Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

SUMMARY: This rule extends until September 1, 2000, the time period

during which vehicle manufacturers are permitted to offer manual cutoff

switches for the passenger-side air bag for vehicles without rear seats

or with rear seats that are too small to accommodate rear facing infant

seats. Rear facing infant seats cannot be used safely in front of an

air bag, and should ordinarily be placed in the back seat. The purpose

of the option for manual cutoff switches is to ensure that the vehicle

manufacturers have a means of accommodating their customers' need to

carry rear facing infant seats in vehicles without rear seats or with

rear seats that are too small for these devices. The agency is

extending the time period for the option to ensure that manufacturers

have adequate time to implement better, automatic solutions.

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

February 5, 1997.

Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration must be received by

February 20, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket and

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

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

Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about air bags and

related rulemakings: Visit the NHTSA web site at http://

www.nhtsa.dot.gov and select ``AIR BAGS Information about air bags.''

For non-legal issues: Mr. Clarke Harper, Chief, Light Duty Vehicle

Division, NPS-11, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2264.

Fax: (202) 366-4329.

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

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

SW, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992. Fax: (202) 366-

3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background.

II. Overview and Summary.

III. Current and Proposed Requirements Concerning Manual Cutoff

Switches.

IV. Summary of Comments.

A. Vehicle manufacturers.

B. Dealers.

C. Suppliers.

D. Child seat manufacturers.

E. Insurance, safety, and medical groups.

F. Other commenters.

V. Agency Decision.

A. Option for Manual Cutoff Switches.

B. Performance Requirements for Manual Cutoff Switches.

C. Effective Date.

VI. 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.

I. Background

While air bags are providing significant overall safety benefits,

NHTSA is very concerned because current designs have adverse effects in

some situations. Most important, while passenger side air bags are

estimated to have saved 164 lives to date, they have also killed 32

children in relatively low speed collisions. Eighteen of those deaths

have occurred this year. Driver air bags, by contrast, are estimated to

have saved 1500 lives to date. The agency is aware of 19 relatively low

speed crashes in which a driver has been killed by the air bag.

Within the past year, the agency has published two documents in the

Federal Register to address this subject. 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 and industry to share information and views with the agency. 60

FR 56554.

On August 6, 1996, the agency published a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) to reduce the adverse effects of air bags, especially

those on children. 61 FR 40784. The NPRM proposed several amendments to

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 213,

Child Restraint Systems.

In the August 1996 NPRM, the agency explained that eventually,

either through market forces or government regulation, it expects that

``smart'' passenger-side air bags will be installed in passenger cars

and light trucks to mitigate these adverse effects. NHTSA indicated

that, for purposes of the NPRM, it considered 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.

NHTSA proposed that vehicles lacking smart passenger-side air bags

would be required to have new, attention-getting warning labels. By

limiting the labeling requirement to vehicles without smart passenger-

side air bags, NHTSA hoped to encourage the introduction of the next

generation of air bags as soon as possible. NHTSA proposed to define

smart air bags broadly to give manufacturers flexibility in making

design choices. The agency requested comments concerning whether it

should require installation of smart air bags and, if so, on what date

such a requirement should become effective.

NHTSA also proposed to expand an existing option that permits

manufacturers to install manual cutoff switches for the passenger-side

air bag for vehicles without rear seats or with rear seats that are too

small to accommodate rear facing infant seats. That option is scheduled

to expire on September 1, 1997 for passenger cars and September 1, 1998

for light trucks. The agency proposed to extend the option for a longer

period of time, and to expand it to cover all vehicles.

II. Overview and Summary

NHTSA is implementing a comprehensive plan of rulemaking and other

actions (e.g., primary enforcement of State safety belt use laws)

addressing the adverse effects of air bags. As part of that plan, NHTSA

is issuing three separate, but related, notices today. Each notice is

intended to ensure that some or all or the risks are reduced, and

benefits retained, to the maximum extent possible. They provide

immediate and/or interim solutions to the problem. A later notice, a

proposal to require smart air bags, would provide a permanent solution.

In this final rule, which is based on the August 1996 NPRM, NHTSA

is extending until September 1, 2000, a provision in Standard No. 208

permitting vehicle manufacturers to offer manual cutoff switches for

the passenger air bag for new vehicles without rear seats or with rear

seats that are too small to accommodate rear-facing infant restraints.

The other rulemaking actions addressing the adverse side effects of

air bags are as follows:

[[Page 799]]

Also based on the August 1996 NPRM, the agency issued

on November 22, 1996, a final rule amending Standards No. 208 and

No. 213 to require improved labeling on new vehicles and child

restraints to better ensure that drivers and other occupants are

aware of the dangers posed by passenger air bags to children. The

labeling places particular emphasis on placing rear-facing infant

restraints in the rear seats of vehicles with operational passenger

air bags. 61 Fed. Reg. 60206; November 27, 1996. The new labels are

required on vehicles not equipped with smart passenger air bags

beginning February 25, 1997, and on child restraints beginning May

27, 1997.

NHTSA is also issuing an NPRM to temporarily amend

Standard No. 208 to permit or facilitate approximately 20 to 35

percent depowering of current air bags.

The agency also is issuing an NPRM proposing to permit

motor vehicle dealers and repair businesses to deactivate, upon the

request of consumers, driver and passenger air bags that do not meet

the agency's criteria for smart air bags. Final action is expected

in early 1997.

In addition to these actions, NHTSA will issue a

separate supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) to require a phasing-in of smart

air bags, beginning on September 1, 1998, and to establish

performance requirements for those air bags. The proposal will be

issued in early 1997.

III. Current and Proposed Requirements Concerning Manual Cutoff

Switches

Until smart passenger-side air bags can be installed in new

vehicles, the improved labeling requirements recently announced by the

agency will 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 will

ideally respond to the labels by ensuring that, whenever possible, a

child occupies the back seat of a vehicle, instead of the front, and is

properly restrained there. Further, the adult will ensure that if a

child, other than an infant in a rear-facing child seat, must sit in

the front seat, the child is properly restrained and the seat is moved

all the way back.

For rear-facing infant seats, however, securing them tightly in a

front seat using the vehicle safety belts and moving the front seat all

the way back will not protect an infant because the child seat would

still extend too far forward. The infant's head would still be located

very close to the air bag. For this reason, a rear-facing child seat

should never be placed in a seating position with an activated 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 allowing manufacturers the option of installing a manual device

that motorists could use to deactivate the front passenger-side air bag

in vehicles that are manufactured on or after June 22, 1995, and that

cannot accommodate rear-facing child seats anywhere except in the front

seat. In addition to limiting the types of vehicles which were

permitted to have the manual cutoff switch, the final rule also

included a number of conditions that had to be satisfied. The manual

cutoff switch had to use an ignition key to turn off the air bag and to

turn on the air bag by manual means. The manufacturer had to also

install a warning light that was separate from the air bag readiness

indicator and would indicate when the air bag was turned off. The light

had to be visible to both the driver and passenger. The manufacturer

had to include information on the manual cutoff switch 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. The agency decided to place a time limit on

the option for manual cutoff switches because it believed that better,

automatic solutions would soon be available.

In the August NPRM, NHTSA proposed to extend the period of

availability of the option for manual cutoff switches and to permit

installation of those devices in all vehicles with passenger air bags

lacking smart capability. The agency issued this proposal out of

concern that smart air bags were not becoming available as quickly as

anticipated, and that the need to place rear facing infant seats in the

front seat goes beyond vehicles lacking rear seats that can accommodate

these devices.

The agency noted that some children have special medical problems

requiring close monitoring, which cannot be accomplished if the driver

places the child in the rear seat. The agency had received a number of

comments concerning this problem in response to a request for comments

concerning adverse effects of air bags published in the Federal

Register on November 9, 1995 (60 FR 56554).\1\

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

\1\ Among other things, 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 agency also noted that the National Association

of Pediatric Nurse Associates & Practitioners had 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.

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

NHTSA also noted that a second reason for permitting manual cutoff

switches in all vehicles is that the deep-seated desire of some parents

to keep their infants near them under their close and watchful eye may

be sufficiently strong that they choose to place their children in the

front seat instead of the rear seat where the child would be safer.\2\

The agency stated that it was 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 activated air bag and

warning labels. NHTSA noted that while it 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.

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

\2\ A child is safer in the back seat of a vehicle, regardless

of whether the vehicle has an activated passenger air bag in the

front seat.

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

NHTSA requested comments on the availability of alternative

automatic devices, and how such availability should affect its decision

regarding the manual cutoff switch option. The agency also requested

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.

The agency noted 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 an occupant other

than a child in a rear facing child seat is present, or by a driver

simply forgetting to reactivate the air bag after using such a

restraint. In either case, the air bag would not be available to

protect persons who could benefit from its deployment.

In the Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation (PRE) for this rulemaking,

NHTSA assessed possible benefit trade-offs associated with a manual

cutoff switch provided for the right front passenger seat and intended

to be used when a rear-facing child restraint is placed there. The

agency stated that it appeared that there would be more

[[Page 800]]

benefits to allowing a cutoff switch than losses if misuse levels were

below seven percent. NHTSA noted that its educational efforts would

focus on preventing such misuse, and also noted 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, pursuant to Standard No. 208, a

yellow warning light displays the message ``AIR BAG OFF'' whenever the

right front passenger air bag is deactivated by someone operating the

cutoff switch.

Based on discussions with Ford, the vehicle manufacturer with the

largest number of manual cutoff switches,\3\ NHTSA stated that it was

not aware of any misuse problems with these devices. Nevertheless,

NHTSA specifically requested comments on whether there are any

quantitative data or other information concerning the likelihood of

manual cutoff switches being misused. The agency stated that it was

particularly interested in information derived from the real-world

experience with the vehicles equipped with manual cutoff switches.

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

\3\ At the time of the NPRM, NHTSA knew 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.

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

IV. Summary of Comments

NHTSA received comments concerning its August 1996 proposal on

manual cutoff switches from vehicle manufacturers, suppliers, safety

groups, and private individuals. Commenters generally supported

extending the period of availability of the existing option for manual

cutoff switches. The comments were mixed, however, with respect to

expanding the option to cover all vehicles. A variety of commenters,

including the domestic auto manufacturers and several insurance and

safety groups, opposed such an expansion. Some were concerned about the

potential misuse of the cutoff, while others thought that such an

expansion would inadvertently and unavoidably compromise various safety

messages, i.e., that rear facing infant seats should always be placed

in the back seat and that the back seat is the safest place for all

children.

This section summarizes comments concerning whether the option for

cutoff switches should be extended in time and/or expanded in scope.

Comments concerning what specific requirements should apply to cutoff

switches, assuming they are permitted, are addressed later in this

document.

A. Vehicle Manufacturers

The American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA),

representing GM, Ford, and Chrysler, recommended that the current

option for installing manual cutoff switches in certain vehicle

configurations be continued. It noted that its members are already on

record as considering this approach to be an interim measure until

systems that can discriminate occupant weight and location have been

proven to be sufficiently reliable and effective for production vehicle

use.

AAMA recommended, however, that the allowable use of manual cutoff

switches not be expanded to cover other vehicle configurations than

those currently permitted. That organization noted that the cutoff

switch option currently allowed in Standard No. 208 provides a method

to manually deactivate the passenger side air bag in vehicles where the

alternative of placing a rear-facing child seat in the rear seat of the

vehicle does not exist because of the configuration of the vehicles'

interior. AAMA stated that in these vehicles, there may be specific

crash situations where a properly utilized manual cutoff switch could

provide a benefit. That commenter added, however, that there are no

data publicly available to evaluate the net effectiveness of a cutoff

switch--particularly considering the long term potential for misuse.

Therefore, AAMA believes that for other vehicle configurations that

already offer preferable alternatives to placing rear-facing child

seats in the vehicles' front seat, the net potential benefit of a

cutoff switch is questionable.

GM stated that it supports the agency's proposal to extend

indefinitely the currently permitted use of manual cutoff switches for

passenger air bags. That company noted that it is currently installing

these switches in its 1997 regular and extended full size pickup

trucks. GM stated that its review of the various automatic suppression

technologies currently being developed is ongoing. According to that

commenter, as automatic suppression technology becomes production

capable, its ability to replace manual suppression systems will be

evaluated and, when appropriate, implemented as quickly as possible. GM

stated that it does not agree with the agency's proposal to expand the

allowable use of manual cutoff switches to include vehicles other than

the configurations currently permitted.

Ford stated that it supports extension beyond September 1, 1998 of

the existing option to install manual deactivation switches in vehicles

that cannot fit rear-facing infant restraints in the rear seat, because

it may be unable to install automatic deactivation for children in all

pickup trucks by that date. Ford stated, however, that it opposes

expansion of the option to passenger cars and other vehicles that can

fit rear-facing infant restraints in the rear seat, because automatic

(weight threshold) deactivation technology has now advanced

sufficiently to be considered for future models of such vehicles.

Chrysler stated that it is concerned about the many opportunities

for misuse of cutoff switches, even if their use is limited to the

vehicles in which they may now be installed. That company stated that

drivers are faced with a dilemma about how to use a cutoff switch with

three passenger front seating. Given the confusion associated with this

problem and ordinary driver distractions, it believes that the

potential for misuse of cutoff switches could exceed the seven percent

``breakeven'' figure cited by the agency in its Preliminary Regulatory

Evaluation for the August 1996 NPRM.

Chrysler also argued that it believes cutoff switches may

discourage seat belt use, and dilute the message that children should

be seated in the rear seat. Chrysler stated that given NHTSA's

statement that the likelihood of injuries/fatalities is 29 percent less

for someone sitting in the rear seat instead of in the front seat, this

encouragement of front seat use alone could negate the purported

benefits of cutoff switches.

Toyota stated that it believes manual cutoff switches are the most

reliable resolution currently available when used as intended, i.e., to

install a rearward facing infant restraint. That company indicated that

it is planning to provide such switches in its 1998 model year pickup

trucks. Toyota stated that, with respect to vehicles other than those

without adequate seats for rear facing infant seats, manual cutoff

switches have some inherent problems.

Honda stated that it is extremely concerned about the potential for

misuse or abuse of manual cutoff switches by some users. That company

stated that vehicle operators may inadvertently forget to deactivate

the air bag with the switch when necessary, or may intentionally

deactivate the passenger air bag with the cutoff switch when it is not

appropriate to do so. Honda stated it believes the manual cutoff switch

represents the least

[[Page 801]]

effective of any solutions to the problem of air bag induced injuries.

Mercedes Benz stated that unless required by law, it will not offer

any type of manual cutoff switch because of expected driver misuse or

non-use.

Volvo stated that it believes manual cutoff switches should be

allowed for all categories of vehicles. That manufacturer stated that

this technology must be considered an interim solution. Volvo stated it

believes market forces will act as soon as more advanced technology is

available and will make any manually operated system obsolete.

Therefore, that company believes there should be no time limit for when

manual cutoff switches should no longer be allowed.

Volvo noted that in Europe, due to customer requests, most

manufacturers have developed new car retail service procedures for

deactivation and reactivation of passenger side air bags. Volvo

recommended making new car retail service procedures legal in the U.S.

for all customers who wish to deactivate the passenger side air bag.

BMW stated that it believes manual cutoff switches remain a

practical alternative and allowing them on all vehicles is a reasonable

interim solution. That company stated that it is important to offer

parents alternatives until advanced technologies can be developed and

implemented. BMW stated that if the fast pace of technology for

advanced systems continues at its current rate, it expects that the

need for an allowance for manual devices may be eliminated about the

year 2002.

BMW noted that as an alternative to manual devices, a more direct

approach consists of temporarily deactivating the air bag. That

manufacturer stated that it believes that NHTSA could develop

procedures similar to those being utilized by vehicle manufacturers in

Europe. In Europe, a BMW dealer is allowed to temporarily deactivate

the passenger air bag for individuals who may have a special need or

normally transport children after advising them of the benefits of air

bags and approval forms are signed.

B. Dealers

The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) supported the

agency's proposal to expand the option for manual cutoff switches to

cover all vehicles.

C. Suppliers

TRW stated that it believes the cutoff switch to be the most

positive means of shutting off the air bag if understood and used

properly, and therefore supported allowing its use in all vehicles.

However, TRW recommended continued use of the cutoff switch only until

more inclusive, automatic means can be demonstrated and adopted.

Autoliv stated that manual cutoff switches should be considered as

an interim solution. That company stated that it believes market forces

will generate devices for automatic deactivation and that a time limit

for permitting manual cutoff switches is unnecessary. Autoliv also

argued that another reason for not setting a time limit is that there

may be a justification for a combination of manual and automatic

systems, highly depending on the direction that the development of

automatic systems takes.

D. Child Seat Manufacturers

Cosco stated that it believes cutoff switches should immediately be

permitted in all vehicles as the fastest way of providing an option for

those who must, or prefer to, have a baby in the front seat. That

company stated that it does not believe permitting cutoff switches will

delay the introduction of smart bags, but will allow the thoughtful and

intelligent introduction of effective smart systems.

Cosco also commented that certain car beds, including its ``Dream

Ride,'' are compatible with seating positions equipped with air bags.

Cosco cited a test performed by NHTSA for this conclusion. Cosco stated

that such car beds that have been proven to be compatible with air bags

do not require the deactivation of the air bag. That commenter stated

that until cutoff switches or other devices are adopted, NHTSA should

make an effort to inform parents that a car bed is an acceptable

alternative, especially since, for medically fragile infants and also

for cars with non-compatible rear vehicle belts, a car bed is their

only option.

E. Insurance, Safety, and Medical Groups

IIHS stated that it does not support NHTSA's proposal to allow

manual cutoff switches in all vehicles with passenger air bags. That

organization stated that it is concerned that cutoff switches will not

be an effective solution to the problem of child deaths and may lead to

additional harm to other vehicle occupants. According to IIHS, some

people undoubtedly would use the switches correctly, but it is likely

that many parents and other drivers would misuse the switches. That

commenter stated that there is no reason to believe that many adults

who allow children to ride unrestrained or improperly restrained would

use air bag deactivation switches correctly.

IIHS also cited a danger that manual cutoff switches send consumers

a mixed message by encouraging drivers to place infants and children in

the front seat. That commenter noted that a central objective of the

educational effort to reduce the adverse effects of passenger air bags

is to convince adults that infants and children should ride in rear

seats. A recent Institute survey of vehicles in parking lots found

rear-facing restraints in the front seat of cars with passenger air

bags only 9 percent of the time, compared with 36 percent in cars

without passenger air bags. IIHS stated that it would be a mistake if,

as a result of switches, more infants and children are placed in the

front seat.

The National Association of Independent Insurers (NAII) stated that

it is extremely concerned by the proposal to allow use of manual

switches to allow vehicle users to deactivate passenger-side air bags.

NAII cited several concerns about this issue previously raised by IIHS

and stated that, in NAII's estimation, many people may run a greater

risk of getting injured simply because they have forgotten to turn the

switch back on.

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) stated that while

it would support an extension of time for the installation of manual

cutoff switches in vehicles without back seats, it believes that NHTSA

should encourage the use of automatic weight sensors and should not

permit the installation of manual cutoff switches in vehicles with back

seats. According to that organization, permitting the installation of

manual cutoff switches in all passenger vehicles would result in

potential safety risks for many passengers due to the inevitable misuse

of cutoff switches. Advocates stated that the misuse of cutoff switches

is foreseeable and will result in a safety trade-off that will, in

fact, undermine the proven life saving benefits of air bags.

Advocates argued that permitting manual cutoff switches in all

vehicles will make air bag protection subject to the vagaries of what

the agency has in the past referred to as operator error. The safety

benefits of air bags will then depend on the ability and willingness of

adults to set the switch in the ``off'' position for infants or

toddlers but return it to the ``on'' position for other passengers.

Advocates stated that it is convinced that manual cutoff switches will

not be correctly used. Advocates also stated that while it has not

quantified the potential risk, it believes that the higher level of

exposure of non-infant occupants to risk when an air bag is turned off

will far exceed the present

[[Page 802]]

level of adverse effects of passenger-side air bags on children in

rear-facing child restraints.

Advocates also argued that the manual cutoff switch sends the wrong

safety message to parents. According to that commenter, the existence

of a manual switch strongly implies that it is safe to place infants

and children in the front seat.

Public Citizen stated that it opposes installation of air bag on/

off switches. That organization argued that this proposal is misguided

and would undercut the automatic nature of air bags. One of the

disadvantages, according to Public Citizen, is the danger that the air

bag will be left off for adult passengers when it should be on. That

commenter also stated that the proposal sends a wrong and deadly

message--that it's okay for kids to ride in the front seat. Public

Citizen stated that a far preferable technical change would be a

minimum trigger speed of approximately 15 mph, which would

significantly reduce the number of low speed crash air bag inflations,

the type of crash in which children are being killed and injured.

SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. stated that it agrees that cutoff switches

may be a necessary, temporary solution for some vehicles, but they

should not be permitted beyond a specified date.

National Safe Kids Campaign (NSKC), whose chairman is C. Everett

Koop, M.D., stated that it believes that in the best interest of

children, manual cutoff switches should be required until smart

passenger-side air bags are developed. That organization stated that

while there are behavioral issues associated with cutoff switches, it

recognizes that families with small children will sometimes need to

transport them in the front seat as a last resort. That organization

stated that the cutoff switch gives the responsible parent/driver the

option to turn off the air bag deployment system and then more safely

transport an infant or child in the front seat.

Kathleen Weber, Director of the Child Passenger Research Program at

the University of Michigan Medical School, supported the agency's

proposal. Ms. Weber stated that despite all the warnings in the world,

parents want to put babies in the front seat, and older children also

like to ride up front with the driver. That commenter stated that, with

respect to the latter, it is becoming increasingly clear that, even

when older children are suitably restrained by a lap/shoulder belt,

they can easily and unpredictably move forward to adjust the radio,

pick up something from the floor, or brace themselves in anticipation

of a crash, inadvertently placing themselves at great risk of injury or

death. Ms. Weber stated that parents need the option of suppressing

deployment of passenger air bags by either manual or automatic means,

and also urged the agency to address this problem for owners of current

vehicles.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated that it is very

concerned about the possibility of extending and expanding the

availability of manual air bag cutoff switches. That organization

stated that efforts to educate families through labels regarding the

potential dangers of air bags to infants in rear facing child seats

have demonstrated that compliance is extremely difficult to accomplish.

AAP expressed concern that with a manual cutoff switch, drivers may

fail to deactivate the air bag when the rear facing seat is present or

fail to reactivate the air bag after an appropriate deactivation. That

organization stated that increased availability of the manual cutoff

switch would lead to the development of a much larger fleet of vehicles

in which such misuse could result. AAP stated that ensuring proper use

of the cutoff switch by so many drivers would entail an enormous and

extremely difficult educational challenge and would almost surely

result in a significant amount of misuse.

AAP stated that it is also concerned that the availability of a

manual cutoff switch will dilute the important message that ``Back Seat

is Best.'' That organization stated that although many parents feel

that they need a manual cutoff switch so that they can place an infant

in the front seat for observation, the number of children who actually

have a medical need for observation is smaller than parents realize. In

fact, AAP stated the number of such children is very small. AAP argued

that consumer concerns could better be addressed through a focused,

short-term education effort until a passive deactivation air bag system

can be implemented.

AAP stated that the transportation of children with special needs

who must be observed should be addressed on a case-by-case basis by the

child's physician. That organization stated that the vast majority of

the small number of children for whom observation may be medically

desirable can be safely transported in a car bed in the front-seat

position, which would not be affected by a passenger-side air bag. AAP

added that the duration of time that this level of observation is

necessary is usually extremely short--i.e., a few months. AAP stated

that older children with high-risk medical needs, such as children on

ventilators, usually need to be the back seat anyway, since they need

large quantities of equipment and must be accompanied by skilled care

givers at their sides.

The National Association of Children's Hospitals and Related

Institutions (NACHRI) stated that it has serious concerns with the

proposal to permit manual air bag cutoff switches for any vehicle

without a smart passenger side air bag, although it understands and

supports the existing option for vehicles in which rear facing child

seats can only be used in the front seat. That organization stated that

key public awareness campaigns are currently presenting one message as

an absolute--infants in rear facing child seats should never ride in

the front seat of a vehicle with a passenger side air bag. NACHRI

stated that while this message is only now taking hold with the public,

it questions how NHTSA would, if manual switches are permitted in all

vehicles, adjust the message without hampering the credibility of all

child passenger safety public awareness efforts. NACHRI also stated

that another message--the safest place for all children is in the back

seat--would also be seriously affected by a change in regulation on

manual cutoff switches.

NACHRI stated that it recognizes that there are a small number of

pediatric medical conditions that require close monitoring during

vehicle travel, e.g., complications of prematurity. NACHRI recommended,

however, that instead of permitting cutoff switches for all vehicles--

and addressing the resulting public education and safety issues--it may

be simpler to educate the small number of parents of medically fragile

infants to ride with another adult whenever possible or to stop the

vehicle periodically to monitor the infant.

Dr. Phyllis Kiehl of LaTouche Pediatrics stated that she strongly

encouraged the cutoff switch option for vehicles without smart air

bags, while also arguing that the introduction of smart air bags should

be mandated.

Philip O. Morton, Chairman of the Board of the American Tinnitus

Association, expressed concern about the connection between vehicle air

bag deployment and the corresponding incidence of tinnitus. Mr. Morton

urged that on/off switches be available for all vehicle air bags,

including driver air bags.

F. Other Commenters

Safe Ride News urged NHTSA to require rather than permit the use of

cutoff switches for all vehicles without smart air bags.

[[Page 803]]

A number of private individuals requested that cutoff switches be

provided. Some, including persons concerned that air bag deployment may

cause hearing problems for persons with tinnitus or hyperacusis,

requested that cutoff switches be provided for both passenger and

driver air bags.

V. Agency Decision

A. Option for Manual Cutoff Switches

NHTSA believes there is a consensus that the only fully effective

solution to the problem of adverse effects from passenger-side air bags

is smart bags. Moreover, the vehicle manufacturers have indicated that

they plan to introduce these devices as soon as they become available.

The agency is encouraged that several suppliers commenting on the

August 1996 NPRM indicated that smart bags can begin to be phased in

beginning with the model year 1999 fleet, i.e., approximately September

1, 1998. To help ensure that these devices are introduced

expeditiously, the agency plans to publish shortly a separate SNPRM to

propose performance requirements for smart air bags and to propose a

phase-in schedule for requiring these devices.

In the meantime, and after considering the comments, NHTSA has

decided to extend until September 1, 2000, the time period during which

vehicle manufacturers are permitted under Standard No. 208 to offer

manual cutoff switches for the passenger-side air bag for vehicles

without rear seats or with rear seats that are too small to accommodate

rear facing infant seats. The agency has decided not to expand the

option to additional vehicles. The reasons for the agency's decision

are presented below.

1. Time Period for Manual Cutoff Switches

The agency initially decided to place a time limit on the current

option for manual cutoff switches for passenger air bags because it

believed that better, automatic solutions would soon be available. The

option was only available for passenger cars manufactured before

September 1, 1997, and light trucks manufactured before September 1,

1998.

A variety of circumstances have changed since the agency issued its

current rule on manual cutoff switches in May 1995. First, there is

uncertainty concerning the extent to which smart air bags will be

available by September 1, 1998. As indicated above, NHTSA is encouraged

that several suppliers commenting on the August 1996 NPRM indicated

that smart bags can begin to be phased in beginning with the model year

1999 fleet, i.e., approximately September 1, 1998. However, this would

not mean that vehicle manufacturers would be able to install smart bags

on all of the models for which they would use manual cutoff switches by

that date.

Second, a consensus has emerged concerning the need to develop and

implement smart passenger air bags as soon as possible, and

manufacturers and suppliers are working toward that end. Moreover, the

agency is announcing plans to issue an SNPRM to propose performance

requirements for smart air bags and a phase-in schedule for requiring

these devices. Given these developments, the agency believes there is

less reason to have concern that the availability of an option for

manual cutoff switches will delay implementation of better solutions.

Given the importance of ensuring that the vehicle manufacturers

have a means of accommodating their customers' need to carry rear

facing infant restraints in some vehicles without rear seats or with

rear seats that are too small to accommodate these devices, NHTSA has

decided to extend the current option to September 1, 2000. While there

is some uncertainty as to how long the option needs to be extended, the

agency believes the record shows that the vehicle manufacturers should

be able to implement some type of smart air bag for these vehicles by

that time.

2. Types of Vehicles for Which Manual Cutoff Switch Option Should be

Available

As discussed above, while NHTSA initially decided to permit manual

cutoff switches to be offered only on vehicles without rear seats or

with rear seats that are too small to accommodate rear-facing child

restraints, it proposed to expand the option to cover all vehicles. As

summarized above, a variety of commenters urged that the cutoff option

be expanded to other vehicles, arguing that parents want to place their

children in the front seat and that an expanded option would provide an

interim solution to the problem of air bag deaths until smart air bags

are introduced and would provide time for the orderly introduction of

smart air bags. Proponents of wider availability of manual cutoff

switches asserted that the needs of vehicle owners for a means of

turning air bags off could be met by such switches because they provide

a means of turning off air bags in appropriate situations. Some

commenters argued that the agency should respond to those needs by

adopting a requirement that manufacturers install manual cutoff

switches in all vehicles, rather than a permissive option for

manufacturers. Some commenters also argued that this requirement should

apply to driver-side air bags as well as passenger-side air bags. One

proponent expressed the view that cutoff switches provide the most

``positive'' means of shutting of air bags.

After considering the comments, however, the agency has decided not

to expand the option to include additional vehicles. The reasons for

this decision are explained below.

The agency begins by acknowledging that, given current air bag

designs, there are situations in which there is a need or a strong

desire to turn off passenger-side air bags in vehicles with large

enough rear seats to accommodate a rear-facing child restraint. An

example of this is the situation in which a rear facing infant

restraint must be placed in the front seat so that a special medical

condition of the infant can be closely monitored. The need to turn off

passenger-side air bags by means of a manual cutoff switch or

deactivation will cease when smart air bags are introduced.

NHTSA concludes that the objective of allowing air bags to be

turned off in appropriate circumstances can best and most quickly be

met by permitting motor vehicle dealers and repair businesses to

deactivate driver and passenger-side air bags upon the request of

vehicle owners without expanding the cutoff switch option to cover

additional types of vehicles. As indicated above, the agency is issuing

a separate NPRM on the subject of deactivation. Allowing deactivation

would not only provide a means of turning off the air bags in vehicles

not covered by the cutoff option, but also in vehicles covered by the

option, but not equipped with a cutoff switch.

For those situations in which there is a need to turn off an air

bag, deactivation is just as good a solution as a cutoff switch in some

respects, and better in others. Deactivation is just as effective as a

cutoff switch for enabling parents to eliminate the risk to their

children. Parents who need to use the front passenger seat for

transporting a child can have their passenger-side air bag deactivated.

Deactivation also provides an answer to the concerns of some groups of

drivers, e.g., short-statured drivers who sit very close to the

steering wheel and drivers with tinnitus or hyperacusis, while the

agency conducts further studies.

Deactivation, accompanied by appropriate labels, can provide as

much visible assurance that an air bag has been deactivated as a cutoff

switch can. Under the agency's proposal, a vehicle

[[Page 804]]

owner would be able to readily determine if the air bag was off by

means of the labels that the agency is proposing be placed on vehicles

whose air bags have been deactivated.

Finally, just like manual cutoff switches, deactivation would solve

the immediate problem and thus buy time for the intelligent and

thoughtful introduction of smart bags. By providing a means to

eliminate the risk to children, the agency and industry will have the

opportunity to take appropriate care in completing the development of

and in introducing smart air bags.

NHTSA believes that deactivation is superior to widespread use of

cutoff switches in a number of respects. First, deactivation is a much

speedier answer to the need to turn off air bags than expanding the

option for manual cutoff switches. Significant time would be needed by

vehicle manufacturers to do the designing and retooling necessary to

install cutoff switches in future vehicles for which such work has not

already been done. More specifically, vehicle manufacturers have

advised that development and installation of cutoff switches would take

at least one year. In contrast, no redesigning or retooling is needed

for deactivation. Indeed, deactivation would be available immediately

upon the issuance of a final rule. Moreover, deactivation is the only

method for addressing vehicles already on the road, which are the bulk

of the problem. The agency notes that even if it were to require or

permit cutoffs for future vehicles, it would still have to authorize

deactivation for existing vehicles and those future vehicles built

before the switches could be installed.

Second, deactivation is a narrower and more focused solution than a

cut off switch requirement or than a cutoff switch option to which

manufacturers responded by installing cutoff switches in all or most

vehicles. Under that scenario of nearly universal installation, cutoff

switches would be provided without regard to need. By contrast,

deactivation would be sought primarily just in those circumstances in

which it is needed. This more focused aspect of deactivation would

reinforce the message that air bags are generally good, and that only

in limited circumstances is it appropriate to turn them off.

For reasons discussed by a wide range of commenters, including auto

makers, consumer groups, insurance groups, and medical groups, there is

a possibility that widespread availability of manual cutoff switches

could easily do more harm than good, in terms of overall effect on

safety. NHTSA is seeking to provide relief where needed while

minimizing, consistent with the safety of children and others, the

number of air bags that are turned off. The agency believes that the

possibility of a net adverse effect on safety is less likely with

deactivation given the expectation noted above that deactivation would

be sought primarily by persons with a particular need. Moreover, the

agency has proposed procedures that would ensure that owners who are

contemplating deactivation of their air bags are made aware of the

circumstances in which deactivation may be appropriate, based upon the

comparison of the risks of turning the air bag off versus leaving it

on. This would reduce the possibility of unnecessary or inappropriate

turning off of air bags, and should result in a better net effect on

safety.

Third, deactivation would be less costly in terms of overall

consumer costs than across-the-board provision of manual cutoff

switches. Air bags would be deactivated only in those vehicles whose

owners requested deactivation. As a result, costs would also be more

equitably distributed, since the costs would be borne by those choosing

to have their vehicles modified. Conversely, all new vehicle purchasers

would have to pay for manual switches if they were universally

installed.

NHTSA also believes that the early introduction and availability of

smart air bag technology could be aided by allowing the vehicle

manufacturers to focus their attention and resources on completing

development of that technology rather than spending additional

resources on, and otherwise being distracted by, designing manual

cutoff switches for all vehicles. In addition, there are several other

considerations that argue against diverting manufacturer efforts into

expanding the availability of cutoffs. To the extent that vehicle

manufacturers depower their air bags in the near future pursuant to

another NHTSA proposal, the potential benefits of cutoff switches would

be reduced. Further, the agency sees little point in pushing the

vehicle manufacturers toward a technology that would so quickly be made

obsolete by smart air bags.

NHTSA recognizes that deactivation would have some disadvantages as

compared to cutoff switches. One disadvantage is that deactivation of

an air bag for the benefit of one user of a particular vehicle would

make the air bag unavailable for other users of that vehicle. By

contrast, cutoff switches could be used by the various different

occupants of a vehicle to suit their own needs with respect to air bag

protection. Further, once an air bag was deactivated, a person would

have to make a greater investment of time and expense to have it

reactivated. While these disadvantages were considered by the agency in

making its decision, the agency believes they are outweighed by the

factors discussed above.

NHTSA wishes to address the suggestion by some commenters that

infants with a special medical condition can be placed in a car bed

instead of a rear facing infant seat, and that a car bed can safely be

used in front of an air bag. Given the limited information that is

available, NHTSA is not prepared to recommend placing a car bed in

front of an air bag. The agency did conduct a test in which the air bag

deployed primarily over the top of a car bed, barely contacting the

bed. However, NHTSA used an infant dummy that was not instrumented, and

thus did not obtain measurements of the potential for injury. The

agency notes that there is no available infant dummy of less than 10

pounds weight that is instrumented to make such measurements. The

agency does not know how hard the air bag impacted the bed, or what the

effect the impact would have on a four, five or ten pound infant, with

or without a medical problem. Moreover, the agency does not know the

extent to which that particular test was representative of current

vehicle seats and air bags. Finally, NHTSA notes that car beds cannot

fit on bucket seats.

B. Performance Requirements for Manual Cutoff Switches

Several commenters urged that, assuming manual cutoff switches are

permitted, various changes should be made in the requirements for those

switches and accompanying indicator lights. Volvo stated that if manual

cutoff switches are permitted, all modes of air bag activation should

be indicated, i.e., air bag on vs. air bag off. That manufacturer also

suggested that this status indication might be accompanied by symbols

showing who is the appropriate occupant in the seat for the indicated

mode and who is not. Volvo stated that manufacturers should be given

full freedom in finding a suitable location for the air bag status

indication. That company stated that it is desirable that the

indication be visible for all front seat occupants, but a provision

that requires the indication be close to the cutoff switch is

unnecessarily design restrictive. Volvo also suggested that other

options for the device used to operate the cutoff switch, i.e., other

than the ignition key, should be considered.

Nissan stated that if NHTSA expands the ability of manufacturers to

install manual air bag cutoff switches, the

[[Page 805]]

agency should make changes to Standard No. 208's current indicator

light requirements. Nissan noted that the Standard currently specifies

that if a vehicle is equipped with a single indicator for both a driver

and passenger air bag, and if the vehicle is equipped with a cutoff

device, the readiness indicator must monitor only the readiness of the

driver air bag when the passenger air bag has been deactivated by means

of the cutoff device. Nissan expressed concern that this requirement

means that the operability of the cutoff switch indicator, the cutoff

switch, and the passenger air bag cannot be diagnosed when that air bag

is deactivated by the cutoff switch. That manufacturer requested that

the current requirements be amended to allow use of a system that

continuously monitors, diagnoses and displays system status for all

components, including the driver air bag, passenger air bag, cutoff

switch and the cutoff switch indicator, if the readiness indicator does

not illuminate solely upon the action of deactivating the passenger air

bag via the cutoff switch.

Land Rover stated that if the opportunity to install cutoff

switches is expanded, additional rulemaking should be conducted to

specify the mode of operation including details about whether and under

what conditions the air bag should be automatically reactivated.

AAP stated that if NHTSA should choose to permit wider use of the

manual cutoff switch, then it recommends that a visible, audible and

non-deactivatable warning signal be required to indicate that the air

bag is on or off. NSKC stated that if the agency decides to require

manual cutoff switches, it also becomes absolutely necessary to require

some type of warning light and warning sound in the control panel of

the dashboard which informs or reminds the driver that the air bag has

been deactivated. Autoliv stated that it cannot be emphasized enough

that a clear indication of the passenger air bag mode to the driver is

crucial to the safe use of the manual cutoff switch. Autoliv suggested

that this switch could be further improved by alerting the driver about

the passenger bag mode (off or on) each time the driver turns the

ignition key on.

As discussed above, Standard No. 208 currently specifies a number

of requirements for manual cutoff switches. The manual cutoff switch

must make it necessary to use an ignition key to turn off the air bag

and to turn on the air bag by manual means. The manufacturer must also

install a warning light which is separate from the air bag readiness

indicator and which would indicate that the air bag was turned off. The

light must be visible to both the driver and passenger. The

manufacturer must include information on the manual cutoff switch in

the owner's manual.

For a number of reasons, NHTSA is reluctant to make any significant

changes in the current performance requirements for manual cutoff

switches. First, the agency has already completed a rulemaking to

determine what requirements should apply to manual cutoff switches, and

has no reason to believe that significant changes are necessary.

Second, manual cutoff switches are now being provided in a number of

vehicles, and consumers are becoming familiar with them. Some kinds of

changes in the requirements for manual cutoff switches could

potentially cause confusion. For example, Standard No. 208 currently

requires that it be necessary to use manual means to reactivate the air

bag after it has been deactivated by use of the cutoff switch.

Considerable confusion could result from a change in this requirement

such that air bags in newer vehicles reactivated automatically after

use of a cutoff switch, while air bags in older vehicles did not.

While the agency is not adding additional performance requirements,

it notes that manufacturers can voluntarily provide additional

features, such as audible signals or extra lights, as long as the

Standard's specific requirements are met.

NHTSA has concluded that there is merit to Nissan's request for a

change in Standard No. 208's current air bag indicator light

requirements. As discussed above, the Standard currently specifies that

if a vehicle is equipped with a single indicator for both a driver and

passenger air bag, and if the vehicle is equipped with a cutoff device,

the readiness indicator must monitor only the readiness of the driver

air bag when the passenger air bag has been deactivated by means of the

cutoff device. The purpose of this requirement was to ensure that

drivers would not miss a message that the driver air bag was not

functional, simply because the passenger side bag was intentionally

deactivated. The agency agrees with Nissan that this problem would not

occur in a system that continuously monitors, diagnoses and displays

system status for all components, including the driver air bag,

passenger air bag, cutoff switch and the cutoff switch indicator, so

long as the readiness indicator does not illuminate solely upon the

action of deactivating the passenger air bag via the cutoff switch.

NHTSA is therefore making a change to accommodate Nissan's suggestion.

The change provides additional flexibility and does not impose any new

requirements.

C. Effective Date

NHTSA is making today's amendments effective 30 days after

publication in the Federal Register. The agency finds good cause for

this effective date. The amendments will ensure that vehicle

manufacturers can continue to have a means of accommodating their

customers' need to carry rear facing infant seats in vehicles without

rear seats or with rear seats that are too small for these devices. The

amendments do not impose any additional requirements but instead

relieve a restriction.

VI. 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.

NHTSA estimates the cost of a voluntarily installed manual cutoff

switch at a little over five dollars.

A full discussion of costs and benefits can be found in the

agency's regulatory evaluation for this rulemaking action, which is

being placed in the docket.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that it will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The final rule primarily affects motor vehicle manufacturers. Almost

all motor vehicle manufacturers would not qualify as small businesses.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National

Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have any

significant impact on the human environment.

[[Page 806]]

D. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

The agency has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the

principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 12612. NHTSA has

determined that this final rule does not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

E. Civil Justice Reform

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

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

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

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

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

higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for

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

review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor

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

petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before

parties may file suit in court.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber

products, Tires.

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

follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

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

read as follows:

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

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Sec. 571.208 [Amended]

2. Section 571.208 is amended by revising S4.1.5.1(b), S4.5.2, and

S4.5.4, 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.

* * * * *

S4.5.2 Readiness indicator. An occupant protection system that

deploys in the event of a crash shall have a monitoring system with a

readiness indicator. The indicator shall monitor its own readiness and

shall be clearly visible from the driver's designated seating position.

If the vehicle is equipped with a single readiness indicator for both a

driver and passenger air bag, and if the vehicle is equipped with a

cutoff device permitted by S4.5.4 of this standard, the readiness

indicator shall monitor the readiness of the driver air bag when the

passenger air bag has been deactivated by means of the cutoff device,

and shall not illuminate solely because the passenger air bag has been

deactivated by the manual cutoff switch. A list of the elements of the

system being monitored by the indicator shall be included with the

information furnished in accordance with S4.5.1 but need not be

included on the label.

* * * * *

S4.5.4 Passenger Air Bag Manual Cutoff Device.

Passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles

manufactured before September 1, 2000 may be equipped with a device

that deactivates the air bag installed at the right front passenger

position in the vehicle, if all the conditions in S4.5.4.1 through

S4.5.4.4 are satisfied.

* * * * *

Issued on December 26, 1996.

Donald C. Bischoff,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 96-33306 Filed 12-30-96; 11:00 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P