[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 798-806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-33306]
[[Page 797]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
49 CFR Parts 571 and 595
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection;
Final Rule and Proposed Rule and Air Bag Deactivation; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 1997 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 798]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 74-14; Notice 109]
RIN 2127-AG60
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule extends until September 1, 2000, the time period
during which vehicle manufacturers are permitted to offer manual cutoff
switches for the passenger-side air bag for vehicles without rear seats
or with rear seats that are too small to accommodate rear facing infant
seats. Rear facing infant seats cannot be used safely in front of an
air bag, and should ordinarily be placed in the back seat. The purpose
of the option for manual cutoff switches is to ensure that the vehicle
manufacturers have a means of accommodating their customers' need to
carry rear facing infant seats in vehicles without rear seats or with
rear seats that are too small for these devices. The agency is
extending the time period for the option to ensure that manufacturers
have adequate time to implement better, automatic solutions.
DATES: Effective Date: The amendments made in this rule are effective
February 5, 1997.
Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration must be received by
February 20, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket and
notice number of this notice and be submitted to: Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about air bags and
related rulemakings: Visit the NHTSA web site at http://
www.nhtsa.dot.gov and select ``AIR BAGS Information about air bags.''
For non-legal issues: Mr. Clarke Harper, Chief, Light Duty Vehicle
Division, NPS-11, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2264.
Fax: (202) 366-4329.
For legal issues: Mr. Edward Glancy, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-
20, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
SW, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992. Fax: (202) 366-
3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background.
II. Overview and Summary.
III. Current and Proposed Requirements Concerning Manual Cutoff
Switches.
IV. Summary of Comments.
A. Vehicle manufacturers.
B. Dealers.
C. Suppliers.
D. Child seat manufacturers.
E. Insurance, safety, and medical groups.
F. Other commenters.
V. Agency Decision.
A. Option for Manual Cutoff Switches.
B. Performance Requirements for Manual Cutoff Switches.
C. Effective Date.
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices.
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act.
C. National Environmental Policy Act.
D. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism).
E. Civil Justice Reform.
I. Background
While air bags are providing significant overall safety benefits,
NHTSA is very concerned because current designs have adverse effects in
some situations. Most important, while passenger side air bags are
estimated to have saved 164 lives to date, they have also killed 32
children in relatively low speed collisions. Eighteen of those deaths
have occurred this year. Driver air bags, by contrast, are estimated to
have saved 1500 lives to date. The agency is aware of 19 relatively low
speed crashes in which a driver has been killed by the air bag.
Within the past year, the agency has published two documents in the
Federal Register to address this subject. On November 9, 1995, NHTSA
published a request for comments to inform the public about NHTSA's
efforts to reduce the adverse effects of air bags, and to invite the
public and industry to share information and views with the agency. 60
FR 56554.
On August 6, 1996, the agency published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to reduce the adverse effects of air bags, especially
those on children. 61 FR 40784. The NPRM proposed several amendments to
Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 213,
Child Restraint Systems.
In the August 1996 NPRM, the agency explained that eventually,
either through market forces or government regulation, it expects that
``smart'' passenger-side air bags will be installed in passenger cars
and light trucks to mitigate these adverse effects. NHTSA indicated
that, for purposes of the NPRM, it considered smart air bags to include
any system that automatically prevents an air bag from injuring the two
groups of children that experience has shown to be at special risk from
air bags: infants in rear-facing child seats, and children who are out-
of-position (because they are unbelted or improperly belted) when the
air bag deploys.
NHTSA proposed that vehicles lacking smart passenger-side air bags
would be required to have new, attention-getting warning labels. By
limiting the labeling requirement to vehicles without smart passenger-
side air bags, NHTSA hoped to encourage the introduction of the next
generation of air bags as soon as possible. NHTSA proposed to define
smart air bags broadly to give manufacturers flexibility in making
design choices. The agency requested comments concerning whether it
should require installation of smart air bags and, if so, on what date
such a requirement should become effective.
NHTSA also proposed to expand an existing option that permits
manufacturers to install manual cutoff switches for the passenger-side
air bag for vehicles without rear seats or with rear seats that are too
small to accommodate rear facing infant seats. That option is scheduled
to expire on September 1, 1997 for passenger cars and September 1, 1998
for light trucks. The agency proposed to extend the option for a longer
period of time, and to expand it to cover all vehicles.
II. Overview and Summary
NHTSA is implementing a comprehensive plan of rulemaking and other
actions (e.g., primary enforcement of State safety belt use laws)
addressing the adverse effects of air bags. As part of that plan, NHTSA
is issuing three separate, but related, notices today. Each notice is
intended to ensure that some or all or the risks are reduced, and
benefits retained, to the maximum extent possible. They provide
immediate and/or interim solutions to the problem. A later notice, a
proposal to require smart air bags, would provide a permanent solution.
In this final rule, which is based on the August 1996 NPRM, NHTSA
is extending until September 1, 2000, a provision in Standard No. 208
permitting vehicle manufacturers to offer manual cutoff switches for
the passenger air bag for new vehicles without rear seats or with rear
seats that are too small to accommodate rear-facing infant restraints.
The other rulemaking actions addressing the adverse side effects of
air bags are as follows:
[[Page 799]]
Also based on the August 1996 NPRM, the agency issued
on November 22, 1996, a final rule amending Standards No. 208 and
No. 213 to require improved labeling on new vehicles and child
restraints to better ensure that drivers and other occupants are
aware of the dangers posed by passenger air bags to children. The
labeling places particular emphasis on placing rear-facing infant
restraints in the rear seats of vehicles with operational passenger
air bags. 61 Fed. Reg. 60206; November 27, 1996. The new labels are
required on vehicles not equipped with smart passenger air bags
beginning February 25, 1997, and on child restraints beginning May
27, 1997.
NHTSA is also issuing an NPRM to temporarily amend
Standard No. 208 to permit or facilitate approximately 20 to 35
percent depowering of current air bags.
The agency also is issuing an NPRM proposing to permit
motor vehicle dealers and repair businesses to deactivate, upon the
request of consumers, driver and passenger air bags that do not meet
the agency's criteria for smart air bags. Final action is expected
in early 1997.
In addition to these actions, NHTSA will issue a
separate supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) to require a phasing-in of smart
air bags, beginning on September 1, 1998, and to establish
performance requirements for those air bags. The proposal will be
issued in early 1997.
III. Current and Proposed Requirements Concerning Manual Cutoff
Switches
Until smart passenger-side air bags can be installed in new
vehicles, the improved labeling requirements recently announced by the
agency will better ensure that drivers and other occupants are aware of
the dangers posed by air bags to unbelted children and children in
rear-facing child seats located in the front seat. Adult occupants will
ideally respond to the labels by ensuring that, whenever possible, a
child occupies the back seat of a vehicle, instead of the front, and is
properly restrained there. Further, the adult will ensure that if a
child, other than an infant in a rear-facing child seat, must sit in
the front seat, the child is properly restrained and the seat is moved
all the way back.
For rear-facing infant seats, however, securing them tightly in a
front seat using the vehicle safety belts and moving the front seat all
the way back will not protect an infant because the child seat would
still extend too far forward. The infant's head would still be located
very close to the air bag. For this reason, a rear-facing child seat
should never be placed in a seating position with an activated air bag.
However, some vehicles do not have back seats, or have back seats which
are not large enough to accommodate a rear-facing child seat.
To address this dilemma, on May 23, 1995, NHTSA published a final
rule allowing manufacturers the option of installing a manual device
that motorists could use to deactivate the front passenger-side air bag
in vehicles that are manufactured on or after June 22, 1995, and that
cannot accommodate rear-facing child seats anywhere except in the front
seat. In addition to limiting the types of vehicles which were
permitted to have the manual cutoff switch, the final rule also
included a number of conditions that had to be satisfied. The manual
cutoff switch had to use an ignition key to turn off the air bag and to
turn on the air bag by manual means. The manufacturer had to also
install a warning light that was separate from the air bag readiness
indicator and would indicate when the air bag was turned off. The light
had to be visible to both the driver and passenger. The manufacturer
had to include information on the manual cutoff switch in the owner's
manual. Finally, the option was only available for passenger cars
manufactured before September 1, 1997, and light trucks manufactured
before September 1, 1998. The agency decided to place a time limit on
the option for manual cutoff switches because it believed that better,
automatic solutions would soon be available.
In the August NPRM, NHTSA proposed to extend the period of
availability of the option for manual cutoff switches and to permit
installation of those devices in all vehicles with passenger air bags
lacking smart capability. The agency issued this proposal out of
concern that smart air bags were not becoming available as quickly as
anticipated, and that the need to place rear facing infant seats in the
front seat goes beyond vehicles lacking rear seats that can accommodate
these devices.
The agency noted that some children have special medical problems
requiring close monitoring, which cannot be accomplished if the driver
places the child in the rear seat. The agency had received a number of
comments concerning this problem in response to a request for comments
concerning adverse effects of air bags published in the Federal
Register on November 9, 1995 (60 FR 56554).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Among other things, the parents of an infant with medical
problems commented that those medical problems require them to be
able to monitor the child and that cannot be done with the child in
the back seat. The agency also noted that the National Association
of Pediatric Nurse Associates & Practitioners had submitted a
comment identifying a number of medical conditions for which infants
would need to be monitored closely, indicating a need for those
children to be transported in the front seat. That organization
stated that approximately two percent of all children (which
translates into about 400,000 children under the age of 5 and close
to 100,000 under the age of one) have some type of medical condition
or disability which requires some type of nonmedical assistive
technology. Also, about 0.1 percent (or about 20,000 children under
the age of five and 5,000 infants) require medical technology
assistance such as respirators, surveillance devices, or nutritive
assistance devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA also noted that a second reason for permitting manual cutoff
switches in all vehicles is that the deep-seated desire of some parents
to keep their infants near them under their close and watchful eye may
be sufficiently strong that they choose to place their children in the
front seat instead of the rear seat where the child would be safer.\2\
The agency stated that it was concerned that some parents may decide to
place a rear-facing child seat in the front seat where the infant can
be closely monitored, even in the presence of an activated air bag and
warning labels. NHTSA noted that while it does not wish to encourage
parents to place children in the front seat, a cutoff switch would
enable these parents to eliminate the risk from the air bag.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A child is safer in the back seat of a vehicle, regardless
of whether the vehicle has an activated passenger air bag in the
front seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA requested comments on the availability of alternative
automatic devices, and how such availability should affect its decision
regarding the manual cutoff switch option. The agency also requested
comments on whether it should endeavor to further encourage smart
passenger-side air bags by specifying an expiration date for the manual
cutoff switch option and, if so, what date.
The agency noted that many commenters to the November 1995 request
for comments expressed concern about the potential for misuse of a
manual cutoff switch. A switch could be misused either by a driver or
other vehicle occupant deactivating the air bag when an occupant other
than a child in a rear facing child seat is present, or by a driver
simply forgetting to reactivate the air bag after using such a
restraint. In either case, the air bag would not be available to
protect persons who could benefit from its deployment.
In the Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation (PRE) for this rulemaking,
NHTSA assessed possible benefit trade-offs associated with a manual
cutoff switch provided for the right front passenger seat and intended
to be used when a rear-facing child restraint is placed there. The
agency stated that it appeared that there would be more
[[Page 800]]
benefits to allowing a cutoff switch than losses if misuse levels were
below seven percent. NHTSA noted that its educational efforts would
focus on preventing such misuse, and also noted that the requirement
for an extra warning light would reduce the possibility of drivers
forgetting to reactivate the air bag after using a rear-facing child
restraint in the front seat. Currently, pursuant to Standard No. 208, a
yellow warning light displays the message ``AIR BAG OFF'' whenever the
right front passenger air bag is deactivated by someone operating the
cutoff switch.
Based on discussions with Ford, the vehicle manufacturer with the
largest number of manual cutoff switches,\3\ NHTSA stated that it was
not aware of any misuse problems with these devices. Nevertheless,
NHTSA specifically requested comments on whether there are any
quantitative data or other information concerning the likelihood of
manual cutoff switches being misused. The agency stated that it was
particularly interested in information derived from the real-world
experience with the vehicles equipped with manual cutoff switches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ At the time of the NPRM, NHTSA knew of only three models
utilizing cutoff switches--the model year 1996 Ford Ranger pickup,
the model year 1997 Ford F150 pickup, which was introduced in
February 1996, and the LE and SE versions of the model year 1996
Mazda B-series pickup trucks, which are equipped with an optional
passenger side air bag.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Summary of Comments
NHTSA received comments concerning its August 1996 proposal on
manual cutoff switches from vehicle manufacturers, suppliers, safety
groups, and private individuals. Commenters generally supported
extending the period of availability of the existing option for manual
cutoff switches. The comments were mixed, however, with respect to
expanding the option to cover all vehicles. A variety of commenters,
including the domestic auto manufacturers and several insurance and
safety groups, opposed such an expansion. Some were concerned about the
potential misuse of the cutoff, while others thought that such an
expansion would inadvertently and unavoidably compromise various safety
messages, i.e., that rear facing infant seats should always be placed
in the back seat and that the back seat is the safest place for all
children.
This section summarizes comments concerning whether the option for
cutoff switches should be extended in time and/or expanded in scope.
Comments concerning what specific requirements should apply to cutoff
switches, assuming they are permitted, are addressed later in this
document.
A. Vehicle Manufacturers
The American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA),
representing GM, Ford, and Chrysler, recommended that the current
option for installing manual cutoff switches in certain vehicle
configurations be continued. It noted that its members are already on
record as considering this approach to be an interim measure until
systems that can discriminate occupant weight and location have been
proven to be sufficiently reliable and effective for production vehicle
use.
AAMA recommended, however, that the allowable use of manual cutoff
switches not be expanded to cover other vehicle configurations than
those currently permitted. That organization noted that the cutoff
switch option currently allowed in Standard No. 208 provides a method
to manually deactivate the passenger side air bag in vehicles where the
alternative of placing a rear-facing child seat in the rear seat of the
vehicle does not exist because of the configuration of the vehicles'
interior. AAMA stated that in these vehicles, there may be specific
crash situations where a properly utilized manual cutoff switch could
provide a benefit. That commenter added, however, that there are no
data publicly available to evaluate the net effectiveness of a cutoff
switch--particularly considering the long term potential for misuse.
Therefore, AAMA believes that for other vehicle configurations that
already offer preferable alternatives to placing rear-facing child
seats in the vehicles' front seat, the net potential benefit of a
cutoff switch is questionable.
GM stated that it supports the agency's proposal to extend
indefinitely the currently permitted use of manual cutoff switches for
passenger air bags. That company noted that it is currently installing
these switches in its 1997 regular and extended full size pickup
trucks. GM stated that its review of the various automatic suppression
technologies currently being developed is ongoing. According to that
commenter, as automatic suppression technology becomes production
capable, its ability to replace manual suppression systems will be
evaluated and, when appropriate, implemented as quickly as possible. GM
stated that it does not agree with the agency's proposal to expand the
allowable use of manual cutoff switches to include vehicles other than
the configurations currently permitted.
Ford stated that it supports extension beyond September 1, 1998 of
the existing option to install manual deactivation switches in vehicles
that cannot fit rear-facing infant restraints in the rear seat, because
it may be unable to install automatic deactivation for children in all
pickup trucks by that date. Ford stated, however, that it opposes
expansion of the option to passenger cars and other vehicles that can
fit rear-facing infant restraints in the rear seat, because automatic
(weight threshold) deactivation technology has now advanced
sufficiently to be considered for future models of such vehicles.
Chrysler stated that it is concerned about the many opportunities
for misuse of cutoff switches, even if their use is limited to the
vehicles in which they may now be installed. That company stated that
drivers are faced with a dilemma about how to use a cutoff switch with
three passenger front seating. Given the confusion associated with this
problem and ordinary driver distractions, it believes that the
potential for misuse of cutoff switches could exceed the seven percent
``breakeven'' figure cited by the agency in its Preliminary Regulatory
Evaluation for the August 1996 NPRM.
Chrysler also argued that it believes cutoff switches may
discourage seat belt use, and dilute the message that children should
be seated in the rear seat. Chrysler stated that given NHTSA's
statement that the likelihood of injuries/fatalities is 29 percent less
for someone sitting in the rear seat instead of in the front seat, this
encouragement of front seat use alone could negate the purported
benefits of cutoff switches.
Toyota stated that it believes manual cutoff switches are the most
reliable resolution currently available when used as intended, i.e., to
install a rearward facing infant restraint. That company indicated that
it is planning to provide such switches in its 1998 model year pickup
trucks. Toyota stated that, with respect to vehicles other than those
without adequate seats for rear facing infant seats, manual cutoff
switches have some inherent problems.
Honda stated that it is extremely concerned about the potential for
misuse or abuse of manual cutoff switches by some users. That company
stated that vehicle operators may inadvertently forget to deactivate
the air bag with the switch when necessary, or may intentionally
deactivate the passenger air bag with the cutoff switch when it is not
appropriate to do so. Honda stated it believes the manual cutoff switch
represents the least
[[Page 801]]
effective of any solutions to the problem of air bag induced injuries.
Mercedes Benz stated that unless required by law, it will not offer
any type of manual cutoff switch because of expected driver misuse or
non-use.
Volvo stated that it believes manual cutoff switches should be
allowed for all categories of vehicles. That manufacturer stated that
this technology must be considered an interim solution. Volvo stated it
believes market forces will act as soon as more advanced technology is
available and will make any manually operated system obsolete.
Therefore, that company believes there should be no time limit for when
manual cutoff switches should no longer be allowed.
Volvo noted that in Europe, due to customer requests, most
manufacturers have developed new car retail service procedures for
deactivation and reactivation of passenger side air bags. Volvo
recommended making new car retail service procedures legal in the U.S.
for all customers who wish to deactivate the passenger side air bag.
BMW stated that it believes manual cutoff switches remain a
practical alternative and allowing them on all vehicles is a reasonable
interim solution. That company stated that it is important to offer
parents alternatives until advanced technologies can be developed and
implemented. BMW stated that if the fast pace of technology for
advanced systems continues at its current rate, it expects that the
need for an allowance for manual devices may be eliminated about the
year 2002.
BMW noted that as an alternative to manual devices, a more direct
approach consists of temporarily deactivating the air bag. That
manufacturer stated that it believes that NHTSA could develop
procedures similar to those being utilized by vehicle manufacturers in
Europe. In Europe, a BMW dealer is allowed to temporarily deactivate
the passenger air bag for individuals who may have a special need or
normally transport children after advising them of the benefits of air
bags and approval forms are signed.
B. Dealers
The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) supported the
agency's proposal to expand the option for manual cutoff switches to
cover all vehicles.
C. Suppliers
TRW stated that it believes the cutoff switch to be the most
positive means of shutting off the air bag if understood and used
properly, and therefore supported allowing its use in all vehicles.
However, TRW recommended continued use of the cutoff switch only until
more inclusive, automatic means can be demonstrated and adopted.
Autoliv stated that manual cutoff switches should be considered as
an interim solution. That company stated that it believes market forces
will generate devices for automatic deactivation and that a time limit
for permitting manual cutoff switches is unnecessary. Autoliv also
argued that another reason for not setting a time limit is that there
may be a justification for a combination of manual and automatic
systems, highly depending on the direction that the development of
automatic systems takes.
D. Child Seat Manufacturers
Cosco stated that it believes cutoff switches should immediately be
permitted in all vehicles as the fastest way of providing an option for
those who must, or prefer to, have a baby in the front seat. That
company stated that it does not believe permitting cutoff switches will
delay the introduction of smart bags, but will allow the thoughtful and
intelligent introduction of effective smart systems.
Cosco also commented that certain car beds, including its ``Dream
Ride,'' are compatible with seating positions equipped with air bags.
Cosco cited a test performed by NHTSA for this conclusion. Cosco stated
that such car beds that have been proven to be compatible with air bags
do not require the deactivation of the air bag. That commenter stated
that until cutoff switches or other devices are adopted, NHTSA should
make an effort to inform parents that a car bed is an acceptable
alternative, especially since, for medically fragile infants and also
for cars with non-compatible rear vehicle belts, a car bed is their
only option.
E. Insurance, Safety, and Medical Groups
IIHS stated that it does not support NHTSA's proposal to allow
manual cutoff switches in all vehicles with passenger air bags. That
organization stated that it is concerned that cutoff switches will not
be an effective solution to the problem of child deaths and may lead to
additional harm to other vehicle occupants. According to IIHS, some
people undoubtedly would use the switches correctly, but it is likely
that many parents and other drivers would misuse the switches. That
commenter stated that there is no reason to believe that many adults
who allow children to ride unrestrained or improperly restrained would
use air bag deactivation switches correctly.
IIHS also cited a danger that manual cutoff switches send consumers
a mixed message by encouraging drivers to place infants and children in
the front seat. That commenter noted that a central objective of the
educational effort to reduce the adverse effects of passenger air bags
is to convince adults that infants and children should ride in rear
seats. A recent Institute survey of vehicles in parking lots found
rear-facing restraints in the front seat of cars with passenger air
bags only 9 percent of the time, compared with 36 percent in cars
without passenger air bags. IIHS stated that it would be a mistake if,
as a result of switches, more infants and children are placed in the
front seat.
The National Association of Independent Insurers (NAII) stated that
it is extremely concerned by the proposal to allow use of manual
switches to allow vehicle users to deactivate passenger-side air bags.
NAII cited several concerns about this issue previously raised by IIHS
and stated that, in NAII's estimation, many people may run a greater
risk of getting injured simply because they have forgotten to turn the
switch back on.
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) stated that while
it would support an extension of time for the installation of manual
cutoff switches in vehicles without back seats, it believes that NHTSA
should encourage the use of automatic weight sensors and should not
permit the installation of manual cutoff switches in vehicles with back
seats. According to that organization, permitting the installation of
manual cutoff switches in all passenger vehicles would result in
potential safety risks for many passengers due to the inevitable misuse
of cutoff switches. Advocates stated that the misuse of cutoff switches
is foreseeable and will result in a safety trade-off that will, in
fact, undermine the proven life saving benefits of air bags.
Advocates argued that permitting manual cutoff switches in all
vehicles will make air bag protection subject to the vagaries of what
the agency has in the past referred to as operator error. The safety
benefits of air bags will then depend on the ability and willingness of
adults to set the switch in the ``off'' position for infants or
toddlers but return it to the ``on'' position for other passengers.
Advocates stated that it is convinced that manual cutoff switches will
not be correctly used. Advocates also stated that while it has not
quantified the potential risk, it believes that the higher level of
exposure of non-infant occupants to risk when an air bag is turned off
will far exceed the present
[[Page 802]]
level of adverse effects of passenger-side air bags on children in
rear-facing child restraints.
Advocates also argued that the manual cutoff switch sends the wrong
safety message to parents. According to that commenter, the existence
of a manual switch strongly implies that it is safe to place infants
and children in the front seat.
Public Citizen stated that it opposes installation of air bag on/
off switches. That organization argued that this proposal is misguided
and would undercut the automatic nature of air bags. One of the
disadvantages, according to Public Citizen, is the danger that the air
bag will be left off for adult passengers when it should be on. That
commenter also stated that the proposal sends a wrong and deadly
message--that it's okay for kids to ride in the front seat. Public
Citizen stated that a far preferable technical change would be a
minimum trigger speed of approximately 15 mph, which would
significantly reduce the number of low speed crash air bag inflations,
the type of crash in which children are being killed and injured.
SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. stated that it agrees that cutoff switches
may be a necessary, temporary solution for some vehicles, but they
should not be permitted beyond a specified date.
National Safe Kids Campaign (NSKC), whose chairman is C. Everett
Koop, M.D., stated that it believes that in the best interest of
children, manual cutoff switches should be required until smart
passenger-side air bags are developed. That organization stated that
while there are behavioral issues associated with cutoff switches, it
recognizes that families with small children will sometimes need to
transport them in the front seat as a last resort. That organization
stated that the cutoff switch gives the responsible parent/driver the
option to turn off the air bag deployment system and then more safely
transport an infant or child in the front seat.
Kathleen Weber, Director of the Child Passenger Research Program at
the University of Michigan Medical School, supported the agency's
proposal. Ms. Weber stated that despite all the warnings in the world,
parents want to put babies in the front seat, and older children also
like to ride up front with the driver. That commenter stated that, with
respect to the latter, it is becoming increasingly clear that, even
when older children are suitably restrained by a lap/shoulder belt,
they can easily and unpredictably move forward to adjust the radio,
pick up something from the floor, or brace themselves in anticipation
of a crash, inadvertently placing themselves at great risk of injury or
death. Ms. Weber stated that parents need the option of suppressing
deployment of passenger air bags by either manual or automatic means,
and also urged the agency to address this problem for owners of current
vehicles.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated that it is very
concerned about the possibility of extending and expanding the
availability of manual air bag cutoff switches. That organization
stated that efforts to educate families through labels regarding the
potential dangers of air bags to infants in rear facing child seats
have demonstrated that compliance is extremely difficult to accomplish.
AAP expressed concern that with a manual cutoff switch, drivers may
fail to deactivate the air bag when the rear facing seat is present or
fail to reactivate the air bag after an appropriate deactivation. That
organization stated that increased availability of the manual cutoff
switch would lead to the development of a much larger fleet of vehicles
in which such misuse could result. AAP stated that ensuring proper use
of the cutoff switch by so many drivers would entail an enormous and
extremely difficult educational challenge and would almost surely
result in a significant amount of misuse.
AAP stated that it is also concerned that the availability of a
manual cutoff switch will dilute the important message that ``Back Seat
is Best.'' That organization stated that although many parents feel
that they need a manual cutoff switch so that they can place an infant
in the front seat for observation, the number of children who actually
have a medical need for observation is smaller than parents realize. In
fact, AAP stated the number of such children is very small. AAP argued
that consumer concerns could better be addressed through a focused,
short-term education effort until a passive deactivation air bag system
can be implemented.
AAP stated that the transportation of children with special needs
who must be observed should be addressed on a case-by-case basis by the
child's physician. That organization stated that the vast majority of
the small number of children for whom observation may be medically
desirable can be safely transported in a car bed in the front-seat
position, which would not be affected by a passenger-side air bag. AAP
added that the duration of time that this level of observation is
necessary is usually extremely short--i.e., a few months. AAP stated
that older children with high-risk medical needs, such as children on
ventilators, usually need to be the back seat anyway, since they need
large quantities of equipment and must be accompanied by skilled care
givers at their sides.
The National Association of Children's Hospitals and Related
Institutions (NACHRI) stated that it has serious concerns with the
proposal to permit manual air bag cutoff switches for any vehicle
without a smart passenger side air bag, although it understands and
supports the existing option for vehicles in which rear facing child
seats can only be used in the front seat. That organization stated that
key public awareness campaigns are currently presenting one message as
an absolute--infants in rear facing child seats should never ride in
the front seat of a vehicle with a passenger side air bag. NACHRI
stated that while this message is only now taking hold with the public,
it questions how NHTSA would, if manual switches are permitted in all
vehicles, adjust the message without hampering the credibility of all
child passenger safety public awareness efforts. NACHRI also stated
that another message--the safest place for all children is in the back
seat--would also be seriously affected by a change in regulation on
manual cutoff switches.
NACHRI stated that it recognizes that there are a small number of
pediatric medical conditions that require close monitoring during
vehicle travel, e.g., complications of prematurity. NACHRI recommended,
however, that instead of permitting cutoff switches for all vehicles--
and addressing the resulting public education and safety issues--it may
be simpler to educate the small number of parents of medically fragile
infants to ride with another adult whenever possible or to stop the
vehicle periodically to monitor the infant.
Dr. Phyllis Kiehl of LaTouche Pediatrics stated that she strongly
encouraged the cutoff switch option for vehicles without smart air
bags, while also arguing that the introduction of smart air bags should
be mandated.
Philip O. Morton, Chairman of the Board of the American Tinnitus
Association, expressed concern about the connection between vehicle air
bag deployment and the corresponding incidence of tinnitus. Mr. Morton
urged that on/off switches be available for all vehicle air bags,
including driver air bags.
F. Other Commenters
Safe Ride News urged NHTSA to require rather than permit the use of
cutoff switches for all vehicles without smart air bags.
[[Page 803]]
A number of private individuals requested that cutoff switches be
provided. Some, including persons concerned that air bag deployment may
cause hearing problems for persons with tinnitus or hyperacusis,
requested that cutoff switches be provided for both passenger and
driver air bags.
V. Agency Decision
A. Option for Manual Cutoff Switches
NHTSA believes there is a consensus that the only fully effective
solution to the problem of adverse effects from passenger-side air bags
is smart bags. Moreover, the vehicle manufacturers have indicated that
they plan to introduce these devices as soon as they become available.
The agency is encouraged that several suppliers commenting on the
August 1996 NPRM indicated that smart bags can begin to be phased in
beginning with the model year 1999 fleet, i.e., approximately September
1, 1998. To help ensure that these devices are introduced
expeditiously, the agency plans to publish shortly a separate SNPRM to
propose performance requirements for smart air bags and to propose a
phase-in schedule for requiring these devices.
In the meantime, and after considering the comments, NHTSA has
decided to extend until September 1, 2000, the time period during which
vehicle manufacturers are permitted under Standard No. 208 to offer
manual cutoff switches for the passenger-side air bag for vehicles
without rear seats or with rear seats that are too small to accommodate
rear facing infant seats. The agency has decided not to expand the
option to additional vehicles. The reasons for the agency's decision
are presented below.
1. Time Period for Manual Cutoff Switches
The agency initially decided to place a time limit on the current
option for manual cutoff switches for passenger air bags because it
believed that better, automatic solutions would soon be available. The
option was only available for passenger cars manufactured before
September 1, 1997, and light trucks manufactured before September 1,
1998.
A variety of circumstances have changed since the agency issued its
current rule on manual cutoff switches in May 1995. First, there is
uncertainty concerning the extent to which smart air bags will be
available by September 1, 1998. As indicated above, NHTSA is encouraged
that several suppliers commenting on the August 1996 NPRM indicated
that smart bags can begin to be phased in beginning with the model year
1999 fleet, i.e., approximately September 1, 1998. However, this would
not mean that vehicle manufacturers would be able to install smart bags
on all of the models for which they would use manual cutoff switches by
that date.
Second, a consensus has emerged concerning the need to develop and
implement smart passenger air bags as soon as possible, and
manufacturers and suppliers are working toward that end. Moreover, the
agency is announcing plans to issue an SNPRM to propose performance
requirements for smart air bags and a phase-in schedule for requiring
these devices. Given these developments, the agency believes there is
less reason to have concern that the availability of an option for
manual cutoff switches will delay implementation of better solutions.
Given the importance of ensuring that the vehicle manufacturers
have a means of accommodating their customers' need to carry rear
facing infant restraints in some vehicles without rear seats or with
rear seats that are too small to accommodate these devices, NHTSA has
decided to extend the current option to September 1, 2000. While there
is some uncertainty as to how long the option needs to be extended, the
agency believes the record shows that the vehicle manufacturers should
be able to implement some type of smart air bag for these vehicles by
that time.
2. Types of Vehicles for Which Manual Cutoff Switch Option Should be
Available
As discussed above, while NHTSA initially decided to permit manual
cutoff switches to be offered only on vehicles without rear seats or
with rear seats that are too small to accommodate rear-facing child
restraints, it proposed to expand the option to cover all vehicles. As
summarized above, a variety of commenters urged that the cutoff option
be expanded to other vehicles, arguing that parents want to place their
children in the front seat and that an expanded option would provide an
interim solution to the problem of air bag deaths until smart air bags
are introduced and would provide time for the orderly introduction of
smart air bags. Proponents of wider availability of manual cutoff
switches asserted that the needs of vehicle owners for a means of
turning air bags off could be met by such switches because they provide
a means of turning off air bags in appropriate situations. Some
commenters argued that the agency should respond to those needs by
adopting a requirement that manufacturers install manual cutoff
switches in all vehicles, rather than a permissive option for
manufacturers. Some commenters also argued that this requirement should
apply to driver-side air bags as well as passenger-side air bags. One
proponent expressed the view that cutoff switches provide the most
``positive'' means of shutting of air bags.
After considering the comments, however, the agency has decided not
to expand the option to include additional vehicles. The reasons for
this decision are explained below.
The agency begins by acknowledging that, given current air bag
designs, there are situations in which there is a need or a strong
desire to turn off passenger-side air bags in vehicles with large
enough rear seats to accommodate a rear-facing child restraint. An
example of this is the situation in which a rear facing infant
restraint must be placed in the front seat so that a special medical
condition of the infant can be closely monitored. The need to turn off
passenger-side air bags by means of a manual cutoff switch or
deactivation will cease when smart air bags are introduced.
NHTSA concludes that the objective of allowing air bags to be
turned off in appropriate circumstances can best and most quickly be
met by permitting motor vehicle dealers and repair businesses to
deactivate driver and passenger-side air bags upon the request of
vehicle owners without expanding the cutoff switch option to cover
additional types of vehicles. As indicated above, the agency is issuing
a separate NPRM on the subject of deactivation. Allowing deactivation
would not only provide a means of turning off the air bags in vehicles
not covered by the cutoff option, but also in vehicles covered by the
option, but not equipped with a cutoff switch.
For those situations in which there is a need to turn off an air
bag, deactivation is just as good a solution as a cutoff switch in some
respects, and better in others. Deactivation is just as effective as a
cutoff switch for enabling parents to eliminate the risk to their
children. Parents who need to use the front passenger seat for
transporting a child can have their passenger-side air bag deactivated.
Deactivation also provides an answer to the concerns of some groups of
drivers, e.g., short-statured drivers who sit very close to the
steering wheel and drivers with tinnitus or hyperacusis, while the
agency conducts further studies.
Deactivation, accompanied by appropriate labels, can provide as
much visible assurance that an air bag has been deactivated as a cutoff
switch can. Under the agency's proposal, a vehicle
[[Page 804]]
owner would be able to readily determine if the air bag was off by
means of the labels that the agency is proposing be placed on vehicles
whose air bags have been deactivated.
Finally, just like manual cutoff switches, deactivation would solve
the immediate problem and thus buy time for the intelligent and
thoughtful introduction of smart bags. By providing a means to
eliminate the risk to children, the agency and industry will have the
opportunity to take appropriate care in completing the development of
and in introducing smart air bags.
NHTSA believes that deactivation is superior to widespread use of
cutoff switches in a number of respects. First, deactivation is a much
speedier answer to the need to turn off air bags than expanding the
option for manual cutoff switches. Significant time would be needed by
vehicle manufacturers to do the designing and retooling necessary to
install cutoff switches in future vehicles for which such work has not
already been done. More specifically, vehicle manufacturers have
advised that development and installation of cutoff switches would take
at least one year. In contrast, no redesigning or retooling is needed
for deactivation. Indeed, deactivation would be available immediately
upon the issuance of a final rule. Moreover, deactivation is the only
method for addressing vehicles already on the road, which are the bulk
of the problem. The agency notes that even if it were to require or
permit cutoffs for future vehicles, it would still have to authorize
deactivation for existing vehicles and those future vehicles built
before the switches could be installed.
Second, deactivation is a narrower and more focused solution than a
cut off switch requirement or than a cutoff switch option to which
manufacturers responded by installing cutoff switches in all or most
vehicles. Under that scenario of nearly universal installation, cutoff
switches would be provided without regard to need. By contrast,
deactivation would be sought primarily just in those circumstances in
which it is needed. This more focused aspect of deactivation would
reinforce the message that air bags are generally good, and that only
in limited circumstances is it appropriate to turn them off.
For reasons discussed by a wide range of commenters, including auto
makers, consumer groups, insurance groups, and medical groups, there is
a possibility that widespread availability of manual cutoff switches
could easily do more harm than good, in terms of overall effect on
safety. NHTSA is seeking to provide relief where needed while
minimizing, consistent with the safety of children and others, the
number of air bags that are turned off. The agency believes that the
possibility of a net adverse effect on safety is less likely with
deactivation given the expectation noted above that deactivation would
be sought primarily by persons with a particular need. Moreover, the
agency has proposed procedures that would ensure that owners who are
contemplating deactivation of their air bags are made aware of the
circumstances in which deactivation may be appropriate, based upon the
comparison of the risks of turning the air bag off versus leaving it
on. This would reduce the possibility of unnecessary or inappropriate
turning off of air bags, and should result in a better net effect on
safety.
Third, deactivation would be less costly in terms of overall
consumer costs than across-the-board provision of manual cutoff
switches. Air bags would be deactivated only in those vehicles whose
owners requested deactivation. As a result, costs would also be more
equitably distributed, since the costs would be borne by those choosing
to have their vehicles modified. Conversely, all new vehicle purchasers
would have to pay for manual switches if they were universally
installed.
NHTSA also believes that the early introduction and availability of
smart air bag technology could be aided by allowing the vehicle
manufacturers to focus their attention and resources on completing
development of that technology rather than spending additional
resources on, and otherwise being distracted by, designing manual
cutoff switches for all vehicles. In addition, there are several other
considerations that argue against diverting manufacturer efforts into
expanding the availability of cutoffs. To the extent that vehicle
manufacturers depower their air bags in the near future pursuant to
another NHTSA proposal, the potential benefits of cutoff switches would
be reduced. Further, the agency sees little point in pushing the
vehicle manufacturers toward a technology that would so quickly be made
obsolete by smart air bags.
NHTSA recognizes that deactivation would have some disadvantages as
compared to cutoff switches. One disadvantage is that deactivation of
an air bag for the benefit of one user of a particular vehicle would
make the air bag unavailable for other users of that vehicle. By
contrast, cutoff switches could be used by the various different
occupants of a vehicle to suit their own needs with respect to air bag
protection. Further, once an air bag was deactivated, a person would
have to make a greater investment of time and expense to have it
reactivated. While these disadvantages were considered by the agency in
making its decision, the agency believes they are outweighed by the
factors discussed above.
NHTSA wishes to address the suggestion by some commenters that
infants with a special medical condition can be placed in a car bed
instead of a rear facing infant seat, and that a car bed can safely be
used in front of an air bag. Given the limited information that is
available, NHTSA is not prepared to recommend placing a car bed in
front of an air bag. The agency did conduct a test in which the air bag
deployed primarily over the top of a car bed, barely contacting the
bed. However, NHTSA used an infant dummy that was not instrumented, and
thus did not obtain measurements of the potential for injury. The
agency notes that there is no available infant dummy of less than 10
pounds weight that is instrumented to make such measurements. The
agency does not know how hard the air bag impacted the bed, or what the
effect the impact would have on a four, five or ten pound infant, with
or without a medical problem. Moreover, the agency does not know the
extent to which that particular test was representative of current
vehicle seats and air bags. Finally, NHTSA notes that car beds cannot
fit on bucket seats.
B. Performance Requirements for Manual Cutoff Switches
Several commenters urged that, assuming manual cutoff switches are
permitted, various changes should be made in the requirements for those
switches and accompanying indicator lights. Volvo stated that if manual
cutoff switches are permitted, all modes of air bag activation should
be indicated, i.e., air bag on vs. air bag off. That manufacturer also
suggested that this status indication might be accompanied by symbols
showing who is the appropriate occupant in the seat for the indicated
mode and who is not. Volvo stated that manufacturers should be given
full freedom in finding a suitable location for the air bag status
indication. That company stated that it is desirable that the
indication be visible for all front seat occupants, but a provision
that requires the indication be close to the cutoff switch is
unnecessarily design restrictive. Volvo also suggested that other
options for the device used to operate the cutoff switch, i.e., other
than the ignition key, should be considered.
Nissan stated that if NHTSA expands the ability of manufacturers to
install manual air bag cutoff switches, the
[[Page 805]]
agency should make changes to Standard No. 208's current indicator
light requirements. Nissan noted that the Standard currently specifies
that if a vehicle is equipped with a single indicator for both a driver
and passenger air bag, and if the vehicle is equipped with a cutoff
device, the readiness indicator must monitor only the readiness of the
driver air bag when the passenger air bag has been deactivated by means
of the cutoff device. Nissan expressed concern that this requirement
means that the operability of the cutoff switch indicator, the cutoff
switch, and the passenger air bag cannot be diagnosed when that air bag
is deactivated by the cutoff switch. That manufacturer requested that
the current requirements be amended to allow use of a system that
continuously monitors, diagnoses and displays system status for all
components, including the driver air bag, passenger air bag, cutoff
switch and the cutoff switch indicator, if the readiness indicator does
not illuminate solely upon the action of deactivating the passenger air
bag via the cutoff switch.
Land Rover stated that if the opportunity to install cutoff
switches is expanded, additional rulemaking should be conducted to
specify the mode of operation including details about whether and under
what conditions the air bag should be automatically reactivated.
AAP stated that if NHTSA should choose to permit wider use of the
manual cutoff switch, then it recommends that a visible, audible and
non-deactivatable warning signal be required to indicate that the air
bag is on or off. NSKC stated that if the agency decides to require
manual cutoff switches, it also becomes absolutely necessary to require
some type of warning light and warning sound in the control panel of
the dashboard which informs or reminds the driver that the air bag has
been deactivated. Autoliv stated that it cannot be emphasized enough
that a clear indication of the passenger air bag mode to the driver is
crucial to the safe use of the manual cutoff switch. Autoliv suggested
that this switch could be further improved by alerting the driver about
the passenger bag mode (off or on) each time the driver turns the
ignition key on.
As discussed above, Standard No. 208 currently specifies a number
of requirements for manual cutoff switches. The manual cutoff switch
must make it necessary to use an ignition key to turn off the air bag
and to turn on the air bag by manual means. The manufacturer must also
install a warning light which is separate from the air bag readiness
indicator and which would indicate that the air bag was turned off. The
light must be visible to both the driver and passenger. The
manufacturer must include information on the manual cutoff switch in
the owner's manual.
For a number of reasons, NHTSA is reluctant to make any significant
changes in the current performance requirements for manual cutoff
switches. First, the agency has already completed a rulemaking to
determine what requirements should apply to manual cutoff switches, and
has no reason to believe that significant changes are necessary.
Second, manual cutoff switches are now being provided in a number of
vehicles, and consumers are becoming familiar with them. Some kinds of
changes in the requirements for manual cutoff switches could
potentially cause confusion. For example, Standard No. 208 currently
requires that it be necessary to use manual means to reactivate the air
bag after it has been deactivated by use of the cutoff switch.
Considerable confusion could result from a change in this requirement
such that air bags in newer vehicles reactivated automatically after
use of a cutoff switch, while air bags in older vehicles did not.
While the agency is not adding additional performance requirements,
it notes that manufacturers can voluntarily provide additional
features, such as audible signals or extra lights, as long as the
Standard's specific requirements are met.
NHTSA has concluded that there is merit to Nissan's request for a
change in Standard No. 208's current air bag indicator light
requirements. As discussed above, the Standard currently specifies that
if a vehicle is equipped with a single indicator for both a driver and
passenger air bag, and if the vehicle is equipped with a cutoff device,
the readiness indicator must monitor only the readiness of the driver
air bag when the passenger air bag has been deactivated by means of the
cutoff device. The purpose of this requirement was to ensure that
drivers would not miss a message that the driver air bag was not
functional, simply because the passenger side bag was intentionally
deactivated. The agency agrees with Nissan that this problem would not
occur in a system that continuously monitors, diagnoses and displays
system status for all components, including the driver air bag,
passenger air bag, cutoff switch and the cutoff switch indicator, so
long as the readiness indicator does not illuminate solely upon the
action of deactivating the passenger air bag via the cutoff switch.
NHTSA is therefore making a change to accommodate Nissan's suggestion.
The change provides additional flexibility and does not impose any new
requirements.
C. Effective Date
NHTSA is making today's amendments effective 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. The agency finds good cause for
this effective date. The amendments will ensure that vehicle
manufacturers can continue to have a means of accommodating their
customers' need to carry rear facing infant seats in vehicles without
rear seats or with rear seats that are too small for these devices. The
amendments do not impose any additional requirements but instead
relieve a restriction.
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning
and Review.'' This action has been determined to be ``significant''
under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and
procedures. The action is considered significant because of the degree
of public interest in this subject.
NHTSA estimates the cost of a voluntarily installed manual cutoff
switch at a little over five dollars.
A full discussion of costs and benefits can be found in the
agency's regulatory evaluation for this rulemaking action, which is
being placed in the docket.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that it will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The final rule primarily affects motor vehicle manufacturers. Almost
all motor vehicle manufacturers would not qualify as small businesses.
C. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have any
significant impact on the human environment.
[[Page 806]]
D. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
The agency has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 12612. NHTSA has
determined that this final rule does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
E. Civil Justice Reform
This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under 49
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber
products, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 571 is amended as
follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for Part 571 of Title 49 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Sec. 571.208 [Amended]
2. Section 571.208 is amended by revising S4.1.5.1(b), S4.5.2, and
S4.5.4, to read as follows:
Sec. 571.208 Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection.
* * * * *
S4.1.5.1 Front/angular automatic protection system.
* * * * *
(b) For the purposes of sections S4.1.5 through S4.1.5.3 and S4.2.6
through S4.2.6.2 of this standard, an inflatable restraint system means
an air bag that is activated in a crash.
* * * * *
S4.5.2 Readiness indicator. An occupant protection system that
deploys in the event of a crash shall have a monitoring system with a
readiness indicator. The indicator shall monitor its own readiness and
shall be clearly visible from the driver's designated seating position.
If the vehicle is equipped with a single readiness indicator for both a
driver and passenger air bag, and if the vehicle is equipped with a
cutoff device permitted by S4.5.4 of this standard, the readiness
indicator shall monitor the readiness of the driver air bag when the
passenger air bag has been deactivated by means of the cutoff device,
and shall not illuminate solely because the passenger air bag has been
deactivated by the manual cutoff switch. A list of the elements of the
system being monitored by the indicator shall be included with the
information furnished in accordance with S4.5.1 but need not be
included on the label.
* * * * *
S4.5.4 Passenger Air Bag Manual Cutoff Device.
Passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles
manufactured before September 1, 2000 may be equipped with a device
that deactivates the air bag installed at the right front passenger
position in the vehicle, if all the conditions in S4.5.4.1 through
S4.5.4.4 are satisfied.
* * * * *
Issued on December 26, 1996.
Donald C. Bischoff,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 96-33306 Filed 12-30-96; 11:00 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P