[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 17, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76035-76064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20651]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 595

[Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0046]
RIN 2127-AL64


Make Inoperative Exemptions; Retrofit Air Bag On-Off Switches and 
Air Bag Deactivations

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

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes amendments to the 
requirements and processes for individuals to request that the agency 
permit them to have an air bag on-off switch installed in their 
vehicle. The proposed amendments would eliminate the sunset date, and 
would also narrow the population of people eligible to have an on-off 
switch installed. Furthermore, the agency also proposes amendments to 
several appendices, and proposes the addition of a new appendix. 
Lastly, this NPRM proposes that NHTSA codify its process for reviewing 
requests for air bag deactivations, which are currently granted or 
denied through the agency's enforcement discretion. In this document, 
NHTSA solicits feedback from the public to better inform the agency's 
decision-making on the proposed amendments.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to be received not 
later than November 18, 2024.
    Proposed effective date: We propose that the effective date for the 
amendments in this rulemaking action would be immediately after the 
date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in 
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    <bullet> Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    <bullet> Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West 
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. EST, 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    <bullet> Fax: (202) 493-2251.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this 
rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without 
change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided. (For more details, please see the Privacy Act 
discussion below.) We will consider all comments received before the 
close of business on the comment closing date indicated above. To the 
extent possible, we will also consider comments filed after the closing 
date.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov at any time or to 
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 
20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
Holidays. Telephone: (202) 366-9826.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000, (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
https://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any 
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three 
copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim 
to be confidential

[[Page 76036]]

business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should submit 
two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above. 
When you send a comment containing information claimed to be 
confidential business information, you should include a cover letter 
setting forth the information specified in our confidential business 
information regulation (49 CFR part 512).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact 
Ms. Carla Rush, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, Telephone: (202) 
366-4583, Facsimile: (202) 493-2739. For legal issues, you may contact 
Mr. Matthew Filpi, Office of the Chief Counsel, Telephone: (202) 366-
2992, Facsimile: (202) 366-3820. The mailing address of these officials 
is: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
    A. Regulatory History of Air Bag On-Off Switches and 
Deactivation
    B. Background on Advanced Air Bag Systems
    C. Current Part 595 Subpart B Requirements and Procedures for 
Obtaining Exemptions for Retrofit On-Off Switches
    D. Air Bag Deactivations
III. Proposed Amendments
    A. Removal of the Sunset Date Provision for Retrofit Air Bag On-
Off Switches
    B. Adjustment of Criteria for At-Risk Occupants To Obtain a 
Retrofit Air Bag On-Off Switch for Vehicles Equipped With Advanced 
Air Bags
    i. Exemptions for Infants in Rear-Facing Child Restraint Systems 
Who Must Be Transported in the Front Passenger Seat
    ii. Exemptions for Children Ages 1 to 12 Who Must Be Transported 
in the Front Passenger Seat
    C. Requests for Air Bag Deactivations (General Public)
    D. Exemptions for Law Enforcement and Emergency Vehicles
    i. On-Off Switches
    ii. Deactivations
    E. Update of Information Brochure
IV. Estimates of Benefits and Costs
V. Proposed Effective Date
VI. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
VII. Public Participation

I. Executive Summary

    Since the late 1990s, NHTSA has permitted, under certain 
circumstances, both manufacturers and repair shops to install switches 
in motor vehicles that allow the occupant to turn on and off the 
vehicle's air bag system. This installation would typically be a 
violation of the ``make inoperative'' provision of the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, but NHTSA added an express exemption to 
that provision for air bags because of the threat of injury that early 
air bag systems posed to children and smaller statured occupants. This 
exemption--49 CFR part 595 subpart B--outlines the process by which an 
individual can petition the agency for an air bag on-off switch to be 
installed in their vehicle.
    NHTSA has stated repeatedly since creating part 595 subpart B that 
the solution to the dangers posed by early air bag systems was advanced 
air bag systems that could adapt or suppress their deployment based on 
the vehicle occupant. Accordingly, NHTSA has repeatedly put a sunset 
date on the on-off switch provision, with the most recent sunset date 
in 2015. Since then, NHTSA has continued to use its enforcement 
discretion to grant requests for air bag on-off switches. The agency 
has also used its enforcement discretion to grant air bag system 
deactivation in special circumstances, even though the Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) do not currently provide a formal 
process for requesting deactivation. This NPRM proposes several updates 
to part 595 to take into account the continued development and 
effectiveness of advanced air bag systems. Additionally, the NPRM 
proposes codifying the process by which individuals may petition the 
agency for air bag deactivation in special circumstances. The agency 
seeks public comment on the proposals listed below.

II. Background

A. Regulatory History of Air Bag On-Off Switches and Deactivation

    To prevent or mitigate the risk of injuries or fatalities in 
frontal crashes, FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection,\1\ requires 
that passenger vehicles be equipped with seat belts and frontal air 
bags. Although FMVSS No. 208 did not require frontal air bags on 
passenger cars until model year (MY) 1998 and on multipurpose passenger 
vehicles and light trucks until MY 1999, air bags were already in 
widespread use by the early 1990s. These early-generation air bags were 
highly effective in protecting occupants in frontal crashes, but caused 
a number of fatalities to certain occupants who were especially 
vulnerable to air bag-related risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 CFR 571.208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has long maintained that the long-term solution to the 
problem of air bag-related injuries to these at-risk populations was 
the development and widespread implementation of advanced air bag 
systems, which could sense the kind of occupant seated and adjust 
deployment to protect at-risk passengers. However, during the 1990s, 
when air bag-related injuries and fatalities emerged as a safety 
problem, advanced air bags were still a nascent technology.\2\ To 
provide time for the development and dissemination of advanced air bag 
systems into new vehicle production, and to address safety concerns 
posed by pre-advanced air bags in vehicles already on the road, NHTSA 
implemented an array of interim measures designed to protect those 
passengers most susceptible to air bag-related injuries. These measures 
focused both on behavioral changes (e.g., consumer education on the 
importance of seat belts and on putting children in rear seating 
positions) and relatively modest technological changes (e.g., amending 
FMVSS No. 208 to temporarily allow for depowered air bags and 
permitting installation of on/off switches).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ An advanced air bag senses or responds to differences in 
crash severity, occupant size or the position of the occupant 
relative to the air bag at the time of a crash. NHTSA amended FMVSS 
No. 208 in 2000 to require advanced air bags at the front outboard 
seats in new passenger vehicles and light trucks, implementing the 
requirement on a two-stage phase-in schedule (May 12, 2000 final 
rule, 65 FR 30679). Per FMVSS No. 208, currently all new passenger 
vehicles and light trucks sold in the United States must meet the 
advanced air bag requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consumer Education Efforts
    A particular focus of these measures was efforts to protect 
children from air bag related injuries and fatalities. Early data 
indicated that children were at a significant risk of harm from air 
bags. The data indicated that children who were either seated in child 
restraint systems (CRS) \3\ or seated without CRSs were at risk of 
serious injury or death when seated in a position with a frontal air 
bag. Because of the agency's significant concern for the safety of 
children, NHTSA took multiple actions throughout the 1990s to protect 
children from potential harm from air bags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Child Restraint Systems refers to devices such as rear-
facing child seats, forward-facing child seats, and booster seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the agency began providing CRS recommendations informing 
caretakers how and where they should equip child restraints in a 
vehicle. NHTSA's recommendation has always been to install CRSs in the 
back seat of vehicles.

[[Page 76037]]

Furthermore, there are different CRSs for children of different ages. 
NHTSA recommends that from birth to 12-months old a child should be 
secured in a rear-facing CRS. From 1 year old to 3 years old NHTSA 
recommends keeping a child in a rear facing seat for as long as 
possible--the child's height and weight will determine when they should 
be moved to a forward-facing CRS. From 4 years old to 7 years old NHTSA 
recommends keeping a child in a forward-facing CRS until they exceed 
the weight and height maximums for the respective seat. Once a child 
outgrows the forward-facing seat NHTSA recommends children be belted 
using the traditional seat belt, but with the use to a booster seat; 
children should remain in a booster seat until they are tall enough to 
fit in a seat belt properly without the assistance of a booster seat. 
NHTSA recommends that the child be belted in the back seat of a vehicle 
for all of these different stages.
    Second, the agency made several recommendations and took several 
actions to ensure children seated in the front were protected from air 
bags.\4\ Early on, the agency primarily encouraged behavioral changes 
from owners of vehicles with air bags. For example, in the early 1990s, 
agency testing showed that using a rear-facing child restraint in the 
front seat of a vehicle where frontal air bags were active presented a 
significant risk to child occupants. In December 1991 the agency issued 
a Consumer Advisory warning owners of rear-facing child restraints to 
not use such devices in the front seat of a vehicle equipped with a 
passenger air bag. Throughout the 1990s, NHTSA released several 
additional News Releases on this issue. NHTSA also took regulatory 
action on this issue in 1993, when it issued a final rule which, in 
part, required that vehicles equipped with air bags include labels on 
sun visors providing specific cautions, including a statement not to 
install rearward-facing child seats in front passenger positions. The 
agency took further regulatory action in 1994, when it required rear-
facing child restraints manufactured on or after August 15, 1994, to 
include a warning against using the restraint in any vehicle seating 
position equipped with an air bag.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For a detailed history of all actions NHTSA took before the 
1997 final rule allowing for retrofit air bag on-off switches, see 
61 FR 40784, 40787-88, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; 
Occupant Crash Protection (July 26, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the agency took a number of other communication-based 
actions to improve safety outcomes relating to children and air bags. 
On October 27, 1995, after several fatalities to children seated in air 
bag-equipped seating positions, NHTSA issued a warning in a press 
release, ``SAFETY AGENCY ISSUES WARNING ON AIR BAG DANGER TO 
CHILDREN.'' In the press release, the agency warned that children 
sitting in air bag-equipped seating positions not restrained by a seat 
belt could be seriously injured or killed by an air bag. The release 
also stated in very strong terms that parents should ensure their 
children are belted in the back seat of a vehicle whenever possible. 
During the late 1990s, the agency also published several articles in 
widely circulated journals and periodicals on the dangers air bags pose 
to children. NHTSA has continued this education campaign by publishing 
information on the NHTSA website on the dangers air bags pose to 
children.
    In addition to these efforts to protect children, NHTSA also 
considered that certain adult passengers were at risk from air bag 
systems. As described in the paragraphs above, many of the agency's 
attempts to both educate the public and improve vehicle technology 
countermeasures to increase the safety outcomes of early air bag 
systems were focused on children. The agency has also acknowledged in 
both informal guidance as well as previous rulemakings that certain 
adults may also be at risk of serious injury from air bag systems. For 
example, certain smaller-statured individuals may have to sit closer to 
the steering wheel to reach the foot pedals, which may put them at 
increased risk of injury if an air bag were to deploy. NHTSA's website 
recommends that individuals sit at least 10 inches away from the 
steering wheel to reduce the risk of injury from air bag deployment.\5\ 
Accordingly, individuals who must sit closer than 10 inches to the 
steering wheel to reach the pedals may need to have an air bag on-off 
switch installed. The 1997 final rule that allowed for air bag on-off 
switches to be installed (discussed below) explicitly discussed 
specific situations where adult passengers (including adult drivers) 
may need an on-off switch installed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/older-drivers/driving-safely-while-
aging-
gracefully#:~:text=Sit%20at%20least%20ten%20inches,to%20always%20wear
%20your%20seatbelt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vehicle Technology Countermeasures
    Although NHTSA recommended (and continues to recommend) that 
children be placed in a rear seating position and that adults sit 10 
inches or more away from the steering wheel, the agency recognized 
early on that there were instances where this guidance would not be 
helpful. For example, certain vehicles don't have rear seats and 
certain adults can't sit more than 10 inches from the steering wheel 
without their feet reaching the foot pedals. When the agency first 
considered taking action to improve vehicle technology countermeasures 
in the mid-1990s to ensure children and shorter statured adults were 
protected from potential harm from air bags, advanced air bag systems 
were still a nascent technology. Starting in 1995, NHTSA began 
facilitating a few different types of vehicle technology 
countermeasures: original equipment on-off switches, retrofit on-off 
switches, and air bag deactivations.
    Original Equipment On-Off Switches. In 1995, NHTSA for the first 
time promulgated a final rule that allowed manufacturers the option of 
installing a manual device that motorists could use to deactivate the 
front passenger-side air bag in vehicles in which infant restraints 
could only be used in the front seat. This final rule was the first 
instance in which the agency allowed an original equipment manufacturer 
(OEM) to install an air bag on-off switch, but the scenario in which 
the OEM on-off switch could be installed was very narrow and left up to 
the discretion of the OEM.\6\ Because on-off switches were intended 
only as a temporary measure, the agency sunset this provision. The 
provision sunset on September 1, 2012.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ FMVSS 208 S4.5.4.
    \7\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Retrofit on-off switches. In 1997, NHTSA published another final 
rule addressing air bag on-off switches.\8\ This rule broadened the 
1995 final rule that had been extended in 1997, and focused on more 
than just children needing protections from on-off switches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 62 FR 62406.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), 
49 U.S.C. 30122, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, 
or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly make inoperative any 
part of a device or element of design installed or in a motor vehicle 
or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor 
vehicle safety standard. This provision is commonly referred to as the 
``make inoperative'' provision of the Safety Act. Because of this 
provision, unless NHTSA explicitly exempts a manufacturer, distributor, 
dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business from this 
requirement, those entities cannot knowingly make a compliant motor 
vehicle or motor vehicle part inoperative. In other words,

[[Page 76038]]

without an explicit exemption from this requirement, the entities 
listed above could not knowingly make air bags inoperative, because 
they would be making a FMVSS No. 208 compliant motor vehicle part 
inoperative.
    Among additional details discussed below, the most notable action 
the 1997 final rule \9\ took was creating an explicit exemption for 
motor vehicle dealers and repair businesses from the make inoperative 
provision of the Safety Act. This exemption permitted on-off switches 
to be installed not just in new vehicles but also to be retrofitted 
into vehicles that had already been sold. It also meant that an 
additional entity--motor vehicle repair businesses--could now install 
on-off switches. Thus, NHTSA's regulations, at that point, allowed for 
two different types of on-off switches: (1) original equipment air bag 
switches, installed as original equipment on a vehicle before the 
vehicle was sold other than for resale; and (2) retrofit air bag 
switches, installed after the vehicle had been produced and sold to the 
consumer. Because retrofit air bag switches are installed after 
purchase of a vehicle, the onus is on the vehicle owner to decide if 
they would like an on-off switch installed. However, as discussed 
below, air bags generally improve safety outcomes significantly for 
most individuals involved in crashes. So instead of leaving the 
decision up to the individual whether an on-off switch would produce a 
beneficial safety outcome for a specific individual, the 1997 final 
rule created a process by which individuals could submit a request to 
NHTSA for an air bag on-off switch, and if approved, the individual 
could then have one installed. That process is discussed in more detail 
in Section II.C. As with original equipment on-off switches, the part 
595 exemption for retrofit on-off switches was subject to a sunset 
provision; this exemption expired on September 1, 2015.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 62 FR 62406.
    \10\ 49 CFR 595.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Air bag deactivations. Although air bag on-off switches were an 
effective solution to protect individuals who may be vulnerable to air 
bag systems, there are certain scenarios where on-off switches cannot 
be installed in a vehicle. In situations where an on-off switch cannot 
be installed, the 1997 final rule outlined that NHTSA would continue to 
use its enforcement discretion to allow air bag deactivation. The key 
distinction between an air bag switch and air bag deactivation is that 
the vehicle operator can turn the air bag system on or off with a 
switch, whereas once a repair shop or manufacturer deactivates an air 
bag system, the vehicle operator cannot turn the system back on. NHTSA 
has not codified a process for individuals to request an air bag system 
deactivation.

B. Background on Advanced Air Bag Systems

    As discussed in the section above, early air bag technology 
presented several safety risks to both children and smaller-statured 
individuals. The agency has repeatedly expressed that the solution to 
the dangers from early air bag technology was to develop advanced air 
bag technology. This belief is also reflected in the sunset dates for 
air bag on-off switches. FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, 
requires that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in the 
United States meet certain minimum performance criteria for protecting 
vehicle occupants during and after a collision. ``Advanced air bag 
requirements'' is a term used to refer collectively to a subset of 
these requirements that was added to FMVSS No. 208 as part of a May 12, 
2000, final rule to protect children and other at-risk occupants from 
air bag-related injury. The advanced air bag requirements became fully 
phased-in on September 1, 2010.
    Under the advanced air bag requirements, both the driver-side and 
passenger-side frontal air bag system must pass several barrier crash 
tests using 50th percentile adult male and 5th percentile adult female 
dummies in both belted and unbelted conditions (the tests require 
various test speeds, test conditions, and dummy placement).\11\ These 
tests must be performed at both the driver and right front passenger 
seating positions. In addition to barrier tests (which are designed to 
protect the adult-sized population at-large), passenger-side advanced 
air bag systems must also meet several requirements that are intended 
to protect children. Specifically, passenger-side frontal air bag 
systems must alter their deployment in the presence of three child-
sized test dummies--representing a 12-month-old, a 3-year-old, and a 6-
year-old--in multiple positions, both with and without the child 
restraints specified in Appendix A-1 of FMVSS No. 208. Unlike the 
barrier tests described above, the tests for deployment in the presence 
of children are static tests conducted in a stationary setting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ S5.1.1(b)(2), S5.1.2(b), S14.5.2, S15.1, S14.5.1(b), 
S16.1(b), S17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirements and static tests related to child and smaller-
statured occupants may be met using one of three strategies: 
suppression, low risk deployment (LRD), or a dynamic automatic 
suppression system (DASS). Suppression-based advanced air bag systems 
will suppress (i.e., not deploy) the passenger air bag in a crash if 
the system senses a child in a rear-facing CRS, a child in a forward-
facing CRS, or a child not in a CRS but who is below a certain size or 
is out of position in the passenger seat. LRD-based advanced air bag 
systems will deploy the passenger air bag in all of these situations, 
but will do so in a low-risk manner that does not exceed certain injury 
assessment reference values for children.\12\ DASS-based advanced air 
bag systems dynamically suppress air bag deployment during a crash by 
sensing and interpreting the occupant characteristics and/or locations 
of occupants in relation to the air bag.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Compare S19.2, S21.1, & S23.2 with S19.3, S21.4, & S23.4.
    \13\ Unlike suppression and LRD, FMVSS No. 208 contains no 
predefined test procedure associated with the DASS option. A 
manufacturer wishing to use DASS must petition the agency for an 
expedited rulemaking under subpart B of part 552. No manufacturer 
has ever successfully petitioned the agency for this option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Manufacturers are not required to use the same option for all three 
child dummy sizes. Currently, all vehicles equipped with advanced air 
bags use either ``conventional'' (i.e., non-DASS) suppression or LRD to 
meet advanced air bag requirements, with the vast majority of 
manufacturers choosing suppression.\14\ For the remainder of the 
discussion, unless indicated otherwise, ``suppression'' systems are 
conventional, non-DASS systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Based on model year 2023 compliance data, the agency 
estimates that 5 percent of the fleet chooses the LRD option for all 
required performance tests with child-sized dummies. The remaining 
vehicles use conventional suppression for all required performance 
tests with child-sized dummies or a combination of suppression and 
LRD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Data collected by NHTSA indicate that advanced air bags 
substantially reduce the risk of air bag-related injuries to children 
and smaller statured adults. In 1997, when air bag-related fatalities 
peaked in the era before advanced air bags were introduced, there were 
52 air bag-related fatalities, 31 of which were children. Since the 
introduction of advanced air bags, air bag-related fatalities have 
declined significantly, and in fact there have been no confirmed air 
bag-related fatalities among children in vehicles equipped with 
certified advanced air bags.\15\

[[Page 76039]]

Although it is likely that much of this reduction can be attributed to 
child safety initiatives (i.e., air bag warning label requirements, 
changes to State laws, greater enforcement of those laws, and publicity 
campaigns) that have encouraged parents and caregivers to move children 
12 and younger from the front seat to the rear seat of vehicles, the 
agency nonetheless believes that the complete absence of air bag-
related fatalities in children over the last several years demonstrates 
that advanced air bags provide a crucial safety countermeasure backstop 
for situations in which children are placed in the front passenger 
seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ ``Counts of Frontal Air Bag Related Fatalities and 
Seriously Injured Persons,'' Special Crash Investigations, DOT HS 
811 104, January 2009. The agency continues to monitor this issue 
and has not identified any new cases of air bag-related fatalities 
in advanced air bag compliant vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Current Part 595 Subpart B Requirements and Procedures for Obtaining 
Exemptions for Retrofit On-Off Switches

    The 1997 final rule created part 595 subpart B. Subpart B sets out 
several requirements for vehicle owners who want to request a retrofit 
on-off switch. Specifically, it identifies five situations in which the 
agency will authorize on-off switches:
    <bullet> Medical condition: The driver has a medical condition and 
a doctor indicates that an air bag would pose a special risk of harm to 
that person and the risk of harm outweighs the risk of the passenger 
hitting the steering wheel or windshield in a crash;
    <bullet> Distance from driver air bag: Despite taking all 
reasonable steps to move back from the driver air bag, the driver is 
not able to maintain a 10-inch distance from the center of his or her 
breastbone to the center of the driver air bag cover;
    <bullet> Infant: An infant (less than 1 year old) must ride in the 
front seat because the vehicle has no rear seat, the vehicle's rear 
seat is too small to accommodate a rear-facing infant seat, or the 
infant has a medical condition that makes it necessary for the infant 
to ride in the front seat so the driver can monitor the infant;
    <bullet> Child Age 1 to 12: A child age 1 to 12 must ride in the 
front seat because the vehicle has no rear seat, children ages 1 to 12 
must ride in the front seat of the vehicle because no space is 
available in the rear seat, or the child has a medical condition that 
makes it necessary for the child to ride in the front seat so the 
driver can monitor the child.
    These criteria were consistent with the general rationale of the 
1997 final rule, as advanced air bag technology was still in the early 
stages of development. As discussed previously, the agency created the 
part 595 petition as a temporary measure to ensure vulnerable 
passengers were protected from potential harm from air bag systems. It 
was intended to be a temporary measure as advanced air bag technologies 
developed. Accordingly, the provision sunset in 2015.
    Subpart B of part 595 sets out the specific steps that a vehicle 
owner/installation technician must follow to obtain an exemption for an 
on-off switch.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 49 CFR 595.5, Appendix A Information Brochure, Appendix B 
Request Form, Appendix C Installation of Air Bag On-Off Switches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If an individual wants an on-off switch installed in their vehicle, 
they must fill out the request form that can be found in appendix B to 
part 595. The first portion of this form provides instructions to 
individuals seeking the installation of an on-off switch, and part of 
these instructions directs the vehicle owner or lessee to read NHTSA's 
information brochure on air bag on-off switches, which can be found in 
appendix A to part 595. After reviewing the brochure, if the vehicle 
owner/lessee is still interested in having an air bag on-off switch 
installed, the vehicle owner/lessee then fills the request form out, 
including an indication of which air bags (passenger or driver) they 
would like the on-off switch for. The request form includes a list of 
the eligibility criteria NHTSA deemed acceptable for a retrofit on-off 
switch in the 1997 final rule with a check box next to each 
justification. A list of these eligibility criteria is also included in 
the safety brochure (appendix A to part 595). The applicant must check 
which justification they are requesting an on-off switch under as part 
of completing the request form. After completing the request form, the 
owner/lessee mails the form to NHTSA. NHTSA then reviews the request 
form and determines whether the owner/lessee should be granted their 
request to have an on-off switch installed. If NHTSA determines the 
information provided in the request is sufficient, the agency notifies 
the individual if the request is granted or denied in writing. If the 
request is missing information, the agency will request the necessary 
information from the requestor. In addition to the signed form, NHTSA 
also sends the installation form (appendix C to part 595) (to be filled 
out by the manufacturer or repair shop).
    The manufacturer or repair shop has several obligations that it 
must also comply with under part 595. These include ensuring a telltale 
light is installed and operating that indicates when the air bag switch 
is in the ``off'' mode and providing the owner/lessee of the vehicle 
with an insert for the vehicle owner's manual that describes the 
operation of the switch, explains the at-risk groups set forth in 
Appendix B, and indicates that the on-off switch should only be used in 
the ``off'' mode if one of the at-risk groups is present in the 
relevant seat. The manufacturer or repair shop must also fill out the 
installation form that can be found in appendix C to part 595 and 
return it to NHTSA within seven (7) days of installation.

D. Air Bag Deactivations

    As noted earlier, while part 595 does not provide for air bag 
deactivations, NHTSA has been considering requests for air bag 
deactivations on a case-by-case basis using its enforcement discretion. 
Under the existing process, vehicle owners who would like to have their 
air bag system (or part of the system) deactivated must submit their 
request in a letter to NHTSA with a detailed explanation for why 
deactivation is necessary. This letter must include information such as 
the subject vehicle's make, model, and vehicle identification number. 
In addition, requests based on certain medical conditions other than 
those for which the National Conference on Medical Indications for Air 
Bag Deactivation has recommended air bag deactivation must be 
accompanied by a physician statement.\17\ This statement must indicate 
the particular medical condition of the patient, as well as the 
physician's judgment that the condition causes air bags to pose a 
special risk to that person, and that the condition makes the potential 
harm to the person from contacting an air bag in a crash greater than 
the potential harm from turning off the air bag.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ At the request of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, the Ronald Reagan Institute of Emergency Medicine, 
with the assistance of the National Crash Analysis Center (NCAC), 
both of The George Washington University (GW), convened an expert 
panel of physicians to formulate recommendations on specific medical 
indications for air bag deactivation.

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

[[Page 76040]]

    Once NHTSA reviews the deactivation request letter, it notifies the 
requestor in writing of its decision to either grant or deny the 
request. If NHTSA denies the request, it explains the basis for the 
denial; if the reason for the denial was a lack of information, the 
request may be resubmitted with the necessary information. If NHTSA 
grants the request, it provides the requestor with an authorization 
letter, a copy of the information brochure contained in appendix A to 
part 595, labels to be attached to the vehicle interior for alerting 
vehicle users about the deactivated air bag(s), and a form to be filled 
out and mailed back to the agency regarding the deactivation. The 
recipient can then take the authorization letter to a car dealer or a 
motor vehicle repair business to have their vehicle's air bag 
deactivated.

III. Proposed Amendments

    The changes proposed in this document would revise NHTSA's policies 
and procedures regarding retrofit on-off switches and deactivations to 
account for the benefits of advanced air bags. Over the last two and a 
half decades, NHTSA has repeatedly stated in multiple rulemaking 
notices that its regulations permitting air bag on-off switches and 
deactivations were intended to be temporary. During the 1990s, NHTSA's 
primary reason for allowing air bag on-off switches and deactivations 
was to provide time for manufacturers to develop advanced air bag 
technology. NHTSA also continued allowing air bag on-off switches and 
deactivations even after the phase-in of advanced air bag requirements 
to promote public acceptance of the technology and to give the agency 
time to study advanced air bags in real-world situations before making 
long-term policy decisions regarding the continued need for air bag on-
off switches and deactivations.
    This rulemaking would complete NHTSA's evaluation of current 
advanced air bag efficacy and the need for on-off switches and 
deactivations. Unlike our previous rulemakings in this area, the 
changes proposed in this document are not intended to be interim 
solutions. Rather, they represent NHTSA's conclusions regarding the 
need for air bag switches and deactivations as it exists for the 
foreseeable future. NHTSA considered several factors in crafting the 
proposed amendments in this NPRM, including the interest in and need 
for retrofit air bag on-off switches and air bag deactivations, the 
degree to which advanced air bags mitigate the risk of air bag-related 
injuries, and the safety benefits of advanced air bags relative to 
retrofit on-off switches and deactivations.
    Furthermore, the changes proposed in the following sections will 
improve motor vehicle safety. As discussed above, data indicate that 
advanced air bag systems significantly improve safety outcomes for most 
vehicle occupants. NHTSA acknowledges that certain individuals have the 
potential to be harmed by air bags, primarily because of their stature; 
however, advancements in air bag suppression technology have resulted 
in most air bag suppression systems protecting smaller stature 
occupants without needing an air bag on-off switch. Retrofit on-off 
switches can be misused by consumers because they may forget to set the 
switch to the position appropriate for the passenger occupying the 
seat. By narrowing the eligibility criteria for obtaining an air bag 
on-off switch to only include groups that are at heightened risk of air 
bag-related injuries even with advanced air bag systems, the proposed 
rule would result in fewer installations of unnecessary retrofit 
switches. By eliminating the sunset date provision, the proposed rule 
would increase NHTSA's regulatory flexibility to allow the installation 
of retrofit air bag on-off switches to serve at-risk groups, regardless 
of when their vehicles were manufactured. In addition, the proposed 
rule improves overall agency transparency and public accountability by 
articulating and codifying NHTSA's processes for approving requests for 
retrofit air bag on-off switches and, if necessary, for air bag 
deactivation, when warranted by a safety need.
    As the 1997 final rule indicates, the part 595 petition process has 
always focused on weighing the safety benefits that air bags provide 
vis-[agrave]-vis the potential harm that air bag systems can do to at-
risk populations.\18\ The development and widespread use of advanced 
air bag systems has significantly altered this calculus, which is why 
the agency is proposing changes to part 595's substantive requirements 
as part of this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 62 FR 62406.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Removal of the Sunset Date Provision for Retrofit Air Bag On-Off 
Switches

    This rulemaking would remove from part 595 subpart B the language 
limiting the installation of retrofit air bag on-off switches to 
vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2015. As noted above, when 
NHTSA authorized air bag on-off switches in past rulemakings, the 
agency imposed a sunset date for their availability because it believed 
that advanced air bags would largely obviate the need for manual air 
bag on-off switches. NHTSA tried to set these sunset dates far enough 
in the future to provide sufficient time both for manufacturers to 
develop advanced air bags and for the agency to assess advanced air 
bags' effect on safety.
    NHTSA has determined that, even with advanced air bags, there is 
and will be a continuing need for retrofit air bag on-off switches for 
the foreseeable future for at least some at-risk segments of the 
population. There is a small segment of the vehicle occupant population 
(e.g., those that meet our new eligibility criteria to obtain a 
retrofit air bag on-off switch, which are discussed below) to whom 
current frontal air bags pose a risk that outweighs a safety benefit, 
and whose risk characteristics are such that they cannot necessarily be 
detected or mitigated by current advanced air bag technology. Because 
the risks to this population are not addressed by advanced air bags, we 
tentatively believe that it would be safer in some instances for air 
bags to be suppressed by a manually operated air bag on-off switch than 
to deploy as designed. This population will likely need the continued 
availability of retrofit air bag on-off switches for the indefinite 
future, so NHTSA proposes to remove the sunset date of September 1, 
2015, and to continue allowing retrofit air bag on-off switches for 
certain at-risk populations until further notice.
    Comments are requested on this proposal.

B. Adjustment of Criteria for At-Risk Occupants To Obtain a Retrofit 
Air Bag On-Off Switch for Vehicles Equipped With Advanced Air Bags

    This rulemaking proposes to amend the eligibility criteria for 
owners and users of vehicles equipped with advanced air bags to obtain 
a retrofit air bag on-off switch under part 595 subpart B. We believe 
that advanced air bags have sufficiently addressed the safety concerns 
of some of the groups that were previously deemed at-risk for air bag-
related injuries at the time that Part 595 subpart B was established. 
This rulemaking would narrow the eligibility requirements for obtaining 
a retrofit air bag on-off switch under part 595 subpart B such that 
these groups would not all qualify for an air bag on-off switch on 
vehicles equipped with advanced air bags. The proposed amendments 
specifically relate to the categories concerning infants in rear-facing 
CRSs and children ages 1 to 12 who must be transported in the front 
passenger seat. Below we discuss each in turn.

[[Page 76041]]

i. Exemptions for Infants in Rear-Facing Child Restraint Systems Who 
Must Be Transported in the Front Passenger Seat
1. Vehicles Certified to the Suppression-Based Compliance Option Would 
No Longer Be Eligible for an Exemption
    This NPRM distinguishes between vehicles meeting the advanced air 
bag requirements by way of suppression versus via a low-risk deployment 
option. Under this NPRM, vehicles certified to meet the advanced air 
bag requirements for children in rear-facing CRSs in the front seat 
using suppression would not be eligible for a retrofit air bag on-off 
switch. This proposal reflects our tentative conclusion, based on over 
two and a half decades of field data, that air bag suppression is an 
extremely effective tool for protecting children in rear-facing CRSs 
from air bag-related injuries. Based on these data, NHTSA tentatively 
believes there is no longer a safety need to permit the installation of 
retrofit air bag on-off switches in these circumstances.
    Like on-off switches, suppression-based advanced air bags mitigate 
the risk to children in rear-facing CRSs by eliminating the possibility 
of air bag/CRS interaction entirely. Moreover, the automatic operation 
of suppression-based advanced air bags makes the suppression systems 
safer overall as compared to retrofit air bag on-off switches, which do 
not operate automatically and are susceptible to misuse. Thus, NHTSA 
tentatively believes there is no longer a safety need to permit the 
installation of retrofit air bag on-off switches in vehicles equipped 
with suppression-based advanced air bags for the transport of children 
in rear-facing CRSs in the front passenger seat. NHTSA tentatively 
believes that this proposal would benefit safety by reducing the number 
of unneeded retrofit air bag on-off switches that would be present in 
the fleet that could potentially be misused.
2. Vehicles Certified to the Low-Risk Deployment Compliance Option 
Would Still Be Eligible for an Exemption
    Under the proposed rule, vehicles certified to meet advanced air 
bag requirements for children in rear-facing CRSs in the front seat 
using low risk deployment (LRD) would continue to be eligible for a 
make inoperative exemption for a retrofit air bag on-off switch.
    The agency has decided to differentiate between suppression-based 
and LRD-based advanced air bag systems for children in rear-facing CRSs 
because, although NHTSA has confidence in both suppression and LRD 
technologies, LRD systems are not as prevalent in the fleet and have 
not had the same degree of field experience confirming their 
effectiveness as have suppression systems.
    There are several safety considerations specific to rear-facing 
CRSs interacting with LRD-based advanced air bags that NHTSA believes 
justify the agency's cautious approach here. First, children in rear-
facing CRSs are typically younger and more vulnerable than other at-
risk groups. Second, children in rear-facing seats are always 
exceedingly close to a front-mounted air bag, especially compared to 
other categories of at-risk occupants. This proximity matters because 
the primary factor that determines a child's risk of air bag-related 
injury is the child's proximity to the air bag at the time of 
deployment. Given that children in rear-facing CRSs are especially at 
risk for air bag-related injuries because of their constant close 
proximity to the air bag risk zone as compared to other at-risk groups, 
NHTSA has determined that it would be prudent at this time to allow 
vehicle owners with LRD advanced air bag systems to have the option of 
an on-off switch if they must seat a child in the front seat of their 
vehicle.
ii. Exemptions for Children Ages 1 to 12 Who Must Be Transported in the 
Front Passenger Seat
    Under the proposed rule, vehicles meeting the advanced air bag 
requirements that are used to transport children ages 1 to 12 in the 
front passenger seat (including children secured in a forward-facing 
CRS) would not be eligible for a make inoperative exemption for a 
retrofit air bag on-off switch. This change would apply regardless of 
whether the vehicle is equipped with suppression-based or LRD-based 
advanced air bags.
    NHTSA originally designated children ages 1 to 12 an ``at-risk'' 
group for purposes of determining eligibility for an exemption under 
part 595, to address the dangers that early (non-advanced) air bags 
posed to unrestrained older children. Identifying this risk group 
required NHTSA to establish an objective, practicable way of 
determining both when a child is large enough that the air bags 
deploying would not pose a significant safety risk, and when a child 
was behaviorally mature enough that the child was not likely to be out 
of position at the time an air bag deploys. NHTSA chose age as a proxy 
for making these determinations, because age normally correlates to a 
child's size and level of maturity, and it is a simple and objective 
way to determine eligibility. However, a child's age is, at best, an 
imperfect measure of whether the child is at risk for air bag-related 
injuries because age is an imperfect proxy for size or maturity.
    Advanced air bag systems do not rely on age as a proxy for a 
child's size or likely position at the time of air bag deployment. 
Rather, they use sensors to detect a child's size and use either 
sensors or other design features to safely account for children who are 
out of position at the time of a crash. Because a child's size and 
position are the two most important indicators of whether it is safe to 
deploy the air bag (or whether to deploy it in a low-risk manner), 
advanced air bags can use that data to either suppress the air bag or 
tailor the air bag's deployment to the child (as opposed to early 
generation air bags, which would always deploy the air bag at full 
force in a triggering crash, regardless of the size or position of the 
occupant). The agency is unaware of a single reported crash fatality of 
a child aged 1 to 12 (or a child in a forward-facing CRS) that has been 
attributed to a certified advanced air bag since the technology was 
introduced. Based on available evidence, the agency believes there is 
no longer a safety need that justifies permitting the installation of 
retrofit air bag on-off switches for children ages 1 to 12 (or children 
in forward-facing CRSs) in vehicles equipped with advanced air bags 
solely on the basis of age. The agency would continue to approve 
requests for retrofit on-off switches for children ages 1 to 12 (or 
children in forward-facing CRSs) in vehicles equipped with non-advanced 
air bags.
    Notwithstanding the agency's tentative conclusion that children 
ages 1 to 12 (or children in forward-facing CRSs) are not an at-risk 
group under part 595, subpart B in vehicles equipped with advanced air 
bags, NHTSA acknowledges that there is a remote possibility an air bag 
on-off switch may be permissible for these children under certain 
circumstances, such as if a specific child in that age range has unique 
characteristics that a vehicle's advanced air bag system has difficulty 
detecting. Similarly, given the variety of forward-facing and rear-
facing CRSs that exist, the agency acknowledges that there is a remote 
possibility that some advanced air bag systems may not be designed to 
detect certain models of forward-facing CRSs that have unusual 
footprints. To address these sorts of edge cases, the agency foresees 
using its enforcement discretion to permit the installation of retrofit 
on-off switches in these rare situations.

[[Page 76042]]

    Comments are requested on the above issues.

C. Requests for Air Bag Deactivations (General Public)

    NHTSA proposes to codify the process by which vehicle owners 
request a ``make inoperative'' exemption so that they may have their 
vehicles' air bags deactivated. This informal process for requesting 
deactivations was initially intended to be used in a limited number of 
circumstances where the requestor was eligible for an exemption to 
install an air bag on-off switch, but an air bag on-off switch was not 
available from the manufacturer of the requestor's vehicle. The agency 
believes it can improve on the deactivation request process with the 
proposals described in detail below.
    NHTSA's proposal to codify the deactivation request process would 
improve transparency while keeping the process largely unchanged aside 
from a few slight modifications. First, NHTSA would require that 
deactivation requestors certify that they have read the information 
brochure contained in appendix A, since the safety justification 
underlying that requirement (e.g., ensuring the requestor is aware of 
the risks associated with switching off the air bag) applies to 
deactivations as well as on-off switches. Second, consistent with the 
requirements for on-off switch exemptions based on a medical need, we 
would no longer require a physician statement if the deactivation is 
for a medical purpose. Lastly, we would require that requestors 
specifically explain why an air bag on-off switch is insufficient for 
their needs. The reason for this requirement is that NHTSA considers 
deactivations to be a greater potential risk to overall vehicle safety 
than on-off switches. A deactivated air bag deprives all vehicle 
occupants of the safety benefits of air bags regardless of whether they 
are at-risk of air bag-related injuries, whereas an on-off switch 
enables occupants who are not at-risk to keep the air bag activated.
    NHTSA will continue to evaluate deactivation requests on a case-by-
case basis, and will only grant them if the agency believes that doing 
so is consistent with the Safety Act and is in the interest of motor 
vehicle safety.
    Comments are requested on the codification of the deactivation 
request process.

D. Exemptions for Law Enforcement and Emergency Vehicles On-Off 
Switches

    NHTSA proposes amending part 595 subpart B to add a process that 
specifically applies to air bag on-off switch requests for law 
enforcement and emergency vehicles, along with a corresponding request 
form. The form would be codified as appendix D to part 595.
    For a number of years, NHTSA has granted requests from law 
enforcement and emergency service officials to install air bag on-off 
switches through the exercise of the agency's enforcement discretion. 
In the 2012 final rule, the agency explained that one reason for 
extending the sunset date under part 595 subpart B was to ``consider 
other topics that have arisen over the years such as our continued use 
of our enforcement discretion for circumstances not covered by part 595 
(e.g., the application of retrofit switches for emergency and law 
enforcement vehicles).'' The agency's primary safety concern with air 
bags in law enforcement and emergency vehicles is that these vehicles 
are necessarily outfitted with job-related equipment that could pose a 
danger to occupants should the air bag deploy. This danger is not 
necessarily addressed by advanced air bags, since FMVSS No. 208 does 
not require that advanced air bags be tested in the presence of this 
job-related equipment, nor would such a requirement be reasonably 
practicable at this time. Given this concern, we have used our 
enforcement discretion to permit the installation of retrofit on-off 
switches and air bag deactivations on law enforcement and emergency 
vehicles through a process similar to the process used to evaluate 
deactivation requests from the general public.
    In the interest of transparency of agency processes, NHTSA seeks to 
formalize the process by which law enforcement and emergency service 
providers obtain make inoperative exemptions for retrofit on-off switch 
installations. To this end, this NPRM proposes to add a new section to 
part 595 subpart B specifically for ``Emergency Vehicles'' along with a 
corresponding new form contained in appendix D. This new section would 
contain the procedures that emergency service providers must follow to 
obtain a make inoperative exemption for their law enforcement or 
emergency vehicles. The accompanying form would require that a 
requesting entity certify that the vehicle on which the air bag on-off 
switch will be installed is intended to be used for law enforcement, 
fire response, or medical response.
    Comments are requested on this proposal.

ii. Deactivations

    As with exemption requests from the general public, if a retrofit 
air bag on-off switch is unavailable or inadequate for an emergency or 
law enforcement vehicle, officials may request approval for an air bag 
deactivation. The process for requesting an air bag deactivation for a 
law enforcement vehicle or an emergency vehicle would be the same as 
the process for the general public.
    Comments are requested on the above issues. A copy of the law 
enforcement and emergency response request form can be found in the 
docket for this NPRM.

E. Update of Information Brochure

    NHTSA proposes to revise the Information Brochure contained in 
appendix A to part 595. Appendix A contains the Information Brochure 
that air bag on-off switch requestors must read as part of the 
application process for obtaining an exemption for a retrofit air bag 
on-off switch under subpart B. The purpose of the Information Brochure 
is to provide requestors with relevant information about the safety 
benefits and potential risks of air bags, so that they can make an 
informed decision whether to request an exemption under part 595 
subpart B.
    NHTSA codified the Information Brochure as appendix A to part 595 
as part of the same November 1997 final rule that established part 595 
subpart B. In the more than two decades that have passed since then, 
air bag technology has evolved substantially. Given these changes, the 
Information Brochure currently found in appendix A to part 595 is no 
longer complete or accurate.
    To address this problem, this NPRM proposes major revisions to the 
Information Brochure. The updated brochure would provide more complete 
and accurate information about current air bag technology to better 
ensure consumers will make an informed decision regarding whether to 
request an exemption under part 595 subpart B. The agency has also 
included stylistic changes, such as formatting changes that make the 
material more engaging and easier to read, and a 10-inch ruler printed 
on the outer cover so that drivers can measure their distance to the 
steering wheel. A copy of our proposed revised Information Brochure for 
at-risk passengers has been placed in the docket to this NPRM.
    The agency seeks comment on our proposed revisions to the 
Information Brochure contained in Appendix A to part 595.

IV. Estimates of Benefits and Costs

    NHTSA performed an economic analysis for the proposed rule, and has 
determined that the proposed rule would be net beneficial. The agency

[[Page 76043]]

found that there would be significant cost savings as a result of the 
proposed rule. A summary of the economic analysis is below, and the 
full economic analysis can be found in the docket for this NPRM.
    Methodology. To determine the costs and safety impacts of this 
NPRM, NHTSA considered two baselines in its analysis. The first 
baseline is what the agency refers to as the Enforcement Discretion 
Baseline. This baseline considers the status quo, where NHTSA uses its 
enforcement discretion to grant air bag on-off switch requests since 
the last sunset for the on-off program for MY 2015 vehicles. This 
baseline assumes that there is potential for all vehicles (not just MY 
2015 and earlier vehicles) to receive exemptions. In other words, this 
baseline includes analysis of all MY vehicles, rather than 
incorporating only MY 2015 and earlier vehicles not impacted by the 
2015 sunset.
    The second baseline is what the agency refers to as the Enforcement 
Non-Discretion Baseline. This baseline considers a scenario under which 
the sunset provision is strictly enforced. Under this baseline, the 
proposed rule has a smaller net effect because enforcing just the 
sunset provision would yield the same procedural changes as the 
proposed rule for all MY 2016 and later vehicles. Thus, the net effect 
under the Enforcement Non-Discretion Baseline would be limited to pre-
MY 2016 vehicles with advanced air bags.
    Air Bag On-Off Switch Cost Impacts. For this analysis, NHTSA 
assumed that the volume of annual exemption requests for air bag on-off 
switches will be equal to the annual average from 2015-2017 (the most 
recent available data), or 58 requests per year under the Enforcement 
Discretion baseline. For the Enforcement Non-Discretion baseline, NHTSA 
assumed that the number of annual requests will be equal to the 
estimated share of all vehicles with advanced air bags comprised of 
pre-MY 2016 vehicles, multiplied by 58. The share of all vehicles with 
advanced air bags comprised of pre-MY 2016 vehicles is estimated as the 
sum of surviving MY 2004 (i.e., the first year with mandatory advanced 
air bags) through MY 2015 vehicles, divided by the projected sum of MY 
2004 through MY 2021 vehicles at the end of 2021. The resulting 
estimate of the relevant share comprised of pre-MY 2016 vehicles is 
approximately 59 percent, yielding an estimate of 34.2 requests per 
year under the Enforcement Non-Discretion baseline.
    The total annual cost impact for the subset of on-off switch 
exemption requests that would be eliminated under the proposed rule 
compared to the costs under the Enforcement Discretion baseline is 
summarized in Table 1 (See the docketed economic analysis for this 
proposed rule for details):

 Table 1--Estimated Annual Cost Impacts in Cases Where the On-Off Switch
                         Exemption Is Eliminated
             [2022 Dollars, Enforcement Discretion Baseline]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Cost under
         Cost item (entity)            Status     proposed     Net cost
                                      quo cost      rule        impact
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requests (Applicants)..............    $686.14        $0.00     -$686.14
On-Off Switch Installation            8,186.32         0.00    -8,186.32
 (Applicants)......................
Data Processing and Storage              61.39         0.00       -61.39
 (Government)......................
Documentation and Reporting              87.58         0.00       -87.58
 (Industry)........................
                                    ------------------------------------
    Total..........................   9,021.43         0.00    -9,021.43
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The corresponding annual cost impact under the Enforcement Non-
Discretion baseline is summarized in Table 2:

 Table 2--Estimated Annual Cost Impacts in Cases Where the On-Off Switch
                         Exemption Is Eliminated
           [2022 Dollars, Enforcement Non-Discretion Baseline]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Cost under
         Cost item (entity)            Status     proposed     Net cost
                                      quo cost      rule        impact
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requests (Applicants)..............    $404.06        $0.00     -$404.06
On-Off Switch Installation            4,820.80         0.00    -4,820.80
 (Applicants)......................
Data Processing and Storage              36.15         0.00       -36.15
 (Government)......................
Documentation and Reporting              51.58         0.00       -51.58
 (Industry)........................
                                    ------------------------------------
    Total..........................   5,312.60         0.00    -5,312.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total annual cost impact is estimated to be -$9,021.43 under 
the Enforcement Discretion baseline and -$5,312.60 under the 
Enforcement Non-Discretion baseline.
    Air Bag On-Off Switch Safety Impacts. Safety effects of the 
proposed rule in this category are assumed to be limited to the 
reduction in risk for front-seat passengers 13 years of age or older in 
vehicles with no on-off switch. NHTSA assumed that advanced air bags 
are estimated to be equally safe with or without an on-off switch for 
passengers 12 years of age or younger, because advanced air bags are 
designed either not to deploy or to deploy in a low-risk manner when 
small children are present (i.e., the switch does not offer any benefit 
or detriment for small children). For passengers 13 years of age or 
older, reducing on-off switch exemption requests would improve safety 
by mitigating the risk of traveling while an on-off switch is in the 
off position, removing the protective effect of the air bag.

[[Page 76044]]

    The safety benefit per vehicle in this category is estimated as the 
reduction in fatality risk per mile for front-seat passengers 13 years 
of age or older, multiplied by the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) where 
such passengers are present and the monetized value of a unit reduction 
in fatality risk. Analyses of 2017-2021 Crash Reporting Sampling System 
data and Fatality Analysis Reporting System data indicate that the 
front seat of light-duty vehicles was occupied by a passenger 13 years 
of age or older approximately 12 percent of the time in non-fatal 
crashes and 14 percent of the time in fatal crashes. Studies have 
estimated an overall light-duty vehicle occupant fatality rate of 0.82 
fatality per 100 million VMT,\19\ which represents approximately 73 
percent of the average overall fatality rate from 2009 through 2012. 
The agency applied this ratio to the most recent overall fatality rate 
of 1.34 fatalities per 100 million VMT to identify an estimated light-
duty vehicle fatality rate of 0.98 fatalities per 100 million VMT. 
Multiplying this fatality rate by 14 percent yields an estimated 
fatality rate for front-seat occupants 13 years of age or older of 0.14 
fatality per 100 million VMT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Kahane, C. J. (2015, January). Lives saved by vehicle 
safety technologies and associated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards, 1960 to 2012--Passenger cars and LTVs--With reviews of 26 
FMVSS and the effectiveness of their associated safety technologies 
in reducing fatalities, injuries, and crashes. (Report No. DOT HS 
812 069). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Studies indicate the effectiveness of frontal air bags in reducing 
fatalities for front-seat occupants to be 12 percent for passenger cars 
and 14 percent for light trucks and vans (LTVs).\20\ Thus, traveling 
with an inactivated frontal air bag is estimated to be 1/(1-0.12), or 
13.6 percent, riskier in passenger cars (1/(1-0.14), or 16.3 percent, 
riskier in LTVs). Assuming a light-duty vehicle sales split of one-
third passenger cars and two-thirds LTVs for the vehicles affected by 
the proposed rule (which reflects recent vehicle sales splits), the 
average increase of risk of traveling in the front seat with an 
improperly deactivated frontal air bag is estimated to be 15.4 percent. 
NHTSA assumed a 10.3 percent misuse rate for air bag on-off switches 
when adults travel in the front passenger seat. Multiplying this misuse 
rate by the estimated 15.4 percent increase in risk when on-off 
switches are misused yields an estimate of incremental risk of 1.6 
percent for front-seat passengers 13 years of age or older in the 
presence of air bag on-off switches. In turn, multiplying the estimated 
incremental risk by the fatality rate for front-seat passengers 13 
years of age or older (0.14 fatality per 100 million VMT) yields an 
estimate of incremental fatality risk for these passengers in the 
presence of an air bag on-off switch equal to 0.0022 fatality per 100 
million VMT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the Enforcement Discretion baseline, the agency estimated 
expected per-vehicle annual VMT (i.e., expected VMT taking scrappage 
into account) by multiplying the average of the passenger car and LTV 
VMT schedules used in the analysis supporting the Corporate Average 
Fuel Economy Rulemaking by their corresponding vehicle survival 
schedules. Applying three-percent- and seven-percent discount rates 
yields estimates of discounted lifetime vehicle VMT equal to 13.0 times 
and 9.7 times the first-year VMT.

             Table 3--VMT Schedule and Estimated Discounted Vehicle VMT (for Selected Vehicle Ages)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Annual VMT for   Survival rate   Survival rate      Annual          Annual
           Vehicle age               surviving     x 3% discount   x 7% discount   exposure (3%    exposure (7%
                                     vehicles         factor          factor      discount rate)  discount rate)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................          17,040           1.000           1.000          17,040          17,040
5...............................          14,641           0.853           0.732          14,535          12,480
10..............................          12,310           0.636           0.452          10,843           7,696
15..............................          10,546           0.377           0.221           6,421           3,766
20..............................           9,165           0.178           0.086           3,036           1,472
25..............................           7,981           0.087           0.035           1,477             592
30..............................           6,805           0.049           0.016             831             275
35..............................           5,454           0.017           0.005             294              81
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total/Year 1................  ..............  ..............  ..............            13.0             9.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The monetized (undiscounted) value of the per-vehicle safety 
benefit in the first year of vehicle use in this category is estimated 
to be $13.12 (0.0022 mitigated fatality per 100 million VMT x 17,040/
100 million VMT x $35.4 million per mitigated fatality \21\). Thus, at 
a three-percent discount rate, the estimated lifetime per-vehicle 
safety benefit is estimated to be approximately $171 ($13.12 x 13.0 = 
$170.58) under the Enforcement Discretion baseline. At a seven-percent 
discount rate, the estimated lifetime per-vehicle safety benefit is 
estimated to be approximately $127 ($13.12 x 9.7 = $127.28) under the 
Enforcement Discretion baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The total estimated safety value per mitigated fatality is 
equal to a base value per fatality ($12.8 million in 2022 dollars) 
adjusted by factors accounting for: (1) the share of comprehensive 
economic costs of crashes comprised of fatalities; and (2) the 
relative rate of front right seat occupation in non-fatal versus 
fatal crashes. This calculation is presented in more detail in the 
docketed accompanying economic analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the Enforcement Non-Discretion baseline, the above approach is 
used, with one key change: per-vehicle safety benefits are estimated as 
the above per-vehicle safety benefits multiplied by the share of total 
lifetime discounted VMT comprised of pre-MY 2016 vehicles. In turn, the 
share of total lifetime discounted VMT comprised of pre-MY 2016 
vehicles is estimated as the sum of estimated discounted lifetime VMT 
for MY 2004 through 2015 vehicles, divided by the sum of estimated 
discounted lifetime VMT for MY 2004 through MY 2021 vehicles. Using 
this approach, the estimated per-vehicle safety benefits are 67 percent 
lower than in the other baseline at a three-percent discount rate (0.33 
x $170.58, or $56.29). The corresponding estimate at a seven-percent 
rate is 72 percent lower than in the other baseline (0.28 x $170.58, or 
$34.37).
    The total annual safety benefit in this category under the proposed 
rule is equal to the per-vehicle safety benefit multiplied by the 
number of affected vehicles. Thus, at a three-percent discount rate, 
the total annual safety benefit is estimated to be $9,893.80

[[Page 76045]]

under the Enforcement Discretion baseline ($170.58 per request x 58 
requests per year). At a seven-percent discount rate, the total annual 
safety benefit is estimated to be $7,382.30 under the Enforcement 
Discretion baseline ($127.58 per request x 58 requests per year). The 
total annual safety benefit under the Enforcement Non-Discretion 
baseline is $1,925.20 at a three-percent discount rate ($56.29 x 34.2 = 
$1,925.20) and $1,175.31 at a seven-percent discount rate ($34.37 x 
34.2 = $1,175.31).
    Air Bag Deactivation. The proposed rule will formalize and modify 
the process by which vehicle owners or users can obtain an exemption 
from the ``make inoperative'' provision for an air bag deactivation. 
The proposed rule will have a cost impact for requestors of air bag 
deactivation exemptions and business entities that deactivate air bags. 
For this analysis, the agency assumed that annual deactivation requests 
will be equal to the 2015-2017 annual average of deactivation requests 
under the proposed rule (seven per year). The agency felt there was no 
need to run a two-pronged analysis like it did for the on-off switch 
analysis because there was no change in the way the agency processed 
air bag deactivation requests; there has never been a formal process 
for requesting deactivation, and NHTSA has used its enforcement 
discretion to grant deactivations since the agency started doing so in 
the mid-1990s. Furthermore, because the agency is simply formalizing a 
process that is unlikely to result in a noticeable impact on the number 
of deactivation requests received, granted, or denied, NHTSA does not 
believe there will be a safety impact for this part of the proposed 
rule.
    Individuals requesting air bag deactivation exemptions under the 
status quo incur costs associated with preparing the request letter, 
acquiring supporting documentation, and having the deactivation 
performed. Under the status quo, a deactivation requestor must write a 
letter to NHTSA that includes information about the requestor's vehicle 
and the requestor's reason for requesting an air bag deactivation.
    The cost of deactivating an air bag system is unaffected by the 
proposed rule, meaning the proposed rule would have no impact on the 
costs associated with deactivation. Furthermore, the proposed rule does 
not include any additional requirements for businesses performing air 
bag deactivations, meaning the proposed rule would also have no impact 
on the costs businesses incur by performing deactivations.
    Table 4 below estimates the costs associated with the proposed 
amendments to the air bag deactivation process (see the docketed 
economic analysis for this proposed rule for details).

                    Table 4--Estimated Annual Cost Impacts for Air Bag Deactivation Requests
                                                 [2022 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Cost under
                              Cost item (entity)                                 Status     proposed    Net cost
                                                                                quo cost      rule       impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requests (Applicants)........................................................    $160.72      $186.69     $25.97
Deactivation (Applicants)....................................................     542.50       542.50       0.00
Distributing Forms and Labels, and Data Processing (Government)..............      61.81        61.81       0.00
Return Form and Labels (Industry)............................................      18.90        18.90       0.00
Safety (Occupants)...........................................................        N/A          N/A       0.00
                                                                              ----------------------------------
    Total....................................................................     722.12       748.09      25.97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Proposed Effective Date

    We propose that the amendments in this rulemaking become effective 
immediately after publication of a final rule in the Federal Register. 
The proposed amendments would not markedly impact the current process 
or requestors' ability to get approval for an air bag on-off switch or 
deactivation except regarding forward-facing children ages 1 to 12, 
children in forward-facing CRSs, and children in rear-facing CRSs in 
vehicles equipped with suppression-based advanced air bag systems. 
Because this final rule would have no impact on the public and only 
changes NHTSA processes, the agency does not believe that any lead time 
is necessary for this potential final rule. Comments are requested on 
this proposed effective date.

VI. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 14904, Executive Order 13563, 
and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the potential impact of this proposed rule 
under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 14094, Executive Order 
13563, DOT Order 2100.6A and the Department of Transportation's 
regulatory policies and procedures. This NPRM is not considered to be 
significant under the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 44 FR 11034 (Feb. 26, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This document proposes several changes to part 595 subpart B but 
does not impose any new costs. It proposes the elimination of the 
sunset date of an existing exemption for retrofit on-off switches for 
frontal air bags, slight narrowing of the eligibility requirement for 
obtaining that exemption going forward, and the codification of 
existing processes for obtaining retrofit air bag on-off switches for 
emergency vehicles and air bag deactivations for all vehicles. It also 
proposes changes to the information brochure contained in appendix A. 
The agency notes that part 595 subpart B does not require a motor 
vehicle manufacturer, dealer, or repair business to take any action or 
bear any costs except in instances in which a dealer or repair business 
voluntarily agrees to deactivate or install an air bag on-off switch 
for an air bag. For consumers, the purchase and installation of a 
retrofit air bag on-off switch or the deactivation a vehicle's frontal 
air bag is permissive, not prescriptive.
    When an eligible consumer obtains the agency's authorization for 
the installation of a retrofit air bag on-off switch or air bag 
deactivation and enlists a dealer or repair business to modify their 
vehicle accordingly, there will be costs associated with that action. 
However, these are costs that the consumer chooses to bear if they want 
an air bag on-off switch or air bag

[[Page 76046]]

deactivation, they are not costs prescribed by NHTSA's regulation.
    Moreover, the agency notes that the amendments to part 595 that are 
proposed here would either only slightly amend existing processes for 
vehicle owners to request a make inoperative exemption or would codify 
longstanding procedures relating to requests for deactivations. Given 
that these proposed changes would not substantially change the process 
by which vehicle owners currently obtain make inoperative exemptions 
for retrofit air bag on-off switches and deactivations, and the fact 
that these changes will affect a relatively small number of vehicles, 
there are virtually no new costs imposed by this rulemaking. A detailed 
description of the costs and benefits can be found above. Furthermore, 
the agency prepared an economic analysis for this proposed rule, which 
can be found in the docket for this NPRM.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of proposed rulemaking, it must prepare and make available for public 
comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of 
the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small 
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions) unless the head of 
an agency certifies the proposal will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Small Business 
Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a small 
business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates primarily 
within the United States.'' 13 CFR part 121.105(a). SBREFA amended the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a 
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a proposal will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    I certify that the changes proposed in this NPRM would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The amendments proposed in this NPRM eliminate the sunset provision in 
Subpart B of part 595, make some relatively minor changes to on-off 
switch eligibly that only affect a small number of vehicles, and codify 
existing agency practices regarding treatment of law enforcement and 
emergency vehicles and air bag deactivations.
    This NPRM does not propose any changes that would significantly 
affect small entities. Small organizations and small governmental units 
would not be significantly affected by the proposed amendments of this 
NPRM since the potential cost impacts associated with this action are 
negligible.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined this proposed rule pursuant to Executive Order 
(E.O.) 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no 
additional consultation with States, local governments or their 
representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency 
has concluded that the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism 
implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or 
the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This proposed 
rule would not have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.''
    NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express 
preemption provision stating that, if NHTSA has established a standard 
for an aspect motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance a 
State may only prescribe or continue in effect a standard for that same 
aspect of performance if the State standard is identical to the Federal 
standard. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by 
Congress that preempts any non-identical State legislative and 
administrative law addressing the same aspect of performance.
    The express preemption provision described above is subject to a 
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety 
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from 
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this 
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle 
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express 
preemption provision are generally preserved.
    NHTSA rules can also preempt State law if complying with the FMVSS 
would render the motor vehicle manufacturers liable under State tort 
law. Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum 
standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose 
a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be 
preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist--for 
example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum 
standard--the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly 
preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
    Pursuant to E.O. 13132, NHTSA has considered whether this proposed 
rule could or should preempt State common law causes of action. The 
agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the preemptive 
effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that preemption will 
be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation. To this end, the agency 
has examined the nature (e.g., the language and structure of the 
regulatory text) and objectives of this proposed rule and finds that 
this NPRM, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes only a minimum safety 
standard.
    Accordingly, NHTSA does not intend that this proposed rule preempt 
state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor 
vehicle manufacturers than that established by this proposed rule. 
Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not 
conflict with the minimum standard finalized in this document. Without 
any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State 
common law tort cause of action.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), Federal agencies must obtain 
approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each 
collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through 
regulations, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of 
information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid 
OMB control number. This proposed rulemaking proposes changes to the 
existing information collection requirements under 49 CFR part 595.5, 
``Retrofit On-Off Switches for Air Bags.''
    In compliance with the requirements of the PRA, NHTSA intends to 
request approval for a reinstatement with modification of a previously 
approved information collection request. Specifically, NHTSA is 
requesting reinstatement of the information collection request (ICR) 
with OMB Control No. 2127-0588. This ICR corresponds to appendix B to 
part 595, which is a form that any owner or lessee of a motor vehicle 
seeking the installation of an air bag on-off switch must complete and 
submit to NHTSA before NHTSA will grant or deny

[[Page 76047]]

approval for an on-off switch to be installed. Additionally, NHTSA 
plans to request that the previously approved ICR be modified in 
accordance with the proposals discussed in this NPRM. As discussed in 
the sections above, this NPRM proposes to amend several of the 
appendices in part 595, and proposes adding an additional appendix to 
part 595, which means the burden on the public may be different from 
the originally approved ICR.
    As part of seeking approval to reinstate the ICR with OMB, NHTSA 
will separately publish a notice giving the public the opportunity to 
comment on the reinstatement and modification of the ICR. Those notices 
will provide significant detail on the ICR reinstatement, and on how 
the ICR will be modified based on the proposals discussed in this 
proposed rule.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    NHTSA has analyzed this NPRM for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The agency has determined that 
implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on 
the quality of the human environment.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal 
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and 
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate 
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than 
$100 million annually (adjusted annually for inflation, with base year 
of 1995). UMRA also requires an agency issuing an NPRM or final rule 
subject to the Act to select the ``least costly, most cost-effective or 
least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the 
rule.'' This NPRM would not result in a Federal mandate that will 
likely result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, 
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million 
annually (adjusted annually for inflation, with base year of 1995).

Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    When promulgating a regulation, agencies are required under E.O. 
12988 to make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation, as 
appropriate: (1) specifies in clear language the preemptive effect; (2) 
specifies in clear language the effect on existing Federal law or 
regulation, including all provisions repealed, circumscribed, 
displaced, impaired, or modified; (3) provides a clear legal standard 
for affected conduct rather than a general standard, while promoting 
simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies in clear language 
the retroactive effect; (5) specifies whether administrative 
proceedings are to be required before parties may file suit in court; 
(6) explicitly or implicitly defines key terms; and (7) addresses other 
important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship of 
regulations.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive 
effect of this NPRM is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there 
is no requirement that an individual submit a petition for 
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceedings before they 
may file suit in court.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), all Federal agencies and departments shall 
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means 
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies 
and departments. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies, such as the International Organization for 
Standardization and the Society of Automotive Engineers. The NTTAA 
directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when we 
decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards. There are no voluntary consensus standards developed by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies pertaining to this proposed rule.

Plain Language Requirement

    E.O. 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in plain 
language. Application of the principles of plain language includes 
consideration of the following questions:
    <bullet> Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
    <bullet> Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
    <bullet> Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that 
isn't clear?
    <bullet> Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
    <bullet> Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
    <bullet> Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or 
diagrams?
    <bullet> What else could we do to make the rule easier to 
understand?
    NHTSA has considered these questions and attempted to use plain 
language in promulgating this proposed rule. If readers have 
suggestions on how we can improve our use of plain language, please 
write us.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN 
contained in the heading at the beginning of this notice may be used to 
find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 
public to better inform its decision-making process. DOT posts these 
comments, without edit, including any personal information the 
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system 
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 
www.transportation.gov/privacy. Anyone is able to search the electronic 
form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of 
the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if 
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). 
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 
19477-78).

VII. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    <bullet> To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the 
Docket, please include the Docket Number in your comments.
    <bullet> Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. NHTSA 
established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments 
in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional 
documents to your comments, and there is no limit on the length of the 
attachments.
    <bullet> If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF 
(Adobe) file,

[[Page 76048]]

NHTSA asks that the documents be submitted using the Optical Character 
Recognition process, thus allowing NHTSA to search and copy certain 
portions of your submissions.
    <bullet> Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, for 
substantive data to be relied on and used by NHTSA, it must meet the 
information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality 
Act guidelines. Accordingly, NHTSA encourages you to consult the 
guidelines in preparing your comments. DOT's guidelines may be accessed 
at https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-information-dissemination-quality-guidelines.

Tips for Preparing Your Comments

    When submitting comments, please remember to:
    <bullet> Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and 
page number).
    <bullet> Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, 
and substitute language for your requested changes.
    <bullet> Describe any assumptions you make and provide any 
technical information and/or data that you used.
    <bullet> If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    <bullet> Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    <bullet> Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the 
use of profanity or personal threats.
    <bullet> To ensure that your comments are considered by the agency, 
make sure to submit them by the comment period deadline identified in 
the DATES section above.
    <bullet> For additional guidance on submitting effective comments, 
see https://www.regulations.gov/docs/Tips_For_Submitting_Effective_Comments.pdf.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit your complete submission, including 
the information you claim to be confidential business information 
(CBI), to the NHTSA Chief Counsel. When you send a comment containing 
CBI, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information 
specified in our CBI regulation (49 CFR part 572). In addition, you 
should submit a copy from which you have deleted the claimed CBI to the 
Docket by one of the methods set forth above.
    To facilitate social distancing due to COVID-19, NHTSA is treating 
electronic submission as an acceptable method for submitting CBI to the 
Agency under 49 CFR part 512. Any CBI submissions sent via email should 
be sent to an attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel at the address 
given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Will the agency consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments received before the close of business 
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent 
possible, we will also consider comments that the docket receives after 
that date. If the docket receives a comment too late for us to consider 
in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will 
consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking 
action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by the docket at the address 
given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are indicated 
above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the 
internet. To read the comments on the internet, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the 
dockets.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the docket for new material. 
You can arrange with the docket to be notified when others file 
comments in the docket. See www.regulations.gov for more information.
    If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming 
CBI, please consult the person(s) identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 595

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is proposing to amend 49 
CFR part 595 as follows:

PART 595--MAKE INOPERATIVE EXEMPTIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 595 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30122 and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

0
2. Amend Sec.  595.4 by adding in alphabetical order definitions for 
``Deactivation'', ``Emergency vehicle'', and ``On-off switch'' to read 
as follows:


Sec.  595.4  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Deactivation means that a dealer or motor vehicle repair business 
disables an air bag system in a motor vehicle.
* * * * *
    Emergency vehicle means law enforcement vehicles, as that term is 
defined in S7 of Sec.  571.208 of this chapter, firefighting vehicles, 
and ambulances, as that term is defined in S3 of Sec.  571.201 of this 
chapter.
* * * * *
    On-off switch means a switch that allows an occupant to turn an air 
bag in the vehicle on or off.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise the heading to Subpart B to read as follows:

Subpart B--Retrofit On-Off Switches for Air Bags and Air Bag 
Deactivations

0
4. Revise Sec.  595.5 to read as follows:


Sec.  595.5  Requirements.

    (a) Overview of general conditions for a vehicle owner or lessee to 
obtain approval to install a retrofit air bag on-off switch. For 
installing a retrofit air bag on-off switch on vehicles other than an 
emergency vehicle, prior to the installation of the retrofit air bag 
on-off switch either the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle reads the 
information brochure in appendix A to this part and submits the 
completed form in appendix B to this part to the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in accordance with the 
instructions on the form. For emergency vehicles, the authorized 
representative of the owner or lessee of the emergency vehicle submits 
the completed form in appendix D to this part to NHTSA in accordance 
with the instructions on the form. NHTSA will consider whether the 
request is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purpose and 
policies of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. If NHTSA 
agrees to the request, NHTSA sends a letter to the

[[Page 76049]]

requestor authorizing the installation of an on-off switch in that 
vehicle for that air bag.
    (b) Requirements for dealer or motor vehicle repair businesses when 
installing retrofit on-off switches for air bags. A dealer or motor 
vehicle repair business may modify a motor vehicle by installing an on-
off switch subject to the conditions in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) 
of this section.
    (1) The dealer or motor vehicle repair business receives from the 
owner or lessee of the motor vehicle a letter from the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration that authorizes the installation of an 
on-off switch in that vehicle for that air bag.
    (2) The dealer or motor vehicle repair business installs the on-off 
switch in accordance with the instructions of the manufacturer of the 
switch.
    (3) The on-off switch meets all of the conditions specified in 
paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) The on-off switch is operable solely by a key or a key-like 
object. The on-off switch shall be separate from the ignition switch 
for the vehicle, so that the driver must take some action other than 
inserting the ignition key or turning the ignition key in the ignition 
switch to turn off the air bag. Once turned off, the air bag shall 
remain off until it is turned back on by means of the device. If a 
single on-off switch is installed for more than one air bag in the 
vehicle, the on-off switch shall allow each air bag to be turned off 
without turning off the other air bag(s). The readiness indicator 
required by S4.5.2 of Sec.  571.208 of this chapter shall continue to 
monitor the readiness of the air bags even when one or more air bags 
have been turned off. The readiness indicator light shall not be 
illuminated solely because an air bag has been deactivated by means of 
an on-off switch.
    (ii) A telltale light in the interior of the vehicle shall be 
illuminated whenever an air bag is turned off by means of the on-off 
switch. The telltale for a driver air bag shall be clearly visible to 
an occupant of the driver's seating position. The telltale for a front 
passenger air bag shall be clearly visible to occupants of all front 
seating positions. The telltale for an air bag:
    (A) Shall be yellow;
    (B) Shall have the identifying words ``DRIVER AIR BAG OFF'', 
``PASSENGER AIR BAG OFF'', or ``PASS AIR BAG OFF'', as appropriate, on 
the telltale or within 25 millimeters of the telltale;
    (C) Shall remain illuminated for the entire time that the air bag 
is ``off'';
    (D) Shall not be illuminated at any time when the air bag is 
``on''; and,
    (E) Shall not be combined with the readiness indicator required by 
S4.5.2 of Sec.  571.208 of this chapter.
    (4) The dealer or motor vehicle repair business provides the owner 
or lessee with an insert for the vehicle owner's manual that--
    (i) Describes the operation of the on-off switch;
    (ii) Lists the risk groups on the request form set forth in 
appendix B to this part;
    (iii) States that an on-off switch should only be used to turn off 
an air bag for a member of one of those risk groups; and
    (iv) States the safety consequences of using the on-off switch to 
turn off an air bag for persons who are not members of any of those 
risk groups. The description of those consequences includes 
information, specific to the make, model, and model year of the 
affected vehicle, about any seat belt energy managing features, e.g., 
load limiters, that will affect seat belt performance when the air bag 
is turned off.
    (5) In the form included in the agency authorization letter 
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, Appendix C of this part, 
the dealer or motor vehicle repair business fills in information 
describing itself and the on-off switch installation(s) it makes in the 
motor vehicle. The dealer or motor vehicle repair business then sends 
the form to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration within 7 
working days after the completion of the described installations.
    (c) Overview of general conditions for a vehicle owner or lessee to 
obtain approval to deactivate an air bag. (1) For air bag 
deactivations, prior to the deactivation of the air bag the owner or 
lessee of the vehicle submits a written request to NHTSA with the 
following information:
    (i) The name and address of the vehicle owner or lessee;
    (ii) A request that an air bag be deactivated and whether the 
request applies to the driver air bag, front passenger air bag, or 
both;
    (iii) A certification that the owner or lessee has read the 
information brochure in appendix A to this part;
    (iv) A detailed justification why deactivation is necessary and why 
the installation of an on-off switch is not a viable option; and
    (v) Any documentation that supports the stated justification; and a 
certification that if the deactivation is no longer justified or if 
they sell the vehicle, the owner or lessee would have the air bag 
reactivated or would inform the buyer that the air bag has been 
deactivated prior to the sale.
    (2) The owner or lessee mails the request to the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, Attention: Air Bag Deactivation 
Requests, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 or faxes the 
request to 202-493-2833. NHTSA will consider whether the request is 
consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purpose and policy of the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. If NHTSA agrees to the 
request, NHTSA sends a letter to the requestor authorizing the 
deactivation of the specified air bag in the vehicle, with labels to be 
affixed by the dealer or motor vehicle repair business to both sides of 
the sun visor at each seating position with a deactivated air bag, 
alerting vehicle users about the deactivated air bag(s).
    (d) Requirements for dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses 
when performing air bag deactivations. A dealer or motor vehicle repair 
business may modify a motor vehicle by deactivating an air bag subject 
to the conditions in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Prior to the deactivation of the air bag, the dealer or motor 
vehicle repair business receives from the owner or lessee of the motor 
vehicle a letter from NHTSA that authorizes the deactivation of the 
specified air bag in the vehicle and labels to be affixed by the dealer 
or motor vehicle repair business to both sides of the sun visor at each 
seating position with a deactivated air bag, alerting vehicle users 
about the deactivated air bag(s).
    (2) The dealer or motor vehicle repair business affixes the labels 
to both sides of the sun visor at each seating position with a 
deactivated air bag.
    (3) If a deactivated air bag gets reactivated the dealer or motor 
vehicle repair business shall remove the labels indicating the air bag 
was deactivated.
0
5. Revise Appendices A through C to read as follows:
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

Appendix A to Part 595--Advanced Frontal Air Bags and Air Bag On-Off 
Switch Information Brochure

[[Page 76050]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.020


[[Page 76051]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.021


[[Page 76052]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.022


[[Page 76053]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.023


[[Page 76054]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.024


[[Page 76055]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.025


[[Page 76056]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.026


[[Page 76057]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.028


[[Page 76058]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.029

Appendix B to Part 595--Request Form for Frontal Air Bag On-Off Switch

[[Page 76059]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.030


[[Page 76060]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.031


[[Page 76061]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.032

Appendix C to Part 595--Installation of Air Bag On-Off Switches

[[Page 76062]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.033

0
6. Add Appendix D to read as follows:

Appendix D to Part 595--Request Form for Air Bag On-Off Switch for 
Emergency Vehicles

[[Page 76063]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.034


[[Page 76064]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE24.035


    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 
1.95 and 501.5.
Sophie Shulman,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024-20651 Filed 9-16-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C