red and yellow, with
black and white, because these offer high contrast, attract attention,
make a message easy to read, and connote danger or warning.
Use the international ``prohibited'' symbol (a red circle
with a diagonal slash) to attract attention, to convey a warning to
people who may not read English well or at all, and to reinforce the
message for others.
Include an illustration that shows as clearly as possible
that an inflating air bag can injure a child.
Include either the word ``WARNING'' or ``DANGER'' in
large, colorful capital letters.
Make the text as short and simple as possible.
State clearly and explicitly the actions that people
should take or avoid.
Provide a reason for the actions (e.g., ``Unbelted
children may be killed or injured by passenger-side air bag'').
As a basic matter, the focus group members identified a conflict
between label effectiveness and product aesthetics. Group participants
stated that they generally ignored the labels in their own vehicles and
on their own child seats. Thus, it is not surprising that group
participants felt no label would be read unless it is very
conspicuous--with bright colors (even ``day-glo''), a large size, and a
prominent location. On the other hand, most group participants agreed
that any label conspicuous enough to be noticed consistently would be
something of an eyesore, and that people would not want it in their
cars. In addition, the groups felt that warning needs to be conveyed
only once (when either the vehicle or child seat is first delivered to
the person) and that daily reminders from a label are unnecessary. As
one woman said, ``Once I know my child seat has to go in the back,
that's where I'll put it. You don't have to tell me again.''
Based on these results and other information discussed above, NHTSA
is proposing a new label for child seats and two new labels for air-bag
equipped vehicles which lack smart passenger- side air bags, together
with a revision of the sun visor labels currently required in these
vehicles. However, the agency is especially interested in comments
concerning other focus group, survey or other data relevant to
location, format, color, size and number of labels, or other factors
that may affect labeling effectiveness. For color copies of labels,
please contact Stephen R. Kratzke. (Mr. Kratzke's address and phone
number are provided near the beginning of this document.)
The proposals are as follows:
1. Child Seat Labels. 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 notes that this location on the side of the child restraint
is where a prototype label with yellow and red colors and a visual with
a red slash through it was tested on the focus groups. As mentioned
above, only two of 66 claimed to have seen this label, and one of those
two could not identify the color of the label. Based on these findings,
NHTSA believes an enhanced warning label in a more prominent location
is needed to better alert the people responsible for placing children
in a vehicle.
Accordingly, NHTSA is proposing to move and enhance the warning
label currently required on child restraint systems. The current
warning label on the side of the child restraint would no longer be
required. Instead, a new permanent label would be affixed to each child
restraint system that can be used in a rear-facing position in the area
where a child's head would rest. The agency is proposing that the new
label be at least the size tested in the focus groups for vehicle
labels--that is, at least 140 mm long and 65 mm high. This new label
would have a yellow background for the text portion. On that yellow
background would first appear a heading in red that said ``DANGER!''
Under that heading, the text 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.
[[Page 40795]]
NHTSA acknowledges that a permanent warning label on the child seat
cushion in the vicinity of the child's head will require changes to the
manufacturing process and increase costs. However, the agency does not
believe that the aesthetic concerns the focus group participants
expressed about conspicuous labels in a vehicle apply equally to child
seats. In addition, this warning would likely be effective because it
would be targeted specifically to the people whose dependents are at
greatest risk (persons transporting an infant) and an audience that
would be very receptive to this warning. Further, any cost burdens will
be reduced by eliminating the current requirement for the warning label
on the side of these child seats.
The proposed enhanced labels for child seats would be required on
all new child restraints that can be used in a rear-facing position.
This broad coverage is necessary because, to the best of the agency's
knowledge, there are no current vehicles with passenger-side air bags
in which a rear-facing car seat can safely be installed at the right
front passenger seat.
2. Label on Passenger-Side End of Vehicle Dash or Door Panel. NHTSA
currently has no requirements for any safety labels in these locations.
However, NHTSA has been participating in the efforts of the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to try to develop
a voluntary international standard for a vehicle label warning not to
place a rear-facing child seat in a vehicle seat with an air bag. The
current proposals feature a visual 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. Based partly on this effort by ISO, a proposal
for such a label in such locations was submitted as a draft supplement
to Regulation 94 of the Economic Commission for Europe in September
1995. Further, NHTSA is aware of labels warning about air bag hazards
to rear-facing child seats on the passenger-side end of the dash or on
the door on current Lexus, Mercedes, Saab, and Volvo vehicles. The
agency has also been told that Nissan plans to begin labeling their
vehicles in this area to warn against using rear-facing child seats in
front of air bags.
NHTSA notes that this location on the side of the dash is where a
prototype label with yellow and red colors and a visual with a red
slash through it was tested on the focus groups. As mentioned above,
none of the 66 people participating claimed to have seen this label.
Based on this finding, NHTSA would not propose a warning label in this
location as the only vehicle warning label. In fact, NHTSA considered
not requiring a warning label in this location.
Nevertheless, NHTSA is proposing to require a label in this area,
for vehicles which lack smart passenger-side air bags. Even though none
of the 66 people in NHTSA's focus groups study noticed the label in
this area, the design of the test may have contributed to this result.
As noted before, in the focus group exercise, the child restraint was
already installed in the car when the participants were asked to secure
an infant-sized doll in the child restraint. NHTSA suspects that, if
the participants instead were asked to take a child restraint, install
it in the vehicle, and then secure the infant-sized doll in the child
restraint, some participants would have noticed the label in the
process of placing the child restraint in the vehicle. In addition,
this area is where an international voluntary standards group and the
Economic Commission for Europe are proposing to place a label.
Furthermore, several vehicle manufacturers have or will soon be
voluntarily placing a label in this area.
However, the agency believes it is appropriate to use its focus
group results to proceed on the assumption that a warning label in this
area is not so conspicuous that it should be a primary means of
alerting the public to this problem. Accordingly, NHTSA has structured
its proposal so that the label in this location is intended to remind
and reinforce the message people have already gotten from other
sources. To this end, NHTSA is proposing that this label be nearly
identical to the label proposed for child seats. It would be a
permanent label with the same minimum dimensions (140 mm X 65 mm), the
same yellow and red colors, and the same content, including the visual
with the red slash through it. As regards the location, NHTSA is
proposing to permit this label to be installed either on the passenger-
side end of the dash or on the door panel. NHTSA's focus groups provide
no basis for proposing to prefer one of these locations over the other.
NHTSA asks for public comment on whether this label should be required,
especially given the other labels and the focus group findings about
labels in this location.
Only a few current vehicles offer a manual cutoff switch for the
passenger air bag. For those vehicles that do not offer a cutoff
switch, the label on the passenger-side end of dash or door panel would
be identical to the label proposed for child seats. However, 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.'' This language
is similar to the existing language for sun visor warnings for vehicles
that have manual cutoff switches, and should accurately inform care
givers.
3. Label on Sun Visor. As discussed above, NHTSA currently requires
for all air-bag equipped vehicles a warning to be placed on sun visors
above each seating position equipped with an air bag. 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. S4.5.1(c)
of Standard No. 208 provides that this alert label on the visor must
read, ``Air bag. See other side.'' No minimum size dimensions are
specified for the alert label.
The NHTSA focus groups were specifically asked if they were aware
of any warning labels about air bags in their personal vehicles. A few
participants said they had seen some kind of label or sticker in their
vehicles but could not recall what the label said. Only one person said
she had noticed several labels, had read them, and could remember the
topics of the labels. Based on these results, NHTSA believes an
enhanced warning label on sun visors may be needed to better alert the
public.
Accordingly, NHTSA is proposing to enhance the warning label
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 labels, NHTSA is proposing 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. This label would be required
on that side of the visor above every seating position equipped with an
air bag. This new
[[Page 40796]]
label would have a black background. On the left side of the alert
label would be the same visual proposed for the child seat and dash/
door label showing a rear-facing child seat in front of a deploying air
bag with a red slash across the picture. On the right side of the 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 is proposing that the new alert label be at least the
size tested in the focus groups for vehicle labels--that is, at least
140 mm long and 65 mm high. NHTSA recognizes that this size alert label
may be larger than needed to attract attention. Accordingly, NHTSA
specifically asks for comments on an alert label that is 75 percent, 50
percent, and 25 percent of the proposed size. A 75 percent label would
be approximately 4 1/8 inches long and 1 7/8 inches high. A 50 percent
label would be approximately 2 3/4 inches long and 1 1/4 inches high. A
25 percent label would be approximately 1 1/2 inches long and 3/4
inches high. There is a tradeoff between the use of color and the size
of the label. Commenters should be sure to view the colored label when
commenting with respect to size.
NHTSA recognizes that the proposed alert label would be much larger
and more conspicuous than any labels currently in vehicles. The agency
is sensitive to the aesthetic concerns expressed by the focus group
participants about warning labels detracting from the appearance of
their vehicle. However, NHTSA does not believe the proposed label would
be an eyesore. In the focus groups, 50 of the 54 participants preferred
an alert label such as the proposed one. Moreover, to the extent this
label is not more conspicuous than the existing alert labels, it would
not serve its intended function of improving the effectiveness of the
sun visor labels.
For the warning label to be permanently affixed on the other side
of the visor than the alert label (unless the manufacturer chooses to
place the warning label on the side of the visor that is visible when
the visor is in its stowed position), NHTSA is again proposing a
minimum size of 140 mm X 65 mm. In the lower left corner of this label
there would be a white visual on a black background. The visual would
be a representation of a belted occupant in front of a deploying air
bag. The background for the rest of the 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, four
bullets in black type would read:
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
Aside from using colors and visuals to improve the existing sun
visor warning, these four proposed bullets in the warning differ from
the five bullets on the current warning label. Two of the five current
bullets are deleted. One current bullet says, ``Do not place any
objects over the air bag or between the air bag and yourself.'' The
focus groups strongly suggest that this current warning is too long. In
addition, the new admonition that ``Air bags need room to inflate''
together with the new visual will convey the same message the current
bullet seeks to convey. The other current bullet deleted in this
proposal is ``See the owner's manual for further information and
explanations.'' Some of the focus group participants disliked this
advice, indicating they want the label to tell them what they need to
know about these matters. There was also some feeling that people
already knew to consult the owner's manual to get more information on a
vehicle problem.
This proposed label adds a proposed bullet saying that unbelted
children can be killed by the air bag. NHTSA acknowledges that this
bullet may be redundant of the point in red at the top of the label
that severe injury or death can occur and the bullet at the bottom of
the label advising to ``Always use seat belts.'' However, NHTSA has
tentatively concluded that it is worth specifically highlighting the
hazards to unbelted children, given the available information
suggesting that unbelted children as a group are particularly at risk
and given that the agency places special weight on its responsibility
to protect children.
As was the case for the proposed label on the passenger-side end of
the dash or door panel, the sun visor warning label would be slightly
different for vehicles that offer a manual cutoff switch for the
passenger air bag. 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.''
This notice proposes 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. The agency notes, however, that Volkswagen has recently
stated in a request for interpretation that it would be in the interest
of safety to include references to side air bags on the sun visor label
of vehicles equipped with these devices. The agency requests comments
on whether particular statements should be permitted or required for
vehicles with new kinds of air bags, such as air bags for side impact
protection and, if so, what statements.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3 \ NHTSA asks commenters to address whether and what
cautionary statements are needed concerning these new devices,
whether such statements can be effectively communicated by simple
additions to the sun visor label without diluting the impact of
cautionary statements about air bags providing frontal impact
protection, and whether generic statements could be developed that
would be accurate for all air bag designs currently under
development. The agency also desires information on what specific
dangers side air bags may pose to infants or other occupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Label in the Middle of the Dash Panel. NHTSA believes that the
proposed changes to the sun visor labels will enhance the effectiveness
of those labels by making them more noticeable. However, the agency has
an obligation to do all it can with labels to help address the adverse
effects of air bags in the near term. The focus groups generally
reported that a label (though not necessarily a permanent one) needs a
very prominent location in a vehicle to attract attention and be read.
The middle of the dash panel is a location that is visible to both the
driver and the passengers. It is also a location both drivers and
passengers tend to look at since the radio and temperature controls are
generally in this area. As such, this may be the location in the
vehicle where a label would be most likely to be noticed and read.
On the other hand, NHTSA also must be sensitive to the findings
from the focus groups that the public would not want a conspicuous day-
glo label permanently in their vehicles. NHTSA believes it has
fashioned a proposal that takes account both of the need to alert
people to adverse effects of air bags for unbelted children and the
public's desire that labels not become an eyesore. NHTSA is proposing
that a very visible label 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 may be a removable label that must be on
new vehicles when they are delivered to consumers but may then be
[[Page 40797]]
removed by consumers after they have had a chance to read it. The
agency believes this conspicuous positioning of the label position will
get the message out effectively to the American public as they buy new
vehicles. This conspicuous label should also highlight the importance
of the permanent but less conspicuous labels in the vehicle regarding
air bags when the purchaser sees those labels.
The removable label NHTSA is proposing would have the same minimum
dimensions as all the other labels proposed in this notice (140 mm X 65
mm). 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 this 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 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. NHTSA believes that a strong signal word
is important in this case as a means of first attracting attention to
the serious nature of the message.
The agency specifically invites public comments on the four types
of enhanced labels proposed above. Commenters are urged to offer all
the data of which they are aware to support their opinions about the
relative merits of the proposed labels compared to potential
alternative labeling schemes. Commenters are also requested to provide
information that would help in assessing the effectiveness of labels in
changing behavior in the intended ways.
5. Possible Sun Visor Label Requirement for Vehicles With Smart
Passenger Air Bags.
All of the new vehicle labeling requirements would be limited to
vehicles which lack smart passenger-side air bags, to encourage the
early introduction of these improved air bags. NHTSA is interested in
comments on whether any sun visor labeling requirements should be
applied to vehicles with smart air bags. The agency notes that the
enhanced sun visor warning label would include information that would
be important even for vehicles with improved air bags, such as the
warning to always use seat belts. Therefore, it could be argued that
some kind of warning label and alert label for these vehicles should be
required. The agency therefore requests comments on what, if any,
labeling requirements should be established for such vehicles, with
respect to content, size, color and format.
6. Leadtime and Costs. NHTSA is proposing 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 is also proposing
that enhanced labels be affixed to all child restraints that can be
used in a rear-facing position and manufactured on or after a date 180
days after publication of the final rule. This longer lead time for
child seat manufacturers is 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. However, public
comment is invited on whether a shorter effective date for child seat
manufacturers would be practicable and what the cost implications of a
shorter lead time would be.
The agency recognizes that the proposal would provide a very short
leadtime for the vehicle manufacturers. However, a longer delay in
making some effort to enhance warning the vehicle occupants runs the
risk of further tragic and avoidable child fatalities. NHTSA is also
concerned that the absence of a reminder to supplement the ongoing
public education efforts would make those efforts less effective.
Accordingly, NHTSA proposes to find for good cause that this change in
labeling requirements should take effect sooner than six months after
publication of a final rule. In light of the same considerations, the
agency is providing a slightly abbreviated comment period of 45 days.
Even with this short leadtime, NHTSA estimates that the cost of
each vehicle label would be between 7 and 12 cents. The combined cost
of the two new labels would therefore be between 14 and 24 cents.
Adding in the cost of the enhanced and larger sun visor label (about
one cent), the increased cost per vehicle would be between 15 and 25
cents. The cost of an enhanced label for child restraints is dependent
upon the type of material to which the label must permanently adhere
and the method chosen to achieve the permanent adhesion. Incremental
costs are estimated to range from $0.05 to $1.00 per child restraint.
The public is invited to comment on these cost estimates. If any
commenter suggests different estimates be used, the commenter should
provide data to support its views.
E. Manual Cutoff Switch Option for Vehicles Which Lack Smart Passenger-
side Air Bags
As discussed above, until smart passenger-side air bags can be
incorporated into vehicles, the proposed improvements to the existing
air bag warning labeling requirement would better ensure that drivers
and other occupants are aware of the dangers posed by air bags to
unbelted children and children in rear-facing child seats located in
the front seat. Adult occupants would ideally respond to the label by
placing a child in the back seat and properly restraining the child, or
at the very least, by ensuring that older children in the front seat
are properly restrained.
For rear-facing child seats, however, proper installation in a
front seat does not address the problem, because a rear-facing child
seat should never be placed in a seating position with an air bag.
However, some vehicles do not have back seats, or have back seats which
are not large enough to accommodate a rear- facing child seat.
To address this dilemma, on May 23, 1995, NHTSA published a final
rule which allowed manufacturers the option of installing a manual
device that motorists could use to deactivate the front passenger-side
air bag in vehicles manufactured on or after June 22, 1995, in which
rear-facing child seats can be used in the front seat only. In addition
to the limit on the types of vehicles which were permitted to have the
manual cutoff device, the final rule included a number of conditions
that had to be satisfied. The manual cutoff device had to deactivate
the air bag by means of an ignition key and require manual reactivation
of the air bag once deactivated. The manufacturer had to also install a
warning light separate from the air bag readiness indicator, which
would indicate that the air bag was turned off. The light would have to
be visible to both the driver and passenger. The manufacturer had to
include information on the manual cutoff device in the owner's manual.
Finally, the option was only available for passenger cars manufactured
before September 1, 1997, and light trucks manufactured before
September 1, 1998.
As the agency now proposes requirements to initially encourage, and
possibly require, smart passenger-side air bags, it believes it would
be appropriate, in the meantime, to permit manual cutoff switches for
any vehicle which lacks smart passenger air bags. In the very short
term, such devices can accommodate parents who need to place rear
facing child seats in the front seat.
[[Page 40798]]
Thus, the agency is proposing that the option for manual cutoff
switches be extended both in time and to all vehicles with passenger
air bags that lack smart capability.
NHTSA cited two reasons for its decision to allow the installation
of manual cutoff devices for only a limited period of time. First,
several commenters that were developing automatic cutoff devices
indicated that the devices would soon be available. Second, vehicle
manufacturers were considering more sophisticated devices which would
deactivate the air bag in a number of appropriate situations, not just
when a rear-facing child seat is present. The agency did not wish to
issue a regulation which could have the unintended effect of delaying
introduction of these more sophisticated and effective devices.
Given the fatalities which have occurred to infants in rear-facing
child seats and to unbelted children in the front seat, as well as the
incentives that should be created by today's encouragement of smart
passenger-side air bags, manufacturers have a strong incentive to
provide smart passenger-side air bags as quickly as possible. NHTSA
notes that the option to use manual cutoff devices is a limited means
of addressing child fatalities from air bags, and believes that it
would not significantly reduce the overall incentive to develop a more
comprehensive solution.
Since weight sensors are apparently already available and in
production (albeit with a lower threshold weight), however, the agency
requests comments on whether and how the availability of such devices
should affect its decision on extending the manual cutoff switch
option. NHTSA requests specific comments on how weight sensors compare
with manual cutoff switches with respect to costs, benefits, safety
tradeoffs, and leadtime, and how the agency should factor in the
availability of weight sensors in its decision concerning manual cutoff
switches.
NHTSA is also considering the availability of other possible
alternatives to manual cutoff switches. It does appear that tag system
technology is production-ready, as evidenced by the plans of Mercedes
and BMW to use this technology in Europe in 1997. As indicated by GM,
however, there are a number of significant issues surrounding the use
of a tag system. These include a need to educate parents, need for
special tagged infant seats, consequences of using untagged infant
seats, availability of tagged seats, retrofitting of existing infant
seats with tags, potential for multiple tag technologies, and
availability of tagged infant seats at low volume for used vehicles,
once tag systems are superseded.
NHTSA believes that the issues surrounding tagging are particularly
significant given manufacturer efforts to develop advanced automatic
systems addressing a wide scope of problems. While the agency wishes to
encourage the industry to pursue all possible solutions to the problems
of adverse effects of air bags, it is not clear that tagging can be
effectively implemented, on an industry-wide basis, as a short-term
interim solution until a more comprehensive solution is developed. The
agency specifically requests comments on this issue.
Another possible near-term alternative includes the Porsche system.
However, the Porsche system requires special child seats and thus
raises many of the same compatibility issues as tagging. Also, even
with a special child seat, special buckling action is required.
The agency requests comments on whether any other alternatives to
manual cutoff switches are currently available.
NHTSA also requests comments on whether it should endeavor to
further encourage smart passenger-side air bags by specifying an
expiration date for the manual cutoff switch option and, if so, what
date. Commenters are asked to provide a rationale for their position on
this question, and to discuss whether particular end dates would be so
early as to possibly discourage manufacturers from offering manual
cutoff switches, or so late as to possibly discourage early
introduction of smart passenger-side air bags.
In proposing to permit manual cutoff switches for any vehicles that
lack smart passenger-side air bags, NHTSA notes that, in its earlier
decision not to allow all vehicles to be equipped with a manual cutoff
device, the agency stated:
NHTSA does not believe it should allow all vehicles to have a
manual cutoff device to accommodate parental preference for
placement in the front seat. If any child seat can be placed in a
rear seat, that is the safest position. 60 FR 27233, 27234.
While the latter statement is true, the first statement deserves
potential reconsideration in retrospect. NHTSA has tentatively
concluded that there are reasons to permit manual cutoff switches for
the passenger side of vehicles with rear seats large enough to
accommodate rear facing child seats.
First, commenters to the November 1995 request for comments
provided information showing the agency that placing a rear-facing
child seat in the front seat of a vehicle is sometimes a matter of
medical necessity and not always ``to accommodate parental
preference.'' For example, the parents of an infant with medical
problems commented that those medical problems require them to be able
to monitor the child and that cannot be done with the child in the back
seat. The National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates &
Practitioners submitted a comment identifying a number of medical
conditions for which infants would need to be monitored closely,
indicating a need for those children to be transported in the front
seat. That organization stated that approximately two percent of all
children (which translates into about 400,000 children under the age of
5 and close to 100,000 under the age of one) have some type of medical
condition or disability which requires some type of nonmedical
assistive technology. Also, about 0.1 percent (or about 20,000 children
under the age of five and 5,000 infants) require medical technology
assistance such as respirators, surveillance devices, or nutritive
assistance devices. Also, some medical problems may be of a transitory
nature, but they may require short-term monitoring of the infant. It is
obviously not possible for these children, or the vehicles in which
they would be transported, to be identified in advance.
Also, the National Center for Health Statistics reports that
approximately 10% of the 4 million births in 1993 were premature. A
number of these children and other children may have medical conditions
that require monitoring. However, because these are a small percentage
of the total births, an alternative to permitting manual cutoff
switches might be to permit air bags to be deactivated in these
situations, i.e., the agency could issue an exemption from the general
statutory requirement in 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30122 that prohibits
manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from
``making inoperative'' required safety equipment. However, even
assuming the agency issued such an exemption, owners and/or dealers
might not be aware of the exemption process, or owners might not go to
the trouble of having an air bag deactivated, and thus risk injury to
the child. It would be much easier to operate a manual cutoff switch.
Also, if owners did have the air bag deactivated, the bag would not be
available for any occupants, depriving them of the added protection an
air bag offers, while a manual cutoff switch would allow the selective
deactivation of the air bag when appropriate. In addition, there is the
possibility that the owner would not
[[Page 40799]]
have the air bag reactivated once the child grew out of a rear-facing
child seat. For these reasons, the manual cutoff switch appears to be a
better option to accommodate the needs of infants who require
monitoring for medical reasons.
A second argument for permitting manual cutoff switches is that the
instinctual desire of some parents to keep their infants near them
under their close and watchful eye may be sufficiently strong that it
is difficult to convince them of the safety need to place the children
in the rear seat. This is a particular concern given the inherent
limitations of any public education campaign or label. NHTSA recently
conducted six focus groups (two in Lubbock, Texas and four in
Cleveland, Ohio) on public information campaigns relating to air bags.
Many parents of children under the age of one year indicated that they
travel with the child rear-facing in the front seat. Most indicated
that they are reluctant to place an infant rear-facing in the rear
seat, where they cannot see the child and will not be able to reach the
child quickly in the event of an emergency.
NHTSA is thus concerned that some parents may decide to place a
rear-facing child seat in the front seat where the infant can be
closely monitored, even in the presence of an air bag and warning
labels. While the agency does not wish to encourage parents to place
children in the front seat, a cutoff switch would enable these parents
to eliminate the risk from the air bag.
The agency notes that many commenters to the November 1995 request
for comments expressed concern about the potential for misuse of a
manual cutoff switch. A switch could be misused either by a driver or
other vehicle occupant deactivating the air bag when a rear facing
child seat is not present, or because a driver simply forgets to
reactivate the air bag after using such a restraint. In either such
instance, properly restrained occupants, who are not at risk from the
air bag, or unrestrained adults in higher speed crashes would not be
afforded the protection of the air bag.
As discussed in the Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation (PRE) for
this rulemaking, NHTSA has assessed possible benefit trade- offs
associated with a manual cutoff switch for the right front passenger,
intended to be used for rear-facing child restraints. It appears that
there will be more benefits to allowing a cutoff switch than losses
under reasonable assumptions of possible misuse of the cutoff switch.
(See the PRE for a more detailed discussion.) The agency's educational
efforts will focus on preventing such misuse and the agency also notes
that the requirement for an extra warning light would reduce the
possibility of drivers forgetting to reactivate the air bag after using
a rear-facing child restraint in the front seat. Currently, a yellow
warning light displays the message ``AIR BAG OFF'' whenever the right
front passenger air bag is deactivated using the cutoff switch.
Based on discussions with Ford, the vehicle manufacturer with the
largest number of manual cutoff switches,4 NHTSA is not aware of
any misuse problems with these devices. Nevertheless, NHTSA
specifically requests comments on whether there are any quantitative
data or other information concerning the likelihood of manual cutoff
switches being misused. The agency is particularly interested in
information that is derived from the real-world experience with the
vehicles which have been produced with manual cutoff switches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ To date, NHTSA knows of only three models utilizing cutoff
switches--the model year 1996 Ford Ranger pickup, the model year
1997 Ford F150 pickup, which was introduced in February 1996, and
the LE and SE versions of the model year 1996 Mazda B-series pickup
trucks, which are equipped with an optional passenger side air bag.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA requests comments on the various factors discussed above, and
any other factors commenters consider relevant to permitting the option
of manual cutoff switches for passenger- side air bags.
VIII. Future Agency Considerations
As discussed above, NHTSA believes serious adverse effects of air
bags can be effectively addressed in the medium and long term by means
of changes to the designs of air bags and other related vehicle
components. Some design changes were discussed in the preceding
sections of this notice. This section discusses other possible design
changes, ongoing agency efforts to evaluate the effects of such
changes, and possible future agency regulatory actions.
Through conducting its own research and working with the motor
vehicle industry, NHTSA is looking for design solutions that will be
reasonable in cost and effective in reducing the identified adverse
side effects of air bags without creating new safety problems. To
minimize further injuries and loss of life, the agency is seeking
solutions having as short leadtime requirements as possible. It may be
that solutions meeting these criteria are currently permitted by the
standard. There is already considerable flexibility under the standard
to make design changes in air bags. Nevertheless, it may be that the
agency would have to amend the standard to permit the implementation of
those solutions. If it is necessary to amend the standard, the agency's
desire would be to amend it in a way that minimizes the adverse side
effects while preserving the protection afforded by air bags.
At this point, the agency does not have enough detailed research
concerning trade-offs to determine which design solutions will be most
effective. Before the agency can make the necessary determinations, it
will need additional data and have to make a variety of assessments and
analyses. The agency will examine the alternatives that are or will be
reasonably available at reasonable cost. It will also assess safety
trade-offs associated with each of those alternatives. This will
include assessing how each alternative would affect the safety of
occupants of different weights and sizes. There is a possibility that
some design changes may benefit some groups more than others. There is
even a possibility that although some changes may benefit some groups,
they will not benefit, or even may harm, other groups. Finally, the
agency will compare the alternatives in terms of their relative safety
effects and costs.
The agency's search for effective solutions is complicated by a
number of factors. First, NHTSA is sensitive to the possibility that to
the extent that the agency mandates solutions, its intervention could
affect the pace and direction of industry efforts to find effective
solutions. Second, the sheer complexity of air bag technology and crash
dynamics and the range of different circumstances associated with the
adverse effects of air bags make it virtually impossible to find a
single solution to the challenge of providing the best possible
protection for the wide range of vehicle occupants. Third, the state of
the art in air bag technology and in design choices regarding air bags
is rapidly changing. Fourth, there is no clear emerging industry
consensus to aid the agency in identifying which design changes will
effectively address the adverse effects while preserving the safety
benefits of air bags.
The agency has initiated a research testing and analysis program to
address these problems. The program is being coordinated and conducted
at the Vehicle Research and Test Center, the agency's in-house
laboratory in Ohio. The program's objectives are to:
Assess the performance of air bag systems in current
production vehicles in particular crash conditions, including the
effects on out-of-position children.
[[Page 40800]]
Assess the level of improvement possible in out-of-
position performance from changes to existing air bag components,
including downloaded air bags, as well as newly developed pre-
production systems.
Provide visibility for air bag-related technology, thus
promoting the rapid adoption of newer technologies that will help solve
the out-of-position occupant injury problem.
The immediate focus of the program is on the passenger-side out-of-
position problem as related to children. Several vehicle models have
been selected based upon field accident investigations and air bag
design characteristics. Both domestic and foreign vehicles are included
in the selection. The test conditions include four different child
positions similar to those recommended by ISO, and represent worst case
occurrences. These tests will provide ``baseline'' performance of air
bag systems when a child is an out-of-position occupant.
NHTSA is inviting vehicle manufacturers and air bag and component
suppliers to provide state-of-the-art air bag systems. Systems that
show significant improvements over baseline performance for out-of-
position children will also be tested with adult-sized dummies in full-
scale crash conditions required in Federal standards.
The test program will also address other aspects of air bag safety
following the out-of-position child study. These include out-of-
position driver tests, vehicle crash sensor testing, and testing of
advanced air bag systems. The out-of-position driver testing will focus
on small-sized female occupants who are sometimes injured due to the
close proximity to the steering-wheel air bag system. Testing will
continue into fiscal year 1997.
While it is not part of the agency's current test program, NHTSA
also continues to be interested in whether increasing the minimum
vehicle speed at which an air bag deploys, and possibly having
different deployment thresholds for the unbelted and belted conditions,
may be an effective way to reduce air bag-induced injuries.
As the agency's test program continues, and as it receives relevant
information from other sources, NHTSA will continue to assess whether
other regulatory action is appropriate, including possible action to
permit or facilitate downloading, and including possible action to
address the vehicle speed at which air bags deploy. The agency invites
interested persons to submit relevant information. NHTSA is
particularly interested in additional information and analyses which
address possible safety trade-offs, and information concerning the
possible availability of design features that could make such trade-
offs unnecessary. The agency expects to publish a Federal Register
notice in the next few months announcing a public meeting on these
technical subjects, reporting on its research to date, and laying out
the issues to be addressed in the meeting.
Finally, the agency is continuing to evaluate the special problems
faced by persons with disabilities. People with disabilities may have
problems with air bags in addition to those that result primarily from
their proximity to the air bag at the time of deployment. Persons with
disabilities may also face unique problems due to the special adaptive
equipment they need to drive, or vehicle modifications needed to
accommodate the disability. The installation of certain adaptive
equipment may require removal of the air bag, reduce the effectiveness
of air bags by interfering with their deployment, or cause injury to a
driver because of movement of the device during deployment. In
September 1994, the agency issued a consumer advisory cautioning
drivers with disabilities not to use steering control devices mounted
on a bar installed across the steering wheel hub (a ``spanner bar'') of
vehicles with driver-side air bags.
NHTSA currently lacks sufficient data to decide if air bags will
pose unique problems for people with disabilities because of the
interaction with the special adaptive equipment. Thus, the agency does
not believe it is appropriate, at this time, to propose special
requirements for air bags in vehicles adapted for people with
disabilities. Nor does the agency have enough information to make
recommendations. The agency has started a sled testing program to
investigate the potential for injury from steering control devices used
by people with disabilities and the possible interaction of these
devices with deploying air bags. This testing is scheduled to be
completed by September 1996. The agency will then analyze the test
results and take appropriate actions.
IX. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget 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. The action is considered significant because of the degree
of public interest in this subject. This action is also potentially
economically significant under E.O. 12866. Should NHTSA decide to
require smart air bags in the final rule, the final action would be
economically significant and/or major, in which case additional public
comment may be necessary.
As discussed earlier in this notice, NHTSA estimates that the costs
of the new or enhanced labels that would be required by the proposed
rule at between 15 and 25 cents per vehicle. The enhanced labels for
child restraints would add between $0.05 and $1.00 per child restraint.
The costs of automatic cutoff devices, or other automatic systems
to prevent injuries from bags, varies considerably, although the agency
does not have accurate estimates of these costs. A weight sensor may
cost $20 or more; a smart air bag system incorporating other
technologies may add $50 or more in incremental cost; an air bag that
utilizes different fold patterns and inflators may add very little
incremental cost to the current air bag systems. These are all rough
estimates. Comments are requested on the costs of various systems.
NHTSA estimates the cost of a manual cutoff device at a little over
five dollars. Such a device would be optional, not required.
A full discussion of costs and benefits can be found in the
agency's preliminary regulatory evaluation for this rulemaking action,
which is being placed in the docket.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has considered the effects of this proposed rulemaking action
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that it would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
The proposal primarily affects motor vehicle manufacturers and
child restraint manufacturers. Almost all motor vehicle manufacturers
would not qualify as small businesses. The agency knows of eight
manufacturers of child restraints, two of which NHTSA considers to be
small businesses. However, since the agency is only proposing a minor
labeling change for child restraints, the proposed requirements would
not have any significant economic impact.
[[Page 40801]]
C. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this proposal for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that a final rule adopting this
proposal would not have any significant impact on the quality of the
human environment.
D. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
The agency has analyzed this proposal in accordance with the
principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 12612. NHTSA has
determined that this proposal does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
E. 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.
X. Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this 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
the 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 NHTSA 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 by NHTSA 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 recommends 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, Rubber and rubber
products, Tires.
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 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 removing S4.5.4.1,
redesignating S4.5.1(e) as S4.5.1(f) and S4.5.4.2 through S4.5.4.4 as
S4.5.4.1 through S4.5.4.3, revising S4.1.5.1(b), S4.5.1(b) through (d),
and S4.5.4, and by adding a new S4.5.1(e) and S4.5.5, to read as
follows:
Sec. 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 of this standard, an inflatable restraint system means
an air bag that is activated in a crash.
* * * * *
S4.5.1 Labeling and owner's manual information.
* * * * *
(b) Labels on sun visor above seating positions equipped with an
inflatable restraint system. Except as provided in S4.5.1(e) of this
standard, each vehicle manufactured on or after (the date 60 days after
publication of the final rule would be inserted) shall have labels
permanently affixed to both sides of the sun visor over each front
outboard seating position that is equipped with an inflatable restraint
system. The label on the side of the visor visible when the visor is in
the stowed position and the label on the side of the visor visible when
the visor is in the extended position shall conform in size, content,
color, and format to the appropriate sun visor label shown in Figures
6a, 6b and 6c of this standard. No additional information about air
bags or the need to wear seat belts shall appear on sun visors, except
for air bag maintenance information provided pursuant to S4.5.1(a) of
this standard or the utility vehicle label provided pursuant to 49 CFR
575.105(c)(1).
(c) Label on Passenger-Side End of Dash or on Passenger-Side Door.
Except as provided in S4.5.1(e) of this standard, each vehicle
manufactured on or after (the date 60 days after publication of the
final rule would be inserted) that is equipped with an inflatable
restraint system for the passenger position shall have a label
permanently affixed to the passenger-side end of the vehicle dash or
the passenger-side door. The label shall be positioned so that it is
plainly visible and easily readable when the passenger-side door is
fully opened. This label shall conform in size, content, color, and
format to the appropriate passenger-side dash/door label shown in
Figures 7a and 7b of this standard.
(d) Label in the middle of the dash. Except as provided in
S4.5.1(e) of this standard, each vehicle manufactured on or after (the
date 60 days after publication of the final rule would be) that is
equipped with an inflatable restraint system for the passenger position
shall have a label affixed to the middle of the dash. This label shall
be positioned so that it is conspicuous and easily readable for a
seated occupant in any front designated seating position. This label
shall conform in size, content, color, and format to the middle of the
dash label shown in Figure 8 of this standard.
(e) (1) The labels specified in S4.5.1(b), (c) and (d) of this
standard are not required for vehicles that have a smart passenger air
bag meeting the
[[Page 40802]]
criteria specified in S4.5.5 of this standard.
(2) A manufacturer may, at its option, place the label specified in
S4.5.1(b) of this standard for the side of the visor visible when the
visor is in the extended position, on the side of the visor visible
when the visor is in the stowed position. If the manufacturer selects
this option, it need not provide a label on the side of the visor
visible when the visor is in the extended position.
* * * * *
S4.5.4 Passenger Air Bag Manual Cutoff Device. Passenger cars,
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles which do not have
smart passenger air bags (as defined in S4.5.5 of this standard) 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 S4.5.4.3 of this standard are satisfied.
* * * * *
S4.5.5 Smart Passenger Air Bags. For purposes of this standard, a
smart passenger air bag is a passenger air bag which:
(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;
(b) Provides an automatic means to ensure that the air bag does not
deploy when [In the final rule, the agency would include specific,
broadly-inclusive language that allows objective identification of
other deactivation technologies (e.g., sensors of occupant size or
proximity-to-dashboard) that would automatically prevent an air bag
from injuring the two groups of children that experience has shown to
be at special risk from air bags: infants in rear-facing child seats,
and unbelted or improperly belted children]; or
(c) Deploys in a manner that [In the final rule, the agency would
include specific, broadly-inclusive language that allows objective
identification of technologies that would automatically prevent an air
bag from injuring the two groups of children that experience has shown
to be at special risk from air bags: infants in rear-facing child
seats, and unbelted or improperly belted children].
* * * * *
3. Section 571.208 would be amended by adding a new heading
preceeding the figures and new figures 6a, 6b, 6c, 7a, 7b, and 8 at the
end of the section as follows:
Figures to Sec. 571.208
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 40803]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06AU96.005
[[Page 40804]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06AU96.006
[[Page 40805]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06AU96.007
[[Page 40806]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06AU96.008
[[Page 40807]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06AU96.009
[[Page 40808]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06AU96.010
[[Page 40809]]
4. Section 571.213 would be amended by adding S5.5.2(k)(4) to read
as follows:
Sec. 571.213 Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems.
* * * * *
S5.5.2 * * *
(k) * * *
(4) In the case of each child restraint system that can be used in
a rear-facing position and is manufactured on or after (the date 180
days after publication of the final rule would be inserted), 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 size, content, color, and format to
Figure 10 of this standard shall be permanently affixed to the outer
surface of the cushion or padding in the area where a child's head
would rest, so that the label is plainly visible and easily readable.
* * * * *
5. Section 571.213 would be amended by adding new figure 10 at the
end of the section as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06AU96.011
Issued on July 31, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-19923 Filed 8-1-96; 1:48 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.