18560 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

1An ADS is defined as the ‘‘hardware and 

software that are collectively capable of performing 

the entire [dynamic driving task] on a sustained 

basis, regardless of whether it is limited to a 

specific operational design domain (ODD); this term 

is used specifically to describe a Level 3, 4, or 5 

driving automation system.’’ SAE International 

J3016_201806 Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms 

Related to Driving Automation Systems for OnRoad Motor Vehicles. While this notice uses the 

term ‘‘ADS-equipped vehicle’’ it focuses on SAE 

Level 4 and Level 5 vehicles that lack traditional 

manual controls. 

2https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/12260. 

3Removing Regulatory Barriers for Vehicles with 

Automated Driving Systems Request for Comment, 

83 FR 6148 (Feb. 13, 2018); Removing Regulatory 

Barriers for Vehicles with Automated Driving 

Systems Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

84 FR 24433 (May 28, 2019). 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2021–0003] 

RIN 2127–AM06 

Occupant Protection for Vehicles With 

Automated Driving Systems 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 

occupant protection Federal motor 

vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) to 

account for future vehicles that do not 

have the traditional manual controls 

associated with a human driver because 

they are equipped with Automated 

Driving Systems (ADS). This final rule 

makes clear that, despite their 

innovative designs, vehicles with ADS 

technology must continue to provide the 

same high levels of occupant protection 

that current passenger vehicles provide. 

The occupant protection standards are 

currently written for traditionally 

designed vehicles and use terms such as 

‘‘driver’s seat’’ and ‘‘steering wheel,’’ 

that are not meaningful to vehicle 

designs that, for example, lack a steering 

wheel or other driver controls. This 

final rule updates the standards in a 

manner that clarifies existing 

terminology while avoiding unnecessary 

terminology, and, in doing so, resolves 

ambiguities in applying the standards to 

ADS-equipped vehicles without 

traditional manual controls. In addition, 

this final rule amends the standards in 

a manner that maintains the existing 

regulatory text whenever possible, to 

make clear that this rule maintains the 

level of crash protection currently 

provided occupants in more 

traditionally designed vehicles. This 

final rule is limited to the 

crashworthiness standards to provide a 

unified set of regulatory text applicable 

to vehicles with and without ADS 

functionality. 

DATES: Effective date: September 26, 

2022. Optional early compliance (i.e., 

prior to the effective date) is permitted. 

Petitions for reconsideration must be 

received on or before May 16, 2022. The 

incorporation by reference of certain 

publications listed in the rule was 

approved by the Director as of February 

6, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for 

reconsideration of this rule, you should 

refer in your petition to the docket 

number of this document and submit 

your petition to: Administrator, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, 

DC 20590. 

Privacy Act. The petition will be 

placed in the docket. Anyone is able to 

search the electronic form of all 

documents received into any of our 

dockets by the name of the individual 

submitting the document (or signing the 

document, 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. 

Confidential Business Information: If 

you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

should submit three copies of your 

complete submission, including the 

information you claim to be confidential 

business information, to the Chief 

Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. In addition, you should 

submit two copies, from which you 

have deleted the claimed confidential 

business information, to Docket 

Management at the address given above. 

To facilitate social distancing due to 

COVID–19, NHTSA is treating 

electronic submission as an acceptable 

method for submitting confidential 

business information (CBI) to the 

Agency under 49 CFR part 512. https:// 

www.nhtsa.gov/coronavirus. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may contact Mr. 

Louis Molino, Office of Crashworthiness 

Standards, Telephone: 202–366–1740, 

Facsimile: 202–493–2739. For legal 

issues, you may contact Ms. Sara R. 

Bennett, Telephone: 202–366–7304 or 

Mr. Daniel Koblenz, Telephone: 202– 

366–5329, Office of Chief Counsel. 

Address: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

II. NPRM 

III. Introduction to This Final Rule 

IV. Implications 

a. New and Current Terms and Definitions 

1. NPRM’s Approach to Driver Definition 

2. Newly Defined, New, Modified, and 

Relocated Terms 

3. Driver’s Designated Seating Position, 

Manually Operated Driving Controls 

4. Passenger Seating Position 

5. Steering Wheel to Steering Control 

6. Outboard Designated Seating Position 

7. Row and Seat Outline 

8. Driver Air Bag and Driver Dummy 

b. Modifying Spatial References in Test 

Procedures and Definitions That Rely on 

the Presence of a Driver’s Seat and/or 

Manual-Operated Driving Controls 

1. Driver’s Seat 

2. Dummy Placement in Bench Seats 

3. Driver’s Side and Passenger Side 

4. Steering Controls as a Spatial Reference 

c. Dual-Mode Certification 

d. Parking Brake and Transmission 

Position 

V. Occupant-Less Vehicles 

a. General Observations 

b. FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials 

c. Vehicle Crash Compatibility 

d. FMVSS Nos. 212, Windshield Mounting 

and 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion 

VI. FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash 

Protection 

a. Advanced Air Bags 

b. Telltales 

c. Front Outboard Versus Center or Inboard 

Seating Position 

d. Suppression of Vehicle Motion When a 

Child Is Detected in the Driver’s Seat 

e. Belts in Buses 

f. Corrections to FMVSS No. 208 

Regulatory Text 

VII. Amendments to Various FMVSSs 

VIII. Effective Date 

IX. Cost and Benefit Impacts of This Final 

Rule 

X. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

I. Executive Summary 

NHTSA has been evaluating its 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 

(FMVSSs) to identify where concepts or 

terminology used in the standards do 

not account for the designs that the 

agency expects, and industry confirms, 

could accompany certain vehicles 

equipped with Automated Driving 

Systems (ADSs).1 NHTSA has detailed 

in previous rulemaking notices the 

activities it has undertaken in its 

evaluation. These activities include 

initial evaluation of the FMVSSs,2

issuing Federal Register notices 

soliciting input from stakeholders,3

research on possible options available to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 18561 

4https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/ 

documents/ads-dv_fmvss_vol1-042320-v8-tag.pdf. 

5FMVSS Considerations for Automated Driving 

Systems Stakeholder Meeting, information available 

at https://www.vtti.vt.edu/fmvss/. 

6 85 FR 17624. 

7Throughout this notice, NHTSA uses 

‘‘crashworthiness’’ and ‘‘occupant protection’’ 

interchangeably because the agency considers the 

200-Series FMVSSs to be focused on both. 

8An [ADS-Equipped] Dual-Mode Vehicle is 

defined as ‘‘[a] type of ADS-equipped vehicle 

designed for both driverless operation and 

operation by a conventional driver for complete 

trips.’’ SAE J3016_201806 Taxonomy and 

Definitions for Terms Related to Driving 

Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles. 

9 Docket No. NHTSA–2020–0014. NHTSA 

received an additional 5 comments that were 

determined to be completely unrelated to this 

notice (#4, #5, #6, #18, #52), and 1 duplicate 

submission (#42). 

10Applying the occupant protection standards to 

forward-facing seating is straightforward since the 

standards are generally designed with forwardfacing seating in mind. In contrast, applying the 

standards to side-facing, campfire or other seating 

configurations is more complex and will involve 

more research, which is currently underway, and 

standard development. 

the agency to amend the FMVSSs,4 and 

public discussions with stakeholders.5

This prior work resulted in the 

agency’s March 30, 2020, notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

underlying this final rule.6 The NPRM 

proposed to revise its current 

crashworthiness 7 (200-Series) FMVSSs 

to amend terms or other text to account 

for the unconventional interior designs 

that are expected to be present in certain 

ADS-equipped vehicles. An example of 

such an unconventional interior design 

would be those that lack driving 

controls. 

In the proposal, NHTSA proposed to 

amend the existing FMVSSs in a way 

that maintains the occupant protection 

performance currently required by the 

200-Series FMVSSs while amending the 

wording that has or will become 

obsolete as applied to new designs, and 

to clarify for manufacturers developing 

ADS-equipped vehicles the application 

of a particular FMVSS to their vehicle. 

The NPRM also ensured these revisions 

accounted for dual-mode ADS-equipped 

vehicles (ADS-equipped vehicles that 

also have a conventional driving mode), 

as defined by SAE International (SAE).8

NHTSA also sought to remove 

requirements for which a safety need 

does not exist. 

NHTSA received 45 comments on the 

NPRM.9 The proposal garnered 

comments from vehicle and equipment 

manufacturers, ADS developers, 

industry associations, consumer 

advocates, advocates for persons with 

disabilities, States, insurance 

organizations, a university, an oil 

independence advocacy group, and 

members of the general public. Many 

commenters supported the proposal and 

the use of definitional and textual 

changes to achieve the goals of the 

NPRM, though numerous other 

commenters argued that the agency’s 

focus on this issue was premature. 

Regardless of their general position on 

the rule, most commenters did support 

NHTSA’s suggestion that, to the extent 

any changes were finalized, they should 

be done in way that minimized the 

complexity of the changes to the 

FMVSSs. 

The agency acknowledges that 

uncertainty continues to exist around 

the development and potential 

deployment of ADS-equipped vehicles. 

Nevertheless, NHTSA believes it is 

appropriate to finalize this action at this 

time in anticipation of emerging ADS 

vehicle designs that NHTSA has seen in 

prototype form. The current designs 

generally involve forward-facing row 

seating 10 and vehicles without manual 

driving controls. NHTSA has designed 

this final rule to minimize the changes 

to the FMVSSs and to maintain the level 

of occupant protection currently 

provided in all FMVSS compliant 

vehicles. This final rule provides 

regulatory certainty that, despite their 

innovative designs, vehicles with ADS 

technology must continue to provide the 

same high levels of occupant protection 

that current passenger vehicles provide. 

This final rule adopts most of the 

provisions included in the NPRM, with 

some exceptions summarized in the 

next section. 

Differences Between the NPRM and 

Final Rule 

The differences between the NPRM 

and the final rule are generally minor 

and are fully explained in the relevant 

sections in this document. Some of the 

more substantive changes in this final 

rule are as follows. 

• NHTSA believes that children 

should not occupy the ‘‘driver’s’’ 

position when the vehicle is operating 

in ADS mode and steering controls are 

present, given that the driver’s seating 

position has not been designed to 

protect children in a crash. For example, 

the required limit on the rearward 

displacement of the steering column 

and forcefulness with which the air bag 

deploys have been optimized for adults 

and could pose a safety risk to children. 

The NPRM proposed that ADS vehicles 

must suppress vehicle motion when: (1) 

The vehicle contains a driver’s seat (i.e., 

manually operated driving controls are 

available, but not necessarily functional 

during ADS operation); (2) the occupant 

of the driver’s seat is classified by the 

air bag system as a child; and (3) the 

vehicle is in an operational state that 

does not require a driver (i.e., where the 

ADS is in control of the driving task). 

After review of the comments, for now, 

NHTSA has decided against adopting a 

vehicle motion suppression requirement 

in these circumstances. The agency 

would like to know more about the 

relative risk of a child seated in the 

‘‘driver’s’’ position as compared to the 

passenger position and whether there 

are other ways of addressing this safety 

concern than a requirement to suppress 

vehicle motion completely. The agency 

would also like to explore any necessary 

refinements to occupant detection and 

low risk deployment requirements and 

test procedures for the driver’s seat. 

• Proposed regulatory text would 

have changed the front row seat 

compartmentalization occupant 

protection requirements for large school 

buses (gross vehicle weight rating over 

4,536 kg (10,000 lb.)) in ways not 

intended by NHTSA. Such text is not 

adopted by this final rule. 

• NHTSA has modified FMVSS No. 

208, Occupant crash protection, to be 

clearer in the protections that are 

required for inboard seating positions in 

the front row of ADS-equipped vehicles. 

• This final rule modifies the 

application section of FMVSS Nos. 212, 

Windshield mounting, and 219, 

Windshield zone intrusion, to make 

clear these standards exclude occupantless vehicles, since these standards meet 

no safety need when there are no 

occupants to protect. 

• NHTSA has decided not to move 

forward at this time with changing the 

FMVSS No. 226, Ejection mitigation, 

requirements for the ejection mitigation 

countermeasure readiness indicator. 

The agency will consider amendments 

to controls and displays in a separate 

rulemaking. 

Minor differences between the NPRM 

and this final rule are discussed in the 

appropriate sections in this preamble. 

Some of these differences include: 

• Moving the definition of ‘‘seat 

outline’’ from FMVSS No. 226 to 

§ 571.3, Definitions (see Section IV.a.7 

of this preamble); 

• Slightly revising the term used to 

describe occupant-less vehicles, to refer 

to at least ‘‘one person’’ rather than 

referring to ‘‘a designated seating 

position,’’ (see Section V.a of this 

preamble); and 

• In FMVSS No. 208, correcting a 

missed revision indicating there can be 

multiple front seat passengers 

(S19.2.2(e)) (see Section VI.f of this 

preamble), and adopting a wording 

change to clarify the air bag suppression 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
18562 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

11 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(10) (from definition of 

‘‘motor vehicle safety’’). 

12 Vehicle-to-vehicle compatibility refers to how 

well two vehicles match up in a two-vehicle crash. 

Vehicles that are heavier, with higher ground 

clearance, and with stiffer front ends can pose a 

higher injury risk to occupants in smaller cars. 

Currently NHTSA has no evidence of compatibility 

issues with occupant-less vehicles, but NHTSA is 

researching this area. 

test procedure (S20.2, S22.2, S24.2) (see 

Section VI.a of this preamble). 

As was the case for the NPRM, to 

illustrate the precise changes that are 

being made within the context of the 

full regulatory text, we are providing in 

the docket for this rulemaking a 

document that contains the full 

regulatory text of each modified 

standard included in this final rule. The 

text is color coded in the following 

manner; blue bold underline (text added 

by the NPRM), red strikeout (text 

deleted by the NPRM), green bold 

underline (text added by the final rule), 

orange strikeout (text deleted by the 

final rule). (The information is provided 

for illustration purposes for the 

convenience of readers and does not 

change the amendments provided in the 

amendatory text of this final rule.) 

Guiding Principles 

In the NPRM, NHTSA expressed 

certain ‘‘guiding principles’’ for this 

rulemaking, which continue to be 

relevant in this final rule. First, the 

amended FMVSS requirements in this 

final rule are intended to maintain the 

level of crashworthiness performance in 

vehicles with and without ADS 

functionality, including ADS-equipped 

vehicles that also have a conventional 

driving mode (dual-mode ADS 

vehicles). The level of performance 

required by the amended FMVSSs is 

just as appropriate for ADS-vehicles as 

it is for non-ADS vehicles in protecting 

the public against unreasonable risk of 

death or injury in a crash.11 More 

specifically, NHTSA sought to maintain 

the level of safety currently provided to 

occupants by applying the crash test 

performance requirements for the right 

front outboard occupant to the left front 

outboard occupant of ADS-vehicles, 

wherever possible. Similarly, occupants 

seated behind driving controls in ADSvehicles (dual-mode ADS vehicles) will 

be protected just as drivers are today. 

Second, NHTSA sought to amend its 

standards to account for new designs, 

and to clarify for manufacturers 

developing ADS-equipped vehicles, 

particularly those that lack manual 

controls, that the standards apply to 

their vehicles. In short, NHTSA sought 

to clarify that a manufacturer of ADSequipped vehicles must continue to 

apply occupant protection standards to 

its vehicles even if manual steering 

controls are not installed in the vehicle. 

Finally, for the convenience of readers 

and those familiar with the standards, 

NHTSA sought to amend the 

requirements in a manner that 

minimized the changes to the regulatory 

text of the standards. 

This final rule is purposefully limited 

in scope based on the bounds listed 

below. 

1. This final rule only applies to ADSequipped vehicles that have seating 

configurations similar to non-ADS 

vehicles, i.e., forward-facing front 

seating positions (conventional seating). 

Thus, NHTSA focused on conventional 

seating in this rulemaking, noting that 

additional research is necessary to 

understand and address different safety 

risks posed by vehicles with 

unconventional seating arrangements 

(e.g., rear-facing seats or campfire 

seating). 

2. This final rule addresses ADSequipped vehicles designed exclusively 

to carry property (‘‘occupant-less 

vehicles’’) by amending the application 

of existing crashworthiness 

requirements for these vehicles, as 

appropriate. This final rule does not 

address potential vehicle-to-vehicle 

compatibility issues related to occupantless vehicles, as the existing standards 

do not test for this issue.12

3. With one exception, this final rule 

refrains from amending requirements 

relating to telltales and warnings, as that 

area has implications beyond the 200- 

Series standards and is a subject of 

continuing NHTSA research. The 

exception to this is the air bag 

suppression telltale, which we believe is 

reasonable to address now. This is 

described further in section VI.b of this 

preamble. 

Tables of Costs and Benefits 

This rule will eliminate the need for 

ADS-equipped -vehicle manufacturers 

to equip vehicles with redundant 

manual driving controls in vehicles that 

do not have manual driving capabilities, 

to comply with FMVSS. In turn, the cost 

impacts of this rule will be driven 

predominantly by the per-vehicle costs 

savings to each vehicle that would no 

longer need certain manual controls and 

the number of vehicles produced each 

year that will be produced without 

those controls. The Agency has reliable 

information on the former category, 

given that we generally know the 

current costs of this equipment, but can 

only estimate the broader effects. Thus, 

NHTSA calculated ranges of estimates 

of cost impacts using a variety of logical 

assumptions. NHTSA calculated the 

impact of the final rule on costs by 

analyzing production cost savings 

arising from forgoing the installation of 

manual steering controls. These cost 

savings are partially offset by 

incremental costs associated with 

augmenting safety equipment in the left 

front seating position to make that 

position equivalent to the right front 

seating position. 

NHTSA estimates that this rule would 

save approximately $995 per vehicle, as 

explained in greater detail in the RIA. 

NHTSA has conducted an analysis that 

shows how these cost savings would 

look if these types of vehicles entered 

the fleet to at least some degree. The 

results of this estimate show the present 

value of the final rule’s estimated year2050 savings to ADS–DV manufacturers 

and consumers, based on the 

assumption that there will be 

approximately 5.8 million affected 

vehicles, at a three-percent discount rate 

equal to $2.5 billion. At a seven-percent 

discount rate, the estimated year-2050 

savings has a present value equal to 

approximately $0.9 billion, as presented 

in Table 1: 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED TOTAL

MONETIZED ANNUAL COST IMPACTS

[ADS–DV cost impacts in 2050, billions of 

2018 dollars, 31% ADS–DV sales share] 

Dual-mode 

sales share 

offset 

Discount rate 

Mean 

cost 

impact 

0% ............ 3% (Discounted back 

to 2022).

¥$2.5 

0% ............ 7% (Discounted back 

to 2022).

¥0.9 

30% .......... 3% (Discounted back 

to 2022).

¥1.7 

30% .......... 7% (Discounted back 

to 2022).

¥0.6 

These estimates represent an upper 

bound, in which ADS–DVs do not 

compete with dual-mode ADS-equipped 

vehicles (i.e., 5.8 million ADS–DVs are 

sold in 2050, with each including a 

measure of production cost savings 

associated with forgoing manual 

steering controls). Under the alternative 

EIA scenario in which one percent of 

new vehicle sales in 2050 are comprised 

of ADS–DVs, the corresponding 

estimates are: A present value in 2022 

of approximately $60 million at a threepercent discount rate; and 

approximately $20 million at a sevenpercent discount rate. 

As a sensitivity analysis, NHTSA also 

considered an alternative case, in which 

ADS–DV sales in 2050 are reduced by 

30 percent relative to the baseline, with 

the change in sales representing sales of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 18563 

13 85 FR 17624. As discussed below, however, the 

NPRM assumed the vehicles will have conventional 

forward-facing seating. 

14An [ADS-Equipped] Dual-Mode Vehicle is 

defined as ‘‘[a] type of ADS-equipped vehicle 

designed for both driverless operation and 

operation by a conventional driver for complete 

trips.’’ SAE J3016_201806 Taxonomy and 

Definitions for Terms Related to Driving 

Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles. 

dual-mode ADS-equipped vehicles. This 

represents a case in which: (1) ADS–DV 

sales are split between approximately 

one-sixth fleet sales and five-sixths 

private ownership, per the EIA scenario; 

(2) one-seventh of fleet ADS–DV 

purchases in the baseline analysis are 

allocated to dual-mode vehicle sales 

(i.e., approximately 1/7 × 1/6 of all 

ADS–DV sales); and (3) one-third of 

private ADS–DV purchases in the 

baseline analysis are allocated to dualmode vehicle sales (i.e., approximately 

1/3 × 5/6 of all ADS–DV sales). Under 

this alternative scenario, savings to 

ADS–DV manufacturers and consumers 

under the final rule would be 

approximately $1.7 billion at a threepercent discount rate, and 

approximately $0.6 billion at a sevenpercent discount rate. 

There are no other quantified benefits 

associated with this final rule. NHTSA 

acknowledges that this final rule may 

impact safety and fuel consumption and 

would likely generate benefits 

associated with incremental producer 

and consumer surplus beyond the 

production cost savings quantified 

above. This final rule may also generate 

benefits that could lead to increased 

safety, reductions in administrative 

burden, and reductions in manufacturer 

uncertainty, though these benefits are 

also unquantified. 

The final rule is assumed to have no 

effect on the per-mile risk of travel in 

ADS–DVs, as it does not revise, remove, 

or establish anything associated with 

their safety performance. That is, the 

removal of manual steering controls is 

not assumed to offer any direct safety 

benefit or detriment for travel in ADS– 

DVs. However, it is feasible that changes 

in ADS–DV demand associated with the 

final rule (e.g., due to changes in vehicle 

design or decreases in cost) could 

increase the use of ADS–DVs. In turn, 

safety outcomes associated with the 

final rule would be equal to the net 

effects of: (1) Changes in per-mile 

fatality and injury risk for travel that is 

shifted from conventional vehicles to 

ADS–DVs; and (2) incremental fatalities 

and injuries for travel in ADS–DVs that 

would not have taken place in any 

vehicle otherwise. It is difficult to 

project net safety impacts associated 

with the final rule without information 

on: (1) Per-mile fatality and injury risk 

for ADS–DVs and conventional vehicles 

over time; and (2) demand for travel in 

ADS–DVs and conventional vehicles as 

a function of ADS–DV price and design 

attributes. NHTSA continues to engage 

in various research, regulatory, and 

enforcement efforts associated with the 

safety of the automated driving system 

itself, but those activities are outside the 

scope of this rulemaking. 

The final rule could affect per-vehicle 

fuel consumption by changing the mass 

of ADS–DVs. NHTSA expects ADS–DV 

mass to either decrease (due to the 

removal of currently required 

equipment) slightly or remain 

essentially unchanged (due to the 

addition of automated steering 

components that offset the mass savings 

of the removed equipment) under the 

final rule. NHTSA acknowledges that, in 

principle, ADS–DV mass could increase 

(if vehicle seating configurations and 

amenities are changed sufficiently when 

exploiting the reduction in design 

constraints when removing manual 

steering controls) under the final rule. In 

any event, current corporate average 

fuel economy (CAFE) requirements are 

based on a vehicle’s ‘‘footprint,’’ and 

thus any change in a vehicles mass will 

not affect a manufacturer’s obligations 

under that program. Finally, as stated in 

the NPRM, NHTSA has not attempted to 

address the revisions that may be 

necessary to provide regulatory 

certainty for manufacturers that wish to 

self-certify ADS-equipped vehicles with 

unconventional seating arrangements. 

The final rule would lead to a 

reduction in the number of standards 

from which manufacturers of ADS–DVs 

would have to seek exemptions. The 

reduction in exemption requests would 

be associated with a reduction in 

administrative costs for both 

manufacturers and NHTSA. NHTSA 

does not have sufficient information to 

establish a specific estimate of 

administrative cost savings. However, 

the cost savings would be expected to be 

small relative to the production cost 

savings associated with the rule. 

A less tangible, but still important, 

expected impact of the final rule would 

be a reduction in uncertainty for 

manufacturers of ADS-equipped 

vehicles. The final rule provides clarity 

to manufacturers on constraints to 

developing FMVSS-compliant ADSequipped vehicles. In turn, 

developmental paths for ADS-equipped 

vehicles could be implemented with 

greater precision and efficiency. The 

reduction in uncertainty could reduce 

not only the costs associated with 

manufacturing ADS-equipped vehicles, 

but also the time it would take to bring 

these vehicles to the market. An 

accelerated development timeline 

would be a benefit both to 

manufacturers and consumers. 

II. NPRM 

On March 30, 2020, NHTSA issued an 

NPRM that proposed modifications to 

certain terms and other regulatory text 

in the 200-Series FMVSSs to account for 

ADS-equipped vehicles and certain 

interior designs that are expected to be 

present in these vehicles, including the 

lack of driving controls.13 The NPRM 

also included modifications to the 

regulatory text to take into account some 

dual-mode ADS-equipped vehicles.14

The NPRM sought to resolve whether 

occupant protection requirements ought 

to apply to occupant-less vehicles. 

NHTSA’s proposal sought to account 

for certain vehicle designs expected to 

accompany ADS-equipped vehicles in a 

manner that minimized textual 

additions and modifications to the 200- 

Series FMVSSs. The proposal discussed 

existing terms used in the standards 

that, through their use, made uncertain 

how regulatory text applies to vehicle 

designs that did not incorporate such 

terms. The proposal discussed existing 

terms that, by virtue of new vehicle 

designs, could be misunderstood, and 

defined them to clarify their meaning 

for ADS-equipped vehicles. The NPRM 

proposed a few new terms and 

definitions and proposed relocating 

other terms and definitions. The NPRM 

proposed to modify regulatory text to 

address situations where there may be 

no driver seat, but multiple outboard 

passenger seats. The agency proposed to 

consider any left outboard seat that does 

not have immediate access to traditional 

manual controls (‘‘manually operated 

driving controls’’) as a ‘‘passenger seat’’ 

and mirror the test procedures and 

requirements from the right side. 

FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash 

protection, is a primary focus of this 

rulemaking, as it is one of NHTSA’s 

most complex standards, and many of 

this standard’s performance 

requirements and test procedures were 

written with references to the ‘‘driver’s’’ 

seating position. This emphasis on the 

driver’s position in the standard 

reflected the fact that, with conventional 

(i.e., non-ADS) vehicles, the driver’s 

seat should always be occupied by an 

individual of legal driving age during 

operation. For our discussions in this 

document we will typically refer to 

these individuals as adults, although 

they may in some cases be legally 

minors. The NPRM discussed the 

treatment of advanced air bags and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
18564 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

15The term ‘‘telltale’’ is defined in FMVSS No. 

101; Controls and displays, as ‘‘an optical signal 

that, when illuminated, shows the actuation of a 

device, a correct or improper functioning or 

condition, or a vehicle system’s failure to function.’’ 

The term is used in many other FMVSSs and is 

used in FMVSS No. 208 for an indicator of air bag 

operational status as a function of the occupant 

detection system of the seat. 

16We note that a vehicle designed to carry 

standee passengers (e.g., a transit shuttle) would fall 

under one of NHTSA’s other vehicle classifications. 

17 ‘‘Designated seating position’’ is defined in 49 

CFR 571.3. Generally described, a DSP is a seat 

location that has a seating surface width of at least 

330 millimeters (13 inches) as measured in the 

manner described in the definition. 

18An additional 5 comments were received that 

were determined to be completely unrelated to this 

notice (#4, #5, #6, #18, #52), and 1 duplicate 

submission (#42). 

advanced air bag suppression telltales 15

in ADS-equipped vehicles with two 

front outboard passenger seats. The 

NPRM proposed to require a separate 

telltale for each front outboard 

passenger seat, which must be visible 

from each front outboard seat. The 

NPRM addressed FMVSS No. 208’s seat 

belt requirements for ‘‘medium-sized’’ 

buses (with a gross vehicle weight rating 

(GVWR) between 4,536 kilograms (kg) 

(10,000 pounds (lb.)) and 11,793 kg 

(26,000 lb.)) and school buses (GVWR 

greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb.)). For 

such buses equipped with ADS without 

a driver’s seat, NHTSA proposed that all 

front seats meet the protection 

requirements that must currently be met 

by the driver’s seat. 

The NPRM proposed to streamline the 

200-Series FMVSSs so that requirements 

would not apply when the ADSconfigured vehicle posed no safety need 

for the requirement. For example, the 

proposal took the position that, when 

there is not a steering wheel or steering 

column in a motor vehicle, FMVSS Nos. 

203, Impact protection for the driver 

from the steering control system, and 

204, Steering control rearward 

displacement, would not apply. 

Similarly, the NPRM proposed not to 

apply occupant protection standards to 

vehicles designed solely to carry cargo, 

rather than occupants (‘‘occupant-less’’ 

vehicles).16 This was accomplished by 

proposing to alter the ‘‘application’’ 

section of various FMVSSs to indicate 

that the standards only applied to a 

‘‘truck’’ with at least one designated 

seating position (DSP).17 The NPRM 

analysis concluded that this change was 

only required for FMVSS Nos. 201, 

Occupant protection in interior impact, 

205, Glazing material, 206, Door locks 

and door retention components, 207, 

Seating systems, 208, Occupant crash 

protection, 214, Side Impact protection, 

216a, Roof crush resistance; Upgraded 

standard, and 226, Ejection mitigation. 

High-Level Summary of Comments on 

Overall Approach and Need for 

Rulemaking 

In response to the NPRM, NHTSA 

received 45 comments from vehicle and 

equipment manufacturers and ADS 

developers, industry associations, 

consumer advocates, advocates for 

persons with disabilities, States, 

insurance organizations, a university, an 

oil independence advocacy group, and 

members of the general public. 

Generally, most commenters supported 

the proposal, the revision of terms and 

use of definitional and textual changes 

to achieve the goals of the NPRM, and 

the agency’s approach to minimize the 

complexity of the changes to the 

FMVSSs.18 However, various other 

commenters, particularly certain nongovernmental organizations, raised 

concerns about the agency’s general 

approach to ADS regulation and the 

prioritization of this and similar rules, 

though many of these commenters had 

only minor comments concerning 

specific proposed technical changes. 

Approximately 25 commenters across 

all commenter types agreed that there is 

a need for the proposal, and, of these, 

approximately 17 commenters stated 

they agreed with the general approach. 

For example, General Motors (GM) 

commented that it supports the 

approach used in the NPRM and that 

‘‘when finalized into a final rule, [it] 

will provide needed regulatory certainty 

for certification, reduce certification 

costs and minimize (but not completely 

eliminate) the need for future NHTSA 

interpretation or exemption requests 

related to ADS-equipped vehicles.’’ 

Waymo stated that the proposal would 

not reduce any protections for 

automated vehicles without manual 

controls and strongly supported the 

limitations in scope of the NPRM ‘‘to 

crashworthiness standards to 

conventional occupant seating 

arrangements.’’ The Alliance for 

Automotive Innovation (Alliance) stated 

that the rulemaking will work towards 

‘‘maintaining motor vehicle safety’’ and 

‘‘reduce the need to rely on the 

administratively complex and timeconsuming FMVSS exemption process.’’ 

Several commenters, though, 

questioned the need for the rulemaking 

action. The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) 

argued that a better allocation of limited 

government resources would be to focus 

on the ‘‘nearer-term technology 

improvements with immediate impact 

on the safety of occupants of 

conventional vehicles, pedestrians, and 

other vulnerable road users.’’ CAS 

stated that such an approach was more 

appropriate because ‘‘fully autonomous 

driving system-equipped vehicles [. . .] 

do not exist at this time.’’ CAS also 

asserted that NHTSA should not permit 

traditional manual controls to be 

removed from vehicles ‘‘until at least 

equivalent safety [of ADS-equipped 

vehicles] is proven.’’ CAS stated that 

such controls ‘‘might be deployable only 

as needed but are an absolute necessity 

for the many conceivable foreseen and 

unforeseen safety-critical situations that 

ADS-equipped vehicles will encounter.’’ 

The National Safety Council (NSC) 

stated that ‘‘shifting focus from triedand-true vehicle standards is the wrong 

approach and evaluating the removal of 

those standards is premature at this 

time. As most ADS vehicle designs that 

might benefit from a revision of FMVSS 

standards are still on the drawing 

boards and unforeseen issues are certain 

to arise, eliminating current standards at 

this point is hasty.’’ NSC argued that 

NHTSA should redirect resources and 

prioritize requiring advanced driver 

assistance systems (ADAS) and other 

technologies in vehicles. Consumer 

Reports (CR) also ‘‘question[ed] the 

present focus of the agency on ‘removal 

of regulatory barriers’ rather than on 

developing and implementing standards 

for proven safety technologies,’’ though 

CR also stated that it ‘‘appreciate[s] the 

Agency’s targeted approach on this 

topic’’ and that the narrow scope of the 

NPRM ‘‘is appropriate.’’ The Insurance 

Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) 

expressed concern that ‘‘the current 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

creates a path for deploying into the 

market ADS-controlled vehicles without 

regulations that establish the ground 

rules for the safe behavior of ADS,’’ 

Though it also stated that 

‘‘modifications proposed by NHTSA 

likely will be helpful to the entities 

developing automated driving systems 

(ADS) and the vehicles that will be 

controlled by ADS’’ and that the 

‘‘changes answer some questions about 

how the occupants of ADS-controlled 

vehicles should be protected in the 

event of a crash.’’ 

Agency Response 

NHTSA is sensitive to concerns raised 

regarding prioritizing rulemakings and 

other activities that emphasize other 

technologies, such as advanced driver 

assistance systems (ADAS), instead of 

focusing on vehicles that remain in 

development. However, in the case of 

this rulemaking, the agency focused 

appropriate resources to address a 

narrow question. Further, NHTSA has 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 18565 

19Heavy Vehicle Automatic Emergency Braking, 

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202104&RIN=2127-AM36 

and Light Vehicle Automatic Emergency Braking 

(AEB) with Pedestrian AEB, https://

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202104&RIN=2127- 

AM37. 

20 49 U.S.C. 30101. 

21 49 U.S.C. 30111. 

22 Kim, Perlman, Bogard, and Harrington (2016, 

March) Review of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards (FMVSS) for Automated Vehicles, 

Preliminary Report. US DOT Volpe Center, 

Cambridge, MA. Available at: https://

rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/12260/dot_12260_

DS1.pdf. 

23https://www.nhtsa.gov/automated-vehiclessafety/av-test-initiative-tracking-tool. 

24 85 FR 7826 (Feb. 11, 2020). NHTSA has also 

received two other petitions for exemption for ADSequipped vehicles that would lack manually 

operated driving controls. However, the agency has 

only requested comment on one of these petitions, 

which was later withdrawn. The agency is currently 

developing notices of receipt for the two other 

petitions it received, including GM’s updated 

petition. See https://www.reuters.com/article/usautonomous-cruise-nhtsa-idUSKBN2762SP. 25 49 U.S.C. 30112(a). 

determined it is appropriate to proceed 

with this final rule at this time, as it will 

provide ADS manufacturers with 

certainty on how to comply with these 

FMVSSs and reaffirm the application of 

occupant protections standards to 

vehicles equipped with ADS. Thus, this 

final rule will have the limited effect of 

providing clarity on the specific issues 

addressed here, which will, at the very 

least, ensure that vehicles with ADS 

technology provide the same high levels 

of occupant protection that current 

passenger vehicles provide. Taking this 

action now will make clear that the 

crashworthiness standards apply to 

vehicles with ADS technologies. 

We also note that, in addition to this 

action, we have commenced rulemaking 

and other action on ADAS technologies. 

In the Spring 2021 Unified Agenda of 

Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, 

NHTSA announced two rulemakings to 

require emergency braking performance 

for heavy and light vehicles and to 

require pedestrian automatic emergency 

braking performance in light vehicles.19

Furthermore, the agency is working on 

updates to its New Car Assessment 

Program (NCAP 5-star safety ratings 

program) to include additional modern 

vehicle safety technologies that can 

address crashes and promote safer 

behaviors. Thus, the agency is actively 

engaged in actions related to ADAS. 

The purpose of the National Traffic 

and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety 

Act), which NHTSA, by delegation, is 

tasked with administering, is to reduce 

traffic crashes and their resulting deaths 

and injuries, through carrying out 

research and establishing FMVSS.20 In 

establishing FMVSSs, NHTSA sets 

minimum performance standards that 

are objective and practicable, and that 

protect the public against an 

unreasonable risk of crashes occurring, 

and death or injury in the event a crash 

does occur.21 This final rule is 

consistent with the goals of the Safety 

Act by modifying the FMVSSs to 

account for vehicle designs that NHTSA 

anticipates will arise with deployment 

of ADS-equipped vehicles, in a manner 

that provides occupants with at least the 

same protections afforded by existing 

standards that the agency has already 

found meet the need for motor vehicle 

safety. 

Although NHTSA understands 

concerns that this final rule is 

premature given the current state of 

ADS-equipped vehicle development, the 

agency has received many requests from 

industry for information to assist them 

in determining how existing FMVSSs 

apply to ADS-equipped vehicles 

developed without traditional manual 

controls (e.g., steering wheels) and other 

unconventional vehicle designs. In 

response to these requests, NHTSA 

conducted a preliminary analysis of the 

potential unintended barriers to these 

vehicle designs,22 issued requests for 

comment, held public meetings, and 

initiated rulemaking proceedings on the 

topic—including this rulemaking—to 

gather as much information as possible 

on how best to approach modernizing 

the FMVSS to account for these 

vehicles. 

There also continues to be progress 

toward development of ADS-equipped 

vehicles. NHTSA knows of dozens of 

testing and development activities 

taking place in more than 40 States and 

the District of Columbia, many of which 

involve ADS-equipped vehicles that 

lack manually operated driving 

controls.23 In addition, one 

manufacturer of small, low speed, 

occupant-less ADS delivery vehicles 

received a temporary exemption from 

NHTSA to deploy up to 2,500 vehicles 

per year for two years.24 These 

activities, and the advancements toward 

development of ADS-equipped vehicles, 

have created an opportunity for new 

vehicle designs that warrants evaluation 

of current FMVSSs. 

When NHTSA promulgated most of 

the current FMVSSs, the agency did not 

consider the sorts of vehicle designs that 

would be possible if a vehicle could 

operate without human intervention. 

Today, an increasing number of 

companies are developing technologies 

to make that idea a reality. NHTSA is 

issuing this final rule to amend 

terminology, definitions, and other 

nomenclature found in the relevant 

FMVSS that inadvertently and 

unnecessarily impede the 

unconventional vehicle designs 

described by manufacturers. 

NHTSA identified the narrow scope 

of the NPRM clearly and has retained 

that scope for this final rule. Although 

the agency is sympathetic to many of 

the suggestions from CAS, CR, NSC and 

IIHS that NHTSA should focus on other 

vehicle safety issues and technologies, 

the agency believes it remains 

appropriate to finalize today’s action on 

the narrow grounds identified in the 

NPRM, while continuing its other 

research and ongoing rulemaking 

actions on the issues identified by those 

commenters, including those related to 

ADS performance and ADAS 

technologies. Issues related to agency 

allocation of resources are also outside 

the scope of this final rule. 

NHTSA also disagrees with the IIHS 

assertion that this final rule alone 

creates a path for ADS deployment. 

NHTSA’s existing FMVSSs do not 

prevent the deployment of ADS in 

vehicles configured like traditional 

vehicles (i.e., equipped with manually 

operated driving controls), when the 

vehicles meet all applicable FMVSSs. If 

the vehicle can be certified as meeting 

the FMVSSs, it can be deployed with 

ADS regardless of issuance of this final 

rule. This final rule simply makes 

targeted changes to the FMVSSs to 

account for certain vehicle designs that 

NHTSA has seen from some 

manufacturers or has otherwise been 

made aware. In addition, this final rule 

only addresses the crashworthiness 

standards. As the agency continues to 

assess how and whether to change other 

relevant FMVSSs in response to these 

types of vehicles, at this stage, an ADSequipped vehicle may still be required 

to petition for and receive an exemption 

from NHTSA to be manufactured for 

sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced or 

delivered for introduction in interstate 

commerce, or imported into the United 

States.25

This final rule is substantially similar 

to the NPRM, with some alterations 

resulting from consideration of the 

comments. A summary of the 

substantive differences between the 

NPRM and final rule was provided in 

Section I of this preamble. 

III. Introduction to This Final Rule 

This final rule preamble is organized 

by critical subject matter. First, the rule 

addresses subjects that affect all 200- 

Series FMVSSs, such as changes to the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
18566 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

26 DOT HS 812 796, April 2020. 27For example, some commenters suggested 

adding ‘‘human’’ or ‘‘conventional’’ in front of 

driver. As the agency noted in the preamble to the 

NPRM, since the ‘‘driver’’ definition clearly 

indicates an ‘‘occupant,’’ specifying ‘‘human’’ is 

superfluous. 

terminology used in the standards. For 

example, the agency is defining some 

terms already used in many of the 200- 

Series FMVSSs to account for ADSequipped vehicles (e.g., ‘‘driver’s 

designated seating position,’’ ‘‘passenger 

seating position’’), or is adopting new 

definitions as appropriate (‘‘manually 

operated driving controls,’’ ‘‘steering 

control’’). These changes to 

nomenclature provide clarity about how 

the crashworthiness FMVSSs apply to 

ADS-equipped vehicles and seek to 

amend the FMVSSs to include these 

new vehicle designs. Another issue that 

affects all 200-Series FMVSSs is the way 

in which the standards use features 

such as the ‘‘driver’s seat,’’ ‘‘passenger 

seat,’’ and ‘‘steering controls’’ as spatial 

references to describe where things are 

located within the vehicle. This final 

rule amends the terms so that the spatial 

references make sense as applied to the 

interior designs of ADS-equipped 

vehicles, which may, for example, lack 

a driver’s seat and have an additional 

passenger seat instead. Other issues of 

general significance include 

clarifications regarding how the 200- 

Series FMVSSs apply to vehicles that 

can be operated by both ADS and by a 

steering control (dual-mode vehicles), 

and how some test procedures pertain to 

vehicles that do not have components 

referenced therein (e.g., a manual 

parking brake mechanism). 

Second, this final rule achieves an 

objective of the agency with regards to 

‘‘occupant-less vehicles,’’ by tailoring 

the 200-Series FMVSSs to exclude 

vehicles that are intended not to have 

human occupants. Occupant-less 

vehicles are designed for the 

transportation of property, not people, 

and have no DSPs. The agency has 

determined that the original safety need 

of the 200-Series FMVSSs no longer 

exists when there are no occupants to 

protect. A more fulsome discussion of 

this topic is provided in section V of 

this preamble. 

Third, this final rule preamble 

discusses amendments to terminology 

used in certain FMVSSs, and focuses on 

FMVSS No. 208 as a critical subject, as 

many of the performance requirements 

of this standard were written with 

reference to the driver’s and passenger’s 

seating positions. This final rule 

discusses changes to substantive 

requirements of the standard resulting 

from those revisions to terminology, 

such as the treatment of advanced air 

bags and advanced air bag suppression 

telltales in ADS-equipped vehicles, 

lockability requirements, and changes to 

FMVSS No. 208’s seat belt requirements 

for medium-sized buses and large 

school buses following the removal of 

the term ‘‘driver.’’ 

Fourth, after the FMVSS No. 208 

discussion, this final rule discusses 

amendments to other FMVSSs. 

Lastly, the final rule discusses the 

effective date and cost impacts of the 

rule. 

IV. Implications 

a. New and Current Terms and 

Definitions 

1. NPRM’s Approach to Driver 

Definition 

In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to 

define, modify, or relocate existing 

terms and proposed new terms both to 

clarify application of the 200-Series 

FMVSSs to ADS-equipped vehicles and 

to facilitate the implementation of other 

proposed regulatory changes. However, 

NHTSA did not propose to amend the 

definition of ‘‘driver’’ in 49 CFR 571.3 

to include ADS, and it did so 

intentionally. NHTSA cited four 

primary reasons for this decision. First, 

NHTSA believed it would not be 

appropriate to consider changes to such 

a fundamental and ubiquitous concept 

(‘‘driver’’) in a rulemaking that focused 

solely on the 200-Series without 

completing the additional research 

necessary to address implications for 

those other FMVSSs. Second, the 

regulatory changes NHTSA proposed in 

the NPRM did not necessitate 

examination of the issue of ‘‘what is a 

driver.’’ Third, NHTSA determined that 

revisiting the definition of driver would 

best be done in a different context, 

perhaps if the agency undertakes 

defining the ADS itself. Finally, keeping 

the current definition of driver was 

consistent with the input NHTSA 

received through the initial phase of a 

research project under which the 

FMVSSs were reviewed to identify 

potential approaches for addressing 

barriers.26

Notwithstanding NHTSA’s statements 

above, NHTSA received several 

comments suggesting amendments to 

the driver definition.27 However, none 

of these comments addressed NHTSA’s 

four areas of concern. Accordingly, 

NHTSA does not amend the definition 

of driver in this final rule. However, the 

agency will consider the input received 

from comments on this rulemaking in 

proposing future regulatory actions. 

2. Newly Defined, New, Modified, and 

Relocated Terms 

The agency proposed several changes 

to terms and definitions to implement 

the goals of the rulemaking. These 

definitions were proposed to be located 

or were already located in part 571.3, 

‘‘Definitions.’’ Table 2, below, 

summarizes the NPRM’s proposal for 

the reader. 

TABLE 2—PROPOSED CHANGES TO TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Proposed term or definition Type Justification 

Driver air bag means the air bag installed for the protection of 

the occupant of the driver’s designated seating position.

New definition of existing term .... Clarify the application of occupant protection requirements. 

Driver dummy means the test dummy positioned in the driver’s 

designated seating position.

New definition of existing term .... Clarify the application of occupant protection requirements. 

Driver’s designated seating position means a designated seating position providing immediate access to manually operated 

driving controls. As used in this part, the terms ‘‘driver’s seating position’’ and ‘‘driver’s seat’’ shall have the same meaning 

as ‘‘driver’s designated seating position’’.

New definition of existing term .... Clarify the application of occupant protection requirements. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 18567 

28See, e.g., Nuro R2X, discussed further below. 29Note that other regulatory changes to the 

FMVSS not impacted by this rulemaking (e.g., with 

regard to the 100-Series FMVSSs) would likely be 

necessary to permit such a vehicle to be 

manufactured for sale, even with the changes made 

by this rule (absent an exemption to the FMVSS 

under 49 CFR part 555). Note also that the Safety 

Act’s defect provisions apply to an ADS and ADSequipped vehicle. 

TABLE 2—PROPOSED CHANGES TO TERMS AND DEFINITIONS—Continued 

Proposed term or definition Type Justification 

Manually operated driving controls means a system of controls: 

(1) That are used by an occupant for real-time, sustained, manual manipulation of the motor vehicle’s heading (steering) 

and/or speed (accelerator and brake); and.

(2) That are positioned such that they can be used by an occupant, regardless of whether the occupant is actively using the 

system to manipulate the vehicle’s motion.

New .............................................. Clarify the application of occupant protection requirements. 

Outboard designated seating position means a designated seating position where a longitudinal vertical plane tangent to the 

outboard side of the seat cushion is less than 12 inches from 

the innermost point on the inside surface of the vehicle at a 

height between the design H-point and the shoulder reference point (as shown in fig. 1 of Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard No. 210) and longitudinally between the front 

and rear edges of the seat cushion. As used in this part, the 

terms ‘‘outboard seating position’’ and ‘‘outboard seat’’ shall 

have the same meaning as ‘‘outboard designated seating position’’.

Modification .................................. Clarify that the undefined terms ‘‘outboard 

seating position’’ and ‘‘outboard seat’’ 

have the same meaning as ‘‘outboard 

designated seating position.’’ 

Passenger seating position means any designated seating position other than the driver’s designated seating position, except as noted below. As used in this part, the term ‘‘passenger seat’’ shall have the same meaning as ‘‘passenger 

seating position.’’ As used in this part, ‘‘passenger seating 

position’’ means a driver’s designated seating position with 

stowed manual controls.

New definition of existing term .... Clarify the application of occupant protection requirements. 

Row means a set of one or more seats whose seat outlines do 

not overlap with the seat outline of any other seats, when all 

seats are adjusted to their rearmost normal riding or driving 

position, when viewed from the side.

Relocation .................................... Eliminate the necessity to cross-reference 

FMVSS No. 226. 

Steering control system means the manually operated driving 

control(s) used to control the vehicle heading and its associated trim hardware, including any portion of a steering column assembly that provides energy absorption upon impact. 

As used in this part, the term ‘‘steering wheel’’ and ‘‘steering 

control’’ shall have the same meaning as ‘‘steering control 

system’’.

Relocation; Modification ............... To incorporate new definition for ‘‘manually operated driving controls,’’ and to 

clarify that the definition applies to the 

undefined terms ‘‘steering wheel’’ and 

‘‘steering control.’’ 

In proposing these definitions, 

NHTSA acknowledged that vehicle 

designs are changing in response to 

technological innovation. Given that the 

agency is already seeing ADS-equipped 

vehicles being designed to operate in a 

‘‘driverless’’ mode at all times,28 and 

understanding that more vehicles may 

be designed as such in the future, the 

underlying assumption behind many of 

the current FMVSSs that manually 

operated driving controls will be 

present in all vehicles at all times is no 

longer controlling. For vehicles 

designed to be solely operated by an 

ADS, manually operated driving 

controls are logically unnecessary.29 To 

account for this, the NPRM proposed a 

regulatory scheme in which the affected 

standards would not assume that a 

vehicle will always have a driver’s seat, 

a steering wheel and accompanying 

steering column, or just one front 

outboard passenger seating position. 

The definition modifications proposed 

allows the regulatory text, to be 

unambiguous related to, for example, 

which front seating positions are driver 

or passenger designated seating 

positions (DSPs). Taking the left front 

outboard seat as an example, this 

seating position may be a passenger 

seating position (modified definition) 

because it is not a driver’s designation 

seating position (modified definition). It 

is not a driver’s (DSP) because by virtue 

of the definition of driver (unmodified 

definition), it does not have access to a 

steering control system (modified 

definition), which is a type of manuallyoperated driving control (new 

definition). 

The NPRM proposed to accomplish 

this regulatory scheme by modifying the 

text of the affected standards so that the 

front outboard passenger seat 

performance requirements and test 

procedures would apply to all front 

outboard seating positions for these 

vehicles. For most standards, the NPRM 

proposed to accomplish this by slight 

textual changes that would enable the 

performance requirements and test 

procedures that currently apply to the 

right front passenger seat to be 

‘‘mirrored’’ for the left side of the 

vehicle. If the ADS-equipped vehicle 

retained a driver’s seat, the NPRM 

proposed keeping performance 

requirements and test procedures for the 

driver’s seat, when it exists, effectively 

unchanged. These proposed changes 

effectively turn occupant protection 

requirements for the driver’s seat into 

‘‘if-equipped’’ requirement, meaning 

that when a vehicle does not have a 

driver’s seat, all front outboard seating 

positions must meet the current front 

outboard passenger seat requirements. 

The standards to which NHTSA 

proposed making this type of change 

were FMVSS Nos. 201, 208, 214, and 

226. 

Commenters generally supported 

NHTSA’s proposed changes to the terms 

and definitions. Some commenters 

provided suggestions and minor 

modifications to the proposals. This 

final rule maintains the proposed 

definitions and changes to terminology, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
18568 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

30 GM focused on the plural nature of the 

proposed definition to suggest that an 

unconventional control, such as a joystick, could in 

fact be a single manually operated control (not a 

system of controls) for use by a technician or for 

fleet management to move the vehicle across a lot, 

for example. GM believed that this single control 

would not be intended for use by a motorist for realtime, sustained manual manipulation of steering or 

acceleration or braking. Instead, GM envisioned this 

single control to be used for the short-term, 

temporary activation of the vehicle for fleet 

management purposes. 

31 85 FR at 17637, VI.a.vi.6. 

except for ‘‘passenger seating position.’’ 

We address specific comments below. 

3. Driver’s Designated Seating Position, 

Manually Operated Driving Controls 

The NPRM proposed to define driver’s 

designated seating position as ‘‘a 

designated seating position providing 

immediate access to manually operated 

driving controls. As used in this part 

[571], the terms ‘driver’s seating 

position’ and ‘driver’s seat’ shall have 

the same meaning as ‘driver’s 

designated seating position.’ ’’ 

This definition incorporated another 

proposed term, manually operated 

driving controls, which was defined in 

the NPRM as ‘‘a system of controls: (1) 

That are used by an occupant for realtime, sustained, manual manipulation of 

the motor vehicle’s heading (steering) 

and/or speed (accelerator and brake); 

and (2) That are positioned such that 

they can be used by an occupant, 

regardless of whether the occupant is 

actively using the system to manipulate 

the vehicle’s motion. The definition of 

steering control system was clarified to 

state that it is a type of manually 

operated driving control. 

Comments 

Many of the comments related to 

these definitions focused on 

‘‘unconventional’’ driving controls. The 

Center for Auto Safety (CAS) argued that 

the definition of ‘‘driver’s designated 

seating position’’ should be written to 

exclude non-conventional controls such 

as joysticks, computers, tablet 

computers or wireless remote controls, 

and that reference should be made to 

controls that are ‘‘permanently attached 

to the vehicle in a fixed location.’’ In 

contrast, Tesla argued that the definition 

should consider situations where, for 

example, ‘‘the manual controls may be 

removable, or where they may still be 

present, but are ‘locked’ or rendered 

inoperative when the ADS is in control 

of the driving task, or where the vehicle 

may be operated remotely by portable 

steering controls within the vehicle 

(e.g., by cell phones or tablets).’’ Tesla 

stated that the definitions may not fully 

consider the ‘‘range of possibilities’’ of 

types of controls, such as ‘‘buttons, 

joysticks, screens’’ and ‘‘should not 

necessarily be determinative of whether 

the designated seating position should 

be considered a driver’s rather than a 

passenger’s seat for purposes of 

occupant protection.’’ The Alliance and 

Toyota commented that there may be a 

lack of clarity with respect to joystick 

type controls as to how they would fit 

into the proposed definitional structure. 

Agency Response 

NHTSA has considered the comments 

but is not revising the two proposed 

definitions. The agency concludes that 

CAS’s suggested changes would add 

ambiguity to the definition of the driver 

designated seating position. The 

commenter’s suggestion to add 

‘‘conventional’’ to the definition raises a 

question about the meaning of this term. 

Similarly, we believe that making the 

recommended change to refer to 

permanently attached controls in a fixed 

location may cause confusion with 

respect to stowable controls that may be 

installed in ‘‘dual-mode’’ vehicles. 

NHTSA does not agree with Tesla that 

it is necessary at this time that the 

definition for manually operated driving 

controls account for the use of tablets or 

cell phones to control the vehicle. The 

new definition is meant to encompass 

traditional driving controls, not future 

controls that have not yet been 

developed. We also note that this 

rulemaking does not address joysticktype designs that are intended to be the 

only manual driving control or driving 

controls that have no fixed position at 

a particular seating location. Since this 

issue raises crash avoidance and 

crashworthiness safety concerns that are 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking 

action, we will not address the matter in 

this final rule.30

Tesla argued that only one of the 

terms ‘‘steering control system’’ and 

‘‘manually operated driving controls’’ 

may be necessary, not both. NHTSA 

disagrees and believes having both 

terms allows for a more consistent 

regulatory text and less disruption from 

the existing text structure. Tesla claimed 

that the NPRM did not address the 

situation where the driving controls 

may still be present but are ‘‘locked’’ or 

‘‘inoperative.’’ The NPRM explicitly 

considered inoperative controls that 

remain in position.31 Tesla sought 

clarity on whether remote operation fell 

into the definition of ‘‘manually 

operated driving controls.’’ In response, 

under the definition of ‘‘manually 

operated driving controls,’’ it specifies 

that such controls are positioned such 

that they can be ‘‘used by an occupant’’ 

(emphasis added). Accordingly, the 

definition of ‘‘manually operated 

driving controls’’ excludes remote 

operation controls. 

The Alliance stated there is a lack of 

clarity with respect to stowed manual 

controls. The commenter suggests the 

term ‘‘stowed’’ could mean a range of 

positions. The commenter points to the 

preamble statement that research may 

be needed into the ‘‘transition of 

traditional manual controls in dualmode ADS equipped vehicles.’’ 

To be clear, issues arising from the 

physical act of stowing manual controls 

is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

We believe the existing standards 

clearly provide for occupant protection 

when the controls are stowed, creating 

a passenger DSP. As for the meaning of 

the term ‘‘stowed,’’ it is the past tense 

of ‘‘stow,’’ which has the plain language 

meaning of ‘‘pack or store away.’’ In the 

200-Series standards, it is a term that is 

already used in relation to air bags, seat 

belts, and sun visors. We believe that a 

stowed manually operated driving 

control will be self-evident. Stowed 

controls could have multiple potential 

stowed positions and configurations, 

but not positioned such that they can be 

used by the driver. 

4. Passenger Seating Position 

The NPRM proposed to define 

‘‘passenger seating position’’ as—any 

designated seating position other than 

the driver’s designated seating position, 

except as noted below. As used in this 

part, the term ‘‘passenger seat’’ shall 

have the same meaning as ‘‘passenger 

seating position.’’ As used in this part, 

‘‘passenger seating position’’ means a 

driver’s designated seating position with 

stowed manual controls. 

GM suggested slightly revising the last 

sentence in a manner that clarifies the 

provision about stowed controls. 

NHTSA agrees in part with GM’s 

suggestion, and has decided in this final 

rule to change the last sentence to state: 

As used in this part, ‘‘passenger 

seating position’’ includes what was a 

driver’s designated seating position 

prior to stowing of the manually 

operated driving controls.’’ 

5. Steering Wheel to Steering Control 

The NPRM proposed to change the 

term ‘‘steering wheel’’ to ‘‘steering 

control’’ in consideration of steering 

controls that may not be circular, such 

as those shaped more like an airplane 

yoke control. At every occurrence of the 

term ‘‘steering wheel,’’ the NPRM 

substituted the term ‘‘steering control.’’ 

These terms were meant to be 

synonymous as is evident by the use of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 18569 

32Comments submitted in coordination with the 

California Highway Patrol and the California 

Department of Motor Vehicles. 

33The Center for Auto Safety did not comment on 

the specifics of the change, but as with other busrelated issues, stated that ‘‘it is inappropriate to 

consider ADS for buses within the stated NPRM 

scope.’’ NHTSA has responded to this issue earlier 

in this preamble. 

the terms in the proposed definition of 

‘‘steering control system.’’ 

Comments 

Comments were generally supportive, 

although some commenters raised 

concerns about issues tangential to the 

proposal. The California State 

Transportation Agency 32 (State of 

California, or CalSTA) and Securing 

American’s Future Energy (SAFE) 

expressed support for the proposal. Safe 

Ride News (SRN) expressed concerns 

related to potential dangers for noncircular steering controls. Tesla did not 

comment on the change from ‘‘wheel’’ 

to ‘‘control,’’ but rather was concerned 

that the term ‘‘steering control rim’’ in 

FMVSS No. 208 implied a circular 

control. 

The final rule will adopt the proposed 

change. With respect to SRN’s concerns, 

the change in terminology does not 

newly enable manufacturers to equip 

vehicles with non-circular steering 

controls, since such controls were never 

prohibited. All of the standards that 

address the impact protection of 

steering controls remain in place. We 

also disagree with Tesla’s contention 

that the use of the term ‘‘rim’’ limits the 

shape of the steering control to a round 

object. We believe ‘‘rim’’ can reasonably 

be interpreted as ‘‘outer edge.’’ Thus, 

various shapes are possible. We decline 

to make any change to the term 

‘‘steering control rim’’ in this final rule. 

6. Outboard Designated Seating Position 

NHTSA proposed to clarify that the 

terms ‘‘outboard seating position’’ and 

‘‘outboard seat’’ have the same meaning 

as used in the existing definition of 

‘‘outboard designated seating position.’’ 

Our analysis of the regulatory text of the 

crashworthiness FMVSSs, determined 

these three terms have the same 

meaning. Therefore, to clarify this point, 

we proposed added language specifying 

that ‘‘outboard seating position’’ and 

‘‘outboard seat’’ have the same meaning 

as ‘‘outboard designated seating 

position.’’ 

Comments 

There were no adverse comments 

made to this proposal and the final rule 

will adopt the proposed change. 

7. Row and Seat Outline 

The NPRM proposed to relocate the 

definition of ‘‘row,’’ which is currently 

located in FMVSS No. 226, to Part 

571.3. The term was proposed to be 

used in multiple standards (FMVSS 

Nos. 201, 206 and 208). Moving it to 

part 571.3 would eliminate the need to 

insert a reference to its current location. 

Comments 

There were no adverse comments 

related to moving the definition of 

‘‘row.’’ However, Alliance, Zoox and 

GM recommended that the definition of 

‘‘outline’’ similarly be moved to part 

571.3 because the definition of ‘‘row’’ 

uses this term. The final rule will make 

this change. 

8. Driver Air Bag and Driver Dummy 

The NPRM proposed to define ‘‘driver 

air bag,’’ ‘‘driver dummy.’’ These are 

new definitions, but the terms already 

appear many times in the FMVSSs. This 

is also the case for ‘‘passenger seating 

position’’ and ‘‘driver’s designate 

seating position,’’ which we discussed 

extensively above. However, there was 

previously no strong need to define 

these terms. NHTSA proposed to define 

them now because they help to clarify 

the application of the FMVSSs to ADSequipped vehicles while maintaining 

their application to traditional vehicles 

and minimizing textual disruption. 

Comments 

There were no adverse comments 

made to this proposal and the final rule 

will adopt the proposed change. 

b. Modifying Spatial References in Test 

Procedures and Definitions That Rely on 

the Presence of a Driver’s Seat and/or 

Manual-Operated Driving Controls 

FMVSS Nos. 201, 206, 208, 214, 216a, 

225 and 226 contain terms or definitions 

that reference the driver’s seat or 

steering controls to provide a spatial 

reference for where equipment in the 

vehicle must be installed, or test 

equipment (such as test dummies) 

placed in a compliance test. The NPRM 

proposed various changes addressing 

the situation where there is no driver’s 

seat, a lone passenger seat, or no 

steering control to provide a spatial 

reference frame. In some instances, the 

agency proposed using the front row or 

the front outboard seating position as a 

reference rather than the driver’s seat. In 

some cases, the ‘‘left’’ or ‘‘right’’ side of 

the vehicle was proposed to be used 

rather than ‘‘driver’s side’’ or ‘‘passenger 

side.’’ 

1. Driver’s Seat 

The NPRM proposed using the front 

row, or the seating reference point of a 

seat in the front row, as a spatial 

reference rather than the driver’s seat. 

Such changes were proposed for FMVSS 

Nos. 201, 206, 208 and 225, for buses.33

Most commenters were supportive of 

the proposed changes. 

FMVSS No. 225, ‘‘Child restraint 

anchorage systems,’’ currently defines 

‘‘shuttle bus’’ as ‘‘a bus with only one 

row of forward-facing seating positions 

rearward of the driver’s seat’’ (emphasis 

added). The NPRM proposed modifying 

the definition to state that if the bus 

does not have a driver’s seat, it would 

meet the definition of a shuttle bus if it 

has only one row of forward- facing 

seating positions rearward of the front 

row. The NPRM made no alteration for 

non-ADS vehicles. 

Comments 

The Alliance supported the change to 

the definition of ‘‘shuttle bus,’’ but 

requested that this change be made for 

all vehicles, not just vehicles without 

driving controls, using the same 

language. In contrast, the State of 

California (CalSTA) commented that the 

‘‘proposed change may result in 

practical design and configuration 

changes to shuttle buses. Further 

research into how these changes will 

impact occupant safety on shuttle buses, 

if at all, is needed and suggests that it 

may be premature to address at this 

time.’’ The Alliance further addressed 

provisions for rear-facing front row 

seating. 

NHTSA is not implementing the 

Alliance’s suggestion to apply the 

definitional change to non-ADSequipped vehicles and is not accounting 

for rear-facing front row seating. This 

decision is in line with the agency’s 

intent to focus this rulemaking narrowly 

to address unique designs that might be 

implicated by ADSs. This rulemaking is 

NHTSA’s first step toward modernizing 

the FMVSSs to account for these new 

vehicle designs. No doubt there will be 

other steps, as the technologies mature, 

and suggestions for further amendments 

will be considered at those appropriate 

times. 

NHTSA disagrees with CalSTA since 

the changes will have no effect on 

vehicles with driver’s seats. Further, it 

is our expectation that using a front row 

seat as a reference rather than a driver’s 

seat will have little to no effect on the 

reference point location. 

For the reasons above and explained 

in the NPRM, this final rule adopts the 

changes that refer to the front row 

instead of to the driver’s seat. 

2. Dummy Placement in Bench Seats 

Currently FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 

refer to the driver’s DSP when 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
18570 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

specifying where to place and position 

test dummies in bench seats of vehicles 

in the respective compliance tests. The 

NPRM proposed to use the seating 

reference point of outboard seats as the 

spatial reference for the lateral 

placement of test dummies when there 

is no driver’s DSP. 

Comments 

All comments were generally in favor 

of using the seating reference point of 

outboard seats as the spatial reference 

for the lateral placement of test 

dummies when there is no driver’s DSP. 

The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) 

agreed with the proposed change to 

FMVSS No. 208 on the use of the 

seating reference point as the spatial 

reference for bench seats when there is 

no driver’s seat. However, CAS stated: 

‘‘[T]his proposal should not pertain to 

vehicles that include fixed or 

deployable human-accessible primary or 

backup (potentially deployable on 

demand or need) controls.’’ NHTSA 

understands this comment as conveying 

CAS’s belief there should not be any 

reduction in the safety of the driver as 

a result of this final rule—a belief with 

which the agency agrees. The agency 

notes that the proposed regulatory text 

was purposefully drafted in a manner 

that would not affect the protection 

currently provided by vehicles with 

manually operated driving controls, i.e., 

those with a driver’s seat. 

IIHS stated that the proposed method 

to position passenger side dummies in 

the absence of a ‘‘driver’s’’ seat ‘‘seems 

sensible.’’ However, the commenter 

requested that the agency ‘‘ensure that 

this change will not result in unrealistic 

dummy positioning for all relevant 

dummy sizes before making its 

proposed change.’’ NHTSA has assessed 

how this final rule would impact 

dummy placement during compliance 

testing and concluded that the dummy 

positioning procedures are feasible for 

all the test dummies used in the 

standards, and dummy positioning 

would remain realistic for all tests. The 

Alliance supported the proposed 

language and suggested that such a 

method should be used with vehicles 

with unconventional steering controls. 

This suggestion is beyond the scope of 

this rulemaking but will be considered 

for future actions. 

3. Driver’s Side and Passenger Side 

FMVSS Nos. 206, 208, 216a and 226 

refer to ‘‘driver’s side’’ and ‘‘passenger 

side’’ in describing substantive 

requirements and compliance test 

procedures. The NPRM proposed to 

substitute ‘‘left side’’ for driver’s side 

and ‘‘right side’’ for passenger side. 

Comments 

Some commenters were in favor of the 

approach NHTSA took in the NPRM. 

The Alliance supported the proposed 

language substituting ‘‘left side’’ for 

‘‘driver’s side.’’ CAS indicated that this 

approach is sufficient to provide for 

testing under FMVSS No. 208. CalSTA 

supported the proposal, stating that this 

approach does not result in any ‘‘loss in 

meaning.’’ The commenter also agreed 

with similar proposed changes in 

FMVSS Nos. 206, 214 and 216a. 

A few commenters did not support 

this change. In contrast to its comment 

about FMVSS No. 208, CAS stated that 

for FMVSS No. 214, optional manual 

controls normally associated with the 

driver’s position could be located on the 

right side of the vehicle. CAS also 

contended that, for FMVSS No. 226, the 

proposed changes to ‘‘left front door 

sill’’ from ‘‘driver’s door sill’’ could 

have implications for vehicles that may 

only have doors or seating on the right 

side of the vehicle. ZF stated that the 

question of whether this option would 

result in the same performance outcome 

is one that needs additional study 

because it is unclear to them that ‘‘the 

occupant will be in the exact same 

position.’’ 

The agency is adopting its proposal to 

change references to the driver’s and 

passenger side of the vehicle to the left 

and right side of the vehicle. With 

respect to CAS’s concern about FMVSS 

No. 214, whether manual controls 

associated with a defined driver 

position are on the left or right side of 

the vehicle has no bearing on the 

application of the standard’s 

requirements and test procedures to a 

vehicle. The standard’s side impact 

protection requirements currently and 

will continue to apply equally to the left 

and right sides of the vehicle. Further, 

the spatial reference changes proposed 

for FMVSS No. 214, S10.2 were nearly 

identical to the changes CAS supported 

in FMVSS No. 208. Regarding FMVSS 

No. 226, the agency is not aware of any 

vehicles under 10,000 lb. GVWR 

without a door on the left side of the 

vehicle. Regardless, placement of doors 

and seating on the right side of the 

vehicle does not affect the application of 

the requirements and test procedures of 

FMVSS No. 226. Finally, in response to 

ZF, we believe that it is reasonable to 

assume at this time that occupants 

would remain in the same position as 

currently contemplated by the standard, 

and thus, the same performance 

outcome could be expected by 

modifying the current language to ‘‘left 

side’’ and ‘‘right side.’’ NHTSA does not 

believe that additional research is 

necessary at this time since this rule 

only changes the term used to describe 

the seating position (‘‘driver’s’’ seat) and 

not the performance requirements or 

placement of the seat itself. Finally, as 

mentioned previously, the scope of this 

rule includes conventional seating, not 

unconventional seating arrangements. 

4. Steering Controls as a Spatial 

Reference 

FMVSS No. 201 S5.1.1(d) excludes 

from S5.1 ‘‘areas outboard of any point 

of tangency on the instrument panel of 

a 165 mm diameter head form tangent 

to and inboard of a vertical longitudinal 

plane tangent to the inboard edge of the 

steering wheel.’’ The NPRM proposed to 

amend S5.1.1(d) so that an area of the 

instrument panel excluded from S5.1 

(the impact procedure) would no longer 

be excluded if the steering control were 

not present, i.e., the exclusion only 

applies to situations where the steering 

control is present. 

CAS argued that the standard should 

apply to ADS-equipped vehicles that 

include optional manual controls that 

are either fixed or deployable if they are 

associated with a defined position. The 

Alliance believed additional clarity for 

S5.1.1(d) is needed for dual-mode 

vehicles with stowed controls, 

suggesting that NHTSA add the phrase 

‘‘if the steering control is present or, in 

the case of dual-mode vehicles, fully 

deployed in manual driving mode’’ to 

the beginning of S5.1.1(d). 

In response to CAS, the proposed 

amendment was intended to address 

vehicles without ‘‘steering wheels’’ and 

where the steering control is not 

present. The rule change was to ensure 

the protection provided by the current 

passenger side of the instrument panel 

(right side) is provided to the left side 

(former driver’s side). The revised 

standard will provide the same level of 

protection as the current standard when 

a steering control system is present. 

Relatedly, NHTSA declines to make 

the Alliance’s suggested clarification 

because it is unnecessary. Steering 

controls are defined as a type of 

‘‘manually operated driving control.’’ 

Manually operated driving controls are 

‘‘positioned such that they can be used 

by an occupant.’’ Thus, by definition, 

these controls are not stowed controls. 

The suggestion also raises additional 

questions related to how ‘‘dual-mode 

vehicles,’’ ‘‘fully deployed,’’ and 

‘‘manual driving mode’’ should be 

defined. 

c. Dual-Mode Certification 

The NPRM stated that for dual-mode 

vehicles with the capability of stowing 

driving controls, NHTSA would require 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 18571 

34 85 FR at 17634. 

35 Id. 

36Uber presented several hypothetical situations 

relating to the Safety Act’s ‘‘make inoperative’’ 

provision, 49 U.S.C. 30122, which were beyond the 

scope of the NPRM. The Agency recommends 

persons seeking a request for interpretation of 

NHTSA’s standards or regulations, or of the 

statutory provisions of the Safety Act, submit a 

request for interpretation to NHTSA’s Chief 

Counsel’s Office. 

37Waymo stated the Agency should remain 

flexible in compliance testing in general: ‘‘[t]o 

implement this principle, NHTSA could adopt 

policies allowing manufacturers to provide the tools 

and information necessary for the agency to 

conduct compliance tests in a manner befitting each 

manufacturer’s unique automated vehicle designs.’’ 

manufacturers to certify compliance 

with all applicable FMVSSs in both 

modes (i.e., with the manually operated 

driving controls available and with the 

controls stowed).34 When the manually 

operated driving controls are available, 

the vehicle would be subject to the 

FMVSS requirements at that DSP as 

applied to a driver’s DSP. When they 

were stowed, the vehicle would be 

subject to the FMVSS requirements at 

the DSP as applied to a passenger seat. 

Comments 

Many commenters supported 

NHTSA’s approach to dual-mode 

vehicles. IIHS noted that the agency’s 

statement in the preamble 35 that 

‘‘NHTSA expects that manufacturers 

will need to certify compliance in both 

states (e.g., manually operated driving 

controls available and stowed)’’ 

[emphasis added] was unclear and 

urged NHTSA to modify the regulatory 

text to ensure its expectation is met. The 

Automotive Safety Council (ASC), 

Securing America’s Future Energy 

(SAFE), and Uber agreed with NHTSA’s 

proposal to require that manufacturers 

certify compliance to, and conduct 

validation testing in, both modes. Tesla 

suggested that NHTSA add ‘‘even more 

clarity regarding the applicability of the 

FMVSS to such [dual-mode] vehicles. 

Dual-mode vehicles are likely to be 

some of the first ADS-equipped vehicles 

on the road.’’ In addition, Tesla believes 

it sees a conflict in the agency 

statements that a seating position is not 

a driver’s DSP, i.e., it is a passenger 

DSP, if that position is not equipped 

with a manually operated driving 

control and the statement that a DSP 

remains a driver’s DSP when driving 

controls are in place and the ADS is 

engaged. 

Agency Response 

Among commenters addressing the 

issue of certification of dual-mode 

vehicles, there was agreement on the 

need to certify in both modes. In 

response to IIHS, we have reviewed the 

regulatory text to assure the text is not 

worded in terms of ‘‘expectations’’ but 

is clear in terms of requirements.36

With respect to the Tesla comment 

about seeing a conflict in the agency 

statements that a seating position is not 

a driver’s DSP, NHTSA believes these 

statements are not in conflict and 

clearly proceed from the terms used in 

the regulatory text (driver, steering 

control system, manually operated 

driving controls, driver’s DSP, and 

passenger seating position). For 

example, the definition of ‘‘manually 

operated driving controls’’ makes no 

statement about the state of any ADS 

system. It simply states, among other 

things, that the controls are ‘‘positioned 

such that they can be used by an 

occupant.’’ While the steering controls 

might not be used, as would be the case 

of a dual-mode vehicle with the ADS 

engaged, the seating position where they 

are located and positioned for potential 

use, by definition, remains the driver’s 

DSP. 

NHTSA believes that no additional 

regulatory text changes are needed 

beyond that proposed in the NPRM to 

assure clarity with respect to 

certification of dual-mode vehicles. 

NHTSA notes that if a left front seat has 

both a driver configuration and a 

passenger configuration, the agency may 

choose either configuration for 

compliance testing, or test both 

configurations. 

d. Parking Brake and Transmission 

Position 

Many of the 200-Series FMVSSs 

incorporate a full vehicle crash test or 

other kind of dynamic vehicle test in the 

standard’s compliance test. For some of 

these dynamic tests, a test condition 

applies such that the vehicle 

transmission is in neutral, and/or the 

parking brake applied. For vehicles 

without driver-accessible transmission 

shift selectors or parking brake 

mechanisms, NHTSA may not have 

readily available means to set the 

vehicle in neutral, activate a parking 

brake, or achieve other test conditions 

described in the compliance test. 

NHTSA did not propose any 

regulatory text changes related to 

interfacing with ADS-equipped vehicles 

on pre-test transmission and brake 

status. The agency believed such 

changes were unnecessary for the 

purposes of this notice, as the important 

factor for the 200-Series FMVSSs was 

whether the transmission was in the 

proper gear and the pre-test brake 

activated; the way that pre-test state was 

achieved was of no consequence to 

performance of the crash test. It was 

envisioned that manufacturers would 

provide the know-how for the agency to 

achieve the necessary transmission and 

brake status when NHTSA conducts its 

compliance tests. However, comments 

were requested on this issue. 

Comments 

Commenters were generally in 

agreement with the agency’s approach. 

The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) 

supported the agency’s views on this 

matter. The Alliance agreed that 

manufacturers could and would work 

with the agency to achieve the necessary 

transmission and parking brake status. 

Waymo stated that it ‘‘agree[s] with the 

line of thinking that the important 

element is whether the transmission is 

in the proper gear and whether the pretest brake is activated—not the manner 

in which that state is achieved.’’ 37 GM 

stated it would work with NHTSA and 

the agency’s test labs should the need 

for such consultation arise. 

Alternatively, Tesla believed NHTSA 

should ‘‘consider updates to the parking 

brake status in compliance testing 

where it may not reflect real-world 

scenarios.’’ 

Agency Response 

NHTSA’s view of how compliance 

tests would be conducted on vehicles 

without traditional transmission shift 

levers or parking brake mechanisms was 

supported by the commenters. The 

agency envisions compliance testing 

will be conducted with the above 

framework in mind. Tesla may be 

raising a point that certain test 

conditions may not be necessarily 

relevant or appropriate for some 

vehicles, if, for example, the vehicle 

parking brake status is not appropriate. 

While NHTSA agrees that FMVSS test 

conditions should be relevant and 

appropriate for the vehicle and for the 

safety need addressed by the standard at 

issue, the agency is not currently aware 

of a situation where the parking brake 

status is an inappropriate test condition 

or would be inappropriate for an ADSequipped vehicle. Consistent with the 

NPRM, the final rule does not change 

any regulatory text related to interfacing 

with ADS-equipped vehicles on pre-test 

transmission and brake status. 

V. Occupant-Less Vehicles 

Currently, the 200-Series ‘‘vehicle’’ 

standards apply to passenger cars, 

multipurpose passenger vehicles 

(MPVs), trucks, buses, and school buses. 

These vehicle types, as they are defined 

in 49 CFR 571.3, are all, by definition, 

passenger-carrying vehicles, except for 

‘‘trucks.’’ (A driver of a truck is 

considered an occupant but is not 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
18572 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

38Under NHTSA’s self-certification framework, 

manufacturers must certify their vehicles as 

meeting all FMVSSs applicable to the vehicle type, 

and, to do so, must classify their vehicles for 

purposes of determining which FMVSSs apply. 

NHTSA may take issue with that classification if 

the agency believes the manufacturer has 

misclassified the vehicle and thus failed to certify 

the compliance of the vehicle appropriately with 

applicable FMVSSs. 39 85 FR at 17625. 

considered a ‘‘passenger.’’) Occupantless vehicles would not have designated 

seating positions or any other vehicle 

features that aid in the transportation of 

seated or standing occupants. These 

vehicles, which would not even have a 

driver’s DSP, are expected to be more 

oriented to commercial movement of 

goods. Thus, by definition, occupantless vehicles cannot be categorized as a 

passenger car, MPV, or bus of any kind. 

The definition of ‘‘truck’’ in § 571.3 is 

the only vehicle type definition that 

specifically covers vehicles designed to 

carry property and not ‘‘persons.’’ 

Because occupant-less vehicles 

qualify as trucks,38 and since the 200- 

Series standards apply to trucks, 

occupant-less vehicles are currently 

subject to the 200-Series standards even 

though they do not carry occupants. In 

the NPRM, NHTSA tentatively 

determined that a safety need did not 

exist to apply the existing 200-Series 

standards to occupant-less vehicles. In 

addition, the analysis concluded that for 

some 200-Series standards, the 

application to occupant-less trucks 

could create uncertainty about 

certification because the requirements 

are seemingly linked to the existence of 

specified designated seating positions. 

Accordingly, with respect to trucks, 

NHTSA proposed to amend the 

application sections of FMVSS Nos. 

201, 205, 206, 207, 208, 214, 216, and 

226 to apply only to trucks with DSPs. 

There are some standards that are 

applicable to trucks that the NPRM did 

not propose to amend because they only 

apply if a DSP were present. One such 

example is FMVSS No. 202a, Head 

restraints. Similarly, the agency did not 

propose amending the applicability of 

FMVSS No. 203, Impact protection for 

the driver from the steering control 

system, and 204, Steering control 

rearward displacement, to trucks. As 

discussed in the NPRM, this is because 

those standards only apply to vehicles 

with steering controls, which an 

occupant-less vehicle necessarily lacks. 

No change was proposed for FMVSS No. 

209, Seat belt assemblies, because the 

standard is an equipment standard, and 

no change was proposed for FMVSS No. 

210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, 

because that standard’s requirements 

only apply to DSPs. That said, NHTSA 

requested comment on whether any 

‘‘additional changes are necessary or 

appropriate’’ to accomplish the goals of 

the NPRM.39

Comments 

Most commenters that addressed this 

issue were supportive of the proposal, 

but a few had reservations about how 

the approach could affect crash 

compatibility and other safety matters. 

A number of commenters focused on the 

applicability of FMVSS Nos. 203 and 

204, FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials, 

FMVSS Nos. 212, Windshield mounting, 

and 219, Windshield zone intrusion. 

Most commenters believed that no 

safety need exists requiring occupant 

protection standards for occupant-less 

vehicles, and that the 200-series 

standards were not relevant for such 

vehicles. The American Trucking 

Associations (ATA) specifically 

supported changes to standards that 

apply to trucks with a GVWR greater 

than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb.). Uber argued 

that ‘‘equipment that is designed to 

protect occupants in traditional vehicles 

will do nothing but create unnecessary 

potential safety hazards in the event of 

a crash or if that equipment 

malfunctions.’’ Nuro stated that 

applying occupant protection standards 

to occupant-less vehicles could degrade 

safety by adding weight and rigidity, 

which may increase ‘‘the risk to 

occupants’’ of other vehicles. A number 

of other commenters suggested that 

NHTSA overlooked several other 200- 

Series FMVSSs that should also be 

amended to exclude occupant-less 

trucks from their applicability, namely 

FMVSS Nos. 212 and 219. 

Commenters expressing concern 

about the proposal included the State of 

California (CalSTA) regarding possible 

degradation to the safety of vulnerable 

road users, such as pedestrians and 

bicyclists, if occupant-less vehicle were 

excluded from FMVSS No. 205. The 

Automotive Safety Council (ASC) raised 

the potential for crash compatibility 

concerns stemming from the potential 

loss of energy absorption in a crash 

involving an occupant-less vehicle. 

Agency Response 

While NHTSA believes the nonapplicability of certain standards was 

implicit in the proposal, the agency has 

considered the comments and is 

adopting amendments to provide 

clarity. Several commenters (including 

the Alliance, the Consumer Technology 

Association (CTA), Nuro, and, Zoox) 

suggested that additional clarity is 

needed with respect to the 200-Series 

FMVSSs sections the NPRM did not 

propose to modify. As discussed later 

below, NHTSA agrees to amend FMVSS 

Nos. 212 and 219 to clarify nonapplicability to occupant-less vehicles. 

a. General Observations 

The Center for Auto Safety argued 

that a truck with an optional or 

deployable control system should not be 

excluded from FMVSS Nos. 201, 205 

and 206. NHTSA would like to be clear 

that this subject pertains to occupantless vehicles that are specifically 

designed not to contain occupants. 

NHTSA’s intent is to keep the safety of 

occupants, including drivers, at the 

forefront of this rule. 

Nuro suggested three possible ways to 

limit the applicability of the FMVSSs to 

occupant-less vehicles: (1) A blanket 

exclusion in section 571.7; (2) a 

preamble statement; or (3) a change to 

all application sections. First, a blanket 

change to section 571.7 or to change 

‘‘all’’ application sections would be 

overly broad and exceed the scope of 

this notice, which focuses exclusively 

on the 200-series standards. Second, a 

statement in the preamble would not 

provide appropriate transparency and 

clarity. In other words, the applicability 

of the standards to the vehicles in 

question would not be apparent from 

the actual text of the standards. Thus, to 

assure a full and careful consideration 

of the applicability of the FMVSSs to 

subject vehicles and avoid unintended 

consequences, NHTSA has decided to 

evaluate each standard and determine 

applicability on a standard-by-standard 

basis. In some cases, no change was 

needed because the non-applicability of 

the standard to occupant-less vehicles is 

indirect (e.g., by virtue of reference to a 

seating position, such as for FMVSS No. 

202a). 

In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to 

exclude occupant-less trucks from the 

FMVSS occupant protection 

requirements, tentatively concluding 

that, ‘‘the safety need that supports the 

crashworthiness requirement of FMVSS 

No. 208 for the protection of vehicle 

occupants does not exist for occupantless trucks.’’ While this final rule 

affirms this conclusion, the agency 

notes that the language proposed to 

accomplish this exclusion applies 

standards to ‘‘trucks with at least one 

designated seating position.’’ 

Commenters such as the National 

Disability Rights Network, in different 

contexts covered in Section VI.f of this 

preamble, raised the prospect of 

vehicles with ADS that do not include 

a DSP, but accommodate people with 

certain physical disabilities (e.g., 

through wheelchair securement 

mechanisms). NHTSA notes that the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 18573 

40Nuro made similar arguments specific to 

FMVSS No. 205 in its petition for a temporary 

exemption from aspects of FMVSS No. 500, which 

the Agency granted on February 11, 2020. Docket 

NHTSA–2019–0017–0002; 85 FR 7826. FMVSS No. 

500 requires low speed vehicles to have a 

windshield that meets FMVSS No. 205. 

definition of DSP only encompasses 

wheelchair securement devices for a 

‘‘vehicle sold or introduced into 

interstate commerce for purposes that 

include carrying students to and from 

school or related events.’’ Accordingly, 

the proposed applicability language 

(referring to trucks with at least one 

designated seating position) may leave 

ambiguity as to whether an occupantless truck could be permissibly outfitted 

with a wheelchair securement 

mechanism and avoid occupant 

protection requirements. While the 

NPRM’s preamble discussion tentatively 

concluded that occupant-less trucks do 

not present a safety need for occupant 

protection requirements, the language 

used to exclude such trucks was 

imprecise and conflicted with the 

tentative conclusion, which could lead 

to confusion. Accordingly, the agency 

has decided that, rather than amending 

the application sections to include 

‘‘trucks with at least one designated 

seating position,’’ the final rule will 

specify, ‘‘trucks designed to carry at 

least one person,’’ which would include 

occupants in wheelchair securements. 

We believe this will ameliorate the 

problems related to referencing the DSP 

definition, yet will achieve the same 

purpose. We note that this change 

should not result in any reduction in 

objectivity since the definitions of 

passenger car, MPV, and bus all refer to 

being designed to carry a certain 

number of persons. 

b. FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials 

CalSTA posited that vulnerable road 

users, such as pedestrians and 

bicyclists, might be placed at risk if 

occupant-less vehicles are excluded 

from meeting FMVSS No. 205. The State 

suggested that ‘‘[i]f the glazing materials 

standard is removed, a standard 

providing a commensurate level of 

safety for vulnerable road users should 

be implemented.’’ 

Given that one of NHTSA’s guiding 

principles for this rulemaking was 

maintaining safety levels provided by 

existing FMVSS, the agency carefully 

considered this issue. The agency first 

analyzed the intended purpose of 

FMVSS No. 205. The focus of the 

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 

standard, SAE J673-Automotive Safety 

Glasses—on which FMVSS No. 205 is 

based—was to benefit the occupants of 

motor vehicles. The purpose of 

Standard No. 205 as promulgated, and 

as specified today, references vehicle 

occupants and makes no mention to 

persons struck outside the vehicle. 

Nonetheless, the commenter raises the 

possibility that FMVSS No. 205 has had 

an unintended benefit for vulnerable 

road users, and the agency sought to 

understand any unintended 

consequences of this rulemaking. 

Accordingly, NHTSA undertook a 

thorough search, but found no crash 

data or research studies that could 

verify unintended benefits for 

pedestrians, cyclists or other persons 

resulting from FMVSS No. 205 glazing. 

The effect of glazing in pedestrian and 

other road users’ collisions with motor 

vehicles is complex, as the crash may 

manifest potential tradeoffs between 

various design aspects of glazing and 

glazing retention. The center of the 

windshield, if it breaks on impact, can 

be a relatively forgiving area with 

respect to the impact forces/deceleration 

of the struck person. However, in 

contrast to the middle of the 

windshield, the area of windshield 

attachment, particularly at the A-pillars, 

may be relatively hazardous to a person 

striking it as the pillars are stiff 

structural elements. For a windshield to 

protect occupants, it must be adequately 

retained in a crash. FMVSS No. 212 

specifies windshield mounting 

requirements that must be met, for the 

benefit of occupants, when subjected to 

a 48 km/h (30 mph) barrier crash test. 

In order to retain the windshield, the 

perimeter mounting must be sufficiently 

stiff. It is unclear whether or to what 

extent the crashworthiness test 

requirements of FMVSS No. 205 

contribute to, or are offset by, these 

forgiving yet stiff aspects of a 

windshield. That is, even if the glazing 

is forgiving in the center once it breaks, 

the windshield mounting must be stiff 

enough to meet FMVSS No. 212. Any 

overall benefit to pedestrians and 

cyclists from compliance with FMVSS 

No. 205 is uncertain. 

It bears noting that FMVSS No. 205 is 

an ‘‘if equipped’’ standard. Accordingly, 

the standard only requires FMVSS No. 

205 glazing if vehicles have glazing. The 

extent to which occupant-less vehicles 

would have glazing is unknown at this 

time. 

In its comment, Nuro argued that, if 

manufacturers of occupant-less vehicles 

were not required to meet occupant 

protection requirements, they could 

concentrate on protection of other road 

users.40

After consideration of the information 

above, NHTSA has decided that 

information is not available to 

substantiate the view that there would 

be lost safety benefits to pedestrians and 

other road users by excluding occupantless vehicles from FMVSS No. 205. 

However, NHTSA will monitor this 

issue. In view of Nuro’s statement 

above, NHTSA believes that the 

amendment adopted by this final rule 

may open up avenues for potential 

development of more pedestrianfriendly designs for occupant-less 

vehicles, though the agency is not 

relying on this belief in making the 

decision to exclude these vehicles, as 

these vehicles would not be required to 

make these changes. 

As to more general matters, both 

NADA and Ford asserted that the 

change to FMVSS No. 205 would not 

address the standard in its entirety, and 

that transmissibility/visibility aspects of 

the standard would need to be revisited 

in the future. In response, NHTSA notes 

that the NPRM proposed, and this final 

rule adopts, revisions to FMVSS No. 205 

that apply the standard only to vehicles 

with occupants. 

In its comment to the NPRM, Nuro 

stated that, just as the NPRM proposed 

changes to FMVSS No. 205, conforming 

changes should be made to FMVSS No. 

500, Low speed vehicles, and part 565, 

Vehicle identification number (VIN) 

requirements. Nuro sought a change to 

FMVSS No. 500 to make clear that a 

windshield is required only if the low 

speed vehicle had at least one DSP. In 

response, NHTSA has decided no 

change to the low speed vehicle 

standard is necessary because FMVSS 

No. 500 incorporates by reference 

various aspects of other FMVSS. This 

means, in practice, that when NHTSA 

makes changes to FMVSS No. 205, those 

changes will automatically be 

incorporated into FMVSS No. 500. 

While the low speed vehicle standard 

refers to FMVSS No. 205, the change to 

the application section of FMVSS No. 

205 makes clear that it does not apply 

to occupant-less vehicles. Also, other 

aspects of FMVSS No. 500 will still 

apply to occupant-less vehicles, so 

changing FMVSS No. 500 could be 

confusing. 

Nuro noted that part 565 requires that 

the VIN be visible through ‘‘the vehicle 

glazing’’ by an observer ‘‘whose eyepoint is located outside the vehicle 

adjacent to the left windshield pillar.’’ 

This final rule does not amend part 565, 

as the matter is beyond the scope of the 

NPRM. However, the agency 

understands the issue and will consider 

addressing it in a future action. 

c. Vehicle Crash Compatibility 

The Automotive Safety Council (ASC) 

supported limiting the crash protection 

requirements of FMVSS No. 208 to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
18574 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

41 85 FR at 17625. 

vehicles with at least one designated 

seating position but argued that 

measures are still needed to ensure 

adequate crash compatibility with the 

fleet. ASC referenced ADS 2.0 

statements that ‘‘unoccupied vehicles 

equipped with ADSs should provide 

geometric and energy absorption crash 

compatibility with existing vehicles on 

the road.’’ ASC stated that crash 

compatibility ‘‘is currently controlled to 

some degree by the crash requirements 

of FMVSS [No.] 208. Energy absorption 

in the crash by the unoccupied vehicle 

structure is a necessary factor in helping 

to protect the occupied vehicle 

passengers.’’ 

In its comment, Nuro mentioned that 

the preamble of the NPRM indicated 

NHTSA is considering crash 

compatibility research and possible 

rulemaking for occupant-less vehicles. 

Nuro stated that crash compatibility 

should not be the agency’s initial foray 

into drafting standards for these 

vehicles. Nuro argued there is no reason 

to believe that occupant-less vehicles 

should be less compatible than existing 

vehicles, but that ‘‘the opposite is true 

due to the lower mass and smaller size 

that can be achieved for vehicles that 

will not carry, and need not include 

protections for, humans.’’ 

The NPRM did not include provisions 

related to potential vehicle-to-vehicle 

crash compatibility, and this final rule 

continues this approach. As stated in 

the NPRM, this is a complex issue that 

has not yet been adequately researched 

and we have no evidence that vehicleto-vehicle crash compatibility might 

cause adverse safety consequences at 

this time, as occupant-less vehicles do 

not exist in the fleet in any significant 

number. However, NHTSA is engaged in 

research on this subject and will also 

monitor on-road deployments. In 

addition, NHTSA does not agree with 

Nuro’s assertion that all future 

occupant-less vehicles will necessarily 

be small and light and thereby a safer 

collision partner because NHTSA’s 

decision in this final rule is not limited 

by weight and thus will apply to any 

occupant-less vehicle. NHTSA notes 

that the American Trucking 

Associations’ comment on this subject, 

as previously mentioned in the 

Comments subsection of section V. of 

this preamble, was especially 

supportive of changes made to 

standards applying to occupant-less 

trucks with a GVWR greater than 4,536 

kg (10,000 lb.), thus indicating that there 

may be occupant-less vehicles that are 

much larger and heavier than Nuro’s 

vehicles. Further, the fact that an 

occupant-less vehicle does not have to 

protect its own occupant does not mean 

that they will necessarily be designed to 

protect other road users more, as it is 

possible that manufacturers of 

occupant-less vehicles might tolerate 

increased risks to other road users in the 

interest of protecting their own cargo. 

Potential crash compatibility 

implications relating to occupant-less 

trucks is an area of interest for the 

agency and warrants further 

examination. 

d. FMVSS Nos. 212, Windshield 

Mounting and 219, Windshield Zone 

Intrusion 

The NPRM requested comment on 

whether the agency had included all 

relevant FMVSSs that might need 

changes similar to those identified in 

the proposal. Many commenters 

suggested there was no safety need to 

apply FMVSS Nos. 212 and 219 to 

occupant-less vehicles, as there would 

be no occupants in the vehicles to 

protect with the countermeasures 

installed to meet these Windshield 

mounting and Windshield zone 

intrusion standards, respectively. 

Agency Response 

NHTSA agrees that FMVSS No. 212 

and 219 should also be amended to 

exclude occupant-less vehicles. It was 

an oversight by NHTSA not to have 

included those standards in the NPRM. 

The NPRM for this rulemaking action 

was broad and intended to include all 

crashworthiness (200-Series FMVSSs) 

standards. In the NPRM, NHTSA 

discussed whether there was a need to 

apply FMVSSs that serve primarily to 

protect vehicle occupants to occupantless vehicles, and whether those 

FMVSSs had a continuing safety 

purpose for occupant-less vehicles. 

NHTSA requested comment on 

‘‘whether additional changes are 

necessary or appropriate’’ to accomplish 

the goals of the NPRM.41 This request 

sought the very input that NHTSA 

received from commenters on FMVSS 

Nos. 212 and 219, and was included in 

the NPRM with the intent of soliciting 

input on whether the agency had 

included all relevant FMVSSs that 

might need changes. 

As requested, commenters provided 

additional input, and the comments 

received on FMVSS Nos. 212 and 219, 

helped NHTSA assure the final rule 

would address a more complete set of 

relevant standards. Given that NHTSA 

proposed FMVSS No. 205, Glazing 

materials be amended so as not to 

require a windshield in an occupantless vehicle to meet that standard due to 

an absence of a safety need for the 

glazing, failing to make conforming 

changes to FMVSS Nos. 212 and 219 

would be inconsistent with both the 

Agency’s intended outcome and with 

commenters’ requests. The 

modifications to FMVSS Nos. 212 and 

219 are the logical outgrowth of both the 

discussions related to occupant-less 

vehicles and the proposed regulatory 

text for FMVSS No. 205. Given the 

absence of a safety need to apply 

FMVSS No. 205 to occupant-less 

vehicles, there is also no safety need for 

occupant-less vehicles to retain a 

windshield to protect against injury 

from penetrating objects or ejection 

(FMVSS No. 212), or from windshield 

intrusion (FMVSS No. 219). 

Accordingly, NHTSA is amending 

FMVSS Nos. 212 and 219 in this final 

rule to exclude trucks that are not 

designed to carry at least one person 

(occupant-less vehicles). 

VI. FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash 

Protection 

Making appropriate amendments to 

FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash 

protection is one of the most important 

aspects of this rulemaking. Not only is 

Standard No. 208 a significant 200- 

Series standard, but it includes several 

terms that differentiate a ‘‘driver’s’’ 

position from a front ‘‘passenger’s’’ 

seating position. Thus, translating the 

terms of FMVSS No. 208 to account for 

vehicles that do not have manually 

operated steering controls, or vehicles 

where the manually operated steering 

controls could be stowed, is central to 

this final rule. 

The NPRM discussed proposals for: 

Applying FMVSS No. 208’s advanced 

air bag requirements to front outboard 

seats without manually operated driving 

controls (including to seats that had 

been considered a driver’s seat); 

applying the standard’s telltale 

requirements; applying requirements for 

front outboard seats to seats that are no 

longer ‘‘outboard’’; and suppressing 

vehicle motion when a child restraint 

system is sensed in a seating position 

with manually operated steering 

controls. The NPRM also proposed 

amending FMVSS No. 208’s bus 

requirements to account for buses 

equipped with ADS and that lack 

manually operated steering controls. 

FMVSS No. 208 currently establishes 

crash protection requirements that are 

the same for the driver’s designated 

seating position (DSP) as for the right 

front outboard seating position 

(commonly referred to as the front 

passenger seat). The vehicle’s 

compliance with the requirements is 

assessed in a frontal crash test using 

adult-sized crash test dummies. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 18575 

42Further, NHTSA discourages the use of child 

restraints in this driver’s designated seating 

position. A lockable belt at that position might 

imply that the DSP is appropriate for a child 

restraint, and it is not. 

To minimize air bag risks to children 

and small-statured adults, however, 

FMVSS No. 208 also establishes 

‘‘advanced air bag’’ requirements that, 

among other things, require the air bags 

at the right front DSP to either turn off 

automatically in the presence of 

detected young children, or deploy in a 

manner less likely to cause serious or 

fatal injury to child occupants. 

Manufacturers may also choose to 

combine these approaches. Vehicles that 

disable the passenger air bag utilize 

weight sensors and/or other means of 

detecting the presence of young 

children. To test detection capability, 

FMVSS No. 208 specifies that child 

dummies be placed in child restraint 

systems (child seats) that are, in turn, 

placed on the passenger seat. It also 

specifies ‘‘out-of-position’’ tests that are 

conducted with unrestrained child 

dummies sitting, kneeling, standing, or 

lying on the passenger seat. For 

manufacturers that design their 

passenger air bags to deploy in a low 

risk manner, the standard specifies that 

unbelted child dummies be placed 

against the instrument panel. The air 

bag is then deployed. The ability of 

driver air bags to deploy in a low risk 

manner is tested by placing the 5th 

percentile adult female dummy against 

the steering wheel and then deploying 

the air bag. 

In the NPRM, NHTSA tentatively 

concluded that the most practical way 

to maintain occupant protection in 

ADS-equipped vehicles with no 

‘‘manually operated driving controls’’ 

(and thus, with no driver’s seat) would 

be to treat any seat that does not have 

immediate access to such controls as a 

passenger seat under the standard. 

Thus, all front outboard seats in such 

vehicles are front outboard passenger 

seats and would be required to meet 

FMVSS No. 208’s performance 

requirements that currently apply to the 

right front outboard passenger seat. For 

a seat located in the left front outboard 

position, this would be done by 

mirroring the test procedures and 

requirements from the right side. 

Among other things, to maintain the 

level of safety currently afforded to right 

front outboard passengers under FMVSS 

No. 208, NHTSA proposed requiring 

that all front outboard ‘‘passenger seats’’ 

meet advanced air bag requirements. 

Comments 

Commenters were generally 

supportive of the proposed changes to 

FMVSS No. 208. Consumer Reports (CR) 

stated NHTSA should, ‘‘maintain the 

maximum protection under the standard 

in any modification. In the case of 

vehicles without manual controls, this 

means treating each front seat as a front 

outboard passenger seat and requiring 

all the protections required by that 

designation.’’ 

Ford supported the proposal, but with 

a caveat that occupant protection 

requirements should not apply to an 

‘‘occasional use seat’’ which is clearly 

marked. 

Safe Ride News (SRN) supported the 

proposed changes but raised the 

lockability requirements of S7.1.1.5a of 

FMVSS No. 208. These requirements 

require vehicles to have a seat belt 

assembly with a lockable lap belt at 

each seating position to facilitate the 

secure attachment of child restraint 

systems. The standard currently 

excludes the driver’s seating position 

from lockability requirements, since, in 

traditional vehicles, a child restraint 

would not be installed at the driver’s 

seat. SRN suggested NHTSA remove the 

exception from lockability for seats 

without manually operated driving 

controls or with stow-able controls in 

the left front seat. 

Agency Response 

In response, NHTSA emphasizes that 

under this final rule, a left front DSP 

without manually operated driving 

controls is a passenger seat. Similarly, a 

left front DSP with stow-able controls 

will have a mode that makes it a 

passenger seat. In either case, the DSP 

would be required to have a lockable 

seat belt. In response to Ford, we would 

make clear that the requirements would 

apply if the seat in question meets the 

definition of a DSP. Part of the DSP 

definition allows the labeling of certain 

seats as ‘‘not designated for occupancy 

while the vehicle is in motion.’’ We 

believe this addresses Ford’s concern, 

but the agency is not further expanding 

this provision. In the situation of a dualmode vehicle whose controls are always 

in place, i.e., the controls cannot be 

stowed so the seat is always a driver’s 

seat, the lockability requirements would 

not apply, since a child restraint is 

unlikely to be used at this DSP.42 Issues 

relating to children seated in a DSP with 

driving controls are discussed in more 

detail later in this document. 

CalSTA requested that NHTSA ensure 

that any changes in nomenclature 

relative to the terms ‘‘passenger seat’’ or 

‘‘driver’s seat’’ would not degrade 

occupant safety and requested research 

to confirm there is no unintended 

degradation of occupant safety. 

In response, NHTSA emphasizes that 

the left front outboard passenger will be 

required to have the same protection as 

the right front outboard passenger DSP, 

which for adults are the same 

requirements that would apply to a 

driver’s seat. The current occupant 

protection requirements have been in 

place for almost 30 years. The immense 

technical data and information NHTSA 

and the occupant safety community 

have acquired over this period indicate 

there is no difference in the FMVSS No. 

208 protection afforded adult occupants 

by the left or right front seating position. 

The data and other information on 

advanced air bag safety protections also 

indicate there are no technical reasons 

why the protections provided by a seat 

in the right front outboard seating 

position could not be mirrored by a 

passenger seat on the left side. 

Additional research is not necessary to 

verify that protections afforded to one 

seating position would be sufficient for 

the other seating position, as identical 

designs could be applied to the opposite 

sides of a vehicle. 

This final rule adopts the proposal’s 

provisions relating to the left front seat 

when that DSP meets the definition of 

a passenger seating position. The final 

rule makes minor clarifying changes to 

the regulatory text in response to 

comments, which are discussed below. 

This final rule adopts the provisions of 

the NPRM that relate to advanced air 

bag requirements, telltale requirements 

(indicating air bag suppression for the 

left front outboard seating position), and 

other requirements, except as discussed 

below. 

a. Advanced Air Bags 

As discussed in the proposal, 

applying advanced air bag requirements 

to all front outboard seating positions 

maintains the current levels of safety for 

ADS-equipped vehicles without 

manually operated driving controls. 

Applying the requirements meets the 

need for safety because an occupant will 

receive the same crash protection 

whether they choose to sit in the left or 

right front outboard seat. In addition, an 

important benefit of advanced air bags 

over conventional air bags is the 

protection of out-of-position occupants, 

particularly children. In a traditional 

vehicle, the occupant in the driver’s seat 

is typically an adult. In contrast, 

occupants of the left front outboard 

passenger seats in an ADS-equipped 

vehicle without manually operated 

driving controls could possibly be 

children, as there would be no driving 

control mechanism at any position that 

may deter occupancy of the seating 

position by a child. NHTSA tentatively 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
18576 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

43These groups also suggested the Agency look to 

information presented at the November 2019 

meeting, NHTSA Research Public Meeting, 

[www.regulations.com NHTSA–2019–0083–0007]. 

Among many topics, this meeting covered research 

on vulnerable and disabled road users. The Agency 

presented a brief summary of a research program 

entitled ‘‘Vulnerable and Disabled Road Users: 

Considerations Inside and Outside the Vehicle.’’ 

The research program is ongoing and scheduled for 

completion in 2022. 

concluded in the NPRM that the most 

straightforward way to protect children 

against air bag risks would be to require 

that any front outboard seat that could 

potentially be occupied by a child (i.e., 

a passenger seat) must meet the current 

advanced air bag requirements. This 

final rule adopts the provisions of the 

NPRM that relate to the protection of the 

left front seat occupant when that DSP 

meets this final rule’s definition of a 

passenger seating position. 

With regard to the static suppression 

requirement of FMVSS No. 208 S22.2 

for the 3-year-old child dummy, GM and 

the Alliance asked that the regulatory 

text ‘‘clearly specify that suppression is 

tested only for the seating position 

where the child dummy is placed.’’ 

NHTSA agrees the clarification is 

warranted and has added language to 

S22.1 to make clear that the relevant air 

bag that is to be suppressed is the air 

bag associated with the designated 

seating position being assessed. NHTSA 

has made similar clarifications to the 

text of FMVSS No. 208 regarding tests 

with the 12-month-old (S20.2) and 6- 

year-old (S24.2) child dummies. 

NADA commented that air bag switch 

installation should apply, ‘‘to the extent 

applicable and appropriate.’’ However, 

air bag on/off switch requirements 

comprise a topic beyond the scope of 

this rulemaking. Accordingly, NHTSA is 

not considering this suggestion in this 

rulemaking. 

b. Telltales 

FMVSS No. 208 currently requires 

that vehicles display a telltale, visible to 

the front row occupants, which 

indicates whether the front outboard 

passenger seat air bag is suppressed. 

Given that this rulemaking may result in 

multiple front outboard passenger seats, 

NHTSA proposed amending this 

requirement to specify that a separate 

telltale would be required for each 

outboard front passenger seat based 

upon the belief that doing so would 

maintain the current level of safety 

provided by the standard. The NPRM 

proposed that the current telltale’s 

substantive performance criteria would 

remain the same to provide occupants 

with the same level of information about 

the status of each pertinent air bag as 

provided by the current standard. 

Because the left front seat without 

manually operated controls would be a 

passenger seat, the NPRM proposed to 

require an additional telltale. 

Commenters had differing views on 

this issue. The Alliance and GM 

requested that NHTSA consider a single 

telltale unit for both front outboard 

seating positions, so long as that telltale 

is visible from each seating position. 

The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) stated, 

‘‘it is important for occupants to verify 

the operational capability of safetycritical equipment in vehicles they 

occupy, including telltales for 

suppression-based advanced air bag 

systems.’’ Safe Ride News (SRN) 

supported requiring seat-specific 

telltales. Various commenters had 

concerns or suggestions that are 

addressed below. 

Agency Response 

The final rule adopts the provisions of 

the NPRM, with a few modifications in 

response to comments received. The 

Alliance and GM requested allowing a 

single telltale for both front outboard 

seating positions. It is NHTSA’s position 

that, while a single telltale unit that 

distinguishes both indicators would be 

acceptable, a single light indicating the 

suppression status of both air bag 

systems, but not distinguishing their 

individual state of suppression would 

not. Separate suppression telltales 

clarify which associated seating position 

is suppressed, allowing the 

corresponding passenger to respond to 

the information with appropriate action. 

Separate suppression telltales verify to 

the caregiver of children placed in 

seating positions that the corresponding 

air bag is suppressed and allow other 

users to determine whether the air bag 

corresponding to their seating position 

is properly functioning. Thus, this final 

rule requires the telltale to be clearly 

recognizable to a driver and any front 

outboard passenger with which seat 

each telltale is associated. 

IIHS argued that the proposal’s use of 

‘‘any’’ in reference to seating position 

requirements from which telltales 

required by FMVSS Nos. 226 (S4.2.2) 

and 208 (S19.2.2(d)) must be visible, is 

ambiguous, and suggested that the final 

rule use the term ‘‘all.’’ The IIHS 

comment seems to interpret the 

proposal as seeking to require that the 

suppression telltale be visible from any 

DSP in the vehicle. This is incorrect. 

The proposal restricted visibility to the 

front outboard seats for the FMVSS No. 

208 telltale. Accordingly, the final rule 

will retain the word ‘‘any’’ in FMVSS 

No. 208 S19.2.2(d). Comments specific 

to the FMVSS No. 226 telltale are 

addressed later in this document. 

Safe Ride News commented that the 

location should be ‘‘on the dash in easyto-see, logical juxtaposition to the seat 

for which it applies.’’ On the other 

hand, the Automotive Safety Council 

(ASC) believed that the location of the 

telltale should be chosen to provide 

information regardless of where an adult 

may be seated in the vehicle. As noted 

above in our response to IIHS, we 

decline to implement the suggestion 

that the suppression telltales be visible 

from all seating positions. While 

expanding telltale visibility 

requirements generally is worthy of 

discussion, it is beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking. As stated elsewhere in the 

proposal and this document, NHTSA 

plans to issue a separate notice that will 

focus on telltales and warnings for ADSequipped vehicles. In the interim, this 

final rule will establish requirements 

that will allow front seat occupants in 

vehicles without manual controls to 

determine whether either outboard front 

seating position has a suppressed air 

bag. 

Disability rights advocacy groups 

(National Disability Rights Network 

(NDRN), Disability Rights Education 

Fund (DREDF), and the Consortium for 

Citizens with Disabilities (CCD)) 

requested that NHTSA consider adding 

audible or haptic alerts to the visual 

alerts for suppression telltale 

information.43 NHTSA is not aware of 

any previous implementation of haptic 

non-driving related warnings. More 

information and research may be 

necessary to implement types of layered 

alerts to ensure that vehicle occupants 

receive clear information that would not 

confuse or conflict with other 

information. NHTSA is aware that 

audible warnings have been 

implemented and there may be merit to 

such an implementation. However, as 

we reasoned above, we decline to 

implement audible warnings now 

because they require a larger discussion 

and more input on how best to achieve 

the goals of providing information, 

while also avoiding confusing vehicle 

occupants. That discussion is beyond 

the scope of this rulemaking but could 

be explored in the forthcoming notice 

on telltales. The agency notes, though, 

that nothing in this rule would prohibit 

audible or haptic alerts when used to 

complement the required visual alert. 

IEE expressed concern that ADSequipped vehicles might have no seat 

belt warning system as required by 

FMVSS No. 208, S7.3 because they may 

have no driver’s DSP. IEE recommended 

that NHTSA require a seat belt reminder 

system in ADS vehicles that provides 

audio-visual warnings for unbelted 

occupants. The requested revisions are 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 18577 

44 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 

Act of 1991, Public Law 102–240, 2508 (Dec. 18, 

1991). 

45To clarify, Ford suggested these occupant 

protection requirements should not apply to an 

‘‘occasional use seat’’ which is clearly marked. This 

comment was addressed previously in this 

preamble. 

46These are set forth in the Executive Summary 

at the beginning of this preamble. 

beyond the scope of the present 

rulemaking. NHTSA may consider this 

issue in future agency work related to 

telltales and indicators for ADSequipped vehicles. 

c. Front Outboard Versus Center or 

Inboard Seating Position 

An ‘‘outboard seating position’’ is 

defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as ‘‘a 

designated seating position where a 

longitudinal vertical plane tangent to 

the outboard side of the seat cushion is 

less than 12 inches from the innermost 

point on the inside surface of the 

vehicle at a height between the design 

H-point and the shoulder reference 

point (as shown in fig. 1 of Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210) 

and longitudinally between the front 

and rear edges of the seat cushion.’’ 

FMVSS No. 208 requires, for most light 

vehicles (GVWR less than 4,536 kg 

(10,000 lb.)), each ‘‘outboard designated 

seating position,’’ including the driver’s 

seat, to have a lap/shoulder (Type 2) 

seat belt assembly that conforms to 

FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. 

Moreover, the subset of light vehicles 

that have a GVWR of less than 3,855 kg 

(8,500 lb.) and unloaded weight of 2,495 

kg (5,500 lb.) are statutorily required 44

to have frontal air bag protection at the 

driver’s and right front DSPs, which are 

evaluated by FMVSS No. 208’s frontal 

barrier crash tests. Under FMVSS No. 

208, any center seating positions in 

these light vehicles can be equipped 

with only a lap belt. 

In the NPRM, NHTSA acknowledged 

that future vehicle designs might not 

have two front outboard seating 

positions. The agency sought to amend 

FMVSS No. 208 to be inclusive of and 

account for ADS-equipped vehicles 

(particularly those without driving 

controls) that might not have a front left 

outboard DSP or, for that matter, any 

outboard DSP, as those terms are 

defined in NHTSA’s regulations. 

NHTSA envisioned that one or both of 

the outboard seating positions on a 

current vehicle could be moved toward 

the center of the vehicle and thus fall 

outside of the outboard seating position 

definition. NHTSA sought to amend 

FMVSS No. 208 to provide occupants of 

an ADS-equipped vehicle with fewer 

than two front outboard seating 

positions no degradation in the crash 

protection now required by the standard 

for vehicles that are not ADS vehicles. 

The agency requested comment on 

including in the final rule air bag 

(including out-of-position occupant 

protection) and lap/shoulder (Type 2) 

seat belt protection to these inboard 

seating positions if outboard positions 

were removed. We also requested 

comment on the implications of such 

designs upon the statutory obligation for 

frontal air bags. 

Comments 

Several entities, primarily consumer 

advocacy groups, commented in favor of 

providing Type 2 belts and air bags at 

all inboard seats. The Center for Auto 

Safety (CAS) stated that both lap/ 

shoulder belts and air bags should be 

required for inboard seating positions in 

ADS-equipped vehicles. Safe Ride News 

(SRN) commented that the front center 

seating position in ADS and non-ADS 

vehicles ‘‘should no longer be allowed 

to be equipped with Type 1 (lap-only) 

belts, which are far less protective than 

Type 2 belts.’’ SRN noted that it believes 

this request is even more important 

since it expects it will be more likely 

that children would be seated in the 

front row in ADS-equipped vehicles, 

though did not provide any support for 

this expectation. IEE requested FMVSS 

No. 208 require advanced air bags at 

inboard seats. The Automotive Safety 

Council (ASC) stated that ‘‘automated 

vehicles may have increased usage/ 

presence of a center seating position, 

possibly without accompanying 

outboard seating positions.’’ ASC argued 

that ‘‘it is reasonable’’ to apply the outof-position advanced air bag 

requirements for all front designated 

seating positions. IIHS stated that all 

designated seating positions should 

receive ‘‘the same level of crash 

protection’’ in ADS-equipped vehicles, 

and that front row center positions 

should be required to have Type 2 belts 

and air bag protection. 

Some commenters focused on the 

protection that should be afforded a 

single center seat. The Alliance 

commented that ‘‘[w]here there is only 

a single forward-facing front row center 

seat (and no other front row seating 

positions), current levels of FMVSS 208 

crash performance, including advanced 

air bag performance criteria, if 

applicable, should be required for that 

position.’’ However, the commenter also 

stated, ‘‘there should not be a specific 

air bag installment requirement to meet 

this crash performance.’’ Ford expressed 

support for the final rule ‘‘to apply the 

current performance requirements for 

the passenger seat called out in FMVSS 

[No.] 208, to both outboard positions 

when there are no controls, or to the 

center seat when the outboard seating 

positions are absent.’’ 45 GM also 

suggested that ‘‘where there is only a 

single forward-facing front row center 

seat, GM supports applying current right 

front outboard passenger side FMVSS 

[No.] 208 crash performance 

requirements.’’ ZF argued that if a single 

seat is installed in the front of the 

vehicle without driving controls, that 

occupant should be protected in the 

same manner as an outboard passenger 

occupant, including seat belts, and an 

air bag. The National Automobile 

Dealers Association (NADA) stated that 

‘‘any vehicle (ADS-equipped or 

otherwise) with a single forward-facing 

front row center seat should be subject 

to FMVSS [No.] 208 crash performance 

requirements, including applicable 

advanced air bag performance criteria.’’ 

Several commenters requested 

additional research on the issue. Waymo 

stated ‘‘considerable technical research 

and a new proposed rule’’ may be 

needed to address the protection that 

should be offered to inboard front seats 

when there are no outboard seats. 

Waymo also stated that ‘‘[i]f such 

seating arrangements are in fact likely,’’ 

Waymo prefers that NHTSA finalize this 

rule and deal with this ‘‘novel’’ issue in 

a separate rulemaking. Tesla urged 

NHTSA first to conduct research on the 

appropriateness and type of equipment 

(especially for out-of-position) that is 

needed to protect an occupant in the 

non-outboard seating position, 

including, e.g., where the center seat 

could serve as both an armrest for 

outboard occupants and a foldable seat. 

CalSTA recommended further testing to 

ensure there is not an unintended 

compromise to occupant safety if 

implemented. 

Agency Response 

In deciding how to respond in this 

final rule to the comments expressed on 

this topic, NHTSA considered its 

guiding principles for this rulemaking.46

One principle is for NHTSA to take 

every effort to maintain the level of 

crashworthiness performance in ADSequipped vehicles without traditional 

manual controls currently required for 

vehicles without ADS functionality. 

Another is for NHTSA to adapt existing 

FMVSS requirements to ADS-equipped 

vehicles in a way that does not change 

requirements for non-ADS vehicles. In 

addition, NHTSA seeks to modify the 

FMVSSs in a manner that is more 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
18578 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

attentive to the innovative interior 

designs that are expected to accompany 

ADS-equipped vehicles. 

Applying these principles, NHTSA’s 

decisions focus on protecting the public 

and minimizing any potential loss in 

crash protection provided by vehicles if 

outboard seats are removed in favor of 

inboard seats. Further, NHTSA 

primarily seeks to retain the protections 

from existing requirements in a manner 

that allows for innovators to develop 

certain alternative configurations that 

can accommodate vehicles with ADS. 

NHTSA has also made decisions 

considering the practicability of meeting 

requirements and the reasonableness of 

applying current FMVSS No. 208 

requirements to inboard seat designs. 

Taking these principles into account, 

NHTSA notes that passenger cars, 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks 

and buses with a GVWR of less than 

3,855 kg (8,500 lb.) and unloaded 

weight of 2,495 kg (5,500 lb.) are already 

required to have advanced air bag 

systems installed at the front outboard 

seating positions. Accordingly, the 

agency has decided to apply the FMVSS 

No. 208 protections now applying to the 

outboard seating positions to inboard 

seating positions, to the extent 

technically feasible. This final rule 

adopts a balanced path between the 

commenters that desire air bag and lap/ 

shoulder belt protection at all inboard 

seats and those that believe such 

protection should be required only at a 

single inboard seat. 

To accomplish this, this final rule will 

implement the following (see Figure 1). 

First, FMVSS No. 208 currently protects 

two designated seating positions in the 

front row of seats with a ‘‘full’’ suite of 

occupant protection countermeasures: 

Type 2 (lap/shoulder belt system), and 

an advanced air bag system. Those 

protected seats are currently the 

outboard seating positions. To maintain 

FMVSS No. 208’s protection of two 

seating positions in the front row—to 

the extent technically feasible—this 

final rule continues protecting two 

designated seating positions in the front 

row with the full suite of protective 

countermeasures (Type 2 belt and 

advanced air bag). Thus, where there is 

a single inboard seat and one or no 

outboard seats, the single inboard seat 

would be required to have lap/shoulder 

seat belts and advanced air bag 

protection in that single front row 

inboard seat, and any one remaining 

outboard seat will continue to offer the 

same protection as it does currently in 

vehicles with driving controls (the full 

suite of crash protection). 

Second, NHTSA considered a front 

row with multiple inboard seats and one 

or no outboard seats. As discussed 

above, this final rule seeks to maintain 

protecting two designated seating 

positions in the front row with the full 

suite of protective countermeasures 

(Type 2 belt and advanced air bag). 

Thus, for this situation, the protection 

required by the vehicle depends on 

whether there is a remaining single 

outboard seat or not. If there is a 

remaining single outboard seat, that 

outboard DSP will be required to 

provide the full suite of protection (lap/ 

shoulder seat belts and advanced air bag 

protection), and one of the inboard seats 

will be required to offer the same full 

suite. The manufacturer will have the 

discretion to determine which of the 

inboard seats will offer this protection. 

The other inboard seat (if any) would 

only require a lap belt (a lap/shoulder 

belt may be provided at the 

manufacturers’ choice), as this is the 

requirement now specified for an 

inboard first row seat under FMVSS No. 

208. Thus, the protection offered by this 

configuration is essentially the same as 

vehicles with driving controls and three 

front seats (i.e., two DSPs with full suite 

of protection and one with lap belt 

protection). 

In the second case, it is possible there 

is no outboard seat, but multiple 

inboard seats. For this situation, only a 

single inboard seat will be required to 

provide the full suite of protection (lap/ 

shoulder seat belts and advanced air bag 

protection). The other inboard seat will 

only be required to offer a lap/shoulder 

belt. While the agency would like to 

require the full suite of protections for 

two DSPs in accordance with our 

principles above, we are not requiring a 

full suite of protection for the second 

DSP because of potential safety risks 

posed by air bags operating in close 

proximity to each other (e.g., interaction 

between the two air bags or between 

occupants in close proximity when 

reacting to the air bags), as in the case 

of two inboard side-by-side seats. 

Commenters Waymo, Tesla and CalSTA 

suggested that additional research may 

be needed to discern if there are any 

unintended consequences related to 

more than one inboard seat with frontal 

air bag protection being in close 

proximity. NHTSA agrees with these 

commenters and plans to conduct 

research to determine the minimum 

lateral distance between the seats where 

air bag protection could be provided to 

both DSPs. The agency does not know 

how commonly such vehicle 

configurations will be produced and 

will seek additional information on this 

issue before pursuing a regulatory 

mandate. 

To be clear, NHTSA does not believe 

any such research is needed for the 

situation where a single inboard 

passenger seat has frontal air bag 

protection, even with another non-air 

bag protected seat in close proximity. 

Neither does NHTSA believe that a 

separate rulemaking is necessary to 

provide FMVSS No. 208 protections to 

a single inboard seating position. This is 

because the technology required in that 

situation is used by the millions in 

vehicles today, with decades of 

experience (currently there are front 

outboard seating positions with Type 2 

belts and air bags right next to a center 

seating position with a lap belt or Type 

2 belt). Vehicle manufacturers may need 

to address the specifics of the vehicle 

interior geometry and crash pulse to 

develop an appropriate design, but the 

agency has no reason to believe that 

providing a full suite of protection to a 

single inboard seat will be more 

challenging than for an outboard seat. 

The above specified regulatory 

changes have been implemented in 

S4.1.5.6 and S4.5.6.4 of FMVSS No. 208. 

The regulatory approach taken in these 

sections was to point to the test 

procedures as specified for front 

outboard designated seating positions 

and apply them to the inboard seats, as 

appropriate. We believe that, except as 

noted below for bench seat positioning, 

the procedures as written can be 

performed on inboard seats, without 

adaptations. The agency has made 

minor edits to S16.2.10 and S16.2.10.3 

to clarify positioning of inboard seats, in 

the case where seat positioning cannot 

be independently controlled. 

Finally, NHTSA carefully considered 

the Alliance comment on inboard seat 

protection suggesting that current levels 

of crash performance be provided, 

including advanced air bag performance 

criteria, but without a specific air bag 

installation requirement. We interpreted 

this to mean that any stipulation for 

‘‘inflatable restraint’’ should be removed 

from S4.1.5.6.3, with all other 

provisions remaining. The agency is 

declining to make this change at this 

time. The text is clearer with the 

reference to ‘‘inflatable restraint’’ than 

without it. Also, there are questions of 

scope related to this request and 

NHTSA would like to consider further 

comments on the suggestion. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 18579 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

d. Suppression of Vehicle Motion When 

a Child Is Detected in the Driver’s Seat 

Because some ADS-equipped vehicles 

may be designed with a driver’s seat 

(i.e., a seat with immediate access to 

manually operated driving controls), 

NHTSA explored the possibility that a 

child may be seated in a driver’s seat 

during ADS operation. As stated 

previously, NHTSA believes that 

children should not occupy the driver’s 

position when the vehicle is operating 

in ADS mode and steering controls are 

present. Such a situation might occur 

when a caregiver places a child in this 

seat or when an older child places 

themselves in this position. This is a 

concern because a driver’s seat is not a 

passenger seat, a driver’s seat would not 

be subject to advanced air bag 

requirements protecting out-of-position 

children from air bag risks. In addition, 

the crash protection in the driver’s seat 

is not tailored to a child. NHTSA was 

concerned about this possibility and 

proposed that ADS-equipped vehicles 

that have manually operated driving 

controls must render the vehicle 

incapable of motion if a child is 

detected in the driver’s seat. The agency 

proposed that the ADS vehicle would be 

tested for compliance with this ‘‘motion 

suppression’’ requirement using the 12- 

month-old, 3-year-old and 6-year-old 

child test dummies currently used for 

out-of-position testing in the standard. 

Many comments discussed this aspect 

of the proposal, with a variety of 

approaches. In general, commenters on 

this topic acknowledged that a potential 

problem exists that should be addressed 

but differed in their approach to a 

solution and beliefs about the readiness 

for a regulatory solution. Many nonindustry commenters agreed with the 

proposal, as did some suppliers and an 

ADS developer. However, a couple 

commenters raised concerns about the 

proposal. Additional details on these 

comments are provided below. 

Many commenters, including 

Consumer Reports, Safe Ride News 

(SRN), Johns Hopkins University, IIHS, 

IEE, the Automotive Safety Council 

(ASC), and the Center for Auto Safety 

(CAS) supported NHTSA’s proposal to 

require motion suppression if a child 

were detected in the driver’s seat of an 

ADS-equipped vehicle. CAS stated that 

the vehicle should be immovable if any 

child were detected in the driver’s seat 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3ER30MR22.000</GPH>

K 

Conventional 3 Seat Row 

~ 

~ 

Front Row of Seats 

Row with No Outboard Seats 

AB at one DSP 

' AB A ' >12 in. .) I( >12in. ) Type 2 " Type 2 

Front Row of Seats Front Row of Seats 

Row with One Outboard Seat 

Type 2 and AB at 

one DSP 

Type 1 

or2 

Front Row of Seats 

,,,~-~~~, AB ~ >12m. ) 

V Type 2 

Front Row of Seats 

Figure 1- Schematic of air bag (AB) and seat belt protection for vehicles without driving controls 

and fewer than 2 outboard DSPs (provided for illustration purposes only). 
18580 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

47Many commenters were under the mistaken 

impression that the NPRM only proposed that the 

12-month-old CRABI dummy was to be used to 

assure vehicle motion suppression. To clarify, the 

NPRM proposed to use the 12-month-old, the 3- 

year-old, and the 6-year-old child dummies in the 

proposed procedure. 

48At this time, NHTSA is not aware of any 

production-ready technical solution for occupant 

detection that would be able to discriminate 

between a 6-year-old or younger child and an adult 

of a similar or smaller size, and does not know of 

a test procedure that could be used to test a 

system’s ability to do so. 

49This decision accords with E.O. 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, Section 1. 

while the vehicle is stationary and 

should revert to a safe stop if a child is 

detected in the driver’s seat while 

underway. CAS and SRN recommended 

that the suppression test be performed 

with a Hybrid III 10-year-old child test 

dummy. Johns Hopkins University 

requested research on the behavior of 

occupants of various ages and sizes 

when seated as passengers in the driver 

position to ensure that they will receive 

the same protections. 

In contrast, a number of commenters 

expressed concerns about the proposal. 

The NDRN explained that ‘‘child 

protections that limit the vehicle’s 

motion would have the unintended 

consequence of prohibiting access and 

discriminating against adult drivers of 

short stature.’’ This concern was also 

expressed by DREDF and CCS. NDRN 

stated that a vehicle’s sensors would not 

know the difference between a child 

and an adult driver whose weight and 

height may be similar. The Alliance 

stated that ‘‘whenever a child can be 

placed in front of an air bag when the 

vehicle is in motion the appropriate 

advanced air bag requirements should 

apply at that seating position.’’ That 

said, the Alliance argued that ‘‘the issue 

of vehicle motion suppression does not 

fall within the category of a simple 

technical translation of current FMVSS 

[No.] 208 requirements,’’ but is an 

‘‘operational topic’’ that NHTSA can 

and should address ‘‘on a separate 

track.’’ Waymo stated that it recognized 

the importance of protecting small 

children from air bag risks but had 

concerns about the proposed vehicle 

motion suppression approach. Waymo 

stated, ‘‘it may be technically feasible to 

address that risk by requiring the same 

advanced air bag protections in the 

driver’s seat of dual-mode vehicles as 

those that are currently required in the 

right front outboard passenger seat. In 

fact, there may be other technical 

solutions that would obviate the need 

for the NPRM’s proposal. . . . Waymo 

is confident that auto manufacturers can 

develop sound technical ways to 

address this issue.’’ 

Ford stated that it ‘‘appreciates 

NHTSA’s safety concerns for child seats 

mounted in the driver seat of a ‘Dual 

mode’ AV when the ADS is active,’’ but 

sought an additional compliance option 

beyond motion suppression. Ford 

identified two risk categories for 

children in the driver’s seat: Crash 

protections; and unintentional takeover 

of the driving task. Ford stated that the 

crash protection risk could be addressed 

by ‘‘[e]nsur[ing] the same level of crash 

protection for children of various ages 

in the driver seat position as provided 

today in the passenger outboard seating 

position,’’ while the risk of 

unintentional take-over could be 

addressed ‘‘by suppressing manual 

requests to the steering control in ADS 

mode when a child is detected in the 

driver seat.’’ GM asserted that motion 

suppression for dual-mode ADSvehicles should not be the focus of the 

NPRM, but that it ‘‘is aligned with the 

need to address child occupant safety in 

dual-mode ADS-equipped vehicles and 

would support applying existing air bag 

suppression requirements (and/or low 

risk deployment) to accomplish this.’’ 

Agency Response 

NHTSA has decided not to adopt the 

proposal for motion suppression of the 

vehicle in this final rule. Additional 

information is needed to gain a fuller 

understanding of potential unintended 

consequences of the proposal, the 

potential safety problem related to 

interaction with driving controls, and 

available regulatory solutions before a 

final decision can be made. While the 

agency believes that FMVSS No. 208’s 

air bag suppression test procedure could 

form the basis of a test procedure for a 

vehicle motion suppression regulatory 

option, such as that proposed in the 

NPRM,47 additional work is necessary to 

address problems relating to a vehicle’s 

sensors distinguishing between a child 

and an adult driver similar in size to a 

child.48

While several commenters suggested 

potential alternative regulatory 

solutions, they are outside of the scope 

of this rulemaking, require research to 

determine their technical feasibility, or 

require further analysis to determine 

whether they would be consistent with 

the requirements of the Safety Act. 

Some suggested requiring the same 

advanced air bag protections in the 

driver’s seat of dual-mode vehicles as 

those that are currently required in the 

right front outboard passenger seat. That 

approach does not address concerns 

with the effect the manually operated 

driving controls themselves could have 

on the children’s crash protection. For 

instance, would an infant in a rearfacing child restraint in a seating 

position with a steering control system 

be adequately protected when the air 

bag is suppressed? Would a child in a 

forward-facing child restraint in a 

seating position with a steering control 

system be adequately protected when 

the air bag is suppressed or in a low risk 

deployment state? How should test 

procedures be developed to assess the 

crash protection provided to children in 

a driver’s seating positions relative to 

the passenger position? While caregivers 

are taught to transport children in rear 

seating positions, to what extent would 

children be transported in ADS vehicles 

in seating positions that have manually 

operated driving controls? To finalize a 

rule in this area, the agency would like 

to answer these questions, and those 

answers require additional research. 

NHTSA plans to initiate research into 

the possibility of alternative regulatory 

options that allow vehicle motion, but 

that also address the risk of children in 

a driver’s seat. The agency is interested 

in the development of an analogous 

procedure to the child passenger low 

risk deployment tests, but for seats with 

manual controls. A test could be 

developed that assesses the injury risk 

from a deploying air bag on an out of 

position child. Another aspect of this 

research may attempt to discern 

whether the presence of the steering 

control (even with a suppressed or low 

risk deployment air bag) results in an 

unreasonable safety risk to an inposition child in the driver’s seat 

compared to a child in a passenger seat. 

While NHTSA has decided not to 

proceed with adopting the proposed 

requirement for vehicle motion 

suppression, we disagree with the 

assertion that this proposal was not 

appropriate for the rulemaking. While 

the rulemaking focused on translating 

the current FMVSS No. 208 

requirements to account for ADS 

vehicles, the agency appropriately 

discerned what it believed to be a crash 

protection issue and a risk case that is 

a consequence of the vehicle design 

changes that may accompany vehicles 

equipped with ADS technology. After 

review of the comments, NHTSA has 

concluded that more information is 

needed to identify and understand the 

nature and extent of the potential safety 

problem and available regulatory 

alternatives.49 The agency anticipates 

revisiting this issue as more is learned 

from research and as the technologies 

develop. 

e. Belts in Buses 

FMVSS No. 208 establishes seat belt 

requirements for ‘‘medium-sized’’ buses 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 18581 

50FMVSS No. 222, ‘‘School bus passenger seating 

and crash protection,’’ considers buses with a 

GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb.) as large 

school buses (S5(a)). 

(with a GVWR between 4,536 kg (10,000 

lb) and 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)) and 

‘‘large’’ buses (GVWR greater than 

11,793 kg (26,000 lb)). For school buses, 

the driver’s seating position is required 

to have a Type 2 seat belt. For the other 

buses, the driver’s seating position is 

required to have a Type 1 or 2 seat belt 

(alternatively, a vehicle may meet a 

crash test option in FMVSS No. 208, 

depending on the vehicle). The NPRM 

sought comment on how the belt 

requirement should apply to an ADS 

bus that does not have a driver’s seat. 

Comments were requested on whether 

the standard should require a seat belt 

for all front seats, for just the left front 

outboard seating position, or for only at 

least one front passenger seat. NHTSA 

proposed that all front passenger seats 

should be protected with the same level 

of protection that would apply to the 

driver of a non-ADS vehicle. Our stated 

rationale was that there is likely a 

similar safety risk in all front row seats 

of these medium and large buses and 

that the prediction of where an 

individual might sit in the front row is 

likely to change in ADS-equipped 

vehicles. The NPRM discussed concerns 

with arbitrarily determining which front 

row occupant receives the protection of 

a seat belt or allowing manufacturers to 

make that determination. (See proposed 

amendments to FMVSS No. 208 

S4.4.4.1.2, S4.4.4.2 and S4.4.5.3.) 

Many commenters (including the 

Alliance, Hyundai, Safe Kids, CAS, 

CalSTA, the Automotive Safety Council 

(ASC), Safe Ride News (SRN)) 

supported NHTSA’s proposal. ASC also 

believed the proposed text should apply 

regardless of whether they are ADS or 

non-ADS vehicles and suggested there 

should be a seat belt warning for each 

position. SRN believed that the 

occupant protection formerly provided 

for an adult driver should be available 

for a supervisory adult or adults in 

school buses with ADS. 

Agency Response 

The final rule adopts the proposed 

changes to the seat belts required for the 

front seats of medium sized buses 

(GVWR or more than 4,536 kg (10,000 

lb), but not greater than 11,793 (26,000 

lb)) without driver’s DSPs, but will not 

proceed with the changes for large 

school buses (GVWR of more than 4,536 

kg (10,000 lb)).50 We will separate this 

discussion into large school buses and 

medium size non-school buses. 

For large school buses described 

above, we have decided that more 

examination is necessary before 

finalizing a requirement. The FMVSS 

No. 222 compartmentalization 

requirements for passenger seats remain 

in place. We believe any changes to the 

compartmentalization requirement of 

FMVSS No. 222 for front row seats of 

novel ADS-equipped school buses 

require a more fulsome discussion 

before moving forward. 

NHTSA is finalizing its proposal for 

medium size buses, other than school 

buses, to require the same occupant 

protection at the front seat of an ADS as 

would currently be met by the driver’s 

seat. However, modifying existing 

FMVSSs to require seat belt warnings 

for each bus seat would be outside the 

scope of this rulemaking. 

CAS submitted that school buses 

should not be included in this 

rulemaking due to the unique role a 

human driver has in interacting with 

and overseeing the student occupants. 

The commenter is concerned about a 

rulemaking that has the effect of 

encouraging the development of school 

buses with ADS, because school buses 

rely on the human driver for more tasks 

such as ‘‘safety during ingress and 

egress, for discipline while underway, 

and for emergency evacuation in a 

variety of life-endangering situations.’’ 

They argue that ‘‘any proposed rule on 

occupant protection for driverless 

school buses should be withdrawn 

unless and until all safety aspects of 

such operation are considered.’’ 

In response, NHTSA believes the CAS 

request that this rulemaking action 

exclude any changes that affect school 

buses is unwarranted. The final rule 

simply updates terms in the standards 

to make them technology-neutral to 

account for ADS-equipped vehicles, 

particularly those without manual 

controls, while providing the same 

amount of occupant protection. NHTSA 

notes that Federal law does not prohibit 

installation of an ADS on a school bus, 

currently. CAS did not provide any 

particularized safety issues within the 

scope of this rulemaking that would 

justify NHTSA’s not proceeding with 

amending the school bus FMVSSs. 

NHTSA does not regulate the use or 

operation of school buses, so even with 

this final rule, States or local school 

districts can continue to purchase only 

non-ADS school buses if they wish to do 

so, and existing operational and 

supervisory requirements on a State, 

local or school district level could apply 

as well. 

f. Corrections to FMVSS No. 208 

Regulatory Text 

NHTSA realized from some of the 

comments that editorial corrections 

should be made to some of the 

provisions of FMVSS No. 208. 

Zoox believed that a change in 

S19.2.2(e) is needed for consistency 

throughout the regulatory text. NHTSA 

agrees with Zoox that S19.2.2(e) should 

be changed such that the reference to 

the ‘‘right front passenger’’ is changed to 

‘‘any front outboard passenger.’’ The 

agency believes this is consistent with 

changes made throughout the FMVSSs 

to address the situation where there may 

be more than one front outboard 

passenger. 

FMVSS No. 208, S4.2 defines, for use 

in that section, the term ‘‘vehicles 

manufactured for operation by persons 

with disabilities.’’ The purpose of this 

definition was to allow an exception to 

the type of seat belt required in the 

driver’s seating position in S4.2.1.2(b), 

which is a superseded section of 

FMVSS No. 208. The National Disability 

Rights Network (NDRN) commented 

that ‘‘[l]anguage needs to be added to 

these provisions that takes into 

consideration the potential for 

wheelchair accessible ADS-equipped 

vehicles without manual controls or a 

driver’s seat and reference to a front left 

outboard seat.’’ 

In response, S4.2.1.2(b) has been 

superseded and the term ‘‘vehicles 

manufactured for operation by persons 

with disabilities’’ is no longer used 

anywhere in active portions of FMVSS 

No. 208, aside from the definition that 

is provided in S4.2. NHTSA interprets 

NDRN’s comment as requesting that 

‘‘vehicles manufactured for operation by 

persons with disabilities’’ be added in 

active portions of FMVSS No. 208, as 

had been included in superseded 

portions of the standard. Though such a 

request is outside the scope of this final 

rule and requires additional analysis, 

NHTSA may consider similar language 

in future rulemakings. 

VII. Amendments to Various FMVSSs 

This section discusses comments 

received on proposed amendments to 

various FMVSSs. 

FMVSS Nos. 203, Impact Protection for 

the Driver From the Steering Control 

System and 204, Steering Control 

Rearward Displacement 

NHTSA proposed modifying the 

application section (S2) of FMVSS Nos. 

203 and 204 to state that the standards 

do not apply to vehicles without 

steering controls. The agency tentatively 

determined that the proposed changes 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
18582 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

51The preamble stated (85 FR at 17630): ‘‘The 

Agency notes that other barriers, such as those 

involving the ejection mitigation countermeasure 

indicator included in FMVSS No. 226, would be 

more appropriately addressed in the Agency’s 

planned future notice relating to the appropriate 

applicability of telltale requirements in ADSequipped vehicles.’’ 

would not reduce vehicle safety 

because, if no steering control is present 

at the seating position where the 

driver’s seat would normally be located, 

that seating position would become a 

passenger seat that is still subject to the 

protection afforded by the requirements 

of FMVSS No. 201. 

Several commenters supported the 

proposed wording change, and no 

commenter opposed. NHTSA is 

adopting the change. In their comments 

to the NPRM the American Trucking 

Association stated their belief that 

FMVSS No. 204 applied to heavy trucks. 

In response to this comment we would 

like to clarify that FMVSS No. 204 does 

not apply to trucks with a GVWR over 

10,000 lb. 

The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) 

discussed implications for vehicles with 

configurations that could change (i.e., a 

vehicle could have configurations with 

steering controls and without), but such 

controls do not meet the definition of a 

manually operated driving control while 

stowed. The agency believes that no 

change is necessary to address the CAS 

concern, because it is already addressed 

by virtue of the fact that when the 

steering control is not stowed, both 

FMVSS Nos. 203 and 204 apply (unless 

otherwise excluded). 

FMVSS No. 207, Seating Systems— 

Driver’s Seat Requirement 

NHTSA proposed to modify a 

requirement that a vehicle have a 

driver’s seat (FMVSS No. 207, S4.1), to 

specify instead that a driver’s seat 

would be required only for vehicles 

with manually operated driving 

controls. By virtue of the new definition 

of driver’s seat (‘‘driver’s designated 

seating position’’) and ‘‘manually 

operated driving controls,’’ a driver’s 

seat inherently has immediate access to 

such controls. Therefore, the proposed 

addition to S4.1 would clarify that a 

vehicle equipped with ADS, without 

traditional driving controls, need not 

have a driver’s seat. 

Most commenters responding to this 

issue (the California State 

Transportation Agency (CalSTA), GM, 

CAS) favored or were neutral on the 

proposal. GM noted that the NPRM’s 

use of the term ‘‘manually operated 

driving control’’ as used in the 

requirement for a driver’s seat in 

FMVSS No. 207 was incorrectly singular 

and instead should be plural. NHTSA 

agrees with this comment and has 

adopted the correction in the final rule. 

Tesla asked NHTSA to reconsider this 

requirement, stating that, ‘‘in certain 

circumstances involving dual-mode 

vehicles, the driver’s designated seating 

position may become a passenger’s 

designated seating position (e.g., when 

the manually operated driving controls 

are stowed).’’ Tesla stated that in such 

cases, there may be no driver’s 

designated seating position, which 

could create uncertainty about 

compliance with FMVSS 207, S4.1 for 

dual-mode vehicles. 

NHTSA does not understand how the 

situation Tesla describes creates 

uncertainty about S4.1 certification, 

since the driver’s seat requirement is 

predicated on the presence of driving 

controls. If the vehicle were dual-mode 

with stowable controls, the 

manufacturer would need to provide a 

seat so that when the controls are in 

place, the seat would be available. 

Although such a system would be 

unnecessary, a manufacturer could 

provide a system that stows the driver’s 

seat when the controls are stowed. 

FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact Protection 

Zoox commented that the first 

sentence of FMVSS No. 214, S12.2.1(c) 

is unnecessary. This section of the 

standard refers to the positioning of the 

arms of the test dummy. The NPRM 

proposed adding a sentence to assure 

that the specification would apply if the 

vehicle had multiple front seat 

passenger dummies. However, since the 

specification would apply to any 

dummy, the additional sentence is 

redundant. NHTSA agrees with Zoox’s 

assessment and is deleting the 

unnecessary text. 

FMVSS No. 220, School Bus Rollover 

Protection 

The Alliance suggested that in 

S5.2(b), the term ‘‘occupant 

compartment’’ should be substituted for 

‘‘passenger and driver compartment.’’ 

NHTSA did not propose changes to 

FMVSS No. 220 because the agency 

does not believe any are necessary. 

We decline to make the requested 

change to FMVSS No. 220 because the 

agency continues to believe no changes 

are necessary. We note that a lack of a 

driver simply indicates that there is 

only a passenger compartment. 

FMVSS No. 226—Ejection 

Countermeasure Readiness Telltales 

The agency stated in the preamble of 

the NPRM that it would not address 

telltales and warnings as they relate to 

ADS vehicles where there is no 

requirement for any occupant to be 

seated in what is currently considered 

the driver’s DSP.51 The NPRM stated 

that this is a broad topic that will be 

discussed in a future notice focused 

solely on these issues, where the agency 

can engage stakeholders on those issues 

requiring additional policy and 

technical discussion. The proposed 

regulatory text from the NPRM (in 

S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 226) included 

changes that inadvertently would have 

required the ejection mitigation 

countermeasure readiness indicator to 

be visible to the occupant of any DSP for 

vehicles without a driver’s DSP. 

This final rule does not proceed with 

this proposal. Changes to the ejection 

mitigation readiness indicator in 

FMVSS No. 226 were not intended to be 

included in the scope of this 

rulemaking. The agency will take the 

comments received on this issue into 

consideration when developing its next 

actions related to telltales and indicators 

for ADS-equipped vehicles. 

FMVSS No. 226, Ejection Mitigation— 

Modified Roof Definition 

FMVSS No. 226 excludes ‘‘modified 

roof vehicles’’ from the standard (S2). 

The existing FMVSS No. 226 definition 

of ‘‘modified roof’’ (in S3) uses the term 

‘‘driver’s compartment.’’ NHTSA 

proposed to make a simple substitution 

of ‘‘occupant compartment’’ to replace 

‘‘driver’s compartment.’’ We noted that 

this change would affect the 

applicability of the standard to all 

vehicles. However, we expected that it 

would not have any substantive effect 

on non-ADS vehicles, i.e., we expected 

that the driver’s compartment and the 

occupant compartment would be 

identical and requested comment on our 

expectation. 

This final rule adopts the proposed 

change. Only CalSTA commented on 

this aspect of the proposal, and they did 

so in agreement with the change. 

CalSTA asserted that this modification 

will increase occupant safety. NHTSA 

does not have information 

demonstrating that this change affects 

the level of protection provided by 

current requirements, since the 

modification does not expand 

applicability. 

VIII. Effective Date 

This final rule is effective 180 days 

after date of publication in the Federal 

Register, with optional early 

compliance permitted. 49 U.S.C. 

30111(d) states that a FMVSS may not 

become effective before the 180th day 

the standard is prescribed unless good 

cause is shown that a different effective 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 18583 

52An ADS–DV is defined as ‘‘[a] vehicle designed 

to be operated exclusively by a level 4 or level 5 

ADS for all trips within its given operational design 

domain (ODD) limitations (if any).’’ High driving 

automation (Level 4) is defined as ‘‘[t]he sustained 

and ODD-specific performance by an ADS of the 

entire dynamic driving task (DDT) and DDT fallback 

without any expectation that a user will respond to 

a request to intervene.’’ Full driving automation 

(Level 5) is defined as ‘‘[t]he sustained and 

unconditional (i.e., not ODD-specific) performance 

by an ADS of the entire DDT and DDT fallback 

without any expectation that a user will respond to 

a request to intervene.’’ SAE J3016_201806 

Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to 

Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor 

Vehicles. 

53Chase, N., Maples, J., and Schipper, M. (2018). 

Autonomous Vehicles: Uncertainties and Energy 

Implications. Issue in Focus from the Annual 

Energy Outlook 2018. Washington, DC: U.S. Energy 

Information Administration. Available at https://

www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/av.php (last accessed 

October 22, 2019). 

54 Detailed information on the CAFE Model, 

including model files, is available at https://

www.nhtsa.gov/corporate-average-fuel-economy/ 

compliance-and-effects-modeling-system. 

55Chase, N., Maples, J., and Schipper, M. (2018). 

Autonomous Vehicles: Uncertainties and Energy 

Implications. Issue in Focus from the Annual 

Energy Outlook 2018. Washington, DC: U.S. Energy 

Information Administration. Available at https://

www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/av.php (last accessed 

October 22, 2019). 

date is in the public interest. This final 

rule makes modifications to existing 

FMVSSs in a way that does not require 

manufacturers of traditional vehicles to 

modify their products. Moreover, 

providing for optional early compliance 

will allow manufacturers to benefit 

immediately from the flexibility 

afforded by the modifications to the 

FMVSSs included in this final rule, 

providing the same relief as if the 

effective date were earlier. 

IX. Cost and Benefit Impacts of This 

Final Rule 

A Final Regulatory Impact Analysis 

(FRIA) can be found in the docket for 

this final rule. A summary of the FRIA 

findings is provided below. The cost 

impacts of this rule will depend on the 

per-vehicle costs savings to each vehicle 

that would no longer need certain 

manual controls, times the number of 

vehicles produced each year that will be 

produced without those controls. The 

Agency has reliable information on the 

former category, given that we generally 

know the current costs of this 

equipment, but can only estimate the 

broader effects. Thus, NHTSA 

calculated the impact of the final rule 

on costs by analyzing production cost 

savings arising from forgoing the 

installation of manual steering controls. 

These cost savings are partially offset by 

incremental costs associated with 

augmenting safety equipment in the left 

front seating position to make that 

position equivalent to the right front 

seating position, i.e., when what would 

have previously been a driver’s seating 

position would become a passenger 

seating position in an ADS–DV without 

manual controls.52

Monetized estimated per-vehicle cost 

impacts (2018 dollars) are presented by 

discount rate in Table IX–1 below based 

on a scenario presented by the Energy 

Information Administration (EIA),53 in 

which ADS–DVs represent 31 percent of 

the share of new light-duty vehicle sales 

in the year 2050: 

TABLE IX–1—SUMMARY OF NET PER-VEHICLE COST IMPACT ESTIMATES

[ADS–DV cost impacts in 2050, 2018 dollars] 

Discount rate Mean net cost 

impact 

5th- to 95th-Percentile net 

cost impacts 

0% (Effects in 2050) .............................................................................................................................. ¥$995 ¥$636 to ¥$1,350. 

3% (Discounted back to 2022) .............................................................................................................. ¥435 ¥$279 to ¥$590. 

7% Discounted back to 2022) ............................................................................................................... ¥149 ¥$96 to ¥$203. 

The ranges of estimates were 

identified within an uncertainty 

analysis addressing uncertainty in the 

average level of cost savings that would 

be achieved by ADS–DV manufacturers. 

The uncertainty analysis centered on 

identifying plausible ranges of the pervehicle cost savings, with corresponding 

assumptions regarding the distributions 

of values across each range (i.e., the 

likelihood of observing a particular 

value). The uncertainty analysis 

generated 50,000 simulated outcomes, 

across which the mean and percentile 

values reported in Table IX–2 were 

identified. In addition to the above 

ranges of estimates, the Agency 

performed a sensitivity analysis in 

which 30 percent of ADS–DV sales in 

2050 are comprised of dual-mode 

vehicles. See the FRIA for the results of 

that analysis. 

Although attempting to project the 

number of vehicles that may benefit 

from these savings is, of course, highly 

uncertain, NHTSA has conducted an 

analysis that shows how these cost 

savings would look if these types of 

vehicles became more present in the 

fleet, as explained in greater detail in 

the FRIA. NHTSA assumed that lightduty vehicle sales would follow the 

identical baseline path projected in the 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

(CAFE) Model 54 through 2032 (the last 

year specified in the baseline), and then 

would continue to grow at the average 

annual growth rate in the baseline from 

2027–2032 (approximately 0.2 percent 

per year; the projected baseline growth 

rate was also approximately 0.2 percent 

per year for 2027–2032 in the CAFE 

Model) for each year after 2032, growing 

to 18.7 million new light-duty vehicles 

sold in 2050. NHTSA assumed that the 

share of new light-duty vehicle sales 

comprised of ADS–DVs would reach 31 

percent in the year 2050, based on the 

EIA scenario described above; 55 thus, 

new ADS–DV sales in 2050 are assumed 

to be equal to 31 percent of 18.7 million, 

or 5.8 million. Based on these 

assumptions, NHTSA estimates that the 

final rule would save ADS–DV 

manufacturers and consumers 

approximately $2.5 billion in the year 

2050 ($2.7 billion in production cost 

savings, offset partially by $0.2 billion 

in incremental costs) at a three-percent 

discount rate; and approximately $0.7 

billion in the year 2050 ($0.9 billion in 

production cost savings, offset partially 

by approximately $0.1 billion in 

incremental costs) at a seven-percent 

discount rate. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
18584 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE IX–2—SUMMARY OF TOTAL MONETIZED ANNUAL BENEFIT, COST, AND NET COST IMPACT ESTIMATES

[ADS–DV Cost impacts in 2050, billions of 2018 dollars] 

Discount rate Benefits 

(cost savings) 

Incremental 

costs 

Net cost 

impact 

3% ................................................................................................................................................ $2.7 $0.2 ¥$2.5 

7% ................................................................................................................................................ 0.9 0.1 ¥0.9 

The estimated cost impacts above 

represent the subset of potential impacts 

that are quantifiable (albeit with 

considerable uncertainty) under the 

available information. NHTSA 

identified five unquantified benefit 

impacts associated with the final rule: 

impacts on fuel consumption, impacts 

on safety, incremental producer and 

consumer surplus, changes in 

administrative burden, and changes in 

manufacturer uncertainty. The final rule 

could affect per-vehicle fuel 

consumption by changing the mass of 

ADS–DVs. NHTSA expects ADS–DV 

mass to either decrease (due to the 

removal of currently required 

equipment) slightly or remain 

essentially unchanged (due to the 

addition of automated steering 

components that offset the mass savings 

of the removed equipment) under the 

final rule. NHTSA acknowledges that, in 

principle, ADS–DV mass could increase 

(if vehicle seating configurations and 

amenities are changed sufficiently when 

exploiting the reduction in design 

constraints when removing manual 

steering controls) under the final rule. 

Conversely, ADS–DV net mass could 

decrease for cases where vehicles are 

used for travel without occupants (e.g., 

automated deliveries or empty running 

between trips with occupants). 

However, we do not have data to 

support any specific projections in 

changes in vehicle mass. 

In any event, current corporate 

average fuel economy (CAFE) 

requirements are based on a vehicle’s 

‘‘footprint,’’ and thus any change in a 

vehicles mass will not affect a 

manufacturer’s obligations under that 

program. Finally, as stated in the NPRM, 

NHTSA has not attempted to address 

the revisions that may be necessary to 

provide regulatory certainty for 

manufacturers that wish to self-certify 

ADS-equipped vehicles with 

unconventional seating arrangements. 

The final rule is assumed to have no 

effect on the per-mile risk of travel in 

ADS–DVs, as it does not revise, remove, 

or establish anything associated with 

their safety performance. That is, the 

removal of manual steering controls is 

not assumed to offer any direct safety 

benefit or detriment for travel in ADS– 

DVs. However, it is feasible that changes 

in ADS–DV demand associated with the 

final rule (e.g., due to changes in vehicle 

design or decreases in cost) could 

increase the use of ADS–DVs. In turn, 

safety outcomes associated with the 

final rule would be equal to the net 

effects of: (1) Changes in per-mile 

fatality and injury risk for travel that is 

shifted from conventional vehicles to 

ADS–DVs; and (2) incremental fatalities 

and injuries for travel in ADS–DVs that 

would not have taken place in any 

vehicle otherwise. It is difficult to 

project net safety impacts associated 

with the final rule without information 

on: (1) Per-mile fatality and injury risk 

for ADS–DVs and conventional vehicles 

over time; and (2) demand for travel in 

ADS–DVs and conventional vehicles as 

a function of ADS–DV price and design 

attributes. 

NHTSA recognizes that incremental 

consumer and producer surplus under 

the final rule would accrue in addition 

to the production cost savings estimated 

in the preceding section. That is, by 

reconfiguring seating configurations and 

amenities to exploit the lack of manual 

steering controls, ADS–DV 

manufacturers would generate 

incremental consumer and producer 

surplus as consumers’ willingness-topay increases. However, NHTSA does 

not have sufficient information available 

on the demand and supply of ADS–DVs 

and their substitutes to estimate the 

components of incremental consumer 

and producer surplus that are not 

captured within the estimates of 

production cost savings. Thus, the share 

of incremental consumer and producer 

surplus not comprised of the cost 

savings identified in the preceding 

section is an unquantified benefit. 

The final rule would lead to a 

reduction in the number of standards 

from which manufacturers of ADS–DVs 

would have to seek exemptions. The 

reduction in exemption requests would 

be associated with a reduction in 

administrative costs for both 

manufacturers and NHTSA. NHTSA 

does not have sufficient information to 

establish a specific estimate of 

administrative cost savings. However, 

the cost savings would be expected to be 

small relative to the production cost 

savings associated with the rule. 

A less tangible, but still important, 

expected impact of the final rule would 

be a reduction in uncertainty for 

manufacturers of ADS-equipped 

vehicles. The final rule provides clarity 

to manufacturers on constraints to 

developing FMVSS-compliant ADSequipped vehicles. In turn, 

developmental paths for ADS-equipped 

vehicles could be implemented with 

greater precision and efficiency. The 

reduction in uncertainty could reduce 

not only the costs associated with 

manufacturing ADS-equipped vehicles, 

but also the time it would take to bring 

these vehicles to the market. An 

accelerated development timeline 

would be a benefit both to 

manufacturers and consumers. 

X. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 

13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures 

NHTSA has considered the impacts of 

this rulemaking action under E.O. 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review’’ (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 

E.O. 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review,’’ and DOT 

regulatory requirements. This final rule 

is ‘‘significant’’ and was reviewed by 

OMB. This action is significant because 

it raises novel legal and policy issues 

surrounding the regulation of vehicles 

equipped with ADS and is the subject 

of much public interest and has 

anticipated annual economic impacts 

greater than $100 million. NHTSA has 

prepared a Final Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (FRIA) for this final rule, 

which can be found in the docket for 

this final rule. The cost savings of this 

final rule are described in the preamble 

and discussed in greater detail in the 

accompanying FRIA. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency is required 

to publish a notice of proposed 

rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effect of the rule on small 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 18585 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions). The Small Business 

Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR 

part 121 define a small business, in part, 

as a business entity ‘‘which operates 

primarily within the United States.’’ (13 

CFR 121.105(a)(1)). No regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of an agency certifies the proposed 

or final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. SBREFA 

amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

to require Federal agencies to provide a 

statement of the factual basis for 

certifying that a proposed or final rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

I certify that this final rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This final rule finalizes NHTSA’s 

proposal of amendments to and 

clarifications of the application of 

existing occupant protection standards 

to vehicles equipped with ADS that also 

lack traditional manual controls. This 

final rule will apply to small motor 

vehicle manufacturers who wish to 

produce ADS without manual controls 

and with conventional seating 

arrangements (i.e., forward-facing, front 

row seats). In the NPRM, NHTSA 

analyzed current small manufacturers 

and current small ADS developers in 

detail in the Preliminary Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (PRIA) for the NPRM, 

and found that none of the entities 

listed in the analysis would be impacted 

by this rulemaking. NHTSA received no 

comments on this analysis. For the 

reasons discussed in the PRIA and set 

forth in the FRIA, NHTSA concludes 

this rulemaking will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined this final rule 

pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 

FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and 

concluded that no additional 

consultation with States, local 

governments or their representatives is 

mandated beyond the rulemaking 

process. The agency has concluded that 

the rulemaking will not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant 

consultation with State and local 

officials or the preparation of a 

federalism summary impact statement. 

This final rule will not have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ 

NHTSA rules can preempt in two 

ways. First, the National Traffic and 

Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an 

express preemption provision: When a 

motor vehicle safety standard is in effect 

under this chapter, a State or a political 

subdivision of a State may prescribe or 

continue in effect a standard applicable 

to the same aspect of performance of a 

motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment only if the standard is 

identical to the standard prescribed 

under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 

30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command 

by Congress that preempts any nonidentical State legislative and 

administrative law addressing the same 

aspect of performance. 

The express preemption provision 

described above is subject to a savings 

clause under which ‘‘[c]ompliance with 

a motor vehicle safety standard 

prescribed under this chapter does not 

exempt a person from liability at 

common law.’’ 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). 

Pursuant to this provision, State 

common law tort causes of action 

against motor vehicle manufacturers 

that might otherwise be preempted by 

the express preemption provision may 

be preserved. However, the Supreme 

Court has recognized the possibility of 

implied preemption of such State 

common law tort causes of action by 

virtue of NHTSA’s rules—even if not 

expressly preempted. 

This second way that NHTSA rules 

can preempt is dependent upon the 

higher standard effectively imposed 

through a State common law tort 

judgment against the manufacturer, 

notwithstanding the manufacturer’s 

compliance with the NHTSA standard, 

creating an obstacle to the 

accomplishment and execution of that 

standard. If and when such a conflict 

does exist—for example, when the 

standard at issue is both a minimum 

and a maximum standard—the State 

common law tort cause of action is 

impliedly preempted. See Geier v. 

American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 

861 (2000). 

Pursuant to E.O. 13132, NHTSA has 

considered whether this final rule could 

or should preempt State common law 

causes of action. The agency’s ability to 

announce its conclusion regarding the 

preemptive effect of one of its rules 

reduces the likelihood that preemption 

will be an issue in any subsequent tort 

litigation. Under the principles 

enunciated in Geier it is possible that a 

rule of State tort law could conflict with 

a NHTSA safety standard if it created an 

obstacle to the accomplishment and 

execution of that standard. Since this 

final rule translates existing occupant 

protection standards to vehicles 

equipped with alternative cabin 

configurations that lack manual driving 

controls, NHTSA does not currently 

foresee the likelihood of any such tort 

requirements and does not have a basis 

for concluding that such a conflict 

exists. 

NHTSA solicited comments from the 

States and other interested parties on 

this assessment of issues relevant to 

E.O. 13132 in the NPRM. While one 

commenter touched on the 

organization’s general support for the 

concept of federalism, it did not assert 

that the rulemaking was anything but an 

appropriate balance between State and 

Federal regulation. 

Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et. seq., as added by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. NHTSA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This 

rule will be effective sixty days after the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register. 

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

When promulgating a regulation, 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that the agency must make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation, as appropriate: (1) Specifies 

in clear language the preemptive effect; 

(2) specifies in clear language the effect 

on existing Federal law or regulation, 

including all provisions repealed, 

circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or 

modified; (3) provides a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct rather 

than a general standard, while 

promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) specifies in clear language 

the retroactive effect; (5) specifies 

whether administrative proceedings are 

to be required before parties may file 

suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly 

defines key terms; and (7) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
18586 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

and general draftsmanship of 

regulations. 

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes 

as follows. The preemptive effect of this 

final rule is discussed above in 

connection with Executive Order 13132. 

NHTSA notes further that there is no 

requirement that individuals submit a 

petition for reconsideration or pursue 

other administrative proceeding before 

they may file suit in court. 

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks) 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks,’’ (62 FR 19885; April 

23, 1997) applies to any proposed or 

final rule that: (1) Is determined to be 

‘‘economically significant,’’ as defined 

in 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 

a rule meets both criteria, the Agency 

must evaluate the environmental health 

or safety effects of the rule on children, 

and explain why the rule is preferable 

to other potentially effective and 

reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

This final rule is not expected to have 

a disproportionate health or safety 

impact on children. Consequently, no 

further analysis is required under 

Executive Order 13045. 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

Executive Order 13609, ‘‘Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation,’’ 

promotes international regulatory 

cooperation to meet shared challenges 

involving health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and to 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. NHTSA has analyzed this 

final rule under the policies and Agency 

responsibilities of Executive Order 

13609, and has determined this rule 

would have no effect on international 

regulatory cooperation. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), 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 imposes no new 

reporting requirements on any person. 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act and 1 CFR Part 51 

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.’’ 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies, such as 

SAE. The NTTAA directs us to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when we decide not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Pursuant to the above requirements, 

the agency conducted a review of 

voluntary consensus standards to 

determine if any were applicable to this 

final rule. NHTSA searched for, but did 

not find, voluntary consensus standards 

directly applicable to the amendments 

adopted in this final rule. Neither is 

NHTSA aware of any international 

regulations or Global Technical 

Regulation (GTR) activity addressing the 

subject of this final rule. 

SAE Standard J826–1980 was 

previously approved for use in 

§ 571.208 and that approval continues 

unchanged. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 

requires Federal 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). Before promulgating a rule for 

which a written statement is needed, 

section 205 of the UMRA generally 

requires the agency to identify and 

consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives and adopt the 

least costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule. The 

provisions of section 205 do not apply 

when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 

allows the agency to adopt an 

alternative other than the least costly, 

most cost-effective, or least burdensome 

alternative if the agency publishes with 

the final rule an explanation of why that 

alternative was not adopted. 

This final rule does not contain a 

mandate that would impose costs on 

any of the entities listed above of more 

than $100 million annually (adjusted for 

inflation with base year of 1995). As a 

result, the requirements of Section 202 

of the Act do not apply. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this final rule 

for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The agency 

has determined that implementation of 

this final rule will not have any 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. 

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. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Incorporation by Reference, Motor 

vehicles, Motor vehicle safety. 

Regulatory Text 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as 

follows: 

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 571 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.95. 

■ 2. Section 571.3 is amended in 

paragraph (b) by: 

■ a. Adding in alphabetical order 

definitions for ‘‘Driver air bag,’’ ‘‘Driver 

dummy,’’ ‘‘Driver’s designated seating 

position,’’ and ‘‘Manually operated 

driving controls’’; 

■ b. Revising the definition of 

‘‘Outboard designated seating position’’; 

and 

■ c. Adding in alphabetical order 

definitions for ‘‘Passenger seating 

position,’’ ‘‘Row,’’ ‘‘Seat outline,’’ and 

‘‘Steering control system’’. 

The additions and revision read as 

follows: 

§ 571.3 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Driver air bag means the air bag 

installed for the protection of the 

occupant of the driver’s designated 

seating position. 

Driver dummy means the test dummy 

positioned in the driver’s designated 

seating position. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 18587 

Driver’s designated seating position 

means a designated seating position 

providing immediate access to manually 

operated driving controls. As used in 

this part, the terms ‘‘driver’s seating 

position’’ and ‘‘driver’s seat’’ shall have 

the same meaning as ‘‘driver’s 

designated seating position.’’ 

* * * * * 

Manually operated driving controls 

means a system of controls: 

(i) That are used by an occupant for 

real-time, sustained, manual 

manipulation of the motor vehicle’s 

heading (steering) and/or speed 

(accelerator and brake); and 

(ii) That is positioned such that they 

can be used by an occupant, regardless 

of whether the occupant is actively 

using the system to manipulate the 

vehicle’s motion. 

* * * * * 

Outboard designated seating position 

means a designated seating position 

where a longitudinal vertical plane 

tangent to the outboard side of the seat 

cushion is less than 12 inches from the 

innermost point on the inside surface of 

the vehicle at a height between the 

design H-point and the shoulder 

reference point (as shown in fig. 1 of 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

No. 210) and longitudinally between the 

front and rear edges of the seat cushion. 

As used in this part, the terms 

‘‘outboard seating position’’ and 

‘‘outboard seat’’ shall have the same 

meaning as ‘‘outboard designated 

seating position.’’ 

* * * * * 

Passenger seating position means any 

designated seating position other than 

the driver’s designated seating position, 

except as noted below. As used in this 

part, the term ‘‘passenger seat’’ shall 

have the same meaning as ‘‘passenger 

seating position.’’ As used in this part, 

‘‘passenger seating position’’ includes 

what was a ‘‘driver’s designated seating 

position’’ prior to stowing of the present 

manually operated driving controls. 

* * * * * 

Row means a set of one or more seats 

whose seat outlines do not overlap with 

the seat outline of any other seats, when 

all seats are adjusted to their rearmost 

normal riding or driving position, when 

viewed from the side. 

* * * * * 

Seat outline means the outer limits of 

a seat projected laterally onto a vertical 

longitudinal vehicle plane. 

* * * * * 

Steering control system means the 

manually operated driving control used 

to control the vehicle heading and its 

associated trim hardware, including any 

portion of a steering column assembly 

that provides energy absorption upon 

impact. As used in this part, the term 

‘‘steering wheel’’ and ‘‘steering control’’ 

shall have the same meaning as 

‘‘steering control system.’’ 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 571.201 by revising 

paragraph S2, the definition of the terms 

‘‘A-pillar,’’ ‘‘B-pillar,’’ and ‘‘Pillar’’ in 

paragraph S3, and revising paragraphs 

S5.1(b), S5.1.1(d), S5.1.2(a), S6.3(b), 

S8.6, S8.20, and S8.24 to read as 

follows: 

§ 571.201 Standard No. 201; Occupant 

protection in interior impact. 

* * * * * 

S2. Application. This standard 

applies to passenger cars and to 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks 

designed to carry at least one person, 

and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 

kilograms or less, except that the 

requirements of S6 do not apply to 

buses with a GVWR of more than 3,860 

kilograms. 

S3. * * * 

A-pillar means any pillar that is 

entirely forward of a transverse vertical 

plane passing through the seating 

reference point of the driver’s 

designated seating position or, if there is 

no driver’s designated seating position, 

any pillar that is entirely forward of a 

transverse vertical plane passing 

through the seating reference point of 

the rearmost designated seating position 

in the front row of seats. 

* * * * * 

B-pillar means the forwardmost pillar 

on each side of the vehicle that is, in 

whole or in part, rearward of a 

transverse vertical plane passing 

through the seating reference point of 

the driver’s designated seating position 

or, if there is no driver’s designated 

seating position, the forwardmost pillar 

on each side of the vehicle that is, in 

whole or in part, rearward of a 

transverse vertical plane passing 

through the seating reference point of 

the rearmost designated seating position 

in the front row of seats, unless: 

(1) There is only one pillar rearward 

of that plane and it is also a rearmost 

pillar; or 

(2) There is a door frame rearward of 

the A-pillar and forward of any other 

pillar or rearmost pillar. 

* * * * * 

Pillar means any structure, excluding 

glazing and the vertical portion of door 

window frames, but including 

accompanying moldings, attached 

components such as safety belt 

anchorages and coat hooks, which: 

(1) If there is a driver’s designated 

seating position, supports either a roof 

or any other structure (such as a rollbar) that is above the driver’s head, or 

if there is no driver’s designated seating 

position, supports either a roof or any 

other structure (such as a roll-bar) that 

is above the occupant in the rearmost 

designated seating position in the front 

row of seats, or 

(2) Is located along the side edge of a 

window. 

* * * * * 

S5.1 * * * 

(b) A relative velocity of 19 kilometers 

per hour for vehicles that meet the 

occupant crash protection requirements 

of S5.1 of 49 CFR 571.208 by means of 

inflatable restraint systems and meet the 

requirements of S4.1.5.1(a)(3) by means 

of a Type 2 seat belt assembly at any 

front passenger designated seating 

position, the deceleration of the head 

form shall not exceed 80 g continuously 

for more than 3 milliseconds 

S5.1.1 * * * 

(d) If the steering control is present, 

areas outboard of any point of tangency 

on the instrument panel of a 165 mm 

diameter head form tangent to and 

inboard of a vertical longitudinal plane 

tangent to the inboard edge of the 

steering control; or 

* * * * * 

S5.1.2 * * * 

(a) The origin of the line tangent to 

the instrument panel surface shall be a 

point on a transverse horizontal line 

through a point 125 mm horizontally 

forward of the seating reference point of 

any front outboard passenger designated 

seating position, displaced vertically an 

amount equal to the rise which results 

from a 125 mm forward adjustment of 

the seat or 19 mm; and 

* * * * * 

S6.3 * * * 

(b) Any target located rearward of a 

vertical plane 600 mm behind the 

seating reference point of the rearmost 

designated seating position. For altered 

vehicles and vehicles built in two or 

more stages, including ambulances and 

motor homes, any target located 

rearward of a vertical plane 300 mm 

behind the seating reference point of the 

driver’s designated seating position or 

the rearmost designated seating position 

in the front row of seats, if there is no 

driver’s designated seating position 

(tests for altered vehicles and vehicles 

built in two or more stages do not 

include, within the time period for 

measuring HIC(d), any free motion 

headform contact with components 

rearward of this plane). If an altered 

vehicle or vehicle built in two or more 

stages is equipped with a transverse 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
18588 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

vertical partition positioned between 

the seating reference point of the 

driver’s designated seating position and 

a vertical plane 300 mm behind the 

seating reference point of the driver’s 

designated seating position, any target 

located rearward of the vertical partition 

is excluded. 

* * * * * 

S8.6 Steering control and seats. 

(a) During targeting, the steering 

control and seats may be placed in any 

position intended for use while the 

vehicle is in motion. 

(b) During testing, the steering control 

and seats may be removed from the 

vehicle. 

* * * * * 

S8.20 Adjustable steering controls— 

vehicle to pole test. Adjustable steering 

controls shall be adjusted so that the 

steering control hub is at the geometric 

center of the locus it describes when it 

is moved through its full range of 

driving positions. 

* * * * * 

S8.24 Impact reference line—vehicle 

to pole test. On the striking side of the 

vehicle, place an impact reference line 

at the intersection of the vehicle exterior 

and a transverse vertical plane passing 

through the center of gravity of the head 

of the dummy seated in accordance with 

S8.28, in any front outboard designated 

seating position. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 571.203 by revising 

paragraph S2 and removing and 

reserving S3. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 571.203 Standard No. 203; Impact 

protection for the driver from the steering 

control system. 

* * * * * 

S2. Application. This standard 

applies to passenger cars and to 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks 

and buses with a gross vehicle weight 

rating of 4,536 kg or less. However, it 

does not apply to vehicles that conform 

to the frontal barrier crash requirements 

(S5.1) of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 

571.208) by means of other than seat 

belt assemblies. It also does not apply to 

walk-in vans or vehicles without a 

steering control. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 571.204 by revising 

paragraph S2 to read as follows: 

§ 571.204 Standard No. 204; Steering 

control rearward displacement. 

* * * * * 

S2. Application. This standard 

applies to passenger cars and to 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, 

trucks, and buses. However, it does not 

apply to walk-in vans or vehicles 

without steering controls. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 571.205 by revising 

paragraph S3(a) to read as follows: 

§ 571.205 Standard No. 205, Glazing 

materials. 

* * * * * 

S3. * * * 

(a) This standard applies to passenger 

cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, 

trucks designed to carry at least one 

person, buses, motorcycles, slide-in 

campers, pickup covers designed to 

carry persons while in motion and low 

speed vehicles, and to glazing materials 

for use in those vehicles. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 571.206 by revising 

paragraph S2, the definitions of ‘‘Side 

Front Door’’ and ‘‘Side Rear Door’’ in 

paragraph S3, and paragraph 

S5.1.1.4(b)(1)(ii)(C) to read as follows: 

§ 571.206 Standard No. 206; Door locks 

and door retention components. 

* * * * * 

S2. Application. This standard 

applies to passenger cars, multipurpose 

passenger vehicles, trucks designed to 

carry at least one person, and buses with 

a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 

4,536 kg or less. 

S3. * * * 

Side Front Door is a door that, in a 

side view, has 50 percent or more of its 

opening area forward of the rearmost 

point on the driver’s seat back, when the 

seat back is adjusted to its most vertical 

and rearward position. For vehicles 

without a driver’s designated seating 

position it is a door that in a side view, 

has 50 percent or more of its opening 

area forward of the rearmost point on 

the most rearward passenger’s seat back 

in the front row of seats, when the seat 

backs are adjusted to their most vertical 

and rearward position. 

Side Rear Door is a door that, in a side 

view, has 50 percent or more of its 

opening area to the rear of the rearmost 

point on the driver’s seat back, when the 

driver’s seat is adjusted to its most 

vertical and rearward position. For 

vehicles without a driver’s designated 

seating position it is a door that in a side 

view, has 50 percent or more of its 

opening area rear of the rearmost point 

on the most rearward passenger’s seat 

back in the front row of seats, when the 

seat backs are adjusted to their most 

vertical and rearward position. 

* * * * * 

S5.1.1.4 * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(C) Transverse Setup 1. Orient the 

vehicle so that its transverse axis is 

aligned with the axis of the acceleration 

device, simulating a left-side impact. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Amend § 571.207 by revising 

paragraphs S2 and S4.1 to read as 

follows: 

§ 571.207 Standard No. 207; Seating 

systems. 

* * * * * 

S2. Application. This standard 

applies to passenger cars, multipurpose 

passenger vehicles, trucks designed to 

carry at least one person, and buses. 

* * * * * 

S4.1 Driver’s seat. Each vehicle with 

manually operated driving controls 

shall have a driver’s designated seating 

position. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Amend § 571.208 as follows: 

■ a. Revise paragraph S3(a); 

■ b. Add paragraphs S4.1.5.6, 

S.4.1.5.6.1, S4.1.5.6.2, S4.1.5.6.3, 

S4.1.5.6.4, S4.1.5.6.5, S4.1.5.6.6; 

■ c. Revise paragraphs S4.2 introductory 

text, S4.2.5.4(c), S4.2.5.5(a)(2), and 

S4.2.6.1.1; 

■ d. Add paragraph S4.2.6.4; 

■ e. Revise the definition of ‘‘Perimeterseating bus’’ in S4.4.1, paragraphs 

S4.4.3.2.1, S4.4.3.2.2, S4.4.4.1.1, 

S4.4.4.1.2, S4.4.5.1.1, S4.4.5.1.2 

introductory text, S4.4.5.1.2(e), 

S4.5.1(c)(3), S4.5.1(e)(1) introductory 

text, S4.5.1(e)(2) introductory text, 

S4.5.1 (e)(3) introductory text, 

S4.5.1(f)(1), S4.11(d), and S7.1.1.5(a); 

■ f. Redesignate paragraph S7.1.6 as 

paragraph S7.1.1.6; and 

■ g. Revise paragraphs S8.1.4, S8.2.7(c), 

S10.2.1, S10.2.2, S10.3.1, S10.3.2, 

S10.4.1.1, S10.4.1.2, S10.4.2.1, S10.5, 

S10.6.1, S10.6.2, S10.7, S13.3, S16.2.9, 

S16.2.9.1, S16.2.9.2, and S16.2.9.3, the 

heading for S16.2.10, and paragraphs 

S16.2.10.3, S16.3.2.1.4, S16.3.2.1.8, 

S16.3.2.1.9, S16.3.2.3.2, S16.3.2.3.3, 

S16.3.2.3.4, S16.3.3, S16.3.3.1, 

S16.3.3.1.2, S16.3.3.1.4, S16.3.3.2, 

S16.3.3.3, S16.3.4, S16.3.5, S19.2.1, 

S19.2.2 introductory text, S19.2.2(d), 

S19.2.2(e), S19.2.2(g), S19.2.2(h), 

S19.2.3, S19.3, S20.1.2, S20.2, S20.2.1.4, 

S20.2.2.3, S20.3, S20.3.1, S20.3.2, 

S20.4.1, S20.4.4, S20.4.9, S21.2.1, 

S21.2.3, S21.3, S21.4, S22.1.2, S22.1.3, 

S22.2, S22.2.1.1, S22.2.1.3, S22.2.2, 

S22.2.2.1(a) and (b), S22.2.2.3(a) and (b), 

S22.2.2.4(a), S22.2.2.5(a), S22.2.2.6(a) 

and (b), S22.2.2.7(a) and (b), S22.2.2.8(a) 

introductory text, S22.2.2.8(a)(6), S22.3, 

S22.3.1, S22.3.2, S22.4.2.2, S22.4.3.1, 

S22.4.3.2, S22.4.4, S22.5.1, S23.2.1, 

S23.2.3, S23.3, S23.4, S24.1.2, S24.1.3, 

S24.2 introductory text, S24.2.3 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 18589 

introductory text, S24.2.3(a), S24.3, 

S24.3.1, S24.3.2, S24.4.2.3 introductory 

text, S24.4.3.1, S24.4.3.2 introductory 

text, S24.4.4, S26.2.1, S26.2.2, S26.2.4.3, 

S26.2.4.4, S26.2.5, S26.3.2, S26.3.3, 

S26.3.4.3, S26.3.5, S26.3.6, S26.3.7, 

S27.5.2, S27.6.2, S28.2, and S28.4; 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant 

crash protection. 

* * * * * 

S3. Application. (a) This standard 

applies to passenger cars, multipurpose 

passenger vehicles, trucks designed to 

carry at least one person, and buses. In 

addition, S9, Pressure vessels and 

explosive devices, applies to vessels 

designed to contain a pressurized fluid 

or gas, and to explosive devices, for use 

in the above types of motor vehicles as 

part of a system designed to provide 

protection to occupants in the event of 

a crash. 

* * * * * 

S4.1.5.6 Inboard designated seating 

positions in passenger cars without 

manually operated driving controls. 

S4.1.5.6.1 For vehicles specified in 

S4.1.5.6 with no outboard designated 

seating positions and with a single front 

inboard designated seating position, the 

vehicle shall at that position meet the 

requirements of S4.1.5.6.3 and 

S4.1.5.6.4. The above specified vehicles 

with multiple front inboard designated 

seating position shall at one inboard 

position meet the requirements 

S4.1.5.6.3 and S4.1.5.6.4 and at all other 

inboard positions meet the requirements 

of S4.1.5.6.6. 

S4.1.5.6.2 For vehicles specified in 

S4.1.5.6 with only one outboard 

designated seating position and a single 

front inboard designated seating 

position, the vehicle shall at that 

position meet the requirements of 

S4.1.5.6.3 and S4.1.5.6.4. The above 

specified vehicles with multiple front 

inboard designated seating position 

shall at one inboard position meet the 

requirements of S4.1.5.6.3 and 

S4.1.5.6.4 and at all other inboard 

positions meet the requirements of 

S4.1.5.6.5. 

S4.1.5.6.3 As specified in S4.1.5.6.1 

and S4.1.5.6.2, the vehicles shall meet 

the frontal crash protection 

requirements of S5.1.2(b) as specified 

for front outboard passenger designated 

seating positions by means of an 

inflatable restraint system that requires 

no action by vehicle occupants and the 

requirements of S14, as specified for 

front outboard passenger designated 

seating positions. 

S4.1.5.6.4 As specified in S4.1.5.6.1 

and S4.1.5.6.2, the designated seating 

positions have a Type 2 seat belt 

assembly that conforms to Standard No. 

209 and S7.1 through S7.3 of this 

standard, as specified for front outboard 

passenger designated seating positions. 

S4.1.5.6.5 As specified in S4.1.5.6.1 

and S4.1.5.6.2, as appropriate, have a 

Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that 

conforms to Standard No. 209 and S7.1 

through S7.3 of this standard. 

S4.1.5.6.6 As specified in S4.1.5.6.1 

and S4.1.5.6.2, as appropriate, have a 

Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms 

to Standard No. 209 and S7.1 through 

S7.3 of this standard, as specified for 

front outboard passenger designated 

seating positions. 

* * * * * 

S4.2 Trucks and multipurpose 

passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 

10,000 pounds or less. As used in this 

section, vehicles manufactured for 

operation by persons with disabilities 

means vehicles that incorporate a level 

change device (e.g., a wheelchair lift or 

a ramp) for onloading or offloading an 

occupant in a wheelchair, an interior 

element of design intended to provide 

the vertical clearance necessary to 

permit a person in a wheelchair to move 

between the lift or ramp and the driver’s 

position or to occupy that position, and 

either an adaptive control or special 

driver’s seating accommodation to 

enable persons who have limited use of 

their arms or legs to operate a vehicle. 

For purposes of this definition, special 

driver’s seating accommodations 

include a driver’s seat easily removable 

with means installed for that purpose or 

with simple tools, or a driver’s seat with 

extended adjustment capability to allow 

a person to easily transfer from a 

wheelchair to the driver’s seat. 

* * * * * 

S4.2.5.4 * * * 

(c) Each truck, bus, and multipurpose 

passenger vehicle with a GVWR of 8,500 

pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle 

weight of 5,500 pounds or less 

manufactured on or after September 1, 

1995, but before September 1, 1998, 

whose driver’s seating position 

complies with the requirements of 

S4.1.2.1(a) of this standard by means not 

including any type of seat belt and 

whose right front passenger seating 

position is equipped with a manual 

Type 2 seat belt that complies with S5.1 

of this standard, with the seat belt 

assembly adjusted in accordance with 

S7.4.2, shall be counted as a vehicle 

complying with S4.1.2.1. 

S4.2.5.5 * * * 

(a) * * * 

(2) Each truck, bus, and multipurpose 

passenger vehicle with a GVWR of 8,500 

pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle 

weight of 5,500 pounds or less whose 

driver’s seating position complies with 

the requirements of S4.1.2.1(a) by means 

not including any type of seat belt and 

whose right front passenger seating 

position is equipped with a manual 

Type 2 seat belt that complies with S5.1 

of this standard, with the seat belt 

assembly adjusted in accordance with 

S7.4.2, is counted as one vehicle. 

* * * * * 

S4.2.6.1.1 The amount of trucks, 

buses, and multipurpose passenger 

vehicles complying with the 

requirements of S4.1.5.1(a)(1) of this 

standard by means of an inflatable 

restraint system shall be not less than 80 

percent of the manufacturer’s total 

combined production of subject vehicles 

manufactured on or after September 1, 

1997 and before September 1, 1998. 

Each truck, bus, or multipurpose 

passenger vehicle with a GVWR of 8,500 

pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle 

weight of 5,500 pounds or less 

manufactured on or after September 1, 

1997 and before September 1, 1998, 

whose driver’s seating position 

complies with S4.1.5.1(a)(1) by means of 

an inflatable restraint system and whose 

right front passenger seating position is 

equipped with a manual Type 2 seat 

belt assembly that complies with S5.1 of 

this standard, with the seat belt 

assembly adjusted in accordance with 

S7.4.2 of this standard, shall be counted 

as a vehicle complying with 

S4.1.5.1(a)(1) by means of an inflatable 

restraint system. A vehicle shall not be 

deemed to be in noncompliance with 

this standard if its manufacturer 

establishes that it did not have reason to 

know in the exercise of due care that 

such vehicle is not in conformity with 

the requirement of this standard. 

* * * * * 

S4.2.6.4 Inboard designated seating 

positions in trucks, buses, and 

multipurpose passenger vehicles 

without manually operated driving 

controls and with a single or multiple 

front inboard designated seating 

position and no outboard seating 

positions and with a GVWR of 3,855 kg 

(8,500 lb) or less and an unloaded 

vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5,500 lb) or 

less. The above specified vehicles shall 

meet the requirements of S4.1.5.6 as 

specified for passenger cars. 

* * * * * 

S4.4.1 * * * 

Perimeter-seating bus means a bus, 

which is not an over-the-road bus, that 

has 7 or fewer designated seating 

positions that are forward-facing or can 

convert to forward-facing without the 

use of tools, and are rearward of the 

driver’s designated seating position or 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
18590 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

rearward of the outboard designated 

seating position(s) in the front row of 

seats, if there is no driver’s designated 

seating position. 

* * * * * 

S4.4.3.2.1 The driver’s designated 

seating position and any outboard 

designated seating position not rearward 

of the driver’s seating position shall be 

equipped with a Type 2 seat belt 

assembly. For a school bus without a 

driver’s designated seating position, the 

outboard designated seating positions in 

the front row of seats shall be equipped 

with Type 2 seat belt assemblies. The 

seat belt assembly shall comply with 

Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209) and 

with S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard. The 

lap belt portion of the seat belt assembly 

shall include either an emergency 

locking retractor or an automatic locking 

retractor. An automatic locking retractor 

shall not retract webbing to the next 

locking position until at least 3⁄4 inch of 

webbing has moved into the retractor. In 

determining whether an automatic 

locking retractor complies with this 

requirement, the webbing is extended to 

75 percent of its length and the retractor 

is locked after the initial adjustment. If 

the seat belt assembly installed in 

compliance with this requirement 

incorporates any webbing tensionrelieving device, the vehicle owner’s 

manual shall include the information 

specified in S7.4.2(b) of this standard 

for the tension-relieving device, and the 

vehicle shall comply with S7.4.2(c) of 

this standard. 

S4.4.3.2.2 Passenger seating 

positions, other than those specified in 

S4.4.3.2.1, shall be equipped with Type 

2 seat belt assemblies that comply with 

the requirements of S7.1.1.5, S7.1.5 and 

S7.2 of this standard. 

* * * * * 

S4.4.4.1.1 First option—complete 

passenger protection system—driver 

only. The vehicle shall meet the crash 

protection requirements of S5, with 

respect to an anthropomorphic test 

dummy in the driver’s designated 

seating position, by means that require 

no action by vehicle occupants. 

S4.4.4.1.2 Second option—belt 

system. The vehicle shall, at the driver’s 

designated seating position and all 

designated seating positions in the front 

row of seats, if there is no driver’s 

designated seating position, be 

equipped with either a Type 1 or a Type 

2 seat belt assembly that conforms to 

§ 571.209 of this part and S7.2 of this 

Standard. A Type 1 belt assembly or the 

pelvic portion of a dual retractor Type 

2 belt assembly installed at these seating 

positions shall include either an 

emergency locking retractor or an 

automatic locking retractor. If a seat belt 

assembly includes an automatic locking 

retractor for the lap belt or the lap belt 

portion, that seat belt assembly shall 

comply with the following: 

* * * * * 

S4.4.5.1.1 The driver’s designated 

seating position and any outboard 

designated seating position not rearward 

of the driver’s seating position shall be 

equipped with a Type 2 seat belt 

assembly. The seat belt assembly shall 

comply with Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 

571.209) and with S7.1 and S7.2 of this 

standard. For a bus without a driver’s 

designated seating position, any 

outboard designated seating position in 

the front row of seats, shall be equipped 

with Type 2 seat belt assemblies. If a 

seat belt assembly installed in 

compliance with this requirement 

includes an automatic locking retractor 

for the lap belt portion, that seat belt 

assembly shall comply with paragraphs 

(a) through (c) of S4.4.4.1.2 of this 

standard. If a seat belt assembly 

installed in compliance with this 

requirement incorporates any webbing 

tension-relieving device, the vehicle 

owner’s manual shall include the 

information specified in S7.4.2(b) of this 

standard for the tension-relieving 

device, and the vehicle shall comply 

with S7.4.2(c) of this standard. 

S4.4.5.1.2 Passenger seating 

positions, other than those specified in 

S4.4.5.1.1 and seating positions on 

prison buses rearward of the driver’s 

seating position, shall: 

* * * * * 

(e) Comply with the requirements of 

S7.1.1.5, S7.1.1.6, S7.1.3, and S7.2 of 

this standard. 

* * * * * 

S4.5.1 * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) If a vehicle does not have an 

inflatable restraint at any front seating 

position other than that for the driver’s 

designated seating position, the 

pictogram may be omitted from the label 

shown in Figure 6c. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) Except as provided in S4.5.1(e)(2) 

or S4.5.1(e)(3), each vehicle that is 

equipped with an inflatable restraint for 

the passenger position shall have a label 

attached to a location on the dashboard 

or the steering control hub that is clearly 

visible from all front seating positions. 

The label need not be permanently 

affixed to the vehicle. This label shall 

conform in content to the label shown 

in Figure 7 of this standard, and shall 

comply with the requirements of 

S4.5.1(e)(1)(i) through S4.5.1(e)(1)(iii). 

* * * * * 

(2) Vehicles certified to meet the 

requirements specified in S19, S21, and 

S23 before December 1, 2003, that are 

equipped with an inflatable restraint for 

the passenger position shall have a label 

attached to a location on the dashboard 

or the steering control hub that is clearly 

visible from all front seating positions. 

The label need not be permanently 

affixed to the vehicle. This label shall 

conform in content to the label shown 

in either Figure 9 or Figure 12 of this 

standard, at manufacturer’s option, and 

shall comply with the requirements of 

S4.5.1(e)(2)(i) through S4.5.1(e)(2)(iv). 

* * * * * 

(3) Vehicles certified to meet the 

requirements specified in S19, S21, and 

S23 on or after December 1, 2003, that 

are equipped with an inflatable restraint 

for the passenger position shall have a 

label attached to a location on the 

dashboard or the steering control hub 

that is clearly visible from all front 

seating positions. The label need not be 

permanently affixed to the vehicle. This 

label shall conform in content to the 

label shown in Figure 12 of this 

standard and shall comply with the 

requirements of S4.5.1(e)(3)(i) through 

S4.5.1(e)(3)(iv). 

* * * * * 

(f) Information to appear in owner’s 

manual. (1) The owner’s manual for any 

vehicle equipped with an inflatable 

restraint system shall include an 

accurate description of the vehicle’s air 

bag system in an easily understandable 

format. The owner’s manual shall 

include a statement to the effect that the 

vehicle is equipped with an air bag and 

lap/shoulder belt at both front outboard 

seating positions, and that the air bag is 

a supplemental restraint at those seating 

positions. The information shall 

emphasize that all occupants should 

always wear their seat belts whether or 

not an air bag is also provided at their 

seating position to minimize the risk of 

severe injury or death in the event of a 

crash. The owner’s manual shall also 

provide any necessary precautions 

regarding the proper positioning of 

occupants, including children, at 

seating positions equipped with air bags 

to ensure maximum safety protection for 

those occupants. The owner’s manual 

shall also explain that no objects should 

be placed over or near the air bag on the 

instrument panel, because any such 

objects could cause harm if the vehicle 

is in a crash severe enough to cause the 

air bag to inflate. 

* * * * * 

S4.11 * * * 

(d) For driver dummy low risk 

deployment tests, the injury criteria 

shall be met when calculated based on 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 18591 

data recorded for 125 milliseconds after 

the initiation of the final stage of air bag 

deployment designed to deploy in any 

full frontal rigid barrier crash up to 26 

km/h (16 mph). 

* * * * * 

S7.1.1.5 * * * 

(a) Each designated seating position, 

except the driver’s designated seating 

position, and except any right front 

seating position that is equipped with 

an automatic belt, that is in any motor 

vehicle, except walk-in van-type 

vehicles and vehicles manufactured to 

be sold exclusively to the U.S. Postal 

Service, and that is forward-facing or 

can be adjusted to be forward-facing, 

shall have a seat belt assembly whose 

lap belt portion is lockable so that the 

seat belt assembly can be used to tightly 

secure a child restraint system. The 

means provided to lock the lap belt or 

lap belt portion of the seat belt assembly 

shall not consist of any device that must 

be attached by the vehicle user to the 

seat belt webbing, retractor, or any other 

part of the vehicle. Additionally, the 

means provided to lock the lap belt or 

lap belt portion of the seat belt assembly 

shall not require any inverting, twisting 

or otherwise deforming of the belt 

webbing. 

* * * * * 

S8.1.4 Adjustable steering controls 

are adjusted so that the steering control 

hub is at the geometric center of the 

locus it describes when it is moved 

through its full range of driving 

positions. 

* * * * * 

S8.2.7 * * * 

(c) A vertical plane through the 

geometric center of the barrier impact 

surface and perpendicular to that 

surface passes through the driver’s 

seating position seating reference point 

in the tested vehicle. 

* * * * * 

S10.2.1 The driver dummy’s upper 

arms shall be adjacent to the torso with 

the centerlines as close to a vertical 

plane as possible. 

S10.2.2 Any front outboard 

passenger dummy’s upper arms shall be 

in contact with the seat back and the 

sides of the torso. 

* * * * * 

S10.3.1 The palms of the driver 

dummy shall be in contact with the 

outer part of the steering control rim at 

the rim’s horizontal centerline. The 

thumbs shall be over the steering 

control rim and shall be lightly taped to 

the steering control rim so that if the 

hand of the test dummy is pushed 

upward by a force of not less than 2 

pounds and not more than 5 pounds, 

the tape shall release the hand from the 

steering control rim. 

S10.3.2 The palms of any passenger 

test dummy shall be in contact with the 

outside of the thigh. The little finger 

shall be in contact with the seat 

cushion. 

* * * * * 

S10.4.1.1 In vehicles equipped with 

bench seats, the upper torso of the 

driver and front outboard passenger 

dummies shall rest against the seat back. 

The midsagittal plane of the driver 

dummy shall be vertical and parallel to 

the vehicle’s longitudinal centerline, 

and pass through the center of rotation 

of the steering control. The midsagittal 

plane of any passenger dummy shall be 

vertical and parallel to the vehicle’s 

longitudinal centerline and the same 

distance from the vehicle’s longitudinal 

centerline as the midsagittal plane of the 

driver dummy, if there is a driver’s 

seating position. If there is no driver’s 

seating position, the midsagittal plane of 

any front outboard passenger dummy 

shall be vertical and parallel to the 

vehicle’s longitudinal centerline, and 

pass through the seating reference point 

of the seat that it occupies. 

S10.4.1.2 In vehicles equipped with 

bucket seats, the upper torso of the 

driver and passenger dummies shall rest 

against the seat back. The midsagittal 

plane of the driver and any front 

outboard passenger dummy shall be 

vertical and shall coincide with the 

longitudinal centerline of the bucket 

seat. 

* * * * * 

S10.4.2.1 H-point. The H-points of 

the driver and any front outboard 

passenger test dummies shall coincide 

within 1⁄2 inch in the vertical dimension 

and 1⁄2 inch in the horizontal dimension 

of a point 1⁄4 inch below the position of 

the H-point determined by using the 

equipment and procedures specified in 

SAE Standard J826–1980 (incorporated 

by reference, see § 571.5), except that 

the length of the lower leg and thigh 

segments of the H-point machine shall 

be adjusted to 16.3 and 15.8 inches, 

respectively, instead of the 50th 

percentile values specified in Table 1 of 

SAE Standard J826–1980. 

* * * * * 

S10.5 Legs. The upper legs of the 

driver and any front outboard passenger 

test dummies shall rest against the seat 

cushion to the extent permitted by 

placement of the feet. The initial 

distance between the outboard knee 

clevis flange surfaces shall be 10.6 

inches. To the extent practicable, the 

left leg of the driver dummy and both 

legs of any front outboard passenger 

dummy shall be in vertical longitudinal 

planes. To the extent practicable, the 

right leg of the driver dummy shall be 

in a vertical plane. Final adjustment to 

accommodate the placement of feet in 

accordance with S10.6 for various 

passenger compartment configurations 

is permitted. 

* * * * * 

S10.6.1 Driver dummy position. 

* * * * * 

S10.6.2 Front outboard passenger 

dummy position. 

* * * * * 

S10.7 Test dummy positioning for 

latchplate access. The reach envelopes 

specified in S7.4.4 of this standard are 

obtained by positioning a test dummy in 

the driver’s or front outboard passenger 

seating position and adjusting that 

seating position to its forwardmost 

adjustment position. Attach the lines for 

the inboard and outboard arms to the 

test dummy as described in Figure 3 of 

this standard. Extend each line 

backward and outboard to generate the 

compliance arcs of the outboard reach 

envelope of the test dummy’s arms. 

* * * * * 

S13.3 Vehicle test attitude. When 

the vehicle is in its ‘‘as delivered’’ 

condition, measure the angle between 

the left side door sill and the horizontal. 

Mark where the angle is taken on the 

door sill. The ‘‘as delivered’’ condition 

is the vehicle as received at the test site, 

with 100 percent of all fluid capacities 

and all tires inflated to the 

manufacturer’s specifications as listed 

on the vehicle’s tire placard. When the 

vehicle is in its ‘‘fully loaded’’ 

condition, measure the angle between 

the left side door sill and the horizontal, 

at the same place the ‘‘as delivered’’ 

angle was measured. The ‘‘fully loaded’’ 

condition is the test vehicle loaded in 

accordance with S8.1.1(a) or (b) of 

Standard No. 208, as applicable. The 

load placed in the cargo area shall be 

centered over the longitudinal 

centerline of the vehicle. The pretest 

door sill angle, when the vehicle is on 

the sled, (measured at the same location 

as the as delivered and fully loaded 

condition) shall be equal to or between 

the as delivered and fully loaded door 

sill angle measurements. 

* * * * * 

S16.2.9 Steering control adjustment. 

S16.2.9.1 Adjust a tiltable steering 

control, if possible, so that the steering 

control hub is at the geometric center of 

its full range of driving positions. 

S16.2.9.2 If there is no setting detent 

at the mid-position, lower the steering 

control to the detent just below the midposition. 

S16.2.9.3 If the steering column is 

telescoping, place the steering column 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
18592 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

in the mid-position. If there is no midposition, move the steering control 

rearward one position from the midposition. 

S16.2.10 Front seat set-up. 

* * * * * 

S16.2.10.3 Seat position adjustment. 

If the front right outboard passenger seat 

does not adjust independently of the 

front left outboard seat, the front left 

outboard seat shall control the final 

position of the front right outboard 

passenger seat. If an inboard passenger 

seat does not adjust independently of an 

outboard seat, the outboard seat shall 

control the final position of the inboard 

passenger seat. 

* * * * * 

S16.3.2.1.4 Bench seats. Position the 

midsagittal plane of the dummy vertical 

and parallel to the vehicle’s longitudinal 

centerline and aligned within ±10 mm 

(±0.4 in) of the center of the steering 

control. 

* * * * * 

S16.3.2.1.8 If needed, extend the 

legs slightly so that the feet are not in 

contact with the floor pan. Let the 

thighs rest on the seat cushion to the 

extent permitted by the foot movement. 

Keeping the leg and the thigh in a 

vertical plane, place the foot in the 

vertical longitudinal plane that passes 

through the centerline of the accelerator 

pedal. Rotate the left thigh outboard 

about the hip until the center of the 

knee is the same distance from the 

midsagittal plane of the dummy as the 

right knee ±5 mm (±0.2 in). Using only 

the control that primarily moves the seat 

fore and aft, attempt to return the seat 

to the full forward position. If either of 

the dummy’s legs first contacts the 

steering control, then adjust the steering 

control, if adjustable, upward until 

contact with the steering control is 

avoided. If the steering control is not 

adjustable, separate the knees enough to 

avoid steering control contact. Proceed 

with moving the seat forward until 

either the leg contacts the vehicle 

interior or the seat reaches the full 

forward position. (The right foot may 

contact and depress the accelerator and/ 

or change the angle of the foot with 

respect to the leg during seat 

movement.) If necessary to avoid 

contact with the vehicles brake or clutch 

pedal, rotate the test dummy’s left foot 

about the leg. If there is still 

interference, rotate the left thigh 

outboard about the hip the minimum 

distance necessary to avoid pedal 

interference. If a dummy leg contacts 

the vehicle interior before the full 

forward position is attained, position 

the seat at the next detent where there 

is no contact. If the seat is a power seat, 

move the seat fore and aft to avoid 

contact while assuring that there is a 

maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) distance 

between the vehicle interior and the 

point on the dummy that would first 

contact the vehicle interior. If the 

steering control was moved, return it to 

the position described in S16.2.9. If the 

steering control contacts the dummy’s 

leg(s) prior to attaining this position, 

adjust it to the next higher detent, or if 

infinitely adjustable, until there is 5 mm 

(0.2 in) clearance between the control 

and the dummy’s leg(s). 

S16.3.2.1.9 For vehicles without 

adjustable seat backs, adjust the lower 

neck bracket to level the head as much 

as possible. For vehicles with adjustable 

seat backs, while holding the thighs in 

place, rotate the seat back forward until 

the transverse instrumentation platform 

of the head is level to within ±0.5 

degree, making sure that the pelvis does 

not interfere with the seat bight. Inspect 

the abdomen to ensure that it is 

properly installed. If the torso contacts 

the steering control, adjust the steering 

control in the following order until 

there is no contact: Telescoping 

adjustment, lowering adjustment, 

raising adjustment. If the vehicle has no 

adjustments, or contact with the steering 

control cannot be eliminated by 

adjustment, position the seat at the next 

detent where there is no contact with 

the steering control as adjusted in 

S16.2.9. If the seat is a power seat, 

position the seat to avoid contact while 

assuring that there is a maximum of 5 

mm (0.2 in) distance between the 

steering control as adjusted in S16.2.9 

and the point of contact on the dummy. 

* * * * * 

S16.3.2.3.2 Place the palms of the 

dummy in contact with the outer part of 

the steering control rim at its horizontal 

centerline with the thumbs over the 

steering control rim. 

S16.3.2.3.3 If it is not possible to 

position the thumbs inside the steering 

control rim at its horizontal centerline, 

then position them above and as close 

to the horizontal centerline of the 

steering control rim as possible. 

S16.3.2.3.4 Lightly tape the hands to 

the steering control rim so that if the 

hand of the test dummy is pushed 

upward by a force of not less than 9 N 

(2 lb) and not more than 22 N (5 lb), the 

tape releases the hand from the steering 

control rim. 

S16.3.3 Front outboard passenger 

dummy positioning. 

S16.3.3.1 Front outboard passenger 

torso/head/seat back angle positioning. 

* * * * * 

S16.3.3.1.2 Fully recline the seat 

back, if adjustable. Install the dummy 

into any front outboard passenger seat, 

such that when the legs are 120 degrees 

to the thighs, the calves of the legs are 

not touching the seat cushion. 

* * * * * 

S16.3.3.1.4 Bench seats. Position the 

midsagittal plane of the dummy vertical 

and parallel to the vehicle’s longitudinal 

centerline and the same distance from 

the vehicle’s longitudinal centerline, 

within ±10 mm (±0.4 in), as the 

midsagittal plane of the driver dummy, 

if there is a driver’s seating position. 

Otherwise, the midsagittal plane of any 

front outboard passenger dummy shall 

be vertical, parallel to the vehicle’s 

longitudinal centerline, and pass, 

within ±10 mm (±0.4 in), through the 

seating reference point of the seat that 

it occupies. 

* * * * * 

S16.3.3.2 Front outboard passenger 

foot positioning. 

* * * * * 

S16.3.3.3 Front outboard passenger 

arm/hand positioning. 

* * * * * 

S16.3.4 Driver and front outboard 

passenger adjustable head restraints. 

* * * * * 

S16.3.5 Driver and front outboard 

passenger manual belt adjustment (for 

tests conducted with a belted dummy) 

* * * * * 

S19.2.1 The vehicle shall be 

equipped with an automatic 

suppression feature for any front 

outboard passenger air bag which 

results in deactivation of the air bag 

during each of the static tests specified 

in S20.2 (using the 49 CFR part 572 

Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI child 

dummy in any of the child restraints 

identified in sections B and C of 

appendix A or A–1 of this standard, as 

appropriate and the 49 CFR part 572 

subpart K Newborn Infant dummy in 

any of the car beds identified in section 

A of appendix A or A–1, as 

appropriate), and activation of the air 

bag system during each of the static tests 

specified in S20.3 (using the 49 CFR 

part 572 Subpart O 5th percentile adult 

female dummy). 

S19.2.2 The vehicle shall be 

equipped with telltales for each front 

outboard passenger seat which emit 

light whenever the associated front 

outboard passenger air bag system is 

deactivated and does not emit light 

whenever the associated front outboard 

passenger air bag system is activated, 

except that the telltale(s) need not 

illuminate when the associated front 

outboard passenger seat is unoccupied. 

For telltales associated with multiple 

front outboard passenger seats, it shall 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 18593 

be clearly recognizable to a driver and 

any front outboard passenger the seat 

with which seat each telltale is 

associated. Each telltale: 

* * * * * 

(d) Shall be located within the interior 

of the vehicle and forward of and above 

the design H-point of both the driver’s 

and any front outboard passenger’s seat 

in their forwardmost seating positions 

and shall not be located on or adjacent 

to a surface that can be used for 

temporary or permanent storage of 

objects that could obscure the telltale 

from either the driver’s or any-front 

outboard passenger’s view, or located 

where the telltale would be obscured 

from the driver’s view or the adjacent 

front outboard passenger’s view if a 

rear-facing child restraint listed in 

appendix A or A–1, as appropriate, is 

installed in any-front outboard 

passenger’s seat. 

(e) Shall be visible and recognizable 

to a driver and any front outboard 

passenger during night and day when 

the occupants have adapted to the 

ambient light roadway conditions. 

* * * * * 

(g) Means shall be provided for 

making telltales visible and recognizable 

to the driver and any front outboard 

passenger under all driving conditions. 

The means for providing the required 

visibility may be adjustable manually or 

automatically, except that the telltales 

may not be adjustable under any driving 

conditions to a level that they become 

invisible or not recognizable to the 

driver and any front outboard passenger. 

(h) The telltale must not emit light 

except when any passenger air bag is 

turned off or during a bulb check upon 

vehicle starting. 

S19.2.3 The vehicle shall be 

equipped with a mechanism that 

indicates whether the air bag system is 

suppressed, regardless of whether any 

front outboard passenger seat is 

occupied. The mechanism need not be 

located in the occupant compartment 

unless it is the telltale described in 

S19.2.2. 

S19.3 Option 2—Low risk 

deployment. Each vehicle shall meet the 

injury criteria specified in S19.4 of this 

standard when any front outboard 

passenger air bag is deployed in 

accordance with the procedures 

specified in S20.4. 

* * * * * 

S20.1.2 Unless otherwise specified, 

each vehicle certified to this option 

shall comply in tests conducted with 

any front outboard passenger seating 

position, if adjustable fore and aft, at 

full rearward, middle, and full forward 

positions. If the child restraint or 

dummy contacts the vehicle interior, 

move the seat rearward to the next 

detent that provides clearance, or if the 

seat is a power seat, using only the 

control that primarily moves the seat 

fore and aft, move the seat rearward 

while assuring that there is a maximum 

of 5 mm (0.2 in) clearance between the 

dummy or child restraint and the 

vehicle interior. 

* * * * * 

S20.2 Static tests of automatic 

suppression feature which shall result 

in deactivation of any front outboard 

passenger air bag, associated with that 

designated seating position. Each 

vehicle that is certified as complying 

with S19.2 shall meet the following test 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

S20.2.1.4 For bucket seats, ‘‘Plane 

B’’ refers to a vertical plane parallel to 

the vehicle longitudinal centerline 

through the longitudinal centerline of 

any front outboard passenger vehicle 

seat cushion. For bench seats in vehicles 

with manually operated driving 

controls, ‘‘Plane B’’ refers to a vertical 

plane through any front outboard 

passenger vehicle seat parallel to the 

vehicle longitudinal centerline the same 

distance from the longitudinal 

centerline of the vehicle as the center of 

the steering control. For bench seats in 

vehicles without manually operated 

driving controls, ‘‘Plane B’’ refers to the 

vertical plane parallel to the vehicle 

longitudinal centerline, through any 

front outboard passenger seat’s SgRP. 

* * * * * 

S20.2.2.3 For bucket seats, ‘‘Plane 

B’’ refers to a vertical plane parallel to 

the vehicle longitudinal centerline 

through the longitudinal centerline of 

any front outboard passenger vehicle 

seat cushion. For bench seats in vehicles 

with manually operated driving 

controls, ‘‘Plane B’’ refers to a vertical 

plane through any front outboard 

passenger seat parallel to the vehicle 

longitudinal centerline the same 

distance from the longitudinal 

centerline of the vehicle as the center of 

the steering control. For bench seats in 

vehicles without manually operated 

driving controls, ‘‘Plane B’’ refers to the 

vertical plane parallel to the vehicle 

longitudinal centerline, through any 

front outboard passenger seat’s SgRP. 

* * * * * 

S20.3 Static tests of automatic 

suppression feature which shall result 

in activation of any front outboard 

passenger air bag system. 

S20.3.1 Each vehicle certified to this 

option shall comply in tests conducted 

with any front outboard passenger 

seating position, if adjustable fore and 

aft, at the mid-height, in the full 

rearward and middle positions 

determined in S20.1.9.4, and the 

forward position determined in 

S16.3.3.1.8. 

S20.3.2 Place a 49 CFR part 572 

subpart O 5th percentile adult female 

test dummy at any front outboard 

passenger seating position of the 

vehicle, in accordance with procedures 

specified in S16.3.3 of this standard, 

except as specified in S20.3.1, subject to 

the fore-aft seat positions in S20.3.1. Do 

not fasten the seat belt. 

* * * * * 

S20.4.1 Position any front outboard 

passenger vehicle seat at the mid-height 

in the full forward position determined 

in S20.1.9.4, and adjust the seat back (if 

adjustable independent of the seat) to 

the nominal design position for a 50th 

percentile adult male as specified in 

S8.1.3. Position adjustable lumbar 

supports so that the lumbar support is 

in its lowest, retracted or deflated 

adjustment position. Position any 

adjustable parts of the seat that provide 

additional support so that they are in 

the lowest or most open adjustment 

position. If adjustable, set the head 

restraint at the full down and most 

forward position. If the child restraint or 

dummy contacts the vehicle interior, do 

the following: Using only the control 

that primarily moves the seat in the fore 

and aft direction, move the seat 

rearward to the next detent that 

provides clearance; or if the seat is a 

power seat, move the seat rearward 

while assuring that there is a maximum 

of 5 mm (0.2 in) clearance. 

* * * * * 

S20.4.4 For bucket seats, ‘‘Plane B’’ 

refers to a vertical plane parallel to the 

vehicle longitudinal centerline through 

the longitudinal centerline of any front 

outboard passenger seat cushion. For 

bench seats in vehicles with manually 

operated driving controls, ‘‘Plane B’’ 

refers to a vertical plane through any 

front outboard passenger seat parallel to 

the vehicle longitudinal centerline that 

is the same distance from the 

longitudinal centerline of the vehicle as 

the center of the steering control. For 

bench seats in vehicles without 

manually operated driving controls, 

‘‘Plane B’’ refers to the vertical plane 

parallel to the vehicle longitudinal 

centerline, through any front outboard 

passenger seat’s SgRP. 

* * * * * 

S20.4.9 Deploy any front outboard 

passenger frontal air bag system. If the 

air bag system contains a multistage 

inflator, the vehicle shall be able to 

comply at any stage or combination of 

stages or time delay between successive 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
18594 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

stages that could occur in the presence 

of an infant in a rear facing child 

restraint and a 49 CFR part 572, subpart 

R 12-month-old CRABI dummy 

positioned according to S20.4, and also 

with the seat at the mid-height, in the 

middle and full rearward positions 

determined in S20.1.9.4, in a rigid 

barrier crash test at speeds up to 64 km/ 

h (40 mph). 

* * * * * 

S21.2.1 The vehicle shall be 

equipped with an automatic 

suppression feature for any front 

outboard passenger air bag which 

results in deactivation of the air bag 

during each of the static tests specified 

in S22.2 (using the 49 CFR part 572 

subpart P 3-year-old child dummy and, 

as applicable, any child restraint 

specified in section C and section D of 

appendix A or A–1 of this standard, as 

appropriate), and activation of the air 

bag system during each of the static tests 

specified in S22.3 (using the 49 CFR 

part 572 subpart O 5th percentile adult 

female dummy). 

* * * * * 

S21.2.3 The vehicle shall be 

equipped with a mechanism that 

indicates whether the air bag is 

suppressed, regardless of whether any 

front outboard passenger seat is 

occupied. The mechanism need not be 

located in the occupant compartment 

unless it is the telltale described in 

S21.2.2. 

S21.3 Option 2—Dynamic automatic 

suppression system that suppresses the 

air bag when an occupant is out of 

position. (This option is available under 

the conditions set forth in S27.1.) The 

vehicle shall be equipped with a 

dynamic automatic suppression system 

for any front outboard passenger air bag 

system which meets the requirements 

specified in S27. 

S21.4 Option 3—Low risk 

deployment. Each vehicle shall meet the 

injury criteria specified in S21.5 of this 

standard when any front outboard 

passenger air bag is deployed in 

accordance with both of the low risk 

deployment test procedures specified in 

S22.4. 

* * * * * 

S22.1.2 Unless otherwise specified, 

each vehicle certified to this option 

shall comply in tests conducted with 

any front outboard passenger seating 

position at the mid-height, in the full 

rearward, middle, and the full forward 

positions determined in S22.1.7.4. If the 

dummy contacts the vehicle interior, 

using only the control that primarily 

moves the seat fore and aft, move the 

seat rearward to the next detent that 

provides clearance. If the seat is a power 

seat, move the seat rearward while 

assuring that there is a maximum of 5 

mm (0.2 in) clearance. 

S22.1.3 Except as otherwise 

specified, if the child restraint has an 

anchorage system as specified in S5.9 of 

FMVSS No. 213 and is tested in a 

vehicle with any front outboard 

passenger vehicle seat that has an 

anchorage system as specified in 

FMVSS No. 225, the vehicle shall 

comply with the belted test conditions 

with the restraint anchorage system 

attached to the vehicle seat anchorage 

system and the vehicle seat belt 

unattached. It shall also comply with 

the belted test conditions with the 

restraint anchorage system unattached 

to the vehicle seat anchorage system and 

the vehicle seat belt attached. 

* * * * * 

S22.2 Static tests of automatic 

suppression feature which shall result 

in deactivation of any front outboard 

passenger air bag, associated with that 

designated seating position. Each 

vehicle that is certified as complying 

with S21.2 shall meet the following test 

requirements: 

* * * * * 

S22.2.1.1 Install the restraint in any 

front outboard passenger vehicle seat in 

accordance, to the extent possible, with 

the child restraint manufacturer’s 

instructions provided with the seat for 

use by children with the same height 

and weight as the 3-year-old child 

dummy. 

* * * * * 

S22.2.1.3 For bucket seats, ‘‘Plane 

B’’ refers to a vertical longitudinal plane 

through the longitudinal centerline of 

the seat cushion of any front outboard 

passenger vehicle seat. For bench seats 

in vehicles with manually operated 

driving controls, ‘‘Plane B’’ refers to a 

vertical plane through any front 

outboard passenger vehicle seat parallel 

to the vehicle longitudinal centerline 

the same distance from the longitudinal 

centerline of the vehicle as the center of 

the steering control. For bench seats in 

vehicles without manually operated 

driving controls, ‘‘Plane B’’ refers to the 

vertical plane parallel to the vehicle 

longitudinal centerline, through any 

front outboard passenger seat’s SgRP. 

* * * * * 

S22.2.2 Unbelted tests with 

dummies. Place the 49 CFR part 572 

subpart P 3-year-old child dummy on 

any front outboard passenger vehicle 

seat in any of the following positions 

(without using a child restraint or 

booster seat or the vehicle’s seat belts): 

S22.2.2.1 * * * 

(a) Place the dummy on any front 

outboard passenger seat. 

(b) In the case of vehicles equipped 

with bench seats and with manually 

operated driving controls, position the 

midsagittal plane of the dummy 

vertically and parallel to the vehicle’s 

longitudinal centerline and the same 

distance from the vehicle’s longitudinal 

centerline, within ±10 mm (±0.4 in), as 

the center of the steering control. For 

bench seats in vehicles without 

manually operated driving controls, 

position the midsagittal plane of any 

front outboard dummy vertically and 

parallel to the vehicle’s longitudinal 

centerline, within ±10 mm (±0.4 in) of 

the seating reference point of the seat 

that it occupies. In the case of vehicles 

equipped with bucket seats, position the 

midsagittal plane of any front outboard 

dummy vertically such that it coincides 

with the longitudinal centerline of the 

seat cushion, within ±10 mm (±0.4 in). 

Position the torso of the dummy against 

the seat back. Position the dummy’s 

thighs against the seat cushion. 

* * * * * 

S22.2.2.3 * * * 

(a) Place the dummy on any front 

outboard passenger seat. 

(b) In the case of vehicles equipped 

with bench seats and with manually 

operated driving controls, position the 

midsagittal plane of the dummy 

vertically and parallel to the vehicle’s 

longitudinal centerline and the same 

distance from the vehicle’s longitudinal 

centerline, within ±10 mm (±0.4 in), as 

the center of the steering control. For 

bench seats in vehicles without 

manually operated driving controls, 

position the midsagittal plane of any 

front outboard dummy vertically and 

parallel to the vehicle’s longitudinal 

centerline, within ±10 mm (±0.4 in) of 

the seating reference point of the seat 

that it occupies. In the case of vehicles 

equipped with bucket seats, position the 

midsagittal plane of any front outboard 

dummy vertically such that it coincides 

with the longitudinal centerline of the 

seat cushion, within ±10 mm (±0.4 in). 

Position the dummy with the spine 

vertical so that the horizontal distance 

from the dummy’s back to the seat back 

is no less than 25 mm (1.0 in) and no 

more than 150 mm (6.0 in), as measured 

along the dummy’s midsagittal plane at 

the mid-sternum level. To keep the 

dummy in position, a material with a 

maximum breaking strength of 311 N 

(70 lb) may be used to hold the dummy. 

* * * * * 

S22.2.2.4 * * * 

(a) In the case of vehicles equipped 

with bench seats and with manually 

operated driving controls, position the 

midsagittal plane of the dummy 

vertically and parallel to the vehicle’s 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 18595 

longitudinal centerline and the same 

distance from the vehicle’s longitudinal 

centerline, within ±10 mm (±0.4 in), as 

the center of the steering control. For 

bench seats in vehicles without 

manually operated driving controls, 

position the midsagittal plane of any 

front outboard dummy vertically and 

parallel to the vehicle’s longitudinal 

centerline, within ±10 mm (±0.4 in) of 

the seating reference point of the seat 

that it occupies. In the case of vehicles 

equipped with bucket seats, position the 

midsagittal plane of any front outboard 

dummy vertically such that it coincides 

with the longitudinal centerline of the 

seat cushion, within ±10 mm (±0.4 in). 

* * * * * 

S22.2.2.5 * * * 

(a) In the case of vehicles equipped 

with bench seats and with manually 

operated driving controls, position the 

midsagittal plane of the dummy 

vertically and parallel to the vehicle’s 

longitudinal centerline and the same 

distance from the vehicle’s longitudinal 

centerline, within ±10 mm (±0.4 in), as 

the center of the steering control rim. 

For bench seats in vehicles without 

manually operated driving controls, 

position the midsagittal plane of any 

front outboard dummy vertically and 

parallel to the vehicle’s longitudinal 

centerline, within ±10 mm (±0.4 in) of 

the seating reference point of the seat 

that it occupies. In the case of vehicles 

equipped with bucket seats, position the 

midsagittal plane of any front outboard 

dummy vertically such that it coincides 

with the longitudinal centerline of the 

seat cushion, within ±10 mm (±0.4 in). 

Position the dummy in a standing 

position on any front outboard 

passenger seat cushion facing the front 

of the vehicle while placing the heels of 

the dummy’s feet in contact with the 

seat back. 

* * * * * 

S22.2.2.6 * * * 

(a) In the case of vehicles equipped 

with bench seats and manually operated 

driving controls, position the 

midsagittal plane of the dummy 

vertically and parallel to the vehicle’s 

longitudinal centerline and the same 

distance from the vehicle’s longitudinal 

centerline, within ±10 mm (±0.4 in), as 

the center of the steering control. For 

bench seats in vehicles without 

manually operated driving controls, 

position the midsagittal plane of any 

front outboard dummy vertically and 

parallel to the vehicle’s longitudinal 

centerline, within ±10 mm (±0.4 in) of 

the seating reference point of the seat 

that it occupies. In the case of vehicles 

equipped with bucket seats, position the 

midsagittal plane of any front outboard 

dummy vertically such that it coincides 

with the longitudinal centerline of the 

seat cushion, within ±10 mm (±0.4 in). 

(b) Position the dummy in a kneeling 

position in any front outboard passenger 

vehicle seat with the dummy facing the 

front of the vehicle with its toes at the 

intersection of the seat back and seat 

cushion. Position the dummy so that the 

spine is vertical. Push down on the legs 

so that they contact the seat as much as 

possible and then release. Place the 

arms parallel to the spine. 

* * * * * 

S22.2.2.7 * * * 

(a) In the case of vehicles equipped 

with bench seats and manually operated 

driving controls, position the 

midsagittal plane of the dummy 

vertically and parallel to the vehicle’s 

longitudinal centerline and the same 

distance from the vehicle’s longitudinal 

centerline, within ±10 mm (±0.4 in), as 

the center of the steering control. For 

bench seats in vehicles without 

manually operated driving controls, 

position the midsagittal plane of any 

front outboard dummy vertically and 

parallel to the vehicle’s longitudinal 

centerline, within ±10 mm (±0.4 in) of 

the seating reference point of the seat 

that it occupies. In the case of vehicles 

equipped with bucket seats, position the 

midsagittal plane of any front outboard 

dummy vertically such that it coincides 

with the longitudinal centerline of the 

seat cushion, within ±10 mm (±0.4 in). 

(b) Position the dummy in a kneeling 

position in any front outboard passenger 

vehicle seat with the dummy facing the 

rear of the vehicle. Position the dummy 

such that the dummy’s head and torso 

are in contact with the seat back. Push 

down on the legs so that they contact 

the seat as much as possible and then 

release. Place the arms parallel to the 

spine. 

* * * * * 

S22.2.2.8 * * * 

(a) Lay the dummy on any front 

outboard passenger vehicle seat such 

that the following criteria are met: 

* * * * * 

(6) The head of the dummy is 

positioned towards the nearest 

passenger door, and 

* * * * * 

S22.3 Static tests of automatic 

suppression feature which shall result 

in activation of any front outboard 

passenger air bag system. 

S22.3.1 Each vehicle certified to this 

option shall comply in tests conducted 

with any front outboard passenger 

seating position at the mid-height, in the 

full rearward, and middle positions 

determined in S22.1.7.4, and the 

forward position determined in 

S16.3.3.1.8. 

S22.3.2 Place a 49 CFR part 572 

subpart O 5th percentile adult female 

test dummy at any front outboard 

passenger seating position of the 

vehicle, in accordance with procedures 

specified in S16.3.3 of this standard, 

except as specified in S22.3.1. Do not 

fasten the seat belt. 

* * * * * 

S22.4.2.2 Place the dummy in any 

front outboard passenger seat such that: 

* * * * * 

S22.4.3.1 Place any front outboard 

passenger seat at the mid-height, in full 

rearward seating position determined in 

S22.1.7.4. Place the seat back, if 

adjustable independent of the seat, at 

the manufacturer’s nominal design seat 

back angle for a 50th percentile adult 

male as specified in S8.1.3. Position any 

adjustable parts of the seat that provide 

additional support so that they are in 

the lowest or most open adjustment 

position. If adjustable, set the head 

restraint in the lowest and most forward 

position. 

S22.4.3.2 Place the dummy in any 

front outboard passenger seat such that: 

* * * * * 

S22.4.4 Deploy any front outboard 

passenger frontal air bag system. If the 

frontal air bag system contains a 

multistage inflator, the vehicle shall be 

able to comply with the injury criteria 

at any stage or combination of stages or 

time delay between successive stages 

that could occur in a rigid barrier crash 

test at or below 26 km/h (16 mph), 

under the test procedure specified in 

S22.5. 

* * * * * 

S22.5.1 The test described in S22.5.2 

shall be conducted with an unbelted 

50th percentile adult male test dummy 

in the driver’s seating position 

according to S8 as it applies to that 

seating position and an unbelted 5th 

percentile adult female test dummy 

either in any front outboard passenger 

vehicle seating position according to 

S16 as it applies to that seating position 

or at any fore-aft seat position on any 

passenger side. 

* * * * * 

S23.2.1 The vehicle shall be 

equipped with an automatic 

suppression feature for any front 

outboard passenger frontal air bag 

system which results in deactivation of 

the air bag during each of the static tests 

specified in S24.2 (using the 49 CFR 

part 572 subpart N 6-year-old child 

dummy in any of the child restraints 

specified in section D of appendix A or 

A–1 of this standard, as appropriate), 

and activation of the air bag system 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
18596 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

during each of the static tests specified 

in S24.3 (using the 49 CFR part 572 

subpart O 5th percentile adult female 

dummy). 

* * * * * 

S23.2.3 The vehicle shall be 

equipped with a mechanism that 

indicates whether the air bag is 

suppressed, regardless of whether any 

front outboard passenger seat is 

occupied. The mechanism need not be 

located in the occupant compartment 

unless it is the telltale described in 

S23.2.2. 

S23.3 Option 2—Dynamic automatic 

suppression system that suppresses the 

air bag when an occupant is out of 

position. (This option is available under 

the conditions set forth in S27.1.) The 

vehicle shall be equipped with a 

dynamic automatic suppression system 

for any front outboard passenger frontal 

air bag system which meets the 

requirements specified in S27. 

S23.4 Option 3—Low risk 

deployment. Each vehicle shall meet the 

injury criteria specified in S23.5 of this 

standard when any front outboard 

passenger air bag is statically deployed 

in accordance with both of the low risk 

deployment test procedures specified in 

S24.4. 

* * * * * 

S24.1.2 Unless otherwise specified, 

each vehicle certified to this option 

shall comply in tests conducted with 

any front outboard passenger seating 

position at the mid-height, in the full 

rearward seat track position, the middle 

seat track position, and the full forward 

seat track position as determined in this 

section. Using only the control that 

primarily moves the seat in the fore and 

aft direction, determine the full 

rearward, middle, and full forward 

positions of the SCRP. Using any seat or 

seat cushion adjustments other than that 

which primarily moves the seat fore-aft, 

determine the SCRP mid-point height 

for each of the three fore-aft test 

positions, while maintaining as closely 

as possible, the seat cushion angle 

determined in S16.2.10.3.1. Set the seat 

back angle, if adjustable independent of 

the seat, at the manufacturer’s nominal 

design seat back angle for a 50th 

percentile adult male as specified in 

S8.1.3. If the dummy contacts the 

vehicle interior, move the seat rearward 

to the next detent that provides 

clearance. If the seat is a power seat, 

move the seat rearward while assuring 

that there is a maximum of 5 mm (0.2 

in) distance between the vehicle interior 

and the point on the dummy that would 

first contact the vehicle interior. 

S24.1.3 Except as otherwise 

specified, if the booster seat has an 

anchorage system as specified in S5.9 of 

FMVSS No. 213 and is used under this 

standard in testing a vehicle with any 

front outboard passenger vehicle seat 

that has an anchorage system as 

specified in FMVSS No. 225, the vehicle 

shall comply with the belted test 

conditions with the restraint anchorage 

system attached to the FMVSS No. 225 

vehicle seat anchorage system and the 

vehicle seat belt unattached. It shall also 

comply with the belted test conditions 

with the restraint anchorage system 

unattached to the FMVSS No. 225 

vehicle seat anchorage system and the 

vehicle seat belt attached. The vehicle 

shall comply with the unbelted test 

conditions with the restraint anchorage 

system unattached to the FMVSS No. 

225 vehicle seat anchorage system. 

* * * * * 

S24.2 Static tests of automatic 

suppression feature which shall result 

in deactivation of any passenger air bag, 

associated with that designated seating 

position. Each vehicle that is certified as 

complying with S23.2 of FMVSS No. 

208 shall meet the following test 

requirements with the child restraint in 

any front outboard passenger vehicle 

seat under the following conditions: 

* * * * * 

S24.2.3 Sitting back in the seat and 

leaning on any front outboard passenger 

door. 

(a) Place the dummy in the seated 

position in any front outboard passenger 

vehicle seat. For bucket seats, position 

the midsagittal plane of the dummy 

vertically such that it coincides with the 

longitudinal centerline of the seat 

cushion, within ±10 mm (±0.4 in). For 

bench seats in vehicles with manually 

operated driving controls, position the 

midsagittal plane of the dummy 

vertically and parallel to the vehicle’s 

longitudinal centerline and the same 

distance from the longitudinal 

centerline of the vehicle, within ±10 

mm (±0.4 in), as the center of rotation 

of the steering control. For bench seats 

in vehicles without manually operated 

driving controls, position the 

midsagittal plane of any front outboard 

dummy vertically and parallel to the 

vehicle’s longitudinal centerline, within 

±10 mm (±0.4 in) of the seating 

reference point of the seat that it 

occupies. 

* * * * * 

S24.3 Static tests of automatic 

suppression feature which shall result 

in activation of any front outboard 

passenger air bag system. 

S24.3.1 Each vehicle certified to this 

option shall comply in tests conducted 

with any front outboard passenger 

seating position at the mid-height, in the 

full rearward and middle positions 

determined in S24.1.2, and the forward 

position determined in S16.3.3.1.8. 

S24.3.2 Place a 49 CFR part 572 

subpart O 5th percentile adult female 

test dummy at any front outboard 

passenger seating position of the 

vehicle, in accordance with procedures 

specified in S16.3.3 of this standard, 

except as specified in S24.3.1. Do not 

fasten the seat belt. 

* * * * * 

S24.4.2.3 Place the dummy in any 

front outboard passenger seat such that: 

* * * * * 

S24.4.3.1 Place any front outboard 

passenger seat at the mid-height full 

rearward seating position determined in 

S24.1.2. Place the seat back, if 

adjustable independent of the seat, at 

the manufacturer’s nominal design seat 

back angle for a 50th percentile adult 

male as specified in S8.1.3. Position any 

adjustable parts of the seat that provide 

additional support so that they are in 

the lowest or most open adjustment 

position. Position an adjustable head 

restraint in the lowest and most forward 

position. 

S24.4.3.2 Place the dummy in any 

front outboard passenger seat such that: 

* * * * * 

S24.4.4 Deploy any front outboard 

passenger frontal air bag system. If the 

frontal air bag system contains a 

multistage inflator, the vehicle shall be 

able to comply with the injury criteria 

at any stage or combination of stages or 

time delay between successive stages 

that could occur in a rigid barrier crash 

test at or below 26 km/h (16 mph), 

under the test procedure specified in 

S22.5. 

* * * * * 

S26.2.1 Adjust the steering controls 

so that the steering control hub is at the 

geometric center of the locus it 

describes when it is moved through its 

full range of driving positions. If there 

is no setting at the geometric center, 

position it one setting lower than the 

geometric center. Set the rotation of the 

steering control so that the vehicle 

wheels are pointed straight ahead. 

S26.2.2 Mark a point on the steering 

control cover that is longitudinally and 

transversely, as measured along the 

surface of the steering control cover, 

within ±6 mm (±0.2 in) of the point that 

is defined by the intersection of the 

steering control cover and a line 

between the volumetric center of the 

smallest volume that can encompass the 

folded undeployed air bag and the 

volumetric center of the static fully 

inflated air bag. Locate the vertical 

plane parallel to the vehicle 

longitudinal centerline through the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 18597 

point located on the steering control 

cover. This is referred to as ‘‘Plane E.’’ 

* * * * * 

S26.2.4.3 The dummy’s thorax 

instrument cavity rear face is 6 degrees 

forward (toward the front of the vehicle) 

of the steering control angle (i.e., if the 

steering control angle is 25 degrees from 

vertical, the thorax instrument cavity 

rear face angle is 31 degrees). 

S26.2.4.4 The initial transverse 

distance between the longitudinal 

centerlines at the front of the dummy’s 

knees is 160 to 170 mm (6.3 to 6.7 in), 

with the thighs and legs of the dummy 

in vertical planes. 

* * * * * 

S26.2.5 Maintaining the spine angle, 

slide the dummy forward until the 

head/torso contacts the steering control. 

* * * * * 

S26.3.2 Adjust the steering controls 

so that the steering control hub is at the 

geometric center of the locus it 

describes when it is moved through its 

full range of driving positions. If there 

is no setting at the geometric center, 

position it one setting lower than the 

geometric center. Set the rotation of the 

steering control so that the vehicle 

wheels are pointed straight ahead. 

S26.3.3 Mark a point on the steering 

control cover that is longitudinally and 

transversely, as measured along the 

surface of the steering control cover, 

within ±6 mm (±0.2 in) of the point that 

is defined by the intersection of the 

steering control cover and a line 

between the volumetric center of the 

smallest volume that can encompass the 

folded undeployed air bag and the 

volumetric center of the static fully 

inflated air bag. Locate the vertical 

plane parallel to the vehicle 

longitudinal centerline through the 

point located on the steering control 

cover. This is referred to as ‘‘Plane E.’’ 

* * * * * 

S26.3.4.3 The dummy’s thorax 

instrument cavity rear face is 6 degrees 

forward (toward the front of the vehicle) 

of the steering control angle (i.e., if the 

steering control angle is 25 degrees from 

vertical, the thorax instrument cavity 

rear face angle is 31 degrees). 

* * * * * 

S26.3.5 Maintaining the spine angle, 

slide the dummy forward until the 

head/torso contacts the steering control. 

S26.3.6 While maintaining the spine 

angle, position the dummy so that a 

point on the chin 40 mm (1.6 in) ±3 mm 

(±0.1 in) below the center of the mouth 

(chin point) is, within ±10 mm (±0.4 in), 

in contact with a point on the steering 

control rim surface closest to the 

dummy that is 10 mm (0.4 in) vertically 

below the highest point on the rim in 

Plane E. If the dummy’s head contacts 

the vehicle windshield or upper interior 

before the prescribed position can be 

obtained, lower the dummy until there 

is no more than 5 mm (0.2 in) clearance 

between the vehicle’s windshield or 

upper interior, as applicable. 

S26.3.7 If the steering control can be 

adjusted so that the chin point can be 

in contact with the rim of the uppermost 

portion of the steering control, adjust 

the steering control to that position. If 

the steering control contacts the 

dummy’s leg(s) prior to attaining this 

position, adjust it to the next highest 

detent, or if infinitely adjustable, until 

there is a maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) 

clearance between the control and the 

dummy’s leg(s). Readjust the dummy’s 

torso such that the thorax instrument 

cavity rear face is 6 degrees forward of 

the steering control angle. Position the 

dummy so that the chin point is in 

contact, or if contact is not achieved, as 

close as possible to contact with the rim 

of the uppermost portion of the steering 

control. 

* * * * * 

S27.5.2 Front outboard passenger 

(49 CFR part 572 subpart P 3-year-old 

child dummy and 49 CFR part 572 

subpart N 6-year-old child dummy). 

Each vehicle shall meet the injury 

criteria specified in S21.5 and S23.5, as 

appropriate, when any front outboard 

passenger air bag is deployed in 

accordance with the procedures 

specified in S28.2. 

* * * * * 

S27.6.2 Front outboard passenger. 

The DASS shall suppress any front 

outboard passenger air bag before head, 

neck, or torso of the specified test 

device enters the ASZ when the vehicle 

is tested under the procedures specified 

in S28.4. 

* * * * * 

S28.2 Front outboard passenger 

suppression zone verification test (49 

CFR part 572 subpart P 3-year-old child 

dummy and 49 CFR part 572 subpart N 

6-year-old child dummies). [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

S28.4 Front outboard passenger 

dynamic test procedure for DASS 

requirements. [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Amend § 571.212 by revising 

paragraph S3 to read as follows: 

§ 571.212 Standard No. 212; Windshield 

mounting. 

* * * * * 

S3. Application. This standard 

applies to passenger cars, and to 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks 

designed to carry at least one person, 

and buses having a gross vehicle weight 

rating of 4,536 kilograms or less. 

However, it does not apply to forward 

control vehicles, walk-in van-type 

vehicles, or to open-body type vehicles 

with fold-down or removable 

windshields. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Amend § 571.214 by revising 

paragraphs S2, S5(c)(4), S8.3.1.3, S8.4, 

S10.2, S10.3.1, S10.3.2, S10.3.2.3, S10.5, 

S12.1.1introductory text, S12.1.1(a)(1), 

S12.1.2 introductory text, S12.1.2(a)(1), 

S12.1.3(a)(1), S12.2.1(c), S12.3.1(d), 

S12.3.2(a)(4), S12.3.2(a)(8), 

S12.3.2(a)(9)(ii), S12.3.2(10), 

S12.3.3(a)(2), and S12.3.3(a)(4) to read 

as follows: 

§ 571.214 Standard No. 214; Side impact 

protection. 

* * * * * 

S2 Applicability. This standard 

applies to passenger cars, and to 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks 

designed to carry at least one person 

and buses with a gross vehicle weight 

rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (kg) 

(10,000 pounds (lb)) or less, except for 

walk-in vans, or otherwise specified. 

* * * * * 

S5 * * * 

(c) * * * 

(4) Vehicles in which the seat for the 

driver or any front outboard passenger 

has been removed and wheelchair 

restraints installed in place of the seat 

are excluded from meeting the vehicleto-pole test at that position; and 

* * * * * 

S8.3.1.3 Seat position adjustment. If 

the driver and any front outboard 

passenger seats do not adjust 

independently of each other, the struck 

side seat shall control the final position 

of the non-struck side seat. If the driver 

and any front outboard passenger seats 

adjust independently of each other, 

adjust both the struck and non-struck 

side seats in the manner specified in 

S8.3.1. 

* * * * * 

S8.4 Adjustable steering controls. 

Adjustable steering controls are adjusted 

so that the steering control hub is at the 

geometric center of the locus it 

describes when it is moved through its 

full range of driving positions. If there 

is no setting detent in the mid-position, 

lower the steering control to the detent 

just below the mid-position. If the 

steering column is telescoping, place the 

steering column in the mid-position. If 

there is no mid-position, move the 

steering control rearward one position 

from the mid-position. 

* * * * * 

S10.2 Vehicle test attitude. When 

the vehicle is in its ‘‘as delivered,’’ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
18598 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘fully loaded’’ and ‘‘as tested’’ 

condition, locate the vehicle on a flat, 

horizontal surface to determine the 

vehicle attitude. Use the same level 

surface or reference plane and the same 

standard points on the test vehicle when 

determining the ‘‘as delivered,’’ ‘‘fully 

loaded’’ and ‘‘as tested’’ conditions. 

Measure the angles relative to a 

horizontal plane, front-to-rear and from 

left-to-right for the ‘‘as delivered,’’ 

‘‘fully loaded,’’ and ‘‘as tested’’ 

conditions. The front-to-rear angle 

(pitch) is measured along a fixed 

reference on the left and right front 

occupant’s door sills. Mark where the 

angles are taken on the door sills. The 

left to right angle (roll) is measured 

along a fixed reference point at the front 

and rear of the vehicle at the vehicle 

longitudinal center plane. Mark where 

the angles are measured. The ‘‘as 

delivered’’ condition is the vehicle as 

received at the test site, with 100 

percent of all fluid capacities and all 

tires inflated to the manufacturer’s 

specifications listed on the vehicle’s tire 

placard. When the vehicle is in its 

‘‘fully loaded’’ condition, measure the 

angle between the left front occupant’s 

door sill and the horizontal, at the same 

place the ‘‘as delivered’’ angle was 

measured. The ‘‘fully loaded condition’’ 

is the test vehicle loaded in accordance 

with S8.1 of this standard (49 CFR 

571.214). The load placed in the cargo 

area is centered over the longitudinal 

centerline of the vehicle. The vehicle 

‘‘as tested’’ pitch and roll angles are 

between the ‘‘as delivered’’ and ‘‘fully 

loaded’’ condition, inclusive. 

* * * * * 

S10.3.1 Driver and front outboard 

passenger seat set-up for 50th percentile 

male dummy. The driver and front 

outboard passenger seats are set up as 

specified in S8.3.1 of this standard, 49 

CFR 571.214. 

S10.3.2. Driver and front outboard 

passenger seat set-up for 49 CFR part 

572 Subpart V 5th percentile female 

dummy. 

* * * * * 

S10.3.2.3 Seat position adjustment. 

If the driver and any front outboard 

passenger seats do not adjust 

independently of each other, the struck 

side seat shall control the final position 

of the non-struck side seat. If the driver 

and any front outboard passenger seats 

adjust independently of each other, 

adjust both the struck and non-struck 

side seats in the manner specified in 

S10.3.2. 

* * * * * 

S10.5 Adjustable steering controls. 

Adjustable steering controls are adjusted 

so that the steering control hub is at the 

geometric center of the locus it 

describes when it is moved through its 

full range of driving positions. If there 

is no setting detent in the mid-position, 

lower the steering control to the detent 

just below the mid-position. If the 

steering column is telescoping, place the 

steering column in the mid-position. If 

there is no mid-position, move the 

steering control rearward one position 

from the mid-position. 

* * * * * 

S12.1.1 Positioning a Part 572 

Subpart F (SID) dummy in the driver’s 

seating position. 

(a) * * * 

(1) For a bench seat. The upper torso 

of the test dummy rests against the seat 

back. The midsagittal plane of the test 

dummy is vertical and parallel to the 

vehicle’s longitudinal centerline, and 

passes through the center of the steering 

control. 

* * * * * 

S12.1.2 Positioning a Part 572 

Subpart F (SID) dummy in any front 

outboard passenger seating position. 

(a) * * * 

(1) For a bench seat. The upper torso 

of the test dummy rests against the seat 

back. The midsagittal plane of the test 

dummy is vertical and parallel to the 

vehicle’s longitudinal centerline. For 

vehicles with manually operated driving 

controls the midsagittal plane of the test 

dummy is the same distance from the 

vehicle’s longitudinal centerline as 

would be the midsagittal plane of a test 

dummy positioned in the driver’s 

seating position under S12.1.1(a)(1). For 

vehicles without manually operated 

driving controls the midsagittal plane of 

the test dummy shall be vertical and 

parallel to the vehicle’s longitudinal 

centerline, and passes through any front 

outboard passenger seat’s SgRP. 

* * * * * 

S12.1.3 * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) For a bench seat. The upper torso 

of the test dummy rests against the seat 

back. The midsagittal plane of the test 

dummy is vertical and parallel to the 

vehicle’s longitudinal centerline, and, if 

possible, the same distance from the 

vehicle’s longitudinal centerline as the 

midsagittal plane of a test dummy 

positioned in the driver’s seating 

position under S12.1.1(a)(1) or left front 

passenger seating positioned under 

S12.1.2(a)(1) in vehicles without 

manually operated driving controls. If it 

is not possible to position the test 

dummy so that its midsagittal plane is 

parallel to the vehicle longitudinal 

centerline and is at this distance from 

the vehicle’s longitudinal centerline, the 

test dummy is positioned so that some 

portion of the test dummy just touches, 

at or above the seat level, the side 

surface of the vehicle, such as the upper 

quarter panel, an armrest, or any interior 

trim (i.e., either the broad trim panel 

surface or a smaller, localized trim 

feature). 

* * * * * 

S12.2.1 * * * 

(c) Arms. Place the dummy’s upper 

arms such that the angle between the 

projection of the arm centerline on the 

mid-sagittal plane of the dummy and 

the torso reference line is 40° ±5°. The 

torso reference line is defined as the 

thoracic spine centerline. The shoulderarm joint allows for discrete arm 

positions at 0, 40, and 90 degree settings 

forward of the spine. 

* * * * * 

S12.3.1 * * * 

(d) Driver and any front outboard 

passenger dummy manual belt 

adjustment. Use all available belt 

systems. Place adjustable belt 

anchorages at the nominal position for 

a 5th percentile adult female suggested 

by the vehicle manufacturer. 

* * * * * 

S12.3.2 * * * 

(a) * * * 

(4) Bench seats. Position the 

midsagittal plane of the dummy vertical 

and parallel to the vehicle’s longitudinal 

centerline and aligned within ±10 mm 

(±0.4 in) of the center of the steering 

control rim. 

* * * * * 

(8) If needed, extend the legs slightly 

so that the feet are not in contact with 

the floor pan. Let the thighs rest on the 

seat cushion to the extent permitted by 

the foot movement. Keeping the leg and 

the thigh in a vertical plane, place the 

foot in the vertical longitudinal plane 

that passes through the centerline of the 

accelerator pedal. Rotate the left thigh 

outboard about the hip until the center 

of the knee is the same distance from 

the midsagittal plane of the dummy as 

the right knee ±5 mm (±0.2 in). Using 

only the control that moves the seat fore 

and aft, attempt to return the seat to the 

full forward position. If either of the 

dummy’s legs first contacts the steering 

control, then adjust the steering control, 

if adjustable, upward until contact with 

the steering control is avoided. If the 

steering control is not adjustable, 

separate the knees enough to avoid 

steering control contact. Proceed with 

moving the seat forward until either the 

leg contacts the vehicle interior or the 

seat reaches the full forward position. 

(The right foot may contact and depress 

the accelerator and/or change the angle 

of the foot with respect to the leg during 

seat movement.) If necessary to avoid 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 18599 

contact with the vehicle’s brake or 

clutch pedal, rotate the test dummy’s 

left foot about the leg. If there is still 

interference, rotate the left thigh 

outboard about the hip the minimum 

distance necessary to avoid pedal 

interference. If a dummy leg contacts 

the vehicle interior before the full 

forward position is attained, position 

the seat at the next detent where there 

is no contact. If the seat is a power seat, 

move the seat fore and aft to avoid 

contact while assuring that there is a 

maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) distance 

between the vehicle interior and the 

point on the dummy that would first 

contact the vehicle interior. If the 

steering control was moved, return it to 

the position described in S10.5. If the 

steering control contacts the dummy’s 

leg(s) prior to attaining this position, 

adjust it to the next higher detent, or if 

infinitely adjustable, until there is 5 mm 

(0.2 in) clearance between the control 

and the dummy’s leg(s). 

(9) * * * 

(ii) Vehicles with adjustable seat 

backs. While holding the thighs in 

place, rotate the seat back forward until 

the transverse instrumentation platform 

angle of the head is level to within ±0.5 

degrees, making sure that the pelvis 

does not interfere with the seat bight. (If 

the torso contacts the steering control, 

use S12.3.2(a)(10) before proceeding 

with the remaining portion of this 

paragraph.) If it is not possible to level 

the transverse instrumentation platform 

to within ±0.5 degrees, select the seat 

back adjustment position that 

minimizes the difference between the 

transverse instrumentation platform 

angle and level, then adjust the neck 

bracket to level the transverse 

instrumentation platform angle to 

within ±0.5 degrees if possible. If it is 

still not possible to level the transverse 

instrumentation platform to within ±0.5 

degrees, select the neck bracket angle 

position that minimizes the difference 

between the transverse instrumentation 

platform angle and level. 

(10) If the torso contacts the steering 

control, adjust the steering control in 

the following order until there is no 

contact: Telescoping adjustment, 

lowering adjustment, raising 

adjustment. If the vehicle has no 

adjustments or contact with the steering 

control cannot be eliminated by 

adjustment, position the seat at the next 

detent where there is no contact with 

the steering control as adjusted in S10.5. 

If the seat is a power seat, position the 

seat to avoid contact while assuring that 

there is a maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) 

distance between the steering control as 

adjusted in S10.5 and the point of 

contact on the dummy. 

* * * * * 

S12.3.3 * * * 

(a) * * * 

(2) Fully recline the seat back, if 

adjustable. Place the dummy into any 

passenger seat, such that when the legs 

are positioned 120 degrees to the thighs, 

the calves of the legs are not touching 

the seat cushion. 

* * * * * 

(4) Bench seats. Position the 

midsagittal plane of the dummy vertical 

and parallel to the vehicle’s longitudinal 

centerline and the same distance from 

the vehicle’s longitudinal centerline, 

within ±10 mm (±0.4 in), as the 

midsagittal plane of the driver dummy, 

if there is a driver’s seating position. 

Otherwise, the midsagittal plane of any 

front outboard passenger dummy shall 

be vertical, parallel to the vehicle’s 

longitudinal centerline, and pass, 

within ±10 mm (±0.4 in), through the 

seating reference point of the seating 

that it occupies. 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Amend § 571.216a by revising 

paragraph S3.1(a) introductory text and 

S7.1 to read as follows: 

§ 571.216a Standard No. 216a; Roof crush 

resistance; Upgraded standard. 

* * * * * 

S3.1 * * * 

(a) This standard applies to passenger 

cars, and to multipurpose passenger 

vehicles, trucks designed to carry at 

least one person, and buses with a 

GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 

pounds) or less, according to the 

implementation schedule specified in 

S8 and S9 of this section. However, it 

does not apply to— 

* * * * * 

S7.1 Support the vehicle off its 

suspension and rigidly secure the sills 

and the chassis frame (when applicable) 

of the vehicle on a rigid horizontal 

surface(s) at a longitudinal attitude of 0 

degrees ±0.5 degrees. Measure the 

longitudinal vehicle attitude along both 

the left and right front sill. Determine 

the lateral vehicle attitude by measuring 

the vertical distance between a level 

surface and a standard reference point 

on the bottom of the left and right front 

side sills. The difference between the 

vertical distance measured on the left 

front side and the right front side sills 

is not more than ±10 mm. Close all 

windows, close and lock all doors, and 

close and secure any moveable roof 

panel, moveable shade, or removable 

roof structure in place over the occupant 

compartment. Remove roof racks or 

other non-structural components. For a 

vehicle built on a chassis-cab 

incomplete vehicle that has some 

portion of the added body structure 

above the height of the incomplete 

vehicle, remove the entire added body 

structure prior to testing (the vehicle’s 

unloaded vehicle weight as specified in 

S5 includes the weight of the added 

body structure). 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Amend § 571.219 by revising 

paragraph S3 to read as follows: 

§ 571.219 Standard No. 219; Windshield 

zone intrusion. 

* * * * * 

S3. Application. This standard 

applies to passenger cars and to 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks 

designed to carry at least one person, 

and buses of 4,536 kilograms or less 

gross vehicle weight rating. However, it 

does not apply to forward control 

vehicles, walk-in van-type vehicles, or 

to open-body-type vehicles with folddown or removable windshields. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Amend § 571.225 by revising the 

definition of ‘‘Shuttle bus’’ in paragraph 

S3 to read as follows: 

§ 571.225 Standard No. 225; Child restraint 

anchorage systems. 

* * * * * 

S3. * * * 

Shuttle bus means a bus with only 

one row of forward-facing seating 

positions rearward of the driver’s seat 

or, for a vehicle without manually 

operated controls, means a bus with 

only one row of forward-facing seating 

positions rearward of all front row 

passenger seats. 

* * * * * 

■ 15. Amend § 571.226 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph S2; 

■ b. Revising the definition of 

‘‘Modified roof’’ in paragraph S3; 

■ c. Removing the definitions of ‘‘Row’’ 

and ‘‘Seat outline’’ in paragraph S3; and 

■ d. Revising paragraphs S6.1(d) and (f). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 571.226 Standard No. 226; Ejection 

mitigation. 

* * * * * 

S2. Application. This standard 

applies to passenger cars, and to 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks 

designed to carry at least one person, 

and buses with a gross vehicle weight 

rating of 4,536 kg or less, except walkin vans, modified roof vehicles, 

convertibles, and vehicles with no doors 

or with doors that are designed to be 

easily attached or removed so the 

vehicle can be operated without doors. 

Also excluded from this standard are 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
18600 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

law enforcement vehicles, correctional 

institution vehicles, taxis and 

limousines, if they have a fixed security 

partition separating the 1st and 2nd or 

2nd and 3rd rows and if they are 

produced by more than one 

manufacturer or are altered (within the 

meaning of 49 CFR 567.7). 

S3. * * * 

Modified roof means the replacement 

roof on a motor vehicle whose original 

roof has been removed, in part or in 

total, or a roof that has to be built over 

the occupant compartment in vehicles 

that did not have an original roof over 

the occupant compartment. 

* * * * * 

S6.1 * * * 

(d) Pitch: Measure the sill angle of the 

left front door sill and mark where the 

angle is measured. 

* * * * * 

(f) Support the vehicle off its 

suspension such that the left front door 

sill angle is within ±1 degree of that 

measured at the marked area in S6.1(d) 

and the vertical height difference of the 

two points marked in S6.1(e) is within 

±5 mm of the vertical height difference 

determined in S6.1(e). 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, under authority 

delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5. 

Steven S. Cliff, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2022–05426 Filed 3–29–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3