51768 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

1The advanced air bag rule also specified the use 

of 1-year-old infant dummies, 3- and 6-year-old 

child dummies, and 5th percentile adult female 

dummies in its test requirements to minimize the 

risk to infants, children, and other occupants from 

injuries and deaths caused by air bags. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Parts 571 and 585 

[Docket No. NHTSA 2005–22323] 

RIN 2127–AI98 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Occupant Crash Protection 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, NHTSA is 

amending its safety standard on 

occupant crash protection to establish 

the same 56 km/h (35 mph) maximum 

speed for frontal barrier crash tests 

using belted 5th percentile adult female 

test dummies as we previously adopted 

for tests using belted 50th percentile 

adult male dummies. The agency is 

adopting this amendment to help 

improve crash protection for small 

statured occupants. The new 

requirement is phased-in in a manner 

similar to the phase-in for the 56 km/h 

(35 mph) maximum speed test 

requirement using the 50th percentile 

adult male dummy, but beginning 2 

years later, i.e., September 1, 2009. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective November 29, 2006. 

Petitions for Reconsideration: If you 

wish to submit a petition for 

reconsideration of this rule, your 

petition must be received by October 16, 

2006. 

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration 

should refer to the docket number above 

and be submitted to: Administrator, 

Room 5220, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. 

See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

portion of this document (Section VIII; 

Rulemaking Analyses and Notice) for 

DOT’s Privacy Act Statement regarding 

documents submitted to the agency’s 

dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may call Ms. Lori 

Summers, Office of Crashworthiness 

Standards (Telephone: 202–366–1740) 

(Fax: 202–366–2739). 

For legal issues, you may call Mr. 

Edward Glancy, Office of the Chief 

Counsel (Telephone: 202–366–2992) 

(Fax: 202–366–3820). 

You may send mail to these officials 

at National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

and Summary of Comments 

A. The NPRM 

B. Summary of Public Comments on the 

NPRM 

III. The Final Rule and Response to Public 

Comments 

A. Agency Decision—Overview 

B. Response to Public Comments by Issue 

1. Vehicle Crash Tests and Practicability 

Concerns 

2. Unintended Consequences 

3. Timing of Agency Decision 

4. Harmonization With Canada 

5. Concerns About the 5th Percentile Adult 

Female Dummy 

6. Test Set-Up Procedure 

7. Leadtime 

8. Alternative Tests 

C. Benefits and Costs 

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

I. Background 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant 

Crash Protection, requires passenger 

cars and other light vehicles to be 

equipped with seat belts and frontal air 

bags to prevent or mitigate the effects of 

occupant interaction with the vehicle 

interior in a crash. While air bags have 

been very effective in increasing the 

number of people saved in moderate 

and high speed frontal crashes, they 

have occasionally been implicated in 

fatalities in instances where vehicle 

occupants were very close to the air bag 

when it deployed. This is particularly 

true of vehicles produced in the 1990s. 

On May 12, 2000, NHTSA published 

in the Federal Register (65 FR 30680) a 

final rule to require that future air bags 

be designed to create less risk of serious 

air bag-induced injuries than thencurrent air bags and provide improved 

frontal crash protection for all 

occupants, by means that include 

advanced air bag technology (advanced 

air bag rule). That final rule was 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 

Century (TEA 21), enacted by Congress 

in June 1998, which required us to issue 

a rule amending FMVSS No. 208: 

* * * 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. 

The advanced air bag rule established 

two phase-in schedules. For the first 

phase-in, which began September 1, 

2003 and will be completed by 

September 1, 2006, NHTSA required 

vehicle manufacturers to install 

advanced air bag systems that reduce 

the risk of air bag-induced injury 

(particularly to young children and 

small adult drivers), while improving 

the frontal crash protection provided by 

air bag systems to occupants of different 

sizes. For the second phase-in, which 

will begin on September 1, 2007, the 

agency required manufacturers to 

improve further the frontal protection 

provided by their vehicles by meeting a 

belted rigid barrier crash test at higher 

test speeds. 

Prior to the advanced air bag rule, the 

crash tests specified in FMVSS No. 208 

used only one size dummy, a 50th 

percentile adult male dummy. NHTSA 

also used that dummy in frontal crash 

tests conducted under the New Car 

Assessment Program (NCAP), although 

at a higher speed. The FMVSS No. 208 

belted rigid barrier test was conducted 

at speeds up to 48 km/h (30 mph), while 

the NCAP test was conducted at a speed 

of 56 km/h (35 mph). 

For the advanced air bag rule, NHTSA 

specified the use of both 50th percentile 

adult male and 5th percentile adult 

female dummies for the standard’s crash 

tests.1 The first phase-in requires 

vehicles to be certified as passing the 

test requirements for both of these 

dummies, while unbelted, in a 32 km/ 

h (20 mph) to 40 km/h (25 mph) rigid 

barrier test (unbelted rigid barrier test 

requirements), and test requirements for 

the same two dummies, while belted, in 

a rigid barrier crash test with a 

maximum test speed of 48 km/h (30 

mph) (belted rigid barrier test 

requirements). 

The second phase-in will require 

vehicles to be certified as passing the 

belted rigid barrier test requirements at 

speeds up to and including 56 km/h (35 

mph) using the 50th percentile adult 

male dummy. NHTSA and the industry 

have had considerable experience with 

conducting belted tests at 56 km/h (35 

mph) using this dummy in connection 

with the NCAP program. 

In the preamble to the advanced air 

bag rule, we stated 

We did not propose including the 5th 

percentile adult female dummy in [the 56 

km/h (35 mph) phase-in] 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. 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51769 

2MAIS (Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale) 

represents the maximum injury severity at an 

Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) level, regardless of 

the nature or location of the injury. The AIS ranks 

individual injuries by body region on a scale of 1 

to 6 as follows: 1=minor, 2=moderate, 3=serious, 

4=severe, 5=critical, and 6=maximum/currently 

untreatable. 

3 Docket No. NHTSA–2003–15732–2. 

(60 FR 30680, 30690.) The agency 

reiterated this position when it denied 

a petition to begin rulemaking 

immediately to establish a requirement 

for vehicles to meet a 0–56 km/h (0–35 

mph) belted rigid barrier test with the 

5th percentile adult female dummy (66 

FR 65376; December 18, 2001). 

However, the agency continued research 

on the feasibility and practicability of 

increasing the test speed for belted 

testing using this dummy. 

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) and Summary of Comments 

A. The NPRM 

On August 6, 2003, we published in 

the Federal Register (68 FR 46539) a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

to increase the test speed for the belted 

rigid barrier test using the 5th percentile 

adult female dummy to 56 km/h (35 

mph). We proposed the same phase-in 

schedule as that already adopted for the 

50th percentile adult male dummy, i.e., 

beginning September 1, 2007. 

In the NPRM, we cited the results of 

18 crash tests conducted by NHTSA, 

some in conjunction with Transport 

Canada. We tentatively concluded that 

the test results indicated both a need for 

and the feasibility of extending the 56 

km/h (35 mph) maximum speed for the 

rigid barrier test to include the 5th 

percentile adult female dummy. The 

testing indicated that a belted 5th 

percentile adult female dummy may be 

subject to higher injury measures than a 

belted 50th percentile adult male 

dummy in comparable frontal barrier 

crash tests, when both are seated in 

accordance with the applicable FMVSS 

No. 208 seating procedures. 

The tested vehicles included small 

and medium passenger cars, sport 

utility vehicles, minivans, and a pickup 

truck. None of the tested vehicles were 

designed to meet the new test 

requirements of the advanced air bag 

rule. Of the 18 vehicles tested, 12 were 

able to meet the driver and right front 

passenger dummy Injury Assessment 

Reference Values (IARVs) required 

under FMVSS No. 208. The six vehicles 

that exceeded the IARVs for the 5th 

percentile adult female dummy were 

found to exceed injury measures in the 

head, chest, and/or neck regions. When 

comparable NCAP crash tests were 

conducted with 50th percentile adult 

male dummies, none of the adult male 

dummies exceeded the IARVs. 

We estimated that the proposed 

requirements, if adopted, could prevent 

between five and six small occupant 

fatalities per year and could also reduce 

two to three moderate to severe injuries 

yearly (MAIS 2+).2 We also explained 

that beyond reducing the rates of injury 

and fatality to small-stature occupants, 

increasing the maximum belted test 

speed for testing with the 5th percentile 

adult female dummy would extend 

improved belted crash protection to 

occupants of different sizes. We stated 

that the proposed amendment would 

address the potential hazard to all 

belted occupants who are very close to 

both the air bag module and the steering 

wheel or instrument panel. 

In the NPRM, we tentatively 

concluded that compliance with the 

proposal would result in a nominal 

additional cost to vehicle 

manufacturers. We noted that the test 

procedure itself is already required at a 

lower impact speed in FMVSS No. 208; 

only the maximum impact speed would 

be raised. We stated that, as indicated 

by the 12 vehicles that met all IARVs in 

NHTSA’s test program, many vehicles 

already meet the proposed requirement. 

We also stated our belief that to the 

extent additional measures may prove 

necessary, improving performance 

beyond the 48 km/h (30 mph) 

requirement could involve relatively 

simple changes. We estimated that the 

overall cost of the proposal would range 

from minimal costs to $24.56 million, 

depending on the implementation of 

technologies. A complete discussion of 

how NHTSA arrived at its estimates of 

both benefits and costs was presented in 

a Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation.3

B. Summary of Public Comments on the 

NPRM 

We received comments from five 

companies or organizations: General 

Motors (GM), DaimlerChrysler, the 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

(Alliance), TRW Automotive, and the 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 

(IIHS). The commenters generally 

supported improved crash protection for 

belted small statured occupants, but did 

not support the agency’s proposal to 

increase the test speed for FMVSS No. 

208’s belted barrier test using the 5th 

percentile adult female dummy to 56 

km/h (35 mph). 

GM raised concerns about 

practicability. That company 

commented that none of the 18 vehicles 

that NHTSA tested and analyzed for 

practicability and benefits were certified 

to the advanced air bag provisions of 

FMVSS No. 208. GM stated that the 

restraint systems in the vehicles tested 

by the agency do not represent the same 

balancing of requirements that is 

necessary to meet the advanced air bag 

provisions, which are more complex 

and demanding than the ones to which 

the 18 vehicles were certified. GM also 

stated that NHTSA had not considered 

the compliance margins necessary to 

ensure that each vehicle would meet the 

IARVs for the proposed test conditions. 

GM also raised concerns about 

leadtime. That manufacturer stated that 

if testing demonstrates that the IARVs 

can be met at the proposed higher 

speed, and if the countermeasures 

necessary to enable that performance do 

not negatively affect other aspects of 

occupant protection, manufacturers will 

need time to bring these 

countermeasures into production. GM 

stated that given its experience in 

developing vehicles and occupant 

protection systems designed to meet the 

advanced air bag requirements, a 

minimum postponement of two years in 

the effective date of the proposed rule 

would be necessary to accommodate the 

necessary testing and product 

development. 

Several commenters addressed the 

estimated benefits. GM stated that the 

benefits estimated by the agency are 

very small and are projections based on 

old air bag technology. It also stated that 

increasing the maximum test speed to 

56 km/h (35 mph) for the belted 5th 

percentile adult female dummy could 

have unintended consequences for 

belted small stature occupants involved 

in low severity frontal collisions. GM 

stated that the severity of the 56 km/h 

(35 mph) rigid barrier test would force 

stiffer restraint systems than are 

presently needed in the current 48 km/ 

h (30 mph) frontal barrier test required 

by the advanced air bag final rule. 

According to GM, stiffening the restraint 

system would have an adverse affect on 

the older, weaker, smaller population 

since their injury tolerance is lower than 

the younger, stronger population. 

DaimlerChrysler stated that the 

agency’s projected benefits are 

statistically minor, an overestimate, and 

cannot be absolutely quantified. The 

Alliance raised several issues about the 

agency’s methodology for estimating 

benefits, and argued that the action 

could result in no safety benefits or even 

negative safety effects. 

IIHS stated that the agency failed to 

provide a clear assessment of the 

benefits and offered little compelling 

evidence that vehicle design changes 

resulting from the proposed rule would 

be meaningful in real-world crashes. 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with RULES
51770 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

IIHS also stated that other measures to 

improve frontal crash protection, such 

as offset deformable barrier tests or pole 

tests, would be more beneficial and be 

more representative of real-world 

crashes. 

Some commenters recommended that 

the agency defer the rulemaking to a 

later date. DaimlerChrysler stated that 

the prudent course of action would be 

to defer rulemaking until enough 

vehicles certified to the advanced air 

bag requirements are in commerce and 

their field performance with small 

females can be assessed. That company 

suggested waiting until the end of Phase 

II of the advanced air bag phase-in 

schedule. 

GM stated that an Alliance-sponsored 

panel of experts, referred to as the Blue 

Ribbon Panel, is currently engaged in a 

major real-world data gathering program 

to provide a greater factual basis for 

future air bag rulemakings, and 

suggested that the agency wait until 

after the panel has finished its work 

before proceeding on this rulemaking. 

GM and the Alliance also expressed 

concerns about differences between how 

NHTSA and Transport Canada are 

addressing improved protection for 

belted small statured occupants. The 

Alliance noted that Transport Canada 

has proposed a more stringent chest 

compression requirement for 5th 

percentile adult female dummies in 48 

km/h (30 mph) tests. The Alliance 

expressed concern that each country’s 

proposal may require opposing or at 

least non-complementary design 

strategies in order to meet the different 

proposed test requirements. 

DaimlerChrysler reiterated concerns it 

has previously identified about the 5th 

percentile adult female Hybrid III 

dummy, including ones about neck 

structure and response, dummy 

interference with deploying air bags, 

and the Nij neck injury criterion. 

DaimlerChrysler stated its belief that 

neck tension limits alone appear to be 

the only significant factor in the Nij 

neck injury criterion to predict neck 

injury accurately. 

TRW commented on the test set-up 

procedures for the 5th percentile adult 

female dummy driver. It argued that the 

positioning of the steering wheel is not 

realistic with regard to conditions in the 

field. IIHS stated that the agency should 

change its dummy seating procedures 

consistent with a petition it had 

previously submitted. 

III. The Final Rule and Response to 

Public Comments 

A. Agency Decision—Overview 

After carefully considering the 

comments, we have decided to issue a 

final rule increasing the maximum test 

speed for the belted rigid barrier test 

using the 5th percentile adult female 

dummy from 48 km/h (30 mph) to 56 

km/h (35 mph), the same speed we 

adopted for 50th percentile adult male 

dummies. We believe this amendment is 

consistent with the goal of providing 

improved frontal crash protection for all 

occupants. This was one of the primary 

goals of our advanced air bag rule and 

also of TEA 21. 

We recognize that the benefits directly 

attributable to this rule are relatively 

small, since most of the restraint system 

improvements needed to meet this rule 

were required by the advanced air bag 

rule. Among other things, the advanced 

air bag rule added the 5th percentile 

adult female dummy to the FMVSS No. 

208 48 km/h (30 mph) belted rigid 

barrier crash test and also increased the 

maximum speed for that test to 56 km/ 

h (35 mph) for the 50th percentile adult 

male dummy. These test requirements, 

as well as other new tests using the 5th 

percentile adult female dummy, already 

require improved protection for 

occupants of different sizes. 

In the preamble to advanced air bag 

rule, however, we stated that we 

anticipated proposing to increase the 

maximum test speed for the belted rigid 

barrier test using the 5th percentile 

adult female dummy to 56 km/h (35 

mph), the same maximum speed 

specified for the 50th percentile adult 

male dummy. We did not propose this 

higher speed as part of the advanced air 

bag rulemaking because of lack of 

available test data. 

This rulemaking is thus intended to 

complete the agency’s consideration of 

an issue that was partially addressed in 

the advanced air bag rulemaking. As 

discussed earlier, we conducted a series 

of 18 vehicle crash tests in support of 

the NPRM. Moreover, as discussed 

below, we subsequently conducted five 

additional crash tests of vehicles 

certified to the advanced air bag 

requirements. 

After considering the comments, we 

continue to believe that the available 

test data indicate both a need for and 

the feasibility of extending the 56 km/ 

h (35 mph) maximum speed for the rigid 

barrier test to include the 5th percentile 

adult female dummy. While many 

vehicles would meet the higher test 

speed requirements using 5th percentile 

adult female dummies even in the 

absence of this rule, we believe that 

FMVSS No. 208 should require the same 

level of high speed crash protection for 

small statured occupants as for larger 

occupants. 

The final rule is essentially the same 

as the proposal, except for the timing of 

the phase-in. The new requirement is 

phased-in in a manner similar to the 

phase-in for the 56 km/h (35 mph) 

maximum speed test requirement using 

the 50th percentile adult male dummy, 

but begins two years later, i.e., 

September 1, 2009. The additional 

leadtime will provide manufacturers the 

time needed to meet design challenges 

associated with some vehicles and 

incorporate these additional 

requirements into their product 

development schedules without undue 

consequences. 

Given that this phase-in is two years 

later, and recognizing that many 

vehicles already comply with the new 

requirement, we are not including 

advance credits as part of this phase-in, 

although carryover credits earned 

during the phase-in will be allowed. 

The implementation schedule for the 

new requirement is as follows: 

—35 percent of each manufacturer’s 

light vehicles manufactured during 

the production year beginning on 

September 1, 2009; 

—65 percent of each manufacturer’s 

light vehicles manufactured during 

the production year beginning on 

September 1, 2010, with an allowance 

of carryover credits from vehicles 

built after September 1, 2009. 

—100 percent of each manufacturer’s 

light vehicles manufactured during 

the production year beginning on 

September 1, 2011, with an allowance 

of carryover credits from vehicles 

built after September 1, 2009. 

—All light vehicles manufactured on or 

after September 1, 2012. 

Manufacturers that sell two or fewer 

carlines in the United States at the 

beginning of the first year of the phasein (September 1, 2009) will have the 

option of omitting the first year of the 

phase-in, if they fully comply beginning 

on September 1, 2010. 

Manufacturers that produce or 

assemble fewer than 5,000 vehicles for 

the U.S. market per year may defer 

compliance with the new requirement 

until September 1, 2012. 

Consistent with our usual policy 

concerning multi-stage vehicles, multistage manufacturers and alterers may 

defer compliance with the new 

requirement until September 1, 2013. 

We are adopting phase-in reporting 

requirements similar to those used in 

other phase-ins. 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51771 

4The Chevrolet Avalanche had a passenger Nij 

value of 1.0, providing it no margin of compliance. 5 Docket No. NHTSA–2003–15732–11 and 12. 

B. Response to Public Comments by 

Issue 

1. Vehicle Crash Tests and Practicability 

Concerns 

As indicated above, to support the 

NPRM, we tested 18 vehicles in 56 km/ 

h (35 mph) barrier crash tests, some in 

conjunction with Transport Canada, 

with belted 5th percentile adult female 

dummies. The vehicles tested included 

small and medium passenger cars, sport 

utility vehicles, minivans, and a pickup 

truck. Of the 18 vehicles tested, 12 were 

able to meet the driver and right front 

passenger IARVs required under FMVSS 

No. 208. 

GM commented that none of the 18 

vehicles were certified to the advanced 

air bag provisions of FMVSS No. 208. 

GM stated that the restraint systems in 

the vehicles tested by the agency do not 

represent the same balancing of 

requirements that is necessary to meet 

the advanced air bag provision of 

FMVSS No. 208, which are more 

complex and demanding than the 

provisions for which the vehicles were 

certified. That company argued that 

testing of vehicles with restraint systems 

balanced to meet the advanced air bag 

requirements is necessary to make an 

informed feasibility assessment. 

We note that vehicles with advanced 

air bags were not available during the 

time we were developing the NPRM. 

Consequently, the agency tested fleetrepresentative vehicles that were 

equipped with the most advanced air 

bag and seat belt technology of the time. 

Most of the vehicles included forcelimited seat belts, pretensioners, and 

dual stage air bag inflation. One vehicle 

included a driver seat track sensor. 

We also note that since publication of 

the NPRM, NHTSA has tested five 

additional vehicles that have been 

certified to the advanced air bag 

requirements of FMVSS No. 208. These 

vehicles include the 2004 Honda 

Accord, 2004 Ford Taurus, 2004 Honda 

Odyssey, 2004 Chevrolet Avalanche, 

and 2004 Jeep Liberty. All five of the 

vehicles tested met the proposed 

requirements.4

GM also stated in its comments that 

NHTSA had not considered the 

compliance margins necessary to ensure 

that each vehicle would be capable of 

meeting the IARVs for the proposed test 

conditions. GM stated that if a 20 

percent compliance margin were 

applied, then only five of the eighteen 

vehicles cited in the NPRM would meet 

the IARVs. 

As to the issue of margin of 

compliance, we agree that 

manufacturers need to ensure that all of 

their vehicles meet a test requirement 

established by a Federal safety standard. 

As we noted in the rulemaking for 

advanced air bags, examination of 

compliance and certification data for 

pre-redesigned air bags shows that 

manufacturers often certified vehicles 

with much less than a 20 percent 

margin of compliance. We agree, 

however, that calculations of 20 percent 

compliance margins are useful for 

analytical and discussion purposes. 

As indicated above, 12 of the 18 

vehicles tested in support of the NPRM 

met the driver and right front passenger 

IARVs required under FMVSS No. 208. 

Of these 12, five had more than a 20 

percent compliance margin and three 

others had almost exactly a 20 percent 

compliance margin. Thus, eight of the 

12 had compliance margins of 

approximately 20 percent or more, 

while four had smaller compliance 

margins. None of the 18 vehicles were 

designed to meet the test requirements 

of the advanced air bag rule. Given this 

fact, and the number of available means 

discussed in the NPRM and the PRE for 

improving performance, we continue to 

believe that these test results 

demonstrated the practicability of the 

new requirements. 

Moreover, of the five additional 

vehicles we tested that have been 

certified to the advanced air bag 

requirements of FMVSS No. 208, four of 

the vehicles met the standard’s driver 

and right front passenger IARVs in 56 

km/h (35 mph) barrier crash tests using 

the 5th percentile adult female dummy 

with 20 percent compliance margins. 

The fifth vehicle, the Chevrolet 

Avalanche, resulted in a passenger Nij 

value of 1.0, providing it no margin of 

compliance. We note that this vehicle 

did not incorporate force-limiters or 

pretensioners to improve restraint 

performance, whereas the other four 

advanced air bag-equipped vehicles 

employed both of these technologies. 

Thus, we believe that additional 

restraint technologies are available that 

could be used for this vehicle. 

Moreover, since some vehicles passed 

the requirements without these 

technologies, we also believe that 

adjustments to air bag characteristics 

and/or firing threshhold could be used 

to enable this vehicle to comply with 

the requirements by comfortable 

margins for certification. 

GM also submitted a comment 

discussing the results of what it referred 

to as rapid proposal evaluation testing.5

That company evaluated one truck and 

one car program that were near the end 

of their development and validation for 

meeting the advanced air bag 

requirements, in light of the proposal. 

GM stated that simple changes will not 

suffice for the two programs to meet the 

proposed speed increase. GM stated that 

significant restraint system rebalancing 

or vehicle structural changes would be 

needed, which would require longer 

leadtime than the agency proposed. 

While we have considered GM’s 

comment, we believe the test results of 

the five vehicles equipped with 

advanced air bags address the concerns 

raised by GM about feasibility. Leadtime 

issues are discussed later in this 

document. 

2. Unintended Consequences 

GM expressed concern that increasing 

the maximum test speed to 56 km/h (35 

mph) for the belted 5th percentile adult 

female dummy could have unintended 

consequences for belted small stature 

occupants involved in low severity 

frontal collisions. GM stated that the 

severity of the 56 km/h (35 mph) rigid 

barrier test will force stiffer restraint 

systems than presently needed for the 

current 48 km/h (30 mph) frontal barrier 

test required by the advanced air bag 

final rule. According to GM, stiffening 

the restraint system would have an 

adverse affect in crashes of lower 

severity on the older, weaker, smaller 

population since their injury tolerance 

is lower than the younger, stronger 

population. GM submitted a theoretical 

analysis in support of its comments, 

which concluded that limiting the 

restraint load to the injury threshold 

load of the small occupant produced the 

lowest number of occupant injuries over 

the spectrum of frontal accident 

severities. 

The Alliance stated that the same air 

bag and belt system is used for different 

size occupants in other crash modes. It 

argued that if that system has been 

optimized for those crash modes then 

any change made to it will produce less 

than optimal results for those modes, 

resulting in disbenefits. 

We believe that the concerns 

expressed by GM and the Alliance about 

adverse consequences to occupants in 

other crash modes are addressed by the 

overall requirements of the advanced air 

bag rule. As noted earlier, the purpose 

of that rule was to require that future air 

bags be designed to create less risk of 

serious air bag-induced injuries than 

then-current air bags and provide 

improved frontal crash protection for all 

occupants. Vehicles designed to meet 

the rigid barrier crash test with 5th 

percentile adult female dummies at a 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with RULES
51772 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

maximum speed of 56 km/h (35 mph) 

will have to meet all of the requirements 

of the advanced air bag rule. That rule 

specifies test requirements at various 

test speeds/impact conditions including 

lower severity speeds and offset/oblique 

conditions, different dummy sizes, and 

restraint status. 

With respect to GM’s stated concern 

about belted small stature occupants 

involved in low severity frontal 

collisions, we note that the belted rigid 

barrier requirement must be met using 

5th percentile adult female dummies at 

speeds from 0 to the maximum specified 

speed. Vehicles must also meet a 40 

percent offset frontal deformable barrier 

test using belted 5th percentile adult 

female dummies at speeds from 0 to 40 

km/h (25 mph). Vehicles must also meet 

unbelted test requirements using that 

dummy, as well as low risk tests at the 

driver position. 

NHTSA believes that the overall 

requirements of the advanced air bag 

rule, including the amendment made in 

today’s rule, will encourage 

manufacturers to optimize their 

occupant protection systems to 

adequately protect all sizes of occupants 

both in low and high severity crashes. 

IIHS commented that by potentially 

further increasing the complexity of the 

restraint system, the proposed rule 

would increase the possibility of a 

system failure. However, that 

organization did not provide any 

support for this position. As indicated 

above, some vehicles being 

manufactured today meet the 

requirements of the advanced air bag 

rule and also meet the proposed 

requirement by a 20 percent margin. 

3. Timing of Agency Decision 

As indicated above, some commenters 

recommended that we defer this 

rulemaking until the performance of 

vehicles equipped with advanced air 

bags can be assessed. GM recommended 

that the agency wait until the work of 

the Blue Ribbon panel is completed. 

While we agree that the field 

experience with advanced air bagequipped vehicles is very limited, we do 

not believe it is necessary or appropriate 

to wait until there is sufficient 

experience with advanced air bags to 

assess their performance before 

completing this rulemaking We are 

addressing in this rulemaking a 

remaining issue from the advanced air 

bag rulemaking, whether it is 

practicable to establish the same 56 km/ 

h (35 mph) maximum test speed for 

belted rigid barrier tests using the 5th 

percentile adult female dummy as was 

established for the same test using 50th 

percentile adult male dummies. 

As we explained in the advanced air 

bag rulemaking, we did not propose 

including the 5th percentile adult 

female dummy in the 56 km/h (35 mph) 

phase-in requirement because we had 

sparse information on the practicability 

of such a requirement. We announced 

that we would initiate testing to 

examine this issue and anticipated 

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. 

We have conducted the anticipated 

testing to support the proposal, and 

believe it is appropriate to proceed with 

a final rule. We believe it could take 10 

or more years to accumulate significant 

field experience with advanced air bags 

and small females. In the meantime, 

improved protection for occupants of 

different sizes would not occur, and the 

benefits associated with the rule would 

be lost. 

NHTSA is aware of the work of the 

Blue Ribbon Panel and has attended its 

annual presentation of case findings. 

Much of the field work has focused on 

the performance of depowered air bagequipped vehicles, rather than vehicles 

equipped with advanced air bags. At 

this point in time, the data collection is 

complete, and the analysis is ongoing 

and expected to be completed by the 

end of this year. A public meeting is 

scheduled for May 2007. However, since 

the advanced air bag phase-in did not 

begin until model year 2004, the data 

reflect limited on-road exposure with 

respect to fifth percentile adult females. 

Therefore, we do not believe its work 

will provide significant information 

relevant to this specific rulemaking. 

4. Harmonization With Canada 

As indicated above, GM and the 

Alliance expressed concerns about 

differences between how NHTSA and 

Transport Canada are addressing 

improved protection for belted small 

statured occupants. The Alliance noted 

that Transport Canada has proposed a 

more stringent chest compression 

requirement for 5th percentile adult 

female dummies in 48 km/h (30 mph) 

tests. That organization expressed 

concern that each country’s proposal 

may require opposing or at least noncomplementary design strategies in 

order to meet the different proposed test 

requirements. The Alliance stated that 

assuming that the interior space and the 

vehicle stiffness are constant, 

engineering judgment would suggest 

that different restraint system solutions 

would be needed to manage the higher 

crash loads in the 56 km/h (35 mph) 

test, as opposed to restraints needed to 

reduce chest loading in order to meet 

the chest compression limit proposed by 

Transport Canada for the 48 km/h (30 

mph) test. 

GM stated that it believes regulations 

should be harmonized with other 

countries, particularly in North 

America, whenever possible. It also 

stated that it believes that Transport 

Canada’s approach is at least more 

directionally appropriate and more 

likely to reduce crash injuries and 

fatalities in small stature occupants and 

the elderly. 

On June 30, 2001, Transport Canada 

published a notice of intent to amend its 

occupant crash protection standard to 

improve chest protection in frontal 

collisions, particularly for the small and 

aging population. For one aspect of the 

regulation, Transport Canada proposed 

a 0–48 km/h (0–30 mph) full frontal 

rigid barrier crash test requirement 

using a 5th percentile adult female 

dummy and a 0–40 km/h (0–25 mph) 

fixed offset deformable barrier crash test 

requirement as in FMVSS No. 208. 

However, Transport Canada also 

proposed a reduced chest deflection 

limit of 41 mm in the full frontal rigid 

barrier crash test and 32 mm in the 

offset deformable barrier crash test. 

NHTSA’s chest deflection limit is 52 

mm for the 5th percentile dummy. 

We agree it is desirable to develop 

harmonized regulations whenever 

possible. We note that NHTSA and 

Transport Canada have met together on 

six occasions between May and October 

of 2004 to fully discuss the merits of the 

two proposals. 

While we recognize the differences 

between the proposals and that 

manufacturers would not want to be 

required to develop multiple restraint 

systems for the North American market, 

we believe that the two proposals do not 

require non-complementary design 

strategies. As indicated above, the 

Alliance was concerned that different 

restraint system solutions could be 

needed to manage the higher crash loads 

in the 56 km/h (35 mph) test, as 

opposed to restraints needed to reduce 

chest loading in order to meet the chest 

compression limit proposed by 

Transport Canada for the 48 km/h (30 

mph) test. We evaluated test results of 

11 vehicles that were subjected to rigid 

barrier crash tests using the 5th 

percentile adult female dummy at both 

48 km/h (30 mph) and 56 km/h (35 

mph). Nine of the 11 vehicles were able 

to comply with the chest protection 

requirements of both proposals with 

approximately a 20 percent margin of 

compliance. This testing indicates that 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51773 

when keeping vehicle stiffness and 

interior space constant, different 

restraint packages are not necessary to 

meet both the NHTSA and Transport 

Canada proposals. 

5. Concerns About the 5th Percentile 

Adult Female Dummy 

In commenting on the NPRM, 

DaimlerChrysler reiterated concerns it 

has previously identified about the 

Hybrid III 5th percentile adult female 

dummy, including ones about neck 

structure and response, dummy 

interference with deploying air bags, 

and the Nij neck injury criterion. That 

manufacturer stated that these issues 

were discussed in numerous 

submissions during the advanced air 

bag rulemaking, and most recently in its 

petition for reconsideration of the July 

2002 final rule on the 5th percentile 

adult female dummy. 

We note that the issues raised by 

DaimlerChrysler are not specific to this 

proposed requirement. Nij is already 

incorporated as an injury criterion in 

FMVSS No. 208, for both in-position 

and out-of-position test conditions using 

the 5th percentile adult female dummy. 

We did not propose any new injury 

criteria or modifications to the dummy 

neck as part of the proposal. 

DaimlerChrysler has provided 

comments and petitions on these issues 

before, and the agency has denied its 

requests. For example, in a final rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 19, 2003, we stated: 

The agency also determined that the Nij 

formula incorporates the relevant 

measurements for evaluating neck injury 

during frontal impact and that much of the 

automotive industry has accepted Nij as a 

valid injury measurement. See 66 FR 65376, 

65399. DaimlerChrysler has not provided any 

new information with respect to these two 

issues in its current petition for 

reconsideration. The agency still concurs 

with our previous determination and 

therefore is denying DaimlerChrysler’s 

petition with respect to * * * Nij 

measurements. 

68 FR 65189. 

Most recently, the agency denied 

DaimlerChrysler’s petition for 

reconsideration of the July 2002 final 

rule on the 5th percentile adult female 

dummy, referred to in its comments on 

this rulemaking, in a document 

published in the Federal Register (70 

FR 13227) on March 18, 2005. 

Because DaimlerChrysler has not 

presented new data or arguments in 

support of its concerns about this issue, 

we are not making changes in this 

rulemaking in response to its concerns. 

6. Test Set-Up Procedure 

In the NPRM, we proposed to use the 

seat set-up and dummy positioning 

procedures specified for the existing 0–

48 km/h (0–30 mph) frontal rigid barrier 

test for the belted 5th percentile adult 

female dummy. The set-up includes the 

use of the mid-tilt and mid-telescoping 

positions of the steering wheel (when 

available). 

We received two comments 

concerning the test procedure set-up, 

from IIHS and TRW. IIHS commented 

that dummy seating procedures in crash 

tests should be based on where drivers 

really sit and not on arbitrary seating 

positions that can be manipulated to 

optimize crash test results. It stated that 

NHTSA should change its regulations so 

anthropomorphic data are used to 

determine seating positions during tests, 

as it petitioned the agency in September 

2002. 

TRW stated that it believes the 

proposed test set-up procedures for the 

5th percentile adult female dummy at 

the driver position, particularly with 

respect to the steering wheel 

orientation, are not realistic with regard 

to field conditions. That company stated 

that the proposal fails to recognize the 

different statures of the 5th percentile 

adult female dummy and the 50th 

percentile adult male dummy. It 

believes that representative driving 

positions as indicated in the IIHS/ 

University of Michigan Transportation 

Research Institute (UMTRI) positioning 

procedures should be adopted. TRW 

noted that the UMTRI procedure calls 

for adjusting a telescoping wheel to a 

full-forward (untelescoped) position. 

TRW also recommended that the tilt 

position for the 5th percentile adult 

female dummy be lowered one or two 

notches from mid-position since it 

believes that would be a more 

representative position for an occupant 

of this stature. 

We note that since publishing the 

NPRM, the agency denied IIHS’s 

petition for rulemaking on amending the 

seating procedure in a document 

published in the Federal Register (69 

FR 8160) on February 23, 2004. In that 

document, we stated: 

* * * NHTSA denies this petition for 

rulemaking based on a lack of compelling 

beneficial evidence supporting the UMTRI 

procedure and the agency’s views about the 

adequacy of the current seating procedure 

* * * The agency has no immediate plans to 

conduct research on an alternative seating 

method for either the driver or passenger 

positions. However, NHTSA may revisit the 

seat position issue at a later time depending 

on the agency’s future research needs and 

priorities. 

The current seating procedure for the 

5th percentile adult female dummy was 

developed in the late 1990s, in 

consideration of work performed by the 

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 

Hybrid III 5th Seating Procedure Task 

group and NHTSA’s Vehicle Research 

Test Center. We believe that neither 

TRW nor IIHS have provided data or 

arguments demonstrating that amending 

the procedure would result in benefits. 

We also believe that since a great deal 

of testing has been performed using the 

existing procedure, both by government 

agencies and industry, we should avoid 

making unnecessary changes in the 

procedure. 

For steering set-up, the procedure 

specifies the use of the mid-tilt and midtelescoping positions of the steering 

wheel. These represent nominal 

positions. However, we also believe that 

it is reasonable to assume that some 

small statured drivers will drive with 

the steering wheel in this position, 

particularly if multiple-sized drivers 

routinely drive a vehicle. 

TRW noted that NHTSA specifies a 

lower wheel tilt for the driver out-ofposition procedure for the ‘‘chin on 

rim’’ test. The test procedure states that 

if the steering wheel can be adjusted to 

allow the chin to rest on the uppermost 

portion of the wheel, then the 

adjustment should be made. TRW stated 

that this position would help to present 

the air bag in a more uniform position 

to the small female driver. 

However, we believe that the 

positioning procedure for the low risk 

deployment test is not relevant to the 

positioning procedure proposed for this 

rulemaking. Unlike the low risk tests, 

the normal seating position for the 5th 

percentile adult female dummy in the 

high speed crash tests is not intended to 

encompass a worst-case scenario for air 

bag interaction. 

TRW also stated that if the tilt 

remains in the higher position, and the 

IARVs are close to compliance limits for 

the small female dummy, system 

designs might need to be changed to 

provide equal margins for mid-size 

occupants and smaller occupants. That 

company stated that, as a consequence, 

the driver air bag system may need to 

be more aggressive (larger air bag, higher 

output and/or slope inflator) to keep the 

small occupant off the rim. According to 

TRW, these designs may have the 

unintended consequence of more neck 

and chest interaction with the deploying 

air bag for all sized occupants who may 

be out-of-position during deployment. 

We note, however, that vehicles are 

also required to meet the low risk 

deployment tests and neck and chest 

injury requirements in the low-speed 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with RULES
51774 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

6 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). 

7 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9). 

offset and high-speed full frontal barrier 

tests. As discussed earlier, vehicle crash 

tests indicate that many vehicles can 

meet the advanced air bag requirements, 

including driver low risk deployment 

tests, and the proposed 35 mph crash 

test using the 5th percentile adult 

female dummy with the steering wheel 

positioned as currently specified in 

FMVSS No. 208. 

TRW also stated that if the agency 

does not change the mid-position 

specification, the possibility exists for 

adding additional lower detents to the 

wheel tilt mechanism, thus lowering the 

‘‘mid-tilt’’ position without 

compromising the ability of the wheel to 

be adjusted for larger occupants. TRW 

stated that the result might be a tradeoff in performance for larger occupants. 

However, TRW did not provide any 

data to support its statement. Therefore, 

it is unclear what tradeoffs are implied. 

TRW also stated that there is evidence 

from tests and computer models that 

show that the overall injury numbers 

improve for a 5th percentile adult 

female dummy when the wheel is tilted 

farther down from the mid-position. We 

note that while it may be easier to pass 

the test in the position advocated by 

TRW, this does not mean that it is in the 

interest of safety to adjust the steering 

wheel position for the specified test. As 

indicated above, it is reasonable to 

assume that some small statured drivers 

will drive with the steering wheel 

adjusted in the mid-position. Moreover, 

the 5th percentile adult female dummy 

seating procedure proposed in the 

NPRM is used in other tests in FMVSS 

No. 208, which are outside of the scope 

of this rulemaking. Also, as indicated 

above, given the amount of testing that 

has been performed using the existing 

procedure, we believe we should avoid 

making unnecessary changes. 

7. Leadtime 

GM commented that a minimum 

postponement of two years in the 

effective date of the proposed rule is 

necessary to accommodate testing and 

product development. 

While a number of vehicles already 

meet the proposed requirement as well 

as the advanced air bag requirements, 

we recognize that some models involve 

greater design challenges than others. 

For example, in its comments, GM 

compared the vehicle deceleration 

(pulse) characteristics of the Impala to 

other vehicles, and showed that the 

vehicle pulse for the Impala is 

significantly less aggressive (slower 

deceleration) than most of the vehicles 

in its fleet. Some vehicles have shorter 

front overhangs with tighter packaging, 

with the result that less front crush 

space is available. For these vehicles, 

the restraint system is more challenged 

to provide the crash energy absorption 

needed. 

As discussed earlier, we proposed the 

same phase-in schedule for the higher 

56 km/h (35 mph) rigid barrier test 

using belted 5th percentile adult female 

dummies as that already adopted for 

50th percentile adult male dummies, 

i.e., beginning September 1, 2007. 

After considering the comments, we 

have decided to phase in the new 

requirement in a similar manner to the 

one for 50th percentile adult male 

dummies. However, given the short time 

until the compliance date for the higher 

speed test requirement using 50th 

percentile male dummies and the 

impact on product development plans, 

we have decided to begin the phase-in 

for the higher speed test requirement 

using 5th percentile female dummies 

two years later, i.e., September 1, 2009. 

The additional leadtime will provide 

manufacturers the time needed to meet 

any design challenges associated with 

some vehicles and incorporate these 

additional requirements into their 

product development schedules without 

undue consequences. 

The details of the phase-in are 

provided above in the section titled 

‘‘Agency Decision—Overview,’’ so we 

will not repeat them here. 

8. Alternative Tests 

IIHS commented that other measures 

to improve frontal crash protection 

would prove far more beneficial than 

the proposed requirement. It stated that 

these measures include offset 

deformable barrier and pole tests, which 

it believes are more representative of 

real world crash experience. 

We note that consideration of an 

offset deformable barrier crash test or a 

pole test is outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. We proposed to amend an 

existing test procedure speed, and not 

an entirely new frontal crash test 

procedure. We also note that IIHS did 

not present any data to quantify how an 

offset deformable barrier or pole test 

would be more beneficial or more 

representative of real world crashes. 

C. Benefits and Costs 

In conjunction with the NPRM, the 

agency prepared a Preliminary 

Regulatory Evaluation (PRE) that 

analyzed the benefits and costs 

associated with the proposed 

requirements. The agency has prepared 

a Final Regulatory Evaluation (FRE) to 

accompany this final rule. The FRE 

addresses comments concerning 

benefits and costs, including comments 

on the methodologies used in the PRE. 

The following summarizes the FRE’s 

conclusions regarding the benefits and 

costs associated with this rule. 

1. Benefits 

The rule will annually prevent an 

estimated 2–4 fatalities and reduce 2 

MAIS 2–5 non-fatal injuries, once all 

light vehicles on the road comply with 

it. The low and high ends of the range 

are dependent on assumptions about 

injury probability curves for head 

injury. 

The relatively low magnitude of these 

benefits reflects the fact that the 

majority of the vehicle changes 

necessary to meet this rule are already 

being made to meet the May 2000 

advanced air bag final rule, and most 

vehicles designed to meet that rule 

already meet this rule. As indicated 

above, four of five vehicles with 

advanced air bags tested by NHTSA met 

the requirements of this rule with 20 

percent compliance margins. Relative to 

the May 2000 advanced air bag final 

rule, this rule is designed to further 

improve air bag technologies to expand 

benefits to small stature occupants 

under the same severity crash test 

conditions as required for the 50th 

percentile males. 

2. Costs 

The total net cost of this final rule 

could range from $0.0 to $9.0 million 

(2004 economics). The same technology 

countermeasures will be used by the 

manufacturers to comply with the rule 

as they use to comply with the May 

2000 advanced air bag final rule. They 

may not need to make any additional 

changes, they may need to redesign 

their air bags but add no costs, or they 

may add technologies to vehicles that 

didn’t need them before this final rule. 

The agency estimates the total cost of 

the rule will most likely be $4.5 million. 

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

A. Vehicle Safety Act 

Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor 

Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), 

the Secretary of Transportation is 

responsible for prescribing motor 

vehicle safety standards that are 

practicable, meet the need for motor 

vehicle safety, and are stated in 

objective terms.6 These motor vehicle 

safety standards set a minimum 

standard for motor vehicle or motor 

vehicle equipment performance.7 When 

prescribing such standards, the 

Secretary must consider all relevant, 

available motor vehicle safety 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51775 

8 49 U.S.C. 30111(b). 

9 Id. 

10 49 U.S.C. 105 and 322; delegation of authority 

at 49 CFR 1.50. 

information.8 The Secretary also must 

consider whether a proposed standard is 

reasonable, practicable, and appropriate 

for the type of motor vehicle or motor 

vehicle equipment for which it is 

prescribed and the extent to which the 

standard will further the statutory 

purpose of reducing traffic accidents 

and associated deaths.9 The 

responsibility for promulgation of 

Federal motor vehicle safety standards 

has been delegated to NHTSA.10

In developing this final rule, the 

agency carefully considered the 

statutory requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301. We also note that the issue 

addressed by this rule arose during the 

agency’s advanced air bag rulemaking 

required by the Transportation Equity 

Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21), 

enacted by Congress in June 1998. That 

statute required us to issue a rule 

amending FMVSS No. 208: 

* * * 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. 

As discussed in the preamble to the 

advanced air bag rule, the agency did 

not propose to include the 5th 

percentile adult female dummy in the 

56 km/h (35 mph) belted rigid barrier 

test requirement because we had sparse 

information on the practicability of such 

a requirement. Instead, we addressed 

this issue in this later rulemaking, after 

conducting a series of vehicle crash tests 

to obtain the information we needed to 

analyze this issue. 

This final rule was preceded by an 

NPRM, in which we discussed the 

results of the vehicle crash tests 

conducted to support the rulemaking. 

We have also conducted five additional 

crash tests of vehicles certified to the 

advanced air bag requirements. 

In preparing this document, the 

agency carefully evaluated the 

comments, testing results and other 

available information. We have also 

updated our cost and benefits analysis. 

Thus, this document reflects our 

consideration of all relevant, available 

information. 

B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), provides for making 

determinations whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) review and to the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budget impact 

of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

This rulemaking document was 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is 

considered to be significant under the 

Department’s Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 

1979) because of significant public 

interest. 

This final rule amends FMVSS No. 

208 by increasing the maximum belted 

frontal barrier crash test speed from 48 

km/h (30 mph) to 56 km/h (35 mph) for 

the 5th percentile adult female dummy. 

This is the same test speed as is 

specified for the 50th percentile adult 

male dummy. 

As noted above in the section entitled 

Benefits and Costs, the agency estimates 

that the rule will prevent 2–4 fatalities 

and reduce 2 MAIS 2–5 non-fatal 

injuries. The total net cost could range 

from $0.0 to $9.0 million (2004 

economics). The agency estimates the 

total cost of the rule will most likely be 

$4.5 million. 

A complete discussion of how 

NHTSA arrived at these benefits and 

costs may be found in the FRE located 

in the docket for this rulemaking. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

In compliance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 60l et seq., 

NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this 

final rule on small entities. I hereby 

certify that this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The following is the agency’s 

statement providing the factual basis for 

the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The 

rule directly affects motor vehicle 

manufacturers, second stage or final 

manufacturers, and alterers. SIC code 

number 3711, Motor Vehicles and 

Passenger Car Bodies, prescribes a small 

business size standard of 1,000 or fewer 

employees. SIC code No. 3714, Motor 

Vehicle Part and Accessories, prescribes 

a small business size standard of 750 or 

fewer employees. 

The majority of motor vehicle 

manufacturers would not qualify as a 

small business. These manufacturers, 

along with manufacturers that do 

qualify as a small business, are already 

required to comply with the 48 km/h 

(30 mph) maximum crash test speed 

requirements using 5th percentile adult 

female dummies under the advanced air 

bag rule of FMVSS No. 208. Measures to 

provide protection up to 48 km/h (30 

mph) are already being implemented, 

and many tested vehicles already 

comply with requirements as amended 

by this rule. Improving performance as 

necessary to meet the 56 km/h (35 mph) 

requirement can generally be achieved 

through changes in safety belt design or 

changes in air bag inflation 

characteristics with low-cost algorithm 

changes. Furthermore, small volume 

manufacturers are given the option of 

waiting until the end of the phase-in to 

meet the new requirements. 

Most of the intermediate and final 

stage manufacturers of vehicles built in 

two or more stages and alterers have 

1,000 or fewer employees. But again, 

these companies already are required to 

comply with the 48 km/h (30 mph) 

belted 5th percentile adult female 

dummy requirement. These companies 

can either rely on the original 

equipment manufacturer’s certification, 

or employ similar low cost measures as 

the large manufacturers. Also, final 

stage manufacturers and alterers can 

wait until one year after the end of the 

phase-in to meet the new requirements. 

Accordingly, there will be no significant 

economic impact on small businesses, 

small organizations, or small 

governmental units by these 

amendments. For these reasons the 

agency has not prepared a regulatory 

flexibility analysis. 

D. Executive Order No. 13132 

NHTSA has analyzed this rule in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria set forth in Executive Order 

13132, Federalism, and has determined 

that it does not have sufficient Federal 

implications to warrant consultation 

with State and local officials or the 

preparation of a Federalism summary 

impact statement. The rule will not have 

any substantial impact on the States, or 

on the current Federal-State 

relationship, or on the current 

distribution of power and 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with RULES
51776 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

responsibilities among the various local 

officials. However, under 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. 

E. National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this rule for the 

purposes of the National Environmental 

Policy Act. The agency has determined 

that implementation of this rule will not 

have any significant impact on the 

quality of the human environment. 

F. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the procedures established by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a 

person is not required to respond to a 

collection of information by a Federal 

agency unless the collection displays a 

valid OMB control number. This final 

rule contains a ‘‘collection of 

information’’ as that term is defined by 

OMB at 5 CFR 1320. As a result of this 

final rule, NHTSA proposes to revise a 

currently approved collection of 

information as follows. NHTSA will 

also ask for an extension of the revised 

collection of information for three more 

years. 

Agency: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA). 

Title: Part 585—Phase-in Reporting 

Requirements. 

Type of Request—Revision of a 

Currently Approved Collection of 

Information. 

OMB Clearance No.—2127–0599. 

Form Number—This collection of 

information will not use any standard 

forms. 

Requested Expiration Date of 

Clearance—At present, Clearance No. 

2127–0599 is scheduled to expire on 

October 31, 2006. NHTSA will ask for 

a 3-year extension of this collection of 

information (with revisions) through 

October 31, 2009. As a result of this 

final rule, NHTSA anticipates asking for 

another extension of this collection, 

through October 31, 2012. 

Summary of the Collection of 

Information 

In the ‘‘Rulemaking Analyses and 

Notices’’ section of the August 6, 2003 

NPRM, NHTSA discussed the 

Paperwork Reduction Act consequences 

of its proposed collection of information 

(See 68 FR at 46544–46545.) As a result 

of this final rule, NHTSA amends its 

description of the collection of 

information in the NPRM as follows. As 

discussed earlier, the final rule is 

essentially the same as the proposal, 

except for the timing of the phase-in. 

The new requirement is phased-in in a 

manner similar to the phase-in for the 

56 km/h (35 mph) maximum speed test 

requirement using the 50th percentile 

adult male dummy, but begins two years 

later, i.e., September 1, 2009. The 

additional leadtime will provide 

manufacturers the time needed to meet 

design challenges associated with some 

vehicles and incorporate these 

additional requirements into their 

product development schedules without 

undue consequences. 

We are adopting phase-in reporting 

requirements similar to those used in 

other phase-ins. For each year of the 

phase-in period, manufacturers are 

required to provide to NHTSA, within 

60 days after the August 31 end date of 

each ‘‘production year,’’ information 

identifying the vehicles (by make, 

model, and vehicle identification 

number (VIN)) that have been certified 

as complying with the belted barrier test 

upgrade. 

As discussed earlier, the 

implementation schedule for the new 

requirement is as follows: 

—35 percent of each manufacturer’s 

light vehicles manufactured during 

the production year beginning on 

September 1, 2009 (with the phase-in 

report to NHTSA due on October 31, 

2010); 

—65 percent of each manufacturer’s 

light vehicles manufactured during 

the production year beginning on 

September 1, 2010, with an allowance 

of carryover credits from vehicles 

built after September 1, 2009 (with 

the phase-in report to NHTSA due on 

October 31, 2011); 

—100 percent of each manufacturer’s 

light vehicles manufactured during 

the production year beginning on 

September 1, 2011, with an allowance 

of carryover credits from vehicles 

built after September 1, 2009 (with 

the phase-in report to NHTSA due on 

October 31, 2012). 

—All light vehicles manufactured on or 

after September 1, 2012. 

Manufacturers that sell two or fewer 

carlines in the United States at the 

beginning of the first year of the phasein (September 1, 2009) will have the 

option of omitting the first year of the 

phase-in, if they fully comply beginning 

on September 1, 2010. 

Manufacturers that produce or 

assemble fewer than 5,000 vehicles for 

the U.S. market per year may defer 

compliance with the new requirement 

until September 1, 2012. Pursuant to 

this final rule, these manufacturers do 

not have to file any reports to NHTSA. 

Consistent with our usual policy 

concerning multi-stage vehicles, multistage manufacturers and alterers may 

defer compliance with the new 

requirement until September 1, 2013. 

Pursuant to this final rule, these 

manufacturers do not have to file any 

reports to NHTSA. 

Description of the Need for the Use of 

the Information 

NHTSA needs this information to 

ensure that vehicle manufacturers are 

certifying their applicable vehicles as 

meeting the new belted barrier test 

using the 5th percentile female. NHTSA 

will use this information to determine 

whether a manufacturer has complied 

with the amended requirements of 

FMVSS No. 208 during the phase-in 

period. 

Description of the Likely Respondents 

(Including Estimated Number, and 

Proposed Frequency of Response to the 

Collection of Information) 

NHTSA estimates that 21 vehicle 

manufacturers will submit the required 

information. 

For each report, the manufacturer will 

provide, in addition to its identity, 

several numerical items of information. 

The information includes: 

(a) Total number of vehicles 

manufactured for sale during the 

preceding production year, 

(b) Total number of vehicles 

manufactured during the production 

year that meet the regulatory 

requirements, and 

(c) Information identifying the 

vehicles (by make, model, and vehicle 

identification number (VIN)) that have 

been certified as complying with the 

belted barrier test upgrade. 

Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting 

and Recordkeeping Burden Resulting 

From the Collection of Information 

Approved Clearance for October 31, 

2003 through October 31, 2006—At 

present, OMB Clearance 2127–0599 

gives NHTSA approval to collect 1,281 

burden hours a year from industry, or 61 

hours from each of 21 manufacturers. 

This figure of 61 hours represents the 

burden hours that would result if 

reports for two separate but related 

phase-ins were due the same year, e.g., 

both the higher speed test requirement 

using 50th percentile adult male test 

dummies and the higher speed test 

requirement using the 5th percentile 

adult female dummies. At no time from 

October 31, 2003 through October 31, 

2006 has there been a requirement for 

manufacturers to provide two such 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51777 

phase-in reports. Thus, this figure of 61 

hours should have been 60 hours per 

manufacturer, or a total collection of 

information burden on industry of 1,260 

hours. 

Request for Clearance for October 31, 

2006 through October 31, 2009—

NHTSA is asking OMB to extend 

Clearance 2127–0599 for an additional 

three years, October 31, 2006 through 

October 31, 2009. NHTSA notes that for 

the first year of this period, November 

1, 2006 through October 31, 2007, the 

reporting requirement relates to the 

optional earning of advanced credits for 

Phase II. If all manufacturers choose to 

earn advanced credits, the burden hours 

would be the same as for one of the 

years of the phase-in i.e., 60 hours. 

The phase-in period for Phase II 

(higher speed test requirement using 

50th percentile adult male test 

dummies) will begin on September 1, 

2007, with the report due on October 31, 

2008. From November 1, 2007 through 

October 31, 2009, NHTSA estimates that 

each manufacturer will again incur 60 

burden hours per year, through October 

31, 2009. The burden hours for OMB 

Clearance, 2127–0599 will remain at 60 

hours multiplied by 21 manufacturers 

per year (1,260 hours). Thus, in its OMB 

Form 83–I submission for approval to 

extend OMB Clearance 2127–0599 to 

collect information from October 31, 

2007 through October 31, 2009, NHTSA 

will ask that the collection of 

information be revised to reflect the 

lower figure of 1,260 hour figure for the 

two years in which reports (60 burden 

hours a year on 21 manufacturers). 

Anticipated Request for Clearance for 

October 31, 2009 through October 31, 

2012—The first year of the phase-in for 

the higher speed test requirement using 

5th percentile adult female dummies 

covers the production period from 

September 1, 2009 through August 31, 

2010. The report will be due by October 

31, 2010, a time after OMB Clearance 

2127–0599 expires on October 31, 2009. 

According to the phase-in schedule 

specified in this final rule, the three 

year period from October 31, 2009 

through October 31, 2012 will include 

one year (covering the production 

period from September 1, 2009 through 

August 31, 2010) when manufacturers 

will report on both the last year of the 

phase-in for the higher speed test 

requirement using 50th percentile adult 

male test dummies and the first year of 

the higher speed test requirement using 

5th percentile adult female dummies. 

For this one year, there will be an 

increase of one burden hour, resulting 

in a total of 61 burden hours per 

manufacturer, or a total burden of 1,281 

hours on industry. This estimate is 

based on the fact that the reporting 

format for the test requirements using 

both the 50th percentile adult male test 

dummies and the 5th percentile adult 

female test dummies is identical. The 

data collection will involve only 

computer tabulation (using the same 

reporting format) and manufacturers 

will provide the information to NHTSA 

in an electronic (as opposed to paper) 

format. The data will cover the same 

types of vehicles for both the upgrade of 

the belted barrier test using the 50th 

percentile adult male test dummies and 

the upgrade using the 5th percentile 

adult female test dummies. 

The additional two years in the period 

from October 31, 2010 through October 

31, 2012, will include the phase-in 

reporting requirement for light vehicle 

manufacturers only for the higher speed 

test requirement using 5th percentile 

adult female test dummies. We estimate 

that the reporting burden for 

manufacturers will be the same as was 

the reporting burden for the higher 

speed test requirement using 50th 

percentile adult male test dummies, 60 

burden hours per year. Thus, for each of 

the two years from October 31, 2010 

through October 31, 2012, the reporting 

burden on light vehicle manufacturers is 

60 hours per year. 

There are 0 hours of recordkeeping 

burdens resulting from the collection of 

information. 

NHTSA estimates that there are no 

additional cost burdens resulting from 

this final rule. There are no capital or 

start-up costs as a result of this 

collection. Manufacturers could collect 

and tabulate the information by using 

existing equipment. Thus, there are no 

additional costs to respondents or 

recordkeepers. 

Because the scope of this collection of 

information differs from that described 

in the NPRM, NHTSA invites comment 

on its estimates of the total annual hour 

and cost burdens resulting from this 

collection of information. Please submit 

any comments to the NHTSA Docket 

Number referenced in the heading of 

this document or to: Ms. Lori Summers, 

Office of Rulemaking, NHTSA, 400 

Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 

20590. Ms. Summers’ telephone number 

is: (202) 366–1740. Comments are due 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this document in the Federal 

Register. 

G. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Under the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104–113), ‘‘all Federal 

agencies and departments shall use 

technical standards that are developed 

or adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies, using such technical 

standards as a means to carry out policy 

objectives or activities determined by 

the agencies and departments.’’ The 

amendments use the technical standards 

currently in FMVSS No. 208 and only 

increase the maximum speed for the 

frontal barrier crash test using the 5th 

percentile adult female dummy from 48 

km/h (30 mph) to 56 km/h (35 mph). No 

voluntary consensus standard uses a 

maximum speed of 56 km/h (35 mph) 

for a frontal rigid barrier crash test using 

a 5th percentile adult female dummy. 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

This rule will not have any retroactive 

effect. As noted above in the discussion 

of Executive Order No. 13132, 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 a 

suit in court. 

I. Unfunded Mandates 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 rulemaking would not result 

in expenditures by State, local or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector in excess of $100 million 

annually. 

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 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with RULES
51778 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

planned regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by us. 

This rule is not subject to the 

Executive Order because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

E.O. 12866 and does not involve 

decisions based on environmental, 

health, or safety risks that 

disproportionately affect children. The 

rule increases the maximum belted 

frontal crash barrier test speed from 48 

km/h (30 mph) to 56 km/h (35 mph) for 

the 5th percentile adult female dummy. 

K. 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. 

L. Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://dms.dot.gov. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 571 and 

585 

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Tires. 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA is amending 49 CFR parts 571 

and 585 as follows: 

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

■ 1. 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. 

■ 2. Section 571.208 is amended by 

adding S14.6 through S14.7 and revising 

S15.1 and S16.1(a) to read as follows: 

§ 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant 

crash protection. 

* * * * * 

S14.6 Vehicles manufactured on or 

after September 1, 2009, and before 

September 1, 2012 (Phase-in of higher 

maximum speed (56 km/h (35 mph)) 

belted test requirement using 5th 

percentile adult female dummies). 

(a) For vehicles manufactured for sale 

in the United States on or after 

September 1, 2009, and before 

September 1, 2012, a percentage of the 

manufacturer’s production, as specified 

in S14.6.1, shall meet the requirements 

specified in S15.1(b) (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, 2010, and before 

September 1, 2012, shall meet the 

requirements specified in S15.1(b) (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 

S14.6. 

(d) Vehicles that are manufactured by 

a manufacturer that produces fewer than 

5,000 vehicles worldwide annually are 

not subject to the requirements of S14.6. 

S14.6.1 Phase-in schedule. 

S14.6.1.1 Vehicles manufactured on 

or after September 1, 2009, and before 

September 1, 2010. Subject to 

S14.6.2(a), for vehicles manufactured by 

a manufacturer on or after September 1, 

2009, and before September 1, 2010, the 

amount of vehicles complying with 

S15.1(b) 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, 

2009, the manufacturer’s average annual 

production of vehicles manufactured on 

or after September 1, 2007, and before 

September 1, 2010, or 

(b) The manufacturer’s production on 

or after September 1, 2009, and before 

September 1, 2010. 

S14.6.1.2 Vehicles manufactured on 

or after September 1, 2010, and before 

September 1, 2011. Subject to 

S14.6.2(b), for vehicles manufactured by 

a manufacturer on or after September 1, 

2010, and before September 1, 2011, the 

amount of vehicles complying with 

S15.1(b) 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, 

2010, the manufacturer’s average annual 

production of vehicles manufactured on 

or after September 1, 2008 and before 

September 1, 2011, or 

(b) The manufacturer’s production on 

or after September 1, 2010, and before 

September 1, 2011. 

S14.6.1.3 Vehicles manufactured on 

or after September 1, 2011, and before 

September 1, 2012. Subject to 

S14.6.2(c), for vehicles manufactured by 

a manufacturer on or after September 1, 

2011, and before September 1, 2012, the 

amount of vehicles complying with 

S15.1(b) shall be 100 percent of the 

manufacturer’s production during that 

period. 

S14.6.2 Calculation of complying 

vehicles. 

(a) For the purposes of complying 

with S14.6.1.1, a manufacturer may 

count a vehicle if it is manufactured on 

or after September 1, 2009, but before 

September 1, 2010. 

(b) For purposes of complying with 

S14.6.1.2, a manufacturer may count a 

vehicle if it: 

(1) Is manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2009, but before 

September 1, 2011, and 

(2) Is not counted toward compliance 

with S14.6.1.1. 

(c) For purposes of complying with 

S14.6.1.3, a manufacturer may count a 

vehicle if it: 

(1) Is manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2009, but before 

September 1, 2012, and 

(2) Is not counted toward compliance 

with S14.6.1.1 or S14.6.1.2. 

S14.6.3 Vehicles produced by more 

than one manufacturer. 

S14.6.3.1 For the purpose of 

calculating average annual production 

of vehicles for each manufacturer and 

the number of vehicles manufactured by 

each manufacturer under S14.6.1, a 

vehicle produced by more than one 

manufacturer shall be attributed to a 

single manufacturer as follows, subject 

to S14.6.3.2. 

(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. 

S14.6.3.2 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 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51779 

vehicle would otherwise be attributed 

under S14.6.3.1. 

S14.7 Vehicles manufactured on or 

after September 1, 2012. (Higher 

maximum speed (56km/h (35 mph)) 

belted test requirement using 5th 

percentile adult female dummies). Each 

vehicle shall meet the requirements 

specified in S15.1(b) (in addition to the 

other requirements specified in this 

standard). However, vehicles that are 

manufactured in two or more stages or 

that are altered (within the meaning of 

49 CFR 567.7) after having been 

previously certified in accordance with 

Part 567 of this chapter may comply 

with the requirements specified in 

S15.1(a) instead of S15.1(b), if they are 

manufactured before September 1, 2013. 

* * * * * 

S15.1 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 S15.3 when tested under 

S16.1(a)(1). 

(b) Each vehicle that is certified as 

complying with S14.6 or S14.7 shall, at 

each front outboard designated seating 

position, meet the injury criteria 

specified in S15.3 when tested under 

S16.1(a)(2). 

* * * * * 

S16.1 General provisions. * * * 

(a) Belted test. 

(1) Vehicles certified to S14.1 or 

S14.2. 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 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. 

(2) Vehicles certified to S14.6 or 

S14.7. 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 56km/h (35 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. 

* * * * * 

PART 585—PHASE-IN REPORTING 

REQUIREMENTS 

■ 3. The authority citation for Part 585 

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. 

■ 4. Section 585.14 is amended by 

redesignating paragraph (c) as (d) and 

adding new paragraph (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 585.14 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(c) Phase three of the advanced air 

bag reporting requirements of Standard 

No. 208 refers to the requirements set 

forth in S14.6 and S14.7 of Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, 

49 CFR 571.208. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 585.15 is amended by 

adding new paragraph (b)(3) and 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 585.15 Reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) Within 60 days after the end of the 

production years ending August 31, 

2010, August 31, 2011, and August 31, 

2012, each manufacturer shall submit a 

report to the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration regarding its 

compliance with phase three of the 

advanced air bag requirements of 

Standard No. 208 for its vehicles 

produced in that production year. The 

report shall provide the information 

specified in paragraph (d) of this section 

and in § 585.2 of this part. 

* * * * * 

(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, August 31, 2009, 

August 31, 2010, and August 31, 2011, 

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. Provide this 

information separately for phase two 

and phase three of the advanced air bag 

reporting requirements. 

■ 6. Section 585.16 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 585.16 Records. 

Each manufacturer shall maintain 

records of the Vehicle Identification 

Number of each vehicle for which 

information is reported under 

§ 585.15(c)(1) until December 31, 2011. 

Each manufacturer shall maintain 

records of the Vehicle Identification 

Number of each vehicle for which 

information is reported under 

§ 585.15(d)(2) until December 31, 2013. 

Issued: August 23, 2006. 

Nicole R. Nason, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 06–7225 Filed 8–30–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 060621176–6219–02; I.D. 

052306A] 

RIN 0648–AU50 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Northeast Multispecies 

Fishery; Great South Channel Scallop 

Dredge Exemption Area 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to 

modify the regulations implementing 

the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) to allow 

vessels issued either a General Category 

Atlantic sea scallop permit or a limited 

access sea scallop permit, when not 

fishing under a scallop days-at-sea 

(DAS) limitation, to fish for scallops 

with small dredges (combined width not 

to exceed 10.5 ft (3.2 m)) within the 

Great South Channel Scallop Dredge 

Exemption Area. This final rule 

responds to a request from the fishing 

industry to add this area to the list of 

exempted fisheries. The intent of this 

action is to allow small scallop dredge 

vessels to harvest scallops in a manner 

that is consistent with the bycatch 

reduction objectives of the FMP. 

DATES: Effective August 31, 2006. 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with RULES