[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 19, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49756-49758]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-21218]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 03-15097; Notice 1]


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of petition.

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

SUMMARY: This notice denies a petition for rulemaking from 
DaimlerChrysler Corporation requesting that the agency amend Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant crash 
protection,'' to allow for the deactivation of passenger air bags 
through the use of certain features of the child restraint lower 
anchorages described in FMVSS No. 225, ``Child restraint anchorage 
systems.'' This was proposed both in lieu of, and in addition to, a 
manual passenger air bag on-off switch. The agency has analyzed the 
main issues surrounding the petitioner's request in the context of 
current and future air bag requirements. This notice completes agency 
rulemaking on that petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact 
Lori Summers, Office of Crashworthiness Standards. Telephone: (202) 
366-4917, Facsimile: (202) 493-2739.
    For legal issues, you may contact Rebecca MacPherson, Office of the 
Chief Counsel. Telephone: (202) 366-2992, Facsimile: (202) 366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In 1995, vehicle manufacturers were beginning to install, and would 
soon be required to install, right front passenger air bags in all 
passenger cars and light trucks. At that time, the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) believed that placing a rear 
facing child safety system (RFCSS) in the front seat of passenger air 
bag-equipped vehicles would have the potential for producing harmful 
effects. The agency's laboratory tests had shown that when RFCSSs were 
placed in the front seat of a passenger air bag-equipped vehicle, they 
extended forward to a point near the instrument panel where they could 
be struck by a deploying air bag and have the potential to cause 
serious injury to infants. This possibility was particularly acute when 
caregivers had no other choice because the rear seats of the vehicle 
were too small to accommodate the RFCSS or because the vehicle was not 
equipped with a rear seat.
    As a countermeasure to this potential safety problem, the agency 
amended FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' on May 23, 1995 
(60 FR 27333) to allow manufacturers the option of installing an on-off 
switch that motorists could use to deactivate the front passenger-side 
air bag in vehicles that have no rear seat or a rear seat too small to 
accommodate a RFCSS. A yellow telltale light was also required to 
indicate when the passenger air bag was deactivated. On January 6, 
1997, the agency published a Final Rule (62 FR 798) extending the 
allowance for on-off switches until September 1, 2000, and this was 
further extended to September 1, 2012 in the May 12, 2000 Final Rule 
regarding advanced air bag requirements (65 FR 30680).
    In addition to the manual on-off switch extension, the FMVSS No. 
208 Final Rule regarding advanced air bags added requirements for 
minimizing air bag risk to infants in RFCSS and car beds, and children 
in forward-facing child safety seats. The requirements allow 
manufacturers to meet one of two options: Option 1--Automatic 
Suppression Feature, or Option 2--Low Risk Deployment .\1\ Advanced air 
bag systems designed to meet the requirements are expected to work 
automatically. Once installed, the device should require no action on 
the part of the occupant. For example, if an automatic suppression 
system recognizes the presence of a RFCSS in the right front passenger 
seat, the air bag should automatically not deploy. We note that vehicle 
manufacturers are not restricted in their choice of technology. Unlike 
the earlier on-off switch requirements, there are no restrictions 
limiting installation of suppression systems to vehicles that have no 
rear seat or have rear seats that are too small to accommodate a RFCSS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Note: Manufacturers are required to pick a certification 
option for each of the three child occupant categories: 12-month-old 
infant, 3-year-old and 6-year-old child. The 3-year-old and 6-year-
old child categories also have a third option for dynamic automatic 
suppression.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently FMVSS No. 225, ``Child restraint anchorage systems,'' 
mandates that if a vehicle does not have an air bag on-off switch 
meeting the requirements of S4.5.4 of FMVSS No. 208, it shall not have 
a child restraint anchorage system installed at a front designated 
seating position. The on-off switch requirements in S4.5.4 of FMVSS No. 
208 specify, among other things, that the on-off device be operable by 
means of the ignition key for the vehicle.

II. DaimlerChrysler's Petition

    On November 16, 1999, DaimlerChrysler Corporation (DaimlerChrysler) 
petitioned NHTSA to amend FMVSS No. 208, to allow for the deactivation 
of passenger air bags through the use of certain features of the child 
restraint lower anchorages described in FMVSS No. 225. DaimlerChrysler 
believes the attachment should be permitted as a substitute for, or in 
addition to, a manual on-off switch.
    DaimlerChrysler stated they were considering the development of a 
system that would sense the presence of a RFCSS held in place with 
components (identified in FMVSS No. 213, ``Child restraint systems'') 
for attaching to the child restraint lower anchorages described in 
FMVSS No. 225. In addition to sensing RFCSSs, the system would also 
deactivate the passenger air bag when forward facing child safety 
systems equipped with similar components are installed in the front 
seat. According to DaimlerChrysler, air bag deactivation would be 
accomplished and assured by the act of installing the child safety 
system attachment components onto the anchorages described in FMVSS No. 
225. The attachment components would be detected by a switch actuator 
that is

[[Page 49757]]

integral with the lower anchorages. The telltale light of S4.5.4.3 of 
FMVSS No. 208 would still be required, and would be illuminated 
whenever the passenger air bag is turned off by means of the proposed 
system.

III. Analysis of Petition

    Both of the proposed amendments included in DaimlerChrysler's 
petition for rulemaking are being denied. First, DaimlerChrysler 
petitioned that FMVSS No. 208 be amended to allow the child restraint 
anchorage system attachment be permitted as a means of turning off the 
right front passenger air bag in lieu of a manual air bag on-off 
switch. However, NHTSA believes that the child restraint anchorage 
system technology proposed by DaimlerChrysler would limit the target 
population of children that may benefit from a manual air bag on-off 
switch. Using this technology, children not in child seats, or in child 
seats without appropriate child seat anchorage hardware, will not be 
able to have their air bag manually turned off, in vehicles with no 
rear seat or a rear seat too small to accommodate a RFCSS. Currently, 
air bag on-off switches have the potential for suppressing the 
passenger air bag for all children (whether they are using a child 
restraint anchorage system or not).
    DaimlerChrysler commented on the tragic circumstances that can 
occur when a caregiver neglects to manually turn ``off'' the right 
front passenger air bag. NHTSA has studied how manual passenger air bag 
on-off switches are being used and misused in the field and is 
developing new strategies on how to improve information and educational 
efforts regarding on-off switch use in current vehicles. For new 
vehicles, certified with advanced air bag technology in conjunction 
with an on-off switch, the on-off switch is largely a system redundancy 
for children. These vehicles will be able to provide the option for 
caregivers to manually turn off the passenger air bag in the presence 
of children, or, alternatively, allow the system to work in an 
automatic mode. The ``automatic'' mode would be required to minimize 
the risk of air bags to all children either through air bag suppression 
or providing a low risk deployment (depending upon a vehicle's 
certification methods), while maintaining moderate to high speed crash 
protection for adult occupants.
    Adopting DaimlerChrysler's petition could also lead to conditioning 
caregivers into assuming that once a child seat is connected to the 
child restraint anchorage system in the right front passenger seat, no 
further action is necessary on their part to suppress passenger air bag 
deployment in vehicles that are not equipped with advanced air bags. 
For example, if that other vehicle has child restraint lower anchorages 
and a manual air bag on-off switch for the right front passenger seat, 
the caregiver may not know that the air bag will not be suppressed 
unless they use the manual, key-operated on-off switch.
    DaimlerChrysler's petition acknowledged the argument that their 
system could encourage the placement of toddlers in child restraint 
systems equipped with FMVSS No. 225 lower anchorage attachments in the 
front rather than appropriate rear seating positions. However, they 
dismissed its significance by stating they believe the toddler has the 
advantage of the improved child restraint system. However, as 
previously discussed, this improved child restraint system would only 
apply to children in child seats equipped with lower anchorage 
attachments, not other children. Additionally, this system could be 
susceptible to mis-use if the lower anchorages are only partially 
engaged. DaimlerChrysler's petition did not address risks associated 
with partial engagement.
    More recently, DaimlerChrysler demonstrated a new stowable/foldable 
lower anchorage deactivation system that is also applicable to this 
petition.\2\ In this design, the lower anchorages, and air bag 
deactivation feature, would only be accessible for child restraint 
attachment when the vehicle seat was placed in a certain seat track 
position. For example, the vehicle manufacturer could designate the 
most rearward seat track position to be the sole location where the 
stowable/foldable lower anchorages are made available. However, NHTSA 
believes that this technology, like the non-stowable/foldable type 
previously discussed, would not be applicable to the same target 
population as an on-off switch. Furthermore, even for the sub-
population of children in child seats with lower anchorage hardware, we 
believe the stowable/foldable lower anchorage deactivation system 
provides little advantage over a switch since it still requires two 
actions by the caregiver. First, it requires activation of a switch to 
position the vehicle seat and make the anchorages accessible, followed 
by a second action of attaching the child restraint system to the lower 
anchorage. In addition, the stowable/foldable lower anchorage 
deactivation system has the potential of being defeated if the single 
seat track position, which provides the lower anchorages, is obstructed 
from use (i.e., due to cargo in the rear).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Exparte meeting with DaimlerChrysler, NHTSA-03-15097.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DaimlerChrysler alternatively proposed that NHTSA could consider 
their child restraint anchorage technology in conjunction with an air 
bag on-off switch system. NHTSA notes that FMVSS No. 208 does not 
prohibit the use of such technologies. While this technology alone will 
not be enough for certification with the advanced air bag requirements, 
it can be used to supplement the technologies that will be used for 
certification. For the interim fleet of vehicles that are being 
produced between now and the completion of the advanced air bag phase-
in, NHTSA has never prohibited such systems. Furthermore, 
DaimlerChrysler's petition is very technology-specific to the child 
restraint lower anchorages, and would not encompass the broad range of 
other advanced technologies that could likely demonstrate the same air 
bag suppression capabilities and seek the same interim classification 
as an on-off switch. Therefore, NHTSA is denying DaimlerChrysler's 
petition for a rulemaking proceeding addressing vehicles produced in 
the interim.

IV. Conclusion

    NHTSA's educational campaigns have strongly encouraged caregivers 
to place children in the rear seat of vehicles, and FMVSS No. 225 
currently prohibits the installation of child restraint anchorage 
systems in the front seat of vehicles unless an on-off switch is 
present. NHTSA believes that the child restraint anchorage system 
technology proposed by DaimlerChrysler would limit the target 
population of children that may benefit from a manual air bag on-off 
switch. Using this technology, children not in child seats, or in child 
seats without appropriate child seat anchorage hardware, will not be 
able to have their air bag manually turned off, in vehicles with no 
rear seat or a rear seat too small to accommodate a RFCSS. 
Consequently, NHTSA is denying this petition for rulemaking. We are 
also denying DaimlerChrysler's alternative proposal to consider their 
child restraint anchorage technology in conjunction with an air bag on-
off switch system since FMVSS No. 208 does not prohibit the use of such 
technologies.
    In accordance with 49 CFR Part 552, this completes the agency's 
review of the petition for rulemaking. The agency has concluded that 
there is no reasonable possibility that the amendments requested by the 
petitioner would be issued at the conclusion of the rulemaking 
proceeding. Accordingly,

[[Page 49758]]

rulemaking on the petition is completed.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30103, 30162; delegation of authority at 49 
CFR 1.50 and 501.8

    Issued on: August 13, 2003.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 03-21218 Filed 8-18-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P