Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 16, 2007 / Proposed Rules 27535 

1 Docket Management System NHTSA–2003–

15650. 

2 Docket Management System NHTSA–2003–

16296. 

this NPRM, including the IRFA, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–9300 Filed 5–15–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

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.’’

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. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
27536 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 16, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

3Test 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. 4Reference: S19 of FMVSS Standard No. 208. 

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-yearold 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 × 2 

CRSs.

35 mph ........... 16 † and 35 

mph.

35 mph ........... 35 mph ........... 35 mph.

3-year-old 

unbelted.

22 mph ........... 10 mph OOP .. ......................... 22 mph.

12-month-old × 4 

CRSs.

......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... Static * ............. Static ‡. 

† One child restraint. 

* Both stages of a dual stage air bag. 

‡ 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: 

• Maximizes the number of occupants 

that benefit from air bag protection. 

• Minimizes the risk of air baginduced fatalities. 

• Avoids weight-based classification 

grey zones through a positiondependent deployment decision. 

C. NHTSA Analysis 

The petition requested that the agency 

allow a DASS option for the 12-monthold 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. 

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 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 16, 2007 / Proposed Rules 27537 

5http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd30/ncsa/sci.html 

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. 

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 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS