[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 16, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27535-27537]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9382]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 2006-26339]


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for rulemaking submitted by 
Siemens VDO to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 
208, ``Occupant Crash Protection.'' The petition requests that the 
agency add a dynamic automatic suppression option under the advanced 
air bag options for the 12-month CRABI infant test dummy analogous to 
that for the 3-year and 6-year-old dummies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: David Sutula, 
Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at (202) 366-3273. Fax: (202) 493-
2739.
    For legal issues: Edward Glancy, Office of Chief Counsel, at (202) 
366-2992.
    Fax: (202) 366-3820.
    You may send mail to these officials at the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. The Petition
III. Data Submission and NHTSA Analysis
    A. Data Submission
    B. Ex Parte Meeting With Siemens, Volkswagen and Audi
    C. NHTSA Analysis
IV. Conclusion

I. Background

    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant 
crash protection,'' specifies performance requirements for the 
protection of vehicle occupants in crashes (49 CFR 571.208). On May 12, 
2000, we published an interim final rule that amended FMVSS No. 208 to 
require advanced air bags (65 FR 30680; (Advanced Air Bag Rule). Among 
other things, the rule addressed the risk of serious air bag-induced 
injuries, particularly for small women and young children, and amended 
FMVSS No. 208 to require that future air bags be designed to minimize 
such risk. The Advanced Air Bag Rule established a rigid barrier crash 
test with a 5th percentile adult female test dummy, as well as several 
low risk deployment and static suppression tests using a range of dummy 
sizes and a number of specified child restraint systems (CRSs).
    The Advanced Air Bag Rule allows for passenger side compliance 
through any of three options. The first option, Low Risk Deployment 
(LRD), defines a reduced deployment strength for occupants in close 
proximity to the air bag. The second option suppresses the air bag when 
a child is present. The third option, Dynamic Automatic Suppression 
(DASS), senses the location of an occupant with respect to the air bag, 
interprets the occupant characteristics and movement, and determines 
whether or not to allow the air bag to deploy. Performance tests for 
determining compliance with the LRD and suppression options were 
specified in the Advanced Air Bag Rule. A performance test for 
determining compliance with the DASS option was not specified in the 
rule because at that time it was not known what technologies would be 
used to attempt to meet the DASS option.
    The agency received multiple petitions for reconsideration to the 
Advanced Air Bag Rule. Petitioners raised a large number of concerns 
about the various test procedures in their written submissions. The 
agency then addressed each petition in a Federal Register notice 
published on December 18, 2001, and made a number of refinements to the 
test dummy positioning procedures in the barrier tests and the low risk 
deployment tests used in the Advanced Air Bag Rule (66 FR 65376).
    The December 18, 2001 response to petitions for reconsiderations 
(66 FR 65383) stated that:

    To address the risks posed by passenger air bags, the rule 
requires vehicles to either (1) have a passenger air bag that 
deploys in a low-risk manner to out-of-position occupants, (2) to 
have a feature that suppresses the air bag when a young child is 
present in a variety of positions, or (3) to have a feature that 
suppresses the air bag when a passenger is out-of-position 
(including in dynamic events). The risk minimization requirements 
must be met separately for 1-year-old, 3-year-old and 6-year-old 
children, and manufacturers may choose different options for these 
three classes of occupants [emphasis added].''

In making this statement, the agency clarified that for each dummy 
type, the selected ``risk minimization'' strategy had to be met in full 
for each dummy. That is, it was not acceptable to comply with only the 
suppression strategy for an infant in a rear facing child restraint 
system (RFCRS) and the low risk deployment strategy for an infant in a 
forward facing child restraint system (FFCRS). This was further 
emphasized in letters responding to request for interpretation from TRW 
Automotive (TRW) \1\ and International Electronics and Engineering 
(IEE) \2\ in July and October of 2003, respectively. The IEE 
interpretation also indicated that ``[m]anufacturers may not use 
suppression technology to ensure that there will be no air bag 
deployment in the indicant test if they are certifying to the low risk 
deployment test.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Docket Management System NHTSA-2003-15650.
    \2\ Docket Management System NHTSA-2003-16296.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In both regulatory and non-regulatory environments the agency has 
discussed extensively its concern about the danger of air bag 
deployment in the presence of an infant in a RFCRS. It was for this 
reason that the infant low risk deployment certification option 
effectively requires a broader range of crash severities for which the 
air bag must deploy in a low risk manner.

II. The Petition

    On August 20, 2003, Siemens VDO (Siemens) petitioned the agency to 
amend FMVSS No. 208 to add a DASS option under the advanced air bag 
options for the 12-month-old CRABI infant test dummy. This would be an 
option analogous to that provided for the 3-year-old and 6-year-old 
dummies in S21.3 and S23.3, respectively. Siemens stated that 
``including the DASS option with the 1-year-old (12-month-old) dummy 
could have a positive impact on motor vehicle safety by enabling the 
development and certification of advanced air bag suppression 
systems.''
    The petition stated that the lack of a DASS option (for infants) is 
limiting advanced air bag technologies for the following reasons:

    1. Using a vision-based DASS system it is not possible, under 
all circumstances, [emphasis added] to distinguish between a 12-
month-old child in a FFCRS with a sunshield or blanket and a 5th 
percentile female. The system would suppress the air bag and 
eliminate potential benefits to children older than 1-year and small 
adults.

[[Page 27536]]

    2. Test data Siemens submitted with the petition show that a 12-
month-old properly positioned in a FFCRS is not at risk from a 
statically deploying air bag. In out-of-position (OOP) situations, 
the infant in the FFCRS does not have injury measures in excess of 
the required FMVSS No. 208 criteria.
    3. A DASS option for the 12-month-old dummy would deactivate the 
air bag when the infant enters the air bag suppression zone. An 
infant in a rear facing child restraint system (RFCRS) would always 
be in this suppression zone.

    Siemens believes that the agency has never expressed its reasoning 
for not allowing the DASS option for the 12-month-old dummy. The 
petitioner stated that if its petition were granted and the standard 
amended accordingly, it would submit a petition for a DASS test 
procedure in accordance with S27.1(a).
    The petitioner's claimed need for the relief is predicated on the 
contention that their vision system cannot tell the difference between 
a 12-month-old in a FFCRS covered by a blanket or sunshield (a test 
required in the suppression option for the 12-month-old dummy) and a 
5th percentile female sitting in the passenger seat. Since the air bag 
must not be suppressed for the 5th percentile female, their vision 
system alone could not be used for a compliance strategy that 
suppresses for the 12-month-old and uses DASS for all other occupants.

III. Data Submission and NHTSA Analysis

A. Data Submission

    Siemens provided sled and static testing data in support of their 
petition. The petitioner's stated goal of the testing was to determine:

    1. The risk of injury from air bag deployment for infants and 
children in FFCRS; and
    2. If there is any benefit to air bag deployment for small 
children.

    The petitioner's test matrix consisted mostly of sled testing using 
the 3-year-old dummy. Tests were conducted with the dummy unrestrained 
and also restrained using two different CRSs. The tests were done in 
three positions of vehicle seat adjustment: Forward track/highest 
height (for/up), middle track/middle height (mid/mid), and rearward 
track/lowest height (rear/low). The sled speeds were reported as 16, 
22, and 35 mph. Siemens also reported that a 10 mph out-of-position 
test was performed, but no data was provided for this test. Finally, 
Siemens also reported static air bag deployments using a 12-month-old 
dummy and four different CRSs. The complete test matrix is shown below 
in Table 1.

                                                                      Table 1.--Test Data Submitted in Support of Petition
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Air bag status              w/out air bag                                                                      w/air bag
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          Seat position
                                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Dummy                      mid/mid             for/up misuse              for/up                mid/mid                rear/low               for/mid             for/mid misuse
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3-year-old x 2 CRSs............  35 mph...............  16 [dagger] and 35     35 mph...............  35 mph...............  35 mph...............
                                                         mph.
3-year-old unbelted............  22 mph...............  10 mph OOP...........  .....................  22 mph...............
12-month-old x 4 CRSs..........  .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  Static *.............  Static [Dagger].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dagger] One child restraint.
* Both stages of a dual stage air bag.
[Dagger] Current production single stage air bag.

B. Ex Parte Meeting With Siemens, Volkswagen and Audi

    On June 17, 2004, representatives from Siemens and vehicle 
manufacturers, Volkswagen and Audi, met with NHTSA to discuss the 
Siemens petition. During the meeting, Siemens made a presentation 
reiterating the petition material.\3\ No new supporting data was 
provided, but the following additional justifications for granting the 
petition were presented:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Test Requirements for 1 YO Dummy in Standard No. 208, 
Information supporting the Siemens VDO petition for rulemaking, 
Washington DC, June 17, 2004. See the docket for this notice for a 
copy of the meeting materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> Maximizes the number of occupants that benefit from air 
bag protection.
    <bullet> Minimizes the risk of air bag-induced fatalities.
    <bullet> Avoids weight-based classification grey zones through a 
position-dependent deployment decision.

C. NHTSA Analysis

    The petition requested that the agency allow a DASS option for the 
12-month-old infant dummy. However, the dynamic test data submitted in 
support of the petition attempted to show the protective effect of the 
air bag for a belted 3-year-old dummy in two different CRSs and also 
unbelted, sitting in the vehicle seat. The agency does not consider 
this to be directly supportive of the petition in that a DASS option 
for the 3-year-old already exists.
    The data submitted using the 12-month-old dummy were static first-
stage air bag deployments. The dummy was placed in four different 
FFCRSs. In one set of data the CRS was in-position and in another it 
was leaning forward. The space between the instrument panel and dummy 
head was not provided with the petition. However, in the June 17, 2004 
meeting with the petitioners, they stated that the distance was 
approximately 100-200 mm (4-8 inches). None of the dummy IARVs \4\ were 
exceeded, but for at least one CRS tested, the injury measures were 
within 80 percent of the head, neck and chest criteria limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Reference: S19 of FMVSS Standard No. 208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data showed that at some dummy distance from the air bag, a 
first-stage air bag deployment might not exceed the injury threshold 
for the 12-month-old dummy. However, it does not demonstrate that air 
bags have a potential protective effect for a 12-month-old occupant 
dummy in a dynamic environment as claimed in the petition.

IV. Conclusion

    The DASS option is intended to provide manufacturers the 
flexibility of deploying an air bag when such a deployment would not be 
harmful, and potentially beneficial, as opposed to suppressing the air 
bag or relying on a low risk deployment. However, central to the DASS 
option is that when an air

[[Page 27537]]

bag is deployed, the risk of harm to an occupant is minimized. The 
petitioner has not provided such data, and instead presented dynamic 
test data using a 3-year-old test dummy. The agency's Special Crash 
Investigation data \5\ indicate that the only fatalities for children 
younger than 2-years old in FFCRSs were in pre-advanced air bag systems 
without suppression and when they were improperly used. However, the 
Special Crash Investigation data does not prove that an air bag 
deployment for a properly restrained child in a FFCRS is not injurious. 
Although these fatalities might have been avoided through air bag 
suppression, it is not clear that a DASS system would provide 
comparable benefit to static suppression for a 12-month-old child.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/sci.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, we believe that manufacturers will be able to, if they 
have not already done so, design DASS systems that can distinguish 
between the 5th percentile female test dummy and the 12-month-old test 
dummy in all positions required by the suppression option. Therefore, 
the requested relief is not necessary to implement a DASS compliance 
strategy for 3-year-old and 6-year-old test dummies and suppression for 
the 12-month-old dummy.
    In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this completes the agency's 
review of the petition.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30162; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    Dated: May 10, 2007.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
 [FR Doc. E7-9382 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P