[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 21, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2996-2999]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-1292]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 74-14, Notice 112]


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Restraint 
Systems

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

ACTION: Notice of technical workshop; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces that NHTSA will be holding a public 
workshop to explore technical issues relating to the agency's occupant 
protection standard and smart air bags. The purposes of the workshop 
are to--
     Review the types of smart air bags (e.g., automatic 
deactivation based on weight sensors, automatic deactivation based on 
other or additional types of sensors, and automatic modulation of the 
speed and force of air bag deployment so as not to seriously injure 
occupants) and the specific technologies which can be used, singly or 
in combination, to provide smart capability;
     Assess the suitability of the agency's definitions of 
smart passenger air bags (provided in the agency's November 27, 1996 
labeling final rule), and discuss appropriate definitions for smart 
driver air bags;
     Assess which types of specific smart air bag technologies 
or combinations of technologies are best suited for addressing 
passenger risks

[[Page 2997]]

and which are best suited for addressing driver risks;
     Consider what test procedures and test devices should be 
proposed by the agency to assure the proper performance of each type of 
smart air bag in the short run, and what procedures and devices would 
be appropriate for the long term;
     Consider whether, in the interest of promoting the early 
availability of reliable smart air bags, manufacturers should be 
encouraged or required to install relatively simple versions of smart 
air bags in the short term;
     Consider whether, in the interest of minimizing the risk 
of air bag deaths and preserving or enhancing air bag benefits, 
manufacturers should be encouraged or required to install more 
sophisticated smart air bags in the long run;
     Consider whether to use a phase-in and, if so, what phase-
in schedule(s) should be proposed for smart passenger and driver air 
bags; and
     Discuss other issues related to the rapid introduction of 
smart air bag systems.

DATES: Public workshop: The public workshop will be held in Washington 
DC on February 11 and 12, 1997, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Those wishing to participate in the workshop should contact Clarke 
Harper, at the address or telephone number listed below, by January 31, 
1997. Copies of statements to be presented on the first day of the 
workshop should be provided to Mr. Harper by February 7, 1997.
    Written comments: Written comments may be submitted to the agency 
and must be received by February 21, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Public workshop: The public workshop will be held in room 
2230 of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh St. SW., Washington DC 20590.
    Written comments: All written comments must refer to the docket and 
notice number of this notice and be submitted (preferable 10 copies) to 
the Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA), Room 5109, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. Docket 
hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clarke Harper, Office of 
Crashworthiness Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC, 20590 
(telephone 202-366-2264; fax 202-493-2739).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The history of NHTSA's consideration of air bags to address the 
problem of deaths in frontal vehicle impacts is almost as long as the 
history of the agency itself. In 1969, three years after the enactment 
of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, the 
agency held its first public meeting on air bags.
    The agency's first requirement for automatic restraints (i.e., 
automatic belts or air bags) was issued in the early 1970's, but was 
overturned on judicial review due to several ambiguities in the test 
procedures. A requirement for automatic restraints was reissued by 
Secretary Adams in 1977 and rescinded by the agency in the early 1980's 
because it concluded that the vehicle manufacturers were planning to 
install a type of automatic belt that the agency regarded as unlikely 
to be effective in increasing belt use. After the U.S. Supreme Court 
overturned the rescission, Secretary Dole reissued a requirement for 
automatic restraints in 1984. The 1984 rule encouraged, but did not 
require, the installation of air bags. Manufacturers continued under 
the rule to have the option of installing automatic belts.
    Since then, there has been considerable experience with air 
bags.1 Manufacturers responded to the agency's third automatic 
restraint requirement by voluntarily choosing to install significant 
numbers of driver air bags instead of automatic belts in cars beginning 
in model year 1986 and in light trucks beginning in model year 1991. 
Installation of passenger air bags came somewhat later. Manufacturers 
began voluntarily installing significant numbers of passenger air bags 
in cars in model year 1989 and in light trucks in model year 1994. As 
of the end of model year 1996, approximately 56 million driver air bags 
and 27 million passenger air bags had been installed in cars and light 
trucks. All were voluntarily installed. The first federally-required 
air bags appeared after model year 1996. Mandatory installation of air 
bags in passenger cars began with the current model year, model year 
1997, pursuant to section 2508 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), and will begin for light trucks in 
model year 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The first installation of air bags occurred a decade 
earlier. In the mid-1970's, driver and passenger air bags were 
installed in approximately 10,000 passenger cars by General Motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While these air bags saved approximately 1,700 lives through the 
end of 1996 and prevented many more serious injuries, they pose a 
lethal danger to infants in rear-facing child seats and to some other 
occupants, primarily unbelted ones, in low speed collisions. Air bags 
are killing a growing number of children. They have also killed a 
number of drivers, especially short women, although only one driver is 
known to have been killed by an air bag in this country in calendar 
year 1996.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The agency's figures for driver fatalities are based on 
information that NHTSA has developed through NHTSA's Special Crash 
Investigation program and are not the result of a census. Studies of 
Fatal Accident Reporting System data are underway to obtain more 
precise figures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency has conducted a series of rulemaking proceedings over 
the last four years to address the risks posed by air bags. Most 
recently, the agency issued two final rules on this issue. One required 
new, attention-getting warning labels for child restraints and for 
vehicles without a ``smart'' passenger air bag, i.e., an air bag that 
automatically shuts off or adjusts its deployment so as not to 
adversely affect children. The other final rule extended the period 
during which manufacturers may install manual devices for deactivating 
passenger air bags in vehicles lacking a rear seat that can accommodate 
child restraints.
    The agency also issued two proposals to provide interim solutions 
to the adverse side effects of air bags. One proposal would permit the 
deactivation of driver and passenger air bags in existing vehicles and 
in vehicles manufactured during the next several model years. The other 
proposal sets forth two alternatives to permit the depowering of air 
bags.
    The first alternative depowering proposal would increase the 
current limit on the level of chest g's permitted in tests using an 
unbelted dummy. While Standard 208 does not specify a particular level 
of power, it does have the effect of limiting the extent to which air 
bags can be depowered. Many air bags cannot be sufficiently depowered 
without violating the existing limit or cutting into the compliance 
margins needed by the manufacturers. The second alternative would allow 
greater levels of depowering, by simplifying the test procedures and 
specifying a single crash pulse regardless of vehicle size. It would 
also allow all air bags in need of

[[Page 2998]]

depowering to be modified and tested more quickly.

II. Smart Air Bags

    There is a consensus among national regulatory authorities in this 
country and Canada, the vehicle industry and its suppliers, insurance 
industry and consumer groups that the smart air bag is the best means 
in the long term for preventing air bag deaths and preserving and even 
enhancing air bag benefits. In a November 22, 1996 press conference, 
NHTSA announced that it was considering issuing a proposal to mandate 
the phasing-in of smart air bags, beginning with 1999 models.
    The agency defined smart passenger air bags as follows in its final 
rule on the new labels (S4.5.5 of Standard No. 208):
    For purposes of this standard, a smart passenger air bag is a 
passenger air bag that:
    (a) Provides an automatic means to ensure that the air bag does not 
deploy when a child seat or child with a total mass of 30 kg or less is 
present on the front outboard passenger seat, or
    (b) Incorporates sensors, other than or in addition to weight 
sensors, which automatically prevent the air bag from deploying in 
situations in which it might have an adverse effect on infants in rear-
facing child seats, and unbelted or improperly belted children, or
    (c) Is designed to deploy in a manner that does not create a risk 
of serious injury to infants in rear-facing child seats, and unbelted 
or improperly belted children.
    This definition was intended to broadly encompass passenger air bag 
designs that automatically avoid injuring the two groups of children 
shown by experience to be at special risk from air bags: infants in 
rear-facing child seats, and children who are out-of-position (because 
they are unbelted or improperly belted) when the air bag deploys. The 
agency has not provided a definition for driver smart air bags.
    Vehicle manufacturers and air bag suppliers are working on many 
different design concepts that could, individually or when used with 
other concepts, qualify as smart air bags. The simplest concept, for 
passenger air bags, appears to be a weight sensor that would deactivate 
the air bag when either no passenger or only a child of less than 30 
kilograms or 66 pounds is present. Other concepts include automatic 
deactivation based on other or additional types of sensors, such as 
ones which sense occupant position, and automatic modulation of the 
speed and force of air bag deployment (e.g., using dual or multiple 
level inflators) so as not to seriously injure occupants.
    Vehicle manufacturers have broad flexibility to introduce smart air 
bags under the existing provisions of Standard No. 208. Smart air bags 
were permissible under the 1984 requirements and continue to be 
permissible today, even under the standard as amended pursuant to 
ISTEA.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Standard's automatic protection requirements are 
performance requirements and do not specify the design of an air 
bag. Instead, vehicles must meet specified injury criteria, 
including criteria for the head and chest, measured on properly 
positioned test dummies, during a barrier crash test, at speeds up 
to 30 mph.
    While the Standard requires air bags to provide protection for 
properly positioned adult occupants (belted and unbelted) in 
relatively severe crashes, and very fast air bags may be necessary 
to provide such protection, the standard does not require the same 
speed of deployment in the presence of out-of-position occupants, or 
even any deployment at all. Instead, the standard permits the use of 
dual or multiple level inflator systems and automatic cut-off 
devices to protect out-of-position occupants and rear-facing 
infants. Therefore, regulatory changes are not needed to permit 
manufacturers to implement these solutions.
    The agency also notes that there are many other variables in air 
bag design and related vehicle design that can affect potential 
aggressivity. Variables related to air bag design include air bag 
volume, fold patterns, tethering, venting, mass/material, shape and 
size of air bag module opening, and module location and deployment 
path. Related vehicle design variables include such things as 
recessing the inflator/air bag in the steering wheel assembly or in 
the dash, pedal adjusters, safety belt pretensioners and webbing 
clamps. The standard's performance requirements permit manufacturers 
to adjust all of these variables to minimize adverse effects of air 
bags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Air Bag Safety Meeting

    On January 6, 1997, the NHTSA and the National Transportation 
Safety Board co-sponsored an Air Bag Safety Meeting of interested 
persons from government, industry and consumer groups. The participants 
focused on behavioral solutions, including public education, 
legislation regarding safety use laws, and enforcement, and on 
technological solutions, especially smart air bags.

IV. Public Workshop

A. Purposes

    The purposes of the workshop are to--
     Review the types of smart air bags (e.g., automatic 
deactivation based on weight sensors, automatic deactivation based on 
other or additional types of sensors, and automatic modulation of the 
speed and force of air bag deployment so as not to seriously injure 
occupants) and the specific technologies which can be used, singly or 
in combination, to provide smart capability;
     Assess the suitability of the agency's definitions of 
smart passenger air bags (provided in the agency's November 27, 1996 
labeling final rule), and discuss appropriate definitions for smart 
driver air bags;
     Assess which types of specific smart air bag technologies 
or combinations of technologies are best suited for addressing 
passenger risks and which are best suited for addressing driver risks;
     Consider what test procedures and test devices should be 
proposed by the agency to assure the proper performance of each type of 
smart air bag in the short run, and what procedures and devices would 
be appropriate for the long term;
     Consider whether, in the interest of promoting the early 
availability of reliable smart air bags, manufacturers should be 
encouraged or required to install relatively simple versions of smart 
air bags in the short term;
     Consider whether, in the interest of minimizing the risk 
of air bag deaths and preserving or enhancing air bag benefits, 
manufacturers should be encouraged or required to install more 
sophisticated smart air bags in the long run;
     Consider whether to use a phase-in and, if so, what phase-
in schedule(s) should be proposed for smart passenger and driver air 
bags; and
     Discuss other issues related to the rapid introduction of 
smart air bag systems.
    NHTSA is especially interested in specific technical input 
concerning how a regulation, including appropriate test procedures, can 
be crafted that would ensure that the adverse effects of air bags are 
addressed by the expeditious implementation of effective, reliable 
smart air bags, without being unnecessarily design restrictive. The 
agency notes that there is limited time to develop new test procedures, 
since the agency expects manufacturers to begin to phase in smart air 
bags by model year 1999. Therefore, the agency solicits comments on 
those requirements and test procedures that would be appropriate for 
the short term (i.e., through model year 2002) and those that would be 
appropriate in the long term.
    At the January 6, 1997 air bag safety meeting, the American 
Automobile Manufacturers Association recommended that the agency 
consider the following three principles in developing a proposal for 
smart air bags: (1) Optimize protection for restrained occupants, (2) 
Do no harm to children and small-statured adults, and (3) Highest 
feasible protection for unrestrained adults. The agency requests 
comments on this recommendation and on possible test

[[Page 2999]]

procedures that could result in air bag designs consistent with these 
principles.
    The agency notes that there are particular challenges in developing 
test procedures to ensure the proper functioning of smart air bag 
concepts other than weight sensors. In the case of weight sensors, it 
appears that a relatively simple, inexpensive static test procedure 
could be developed. The procedure would check whether the sensor 
ensured that the air bag was on or off under specified conditions 
related to the amount of weight on the seat, and perhaps the 
distribution of that weight.
    However, dynamic procedures might be needed to assess the 
performance of other smart air bag concepts. For example, in order to 
measure the performance of a system which deactivated the air bag based 
on occupant position, it might be necessary to check whether the sensor 
would reliably turn the air bag off in such situations as that of a 
child who is propelled into the dashboard as a result of pre-crash 
braking just before a crash. In order to measure the performance of a 
system which used automatic modulation of the speed and force of air 
bag deployment, it might be necessary to check whether the forces from 
the air bag would cause injury to occupants in various conditions, 
possibly using dummies. NHTSA notes that, given the large number of 
potential conditions involving out-of-position occupants, a wide array 
of conditions might need to be tested to ensure adequate performance.
    The agency requests comments on whether and how adequate 
performance can or should be ensured solely by means of dynamic test 
requirements, and, if not, what other regulatory approaches might be 
appropriate. NHTSA notes that, in its rulemaking to improve the 
stability and control of medium and heavy vehicles during braking, it 
adopted the approach of requiring vehicles to be equipped with antilock 
brake systems that meet a specific definition, and supplementing that 
requirement with limited dynamic performance requirements. See 60 FR 
13216; March 10, 1995. The agency requests comments on whether an 
approach along those lines might be appropriate for a proposal for 
smart air bags, either as an interim measure to get requirements in 
place quickly or as a longer term approach as well.
    NHTSA requests that vehicle manufacturers and air bag suppliers 
provide written comments describing their recent and anticipated 
efforts to develop and assess smart air bag technologies. The agency 
specifically requests that they provide descriptions of their recent 
and anticipated component and vehicle testing, market surveys, and any 
other developmental work. NHTSA recognizes the sensitivity of this 
information and will protect confidentiality as authorized by law.

B. Procedural Matters

February 11
    The first day will be devoted to presentations by public 
participants concerning technical issues. The time available for 
individual presentations will be determined by the agency based on the 
number of persons who submit requests to participate by the January 31 
deadline. If necessary, parties with similar points of view will be 
encouraged to coordinate their presentations to avoid duplication.
February 12
    The second day will be devoted to an interactive discussion among 
interested persons. Procedures for encouraging an exchange of ideas 
during the interactive phase of the workshop will be discussed at the 
beginning of the session on that day. Those persons interested in 
actively participating in this phase of the workshop should contact Mr. 
Harper not later than January 31. The agency will make available an 
agenda setting forth the sequence of issues to be discussed during the 
interactive phase.
    To facilitate communication, NHTSA will provide auxiliary aids 
(e.g., sign-language interpreter, braille materials, large print 
materials and/or a magnifying device) to participants as necessary, 
during the workshop. Any person desiring assistance of auxiliary aids 
should contact Ms. Bernadette Millings, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness 
Standards, telephone (202) 366-1740, no later than 10 days before the 
workshop. For any presentation that will include slides, motion 
pictures, or other visual aids, the presenters should bring at least 
one copy to the workshop so that NHTSA can readily include the material 
in the public record.
    NHTSA will place a copy of any written statement in the docket for 
this notice. In addition, the agency will make a verbatim record of the 
public workshop and place a copy in the docket.

IV. Written Comments

    Participation in the workshop is not a prerequisite for the 
submission of written comments. NHTSA invites written comments from all 
interested parties. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be 
submitted.
    If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim 
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including 
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to 
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and copies 
from which the purportedly confidential information has been deleted 
should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for 
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth 
the information specified in the agency's confidential business 
information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.
    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date indicated above will be considered. To the extent 
possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be 
considered. Comments will be available for inspection in the docket.
    NHTSA will continue to file relevant information as it becomes 
available in the docket after the closing date. It is therefore 
recommended that interested persons continue to examine the docket for 
new material.
    Those desiring to be notified upon receipt of their comments in the 
docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the comments, the docket 
supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    Issued on: January 14, 1997.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-1292 Filed 1-14-97; 4:28 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P