Download:
pdf |
pdf 30680
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 9 3 I F r i d a y . May 12, 2000/RuIes
and
Regulations
~~
-~
-
"
~~
~~~
~~
-
www.nhtsa.dot.gov and select"Air
level of real world proteclion provided
by current redesigned air bags. the
Bags" under "Popular Information" on
uncertainty associated with the
the left hand side of the screen. On the
challenge of simultaneously achieving
next screen. select "Advanced Air
Administration
the twin goals of TEA 21 is best resolved Bags."
You may also view the materials in
at this point infavor of minimizing risk.
This is especially true in the early stages
the docket for this rulemakingon the
Internet. To do this, do the following:
of the introductionof advanced air hag
RIN 2127-A070
technologies.
(11Go to theDocket Management
In light of that uncertainty, we are
System [DMS) Web page of the
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
selecting the lowerof two proposed
Department of Transportation (http:li
Standards; Occupant Crash Protection speeds as the maximum test speed for
dms.dot.gov/).
the unbelted rigid harrier crash test and (2) On that page, click on "search."
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
issuing that partof this rule as an
13) On the next page (http:l/
Safety Administration (NHTSAI,DOT.
interim final rule. To resolve that
dms.dot.gov/search/l. type in the fourACTION: Final rule: interim final rule.
~- - uncertainty. we are planninga multidigit docket number shown at the
year effort to obtain additional data. We beginning of this document. Example:
SUMMARY: This rule amends our
occupant crash protection standard to will issue a final decision regarding the The docket number for the
require that future air bags be designed maximum test speed after giving notice Supplemental Proposal in this
and seeking public comment.If we were rulemaking is "NHTSA 99-6407." If you
to create less riskof serious air baginduced injuries than current air bags, to increase the speed, we would provide want to view the materials filed for that
leadtime commensurate with the extent notice. you would type "6407." (For this
particularly for smallwomen and young of that increase.
rule, you would type"7013.") After
improved
frontal
children; and provide
DATES: Effective Dote: The amendments typing the docket number, click on
crash protection for all occupants, by
"search."
made in this rule are effective June
12,
means that include advanced air
hag
2000.
(41 On the next page, which contains
technology. To achieve these goals,it
The incorporation by referenceof the
docket summarv information for the
adds a wide varietyof new
publications listed in the ruleis
docket you selected, click on the desired
requirements. test procedures, and
injury criteria, using an assortment of approved by the Directorof the Federal comments. You may download the
Register asof June 12, 2000.
comments and other materials.
new dummies.It replaces the sled test
Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration Note to readers: As an aid to readers who
with a rigid harrier crash testfor
must be received by June2 6 , 2 0 0 0 .
are outside the engineering community,we
assessing the protection of unbelted
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration have provided a glossary that briefly explains
occupants.
the key technical terms used in this
should refer to the docket and notice
The issuance of this rule completes
preamble. In the case o f the term "fined
number of this document andbe
the implementation of our 1996
barrier crash test.'' we have supplemented
comprehensive plan for reducing air hag submitted to: Administrator. National
the explanation with illustrations. That
Highway Traffic Safety Administration. glossary appears in Appendix A a t the end
risks. It is also required by the
400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington,
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
of the preamble. before the regulatory text.
Century (TEA 211, which was enacted in DC 20590.
Readers may find it helpful to review that
In
light
of
our
decision
to
issue
the
glossary hefore reading the lest of this
1998.
maximum test speedfor the unhelted
document.
This rule will ensure that advanced
air bag technologies are installed across rigid harrier test as an interim final rule, Table of Contents
we are keeping the docketfor this
the full spectrum of future fleets of
motor vehicles. As a result, the air bags document open to receive public input. 1. Safety Prohlerns
A. Frontal Crashes and the "Second
Persons making submissions to tho
in those vehicles will
be even more
Collisinn"-The Leadine (:ausr nf
docket
should
refer
to
the
docket
and
effective than the curreni redesigned air
Deaths
notice number of this document. As we 8.Occupanl
bags in saving lives. At the same time,
Preventing or Mitigating the Effects of
obtain and analyze data, we will place
those air hags will be much less likely
the Second Collision Using Seat Belts
than those redesigned air bags to cause the results in that docket.
and Air Bags
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
C. Air Rag Risks and Fatalities
deaths or serious injuries.
U. Causes OfAirBag Fatalilies
non-legal issues, you may contact Clarke
The provisions of this rule,
11. 'The Rule, Its Rationale. and I t s
particularly the maximum test speedfor Harper, Chief, Light Duty Vehicle
Implementation
the unbelted rigid barrier test, reflect the Division. NPS-11. Telephone: 1202)
A. Key Provisions of the Rule
366-2264. Fax: (2021 366-4320. E~mail:
uncertainty associated with
B. Other Provisiuns o f the Rule
goals [email protected].
simultaneously achieving the twin
C. Future Kolemaking Plans
For legal issues, you may contact
of TEA 21. This uncertainty leads us to
D.Monitoring of Implementittion and Field
Edward Glancy or RebeccaMacl'licrson,
take an approach that best assures
Experience; Kesearch a n d 'Technology
Office
of
Chief
Counsel,
NCC-20.
improved air hag protection for
Assessment
Telephone: (202) 366-2992. Fax: ( 2 0 2 )
occupants of all sizes, without
111. Our Proposals for Advanced Air Bags
A. Our lnilial Proposal [September 199231
compromising efforts to reduce the risks 366-3820.
B. Our Suoolemenlal
Proposal [November
You may send mail to these officials
..
of injury to vulnerable occupants,
at
the Nat;onal Highway
Traffic
Safety
1999)
including children and short women
Fohiic Comments on t h e SoppiemenLal
seated very close to air hags and out-of- Administration, 4oo seventh st,,s , ~ , ,IV.Proposal
Washington.
D.C.,
20590.
position occupants. Such an approach is
V. Diagrams of the Rule Requirements
one that involves the least uncertainty SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For
VI. Improving the Protection of Unhelted
far theoccupants who have been most
information about air bars and related
nr.rllnan~c
i n srrinllc rnchrs
~~~..~..........I"
at risk. As lone
" as the manufacturers
ru'lemakings:
Visit
home
the
page
of
the
A . summary ,f proposed ~ ~ q u i r e ~ e n t ~
improve
the
already
substantial
overall
NHTSA
web
site
http://
at
B. 'Type of Test
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
~
~~
~~I
Federal Renisler / Val. 6 5 , No. 93/Friday, May 12. 2 0 0 O i A
~
~_ _
C. Agency Decision to Establish Maximum
Test Speed at 40 kmih I25 mphl
1. The Supplemental Propusal
2 . Summary ofComments
3. Decision on Maximum Test Speed
0. Other Issues
1. Location of 5th Percentile Adult Female
Dummy
2. Minimum Test Speed
VII. Improving the Protec:tion of Belted
Occupants in SeriousCmshes
A. Belted Rigid Barrier CrashTest
B . Belted Offset Ueformable Barrier Crash
~
~~
M. Consideration of Unintended
45 percent and the risk
of moderate-toC0"SsqUe"CeS
critical injury by 50 percent. For light
N. Reporting Requirements
truck occu ants, seat belts reduce the
0. Use of Children and Adults for'lesting
risk of fatarinjury by GO percent and
Static Suppression Systems
moderate-to-critical injury by65
P. Small Business Concerns
percent.
Q. Other Issms
Air bags are also highly effective in
1. Ability to Comment Effectivelyun lhe
reducine fatalities from frontal crashes.
Supplemental Proposal
Betwee; 1986 and March 1, 2000, air
2 . Resubmittal of Petition for Rolemaking
bags have saved an estimated 5,303
by Donald Friedman and Carl Nash
XIV. Benefils and Casts
front seat occupants (4,496 drivers (85
XV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
percent) and 807 right front passengers
T.
PI
C"
, .
Appendix A Glossary
(15percent)).' Of the 5,303 people, 72
Appendix B Evolution of theAir Rag
VIII. Minimizing the Risk of Injuries and
percent were unbelted and 28 percent
Provisions in Standard No. 2118
Dealhs Caused by Air Bags
Appendix C Chronology of DOT and NHI'SA belted. If observed seat belt use rates
A. Safetv of Infants
were to increase to85 percent. the goal
1. Option 1: Fwature [e.&.,Weight or Size
Responses l o Air Bag Risks and Fatalities
for 2000 set by DOT in
1997,the
Sensor) That Suppresses the Air Bag
Appendix D Installation of Advanced
Technologies in Current Production Motor distribution of lives saved would change
When an infant Is Present
from 72 percent unhelted/28 percent
2 . Option 2: Low-Risk Deployment for
Vehicles
Infants in Rear-Facing Child Safety Seats Regulatory Text
belted toGO percent unbelted and40
B. Safety of Young Children
percent belted.
I. Safety Problems
1. Option 1: Feature (cg.,Weight or Size
The number of lives saved annually
Sensor] That Suppresses the Air Bag
by air hags is continuing to increase as
A. FrontalCrashes and the "Second
When a Child IS Present
the percentage of air hag-equipped
Collision'-The Leading Cause sf
2. Option 2: Low-Risk Deployment fur
vehicles on the road increases. We
Occupant Deaths
Young Children
estimate that air hagswill save more
3 . Option 3: Feature That Suppresses the
Frontal crashes are the most
than 3,200 lives annually in passenger
Air Bag When a Child Is Out-of-Position significant cause of motor vehicle
cars and light trucks whenall light
C. Safety of Teenage and Adult Drivers
fatalities. More than%'s of the people
vehicles on the road are equipped with
1. Option 1: Low-Risk Deployment
for
.~
killed in frontal crashes are unbelted.
driver
and passenger air hags. This
Ohms
Young people, i.e., those in their teens
2. Option 2: Feature That Suppresses the
estimate is based on an anticipated fleet
and
twenties,
account
for
about
40
Air Bag When a Uriver Is Out-of-Position
of vehicles meeting all of the
percent of the unbelted deaths.
1X. Injury Criteria
requirements in this rule and on1997
a
vehicle
involves
of
The frontal crash
A. Head Injury Criteria
two collisions. Thefirst collision occurs seat belt use rates (66.9percent,
B. Neck Injury Criteria
when the vehicle strikes another vehicleaccording to State-reported surveys).
C. Thoracic Criteria
However, if observed seat belt use rates
0. Other Criteria
or an object suchas a tree. The second
X. Lead Time and EffectiveDate
collision is the human collision with thewere to reach85 percent. the annual
savings of lives due to air hags would he
A. Large Manufacturers
vehicle interior.
reduced l o approximately 2,400.
B. Limited Line. Small. Multi-Stage
When a vehicle collides witha n
Manufar:turers and Alterers
object, a front seat occupant whois not
C. Air Bag Risks ond Fatalities
1. Limited Line Manufdcturers
wearing a seat belt becomesa projectile
2. Small Manufacturers
As the numbers above indicate, the
and keeps moving forward at speeds up attempt through seat belts and air bags
3. Multi-StageManufacturers and Alterers
to the vehicle's pre-crash speed.If that
XI. Availability of Original Equipment and
to substitute a survivable event for an
unbelted occupant is not protected by
Retrofit Manual On-Off Switches
unsurvivahle one or to substitute a less
an air hag. the head or chest of the
XII. Warning Labels,Cunsurner Information,
injurious event for a more injurious one
and Telltale Devices
occupant usually slams into the stewing is not always successful. While
air hags
A. Warning Labels and Consumer
wheel. dashboard, roof pillars or
are saving an increasing numberof
lniarmalion
windshield. In the absence of an bag,
air
people in moderate and high speed
B. Telltale Devices
even belted occupants, particularly
crashes. they have occasionally caused
XIII. Miscellaneous Issues
belted drivers. are likely to strike tho
A. Child Restraints Used for Testing
fatalities, especially to unrestrained.
vehicle interior with their head and
Suppression and Low-Risk Deployment
out-of-position children. in relatively
neck
or
chest
in
a
serious
crash.
Features
low speed crashes. As of April 1. 2000.
B. Dummy Positioning for Static
E . Preventing or Mitigating theEJJects of NHTSA's Special Crash Investigation
Suppression and Low-Risk Deployment
(SCI) program had confirmeda total of
the Second Collision Using Seat Belts
Tests
158 fatalities induced by the
and AirBags
C. Due Care Provision
deployment
of an air
bag. Of that total,
D. Selection of Compliance Options
To prevent or mitigate the eficcts of
92 were children. GO were drivers, and
E. Credits for Early Compliance
the second collision, StandardNo. 208
P.Choice Between Complying with
requires that vehicles he equipped with G were adult passengers. An additional
Existing and/or New Injury Criteria and
38 fatalities were under investigation by
seat belts and frontal air
hags.' Seats
Test Requirements
SCI on that date, hut they had not been
belts
are
estimated
to
save
9,500
lives
in
G. Time Periods for Measuring Injury
confirmed as having been induced by
America
each
year.
Research
has
found
Criteria During Tests
air
bags.
that lap/shoulder belts, when used
H. Cruise Controls
properly. reduce the risk of fatal injury
1. Rescue Operations
J. Hybrid 111 Dulnmy Neck
to front seat passenger car occupants hy
K. Seating Procedure lor 5th Percentile
Adult Female Dummy
I Fur a history of NHTSAs rulamnkiny
L. Deletion ofTestr Between the Initial and c o n c ~ m m gsir bags. $ 0 0 Appondix B . "Evolulinn c
u
i
thr Air Bag Provisionr in S l m d n r d No. 208."
the Supplemental Proposals
~~
Changes have already occurred that pressure, fold patterns and the number belts or child safety seats and moved
and type of tethers, have changed in forward during pre-crash braking.
are reducing the number of persons
recent years. allof which may have
killed by air hags. Some changes are
Closeness is a problem because, in
collectively contributed to the reduced
behavioral. As a result of public
order far anair hag to cushion an
education programs, improved labeling aggressiveness of air bags.
occupant's head, neck, chest and
To assess the impactof the redesigned abdomen and keep the occupant from
and media coverage, the public is much
more awareof the dangers air bags pose air bags on the numbers of air haghitting the steering wheel, windshield
induced fatalities, we used the available or instrument panel. theair bag must
to children in the front seat and to
SCI data. We compared the rate per
drivers sitting too close to the air
bag
move into place quickly. The force of a
million registered vehicles of air hagand is taking steps to reduce those
deploying air hag is greatest as the air
dangers. For example, more children are induced fatalities for the first27 months hag begins to inflate. If occupants are
being put in the back seat. More short- that MY 1998 redesigned vehicles were very close to or in contact with the
of air bagstatured drivers are moving back from on the road with the rate
cover of an air hag that does not meet
the steering wheel.
induced fatalities for the first 27 months the low risk deployment requirements
Other changes are technological. First, that MY 1996-97 vehicles were on the
of this rule, they can be hit with enough
road. We took this approach in an effortforce to cause serious injuryor death
as NHTSA noted in its report. "AirBag
to ensure that the amountof exposure
Technology in Light Passenger
when the airbag begins to inflate. This
Vehicles" [December 1999). the air bag was comparable for both groups of
can he caused either by the cover as the
outputs [i.e.,pressure rise rate and the vehicles. We found that theair bagair bag breaks out of the module [known
induced fatality rate for all MY 1998
peak pressure) were reduced
as the "punch-out" effect)or by the
significantly in many MY 1998 and later vehicles is 68 percent less than the
unfolding and inflating air
bag as it first
fatality ratefor MY 1996-97 vehicles
motor vehicles in comparison to the
conforms to the contours of the
(0.48 forMY 1998 versus an average of occupant and then moves rapidly into
earlier vehicles.:' Hence, the sled test
option successfully expedited the
1.43 for MY 1996-97).
its fully-inflated shape (known as the
depowering of existing air bags. While
Part of this reduction is the result of
"membrane" effe~t1.l~
there are many means by which air bag changes in vehicle design and part is the
In all of the92 SCI confirmed
aggressiveness can be reduced, reducing result of changes in behavior:i . ~ .using
,
fatalities
involving children. the
air bag outputs is a quick means of
seat belts more frequently, moving
children were very close to the
accomplishing thisgoal. The agency's
children into the back seat. and moving instrument panel when the air
bag
analyses also show that. between
MY
the driver's seat further back. We found
deployed.
Because
of
their
proximity,
1997 and MY 1998,513 to 60 percent of
evidence of behavioral changes by
the children sustained fatal head
or
the vehicles in thefleet covered by the
examining thefront seat and rear seat
neck
injuries
from
the
deploying
1997 1R lowered the output of the
distributions of all child passengers (age
driver-side air bag, while about40 to 50 o to 12) in passenger cars, survivors plus passenger air hag.
Eighteen fatally-injured infants were
percent of the vehicles in that fleet
fatalities, in the Fatal Analysis
close to the air bag because they were
lowered the output for the passenger
Reporting System [FARS) from 1995
in rear-facing infant seats installed
side. Comparison of the data forMY
through mid-1999. Incars with
1997 and MY 1998 vehicles shows that, passenger air bags, the percentage of
directly in frontof a passenger air hag.
o n average, the pressure rise rate inMY toddlers and infants riding in the back A rear-facing infant seat whichis
1998 vehicles decreased about22
installed in the front seat of
a vehicle
seat increased from about 70 percent in
with a passenger air bag will almost
percent for the driver air bag and 14
1995 to about 90 percent in 1999.
percent for the passenger air bags.
always position the infant's head very
D. Causes oJAir Bag Fotalifies
The data providedby the
close to the passenger air bag. Several
manufacturers also show that they have
Several factors are common to air hag- other infants were being held in the lap
made significant changes in the design induced fatalities. First, they involveair of a passenger.
of their air bag systems other than the bags that d o not meet the suppressionor
AI^ but a few of the 74 fatally-injured
air bag pressure rise rate and peak
low risk deployment requirements of
older children werenot using any type
pressure in their airbag designs, some
this rule. Second, the occupants are
of restraint.' Of those who were
over a period of manyyears.' Thus,
generally very close to an air
bag
restrained. most were not correctly
depowering is not the only
module when the air
hag begins to
restrained. The non-use or improper use
technological option for reducing risk.
deploy during a crash.5 The one fdct
of occupant restraints allowed the vast
One change is the recessingof driver air that is common to all persons who died majority of these children to move
bags so that the module is located
is not their height, weight, gender.
or
forward during pre-impact brakingH
farther away from the plane of the
age. Instead, it is the fact that they were before the actual crash.As a result. they
steering wheel. and thus farther from very close to an air bag when
it started
the driver. Although this feature was not to deploy. For some people,e.g., infants
I. gcncrd. n driver can avoid a n y serious air bag
comnlon in the early 1990s. it is found
in rear-facing infant seats, this occurred r i r ~bsy
at l c ~ l s tlo i r x h r s w n y frum Om air
in almost half of the
MY 1997 and MY
because they were initially sitting very bug jmCijsUrl:d I r m Ihc: brmstbonr t o tho conlrr of
Ihc znhr I m p , covcr) :and by wcoring a Inpishouldor
1988 vehicles in the responses to the
close to the air bag. For the other
scat hdl. Tmnsgc a n d adult pnssmgars can 8void
1997 IR. Similarly, the airbag mounting occupants, this typically occurred
this rlsk hy moving thoir E C B ~os rcilrwnrd us
location on the passenger side has also because they were not restrained by seatpossihio a n d w c m q t h d r scilf hdts. Even ~n s
shown significant changes. Other
vahiclo (hat doi:s nut l ~ a v em y air bugs. chilclrsn
shuuld rich in t h o roar scilt whonovcr possihir:,
features. such as cover tear patterns, tear5 Vchiclc spcod i s not n c a u ~ ? t i v ufactor. Mlxl of
report indic~~Ics
that E O ~ vC c h i d u
milnuiaclurcrs h a d drcudy d o p o ~ r c i some
l
eir
bogs prior to lha Mvrrh 1997 ru10
* ~ ~ u ifhcsc
n . changes hcgvn bciorr tho March
1997 TUIC. but h a w rccdorukd m m Ihcn.
1 Thc
Iho cinshcs involving fvlvlilios lhnt h a w bean
confirmod AS air hog-inducod occurrrd 81 rc:li~livoly
low q m d s . If tho passcngcr air bag bod m l
deployed in those low sped crurhos. th,, ~ p ( : o ~ h
would probably "01 hnvc bccn kiliocl ur seriously
i"]"'"d.
sin~:c:that j s B sigmiicantly safor locntlon.
7 NHTSA1notw that illmo~td l uf Iho 6
11 fotnllyiniurud childion woro 1-7 ymrs old.
8% prc~irnpn,:t
bruking was ~1 factor i n n m r y high
pcrmntap,o of c.r;lrhes resulting in Lhc deaths of thc
uldorchildrcn.
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 9 3 / F r i d a y , May 1 2 , 2000/Rules
and
Regulations
~~
~~~
.~___________..__
~~~~~
30683
~~~
unbelted. under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
were very close to the air hag when it
small to permit the installation of a
Standard No. 20% while minimizing lhz risk
child restraint system; and permitting
deployed.
to infants, children, and other occupants
As in the case of the children fatally the installation
of retrofit on-off
from injuries and deaths caused by air bags,
injured by air hags, the key factor
switches in vehicles-in-use to protect
by m c m s tho1 include advonccd air bogs.
regarding the confirmed deaths of adults people in at-risk groups. Because of the
has been their closeness to the air hag lead time needed to develop and install (Emphasis added.)
TEA 2 1 specifies that its twingoals
when it deployed. The most common
advanced air hag technologies, NHTSA
factor that allowed them to become veryannounced plans to propose an interim are to he accomplished by means that
include advanced air hag technologies.
close to the air
hag was the failure to usemeasure to accelerate manufacturer
In the Although these technologies are
seat belts. Only 16 of the 60 drivers are efforts to redesign their air bags.
known to have been properly restrained long term, the agency said that
it would beginning to he incorporated in some
new vehicles. many aspects
of those
by lap and shoulder belts at the time of conduct rulemaking to require the
technoloRies are still undergoinR
installation
crash. the
haes. of air
advanced
development and refinement to&
11. The Rule, Its Rationale, and Its
Contribution of Behavioral Changes and
The rule is requiredto be consistent
Implementation
the Current. Redesigned AirBags to
with section 30111 of Title 49. Section
Reducing Air Bag Risks
30111 requires that. among other things,
A. Key Provisions ofthe Rule
To implement the interim
Federal motor vehicle safety standards
phase
of
Early Agency Efforts to Reduce AirBag
he practicable. meet the need for motor
the comprehensive plan andspeed the
Risks
redesigning and recertifying of air bags
vehicle safety, and be stated in objective
Since the early 1990s.NHTSA has
to reduce the risks to out-of-position terms
Under TEA 21. we were to issue the
been taking steps to induce changes in occupants, we amended StandardNo.
behavior and technology to reduce the
208, Occupant Crash Protection, 49CFR rule by September 1, 1999, unless we
be
risk of such deaths and serious injuries 571.208, to establish a temporary option determined that the rule could not
to children and small adult drivers,
issued by that date. The many issues in
under which vehicle manufacturers
this rulemaking led us to make sucha
especially when theyare out-ofcould certify their vehicles based ona
position." We focused our initial efforts 48 km/h (30 mphl unhelted sled test
determination. We notified Congress of
to reduce air hag risks ona public
this determination in a letter dated
using a 50th percentile adult male
August 3, 1999. Therefore, underTEA
education campaign toalert the public
dummy, instead ofthe 48 km/h ( 3 0
21. we were required to issue the rule
about the dangersof air hags to children mph) unhelted rigid harrier crash test
by March 1,2000.
in general and to infants in particular. using that dummy.62 F.R. 12960;
TEA 21 addresses various other
We urged parents to place their children March 19, 1997.
issues, including the effective date and
Available data indicate that the
always in the hack seat and to ensure
phase-in for the requirements adopted
redesigned air bags, together with
that they were always properly
in this rule. as wellas the opportunity
behavioral changes, suchas placing
restrained. We required informative,
to earn phase-in credits through early
text-only, warning labels to he placed in more children in the back seat, have
compliance. A complete discussionof
reduced the risksfrom air bags forthe
new motor vehicles and on child
at-risk populations. Although these real- TEA 21's provisions is included in the
restraints.
world data reflect only aboit two years 1998 notice
of proposed rulemaking
1996 Comprehensive Plan for
of field experience with redesigned air
(NPRMI. See 6 3 F.R. 49958 at 49961;
Addressing Air Bag Risks
hags,theypreliminarilyindicatethatSeptember
18. 1998.
To address the problems that arose the redesigned air bags in model
yoar
with the air bags installed in many
[MY) 1998 and 1999 vehicles provide The Gathering of Information and
Soliciting of Comments for This
motor vehicles, the agency announced a the same level of frontal crash
comurehensive plan in November 1996. urotection
as that nrovided hv earlier air
!!ul!?aking
To Reduce Air Bag Risks
rurtner
T h e p l a n set forih an arrayof
bags.
Since 1996, the agency has been
While the redesigned air hags in
immediate, interim and long-term
current motor vehicles have contributed carefully laying the groundwork for
measures. The immediate and interim
completing the implementationof its
measures focused on behavioral changes to the reduction in the riskairofhagcomprehensive plan by issuing this rule.
and relatively modest technological
induced injuries, they can still cause
death or serious injury to unrestrained We have made extensiveefforts to
changes. The long-term measures
focused on more significant
occupants. We selected the provisions gather information and solicit public
to ensure that future comments that would help us identify
technological changes, i.e.,advanced air adopted in this rule
and adopt a sensible, effective arrayof
air hags provide more frontal crash
hag technologies. The immediate steps
protection, and reduce risk further, than requirements for increasing protection
included expanding efforts to persuade
or and minimizing risk. In February 1997,
parents to place their children in the either the current redesigned air hags
we held a public technical workshop on
rear seat; requiring new Iahels with eye- air bags that would have been
catching graphics and colors and strong, minimally compliant with the sled test. advanced air hag technologies. In
December 1997, we sent an Information
clear warning messages: extending the Transportation Equity Act for the21st
Request [IR) to the vehicle
period of time for permitting the
Century
manufacturers to obtain detailed
installation of original equipment on-off
The Transportation EquityAct for the information concerning their changes in
switches in new vehicles which either
Zlst Century (TEA 21). enacted by
air hag design during the 1990s. In April
lacked a rear seat or had a rear seat too
Congress in June 1998, requires us to
1998. Jet Propulsion Laboratories
issue a rule amending FederalMotor
completed, at NHTSA's request, a report
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208,
titled "Advanced Air Bag Technology
Occupant Crash Protection:
Assessment." In mid-1998, Congress
made the judgment that advanced air
* * to improve occupon1 protection f"ur
hags should be required.It enacted TEA
occupants of different sizes, belled and
f
Federal R e g i s t e r l V o l . 65, N o9.3 / F r i d a yM, a y
30684
.
~
~~
~~~
.
.
~
1 2 . 2 0 0 0 / R u l easnRde g u l a t i o n s
~~~
turn off in the presence of young
type of unbelted crash test should be
occupant protection standard to require specified, and at what top speed. We children.
With respect to ourproposals for
proposed several alternatives. One
vehicle manufacturers to improve the
improvingbccupant piotiction, most
protection provided by air hags and to alternative was to test unhelted
commenters supported replacing the
reduce the risks associated with them byprotection in an improved unhelted
rigid harrier crash test witha top speed unbelted sled test with an unhelted rigid
means that include advanced air
hag
harrier crash test. The vehicle
technologies. AlthoughTEA 21 required within the range of 40 to 48 km/h (25
manufacturers, which bad opposed a
only that we seek public comment onceto 30 mpb). We said thati f we issusd
rigid barrier test in their comments on
on our proposals before taking final
a rule setting the maximum speed
at 40
the NPRM, agreed to a return to such a
action, we askedfor public comment
km/h (25 mph), we mightalso increase
test.
twice. We issued a notice of proposed
the maximum speedof the belted rigid
However, while there wasa
rulemaking (NPRM) in September 1998, barrier test from the current48 kmih to
convergence of opinion as to the typeof
and a supplemental notice of proposed
56 km/h (30 to 35 rnph). Another
unbelted test, there was a sharp
rulemaking [SNPRM) in November
alternative was to test unbelted
difference of opinion among the
1999.To help us thoroughly explore the protection in an unbelted offset
issues. we proposed or discussed in
deformable harrier test witha maximum commenters on theSNPRM regarding
the maximum speed for the unhelted
those two notices a varietyof
speed to he established in the rule
rigid barrier crash test. Several safety
alternatives and posed a wide-ranging
within the range of 48 to 56 kmih (30
advocacy and consumergroups urged
array ofquestions. Based on the
to 35 mph).
information we received in response to
In addition, we sought comment on that the maximum speedbe kept at48
km/h (30 rnph). The vehicle
the 1997 IR, we completed a report
other possibilities. One was to issue
"a
manufacturers, air hag suppliers, an
titled "Air Bag Technology in Light
final rule temporarily reducing the
Passenger Vehicles" in December 1999. maximum speed for the unhelted rigid insurance industry safety organization,
and several other organizations.
harrier test to 40 kmih ( 2 5 mphl (or
Changes to Our Initial Proposals in
believing that a maximum test speed
of
some
other
speed,
e.g.,
44
km/h
(27.5
Response to Information and Comments
4 8 km/h (30 mphl could make
mph))" and then returning"it to 4 8 kmi significant repowering necessary, urged
We carefully considered the
h (30 mph) after an appropriate period
that the maximum speed he set at 40
information we gathered and the
of time. e.g., after the TEA 2 1 phase-in."
kmih (25 mphl. They urged further that
comments we received on the 1998
Another was "to temporarily permit
the speed he maintained at that level
NPRM and appropriately adjusted our relaxed injury criteria performance
pending analysis of field experience
proposals in the 1999 SNPRM to
limits [e.g.,72 g chest acceleration limit
respond to thosematerials. For example, instead of 60 g chest acceleration limit) with the air bags installed in motor
based on the public comments on the in unbelted rigid harrier tests between vehicles during that period. For similar
reasons, theNTSB also urged a
NPRM regarding the type and numberof 25 mph and 30 mph."
maximum test speed of 40 kmih (25
tests needed to meet the risk
Finally, we proposed inthe SNPRM
minimization goals of TEA 2 1 , we
mphl.
that the agency would not test at a speed
There were also significant
significantly reduced the number of
29
km/h
(18 mph) under the differences of opinion regarding our
of
less
than
those tests when we issued the
SNPRM.
proposals ahout the provision providing
Further, there was a substantial shift unhelted rigid barrier test alternative,
and that the agency would not testat a
a due care defense against findingsof
between the NPRM and SNPRM in the
speed of less than 35 km/h ( 2 2 mph)
noncompliance with the airbag
issues that needed to be resolved in
under the unhelted offset deformable
requirements of Standard No.208 and
determining which test should be
about the wordingof the statements
specified to promote the improvements barrier test alternative. This was not
only a departure from the proposal in
regarding air bag-induced risks on the
required by TEA 21 in the abilityof
the NPRM, but also from prior agency
proposed vehicle labels.
vehicles to protect unhelted people in
practice. In the NPRM, we had proposed
We note that a substantial number of
moderate to high speed crashes, ;.e.,
to test at any speed up to the maximum comments were submitted to the docket
those that are potentially fatal. In the
test s eed One reason for this change
for the SNPRM after the comment
NPRM, the primary issue was whether
was
$at d e wanted to be sure that the closing date. In preparing this rule, we
we should (1)retain the unhelted sled
have considered all comments placed in
testing option, or (21 delete that option, standard did not push deployment
thresholds downward, ; . e . , c a t m air
the docket on or before April 28, 2000.
leaving the existing48 km/h (30mphl
hags to be deployed at lower speeds
unbelted rigid harrier crash testing
The
Development of a Data-Driven Rule
than are appropriatefor maximum
provision as the sole basis for
Before
occupant
protection.
we made decisions on which
certification comDliance with Standard
provisions
should he included in this
No. 208's requirements regarding the
Public Comments on theSNPRM
rule to improve air bag performanceas
protection of unhelted occupants."'
The commenters on theSNPRM.
required by TEA 2 1 , we carefully
In the SNPRM, the primary issue
including vehicle manufacturers. air hag considered the available information
regarding unbelted testing was what
manufacturers, insurance companies,
and the public comments. the
public interest groups, academia. and
underlying safety problems. the
the National Transportation Safety
performance of air bag systems in
Board (NTSB), generally agreed with
current motor vehicles, the ability
most aspectsof that document. For
(including lead time needs)
of vehicle
manufacturers to achieve better
example, the commenters agreed with
the agency's proposals to reduce air
hag- performance in future motor vehicles,
induced risks by specifying that driver the air hag technology (including
air hags deploy ina low-risk manner in advanced air hag technology) currently
low speed crashes and the passenger
air available or being developed, the costof
hags either deploy in that manneror
compliance, and other factors. Because
2 1 mandating that we amend our
by either automatically turning off the the wide varietyof new requirements
using an arrayof new dummies during
air bag in the presenceof young
this near-term time frame.
children or deploying the air
hag in a
However, we draw no final
manner much less likelyto cause
serious or fatal injury to out-of-position conclusion ahout the appropriatenessof
that test speed in the longer run. At this
occupants, If they so wish,
time, we cannotassess whether the
manufacturers may choose to usea
combination of those two approaches. uncertainty ahout the manufacturers'
Manufacturers that decide to turn off ahilitv to imurove urotection further and
minimize riik sim;ltaneously will
bag will use weight
the passenger air
sensors and/or other means of detectingpersist beyond the TEA 21
the presence of young children. To test implementation period. In addition,
the ability of those means to detect the while we believe that it is unlikely that
a 40 kmih (25 mph) maximum test
presence of children, the rulespecifies
speed will lead to a reduction in high
that child dummies be placed in child
speed protection, we cannot rule out
seats that are, in turn, placed on the
passenger seat. It also specifies tests that that possibility. If manufacturers were to
are conducted with unrestrained child engage in significant depowering, it
dummies sitting, kneeling, standing, or could result in lesser crash performance
The Principal Provisionsof the Rule
for teenage and adult occupants. On the
lying on the passen er seat.
The rule will improve protection and
The ability of air %agsto deploy ina
other hand, evenif current levels of real
minimize risk by requiring new tests
low risk manner will he tested using
world protection were only maintained,
and injury criteria and specifying the
child dummies on the passenger side
rather than improved, the marginal
use of an entire family
of test dummies: and the small adult female dummy on benefits o f a 48 km/h (30 mph) unhelted
the existing dummy representing 50th the driver side. For manufacturers that
maximum test speed would be
percentile adult males, and new
decide to design their passenger air hags significantly diminished or eliminated.
To help resolve these issues and
to deploy ina low risk manner. the rule
dummies representing 5th percentile
concerns, we are planninga multi-year
adult females, six-yearold children.
specifies that unhelted child dummies
three-year old children, and one-year
he placed against the instrument panel. effort to obtain additional data. The
old infants. With the additionof those
This location was selected because pre- activities comprising that effort are
dummies, our occupant crash protectioncrash braking can cause unrestrained described in the section helow entitled,
"Monitoring of Implementation and
children to move forward into
or near
standard will more fully reflect the
that position before the air bag deploys. Field Experience; Research and
range in sizes of vehicle occupants. As
The airbag is then deployed. The ability Technology Assessment.'' Based an the
noted above, most aspectsof this rule
are supported by most commenters on of driver air bags to deploy ina low risk results of those information gathering
manner will he tested by placing the 5thand analysis efforts, we will makea
this rulemaking. including vehicle
percentile adult female dummy against final decision regarding the maximum
manufacturers. air hag manufacturers,
the steering wheel and then deploying test speed for unhelted dummy testing
insurance companies. public interest
in the long run, after providing
the air bag.
groups, academia, and theNTSB.
opportunity for informed public
The rule will he phased in during twoProtection Improvement Provisions
stages. The first stage phase-in requires Implemented During First Stage Phase- comment.
There are still other additions to
vehicles to he certifiedas passing the
in
Standard No. 208. To ensure that
unhelted test requirementsfor both the
In addition, the vehicle manufacturersvehicle manufacturers upgrade their
5th percentile adult female and 50th
will be required to meet a rigid harrier
crash sensing and software systemsas
percentile adult male dummies ina 40
necessary to prevent late air bag
kmih (25 mph) rigid harrier crash, and crash test with both unhelted 5th
percentile adult female dummies and
deployments in crashes with soft pulses.
belted test requirements for the same
unhelted 50th percentile adult male
vehicles will he required to meet an uptwo dummies ina rigid harrier crash
dummies. The unbeltedrigid harrier test to-40 km/h (25 mph) offset deformable
with a maximum test speedof 48 km/
replicates what happens to motor
harrier test using belted 5th percentile
first stage
h (30 mph). In addition, the
vehicles and their occupants inreal
adult female dummies. A late airbag
requires vehicles to include
deployment would allow enough time
technologies that will minimize risk for world crashes better than the current
sled test does. The maximum test speed for an unrestrained occupant to move
young children and small adults.
for unbelted dummv testine
40
forward into the steering wheelor
The second stage phase-in requires
" will he
km/h (25 mph).
vehicles to he certified as passing the
instrument panel during a crash before
Our decislonto set the maximum test the air bag deploys. Thus. the occupant
belted test requirements for the 50th
speed for unhelted dummy testingat 40 would he in contact withor very close
56 km/
percentile adult male dummy at
km/h (25 mphl is being issued as a n
to the air bag module when the airhag
h ( 3 5 mphl. This requirement will
interim final rule. We conclude that is
ensure improved protection for belted
deploys. creating a risk of severe or fatal
the appropriate test speed forat least the injury. In addition, the 5th percentile
occupants.
TEA 21 implementation period
female dummy is added to the 48
Risk Minimization Provisions
(MY2004-2007). That speed will
kmih (30mph) belted rigid harrier test.
Implemented During First Stage Phase- provide vehicle manufacturers with the
in
flexibility they need during that period Provision Implemented During Second
Stage Phase-in
During thefirst stage phase-in, from
to meet the technological challenges
During the secondstage uhase-in.
involved in simultaneouslv imurovins
Seutemher 1 . 2003 to August
31. 2006.
"
increasing percentages of motor vehicles protection and minimizing risk. To "
fromSeptember1,2007~o'August 31,
2010. the maximum test speedfor the
goals, the
will be required to meet requirements achieve those twin
for minimizing air bag risks. primarily manufacturers will have
to comply with belted rigid barrier test will increase
the comments on theSNPRM focused
on the alternativesfor improving the
protection provided byair hags, we
were particularly careful in considering
the comments concerning the costs,
benefits and risks associated with each
of those alternatives.
The requirements in today's rule for
improving protection and minimizing
risk are challenging and will push the
vehicle manufacturers to make needed
safety improvements in air hag
performance. Our decisions regarding
the selectionof those requirements was
based on available test data and
analysis, and our informed judgment
ahout the best wayof implementing the
requirements of TEA 21.
~.
30686
Federal R e g i s t e r / V o l . 65, No, 9 3 / F r i d a yM, a y
.
1 2 , 2 0 0 0 / R u l easnRde g u l a t i o n s
~
~~~
Rulemaking Plans.") Our decision
time to gain experience with the new
from 48 km/h (30 mphl to 56 kmih (35
dummies, final specifications for which concerning the maximum test speed for
mph) in tests with the 50th percentile
the unhelted rigid barrier test reflects,i n
adult male dummy only.As in the case have only recently been established.
Further, the longer lead time for the part. these uncertainties and limitations.
of the firSt-Stage requirements, this
The availability of advanced airhag
first stage phase-in willalso promote
second-stage requirement will he
phased in for increasing percentages of technological innovation regarding ways technologies for minimizing risks is not
motor vehicles. We did not include the of minimizing risks.It will give vehicle just a theoretical possibility. Vehicle
manufacturers arevery actively working
manufacturers more time to complete
5th percentile adult female dummy in
on completing their development and
development and testing of the
this requirement because we have
sparse information on the practicability advanced technologies they planto use. testing of weight sensor systems so that
of such a requirement. As noted below, Further, we are aware that suppliers arethey will he readyfor installation for the
passenger air bags in their motor
we will initiate testing to examine this Continuing work on additional
vehicles. Installation could hegin as
technologies.
The
additional
time
will
issue and anticipate proposing
early as the next model year." Means of
increasing the test speed
for belted tests enable the manufacturersto explore
reducing risk for drivers, including
further using someof these additional
using the 5th percentile adult female
dual-stage air hags coupled with sensors
technologies.
dummy to 56 km/h (35 mph), beginning
for driver seat beltuse and driver seat
at the same time that
the belted test
Rationales for Risk Minimization
position. are already being installed in
must he met at that speed using the 50th Requirements
some vehicles. For a description of
percentile adult male.
advanced technologies anda partial
The agency drafted therisk
Schedule for Implementation
listing of current models equipped with
minimization requirements to give
one or more types of those technologies,
We have changed the date on which vehicle manufacturers a broad choice
see Appendix D, "Advanced
among those advanced air bag
the implementation of this rule begins
from September 1, 2002, as proposed in technologies that can he used either to Technologies for Improving Air Bags."
the SNPRM. to September 1 , 2003. This turn air bags off in appropriate
Rationales for Protection Improvement
circumstances or cause air hags to
gives vehicle manufacturers as much
Requirements
lead time asTEA 2 1 allows for the first deploy ina low risk manner." Thus, the
Replacing the Unhelted Sled Test With
stage phase-in. TEA 21 does not permit vehicle manufacturers will have the
the Unhelted Rigid Barrier Crash Test
a later starting date. This change will
freedom to choose from a variety of
give the manufacturers a lead time of
available technological solutions or to
The agency has decided to delete the
more than 3 yearsfor vehicles produced innovate by developing new ones if theysled test option and retain the unhelted
during the firstyear (Model Year (MY1
rigid barrier crash test provision for the
so desire.
We estimate that if advanced air
bag
2004) of that phase-in and more than
6
reasons explained in theNPRM and
technologies (suppression and low risk
years for vehicles produced during MY
SNPRM. Among those reasonsis that a
deployment) are 100 percent reliable.
crash test replicates how vehicle
2007, the firstMY in which vehicle
they could have eliminated05 percent
manufacturers will he required to
structures and air bag systems work
of the knownair hag fatalities that have together in real world crashes. A sled
manufacture all of their vehicles in
compliance with the firststage
occurred to date in low speed crashes.
test cannot do that because while the
requirements without the aid of credits. For example, weight sensors can he
vehicle is quickly decelerated in sucha
We changed the starting date for the installed in the passenger seatso that
test, it never crashes into anything. As
first stage in part because of the breadth the passenger airhag is turned off when a result, the sled test cannot take into
of the challenges that the vehicle
account the abilityof a motor vehicle's
children, from infants up
to the typical
manufacturers will he requiredto meet
structure to manage crash energy.
6-year-old, are present. The use of
during that stage. They will need to
weight sensors for that purpose should Further, the sled test uses
a generic
certify their vehicles to an unhelted
essentially eliminate the risk of air
bagcrash pulse instead of the individual
harrier test instead ofa sled test.
crash pulse of the particular vehicle
induced fatal injuriesfor children in
Moreover, they will need to meet this that size and age range. Based on
being tested. and deploysall air hags at
test for the new 5th percentile adult
a fixed time during the event rather than
available data, it does not appear that
female dummy seatedall the way
having that decision made by the crash
turning air hags off for those young
forward as wellas for the existing 50th children would result in theloss of any sensing system of the vehicle.
percentile adult male dummy seated in benefits. There is an element of
Selection of 40 kmih (25 mphl as Top
the mid-track position. They will also
uncertainty ahout the level of reliability Speed for UnheltedRigid Barrier Test
need to meeta new belted offset
and effectiveness of the suppression for
deformable harrier test using the 5th
In developing today's rule, we gave
children from 0 to 6 years old and low
serious consideration to specifying 40
percentile adult female dummy and a
risk deployment designs that will be
km/h (25 mphl as the maximum speed
belted rigid barrier testfor both 50th
actually installed in vehicles. Wealso
for the unhelted rigid barrier test for an
percentile adult male dummies and 5th note that we do not currently have
a
initial period (so that vehicle
percentile female dummies. For all of
dummy suitable for assessing the
manufacturers could focus during that
these tests, they will need to meet new effectiveness of suppression and low
period on risk minimization1 and then
injury criteria performance limits.
risk deployment for children ages7-12.
Finally, the vehicle manufacturers will (See the section helow entitled, "Future phasing-in a 48 kmih 130 mphl unhelted
test speed in the2008 through 2010
need to certify their vehiclesto an array
model years. Our initial inclination to
of test requirementsto minimize the risk "Tho rulcslso cstvhlishor vary gencml
to infants, children, and other occupantspcrformnnco roquircmcntr for dynamic ilutunwlic
I'Thc MY mol Ford Windrtur will. occurding t u
supprosdon ~ y ~ t c m
InASSl
s
and P s1I'c:c:iaI
from injuries anddeaths caused by air
cxpoditcdpctitioning and rulcrnukmg p m ~ a s stor
a rcpo?t in thr A p d l 24. 2UUU crlitmn ofhulomotivo
hags using the 5thpercentile adult
considering procoduics fur ~ostingBIIYIIIIWII
air hag
h w s . br quipped with an uduuncod air hag syslurn
female dummy and the child dummies. Syrtorns incorpnrntinga DASS. 111~ S ~ U I I ISDP
"dosigned tn prc:vcn~tho dcptnyrnoal of lhc front
p"ssmgccr aiirhrg whcn sensors dotr:rmino the
The starting dateof September 1 , 2003
comments. modifications hum bcon m ~ r l ct o
Ira~songcr's w i g h t is toss fhnn 45 puuncls:'
d
d
r
c
r
r
C
O
~
C
C
ahout
~
S
mnlidcnlidity
and
Iming.
will give the manufacturers additional
65. No. 9 3 / F r i d a y , M a y
1 2 , 2 0 0 0 / R u l e s and Reeulations
~~
~~~~
~
~~~
~~
~~~
~~~
30687
~
specific requirement to return
cautious in howfar and how fast vehicle
eventually to a48 km/h (30 mph) test
manufacturers are required to advance
should be adopted to ensure that vehicle the state of advanced air hag
manufacturers did notengage in
technologies in their vehicles.
Since a significant percentage of
significant additional depoweringof air
current vehicles can already satisfy the
hags, or make them substantially
new unhelted barrier crash test 40
at
smaller. which would reduce their
kmih ( 2 5 mph) with both the 5th
protectiveness to occupants in high
percentile adult female dummy and the
speed crashes.15 We believed then that
there could be an economic incentive to 50th percentile adult male dummy, we
conclude that setting the maximum
install air hags that were minimally
com liant with a 40 km/h (25 mph) test. speed at that level will help vehicle
manufacturers to focus their resources
A8er further examination of the
and compliance efforts during the
first
issues and the informationbefore us,
stage on meeting the risk reduction
and an assessmentof the areas of
requirements. We want to continue the
uncertainty about simultaneously
improving protection and minimizing progress already made in using
technological means for reducing air
risk. we have concluded that the
hag-induced risks.
adoption of a 48 km/h (30 mph)
While the manufacturers' resources
unbelted requirement would not he in
for dealing with air bags,
as well as all
the best overall interest of safety. We
the other engineering issues associated
have decided instead toset the
with future motor vehicles. are
maximum test speedfor the unbelted
extensive. there are limits to how much
rigid harrier crash testsat 40 kmih ( 2 5
can be done at any one time.We need
mph) as an interim final rule.We
selected that test speed based onseveral to consider the variety and complexity
of changes in airhag testing and
factors.
First, particularly given the risks that technology that will he required by this
rule. As we noted above in the
the first generation of air hags pnsed to
out-of-position children and small adult discussion of the implementation
schedule, the arrayof new requirements
females, and the reactionof the public
that the manufacturers will haveto meet
to those risks, it is very important that
advanced air hags he properly designed in the first stage is challenging. We are
requiring the useof a new test dummy
from the very beginning.W e note that
(the 5th percentile adult female) in high
air hags, by their nature. presenta
speed tests, adding a new test (offset
potential for safety trade-offs not
presented by other safety features. That belted). adding new neck injury criteria,
is. while air hags dissipate crash energy and making existing injury criteria more
for most occupants when they interact stringent [chest deflection). We are also
adding an entire new seriesof risk
with them when fully inflated, the
minimization tests. which will require
energy released during deployment
manufacturers to install airbag
could he injurious to out-of-position
occupants in their interaction with an suppression systems or low-risk
deployment systems,or both.
inflating airbag. This interaction of an
We are particularly concerned about
occupant and a deploying air bag can be
the difficulties of trying to meet the
a source of serious injury or death.
In
contrast. other safety features typically unhelted rigid harrier test at 48 km/h (30
mph) with both adult dummies while
just dissipate energy when occupants
simultaneously
trying to reduce the
interact with components in the vehicle
risks ofair bag-induced injuries and
interior in crashes; they do
not add
deaths. As noted above, the unhelted
energy. Because of this potential for
rigid harrier crash test specified by this
death and injury. we want to he
rule for the future is an improved test
that differs fundamentally from the
1 / W c notcd lhnt the diiicrcnce l h 0 1 ~ ~
nm
40 kmi
unhelted rigid harrier test that Standard
h 125 mphl and u 48 h l h (10mphl crash i s
No. 208 has specified in the past. In the
rignllicunt. Tho Significoncr c l o o ~not lic: In t h o 2 0
pc~cont~IC~C~EC
in ~ p c c dhut
, n
i (he 44 lp~rcont
past, the Standard specified only that
incroasc in crnrh cncrgy. /IIS hocousc n i l h a t
test and the belted rigid harrier test, and
incrcesc m crnsh onorgy tho1 lhrrisl. CUI
s < ~ i u uorj
used only one dummy, the 50th
f o l d injury i s signilicuntly highor LII 4 8 kmlh 13"
percentile adult male dummy. The
mphl than at 40 kmlh I15 mph). Furthar. P
mnximum tcst spocd of 48 kmlh (Slimphl
injury criteria for the unhelted rigid
rcprc~cntsa highor pcrccnt.lgr of tho croshw t h a t
harrier crash test did not evaluate the
produce scrluus or f v t d occupant i n j u r i ~
As a
potential for neck injuries and allowed
result. ifnir hags wcm dorignod only t u m i n i m d l y
even greater chest deflection. The
mml s 40 h l h 125 mphi crash test. mmry
0CCYpn"lE. p"rlic"lnrly 1argor O C C " ~ , m I s . wolllll ,I",
Standard specified no other requirement
bc dcqurtcly protcclcd in highci spcocl m u h e s .
(such as one for out-of-position testing)
Wo cstimolod that 248 to 413 l i v ~ cs ~ n ~bo
l dlost
that had theeffect of making it more
mmrally i f munuf~cturorrd i d only thc minimum
difficult to achieve conlpliance with the
rcquircrl of thorn by n 4U h l h (25 mphl cmsh !os(
'"q"irCm0"l.
unhelted rigid harrier test.
30688
-~
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 9 3 / F r i d a y , M a y
.
~~~~
~
~
-
.~~
12. 2 0 0 0 / R u I e sa n dR e g u l a t i o n s
~~~~~~
~
_ _ ~ ~
~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~
~
relatively faster first stage would
In the future. however, greater efforts protection provided by current
conflict with the strategy of usingas
will he needed to comply with that testredesigned air hags, the uncertainty
a firststageinflation level as
because manufacturers will he required involvedinmeetingthechallengetobenign
improvehigh-speedprotectionandpossibleinlowerspeedcrashesto
to meet a greater variety of
minimizerisksimultaneously is bestreduceriskstoout-of-position
requirements.
The unhelted rigid harrier test will
occupants. Alternatively. the vehicle
resolved at this point in favorof
have to he met using new or more
minimizing risk. This is especially true manufacturer could use the second stage
stringent injury criteria with the new
in the early stagesof the introduction of inflation level for both the 5th
percentile adult female and 50th
5th percentile adult female dummy as advanced air hag technologies.
percentile adult male dummies. While
well as the existing 50th percentile
Compared with a 48 km/h (30 mph)
unhelted rigid barrier test, a 40 kmih (25 this strategy might be a good one for
adult male dummy. The necessity of
mph) unhelted rigid harrier test presents passing a rigid harrier test, in which the
meeting those criteria with the 5th
dummy does not move forward much
less chance of inadvertently increasing
percentile adult female dummy placed
before deployment,it might not hea
in vehicle seats that have been moved risks to out-of- osition occupants.
Second, whiPe we believethat it
goodstrategyforhighspeedrealworld
all the way forward will add
should eventually he possible for
crashes in which small adult females,
considerably to the challenge of meeting
that test. For both belted and unhelted
vehicles to provide protection for both who already sit close to the air hag. and
unrestrained children move
tests, we are adopting improved injury small females and mid-sized males i n a
48 kmih (30 mph) unhelted test without considerably closer as a result of precriteria to assure greater protection by
compromisingeffortstominimizethecrashbrakin
air hags in high speed crashes. More
specifically, we are changing the way in risks of serious air hag-induced injuries, While we %elieve that dual-stage
inflators represent a significant
there are unresolved issues. Our
which the riskof head injuries is
improvement over single level inflators,
laboratory tests and knowledge of
measured, adding a new neck injury
advancedtechnologiesdonottellus
it is importanttorecognizethatthey
measure that accounts for the
how or when developments might reach have limitations. Some of these
combination of flexion, extension.
tension, and compression. and reducing that point. They also do not provide us limitations could be overcome by
inflators with more than two stages.
with a full picture of the real world
the amount of allowable chest
However, this would add greater
consequences of adopting that test
deflection.
Further, efforts to comply with the
speed. Thus, this type of information, by complexity, including additional gray
unhelted rigid harrier test will he
itself. is notnecessarilysufficienttozones.Whiletheseandothermore
affected by the simultaneous need to
enable
us
to
determine
whether
advanced
technologies,
such
as
comply with the risk reduction
chambering and real time occupant
adopting that speed is worthwhile,
requirements. In the future, air hags will much less needed,from a safety
position sensing, may become available
in the future, we want to he cautious
he explicitly required to be tested for
standpoint.
We assessedtherelativemeritsofaboutthepossibilityofinducing
their potential to harm vulnerable
manufacturerstoinstallmoreadvanced
occupants as well as offer protection in maximumtestspeedsof 4 0 kmih 125
mph) and 48 km/h (30 mph) in light of technologies before those technologies
high-s eed crashes.
Whiye advanced air bag technologies
the initial advanced air hag systems that are fully ready. For example. vehicle
will facilitate simultaneously achieving manufacturerswillintroduceoverthemanufacturersshouldgain
real world
the goals of improving protection and
next several years. Based on that
experience with dual-stage inflators
minimizing risk. we cannot forecast the assessment, we are concerned that the before they adopt inflators with
pace of development of those
need for vehicle manufacturers lo take additional stages. Also. in areas in
technologies. Setting the maximum
steps to enable them to certify to
a 48
which there is uncertainty as to what
speed at 4 0 kmih (25 mph) will give
km/h (30 mph) unhelted test could
strategies might he best for safety. such
vehicle manufacturers greater flexibility create difficulties in improving
as the specific performance
to choose among and gain experience
protection and minimizing risks for the
characteristics for dual-level inflators.
with advanced air hag technologies. It
wide range of occupants and crashes in we want to he careful ahout adopting
will also give NHTSAa chance to gather the real world. A good example of how requirements that might be
data ahout the performance
of vehicles
inappropriately design restrictive in
these potential problems might occur
using advanced air hag technologies.
We relates to how a vehicle manufacturer
making it difficultfor vehicle
want the installationof advanced air hag might use a dual-stage air hag to meet manufacturers to design their air hagsso
technologies by the vehicle
the goals of this rulemaking.
that they perform well both in rigid
One strategy for meetinga n unbelted
manufacturers across the full spectrum
harrier tests and in the wide range
of
48 kmih (30mph) harrierrequirementrealworldcrashes.
of theirfleets to be done correctly-the
for both 5th percentile adult females
Third. we are also aware that the
first time.
and 50th percentile adult males would vehicle manufacturers need design
Accordingly, we believe that
it is
preferable to take an approach that best he to use thefirst stage inflation level
flexibility to address issues regarding
assures improved air hag performance for the 5th percentile adult female and performance in real world crashes not
the second stage inflationlevel for the
for occupants of all sizes, without
directly replicated by Standard No.
50th percentile adult male. However.
compromising efforts to minimize the
208's tests,
certify
As we have discussed on many
risks of injury to vulnerable occupants, under that strategy, the need to
occasions, one of the greatest limitations
to the 48 km/h (30 mph) harrier test for
including children and short women
bags is that they
seated very close toair bags, and out-of- the 5th percentile adult female dummy of non-advanced air
typically deploy in the same manner
position occupants. Such an approach is would require a relatively faster
as crash
one that involves the least uncertainty inflation in the first stage. Because that regardless of such factors
for the occupants who have been most dummy will be placed in a vehicle seat severity or occupant size, weightor
moved all the way forward, the air hag position. In other words. they are nonat risk. In other words. as longas the
manufacturers improve the already
will have to deploy especially quickly toadjusting. one-size-fits-allair bags. One
of the principal strategies far improving
provide protection. The useof a
substantial overall level of air hag
30689
d e sRegulations
and
~~~
~
~~~
~
~~~~~
~
~~~~
continues, futurebags will greatly
exceed the minimum performance
requirements of the4 0 km/h 125 mph)
unbelted barrier test. Indeed, the vehicle
manufacturers have indicated that they
would not engage in significant.
widespread additional depowering i f a
40 km/h (25 mph) test were adopted.
They argue that their need to perform
well in NHTSA's 56 kmih (35 mph)
belted NCAP tests limits, as a practical
matter, any inclination that might
theoretically otherwise exist to depower
their air hags further. NHTSA notes that
this rule increases the influence of
56
km/h (35 mphl belted testing by making
passing such testing with 50th
percentile adult male dummies
mandatory. Thus,NHTSA believes that
it is not risking a substantial loss of
benefits by establishing an unbelted
barrier test of 40 km/h (25 mphl.
Sixth, our decision to replace the
48
kmih (30 mph) generic sled test with the
40 kmih (25 mph) unbelted rigid harrier
test requires a significantly higher level
of safety. The agency estimates that the
sled test is roughly equivalent toa 35.5
kmih ( 2 2 mph) rigid barrier
perpendicular ( 0 degree) crash. During
the 1997 rulemaking, we looked at the
relative safety consequences ofa n air
bag designed to just meet the
performance requirements associated
with a 48 kmih (30 mphl generic sled
test. The agency estimated the fatality
impacts of designing a vehicle to
minimally meet the performance
requirements imposed by the current48
km/h (30 mph) generic sled test and
compared these to the fatality impacts of
designing a vehicle to just meet the40
km/h ( 2 5 mph) unhelted rigid barrier
test. If these different design tasks did
not have any impact onair bag size, air
bags designed to the 4 0 km/h ( 2 5 mph)
unbelted rigid barrier test could save 64
to 144 more lives than air hags designed
to the generic sled test (assumed to be
35.5 km/h ( 2 2 mphll. If, on the other
hand. air bags designed to the generic
sled test would besmaller and provide
no benefit in partial frontal impacts,
because the 4 0 kmih ( 2 5 mphl unhelted
rigid barrier test includes anu p to 30
c:hallongmg11%n m f thnl lcsl wilh both domrnic:~
minimin: risk simid!incuusly, 'rhos. thoeabilily
10 DO( ( h o 48 kmih 130 mphl U n l x i I o d c r d l I c s l
$"ilh n SUlh pcrr~mlilcildu11 moll: 'dummy isn't. hy
i~df,
prcrl~ctlrcr l f u vohiclc manuiarlurcr'r nhiiily
to m l : that
~ ~ lest wilh both dummicr. ~11x1lhc olhcr
rucluir~m
ild~lcd
~ ~ ~by~lhls
~ rulo 1
As I o lhc: clilfcrcnrcs I~c:Iwccothc mtic:ipld
m1DllnI of 'lopoworing "nil t h e PmOllllI cur
dqJuwcring
p"'1ormcd snd 55s 1 0 L h O
pdurmancc of Ihr c:urrcnt ~ c d c ~ s i g nil
n~~
bags.
d wc
d B O nolc that. s i disi:urnrd bcluw. clspowor'ing 1s
Ihc only way ~ ~ f r a r l u c i nlhs
g u ~ r m i v c n r r~
r lf
nir hngr. Thoro nrc olhor driign chsngos Lhvl W r r C
milrlaby SOl"P m""ulac1"rcrS
30690
Federal Register I Vol. 65, No. 9 3 / F r i d a y ,M a y
.
~
1 2 , ZOOO/Rules andRegulations
.~
~
~
~
_
_
~
~
~
~~~
~
~~~~~
flexibility for the transitionof dual-stage
This is a major step forward for
degree oblique test while the generic
air bag systems from low level
sled test has no angular component,
282 improving occupant protection for
deployments designed to protect
belted occupants. This step is in
to 308 more lives [this range includes
occupants in low speed crashes and not
keeping with the agency's ongoing
the 64 to 144 estimates mentioned
to injure out-of-position occupants in
efforts in its Buckle Up America
earlier) could be saved by air bags
high level deployments designed to
campaigns. It assures enhanced
designed to the 40 kmih (25 mphl
protect occupants from injuries in
protection, especially for those70
unhelted rigid harrier test with the
severe crashes.
oblique test than lives saved by air hagspercent of occupantswhocurrently
of unneeded tests. In
designed to just comply
. . with the generic wear their belts, and may help persuade Elimination
those who do not wear their belts to do developing this rule. as in developing
slediest.
Increosing Belted Test Speed to56
so. opportunities
far looked we SNPRM, the
to reduce the number and types
of test
km/h 135 mohl for 50th Percentile Male
B.
Oiher
Provisions
oftheRule
configurations necessary to assure that
Dummy. lnihe SNPRM. we asked for
Facilitotion oflow risk deployment future air
bags minimize the risk of air
comment on whether we should
technologies. In the Supplemental
bag-induced injuries." We have made
increase the speed for the belted test
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
several further reductions.
using the 50th percentile adult male
(SNPRM), we proposed that the low risk
We have dropped several test
dummy from 48 kmih to 56 km/h I30
deployment requirements would have to conditions for testing features (r.g.,
mph to35 mph) if we adopted 40 km/
or size sensor) that suppress the
h (25 mph) as the maximum test speed he met for inflation levels at which air weight
for the unhelted rigid harrier test. This bags would deploy in rigid barrier crash air hag when an infant or young child
tests at speeds up to 29 km/h (18 mph). is present.
We eliminated some test
rule adopts that provision.It will he
conditions because we concluded that
phased-in for increasing percentages of 64 FR 60556; November 5,1999. We
also proposed that the injury criteria for they were inappropriate for testing this
each manufacturer's fleet beginning in
theunheltedrigidharriercrashtesttypeoffeature.Thetestconditionswe
the 2008 model year. We did not
reason included an
would have to he met within the range dropped for this
propose including the 5th percentile
unrestrained RFCSS tipped forward
adult female dummy in this requirement between a minimum speed of 2 9 kmih
3 yearold
because we had sparse information on (18 mph)andthemaximumspeed,ontothedashboardandthe
Some
vehicle
manufacturers
and
6 year
dummies
the
in
the practicability of such a requirement. inclusive.
respondedthatbeingrequiredtotestlowriskdeploymentpositions.
i.~.,
NHTSA will initiate testingto examine
under the low risk deployment option against the instrument
r l .
this issue and anticipates proposing
The basic concept he Ind welght
increasing the test speedfor belted tests for the inflation levellor levels) at
which their air hags would deploy in sensors or other features that suppress
using the 5th percentile adult female
the airhag when an infantor young
dummy to 56 km/h (35 mphl. beginning crashes below 29 km/h (18 mph),
combined with being required to protect child is present is to automatically
at the same time that the 50th percentile
unhelted dummies in crashes at 29 km/
suppress the air bag unless weightor
adult male is required to he used in
h (18 rnph) and above, would limit
some other factor indicates that an older
belted testing at that speed.
design flexibility and discourage
NHTSA notes that Standard No. 208
child or adult is present. In testing such
previously specified the same maximum development of low risk deploynlentair a device, we believe it is appropriate to
test speed for both belted and unbelted hag systems. The manufacturers claimed test for a variety of positions an infant
that it is difficult with Current sensors
rigid harrier testing. The practical
or young child might likely be placed in
consequence of specifying the same test to design dual-stage air bags that could by a paEnt or caregiver or that might
both meet the low risk deployment
speed for both types of testing was to
likely be assumed by the child. The
requirements and the harrier crash test conditions we are dropping do not fall
make unbelted testing the primary
determinant of air hag designs. The
injury
criteria,
particularly
given
the
this
category,
hut
are instead
reason for this is that,at the same test
gray zone in which either a low level or oneS that might occur dynamically as a
speed, the unhelted test is more difficult high level deployment ma occur
to pass than the belted test.
TO avoid
inadvertently
JiscourGirlg
obovc. whrn wLIisjlicd Ihr SNPKM.
the development of low risk deployment wc r C d U C C d thc n U n l ~ l c l p ~ 0 1 1 0 5 , c. ~~~v n u m ii/nr~
c
Consequently. airbag designers
technologies. we have decided that air
s l ~ t i tcm1s.
c
c~pccialiy ihuscrclvlmglulhc: Ipupsnd
typically focused their attention on
performance in the48 kmih (30 mph)
unbelted test. After they optimized
performance attributes for that test, they
conducted belted tests to ensure that
there were not any anomalies. Nothing
in the Standard required, or had the
effect of requiring, designersto optimize
air hag performance for belted
occupants.
Today's rule changes that.By
specifying a maximum test speed for
belted testing that is significantly higher injury criteria must be met using the
lowest level of inflation.We have also
that the maximum test speed for
decided to raise the lower endof the
unbelted testing, Standard No. 208 will
oblige occupant protection designers to range of speeds at which the unhelted
rigid barrier crash testis conducted
focus separately on evaluating
protection in both belted and unhelted from 29 km/h (18 mph) to 32 kndh (20
mph). Together. these two changes are
testing as significant design factors.
instead of having one type of testing intended to facilitate useof the low risk
deployment option by providing
serve simply as a check on the other.
y,ay
Federal Register/ Vol. 65, No, 9 3 / F r i d a M
~~
~~~
30691
1 2 , 2 0 0 0 / R u l ea snRde g u l a t i o n s
~~~~~~
~~
~~
~~
~~~~~~~~
~
~~~~~~~~~
~~
what ever improvements are needed to year
effort to obtain additional data to
result of pre-crash braking. However.
d o so with 5th percentile adult female help resolve the issues and concerns
since the airbag would already be
automatically suppressed by this type ofdummies without major uncertainties relating to the maximum test speed for
before they are required to certify any the unhelted rigid barrier test in the long
device in sucha situation, we do not
vehicle as meeting the advanced air bag run. Those activities are described in
believe it necessary to test for these
requirements of this rule. Based on our the section below entitled. "Monitoring
conditions.
208
ofImplementationandField
We also proposed testing unrestrained experiencewithStandardNo.
compliance activities, we do not believe Experience; Research and Technology
rear-facing child seating systems
there is an intrinsic need for a "due care Assessment." Based on the results of
(RFCSS) at any angle plus or minus45
provision." Further, as we explained in those information @hering and
degrees from the vehicle seat's
the earlier notices in this rulemaking analysis efforts,
longitudinal plane. Because of
we willmake a final
difficulties in setting up the test and theproceeding,theinclusionofsuchadecisionregardingthemaximumtest
unlikelihood that parents would placea provision in a safety standard does not speed
for unbelted dummy testing in the
RFCSS in an angled position, we have
fit very well with the overall stat1'torY
long run, after providing an opportunity
scheme.
revised this test procedure to specify
for informed public comment.
Extended availability of air bagon-off
placement only at zero degrees of the
switches. AS proposed,wehavedecidedNewruJrmakingproposals.
NHTSA
iongitudinal piane.
the
provisions
which
allow
plans
to
issue
several
Proposals
for
As proposed in the SNPRM. we have to
dropped ihe requirementfor conducting original equipment (OE) and retrofit on- further improvements in frontal
off
switches
under
specified
occupant
crash
protection.
One
proposal
oblique angle tests on vehicles using
circumstances.However,instead of
wouldbetoincreasethemaximum
belted 5th percentile adult female
sunsetting those provisions at the endof speed for the belted rigid barrier test
dummies. We have adopted the
using the 5th percentile adult female
the TEA 21 phase-in period, as we
proposal because we believe that ifa
from 48 kmih to 56 kmih (30 to 35
vehicle can pass the perpendicular test proposed in theSNPRM, we are
sunsetting them on September 1 . 2012,
mph). That proposal would bring the
with 5th percentile adult female
two years after the end of the second top speed for belted testing with the 5th
dummies and the oblique tests with
percentile adult female dummies into
phase-in. In response toa wide
unbelted 50th percentile adult male
consensus among commenters, we have line with the top speed for belted testing
dummies, it willalso pass the oblique
concluded
that
extending
their
with
the
50th
percentile
adult
male
test using 5th percentile adult female
dummies. Additionally, we have
availability to that date is desirable to dummies adopted in this rule. To
a
dropped the belted oblique angled tests ensure that consumers have had
provide data to support that proposal,
for the belted 50th percentile adult male chance to gain substantial experience
we plan to initiate testing with the 5th
with advanced air bag systems. This
dummy. Given the unbelted oblique
percentile adult female in 56 kmih ( 3 5
tests, we believe that the belted oblique should ensure that confidence in those mph) belted tests. we anticipate that if
systems is strongenough
the sunset
angled tests are unnecessary.
this proposal were adopted as a final
New, more sfringenf injurycriferia. In date to remove any desire for a manual rule,
imp~ementat,onwould hegin
the rule, we have addeda neck injury
on-off switch in
vehicles
produced
with
during
the
stage phase.in
criterion and adopted a more stringent
an advanced air bag.
established by today's rule. Because 56
Lobels with strong warning messages. kmih (35 mpl,, is the samB speed at
limit on chest deflection. The injury
criteria are very similar to the ones we We have decided to adopt a new
which we currently conduct our New
permanent sun visor label for vehicles
proposed in the SNPRM. The Nij
certified
as
meeting
the
of
Car
Assessment
Program
INCAP) frontal
approach to the riskof neck injury was
crash tests using belted 50th percentile
this rule. We proposed to alter the
generally accepted by the vehicle
adult male dummies, we will ask also
manufacturers, although they requested wording of the label to reflect the lower
for public comments on what
risk that will be associated with
some modifications. We have made
adjustments. i f any. we shouldmake to
advanced air hags. However, all
those modifications.
Due core provision. In the SNPRM, we commenters, including the safety groups the frontal NCAP test Program.
proposed to maintain the "due care"
which supported a higher maximum test Another proposal would be to adapt
provision for the existing crash test
speed for the unbelted rigid barrier test, a high speed belted offset deformable
requirements and apply it to the new
objected.Theynotedthatwhileharriertest.Theaddition
of thistestto
advancedairhagswillsignificantlyStandardNo.
208 wouldlead to
ones as well. However. we did not
propose to apply the provision to test reducetherisk of death or seriousimprovedvehiclestructure.improved
injury, they will not eliminate all risk. occupant compartment integrity and
requirements that d o not involve
crashes, based onour belief that these
Accordingly. we have decided that the thus reduced injuries due to intrusion.
tests are not affected by the variability
new label should have warnings Similar This would benefit both belted and
associated with dynamically-induced
tocurrent
those
the
onlabel.
The
label
occupants.
we
a
dummy movement and/or vehicle
willalsohavenewgraphics.
In
firststatusreportonthisinitiativeto
deformation.
addition, we have adopteda new
Congress in April 1997, and will submit
In this rule. we have decided against temporary label that states that the
a second one this spring.We expect to
extending the due care provision to new vehicle
meets
the
new
requirements
for
issue
the
later
this
crash tests, although it will still
be
advanced air bags. Like the new
NHTSA is also developing proposals
available for vehicles that are not
permanent label, the new temporary
label will have warnings similar to
for addingadditionaltest dummies to
certified to the advanced air bag
Part 572 of Title 49 CFR. The two
requirements. Our testing has indicated on the current temporaryone.
dummies that are furthest along in their
that manufacturers can easily meet the
development are a dummy representing
new injury criteria with 50th percentile C. Future Rulemaking Plans
a 10-yiar-old child and a dummy
Final decision on maximum tesf
adult male dummies ina 40 km/h (25
mph) unbelted test with existingair bag speed for unbelfedrigid barrier test. As representing a 95th percentilea d d t
male.
noted above, weare planning a multisystems and shouldbe able to make
.
I
30692
..__
Federal
Register
I Vol. 65, No. 9 3 / F r i d a y , May 12, 2000iRulesandRegulations
~~~~~~
~~~
~"
~___~
~
~~
~~
~
~
~~
~
~~~~
D. Monitoring oJ1nnlplementotion a n d
Field Experience: Researcha n d
Technology Assessment
To promote the achievement of the
goals of this rule and to obtain
additional data that will aid us in
making a final decision about the
maximum test speed that should he
specified for the unbelted rigid barrier
test, we are planninga multi-year effort
to obtain additional data.'" This effort
will include a variety of activities. We
will continue togather and evaluate
real-world crash data to monitor the
effectiveness of redesigned and
advanced air hags in protecting various
groups and subgroupsof occupants and
in preventing air bag-induced deaths
and injuries. We are goingto continue
our research program, including
conducting unbelted barriertests of
current vehicles atvarious speeds.
including 48 kmih (30 mph], and
analyzing those test results. In that way,
we can assess how well the
manufacturers simultaneously preserve
and improve protection farall
occupants, belted and unhelted, and
minimize risk. Further, we needto
continue our research and testing
regarding advanced air hag technologies
to gain an understanding o f the safety
performance implications of various
features of air hag design. In addition,
we will prepare an annual "compliance
margins" report to assess the extentto
which vehicle manufacturers exceed the
40 kmih (25 mph) test requirement.
111. Our Proposals for Advanced Air
Bags
thatvehiclemanufacturerswouldheposearisk
to theoccupant. We
free to choose from a variety of effective proposed to use belted 5th percentile
technological solutions and to develop adult female dummies in
t h i s test
new ones if they so desire. With this because small
adults sitfartherforward
flexibility, they could use either
than larger adults and thus represent a
technologies that modulate or otherwise greater challenge for restraint system
control air hag deployment so deploying design.
air hags do not cause serious injuries or
We also proposed to phase out the
unbelted sled test optiun as we phased
technologies that prevent airbag
in requirements for advanced air bags.
deployment if children or out-ofposition occu ants are present, or both. We acknowledged that the sled test
To ensure $at the new air bags are option has been an expedient and useful
designed to avoidcausinginjury to a
temporarymeasurethatenahledthe
broad array of occupants. we proposed manufacturers to
s p e d u p the
redesigning all of their air bags to
test requirements using a family of
dummies, including oneS representing reduce risks. The sled test also helped
12-month.old, 3.year.old and &year.old lo ensure that protection would
continue to he provided by air bags in
children, and 5th percentile adult
females. as wellastestsrepresentinghigh-speedcrashes.Nevertheless.we
50th percentile adult males. We noted stated that sled testing was not
a fully
that
many of the
proposed
test
satisfactory
means
of assessing
the
procedures were new. and specifically extent
of occupant protection that a
requestedcommentsabouttheirvehicleand
its air bag together will
suitability for measuring
the
afford
occupants
in
the
real
world
and
performance ofthe
advanced
t h u s was
not
suitable
in
the
Ion run
Finally, we proposed new an!/or
systems under development.
Ne alsoproposed requ,rements
to
upgradedinjurycriteria for each of the
proposed new test requirements, and
ensure that the new air hags are
designed to protect an array of helted also proposed to upgrade Some o f t h e
injury criteria for the standard's existing
and unbelted occupants. including
teenagers
and
small
adults.
The
test
requirements.
standard's current crash test
E . Our Supplemental Proposal
of 50th[Novenlber
,999~
requirementsspecifytheuse
percentile adult male dummies only.
We
proposed
also
specify
to the
use of
We Ieceived
On the
5th percentile adult female dummies in September 1998 NPRM from a wide
crash tests, The weight and Size of theserange
interested persons including
dummies are representativeof not only vehicle manufacturers, airbag
also many teenagers, manufacturers.
insurance
companies.
small
hut
B~ testing
with
both
the
50th
Public
interest
groups.
academia.
and
government agencies. Comrnenters
adult male dummy and the 5th
percentile adult female dummy, wo can expressed w i W differing views as to
A. Our Inifial Proposal (September
how to accomP1isll the goalsmandated
addresstherisksfacedbyofthe
1998J
by TEA 21- improving the benefitsof
entire
adult
female
population
and
Pursuant to TEA 2 1 , on September 18, much
adult male populatio ~, airhags,whileminimizingrisksfromair
1998. we published in the Federal
In
addition
to the existing rigid barrier
November s, 1999, response t o
Register (63 FR 49958) a notice of
test, representing a relatively "stiff' or
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to
the public comments onour 1998
"hard" pulse 'Iash when conducted
NPRM andtoothernewinformationwe
upgrade Standard No. 208 to require
perpendicularly.
and
a
more
moderate
vehicles to be equipped with advanced
obtained after issuing thatproposal, we
published the SNpRM (F4 FR 6oss63,
pulse crash when conducted obliquely.
air bags that meet new. more rigorous
we
proposed
to
add
a
deformable
barrier
performance requirements. TheNPRM
which
updated and refined the
test, representinga relatively
proposed to require advanced air hags in crash
..soft,, pulse crash, This proposed new
amendments under considoration in this
some new passenger cars and light
soft pulsecrashtestrequirementwas
r U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~we
& reiterated
, R M , the goals
trucks beginning September1, 2002,
intended to ensure that air hag systems
set for ,Is
Congress i n TEA 21,
and in all new cars and light trucks
are designed so that
they
do
not deploy
to improve
for
beginning September 1 . 2005.
We proposed several new
loo late'
current air hags
occupants of different
sizes,
belted
and
performance requirements to ensure that relatively late in certain typesof
unbelted, while minimizing the risk to
crashes, such as Pole
If 8') air
infants,
childrcn,
and
other
occupants
the advanced air hags do not pose
unreasonable risks to out-of-position
bag deploys too late' normally seated
from injuries and deaths caused by air
occupants. The NPRM gave options for occupantsmay move
'lose " the air bags. Further,weemphasizedtheneed
to enSure that the needed improvements
bag before it starts to inflate. In such a
complying with those requirementsso
situation.theair
bag is less likely to
i n occupant protection WBre
in
protect the occupant and more likely to
acc,,rdar,ce with the statutory
'"NHTSA would W D I C O ~ C tho hoip 01 inlcrcstrd
,,,,
parsons in guthcring daln usofui in achicvinglhesc
purposes. Thc agcncy notes tho1 tho Alliancc of
Aulornohilc: Muriulnclurcrs has olfcrod t o gnthcr
infurmvfion on how pvuplo dic 111 hlgh rpcnd
crvshcs.
bag;
implementation schedule.
>''A Y5th pcrccnlilr d u l l lcmuic, 011 ~tvc:rag,:.
In developing the SNPRM. we aought
wcighs 199 Ib and slnnrls 5 '7" (811. Thc Sofh
pcrcontiio n d U ~ ~ dulnmy wcighs 171 IO illl<~
to reducethenumberofproposedtests
stands 5.9- tail.
possible
without
extent
to the
Federal Register / Vol 6 5 , No. 9 3 / F r i d a y . M a y
~~
~~~
1 2 , 2000IF
~~~
significantly affecting the benefitsof the response to a recommendation made by Instead of requiring manufacturers to
IIHS in its comment on the
NPRM."'
assure compliance ofa vehicle in tests
NPRM. We were persuaded by the
We proposed the 29 and 35 kmih (18 using any child restraint which was
commenters that reducing the amountof
manufactured for sale in the United
testing was important, given the costs toand 22 mph) lower endsof the ranges
of test speeds for the two alternatives
States any time duringa specified
manufacturers (and ultimately
because we wanted to hesure that the
period prior to the manufacture of the
consumers) associated with certifying
vehicles to sucha large number of new standard would not inadvertently create vehicle, we proposed to require them
only to assure compliance using each
test requirements. At the same time, we incentives to push deployment
thresholds downward;;.e., cause air
child restraint on a relatively short list
wanted to be sure that the final rule
of specified child restraint models.
would include sufficient tests to ensure bags to be deployed at lower speeds.
Possible higher speed belted rigid Those models would he chosen to be
that air bags would meet the goalsof
barrier test. We stated thatif we reduced representative of the array of available
TEA 21. Given the continued debate
the maximum speed of the unhelted
child restraints. Thelist would he
over what requirements should he reliedrigid barrier test to 40 km/h(25 mph).
updated from time to time to reflect
upon to ensure protection to unhelted we might also increase the maximum changes in the typesof available child
occupants. we also wanted to he sure
speed of the belted rigid harrier test
restraints.
that we received and considered public from the current 48 kmih to 56 kmih (30
Modified rpqrriremenfsjorsystems
comments on thevarious alternative
tho! suppress theair bag for out-ofto 35 mph) and use both 5th percentile
approaches reflecting the more recent
adult female and 50th percentile adult posifion occuponts. We significantly
us.
views and information available to
modified the proposed requirements for
male dummies.
systems that suppress the air hag when
Reduced number oftests. In the
The most significant differences
between the NPRM and theSNPRM can SNPRM, we significantly reduced the an occupant is out of position during a
crash. I n the NPRM. we proposed a
as
total number of proposed tests
he summarized as follows:
single test procedure forall types of
compared to theNPRM. In a number of
Two alfernative unbelted test
such suppression systems. However. we
situations, we tentatively concluded
procedures. While we proposed one
that a proposed test could he deleted were persuaded by the commenters that
unbelted test procedure in the NPRM,
because the performance we sought to the proposed test procedure was not
an up-to-48 km/hI30 mph) rigid harrier secure bv meansof that test would
appropriate for many of the systems that
test using the 50th percentile adult male largely de assuredby one or more of the are currently under development.
dummy and the 5th percentile adult
Because we did not have sufficient
other tests.
female dummy. we proposed and sought
information or prototype hardware to
Reduced oflsei testing. The
comments on two alternative unbelted proposed up-10-40 km/h I 2 5 mph) offset develop a new test procedure, and
because no single test procedure may he
crash test using belted 5th oercentile
test procedures in the SNPRM.
appropriate for the broad spectrumof
The first alternative was an unhelted adult female dimmies wokd he
suppression technologies currently
conducted
only
with
the
driver
side
of
rigid harrier test whose injury criteria
being developed, we proposed a
would have to be met within the range the vehicle engaged, instead of both
testinR with the driver side engaged and provision that would permit
o f a minimum speed of 29 kmih (18
manufacturers or others to pctition the
separ&ly
testing with the pasi&ger
mph) anda maximum speed to he
agency to establish technology-specific
side engaged.
established between 40 to 48 kmih (25
test procedures under a n expedited
* Ensuring thaf certain static
to 30 rnph), inclusive. Within this
rulemakin
process
suppression systems can detectreal
alternative was the potentialfor a phase- children and adults.For our proposed
N o f u j scale dynomic nut-ofin sequence in which the maximum
posifion tesf requirements. We
static test requirements for systems
speed would initially be set at40 km/
which suppress air bags in the presence eliminated from this rulemaking the
h (25 mph) to provide vehicle
proposed option for full scale dynamic
of infants and children 1e.g..weight
manufacturers additional tlexihility
out-of-position test requirements [the
sensors), we proposed a new option
when they are introducing advanced air which would permit manufacturers to option which included pre-impact
braking as part of the test procedure).
bags during the phase-in. Under this
certify to requirements referencing
We were persuaded by the commenters
phase-in sequence. the final rule could actual children, insteadof 3-year-old
that the proposed test procedure was
provide that the maximum speed would and 6-year-old child dummies. in a
not workable at this time. Moreover, we
return to 48 kmih (30 rnph) after some
stationary vehicle to test the
concluded that this option was
period of time. We also sought comment suppression systems. (This option
unnecessary at this time, since other
would
not
apply
to
systems
designed
to
on setting the maximum speedat 48
options were available for the range
of
suppress the airbags only when an
kmih (30 mph) hut temporarily
effective technologies we understand to
infant
is
present.)
Adult
human
heings
permitting relaxed injury criteria
could also he used in the place of 5th be currently under development.
performance limits 1e.g. 72 g chest
In developing the SNPRM, we
percentile adult female dummies for the
acceleration limit insteadof 60 g chest
carefully considered all of the
portions
ofthose
static
test
requirements
acceleration limit) in rigid barrier
comments we received in response to
is
crashes between 40 km/h (25 mph) and which make sure that the air hag
the NPRM. Moreover, because the
activated
for
adults.
Steps
would
he
48 kmih (30 rnph).
all subjects SNPRM differed significantly i n many
taken to ensure the safety of
aspects from the NPRM. we explained
The second alternative was an
used for these tests, e.g., by turningoff
that we did not contemplate any further
unhelted offset deformable harrier test
the airhags.
within the range of a minimum speed of
Reduced number ofchild restraints consideration of the comments on the
NPRM in developing the finalrule. We
35 kmih (22 mph) and a maximum
used for testing suppressionsystcms.
stated that if any persons believe that
speed to be established within the range
we did not adequately consider
o f 4 8 to 56 kmih (30 to 35 rnph). The
particular issues raised in comments on
latter alternative was developed in
the NPRM. they should raise those
-
-
30694
~~~~~
Federal
Register
~
~~
~
_
i Vol. 65, No. 93/Friday, May 12, 2000/R : d e s a n d R e g u l a t i o n s
~
_ ~
~ _
~ _
~~~~
~~~~~~
~~~~~
~
~
unbelted test speed to 40 kmih (25
Safer Air Bags (Parents) supported
issues again in commenting on the
returning to4 8 kmih (30 mph).
SNPRM.
mphl.
The primary arguments made by those While maximum speed was the most
Accordingly. in developing today's
controversial issue concerning the
commentem supportinga maximum
final rule, we have focused our
unhelted test. commenters raised other
speed of 4 0 kmih (25 mpb) can be
consideration on the comments
issues as well. Some vehicle
summarized as follows:
submitted in responseto the SNPRM.
manufacturers objected to the proposal
Current redesigned air bags work
IV. Public Comments on the
to test over a range of speeds from29
well.
Supplemental Proposal
m There has been no loss in benefits.
kmib (18 mphl to the highest speed.
There is no reasonto believe that
They argued that being requiredto meet
As in the caseof the NPRM, we
manufacturers would reduce air hag
test requirements to ensure protection
received comments on the November
beginning at 29 kmih (18 mphl,
effectiveness in the future undera 40
1999 SNPRM from a wide range of
combined with the proposal to test
km/h (25 mph) maximumtest speed.
interested persons including vehicle
under the low risk deployment option
A 4 0 km/h (25 mph) test speed
manufacturers, airbag manufacturers.
for inflation level (or levels) that would
allow^ flexibility to design air hags for
insurance companies, public interest
be deployed in crashes below29 kmih
all occupants.
groups, and government agencies.In
A return to a 48 km/h (30 mph) test (18 mph). would limit design ilexibility
this section, we providea general
speed would require a return to overly
and discourage developmentof low risk
summary of those comments. A more
deployment air bag systems.
detailed description of the comments is aggressive air bags.
Another significant issue addressed
Aggressive air bags cause deaths in
provided helow in the sections which
high speed crashesas well as low speed by commenters concerned the seating
address the issues raised by
procedure for the 5th percentile adult
commenters, and in the Final Economic crashes.
female dummy. Vehicle manufacturers
A 48 km/h (30 mpb) test speed
Assessment and three separate technical
objected to the proposalto test with the
could
result
in
disbenefits
in
low
meed
papers which are being placed in the
seat in the full forward position. They
crashes.
public docket.
There are significant technological
argued that occupants, including small
Improving the Protectionof Unbelted
challenges in meeting a48 kmlh (30
females. rarely i f ever sit in that
Occupants in Serious Crashes
mph) requirement for both the 50th
position. They also argued that adoption
Nearly all commenters supported the percentile adult male dummy and the of this position could resulti n
5th percentile adult female dummy.
consequences such as smaller. less
unbelted rigid barriertest over the
Advanced
technologies
are not
protective
air bags, and reduced ingress/
unhelted offset deformable barrier test.
currently available that address
space for rear passengers.
Vehicle manufacturers stated that the aggressivity and practicability problems. egress
Several safety advocacy groups arguod
rigid barrier test is practicable and
The primary arguments made by those in favorof testing with the seat in the
repeatable and does not entail the
commenters supporting a maximum test full forward position. They argued that
variability associated with deformable
speed of 48 km/h (30 mph) can be
some occupants sit in that position and
harriers and the kinematics of an
offset
summarized as follows:
that it is necessaryto test in the "worst
test. They also stated that the European
m A maximum test speed of 48 kmih
case" condition.
barrier used in the offset testis not
130 mDhl will result in hieher benefits
Improving the Protection oJBelted
appropriate for testing larger SUVs and ihan ;test speed of 40 k&h (25 mph).
Occupants in Serious Crashes
light trucks.
Half of all fatalities in frontal
The Center for Auto Safety(CAS1
Commenters supported our proposal
crashes occur ata delta V above 48 km/
stated that the unbeltedoffset test holds h (30 mph): a maximum test speed of 48 to add the 5th percentile adult female
promise as a supplemental test, but is
kmih (30 mph) represents significantly dummy to the existing48 kmih ( 3 0
not yet suitable for inclusion in
more potentially fatal crashes thana test mph) belted rigid barrier test.
Standard No. 208. That organization
Most supporters ofa 40 kmlh (25
speed of 40 km/h (25 mph).
stated that there are currently
In NHTSA tests, almostall vehicles mph) unbelted rigid barrier test.
insufficient data to allow for a
including most vehicle manufacturers,
with redesigned air bags passed the 48
comprehensive analysis of the
kmih (30 mph) rigid barrier test with thealso supported increasing the maximum
consequences that would accompany
speed of the belted rigid barrier test to
50th percentile adult male dummy,
the adoption of the offset test.
5 6 kmih (35 mph). However, these
implying that a return to a 48 kmih (30
Some other commentersalso argued
commenters urged that the56 kmlh (35
mph) test speed would not require a
that an unbelted offset test offers
mph) beltedrigid barrier test he phased
return to overly aggressive air bags.
promise for the future, eitheras a
Advanced technologies can he used in after theTEA 21 phase-in perind.
replacement for the rigid harrier testor
They also urged that the higher speed
to enable all vehiclesto meet
as a supplemental test.
requirements for high speed protection test initially be conducted only with the
While a near-consensus of
50th percentile adult maledummy. and
and risk reduction.
commenters supported adoption of an
that a separate rulemakingbe initiated
There is no justification to reduce
unhelted rigid barrier test, there was
to consider whether the 5th percentile
the test speed to40 kmih (25 mph).
sharp disagreement over the maximum
adult female dummy should be tested at
A 4 0 km/h (25 mphl test speed
speed for that test. The vast majority
of
would not encourage use of advanced that speed.
Mast commenters also supported our
commenters, including all auto
technologies.
proposal to add the up-to-40 kmih (25
companies andall air hag suppliers, the
A 4 0 kmih (25 mph) test speed
mph) offset deformable barrier test using
would be inconsistent with theTEA 21
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
belted 5th percentile adult female
(IIHS). and the National Transportation requirement to improve protectionfor
dummies. Some of these commenters,
Safety Board (NTSB) supporteda
unbelted occupants.
maximum speed o f 4 0 kmih (25 mphl.
The increase of the belted test speed however, urged that an out-of-position
test for the passenger side be developed
Safety groups includingPublic Citizen. to 56 km/h (35 mph) would not recover
as an alternativeto the test.
CAS, Consumers Union. and Parents for lives lost as a result of reducing the
-
-
-
Federal
Reaister
~
~~~
/Vol. 6 5 , No. 9 3 / F r i d a vM, a v
~____~
~~~
30695
1 2 , 2000/Rules
and
Regulations
~~~~~
~
~~~~~~
~~
~
~~~~~~~
commenters argued that adjustments
existing warning labels should not he
need to he made in both the unbelted weakened or eliminated at this time.
rigid barrier test requirements and in the There was also significant differences
requirements for the low risk
of opinion regarding our proposals
deployment option toavoid limiting use about the provision providing a due care
of the low risk deployment option.
defense against findings of
noncompliance with the air bag
Commenters were generally
requirements of Standard No. 208.
supportive of our proposal to permit
manufacturers to certify to requirements Several commenters raised concerns
about possible unforeseen consequences
referencing human beings in a
resulting from the useof advanced air
stationary vehicle to test suppression
bag technologies,
systems, so long as steps are takento
Minimizing the Riskof Injuries and
We received several comments
of
all
subjects
used
for
ensure
the
safety
Deaths Caused by Air Bags
expressing concern about the potential
testing.
Commenters supported the basic
impacts of this rulemaking on small
approach of our proposed requirements Other Issues
businesses.
to minimizing the riskof injuries and
Commenters generally supported the V. Diagrams of the Final Rule
deaths caused by air bags, including
proposed injury criteria and associated
Requirements
providing a variety of testing options
performance limits, although vehicle
that account for the kinds of effective
After carefully considering the
manufacturers recommended some
technological solutions that are under
comments, we have decided to issuea
changes.
development.
final rule along the linesof the SNPRM.
We received numerous comments
Vehicle manufacturers argued that
The key differences between the
some of the test conditions specified for raising specific technical issues
SNPRM and the final ruleare discussed
be
the proposed static suppression tests. concerning how dummies are to
earlier and will not he repeated here.
positioned for the various tests.
including the range of seat
back angles
The test requirements to improve
and seat track positions, would make
Commenters generally argued that
occupant protection for different size
the tests impracticable.
current provisions allowing manual on- occupants, belted and unbelted, and to
off switches for air bags under certain
minimize risks to infants. children. and
Some commenters emphasized that
other occupants from injuries and
we need to allow manufacturers to use circumstances should remain in effect
for a longer period of time, and a
deaths caused hy air bags, are shown in
both suppression and lowrisk
Figures 1 and 2 below.
technologies. As noted earlier, some
number of commenters argued that
DaimlerChrysler opposed adoptionof
this test, arguing that the European
barrier used in the test
is not
appropriate for testing heavier vehicles
such asSUVs and light trucks.
Some commenters expressed concerns
that our proposal would result in there
being too many crash tests in Standard
No. 208, and requested that we
reconsider whether all of the proposed
tests are needed.
30696
~
F e d e r aRle g i s t e r / V o l .
~~~~
~~~
65, No. 93IFriday. May 12. 2 0 0 0 i R u I e s and R e g u l a t i o n s
~~~~~~~
~~~~~
~
~~~~~
~
~~~~~~
~~~~
1
Test requirements to improve occupant
protection for different sue occupants.
u bnaebnletde
l t de d
I
-
I
I
5th percentlle
50th percentk
adult male dummies
I
j
.
1-
.
~ . ~ ~ .
~~
.. .
~
'
~
- 1 ~ ~
~~~
~~
~
4 0 % offset
frontal
~~~
Driver and
P a s s ePnagsesre n g e r
20-25 m p h
Perpendicular
a n d UP to
30 d e g r e e s
Oblique
.... I
rigid barrier
test
Rigid
barrier
test
Driver and
and
Driver
and
Driver
and
Driver
0-35 m p h '
,
~
.
.
I
'
.I
..
Passenger
0-25 m p h
"
"
..
Perpendicular
.
!
I
!
.- .
*Range is 0-30 mph during first stage of the phase-in of the final rule
Figure 1
Test Requirements to Improve Occupant Protection for Different Size Occupants,
Belted and Unbelted
I
to infants, children, and other occupants
from injuries and deaths caused by air bags
adult female dummy
-
Suppression
(presence)
“
-
-
~..
Suppression
(out of position)
Suppression
(out of position)
.
I
i
Deployment
j
4
Low Risk
Deployment
I
Figure 2
Test Requirements to Minimize the Risk to Infants
Children and Other Occupants from Injuries
And Deaths Caused by Air Bags
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
.~..
.
....
j
.~
. . . ~
!
Deployment
~
I
30698
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 /Friday, May 1 2 , 2000/R
~ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~~
~
common in the real world. Accordingly,
a vehicle strikinga vehicle of the same
size. weight and structure head onat the we requested comments on whether
testing the 5th percentile adult female
same speed.
A . Summary ofproposed Requiremenis
We indicated that within this first
dummy with the seat in something other
a
than the full forward seat track position
In the SNPRM, we proposed to phase alternative, the potential existed for
out the unhelted sled test optionas the
phase-in sequence in which the
would adequately protect properlymaximum speed would temporarily he seated individuals of all sizes while
requirements for advanced air hags are
phased in. As explained below, sled
set at40 km/h (25 mphl to provide
potentially allowing moredesign
tests have inherent limitationsas
vehicle manufacturers additional
freedom.
compared to crash tests in measuring
flexibility when they are introducing
E . Type ofTes1
advanced air bags during theTEA 21
occupant
rotection.
We exphned that. unlikea full scale phase-in. Under this approach, the final
Commenters that previously
vehicle crash test,a sled test cannot
rule could provide thata maximum
advocated retention of the sled test
measure the actual protection an
speed of 48 km/h (30 mphl would apply indicated a willingness to accept the
occupant will receive in a crash. We
after that period. Wealso indicated that unhelted rigid harrier test. No
noted that while the current sled test
if we were to reduce the maximum
commenters disputed the inherent
measures some performance attributes speed to 4 0 km/h (25 mphl, we might
limitations of sled tests as compared to
of the airbag. it cannot measure the
also increase the maximum speed of the crash tests. Nearly all commenters
performance provided by the vehicle
belted rigid barrier test from the current supported the unbeltedrigid harrier test
structure in combination with theair
48 km/h to 56 kmih I30 to 35 mphl.
over the unbelted offset deformable
bags or even the full air bag system by
We proposed that the second
barrier test. Howevor. as discussed i n
itself. We also noted that the sled test
alternative procedure, the unhelted
the next section, the commenters that
does not evaluate the actual timing of
offset deformable barrier test, would he had previously supported the sled test
air hag deployment (e.g., crash sensorsl, conducted using both 50th percentile
wanted the maximum speed of the
does not replicate the actual crash pulse adult male dummies and 5th percentile unbelted barrier test roduced to40 kmi
of a particular vehicle model, does not adult female dummies, witha minimum h (25 mphl.
measure the potentialfor harm from
speed of 35 km/h (22 mphl and a
Vehicle manufacturers stated that the
vehicle components thatare pushed
maximum speed to be established
rigid harrier test is practicable and
hack into the occupant compartment
within the rangeof 48 to 56 kmih 130
repeatable and does not entail the
to 35 mpb). This alternative was based variability associated with deformable
during a crash, and does not measure
how a vehicle performs in angle crashes. on a type of crash test used by IlHS and harriers and the kinematics of an offset
The purpose of the sled test option
by Europe, except that unheited
test. They also stated that the European
was to makeit easier for vehicle
dummies wouldbe used.
manufacturers to make quick changes to For both alternatives, we proposcd to barrier used in the offset test is not
appropriate for testing larger SUVs and
their air bags to reduce risks to out-ofconduct the crash tests with 50th
light trucks. Several vehicle
position occupants. Vehicle
percentile adult male dummies with the
manufacturers. including CM. Honda
manufacturers could not immediately
seat in the middle seat track position.
a n d DaimlerChryslcr. stated that a high
incorporate advanced technologies in
However, we proposed in the SNPRM to
their vehicles, and the sled test
conduct tests using 5th percentile adult speed unbelted offset test would pose
problems for vehicle sensor systems.
facilitated the process ofquickly
female dummies with both the driver
CAS stated that the unhelted offset
certifying large numbers of vehicles
and passenger seats in the full forward
test holds promise as a supplemental
with redesigned air hags to Standard No. position. We tentatively selected this
208. We believe the sled test has been position because some small adults sit test, hut is not yet suitable for inclusion
in Standard No. 208. That organization
useful as a short-term measure. Over the there and because we believe that air
stated that there are currently
longer time frame, however. we believe hags should rotect those people.
We noted,\owever. that placemont of insufficient data to allowfor a
that a better test is needed to ensure the
the 5th percentile adult female dummy comprehensive analysis of the
protection ofunbelted occupants.
consequences that would accurnpany
To replace the sled test. we proposed in the full forward position tests the
the adoption of the offset test.
occupant restraint system undera
two alternative unhelted crash test
Several other commenters also argued
condition that may not generally occur
procedures: an unbelted rigid barrier
that an unbclted offset test offers
test and an unbelted offset deformable in thereal world. The University of
promise for the future, eitheras a
Michigan Transportation Research
harrier test. We proposed that the
unhelted rigid harrier test he conducted Institute (UMTRI) conducteda study in replacement for the rigid barrier testor
as a supplemental test. Ford stated that
which it concluded that even drivers
perpendicular and up tof 30 degrees
who are approximately the samesizo as although not practicable during theTEA
oblique to perpendicular with 50th
the 5th percentile adult female dummy 21 phase-in period, it believos thata 48
percentile adult male dummies, hut
kndh (30 mphloffset test potentially
generally do not sit in the full forward
perpendicular only in tests with 5th
seat track position (Dqcket No. NHTSA- represents a better long-term approach
percentile adult female dummies. The
1998-4405-69). Also. while some short- far enhancing unheited protection.
injury criteria would have to be met
within the range ofa minimum speed of statured drivers might need to move the Parents stated that the final rule
should include both the unhelted rigid
driver's seat all the way forward to
29 kmih (18mphl and a maximum
barrier test and the unhelted offset test.
speed to he established within the range reach the controls,a passenger in the
front passenger seat would be lesslikely That organization argued that the two
of 4 0 to 48 kmih (25 to 30 mphl. This
to have a similar need. Another concern tests provide distinct means of ensuring
alternative was based on the unbeited
crash test that has been partof Standard was whether, in order to meet tests for protection in very different
circumstances. and that inclusion of
No. 208 for many years hut which has, conditions thatrarely occur in thereal
both tests is necessary in d e r l o ensure
world, manufacturers might select air
as a practical matter, been temporarily
adoquate protection far unbolted
superseded by the sled test option since hag designs that offer reduced
occupants.
March 1997. The barrier test represents protection for conditions thatare more
VI. Improving the Protection of
Unhelted Occupants in Serious
Crashes
Federal Register / Vol. 6 5 , No. 9 3 / F r i d a y , M a y
~~
~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~
~~~~~
~
.~
1 2 , 2000/R
~~~~
~
.
As discussed in the SNPRM, the high We noted that, in commenting on the
After considering the comments, we
have decided to adopt the unbelted rigidspeed unbelted rigid barrier test and the NPRM. the comnlenters opposing the48
kmih (30 mph) unbelted barrier test had
high speed unhelted offset testare
harrier test to ensure protection for
raised two primary issues. First. they
unhelted occupants in serious crashes. significantly different, and each has
This is the unhelted crash test included potential advantages as compared to the argued that the test is not representative
other. The two principal advantages of of typical crashes. Second. they argued
in Standard No.208 for the past30
that returning to this test would prevent
years. We also usea belted rigid harrier an offset testare that it provides a more
challenging testof vehicle crash sensors continued use of "depowered" air hags
test for Standard No. 208 and our New
and of vehicle structure. However, these and would require a return to "overly
Car Assessment Program (NCAP).
aggressive" air bags.
Detailed information about this type of areas of performance are addressed by
We addressed each of these issues in
test is presented ina paper prepared by belted offset testsas well as unbelted
the
SNPRM. As to whether the test is
offset
tests.
our Officeof Research and Development
representative
of typical crashes. we
titled "Updated Review of Potential Test
As discussed later in this document,
stated that because the purpose of
Procedures for FMVSS No. 208." That
(25
we are adopting an up to 40 kmih
Standard No, 7-08 is primarily to reduce
paper was prepared to accompany our mph] belted offset deformable harrier
we believed
and fatal
SNPRM."
test as part of today's final rule. This test serious relevant injuries. is how
that the
question
We note that we sought comment in will help ensure improved sensing
the SNPRM on the unhelted offset test systems, which will benefit both belted representative the test is of the crashes
that produce those injuries. We
principally to ensure that we received
and unhelted occupants. We are also
presented data from the National
the benefit of public comments on all of separately pursuing our previouslyAutomotive Sampling System (NASS)
the various alternative approaches that announced plans to consider adding
a
for years 1903-1997 showing. among
are available at this time. I n the NPRM,
high speed belted offset test to Standard other things, that about50 percent of
we indicated that while we believed the No. 208. This test would help ensure
fatalities in frontal crashes occur at delta
unbelted rigid barrier test was a good
improved vehicle structure and reduced Vs helow 48 kmih (30 mph), and about
approach, we were also willing to
intrusion injuries, again benefitting both 50 percent occur at deltaVs above 48
consider alternative unbelted crash
belted and unhelted occupants. Because kmih ( 3 0 mph). Looking separately at
tests. The only alternative unhelted
the combination of an unhelted rigid
unhelted and belted occupants. we
crash test advocated by a comrnenter
barrier test and belted offset tests (eithernoted that 51 percent of the fatalities
that could realistically he implemented being adopted todayor currently being
involving unbelted occupants and47
within the time frameof this rulemaking considered by the agency for
percent of the fatalities involving belted
was the offset deformable barrier test. rulemaking) can accomplish the
same
occupants occur i n frontal crashes at
However, the commenter that
purpose as an unbeltedoffset test. we do delta Vs below 48 kmih (30 rnphl. We
originally suggested consideration of the not currently plan to consider further
noted that tho delta V in NASS
unbelted offset test, IIHS. withdrew its
adopting an unhelted offset test.
the speed at which the
represents
support before theSNPRM was
vehicle would strike a rigid barrier to
C. Agency Decision to Establish
published. No commenter on the
duplicate the amount of energy
Maximum Speed at40 km/h (25 mph)
SNPRM supported adopting the
absorbed i n the crash. Thus, about half
unbelted offset test instead of the
1. The Supplemental Proposal
of fatalities in frontal crashes occur in
unbelted rigid harrier test.
In the SNPRM, we proposed that the crashes that are more severe than a 48
As to Parents' recommendation that
kmih ( 3 0 mph) rigid harrier crash, and
we adopt both unhelted tests. we believemaximum speed for the unbelted rigid half of all frontal crash fatalities occur
that adoption of the proposed unhelted barrier test he established within the
in crashes that are lesssewre than a 48
range of 4 0 to 48 km/h (25 to 30 mph).
high speed offset test would he
kmih ( 3 0 mph) rigid barrier crash.
inappropriate at this time.We have
We stated thatit was our intent to
Given that Standard No. 208's
scant data on the repeatability of this
maximize, to the extent consistent with unbelted crash test requirementsare
test. Nearly all the offset testing to date TEA 21. the protection that airbags offer intended to save lives. we stated that we
has used belted dummies. As noted
in crashes potentially resulting in fatal disagree that 48 kmih (30 mph) rigid
above andalso discussed in the SNPRM. injuries. Thus. we stated that it was our harrier crashes are unrepresentative of
several manufacturers have raised
preference to establish such
a test
the kinds of crashes i n which we are
concerns that the proposed high speed requirement at as high a severity as
seeking toensure protcction. We also
unhelted offset test would pose
practicable. We stated that the
4 0 kmi
noted that because we were proposing
problems for vehicle sensor systems.
h ( 2 5 mph) lower endof the maximum
to require vehicles tomeet the unhelted
See 64 FR 60579.
test speed range was set forth for
test requirements for a range of speeds
We also note that while we agree with comment to ensure that commenters
up to and including 48 kmih (30 rnph).
Parents that the two high speed tests
addressed a crash test recommended by we were addressing protection for lower
provide distinct means of ensuring
AAM in late August1999.
severity crashes as well as higher
protection in different circumstances,
We also stated that the potential
severity crashes.
this does not mean that adoption of
As to the argument that returning to
existed for a phase-in sequence i n
those particular two tests would be
the unhelted 48 kmih (30mph) rigid
which the maximum speed would
needed to ensure protection in those
barrier test would prevent cbntinJed
initially be set at4 0 kmih (25 mph) to
different circumstances. We believe that provide vehicle manufacturers
use of "depowered" air hags and require
the combination of an unbelted rigid
use of "overly aggressivo" air hags,w e
additional flexibility when they are
barrier test and belted offset tests can
stated that a key ~ z a yof assussing the
introducing advanced airbags during
accomplish the same purpose.
the phase-in. We explained that under validity of the argument that a return to
the 4 8 kmih (30mph) barrier test
this phase-in sequence, the final rule
could provide that a maximum speed of would--at least in the absence of
additional technological
48 kmih (30 mph) would apply aftera
iml,rovements-prevent continued use
reasonable period of time.
Federal Register / Vol.
30700
~~~
~
~~~~
of redesigned air hags was to test
as
thus do not respond to factors such
additional injury criteria and an
vehicles with those air hags in
48
crash severity, occupant weight and
additional dummy. It stated that the
kmih (30 mphl barrier tests and see how occupant location. By contrast, the
henrfits of the other tests included in
they perform. We noted that we had
incorporation of advanced technologies the final rule. such as the ncw halted
tested a total of 13 MY 1998-99 vehicles would make air hag systems responsive offset test and the low speed risk
with redesigned air hags ina
to those factors.
reduction tests. should also he
perpendicular rigid harrier crash test at We also noted:
considered.
48 kmih (30mph) with unhelted 50th
AAM argued that the analyses of
If a manufacturer decided to use a
percentile adult male driver and
somewhat more powerful air bag to meet a
benefits presented in thePEA are based
passenger dummies. The vehicles
48 kmih (30mphl unbelted rigid harrier test,
on dummy readings from one dummy at
or to provide protection in more eve re
represented a wide range of vehicle
one position in a single typeof crash
crashes, the manufacturer could use
types, sizes, and crash ulses.2'
test in a single direction at a singlo
advanced air bag technologies to p r u d e less speed. It stated that this approachis not
We stated that 11 o f g e 13 vehicles
powerful levels of inflation in lower severity
passed the injury criteria performance
comprehensive enough.AAM also
crashes, for smaller occupants, for belted
limits proposed in the SNPRM. For the
occupants, and for occupants sitting with lhe argued that the strongest evidencethat
driver position, 1 2 of the 13 vehicles
there are analytical limitations inherent
seat in the full-forward position.
passed all the relevant injury criteria
Manufacturers could also reduce aggressivity in the agency's benefit analyses (past
performance limits.In the one vehicle
of air bags by various means such as
and present) is that past analyses
with a failure, the MY 1999 Acura RL,
oplimizing fold paltsms, different cover
predicting 1,250 lives lost from the
the driver dummy exceeded the femur designs, lighter fahrics. etc. Advanmd
adoption of the sled test that simply
load criteria. For the passenger position, technologies would also enable the
have not come true.
manufacturer lo suppress air bag deployment
12 of the 13 vehicles also passed all of
AAM stated that it had considered the
in
appropriate
circumstances,
such as when
the relevant injury criteria performance children are present.
level-of-benefit question from two
limits. TheMY 1998 Dodge Neon
different perspectives. The first
In our Preliminary Economic
slightly exceeded the60 g chest
involved the generation ofhenefit
Assessment
(PEA)
accompanying
the
acceleration limit (with a value of61.4
estimates using a MADYMO math
SNPRM. w e estimated the benefitsof an
g). The other proposed injury criteria
model to developa theorotical
unhelted rigid harrier test witha
performance limits (;.e.,for HIC. chest
"optimum" design for hoth the 40 km/
of
40
km/h
125
mph)
maximum
speed
deflection, and Nij) were easily met in
(25 mph) and 48 kmlh ( 3 0 mph) suite
h
all the tests; for most vehicles, there wasvs. 48 km/h (30 mph). ThePEA
of tests. The performanceof those
concluded that if the full
fleet of
a greater than 20 percent margin of
designs was then modeledover a broad
vehicles' air hags were designed in the
compliance for hoth the driver and
spectrum of real world crash
context of unhelted 40 km/h ( 2 5 mphl
passen er seating positions.
configurations. B a s 4 upon an injury/
Bases on these test results, we stated rigid barrier and oblique tests,an
fatality risk analysis o f t h e model's
that the tested vehicles with redesigned estimated 214 to 397 lives saved
output injury measures, relativo benefits
air bags, ranging widely in vehicle type annually by pre-MY 1998 air hags might were calculated. The second porspective
not he saved.
meet
and size, appeared to continue to
utilized an "opportunities matrix"
Standard No. 208's 48 kmih ( 3 0 mph)
2. Summary of Comments
approach to examine relative benefits by
unhelted rigid harrier test requirements
generating effectiveness estimates and
Commenters on theSNPRM nearly
for 50th oercentilr adultmale dummies.
-,
applying these estimates to the
unanimously supported adoptionof a n
many of them h wide mar ins
spectrum of real world crash conditions.
unhelted
rigid
harrier
test,
hut
sharply
We also noteJthat thereye& issue
According to AAM. hoth of these
disagreed
over
the
maximum
speed
for
for this rulemakingis not whether some
approaches yield the same conclusionthat test. Safety advocacy groups,
MY 1998-99 vehicles with redesigned,
when considering airhag designs
single-inflation level air hags would not supported returning to48 kmih (30
constrained by testing unhelted
mph).
Most
commenters,
however.
meet a 48 kmih (30mph) unhelted
including all auto companies andall air occupants at 40 kmih ( 2 5 mph) or 48
barrier test requirement. The more
kmih ( 3 0 mph). the dosired goal of
Pelevant issue is whether vehicles to he hag suppliers, IIHS, and NTSB
reducing serious-to-fatal injuriesi n real
suoooried
a
maximum
meed
of
40
kmi
manufactured in MY 2003 and later
world crashes is bestserved by
h (<5 mph).
would he able to comply with sucha
requiring testing at 40 kndh ( 2 5 orph).
Commenfers supporting 40 km/h 125
requirement. perhaps by meansof
GM submitted an analysis whichit
mphl.
Commenters
supporting
a
currently available technologies not in
said explains whya 25 nlph rigid harrier
maximum test speed of 40 kmlh (25
many air bag systemsas well as
test drives airhag designs that protect
mphl argued that there wouldnot he a
technologies still being oryet to be
unhelted occupants in severe frontal
loss
of
benefits
associated
with
a
test
at
developed.
crashes. Among other things.it said that
this speed,as compared to a 48 kmih
We explained that today's airbag
ride down analysis shows that
a 2 5 mph
(30mph) standard.
systems are not advanced airhags and
rigid harrier test requiresmore air hag
AAM stated that the benefitsof
restraint capacity t h a n an unhtllted
redesigned air hags will be maintained
offset deformable harrier impact at 40
with a 40 km/h (25 mph) test. I t argued
mph.
that there is no reason to believe air hags
designed to the sled test requirements
Vehicle manufacturors stressed the
have compromised protection, and that argument that the agency shuuld focus
a 40 km/h (25 mph) harrier test is more
on the experience ofredesignod air
bags
in MY 1998 and MY 1999 models. They
severe than the sled test.
AAM also stated that a new40 kmi
argued that these redesignedair bags
h (25 mph) test cannot simply be
have provided real world henefits and
cornpared to the old 48 kmih (30 mph)
that there is no evidence that more
test because the newtest would include power is needed.
~
~~
~~
~~
~~~
~~
~~
Federal RegisteriVol. 65, No, 9 3 / F r i d a yM, a y
~~~~~~
~~~~~
30701
1 2 , 2000iRules
and
Regulations
~~~
~
~
~~
~
~
~
~~
~
Toyota stated that NHTSA's concern
argued that the agency must accountfor predictive capability and air hags with
that manufacturers will substantially
these deaths, as wellas those more
only two power levels.
decrease power in future air hags
easily documented in low speed
According to AAM,it is especially
compared to current systemsis
crashes, before it can justify a return to
challenging to halance occupant
unfounded. It presented data comparing the 48 kmih (30 mph) unhelted harrier
protection for both the 5th percentile
velocity vs. time traces for the sled test
test.
adult female and the 50th percentile
and the 40 kmih (25 mph) test for both
IIHS also addressed the agency's
adult male dummies and assure
an SUV and a sedan, and noted that the concern that, withouta "severe crash
compliance with the harrier test. As an
40 kmih ( 2 5 mph) test pulses were more test" for unhelted occupants,
example, AAM cited the agency's test of
severe. Toyota argued that, in order to
manufacturers may reduceair hag
the Toyota Tacoma, which resulted in
manage this levelof energy, theair hags inflation energy. or the size of air hags,
an Nij of 2.65 for the 5th fernale
for these vehicles cannot he depowered thereby compromising their
passenger dummy, nearly three times
further than the current levels, and that effectiveness. IIHS argued that such
the allowable injury reference value.
there is no reason to believe thatair hags changes are constrained by other nonAccording to AAM, theair hag size and
designed to the40 kmih ( 2 5 mph) rigid
regulatory crash tests to which the
fill needed to assure compliance with
harrier test will perforn~ worse in high manufacturers are subject. That
the chest injury limits with 50th
speed collisions than those designed to organization stated that NCAP requires
percentile adult male dummiesat 48
the sled pulse.
that air hags he reasonably deep in orderkmih (30 mph) results in noncompliant
IIHS stated that it does not agree that
to prevent dummies' heads from striking neck and thorax injury reference values
a hieh-soeed barrier test usine
" unhelted through the hags, and that
offset crash
for 5th percentile adult female dnmmies
dummies will necessarily lead to
testing by it and others worldwide
seated closer to the air hag. Conversely,
improved protection for any occupants, means manufacturers will continue to
according to AAM,if the air hag is sized
belted or unhelted. That organization
install air hags with sufficient radialsize for the unhelted 5th percentile female
stated that it disagreed with what it
to keep occupants squarely behind their dummy at 48 kmih (30 mph), there is
characterized as the agency's claim that, air hags, even under conditions
of sharp insufficient restraint of the unhelted
unless it returns to the 48 kmih (30
vehicle rotation.
50th male dummy. AAM argued that
mph) harrier test, air hags willoffer
testing
at 40 kmih ( 2 5 mph) allows the
NADA
argued
that
the
agency's
inadequate protection to many unhelted
proposed advanced airbag performance restraint engineer to design the airhag
occupants. especially large people in
criteria fail to account for reasonahly
to provide reasonable occupant
more severe frontal crashes. That
projected
increases
in
safety
belt
and
protection for a broader range of
organization stated that in a number of
child
restraint
usage
occupant sizes.
or
for
the
real-life
studies of air bag performance in
GM made arguments similar to those
moderate to severe frontal crashes. it has incremental benefits attributable to
"depowered" air hags. NADA stated that of AAM. It argued that the unheltsd 48
shown that driversare not dying
it is reasonable to assume that byMY
kmih (30 mph) barrier test using the
because air bags offer too little
2003. proper driver and passenger
50th percentile adult male dummy
protection: rather, drivers are dying
because of overwhelming intrusion that (including children) seat belt usage and determines the restraint energy, drives
the depth of the air hag. andrequires a
no air hag design can overcome, ejection child restraint usage rates will exceed
deeper air hag that has more potential to
ofoccupants, or hecause of injury from 80 percent, and that byMY 2006. these
rates should exceed 90 percent.
injure a 5th percentile adult female.It
the air hag itself.
argued that the unhelted 48 kmih (30
Vehicle manufacturers also argued
llHS argued that these observations
rnph) harrier test using the 5th
call attention to whatit believes are two that it is difficult or impossible to
errors in the agency's logic for returning comply with the 48 kmih (30 mph) rigid percentile adult female would require a
barrier test for both the 50th percentile shallower air hag that would not assure
to a 48 kmih (30 mph) test. First, that
compliance for a n unheltcd 50th
adult male dummies and the 5th
commenter argued thatif air hags are
percentile adult female dummies. They percentile adult male. According to GM,
not powerful enough,there should he
also argued that it may not he possible a 40 kmih ( 2 5 mph) test would permit
some real world cases in which the
to satisfy both the48 kmih (30 mph)
air hag depth to he optimizedfor buth
energy of the deploying hags was
unhelted rigid harrier testfor both
the 5th percentile adult female and 50th
inadequate to protect individuals in
dummies and the low risk deployment percentile adult male dummies.
otherwise survivable frontal crashes.
tests.
Ford stated that testing of theMY
IlHS stated that it is not aware of any
AAM stated that while the agency has 2000 Taurus using 5th percentilc adult
such case. It also stated that the agency's
female and 50th percentile adult male
claimed that most vehicles with
concern that air hags certified to the
redesigned air hags continue to meet the dummies dernonstratcs the difficulties
unbelted generic sled pulse would he
unhelted 48 kmih (30 mph) barrier test, of balancing requirements witha 48
less effective in frontal crashes has n o
very little testing has heen done with
foundation in real world crash data.
kmih (30 mph) test evenfor vehicles
equipped with advanced technologies.
these same vehicles at48 kmih (30
Second, IIHS argued that the agency
has failed to appreciate that serious and mph) with 5th percentile adult female That company noted that theMY 2000
fatal injuries from deploying air hags are dummies. AAM stated that the little
Taurus has dual-level inflators and
happening not only in low speed
other advanced technologies.
testing that has heen done produceda
crashes. hut also in the high speed
50 percent failure rate. That
GM argued that there is nu tcchnology
crashes in whichair hags are supposed organization stated that this testing
or combination of technologies existing
to be most effective. That commenter
illustrates the design tensions that the today that could satisfy both the 4n kmi
stated that a recent update (including
industry has been emphasizing.
h (30 mph) unhelted rigid barrier test
1996 data) of its analyses of driver
According to that organization, these
and the low risk deployment tests.
fatalities in air hag-equipped cars
tensions result from technology
Honda stated that it had concerns about
indicates air hags were the most likely
constraints which presently discern
being able to meet the rigid harrier test
source o f t h e fatal injuries in about1 5
limited information about occupant size for the 50th percentile adult male
and location, crash sensors with limited dummy and also meet the low risk
percent of frontal crash deaths. IIHS
I
"
1
a 48 kmih (30 mph) test. That
air
energy (or the second stage of the
deployment test for out-of-position
organization stated that those conditions
occupants.
bag).
include higher speed limits.as well as
NTSB stated that it is concerned that
Commenters supporting a maximum
the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted barrier the prevalence of vastly increased
speed of 40 kmih ( 2 5 mphl also argued
numbers of SUVs and LTVs designed
test could result ina return to higher
that a 48 kmih (30 mph) maximum
with stiff front ends. Public Citizen
energy air bags.
speed would requirea return to overly
stated that the stiffnessof these
Recognizing the significant
aggressive air bags.
vehicles. as well as other factors
disagreement among commenters
AAM stated that field evidence
including higher mass. transmit
suggests that the current depowered air concerning whether there should bea
return to the48 km/h (30 mph) test. a
increased farces to passenger cars in
hags offer a high level of occupant
broad range of commenters supporting a crashes.
protection in the real world while
Public Citizen also argued thatover
enhancing protection for at-risk groups. 40 km/h (25 mph) test argued that the
the past 30 years. Americans have used
That organization stated that a return to solution should he for the agency to
the 48 kmih (30 mph) rigid barrier test
adopt a 40 kmih ( 2 5 mphl test in the
48 km/h (30 mph] unbelted testing
as the litmustest for a vehicle's
would require increasing air bag inflator current rulemaking, and defer any
crashworthiness. It noted that other
future consideration ofa 48 kmih I30
outputs in some vehicles, serving to
motor vehicle safety standards are based
mph) test, As partof this process. they
increase the risk of harm to certain
on a 48 kmih (30 mph) test. Public
recommended that NHTSA expeditea
groups.
focused examination of frontal crashes Citizen stated that if the 48 kmih (30
GM stated that it strongly
recommends that "depowered" airhags with fatalities to determine,for vehicles rnph) test were dropped. the public
continue to be the highest force level with depowered air hags and the latest would view the decisionas a step
backward.
inflation boundary necessaryto comply generation of advanced air bags. how
Public Citizcn stated that one
people are dying in these crashes. A
48
with Standard No. 208. It argued that
of a 40 k m i
given the positive indications from the kmih (30 mph) test would he considered indicator of the inadequacy
h (25 mph) test is a statement by GM in
further if scientific evidence indicated
field on theeffects of depowering, and
the continued positive indications in
that the 40 km/h (25 mph) test resulted the 1980's that it could pass an unbelted
in inadequate protection. Supporters of 40 kmih ( 2 5 mph) test with "friendly
engineering laboratory testing. it would
interiors" and no air bag at all.
be a serious setback to motor vehicle
this approach included NTSB, IIHS,
CAS also stated that a 40 kmih ( 2 5
safety should the agency send Standard AAM, the National Safety Council. the
mph) unbelted test. eveni f coupled
American Trauma Society, and the
No. 208 backwards by mandatinga 48
with a 56 kmih (35 mphl belted test,is
National Association of Governors'
kmih (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier
but a slight variation of GM's proposal
Highway Safety Representatives. AAM
test.
Toyota stated that it believes a return
stated that it was committing to provide to Secretary Dale in 1984 for a 40 km/
b (2s mph) unbelted and48 kmih (30
additional resources for a major realto 48 kmih (30 mph) unbelted barrier
testing would require an increase inair
world data gathering program to provide mph) belted standard. CAS argued that
if a car with friendly interiors could
bag power in many models. That
a greater factual basisfor future air bag
meet a 40 kmih (25 mphl barrier test in
company stated that. given the lack of rulemakings.
air bags
Commenfers supporting 48 km/h 130
1984 without an air hag, as GM
evidence that higher powered
suggested then that it could, then the
are necessary, it strongly believes that
mph). Safety advocacy groups
reinstating this requirement would serve supporting a maximum test speed of
addition o f a cosmetic air bag would
48
km/h (30 mph) argued that it would
enable a vehicle to meet Standard No.
only to increaserisk to at-risk groups,
including out~of-nosition children and result in higher lifesaving benefits than 208 todav. even with its revised iniurv
. ,
small &red adults.
a 40 km/h (25 mphl speed.
criteria.
These commenters also cited the
DaimlerChrysler argued that a return
These commenters emphasized that
agency's estimates in the PEA that a 40
half of all fatalities i n frontal crashes
to the unbelted 48 kmih I30 mph)
kmih (2s mph) test speed could result
occur at delta Vs above 48 kmih (30
barrier test would necessitate an
mph). Parents argued thata 48 kmih I30 in 214 to 397 fewer lives saved each
increase in air hag intlator power, all
things being equal. That commenter
mph) test speed is very typical of
year.
These safety advocacygroups also
stated that staged inflators can reduce,
potentially fatal crashes since it is in the
argued that there is no justification to
but not eliminate, the risk to smaller
middle of the crash speeds thatcause
reduce the longstanding 48 kmih ( 3 0
and out-of-position occupants in lower fatalities. That commenter also argued
speed deployments. DaimlerChrysler
that air bag systems certified as meeting mph) test speed and that such a
asserted that to assure compliance.it
the injury criteria at the higher speeds reduction would he inconsistont with
the TEA 2 1 requirement to improve
proposed in therule will have greater
would expect the power level of the
staged deployment necessary to meet
efficacy in severe frontal collisions than protection of occupants of different
the reouirements of an unbelted 48 kmi would air bags certifiedas complying at sizes. belted and unbelted.
CAS argued that reducing the
h (30 k p h ) impact to be comparable to some lesser speed.
CAS stated that the 5 mph difference unbelted test speed to 4U kmih (25 mphl
the pre~depowering level.
would decrease thelevo1 of protection
IIHS stated that while NHTSA crash
between 40 km/h (25 mphl and 48 kmi
for unbelted occupants who are
h (30 mph) is substantial. It stated that
tests indicate that some vehiclesmay
involved in moderate to high speed
meet the unbelted48 kmih (30 mphj
a 48 kmih (30 mph) barrier crashis 40
test without adding more energy,it
percent more severe thana 40 kmih ( 2 5 collisions. According to that
commenter. Congress cannot possibly
believes the agency must recognize that mph) crash.It also stated that NHTSA
have envisioned a hackward step as an
this may not be possible in all. or even
data show that almost20 percent of
immovement to safety when it
occuoant fatalities in frontal crashes
most. cases. That oreanization
stated
"
occu; between 40 kmih (25 mph) and 48 ma'ndated that the adkanced air bag
that when compliance becomes
difficult, it will be far too easy for
kmih (30 mph)
delta
V.
rulemaking
place.
take
Public Citizen stated that the whole
manufacturerstomeetthe 48 km/h (30
PublicCitizenstatedthat real world
mph) test by increasing air bag inflation driving conditions require the return to point of upgrading Standard No.
208 is
F e d e r aRle g i s t e r i V o l .
~~~~~~~
~
~~~~~~
~~~~~
6 5 , No. 9 3 / F r i d a yM, a y
-..
30703
1 2 , 2 0 0 0 i R u l easnRd e g u l a t i o ~ ~ s
~~~~~
~~
~
~
~~~~~
~~~~~
~
~
~~
~~~~
~
industry's support for a 40 kmih (25
to ensure that automakers make better stated that, contrary to the industry
air hag restraint systcms and that the argument, air bags in many varieties of mphl test
is that they want to avoid the
vehicles apparently do not need to he expense
of designingenergyabsorbing
standard should reflect as much as
possible the protection needed in
real
repoweredormade"overlyaggressive"structuresfortheir
SUV and light truck
in order to pass the 48 kmih (30 mph) vehicles.
It also argued that if the agency
world crashes.
finds that the48 kmih (30 mph) test is
According to Public Citizen, a 48 knii test.
h (30 mph) unbelted harrier test would Consumers Union
also statedthatintooforceful.
it hastheobligationto
require vehicle manufacturers to inform
force manufacturers to incorporate more NHTSA tests, two of fDUr vehicles
all current owners of48 kmih ( 3 0 mphl
advancedtechnology.PublicCitizentested,the
MY 1999 Saturnand MY
1998 Taurus.passedalltheinjuryairhagcompliantvehicles
of thisfact
argued that without the additional
and require the companies torecall and
challenge of the 48 kmih (30mphlcriteria
for thedriverandpassenger
correct them.
unbeltedtest,theautomakerswouldusingunbelted5thpercentileadult
Syson-Hille and Associates presented
have little motivation to move forward female
and 50th percentile adult male
dummies in 48 kmih (30 mphl rigid an analysis
of the history of air bags
technologically in the future.
which it argued shows that the fatalities
These commenters strongly disagreed barrier tests. That organization argued
with the arguments ofthe industry and that ifthese vehicles can pass these teststhat have been caused byair bags are the
even before they have been redesigned result of poor air bag designs and not
some others that a 48 kmih (30 mph)
the 48 kmih (30mph) harrier test.
to meet a revised StandardNo. 208,
standard would reouire overlv
other vehicles can he engineered to do
aggressive air hags or not be possible to
3 . Response to Comments on Maximum
meet for bath 50th percentile adultmale so as well. These tests werealso cited
Test Speed
dummies and 5th percentile adult
by other commenters supportinga 48
Because the selection of the maximum
kmih (30 mph) standard.
female dummies.
Public Citizen argued that any trade- test speed for the unbelted barrier test
Parents stated that the industry's
offs between meeting requirements for represented the primary issue in the
rationale for a 40 kmih (25 mphl
maximum speed is that the traditional the 5th percentile adult female and 50th SNPRM on which there was significant
percentile adult male dummies can he disagreement among the commenters
48 kmih (30mph) speed compels
overcome with the right combination of and drew a significant amount of public
production of airbag systems that are
interest. we presented afull discussion
new technologies. Public Citizen cited
necessarily and unavoidably dangerous
dual or multi-level inflators, innovative of the rationalefor selecting 40 kmih I 2 5
for small occupants in lower speed
mph) early in this document.In this
collisions. That organization stated that folding patterns and bag shapes. lighter
it strongly disagrees with this position. weight fabrics. tethers, pedal extenders, section, we providea specific response
to the public commentson that issue,
According to Parents, this position
moving modules. deep dish steering
especially those comments which
ignores the outstanding safety record of wheels, collapsible steering columns.
many well designed air bag systems that knee bolsters, stitching that keeps hags supported a 48 kmih (30 mphl test
speed.
narrow to protect inlow-level inflation
have complied with the48 kmih I 3 0
As indicated by the discussion we
mph) requirement over the years.
and separates to protect occupants in
presented earlier in this document,we
higher impact crashes, top mounted
Parents also stated that this argument
does not take into account advanced air vertically deploying air bags, chambered agree with a number ofthe arguments
hag technologies. the technologies that air bags (in effect, a smaller bag inside made by commenters supportinga 48
kmih (30mph) test.We agree that a 48
the advanced airbag rule is supposed to a larger one), and occupant position
kmih (30 mphl tcst would not require
sensors that adjust deployment levelor
foster.
any kind ofgeneral "repowering" of air
Parents also argued that theSNPRM
suppress deployment altogether.
Public Citizen also stated that the newbags. We also agree that there are
rebutted the industry's argument that
test requirements, including static and potential disadvantages associated with
adoption of a 48 kmih ( 3 0 mphl test
adopting a 411 kmih (25 mph) test, the
speed would necessarily require vehicle dynamic tests using infant, child and
most significantbring that there could
manufacturers to revert to excessive
small adult size dummies, already
address the manufacturers' concerns
he significantly reduced safety henefits
deployment forces found in many
systems prior to sled testing. Parents
regarding the "excessive" power of air if manufacturers engaged in significant
stated that the agency pointed out that hags in low severity crashes.
and widespread further depowering.
Public Citizen expressed concern
However. there are important areas
virtually all ofthe depowered airbag
wherc we differ with the commenters
systems it tested still passed the48 kmi about the suggestion ofsome
commenters that more data be collected supporting a 48 kmih (30 mph) test
h (30 mph) test. That organization also
before any decisionis made to return to speed.
stated that compliance margins were
First. we believe that setting the
a 48 kmih (30 mph) test. It argued that
fairly wide and typicallyas wide as
maximum speed at48 kmih (30 mph)
margins used by industry in complying this was an excuse to delay a safety
during the TEA 21 phase-in period. as
with the 48 kmih (30 mph) test. Parents standard and thatthere is plenty ofreal
advocated by these commenters. would
world experience with the 48 kmih ( 3 0
stated that for systems that don't meet
not allow manufacturers to focus
the 48 kmih ( 3 0 mph) test. development mph) test becauseit was in effect from
1987 to 1997 and because most 1998
of advanced technologies would allow
initially on risk reduction. would nut
and 1999 models continued to comply give the manufacturers as much
these vehicles toalso meet the test.
flexibility in simultaneously improving
with that test. Public Citizen argued
Consumers Union argued that the
a lack of data about high speed protection and risk
further that there is
agency's testing of 13 vehicles with
reduction. and would not allow
redesigned air bags leads it to conclude a 40 kmih (25 mph) test since there
never has been such a test requirement.advanced air bag technologies to mature
that even before the comprehensive
and manufacturers to gain experience
redesign in air bag systems
It stated that therisky decision on this
contemplated in this rulemaking, a widerulemaking would be to lower the test with them before requiring the extensive
use of these technolugies.
variety of vehicles with depowered air speed to 40 kmih (25 mph).
While these disadvantages would he
Public Citizen stated that it believes
bags already can pass the48 kmih I30
the driving force behind the auto
mph) unbelted test. That organization
partially mitigatcd by setting the
further depower their vohicles. These
speed protection for different size
maximum speed at 40 krnih (25 mph)
occupants, we believeit is unlikely that commentcrs stated that them can be no
for an initial period andat 48 kmih ( 3 0
they would reduce the overalllevel of
enforcement ofa promise, that whatis
mph) thereafter. this approach would
place a premium on our being able to
in the ruleis what the companies will
protection. much less switchto some
project accurately the paceof
kind of new, hypothetical air bag design comply with, and that anythingelse is
development and the effectiveness of
illusory.
that might minimally pass the 40 kmih
Although our conclusion that vehicle
(25 mph) test. hut provide little
or no
advanced air bag technologies.
manufacturers are unlikely to reduce the
protection to unbelted occupants in
Depending on how advanced air bag
overall level of high speed protection
technologies developed. this approach higher severity crashes.
There are several reasons for this
provided by MY 1988 and MY 1999
would still give the manufacturersless
redesigned air bags rests i n part on the
flexibility in simultaneously improving belief. First, the record shows that
vehicle manufacturers did not respond representations of manufacturers. it is
high speed protection and risk
to the flexibility provided by the sled
primarily based on fdctors other than
reduction.
test by providing air hags that minimally promises. For all of the reasons
We believe that these uncertainties
associated with advanced technologies, complied with the sled test. They did discussed abovu, we believe that the
not depower their air hagsas much as
manufacturers are, in fact. in a situation
particularly the more complex ones,
where prudent judgment dictates
they could have, and,
for the vast
must be considered in selecting the
majority of their vehicles, they
retaining the current overall level of
maximum test speed. While we agree
continued to provide air bags that
protection in high speed crashes.
that many of the limitations associated
We also plan to monitor how vehicle
passed the 48 kmih ( 3 0 mph) test with
with dual level inflators can be
manufacturers respond to the advanced
overcome by such featuresas multithe 50th ercentile adult male dummy.
Seconf the vehicle manufacturers
air bag mandate. If they should change
level inflation, chambering. and real
have specifically committed to not
their current plans and take actions that
time occupant position sensing. we
reducing high speed protection
of air
reduce the overall levelof protection.
believe there are significant
we will respond appropriately. The
hae svstems throueh
sienificant and
uncertainties as to how quickly these
"
widespread depowering. See letter from possibility of rulemaking, including the
more complex technologies can be
reduced flexibility that could
implemented. There are advantages to AAM and AIAM dated April 4. 2000
accompany a 48 kmih (30 mpb)
(Docket NHTSA-99-6407, item 1261.
vehicle manufacturers initially
Third. a 40 kmih (25 mph) maximum maximum test speed. is another
implementing simpler advanced
test speed does not create any
incentive for vehicle manufacturers not
technologies and learning from that
significant cost incentive for vehicle
to take such actionsas they design their
experience before moving on to the
manufacturers to provide reduced
advanced air hags.
more complex technologies.
protection compared to a 48 kmih ( 3 0
As to Public Citizcn's argument that
As discussed earlier, particularly
mph) maximum test speed. As
vehicle manufacturers support a 4 0
given the risks that thefirst generation
discussed in the FEA,we believe that
kmih ( 2 5 mphl maximum test speed
of air hags posed to out-of-position
costs are essentially the same far both because they want to avoid the expense
children and small adult females, and
of designing energy absorbing structures
the reaction of the public to those risks.test speeds. We also note that the
vehicle manufacturers have stated that for SUVs and light trucks. we note that
it is very important that advanced air
bags be properly designed from the very regardless of whether the maximum test while such design changes would make
it easier to pass a 48 kmih ( 3 0 mph) test,
beginning. Air bags have proven to be
speed is set at40 kmih (25 mph) or48
it is by no meanschar that the higher
highly effective in saving lives.
kmih (30 mph). they will employ the
test speed would require such changes.
However, if advanced air bags proved to same technology on vehicles.
Fourth, thereare other constraints
Moreover, we note that llHS said in its
be unreliable, or to pose significant risks
that discourage significant further
comments that adding the56 kmih ( 3 5
to out-of position children andsmall
adult females, the public acceptability depowering. AAM and AIAM stated that mpbl belted NCAP test to Standard No.
air hag power cannot he significantly
208 could e n c o u r a ~ evehicle
of air hags would he put at risk. For
reduced and still permit air bags to
manufacturers to s k n the crash pulses
these reasons, we believe that. in
perform well in the 58 km/h (35 mph)
of SUVs and light trucks.
selecting a maximum test speed, the
We also disagree with the suggestion
uncertainty associated with meeting the belted NCAP tests. Those tests are the
of some commenters that TEA 2 1
challenge of simultaneously minimizing same as the5 6 kmih (35 mph) belted
precludes us from establishing a
risk and improving protectionis best
tests that will be added to Standard
No.
maximum test speed below4n kmih ( 3 0
resolved in favor of minimizing risk,as
208 during the second phase-in
mph). This viewis based on the
long as there is good reason to believe
established by this rule. We note that
argument that any speed helow the old
that it is unlikely that vehicle
the need to perform wellin angle tests
manufacturers would reduce the overall in the 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted rigid
4 8 kmih ( 3 0 mph) level cannot be
level of high speed protection being
barrier test will help ensure that vehicle considered to "imorove occunant
provided today.
protection," as required by TkA21.
manufacturers do not inappropriately
A second key area where we disagree shrink the sizeof current air ba s
This argument tails to consider the
with the conlmenters supportinga 48
major differences between the older
Fifth. as discussed earlier in81;s
kmih ( 3 0 mph) standard concerns the
unbolted rigid barrier tests and the
document, the vehicle manufacturers
nnbelted rigid barrier tests required by
type of air hag system that would be
are already introducing new
this new rule. The older unbelted rigid
produced under a40 kmih (25 mph)
technologies that enhance protection
standard. It is our view that theair bags and/or reduce risk, even though these barrier test used a single test dummy,
most likely to be produced under a 40
representing a 50th percentile adult
technologies are not needed to meet
kmih (25 mph) standard wouldoffer at
male, positioned well back from theair
current requirements.
least as much overall high speed
Public Citizen, CAS and the
bag. The only measureof the
protection as the current redesign air
Consumer Federation of America argued effectiveness of theair bag was its
bags. While manufacturers might make that we should not rely on manufacturereffectiveness i n a high speed crash into
some adjustments in providing high
representations that they will not
a rigid barrier. There was no assessment
YI
L~~
~~~~
of risks for occupants who might be
positioned near the air bag. The injury
criteria included assessments of injury
likelihood to the test dummy's head.
chest, and upper legs.
Today's rule mandates a much more
comprehensive assessment ofair bag
protection. It adds an entirely new
series of tests to assessl o w speed risk
to occupants of niany different sizes. For
the first time in the historyof Standard
No. 208. the agency will use dummies
representing a 12-month-old, a 3-yearold. a 6-year-old. and a 5th percentile
adult female. Allof these new dummies
will be used in assessing risk
of air bags.
For the high speed test. performance
will be evaluated using both the midsized male dummy positioned well back
from the airbag and the new 5th
percentile female dummy positionedas
far forward as the seat allows. For both
dummies in the high speed unbelted
test, the limit on permissible chest
responses has been mademore stringent
and an injury criteria has been added to
assess the likelihood of neck injuries.
Because of all these additional
complexities and increased stringency.
it is not correct to claim that setting the
unbelted rigid barrier test speed below
48 kmih (30 mphl necessarily reduces
protection to unbelted occupants.
In addition, we note that the purpose
of the new beltedoffset test is to help
ensure that vehicle manufacturers
upgrade their crash sensing and
software systems. as necessary, to better
address soft crash pulses. These
improved crash sensing and software
systems will benefit both belted and
unbelted occupants.
We also note that the suggestion that
TEA 21 somehow requires an unbelted
harrier test witha test speed not lower
than 48 kmih (30 m p h ) is inconsistent
with the language of that statute.
In fact.
TEA 2 1 expressly left open the
possibility of our retaining the sled test.
That test has a severity level
sienificantlv helow thatof a 4 8 kmih ( 3 0
m i h ) barrier test and a 40 kmih( 2 5
mph) barrier test.
We also disagree with the argument of
some commenters that i f we decide that
the 4 8 kmih (30 mphl test requires
overly powerful air bags. we must
require vehicle manufacturers to notify
all current owners of vehicles with 48
kmih ( 3 0 mphl air hags of this fact and
to recall and correct the vehicles. In the
first place, while we are setting the
maximum test speed at 40 kmih (25
a 48
mph), we have not determined that
kmih (30 mph) test requires overly
powerful air bags. Second, the fact that
we are requiring manufacturers to
provide improved air bags in new
vehicles does not mean that earlier
manufacturers can't provide protection
vehicles that do not meet the new
in the full-forward position, they have
requirements have a safety-related
option of moving that position back and
defect. If we were to accept that
argument, every rulemaking we condu(:t making other adjustments, such as
to improve motor vehicle safety would adjustable pedals, on the driver side.
The NTSB stated that it believed the
result in earlier vehicles that did not
full-forward position could be
satisfy the new requirements being
inadequate if an individual could not
considered to contain safety-related
rmch the pedals while sitting against
defects. This would be completely
inconsistent with the statutory scheme the seat hack.It argued that we should
position the dummy relative to the
set u p by Congress. When the agency
mandated automatic restraints. we did accelerator pedal rather than the seat
not require the recall of earlier vehicles track.
withoutautomaticrestraints,
~ i k ~ ~ Vehicle
, ~ ~
manufacturers,
,
including
when Congress mandated air bags,weAAM,DaimlerChrysler,
T v t a and
Honda. averred that tho full-forward
did not require the recall of earlier
seating position was too extremea n d
w
h.i.r-.
l e.
s.withntnt
. -.
.......-. air
.
.. ham
unrepresentative of driving patterns in
A more detailed disc%sion o f a
number of the comments concerning the the real world. The manufacturers stated
that a full-forward seat track could force
unbelted test is provided in separate
manufacturers to move the seat track
agency documents which are being
back, which could lead to less storage
placed in the docket.
Of particular note
space, reduced ingress and egress space
are the Final Economic Assessment,
for rear passengers. and. in smaller
prepared by our Office of Plans and
vehicles. an inability to install properly
Policy. and a paper preparedby our
rear facing safety restraints in the back
Office of Research and Development
seat. Manufacturers also contended that
titled "High Speed Unbelted Test
testing in the full-forward position
Requirements of FMVSS No. 208:
could force then1 to design smaller air
Analysis of Issues Raised by Public
bags since there would be less room for
Comments."
inflation.
D. Other Issues
The primary argument driving the
manufacturers' comments is their
1, Location of 5th Percentile Adult
assertion that few peopleever drive in
Female Dummy
the full-forward position, as evidenced
In both theNPRM and the SNPRM we by the UMTRI study. as well as informal
proposed conducting the barrier tests
studies of their own. DaimlerChrysler
with fhe 5th percentile adult female
and Honda recommended that the seat
dummy in thefull-forward seat track
track position for the 5th percentile
position. We stated that we believe the female be in accordance with the
full-forward position to be the worst
vehiclc manufacturer's 5th Dercentile
case position for an individual exposed female seating reference position.
to a deploying air bag and the most
We have decided to retain the
demanding of air bag systems.We also
requirement that the 5th percentile
acknowledged in the SNPRM that this
a d d t female dummy be tested in the
position would rarely need to be used, full-forward position.
As an initial
particularly on the passenger-side. We matter, we
ran 11 tests of production
requested comment on whether testing vehicles at
40 kmih (25 mphl or greater
in a seat track position other than full- using
a n unbelted 5th percentile a d u l t
forward would adequately protect
female driver and passenger i n the full^
occupants of all sizeswhileallowingforwardseattrackposition
in a
perpendicular rigid harrier test.Of these
sufficient design freedom.
Consumers Union, CAS, and
11 tests, nine vehicles passedall of the
on the driver
Advocates all supported our proposed applicable injury criteria
seat track position. They cited the
side (5 at 48 kmih ( 3 0 mpbl, 2 at 44
disproportionately high number of
kmih (27.5 mph), and 2 at 40 kmih (25
women 160 cm (5'2") and under who mph)). On the passenger side.
seven out
have died as a result of a deploying air
of 11 passed all applicable injury
bag and argued that testing under this criteria.
We tested two vehicles in the
rule should be required under the most same
48 kmih I 3 0 mph) test. hut with
extreme conditions. CAS stated that the the
seat moved back 7.6 cnl (3 inclles)
only condition under which the agency
from the full-forward position. We
might consider an exception to this
found that this was roughly consistent
procedureis if adjustablepedalsarewiththe
LJMTRI seatingprocedurein
present in the vehicle that would enable one vehicle and significantly further
a typical small femaletomoveawaybackthanthe
UMTRI positioningwould
from the steering wheel hub. Public
have been for the other. Moving tho seat
Citizen agreed with the agency's
7.0 cm (three inches]back also placed
position
in
the
SNPRM that if
thedummy'schostapproxirnatelp
2.1 cm
~~
~
65, No. 93/Friday, May 1 2 , 2000iR! d e s andRegulations
~
~
~~~~~~~~~~~
~
~~~~~~~~~
~
~~
~
~~
~~~
~
~~~
On the other endof the spectrum,
Delphi has argued that allowinga
While both dummies on the driver's
In the SNPRM, we proposedthat
minimum test speed for the unbelted
side passed the applicable injury
manufacturers
would need to meet the harrier test may result in serious injuries
criteria, one dummy on the passenger
side exceeded the maximum allowable unhelted rigid harrier test at any speed that could otherwise he avoided. Delphi
between 29 km/h (18 mph) and40 to 48 stated that while it recognized that the
values for failed chest g's and femur
kmih (25 to 30 mph). This range
proposed minimum test speed was
loads, We also found that during these
represents a significant change from the intended t o discourage lower air hag
tests, the dummy on the driver side
belted barrier test and previous unbelted threshold speeds, unheltcd occupants
could not always reach the accelerator
harrier tests, which have required injury
without an air hag may exceed the neck
pedal. This fact, along with the
criteria to he met at any speedu p to 48
numerous phone calls the agency has
injury criterion in typical vehicle
kmih (30 mph).
received over the past few years,
impacts between 16 and 22.4 kmih (10
GM and Ford supported the proposed and 1 4 mph). Delphi believes that
indicates to us that at least some
individuals are driving with the seat in lower test parameter 2 9 kmih (18 mphl. NHTSA's objective in encouraging
AAM. DaimlerChrysler and Toyota
the full-forwardseat track position. I f a
higher air hag threshold speedsis the
supported a higher minimum test speed. reduction of injury risk to out-ofvehicle is designed to he used ina
VW and Honda supported a lower
particular position, we believeit is
position occupants, thesame objective
reasonable to assume that the position minimum test speed. Delphi urged the addressed by the proposed advanced air
agency to return toits traditional "any
will he used at least some of the time.
hag systems. If the proposed advanced
speed between zero and" the maximum
air bag systems are truly effective,
We are cognizant of the
test speed. arguing that the minimum
manufacturers' concern that today's rule test speed will result in an unacceptable Delphi asserts, lower thresholds should
mitigate the injury risk that current
may require them to limit the extent of safety trade-off for individuals who
seat track travel. To the extent this
could he aided by a deploying air hag systems pose. Accordingly. Delphi
recommended that vehicle speed ranges
increases occupant protection, this
in lower speed crashes.
would appear to hea positive move. We
he changed to 0 to 40 kmih (0 to 25
note that in some vehicles the seat will The concerns of the vehicle
mph) for unhelted occupants inall rigid
manufacturers opposed to the 29 kmih
slide forward in order toease access to
harrier and oblique barrier tests.
(18 mph) lower limit revolve around
the back seat, but will then lock into
We have decided to raise the
their ability to meet both the low risk
place somewhere further hack on the
minimum test speed for the unbelted
deployment
tests
at
any
speed
up
to 2 9
seat track. Since today's rule would not
km/h (18 mph) and the high speed tests test from 29 kmih (18 mphl t o 3 2 kmi
require testing ina seat position that is
at
any speed between29 kmih (18 mphl h ( 2 0 mph) while decreasing the
not fixed in place when the vehicle is
and 40 to 48 km/h (25 to 30 mphl. These maximum threshold for the various outdriven. we believe this type of design manufacturers argued that the basic
of-position tests from 29 kmih (18 mph)
could continue to he used.
Of greater
premise for dual-stage inflation systems to 26 kmih (16 mph). We believe that
concern is the claim thatsome smaller
is that the first stage can be tailored to this difference in speed between the two
vehicles will n o longer he ableto
reduce risk for children while offering tests will he sufficient to resolve
accommodate rear facing child restraints protection for 5th percentile adult while
manufacturers' concerns with the
in therear seat. We strongly believe that the second stage protects the 50th
potential overlap of the low risk
in most instances manufacturers can
percentile male occupant. According to deployment and barrier tests. Today's
and should design their vehicles to
the manufacturers, in manycases the
requirement builds in a 6 kmih (4 mph)
allow adult occupants to ride
safely in
first stage air hag will not he sufficient "grey zone" that will allow
the front seat and infants
to ride safely
to satisfy the injury criteria in a test at manufacturers to deploy both inflator
in the hackseat. However, we note that 29 kmih (18 mph). In order to assure
stages, ifneeded, in all high speed tests,
the need to place rear facing child
compliance with both the unbelted
while preserving their ability to deploy
restraints in theback seat may force the crash test requirement anda low risk
front seat passenger to pull the front seat deployment option utilizing a dual-stage only the firststage (01allow for
full forward. In such a circumstance. the air bag system, a manufacturer arguably deployment of a comhination of benign
stages) of the air bag in the lowrisk
passenger will need the protection o f a
would either have to drop the threshold deployment tests. We are rejecting
deploying air hag without being exposedfor the second stage air hag closeto 2 9
DaimlerChryslrr's and Toyota'srequest
to undue risk. Thisalso applies to a
kmih (18 mph) to ensure compliance for that we test unbelted dummies only at
passenger who moves the seatfull
the 50th percentile adult maleur
48 kmih (25 mph) hecause we continue
forward because the rear seatis loaded
provide a higher-energy first stage
to believe a range of speeds is necessary
with cargo. These two circumstances
inflator, The commenters asserted that if to adequately protect drivers and adult
argue for. rather than against, the need NHTSA were to impose the prnposed
passengers.
to test the front seat in the full-forward speed range for the unhelted tests, we
As to Delphi's concern that vehicle
position.
would create a situation that would
occupants will he afforded inadequate
We have decided against adopting the make compliance witha low risk
protection in the real world hecause of
deployment option impossible. sinceit
NTSB's recommendation that the
a lower parameter on the unhelted
seating procedure he based on distance would not he possibleto assure that
only the firststage air hag deploys at 2 9 harrier tests, we note that vchiclo
from the accelerator pedal rather than
manufacturers must still certify
km/h (18 mph) for the out-ofposition
seat track position. Our test
at all test
compliance to the belted test
test. Since the reliability of dynamic
requirements must he objective. We
speeds from zero to 48 kmih (30 mph).
suppression systemsis still unproven.
believe linking the position to distance
and must satisfy the low risk
the application of a test requirement
from the pedal could introduce too
deployment criteria for the 5th
that precludes low risk deployment
many ambiguities into the seating
percentile adult female on the driver's
systems would create a problemat the
procedure for it to remain sufficiently
side.
driver position.
objective.
(ten inches) hackfrom the steering huh. 2. Minimum Test Speed
We have also decided to accept the
dummy, for which there is a large
recommendation of some commmters to
amount of test data becauseof NCAP.
eliminate the existing belted ohlique
They urged further that a separate
rulemaking he conducted to determine tests using 50th percentile adult male
dummies. The primary purpose of the
whether it is practicable to meet this test
requirement using 5th percentile adult oblique tests is to ensure that airbags
are sufficiently wide to provide
female dummies.
protection if an oblique crash results in
IlHS stated thatincreasing the speed
the occupant moving forward at an
of the belted rigidharrier testto 56 kmi
angle. We agree that the unbelted
h (35 mph) would accelerate the
A . Belied Rigid Barrier Tesf
improvement of frontal crash protection oblique tests are more stringent than the
belted oblique tests in this respect, since
afforded by light trucks. That
Standard No. 208 currently includes
the belts limit occupant movement, and
an up-to-48 km/h(30 mph) belted rigid organization stated that while many
that the unhelted oblique tests, which
vehicles already perform well in the56
harrier test (perpendicular and up toi
are being retained, will ensure thatair
kmih (35 mph) NCAP test, light trucks
30 degrees oblique to perpendicular)
have heen an exception.IlHS stated that hags are sufficiently wide to provide
using 50th percentile adult male
dummies. As indicated earlier, this test their stiff frames and short front ends protection to both belted and unbelted
[relative to theirmass) have led toshort occupants in oblique crashes.
represents a vehicle striking a like
We will require vehicle manufacturers
crash pulses that makeit difficult to
vehicle moving at the same rate of
design effective, nonaggressive air hag to begin certifying compliance with the
speed.
systems. IIHS stated that it expects one belted 50th percentile adult male
In the SNPRM. we proposed to add
dummy at 56 km/h ( 3 5 mphl starting in
result of subjecting all passenger
use of the 5th percentile adult female
vehicles to a 56 km/h ( 3 5 mph) belted
2007. Compliance will he required
dummy to this test. hut only in the
requirement would he the softening of under a phasein schedule that is fully
perpendicular mode. We proposed to
the front endsof light trucks. According discussed later in this document. We
limit use of this dummy to the
to that organization, this would benefit also plan to initiate rulemaking in tho
perpendicular mode in light of our
not only the occupants of light trucks. near future proposing to increase the
desire to avoid unnecessary test
requirements and because we believed but also the occupants of other vehicles upper limit for the belted rigid harrier
test from 4 8 kmih ( 3 0 mph) to 56 kmi
with which the trucks collide.
IIHS
that i f a vehicle can pass the
stated that to maximize the likelihood h ( 3 5 mphl with the 5th percentile adult
perpendicular test with 5th percentile
adult female dummies and the oblique that structural changes, rather than more female dummy.
aggressive air hag systems, would be
We are unconvinced thata 56 kmih
tests with 50th percentile adult male
( 3 5 mph) belted rigid harrier test will
dummies, it would also pass the oblique incorporated to meet the new
requirements. a long phase-in period
require more aggressive air bag systems
test using 5th percentile adult female
should he considered for light trucks.
and vehicle frames.as VW has
dummies.
While most vehicle manufacturers
contended. The 56 km/h (35 mph)
As noted above. wealso indicated
belted harrier test has heen used in
that if we reduced the maximum speed supported increasing the belted rigid
harrier test speed to 56 kmih (35 mph), NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program
of the unbelted test to40 kmih ( 2 5
(NCAP) since 1979, and most vehicles
mph), we might increase the maximum as long as long lead timeis provided,
there were exceptions. Volkswagen
today meet the injury criteria in today's
speed of the belted rigid harrier test
from the current48 kndh to 56 kmih (30 stated that it believes there is no safety rule at that speed NHTSA's NCAP test
justification for such an increase and
experience with vehicles certified to the
to 35 mph). This is the same speed at
which vehicles with belted dummiesare that, on the contrary, there could he sled test has demonstrated that when
potentially significant disadvantages to manufacturers "depowered" their air
tested in existing NCAP tests.
motor vehicle safety. That company
hags. the vehicles performed as well in
The commenters an theSNPRM
stated that the higher crash speed
NCAP tests as they did previously. In an
supported adding the 5th percentile
imposes significantly increased energy era when the government, the industry.
adult female dummy to the existing
and other groups are working hard to
belted rigid harrier requirements. Some absorption requirements on vehicle
increase seat beltuse among the general
commenters requested that we consider structures and airhag designs, which
would lead to more aggressive designs. public. raising the belted test speed to
deletion of the existing belted oblique
Volkswagen stated that this wouldhe
56 km/h ( 3 5 mph) for the 50th
crash tests using 50th percentile adult
counterproductive to the concern of
percentile test dummy is consistent
male dummies. Honda stated that it
believes that the unbelted oblique tests vehicle aggressivity/compatibility in the with TEA-21s requirements to improve
vehicle fleet and protection for the small occupant prutection for belted
are sufficient to confirm that air bags
driver and out-of-position childrcn.
occupants. Testing at 56 kmih (35 mphl
offer sufficient protectionfor belted
will result in manufacturers improving
After carefully considering the
occupants in oblique crashes.
Most commenters that supported a 40 comments, we are adopting as final ourthe combined performance of seat belts
proposal to use the existing48 km/h (30 and air hags. Improving perfornrance in
km/h (25 mphl unhelted rigid barrier
mph) belted rigid barrier test with some this area can involve relatively simple
test. including AAM, also supported
increasing the maximum speed of the modifications. As an initial matter, we changes in seat belt design, such as
adding pretensioners or load limiters UT
belted rigid harrier test from the current are requiring tests with the 5th
modifying the belt system's elongation
48 kmih (30 mph) to56 km/h (35 mph). percentile adult female dummyin the
characteristics to interact more
perpendicular mode. This will help
However, these commenters urged that
favorably with the air hag. As we are not
ensure that vehicle manufacturers
the 56 km/h ( 3 5 mph) beltedrigid
requiring manufacturers to begin
design air hags so as to improve
harrier test he phased in after the
TEA
certifying any vehicles to this test speed
2 1 phase-in period. Theyalso urged that protection to belted persons whosit in
before September 1, 2006, they have
the higher speed test initially he limited the full forward position, including
ample time to make changes to their
to use of the 50th percentile adult male short-statured adult female drivers.
VII. Improving the Protectionof Belted
Occupants in Serious Crashes
In the SNPRM. we proposed two
crash test requirements. both of which
would have tobe satisfied, to improve
the protection ofbelted occupants in
serious crashes. The first wasa belted
rigid barrier test: the second was
a
belted offset deformable harrier test.
30708
Federal
Register
l V o l 65, No. 9 3 / F r i d a y , M a y
~~~
~
~~
~~~~~
~~~~~~
~
~
~
1 2 , 2 0 0 0 / R u l e s and Regulations
~
~
_
_
_
~~
_
_
~~~~~~~~~
~
~
~~~~~~~
~
~
~
~~~~
~~~~~~~~
Consumcrs Union supported the
offset test to Standard No. 208 a t this
time, hut urged that a passenger side addition ofthe propnsed test. but urged
thatthetestbeconductedat
64 km/h
out-of-positiontestbedeveloped to
B. Belted OJJsset DeJormoble Bnrrirr Test either replace it or be provided as an
140 mph), instead of 40 k m / h (25 mph).
a
CU questioned how much this test will
In the SNPRM, we proposed to add
optional alternative to it.
new crash test requirementto Standard
Toyota stated that it generally accepts contribute when
it is run at what it
No. 208, an upto 40 kmih (25 mph)
the proposed offset test as a means to
views as a low and unchallenging
offset deformable barrier test using
timing and out-of-position speed. Puhlic Citizen
also supported the
belted 5th percentile adult female
issues. hut expressed concern about the addition of thetest while stating thata
dummies (belted offset test). We
higher speed test. as a supplementary
appropriateness of the test
for heavier
proposed this test in an attempt to
test of structure, intrusion, and
vehicles like SUVs and lieht trucks.
ensure that vehicle manufacturers
sensitivity, would be welcome.
According to that company, these
NTSB expressed concern that
upgrade their crash sensing and
vehicles tend to either override the
inclusion of the offset defornrahle
software systems.as necessary. to better barrier or deform the face so badly that
barrier test at the same timeas advanced
address soft crash pulses. Research
it essentially becomes an
offset rigid
air hag technology is being developed
conducted by Transport Canada has
harrier test, which does not represent
might result in unforeseen problems.
shown that oneof the causes of adverse actual car-to-car collisions in the
real
While that agency did not identify what
effects of air bags is late deployment of world.
those potential problems could be,it
some air hags in crashes with soft
CAS stated that the proposedtest
stated that it may be desirable to
pulses, and the proposed testwas One
should he included in the finalrule.
that Transport Canada has been using in That organization stated that because of establish a separate schedule or a later
its research program. We proposed that
the problems air bag crash sensors have phase-in.
DaimlerChryslcr stated that it opposes
the test be conducted with the driver's encountered in being able to
inclusion of the proposed belted offset
side of the vehicle engaged with the
discriminate between low speed and
deformable barrier test in StandardNo.
barrier.
high speed crashes, this testis necessary 208. That company cited concerns about
Most commenters supported adding
to adequately assess sensor
the European barrier not being
the belted offset test. although some
appropriate for testing heavier vehicles
urged that an out-of-position test for the performance.
CAS argued, however, that the test
such as SUVs and light trucks.
passenger side he developedas an
should
he
performed
on
both
the
driver
DairnlerChrysler recommended that the
alternative to thistest.
and passenger side in order to prevent test he removed since advanced air bags,
AAM stated that it supports the
manufacturers from optimizing their
by definition, will he designed to pose
hut
claimed
that
its
proposed test.
vehicles solely on one side. That
added safety benefit is questionable.
less risk to out-of-position occupants.
organization stated thatif NHTSA
As a n alternative. that company
That commenter stated that the test
adopts the test for the driver side only. recommended replacing the belted
offers no added safety benefit ina
a manufacturer might choose to add
offset deformable harrier test witha low
rulemaking which also includes
satellite crash sensors to the frontal
requirements for belted and unhelted
risk deployment test fur the passenger
crush zones of a vehicle only on the
side.
5th percentile adult female dunrmy rigid driver side. Advocatesalso expressed
After carefully considoring the
harrier crash testingand protection
concern about requiring the test only comments. wc have decided toadopt
against air hag-induced injuries with
with the driver sideof the vehicle being the belted offset test as proposed. We
suppression or low risk deployment
agree with the suggestionof several
performance. AAM noted. however, that struck.
Parents stated that the test should be
commenters that an out-uf-position test
if a vehicle manufacturer selected the
conducted with unhelted as well as
using 5th percentile adult female
suppression presence option forall of
the child dummies, there would he no belted occupants, and that this part of dummies should be developed for the
passenger side, and will conduct
requirement to address minimizing risks the SNPRM improperly favored belted
research on that issue. We note.
to out-of-position passengers larger than occupants over unbelted ones.
Delphi recommended increasing the
however. that such a test would not
six-year-olds. AAM recommended that
an out-of-position testfor the passenger speed range specified for the test to0 to necessarily serve as a replacement for a
48 km/h (30 mph) instead of0 to 40 km/ test that is intended to ensure improved
side using 5th percentile adult female
dummies he developed and proposed in h (25 mph). That commenter noted that, crash sensing systems.We also agree
for many vehicles. an air
bag might not
with the suggestion of several
a future rulemaking as an alternative to
he required to satisfy the injury criteria commenters about the desirability ofa
this test.
at test speeds up to
40 km/h I25 mph).
high speed offset test to address
AAM also argued that i f a sensor
system must detect and respond to a soft Thus, air hag systems might be designed intrusion and vehicle structure. We will
with sufficiently high thresholds that
continue to pursue our previouslypulse in an offset deformable barrier
they donot deploy in this test. Delphi announced plans t o conduct separate
regulatory test, it can result in designs
stated that one of the objectives of the
rulemaking on the issue of whether
to
with either low thresholdsfor
test is to evaluate performance in
add a high speed offset test to Standard
deployment or in designs which have
sensing threshold events, since thereis
No. 208.
late deployments in the field. That
We would like to note again that the
a potential for occupants to he out-vforganization also stated that offset
main purpose of the belted offsettest, at
position when theair bag deploys in
testing with the proposed barrieris not
the proposed range of speeds, is to help
such situations. Delphi stated thatit
ready for use for the full vehicle
fleet in
ensure that vehicle manufacturers
would be necessary to increase the
the United States. Accordingto that
organization. the European harrier used maximum speed to48 km/h (30mph) to upgrade their crash sensing and
software systems. as necessary, to better
cover the sensing threshold for many
in the test was never designed for
vehicles and that the significanceof the address soh crash pulses. Improwd
heavier SUVs and light trucks.
sensing technology will he particularly
test would be greatly diminishedi f this
General Motors and Ford each
important if manufacturers design
supported adding the proposed belted is not done.
vehicles that do not involve increasing
vehicle or air bag aggressivity.
Y
RulesRegulations
and
30709
~
~~~~~~~
~
vehicles with softer front ends tomeet
reviewing the test results, we observed appropriateness of the test barrier for
the 5 G kmih (35 mph) belted rigid
that the air hags in the56 kmih (35
heavier SUVs and light trucks are not
barrier test discussed earlier. As
mph) tests deployed significantly more significant with respect to a tcst
discussed in the September 1998NPRM, quickly than in the 40 kmih
( 2 5 mph)
conducted at speeds up to40 kmih ( 2 5
research conducted hy Transport
tests. Based on these observations, we mph). Even if bottoming out occurs. the
Canada has shown that oneof the
believe that increasing the range
of the
test still represents a relatively mild
causes of adverse effects of air hags is
offset deformable harrier testu p to 48
crash, and airbags should he designed
late deployment of some air bags in
kmih (30 mphl will not test the sensor to provide appropriate performance
crashes with a "soft crash pulse." In
technology any more stringently than anunder a wide range of conditions.
order to reproduce the softer, longer
u p to 40 km/h (25 mph) offset
Similarly, we believe that AAM's
duration crash pulse, it selected the 40 deformable barrier test since the40 kmi concerns that anoffset test Can result in
percent offset barrier. It conducted crash h (25 mph) test better replicates late
designs with either low thresholds for
tests into the barrier at8 kmih (5 mph)
deployments in thereal world.
deployn~entor in designs which have
In response to Parents, we note that
increments up to40 kmih (25 rnph).
late deployments in the field are not
Transport Canada found that at 40
the improved sensing systems required
relevant to a test conducted at speeds up
kmih (25 rnph), theair bag typically
by this test will benefit both belted and to 40 kmih (25 mph). As noted earlier,
deployed and was sometimesso late
unbelted occupants. The fact that this
the vast majority of existing air hag
that the test dummy would he right
on
test is conducted in the belted condition systems deploy in offset deformable
the steering wheel at that time.
a "worst
only is not intended to favor belted
harrier tests helow40 kmih ( 2 5 mph).
case" condition We noted in the NPRM
occupants over nnbelted occupants. The We will consider these concerns further
that the problemof late deployment
belted offset test may represent the
if we separately propose tu use the
appeared to exist for only some
worst case scenario since the belt allows European harrier ina high speed offset
vehicles. We noted further that it could
the dummy's head and neck to rotate
test.
he addressed by such meansas
into the pathof the deploying air bag.
As to NTSB's concern that adding this
improving computer algorithms and
This condition may better test
for
test at the same timeas requiring
adding crash sensors toa vehicle's crush potential neck injuries than an unhelted advanced air bags may cause unforeseen
zone to movide additional and earlier test. Additionally, some tests, suchas
problems ofan unspecified nature, we
informaiian to use in the decisionthe oblique tests, will he conducted only note that vehicle manufacturers have
making algorithm.
with unbelted occupants. We have
been working to address the problem
A test that is intended to encourage
designed the overall matrixof tests to
identified by Transport Canada for
improved sensing systems does not
meet the needfor safety for all
several years. Moreover, we believe that
serve the same purposeas the low risk
occupants, belted and unhelted, while advanced air hag systems should easily
deployment test suggested by some
be able to meet this requirement.
avoiding unnecessary tests and
commenters as an alternativeor
compliance costs.
VIII.
Minimizing the Risk of Injuries
substitute. If, as a result of an improved
We are not adopting the suggestion
and
Deaths
Causedby Air Bags
sensing system, a n air hag that
made by some commenters that the test
previously would deploy after an
The one fact that is common toall
he conducted both with the driver side
occupant moves out-of-position now
of the vehicle engaged with the barrier persons who are at risk from air bags is
deploys ina timely manner. it can
that they are extremely close to the air
and with the passenger side of the
provide protection. However,if an air
bag at time of deployment. Behavioral
vehicle engaged with the harrier.We
hag deploys so late that the occupant
believe that testing with the drivcr side changes. such as ensuring that childrm
has already moved onto the steering
ofthe vehicle engaged with the barrier ride in the back seat and thatall
wheel, it cannot provide protection. We will be sufficient to help ensure that
occupants are properly restrained. can
encourage vehicle manufacturerstu
vehicle manufacturers improve their
sharply reduce the numberof persons
respond to this new test requirement
by sensing systems.
who are in such positions.
We recognize that this test, like any
improving sensing systems and not just
However, to minimize air bag risks for
other, has limitations. For example, the the remaining persons whoare most
providing low risk deployment.
As to Delphi's recommendation that test represents only one of many types
likely to be close to the airbag at time
we increase the speed range to48 kmi
of soft pulses, and one specific offset
of deployment, oneof two things must
h (30 rnph), we note that such
a speed
configuration. Whileit would always he he done: either airbag deployment must
is outside the scope
of our proposal. To possible to identify additional tests that he suppressed, or the air hag must he
the extent that Delphiis suggesting that represent potential real world
designed to deploy in sucha manner
our test may not pick upa late
situations. we must strike
a balance
that it does not cause a significant risk
deployment problem for vehicles that
between ensuring that there are
of injury to persons in such positions.
are designed with sufficiently high
sufficient tests to meet the need for
Each of the technologies to minimize air
thresholds that the airbag does not
safety and avoiding unwarranted
bag risks follows one of these
deploy in this test, we acknowledge thatcompliance burdens.We believe that
approaches.
in some instances a vehicle's air bag
the addition of this test with only the
As we developed test requirements to
system may not deploy in this test.
driver side of the vehicle engaged with minimize air bag risks, we neededtu
However, our experience has been that the barrier strikes this balance.
account for thefact that the persons
the vast majority of air hags deploy in
However, we will monitor future air hag who are potentially at risk vary from
offset harrier crash tests slightly below system designs and will consider
infants to adults, a n d have different
40 kmih (25 rnph]. Additionally, when
potentials for injury. We therefore found
changing this decisioni f we find that
there is a deployment, we believe crash manufacturers are implementing sensor it necessary to develop requirements
sensors are more rigorously tested ina
systems that optimize performance only using a variety of test dummy sizes.
40 kmih ( 2 5 mph) test than in a higher
for impacts into the driver's side of the Moreover, since we wished to avoid
speed test. We ran offset tests at both 40 vehicle.
requirements that are unnecessarily
kmih ( 2 5 mph) and 56 kmih (35 rnph)
We believe that the concerns
design-restrictive, it was neccssary to
prior to publication of the SNPRM. In
expressed by commenters about the
develop a variety of testing options that
account for the kindsof effective
technological solutions that are under
development.
We note that it was never our
intention to limit manufacturers to
using systems that provide only
suppression, where appropriate,or low
risk deployment. as opposed to systems
that may combine suppression and low
risk deployment. Moreover, we
recognize that there may he safety
benefits to usinga combination of
approaches and technologies.
Even looking at suppression systems
alone, the useof multiple technologies
may provide benefits. For example,
manufacturers might combine weight
and pattern sensing to achieve greater
reliability.
Similarly. the combination of
suppression and lowrisk deployment
may better achieve the goal of
minimizing air bag risks. For example,
as Toyota noted, a system designed to
suppress the passenger air hag for
children helow a specified weight
would not suppress the air hag for
a
young child seated on an adult's lap.
However, low risk deployment might
prevent serious injury in sucha
situation.
Because it is necessary to test the
various types of suppression systems
and low risk deployment systems
differently. we proposed
a variety of
testing options that accountfor the
kinds of effective technological
solutions that are under development.
Where more than one optionis
specified. a manufacturer must meet at
least one option: nothing precludes the
manufacturer from meeting more than
one. The issueof certifying compliance
to more than one option is discussed
later in this document.
Each of the test requirements we
proposed in the SNPRM is discussed
below.
A. Safety o j h j o n t s
Infants in rear-facing child safetyseats
(RFCSS) and in convertible child
restraints in the rear-facing mode are at
significant risk from deploying air hags,
since the rear-facing orientation of the
child seat places their heads extremely
close to theair bag cover. This is why
we emphasize that infants in these
restraints must never he placed in the
front seat unless theair hag is turned
off. While the current warning labels
and educational campaigns have
dramatically reduced the number of
fatalities to infants over the past two
years, we recognize that there are still
some parents who ignore this advice
and place their childrenat grave risk
from a deploying air bag. SCI data
shows that some infant fatalities have
occurred hecause parents did not place restraints that the agency would use in
compliance testing. Concerns were
their child in a RFCSS roper1
In the SNPRM, inor&, to a$l~j,ess the raised in particular ahout therango of
seat back angles and seat track
risks air bags pose to infants in child
restraints designed to be used by them. positions. as well as the placement of a
we proposed two alternative test
blanket on the restraints and testing
requirements, the selectionof which
with the handle and sunshield in
a fullwould he at the optionof the
up and full-down position. The
manufacturer. The two manufacturer
commenters also recommended that
options were: (1) Test requirements for they only he requiredto assure
an automatic air bag suppression feature compliance using a limited number of
or (2) test requirements for low risk
restraints in each sectionof the
deployment involving deployment of
appendix (between one and three].
a 12the air bag in the presence of
Isuzu further argued that testsshould
only he conducted with belted
month-old Child Restraint AirBag
Interaction (CRAB11 dummy in a RFCSS restraints. Most of thesc arguments were
or convertible child restraint inthe rear- repeated in comments on suppression
testing for the 3-year-old and 6-year-old
facing mode.
children.
1. Option 1: Feature (e.g., Weight or Size
David Breed and IEE offered
Sensor) That Suppressesthe Air Bag
comments on the technology available
When an InfantIs Present
for the static suppression systems.
We proposed that if the automatic
David Breed argued that the testing of
suppression feature option were
convertible infant seats i n a forwardselected, the air bag would need to he facing mode would effectively eliminate
suppressed during several static tests
the low risk deployment option for
using, in the right front passenger seat, older children because manufacturers
a 12-month-old child dummy in child would he forced to rely on a weightrestraints designed to he usedfor
sensing system. According to that
infants. The restraints would he placed commenter, such a restriction could
in several specified positions during the lead to safety trade-offs for older
static tests. Manufacturers would be
children who could benefit froma
required to assure compliance using any benignly de loying air hag.
of the child restraints included in
IEE argues that by testing suppression
sections B a n d C of the list of
systems with a variety ofchild
representative child restraints that we
restraints, we are encouraging the use of
proposed to add as an appendix to
discriminating systems rather thana
Standard No. 208. as well as the car bed non-discriminating systom like a
listed in sectionA. The list would he
universal tag. IEE asserted that the nonperiodically updated to reflect changes discriminating systems are significantly
in the tvnes and desiens of available more reliable than any discriminating
child r&aints.
systems currently available.ThR
In order to ensure that the
possibility that n nun-discriminating
suppression feature did not
system, like the Mercedes Bahy-Smart.
inappropriately suppress theair bag for could easily resolve problems with
small-statured adults. the airbag system suppression technology was echoedby
would need to be activated during
DaimlerChrrler.
several static tests usinga 5th percentile
We note t at testlng performed by
adult female dummy in the right front NHTSA at VRTC subsequent to
puhlication of the SNPRM demonstrated
passenger seat. At the option of the
manufacturer, human beings could be that it is difficult to placesome child
used in the place ofthe 5th percentile restraints usable by infantsi n several of
the proposed positions in some
adult female dummy. We proposed to
circumstances.
permit manufacturers to use human
The first such positionis testing the
beings in light of concerns that current
unrestrained child restraint at any angle
dummies may not be sufficiently
human-like to he recognized by someof plus or minus 45 degrees from the
vehicle seat's longitudinal plane. While
the advanced technologies under
achieving this position may be possible
development. The issue
of permitting
h a w contoured
manufacturers to certify to suppression in vehicles that do not
seats. in several of the vehicles we
requirements using human beings is
examined, theRFCSS tlipped toward
discussed in greater detail later in this
the center of the seat. As a practical
notice.
matter. we do not believe parents
or
AAM, GM, Toyota, Isuzu and
caregivers are likely to place a child
DaimlerChrysler all argued in their
restraint on the seatat a 4 5 degree angle.
comments that the static suppressiun
We believe the restraint would he
tests to protect infants were too
placed roughly along the longitudinal
burdensome, notwithstanding our
plane, facing either theseat hack or the
reduction of the number of child
Y
requirements for suppression
windshield.Accordingly.wehavedashboardandtheseatback.
In other
technology at the vehicle seat's full-rear
revisedthistestproceduretospecifycases,therestrainthadtohepositioned
position, mid-track position and fulla severe angle in order to achieve
placement only at zero degrees of the at
contact with the seat cushion. Again, weforward position. If the child restraint
Ion itudinal plane.
strikes the instrument panel or another
do not believe parents or caregivers are
T%e proposed position which
portion of the vehicle interior when the
specified that the restraint be tipped to likely to place
a child restraint in a
rest on the dashboard wasalso difficult position where the restraint either tips seat is in the full-forward position, the
vehicle seat will be moved hack to the
forward onto the seator where the
to achieve. The intent hehind the test
was to mimic a situation where. throueh restraint does not make anv contact withnext detent that allows for clearance. or.
the seat. Changes to the telt procedures in the case of automatic seats, until a
pre-crashbraking, a childrestra.int
maximum of5mm (0.2) of clearance is
to account for this situation are
slides forward and flips onto the
achieved. A more complete discussion
dashboard. Our SCI investigations have discussed below.
of this issue is provided later in this
Toyota and GM argued that the
reported several instances where this
proposed requirements specifying
document.
type of movement has occurred, with
devastating consequences for the child testing of the restraints at any seat track Finally, we determined that
conducting tests usinga belted child
position and at any seat back angle
in the child restraint.
restraint with tho vehicle seat hack25
However. this position does not testa between the nominal design position
degrees rearward of the seat back's
condition for which static suppression
and 25 degrees rearward would require
nominal design position for the 50th
systems are designed. Rather. such a
u p to 40,000 different tests to assure
percentile adult male was nnt always
compliance. We believe this argument
position is one that would be
possible. As discussed later in this
appropriate as the final position in a test severely overstates the situation.As
document, we have decided to limit the
of a dynamic suppression system. We
long as the restraint fits in the vehicle
vehicle seat hackangle for the infant
believe static suppression systems
interior, a suppression system thatis
entirely seat-based will he able to
suppression tests to the nominal seat
should be designed to classify
back design position for the 50th
occupants and to address positions
discriminate the presenceof the
percentile male.
where parents or caregivers place
restraint, regardless o f t h e seat track
We have decided against allowing
infants under normal driving
position. Likewise a seat-based system
manufacturers to certify to onlya
conditions. It is exceptionally unlikely
will be able to detect the restraint
limited number of the seats listed in the
someone would drive with an infant's
regardless of whether the sunshield or
appendix. The number of applicable
head wedged between the dashboard
handle is in an uprightor stowed
seats has already been honed down
position or whether the restraint has a
and the child restraint.We note,
however, that the likelihoodo f a static
blanket on it.23 Systems that could have considerably from what was proposed
in the NPRM. A further reduction could
suppression system failing to protect an difficulty detecting these different
occupant who slides into the proposed conditions are those which have sensors effectively allow manufacturers to
design suppression systems that would
position during a crash is extremely
that are not completely incorporated
not protect infants in child restraints
remote since static suppression systems into the seat. Such systems will need to
representing a reasonah18 range of such
will either be set once the engineis
be able to detect where therestraint is
turned on and not change regardless of located in the vehicle and whether there restraints on the market.
We have also decided to retain those
the circumstances ofthe crash,
or will
are any potential impediments to
test conditions involving unbelted
have a cycling function in which the
accurately sensing the presenceof an
restraints. Unfortunately, not everyone
presence of the child seat will he read infant, like a sunshield, handleUT
periodically, allowing a time history of
blanket. However, these systems' ability always installs child restraints
the child seat position, Additionally, theto detect a sunshield, handle. or blanket (including RFCSSs) proporly.as
indicated by several fatalities in our SCI
should not he affected by the belted,or
presence o f a child seat thatis
database. If we failed to test in unbelted
unbelted. conditionof the child
precariously placed an the edgeof the
conditions. suppression systems could
vehicle seat would likely he construed restraint.
be designed so that they only worked
In view of the fact that parents or
as an empty seat. Most manufacturers
caregivers who continue to place infants when the seat belt was fastened. Such
have indicated that their systems will
a system could not protect these infants.
in the front seat may position the
default to a no-fire condition i f the
While we understandDavid Breed's
vehicle seat in a varietyof seat track
sensing system perceives thatthe
vehicle seat is unoccupied. Finally. this positions, we continue to believe that concern about testing convertible
restraints in a forward-facing position,
there is a need to test suppression
position would not testa static
this test requirement is necessary and
systems in a variety of seat track
suppression system in an objective
need not preclude low risk deployment
manner, as evidenced by the difficulties positions. However, we havealso
for older children As a n initial matter,
concluded that testing the systems
at
we experienced in placing the infant
current air bag designs pose a risk to
discrete points along the seat track
seat in the proposed position.
should he sufficient to ensure adequate infants seated in forward~facing
Accordingly, we have eliminated this
performance throughout the entire range convertible child restraints,as indicated
test requirement.
by the SCI data. However. advanced
The third condition which proved
of seat track positions. Therefore. we
designs which eliminate that riskcould
problematic in some instances was
have decided to specify test
still be used. w e n if a manufacturer
placement of the restraint with the
chose to suppress the air bagfor infants
vehicle seat in its full forward position.
in these restraints.For example. we
I n smaller vehicles, the restraints often
belicve manufacturers could design a
could not be placed in the front seat
system that suppressed the airhag based
with the seat full forward. This was
a
on weight and pattern recognition that
particular problem with convertible
is limited to the expectcd weights of
restraints. which can be considerably
very young children and child restraints
larger RFCSSs. I n some instances, the
designed for use by infants.It is possible
restraint hung suspended between the
~~~
~~
~~~~~~~
~
~~
I
Federal Register/Vol. 6 5 , No. 9 3 / F r i d a yM, a y
30712
~~
~
~~~~
~~~~~~
1 2 , 2 0 0 0 i R u l easnRde g u l a t i o n s
~~~~~~~~
~~
~
~~~~~~~~~
~~~
~
~
~~
~
~~
~~~~
thatinsomeinstancesthistechnology
2. Option 2: Low-RiskDeploymentformaximum
of48 kmlh (30 mphl,thistest
a slightlyolderInfantsinRear-FacingChildSafetyshouldberun
at 48 kmlh (30 mph] also.
couldsuppressfor
Seats
thatalso argued
the
child in a convertible child seat. DaimlerChrysler
proposed threshold compliance test was
However. the manufacturer couldalso
We
proposed
I o require
impracticablebecause it specifiedthat
design the air bag system to deploy at
low
risk
deployment
optionthat'
wereif the
testing
with child
alevelthat
is non-injUrious to a smallselected,avehiclewouldherequiredto
in could
any ofbe conducted
possible positions
child,Certificationcouldbebasedon
meet specifiedinjurycriteria
used for the suppression tests. That
the low risk deployment test. and the performance limits when the passenger
company stated that this would mean
potential suppression for the older child air hag is deployed in the presence o f a
that five crashes would have to be
would provide supplemental protection.
12.month.old CRAB^ dummy placed in
performed for each child restraint on the
IEE and DaimlerChryslermaybe
a beltedrear-facingchildrestraint,
list.
a RFCSS a convertible
correctthatnon-discriminating.tag-likeeither
After considering the comments, we
systemscould offer greaterreliabilityrestraint.withtheproposedtest
continuo to believe that it is appropriate
thandiscriminatingsystems,assumingrequirements
for thesuppression
to require vehicles that arc certified to
that the correct tagged child restraint is
opt,on, manufacturers would he
the low risk deployment option for
also used. However, such systems
compliance
infants
to satisfy
injury
thecriteria
for
required I o
would not ensure safety for the
eachchildrestraintincludedinsections
all
f,
inflation thatcoulddeploy
numerous different child restraint
BandC of theproposedlistof
in thepresence of an infant i n a rear
designs and Potential restraint positions representative child restraints. although
facing restraint, As we discussed i n the
that are used by the general public. Even not with the car bed identified in
September 1998 NPRM. a child in such
making tags widely available,as
section A.
extremely
a restraint
be
would
close to
DaimlerChrysler suggests. would not
passenger a i r bag i n any crash,
In the case of air hags with multiple the
accountforthoseindividualswhodoinflation
~ e v e ~the
s ,injurycriteria
regardless of crash severity. This is not
not have a tag on their particular child performance limits would need to
he
the caSe with persons i n any other risk
restraint.
either
because
the
restraint
is
met for any stage
of
group. Moreover, manufacturers have
not generally used in a given vehicle, or stages which may deploy in the
been working on suppression devices
of aninfantin a rear-facing
for thisrisk group for
longest time,
becausethey are unawarethatthe tagspresence
are available.
Additionally,
simply
position
in
one
of
the
listed
restraints
in
this
was
first
risk group that
providing the tags would not assure that a rigid barrier crash test at speeds up to
was identified, since
suppression is
they were installed on the restraint
64 km/h (40 mPh). Our intent was to
available for this risk group and since
all stages of inflationthat could
there are no knownlIenrfits from
properly or thatthe tagwasProperlycover
aligned when the restraint was set in the deploy in the presence
of an infant in deploying
an a i r bag for
group, it i s
such
seat. vehicle
a restraint.
appropriate to expect advanced air bags
that toessentiallyeliminaterisk
of serious
Technology
like
the
Mercedes
"stated
thattherequirement
BahySmart appears to provide a reliable the air bag deploy
at the highest output
injury or fatality resulting from a i r hag
bag
inconsistent
is
with
low
risk
deployment
infants
to RFCSS.
in There
method of preventing
air
deployments when used properly.
deployment. That company stated that is
no reason to permit continued use of
Whilewe do notbelievethatthesetypesthiswillforcemanufacturerstoemploy
systems that
infal,ts at
of suppression systems alone will
automaticsuppressiontechnologies.risk
ofsor,o,ls i n j u r y or death from the
adequately meet the needs of motor
TRW statedthatNHTSA'sanalysisair
bag incrashes of any severity level.
vehicle safety, we do believe that they shows little incremental benefit
to
We do notbelieve that any reduction
remain an excellent supplement to other children from the addition of
in safety to adults will occur from
nologies.
suppression systems.
suppressing the passenger airbag fur
Further. belted tests conducted with company stated that
NHTSA'sanalysisinfantsin
RFCSS. While suppression of
childrestraintsthathavethelower
also ignorespotentialforreductioninthepassengerair
bag for older children
anchor attachments will needto be
protectionforadultoccupants. TRW
m a y raise theissueof a "grayzone"that
conducted both with the vehicle safetyarguedthatweshouldrevisitthelowcouldaffectsomeadults,we
do not
belt and, in vehicles with
infant
the
relevant
to be willoption.
believe
thatrisk
TRW also stated thatif we donot
corresponding anchors, with the
suppression technology.
to require low
attachments secured in the anchors with revisit the low risk option, the final rule We originally proposed
shouldbechangedtoaccommodateriskdeployment
for allstages of theair
the safety belt unfastened. Sucha
unresolved technical issues with
bag that may deploy in a crash. The
requirement is necessary for various
modified proposal to which
suppression technologies. That
reasons. First. the anchors mayfail to
DaimlerChrysler objects was an effort to
placesufficientweight on a seattocompanystatedthat
it hastested
bo
adequatelytest a suppressionsystem.varioussuppressiontechnologieswithaccommodatesystemswhichmight
a lower
respect to theirabilitytoclassifydesignedtoalwaysprovide
Second. a parent may fail to use the
anchor system and use the belt system accurately the proposed range
of seating level of deployment in the presence of
positions and seat belt cinching loads
a rear facing restraint, regardless of
instead. Third, usinga belt with the
anchor system could result in damage to on the specified lists
of car seats with crash severity.
We disagreewiththeargumentthat
pure weight and/or pattern sensing and
the system when thesafety belt is
the proposed test procedure is
found problematic issues with each
cinched to 134 N (30 lbl. Finally, the
impracticable. Because the low risk
anchor attachments may prevent
technology.
DaimlerChryslerstatedthat it doesdeploymenttest
is only conductedin
alignment of the child restraint along
the defined vertical planes in law risk not see any justification
for running the the presence
of a belted child restraint.
low risk
a manufacturer that designed a system
deployment tests. We note that Standard threshold compliance test for
No, 213 doesnotcontemplateseatingdeploymentat
64 kmih (40 mphl. That that always provided
a lower level vf
systems where both the safety beltandcommenterstatedthatsinceothertestdeployment
i n the presence o f a rear
theloweranchorattachments
are used.requirementsareproposed
at afacingrestraintcoulddeterminewhat
1 2 , 20001RuIes and Kegulations
y .a y
Federal Register /Vol. 65, No. 9 3 I F r i d a M
~~
~
~~~~~~~~~~~
~
~
~~~~
~~~~~~
~~
~
~~~~
~~~~~~~~~
~~
~~~~
30713
~~~~~
~~
~~
~~
~~
severalspecifiedpositionsduringtheN(30pnundsl.Additionally.
TRW
level would deploy in a harrier crash
stated that the taskof discriminating
static tests. Manufacturers would he
test by means other than conducting
requiredto assure complianceusingbetween
a childweighing u p to GG
harrier tests. e.g., by testing thesensor
pounds and a 110-pound adult, while
every child restraint appropriate for a
system that determined whether sucha
seemingly trivial, becomes more
given dummy size included in the
restraint was present.
We note that we specifieda harrier
proposedlist of representativechilddifficultwhenonetakesintoaccount
restraints. The air hag system would he the addition of child seats and seat belt
crash test at a speed up to64 kmih (40
mph) because some manufacturers may required to he activated during specified cinching loads.
For the reasons set forth in the prior
adopt a threshold higher than 48 kmih
tests using a 5th percentile adult female
discussion of the suppression testsfar
(30 mph) for deploying the highest level dummy.
We proposed to allow manufacturcrs infants, we have decided to conduct
of inflationfor the belted condition.
to comply with and certify to these
tests with the vehicle seat in the fullSince these restraints are ordinarily
rear. mid-track a n d full-forward
belted, a speed higher than 48 kmih (30 suppression requirements using
children.insteadof3-year-oldand 6positions. If the dummy, the child
mph) is needed to ensure that wecover
or the child's legs interfere
all stages of inflation that could deploy year-old child dummies. Adult females restraint,
could also be used in the place of 5th with the instrument panel
UT other
in the presenceof an infant in sucha
percentile adult female dummiesfor the portion of the vehicle interior in the
restraint.
full-forward position. the vehicle seat
portions of those test requirements
E . Safety of Young Children
which make sure that the air
bag system will be moved hack to the next detent
Young children areat special risk
is activated for adults.
that allows for clearance. U T . in the case
from air bags because, when unbelted,
We proposed to permit manufacturers of autumatic seats, until a maximum of
they are easily propelled close to the air to use buman beings to check
5mm (0.2 in) of clearance is achieved.
hag as a result ofpre-crash braking.
suppression features in light of concerns Likewise, the seat hack angle will be
Their small size, weight and strength
that current dummies may notbe
the manufacturer's nominal design
also makes them more vulnerable to
sufficiently human-like to he recognized positiun for the 50th percentile male for
injury when interacting witha
all tests. including the test with the 5th
by some of the advanced technologies
deploying air hag.We strongly
under development. For example.
percentile adult female. except tho tests
recommend that children through age
suppression devices that work by
where the child is sitting on the seat and
12 ride in the hack seat. because the
sensing the distributed weight pattern of leaning against the seat back (S22.2.2.2
a human being may not recognize the and S24.2.1). A fuller discussion
of seat
hack seat is safer, whether or not a
pattern of a test dummy. Ifa
back angle is provided later i n this
vehicle has air bags.
In the SNPRM, in order to address the manufacturerselectedthisoption.thedocument.
suppressionrequirementswouldneedOnetestpositionforthe3-year~old
risks air bags pose to young children
child that we have modified is the
who do ride in the front seat, we
to be met at eachof the relevant
positions for any human being within a position where the child is lying on the
proposed requirements using both 3year-old and G-year-old child dummies. specified weightiheight range for 3-year- seat. While conducting tests at VRTC.
We proposed three alternative test
old and G-year-old children, a n d the air we discovered that this position was
hag system could not he suppressed for problematic in vehicles with
no middle
requirements, the selectionof which
seatinc._oosition. The 3-vear-old test
anv human heine
would be at the option af the
a soecifird
" within
dummv cannot assumea full fetal
weightiheight range for 5th percentile
manufacturer. Manufacturers could
position in thssc vchiclcs. Accordingly.
adult females.
select different optionsfor the 3-yearIn the SNPRM, we emphasized that
in our tests the dummy's legs a n d feet
old and G-year-old child dummies.
were not in contact with the passenger
The three manufacturer options were: these tests simply involvea child or
seat. We do not believe that the position
adult assuming specified positions in
(1) Test requirements for a feature that
needs tnbr includedin the test matrix
the vehicle. witha technician checking
suppresses the air bag when a child is
present. q . , a weight or size sensor; ( 2 ) (typically by lookingat a light) whether for a vehicle without a middle seating
position hecause a child would not lie
the air bag would he
suppressed or not;
test requirements for low risk
these tests do not involve deploying the i n this position for any length of time.
deployment involving deployment of
air hag or moving the vehicle. To ensureHowever, in vehicles with a bench seat
the air hag in the presence ofout-ofposition 3-year-old and 6-year-old child absolute safety, we proposed to require or with convertible bench seats, where
the console can he converted into a
dummies, and ( 3 ) test requirements for manufacturers selecting this option
provide a method to assure that the
air
middle seat. this pusitionis a likely real
a feature that suppresses the air hag
hag would not deploy during testing;
world position. Accordingly, we have
when an occupant is out
of position.
such assurance could be made by
specified tests for this position only in
1. Option 1: Feature (e.g.. Weight or Size removal of the air hag. The
vehicles with three rlesienated seatine
Sensor) That Suppresses the Air
Bag
manufacturer would also he required to positions in the frunt seat.
When a Child Is Present
We have also dropped the static
provide a method to assure that the
Our proposed requirementsfor an air same test results would he obtained
suppression tests with the 3-year-old
as
hag suppression feature(e.g.,weight or
if the air bag had not been deactivated and G-year-old child dummies i n the
positions specified for the low risk
size sensor) that suppresses the air hag or removed.
deployment tests. Like the infant test
By and large, the comments in
when a child is present were similar to
response to this proposed requirement where the childSeat was flipped on to
the ones we proposed with respect toa
mirrored those already discussed under the instrument panel.we bclievc that
suppression feature for infants. We
static suppression featuresfor infants;
these positiuns du not tost a condition
proposed that if this option were
;.e., there are too many child restraints. for which static suppressiun systems are
selected, the airhag would need to he
too many angles and too many seat track
designcd; they are more appropriateas
suppressed during several static tests
part of a dynamic suppression system
using, in theright front passenger seat, positions. Additional concerns were
a 3-year-old or 6-year-oldchild dummy. voiced about the requirement that child that fallows the trajectoryof an
restraints he cinched ata force up to 134 occupant during a crash. Additionally.
The child dummy would he placed in
.
Y
adult occupants. As discussed earlier.
we believe that any system that
deployment option except in vehicles
suppresses when the dummy is sitting
vehicles with child restraint anchors
with unique geometry. That commenter
will need to be tested both with and
stated that this would force the
on the edge of the seat with its spine
automobile manufacturers to employ
vertical, a condition that is still required without any available child restraint
anchor attachments secured to the
s u p ression terhnologies.
for both the 3-year-old and theB-yearAfter considering the comments. we
passenger seat.
old, will respond n o differently from
are adopting the proposedlow risk
when the dummyis placed in either of 2. Option 2: Low-Risk Deployment for
deployment tests using 3-year-old and
the low risk deployment options. Thus, Young Children
6-year-old child dummies, with two
even i f the dropped tests did represent
We proposed to require that,
if the
modifications. First. the positioning
a position for which static suppression
procedures for one of the out-of-position
systems are designed. they would likely low risk deployment option were
selected, a vehicle would be required to tests has been significantly simplified.A
be redundant.
meet specified injury criteria
fuller discussion of the reason for this
Numerous comments were received
performance limits when the passenger change is provided later i n ths
regarding the cinching procedures for
document. Secondly, i n order tu avoid
safety belts on child restraints. We have air hag is deployed in the presenceof
out-of-position 3-year-old and 6-yeardecided to keep the up-to-134 N (30 Ih)
inadvertently discouraging the
requirement. Belt systems that cannot he old child dummies.We proposed that
development of low risk deployment
cinched up to this levelof force will he the test he conducted at two positions technologies. the injury criteria will
cinched at as high a level as possible. In which tend to he "worst case" positions need to he met,in the case of air hags
with multiple inflation levels. for the
our testing at VRTC, we found thata 134 in terms of injury risk. In one of these
N (30 Ib) tension can he easily achieved. positions, the dummy's chestis on the
levels that would he deployedi n
instrument panel; in the other. the
While we continueto caution adults to
crashes o f 2 6 kmlh (16 mph) or below,
dummy's head is on the instrument
place their children in the hack seat
as well as the relative timing of the
multiple inflations, insteadof crashes of
whenever possible. a parent or caregiver panel. We proposed more detailed
positioning procedures for these two
who places a child in the front seat
2 9 kmih (18 m p h ) or below. However,
tests than for many of those proposed
should he able to doso as safely as
if the air bag did not deployat all in
for the static suppression tests. since
possible without shutting off any
crashBs of 26 kmlh (16 mph) or below.
injury measures may vary considerably the injury criteria will need to be met
available suppression technology.We
regularly encourage people to have their with position. Under our proposal. in
using the lowest level of inllation
\lie believe that this change. coupled
child restraints installed by individuals the caseof air bags with multiple
inflation levels. the injury criteria
with the one discussed earlieri n this
who have been trained to install these
would need to be met only
for the levels document to increase the lower end of
restraints properly. We also encourage
that would be deployed in lower
the range of speedsfor which the
parents to secure a child seat ina
severity crashes; i.e., the levels that
unbelted rigid barrier test is conducted
manner that eliminates slack between
would be deployed in crashes
of 29 k m l from 29 kmlh (18 mph) to32 kmlh (20
the restraint and the vehicle seat.We
h (18 mph) or below.
mph), will facilitateuse of the low risk
believe that it is appropriate to use a
As discussed earlier in this document, deployment option. As discussed earlier
cinching level that can he achieved by
some commenters, includingAAM and
in this document, lowrisk deploymcnt
an individual who knows how to
Toyota, argued that the combinationof
offers potential benefits over
properly install child restraints.
testing for low risk deployment for
suppression. especially for children
However. we do agree with the
commenters that the up-to-134 N(30 Ib) inflation levels that would hc deployed older than six years. and we wish to
in crashesof 29 kmlh (18 mph) or helow facilitate that option to the extent
tension range is inappropriate for heltand testing to ensure protection in
consistent with safety need. Wealso
positioning booster seats, sincea child
unhelted rigid harrier tests beginning at note that i f manufacturers certify
could not sustain that amount of helt
that same speed would limit design
compliance for all levels of inflation
tension. even if it were possible to
flexibility and discourage manufacturers that occur in crashesof 26 kmlh ( 1 G
achieve with a test dummy. We are
from selecting the low risk deployment
mph) or below. the same low risklevels
specifying that these restraints be
option. The reasonfor this is that the
of inflation are likoly to occur in crashes
installed, and that belts he used. in
manufacturers claim it is difficult to
slightly above that speed.
accordance with the restraint
We are not adopting AAM's
design dual stage air bags that could
manufacturer's instructions.
recommendation to specify that the
Since the 6-year-old child dummy is
both meet the low risk deployment
not tested in child restraints other than requirements and the barrier crash test crash test to determine theair bag
deployment level to be used for the low
booster seats. we believe that the
injury criteria, particularlygiven the
majority of the manufacturers' concerns gray zone in which eithera low level or risk deployment test he conducted with
a belted dummy matching the sizc for
ahout the suppression-activation "gray high level deplo ment ma occur.
is certified.
On a separate ut r e d isms, AAM which the law risk aption
zone" are largely resolved. The 6-yearThe final rule specifies that thiscrash
recommended that the crash test to
old child dummy weighs only23.4 kg
test he conducted with an unhsltod 50th
(51.6 Ih). Likewise, the weight range for determine the airbag deployment lcvel
percentile adult male dummyi n the
the six-year-old child who can he used to he usedfor the low risk deployment
for compliance testing has an upper
test he conducted witha belted dummy mid-track seat position. An out of
position occupant, by definition, would
matching the size for which the low risk
parameter of 25.6 kg (56.5 Ih). Because
option is certified.AAM stated that this always be unhelted. Determining the
of constraints in StandardNo. 213.
booster seats generally do not weigh
would allow manufacturers to utilizea n level of inflatinn with belted occupants
more than 4 . 5 kg (9.9 Ih). Accordingly,
occupant detection system to govern the would allow manufacturers toplace
the combined weightof the child or
technology in a vehicle that would meet
deployment that would be usedfor the
the l o w risk deployment test
dummy and the booster seat should stilllow risk deployment test.
he significantly helow the weightat
TRW stated that the proposed injury requirements. hut would not adequately
which suppression systems willassure
criteria performance limits will make it
protect for the condition that is
experienced in the real world.
that air bags are activated to protect
very difficult to employ the low risk
confidentiality of information provided
considering procedures for testing
advanced air hag systems incorporating by petitioners seeking adoption and
approval of a DASS compliance test
a DASS. Target time limits for each
phase of such a rulemaking were
procedure. AORC and AAM urged us to
consider that manufacturers would be
proposed. Anyone wishing to utilize
deterred from investing in DASS
such advancedair bags could develop
systems if the specifics of their
test procedures for demonstrating the
compliance of their particularDASS
proprietary technologies were published
with the performance requirements and and made available to the public andto
submit those test proceduresto the
competitors. AAM suggestod that this
agency for our consideration.If we
issue might be addressedby not
deemed it appropriate to do
so after
requiring that the identity
of the
evaluating the petition, we would
petitioner and the particular
publish a notice proposingto adopt the automobiles where a DASS system is to
test procedure. After considering those be installed he revealcd to the public
comments, we would then decide
during the courseof the petition and
whether the procedure should he added review process. Delphi and Autoliv
to Standard No. 208. If we decided to do contended that the proposed DASS
so, and if the procedure were suitable
petition procedures required the
for theDASS of any other vehicles. then submission of too much pruprietary
3. Option 3: Feature that Suppresses the
information. I n particular. Autaliv
Air Bag When a Child Is Out-of-Position the procedure could be used by the
manufacturers of those vehiclesas well
objected to the proposed requirements
As discussed in previous notices, we as by the petitioner. We noted that we
that petitioners must furnish a complete
believe that a feature that suppresses the intended to minimize the numberof
description and explanation ofaDASS
air bag when an occupantis out of
different test procedures that are
system and a complete description of
position, either initiallyor because of
adopted forDASS and to ensure
the logic used hy that system.CRE
moving into sucha location during prs- ultimately that similar DASS are tested
suggested that the only materials that
crash braking. needs to he tested very
in the same way.
need to be made public during the
differently from one that suppresses the
Comments regardingDASS indicated petition process are thnse that woulrl
air bag whenever a child is present.
general support for our proposal.
allow for comment on the proposed test
While various static testscan he used to Commenters addressing issues related to
procedur8 and not on the specifics of
determine whether the latter type of
the DASS proposal included two
the DASS system at issue. The
suppression device is effective. they
manufacturers, DaimlerChrysler and
organization strongly recommended that
would he of limited utility in testing
a
CM, five suppliers, ASCI, Autoliv,
feature that suppresses the airhap, when Breed Technologies [Breed), Delphi and our final rule omphasize that the
"proposed rule" that is being offered for
an occupant moves into an out-afTRW, two trade groups,
AORC and
public comment would consist only of
position location. This is because one of AAM, a public interest group, the
a proposed test prucedure that would
the key criteria in determining whether Center for Regulatory Effectiveness
the dynamic out-of-position suppression (CRE) and one private individual(ICW). not includo the details of the technology
used or the data submitted in support of
feature is effective is timing:
i.e.,
With one exception,ICW, all
the propused test procedure.
whether the feature works quickly
commenters agreed that the DASS
I n addition to concerns about
enough in a situation where an
requirements and test procedure
confidmtiality, a number of
occupant is propelled out of position as proposed in theNPRM were
a result ofpre-crash braking lor other
unworkable and must be abandoned. commentem offered remarks about the
expedited rulemaking procedure we
pre-crash maneuversl.We accordingly
Two commenters,Breed and ASCI,
developed separate requirements for
propounded the use ofa sled test and proposed for DASS systems. Several
conmenters requested that the
such dynamic suppression devices.
disagreed with our judgment that
expedited procedures proposed for
The development of requirements for development ofa practical test
DASS systems be expanded to include
dynamic suppression devices posed
procedure for evaluatingDASSall advanced air hag technologies.
special problems, however. While much equipped vehicles is not presently
Autoliv, DaimlerChrysler. Breed,AOKC
work is currently being doneon the
feasible.
and Delphi also suggested that the
development of dynamic automatic
Several commenters voiced strong
expedited rulemaking procedure he
suppression systems (DASS), the
reservations regarding theDASS
expanded to allow theuse af new
technology is still not mature. In
proposal we put forth in the SNPRM.
addition, a number of different
JCW objected to the elimination of the technologies in areas other than
dynamic suppression systems.In regard
technologies are currently being
DASS out-of-position requirements.
to the timing ofthe proposed procedure,
considered. Each of these technologies
JCW argued that without some farm of
AAM suggested that we adopt a
has particular attributes whichaffect the suppression to protect people whoare
procedural timetable similar to that
appropriateness of the means used to in the immediate vicinityof an air bag
evaluate its performance. Given these
because of pre-crash braking, the safety already used for evaluating the
adequacy of anti-theft devices under 4!l
potential of advanced airbags will he
factors, we were unable to developa
CFR Part 543.AORC a n d CRE urged us
complete set of performance
lost. Breed and ASCI stated that sled
to expedite the regulatory approval
tests which accurately reproduce the
requirements and test procedures that
process to tho maximum extent
would he appropriate for the range of movements of unrestrained occupants
possible. CRE also suggested that notice
in pre-crash brakingare currently
potential DASS designs.
and commont could be eliminated
Accordingly. we proposed to establish available and should he used
as a
altogether. If, CRE contends. initial
very general performance requirements compliance test forDASS systems.
One matter mentioned bya number of DASS rulemakings do not stimulate any
for DASS and a special expedited
petitioning
and
rilemaking
process
for
commenters
concerned
the
substantive
cornnlents
by
the
public,
we
Additionally. while weare only testing
the low risk deployment technology on
the passenger side with three-year-old
and six-year-old child dummies,a
benign deployment in low speed
crashes could provide ancillary benefits
to larger occupants. We are concerned
that using the child dummies tu
determine which stage or combination
of stages of the air bag to deploy could
unnecessarily limit the benefits of low
risk deployment air bags.
As to TRW's concern that the injury
criteria performance limits make it
difficult to comply with the low risk
deployment option. we wish to ensure
that law risk deployment air hags truly
are low risk. Thus, the injury criteria
limits must beset at a stringent level.
involving deployment of the air bag in
The final rulealso makes slight
would then be ina position to dispense
the presence of out-of-position 5th
modifications to the procedural
with traditional notice and commentas
percentile adult femalo dummies, and
the procedure would be superfluous. timetable for the petition process.In
order to alleviate the concerns raised by ( 2 ) test requirenrerrts for a feature that
One commenter. GM, voiced
suppresses the driver air
bag when the
the precedential effect of the initial
substantial concerns about the effect
driver is out of position.
DASS petition, we have specified an
that initial DASS rulemakings would
extended comment period for sucha
have on subsequent petitions.In GM's
1. Option 1: Low-Risk Deployment for
petition. Section 552.15(c)of the final
view, the first successfulDASS
Drivers
petitioner will define a large number of rule provides that we expect to employ
We proposed to require that. if the
a 30-day comment period ina DASS test
important conditions forDASS testing
procedure rulemaking. However, in the low risk deployment option were
and test procedures.GM believes that
selected, a vehicle would be requiredto
there will bea very strong incentive for case of an initial petitionor a petition
meet
specified injury criteria
raising
particularly
novel
issues.
we
others in the industry to conform to the
performance limits when the driver air
may provide 60 days for comments.
existing test procedure rather than
bag is deployed in the presence of an
Offering an extended comment period
develop a new or different technology,
out-of-position 5th percentile adult
will
provide
interested
parties
with
particularly because subsequent
female dummy. We
petitioners will face additional burdens additional time to evaluate the proposed test be conducted at proposed that tho
test
procedure
and
its
implications.
twu positions
in demonstrating that an existingDASS
which tend to be "worstcase" positions
test cannot be used.GM urged us to use particularly in regard to suitability for
other DASS concepts or designs under in terms of injury risk. In one of these
the traditional rulemaking process for
positions. the dummy's chinis on the
develoment.
the initial DASS petitions and provide
air hag module; in the other, the
We
Asagree
with
the
argument
that
adequate time for comment on any
dummy's chin is on the upper rimof the
without some formof suppression to
DASS proposal.
protect people who are in the immediatesteering wheel. We proposed detailed
A f e r review of the comments
oositionine nracedures for these two
vicinity of an airbag because of prereceived in response to the SNPRM, we crash braking, the safety potentialof
tests, since injury measures may vary
are adopting the proposal with few
considerably with position
advanced air bags will be lost.
DASS
modifications. We have not been
Under our p r o p o s d i n the case of air
systems represent one approach to
presented with, and are not aware of,
minimizing air bag risks. As discussed hags with multiple inflation levels. the
any information indicating that any
iniurv criteria would needtu be met
elsewhere in this document, other
feasible test procedure now exists for
a
only Tor the levels that would be
approaches include deploying theair
DASS system. We are also declining to bag in a manner that does not cause
deployed in lower severity crashes;;.e.,
expand the scopeof the expedited
the levels that would he deployed i n
harm and other typesof suppression
petition process to other areas of
crashes of 29 kmih (18 mpb) or below.
systems; e.g., suppressing the air bag
Standard No. 208. Unlike other air bag when childrenare present.
A driver would most likely be extremely
technologies, DASS technology is still
close to the air hae in lower severitv
C. Safety of Teenage and Adult Drivers
in the early stagesof development.
crashes, following pre-crash braking.
Other technologies are more mature.
The comments a n the low risk
Out-of-position drivers are atrisk
and developments within theseareas
from air bagsif they are extremely close deployment requirements fur small
may be adequately addressed through to the airbag at the time of deployment.drivers were similarto those on the
traditional rulemaking procedures.
requirements for young children. Our
While any driver could potentially
The final rule makes several
response is also similar.
become out of position, small-statured
modifications to address confidentiality drivers are more likely to be positioned We are adopting the proposedlow
risk deployment tests using the 5th
concerns. As the identityof the supplier on topof the air bag because they
percentile adult female dummy. with
or manufacturer would not be relevant
oenerallv
sit
a
----~-~
-~
- ,closer to the steering wheel
the same modifications we made
for the
to the evaluation" f a test procedure and than larger drivers.
performance standard.we have
In the SNPRM, in order to address the tests using child dummies;!.e.,
simplified positioning procedures will
modified section 552.13(e)to clarify that risks air bags pose to out-of-position
be used. and injury criteria will need to
if a petitioner desires to have its
drivers, we proposed requirements
be met, in the caseof air bags with
identifying information withheld from using 5th percentile adult female
public disclosure. it may request that
dummies. We proposed two alternative multiple inflation levels, for thelevels
the agency doso pursuant to 49 CFR
test requirements. the selection of which and tinling that w i l l he deployed i n
crashes of 26 kmlh (16 mph) or below,
Part 512. We have determined that the would be at the option
of the
instead of crashes of 20 kmih (18 mphl
requirements outlined in section
manufacturer.
or below. using unbeltod 5th percentile
The manufacturer options proposed
552.14(b)I1)could be construed as
adult female dummies. However. if the
in the SNPRM were similar to those
demanding that all details of any
air bag did not deploy atall in crashes
algorithms andlor system lngic be
using 3-year-old and 6-year-old child
of 26 kmlh (16 mph) or below, thc
dummies, with one significant
provided to the agency. Accordingly,
the final rule provides that the
exception. Since airbags provide safety injury criteria will need to be metat the
lowest level of inllation. This
description of the system logic may be benefits to small-statured drivers. it
modification will help facilitate low risk
limited toa flow chart or similar
would not he appropriate to permit
designs. Likewise, we are requiring the
materials outlining the function of the manufacturers to suppress air hag
use of an unhelted 50th percentile adult
system. We also wish to emphasize that deployment under all conditions in the
pursuant to Part 512. petitioners may
presence of such occupants. Therefore. male dummy seated in the mid-track
soat position in the crash test used to
submit both confidential and nonthis typeof suppression feature would
determine which stageor combination
confidential versions of their petitions
not he permitted.
of stages to fire for the low risk
The two manufacturer options
and accompanying materials. These
deployment tests. Our rationale for this
proposed in the SNPRM were: (11 test
materials may include test films,
requirement is the same as for the
requirements for low risk deployment
printouts and similar data.
"1
Y
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 9 3 I F r i d a y . M a y
30718
~
_
_
_
~
~
_
~
~
~~
~
~~~~~~~
~
~ ~~~.
~
~
1 2 , 20001RuIes and Regulations
~
~~
~
~
~~
~
~
~~~~~~~~
~~~
old infant dummy. and limits on uppor
female dummies. In addition,AAM
We believethat there is merit in
recommended the use of an additional
leg forces to the 50th percentile adult
incorporating AAM's recommended
male and 5thpercentileadultfemale
additional tensionlcompression limits criterion, rate of sternaldeflection, to
assess the risk of serious thoracic organ
dummies. We believed tho dummy
and adjustments toour original Nij
proposals because they either mimic our injuries in out-of-position tests. Toyota containment requirement would not be
recommended using the rate of sternal relevant to the proposed low risk
originally proposed requirements very
closely or add additional requirements deflection in place of chest acceleration deployment test using the 12-month-old
that more stringently control potentially forassessingthoracicinjuryrisk.infantdummy,andthatlimitsonupper
leg forces would not he relevant to the
DaimlerChrysler presented a method
injurious loading modes. n
I addition.
using Kalman filters whichit argued
proposed iow risk deployment tests
we accept an argument made by
AAM
would result in a more reliable rate of using the 12-montbold infant and3that tensed neck muscles mitigate the
effects of measured neck loads and will deflection measures using chest
and G-vear-oid child tiu~nrnies.
deflection and acceleration
adopt that organization's
More specifically. with respect to
measurements.
recommendation for slightly higher
limits on upper leg forces. we proposed
After considering the comments, we to limit the axialloads in the femur for
neck limits for in-position testing for the
are adopting the proposed
60 6's chest
adult dummies. However. because one
the adult dummies 110 kN for thc 50th
acceleration limit for the 5th percentile percentile male and 6 . 8 kN for the 5th
would not expect muscle tensing ina
situation simulated by the 5th percentileadult female dummy. AAMs
percentile femalc). AAM and
recommended chest acceleration limit
female out-of-position low risk
DaimlerChrysler statcd that they
of 73 g's for this dummy was obtained
deployment tests, we are requiring
support slightly more stringent femur
manufacturers to meet more stringent
using scaling proceduresthat only
limits of 9.1 kN for tho 50th pcrmntilc
considered the effectsof the geometric
criteria for Nij in those tests.
male and 6.2 kN for tho 5th percentile
differences between 50th percentile
DaimlerChrysler argued that tension
female.
should he the onlyneck injury criterion adult males and 5th percentile adult
After considering the comments. we
with the current Hybrid111 dummy neck females. However, we believe the
are adopting the axial femur limits
for
additional effect of decrease in hone
because it believes the neck may he
the adult dummies as proposed. The
strength for the more elderly female
inadequate for accurately assessing the
current limit of 10 kN specified fur the
population at risk in out-of-position
potential for flexionlextension neck
50th percentile male has been used in
situations should also he taken into
injury due to air hag loading. Toyota
Standard No. 208 for many years. AAM
also recommended delaying the use of account.
has
not presented information
The differences between our proposed
any neck injury criteria that contains
demonstrating that this value does not
deflection limits and those
extension. As discussed later in this
adequately ensure protection.
recommended by AAM are negligible.
document, we believe the current
Furthermore, AAM has not provided
AAM recommended a chest deflection
Hybrid I11 neck is adequate for the
data or an explanationof tho method it
purposes of this rulemaking. Moreover, limit of 64 mm for the 50th percentile
used to arrivc at its recommended femur
adult
male
dummy.
In
order
to
we are adopting Nii as the best available
force limit for the 50th percentile male.
harmonize
with
the
chest
deflection
neck injury criterion.
The differences hetween the limits
limits used by Transport Canada, we
C. Thorocic Criferia
proposed in theSNPRM and those
proposed a 63 mmfor chest dellection
In the SNPRM. to address the risk of limit for the 50th percentile male. While recommended by AAM are small, and
adopting the slightly lower
value
thoracic injury, weproposed individual we used the same scaling factorsas the
recommended by AAM will have no
industry. this difference in the limit for
limits on chest acceleration and chest
effect on the overall safety benefits. We
deflection. This is the same approachas the 50th percentile adultdummy
also believe that the slightly higher axial
accounts for the small differences
is currently used in Standard No. 208.
force limits we are adopting today m a y
(<2mm) between the industry's
However, we proposed to reduce the
recommendations and our proposals for provide design flexihility for
current deflection limit for the 50th
manufacturers to optimize head. neck
percentile male dummy from76 mm to some of the other dummies. Because
and chest protection for the 50th
6 3 mm [from 3 in to 2.5 in).
these differences are negligible and
To obtain equivalent performance
because the proposed limit for the 50th percentilc male and the 5th percontilo
female. Of course. vehicle
limits for the other size dummies. the
percentile adult male dummy is
manufacturers arc frec to voluntarily
mid-size male dummy limits were
consistent with international
meet more stringent limits than those
scaled. taking into account both
harmonization, we are adopting the
included in Standard No. Z O R .
geometric and material differences.We
limits proposed in the SNPRM.
also considered other factors. We did
As to AAM's recommendationto use
X. Lead Time andEffective Dale
not propose a chest deflection limitfor
the rate of sternal deflection to assess
TEA 2 1 specifies that tho final rule on
the 12-month-oldCRAB1 dummy
the risk of serious thoracic organ
advanced air bags musthocome effective
because that dummy doesnot measure
injuries in out-of-position tests. we
in phases as rapidly as practicable
chest deflection.
believe further analysis and research
beginning not earlim than September1.
AAM supported individual limits on would be needed hefore such a new
2002, and not sooner than 30 months
chest acceleration and chest deflection
injury criterion couldhe added to
after the issuanceof the final rule, hut
hut argued that the chest acceleration
Standard No. 208. We note that vehicle
not later than September 1. 2003. Except
limit for the 5th percentile adult female manufacturers are free to voluntarily
as noted below. the phase-inuf the
dummy should he 73 g's rather than the consider rate of sternal deflection as
required amendments must he
60 g's proposed in the SNPRM. This was they design their vehicles.
completed by September 1, 2005. If the
reiterated by some other commentersas
D. Other Criierio
phase-in of the rule does not begin until
well.
September 1. 2003, we are authorized to
In the SNPRM, we proposed to apply
AAM also requested slight
delay the completion of the phase~in
adjustments in deflection limits for the a dummy containment requirement to
all of the dummies except the 12-month- until September 1, 2006. As also noted
3-year old and 5th percentile adult
Federal RegisterIVol. 65, No. 9 3 I F r i d a yM. a y
~~
~~~
~
30719
1 2 , 2 0 0 0 I R u l easnRde g u l a t i o n s
~~
~~~
~~~
~
~~
~
-
~~~
~
~
~
~~~
35 percent of each
manufacturer's
AAM, GM. DaimlerChrysler
and
all supported a phase-in
light
vehicles
thatmanufactured
during
the
wouldnotbeginuntilSeptember
1,
productionyearbeginningon
A. Large Manufacturers
2003 and that was not fully effectiveSeptember
1. 2003 with an allowance of
until September 1, 2006. The primary advance credits for vehicles built after
In the SNPRM, we proposed the
fallowingphase-inschedule,whichargumentsofferedfordelayingthe
the effective dateof the final rule;
would apply to all large manufacturers; phase-in were the pending new test
65 percent of each manufacturer's
i . ~ those
. , producingmorethan 5,000
dummyregulationsandtheremaininglightvehiclesmanufacturedduringthe
vehicles
per
year
worldwide:
uncertainty
of the
advanced
air
hag
production
year
beginning
on
25percentofeachmanufacturer'stechnologies.Honda
also assertedthatSeptember
1, 20U4 with an allowance of
light vehicles manufactured during the the harrier tests using the 5th percentile carryover credits from prior years;
production year beginning September 1, adult female test dummy should be
100 percent of each manufacturer's
light vehicles manufactured during the
2002;
delayed until after final dummy
40 percent
of
each
manufacturer's
specifications
and
revised
seating
production
year
beginning
on
I. 2005 withanallowanceof
lightvehiclesnlanufacturedduringtheproceduresareissued,perhapsuntilSeptember
production year beginning September 1. se ternher 1, 2005.
carryover credits from prioryears; and.
2003:
All lightvehiclesmanufacturedon
eEl/CAarguedthatNHTSA'sexisting
70 percentofeachmanufacturer's
air bag experienceshouldlead
i t to
or afterSeptomber 1, 2OOG.
lightvehiclesmanufacturedduringthereiect
an" mandatereouirinr!technology".
~nthcseconduhase-in,thebelted
production year beginning September 1. a1;d designs that arestill d e r
rigid barrier testat 56 kmih I 3 5 mphl
2004;
development. At a minimum, according using the 50th percentile adult male
All vehicles manufactured on or after to CEIICA. the agency should establish dummy will be implemented. It will be
September 1 , 2005.
requirements will not take effect until
phased i n as follows:
We noted that the proposed date for
real-world data on such systems exists
35 percent of each manufacturer's
the start of the phase-in. September
1,
and has been analyzed.To the extent
light vehicles manufactured during the
2002. would he 30 months after a final
that it is statutorily constrained on this pruduction year beginning on
rule that was issued on March 1 , 2000.
matter, it should set lead times at the
September 1. 2007 with an allowance of
We stated that this proposed date
absolute statutory maximum. These
advance credits for vehicles built aftor
reflected the seriousness of the safety concerns are addressed in the section of September 1, 2006;
problem being addressed and the
this document dealing with unintended
65 percent of each manufacturer's
statutory requirement that the final rule consequences.
light vehicles manufactured during the
become effectiveas rapidly as possible.
Pub IC Cktlzen, CU, andCAS stated
production year beginning on
We also requested comments 011
that manufacturers should not he given September 1. 2008 with an allowance of
phase-in schedules and percentages
undue latitude in meeting the advanced
carryover credits from prioryears in the
other than the proposed25%40'Yuair bag requirements. These groups said second phase-in;
70%-1oo% schedule. We cited the
that the manufacturers had repeatedly
100 percent of each manufacturer's
example o f a 40'~u-70'%1-100"/' schedule stated during the drafting of TEA 2 1 that light vehicles manufactured during the
beginning one year later than the
they would need not more than
30
production year beginning on
proposed schedule. but ending at the
months in which to implement the new September I . 2009 with an allowance of
same time, This alternative was like the designs. The groupsalso noted that
carryover credits from prior years in the
primary proposal. except that the first some manufacturers are already
second phase-in; a n d ,
year of the proposed phase-in wouldbe introducing some types of advanced air
All light "chicles manufactured on
eliminated. We noted that this
hag technologies. Public Citizen argued or after September 1. 2010.
alternative schedule would offer
that the agency should give greater
We have decided to delay the start of
additional leadtime at the beginning of weight to the command inTEA 21 that
the first phase-in until September 1,
the phase-in, while not compromising the finalrule shall takeeffect as rapidly 2003 because of the number of new
the final effective date forall new
as possible. the historyof
measures that manufacturers will have
vehicles. We also noted that with the
manufacturers' assertions of the
to take in order to certify a vehicleas
availability of credits for early
"impossibility" of complying with new complying with the advanced air
bag
compliance. a manufacturer also would
regulatory requirements. the test results requirements [;.e.,meet new injury
have additional time to develop and
of MY1399 vehicles, and the absence
of
criteria, meet various test requirements
produce early-complying vehicles to
data from manufacturers to substantiate with four new dummies. and meet the
meet the initial phase-in percentages.
their claim that the technology
is not
yet suppression and low risk deployment
.~
We noted that while we had limited available.
tests associated with air bag risk
discretion in deciding when to make the The NTSB expressed disappointment reduction). We note that the
final rule effective, we also have some that it would he MY 2006 before all new manufacturers' concerns over the
vehicles would he equipped with
discretion to make temporary
pending dummy rulemakings and the
advanced air hag systems. It suggested
adjustments in requirements if, in our
seating procedure for the 5th pmcentile
judgment, such adjustments are
that NHTSA encourage manufacturersto adult female dummy have bean
largely
necessary or prudent to promotethe
install advanced air bags priorto the
resolved by now. As a n initial matter.
smooth and effective implementation of established phase-in schedule. perhaps all applicable dummies have now been
throu h an incentive program.
the goals of TEA 2 1 through the
incorporated into 40 CFR Part 572,
Weaave decided to implementa two- although petitions for reconsideration
introduction of advanced air bags. We
stage phase-in for advanced air bags.
In are
noted that the final rule could
Additionally,
currently
temporarily reduce the injury criteriaor the first phase-in, all portions of the
the seating procedure for the 5th
final rule will he implemented, except
test speeds during the TEA 2 1 phase-in
and then terminate those reductions at the 56 kmlh (35 mphl belted rigid
2?l,ikrwisc, t h o lin;ll r u l ~m c ~ ~ r p m ~lh,,
t i ~n I~S D I
barrier test. Thefirst phase-in will he
tl0l,,rmidii. lrorricr >,,tu4!1 1:vti Pill1587 WilS ISSI1Pd
the endor after the end of that phasein March 2111111
implemented as follows:
in.
below, other amendments maybe
phased
later.
Honda
in
-
.
-
30720
~~~~~~~~
Federal
Register
iVol.
~
~~~
~~~~~~~~~
percentile adult female is established in
today's rule. We are confident that large
vehicle manufacturers can meet the
phase-in. As required byTEA 21, we are
including provisions under which
manufacturers to earn credits towards
meeting the applicable phase-in
percentages if they meet the new
requirements ahead of schedule.
B . Limited Line, Small, Multi-Stage
Manufacturers andAltrrrrs
1. Limited
65.
No. 9 3 I F r i d a y .M a y
~
~~~~
12, 2 0 0 0 i R
~~~
manufacturers since it would otherwise
be possible for the industryas a whole
to delay introducing any advanced air
hags for a year.
We decline to adopt Porsche's
suggestion that this option he available
for manufacturers which meet the "two
carline or fewer" criterion at any time
between publication of the final rule
and the start of the phase-in. As
manufacturers produce more lines, the
rationale for this option diminishes.
Therefore, any manufacturer that
evolves from a two carline manufacturer
into a three or more carline
manufacturer during each phase-in will
not qualify for the applicable limited
line alternative phase-in. We believe
that manufacturers will know in
advance if they plan to evolve from a
two carline manufacturer intoa three or
more car line manufacturer well before
the phase-in and can plan their
compliance accordingly.
Line Manufacturers
A phase-in generally permits vehicle
manufacturers tlexihility with respectto
which vehicles theychoose to initially
redesign to comply with new
requirements. However, if a
manufacturer produces a very limited
number of lines. e.g., one or two, a
phase-in would not provide such
flexibility. Accordingly. we proposed to
permit manufacturers that sell twoor
fewer carlines inthe United States the
2. Small Manufacturers
option of omitting the
first year of the
phase-in if they achieved full
To accommodate the needsof small
compliance for the second year of the
volume manufacturers (SVMs), we
phase-in. We proposed to limit this
proposed giving those manufacturers
alternative to manufacturersthat
the optionof waiting until the endof
produce two or fewer carlines in light of the phase-in to meet the new
the statutory requirement concerning
requirements. We explained that we
when the phase-in is to begin. We
were proposing to treat SVMs
explained that absent such a limitation. differently becauseof the complexity of
it would technically be possible for the
the new requirements and the relatively
industry as a whole to delay introducing short lead time before the phase-in
begins. We explained that even the more
for a, year.
any
advanced
air permlttlng
hats
Porsche
supporte
streamlined set of requirements
manufacturers that produce twoor
proposed in theSNPRM would require
fewer carlines the optionof omitting the significant design changes and
first year of the phase-in if they achieve significant new testing. However, since
full compliance during the second. In the SVM provision would effectively
addition, Porsche recommended
allow SVMs to avoid the phase-in
specifying that the alternative phase-in entirely. we also proposed
to limit this
for limited line manufacturers is
option to manufacturers that produce
available to manufacturers who meet the fewer than 5,000 vehicles per year
"two carline or fewer" criteria at any
worldwide.
The Coalition of Small Volume
time between publication of the final
Automobile Manufacturers (COSVAM)
rule and the start of the phase-in.
Parsche argued that sucha specification supported permitting SVMs to wait
until the endof the phase-into meet the
would resolve any possible confusion
new requirements.COSVAM statod that
over whether the provision appliesto
SVMs need until the endof the phasemanufacturers who. during the phasein because they cannot obtain new
in, evolve from a two carline
technology at the same timeit is made
manufacturer into a three or more
available to large manufacturers.
carline manufacturer.
because they have difficulty getting
We have decidedto permit
suppliers to sell to them at all, and
manufacturers that sell twoor fewer
carlines in the United States at the
because someSVMs source from large
beginning of the first year of each phase- manufacturers and may source parts
in (September 1 , 2003 and September 1. from a model which will not comply
until the endof the phase-in.COSVAM
20061 the option of omitting the first
year of each phase-inif they achieve full also asked that the definitionof small
manufacturer for purposesof exclusion
compliance by September 1, 2004, the
beginning of the second year of the first from the phase-in requirements he
changed to include manufacturers that
phase-in and September 1, 2008. the
beginning of the second year of the
produce not more than10.000 vehicles.
COSVAM argued that the definitionof
subsequent phase-in. This option is
available only for limited Iinc
small volume manufacturer should he
volumes."'
We recognize the technical challenges
SVMs will face as a result of the
requirements included in today's rule.
In addition, while we recognize the
importance of providing SVMs with
sufficient lead time to comply with the
new requirements. wenote that w e d o
not have unlimitBd discretion as to haw
much leadtirne we can provide. TEA 21
provides that i f the phase-in begins on
September 1 , 2003, the final rule must
hecome fully effective by SeptemberI ,
2006. No exceptions are given for small
volume manufacturers. We have
decided, therefore. to exercise the
discretion we do have andnot require
SVMs to comply before the end of each
phase-in period (September 1, 2006 and
September 1, 2010. respectively].
However, we are continuing to limit this
provision to manufacturers that produce
fewer than 5,000 vehicles per year
worldwide. We note that COSVAM did
not provide any analysis demonstrating
a need to increase the number heyund
5,000.
3. Multi-Stage Manufacturers and
Alterers
Although we received comments i n
response to the original NPRM
requesting that we provide an additional
extension for multi-stage manufacturers
and alterers beyond the endof the
phase-in for large manufacturers. we did
not propose such a n extension i n the
SNPRM. We explained that we have
limited discretion as to how much lead
time we can provide, since TEA 21
provides no exceptions for multi-stage
manufacturers or alterers. TEA 21
provides that i f the phnse-in hcgins on
Septemher 1 , 2003. the final rule must
hecome fully effective by September1.
2OOG.
We stated in the SNPRM that final
stage manufacturers are accustomed to
completing vehicles within limitations
identified by chassis manufacturersso
that they can certify their vehicles with
limited or no additional testing.
Therefore, we statod that tho industry
should be able t u address the issues
raised by the advanced airbag
rulemaking. We also urged chassis
manufacturers to communicate with
their multi-stage manufacturer
customers as soon as possible
concerning any new limitationst h a t
may he iniposed as a result of the
is schedulod to expire on September1 ,
affect the manufacturer's original
advanced air bag requirements. We
2000.
certification. If the original
Also, on November 11. 1997, we
stated that the chassis manufacturers
manufacturer uses a weight or pressure
should be ableto identify the type and system in the seat to turn the bag
air off published in theFederal Register (62
FR G2406) a final rule exempting, under
likely scope of any such new limitations in appropriate circumstance, these
well before the endof the phase-in.
manufacturers face a choice of using the certain conditions, motor vehicle
dealers and repair husinesses from the
The Recreation Vehicle Industry
original seat as is, relying ona supplier
Association (RVIA) (a trade association to provide the same sensing technology "make inoperative'' prohibition in 49
representing more than 95% of thevan
for their seats, or else certifying in someU.S.C. 30122 by allowing them to install
conversion industry) contended that its other way.
retrofit manual on-off switches for air
members need at least one year of lead
bags in vehicles owned by people whose
We recognize that the setof
time following full implementationof
requirements contained in today's rule request for a switch is authorized hy
the new requirementsfor the large
will require significant design changes NHTSA. The final rule is set forth as 49
manufacturers. RVIA stated that this
CFR Part 595, Refrofit On-Ojj'Stvitchrs
and significant new testingfor all cars
additional time is needed so that its
for Air Rags.
and light trucks. Wealso recognize the
members can obtain timely information importance of providing all
The purpose of the exemption was to
from the chassis manufacturers. since
preserve the benefitsof air bags while
manufacturers, including multi-stage
reducing the risk of serious or fatal
guidance from incomplete vehicle
manufacturers and alterers, with
manufacturers is generally not available sufficient lead time to comply with the injury that curront airbags pose to
until at or very near the startup of new
identifiable groups of peoplc. In issuing
new requirements. We note, however,
that final rule, we explained that
or updated model production.
that we do not have unlimited
RVIA supported allowing small
discretion as to how much lead time we although vehicle manufacturers were
volume final stage manufacturers and
can provide. According toTEA 21. if the beginning to replact! current air bags
alterers to certify compliance with a
with new air bags having some
phase-in begins on September 1. 2003,
generic sled test pulse. arguing thatif
advanced attrihutes, ;.e., attributes that
the finalrule mustbecome fully
final stage manufacturers install seating effective by September 1, 2006. There
will automatically minimize or avoid
systems within the guidelines
the risks createdby current air hags. a n
are no exceptionsfor multi-stage
established by the chassis
interim solution was needed fur those
manufacturers and alterers.
manufacturers. further full scale harrier
groups of people at risk from current air
We
appreciate
the
technical
crash testing is no longer necessary and
bags in existing vehicles.
should not be the only method available challenges multi-stage manufacturers
In the SNPRM. we proposed tu allow
and alterers will faceas a result of the
both OE on-off switchesa n d retrofit onfor determining compliance.RVIA
requirements included in today'srule.
stated that the potential technical and
off switches to bo installed under the
In an effortto address the needsaf these same conditions that currentlygovern
financial burden of the proposedfull
small businesses, we have decided to such installation in all vehicles
scale harrier dynamic testing
requirements jeopardized the continued allow multi-stage manufacturers and
produced prior to September 1 , 2005,
alterers to defer compliance until the
viability of small volume multi-stage
the date we proposedto require all
end of each phase-in period [September vehicles to h a w a n advanced air hag
manufacturers.
1, 2006 and September1,2010,
The National Truck Equipment
system. We proposed to prohibit both
respectively].
Association (NTEAI suDDorted
the
OE switches i l l , a n d retrofit switches
..
We believe that delaying the
proposal to allow manufacturers of
for, vehicles manufactured after the end
multi-stage vehicles to defer compliance implementation schedulefor multi-stage of the phase-inWe noted that w h i k we
manufacturers and alterers strikes the
until the endof the phase-in period.
believed that roliable and safe air hag
appropriate balance between improving systems could he devclopcd ina timely
NTEA explained that given thelevel of
air hag safety, particularly for infants,
research and testing likelyto be
manner, thus removingthe need for a n
required by the final rule, manufacturers children. and small-statured adults.
on-off switch.we were concerned that
while accommodating the needsof these those individuals whoare currently at
of multi-stage vehicles need as much
manufacturers. We believe that this
time as possible to generate the
risk from airbags might lack confidence
approach will increase the likelihood
compliance information needed to
in the new systems. particularly when
that multi-stage manufacturers and
certify these vehicles.
they are first introduced Howcver. we
We estimate that several hundred
alterers will know what type of
believed this problem would diminish
intermediate or final-stage vehicle
advanced air bag technology chassis andduring the courseof the phase-in, as
manufacturers and alterers will be
vehicle manufacturers are using well
consumers heard about. and became
affected by today's rule. Multi-stage
before they need to comply. This should familiar with, advanced airbags.
manufacturers modify incomplete
provide them sufficient timeto address
Comments were submitted byAAM,
vehicles (chassis). while alterers modify any technical issues associated with
DaimlerChrysler. Ford, Toynta. AORC,
completed new vehicles that have been advanced airhag technology and to
Autoliv. Advocates. NADA. and I'aronts
certified by their manufactureras being
for Safer Air Bags. Except for NADA. all
generate whatever compliance
in compliance withall applicable safety information may be needed.
commenters supported allowing manual
standards. With respect to Standard No.
off-switches. bothretrofit and OE,
XI. Availability of Original Equipment on
2 0 8 , most of the difficulties for multiafter
the endof the phase-in. Someof
stage manufacturers and alterers involve and Retrofit Manual On-Off Switches
the conlmenters supporteda n indefinite
changes to the vehicles' seats.If the
Standard No. 208 currently includesa allowance. while others supported the
advanced air hag system installed by the temporary provision permitting
agency revisiting the issueat the end of
original vehicle or chassis manufacturer manufacturers to provideas original
the phase-in. Additionally,Ford urged
employs the seat as part of the system,
equipment (OE) manualon-off switches that we d l u w shunts. which would
by using such featuresas weight or
for air hags in vehicles withoutrear
pormanently deactivate a n air bag,
uosition sensine. comuonents in the seat. seats or with rear seats too snlall to
rather than retrofit on-off switches f o r
any change to tKe vedicle'sseatcouldaccommodate
a RFCSS. This provision vehicles with advanced air
bag systems.
~~
~~
~~~
F e dReer agliIsVtoelr
30722
~
~~~
~
~
~~
~~
~~~~~
stating that the market incentiveto
systemallowstheuse
of shunts as
Fifteen mmmentersaddrossedthe
continue to produce retrofit switches is
suggested by Ford in its comments." proposed changes to the air
bag warning
too small. NADA supported eliminating
labels. Of these, five said little more
XII. Warning Labels, Consumer
retrofit on-off switches for vehicles with
than an expressiun of support for the
Information, and Telltale Devices
advanced air bags, but allowing
OE
proposal withuut much elaboration. On
switches as a method of suppression
A . Warning Labels andConsumertheotherhand,fourcomnlenters
consumer
Information
E~OUIIS
OE representing
compliance in vehicles where
expressed
strong
concerns
about any
switches are currently allowed.
On November 27, 1996. we published
changes that "weakened" the warnings
in the Federal Register (61 FR 60206) a
We believe that by the endof the
bags
initial phase-in, manufacturers will
final rule which, among other things, concerning air hags until the air
meeting
these
new
requirements
are
amended Standard No. 208 to require
have developed advanced airbag
demonstrated to be effective in
improved labeling on new vehiclesto
systems for most vehicles that are
eliminating the risks associated with
sufficiently reliableto obviate the need better ensure that drivers and other
current
air bags. One commenter also
occupants were aware of the dangers
for manual air bag on-off switches.
posed by passenger airbags to children. stated that research should be
However, public acceptance of those
bag warning
After reviewing the comments on the conducted before the air
advanced air bag systems maynot be
labels are changed. Additiunally. very
NPRM, we proposed in the SNPRMa
assured. Allowing on-off switches for
replacement for the permanent sun visorfew commenters addressedour request
some period after all vehiclesare
for comments on the new graphic
equipped with advancedair bag systems label which contained statements taken described above versus the previuus
from the 1996 labels regarding belt use
will provide parents withadditional
graphic, which shows a rear-facing child
and seating children in the rear
seat. We
confidence until the reliability of
all
seat being struckby a n air bag.
such systems has been verified based on also proposed substituting the ward
After reviewing thc comments, we
"CAUTION' for the word "WARNING"
real-world experience.
have decided to change the proposed
in the headingof the label. Finally, we label to reduce tho perceived
We continue to believe.however, that
proposed a new graphic which showed "weakening." First. we have decided to
allowing manufacturers toinstall
a cut-away side view ofa vehicle with continue to use "WARNING" in the
switches indefinitely would be countera belted driver anda child in a child
heading rather than "CAUTION" as w e
productive. The switches provide an
seat in the rear. In addition,
NHTSA
proposed in the SNPRM. Since no one
opportunity far misuse. Adults could
proposed a new temporary label that
objected to the proposed graphic. we are
turn off their passenger airbag systems
states that the vehicle meets the new adopting the new graphicto help
even though those systemspose
requirements for advanced air bags.
consumers distinguish between vehicles
virtually no risk to an adult occupant. These proposals were in response to
with various generationsof air bags.
particularly one who is belted.
I n such
commenters concerns thatsome types of
One commenter asked us to allow the
circumstances, the occupant wouldnot
warnings should he retainedfor
new labels in any vehicle certifiedto the
receive the benefitof the air bag in a
advanced air bags.
new requirements, rather than limiting
high-speed crash. Thesame possibility
Consistent with our proposalto
their usage to vohicles manufactured
for misuse would existfor children in
require labels for vehicles with
after September 1, 20(12. B e c a u s ~
vehicles certified to the lowrisk
advanced air bags, we proposedto drop manufacturers will be allowedto certify
deployment option.
the current definition of "smart
vehicles to the new requirement prior to
Accordingly, we have decidedto
passenger air bags" contained in S4.5.5
this date. we are removing this
allow both OE and retrofit air
bag on-off and an existing option to remove
restriction.
switches until September1 , 2012. two
warning labels in vehicles withair bags
One cornmcnter a h stated that the
years after the endof the second phase- that meet that definition(S4.5.1).
labels should be available in languages
In order to provideconsumers with
in. This additional time will allow
other than English. While weare not
adequate information about their
manufacturers to perfect the
requiring this, as with the current labels,
occupant restraint system, we proposed manufacturers may providc translations
suppression and low risk deployment
to require manufacturers to providea
of the required English language
systems in all their vehicles.
written explanationof the vehicle's
Additionally. it will provide parents
message as longas all the roquirrmmts
advanced passenger airhag system We
for the English labelare met, including
with additional time to satisfy
size.
themselves that the advanced systems indicated that this explanation would
A few cummenters wantod additiunal
probably be included in the vehicle
work. Should we decide there
is a
owner's manual, although we requested information added to the label relatedto
continuing need for manual on-off
specific issuos with advanced airbags.
comments on whetherit would be
switches beyond 2012, we can initiate
GM wanted the option ofadding
desirable to have this information
rulemaking to extend the dateat that
to
located elsewhere. Under our proposal, instructions to inform users how
time.
properly
behave
depending
on whethcr
the
explanation
would
need
to
include
We note that there will be some need
the air bag was activeor inactive. NTSB
for deactivation of some sort (via on-off a discussion of the proper functioningof
wanted to require information on what
the advanced passenger air
bag systom
switch or permanently) for at-risk
actinns to take ifthetelltale is not
and
provide
a
summary
of
the
actions
individuals who cannot be
of illuminated. CAS suggested that
accommodated through sensors or other that may affect the proper functioning
information should be added explaining
the system.
suppression technology (such as
how helt IISC affects air bag
handicapped individuals or individuals
performance. Because these types of
"Ford had also ~usgoslodthat shunls be olluwod
with certain medical conditions), At thisin licu of on-off
rwilchos. Thcsc shunts would
information arevery design specific. we
point in time, we believe such needs
parmmenlly dcaclivnfc lhc a n bug. Wc: lhd~<
option, we will test onlyat
not require that restraint manufacturers
rc4uirodtovrrurOcornp~ionco
with ~ ~ l c i l i , l ~ l ~ ~ . lsuppression
l~,~l~
use the specific footprint.we would
injury criteria with a Iz-munth-old dummy in coih
the vehicle seat's full-rear position. mideffectively limit their ability to produce of Ihc rortrninls listcd in smtions Band 1: cui
track position and full-forward positiun.
any other type of restraint, since they
Appmdix A, making thr rostrrint unurnblr n
i
I n instances in which the infant
subrcquont l o ~ t s Howovcr.
.
wc h o l i o w l h c IN r k k
restraint contacts the dashboard in the
could not assure parents that their seats
dcploymcnt for propcr~yr O I ~ r O i nlntilllfs
Or~
I,? ,llC
would work witha vehicle's
mosl importonl low risk tosf in this culemaking. m
i
full-forward position. the vehicle seat
suppressionsystem,Accordingly,we
an infunl's bondwould dwnyr h c i n ~ l o s c p r u x i m i l y will be moved back to the next detent
believeadopting a uniformtestdevice
' o " d c p l o ~ i n ~ a "8.
ir
that allows for clearance, or, in the case
/',In no way door Ihc i n c l u s i m o s ilpor'ticul;~r
of automatic seats. until a maximun, of
with a 'pecific
footprint
is
mtraint on Ihc list ~cprcscnt
,,i
and overly design restrictive. Given the
that rcr~raint
by thoogcncy. ~
~
~
h;iuei,<:on
t
~
~ 5mm
i
~(0.2tin) ~of clearance is achieved.
relatively small number of restraints on
piaccd on tho list hccnuscwc boliovcliroy z m
Likewise. in tests involving suppression
our list, we see no need to develop a
roprononlntivc of many products on tho m m k o t . nrlt
systems far 3-year-old and 6-year-old
bocwsc lhoy oifcr B ~ l n i q u cdesign tho, wc boliovc
specific test device.
children, i f the dummy or child would
is sornchow suporioi LO other closigns. 1,zkcwisc. tho
Likewise. we do not believe that
interfere with the dashhoartl, the vehicle
choice of rcslruinL mvnufacturcr is not hmcd ~n m y
manufacturers should have the option of hcliof by tho agcncythvt "pw'icuiurmanabl:~~,rcr seat will be moved back in a similar
certifying to only a limited number of
pmluccr rcrlroints that ilm supmior IO klx oi
manner.
uthcr mnnufncturcrs. Koslraints wcrc ch<~sunS r m ~3
the restraints on the list.We do not
We have also determined that in
""'iofy of mmufoctrrrorr I" RS to "'Iq""tdy
i,,"'y
many of the tests, testing withthe seat
believethatrequiring compliance with
Lhcdcsign l~ocir~anr
Oflhrcn,ircp"pull,liuil,,i
24 seats is excessive,
given
the
rcsfiaint munufuctururr.
back positionod 25 degrees rearward of
. .
position may vary depending on the
from the agency that.if they had made
the vehicle seat's nominal design
type of suppression technology used.
a good faith effort in designing their
position for the 50th percentile male
We also believe that a reclining adult
vehicles and h a d instituted adequate
was problematic. We believe that in
quality control measures. the vehicles
has less need fora deploying air bag
many vehicles it may be impossible to
than an adult whois upright, and
would not he deemed to be in
properly install a child restraint with
therefor closer to the air
hag at the time noncompliance becauseof an isolated
the seat back reclined thisfar back. We
failure to meet the irljrlry criteria.
also do not believe that there would he of deployment.
We have changed the test that
In the SNPRM. we notad that. among
any reason to reclinea seat that is
determines which stage or combination the Federal motor vehicle safety
occupied by a child restraint. Sinceall
of stages of the air hag to deploy in the standards. the "due care provision" is
of the infant tests involve the use
of
some type of restraint. we have decided low risk deployment tests.As discussed unique to Standard No. 20R. We noted
earlier, the low risk deployment tests
further that,for a variety of reasons, we
to limit the seat back anglefor these
disfavor including a "due care
tests to the nominal design position for will only he conducted at speedsup to
2 6 km/h (16 mph). Accordingly, this test provision" in any Federal motor vehicle
the 50th percentile male. Tests
involving the 3-year-old and 6-year-old will he run at26 kmih (16 mphl. If there safety standard. We explained that the
children or dummies in child restraints is no air bag deployment in the test, we inclusion of such a provision in a safety
standard does not fit very well with the
will deploy the first stageof the
present the same concerns and will
be
vehicle's air hag when conducting our overall statutory scheme, because it
addressed in the same way. Likewise.
compliance tests.
introduces a measure of subjectivity into
many of the test procedures involving
Finally, we believe Breed's comments the issue of whether a vehicle complies
children who are not in any type of
about the low risk deployment positions with a standard. We also explained that,
restraint are unrealistic if tested with
have merit. We have reduced the
based on our experience with Standard
the seat 25 degrees hack from the
nominal design position. For example.a number of steps involved in placing the No. 208 complianco activities, we do
dummies because small adjustments to not believe them is an intrinsic need far
kneeling child with his chest resting
the procedure at each step,
as well as
a "due care provision." However,
against the seat back would findit
the unique characteristicsof the vehicle, recognizing that this rulemaking for
difficult to hold hisor her position.
could result in a final position that
advanced air bags would require
The one position where we will
differed significantly from what we
manufacturers to certify their vehicles tu
recline the seat back is the test where
the child is sitting an the seat and is want. i.e., the head on the instrument a significantly greater number of
panel or the chest on the instrument
complex test requirements in a limited
leaning against the seat hack(S22.2.2.2,
panel. By reducing the numberof steps
S 2 4 . 2 . 1 ) .This test position willbe
amount of time. including a 48 kmlh (30
needed to achieve that position. we
conducted with the seat hack at the
rnph) unhelted test with a ncw dummy,
manufacturer's nominal design position have reduced the amountof potential
we stated that we didnot IJelievl! that
variability. The one exception is the law it would be oppropriato to delete the
for the 50th percentile male andat 25
risk deployment test for both child
provision at this time.
degrees rearward of that position so as
Accordingly, i n the SNPRM, we
to test for children who have reclined dummies where the head is placed on
the instrument panel.We have retained proposed to retain the "due care
their seat backs ta takea nap. If the
vehicle seat does not recline that far. we a specific step-by-step procedure for this provision" and extend it to thu now
test, because the location
of the air hag
crash test requirements. We stated that
will test with the seat reclined
as far as
we were not proposing to extend the
possible. We agree with manufacturers module on the instrument panel isso
that parents should not drive with their variable that weare currently unable to provision to test requirements that d o
not involve crashes hecause these tests
children in such a position. However, as define a position on the instrument
panel that we believe with any
are not affected by the variability
long as manufacturers design the
confidence represents the worstcase
associated with rlvnamicallv-indrlced
passenger seat to recline. we believe
scenario. We do, however. have
dummy movemont andlor vehicle
some parents will allow their children
considerable experience with a step-hy- deformatiun.
to lie on a reclined seat.
Commenters on the SNPRM presented
We have also decided to test whether step procedure. While we agree that
variations in vehicle design may make sharply contrasting viewsconcerning
the air bag system is active when the
it difficult to follow the test procedure. the due care provision. Vehicle
seat is occupied by a 5th percentile
adult female at the seat back position we believe that we have modified the manufactureis, air bag manufacturers
and the Center far Regulatory
achieved when positioning the fifth
procedure in a way that will yield
Effectiveness urgsd that the d u e care
percentile adult female dummy in the
appropriate and consistent results.
provision be extended to the new static
passenger seat for dynamic tests. This
C. Due Core Provision
out-of-position tests as well as the new
should roughly approximate the
Since March 1986. Standard No. 208
nominal design position. Some
crash tests. They argued that there is as
has included as partof its various crash much variability associated with the
commenters argued that the reclined
static out-of-position tests as with crash
position [i.e.,25 degrees rearward of the test requirements a provision stating
nominal design position) distributes an that:
tests, and argued that the due care
adult's weight in such a manner that a
provision will h d l ~
resolve sunle
a vehicle shall not be deemed tu be in
suppression system that relied heavily noncompliance with this standard if its
practicability concerns.
Other cummonters. however. argued
manufacturer establishes that it did nml have
on weight distributed to the seat
reason to h a w in the exercise of d u e w r e
that the due care provision is not in the
cushion may be unable to determine
that such vehicle is not in conformity with
public interest. Parents stated that i f 8
whether the occupantis an adult or a
child. Other commenters have argued the requirement of this standard.
vehicle's air bag system fails to meet
that their suppression systems can
In adding this provision, we cited the Standard No. 20H, the adverse effects un
adequately detect the total weightof a
complexity of the rigid barrier crash test the public are the same whetheror not
reclined 5th percentile adult female.We of Standard No. 208. We stated that.
due care was exercised b y the
believe that the abilitv to detect the total because of this comolexitv. we believed manuiacturor. That orzanization
stated
"
weight of the dummy ina reclined
thatmanufacturersneededassurancethattheduecarepruvisiunworks
69665 (December 14. lLI(IC3).We adopt
against the public interest by providing test option. Our testing has indicated
that manufacturers can easily meet the that rationale for purposes ufthis final
vehicle manufacturers with a means of
avoiding the recall of vehicles that fail new injury criteria with 50th porcentile rule. hut we are addinga short
discussion to address a few additional
adult male dummies ina 40 km/h (25
to comply with StandardNo. 208.
Parents and Advocates also argued that mph) unheltedtest with existing air hag matters.
The final rule adoptedbv this notice
systems and should be ableto make
the due care provisionin Standard No.
what ever improvements are needed to provides numerous compliance options
208 is inconsistent with its statutory
for manufacturers. far more than in any
counterpart, which only relieves vehicle do so with 5th percentile adult fmnale
manufacturers of civil penalty liability if dummies without major uncertainties other standard we have proviously
adopted. For example,inorderto
to certifv anv
before thev are reauired
the agency concludes that the
vehicle as'meetind the advanced airhag reduce the risk of injury to various sizes
manufacturer exercised due care.
of children. rnanufacturers may
Advocates stated that if the due care requirements of this rule.
We do not believe that not extending suppress the passenger airbag. either
provision were retained and extended to
other crash tests, the provision should the due care provision will create any statically UT dynamically. or assure that
the air bag duploysi n a honign manner.
significant difficulties for
he completely sunsetted at the end of
manufacturers, given our practices and Likewise. manufacturers may use a
the TEA-21 phase-in. Other
policies with respect to the enforcernent benignly deploying air bag or a dynanric
commenters opposing thedue care
suppression system to reduce tho risk of
of crash test requirements. Generally.
provision included Consumers Union,
air hag iniury to teenagers and small
we do not determine that a
Public Citizen, and CAS.
After considering the comments, we noncompliance exists merely becauseof adult drivers. The existenceof phase-ins
continue to disfavor including a due
provides manufacturers with additional
an isolated test failure,if there is
care provision in the Federal motor
evidence that other tested similar units options. While they must meut the
vehicle safety standards and do not
have met the Standard's performance applicable advanced airhag
believe there is a need for the due care requirements and thereis no indication requirements fur a specified percentage
provision in Standard No. 208.
of vehicles during each phase-in. they
of the inadequate quality control
Accordingly, while we will retain the
have the optionof certifying additional
procedures. Since the adoptionof the
existing due care provisions for the sled provision in 1986, the agency has never vehicles to those roquirements in order
to earn credits that canbo applied to the
test and the 48 kmih (30 mph) unhelted found that a vehicle that failedto meet
barrier test (both of which will expire onthe performance requirements
percontages that need to be achieved in
of the
September 1, 2006). we have decided
later years. Moreover, until September
Standard should he deemedto he in
against including a duecare provision
compliance on the basisof the due care 1. 2006 (the endof the first phase-in).
in for vehicles cartifiedto the advanced provision.
manufacturers may clroosc to certify
air hag requirements.
compliance for at least a portion of their
D.
Selecfion
of
Compliance
Options
As an initial matter, the static
fleet with one of three different unbelted
In the SNPRM, we proposedto
suppression tests are relatively simple
high-specd test requirements: The sled
require that where manufacturer options test of S13,"'the long-standing 48 km/
pass-fail tests which do not involve
are specified, the manufacturer would h (30 mphl unbulted rigid harrier test of
deployment of an air hag or
measurement of injury criteria on test be required to select the optionby the
S5.1.2(a),or the 40 km/h (25 mph)rigid
time it certifies the vehicle and would barrier test of S5.1.2(bl. Each
dummies. Accordingly. we do not
of these
believe they raise the same cvmpliance not thereafter be permitted to select a
three options has different injury
different option for the vehicle. This
concerns as crash tests. The conditions
criteria.
would mean that failure to comply with
under which either suppressionor
We have provided manufacturers with
the selected option would constitute a
activation is required are specific and
myriad options to allow and encourage
noncompliance with the standard (as
straightforward. Further, thereare
them to develop and implement
well as a violation of the certification
substantial differences between the
technologically innovative advanced air
requirement of49 U.S.C. 30115).
conditions requiring suppression and
hag systems. However, this doesnot
regardless of whether a vehicle complies mean that we believe that each option
those requiring activation.While there
with another option. We also proposed
will undoubtedly hegray zones
provides exactly the same safety
associated with suppression devices.
to specify that, upon request,
benefits. Rather, we believe that the
those gray zones should hewell outside manufacturers would he required to
standard as a whole. including its
advise NHTSA of the compliance
the conditions for which either
requirement of an irrevocable choice
suppression or activation is required by options selected fora given vohicle or
among compliance options, strik8s the
vehicle model. On hehalf
of its
the Standard.
proper balance between assuringan
Additionally. there is no reason to
members. AAM and AlAM argued in its appropriate level of safety and allowing
extend the existing due care
joint comments that the proposed
an appropriate degree of manufacturer
requirements fur vehicles certified to the reauirement does not meet the need
for
flurihilit.,
advanced air hag high speed
mdtor vehicle safet
We have fuund that when some
requirements. The48 kmih (30 mph)
We have decidedl;o adopt the
manufactururs are confronted with a
belted rigid harrier test has been a part
provisionproposedintheSNPRM,compliance
test failureindicating a n
of Standard No. 208 for several years
which is consistent with the
apparent
noncompliance
with
the
and has not proven problematicfor
we have taken in other recent
option that they originally chuseat the
rulemakingsinwhichcompliancetimetheycertifiedthevehicle.they
manufacturers. The56 km/h (35 mph)
belted test will not beginto be phasedoptions have been allowed. Our
have responded by asserting that their
rationale for this approach was recently product complies ,,,ith a different
in as a requirement for eight years,
which should orovide amole leadtime. set out in some detail in our denialof
opt,on,
e x p ~ a i n e riln ol,r earlier
The unhelted &sts will he'less stringent a petition for reconsideration of an
denial of reconsideration on this
thanthe 4 8 km/h (30 mph)unbeltodamendmentthataddedacompliance
rigidharriertestthatwasrequiredprioroption
to Standard No. 201, "Occupant
, t l ~ ~,,:x,
la
sl:(llilS ,_,.,,
71igir,iy r,,yis,,<~,,,
to the 1997 final rule allowing the sled Protection in Interior Impact." 64
FK
indimtr w h ~ XI
h cut injury ~ l i ~ < ,~nwsc
r i , ~ IIO ~ C I .
I
,
..~-~"~~.,~
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No, 9 3 / F r i d a yM, a y
~~~~
~~~
~
~
~~
~~~
~~
~~~.
~
~~~~
~
30727
12, 2 0 0 0 i R u I easnRde g u l a t i o n s
~
~
~
~~~~~~~~~~
~
~
~~~
~~
~~
~
~
~~~
~
~
subject. such shifting in the asserted
vehicle or model to countas m8eting the vehicle to the advanced airbag
hasis for compliance creates obvious
requirements of 514.1, S14.2, S14.3. or
requirements hefore or during the
difficulties for us. both in managing our 514.4 during the applicable phase-in,
a
phase-ins will he irrevocable, evenif the
resources available for compliance
vehicle that failed to comply with the
manufacturer would have been able to
testing and in ultimately assessinga
satisfy the percentage requirements fora
applicable performance requirements
vehicle or equipment's compliance. We would he deemed to he in
given model year with other vchicles in
believe that a system that allowsus to
noncompliance with the standard. even its tleet.
effectively
allocate
our
scarce
if other
vehicles
produced
by
the
F. Choice Between Complying With
enforcementresourcestoensurethatmanufacturerintheproductionyearin
Existing
and/or New Injury Criteria and
oursafetystandards
are beingmetquestionwouldhavebeensufficientto
TestRpql,irr,rlents
clearly meets the overall need for motor satisfy the specified percentage
In the SNPRM, we addressed, for
vehicle safety.
requirement for that year.
In addition to preventing the
not certified as being i n full
We believethatsuch a regulatoryvehicles
unnecessaryexpenditureofresources,approach
is particularlycriticalinthecompliancewiththefinalrule,the
we also believe it isimportant for
context of thisrule,sinceconsumersrelationshipofthe
proposod newinjury
manufacturers
honor
to their
will
know
whether
a vehicle is
criteria
and
performance
limits
the
to
certificationcommitments.TheSafetyrepresented
as complyingwiththeexistingtestrequirementsofStandard
Act does not allow for 'recertification" advanced air bag requirements from
a
No. 208. We stated that while some of
afterthecertificationlabelhasbeenvarietyofsources[e&,thewarning
the new andlor modified injury criteria
applied. Nor doesit contemplate
label in the vehicle, the owner's manual, and performance limits wuuld apply to
allowingmanufacturers"twobites
at
manufactureradvertising,dealersalesexistingteststhatarebeingretainedin
Standard No. 208. we were not
theapple."Moreover,there is amplestaff.etc.)andmaymodifytheir
evidence that consumers often choose to behavior in reliance upon that
proposing to change tho injury criteria
[e+, by allowing the and performance limits
fur vehicles not
purchase a particularvehiclebecauseitsrepresentation
all ofthe requirements
manufacturer has advertised that it has smallest child to sit in the front seat to certified to
certain safety features. In light of
suppresstheair bag). If infacttheapplicabletovehicleswithadvancedair
consumer interest in and concerns about vehicle does not provide the promised hags.
air hag safety.thisconsumerpractice
is
performance [ e.g.,thesuppression
We statedthat. as a generalmatter,
likely to continue or even increase in system does not function properly). the vehicles produced between the
timB the
final rule becomes effective and the time
the context of this rule. We believe that manufacturer would be required to
consumersshouldheentitledtoexpectnotifyNHTSAofthenoncompliancethephase-in
is complete would he
thatmanufacturerswillproduceand,unlessthenoncompliance
wer~
requiredtocvmplywith
ant1 he
cortified
all thecurrentrequirumentsand
vehiclesthatcomplywiththefoundtoheinconsequentialtomotorto
are
vehiclesafety,toremedytheproblem.Currentinjurycriteria
or to allthe
requirementstowhichthey
requirements for advanced air hags and
certified.
E. Credits for Early Compliance
new injury criteria; there would he no
We note that a manufacturer that
To encourage early compliance with opportunity to mix and match.
chooses to install multiple safety
featuresthatwouldindependentlytheadvancedairbagfinal
rule, we were
However, as a possibleexceptionto
directed by TEA 21 to include means by this. we requested comments on
comply with twoor more of the
which manufacturers may earn credits whether we should permit
specified compliance options in the
standard is notprohibitedfromdoingtowardfuturecompliance.Credits,on
a
manufacturerstoimmediatelycertify
so. For example, a manufacturermayone-vehicleforone-vehiclehasis.maytheirvehiclestowhatever
sot of
build a vehicle that meets both the static be earned for vehicles that
are certified unhelted crash test requiremcnts
suppressionandthe
low risk
as being
in
full
compliance
with
the
applicahle
to
50th
percentilc
adult
male
w:m adopted for the final rule,
deploymentrequirementsoftoday'sfinalrulebeforethebeginningofeachdummies
rule. In such a case, it may he that a
ofthe applicable phase-in periods. They as an alternative to the currently
failure to comply with the option to
may also be earned during the phase-ins available sled test or unbelted u[1-to-48
which the vehicle was certified would if
a manufacturer's production of
kmlh 130 mph) rigid barrier test. In light
he inconsequential to motor vehicle
complying vehicles for a model year
of the limitations of the sled test, we
exceeds the percentageof vehicles
safety, such thata notification and
stated that, to the extent vehicle
We are manufacturers wished to immediately
remedy (;.e.,recall) campaign would not required to comply in that year.
benecessary.However,inviewoftheamending
49 CFR Part585tospecifydesign
a n d certifyvehiclestowhatever
fact that not all compliance options
reporting requirements that will allow
set of unhelted crash test requirerllollts
provide precisely the same level of
us to administer this provision. Credits was included in the final
rille, thore
for the first phase-in may be earned
safety benefits, such an
could he safety benefits.
Several cnmmenteis. including AAM,
inconsequentiality determination would immediately after this final rule
automatic.
he
not becomes
effective,
credits
hut
forDaimlerChrysler
the
Toyota,
andsupported
Although it is implicit from the
secondphase-inmayonlyheearnedpermittingmanufacturerstobegin
foregoing discussion, we want to
new
starting on September 1, 2006. We are immediately certifying to the
explicitlynotethat S4.8 applies to the only allowing credits to he earned for unhelterl
test inlieu o f t h e sled test at
decisionby a manufacturer as to
vehiclesmanufacturedoneyearpriortothemanufacturer'soption.forvehicles
whether
to
certify
a vehicle as
theinitiationofthesecondphase-inwithoutadvancedair
bags. I n light of
complyingwiththeadvanced
air bag
because webelievemanufacturersthecommentsandthgdiscussion
we
requirementsduringeach of thetwoshouldfirstdirecttheireffortstowardspresentedintheSNPRM,wc
are
phase-ins. If a manufacturer advises
full implementation ofthe first phase- including this option in the final
rule.
NHTSA [either in response to a request
in, particularly the risk reduction
We have also decided to retain a
forcomplianceinformation or inarequirements.Consistentwiththepriormanufacturer'soptiontocertifytothe
reportsubmittedpursuantto 49 CFR
discussionofcomplianceoptions, a
existing 48 kmlh 130 mphl unbelted
Part 5851 that it intends a particular
harriertesttoSeptember
1. 2006. This
manufacturer'sdecisiontocertify a
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 9 3 / F r i d a yM, a y
30728
~~~~~~~~~~
~
~~~
1 2 . 2 0 0 0 / R u l easnRde g u l a t i o n s
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~
~
~~~~~~~~
~~
~~
~
~
~~
option will expire at the end of the
a n d putential
engaged in the air bag is insufficiently additional complexity
a n already
complex
phase-in
because
we
believe
that
objective
for
compliance
purposes.
unreliahility
to
ultimatelyonly a singleset of injuryWhileweintendtoretainourexistingsystem.Accordingly,while
we believe
criteriashouldapplytoeachtestpolicyonconsideringthelocation
of thethatthecruisecontrolshoulddeactivate
dummy.
dummy
vehicle
relative
the
interior
to when
an
deploys.
not
bag
air
dowe
and the airbag at the time peak injury
believe this is an area currently in nced
G. Time Periods forMrosuring Injury
measurements are recorded. we have
of regulation
Criteria During Tests
decided to keep the time parametersfor
I , Rescus Operations
In the SNPRM. we proposed specific measuring data at specific level.
points for the endof the period for
Accordingly, data will be collected until In the SNPRM. we proposed to
measuring injury criteria in both crash 300 ms after the vehicle strikes the
require that all air bags become
tests and low-risk deployment tests.We harrier in a dynamic crash,
deactivated after a maximum o n e
noted
that, for dynamic
crash
tests,
we
Based on
DaimlerChrysler's
minute
"keep
alive"
period
has
elapsed
historicallyhavenotmeasuredinjuryobservationand
our knowledgeoflowafterthevehiclebattery
puww is
criteria more than 300 milliseconds after risk deployment technologies, we agree disconnected,
Wo proposed a hriof
the vehicle impacts the barrier. and we that a
looms time-frame for the low risk procedure to test whether this
proposed a 300 millisecond time
deploymenttestmaybetoosmall.requirement
was met.Thepurposeof
duration for the dynamic crash tests. For Consequently, the parameters for
this requirement was to ensure that
the low risk deployment tests. which do truncating data for the low risk
rescue workers havea standardized
notinvolve a completevehiclecrashdeploymenttestshavebeenchangedtomethodandtimefordeactivatingair
and are intended only to address the . the same parameters used for the harrier bags, to neutralize any potential clangm
potential adverse effects of a n air bag.
tests, i.e.,300 ms after the air bag
they may face. We noted that the air
we proposed ta measure injury criteria deploys.
hags in most vehicles are deactivated
for u p to 100 milliseconds after the air
within a minute or less after battery
deploys. hag
H . Cruise Controls
power is disconnected.
We indicated
that
these
time
In the
SNPRM,
we
proposed
to
Commenters generally supported the
parameters would not apply to the
require
that
cruise
controls
be
concept
of having
air bags automatically
dummy containment requirement.
deactivated when any stage of an air hag deactivate one to two minutes after a
Regardless of the time frame used to system
is deployed, and included a brief vehicle's battery
puwcr is shut off,
measure
other
injury
criteria,
all
procedure
test
towhether
this
although
the
NTSB argued
that
the
was met. We noted that i f
deactivation time should be closer to ten
dummies would continue to he required requirement
to remain fully contained within the test the cruise control were not deactivated, seconds.
AAM. Toyuta, and
vehicle until both the vehicle and the
it would continue to providepowertoDaimlerChryslcrquestionedtheneedfor
dummies have ceased moving.
a
a requirement at all. sincemast
thevehicle,whichcouldleadto
Comments were received from
runaway condition.
manufacturers already deactivate the air
DaimlerChrysler. Toyota, Nissan, and
Only Consumers Union supported our bag within one to two minutes after the
Autoliv.OtherthanDaimlerChrysler.proposal,stating
a deactivatedcruisepower
iscut ,,if. ~
1Com,,,e,,~PrS,
,
~
~
the commentersall supported
along with AORC, Nissan. Ddphi and
Control is a basic safety measure. AAM
truncatingthe test dataatthepointtheandDaimlerChryslerstatedthat
we hadTRW,
a l l raised
Over the
dummy interacts with the vehicle
test procedure. Specifically.
not demonstrated a safety need for such proposed
interior and after the dummy's head had a requirementandtheproposedtestthecomrrlenters
were concernedthatthe
cleared the airbag. In the alternative,
" f a n a i r hag firillg voltagc
procedure
could
make
cruise
control
Nissan supported truncating the data in systems less reliable than theyare
terminal to measure voltage changes
both the harrier tests and the low-risk currently. According to AAM. none of within the air
bag electrical systelll may
deployment tests at 10Ums.
its members is aware o f a single report
a c t ~ a l l ycause unknown a i r bag
DaimlerChrysler. who commented only
of a cruise control remaining
deployment problems adversely
onthetime~frarnerelated to low-riskoperationalafter
a n air bag deploymentaffectingthesystem's
overall sofoty
deploymenttests.notedthat
it was
followingacrash.DaimlerChrysleralsoeffectiveness.
possibleforpeakinjurycriteriatobenotedthatundermostcrashconditions.
We continue tu believe that a short air
reachedafter 100 insbecause of lawthecruisecontrolisusually
already
bag deactivation time wouldeliminate
output
initiator
delay
times.
deactivated
by
the
time
the
air
hag
confusion
and unnecessary
delays
in
rescue work. We also believethat a
Accordingly, it suggestedthatthedatadeploys,eitherbecausethevehicle's
speedhasfallenbelow
a certainperiod
of one minute or loss is
for all deploymentsbetruncated at 300
ms or when the dummy ceases to he in threshold
or because the brakes have appropriate.
It is sufficiently short to
contact with the air bag, whichever
been applied. Additionally, cruise
assist in rescue operations butnot su
occurs first.
brief as to create design problems for
control systems generally requiresa
Traditionally. we havenotcountedcertainlevelofspeed
to operate,makingmanufacturers. W e arecuncorned,
data that is recorded as the result of the compliance testing exceptionally
however. that a n y test procsdure that
dummy's head neck or torso striking the difficult.
would allow us to objectively measuro
WeagreewithAAMand
vehicle interior when the dummy is no
when the air bag has been doactivated
longerengagedintheairbag.WeDaimlerChryslerthatthereisnoneedtocouldcauseunnecessarycomplexityin
continuetobelieve, as apparentlydoregulatecruisecontrolinteractionwiththeair
hag systemandpotentially
conlmenters, that the airbag is neither
air bags at this time. Wealso are
reduce system reliability. As noted in
responsible for these injury values nor
unaware of any instances where the
the preamble a n d cited by comrnentcrs.
could the air bag have prevented these
cruise control remained on after
an air
the air bags in [nost vehicles are
interactions
with
the
vehicle
bag
deployed.
It appears
that
deactivated
within
one
minute
or less
compartment. However, weare
is disconnocted.
manufacturershave already resolvedafterbatterypower
concerned that truncating the data to the this potential scenario. Finally. the
Since most vehicles already meet the
point at which the occupant i s no longer addition o f a test procedure could add
proposed timing, we are not cunvincPd
~
F e d e r aRle g i s t e r i V o6l .5N, o9 .3 / F r i d a yM, a y
~~
~~~~~~~
~
~
~
~
~
~~~~~~
~~~~
~
~~
~~
~~~
30729
1 2 , 2 0 0 0 i R u l easnRde g u l a t i o n s
~.
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~
~~~
~
~
~~
that there is a sufficient need to regulate development efforts to further address made
it easier to repeatedly position the
this
issue.
this
time.
issue
this at
5th percentile adult female dummy.
However,weurgemanufacturerswho
As to filtering, AAM and
We are adopting the seating procedure
d o not design their air hag systems to DaimlerChrysler stated that they believe we proposed in the SNPRM. Although
J211 are we have reviewed the proposed SAE
shut off within one minute of power that the filters specified by SAE
for evaluatingneckinjuryseatingprocedure
for the5thpercentile
beingcut off toworkonreducingtheappropriate
time before such deactivation. Given the and that sources of the spikesinoise
adult female ina dynamic crash test, we
abilityofmostmanufacturerstomeetneedtoheidentifiedandeliminated.havedecidedagainstadoptingthis
thistimeframeinexistingvehicles.weWeagreewiththecommenters'procedurebecause
it hasnot yet been
do
not
believe
this
would
pose a
suggestion
that
the
SAE
filter
adopted
by
thc
SAE
and
may
not
bc
If
significantdesignchallenge.RescuespecificationsfortheindividualneckadoptEd.inanyform,forsumetime.
personnel do not have the time or the loads are sufficient
for evaluating neck the SAE does ultimately adupt
a seating
resources to determine at a crash scene injury potential. The
S O U I C ~ Sof noise do
procedure that is different from the one
when an undeployed airbag will
not appear to be inherent in the dummywe are adopting today,we will review
deactivate once power is cut off. A
neck design, hut rather are caused by that procedure and consider replacing
measure of uniformityinthis area is
incorrectassemblvlmaintenanceof a
our procedure.
desirable.
specific dummy or by procedural
L. Deletion oJTests netween the Initio1
variances which need to he correctedat
I. Hybrid I l l D u n m y Neck
a n d S u p p l e n ~ e n t oProposals
l
the testing laboratories.
In the SNPRM, we requested
Several
commenters
raised concerns
However. because Nil combines the
comments on two issues related to the neck bending moment and
about the deletion of several tests i n the
the neck
Hybrid Ill dummy neck.
axial force which have different channel SNPRM that were proposed in the
First. we noted that there have been frequency classes (CFC 600 for moment, NPRM.
crash test situations where the agency CFC 1000 for axial force). we helieveit
Public Citizen. CAS and the American
has observed high neck moments being is more appropriate to have
Academy of Pediatrics(AAPI expressed
a pure
generated at the upper loadcell of the
concern about deletion of rough road
channel classfrequency of 600 far Nij.
Hybrid 111 dummy neck within2 0
tests. AAP stated that the agency's
Thus, we arespecifying that a CFC 600
milliseconds ofthe initiationof large
rationale that this is an area that vehicle
be used for computing theaxial force
neck shear loads without observing
manufacturers will consider and
component of Nij. and CFC 1000 for
substantial angular deformation of the computing the peak axial neck forms.
address in the absenceof Federal
dummy neck. We stated that while we Because 1211 does not require phaseless requirements could be used to justify
believe that these are true loads being
elimination of all test requirements.
filters for frequency channel classes
generated by the restraint system and
AAP stated it does not think it is
above 2 0 0 , we have specified thatall
not artifacts of an inappropriately
appropriate to eliminate safety tests
measurements be conducted with
designed neck transducer, we were
related to obvious potential performance
phaseless filters.
uncertain whether this loading
problcms. particularly i n cascs where
K . Seating Procedure for 5th Percentile
condition is biomechanically realistic.
the consequences of performance failure
A
d
u
l
t
Female
Dummy
We requested commenters' views on
could easily be tho deathof infants,
this issue.
children and adolescents.
Earlier in this notice, we discussed
Second, we soughtcomments on the
the issue of where the 5th percontile
Commenters also raised concerns
appropriate channel frequency class
adult female dummy should be located about deletion of the proposed vehicle
(CFC) for evaluating data from neck load during crash tests;;.e., with the seat full integrity requirements and the option
cells for injury assessment purposes and forward or in some other position. A
for a full scale dynamic out-of-position
whether that CFC should depend on the related issue is what seating procedure test.
impact environment ( q . , vehicle crash
to use for positioning that dummy.
We note that we dropped each of
tests, out-of-positiontests. etc.).
In the SNPRM, we proposed a seating these requirements in part because of
Several commenters noted that they
procedure that was developed
problems with the proposed tmt
did observe the high momentilow
considering the work performed by the procedures. A specific explanation for
rotation loading condition and one,
SAE Hybrid 111 5th Seating Procedure
dropping each ofthe requirements is set
DaimlerChrysler, offered test data to
Task Group and by NHTSA's Vehicle
forth in the SNPRM.
suggest that the dummy's neck design
Research and Test Center(VRTC). The
While rough road performance is
does not follow established
50th percentile Hybrid I11 adult male
certainly important, we donot believo
biomechanical response corridors.
dummy is the only dummy currently
there is any evidence that this
is likdy
However, none of the commenters,
used for StandardNo. 208 compliance
to he a real world problem It would also
including DaimlerChrysler. provided
crash testing. For that testing, the
he difficult to developa test procedure
the agency with any additional data
to
dummy is positioned according toS10
that would assure that a dummy
justify or develop alternative dummy
of the standard. As part of that
respunded like a human tu the farces
neck response requirements that either
procedure, the H-pointof the dummy is imparted by a mugh road. Indued, the
verify the responsesof the current
located using the manikin and
procedure we h a d propwed in the
Hvbrid 111 desien or orovide the basisfor procedures in SAE StandardJ826.
NPRM turned out to he impractical and
improving it.
For the 5th percentile adult female did not acconrplish its objective. Given
Because of the need to minimize the dummy. we proposed a different seating our limited resources. we d u not believe
likelihood of neck iniuries and lack of procedure which does not use
a
there is a need at this time to develop
testing alternatives. we will use the
manikin. In tests we conducted for
test procodures in this area.
current Hybrid 111 neck designs in the
positioning the 5th percentile adult
As to the optionfor a full scale
final rule. However, we will
female dummy, it made little difference dynamic out-of-position tost, we believe
immediately establish new and
whether a manikin was usedor not. The that other optiuns included in today's
accelerate existing research and
proposed non-manikin procedurealso
final rule accommodate the various
"
I
3n73n
~~~
Federal ReeisterIVol. 65. No. 9 3 I F r i d a vM. a v
~
~-
~~~~~
1 2 . 2 0 0 0 / R u l easnRde g u l a t i o n s
~~~
~
~
~~
an Information Request [IR) to the
1991, when Congress enacted a law
vehicle manufacturers to obtain detailed
mandating that NHTSA amend its
occupant protection standard to require information concerning their changes in
air hag design during the 1990s. In April
the installationof air hags, thus
1998, Jet Propulsion Laboratories
eliminating the optionof installing
completed, atNHTSA's request, a report
other types of automatic restraint
titled "Advanced Air Bag Technology
systems suchas automatic belts.
M . Consideration of Unintended
Between those two events. there were Assessment." In mid-1998, Congress
Consequences
made the judgment that advanced air
more than 20 years of public
Some commenters raised concerns
bags should be required.It enacted TEA
proceedings, research projects and
about the possibility of unintended
21 mandating that we amend our
analyses conductedby NHTSA on the
consequences resulting from use of
issue of air hags, research conducted by occupant protection standard again, this
advanced air hag technolo ies
time to require vehicle manufacturers to
the vehicle manufacturers, the
In a joint comment, CEIkA'stated
installation of air hags in10s of 1.000s
improve the protection provided by air
that they were concerned that we had ofvehicles, and the announcement by
hags and to reduce the risks associated
not required extensive real world testing vehicle manufacturers of plans for
with them by means that include
of the complex air hag systems that
advanced air bag technologies. Although
installing them in many more.
would be necessary to meeta n
To solve the problems thatarose in
TEA 21 required only that we seek
advanced air hag standard. Those
the mid-19gos with many of the
air bags public comment once on our proposals
organizations argued that the absence of installed in motor vehicles, the agency hefore taking final action, we askedfor
such data at the time
of the original air
announced a comprehensive plan in
public comment twice.We issued a
hag mandate unexpectedly resulted in
November 1996. The planset forth an
notice of proposed rulemaking [NPRM)
scores of air bag-induced deaths to
array of immediate, interim andlong
in September 1998, and a supplemental
children and other occu ants
term measures. The immediate and
notice of proposed rulemaking ISNPRM)
C E K A also expresselconcern that
interim measures focused on behavioral in November 1999. Tohelp us
there have been large numbers of air
changes and relatively modest
thoroughly explore theissues, we
bag-related recalls to remedy problems technological changes. Thelong term
proposed or discussed a variety of
that testing alone failed to anticipate,
measures focused on more significant
alternatives and nosed a wide-raneine
such as weather-induced deterioration, technological changes, ;.e., advanced air array of questions.
and production and technological
hag technologies. The immediate steps
Further, before we decided on what to
problems. They argued that the fact that included urging parents to place their include in this final rule, we carefully
these problems arose for the current
ailahle information
children in therear seat and giving
generation of air hags indicates that the motorists at risk the chance to turn off and the public comments. the
more complex systems envisionedby
their air hags, requiring new labels with underlying safety problems, the
NHTSA will be even more prone to
eye-catching graphics and colors and performance of current motor vehicles,
the ability [including lead time needs)
trouble.
strong, clear warning messages,
CEIKA argued that we should give permitting the installation of original
of vehicle manufacturers to achieve
consideration to the possibilityof
better performance in future motor
equipment on-off switches in new
merely approving, rather than
vehicles in which young children couldvehicles, the air hag technology
mandating, advanced air hags.
not be placed in a child restraint system [including advanced airhag technology)
As noted above,CEUCA argued also
currently available or being developed.
in a rear seating position, and
that NHTSA's existing airhag
permitting the installationof retrofit on- the cost of compliance, and other
experience should lead it to reject any
off switches to protect people in at-risk factors. We also carefully considered the
mandate requiring technology and
groups. Because of the lead time needed comments concerning the costs, benefits
designs that are still under
for advanced air bag technologies.
and risks associated with each
development. At a minimum, according NHTSA adopted an interim measure to alternative pro mal
to CEIICA. the agency should establish accelerate manufacturer efforts to
As required fy the mandate to us in
requirements will not take effect until depower their air hags and make other
TEA 21, our final rule requires vehicle
real-world data on such systems exists
short term design changes. The agency manufacturers to improve the protection
and has been analyzed. To the extent
did this by permitting manufacturers to provided by airbags and reduce the
risks associated with air hags by means
that it is statutorily constrained on this certify their vehicles usinga sled test
that include advanced airbag
matter, it should set lead times at the
instead of a crash test more closely
technologies. Thus, the final rule very
is
absolute statutory maximum.
simulating a real world crash.In the
Congressman David M. McIntosh
different from the one issued in1984.
it would
long term, the agency said that
That final rule mentioned advanced air
similarly expressed concern that this
conduct rulemaking to require the
hag technologies as a way of addressing
rulemaking is being conducted too
installation of advanced air bags.
concerns ahout air hags risks, but did
quickly, without real world data on how
Since 1996, the agency has been
carefully laying the groundwork for
not mandate their use to prevent
advanced air hags operate.
He
unintended consequences. This final
characterized the original mandating of conlpleting the implementationof its
comprehensive planby issuing this final rule mandates their use.
air bags as rushing into uncharted
This final rule does not, however.
rule. As noted above, we have made
territory and said that before repeating
extensive efforts to gather information mandate the use of particular advanced
that mistake, we should perform
and solicit public comments that would air bag technologies. The requirements
extensive real world trials on advanced
in the final rule are performance-based
help us identify and select
a sensible,
air hags.
requirements that give vehicle
As noted earlier in this final rule, the effective array of requirements for
manufacturers the flexibility they
history of this agency's consideration of increasing protection and minimizing
risk. In February 1997, we helda public requested to choose which typeof
air bags is actuallya very long one.
having begun with a public meeting in
technical workshop on advanced air hag advanced air bag technology they
technologies. In December 1997, we sent include in the vehicles.
1969. Airbags were not mandated until
advanced air hag technologies under
develoment.
W h i i vehicle integrity is important,
this is an area thatis not directly related
to advanced air hags, and we believe it
is best addressed outside of that context.
~
~~
Y
Y
Federal Register / VolI. 65, No.
93/Friday,
May
12,
ZOOO/Rules
and
Regulations
~~
~~
~~
~
~
~
~~~~~
~~
~~
~~~
~
~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
30731
~
~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
This final rule establishes
bagsystemcouldnothesuppressedwhiletheiroverallsizeandweight
is
requirements and procedures for testing when the seat was occupied by a female representative of the humans they were
the ability of advanced air hag systems within a h e i g h t h e i g h t range similar to designed to replicate, they do not
to protect people in moderate to high
thatof a 5thpercentileadultfemale.demonstratethesameflexibility,muscle
speed crashes and to avoid creating
In the SNPRM. we emphasized that tone or weight distribution
as humans,
risks in low speed crashes, There are
these tests simply involve a child or
Once the new dummies have been fully
new detailed test proceduresfor
adultassumingspecifiedpositionsindeveloped,wewillevaluatetheir
manufacturers to use in developing and the vehicle, with a technician checking suitability for testing suppression
testing their advanced passenger airhag Itypically by looking at a light1 whether systems. It is our hope that we will soon
the air hag system would he activated or he able to eliminate the use of humans
systems to ensure that they either do not
deploy at all in the presence of
deactivated: these tests do not involve
a young
as a compliance option for suppression
deployingtheair bagormovingthesystems.
child or deploy in a low risk manner.
As long as humans can he used to
Driver air bags are required to deploy in vehicle.Toensureabsolutesafety.we
proposed to require manufacturers
a low risk manner.
meet the suppression test criteria. it is
The final rule contains additional
selecting this option to providea
imperative that the risk to these
complementary measures for reducing method to assure that the air hag would individuals be eliminated. This may
the likelihood of unintended
not deploy during testing: such
require manufacturers to physically
consequences for front seat occupants.It assurance could he made by removal of remove the air hag. However,
retains the existing, strongly
eliminate
toworded
manufacturers
able
hag.
heair
maythe
and brightly colored warning labels
In general, commenters supported the risk without removing the air bags. If
urging motorists to place children in the use of humans under the conditions they can do this, we
see no need to
require that the air bags beremoved.
hack seat and urging everyone to buckle outlined in the SNPRMatleast as a
up. We recognize that some motorists
short-term measure. Manufacturers were
As forGM's and BMW's concerns that
will nevertheless place a child in the
generally concerned that the useof
systems designed to recognize humans
front seat. Our final rule requires that if humans would present objectivity and may not recognize dummies for crash
concerns. All ofthetests,wenotethatwebelievevehicles
vehicle is equipped with a passenger air reliability
should be designed to protect people
bag system that turns the
air bag off in manufacturers of vehicles and air bag
systems who commented on this option rather than test dummies, However, in
the presence of a young child, the
addressed the industry efforts to
vehicle must also have a telltale to
order to meaningfully test for
hag
inform motorists whether theair hag has develop a new test dummy that better compliance to our standard, the air
replicates the humanform than the
been turned off. Further, we have
must fire in a crash test. Accordingly,
current anthropomorphic test dummies. manufacturers will need to design their
extended the availability of OE air hag
AORC. Consumers Union andAAP
switches in vehicles in which child
systems in sucha way that they can
restraints cannot he placed ina rear seat urgedthatthe air hagsheremovedmeetthecrashtestrequirementswith
during tests with humans, arguing that dummies located in the
front seats.
and of retrofit switches for at-risk
removal is the only sure way to
In order to accommodate designs
people.
eliminate risk. GM and BMW were
Finally, we have providedas much
geared to recognition of people rather
concerned that systems designed to
lead time as TEA 21 allows for vehicle
than inanimate objects. we have
manufacturers to comply with the
S4.12 that manufacturers of
recognize humans might not recognize provided in
theanthropomorphictestdummiesinvehicleswithhumanrecognition
advanced air hag requirements
the vehicle crash tests.
mandated by that law.
systems must provide NHTSA with
GM and IEE stated that the ranges of information and equipment necessary to
N . Reporting Requirements
weight and size provided in theSNPRM circumvent the suppression system for
Also as with previous phase-ins, we
should he tightened. claiming the given vehicle crash tests.
range would create too much variability
proposed amendments to49 CFR Part
We have decided to keep the height
585 to establish reporting requirements for a system to accurately detect
and weight ranges proposed in the
to allow us to administer the phase-in presence with sufficientreliability. At
SNPRM.Asnotedabove,theuseof
and the useof advanced credits. We
the same time,the NTSB, AAP, and
humans is intendedas a temporary
received no comments on this proposal TraumaLinkatthePhiladelphiameasureandwilllikelyonlybeused
and have adopted the changes to Part Children's Hospital have suggested that until more human-like dummies can be
wefurtherexpandtheheightanddeveloped.Accordingly,webelieveit
585, with several modifications to
clarify the requirements and to account weight ranges s r i f ' e d i n the SNPRM.
would he inappropriate to expand the
for the addition of a second phase-in.
We SuPPortt e 'n'tlatlve I n ~ l U Whas height and weight ranges significantly
taken in developing a new. more
beyond the height and weight of the
0. Use of Children ond Adults for
human-like
dummy. The Prototype for a applicable dummies. At the same time.
Testing Stotic Suppression Systems
5th percentile adult female dummy has
we have decided against narrowing the
In the SNPRM we proposed to permit already heen developed by FTSS with height and weight ranges proposed in
manufacturers to use human beings to support from various vehicle
the SNPRM. Since suppression systems
check suppression features in light of manufacturers.
Based
on
presentations
,,,ill ultimately
have
to
with
concerns that current dummiesmay not made to the agency, we believea
people, a system that can only detect the
be sufficiently human-like to he
prototype for the G-year-old child
presence of an individual withina
recognized by some of the advanced
dummy will soon follow. Since we have tightly prescribed
range would not
technologies under development.If a
not Yet hadanopportunitytostudyperformadequatelyinthe
realworld.
manufacturer selected this option, the these new dummies, weare unable to
suppression requirements would need
for
P. Small
Business
Concerns
comment
on
their
suitability
to be met at each of the relevant
suppression technologies. However,weAsdiscussedlaterintheRegulatory
positions for any human being withina
can note that the dummies currently
Flexibility Analysis section, the
specified weight/height range for 3-year- used in compliance tests were all
requirements contained in this final rule
old and 6-year-old children, and the air designed for use in crash tests, and
may have a significant impact ona
30732
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May
Federal R e g i s t e r / V o l . 65, N 9o 3. / F r i d a y ,
~
.~
. ..
~~~~~~~~~
~
12. 2000/
~
~
Rules and Regulations
~~~
~~~~~~~
~~~
~~~~
number of small businesses, including would not lead to
a permanent
such as the differences between
smallvolumemanufacturers,multi-resolution
of theproblemduetothe
convertibles and sedans.
stagemanufacturers,alterers,seatingtechnicalissuesinvolved.Bornemann
We note that sled testingis an
system suppliers, airbag sensor and
accepted engineering practice and
did not explain what those technical
component manufacturers, and dummy issues were nor did they explain to what
nothing precludes manufacturers from
manufacturers. Because today's rule will extent they could not he addressed
using sled testsas a basis for their
increase the demand for advanced air Bornemann
also did not discuss what
certification. We note, however, that
bag system technologyas well as
sled testing does not test
all of the
specific differences between existing
(e.g.,
andfutureairbagrequirementswould
attributes [such as weight sensing or
dummiesanddummyparts
accelerometers), we believe that today's create technical problems for them nor
presence sensing) of the
rule will have a positive effect on the did they discuss what specific advanced
countermeasures that may he used to
manufacturers of theseproducts,Weair
hagtechnologieswouldposethe
comply with the requirements oftoday's
expect that today's rule will have a more greatest problems for them.
rule.
In light of the statutorymandates
significantimpactonsmallvolumeTheCoalition
of SmallVolume
Automobile Manufacturers (COSVAM), contained in TEA 2 1 , the only
manufacturers, multi-stage
alternative available to address the
manufacturers, alterers, and seating
RVIA. and NTEA addressed the
concerns of small businessesis to
system
suppliers.
advanced
potential
new
air
impact
the
In the
preliminary
regulatory
hag
requirements
would
have
on small
increase the lead timefor small volume
manufacturers. multi-stam
flexibilityanalysisaccompanyingthevolumemanufacturers,multi-stage
o~
SNPRM, we estimated that the final rule manufacturers, and alterers.
A
manufacturers, and alterers. We note
would affect approximately 11 seating discussion of their specific comments
as that COSVAM, RVIA, and NTEA all
systems suppliers whichare small
well as our response to them is includedsupported such an extension. Further,
businesses. We explained that these
earlier in the section addressing the
while we recognize and are sympathetic
suppliers servea niche market and
to the technical challenges small
rule's phase-in re uirements.
estimated that they provide seats for less
We appreciate 1
8
,technical
volume manufacturers. multi-stage
thantwopercentofthevehicles.
We
challengessmallvolumemanufacturers,
manufacturers, and alterers willface as
explained that depending on the
multi-stage manufacturers, alterers, and a result of the requirements included in
technology chosen to meet the proposed seating system suppliers will face as a
today's rule, we emphasize that we have
advanced air bag rule,these suppliers result of the requirements included in
limited discretion as to how much lead
would need to keep up with emerging today's rule. Therefore, we have
time we can provide.TEA 2 1 provides
considered whether there were any
technology.
that if the phase-in begins on September
Bornemann Products Incorporated, a
alternatives available that could
1. 2003, the final rule must become fully
seating component manufacturer, stated simplify compliance for small
effective by September1, 2006. No
that 98 percent of its sales are to multi- businesses without adversely affecting exceptions are givenfor multi-stage
stage vehicle manufacturers who
manufacturers, alterers,or small volume
safety.
RVIA asked that we allow small
manufacturers
primarily manufacture individual,
custom vehicles. Bornemann stated that volume final stage manufacturers and
We acknowledge that there is no
this rule could completely eliminate the alterers to certify compliance witha
guarantee that this solution will
"niche" market of individual custom
generic sled test pulse. As explained
ultimately solve all the technical
vehicles. Bornemann stated that since
earlier in today's rule as well as in both
problems of small businesses. We have
original vehicle manufacturers will he
the NPRM and SNPRM, we do not
no control over when manufacturers
bring into compliance the vehicles they
a n adequate
reluctant to allow any changes to their consider sled testing to he
chassisthatcouldaffectthe
air baglong-termmeans
of assessingtheextent
supply to multi-stage manufacturers
system, this rule would have
a
a vehicle
of occupant protection that
during the phase-in period.In addition,
significantimpact an seating system and its air bag will provide occupants in
we have no control over the particular
vendors and their suppliers 1e.g.. fabric the real world. Unlike
a full scale
advanced air bag technology vehicle
and trim suppliers, polyurethane
vehicle crash test,a sled test does not,
manufacturers will use to comply with
and cannot, measure the actual
producers, etc.), multi-stage vehicle
the new requirements (e.g., whether the
manufacturers,vendorswhosupplyprotectionthatanoccupantwillreceive
system will incorporate the seat).
in a crash. The test can measure the
these manufacturers with items such as
Further. while we recognize that
carpet, steel and wood, and their
limited performance attributesof the air adapting to this technology may not he
employees.
bag, but not the performance provided
easy, it is necessary. Keeping pace with
Bornemann stated that NHTSA's
by the full air hag system, much
less the technology is not a new problem for
estimate of 11 seating companies was
cornhination of the vehicle and its
these manufacturers. Manufacturers
incorrect. that the number iscloser to 30 occupant crash protection system. It is
regularly incorporate new technology
and that these 3 0 businesses have close that combination that determines the
that improves the safetyof their vehicles
to $80,000,000in sales and employ
amount of protection actually received ( e . g . ,antilock brakes). However, to help
around 2,500 people. Bornemann also
in a crash. We also note that it would
minimize the economic impact of.this
estimated that the rule would have an
he inconsistent with the SafetyAct to
final rule on small businesses. we urge
impact on the following small
allow multi-stage manufacturers and
air hag suppliers. chassis manufacturers,
businesses: direct seating system
alterers to certify compliance with
a
and OEMs to provide these
vendors (130 firms and around 5.000
generic sled test pulse. Under the Safety manufacturers with as much
employees); multi-stage manufacturers
Act, we cannot base the applicability of engineering expertise as possible to help
[around 250 with approximately 14,000 our safety standards on the
them meet the new requirements, and to
circumstances of the manufacturer, such keep the overall impacts small.
employees); and vendors who supply
material for vehicles and seats [around
as whether a vehicle is manufactured in
We note that we are undertaking
550 vendors and around 18,000
one or more stages. Differences in the
efforts to address the needsof multiemployees). Bornemann also stated that applicability of standards must he based stage manufacturers, alterers, and the
a temporary exemption from therule
instead on differences between vehicles, businesses, such as Bornemann, that
~~
Federal Renister/Vol. 65, No. 9 3 / F r i d a v , Mav 1 2 , 20001Rules
and
Regulations
30733
supply them. We have established a
26, commenters from other accessible
inadequacies in the agency's October
sources. Data from NHTSA's National
Negotiated Rulemaking Committee to
1999 report summarizing those
Accident Sampling System [NASS) that
develop recommended amendments to materials. Air Bog Technology in Light
provides information about the "delta
the existing NHTSA regulations(49 CFR Passenger Vehicles [R&DReport).:'?
NHTSA disagrees with CAS' general
Vs" in actual crashes in which air
bags
Parts 567 and 568)governing the
certification of vehicles built in twoor
have deployed is publicly availableover
assertion that publiccommenters lack
more stages to the Federal motor vehicle sufficient information to participate
NHTSA's Website and is widely used.
adequately in this rulemaking. The
R&D In addition, information in publiclysafety standards. The purpose
of the
Report is a lengthy document,
amendments would be to assign
available reports prepared bySCI
consisting of a four-page Executive
provides delta-V information for crashes
certification responsibilities more
Summary, 37 pages of text and five
that have resulted in fatalities. These
equitably among the various
appendices, that incorporates six tables reports are publicly available and CAS
participants in the multi-stage vehicle
manufacturing process. The Committee and 31 figures. It describes and analyzes has discussed these materials with
in some detail, but in general terms that
specificity in Section IA and
will develop its recommendations
do not disclose the identitiesof
Attachment A of its comments.
through a negotiation process. It
manufacturers or vehicle makes/models, CAS' charges in sections IB and IC of
consists of persons who represent the
its comments with respect to alleged
interests that would be affected by any the technology (Section2 . 0 ) and trends
[Section 3.0) in airbag technology
absence from theR&D Report of detailed
such amendments. suchas first-stage.
during the 1990s. In addition. theR&D
air bag design information, suchas
intermediate and final-stage
Report describes out-of-position testing information with respect to the location
manufacturers of motor vehicles,
conducted by NHTSA o n MY 1996,
and mounting of air bags, folding
equipment manufacturers, vehicle
1998, and 1999 production vehicles
pattern details, and information about
converters. testing facilities, trade
[Section 4.1) and rigid barrier testingof
inflation stages is similarly flawed.
associations that represent various
Because NHTSA's standards are
manufacturing groups. and consumers. 13 MY 1998 and 1999 vehicles with
redesigned air bags (Section4.2). a n d
performance standards rather than
The Committee is addressing several
issues that should, when resolved, assistdiscusses evolving air bag fatality trends design standards. the agency has not
multi-stage manufacturers and alterers using data from NHTSA's Special Crash proposed specific designs in either the
NPRM or SNPRM. Thus, air bag design
in complying with today's requirements.Investigations (SCI) program (Section
5.0). The agency's conclusion that the
information at the level of detail desired
Such issues include,for example: the
R&D Report provides commenters with by CAS is not necessary in order to
feasibility and cost effectivenessof
ample information on which base
to
comment intelligently on the SNPRM.
alternate methods 1e.g.. testing,
their comments is home out by the
Moreover, contrary to CAS' description,
computer modeling, or other as-yetspecificity and sophistication o l t h e
the R&D Report does contain
unspecified methods) to ensure
considerable design informatian. See,
compliance of completed vehicles with comments submitted by CAS.
NHTSA also disagrees with CAS'
e+., section 3.1 [Trend Analysis) and
requirements of applicable FMVSSs;
mechanisms for incorporating alternate more specific assertion that the absence Appendix A, which includes45 pages
of a discussionof air bag deployment
of detailed charts and graphs.
methods of ensuring compliance into
thresholds in theR&D Report has
CAS also has objected to the
these regulations; mechanisms for
inhibited comments on the SNPRM
withholding of the manufacturers' crash
sharing costs of testing; and
requirements tailored to the capabilities [CAS Comment,Section IA). Neither the test performance data (other than data
SNPRM nor the NPRM on advanced air concerning testing performed pursuant
and circumstances of each class of
hags proposed to seta minimum
to the requirements of Standard
No.
vehicles.
deployment threshold limit.
2061. Again, this data has been subject
Q. Oiher Issues
Furthermore. we did not receive
to litigation between CAS and the
1 . Ability to Comment Effectivelyan the information indicating that the vehicle agency. But, in theR&D Report, at
manufacturers changed their
section 4 and Appendix D, NHTSA has
Supplemental Proposal
deployment thresholds in response to
provided the public with data from
The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) has the agency's March,1997 sled test rule. agency testing ona variety of vehicles
asserted in section 1 of its unpaginated, Thus. commenters do not require
using 5th percentile adult female
electronically-filed December 30,1999
specific information about deployment dummies. CAS is obviously awareof
comments that the agency has engaged thresholds in order to present argumentsthese data; it has cited and discussed
in an "information blackout" that has
in response to the SNPRM, and the
them in its comments.
hampered the ability of
CAS and others deployment threshold issue is not
2. Resubmittal of Petition for
to understand and comment effectively directly relevant to this rulemaking
Rulemaking by Donald Friedman and
on the SNPRM. In support of this
action. Moreover, assuming that
Carl Nash
assertion, CAS has cited both NHTSA's
commenters wish to discuss
refusal to disclose materials submitted
In a joint comment. Carl Nash and
deployment thresholds, data on this
with claims of confidentiality by the
Donald Friedman stated that they
subject are readily available to
motor vehicle manufacturers in
believe that attempting to regulateall
response to the agency's December
17.
aspects of air hags may be
1997 requests for information
counterproductive. They also argued
concerning air hag technology in MY
that setting a minimum threshold of
199Ll-1998 light passenger vehicles
approximately 29 kmih (18 mph) and
[information requests)"' and alleged
prohibiting late deployments would
most protect vehicle occupants. We did
not propose to seta minimum threshold
as part ofthis rulemaking. Accordingly,
adding such arequirement to the final
rule would he outside of the scopeof
Federal RegisteriVol. 6 5 , No. 93IFriday. May 12, Zoooi
30734
~~~
~~
~~
~.
.
~
~
~~
~~~~~
the rulemaking. However. weare
crashes. as well as from tests that
systems could prevent up to252 injuries
requiring that manufacturers meet a low improve the overall effectiveness of air
when combined with a weight sensor.
risk deployment test for drivers and for
bags in high speed crashes. The intent
There is some question about the
reliability of suppression and low risk
small children if the air bag does not
of this rulemaking is to minimize risks
deployment countermeasures and
suppress. We believe that these
caused by air bags to out-of-position
further development of these
requirementswilladequatelyprotectoccupants,especiallyinfantsand
most individuals who could he
countermeasures is necessary. To the
children, and to improve occupant
extent that these systems are notas
seriously injured or killed with current protection provided by air
bags for
air bags. Likewise, we are requiring
reliable as assumed. children and small
belted and uobelted occupants of
all
adults would continue to heat risk.
manufacturers to meet the applicable sizes. To achieve these goals, we are
Even if suppression and low risk
injury criteria in a 4 0 kmih I25 mphl requiring vehicles to meet test
deployment technologies are completely
scope
offset deformable barrier crash test. As procedures that broaden the
explained earlier inthisdocument,thatcurrentstandardtothat
reliable, there will remain some out-oftest is designed to prevent the late
occupants are properly protected under position individuals subject to thef u l l
force of the airbag under certain
deploymentstowhichFriedmanandawidervarietvofcrashcircumstances.
Nash object.
circumstances. The risks to out-ofThe riskof injury from airbags arises
In the SNPRM, we denieda petition
position individuals could be greater
when occupants are too close to theair
by Mr. Friedman and Mr. Nash that
with an air bag designed to providea 4 8
bag when it inflates. Generally. those
would have required manufacturers to most at risk from injuryare infants,
kmih (30mph) unbelted performance
develop systems that would further
compared to an air bag designed to
young children, and out-of-position
encourage vehicle occupants to use their drivers. We estimate that in a fleet fully provide 4 0 kmih ( 2 5 mph] unbelted
safety belts. In denying the petition, the equipped with pre-model year [MY)
performance.
agency stated that it does not have the 1998 air bags, there would he4 6 drivers,
The FEA also analyzes three
legal authority to require such
alternative sets of high speed tests
1 8 infants, 105 children, and 18 adult
technology, although we are not
instituted to preserve and enhance air
passengers at risk ofbeing killed
by air
discouraging manufacturers from
bag protection. Each test includes belted
bags annually because they were out
of
voluntarily using such technology. The position when the airbag deployed in
and uobelted frontal rigid barrier tests
basis for our rationale is an amendment
low speed [<25mph delta-v) crashes. We using 5th percentile adult female and
made to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act in also estimate that if all vehicles had air
50th percentile adult male crash
1974 after NHTSA had amended its
dummies,
30 degree oblique tests intoa
hags. 38 drivers, 9 infants, 200 children,
occupant protection standard to require
rigid barrier using uobelted 50th
and 15 adult passengers would sustain
vehicle manufacturersof vehicles
percentile adult male dummies, and4 0
serious to critical [MAIS 3-51 nonfatal
equipped with manual seat belts.
percent
offset frontal deformable harrier
injury because they were out
of position
instead of automatic protection, to
tests using 5th percentile adult female
in
low
severity
crashes.
A
variety
of
install inducements for belt use. These
dummies. Alternative 1 would require
inducements were either interlocks that technologies could be used to prevent
an unbelted 32 to 40 kmih (20 to 25
prevented one from driving the vehicle these deaths and serious injuries.
mph) frontal rigid harrier test, while
or
presence
sensors
to
including
weight
unless the safety belt was usedor
Alternative 2 would require an unbelted
buzzers that sounded continuously until suppress the airbag, multi-stage
32 to 4 8 kmih (20 to 30 mph) frontal
inflators, and low risk deployment air rigid harrier test. Both alternatives
the safety belts were attached.
Friedman and Nash have resubmitted bags.
would require a belted 0 to 4 8 km/h [O
their petition in response to the SNPRM. To address these concerns. the new to 30 mph) frontal rigid barrier test,
suppression and low risk deployment
As noted in the SNPRM, we do not
Alternative 3 would require an unbelted
believe we currently have the statutory tests employ crash dummies
32 to 4 0 kmih (20 to 25 mph) frontal
representing
infants.
3-year-old
authority to require such devices. Nor
rigid harrier test, but would requirea
do we believe that requiring any device children, 6-year-old children, and 5th
belted 0 to 56 kmih (0 to 35 mph)
percentile female drivers. These tests
that is not a buzzer or an interlockis
frontal rigid barrier test for the 50th
generally require either that the air bag percentile adult male dummies anda
within our authority, given the1974
be suppressed if certain risk conditions belted 0 to 4 8 kmih (0to 30 mph)
amendment. Accordingly. we are
exist or that deployments occur at levels frontal rigid barrier testfor the 5th
denying their resuhmission.
that produce a low probability of injury percentile adult female dummies.
Nevertheless, we agree with Mr.
risk.
Friedman and Mr. Nash that in the
Chapter I of the FEA provides the detail
O f t h e 187 potential at-risk fatalities.
twenty-five years since that amendment
of the alternative setsof high speed
NHTSA estimates that suppression
was enacted, patternsof safety belt
tests.
technologies could prevent up to
93
A variety of technologies could be
usage have changed considerably. We
fatalities. low-risk airbags could
used to comply with these tests
are planning to monitor the levelof
prevent up to154 fatalities, and multiincluding modified air bag fold patterns,
public acceptance and effectivenessof
systems that manufacturers are placing stage inflation systems could preventu p improved inflators, added sensors,
multi-stage inflators. and pretensioners.
in their vehicles to encourage seat belt to 179 fatalities when combined with
weight sensors used to suppress the air Air bag systems designed to comply
use. If it appears that these systemsare
with the 40 kmih (25 mph) offset test
working, it may be appropriate to seek bag. Thus, more than95 percent of the
at-risk population in low speed
would, over the lifetimeof one model
tD have the 1974 amendment either
deployments could be protected by
year's production, save 20-28 more
changed or repealed.
technologies used to meet the test
lives and prevent134-262 more
XIV. Benefits and Costs
requirements. Of the 262 serious but
nonfatal injuries than the pre-MY 1998
The Final Economic Assessment
nonfatal injuries, suppression
baseline vehicles. Systems designed to
[FEA) provides analysesof the safety
technologies could prevent 151 injuries, the 4 8 kmih (30 mph) tests with the 5th
benefits from tests that reduce the risk low-risk air bags could prevent 191
percentile female dummy woulds a w 23
of injury from air bags in low-speed
injuries, and multi-stage inflation
more lives ( 4 belted and 1 9 unbelted)
F e d e r aRle g i s t e r i V o l .
~~~~~
~
~~~~~
~
65, No. 9 3 i F r i d a yM, a y
~.
1 2 , 2 0 0 0 i R u I easnRde g u l a t i o n s
~
~
~~
30735
.~
and prevent 184 more nonfatal injuries compared to vehicles designed with 4 0
Compliance methods that involve the
(43 belted and 141 unhelted). Systems
kmlh I25 mph) air bags. These point
use of suppression technology have the
that meet the56 kmih (35 mph) rigid
estimates do not necessarily define the potential to produce significant property
harrier test with the belted 50th
full range of possible outcomes due to damage cost savings because they
percentile male dummies would save
uncertainty regarding bath data and
prevent air hags from deploying
from 0 4 more lives and prevent 256 to
assumptions under each method.
unnecessarily. This saves repair costs to
Even assuming a worst case scenario. replace the passenger side air bag, and
486 more nonfatal injuries.,
Estimates of the re atlve nnpact of the each of the three alternatives provide
frequently to replace windshields
unbelted high speed tests are subject to more potential benefits than the existing damaged by the air hag deployment.
a degree of uncertainty for several
4 8 kmih I30 mph) generic sled test.We
Property damage savings from these
reasons, not the leastof which is the fact estimate that the generic sled test
is
requirements could total up to585 over
that no vehicles were ever subject ato
roughly equivalent toa 35 kmih (22
the lifetimeof an average vehicle. This
4 0 kmih (25 mph) unbelted standard.
mph) rigid harrier perpendicular crash. amounts to a potential cost savings of
We cannot estimate the most likely
During the 1997 rulemaking. we looked $1.3 hillion
.~
difference between setting the unhelted at the relative safety consequences
of a n
tests at the two different levels, because airbaf:designedtoiustmeetthe
XV. RulemakingAnalysesandNotices
it depends on how the manufacturers
performance requirkments associated
A . Executive Order 12866 a n d DOT
would meet the alternative performance with a 4 8 kmih (30 mph) generic sled
Regulofory Policies and Procedures
requirements.
test. We estimated the fatality impacts of
-NHTSA
has considered the
We have discussed in detail our
designing a vehicle to minimally meet
reasons for believing that it is unlikely the performance requirements imposed impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866 and the
that vehicle manufacturers will
by the 4 8 kmih (30 mph) generic sled
Department of Transportation's
significantly depower their airbags
test and have compared these to the
compared to the MY 1998-2000 fleet.
fatality impacts of designing a vehicle to regulatory policies and procedures. This
rulemaking document is economically
Vehicle manufacturers have not
just meet the4 0 kmih (25 mph)
significant and was reviewed by the
depowered their air bags so much that
unbelted rigid barrier test. Assuming
Office of Management and Budget under
they minimally comply with the sled
there is no impact on air
hag size. air
E.O. 12866, "Regulatory Planning and
test. Crash tests and field experience to bags designed to the4 0 kmih ( 2 5 mph)
date with vehicles certified to the sled unhelted rigid harrier test wouldsave 64 Review." The rulemaking action has
test have indicated that there has not
to 144 more lives than air hags designed also been determined to be significant
been a loss of frontal crash protection
to the generic sled test. Assuming air under the Department's regulatory
policies and procedures. NHTSA is
compared to pre-MY 1998 vehicles. If,
hags designed to the generic sled test
a Final
would be reduced in size and therefore placing in the public docket
as we expect, the manufacturers keep
Economic Assessment (FEA) describing
provide no benefit in partial frontal
the same level of power as they
of this rulemaking
impacts, 282 to 308 more lives could be the costs and benefits
currently have in MY 1998-2000, even
saved by air bags designed to the4 0 kmi action. The costs and benefits are
with a 4 0 kmih ( 2 5 mph) unhelted test
summarized earlier in this document.
requirement. then the difference in
h (25 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test
because that test requirement includes
actual benefits between the two test
B. Regulafory Flexibilify Act
testing vehicles ata 3 0 degree oblique
speeds would be smallor even
We have considered the effects of this
angle, thus providing benefits in partial
eliminated.
rulemaking action under theRegulatory
At the same time, we cannot rule out frontal im acts
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)We
Potentia? compliance costs for the
the possibility that air hags will be
have prepared a Regulatory Flexibility
significantly depowered. To account for final rule vary considerably and are
Analysis [RFA). which is part of the
dependent upon the method chosenby
this possibility. we calculateda "worst
case" scenario comparing the benefits at manufacturers to comply. Methods such FEA. The RFA concludes that the final
rule could have a significant, short-term
the minimum performance requirements as modified fold patterns and inflator
economic impact on a substantial
adjustments can he accomplished for
of each speed. We derived paint
number of small businesses, but the
estimates using two different methods little or no cost. More sophisticated
solutions suchas proximity sensors can economic impact on a substantid
and different sets of assumptions. We
number of small businesses need not be
increase costs significantly. Dynamic
estimate that vehicles designed with 48
presence sensors are not available at this significant in the long run. Small
kmih ( 3 0 mph) airhags could provide
organizations and small governmental
point in time. They have not been
229 or 394 more lives saved than
refined to the point that they are in use units will not be significantly affected
vehicles designed with minimally
in vehicles andare not required by tests since the potential cost impacts
compliant 4 0 kmih (25 mph) air bags.
in any Alternative. However, they have associated with this rule should only
However, wealso estimate that 4 8 kmi
the potential to providemore benefits
slightly affect the priceof new motor
h (30 mph) air bags could result in an
on the passenger side than weight
vehicles.
additional 1.345 serious injuries :I:<
sensors or low risk air bags. Dynamic
The rule will directly affect motor
presence sensors could he used by
vehicle manufacturers, second-stage or
":'The IOES a@,rorrivr ~ingic-slagcair hag tho1 can
manufacturers to meet the test
ho dcrigncd to B 4u kmlh I25 mphl uaboltc~rltrst
final-stage manufacturers, and alterers;
Cd" TPSYIt I" frwcr 011 bug c:""~cd i " , U i C S n, I"\"
requirements in thefuture. As such. the and indirectly affect air bag
~ p o d than
r
i n air bog dciignsrl tu n 48 h i h (3"
cost and benefitsof these systems h a w
manufacturers. seating system
mphl unbolkd lust. Thus. singlc~slugo
air hngs
been estimated. The rangeof potential
manufacturers. and dummy
dcslgncd Io B 4n kmlh 13u mphl unboltad 1cs1 cam
costs for the compliance scenarios
prcvent m o m falaliticr. whilo singlo-slrgc sir bags
manufacturers.
dcrignarl lo r 4 0 h l h I 2 5 mphl unbclfcd t w 1 r.m
examined in this analysisis $21-$128
There are approximately five main
prcvmt morr in~urios.
M ~ I t i - s I ~ air
g o bags nrr
(1997 dollars). This amounts suppliers of air hag systems. The agency
per
vehicle
B B S U t u~ ProYldC
~
the
1 ~ of bcnous
~ ~ 1
to a total potential annual cost of up to does not believe that anyare small
during tho first slagc. wholhcr lhc so~ond
h c a g c is
$2 billion, based on 15.5 million vehicle businesses. In addition, we believe that
dcrlgncd torn 411 h l h I25 mphl unhollcd f c s l or
s 48 h i h 130 mphl unbcl~odt ~ s l .
sales per year.
there may he some second and third tier
~
~
Executive Order 13132 and has
manufacturers of components of air hags NTEA supported the proposal to
allow multi-stage produced vehicles to determined that it does not have
or air hag sensors that are small
of the phase-in
sufficient federalism implications to
businesses. We do not believe. however he phased in at the end
period. NTEA requested that the phase- warrant consultation with State and
that there isa substantial number of
them. Since today's rule will increase in period run from September1, 2003 to local officials or the preparation ofa
the demand for air hag systems and
September 1, 2006.
federalism summary impact statement.
In the initial regulatory flexibility
advanced air hag system technology, we
The final rule has no substantial effects
analysis, we stated that we knew
of 11
believe that today'srule will have a
on the States, or on the current Federalpositive effect on air bag manufacturers businesses that supply seating systems State relationship, or on the current
to van converters and others and that distribution of power and
and an second and third tier
are small businesses.In addition, there
manufacturers of air hag components.
responsibilities among the various local
are about 10 suppliers of seating
There are several manufacturers of
officials.
dummies andlor dummy parts. All of systems that are not small businesses.
E. Unfundedbfondate ReJorm Act
them are considered small businesses. The small businesses servea niche
While the rule will not impose any
market and provide seats farless than
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
requirements on these manufacturers,
two percent of vehicles. Depending on
we expect it will havea positive impact the technology manufacturers choose to of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a
written assessment of the costs, benefits
on these typesof small businesses by
meet the advanced airhag final rule.
and other effects of proposed or final
increasing demand for dummies and/or these suppliers will have to keep up
rules that include a Federal mandate
dummy parts (e+., accelerometers).
with the technolog
by
Bornemann Pro&cts Incorporated is a likely to resultin the expenditure
For passenger car and light truck
State. local or tribal governments, in the
manufacturers, we estimate that there small business that provides seating
are only about four small manufacturers components to second- and final-stage aggregate, or by the private sector,of
(SVMs) in the United States.We believe nlanufacturers and alterers. Bornemann more than $100 million annually
of
that these manufacturers. which serve a argued that the cost per vehicle and the (adjusted for inflation with base year
1995). This rule will not have a
niche market, do not manufacture even impact on small businesses could he
0.1percent of total U.S. passenger car
significant. Bornemann stated that this
significant expenditure of funds by
and light truck production per year. We rule could have a significant impact on State. local and tribal governments.
note that these manufacturers are
the industry that supplies the "niche" However, the cost of the Rule will
exceed the expenditure ofover $100
already required to certify compliance
market of individual custom vehicles.
million by the private sector. Rather
to Standard No. 208's air hag
Bornemann's concerns have been
than requiring a specific technology,
requirements under ISTEA. In the past, addressed extensively earlier in this
many of these manufacturers have
document. W e refer the reader to that this rule allows manufacturers to certify
petitioned for temporary relief from the discussion. Additional information
compliance with the advanced air
hag
air hag requirements on the basis of
requirements through a combination of
concerning the oroiected imoacts of
economic hardship.We anticipate that today's rule on small entities is
several different technologies. Some of
these manufacturers will encounter
theses technologies, such asa dynamic
presented in theFEA.
difficulty certifying compliance with the We believe that second- and final
suppression system, may he quite
requirements being added to Standard
stage manufacturers and alterers will
expensive. Other technologies, suchas a
No. 208 h today's rule.
choose to certify compliance in oneof
weight sensor, are relatively cheap. The
In an e&t to address the needs of
two ways. They will either(1) rely on
decision as to which technology to place
these SVMs, wehave decided to allow
suppliers to provide them with the samein a particular vehicle rests with the
them to wait until the endof the phase- technology (weight sensing, seat track
manufacturer of that vehicle. A full
in to meet the requirements oftoday's
sensing. etc.) provided to theOEM
assessment of the Rule's costs and
rule. This will give SVMs more time to manufacturers or (21 purchase the full
benefits is provided in the FRA
perform the engineering analysis and
seat from the OEM and, leaving the
F.Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice
generate the compliance data needed to technology in place, re-upholster the
Reform]
comply with today's rule. Since the
seat. If they rely on manufacturersto
requirements in today's rule will
supply them with the same technology, This final rule does not have any
enhance the safetyof vehicles and air
there will be a cost associated with
bags for infants, children, small-statured installing the technology in the seat andretroactive effect. Under section 49
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor
adults and both belted and unhelted
assuring compliance1e.g..static testing) vehicle safety standard is in effect, a
occupants, we believe any delays in
if they cannot pass through the
state may not adoptor maintain a safety
compliance should he granted in the
supplier's certification. There will also
standard applicable to the same aspect
narrowest of circumstances only. We
he costs associated with certifying
of performance which is notidentical to
are. therefore. limiting this option to
compliance with therigid harrier test.
the Federal standard, exceptto the
manufacturers which produce fewer
extent that the state requirement
than 5,000 vehicles per year worldwide. C. Notional Environmental PolicyA d
imposes a higher levelof performance
RVIA asked that final-stage
NHTSA has analyzed this proposed
and applies only to vehicles procured
manufacturers he givena one-year
amendment for the purposes of the
extension after the endof the phase-in
National Environmental Policy Act and for the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets
forth a procedure for judicial reviewof
for large manufacturers.KVIA stated
determined that it will not have any
that guidance from incomplete vehicle significant impact on the quality of the final rules establishing, amending or
revoking Federal motor vehicle safety
manufacturers is generally not available human environment.
standards. That section does not require
until at or very near the startup of new
submission of a petition for
or updated model production and that, D.Executive Order 13132 (Federalism]
reconsideration or other administrative
therefore, final stage manufacturers will
The agency has analyzed this
proceedings before parties may file suit
need at least one additional year to meet rulemaking in accordance with the
requirements.
new
the
principles
criteria
and
contained
in
court
in
~
.
I
phase-in. Once the initial phase-in is
approximately 15,500,000vehicles per
G. Paperwork Reduction Aci
complete, much of the complexity will
In its November 5, 1999 supplemental year. The label will he placed on each
disappear. At that time, it would be
rule,
notice of proposed rulemaking, NHTSA vehicle once. Since, in this final
appropriate to completely revise
sought public comment on its estimates NHTSA specifies the exact content of
Standard No. 208 to remove any
the
labels,
the
manufacturers
will
spend
of the additional collection of
0 hours developing the labels. NHTSA options. requirements, and
information burden imposed on the
estimates the technical burden time
differentiations as to vehicle class that
public as a result of this rulemaking.
(time
required
for
affixing
labels)
to
he
are
no longer applicable.
NHTSA received no comments on the
,0002 hours per label. NHTSA estimates
collection of information issues.
1.
Executive
Order 13045
This final rule includes the following that the total annual burden imposed on
the
public
as
a
result
of
the
air
bag
Executive
Order 13045 162 FR 19885,
"collections of information,'' as that
warning labels will he3,100hours (15.5 April 23,1997) applies to any rule that
term is defined in 5 CFR Part 1320
million vehicles multiplied by.0(102
(1)is determined to he "economically
Controlling Paperwork Burdenson the
significant" as defined under E.O.
hours per label). Since the labels
Public:
specified in this final rule replace
12866, and (21 concerns an
Air Bag Phase-In Reporting
existing labels, no additional burden is environmental, health or safety risk that
Requiremenis-For the six production
imposed on manufacturers.
NHTSA has reason to believe may have
years ending on August31, 2003,
Advanced Air Bag Information in the a disproportionate effect on children. If
August 31,2004, August 3 1 , 2005,
Owner's Manuol-This final rule
the regulatory action meets both criteria.
August 3 1 . 2007, August 31, 2008, and
requires advanced air hag information in we must evaluate the environmental
August 31, 2009, each manufacturer will the owner's manual that is in addition
health or safety effects of the planned
be required to report once
a year to
to the information already required
rule on children, and explain why the
NHTSA, its annual production of
under Standard No. 208. At present,
planned regulation is preferable to other
vehicles with advanced air hags. As
OMB has approved NHTSA's collection potentially effective and reasonably
previously explained, thereporting for
of owner's manual requirements under feasible alternatives considered by us.
the initial phase-in periodwill end with OMB clearance no. 2127-0541
This rulemaking directly involves
the information for the production year
Consolidafedlusiificationof Owner's
decisions
based onhealth risks that
ending on August 31,2005 and the
Manuol Requiremenisfor Motor
reporting for the second phase-in will Vehicles ondMator Vehicle Equipment. disproportionately affect children,
namely. the risk of deploying air bags to
end with the information for the
This collection includes the burdens
children. However. this rulemaking
production year ending on August 31,
that would be imposedas a result of
serves to reduce, rather than increase,
2009. The Office of Management and
owners' manual information about air
that
risk.
Budget has approved NHTSA's
hags. This clearance will expirea n
collection of this information, assigning 10/31/2001 and is cleared for 1.371
K . Naiional Technology Transfera n d
the collection OMB clearance no.2127Advancement Act
burden hours a year on all vehicle
0599. NHTSA estimates that 1,260
manufacturers.
Section 12(d)of the National
burden hours a year (on all vehicle
Technology Transfer and Advancement
H . Regulotion Identifier Number IRINI
manufacturers) would he imposedas a
Act [NTTAA) requires NHTSA to
result of this collection.
The Department of Transportation
evaluate and use existing voluntary
Since today's rulespecifies a second
assigns a regulation identifier number consensus standards" in its regulatory
will
ask
OMB
to
(RIN)
to
each
regulatory
action
listed
in
phase-in period. we
activities unless doingso would he
extend clearance no. 2127-0599 for the the Unified Agendaof Federal
inconsistent
with applicable law 1e.g..
additional period of time that the
Regulations. The Regulatory Information the statutory provisions regarding
second phase-in period will last.OMB
Service Center publishes the Unified
NHTSA's vehicle safety authority)or
grants extensions of collections for no
Agenda in April and October of each otherwise impractical. In meeting that
more than threeyears at a time. We d o
year. You mayuse the RIN contained in requirement, we are required to consult
not believe that future phase-in report the heading at the beginning
of this
with voluntary, private sector.
collections will result in burdens on the document to find this action in the
consensus standards bodies. Examples
public of more than 1,260 burden hoursUnified Agenda.
of organizations generally regarded as
(on all vehicle manufacturers) a year.
voluntary consensus standards bodies
Air Bag Warning Labels-New air hag I. Plain Language
include the American Society
for
Executive Order 12866 and the
warning labels are specified in this final
Testing
and
Materials
(ASTM),
the
President's memorandum of June1,
rule. At present, OMB has approved
1998, require each agency to write all Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE),
NHTSA's collection of labeling
and the American National Standards
requirements under OM9 clearance no. rules in plain language. Standard No.
Institute [ANSI).If NHTSA does not use
208 is extremely difficult to readas it
2127-0512, ConsolidotedLabeling
contains multiple cross-references and available and potentially applicable
Requirements for Motor Vehicles
voluntary consensus standards, we are
has retained all of the requirements
(Except the Vehicle Identification
required by the Act to provide Congress,
Number]. This clearance will expire on applicable to vehicleof different classes
through OMB. an explanation of the
at different times. Because portions of
6/30/2001. and is cleared for71,095
reasons for not using such standards.
today's
rule
amend
existing
text,
much
burden hours on the public.
of that complexity remains.
For the following reasons. NHTSA
.'*Volunt;liy C O ~ S O ~ S UsEt i l n ~ l i ~Y ~~ dtochnimi
O~
estimates that the new air hag warning Additionally, the availability of
slundsrdn 'Is"olopcd or alane.
dummy's thighs andlegs begins to
change.
pants. A size 7 1I2W shoe which meets
S 1 6 . 3 . 1 . 2The dummy's neck bracket
5 1 6 . 3 . 2 . 1 . 7Gently rock the upper
the configuration and size specifications is adjusted to align the zero deEree
.
torso relative to the lower torso laterally
of MIL-S-2171lE (see S4.7) or its
index marks.
in a side to side motion three times
equivalent is placed on each foot of the
5 1 6 . 3 . 1 . 3The term "midsagittal
test dummy.
through a 5 degree arc (approximately
d a n e " refers to the vertical &ne that
S16.2.6 Limb joints are set at oneg.
separates the dummy into equal loft and5 1 mm (2 in) side to side) to reduce
barely restraining the weight of the limbright halves.
friction between the dummy and the
when extended horizontally.Leg joints
seat.
5 1 6 . 3 . 1 . 4The term "vertical
S16.3.2.1.6Before proceeding,
are adjusted with the torso in the supine longitudinal plane" refers to a vertical
attempt to return the seat to the full
position.
plane parallelto the vehicle's
forward position i f it has been moved
516.2.7 Instrumentation shall not
longitudinal centerline.
affect the motion of dummies during
from that location as specified in
516.3.1.5 The term "vertical plane''
impact.
refers to a vertical plane, not necessarily S 1 6 . 3 . 2 . 1 . 2 .If. at any step during the
516.2.8 The stabilized temperature of parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal
seating procedure, a dummy leg
the dummv is at anv level between
2n.fiD centerline.
contacts the vehicle interior. position
C and 22.;" C G9O ito 72'F).
S 1 6 . 3 . 1 . 6The term "transverse
the seat at the next detent where there
S16.2.9 Steering wheeladjustment.
instrumentation platform" refers to the
is no contact. If the seat is a power seat,
S16.2.9.1 Adjust a tiltable steering
position the seat to avoid contact while
transverse instrumentation surface
wheel, if possible, so that the steering
assuring that there is a maximum of 5
inside the dummy's skull casting to
wheel hub is at the eeometric centerof which the neck load cell mounts. This mm (0.2 in) distance between the
its full rangeof dri&g positions.
vehicle interior and the point on the
surface is perpendicular to the skull
S16.2.9.2 lfthere is no setting detent cap's machined inferior-superior
dummy that wouldfirst contact the
at the mid position, lower the steering mounting surface.
vehicle interior.
wheel to the detentjust helow the mid
S 1 6 . 3 . 1 . 7 .The term "thigh" refers to
S 1 6 . 3 . 2 . 1 . 9While holding the thighs
position.
the femur between, hut not including, in place, rotate the seat back forward
S16.2.9.3 If the steering columnis
the knee and the pelvis.
until the transverse instrumentation
telescoping, place the steering column
S 1 6 . 3 . 1 . 8The term "leg" refers to the platform of the head is level to within
in the mid position.If there is no mid
lower part of the entireleg including the -t 0.5 degrees, making sure that the
position, move the steering wheel
knee.
pelvis does not interfere with the seat
~
~~~~
~~~
_+
~~~
~
~~
~~~
~~
Federal RegisterIVol. 65, No. 9 3 / F r i d a yM, a y
-
30753
12, 20001Rules
and
Regulations
~~~
~~~~
~
~~
position, leave the pedal in that
distance from the vehicle's longitudinal
position.
centerline as the midsagittal planeof the
S16.3.2.3.2If the ball of the foot does
driver dummy.
not contact the pedal, change the angle S 1 6 . 3 . 3 . 1 . 5Hold the dummy's thighs
of the foot relative to the leg such that
down and push rearward on the upper
the toe of the foot contacts the
torso to maximize the dummy's pelvic
undepressed accelerator pedal.
angle.
S16.3.2.3.3Place the left foot on the
S16.3.3.1.6Place the legs at 9 0
toe board with the rearmost point of the degrees to the thighs. Push rearward on
heel resting on the floor panas close as
the dummy's knees toforce the pelvis
possible to the pointof intersection of
into the seatso there is no gap between
the toe hoard and the floor pan.
the pelvis and the seat hackor until
S16.3.2.3.4If the left foot cannot he
contact occurs between the hack of the
positioned on the toe hoard, place the dummy's calves and the front
of the seat
foot flat on the floor pan as far forward
cushion such that the angle between the
as possible.
dummy's thighs and legs begins to
516.3.2.3.5If the left foot does not
S16.3.2.1.9andS16.3.2.1.10.
change.
contact thefloor pan, place the foot
S16.3.2.1.12.If the transverse
516.3.3.1.7Gently rock the upper
parallel to the floor and place theleg as torso relative to thelower torso laterally
instrumentation platform of the head is
still not level, adjust the seat hack angleperpendicular to the thi has possible.
a t5
side to side three times through
S16.3.2.4Driver arm/ and
to minimize the angle as much as
degree arc (approximately 51 mm (2 in)
posiijoning.
possible.
side to side).
S16.3.2.4.1Place the dummy's upper
5 1 6 . 3 . 2 . 1 . 1 3In vehicles with a fixed
S 1 6 . 3 . 3 . 1 . 8Before proceeding,
seat back, adjust the lower neck bracket arms adjacent to the torso with the armattempt to retnrn the seat to the full
centerlines as close to verticalas
to level the headas much as oossible.
forward position if it has been moved
possible.
S16.3.2.2Driver fhighlkneelleg
from that location as specified in
S16.3.2.4.2Place the palmsof the
positioning.
S16.3.3.1.2.If, at any step during the
dummy in contact with the outer
part of
seating procedure.a dummy leg
S16.3.2.2.1Rest the dummy's thighs
the steering wheel rim at its horizontal
against
the seat cushion to thk extent
"
centerline with the thumbs inside the contacts the vehicle interior. position
the seat at the detent where there
permitted by the placementof the feet
is no
steering wheel rim.
contact. If the seats are power seats,
in S16.3.2.3.
5 1 6 . 3 . 2 . 4 . 3If it is not possible to
position the seat to avoid contact while
S 1 6 . 3 . 2 . 2 . 2Set the initial transverse
position the thumbsinside the steering assuring that thereis a maximum of 5
distance between the longitudinal
wheel rim at its horizontal centerline,
mm (0.2 in) distance between the
centerline of the dummy's kneesat 160
then position them above andas close
to 170 mm ( 6 . 3 to 6.7 in), with the
vehicle interior and the point on the
to the horizontal centerline ofthe
thighs and legs of the dummy in vertical steering wheel rim as possible.
dummy that wouldfirst contact the
planes.
S16.3.2.4.4Lightly tape the hands to vehicle interior.
S16.3.2.2.3.If either knee of the
S 1 6 . 3 . 3 . 1 . 9While holding the thighs
the steering wheel rimso that if the
dummy contacts the vehicle interior,
in
place, rotate the seat hack forward
hand of the test dummyis pushed
until the transverse instrumentation
move the seat rearward to the
next
upward by a force of not less than 9 N
detent that provides clearance.If the
(2 Ih) and not more than2 2 N (5 lh), the platform of the head is level to within
seat is a power seat, move the seat
tape releases the hand from the steering ? 0.5 degrees, making sure that the
pelvis does not interfere with the seat
a
rearward. while assuring that there is
wheel rim.
maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) distance
bight. In addition, inspect the abdomen
S16.3.3 Passenger dummy
to insure thatit is properly installed.
between the vehicle interior and the
positioning.
dummy knee closest to the vehicle
S 1 6 . 3 . 3 . 1 . 1 0If it is not possible to
S 1 6 . 3 . 3 . 1Possengertorso/head/sent
interior.
orient the head level withint 0 . 5
back angle positioning.
5 1 6 . 3 . 2 . 3Driverfaoiposifioning.
S16.3.3.1.1Fullyrecline the seat back, degrees, minimize the angle.
S 1 6 . 3 . 2 . 3 . 1If the vehicle has an
S16.3.3.1.11Measure and set the
if adjustable.
adjustable accelerator pedal, adjustit to
dummy's pelvic angle using the pelvic
S16.3.3.1.2Place the dummyin the
the full forward position. Rest the right
passenger's seat. If necessary, move the angle gage [drawingTE-2504,
foot of the test dummy on the
incorporated by reference in 49 CFR
seat rearward to facilitate dummy
undepressed accelerator pedal with the installation. If the seat cushion angle
Part 5 7 2 , Subpart 0, of this chapter).
The angle shall he set to 20.0 degrees
rearmost point o f t h s heel on the floor
automatically changesas the seat is
2.5 degrees. If this is not possible, adjust
pan in the plane of the pedal. If the foot moved from thefull forward position,
cannot he placed on the accelerator
the pelvic angle as close to 20.0 degrees
restore the correct seat cushion angle
as possible while keeping the transverse
pedal, set it initially perpendicular to when measuring the pelvic angle in
instrumentation olatform of the head as
the lower leg and then place itas far
S16.3.3.1.11.
forward as possible in the directionof
level as possible as specified in
S16.3.3.1.3Bucket seats. Center the
the pedal centerline with the rearmost
S16.3.3.1.9andS16.3.3.1.10.
dummy on the seat cushionso that its
point of the heel resting on the floor
S16.3.3.1.12If the transverse
midsagittal plane is vertical and
pan. If the vehicle has an adjustable
coincides with the vertical longitudinal instrumentation platform of the headis
accelerator pedal and the right foot is
still not level, adjust the seat hack angle
plane through the centerof the seat
not touching the accelerator pedal when cushion.
to minimize the angle
as much as
positioned as above, move the pedal
S16.3.3.1.4Bench seats. The
possible.
rearward until it touches the right foot. midsaeittal olane of the dummv shall he S 1 6 . 3 . 3 . 1 . 1 3In vehicles with a fixed
If the accelerator pedal still does not
vertical and parallel to the vehiclu's
seat hack, adjust thelower neck bracket
touch the foot in the full rearward
longitudinal centerline and the
same
to level the headas much as possible.
bight. Inspect the abdomen to ensure
that it is properly installed.
516.3.2.1.IOIf it is not possible to
achieve the head level within 0.5
degrees, minimize the angle,
S16.3.2.1.11Measure and set the
dummy's pelvic angle using the pelvic
angle gage (drawingTE-2504,
incorporated by reference in 49 CFR
Part 572. Subpart 0 ,of this chapter).
The angle shall he set to
20.0 degrees 1
2.5 degrees. If this is not possible, adjust
the pelvic angle as close 2to0 . 0 degrees
as possible while keeping the transverse
instrumentation platform of the head as
level as possible as specified in
+
a
+
~
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 9 3 / F r i d a M
y,ay
30754
~~
-
~-
S16.3.3.2 Passengerthighlkneehg
1 2 , 2000,'Rules and Regulations
"~
S16.3.5.2PlacetheType
~~~~~
2 nlanual
~~~
~
a tolerance o f f 5 degrees. The test
vehicle shall he alignedso that the
vehicle strikes the harrier with4 0
S16.3.5.3 Ensure that the dummy's
against the seat cushion to the extent
percent overlap on the left side of the
vehicle, with the vehicle's front
permitted by the placement of the feet head remains as level as possible,
as
in S16.3.3.3.
specifiedinS16.3.2.1.~,S16.3.z.1.10, engaging the harrier face such that the
vehicle's longitudinal centerline is
S16.3.3.2.2Settheinitialtransverse
S16.3.3.1.9,and S16.3.3.1.10.
516.3.5.4 Remove all slack from the
offset outboard of the edge of the harrier
distance between the longitudinal
lap belt. Pull thew p e r torso webbing
face by 10 percent of the vehicle's width
centerline of the dummy's knees at160
out of the retractor and allow
it to
+ 50 mm (2.0 in) as illustrated in Figure
to 170 mm (6.3 to 6.7 in), with the
thighs and legs o f t h e d u m m yin vertical retract; repeat this operation four times. 10. The vehicle width is defined as the
Apply a 9 N ( 2 IhO to 18 N ( 4 IhD
maximum dimension measured across
longitudinal planes.
tension load to the lap belt.If the belt
the widest partof the vehicle, including
S16.3.3.2.3 If either knee of the
system is equipped with a tensionbumpers and molding but excluding
dummy is in contact with the vehicle
relieving device. introduce the
such components as exterior mirrors,
interior. move the seat rearward to the
maximum amount of slack into the
flexible mud flaps, marker lamps, and
next detent that provides clearance. ~f
the seats are power seats. move the seat upper torso belt thatis recommended b)1 dual rearwheelconfigurations.
the manufacturer. If the belt system is
S19 Requirements to provide
rearward for a maximum distance o f 5
protection for infants in rear facing
nnd
mm (0.2 in) between the vehicle interior not equipped with a tension-rBlieving
device. allow the excess webbing in theconvertible child restraints and car
and the dummy knee closest to the
shoulder belt to he retracted by the
beds.
vehicle interior.
S19.1 Each vehicle certifiedas
S16.3.3.3 Possengerfootpositioning.
retractiveforce oftheretractor.
complying with S I 4 shall, at the option
S16.3.3.3.1 Place
the
passenger's
feet
Offse~f~ontaldeform~ble
flat on the
pan as far forward as
requiremenfs using 5th percentile adult
of the manufacturer, meet the
requirements specified in 519.2or
fernale test dummies.
possible.
Each vehicle thatis certified as
S19.3.under the test procedures
S16.3.3.3.2If either footdoes not
comP1ying
with
a t each
front
specified in SZO.
entirely contact thefloor pan, place the
S19.2 Option I-Automatic
foot
the
to
noor and
outhoard
the designated
seating
position,
meet the injury criteria specified in
suppression feature.Each vehicle shall
legs as perpendicular to the thighs as
meet the requirements specified in
possible.
S15.3vehicle
of this
thestandard
when
S19.2.1 through S19.2.3.
S16.3.3.4 Passenger
arm/handiscrashtestedinaccordancewiththe
S19.2.1The vehicle shall be equipped
procedures specified in518 of this
positioning.
with an automatic suppression feature
s16,3,3,4,1 Place the dummy.s upper
standard with the anthropomorphic test
for the passengerair hag which results
in contact with the upper Seat back devices restrained by a Type 2 seat belt
in deactivationof the air bag during
adjacent
and
assembly.
torso.
to the
each
of the static tests specified in
S18
Testprocedure
for
offset frontal
Szo.2
516.3.3.4.2 Place the palms ofthe
dummy i n cOntact with the outside of
deformablebarrierrequirementsusing
(using the40 CFR Part 572 Subpart R
5th percentile odult femaledummies.
12-month-old CRAB1 child dummy in
the thighs.
S16.1 Genemlprovisions. Place a 49
any
of the child restraints identified in
S16.3.3.4.3 Placethelittlefingersin
CFR Part 5 7 2 Subpart 5th percentile
sections
B and C of Appendix A of this
contact with the seat cushion.
adult female test dummy at each front standard and the 49 CFR Part 572
s16A4 DriverandpassengerhPad
seating
position
of a vehicle,
Subpart K Newborn Infant dummy in
restraint adjustment.
in accordance with the procedures
any of the car beds identified in section
S16.3.4.1.
Place
each
adjustable
head
in s16,3 of this standanl,
A of Appendix A,
as appropriate), and
of the
the vehicle traveling
restraint so thattheverticalcenter
head
restraint
horizontally
is
aligned
forward at any speed, u p activation o f t h e air hag system during
each of the static tests specified inS20.3
with the Center ofgravity (CGI o f t h e
toandincluding 40 km/h (25 mph), into (using the49 CFR Part 572 Subpart 0
dummy head.
a fixed offset deformable harrier under 5th percentile adult female dummy).
s16.3.4.2 If the abovePositionnottheconditionsandprocedures
S19.2.2 The vehicle shall he equipped
i n s18,2 of this standard, impacting
attainable. move the vertical center of
with at least one telltale which emits
the head restraint to the closest detent
only the driver side of the vehicle,
light whenever the passengerair hag
below the centerof the head CG.
3 8 . 2 Test conditions.
system is deactivated and does not emit
S16.3.4.3If the head restraint hasa
S18.2.1Offset frontal deformable
light whenever the passenger air hag
fore andaft adjustment, place the
barrier. The offset frontal deformable
system is activated. except that the
restraint
in
the
forwardmost
position
or barrier
shall
t o ,he
telltale(s) need not illuminate when the
i n Subpart c of
untilcontactwiththeheadismade,specificationssetforth
passenger seat is unoccupied. Each
whichever occursfirst.
Part 587 of this chapter.
tPlltllr.
S16.3.4.4 If the head restraint has an
s18.2.z General test conditions. ~ l ofl
(a) Shall emit yellow light;
automatic adjustment, leave it where the the test conditions specified in S16.2 of
(h) Shall have the identifying words
systempositionstherestraintafterthethisstandardapply,
"PASSENGER AIR BAG OFF" on the
dummy is placed
seat.
the
in
S18.2.3 Dummyseatingprocedures.
telltale or within 25 mm (1.0 in) of the
S16.3.5 Driver and passenger manual Position the anthropomorphic test
telltale; and
beltadjustnlent (for testsconducteddummies
as specifiedin S16.3 ofthis
( c ) Shall not be combined with the
with
standard.
dummy]
o belted
readiness indicator requiredby 5 4 . 5 . 2 of
S16.3.5.1 lfan adjustable seat beltDS18.2.4Impact configuration. The test this standard.
ring anchorage exists, place it in the
vehicle shall impact the harrier with the (dl Shall he located within the interior
manufacturer's design position fora 5th longitudinal centerline of the vehicle
of the vehicle and forwardof and ahove
percentile adult female with the seat in
parallel to the line of travel and
the design H-point of both the driver's
the position specified in S16.2.11.1.
perpendicular to the barrier face within and the right front passenger's seat in
fasten
and
dummy
test the
posifioning.
around
belt
516.3.3.2.1Rest the dummy's thighs the latch.
noor
~~~~
~
their forwardmast seating positions and exceed 50 g's, except for intervals whose conducted using any such restraint
shall not he located onor adjacent toa
cumulative duration is not more than 3
listed in sections A, B, and C of
surface that can he used
for temporary
Appendix A of this standard
milliseconds.
or permanent storage where useof the
S19.4.4 Neck injury. When measuring respectively. The car bed, rear facing
storage space could obscure the telltale neck injury, each of the following injurychild restraint. or convertible child
from either the driver's or right front
criteria shall be met.
restraint may be unusedor have been
(a) Nij.
previously used for static suppression
passenger's view.
( e )Shall he visibleto the driver and
(11 The shear force (Fx), axialforce
tests only;if it has been used, there shall
(Fz), and bending moment (My) shall
be not he any visible damage prior to the
right front passenger under all driving
test.
conditions. The means for providing the measured by the dummy upper neck
S20.1.2 Each vehicle certified to this
required visibility may be adjustable to load cell for the duration
of the crash
event as specified in S 4 . 1 0 . Shear force, option shall comply intests conducted
provide two or more levels of
with the right front outboard seating
brightness, one of which is substantially axial force, and bending moment shall
J2111 position at the full rearward seat track
discernable toa person. of any age, who he filtered for Nij purposes at SAE
position. the middle seat track position,
bas adapted to ambient daytime driving 1 rev. Mar95 Channel Frequency Class
and the full forward seat track position.
conditions, the otherof which is
600 (see S4.7).
If the child restraint or dummy contacts
substantially discernable toa driver. of
(2) During the event, the axial force
the vehicle interior, move the seat
any age, who has adapted to ambient (Fz) can be either in tension or
rearward to the next detent that
nighttime driving conditions. The
extension while the occipital condyle
means for providing the required
bending moment (Mocy) can he in either provides clearance. If the seat is a power
visibility may be adjustable manuallyor flexion or extension. This results in four seat, move the seat rearward while
assuring that there isa maximum of 5
automatically, except that the telltale(s) possible loading conditions far Nij:
may not he adjusted under any
tension-extension (Nte), tension-flexion mm ( 0 . 2 in) clearance.All tests are
conducted with the seat height.if
conditions to a level that is not visible, (NtO, compression-extension (Nce),or
adjustable. inthe mid-height position
e.g., to the nighttime intensity during
compression-flexion (Nctl.
and with the seat back angle,if
daytime driving conditions.
(3) When calculating Nij using
adjustable, at the manufacturer's
5 1 9 . 2 . 3 The vehicle shall he equipped equation S19.4.4(a)(4),the critical
nominal design seat hackanBle for a
with a mechanism that indicates
values, Fzc and Myc, are:
50th percentile adult maleas specified
whether the airbag system is
(i) Fzc = 1460 N (328 Ibf) when Fz is
in S8.1.3.
in tension
suppressed, regardlessof whether the
S20.1.3 If the car bed,rear facing
passenger seat is occupied. The
[ii) Fzc= 1460 N (328 lhf) whenFz
child restraint, or convertible child
is in compression
mechanism need not he located in the
restraint is equipped with a handle, the
occupant compartment unless it is the
(iii) Myc = 4 3 Nm (32 Ibf-ft) when a
vehicle shall comply in tests conducted
telltale described in S19.2.2.
flexion moment exists at the occipital
with the handle at both the child
S 1 9 . 3 Option 2-Lowrisk
condyle
restraint manufacturer's recommended
deployment. Each vehicle shall meet the
(iv) Myc = 1 7 Nm (13 Ihf-ft] when an
extension moment exists at the occipital position for use in vehicles and in the
injury criteria specified inS 1 9 . 4 of this
upright position.
condyle.
standard when the passenger air
hag is
S20.1.4 If the car bed. rear facing
deployed in accordance with the
(4) At each point in time, onlyone of
child
restraint. or convertible child
procedures specified in S 2 0 . 4 .
the four loading conditions occurs and
restraint is equipped with a sunshield,
S 1 9 . 4 Injury criteria for the 49 CFR
the Nij value corresponding to that
Pari 572, Subpart R 12-month-old
loading conditionis computed and the the vehicle shall comply in tests
CRAB1 test dummy.
three remaining loading modes shall be conducted with the sunshield both fully
open and fully closed.
S19.4.1 All portions ofthe test
considered a value of zero. The
S20.1.5 The vehicle shall comply in
dummy and child restraint shall he
expression for calculating each Nij
tests with the car bed, rear facing child
contained within the outer surfaces of loading condition is given by:
restraint, or convertible child restraint
the vehicle passenger compartment.
Nij = (Fz I Fzc) + (Mocy I Myc)
uncovered and in tests with
a towel or
S19.4.2 Heod injury criteria.
(5)None of the four Nij values shall
blanket weighing up to1 . 0 kg (2.2 Ih)
(a1 For any two points in time, t, and
exceed 1 . 0 at any time during the event. placed on or over the restraint in any of
t2, during the event which are separated
(b) Peak tension. Tension force (Fz), thefollowingositions:
by not more thana 1 5 millisecond time measured at the upper neck loadcell,
(a1 with thebanket covering the top
interval and where t,is less than ti, the shall not exceed 780 N (175 Ibf) at any
and
sides of the restraint. and
head injury criterion (HICIS) shall be
time.
(bl with the blanket placed from the
determined using the resultant head
(cl Peak compression. Compression top of the vehicle's
seat back to the
acceleration at the centerof gravity of
force (Fzl, measuredat the upper neck
forwardmost edge of the restraint.
the dummy head,a,, expressed as a
load cell. shall not exceed960 N (216
S20.1.6 Except as otherwise specified,
multiple of g (the acceleration of
Ibfl at any time,
if the car bed,
rear facing childrestraint,
gravity) and shall be calculated using
S19.4.5 Unless otherwise indicated,
or convertible child restraint has an
the expression:
instrumentation For data acquisition.
anchorage system as specified in S5.9 of
data channel frequency class, and
FMVSS No. 213 and is tested in a
moment calculations are the same as
vehicle with a right front outboard
given for the 4 9 CFR Part 572 Subpart
vehicle seat that has an anchorage
R 12-month-old CRAB1 test dummy.
system as specified in FMVSS No. 225.
(b) The maximum calculated HICis
SZO Test procedurefor S19.
the vehicle shall comply with the belted
value shall not exceed390.
S20.1 Generalprovisions.
test conditions both with the restraint
S19.4.3 The resultant acceleration
S20.3.1 Tests specifying the useof a
anchorage system attached and
calculated from the output ofthe
car bed. a rear facing child restraint,or
unattached to the vehicle seat anchorage
thoracic instrumentation shall not
a convertible child restraint may he
system and with the unhelted test
30756
F e d e r a l Renister/Vol. 65, No. 9 3 / F r i d a vM, a v
-
-.
12, 2 0 0 0 i R u l easnRde c u l a t i o n s
~~
~~~
~~~~
520.2.2.2 Locate a vertical plane
conditions with the restraint anchorage
(dl Position the49 CFR Part 572
system unattached to the vehicles e a r
Subpart R 12-month-old CRABl dummy through the longitudinal centerlineof
anchorage system.
in the child restraint by following, to thethe child restraint. This will be referred
S20.1.7 Do not attach any tethers.
extent possible, the manufacturer's
to as "Plane A".
S20.2 Static testsof outomalic
S20.2.2.3 For bucket seats, "PlaneB"
instructions for seating infants provided
suDDression feature which shall result with the child restraint.
refers to a vertical plane parallelto the
in'deactivatfon ofthe passengerair bog.
vehicle longitudinal centerline through
(e) Start thevehicle engine or place
Each vehicle that is certifiedas
the geometric centerof the right front
the ignition inthe "on" position,
complying withS19.2 shall meetthe
whichever will turn on the suppression outboard vehicle seat. For bench seats.
following test requirements.
system, and closeall vehicle doors. Wait "Plane B" refers to a vertical plane
S20.2.1 Belted rear facinga n d
10 seconds, then check whether the
air
through the right front outboard seat
convertible child restraints.
parallel to the vehicle longitudinal
ba is deactivated.
S20.2.1.1 The vehicle shall comply in
!20.2.1.5 Facing forward[convertible centerline the same distance from the
tests using any child restraint specified restraints only).
loneitudinal centerline of the vehicle
as
in section B and section of
C Appendix
(a) The vehicle shall comply in both the center of the steering wheel.
A of this standard.
of the following positions, i f a p licahle:
S20.2.2.4Facing reor.
S20.2.1.2 Locate a vertical plane
(1)Without attaching the chi&
(a) Align the child restraint system
through the longitudinal centerlineof
restraint anchorage system as specified
facing rearward such that Plane A is
the child restraint. This willbe referred i n S5.9of FMVSS No. 213 t o a vehicle
aligned with Plane B and the child
to as "Plane A".
seat anchorage system specified in
res?raint is in contact with the seat hack.
S20.2.1.3 For bucket seats, "PlaneB"
FMVSS No. 225, align the child restraint
(b) Position the40 CFR Part 572
refers to a vertical plane parallel to the
system facing forward such that Plane A Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI dummy
vehicle longitudinal centerline through is aligned with PlaneB.
in the child restraint by following, to the
the geometric centerof the right front
(2) If the child restraint is certified to extent possible, the manufacturer's
outboard vehicle seat. For bench seats, S5.9 of FMVSS No. 2 1 3 , and the vehicle instructions provided with the child
"Plane B" refers to a vertical plane
seat has an anchorage system as
restraint.
through the right front outboard vehicle specified i n FMVSS No. 225, attach the
(c) Start the vehicle engine or place
seat parallel to the vehicle longitudinal child restraint to the vehicle seat
the ignition in the "on" position,
centerline the same distance from the
anchorage instead of aligning the
whichever will turn on the suppression
longitudinal centerline of the vehicle as planes. Do not attach the vehicle safety system, and closeall vehicle doors. Wait
the center of the steering wheel.
belt.
10 seconds, then check whether the air
S20.2.1.4 Facing reor.
(h) While maintaining the child
hag is deactivated.
(a1 The vehicle shall comply in both restraint positions achieved in
S20.2.2.5 Facing forward.
of the following positions, if a p licahle: S20.2.1.5(a), secure the child restraint
[a) Align the child restraint system
I l l Without attaching thec h i h
by following, to the extent possible. the facing forward such that PlaneA is
restraint anchorage systemas specified
child restraint manufacturer's directions aligned with Plane B and the child
in S5.9 ofFMVSS No. 213 t o a vehicle
regarding proper installation of the
restraint is in contact with the seat back.
seat anchorage system specified in
(bl Position the49 CFR Part 572
restraint in the forward facing mode.
FMVSS No. 2 2 5 , align the child restraint
Subpart R 12-month-old CRABl dummy
(cl Place any adjustable seat belt
system facing rearward such that Plane anchorages at the vehicle
in the child restraint by following, to the
A is aligned with Plane B.
manufacturer's nominal design position extent possible, the manufacturer's
(21 If the child restraint is certified to for a 50th percentile adult male
instructions provided with the child
S5.9 of FMVSS No. 213, and the vehicle occupant. Cinch the vehicle belts to anyrestraint.
seat has an anchorage system
as
(c]Start the vehicle engine or place
tension from zero up to 134
N (30 lh) to
specified in FMVSS No. 225. attach the secure the child restraint. Measure belt the ignition in the "on" position.
child restraint to the vehicle seat
whichever will turn on the suppression
tension in aflat, straight section of the
anchorage instead of aligning the
lap belt between the child restraint belt system, and close all vehicle doors. Wait
planes. Do not attach the vehicle safety path and the contact point with the belt 10 seconds, then check whether the air
belt.
bag is deactivated.
anchor or vehicle seat, on the side away
[hl While maintaining the child
520.2.3 Tests with a belted car bed.
from the buckle (to avoid interference
restraint positions achieved in
520.2.3.1 The vehicle shall comply in
from the shoulder portionof the belt].
S20.2.1.4Ia). secure the child restraint
tests using any car bed specified in
Id) Position the 49CFR Part 572
by following, to the extent possible. the Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI dummy section A of Appendix A of this
child restraint manufacturer's directions in the child restraint by following, to
the standard.
regarding proper installation of the
S20.2.3.2 (a) Install the car bed by
extent possible, the manufacturer's
restraint in therear facing mode,
following. to the extent oossible. the car
instructions provided with the child
(c) Place any adjustable seat belt
bed manifacturer's directions regarding
restraint.
proper installation of the car bed.
anchorages at the vehicle
(e) Start thevehicle engine or place
manufacturer's nominal design position the ignition inthe "on" position,
(h) Place any adjustable seat belt
for a 50th percentile adult male
whichever will turn on the suppression anchorages at the vehicle
occupant. Cinch the vehicle belts to anysystem. and close all vehicle doors. Wait manufacturer's nominal design position
tension from zero u p to 134 N (30 Ih) to 10 seconds, then check whether the air for a 50th percentile adult male
secure the child restraint. Measure belt bag is deactivated.
occupant. Cinch the vehicle belts to any
tension in a flat, straight section of the
tension from zero up to 134
N (30 lh) t o
S20.2.2 Unbelted reor focingand
lap belt between the child restraint beltconvertible child restraints.
secure the car bed. Measure belt tension
path and the contact point with the belt 520.2.2.1 The vehicle shall complyin in a flat, straight sectionof the lap belt
anchor or vehicle seat, on the side awaytests using any child restraint specified between the car bed belt path and the
from the buckle (to avoid interference
in section B and section of
C Appendix
contact point with the belt anchoror
from the shoulder portionof the belt).
A of this standard.
vehicle seat, on the side away from
the
Y
Federal RegisterIVol. 6 5 , No. 9 3 / F r i d a yM, a y
~
~~
~
~~~
~~
~
~
.
30757
12. ZnnOIRules
and
Regulations
~~~~~
~
buckle (to avoid interference from the
S20.4.4 For bucket seats, ''PlaneB"
meet the requirements specified in
shoulder portionof the belt).
refers to a vertical plane parallel to the
S21.2.1 through 521.2.3.
[c) Position the 49CFR Part 572
vehicle longitudinal centerline through
S21.2.1 The vehicle shall he eminned
Subpart K Newborn Infant dummy in
the geometric centerof the right front
with an automatic suppression feature
the car bed by following, to the extent outboard seat. For bench seats, "Plane
for the passenger air hag which results
possible, the car bed manufacturer's
B" refers to a vertical plane through the in deactivationof the air bag during
instructions for positioning infants
right front outboard seat parallel to the each of the static tests specified inS22.2
provided with the car bed.
vehicle longitudinal centerline that is [using a 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart P 3the same distance from the longitudinal year-old child dummy and, as
(d) Start the vehicle engine
or place
the ignition in the"on" position,
centerline of the vehicle as the center
of applicable, any child restraint specified
whichever will turn on the suppression the steering wheel.
in sectionC and section D of Appendix
system, and close all vehicle doors. Wait 520.4.5 Align the child restraint
A to this standard). and activation of the
10 seconds, then check whether the air system facing rearward such that Plane
air hag system during eachof the static
bag is deactivated.
A is aligned with Plane
B.
tests specified in S22.3 (usinga 49 CFR
S20.3 Static tests ofautomatic
Part 572 Subpart 0 5th percentile adult
S20.4.6 If the child restraint is
suppression featurewhich shall result
certified to S5.Y of FMVSS No. 213, and female dummy).
in activation of the passenger air bag the vehicle seat has an anchorage
S21.2.2 The vehicle shall he equipped
system.
with a telltale light meeting the
system as specified in FMVSS No. 225,
520.3.1 Each vehicle certified to this attach the child restraint to the vehicle requirements specified inS19.2.2.
option shall comply in tests conducted seat anchorage insteadof aligning the
S21.2.3 The vehicle shall be equipped
with the right front outboard seating
planes. Do not attach the vehicle safety with a mechanism that indicates
position at the full rearward seat track belt.
whether the airhag is suppressed,
position, the middle seat track position.
S20.4.7 While maintaining the child regardless of whether the passenger seat
is occupied. The mechanism need not
and, subject to S16.3.3.1.8, the full
restraint position achieved in 520.4.5,
forward seat track position.AI1 tests are secure the child restraint
be located in the occupant compartment
by following.
conducted with the seat height, if
to the extent possible, the child restraintunless it is the telltale described in
s21.2.2.
adjustable, in the mid-height position. manufacturer's directions regarding
S21.3 Option 2-Dynamic automatic
S20.3.2 Place a 49 CFR Part 572
proper installation of the restraint in the
Subpart 0 5th percentile adult female
rear facing mode. Place any adjustable suppression system thot suppresses the
air bag when on occupantis out of
test dummy at the right front outboard seat belt anchorages at the
seating position of the vehicle, in
manufacturer's nominal design position position. (This option is available under
accordance with procedures specified in for a 50th percentile adult male
the conditions set forth inS27.1.) The
516.3.3 of this standard, except
as
occupant. Cinch the vehicle belts
tu any vehicle shall be equipped witha
specified in S20.3.1, subject to the fore- tension from zero up to134 N (30 Ih) to
dynamic automatic suppression system
aft seat positions in 520.3.1.Do not
secure the child restraint. Measure belt for the passenger air hag system which
meets the requirements specified in S27.
fasten the seat belt.
tension in a flat, straight sectionof the
521.4 Option 3-Lowrisk
or
520.3.3 Start the vehicle engine
lap belt between the child restraint belt
deployment. Each vehicle shall meet the
place the ignition in the "on" position. path and the contact point with the
belt
whichever will turn on the suppression anchor or vehicle seat, on the side away injury criteria specified inS21.5 of this
hag is
system, and then close all vehicle doors.from the buckle (to avoid interference standard when the passenger air
deployed in accordance with both of the
from the shoulder portionof the belt).
S20.3.4 Wait 10 seconds, then check
low risk deployment test procedures
whether the air hag system is activated. 520.4.8 Position the 49
CFR Part 572
S20.4 Low risk deployment test. Each Subpart R 12-month-old CRAB1 dummy specified in S22.4.
vehicle that is certified as complying
in the child restraintby following, to the S21.5 Injury criterio for the 4 9 CFR
Pari 572, Subpori P 3-year-old child test
with S19.3 shall meet the following test extent possible, the manufacturer's
requirements.
instructions for seating infants provided dummy.
S21.5.1 All portions of the test
520.4.1 Position the right front
with the child restraint.
dummy shall he contained within the
outboard vehicle seat in the full forward S20.4.Y Deploy the right front
seat track position, adjust the seat height outboard frontal air hag system.If the air outer surfaces of the vehicle passenger
compartment.
(if adjustable) to the mid-height
bag system containsa multistage
S21.5.2 Hrod injurycriterio.
position, and adjust the seat hack (if
inflator, the vehicle shall be able to
(a1 For any two points in time, t, and
adjustable) to the nominal design
comply at any stage or combination of
position for a 50th percentile adult male stages or time delay between successive ti, during the event which are separated
If the child
as specified in S8.1.3.
stages that could occur in the presence by not more than a 15 millisecond time
interval and where t, isless than t2. the
restraint or dummy contacts the vehicle of an infant in rear
a facing child
interior. move the seat rearward to the
restraint positioned according to S20.2.1 head injury criterion (HIC15)shall be
next detent that provides clearance.If
in a rigid barrier crash testat speeds up determined using the resultant head
acceleration at the center
of gravity of
the seat is a power seat, move the seat to 64 km/h (40 mph).
the dummy head,a,, expressed as a
rearward while assuring that there is
a
521 Requirements using 3-yeor-old
multiple o f g ( t h eacceleration of
maximum of 5 mm(0.2 in) clearance.
child dummies.
SZ0.4.2 The vehicle shall comply in
S21.1 Each vehicle thatis certified as gravity) and shall he calculated using
tests using any child restraint specified complying with S14 shall, at the option the expression:
in sectionB and section C of Appendix
of the manufacturer, meet the
A to this standard.
requirements specified in S21.2, S21.3,
S20.4.3Locate a vertical plane
or S21.4, under the test procedures
through the longitudinal centerline of
specified in S22 or 528. as applicable.
the child restraint. This will he referred
S21.2 Option 1-Automatic
(hl The maximum calculatedHICls
to as "Plane A".
suppression feature.Each vehicle shall value shall not exceed 570.
1
I .
Federal Register/ Vol. 65, No. 93 / F r i d a y , M a y 12, 2 0 0 0 / R u l e s a n d R e g u l a t i o n s
30758
~
~~
~
~-
"
~.
~~~
S21.5.3 The resultant acceleration
given in 49CFR Part 572 Subpart P 3restraint manufacturer's instructions
calculated from the output of the
year-old child test dummy.
provided with the seatfor use by
S22 Test procedurefor SZ1.
thoracic instrumentation shall not
children with the same height and
S22.l General provisions and
exceed 5 5 g's, except for intervals whose
weight as the three-year-old child
definitions.
cumulative duration is not more than
3
dummy.
S22.1.1 Tests specifying the use ofa
milliseconds.
S22.2.1.2 Locate a vertical nlane
S21.5.4 Compression deflection o f t h e forward facing child restraint, including through the longitudinal cenierlineof
a booster seat where applicable, may be the child restraint. This willbe referred
sternum relative to the spine, as
conducted using any such restraint
determined by instrumentation, shall
to as "Plane A',
listed in section C and section
D of
not exceed 34 millimeters (1.3in),
S22.2.1.3For bucket seats, "Plane B"
SZ1.5.5 Neckinjury. When measuring Appendix A of this standard,
refers to a vertical plane parallel to the
neck injury, eachof the following injury respectively. The child restraint may be vehicle longitudinal centerline through
unused or have been previously usedfor the geometric centerof the right front
criteria shall be met.
static suppression tests only;
if it has
(a) Nij.
outboard vehicle seat. For bench seats,
been used, there shall not
be any visible "Plane B" refers to a vertical plane
(1) The shear force (Fx). axial force
Booster seats
(Fz), and bending moment [My] shall bedamage prior to the test.
through the right front outboard vehicle
are to be used in the manner appropriateseat parallel to the vehicle longitudinal
measured by the dummy upper neck
load cell for the duration of the crash for a three-vear-old child of the same
centerline the same distance from the
event as specified in S4.10. Shear force, height andweight as the three-year-old
longitudinal centerline of the vehicle as
child
dummy.
axial force, and bending moment shall
the center of the steering wheel.
522.1.2 Unless otherwise specified,
he filtered for Nij purposes at SAE
12111
22.2.1.4 The vehicle shall comolv in
each vehicle certified to this option
1 rev. Mar95 Channel Frequency Class
both of the following positions, it'
shall
comply
in
tests
c0nducte.d
with
600 (see 54.7).
applicable:
the right front outboard seating position
( 2 ) During the event, the axial force
(al Without attachina the child
at the full rearward seat track position, restraint anchorage systemas specified
(Fz) can be either in tensionor
compression while the occipital condyle the middle seat track position, and the in S5.9 of FMVSS No. 213 to a vehicle
bending moment (Mocy) can be in either full forward seat track position.If the
seat anchorage system specified in
flexion or extension. This results in four dummy contacts the vehicle interior.
FMVSS No. 225 and without attaching
move the seat rearward to the next
possible loading conditions for Nij:
any tethers, alirn the child restraint
tension-extension (Nte), tension-flexion detent that provides clearance.If the
system facing Grward such that Plane A
seat is a power seat. move the seat
(Nt0,compression-extension
(Nce). or
is aligned with PlaneB.
rearward while assuring that there ais
compression-flexion (NcfJ.
[h) If the child restraintis certified to
maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) clearance.
( 3 ) When calculating Nij using
S5.9 of FMVSS No. 213, and the vehicle
All tests are conducted with the seat
equation S21.5.5(a)(4), the critical
seat has an anchorage systemas
values, Fzc and Myc, are:
height, if adjustable. in the mid-height specified inFMVSS No. 225, attach the
position, and with the seat hack angle, child restraint to the vehicle seat
li) Fzc = 2120 N (477 Ihf) when F z is in
if adjustable, at the manufacturer's
tension
anchorage instead of aligning the
nominal design seatback angle for a
(ii) Fzc= 2 1 2 0 N (477 IbfJ when Fz is
planes. Do not attach the vehicle safety
50th percentile adult maleas specified
in compression
belt.
in S8.1.3.
liiil Myc = 68 Nm (50 Ibf-it) when a
S22.2.1.5 Forwardfacing child
S22.1.3 Except as otherwise specified.
flexion moment exists at the
restraint
ifthe
child
restraint
has
an
anchorage
occipital condyle
S22.2.1.5.1 Place any adjustable seat
system as specified in S5.9of FMVSS
(iv) Myc = 27 Nm (20 Ibf-ft] when an
belt anchorages at the vehicle
No. 213 and is tested in a vehicle with
extension moment exists at the
manufacturer's nominal design position
a right front outboard vehicle seat that
occipital condyle.
for a 50th percentile adult male
(4) At each paint in time. only one of has an anchorage system as specified in occupant. Cinch the vehicle belts to any
FMVSS
No.
225,
the
vehicle
shall
the four loading conditions occurs and
comply with the belted test conditions tension from zero up to134 N (30 Ib) to
the Nij value corresponding to that
secure the child restraint. Measure belt
loading condition is computed and the both with the restraint anchorage system tension in a flat, straight section ofthe
attached
and
unattached
to
the
vehicle
three remaining loading modes shall be
lap belt between the child restraint belt
seat anchorage system and with the
considered a value of zero. The
path and the contact pointwith the belt
unbelted test conditions with the
expression for calculating each Nij
anchor or vehicle seat, onthe side away
restraint
anchorage
system
unattached
loading conditionis given by:
to the vehicle seat anchorage system. from the buckle (to avoid interference
Nij = (FzlFzcl + (Mocy/Myc)
from the shoulder portion of the belt).
522.1.4 Donot attach any tethers.
(5) None of the four Nij values shall
S22.2.1.5.2Position the49 CFR Part
522.1.5 The definitions provided in
exceed 1.0 at any time during the event.S16.3.1 apply to the tests specified
572 Subpart P 3-year-old child dummy
in
(b) Peak tension. Tension force (Fz), s22.
in the child restraint such that the
measured at the upper neck load cell,
dummy's lower torso i s centered on the
S22.2 Static tests ofautomatic
shall not exceed 1130 N (254
Ibfl at any suppression featurewhich shall result
child restraint and the dummy's spine is
time.
in deacfivation of the passenger oir
bog. against the seat backof the child
IC]Peak compression. Compression
restraint. Place the arms at the dummy's
Each vehicle that is certified as
force (Fz), measured at the upper neck complying with S21.2 shall meet the
sides.
load cell, shall not exceed 1380N (310
S22.2.1.5.3Attach all belts that come
following test requirements:
lhfl at any time.
with the child restraint that are
SZ2.2.1 Belted testwith forword
S21.5.6 Unless otherwise indicated.
appropriate for a child of the same
facing child restraintsor booster scots.
instrumentation for data acquisition,
522.2.1.1 Install the restraint in the
height and weight as the three-year-old
data channel frequency class, and
right front outboard seat in accordance, child dummy, if any, by following. to
moment calculations are the same as
to the extent possible, with the child the extent possible, the manufacturer's
Federal Register I Vol . 6 5 , No. 9 3 / F r i d a y ,M a y
.___.
1 2 , 20001'Rules
Regulations
and
-~
~~
~~
~~~~
30759
~
instructions for seating children
vertically and parallel to the vehicle's
(e) Position the upper arms parallel to
provided with the child restraint.
longitudinal centerline and the same
the spine and rotate the dummy's lower
S22.2.1.6 Boosterseat
distance from the vehicle's longitudinal arms until the dummy's hands contact
S22.2.1.6.1 Place any adjustable seat
centerline as the center of the steering
the seat cushion.
belt anchorages at the vehicle
wheel. In the case of vehicles equipped
(0Start the vehicle engine or place
manufacturer's nominal design position with bucket seats, position the
the ignition in the "on" position,
for a 50th percentile adult male
midsagittal plane of the dummy
whichever will turn on the suppression
occupant. For booster seats designed to vertically such that it coincides with the system, and then close
all vehicle doors.
be secured to the vehicle seat even
longitudinal centerline of the bucket
Is)
Wait 1 0 seconds, then check
when empty, cinch the vehicle belts to seat. Position the torso
of the dummy
whether the air bag is deactivated.
any tension from zero up to 134 N (30
against the seat back. Position the
S22.2.2.4 Sitting on seat edge, spine
Ib) to secure the booster seat. Measure
dummy's thighs against the seat
veriical, h a n d s by the dummy's sides.
belt tension in a flat, straight section of cushion.
(a) In the case of vehicles equipped
the lap belt between the child restraint (c) Allow thelegs of the dunrrny to
with bench seats, position the
belt path and the contact point with theextend off the surfaceof the seat.
midsagittal plane of the dummy
belt anchor or vehicle seat, on the side
(dl Rotate the dummy's upper arms vertically and parallel to the vehicle's
away from the buckle (to avoid
down until they contact the seat back. longitudinal centerline and the same
interference from the shoulder portion
(e) Rotate the dummy's lower arms
distance from the vehicle's longitudinal
of the belt).
until the dummy's hands contact the
centerline as the centerof the steering
522.2.1.6.2 Position the4 9 CFRPart
seat cushion.
wheel. In the case of vehicles equipped
572 Subpart P 3-year-old child dummy
(0
Start the vehicle engineor place
with bucket seats, position the
in the booster seat such that the
the ignition in the"on" position,
dummy's lower torso is centered on the whichever will turn on the suppression midsagittal plane of the dummy
vertically such thatit coincides with the
booster seat cushion and the dummy's
system, and then close all vehicle doors.
longitudinal centerline of the bucket
spine is parallel to the booster seat hack (g) Wait 10 seconds, then check
seat.
or, if there is no booster seat back, the
whether the airhag is deactivated.
(hl Position the dummy in the seated
vehicle seat back. Place the armsat the
S22.2.2.2 Sitting on seat with bock
position forward in the seat such that
dummy's sides.
against reclined seat back. Repeat the
the legs are vertical andrest against the
S22.2.1.6.3 If applicable, attach all
test sequence in Sz2.2.2.1 with the seat
front of the seat with the spine vertical.
belts that come with the child restraint back angle 25 degrees rearward of the
If
the dummy's feet contact the
that are appropriate fora child of the
manufacturer's nominal design position
floorboard, rotate the legs forward until
same height and weight as the threefor the 50th percentile adult male.If the
year-old child dummy,if any, by
the dummy is resting on the seat with
seat will not recline25 degrees rearward the feet positioned flat on the floorboard
following, to the extent possible, the
of the nominal design position,use the
manufacturer's instructions for seating closest position that does not exceed 25 and the dummy spine vertical.To keep
the dummy in position,a thread with a
children provided with the child
degrees.
restraint.
maximum breaking strength of 311 N
S22.2.2.3 Sitting on seatwith bock not
S22.2.1.6.4 Ifapplicahle, place the
(70 Ib) that does not interfere with the
against
seat
back.
Tvoe 2 manual belt around the test
air bag maybe used to hold the dummy.
(a) Position the dummy in the seated
d&my and fasten the latch: Remove all
IC) Place the upper arms parallel to
slack from the lap belt portion. Pull the position and place it on the rightfront
the spine.
outboard
seat.
upper torso webbing outof the retractor
(dl Lower the dummy's lower arms
(b) In the case of vehicles equipped
and allow it to retract: repeat this four
such that they contact the seat cushion.
with
bench
seats,
position
the
times. Apply a 9 to 18 N 12 to 4 Ih)
(el Start the vehicle engineor place
midsagittal plane of the dummy
tension load to the lap belt.
Allow the
the ignition in the "on" position,
excess webbing in the upper torso belt vertically and parallel to the vehicle's whichever will turn on the suppression
longitudinal centerline and the same
to be retracted by the retractive force of
all vehicle doors.
distance from the vehicle's longitudinal system, and then close
the retractor.
(0 Wait 10 seconds, then check
centerline as the center of the steering
S22.2.1.7 Start the vehicle engineor
wheel. In the caseof vehicles equipped whether the air bag is deactivated.
place the ignition in the "on" position,
S22.2.2.5 Standing on seat. fodng
with
bucket seats, position the
whichever will turn on the suppression
forward.
system, and then closeall vehicle doors. midsagittal plane of the dummy
S22.2.1.8 Wait 10 seconds, then check vertically such that it coincides with the (a1 In the case of vehicles equipped
longitudinal centerline of the bucket
with bench seats, position the
whether the airbag is deactivated.
S22.2.2 Unbelted iests with dummies. seat. Position the dummy with the spine midsagittal plane ofthe dummy
vertical so that the horizontal distance
vertically and parallel to the vehicle's
Place the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart P 3year-old child dummy on the right front from the dummy's back to the seat back longitudinal centerline and the same
is no less than25 rnm (1 in) and no
distance from the vehicle's longitudinal
outboard seat in any
of the following
more than 150 mm (6 in), as measured
centerline as the center ofthe steering
positions (without using a child
wheel rim. In the case of vehicles
restraint or booster seat or the vehicle's along the dummy's midsagittal planeat
the mid-sternum level. To keep the
equipped with bucket seats, position the
seat belts):
dummy in position, a thread with a
midsagittal plane of the dummy
S22.2.2.1 Sitting on seoi with back
31 1 N
maximum breaking strength of
vertically such that it coincides with the
against seat bock
(70 Ib] that does not interfere with the
la1 Position the dummv in the seated
longitudinal centerline of the bucket
position and place it o n h e right front
air hag may he used to hold the dummy. seat. Position the dummy ina standing
outboard seat.
( c )Position the dummy's thighs
position on the right front outboard seat
[h) In the case of vehicles equipped against the seat cushion.
cushion facing the frontof the vehicle
with bench seats, position the
(d) Allow thelegs of the dummy to
while placing the heelsof the dummy's
midsagittal plane of the dummy
extend off the surfaceof the mat.
feet in contact with the seat hack.
~~
~
30760
~~
F e d e r a l RegisterlVol. 65, No. 9 3 / F r i d a yM, a y
- -~
1 2 , 2000lRules
and
Regulations
~-
~~
S22.3 Static tests ofautomatic
rearward as much as possible and the
suppression featurewhich shall result
arms arallel to the spine.
(b) fn the caseof vehicles equipped
in activation of the possenger air bag
with bench seats, position the
system
midsagittal plane of the dummy
S22.3.1 Each vehicle certified to this
vertically and parallel to the vehicle's option shall comply intests conducted
with the right front outboard seating
longitudinal centerline and the same
distance from the vehicle's longitudinal position at the full rearward seat track
centerline as the centeI ofthe steering position, the middle seat track position,
wheel. In the case of vehicles equipped and, subject to S16.3.3.1.8, the full
with bucket seats. position the
forward seat track position.All tests are
midsagittal plane of the dummy
conducted with the seat height,if
vertically such that it coincides with the adjustable, in the mid-height position.
longitudinal centerline of the bucket
S22.3.2 Place a 49 CFR Part 572
seat.
Subpart 0 5th percentile adult female
IC] Position the kneeling dummyin
test dummy at the right front outboard
the right front outboard seat with the
seating position ofthe vehicle, in
dummy facing the rear
of the vehicle.
accordance with procedures specified in
Position the dummy such that the
S16.3.3 of this standard, exceptas
dummy's head and torsoare in contact
specified inS22.3.1. Do not fasten the
with the seat back. Push down
on the
seat belt.
as
legs so that they contact the seat
S22.3.3 Start the vehicle engine or
much as possible and then release.
place the ignition in the "on" position,
(d) Start the vehicle engineor place
whichever will turn on the suppression
the ignition in the"on" position.
system, and thenclose all vehicle doors.
whichever will turn on the Suppression
S22.3.4 Wait 10 seconds, then check
system, and then close all vehicle doors.whether the air ba system is activated.
(e) Wait 10 seconds, then check
S22.4 Low risk & l o p e n t tests.
whether the airhag is deactivated
S22.4.1 Each vehicle that is certified
522.2.2.8 Lying on seat. This testis
as complying with S21.4 shall meet the
nerfarmed onlv
, in vehicles with:{
following test requirements with the49
desi nated front seating positions.
CFR Part 572. Subpart P 3-year-old child
($Lay the dummy on the right front dummy in bothof the following
outboard seat such that the following positions: Position 1 (S22.4.2) and
criteria are met:
Position 2 (S22.4.3).
(1) The midsagittal plane of t h e
S22.4.1.1 Locate and mark the center
dummishorizontal,
point of the dummy's chestlrib plate
(2) T t e dummy's spine is
(the vertical mid-point of the frontal
perpendicular to the vehicle's
chest
plate of the dummy on the
longitudinal axis,
midsagittal plane). This is referred toas
(3) The dummy's arms are parallel to
"Point 1."
its s ine,
S22.4.1.2 Locate the vertical plane
(4fA plane passing through the two
parallel
to the vehicle longitudinal
shoulder jointsof the dummy is vertical,
centerline through the geometric center
(5) The anterior of the dummy is
of the right frontair bag tear seam. This
facing the vehicle front,
is referred to as "Plane D."
(6) The head of the dummy is
SZZ.4.1.3 Locate the horizontal plane
positioned towards the passengerdoor.
through the geometric center of the right
and
front air bag tear seam. Thisis referred
(7) The horizontal distancefrom the
to as ''Plane C."
topmost point of the dummy's head to
S22.4.2 Position 1 (chest on
the vehicle dooris 50 to 100 mm ( 2 4
instrument panel].
in).
S22.4.2.1 There are no seat track. seat
(hl Rotate the thighs as much as
possible toward the chest of the dummy height, or seat hack angle requirements.
S22.4.2.2 Place the dummy's
and rotate thelegs as much as possible
midsagittal plane coincident with Plane
against the thighs.
D.
IC) Move the dummy's upperleft arm
S22.4.2.3 Initially position the thighs
parallel to the vehicle's transverse plane
and the lower left arm9 0 degrees to the at a right angle to the spine and the legs
at a right angle to the thighs. These
upper arm. Rotate the lower
left arm
angles may he adjusted to the extent
about the elbow joint and toward the
necessary for the head and torso to
dummy's head until movement is
attain their final positions.
obstructed.
S22.4.2.4 With the dummy's thorax
Id) Start the vehicle engine
or place
rearward.
instrument cavitv rea7 face vertical and
the ienition in the"on" oosition.
la1 Position the dummv in a kneeline whiphever will turn on the suppression Point
1 inPlane
move the dummy
position by rotating the dummy's legs
system, and then closeall vehicle doors. forward until Point 1 contacts the
9 0 degrees behind the dummy(from the
(e) Wait 10 seconds, then check
instrument panel.If the dummy's head
contacts the windshield and keeps Point
standing position) with the toes pointed whether the airbag is deactivated.
(b) Rest the dummy against the seat
hack, with the arms parallel to the
spine.
(c) If the head contacts the vehicle
roof, recline the seatso that the head is
n o longer in contact with the vehicle
roof, but allow no more than5 mm (0.2
in) distance between the head and the
roof. If the seat does not sufficiently
recline to allow clearance, omit the test.
(d) If necessary use a thread with a
maximum breaking strengthof 311 N
(70 Ib) that does not interfere with the
air bag or spacer blocks to keep the
dummy in position.
( e )Start the vehicle engine
or place
the ignition in the"on" position.
whichever will turn on the suppression
system, and then closeall vehicle doors.
(fl Wait 10 seconds, then check
whether the airbag is deactivated.
522.2.2.6 Kneeling on seat,facing
forward.
[a) Position the dummy ina kneeling
position by rotating the dummy's legs
9 0 degrees behind the dummy (from the
standing position) with the toes pointed
rearward as much as possible and with
the arms parallel to the spine.
(h) In the case of vehicles equipped
with bench seats, position the
midsagittal plane of the dummy
vertically and parallel to the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline and the same
distance from the vehicle's
longitudinal
centerline as the center of the steering
wheel. In the case o f vehicles equipped
with bucket seats, position the
midsagittal plane of the dummy
vertically such that it coincides with the
longitudinal centerline of the bucket
seat.
(c) Position the kneeling dummy in
the right frontoutboard seat with the
dummy facing the front of the vehicle
with its toes at the intersection
of the
seat back andseat cushion. Position the
dummy so that the spine is vertical.
Push down on the
legs so that they
contact the seatas much as possible and
then release.
(d) If necessary use a thread with a
maximum breaking strengthof 311 N
(70 Ib) that does not interfere with the
air bag or spacer blocks to keep the
dummy in position.
(el Start the vehicle engineor place
the ignition in the"on" position,
whichever will turn on the suppression
system, and then closeall vehicle doors.
lfl Wait 10 seconds, then check
whether theair bag is deactivated.
S22.2.2.7 Kneelingon seat,facing
I
~~
e,
Federal R e g i s t e r I V o l . 6 5 , No. 9 3 / F r i d a yM, a y
~
~~
~
30761
1 2 , 2 0 0 0 / R u l easnRde g u l a t i o n s
~~~
~~
~~~~~
~~~~
~
~
~~
1 from
contacting the instrument panel, thorax instrument cavity rear face
requirements specified in S 2 3 . 2 , S 2 3 . 3 ,
lower
the
dummy
until
there
no
more
is vertical
orientation.
or
5 2 3 . 4 , under
the
test
procedures
than 5 mm (0.2 in) clearance between
S 2 2 . 4 . 3 . 5If contact has not been
specified in S24 or S28, as applicable.
the head and the windshield.
Sz3.2 option l-Automatic
made,apply a forcetowardsthefrontof
S22.4.2.5 Positiontheupperarmsthevehicle
on thespineofthedummy
suppress;onfeature,Eachvehicleshall
parallel to the spine and rotate the lower between the shoulder joints until the
meet the requirements specified in
armsforward(attheelbowjoint)head
or torsocomesintocontactwith
S23.2.1 throueh 5 2 3 . 2 . 3 .
sufficiently to prevent contact with or
the vehicle's instrument panel.
523.2.1TheYvehicle shall he equipped
support from the seat.
S22.4.3.6If necessary, rotate the
with an automatic suppression feature
S 2 2 . 4 . 2 . 6Position the legs of the
thighs and rotate thelegs and f8et so as
for the passenger frontal air hag system
dummy so that the legs are vertical and
not to impede the motion of the head1 which results in deactivation of the air
the feet rest tlat on the floorboard (or the torso into the vehicle's instrument
bag during each of the static tests
feet are positioned parallel to the
panel.
specified in S 2 4 . 2 (using a 49 CFR Part
S 2 2 . 4 . 3 . 7Rotate the lower arms
floorboard) of the vehicle.
572 Subpart N 6-year-old child dummy
S22.4.2.7 Use the seat adjustments
forward if necessary to prevent contact in any of the child restraints specified
Ifore-aft, height) to keep the dummy in with or support from the seat.
in section D of Appendix A of this
S 2 2 . 4 . 3 . 8If necessary, thread witha
position. If necessary. thread with a
standard), andactivation of the air hag
maximum breaking strength of 311 N
maximum breaking strength of311 N
system during each of the static tests
(70 Ib) and spacer blocks may be used
(70 Ih) and spacer blocks may be used
specified in5 2 4 . 3 (using a 4 9 CFR Part
to support the dummy in position. The to support the dummy in position. The 572 Subpart 0 5th percentile adult
thread should support the torso rather thread should support the torso rather
female dummy).
than the head. Support the dummyso
than the head. Support the dummy
so
S23.2.2 The vehicle shall he equipped
that there is minimum interference with that there is minimum interference with with a telltale light meeting the
the full rotational and translational
the full rotational and translational
requirements specified in S 1 g . 2 . z .
freedom for the upper torso of the
freedom for the upper torso
of the
5 2 3 . 2 . 3 The vehicle shall be equipped
dummy and the thread does not
dummy and the thread does not
with a mechanism that indicates
interfere with the air hag.
interfere with the air hag.
whether the airhag is suppressed,
522.4.3 Posifion 2 (head on
S22.4.4 Deploy the right front
regardless of whether the passenger seat
instrument panel].
outboard frontal air bag system.If the
is occupied. The mechanism need not
522.4.3.1 Place the passenger seat in
frontal airbag system containsa
he
located in the occupant compartment
the full rearward seating position.. Place multistage inflator, the vehicle
shall be
the seat back in the manufacturer's
able to comply with the injury criteria unless it is the telltale described in
S23.2.2.
nominal design seat hack angle for
a
at any stage or combination of stages or
S 2 3 . 3 Option 2-Dynamic aufomafic
50th percentile adult maleas specified
time delay between successive stages
in 5 8 . 1 . 3 . Ifadjustable in the vertical
that could occur ina rigid barrier crash suppression system that suppresses the
air bag whenan occopanf is ouf of
direction, place the seat in the midtest at or helow 26 kmlh (16 rnph).
posifion.
(This option is available under
height position.
under the test procedure specified in
the conditionssei forth in SZ7.1.)The
S 2 2 . 4 . 3 . 2Place the dummy in the
S22.5.
vehicle shall be equipped witha
front passenger seat such that:
S22.5 Test procedurefor determining
dynamic automatic suppression system
S22.4.3.2.1The dummy's midsagittal stages of air bag systems subjectto low
for the passenger frontal airbag system
plane is coincident with Plane D. With
risk deployment test re uiremcnt.
which meets the requirements specified
the thighs on the seat, initially set the
5 2 2 . 5 . 1 Impact the v h e traveling
thighs perpendicular to the torso and longitudinally forward at any speed. up in S27.
S 2 3 . 4 Opfion 3-Lowrisk
the legs perpendicular to the thighs.
to and including26 kmlh (16 mph) into
deployment. Each vehicle shall meet the
Position the upper arms parallel to the a fixed rigid barrier thatis
injury criteria specified inS23.5 of this
torso and rotate the lower arms forward perpendicular f 5 degrees to the lineof
standard when thepassenger air hag is
(at the elbow) sufficiently to prevent
travel of the vehicle under the
statically deployed in accordance with
contact with or support from the seat.
applicable conditions of S8 and SlO,
both of the low risk deployment test
S22.4.3.2.2The dummy is positioned excluding 510.7, S10.8, and SIO.!~.
procedures specified in 524.4.
in the seat such that the
legs rest against
S22.5.2 Determine which inflation
5 2 3 . 5 Injury criteria for fhe 4 9 CFR
the front o f t h e seat and such that the
stage or combination of stages are fired
dummy's thorax instrument cavityrear
and determine the time delay between Part 572 Subpari N 6-yeor-old child
dummy.
face is vertical.If it is not possible to
successive stages. That stageor
position the dummy with thelegs in the combination of stages, with time delay
S23.5.1 All portions of the test
prescribed position, rotate the legs
between successive stages, shall be used dummv shall be contained within the
outer &faces of the vehicle passenger
forward until the dummyis resting on
in deploying the air bag when
compartment.
the seat with thefeet positioned flat on conducting thelow risk deployment
the floorboard.
S23.5.2 Head injurycriferio.
.
S26.
tests described in S 2 2 . 4 , 5 2 4 . 4 and
5 2 2 . 4 . 3 . 3 Move the seat forward,
(a1 For any two pocnts in time, t, and
522.5.3 If the air bag does not deploy
while maintaining the thorax
12, during the event which are separated
in the impact described inS22.5.1. the
instrument cavity rearface orientation
low risk deployment tests described in by not more than a 1 5 millisecond time
until any part of the dummy contacts S 2 2 . 4 , 5 2 4 . 4 and
.
S26 will be conducted interval and where ti is less than tZ, the
the vehicle's instrument panel,
head injury criterion (HICIS)shall be
with the first inflation stage of the air
522.4.3.4 If contact has not been made bag system.
determined using the resultant head
with the vehicle's instrument panel at
acceleration at the center of gravity of
S23 Requirements using 6-year-old
the full forward seating position of the child dummies.
the dummy head.a., expressed as a
seat, slide the dummy forward on the
S23.1 Each vehicle that is certifiedas
multiple ofg (the acceleration of
seat 190 mm (7.5 in) or until contactis
complying with SI4 shall. at the option gravity1 and shall be calculated using
made, whichever is first. Maintain the
of the manufacturer. meet the
the expression:
Federal RegisteriVol. 65, No. 9 3 I F r i d a y . May 1 2 , 2 0 0 0 1 R u l easnRde g u l a t i o n s
30762
-~
~
~
~~
-
~
-~
-~
~~~
"
complying with S23.2 shall meet the
load cell, shall not exceed1820 N (4U9
following test requirements.
Ihf) at any time.
S23.5.6 Unless otherwise indicated,
524.2.1 Except as provided in S24.2.2,
conduct all tests as specified in S 2 2 . 2 ,
instrumentation for data acquisition,
(h) The maximum calculatedHlCls
data channel frequency class, and
except that the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart
value shall not exceed 700.
moment calculations are the sameas
N 6-year-old child dummy shall he
S23.5.3 The resultant acceleration
given for the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart
used.
calculated from the output ofthe
S24.2.2. Exceptions. The tests
N 6-year-old child test dummy.
thoracic instrumentation shall not
524 Test procedure for S23.
specified in the following paragraphs
of
exceed 60 g's, exceptfor intervals whose
S24.1 Generalprovisions and
522.2 need not he conducted: S22.2.1.5.
cumulative duration is not more than 3
definitions.
S22.2.2.3, S22.2.2.5, SZ'.2.2.G,
milliseconds.
S24.1.1 Tests specifying the use
of a
S 2 2 . 2 . 2 . 7 , and s22.2.2.8.
S23.5.4 Compression deflection ofthe booster seat may be conducted using
S24.2.3. Sitting back in the seat
and
sternum relative to the spine.as
any such restraint listed in sectionD of
leaning on the right front passenger
determined by instrumentation, shall
Appendix A of this standard. The
door
not exceed 4 0 mm (1.6 in).
booster seat may be unusedor have
(a) Position the dummy in the seated
S23.5.5 Neck injury When measuring been previously used for static
position and place the dummy in the
neck injury, each of the following injury suppression tests only; if
it has been
right front outboard seat. For bucket
criteria shall he met.
used, there shallnot he any visible
seats, position the midsagittal planeof
(a) Nij.
damage prior to the test. Booster seats the dummy vertically such thatit
(1)The shear force fFx1, axial force
are to be used in the manner appropriatecoincides with the vertical longitudinal
(Fz),and bending moment(My) shall he for a six-year-old child of the same
plane through the longitudinal center
measured by the dummy upper neck
height and weight as the six-year-old
line of the seat cushion. For bench seats,
load cell for the duration of the crash
chiid dummy.
position the midsagittal plane of the
event as specified in S4.10. Shear force,
S24.1.2 Unless otherwise specified,
dummy vertically and parallel to the
axial force, and bending moment shall mch vehicle certified to this ootion
vehicle's longitudinal centerline and the
he filtered for Nij purposes
at SAE ]211/ shall compiy in tests conductid with
same distance from the loneitudinal
1 rev. Mar95 Channel Frequency Class
the right front outboard seating positivn centerline of the vehicle asihe centerof
600 [see S4.7).
at thefull rearward seat track position, the steering wheel.
(2) During the event, the axial force
the middle seat track position, and the
(h) Place the dummy's hack against
(Fz) can he either in tensionor
full forward seat track position.If the
the seat back and rest the dummy's
compression while the occipital condyledummy contacts the vehicle interior,
thighs on the seat cushion
bending moment [Mocy) can he in either move the seat rearward to the next
( c )Allow the legs and feetof the
flexion or extension. This results in four detent that provides clearance.
If the
dummy to extendoff the surfaceof the
possible loading conditions for Nij:
seat is a power seat, move the seat
seat. If this positioning of the dummy's
tension-extension (Nte), tension-flexion rearward while assuring that thme is a legs is prevented by contact with the
(Ntfl, compression-extension (Nce), or maximum of 5 mrn (0.2 in) distance
instrument panel, move the seat
compression-flexion (Ncf).
between the vehicle interior and the
rearward to the next detent that
(31 When calculating Nil using
point on the dummy that would first provides clearance. If the seat is a power
equation S23.5.5(a)f4), the critical
contact the vehicle interior.All tests are seat, move the seat rearward, while
values, Fzc andMyc. are:
conducted with the seat height,i f
assuring that there isa minimum of 5
(i) Fzc = 2800 N (629 Ihfl when Fz is in adjustable. in the mid-height position. mm (0.2 in] distance between the
and with the seat hack angle,i f
vehicle interior and the part
of the
tension
adjustable, atthe manufacturer's
dummy that was in contact with the
(iil Fzc = 2 ~ 0 0N (629 lhfl when Fz is
nominal design seat hackangle for a
vehicle interior.
in compression
50th percentile adult maleas specified
(dl Rotate the dummy's upper arms
liiil Myc = 93 Nm (69 Ihf-ft) when a
in S8.1.3.
toward the seat back until they make
flexion moment exists at the
S24.1.3 Except as otherwise specified, contact.
occipital condyle
if the booster seat hasan anchorage
(e) Rotate the dummy's lower arms
(ivl Myc = 37 Nm (27 Ihf-ft) when an
system as specified in S5.9 of FMVSS
down until they contact the seat.
extension moment exists at the
(0 Close the vehicle's passenger-side
No. 213 and is tested ina vehicle with
occipital condyle.
door
and then start the vehicle engine
a
right
front
outboard
vehicle
seat
that
(41 At each point in time, only one
of
the four loading conditions occurs and has an anchorage systemas specified in or place the ignition in the "on"
FMVSS No. 225, the vehicle shall
position, whichever will turn on the
the Nij value corresponding to that
ression system.
comply
with
the
belted
test
conditions
loading condition is computed and the
three remaining loading modes shall he both with the restraint anchorage system g Push against the dummy's left
attached and unattached to the vehicle shoulder to lean the dummy against the
considered a value of zero. The
door: close all remainin doors.
seat anchorage system and with the
expression for calculating each Nij
(hl Wait 10 seconds. tfen check
unbelted test conditions with the
loading condition is given by:
whether the airhag is deactivated.
restraint anchorage system unattached
Nij = (Fz / Fzc) + [Mocy / Myc)
S24.3 Static testsof automatic
to the vehicle seat anchorage system.
(5)None of the four Nij values shall
suppression featurewhich sholl result
524.1.4 Do not attach any tethers.
exceed 1.0 at any time during the event. S24.1.5 The definitions provided in
in activation of the passengeroir bog
(b) Peak tension. Tension force (Fz), S16.3.1 apply to the tests specified in svstrrn
~I
S24.3.1 Each vehicle certified to this
measured at the upper neck load cell,
S24.
shall not exceed 1490 N (335 Ihf) at any
option shall comply in tests conducted
524.2 Sfafic tests ofautomotic
time.
with the right front outboard seating
suppression featurewhich shall result
(cl Peak compression, Compression
in deacfivafion ofthe passenger air hog. position at the full rearward seat track
force (Fzl. measured at the upper neck
position, the middle seat track position,
Each vehicle that is certified as
~
~~
~~~
FederalRegisterIVol.
~~
~
65, No. 93/Friday, M a y 1 2 , 20001 Rules and Regulations
~~
~~
~
~~~~
~
~~~
~~~
30763
~~-
and, subject to S 1 6 . 3 . 3 . 1 . 8 .the full
maximum breaking strengthof 3 1 1 N
S 2 4 . 4 . 3 . 8 If necessary, thread with a
forward seat track position. All tests are
(70 lh) and spacer blocks may IE used
maximum breaking strength of311 N
conductedwiththeseatheight,iftosupportthedummyinposition,The
(70 Ibl and spacer blocks may be used
to support the dummy in position.
adjustable, in the mid-height position. thread should support the torso rather
S24.3.2 Place a 4 9 CFK Part 572
Thread should support the torso rather
than the head. Support the dummyso
than the head. Support the dummy
so
Subpart 0 5th percentile adult female that there is minimum interference with
that there is minimum interference with
test dummy at the right front outboard the full rotational and translatiunal
seating position of the vehicle, in
the full rotational and translational
freedom for the upper torso of the
freedom for the upper torso of the
accordance with procedures specified in dummy and the thread does not
S16.3.3 of thisstandard,except
as
interferewiththeairhag.
dummy and the thread does not
specifiedin 5 2 4 . 3 . 1 . Do notfastenthe
interfere with the air
bag.
524.4.3 Position 2 (headon
S24.4.4 Deploy the right front
seat belt.
instrument panel).
outboard frontal air hag system. If the
S 2 4 . 3 . 3 Start the vehicle engineor
524.4.3.1 Place the passenger seat in
frontal air hag system contains
a
place the ignition in the "on" position, rearward
full
the seating
place
multistage inflator, the vehicle shall be
whichever will turn on the suppression the Seat back in the nominal design
system. and then close
all vehicle doors. position for a 50th percentile adult nlale able to comply with the injury criteria
at any stage or combination of stages
S24.3.4 Wait 10 seconds. then check
( ~ 8 . 1 . 3as
) specified by the vehicle
whether
the air ba system is activated.
and at any time delay between
manufacturer.
~f
in the
524.4 Low risk cfeployment tests.
successive stages that could occur ina
vertical direction, place the seat in the
524.4.1 Eachvehiclethat is certifiedmid-height
position,
rigid harrier crash at speeds up to26
km/h (16 mphl under the test procedure
as complyingwith S23.4 shallmeetthe
s ~ ~ place
. the
~ dummy
, ~ the
, ~
front passenger Seat such that:
following test requirements with the 49
specified in 522.5.
S25 Requirements using a n out-ofCFRPart 572 Subpart N 6-year-oldchild
~ 2 4 . 4 . 3 . 2 .The
1 dummy,s midsagittal
dummy in both of the following
position 5th percentile adult female
plane is coincident with Plane D. With
positions: Position 1 (S24.4.2)or
the thighs on the seat. initially set the dummy at the driver position.
Position 2 (S24.4.3).
S25.1 Each vehicle certified as
thighs perpendicular to the torso and
complying with S14 shall, at the option
s24'4'1'1 Locate and mark the Center
the legs perpendicular to the thighs,
point of the dummy's rib cageor
of the manufacturer, meet the
Position the upperarms parallel to the
sternum
plate
Ithe
vertical
mid-point
of
torso and
the lower
forward requirements specified in 9 2 5 . 2 or S 2 5 . 3
under the test procedures specified in
the frontal
Of the dummy On
(at
the
elbow)
sufficiently
to
prevent
themidsagittalplane).Thisisreferred
with o~support from the seat,
526 or S28, as appropriate.
t o as "Point 1."
525.2Option I-Dynamic automatic
S24.4.3.2.2The dummy is positioned
S24.4.1.2Locate the vertical plane
suppression system that suppresses the
in
the
seat
such
that
the
legs
rest
against
parallel to the vehicle longitudinal
air bog when the driver is out
of
centerline through the geometric center
the front Of the seat and such that
position. (This option is available under
of the right frontair hag tear seam. This dummy's thorax instrument cavity rear the conditions set forthio S 2 7 . 1 . )The
face is 6 degrees forward of vertical. If
is referred to as "Plane D."
vehicle shall he equipped witha
s24,4,1,3
Locate the horizontal plane
it is not possible to position the dummy
dynamic automatic suppression system
through the geometric center ofthe right with the legs i n the prescribed Position, for the driver air hag which meets the
front air bag tear seam. This is referred rotate the legs forward until the dummy
re uirements specified in S 2 7 .
is resting on the seat with the
feet
t o as "Plane C."
2 2 5 . 3 Option 2-Lowrisk
positioned flat on the floorboard.
S24.4.2 Position 1 (chest on
deployment. Each vehicle shall meet the
S24.4.3.3Move the seat forward,
instrument panel).
injury criteria specified byS 1 5 . 3 of this
S 2 4 . 4 . 2 . 1Therearenoseattrack.seatmaintainingthethorax
standard, exceptas modified in S25.4.
height. or Seat back angle requirements. instrument cavity rear face orientation
when the driver air
bag is statically
S 2 4 . 4 . 2 . 2Removethe legs of theuntilanypartofthedummycontacts
deployed in accordance with both of the
the
vehicle's
instrument
panel.
dummy at the pelvic interface.
low risk deployment test procedures
S24.4.3.4 If contact has not heen made specified in S 2 6 .
S24.4.2.3Place the dummy's
midsagittal plane coincident with plane with the vehicle's instrument panel
at
S25.4 Neck injury criteria driver low
the full forward seating position of the risk deployment tests. When measuring
D.
S24.4.2.4With the dummy's thorax seat, slide the dummy forward on
the
neck injury in low risk deployment tests
instrument cavity rear face 8 degreesseat
190 mm (7.5 in1 or until contact is
for the driver position. eachof the
made, whichever is first. Maintain the
forward of the vertical and Point 1 in
following neck injury criteria shall be
Plane C, move the dummy forward until thorax instrument cavityrear face
met.
Point 1 contacts the instrument panel, If orientation.
(a) Nij.
524.4.3.5 If contact has not been
the dummy's head contacts the
(11 The shear force (Fxl. axial force
made, apply a force towards the front
of (Fz),and bending moment (My) shall he
windshield and keeps Point I from
contacting the instrument panel. lower the vehicle on the spine of the dummy
measured by the dummy upper neck
the dummy until there is no more than between the shoulder joints until the
load cell for the durationof the crash
head or torso comes into contact with event as specified in 54.10. Shear force.
5 mm (0.2 in) clearance between the
the vehicle's instrument panel.
head and the windshield.
axial force, and bending moment shall
S24.4.3.6If necessary, rotate the
be filtered for Nij purposes at SAE ]211/
S24.4.2.5Position the upper arms
parallel to the spine and rotate thelower thighs and rotate the legs and feet so as
1 rev. Mar 95 Channel Frequency Class
armsforward(attheelhowjoint)nottoimpedethemotion
of thehead/
600 (see 5 4 . 7 ) .
sufficiently to prevent contact with or
torso into the vehicle's instrument
(21 During the event, the axial force
panel.
support from the seat.
(Fz)can be either in tensionor
S24.4.2.6 Use the seat adjustments
S24.4.3.7Rotate the lower arms
compression while the occipital condyle
(fore-aft, height] to keep the dummy in forward if necessary
to prevent contact
bending moment (Mocy) canbe in either
position. If necessary,threadwith a
withorsupport from theseat.
flexion or extension. This results in four
Federal R e g i s t e r / V o l . 65, No. 9 3 / F r i d a yM, a y
30764
~
~.
~~-
~
1 2 , 2 0 0 0 1 Rules and Regulations
~~
~~
~
~~
~~~
possibleloadingconditionsfor
Nij:
S26.2.3Placetheseatinthefull
tension-extension (Nte). tension-flexion rearward seating position.
If adjustable
(Nth]. compression-extension (Nce), or in the vertical direction, place the seat
com ression-flexion (Ncf).
in the mid-height position.
(3PWhen calculating Nij using
526.2.4 Place the dummy ina seated
equation S25.4(a1(4), the critical values, position with its midsagittal plane
Fzc and Myc, are:
coincident with PlaneE.
(1) Fzc = 3880 N (872 Ihfl when Fz is in
S26.2.5 Initially position the legs at a
legs The
thighs.
the to
90-degree
tension
angle
(ii) Fzc = 3880 N (872 IbO when Fz is
may he adjusted if necessary to achieve
position.
head
final
compression
the
in
(iii) Myc = 155 Nm (114 Ibf-ft) when a
526.2.6 Position the dummy's thorax
flexion moment exists at the
instrument cavity rear face6 degreos
occipital
forward
cond
le(toward
front
ofthe
the
vehicle)
liV) Myc = Nm 65 Ibf-') when an
ofthesteeringwheelangle
(;.e,, i f t h e
extension
at the
steering
wheel
angle
is 25 degrees
from
occipital condyle.
vertical, the thorax instrument cavity
(4) At eachpointintime.onlyoneof
face angleis31degrees).
~ 2 6 . 2M~~~
, ~ the Seat forward, while
thefourloadingconditionsoccursand
the Nij value corresponding to that
retaining the thorax instrument cavity
loading condition is computed and the
rear face orientation, to the forwardmost
Seat track position or until any portion
three remaining loading modes shall be
considered a value of zero. The
of the dummy contacts the steering
expression for calculating each Nij
wheel, whichever occurs first.
loading condition is given by:
S26.2.8 Adjust the height of the
Nij = (FziFzc) + (MocyiMyc)
dummy so that the bottom ofthe chin
(5) None of the four Nij values shall
is in the same horizontal plane as the
exceed 1.0 at any time durin the event.
highest point ofthe air bag module
(b) Peak tension. Tension force (Fzl.
cover (dummy height can be adjusted
and/
measured at the upper neck load cell. using the seat height adjustments
shallnotexceed zo7O
(465 Ibfl atorspacerblocks).
If theseatpreventsthe
time.
bottom of the chin from being in the
('1 Peak compression.
same
horizontal
plane
as module
the
force (Fz),measured at the upper neck cover, adjust the dummy height
to as
load cell. shall not exceed 2520 N (566
close to the prescribed position as
Ibfl at an time.
possible.
(d) IJnLss otherwise indicated,
Slide
thethe
dummy
forward
on
instrumentationfordataacquisition,
theS26.2.9
Seat until
either
head or
the
data channel frequency class, and
contacts the steering wheel,
moment calculations are the sameas
givenin 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart5th
526.2.10 Use theseatadjustments
percentile
female
test
dummy.
(fore-aft,
height)
to
keep
the
dummy
in
position. If necessary, thread with a
S26 Procedure Jorlow risk
maximum
breaking strengthof 31 1 N
deployment tesfs oJdriverair bag.
s26.1Each vehicle that is certified as
(70 Ib) and spacer blocks may he used
complying with ~ 2 5 . 3shall meet the to support the dummy in Position.
The
requirementsofSZ5.3and 525.4 with thread should support the torso rather
than the head. Support the dummy
so
the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart 0 5th
percentile adult female dummy in both that there
is minimum interference with
ofthefollowingpositions:Driverthefullrotationalandtranslational
position 1 (526.2)
and
Driver
position
2
freedom for the
ofthe
dummy and the thread does not
(S26.3).
interfere with the air bag.
S26.2 Driverposifion 1 [chin on
S26.3 Driverposition 2 [chin on rim].
modulel.
S26.2.1 Adjust the steering controls so
S26.3.1There are no seat track, seat
that the steering wheel hub is at the height,
or seathackanglerequirements.
geometric
center
ofthe
locus
it
526.3.2
Adjust
the
steering
controls
so
describes when it is moved through its that the steering wheel hub
is at the
full range of driving positions. Ifthere geometric center
of the locus it
describes when itis moved through its
is no setting at the geometric center.
position it one setting lower than the full range
of driving positions. If there
is no setting at the geometric center,
geometric center. Set the rotationof the
position it one setting lower than the
steering wheel so that the vehicle
wheels are pointed straight ahead.
geometric center. Set the rotation
of the
S26.2.2 Locate theverticalplanesteeringwheel
so thatthevehicle
parallel to the vehicle longitudinal axis wheels are pointed straight ahead.
which passes through the geometric
526.3.3 Locate the vertical plane
center ofthe driver air bag tear seam. parallel to the vehicle longitudinal
axis
whichpassesthroughthegeometric
This is referredto as "Plane E,"
-
center ofthe driver air
hag tear seam.
This is referred to
as "Plane E,"
526.3.4 Place the dummy ina seated
position with its midsagittal plane
coincident with Plane E.
S 2 6 . 3 . 5 Initially position the legsat a
90-degree angle to the thighs. The legs
may be adjusted if necessary to achieve
the final head position.
S26.3.6 Position the dummy's thorax
instrument cavity rear face6 degrees
forward (toward the front of the vehicle)
of the steering wheel angle [i.e.,
if the
steering wheel angle is 25 degrees from
vertical, the thorax instrument cavity
rear face angle is 31 de rees)
526.3.7 Position the %urnmyso that
the center of the chin is in contact with
the uppermost portionof the rim of the
steering wheel. Do not hook the chin
over the top of the rim
of the steering
wheel. Position the chinto rest on the
upper edge ofthe rim, without loading
the neck. If the dummy's head contacts
the vehicle windshieldor upper interior
before the prescribed position can he
obtained, lower the dummy until there
is no more than5 mm (0.2 in) clearance
between the vehicle's windshieldor
upper interior, as applicable.
526.3.8 Use the seat adjustments
(fore-aft, height) to keep the dummy in
position. If necessary, thread with a
maximum breaking strength of 311 N
(70 Ibl and spacer blocks may be used
to support the dummy in position. The
thread should support the torso rather
than the head. Support the dummy
so
that there is minimum interference with
the full rotational and translational
freedom for the upper torsoof the
dummy and the thread does not
interfere with the air ba
526.4 Deploy the l e f t f k t outboard
frontal air hag system. If the air bag
system contains a multistage inflator,
the vehicle shall be able to comply with
the injury criteria at any stage
or
combination of stages or time delay
between successive stages that could
occur in a rigid harrier crash at speeds
up to 26 kmih (16 mphl under the test
procedure specified in S 2 2 . 5 .
S27 Option Jor dynamic automafic
suppression system rhat suppresses the
air bag when on occupantis out-ofposition.
S27.1 Availabilifyofoption. This
option is available for either airbag,
singly or in conjunction, subject to the
re uirements of S27, if
?a1 A petition for rulemaking to
establish dynamic automatic
suppression system test procedures is
submitted pursuant to SubpartB of Part
552 and a test procedure applicable to
the vehicle is added to S28 pursuant to
the procedures specified by that
subpart, or
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 9 3 I F r i d a yM. a y
~~~
~~~~
~~
~~~
30765
1 2 , 2 0 0 0 l R u l easnRde g u l a t i o n s
~~
~~
~
~~
~~
(h) A test procedure applicable to the the injury criteria specified in S21.5 and static test, it shall use humans for the
S23.5, as appropriate,whentheentireseries
vehicle is otherwise added to S28.
of tests,
e.g.,
3-year-old
children for each static test involving3S27.2 Definitions. For purposes of S27 passenger air hag is deployed in
year-old test dummies.If a manufacturer
a n d S 2 8 , thefollowingdefinitionsaccordancewiththeprocedures
specified in S28.2.
decides to certifya vehicle using a test
apply:
dummy for a static test,it shall use test
Automaticsuppressionzone or ASZ
527.6 Dynamic test requirement
(suppression of air bag for occupnnts dummies
for the entire series of tests,
means a three-dimensional zone
e.g., a Hybrid 111 3-year-old child
ASZJ.
adjacent to the air hag cover, specified inside the
dummy for each static test involving 3by thevehiclemanufacturer,wheretheS27.6.1
Driver. The DASS shall
suppressthedriver air hag beforetheyear-oldtestdummies.
deployment of the air hag will he
suppressed by the DASS i f a vehiclehead,neck,
or torsoofthespecifiedtest[h)
F~~~ 2 1 . 2 instead
,
of usingthe 49
occupant enters the zone under
device enters the ASZ when the vehicle CFR Part 572 Subpart p 3-year.old child
specified conditions.
a hunlan child who weighs
is tested under the procedures specified dummy.
S28.3.
in
Dynamic automatic suppression between
13.4 and 18 kg (29.5 and 39.5
system orDASS means a portion of an
527.6.2 Passenger. The DASS shall
Ib). and who is between 89 and 99 cm
air hag system that automatically
39 in) tall may he used.
suppress the passenger air hag before (35 and
controlswhether or nottheairbaghead,neck,ortorso
of thespecifiedtest
lC) F~~s23,2,
instead ofusing the 49
deploys during a crash by:
device enters the AS2 when the vehicle
CFR part 572 Subpart B.year.ald child
(1) Sensing the location of an
istestedundertheproceduresspecifieddummy,
a humanwhoweighs
occupant, moving or still, in relation to in
S28.4.
between 21 and 25.6 kg (46.5 and 56.5
hag;
airthe
s28 Test~rocedurefors27oJthis
Ih],
who
and
is between 114 and 124.5
(21 Interpreting
occupant
the standard.
[Reservedl
cm (45 and 49 in) tall may he used.
characteristicsandlocationinformation
S28.1 Driversuppression zone
(dl For S19.2, 521.2, and S 2 3 . 2 .
(49 CFR Part 572
to determine whether or not the air bag verification test
instead of using the49 CFR Part 572
should
deploy;
and
Subpart 0
percentile
5thfemale
Subpart 0 5th percentile adult female
(31 Activating or suppressingtheairdummy).[Reservedl
test dummy, a female who weighs
hag
system
based
the
on
interpretation
S28.2 Passenger
suppression
zone
4 6 , 7 and 51,25 kg
Ih and
of occupant characteristics and location verification fest (49
CFR Part 572
113 Ib], and whois between 139.7 and
information.
Subport
P 3-Yeor-Old child
dulnnly
and
150 cm (55 and 59 in) tall mayused,
he
S27.3 Requirements. Each vehicle
49 CFR Part 572 Subpart N 6-year-old
520.2 Human beings shall he dressed
shall, at each applicable front outboard child dummies). [Reserved]
,528.3 Driverdynomictestprocedure
in a cotton T-shirt,length
Cotton
designatedseatingposition,whentested
s28 of this
for DASSrequirements.[Reservedltrousers,andsneakers.Specified
under the conditions of
dynomic
test
weights
and
heights
include
clothing.
standard, comply with the requirements S 2 8 . 4 Passenger
529.3 A manufacturer exercising this
specified in 5 2 7 . 4 through 527.6.
procedure for DASS requirements.
option shall uponrequestS27.4 Each vehicle shall he equipped [Reservedl
S29 Munufactureraption
to
crrtiJy
(a) Provide NHTSA with a method to
with a DASS.
527.5Static test requirement (low risk vehicles
to certain static suppression deactivate the air
bag during compliance
deployment for occupuntsoutsidethetestrequirementsusinghumonbeingstestingunderS20.3,
S22.2, S 2 2 . 3 , S24.2,
ASZ].
rather
thon
test
dummies.
and
5 2 4 . 3 , and
identify
any
parts
or
equipment necessary for deactivation:
S27.5.1Driver149CFRPorf572
5 2 9 . 1 At the option of the
Subpart 0 5th percentile fentale
manufacturer,instead of usingtestsuchassurancemayhemadeby
dummy].Eachvehicleshallmeetthedummiesinconductingthetests
for the removing the
air bag; and
S15.3 of thisfollowingstatictestrequirements,(b)Provide
NHTSA with a methodto
injurycriteriaspecifiedin
standard when the driver air hagis
human beings may he used as specified. assure that the same test results would
deployed in accordance with the
If human beings are used, they shall be ohtained
if the air hag were not
procedures specified in s28.1.
assume, to the extent possible, the final deactivated.
527.5.2 Passenger (49 CFR Part 572
physical position specified for the
Subport P 3-vpar-oldchilddummyandcorrespondingdummies
for eachtest.
Figures
571208
49 CFR Part 5 7 2 Subpart N 6-year-old
(a) Ifa
manufacturer
decides
to
certify
*
*
*
*
*
child dummy). Each vehicle shall meet
a vehicle using a human being for a
BILLING CODE I W O - 5 9 4
c
=I
@
2
c
W
0
rJ
0
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 93/Friday, May 1 2 , 2000/Rules and Regulations
~~
~~
~~~~
~~~
~~
~
30767
~~
d,
L
v)
lu
n
S
0
30768
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 93/Friday, May 1 2 , 2000/Rules and Regulations
~~
-
~~~~
__
0.1W t T
1
I
40% Overlap
I
Legend
"
"
w
T
Longitudinal Centerline of Vehicle
Vehicle Width
Tolerance
Figure 10 Configuration for Frontal Offset Deformable Barrier Test
-
Appendix A to 8 571.208Seleclian of Child
Restraint Systems
A. The following car bed, manufactured an
or after December 1, 1999,
may be used by
the National HighwayTraffic Safety
Administration to test the suppression
system of a vehicle that has beenmtified as
being in compliance with 4 9 CFR Part
Authority: 4 9 U.S.C. 3 2 2 , 3 0 1 1 1 . 30115,
and 30166: delegation ofautlrurity at
49 CFR 1.50.
vehicles in a production year, and does
not mean walk-in vans, vehicles
designed to he sold exclusively to the
U.S. Postal Service, vehicles
5585.1 Scope.
This part establishes requirementsfor manufactured in twoor more stages,
and vehicles that are altered after
manufacturers of passenger cars and
previously having been certified in
trucks, buses, and multipurpose
accordance with part 567of this
571.208 SIB:
passenger vehicles witha GVWR of
chater.
Cosco Dream Ride 02-719
3,855 kg (8500 Ib) or less and an
( 8 , Phase one ofthe advanced
air bag
8. ~ n ofy the following rear facing child
unloaded vehicle weightof 2,495kg
reouirements ofstondardNo. 608 refers
restraint systems. manufactured an U T after
(5500Ib) or less to submit reports,and
December 1. 1999, may be used by the
maintain records related to the reports, to ;he requirements set forth inS14.1,
National Highway Traffic Safety
S14.2,S14.5.l(a),S14.5.2,S15.1,S15.2,
concerning the number and
Administration to test the suppression
S17, S19, S21, S23,and $25 of Federal
identification
of
such
vehicles
that
are
system ola vehicle that has been certified as
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No,208,
certified
as
complying
with
the
being in compliance with 49 CFR Part
49 CFR 571.208.
advanced air hag requirements
of
571.208 S19. When the restraint system
(e) Phose two ofthe
odvonced oir bag
comes equipped with a remwable base, the
Standard No. 208, "Occupant crash
requirements oJStondord No. 208 refers
test may be run either with the base attached
protection" (49CFR 571.208).
or without the base.
to the requirements set
forth in 514.3,
5585.2 Purpose.
S14.4,S14.5.l~b~,$14.5.2,S15.1,S15.2,
Britax Handle wilh Care 181
Century 560 Institutional 4590
The purpose of these reporting
S17, S19. S21,S23,and S25 of Federal
Century Smart Fit 4541
requirements is to aid the National
Motor Vehicle Safety StandardNo. 208,
Carco Arriva 02-750
Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR 571.208.
Cosco Turnabout02-772
(0 Production year means the12in determining whethera manufacturer
Evenflo Discovery 209
month
period between September 1 of
has
complied
with
the
advanced
air
hag
Evenfla P i r t Chiice 204
one year and August31 of the following
requirements of Standard No. 208
Even00 On My Way 207
year, inclusive.
during the phase-insof those
Evenflo Pusition Right 200
1s) Limited line monuJacturer means a
requirements.
manufacturer that sells twoor fewer
5585.3 Applicability.
carlines, as that term is defined in 49
This part applies to manufacturers of CFR 583.4,in the United States during
passenger cars and trucks, buses. and
a production year.
may he wed by the National Highway 'rmriiC multipurpose passenger vehicles with
a
Safety Administration to test the suppression GVWR of 3,855 kg 18500 Ih) or less and
5 585.5 Reportingrequirements.
system o r a vehicle that has been certified as
an unloaded vehicle weight of
2,495kg
(a) Advanced credit phose-in
being in compliance with 49 CFR Part
reporting
requirements.
(5500
Ih)
or
less.
However,
this
part
571.2118 s19,or s21:
(11 Within 60 days after the endof the
does not apply to any manufacturers
Britax Roundabout 161
whose production consists exclusively production years ending August31,
Century Enr:ure4612
of walk-in vans, vehicles designedto he 2000, August 31, 2001,August 31, 2002,
Cosco Touriva 02-584
and August 31, 2003. each manufacturer
sold exclusively to theU.S. Postal
Evenflo Champion 249
choosing to certify vehicles
Service, vehicles manufactured i n two
Evenflo Medallion 254
Fisher Price Safe-Emhrace 79701
manufactured during any of those
or more stages, and vehicles that are
K & d t Petforma 23308
production years as complying with
altered after previously havingbeen
D.
or the f a ~ ~ o w i nrorward-facing
g
certified in accordance with part567 of phase oneof the advanced airhag
toddlerihelt positioning booster systems,
this chapter.In addition, this part does requirements of StandardNo. 208 shall
manursact1madon or .dler uecelnberI , 1999.
submit a report to the National Highway
not apply to manufacturers whose
may he used by the National Highway Traffic
worldwide productionof motor vehicles Traffic Safety Administrationas
Safety Administration as test devices to test
specified in this section.
is less than 5000 vehicles io a
the suppression system of a vehicle that has
(2) Within 60 days after the end of the
been certified as being in compliance with 49 production year,
production year ending August31,
CFR Part 571.208 S21 or S23:
5585.4 Definitions.
2007, each manufacturer choosing to
Britax Cruiser 121
(a) All terms defined in 49 U.S.C.
certify vehicles manufactured during
Century Next Step 4920
30102 are used in accordance with their that production year as complying with
Cosca High Back Booster 02-442
statutory meaning,
Evenflo Right Fit245
phase twa of the advanced air
bag
(h) The termsbus, gross vehicle
requirements of Standard No. 208 shall
6. Part 585 is revised to read as
weight rotingor GVWR, multipurpose
submit a report to the National Highway
follows:
possenger vehicle, passengercor, and
Traffic Safety Administration as
truck are usedas defined in section
PART 58CADVANCED AIR BAG
specified in this section.
571.3 of this chapter.
PHASE-IN REPORTING
(3) Each report shall(c) For the purposes of this part,
REQUIREMENTS
(il Identify the manufacturer;
vehicles means passenger cars and
(ii) State the f u l l name, title. and
Set.
trucks, buses, and multipurpose
address of the official responsible for
585.1 Scope.
passenger vehicles with a GVWR of
preparing the report;
585.2 Purpose.
3,855 kg (8500 Ib) or less and an
(iii) Identify the production year heina
585.3 Applicability.
unloaded vehicle weightof 2,495 kg
reported on;
585.4 Definitions.
i5500 lh) or less manufactured for sale
[ivl Provide the information specified
585.5 Reportingrequirements.
in the United States by manufacturers in paragraph (c)of this section;
585.6 Records.
whose worldwide production of motor
585.7 Petitions tu extend period to file
(v) Be written in theEnglish language;
repart.
vehicles is equal toor greater than 5000 and
30117,
~~~~~
I
(vi1 Be submitted to: Administrator,
(1)Production of complying vehicles.
(il Report the existenceof each
National Hiehwav Traffic Safetv
li) With respect to the reports
contract, including the names ofall
Administracon, i o 0 Seventh Street. SW, identified in section585.5la)l1). each
parties to the contract and explain how
Washington. DC 20590.
manufacturer shall report for the
the contract affects the report being
lhl Phase-in re ortin re uirements.
production year for which the report is submitted.
I l l Within 60 &ys d e r &e end of the filed the number of vehicles,
by make
Iiil Report the numberof vehicles
production years ending August 31,
and model year, that meet the
covered
by each contract in each
2004. August 31, 2005, and August 31,
applicable advanced air hag
production year.
2006, each manufacturer shall submita
requirements of Standard No. 208, and
report to the National Highway Traffic to which advanced air hag requirements $585.6 Records.
Safety Administration regarding its
the vehicles are certified.
Each manufacturer shall maintain
compliance with phase one of the
[iil With respect to the report
records of the Vehicle Identification
advanced air bag requirements of
identified in section585.5(a)(2], each
Standard No. 208 for its vehicles
manufacturer shall report the number of Number of each vehicle for which
produced in that productionyear. Each
vehicles, by make and model year. that information is reported under
5 585.5lc)(1) and (dl(2) until December
report shall also specify the number of meet the applicable advanced airhag
31, 2011.
requirements of Standard No.208. and
advance credit vehicles.if any, that are
to which advanced airbag requirements $ 585.7 Petitions to extend period to file
being applied to the productionyear
the vehicles are certified.
being reported on.
report.
I21 Within 60 days after the end of the (21 Vehiclesproduced by more than
A petition for extension of the time to
one manufacturer. Eachmanufacturer
production years ending August3 1 ,
submit a report required under this part
whose reporting of information is
2008, August 31. 2009, and August 31,
shall he received not later than1 5 days
affected by one nr moreof the express
2010, each manufacturer shall submita
report to the National Highway Traffic written contracts permitted byS 1 4 . 1 . 3 . 2 before the report is due. The petition
shall he submitted to: Administrator,
or S 1 4 . 3 . 3 . 2 of Standard No. 208 shall:
Safety Administration regarding its
National Highway Traffic Safety
[il Report the existenceof each
compliance with phase two of the
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
contract, including the namesof all
advanced air bag requirements of
parties to the contract and explain haw Washington, DC 20590. The filing ofa
Standard No, 208 for its vehicles
petition does not automatically extend
produced in that production year. Each the contract affects the report being
.
the time for filinga report. A petition
submitted,
report shall also specity the number of
will be granted only if the petitioner
hi1 Report the numberof vehicles
advance credit vehicles,if any. that are
shows good cause for the extension, and
covered
b
y
each
contract
in
each
being applied to the productionyear
if the extensionis consistent with the
production year.
being reported on.
public interest.
(dl Phase-in re ort content.
(3) Each report shall(1) Basis forpgse-in production
(il Identify the manufacturer;
PART 595-RETROFIT ON-OFF
requirements. For production years
liil State the full name, title, and
SWITCHES FOR AIR BAGS
ending August 31, 2003, August 31,
address of the official responsible for
2004, August 3 1 . 2 0 0 5 , August 31. 2007,
preparing the report:
7. The authority citation for part 595
August 3 1 , 2 0 0 8 , and August 31, 2009,
liii) For limited line manufacturers,
continues to read as follows:
specify whether the manufacturer has each manufacturer shall provide the
number of vehiclesmanufactured in the
elected to comply withS14.1la) or
Authority: 4 8 U.S.C. 322. 30111, 30115,
current production year, or, at the
S14.lIb). or S14.31a) or S14.3Ib) of 4 9
3U117,3U122 and 30166;delegation of
manufacturer's option, for the current
authority at 4 9 CFR 1.50.
CFR 571.208, as applicable;
[ivl Identify the productionyear being production year and eachof the prior
8. Section 595.5 is amended by
two production yearsif the
reported on;
manufacturer has manufactured
revising paragraph la) to read as follows:
("1 Contain a statement regarding
vehicles during bothof the two
whether or not the manufacturer
$595.5 Requirements.
production years prior to theyear for
complied with phase one of the
which the reportis being submitted.
advanced air hag requirements of
la1 Beginning January19, 1998, a
Standard No. 208 or phase two of the
(21 Production ofcomplying vehicles.
dealer or motor vehicle repair business
Each manufacturer shall reportfor the
advanced air hag requirements of
may modify a motor vehicle
production year for which the report is
manufactured before September1 . 2012
Standard No. 208, as applicable to the
filed the numberof vehicles, by mako
by installing anon-off switch that
period covered by the report. and the
and model year, that meet the
basis for that statement:
allows an occupant of the vehicle to
lvil Provide the information specified applicable advanced airbag
turn off an air hag in that vehicle,
requirements of Standard No. 208, and
in aragraph (dl of this section;
subject to the conditions in paragraphs
&I Be written in the English
to which advanced airbag requirements Ihl(l1 through(51 of this section.
1a;guage; and
*
I
*
*
*
the vehicles are certified.
vu11 Be submitted to: Administrator,
I31 Vehicles produced by more than
Issued
on:
May
4,
2000.
National Hiphwav Traffic Safetv
one manufacturer. Each manufacturer
Rosalyn G.Millman,
Administracon, i o 0 Seventh Sireet, sw, whose reporting of information is
Acting Adminisfmlor.
Washin ton, DC 20590.
affected by one or more
of the express
[cl A vanced credit phase-in report written contracts permitted byS 1 4 . 1 . 3 . 2 [FR Doc. 00-11577 Filed 5-5-00; 10:m am]
content.
or 514.3.3.2 of Standard No. 208 shall:
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
ii
| File Type | application/pdf |
| Author | Lori.Summers [ NHTSASL-D1103 ] |
| File Modified | 2009-09-01 |
| File Created | 2007-06-01 |