
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 111 (Friday, June 8, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33998-34002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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


