[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 6, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40784-40809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-19923]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 74-14; Notice 100]
RIN 2127-AG14


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes amendments to NHTSA's occupant crash 
protection standard and child restraint standard to reduce the adverse 
effects of air bags, especially those on children. Eventually, either 
through market forces or government regulation, NHTSA expects that 
smart passenger-side air bags will be installed in passenger cars and 
light trucks to mitigate these adverse effects. For purposes of this 
document, the agency considers smart air bags to include any system 
that automatically prevents an air bag from injuring the two groups of 
children that experience has shown to be at special risk from air bags: 
infants in rear-facing child seats, and children who are out-of-
position (because they are unbelted or improperly belted) when the air 
bag deploys.
    The agency is proposing that vehicles without smart passenger-side 
air bags would be required to have new, attention-getting warning 
labels and permitted to have a manual cutoff switch for the passenger-
side air bag. By limiting the labeling requirement to vehicles without 
smart air bags, NHTSA hopes to encourage the introduction of the next 
generation of air bags as soon as possible. NHTSA proposes to define 
smart air bags broadly to give manufacturers flexibility in making 
design choices. The agency is specifically requesting comments 
concerning whether it should require installation of smart air bags 
and, if so, on what date such a requirement should become effective. 
NHTSA is also requesting comments on whether it should, as an 
alternative, set a time limit on the provision permitting manual cutoff 
switches in order to assure the timely introduction of smart air bags.
    NHTSA is also proposing to require rear-facing child seats to bear 
new, enhanced warning labels.
    Finally, this document discusses the agency's research on other air 
bag issues, such as research on technology to reduce arm and other 
injuries to drivers.

DATES: Comments must be received by September 20, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice number of 
this notice and be submitted to: Docket Section, Room 5109, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20590. (Docket Room hours are 9:30 a.m.--4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Stephen R. 
Kratzke, Office of Safety Performance Standards, NPS-31, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Kratzke can be reached by telephone at (202) 
366-5203 or by fax at (202) 366-4329.
    For legal issues: J. Edward Glancy, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-
20, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW, Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Glancy can be reached by telephone at 
(202) 366-2992 or by fax at (202) 366- 3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Overview and Summary.
II. Existing Requirements for Air Bags.
III. Agency Monitoring of Air Bag Effectiveness.
IV. Actions by NHTSA to Improve Air Bag Safety.
V. November 1995 Request for Comments.
VI. Summary of Comments.
    A. Smart Bags.
    B. Tag Systems.
    C. Improvements to Labeling.
    D. Manual Cutoff Switches.
    E. Other Issues.
VII. Proposal.
    A. Summary.
    B. Defining Smart Air Bags.
    C. Possibility of Mandating Smart Passenger Air Bags and Timing 
of a Mandate.
    D. New Warning Label Requirements for Vehicles Which Lack Smart 
Passenger-side Air Bags.
    1. Child Seat Labels.
    2. Label on Passenger-Side End of Vehicle Dash or Door Panel.
    3. Label on Sun Visor.
    4. Label in the Middle of the Dash Panel.
    5. Possible Sun Visor Labeling Requirement for Vehicles With 
Smart Passenger-side Air Bags.
    6. Leadtime and Costs.
    E. Manual Cutoff Switch Option for Vehicles Which Lack Smart 
Passenger-side Air Bags.
VIII. Future Agency Considerations.
IX. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices.
    A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures.
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    C. National Environmental Policy Act.
    D. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism).
    E. Civil Justice Reform.
X. Comments.
I. Overview and Summary
    While air bags are providing significant overall safety benefits, 
NHTSA is very concerned that current designs have adverse effects in 
some situations. Of particular concern, NHTSA has identified 21 
relatively low speed crashes in which the deployment of the passenger-
side air bag resulted in fatal injuries to a child. NHTSA believes that 
these children would not have died if there had been no air bag.
    All of these deaths occurred under circumstances in which the 
child's upper body was very near the air bag when it deployed. The 
children sustained fatal head or neck injuries, as a result of the 
deploying air bag. Six of these deaths involved infants in rear-facing 
child seats, where the infant's head was located very near the 
instrument panel and the air bag. The 15 other children appear to have 
been unbelted or improperly belted (e.g., wearing only the lap belt 
with the shoulder belt behind them) at the time of the crash. During 
pre-impact braking, these children slid or leaned forward so that they 
were too close to the instrument panel and air bag at the time of 
deployment.
    The most direct solution to the problem of child fatalities from 
air bags is for children to be properly belted and placed in the back 
seat. This necessitates increasing the percentage of children who are 
properly restrained by child safety seats and improving the current 67 
percent rate of seat belt usage by a combination of methods, including 
the encouragement of State primary seat belt laws. The most direct 
technical solution to the problem of child fatalities from air bags is 
the

[[Page 40785]]

development and installation of smart passenger-side air bags that 
automatically protect children from the adverse effects that can occur 
from close proximity to a deploying bag. However, until these smart air 
bags can be incorporated in production vehicles, behavioral changes 
based on improved information and communication of potential hazards 
and simpler, manually operated technology appear to be the best means 
of addressing child fatalities from air bags.
    To partially implement these tentative conclusions, NHTSA is 
proposing the following for passenger cars and light trucks whose 
passenger-side air bag lacks smart capability: (1) To require new, 
enhanced warning labels; and (2) to permit manual cutoff switches for 
the passenger-side air bags (to accommodate parents who need to place 
rear-facing child seats in the front seat). By limiting the labeling 
requirement to vehicles without smart air bags, NHTSA hopes to 
encourage the introduction of those air bags as soon as possible. For 
purposes of this notice, NHTSA considers smart passenger-side air bags 
to include ones designed so that they automatically avoid injuring the 
two groups of children shown by experience to be at special risk from 
air bags: infants in rear-facing child seats, and children who are out-
of-position (because they are unbelted or improperly belted) when the 
air bag deploys.
    The agency is also proposing to require vehicles and rear-facing 
child seats to bear new, enhanced warning labels. The proposed labels 
would warn that unbelted children and children in those child seats may 
be seriously injured or killed by the passenger-side air bag.
    This notice discusses other issues relating to the introduction of 
smart passenger-side air bags. NHTSA is requesting comments on whether 
to assure the timely introduction of those air bags by requiring their 
installation, and if so, by what date. As an alternative, the agency is 
also requesting comments on whether it should specify an expiration 
date for the manual cutoff switch option in order to encourage smart 
passenger-side air bags.
    Vehicle manufacturers and air bag suppliers are working on an array 
of systems that might qualify as smart air bags. These systems fall 
into two categories: (1) Ones which would prevent the air bag from 
deploying in situations where it might have an adverse effect, based, 
for example, on the weight, size and/or location of the occupant, and 
(2) ones designed so that they would deploy in a manner that does not 
create a risk of serious injury to occupants very near the bag, e.g., 
deploying at a slower speed when an occupant is very near the air bag 
and/or deploying less aggressively as a result of being stowed with an 
improved fold pattern.
    While previous comments from vehicle manufacturers suggest that 
ultimate product development and incorporation of most types of smart 
air bags in production vehicles is a number of years away, NHTSA is 
aware of one system that apparently would automatically protect 
children and that is in production now. This system uses a weight 
sensor that activates the air bag only if more than a specified amount 
of weight is present on the passenger seat. While this technology is 
currently being used to prevent the unnecessary and costly deployment 
of a passenger air bag when no passenger is present, commenters have 
suggested that the same technology could be used to prevent deployment 
of the air bag when either no passenger or only a child of less than a 
specified weight (e.g., 30 kilograms or 66 pounds) is present.
    While it is possible for the agency to base a definition of smart 
air bags on an automatic system incorporating a weight sensor, NHTSA 
does not wish its definition to unnecessarily limit design choices. The 
agency wishes to give manufacturers and suppliers broad latitude in 
designing smart air bags and seeks comments suggesting objective, 
workable criteria that would be broadly inclusive of technologies 
capable of protecting children automatically. If possible, smart air 
bags should be defined to include any system that automatically 
prevents an air bag from injuring infants in rear-facing child seats, 
and unbelted or improperly belted children.
    NHTSA recognizes that, were it to require smart passenger-side air 
bags, its leadtime decision would have to take into consideration the 
differing leadtimes for the various kinds of smart bags under 
development, and the fact that the longest leadtimes will be those for 
the more advanced smart bags potentially offering the greatest net 
benefits. The agency also recognizes the engineering challenge of 
incorporating new air bag design features in the entire passenger car 
and light truck fleet.
    At the same time, given the growing toll of child fatalities, and 
the apparent near term availability of at least one smart bag design 
(i.e., the one using a weight sensor), NHTSA believes that it should 
take steps now to encourage the introduction of smart passenger-side 
air bags as soon as possible. The agency also believes that, as a 
practical matter, the longer the time needed to develop and implement 
the most advanced smart bags, the greater the need would be to 
implement interim designs that would protect children automatically.

II. Existing Requirements for Air Bags

    Under Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (``Motor Vehicle 
Safety''), NHTSA is authorized to set Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles 
and new motor vehicle equipment. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash 
Protection, one of the original Federal motor vehicle safety standards 
issued under this statute, has long required motor vehicle 
manufacturers to install safety belts in most vehicle types to protect 
occupants during a crash. More recently, the standard has required 
manufacturers to provide automatic protection for frontal crashes.
    In establishing Standard No. 208's current automatic protection 
requirements for passenger cars in 1984, and later extending those 
requirements to light trucks, NHTSA expressly permitted a variety of 
methods of providing automatic protection, including automatic belts 
and air bags. However, the agency included a number of provisions to 
encourage manufacturers to install air bags. These included extra 
credit during the standard's phase-in period for vehicles using air 
bags and allowing vehicles with a driver air bag system to count, for a 
limited period of time, as a vehicle meeting the standard's automatic 
protection requirements.
    Ultimately, however, consumer demand led to the installation of air 
bags throughout the new car fleet. By the beginning of this decade, 
manufacturers were developing plans to install air bags in all of their 
passenger cars and light trucks.
    Congress included a provision in the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) directing NHTSA to 
prescribe an amendment to Standard No. 208 to require, by the late 
1990's, that all passenger cars and light trucks provide automatic 
protection by means of air bags. The Act required at least 95 percent 
of each manufacturer's passenger cars manufactured on or after 
September 1, 1996 and before September 1, 1997 to be equipped with an 
air bag and a manual lap/shoulder belt at both the driver's and right 
front passenger's seating positions. Every passenger car manufactured 
on or after September 1, 1997 must be so equipped. The same basic 
requirements are phased-in for light trucks one year

[[Page 40786]]

later.1 The final rule implementing this provision of ISTEA was 
published in the Federal Register (58 FR 46551) on September 2, 1993. 
Essentially, ISTEA eliminated non-air bag means of providing automatic 
occupant protection because of Congress's belief that air bags provide 
the greatest level of such protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     1  At least 80 percent of each manufacturer's light trucks 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1997 and before September 1, 
1998 must be equipped with an air bag and a manual lap/shoulder 
belt. Every light truck manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 
must be so equipped.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The vehicle manufacturers are far ahead of the ISTEA implementation 
schedule. Nearly every 1996 model year passenger car will be equipped 
with both driver- and passenger-side air bags as standard equipment, 
even though the statutory requirement for air bags has not yet taken 
effect. A large number of model year 1996 light trucks are also 
equipped with air bags.
    Standard No. 208's automatic protection requirements, whether for 
air bags or (until the provisions of ISTEA take effect) for automatic 
belts, are performance requirements. The standard does not specify the 
design of an air bag. Instead, vehicles must meet specified injury 
criteria, including criteria for the head and chest, measured on test 
dummies, during a barrier crash test, at speeds up to 30 mph. These 
criteria must be met for air-bag equipped vehicles both when the 
dummies are belted and when they are unbelted. The latter test 
condition ensures that a vehicle provides ``automatic protection,'' 
i.e., protection by means that require no action by vehicle occupants.
    These requirements apply to the performance of the vehicle as a 
whole, and not to the air bag as a separate item of motor vehicle 
equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to ``tune'' the 
performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific 
attributes of each of their vehicles and leaves them free to select 
specific attributes for their air bags, such as dimensions, actuation 
time, and the like.

III. Agency Monitoring of Air Bag Effectiveness

    NHTSA has been monitoring the real world performance of air bags, 
including any adverse effects, for more than a decade. NHTSA published 
an Evaluation Plan for front-seat occupant protection in January 1990 
(55 FR 1586; January 17, 1990), which calls for periodic interim 
analyses of their effectiveness. A final evaluation of effectiveness 
will not be possible until after air bags have been standard equipment 
for some time on high production volume cars. An Interim Evaluation 
Report, including analyses of fatality and injury reductions, was 
published in June 1992. The agency also submitted Reports to Congress 
on this subject in November 1992 and February 1996.
    In evaluating air bag effectiveness, it must be remembered that air 
bags are supplemental restraints. Therefore, the agency has long 
emphasized in information provided to the public that the presence of 
an air bag does not mean it is less important for occupants to use 
their safety belts. The safety belt, which provides protection in all 
kinds of crashes, is the primary means of occupant restraint. Air bags 
only work in frontal crashes.
    The agency's studies of air bag effectiveness conclude that current 
air bags are approximately 30 percent effective in reducing fatalities 
in pure frontal crashes (12 o'clock impacts), and, looking at all 
impacts, air bags reduce fatalities by 10 percent. These fatality 
effectiveness estimates are with safety belts ``as used;'' that is, 
they are a comparison of fatality rates in cars with and without air 
bags regardless of whether the safety belt was used.
    Air bags reduce the likelihood of injury to an occupant's head, 
neck, face, chest, and abdomen, in frontal crashes, compared to the 
injuries received when only a lap/shoulder belt is used. Injuries to 
these parts of the body are much more likely to be life threatening. An 
air bag combined with a lap/shoulder belt reduces the injury risk to 
these parts of the body by 59 percent compared to 47 percent for manual 
lap/shoulder belts alone. These analyses also show that driver-side air 
bags can be associated with increased risk of arm injury. NHTSA is 
conducting additional analyses and research to further address these 
issues.
    Almost all of the experience in evaluating air bag effectiveness 
has been based on driver-side air bags. The number of passenger-side 
air bags has been too small to conduct statistically significant 
evaluations of their life-saving benefits. As the dual air bag fleet 
continues to grow, such studies will become possible. Currently, only 
anecdotal information, located and developed by NHTSA's Special Crash 
Investigation program, is available on passenger-side air bags.
    Although the safety benefits of air bags are documented, there are 
situations in which air bags can have adverse effects. As more vehicles 
have been equipped with air bags, these effects have become better 
known to researchers. The table below shows, in no particular order, 
the types of situations in which the agency has some information 
suggesting that there may be a risk of serious injury to vehicle 
occupants from the air bag.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Seating position    Probable cause of  
        Group affected           of primary risk          problem       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unrestrained Small Statured     Driver Position..  Proximity to Air Bag 
 and/or Older People.                               at Time of          
                                                    Deployment.         
Infants in Rear-Facing Child    Passenger          Proximity to Air Bag 
 Seats.                          Position.          at Time of          
                                                    Deployment.         
Children Unrestrained in Front  Passenger          Proximity to Air Bag 
 Seat.                           Position.          at Time of          
                                                    Deployment.         
Out-of-Position Occupants.....  Driver and         Proximity to Air Bag 
                                 Passenger          at Time of          
                                 Position.          Deployment.         
Persons with Disabilities.....  Driver Position..  Proximity to Air Bag 
                                                    at Time of          
                                                    Deployment; Adaptive
                                                    Equipment between   
                                                    Air Bag and Driver; 
                                                    Safety Features in  
                                                    Vehicle Must be     
                                                    Modified to         
                                                    Accommodate Adaptive
                                                    Equipment.          
Persons Experiencing Extremity  Driver and         Unknown; Under Study.
 Injuries.                       Passenger                              
                                 Position.                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown on this table, the risks of adverse effects from air bags 
primarily relate to occupants who are very near the air bag at the time 
of deployment. As of June 1996, NHTSA's Special Crash Investigation 
program had identified 18 minor to moderate severity crashes where the 
deployment of the driver-side air bag resulted in fatal injuries to the

[[Page 40787]]

driver. Fourteen out of 18 of these drivers appear to have been 
unrestrained or out-of-position (slumped over the wheel) at the time of 
the crash. In addition, the National Accident Sampling System has 
identified five high speed crashes where the driver sustained fatal 
injuries attributable to the air bag. However, due to the high speed of 
the crash, fatal injuries might have occurred in the absence of the air 
bag.
    As of June 1996, NHTSA's Special Crash Investigation program had 
identified 21 crashes in which the deployment of the passenger-side air 
bag resulted in fatal injuries to a child. Six of these deaths were to 
infants in rear-facing child seats. The 15 other children appear to 
have been unrestrained or improperly restrained (e.g., wearing only the 
lap belt with the shoulder belt behind them) at the time of the crash. 
All of these cases involved pre-impact braking. This combination of no, 
or improper, belt use and pre-impact braking resulted in the forward 
movement of the children such that they were close to the instrument 
panel and the air bag system at the time of the crash and the 
deployment of the air bag. Because of this proximity, the children 
appear to have sustained fatal head or neck injuries from the deploying 
passenger-side air bag.

IV. Actions by NHTSA to Improve Air Bag Safety

    As noted above, looking at all crashes, air bags reduce fatalities 
by approximately 10 percent. This occurs because of their high 
effectiveness in purely frontal crashes, where they also reduce the 
likelihood of injury to an occupant's head, neck, face, chest, and 
abdomen.
    NHTSA is extremely concerned, however, about deaths caused by air 
bags. Moreover, the agency recognizes that, if there is no change in 
occupant behavior or in the technology of air bags, injuries and 
fatalities such as those described in the preceding section will 
increase as the number of vehicles equipped with air bags increases.
    For air bag-equipped vehicles already on the road or being produced 
in the near future, behavioral changes comprise the most realistic hope 
for improvement and would bring the most immediate benefit. The agency 
has taken a number of steps in the past to warn drivers of the 
potential adverse effects caused by air bags, and how those effects can 
be minimized or eliminated. Moreover, NHTSA is intensifying its efforts 
in these areas.
    In December of 1991, NHTSA issued a Consumer Advisory warning 
owners of rear-facing child seats not to use such a restraint in the 
front seat of a vehicle equipped with a passenger air bag. This warning 
was based on preliminary results of testing regarding this problem. At 
that time, no casualties to infants had occurred. Since that time, 
NHTSA has issued at least six additional News Releases on the subject.
    In the September 1993 final rule implementing ISTEA's provisions 
concerning air bags, NHTSA required vehicles equipped with air bags to 
bear labels on the sun visors providing four specific cautions, 
including a statement not to install rearward-facing child seats in 
front passenger positions, and advising the occupant to see the owner's 
manual for further information and explanations. The sun visor label 
requirement became effective on September 1, 1994, and the owner's 
manual requirement became effective on March 1, 1994.
    On February 16, 1994, NHTSA published in the Federal Register a 
final rule amending Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, to 
require rear-facing child seats manufactured on or after August 15, 
1994 to include a warning against using the restraint in any vehicle 
seating position equipped with an air bag. 59 FR 7643. The rule also 
requires the printed instructions for such restraints to include safety 
information about air bags.
    In addition, on May 23, 1995, NHTSA published a final rule amending 
Standard No. 208 to allow manufacturers, beginning June 22, 1995, the 
option of installing a manual device that motorists could use to 
deactivate the front passenger-side air bag in vehicles in which rear-
facing child seats can only fit in the front seat. 60 FR 27233. A more 
complete description of the various steps NHTSA took during the early 
1990's to address the problem of the interaction between rear-facing 
child seats and air bags can be found in the notice of proposed 
rulemaking which preceded the May 1995 final rule. See 59 FR 51158, 
51159, October 7, 1994.
    On October 27, 1995, because of the incidence of several fatalities 
to improperly restrained children in air bag-equipped positions, NHTSA 
issued a strong warning in a press release, ``SAFETY AGENCY ISSUES 
WARNING ON AIR BAG DANGER TO CHILDREN.'' It ``warned that children who 
are not protected by a seat belt could be seriously injured or killed 
by an air bag, and in the strongest possible terms urged parents to 
insist that their children ride belted in the back seat whenever 
possible.'' This release repeated prior agency warnings of the dangers 
of placing a rear-facing seat in front of an air bag, and broadened the 
previous warnings to apply to older children and even adults who may 
ride unrestrained. To ensure that infants and children ride safely, 
with or without a passenger-side air bag, this warning and advisory 
urges care givers to follow three ``rules'':
     Make sure all infants and children are properly restrained 
in child safety seats or lap and shoulder belts for every trip.
     The back seat is the safest place for children of any age.
     Infants riding in rear-facing child safety seats should 
never be placed in the front seat of a vehicle with a passenger-side 
air bag.
    On November 9, 1995, NHTSA published a request for comments to 
inform the public about NHTSA's efforts to reduce the adverse effects 
of air bags, and to invite the public to share information and views 
with the agency. 60 FR 56554. The request for comments focused on 
possible technological changes to air bags to reduce their adverse 
effects, including possible regulatory changes, and is discussed more 
fully in the next section of this document.
    Since publishing its October 1995 warning and November 1995 request 
for comments, NHTSA has intensified its efforts to educate the public 
about air bag performance and the campaign to properly restrain 
children. A large part of the agency's plan is to increase information 
to the affected public through the traffic safety community throughout 
the country. With this support, the agency will be able to extend the 
reach of its safety messages to a wider population.
    A few of the agency's many activities include: an article in the 
Center for Disease Control's ``Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report'' 
reached the public health community nationwide and attracted 
substantial press coverage. An article in the Food and Drug 
Administration's bulletin (circulation 1.2 million) reached all 
physicians. The American Academy of Pediatrics notified all 
pediatricians through its newsletter and also issued a special media 
alert. The International Association of Chiefs of Police and the 
National Sheriffs' Association informed all law enforcement agencies 
nationwide. The agency has also conducted a national press event for 
National Child Passenger Safety Awareness Week at the National 
Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) Convention in February 1996, 
featuring a display on air bags and child safety information.

[[Page 40788]]

    To expand public education even further, a recent National 
Conference, ``Safety Belts, Air Bags, & Passenger Safety: A Call to 
Action,'' was held in January 1996, in partnership with the National 
Safety Council to develop a plan to inform the public about the 
potential dangers of air bags to unrestrained and improperly restrained 
occupants. Of main concern was the need to immediately increase the 
proper use of safety restraints by children and adults.
    NHTSA believes national safety belt use rates can be increased 
significantly beyond the current national average of 67 percent. The 
agency knows, for example, from its own research and demonstration 
efforts and the efforts of the insurance and automobile industries, 
that three ingredients are essential to increasing safety belt use: (1) 
strengthening current state safety belt use laws to allow for primary 
enforcement; (2) implementing periodic, highly visible enforcement 
programs in the states so that the public will know these laws are 
important and are being enforced; and (3) conducting public information 
and education programs to reinforce these efforts and alert the public 
to the dangers of riding unrestrained or improperly restrained.
    On May 21, 1996, Secretary of Transportation Federico Pena 
announced the formation of a coalition of automobile manufacturers, air 
bag suppliers, insurance companies, safety organizations, and the 
Federal government to prevent injuries and fatalities which may be 
inadvertently caused by air bags, especially to children. Coalition 
members pledged almost $10 million to pursue a three-point program:
     An extensive national effort to educate drivers, parents 
and care-givers about seat belt and child safety seat use in all motor 
vehicles, with special emphasis on those equipped with air bags.
     A campaign to convince states to pass ``primary'' seat 
belt use laws.
     Activities at state and local levels to increase 
enforcement of all seat belt and child seat use laws, such as increased 
public information and use of belt checkpoints.

V. November 1995 Request for Comments

    As indicated in the preceding section, NHTSA published a request 
for comments in November 1995 concerning the need to reduce the adverse 
effects of air bags. The request for comments in particular sought 
information about possible technological changes to air bags to reduce 
the adverse effects, including possible regulatory changes.
    The request for comments noted the agency's belief that, for 
vehicles manufactured far enough in the future to incorporate 
significant design changes, there will be technological enhancements 
available that could minimize the adverse effects of air bags. NHTSA 
noted that the vehicle manufacturers and air bag suppliers are working 
on ``smart bags,'' which could include advanced technologies for 
occupant sensing, phased deployment of air bags, and so forth. These 
technologies will be able to perform a number of functions, including 
preventing air bag deployment when they sense that an occupant is too 
close to the point of deployment, inflating the air bag at different 
speeds according to the severity of the crash, and preventing the 
passenger-side air bag from deploying when that seat is not occupied. 
NHTSA stated that, based on discussions with suppliers and vehicle 
manufacturers, it anticipates these types of smart bags will eventually 
be widely incorporated into production. The agency indicated that it 
will step up its monitoring of manufacturer efforts to develop and use 
smart bags, the technologies being explored, the practicability and 
reliability of smart bag systems, and the timetables for availability 
of smart bag systems.
    NHTSA recognized that while it anticipates that these smart bag 
systems will substantially reduce adverse effects of air bags in the 
relatively near future, this still leaves the question of what can be 
done in addition to public education for the near future. NHTSA stated 
that manufacturers may be able to make adjustments to existing air bag 
system designs, and, further, that the agency may make temporary 
adjustments to its regulations if it is shown to be appropriate to 
enable manufacturers to reduce any adverse effects during this period.
    In the notice, NHTSA noted that Ford has requested that the agency 
reduce Standard No. 208's unbelted test speed from 30 mph to 25 mph. 
According to Ford, this change would permit it to produce less 
aggressive air bags, thereby reducing air-bag induced injuries. The 
agency requested comments on a detailed technical assessment of the 
issues raised by Ford's request.
    NHTSA also asked a number of specific questions in the following 
subject areas: field experience with air bags, crash sensing, air bag 
inflators, air bag designs, proximity considerations, near-term 
considerations, future plans, obstacles to near- and long-term plans, 
and air bag issues related to persons with disabilities.
    NHTSA stated that it hoped that its request for comments would help 
the agency obtain the information needed to make reasoned decisions 
about whether some regulatory changes are appropriate for the interim 
period, whether some relatively simple technological fixes are 
available to reduce adverse effects until smart bags become a reality, 
or whether other activities, such as consumer information, offer the 
best chance of effectively reducing these adverse effects.

VI. Summary of Comments

    NHTSA received more than 50 comments, totaling over 1600 pages of 
text, from auto manufacturers, manufacturer organizations, suppliers of 
air bags and other automotive equipment, insurance companies, consumer 
groups, medical groups, research organizations, other government 
agencies, and private individuals. NHTSA has carefully analyzed the 
information provided in the comments, and its proposals are based on 
this analysis and agency research. In addition, the agency has held 
meetings with several vehicle manufacturers, air bag suppliers, 
consumer and insurance groups, and other associations. This section 
provides a summary of the most significant comments, focusing on those 
related to possible regulatory changes. For purposes of brevity, the 
summary cites representative comments.

A. Smart Bags

    Commenters generally confirmed that vehicle manufacturers and air 
bag suppliers are developing smart air bags that would incorporate 
advanced technologies such as variable inflation rates, occupant seat 
sensors, proximity detection/sensing, dual or multi-stage inflators/
sensors, dual or variable venting, and the like. However, it was not 
clear from the comments how quickly these various technologies will be 
introduced into production vehicles.
    Ford, for example, stated that it expects these advanced air bag 
technologies to be incorporated gradually during the first half of the 
next decade as new vehicle programs are introduced. GM stated that many 
technologies for automatic occupant sensing systems are being 
investigated, but that no supplier has yet demonstrated a ``production-
ready'' system. According to GM, once production-feasible systems are 
available, at least two years of further development to achieve 
reliability levels demanded by the public will be

[[Page 40789]]

required to integrate and validate in a vehicle.
    Mercedes identified a possible short term solution for children. 
That company noted that it already uses a pressure sensitive mat in the 
passenger-side seat of some vehicles to deactivate the passenger-side 
air bag when the seat is unoccupied. Mercedes stated that if the 
recognition threshold for the system was increased to 66 pounds, the 
passenger air bag would not deploy for children up to this weight 
sitting in that seat or for rear-facing child seats with infants. That 
company stated that such a decision could not be made by a vehicle 
manufacturer alone, and would be possible only in compliance with a 
Federal regulation.

B. Tag Systems

    Several commenters addressed the possibility of using rear-facing 
child seat detection ``tag'' systems. Such systems would deactivate the 
air bag when they detect a rear-facing child seat equipped with a 
special tag. Several suppliers are working on tag concepts, and 
Mercedes-Benz (Mercedes) and BMW expect to introduce such a feature in 
Europe for model year 1997. Toyota stated that standardization of 
tagging methods, as well as requirements for the same, would need to be 
mandated by the government or an appropriate institution. GM cited a 
number of issues surrounding the use of a tag system, including the 
need for special tagged rear-facing child seats, the use of untagged 
rear-facing child seats, retrofitting of existing rear-facing child 
seats with tags, potential for multiple tag technologies, and 
availability of tagged rear-facing child seats at low volume for used 
vehicles once tag systems are superseded.

C. Improvements to Labeling

    Nine commenters expressly addressed labeling and other public 
information activities in their comments. These commenters included the 
National Automobile Dealers Association, the American Association of 
Motor Vehicle Administrators, the National Association of Pediatric 
Nurse Associates and Practitioners, the Shriners Hospital--Cincinnati 
Unit, the Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (which represents both 
manufacturers of air bags and manufacturers of safety belts), and 
several members of the public. All the commenters that addressed this 
subject suggested that the current labels should be studied to see if 
the safety information could be conveyed more effectively to the 
American public. As part of its comments, the National Transportation 
Safety Board submitted its November 2, 1995 Safety Recommendation that 
NHTSA develop and implement a highly visible multimedia campaign to 
advise the public how to minimize the risks of air bag-induced injuries 
to children.

D. Manual Cutoff Switches

    Commenters addressed a number of issues related to manual cutoff 
switches, including whether the current option for manual switches 
should be extended for a longer period of time, to more vehicles, and 
to air bags on the driver side.
    Several commenters, including Ford, GM, Toyota, and air bag 
manufacturer TRW, stated that the agency should permit passenger-side 
manual cutoff switches for a longer period of time. GM also requested 
that the option for manual cutoff switches be extended to all vehicles. 
Subsequently, in a petition for rulemaking dated June 24, 1996, GM 
formally petitioned NHTSA to allow manual cutoff devices indefinitely.
    Ford stated that it considers the manual cutoff switch to be an 
interim solution until technology can provide a better solution that is 
not as dependent on operator activation. That company stated that it 
would support an extension of the time period during which manual 
cutoff switches are permitted, but its goal is to adopt automatic 
passenger air bag deactivation along with other technological 
approaches to mitigate the injury risk from aggressive air bag 
inflation.
    Some advocates of extending cutoff switches indicated that placing 
a rear-facing child seat in the front seat of a vehicle is sometimes 
necessary for medical reasons. For example, the parents of an infant 
with medical problems commented that those medical problems require 
them to be able to monitor the child and that cannot be done with the 
child in the back seat. The National Association of Pediatric Nurse 
Associates & Practitioners submitted a comment identifying a number of 
medical conditions for which infants would need to be monitored 
closely, which would require those children to be transported in the 
front seat.
    Toyota stated that, assuming the consumer understood the existence 
and operation of a manual cutoff switch, and correctly used the switch 
only to disable the air bag when a rear-facing child seat is installed 
in the front passenger position, it believes that this is the most 
effective measure at the moment.
    Several commenters expressed concerns about extending the option 
for manual cutoff switches. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 
(IIHS) stated that it strongly opposes changing Standard No. 208 to 
allow the indiscriminate installation of manual switches in vehicles 
equipped with passenger air bags to address the problems of rear-facing 
child seats or unrestrained child passengers. According to IIHS, 
parents or guardians who allow their children to ride unrestrained in 
vehicles are the least likely group to use a switch correctly, and this 
clearly would not be an effective solution to the problem. IIHS stated 
that the agency should facilitate coordination among restraint and auto 
manufacturers to encourage the quick adoption of technologies that 
reliably detect rear-facing child seats in the front passenger seat and 
temporarily deactivate the passenger air bag, modifying Standard No. 
208 as appropriate to encourage these technologies.
    Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) stated that the 
major benefits of air bags can only be achieved when air bags are fully 
operational and are available to function as passive restraints during 
all hours of operation. For this reason, it strongly opposes any 
general application of an on/off switch for air bags.
    Chrysler stated that even if the agency were to modify Standard No. 
208 to permit the extended use of manual cutoff switches for air bags, 
it would be concerned with the potential for user error in setting, or 
remembering to set such switches.
    E. Other Issues
    Commenters addressed many other issues. These issues included 
possible regulatory changes to permit or facilitate less aggressive air 
bags, raising the threshold speed at which air bags deploy, special 
issues faced by persons with disabilities, and various possible changes 
to air bag and vehicle designs to reduce air bag aggressivity.
    With respect to possible regulatory changes, several changes were 
discussed, but none represented a consensus position. A number of 
commenters, including many vehicle manufacturers (Chrysler, Ford, BMW, 
Volkswagen, Porsche, and Toyota), an air bag supplier (Autoliv 
Development AB), and IIHS, expressed support for Ford's recommendation 
to reduce the test speed for the unbelted test from 30 mph to 25 mph. 
These commenters stated that this change would allow an approximate 30% 
reduction in the kinetic energy required in the air bag system, and 
that lower kinetic energy in the air bag would lower the risk of air 
bag- induced injuries to vehicle occupants.

[[Page 40790]]

    Other vehicle manufacturers had different views on the Ford 
recommendation. GM commented that it agreed with the theory of the Ford 
recommendation and said that it was ``directionally correct.'' However, 
GM said that it has not been shown that a reduction in the unbelted 
test speed to 25 mph would allow manufacturers to reduce the kinetic 
energy in air bag systems enough to influence the actual frequency of 
air bag-induced injuries to vehicle occupants. Nissan went further, 
saying that it would not anticipate any major changes in air bag 
deployment specifications because of a reduction in the unbelted test 
speed from 30 to 25 mph. Nissan suggested that the unbelted test speed 
would have to be reduced to 20 mph to reduce the risk of air bag-
induced injuries in the real world.
    NHTSA also sought comment on another possible way of permitting or 
facilitating less aggressive air bag designs. This approach would raise 
the chest deceleration limits during unbelted testing from the current 
60 g limit to 80 g's. NHTSA indicated that recent biomechanical data 
suggest that the human tolerance to acceleration for serious chest 
injury may be higher for air bags than for belts, because the air bag 
delivers a more broadly distributed, uniform loading to the chest than 
does a safety belt. BMW enthusiastically supported this concept but 
suggested the limit be raised to 75 g's. If this were done, BMW said it 
would attempt to recertify all of its vehicles with less aggressive air 
bags within one year.
    Other commenters were less certain about this approach. GM said an 
80 g limit would not appear likely to permit any appreciable reduction 
in inflator output, so GM doubted it would reduce significantly the 
potential for air bag-induced injuries. Ford said such a change might 
permit reductions in air bag aggressivity, but to a much less 
significant extent than the Ford recommendation. Chrysler stated that 
it could not comment on an 80 g limit because it had no data to analyze 
the effects of such a change.
    In a presentation to the agency and supplemental comment submitted 
after the comment closing date, GM suggested an alternative regulatory 
change that it argued would be effective at reducing air bag-induced 
injuries. GM suggested keeping the unbelted testing speed at 30 mph, 
but adopting a crash pulse to better reflect the crash pulse in real 
world crashes and using a sled test for unbelted testing.
    No manufacturer argued that downloading air bags would solve the 
adverse effects associated with children. GM provided the results of a 
depowered air bag inflator study. Based on that study, GM concluded 
that depowered inflators are ``directionally correct,'' but that 
deactivation is needed to meet injury assessment reference values for 
passengers who are at or near the instrument panel, particularly 
children due to lower injury tolerance.
    Not all commenters believed that Standard No. 208 should be 
changed. Takata Corporation (Takata), an air bag manufacturer, argued 
that restraint system technology that has recently become available, 
combined with further improvements that are scheduled to be available 
within the next 24 months, will significantly reduce air bag injuries 
without the need for any changes to Standard No. 208. Takata stated 
that it is concerned that the process of developing improved technology 
to eliminate air bag injuries will be delayed if Standard No. 208 is 
changed in response to the present concerns.
    Advocates opposed reducing Standard No. 208's unbelted test speed. 
That organization stated that there are several flaws in the Ford 
recommendation. According to Advocates, altering the inflation rate of 
air bags may only address a portion of the problem, may not make any 
difference at all, or may even create other safety concerns. Advocates 
also stated that the Ford recommendation is based entirely on static 
computer modeling that is limited to a single variable, air bag 
inflator rise rates, and that the recommendation is modeled on only an 
adult driver. Advocates stated that NHTSA should be reluctant to 
predicate major regulatory changes on anything less than clear and 
convincing evidence that a modification will improve safety.
    NHTSA also asked for comments on increasing the minimum vehicle 
speed at which an air bag deploys, a change the agency said could be 
made relatively quickly. The agency believes that an increase in the 
deployment threshold would yield a decrease in the number of air bag 
deployments and, therefore, a decrease in the number of air bag-induced 
injuries.
    The comments did not reflect any consensus on this approach either. 
Volkswagen commented that an increase in the deployment threshold would 
be feasible. GM, however, commented that until further analyses are 
completed, it is not apparent that raising the deployment threshold is 
necessarily directionally correct. GM stated that its general approach 
to crash sensing is the result of its goal to deploy air bags only when 
they are likely to reduce the potential for serious injuries, and that 
major facial bone fractures are regarded as serious injuries and are 
typically the deciding factor in establishing the upper limit 
deployment threshold. Chrysler suggested that raising the deployment 
threshold might result in fewer deployments but more aggressive 
deployments when the air bag was triggered later in the crash event.

VII. Proposal

A. Summary

    As discussed earlier in this notice, NHTSA is taking a number of 
different steps to address the adverse effects of air bags. The agency 
is initially emphasizing reducing the adverse effects associated with 
children.
    The most direct solution to the problem of child fatalities from 
air bags is for children to be properly belted and placed in the back 
seat. This necessitates increasing the percentage of children who are 
properly restrained by child safety seats and improving the current 67 
percent rate of seat belt usage by a combination of methods, including 
the encouragement of State primary seat belt laws. The most direct 
technical solution to the problem of child fatalities from air bags is 
the development and installation of ``smart air bags'' that protect 
children automatically from the adverse effects that can occur from 
close proximity to a deploying bag. However, until these smart air bags 
can be incorporated in production vehicles, behavioral changes based on 
improved labeling and simpler, manually operated technology appear to 
be the best means of addressing child fatalities from air bags.
    Ultimately, NHTSA expects that smart passenger-side air bags will 
be installed in passenger cars and light trucks. In the meantime, 
vehicles without smart passenger-side air bags would be required to 
have new, attention-getting warning labels and permitted to have a 
manual cutoff switch for the passenger-side air bag. The labeling 
requirement would be limited to vehicles without smart air bags. NHTSA 
believes this limitation will encourage the introduction of those air 
bags as soon as possible. In addition, rear-facing child seats would be 
required to have new warning labels.
    More specifically, NHTSA is proposing, for passenger cars and light 
trucks whose passenger-side air bag lacks smart capability, to (1) 
require new, enhanced warning labels; and (2) permit manual cutoff 
switches for the passenger-side air bags (to accommodate parents who 
need to place rear-facing child seats in the front seat). The agency

[[Page 40791]]

is also proposing to require rear-facing child seats to bear new, 
enhanced warning labels. The proposed vehicle and rear-facing child 
seat labels would warn that unbelted children and children in those 
child seats may be killed by the passenger-side air bag.
    NHTSA is requesting comments on whether, and if so on what date, to 
require smart passenger-side air bags that automatically prevent the 
air bag from injuring the two groups of children that experience has 
shown to be at special risk from air bags: children in rear-facing 
child seats, and unbelted or improperly belted children. Alternatively, 
the agency is also requesting comments on whether it should endeavor to 
encourage smart passenger-side air bags by specifying an expiration 
date for the manual cutoff switch option.

B. Defining Smart Air Bags

    Since the presence of a smart passenger-side air bag would obviate 
the label requirement, and since NHTSA is seeking comments on whether 
to require smart passenger-side air bags, it is necessary to define 
smart bags, e.g., specify appropriate tests and performance 
requirements. For purposes of this rulemaking, NHTSA is seeking to 
define smart passenger-side air bags sufficiently broadly to include 
any system that automatically prevents an air bag from injuring the two 
groups of children that experience has shown to be at special risk from 
air bags: infants in rear-facing child seats, and unbelted or 
improperly belted children. At the same time, NHTSA would like to 
accomplish this goal without increasing the risks to those who would 
benefit from an air bag.
    Vehicle manufacturers and air bag suppliers are working on a number 
of different systems which might qualify under appropriate criteria. 
These systems fall into two categories: (1) ones which would prevent 
the air bag from deploying in situations where it might have an adverse 
effect, based, for example, on the weight, size and/or location of the 
occupant, and (2) ones designed so that they would deploy in a manner 
that does not create a risk of serious injury to occupants very near 
the bag, e.g., deploying at a slower speed when an occupant is very 
near the air bag and/or deploying less aggressively as a result of 
being stowed in an improved fold pattern.
    NHTSA is seeking comments whether the following categories of 
passenger air bags would be considered smart air bags:
    (1) the passenger-side air bag system incorporates an automatic 
means (e.g., a weight sensor) to ensure that the air bag does not 
deploy when a mass of 30 kg or less is present on the front passenger 
seat (thus ensuring that the air bag would not deploy when either of 
the two specially at-risk groups of children are present; i.e., when 
that seat is occupied by an infant in a rear-facing child seat or an 
unbelted child weighing less than 30 kg);
    (2) the passenger-side air bag system incorporates other automatic 
means (e.g., an occupant size or proximity-to-dashboard sensor) to 
ensure that the air bag does not deploy when an infant in a rear-facing 
child seat or an unbelted or improperly belted child is present in the 
front passenger seat; and
    (3) the passenger-side air bag designed to deploy when an infant in 
a rear-facing child seat or to an unbelted or improperly belted child 
is present, but does so in a way that is not dangerous to the child.
    All of these categories are reflected in the proposed regulatory 
text as obviating the label requirements and the permissive manual 
cutoff switch option. However, specific language is only proposed for 
the first category. See proposed amendments to S4.5.5(a). NHTSA 
requests comments on the most appropriate means of expressing the 
second and third categories in a manner that permits objective 
identification of qualifying air bags. See proposed amendments to 
S4.5.5 (b) and (c). NHTSA also requests comments on appropriate test 
procedures for use in determining satisfaction of the criteria for each 
of the three categories of smart air bags.
    In its response to the November 1995 request for comments, 
Mercedes-Benz indicated that it has a weight sensor in the passenger 
seat that automatically prevents deployment of the passenger-side air 
bag unless a specified mass is present in the seat. The purpose of this 
sensor as currently employed by Mercedes, which is set at 26 pounds, is 
to ensure that the air bag only deploys if the passenger seat is 
occupied. Mercedes suggested that a possible short term solution for 
addressing problems with children would be to raise the threshold for 
deployment to a higher level, such as 30 kilograms (66 pounds) or more. 
For vehicles that do not already have such a sensor, the cost of adding 
one would be about $20 to $35 per vehicle, depending on volume, 
according to Mercedes.
    Since receiving Mercedes' comment suggesting use of a weight sensor 
as a possible short-term solution for children, NHTSA has obtained 
additional information about the sensor currently used by that company. 
The agency has obtained information both from Mercedes and from the 
manufacturer of the sensor, IEE.
    IEE calls its weight sensor a ``passenger presence detection 
system.'' According to IEE, the product has been used by European auto 
manufacturers since 1994, and one million sensors are now in use. A 
representative of IEE indicated that the sensor (which resembles a mat) 
adapts easily to any seat form or contour, and is unaffected by user-
placed seat covers or cushions. IEE added that while the sensor is 
currently designed to detect forces greater than 26 pounds, there would 
be no difficulty in designing it to detect a different weight, such as 
the 66 pound weight suggested by Mercedes. NHTSA is placing additional 
information provided by IEE in the docket.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NHTSA notes that IEE also provided information about a 
``child-seat presence and orientation detection system.'' This is a 
form of tag system. It works only with special child seats and 
should not be confused with the possibility of raising the weight 
threshold of the weight sensor to 66 or so pounds. The agency also 
notes that while it has information about the particular weight 
sensor manufactured by IEE, there may be other suppliers of weight 
sensor technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA notes that GM, in its June 24, 1996 petition concerning 
manual cutoff switches, stated that it is reviewing and evaluating a 
variety of automatic suppression technologies, including the one 
identified by Mercedes. GM stated that ``this concept appears 
feasible.'' However, GM has not completed its analysis and is therefore 
``uncertain whether the technology can become a production capable, 
highly reliable, automatic suppression system.''
    NHTSA would construe a weight sensor as an automatic means of 
preventing air bag deployment, and a system incorporating such a sensor 
as a smart air bag. Further, NHTSA has tentatively concluded that 
Mercedes suggestion of 30 kilograms as the threshold is appropriate. 
This threshold would deactivate the air bag when a child in a child 
restraint or other child weighing less than 66 pounds was positioned in 
the seat. This 30 kilogram threshold corresponds to the weight of a 
50th percentile 10-year old and a 95th percentile 7-year-old. However, 
the threshold is far enough below the weight of a 5th percentile adult 
female (approximately 46 kilograms) to avoid inadvertently deactivating 
the air bag when a small adult is occupying the seat.
    NHTSA asks the public for comments on this approach to deactivate 
the passenger-side air bag automatically in the presence of a child, 
and also on the proposed threshold of 30 kilograms for deactivation. 
The agency recognizes that

[[Page 40792]]

there are possible safety trade-offs with this approach, since the air 
bag would not deploy in the presence of some children who might benefit 
from the air bag. However, this concern must be weighed against the 
number of fatalities and serious injuries for children in rear-facing 
seats and unbelted children in the front seat. Quantitative data on 
these tradeoffs are specifically requested. The agency also requests 
comments on whether a warning light should be required to indicate when 
the air bag is off.
    Commenters on the November 1995 notice and NHTSA anticipate a 
number of other approaches to this problem to emerge, some more 
technologically sophisticated than a seat sensor, that would also 
qualify as smart air bags.
    Other approaches for automatically preventing the deployment of the 
passenger-side air bag in situations where deployment might injure 
children include size sensors and position sensors. NHTSA requests 
comments on these approaches as well, and how they might be reflected 
in an objective definition of smart air bag. The agency notes that 
there appear to be particular engineering challenges in designing a 
system that relies on position-sensing alone. This is because, in order 
to be effective in a pre-crash braking situation, the system would need 
to both sense a change in occupant position and deactivate the air bag 
in an extremely short period of time. NHTSA is particularly interested 
in comments on how such a system could be evaluated in a test 
procedure.
    Still another approach for protecting children is the development 
of passenger-side air bags that deploy in such a manner that they do 
not create a risk of serious injury to occupants very near the air bag. 
These systems might deploy at a slower speed when the occupant is very 
near the air bag and/or deploy less aggressively as a result of being 
stowed with an improved fold pattern.
    Some of these more sophisticated approaches could possibly be 
evaluated using the out-of-position tests established by the ISO. The 
ISO out-of-position tests involve a series of tests in which a test 
dummy is positioned up against the passenger-side air bag cover. 
However, the ISO tests do not include any recommended ``pass/fail'' 
level nor any dummy specifications.
    Most of the manufacturers that responded to the November 1995 
request for comments indicated that they use the ISO tests or some 
variation of those tests to assess how well they have reduced the risks 
to out-of-position occupants with current air bag designs. To use the 
ISO tests as a starting point for a new regulatory requirement, NHTSA 
must develop appropriate criteria to assess performance in the tests. 
Among other things, NHTSA must determine appropriate tolerance levels 
for the injury criteria and decide whether additional injury criteria 
and/or additional dummy sizes are needed to assess this problem. At 
this time, the agency does not have enough information to propose any 
performance criteria. The agency has initiated a testing program 
described later in this notice that will help the agency answer this 
question. NHTSA is asking the public at this time to provide relevant 
child test dummy, positioning, and injury tolerance data which could be 
used to define a benign air bag. Alternatively, NHTSA asks for comments 
concerning other approaches to developing a definition of smart air bag 
that incorporates a wide range of technologies.
    The more advanced approaches to automatic deactivation have 
advantages over the simple weight sensor, because they would presumably 
have fewer safety tradeoffs and potentially reduce adverse effects of 
air bags for occupants other than children, as well as for children.
    Several commenters described a tag-system for deactivating the 
passenger-side air bag. For these tag systems, a circuit is present in 
the vehicle that is capable of deactivating the passenger-side air bag. 
The circuit is accessed either by a wire from the child restraint or by 
means of a sensor that picks up a signal (possibly magnetic) from the 
child restraint. When the circuit detects the presence of a child 
restraint, it deactivates the air bag. These systems, by themselves, 
would not be considered smart air bags, because they work only with 
child restraints that have a particular piece of equipment installed in 
them and there is no assurance that such devices would be used in these 
vehicles.
    NHTSA also received a request for interpretation from Porsche 
describing a system that can deactivate the passenger-side air bag when 
a special rear-facing child seat is installed at the front passenger 
seat. This child seat has a special separate latch plate that can be 
engaged in a buckle under the passenger seat. When the buckle is so 
engaged, the passenger-side air bag would be deactivated. This system 
also would not be considered a smart bag, because it works only with a 
particular type of child seat and because it requires an affirmative 
action by the parent (fastening the latch plate to the buckle) to 
deactivate the air bag.

C. Possibility of Mandating Smart Passenger Air Bags and Timing of a 
Mandate.

    A significant issue that NHTSA is considering in this rulemaking is 
whether to mandate smart passenger-side air bags, and the appropriate 
date on which the proposed requirement for a smart passenger-side air 
bag would replace the requirement for enhanced vehicle labeling (as 
well as the permissive provision for cutoff switches).
    In evaluating these issues, the agency recognizes that leadtimes 
will differ for the various kinds of smart bags under development, and 
that the longest leadtimes will be those for the more advanced smart 
bags potentially offering the greatest net benefits. The agency also 
recognizes the engineering challenge of incorporating new air bag 
design features in the entire passenger car/light truck fleet.
    At the same time, given the growing toll of child fatalities, and 
the apparent near-term availability of at least one smart bag design 
(i.e., the one using a weight sensor), NHTSA believes that it should 
take steps now to encourage the early introduction of smart air bags. 
The agency also believes that, as a practical matter, the longer the 
time needed to develop and implement the most advanced smart bags, the 
greater the need would be to implement interim designs that would 
automatically protect children.
    NHTSA also notes that use of a weight sensor with a threshold of 66 
pounds as an automatic means of preventing air bag deployment is 
allowed now under Standard No. 208. Mercedes indicated, however, that 
without a Federal requirement, it would not raise the weight threshold 
on its system for deactivating the air bag because of product liability 
concerns.
    In order to assist in deciding whether to require smart passenger-
side air bags and, if so, when, NHTSA requests comments on the 
following questions:
    1. What are the costs, benefits, and leadtime of installing smart 
passenger-side air bags? Please address this question separately for 
weight sensors and other technologies.
    2. To what extent will today's proposal result in the early 
introduction of the various types of smart air bags? NHTSA plans to use 
this information to, among other things, develop better estimates of 
the benefits and costs of this rulemaking action.
    3. How would vehicle manufacturer plans differ if smart passenger 
air bags were required on a date certain? In answering this question, 
please address

[[Page 40793]]

dates of September 1, 1998, September 1, 1999, and September 1, 2000; 
the number and types of smart passenger bags that would be installed 
and when; and the extent to which manual cutoff switches would be 
installed for vehicles without smart passenger bags.
    4. Taking account of the answer to question 3, how would different 
dates for requiring smart passenger air bags affect overall benefits 
and costs?
    5. Are product liability concerns discouraging early introduction 
of smart air bags that could result in net benefits to children? If so, 
how would regulatory action by NHTSA affect this situation?
    6. Taking account of the considerations discussed above, and any 
other considerations that commenters regard as relevant, please address 
whether the agency should mandate smart passenger air bags.
    7. If NHTSA were to mandate smart passenger air bags, what is the 
appropriate date they should be required?

D. New Warning Label Requirements for Vehicles Which Lack Smart 
Passenger-side Air Bags

    NHTSA's current vehicle labeling requirements for vehicles with air 
bags require the following information, coupled with the signal phrase 
``CAUTION, TO AVOID SERIOUS INJURY:,'' to be labeled on the sun visors:

    For maximum safety protection in all types of crashes, you must 
always wear your safety belt.
    Do not install rearward-facing child restraints in any front 
passenger seat position.
    Do not sit or lean unnecessarily close to the air bag.
    Do not place any objects over the air bag or between the air bag 
and yourself.
    See the owner's manual for further information and explanations.

    The standard allows the word ``WARNING'' to be used in lieu of 
``CAUTION.'' In addition, the owner's manual must include appropriate 
additional information in each of these areas.
    In establishing this requirement in September 1993, NHTSA believed 
the air bag warning label required on new vehicles would be effective. 
The agency was satisfied that the required label identifies the four 
most important factors to reduce the possibility of adverse side 
effects from air bags. Experience since that time confirms that these 
four factors are the most important things occupants should do to 
minimize the risk of adverse effects from air bags.
    The agency also believed that the required sun visor label conveyed 
the information to vehicle occupants clearly and with the proper sense 
of its importance. And there is evidence to suggest that NHTSA's 
current labeling requirements are effectively reaching significant 
numbers of people. For instance, in response to the November 1995 
request for comments, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) 
presented a survey which reported that 74 percent of respondents knew 
that it was unsafe to install a rear-facing child seat at a seating 
position equipped with an air bag. More than half of these respondents 
indicated that they had learned this information either from the 
vehicle owner's manual or from the labels on the vehicle sun visor or 
the child restraint.
    Unfortunately, the experience with unrestrained or improperly 
restrained children and with children in rear-facing child seats 
suggests that the current air bag warning label is not reaching enough 
consumers. Given this, NHTSA wanted to explore whether improvements to 
the current label could make it even more effective.
    In order to improve the current label, NHTSA used focus groups to 
test the effectiveness of several new label designs and locations. The 
agency specifically looked at three particular types of labels that 
could supplement and/or improve the current label design. The first was 
a label with a picture and words that would go on the side of the dash 
panel covered by the passenger-side front door when the door is closed 
or on the door itself. With the door open to install a rear-facing 
child seat, this location should be very visible. The International 
Organization for Standardization (ISO), a group that proposes voluntary 
standards, has proposed the installation of a warning label at this 
location. NHTSA is proposing that such a label be in addition to the 
current sun visor label.
    The second type of label examined by the agency was a highly 
visible label in the middle of the dash panel that would warn that the 
safest place for all children was the back seat and that all children 
must be restrained. NHTSA's preliminary consideration of such location 
is that this would attract more attention than the current sun visor 
label and therefore be more likely to alter people's behavior regarding 
children in the front seat. This label would also be in addition to the 
sun visor label.
    The third type of label examined by the agency was a label in the 
current location on the sun visor, but with enhanced colors and 
graphics to attract attention and make the message more effective.
    Based on the results of the focus groups, NHTSA is proposing to 
modify the existing labeling requirements. The agency began its 
investigation of improved labeling with two basic premises. First, 
there is no label that has been or can be designed so that every person 
will act in accordance with the warnings or instructions on the label. 
Given this, NHTSA does not believe that any label will by itself 
eliminate adverse effects of air bags for children.
    Instead, NHTSA used focus groups with the aim of designing a label 
which would improve substantially the likelihood that people will read 
the label and understand its message. Once people have received the 
information, the agency has to depend on them to take the appropriate 
actions based upon the label information.
    Second, the literature on labeling makes it clear that there is no 
single perfect label that a safety agency such as NHTSA could propose 
or should seek. In other words, choosing a design for a warning label 
is not a multiple choice test in which there is one ``correct'' answer 
and all the other choices are ``wrong.'' Because the identification of 
the ``best'' label by a subject is an expression of personal 
preference, some members of the public would react best to one label 
design and other members would react best to different label designs. 
Accordingly, any pursuit of the single ``best'' label would necessarily 
be quixotic.
    Again, this is why NHTSA has used the focus groups to get guidance 
about peoples' reactions to different label designs. The agency can now 
use this information to propose labels that could be significantly more 
effective than the labels currently on vehicles and on child seats.
    The contractor's final report on the focus group study has been 
placed in the docket for this rulemaking. What follows is a brief 
overview of the study. NHTSA's focus group study was conducted in three 
cities in three different regions of the country. Focus groups were 
conducted in Baltimore, MD on March 26, 1996, in Atlanta, GA on March 
27, 1996, and in Denver, CO on March 28, 1996. All participants had at 
least one child under 13, made several trips per week with one or more 
children in the car, drove at least 7,500 miles per year, were 25-45 
years of age, had no connection with the automotive industry or with 
market research, and had not participated in a focus group in the 
preceding six months.
    The main part of the study involved six focus groups, each with 
nine people and lasting about two hours. The composition of the groups 
reflected the

[[Page 40794]]

population as a whole in terms of gender, ethnic background, and level 
of education. The participants reported driving a wide variety of 
vehicles, including passenger cars, vans, trucks, and sport utility 
vehicles. Of the 54 people in the groups, 18 said they had a passenger-
side air bag.
    Before starting the discussions with the focus groups, a secondary 
study was conducted. Each participant was taken one by one to a car 
with a rear-facing child seat installed in the front passenger seat. 
The participants were asked to place an infant-sized doll into the 
child seat, secure the buckle, and then remove the doll from the child 
seat. Prototype warning labels were placed on the side of the child 
seat and on the right end of the dashboard in the area that is covered 
when the door is closed. These labels included the colors red and 
yellow, a graphic showing a rear-facing child seat in front of a 
deploying air bag with a red international ``NO'' slash, and the 
heading ``Danger to Life!'' in red letters. The label on the child seat 
was 100 millimeters long and 65 millimeters high (roughly 4 and 2\1/2\ 
inches, respectively). The label on the car dash was slightly larger, 
at 140 millimeters long and 65 millimeters high (roughly 5\1/2\ and \1/
2\ inches, respectively). After the participants had put the doll into 
and removed the doll from the rear-facing child seat, they were given a 
brief questionnaire asking if they had noticed and could describe the 
two new labels.
    After they had responded to that questionnaire, the participants 
returned inside for a discussion. The first half-hour was spent 
discussing current actions and beliefs regarding children riding in 
cars, use of seat belts, air bags, and awareness of any warning labels 
currently in vehicles. Most of the remaining time was devoted to 
evaluating three different sets of prototype labels, with a total of 36 
labels evaluated by these focus groups.
    The results from the focus groups were striking. A total of 66 
people participated in the exercise of installing a doll in a rear-
facing child seat to learn if the participants noticed new, brightly 
colored warning labels on the side of the dash in the vehicle and on 
the side of the child seat. These 66 people included the 54 who were in 
the group discussions and another 12 who were invited to ensure that 
nine people would be in each focus group. None of these 66 people 
noticed the new label on the side of the dash. Two of the 66 claimed to 
have seen the new label on the child seat, but one did not know the 
color or shape of the new label on the child seat.
    With respect to warning labels, the focus groups generally offered 
the following suggestions:
     Use colors in the label, especially red and yellow, with 
black and white, because these offer high contrast, attract attention, 
make a message easy to read, and connote danger or warning.
     Use the international ``prohibited'' symbol (a red circle 
with a diagonal slash) to attract attention, to convey a warning to 
people who may not read English well or at all, and to reinforce the 
message for others.
     Include an illustration that shows as clearly as possible 
that an inflating air bag can injure a child.
     Include either the word ``WARNING'' or ``DANGER'' in 
large, colorful capital letters.
     Make the text as short and simple as possible.
     State clearly and explicitly the actions that people 
should take or avoid.
     Provide a reason for the actions (e.g., ``Unbelted 
children may be killed or injured by passenger-side air bag'').
    As a basic matter, the focus group members identified a conflict 
between label effectiveness and product aesthetics. Group participants 
stated that they generally ignored the labels in their own vehicles and 
on their own child seats. Thus, it is not surprising that group 
participants felt no label would be read unless it is very 
conspicuous--with bright colors (even ``day-glo''), a large size, and a 
prominent location. On the other hand, most group participants agreed 
that any label conspicuous enough to be noticed consistently would be 
something of an eyesore, and that people would not want it in their 
cars. In addition, the groups felt that warning needs to be conveyed 
only once (when either the vehicle or child seat is first delivered to 
the person) and that daily reminders from a label are unnecessary. As 
one woman said, ``Once I know my child seat has to go in the back, 
that's where I'll put it. You don't have to tell me again.''
    Based on these results and other information discussed above, NHTSA 
is proposing a new label for child seats and two new labels for air-bag 
equipped vehicles which lack smart passenger- side air bags, together 
with a revision of the sun visor labels currently required in these 
vehicles. However, the agency is especially interested in comments 
concerning other focus group, survey or other data relevant to 
location, format, color, size and number of labels, or other factors 
that may affect labeling effectiveness. For color copies of labels, 
please contact Stephen R. Kratzke. (Mr. Kratzke's address and phone 
number are provided near the beginning of this document.)
    The proposals are as follows:
    1. Child Seat Labels. NHTSA currently requires a warning to be 
labeled on each child restraint that can be used in a rear-facing 
position. Specifically, S5.5.2(k)(ii) of Standard No. 213, Child 
restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213) requires:

    Either of the following statements, as appropriate, on a red, 
orange, or yellow contrasting background, and placed on the 
restraint so that it is on the side of the restraint designed to be 
adjacent to the front passenger door of a vehicle and is visible to 
a person installing the rear- facing child restraint system in the 
front passenger seat:
    WARNING: WHEN YOUR BABY'S SIZE REQUIRES THAT THIS RESTRAINT BE 
USED SO THAT YOUR BABY FACES THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE, PLACE THE 
RESTRAINT IN A VEHICLE SEAT THAT DOES NOT HAVE AN AIR BAG, or
    WARNING: PLACE THIS RESTRAINT IN A VEHICLE SEAT THAT DOES NOT 
HAVE AN AIR BAG.

    NHTSA notes that this location on the side of the child restraint 
is where a prototype label with yellow and red colors and a visual with 
a red slash through it was tested on the focus groups. As mentioned 
above, only two of 66 claimed to have seen this label, and one of those 
two could not identify the color of the label. Based on these findings, 
NHTSA believes an enhanced warning label in a more prominent location 
is needed to better alert the people responsible for placing children 
in a vehicle.
    Accordingly, NHTSA is proposing to move and enhance the warning 
label currently required on child restraint systems. The current 
warning label on the side of the child restraint would no longer be 
required. Instead, a new permanent label would be affixed to each child 
restraint system that can be used in a rear-facing position in the area 
where a child's head would rest. The agency is proposing that the new 
label be at least the size tested in the focus groups for vehicle 
labels--that is, at least 140 mm long and 65 mm high. This new label 
would have a yellow background for the text portion. On that yellow 
background would first appear a heading in red that said ``DANGER!'' 
Under that heading, the text would appear in black as:

    DO NOT place rear-facing child seat on a vehicle seat with air 
bag.
    DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur.

    Opposite the text, this warning label would have a pictogram 
showing an inflating air bag striking a rear-facing child seat, with a 
red slash through that.

[[Page 40795]]

    NHTSA acknowledges that a permanent warning label on the child seat 
cushion in the vicinity of the child's head will require changes to the 
manufacturing process and increase costs. However, the agency does not 
believe that the aesthetic concerns the focus group participants 
expressed about conspicuous labels in a vehicle apply equally to child 
seats. In addition, this warning would likely be effective because it 
would be targeted specifically to the people whose dependents are at 
greatest risk (persons transporting an infant) and an audience that 
would be very receptive to this warning. Further, any cost burdens will 
be reduced by eliminating the current requirement for the warning label 
on the side of these child seats.
    The proposed enhanced labels for child seats would be required on 
all new child restraints that can be used in a rear-facing position. 
This broad coverage is necessary because, to the best of the agency's 
knowledge, there are no current vehicles with passenger-side air bags 
in which a rear-facing car seat can safely be installed at the right 
front passenger seat.
    2. Label on Passenger-Side End of Vehicle Dash or Door Panel. NHTSA 
currently has no requirements for any safety labels in these locations. 
However, NHTSA has been participating in the efforts of the 
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to try to develop 
a voluntary international standard for a vehicle label warning not to 
place a rear-facing child seat in a vehicle seat with an air bag. The 
current proposals feature a visual showing a rear-facing child seat 
positioned in front of an air bag, with a red slash through the visual. 
The proposed location is on the passenger-side end of the dash, which 
is visible only when the passenger door is opened. An alternative 
location is on the door panel in a location that is also visible only 
when the door is opened. Based partly on this effort by ISO, a proposal 
for such a label in such locations was submitted as a draft supplement 
to Regulation 94 of the Economic Commission for Europe in September 
1995. Further, NHTSA is aware of labels warning about air bag hazards 
to rear-facing child seats on the passenger-side end of the dash or on 
the door on current Lexus, Mercedes, Saab, and Volvo vehicles. The 
agency has also been told that Nissan plans to begin labeling their 
vehicles in this area to warn against using rear-facing child seats in 
front of air bags.
    NHTSA notes that this location on the side of the dash is where a 
prototype label with yellow and red colors and a visual with a red 
slash through it was tested on the focus groups. As mentioned above, 
none of the 66 people participating claimed to have seen this label. 
Based on this finding, NHTSA would not propose a warning label in this 
location as the only vehicle warning label. In fact, NHTSA considered 
not requiring a warning label in this location.
    Nevertheless, NHTSA is proposing to require a label in this area, 
for vehicles which lack smart passenger-side air bags. Even though none 
of the 66 people in NHTSA's focus groups study noticed the label in 
this area, the design of the test may have contributed to this result. 
As noted before, in the focus group exercise, the child restraint was 
already installed in the car when the participants were asked to secure 
an infant-sized doll in the child restraint. NHTSA suspects that, if 
the participants instead were asked to take a child restraint, install 
it in the vehicle, and then secure the infant-sized doll in the child 
restraint, some participants would have noticed the label in the 
process of placing the child restraint in the vehicle. In addition, 
this area is where an international voluntary standards group and the 
Economic Commission for Europe are proposing to place a label. 
Furthermore, several vehicle manufacturers have or will soon be 
voluntarily placing a label in this area.
    However, the agency believes it is appropriate to use its focus 
group results to proceed on the assumption that a warning label in this 
area is not so conspicuous that it should be a primary means of 
alerting the public to this problem. Accordingly, NHTSA has structured 
its proposal so that the label in this location is intended to remind 
and reinforce the message people have already gotten from other 
sources. To this end, NHTSA is proposing that this label be nearly 
identical to the label proposed for child seats. It would be a 
permanent label with the same minimum dimensions (140 mm X 65 mm), the 
same yellow and red colors, and the same content, including the visual 
with the red slash through it. As regards the location, NHTSA is 
proposing to permit this label to be installed either on the passenger-
side end of the dash or on the door panel. NHTSA's focus groups provide 
no basis for proposing to prefer one of these locations over the other. 
NHTSA asks for public comment on whether this label should be required, 
especially given the other labels and the focus group findings about 
labels in this location.
    Only a few current vehicles offer a manual cutoff switch for the 
passenger air bag. For those vehicles that do not offer a cutoff 
switch, the label on the passenger-side end of dash or door panel would 
be identical to the label proposed for child seats. However, if the 
vehicle had a manual cutoff switch for the passenger air bag, the label 
would be modified to read ``Danger! Do not place rear-facing child seat 
on front seat with air bag UNLESS the air bag is off.'' This language 
is similar to the existing language for sun visor warnings for vehicles 
that have manual cutoff switches, and should accurately inform care 
givers.
    3. Label on Sun Visor. As discussed above, NHTSA currently requires 
for all air-bag equipped vehicles a warning to be placed on sun visors 
above each seating position equipped with an air bag. In addition, 
NHTSA requires an ``air bag alert label'' if the sun visor warning 
label is not visible when the sun visor is in its stowed position. The 
air bag alert label can either be on the air bag cover or on the side 
of the sun visor visible when the visor is in the stowed position. To 
the best of the agency's knowledge, to date, all manufacturers have 
placed the alert label on the visible side of the sun visor. S4.5.1(c) 
of Standard No. 208 provides that this alert label on the visor must 
read, ``Air bag. See other side.'' No minimum size dimensions are 
specified for the alert label.
    The NHTSA focus groups were specifically asked if they were aware 
of any warning labels about air bags in their personal vehicles. A few 
participants said they had seen some kind of label or sticker in their 
vehicles but could not recall what the label said. Only one person said 
she had noticed several labels, had read them, and could remember the 
topics of the labels. Based on these results, NHTSA believes an 
enhanced warning label on sun visors may be needed to better alert the 
public.
    Accordingly, NHTSA is proposing to enhance the warning label 
currently required on sun visors, for vehicles which lack smart 
passenger-side air bags. The current warning labels on sun visors would 
no longer be required. In their place, enhanced alert labels and 
warning labels would be required. Manufacturers would continue to be 
permitted to provide a warning label only, if that label is visible 
when the sun visor is in its stowed position.
    For the alert labels, NHTSA is proposing to require that a new 
permanent label be affixed to the side of the visor that is visible 
when the visor is in its stowed position. This label would be required 
on that side of the visor above every seating position equipped with an 
air bag. This new

[[Page 40796]]

label would have a black background. On the left side of the alert 
label would be the same visual proposed for the child seat and dash/
door label showing a rear-facing child seat in front of a deploying air 
bag with a red slash across the picture. On the right side of the alert 
label would be yellow letters reading ``AIR BAG WARNING.'' Underneath 
that warning, in much smaller yellow letters, would appear text reading 
``FLIP VISOR OVER.''
    The agency is proposing that the new alert label be at least the 
size tested in the focus groups for vehicle labels--that is, at least 
140 mm long and 65 mm high. NHTSA recognizes that this size alert label 
may be larger than needed to attract attention. Accordingly, NHTSA 
specifically asks for comments on an alert label that is 75 percent, 50 
percent, and 25 percent of the proposed size. A 75 percent label would 
be approximately 4 1/8 inches long and 1 7/8 inches high. A 50 percent 
label would be approximately 2 3/4 inches long and 1 1/4 inches high. A 
25 percent label would be approximately 1 1/2 inches long and 3/4 
inches high. There is a tradeoff between the use of color and the size 
of the label. Commenters should be sure to view the colored label when 
commenting with respect to size.
    NHTSA recognizes that the proposed alert label would be much larger 
and more conspicuous than any labels currently in vehicles. The agency 
is sensitive to the aesthetic concerns expressed by the focus group 
participants about warning labels detracting from the appearance of 
their vehicle. However, NHTSA does not believe the proposed label would 
be an eyesore. In the focus groups, 50 of the 54 participants preferred 
an alert label such as the proposed one. Moreover, to the extent this 
label is not more conspicuous than the existing alert labels, it would 
not serve its intended function of improving the effectiveness of the 
sun visor labels.
    For the warning label to be permanently affixed on the other side 
of the visor than the alert label (unless the manufacturer chooses to 
place the warning label on the side of the visor that is visible when 
the visor is in its stowed position), NHTSA is again proposing a 
minimum size of 140 mm X 65 mm. In the lower left corner of this label 
there would be a white visual on a black background. The visual would 
be a representation of a belted occupant in front of a deploying air 
bag. The background for the rest of the label would be yellow. In red 
across the top of the label would appear a triangle with an exclamation 
mark inside it followed by the word ``WARNING'' in large type. In 
smaller red type beneath that heading, the phrase ``Severe injury or 
death can occur'' would appear. Beneath that, in black type, would 
appear the phrase ``Air bags need room to inflate.'' Beneath that, four 
bullets in black type would read:
     Never put a rear-facing child seat in the front
     Unbelted children can be killed by the air bag
     Don't sit close to the air bag
     Always use seat belts
    Aside from using colors and visuals to improve the existing sun 
visor warning, these four proposed bullets in the warning differ from 
the five bullets on the current warning label. Two of the five current 
bullets are deleted. One current bullet says, ``Do not place any 
objects over the air bag or between the air bag and yourself.'' The 
focus groups strongly suggest that this current warning is too long. In 
addition, the new admonition that ``Air bags need room to inflate'' 
together with the new visual will convey the same message the current 
bullet seeks to convey. The other current bullet deleted in this 
proposal is ``See the owner's manual for further information and 
explanations.'' Some of the focus group participants disliked this 
advice, indicating they want the label to tell them what they need to 
know about these matters. There was also some feeling that people 
already knew to consult the owner's manual to get more information on a 
vehicle problem.
    This proposed label adds a proposed bullet saying that unbelted 
children can be killed by the air bag. NHTSA acknowledges that this 
bullet may be redundant of the point in red at the top of the label 
that severe injury or death can occur and the bullet at the bottom of 
the label advising to ``Always use seat belts.'' However, NHTSA has 
tentatively concluded that it is worth specifically highlighting the 
hazards to unbelted children, given the available information 
suggesting that unbelted children as a group are particularly at risk 
and given that the agency places special weight on its responsibility 
to protect children.
    As was the case for the proposed label on the passenger-side end of 
the dash or door panel, the sun visor warning label would be slightly 
different for vehicles that offer a manual cutoff switch for the 
passenger air bag. For vehicles with a manual cutoff switch, the first 
bullet on the label for the stowed side of the sun visor would be 
modified to read ``Never put a rear-facing child seat in the front 
UNLESS the air bag is off.''
    This notice proposes to carry forward the current prohibition 
against sun visors showing any other information about air bags or the 
need to wear seat belts, except for air bag maintenance information and 
the utility vehicle label required by NHTSA's consumer information 
regulations. The agency notes, however, that Volkswagen has recently 
stated in a request for interpretation that it would be in the interest 
of safety to include references to side air bags on the sun visor label 
of vehicles equipped with these devices. The agency requests comments 
on whether particular statements should be permitted or required for 
vehicles with new kinds of air bags, such as air bags for side impact 
protection and, if so, what statements.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3 \ NHTSA asks commenters to address whether and what 
cautionary statements are needed concerning these new devices, 
whether such statements can be effectively communicated by simple 
additions to the sun visor label without diluting the impact of 
cautionary statements about air bags providing frontal impact 
protection, and whether generic statements could be developed that 
would be accurate for all air bag designs currently under 
development. The agency also desires information on what specific 
dangers side air bags may pose to infants or other occupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Label in the Middle of the Dash Panel. NHTSA believes that the 
proposed changes to the sun visor labels will enhance the effectiveness 
of those labels by making them more noticeable. However, the agency has 
an obligation to do all it can with labels to help address the adverse 
effects of air bags in the near term. The focus groups generally 
reported that a label (though not necessarily a permanent one) needs a 
very prominent location in a vehicle to attract attention and be read. 
The middle of the dash panel is a location that is visible to both the 
driver and the passengers. It is also a location both drivers and 
passengers tend to look at since the radio and temperature controls are 
generally in this area. As such, this may be the location in the 
vehicle where a label would be most likely to be noticed and read.
    On the other hand, NHTSA also must be sensitive to the findings 
from the focus groups that the public would not want a conspicuous day-
glo label permanently in their vehicles. NHTSA believes it has 
fashioned a proposal that takes account both of the need to alert 
people to adverse effects of air bags for unbelted children and the 
public's desire that labels not become an eyesore. NHTSA is proposing 
that a very visible label be placed in the middle of the dash of all 
new vehicles equipped with air bags, if they lack smart passenger-side 
air bags. However, this label may be a removable label that must be on 
new vehicles when they are delivered to consumers but may then be

[[Page 40797]]

removed by consumers after they have had a chance to read it. The 
agency believes this conspicuous positioning of the label position will 
get the message out effectively to the American public as they buy new 
vehicles. This conspicuous label should also highlight the importance 
of the permanent but less conspicuous labels in the vehicle regarding 
air bags when the purchaser sees those labels.
    The removable label NHTSA is proposing would have the same minimum 
dimensions as all the other labels proposed in this notice (140 mm X 65 
mm). The top half of this label would have a yellow background with the 
phrase ``Make sure all children wear seat belts'' in red type. The 
bottom half of this label would have a white background. In black type, 
the bottom half of this label would say, ``Unbelted children and 
children in rear-facing child seats may be KILLED or INJURED by 
passenger-side air bag.''
    To make the label as effective as possible, the signal word 
``WARNING'' would be placed at the beginning of the label to highlight 
the importance of the message. NHTSA believes that a strong signal word 
is important in this case as a means of first attracting attention to 
the serious nature of the message.
    The agency specifically invites public comments on the four types 
of enhanced labels proposed above. Commenters are urged to offer all 
the data of which they are aware to support their opinions about the 
relative merits of the proposed labels compared to potential 
alternative labeling schemes. Commenters are also requested to provide 
information that would help in assessing the effectiveness of labels in 
changing behavior in the intended ways.
    5. Possible Sun Visor Label Requirement for Vehicles With Smart 
Passenger Air Bags.
    All of the new vehicle labeling requirements would be limited to 
vehicles which lack smart passenger-side air bags, to encourage the 
early introduction of these improved air bags. NHTSA is interested in 
comments on whether any sun visor labeling requirements should be 
applied to vehicles with smart air bags. The agency notes that the 
enhanced sun visor warning label would include information that would 
be important even for vehicles with improved air bags, such as the 
warning to always use seat belts. Therefore, it could be argued that 
some kind of warning label and alert label for these vehicles should be 
required. The agency therefore requests comments on what, if any, 
labeling requirements should be established for such vehicles, with 
respect to content, size, color and format.
    6. Leadtime and Costs. NHTSA is proposing to require the new or 
enhanced vehicle labels for vehicles manufactured on or after a date 60 
days after publication of the final rule. The agency is also proposing 
that enhanced labels be affixed to all child restraints that can be 
used in a rear-facing position and manufactured on or after a date 180 
days after publication of the final rule. This longer lead time for 
child seat manufacturers is an acknowledgment that these manufacturers 
will have to change their manufacturing process to include some means 
of permanently labeling the padding or cushion, something they do not 
do presently to the best of the agency's knowledge. However, public 
comment is invited on whether a shorter effective date for child seat 
manufacturers would be practicable and what the cost implications of a 
shorter lead time would be.
    The agency recognizes that the proposal would provide a very short 
leadtime for the vehicle manufacturers. However, a longer delay in 
making some effort to enhance warning the vehicle occupants runs the 
risk of further tragic and avoidable child fatalities. NHTSA is also 
concerned that the absence of a reminder to supplement the ongoing 
public education efforts would make those efforts less effective. 
Accordingly, NHTSA proposes to find for good cause that this change in 
labeling requirements should take effect sooner than six months after 
publication of a final rule. In light of the same considerations, the 
agency is providing a slightly abbreviated comment period of 45 days.
    Even with this short leadtime, NHTSA estimates that the cost of 
each vehicle label would be between 7 and 12 cents. The combined cost 
of the two new labels would therefore be between 14 and 24 cents. 
Adding in the cost of the enhanced and larger sun visor label (about 
one cent), the increased cost per vehicle would be between 15 and 25 
cents. The cost of an enhanced label for child restraints is dependent 
upon the type of material to which the label must permanently adhere 
and the method chosen to achieve the permanent adhesion. Incremental 
costs are estimated to range from $0.05 to $1.00 per child restraint. 
The public is invited to comment on these cost estimates. If any 
commenter suggests different estimates be used, the commenter should 
provide data to support its views.

E. Manual Cutoff Switch Option for Vehicles Which Lack Smart Passenger-
side Air Bags

    As discussed above, until smart passenger-side air bags can be 
incorporated into vehicles, the proposed improvements to the existing 
air bag warning labeling requirement would better ensure that drivers 
and other occupants are aware of the dangers posed by air bags to 
unbelted children and children in rear-facing child seats located in 
the front seat. Adult occupants would ideally respond to the label by 
placing a child in the back seat and properly restraining the child, or 
at the very least, by ensuring that older children in the front seat 
are properly restrained.
    For rear-facing child seats, however, proper installation in a 
front seat does not address the problem, because a rear-facing child 
seat should never be placed in a seating position with an air bag. 
However, some vehicles do not have back seats, or have back seats which 
are not large enough to accommodate a rear- facing child seat.
    To address this dilemma, on May 23, 1995, NHTSA published a final 
rule which allowed manufacturers the option of installing a manual 
device that motorists could use to deactivate the front passenger-side 
air bag in vehicles manufactured on or after June 22, 1995, in which 
rear-facing child seats can be used in the front seat only. In addition 
to the limit on the types of vehicles which were permitted to have the 
manual cutoff device, the final rule included a number of conditions 
that had to be satisfied. The manual cutoff device had to deactivate 
the air bag by means of an ignition key and require manual reactivation 
of the air bag once deactivated. The manufacturer had to also install a 
warning light separate from the air bag readiness indicator, which 
would indicate that the air bag was turned off. The light would have to 
be visible to both the driver and passenger. The manufacturer had to 
include information on the manual cutoff device in the owner's manual. 
Finally, the option was only available for passenger cars manufactured 
before September 1, 1997, and light trucks manufactured before 
September 1, 1998.
    As the agency now proposes requirements to initially encourage, and 
possibly require, smart passenger-side air bags, it believes it would 
be appropriate, in the meantime, to permit manual cutoff switches for 
any vehicle which lacks smart passenger air bags. In the very short 
term, such devices can accommodate parents who need to place rear 
facing child seats in the front seat.

[[Page 40798]]

Thus, the agency is proposing that the option for manual cutoff 
switches be extended both in time and to all vehicles with passenger 
air bags that lack smart capability.
    NHTSA cited two reasons for its decision to allow the installation 
of manual cutoff devices for only a limited period of time. First, 
several commenters that were developing automatic cutoff devices 
indicated that the devices would soon be available. Second, vehicle 
manufacturers were considering more sophisticated devices which would 
deactivate the air bag in a number of appropriate situations, not just 
when a rear-facing child seat is present. The agency did not wish to 
issue a regulation which could have the unintended effect of delaying 
introduction of these more sophisticated and effective devices.
    Given the fatalities which have occurred to infants in rear-facing 
child seats and to unbelted children in the front seat, as well as the 
incentives that should be created by today's encouragement of smart 
passenger-side air bags, manufacturers have a strong incentive to 
provide smart passenger-side air bags as quickly as possible. NHTSA 
notes that the option to use manual cutoff devices is a limited means 
of addressing child fatalities from air bags, and believes that it 
would not significantly reduce the overall incentive to develop a more 
comprehensive solution.
    Since weight sensors are apparently already available and in 
production (albeit with a lower threshold weight), however, the agency 
requests comments on whether and how the availability of such devices 
should affect its decision on extending the manual cutoff switch 
option. NHTSA requests specific comments on how weight sensors compare 
with manual cutoff switches with respect to costs, benefits, safety 
tradeoffs, and leadtime, and how the agency should factor in the 
availability of weight sensors in its decision concerning manual cutoff 
switches.
    NHTSA is also considering the availability of other possible 
alternatives to manual cutoff switches. It does appear that tag system 
technology is production-ready, as evidenced by the plans of Mercedes 
and BMW to use this technology in Europe in 1997. As indicated by GM, 
however, there are a number of significant issues surrounding the use 
of a tag system. These include a need to educate parents, need for 
special tagged infant seats, consequences of using untagged infant 
seats, availability of tagged seats, retrofitting of existing infant 
seats with tags, potential for multiple tag technologies, and 
availability of tagged infant seats at low volume for used vehicles, 
once tag systems are superseded.
    NHTSA believes that the issues surrounding tagging are particularly 
significant given manufacturer efforts to develop advanced automatic 
systems addressing a wide scope of problems. While the agency wishes to 
encourage the industry to pursue all possible solutions to the problems 
of adverse effects of air bags, it is not clear that tagging can be 
effectively implemented, on an industry-wide basis, as a short-term 
interim solution until a more comprehensive solution is developed. The 
agency specifically requests comments on this issue.
    Another possible near-term alternative includes the Porsche system. 
However, the Porsche system requires special child seats and thus 
raises many of the same compatibility issues as tagging. Also, even 
with a special child seat, special buckling action is required.
    The agency requests comments on whether any other alternatives to 
manual cutoff switches are currently available.
    NHTSA also requests comments on whether it should endeavor to 
further encourage smart passenger-side air bags by specifying an 
expiration date for the manual cutoff switch option and, if so, what 
date. Commenters are asked to provide a rationale for their position on 
this question, and to discuss whether particular end dates would be so 
early as to possibly discourage manufacturers from offering manual 
cutoff switches, or so late as to possibly discourage early 
introduction of smart passenger-side air bags.
    In proposing to permit manual cutoff switches for any vehicles that 
lack smart passenger-side air bags, NHTSA notes that, in its earlier 
decision not to allow all vehicles to be equipped with a manual cutoff 
device, the agency stated:

    NHTSA does not believe it should allow all vehicles to have a 
manual cutoff device to accommodate parental preference for 
placement in the front seat. If any child seat can be placed in a 
rear seat, that is the safest position. 60 FR 27233, 27234.

    While the latter statement is true, the first statement deserves 
potential reconsideration in retrospect. NHTSA has tentatively 
concluded that there are reasons to permit manual cutoff switches for 
the passenger side of vehicles with rear seats large enough to 
accommodate rear facing child seats.
    First, commenters to the November 1995 request for comments 
provided information showing the agency that placing a rear-facing 
child seat in the front seat of a vehicle is sometimes a matter of 
medical necessity and not always ``to accommodate parental 
preference.'' For example, the parents of an infant with medical 
problems commented that those medical problems require them to be able 
to monitor the child and that cannot be done with the child in the back 
seat. The National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates & 
Practitioners submitted a comment identifying a number of medical 
conditions for which infants would need to be monitored closely, 
indicating a need for those children to be transported in the front 
seat. That organization stated that approximately two percent of all 
children (which translates into about 400,000 children under the age of 
5 and close to 100,000 under the age of one) have some type of medical 
condition or disability which requires some type of nonmedical 
assistive technology. Also, about 0.1 percent (or about 20,000 children 
under the age of five and 5,000 infants) require medical technology 
assistance such as respirators, surveillance devices, or nutritive 
assistance devices. Also, some medical problems may be of a transitory 
nature, but they may require short-term monitoring of the infant. It is 
obviously not possible for these children, or the vehicles in which 
they would be transported, to be identified in advance.
    Also, the National Center for Health Statistics reports that 
approximately 10% of the 4 million births in 1993 were premature. A 
number of these children and other children may have medical conditions 
that require monitoring. However, because these are a small percentage 
of the total births, an alternative to permitting manual cutoff 
switches might be to permit air bags to be deactivated in these 
situations, i.e., the agency could issue an exemption from the general 
statutory requirement in 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30122 that prohibits 
manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from 
``making inoperative'' required safety equipment. However, even 
assuming the agency issued such an exemption, owners and/or dealers 
might not be aware of the exemption process, or owners might not go to 
the trouble of having an air bag deactivated, and thus risk injury to 
the child. It would be much easier to operate a manual cutoff switch. 
Also, if owners did have the air bag deactivated, the bag would not be 
available for any occupants, depriving them of the added protection an 
air bag offers, while a manual cutoff switch would allow the selective 
deactivation of the air bag when appropriate. In addition, there is the 
possibility that the owner would not

[[Page 40799]]

have the air bag reactivated once the child grew out of a rear-facing 
child seat. For these reasons, the manual cutoff switch appears to be a 
better option to accommodate the needs of infants who require 
monitoring for medical reasons.
    A second argument for permitting manual cutoff switches is that the 
instinctual desire of some parents to keep their infants near them 
under their close and watchful eye may be sufficiently strong that it 
is difficult to convince them of the safety need to place the children 
in the rear seat. This is a particular concern given the inherent 
limitations of any public education campaign or label. NHTSA recently 
conducted six focus groups (two in Lubbock, Texas and four in 
Cleveland, Ohio) on public information campaigns relating to air bags. 
Many parents of children under the age of one year indicated that they 
travel with the child rear-facing in the front seat. Most indicated 
that they are reluctant to place an infant rear-facing in the rear 
seat, where they cannot see the child and will not be able to reach the 
child quickly in the event of an emergency.
    NHTSA is thus concerned that some parents may decide to place a 
rear-facing child seat in the front seat where the infant can be 
closely monitored, even in the presence of an air bag and warning 
labels. While the agency does not wish to encourage parents to place 
children in the front seat, a cutoff switch would enable these parents 
to eliminate the risk from the air bag.
    The agency notes that many commenters to the November 1995 request 
for comments expressed concern about the potential for misuse of a 
manual cutoff switch. A switch could be misused either by a driver or 
other vehicle occupant deactivating the air bag when a rear facing 
child seat is not present, or because a driver simply forgets to 
reactivate the air bag after using such a restraint. In either such 
instance, properly restrained occupants, who are not at risk from the 
air bag, or unrestrained adults in higher speed crashes would not be 
afforded the protection of the air bag.
    As discussed in the Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation (PRE) for 
this rulemaking, NHTSA has assessed possible benefit trade- offs 
associated with a manual cutoff switch for the right front passenger, 
intended to be used for rear-facing child restraints. It appears that 
there will be more benefits to allowing a cutoff switch than losses 
under reasonable assumptions of possible misuse of the cutoff switch. 
(See the PRE for a more detailed discussion.) The agency's educational 
efforts will focus on preventing such misuse and the agency also notes 
that the requirement for an extra warning light would reduce the 
possibility of drivers forgetting to reactivate the air bag after using 
a rear-facing child restraint in the front seat. Currently, a yellow 
warning light displays the message ``AIR BAG OFF'' whenever the right 
front passenger air bag is deactivated using the cutoff switch.
    Based on discussions with Ford, the vehicle manufacturer with the 
largest number of manual cutoff switches,4 NHTSA is not aware of 
any misuse problems with these devices. Nevertheless, NHTSA 
specifically requests comments on whether there are any quantitative 
data or other information concerning the likelihood of manual cutoff 
switches being misused. The agency is particularly interested in 
information that is derived from the real-world experience with the 
vehicles which have been produced with manual cutoff switches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ To date, NHTSA knows of only three models utilizing cutoff 
switches--the model year 1996 Ford Ranger pickup, the model year 
1997 Ford F150 pickup, which was introduced in February 1996, and 
the LE and SE versions of the model year 1996 Mazda B-series pickup 
trucks, which are equipped with an optional passenger side air bag.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA requests comments on the various factors discussed above, and 
any other factors commenters consider relevant to permitting the option 
of manual cutoff switches for passenger- side air bags.

VIII. Future Agency Considerations

    As discussed above, NHTSA believes serious adverse effects of air 
bags can be effectively addressed in the medium and long term by means 
of changes to the designs of air bags and other related vehicle 
components. Some design changes were discussed in the preceding 
sections of this notice. This section discusses other possible design 
changes, ongoing agency efforts to evaluate the effects of such 
changes, and possible future agency regulatory actions.
    Through conducting its own research and working with the motor 
vehicle industry, NHTSA is looking for design solutions that will be 
reasonable in cost and effective in reducing the identified adverse 
side effects of air bags without creating new safety problems. To 
minimize further injuries and loss of life, the agency is seeking 
solutions having as short leadtime requirements as possible. It may be 
that solutions meeting these criteria are currently permitted by the 
standard. There is already considerable flexibility under the standard 
to make design changes in air bags. Nevertheless, it may be that the 
agency would have to amend the standard to permit the implementation of 
those solutions. If it is necessary to amend the standard, the agency's 
desire would be to amend it in a way that minimizes the adverse side 
effects while preserving the protection afforded by air bags.
    At this point, the agency does not have enough detailed research 
concerning trade-offs to determine which design solutions will be most 
effective. Before the agency can make the necessary determinations, it 
will need additional data and have to make a variety of assessments and 
analyses. The agency will examine the alternatives that are or will be 
reasonably available at reasonable cost. It will also assess safety 
trade-offs associated with each of those alternatives. This will 
include assessing how each alternative would affect the safety of 
occupants of different weights and sizes. There is a possibility that 
some design changes may benefit some groups more than others. There is 
even a possibility that although some changes may benefit some groups, 
they will not benefit, or even may harm, other groups. Finally, the 
agency will compare the alternatives in terms of their relative safety 
effects and costs.
    The agency's search for effective solutions is complicated by a 
number of factors. First, NHTSA is sensitive to the possibility that to 
the extent that the agency mandates solutions, its intervention could 
affect the pace and direction of industry efforts to find effective 
solutions. Second, the sheer complexity of air bag technology and crash 
dynamics and the range of different circumstances associated with the 
adverse effects of air bags make it virtually impossible to find a 
single solution to the challenge of providing the best possible 
protection for the wide range of vehicle occupants. Third, the state of 
the art in air bag technology and in design choices regarding air bags 
is rapidly changing. Fourth, there is no clear emerging industry 
consensus to aid the agency in identifying which design changes will 
effectively address the adverse effects while preserving the safety 
benefits of air bags.
    The agency has initiated a research testing and analysis program to 
address these problems. The program is being coordinated and conducted 
at the Vehicle Research and Test Center, the agency's in-house 
laboratory in Ohio. The program's objectives are to:
     Assess the performance of air bag systems in current 
production vehicles in particular crash conditions, including the 
effects on out-of-position children.

[[Page 40800]]

     Assess the level of improvement possible in out-of-
position performance from changes to existing air bag components, 
including downloaded air bags, as well as newly developed pre-
production systems.
     Provide visibility for air bag-related technology, thus 
promoting the rapid adoption of newer technologies that will help solve 
the out-of-position occupant injury problem.
    The immediate focus of the program is on the passenger-side out-of-
position problem as related to children. Several vehicle models have 
been selected based upon field accident investigations and air bag 
design characteristics. Both domestic and foreign vehicles are included 
in the selection. The test conditions include four different child 
positions similar to those recommended by ISO, and represent worst case 
occurrences. These tests will provide ``baseline'' performance of air 
bag systems when a child is an out-of-position occupant.
    NHTSA is inviting vehicle manufacturers and air bag and component 
suppliers to provide state-of-the-art air bag systems. Systems that 
show significant improvements over baseline performance for out-of-
position children will also be tested with adult-sized dummies in full-
scale crash conditions required in Federal standards.
    The test program will also address other aspects of air bag safety 
following the out-of-position child study. These include out-of-
position driver tests, vehicle crash sensor testing, and testing of 
advanced air bag systems. The out-of-position driver testing will focus 
on small-sized female occupants who are sometimes injured due to the 
close proximity to the steering-wheel air bag system. Testing will 
continue into fiscal year 1997.
    While it is not part of the agency's current test program, NHTSA 
also continues to be interested in whether increasing the minimum 
vehicle speed at which an air bag deploys, and possibly having 
different deployment thresholds for the unbelted and belted conditions, 
may be an effective way to reduce air bag-induced injuries.
    As the agency's test program continues, and as it receives relevant 
information from other sources, NHTSA will continue to assess whether 
other regulatory action is appropriate, including possible action to 
permit or facilitate downloading, and including possible action to 
address the vehicle speed at which air bags deploy. The agency invites 
interested persons to submit relevant information. NHTSA is 
particularly interested in additional information and analyses which 
address possible safety trade-offs, and information concerning the 
possible availability of design features that could make such trade-
offs unnecessary. The agency expects to publish a Federal Register 
notice in the next few months announcing a public meeting on these 
technical subjects, reporting on its research to date, and laying out 
the issues to be addressed in the meeting.
    Finally, the agency is continuing to evaluate the special problems 
faced by persons with disabilities. People with disabilities may have 
problems with air bags in addition to those that result primarily from 
their proximity to the air bag at the time of deployment. Persons with 
disabilities may also face unique problems due to the special adaptive 
equipment they need to drive, or vehicle modifications needed to 
accommodate the disability. The installation of certain adaptive 
equipment may require removal of the air bag, reduce the effectiveness 
of air bags by interfering with their deployment, or cause injury to a 
driver because of movement of the device during deployment. In 
September 1994, the agency issued a consumer advisory cautioning 
drivers with disabilities not to use steering control devices mounted 
on a bar installed across the steering wheel hub (a ``spanner bar'') of 
vehicles with driver-side air bags.
    NHTSA currently lacks sufficient data to decide if air bags will 
pose unique problems for people with disabilities because of the 
interaction with the special adaptive equipment. Thus, the agency does 
not believe it is appropriate, at this time, to propose special 
requirements for air bags in vehicles adapted for people with 
disabilities. Nor does the agency have enough information to make 
recommendations. The agency has started a sled testing program to 
investigate the potential for injury from steering control devices used 
by people with disabilities and the possible interaction of these 
devices with deploying air bags. This testing is scheduled to be 
completed by September 1996. The agency will then analyze the test 
results and take appropriate actions.

IX. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was reviewed by the 
Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning 
and Review.'' This action has been determined to be ``significant'' 
under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and 
procedures. The action is considered significant because of the degree 
of public interest in this subject. This action is also potentially 
economically significant under E.O. 12866. Should NHTSA decide to 
require smart air bags in the final rule, the final action would be 
economically significant and/or major, in which case additional public 
comment may be necessary.
    As discussed earlier in this notice, NHTSA estimates that the costs 
of the new or enhanced labels that would be required by the proposed 
rule at between 15 and 25 cents per vehicle. The enhanced labels for 
child restraints would add between $0.05 and $1.00 per child restraint.
    The costs of automatic cutoff devices, or other automatic systems 
to prevent injuries from bags, varies considerably, although the agency 
does not have accurate estimates of these costs. A weight sensor may 
cost $20 or more; a smart air bag system incorporating other 
technologies may add $50 or more in incremental cost; an air bag that 
utilizes different fold patterns and inflators may add very little 
incremental cost to the current air bag systems. These are all rough 
estimates. Comments are requested on the costs of various systems.
    NHTSA estimates the cost of a manual cutoff device at a little over 
five dollars. Such a device would be optional, not required.
    A full discussion of costs and benefits can be found in the 
agency's preliminary regulatory evaluation for this rulemaking action, 
which is being placed in the docket.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has considered the effects of this proposed rulemaking action 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that it would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    The proposal primarily affects motor vehicle manufacturers and 
child restraint manufacturers. Almost all motor vehicle manufacturers 
would not qualify as small businesses. The agency knows of eight 
manufacturers of child restraints, two of which NHTSA considers to be 
small businesses. However, since the agency is only proposing a minor 
labeling change for child restraints, the proposed requirements would 
not have any significant economic impact.

[[Page 40801]]

C. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this proposal for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act and determined that a final rule adopting this 
proposal would not have any significant impact on the quality of the 
human environment.

D. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

    The agency has analyzed this proposal in accordance with the 
principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 12612. NHTSA has 
determined that this proposal does not have sufficient federalism 
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

E. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in 
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable 
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal 
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a 
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for 
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial 
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a 
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before 
parties may file suit in court.

X. Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposal. 
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
    All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length (49 CFR 553.21). 
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without 
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage 
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
    If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim 
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including 
the purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted 
to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and 
seven copies from which the purportedly confidential information has 
been deleted should be submitted to the NHTSA Docket Section. A request 
for confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting 
forth the information specified in the agency's confidential business 
information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.
    All comments received by NHTSA before the close of business on the 
comment closing date indicated above for the proposal will be 
considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the 
above address both before and after that date. To the extent possible, 
comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Comments 
received too late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be 
considered as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on 
the proposal will be available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA 
will continue to file relevant information as it becomes available in 
the docket after the closing date, and recommends that interested 
persons continue to examine the docket for new material.
    Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their 
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped 
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the 
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber 
products, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that 49 CFR Part 
571 be amended as follows:

PART 571-FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 571 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    2. Section 571.208 would be amended by removing S4.5.4.1, 
redesignating S4.5.1(e) as S4.5.1(f) and S4.5.4.2 through S4.5.4.4 as 
S4.5.4.1 through S4.5.4.3, revising S4.1.5.1(b), S4.5.1(b) through (d), 
and S4.5.4, and by adding a new S4.5.1(e) and S4.5.5, to read as 
follows:


Sec. 571.208  Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection.

* * * * *
    S4.1.5.1  Front/angular automatic protection system.
* * * * *
    (b) For the purposes of sections S4.1.5 through S4.1.5.3 and S4.2.6 
through S4.2.6.2 of this standard, an inflatable restraint system means 
an air bag that is activated in a crash.
* * * * *
    S4.5.1  Labeling and owner's manual information.
* * * * *
    (b) Labels on sun visor above seating positions equipped with an 
inflatable restraint system. Except as provided in S4.5.1(e) of this 
standard, each vehicle manufactured on or after (the date 60 days after 
publication of the final rule would be inserted) shall have labels 
permanently affixed to both sides of the sun visor over each front 
outboard seating position that is equipped with an inflatable restraint 
system. The label on the side of the visor visible when the visor is in 
the stowed position and the label on the side of the visor visible when 
the visor is in the extended position shall conform in size, content, 
color, and format to the appropriate sun visor label shown in Figures 
6a, 6b and 6c of this standard. No additional information about air 
bags or the need to wear seat belts shall appear on sun visors, except 
for air bag maintenance information provided pursuant to S4.5.1(a) of 
this standard or the utility vehicle label provided pursuant to 49 CFR 
575.105(c)(1).
    (c) Label on Passenger-Side End of Dash or on Passenger-Side Door. 
Except as provided in S4.5.1(e) of this standard, each vehicle 
manufactured on or after (the date 60 days after publication of the 
final rule would be inserted) that is equipped with an inflatable 
restraint system for the passenger position shall have a label 
permanently affixed to the passenger-side end of the vehicle dash or 
the passenger-side door. The label shall be positioned so that it is 
plainly visible and easily readable when the passenger-side door is 
fully opened. This label shall conform in size, content, color, and 
format to the appropriate passenger-side dash/door label shown in 
Figures 7a and 7b of this standard.
    (d) Label in the middle of the dash. Except as provided in 
S4.5.1(e) of this standard, each vehicle manufactured on or after (the 
date 60 days after publication of the final rule would be) that is 
equipped with an inflatable restraint system for the passenger position 
shall have a label affixed to the middle of the dash. This label shall 
be positioned so that it is conspicuous and easily readable for a 
seated occupant in any front designated seating position. This label 
shall conform in size, content, color, and format to the middle of the 
dash label shown in Figure 8 of this standard.
    (e) (1) The labels specified in S4.5.1(b), (c) and (d) of this 
standard are not required for vehicles that have a smart passenger air 
bag meeting the

[[Page 40802]]

criteria specified in S4.5.5 of this standard.
    (2) A manufacturer may, at its option, place the label specified in 
S4.5.1(b) of this standard for the side of the visor visible when the 
visor is in the extended position, on the side of the visor visible 
when the visor is in the stowed position. If the manufacturer selects 
this option, it need not provide a label on the side of the visor 
visible when the visor is in the extended position.
* * * * *
    S4.5.4  Passenger Air Bag Manual Cutoff Device. Passenger cars, 
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles which do not have 
smart passenger air bags (as defined in S4.5.5 of this standard) may be 
equipped with a device that deactivates the air bag installed at the 
right front passenger position in the vehicle, if all of the conditions 
in S4.5.4.1 through S4.5.4.3 of this standard are satisfied.
* * * * *
    S4.5.5  Smart Passenger Air Bags. For purposes of this standard, a 
smart passenger air bag is a passenger air bag which:
    (a) Provides an automatic means to ensure that the air bag does not 
deploy when a child seat or child with a total mass of 30 kg or less is 
present on the front outboard passenger seat;
    (b) Provides an automatic means to ensure that the air bag does not 
deploy when [In the final rule, the agency would include specific, 
broadly-inclusive language that allows objective identification of 
other deactivation technologies (e.g., sensors of occupant size or 
proximity-to-dashboard) that would automatically prevent an air bag 
from injuring the two groups of children that experience has shown to 
be at special risk from air bags: infants in rear-facing child seats, 
and unbelted or improperly belted children]; or
    (c) Deploys in a manner that [In the final rule, the agency would 
include specific, broadly-inclusive language that allows objective 
identification of technologies that would automatically prevent an air 
bag from injuring the two groups of children that experience has shown 
to be at special risk from air bags: infants in rear-facing child 
seats, and unbelted or improperly belted children].
* * * * *
    3. Section 571.208 would be amended by adding a new heading 
preceeding the figures and new figures 6a, 6b, 6c, 7a, 7b, and 8 at the 
end of the section as follows:

Figures to Sec. 571.208

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 40803]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06AU96.005



[[Page 40804]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06AU96.006



[[Page 40805]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06AU96.007



[[Page 40806]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06AU96.008



[[Page 40807]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06AU96.009



[[Page 40808]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06AU96.010



      

[[Page 40809]]

    4. Section 571.213 would be amended by adding S5.5.2(k)(4) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 571.213  Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems.

* * * * *
    S5.5.2   * * *
    (k) * * *
    (4) In the case of each child restraint system that can be used in 
a rear-facing position and is manufactured on or after (the date 180 
days after publication of the final rule would be inserted), instead of 
the warning specified in S5.5.2(k)(1)(ii) or S5.5.2(k)(2)(ii) of this 
standard, a label that conforms in size, content, color, and format to 
Figure 10 of this standard shall be permanently affixed to the outer 
surface of the cushion or padding in the area where a child's head 
would rest, so that the label is plainly visible and easily readable.
* * * * *
    5. Section 571.213 would be amended by adding new figure 10 at the 
end of the section as follows:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06AU96.011


    Issued on July 31, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-19923 Filed 8-1-96; 1:48 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C