30680 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 baginduced 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-ofposition 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 multiyear 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:

Charper@NHTSA.dot.gov.

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 fourdigit 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 30681

1For a history of NHTSA’s rulemaking

concerning air bags, see Appendix B, ‘‘Evolution of

the Air Bag Provisions in Standard No. 208.’’

2These 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.

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-tocritical 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.

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.

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.

30682 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

3The report indicates that some vehicle

manufacturers had already depowered some air

bags prior to the March 1997 rule.

4Again, these changes began before the March

1997 rule, but have accelerated since then.

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.

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.

7NHTSA notes that almost all of the 68 fatallyinjured children were 1–7 years old.

8Pre-impact braking was a factor in a very high

percentage of crashes resulting in the deaths of the

older children.

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 shortstatured 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.

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.

To assess the impact of the redesigned

air bags on the numbers of air baginduced fatalities, we used the available

SCI data. We compared the rate per

million registered vehicles of air baginduced fatalities for the first 27 months

that MY 1998 redesigned vehicles were

on the road with the rate of air baginduced 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 baginduced 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 baginduced 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.

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 30683

9Even before the 1990’s, the issue of air baginduced 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.

were very close to the air bag when it

deployed.

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-ofposition.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.

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 eyecatching 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 realworld 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 baginduced 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

30684 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

10As 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.

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

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 baginduced 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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 Phasein

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 precrash 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 Phasein

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 upto-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

30686 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

11The 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.

12The 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.’’

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.

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 baginduced 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.’’

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 30687

13Based 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.

14We 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.

15We 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.

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.

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.

30688 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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-ofposition 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 precrash 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 nonadjusting, one-size-fits-all air bags. One

of the principal strategies for improving

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 30689

16To 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.

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 singlelevel 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 dualstage 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).

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

30690 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

17As 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.

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.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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 onoff 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 multiyear 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.

30692 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

18NHTSA 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.

19A 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.

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.

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-ofposition 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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 30693

20We noted that IIHS’s views had changed since

making that recommendation. Its changed views

were discussed in the SNPRM.

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 phasein 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

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-ofposition 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-ofposition 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

30694 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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 onoff 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.

30696 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 30697

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

30698 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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-ofposition 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 shortstatured 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 properlyseated 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 30699

21One 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.

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

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 previouslyannounced 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

30700 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

22 In particular, the 13 vehicles included one subcompact car, one compact car, four mid-size cars

(representing high sales volume vehicles), one fullsize 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 (subcompact 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).

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

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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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 nonregulatory 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

30702 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 realworld 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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 tradeoffs 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

30704 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 multilevel 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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-yearold, 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 midsized 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 fullforward 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 fullforward 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

30706 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(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-ofposition 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 outof-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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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

30708 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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-ofposition 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 previouslyannounced 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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 decisionmaking 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

30710 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 rearfacing 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 fullup 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 forwardfacing mode would effectively eliminate

the low risk deployment option for

older children because manufacturers

would be forced to rely on a weightsensing 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 nondiscriminating 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 30711

23We 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.

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.

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 fullforward 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

30712 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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-yearold 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-ofposition 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-yearold 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 fullrear, 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,

30714 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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-yearold, 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 beltpositioning 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-yearold 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-yearold 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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 precrash 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-ofposition 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 DASSequipped 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

30716 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 nonconfidential 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 precrash 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 30717

24Hodgson, 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.

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-OfPosition

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-yearold 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 smallstatured 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.

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-yearold 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.

30718 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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-monthold 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 30719

25Likewise, the final rule incorporating the offset

deformable barrier into 49 CFR Part 587 was issued

in March, 2000.

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 phasein.

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 twostage 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

30720 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

26Under 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.

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.

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 phasein, 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 phasein (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 phasein 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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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 multistage 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 onoff 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,

30722 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

27Ford 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.

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 counterproductive. 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 phasein. 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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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

30724 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

28We 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.

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.

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 threeyear-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

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.

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, midtrack 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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-bystep 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

30726 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

30The text of S13 has been slightly revised to

indicate which set of injury criteria must be met.

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 phasedin 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.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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 phasein, 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

30728 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 oneminute ‘‘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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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

30730 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 onoff 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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-yearold 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

30732 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

number of small businesses, including

small volume manufacturers, multistage 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 multistage 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 multistage manufacturers, alterers, and the

businesses, such as Bornemann, that

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 30733

31The 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’ crossmotion for summary judgement on February 28,

2000.

32On 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.

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-yetunspecified 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

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 publiclyavailable 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

30734 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 multistage 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-ofposition individuals subject to the full

force of the air bag under certain

circumstances. The risks to out-ofposition 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)

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 30735

33The 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.

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.

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

llllNHTSA 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

30736 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 phasein 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 phasein 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 finalstage 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 FederalState 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 30737

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.’’

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.

30738 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

35These air bags are also sometimes called

depowered air bags, second generation air bags or

next generation air bags.

We have incorporated the out-ofposition 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 passengerside 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.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 30739

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C

30740 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

36Passenger 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.

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 headon 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 outof-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-ofposition 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.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 30741

37The 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.

38TEA 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 baginduced risks.

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.’’

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.

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).

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 bagequipped 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 outof-position children.39

In deciding in 1984 to issue rule requiring

automatic restraints, the Department

considered vehicle manufacturer comments

that air bags would pose risks to out-ofposition 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

30742 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

40Air 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.

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 passengerside 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-ofposition 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 rearwardfacing 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 bagequipped 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 rearfacing 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 internallytethered air bags, bias flaps, and low breakout force covers could make deploying air

bags more benign for out-of-position

occupants.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 30743

41Based 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.

42Static 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.

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 informationdependent.

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 singlepoint 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.

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 seatcushion 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.

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 outof-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 baginduced injury to a belted occupant. Many

production vehicles (approximately 180

30744 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

43NHTSA brochure DOT HS 808 988: ‘‘Buying a

Safer Car 2000,’’ September 1999.

44According 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.

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.

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-ofposition 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-ofposition 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

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 NONCOMPLIANCE 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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 § 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.

§ 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 precrash 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 precrash 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

30746 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 precrash 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.

§ 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

§ 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:

§ 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 cm2 (4.7 in2).

(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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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 cm2 (4.7 in2).

(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 cm2 (4.7 in2).

(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 cm2 (4.7 in2).

(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 cutoff 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

30748 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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:

1

2 1

2 5

2 1 1

2

t t

a dt t t r t

t

( ) −















 ( ) − ∫ .

(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,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 30749

expressed as a multiple of g (the

acceleration of gravity) and shall be

calculated using the expression:

1

2 1

2 5

2 1 1

2

t t

a dt t t r t

t

( ) −















 ( ) − ∫ .

(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:

30750 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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:

1

2 1

2 5

2 1 1

2

t t a dt t t r t

t

( ) −















 ( ) − ∫ .

(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

30752 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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°

C and 22.2° C ( 69° F to 72° 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 midheight 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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.

30754 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 Dring 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 tensionrelieving 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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:

(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

30756 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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 foreaft 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:

1

2 1

2 5

2 1 1

2

t t

a dt t t r t

t

( ) −















 ( ) − ∫ .

(b) The maximum calculated HIC15

value shall not exceed 570.

30758 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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 threeyear-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.

30760 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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 midheight 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:

30762 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

1

2 1

2 5

2 1 1

2

t t

a dt t t r t

t

( ) −















 ( ) − ∫ .

(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,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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-ofposition 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

30764 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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-ofposition.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 571.208

* * * * *

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

30766 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 30767

30768 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 30769

Appendix A to § 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.

§ 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).

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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

30770 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(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.

§ 585.6 Records.

Each manufacturer shall maintain

records of the Vehicle Identification

Number of each vehicle for which

information is reported under

§ 585.5(c)(1) and (d)(2) until December

31, 2011.

§ 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:

§ 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