Proposed Rule2024-20651
Make Inoperative Exemptions; Retrofit Air Bag On-Off Switches and Air Bag Deactivations
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 17, 2024
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes amendments to the requirements and processes for individuals to request that the agency permit them to have an air bag on-off switch installed in their vehicle. The proposed amendments would eliminate the sunset date, and would also narrow the population of people eligible to have an on-off switch installed. Furthermore, the agency also proposes amendments to several appendices, and proposes the addition of a new appendix. Lastly, this NPRM proposes that NHTSA codify its process for reviewing requests for air bag deactivations, which are currently granted or denied through the agency's enforcement discretion. In this document, NHTSA solicits feedback from the public to better inform the agency's decision-making on the proposed amendments.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 180 (Tuesday, September 17, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 17, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76035-76064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20651]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 595
[Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0046]
RIN 2127-AL64
Make Inoperative Exemptions; Retrofit Air Bag On-Off Switches and
Air Bag Deactivations
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes amendments to the
requirements and processes for individuals to request that the agency
permit them to have an air bag on-off switch installed in their
vehicle. The proposed amendments would eliminate the sunset date, and
would also narrow the population of people eligible to have an on-off
switch installed. Furthermore, the agency also proposes amendments to
several appendices, and proposes the addition of a new appendix.
Lastly, this NPRM proposes that NHTSA codify its process for reviewing
requests for air bag deactivations, which are currently granted or
denied through the agency's enforcement discretion. In this document,
NHTSA solicits feedback from the public to better inform the agency's
decision-making on the proposed amendments.
DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to be received not
later than November 18, 2024.
Proposed effective date: We propose that the effective date for the
amendments in this rulemaking action would be immediately after the
date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
<bullet> Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
<bullet> Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. EST,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
<bullet> Fax: (202) 493-2251.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, including any personal
information provided. (For more details, please see the Privacy Act
discussion below.) We will consider all comments received before the
close of business on the comment closing date indicated above. To the
extent possible, we will also consider comments filed after the closing
date.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at any time or to
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12-140, Washington, DC
20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays. Telephone: (202) 366-9826.
Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
<a href="https://www.dot.gov/privacy.html">https://www.dot.gov/privacy.html</a>.
Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three
copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim
to be confidential
[[Page 76036]]
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should submit
two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above.
When you send a comment containing information claimed to be
confidential business information, you should include a cover letter
setting forth the information specified in our confidential business
information regulation (49 CFR part 512).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact
Ms. Carla Rush, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, Telephone: (202)
366-4583, Facsimile: (202) 493-2739. For legal issues, you may contact
Mr. Matthew Filpi, Office of the Chief Counsel, Telephone: (202) 366-
2992, Facsimile: (202) 366-3820. The mailing address of these officials
is: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
A. Regulatory History of Air Bag On-Off Switches and
Deactivation
B. Background on Advanced Air Bag Systems
C. Current Part 595 Subpart B Requirements and Procedures for
Obtaining Exemptions for Retrofit On-Off Switches
D. Air Bag Deactivations
III. Proposed Amendments
A. Removal of the Sunset Date Provision for Retrofit Air Bag On-
Off Switches
B. Adjustment of Criteria for At-Risk Occupants To Obtain a
Retrofit Air Bag On-Off Switch for Vehicles Equipped With Advanced
Air Bags
i. Exemptions for Infants in Rear-Facing Child Restraint Systems
Who Must Be Transported in the Front Passenger Seat
ii. Exemptions for Children Ages 1 to 12 Who Must Be Transported
in the Front Passenger Seat
C. Requests for Air Bag Deactivations (General Public)
D. Exemptions for Law Enforcement and Emergency Vehicles
i. On-Off Switches
ii. Deactivations
E. Update of Information Brochure
IV. Estimates of Benefits and Costs
V. Proposed Effective Date
VI. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
VII. Public Participation
I. Executive Summary
Since the late 1990s, NHTSA has permitted, under certain
circumstances, both manufacturers and repair shops to install switches
in motor vehicles that allow the occupant to turn on and off the
vehicle's air bag system. This installation would typically be a
violation of the ``make inoperative'' provision of the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, but NHTSA added an express exemption to
that provision for air bags because of the threat of injury that early
air bag systems posed to children and smaller statured occupants. This
exemption--49 CFR part 595 subpart B--outlines the process by which an
individual can petition the agency for an air bag on-off switch to be
installed in their vehicle.
NHTSA has stated repeatedly since creating part 595 subpart B that
the solution to the dangers posed by early air bag systems was advanced
air bag systems that could adapt or suppress their deployment based on
the vehicle occupant. Accordingly, NHTSA has repeatedly put a sunset
date on the on-off switch provision, with the most recent sunset date
in 2015. Since then, NHTSA has continued to use its enforcement
discretion to grant requests for air bag on-off switches. The agency
has also used its enforcement discretion to grant air bag system
deactivation in special circumstances, even though the Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) do not currently provide a formal
process for requesting deactivation. This NPRM proposes several updates
to part 595 to take into account the continued development and
effectiveness of advanced air bag systems. Additionally, the NPRM
proposes codifying the process by which individuals may petition the
agency for air bag deactivation in special circumstances. The agency
seeks public comment on the proposals listed below.
II. Background
A. Regulatory History of Air Bag On-Off Switches and Deactivation
To prevent or mitigate the risk of injuries or fatalities in
frontal crashes, FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection,\1\ requires
that passenger vehicles be equipped with seat belts and frontal air
bags. Although FMVSS No. 208 did not require frontal air bags on
passenger cars until model year (MY) 1998 and on multipurpose passenger
vehicles and light trucks until MY 1999, air bags were already in
widespread use by the early 1990s. These early-generation air bags were
highly effective in protecting occupants in frontal crashes, but caused
a number of fatalities to certain occupants who were especially
vulnerable to air bag-related risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 49 CFR 571.208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has long maintained that the long-term solution to the
problem of air bag-related injuries to these at-risk populations was
the development and widespread implementation of advanced air bag
systems, which could sense the kind of occupant seated and adjust
deployment to protect at-risk passengers. However, during the 1990s,
when air bag-related injuries and fatalities emerged as a safety
problem, advanced air bags were still a nascent technology.\2\ To
provide time for the development and dissemination of advanced air bag
systems into new vehicle production, and to address safety concerns
posed by pre-advanced air bags in vehicles already on the road, NHTSA
implemented an array of interim measures designed to protect those
passengers most susceptible to air bag-related injuries. These measures
focused both on behavioral changes (e.g., consumer education on the
importance of seat belts and on putting children in rear seating
positions) and relatively modest technological changes (e.g., amending
FMVSS No. 208 to temporarily allow for depowered air bags and
permitting installation of on/off switches).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ An advanced air bag senses or responds to differences in
crash severity, occupant size or the position of the occupant
relative to the air bag at the time of a crash. NHTSA amended FMVSS
No. 208 in 2000 to require advanced air bags at the front outboard
seats in new passenger vehicles and light trucks, implementing the
requirement on a two-stage phase-in schedule (May 12, 2000 final
rule, 65 FR 30679). Per FMVSS No. 208, currently all new passenger
vehicles and light trucks sold in the United States must meet the
advanced air bag requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Education Efforts
A particular focus of these measures was efforts to protect
children from air bag related injuries and fatalities. Early data
indicated that children were at a significant risk of harm from air
bags. The data indicated that children who were either seated in child
restraint systems (CRS) \3\ or seated without CRSs were at risk of
serious injury or death when seated in a position with a frontal air
bag. Because of the agency's significant concern for the safety of
children, NHTSA took multiple actions throughout the 1990s to protect
children from potential harm from air bags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Child Restraint Systems refers to devices such as rear-
facing child seats, forward-facing child seats, and booster seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the agency began providing CRS recommendations informing
caretakers how and where they should equip child restraints in a
vehicle. NHTSA's recommendation has always been to install CRSs in the
back seat of vehicles.
[[Page 76037]]
Furthermore, there are different CRSs for children of different ages.
NHTSA recommends that from birth to 12-months old a child should be
secured in a rear-facing CRS. From 1 year old to 3 years old NHTSA
recommends keeping a child in a rear facing seat for as long as
possible--the child's height and weight will determine when they should
be moved to a forward-facing CRS. From 4 years old to 7 years old NHTSA
recommends keeping a child in a forward-facing CRS until they exceed
the weight and height maximums for the respective seat. Once a child
outgrows the forward-facing seat NHTSA recommends children be belted
using the traditional seat belt, but with the use to a booster seat;
children should remain in a booster seat until they are tall enough to
fit in a seat belt properly without the assistance of a booster seat.
NHTSA recommends that the child be belted in the back seat of a vehicle
for all of these different stages.
Second, the agency made several recommendations and took several
actions to ensure children seated in the front were protected from air
bags.\4\ Early on, the agency primarily encouraged behavioral changes
from owners of vehicles with air bags. For example, in the early 1990s,
agency testing showed that using a rear-facing child restraint in the
front seat of a vehicle where frontal air bags were active presented a
significant risk to child occupants. In December 1991 the agency issued
a Consumer Advisory warning owners of rear-facing child restraints to
not use such devices in the front seat of a vehicle equipped with a
passenger air bag. Throughout the 1990s, NHTSA released several
additional News Releases on this issue. NHTSA also took regulatory
action on this issue in 1993, when it issued a final rule which, in
part, required that vehicles equipped with air bags include labels on
sun visors providing specific cautions, including a statement not to
install rearward-facing child seats in front passenger positions. The
agency took further regulatory action in 1994, when it required rear-
facing child restraints 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For a detailed history of all actions NHTSA took before the
1997 final rule allowing for retrofit air bag on-off switches, see
61 FR 40784, 40787-88, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards;
Occupant Crash Protection (July 26, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the agency took a number of other communication-based
actions to improve safety outcomes relating to children and air bags.
On October 27, 1995, after several fatalities to children seated in air
bag-equipped seating positions, NHTSA issued a warning in a press
release, ``SAFETY AGENCY ISSUES WARNING ON AIR BAG DANGER TO
CHILDREN.'' In the press release, the agency warned that children
sitting in air bag-equipped seating positions not restrained by a seat
belt could be seriously injured or killed by an air bag. The release
also stated in very strong terms that parents should ensure their
children are belted in the back seat of a vehicle whenever possible.
During the late 1990s, the agency also published several articles in
widely circulated journals and periodicals on the dangers air bags pose
to children. NHTSA has continued this education campaign by publishing
information on the NHTSA website on the dangers air bags pose to
children.
In addition to these efforts to protect children, NHTSA also
considered that certain adult passengers were at risk from air bag
systems. As described in the paragraphs above, many of the agency's
attempts to both educate the public and improve vehicle technology
countermeasures to increase the safety outcomes of early air bag
systems were focused on children. The agency has also acknowledged in
both informal guidance as well as previous rulemakings that certain
adults may also be at risk of serious injury from air bag systems. For
example, certain smaller-statured individuals may have to sit closer to
the steering wheel to reach the foot pedals, which may put them at
increased risk of injury if an air bag were to deploy. NHTSA's website
recommends that individuals sit at least 10 inches away from the
steering wheel to reduce the risk of injury from air bag deployment.\5\
Accordingly, individuals who must sit closer than 10 inches to the
steering wheel to reach the pedals may need to have an air bag on-off
switch installed. The 1997 final rule that allowed for air bag on-off
switches to be installed (discussed below) explicitly discussed
specific situations where adult passengers (including adult drivers)
may need an on-off switch installed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/older-drivers/driving-safely-while-
aging-
gracefully#:~:text=Sit%20at%20least%20ten%20inches,to%20always%20wear
%20your%20seatbelt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Technology Countermeasures
Although NHTSA recommended (and continues to recommend) that
children be placed in a rear seating position and that adults sit 10
inches or more away from the steering wheel, the agency recognized
early on that there were instances where this guidance would not be
helpful. For example, certain vehicles don't have rear seats and
certain adults can't sit more than 10 inches from the steering wheel
without their feet reaching the foot pedals. When the agency first
considered taking action to improve vehicle technology countermeasures
in the mid-1990s to ensure children and shorter statured adults were
protected from potential harm from air bags, advanced air bag systems
were still a nascent technology. Starting in 1995, NHTSA began
facilitating a few different types of vehicle technology
countermeasures: original equipment on-off switches, retrofit on-off
switches, and air bag deactivations.
Original Equipment On-Off Switches. In 1995, NHTSA for the first
time promulgated a final rule that allowed manufacturers the option of
installing a manual device that motorists could use to deactivate the
front passenger-side air bag in vehicles in which infant restraints
could only be used in the front seat. This final rule was the first
instance in which the agency allowed an original equipment manufacturer
(OEM) to install an air bag on-off switch, but the scenario in which
the OEM on-off switch could be installed was very narrow and left up to
the discretion of the OEM.\6\ Because on-off switches were intended
only as a temporary measure, the agency sunset this provision. The
provision sunset on September 1, 2012.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ FMVSS 208 S4.5.4.
\7\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retrofit on-off switches. In 1997, NHTSA published another final
rule addressing air bag on-off switches.\8\ This rule broadened the
1995 final rule that had been extended in 1997, and focused on more
than just children needing protections from on-off switches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 62 FR 62406.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act),
49 U.S.C. 30122, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company,
or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly make inoperative any
part of a device or element of design installed or in a motor vehicle
or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor
vehicle safety standard. This provision is commonly referred to as the
``make inoperative'' provision of the Safety Act. Because of this
provision, unless NHTSA explicitly exempts a manufacturer, distributor,
dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business from this
requirement, those entities cannot knowingly make a compliant motor
vehicle or motor vehicle part inoperative. In other words,
[[Page 76038]]
without an explicit exemption from this requirement, the entities
listed above could not knowingly make air bags inoperative, because
they would be making a FMVSS No. 208 compliant motor vehicle part
inoperative.
Among additional details discussed below, the most notable action
the 1997 final rule \9\ took was creating an explicit exemption for
motor vehicle dealers and repair businesses from the make inoperative
provision of the Safety Act. This exemption permitted on-off switches
to be installed not just in new vehicles but also to be retrofitted
into vehicles that had already been sold. It also meant that an
additional entity--motor vehicle repair businesses--could now install
on-off switches. Thus, NHTSA's regulations, at that point, allowed for
two different types of on-off switches: (1) original equipment air bag
switches, installed as original equipment on a vehicle before the
vehicle was sold other than for resale; and (2) retrofit air bag
switches, installed after the vehicle had been produced and sold to the
consumer. Because retrofit air bag switches are installed after
purchase of a vehicle, the onus is on the vehicle owner to decide if
they would like an on-off switch installed. However, as discussed
below, air bags generally improve safety outcomes significantly for
most individuals involved in crashes. So instead of leaving the
decision up to the individual whether an on-off switch would produce a
beneficial safety outcome for a specific individual, the 1997 final
rule created a process by which individuals could submit a request to
NHTSA for an air bag on-off switch, and if approved, the individual
could then have one installed. That process is discussed in more detail
in Section II.C. As with original equipment on-off switches, the part
595 exemption for retrofit on-off switches was subject to a sunset
provision; this exemption expired on September 1, 2015.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 62 FR 62406.
\10\ 49 CFR 595.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air bag deactivations. Although air bag on-off switches were an
effective solution to protect individuals who may be vulnerable to air
bag systems, there are certain scenarios where on-off switches cannot
be installed in a vehicle. In situations where an on-off switch cannot
be installed, the 1997 final rule outlined that NHTSA would continue to
use its enforcement discretion to allow air bag deactivation. The key
distinction between an air bag switch and air bag deactivation is that
the vehicle operator can turn the air bag system on or off with a
switch, whereas once a repair shop or manufacturer deactivates an air
bag system, the vehicle operator cannot turn the system back on. NHTSA
has not codified a process for individuals to request an air bag system
deactivation.
B. Background on Advanced Air Bag Systems
As discussed in the section above, early air bag technology
presented several safety risks to both children and smaller-statured
individuals. The agency has repeatedly expressed that the solution to
the dangers from early air bag technology was to develop advanced air
bag technology. This belief is also reflected in the sunset dates for
air bag on-off switches. FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection,
requires that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in the
United States meet certain minimum performance criteria for protecting
vehicle occupants during and after a collision. ``Advanced air bag
requirements'' is a term used to refer collectively to a subset of
these requirements that was added to FMVSS No. 208 as part of a May 12,
2000, final rule to protect children and other at-risk occupants from
air bag-related injury. The advanced air bag requirements became fully
phased-in on September 1, 2010.
Under the advanced air bag requirements, both the driver-side and
passenger-side frontal air bag system must pass several barrier crash
tests using 50th percentile adult male and 5th percentile adult female
dummies in both belted and unbelted conditions (the tests require
various test speeds, test conditions, and dummy placement).\11\ These
tests must be performed at both the driver and right front passenger
seating positions. In addition to barrier tests (which are designed to
protect the adult-sized population at-large), passenger-side advanced
air bag systems must also meet several requirements that are intended
to protect children. Specifically, passenger-side frontal air bag
systems must alter their deployment in the presence of three child-
sized test dummies--representing a 12-month-old, a 3-year-old, and a 6-
year-old--in multiple positions, both with and without the child
restraints specified in Appendix A-1 of FMVSS No. 208. Unlike the
barrier tests described above, the tests for deployment in the presence
of children are static tests conducted in a stationary setting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ S5.1.1(b)(2), S5.1.2(b), S14.5.2, S15.1, S14.5.1(b),
S16.1(b), S17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requirements and static tests related to child and smaller-
statured occupants may be met using one of three strategies:
suppression, low risk deployment (LRD), or a dynamic automatic
suppression system (DASS). Suppression-based advanced air bag systems
will suppress (i.e., not deploy) the passenger air bag in a crash if
the system senses a child in a rear-facing CRS, a child in a forward-
facing CRS, or a child not in a CRS but who is below a certain size or
is out of position in the passenger seat. LRD-based advanced air bag
systems will deploy the passenger air bag in all of these situations,
but will do so in a low-risk manner that does not exceed certain injury
assessment reference values for children.\12\ DASS-based advanced air
bag systems dynamically suppress air bag deployment during a crash by
sensing and interpreting the occupant characteristics and/or locations
of occupants in relation to the air bag.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Compare S19.2, S21.1, & S23.2 with S19.3, S21.4, & S23.4.
\13\ Unlike suppression and LRD, FMVSS No. 208 contains no
predefined test procedure associated with the DASS option. A
manufacturer wishing to use DASS must petition the agency for an
expedited rulemaking under subpart B of part 552. No manufacturer
has ever successfully petitioned the agency for this option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers are not required to use the same option for all three
child dummy sizes. Currently, all vehicles equipped with advanced air
bags use either ``conventional'' (i.e., non-DASS) suppression or LRD to
meet advanced air bag requirements, with the vast majority of
manufacturers choosing suppression.\14\ For the remainder of the
discussion, unless indicated otherwise, ``suppression'' systems are
conventional, non-DASS systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Based on model year 2023 compliance data, the agency
estimates that 5 percent of the fleet chooses the LRD option for all
required performance tests with child-sized dummies. The remaining
vehicles use conventional suppression for all required performance
tests with child-sized dummies or a combination of suppression and
LRD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data collected by NHTSA indicate that advanced air bags
substantially reduce the risk of air bag-related injuries to children
and smaller statured adults. In 1997, when air bag-related fatalities
peaked in the era before advanced air bags were introduced, there were
52 air bag-related fatalities, 31 of which were children. Since the
introduction of advanced air bags, air bag-related fatalities have
declined significantly, and in fact there have been no confirmed air
bag-related fatalities among children in vehicles equipped with
certified advanced air bags.\15\
[[Page 76039]]
Although it is likely that much of this reduction can be attributed to
child safety initiatives (i.e., air bag warning label requirements,
changes to State laws, greater enforcement of those laws, and publicity
campaigns) that have encouraged parents and caregivers to move children
12 and younger from the front seat to the rear seat of vehicles, the
agency nonetheless believes that the complete absence of air bag-
related fatalities in children over the last several years demonstrates
that advanced air bags provide a crucial safety countermeasure backstop
for situations in which children are placed in the front passenger
seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``Counts of Frontal Air Bag Related Fatalities and
Seriously Injured Persons,'' Special Crash Investigations, DOT HS
811 104, January 2009. The agency continues to monitor this issue
and has not identified any new cases of air bag-related fatalities
in advanced air bag compliant vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Current Part 595 Subpart B Requirements and Procedures for Obtaining
Exemptions for Retrofit On-Off Switches
The 1997 final rule created part 595 subpart B. Subpart B sets out
several requirements for vehicle owners who want to request a retrofit
on-off switch. Specifically, it identifies five situations in which the
agency will authorize on-off switches:
<bullet> Medical condition: The driver has a medical condition and
a doctor indicates that an air bag would pose a special risk of harm to
that person and the risk of harm outweighs the risk of the passenger
hitting the steering wheel or windshield in a crash;
<bullet> Distance from driver air bag: Despite taking all
reasonable steps to move back from the driver air bag, the driver is
not able to maintain a 10-inch distance from the center of his or her
breastbone to the center of the driver air bag cover;
<bullet> Infant: An infant (less than 1 year old) must ride in the
front seat because the vehicle has no rear seat, the vehicle's rear
seat is too small to accommodate a rear-facing infant seat, or the
infant has a medical condition that makes it necessary for the infant
to ride in the front seat so the driver can monitor the infant;
<bullet> Child Age 1 to 12: A child age 1 to 12 must ride in the
front seat because the vehicle has no rear seat, children ages 1 to 12
must ride in the front seat of the vehicle because no space is
available in the rear seat, or the child has a medical condition that
makes it necessary for the child to ride in the front seat so the
driver can monitor the child.
These criteria were consistent with the general rationale of the
1997 final rule, as advanced air bag technology was still in the early
stages of development. As discussed previously, the agency created the
part 595 petition as a temporary measure to ensure vulnerable
passengers were protected from potential harm from air bag systems. It
was intended to be a temporary measure as advanced air bag technologies
developed. Accordingly, the provision sunset in 2015.
Subpart B of part 595 sets out the specific steps that a vehicle
owner/installation technician must follow to obtain an exemption for an
on-off switch.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 49 CFR 595.5, Appendix A Information Brochure, Appendix B
Request Form, Appendix C Installation of Air Bag On-Off Switches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If an individual wants an on-off switch installed in their vehicle,
they must fill out the request form that can be found in appendix B to
part 595. The first portion of this form provides instructions to
individuals seeking the installation of an on-off switch, and part of
these instructions directs the vehicle owner or lessee to read NHTSA's
information brochure on air bag on-off switches, which can be found in
appendix A to part 595. After reviewing the brochure, if the vehicle
owner/lessee is still interested in having an air bag on-off switch
installed, the vehicle owner/lessee then fills the request form out,
including an indication of which air bags (passenger or driver) they
would like the on-off switch for. The request form includes a list of
the eligibility criteria NHTSA deemed acceptable for a retrofit on-off
switch in the 1997 final rule with a check box next to each
justification. A list of these eligibility criteria is also included in
the safety brochure (appendix A to part 595). The applicant must check
which justification they are requesting an on-off switch under as part
of completing the request form. After completing the request form, the
owner/lessee mails the form to NHTSA. NHTSA then reviews the request
form and determines whether the owner/lessee should be granted their
request to have an on-off switch installed. If NHTSA determines the
information provided in the request is sufficient, the agency notifies
the individual if the request is granted or denied in writing. If the
request is missing information, the agency will request the necessary
information from the requestor. In addition to the signed form, NHTSA
also sends the installation form (appendix C to part 595) (to be filled
out by the manufacturer or repair shop).
The manufacturer or repair shop has several obligations that it
must also comply with under part 595. These include ensuring a telltale
light is installed and operating that indicates when the air bag switch
is in the ``off'' mode and providing the owner/lessee of the vehicle
with an insert for the vehicle owner's manual that describes the
operation of the switch, explains the at-risk groups set forth in
Appendix B, and indicates that the on-off switch should only be used in
the ``off'' mode if one of the at-risk groups is present in the
relevant seat. The manufacturer or repair shop must also fill out the
installation form that can be found in appendix C to part 595 and
return it to NHTSA within seven (7) days of installation.
D. Air Bag Deactivations
As noted earlier, while part 595 does not provide for air bag
deactivations, NHTSA has been considering requests for air bag
deactivations on a case-by-case basis using its enforcement discretion.
Under the existing process, vehicle owners who would like to have their
air bag system (or part of the system) deactivated must submit their
request in a letter to NHTSA with a detailed explanation for why
deactivation is necessary. This letter must include information such as
the subject vehicle's make, model, and vehicle identification number.
In addition, requests based on certain medical conditions other than
those for which the National Conference on Medical Indications for Air
Bag Deactivation has recommended air bag deactivation must be
accompanied by a physician statement.\17\ This statement must indicate
the particular medical condition of the patient, as well as the
physician's judgment that the condition causes air bags to pose a
special risk to that person, and that the condition makes the potential
harm to the person from contacting an air bag in a crash greater than
the potential harm from turning off the air bag.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ At the request of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, the Ronald Reagan Institute of Emergency Medicine,
with the assistance of the National Crash Analysis Center (NCAC),
both of The George Washington University (GW), convened an expert
panel of physicians to formulate recommendations on specific medical
indications for air bag deactivation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 76040]]
Once NHTSA reviews the deactivation request letter, it notifies the
requestor in writing of its decision to either grant or deny the
request. If NHTSA denies the request, it explains the basis for the
denial; if the reason for the denial was a lack of information, the
request may be resubmitted with the necessary information. If NHTSA
grants the request, it provides the requestor with an authorization
letter, a copy of the information brochure contained in appendix A to
part 595, labels to be attached to the vehicle interior for alerting
vehicle users about the deactivated air bag(s), and a form to be filled
out and mailed back to the agency regarding the deactivation. The
recipient can then take the authorization letter to a car dealer or a
motor vehicle repair business to have their vehicle's air bag
deactivated.
III. Proposed Amendments
The changes proposed in this document would revise NHTSA's policies
and procedures regarding retrofit on-off switches and deactivations to
account for the benefits of advanced air bags. Over the last two and a
half decades, NHTSA has repeatedly stated in multiple rulemaking
notices that its regulations permitting air bag on-off switches and
deactivations were intended to be temporary. During the 1990s, NHTSA's
primary reason for allowing air bag on-off switches and deactivations
was to provide time for manufacturers to develop advanced air bag
technology. NHTSA also continued allowing air bag on-off switches and
deactivations even after the phase-in of advanced air bag requirements
to promote public acceptance of the technology and to give the agency
time to study advanced air bags in real-world situations before making
long-term policy decisions regarding the continued need for air bag on-
off switches and deactivations.
This rulemaking would complete NHTSA's evaluation of current
advanced air bag efficacy and the need for on-off switches and
deactivations. Unlike our previous rulemakings in this area, the
changes proposed in this document are not intended to be interim
solutions. Rather, they represent NHTSA's conclusions regarding the
need for air bag switches and deactivations as it exists for the
foreseeable future. NHTSA considered several factors in crafting the
proposed amendments in this NPRM, including the interest in and need
for retrofit air bag on-off switches and air bag deactivations, the
degree to which advanced air bags mitigate the risk of air bag-related
injuries, and the safety benefits of advanced air bags relative to
retrofit on-off switches and deactivations.
Furthermore, the changes proposed in the following sections will
improve motor vehicle safety. As discussed above, data indicate that
advanced air bag systems significantly improve safety outcomes for most
vehicle occupants. NHTSA acknowledges that certain individuals have the
potential to be harmed by air bags, primarily because of their stature;
however, advancements in air bag suppression technology have resulted
in most air bag suppression systems protecting smaller stature
occupants without needing an air bag on-off switch. Retrofit on-off
switches can be misused by consumers because they may forget to set the
switch to the position appropriate for the passenger occupying the
seat. By narrowing the eligibility criteria for obtaining an air bag
on-off switch to only include groups that are at heightened risk of air
bag-related injuries even with advanced air bag systems, the proposed
rule would result in fewer installations of unnecessary retrofit
switches. By eliminating the sunset date provision, the proposed rule
would increase NHTSA's regulatory flexibility to allow the installation
of retrofit air bag on-off switches to serve at-risk groups, regardless
of when their vehicles were manufactured. In addition, the proposed
rule improves overall agency transparency and public accountability by
articulating and codifying NHTSA's processes for approving requests for
retrofit air bag on-off switches and, if necessary, for air bag
deactivation, when warranted by a safety need.
As the 1997 final rule indicates, the part 595 petition process has
always focused on weighing the safety benefits that air bags provide
vis-[agrave]-vis the potential harm that air bag systems can do to at-
risk populations.\18\ The development and widespread use of advanced
air bag systems has significantly altered this calculus, which is why
the agency is proposing changes to part 595's substantive requirements
as part of this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 62 FR 62406.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Removal of the Sunset Date Provision for Retrofit Air Bag On-Off
Switches
This rulemaking would remove from part 595 subpart B the language
limiting the installation of retrofit air bag on-off switches to
vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2015. As noted above, when
NHTSA authorized air bag on-off switches in past rulemakings, the
agency imposed a sunset date for their availability because it believed
that advanced air bags would largely obviate the need for manual air
bag on-off switches. NHTSA tried to set these sunset dates far enough
in the future to provide sufficient time both for manufacturers to
develop advanced air bags and for the agency to assess advanced air
bags' effect on safety.
NHTSA has determined that, even with advanced air bags, there is
and will be a continuing need for retrofit air bag on-off switches for
the foreseeable future for at least some at-risk segments of the
population. There is a small segment of the vehicle occupant population
(e.g., those that meet our new eligibility criteria to obtain a
retrofit air bag on-off switch, which are discussed below) to whom
current frontal air bags pose a risk that outweighs a safety benefit,
and whose risk characteristics are such that they cannot necessarily be
detected or mitigated by current advanced air bag technology. Because
the risks to this population are not addressed by advanced air bags, we
tentatively believe that it would be safer in some instances for air
bags to be suppressed by a manually operated air bag on-off switch than
to deploy as designed. This population will likely need the continued
availability of retrofit air bag on-off switches for the indefinite
future, so NHTSA proposes to remove the sunset date of September 1,
2015, and to continue allowing retrofit air bag on-off switches for
certain at-risk populations until further notice.
Comments are requested on this proposal.
B. Adjustment of Criteria for At-Risk Occupants To Obtain a Retrofit
Air Bag On-Off Switch for Vehicles Equipped With Advanced Air Bags
This rulemaking proposes to amend the eligibility criteria for
owners and users of vehicles equipped with advanced air bags to obtain
a retrofit air bag on-off switch under part 595 subpart B. We believe
that advanced air bags have sufficiently addressed the safety concerns
of some of the groups that were previously deemed at-risk for air bag-
related injuries at the time that Part 595 subpart B was established.
This rulemaking would narrow the eligibility requirements for obtaining
a retrofit air bag on-off switch under part 595 subpart B such that
these groups would not all qualify for an air bag on-off switch on
vehicles equipped with advanced air bags. The proposed amendments
specifically relate to the categories concerning infants in rear-facing
CRSs and children ages 1 to 12 who must be transported in the front
passenger seat. Below we discuss each in turn.
[[Page 76041]]
i. Exemptions for Infants in Rear-Facing Child Restraint Systems Who
Must Be Transported in the Front Passenger Seat
1. Vehicles Certified to the Suppression-Based Compliance Option Would
No Longer Be Eligible for an Exemption
This NPRM distinguishes between vehicles meeting the advanced air
bag requirements by way of suppression versus via a low-risk deployment
option. Under this NPRM, vehicles certified to meet the advanced air
bag requirements for children in rear-facing CRSs in the front seat
using suppression would not be eligible for a retrofit air bag on-off
switch. This proposal reflects our tentative conclusion, based on over
two and a half decades of field data, that air bag suppression is an
extremely effective tool for protecting children in rear-facing CRSs
from air bag-related injuries. Based on these data, NHTSA tentatively
believes there is no longer a safety need to permit the installation of
retrofit air bag on-off switches in these circumstances.
Like on-off switches, suppression-based advanced air bags mitigate
the risk to children in rear-facing CRSs by eliminating the possibility
of air bag/CRS interaction entirely. Moreover, the automatic operation
of suppression-based advanced air bags makes the suppression systems
safer overall as compared to retrofit air bag on-off switches, which do
not operate automatically and are susceptible to misuse. Thus, NHTSA
tentatively believes there is no longer a safety need to permit the
installation of retrofit air bag on-off switches in vehicles equipped
with suppression-based advanced air bags for the transport of children
in rear-facing CRSs in the front passenger seat. NHTSA tentatively
believes that this proposal would benefit safety by reducing the number
of unneeded retrofit air bag on-off switches that would be present in
the fleet that could potentially be misused.
2. Vehicles Certified to the Low-Risk Deployment Compliance Option
Would Still Be Eligible for an Exemption
Under the proposed rule, vehicles certified to meet advanced air
bag requirements for children in rear-facing CRSs in the front seat
using low risk deployment (LRD) would continue to be eligible for a
make inoperative exemption for a retrofit air bag on-off switch.
The agency has decided to differentiate between suppression-based
and LRD-based advanced air bag systems for children in rear-facing CRSs
because, although NHTSA has confidence in both suppression and LRD
technologies, LRD systems are not as prevalent in the fleet and have
not had the same degree of field experience confirming their
effectiveness as have suppression systems.
There are several safety considerations specific to rear-facing
CRSs interacting with LRD-based advanced air bags that NHTSA believes
justify the agency's cautious approach here. First, children in rear-
facing CRSs are typically younger and more vulnerable than other at-
risk groups. Second, children in rear-facing seats are always
exceedingly close to a front-mounted air bag, especially compared to
other categories of at-risk occupants. This proximity matters because
the primary factor that determines a child's risk of air bag-related
injury is the child's proximity to the air bag at the time of
deployment. Given that children in rear-facing CRSs are especially at
risk for air bag-related injuries because of their constant close
proximity to the air bag risk zone as compared to other at-risk groups,
NHTSA has determined that it would be prudent at this time to allow
vehicle owners with LRD advanced air bag systems to have the option of
an on-off switch if they must seat a child in the front seat of their
vehicle.
ii. Exemptions for Children Ages 1 to 12 Who Must Be Transported in the
Front Passenger Seat
Under the proposed rule, vehicles meeting the advanced air bag
requirements that are used to transport children ages 1 to 12 in the
front passenger seat (including children secured in a forward-facing
CRS) would not be eligible for a make inoperative exemption for a
retrofit air bag on-off switch. This change would apply regardless of
whether the vehicle is equipped with suppression-based or LRD-based
advanced air bags.
NHTSA originally designated children ages 1 to 12 an ``at-risk''
group for purposes of determining eligibility for an exemption under
part 595, to address the dangers that early (non-advanced) air bags
posed to unrestrained older children. Identifying this risk group
required NHTSA to establish an objective, practicable way of
determining both when a child is large enough that the air bags
deploying would not pose a significant safety risk, and when a child
was behaviorally mature enough that the child was not likely to be out
of position at the time an air bag deploys. NHTSA chose age as a proxy
for making these determinations, because age normally correlates to a
child's size and level of maturity, and it is a simple and objective
way to determine eligibility. However, a child's age is, at best, an
imperfect measure of whether the child is at risk for air bag-related
injuries because age is an imperfect proxy for size or maturity.
Advanced air bag systems do not rely on age as a proxy for a
child's size or likely position at the time of air bag deployment.
Rather, they use sensors to detect a child's size and use either
sensors or other design features to safely account for children who are
out of position at the time of a crash. Because a child's size and
position are the two most important indicators of whether it is safe to
deploy the air bag (or whether to deploy it in a low-risk manner),
advanced air bags can use that data to either suppress the air bag or
tailor the air bag's deployment to the child (as opposed to early
generation air bags, which would always deploy the air bag at full
force in a triggering crash, regardless of the size or position of the
occupant). The agency is unaware of a single reported crash fatality of
a child aged 1 to 12 (or a child in a forward-facing CRS) that has been
attributed to a certified advanced air bag since the technology was
introduced. Based on available evidence, the agency believes there is
no longer a safety need that justifies permitting the installation of
retrofit air bag on-off switches for children ages 1 to 12 (or children
in forward-facing CRSs) in vehicles equipped with advanced air bags
solely on the basis of age. The agency would continue to approve
requests for retrofit on-off switches for children ages 1 to 12 (or
children in forward-facing CRSs) in vehicles equipped with non-advanced
air bags.
Notwithstanding the agency's tentative conclusion that children
ages 1 to 12 (or children in forward-facing CRSs) are not an at-risk
group under part 595, subpart B in vehicles equipped with advanced air
bags, NHTSA acknowledges that there is a remote possibility an air bag
on-off switch may be permissible for these children under certain
circumstances, such as if a specific child in that age range has unique
characteristics that a vehicle's advanced air bag system has difficulty
detecting. Similarly, given the variety of forward-facing and rear-
facing CRSs that exist, the agency acknowledges that there is a remote
possibility that some advanced air bag systems may not be designed to
detect certain models of forward-facing CRSs that have unusual
footprints. To address these sorts of edge cases, the agency foresees
using its enforcement discretion to permit the installation of retrofit
on-off switches in these rare situations.
[[Page 76042]]
Comments are requested on the above issues.
C. Requests for Air Bag Deactivations (General Public)
NHTSA proposes to codify the process by which vehicle owners
request a ``make inoperative'' exemption so that they may have their
vehicles' air bags deactivated. This informal process for requesting
deactivations was initially intended to be used in a limited number of
circumstances where the requestor was eligible for an exemption to
install an air bag on-off switch, but an air bag on-off switch was not
available from the manufacturer of the requestor's vehicle. The agency
believes it can improve on the deactivation request process with the
proposals described in detail below.
NHTSA's proposal to codify the deactivation request process would
improve transparency while keeping the process largely unchanged aside
from a few slight modifications. First, NHTSA would require that
deactivation requestors certify that they have read the information
brochure contained in appendix A, since the safety justification
underlying that requirement (e.g., ensuring the requestor is aware of
the risks associated with switching off the air bag) applies to
deactivations as well as on-off switches. Second, consistent with the
requirements for on-off switch exemptions based on a medical need, we
would no longer require a physician statement if the deactivation is
for a medical purpose. Lastly, we would require that requestors
specifically explain why an air bag on-off switch is insufficient for
their needs. The reason for this requirement is that NHTSA considers
deactivations to be a greater potential risk to overall vehicle safety
than on-off switches. A deactivated air bag deprives all vehicle
occupants of the safety benefits of air bags regardless of whether they
are at-risk of air bag-related injuries, whereas an on-off switch
enables occupants who are not at-risk to keep the air bag activated.
NHTSA will continue to evaluate deactivation requests on a case-by-
case basis, and will only grant them if the agency believes that doing
so is consistent with the Safety Act and is in the interest of motor
vehicle safety.
Comments are requested on the codification of the deactivation
request process.
D. Exemptions for Law Enforcement and Emergency Vehicles On-Off
Switches
NHTSA proposes amending part 595 subpart B to add a process that
specifically applies to air bag on-off switch requests for law
enforcement and emergency vehicles, along with a corresponding request
form. The form would be codified as appendix D to part 595.
For a number of years, NHTSA has granted requests from law
enforcement and emergency service officials to install air bag on-off
switches through the exercise of the agency's enforcement discretion.
In the 2012 final rule, the agency explained that one reason for
extending the sunset date under part 595 subpart B was to ``consider
other topics that have arisen over the years such as our continued use
of our enforcement discretion for circumstances not covered by part 595
(e.g., the application of retrofit switches for emergency and law
enforcement vehicles).'' The agency's primary safety concern with air
bags in law enforcement and emergency vehicles is that these vehicles
are necessarily outfitted with job-related equipment that could pose a
danger to occupants should the air bag deploy. This danger is not
necessarily addressed by advanced air bags, since FMVSS No. 208 does
not require that advanced air bags be tested in the presence of this
job-related equipment, nor would such a requirement be reasonably
practicable at this time. Given this concern, we have used our
enforcement discretion to permit the installation of retrofit on-off
switches and air bag deactivations on law enforcement and emergency
vehicles through a process similar to the process used to evaluate
deactivation requests from the general public.
In the interest of transparency of agency processes, NHTSA seeks to
formalize the process by which law enforcement and emergency service
providers obtain make inoperative exemptions for retrofit on-off switch
installations. To this end, this NPRM proposes to add a new section to
part 595 subpart B specifically for ``Emergency Vehicles'' along with a
corresponding new form contained in appendix D. This new section would
contain the procedures that emergency service providers must follow to
obtain a make inoperative exemption for their law enforcement or
emergency vehicles. The accompanying form would require that a
requesting entity certify that the vehicle on which the air bag on-off
switch will be installed is intended to be used for law enforcement,
fire response, or medical response.
Comments are requested on this proposal.
ii. Deactivations
As with exemption requests from the general public, if a retrofit
air bag on-off switch is unavailable or inadequate for an emergency or
law enforcement vehicle, officials may request approval for an air bag
deactivation. The process for requesting an air bag deactivation for a
law enforcement vehicle or an emergency vehicle would be the same as
the process for the general public.
Comments are requested on the above issues. A copy of the law
enforcement and emergency response request form can be found in the
docket for this NPRM.
E. Update of Information Brochure
NHTSA proposes to revise the Information Brochure contained in
appendix A to part 595. Appendix A contains the Information Brochure
that air bag on-off switch requestors must read as part of the
application process for obtaining an exemption for a retrofit air bag
on-off switch under subpart B. The purpose of the Information Brochure
is to provide requestors with relevant information about the safety
benefits and potential risks of air bags, so that they can make an
informed decision whether to request an exemption under part 595
subpart B.
NHTSA codified the Information Brochure as appendix A to part 595
as part of the same November 1997 final rule that established part 595
subpart B. In the more than two decades that have passed since then,
air bag technology has evolved substantially. Given these changes, the
Information Brochure currently found in appendix A to part 595 is no
longer complete or accurate.
To address this problem, this NPRM proposes major revisions to the
Information Brochure. The updated brochure would provide more complete
and accurate information about current air bag technology to better
ensure consumers will make an informed decision regarding whether to
request an exemption under part 595 subpart B. The agency has also
included stylistic changes, such as formatting changes that make the
material more engaging and easier to read, and a 10-inch ruler printed
on the outer cover so that drivers can measure their distance to the
steering wheel. A copy of our proposed revised Information Brochure for
at-risk passengers has been placed in the docket to this NPRM.
The agency seeks comment on our proposed revisions to the
Information Brochure contained in Appendix A to part 595.
IV. Estimates of Benefits and Costs
NHTSA performed an economic analysis for the proposed rule, and has
determined that the proposed rule would be net beneficial. The agency
[[Page 76043]]
found that there would be significant cost savings as a result of the
proposed rule. A summary of the economic analysis is below, and the
full economic analysis can be found in the docket for this NPRM.
Methodology. To determine the costs and safety impacts of this
NPRM, NHTSA considered two baselines in its analysis. The first
baseline is what the agency refers to as the Enforcement Discretion
Baseline. This baseline considers the status quo, where NHTSA uses its
enforcement discretion to grant air bag on-off switch requests since
the last sunset for the on-off program for MY 2015 vehicles. This
baseline assumes that there is potential for all vehicles (not just MY
2015 and earlier vehicles) to receive exemptions. In other words, this
baseline includes analysis of all MY vehicles, rather than
incorporating only MY 2015 and earlier vehicles not impacted by the
2015 sunset.
The second baseline is what the agency refers to as the Enforcement
Non-Discretion Baseline. This baseline considers a scenario under which
the sunset provision is strictly enforced. Under this baseline, the
proposed rule has a smaller net effect because enforcing just the
sunset provision would yield the same procedural changes as the
proposed rule for all MY 2016 and later vehicles. Thus, the net effect
under the Enforcement Non-Discretion Baseline would be limited to pre-
MY 2016 vehicles with advanced air bags.
Air Bag On-Off Switch Cost Impacts. For this analysis, NHTSA
assumed that the volume of annual exemption requests for air bag on-off
switches will be equal to the annual average from 2015-2017 (the most
recent available data), or 58 requests per year under the Enforcement
Discretion baseline. For the Enforcement Non-Discretion baseline, NHTSA
assumed that the number of annual requests will be equal to the
estimated share of all vehicles with advanced air bags comprised of
pre-MY 2016 vehicles, multiplied by 58. The share of all vehicles with
advanced air bags comprised of pre-MY 2016 vehicles is estimated as the
sum of surviving MY 2004 (i.e., the first year with mandatory advanced
air bags) through MY 2015 vehicles, divided by the projected sum of MY
2004 through MY 2021 vehicles at the end of 2021. The resulting
estimate of the relevant share comprised of pre-MY 2016 vehicles is
approximately 59 percent, yielding an estimate of 34.2 requests per
year under the Enforcement Non-Discretion baseline.
The total annual cost impact for the subset of on-off switch
exemption requests that would be eliminated under the proposed rule
compared to the costs under the Enforcement Discretion baseline is
summarized in Table 1 (See the docketed economic analysis for this
proposed rule for details):
Table 1--Estimated Annual Cost Impacts in Cases Where the On-Off Switch
Exemption Is Eliminated
[2022 Dollars, Enforcement Discretion Baseline]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost under
Cost item (entity) Status proposed Net cost
quo cost rule impact
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requests (Applicants).............. $686.14 $0.00 -$686.14
On-Off Switch Installation 8,186.32 0.00 -8,186.32
(Applicants)......................
Data Processing and Storage 61.39 0.00 -61.39
(Government)......................
Documentation and Reporting 87.58 0.00 -87.58
(Industry)........................
------------------------------------
Total.......................... 9,021.43 0.00 -9,021.43
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The corresponding annual cost impact under the Enforcement Non-
Discretion baseline is summarized in Table 2:
Table 2--Estimated Annual Cost Impacts in Cases Where the On-Off Switch
Exemption Is Eliminated
[2022 Dollars, Enforcement Non-Discretion Baseline]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost under
Cost item (entity) Status proposed Net cost
quo cost rule impact
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requests (Applicants).............. $404.06 $0.00 -$404.06
On-Off Switch Installation 4,820.80 0.00 -4,820.80
(Applicants)......................
Data Processing and Storage 36.15 0.00 -36.15
(Government)......................
Documentation and Reporting 51.58 0.00 -51.58
(Industry)........................
------------------------------------
Total.......................... 5,312.60 0.00 -5,312.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total annual cost impact is estimated to be -$9,021.43 under
the Enforcement Discretion baseline and -$5,312.60 under the
Enforcement Non-Discretion baseline.
Air Bag On-Off Switch Safety Impacts. Safety effects of the
proposed rule in this category are assumed to be limited to the
reduction in risk for front-seat passengers 13 years of age or older in
vehicles with no on-off switch. NHTSA assumed that advanced air bags
are estimated to be equally safe with or without an on-off switch for
passengers 12 years of age or younger, because advanced air bags are
designed either not to deploy or to deploy in a low-risk manner when
small children are present (i.e., the switch does not offer any benefit
or detriment for small children). For passengers 13 years of age or
older, reducing on-off switch exemption requests would improve safety
by mitigating the risk of traveling while an on-off switch is in the
off position, removing the protective effect of the air bag.
[[Page 76044]]
The safety benefit per vehicle in this category is estimated as the
reduction in fatality risk per mile for front-seat passengers 13 years
of age or older, multiplied by the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) where
such passengers are present and the monetized value of a unit reduction
in fatality risk. Analyses of 2017-2021 Crash Reporting Sampling System
data and Fatality Analysis Reporting System data indicate that the
front seat of light-duty vehicles was occupied by a passenger 13 years
of age or older approximately 12 percent of the time in non-fatal
crashes and 14 percent of the time in fatal crashes. Studies have
estimated an overall light-duty vehicle occupant fatality rate of 0.82
fatality per 100 million VMT,\19\ which represents approximately 73
percent of the average overall fatality rate from 2009 through 2012.
The agency applied this ratio to the most recent overall fatality rate
of 1.34 fatalities per 100 million VMT to identify an estimated light-
duty vehicle fatality rate of 0.98 fatalities per 100 million VMT.
Multiplying this fatality rate by 14 percent yields an estimated
fatality rate for front-seat occupants 13 years of age or older of 0.14
fatality per 100 million VMT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Kahane, C. J. (2015, January). Lives saved by vehicle
safety technologies and associated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards, 1960 to 2012--Passenger cars and LTVs--With reviews of 26
FMVSS and the effectiveness of their associated safety technologies
in reducing fatalities, injuries, and crashes. (Report No. DOT HS
812 069). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Studies indicate the effectiveness of frontal air bags in reducing
fatalities for front-seat occupants to be 12 percent for passenger cars
and 14 percent for light trucks and vans (LTVs).\20\ Thus, traveling
with an inactivated frontal air bag is estimated to be 1/(1-0.12), or
13.6 percent, riskier in passenger cars (1/(1-0.14), or 16.3 percent,
riskier in LTVs). Assuming a light-duty vehicle sales split of one-
third passenger cars and two-thirds LTVs for the vehicles affected by
the proposed rule (which reflects recent vehicle sales splits), the
average increase of risk of traveling in the front seat with an
improperly deactivated frontal air bag is estimated to be 15.4 percent.
NHTSA assumed a 10.3 percent misuse rate for air bag on-off switches
when adults travel in the front passenger seat. Multiplying this misuse
rate by the estimated 15.4 percent increase in risk when on-off
switches are misused yields an estimate of incremental risk of 1.6
percent for front-seat passengers 13 years of age or older in the
presence of air bag on-off switches. In turn, multiplying the estimated
incremental risk by the fatality rate for front-seat passengers 13
years of age or older (0.14 fatality per 100 million VMT) yields an
estimate of incremental fatality risk for these passengers in the
presence of an air bag on-off switch equal to 0.0022 fatality per 100
million VMT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Enforcement Discretion baseline, the agency estimated
expected per-vehicle annual VMT (i.e., expected VMT taking scrappage
into account) by multiplying the average of the passenger car and LTV
VMT schedules used in the analysis supporting the Corporate Average
Fuel Economy Rulemaking by their corresponding vehicle survival
schedules. Applying three-percent- and seven-percent discount rates
yields estimates of discounted lifetime vehicle VMT equal to 13.0 times
and 9.7 times the first-year VMT.
Table 3--VMT Schedule and Estimated Discounted Vehicle VMT (for Selected Vehicle Ages)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual VMT for Survival rate Survival rate Annual Annual
Vehicle age surviving x 3% discount x 7% discount exposure (3% exposure (7%
vehicles factor factor discount rate) discount rate)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 17,040 1.000 1.000 17,040 17,040
5............................... 14,641 0.853 0.732 14,535 12,480
10.............................. 12,310 0.636 0.452 10,843 7,696
15.............................. 10,546 0.377 0.221 6,421 3,766
20.............................. 9,165 0.178 0.086 3,036 1,472
25.............................. 7,981 0.087 0.035 1,477 592
30.............................. 6,805 0.049 0.016 831 275
35.............................. 5,454 0.017 0.005 294 81
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total/Year 1................ .............. .............. .............. 13.0 9.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The monetized (undiscounted) value of the per-vehicle safety
benefit in the first year of vehicle use in this category is estimated
to be $13.12 (0.0022 mitigated fatality per 100 million VMT x 17,040/
100 million VMT x $35.4 million per mitigated fatality \21\). Thus, at
a three-percent discount rate, the estimated lifetime per-vehicle
safety benefit is estimated to be approximately $171 ($13.12 x 13.0 =
$170.58) under the Enforcement Discretion baseline. At a seven-percent
discount rate, the estimated lifetime per-vehicle safety benefit is
estimated to be approximately $127 ($13.12 x 9.7 = $127.28) under the
Enforcement Discretion baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The total estimated safety value per mitigated fatality is
equal to a base value per fatality ($12.8 million in 2022 dollars)
adjusted by factors accounting for: (1) the share of comprehensive
economic costs of crashes comprised of fatalities; and (2) the
relative rate of front right seat occupation in non-fatal versus
fatal crashes. This calculation is presented in more detail in the
docketed accompanying economic analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Enforcement Non-Discretion baseline, the above approach is
used, with one key change: per-vehicle safety benefits are estimated as
the above per-vehicle safety benefits multiplied by the share of total
lifetime discounted VMT comprised of pre-MY 2016 vehicles. In turn, the
share of total lifetime discounted VMT comprised of pre-MY 2016
vehicles is estimated as the sum of estimated discounted lifetime VMT
for MY 2004 through 2015 vehicles, divided by the sum of estimated
discounted lifetime VMT for MY 2004 through MY 2021 vehicles. Using
this approach, the estimated per-vehicle safety benefits are 67 percent
lower than in the other baseline at a three-percent discount rate (0.33
x $170.58, or $56.29). The corresponding estimate at a seven-percent
rate is 72 percent lower than in the other baseline (0.28 x $170.58, or
$34.37).
The total annual safety benefit in this category under the proposed
rule is equal to the per-vehicle safety benefit multiplied by the
number of affected vehicles. Thus, at a three-percent discount rate,
the total annual safety benefit is estimated to be $9,893.80
[[Page 76045]]
under the Enforcement Discretion baseline ($170.58 per request x 58
requests per year). At a seven-percent discount rate, the total annual
safety benefit is estimated to be $7,382.30 under the Enforcement
Discretion baseline ($127.58 per request x 58 requests per year). The
total annual safety benefit under the Enforcement Non-Discretion
baseline is $1,925.20 at a three-percent discount rate ($56.29 x 34.2 =
$1,925.20) and $1,175.31 at a seven-percent discount rate ($34.37 x
34.2 = $1,175.31).
Air Bag Deactivation. The proposed rule will formalize and modify
the process by which vehicle owners or users can obtain an exemption
from the ``make inoperative'' provision for an air bag deactivation.
The proposed rule will have a cost impact for requestors of air bag
deactivation exemptions and business entities that deactivate air bags.
For this analysis, the agency assumed that annual deactivation requests
will be equal to the 2015-2017 annual average of deactivation requests
under the proposed rule (seven per year). The agency felt there was no
need to run a two-pronged analysis like it did for the on-off switch
analysis because there was no change in the way the agency processed
air bag deactivation requests; there has never been a formal process
for requesting deactivation, and NHTSA has used its enforcement
discretion to grant deactivations since the agency started doing so in
the mid-1990s. Furthermore, because the agency is simply formalizing a
process that is unlikely to result in a noticeable impact on the number
of deactivation requests received, granted, or denied, NHTSA does not
believe there will be a safety impact for this part of the proposed
rule.
Individuals requesting air bag deactivation exemptions under the
status quo incur costs associated with preparing the request letter,
acquiring supporting documentation, and having the deactivation
performed. Under the status quo, a deactivation requestor must write a
letter to NHTSA that includes information about the requestor's vehicle
and the requestor's reason for requesting an air bag deactivation.
The cost of deactivating an air bag system is unaffected by the
proposed rule, meaning the proposed rule would have no impact on the
costs associated with deactivation. Furthermore, the proposed rule does
not include any additional requirements for businesses performing air
bag deactivations, meaning the proposed rule would also have no impact
on the costs businesses incur by performing deactivations.
Table 4 below estimates the costs associated with the proposed
amendments to the air bag deactivation process (see the docketed
economic analysis for this proposed rule for details).
Table 4--Estimated Annual Cost Impacts for Air Bag Deactivation Requests
[2022 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost under
Cost item (entity) Status proposed Net cost
quo cost rule impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requests (Applicants)........................................................ $160.72 $186.69 $25.97
Deactivation (Applicants).................................................... 542.50 542.50 0.00
Distributing Forms and Labels, and Data Processing (Government).............. 61.81 61.81 0.00
Return Form and Labels (Industry)............................................ 18.90 18.90 0.00
Safety (Occupants)........................................................... N/A N/A 0.00
----------------------------------
Total.................................................................... 722.12 748.09 25.97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Proposed Effective Date
We propose that the amendments in this rulemaking become effective
immediately after publication of a final rule in the Federal Register.
The proposed amendments would not markedly impact the current process
or requestors' ability to get approval for an air bag on-off switch or
deactivation except regarding forward-facing children ages 1 to 12,
children in forward-facing CRSs, and children in rear-facing CRSs in
vehicles equipped with suppression-based advanced air bag systems.
Because this final rule would have no impact on the public and only
changes NHTSA processes, the agency does not believe that any lead time
is necessary for this potential final rule. Comments are requested on
this proposed effective date.
VI. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 14904, Executive Order 13563,
and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the potential impact of this proposed rule
under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 14094, Executive Order
13563, DOT Order 2100.6A and the Department of Transportation's
regulatory policies and procedures. This NPRM is not considered to be
significant under the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 44 FR 11034 (Feb. 26, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This document proposes several changes to part 595 subpart B but
does not impose any new costs. It proposes the elimination of the
sunset date of an existing exemption for retrofit on-off switches for
frontal air bags, slight narrowing of the eligibility requirement for
obtaining that exemption going forward, and the codification of
existing processes for obtaining retrofit air bag on-off switches for
emergency vehicles and air bag deactivations for all vehicles. It also
proposes changes to the information brochure contained in appendix A.
The agency notes that part 595 subpart B does not require a motor
vehicle manufacturer, dealer, or repair business to take any action or
bear any costs except in instances in which a dealer or repair business
voluntarily agrees to deactivate or install an air bag on-off switch
for an air bag. For consumers, the purchase and installation of a
retrofit air bag on-off switch or the deactivation a vehicle's frontal
air bag is permissive, not prescriptive.
When an eligible consumer obtains the agency's authorization for
the installation of a retrofit air bag on-off switch or air bag
deactivation and enlists a dealer or repair business to modify their
vehicle accordingly, there will be costs associated with that action.
However, these are costs that the consumer chooses to bear if they want
an air bag on-off switch or air bag
[[Page 76046]]
deactivation, they are not costs prescribed by NHTSA's regulation.
Moreover, the agency notes that the amendments to part 595 that are
proposed here would either only slightly amend existing processes for
vehicle owners to request a make inoperative exemption or would codify
longstanding procedures relating to requests for deactivations. Given
that these proposed changes would not substantially change the process
by which vehicle owners currently obtain make inoperative exemptions
for retrofit air bag on-off switches and deactivations, and the fact
that these changes will affect a relatively small number of vehicles,
there are virtually no new costs imposed by this rulemaking. A detailed
description of the costs and benefits can be found above. Furthermore,
the agency prepared an economic analysis for this proposed rule, which
can be found in the docket for this NPRM.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of proposed rulemaking, it must prepare and make available for public
comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of
the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions) unless the head of
an agency certifies the proposal will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Small Business
Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a small
business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates primarily
within the United States.'' 13 CFR part 121.105(a). SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a proposal will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
I certify that the changes proposed in this NPRM would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The amendments proposed in this NPRM eliminate the sunset provision in
Subpart B of part 595, make some relatively minor changes to on-off
switch eligibly that only affect a small number of vehicles, and codify
existing agency practices regarding treatment of law enforcement and
emergency vehicles and air bag deactivations.
This NPRM does not propose any changes that would significantly
affect small entities. Small organizations and small governmental units
would not be significantly affected by the proposed amendments of this
NPRM since the potential cost impacts associated with this action are
negligible.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined this proposed rule pursuant to Executive Order
(E.O.) 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no
additional consultation with States, local governments or their
representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency
has concluded that the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or
the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This proposed
rule would not have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.''
NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express
preemption provision stating that, if NHTSA has established a standard
for an aspect motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance a
State may only prescribe or continue in effect a standard for that same
aspect of performance if the State standard is identical to the Federal
standard. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by
Congress that preempts any non-identical State legislative and
administrative law addressing the same aspect of performance.
The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision are generally preserved.
NHTSA rules can also preempt State law if complying with the FMVSS
would render the motor vehicle manufacturers liable under State tort
law. Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum
standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose
a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be
preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist--for
example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum
standard--the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly
preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
Pursuant to E.O. 13132, NHTSA has considered whether this proposed
rule could or should preempt State common law causes of action. The
agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the preemptive
effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that preemption will
be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation. To this end, the agency
has examined the nature (e.g., the language and structure of the
regulatory text) and objectives of this proposed rule and finds that
this NPRM, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes only a minimum safety
standard.
Accordingly, NHTSA does not intend that this proposed rule preempt
state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor
vehicle manufacturers than that established by this proposed rule.
Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not
conflict with the minimum standard finalized in this document. Without
any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State
common law tort cause of action.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), Federal agencies must obtain
approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each
collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through
regulations, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid
OMB control number. This proposed rulemaking proposes changes to the
existing information collection requirements under 49 CFR part 595.5,
``Retrofit On-Off Switches for Air Bags.''
In compliance with the requirements of the PRA, NHTSA intends to
request approval for a reinstatement with modification of a previously
approved information collection request. Specifically, NHTSA is
requesting reinstatement of the information collection request (ICR)
with OMB Control No. 2127-0588. This ICR corresponds to appendix B to
part 595, which is a form that any owner or lessee of a motor vehicle
seeking the installation of an air bag on-off switch must complete and
submit to NHTSA before NHTSA will grant or deny
[[Page 76047]]
approval for an on-off switch to be installed. Additionally, NHTSA
plans to request that the previously approved ICR be modified in
accordance with the proposals discussed in this NPRM. As discussed in
the sections above, this NPRM proposes to amend several of the
appendices in part 595, and proposes adding an additional appendix to
part 595, which means the burden on the public may be different from
the originally approved ICR.
As part of seeking approval to reinstate the ICR with OMB, NHTSA
will separately publish a notice giving the public the opportunity to
comment on the reinstatement and modification of the ICR. Those notices
will provide significant detail on the ICR reinstatement, and on how
the ICR will be modified based on the proposals discussed in this
proposed rule.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
NHTSA has analyzed this NPRM for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The agency has determined that
implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than
$100 million annually (adjusted annually for inflation, with base year
of 1995). UMRA also requires an agency issuing an NPRM or final rule
subject to the Act to select the ``least costly, most cost-effective or
least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the
rule.'' This NPRM would not result in a Federal mandate that will
likely result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million
annually (adjusted annually for inflation, with base year of 1995).
Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
When promulgating a regulation, agencies are required under E.O.
12988 to make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation, as
appropriate: (1) specifies in clear language the preemptive effect; (2)
specifies in clear language the effect on existing Federal law or
regulation, including all provisions repealed, circumscribed,
displaced, impaired, or modified; (3) provides a clear legal standard
for affected conduct rather than a general standard, while promoting
simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies in clear language
the retroactive effect; (5) specifies whether administrative
proceedings are to be required before parties may file suit in court;
(6) explicitly or implicitly defines key terms; and (7) addresses other
important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship of
regulations.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this NPRM is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there
is no requirement that an individual submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceedings before they
may file suit in court.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, such as the International Organization for
Standardization and the Society of Automotive Engineers. The NTTAA
directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when we
decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards. There are no voluntary consensus standards developed by
voluntary consensus standards bodies pertaining to this proposed rule.
Plain Language Requirement
E.O. 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in plain
language. Application of the principles of plain language includes
consideration of the following questions:
<bullet> Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
<bullet> Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
<bullet> Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
<bullet> Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
<bullet> Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
<bullet> Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
<bullet> What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
NHTSA has considered these questions and attempted to use plain
language in promulgating this proposed rule. If readers have
suggestions on how we can improve our use of plain language, please
write us.
Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN
contained in the heading at the beginning of this notice may be used to
find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Privacy Act
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its decision-making process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
<a href="http://www.transportation.gov/privacy">www.transportation.gov/privacy</a>. Anyone is able to search the electronic
form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of
the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78).
VII. Public Participation
How do I prepare and submit comments?
<bullet> To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the
Docket, please include the Docket Number in your comments.
<bullet> Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. NHTSA
established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments
in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional
documents to your comments, and there is no limit on the length of the
attachments.
<bullet> If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF
(Adobe) file,
[[Page 76048]]
NHTSA asks that the documents be submitted using the Optical Character
Recognition process, thus allowing NHTSA to search and copy certain
portions of your submissions.
<bullet> Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, for
substantive data to be relied on and used by NHTSA, it must meet the
information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality
Act guidelines. Accordingly, NHTSA encourages you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. DOT's guidelines may be accessed
at <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-information-dissemination-quality-guidelines">https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-information-dissemination-quality-guidelines</a>.
Tips for Preparing Your Comments
When submitting comments, please remember to:
<bullet> Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
<bullet> Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives,
and substitute language for your requested changes.
<bullet> Describe any assumptions you make and provide any
technical information and/or data that you used.
<bullet> If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
<bullet> Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
<bullet> Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
<bullet> To ensure that your comments are considered by the agency,
make sure to submit them by the comment period deadline identified in
the DATES section above.
<bullet> For additional guidance on submitting effective comments,
see <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docs/Tips_For_Submitting_Effective_Comments.pdf">https://www.regulations.gov/docs/Tips_For_Submitting_Effective_Comments.pdf</a>.
How can I be sure that my comments were received?
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How do I submit confidential business information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit your complete submission, including
the information you claim to be confidential business information
(CBI), to the NHTSA Chief Counsel. When you send a comment containing
CBI, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information
specified in our CBI regulation (49 CFR part 572). In addition, you
should submit a copy from which you have deleted the claimed CBI to the
Docket by one of the methods set forth above.
To facilitate social distancing due to COVID-19, NHTSA is treating
electronic submission as an acceptable method for submitting CBI to the
Agency under 49 CFR part 512. Any CBI submissions sent via email should
be sent to an attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel at the address
given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Will the agency consider late comments?
We will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent
possible, we will also consider comments that the docket receives after
that date. If the docket receives a comment too late for us to consider
in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will
consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking
action.
How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
You may read the comments received by the docket at the address
given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are indicated
above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the
internet. To read the comments on the internet, go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the docket for new material.
You can arrange with the docket to be notified when others file
comments in the docket. See <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> for more information.
If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming
CBI, please consult the person(s) identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 595
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is proposing to amend 49
CFR part 595 as follows:
PART 595--MAKE INOPERATIVE EXEMPTIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 595 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30122 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
0
2. Amend Sec. 595.4 by adding in alphabetical order definitions for
``Deactivation'', ``Emergency vehicle'', and ``On-off switch'' to read
as follows:
Sec. 595.4 Definitions.
* * * * *
Deactivation means that a dealer or motor vehicle repair business
disables an air bag system in a motor vehicle.
* * * * *
Emergency vehicle means law enforcement vehicles, as that term is
defined in S7 of Sec. 571.208 of this chapter, firefighting vehicles,
and ambulances, as that term is defined in S3 of Sec. 571.201 of this
chapter.
* * * * *
On-off switch means a switch that allows an occupant to turn an air
bag in the vehicle on or off.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise the heading to Subpart B to read as follows:
Subpart B--Retrofit On-Off Switches for Air Bags and Air Bag
Deactivations
0
4. Revise Sec. 595.5 to read as follows:
Sec. 595.5 Requirements.
(a) Overview of general conditions for a vehicle owner or lessee to
obtain approval to install a retrofit air bag on-off switch. For
installing a retrofit air bag on-off switch on vehicles other than an
emergency vehicle, prior to the installation of the retrofit air bag
on-off switch either the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle reads the
information brochure in appendix A to this part and submits the
completed form in appendix B to this part to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in accordance with the
instructions on the form. For emergency vehicles, the authorized
representative of the owner or lessee of the emergency vehicle submits
the completed form in appendix D to this part to NHTSA in accordance
with the instructions on the form. NHTSA will consider whether the
request is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purpose and
policies of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. If NHTSA
agrees to the request, NHTSA sends a letter to the
[[Page 76049]]
requestor authorizing the installation of an on-off switch in that
vehicle for that air bag.
(b) Requirements for dealer or motor vehicle repair businesses when
installing retrofit on-off switches for air bags. A dealer or motor
vehicle repair business may modify a motor vehicle by installing an on-
off switch subject to the conditions in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5)
of this section.
(1) The dealer or motor vehicle repair business receives from the
owner or lessee of the motor vehicle a letter from the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration that authorizes the installation of an
on-off switch in that vehicle for that air bag.
(2) The dealer or motor vehicle repair business installs the on-off
switch in accordance with the instructions of the manufacturer of the
switch.
(3) The on-off switch meets all of the conditions specified in
paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) The on-off switch is operable solely by a key or a key-like
object. The on-off switch shall be separate from the ignition switch
for the vehicle, so that the driver must take some action other than
inserting the ignition key or turning the ignition key in the ignition
switch to turn off the air bag. Once turned off, the air bag shall
remain off until it is turned back on by means of the device. If a
single on-off switch is installed for more than one air bag in the
vehicle, the on-off switch shall allow each air bag to be turned off
without turning off the other air bag(s). The readiness indicator
required by S4.5.2 of Sec. 571.208 of this chapter shall continue to
monitor the readiness of the air bags even when one or more air bags
have been turned off. The readiness indicator light shall not be
illuminated solely because an air bag has been deactivated by means of
an on-off switch.
(ii) A telltale light in the interior of the vehicle shall be
illuminated whenever an air bag is turned off by means of the on-off
switch. The telltale for a driver air bag shall be clearly visible to
an occupant of the driver's seating position. The telltale for a front
passenger air bag shall be clearly visible to occupants of all front
seating positions. The telltale for an air bag:
(A) Shall be yellow;
(B) Shall have the identifying words ``DRIVER AIR BAG OFF'',
``PASSENGER AIR BAG OFF'', or ``PASS AIR BAG OFF'', as appropriate, on
the telltale or within 25 millimeters of the telltale;
(C) Shall remain illuminated for the entire time that the air bag
is ``off'';
(D) Shall not be illuminated at any time when the air bag is
``on''; and,
(E) Shall not be combined with the readiness indicator required by
S4.5.2 of Sec. 571.208 of this chapter.
(4) The dealer or motor vehicle repair business provides the owner
or lessee with an insert for the vehicle owner's manual that--
(i) Describes the operation of the on-off switch;
(ii) Lists the risk groups on the request form set forth in
appendix B to this part;
(iii) States that an on-off switch should only be used to turn off
an air bag for a member of one of those risk groups; and
(iv) States the safety consequences of using the on-off switch to
turn off an air bag for persons who are not members of any of those
risk groups. The description of those consequences includes
information, specific to the make, model, and model year of the
affected vehicle, about any seat belt energy managing features, e.g.,
load limiters, that will affect seat belt performance when the air bag
is turned off.
(5) In the form included in the agency authorization letter
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, Appendix C of this part,
the dealer or motor vehicle repair business fills in information
describing itself and the on-off switch installation(s) it makes in the
motor vehicle. The dealer or motor vehicle repair business then sends
the form to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration within 7
working days after the completion of the described installations.
(c) Overview of general conditions for a vehicle owner or lessee to
obtain approval to deactivate an air bag. (1) For air bag
deactivations, prior to the deactivation of the air bag the owner or
lessee of the vehicle submits a written request to NHTSA with the
following information:
(i) The name and address of the vehicle owner or lessee;
(ii) A request that an air bag be deactivated and whether the
request applies to the driver air bag, front passenger air bag, or
both;
(iii) A certification that the owner or lessee has read the
information brochure in appendix A to this part;
(iv) A detailed justification why deactivation is necessary and why
the installation of an on-off switch is not a viable option; and
(v) Any documentation that supports the stated justification; and a
certification that if the deactivation is no longer justified or if
they sell the vehicle, the owner or lessee would have the air bag
reactivated or would inform the buyer that the air bag has been
deactivated prior to the sale.
(2) The owner or lessee mails the request to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Attention: Air Bag Deactivation
Requests, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 or faxes the
request to 202-493-2833. NHTSA will consider whether the request is
consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purpose and policy of the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. If NHTSA agrees to the
request, NHTSA sends a letter to the requestor authorizing the
deactivation of the specified air bag in the vehicle, with labels to be
affixed by the dealer or motor vehicle repair business to both sides of
the sun visor at each seating position with a deactivated air bag,
alerting vehicle users about the deactivated air bag(s).
(d) Requirements for dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses
when performing air bag deactivations. A dealer or motor vehicle repair
business may modify a motor vehicle by deactivating an air bag subject
to the conditions in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Prior to the deactivation of the air bag, the dealer or motor
vehicle repair business receives from the owner or lessee of the motor
vehicle a letter from NHTSA that authorizes the deactivation of the
specified air bag in the vehicle and labels to be affixed by the dealer
or motor vehicle repair business to both sides of the sun visor at each
seating position with a deactivated air bag, alerting vehicle users
about the deactivated air bag(s).
(2) The dealer or motor vehicle repair business affixes the labels
to both sides of the sun visor at each seating position with a
deactivated air bag.
(3) If a deactivated air bag gets reactivated the dealer or motor
vehicle repair business shall remove the labels indicating the air bag
was deactivated.
0
5. Revise Appendices A through C to read as follows:
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Appendix A to Part 595--Advanced Frontal Air Bags and Air Bag On-Off
Switch Information Brochure
[[Page 76050]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.020
[[Page 76051]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.021
[[Page 76052]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.022
[[Page 76053]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.023
[[Page 76054]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.024
[[Page 76055]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.025
[[Page 76056]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.026
[[Page 76057]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.028
[[Page 76058]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.029
Appendix B to Part 595--Request Form for Frontal Air Bag On-Off Switch
[[Page 76059]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.030
[[Page 76060]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.031
[[Page 76061]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.032
Appendix C to Part 595--Installation of Air Bag On-Off Switches
[[Page 76062]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.033
0
6. Add Appendix D to read as follows:
Appendix D to Part 595--Request Form for Air Bag On-Off Switch for
Emergency Vehicles
[[Page 76063]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.034
[[Page 76064]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.035
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95 and 501.5.
Sophie Shulman,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024-20651 Filed 9-16-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 17, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.