[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 111 (Friday, June 8, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33998-34002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13957]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 595
[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0078]
RIN 2127-AL19
Make Inoperative Exemptions; Retrofit On-Off Switches for Air
Bags
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: There is a NHTSA regulation that permits motor vehicle dealers
and repair businesses to install retrofit on-off switches for air bags
in vehicles owned by or used by persons whose request for a switch has
been approved by the agency. This regulation is only available for
motor vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2012. In this document,
the agency proposes to extend the availability of this regulation for
three additional years, so that it would apply to motor vehicles
manufactured before September 1, 2015.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 9, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document.
You may call the Docket at 202-366-9324.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below.
Privacy Act: 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 (65 FR 19477-78).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For non-legal issues: Ms. Carla Rush, Office of Crashworthiness
Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-366-4583, fax
202-493-2739).
For legal issues: Mr. Edward Glancy, Office of the Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-366-2992, fax 202-366-3820).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Agency Analysis and Proposal
III. Shortened Comment Period
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
V. Public Participation
I. Background
To prevent or mitigate the risk of injuries or fatalities in
frontal crashes, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208,
``Occupant crash protection'' (49 CFR 571.208), requires that vehicles
be equipped with seat belts and frontal air bags.
In the 1990s, while air bags proved to be highly effective in
reducing fatalities from frontal crashes, they were found to cause a
small number of fatalities, especially to unrestrained, out-of-position
children, in relatively low speed crashes. It was shown that the
majority of these fatalities occurred because the occupants were very
close to or made contact with the air bag when it started to deploy.\1\
The other cause of the air bag fatalities at the time was the
aggressive design of some air bags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See preamble to agency final rule on advanced air bags, 65
FR 30680, 30682-83, May 12, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address this problem, NHTSA developed a plan that included an
array of immediate, interim and long-term measures. The immediate and
interim measures focused on behavioral changes and relatively modest
technological changes (e.g., consumer education on air bags and the
importance of seat belts and putting children in the rear; amending
FMVSS No. 208 to allow for a limited time a sled test option for
expediting the depowering of air bags, etc.). The long-term measures
focused on more significant technological changes, i.e., advanced air
bag technologies.
As one of the interim measures, on November 21, 1997, NHTSA
published in the Federal Register (62 FR 62406) a final rule permitting
motor vehicle dealers and repair businesses to install retrofit on-off
switches for frontal air bags in vehicles owned by or used by persons
whose request for a switch had been approved by the agency (subpart B
of 49 CFR part 595). This rule provided a limited exemption from a
statutory provision that generally prohibits motor vehicle dealers and
repair businesses from making inoperative any part of a device or
element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The ``make inoperative'' provision is at 49 U.S.C. 30122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the procedures set forth in the 1997 rule, vehicle owners can
request a retrofit air bag on-off switch by completing an agency
request form (Appendix B of Part 595) and submitting the form to the
agency. Owners must certify that they have read the information
brochure, in Appendix A of Part 595, discussing air bag safety and
risks. The brochure describes the steps that the vast majority of
people can take to minimize the risk of serious injuries from air bags
while preserving the benefits of air bags, without going to the expense
of buying an on-off switch. The agency developed the brochure to enable
owners to determine whether they are, or a user of their vehicle is, in
one of the groups of people at risk of a serious air bag injury and to
make a careful, informed decision about requesting an on-off switch.\3\
Owners
[[Page 33999]]
also must certify that they or another user of their vehicle is a
member of one of the risk groups. Since the risk groups for drivers are
different from those for passengers, a separate certification must be
made on the request form for each frontal air bag to be equipped with a
retrofit air bag on-off switch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ At NHTSA's request, an expert panel of physicians convened
to formulate recommendations on specific medical indications for air
bag deactivation. The panel concluded that air bags are effective
lifesavers and that a medical condition does not warrant turning off
an air bag unless the condition makes it impossible for a person to
maintain an adequate distance from the air bag. Specifically, the
panel recommended disconnecting an air bag if a safe sitting
distance or position cannot be maintained by a: driver or front
passenger because of scoliosis, osteoporosis/arthritis; driver
because of achondroplasia; or passenger because of Down syndrome and
atlantoaxial instability. The panel also warranted the disconnection
of air bags if the need for wheelchair related modifications made it
necessary or if there is a medical condition that requires an infant
or child to be placed in the front passenger seat for monitoring
purposes. (The Ronald Reagan Institute of Emergency Medicine
Department of Emergency Medicine and The National Crash Analysis
Center, ``National Conference on Medical Indications for Air Bag
Disconnection,'' July 16-18, 1997.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If NHTSA approves a request, the agency will send the owner a
letter authorizing the installation of one or more on-off switches in
the owner's vehicle. The owner may give the authorization letter to a
dealer or repair business, which may then install an on-off switch for
the driver or passenger air bag or both, as approved by the agency. The
retrofit air bag on-off switch must meet certain criteria, such as
being equipped with a telltale light to alert vehicle occupants when an
air bag has been turned off. The dealer or repair business must then
fill in information about itself and its installation in a form in the
letter and return the form to the agency.
In the November 1997 air bag on-off switch final rule, the agency
indicated that it believed, based on safety considerations, that it
should prohibit dealers and repair businesses from retrofitting
advanced air bag vehicles with on-off switches, but that it would
address this issue in the forthcoming rulemaking on advanced air bags
(62 FR at 62432-33).
On May 12, 2000, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (65 FR
30680) its final rule to require advanced frontal air bags. The rule
required that future air bags be designed to reduce the risk of serious
air bag-induced injuries compared to then-current air bags,
particularly for small-statured women and young children; and provide
improved frontal crash protection for all occupants, by means that
include advanced air bag technology. To achieve these goals, it added a
wide variety of new requirements, test procedures, and injury criteria,
using an assortment of new test dummies.
In the preamble to the May 2000 advanced air bag final rule, the
agency decided to continue the exemption procedures for retrofit air
bag on-off switches for vehicles manufactured through August 31, 2012.
This provided time to allow manufacturers to perfect the suppression
and low-risk deployment systems for air bags in all of their vehicles.
It also provided a number of years to verify the reliability of
advanced air bags based on real-world experience.
NHTSA also indicated in the advanced air bag final rule that there
would be a need for deactivation of some sort (via on-off switch or
permanently) for at-risk individuals who cannot be accommodated through
sensors or other suppression technology (such as handicapped
individuals or individuals with certain medical conditions). The agency
stated at that time that it believed such needs could be best
accommodated through the authorization system for deactivation of air
bags in current use by NHTSA (65 FR at 30722).
Also, on February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule in the
Federal Register (66 FR 12638) providing a limited exemption from the
make inoperative prohibition, covering various provisions in a number
of safety standards, to facilitate the mobility of persons with
disabilities. The exemption permits repair businesses to modify certain
types of federally required safety equipment and features, under
specified circumstances. This disability exemption, which is in subpart
C of part 595, permits the installation of air bag on-off switches or
the permanent disconnection of air bags in certain, significantly more
limited circumstances than provided for in subpart B of that part.
II. Agency Analysis and Proposal
Since the introduction of advanced air bags, and even before that
time, air bag-related fatalities have significantly declined. There
have not been any confirmed air-bag-related child fatalities in model
year 2004 or later vehicles. There have been two confirmed air-bag-
related adult fatalities in model year 2004 or later vehicles.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Counts of Frontal Air Bag Related Fatalities and Seriously
Injured Persons,'' Special Crash Investigations, DOT HS 811 104,
January 2009. We note that although this report identifies three
confirmed air-bag-related adult fatalities in model year 2004 or
later vehicles it has come to our attention that one of these cases
was miscoded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, as NHTSA recognized in the preamble to the advanced air
bag final rule, there may still be a need for deactivation of air bags
(via a switch or permanent deactivation) beyond September 1, 2012, for
at-risk individuals who cannot be accommodated through the advanced air
bag technology. Therefore, the agency has decided that it may be
appropriate to propose extending the on-off switch provisions of Part
595 subpart B, for some risk groups despite the presence of advanced
air bag technology.
To permit the agency time to thoroughly evaluate this issue, and
potentially conduct rulemaking for an updated version of subpart B, we
are proposing to extend the current subpart B provisions for three
years. As discussed above, the regulation currently permits motor
vehicle dealers and repair businesses, for motor vehicles manufactured
before September 1, 2012, to install retrofit on-off switches for air
bags in vehicles owned by or used by persons whose request for a switch
has been approved by the agency. We are proposing to extend that date
so the provision would apply to motor vehicles manufactured before
September 1, 2015.
With the proposed three year extension, the agency plans to
evaluate several aspects of the air bag on-off switch rule. Mainly, the
agency will evaluate the criteria for granting the retrofit on-off
switches (at-risk groups) in light of the existence of advanced air bag
technology, and the retrofit switch brochures and forms that were
included in part 595. The agency will also consider other topics that
have arisen over the years such as our continued use of prosecutorial
discretion for circumstances not covered by part 595 (e.g., the
application of retrofit switches for emergency and law enforcement
vehicles).
Given the imminence of the September 1, 2012 date, it would not be
possible for us to complete the necessary evaluation and possible
rulemaking before that time. We are therefore proposing the three-year
extension, to maintain the current procedures during this time period.
This will avoid a situation where retrofit on-off switches would not be
available for vehicles manufactured during this time period, while the
agency is considering further rulemaking that could permanently allow
retrofit on-off air bag switches in specified circumstances. The agency
expects to be able to fully analyze the issues surrounding such a
rulemaking within those three additional years.
We have tentatively concluded that a three-year extension is in the
interest of motor vehicle safety. This extension would prevent a
potential gap in the regulation and avoid any complications and
confusion that could arise if the subpart B exemption for retrofit on-
off air bag switches were allowed to sunset and then, later on, the
agency decided to maintain the exemption (in some form) permanently.
[[Page 34000]]
III. Shortened Comment Period
Given the short time period between now and the September 1, 2012
date, we are providing a 30-day comment period. We believe this
shortened comment period is appropriate because we are proposing a
relatively short-term extension of an existing exemption.
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, E.O. 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034;
February 26, 1979). This action was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under these executive orders. It is not
considered to be significant under the Department's regulatory policies
and procedures.
This document proposes to delay the sunset date of an existing
exemption for retrofit on-off switches for frontal air bags. They are
currently available, under specified circumstances, for vehicles
manufactured before September 1, 2012. We are proposing to extend that
date so that they will be available for vehicles manufactured before
September 1, 2015.
The proposed rule would 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 agrees to install an
on-off switch for an air bag. For consumers, the purchasing and
installation of on-off switches is permissive, not prescriptive.
When an eligible consumer obtains the agency's authorization for
the installation of a retrofit on-off switch and a dealer or repair
business agrees to install the switch, there will be costs associated
with that action. The agency estimates that the installation of an on-
off switch would typically require less than one hour of shop time, at
the average national labor rate of approximately $80 per hour. NHTSA
estimates that the cost of an air bag on-off switch for one seating
position is $51 to $84 and the cost of an on-off switch for two seating
positions is $68 to $101. The agency estimates that approximately 500
air bag on-off switch requests are received and authorized annually.
However, we are uncertain about how many people actually pay to get
them installed after we authorize it. Given the relatively low number
of vehicle owners who will ultimately get the retrofit air bag on-off
switches installed and the above estimated costs, the annual net
economic impact of the actions taken under this proposed rule will not
exceed $100 million per year.
Moreover, given the above, the fact that this has been a
longstanding exemption available for consumers and since the agency is
merely proposing to extend the availability of this exemption for an
additional three years of vehicle production, the impacts are so
minimal that a full regulatory evaluation is not needed.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, requires
agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their proposed and final
rules on small businesses, small organizations and small governmental
jurisdictions. I hereby certify that this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposal would merely extend the sunset provision in Part 595.5.
No other changes are being proposed in this document. Small
organizations and small governmental units will not be significantly
affected since the potential cost impacts associated with this action
will be insignificant.
C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today's proposed rule pursuant to Executive
Order 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. The 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.'' Today's proposed rule would not impose any additional
requirements. Instead, it would delay the sunset date of an existing
exemption for retrofit on-off switches for frontal air bags, thereby
lessening burdens on the exempted entities.
NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision:
when a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a
State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue
in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is
identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 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. However, this provision is not relevant to
this proposed rule as this proposal does not involve the establishing,
amending or revoking of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.
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. However, the Supreme
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied
preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of
NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted.
This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon
there being an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard
that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if
someone obtained a State common law tort judgment against the
manufacturer, notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the
NHTSA standard. 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 Executive Order 13132 and 12988, 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.
[[Page 34001]]
To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's
proposed rule and finds that this proposed rule would increase
flexibility for certain exempted entities. As such, NHTSA does not
intend that this proposed rule would preempt state tort law that would
effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers
than that would be established by today's proposed rule. Establishment
of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with
the exemption proposed here. Without any conflict, there could not be
any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.
Further, we are unaware of any State law or action that would prohibit
the actions that this proposed exemption would permit.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
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 a 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.'' If
made final, this proposed rule will 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).
E. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that
implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.
F. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
When promulgating a regulation, agencies are required under
Executive Order 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 proposed rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further
that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they
may file suit in court.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 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. Several of the
conditions placed by this exemption from the make inoperative
prohibition are considered to be information collection requirements as
defined by the OMB in 5 CFR part 1320. Specifically, this exemption
from the make inoperative prohibition for motor vehicle dealers and
repair businesses is conditioned upon vehicle owners filling out and
submitting a request form to the agency, obtaining an authorization
letter from the agency and then presenting the letter to a dealer or
repair business. The exemption is also conditioned upon the dealer or
repair business filling in information about itself and the
installation of the retrofit on-off switch in the form provided for
that purpose in the authorization letter and then returning the form to
NHTSA. These information collection requirements in Part 595 have been
approved by OMB (OMB Number: 2127-0588) through June 30, 2013, pursuant
to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq). NHTSA will request an extension of this approval in a timely
manner.
H. 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 (ISO) and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).
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 NPRM.
I. Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please write to us
with your views.
J. 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. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
K. Privacy Act
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
[[Page 34002]]
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477).
V. Public Participation
How do I prepare and submit comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
We 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. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to the Docket at the address given above under ADDRESSES.
Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by
logging into http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.
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 three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above 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
under ADDRESSES. 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.)
Will the agency consider late comments?
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket
Management 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 Docket Management 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 http://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.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 595
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 595 as follows.
PART 595--MAKE INOPERATIVE EXEMPTIONS
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 1.50.
2. Amend Sec. 595.5 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 595.5 Requirements.
(a) Beginning January 19, 1998, a dealer or motor vehicle repair
business may modify a motor vehicle manufactured before September 1,
2015 by installing an on-off switch that allows an occupant of the
vehicle to turn off an air bag in that vehicle, subject to the
conditions in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
* * * * *
Issued on: May 30, 2012.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-13957 Filed 6-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P