[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30680-30770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11577]
[[Page 30679]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
49 CFR Part 552 et al.
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection;
Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and
Regulations
[[Page 30680]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 552, 571, 585 and 595
[Docket No. NHTSA 00-7013; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AG70
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; interim final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule amends our occupant crash protection standard to
require that future air bags be designed to create less risk of serious
air bag-induced injuries than current air bags, particularly for small
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 adds a wide variety of new requirements,
test procedures, and injury criteria, using an assortment of new
dummies. It replaces the sled test with a rigid barrier crash test for
assessing the protection of unbelted occupants.
The issuance of this rule completes the implementation of our 1996
comprehensive plan for reducing air bag risks. It is also required by
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21), which was
enacted in 1998.
This rule will ensure that advanced air bag technologies are
installed across the full spectrum of future fleets of motor vehicles.
As a result, the air bags in those vehicles will be even more effective
than the current redesigned air bags in saving lives. At the same time,
those air bags will be much less likely than those redesigned air bags
to cause deaths or serious injuries.
The provisions of this rule, particularly the maximum test speed
for the unbelted rigid barrier test, reflect the uncertainty associated
with simultaneously achieving the twin goals of TEA 21. This
uncertainty leads us to take an approach that best assures improved air
bag protection for occupants of all sizes, without compromising efforts
to reduce the risks of injury to vulnerable occupants, including
children and short women seated very close to air bags and out-of-
position occupants. Such an approach is one that involves the least
uncertainty for the occupants who have been most at risk. As long as
the manufacturers improve the already substantial overall level of real
world protection provided by current redesigned air bags, the
uncertainty associated with the challenge of simultaneously achieving
the twin goals of TEA 21 is best resolved at this point in favor of
minimizing risk. This is especially true in the early stages of the
introduction of advanced air bag technologies.
In light of that uncertainty, we are selecting the lower of two
proposed speeds as the maximum test speed for the unbelted rigid
barrier crash test and issuing that part of this rule as an interim
final rule. To resolve that uncertainty, we are planning a multi-year
effort to obtain additional data. We will issue a final decision
regarding the maximum test speed after giving notice and seeking public
comment. If we were to increase the speed, we would provide leadtime
commensurate with the extent of that increase.
DATES: Effective Date: The amendments made in this rule are effective
June 12, 2000.
The incorporation by reference of the publications listed in the
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 12,
2000.
Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration must be received by June
26, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket and
notice number of this document and be submitted to: Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590.
In light of our decision to issue the maximum test speed for the
unbelted rigid barrier test as an interim final rule, we are keeping
the docket for this document open to receive public input. Persons
making submissions to the docket should refer to the docket and notice
number of this document. As we obtain and analyze data, we will place
the results in that docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact
Clarke Harper, Chief, Light Duty Vehicle Division, NPS-11. Telephone:
(202) 366-2264. Fax: (202) 366-4329. E-mail: [email protected].
For legal issues, you may contact Edward Glancy or Rebecca
MacPherson, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-20. Telephone: (202) 366-2992.
Fax: (202) 366-3820.
You may send mail to these officials at the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C.,
20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For information about air bags and related
rulemakings: Visit the home page of the NHTSA web site at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov and select ``Air Bags'' under ``Popular Information''
on the left hand side of the screen. On the next screen, select
``Advanced Air Bags.''
You may also view the materials in the docket for this rulemaking
on the Internet. To do this, do the following:
(1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
(2) On that page, click on ``search.''
(3) On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the
four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document.
Example: The docket number for the Supplemental Proposal in this
rulemaking is ``NHTSA 99-6407.'' If you want to view the materials
filed for that notice, you would type ``6407.'' (For this rule, you
would type ``7013.'') After typing the docket number, click on
``search.''
(4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may
download the comments and other materials.
Note to readers: As an aid to readers who are outside the
engineering community, we have provided a glossary that briefly
explains the key technical terms used in this preamble. In the case
of the term, ``fixed barrier crash test,'' we have supplemented the
explanation with illustrations. That glossary appears in Appendix A
at the end of the preamble, before the regulatory text. Readers may
find it helpful to review that glossary before reading the rest of
this document.
Table of Contents
I. Safety Problems
A. Frontal Crashes and the ``Second Collision''--The Leading
Cause of Occupant Deaths
B. Preventing or Mitigating the Effects of the Second Collision
Using Seat Belts and Air Bags
C. Air Bag Risks and Fatalities
D. Causes of Air Bag Fatalities
II. The Rule, Its Rationale, and Its Implementation
A. Key Provisions of the Rule
B. Other Provisions of the Rule
C. Future Rulemaking Plans
D. Monitoring of Implementation and Field Experience; Research
and Technology Assessment
III. Our Proposals for Advanced Air Bags
A. Our Initial Proposal (September 1998)
B. Our Supplemental Proposal (November 1999)
IV. Public Comments on the Supplemental Proposal
V. Diagrams of the Rule Requirements
VI. Improving the Protection of Unbelted Occupants in Serious
Crashes
A. Summary of Proposed Requirements
B. Type of Test
[[Page 30681]]
C. Agency Decision to Establish Maximum Test Speed at 40 km/h
(25 mph)
1. The Supplemental Proposal
2. Summary of Comments
3. Decision on Maximum Test Speed
D. Other Issues
1. Location of 5th Percentile Adult Female Dummy
2. Minimum Test Speed
VII. Improving the Protection of Belted Occupants in Serious Crashes
A. Belted Rigid Barrier Crash Test
B. Belted Offset Deformable Barrier Crash Test
VIII. Minimizing the Risk of Injuries and Deaths Caused by Air Bags
A. Safety of Infants
1. Option 1: Feature (e.g., Weight or Size Sensor) That
Suppresses the Air Bag When an Infant Is Present
2. Option 2: Low-Risk Deployment for Infants in Rear-Facing
Child Safety Seats
B. Safety of Young Children
1. Option 1: Feature (e.g., Weight or Size Sensor) That
Suppresses the Air Bag When a Child Is Present
2. Option 2: Low-Risk Deployment for Young Children
3. Option 3: Feature That Suppresses the Air Bag When a Child Is
Out-of-Position
C. Safety of Teenage and Adult Drivers
1. Option 1: Low-Risk Deployment for Drivers
2. Option 2: Feature That Suppresses the Air Bag When a Driver
Is Out-of-Position
IX. Injury Criteria
A. Head Injury Criteria
B. Neck Injury Criteria
C. Thoracic Criteria
D. Other Criteria
X. Lead Time and Effective Date
A. Large Manufacturers
B. Limited Line, Small, Multi-Stage Manufacturers and Alterers
1. Limited Line Manufacturers
2. Small Manufacturers
3. Multi-Stage Manufacturers and Alterers
XI. Availability of Original Equipment and Retrofit Manual On-Off
Switches
XII. Warning Labels, Consumer Information, and Telltale Devices
A. Warning Labels and Consumer Information
B. Telltale Devices
XIII. Miscellaneous Issues
A. Child Restraints Used for Testing Suppression and Low-Risk
Deployment Features
B. Dummy Positioning for Static Suppression and Low-Risk
Deployment Tests
C. Due Care Provision
D. Selection of Compliance Options
E. Credits for Early Compliance
F. Choice Between Complying with Existing and/or New Injury
Criteria and Test Requirements
G. Time Periods for Measuring Injury Criteria During Tests
H. Cruise Controls
I. Rescue Operations
J. Hybrid III Dummy Neck
K. Seating Procedure for 5th Percentile Adult Female Dummy
L. Deletion of Tests Between the Initial and the Supplemental
Proposals
M. Consideration of Unintended Consequences
N. Reporting Requirements
O. Use of Children and Adults for Testing Static Suppression
Systems
P. Small Business Concerns
Q. Other Issues
1. Ability to Comment Effectively on the Supplemental Proposal
2. Resubmittal of Petition for Rulemaking by Donald Friedman and
Carl Nash
XIV. Benefits and Costs
XV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Appendix A Glossary
Appendix B Evolution of the Air Bag Provisions in Standard No. 208
Appendix C Chronology of DOT and NHTSA Responses to Air Bag Risks
and Fatalities
Appendix D Installation of Advanced Technologies in Current
Production Motor Vehicles
Regulatory Text
I. Safety Problems
A. Frontal Crashes and the ``Second Collision''--The Leading Cause of
Occupant Deaths
Frontal crashes are the most significant cause of motor vehicle
fatalities. More than \2/3\'s of the people killed in frontal crashes
are unbelted. Young people, i.e., those in their teens and twenties,
account for about 40 percent of the unbelted deaths.
The frontal crash of a vehicle involves two collisions. The first
collision occurs when the vehicle strikes another vehicle or an object
such as a tree. The second collision is the human collision with the
vehicle interior.
When a vehicle collides with an object, a front seat occupant who
is not wearing a seat belt becomes a projectile and keeps moving
forward at speeds up to the vehicle's pre-crash speed. If that unbelted
occupant is not protected by an air bag, the head or chest of the
occupant usually slams into the steering wheel, dashboard, roof pillars
or windshield. In the absence of an air bag, even belted occupants,
particularly belted drivers, are likely to strike the vehicle interior
with their head and neck or chest in a serious crash.
B. Preventing or Mitigating the Effects of the Second Collision Using
Seat Belts and Air Bags
To prevent or mitigate the effects of the second collision,
Standard No. 208 requires that vehicles be equipped with seat belts and
frontal air bags.\1\ Seats belts are estimated to save 9,500 lives in
America each year. Research has found that lap/shoulder belts, when
used properly, reduce the risk of fatal injury to front seat passenger
car occupants by 45 percent and the risk of moderate-to-critical injury
by 50 percent. For light truck occupants, seat belts reduce the risk of
fatal injury by 60 percent and moderate-to-critical injury by 65
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For a history of NHTSA's rulemaking concerning air bags, see
Appendix B, ``Evolution of the Air Bag Provisions in Standard No.
208.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air bags are also highly effective in reducing fatalities from
frontal crashes. Between 1986 and March 1, 2000, air bags have saved an
estimated 5,303 front seat occupants (4,496 drivers (85 percent) and
807 right front passengers (15 percent)).\2\ Of the 5,303 people, 72
percent were unbelted and 28 percent belted. If observed seat belt use
rates were to increase to 85 percent, the goal for 2000 set by DOT in
1997, the distribution of lives saved would change from 72 percent
unbelted/28 percent belted to 60 percent unbelted and 40 percent
belted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ These estimates are based on comparisons of the frequency of
front seat occupant deaths in vehicles without air bags and in
vehicles with air bags. These life savings occurred predominantly in
moderate and high speed crashes; i.e., those with a velocity change
(delta V) above 20 mph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of lives saved annually by air bags is continuing to
increase as the percentage of air bag-equipped vehicles on the road
increases. We estimate that air bags will save more than 3,200 lives
annually in passenger cars and light trucks when all light vehicles on
the road are equipped with driver and passenger air bags. This estimate
is based on an anticipated fleet of vehicles meeting all of the
requirements in this rule and on 1997 seat belt use rates (66.9
percent, according to State-reported surveys). However, if observed
seat belt use rates were to reach 85 percent, the annual savings of
lives due to air bags would be reduced to approximately 2,400.
C. Air Bag Risks and Fatalities
As the numbers above indicate, the attempt through seat belts and
air bags to substitute a survivable event for an unsurvivable one or to
substitute a less injurious event for a more injurious one is not
always successful. While air bags are saving an increasing number of
people in moderate and high speed crashes, they have occasionally
caused fatalities, especially to unrestrained, out-of-position
children, in relatively low speed crashes. As of April 1, 2000, NHTSA's
Special Crash Investigation (SCI) program had confirmed a total of 158
fatalities induced by the deployment of an air bag. Of that total, 92
were children, 60 were drivers, and 6 were adult passengers. An
additional 38 fatalities were under investigation by SCI on that date,
but they had not been confirmed as having been induced by air bags.
[[Page 30682]]
Changes have already occurred that are reducing the number of
persons killed by air bags. Some changes are behavioral. As a result of
public education programs, improved labeling and media coverage, the
public is much more aware of the dangers air bags pose to children in
the front seat and to drivers sitting too close to the air bag and is
taking steps to reduce those dangers. For example, more children are
being put in the back seat. More short-statured drivers are moving back
from the steering wheel.
Other changes are technological. First, as NHTSA noted in its
report, ``Air Bag Technology in Light Passenger Vehicles'' (December
1999), the air bag outputs (i.e., pressure rise rate and the peak
pressure) were reduced significantly in many MY 1998 and later motor
vehicles in comparison to the earlier vehicles.\3\ Hence, the sled test
option successfully expedited the depowering of existing air bags.
While there are many means by which air bag aggressiveness can be
reduced, reducing air bag outputs is a quick means of accomplishing
this goal. The agency's analyses also show that, between MY 1997 and MY
1998, 50 to 60 percent of the vehicles in the fleet covered by the 1997
IR lowered the output of the driver-side air bag, while about 40 to 50
percent of the vehicles in that fleet lowered the output for the
passenger side. Comparison of the data for MY 1997 and MY 1998 vehicles
shows that, on average, the pressure rise rate in MY 1998 vehicles
decreased about 22 percent for the driver air bag and 14 percent for
the passenger air bags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The report indicates that some vehicle manufacturers had
already depowered some air bags prior to the March 1997 rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The data provided by the manufacturers also show that they have
made significant changes in the design of their air bag systems other
than the air bag pressure rise rate and peak pressure in their air bag
designs, some over a period of many years.\4\ Thus, depowering is not
the only technological option for reducing risk. One change is the
recessing of driver air bags so that the module is located farther away
from the plane of the steering wheel, and thus farther from the driver.
Although this feature was not common in the early 1990s, it is found in
almost half of the MY 1997 and MY 1998 vehicles in the responses to the
1997 IR. Similarly, the air bag mounting location on the passenger side
has also shown significant changes. Other features, such as cover tear
patterns, tear pressure, fold patterns and the number and type of
tethers, have changed in recent years, all of which may have
collectively contributed to the reduced aggressiveness of air bags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Again, these changes began before the March 1997 rule, but
have accelerated since then.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the impact of the redesigned air bags on the numbers of
air bag-induced fatalities, we used the available SCI data. We compared
the rate per million registered vehicles of air bag-induced fatalities
for the first 27 months that MY 1998 redesigned vehicles were on the
road with the rate of air bag-induced fatalities for the first 27
months that MY 1996-97 vehicles were on the road. We took this approach
in an effort to ensure that the amount of exposure was comparable for
both groups of vehicles. We found that the air bag-induced fatality
rate for all MY 1998 vehicles is 66 percent less than the fatality rate
for MY 1996-97 vehicles (0.48 for MY 1998 versus an average of 1.43 for
MY 1996-97).
Part of this reduction is the result of changes in vehicle design
and part is the result of changes in behavior; i.e., using seat belts
more frequently, moving children into the back seat, and moving the
driver's seat further back. We found evidence of behavioral changes by
examining the front seat and rear seat distributions of all child
passengers (age 0 to 12) in passenger cars, survivors plus fatalities,
in the Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) from 1995 through mid-
1999. In cars with passenger air bags, the percentage of toddlers and
infants riding in the back seat increased from about 70 percent in 1995
to about 90 percent in 1999.
D. Causes of Air Bag Fatalities
Several factors are common to air bag-induced fatalities. First,
they involve air bags that do not meet the suppression or low risk
deployment requirements of this rule. Second, the occupants are
generally very close to an air bag module when the air bag begins to
deploy during a crash.\5\ The one fact that is common to all persons
who died is not their height, weight, gender, or age. Instead, it is
the fact that they were very close to an air bag when it started to
deploy. For some people, e.g., infants in rear-facing infant seats,
this occurred because they were initially sitting very close to the air
bag. For the other occupants, this typically occurred because they were
not restrained by seat belts or child safety seats and moved forward
during pre-crash braking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Vehicle speed is not a causative factor. Most of the crashes
involving fatalities that have been confirmed as air bag-induced
occurred at relatively low speeds. If the passenger air bag had not
deployed in those low speed crashes, the people would probably not
have been killed or seriously injured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Closeness is a problem because, in order for an air bag to cushion
an occupant's head, neck, chest and abdomen and keep the occupant from
hitting the steering wheel, windshield or instrument panel, the air bag
must move into place quickly. The force of a deploying air bag is
greatest as the air bag begins to inflate. If occupants are very close
to or in contact with the cover of an air bag that does not meet the
low risk deployment requirements of this rule, they can be hit with
enough force to cause serious injury or death when the air bag begins
to inflate. This can be caused either by the cover as the air bag
breaks out of the module (known as the ``punch-out'' effect) or by the
unfolding and inflating air bag as it first conforms to the contours of
the occupant and then moves rapidly into its fully-inflated shape
(known as the ``membrane'' effect).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In general, a driver can avoid any serious air bag risks by
sitting at least 10 inches away from the air bag (measured from the
breastbone to the center of the air bag cover) and by wearing a lap/
shoulder seat belt. Teenage and adult passengers can avoid this risk
by moving their seat as rearward as possible and wearing their seat
belts. Even in a vehicle that does not have any air bags, children
should ride in the rear seat whenever possible, since that is a
significantly safer location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In all of the 92 SCI confirmed fatalities involving children, the
children were very close to the instrument panel when the air bag
deployed. Because of their proximity, the children sustained fatal head
or neck injuries from the deploying passenger air bag.
Eighteen fatally-injured infants were close to the air bag because
they were in rear-facing infant seats installed directly in front of a
passenger air bag. A rear-facing infant seat which is installed in the
front seat of a vehicle with a passenger air bag will almost always
position the infant's head very close to the passenger air bag. Several
other infants were being held in the lap of a passenger.
All but a few of the 74 fatally-injured older children were not
using any type of restraint.\7\ Of those who were restrained, most were
not correctly restrained. The non-use or improper use of occupant
restraints allowed the vast majority of these children to move forward
during pre-impact braking \8\ before the actual crash. As a result,
they
[[Page 30683]]
were very close to the air bag when it deployed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ NHTSA notes that almost all of the 68 fatally-injured
children were 1-7 years old.
\8\ Pre-impact braking was a factor in a very high percentage of
crashes resulting in the deaths of the older children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As in the case of the children fatally injured by air bags, the key
factor regarding the confirmed deaths of adults has been their
closeness to the air bag when it deployed. The most common factor that
allowed them to become very close to the air bag was the failure to use
seat belts. Only 18 of the 60 drivers are known to have been properly
restrained by lap and shoulder belts at the time of the crash.
II. The Rule, Its Rationale, and Its Implementation
A. Key Provisions of the Rule
Early Agency Efforts to Reduce Air Bag Risks
Since the early 1990s, NHTSA has been taking steps to induce
changes in behavior and technology to reduce the risk of such deaths
and serious injuries to children and small adult drivers, especially
when they are out-of-position.\9\ We focused our initial efforts to
reduce air bag risks on a public education campaign to alert the public
about the dangers of air bags to children in general and to infants in
particular. We urged parents to place their children always in the back
seat and to ensure that they were always properly restrained. We
required informative, text-only, warning labels to be placed in new
motor vehicles and on child restraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Even before the 1990's, the issue of air bag-induced risks
to out-of-position occupants was addressed by the agency in its
rulemaking and research related to air bags. For a history of those
earlier activities, see Appendix B at the end of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 Comprehensive Plan for Addressing Air Bag Risks
To address the problems that arose with the air bags installed in
many motor vehicles, the agency announced a comprehensive plan in
November 1996. The plan set forth an array of immediate, interim and
long-term measures. The immediate and interim measures focused on
behavioral changes and relatively modest technological changes. The
long-term measures focused on more significant technological changes,
i.e., advanced air bag technologies. The immediate steps included
expanding efforts to persuade parents to place their children in the
rear seat; requiring new labels with eye-catching graphics and colors
and strong, clear warning messages; extending the period of time for
permitting the installation of original equipment on-off switches in
new vehicles which either lacked a rear seat or had a rear seat too
small to permit the installation of a child restraint system; and
permitting the installation of retrofit on-off switches in vehicles-in-
use to protect people in at-risk groups. Because of the lead time
needed to develop and install advanced air bag technologies, NHTSA
announced plans to propose an interim measure to accelerate
manufacturer efforts to redesign their air bags. In the long term, the
agency said that it would conduct rulemaking to require the
installation of advanced air bags.
Contribution of Behavioral Changes and the Current, Redesigned Air Bags
to Reducing Air Bag Risks
To implement the interim phase of the comprehensive plan and speed
the redesigning and recertifying of air bags to reduce the risks to
out-of-position occupants, we amended Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash
Protection, 49 CFR 571.208, to establish a temporary option under which
vehicle manufacturers could certify their vehicles based on a 48 km/h
(30 mph) unbelted sled test using a 50th percentile adult male dummy,
instead of the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier crash test using
that dummy. 62 F.R. 12960; March 19, 1997.
Available data indicate that the redesigned air bags, together with
behavioral changes, such as placing more children in the back seat,
have reduced the risks from air bags for the at-risk populations.
Although these real-world data reflect only about two years of field
experience with redesigned air bags, they preliminarily indicate that
the redesigned air bags in model year (MY) 1998 and 1999 vehicles
provide the same level of frontal crash protection as that provided by
earlier air bags.
While the redesigned air bags in current motor vehicles have
contributed to the reduction in the risk of air bag-induced injuries,
they can still cause death or serious injury to unrestrained occupants.
We selected the provisions adopted in this rule to ensure that future
air bags provide more frontal crash protection, and reduce risk
further, than either the current redesigned air bags or air bags that
would have been minimally compliant with the sled test.
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21),
enacted by Congress in June 1998, requires us to issue a rule amending
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash
Protection:
* * * to improve occupant protection for occupants of different
sizes, belted and unbelted, under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 208, while minimizing the risk to infants, children,
and other occupants from injuries and deaths caused by air bags, by
means that include advanced air bags.
(Emphasis added.)
TEA 21 specifies that its twin goals are to be accomplished by
means that include advanced air bag technologies. Although these
technologies are beginning to be incorporated in some new vehicles,
many aspects of those technologies are still undergoing development and
refinement today.
The rule is required to be consistent with section 30111 of Title
49. Section 30111 requires that, among other things, Federal motor
vehicle safety standards be practicable, meet the need for motor
vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms.
Under TEA 21, we were to issue the rule by September 1, 1999,
unless we determined that the rule could not be issued by that date.
The many issues in this rulemaking led us to make such a determination.
We notified Congress of this determination in a letter dated August 3,
1999. Therefore, under TEA 21, we were required to issue the rule by
March 1, 2000.
TEA 21 addresses various other issues, including the effective date
and phase-in for the requirements adopted in this rule, as well as the
opportunity to earn phase-in credits through early compliance. A
complete discussion of TEA 21's provisions is included in the 1998
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). See 63 F.R. 49958 at 49961;
September 18, 1998.
The Gathering of Information and Soliciting of Comments for This
Rulemaking To Reduce Air Bag Risks Further
Since 1996, the agency has been carefully laying the groundwork for
completing the implementation of its comprehensive plan by issuing this
rule. We have made extensive efforts to gather information and solicit
public comments that would help us identify and adopt a sensible,
effective array of requirements for increasing protection and
minimizing risk. In February 1997, we held a public technical workshop
on advanced air bag technologies. In December 1997, we sent an
Information Request (IR) to the vehicle manufacturers to obtain
detailed information concerning their changes in air bag design during
the 1990s. In April 1998, Jet Propulsion Laboratories completed, at
NHTSA's request, a report titled ``Advanced Air Bag Technology
Assessment.'' In mid-1998, Congress made the judgment that advanced air
bags should be required. It enacted TEA
[[Page 30684]]
21 mandating that we amend our occupant protection standard to require
vehicle manufacturers to improve the protection provided by air bags
and to reduce the risks associated with them by means that include
advanced air bag technologies. Although TEA 21 required only that we
seek public comment once on our proposals before taking final action,
we asked for public comment twice. We issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) in September 1998, and a supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) in November 1999. To help us thoroughly
explore the issues, we proposed or discussed in those two notices a
variety of alternatives and posed a wide-ranging array of questions.
Based on the information we received in response to the 1997 IR, we
completed a report titled ``Air Bag Technology in Light Passenger
Vehicles'' in December 1999.
Changes to Our Initial Proposals in Response to Information and
Comments
We carefully considered the information we gathered and the
comments we received on the 1998 NPRM and appropriately adjusted our
proposals in the 1999 SNPRM to respond to those materials. For example,
based on the public comments on the NPRM regarding the type and number
of tests needed to meet the risk minimization goals of TEA 21, we
significantly reduced the number of those tests when we issued the
SNPRM.
Further, there was a substantial shift between the NPRM and SNPRM
in the issues that needed to be resolved in determining which test
should be specified to promote the improvements required by TEA 21 in
the ability of vehicles to protect unbelted people in moderate to high
speed crashes, i.e., those that are potentially fatal. In the NPRM, the
primary issue was whether we should (1) retain the unbelted sled
testing option, or (2) delete that option, leaving the existing 48 km/h
(30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier crash testing provision as the sole
basis for certification compliance with Standard No. 208's requirements
regarding the protection of unbelted occupants.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ As explained in greater detail below, this rule transforms
unbelted rigid barrier testing under Standard No. 208 through the
adoption of new and more stringent injury criteria, a new small
adult female dummy seated far forward of where the existing mid-
sized adult male dummy is placed in compliance testing, a new belted
offset test to ensure that sensors work properly in crashes that are
not similar to a crash into a rigid barrier and the establishment of
complementary risk reduction tests that will affect how
manufacturers comply with the unbelted rigid barrier test in the
future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the SNPRM, the primary issue regarding unbelted testing was what
type of unbelted crash test should be specified, and at what top speed.
We proposed several alternatives. One alternative was to test unbelted
protection in an improved unbelted rigid barrier crash test with a top
speed within the range of 40 to 48 km/h (25 to 30 mph). We said that if
we issued a rule setting the maximum speed at 40 km/h (25 mph), we
might also increase the maximum speed of the belted rigid barrier test
from the current 48 km/h to 56 km/h (30 to 35 mph). Another alternative
was to test unbelted protection in an unbelted offset deformable
barrier test with a maximum speed to be established in the rule within
the range of 48 to 56 km/h (30 to 35 mph).
In addition, we sought comment on other possibilities. One was to
issue ``a final rule temporarily reducing the maximum speed for the
unbelted rigid barrier test to 40 km/h (25 mph) (or some other speed,
e.g., 44 km/h (27.5 mph))'' and then returning ``it to 48 km/h (30 mph)
after an appropriate period of time, e.g., after the TEA 21 phase-in.''
Another was ``to temporarily permit relaxed injury criteria performance
limits (e.g., 72 g chest acceleration limit instead of 60 g chest
acceleration limit) in unbelted rigid barrier tests between 25 mph and
30 mph.''
Finally, we proposed in the SNPRM that the agency would not test at
a speed of less than 29 km/h (18 mph) under the unbelted rigid barrier
test alternative, and that the agency would not test at a speed of less
than 35 km/h (22 mph) under the unbelted offset deformable barrier test
alternative. This was not only a departure from the proposal in the
NPRM, but also from prior agency practice. In the NPRM, we had proposed
to test at any speed up to the maximum test speed. One reason for this
change was that we wanted to be sure that the standard did not push
deployment thresholds downward, i.e., cause air bags to be deployed at
lower speeds than are appropriate for maximum occupant protection.
Public Comments on the SNPRM
The commenters on the SNPRM, including vehicle manufacturers, air
bag manufacturers, insurance companies, public interest groups,
academia, and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB),
generally agreed with most aspects of that document. For example, the
commenters agreed with the agency's proposals to reduce air bag-induced
risks by specifying that driver air bags deploy in a low-risk manner in
low speed crashes and the passenger air bags either deploy in that
manner or turn off in the presence of young children.
With respect to our proposals for improving occupant protection,
most commenters supported replacing the unbelted sled test with an
unbelted rigid barrier crash test. The vehicle manufacturers, which had
opposed a rigid barrier test in their comments on the NPRM, agreed to a
return to such a test.
However, while there was a convergence of opinion as to the type of
unbelted test, there was a sharp difference of opinion among the
commenters on the SNPRM regarding the maximum speed for the unbelted
rigid barrier crash test. Several safety advocacy and consumer groups
urged that the maximum speed be kept at 48 km/h (30 mph). The vehicle
manufacturers, air bag suppliers, an insurance industry safety
organization, and several other organizations, believing that a maximum
test speed of 48 km/h (30 mph) could make significant repowering
necessary, urged that the maximum speed be set at 40 km/h (25 mph).
They urged further that the speed be maintained at that level pending
analysis of field experience with the air bags installed in motor
vehicles during that period. For similar reasons, the NTSB also urged a
maximum test speed of 40 km/h (25 mph).
There were also significant differences of opinion regarding our
proposals about the provision providing a due care defense against
findings of noncompliance with the air bag requirements of Standard No.
208 and about the wording of the statements regarding air bag-induced
risks on the proposed vehicle labels.
We note that a substantial number of comments were submitted to the
docket for the SNPRM after the comment closing date. In preparing this
rule, we have considered all comments placed in the docket on or before
April 28, 2000.
The Development of a Data-Driven Rule
Before we made decisions on which provisions should be included in
this rule to improve air bag performance as required by TEA 21, we
carefully considered the available information and the public comments,
the underlying safety problems, the performance of air bag systems in
current motor vehicles, the ability (including lead time needs) of
vehicle manufacturers to achieve better performance in future motor
vehicles, the air bag technology (including advanced air bag
technology) currently available or being developed, the cost of
compliance, and other factors. Because
[[Page 30685]]
the comments on the SNPRM focused on the alternatives for improving the
protection provided by air bags, we were particularly careful in
considering the comments concerning the costs, benefits and risks
associated with each of those alternatives.
The requirements in today's rule for improving protection and
minimizing risk are challenging and will push the vehicle manufacturers
to make needed safety improvements in air bag performance. Our
decisions regarding the selection of those requirements was based on
available test data and analysis, and our informed judgment about the
best way of implementing the requirements of TEA 21.
The Principal Provisions of the Rule
The rule will improve protection and minimize risk by requiring new
tests and injury criteria and specifying the use of an entire family of
test dummies: the existing dummy representing 50th percentile adult
males, and new dummies representing 5th percentile adult females, six-
year old children, three-year old children, and one-year old infants.
With the addition of those dummies, our occupant crash protection
standard will more fully reflect the range in sizes of vehicle
occupants. As noted above, most aspects of this rule are supported by
most commenters on this rulemaking, including vehicle manufacturers,
air bag manufacturers, insurance companies, public interest groups,
academia, and the NTSB.
The rule will be phased in during two stages. The first stage
phase-in requires vehicles to be certified as passing the unbelted test
requirements for both the 5th percentile adult female and 50th
percentile adult male dummies in a 40 km/h (25 mph) rigid barrier
crash, and belted test requirements for the same two dummies in a rigid
barrier crash with a maximum test speed of 48 km/h (30 mph). In
addition, the first stage requires vehicles to include technologies
that will minimize risk for young children and small adults.
The second stage phase-in requires vehicles to be certified as
passing the belted test requirements for the 50th percentile adult male
dummy at 56 km/h (35 mph). This requirement will ensure improved
protection for belted occupants.
Risk Minimization Provisions Implemented During First Stage Phase-in
During the first stage phase-in, from September 1, 2003 to August
31, 2006, increasing percentages of motor vehicles will be required to
meet requirements for minimizing air bag risks, primarily by either
automatically turning off the air bag in the presence of young children
or deploying the air bag in a manner much less likely to cause serious
or fatal injury to out-of-position occupants. If they so wish,
manufacturers may choose to use a combination of those two approaches.
Manufacturers that decide to turn off the passenger air bag will
use weight sensors and/or other means of detecting the presence of
young children. To test the ability of those means to detect the
presence of children, the rule specifies that child dummies be placed
in child seats that are, in turn, placed on the passenger seat. It also
specifies tests that are conducted with unrestrained child dummies
sitting, kneeling, standing, or lying on the passenger seat.
The ability of air bags to deploy in a low risk manner will be
tested using child dummies on the passenger side and the small adult
female dummy on the driver side. For manufacturers that decide to
design their passenger air bags to deploy in a low risk manner, the
rule specifies that unbelted child dummies be placed against the
instrument panel. This location was selected because pre-crash braking
can cause unrestrained children to move forward into or near that
position before the air bag deploys. The air bag is then deployed. The
ability of driver air bags to deploy in a low risk manner will be
tested by placing the 5th percentile adult female dummy against the
steering wheel and then deploying the air bag.
Protection Improvement Provisions Implemented During First Stage Phase-
in
In addition, the vehicle manufacturers will be required to meet a
rigid barrier crash test with both unbelted 5th percentile adult female
dummies and unbelted 50th percentile adult male dummies. The unbelted
rigid barrier test replicates what happens to motor vehicles and their
occupants in real world crashes better than the current sled test does.
The maximum test speed for unbelted dummy testing will be 40 km/h (25
mph).
Our decision to set the maximum test speed for unbelted dummy
testing at 40 km/h (25 mph) is being issued as an interim final rule.
We conclude that is the appropriate test speed for at least the TEA 21
implementation period (MY2004-2007). That speed will provide vehicle
manufacturers with the flexibility they need during that period to meet
the technological challenges involved in simultaneously improving
protection and minimizing risk. To achieve those twin goals, the
manufacturers will have to comply with the wide variety of new
requirements using an array of new dummies during this near-term time
frame.
However, we draw no final conclusion about the appropriateness of
that test speed in the longer run. At this time, we cannot assess
whether the uncertainty about the manufacturers' ability to improve
protection further and minimize risk simultaneously will persist beyond
the TEA 21 implementation period. In addition, while we believe that it
is unlikely that a 40 km/h (25 mph) maximum test speed will lead to a
reduction in high speed protection, we cannot rule out that
possibility. If manufacturers were to engage in significant depowering,
it could result in lesser crash performance for teenage and adult
occupants. On the other hand, even if current levels of real world
protection were only maintained, rather than improved, the marginal
benefits of a 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted maximum test speed would be
significantly diminished or eliminated.
To help resolve these issues and concerns, we are planning a multi-
year effort to obtain additional data. The activities comprising that
effort are described in the section below entitled, ``Monitoring of
Implementation and Field Experience; Research and Technology
Assessment.'' Based on the results of those information gathering and
analysis efforts, we will make a final decision regarding the maximum
test speed for unbelted dummy testing in the long run, after providing
opportunity for informed public comment.
There are still other additions to Standard No. 208. To ensure that
vehicle manufacturers upgrade their crash sensing and software systems
as necessary to prevent late air bag deployments in crashes with soft
pulses, vehicles will be required to meet an up-to-40 km/h (25 mph)
offset deformable barrier test using belted 5th percentile adult female
dummies. A late air bag deployment would allow enough time for an
unrestrained occupant to move forward into the steering wheel or
instrument panel during a crash before the air bag deploys. Thus, the
occupant would be in contact with or very close to the air bag module
when the air bag deploys, creating a risk of severe or fatal injury. In
addition, the 5th percentile female dummy is added to the 48
km/h (30 mph) belted rigid barrier test.
Provision Implemented During Second Stage Phase-in
During the second stage phase-in, from September 1, 2007 to August
31, 2010, the maximum test speed for the belted rigid barrier test will
increase
[[Page 30686]]
from 48 km/h (30 mph) to 56 km/h (35 mph) in tests with the 50th
percentile adult male dummy only. As in the case of the first-stage
requirements, this second-stage requirement will be phased in for
increasing percentages of motor vehicles. We did not include the 5th
percentile adult female dummy in this requirement because we have
sparse information on the practicability of such a requirement. As
noted below, we will initiate testing to examine this issue and
anticipate proposing increasing the test speed for belted tests using
the 5th percentile adult female dummy to 56 km/h (35 mph), beginning at
the same time that the belted test must be met at that speed using the
50th percentile adult male.
Schedule for Implementation
We have changed the date on which the implementation of this rule
begins from September 1, 2002, as proposed in the SNPRM, to September
1, 2003. This gives vehicle manufacturers as much lead time as TEA 21
allows for the first stage phase-in. TEA 21 does not permit a later
starting date. This change will give the manufacturers a lead time of
more than 3 years for vehicles produced during the first year (Model
Year (MY) 2004) of that phase-in and more than 6 years for vehicles
produced during MY 2007, the first MY in which vehicle manufacturers
will be required to manufacture all of their vehicles in compliance
with the first stage requirements without the aid of credits.
We changed the starting date for the first stage in part because of
the breadth of the challenges that the vehicle manufacturers will be
required to meet during that stage. They will need to certify their
vehicles to an unbelted barrier test instead of a sled test. Moreover,
they will need to meet this test for the new 5th percentile adult
female dummy seated all the way forward as well as for the existing
50th percentile adult male dummy seated in the mid-track position. They
will also need to meet a new belted offset deformable barrier test
using the 5th percentile adult female dummy and a belted rigid barrier
test for both 50th percentile adult male dummies and 5th percentile
female dummies. For all of these tests, they will need to meet new
injury criteria performance limits. Finally, the vehicle manufacturers
will need to certify their vehicles to an array of test requirements to
minimize the risk to infants, children, and other occupants from
injuries and deaths caused by air bags using the 5th percentile adult
female dummy and the child dummies. The starting date of September 1,
2003 will give the manufacturers additional time to gain experience
with the new dummies, final specifications for which have only recently
been established.
Further, the longer lead time for the first stage phase-in will
also promote technological innovation regarding ways of minimizing
risks. It will give vehicle manufacturers more time to complete
development and testing of the advanced technologies they plan to use.
Further, we are aware that suppliers are continuing work on additional
technologies. The additional time will enable the manufacturers to
explore further using some of these additional technologies.
Rationales for Risk Minimization Requirements
The agency drafted the risk minimization requirements to give
vehicle manufacturers a broad choice among those advanced air bag
technologies that can be used either to turn air bags off in
appropriate circumstances or cause air bags to deploy in a low risk
manner.\11\ Thus, the vehicle manufacturers will have the freedom to
choose from a variety of available technological solutions or to
innovate by developing new ones if they so desire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The rule also establishes very general performance
requirements for dynamic automatic suppression systems (DASS) and a
special expedited petitioning and rulemaking process for considering
procedures for testing advanced air bag systems incorporating a
DASS. In response to comments, modifications have been made to
address concerns about confidentiality and timing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate that if advanced air bag technologies (suppression and
low risk deployment) are 100 percent reliable, they could have
eliminated 95 percent of the known air bag fatalities that have
occurred to date in low speed crashes. For example, weight sensors can
be installed in the passenger seat so that the passenger air bag is
turned off when children, from infants up to the typical 6-year-old,
are present. The use of weight sensors for that purpose should
essentially eliminate the risk of air bag-induced fatal injuries for
children in that size and age range. Based on available data, it does
not appear that turning air bags off for those young children would
result in the loss of any benefits. There is an element of uncertainty
about the level of reliability and effectiveness of the suppression for
children from 0 to 6 years old and low risk deployment designs that
will be actually installed in vehicles. We also note that we do not
currently have a dummy suitable for assessing the effectiveness of
suppression and low risk deployment for children ages 7-12. (See the
section below entitled, ``Future Rulemaking Plans.'') Our decision
concerning the maximum test speed for the unbelted rigid barrier test
reflects, in part, these uncertainties and limitations.
The availability of advanced air bag technologies for minimizing
risks is not just a theoretical possibility. Vehicle manufacturers are
very actively working on completing their development and testing of
weight sensor systems so that they will be ready for installation for
the passenger air bags in their motor vehicles. Installation could
begin as early as the next model year.\12\ Means of reducing risk for
drivers, including dual-stage air bags coupled with sensors for driver
seat belt use and driver seat position, are already being installed in
some vehicles. For a description of advanced technologies and a partial
listing of current models equipped with one or more types of those
technologies, see Appendix D, ``Advanced Technologies for Improving Air
Bags.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The MY 2001 Ford Windstar will, according to a report in
the April 24, 2000 edition of Automotive News, be equipped with an
advanced air bag system ``designed to prevent the deployment of the
front passenger airbag when sensors determine the passenger's weight
is less than 45 pounds.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rationales for Protection Improvement Requirements
Replacing the Unbelted Sled Test With the Unbelted Rigid Barrier Crash
Test
The agency has decided to delete the sled test option and retain
the unbelted rigid barrier crash test provision for the reasons
explained in the NPRM and SNPRM. Among those reasons is that a crash
test replicates how vehicle structures and air bag systems work
together in real world crashes. A sled test cannot do that because
while the vehicle is quickly decelerated in such a test, it never
crashes into anything. As a result, the sled test cannot take into
account the ability of a motor vehicle's structure to manage crash
energy. Further, the sled test uses a generic crash pulse instead of
the individual crash pulse of the particular vehicle being tested, and
deploys all air bags at a fixed time during the event rather than
having that decision made by the crash sensing system of the vehicle.
Selection of 40 km/h (25 mph) as Top Speed for Unbelted Rigid Barrier
Test
In developing today's rule, we gave serious consideration to
specifying 40 km/h (25 mph) as the maximum speed for the unbelted rigid
barrier test for an initial period (so that vehicle manufacturers could
focus during that period on risk minimization) and then phasing-in a 48
km/h (30 mph) unbelted test speed in the 2008 through 2010 model years.
Our initial inclination to
[[Page 30687]]
increase the maximum test speed to 48 km/h (30 mph) during the second
of two phase-ins reflected several considerations. First, our testing
of vehicles with redesigned air bags indicated that the vast majority
of current vehicles can meet that test using 50th percentile adult male
dummies. Those test results were not rebutted by any significant test
data provided by the motor vehicle manufacturers or others. Therefore,
the record did not support the argument by the motor vehicle
manufacturers and others that a 48 km/h (30 mph) test using a 50th
percentile adult male dummy would require any kind of general
``repowering'' of air bags.\13\ Second, we concluded that air bags
could be designed to meet a 48 km/h (30 mph) test with both 5th
percentile adult female dummies and 50th percentile adult male dummies
without increasing risks to out-of-position occupants.\14\ Third, we
believed that a specific requirement to return eventually to a 48 km/h
(30 mph) test should be adopted to ensure that vehicle manufacturers
did not engage in significant additional depowering of air bags, or
make them substantially smaller, which would reduce their
protectiveness to occupants in high speed crashes.\15\ We believed then
that there could be an economic incentive to install air bags that were
minimally compliant with a 40 km/h (25 mph) test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Based on NHTSA crash tests (including tests of some
vehicles with stiff crash pulses) of a variety of types and sizes of
vehicles in the current new vehicle fleet, we concluded that the air
bags in the vast majority of current vehicles would pass a 48 km/h
(30 mph) crash test using a 50th percentile adult male dummy with
much the same compliance margins as before. Thus, we concluded that
more power was not needed for those vehicles to pass that test with
that dummy. Further, the fact that some current vehicles with stiff
pulses meet the injury criteria suggested that vehicle manufacturers
might not have to repower air bag systems in other stiff pulse
vehicles in order to meet the criteria.
More fundamentally, we reasoned that air bags that currently
have enough power to meet the injury criteria using the 78 kg (172
lb.) 50th percentile adult male dummy would not need more power to
meet the criteria using the much lighter 50 kg (110 lb.) 5th
percentile adult female dummy. Our tests indicate that the primary
problem for the small female dummy in those current vehicles that do
not satisfy the injury criteria in a 48 km/h (30 mph) test with the
5th percentile adult female dummy is that the dummy experiences too
much force in the neck or chest area. We said further that the
solution for the smaller, lighter female dummy would not be to put
additional power into the bag. Not only would that step be
unnecessary to protect the 50th percentile adult male dummy, but
also it would be likely to exacerbate the problems with the small
female dummy. We concluded that the solution would be to redesign
the air bag system---using recessed air bags and new sensors,
multiple inflation levels, fold patterns, bias flaps, etc.---to
assure compliance for both the 5th percentile adult female dummy and
50th adult male dummy.
\14\ We noted that tests of some current production vehicles
demonstrate that they incorporate the designs and technologies
necessary to enable them to comply at 48 km/h (30 mph) on both the
driver and passenger sides with both dummies. These technologies
include improved air bag folding, bias flaps, and internal baffles/
tethers. We believed that manufacturers could add other measures
such as dual-stage inflators, seat position sensors, recessed air
bag modules, and better energy-absorbing steering columns. If any
vehicle manufacturer wished to do so, it could also develop and
provide chambered, dual-stage air bags that are designed to fill
fully only an inner chamber of the air bag, instead of the entire
air bag, when the driver seat is near the full forward adjustment
position on the seat track.
\15\ We noted that the difference between a 40 km/h (25 mph) and
a 48 km/h (30 mph) crash is significant. The significance does not
lie in the 20 percent increase in speed, but in the 44 percent
increase in crash energy. It is because of that increase in crash
energy that the risk of serious or fatal injury is significantly
higher at 48 km/h (30 mph) than at 40 km/h (25 mph). Further, a
maximum test speed of 48 km/h (30 mph) represents a higher
percentage of the crashes that produce serious or fatal occupant
injuries. As a result, if air bags were designed only to minimally
meet a 40 km/h (25 mph) crash test, many occupants, particularly
larger occupants, would not be adequately protected in higher speed
crashes. We estimated that 248 to 413 lives could be lost annually
if manufacturers did only the minimum required of them by a 40 km/h
(25 mph) crash test requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After further examination of the issues and the information before
us, and an assessment of the areas of uncertainty about simultaneously
improving protection and minimizing risk, we have concluded that the
adoption of a 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted requirement would not be in the
best overall interest of safety. We have decided instead to set the
maximum test speed for the unbelted rigid barrier crash tests at 40 km/
h (25 mph) as an interim final rule. We selected that test speed based
on several factors.
First, particularly given the risks that the first generation of
air bags posed to out-of-position children and small adult females, and
the reaction of the public to those risks, it is very important that
advanced air bags be properly designed from the very beginning. We note
that air bags, by their nature, present a potential for safety trade-
offs not presented by other safety features. That is, while air bags
dissipate crash energy for most occupants when they interact with them
when fully inflated, the energy released during deployment could be
injurious to out-of-position occupants in their interaction with an
inflating air bag. This interaction of an occupant and a deploying air
bag can be a source of serious injury or death. In contrast, other
safety features typically just dissipate energy when occupants interact
with components in the vehicle interior in crashes; they do not add
energy. Because of this potential for death and injury, we want to be
cautious in how far and how fast vehicle manufacturers are required to
advance the state of advanced air bag technologies in their vehicles.
Since a significant percentage of current vehicles can already
satisfy the new unbelted barrier crash test at 40 km/h (25 mph) with
both the 5th percentile adult female dummy and the 50th percentile
adult male dummy, we conclude that setting the maximum speed at that
level will help vehicle manufacturers to focus their resources and
compliance efforts during the first stage on meeting the risk reduction
requirements. We want to continue the progress already made in using
technological means for reducing air bag-induced risks.
While the manufacturers' resources for dealing with air bags, as
well as all the other engineering issues associated with future motor
vehicles, are extensive, there are limits to how much can be done at
any one time. We need to consider the variety and complexity of changes
in air bag testing and technology that will be required by this rule.
As we noted above in the discussion of the implementation schedule, the
array of new requirements that the manufacturers will have to meet in
the first stage is challenging. We are requiring the use of a new test
dummy (the 5th percentile adult female) in high speed tests, adding a
new test (offset belted), adding new neck injury criteria, and making
existing injury criteria more stringent (chest deflection). We are also
adding an entire new series of risk minimization tests, which will
require manufacturers to install air bag suppression systems or low-
risk deployment systems, or both.
We are particularly concerned about the difficulties of trying to
meet the unbelted rigid barrier test at 48 km/h (30 mph) with both
adult dummies while simultaneously trying to reduce the risks of air
bag-induced injuries and deaths. As noted above, the unbelted rigid
barrier crash test specified by this rule for the future is an improved
test that differs fundamentally from the unbelted rigid barrier test
that Standard No. 208 has specified in the past. In the past, the
Standard specified only that test and the belted rigid barrier test,
and used only one dummy, the 50th percentile adult male dummy. The
injury criteria for the unbelted rigid barrier crash test did not
evaluate the potential for neck injuries and allowed even greater chest
deflection. The Standard specified no other requirement (such as one
for out-of-position testing) that had the effect of making it more
difficult to achieve compliance with the unbelted rigid barrier test.
[[Page 30688]]
In the future, however, greater efforts will be needed to comply
with that test because manufacturers will be required to meet a greater
variety of requirements.
The unbelted rigid barrier test will have to be met using new or
more stringent injury criteria with the new 5th percentile adult female
dummy as well as the existing 50th percentile adult male dummy. The
necessity of meeting those criteria with the 5th percentile adult
female dummy placed in vehicle seats that have been moved all the way
forward will add considerably to the challenge of meeting that test.
For both belted and unbelted tests, we are adopting improved injury
criteria to assure greater protection by air bags in high speed
crashes. More specifically, we are changing the way in which the risk
of head injuries is measured, adding a new neck injury measure that
accounts for the combination of flexion, extension, tension, and
compression, and reducing the amount of allowable chest deflection.
Further, efforts to comply with the unbelted rigid barrier test
will be affected by the simultaneous need to comply with the risk
reduction requirements. In the future, air bags will be explicitly
required to be tested for their potential to harm vulnerable occupants
as well as offer protection in high-speed crashes.
While advanced air bag technologies will facilitate simultaneously
achieving the goals of improving protection and minimizing risk, we
cannot forecast the pace of development of those technologies. Setting
the maximum speed at 40 km/h (25 mph) will give vehicle manufacturers
greater flexibility to choose among and gain experience with advanced
air bag technologies. It will also give NHTSA a chance to gather data
about the performance of vehicles using advanced air bag technologies.
We want the installation of advanced air bag technologies by the
vehicle manufacturers across the full spectrum of their fleets to be
done correctly--the first time.
Accordingly, we believe that it is preferable to take an approach
that best assures improved air bag performance for occupants of all
sizes, without compromising efforts to minimize the risks of injury to
vulnerable occupants, including children and short women seated very
close to air bags, and out-of-position occupants. Such an approach is
one that involves the least uncertainty for the occupants who have been
most at risk. In other words, as long as the manufacturers improve the
already substantial overall level of air bag protection provided by
current redesigned air bags, the uncertainty involved in meeting the
challenge to improve high-speed protection and minimize risk
simultaneously is best resolved at this point in favor of minimizing
risk. This is especially true in the early stages of the introduction
of advanced air bag technologies. Compared with a 48 km/h (30 mph)
unbelted rigid barrier test, a 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted rigid barrier
test presents less chance of inadvertently increasing risks to out-of-
position occupants.
Second, while we believe that it should eventually be possible for
vehicles to provide protection for both small females and mid-sized
males in a 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted test without compromising efforts
to minimize the risks of serious air bag-induced injuries, there are
unresolved issues. Our laboratory tests and knowledge of advanced
technologies do not tell us how or when developments might reach that
point. They also do not provide us with a full picture of the real
world consequences of adopting that test speed. Thus, this type of
information, by itself, is not necessarily sufficient to enable us to
determine whether adopting that speed is worthwhile, much less needed,
from a safety standpoint.
We assessed the relative merits of maximum test speeds of 40 km/h
(25 mph) and 48 km/h (30 mph) in light of the initial advanced air bag
systems that manufacturers will introduce over the next several years.
Based on that assessment, we are concerned that the need for vehicle
manufacturers to take steps to enable them to certify to a 48 km/h (30
mph) unbelted test could create difficulties in improving protection
and minimizing risks for the wide range of occupants and crashes in the
real world. A good example of how these potential problems might occur
relates to how a vehicle manufacturer might use a dual-stage air bag to
meet the goals of this rulemaking.
One strategy for meeting an unbelted 48 km/h (30 mph) barrier
requirement for both 5th percentile adult females and 50th percentile
adult males would be to use the first stage inflation level for the 5th
percentile adult female and the second stage inflation level for the
50th percentile adult male. However, under that strategy, the need to
certify to the 48 km/h (30 mph) barrier test for the 5th percentile
adult female dummy would require a relatively faster inflation in the
first stage. Because that dummy will be placed in a vehicle seat moved
all the way forward, the air bag will have to deploy especially quickly
to provide protection. The use of a relatively faster first stage would
conflict with the strategy of using as benign a first stage inflation
level as possible in lower speed crashes to reduce risks to out-of-
position occupants. Alternatively, the vehicle manufacturer could use
the second stage inflation level for both the 5th percentile adult
female and 50th percentile adult male dummies. While this strategy
might be a good one for passing a rigid barrier test, in which the
dummy does not move forward much before deployment, it might not be a
good strategy for high speed real world crashes in which small adult
females, who already sit close to the air bag, and unrestrained
children move considerably closer as a result of pre-crash braking.
While we believe that dual-stage inflators represent a significant
improvement over single level inflators, it is important to recognize
that they have limitations. Some of these limitations could be overcome
by inflators with more than two stages. However, this would add greater
complexity, including additional gray zones. While these and other more
advanced technologies, such as chambering and real time occupant
position sensing, may become available in the future, we want to be
cautious about the possibility of inducing manufacturers to install
more advanced technologies before those technologies are fully ready.
For example, vehicle manufacturers should gain real world experience
with dual-stage inflators before they adopt inflators with additional
stages. Also, in areas in which there is uncertainty as to what
strategies might be best for safety, such as the specific performance
characteristics for dual-level inflators, we want to be careful about
adopting requirements that might be inappropriately design restrictive
in making it difficult for vehicle manufacturers to design their air
bags so that they perform well both in rigid barrier tests and in the
wide range of real world crashes.
Third, we are also aware that the vehicle manufacturers need design
flexibility to address issues regarding performance in real world
crashes not directly replicated by Standard No. 208's tests.
As we have discussed on many occasions, one of the greatest
limitations of non-advanced air bags is that they typically deploy in
the same manner regardless of such factors as crash severity or
occupant size, weight or position. In other words, they are non-
adjusting, one-size-fits-all air bags. One of the principal strategies
for improving
[[Page 30689]]
air bag performance is to provide different levels of deployment for
different situations.
The most basic redesigned advanced air bags would allow different
types of deployment to suit different crash situations. These air bags
would have a dual-level inflator instead of a single-level inflator.
Some vehicles already have such inflators. With two levels of
inflation, the vehicle manufacturer can design the air bag system so
that the level of inflation is dependent on such factors as crash
severity, size and weight of the occupant, and position of the
occupant. For example, the high level of inflation might be selected
for high speed crashes and the low level of inflation for low speed
crashes. Of course, the ability to select an inflation level based on
these various factors would depend on the existence of sensors that
provide relevant information about the above factors.
Successful implementation of air bags designed to vary their
performance in response to sensed differences in crash severity or
other conditions presents a challenge to the manufacturers in that
these air bags have ``gray'' or transition zones, i.e., ranges of
conditions in which the air bag changes from one level of performance
to another. At very low speeds, there will be uncertainty within a gray
zone about whether the air bag will deploy or not deploy and at higher
speeds, there will be uncertainty about which level of performance will
be triggered. For example, there will be a gray zone of crash severity
in which there is uncertainty whether a dual-stage air bag will deploy
only its lowest powered stage or both stages.
Particularly given the importance we place on vehicle manufacturers
``getting it right'' the first time with advanced air bags, we believe
it is appropriate for them to initially introduce relatively simple
advanced systems, such as ones incorporating dual-level inflators and
sensors that provide basic information about one or more of the factors
identified above. While we believe that more complex systems,
incorporating such features as several levels of inflation, chambering
(e.g., creating, in effect, a small bag inside a larger bag) and real
time occupant position sensing, offer promise of even greater benefits,
there are significant uncertainties regarding the feasibility and thus
availability of such systems, particularly the dynamic position sensing
systems.
Fourth, a 40 km/h (25 mph) maximum test speed gives vehicle
manufacturers more flexibility to address the greater compliance
problems associated with vehicles, e.g., SUVs, with particularly stiff
crash pulses. Since unbelted occupants moving forward in frontal
crashes of these vehicles will have to be engaged more quickly than in
vehicles with softer crash pulses, the task of designing air bag
systems in stiff pulse vehicles is significantly more challenging. Our
test experience with LTVs using the 5th percentile adult female dummy
is very limited. We have conducted only three 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted
rigid barrier tests and only one 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted rigid
barrier test of LTVs with that dummy. Particularly given this limited
test experience, we believe there are uncertainties with respect to the
ability of manufacturers to meet a 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier test
requirement for both 50th percentile adult male dummies and 5th
percentile adult female dummies.
Fifth, we believe that it is unlikely that vehicle manufacturers
will significantly depower their air bags and minimally comply with the
40 km/h (25 mph) test. Our Final Economic Analysis concludes that there
would not be any significant cost savings in installing air bags that
were minimally compliant with a 40 km/h (25 mph) test. Vehicle
manufacturers have not depowered their air bags so much that they
minimally comply with the sled test. In fact, their current redesigned
air bags significantly exceed the level of performance needed to meet
not only the sled test, but also a 40 km/h (25 mph) rigid barrier crash
test with the 50th percentile adult male dummy. As discussed above, the
real world data to date for vehicles certified to the sled test, while
preliminary, indicates that there has not been a loss of frontal crash
protection compared to pre-MY 1998 vehicles.\16\ If this result
continues, future bags will greatly exceed the minimum performance
requirements of the 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted barrier test. Indeed, the
vehicle manufacturers have indicated that they would not engage in
significant, widespread additional depowering if a 40 km/h (25 mph)
test were adopted. They argue that their need to perform well in
NHTSA's 56 km/h (35 mph) belted NCAP tests limits, as a practical
matter, any inclination that might theoretically otherwise exist to
depower their air bags further. NHTSA notes that this rule increases
the influence of 56 km/h (35 mph) belted testing by making passing such
testing with 50th percentile adult male dummies mandatory. Thus, NHTSA
believes that it is not risking a substantial loss of benefits by
establishing an unbelted barrier test of 40 km/h (25 mph).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ To obtain a fuller understanding of these results, and the
role played by the sled test and other provisions of Standard No.
208 in obtaining them, the agency conducted tests and examined
information obtained from the vehicle manufacturers. The vehicle
manufacturers did not depower all models. There was a wide range in
the power of pre-MY 1998 air bags. As to those models that they did
depower, they did not depower their air bags as much as they said
they could or as much as we anticipated they might when we prepared
the economic analysis accompanying our 1997 final rule that adopted
the sled test option. Instead, as NHTSA tests have shown, the
manufacturers typically chose levels of power that still enabled
them to pass the pre-existing 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted crash test
with a 50th percentile adult male dummy. Further, these tests have
revealed that vehicles with redesigned air bags pass that test with
that dummy by roughly the same margin of compliance as earlier
vehicles did. (It should be emphasized, as we note below in the
section entitled, ``Selection of 40 km/h (25 mph) as Top Speed for
Unbelted Rigid Barrier Test,'' that meeting the unbelted rigid
barrier crash test at 48km/h (30 mph) with that dummy and a 5th
percentile adult female dummy is significantly more challenging than
meeting it with 50th percentile adult male dummy alone. It is still
more challenging to meet that test with both dummies and minimize
risk simultaneously. Thus, the ability to meet the 48 km/h (30 mph)
unbelted crash test with a 50th percentile adult male dummy isn't,
by itself, predictive of a vehicle manufacturer's ability to meet
that test with both dummies, and the other requirements added by
this rule.)
As to the differences between the anticipated amount of
depowering and the amount of depowering actually performed and as to
the performance of the current redesigned air bags, we also note
that, as discussed below, depowering is not the only way of reducing
the aggressiveness of air bags. There are other design changes that
were made by some manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sixth, our decision to replace the 48 km/h (30 mph) generic sled
test with the 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test requires a
significantly higher level of safety. The agency estimates that the
sled test is roughly equivalent to a 35.5 km/h (22 mph) rigid barrier
perpendicular (0 degree) crash. During the 1997 rulemaking, we looked
at the relative safety consequences of an air bag designed to just meet
the performance requirements associated with a 48 km/h (30 mph) generic
sled test. The agency estimated the fatality impacts of designing a
vehicle to minimally meet the performance requirements imposed by the
current 48 km/h (30 mph) generic sled test and compared these to the
fatality impacts of designing a vehicle to just meet the 40 km/h (25
mph) unbelted rigid barrier test. If these different design tasks did
not have any impact on air bag size, air bags designed to the 40 km/h
(25 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test could save 64 to 144 more lives
than air bags designed to the generic sled test (assumed to be 35.5 km/
h (22 mph)). If, on the other hand, air bags designed to the generic
sled test would be smaller and provide no benefit in partial frontal
impacts, because the 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test
includes an up to 30
[[Page 30690]]
degree oblique test while the generic sled test has no angular
component, 282 to 308 more lives (this range includes the 64 to 144
estimates mentioned earlier) could be saved by air bags designed to the
40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test with the oblique test than
lives saved by air bags designed to just comply with the generic sled
test.
Increasing Belted Test Speed to 56 km/h (35 mph) for 50th
Percentile Male Dummy. In the SNPRM, we asked for comment on whether we
should increase the speed for the belted test using the 50th percentile
adult male dummy from 48 km/h to 56 km/h (30 mph to 35 mph) if we
adopted 40 km/h (25 mph) as the maximum test speed for the unbelted
rigid barrier test. This rule adopts that provision. It will be phased-
in for increasing percentages of each manufacturer's fleet beginning in
the 2008 model year. We did not propose including the 5th percentile
adult female dummy in this requirement because we had sparse
information on the practicability of such a requirement. NHTSA will
initiate testing to examine this issue and anticipates proposing
increasing the test speed for belted tests using the 5th percentile
adult female dummy to 56 km/h (35 mph), beginning at the same time that
the 50th percentile adult male is required to be used in belted testing
at that speed.
NHTSA notes that Standard No. 208 previously specified the same
maximum test speed for both belted and unbelted rigid barrier testing.
The practical consequence of specifying the same test speed for both
types of testing was to make unbelted testing the primary determinant
of air bag designs. The reason for this is that, at the same test
speed, the unbelted test is more difficult to pass than the belted
test. Consequently, air bag designers typically focused their attention
on performance in the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted test. After they
optimized performance attributes for that test, they conducted belted
tests to ensure that there were not any anomalies. Nothing in the
Standard required, or had the effect of requiring, designers to
optimize air bag performance for belted occupants.
Today's rule changes that. By specifying a maximum test speed for
belted testing that is significantly higher that the maximum test speed
for unbelted testing, Standard No. 208 will oblige occupant protection
designers to focus separately on evaluating protection in both belted
and unbelted testing as significant design factors, instead of having
one type of testing serve simply as a check on the other. This is a
major step forward for improving occupant protection for belted
occupants. This step is in keeping with the agency's ongoing efforts in
its Buckle Up America campaigns. It assures enhanced protection,
especially for those 70 percent of occupants who currently wear their
belts, and may help persuade those who do not wear their belts to do
so.
B. Other Provisions of the Rule
Facilitation of low risk deployment technologies. In the
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM), we proposed that
the low risk deployment requirements would have to be met for inflation
levels at which air bags would deploy in rigid barrier crash tests at
speeds up to 29 km/h (18 mph). 64 FR 60556; November 5, 1999. We also
proposed that the injury criteria for the unbelted rigid barrier crash
test would have to be met within the range between a minimum speed of
29 km/h (18 mph) and the maximum speed, inclusive. Some vehicle
manufacturers responded that being required to test under the low risk
deployment option for the inflation level (or levels) at which their
air bags would deploy in crashes below 29 km/h (18 mph), combined with
being required to protect unbelted dummies in crashes at 29 km/h (18
mph) and above, would limit design flexibility and discourage
development of low risk deployment air bag systems. The manufacturers
claimed that it is difficult with current sensors to design dual-stage
air bags that could both meet the low risk deployment requirements and
the barrier crash test injury criteria, particularly given the gray
zone in which either a low level or high level deployment may occur.
To avoid inadvertently discouraging the development of low risk
deployment technologies, we have decided that air bags with multiple
inflation levels must meet the injury criteria for the low risk
deployment tests for the inflation levels at which the air bags would
be deployed in crashes of 26 km/h (16 mph) or below (with unbelted 5th
percentile adult female dummies at both seating positions), instead of
crashes of 29 km/h (18 mph) or below. However, if these air bags do not
deploy at all in crashes of 26 km/h (16 mph) or below, the injury
criteria must be met using the lowest level of inflation. We have also
decided to raise the lower end of the range of speeds at which the
unbelted rigid barrier crash test is conducted from 29 km/h (18 mph) to
32 km/h (20 mph). Together, these two changes are intended to
facilitate use of the low risk deployment option by providing
flexibility for the transition of dual-stage air bag systems from low
level deployments designed to protect occupants in low speed crashes
and not to injure out-of-position occupants in high level deployments
designed to protect occupants from injuries in severe crashes.
Elimination of unneeded tests. In developing this rule, as in
developing the SNPRM, we looked for opportunities to reduce the number
and types of test configurations necessary to assure that future air
bags minimize the risk of air bag-induced injuries.\17\ We have made
several further reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ As noted above, when we issued the SNPRM, we reduced the
number of proposed dynamic and static tests, especially those
relating to the proposed requirements for reducing the risks of air
bags. We reduced, from 14 to nine, N the number of proposed dynamic
crash tests that would be applicable to all vehicles. We originally
proposed that vehicles equipped with static air bag suppression
systems (e.g., weight sensors and pattern sensors) be subject to
being tested with any child restraint manufactured over a ten-year
period. This would have created the possibility of testing with any
one of several hundred different models of child restraints.
Recognizing that, we solicited comments to aid us in identifying a
much more limited number of specific models that would be
representative of the array of available child restraints. Based on
the public comments, we proposed to require that vehicles be able to
meet the applicable requirements when tested with any one of a far
more limited number of child restraints representing a cross-section
of the restraints currently on the market. We also significantly
reduced the number of positions in which test dummies or child
restraints could be placed for testing a static suppression system.
This was accomplished largely by eliminating positions that were
substantially similar to other positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have dropped several test conditions for testing features (e.g.,
weight or size sensor) that suppress the air bag when an infant or
young child is present. We eliminated some test conditions because we
concluded that they were inappropriate for testing this type of
feature. The test conditions we dropped for this reason included an
unrestrained RFCSS tipped forward onto the dashboard and the 3 year old
and 6 year old dummies placed in the low risk deployment positions,
i.e., against the instrument panel.
The basic concept behind weight sensors or other features that
suppress the air bag when an infant or young child is present is to
automatically suppress the air bag unless weight or some other factor
indicates that an older child or adult is present. In testing such a
device, we believe it is appropriate to test for a variety of positions
an infant or young child might likely be placed in by a parent or
caregiver or that might likely be assumed by the child. The conditions
we are dropping do not fall within this category, but are instead ones
that might occur dynamically as a
[[Page 30691]]
result of pre-crash braking. However, since the air bag would already
be automatically suppressed by this type of device in such a situation,
we do not believe it necessary to test for these conditions.
We also proposed testing unrestrained rear-facing child seating
systems (RFCSS) at any angle plus or minus 45 degrees from the vehicle
seat's longitudinal plane. Because of difficulties in setting up the
test and the unlikelihood that parents would place a RFCSS in an angled
position, we have revised this test procedure to specify placement only
at zero degrees of the longitudinal plane.
As proposed in the SNPRM, we have dropped the requirement for
conducting oblique angle tests on vehicles using belted 5th percentile
adult female dummies. We have adopted the proposal because we believe
that if a vehicle can pass the perpendicular test with 5th percentile
adult female dummies and the oblique tests with unbelted 50th
percentile adult male dummies, it will also pass the oblique test using
5th percentile adult female dummies. Additionally, we have dropped the
belted oblique angled tests for the belted 50th percentile adult male
dummy. Given the unbelted oblique tests, we believe that the belted
oblique angled tests are unnecessary.
New, more stringent injury criteria. In the rule, we have added a
neck injury criterion and adopted a more stringent limit on chest
deflection. The injury criteria are very similar to the ones we
proposed in the SNPRM. The Nij approach to the risk of neck injury was
generally accepted by the vehicle manufacturers, although they
requested some modifications. We have made those modifications.
Due care provision. In the SNPRM, we proposed to maintain the ``due
care'' provision for the existing crash test requirements and apply it
to the new ones as well. However, we did not propose to apply the
provision to test requirements that do not involve crashes, based on
our belief that these tests are not affected by the variability
associated with dynamically-induced dummy movement and/or vehicle
deformation.
In this rule, we have decided against extending the due care
provision to new crash tests, although it will still be available for
vehicles that are not certified to the advanced air bag requirements.
Our testing has indicated that manufacturers can easily meet the new
injury criteria with 50th percentile adult male dummies in a 40 km/h
(25 mph) unbelted test with existing air bag systems and should be able
to make what ever improvements are needed to do so with 5th percentile
adult female dummies without major uncertainties before they are
required to certify any vehicle as meeting the advanced air bag
requirements of this rule. Based on our experience with Standard No.
208 compliance activities, we do not believe there is an intrinsic need
for a ``due care provision.'' Further, as we explained in the earlier
notices in this rulemaking proceeding, the inclusion of such a
provision in a safety standard does not fit very well with the overall
statutory scheme.
Extended availability of air bag on-off switches. As proposed, we
have decided to sunset the provisions which allow original equipment
(OE) and retrofit on-off switches under specified circumstances.
However, instead of sunsetting those provisions at the end of the TEA
21 phase-in period, as we proposed in the SNPRM, we are sunsetting them
on September 1, 2012, two years after the end of the second phase-in.
In response to a wide consensus among commenters, we have concluded
that extending their availability to that date is desirable to ensure
that consumers have had a chance to gain substantial experience with
advanced air bag systems. This should ensure that confidence in those
systems is strong enough by the sunset date to remove any desire for a
manual on-off switch in vehicles produced with an advanced air bag.
Labels with strong warning messages. We have decided to adopt a new
permanent sun visor label for vehicles certified as meeting the
requirements of this rule. We proposed to alter the wording of the
label to reflect the lower risk that will be associated with advanced
air bags. However, all commenters, including the safety groups which
supported a higher maximum test speed for the unbelted rigid barrier
test, objected. They noted that while advanced air bags will
significantly reduce the risk of death or serious injury, they will not
eliminate all risk. Accordingly, we have decided that the new label
should have warnings similar to those on the current label. The label
will also have new graphics. In addition, we have adopted a new
temporary label that states that the vehicle meets the new requirements
for advanced air bags. Like the new permanent label, the new temporary
label will have warnings similar to those on the current temporary one.
C. Future Rulemaking Plans
Final decision on maximum test speed for unbelted rigid barrier
test. As noted above, we are planning a multi-year effort to obtain
additional data to help resolve the issues and concerns relating to the
maximum test speed for the unbelted rigid barrier test in the long run.
Those activities are described in the section below entitled,
``Monitoring of Implementation and Field Experience; Research and
Technology Assessment.'' Based on the results of those information
gathering and analysis efforts, we will make a final decision regarding
the maximum test speed for unbelted dummy testing in the long run,
after providing an opportunity for informed public comment.
New rulemaking proposals. NHTSA plans to issue several proposals
for further improvements in frontal occupant crash protection. One
proposal would be to increase the maximum speed for the belted rigid
barrier test using the 5th percentile adult female from 48 km/h to 56
km/h (30 to 35 mph). That proposal would bring the top speed for belted
testing with the 5th percentile adult female dummies into line with the
top speed for belted testing with the 50th percentile adult male
dummies adopted in this rule. To provide data to support that proposal,
we plan to initiate testing with the 5th percentile adult female in 56
km/h (35 mph) belted tests. We anticipate that if this proposal were
adopted as a final rule, implementation would begin during the second
stage phase-in established by today's rule. Because 56 km/h (35 mph) is
the same speed at which we currently conduct our New Car Assessment
Program (NCAP) frontal crash tests using belted 50th percentile adult
male dummies, we will ask also for public comments on what adjustments,
if any, we should make to the frontal NCAP test program.
Another proposal would be to adopt a high speed belted offset
deformable barrier test. The addition of this test to Standard No. 208
would lead to improved vehicle structure, improved occupant compartment
integrity and thus reduced injuries due to intrusion. This would
benefit both belted and unbelted occupants. We submitted a first status
report on this initiative to Congress in April 1997, and will submit a
second one this spring. We expect to issue the proposal later this
year.
NHTSA is also developing proposals for adding additional test
dummies to Part 572 of Title 49 CFR. The two dummies that are furthest
along in their development are a dummy representing a 10-year-old child
and a dummy representing a 95th percentile adult male.
[[Page 30692]]
D. Monitoring of Implementation and Field Experience; Research and
Technology Assessment
To promote the achievement of the goals of this rule and to obtain
additional data that will aid us in making a final decision about the
maximum test speed that should be specified for the unbelted rigid
barrier test, we are planning a multi-year effort to obtain additional
data.\18\ This effort will include a variety of activities. We will
continue to gather and evaluate real-world crash data to monitor the
effectiveness of redesigned and advanced air bags in protecting various
groups and subgroups of occupants and in preventing air bag-induced
deaths and injuries. We are going to continue our research program,
including conducting unbelted barrier tests of current vehicles at
various speeds, including 48 km/h (30 mph), and analyzing those test
results. In that way, we can assess how well the manufacturers
simultaneously preserve and improve protection for all occupants,
belted and unbelted, and minimize risk. Further, we need to continue
our research and testing regarding advanced air bag technologies to
gain an understanding of the safety performance implications of various
features of air bag design. In addition, we will prepare an annual
``compliance margins'' report to assess the extent to which vehicle
manufacturers exceed the 40 km/h (25 mph) test requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ NHTSA would welcome the help of interested persons in
gathering data useful in achieving these purposes. The agency notes
that the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers has offered to gather
information on how people die in high speed crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Our Proposals for Advanced Air Bags
A. Our Initial Proposal (September 1998)
Pursuant to TEA 21, on September 18, 1998, we published in the
Federal Register (63 FR 49958) a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
to upgrade Standard No. 208 to require vehicles to be equipped with
advanced air bags that meet new, more rigorous performance
requirements. The NPRM proposed to require advanced air bags in some
new passenger cars and light trucks beginning September 1, 2002, and in
all new cars and light trucks beginning September 1, 2005.
We proposed several new performance requirements to ensure that the
advanced air bags do not pose unreasonable risks to out-of-position
occupants. The NPRM gave options for complying with those requirements
so that vehicle manufacturers would be free to choose from a variety of
effective technological solutions and to develop new ones if they so
desire. With this flexibility, they could use either technologies that
modulate or otherwise control air bag deployment so deploying air bags
do not cause serious injuries or technologies that prevent air bag
deployment if children or out-of-position occupants are present, or
both.
To ensure that the new air bags are designed to avoid causing
injury to a broad array of occupants, we proposed test requirements
using a family of dummies, including ones representing 12-month-old, 3-
year-old and 6-year-old children, and 5th percentile adult females, as
well as tests representing 50th percentile adult males. We noted that
many of the proposed test procedures were new, and specifically
requested comments about their suitability for measuring the
performance of the various advanced systems under development.
We also proposed requirements to ensure that the new air bags are
designed to protect an array of belted and unbelted occupants,
including teenagers and small adults. The standard's current crash test
requirements specify the use of 50th percentile adult male dummies
only. We proposed also to specify the use of 5th percentile adult
female dummies in crash tests. The weight and size of these dummies are
representative of not only small women, but also many teenagers. By
testing with both the 50th percentile adult male dummy and the 5th
percentile adult female dummy, we can address the risks faced by most
of the entire adult female population and much of the adult male
population.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ A 95th percentile adult female, on average, weighs 199 lb
and stands 5'7" tall. The 50th percentile adult male dummy weighs
171 lb and stands 5'9" tall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the existing rigid barrier test, representing a
relatively ``stiff'' or ``hard'' pulse crash when conducted
perpendicularly, and a more moderate pulse crash when conducted
obliquely, we proposed to add a deformable barrier crash test,
representing a relatively ``soft'' pulse crash. This proposed new soft
pulse crash test requirement was intended to ensure that air bag
systems are designed so that they do not deploy too late. Some current
air bags deploy relatively late in certain types of crashes, such as
pole impacts. If an air bag deploys too late, normally seated occupants
may move too close to the air bag before it starts to inflate. In such
a situation, the air bag is less likely to protect the occupant and
more likely to pose a risk to the occupant. We proposed to use belted
5th percentile adult female dummies in this test because small adults
sit farther forward than larger adults and thus represent a greater
challenge for restraint system design.
We also proposed to phase out the unbelted sled test option as we
phased in requirements for advanced air bags. We acknowledged that the
sled test option has been an expedient and useful temporary measure
that enabled the manufacturers to speed up the redesigning all of their
air bags to reduce risks. The sled test also helped to ensure that
protection would continue to be provided by air bags in high-speed
crashes. Nevertheless, we stated that sled testing was not a fully
satisfactory means of assessing the extent of occupant protection that
a vehicle and its air bag together will afford occupants in the real
world and thus was not suitable in the long run.
Finally, we proposed new and/or upgraded injury criteria for each
of the proposed new test requirements, and also proposed to upgrade
some of the injury criteria for the standard's existing test
requirements.
B. Our Supplemental Proposal (November 1999)
We received comments on the September 1998 NPRM from a wide range
of interested persons including vehicle manufacturers, air bag
manufacturers, insurance companies, public interest groups, academia,
and government agencies. Commenters expressed widely differing views as
to how to accomplish the goals mandated by TEA 21-- improving the
benefits of air bags, while minimizing risks from air bags.
On November 5, 1999, in response to the public comments on our 1998
NPRM and to other new information we obtained after issuing that
proposal, we published the SNPRM (64 FR 60556), which updated and
refined the amendments under consideration in this rulemaking.
In the SNPRM, we reiterated the goals set for us by Congress in TEA
21, i.e., to improve occupant protection for occupants of different
sizes, belted and unbelted, while minimizing the risk to infants,
children, and other occupants from injuries and deaths caused by air
bags. Further, we emphasized the need to ensure that the needed
improvements in occupant protection were made in accordance with the
statutory implementation schedule.
In developing the SNPRM, we sought to reduce the number of proposed
tests to the extent possible without
[[Page 30693]]
significantly affecting the benefits of the NPRM. We were persuaded by
the commenters that reducing the amount of testing was important, given
the costs to manufacturers (and ultimately consumers) associated with
certifying vehicles to such a large number of new test requirements. At
the same time, we wanted to be sure that the final rule would include
sufficient tests to ensure that air bags would meet the goals of TEA
21. Given the continued debate over what requirements should be relied
upon to ensure protection to unbelted occupants, we also wanted to be
sure that we received and considered public comments on the various
alternative approaches reflecting the more recent views and information
available to us.
The most significant differences between the NPRM and the SNPRM can
be summarized as follows:
Two alternative unbelted test procedures. While we
proposed one unbelted test procedure in the NPRM, an up-to-48 km/h (30
mph) rigid barrier test using the 50th percentile adult male dummy and
the 5th percentile adult female dummy, we proposed and sought comments
on two alternative unbelted test procedures in the SNPRM.
The first alternative was an unbelted rigid barrier test whose
injury criteria would have to be met within the range of a minimum
speed of 29 km/h (18 mph) and a maximum speed to be established between
40 to 48 km/h (25 to 30 mph), inclusive. Within this alternative was
the potential for a phase-in sequence in which the maximum speed would
initially be set at 40 km/h (25 mph) to provide vehicle manufacturers
additional flexibility when they are introducing advanced air bags
during the phase-in. Under this phase-in sequence, the final rule could
provide that the maximum speed would return to 48 km/h (30 mph) after
some period of time. We also sought comment on setting the maximum
speed at 48 km/h (30 mph) but temporarily permitting relaxed injury
criteria performance limits (e.g. 72 g chest acceleration limit instead
of 60 g chest acceleration limit) in rigid barrier crashes between 40
km/h (25 mph) and 48 km/h (30 mph).
The second alternative was an unbelted offset deformable barrier
test within the range of a minimum speed of 35 km/h (22 mph) and a
maximum speed to be established within the range of 48 to 56 km/h (30
to 35 mph). The latter alternative was developed in response to a
recommendation made by IIHS in its comment on the NPRM.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ We noted that IIHS's views had changed since making that
recommendation. Its changed views were discussed in the SNPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We proposed the 29 and 35 km/h (18 and 22 mph) lower ends of the
ranges of test speeds for the two alternatives because we wanted to be
sure that the standard would not inadvertently create incentives to
push deployment thresholds downward; i.e., cause air bags to be
deployed at lower speeds.
Possible higher speed belted rigid barrier test. We stated
that if we reduced the maximum speed of the unbelted rigid barrier test
to 40 km/h (25 mph), we might also increase the maximum speed of the
belted rigid barrier test from the current 48 km/h to 56 km/h (30 to 35
mph) and use both 5th percentile adult female and 50th percentile adult
male dummies.
Reduced number of tests. In the SNPRM, we significantly
reduced the total number of proposed tests as compared to the NPRM. In
a number of situations, we tentatively concluded that a proposed test
could be deleted because the performance we sought to secure by means
of that test would largely be assured by one or more of the other
tests.
Reduced offset testing. The proposed up-to-40 km/h (25
mph) offset crash test using belted 5th percentile adult female dummies
would be conducted only with the driver side of the vehicle engaged,
instead of both testing with the driver side engaged and separately
testing with the passenger side engaged.
Ensuring that certain static suppression systems can
detect real children and adults. For our proposed static test
requirements for systems which suppress air bags in the presence of
infants and children (e.g., weight sensors), we proposed a new option
which would permit manufacturers to certify to requirements referencing
actual children, instead of 3-year-old and 6-year-old child dummies, in
a stationary vehicle to test the suppression systems. (This option
would not apply to systems designed to suppress the air bags only when
an infant is present.) Adult human beings could also be used in the
place of 5th percentile adult female dummies for the portions of those
static test requirements which make sure that the air bag is activated
for adults. Steps would be taken to ensure the safety of all subjects
used for these tests, e.g., by turning off the air bags.
Reduced number of child restraints used for testing
suppression systems. Instead of requiring manufacturers to assure
compliance of a vehicle in tests using any child restraint which was
manufactured for sale in the United States any time during a specified
period prior to the manufacture of the vehicle, we proposed to require
them only to assure compliance using each child restraint on a
relatively short list of specified child restraint models. Those models
would be chosen to be representative of the array of available child
restraints. The list would be updated from time to time to reflect
changes in the types of available child restraints.
Modified requirements for systems that suppress the air
bag for out-of-position occupants. We significantly modified the
proposed requirements for systems that suppress the air bag when an
occupant is out of position during a crash. In the NPRM, we proposed a
single test procedure for all types of such suppression systems.
However, we were persuaded by the commenters that the proposed test
procedure was not appropriate for many of the systems that are
currently under development. Because we did not have sufficient
information or prototype hardware to develop a new test procedure, and
because no single test procedure may be appropriate for the broad
spectrum of suppression technologies currently being developed, we
proposed a provision that would permit manufacturers or others to
petition the agency to establish technology-specific test procedures
under an expedited rulemaking process.
No full scale dynamic out-of-position test requirements.
We eliminated from this rulemaking the proposed option for full scale
dynamic out-of-position test requirements (the option which included
pre-impact braking as part of the test procedure). We were persuaded by
the commenters that the proposed test procedure was not workable at
this time. Moreover, we concluded that this option was unnecessary at
this time, since other options were available for the range of
effective technologies we understand to be currently under development.
In developing the SNPRM, we carefully considered all of the
comments we received in response to the NPRM. Moreover, because the
SNPRM differed significantly in many aspects from the NPRM, we
explained that we did not contemplate any further consideration of the
comments on the NPRM in developing the final rule. We stated that if
any persons believe that we did not adequately consider particular
issues raised in comments on the NPRM, they should raise those
[[Page 30694]]
issues again in commenting on the SNPRM.
Accordingly, in developing today's final rule, we have focused our
consideration on the comments submitted in response to the SNPRM.
IV. Public Comments on the Supplemental Proposal
As in the case of the NPRM, we received comments on the November
1999 SNPRM from a wide range of interested persons including vehicle
manufacturers, air bag manufacturers, insurance companies, public
interest groups, and government agencies. In this section, we provide a
general summary of those comments. A more detailed description of the
comments is provided below in the sections which address the issues
raised by commenters, and in the Final Economic Assessment and three
separate technical papers which are being placed in the public docket.
Improving the Protection of Unbelted Occupants in Serious Crashes
Nearly all commenters supported the unbelted rigid barrier test
over the unbelted offset deformable barrier test.
Vehicle manufacturers stated that the rigid barrier test is
practicable and repeatable and does not entail the variability
associated with deformable barriers and the kinematics of an offset
test. They also stated that the European barrier used in the offset
test is not appropriate for testing larger SUVs and light trucks.
The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) stated that the unbelted offset
test holds promise as a supplemental test, but is not yet suitable for
inclusion in Standard No. 208. That organization stated that there are
currently insufficient data to allow for a comprehensive analysis of
the consequences that would accompany the adoption of the offset test.
Some other commenters also argued that an unbelted offset test
offers promise for the future, either as a replacement for the rigid
barrier test or as a supplemental test.
While a near-consensus of commenters supported adoption of an
unbelted rigid barrier test, there was sharp disagreement over the
maximum speed for that test. The vast majority of commenters, including
all auto companies and all air bag suppliers, the Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety (IIHS), and the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) supported a maximum speed of 40 km/h (25 mph). Safety groups
including Public Citizen, CAS, Consumers Union, and Parents for Safer
Air Bags (Parents) supported returning to 48 km/h (30 mph).
The primary arguments made by those commenters supporting a maximum
speed of 40 km/h (25 mph) can be summarized as follows:
Current redesigned air bags work well.
There has been no loss in benefits.
There is no reason to believe that manufacturers would
reduce air bag effectiveness in the future under a 40 km/h (25 mph)
maximum test speed.
A 40 km/h (25 mph) test speed allows flexibility to design
air bags for all occupants.
A return to a 48 km/h (30 mph) test speed would require a
return to overly aggressive air bags.
Aggressive air bags cause deaths in high speed crashes as
well as low speed crashes.
A 48 km/h (30 mph) test speed could result in disbenefits
in low speed crashes.
There are significant technological challenges in meeting
a 48 km/h (30 mph) requirement for both the 50th percentile adult male
dummy and the 5th percentile adult female dummy.
Advanced technologies are not currently available that
address aggressivity and practicability problems.
The primary arguments made by those commenters supporting a maximum
test speed of 48 km/h (30 mph) can be summarized as follows:
A maximum test speed of 48 km/h (30 mph) will result in
higher benefits than a test speed of 40 km/h (25 mph).
Half of all fatalities in frontal crashes occur at a delta
V above 48 km/h (30 mph); a maximum test speed of 48 km/h (30 mph)
represents significantly more potentially fatal crashes than a test
speed of 40 km/h (25 mph).
In NHTSA tests, almost all vehicles with redesigned air
bags passed the 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier test with the 50th
percentile adult male dummy, implying that a return to a 48 km/h (30
mph) test speed would not require a return to overly aggressive air
bags.
Advanced technologies can be used to enable all vehicles
to meet requirements for high speed protection and risk reduction.
There is no justification to reduce the test speed to 40
km/h (25 mph).
A 40 km/h (25 mph) test speed would not encourage use of
advanced technologies.
A 40 km/h (25 mph) test speed would be inconsistent with
the TEA 21 requirement to improve protection for unbelted occupants.
The increase of the belted test speed to 56 km/h (35 mph)
would not recover lives lost as a result of reducing the unbelted test
speed to 40 km/h (25 mph).
While maximum speed was the most controversial issue concerning the
unbelted test, commenters raised other issues as well. Some vehicle
manufacturers objected to the proposal to test over a range of speeds
from 29 km/h (18 mph) to the highest speed. They argued that being
required to meet test requirements to ensure protection beginning at 29
km/h (18 mph), combined with the proposal to test under the low risk
deployment option for inflation level (or levels) that would be
deployed in crashes below 29 km/h (18 mph), would limit design
flexibility and discourage development of low risk deployment air bag
systems.
Another significant issue addressed by commenters concerned the
seating procedure for the 5th percentile adult female dummy. Vehicle
manufacturers objected to the proposal to test with the seat in the
full forward position. They argued that occupants, including small
females, rarely if ever sit in that position. They also argued that
adoption of this position could result in consequences such as smaller,
less protective air bags, and reduced ingress/egress space for rear
passengers.
Several safety advocacy groups argued in favor of testing with the
seat in the full forward position. They argued that some occupants sit
in that position and that it is necessary to test in the ``worst case''
condition.
Improving the Protection of Belted Occupants in Serious Crashes
Commenters supported our proposal to add the 5th percentile adult
female dummy to the existing 48 km/h (30 mph) belted rigid barrier
test.
Most supporters of a 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test,
including most vehicle manufacturers, also supported increasing the
maximum speed of the belted rigid barrier test to 56 km/h (35 mph).
However, these commenters urged that the 56 km/h (35 mph) belted rigid
barrier test be phased in after the TEA 21 phase-in period. They also
urged that the higher speed test initially be conducted only with the
50th percentile adult male dummy, and that a separate rulemaking be
initiated to consider whether the 5th percentile adult female dummy
should be tested at that speed.
Most commenters also supported our proposal to add the up-to-40 km/
h (25 mph) offset deformable barrier test using belted 5th percentile
adult female dummies. Some of these commenters, however, urged that an
out-of-position test for the passenger side be developed as an
alternative to the test.
[[Page 30695]]
DaimlerChrysler opposed adoption of this test, arguing that the
European barrier used in the test is not appropriate for testing
heavier vehicles such as SUVs and light trucks.
Some commenters expressed concerns that our proposal would result
in there being too many crash tests in Standard No. 208, and requested
that we reconsider whether all of the proposed tests are needed.
Minimizing the Risk of Injuries and Deaths Caused by Air Bags
Commenters supported the basic approach of our proposed
requirements to minimizing the risk of injuries and deaths caused by
air bags, including providing a variety of testing options that account
for the kinds of effective technological solutions that are under
development.
Vehicle manufacturers argued that some of the test conditions
specified for the proposed static suppression tests, including the
range of seat back angles and seat track positions, would make the
tests impracticable.
Some commenters emphasized that we need to allow manufacturers to
use both suppression and low risk technologies. As noted earlier, some
commenters argued that adjustments need to be made in both the unbelted
rigid barrier test requirements and in the requirements for the low
risk deployment option to avoid limiting use of the low risk deployment
option.
Commenters were generally supportive of our proposal to permit
manufacturers to certify to requirements referencing human beings in a
stationary vehicle to test suppression systems, so long as steps are
taken to ensure the safety of all subjects used for testing.
Other Issues
Commenters generally supported the proposed injury criteria and
associated performance limits, although vehicle manufacturers
recommended some changes.
We received numerous comments raising specific technical issues
concerning how dummies are to be positioned for the various tests.
Commenters generally argued that current provisions allowing manual
on-off switches for air bags under certain circumstances should remain
in effect for a longer period of time, and a number of commenters
argued that existing warning labels should not be weakened or
eliminated at this time.
There was also significant differences of opinion regarding our
proposals about the provision providing a due care defense against
findings of noncompliance with the air bag requirements of Standard No.
208.
Several commenters raised concerns about possible unforeseen
consequences resulting from the use of advanced air bag technologies.
We received several comments expressing concern about the potential
impacts of this rulemaking on small businesses.
V. Diagrams of the Final Rule Requirements
After carefully considering the comments, we have decided to issue
a final rule along the lines of the SNPRM. The key differences between
the SNPRM and the final rule are discussed earlier and will not be
repeated here. The test requirements to improve occupant protection for
different size occupants, belted and unbelted, and to minimize risks to
infants, children, and other occupants from injuries and deaths caused
by air bags, are shown in Figures 1 and 2 below.
[[Page 30696]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MY00.000
[[Page 30697]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MY00.001
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 30698]]
VI. Improving the Protection of Unbelted Occupants in Serious
Crashes
A. Summary of Proposed Requirements
In the SNPRM, we proposed to phase out the unbelted sled test
option as the requirements for advanced air bags are phased in. As
explained below, sled tests have inherent limitations as compared to
crash tests in measuring occupant protection.
We explained that, unlike a full scale vehicle crash test, a sled
test cannot measure the actual protection an occupant will receive in a
crash. We noted that while the current sled test measures some
performance attributes of the air bag, it cannot measure the
performance provided by the vehicle structure in combination with the
air bags or even the full air bag system by itself. We also noted that
the sled test does not evaluate the actual timing of air bag deployment
(e.g., crash sensors), does not replicate the actual crash pulse of a
particular vehicle model, does not measure the potential for harm from
vehicle components that are pushed back into the occupant compartment
during a crash, and does not measure how a vehicle performs in angle
crashes.
The purpose of the sled test option was to make it easier for
vehicle manufacturers to make quick changes to their air bags to reduce
risks to out-of-position occupants. Vehicle manufacturers could not
immediately incorporate advanced technologies in their vehicles, and
the sled test facilitated the process of quickly certifying large
numbers of vehicles with redesigned air bags to Standard No. 208. We
believe the sled test has been useful as a short-term measure. Over the
longer time frame, however, we believe that a better test is needed to
ensure the protection of unbelted occupants.
To replace the sled test, we proposed two alternative unbelted
crash test procedures: an unbelted rigid barrier test and an unbelted
offset deformable barrier test. We proposed that the unbelted rigid
barrier test be conducted perpendicular and up to 30
degrees oblique to perpendicular with 50th percentile adult male
dummies, but perpendicular only in tests with 5th percentile adult
female dummies. The injury criteria would have to be met within the
range of a minimum speed of 29 km/h (18 mph) and a maximum speed to be
established within the range of 40 to 48 km/h (25 to 30 mph). This
alternative was based on the unbelted crash test that has been part of
Standard No. 208 for many years but which has, as a practical matter,
been temporarily superseded by the sled test option since March 1997.
The barrier test represents a vehicle striking a vehicle of the same
size, weight and structure head on at the same speed.
We indicated that within this first alternative, the potential
existed for a phase-in sequence in which the maximum speed would
temporarily be set at 40 km/h (25 mph) to provide vehicle manufacturers
additional flexibility when they are introducing advanced air bags
during the TEA 21 phase-in. Under this approach, the final rule could
provide that a maximum speed of 48 km/h (30 mph) would apply after that
period. We also indicated that if we were to reduce the maximum speed
to 40 km/h (25 mph), we might also increase the maximum speed of the
belted rigid barrier test from the current 48 km/h to 56 km/h (30 to 35
mph).
We proposed that the second alternative procedure, the unbelted
offset deformable barrier test, would be conducted using both 50th
percentile adult male dummies and 5th percentile adult female dummies,
with a minimum speed of 35 km/h (22 mph) and a maximum speed to be
established within the range of 48 to 56 km/h (30 to 35 mph). This
alternative was based on a type of crash test used by IIHS and by
Europe, except that unbelted dummies would be used.
For both alternatives, we proposed to conduct the crash tests with
50th percentile adult male dummies with the seat in the middle seat
track position. However, we proposed in the SNPRM to conduct tests
using 5th percentile adult female dummies with both the driver and
passenger seats in the full forward position. We tentatively selected
this position because some small adults sit there and because we
believe that air bags should protect those people.
We noted, however, that placement of the 5th percentile adult
female dummy in the full forward position tests the occupant restraint
system under a condition that may not generally occur in the real
world. The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute
(UMTRI) conducted a study in which it concluded that even drivers who
are approximately the same size as the 5th percentile adult female
dummy generally do not sit in the full forward seat track position
(Docket No. NHTSA-1998-4405-69). Also, while some short-statured
drivers might need to move the driver's seat all the way forward to
reach the controls, a passenger in the front passenger seat would be
less likely to have a similar need. Another concern was whether, in
order to meet tests for conditions that rarely occur in the real world,
manufacturers might select air bag designs that offer reduced
protection for conditions that are more common in the real world.
Accordingly, we requested comments on whether testing the 5th
percentile adult female dummy with the seat in something other than the
full forward seat track position would adequately protect properly-
seated individuals of all sizes while potentially allowing more design
freedom.
B. Type of Test
Commenters that previously advocated retention of the sled test
indicated a willingness to accept the unbelted rigid barrier test. No
commenters disputed the inherent limitations of sled tests as compared
to crash tests. Nearly all commenters supported the unbelted rigid
barrier test over the unbelted offset deformable barrier test. However,
as discussed in the next section, the commenters that had previously
supported the sled test wanted the maximum speed of the unbelted
barrier test reduced to 40 km/h (25 mph).
Vehicle manufacturers stated that the rigid barrier test is
practicable and repeatable and does not entail the variability
associated with deformable barriers and the kinematics of an offset
test. They also stated that the European barrier used in the offset
test is not appropriate for testing larger SUVs and light trucks.
Several vehicle manufacturers, including GM, Honda and DaimlerChrysler,
stated that a high speed unbelted offset test would pose problems for
vehicle sensor systems.
CAS stated that the unbelted offset test holds promise as a
supplemental test, but is not yet suitable for inclusion in Standard
No. 208. That organization stated that there are currently insufficient
data to allow for a comprehensive analysis of the consequences that
would accompany the adoption of the offset test.
Several other commenters also argued that an unbelted offset test
offers promise for the future, either as a replacement for the rigid
barrier test or as a supplemental test. Ford stated that although not
practicable during the TEA 21 phase-in period, it believes that a 48
km/h (30 mph) offset test potentially represents a better long-term
approach for enhancing unbelted protection.
Parents stated that the final rule should include both the unbelted
rigid barrier test and the unbelted offset test. That organization
argued that the two tests provide distinct means of ensuring protection
in very different circumstances, and that inclusion of both tests is
necessary in order to ensure adequate protection for unbelted
occupants.
[[Page 30699]]
After considering the comments, we have decided to adopt the
unbelted rigid barrier test to ensure protection for unbelted occupants
in serious crashes. This is the unbelted crash test included in
Standard No. 208 for the past 30 years. We also use a belted rigid
barrier test for Standard No. 208 and our New Car Assessment Program
(NCAP). Detailed information about this type of test is presented in a
paper prepared by our Office of Research and Development titled
``Updated Review of Potential Test Procedures for FMVSS No. 208.'' That
paper was prepared to accompany our SNPRM.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ One commenter, DaimlerChrysler, submitted a critique of
that paper as part of its comments. We are placing in the docket an
addendum to the paper which responds to that critique.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that we sought comment in the SNPRM on the unbelted offset
test principally to ensure that we received the benefit of public
comments on all of the various alternative approaches that are
available at this time. In the NPRM, we indicated that while we
believed the unbelted rigid barrier test was a good approach, we were
also willing to consider alternative unbelted crash tests. The only
alternative unbelted crash test advocated by a commenter that could
realistically be implemented within the time frame of this rulemaking
was the offset deformable barrier test.
However, the commenter that originally suggested consideration of
the unbelted offset test, IIHS, withdrew its support before the SNPRM
was published. No commenter on the SNPRM supported adopting the
unbelted offset test instead of the unbelted rigid barrier test.
As to Parents' recommendation that we adopt both unbelted tests, we
believe that adoption of the proposed unbelted high speed offset test
would be inappropriate at this time. We have scant data on the
repeatability of this test. Nearly all the offset testing to date has
used belted dummies. As noted above and also discussed in the SNPRM,
several manufacturers have raised concerns that the proposed high speed
unbelted offset test would pose problems for vehicle sensor systems.
See 64 FR 60579.
We also note that while we agree with Parents that the two high
speed tests provide distinct means of ensuring protection in different
circumstances, this does not mean that adoption of those particular two
tests would be needed to ensure protection in those different
circumstances. We believe that the combination of an unbelted rigid
barrier test and belted offset tests can accomplish the same purpose.
As discussed in the SNPRM, the high speed unbelted rigid barrier
test and the high speed unbelted offset test are significantly
different, and each has potential advantages as compared to the other.
The two principal advantages of an offset test are that it provides a
more challenging test of vehicle crash sensors and of vehicle
structure. However, these areas of performance are addressed by belted
offset tests as well as unbelted offset tests.
As discussed later in this document, we are adopting an up to 40
km/h (25 mph) belted offset deformable barrier test as part of today's
final rule. This test will help ensure improved sensing systems, which
will benefit both belted and unbelted occupants. We are also separately
pursuing our previously-announced plans to consider adding a high speed
belted offset test to Standard No. 208. This test would help ensure
improved vehicle structure and reduced intrusion injuries, again
benefitting both belted and unbelted occupants. Because the combination
of an unbelted rigid barrier test and belted offset tests (either being
adopted today or currently being considered by the agency for
rulemaking) can accomplish the same purpose as an unbelted offset test,
we do not currently plan to consider further adopting an unbelted
offset test.
C. Agency Decision to Establish Maximum Speed at 40 km/h (25 mph)
1. The Supplemental Proposal
In the SNPRM, we proposed that the maximum speed for the unbelted
rigid barrier test be established within the range of 40 to 48 km/h (25
to 30 mph).
We stated that it was our intent to maximize, to the extent
consistent with TEA 21, the protection that air bags offer in crashes
potentially resulting in fatal injuries. Thus, we stated that it was
our preference to establish such a test requirement at as high a
severity as practicable. We stated that the 40 km/h (25 mph) lower end
of the maximum test speed range was set forth for comment to ensure
that commenters addressed a crash test recommended by AAM in late
August 1999.
We also stated that the potential existed for a phase-in sequence
in which the maximum speed would initially be set at 40 km/h (25 mph)
to provide vehicle manufacturers additional flexibility when they are
introducing advanced air bags during the phase-in. We explained that
under this phase-in sequence, the final rule could provide that a
maximum speed of 48 km/h (30 mph) would apply after a reasonable period
of time.
We noted that, in commenting on the NPRM, the commenters opposing
the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted barrier test had raised two primary
issues. First, they argued that the test is not representative of
typical crashes. Second, they argued that returning to this test would
prevent continued use of ``depowered'' air bags and would require a
return to ``overly aggressive'' air bags.
We addressed each of these issues in the SNPRM. As to whether the
test is representative of typical crashes, we stated that because the
purpose of Standard No. 208 is primarily to reduce serious and fatal
injuries, we believed that the relevant question is how representative
the test is of the crashes that produce those injuries. We presented
data from the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) for years
1993-1997 showing, among other things, that about 50 percent of
fatalities in frontal crashes occur at delta Vs below 48 km/h (30 mph),
and about 50 percent occur at delta Vs above 48 km/h (30 mph). Looking
separately at unbelted and belted occupants, we noted that 51 percent
of the fatalities involving unbelted occupants and 47 percent of the
fatalities involving belted occupants occur in frontal crashes at delta
Vs below 48 km/h (30 mph). We noted that the delta V in NASS represents
the speed at which the vehicle would strike a rigid barrier to
duplicate the amount of energy absorbed in the crash. Thus, about half
of fatalities in frontal crashes occur in crashes that are more severe
than a 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier crash, and half of all frontal
crash fatalities occur in crashes that are less severe than a 48 km/h
(30 mph) rigid barrier crash.
Given that Standard No. 208's unbelted crash test requirements are
intended to save lives, we stated that we disagree that 48 km/h (30
mph) rigid barrier crashes are unrepresentative of the kinds of crashes
in which we are seeking to ensure protection. We also noted that
because we were proposing to require vehicles to meet the unbelted test
requirements for a range of speeds up to and including 48 km/h (30
mph), we were addressing protection for lower severity crashes as well
as higher severity crashes.
As to the argument that returning to the unbelted 48 km/h (30 mph)
rigid barrier test would prevent continued use of ``depowered'' air
bags and require use of ``overly aggressive'' air bags, we stated that
a key way of assessing the validity of the argument that a return to
the 48 km/h (30 mph) barrier test would--at least in the absence of
additional technological improvements--prevent continued use
[[Page 30700]]
of redesigned air bags was to test vehicles with those air bags in 48
km/h (30 mph) barrier tests and see how they perform. We noted that we
had tested a total of 13 MY 1998-99 vehicles with redesigned air bags
in a perpendicular rigid barrier crash test at 48 km/h (30 mph) with
unbelted 50th percentile adult male driver and passenger dummies. The
vehicles represented a wide range of vehicle types, sizes, and crash
pulses.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ In particular, the 13 vehicles included one sub-compact
car, one compact car, four mid-size cars (representing high sales
volume vehicles), one full-size car, two mid-size sport utility
vehicles, one full-size sport utility vehicle, one pickup truck, one
minivan, and one full-size van. The specific vehicles and their
classes included a Saturn (sub-compact car), a Neon (compact car),
an Intrepid, Camry, Taurus, and Accord (mid-size cars), an Acura RL
(full-size car), an Explorer and Cherokee (mid-size SUVs), an
Expedition (large SUV), a Tacoma (pickup truck), a Voyager
(minivan), and an Econoline (full-size van).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We stated that 11 of the 13 vehicles passed the injury criteria
performance limits proposed in the SNPRM. For the driver position, 12
of the 13 vehicles passed all the relevant injury criteria performance
limits. In the one vehicle with a failure, the MY 1999 Acura RL, the
driver dummy exceeded the femur load criteria. For the passenger
position, 12 of the 13 vehicles also passed all of the relevant injury
criteria performance limits. The MY 1998 Dodge Neon slightly exceeded
the 60 g chest acceleration limit (with a value of 61.4 g). The other
proposed injury criteria performance limits (i.e., for HIC, chest
deflection, and Nij) were easily met in all the tests; for most
vehicles, there was a greater than 20 percent margin of compliance for
both the driver and passenger seating positions.
Based on these test results, we stated that the tested vehicles
with redesigned air bags, ranging widely in vehicle type and size,
appeared to continue to meet Standard No. 208's 48 km/h (30 mph)
unbelted rigid barrier test requirements for 50th percentile adult male
dummies, many of them by wide margins.
We also noted that the relevant issue for this rulemaking is not
whether some MY 1998-99 vehicles with redesigned, single-inflation
level air bags would not meet a 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted barrier test
requirement. The more relevant issue is whether vehicles to be
manufactured in MY 2003 and later would be able to comply with such a
requirement, perhaps by means of currently available technologies not
in many air bag systems as well as technologies still being or yet to
be developed.
We explained that today's air bag systems are not advanced air bags
and thus do not respond to factors such as crash severity, occupant
weight and occupant location. By contrast, the incorporation of
advanced technologies would make air bag systems responsive to those
factors.
We also noted:
If a manufacturer decided to use a somewhat more powerful air
bag to meet a 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test, or to
provide protection in more severe crashes, the manufacturer could
use advanced air bag technologies to provide less powerful levels of
inflation in lower severity crashes, for smaller occupants, for
belted occupants, and for occupants sitting with the seat in the
full-forward position. Manufacturers could also reduce aggressivity
of air bags by various means such as optimizing fold patterns,
different cover designs, lighter fabrics, etc. Advanced technologies
would also enable the manufacturer to suppress air bag deployment in
appropriate circumstances, such as when children are present.
In our Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) accompanying the
SNPRM, we estimated the benefits of an unbelted rigid barrier test with
a maximum speed of 40 km/h (25 mph) vs. 48 km/h (30 mph). The PEA
concluded that if the full fleet of vehicles' air bags were designed in
the context of unbelted 40 km/h (25 mph) rigid barrier and oblique
tests, an estimated 214 to 397 lives saved annually by pre-MY 1998 air
bags might not be saved.
2. Summary of Comments
Commenters on the SNPRM nearly unanimously supported adoption of an
unbelted rigid barrier test, but sharply disagreed over the maximum
speed for that test. Safety advocacy groups, supported returning to 48
km/h (30 mph). Most commenters, however, including all auto companies
and all air bag suppliers, IIHS, and NTSB supported a maximum speed of
40 km/h (25 mph).
Commenters supporting 40 km/h (25 mph). Commenters supporting a
maximum test speed of 40 km/h (25 mph) argued that there would not be a
loss of benefits associated with a test at this speed, as compared to a
48 km/h (30 mph) standard.
AAM stated that the benefits of redesigned air bags will be
maintained with a 40 km/h (25 mph) test. It argued that there is no
reason to believe air bags designed to the sled test requirements have
compromised protection, and that a 40 km/h (25 mph) barrier test is
more severe than the sled test.
AAM also stated that a new 40 km/h (25 mph) test cannot simply be
compared to the old 48 km/h (30 mph) test because the new test would
include additional injury criteria and an additional dummy. It stated
that the benefits of the other tests included in the final rule, such
as the new belted offset test and the low speed risk reduction tests,
should also be considered.
AAM argued that the analyses of benefits presented in the PEA are
based on dummy readings from one dummy at one position in a single type
of crash test in a single direction at a single speed. It stated that
this approach is not comprehensive enough. AAM also argued that the
strongest evidence that there are analytical limitations inherent in
the agency's benefit analyses (past and present) is that past analyses
predicting 1,250 lives lost from the adoption of the sled test that
simply have not come true.
AAM stated that it had considered the level-of-benefit question
from two different perspectives. The first involved the generation of
benefit estimates using a MADYMO math model to develop a theoretical
``optimum'' design for both the 40 km/h (25 mph) and 48 km/h (30 mph)
suite of tests. The performance of those designs was then modeled over
a broad spectrum of real world crash configurations. Based upon an
injury/fatality risk analysis of the model's output injury measures,
relative benefits were calculated. The second perspective utilized an
``opportunities matrix'' approach to examine relative benefits by
generating effectiveness estimates and applying these estimates to the
spectrum of real world crash conditions.
According to AAM, both of these approaches yield the same
conclusion--when considering air bag designs constrained by testing
unbelted occupants at 40 km/h (25 mph) or 48 km/h (30 mph), the desired
goal of reducing serious-to-fatal injuries in real world crashes is
best served by requiring testing at 40 km/h (25 mph).
GM submitted an analysis which it said explains why a 25 mph rigid
barrier test drives air bag designs that protect unbelted occupants in
severe frontal crashes. Among other things, it said that ride down
analysis shows that a 25 mph rigid barrier test requires more air bag
restraint capacity than an unbelted offset deformable barrier impact at
40 mph.
Vehicle manufacturers stressed the argument that the agency should
focus on the experience of redesigned air bags in MY 1998 and MY 1999
models. They argued that these redesigned air bags have provided real
world benefits and that there is no evidence that more power is needed.
[[Page 30701]]
Toyota stated that NHTSA's concern that manufacturers will
substantially decrease power in future air bags compared to current
systems is unfounded. It presented data comparing velocity vs. time
traces for the sled test and the 40 km/h (25 mph) test for both an SUV
and a sedan, and noted that the 40 km/h (25 mph) test pulses were more
severe. Toyota argued that, in order to manage this level of energy,
the air bags for these vehicles cannot be depowered further than the
current levels, and that there is no reason to believe that air bags
designed to the 40 km/h (25 mph) rigid barrier test will perform worse
in high speed collisions than those designed to the sled pulse.
IIHS stated that it does not agree that a high-speed barrier test
using unbelted dummies will necessarily lead to improved protection for
any occupants, belted or unbelted. That organization stated that it
disagreed with what it characterized as the agency's claim that, unless
it returns to the 48 km/h (30 mph) barrier test, air bags will offer
inadequate protection to many unbelted occupants, especially large
people in more severe frontal crashes. That organization stated that in
a number of studies of air bag performance in moderate to severe
frontal crashes, it has shown that drivers are not dying because air
bags offer too little protection; rather, drivers are dying because of
overwhelming intrusion that no air bag design can overcome, ejection of
occupants, or because of injury from the air bag itself.
IIHS argued that these observations call attention to what it
believes are two errors in the agency's logic for returning to a 48 km/
h (30 mph) test. First, that commenter argued that if air bags are not
powerful enough, there should be some real world cases in which the
energy of the deploying bags was inadequate to protect individuals in
otherwise survivable frontal crashes. IIHS stated that it is not aware
of any such case. It also stated that the agency's concern that air
bags certified to the unbelted generic sled pulse would be less
effective in frontal crashes has no foundation in real world crash
data.
Second, IIHS argued that the agency has failed to appreciate that
serious and fatal injuries from deploying air bags are happening not
only in low speed crashes, but also in the high speed crashes in which
air bags are supposed to be most effective. That commenter stated that
a recent update (including 1996 data) of its analyses of driver
fatalities in air bag-equipped cars indicates air bags were the most
likely source of the fatal injuries in about 15 percent of frontal
crash deaths. IIHS argued that the agency must account for these
deaths, as well as those more easily documented in low speed crashes,
before it can justify a return to the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted barrier
test.
IIHS also addressed the agency's concern that, without a ``severe
crash test'' for unbelted occupants, manufacturers may reduce air bag
inflation energy, or the size of air bags, thereby compromising their
effectiveness. IIHS argued that such changes are constrained by other
non-regulatory crash tests to which the manufacturers are subject. That
organization stated that NCAP requires that air bags be reasonably deep
in order to prevent dummies' heads from striking through the bags, and
that offset crash testing by it and others worldwide means
manufacturers will continue to install air bags with sufficient radial
size to keep occupants squarely behind their air bags, even under
conditions of sharp vehicle rotation.
NADA argued that the agency's proposed advanced air bag performance
criteria fail to account for reasonably projected increases in safety
belt and child restraint usage or for the real-life incremental
benefits attributable to ``depowered'' air bags. NADA stated that it is
reasonable to assume that by MY 2003, proper driver and passenger
(including children) seat belt usage and child restraint usage rates
will exceed 80 percent, and that by MY 2006, these rates should exceed
90 percent.
Vehicle manufacturers also argued that it is difficult or
impossible to comply with the 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier test for
both the 50th percentile adult male dummies and the 5th percentile
adult female dummies. They also argued that it may not be possible to
satisfy both the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test for both
dummies and the low risk deployment tests.
AAM stated that while the agency has claimed that most vehicles
with redesigned air bags continue to meet the unbelted 48 km/h (30 mph)
barrier test, very little testing has been done with these same
vehicles at 48 km/h (30 mph) with 5th percentile adult female dummies.
AAM stated that the little testing that has been done produced a 50
percent failure rate. That organization stated that this testing
illustrates the design tensions that the industry has been emphasizing.
According to that organization, these tensions result from technology
constraints which presently discern limited information about occupant
size and location, crash sensors with limited predictive capability and
air bags with only two power levels.
According to AAM, it is especially challenging to balance occupant
protection for both the 5th percentile adult female and the 50th
percentile adult male dummies and assure compliance with the barrier
test. As an example, AAM cited the agency's test of the Toyota Tacoma,
which resulted in an Nij of 2.65 for the 5th female passenger dummy,
nearly three times the allowable injury reference value. According to
AAM, the air bag size and fill needed to assure compliance with the
chest injury limits with 50th percentile adult male dummies at 48 km/h
(30 mph) results in noncompliant neck and thorax injury reference
values for 5th percentile adult female dummies seated closer to the air
bag. Conversely, according to AAM, if the air bag is sized for the
unbelted 5th percentile female dummy at 48 km/h (30 mph), there is
insufficient restraint of the unbelted 50th male dummy. AAM argued that
testing at 40 km/h (25 mph) allows the restraint engineer to design the
air bag to provide reasonable occupant protection for a broader range
of occupant sizes.
GM made arguments similar to those of AAM. It argued that the
unbelted 48 km/h (30 mph) barrier test using the 50th percentile adult
male dummy determines the restraint energy, drives the depth of the air
bag, and requires a deeper air bag that has more potential to injure a
5th percentile adult female. It argued that the unbelted 48 km/h (30
mph) barrier test using the 5th percentile adult female would require a
shallower air bag that would not assure compliance for an unbelted 50th
percentile adult male. According to GM, a 40 km/h (25 mph) test would
permit air bag depth to be optimized for both the 5th percentile adult
female and 50th percentile adult male dummies.
Ford stated that testing of the MY 2000 Taurus using 5th percentile
adult female and 50th percentile adult male dummies demonstrates the
difficulties of balancing requirements with a 48
km/h (30 mph) test even for vehicles equipped with advanced
technologies. That company noted that the MY 2000 Taurus has dual-level
inflators and other advanced technologies.
GM argued that there is no technology or combination of
technologies existing today that could satisfy both the 48 km/h (30
mph) unbelted rigid barrier test and the low risk deployment tests.
Honda stated that it had concerns about being able to meet the rigid
barrier test for the 50th percentile adult male dummy and also meet the
low risk
[[Page 30702]]
deployment test for out-of-position occupants.
Commenters supporting a maximum speed of 40 km/h (25 mph) also
argued that a 48 km/h (30 mph) maximum speed would require a return to
overly aggressive air bags.
AAM stated that field evidence suggests that the current depowered
air bags offer a high level of occupant protection in the real world
while enhancing protection for at-risk groups. That organization stated
that a return to 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted testing would require
increasing air bag inflator outputs in some vehicles, serving to
increase the risk of harm to certain groups.
GM stated that it strongly recommends that ``depowered'' air bags
continue to be the highest force level inflation boundary necessary to
comply with Standard No. 208. It argued that given the positive
indications from the field on the effects of depowering, and the
continued positive indications in engineering laboratory testing, it
would be a serious setback to motor vehicle safety should the agency
send Standard No. 208 backwards by mandating a 48 km/h (30 mph)
unbelted rigid barrier test.
Toyota stated that it believes a return to 48 km/h (30 mph)
unbelted barrier testing would require an increase in air bag power in
many models. That company stated that, given the lack of evidence that
higher powered air bags are necessary, it strongly believes that
reinstating this requirement would serve only to increase risk to at-
risk groups, including out-of-position children and small statured
adults.
DaimlerChrysler argued that a return to the unbelted 48 km/h (30
mph) barrier test would necessitate an increase in air bag inflator
power, all things being equal. That commenter stated that staged
inflators can reduce, but not eliminate, the risk to smaller and out-
of-position occupants in lower speed deployments. DaimlerChrysler
asserted that to assure compliance, it would expect the power level of
the staged deployment necessary to meet the requirements of an unbelted
48 km/h (30 mph) impact to be comparable to the pre-depowering level.
IIHS stated that while NHTSA crash tests indicate that some
vehicles may meet the unbelted 48 km/h (30 mph) test without adding
more energy, it believes the agency must recognize that this may not be
possible in all, or even most, cases. That organization stated that
when compliance becomes difficult, it will be far too easy for
manufacturers to meet the 48 km/h (30 mph) test by increasing air bag
inflation energy (or the second stage of the air bag).
NTSB stated that it is concerned that the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted
barrier test could result in a return to higher energy air bags.
Recognizing the significant disagreement among commenters
concerning whether there should be a return to the 48 km/h (30 mph)
test, a broad range of commenters supporting a 40 km/h (25 mph) test
argued that the solution should be for the agency to adopt a 40 km/h
(25 mph) test in the current rulemaking, and defer any future
consideration of a 48 km/h (30 mph) test. As part of this process, they
recommended that NHTSA expedite a focused examination of frontal
crashes with fatalities to determine, for vehicles with depowered air
bags and the latest generation of advanced air bags, how people are
dying in these crashes. A 48 km/h (30 mph) test would be considered
further if scientific evidence indicated that the 40 km/h (25 mph) test
resulted in inadequate protection. Supporters of this approach included
NTSB, IIHS, AAM, the National Safety Council, the American Trauma
Society, and the National Association of Governors' Highway Safety
Representatives. AAM stated that it was committing to provide
additional resources for a major real-world data gathering program to
provide a greater factual basis for future air bag rulemakings.
Commenters supporting 48 km/h (30 mph). Safety advocacy groups
supporting a maximum test speed of 48 km/h (30 mph) argued that it
would result in higher life-saving benefits than a 40 km/h (25 mph)
speed.
These commenters emphasized that half of all fatalities in frontal
crashes occur at delta Vs above 48 km/h (30 mph). Parents argued that a
48 km/h (30 mph) test speed is very typical of potentially fatal
crashes since it is in the middle of the crash speeds that cause
fatalities. That commenter also argued that air bag systems certified
as meeting the injury criteria at the higher speeds proposed in the
rule will have greater efficacy in severe frontal collisions than would
air bags certified as complying at some lesser speed.
CAS stated that the 5 mph difference between 40 km/h (25 mph) and
48 km/h (30 mph) is substantial. It stated that a 48 km/h (30 mph)
barrier crash is 40 percent more severe than a 40 km/h (25 mph) crash.
It also stated that NHTSA data show that almost 20 percent of occupant
fatalities in frontal crashes occur between 40 km/h (25 mph) and 48 km/
h (30 mph) delta V.
Public Citizen stated that real world driving conditions require
the return to a 48 km/h (30 mph) test. That organization stated that
these conditions include higher speed limits, as well as the prevalence
of vastly increased numbers of SUVs and LTVs designed with stiff front
ends. Public Citizen stated that the stiffness of these vehicles, as
well as other factors including higher mass, transmit increased forces
to passenger cars in crashes.
Public Citizen also argued that over the past 30 years, Americans
have used the 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier test as the litmus test
for a vehicle's crashworthiness. It noted that other motor vehicle
safety standards are based on a 48 km/h (30 mph) test. Public Citizen
stated that if the 48 km/h (30 mph) test were dropped, the public would
view the decision as a step backward.
Public Citizen stated that one indicator of the inadequacy of a 40
km/h (25 mph) test is a statement by GM in the 1980's that it could
pass an unbelted 40 km/h (25 mph) test with ``friendly interiors'' and
no air bag at all.
CAS also stated that a 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted test, even if
coupled with a 56 km/h (35 mph) belted test, is but a slight variation
of GM's proposal to Secretary Dole in 1984 for a 40 km/h (25 mph)
unbelted and 48 km/h (30 mph) belted standard. CAS argued that if a car
with friendly interiors could meet a 40 km/h (25 mph) barrier test in
1984 without an air bag, as GM suggested then that it could, then the
addition of a cosmetic air bag would enable a vehicle to meet Standard
No. 208 today, even with its revised injury criteria.
These commenters also cited the agency's estimates in the PEA that
a 40 km/h (25 mph) test speed could result in 214 to 397 fewer lives
saved each year.
These safety advocacy groups also argued that there is no
justification to reduce the longstanding 48 km/h (30 mph) test speed
and that such a reduction would be inconsistent with the TEA 21
requirement to improve protection of occupants of different sizes,
belted and unbelted.
CAS argued that reducing the unbelted test speed to 40 km/h (25
mph) would decrease the level of protection for unbelted occupants who
are involved in moderate to high speed collisions. According to that
commenter, Congress cannot possibly have envisioned a backward step as
an improvement to safety when it mandated that the advanced air bag
rulemaking take place.
Public Citizen stated that the whole point of upgrading Standard
No. 208 is
[[Page 30703]]
to ensure that automakers make better air bag restraint systems and
that the standard should reflect as much as possible the protection
needed in real world crashes.
According to Public Citizen, a 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted barrier
test would force manufacturers to incorporate more advanced technology.
Public Citizen argued that without the additional challenge of the 48
km/h (30 mph) unbelted test, the automakers would have little
motivation to move forward technologically in the future.
These commenters strongly disagreed with the arguments of the
industry and some others that a 48 km/h (30 mph) standard would require
overly aggressive air bags or not be possible to meet for both 50th
percentile adult male dummies and 5th percentile adult female dummies.
Parents stated that the industry's rationale for a 40 km/h (25 mph)
maximum speed is that the traditional 48 km/h (30 mph) speed compels
production of air bag systems that are necessarily and unavoidably
dangerous for small occupants in lower speed collisions. That
organization stated that it strongly disagrees with this position.
According to Parents, this position ignores the outstanding safety
record of many well designed air bag systems that have complied with
the 48 km/h (30 mph) requirement over the years. Parents also stated
that this argument does not take into account advanced air bag
technologies, the technologies that the advanced air bag rule is
supposed to foster.
Parents also argued that the SNPRM rebutted the industry's argument
that adoption of a 48 km/h (30 mph) test speed would necessarily
require vehicle manufacturers to revert to excessive deployment forces
found in many systems prior to sled testing. Parents stated that the
agency pointed out that virtually all of the depowered air bag systems
it tested still passed the 48 km/h (30 mph) test. That organization
also stated that compliance margins were fairly wide and typically as
wide as margins used by industry in complying with the 48 km/h (30 mph)
test. Parents stated that for systems that don't meet the 48 km/h (30
mph) test, development of advanced technologies would allow these
vehicles to also meet the test.
Consumers Union argued that the agency's testing of 13 vehicles
with redesigned air bags leads it to conclude that even before the
comprehensive redesign in air bag systems contemplated in this
rulemaking, a wide variety of vehicles with depowered air bags already
can pass the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted test. That organization stated
that, contrary to the industry argument, air bags in many varieties of
vehicles apparently do not need to be repowered or made ``overly
aggressive'' in order to pass the 48 km/h (30 mph) test.
Consumers Union also stated that in NHTSA tests, two of four
vehicles tested, the MY 1999 Saturn and MY 1998 Taurus, passed all the
injury criteria for the driver and passenger using unbelted 5th
percentile adult female and 50th percentile adult male dummies in 48
km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier tests. That organization argued that if
these vehicles can pass these tests even before they have been
redesigned to meet a revised Standard No. 208, other vehicles can be
engineered to do so as well. These tests were also cited by other
commenters supporting a 48 km/h (30 mph) standard.
Public Citizen argued that any trade-offs between meeting
requirements for the 5th percentile adult female and 50th percentile
adult male dummies can be overcome with the right combination of new
technologies. Public Citizen cited dual or multi-level inflators,
innovative folding patterns and bag shapes, lighter weight fabrics,
tethers, pedal extenders, moving modules, deep dish steering wheels,
collapsible steering columns, knee bolsters, stitching that keeps bags
narrow to protect in low-level inflation and separates to protect
occupants in higher impact crashes, top mounted vertically deploying
air bags, chambered air bags (in effect, a smaller bag inside a larger
one), and occupant position sensors that adjust deployment level or
suppress deployment altogether.
Public Citizen also stated that the new test requirements,
including static and dynamic tests using infant, child and small adult
size dummies, already address the manufacturers' concerns regarding the
``excessive'' power of air bags in low severity crashes.
Public Citizen expressed concern about the suggestion of some
commenters that more data be collected before any decision is made to
return to a 48 km/h (30 mph) test. It argued that this was an excuse to
delay a safety standard and that there is plenty of real world
experience with the 48 km/h (30 mph) test because it was in effect from
1987 to 1997 and because most 1998 and 1999 models continued to comply
with that test. Public Citizen argued further that there is a lack of
data about a 40 km/h (25 mph) test since there never has been such a
test requirement. It stated that the risky decision on this rulemaking
would be to lower the test speed to 40 km/h (25 mph).
Public Citizen stated that it believes the driving force behind the
auto industry's support for a 40 km/h (25 mph) test is that they want
to avoid the expense of designing energy absorbing structures for their
SUV and light truck vehicles. It also argued that if the agency finds
that the 48 km/h (30 mph) test is too forceful, it has the obligation
to require vehicle manufacturers to inform all current owners of 48 km/
h (30 mph) air bag compliant vehicles of this fact and require the
companies to recall and correct them.
Syson-Hille and Associates presented an analysis of the history of
air bags which it argued shows that the fatalities that have been
caused by air bags are the result of poor air bag designs and not the
48 km/h (30 mph) barrier test.
3. Response to Comments on Maximum Test Speed
Because the selection of the maximum test speed for the unbelted
barrier test represented the primary issue in the SNPRM on which there
was significant disagreement among the commenters and drew a
significant amount of public interest, we presented a full discussion
of the rationale for selecting 40 km/h (25 mph) early in this document.
In this section, we provide a specific response to the public comments
on that issue, especially those comments which supported a 48 km/h (30
mph) test speed.
As indicated by the discussion we presented earlier in this
document, we agree with a number of the arguments made by commenters
supporting a 48 km/h (30 mph) test. We agree that a 48 km/h (30 mph)
test would not require any kind of general ``repowering'' of air bags.
We also agree that there are potential disadvantages associated with
adopting a 40 km/h (25 mph) test, the most significant being that there
could be significantly reduced safety benefits if manufacturers engaged
in significant and widespread further depowering.
However, there are important areas where we differ with the
commenters supporting a 48 km/h (30 mph) test speed.
First, we believe that setting the maximum speed at 48 km/h (30
mph) during the TEA 21 phase-in period, as advocated by these
commenters, would not allow manufacturers to focus initially on risk
reduction, would not give the manufacturers as much flexibility in
simultaneously improving high speed protection and risk reduction, and
would not allow advanced air bag technologies to mature and
manufacturers to gain experience with them before requiring the
extensive use of these technologies.
While these disadvantages would be partially mitigated by setting
the
[[Page 30704]]
maximum speed at 40 km/h (25 mph) for an initial period and at 48 km/h
(30 mph) thereafter, this approach would place a premium on our being
able to project accurately the pace of development and the
effectiveness of advanced air bag technologies. Depending on how
advanced air bag technologies developed, this approach would still give
the manufacturers less flexibility in simultaneously improving high
speed protection and risk reduction.
We believe that these uncertainties associated with advanced
technologies, particularly the more complex ones, must be considered in
selecting the maximum test speed. While we agree that many of the
limitations associated with dual level inflators can be overcome by
such features as multi-level inflation, chambering, and real time
occupant position sensing, we believe there are significant
uncertainties as to how quickly these more complex technologies can be
implemented. There are advantages to vehicle manufacturers initially
implementing simpler advanced technologies and learning from that
experience before moving on to the more complex technologies.
As discussed earlier, particularly given the risks that the first
generation of air bags posed to out-of-position children and small
adult females, and the reaction of the public to those risks, it is
very important that advanced air bags be properly designed from the
very beginning. Air bags have proven to be highly effective in saving
lives. However, if advanced air bags proved to be unreliable, or to
pose significant risks to out-of position children and small adult
females, the public acceptability of air bags would be put at risk. For
these reasons, we believe that, in selecting a maximum test speed, the
uncertainty associated with meeting the challenge of simultaneously
minimizing risk and improving protection is best resolved in favor of
minimizing risk, as long as there is good reason to believe that it is
unlikely that vehicle manufacturers would reduce the overall level of
high speed protection being provided today.
A second key area where we disagree with the commenters supporting
a 48 km/h (30 mph) standard concerns the type of air bag system that
would be produced under a 40 km/h (25 mph) standard. It is our view
that the air bags most likely to be produced under a 40 km/h (25 mph)
standard would offer at least as much overall high speed protection as
the current redesign air bags. While manufacturers might make some
adjustments in providing high speed protection for different size
occupants, we believe it is unlikely that they would reduce the overall
level of protection, much less switch to some kind of new, hypothetical
air bag design that might minimally pass the 40 km/h (25 mph) test, but
provide little or no protection to unbelted occupants in higher
severity crashes.
There are several reasons for this belief. First, the record shows
that vehicle manufacturers did not respond to the flexibility provided
by the sled test by providing air bags that minimally complied with the
sled test. They did not depower their air bags as much as they could
have, and, for the vast majority of their vehicles, they continued to
provide air bags that passed the 48 km/h (30 mph) test with the 50th
percentile adult male dummy.
Second, the vehicle manufacturers have specifically committed to
not reducing high speed protection of air bag systems through
significant and widespread depowering. See letter from AAM and AIAM
dated April 4, 2000 (Docket NHTSA-99-6407, item 126).
Third, a 40 km/h (25 mph) maximum test speed does not create any
significant cost incentive for vehicle manufacturers to provide reduced
protection compared to a 48 km/h (30 mph) maximum test speed. As
discussed in the FEA, we believe that costs are essentially the same
for both test speeds. We also note that the vehicle manufacturers have
stated that regardless of whether the maximum test speed is set at 40
km/h (25 mph) or 48 km/h (30 mph), they will employ the same technology
on vehicles.
Fourth, there are other constraints that discourage significant
further depowering. AAM and AIAM stated that air bag power cannot be
significantly reduced and still permit air bags to perform well in the
56 km/h (35 mph) belted NCAP tests. Those tests are the same as the 56
km/h (35 mph) belted tests that will be added to Standard No. 208
during the second phase-in established by this rule. We note that the
need to perform well in angle tests in the 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted
rigid barrier test will help ensure that vehicle manufacturers do not
inappropriately shrink the size of current air bags.
Fifth, as discussed earlier in this document, the vehicle
manufacturers are already introducing new technologies that enhance
protection and/or reduce risk, even though these technologies are not
needed to meet current requirements.
Public Citizen, CAS and the Consumer Federation of America argued
that we should not rely on manufacturer representations that they will
not further depower their vehicles. These commenters stated that there
can be no enforcement of a promise, that what is in the rule is what
the companies will comply with, and that anything else is illusory.
Although our conclusion that vehicle manufacturers are unlikely to
reduce the overall level of high speed protection provided by MY 1998
and MY 1999 redesigned air bags rests in part on the representations of
manufacturers, it is primarily based on factors other than promises.
For all of the reasons discussed above, we believe that the
manufacturers are, in fact, in a situation where prudent judgment
dictates retaining the current overall level of protection in high
speed crashes.
We also plan to monitor how vehicle manufacturers respond to the
advanced air bag mandate. If they should change their current plans and
take actions that reduce the overall level of protection, we will
respond appropriately. The possibility of rulemaking, including the
reduced flexibility that could accompany a 48 km/h (30 mph) maximum
test speed, is another incentive for vehicle manufacturers not to take
such actions as they design their advanced air bags.
As to Public Citizen's argument that vehicle manufacturers support
a 40
km/h (25 mph) maximum test speed because they want to avoid the expense
of designing energy absorbing structures for SUVs and light trucks, we
note that while such design changes would make it easier to pass a 48
km/h (30 mph) test, it is by no means clear that the higher test speed
would require such changes. Moreover, we note that IIHS said in its
comments that adding the 56 km/h (35 mph) belted NCAP test to Standard
No. 208 could encourage vehicle manufacturers to soften the crash
pulses of SUVs and light trucks.
We also disagree with the suggestion of some commenters that TEA 21
precludes us from establishing a maximum test speed below 48 km/h (30
mph). This view is based on the argument that any speed below the old
48 km/h (30 mph) level cannot be considered to ``improve occupant
protection,'' as required by TEA 21.
This argument fails to consider the major differences between the
older unbelted rigid barrier tests and the unbelted rigid barrier tests
required by this new rule. The older unbelted rigid barrier test used a
single test dummy, representing a 50th percentile adult male,
positioned well back from the air bag. The only measure of the
effectiveness of the air bag was its effectiveness in a high speed
crash into a rigid barrier. There was no assessment
[[Page 30705]]
of risks for occupants who might be positioned near the air bag. The
injury criteria included assessments of injury likelihood to the test
dummy's head, chest, and upper legs.
Today's rule mandates a much more comprehensive assessment of air
bag protection. It adds an entirely new series of tests to assess low
speed risk to occupants of many different sizes. For the first time in
the history of Standard No. 208, the agency will use dummies
representing a 12-month-old, a 3-year-old, a 6-year-old, and a 5th
percentile adult female. All of these new dummies will be used in
assessing risk of air bags. For the high speed test, performance will
be evaluated using both the mid-sized male dummy positioned well back
from the air bag and the new 5th percentile female dummy positioned as
far forward as the seat allows. For both dummies in the high speed
unbelted test, the limit on permissible chest responses has been made
more stringent and an injury criteria has been added to assess the
likelihood of neck injuries. Because of all these additional
complexities and increased stringency, it is not correct to claim that
setting the unbelted rigid barrier test speed below 48 km/h (30 mph)
necessarily reduces protection to unbelted occupants.
In addition, we note that the purpose of the new belted offset test
is to help ensure that vehicle manufacturers upgrade their crash
sensing and software systems, as necessary, to better address soft
crash pulses. These improved crash sensing and software systems will
benefit both belted and unbelted occupants.
We also note that the suggestion that TEA 21 somehow requires an
unbelted barrier test with a test speed not lower than 48 km/h (30 mph)
is inconsistent with the language of that statute. In fact, TEA 21
expressly left open the possibility of our retaining the sled test.
That test has a severity level significantly below that of a 48 km/h
(30 mph) barrier test and a 40 km/h (25 mph) barrier test.
We also disagree with the argument of some commenters that if we
decide that the 48 km/h (30 mph) test requires overly powerful air
bags, we must require vehicle manufacturers to notify all current
owners of vehicles with 48 km/h (30 mph) air bags of this fact and to
recall and correct the vehicles. In the first place, while we are
setting the maximum test speed at 40 km/h (25 mph), we have not
determined that a 48 km/h (30 mph) test requires overly powerful air
bags. Second, the fact that we are requiring manufacturers to provide
improved air bags in new vehicles does not mean that earlier vehicles
that do not meet the new requirements have a safety-related defect. If
we were to accept that argument, every rulemaking we conduct to improve
motor vehicle safety would result in earlier vehicles that did not
satisfy the new requirements being considered to contain safety-related
defects. This would be completely inconsistent with the statutory
scheme set up by Congress. When the agency mandated automatic
restraints, we did not require the recall of earlier vehicles without
automatic restraints. Likewise, when Congress mandated air bags, we did
not require the recall of earlier vehicles without air bags.
A more detailed discussion of a number of the comments concerning
the unbelted test is provided in separate agency documents which are
being placed in the docket. Of particular note are the Final Economic
Assessment, prepared by our Office of Plans and Policy, and a paper
prepared by our Office of Research and Development titled ``High Speed
Unbelted Test Requirements of FMVSS No. 208; Analysis of Issues Raised
by Public Comments.''
D. Other Issues
1. Location of 5th Percentile Adult Female Dummy
In both the NPRM and the SNPRM we proposed conducting the barrier
tests with the 5th percentile adult female dummy in the full-forward
seat track position. We stated that we believe the full-forward
position to be the worst case position for an individual exposed to a
deploying air bag and the most demanding of air bag systems. We also
acknowledged in the SNPRM that this position would rarely need to be
used, particularly on the passenger-side. We requested comment on
whether testing in a seat track position other than full-forward would
adequately protect occupants of all sizes while allowing sufficient
design freedom.
Consumers Union, CAS, and Advocates all supported our proposed seat
track position. They cited the disproportionately high number of women
160 cm (5'2") and under who have died as a result of a deploying air
bag and argued that testing under this rule should be required under
the most extreme conditions. CAS stated that the only condition under
which the agency might consider an exception to this procedure is if
adjustable pedals are present in the vehicle that would enable a
typical small female to move away from the steering wheel hub. Public
Citizen agreed with the agency's position in the SNPRM that if
manufacturers can't provide protection in the full-forward position,
they have option of moving that position back and making other
adjustments, such as adjustable pedals, on the driver side.
The NTSB stated that it believed the full-forward position could be
inadequate if an individual could not reach the pedals while sitting
against the seat back. It argued that we should position the dummy
relative to the accelerator pedal rather than the seat track.
Vehicle manufacturers, including AAM, DaimlerChrysler, Toyota and
Honda, averred that the full-forward seating position was too extreme
and unrepresentative of driving patterns in the real world. The
manufacturers stated that a full-forward seat track could force
manufacturers to move the seat track back, which could lead to less
storage space, reduced ingress and egress space for rear passengers,
and, in smaller vehicles, an inability to install properly rear facing
safety restraints in the back seat. Manufacturers also contended that
testing in the full-forward position could force them to design smaller
air bags since there would be less room for inflation.
The primary argument driving the manufacturers' comments is their
assertion that few people ever drive in the full-forward position, as
evidenced by the UMTRI study, as well as informal studies of their own.
DaimlerChrysler and Honda recommended that the seat track position for
the 5th percentile female be in accordance with the vehicle
manufacturer's 5th percentile female seating reference position.
We have decided to retain the requirement that the 5th percentile
adult female dummy be tested in the full-forward position. As an
initial matter, we ran 11 tests of production vehicles at 40 km/h (25
mph) or greater using an unbelted 5th percentile adult female driver
and passenger in the full-forward seat track position in a
perpendicular rigid barrier test. Of these 11 tests, nine vehicles
passed all of the applicable injury criteria on the driver side (5 at
48 km/h (30 mph), 2 at 44
km/h (27.5 mph), and 2 at 40 km/h (25 mph)). On the passenger side,
seven out of 11 passed all applicable injury criteria. We tested two
vehicles in the same 48 km/h (30 mph) test, but with the seat moved
back 7.6 cm (3 inches) from the full-forward position. We found that
this was roughly consistent with the UMTRI seating procedure in one
vehicle and significantly further back than the UMTRI positioning would
have been for the other. Moving the seat 7.6 cm (three inches) back
also placed the dummy's chest approximately 25 cm
[[Page 30706]]
(ten inches) back from the steering hub. While both dummies on the
driver's side passed the applicable injury criteria, one dummy on the
passenger side exceeded the maximum allowable values for failed chest
g's and femur loads. We also found that during these tests, the dummy
on the driver side could not always reach the accelerator pedal. This
fact, along with the numerous phone calls the agency has received over
the past few years, indicates to us that at least some individuals are
driving with the seat in the full-forward seat track position. If a
vehicle is designed to be used in a particular position, we believe it
is reasonable to assume that the position will be used at least some of
the time.
We are cognizant of the manufacturers' concern that today's rule
may require them to limit the extent of seat track travel. To the
extent this increases occupant protection, this would appear to be a
positive move. We note that in some vehicles the seat will slide
forward in order to ease access to the back seat, but will then lock
into place somewhere further back on the seat track. Since today's rule
would not require testing in a seat position that is not fixed in place
when the vehicle is driven, we believe this type of design could
continue to be used. Of greater concern is the claim that some smaller
vehicles will no longer be able to accommodate rear facing child
restraints in the rear seat. We strongly believe that in most instances
manufacturers can and should design their vehicles to allow adult
occupants to ride safely in the front seat and infants to ride safely
in the back seat. However, we note that the need to place rear facing
child restraints in the back seat may force the front seat passenger to
pull the front seat full forward. In such a circumstance, the passenger
will need the protection of a deploying air bag without being exposed
to undue risk. This also applies to a passenger who moves the seat full
forward because the rear seat is loaded with cargo. These two
circumstances argue for, rather than against, the need to test the
front seat in the full-forward position.
We have decided against adopting the NTSB's recommendation that the
seating procedure be based on distance from the accelerator pedal
rather than seat track position. Our test requirements must be
objective. We believe linking the position to distance from the pedal
could introduce too many ambiguities into the seating procedure for it
to remain sufficiently objective.
2. Minimum Test Speed
In the SNPRM, we proposed that manufacturers would need to meet the
unbelted rigid barrier test at any speed between 29 km/h (18 mph) and
40 to 48 km/h (25 to 30 mph). This range represents a significant
change from the belted barrier test and previous unbelted barrier
tests, which have required injury criteria to be met at any speed up to
48 km/h (30 mph).
GM and Ford supported the proposed lower test parameter 29 km/h (18
mph). AAM, DaimlerChrysler and Toyota supported a higher minimum test
speed. VW and Honda supported a lower minimum test speed. Delphi urged
the agency to return to its traditional ``any speed between zero and''
the maximum test speed, arguing that the minimum test speed will result
in an unacceptable safety trade-off for individuals who could be aided
by a deploying air bag in lower speed crashes.
The concerns of the vehicle manufacturers opposed to the 29 km/h
(18 mph) lower limit revolve around their ability to meet both the low
risk deployment tests at any speed up to 29 km/h (18 mph) and the high
speed tests at any speed between 29 km/h (18 mph) and 40 to 48 km/h (25
to 30 mph). These manufacturers argued that the basic premise for dual-
stage inflation systems is that the first stage can be tailored to
reduce risk for children while offering protection for 5th percentile
adult while the second stage protects the 50th percentile male
occupant. According to the manufacturers, in many cases the first stage
air bag will not be sufficient to satisfy the injury criteria in a test
at 29 km/h (18 mph). In order to assure compliance with both the
unbelted crash test requirement and a low risk deployment option
utilizing a dual-stage air bag system, a manufacturer arguably would
either have to drop the threshold for the second stage air bag close to
29 km/h (18 mph) to ensure compliance for the 50th percentile adult
male or provide a higher-energy first stage inflator. The commenters
asserted that if NHTSA were to impose the proposed speed range for the
unbelted tests, we would create a situation that would make compliance
with a low risk deployment option impossible, since it would not be
possible to assure that only the first stage air bag deploys at 29 km/h
(18 mph) for the out-of-position test. Since the reliability of dynamic
suppression systems is still unproven, the application of a test
requirement that precludes low risk deployment systems would create a
problem at the driver position.
On the other end of the spectrum, Delphi has argued that allowing a
minimum test speed for the unbelted barrier test may result in serious
injuries that could otherwise be avoided. Delphi stated that while it
recognized that the proposed minimum test speed was intended to
discourage lower air bag threshold speeds, unbelted occupants without
an air bag may exceed the neck injury criterion in typical vehicle
impacts between 16 and 22.4 km/h (10 and 14 mph). Delphi believes that
NHTSA's objective in encouraging higher air bag threshold speeds is the
reduction of injury risk to out-of-position occupants, the same
objective addressed by the proposed advanced air bag systems. If the
proposed advanced air bag systems are truly effective, Delphi asserts,
lower thresholds should mitigate the injury risk that current systems
pose. Accordingly, Delphi recommended that vehicle speed ranges be
changed to 0 to 40 km/h (0 to 25 mph) for unbelted occupants in all
rigid barrier and oblique barrier tests.
We have decided to raise the minimum test speed for the unbelted
test from 29 km/h (18 mph) to 32 km/h (20 mph) while decreasing the
maximum threshold for the various out-of-position tests from 29 km/h
(18 mph) to 26 km/h (16 mph). We believe that this difference in speed
between the two tests will be sufficient to resolve manufacturers'
concerns with the potential overlap of the low risk deployment and
barrier tests. Today's requirement builds in a 6 km/h (4 mph) ``grey
zone'' that will allow manufacturers to deploy both inflator stages, if
needed, in all high speed tests, while preserving their ability to
deploy only the first stage (or allow for deployment of a combination
of benign stages) of the air bag in the low risk deployment tests. We
are rejecting DaimlerChrysler's and Toyota's request that we test
unbelted dummies only at 48 km/h (25 mph) because we continue to
believe a range of speeds is necessary to adequately protect drivers
and adult passengers.
As to Delphi's concern that vehicle occupants will be afforded
inadequate protection in the real world because of a lower parameter on
the unbelted barrier tests, we note that vehicle manufacturers must
still certify compliance to the belted test at all test speeds from
zero to 48 km/h (30 mph), and must satisfy the low risk deployment
criteria for the 5th percentile adult female on the driver's side.
[[Page 30707]]
VII. Improving the Protection of Belted Occupants in Serious
Crashes
In the SNPRM, we proposed two crash test requirements, both of
which would have to be satisfied, to improve the protection of belted
occupants in serious crashes. The first was a belted rigid barrier
test; the second was a belted offset deformable barrier test.
A. Belted Rigid Barrier Test
Standard No. 208 currently includes an up-to-48 km/h (30 mph)
belted rigid barrier test (perpendicular and up to 30
degrees oblique to perpendicular) using 50th percentile adult male
dummies. As indicated earlier, this test represents a vehicle striking
a like vehicle moving at the same rate of speed.
In the SNPRM, we proposed to add use of the 5th percentile adult
female dummy to this test, but only in the perpendicular mode. We
proposed to limit use of this dummy to the perpendicular mode in light
of our desire to avoid unnecessary test requirements and because we
believed that if a vehicle can pass the perpendicular test with 5th
percentile adult female dummies and the oblique tests with 50th
percentile adult male dummies, it would also pass the oblique test
using 5th percentile adult female dummies.
As noted above, we also indicated that if we reduced the maximum
speed of the unbelted test to 40 km/h (25 mph), we might increase the
maximum speed of the belted rigid barrier test from the current 48 km/h
to 56 km/h (30 to 35 mph). This is the same speed at which vehicles
with belted dummies are tested in existing NCAP tests.
The commenters on the SNPRM supported adding the 5th percentile
adult female dummy to the existing belted rigid barrier requirements.
Some commenters requested that we consider deletion of the existing
belted oblique crash tests using 50th percentile adult male dummies.
Honda stated that it believes that the unbelted oblique tests are
sufficient to confirm that air bags offer sufficient protection for
belted occupants in oblique crashes.
Most commenters that supported a 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted rigid
barrier test, including AAM, also supported increasing the maximum
speed of the belted rigid barrier test from the current 48 km/h (30
mph) to 56 km/h (35 mph). However, these commenters urged that the 56
km/h (35 mph) belted rigid barrier test be phased in after the TEA 21
phase-in period. They also urged that the higher speed test initially
be limited to use of the 50th percentile adult male dummy, for which
there is a large amount of test data because of NCAP. They urged
further that a separate rulemaking be conducted to determine whether it
is practicable to meet this test requirement using 5th percentile adult
female dummies.
IIHS stated that increasing the speed of the belted rigid barrier
test to 56 km/h (35 mph) would accelerate the improvement of frontal
crash protection afforded by light trucks. That organization stated
that while many vehicles already perform well in the 56 km/h (35 mph)
NCAP test, light trucks have been an exception. IIHS stated that their
stiff frames and short front ends (relative to their mass) have led to
short crash pulses that make it difficult to design effective,
nonaggressive air bag systems. IIHS stated that it expects one result
of subjecting all passenger vehicles to a 56 km/h (35 mph) belted
requirement would be the softening of the front ends of light trucks.
According to that organization, this would benefit not only the
occupants of light trucks, but also the occupants of other vehicles
with which the trucks collide. IIHS stated that to maximize the
likelihood that structural changes, rather than more aggressive air bag
systems, would be incorporated to meet the new requirements, a long
phase-in period should be considered for light trucks.
While most vehicle manufacturers supported increasing the belted
rigid barrier test speed to 56 km/h (35 mph), as long as long lead time
is provided, there were exceptions. Volkswagen stated that it believes
there is no safety justification for such an increase and that, on the
contrary, there could be potentially significant disadvantages to motor
vehicle safety. That company stated that the higher crash speed imposes
significantly increased energy absorption requirements on vehicle
structures and air bag designs, which would lead to more aggressive
designs. Volkswagen stated that this would be counterproductive to the
concern of vehicle aggressivity/compatibility in the vehicle fleet and
protection for the small driver and out-of-position children.
After carefully considering the comments, we are adopting as final
our proposal to use the existing 48 km/h (30 mph) belted rigid barrier
test with some modifications. As an initial matter, we are requiring
tests with the 5th percentile adult female dummy in the perpendicular
mode. This will help ensure that vehicle manufacturers design air bags
so as to improve protection to belted persons who sit in the full
forward position, including short-statured adult female drivers.
We have also decided to accept the recommendation of some
commenters to eliminate the existing belted oblique tests using 50th
percentile adult male dummies. The primary purpose of the oblique tests
is to ensure that air bags are sufficiently wide to provide protection
if an oblique crash results in the occupant moving forward at an angle.
We agree that the unbelted oblique tests are more stringent than the
belted oblique tests in this respect, since the belts limit occupant
movement, and that the unbelted oblique tests, which are being
retained, will ensure that air bags are sufficiently wide to provide
protection to both belted and unbelted occupants in oblique crashes.
We will require vehicle manufacturers to begin certifying
compliance with the belted 50th percentile adult male dummy at 56 km/h
(35 mph) starting in 2007. Compliance will be required under a phase-in
schedule that is fully discussed later in this document. We also plan
to initiate rulemaking in the near future proposing to increase the
upper limit for the belted rigid barrier test from 48 km/h (30 mph) to
56 km/h (35 mph) with the 5th percentile adult female dummy.
We are unconvinced that a 56 km/h (35 mph) belted rigid barrier
test will require more aggressive air bag systems and vehicle frames,
as VW has contended. The 56 km/h (35 mph) belted barrier test has been
used in NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) since 1979, and most
vehicles today meet the injury criteria in today's rule at that speed.
NHTSA's NCAP test experience with vehicles certified to the sled test
has demonstrated that when manufacturers ``depowered'' their air bags,
the vehicles performed as well in NCAP tests as they did previously. In
an era when the government, the industry, and other groups are working
hard to increase seat belt use among the general public, raising the
belted test speed to 56 km/h (35 mph) for the 50th percentile test
dummy is consistent with TEA-21s requirements to improve occupant
protection for belted occupants. Testing at 56 km/h (35 mph) will
result in manufacturers improving the combined performance of seat
belts and air bags. Improving performance in this area can involve
relatively simple changes in seat belt design, such as adding
pretensioners or load limiters or modifying the belt system's
elongation characteristics to interact more favorably with the air bag.
As we are not requiring manufacturers to begin certifying any vehicles
to this test speed before September 1, 2006, they have ample time to
make changes to their
[[Page 30708]]
vehicles that do not involve increasing vehicle or air bag
aggressivity.
B. Belted Offset Deformable Barrier Test
In the SNPRM, we proposed to add a new crash test requirement to
Standard No. 208, an up to 40 km/h (25 mph) offset deformable barrier
test using belted 5th percentile adult female dummies (belted offset
test). We proposed this test in an attempt to ensure that vehicle
manufacturers upgrade their crash sensing and software systems, as
necessary, to better address soft crash pulses. Research conducted by
Transport Canada has shown that one of the causes of adverse effects of
air bags is late deployment of some air bags in crashes with soft
pulses, and the proposed test was one that Transport Canada has been
using in its research program. We proposed that the test be conducted
with the driver's side of the vehicle engaged with the barrier.
Most commenters supported adding the belted offset test, although
some urged that an out-of-position test for the passenger side be
developed as an alternative to this test.
AAM stated that it supports the proposed test, but claimed that its
added safety benefit is questionable. That commenter stated that the
test offers no added safety benefit in a rulemaking which also includes
requirements for belted and unbelted 5th percentile adult female dummy
rigid barrier crash testing and protection against air bag-induced
injuries with suppression or low risk deployment performance. AAM
noted, however, that if a vehicle manufacturer selected the suppression
presence option for all of the child dummies, there would be no
requirement to address minimizing risks to out-of-position passengers
larger than six-year-olds. AAM recommended that an out-of-position test
for the passenger side using 5th percentile adult female dummies be
developed and proposed in a future rulemaking as an alternative to this
test.
AAM also argued that if a sensor system must detect and respond to
a soft pulse in an offset deformable barrier regulatory test, it can
result in designs with either low thresholds for deployment or in
designs which have late deployments in the field. That organization
also stated that offset testing with the proposed barrier is not ready
for use for the full vehicle fleet in the United States. According to
that organization, the European barrier used in the test was never
designed for heavier SUVs and light trucks.
General Motors and Ford each supported adding the proposed belted
offset test to Standard No. 208 at this time, but urged that a
passenger side out-of-position test be developed to either replace it
or be provided as an optional alternative to it.
Toyota stated that it generally accepts the proposed offset test as
a means to assess sensor timing and out-of-position issues, but
expressed concern about the appropriateness of the test for heavier
vehicles like SUVs and light trucks. According to that company, these
vehicles tend to either override the barrier or deform the face so
badly that it essentially becomes an offset rigid barrier test, which
does not represent actual car-to-car collisions in the real world.
CAS stated that the proposed test should be included in the final
rule. That organization stated that because of the problems air bag
crash sensors have encountered in being able to discriminate between
low speed and high speed crashes, this test is necessary to adequately
assess sensor performance.
CAS argued, however, that the test should be performed on both the
driver and passenger side in order to prevent manufacturers from
optimizing their vehicles solely on one side. That organization stated
that if NHTSA adopts the test for the driver side only, a manufacturer
might choose to add satellite crash sensors to the frontal crush zones
of a vehicle only on the driver side. Advocates also expressed concern
about requiring the test only with the driver side of the vehicle being
struck.
Parents stated that the test should be conducted with unbelted as
well as belted occupants, and that this part of the SNPRM improperly
favored belted occupants over unbelted ones.
Delphi recommended increasing the speed range specified for the
test to 0 to 48 km/h (30 mph) instead of 0 to 40 km/h (25 mph). That
commenter noted that, for many vehicles, an air bag might not be
required to satisfy the injury criteria at test speeds up to 40 km/h
(25 mph). Thus, air bag systems might be designed with sufficiently
high thresholds that they do not deploy in this test. Delphi stated
that one of the objectives of the test is to evaluate performance in
sensing threshold events, since there is a potential for occupants to
be out-of-position when the air bag deploys in such situations. Delphi
stated that it would be necessary to increase the maximum speed to 48
km/h (30 mph) to cover the sensing threshold for many vehicles and that
the significance of the test would be greatly diminished if this is not
done.
Consumers Union supported the addition of the proposed test, but
urged that the test be conducted at 64 km/h (40 mph), instead of 40 km/
h (25 mph). CU questioned how much this test will contribute when it is
run at what it views as a low and unchallenging speed. Public Citizen
also supported the addition of the test while stating that a higher
speed test, as a supplementary test of structure, intrusion, and
sensitivity, would be welcome.
NTSB expressed concern that inclusion of the offset deformable
barrier test at the same time as advanced air bag technology is being
developed might result in unforeseen problems. While that agency did
not identify what those potential problems could be, it stated that it
may be desirable to establish a separate schedule or a later phase-in.
DaimlerChrysler stated that it opposes inclusion of the proposed
belted offset deformable barrier test in Standard No. 208. That company
cited concerns about the European barrier not being appropriate for
testing heavier vehicles such as SUVs and light trucks. DaimlerChrysler
recommended that the test be removed since advanced air bags, by
definition, will be designed to pose less risk to out-of-position
occupants. As an alternative, that company recommended replacing the
belted offset deformable barrier test with a low risk deployment test
for the passenger side.
After carefully considering the comments, we have decided to adopt
the belted offset test as proposed. We agree with the suggestion of
several commenters that an out-of-position test using 5th percentile
adult female dummies should be developed for the passenger side, and
will conduct research on that issue. We note, however, that such a test
would not necessarily serve as a replacement for a test that is
intended to ensure improved crash sensing systems. We also agree with
the suggestion of several commenters about the desirability of a high
speed offset test to address intrusion and vehicle structure. We will
continue to pursue our previously-announced plans to conduct separate
rulemaking on the issue of whether to add a high speed offset test to
Standard No. 208.
We would like to note again that the main purpose of the belted
offset test, at the proposed range of speeds, is to help ensure that
vehicle manufacturers upgrade their crash sensing and software systems,
as necessary, to better address soft crash pulses. Improved sensing
technology will be particularly important if manufacturers design
[[Page 30709]]
vehicles with softer front ends to meet the 56 km/h (35 mph) belted
rigid barrier test discussed earlier. As discussed in the September
1998 NPRM, research conducted by Transport Canada has shown that one of
the causes of adverse effects of air bags is late deployment of some
air bags in crashes with a ``soft crash pulse.'' In order to reproduce
the softer, longer duration crash pulse, it selected the 40 percent
offset barrier. It conducted crash tests into the barrier at 8 km/h (5
mph) increments up to 40 km/h (25 mph).
Transport Canada found that at 40 km/h (25 mph), the air bag
typically deployed and was sometimes so late that the test dummy would
be right on the steering wheel at that time, a ``worst case''
condition. We noted in the NPRM that the problem of late deployment
appeared to exist for only some vehicles. We noted further that it
could be addressed by such means as improving computer algorithms and
adding crash sensors to a vehicle's crush zone to provide additional
and earlier information to use in the decision-making algorithm.
A test that is intended to encourage improved sensing systems does
not serve the same purpose as the low risk deployment test suggested by
some commenters as an alternative or substitute. If, as a result of an
improved sensing system, an air bag that previously would deploy after
an occupant moves out-of-position now deploys in a timely manner, it
can provide protection. However, if an air bag deploys so late that the
occupant has already moved onto the steering wheel, it cannot provide
protection. We encourage vehicle manufacturers to respond to this new
test requirement by improving sensing systems and not just providing
low risk deployment.
As to Delphi's recommendation that we increase the speed range to
48 km/h (30 mph), we note that such a speed is outside the scope of our
proposal. To the extent that Delphi is suggesting that our test may not
pick up a late deployment problem for vehicles that are designed with
sufficiently high thresholds that the air bag does not deploy in this
test, we acknowledge that in some instances a vehicle's air bag system
may not deploy in this test. However, our experience has been that the
vast majority of air bags deploy in offset barrier crash tests slightly
below 40 km/h (25 mph). Additionally, when there is a deployment, we
believe crash sensors are more rigorously tested in a 40 km/h (25 mph)
test than in a higher speed test. We ran offset tests at both 40 km/h
(25 mph) and 56 km/h (35 mph) prior to publication of the SNPRM. In
reviewing the test results, we observed that the air bags in the 56 km/
h (35 mph) tests deployed significantly more quickly than in the 40 km/
h (25 mph) tests. Based on these observations, we believe that
increasing the range of the offset deformable barrier test up to 48 km/
h (30 mph) will not test the sensor technology any more stringently
than an up to 40 km/h (25 mph) offset deformable barrier test since the
40 km/h (25 mph) test better replicates late deployments in the real
world.
In response to Parents, we note that the improved sensing systems
required by this test will benefit both belted and unbelted occupants.
The fact that this test is conducted in the belted condition only is
not intended to favor belted occupants over unbelted occupants. The
belted offset test may represent the worst case scenario since the belt
allows the dummy's head and neck to rotate into the path of the
deploying air bag. This condition may better test for potential neck
injuries than an unbelted test. Additionally, some tests, such as the
oblique tests, will be conducted only with unbelted occupants. We have
designed the overall matrix of tests to meet the need for safety for
all occupants, belted and unbelted, while avoiding unnecessary tests
and compliance costs.
We are not adopting the suggestion made by some commenters that the
test be conducted both with the driver side of the vehicle engaged with
the barrier and with the passenger side of the vehicle engaged with the
barrier. We believe that testing with the driver side of the vehicle
engaged with the barrier will be sufficient to help ensure that vehicle
manufacturers improve their sensing systems.
We recognize that this test, like any other, has limitations. For
example, the test represents only one of many types of soft pulses, and
one specific offset configuration. While it would always be possible to
identify additional tests that represent potential real world
situations, we must strike a balance between ensuring that there are
sufficient tests to meet the need for safety and avoiding unwarranted
compliance burdens. We believe that the addition of this test with only
the driver side of the vehicle engaged with the barrier strikes this
balance. However, we will monitor future air bag system designs and
will consider changing this decision if we find that manufacturers are
implementing sensor systems that optimize performance only for impacts
into the driver's side of the vehicle.
We believe that the concerns expressed by commenters about the
appropriateness of the test barrier for heavier SUVs and light trucks
are not significant with respect to a test conducted at speeds up to 40
km/h (25 mph). Even if bottoming out occurs, the test still represents
a relatively mild crash, and air bags should be designed to provide
appropriate performance under a wide range of conditions.
Similarly, we believe that AAM's concerns that an offset test can
result in designs with either low thresholds for deployment or in
designs which have late deployments in the field are not relevant to a
test conducted at speeds up to 40 km/h (25 mph). As noted earlier, the
vast majority of existing air bag systems deploy in offset deformable
barrier tests below 40 km/h (25 mph). We will consider these concerns
further if we separately propose to use the European barrier in a high
speed offset test.
As to NTSB's concern that adding this test at the same time as
requiring advanced air bags may cause unforeseen problems of an
unspecified nature, we note that vehicle manufacturers have been
working to address the problem identified by Transport Canada for
several years. Moreover, we believe that advanced air bag systems
should easily be able to meet this requirement.
VIII. Minimizing the Risk of Injuries and Deaths Caused by Air Bags
The one fact that is common to all persons who are at risk from air
bags is that they are extremely close to the air bag at time of
deployment. Behavioral changes, such as ensuring that children ride in
the back seat and that all occupants are properly restrained, can
sharply reduce the number of persons who are in such positions.
However, to minimize air bag risks for the remaining persons who
are most likely to be close to the air bag at time of deployment, one
of two things must be done: either air bag deployment must be
suppressed, or the air bag must be designed to deploy in such a manner
that it does not cause a significant risk of injury to persons in such
positions. Each of the technologies to minimize air bag risks follows
one of these approaches.
As we developed test requirements to minimize air bag risks, we
needed to account for the fact that the persons who are potentially at
risk vary from infants to adults, and have different potentials for
injury. We therefore found it necessary to develop requirements using a
variety of test dummy sizes. Moreover, since we wished to avoid
requirements that are unnecessarily design-restrictive, it was
necessary to develop a variety of testing options that
[[Page 30710]]
account for the kinds of effective technological solutions that are
under development.
We note that it was never our intention to limit manufacturers to
using systems that provide only suppression, where appropriate, or low
risk deployment, as opposed to systems that may combine suppression and
low risk deployment. Moreover, we recognize that there may be safety
benefits to using a combination of approaches and technologies.
Even looking at suppression systems alone, the use of multiple
technologies may provide benefits. For example, manufacturers might
combine weight and pattern sensing to achieve greater reliability.
Similarly, the combination of suppression and low risk deployment
may better achieve the goal of minimizing air bag risks. For example,
as Toyota noted, a system designed to suppress the passenger air bag
for children below a specified weight would not suppress the air bag
for a young child seated on an adult's lap. However, low risk
deployment might prevent serious injury in such a situation.
Because it is necessary to test the various types of suppression
systems and low risk deployment systems differently, we proposed a
variety of testing options that account for the kinds of effective
technological solutions that are under development. Where more than one
option is specified, a manufacturer must meet at least one option;
nothing precludes the manufacturer from meeting more than one. The
issue of certifying compliance to more than one option is discussed
later in this document.
Each of the test requirements we proposed in the SNPRM is discussed
below.
A. Safety of Infants
Infants in rear-facing child safety seats (RFCSS) and in
convertible child restraints in the rear-facing mode are at significant
risk from deploying air bags, since the rear-facing orientation of the
child seat places their heads extremely close to the air bag cover.
This is why we emphasize that infants in these restraints must never be
placed in the front seat unless the air bag is turned off. While the
current warning labels and educational campaigns have dramatically
reduced the number of fatalities to infants over the past two years, we
recognize that there are still some parents who ignore this advice and
place their children at grave risk from a deploying air bag. SCI data
shows that some infant fatalities have occurred because parents did not
place their child in a RFCSS properly.
In the SNPRM, in order to address the risks air bags pose to
infants in child restraints designed to be used by them, we proposed
two alternative test requirements, the selection of which would be at
the option of the manufacturer. The two manufacturer options were: (1)
Test requirements for an automatic air bag suppression feature or (2)
test requirements for low risk deployment involving deployment of the
air bag in the presence of a 12-month-old Child Restraint Air Bag
Interaction (CRABI) dummy in a RFCSS or convertible child restraint in
the rear-facing mode.
1. Option 1: Feature (e.g., Weight or Size Sensor) That Suppresses the
Air Bag When an Infant Is Present
We proposed that if the automatic suppression feature option were
selected, the air bag would need to be suppressed during several static
tests using, in the right front passenger seat, a 12-month-old child
dummy in child restraints designed to be used for infants. The
restraints would be placed in several specified positions during the
static tests. Manufacturers would be required to assure compliance
using any of the child restraints included in sections B and C of the
list of representative child restraints that we proposed to add as an
appendix to Standard No. 208, as well as the car bed listed in section
A. The list would be periodically updated to reflect changes in the
types and designs of available child restraints.
In order to ensure that the suppression feature did not
inappropriately suppress the air bag for small-statured adults, the air
bag system would need to be activated during several static tests using
a 5th percentile adult female dummy in the right front passenger seat.
At the option of the manufacturer, human beings could be used in the
place of the 5th percentile adult female dummy. We proposed to permit
manufacturers to use human beings in light of concerns that current
dummies may not be sufficiently human-like to be recognized by some of
the advanced technologies under development. The issue of permitting
manufacturers to certify to suppression requirements using human beings
is discussed in greater detail later in this notice.
AAM, GM, Toyota, Isuzu and DaimlerChrysler all argued in their
comments that the static suppression tests to protect infants were too
burdensome, notwithstanding our reduction of the number of child
restraints that the agency would use in compliance testing. Concerns
were raised in particular about the range of seat back angles and seat
track positions, as well as the placement of a blanket on the
restraints and testing with the handle and sunshield in a full-up and
full-down position. The commenters also recommended that they only be
required to assure compliance using a limited number of restraints in
each section of the appendix (between one and three). Isuzu further
argued that tests should only be conducted with belted restraints. Most
of these arguments were repeated in comments on suppression testing for
the 3-year-old and 6-year-old children.
David Breed and IEE offered comments on the technology available
for the static suppression systems. David Breed argued that the testing
of convertible infant seats in a forward-facing mode would effectively
eliminate the low risk deployment option for older children because
manufacturers would be forced to rely on a weight-sensing system.
According to that commenter, such a restriction could lead to safety
trade-offs for older children who could benefit from a benignly
deploying air bag.
IEE argued that by testing suppression systems with a variety of
child restraints, we are encouraging the use of discriminating systems
rather than a non-discriminating system like a universal tag. IEE
asserted that the non-discriminating systems are significantly more
reliable than any discriminating systems currently available. The
possibility that a non-discriminating system, like the Mercedes Baby-
Smart, could easily resolve problems with suppression technology was
echoed by DaimlerChrysler.
We note that testing performed by NHTSA at VRTC subsequent to
publication of the SNPRM demonstrated that it is difficult to place
some child restraints usable by infants in several of the proposed
positions in some circumstances.
The first such position is testing the unrestrained child restraint
at any angle plus or minus 45 degrees from the vehicle seat's
longitudinal plane. While achieving this position may be possible in
vehicles that do not have contoured seats, in several of the vehicles
we examined, the RFCSS flipped toward the center of the seat. As a
practical matter, we do not believe parents or caregivers are likely to
place a child restraint on the seat at a 45 degree angle. We believe
the restraint would be placed roughly along the longitudinal plane,
facing either the seat back or the
[[Page 30711]]
windshield. Accordingly, we have revised this test procedure to specify
placement only at zero degrees of the longitudinal plane.
The proposed position which specified that the restraint be tipped
to rest on the dashboard was also difficult to achieve. The intent
behind the test was to mimic a situation where, through pre-crash
braking, a child restraint slides forward and flips onto the dashboard.
Our SCI investigations have reported several instances where this type
of movement has occurred, with devastating consequences for the child
in the child restraint.
However, this position does not test a condition for which static
suppression systems are designed. Rather, such a position is one that
would be appropriate as the final position in a test of a dynamic
suppression system. We believe static suppression systems should be
designed to classify occupants and to address positions where parents
or caregivers place infants under normal driving conditions. It is
exceptionally unlikely someone would drive with an infant's head wedged
between the dashboard and the child restraint. We note, however, that
the likelihood of a static suppression system failing to protect an
occupant who slides into the proposed position during a crash is
extremely remote since static suppression systems will either be set
once the engine is turned on and not change regardless of the
circumstances of the crash, or will have a cycling function in which
the presence of the child seat will be read periodically, allowing a
time history of the child seat position. Additionally, the presence of
a child seat that is precariously placed on the edge of the vehicle
seat would likely be construed as an empty seat. Most manufacturers
have indicated that their systems will default to a no-fire condition
if the sensing system perceives that the vehicle seat is unoccupied.
Finally, this position would not test a static suppression system in an
objective manner, as evidenced by the difficulties we experienced in
placing the infant seat in the proposed position. Accordingly, we have
eliminated this test requirement.
The third condition which proved problematic in some instances was
placement of the restraint with the vehicle seat in its full forward
position. In smaller vehicles, the restraints often could not be placed
in the front seat with the seat full forward. This was a particular
problem with convertible restraints, which can be considerably larger
RFCSSs. In some instances, the restraint hung suspended between the
dashboard and the seat back. In other cases, the restraint had to be
positioned at a severe angle in order to achieve contact with the seat
cushion. Again, we do not believe parents or caregivers are likely to
place a child restraint in a position where the restraint either tips
forward onto the seat or where the restraint does not make any contact
with the seat. Changes to the test procedures to account for this
situation are discussed below.
Toyota and GM argued that the proposed requirements specifying
testing of the restraints at any seat track position and at any seat
back angle between the nominal design position and 25 degrees rearward
would require up to 40,000 different tests to assure compliance. We
believe this argument severely overstates the situation. As long as the
restraint fits in the vehicle interior, a suppression system that is
entirely seat-based will be able to discriminate the presence of the
restraint, regardless of the seat track position. Likewise a seat-based
system will be able to detect the restraint regardless of whether the
sunshield or handle is in an upright or stowed position or whether the
restraint has a blanket on it.\23\ Systems that could have difficulty
detecting these different conditions are those which have sensors that
are not completely incorporated into the seat. Such systems will need
to be able to detect where the restraint is located in the vehicle and
whether there are any potential impediments to accurately sensing the
presence of an infant, like a sunshield, handle or blanket. However,
these systems' ability to detect a sunshield, handle, or blanket should
not be affected by the belted, or unbelted, condition of the child
restraint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ We note that seat-based systems may, however, need to
``read'' the presence of a rear-facing infant restraint that has
been stabilized with a rolled up towel or blanket in accordance with
the restraint manufacturer's instructions. While we will not use
such objects in conducting our compliance tests, the presence of a
towel or blanket under the most rearward portion of the child
restraint is a real world scenario which some seat-based systems may
need to accommodate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In view of the fact that parents or caregivers who continue to
place infants in the front seat may position the vehicle seat in a
variety of seat track positions, we continue to believe that there is a
need to test suppression systems in a variety of seat track positions.
However, we have also concluded that testing the systems at discrete
points along the seat track should be sufficient to ensure adequate
performance throughout the entire range of seat track positions.
Therefore, we have decided to specify test requirements for suppression
technology at the vehicle seat's full-rear position, mid-track position
and full-forward position. If the child restraint strikes the
instrument panel or another portion of the vehicle interior when the
seat is in the full-forward position, the vehicle seat will be moved
back to the next detent that allows for clearance, or, in the case of
automatic seats, until a maximum of 5mm (0.2) of clearance is achieved.
A more complete discussion of this issue is provided later in this
document.
Finally, we determined that conducting tests using a belted child
restraint with the vehicle seat back 25 degrees rearward of the seat
back's nominal design position for the 50th percentile adult male was
not always possible. As discussed later in this document, we have
decided to limit the vehicle seat back angle for the infant suppression
tests to the nominal seat back design position for the 50th percentile
male.
We have decided against allowing manufacturers to certify to only a
limited number of the seats listed in the appendix. The number of
applicable seats has already been honed down considerably from what was
proposed in the NPRM. A further reduction could effectively allow
manufacturers to design suppression systems that would not protect
infants in child restraints representing a reasonable range of such
restraints on the market.
We have also decided to retain those test conditions involving
unbelted restraints. Unfortunately, not everyone always installs child
restraints (including RFCSSs) properly, as indicated by several
fatalities in our SCI database. If we failed to test in unbelted
conditions, suppression systems could be designed so that they only
worked when the seat belt was fastened. Such a system could not protect
these infants.
While we understand David Breed's concern about testing convertible
restraints in a forward-facing position, this test requirement is
necessary and need not preclude low risk deployment for older children.
As an initial matter, current air bag designs pose a risk to infants
seated in forward-facing convertible child restraints, as indicated by
the SCI data. However, advanced designs which eliminate that risk could
still be used, even if a manufacturer chose to suppress the air bag for
infants in these restraints. For example, we believe manufacturers
could design a system that suppressed the air bag based on weight and
pattern recognition that is limited to the expected weights of very
young children and child restraints designed for use by infants. It is
possible
[[Page 30712]]
that in some instances this technology could also suppress for a
slightly older child in a convertible child seat. However, the
manufacturer could also design the air bag system to deploy at a level
that is non-injurious to a small child. Certification could be based on
the low risk deployment test, and the potential suppression for the
older child would provide supplemental protection.
IEE and DaimlerChrysler may be correct that non-discriminating,
tag-like systems could offer greater reliability than discriminating
systems, assuming that the correct tagged child restraint is also used.
However, such systems would not ensure safety for the numerous
different child restraint designs and potential restraint positions
that are used by the general public. Even making tags widely available,
as DaimlerChrysler suggests, would not account for those individuals
who do not have a tag on their particular child restraint, either
because the restraint is not generally used in a given vehicle, or
because they are unaware that the tags are available. Additionally,
simply providing the tags would not assure that they were installed on
the restraint properly or that the tag was properly aligned when the
restraint was set in the vehicle seat.
Technology like the Mercedes BabySmart appears to provide a
reliable method of preventing air bag deployments when used properly.
While we do not believe that these types of suppression systems alone
will adequately meet the needs of motor vehicle safety, we do believe
that they remain an excellent supplement to other systems.
Further, belted tests conducted with child restraints that have the
lower anchor attachments will need to be conducted both with the
vehicle safety belt and, in vehicles with the corresponding anchors,
with the attachments secured in the anchors with the safety belt
unfastened. Such a requirement is necessary for various reasons. First,
the anchors may fail to place sufficient weight on a seat to adequately
test a suppression system. Second, a parent may fail to use the anchor
system and use the belt system instead. Third, using a belt with the
anchor system could result in damage to the system when the safety belt
is cinched to 134 N (30 lb). Finally, the anchor attachments may
prevent alignment of the child restraint along the defined vertical
planes in low risk deployment tests. We note that Standard No. 213 does
not contemplate seating systems where both the safety belt and the
lower anchor attachments are used.
2. Option 2: Low-Risk Deployment for Infants in Rear-Facing Child
Safety Seats
We proposed to require that, if the low risk deployment option were
selected, a vehicle would be required to meet specified injury criteria
performance limits when the passenger air bag is deployed in the
presence of a 12-month-old CRABI dummy placed in a belted rear-facing
child restraint, either a RFCSS or a convertible restraint. As with the
proposed test requirements for the suppression option, manufacturers
would be required to assure compliance using each child restraint
included in sections B and C of the proposed list of representative
child restraints, although not with the car bed identified in section
A.
In the case of air bags with multiple inflation levels, the injury
criteria performance limits would need to be met for any stage or
combination of stages which may deploy in the presence of an infant in
a rear-facing position in one of the listed restraints in a rigid
barrier crash test at speeds up to 64 km/h (40 mph). Our intent was to
cover all stages of inflation that could deploy in the presence of an
infant in such a restraint.
TRW stated that the requirement that the air bag deploy at the
highest output is inconsistent with low risk deployment. That company
stated that this will force manufacturers to employ automatic
suppression technologies. TRW stated that NHTSA's analysis shows little
incremental benefit to children from the addition of suppression
technologies. That company stated that NHTSA's analysis also ignores
potential for reduction in protection for adult occupants. TRW argued
that we should revisit the low risk option.
TRW also stated that if we do not revisit the low risk option, the
final rule should be changed to accommodate unresolved technical issues
with suppression technologies. That company stated that it has tested
various suppression technologies with respect to their ability to
classify accurately the proposed range of seating positions and seat
belt cinching loads on the specified lists of car seats with pure
weight and/or pattern sensing and found problematic issues with each
technology.
DaimlerChrysler stated that it does not see any justification for
running the threshold compliance test for low risk deployment at 64 km/
h (40 mph). That commenter stated that since other test requirements
are proposed at a maximum of 48 km/h (30 mph), this test should be run
at 48 km/h (30 mph) also. DaimlerChrysler also argued that the proposed
threshold compliance test was impracticable because it specified that
testing could be conducted with child seats in any of the possible
positions used for the suppression tests. That company stated that this
would mean that five crashes would have to be performed for each child
restraint on the list.
After considering the comments, we continue to believe that it is
appropriate to require vehicles that are certified to the low risk
deployment option for infants to satisfy the injury criteria for all
stages of inflation that could deploy in the presence of an infant in a
rear facing restraint. As we discussed in the September 1998 NPRM, a
child in such a restraint would be extremely close to the passenger air
bag in any crash, regardless of crash severity. This is not the case
with persons in any other risk group. Moreover, manufacturers have been
working on suppression devices for this risk group for the longest
time, since this was the first risk group that was identified. Since
suppression is available for this risk group and since there are no
known benefits from deploying an air bag for this group, it is
appropriate to expect advanced air bags to essentially eliminate risk
of serious injury or fatality resulting from air bag deployment to
infants in RFCSS. There is no reason to permit continued use of systems
that place infants at significant risk of serious injury or death from
the air bag in crashes of any severity level.
We do not believe that any reduction in safety to adults will occur
from suppressing the passenger air bag for infants in RFCSS. While
suppression of the passenger air bag for older children may raise the
issue of a ``gray zone'' that could affect some adults, we do not
believe that will be relevant to infant suppression technology.
We originally proposed to require low risk deployment for all
stages of the air bag that may deploy in a crash. The modified proposal
to which DaimlerChrysler objects was an effort to accommodate systems
which might be designed to always provide a lower level of deployment
in the presence of a rear facing restraint, regardless of crash
severity.
We disagree with the argument that the proposed test procedure is
impracticable. Because the low risk deployment test is only conducted
in the presence of a belted child restraint, a manufacturer that
designed a system that always provided a lower level of deployment in
the presence of a rear facing restraint could determine what
[[Page 30713]]
level would deploy in a barrier crash test by means other than
conducting barrier tests, e.g., by testing the sensor system that
determined whether such a restraint was present.
We note that we specified a barrier crash test at a speed up to 64
km/h (40 mph) because some manufacturers may adopt a threshold higher
than 48 km/h (30 mph) for deploying the highest level of inflation for
the belted condition. Since these restraints are ordinarily belted, a
speed higher than 48 km/h (30 mph) is needed to ensure that we cover
all stages of inflation that could deploy in the presence of an infant
in such a restraint.
B. Safety of Young Children
Young children are at special risk from air bags because, when
unbelted, they are easily propelled close to the air bag as a result of
pre-crash braking. Their small size, weight and strength also makes
them more vulnerable to injury when interacting with a deploying air
bag. We strongly recommend that children through age 12 ride in the
back seat, because the back seat is safer, whether or not a vehicle has
air bags.
In the SNPRM, in order to address the risks air bags pose to young
children who do ride in the front seat, we proposed requirements using
both 3-year-old and 6-year-old child dummies. We proposed three
alternative test requirements, the selection of which would be at the
option of the manufacturer. Manufacturers could select different
options for the 3-year-old and 6-year-old child dummies.
The three manufacturer options were: (1) Test requirements for a
feature that suppresses the air bag when a child is present, e.g., a
weight or size sensor; (2) test requirements for low risk deployment
involving deployment of the air bag in the presence of out-of-position
3-year-old and 6-year-old child dummies, and (3) test requirements for
a feature that suppresses the air bag when an occupant is out of
position.
1. Option 1: Feature (e.g., Weight or Size Sensor) That Suppresses the
Air Bag When a Child Is Present
Our proposed requirements for an air bag suppression feature (e.g.,
weight or size sensor) that suppresses the air bag when a child is
present were similar to the ones we proposed with respect to a
suppression feature for infants. We proposed that if this option were
selected, the air bag would need to be suppressed during several static
tests using, in the right front passenger seat, a 3-year-old or 6-year-
old child dummy. The child dummy would be placed in several specified
positions during the static tests. Manufacturers would be required to
assure compliance using every child restraint appropriate for a given
dummy size included in the proposed list of representative child
restraints. The air bag system would be required to be activated during
specified tests using a 5th percentile adult female dummy.
We proposed to allow manufacturers to comply with and certify to
these suppression requirements using children, instead of 3-year-old
and 6-year-old child dummies. Adult females could also be used in the
place of 5th percentile adult female dummies for the portions of those
test requirements which make sure that the air bag system is activated
for adults.
We proposed to permit manufacturers to use human beings to check
suppression features in light of concerns that current dummies may not
be sufficiently human-like to be recognized by some of the advanced
technologies under development. For example, suppression devices that
work by sensing the distributed weight pattern of a human being may not
recognize the pattern of a test dummy. If a manufacturer selected this
option, the suppression requirements would need to be met at each of
the relevant positions for any human being within a specified weight/
height range for 3-year-old and 6-year-old children, and the air bag
system could not be suppressed for any human being within a specified
weight/height range for 5th percentile adult females.
In the SNPRM, we emphasized that these tests simply involve a child
or adult assuming specified positions in the vehicle, with a technician
checking (typically by looking at a light) whether the air bag would be
suppressed or not; these tests do not involve deploying the air bag or
moving the vehicle. To ensure absolute safety, we proposed to require
manufacturers selecting this option provide a method to assure that the
air bag would not deploy during testing; such assurance could be made
by removal of the air bag. The manufacturer would also be required to
provide a method to assure that the same test results would be obtained
as if the air bag had not been deactivated or removed.
By and large, the comments in response to this proposed requirement
mirrored those already discussed under static suppression features for
infants; i.e., there are too many child restraints, too many angles and
too many seat track positions. Additional concerns were voiced about
the requirement that child restraints be cinched at a force up to 134 N
(30 pounds). Additionally, TRW stated that the task of discriminating
between a child weighing up to 66 pounds and a 110-pound adult, while
seemingly trivial, becomes more difficult when one takes into account
the addition of child seats and seat belt cinching loads.
For the reasons set forth in the prior discussion of the
suppression tests for infants, we have decided to conduct tests with
the vehicle seat in the full-rear, mid-track and full-forward
positions. If the dummy, the child restraint, or the child's legs
interfere with the instrument panel or other portion of the vehicle
interior in the full-forward position, the vehicle seat will be moved
back to the next detent that allows for clearance, or, in the case of
automatic seats, until a maximum of 5mm (0.2 in) of clearance is
achieved.
Likewise, the seat back angle will be the manufacturer's nominal
design position for the 50th percentile male for all tests, including
the test with the 5th percentile adult female, except the tests where
the child is sitting on the seat and leaning against the seat back
(S22.2.2.2 and S24.2.1). A fuller discussion of seat back angle is
provided later in this document.
One test position for the 3-year-old child that we have modified is
the position where the child is lying on the seat. While conducting
tests at VRTC, we discovered that this position was problematic in
vehicles with no middle seating position. The 3-year-old test dummy
cannot assume a full fetal position in these vehicles. Accordingly, in
our tests the dummy's legs and feet were not in contact with the
passenger seat. We do not believe that the position needs to be
included in the test matrix for a vehicle without a middle seating
position because a child would not lie in this position for any length
of time. However, in vehicles with a bench seat or with convertible
bench seats, where the console can be converted into a middle seat,
this position is a likely real world position. Accordingly, we have
specified tests for this position only in vehicles with three
designated seating positions in the front seat.
We have also dropped the static suppression tests with the 3-year-
old and 6-year-old child dummies in the positions specified for the low
risk deployment tests. Like the infant test where the child seat was
flipped on to the instrument panel, we believe that these positions do
not test a condition for which static suppression systems are designed;
they are more appropriate as part of a dynamic suppression system that
follows the trajectory of an occupant during a crash. Additionally,
[[Page 30714]]
we believe that any system that suppresses when the dummy is sitting on
the edge of the seat with its spine vertical, a condition that is still
required for both the 3-year-old and the 6-year-old, will respond no
differently from when the dummy is placed in either of the low risk
deployment options. Thus, even if the dropped tests did represent a
position for which static suppression systems are designed, they would
likely be redundant.
Numerous comments were received regarding the cinching procedures
for safety belts on child restraints. We have decided to keep the up-
to-134 N (30 lb) requirement. Belt systems that cannot be cinched up to
this level of force will be cinched at as high a level as possible. In
our testing at VRTC, we found that a 134 N (30 lb) tension can be
easily achieved. While we continue to caution adults to place their
children in the back seat whenever possible, a parent or caregiver who
places a child in the front seat should be able to do so as safely as
possible without shutting off any available suppression technology. We
regularly encourage people to have their child restraints installed by
individuals who have been trained to install these restraints properly.
We also encourage parents to secure a child seat in a manner that
eliminates slack between the restraint and the vehicle seat. We believe
that it is appropriate to use a cinching level that can be achieved by
an individual who knows how to properly install child restraints.
However, we do agree with the commenters that the up-to-134 N (30 lb)
tension range is inappropriate for belt-positioning booster seats,
since a child could not sustain that amount of belt tension, even if it
were possible to achieve with a test dummy. We are specifying that
these restraints be installed, and that belts be used, in accordance
with the restraint manufacturer's instructions.
Since the 6-year-old child dummy is not tested in child restraints
other than booster seats, we believe that the majority of the
manufacturers' concerns about the suppression-activation ``gray zone''
are largely resolved. The 6-year-old child dummy weighs only 23.4 kg
(51.6 lb). Likewise, the weight range for the six-year-old child who
can be used for compliance testing has an upper parameter of 25.6 kg
(56.5 lb). Because of constraints in Standard No. 213, booster seats
generally do not weigh more than 4.5 kg (9.9 lb). Accordingly, the
combined weight of the child or dummy and the booster seat should still
be significantly below the weight at which suppression systems will
assure that air bags are activated to protect adult occupants. As
discussed earlier, vehicles with child restraint anchors will need to
be tested both with and without any available child restraint anchor
attachments secured to the passenger seat.
2. Option 2: Low-Risk Deployment for Young Children
We proposed to require that, if the low risk deployment option were
selected, a vehicle would be required to meet specified injury criteria
performance limits when the passenger air bag is deployed in the
presence of out-of-position 3-year-old and 6-year-old child dummies. We
proposed that the test be conducted at two positions which tend to be
``worst case'' positions in terms of injury risk. In one of these
positions, the dummy's chest is on the instrument panel; in the other,
the dummy's head is on the instrument panel. We proposed more detailed
positioning procedures for these two tests than for many of those
proposed for the static suppression tests, since injury measures may
vary considerably with position. Under our proposal, in the case of air
bags with multiple inflation levels, the injury criteria would need to
be met only for the levels that would be deployed in lower severity
crashes; i.e., the levels that would be deployed in crashes of 29 km/h
(18 mph) or below.
As discussed earlier in this document, some commenters, including
AAM and Toyota, argued that the combination of testing for low risk
deployment for inflation levels that would be deployed in crashes of 29
km/h (18 mph) or below and testing to ensure protection in unbelted
rigid barrier tests beginning at that same speed would limit design
flexibility and discourage manufacturers from selecting the low risk
deployment option. The reason for this is that the manufacturers claim
it is difficult to design dual stage air bags that could both meet the
low risk deployment requirements and the barrier crash test injury
criteria, particularly given the gray zone in which either a low level
or high level deployment may occur.
On a separate but related issue, AAM recommended that the crash
test to determine the air bag deployment level to be used for the low
risk deployment test be conducted with a belted dummy matching the size
for which the low risk option is certified. AAM stated that this would
allow manufacturers to utilize an occupant detection system to govern
the deployment that would be used for the low risk deployment test.
TRW stated that the proposed injury criteria performance limits
will make it very difficult to employ the low risk deployment option
except in vehicles with unique geometry. That commenter stated that
this would force the automobile manufacturers to employ suppression
technologies.
After considering the comments, we are adopting the proposed low
risk deployment tests using 3-year-old and 6-year-old child dummies,
with two modifications. First, the positioning procedures for one of
the out-of-position tests has been significantly simplified. A fuller
discussion of the reason for this change is provided later in the
document. Secondly, in order to avoid inadvertently discouraging the
development of low risk deployment technologies, the injury criteria
will need to be met, in the case of air bags with multiple inflation
levels, for the levels that would be deployed in crashes of 26 km/h (16
mph) or below, as well as the relative timing of the multiple
inflations, instead of crashes of 29 km/h (18 mph) or below. However,
if the air bag did not deploy at all in crashes of 26 km/h (16 mph) or
below, the injury criteria will need to be met using the lowest level
of inflation.
We believe that this change, coupled with the one discussed earlier
in this document to increase the lower end of the range of speeds for
which the unbelted rigid barrier test is conducted from 29 km/h (18
mph) to 32 km/h (20 mph), will facilitate use of the low risk
deployment option. As discussed earlier in this document, low risk
deployment offers potential benefits over suppression, especially for
children older than six years, and we wish to facilitate that option to
the extent consistent with safety need. We also note that if
manufacturers certify compliance for all levels of inflation that occur
in crashes of 26 km/h (16 mph) or below, the same low risk levels of
inflation are likely to occur in crashes slightly above that speed.
We are not adopting AAM's recommendation to specify that the crash
test to determine the air bag deployment level to be used for the low
risk deployment test be conducted with a belted dummy matching the size
for which the low risk option is certified. The final rule specifies
that this crash test be conducted with an unbelted 50th percentile
adult male dummy in the mid-track seat position. An out of position
occupant, by definition, would always be unbelted. Determining the
level of inflation with belted occupants would allow manufacturers to
place technology in a vehicle that would meet the low risk deployment
test requirements, but would not adequately protect for the condition
that is experienced in the real world.
[[Page 30715]]
Additionally, while we are only testing the low risk deployment
technology on the passenger side with three-year-old and six-year-old
child dummies, a benign deployment in low speed crashes could provide
ancillary benefits to larger occupants. We are concerned that using the
child dummies to determine which stage or combination of stages of the
air bag to deploy could unnecessarily limit the benefits of low risk
deployment air bags.
As to TRW's concern that the injury criteria performance limits
make it difficult to comply with the low risk deployment option, we
wish to ensure that low risk deployment air bags truly are low risk.
Thus, the injury criteria limits must be set at a stringent level.
3. Option 3: Feature that Suppresses the Air Bag When a Child Is Out-
of-Position
As discussed in previous notices, we believe that a feature that
suppresses the air bag when an occupant is out of position, either
initially or because of moving into such a location during pre-crash
braking, needs to be tested very differently from one that suppresses
the air bag whenever a child is present. While various static tests can
be used to determine whether the latter type of suppression device is
effective, they would be of limited utility in testing a feature that
suppresses the air bag when an occupant moves into an out-of-position
location. This is because one of the key criteria in determining
whether the dynamic out-of-position suppression feature is effective is
timing; i.e., whether the feature works quickly enough in a situation
where an occupant is propelled out of position as a result of pre-crash
braking (or other pre-crash maneuvers). We accordingly developed
separate requirements for such dynamic suppression devices.
The development of requirements for dynamic suppression devices
posed special problems, however. While much work is currently being
done on the development of dynamic automatic suppression systems
(DASS), the technology is still not mature. In addition, a number of
different technologies are currently being considered. Each of these
technologies has particular attributes which affect the appropriateness
of the means used to evaluate its performance. Given these factors, we
were unable to develop a complete set of performance requirements and
test procedures that would be appropriate for the range of potential
DASS designs.
Accordingly, we proposed to establish very general performance
requirements for DASS and a special expedited petitioning and
rulemaking process for considering procedures for testing advanced air
bag systems incorporating a DASS. Target time limits for each phase of
such a rulemaking were proposed. Anyone wishing to utilize such
advanced air bags could develop test procedures for demonstrating the
compliance of their particular DASS with the performance requirements
and submit those test procedures to the agency for our consideration.
If we deemed it appropriate to do so after evaluating the petition, we
would publish a notice proposing to adopt the test procedure. After
considering those comments, we would then decide whether the procedure
should be added to Standard No. 208. If we decided to do so, and if the
procedure were suitable for the DASS of any other vehicles, then the
procedure could be used by the manufacturers of those vehicles as well
as by the petitioner. We noted that we intended to minimize the number
of different test procedures that are adopted for DASS and to ensure
ultimately that similar DASS are tested in the same way.
Comments regarding DASS indicated general support for our proposal.
Commenters addressing issues related to the DASS proposal included two
manufacturers, DaimlerChrysler and GM, five suppliers, ASCI, Autoliv,
Breed Technologies (Breed), Delphi and TRW, two trade groups, AORC and
AAM, a public interest group, the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness
(CRE) and one private individual (JCW). With one exception, JCW, all
commenters agreed that the DASS requirements and test procedure
proposed in the NPRM were unworkable and must be abandoned. Two
commenters, Breed and ASCI, propounded the use of a sled test and
disagreed with our judgment that development of a practical test
procedure for evaluating DASS-equipped vehicles is not presently
feasible.
Several commenters voiced strong reservations regarding the DASS
proposal we put forth in the SNPRM. JCW objected to the elimination of
the DASS out-of-position requirements. JCW argued that without some
form of suppression to protect people who are in the immediate vicinity
of an air bag because of pre-crash braking, the safety potential of
advanced air bags will be lost. Breed and ASCI stated that sled tests
which accurately reproduce the movements of unrestrained occupants in
pre-crash braking are currently available and should be used as a
compliance test for DASS systems.
One matter mentioned by a number of commenters concerned the
confidentiality of information provided by petitioners seeking adoption
and approval of a DASS compliance test procedure. AORC and AAM urged us
to consider that manufacturers would be deterred from investing in DASS
systems if the specifics of their proprietary technologies were
published and made available to the public and to competitors. AAM
suggested that this issue might be addressed by not requiring that the
identity of the petitioner and the particular automobiles where a DASS
system is to be installed be revealed to the public during the course
of the petition and review process. Delphi and Autoliv contended that
the proposed DASS petition procedures required the submission of too
much proprietary information. In particular, Autoliv objected to the
proposed requirements that petitioners must furnish a complete
description and explanation of a DASS system and a complete description
of the logic used by that system. CRE suggested that the only materials
that need to be made public during the petition process are those that
would allow for comment on the proposed test procedure and not on the
specifics of the DASS system at issue. The organization strongly
recommended that our final rule emphasize that the ``proposed rule''
that is being offered for public comment would consist only of a
proposed test procedure that would not include the details of the
technology used or the data submitted in support of the proposed test
procedure.
In addition to concerns about confidentiality, a number of
commenters offered remarks about the expedited rulemaking procedure we
proposed for DASS systems. Several commenters requested that the
expedited procedures proposed for DASS systems be expanded to include
all advanced air bag technologies. Autoliv, DaimlerChrysler, Breed,
AORC and Delphi also suggested that the expedited rulemaking procedure
be expanded to allow the use of new technologies in areas other than
dynamic suppression systems. In regard to the timing of the proposed
procedure, AAM suggested that we adopt a procedural timetable similar
to that already used for evaluating the adequacy of anti-theft devices
under 49 CFR Part 543. AORC and CRE urged us to expedite the regulatory
approval process to the maximum extent possible. CRE also suggested
that notice and comment could be eliminated altogether. If, CRE
contends, initial DASS rulemakings do not stimulate any substantive
comments by the public, we
[[Page 30716]]
would then be in a position to dispense with traditional notice and
comment as the procedure would be superfluous.
One commenter, GM, voiced substantial concerns about the effect
that initial DASS rulemakings would have on subsequent petitions. In
GM's view, the first successful DASS petitioner will define a large
number of important conditions for DASS testing and test procedures. GM
believes that there will be a very strong incentive for others in the
industry to conform to the existing test procedure rather than develop
a new or different technology, particularly because subsequent
petitioners will face additional burdens in demonstrating that an
existing DASS test cannot be used. GM urged us to use the traditional
rulemaking process for the initial DASS petitions and provide adequate
time for comment on any DASS proposal.
After review of the comments received in response to the SNPRM, we
are adopting the proposal with few modifications. We have not been
presented with, and are not aware of, any information indicating that
any feasible test procedure now exists for a DASS system. We are also
declining to expand the scope of the expedited petition process to
other areas of Standard No. 208. Unlike other air bag technologies,
DASS technology is still in the early stages of development. Other
technologies are more mature, and developments within these areas may
be adequately addressed through traditional rulemaking procedures.
The final rule makes several modifications to address
confidentiality concerns. As the identity of the supplier or
manufacturer would not be relevant to the evaluation of a test
procedure and performance standard, we have modified section 552.13(e)
to clarify that if a petitioner desires to have its identifying
information withheld from public disclosure, it may request that the
agency do so pursuant to 49 CFR Part 512. We have determined that the
requirements outlined in section 552.14(b)(1) could be construed as
demanding that all details of any algorithms and/or system logic be
provided to the agency. Accordingly, the final rule provides that the
description of the system logic may be limited to a flow chart or
similar materials outlining the function of the system. We also wish to
emphasize that pursuant to Part 512, petitioners may submit both
confidential and non-confidential versions of their petitions and
accompanying materials. These materials may include test films,
printouts and similar data.
The final rule also makes slight modifications to the procedural
timetable for the petition process. In order to alleviate the concerns
raised by the precedential effect of the initial DASS petition, we have
specified an extended comment period for such a petition. Section
552.15(c) of the final rule provides that we expect to employ a 30-day
comment period in a DASS test procedure rulemaking. However, in the
case of an initial petition or a petition raising particularly novel
issues, we may provide 60 days for comments. Offering an extended
comment period will provide interested parties with additional time to
evaluate the proposed test procedure and its implications, particularly
in regard to suitability for other DASS concepts or designs under
development.
We disagree with the argument that without some form of suppression
to protect people who are in the immediate vicinity of an air bag
because of pre-crash braking, the safety potential of advanced air bags
will be lost. DASS systems represent one approach to minimizing air bag
risks. As discussed elsewhere in this document, other approaches
include deploying the air bag in a manner that does not cause harm and
other types of suppression systems; e.g., suppressing the air bag when
children are present.
C. Safety of Teenage and Adult Drivers
Out-of-position drivers are at risk from air bags if they are
extremely close to the air bag at the time of deployment. While any
driver could potentially become out of position, small-statured drivers
are more likely to be positioned on top of the air bag because they
generally sit closer to the steering wheel than larger drivers.
In the SNPRM, in order to address the risks air bags pose to out-
of-position drivers, we proposed requirements using 5th percentile
adult female dummies. We proposed two alternative test requirements,
the selection of which would be at the option of the manufacturer.
The manufacturer options proposed in the SNPRM were similar to
those using 3-year-old and 6-year-old child dummies, with one
significant exception. Since air bags provide safety benefits to small-
statured drivers, it would not be appropriate to permit manufacturers
to suppress air bag deployment under all conditions in the presence of
such occupants. Therefore, this type of suppression feature would not
be permitted.
The two manufacturer options proposed in the SNPRM were: (1) test
requirements for low risk deployment involving deployment of the air
bag in the presence of out-of-position 5th percentile adult female
dummies, and (2) test requirements for a feature that suppresses the
driver air bag when the driver is out of position.
1. Option 1: Low-Risk Deployment for Drivers
We proposed to require that, if the low risk deployment option were
selected, a vehicle would be required to meet specified injury criteria
performance limits when the driver air bag is deployed in the presence
of an out-of-position 5th percentile adult female dummy. We proposed
that the test be conducted at two positions which tend to be ``worst
case'' positions in terms of injury risk. In one of these positions,
the dummy's chin is on the air bag module; in the other, the dummy's
chin is on the upper rim of the steering wheel. We proposed detailed
positioning procedures for these two tests, since injury measures may
vary considerably with position.
Under our proposal, in the case of air bags with multiple inflation
levels, the injury criteria would need to be met only for the levels
that would be deployed in lower severity crashes; i.e., the levels that
would be deployed in crashes of 29 km/h (18 mph) or below. A driver
would most likely be extremely close to the air bag in lower severity
crashes, following pre-crash braking.
The comments on the low risk deployment requirements for small
drivers were similar to those on the requirements for young children.
Our response is also similar.
We are adopting the proposed low risk deployment tests using the
5th percentile adult female dummy, with the same modifications we made
for the tests using child dummies; i.e., simplified positioning
procedures will be used, and injury criteria will need to be met, in
the case of air bags with multiple inflation levels, for the levels and
timing that will be deployed in crashes of 26 km/h (16 mph) or below,
instead of crashes of 29 km/h (18 mph) or below, using unbelted 5th
percentile adult female dummies. However, if the air bag did not deploy
at all in crashes of 26 km/h (16 mph) or below, the injury criteria
will need to be met at the lowest level of inflation. This modification
will help facilitate low risk designs. Likewise, we are requiring the
use of an unbelted 50th percentile adult male dummy seated in the mid-
track seat position in the crash test used to determine which stage or
combination of stages to fire for the low risk deployment tests. Our
rationale for this requirement is the same as for the
[[Page 30717]]
passenger side: larger occupants should not be deprived of ancillary
benefits from more benign air bags in low speed crashes.
2. Option 2: Feature that Suppresses the Air Bag When a Driver Is Out-
Of-Position
The testing of DASS devices for the driver air bag raises the same
issues as testing ones for passenger air bags. In the SNPRM, we
proposed the same type of requirements for both systems.
The comments on the SNPRM were essentially the same for both types
of DASS devices. The issues raised by the commenters are fully
discussed under our discussion of DASS devices for passenger air bags,
presented earlier in this document.
IX. Injury Criteria
In the SNPRM, we proposed injury criteria and performance limits
for each size dummy. We placed in the public docket a technical paper
which explained the basis for each of the proposed injury criteria, and
for the proposed performance limits. The title of the paper was:
``Development of Improved Injury Criteria for the Assessment of
Advanced Automotive Restraints Systems--II.''
Standard No. 208 currently specifies five performance requirements
for the Hybrid III 50th percentile adult male dummy in barrier crash
tests: (1) dummy containment--all portions of the dummy must be
contained in the vehicle passenger compartment throughout the test, (2)
Head Injury Criterion (HIC) must not exceed 1,000, evaluated over a 36
millisecond (msec) duration (3) chest acceleration must not exceed 60
g's, (4) chest deflection must not exceed 76 mm (3 inches), and (5)
forces transmitted axially through the upper legs must not exceed 10
kilonewtons (kN) (2,250 lb).
In the SNPRM, we generally proposed to apply these or similar
injury criteria, and a new one addressing neck injury, to all of the
dummies and tests, other than static suppression tests, covered by the
proposal. However, the criteria and performance limits would be
adjusted to maintain consistency with respect to the injury risks faced
by different size occupants.
A general discussion of the proposed injury criteria and
performance limits, and the comments, is provided below. A more
detailed discussion is provided in a supplemental technical paper
titled ``Supplement: Development of Improved Injury Criteria for the
Assessment of Advanced Automotive Restraint Systems--II'' which is
being placed in the public docket.
A. Head Injury Criteria
In the SNPRM, to address the risk of head injury, we proposed
limits for the head injury criterion (HIC) for the 50th percentile
adult male, 5th percentile adult female, 6-year-old child, 3-year-old
child and 12-month-old infant dummies.
The proposed HIC differed from that currently included in Standard
No. 208 in that it would be evaluated over a 15 msec duration instead
of 36 msec. This change was based on a recommendation by AAMA. That
organization had recommended that the duration for the HIC computations
be limited to 15 milliseconds with a limit of 700 for the 50th
percentile adult male dummy. This proposed value is consistent with
Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208.
We noted in the SNPRM that the stringency of HIC 15/700 and HIC 36/
1000 appears to be equivalent for long duration pulses. This is because
while HIC 15 produces a lower numerical value for long duration events,
its lower failure threshold, 700, compensates for this reduction. We
also noted that for pulse durations shorter than approximately 25
milliseconds, the HIC 15/700 requirement is more stringent than the HIC
36/1000 requirement. We stated that we believed this increased
stringency would provide a desirable added measure of safety for the
highly scaled, short duration HIC limits proposed for evaluating those
impact events where children and small-statured adults are involved.
In the SNPRM we accordingly proposed to employ a 15 millisecond
time interval whenever calculating the HIC function and to limit the
maximum response of the adult male to 700 and limit the response of the
smaller dummies to suitably scaled maximums.
Commenters generally supported our proposal concerning HIC 15.
However, AAM recommended that we adopt somewhat higher limits than we
proposed for the 5th percentile adult female dummy (779 rather than
700) and the 6-year-old child dummy (723 rather than 700). That
organization argued that we were not consistent in applying scaling
relationships from the 50th percentile adult male dummy to the other
dummies.
After considering the comments, we have decided to adopt the limits
we proposed. We note that the data from which the HIC relationship was
developed represented an elderly adult population.\24\ There is no
basis to assume that the population had the dimensions of 50th
percentile adult males. We believe it is reasonable to apply the same
700 HIC limit to all persons who may be represented by the original
data set, including 5th percentile adult females and 50th percentile
adult males.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Hodgson, V.R., Thomas, L.M., ``Comparison of Head
Acceleration Injury Indices in Cadaver Skull Fracture,'' SAE Paper
No. 710854, Proceedings of the Fifteenth Stapp Car Crash Conference,
1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to child dummies, in the absence of biomechanics data on the
skull fracture and brain injury tolerances for children, we began by
utilizing a scaling process to account for differences in both
geometric size and material strength. However, after applying the
scaling process, judgment must be used to determine if the scaled
values are reasonable.
For the 6-year-old child dummy, geometric and material scaling led
to a limit of 723, which is higher than the 700 limit for adult
dummies. However, in the absence of biomechanical data that
substantiate a higher head injury tolerance for young children than for
adults, we believe it is prudent and reasonable to limit the HIC value
to 700 for the 6-year-old dummy.
B. Neck Injury Criteria
In the SNPRM, to address the risk of neck injury, we proposed
limits for the Nij neck injury criterion for the 50th percentile adult
male, 5th percentile adult female, 6-year-old child, 3-year-old child
and 12-month-old infant dummies. Nij is a new injury formula that
accounts for the combination of flexion, extension, tension, and
compression.
The sled test option in Standard No. 208 currently addresses the
risk of neck injury by means of separate limits on these four
measurements as well as shear. We proposed Nij as an improvement over
separate limits because it accounts for the superposition of loads and
moments, and the additive effects on injury risk.
The most significant comment on this issue came from AAM, which
endorsed the Nij concept but recommended the inclusion of additional,
more stringent tension/compression limits to independently control
these potentially injurious loading modes. AAM also recommended
further, minor adjustments to the proposed critical limits depending on
whether they are being utilized for in-or out-of-position situations.
AAM, IIHS, and NTSB stated that they were concerned that the peak
tension and peak compression allowed by the Nij criteria when the
moment value is zero are too great.
[[Page 30718]]
We believe that there is merit in incorporating AAM's recommended
additional tension/compression limits and adjustments to our original
Nij proposals because they either mimic our originally proposed
requirements very closely or add additional requirements that more
stringently control potentially injurious loading modes. In addition,
we accept an argument made by AAM that tensed neck muscles mitigate the
effects of measured neck loads and will adopt that organization's
recommendation for slightly higher neck limits for in-position testing
for the adult dummies. However, because one would not expect muscle
tensing in a situation simulated by the 5th percentile female out-of-
position low risk deployment tests, we are requiring manufacturers to
meet more stringent criteria for Nij in those tests.
DaimlerChrysler argued that tension should be the only neck injury
criterion with the current Hybrid III dummy neck because it believes
the neck may be inadequate for accurately assessing the potential for
flexion/extension neck injury due to air bag loading. Toyota also
recommended delaying the use of any neck injury criteria that contains
extension. As discussed later in this document, we believe the current
Hybrid III neck is adequate for the purposes of this rulemaking.
Moreover, we are adopting Nij as the best available neck injury
criterion.
C. Thoracic Criteria
In the SNPRM, to address the risk of thoracic injury, we proposed
individual limits on chest acceleration and chest deflection. This is
the same approach as is currently used in Standard No. 208. However, we
proposed to reduce the current deflection limit for the 50th percentile
male dummy from 76 mm to 63 mm (from 3 in to 2.5 in).
To obtain equivalent performance limits for the other size dummies,
the mid-size male dummy limits were scaled, taking into account both
geometric and material differences. We also considered other factors.
We did not propose a chest deflection limit for the 12-month-old CRABI
dummy because that dummy does not measure chest deflection.
AAM supported individual limits on chest acceleration and chest
deflection but argued that the chest acceleration limit for the 5th
percentile adult female dummy should be 73 g's rather than the 60 g's
proposed in the SNPRM. This was reiterated by some other commenters as
well.
AAM also requested slight adjustments in deflection limits for the
3-year old and 5th percentile adult female dummies. In addition, AAM
recommended the use of an additional criterion, rate of sternal
deflection, to assess the risk of serious thoracic organ injuries in
out-of-position tests. Toyota recommended using the rate of sternal
deflection in place of chest acceleration for assessing thoracic injury
risk. DaimlerChrysler presented a method using Kalman filters which it
argued would result in a more reliable rate of deflection measures
using chest deflection and acceleration measurements.
After considering the comments, we are adopting the proposed 60 g's
chest acceleration limit for the 5th percentile adult female dummy.
AAM's recommended chest acceleration limit of 73 g's for this dummy was
obtained using scaling procedures that only considered the effects of
the geometric differences between 50th percentile adult males and 5th
percentile adult females. However, we believe the additional effect of
decrease in bone strength for the more elderly female population at
risk in out-of-position situations should also be taken into account.
The differences between our proposed deflection limits and those
recommended by AAM are negligible. AAM recommended a chest deflection
limit of 64 mm for the 50th percentile adult male dummy. In order to
harmonize with the chest deflection limits used by Transport Canada, we
proposed a 63 mm for chest deflection limit for the 50th percentile
male. While we used the same scaling factors as the industry, this
difference in the limit for the 50th percentile adult dummy accounts
for the small differences (2mm) between the industry's recommendations
and our proposals for some of the other dummies. Because these
differences are negligible and because the proposed limit for the 50th
percentile adult male dummy is consistent with international
harmonization, we are adopting the limits proposed in the SNPRM.
As to AAM's recommendation to use the rate of sternal deflection to
assess the risk of serious thoracic organ injuries in out-of-position
tests, we believe further analysis and research would be needed before
such a new injury criterion could be added to Standard No. 208. We note
that vehicle manufacturers are free to voluntarily consider rate of
sternal deflection as they design their vehicles.
D. Other Criteria
In the SNPRM, we proposed to apply a dummy containment requirement
to all of the dummies except the 12-month-old infant dummy, and limits
on upper leg forces to the 50th percentile adult male and 5th
percentile adult female dummies. We believed the dummy containment
requirement would not be relevant to the proposed low risk deployment
test using the 12-month-old infant dummy, and that limits on upper leg
forces would not be relevant to the proposed low risk deployment tests
using the 12-month-old infant and 3- and 6-year-old child dummies.
More specifically, with respect to limits on upper leg forces, we
proposed to limit the axial loads in the femur for the adult dummies
(10 kN for the 50th percentile male and 6.8 kN for the 5th percentile
female). AAM and DaimlerChrysler stated that they support slightly more
stringent femur limits of 9.1 kN for the 50th percentile male and 6.2
kN for the 5th percentile female.
After considering the comments, we are adopting the axial femur
limits for the adult dummies as proposed. The current limit of 10 kN
specified for the 50th percentile male has been used in Standard No.
208 for many years. AAM has not presented information demonstrating
that this value does not adequately ensure protection. Furthermore, AAM
has not provided data or an explanation of the method it used to arrive
at its recommended femur force limit for the 50th percentile male.
The differences between the limits proposed in the SNPRM and those
recommended by AAM are small, and adopting the slightly lower value
recommended by AAM will have no effect on the overall safety benefits.
We also believe that the slightly higher axial force limits we are
adopting today may provide design flexibility for manufacturers to
optimize head, neck and chest protection for the 50th percentile male
and the 5th percentile female. Of course, vehicle manufacturers are
free to voluntarily meet more stringent limits than those included in
Standard No. 208.
X. Lead Time and Effective Date
TEA 21 specifies that the final rule on advanced air bags must
become effective in phases as rapidly as practicable beginning not
earlier than September 1, 2002, and not sooner than 30 months after the
issuance of the final rule, but not later than September 1, 2003.
Except as noted below, the phase-in of the required amendments must be
completed by September 1, 2005. If the phase-in of the rule does not
begin until September 1, 2003, we are authorized to delay the
completion of the phase-in until September 1, 2006. As also noted
[[Page 30719]]
below, other amendments may be phased in later.
A. Large Manufacturers
In the SNPRM, we proposed the following phase-in schedule, which
would apply to all large manufacturers; i.e., those producing more than
5,000 vehicles per year worldwide:
25 percent of each manufacturer's light vehicles manufactured
during the production year beginning September 1, 2002;
40 percent of each manufacturer's light vehicles manufactured
during the production year beginning September 1, 2003;
70 percent of each manufacturer's light vehicles manufactured
during the production year beginning September 1, 2004;
All vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2005.
We noted that the proposed date for the start of the phase-in,
September 1, 2002, would be 30 months after a final rule that was
issued on March 1, 2000. We stated that this proposed date reflected
the seriousness of the safety problem being addressed and the statutory
requirement that the final rule become effective as rapidly as
possible.
We also requested comments on phase-in schedules and percentages
other than the proposed 25%-40%-70%-100% schedule. We cited the example
of a 40%-70%-100% schedule beginning one year later than the proposed
schedule, but ending at the same time. This alternative was like the
primary proposal, except that the first year of the proposed phase-in
would be eliminated. We noted that this alternative schedule would
offer additional leadtime at the beginning of the phase-in, while not
compromising the final effective date for all new vehicles. We also
noted that with the availability of credits for early compliance, a
manufacturer also would have additional time to develop and produce
early-complying vehicles to meet the initial phase-in percentages.
We noted that while we had limited discretion in deciding when to
make the final rule effective, we also have some discretion to make
temporary adjustments in requirements if, in our judgment, such
adjustments are necessary or prudent to promote the smooth and
effective implementation of the goals of TEA 21 through the
introduction of advanced air bags. We noted that the final rule could
temporarily reduce the injury criteria or test speeds during the TEA 21
phase-in and then terminate those reductions at the end or after the
end of that phase-in.
AAM, GM, DaimlerChrysler and Honda all supported a phase-in that
would not begin until September 1, 2003 and that was not fully
effective until September 1, 2006. The primary arguments offered for
delaying the phase-in were the pending new test dummy regulations and
the remaining uncertainty of the advanced air bag technologies. Honda
also asserted that the barrier tests using the 5th percentile adult
female test dummy should be delayed until after final dummy
specifications and revised seating procedures are issued, perhaps until
September 1, 2005.
CEI/CA argued that NHTSA's existing air bag experience should lead
it to reject any mandate requiring technology and designs that are
still under development. At a minimum, according to CEI/CA, the agency
should establish requirements will not take effect until real-world
data on such systems exists and has been analyzed. To the extent that
it is statutorily constrained on this matter, it should set lead times
at the absolute statutory maximum. These concerns are addressed in the
section of this document dealing with unintended consequences.
Public Citizen, CU, and CAS stated that manufacturers should not be
given undue latitude in meeting the advanced air bag requirements.
These groups said that the manufacturers had repeatedly stated during
the drafting of TEA 21 that they would need not more than 30 months in
which to implement the new designs. The groups also noted that some
manufacturers are already introducing some types of advanced air bag
technologies. Public Citizen argued that the agency should give greater
weight to the command in TEA 21 that the final rule shall take effect
as rapidly as possible, the history of manufacturers' assertions of the
``impossibility'' of complying with new regulatory requirements, the
test results of MY1999 vehicles, and the absence of data from
manufacturers to substantiate their claim that the technology is not
yet available.
The NTSB expressed disappointment that it would be MY 2006 before
all new vehicles would be equipped with advanced air bag systems. It
suggested that NHTSA encourage manufacturers to install advanced air
bags prior to the established phase-in schedule, perhaps through an
incentive program.
We have decided to implement a two-stage phase-in for advanced air
bags. In the first phase-in, all portions of the final rule will be
implemented, except the 56 km/h (35 mph) belted rigid barrier test. The
first phase-in will be implemented as follows:
35 percent of each manufacturer's light vehicles
manufactured during the production year beginning on September 1, 2003
with an allowance of advance credits for vehicles built after the
effective date of the final rule;
65 percent of each manufacturer's light vehicles
manufactured during the production year beginning on September 1, 2004
with an allowance of carryover credits from prior years;
100 percent of each manufacturer's light vehicles
manufactured during the production year beginning on September 1, 2005
with an allowance of carryover credits from prior years; and,
All light vehicles manufactured on or after September 1,
2006.
In the second phase-in, the belted rigid barrier test at 56 km/h
(35 mph) using the 50th percentile adult male dummy will be
implemented. It will be phased in as follows:
35 percent of each manufacturer's light vehicles
manufactured during the production year beginning on September 1, 2007
with an allowance of advance credits for vehicles built after September
1, 2006;
65 percent of each manufacturer's light vehicles
manufactured during the production year beginning on September 1, 2008
with an allowance of carryover credits from prior years in the second
phase-in;
100 percent of each manufacturer's light vehicles
manufactured during the production year beginning on September 1, 2009
with an allowance of carryover credits from prior years in the second
phase-in; and,
All light vehicles manufactured on or after September 1,
2010.
We have decided to delay the start of the first phase-in until
September 1, 2003 because of the number of new measures that
manufacturers will have to take in order to certify a vehicle as
complying with the advanced air bag requirements (i.e., meet new injury
criteria, meet various test requirements with four new dummies, and
meet the suppression and low risk deployment tests associated with air
bag risk reduction). We note that the manufacturers' concerns over the
pending dummy rulemakings and the seating procedure for the 5th
percentile adult female dummy have been largely resolved by now. As an
initial matter, all applicable dummies have now been incorporated into
49 CFR Part 572, although petitions for reconsideration are currently
pending.\25\ Additionally, the seating procedure for the 5th
[[Page 30720]]
percentile adult female is established in today's rule. We are
confident that large vehicle manufacturers can meet the phase-in. As
required by TEA 21, we are including provisions under which
manufacturers to earn credits towards meeting the applicable phase-in
percentages if they meet the new requirements ahead of schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Likewise, the final rule incorporating the offset
deformable barrier into 49 CFR Part 587 was issued in March, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Limited Line, Small, Multi-Stage Manufacturers and Alterers
1. Limited Line Manufacturers
A phase-in generally permits vehicle manufacturers flexibility with
respect to which vehicles they choose to initially redesign to comply
with new requirements. However, if a manufacturer produces a very
limited number of lines, e.g., one or two, a phase-in would not provide
such flexibility. Accordingly, we proposed to permit manufacturers that
sell two or fewer carlines in the United States the option of omitting
the first year of the phase-in if they achieved full compliance for the
second year of the phase-in. We proposed to limit this alternative to
manufacturers that produce two or fewer carlines in light of the
statutory requirement concerning when the phase-in is to begin. We
explained that absent such a limitation, it would technically be
possible for the industry as a whole to delay introducing any advanced
air bags for a year.
Porsche supported permitting manufacturers that produce two or
fewer carlines the option of omitting the first year of the phase-in if
they achieve full compliance during the second. In addition, Porsche
recommended specifying that the alternative phase-in for limited line
manufacturers is available to manufacturers who meet the ``two carline
or fewer'' criteria at any time between publication of the final rule
and the start of the phase-in. Porsche argued that such a specification
would resolve any possible confusion over whether the provision applies
to manufacturers who, during the phase-in, evolve from a two carline
manufacturer into a three or more carline manufacturer.
We have decided to permit manufacturers that sell two or fewer
carlines in the United States at the beginning of the first year of
each phase-in (September 1, 2003 and September 1, 2006) the option of
omitting the first year of each phase-in if they achieve full
compliance by September 1, 2004, the beginning of the second year of
the first phase-in and September 1, 2008, the beginning of the second
year of the subsequent phase-in. This option is available only for
limited line manufacturers since it would otherwise be possible for the
industry as a whole to delay introducing any advanced air bags for a
year.
We decline to adopt Porsche's suggestion that this option be
available for manufacturers which meet the ``two carline or fewer''
criterion at any time between publication of the final rule and the
start of the phase-in. As manufacturers produce more lines, the
rationale for this option diminishes. Therefore, any manufacturer that
evolves from a two carline manufacturer into a three or more carline
manufacturer during each phase-in will not qualify for the applicable
limited line alternative phase-in. We believe that manufacturers will
know in advance if they plan to evolve from a two carline manufacturer
into a three or more car line manufacturer well before the phase-in and
can plan their compliance accordingly.
2. Small Manufacturers
To accommodate the needs of small volume manufacturers (SVMs), we
proposed giving those manufacturers the option of waiting until the end
of the phase-in to meet the new requirements. We explained that we were
proposing to treat SVMs differently because of the complexity of the
new requirements and the relatively short lead time before the phase-in
begins. We explained that even the more streamlined set of requirements
proposed in the SNPRM would require significant design changes and
significant new testing. However, since the SVM provision would
effectively allow SVMs to avoid the phase-in entirely, we also proposed
to limit this option to manufacturers that produce fewer than 5,000
vehicles per year worldwide.
The Coalition of Small Volume Automobile Manufacturers (COSVAM)
supported permitting SVMs to wait until the end of the phase-in to meet
the new requirements. COSVAM stated that SVMs need until the end of the
phase-in because they cannot obtain new technology at the same time it
is made available to large manufacturers, because they have difficulty
getting suppliers to sell to them at all, and because some SVMs source
from large manufacturers and may source parts from a model which will
not comply until the end of the phase-in. COSVAM also asked that the
definition of small manufacturer for purposes of exclusion from the
phase-in requirements be changed to include manufacturers that produce
not more than 10,000 vehicles. COSVAM argued that the definition of
small volume manufacturer should be based on the agency's overall
statutory scheme and not on current production volumes.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Under 49 U.S.C. 30113(d) and 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i),
manufacturers whose total motor vehicle production in the most
recent year of production is not more than 10,000 may, on the basis
of economic hardship, apply for a temporary exemption from the
requirements of any of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recognize the technical challenges SVMs will face as a result of
the requirements included in today's rule. In addition, while we
recognize the importance of providing SVMs with sufficient lead time to
comply with the new requirements, we note that we do not have unlimited
discretion as to how much leadtime we can provide. TEA 21 provides that
if the phase-in begins on September 1, 2003, the final rule must become
fully effective by September 1, 2006. No exceptions are given for small
volume manufacturers. We have decided, therefore, to exercise the
discretion we do have and not require SVMs to comply before the end of
each phase-in period (September 1, 2006 and September 1, 2010,
respectively). However, we are continuing to limit this provision to
manufacturers that produce fewer than 5,000 vehicles per year
worldwide. We note that COSVAM did not provide any analysis
demonstrating a need to increase the number beyond 5,000.
3. Multi-Stage Manufacturers and Alterers
Although we received comments in response to the original NPRM
requesting that we provide an additional extension for multi-stage
manufacturers and alterers beyond the end of the phase-in for large
manufacturers, we did not propose such an extension in the SNPRM. We
explained that we have limited discretion as to how much lead time we
can provide, since TEA 21 provides no exceptions for multi-stage
manufacturers or alterers. TEA 21 provides that if the phase-in begins
on September 1, 2003, the final rule must become fully effective by
September 1, 2006.
We stated in the SNPRM that final stage manufacturers are
accustomed to completing vehicles within limitations identified by
chassis manufacturers so that they can certify their vehicles with
limited or no additional testing. Therefore, we stated that the
industry should be able to address the issues raised by the advanced
air bag rulemaking. We also urged chassis manufacturers to communicate
with their multi-stage manufacturer customers as soon as possible
concerning any new limitations that
[[Page 30721]]
may be imposed as a result of the advanced air bag requirements. We
stated that the chassis manufacturers should be able to identify the
type and likely scope of any such new limitations well before the end
of the phase-in.
The Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) (a trade
association representing more than 95% of the van conversion industry)
contended that its members need at least one year of lead time
following full implementation of the new requirements for the large
manufacturers. RVIA stated that this additional time is needed so that
its members can obtain timely information from the chassis
manufacturers, since guidance from incomplete vehicle manufacturers is
generally not available until at or very near the startup of new or
updated model production.
RVIA supported allowing small volume final stage manufacturers and
alterers to certify compliance with a generic sled test pulse, arguing
that if final stage manufacturers install seating systems within the
guidelines established by the chassis manufacturers, further full scale
barrier crash testing is no longer necessary and should not be the only
method available for determining compliance. RVIA stated that the
potential technical and financial burden of the proposed full scale
barrier dynamic testing requirements jeopardized the continued
viability of small volume multi-stage manufacturers.
The National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) supported the
proposal to allow manufacturers of multi-stage vehicles to defer
compliance until the end of the phase-in period. NTEA explained that
given the level of research and testing likely to be required by the
final rule, manufacturers of multi-stage vehicles need as much time as
possible to generate the compliance information needed to certify these
vehicles.
We estimate that several hundred intermediate or final-stage
vehicle manufacturers and alterers will be affected by today's rule.
Multi-stage manufacturers modify incomplete vehicles (chassis), while
alterers modify completed new vehicles that have been certified by
their manufacturer as being in compliance with all applicable safety
standards. With respect to Standard No. 208, most of the difficulties
for multi-stage manufacturers and alterers involve changes to the
vehicles' seats. If the advanced air bag system installed by the
original vehicle or chassis manufacturer employs the seat as part of
the system, by using such features as weight or position sensing
components in the seat, any change to the vehicle's seat could affect
the manufacturer's original certification. If the original manufacturer
uses a weight or pressure system in the seat to turn the air bag off in
appropriate circumstance, these manufacturers face a choice of using
the original seat as is, relying on a supplier to provide the same
sensing technology for their seats, or else certifying in some other
way.
We recognize that the set of requirements contained in today's rule
will require significant design changes and significant new testing for
all cars and light trucks. We also recognize the importance of
providing all manufacturers, including multi-stage manufacturers and
alterers, with sufficient lead time to comply with the new
requirements. We note, however, that we do not have unlimited
discretion as to how much lead time we can provide. According to TEA
21, if the phase-in begins on September 1, 2003, the final rule must
become fully effective by September 1, 2006. There are no exceptions
for multi-stage manufacturers and alterers.
We appreciate the technical challenges multi-stage manufacturers
and alterers will face as a result of the requirements included in
today's rule. In an effort to address the needs of these small
businesses, we have decided to allow multi-stage manufacturers and
alterers to defer compliance until the end of each phase-in period
(September 1, 2006 and September 1, 2010, respectively).
We believe that delaying the implementation schedule for multi-
stage manufacturers and alterers strikes the appropriate balance
between improving air bag safety, particularly for infants, children,
and small-statured adults, while accommodating the needs of these
manufacturers. We believe that this approach will increase the
likelihood that multi-stage manufacturers and alterers will know what
type of advanced air bag technology chassis and vehicle manufacturers
are using well before they need to comply. This should provide them
sufficient time to address any technical issues associated with
advanced air bag technology and to generate whatever compliance
information may be needed.
XI. Availability of Original Equipment and Retrofit Manual On-Off
Switches
Standard No. 208 currently includes a temporary provision
permitting manufacturers to provide as original equipment (OE) manual
on-off switches for air bags in vehicles without rear seats or with
rear seats too small to accommodate a RFCSS. This provision is
scheduled to expire on September 1, 2000.
Also, on November 11, 1997, we published in the Federal Register
(62 FR 62406) a final rule exempting, under certain conditions, motor
vehicle dealers and repair businesses from the ``make inoperative''
prohibition in 49 U.S.C. 30122 by allowing them to install retrofit
manual on-off switches for air bags in vehicles owned by people whose
request for a switch is authorized by NHTSA. The final rule is set
forth as 49 CFR Part 595, Retrofit On-Off Switches for Air Bags.
The purpose of the exemption was to preserve the benefits of air
bags while reducing the risk of serious or fatal injury that current
air bags pose to identifiable groups of people. In issuing that final
rule, we explained that although vehicle manufacturers were beginning
to replace current air bags with new air bags having some advanced
attributes, i.e., attributes that will automatically minimize or avoid
the risks created by current air bags, an interim solution was needed
for those groups of people at risk from current air bags in existing
vehicles.
In the SNPRM, we proposed to allow both OE on-off switches and
retrofit on-off switches to be installed under the same conditions that
currently govern such installation in all vehicles produced prior to
September 1, 2005, the date we proposed to require all vehicles to have
an advanced air bag system. We proposed to prohibit both OE switches
in, and retrofit switches for, vehicles manufactured after the end of
the phase-in. We noted that while we believed that reliable and safe
air bag systems could be developed in a timely manner, thus removing
the need for an on-off switch, we were concerned that those individuals
who are currently at risk from air bags might lack confidence in the
new systems, particularly when they are first introduced. However, we
believed this problem would diminish during the course of the phase-in,
as consumers heard about, and became familiar with, advanced air bags.
Comments were submitted by AAM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, Toyota,
AORC, Autoliv, Advocates, NADA, and Parents for Safer Air Bags. Except
for NADA, all commenters supported allowing manual on off-switches,
both retrofit and OE, after the end of the phase-in. Some of the
commenters supported an indefinite allowance, while others supported
the agency revisiting the issue at the end of the phase-in.
Additionally, Ford urged that we allow shunts, which would permanently
deactivate an air bag, rather than retrofit on-off switches for
vehicles with advanced air bag systems,
[[Page 30722]]
stating that the market incentive to continue to produce retrofit
switches is too small. NADA supported eliminating retrofit on-off
switches for vehicles with advanced air bags, but allowing OE switches
as a method of suppression compliance in vehicles where OE switches are
currently allowed.
We believe that by the end of the initial phase-in, manufacturers
will have developed advanced air bag systems for most vehicles that are
sufficiently reliable to obviate the need for manual air bag on-off
switches. However, public acceptance of those advanced air bag systems
may not be assured. Allowing on-off switches for some period after all
vehicles are equipped with advanced air bag systems will provide
parents with additional confidence until the reliability of all such
systems has been verified based on real-world experience.
We continue to believe, however, that allowing manufacturers to
install switches indefinitely would be counter-productive. The switches
provide an opportunity for misuse. Adults could turn off their
passenger air bag systems even though those systems pose virtually no
risk to an adult occupant, particularly one who is belted. In such
circumstances, the occupant would not receive the benefit of the air
bag in a high-speed crash. The same possibility for misuse would exist
for children in vehicles certified to the low risk deployment option.
Accordingly, we have decided to allow both OE and retrofit air bag
on-off switches until September 1, 2012, two years after the end of the
second phase-in. This additional time will allow manufacturers to
perfect the suppression and low risk deployment systems in all their
vehicles. Additionally, it will provide parents with additional time to
satisfy themselves that the advanced systems work. Should we decide
there is a continuing need for manual on-off switches beyond 2012, we
can initiate rulemaking to extend the date at that time.
We note that there will be some 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). At this point in time, we believe such needs can be best
accommodated through the permanent deactivation authorization system
currently used by NHTSA. This system allows the use of shunts as
suggested by Ford in its comments.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Ford had also suggested that shunts be allowed in lieu of
on-off switches. These shunts would permanently deactivate the air
bag. We believe that allowing permanent deactivation for anyone
other than individuals with special needs would not serve a safety
need. Accordingly, we are rejecting this option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
XII. Warning Labels, Consumer Information, and Telltale Devices
A. Warning Labels and Consumer Information
On November 27, 1996, we published in the Federal Register (61 FR
60206) a final rule which, among other things, amended Standard No. 208
to require improved labeling on new vehicles to better ensure that
drivers and other occupants were aware of the dangers posed by
passenger air bags to children.
After reviewing the comments on the NPRM, we proposed in the SNPRM
a replacement for the permanent sun visor label which contained
statements taken from the 1996 labels regarding belt use and seating
children in the rear seat. We also proposed substituting the word
``CAUTION'' for the word ``WARNING'' in the heading of the label.
Finally, we proposed a new graphic which showed a cut-away side view of
a vehicle with a belted driver and a child in a child seat in the rear.
In addition, NHTSA proposed a new temporary label that states that the
vehicle meets the new requirements for advanced air bags. These
proposals were in response to commenters concerns that some types of
warnings should be retained for advanced air bags.
Consistent with our proposal to require labels for vehicles with
advanced air bags, we proposed to drop the current definition of
``smart passenger air bags'' contained in S4.5.5 and an existing option
to remove warning labels in vehicles with air bags that meet that
definition (S4.5.1).
In order to provide consumers with adequate information about their
occupant restraint system, we proposed to require manufacturers to
provide a written explanation of the vehicle's advanced passenger air
bag system. We indicated that this explanation would probably be
included in the vehicle owner's manual, although we requested comments
on whether it would be desirable to have this information located
elsewhere. Under our proposal, the explanation would need to include a
discussion of the proper functioning of the advanced passenger air bag
system and provide a summary of the actions that may affect the proper
functioning of the system.
Fifteen commenters addressed the proposed changes to the air bag
warning labels. Of these, five said little more than an expression of
support for the proposal without much elaboration. On the other hand,
four commenters representing consumer groups expressed strong concerns
about any changes that ``weakened'' the warnings concerning air bags
until the air bags meeting these new requirements are demonstrated to
be effective in eliminating the risks associated with current air bags.
One commenter also stated that research should be conducted before the
air bag warning labels are changed. Additionally, very few commenters
addressed our request for comments on the new graphic described above
versus the previous graphic, which shows a rear-facing child seat being
struck by an air bag.
After reviewing the comments, we have decided to change the
proposed label to reduce the perceived ``weakening.'' First, we have
decided to continue to use ``WARNING'' in the heading rather than
``CAUTION'' as we proposed in the SNPRM. Since no one objected to the
proposed graphic, we are adopting the new graphic to help consumers
distinguish between vehicles with various generations of air bags.
One commenter asked us to allow the new labels in any vehicle
certified to the new requirements, rather than limiting their usage to
vehicles manufactured after September 1, 2002. Because manufacturers
will be allowed to certify vehicles to the new requirement prior to
this date, we are removing this restriction.
One commenter also stated that the labels should be available in
languages other than English. While we are not requiring this, as with
the current labels, manufacturers may provide translations of the
required English language message as long as all the requirements for
the English label are met, including size.
A few commenters wanted additional information added to the label
related to specific issues with advanced air bags. GM wanted the option
of adding instructions to inform users how to properly behave depending
on whether the air bag was active or inactive. NTSB wanted to require
information on what actions to take if the telltale is not illuminated.
CAS suggested that information should be added explaining how belt use
affects air bag performance. Because these types of information are
very design specific, we are not changing the warning label to address
these comments. However, we are modifying the existing prohibition
against other information on the sun
[[Page 30723]]
visor to allow manufacturers the option of adding information, on a
separate label, if they believe it is desirable to supplement the
owner's manual information.
With respect to the proposal requiring manufacturers to provide
additional information on the performance and design of advanced air
bags in the owner's manual, the few commenters who addressed this issue
supported the proposal. Therefore, we are requiring the owner's manual
to include accurate information on each of the topics proposed in the
SNPRM, specifically:
A presentation and explanation of the main components of
the advanced passenger air bag system.
An explanation of how the components function together as
part of the advanced passenger air bag system.
The basic requirements for proper operation, including an
explanation of the occupant actions that may affect the proper
functioning of the system.
A complete description of any passenger air bag
suppression system installed in the vehicle, including a discussion of
the suppression zone.
A discussion of the telltale light on the instrument
panel, explaining that the light is only illuminated when the advanced
passenger air bag system is suppressed, is not illuminated when the
advanced passenger air bag system is activated, and informing the
vehicle owner of the method used to indicate that the air bag
suppression system is not operating properly.
An explanation of the interaction of the advanced
passenger air bag system with other vehicle components, such as seat
belts, seats or other components.
A summary of the expected outcomes when child restraint
systems, children and small teenagers or adults are both properly and
improperly positioned in the vehicle, including cautionary advice
against improper placement of child restraint systems.
Information on how to contact the vehicle manufacturer
concerning modifications for persons with disabilities that may affect
the advanced air bag system.
B. Telltale Devices
In the SNPRM, we proposed that vehicles with static suppression
systems would be required to have a telltale, located on the dashboard,
that indicated when the passenger air bag was off. We also stated that
the telltale need not illuminate when the passenger seat was empty,
even if the air bag was suppressed under such a circumstance, but that
each system needed to be equipped with a mechanism that indicated every
circumstance when the air bag was suppressed.
Comments on the telltale were primarily from manufacturers and
followed two basic themes. Some commenters argued that the requirement
that the telltale be on the dashboard was overly stringent and
inconsistent with the telltale location requirements for air bag on-off
switches. Others commented that requiring a mechanism to determine all
circumstances under which the air bag was suppressed did not make sense
in the context of the telltale requirement. Ford also requested that we
specifically allow more than one level of illumination to allow for
changing light conditions.
We have expanded the possible locations for the telltale in the
final rule. However, we have decided against simply adopting the
existing on-off switch location provisions. In response to a petition
for rulemaking from a manufacturer, we have allowed on-off switch
telltales to be located anywhere within the vehicle interior as long as
they are clearly visible to all front seat occupants. We decided to
allow such a broad location for these telltales because on-off switches
are only in a limited number of vehicles and because the air bags can
only be suppressed when the driver or passenger consciously turns the
air bag off. With static suppression systems, an individual will have
no way of knowing whether the air bag is suppressed other than the
telltale. Accordingly, we believe that the telltales should not be
placed in a location that is arguably ``clearly visible,'' but may not
be easily seen while driving or is susceptible to being covered up. We
agree, however, that restricting the telltale to the dashboard may be
overly restrictive. We have changed the regulatory text to state that
the telltale must be located inside the vehicle in a zone above and
forward of the H-point of the driver seat, when that seat is in its
forward most position. Additionally, the telltale cannot be placed in
or immediately adjacent to a storage compartment if use of the
compartment could block the telltale from either the driver's or
passenger's view. Thus, for example, the telltale could be located on
the cover to the glove compartment, or by the rearview mirror, but
could not be located behind a cup-holder.
The SNPRM did not require a single level of illumination for
telltales. However, it also was not clear that multiple levels of
illumination were allowed. We believe there may be a benefit to having
multiple levels of illumination based on changes in the ambient light
conditions. Accordingly, we have changed the regulatory text to
specifically allow multiple levels of illumination as long as all
levels are visible to individuals of all ages.
We are allowing the telltale to be turned off when the passenger
seat is empty because we believe many manufacturers may choose to have
the default setting for their suppression systems be a suppressed air
bag. In such an instance, the air bag would usually be suppressed. We
are concerned that the near constant illumination of the telltale could
lead people to ignore the telltale. Alternatively, people could attempt
to disconnect the telltale so that they did not have to look at it all
the time.
In order to accommodate a design where the telltale was not
illuminated when the seat was empty, but still allow for compliance
testing of all of the proposed child seating positions, some of which
could look to a suppression system like the seat was empty, we added a
requirement that the vehicle come equipped with a mechanism that would
indicate under all circumstances whether the passenger air bag was
suppressed. The mechanism need not be contained within the interior of
the vehicle, but could be a simple plug-in system where a piece of
equipment is plugged into an outlet and provides the needed
information. Alternatively, the mechanism could be the telltale that is
required for all suppression situations other than an empty seat. In
that instance, the telltale would need to illuminate in any of the test
positions NHTSA used for compliance purposes.
XIII. Miscellaneous Issues
A. Child Restraints Used for Testing Suppression and Low-Risk
Deployment Features
As discussed earlier in this notice, we proposed in the SNPRM to
require manufacturers to assure compliance with tests to minimize the
risks from air bags to infants and young children using any child
restraint on a specified list of representative child restraints that
was appropriate for a child the size of the applicable dummy. In
developing the proposed list of representative child restraints, we
attempted to select seats that are produced by various manufacturers
while limiting the overall number of restraints. We proposed to add the
list of child restraints as an appendix to Standard No. 208, and
indicated that we planned to update the list from time to time (with
appropriate lead time).
Comments can be broken down into four separate areas: NHTSA should
develop a common ``footprint'' for
[[Page 30724]]
testing, the proposed list contains too many restraints, the proposed
list does not contain enough restraints, and the list is either
outdated or insufficiently detailed.
AAM, GM, Volkswagen, DaimlerChrysler and AORC all urged NHTSA to
develop a standard ``footprint'' that could be used to certify
compliance with our suppression tests. Takata did not believe a single
footprint was necessary, but urged that the number of potential
footprints on child restraint systems be severely limited. These same
commenters, along with Isuzu, stated that the list of child seats was
still too long and should either be reduced or manufacturers should be
allowed to certify to no more than three seats in each category, at the
manufacturer's option. The CAS argued that the list should be longer,
and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) urged us to add an
oversized child seat designed for special needs children. Takata noted
that the list did not include specific model numbers, and Evenflo noted
that some of its seats on the list were no longer available or had been
replaced by a different model.
We agree with manufacturers that a common footprint test device
would considerably ease their ability to meet the static suppression
performance requirements for infants and for three-year-olds and six-
year-olds in child restraints. We also agree that our initial proposal
to test with any seat produced over a ten-year period was overly
expansive. However, the proposed number of seats in the SNPRM was
dramatically reduced from the NPRM. These seats are real designs that
are actually in use, not a test device which would never be used by a
child. The only way we could guarantee that child restraints matched
the footprint of this hypothetical test device would be to require the
footprint to be incorporated into all child restraints. Even if we did
not require that restraint manufacturers use the specific footprint, we
would effectively limit their ability to produce any other type of
restraint, since they could not assure parents that their seats would
work with a vehicle's suppression system. Accordingly, we believe
adopting a uniform test device with a specific footprint is
inappropriate and overly design restrictive. Given the relatively small
number of restraints on our list, we see no need to develop a specific
test device.
Likewise, we do not believe that manufacturers should have the
option of certifying to only a limited number of the restraints on the
list. We do not believe that requiring compliance with 24 seats is
excessive, given the importance of reliability in a suppression system
and the fact that the suppression tests are nondestructive. Children
sitting in the front seat will not receive the benefit of a suppression
system that does not recognize their presence in the seat. If
manufacturers believe their planned suppression technology is
insufficient to detect a wide variety of child restraints, they will
need to either improve or supplement that technology.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ We recognize that a manufacturer choosing the low risk
deployment option for infants would be required to assure compliance
with the applicable injury criteria with a 12-month-old dummy in
each of the restraints listed in sections B and C of Appendix A,
making the restraint unusable in subsequent tests. However, we
believe the low risk deployment for properly restrained infants to
be the most important low risk test in this rulemaking, as an
infant's head would always be in close proximity to a deploying air
bag.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do believe, however, that the seats on the list are adequately
representative of both child restraint designs and manufacturers.\29\
Accordingly, we do not agree with the CAS that the list should be
expanded. Nor do we believe it is necessary to add an oversized seat,
as recommended by the AAP. These larger seats are not representative of
seats that are typically found in vehicles and may be used by children
who are considerably heavier than an average six-year-old. While these
children should receive as much assurance of safety from a deploying
air bag as all other children, we believe their needs can be
accommodated by other means. Permanent air bag deactivation will
continue to be available for individuals with unique medical or
physical needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ In no way does the inclusion of a particular restraint on
the list represent an endorsement of that restraint by the agency.
Restraints have been placed on the list because we believe they are
representative of many products on the market, not because they
offer a unique design that we believe is somehow superior to other
designs. Likewise, the choice of restraint manufacturer is not based
on any belief by the agency that a particular manufacturer produces
restraints that are superior to those of other manufacturers.
Restraints were chosen from a variety of manufacturers so as to
adequately survey the design decisions of the entire population of
restraint manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on Evenflo and Takata's concerns that the proposed list was
insufficiently detailed and out-of-date, we have amended the list by
replacing restraints that are no longer available and providing model
numbers. We have also tightened up the language of Appendix A so that
the designated restraints are limited by a production date closer in
time to the effective date of the final rule. As stated in the SNPRM,
the list will be updated periodically to subtract restraints that are
no longer in production and to add new restraints, particularly those
that are manufactured in accordance with recent amendments to Standard
No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, (64 FR 10786, March 5, 1999), that
require child restraints manufactured on or after September 1, 2002, to
have components that attach to the lower anchors of a vehicle's child
restraint anchorage system. (The March 1999 rule requires the anchorage
systems to be installed on a phased-in basis in new vehicles beginning
September 1, 2000.) At this time we do not contemplate increasing the
overall size of the list. Some period of lead time will be provided so
that manufacturers have adequate time to incorporate any needed design
changes into their air bag systems.
B. Dummy Positioning for Static Suppression and Low-Risk Deployment
Tests
AAM, GM, Toyota, Isuzu and DaimlerChrysler all argued in their
comments that the static suppression tests were too burdensome, largely
because of the range of seat back angles (from the nominal design
position up to 25 degrees rearward of that position) and seat track
positions (any position on the seat track or any height for adjustable
seats). Breed Technologies stated that it did not believe the low risk
test procedures adequately accounted for differences in vehicle
geometry and that they were sufficiently ambiguous to lead to
variations in procedure by different testing laboratories.
As discussed earlier in this document, in view of the fact that
parents or caregivers who place children or child restraints in the
front seat will not all use a single seat track position, we have
determined that there is a need to test in different seat track
positions. However, we have also concluded that there is no need to
conduct suppression tests at every possible seat track position.
Accordingly, we have decided that for vehicles certified to the
suppression option, we will test only at the vehicle seat's full-rear
position, mid-track position and full-forward position. In instances in
which the infant restraint contacts the dashboard in the full-forward
position, the vehicle seat will be moved back to the next detent that
allows for clearance, or, in the case of automatic seats, until a
maximum of 5mm (0.2 in) of clearance is achieved. Likewise, in tests
involving suppression systems for 3-year-old and 6-year-old children,
if the dummy or child would interfere with the dashboard, the vehicle
seat will be moved back in a similar manner.
We have also determined that in many of the tests, testing with the
seat back positioned 25 degrees rearward of
[[Page 30725]]
the vehicle seat's nominal design position for the 50th percentile male
was problematic. We believe that in many vehicles it may be impossible
to properly install a child restraint with the seat back reclined this
far back. We also do not believe that there would be any reason to
recline a seat that is occupied by a child restraint. Since all of the
infant tests involve the use of some type of restraint, we have decided
to limit the seat back angle for these tests to the nominal design
position for the 50th percentile male. Tests involving the 3-year-old
and 6-year-old children or dummies in child restraints present the same
concerns and will be addressed in the same way. Likewise, many of the
test procedures involving children who are not in any type of restraint
are unrealistic if tested with the seat 25 degrees back from the
nominal design position. For example, a kneeling child with his chest
resting against the seat back would find it difficult to hold his or
her position.
The one position where we will recline the seat back is the test
where the child is sitting on the seat and is leaning against the seat
back (S22.2.2.2, S24.2.1). This test position will be conducted with
the seat back at the manufacturer's nominal design position for the
50th percentile male and at 25 degrees rearward of that position so as
to test for children who have reclined their seat backs to take a nap.
If the vehicle seat does not recline that far, we will test with the
seat reclined as far as possible. We agree with manufacturers that
parents should not drive with their children in such a position.
However, as long as manufacturers design the passenger seat to recline,
we believe some parents will allow their children to lie on a reclined
seat.
We have also decided to test whether the air bag system is active
when the seat is occupied by a 5th percentile adult female at the seat
back position achieved when positioning the fifth percentile adult
female dummy in the passenger seat for dynamic tests. This should
roughly approximate the nominal design position. Some commenters argued
that the reclined position (i.e., 25 degrees rearward of the nominal
design position) distributes an adult's weight in such a manner that a
suppression system that relied heavily on weight distributed to the
seat cushion may be unable to determine whether the occupant is an
adult or a child. Other commenters have argued that their suppression
systems can adequately detect the total weight of a reclined 5th
percentile adult female. We believe that the ability to detect the
total weight of the dummy in a reclined position may vary depending on
the type of suppression technology used. We also believe that a
reclining adult has less need for a deploying air bag than an adult who
is upright, and therefor closer to the air bag at the time of
deployment.
We have changed the test that determines which stage or combination
of stages of the air bag to deploy in the low risk deployment tests. As
discussed earlier, the low risk deployment tests will only be conducted
at speeds up to 26 km/h (16 mph). Accordingly, this test will be run at
26 km/h (16 mph). If there is no air bag deployment in the test, we
will deploy the first stage of the vehicle's air bag when conducting
our compliance tests.
Finally, we believe Breed's comments about the low risk deployment
positions have merit. We have reduced the number of steps involved in
placing the dummies because small adjustments to the procedure at each
step, as well as the unique characteristics of the vehicle, could
result in a final position that differed significantly from what we
want, i.e., the head on the instrument panel or the chest on the
instrument panel. By reducing the number of steps needed to achieve
that position, we have reduced the amount of potential variability. The
one exception is the low risk deployment test for both child dummies
where the head is placed on the instrument panel. We have retained a
specific step-by-step procedure for this test, because the location of
the air bag module on the instrument panel is so variable that we are
currently unable to define a position on the instrument panel that we
believe with any confidence represents the worst case scenario. We do,
however, have considerable experience with a step-by-step procedure.
While we agree that variations in vehicle design may make it difficult
to follow the test procedure, we believe that we have modified the
procedure in a way that will yield appropriate and consistent results.
C. Due Care Provision
Since March 1986, Standard No. 208 has included as part of its
various crash test requirements a provision stating that:
a vehicle shall not be deemed to be in noncompliance with this
standard if its manufacturer establishes that it did not have reason
to know in the exercise of due care that such vehicle is not in
conformity with the requirement of this standard.
In adding this provision, we cited the complexity of the rigid
barrier crash test of Standard No. 208. We stated that, because of this
complexity, we believed that manufacturers needed assurance from the
agency that, if they had made a good faith effort in designing their
vehicles and had instituted adequate quality control measures, the
vehicles would not be deemed to be in noncompliance because of an
isolated failure to meet the injury criteria.
In the SNPRM, we noted that, among the Federal motor vehicle safety
standards, the ``due care provision'' is unique to Standard No. 208. We
noted further that, for a variety of reasons, we disfavor including a
``due care provision'' in any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We
explained that the inclusion of such a provision in a safety standard
does not fit very well with the overall statutory scheme, because it
introduces a measure of subjectivity into the issue of whether a
vehicle complies with a standard. We also explained that, based on our
experience with Standard No. 208 compliance activities, we do not
believe there is an intrinsic need for a ``due care provision.''
However, recognizing that this rulemaking for advanced air bags would
require manufacturers to certify their vehicles to a significantly
greater number of complex test requirements in a limited amount of
time, including a 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted test with a new dummy, we
stated that we did not believe that it would be appropriate to delete
the provision at this time.
Accordingly, in the SNPRM, we proposed to retain the ``due care
provision'' and extend it to the new crash test requirements. We stated
that we were not proposing to extend the provision to test requirements
that do not involve crashes because these tests are not affected by the
variability associated with dynamically-induced dummy movement and/or
vehicle deformation.
Commenters on the SNPRM presented sharply contrasting views
concerning the due care provision. Vehicle manufacturers, air bag
manufacturers and the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness urged that
the due care provision be extended to the new static out-of-position
tests as well as the new crash tests. They argued that there is as much
variability associated with the static out-of-position tests as with
crash tests, and argued that the due care provision will help resolve
some practicability concerns.
Other commenters, however, argued that the due care provision is
not in the public interest. Parents stated that if a vehicle's air bag
system fails to meet Standard No. 208, the adverse effects on the
public are the same whether or not due care was exercised by the
manufacturer. That organization stated that the due care provision
works
[[Page 30726]]
against the public interest by providing vehicle manufacturers with a
means of avoiding the recall of vehicles that fail to comply with
Standard No. 208. Parents and Advocates also argued that the due care
provision in Standard No. 208 is inconsistent with its statutory
counterpart, which only relieves vehicle manufacturers of civil penalty
liability if the agency concludes that the manufacturer exercised due
care.
Advocates stated that if the due care provision were retained and
extended to other crash tests, the provision should be completely
sunsetted at the end of the TEA-21 phase-in. Other commenters opposing
the due care provision included Consumers Union, Public Citizen, and
CAS.
After considering the comments, we continue to disfavor including a
due care provision in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and do
not believe there is a need for the due care provision in Standard No.
208. Accordingly, while we will retain the existing due care provisions
for the sled test and the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted barrier test (both
of which will expire on September 1, 2006), we have decided against
including a due care provision in for vehicles certified to the
advanced air bag requirements.
As an initial matter, the static suppression tests are relatively
simple pass-fail tests which do not involve deployment of an air bag or
measurement of injury criteria on test dummies. Accordingly, we do not
believe they raise the same compliance concerns as crash tests. The
conditions under which either suppression or activation is required are
specific and straightforward. Further, there are substantial
differences between the conditions requiring suppression and those
requiring activation. While there will undoubtedly be gray zones
associated with suppression devices, those gray zones should be well
outside the conditions for which either suppression or activation is
required by the Standard.
Additionally, there is no reason to extend the existing due care
requirements for vehicles certified to the advanced air bag high speed
requirements. The 48 km/h (30 mph) belted rigid barrier test has been a
part of Standard No. 208 for several years and has not proven
problematic for manufacturers. The 56 km/h (35 mph) belted test will
not begin to be phased-in as a requirement for eight years, which
should provide ample leadtime. The unbelted tests will be less
stringent than the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test that
was required prior to the 1997 final rule allowing the sled test
option. Our testing has indicated that manufacturers can easily meet
the new injury criteria with 50th percentile adult male dummies in a 40
km/h (25 mph) unbelted test with existing air bag systems and should be
able to make what ever improvements are needed to do so with 5th
percentile adult female dummies without major uncertainties before they
are required to certify any vehicle as meeting the advanced air bag
requirements of this rule.
We do not believe that not extending the due care provision will
create any significant difficulties for manufacturers, given our
practices and policies with respect to the enforcement of crash test
requirements. Generally, we do not determine that a noncompliance
exists merely because of an isolated test failure, if there is evidence
that other tested similar units have met the Standard's performance
requirements and there is no indication of the inadequate quality
control procedures. Since the adoption of the provision in 1986, the
agency has never found that a vehicle that failed to meet the
performance requirements of the Standard should be deemed to be in
compliance on the basis of the due care provision.
D. Selection of Compliance Options
In the SNPRM, we proposed to require that where manufacturer
options are specified, the manufacturer would be required to select the
option by the time it certifies the vehicle and would not thereafter be
permitted to select a different option for the vehicle. This would mean
that failure to comply with the selected option would constitute a
noncompliance with the standard (as well as a violation of the
certification requirement of 49 U.S.C. 30115), regardless of whether a
vehicle complies with another option. We also proposed to specify that,
upon request, manufacturers would be required to advise NHTSA of the
compliance options selected for a given vehicle or vehicle model. On
behalf of its members, AAM and AIAM argued in its joint comments that
the proposed requirement does not meet the need for motor vehicle
safety.
We have decided to adopt the provision proposed in the SNPRM, which
is consistent with the approach we have taken in other recent
rulemakings in which compliance options have been allowed. Our
rationale for this approach was recently set out in some detail in our
denial of a petition for reconsideration of an amendment that added a
compliance option to Standard No. 201, ``Occupant Protection in
Interior Impact.'' 64 FR 69665 (December 14, 1999). We adopt that
rationale for purposes of this final rule, but we are adding a short
discussion to address a few additional matters.
The final rule adopted by this notice provides numerous compliance
options for manufacturers, far more than in any other standard we have
previously adopted. For example, in order to reduce the risk of injury
to various sizes of children, manufacturers may suppress the passenger
air bag, either statically or dynamically, or assure that the air bag
deploys in a benign manner. Likewise, manufacturers may use a benignly
deploying air bag or a dynamic suppression system to reduce the risk of
air bag injury to teenagers and small adult drivers. The existence of
phase-ins provides manufacturers with additional options. While they
must meet the applicable advanced air bag requirements for a specified
percentage of vehicles during each phase-in, they have the option of
certifying additional vehicles to those requirements in order to earn
credits that can be applied to the percentages that need to be achieved
in later years. Moreover, until September 1, 2006 (the end of the first
phase-in), manufacturers may choose to certify compliance for at least
a portion of their fleet with one of three different unbelted high-
speed test requirements: The sled test of S13,\30\ the long-standing 48
km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test of S5.1.2(a), or the 40 km/h
(25 mph) rigid barrier test of S5.1.2(b). Each of these three options
has different injury criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ The text of S13 has been slightly revised to indicate which
set of injury criteria must be met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have provided manufacturers with myriad options to allow and
encourage them to develop and implement technologically innovative
advanced air bag systems. However, this does not mean that we believe
that each option provides exactly the same safety benefits. Rather, we
believe that the standard as a whole, including its requirement of an
irrevocable choice among compliance options, strikes the proper balance
between assuring an appropriate level of safety and allowing an
appropriate degree of manufacturer flexibility.
We have found that when some manufacturers are confronted with a
compliance test failure indicating an apparent noncompliance with the
option that they originally chose at the time they certified the
vehicle, they have responded by asserting that their product complies
with a different option. As explained in our earlier denial of
reconsideration on this
[[Page 30727]]
subject, such shifting in the asserted basis for compliance creates
obvious difficulties for us, both in managing our resources available
for compliance testing and in ultimately assessing a vehicle or
equipment's compliance. We believe that a system that allows us to
effectively allocate our scarce enforcement resources to ensure that
our safety standards are being met clearly meets the overall need for
motor vehicle safety.
In addition to preventing the unnecessary expenditure of resources,
we also believe it is important for manufacturers to honor their
certification commitments. The Safety Act does not allow for
``recertification'' after the certification label has been applied. Nor
does it contemplate allowing manufacturers ``two bites at the apple.''
Moreover, there is ample evidence that consumers often choose to
purchase a particular vehicle because its manufacturer has advertised
that it has certain safety features. In light of consumer interest in
and concerns about air bag safety, this consumer practice is likely to
continue or even increase in the context of this rule. We believe that
consumers should be entitled to expect that manufacturers will produce
vehicles that comply with the requirements to which they are certified.
We note that a manufacturer that chooses to install multiple safety
features that would independently comply with two or more of the
specified compliance options in the standard is not prohibited from
doing so. For example, a manufacturer may build a vehicle that meets
both the static suppression and the low risk deployment requirements of
today's rule. In such a case, it may be that a failure to comply with
the option to which the vehicle was certified would be inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety, such that a notification and remedy (i.e.,
recall) campaign would not be necessary. However, in view of the fact
that not all compliance options provide precisely the same level of
safety benefits, such an inconsequentiality determination would not be
automatic.
Although it is implicit from the foregoing discussion, we want to
explicitly note that S4.8 applies to the decision by a manufacturer as
to whether to certify a vehicle as complying with the advanced air bag
requirements during each of the two phase-ins. If a manufacturer
advises NHTSA (either in response to a request for compliance
information or in a report submitted pursuant to 49 CFR Part 585) that
it intends a particular vehicle or model to count as meeting the
requirements of S14.1, S14.2, S14.3, or S14.4 during the applicable
phase-in, a vehicle that failed to comply with the applicable
performance requirements would be deemed to be in noncompliance with
the standard, even if other vehicles produced by the manufacturer in
the production year in question would have been sufficient to satisfy
the specified percentage requirement for that year.
We believe that such a regulatory approach is particularly critical
in the context of this rule, since consumers will know whether a
vehicle is represented as complying with the advanced air bag
requirements from a variety of sources (e.g., the warning label in the
vehicle, the owner's manual, manufacturer advertising, dealer sales
staff, etc.) and may modify their behavior in reliance upon that
representation (e.g., by allowing the smallest child to sit in the
front seat to suppress the air bag). If in fact the vehicle does not
provide the promised performance ( e.g., the suppression system does
not function properly), the manufacturer would be required to notify
NHTSA of the noncompliance and, unless the noncompliance were found to
be inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, to remedy the problem.
E. Credits for Early Compliance
To encourage early compliance with the advanced air bag final rule,
we were directed by TEA 21 to include means by which manufacturers may
earn credits toward future compliance. Credits, on a one-vehicle for
one-vehicle basis, may be earned for vehicles that are certified as
being in full compliance with the final rule before the beginning of
each of the applicable phase-in periods. They may also be earned during
the phase-ins if a manufacturer's production of complying vehicles for
a model year exceeds the percentage of vehicles required to comply in
that year. We are amending 49 CFR Part 585 to specify reporting
requirements that will allow us to administer this provision. Credits
for the first phase-in may be earned immediately after this final rule
becomes effective, but credits for the second phase-in may only be
earned starting on September 1, 2006. We are only allowing credits to
be earned for vehicles manufactured one year prior to the initiation of
the second phase-in because we believe manufacturers should first
direct their efforts towards full implementation of the first phase-in,
particularly the risk reduction requirements. Consistent with the prior
discussion of compliance options, a manufacturer's decision to certify
a vehicle to the advanced air bag requirements before or during the
phase-ins will be irrevocable, even if the manufacturer would have been
able to satisfy the percentage requirements for a given model year with
other vehicles in its fleet.
F. Choice Between Complying With Existing and/or New Injury Criteria
and Test Requirements
In the SNPRM, we addressed, for vehicles not certified as being in
full compliance with the final rule, the relationship of the proposed
new injury criteria and performance limits to the existing test
requirements of Standard No. 208. We stated that while some of the new
and/or modified injury criteria and performance limits would apply to
existing tests that are being retained in Standard No. 208, we were not
proposing to change the injury criteria and performance limits for
vehicles not certified to all of the requirements applicable to
vehicles with advanced air bags.
We stated that, as a general matter, vehicles produced between the
time the final rule becomes effective and the time the phase-in is
complete would be required to comply with and be certified to all the
current requirements and current injury criteria or to all the
requirements for advanced air bags and new injury criteria; there would
be no opportunity to mix and match.
However, as a possible exception to this, we requested comments on
whether we should permit manufacturers to immediately certify their
vehicles to whatever set of unbelted crash test requirements applicable
to 50th percentile adult male dummies was adopted for the final rule,
as an alternative to the currently available sled test or unbelted up-
to-48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier test. In light of the limitations of
the sled test, we stated that, to the extent vehicle manufacturers
wished to immediately design and certify vehicles to whatever set of
unbelted crash test requirements was included in the final rule, there
could be safety benefits.
Several commenters, including AAM, DaimlerChrysler and Toyota,
supported permitting manufacturers to begin immediately certifying to
the new unbelted test in lieu of the sled test at the manufacturer's
option, for vehicles without advanced air bags. In light of the
comments and the discussion we presented in the SNPRM, we are including
this option in the final rule. We have also decided to retain a
manufacturer's option to certify to the existing 48 km/h (30 mph)
unbelted barrier test to September 1, 2006. This
[[Page 30728]]
option will expire at the end of the phase-in because we believe that
ultimately only a single set of injury criteria should apply to each
test dummy.
G. Time Periods for Measuring Injury Criteria During Tests
In the SNPRM, we proposed specific points for the end of the period
for measuring injury criteria in both crash tests and low-risk
deployment tests. We noted that, for dynamic crash tests, we
historically have not measured injury criteria more than 300
milliseconds after the vehicle impacts the barrier, and we proposed a
300 millisecond time duration for the dynamic crash tests. For the low
risk deployment tests, which do not involve a complete vehicle crash
and are intended only to address the potential adverse effects of an
air bag, we proposed to measure injury criteria for up to 100
milliseconds after the air bag deploys.
We indicated that these time parameters would not apply to the
dummy containment requirement. Regardless of the time frame used to
measure other injury criteria, all dummies would continue to be
required to remain fully contained within the test vehicle until both
the vehicle and the dummies have ceased moving.
Comments were received from DaimlerChrysler, Toyota, Nissan, and
Autoliv. Other than DaimlerChrysler, the commenters all supported
truncating the test data at the point the dummy interacts with the
vehicle interior and after the dummy's head had cleared the air bag. In
the alternative, Nissan supported truncating the data in both the
barrier tests and the low-risk deployment tests at 100ms.
DaimlerChrysler, who commented only on the time-frame related to low-
risk deployment tests, noted that it was possible for peak injury
criteria to be reached after 100 ms because of low output initiator
delay times. Accordingly, it suggested that the data for all
deployments be truncated at 300 ms or when the dummy ceases to be in
contact with the air bag, whichever occurs first.
Traditionally, we have not counted data that is recorded as the
result of the dummy's head neck or torso striking the vehicle interior
when the dummy is no longer engaged in the air bag. We continue to
believe, as apparently do commenters, that the air bag is neither
responsible for these injury values nor could the air bag have
prevented these interactions with the vehicle compartment. However, we
are concerned that truncating the data to the point at which the
occupant is no longer engaged in the air bag is insufficiently
objective for compliance purposes. While we intend to retain our
existing policy on considering the location of the dummy relative to
the vehicle interior and the air bag at the time peak injury
measurements are recorded, we have decided to keep the time parameters
for measuring data at specific level. Accordingly, data will be
collected until 300 ms after the vehicle strikes the barrier in a
dynamic crash.
Based on DaimlerChrysler's observation and our knowledge of low
risk deployment technologies, we agree that a 100 ms time-frame for the
low risk deployment test may be too small. Consequently, the parameters
for truncating data for the low risk deployment tests have been changed
to the same parameters used for the barrier tests, i.e., 300 ms after
the air bag deploys.
H. Cruise Controls
In the SNPRM, we proposed to require that cruise controls be
deactivated when any stage of an air bag system is deployed, and
included a brief procedure to test whether this requirement was met. We
noted that if the cruise control were not deactivated, it would
continue to provide power to the vehicle, which could lead to a runaway
condition.
Only Consumers Union supported our proposal, stating a deactivated
cruise control is a basic safety measure. AAM and DaimlerChrysler
stated that we had not demonstrated a safety need for such a
requirement and the proposed test procedure could make cruise control
systems less reliable than they are currently. According to AAM, none
of its members is aware of a single report of a cruise control
remaining operational after an air bag deployment following a crash.
DaimlerChrysler also noted that under most crash conditions, the cruise
control is usually already deactivated by the time the air bag deploys,
either because the vehicle's speed has fallen below a certain threshold
or because the brakes have been applied. Additionally, cruise control
systems generally requires a certain level of speed to operate, making
compliance testing exceptionally difficult.
We agree with AAM and DaimlerChrysler that there is no need to
regulate cruise control interaction with air bags at this time. We also
are unaware of any instances where the cruise control remained on after
an air bag deployed. It appears that manufacturers have already
resolved this potential scenario. Finally, the addition of a test
procedure could add additional complexity and potential unreliability
to an already complex system. Accordingly, while we believe that the
cruise control should deactivate when an air bag deploys, we do not
believe this is an area currently in need of regulation.
I. Rescue Operations
In the SNPRM, we proposed to require that all air bags become
deactivated after a maximum one-minute ``keep alive'' period has
elapsed after the vehicle battery power is disconnected. We proposed a
brief procedure to test whether this requirement was met. The purpose
of this requirement was to ensure that rescue workers have a
standardized method and time for deactivating air bags, to neutralize
any potential danger they may face. We noted that the air bags in most
vehicles are deactivated within a minute or less after battery power is
disconnected.
Commenters generally supported the concept of having air bags
automatically deactivate one to two minutes after a vehicle's battery
power is shut off, although the NTSB argued that the deactivation time
should be closer to ten seconds. AAM, Toyota, and DaimlerChrysler
questioned the need for a requirement at all, since most manufacturers
already deactivate the air bag within one to two minutes after the
power is cut off. These commenters, along with AORC, Nissan, Delphi and
TRW, all raised concerns over the proposed test procedure.
Specifically, the commenters were concerned that the addition of an air
bag firing voltage terminal to measure voltage changes within the air
bag electrical system may actually cause unknown air bag deployment
problems adversely affecting the system's overall safety effectiveness.
We continue to believe that a short air bag deactivation time would
eliminate confusion and unnecessary delays in rescue work. We also
believe that a period of one minute or less is appropriate. It is
sufficiently short to assist in rescue operations but not so brief as
to create design problems for manufacturers. We are concerned, however,
that any test procedure that would allow us to objectively measure when
the air bag has been deactivated could cause unnecessary complexity in
the air bag system and potentially reduce system reliability. As noted
in the preamble and cited by commenters, the air bags in most vehicles
are deactivated within one minute or less after battery power is
disconnected. Since most vehicles already meet the proposed timing, we
are not convinced
[[Page 30729]]
that there is a sufficient need to regulate this issue at this time.
However, we urge manufacturers who do not design their air bag
systems to shut off within one minute of power being cut off to work on
reducing the time before such deactivation. Given the ability of most
manufacturers to meet this time frame in existing vehicles, we do not
believe this would pose a significant design challenge. Rescue
personnel do not have the time or the resources to determine at a crash
scene when an undeployed air bag will deactivate once power is cut off.
A measure of uniformity in this area is desirable.
J. Hybrid III Dummy Neck
In the SNPRM, we requested comments on two issues related to the
Hybrid III dummy neck.
First, we noted that there have been crash test situations where
the agency has observed high neck moments being generated at the upper
load cell of the Hybrid III dummy neck within 20 milliseconds of the
initiation of large neck shear loads without observing substantial
angular deformation of the dummy neck. We stated that while we believe
that these are true loads being generated by the restraint system and
not artifacts of an inappropriately designed neck transducer, we were
uncertain whether this loading condition is biomechanically realistic.
We requested commenters' views on this issue.
Second, we sought comments on the appropriate channel frequency
class (CFC) for evaluating data from neck load cells for injury
assessment purposes and whether that CFC should depend on the impact
environment (e.g., vehicle crash tests, out-of-position tests, etc.).
Several commenters noted that they did observe the high moment/low
rotation loading condition and one, DaimlerChrysler, offered test data
to suggest that the dummy's neck design does not follow established
biomechanical response corridors. However, none of the commenters,
including DaimlerChrysler, provided the agency with any additional data
to justify or develop alternative dummy neck response requirements that
either verify the responses of the current Hybrid III design or provide
the basis for improving it.
Because of the need to minimize the likelihood of neck injuries and
lack of testing alternatives, we will use the current Hybrid III neck
designs in the final rule. However, we will immediately establish new
and accelerate existing research and development efforts to further
address this issue.
As to filtering, AAM and DaimlerChrysler stated that they believe
that the filters specified by SAE J211 are appropriate for evaluating
neck injury and that sources of the spikes/noise need to be identified
and eliminated.
We agree with the commenters' suggestion that the SAE filter
specifications for the individual neck loads are sufficient for
evaluating neck injury potential. The sources of noise do not appear to
be inherent in the dummy neck design, but rather are caused by
incorrect assembly/maintenance of a specific dummy or by procedural
variances which need to be corrected at the testing laboratories.
However, because Nij combines the neck bending moment and the neck
axial force which have different channel frequency classes (CFC 600 for
moment, CFC 1000 for axial force), we believe it is more appropriate to
have a pure channel class frequency of 600 for Nij. Thus, we are
specifying that a CFC 600 be used for computing the axial force
component of Nij, and CFC 1000 for computing the peak axial neck
forces. Because J211 does not require phaseless filters for frequency
channel classes above 200, we have specified that all measurements be
conducted with phaseless filters.
K. Seating Procedure for 5th Percentile Adult Female Dummy
Earlier in this notice, we discussed the issue of where the 5th
percentile adult female dummy should be located during crash tests;
i.e., with the seat full forward or in some other position. A related
issue is what seating procedure to use for positioning that dummy.
In the SNPRM, we proposed a seating procedure that was developed
considering the work performed by the SAE Hybrid III 5th Seating
Procedure Task Group and by NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center
(VRTC). The 50th percentile Hybrid III adult male dummy is the only
dummy currently used for Standard No. 208 compliance crash testing. For
that testing, the dummy is positioned according to S10 of the standard.
As part of that procedure, the H-point of the dummy is located using
the manikin and procedures in SAE Standard J826.
For the 5th percentile adult female dummy, we proposed a different
seating procedure which does not use a manikin. In tests we conducted
for positioning the 5th percentile adult female dummy, it made little
difference whether a manikin was used or not. The proposed non-manikin
procedure also made it easier to repeatedly position the 5th percentile
adult female dummy.
We are adopting the seating procedure we proposed in the SNPRM.
Although we have reviewed the proposed SAE seating procedure for the
5th percentile adult female in a dynamic crash test, we have decided
against adopting this procedure because it has not yet been adopted by
the SAE and may not be adopted, in any form, for some time. If the SAE
does ultimately adopt a seating procedure that is different from the
one we are adopting today, we will review that procedure and consider
replacing our procedure.
L. Deletion of Tests Between the Initial and Supplemental Proposals
Several commenters raised concerns about the deletion of several
tests in the SNPRM that were proposed in the NPRM.
Public Citizen, CAS and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
expressed concern about deletion of rough road tests. AAP stated that
the agency's rationale that this is an area that vehicle manufacturers
will consider and address in the absence of Federal requirements could
be used to justify elimination of all test requirements. AAP stated it
does not think it is appropriate to eliminate safety tests related to
obvious potential performance problems, particularly in cases where the
consequences of performance failure could easily be the death of
infants, children and adolescents.
Commenters also raised concerns about deletion of the proposed
vehicle integrity requirements and the option for a full scale dynamic
out-of-position test.
We note that we dropped each of these requirements in part because
of problems with the proposed test procedures. A specific explanation
for dropping each of the requirements is set forth in the SNPRM.
While rough road performance is certainly important, we do not
believe there is any evidence that this is likely to be a real world
problem. It would also be difficult to develop a test procedure that
would assure that a dummy responded like a human to the forces imparted
by a rough road. Indeed, the procedure we had proposed in the NPRM
turned out to be impractical and did not accomplish its objective.
Given our limited resources, we do not believe there is a need at this
time to develop test procedures in this area.
As to the option for a full scale dynamic out-of-position test, we
believe that other options included in today's final rule accommodate
the various
[[Page 30730]]
advanced air bag technologies under development.
While vehicle integrity is important, this is an area that is not
directly related to advanced air bags, and we believe it is best
addressed outside of that context.
M. Consideration of Unintended Consequences
Some commenters raised concerns about the possibility of unintended
consequences resulting from use of advanced air bag technologies.
In a joint comment, CEI/CA stated that they were concerned that we
had not required extensive real world testing of the complex air bag
systems that would be necessary to meet an advanced air bag standard.
Those organizations argued that the absence of such data at the time of
the original air bag mandate unexpectedly resulted in scores of air
bag-induced deaths to children and other occupants.
CEI/CA also expressed concern that there have been large numbers of
air bag-related recalls to remedy problems that testing alone failed to
anticipate, such as weather-induced deterioration, and production and
technological problems. They argued that the fact that these problems
arose for the current generation of air bags indicates that the more
complex systems envisioned by NHTSA will be even more prone to trouble.
CEI/CA argued that we should give consideration to the possibility
of merely approving, rather than mandating, advanced air bags.
As noted above, CEI/CA argued also that NHTSA's existing air bag
experience should lead it to reject any mandate requiring technology
and designs that are still under development. At a minimum, according
to CEI/CA, the agency should establish requirements will not take
effect until real-world data on such systems exists and has been
analyzed. To the extent that it is statutorily constrained on this
matter, it should set lead times at the absolute statutory maximum.
Congressman David M. McIntosh similarly expressed concern that this
rulemaking is being conducted too quickly, without real world data on
how advanced air bags operate. He characterized the original mandating
of air bags as rushing into uncharted territory and said that before
repeating that mistake, we should perform extensive real world trials
on advanced air bags.
As noted earlier in this final rule, the history of this agency's
consideration of air bags is actually a very long one, having begun
with a public meeting in 1969. Air bags were not mandated until 1991,
when Congress enacted a law mandating that NHTSA amend its occupant
protection standard to require the installation of air bags, thus
eliminating the option of installing other types of automatic restraint
systems such as automatic belts. Between those two events, there were
more than 20 years of public proceedings, research projects and
analyses conducted by NHTSA on the issue of air bags, research
conducted by the vehicle manufacturers, the installation of air bags in
10s of 1,000s of vehicles, and the announcement by vehicle
manufacturers of plans for installing them in many more.
To solve the problems that arose in the mid-1990s with many of the
air bags installed in motor vehicles, the agency announced a
comprehensive plan in November 1996. The plan set forth an array of
immediate, interim and long term measures. The immediate and interim
measures focused on behavioral changes and relatively modest
technological changes. The long term measures focused on more
significant technological changes, i.e., advanced air bag technologies.
The immediate steps included urging parents to place their children in
the rear seat and giving motorists at risk the chance to turn off their
air bags, requiring new labels with eye-catching graphics and colors
and strong, clear warning messages, permitting the installation of
original equipment on-off switches in new vehicles in which young
children could not be placed in a child restraint system in a rear
seating position, and permitting the installation of retrofit on-off
switches to protect people in at-risk groups. Because of the lead time
needed for advanced air bag technologies, NHTSA adopted an interim
measure to accelerate manufacturer efforts to depower their air bags
and make other short term design changes. The agency did this by
permitting manufacturers to certify their vehicles using a sled test
instead of a crash test more closely simulating a real world crash. In
the long term, the agency said that it would conduct rulemaking to
require the installation of advanced air bags.
Since 1996, the agency has been carefully laying the groundwork for
completing the implementation of its comprehensive plan by issuing this
final rule. As noted above, we have made extensive efforts to gather
information and solicit public comments that would help us identify and
select a sensible, effective array of requirements for increasing
protection and minimizing risk. In February 1997, we held a public
technical workshop on advanced air bag technologies. In December 1997,
we sent an Information Request (IR) to the vehicle manufacturers to
obtain detailed information concerning their changes in air bag design
during the 1990s. In April 1998, Jet Propulsion Laboratories completed,
at NHTSA's request, a report titled ``Advanced Air Bag Technology
Assessment.'' In mid-1998, Congress made the judgment that advanced air
bags should be required. It enacted TEA 21 mandating that we amend our
occupant protection standard again, this time to require vehicle
manufacturers to improve the protection provided by air bags and to
reduce the risks associated with them by means that include advanced
air bag technologies. Although TEA 21 required only that we seek public
comment once on our proposals before taking final action, we asked for
public comment twice. We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
in September 1998, and a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
(SNPRM) in November 1999. To help us thoroughly explore the issues, we
proposed or discussed a variety of alternatives and posed a wide-
ranging array of questions.
Further, before we decided on what to include in this final rule,
we carefully considered the available information and the public
comments, the underlying safety problems, the performance of current
motor vehicles, the ability (including lead time needs) of vehicle
manufacturers to achieve better performance in future motor vehicles,
the air bag technology (including advanced air bag technology)
currently available or being developed, the cost of compliance, and
other factors. We also carefully considered the comments concerning the
costs, benefits and risks associated with each alternative proposal.
As required by the mandate to us in TEA 21, our final rule requires
vehicle manufacturers to improve the protection provided by air bags
and reduce the risks associated with air bags by means that include
advanced air bag technologies. Thus, the final rule is very different
from the one issued in 1984. That final rule mentioned advanced air bag
technologies as a way of addressing concerns about air bags risks, but
did not mandate their use to prevent unintended consequences. This
final rule mandates their use.
This final rule does not, however, mandate the use of particular
advanced air bag technologies. The requirements in the final rule are
performance-based requirements that give vehicle manufacturers the
flexibility they requested to choose which type of advanced air bag
technology they include in the vehicles.
[[Page 30731]]
This final rule establishes requirements and procedures for testing
the ability of advanced air bag systems to protect people in moderate
to high speed crashes and to avoid creating risks in low speed crashes.
There are new detailed test procedures for manufacturers to use in
developing and testing their advanced passenger air bag systems to
ensure that they either do not deploy at all in the presence of a young
child or deploy in a low risk manner. Driver air bags are required to
deploy in a low risk manner.
The final rule contains additional complementary measures for
reducing the likelihood of unintended consequences for front seat
occupants. It retains the existing, strongly worded and brightly
colored warning labels urging motorists to place children in the back
seat and urging everyone to buckle up. We recognize that some motorists
will nevertheless place a child in the front seat. Our final rule
requires that if vehicle is equipped with a passenger air bag system
that turns the air bag off in the presence of a young child, the
vehicle must also have a telltale to inform motorists whether the air
bag has been turned off. Further, we have extended the availability of
OE air bag switches in vehicles in which child restraints cannot be
placed in a rear seat and of retrofit switches for at-risk people.
Finally, we have provided as much lead time as TEA 21 allows for
vehicle manufacturers to comply with the advanced air bag requirements
mandated by that law.
N. Reporting Requirements
Also as with previous phase-ins, we proposed amendments to 49 CFR
Part 585 to establish reporting requirements to allow us to administer
the phase-in and the use of advanced credits. We received no comments
on this proposal and have adopted the changes to Part 585, with several
modifications to clarify the requirements and to account for the
addition of a second phase-in.
O. Use of Children and Adults for Testing Static Suppression Systems
In the SNPRM we proposed to permit manufacturers to use human
beings to check suppression features in light of concerns that current
dummies may not be sufficiently human-like to be recognized by some of
the advanced technologies under development. If a manufacturer selected
this option, the suppression requirements would need to be met at each
of the relevant positions for any human being within a specified
weight/height range for 3-year-old and 6-year-old children, and the air
bag system could not be suppressed when the seat was occupied by a
female within a height/weight range similar to that of a 5th percentile
adult female.
In the SNPRM, we emphasized that these tests simply involve a child
or adult assuming specified positions in the vehicle, with a technician
checking (typically by looking at a light) whether the air bag system
would be activated or deactivated; these tests do not involve deploying
the air bag or moving the vehicle. To ensure absolute safety, we
proposed to require manufacturers selecting this option to provide a
method to assure that the air bag would not deploy during testing; such
assurance could be made by removal of the air bag.
In general, commenters supported the use of humans under the
conditions outlined in the SNPRM at least as a short-term measure.
Manufacturers were generally concerned that the use of humans would
present objectivity and reliability concerns. All of the manufacturers
of vehicles and air bag systems who commented on this option addressed
the industry efforts to develop a new test dummy that better replicates
the human form than the current anthropomorphic test dummies. AORC,
Consumers Union and AAP urged that the air bags be removed during tests
with humans, arguing that removal is the only sure way to eliminate
risk. GM and BMW were concerned that systems designed to recognize
humans might not recognize the anthropomorphic test dummies in the
vehicle crash tests.
GM and IEE stated that the ranges of weight and size provided in
the SNPRM should be tightened, claiming the given range would create
too much variability for a system to accurately detect presence with
sufficient reliability. At the same time, the NTSB, AAP, and Trauma
Link at the Philadelphia Children's Hospital have suggested that we
further expand the height and weight ranges specified in the SNPRM.
We support the initiative industry has taken in developing a new,
more human-like dummy. The prototype for a 5th percentile adult female
dummy has already been developed by FTSS with support from various
vehicle manufacturers. Based on presentations made to the agency, we
believe a prototype for the 6-year-old child dummy will soon follow.
Since we have not yet had an opportunity to study these new dummies, we
are unable to comment on their suitability for suppression
technologies. However, we can note that the dummies currently used in
compliance tests were all designed for use in crash tests, and while
their overall size and weight is representative of the humans they were
designed to replicate, they do not demonstrate the same flexibility,
muscle tone or weight distribution as humans. Once the new dummies have
been fully developed, we will evaluate their suitability for testing
suppression systems. It is our hope that we will soon be able to
eliminate the use of humans as a compliance option for suppression
systems.
As long as humans can be used to meet the suppression test
criteria, it is imperative that the risk to these individuals be
eliminated. This may require manufacturers to physically remove the air
bag. However, manufacturers may be able to eliminate risk without
removing the air bags. If they can do this, we see no need to require
that the air bags be removed.
As for GM's and BMW's concerns that systems designed to recognize
humans may not recognize dummies for crash tests, we note that we
believe vehicles should be designed to protect people rather than test
dummies. However, in order to meaningfully test for compliance to our
standard, the air bag must fire in a crash test. Accordingly,
manufacturers will need to design their systems in such a way that they
can meet the crash test requirements with dummies located in the front
seats.
In order to accommodate designs geared to recognition of people
rather than inanimate objects, we have provided in S4.12 that
manufacturers of vehicles with human recognition systems must provide
NHTSA with information and equipment necessary to circumvent the
suppression system for vehicle crash tests.
We have decided to keep the height and weight ranges proposed in
the SNPRM. As noted above, the use of humans is intended as a temporary
measure and will likely only be used until more human-like dummies can
be developed. Accordingly, we believe it would be inappropriate to
expand the height and weight ranges significantly beyond the height and
weight of the applicable dummies. At the same time, we have decided
against narrowing the height and weight ranges proposed in the SNPRM.
Since suppression systems will ultimately have to work with people, a
system that can only detect the presence of an individual within a
tightly prescribed range would not perform adequately in the real
world.
P. Small Business Concerns
As discussed later in the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis section,
the requirements contained in this final rule may have a significant
impact on a
[[Page 30732]]
number of small businesses, including small volume manufacturers,
multi-stage manufacturers, alterers, seating system suppliers, air bag
sensor and component manufacturers, and dummy manufacturers. Because
today's rule will increase the demand for advanced air bag system
technology as well as dummies and dummy parts (e.g., accelerometers),
we believe that today's rule will have a positive effect on the
manufacturers of these products. We expect that today's rule will have
a more significant impact on small volume manufacturers, multi-stage
manufacturers, alterers, and seating system suppliers.
In the preliminary regulatory flexibility analysis accompanying the
SNPRM, we estimated that the final rule would affect approximately 11
seating systems suppliers which are small businesses. We explained that
these suppliers serve a niche market and estimated that they provide
seats for less than two percent of the vehicles. We explained that
depending on the technology chosen to meet the proposed advanced air
bag rule, these suppliers would need to keep up with emerging
technology.
Bornemann Products Incorporated, a seating component manufacturer,
stated that 98 percent of its sales are to multi-stage vehicle
manufacturers who primarily manufacture individual, custom vehicles.
Bornemann stated that this rule could completely eliminate the
``niche'' market of individual custom vehicles. Bornemann stated that
since original vehicle manufacturers will be reluctant to allow any
changes to their chassis that could affect the air bag system, this
rule would have a significant impact on seating system vendors and
their suppliers (e.g., fabric and trim suppliers, polyurethane
producers, etc.), multi-stage vehicle manufacturers, vendors who supply
these manufacturers with items such as carpet, steel and wood, and
their employees.
Bornemann stated that NHTSA's estimate of 11 seating companies was
incorrect, that the number is closer to 30 and that these 30 businesses
have close to $80,000,000 in sales and employ around 2,500 people.
Bornemann also estimated that the rule would have an impact on the
following small businesses: direct seating system vendors (130 firms
and around 5,000 employees); multi-stage manufacturers (around 250 with
approximately 14,000 employees); and vendors who supply material for
vehicles and seats (around 550 vendors and around 18,000 employees).
Bornemann also stated that a temporary exemption from the rule would
not lead to a permanent resolution of the problem due to the technical
issues involved. Bornemann did not explain what those technical issues
were nor did they explain to what extent they could not be addressed.
Bornemann also did not discuss what specific differences between
existing and future air bag requirements would create technical
problems for them nor did they discuss what specific advanced air bag
technologies would pose the greatest problems for them.
The Coalition of Small Volume Automobile Manufacturers (COSVAM),
RVIA, and NTEA addressed the potential impact the new advanced air bag
requirements would have on small volume manufacturers, multi-stage
manufacturers, and alterers. A discussion of their specific comments as
well as our response to them is included earlier in the section
addressing the rule's phase-in requirements.
We appreciate the technical challenges small volume manufacturers,
multi-stage manufacturers, alterers, and seating system suppliers will
face as a result of the requirements included in today's rule.
Therefore, we have considered whether there were any alternatives
available that could simplify compliance for small businesses without
adversely affecting safety.
RVIA asked that we allow small volume final stage manufacturers and
alterers to certify compliance with a generic sled test pulse. As
explained earlier in today's rule as well as in both the NPRM and
SNPRM, we do not consider sled testing to be an adequate long-term
means of assessing the extent of occupant protection that a vehicle and
its air bag will provide occupants in the real world. Unlike a full
scale vehicle crash test, a sled test does not, and cannot, measure the
actual protection that an occupant will receive in a crash. The test
can measure the limited performance attributes of the air bag, but not
the performance provided by the full air bag system, much less the
combination of the vehicle and its occupant crash protection system. It
is that combination that determines the amount of protection actually
received in a crash. We also note that it would be inconsistent with
the Safety Act to allow multi-stage manufacturers and alterers to
certify compliance with a generic sled test pulse. Under the Safety
Act, we cannot base the applicability of our safety standards on the
circumstances of the manufacturer, such as whether a vehicle is
manufactured in one or more stages. Differences in the applicability of
standards must be based instead on differences between vehicles, such
as the differences between convertibles and sedans.
We note that sled testing is an accepted engineering practice and
nothing precludes manufacturers from using sled tests as a basis for
their certification. We note, however, that sled testing does not test
all of the attributes (such as weight sensing or presence sensing) of
the countermeasures that may be used to comply with the requirements of
today's rule.
In light of the statutory mandates contained in TEA 21, the only
alternative available to address the concerns of small businesses is to
increase the lead time for small volume manufacturers, multi-stage
manufacturers, and alterers. We note that COSVAM, RVIA, and NTEA all
supported such an extension. Further, while we recognize and are
sympathetic to the technical challenges small volume manufacturers,
multi-stage manufacturers, and alterers will face as a result of the
requirements included in today's rule, we emphasize that we have
limited discretion as to how much lead time we can provide. TEA 21
provides that if the phase-in begins on September 1, 2003, the final
rule must become fully effective by September 1, 2006. No exceptions
are given for multi-stage manufacturers, alterers, or small volume
manufacturers.
We acknowledge that there is no guarantee that this solution will
ultimately solve all the technical problems of small businesses. We
have no control over when manufacturers bring into compliance the
vehicles they supply to multi-stage manufacturers during the phase-in
period. In addition, we have no control over the particular advanced
air bag technology vehicle manufacturers will use to comply with the
new requirements (e.g., whether the system will incorporate the seat).
Further, while we recognize that adapting to this technology may
not be easy, it is necessary. Keeping pace with technology is not a new
problem for these manufacturers. Manufacturers regularly incorporate
new technology that improves the safety of their vehicles (e.g.,
antilock brakes). However, to help minimize the economic impact of this
final rule on small businesses, we urge air bag suppliers, chassis
manufacturers, and OEMs to provide these manufacturers with as much
engineering expertise as possible to help them meet the new
requirements, and to keep the overall impacts small.
We note that we are undertaking efforts to address the needs of
multi-stage manufacturers, alterers, and the businesses, such as
Bornemann, that
[[Page 30733]]
supply them. We have established a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee to
develop recommended amendments to the existing NHTSA regulations (49
CFR Parts 567 and 568) governing the certification of vehicles built in
two or more stages to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The
purpose of the amendments would be to assign certification
responsibilities more equitably among the various participants in the
multi-stage vehicle manufacturing process. The Committee will develop
its recommendations through a negotiation process. It consists of
persons who represent the interests that would be affected by any such
amendments, such as first-stage, intermediate and final-stage
manufacturers of motor vehicles, equipment manufacturers, vehicle
converters, testing facilities, trade associations that represent
various manufacturing groups, and consumers. The Committee is
addressing several issues that should, when resolved, assist multi-
stage manufacturers and alterers in complying with today's
requirements. Such issues include, for example: the feasibility and
cost effectiveness of alternate methods (e.g., testing, computer
modeling, or other as-yet-unspecified methods) to ensure compliance of
completed vehicles with requirements of applicable FMVSSs; mechanisms
for incorporating alternate methods of ensuring compliance into these
regulations; mechanisms for sharing costs of testing; and requirements
tailored to the capabilities and circumstances of each class of
vehicles.
Q. Other Issues
1. Ability to Comment Effectively on the Supplemental Proposal
The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) has asserted in section I of its
unpaginated, electronically-filed December 30, 1999 comments that the
agency has engaged in an ``information blackout'' that has hampered the
ability of CAS and others to understand and comment effectively on the
SNPRM. In support of this assertion, CAS has cited both NHTSA's refusal
to disclose materials submitted with claims of confidentiality by the
motor vehicle manufacturers in response to the agency's December 17,
1997 requests for information concerning air bag technology in MY 1990-
1998 light passenger vehicles (information requests) \31\ and alleged
inadequacies in the agency's October 26, 1999 report summarizing those
materials. Air Bag Technology in Light Passenger Vehicles (R&D
Report).\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ The withheld information is currently the subject of
litigation between CAS (represented by Public Citizen Litigation
Group) and NHTSA. All of the vehicle manufacturers that received and
responded to the information requests , as well as several air bag
suppliers, have intervened as defendants. CAS v. NHTSA, D.D.C., No.
99-1759 (GK). The district court issued a decision denying the CAS'
motion for summary judgement and granting NHTSA's and the
intervenors' cross-motion for summary judgement on February 28,
2000.
\32\ On December 16, 1999, the agency published a revised
version of the R&D Report (Revision 1) that contains minor technical
corrections to the October 26, 1999 Report. Revision 1 has been
docketed at NHTSA-1997-2814-62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA disagrees with CAS' general assertion that public commenters
lack sufficient information to participate adequately in this
rulemaking. The R&D Report is a lengthy document, consisting of a four-
page Executive Summary, 37 pages of text and five appendices, that
incorporates six tables and 31 figures. It describes and analyzes in
some detail, but in general terms that do not disclose the identities
of manufacturers or vehicle makes/models, the technology (Section 2.0)
and trends (Section 3.0) in air bag technology during the 1990s. In
addition, the R&D Report describes out-of-position testing conducted by
NHTSA on MY 1996, 1998, and 1999 production vehicles (Section 4.1) and
rigid barrier testing of 13 MY 1998 and 1999 vehicles with redesigned
air bags (Section 4.2), and discusses evolving air bag fatality trends
using data from NHTSA's Special Crash Investigations (SCI) program
(Section 5.0). The agency's conclusion that the R&D Report provides
commenters with ample information on which to base their comments is
borne out by the specificity and sophistication of the comments
submitted by CAS.
NHTSA also disagrees with CAS' more specific assertion that the
absence of a discussion of air bag deployment thresholds in the R&D
Report has inhibited comments on the SNPRM (CAS Comment, Section IA).
Neither the SNPRM nor the NPRM on advanced air bags proposed to set a
minimum deployment threshold limit. Furthermore, we did not receive
information indicating that the vehicle manufacturers changed their
deployment thresholds in response to the agency's March, 1997 sled test
rule. Thus, commenters do not require specific information about
deployment thresholds in order to present arguments in response to the
SNPRM, and the deployment threshold issue is not directly relevant to
this rulemaking action. Moreover, assuming that commenters wish to
discuss deployment thresholds, data on this subject are readily
available to commenters from other accessible sources. Data from
NHTSA's National Accident Sampling System (NASS) that provides
information about the ``delta Vs'' in actual crashes in which air bags
have deployed is publicly available over NHTSA's Website and is widely
used. In addition, information in publicly-available reports prepared
by SCI provides delta-V information for crashes that have resulted in
fatalities. These reports are publicly available and CAS has discussed
these materials with specificity in Section IA and Attachment A of its
comments.
CAS' charges in sections IB and IC of its comments with respect to
alleged absence from the R&D Report of detailed air bag design
information, such as information with respect to the location and
mounting of air bags, folding pattern details, and information about
inflation stages is similarly flawed. Because NHTSA's standards are
performance standards rather than design standards, the agency has not
proposed specific designs in either the NPRM or SNPRM. Thus, air bag
design information at the level of detail desired by CAS is not
necessary in order to comment intelligently on the SNPRM. Moreover,
contrary to CAS' description, the R&D Report does contain considerable
design information. See, e.g., section 3.1 (Trend Analysis) and
Appendix A, which includes 45 pages of detailed charts and graphs.
CAS also has objected to the withholding of the manufacturers'
crash test performance data (other than data concerning testing
performed pursuant to the requirements of Standard No. 208). Again,
this data has been subject to litigation between CAS and the agency.
But, in the R&D Report, at section 4 and Appendix D, NHTSA has provided
the public with data from agency testing on a variety of vehicles using
5th percentile adult female dummies. CAS is obviously aware of these
data; it has cited and discussed them in its comments.
2. Resubmittal of Petition for Rulemaking by Donald Friedman and Carl
Nash
In a joint comment, Carl Nash and Donald Friedman stated that they
believe that attempting to regulate all aspects of air bags may be
counterproductive. They also argued that setting a minimum threshold of
approximately 29 km/h (18 mph) and prohibiting late deployments would
most protect vehicle occupants. We did not propose to set a minimum
threshold as part of this rulemaking. Accordingly, adding such a
requirement to the final rule would be outside of the scope of
[[Page 30734]]
the rulemaking. However, we are requiring that manufacturers meet a low
risk deployment test for drivers and for small children if the air bag
does not suppress. We believe that these requirements will adequately
protect most individuals who could be seriously injured or killed with
current air bags. Likewise, we are requiring manufacturers to meet the
applicable injury criteria in a 40 km/h (25 mph) offset deformable
barrier crash test. As explained earlier in this document, that test is
designed to prevent the late deployments to which Friedman and Nash
object.
In the SNPRM, we denied a petition by Mr. Friedman and Mr. Nash
that would have required manufacturers to develop systems that would
further encourage vehicle occupants to use their safety belts. In
denying the petition, the agency stated that it does not have the legal
authority to require such technology, although we are not discouraging
manufacturers from voluntarily using such technology. The basis for our
rationale is an amendment made to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1974
after NHTSA had amended its occupant protection standard to require
vehicle manufacturers of vehicles equipped with manual seat belts,
instead of automatic protection, to install inducements for belt use.
These inducements were either interlocks that prevented one from
driving the vehicle unless the safety belt was used or buzzers that
sounded continuously until the safety belts were attached.
Friedman and Nash have resubmitted their petition in response to
the SNPRM. As noted in the SNPRM, we do not believe we currently have
the statutory authority to require such devices. Nor do we believe that
requiring any device that is not a buzzer or an interlock is within our
authority, given the 1974 amendment. Accordingly, we are denying their
resubmission. Nevertheless, we agree with Mr. Friedman and Mr. Nash
that in the twenty-five years since that amendment was enacted,
patterns of safety belt usage have changed considerably. We are
planning to monitor the level of public acceptance and effectiveness of
systems that manufacturers are placing in their vehicles to encourage
seat belt use. If it appears that these systems are working, it may be
appropriate to seek to have the 1974 amendment either changed or
repealed.
XIV. Benefits and Costs
The Final Economic Assessment (FEA) provides analyses of the safety
benefits from tests that reduce the risk of injury from air bags in
low-speed crashes, as well as from tests that improve the overall
effectiveness of air bags in high speed crashes. The intent of this
rulemaking is to minimize risks caused by air bags to out-of-position
occupants, especially infants and children, and to improve occupant
protection provided by air bags for belted and unbelted occupants of
all sizes. To achieve these goals, we are requiring vehicles to meet
test procedures that broaden the scope of the current standard to
ensure that occupants are properly protected under a wider variety of
crash circumstances.
The risk of injury from air bags arises when occupants are too
close to the air bag when it inflates. Generally, those most at risk
from injury are infants, young children, and out-of-position drivers.
We estimate that in a fleet fully equipped with pre-model year (MY)
1998 air bags, there would be 46 drivers, 18 infants, 105 children, and
18 adult passengers at risk of being killed by air bags annually
because they were out of position when the air bag deployed in low
speed (25mph delta-v) crashes. We also estimate that if all vehicles
had air bags, 38 drivers, 9 infants, 200 children, and 15 adult
passengers would sustain serious to critical (MAIS 3-5) nonfatal injury
because they were out of position in low severity crashes. A variety of
technologies could be used to prevent these deaths and serious
injuries, including weight or presence sensors to suppress the air bag,
multi-stage inflators, and low risk deployment air bags.
To address these concerns, the new suppression and low risk
deployment tests employ crash dummies representing infants, 3-year-old
children, 6-year-old children, and 5th percentile female drivers. These
tests generally require either that the air bag be suppressed if
certain risk conditions exist or that deployments occur at levels that
produce a low probability of injury risk.
Of the 187 potential at-risk fatalities, NHTSA estimates that
suppression technologies could prevent up to 93 fatalities, low-risk
air bags could prevent up to 154 fatalities, and multi-stage inflation
systems could prevent up to 179 fatalities when combined with weight
sensors used to suppress the air bag. Thus, more than 95 percent of the
at-risk population in low speed deployments could be protected by
technologies used to meet the test requirements. Of the 262 serious but
nonfatal injuries, suppression technologies could prevent 151 injuries,
low-risk air bags could prevent 191 injuries, and multi-stage inflation
systems could prevent up to 252 injuries when combined with a weight
sensor.
There is some question about the reliability of suppression and low
risk deployment countermeasures and further development of these
countermeasures is necessary. To the extent that these systems are not
as reliable as assumed, children and small adults would continue to be
at risk. Even if suppression and low risk deployment technologies are
completely reliable, there will remain some out-of-position individuals
subject to the full force of the air bag under certain circumstances.
The risks to out-of-position individuals could be greater with an air
bag designed to provide a 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted performance
compared to an air bag designed to provide 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted
performance.
The FEA also analyzes three alternative sets of high speed tests
instituted to preserve and enhance air bag protection. Each test
includes belted and unbelted frontal rigid barrier tests using 5th
percentile adult female and 50th percentile adult male crash dummies,
30 degree oblique tests into a rigid barrier using unbelted 50th
percentile adult male dummies, and 40 percent offset frontal deformable
barrier tests using 5th percentile adult female dummies. Alternative 1
would require an unbelted 32 to 40 km/h (20 to 25 mph) frontal rigid
barrier test, while Alternative 2 would require an unbelted 32 to 48
km/h (20 to 30 mph) frontal rigid barrier test. Both alternatives would
require a belted 0 to 48 km/h (0 to 30 mph) frontal rigid barrier test.
Alternative 3 would require an unbelted 32 to 40 km/h (20 to 25 mph)
frontal rigid barrier test, but would require a belted 0 to 56 km/h (0
to 35 mph) frontal rigid barrier test for the 50th percentile adult
male dummies and a belted 0 to 48 km/h (0 to 30 mph) frontal rigid
barrier test for the 5th percentile adult female dummies. Chapter I of
the FEA provides the detail of the alternative sets of high speed
tests.
A variety of technologies could be used to comply with these tests
including modified air bag fold patterns, improved inflators, added
sensors, multi-stage inflators, and pretensioners. Air bag systems
designed to comply with the 40 km/h (25 mph) offset test would, over
the lifetime of one model year's production, save 20-28 more lives and
prevent 134-262 more nonfatal injuries than the pre-MY 1998 baseline
vehicles. Systems designed to the 48 km/h (30 mph) tests with the 5th
percentile female dummy would save 23 more lives (4 belted and 19
unbelted)
[[Page 30735]]
and prevent 184 more nonfatal injuries (43 belted and 141 unbelted).
Systems that meet the 56 km/h (35 mph) rigid barrier test with the
belted 50th percentile male dummies would save from 0-4 more lives and
prevent 256 to 486 more nonfatal injuries.
Estimates of the relative impact of the unbelted high speed tests
are subject to a degree of uncertainty for several reasons, not the
least of which is the fact that no vehicles were ever subject to a 40
km/h (25 mph) unbelted standard. We cannot estimate the most likely
difference between setting the unbelted tests at the two different
levels, because it depends on how the manufacturers would meet the
alternative performance requirements.
We have discussed in detail our reasons for believing that it is
unlikely that vehicle manufacturers will significantly depower their
air bags compared to the MY 1998-2000 fleet. Vehicle manufacturers have
not depowered their air bags so much that they minimally comply with
the sled test. Crash tests and field experience to date with vehicles
certified to the sled test have indicated that there has not been a
loss of frontal crash protection compared to pre-MY 1998 vehicles. If,
as we expect, the manufacturers keep the same level of power as they
currently have in MY 1998-2000, even with a 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted
test requirement, then the difference in actual benefits between the
two test speeds would be small or even eliminated.
At the same time, we cannot rule out the possibility that air bags
will be significantly depowered. To account for this possibility, we
calculated a ``worst case'' scenario comparing the benefits at the
minimum performance requirements of each speed. We derived point
estimates using two different methods and different sets of
assumptions. We estimate that vehicles designed with 48
km/h (30 mph) air bags could provide 229 or 394 more lives saved than
vehicles designed with minimally compliant 40 km/h (25 mph) air bags.
However, we also estimate that 48 km/h (30 mph) air bags could result
in an additional 1,345 serious injuries \33\ compared to vehicles
designed with 40 km/h (25 mph) air bags. These point estimates do not
necessarily define the full range of possible outcomes due to
uncertainty regarding both data and assumptions under each method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The less aggressive single-stage air bag that can be
designed to a 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted test can result in fewer air
bag caused injuries at low speeds than an air bag designed to a 48
km/h (30 mph) unbelted test. Thus, single-stage air bags designed to
a 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted test can prevent more fatalities, while
single-stage air bags designed to a 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted test
can prevent more injuries. Multi-stage air bags are assumed to
provide the same level of benefits during the first stage, whether
the second stage is designed for a 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted test or
a 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even assuming a worst case scenario, each of the three alternatives
provide more potential benefits than the existing 48 km/h (30 mph)
generic sled test. We estimate that the generic sled test is roughly
equivalent to a 35 km/h (22 mph) rigid barrier perpendicular crash.
During the 1997 rulemaking, we looked at the relative safety
consequences of an air bag designed to just meet the performance
requirements associated with a 48 km/h (30 mph) generic sled test. We
estimated the fatality impacts of designing a vehicle to minimally meet
the performance requirements imposed by the 48 km/h (30 mph) generic
sled test and have compared these to the fatality impacts of designing
a vehicle to just meet the 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted rigid barrier
test. Assuming there is no impact on air bag size, air bags designed to
the 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test would save 64 to 144
more lives than air bags designed to the generic sled test. Assuming
air bags designed to the generic sled test would be reduced in size and
therefore provide no benefit in partial frontal impacts, 282 to 308
more lives could be saved by air bags designed to the 40 km/h (25 mph)
unbelted rigid barrier test because that test requirement includes
testing vehicles at a 30 degree oblique angle, thus providing benefits
in partial frontal impacts.
Potential compliance costs for the final rule vary considerably and
are dependent upon the method chosen by manufacturers to comply.
Methods such as modified fold patterns and inflator adjustments can be
accomplished for little or no cost. More sophisticated solutions such
as proximity sensors can increase costs significantly. Dynamic presence
sensors are not available at this point in time. They have not been
refined to the point that they are in use in vehicles and are not
required by tests in any Alternative. However, they have the potential
to provide more benefits on the passenger side than weight sensors or
low risk air bags. Dynamic presence sensors could be used by
manufacturers to meet the test requirements in the future. As such, the
cost and benefits of these systems have been estimated. The range of
potential costs for the compliance scenarios examined in this analysis
is $21-$128 per vehicle (1997 dollars). This amounts to a total
potential annual cost of up to $2 billion, based on 15.5 million
vehicle sales per year.
Compliance methods that involve the use of suppression technology
have the potential to produce significant property damage cost savings
because they prevent air bags from deploying unnecessarily. This saves
repair costs to replace the passenger side air bag, and frequently to
replace windshields damaged by the air bag deployment. Property damage
savings from these requirements could total up to $85 over the lifetime
of an average vehicle. This amounts to a potential cost savings of $1.3
billion.
XV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
________NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action
under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's
regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking document is
economically significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' The
rulemaking action has also been determined to be significant under the
Department's regulatory policies and procedures. NHTSA is placing in
the public docket a Final Economic Assessment (FEA) describing the
costs and benefits of this rulemaking action. The costs and benefits
are summarized earlier in this document.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
We have considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) We have prepared a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA), which is part of the FEA. The
RFA concludes that the final rule could have a significant, short-term
economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses, but the
economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses need not be
significant in the long run. Small organizations and small governmental
units will not be significantly affected since the potential cost
impacts associated with this rule should only slightly affect the price
of new motor vehicles.
The rule will directly affect motor vehicle manufacturers, second-
stage or final-stage manufacturers, and alterers; and indirectly affect
air bag manufacturers, seating system manufacturers, and dummy
manufacturers.
There are approximately five main suppliers of air bag systems. The
agency does not believe that any are small businesses. In addition, we
believe that there may be some second and third tier
[[Page 30736]]
manufacturers of components of air bags or air bag sensors that are
small businesses. We do not believe, however, that there is a
substantial number of them. Since today's rule will increase the demand
for air bag systems and advanced air bag system technology, we believe
that today's rule will have a positive effect on air bag manufacturers
and on second and third tier manufacturers of air bag components.
There are several manufacturers of dummies and/or dummy parts. All
of them are considered small businesses. While the rule will not impose
any requirements on these manufacturers, we expect it will have a
positive impact on these types of small businesses by increasing demand
for dummies and/or dummy parts (e.g., accelerometers).
For passenger car and light truck manufacturers, we estimate that
there are only about four small manufacturers (SVMs) in the United
States. We believe that these manufacturers, which serve a niche
market, do not manufacture even 0.1 percent of total U.S. passenger car
and light truck production per year. We note that these manufacturers
are already required to certify compliance to Standard No. 208's air
bag requirements under ISTEA. In the past, many of these manufacturers
have petitioned for temporary relief from the air bag requirements on
the basis of economic hardship. We anticipate that these manufacturers
will encounter difficulty certifying compliance with the requirements
being added to Standard No. 208 by today's rule.
In an effort to address the needs of these SVMs, we have decided to
allow them to wait until the end of the phase-in to meet the
requirements of today's rule. This will give SVMs more time to perform
the engineering analysis and generate the compliance data needed to
comply with today's rule. Since the requirements in today's rule will
enhance the safety of vehicles and air bags for infants, children,
small-statured adults and both belted and unbelted occupants, we
believe any delays in compliance should be granted in the narrowest of
circumstances only. We are, therefore, limiting this option to
manufacturers which produce fewer than 5,000 vehicles per year
worldwide.
RVIA asked that final-stage manufacturers be given a one-year
extension after the end of the phase-in for large manufacturers. RVIA
stated that guidance from incomplete vehicle manufacturers is generally
not available until at or very near the startup of new or updated model
production and that, therefore, final stage manufacturers will need at
least one additional year to meet the new requirements.
NTEA supported the proposal to allow multi-stage produced vehicles
to be phased in at the end of the phase-in period. NTEA requested that
the phase-in period run from September 1, 2003 to September 1, 2006.
In the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, we stated that we
knew of 11 businesses that supply seating systems to van converters and
others and that are small businesses. In addition, there are about 10
suppliers of seating systems that are not small businesses. The small
businesses serve a niche market and provide seats for less than two
percent of vehicles. Depending on the technology manufacturers choose
to meet the advanced air bag final rule, these suppliers will have to
keep up with the technology.
Bornemann Products Incorporated is a small business that provides
seating components to second- and final-stage manufacturers and
alterers. Bornemann argued that the cost per vehicle and the impact on
small businesses could be significant. Bornemann stated that this rule
could have a significant impact on the industry that supplies the
``niche'' market of individual custom vehicles. Bornemann's concerns
have been addressed extensively earlier in this document. We refer the
reader to that discussion. Additional information concerning the
projected impacts of today's rule on small entities is presented in the
FEA.
We believe that second- and final-stage manufacturers and alterers
will choose to certify compliance in one of two ways. They will either
(1) rely on suppliers to provide them with the same technology (weight
sensing, seat track sensing, etc.) provided to the OEM manufacturers or
(2) purchase the full seat from the OEM and, leaving the technology in
place, re-upholster the seat. If they rely on manufacturers to supply
them with the same technology, there will be a cost associated with
installing the technology in the seat and assuring compliance (e.g.,
static testing) if they cannot pass through the supplier's
certification. There will also be costs associated with certifying
compliance with the rigid barrier test.
C. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this proposed amendment for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have
any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
The agency has analyzed this rulemaking in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and has
determined that it does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule has no
substantial effects on the States, or on the current Federal-State
relationship, or on the current distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various local officials.
E. Unfunded Mandate Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires 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 for inflation with base year of 1995). This rule will not
have a significant expenditure of funds by State, local and tribal
governments. However, the cost of the Rule will exceed the expenditure
of over $100 million by the private sector. Rather than requiring a
specific technology, this rule allows manufacturers to certify
compliance with the advanced air bag requirements through a combination
of several different technologies. Some of theses technologies, such as
a dynamic suppression system, may be quite expensive. Other
technologies, such as a weight sensor, are relatively cheap. The
decision as to which technology to place in a particular vehicle rests
with the manufacturer of that vehicle. A full assessment of the Rule's
costs and benefits is provided in the FRA.
F. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under section
49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.
[[Page 30737]]
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
In its November 5, 1999 supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking,
NHTSA sought public comment on its estimates of the additional
collection of information burden imposed on the public as a result of
this rulemaking. NHTSA received no comments on the collection of
information issues.
This final rule includes the following ``collections of
information,'' as that term is defined in 5 CFR Part 1320 Controlling
Paperwork Burdens on the Public:
Air Bag Phase-In Reporting Requirements--For the six production
years ending on August 31, 2003, August 31, 2004, August 31, 2005,
August 31, 2007, August 31, 2008, and August 31, 2009, each
manufacturer will be required to report once a year to NHTSA, its
annual production of vehicles with advanced air bags. As previously
explained, the reporting for the initial phase-in period will end with
the information for the production year ending on August 31, 2005 and
the reporting for the second phase-in will end with the information for
the production year ending on August 31, 2009. The Office of Management
and Budget has approved NHTSA's collection of this information,
assigning the collection OMB clearance no. 2127-0599. NHTSA estimates
that 1,260 burden hours a year (on all vehicle manufacturers) would be
imposed as a result of this collection.
Since today's rule specifies a second phase-in period, we will ask
OMB to extend clearance no. 2127-0599 for the additional period of time
that the second phase-in period will last. OMB grants extensions of
collections for no more than three years at a time. We do not believe
that future phase-in report collections will result in burdens on the
public of more than 1,260 burden hours (on all vehicle manufacturers) a
year.
Air Bag Warning Labels--New air bag warning labels are specified in
this final rule. At present, OMB has approved NHTSA's collection of
labeling requirements under OMB clearance no. 2127-0512, Consolidated
Labeling Requirements for Motor Vehicles (Except the Vehicle
Identification Number). This clearance will expire on 6/30/2001, and is
cleared for 71,095 burden hours on the public.
For the following reasons, NHTSA estimates that the new air bag
warning labels would have no net increase in the information collection
burden on the public. There are 24 motor vehicle manufacturers that
will be affected by the air bag warning label requirement, and the
labels will be placed on approximately 15,500,000 vehicles per year.
The label will be placed on each vehicle once. Since, in this final
rule, NHTSA specifies the exact content of the labels, the
manufacturers will spend 0 hours developing the labels. NHTSA estimates
the technical burden time (time required for affixing labels) to be
.0002 hours per label. NHTSA estimates that the total annual burden
imposed on the public as a result of the air bag warning labels will be
3,100 hours (15.5 million vehicles multiplied by .0002 hours per
label). Since the labels specified in this final rule replace existing
labels, no additional burden is imposed on manufacturers.
Advanced Air Bag Information in the Owner's Manual--This final rule
requires advanced air bag information in the owner's manual that is in
addition to the information already required under Standard No. 208. At
present, OMB has approved NHTSA's collection of owner's manual
requirements under OMB clearance no. 2127-0541 Consolidated
Justification of Owner's Manual Requirements for Motor Vehicles and
Motor Vehicle Equipment. This collection includes the burdens that
would be imposed as a result of owners' manual information about air
bags. This clearance will expire on
10/31/2001 and is cleared for 1,371 burden hours a year on all vehicle
manufacturers.
H. 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.
I. Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1,
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language.
Standard No. 208 is extremely difficult to read as it contains multiple
cross-references and has retained all of the requirements applicable to
vehicle of different classes at different times. Because portions of
today's rule amend existing text, much of that complexity remains.
Additionally, the availability of multiple compliance options,
differing injury criteria and a dual phase-in have added to the
complexity of the regulation, particularly as the various requirements
and options are accommodated throughout the initial phase-in. Once the
initial phase-in is complete, much of the complexity will disappear. At
that time, it would be appropriate to completely revise Standard No.
208 to remove any options, requirements, and differentiations as to
vehicle class that are no longer applicable.
J. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by us.
This rulemaking directly involves decisions based on health risks
that disproportionately affect children, namely, the risk of deploying
air bags to children. However, this rulemaking serves to reduce, rather
than increase, that risk.
K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary
consensus standards \34\ in its regulatory activities unless doing so
would be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory
provisions regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise
impractical. In meeting that requirement, we are required to consult
with voluntary, private sector, consensus standards bodies. Examples of
organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards
bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM),
the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available and
potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are required
by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of the
reasons for not using such standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
Technical standards are defined by the NTTAA as ``performance-based
or design-specific technical specifications and related management
systems practices.'' They pertain to ``products and processes, such
as size, strength, or technical performance of a product, process or
material.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 30738]]
We have incorporated the out-of-position tests one and two
developed by the International Standards Organization (ISO) as part of
the proposed low-risk deployment tests for the out-of-position 5th
percentile adult female on the driver-side air bag and for the 6-year-
old child on the passenger-side air bag. We have reviewed the proposed
SAE seating procedure for the 5th percentile adult female in a dynamic
crash test. We have decided against adopting this procedure because it
has not yet been adopted by SAE and may not be adopted, in any form,
for some time. No other voluntary consensus standards are addressed by
this rulemaking.
Appendix A--Glossary
Air Bags--In General
Air bags are inflatable restraints. Enough gas must be pumped
into them to cushion occupants. Otherwise, occupants, especially
large ones, could ``bottom out'' the air bag and hit the vehicle
interior in a crash. Thus, the amount of pressure within air bags
must be carefully controlled. This is done by controlling both the
rate at which gas is pumped into the air bag and the rate at which
the gas is released from the air bag through vents or microscopic
holes in the fabric itself.
Categories of Frontal Air Bags
Advanced air bags. Advanced air bags are air bags that minimize
the risk of serious injury to out-of-position occupants and provide
improved protection to occupants in high speed crashes. They
accomplish this either by incorporating various technologies that
enable the air bags to adapt their performance to a wider range of
occupant sizes and crash conditions and/or by being designed to both
inflate in a manner that does not pose such risk as well as to
provide improved protection. Some of these technologies are multi-
stage inflators, occupant position sensors, occupant weight and
pattern sensors, and new air bag fold patterns. (The inflators and
sensors are explained below.)
Redesigned air bags.\35\ Redesigned air bags are bag systems
used in vehicles that have been certified to the unbelted sled test
option instead of the unbelted crash test option in Standard No.
208. Many of the redesigned air bags in MY 1998 and 1999 vehicles
have less power than the air bags in earlier model years of that
vehicle model. However, the power levels of current air bags vary
widely. For example, the redesigned air bags in some current
vehicles are more powerful than the unredesigned air bags in some
earlier vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ These air bags are also sometimes called depowered air
bags, second generation air bags or next generation air bags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inflators
Inflators are the devices which pump the gas into air bags to
inflate them in a crash.
Single stage inflators. Single stage inflators fill air bags
with the same level of power in all crashes, regardless of whether
the crash is a relatively low or high speed crash.
Multi-stage inflators. Multi-stage inflators (also known as
multi-level inflators) operate at different levels of power,
depending on which stage is activated. The activation of the
different stages can be linked to crash severity sensors. In a
vehicle with dual-stage inflators, only the first stage (lowest
level of power) will be activated in relatively low speed crashes,
while the first and second stages (highest level of power) will be
activated in higher speed crashes. As crash severity increases, so
must the pressure inside the air bag in order to cushion the
occupants.
Sensors
Many advanced air bag systems utilize various sensors to obtain
information about crashes, vehicles and their occupants. This
information is used to adapt the performance of the air bag to the
particular circumstances of the crash. It is used in determining
whether an air bag should deploy and, if it should, and if the air
bag has multiple inflation levels, at what level. Examples of these
sensors include the following:
Crash severity sensors. Crash severity sensors measure the
severity of a crash, i.e., the rate of reduction in velocity when a
vehicle strikes another object. If a relatively low severity crash
is sensed, only the lowest stage of a dual-stage inflator will fill
the air bag; if a more severe crash is sensed, both stages will fill
the air bag, inflating it at a higher level.
Belt use sensors. Belt use sensors determine whether an occupant
is belted or not. An advanced air bag system in vehicles with crash
severity sensors and dual-stage inflators might use belt use
information to adjust deployment thresholds for unbelted and belted
occupants. Since an unbelted occupant needs the protection of an air
bag at lower speeds than a belted occupant does, the air bag would
deploy at a lower threshold for an unbelted occupant. (Deployment
thresholds are explained below.)
Seat position sensors. Seat position sensors determine how far
forward or back a seat is adjusted on its seat track. An advanced
air bag system could be designed so a dual-stage air bag deploys at
a lower level when the seat is all the way forward than it does when
the seat is farther back. This would benefit those short-statured
drivers who move their seats all the way forward.
Occupant weight sensors. Occupant weight sensors measure the
weight of an occupant. An advanced air bag system might use this
information to prevent the air bag from deploying at all in the
presence of children.
Pattern sensors. Pattern sensors evaluate the impression made by
an occupant or object on the seat cushion to make determinations
about occupant presence and the overall size and position of the
occupant. They could also sense the presence of a particular object
like a child seat. An advanced air bag system might use this
information to prevent the air bag from deploying in the presence of
children. An advanced air bag system might utilize both an occupant
weight sensor and an occupant pattern sensor.
Deployment Thresholds
The term deployment threshold is typically used to refer to the
lowest range of rate of reduction in vehicle velocity in a crash at
which a particular air bag is designed to deploy.
No-fire threshold. The no-fire threshold is the crash speed
below which the air bag is designed to never deploy.
All-fire threshold. The all-fire threshold is the crash speed at
or above which the air bag is designed to always deploy.
Gray zone. The gray zone is the range of speeds between the no-
fire and all-fire thresholds in which the air bag may or may not
deploy.
Vehicles with advanced air bags may have different deployment
thresholds for belted and unbelted occupants, e.g., the deployment
threshold may be higher if an occupant is belted. (See belt use
sensors above.)
Crash Tests vs. Sled Tests
In crash tests, instrumented test dummies are placed in a
vehicle which is then crashed into a barrier. Measurements from the
test dummies are used to determine the forces, and estimate the risk
of serious injury, that people would have experienced in the crash.
In sled tests, no crash takes place. The vehicle is placed on a
sled-on-rails, and instrumented test dummies are placed in the
vehicle. The sled and vehicle are accelerated very rapidly backward
by means of a generic acceleration pulse. As the vehicle moves
backward, the dummies move forward inside the vehicle in much the
same way that people would in a frontal crash. The air bags are
manually deployed at a pre-selected time during the sled test.
Measurements from the dummies are used to determine the forces, and
estimate the risk of serious injury, that people would have
experienced if the vehicle experienced that level of deceleration.
Fixed Barrier Crash Tests
All of the crash tests adopted in this final rule are fixed
barrier crash tests, i.e., the test vehicle is crashed into a
barrier that is fixed in place (as opposed to moving). The types of
fixed barrier crash tests are shown in Figure 3.
Rigid barrier test, perpendicular impact. In a rigid barrier,
perpendicular impact test, the vehicle is crashed straight into a
rigid barrier that does not absorb any crash energy. The full width
of the vehicle's front end hits the barrier.
Rigid barrier, oblique impact test. In a rigid barrier, oblique
impact test, the vehicle is crashed at an angle into a rigid
barrier.
Offset deformable barrier test. In an offset deformable barrier
test, one side of a vehicle's front end, not the full width, is
crashed into a barrier with a deformable face that absorbs some of
the crash energy.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 30739]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MY00.002
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
[[Page 30740]]
Crash Pulses
A crash pulse is the graph or picture of how quickly the vehicle
occupant compartment is decelerating at different times during a
crash.
Stiff crash pulses. In crashes with stiff pulses, the occupant
compartment decelerates very abruptly. An example of a crash with a
stiff pulse would be a full head-on crash of a vehicle into a like
vehicle. The perpendicular rigid barrier crash test produces a stiff
crash pulse.
Soft crash pulses. In crashes with soft pulses, the occupant
compartment decelerates less abruptly, compared to crashes with hard
pulses. An example of a crash with a soft pulse would be the crash
of a vehicle into sand-filled barrels such as those seen at toll
booths or at the leading edge of a concrete median barrier. The
offset deformable barrier crash test and the 30 degree oblique rigid
barrier crash test produce soft crash pulses.
In crashes involving comparable reductions in velocity, an
unrestrained occupant would hit the vehicle interior ( i.e.,
steering wheel, instrument panel and windshield) at a much higher
speed in a crash with a stiff pulse than in a crash with a soft
pulse.
Belted and Unbelted Tests
Belted tests use belted dummies, while unbelted tests use
unbelted dummies. Despite increases in seat belt use, nearly 50
percent of all occupants in fatal crashes are unbelted. Unbelted
tests are intended to evaluate the protection provided these
persons, many of whom are teenagers and young adults.
Static Low Risk Deployment Tests
Static out-of-position tests are called ``static'' because the
vehicle does not move during the test. These tests are used to
measure the risk that an air bag poses to out-of-position occupants.
Test dummies are placed in specified positions that are extremely
close to the air bag, typically with some portion of the dummy
touching the steering wheel or instrument panel. The air bag is
deployed. Measurements from the test dummy are used to determine the
forces, and estimate the risk of serious injury, that people would
have experienced in the crash.
Injury Criteria and Performance Limits--In general
In a crash test, sled test, or static out-of-position test,
measurements are taken from the test dummy instruments that indicate
the forces that a person would have experienced under the same
conditions. Standard No. 208 specifies several injury criteria. For
each criterion, the Standard also specifies a performance limit,
based on the level of forces that create a significant risk of
producing serious injury.
Injury Criteria
This final rule adopts performance limits for various injury
criteria to address the risk of several types of injuries. Among
these injury criteria are:
Head Injury Criterion or HIC. Head Injury Criterion or HIC
addresses the risk of head injury;
Nij. Nij addresses the risk of neck injury; and Chest
Acceleration and Chest Deflection. Chest Acceleration and Chest
Deflection address the risk of chest injury.
Test Dummies
This final rule specifies the use of several test dummies to
represent children and adults of different sizes. These dummies are:
12-month old Crash Restraints Air Bag Interaction (CRABI) dummy,
representing an infant;
Hybrid III 3-year-old and 6-year-old child dummies, representing
young children;
Hybrid III 5th percentile adult female dummy, representing a
small woman;
Hybrid III 50th percentile adult male dummy, representing an
average-size man.
Appendix B--Evolution of the Air Bag Provisions in Standard No. 208
The occupant protection requirements in Standard No. 208 have
been evolving for more than 30 years. It is only relatively
recently, however, that vehicle manufacturers have actually been
required to install any air bags. Although vehicle manufacturers
first installed air bags in a small number of vehicles in the mid-
1970s and began installing air bags in a significant number of
vehicles in the mid-1980s, it was not until the mid to late 1990s
(MY 1997) that manufacturers were first required to install any air
bags in any motor vehicle.
We issued our first notice concerning air bags in 1969. 34 FR
11148; July 2, 1969. In response to the low rate of seat belt use,
we amended Standard No. 208 in 1971 to require automatic restraints
(i.e., devices like air bags and automatic belts that protect in
frontal crashes without requiring any action by the occupant) in all
passenger cars in 48 km/h (30 mph) crash tests beginning with MY
1976. 37 FR 3911; February 24, 1972.\36\ In Chrysler Corp. v. DOT,
the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the basic validity of that
requirement, finding it reasonable and practicable, but directed
NHTSA to issue more precise test dummy specifications in order to
achieve greater objectivity. After complying with that directive,
NHTSA proposed automatic restraint requirements in 1974. We did not
take final action on that proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Passenger cars manufactured between August 1973 and August
1975, could meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 208 through any of
three options, two of which were for automatic restraints. One of
the automatic restraint options required automatic protection in
frontal crashes and required manual seat belts at each designated
seating position. The other automatic restraint option required
automatic protection in frontal, side and rollover crashes and did
not require any seat belts in the vehicle. The other option was for
manual seat belts. Cf. 49 CFR 571.208 S4.1.2. These options were
later extended in several rulemakings to August 31, 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead, after issuing a new notice in 1976 (41 FR 24070; June
14, 1976) seeking comment on a variety of alternative actions
including promoting seat belt use laws, requiring automatic
restraints, and initiating a field test of automatic restraints, the
Department decided in early 1977 to initiate a field test of
automatic restraints. Pursuant to that decision, contracts were
negotiated with vehicle manufacturers for the voluntary offering for
sale of 500,000 automatic restraint passenger cars. It was
anticipated that those passenger cars would be equipped with air
bags.
However, this field test was never completed. Instead, in mid-
1977, the Department decided to go ahead and once again mandate
automatic restraints in passenger cars. 42 FR 34289; July 5, 1977.
The requirements were to be phased in, beginning in MY1983. However,
in 1981, NHTSA rescinded the requirements because it said that it
was unable to find that more than minimal safety benefits would
result from the vehicle manufacturers' plan to comply with the
requirements by installing detachable automatic belts instead of air
bags. 46 FR 53419; October 29, 1981.
In June 1983, the Supreme Court held that NHTSA's rescission of
the automatic restraint requirements was arbitrary and capricious.
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983). In particular, the
Court found the agency had failed to present an adequate basis and
explanation for rescinding the requirement.
The Court unanimously found that, even if the agency was correct
that detachable automatic belts would yield few benefits, that fact
alone would not justify rescission. Instead, it would justify only a
modification of the requirement to prohibit compliance by means of
that type of automatic restraint. The Court also unanimously held
that having concluded that detachable automatic belts would not
result in significantly increased usage, NHTSA should have
considered requiring that automatic belts be continuous (i.e.,
nondetachable) instead of detachable, or that Standard No. 208 be
modified to require the installation of air bags.
In response to the Supreme Court's decision, the Department
issued a proposal in late 1983 seeking public comment on an array of
alternatives similar to those in the Department's 1976 notice. 48 FR
48622; October 19, 1983. Among those alternatives was mandating air
bags.
However, when the Department issued a rule in 1984, it did not
establish such a mandate. Instead, it required that some type of
automatic restraint be installed in passenger cars. Thus, the
manufacturers had a choice of a variety of methods of providing
automatic protection, including automatic seat belts and air bags,
as long as certain specified performance requirements were met in a
48 km/h (30 mph) crash test into a rigid barrier using 50th
percentile adult male dummies. Further, the requirements gave
vehicle manufacturers broad flexibility in selecting the design and
performance characteristics of their automatic restraints as long as
they met the performance requirements.
The Department expressly recognized in its 1984 rule that the
vehicle manufacturers had raised concerns about potential adverse
effects of air bags to out-of-position occupants. In response to
those concerns, the Department identified a variety of technological
concepts for addressing those risks. See the July 11, 1984 Final
Regulatory
[[Page 30741]]
Impact Analysis, pp. III-8 to 10.\37\ The flexibility provided by
the 1984 rule included the opportunity for vehicle manufacturers to
develop and incorporate those technologies, now known as advanced
air bag technologies. However, that rule (unlike the one being
adopted today) did not adopt any regulatory provisions requiring or
encouraging the use of those technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ The July 11, 1984 Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA)
listed a variety of potential technological means for addressing the
problem of injuries associated with air bag deployments including
dual level inflation systems and other technological measures such
as bag shape and size, instrument panel contour, aspiration, and
inflation technique. It also noted that a variety of different
sensors could be used to trigger dual level inflation systems, e.g.,
a sensor that measures impact speed, a sensor that measures occupant
size or weight and senses whether an occupant is out of position;
and an electronic proximity sensor.
For the most part, the introduction of these technologies in new
motor vehicles did not begin until the late 1990's. A number of the
vehicle manufacturers are known to be working now very actively on
an array of advanced air bag technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The automatic protection requirements were phased in, beginning
with MY 1987. Later, the requirements were extended to light trucks,
beginning with MY 1995.
A number of vehicle manufacturers initially chose to comply with
those requirements by installing automatic belts in many of their
vehicles. However, ultimately, the early decisions of some
manufacturers to install air bags as standard equipment and the
positive response of the market to those decisions led to a general
move within the industry toward installing air bags in many
passenger cars and light trucks by the early 1990's.
In 1991, Congress included a provision in the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) directing us to amend Standard
No. 208 to require that all passenger cars and light trucks provide
automatic protection by means of air bags.\38\ ISTEA required air
bags in all passenger cars beginning with MY 1998, and in all light
trucks beginning with MY 1999. We published the rule implementing
this mandate on September 2, 1993 (58 FR 46551).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ TEA 21 is thus the second Congressional act narrowing the
discretion provided by the Department's 1984 rule regarding
automatic protection. That rule mandated automatic protection, but
explicitly provided discretion with respect to the type of automatic
protection (e.g., automatic seat belts and air bags), and implicitly
allowed the use of advanced air bag technologies.
ISTEA mandated the installation of air bags. TEA 21 mandates the
use of advanced air bag technologies or other means to reduce air
bag-induced risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like the automatic restraint requirements issued in 1984, the
air bag requirements issued in 1993 were performance requirements
that did not specify the design of an air bag system. Instead, they
gave vehicle manufacturers substantial design flexibility. They
permitted, but did not require, vehicle manufacturers to develop and
use advanced air bag technologies in designing their air bags to
minimize the risks from air bags, in particular, the risk of serious
injury to unbelted, out-of-position occupants, including children
and small drivers.
Thus, the manufacturers had significant freedom under Standard
No. 208 to develop and install means of protecting the wide variety
of occupants under a broad range of crash conditions, such as the
types of crashes, the crash speeds at which the air bags deploy, the
initial direction in which they deploy, the force with which they
deploy, the time of deployment during the crash, air bag tethering
and venting to control inflation force when a deploying air bag
encounters an occupant close to the steering wheel or dashboard, the
use of sensors to suppress air bag inflation in the presence of
rear-facing child restraints or the presence of small children, the
use of sensors to detect occupant position to prevent air bag
inflation if appropriate, and the use of multi-stage inflators to
adjust air bag force to the crash situation. Multi-stage inflators
allow tailoring of air bag performance to match the circumstances of
a crash. For example, air bag deployment can be tailored in response
to crash severity so that force levels are lower in less severe
crashes than they are in more severe crashes. The less severe
crashes are the type of crashes in which full force is not needed
and in which air bag-induced fatalities to out-of-position occupants
have occurred.
Until March 1997, the injury criteria limits in Standard No. 208
had to be met for air bag-equipped vehicles in barrier crashes at
speeds up to 48 km/h (30 mph), with the 50th percentile adult male
dummies wearing seat belts, and in separate barrier crashes at those
speeds with dummies unbelted. Then, however, concerns about the
rising number of air bag-induced fatalities led us to publish a rule
(62 FR 12960; March 19, 1997) providing manufacturers with the
option of certifying the air bag performance of their vehicles with
an unbelted dummy in a sled test incorporating a 125 millisecond
standardized crash pulse instead of in a vehicle-to-barrier crash
test. We adopted this amendment for two principal reasons. First,
the lead time for reducing a significant portion of the risk of air
bag-induced fatalities through reducing the force of air bags as
they deploy (i.e., depowering) was shorter than the lead time for
addressing those risks through developing and installing advanced
air bag technologies. Second, allowing manufacturers to use the less
stringent, less expensive and easier to conduct sled test made it
easier to maintain compliance with Standard No. 208 while depowering
their air bags and making other design changes. This shortened the
lead time for depowering, compared to the time it would have taken
to recertify vehicles with depowered air bags using a barrier crash
test.
In the March 1997 rule, we specified that the sled test option
would terminate on September 1, 2001. We concluded that there was no
need to reduce Standard No. 208's performance requirements
permanently, based on our belief in 1997 that advanced air bag
technologies could be incorporated into new vehicles by 2001 and
thus enable manufacturers to reduce air bag risks while continuing
to meet the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted barrier crash test.
The September 1, 2001 sunset date for the sled test option was
superseded by a provision in TEA 21. In a paragraph titled
``Coordination of Effective Dates,'' TEA 21 provides that the
unbelted sled test option ``shall remain in effect unless and until
changed by [the final rule for advanced air bags].''
Appendix C--Chronology of DOT and NHTSA Responses to Air Bag Risks and
Fatalities
A. Introduction
As the following chronology demonstrates, DOT/NHTSA have
repeatedly and publicly addressed the issue of risk to out-of-
position occupants from air bags in regulatory decisions about
automatic restraints and air bags for more than 20 years. More
important, concerns about that issue helped to shape the DOT/NHTSA
regulatory decisions during 1980s and 1990s.
B. Chronology
In its 1977 rule requiring automatic restraints, the Department
discussed the possibility of ``side effects of air bag
installation'' at length. That discussion included the issue of
risks for out-of-position occupants. 42 FR 34289; July 5, 1977.
In 1981, Minicars, Inc., a NHTSA research contractor, issued
reports on the successful efforts to build and test devices,
including dual-stage inflators, for controlling passenger air bag
inflation so as to avoid harming out-of-position children.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ ``Small Car Front Seat Passenger Inflatable Restraint
System (Vol. I--Chevette and Omni),'' ``Small Car Front Seat
Passenger Inflatable Restraint System (Vol. II--Citation),''
``Upgrade Volvo Production Restraint System.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In deciding in 1984 to issue rule requiring automatic
restraints, the Department considered vehicle manufacturer comments
that air bags would pose risks to out-of-position occupants,
particularly in small cars. The lack of experience with the
technical means for addressing those risks was one of the reasons
expressly cited by the Department for rejecting the alternative of
mandating air bags. 49 FR 28962, at 29001; July 17, 1984.
While the Department noted in the 1984 rule that use of
technical solutions such as sensors to adjust deployment could
lessen the problem, it said that it could not ``state for certain
that air bags will never cause injury or death to a child.'' As
discussed above, other technical solutions were identified in the
Final Regulatory Impact Analysis for that rule, including dual-stage
inflation systems and other technological measures such as bag shape
and size, instrument panel contour, aspiration, and inflation
technique. It also noted that a variety of different sensors could
be used to trigger dual-stage inflation systems.
In 1985, NHTSA denied petitions for reconsideration of the 1984
rule. NHTSA noted that the 1984 ``final rule acknowledged concerns
about the effects of air bag systems on out-of-position occupants;
however, it also explained that technical solutions are available to
address the out-of-position occupant problem.'' NHTSA said that
[[Page 30742]]
concerns about air bag risks and a variety of other factors led to
the Department's decision not to mandate air bags for all cars. 50
FR 35233, at 35234; August 30, 1985.
Two years later, in 1987, NHTSA amended Standard No. 208 to
delay the requirement for any type of automatic restraint for the
passenger seating position in a passenger car if the car had a
driver air bag. This action was taken in response to a petition by
Ford. The agency said that the length of the delay was based on the
time that the vehicle manufacturers said was necessary to complete
the development and installation of passenger air bags. Ford said in
its petition that there were a number of uncertainties, including
technical problems, concerning the development of those air bags.
Ford said that it was concerned that passenger air bags could pose
risks for standing children and other occupants who are out of
position due, for example, to pre-crash braking. It said, however,
that it expected to solve these problems if its petition were
granted so that it could proceed in an orderly, controlled manner to
gain experience with passenger-side applications. 52 FR 10096; March
30, 1987.
In 1991, NHTSA issued a rule amending Standard No. 201, Occupant
Protection in Interior Impact, 49 CFR 571.201, to facilitate
installation of top-mounted, vertically deploying passenger air
bags. This rulemaking was conducted in response to a petition by
Chrysler, which said that this type of air bag would reduce the
risks for standing children and out-of-position occupants. Ford and
GM supported the petition and concurred that these air bags had the
potential for reducing risks to out-of-position children and adults.
56 FR 26036; June 6, 1991.
Also in 1991, NHTSA issued a Consumer Advisory warning owners of
rear-facing child seats not to use such a restraint in the front
seat of a vehicle equipped with a passenger air bag. This warning
was based on preliminary results of testing regarding this problem.
At that time, no casualties to infants had occurred.
In the 1993 rule implementing the air bag mandate in ISTEA,
NHTSA required vehicles equipped with air bags to bear labels on the
sun visors providing four specific cautions, including a statement
not to install rearward-facing child seats in front passenger
positions, and advising the occupant to see the owner's manual for
further information and explanations. 58 FR 46551; September 2,
1993.
In 1994, NHTSA issued a rule amending Standard No. 213, Child
Restraint Systems, to require rear-facing child seats to bear a
warning against using the restraint in any vehicle seating position
equipped with an air bag. 59 FR 7643; February 16, 1994.
In 1995, NHTSA issued a rule allowing manufacturers to install a
manual device that motorists could use to deactivate the front
passenger-side air bag in vehicles in which rear-facing child seats
can only fit in the front seat. 60 FR 27233; May 23, 1995. On
October 27, 1995, in response to several fatalities to improperly-
restrained children in air bag-equipped positions, NHTSA issued a
strong warning in a press release. This release broadened the
previous agency warnings about young children to apply to older
children and even adults who may ride unrestrained.
In 1996, the agency issued a rule requiring improved labeling on
new vehicles and child restraints to provide greater assurance that
drivers and other occupants are aware of the dangers posed by
passenger air bags to children, particularly to children in rear-
facing infant restraints in vehicles with operational passenger air
bags. 61 FR 60206; November 27, 1996.
In 1997, the agency took three important steps to address air
bag risks through vehicle safety rulemaking. First, we issued a rule
extending until September 1, 2000, the existing provision permitting
vehicle manufacturers to offer manual on-off switches for the
passenger air bag for new vehicles without rear seats or with rear
seats that are too small to accommodate rear-facing infant
restraints. 62 FR 798; January 6, 1997. Second, we issued a rule
temporarily amending Standard No. 208 to facilitate efforts of
vehicle manufacturers to redesign their air bags quickly so that
they inflate less aggressively. This change, coupled with the broad
flexibility already provided by the standard's existing performance
requirements, provided the vehicle manufacturers maximum flexibility
to reduce the adverse effects of current air bags quickly. 62 FR
12960; March 19, 1997. Third, we issued a rule exempting, under
certain conditions, motor vehicle dealers and repair businesses from
the ``make inoperative'' prohibition of 49 U.S.C. 30122 by allowing
them to install retrofit manual on-off switches for air bags in
vehicles owned by people whose request for a switch had been
authorized by NHTSA. 62 FR 62406; November 21, 1997.
Appendix D--Installation of Advanced Technologies in Current Production
Motor Vehicles
A. Introduction
The level of risk of air bag-induced fatalities depends to a
significant extent on air bag system design. There are various
advanced air bag technologies that have been or are being developed
and that, if incorporated in air bag systems, can improve protection
of occupants of different sizes, belted and unbelted, and minimize
the risks from air bags.\40\ For example, an air bag need not be
designed so that it inflates with full force under all
circumstances. Dual-stage inflators can be used in combination with
various types of sensors (e.g., crash severity, seat position, and
belt use) and improved algorithms to adjust the deployment threshold
or air bag inflation pressure and pressure rise rate and thereby
reduce risk. Different folding patterns and aspiration designs, as
well as systems that suppress air bag deployment altogether in
appropriate circumstances, also could reduce risk. For example,
higher speed deployment thresholds could prevent deployment in low
speed crashes, and weight sensors could be used to prevent
deployment when children are present. In addition, recessed air bag
modules, compartmentalized and internally-tethered air bags, bias
flaps, and low break-out force covers could make deploying air bags
more benign for out-of-position occupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Air bag systems are only one of many automotive
applications of increasingly sophisticated technology. Equally
sophisticated technology is being used in many other existing
vehicle systems as well as in entirely new ones. Examples include
backup obstacle detection warning systems, adaptive cruise controls,
rollover sensors, rain-activated windshield wiper systems, global
positioning systems, head-up displays of information on the
windshield, night vision systems, antilock braking systems, and tire
pressure monitoring systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Key Parts of Air Bag Systems
In analyzing potential improvements in air bag system
performance, it is useful to divide the system into 3 discrete
parts:
1. Information: Acquiring information about crashes and
occupants,
2. Analysis/Decision: Analyzing that information to determine
the nature of the crash and the circumstances of the front seat
occupants, and deciding how to adjust the response of the air bag
system accordingly, and
3. Response: Adjusting the performance of the air bag in
response to the decisions regarding the acquired information.
Air bag systems acquire information through the use of sensors.
All air bag systems have some kind of crash sensor indicating the
occurrence of a crash and its severity. The systems process
information from the sensors and use an algorithm to make decisions
on the desired air bag deployment and performance based on
predictions about the crash event. The systems may also have sensors
which provide information about such things as belt use, child seat
use, occupant weight and size, seat adjustment position, and
occupant location. The information from the sensors is used by the
electronic control unit in making decisions as to whether and when
the air bag is to be deployed. Air bags using advanced technologies
could use the information to tailor the inflation levels of multi-
stage air bags.
The information, analysis/decision, and response aspects of air
bag systems each offer opportunities for improving occupant
protection. With more and better information, improved decision-
making algorithms, and greater adjustment capability to tailor the
inflation, an air bag system can be designed to provide an improved
response.
For example, with improved information about crash severity, the
deploy/don't deploy decision can be made earlier in a crash. By
deploying earlier during a crash, before the occupant has moved very
far forward, the air bag can better protect the occupant and is less
likely to pose risks to the occupant. If an air bag system includes
sensors which provide information about occupant weight and/or size
or location, it can be designed to suppress deployment in the
presence of a young child or to deploy differently for small adults
and large adults (e.g., a lower level of inflation for a smaller
adult than that for a larger one).
While some aspects of improved performance are dependent on more
or better
[[Page 30743]]
sensor information, others are not. For example, while a suppression
device requires information about occupant category or location,
other approaches that could reduce air bag aggressiveness, such as
improved fold patterns, lighter weight air bag fabrics, air bag
cover design, low break-out force openings, tethering and bias flaps
are not information-dependent.
C. Specific Advanced Technologies
Sensors--General. Advanced air bag systems can use various types
of sensors to obtain information about crashes, vehicles and their
occupants. This information can be used to adapt the performance of
the air bag to the particular circumstances of the crash. As noted
above, it can be used in determining whether an air bag should
deploy, when it should deploy, and (if it has multiple inflation
levels) at what level of inflation (pressure rise) and inflation
rate (pressure rise rate).
Sensors--Crash severity. Crash severity sensors measure the
severity of a crash; i.e., the rate of reduction in velocity when a
vehicle strikes another object. If a relatively low severity crash
is sensed, only the lowest stage of a dual-stage inflator will fill
the air bag; if a moderate severity crash is sensed, both stages
will fill the air bag with a specific time delay between the two
stages; and if a more severe crash is sensed, both stages will fill
the air bag either simultaneously or with a 5-10 msec interval in
between the stages.
Improvements are being made in crash sensing hardware to provide
earlier crash detection and more accurate estimates of crash
severity and proper decision for timely deployment. Current trends
in crash sensor hardware involve the use of either a single-point
electronic sensor or a combination of electromechanical and
electronic sensors.\41\ Electronic sensors use microprocessor
technology to compute the deceleration time history of the vehicle
along with the integration of various other input factors to
determine whether air bag deployment is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Based on information from the responses to the December
1997 IR, 44 percent of the MY 1998 vehicles in the IR fleet had only
one crash sensor and 73 percent had either a single electronic or a
combination electronic and electromechanical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sensors--Passenger weight and seat pattern. Passenger air bag
systems may incorporate advanced technologies to suppress the air
bag in the presence of children to prevent undesirable deployments.
To accomplish this, manufacturers are refining seat weight or seat
pattern recognition systems for detecting passenger occupant size
and/or position.
For example, some occupant detection systems will use an array
of sensors in the seat cushion to measure either the pressure
distribution or deflection pattern resulting from the occupant in
the seat to make a determination on whether to deploy or suppress
the air bag system. Child safety seats, for example, are more
readily identifiable by these systems, since they have a distinct
``footprint'' when compared to the human buttocks.
Weight sensing systems estimate the weight of the occupant
through various load cell technologies located in the seat cushion
or at the base of the seat. The latter approach has the potential
for avoiding the possible difficulties that can be created for seat-
cushion weight sensors when the seat back is tilted back enough to
transfer a significant portion of the occupant's weight from the
seat cushion to the seat back. The algorithms associated with these
devices can be designed to take into consideration and minimize the
effects of belt cinch forces (for example, from child safety seats)
by using belt tension-measuring hardware to make an adjusted
assessment of weight.
Sensors--Occupant size and/or location. Other advanced occupant
detection systems under development use technologies, such as
capacitive, ultrasonic, and infrared, for sensing occupant size and/
or location with respect to the air bag module. These are used in
the development of dynamic and static suppression strategies.
Strategies for static occupant detection systems \42\ include
the ability to make a determination of whether air bag deployment is
warranted (or what level of inflation is appropriate) for the size
and/or position of the occupant (e.g., whether the occupant is a
small child or a full-sized adult, or whether the occupant is
against the seat back or is sitting on the edge of the seat, closer
to the air bag). These technologies may be used in conjunction with
seat weight sensing/pattern recognition systems (or seat belt use
and crash severity sensing) to improve the reliability of the
occupant classification and location estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Static detection systems monitor steady state conditions
such as occupant weight. In contrast, dynamic detection systems
continuously monitor an occupant's position in relation to the air
bag module.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dynamic suppression strategies using advanced technologies, such
as capacitive, ultrasonic, and infrared, will be able to make
dynamic assessments of when an occupant is out of position by
determining the location of the occupant during the course of a
crash. These technologies must have rapid sensing capabilities and
algorithms to make the air bag deployment or suppression decision,
for example, in the event of pre-impact braking. These systems would
have the added benefit of protecting not only children, but also
out-of-position adults. (Note: This is another advanced technology
still under development.)
Sensors--Belt use or forward/aft seat adjustment position. Air
bag systems may be linked to sensors that determine whether the
occupant is using his or her seat belt and whether the occupant has
positioned the vehicle seat along the seat track (i.e., all or
nearly all the way forward or farther back). An advanced air bag
system in vehicles with crash severity sensors and dual-stage
inflators could use seat belt use information to adjust deployment
thresholds or inflation levels depending on whether the occupant is
belted or unbelted. Since an unbelted occupant is more susceptible
than a belted occupant to injury in less severe crashes, the
unbelted occupant needs the protection of an air bag at lower crash
severities than a belted occupant does. Accordingly, the air bag
would deploy at a lower threshold for an unbelted occupant.
Seat position sensors determine how far forward or back a seat
is adjusted on its seat track. An advanced air bag system could be
designed so a dual-stage air bag deploys at a lower level when the
seat is all the way forward than it does when the seat is farther
back. This would benefit those short-statured drivers who move their
seats all the way forward, or mid-to-tall-statured drivers who move
their seats farther back.
In the MY 2000 Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable, the air bag system
will fire the low energy strategy for the driver air bag when the
seat is positioned in or near the full forward position. This
provides a more benign deployment for small-statured occupants who
sit closer to the air bag. Ford also provides the option of
installing adjustable pedals on some of its vehicle platforms to
assist driver occupants in positioning themselves further away from
the air bag. Both seat position sensors and adjustable pedals can be
used in conjunction with the previously mentioned seat belt use and
crash severity information to affect air bag performance.
Multiple crash severity thresholds. Some current production
motor vehicles are using information from crash severity sensors in
conjunction with seat belt use sensors to select the appropriate
crash severity threshold levels for belted and unbelted occupants.
For instance, dual speed thresholds for deploying air bags have been
used in Mercedes-Benz vehicles produced for the U.S. market for
several years. In these vehicles, the lower threshold for air bag
deployment is approximately 19 km/h (12 mph) when occupant is
unbelted and a higher threshold of approximately 29 km/h (18 mph) is
utilized when the an occupant is belted. A belt buckle switch
provides the information to allow the selection between these two
thresholds. Other vehicle manufacturers also have implemented
similar strategies.
Multiple levels of inflation. In addition to using crash
severity and seat belt use information for dual threshold
strategies, this information also can be utilized to employ
different inflation levels for belted and unbelted occupants through
the use of a multi-stage air bag inflator. For instance, a belted
occupant may only need a low powered inflation level, since the seat
belts also provide restraint, while an unbelted occupant may require
a full-powered air bag to provide a timely inflation and full
protection by the air bag. Similarly, the crash severity information
may be used with a multi-stage inflator to employ a low level of air
bag inflation in a low severity crash or a full power inflation in a
high severity crash, in which additional restraint is needed for
occupant protection.
Improved seat belt systems. Many advances have also been made in
seat belt systems to improve their performance when used in
conjunction with air bag systems. These systems can reduce the risk
of air bag-induced injury to a belted occupant. Many production
vehicles (approximately 180
[[Page 30744]]
vehicle models) \43\ are providing seat belt energy management
features and/or pretensioners in MY 2000 vehicles. Pretensioners are
devices that retract the seat belt to remove excess slack during a
crash event. Energy management features, such as load limiting
retractors or webbing tear stitching, allow yielding of the seat
belt system in order to prevent too much force from being imposed on
the occupant's upper chest or lap during a severe crash. This rule's
adoption of a higher belted test speed is intended to encourage
vehicle manufacturers to consider the use of such advanced
technologies. Additional seat belt enhancements include adjustable
anchorages, which allow the positioning of the shoulder strap to
accommodate a person's size, and integrated seat belt systems, which
mount the entire seat belt system directly into the seat to allow
better belt fit and restraint performance. Development work also is
being done on seat belt webbing spool-out sensors, which could
provide additional information about an occupant's size and movement
in relation to the air bag module.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ NHTSA brochure DOT HS 808 988: ``Buying a Safer Car 2000,''
September 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved air bag hardware. Manufacturers also have made advances
in integrating countermeasures into the air bag hardware to mitigate
injuries without compromising high speed occupant protection. For
example, the driver air bag system of the MY 1999 Saturn SL1 has
been designed with a number of injury-mitigating countermeasures.
These include a patented I-tear seam cover, a unique air bag fold,
recessed air bag module, 4 internal tether straps, and an air bag
whose depth and volume are relatively small. The MY 1999 Saturn SL1
passenger air bag also includes an internal bias flap, which
redirects the flow of gas laterally instead of toward the occupant.
Other available air bag hardware countermeasures which minimize
the risks to out-of-position occupants include:
Low break-out force covers--By reducing the amount of force
needed for an air bag to break out of the module housing in the
steering wheel or instrument panel, these covers help make it
possible to reduce the ``punch out'' effect of deploying air bags.
Radial deployment paths--For an air bag with a radial deployment
path, the initial primary thrust of the deploying air bag is radial
instead of toward the person sitting in front of the air bag.
Compartmented air bags--These air bags can function as an air
bag within an air bag. If coupled with a dual-stage inflator, the
first stage can inflate the smaller, inner air bag for small adults
seated near the steering wheel and both stages can inflate the full
air bag.
Pyrotechnic venting--One means of reducing the aggressiveness of
a deploying air bag is to provide an alternative inflation path for
venting air bag gases. If an out-of-position occupant is putting
pressure on the air bag, the pressure can be vented in a different
direction. This can be achieved through vent holes in the inflator
canisters or pyrotechnically actuating vents which close holes in
the reaction surface of the inflator canister.
Air bag aspiration--Another means of reducing the aggressiveness
of a deploying air bag is to use an aspirated inflation system to
draw in outside air into the gas stream as the air bag is being
filled. If an out-of-position occupant interferes with the
deployment of the air bag, the pressure within the bag will
increase, and the aspirating system would cease operating as soon as
that increased pressure within the air bag reaches a predetermined
design level.
D. Installation of Advanced Technologies in Current Production Motor
Vehicles
A steadily increasing number of passenger car models are now
being equipped with some types of advanced air bag technologies.
Many of these models are foreign luxury vehicles. However, both the
MY2000 versions of the second best selling (Honda Accord) and third
best selling (Ford Taurus) non-luxury passenger car models in
calendar year 1999 are equipped with dual-stage air bags and various
advanced technology sensors. While these air bag technologies are
not sufficient by themselves to enable these vehicles to comply with
this rule, their introduction is indicative of future possibilities.
A partial list of MY 2000 models equipped with advanced air bag
technologies appears below:
Acura 3.5 RL and 3.2 TL are equipped with:
Dual-stage passenger air bag \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ According to the Acura website, the air bag system:
automatically adjusts the deployment of the front passenger's air
bag SRS based on the severity of the crash and whether or not the
passenger is wearing the seat belt. During a slow speed collision,
the dual-stage inflator system for the dash-mounted air bag is
triggered in sequence, resulting in slower overall air bag
deployment with less initial force. During a higher speed-collision,
both inflators operate simultaneously for full immediate inflation
in order to correspond with the greater impact force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced crash severity sensor
Passenger belt use sensor
BMW 3- and 5-models are equipped with:
Advanced crash severity sensor
Dual-threshold deployment for driver and passenger air bag
Sensor to help prevent unnecessary deployment of passenger air
bag
BMW 7-series models are equipped with:
Advanced crash severity sensor
Dual-threshold deployment for driver and passenger air bags
Dual-stage passenger air bag
Sensor to help prevent unnecessary deployment of passenger air
bag
BMW X5 is equipped with:
Dual-stage driver and passenger air bags
Advanced crash severity sensor
Driver and passenger belt use sensor
Dual-threshold deployment for driver and passenger air bags
BMW Z3 and BMW M coupe/roadster are equipped with:
Dual-threshold deployment for driver and passenger air bags
Sensor to help prevent unnecessary passenger air bag deployment
Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable are equipped with:
Dual-stage driver and passenger air bags
Advanced crash severity sensor
Driver seat position sensor
Driver belt use sensor
Power adjustable accelerator and brake pedals
Honda Accord is equipped with:
Dual-stage passenger air bag
Advanced crash severity sensor
Passenger belt use sensor
Mercedes S-class and CL coupe are equipped with:
Passenger air bag features dual inflation rates based on impact
severity.
Advanced crash severity sensor
Volvo S80 is equipped with:
Passenger belt use sensor
Dual deployment threshold for driver and passenger air bags
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 552
Administrative practice and procedure, Motor vehicle safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.
49 CFR Part 585
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 595
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR Chapter V as
follows:
PART 552--PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING, DEFECT, AND NON-COMPLIANCE
ORDERS
1. The authority citation for Part 552 of Title 49 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30111, 30118, and 30162; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Sections 552.1 through 552.10 are designated as Subpart A and a
new subpart heading is added to read as follows:
Subpart A--General
3. A new subpart B is added to Part 552 to read as follows:
Subpart B--Petitions for Expedited Rulemaking to Establish Dynamic
Automatic Suppression System Test Procedures for Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection
Sec.
552.11 Application.
552.12 Definitions.
552.13 Form of petition.
552.14 Content of petition.
552.15 Processing of petition.
[[Page 30745]]
Subpart B--Petitions for Expedited Rulemaking to Establish Dynamic
Automatic Suppression System Test Procedures for Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection
Sec. 552.11 Application.
This subpart establishes procedures for the submission and
disposition of petitions filed by interested parties to initiate
rulemaking to add a test procedure to 49 CFR 571.208, S28.
Sec. 552.12 Definitions.
For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions apply:
(a) Dynamic automatic suppression system (DASS) means a portion of
an air bag system that automatically controls whether or not the air
bag deploys during a crash by:
(1) Sensing the location of an occupant, moving or still, in
relation to the air bag;
(2) Interpreting the occupant characteristics and location
information to determine whether or not the air bag should deploy; and
(3) Activating or suppressing the air bag system based on the
interpretation of characteristics and occupant location information.
(b) Automatic suppression zone (ASZ) means a three-dimensional zone
adjacent to the air bag cover, specified by the vehicle manufacturer,
where air bag deployment will be suppressed by the DASS if a vehicle
occupant enters the zone under specified conditions.
(c) Standard No. 208 means 49 CFR 571.208.
Sec. 552.13 Form of petition.
Each petition filed under this subpart shall--
(a) Be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590.
(b) Be written in the English language.
(c) State the name and address of the petitioner.
(d) Set forth in full the data, views and arguments of the
petitioner supporting the requested test procedure, including all of
the content information specified by Sec. 552.14. Any documents
incorporated by reference in the procedure shall be submitted with the
petition.
(e) Specify and segregate any part of the information and data
submitted that the petitioner wishes to have withheld from public
disclosure in accordance with Part 512 of this chapter including, if
requested, the name and address of the petitioner.
(f) Not request confidential treatment for the requested test
procedure and, to the extent confidential treatment is requested
concerning a particular DASS or data and analysis submitted in support
of the petition, provide a general non-confidential description of the
operation of the DASS and of the data and analysis supporting the
petition.
(g) Set forth a requested effective date and be submitted at least
nine months before that date.
Sec. 552.14 Content of petition.
The petitioner shall provide the following information:
(a) A set of proposed test procedures for S28.1, S28.2, S28.3, and
S28.4 of Standard No. 208 which the petitioner believes are appropriate
for assessing a particular DASS.
(1) For S28.1 of Standard No. 208, the petitioner shall specify at
least one specific position for the Part 572, subpart O 5th percentile
female dummy that is:
(i) Outside but adjacent to the ASZ, and
(ii) Representative of an unbelted occupant position that is likely
to occur during a frontal crash.
(2) For S28.2 of Standard No. 208, the petitioner shall specify at
least one specific position for the Part 572 Subpart P 3-year-old child
dummy and at least one specific position for the Part 572 Subpart N 6-
year-old child dummy that are:
(i) Outside but adjacent to the ASZ, and
(ii) Representative of unbelted occupant positions that are likely
to occur during a frontal crash where pre-crash braking occurs.
(3) For S28.3 of Standard No. 208, the petitioner shall specify a
procedure which tests the operation of the DASS by moving a test device
toward the driver air bag in a manner that simulates the motion of an
unbelted occupant during pre-crash braking or other pre-crash maneuver.
The petitioner shall include a complete description, including drawings
and instrumentation, of the test device employed in the proposed test.
The petitioner shall include in the procedure a means for determining
whether the driver air bag was suppressed before any portion of the
specified test device entered the ASZ during the test. The procedure
shall also include a means of determining when the specified test
device occupies the ASZ.
(4) For S28.4 of Standard No. 208, the petitioner shall specify a
procedure which tests the operation of the DASS by moving a test device
toward the passenger air bag in a manner that simulates the motion of
an unbelted occupant during pre-crash braking or other pre-crash
maneuver. The petitioner shall include a complete description,
including drawings and instrumentation, of the test device employed in
the proposed test. The petitioner shall include in the procedure a
means for determining whether the passenger air bag was suppressed
before any portion of the specified test device entered the ASZ during
the test. The procedure shall also include a means of determining when
the specified test device occupies the ASZ.
(b) A complete description and explanation of the particular DASS
that the petitioner believes will be appropriately assessed by the
recommended test procedures. This shall include:
(1) A description of the logic used by the DASS in determining
whether to suppress the air bag or allow it to deploy. Such description
shall include flow charts or similar materials outlining the operation
of the system logic, the system reaction time, the time duration used
to evaluate whether the air bag should be suppressed or deployed,
changes, if any, in system performance based on the size of an occupant
and vehicle speed, and a description of the size and shape of the zone
where under similar circumstances and conditions the DASS may either
allow or suppress deployment. Such description shall also address
whether and how the DASS discriminates between an occupant's torso or
head entering the ASZ as compared to an occupant's hand or arm, and
whether and how the DASS discriminates between an occupant entering the
ASZ and an inanimate object such as a newspaper or ball entering the
ASZ.
(2) Detailed specifications for the size and shape of the ASZ,
including whether the suppression zone is designed to change size or
shape depending on the vehicle speed, occupant size, or other factors.
(c) Analysis and data supporting the appropriateness,
repeatability, reproducibility and practicability of each of the
proposed test procedures.
(1) For the procedures proposed for inclusion in S28.1 and S28.2 of
Standard No. 208, the petitioner shall provide the basis for the
proposed dummy positions, including but not limited to, why the
positions are representative of what is likely to occur in real world
crashes.
(2) For the procedures proposed for inclusion in S28.3 and S28.4 of
Standard No. 208, the petitioner shall provide:
(i) A complete explanation of the means used in the proposed test
to
[[Page 30746]]
ascertain whether the air bag is suppressed or activated during the
test.
(ii) A complete description of the means used to evaluate the
ability of the DASS to detect and respond to an occupant moving toward
an air bag, including the method used to move a test device toward an
air bag at speeds representative of occupant movement during pre-crash
braking or other pre-crash maneuver.
(iii) The procedure used for locating the test device inside a test
vehicle in preparation for testing, including an accounting of the
reference points used to specify such location.
(iv) An explanation of the methods used to measure the amount of
time needed by a suppression system to suppress an air bag once a
suppression triggering event occurs.
(v) High speed film or video of at least two tests of the DASS
using the proposed test procedure.
(vi) Data generated from not less than two tests of the DASS using
the proposed test procedure, including an account of the data streams
monitored during testing and complete samples of these data streams
from not less than two tests performed under the proposed procedure.
(d) Analysis concerning the variety of potential DASS designs for
which the requested test procedure is appropriate; e.g., whether the
test procedures are appropriate only for the specific DASS design
contemplated by the petitioner, for all DASS designs incorporating the
same technologies, or for all DASS designs.
Sec. 552.15 Processing of petition.
(a) NHTSA will process any petition that contains the information
specified by this subpart. If a petition fails to provide any of the
information, NHTSA will not process the petition but will advise the
petitioner of the information that shall be provided if the agency is
to process the petition. The agency will seek to notify the petitioner
of any such deficiency within 30 days after receipt of the petition.
(b) At any time during the agency's consideration of a petition
submitted under this Part, the Administrator may request the petitioner
to provide additional supporting information and data and/or provide a
demonstration of any of the requested test procedures. The agency will
seek to make any such request within 60 days after receipt of the
petition. Such demonstration may be at either an agency designated
facility or one chosen by the petitioner, provided that, in either
case, the facility shall be located in North America. If such a request
is not honored to the satisfaction of the agency, the petition will not
receive further consideration until the requested information is
submitted.
(c) The agency will publish in the Federal Register either a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking proposing adoption of the requested test
procedures, possibly with changes and/or additions, or a notice denying
the petition. The agency will seek to issue either notice within 120
days after receipt of a complete petition. However, this time period
may be extended by any time period during which the agency is awaiting
additional information it requests from the petitioner or is awaiting a
requested demonstration. The agency contemplates a 30 to 60 day comment
period for any Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and will endeavor to
issue a final rule within 60 days thereafter.
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
4. The authority citation for Part 571 of Title 49 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
5. Section 571.208 is amended as follows:
A. By revising S3, S4.5.1 heading, S4.5.1(b)(1), S4.5.1(b)(2),
S4.5.1(e), S4.5.1(f), S4.5.4, S5, S5.1, S6.1, S6.2, 6.4, S8.1.5,
S10.6.1.1, S13 and S13.1;
B. By removing S4.5.5;
C. By adding S4.1.5.4, S4.2.6.3, S4.7, S4.8, S4.9, S4.10, S4.11,
S4.12, S4.13, S5.1.1, S5.1.2, S6.6, S6.7, S14 through S29.3(b);
D. By adding the heading ``Figures to Sec. 571.208'' at the end of
the section and moving figures 2 through 7 to follow this heading
(figure 1 is reserved); and
E. By adding new figures 8, 9 and 10 in numerical order, and
Appendix A after the figures, to read as follows:
Sec. 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant crash protection.
* * * * *
S3. Application.
(a) This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks, and buses. In addition, S9, Pressure vessels and
explosive devices, applies to vessels designed to contain a pressurized
fluid or gas, and to explosive devices, for use in the above types of
motor vehicles as part of a system designed to provide protection to
occupants in the event of a crash.
(b) Notwithstanding any language to the contrary, any vehicle
manufactured after March 19, 1997, and before September 1, 2006, that
is subject to a dynamic crash test requirement conducted with unbelted
dummies may meet the requirements specified in S5.1.2(a)(1),
S5.1.2(a)(2), or S13 instead of the applicable unbelted requirement,
unless the vehicle is certified to meet the requirements specified in
S14.5, S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25.
(c) For vehicles which are certified to meet the requirements
specified in S13 instead of the otherwise applicable dynamic crash test
requirement conducted with unbelted dummies, compliance with S13 shall,
for purposes of Standards No. 201, 203 and 209, be deemed as compliance
with the unbelted frontal barrier requirements of S5.1.2.
* * * * *
S4.1.5.4 Passenger cars certified to S14. Each passenger car
certified to S14 shall, at each front outboard designated seating
position, meet the applicable frontal crash protection requirements of
S5.1.2(b) by means of an inflatable restraint system that requires no
action by vehicle occupants.
* * * * *
S4.2.6.3 Trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles
certified to S14. Each truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger vehicle
with a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) or less and an unloaded vehicle
weight of 2,495 kg (5,500 lb) or less certified to S14 shall, at each
front outboard designated seating position, meet the applicable frontal
crash protection requirements of S5.1.2(b) by means of an inflatable
restraint system that requires no action by vehicle occupants.
* * * * *
S4.5.1 Labeling and owner's manual information.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Except as provided in S4.5.1(b)(2), each vehicle shall have a
label permanently affixed to either side of the sun visor, at the
manufacturer's option, at each front outboard seating position that is
equipped with an inflatable restraint. The label shall conform in
content to the label shown in either Figure 6a or 6b of this standard,
as appropriate, and shall comply with the requirements of
S4.5.1(b)(1)(i) through S4.5.1(b)(1)(iv).
(i) The heading area shall be yellow with the word ``WARNING'' and
the alert symbol in black.
(ii) The message area shall be white with black text. The message
area shall be no less than 30 cm\2\ (4.7 in\2\).
(iii) The pictogram shall be black with a red circle and slash on a
white background. The pictogram shall be no less than 30 mm (1.2 in) in
diameter.
[[Page 30747]]
(iv) If the vehicle does not have a back seat, the label shown in
Figure 6a or 6b may be modified by omitting the statement: ``The BACK
SEAT is the SAFEST place for children.''
(2) Vehicles certified to meet the requirements specified in S19,
S21, and S23, shall have a label permanently affixed to either side of
the sun visor, at the manufacturer's option, at each front outboard
seating position that is equipped with an inflatable restraint. The
label shall conform in content to the label shown in Figure 8 of this
standard and shall comply with the requirements of S4.5.1(b)(2)(i)
through S4.5.1(b)(2)(iv).
(i) The heading area shall be yellow with the word ``WARNING'' and
the alert symbol in black.
(ii) The message area shall be white with black text. The message
area shall be no less than 30 cm\2\ (4.7 in\2\).
(iii) The pictogram shall be black on a white background. The
pictogram shall be no less than 30 mm (1.2 in) in length.
(iv) If the vehicle does not have a back seat, the label shown in
Figure 8 may be modified by omitting the statement: ``The BACK SEAT is
the SAFEST place for CHILDREN.''
* * * * *
(e) Label on the dashboard.
(1) Except as provided in S4.5.1(e)(2), each vehicle that is
equipped with an inflatable restraint for the passenger position shall
have a label attached to a location on the dashboard or the steering
wheel hub that is clearly visible from all front seating positions. The
label need not be permanently affixed to the vehicle. This label shall
conform in content to the label shown in Figure 7 of this standard, and
shall comply with the requirements of S4.5.1(e)(1)(i) through
S4.5.1(e)(1)(iii).
(i) The heading area shall be yellow with the word ``WARNING'' and
the alert symbol in black.
(ii) The message area shall be white with black text. The message
area shall be no less than 30 cm\2\ (4.7 in\2\).
(iii) If the vehicle does not have a back seat, the label shown in
Figure 7 may be modified by omitting the statement: ``The back seat is
the safest place for children 12 and under.''
(2) Vehicles certified to meet the requirements specified in S19,
S21, and S23, that are equipped with an inflatable restraint for the
passenger position shall have a label attached to a location on the
dashboard or the steering wheel hub that is clearly visible from all
front seating positions. The label need not be permanently affixed to
the vehicle. This label shall conform in content to the label shown in
Figure 9 of this standard, and shall comply with the requirements of
S4.5.1(e)(2)(i) through S4.5.1(e)(2)(iii).
(i) The heading area shall be yellow with black text.
(ii) The message area shall be white with black text. The message
area shall be no less than 30 cm\2\ (4.7 in\2\).
(iii) If the vehicle does not have a back seat, the label shown in
Figure 9 may be modified by omitting the statement: ``The back seat is
the safest place for children.''
(f) Information to appear in owner's manual.
(1) The owner's manual for any vehicle equipped with an inflatable
restraint system shall include an accurate description of the vehicle's
air bag system in an easily understandable format. The owner's manual
shall include a statement to the effect that the vehicle is equipped
with an air bag and lap/shoulder belt at both front outboard seating
positions, and that the air bag is a supplemental restraint at those
seating positions. The information shall emphasize that all occupants,
including the driver, should always wear their seat belts whether or
not an air bag is also provided at their seating position to minimize
the risk of severe injury or death in the event of a crash. The owner's
manual shall also provide any necessary precautions regarding the
proper positioning of occupants, including children, at seating
positions equipped with air bags to ensure maximum safety protection
for those occupants. The owner's manual shall also explain that no
objects should be placed over or near the air bag on the instrument
panel, because any such objects could cause harm if the vehicle is in a
crash severe enough to cause the air bag to inflate.
(2) For any vehicle certified to meet the requirements specified in
S14.5, S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25, the manufacturer shall also
include in the vehicle's owner's manual a discussion of the advanced
passenger air bag system installed in the vehicle. The discussion shall
explain the proper functioning of the advanced air bag system and shall
provide a summary of the actions that may affect the proper functioning
of the system. The discussion shall include, at a minimum, accurate
information on the following topics:
(i) a presentation and explanation of the main components of the
advanced passenger air bag system.
(ii) an explanation of how the components function together as part
of the advanced passenger air bag system.
(iii) the basic requirements for proper operation, including an
explanation of the actions that may affect the proper functioning of
the system.
(iv) a complete description of the passenger air bag suppression
system installed in the vehicle, including a discussion of any
suppression zone.
(v) an explanation of the interaction of the advanced passenger air
bag system with other vehicle components, such as seat belts, seats or
other components.
(vi) a summary of the expected outcomes when child restraint
systems, children and small teenagers or adults are both properly and
improperly positioned in the passenger seat, including cautionary
advice against improper placement of child restraint systems.
(vii) a discussion of the telltale light, specifying its location
in the vehicle and explaining when the light is illuminated.
(viii) information on how to contact the vehicle manufacturer
concerning modifications for persons with disabilities that may affect
the advanced air bag system.
* * * * *
S4.5.4 Passenger air bag manual cut-off device. Passenger cars,
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured before
September 1, 2012 may be equipped with a device that deactivates the
air bag installed at the right front outboard seating position in the
vehicle, if all the conditions in S4.5.4.1 through S4.5.4.4 are
satisfied.
* * * * *
S4.7 Incorporation by reference. Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE) Recommended Practice J211/1 rev. Mar 95, ``Instrumentation for
Impact Test--Part 1--Electronic Instrumentation,'' (SAE J211/1 rev. Mar
95) is incorporated by reference in sections S4.13, S6.6, S13.1,
S15.3.6, S19.4.4, S21.5.5, S23.5.5, and S25.4, Department of Defense
MIL-S-13192P, 1988, ``Military Specification, Shoes, Men's, Dress,
Oxford'', Amendment 1, October 14, 1994 (MIL-S-13192P) is incorporated
by reference in section S8.1.8, and Department of Defense MIL-S-21711E,
1982, ``Military Specification, Shoes, Women's'', Amendment 2, October
14, 1994 (MIL-S-21711E) is incorporated by reference in section
S16.2.5, and are thereby made part of this standard. The Director of
the Federal Register approved the material incorporated by reference in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552 (a) and 1 CFR Part 51. A copy of SAE J211/
1 rev. Mar 95 may be obtained from SAE at the Society of Automotive
Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096. A copy
of
[[Page 30748]]
SAE J211/1 rev. Mar 95 and copies of MIL-S-13192P and MIL-S-21711E may
be inspected at NHTSA's technical reference library, 400 Seventh
Street, S.W., Room 5109, Washington, DC, or at the Office of the
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 700,
Washington, DC.
S4.8 Selection of compliance options. Where manufacturer options
are specified, the manufacturer shall select the option by the time it
certifies the vehicle and may not thereafter select a different option
for the vehicle. Each manufacturer shall, upon request from the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, provide information
regarding which of the compliance options it has selected for a
particular vehicle or make/model.
S4.9 Values and tolerances. Wherever a range of values or
tolerances are specified, requirements shall be met at all values
within the range of values or tolerances. With respect to the
positioning of anthropomorphic dummies, torso and spine angle
tolerances shall be 2 degrees unless otherwise stated, and
leg, thigh, foot, and arm angle tolerances shall be 5
degrees unless otherwise stated.
S4.10 Metric values. Specifications and requirements are given in
metric units with English units provided for reference. The metric
values are controlling.
S4.11 Test duration for purpose of measuring injury criteria.
(a) For all barrier crashes, the injury criteria specified in this
standard shall be met when calculated based on data recorded for 300
milliseconds after the vehicle strikes the barrier. For low risk
deployment tests, the injury criteria shall be met when calculated
based on data recorded for 300 milliseconds after the air bag is
signaled to deploy.
(b) The requirements for dummy containment shall continue until
both the vehicle and the dummies have ceased moving.
S4.12 Suppression systems that do not detect dummies. For vehicles
with occupant sensing systems that recognize humans and not dummies,
such that the air bag or bags would not function in crash tests, the
manufacturer shall provide NHTSA with information and equipment
necessary to circumvent the suppression system for the crash test such
that the restraint system operates as if 5th percentile adult female
humans and 50th percentile adult male humans are seated in the vehicle.
S4.13 Data channels. All data channels used in injury criteria
calculations shall be filtered using a phaseless digital filter, such
as the Butterworth four-pole phaseless digital filter specified in
Appendix C of SAE J211/1, rev. Mar 95, incorporated by reference in
S4.7.
* * * * *
S5 Occupant crash protection requirements for the 50th percentile
adult male dummy.
S5.1 Frontal barrier crash test.
S5.1.1 Belted test.
(a) Vehicles not certified to S14. Impact a vehicle traveling
longitudinally forward at any speed, up to and including 48 km/h (30
mph), into a fixed rigid barrier that is perpendicular to the line of
travel of the vehicle, and at any angle up to 30 degrees in either
direction from the perpendicular to the line of travel of the vehicle,
under the applicable conditions of S8 and S10. The test dummy specified
in S8.1.8 placed in each front outboard designated seating position
shall meet the injury criteria of S6.1, S6.2(a), S6.3, S6.4(a), and
S6.5 of this standard.
(b) Vehicles certified to S14.
(1) Vehicles certified to S14.1 or S14.2. Impact a vehicle
traveling longitudinally forward at any speed, up to and including 48
km/h (30 mph), into a fixed rigid barrier that is perpendicular to the
line of travel of the vehicle under the applicable conditions of S8 and
S10. The test dummy specified in S8.1.8 placed in each front outboard
designated seating position shall meet the injury criteria of S6.1,
S6.2(b), S6.3, S6.4(b), S6.5, and S6.6 of this standard.
(2) Vehicles certified to S14.3 or S14.4. Impact a vehicle
traveling longitudinally forward at any speed, up to and including 56
km/h (35 mph), into a fixed rigid barrier that is perpendicular to the
line of travel of the vehicle under the applicable conditions of S8 and
S10. The test dummy specified in S8.1.8 placed in each front outboard
designated seating position shall meet the injury criteria of S6.1,
S6.2(b), S6.3, S6.4(b), S6.5, and S6.6 of this standard.
S5.1.2 Unbelted test.
(a) Vehicles not certified to the requirements of S13 or S14. At
the manufacturer's option, either one of the following unbelted tests
shall be met:
(1) Impact a vehicle traveling longitudinally forward at any speed
up to and including 48 km/h (30 mph), into a fixed rigid barrier that
is perpendicular to the line of travel of the vehicle, and at any angle
up to 30 degrees in either direction from the perpendicular to the line
of travel of the vehicle, under the applicable conditions of S8 and
S10, excluding S10.7, S10.8, and S10.9. The test dummy specified in
S8.1.8 placed in each front outboard designated seating position shall
meet the injury criteria of S6.1, S6.2(a), S6.3, S6.4(a), and S6.5 of
this standard.
(2) Impact a vehicle traveling longitudinally forward at any speed
between 32 km/h (20 mph) and 40 km/h (25 mph), inclusive, into a fixed
rigid barrier that is perpendicular to the line of travel of the
vehicle, and at any angle up to 30 degrees in either direction from the
perpendicular to the line of travel of the vehicle, under the
applicable conditions of S8 and S10, excluding S10.7, S10.8, and S10.9.
The test dummy specified in S8.1.8 placed in each front outboard
designated seating position shall meet the injury criteria of S6.1,
S6.2(b), S6.3, S6.4(b), S6.5, and S6.6 of this standard.
(b) Vehicles certified to the requirements of S14. Impact a vehicle
traveling longitudinally forward at any speed between 32 km/h (20 mph)
and 40 km/h (25 mph), inclusive, into a fixed rigid barrier that is
perpendicular to the line of travel of the vehicle, and at any angle up
to 30 degrees in either direction from the perpendicular to the line of
travel of the vehicle, under the applicable conditions of S8 and S10,
excluding S10.7, S10.8, and S10.9. The test dummy specified in S8.1.8
placed in each front outboard designated seating position shall meet
the injury criteria of S6.1, S6.2(b), S6.3, S6.4(b), S6.5, and S6.6 of
this standard.
* * * * *
S6.1 All portions of the test dummy shall be contained within the
outer surfaces of the vehicle passenger compartment.
S6.2 Head injury criteria.
(a)(1) For any two points in time, t1 and t2,
during the event which are separated by not more than a 36 millisecond
time interval and where t1 is less than t2, the
head injury criterion (HIC36) shall be determined using the
resultant head acceleration at the center of gravity of the dummy head,
ar, expressed as a multiple of g (the acceleration of
gravity) and shall be calculated using the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MY00.003
(2) The maximum calculated HIC36 value shall not exceed
1,000.
(b)(1) For any two points in time, t1 and t2,
during the event which are separated by not more than a 15 millisecond
time interval and where t1 is less than t2, the
head injury criterion (HIC15) shall be determined using the
resultant head acceleration at the center of gravity of the dummy head,
ar,
[[Page 30749]]
expressed as a multiple of g (the acceleration of gravity) and shall be
calculated using the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MY00.004
(2) The maximum calculated HIC15 value shall not exceed
700.
* * * * *
S6.4 Chest deflection.
(a) Compressive deflection of the sternum relative to the spine
shall not exceed 76 mm (3.0 in).
(b) Compressive deflection of the sternum relative to the spine
shall not exceed 63 mm (2.5 in).
* * * * *
S6.6 Neck injury. When measuring neck injury, each of the following
injury criteria shall be met.
(a) Nij.
(1) The shear force (Fx), axial force (Fz), and bending moment (My)
shall be measured by the dummy upper neck load cell for the duration of
the crash event as specified in S4.10. Shear force, axial force, and
bending moment shall be filtered for Nij purposes at SAE J211/1 rev.
Mar 95 Channel Frequency Class 600 (see S4.7).
(2) During the event, the axial force (Fz) can be either in tension
or compression while the occipital condyle bending moment (Mocy) can be
in either flexion or extension. This results in four possible loading
conditions for Nij: tension-extension (Nte), tension-flexion (Ntf),
compression-extension (Nce), or compression-flexion (Ncf).
(3) When calculating Nij using the equation in S6.6(a)(4), the
critical values, Fzc and Myc, are:
(i) Fzc=6806 N (1530 lbf) when Fz is in tension
(ii) Fzc=6160 N (1385 lbf) when Fz is in compression
(iii) Myc=310 Nm (229 lbf-ft) when a flexion moment exists at the
occipital condyle
(iv) Myc=135 Nm (100 lbf-ft) when an extension moment exists at the
occipital condyle.
(4) At each point in time, only one of the four loading conditions
occurs and the Nij value corresponding to that loading condition is
computed and the three remaining loading modes shall be considered a
value of zero. The expression for calculating each Nij loading
condition is given by:
Nij=(Fz/Fzc)+(Mocy/Myc)
(5) None of the four Nij values shall exceed 1.0 at any time during
the event.
(b) Peak tension. Tension force (Fz), measured at the upper neck
load cell, shall not exceed 4170 N (937 lbf) at any time.
(c) Peak compression. Compression force (Fz), measured at the upper
neck load cell, shall not exceed 4000 N (899 lbf) at any time.
S6.7 Unless otherwise indicated, instrumentation for data
acquisition, data channel frequency class, and moment calculations are
the same as given for the 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart E Hybrid III test
dummy.
* * * * *
S8.1.5 Movable vehicle windows and vents are placed in the fully
closed position, unless the vehicle manufacturer chooses to specify a
different adjustment position prior to the time it certifies the
vehicle.
* * * * *
S10.6.1.1 If the vehicle has an adjustable accelerator pedal,
adjust it to the full forward position. Rest the right foot of the test
dummy on the undepressed accelerator pedal with the rearmost point of
the heel on the floor pan in the plane of the pedal. If the foot cannot
be placed on the accelerator pedal, set it initially perpendicular to
the lower leg and then place it as far forward as possible in the
direction of the pedal centerline with the rearmost point of the heel
resting on the floor pan. If the vehicle has an adjustable accelerator
pedal and the right foot is not touching the accelerator pedal when
positioned as above, move the pedal rearward until it touches the right
foot. If the accelerator pedal still does not touch the foot in the
full rearward position, leave the pedal in that position.
S13 Alternative unbelted test available, under S3(b) of this
standard, for certain vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2006.
S13.1 Instrumentation for Impact Test--Part 1--Electronic
Instrumentation. Under the applicable conditions of S8, mount the
vehicle on a dynamic test platform at the vehicle attitude set forth in
S13.3, so that the longitudinal center line of the vehicle is parallel
to the direction of the test platform travel and so that movement
between the base of the vehicle and the test platform is prevented. The
test platform is instrumented with an accelerometer and data processing
system having a frequency response of 60 channel class as specified in
SAE J211/1 rev. Mar 95 (see S4.7). The accelerometer sensitive axis is
parallel to the direction of test platform travel. The test is
conducted at a velocity change approximating 48 km/h (30 mph) with
acceleration of the test platform such that all points on the crash
pulse curve within the corridor identified in Figure 6 are covered. An
inflatable restraint is to be activated at 20 ms +/-2 ms from the time
that 0.5 g is measured on the dynamic test platform. The test dummy
specified in S8.1.8, placed in each front outboard designated seating
position as specified in S10, excluding S10.7, S10.8, and S10.9, shall
meet the injury criteria of S6.1, S6.2(a), S6.3, S6.4(a), S6.5, and
S13.2 of this standard.
* * * * *
S14 Advanced air bag requirements for passenger cars and for
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855
kg (8500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg
(5500 pounds) or less, except for walk-in van-type trucks or vehicles
designed to be sold exclusively to the U.S. Postal Service.
S14.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2003, and
before September 1, 2006.
(a) For vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States on or
after September 1, 2003, and before September 1, 2006, a percentage of
the manufacturer's production, as specified in S14.1.1, shall meet the
requirements specified in S14.5.1(a), S14.5.2, S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19,
S21, S23, and S25 (in addition to the other requirements specified in
this standard).
(b) Manufacturers that sell two or fewer carlines, as that term is
defined at 49 CFR 583.4, in the United States may, at the option of the
manufacturer, meet the requirements of this paragraph instead of
paragraph (a) of this section. Each vehicle manufactured on or after
September 1, 2004, and before September 1, 2006, shall meet the
requirements specified in S14.5.1(a), S14.5.2, S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19,
S21, S23, and S25 (in addition to the other requirements specified in
this standard).
(c) Vehicles that are manufactured in two or more stages or that
are altered (within the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) after having
previously been certified in accordance with Part 567 of this chapter
are not subject to the requirements of S14.1.
(d) Vehicles that are manufactured by a manufacturer that produces
fewer than 5,000 vehicles worldwide annually are not subject to the
requirements of S14.1.
S14.1.1 Phase-in schedule.
S14.1.1.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2003, and
before September 1, 2004. Subject to S14.1.2(a), for vehicles
manufactured by a manufacturer on or after September 1, 2003, and
before September 1, 2004, the amount of vehicles complying with
S14.5.1(a), S14.5.2, S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25, shall
be not less than 35 percent of:
[[Page 30750]]
(a) If the manufacturer has manufactured vehicles for sale in the
United States during both of the two production years prior to
September 1, 2003, the manufacturer's average annual production of
vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2001, and before
September 1, 2004, or
(b) The manufacturer's production on or after September 1, 2003,
and before September 1, 2004.
S14.1.1.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2004, and
before September 1, 2005. Subject to S14.1.2(b), for vehicles
manufactured by a manufacturer on or after September 1, 2004, and
before September 1, 2005, the amount of vehicles complying with
S14.5.1(a), S14.5.2, S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 shall be
not less than 65 percent of:
(a) If the manufacturer has manufactured vehicles for sale in the
United States during both of the two production years prior to
September 1, 2004, the manufacturer's average annual production of
vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2002, and before
September 1, 2005, or
(b) The manufacturer's production on or after September 1, 2004,
and before September 1, 2005.
S14.1.1.3 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2005, and
before September 1, 2006. Subject to S14.1.2(c), for vehicles
manufactured by a manufacturer on or after September 1, 2005, and
before September 1, 2006, the amount of vehicles complying with
S14.5.1(a), S14.5.2, S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 shall be
100 percent of the manufacturer's production during that period.
S14.1.2 Calculation of complying vehicles.
(a) For the purposes of complying with S14.1.1.1, a manufacturer
may count a vehicle if it is manufactured on or after June 12, 2000,
but before September 1, 2004.
(b) For purposes of complying with S14.1.1.2, a manufacturer may
count a vehicle if it:
(1) Is manufactured on or after June 12, 2000, but before September
1, 2005, and
(2) Is not counted toward compliance with S14.1.1.1.
(c) For purposes of complying with S14.1.1.3, a manufacturer may
count a vehicle if it:
(1) Is manufactured on or after June 12, 2000, but before September
1, 2006, and (2) Is not counted toward compliance with S14.1.1.1 or
S14.1.1.2.
S14.1.3 Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer.
S14.1.3.1 For the purpose of calculating average annual production
of vehicles for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles
manufactured by each manufacturer under S14.1.1, a vehicle produced by
more than one manufacturer shall be attributed to a single manufacturer
as follows, subject to S14.1.3.2.
(a) A vehicle that is imported shall be attributed to the importer.
(b) A vehicle manufactured in the United States by more than one
manufacturer, one of which also markets the vehicle, shall be
attributed to the manufacturer that markets the vehicle.
S14.1.3.2 A vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer shall be
attributed to any one of the vehicle's manufacturers specified by an
express written contract, reported to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration under 49 CFR Part 585, between the manufacturer
so specified and the manufacturer to which the vehicle would otherwise
be attributed under S14.1.3.1.
S14.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2006. Each
vehicle shall meet the requirements specified in S14.5.1(a), S14.5.2,
S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 (in addition to the other
requirements specified in this standard).
S14.3 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2007, and
before September 1, 2010.
(a) For vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States on or
after September 1, 2007, and before September 1, 2010, a percentage of
the manufacturer's production, as specified in S14.3.1, shall meet the
requirements specified in S14.5.1(b), S14.5.2, S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19,
S21, S23, and S25 (in addition to the other requirements specified in
this standard).
(b) Manufacturers that sell two or fewer carlines, as that term is
defined at 49 CFR 583.4, in the United States may, at the option of the
manufacturer, meet the requirements of this paragraph instead of
paragraph (a) of this section. Each vehicle manufactured on or after
September 1, 2007, and before September 1, 2010, shall meet the
requirements specified in S14.5.1(b), S14.5.2, S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19,
S21, S23, and S25 (in addition to the other requirements specified in
this standard).
(c) Vehicles that are manufactured in two or more stages or that
are altered (within the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) after having
previously been certified in accordance with Part 567 of this chapter
are not subject to the requirements of S14.3.
(d) Vehicles that are manufactured by a manufacturer that produces
fewer than 5,000 vehicles worldwide annually are not subject to the
requirements of S14.3.
S14.3.1 Phase-in schedule.
S14.3.1.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2007, and
before September 1, 2008. Subject to S14.3.2(a), for vehicles
manufactured by a manufacturer on or after September 1, 2007, and
before September 1, 2008, the amount of vehicles complying with
S14.5.1(b), S14.5.2, S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25, shall
be not less than 35 percent of:
(a) If the manufacturer has manufactured vehicles for sale in the
United States during both of the two production years prior to
September 1, 2007, the manufacturer's average annual production of
vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2005, and before
September 1, 2008, or
(b) The manufacturer's production on or after September 1, 2007,
and before September 1, 2008.
S14.3.1.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2008, and
before September 1, 2009. Subject to S14.3.2(b), for vehicles
manufactured by a manufacturer on or after September 1, 2008, and
before September 1, 2009, the amount of vehicles complying with
S14.5.1(b), S14.5.2, S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 shall be
not less than 65 percent of:
(a) If the manufacturer has manufactured vehicles for sale in the
United States during both of the two production years prior to
September 1, 2008, the manufacturer's average annual production of
vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2006 and before
September 1, 2009, or
(b) The manufacturer's production on or after September 1, 2008,
and before September 1, 2009.
S14.3.1.3 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2009, and
before September 1, 2010. Subject to S14.3.2(c), for vehicles
manufactured by a manufacturer on or after September 1, 2009, and
before September 1, 2010, the amount of vehicles complying with
S14.5.1(b), S14.5.2, S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 shall be
100 percent of the manufacturer's production during that period.
S14.3.2 Calculation of complying vehicles.
(a) For the purposes of complying with S14.3.1.1, a manufacturer
may count a vehicle if it is manufactured on or after September 1,
2006, but before September 1, 2008.
(b) For purposes of complying with S14.3.1.2, a manufacturer may
count a vehicle if it:
(1) Is manufactured on or after September 1, 2006, but before
September 1, 2009, and
[[Page 30751]]
(2) Is not counted toward compliance with S14.3.1.1.
(c) For purposes of complying with S14.3.1.3, a manufacturer may
count a vehicle if it:
(1) Is manufactured on or after September 1, 2006, but before
September 1, 2010, and
(2) Is not counted toward compliance with S14.3.1.1 or S14.3.1.2.
S14.3.3 Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer.
S14.3.3.1 For the purpose of calculating average annual production
of vehicles for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles
manufactured by each manufacturer under S14.3.1, a vehicle produced by
more than one manufacturer shall be attributed to a single manufacturer
as follows, subject to S14.3.3.2.
(a) A vehicle that is imported shall be attributed to the importer.
(b) A vehicle manufactured in the United States by more than one
manufacturer, one of which also markets the vehicle, shall be
attributed to the manufacturer that markets the vehicle.
S14.3.3.2 A vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer shall be
attributed to any one of the vehicle's manufacturers specified by an
express written contract, reported to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration under 49 CFR Part 585, between the manufacturer
so specified and the manufacturer to which the vehicle would otherwise
be attributed under S14.3.3.1.
S14.4 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2010. Each
vehicle shall meet the requirements specified in S14.5.1(b), S14.5.2,
S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 (in addition to the other
requirements specified in this standard).
S14.5 Barrier test requirements using 50th percentile adult male
dummies.
S14.5.1 Rigid barrier belted test.
(a) Each vehicle that is certified as complying with S14.1 or S14.2
shall, at each front outboard designated seating position, meet the
injury criteria specified in S6.1, S6.2(b), S6.3, S6.4(b), S6.5, and
S6.6 when tested under S5.1.1(b)(1).
(b) Each vehicle that is certified as complying with S14.3 or S14.4
shall, at each front outboard designated seating position, meet the
injury criteria specified in S6.1, S6.2(b), S6.3, S6.4(b), S6.5, and
S6.6 when tested under S5.1.1(b)(2).
S14.5.2 Rigid barrier unbelted test. Each vehicle that is certified
as complying with S14 shall, at each front outboard designated seating
position, meet the injury criteria specified in S6.1, S6.2(b), S6.3,
S6.4(b), S6.5, and S6.6 when tested under S5.1.2(b).
S15 Rigid barrier test requirements using 5th percentile adult
female dummies.
S15.1 Belted test. Each vehicle that is certified as complying with
S14 shall, at each front outboard designated seating position, meet the
injury criteria specified in S15.3 of this standard when the vehicle is
crash tested in accordance with the procedures specified in S16.1(a) of
this standard with the anthropomorphic test devices restrained by a
Type 2 seat belt assembly.
S15.2 Unbelted test. Each vehicle that is certified as complying
with S14 shall, at each front outboard designated seating position,
meet the injury criteria specified in S15.3 of this standard when the
vehicle is crash tested in accordance with the procedures specified in
S16.1(b) of this standard with the anthropomorphic test devices
unbelted.
S15.3 Injury criteria for the 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart O Hybrid III
5th percentile female test dummy.
S15.3.1 All portions of the test dummy shall be contained within
the outer surfaces of the vehicle passenger compartment.
S15.3.2 Head injury criteria.
(a) For any two points in time, t1 and t2,
during the event which are separated by not more than a 15 millisecond
time interval and where t1 is less than t2, the
head injury criterion (HIC15 ) shall be determined using the
resultant head acceleration at the center of gravity of the dummy head,
ar, expressed as a multiple of g (the acceleration of
gravity) and shall be calculated using the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MY00.005
(b) The maximum calculated HIC15 value shall not exceed
700.
S15.3.3 The resultant acceleration calculated from the output of
the thoracic instrumentation shall not exceed 60 g's, except for
intervals whose cumulative duration is not more than 3 milliseconds.
S15.3.4 Compression deflection of the sternum relative to the
spine, as determined by instrumentation, shown shall not exceed 52 mm
(2.0 in).
S15.3.5 The force transmitted axially through each femur shall not
exceed 6805 N (1530 lb).
S15.3.6 Neck injury. When measuring neck injury, each of the
following injury criteria shall be met.
(a) Nij.
(1) The shear force (Fx), axial force (Fz), and bending moment (My)
shall be measured by the dummy upper neck load cell for the duration of
the crash event as specified in S4.10. Shear force, axial force, and
bending moment shall be filtered for Nij purposes at SAE J211/1 rev.
Mar95 Channel Frequency Class 600 (see S4.7).
(2) During the event, the axial force (Fz) can be either in tension
or compression while the occipital condyle bending moment (Mocy) can be
in either flexion or extension. This results in four possible loading
conditions for Nij: tension-extension (Nte), tension-flexion (Ntf),
compression-extension (Nce), or compression-flexion (Ncf).
(3) When calculating Nij using equation S15.3.6(a)(4), the critical
values, Fzc and Myc, are:
(i) Fzc = 4287 N (964 lbf) when Fz is in tension
(ii) Fzc = 3880 N (872 lbf) when Fz is in compression
(iii) Myc = 155 Nm (114 lbf-ft) when a flexion moment exists at the
occipital condyle
(iv) Myc = 67 Nm (49 lbf-ft) when an extension moment exists at the
occipital condyle.
(4) At each point in time, only one of the four loading conditions
occurs and the Nij value corresponding to that loading condition is
computed and the three remaining loading modes shall be considered a
value of zero. The expression for calculating each Nij loading
condition is given by:
Nij = (Fz / Fzc) + (Mocy / Myc)
(5) None of the four Nij values shall exceed 1.0 at any time during
the event.
(b) Peak tension. Tension force (Fz), measured at the upper neck
load cell, shall not exceed 2620 N (589 lbf) at any time.
(c) Peak compression. Compression force (Fz), measured at the upper
neck load cell, shall not exceed 2520 N (566 lbf) at any time.
S15.3.7 Unless otherwise indicated, instrumentation for data
acquisition, data channel frequency class, and moment calculations are
the same as given for the 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart O Hybrid III 5th
percentile female test dummy.
S16. Test procedures for rigid barrier test requirements using 5th
percentile adult female dummies.
S16.1 General provisions. Crash testing to determine compliance
with the requirements of S15 of this standard is conducted as specified
in the following paragraphs (a) and (b).
(a) Belted test. Place a 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart O 5th percentile
adult female test dummy at each front outboard seating position of a
vehicle, in accordance with the procedures specified in S16.3 of this
standard. Impact the vehicle traveling longitudinally forward at any
speed, up
[[Page 30752]]
to and including 48 km/h (30 mph), into a fixed rigid barrier that is
perpendicular within a tolerance of 5 degrees to the line
of travel of the vehicle under the applicable conditions of S16.2 of
this standard.
(b) Unbelted test. Place a 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart O 5th percentile
adult female test dummy at each front outboard seating position of a
vehicle, in accordance with the procedures specified in S16.3 of this
standard, except S16.3.5. Impact the vehicle traveling longitudinally
forward at any speed, from 32 km/h (20 mph) to 40 km/h (25 mph),
inclusive, into a fixed rigid barrier that is perpendicular within a
tolerance of 5 degrees to the line of travel of the
vehicle under the applicable conditions of S16.2 of this standard.
S16.2 Test conditions.
S16.2.1 The vehicle, including test devices and instrumentation, is
loaded as in S8.1.1.
S16.2.2 Movable vehicle windows and vents are placed in the fully
closed position, unless the vehicle manufacturer chooses to specify a
different adjustment position prior to the time the vehicle is
certified.
S16.2.3 Convertibles and open-body type vehicles have the top, if
any, in place in the closed passenger compartment configuration.
S16.2.4 Doors are fully closed and latched but not locked.
S16.2.5 The dummy is clothed in form fitting cotton stretch
garments with short sleeves and above the knee length pants. A size 7
1/2W shoe which meets the configuration and size specifications of MIL-
S-21711E (see S4.7) or its equivalent is placed on each foot of the
test dummy.
S16.2.6 Limb joints are set at one g, barely restraining the weight
of the limb when extended horizontally. Leg joints are adjusted with
the torso in the supine position.
S16.2.7 Instrumentation shall not affect the motion of dummies
during impact.
S16.2.8 The stabilized temperature of the dummy is at any level
between 20.6 deg. C and 22.2 deg. C ( 69 deg. F to 72 deg. F).
S16.2.9 Steering wheel adjustment.
S16.2.9.1 Adjust a tiltable steering wheel, if possible, so that
the steering wheel hub is at the geometric center of its full range of
driving positions.
S16.2.9.2 If there is no setting detent at the mid position, lower
the steering wheel to the detent just below the mid position.
S16.2.9.3 If the steering column is telescoping, place the steering
column in the mid position. If there is no mid position, move the
steering wheel rearward one position from the mid position.
S16.2.10 Driver and passenger seat set-up.
S16.2.10.1 Seat position adjustment.
S16.2.10.1.1 If a seat is adjustable in the fore and aft and/or
vertical directions, move the seat to the fowardmost seating position
and mid-height position.
S16.2.10.1.2 Establish a reference line on the outboard side of the
seat cushion in a horizontal plane.
S16.2.10.1.3 Measure and record the seat cushion angle with respect
to the reference line established in S16.2.10.1.2.
S16.2.10.1.4 Adjust the seat vertically as close to the mid-height
position as possible. If possible, maintain the seat cushion reference
angle measured in the middle and full forward condition in
S16.2.10.1.3.
S16.2.10.2 Lumbar support adjustment. Position adjustable lumbar
supports so that the lumbar support is in its lowest, retracted or
deflated adjustment position.
S16.2.10.3 Cushion and side bolster adjustment. Position adjustable
seat cushion and seat back side bolsters so that they are in the lowest
or most open adjustment position.
S16.3 Dummy seating positioning procedures. The 49 CFR Part 572
Subpart O 5th percentile adult female test dummy is positioned as
follows.
S16.3.1 General provisions and definitions.
S16.3.1.1 All angles are measured with respect to the horizontal
plane.
S16.3.1.2 The dummy's neck bracket is adjusted to align the zero
degree index marks.
S16.3.1.3 The term ``midsagittal plane'' refers to the vertical
plane that separates the dummy into equal left and right halves.
S16.3.1.4 The term ``vertical longitudinal plane'' refers to a
vertical plane parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline.
S16.3.1.5 The term ``vertical plane'' refers to a vertical plane,
not necessarily parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline.
S16.3.1.6 The term ``transverse instrumentation platform'' refers
to the transverse instrumentation surface inside the dummy's skull
casting to which the neck load cell mounts. This surface is
perpendicular to the skull cap's machined inferior-superior mounting
surface.
S16.3.1.7. The term ``thigh'' refers to the femur between, but not
including, the knee and the pelvis.
S16.3.1.8 The term ``leg'' refers to the lower part of the entire
leg including the knee.
S16.3.1.9 The term ``foot'' refers to the foot including the ankle.
S16.3.2 Driver dummy positioning.
S16.3.2.1 Driver torso/head/seat back angle positioning.
S16.3.2.1.1 Fully recline the seat back, if adjustable.
S16.3.2.1.2 Install the dummy into the driver's seat. If necessary,
move the seat rearward to facilitate dummy installation. If the seat
cushion angle automatically changes as the seat is moved from the full
forward position, restore the correct seat cushion angle when measuring
the pelvic angle as specified in S16.3.2.1.11.
S16.3.2.1.3 Bucket seats. Center the dummy on the seat cushion so
that its midsagittal plane is vertical and coincides with the vertical
longitudinal plane through the center of the seat cushion.
S16.3.2.1.4 Bench seats. Position the midsagittal plane of the
dummy vertical and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline
and aligned with the center of the steering wheel rim.
S16.3.2.1.5 Hold the dummy's thighs down and push rearward on the
upper torso to maximize the dummy's pelvic angle.
S16.3.2.1.6 Place the legs at 90 degrees to the thighs. Push
rearward on the dummy's knees to force the pelvis into the seat so
there is no gap between the pelvis and the seat back or until contact
occurs between the back of the dummy's calves and the front of the seat
cushion such that the angle between the dummy's thighs and legs begins
to change.
S16.3.2.1.7 Gently rock the upper torso relative to the lower torso
laterally in a side to side motion three times through a 5
degree arc (approximately 51 mm (2 in) side to side) to reduce friction
between the dummy and the seat.
S16.3.2.1.8 Before proceeding, attempt to return the seat to the
full forward position if it has been moved from that location as
specified in S16.3.2.1.2. If, at any step during the seating procedure,
a dummy leg contacts the vehicle interior, position the seat at the
next detent where there is no contact. If the seat is a power seat,
position the seat to avoid contact while assuring that there is a
maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) distance between the vehicle interior and the
point on the dummy that would first contact the vehicle interior.
S16.3.2.1.9 While holding the thighs in place, rotate the seat back
forward until the transverse instrumentation platform of the head is
level to within 0.5 degrees, making sure that the pelvis
does not interfere with the seat
[[Page 30753]]
bight. Inspect the abdomen to ensure that it is properly installed.
S16.3.2.1.10 If it is not possible to achieve the head level within
0.5 degrees, minimize the angle.
S16.3.2.1.11 Measure and set the dummy's pelvic angle using the
pelvic angle gage (drawing TE-2504, incorporated by reference in 49 CFR
Part 572, Subpart O, of this chapter). The angle shall be set to 20.0
degrees 2.5 degrees. If this is not possible, adjust the
pelvic angle as close to 20.0 degrees as possible while keeping the
transverse instrumentation platform of the head as level as possible as
specified in S16.3.2.1.9 and S16.3.2.1.10.
S16.3.2.1.12. If the transverse instrumentation platform of the
head is still not level, adjust the seat back angle to minimize the
angle as much as possible.
S16.3.2.1.13 In vehicles with a fixed seat back, adjust the lower
neck bracket to level the head as much as possible.
S16.3.2.2 Driver thigh/knee/leg positioning.
S16.3.2.2.1 Rest the dummy's thighs against the seat cushion to the
extent permitted by the placement of the feet in S16.3.2.3.
S16.3.2.2.2 Set the initial transverse distance between the
longitudinal centerline of the dummy's knees at 160 to 170 mm (6.3 to
6.7 in), with the thighs and legs of the dummy in vertical planes.
S16.3.2.2.3. If either knee of the dummy contacts the vehicle
interior, move the seat rearward to the next detent that provides
clearance. If the seat is a power seat, move the seat rearward, while
assuring that there is a maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) distance between the
vehicle interior and the dummy knee closest to the vehicle interior.
S16.3.2.3 Driver foot positioning.
S16.3.2.3.1 If the vehicle has an adjustable accelerator pedal,
adjust it to the full forward position. Rest the right foot of the test
dummy on the undepressed accelerator pedal with the rearmost point of
the heel on the floor pan in the plane of the pedal. If the foot cannot
be placed on the accelerator pedal, set it initially perpendicular to
the lower leg and then place it as far forward as possible in the
direction of the pedal centerline with the rearmost point of the heel
resting on the floor pan. If the vehicle has an adjustable accelerator
pedal and the right foot is not touching the accelerator pedal when
positioned as above, move the pedal rearward until it touches the right
foot. If the accelerator pedal still does not touch the foot in the
full rearward position, leave the pedal in that position.
S16.3.2.3.2 If the ball of the foot does not contact the pedal,
change the angle of the foot relative to the leg such that the toe of
the foot contacts the undepressed accelerator pedal.
S16.3.2.3.3 Place the left foot on the toe board with the rearmost
point of the heel resting on the floor pan as close as possible to the
point of intersection of the toe board and the floor pan.
S16.3.2.3.4 If the left foot cannot be positioned on the toe board,
place the foot flat on the floor pan as far forward as possible.
S16.3.2.3.5 If the left foot does not contact the floor pan, place
the foot parallel to the floor and place the leg as perpendicular to
the thigh as possible.
S16.3.2.4 Driver arm/hand positioning.
S16.3.2.4.1 Place the dummy's upper arms adjacent to the torso with
the arm centerlines as close to vertical as possible.
S16.3.2.4.2 Place the palms of the dummy in contact with the outer
part of the steering wheel rim at its horizontal centerline with the
thumbs inside the steering wheel rim.
S16.3.2.4.3 If it is not possible to position the thumbs inside the
steering wheel rim at its horizontal centerline, then position them
above and as close to the horizontal centerline of the steering wheel
rim as possible.
S16.3.2.4.4 Lightly tape the hands to the steering wheel rim so
that if the hand of the test dummy is pushed upward by a force of not
less than 9 N (2 lb) and not more than 22 N (5 lb), the tape releases
the hand from the steering wheel rim.
S16.3.3 Passenger dummy positioning.
S16.3.3.1 Passenger torso/head/seat back angle positioning.
S16.3.3.1.1 Fully recline the seat back, if adjustable.
S16.3.3.1.2 Place the dummy in the passenger's seat. If necessary,
move the seat rearward to facilitate dummy installation. If the seat
cushion angle automatically changes as the seat is moved from the full
forward position, restore the correct seat cushion angle when measuring
the pelvic angle in S16.3.3.1.11.
S16.3.3.1.3 Bucket seats. Center the dummy on the seat cushion so
that its midsagittal plane is vertical and coincides with the vertical
longitudinal plane through the center of the seat cushion.
S16.3.3.1.4 Bench seats. The midsagittal plane of the dummy shall
be vertical and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline and
the same distance from the vehicle's longitudinal centerline as the
midsagittal plane of the driver dummy.
S16.3.3.1.5 Hold the dummy's thighs down and push rearward on the
upper torso to maximize the dummy's pelvic angle.
S16.3.3.1.6 Place the legs at 90 degrees to the thighs. Push
rearward on the dummy's knees to force the pelvis into the seat so
there is no gap between the pelvis and the seat back or until contact
occurs between the back of the dummy's calves and the front of the seat
cushion such that the angle between the dummy's thighs and legs begins
to change.
S16.3.3.1.7 Gently rock the upper torso relative to the lower torso
laterally side to side three times through a 5 degree arc
(approximately 51 mm (2 in) side to side).
S16.3.3.1.8 Before proceeding, attempt to return the seat to the
full forward position if it has been moved from that location as
specified in S16.3.3.1.2. If, at any step during the seating procedure,
a dummy leg contacts the vehicle interior, position the seat at the
detent where there is no contact. If the seats are power seats,
position the seat to avoid contact while assuring that there is a
maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) distance between the vehicle interior and the
point on the dummy that would first contact the vehicle interior.
S16.3.3.1.9 While holding the thighs in place, rotate the seat back
forward until the transverse instrumentation platform of the head is
level to within 0.5 degrees, making sure that the pelvis
does not interfere with the seat bight. In addition, inspect the
abdomen to insure that it is properly installed.
S16.3.3.1.10 If it is not possible to orient the head level within
0.5 degrees, minimize the angle.
S16.3.3.1.11 Measure and set the dummy's pelvic angle using the
pelvic angle gage (drawing TE-2504, incorporated by reference in 49 CFR
Part 572, Subpart O, of this chapter). The angle shall be set to 20.0
degrees 2.5 degrees. If this is not possible, adjust the
pelvic angle as close to 20.0 degrees as possible while keeping the
transverse instrumentation platform of the head as level as possible as
specified in S16.3.3.1.9 and S16.3.3.1.10.
S16.3.3.1.12 If the transverse instrumentation platform of the head
is still not level, adjust the seat back angle to minimize the angle as
much as possible.
S16.3.3.1.13 In vehicles with a fixed seat back, adjust the lower
neck bracket to level the head as much as possible.
[[Page 30754]]
S16.3.3.2 Passenger thigh/knee/leg positioning.
S16.3.3.2.1 Rest the dummy's thighs against the seat cushion to the
extent permitted by the placement of the feet in S16.3.3.3.
S16.3.3.2.2 Set the initial transverse distance between the
longitudinal centerline of the dummy's knees at 160 to 170 mm (6.3 to
6.7 in), with the thighs and legs of the dummy in vertical longitudinal
planes.
S16.3.3.2.3 If either knee of the dummy is in contact with the
vehicle interior, move the seat rearward to the next detent that
provides clearance. If the seats are power seats, move the seat
rearward for a maximum distance of 5 mm (0.2 in) between the vehicle
interior and the dummy knee closest to the vehicle interior.
S16.3.3.3 Passenger foot positioning.
S16.3.3.3.1 Place the passenger's feet flat on the floor pan as far
forward as possible.
S16.3.3.3.2 If either foot does not entirely contact the floor pan,
place the foot parallel to the floor and place the legs as
perpendicular to the thighs as possible.
S16.3.3.4 Passenger arm/hand positioning.
S16.3.3.4.1 Place the dummy's upper arms in contact with the upper
seat back and adjacent to the torso.
S16.3.3.4.2 Place the palms of the dummy in contact with the
outside of the thighs.
S16.3.3.4.3 Place the little fingers in contact with the seat
cushion.
S16.3.4 Driver and passenger head restraint adjustment.
S16.3.4.1. Place each adjustable head restraint so that the
vertical center of the head restraint is horizontally aligned with the
center of gravity (CG) of the dummy head.
S16.3.4.2 If the above position is not attainable, move the
vertical center of the head restraint to the closest detent below the
center of the head CG.
S16.3.4.3 If the head restraint has a fore and aft adjustment,
place the restraint in the forwardmost position or until contact with
the head is made, whichever occurs first.
S16.3.4.4 If the head restraint has an automatic adjustment, leave
it where the system positions the restraint after the dummy is placed
in the seat.
S16.3.5 Driver and passenger manual belt adjustment (for tests
conducted with a belted dummy)
S16.3.5.1 If an adjustable seat belt D-ring anchorage exists, place
it in the manufacturer's design position for a 5th percentile adult
female with the seat in the position specified in S16.2.11.1.
S16.3.5.2 Place the Type 2 manual belt around the test dummy and
fasten the latch.
S16.3.5.3 Ensure that the dummy's head remains as level as
possible, as specified in S16.3.2.1.9, S16.3.2.1.10, S16.3.3.1.9, and
S16.3.3.1.10.
S16.3.5.4 Remove all slack from the lap belt. Pull the upper torso
webbing out of the retractor and allow it to retract; repeat this
operation four times. Apply a 9 N (2 lbf) to 18 N (4 lbf) tension load
to the lap belt. If the belt system is equipped with a tension-
relieving device, introduce the maximum amount of slack into the upper
torso belt that is recommended by the manufacturer. If the belt system
is not equipped with a tension-relieving device, allow the excess
webbing in the shoulder belt to be retracted by the retractive force of
the retractor.
S17 Offset frontal deformable barrier requirements using 5th
percentile adult female test dummies.
Each vehicle that is certified as complying with S14 shall, at each
front outboard designated seating position, meet the injury criteria
specified in S15.3 of this standard when the vehicle is crash tested in
accordance with the procedures specified in S18 of this standard with
the anthropomorphic test devices restrained by a Type 2 seat belt
assembly.
S18 Test procedure for offset frontal deformable barrier
requirements using 5th percentile adult female dummies.
S18.1 General provisions. Place a 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart O 5th
percentile adult female test dummy at each front outboard seating
position of a vehicle, in accordance with the procedures specified in
S16.3 of this standard. Impact the vehicle traveling longitudinally
forward at any speed, up to and including 40 km/h (25 mph), into a
fixed offset deformable barrier under the conditions and procedures
specified in S18.2 of this standard, impacting only the driver side of
the vehicle.
S18.2 Test conditions.
S18.2.1 Offset frontal deformable barrier. The offset frontal
deformable barrier shall conform to the specifications set forth in
Subpart C of Part 587 of this chapter.
S18.2.2 General test conditions. All of the test conditions
specified in S16.2 of this standard apply.
S18.2.3 Dummy seating procedures. Position the anthropomorphic test
dummies as specified in S16.3 of this standard.
S18.2.4 Impact configuration. The test vehicle shall impact the
barrier with the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle parallel to the
line of travel and perpendicular to the barrier face within a tolerance
of 5 degrees. The test vehicle shall be aligned so that
the vehicle strikes the barrier with 40 percent overlap on the left
side of the vehicle, with the vehicle's front engaging the barrier face
such that the vehicle's longitudinal centerline is offset outboard of
the edge of the barrier face by 10 percent of the vehicle's width
50 mm (2.0 in) as illustrated in Figure 10. The vehicle
width is defined as the maximum dimension measured across the widest
part of the vehicle, including bumpers and molding but excluding such
components as exterior mirrors, flexible mud flaps, marker lamps, and
dual rear wheel configurations.
S19 Requirements to provide protection for infants in rear facing
and convertible child restraints and car beds.
S19.1 Each vehicle certified as complying with S14 shall, at the
option of the manufacturer, meet the requirements specified in S19.2 or
S19.3, under the test procedures specified in S20.
S19.2 Option 1--Automatic suppression feature. Each vehicle shall
meet the requirements specified in S19.2.1 through S19.2.3.
S19.2.1 The vehicle shall be equipped with an automatic suppression
feature for the passenger air bag which results in deactivation of the
air bag during each of the static tests specified in S20.2 (using the
49 CFR Part 572 Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI child dummy in any of the
child restraints identified in sections B and C of Appendix A of this
standard and the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart K Newborn Infant dummy in any
of the car beds identified in section A of Appendix A, as appropriate),
and activation of the air bag system during each of the static tests
specified in S20.3 (using the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart O 5th percentile
adult female dummy).
S19.2.2 The vehicle shall be equipped with at least one telltale
which emits light whenever the passenger air bag system is deactivated
and does not emit light whenever the passenger air bag system is
activated, except that the telltale(s) need not illuminate when the
passenger seat is unoccupied. Each telltale:
(a) Shall emit yellow light;
(b) Shall have the identifying words ``PASSENGER AIR BAG OFF'' on
the telltale or within 25 mm (1.0 in) of the telltale; and
(c) Shall not be combined with the readiness indicator required by
S4.5.2 of this standard.
(d) Shall be located within the interior of the vehicle and forward
of and above the design H-point of both the driver's and the right
front passenger's seat in
[[Page 30755]]
their forwardmost seating positions and shall not be located on or
adjacent to a surface that can be used for temporary or permanent
storage where use of the storage space could obscure the telltale from
either the driver's or right front passenger's view.
(e) Shall be visible to the driver and right front passenger under
all driving conditions. The means for providing the required visibility
may be adjustable to provide two or more levels of brightness, one of
which is substantially discernable to a person, of any age, who has
adapted to ambient daytime driving conditions, the other of which is
substantially discernable to a driver, of any age, who has adapted to
ambient nighttime driving conditions. The means for providing the
required visibility may be adjustable manually or automatically, except
that the telltale(s) may not be adjusted under any conditions to a
level that is not visible, e.g., to the nighttime intensity during
daytime driving conditions.
S19.2.3 The vehicle shall be equipped with a mechanism that
indicates whether the air bag system is suppressed, regardless of
whether the passenger seat is occupied. The mechanism need not be
located in the occupant compartment unless it is the telltale described
in S19.2.2.
S19.3 Option 2--Low risk deployment. Each vehicle shall meet the
injury criteria specified in S19.4 of this standard when the passenger
air bag is deployed in accordance with the procedures specified in
S20.4.
S19.4 Injury criteria for the 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart R 12-month-
old CRABI test dummy.
S19.4.1 All portions of the test dummy and child restraint shall be
contained within the outer surfaces of the vehicle passenger
compartment.
S19.4.2 Head injury criteria.
(a) For any two points in time, t1 and t2,
during the event which are separated by not more than a 15 millisecond
time interval and where t1 is less than t2, the
head injury criterion (HIC15) shall be determined using the
resultant head acceleration at the center of gravity of the dummy head,
ar, expressed as a multiple of g (the acceleration of
gravity) and shall be calculated using the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MY00.000
(b) The maximum calculated HIC15 value shall not exceed
390.
S19.4.3 The resultant acceleration calculated from the output of
the thoracic instrumentation shall not exceed 50 g's, except for
intervals whose cumulative duration is not more than 3 milliseconds.
S19.4.4 Neck injury. When measuring neck injury, each of the
following injury criteria shall be met.
(a) Nij.
(1) The shear force (Fx), axial force (Fz), and bending moment (My)
shall be measured by the dummy upper neck load cell for the duration of
the crash event as specified in S4.10. Shear force, axial force, and
bending moment shall be filtered for Nij purposes at SAE J211/1 rev.
Mar95 Channel Frequency Class 600 (see S4.7).
(2) During the event, the axial force (Fz) can be either in tension
or extension while the occipital condyle bending moment (Mocy) can be
in either flexion or extension. This results in four possible loading
conditions for Nij: tension-extension (Nte), tension-flexion (Ntf),
compression-extension (Nce), or compression-flexion (Ncf).
(3) When calculating Nij using equation S19.4.4(a)(4), the critical
values, Fzc and Myc, are:
(i) Fzc = 1460 N (328 lbf) when Fz is in tension
(ii) Fzc = 1460 N (328 lbf) when Fz is in compression
(iii) Myc = 43 Nm (32 lbf-ft) when a flexion moment exists at the
occipital condyle
(iv) Myc = 17 Nm (13 lbf-ft) when an extension moment exists at the
occipital condyle.
(4) At each point in time, only one of the four loading conditions
occurs and the Nij value corresponding to that loading condition is
computed and the three remaining loading modes shall be considered a
value of zero. The expression for calculating each Nij loading
condition is given by:
Nij = (Fz / Fzc) + (Mocy / Myc)
(5) None of the four Nij values shall exceed 1.0 at any time during
the event.
(b) Peak tension. Tension force (Fz), measured at the upper neck
load cell, shall not exceed 780 N (175 lbf) at any time.
(c) Peak compression. Compression force (Fz), measured at the upper
neck load cell, shall not exceed 960 N (216 lbf) at any time.
S19.4.5 Unless otherwise indicated, instrumentation for data
acquisition, data channel frequency class, and moment calculations are
the same as given for the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI
test dummy.
S20 Test procedure for S19.
S20.1 General provisions.
S20.1.1 Tests specifying the use of a car bed, a rear facing child
restraint, or a convertible child restraint may be conducted using any
such restraint listed in sections A, B, and C of Appendix A of this
standard respectively. The car bed, rear facing child restraint, or
convertible child restraint may be unused or have been previously used
for static suppression tests only; if it has been used, there shall not
be any visible damage prior to the test.
S20.1.2 Each vehicle certified to this option shall comply in tests
conducted with the right front outboard seating position at the full
rearward seat track position, the middle seat track position, and the
full forward seat track position. If the child restraint or dummy
contacts the vehicle interior, move the seat rearward to the next
detent that provides clearance. If the seat is a power seat, move the
seat rearward while assuring that there is a maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in)
clearance. All tests are conducted with the seat height, if adjustable,
in the mid-height position and with the seat back angle, if adjustable,
at the manufacturer's nominal design seat back angle for a 50th
percentile adult male as specified in S8.1.3.
S20.1.3 If the car bed, rear facing child restraint, or convertible
child restraint is equipped with a handle, the vehicle shall comply in
tests conducted with the handle at both the child restraint
manufacturer's recommended position for use in vehicles and in the
upright position.
S20.1.4 If the car bed, rear facing child restraint, or convertible
child restraint is equipped with a sunshield, the vehicle shall comply
in tests conducted with the sunshield both fully open and fully closed.
S20.1.5 The vehicle shall comply in tests with the car bed, rear
facing child restraint, or convertible child restraint uncovered and in
tests with a towel or blanket weighing up to 1.0 kg (2.2 lb) placed on
or over the restraint in any of the following positions:
(a) with the blanket covering the top and sides of the restraint,
and
(b) with the blanket placed from the top of the vehicle's seat back
to the forwardmost edge of the restraint.
S20.1.6 Except as otherwise specified, if the car bed, rear facing
child restraint, or convertible child restraint has an anchorage system
as specified in S5.9 of FMVSS No. 213 and is tested in a vehicle with a
right front outboard vehicle seat that has an anchorage system as
specified in FMVSS No. 225, the vehicle shall comply with the belted
test conditions both with the restraint anchorage system attached and
unattached to the vehicle seat anchorage system and with the unbelted
test
[[Page 30756]]
conditions with the restraint anchorage system unattached to the
vehicle seat anchorage system.
S20.1.7 Do not attach any tethers.
S20.2 Static tests of automatic suppression feature which shall
result in deactivation of the passenger air bag. Each vehicle that is
certified as complying with S19.2 shall meet the following test
requirements.
S20.2.1 Belted rear facing and convertible child restraints.
S20.2.1.1 The vehicle shall comply in tests using any child
restraint specified in section B and section C of Appendix A of this
standard.
S20.2.1.2 Locate a vertical plane through the longitudinal
centerline of the child restraint. This will be referred to as ``Plane
A''.
S20.2.1.3 For bucket seats, ``Plane B'' refers to a vertical plane
parallel to the vehicle longitudinal centerline through the geometric
center of the right front outboard vehicle seat. For bench seats,
``Plane B'' refers to a vertical plane through the right front outboard
vehicle seat parallel to the vehicle longitudinal centerline the same
distance from the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle as the center
of the steering wheel.
S20.2.1.4 Facing rear.
(a) The vehicle shall comply in both of the following positions, if
applicable:
(1) Without attaching the child restraint anchorage system as
specified in S5.9 of FMVSS No. 213 to a vehicle seat anchorage system
specified in FMVSS No. 225, align the child restraint system facing
rearward such that Plane A is aligned with Plane B.
(2) If the child restraint is certified to S5.9 of FMVSS No. 213,
and the vehicle seat has an anchorage system as specified in FMVSS No.
225, attach the child restraint to the vehicle seat anchorage instead
of aligning the planes. Do not attach the vehicle safety belt.
(b) While maintaining the child restraint positions achieved in
S20.2.1.4(a), secure the child restraint by following, to the extent
possible, the child restraint manufacturer's directions regarding
proper installation of the restraint in the rear facing mode.
(c) Place any adjustable seat belt anchorages at the vehicle
manufacturer's nominal design position for a 50th percentile adult male
occupant. Cinch the vehicle belts to any tension from zero up to 134 N
(30 lb) to secure the child restraint. Measure belt tension in a flat,
straight section of the lap belt between the child restraint belt path
and the contact point with the belt anchor or vehicle seat, on the side
away from the buckle (to avoid interference from the shoulder portion
of the belt).
(d) Position the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI dummy
in the child restraint by following, to the extent possible, the
manufacturer's instructions for seating infants provided with the child
restraint.
(e) Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the ``on''
position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and close all
vehicle doors. Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag is
deactivated.
S20.2.1.5 Facing forward (convertible restraints only).
(a) The vehicle shall comply in both of the following positions, if
applicable:
(1) Without attaching the child restraint anchorage system as
specified in S5.9 of FMVSS No. 213 to a vehicle seat anchorage system
specified in FMVSS No. 225, align the child restraint system facing
forward such that Plane A is aligned with Plane B.
(2) If the child restraint is certified to S5.9 of FMVSS No. 213,
and the vehicle seat has an anchorage system as specified in FMVSS No.
225, attach the child restraint to the vehicle seat anchorage instead
of aligning the planes. Do not attach the vehicle safety belt.
(b) While maintaining the child restraint positions achieved in
S20.2.1.5(a), secure the child restraint by following, to the extent
possible, the child restraint manufacturer's directions regarding
proper installation of the restraint in the forward facing mode.
(c) Place any adjustable seat belt anchorages at the vehicle
manufacturer's nominal design position for a 50th percentile adult male
occupant. Cinch the vehicle belts to any tension from zero up to 134 N
(30 lb) to secure the child restraint. Measure belt tension in a flat,
straight section of the lap belt between the child restraint belt path
and the contact point with the belt anchor or vehicle seat, on the side
away from the buckle (to avoid interference from the shoulder portion
of the belt).
(d) Position the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI dummy
in the child restraint by following, to the extent possible, the
manufacturer's instructions provided with the child restraint.
(e) Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the ``on''
position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and close all
vehicle doors. Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag is
deactivated.
S20.2.2 Unbelted rear facing and convertible child restraints.
S20.2.2.1 The vehicle shall comply in tests using any child
restraint specified in section B and section C of Appendix A of this
standard.
S20.2.2.2 Locate a vertical plane through the longitudinal
centerline of the child restraint. This will be referred to as ``Plane
A''.
S20.2.2.3 For bucket seats, ``Plane B'' refers to a vertical plane
parallel to the vehicle longitudinal centerline through the geometric
center of the right front outboard vehicle seat. For bench seats,
``Plane B'' refers to a vertical plane through the right front outboard
seat parallel to the vehicle longitudinal centerline the same distance
from the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle as the center of the
steering wheel.
S20.2.2.4 Facing rear.
(a) Align the child restraint system facing rearward such that
Plane A is aligned with Plane B and the child restraint is in contact
with the seat back.
(b) Position the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI dummy
in the child restraint by following, to the extent possible, the
manufacturer's instructions provided with the child restraint.
(c) Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the ``on''
position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and close all
vehicle doors. Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag is
deactivated.
S20.2.2.5 Facing forward.
(a) Align the child restraint system facing forward such that Plane
A is aligned with Plane B and the child restraint is in contact with
the seat back.
(b) Position the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI dummy
in the child restraint by following, to the extent possible, the
manufacturer's instructions provided with the child restraint.
(c) Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the ``on''
position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and close all
vehicle doors. Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag is
deactivated.
S20.2.3 Tests with a belted car bed.
S20.2.3.1 The vehicle shall comply in tests using any car bed
specified in section A of Appendix A of this standard.
S20.2.3.2 (a) Install the car bed by following, to the extent
possible, the car bed manufacturer's directions regarding proper
installation of the car bed.
(b) Place any adjustable seat belt anchorages at the vehicle
manufacturer's nominal design position for a 50th percentile adult male
occupant. Cinch the vehicle belts to any tension from zero up to 134 N
(30 lb) to secure the car bed. Measure belt tension in a flat, straight
section of the lap belt between the car bed belt path and the contact
point with the belt anchor or vehicle seat, on the side away from the
[[Page 30757]]
buckle (to avoid interference from the shoulder portion of the belt).
(c) Position the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart K Newborn Infant dummy in
the car bed by following, to the extent possible, the car bed
manufacturer's instructions for positioning infants provided with the
car bed.
(d) Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the ``on''
position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and close all
vehicle doors. Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag is
deactivated.
S20.3 Static tests of automatic suppression feature which shall
result in activation of the passenger air bag system.
S20.3.1 Each vehicle certified to this option shall comply in tests
conducted with the right front outboard seating position at the full
rearward seat track position, the middle seat track position, and,
subject to S16.3.3.1.8, the full forward seat track position. All tests
are conducted with the seat height, if adjustable, in the mid-height
position.
S20.3.2 Place a 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart O 5th percentile adult
female test dummy at the right front outboard seating position of the
vehicle, in accordance with procedures specified in S16.3.3 of this
standard, except as specified in S20.3.1, subject to the fore-aft seat
positions in S20.3.1. Do not fasten the seat belt.
S20.3.3 Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the
``on'' position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and
then close all vehicle doors.
S20.3.4 Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag system is
activated.
S20.4 Low risk deployment test. Each vehicle that is certified as
complying with S19.3 shall meet the following test requirements.
S20.4.1 Position the right front outboard vehicle seat in the full
forward seat track position, adjust the seat height (if adjustable) to
the mid-height position, and adjust the seat back (if adjustable) to
the nominal design position for a 50th percentile adult male as
specified in S8.1.3. If the child restraint or dummy contacts the
vehicle interior, move the seat rearward to the next detent that
provides clearance. If the seat is a power seat, move the seat rearward
while assuring that there is a maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) clearance.
S20.4.2 The vehicle shall comply in tests using any child restraint
specified in section B and section C of Appendix A to this standard.
S20.4.3 Locate a vertical plane through the longitudinal centerline
of the child restraint. This will be referred to as ``Plane A''.
S20.4.4 For bucket seats, ``Plane B'' refers to a vertical plane
parallel to the vehicle longitudinal centerline through the geometric
center of the right front outboard seat. For bench seats, ``Plane B''
refers to a vertical plane through the right front outboard seat
parallel to the vehicle longitudinal centerline that is the same
distance from the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle as the center
of the steering wheel.
S20.4.5 Align the child restraint system facing rearward such that
Plane A is aligned with Plane B.
S20.4.6 If the child restraint is certified to S5.9 of FMVSS No.
213, and the vehicle seat has an anchorage system as specified in FMVSS
No. 225, attach the child restraint to the vehicle seat anchorage
instead of aligning the planes. Do not attach the vehicle safety belt.
S20.4.7 While maintaining the child restraint position achieved in
S20.4.5, secure the child restraint by following, to the extent
possible, the child restraint manufacturer's directions regarding
proper installation of the restraint in the rear facing mode. Place any
adjustable seat belt anchorages at the manufacturer's nominal design
position for a 50th percentile adult male occupant. Cinch the vehicle
belts to any tension from zero up to 134 N (30 lb) to secure the child
restraint. Measure belt tension in a flat, straight section of the lap
belt between the child restraint belt path and the contact point with
the belt anchor or vehicle seat, on the side away from the buckle (to
avoid interference from the shoulder portion of the belt).
S20.4.8 Position the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI
dummy in the child restraint by following, to the extent possible, the
manufacturer's instructions for seating infants provided with the child
restraint.
S20.4.9 Deploy the right front outboard frontal air bag system. If
the air bag system contains a multistage inflator, the vehicle shall be
able to comply at any stage or combination of stages or time delay
between successive stages that could occur in the presence of an infant
in a rear facing child restraint positioned according to S20.2.1 in a
rigid barrier crash test at speeds up to 64 km/h (40 mph).
S21 Requirements using 3-year-old child dummies.
S21.1 Each vehicle that is certified as complying with S14 shall,
at the option of the manufacturer, meet the requirements specified in
S21.2, S21.3, or S21.4, under the test procedures specified in S22 or
S28, as applicable.
S21.2 Option 1--Automatic suppression feature. Each vehicle shall
meet the requirements specified in S21.2.1 through S21.2.3.
S21.2.1 The vehicle shall be equipped with an automatic suppression
feature for the passenger air bag which results in deactivation of the
air bag during each of the static tests specified in S22.2 (using a 49
CFR Part 572 Subpart P 3-year-old child dummy and, as applicable, any
child restraint specified in section C and section D of Appendix A to
this standard), and activation of the air bag system during each of the
static tests specified in S22.3 (using a 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart O 5th
percentile adult female dummy).
S21.2.2 The vehicle shall be equipped with a telltale light meeting
the requirements specified in S19.2.2.
S21.2.3 The vehicle shall be equipped with a mechanism that
indicates whether the air bag is suppressed, regardless of whether the
passenger seat is occupied. The mechanism need not be located in the
occupant compartment unless it is the telltale described in S21.2.2.
S21.3 Option 2--Dynamic automatic suppression system that
suppresses the air bag when an occupant is out of position. (This
option is available under the conditions set forth in S27.1.) The
vehicle shall be equipped with a dynamic automatic suppression system
for the passenger air bag system which meets the requirements specified
in S27.
S21.4 Option 3--Low risk deployment. Each vehicle shall meet the
injury criteria specified in S21.5 of this standard when the passenger
air bag is deployed in accordance with both of the low risk deployment
test procedures specified in S22.4.
S21.5 Injury criteria for the 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart P 3-year-old
child test dummy.
S21.5.1 All portions of the test dummy shall be contained within
the outer surfaces of the vehicle passenger compartment.
S21.5.2 Head injury criteria.
(a) For any two points in time, t1 and t2,
during the event which are separated by not more than a 15 millisecond
time interval and where t1 is less than t2, the
head injury criterion (HIC15) shall be determined using the
resultant head acceleration at the center of gravity of the dummy head,
ar, expressed as a multiple of g (the acceleration of
gravity) and shall be calculated using the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MY00.007
(b) The maximum calculated HIC15 value shall not exceed
570.
[[Page 30758]]
S21.5.3 The resultant acceleration calculated from the output of
the thoracic instrumentation shall not exceed 55 g's, except for
intervals whose cumulative duration is not more than 3 milliseconds.
S21.5.4 Compression deflection of the sternum relative to the
spine, as determined by instrumentation, shall not exceed 34
millimeters (1.3 in).
S21.5.5 Neck injury. When measuring neck injury, each of the
following injury criteria shall be met.
(a) Nij.
(1) The shear force (Fx), axial force (Fz), and bending moment (My)
shall be measured by the dummy upper neck load cell for the duration of
the crash event as specified in S4.10. Shear force, axial force, and
bending moment shall be filtered for Nij purposes at SAE J211/1 rev.
Mar95 Channel Frequency Class 600 (see S4.7).
(2) During the event, the axial force (Fz) can be either in tension
or compression while the occipital condyle bending moment (Mocy) can be
in either flexion or extension. This results in four possible loading
conditions for Nij: tension-extension (Nte), tension-flexion
(Ntf),compression-extension (Nce), or compression-flexion (Ncf).
(3) When calculating Nij using equation S21.5.5(a)(4), the critical
values, Fzc and Myc, are:
(i) Fzc = 2120 N (477 lbf) when Fz is in tension
(ii) Fzc = 2120 N (477 lbf) when Fz is in compression
(iii) Myc = 68 Nm (50 lbf-ft) when a flexion moment exists at the
occipital condyle
(iv) Myc = 27 Nm (20 lbf-ft) when an extension moment exists at the
occipital condyle.
(4) At each point in time, only one of the four loading conditions
occurs and the Nij value corresponding to that loading condition is
computed and the three remaining loading modes shall be considered a
value of zero. The expression for calculating each Nij loading
condition is given by:
Nij = (Fz/Fzc) + (Mocy/Myc)
(5) None of the four Nij values shall exceed 1.0 at any time during
the event.
(b) Peak tension. Tension force (Fz), measured at the upper neck
load cell, shall not exceed 1130 N (254 lbf) at any time.
(c) Peak compression. Compression force (Fz), measured at the upper
neck load cell, shall not exceed 1380 N (310 lbf) at any time.
S21.5.6 Unless otherwise indicated, instrumentation for data
acquisition, data channel frequency class, and moment calculations are
the same as given in 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart P 3-year-old child test
dummy.
S22 Test procedure for S21.
S22.1 General provisions and definitions.
S22.1.1 Tests specifying the use of a forward facing child
restraint, including a booster seat where applicable, may be conducted
using any such restraint listed in section C and section D of Appendix
A of this standard, respectively. The child restraint may be unused or
have been previously used for static suppression tests only; if it has
been used, there shall not be any visible damage prior to the test.
Booster seats are to be used in the manner appropriate for a three-
year-old child of the same height and weight as the three-year-old
child dummy.
S22.1.2 Unless otherwise specified, each vehicle certified to this
option shall comply in tests conducted with the right front outboard
seating position at the full rearward seat track position, the middle
seat track position, and the full forward seat track position. If the
dummy contacts the vehicle interior, move the seat rearward to the next
detent that provides clearance. If the seat is a power seat, move the
seat rearward while assuring that there is a maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in)
clearance. All tests are conducted with the seat height, if adjustable,
in the mid-height position, and with the seat back angle, if
adjustable, at the manufacturer's nominal design seat back angle for a
50th percentile adult male as specified in S8.1.3.
S22.1.3 Except as otherwise specified, if the child restraint has
an anchorage system as specified in S5.9 of FMVSS No. 213 and is tested
in a vehicle with a right front outboard vehicle seat that has an
anchorage system as specified in FMVSS No. 225, the vehicle shall
comply with the belted test conditions both with the restraint
anchorage system attached and unattached to the vehicle seat anchorage
system and with the unbelted test conditions with the restraint
anchorage system unattached to the vehicle seat anchorage system.
S22.1.4 Do not attach any tethers.
S22.1.5 The definitions provided in S16.3.1 apply to the tests
specified in S22.
S22.2 Static tests of automatic suppression feature which shall
result in deactivation of the passenger air bag. Each vehicle that is
certified as complying with S21.2 shall meet the following test
requirements:
S22.2.1 Belted test with forward facing child restraints or booster
seats.
S22.2.1.1 Install the restraint in the right front outboard seat in
accordance, to the extent possible, with the child restraint
manufacturer's instructions provided with the seat for use by children
with the same height and weight as the three-year-old child dummy.
S22.2.1.2 Locate a vertical plane through the longitudinal
centerline of the child restraint. This will be referred to as ``Plane
A'.
S22.2.1.3 For bucket seats, ``Plane B'' refers to a vertical plane
parallel to the vehicle longitudinal centerline through the geometric
center of the right front outboard vehicle seat. For bench seats,
``Plane B'' refers to a vertical plane through the right front outboard
vehicle seat parallel to the vehicle longitudinal centerline the same
distance from the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle as the center
of the steering wheel.
22.2.1.4 The vehicle shall comply in both of the following
positions, if applicable:
(a) Without attaching the child restraint anchorage system as
specified in S5.9 of FMVSS No. 213 to a vehicle seat anchorage system
specified in FMVSS No. 225 and without attaching any tethers, align the
child restraint system facing forward such that Plane A is aligned with
Plane B.
(b) If the child restraint is certified to S5.9 of FMVSS No. 213,
and the vehicle seat has an anchorage system as specified in FMVSS No.
225, attach the child restraint to the vehicle seat anchorage instead
of aligning the planes. Do not attach the vehicle safety belt.
S22.2.1.5 Forward facing child restraint
S22.2.1.5.1 Place any adjustable seat belt anchorages at the
vehicle manufacturer's nominal design position for a 50th percentile
adult male occupant. Cinch the vehicle belts to any tension from zero
up to 134 N (30 lb) to secure the child restraint. Measure belt tension
in a flat, straight section of the lap belt between the child restraint
belt path and the contact point with the belt anchor or vehicle seat,
on the side away from the buckle (to avoid interference from the
shoulder portion of the belt).
S22.2.1.5.2 Position the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart P 3-year-old child
dummy in the child restraint such that the dummy's lower torso is
centered on the child restraint and the dummy's spine is against the
seat back of the child restraint. Place the arms at the dummy's sides.
S22.2.1.5.3 Attach all belts that come with the child restraint
that are appropriate for a child of the same height and weight as the
three-year-old child dummy, if any, by following, to the extent
possible, the manufacturer's
[[Page 30759]]
instructions for seating children provided with the child restraint.
S22.2.1.6 Booster seat
S22.2.1.6.1 Place any adjustable seat belt anchorages at the
vehicle manufacturer's nominal design position for a 50th percentile
adult male occupant. For booster seats designed to be secured to the
vehicle seat even when empty, cinch the vehicle belts to any tension
from zero up to 134 N (30 lb) to secure the booster seat. Measure belt
tension in a flat, straight section of the lap belt between the child
restraint belt path and the contact point with the belt anchor or
vehicle seat, on the side away from the buckle (to avoid interference
from the shoulder portion of the belt).
S22.2.1.6.2 Position the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart P 3-year-old child
dummy in the booster seat such that the dummy's lower torso is centered
on the booster seat cushion and the dummy's spine is parallel to the
booster seat back or, if there is no booster seat back, the vehicle
seat back. Place the arms at the dummy's sides.
S22.2.1.6.3 If applicable, attach all belts that come with the
child restraint that are appropriate for a child of the same height and
weight as the three-year-old child dummy, if any, by following, to the
extent possible, the manufacturer's instructions for seating children
provided with the child restraint.
S22.2.1.6.4 If applicable, place the Type 2 manual belt around the
test dummy and fasten the latch. Remove all slack from the lap belt
portion. Pull the upper torso webbing out of the retractor and allow it
to retract; repeat this four times. Apply a 9 to 18 N (2 to 4 lb)
tension load to the lap belt. Allow the excess webbing in the upper
torso belt to be retracted by the retractive force of the retractor.
S22.2.1.7 Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the
``on'' position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and
then close all vehicle doors.
S22.2.1.8 Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag is
deactivated.
S22.2.2 Unbelted tests with dummies. Place the 49 CFR Part 572
Subpart P 3-year-old child dummy on the right front outboard seat in
any of the following positions (without using a child restraint or
booster seat or the vehicle's seat belts):
S22.2.2.1 Sitting on seat with back against seat back
(a) Position the dummy in the seated position and place it on the
right front outboard seat.
(b) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats, position the
midsagittal plane of the dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline and the same distance from the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline as the center of the steering wheel. In the
case of vehicles equipped with bucket seats, position the midsagittal
plane of the dummy vertically such that it coincides with the
longitudinal centerline of the bucket seat. Position the torso of the
dummy against the seat back. Position the dummy's thighs against the
seat cushion.
(c) Allow the legs of the dummy to extend off the surface of the
seat.
(d) Rotate the dummy's upper arms down until they contact the seat
back.
(e) Rotate the dummy's lower arms until the dummy's hands contact
the seat cushion.
(f) Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the ``on''
position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and then close
all vehicle doors.
(g) Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag is deactivated.
S22.2.2.2 Sitting on seat with back against reclined seat back.
Repeat the test sequence in S22.2.2.1 with the seat back angle 25
degrees rearward of the manufacturer's nominal design position for the
50th percentile adult male. If the seat will not recline 25 degrees
rearward of the nominal design position, use the closest position that
does not exceed 25 degrees.
S22.2.2.3 Sitting on seat with back not against seat back.
(a) Position the dummy in the seated position and place it on the
right front outboard seat.
(b) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats, position the
midsagittal plane of the dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline and the same distance from the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline as the center of the steering wheel. In the
case of vehicles equipped with bucket seats, position the midsagittal
plane of the dummy vertically such that it coincides with the
longitudinal centerline of the bucket seat. Position the dummy with the
spine vertical so that the horizontal distance from the dummy's back to
the seat back is no less than 25 mm (1 in) and no more than 150 mm (6
in), as measured along the dummy's midsagittal plane at the mid-sternum
level. To keep the dummy in position, a thread with a maximum breaking
strength of 311 N (70 lb) that does not interfere with the air bag may
be used to hold the dummy.
(c) Position the dummy's thighs against the seat cushion.
(d) Allow the legs of the dummy to extend off the surface of the
seat.
(e) Position the upper arms parallel to the spine and rotate the
dummy's lower arms until the dummy's hands contact the seat cushion.
(f) Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the ``on''
position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and then close
all vehicle doors.
(g) Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag is deactivated.
S22.2.2.4 Sitting on seat edge, spine vertical, hands by the
dummy's sides.
(a) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats, position the
midsagittal plane of the dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline and the same distance from the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline as the center of the steering wheel. In the
case of vehicles equipped with bucket seats, position the midsagittal
plane of the dummy vertically such that it coincides with the
longitudinal centerline of the bucket seat.
(b) Position the dummy in the seated position forward in the seat
such that the legs are vertical and rest against the front of the seat
with the spine vertical. If the dummy's feet contact the floorboard,
rotate the legs forward until the dummy is resting on the seat with the
feet positioned flat on the floorboard and the dummy spine vertical. To
keep the dummy in position, a thread with a maximum breaking strength
of 311 N (70 lb) that does not interfere with the air bag may be used
to hold the dummy.
(c) Place the upper arms parallel to the spine.
(d) Lower the dummy's lower arms such that they contact the seat
cushion.
(e) Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the ``on''
position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and then close
all vehicle doors.
(f) Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag is deactivated.
S22.2.2.5 Standing on seat, facing forward.
(a) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats, position the
midsagittal plane of the dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline and the same distance from the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline as the center of the steering wheel rim. In the
case of vehicles equipped with bucket seats, position the midsagittal
plane of the dummy vertically such that it coincides with the
longitudinal centerline of the bucket seat. Position the dummy in a
standing position on the right front outboard seat cushion facing the
front of the vehicle while placing the heels of the dummy's feet in
contact with the seat back.
[[Page 30760]]
(b) Rest the dummy against the seat back, with the arms parallel to
the spine.
(c) If the head contacts the vehicle roof, recline the seat so that
the head is no longer in contact with the vehicle roof, but allow no
more than 5 mm (0.2 in) distance between the head and the roof. If the
seat does not sufficiently recline to allow clearance, omit the test.
(d) If necessary use a thread with a maximum breaking strength of
311 N (70 lb) that does not interfere with the air bag or spacer blocks
to keep the dummy in position.
(e) Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the ``on''
position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and then close
all vehicle doors.
(f) Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag is deactivated.
S22.2.2.6 Kneeling on seat, facing forward.
(a) Position the dummy in a kneeling position by rotating the
dummy's legs 90 degrees behind the dummy (from the standing position)
with the toes pointed rearward as much as possible and with the arms
parallel to the spine.
(b) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats, position the
midsagittal plane of the dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline and the same distance from the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline as the center of the steering wheel. In the
case of vehicles equipped with bucket seats, position the midsagittal
plane of the dummy vertically such that it coincides with the
longitudinal centerline of the bucket seat.
(c) Position the kneeling dummy in the right front outboard seat
with the dummy facing the front of the vehicle with its toes at the
intersection of the seat back and seat cushion. Position the dummy so
that the spine is vertical. Push down on the legs so that they contact
the seat as much as possible and then release.
(d) If necessary use a thread with a maximum breaking strength of
311 N (70 lb) that does not interfere with the air bag or spacer blocks
to keep the dummy in position.
(e) Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the ``on''
position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and then close
all vehicle doors.
(f) Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag is deactivated.
S22.2.2.7 Kneeling on seat, facing rearward.
(a) Position the dummy in a kneeling position by rotating the
dummy's legs 90 degrees behind the dummy (from the standing position)
with the toes pointed rearward as much as possible and the arms
parallel to the spine.
(b) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats, position the
midsagittal plane of the dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline and the same distance from the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline as the center of the steering wheel. In the
case of vehicles equipped with bucket seats, position the midsagittal
plane of the dummy vertically such that it coincides with the
longitudinal centerline of the bucket seat.
(c) Position the kneeling dummy in the right front outboard seat
with the dummy facing the rear of the vehicle. Position the dummy such
that the dummy's head and torso are in contact with the seat back. Push
down on the legs so that they contact the seat as much as possible and
then release.
(d) Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the ``on''
position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and then close
all vehicle doors.
(e) Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag is deactivated.
S22.2.2.8 Lying on seat. This test is performed only in vehicles
with 3 designated front seating positions.
(a) Lay the dummy on the right front outboard seat such that the
following criteria are met:
(1) The midsagittal plane of the dummy is horizontal,
(2) The dummy's spine is perpendicular to the vehicle's
longitudinal axis,
(3) The dummy's arms are parallel to its spine,
(4) A plane passing through the two shoulder joints of the dummy is
vertical,
(5) The anterior of the dummy is facing the vehicle front,
(6) The head of the dummy is positioned towards the passenger door,
and
(7) The horizontal distance from the topmost point of the dummy's
head to the vehicle door is 50 to 100 mm (2-4 in).
(b) Rotate the thighs as much as possible toward the chest of the
dummy and rotate the legs as much as possible against the thighs.
(c) Move the dummy's upper left arm parallel to the vehicle's
transverse plane and the lower left arm 90 degrees to the upper arm.
Rotate the lower left arm about the elbow joint and toward the dummy's
head until movement is obstructed.
(d) Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the ``on''
position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and then close
all vehicle doors.
(e) Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag is deactivated.
S22.3 Static tests of automatic suppression feature which shall
result in activation of the passenger air bag system.
S22.3.1 Each vehicle certified to this option shall comply in tests
conducted with the right front outboard seating position at the full
rearward seat track position, the middle seat track position, and,
subject to S16.3.3.1.8, the full forward seat track position. All tests
are conducted with the seat height, if adjustable, in the mid-height
position.
S22.3.2 Place a 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart O 5th percentile adult
female test dummy at the right front outboard seating position of the
vehicle, in accordance with procedures specified in S16.3.3 of this
standard, except as specified in S22.3.1. Do not fasten the seat belt.
S22.3.3 Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the
``on'' position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and
then close all vehicle doors.
S22.3.4 Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag system is
activated.
S22.4 Low risk deployment tests.
S22.4.1 Each vehicle that is certified as complying with S21.4
shall meet the following test requirements with the 49 CFR Part 572,
Subpart P 3-year-old child dummy in both of the following positions:
Position 1 (S22.4.2) and Position 2 (S22.4.3).
S22.4.1.1 Locate and mark the center point of the dummy's chest/rib
plate (the vertical mid-point of the frontal chest plate of the dummy
on the midsagittal plane). This is referred to as ``Point 1.''
S22.4.1.2 Locate the vertical plane parallel to the vehicle
longitudinal centerline through the geometric center of the right front
air bag tear seam. This is referred to as ``Plane D.''
S22.4.1.3 Locate the horizontal plane through the geometric center
of the right front air bag tear seam. This is referred to as ``Plane
C.''
S22.4.2 Position 1 (chest on instrument panel).
S22.4.2.1 There are no seat track, seat height, or seat back angle
requirements.
S22.4.2.2 Place the dummy's midsagittal plane coincident with Plane
D.
S22.4.2.3 Initially position the thighs at a right angle to the
spine and the legs at a right angle to the thighs. These angles may be
adjusted to the extent necessary for the head and torso to attain their
final positions.
S22.4.2.4 With the dummy's thorax instrument cavity rear face
vertical and Point 1 in Plane C, move the dummy forward until Point 1
contacts the instrument panel. If the dummy's head contacts the
windshield and keeps Point
[[Page 30761]]
1 from contacting the instrument panel, lower the dummy until there is
no more than 5 mm (0.2 in) clearance between the head and the
windshield.
S22.4.2.5 Position the upper arms parallel to the spine and rotate
the lower arms forward (at the elbow joint) sufficiently to prevent
contact with or support from the seat.
S22.4.2.6 Position the legs of the dummy so that the legs are
vertical and the feet rest flat on the floorboard (or the feet are
positioned parallel to the floorboard) of the vehicle.
S22.4.2.7 Use the seat adjustments (fore-aft, height) to keep the
dummy in position. If necessary, thread with a maximum breaking
strength of 311 N (70 lb) and spacer blocks may be used to support the
dummy in position. The thread should support the torso rather than the
head. Support the dummy so that there is minimum interference with the
full rotational and translational freedom for the upper torso of the
dummy and the thread does not interfere with the air bag.
S22.4.3 Position 2 (head on instrument panel).
S22.4.3.1 Place the passenger seat in the full rearward seating
position. Place the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design seat
back angle for a 50th percentile adult male as specified in S8.1.3. If
adjustable in the vertical direction, place the seat in the mid-height
position.
S22.4.3.2 Place the dummy in the front passenger seat such that:
S22.4.3.2.1 The dummy's midsagittal plane is coincident with Plane
D. With the thighs on the seat, initially set the thighs perpendicular
to the torso and the legs perpendicular to the thighs. Position the
upper arms parallel to the torso and rotate the lower arms forward (at
the elbow) sufficiently to prevent contact with or support from the
seat.
S22.4.3.2.2 The dummy is positioned in the seat such that the legs
rest against the front of the seat and such that the dummy's thorax
instrument cavity rear face is vertical. If it is not possible to
position the dummy with the legs in the prescribed position, rotate the
legs forward until the dummy is resting on the seat with the feet
positioned flat on the floorboard.
S22.4.3.3 Move the seat forward, while maintaining the thorax
instrument cavity rear face orientation until any part of the dummy
contacts the vehicle's instrument panel.
S22.4.3.4 If contact has not been made with the vehicle's
instrument panel at the full forward seating position of the seat,
slide the dummy forward on the seat 190 mm (7.5 in) or until contact is
made, whichever is first. Maintain the thorax instrument cavity rear
face vertical orientation.
S22.4.3.5 If contact has not been made, apply a force towards the
front of the vehicle on the spine of the dummy between the shoulder
joints until the head or torso comes into contact with the vehicle's
instrument panel.
S22.4.3.6 If necessary, rotate the thighs and rotate the legs and
feet so as not to impede the motion of the head/torso into the
vehicle's instrument panel.
S22.4.3.7 Rotate the lower arms forward if necessary to prevent
contact with or support from the seat.
S22.4.3.8 If necessary, thread with a maximum breaking strength of
311 N (70 lb) and spacer blocks may be used to support the dummy in
position. The thread should support the torso rather than the head.
Support the dummy so that there is minimum interference with the full
rotational and translational freedom for the upper torso of the dummy
and the thread does not interfere with the air bag.
S22.4.4 Deploy the right front outboard frontal air bag system. If
the frontal air bag system contains a multistage inflator, the vehicle
shall be able to comply with the injury criteria at any stage or
combination of stages or time delay between successive stages that
could occur in a rigid barrier crash test at or below 26 km/h (16 mph),
under the test procedure specified in S22.5.
S22.5 Test procedure for determining stages of air bag systems
subject to low risk deployment test requirement.
S22.5.1 Impact the vehicle traveling longitudinally forward at any
speed, up to and including 26 km/h (16 mph) into a fixed rigid barrier
that is perpendicular 5 degrees to the line of travel of
the vehicle under the applicable conditions of S8 and S10, excluding
S10.7, S10.8, and S10.9.
S22.5.2 Determine which inflation stage or combination of stages
are fired and determine the time delay between successive stages. That
stage or combination of stages, with time delay between successive
stages, shall be used in deploying the air bag when conducting the low
risk deployment tests described in S22.4, S24.4, and S26.
S22.5.3 If the air bag does not deploy in the impact described in
S22.5.1, the low risk deployment tests described in S22.4, S24.4, and
S26 will be conducted with the first inflation stage of the air bag
system.
S23 Requirements using 6-year-old child dummies.
S23.1 Each vehicle that is certified as complying with S14 shall,
at the option of the manufacturer, meet the requirements specified in
S23.2, S23.3, or S23.4, under the test procedures specified in S24 or
S28, as applicable.
S23.2 Option 1--Automatic suppression feature. Each vehicle shall
meet the requirements specified in S23.2.1 through S23.2.3.
S23.2.1 The vehicle shall be equipped with an automatic suppression
feature for the passenger frontal air bag system which results in
deactivation of the air bag during each of the static tests specified
in S24.2 (using a 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart N 6-year-old child dummy in
any of the child restraints specified in section D of Appendix A of
this standard), and activation of the air bag system during each of the
static tests specified in S24.3 (using a 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart O 5th
percentile adult female dummy).
S23.2.2 The vehicle shall be equipped with a telltale light meeting
the requirements specified in S19.2.2.
S23.2.3 The vehicle shall be equipped with a mechanism that
indicates whether the air bag is suppressed, regardless of whether the
passenger seat is occupied. The mechanism need not be located in the
occupant compartment unless it is the telltale described in S23.2.2.
S23.3 Option 2--Dynamic automatic suppression system that
suppresses the air bag when an occupant is out of position. (This
option is available under the conditions set forth in S27.1.) The
vehicle shall be equipped with a dynamic automatic suppression system
for the passenger frontal air bag system which meets the requirements
specified in S27.
S23.4 Option 3--Low risk deployment. Each vehicle shall meet the
injury criteria specified in S23.5 of this standard when the passenger
air bag is statically deployed in accordance with both of the low risk
deployment test procedures specified in S24.4.
S23.5 Injury criteria for the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart N 6-year-old
child dummy.
S23.5.1 All portions of the test dummy shall be contained within
the outer surfaces of the vehicle passenger compartment.
S23.5.2 Head injury criteria.
(a) For any two points in time, t1 and t2,
during the event which are separated by not more than a 15 millisecond
time interval and where t1 is less than t2, the
head injury criterion (HIC15) shall be determined using the
resultant head acceleration at the center of gravity of the dummy head,
ar, expressed as a multiple of g (the acceleration of
gravity) and shall be calculated using the expression:
[[Page 30762]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MY00.008
(b) The maximum calculated HIC15 value shall not exceed
700.
S23.5.3 The resultant acceleration calculated from the output of
the thoracic instrumentation shall not exceed 60 g's, except for
intervals whose cumulative duration is not more than 3 milliseconds.
S23.5.4 Compression deflection of the sternum relative to the
spine, as determined by instrumentation, shall not exceed 40 mm (1.6
in).
S23.5.5 Neck injury. When measuring neck injury, each of the
following injury criteria shall be met.
(a) Nij.
(1) The shear force (Fx), axial force (Fz), and bending moment (My)
shall be measured by the dummy upper neck load cell for the duration of
the crash event as specified in S4.10. Shear force, axial force, and
bending moment shall be filtered for Nij purposes at SAE J211/1 rev.
Mar95 Channel Frequency Class 600 (see S4.7).
(2) During the event, the axial force (Fz) can be either in tension
or compression while the occipital condyle bending moment (Mocy) can be
in either flexion or extension. This results in four possible loading
conditions for Nij: tension-extension (Nte), tension-flexion (Ntf),
compression-extension (Nce), or compression-flexion (Ncf).
(3) When calculating Nij using equation S23.5.5(a)(4), the critical
values, Fzc and Myc, are:
(i) Fzc = 2800 N (629 lbf) when Fz is in tension
(ii) Fzc = 2800 N (629 lbf) when Fz is in compression
(iii) Myc = 93 Nm (69 lbf-ft) when a flexion moment exists at the
occipital condyle
(iv) Myc = 37 Nm (27 lbf-ft) when an extension moment exists at the
occipital condyle.
(4) At each point in time, only one of the four loading conditions
occurs and the Nij value corresponding to that loading condition is
computed and the three remaining loading modes shall be considered a
value of zero. The expression for calculating each Nij loading
condition is given by:
Nij = (Fz / Fzc) + (Mocy / Myc)
(5) None of the four Nij values shall exceed 1.0 at any time during
the event.
(b) Peak tension. Tension force (Fz), measured at the upper neck
load cell, shall not exceed 1490 N (335 lbf) at any time.
(c) Peak compression. Compression force (Fz), measured at the upper
neck load cell, shall not exceed 1820 N (409 lbf) at any time.
S23.5.6 Unless otherwise indicated, instrumentation for data
acquisition, data channel frequency class, and moment calculations are
the same as given for the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart N 6-year-old child
test dummy.
S24 Test procedure for S23.
S24.1 General provisions and definitions.
S24.1.1 Tests specifying the use of a booster seat may be conducted
using any such restraint listed in section D of Appendix A of this
standard. The booster seat may be unused or have been previously used
for static suppression tests only; if it has been used, there shall not
be any visible damage prior to the test. Booster seats are to be used
in the manner appropriate for a six-year-old child of the same height
and weight as the six-year-old child dummy.
S24.1.2 Unless otherwise specified, each vehicle certified to this
option shall comply in tests conducted with the right front outboard
seating position at the full rearward seat track position, the middle
seat track position, and the full forward seat track position. If the
dummy contacts the vehicle interior, move the seat rearward to the next
detent that provides clearance. If the seat is a power seat, move the
seat rearward while assuring that there is a maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in)
distance between the vehicle interior and the point on the dummy that
would first contact the vehicle interior. All tests are conducted with
the seat height, if adjustable, in the mid-height position, and with
the seat back angle, if adjustable, at the manufacturer's nominal
design seat back angle for a 50th percentile adult male as specified in
S8.1.3.
S24.1.3 Except as otherwise specified, if the booster seat has an
anchorage system as specified in S5.9 of FMVSS No. 213 and is tested in
a vehicle with a right front outboard vehicle seat that has an
anchorage system as specified in FMVSS No. 225, the vehicle shall
comply with the belted test conditions both with the restraint
anchorage system attached and unattached to the vehicle seat anchorage
system and with the unbelted test conditions with the restraint
anchorage system unattached to the vehicle seat anchorage system.
S24.1.4 Do not attach any tethers.
S24.1.5 The definitions provided in S16.3.1 apply to the tests
specified in S24.
S24.2 Static tests of automatic suppression feature which shall
result in deactivation of the passenger air bag. Each vehicle that is
certified as complying with S23.2 shall meet the following test
requirements.
S24.2.1 Except as provided in S24.2.2, conduct all tests as
specified in S22.2, except that the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart N 6-year-
old child dummy shall be used.
S24.2.2. Exceptions. The tests specified in the following
paragraphs of S22.2 need not be conducted: S22.2.1.5, S22.2.2.3,
S22.2.2.5, S22.2.2.6, S22.2.2.7, and S22.2.2.8.
S24.2.3. Sitting back in the seat and leaning on the right front
passenger door
(a) Position the dummy in the seated position and place the dummy
in the right front outboard seat. For bucket seats, position the
midsagittal plane of the dummy vertically such that it coincides with
the vertical longitudinal plane through the longitudinal center line of
the seat cushion. For bench seats, position the midsagittal plane of
the dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal
centerline and the same distance from the longitudinal centerline of
the vehicle as the center of the steering wheel.
(b) Place the dummy's back against the seat back and rest the
dummy's thighs on the seat cushion.
(c) Allow the legs and feet of the dummy to extend off the surface
of the seat. If this positioning of the dummy's legs is prevented by
contact with the instrument panel, move the seat rearward to the next
detent that provides clearance. If the seat is a power seat, move the
seat rearward, while assuring that there is a minimum of 5 mm (0.2 in)
distance between the vehicle interior and the part of the dummy that
was in contact with the vehicle interior.
(d) Rotate the dummy's upper arms toward the seat back until they
make contact.
(e) Rotate the dummy's lower arms down until they contact the seat.
(f) Close the vehicle's passenger-side door and then start the
vehicle engine or place the ignition in the ``on'' position, whichever
will turn on the suppression system.
(g) Push against the dummy's left shoulder to lean the dummy
against the door; close all remaining doors.
(h) Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag is deactivated.
S24.3 Static tests of automatic suppression feature which shall
result in activation of the passenger air bag system.
S24.3.1 Each vehicle certified to this option shall comply in tests
conducted with the right front outboard seating position at the full
rearward seat track position, the middle seat track position,
[[Page 30763]]
and, subject to S16.3.3.1.8, the full forward seat track position. All
tests are conducted with the seat height, if adjustable, in the mid-
height position.
S24.3.2 Place a 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart O 5th percentile adult
female test dummy at the right front outboard seating position of the
vehicle, in accordance with procedures specified in S16.3.3 of this
standard, except as specified in S24.3.1. Do not fasten the seat belt.
S24.3.3 Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the
``on'' position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and
then close all vehicle doors.
S24.3.4 Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag system is
activated.
S24.4 Low risk deployment tests.
S24.4.1 Each vehicle that is certified as complying with S23.4
shall meet the following test requirements with the 49 CFR Part 572
Subpart N 6-year-old child dummy in both of the following positions:
Position 1 (S24.4.2) or Position 2 (S24.4.3).
S24.4.1.1 Locate and mark the center point of the dummy's rib cage
or sternum plate (the vertical mid-point of the frontal chest plate of
the dummy on the midsagittal plane). This is referred to as ``Point
1.''
S24.4.1.2 Locate the vertical plane parallel to the vehicle
longitudinal centerline through the geometric center of the right front
air bag tear seam. This is referred to as ``Plane D.''
S24.4.1.3 Locate the horizontal plane through the geometric center
of the right front air bag tear seam. This is referred to as ``Plane
C.''
S24.4.2 Position 1 (chest on instrument panel).
S24.4.2.1 There are no seat track, seat height, or seat back angle
requirements.
S24.4.2.2 Remove the legs of the dummy at the pelvic interface.
S24.4.2.3 Place the dummy's midsagittal plane coincident with Plane
D.
S24.4.2.4 With the dummy's thorax instrument cavity rear face 6
degrees forward of the vertical and Point 1 in Plane C, move the dummy
forward until Point 1 contacts the instrument panel. If the dummy's
head contacts the windshield and keeps Point 1 from contacting the
instrument panel, lower the dummy until there is no more than 5 mm (0.2
in) clearance between the head and the windshield.
S24.4.2.5 Position the upper arms parallel to the spine and rotate
the lower arms forward (at the elbow joint) sufficiently to prevent
contact with or support from the seat.
S24.4.2.6 Use the seat adjustments (fore-aft, height) to keep the
dummy in position. If necessary, thread with a maximum breaking
strength of 311 N (70 lb) and spacer blocks may be used to support the
dummy in position. The thread should support the torso rather than the
head. Support the dummy so that there is minimum interference with the
full rotational and translational freedom for the upper torso of the
dummy and the thread does not interfere with the air bag.
S24.4.3 Position 2 (head on instrument panel).
S24.4.3.1 Place the passenger seat in the full rearward seating
position. Place the seat back in the nominal design position for a 50th
percentile adult male (S8.1.3) as specified by the vehicle
manufacturer. If adjustable in the vertical direction, place the seat
in the mid-height position.
S24.4.3.2 Place the dummy in the front passenger seat such that:
S24.4.3.2.1 The dummy's midsagittal plane is coincident with Plane
D. With the thighs on the seat, initially set the thighs perpendicular
to the torso and the legs perpendicular to the thighs. Position the
upper arms parallel to the torso and rotate the lower arms forward (at
the elbow) sufficiently to prevent contact with or support from the
seat.
S24.4.3.2.2 The dummy is positioned in the seat such that the legs
rest against the front of the seat and such that the dummy's thorax
instrument cavity rear face is 6 degrees forward of vertical. If it is
not possible to position the dummy with the legs in the prescribed
position, rotate the legs forward until the dummy is resting on the
seat with the feet positioned flat on the floorboard.
S24.4.3.3 Move the seat forward, while maintaining the thorax
instrument cavity rear face orientation until any part of the dummy
contacts the vehicle's instrument panel.
S24.4.3.4 If contact has not been made with the vehicle's
instrument panel at the full forward seating position of the seat,
slide the dummy forward on the seat 190 mm (7.5 in) or until contact is
made, whichever is first. Maintain the thorax instrument cavity rear
face orientation.
S24.4.3.5 If contact has not been made, apply a force towards the
front of the vehicle on the spine of the dummy between the shoulder
joints until the head or torso comes into contact with the vehicle's
instrument panel.
S24.4.3.6 If necessary, rotate the thighs and rotate the legs and
feet so as not to impede the motion of the head/torso into the
vehicle's instrument panel.
S24.4.3.7 Rotate the lower arms forward if necessary to prevent
contact with or support from the seat.
S24.4.3.8 If necessary, thread with a maximum breaking strength of
311 N (70 lb) and spacer blocks may be used to support the dummy in
position. Thread should support the torso rather than the head. Support
the dummy so that there is minimum interference with the full
rotational and translational freedom for the upper torso of the dummy
and the thread does not interfere with the air bag.
S24.4.4 Deploy the right front outboard frontal air bag system. If
the frontal air bag system contains a multistage inflator, the vehicle
shall be able to comply with the injury criteria at any stage or
combination of stages and at any time delay between successive stages
that could occur in a rigid barrier crash at speeds up to 26 km/h (16
mph) under the test procedure specified in S22.5.
S25 Requirements using an out-of-position 5th percentile adult
female dummy at the driver position.
S25.1 Each vehicle certified as complying with S14 shall, at the
option of the manufacturer, meet the requirements specified in S25.2 or
S25.3 under the test procedures specified in S26 or S28, as
appropriate.
S25.2 Option 1--Dynamic automatic suppression system that
suppresses the air bag when the driver is out of position. (This option
is available under the conditions set forth in S27.1.) The vehicle
shall be equipped with a dynamic automatic suppression system for the
driver air bag which meets the requirements specified in S27.
S25.3 Option 2--Low risk deployment. Each vehicle shall meet the
injury criteria specified by S15.3 of this standard, except as modified
in S25.4, when the driver air bag is statically deployed in accordance
with both of the low risk deployment test procedures specified in S26.
S25.4 Neck injury criteria driver low risk deployment tests. When
measuring neck injury in low risk deployment tests for the driver
position, each of the following neck injury criteria shall be met.
(a) Nij.
(1) The shear force (Fx), axial force (Fz), and bending moment (My)
shall be measured by the dummy upper neck load cell for the duration of
the crash event as specified in S4.10. Shear force, axial force, and
bending moment shall be filtered for Nij purposes at SAE J211/1 rev.
Mar 95 Channel Frequency Class 600 (see S4.7).
(2) During the event, the axial force (Fz) can be either in tension
or compression while the occipital condyle bending moment (Mocy) can be
in either flexion or extension. This results in four
[[Page 30764]]
possible loading conditions for Nij: tension-extension (Nte), tension-
flexion (Ntf), compression-extension (Nce), or compression-flexion
(Ncf).
(3) When calculating Nij using equation S25.4(a)(4), the critical
values, Fzc and Myc, are:
(i) Fzc = 3880 N (872 lbf) when Fz is in tension
(ii) Fzc = 3880 N (872 lbf) when Fz is in compression
(iii) Myc = 155 Nm (114 lbf-ft) when a flexion moment exists at the
occipital condyle
(iv) Myc = 61 Nm (45 lbf-ft) when an extension moment exists at the
occipital condyle.
(4) At each point in time, only one of the four loading conditions
occurs and the Nij value corresponding to that loading condition is
computed and the three remaining loading modes shall be considered a
value of zero. The expression for calculating each Nij loading
condition is given by:
Nij = (Fz/Fzc) + (Mocy/Myc)
(5) None of the four Nij values shall exceed 1.0 at any time during
the event.
(b) Peak tension. Tension force (Fz), measured at the upper neck
load cell, shall not exceed 2070 N (465 lbf) at any time.
(c) Peak compression. Compression force (Fz), measured at the upper
neck load cell, shall not exceed 2520 N (566 lbf) at any time.
(d) Unless otherwise indicated, instrumentation for data
acquisition, data channel frequency class, and moment calculations are
the same as given in 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart O 5th percentile female
test dummy.
S26 Procedure for low risk deployment tests of driver air bag.
S26.1 Each vehicle that is certified as complying with S25.3 shall
meet the requirements of S25.3 and S25.4 with the 49 CFR Part 572
Subpart O 5th percentile adult female dummy in both of the following
positions: Driver position 1 (S26.2) and Driver position 2 (S26.3).
S26.2 Driver position 1 (chin on module).
S26.2.1 Adjust the steering controls so that the steering wheel hub
is at the geometric center of the locus it describes when it is moved
through its full range of driving positions. If there is no setting at
the geometric center, position it one setting lower than the geometric
center. Set the rotation of the steering wheel so that the vehicle
wheels are pointed straight ahead.
S26.2.2 Locate the vertical plane parallel to the vehicle
longitudinal axis which passes through the geometric center of the
driver air bag tear seam. This is referred to as ``Plane E.''
S26.2.3 Place the seat in the full rearward seating position. If
adjustable in the vertical direction, place the seat in the mid-height
position.
S26.2.4 Place the dummy in a seated position with its midsagittal
plane coincident with Plane E.
S26.2.5 Initially position the legs at a 90-degree angle to the
thighs. The legs may be adjusted if necessary to achieve the final head
position.
S26.2.6 Position the dummy's thorax instrument cavity rear face 6
degrees forward (toward the front of the vehicle) of the steering wheel
angle (i.e., if the steering wheel angle is 25 degrees from vertical,
the thorax instrument cavity rear face angle is 31 degrees).
S26.2.7 Move the seat forward, while retaining the thorax
instrument cavity rear face orientation, to the forwardmost seat track
position or until any portion of the dummy contacts the steering wheel,
whichever occurs first.
S26.2.8 Adjust the height of the dummy so that the bottom of the
chin is in the same horizontal plane as the highest point of the air
bag module cover (dummy height can be adjusted using the seat height
adjustments and/or spacer blocks). If the seat prevents the bottom of
the chin from being in the same horizontal plane as the module cover,
adjust the dummy height to as close to the prescribed position as
possible.
S26.2.9 Slide the dummy forward on the seat until either the head
or the torso contacts the steering wheel.
S26.2.10 Use the seat adjustments (fore-aft, height) to keep the
dummy in position. If necessary, thread with a maximum breaking
strength of 311 N (70 lb) and spacer blocks may be used to support the
dummy in position. The thread should support the torso rather than the
head. Support the dummy so that there is minimum interference with the
full rotational and translational freedom for the upper torso of the
dummy and the thread does not interfere with the air bag.
S26.3 Driver position 2 (chin on rim).
S26.3.1 There are no seat track, seat height, or seat back angle
requirements.
S26.3.2 Adjust the steering controls so that the steering wheel hub
is at the geometric center of the locus it describes when it is moved
through its full range of driving positions. If there is no setting at
the geometric center, position it one setting lower than the geometric
center. Set the rotation of the steering wheel so that the vehicle
wheels are pointed straight ahead.
S26.3.3 Locate the vertical plane parallel to the vehicle
longitudinal axis which passes through the geometric center of the
driver air bag tear seam. This is referred to as ``Plane E.''
S26.3.4 Place the dummy in a seated position with its midsagittal
plane coincident with Plane E.
S26.3.5 Initially position the legs at a 90-degree angle to the
thighs. The legs may be adjusted if necessary to achieve the final head
position.
S26.3.6 Position the dummy's thorax instrument cavity rear face 6
degrees forward (toward the front of the vehicle) of the steering wheel
angle (i.e., if the steering wheel angle is 25 degrees from vertical,
the thorax instrument cavity rear face angle is 31 degrees).
S26.3.7 Position the dummy so that the center of the chin is in
contact with the uppermost portion of the rim of the steering wheel. Do
not hook the chin over the top of the rim of the steering wheel.
Position the chin to rest on the upper edge of the rim, without loading
the neck. If the dummy's head contacts the vehicle windshield or upper
interior before the prescribed position can be obtained, lower the
dummy until there is no more than 5 mm (0.2 in) clearance between the
vehicle's windshield or upper interior, as applicable.
S26.3.8 Use the seat adjustments (fore-aft, height) to keep the
dummy in position. If necessary, thread with a maximum breaking
strength of 311 N (70 lb) and spacer blocks may be used to support the
dummy in position. The thread should support the torso rather than the
head. Support the dummy so that there is minimum interference with the
full rotational and translational freedom for the upper torso of the
dummy and the thread does not interfere with the air bag.
S26.4 Deploy the left front outboard frontal air bag system. If the
air bag system contains a multistage inflator, the vehicle shall be
able to comply with the injury criteria at any stage or combination of
stages or time delay between successive stages that could occur in a
rigid barrier crash at speeds up to 26 km/h (16 mph) under the test
procedure specified in S22.5.
S27 Option for dynamic automatic suppression system that suppresses
the air bag when an occupant is out-of-position.
S27.1 Availability of option. This option is available for either
air bag, singly or in conjunction, subject to the requirements of S27,
if:
(a) A petition for rulemaking to establish dynamic automatic
suppression system test procedures is submitted pursuant to Subpart B
of Part 552 and a test procedure applicable to the vehicle is added to
S28 pursuant to the procedures specified by that subpart, or
[[Page 30765]]
(b) A test procedure applicable to the vehicle is otherwise added
to S28.
S27.2 Definitions. For purposes of S27 and S28, the following
definitions apply:
Automatic suppression zone or ASZ means a three-dimensional zone
adjacent to the air bag cover, specified by the vehicle manufacturer,
where the deployment of the air bag will be suppressed by the DASS if a
vehicle occupant enters the zone under specified conditions.
Dynamic automatic suppression system or DASS means a portion of an
air bag system that automatically controls whether or not the air bag
deploys during a crash by:
(1) Sensing the location of an occupant, moving or still, in
relation to the air bag;
(2) Interpreting the occupant characteristics and location
information to determine whether or not the air bag should deploy; and
(3) Activating or suppressing the air bag system based on the
interpretation of occupant characteristics and location information.
S27.3 Requirements. Each vehicle shall, at each applicable front
outboard designated seating position, when tested under the conditions
of S28 of this standard, comply with the requirements specified in
S27.4 through S27.6.
S27.4 Each vehicle shall be equipped with a DASS.
S27.5 Static test requirement (low risk deployment for occupants
outside the ASZ).
S27.5.1 Driver (49 CFR Part 572 Subpart O 5th percentile female
dummy). Each vehicle shall meet the injury criteria specified in S15.3
of this standard when the driver air bag is deployed in accordance with
the procedures specified in S28.1.
S27.5.2 Passenger (49 CFR Part 572 Subpart P 3-year-old child dummy
and 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart N 6-year-old child dummy). Each vehicle
shall meet the injury criteria specified in S21.5 and S23.5, as
appropriate, when the passenger air bag is deployed in accordance with
the procedures specified in S28.2.
S27.6 Dynamic test requirement (suppression of air bag for
occupants inside the ASZ).
S27.6.1 Driver. The DASS shall suppress the driver air bag before
the head, neck, or torso of the specified test device enters the ASZ
when the vehicle is tested under the procedures specified in S28.3.
S27.6.2 Passenger. The DASS shall suppress the passenger air bag
before head, neck, or torso of the specified test device enters the ASZ
when the vehicle is tested under the procedures specified in S28.4.
S28 Test procedure for S27 of this standard. [Reserved]
S28.1 Driver suppression zone verification test (49 CFR Part 572
Subpart O 5th percentile female dummy). [Reserved]
S28.2 Passenger suppression zone verification test (49 CFR Part 572
Subpart P 3-year-old child dummy and 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart N 6-year-
old child dummies). [Reserved]
S28.3 Driver dynamic test procedure for DASS requirements.
[Reserved]
S28.4 Passenger dynamic test procedure for DASS requirements.
[Reserved]
S29 Manufacturer option to certify vehicles to certain static
suppression test requirements using human beings rather than test
dummies.
S29.1 At the option of the manufacturer, instead of using test
dummies in conducting the tests for the following static test
requirements, human beings may be used as specified. If human beings
are used, they shall assume, to the extent possible, the final physical
position specified for the corresponding dummies for each test.
(a) If a manufacturer decides to certify a vehicle using a human
being for a static test, it shall use humans for the entire series of
tests, e.g., 3-year-old children for each static test involving 3-year-
old test dummies. If a manufacturer decides to certify a vehicle using
a test dummy for a static test, it shall use test dummies for the
entire series of tests, e.g., a Hybrid III 3-year-old child dummy for
each static test involving 3-year-old test dummies.
(b) For S21.2, instead of using the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart P 3-
year-old child dummy, a human child who weighs between 13.4 and 18 kg
(29.5 and 39.5 lb), and who is between 89 and 99 cm (35 and 39 in) tall
may be used.
(c) For S23.2, instead of using the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart N 6-
year-old child dummy, a human child who weighs between 21 and 25.6 kg
(46.5 and 56.5 lb), and who is between 114 and 124.5 cm (45 and 49 in)
tall may be used.
(d) For S19.2, S21.2, and S23.2, instead of using the 49 CFR Part
572 Subpart O 5th percentile adult female test dummy, a female who
weighs between 46.7 and 51.25 kg (103 lb and 113 lb), and who is
between 139.7 and 150 cm (55 and 59 in) tall may be used.
S29.2 Human beings shall be dressed in a cotton T-shirt, full
length cotton trousers, and sneakers. Specified weights and heights
include clothing.
S29.3 A manufacturer exercising this option shall upon request--
(a) Provide NHTSA with a method to deactivate the air bag during
compliance testing under S20.3, S22.2, S22.3, S24.2, and S24.3, and
identify any parts or equipment necessary for deactivation; such
assurance may be made by removing the air bag; and
(b) Provide NHTSA with a method to assure that the same test
results would be obtained if the air bag were not deactivated.
Figures to Sec. 571.208
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 30766]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MY00.009
[[Page 30767]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MY00.010
[[Page 30768]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MY00.011
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
[[Page 30769]]
Appendix A to Sec. 571.208--Selection of Child Restraint Systems
A. The following car bed, manufactured on or after December 1,
1999, may be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration to test the suppression system of a vehicle that has
been certified as being in compliance with 49 CFR Part 571.208 S19:
Cosco Dream Ride 02-719
B. Any of the following rear facing child restraint systems,
manufactured on or after December 1, 1999, may be used by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to test the
suppression system of a vehicle that has been certified as being in
compliance with 49 CFR Part 571.208 S19. When the restraint system
comes equipped with a removable base, the test may be run either
with the base attached or without the base.
Britax Handle with Care 191
Century 560 Institutional 4590
Century Smart Fit 4541
Cosco Arriva 02-750
Cosco Turnabout 02-772
Evenflo Discovery 209
Evenflo First Choice 204
Evenflo On My Way 207
Evenflo Position Right 200
Graco Infant 8457
Kolcraft Secura 43924
C. Any of the following forward-facing convertible child
restraint systems, manufactured on or after December 1, 1999, may be
used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to test
the suppression system of a vehicle that has been certified as being
in compliance with 49 CFR Part 571.208 S19, or S21:
Britax Roundabout 161
Century Encore 4612
Cosco Touriva 02-584
Evenflo Champion 249
Evenflo Medallion 254
Fisher Price Safe-Embrace 79701
Kolcraft Performa 23308
D. Any of the following forward-facing toddler/belt positioning
booster systems, manufactured on or after December 1, 1999, may be
used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as test
devices to test the suppression system of a vehicle that has been
certified as being in compliance with 49 CFR Part 571.208 S21 or
S23:
Britax Cruiser 121
Century Next Step 4920
Cosco High Back Booster 02-442
Evenflo Right Fit 245
6. Part 585 is revised to read as follows:
PART 585--ADVANCED AIR BAG PHASE-IN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Sec.
585.1 Scope.
585.2 Purpose.
585.3 Applicability.
585.4 Definitions.
585.5 Reporting requirements.
585.6 Records.
585.7 Petitions to extend period to file report.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Sec. 585.1 Scope.
This part establishes requirements for manufacturers of passenger
cars and trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR
of 3,855 kg (8500 lb) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495
kg (5500 lb) or less to submit reports, and maintain records related to
the reports, concerning the number and identification of such vehicles
that are certified as complying with the advanced air bag requirements
of Standard No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection'' (49 CFR 571.208).
Sec. 585.2 Purpose.
The purpose of these reporting requirements is to aid the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration in determining whether a
manufacturer has complied with the advanced air bag requirements of
Standard No. 208 during the phase-ins of those requirements.
Sec. 585.3 Applicability.
This part applies to manufacturers of passenger cars and trucks,
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg
(8500 lb) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5500 lb)
or less. However, this part does not apply to any manufacturers whose
production consists exclusively of walk-in vans, vehicles designed to
be sold exclusively to the U.S. Postal Service, vehicles manufactured
in two or more stages, and vehicles that are altered after previously
having been certified in accordance with part 567 of this chapter. In
addition, this part does not apply to manufacturers whose worldwide
production of motor vehicles is less than 5000 vehicles in a production
year.
Sec. 585.4 Definitions.
(a) All terms defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102 are used in accordance
with their statutory meaning.
(b) The terms bus, gross vehicle weight rating or GVWR,
multipurpose passenger vehicle, passenger car, and truck are used as
defined in section 571.3 of this chapter.
(c) For the purposes of this part, vehicles means passenger cars
and trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of
3,855 kg (8500 lb) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg
(5500 lb) or less manufactured for sale in the United States by
manufacturers whose worldwide production of motor vehicles is equal to
or greater than 5000 vehicles in a production year, and does not mean
walk-in vans, vehicles designed to be sold exclusively to the U.S.
Postal Service, vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, and
vehicles that are altered after previously having been certified in
accordance with part 567 of this chapter.
(d) Phase one of the advanced air bag requirements of Standard No.
208 refers to the requirements set forth in S14.1, S14.2, S14.5.1(a),
S14.5.2, S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, 49 CFR 571.208.
(e) Phase two of the advanced air bag requirements of Standard No.
208 refers to the requirements set forth in S14.3, S14.4, S14.5.1(b),
S14.5.2, S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, 49 CFR 571.208.
(f) Production year means the 12-month period between September 1
of one year and August 31 of the following year, inclusive.
(g) Limited line manufacturer means a manufacturer that sells two
or fewer carlines, as that term is defined in 49 CFR 583.4, in the
United States during a production year.
Sec. 585.5 Reporting requirements.
(a) Advanced credit phase-in reporting requirements.
(1) Within 60 days after the end of the production years ending
August 31, 2000, August 31, 2001, August 31, 2002, and August 31, 2003,
each manufacturer choosing to certify vehicles manufactured during any
of those production years as complying with phase one of the advanced
air bag requirements of Standard No. 208 shall submit a report to the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as specified in this
section.
(2) Within 60 days after the end of the production year ending
August 31, 2007, each manufacturer choosing to certify vehicles
manufactured during that production year as complying with phase two of
the advanced air bag requirements of Standard No. 208 shall submit a
report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as
specified in this section.
(3) Each report shall--
(i) Identify the manufacturer;
(ii) State the full name, title, and address of the official
responsible for preparing the report;
(iii) Identify the production year being reported on;
(iv) Provide the information specified in paragraph (c) of this
section;
(v) Be written in the English language; and
[[Page 30770]]
(vi) Be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.
(b) Phase-in reporting requirements.
(1) Within 60 days after the end of the production years ending
August 31, 2004, August 31, 2005, and August 31, 2006, each
manufacturer shall submit a report to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration regarding its compliance with phase one of the
advanced air bag requirements of Standard No. 208 for its vehicles
produced in that production year. Each report shall also specify the
number of advance credit vehicles, if any, that are being applied to
the production year being reported on.
(2) Within 60 days after the end of the production years ending
August 31, 2008, August 31, 2009, and August 31, 2010, each
manufacturer shall submit a report to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration regarding its compliance with phase two of the
advanced air bag requirements of Standard No. 208 for its vehicles
produced in that production year. Each report shall also specify the
number of advance credit vehicles, if any, that are being applied to
the production year being reported on.
(3) Each report shall--
(i) Identify the manufacturer;
(ii) State the full name, title, and address of the official
responsible for preparing the report;
(iii) For limited line manufacturers, specify whether the
manufacturer has elected to comply with S14.1(a) or S14.1(b), or
S14.3(a) or S14.3(b) of 49 CFR 571.208, as applicable;
(iv) Identify the production year being reported on;
(v) Contain a statement regarding whether or not the manufacturer
complied with phase one of the advanced air bag requirements of
Standard No. 208 or phase two of the advanced air bag requirements of
Standard No. 208, as applicable to the period covered by the report,
and the basis for that statement;
(vi) Provide the information specified in paragraph (d) of this
section;
(vii) Be written in the English language; and
(viii) Be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.
(c) Advanced credit phase-in report content.
(1) Production of complying vehicles.
(i) With respect to the reports identified in section 585.5(a)(1),
each manufacturer shall report for the production year for which the
report is filed the number of vehicles, by make and model year, that
meet the applicable advanced air bag requirements of Standard No. 208,
and to which advanced air bag requirements the vehicles are certified.
(ii) With respect to the report identified in section 585.5(a)(2),
each manufacturer shall report the number of vehicles, by make and
model year, that meet the applicable advanced air bag requirements of
Standard No. 208, and to which advanced air bag requirements the
vehicles are certified.
(2) Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer. Each
manufacturer whose reporting of information is affected by one or more
of the express written contracts permitted by S14.1.3.2 or S14.3.3.2 of
Standard No. 208 shall:
(i) Report the existence of each contract, including the names of
all parties to the contract and explain how the contract affects the
report being submitted.
(ii) Report the number of vehicles covered by each contract in each
production year.
(d) Phase-in report content.
(1) Basis for phase-in production requirements. For production
years ending August 31, 2003, August 31, 2004, August 31, 2005, August
31, 2007, August 31, 2008, and August 31, 2009, each manufacturer shall
provide the number of vehicles manufactured in the current production
year, or, at the manufacturer's option, for the current production year
and each of the prior two production years if the manufacturer has
manufactured vehicles during both of the two production years prior to
the year for which the report is being submitted.
(2) Production of complying vehicles. Each manufacturer shall
report for the production year for which the report is filed the number
of vehicles, by make and model year, that meet the applicable advanced
air bag requirements of Standard No. 208, and to which advanced air bag
requirements the vehicles are certified.
(3) Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer. Each
manufacturer whose reporting of information is affected by one or more
of the express written contracts permitted by S14.1.3.2 or S14.3.3.2 of
Standard No. 208 shall:
(i) Report the existence of each contract, including the names of
all parties to the contract and explain how the contract affects the
report being submitted.
(ii) Report the number of vehicles covered by each contract in each
production year.
Sec. 585.6 Records.
Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the Vehicle
Identification Number of each vehicle for which information is reported
under Sec. 585.5(c)(1) and (d)(2) until December 31, 2011.
Sec. 585.7 Petitions to extend period to file report.
A petition for extension of the time to submit a report required
under this part shall be received not later than 15 days before the
report is due. The petition shall be submitted to: Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590. The filing of a petition does not automatically
extend the time for filing a report. A petition will be granted only if
the petitioner shows good cause for the extension, and if the extension
is consistent with the public interest.
PART 595--RETROFIT ON-OFF SWITCHES FOR AIR BAGS
7. 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.
8. Section 595.5 is amended 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,
2012 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 4, 2000.
Rosalyn G. Millman,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-11577 Filed 5-5-00; 10:30 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P