[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 181 (Friday, September 18, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49958-50021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-23957]



[[Page 49957]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



National Highway Traffic Safety Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



49 CFR Parts 571, 585, 587, and 595



Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Occupant Crash Protection; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 1998 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 49958]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 571, 585, 587, and 595

[Docket No. NHTSA 98-4405; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AG70


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The agency is proposing to upgrade the agency's occupant 
protection standard to require advanced air bags. While current air 
bags have been shown to be highly effective in reducing overall 
fatalities, they sometimes cause fatalities to out-of-position 
occupants, especially children. The agency's proposal would require 
that improvements be made in the ability of air bags to cushion and 
protect occupants of different sizes, belted and unbelted, and would 
require air bags to be redesigned to minimize risks to infants, 
children, and other occupants. The advanced air bags would be required 
in some new passenger cars and light trucks beginning September 1, 
2002, and in all new cars and light trucks beginning September 1, 2005. 
The agency's proposal is consistent with provisions included in the 
NHTSA Reauthorization Act of 1998 which mandate the issuance of a final 
rule for advanced air bags.
    An appendix to this document responds to several petitions 
concerning requirements for air bag performance.

DATES: Comments must be received by December 17, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number and notice 
number, and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (Docket hours are from 
10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For information about air bags and related rulemakings. Visit the 
NHTSA web site at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov and select ``Air Bags'' 
under ``Popular Information.''
    For non-legal issues. Clarke Harper, Chief, Light Duty Vehicle 
Division, NPS-11, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2264. 
Fax: (202) 366-4329.
    For legal issues. Edward Glancy, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-20, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992. Fax: (202) 366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Overview of Proposed Requirements
II. Executive Summary
III. Statutory Requirements
IV. Safety Problem and the Agency's Remedial Actions
    A. Introduction
    B. Background
    1. Air Bags: Safety Issues
    a. Lives Saved and Lost
    b. Causes of Air Bag Fatalities
    2. Air Bag Requirements
    C. Comprehensive Agency Plan to Address Air Bag Fatalities
    1. Interim Rulemaking Solutions
    a. Existing and Future Vehicles-in-Use
    b. New Vehicles
    2. Longer-Term Rulemaking Solution
    3. Educational Efforts; Child Restraint and Seat Belt Use Laws
V. Technological Opportunities
VI. Proposal for Advanced Air Bags
    A. Introduction
    B. Existing and Proposed Test Requirements
    1. Tests for Requirements to Preserve and Improve Occupant 
Protection for Different Size Occupants, Belted and Unbelted
    a. Safety of Medium to Large Teenagers and Adults
    b. Safety of Small Teenagers and Small Adults
    2. Tests for Requirements to Minimize the Risk to Infants, 
Children and Other Occupants from Injuries and Deaths Caused by Air 
Bags
    a. Safety of Infants
    b. Safety of 3-Year-Old Children
    c. Safety of 6-Year-Old Children
    d. Safety of Small Teenage and Adult Drivers
    C. Injury Criteria
    D. Dummy Recognition
    E. Lead Time and Proposed Effective Date
    F. Selection of Options
    G. Availability of Retrofit Manual On-Off Switches
    H. Warning Labels
    I. Questions
VII. Costs and Benefits
VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
IX. Request for Comments
Proposed Regulatory Text
Appendix--Response to Petitions
    A. Petitions Requesting that New Test Requirements be Added to 
Standard No. 208
    B. Petition Requesting Extension of the Provision Allowing On-
Off Switches for Vehicles without Rear Seats or with Small Rear 
Seats
    C. Petitions Requesting a Permanent Option of Using Unbelted 
Sled Test instead of Unbelted Barrier Test
    D. Petition Objecting to NHTSA's Final Rule on Depowering

I. Overview of Proposed Requirements

    The agency is proposing to upgrade Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash 
Protection, to require advanced air bags. The advanced air bags would 
be required in some new passenger cars and light trucks beginning 
September 1, 2002, and in all new cars and light trucks beginning 
September 1, 2005.
    The agency is proposing to add a new set of requirements to prevent 
air bags from causing injuries and to expand the existing set of 
requirements intended to ensure that air bags cushion and protect 
occupants in frontal crashes. There would be several new performance 
requirements to ensure that the advanced air bags do not pose 
unreasonable risks to out-of-position occupants. The proposal gives 
alternative options for complying with those requirements so that 
vehicle manufacturers would be free to choose from a variety of 
effective technological solutions and to develop new ones if they so 
desire. With this flexibility, they could use technologies that 
modulate or otherwise control air bag deployment so deploying air bags 
do not cause serious injuries or that prevent air bag deployment if 
children or out-of-position occupants are present. To ensure that the 
new air bags are designed to avoid causing injury to a broad array of 
occupants, the agency would test the air bags using test dummies 
representing 12-month-old, 3-year-old, and 6-year-old children and 5th 
percentile adult females.
    The agency is also proposing to ensure that the new air bags are 
designed to cushion and protect a broader array of belted and unbelted 
occupants, including teenagers and small women. The standard's current 
dynamic crash test requirements specify the use of 50th percentile 
adult male dummies only. Under the proposal, the agency would also use 
5th percentile adult female dummies in the future. The weight and size 
of these dummies are representative of not only small women, but also 
many teenagers.
    In addition to the existing rigid barrier test, representing a 
relatively ``stiff'' or ``hard'' pulse crash in perpendicular tests and 
a more moderate pulse crash in angled tests, the agency is proposing to 
add a deformable barrier crash test, representing a relatively ``soft'' 
pulse crash.1 In relatively ``soft'' pulse

[[Page 49959]]

crashes, some current air bags do not deploy until after the occupants 
have moved so far forward that they are near the air bag cover when 
deployment begins. Such ``late deployments'' lead to high risks of 
injury. This proposed new crash test requirement is intended to ensure 
that air bag systems are designed so that the air bag deploys earlier, 
before normally seated occupants, including small-statured ones, move 
too close to the air bag. The agency is proposing to use 5th percentile 
adult female dummies in this test. If an air bag opens in time for 
small-statured occupants, who generally sit relatively far forward, it 
will open in time for taller occupants, who sit farther back.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Crash pulse'' means the acceleration-time history of the 
occupant compartment of a vehicle during a crash. This is 
represented typically in terms of g's of acceleration plotted 
against time in milliseconds (1/1000 second). The crash pulse for a 
given test is a major determinant of the stringency of the test, and 
how representative the test is of how a particular vehicle will 
perform in particular kinds of real world crashes. Generally 
speaking, the occupant undergoes greater forces due to secondary 
collisions with the vehicle interior and restraint systems if the 
crash pulse g's are higher at the peak, or the duration of the crash 
pulse is shorter, which would lead to higher overall average g 
levels.
    In a relatively ``hard'' pulse crash, a vehicle's occupant 
compartment decelerates relatively abruptly, creating a high risk of 
death or serious injury. In a relatively ``soft'' pulse crash, there 
is a lower rate of deceleration and proportionately lower risk of 
death or serious injury. The nature of the crash pulse for a vehicle 
in a given frontal crash is affected by a number of factors, 
including vehicle speed, the extent to which the vehicle structure 
forward of the occupant compartment collapses in a controlled manner 
so that some of the crash energy is absorbed, whether the struck 
object is fixed in place, the extent to which the struck object 
collapses and absorbs energy, and, in the case of non-fixed struck 
objects, the relative mass of the vehicle and the struck object. 
Large cars typically have relatively mild crash pulses, while small 
cars and utility vehicles typically have more severe crash pulses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency is proposing to phase out the unbelted sled test option 
as requirements for advanced air bags are phased in. Finally, NHTSA is 
proposing new and/or upgraded injury criteria for all of the standard's 
test requirements.

II. Executive Summary

    Air bags have been shown to be highly effective in saving lives. 
They reduce fatalities in frontal crashes by about 30 percent. As of 
June 1, 1998, air bags had saved an estimated 3,148 drivers and 
passengers since their introduction in 1986. However, as of that same 
date, the agency had confirmed a total of 105 crashes in this country 
in which an air bag deployment had resulted in fatal injuries.
    These deaths did not occur at random; they typically involved 
certain common factors. The persons who have been killed or seriously 
injured by an air bag were extremely close to the air bag at the time 
of deployment. The persons shown to be at greatest risk have been (1) 
unrestrained young children, who can easily be propelled close to or 
against the passenger air bag before the crash as a result of pre-crash 
braking, (2) infants in rear facing child seats, who ride with their 
heads extremely close to the passenger air bag, and (3) drivers 
(especially unrestrained ones) who sit extremely close to the steering 
wheel. These drivers are most likely to be small-statured women.
    Since the problem of air bag deaths first emerged, NHTSA has taken 
a number of steps to address the problem. In late November 1996, the 
agency announced that it would be implementing a comprehensive plan of 
rulemaking and other actions (e.g., consumer education and 
encouragement of State seat belt use laws providing for primary 
enforcement of their requirements) addressing the adverse effects of 
air bags.
    Recognizing that a relatively long period of lead time is required 
to make some types of significant design changes to air bags, the 
agency's comprehensive plan called for both interim and longer-term 
solutions. The interim solutions included temporary adjustments in 
Standard No. 208's performance requirements to ensure that the vehicle 
manufacturers had maximum flexibility to address quickly the problem of 
risks from air bags. One temporary change was to permit manufacturers 
to certify their vehicles to an unbelted sled test option, in which a 
vehicle is essentially stopped quickly, but not actually crashed, 
instead of to the standard's full scale unbelted crash test, in which a 
vehicle is actually crashed into a barrier. This made it much easier 
for the manufacturers to make quick design changes to their air bags. 
Another temporary change was to permit the vehicle manufacturers to 
install manual on-off switches for passenger air bags in vehicles 
without rear seats or with rear seats that are too small to accommodate 
a rear facing child restraint.
    Another interim measure taken by NHTSA was to require improved 
labeling on new vehicles and child restraints to better ensure that 
drivers and other occupants are aware of the dangers posed by passenger 
air bags to children. Also, to address the problems faced by persons 
who are in groups at special risk from air bags, the agency issued a 
final rule exempting motor vehicle dealers and repair businesses from 
the statutory prohibition against making federally required safety 
equipment inoperative so that they may install retrofit manual on-off 
switches for air bags in vehicles owned or used by such persons and 
whose requests for switches have been approved by the agency.
    In today's notice, NHTSA is proposing a longer-term solution. The 
proposed amendments contemplate implementation of advanced air bag 
system technology that would minimize or eliminate risks to out-of-
position occupants and enhance the benefits provided by air bags to 
occupants of different sizes, belted and unbelted. The proposed 
amendments are consistent with the NHTSA Reauthorization Act of 1998, 
which requires advanced air bags.
    In developing this proposal, the agency recognized that, to 
minimize or eliminate air bag risks, either (1) air bag deployment must 
be suppressed in situations that are risky to occupants, or (2) the air 
bag must be designed to deploy in such a manner that it does not 
present a significant risk of serious injury to out-of-position 
occupants.
    The agency has used a number of methods to obtain up-to-date 
information regarding the technology needed for accomplishing these 
purposes. These methods included meetings with individual 
manufacturers, a public meeting and written information requests to 
vehicle and air bag manufacturers for specified types of information.
    In numerous meetings with vehicle manufacturers and air bag 
suppliers, the agency discussed the steps that they were taking to 
address adverse effects of air bags. The agency found that these 
companies were working on a wide variety of technologies, involving one 
or both of the approaches (i.e., modulation of deployment or 
suppression of deployment) discussed above, to minimize or eliminate 
air bag risks. Vehicle manufacturers and suppliers are working on 
systems that would prevent an air bag from deploying in situations 
where it might have an adverse effect, using, for example, sensors that 
determine the weight, size, and/or location of the occupant. The 
vehicle manufacturers and suppliers are also working on systems that 
would modulate the speed and force of the air bag, using multiple level 
inflators. The activation of those different levels is keyed to sensors 
that determine such factors as crash severity, seat-track position, 
occupant weight and/or size, and whether an occupant is belted or not. 
They are also working on a variety of approaches that make air bags 
less aggressive to out-of-position occupants, e.g., by changing fold 
patterns, deployment paths, and venting systems.
    NHTSA conducted a public meeting in February 1997 to obtain 
information about available technologies, and separately asked the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Jet Propulsion 
Laboratory (JPL) for help in obtaining information. JPL surveyed the 
automotive industry and conducted

[[Page 49960]]

an analysis of the readiness of advanced air bag technologies.
    Also, in April 1998, the agency sent an information request 
concerning advanced air bag technology to nine air bag suppliers. This 
effort supplemented NHTSA's other efforts to obtain information in this 
area and was intended to ensure that the agency had the most up-to-date 
information possible for this rulemaking.
    The agency considered the information obtained in these various 
endeavors, as well as other available information, in developing this 
proposal.
    To minimize air bag risks, the proposed amendments specify 
alternative options that would allow use of the differing kinds of 
technological solutions being developed or considered by the 
manufacturers to effectively address this problem. For example, the 
agency is proposing options that would test the performance of air bags 
designed to inflate in a manner so they do not cause injuries. These 
options, which are based on an approach recommended by the American 
Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA), specify static out-of-
position tests. The agency is proposing use of several child dummies 
(representing an infant, a 3-year-old, and a 6-year-old) and the Hybrid 
III 5th percentile adult female dummy in these tests. Injury criteria 
would be specified for each of the new dummies. The agency is also 
proposing options that would test the performance of systems designed 
to suppress air bag deployment in the presence of children and/or out-
of-position occupants.
    NHTSA believes the proposed amendments would permit the vehicle 
manufacturers to use any technology or design which can effectively 
address the problem of adverse effects of air bags to out-of-position 
occupants, without detracting from the ability of the vehicle to meet 
Standard No. 208's other occupant protection requirements. The design 
changes that can be used to meet the proposed requirements range from 
relatively simple changes in the way air bags deploy to advanced 
systems incorporating sensors which vary air bag deployment depending 
on the size, weight and dynamic position of an occupant and crash 
severity.
    In addition to proposing requirements to address air bag risks to 
out-of-position occupants, NHTSA is proposing to add to the standard's 
dynamic frontal crash test requirements to ensure that improved 
protection is provided to teenagers and adults of different sizes, 
belted and unbelted, especially ones of smaller stature. Under Standard 
No. 208's longstanding dynamic crash requirements, vehicles must meet 
specified injury criteria, including ones for the head and chest, 
measured on 50th percentile adult male test dummies (both belted and 
unbelted) during rigid barrier crashes at any speed up to and including 
48 km/h (30 mph) and at any angle up to  30 
degrees.2 Thus, manufacturers are required to assure 
compliance with occupant protection requirements in full scale vehicle 
crashes representing a wide range of severities and crash pulses that 
could potentially cause fatal injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As discussed elsewhere in this notice, Standard No. 208 
currently includes an option for manufacturers to certify their 
vehicles to an unbelted sled test as an alternative to the unbelted 
barrier test requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, despite their compliance with requirements specifying the 
use of 50th percentile adult male dummies, some current air bags may 
not provide appropriate protection to small adult occupants. Most 
significantly, some designs do not take account of the special needs of 
occupants who must sit relatively close to the air bag, such as small-
statured women drivers. In order to provide protection to someone who 
sits close to the air bag, an air bag must deploy early in a crash 
event. However, the air bags of some vehicles deploy late in certain 
kinds of crashes (such as ones with soft pulses), after a small-
statured driver, even though belted, has struck the steering wheel. In 
such a situation, the air bag cannot provide protection and may cause 
harm. This same problem is faced by persons who sit close to the 
passenger-side air bag.
    To address this problem, NHTSA is proposing to add new dynamic 
crash test requirements using 5th percentile adult female dummies. 
Protection would be required to be demonstrated in a new ``offset 
deformable barrier crash test,'' a test which replicates a kind of real 
world crash likely to result in late deployment of many current air 
bags. This test measures the performance of the sensor system as well 
as the air bag in a 25-mph crash with a ``soft'' pulse, and would use 
restrained dummies only. In addition, 5th percentile adult female 
dummies would be added to the standard's existing 30-mph dynamic crash 
test requirements, using both restrained and unrestrained dummies.
    The agency has developed injury criteria and seat positioning 
procedures that it believes are appropriate for small females. Among 
other things, the agency is including neck injury criteria, since 
persons close to the air bag at deployment are at greater risk of neck 
injury. NHTSA notes that it is also proposing to upgrade the current 
injury criteria specified for 50th percentile adult male dummies, and 
to add neck injury criteria, to make them consistent with what the 
agency is proposing for 5th percentile adult female dummies.
    NHTSA recognizes that adding additional sizes of dummies would 
increase testing costs, but believes that their addition is needed to 
ensure that air bag performance is appropriate for occupants of 
different sizes. NHTSA notes that upgrading Standard No. 208 by adding 
a greater array of dummy sizes would parallel the agency's recent 
upgrading of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, through the 
addition of a greater array of sizes and weights of child test 
dummies.3 Just as that final rule improved the safety of 
child restraint systems by providing for evaluation of performance in a 
more thorough manner, the addition of different size test dummies to 
Standard No. 208 would improve protection for all occupants by 
requiring more thorough evaluation of a vehicle's occupant protection 
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 60 FR 35126, July 6, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency notes that it may issue a separate document proposing to 
add the Hybrid III 95th percentile adult male dummy to Standard No. 
208. With the addition of that dummy, occupant protection would be 
measured for adult occupant sizes ranging from small-statured females 
to large-statured males. The agency is not proposing to add the Hybrid 
III 95th percentile adult male dummy in this notice because development 
of that dummy has not yet reached the stage where it is appropriate for 
incorporation into a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.
    NHTSA also notes that during calendar year 1999 it expects to 
propose a higher speed frontal offset requirement than that specified 
for the current barrier test. The agency is still conducting research 
regarding such a requirement. In addition, as more advanced technology 
is developed, the agency may develop proposals to require further 
enhancements in occupant protection under Standard No. 208.
    To provide vehicle manufacturers sufficient time to complete 
development of advanced air bag designs meeting the new requirements 
proposed in today's notice, and implement them into their cars and 
light trucks, NHTSA is proposing a phase-in of the upgraded 
requirements beginning September 1, 2002, with full implementation 
required effective September 1, 2005. The agency is proposing to 
provide credits for early compliance with the rule. To address

[[Page 49961]]

the special problems faced by limited line manufacturers in complying 
with phase-ins, the agency is proposing to permit manufacturers which 
produce two or fewer carlines 4 the option of omitting the 
first year of the phase-in if they achieve full compliance effective 
September 1, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``carline'' refers to a group of vehicles which has 
a degree of commonality in construction (e.g., body, chassis). The 
term is used in NHTSA's automobile parts content labeling program 
and is defined at 49 CFR Sec. 583.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA notes that Standard No. 208 contains several provisions, 
noted above, that were added as temporary measures to address air bag 
risks. One is the provision permitting manufacturers to provide manual 
on-off switches for passenger air bags in vehicles without rear seats 
or with rear seats too small to accommodate a rear facing infant seat. 
It expires on September 1, 2000.
    The other is the provision permitting certification based on the 
unbelted sled test alternative to the unbelted barrier test 
requirements. It was scheduled to expire on September 1, 2001. However, 
notwithstanding the expiration date currently specified in the standard 
for the unbelted sled test option, the NHTSA Reauthorization Act of 
1998 provides that the sled test option ``shall remain in effect unless 
and until changed by [the final rule for advanced air bags].'' The 
Conference Report states that the current sled test certification 
option remains in effect ``unless and until phased out according to the 
schedule in the final rule.''
    In this notice, the agency is proposing to amend Standard No. 208 
so that both the sled test option and the manual on-off switch 
provision are phased out as the new requirements for advanced air bags 
are phased in. During the phase-in, the sled test option and manual 
cutoff provision would not apply to any vehicles certified to the 
upgraded requirements, but would be available for vehicles not so 
certified under the same conditions as they are currently available. 
Thus, as manufacturers develop advanced air bags, they would need to 
ensure that vehicles equipped with these devices meet all of Standard 
No. 208's longstanding performance requirements as well as the new ones 
being proposed today.
    The agency is similarly proposing to amend its regulation 
permitting the installation of retrofit on-off switches to specify that 
these devices cannot be installed in vehicles that have been certified 
to the new requirements for advanced air bags.
    NHTSA notes that, as discussed later in this notice, the auto 
industry and other commenters have raised a number of objections to the 
existing unbelted barrier test requirements.5 While the 
agency is not proposing alternatives to those requirements in this 
notice, it is requesting comments on whether it should develop 
alternative unbelted crash test requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The most significant objection is the argument that air bags 
designed to enable vehicles to meet the unbelted barrier test at 30 
mph will be too powerful for occupants, especially children, who are 
extremely close to the air bag at time of deployment. The agency 
notes, however, that this objection has been made primarily in the 
context of the continued use of current, single inflation level air 
bags, instead of the advanced ones that are the subject of this 
proposal. Another significant objection concerns how representative 
the barrier test is of real world crashes. As discussed later in 
this notice, NHTSA is placing in the docket a technical paper which 
analyzes the representativeness of those requirements with respect 
to real-world crashes which have a potential to cause serious injury 
or fatality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice also provides the agency's response to all outstanding 
petitions concerning air bag performance.

III. Statutory Requirements

    As part of the NHTSA Reauthorization Act of 1998,6 
Congress required the agency to conduct rulemaking to improve air bags. 
The Act directed NHTSA to issue, not later than September 1, 1998, ``a 
notice of proposed rulemaking to improve occupant protection for 
occupants of different sizes, belted and unbelted, under Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, while minimizing the risk to infants, 
children, and other occupants from injuries and deaths caused by air 
bags, by means that include advanced air bags.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The NHTSA Reauthorization Act of 1998 is part of P.L. 105-
178.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Act directs the agency to issue the final rule not later than 
September 1, 1999. However, if it determines that the final rule cannot 
be completed by that date, the final rule must be issued no later than 
March 1, 2000. The final rule must be consistent both with the 
provisions of the NHTSA Reauthorization Act of 1998 and with 49 U.S.C. 
Sec. 30111, which specifies the requirements for Federal motor vehicle 
safety standards.
    The final rule must become effective in phases as rapidly as 
practicable, beginning not earlier than September 1, 2002, and no 
sooner than 30 months after the issuance of the final rule, but not 
later than September 1, 2003. The final rule must become fully 
effective by September 1, 2005. However, if the phase-in of the final 
rule does not begin until September 1, 2003, NHTSA is authorized to 
delay making the final rule fully effective until September 1, 2006.
    To encourage early compliance, NHTSA is directed to include in the 
NPRM means by which manufacturers may earn credits toward future 
compliance. Credits, on a one-vehicle for one-vehicle basis, may be 
earned for vehicles which are certified as being in full compliance 
with the final rule and which are so certified before the beginning of 
the phase-in period. They may also be earned during the phase-in if a 
manufacturer's production of complying vehicles for a model year 
exceeds the percentage of vehicles required to comply in that year.
    In a paragraph titled ``Coordination of Effective Dates,'' the Act 
provides that the unbelted sled test option ``shall remain in effect 
unless and until changed by [the final rule for advanced air bags].'' 
The Conference Report states that the current sled test certification 
option remains in effect ``unless and until phased out according to the 
schedule in the final rule.''

IV. Safety Problem and the Agency's Remedial Actions

A. Introduction

    While air bags are providing significant overall safety benefits, 
NHTSA is concerned that current air bags have adverse effects on 
certain groups of people in limited situations. Of particular concern, 
NHTSA has confirmed 105 primarily low speed crashes in which the 
deployment of an air bag resulted in fatal injuries to an occupant, as 
of June 1, 1998. NHTSA believes that none of these occupants would have 
died if the air bag had not deployed.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The vast majority of the deaths appear to have occurred in 
crashes in which the vehicle had a change in velocity of less than 
15 mph. Almost all occurred in crashes with a change of velocity 
less than 20 mph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary factor linking these deaths is the proximity of 
occupants to the air bag when it deployed. These deaths occurred under 
circumstances in which the occupant's upper body was very near the air 
bag when it deployed.
    There were two other factors common to many of the deaths. First, 
apart from 13 infants fatally injured while riding in rear-facing 
infant seats, most of the fatally injured people were not using any 
type of child seat or seat belt. This allowed the people to move 
forward more readily than properly restrained occupants under 
conditions of pre-impact braking or low level crashes. Second, the air 
bags involved in those deaths were, like all current air bags, so-
called ``one-size-fits-all'' air bags that

[[Page 49962]]

have a single inflation level.8 These air bags deploy with 
the same force in very low speed crashes as they do in higher speed 
crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Federal safety standards do not require a ``one-size-
fits-all'' approach to designing air bags. They permit a wide 
variety of technologies that would enable air bags to deploy with 
less force in lower speed crashes or when occupants are out of 
position or suppress deployment altogether in appropriate 
circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The most direct behavioral solution to the problem of child 
fatalities from air bags is for children to be properly belted in the 
back seat whenever possible, while the most direct behavioral solution 
for the adult fatalities is to use seat belts and move the driver seat 
as far back as practicable. Implementing these solutions necessitates 
increasing the percentage of children who are seated in the back and 
properly restrained in child safety seats. It also necessitates 
improving the current 69 percent rate of seat belt usage by a 
combination of methods, including the enactment of State primary seat 
belt use laws.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In States with ``secondary'' seat belt use laws, a motorist 
may be ticketed for failure to wear a seat belt only if there is a 
separate basis for stopping the motorist, such as the violation of a 
separate traffic law. This hampers enforcement of the law. In States 
with primary laws, a citation can be issued solely because of 
failure to wear seat belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The most direct technical solution to the problem of fatalities 
from air bags is to require that motor vehicle manufacturers install 
advanced air bags that protect occupants from the adverse effects that 
can occur from being too close to a deploying air bag.
    All of these solutions are being pursued by the agency. However, 
until advanced air bags are incorporated into the vehicle fleet, 
behavioral changes based on better information and communication about 
potential hazards and simple, non-automatic technology are the best 
means of addressing fatalities from air bags, especially those 
involving children.
    To partially implement these solutions, and preserve the benefits 
of air bags, while reducing the risk of injury to certain people, NHTSA 
issued several final rules in the past year-and-a-half.
    One rule requires new passenger cars and light trucks to bear new, 
enhanced air bag warning labels. (61 FR 60206; November 27, 1996)
    Another rule provided vehicle manufacturers with the temporary 
option of certifying compliance based on a sled test using an unbelted 
dummy, instead of conducting a vehicle-to-barrier crash test using an 
unbelted dummy. (62 FR 12960; March 19, 1997) While vehicle 
manufacturers could have depowered many or most of their vehicles' air 
bags without changes to Standard No. 208, the final rule expedited this 
process. In view of concerns that the gentler crash pulse of the sled 
test would enable many vehicles to meet Standard No. 208's existing 
injury criteria without an air bag deploying, the agency added neck 
injury criteria to help ensure that air bags deploy and are not 
depowered so much as to be ineffective. Unless the air bags deployed, a 
vehicle would be very unlikely to be able to pass the neck injury 
criteria limits. The agency concluded that depowering current single-
inflation level air bags would most likely reduce the adverse effects 
of these air bags, although it also expressed concern that depowering 
could result in less protection being provided to occupants in higher 
speed crashes, especially for those who are unbelted and/or heavier 
than average.
    NHTSA has also issued two final rules related to manual on-off 
switches. One extends the temporary time period during which vehicle 
manufacturers are permitted to offer manual on-off switches for the 
passenger air bag for vehicles without rear seats or with rear seats 
that are too small to accommodate rear facing infant seats. (62 FR 798; 
January 6, 1997) The other final rule exempts motor vehicle dealers and 
repair businesses from the statutory prohibition against making 
federally-required safety equipment inoperative so that they may 
install retrofit manual on-off switches for driver and passenger air 
bags in vehicles owned by or used by persons who are in groups at 
special risk from air bags and whose requests for switches have been 
authorized by the agency. (62 FR 62406; November 21, 1997)
    On the behavioral side, the agency has initiated a national 
campaign to increase usage of seat belts through the enactment of 
primary seat belt use laws, more public education, and more effective 
enforcement of existing belt use and child safety seat use laws.
    In conjunction with the National Aeronautical and Space 
Administration, as well as Transport Canada, and in cooperation with 
domestic and foreign vehicle manufacturers, restraint system suppliers 
and others through the Motor Vehicle Safety Research Advisory Committee 
(MVSRAC), NHTSA has undertaken data analysis and research to address 
remaining questions concerning the development and introduction of 
advanced air bags.
    In today's notice, the agency is proposing to require advanced air 
bags.

B. Background

1. Air Bags: Safety Issues
    a. Lives saved and lost. Air bags have proven to be highly 
effective in reducing fatalities from frontal crashes, the most 
prevalent fatality and injury-causing type of crash. Frontal crashes 
cause 64 percent of all driver and right-front passenger fatalities.
    NHTSA estimates that, between 1986 and June 1, 1998, air bags have 
saved about 3,148 drivers and passengers (2,725 drivers (87 percent) 
and 423 passengers (13 percent)).10 Of the 3,148, 2,267 (72 
percent) were unbelted and 881 (28 percent) were belted. These agency 
estimates are based on comparisons of the frequency of front seat 
occupant deaths in vehicles without air bags and in vehicles with air 
bags. Approximately half of those lives were saved in the last two 
years. These savings occurred primarily in moderate and high speed 
crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Studies published in the November 5, 1997 issue of the 
Journal of the American Medical Association by the Insurance 
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and by the Center for Risk 
Analysis at the Harvard School of Public Health confirm the overall 
value of passenger air bags, while urging action be taken quickly to 
address the loss of children's lives due to those air bags. IIHS 
found that passenger air bags were associated with a substantial 
reduction in crash deaths. The Center evaluated the cost-
effectiveness of passenger air bags and concluded that they produce 
savings at costs comparable to many well-accepted medical and public 
health practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the mandate in the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) for the installation of air bags in all 
passenger cars and light trucks, the number of air bags in vehicles on 
the road will increase each year. As a result, the annual number of 
lives saved by air bags will continue to increase each year. Based on 
current levels of effectiveness, air bags will save more than 3,200 
lives each year in passenger cars and light trucks when all light 
vehicles on the road are equipped with dual air bags. This estimate is 
based on current seat belt use rates (about 69 percent, according to 
State-reported surveys).
    While air bags are saving large numbers of people in moderate and 
high speed crashes, they sometimes cause fatalities, especially to 
children, in lower speed crashes. As of June 1, 1998, NHTSA's Special 
Crash Investigation program had confirmed a total of 105 crashes in 
which the deployment of an air bag resulted in fatal injuries. Sixty-
one of those fatalities involved children. Four adult passengers have 
also been fatally injured. Forty drivers are known to have been fatally 
injured.
    Just as the number of lives saved per year will rise as more 
vehicles are

[[Page 49963]]

equipped with air bags, so will the number of fatalities caused by air 
bags, absent either advanced air bags or changes in occupant behavior. 
Using the year 2000 as a point of reference, if all passenger vehicles 
on the road were equipped with air bags, air bags would save 3,215 
lives annually. However, there would be 214 fatalities annually--33 
infants in rear facing child seats, 129 other children, 41 drivers, and 
11 adult passengers.
    It is important to note that these estimates are based on pre-model 
year 1998 air bags and on the assumption that there are no changes in 
occupant demographics, driver/passenger behavior, belt use, child 
restraint use, or the percent of children sitting in the front seat. 
However, as noted above, changes have already occurred that have 
reduced the potential number of fatalities. Manufacturers redesigned 
most air bags for model year 1998 to reduce the adverse effects of air 
bags. Moreover, additional changes are anticipated. As public education 
programs succeed in creating better awareness of occupant safety 
issues, and as auto manufacturers voluntarily continue to improve their 
air bags, the potential adverse effects of air bags will be further 
reduced. Nonetheless, the agency believes that the air bag fatalities 
that have occurred to date, and the potentially much larger number of 
air bag fatalities that could occur when all light vehicles are 
equipped with air bags, demonstrate the need for regulatory action in 
this area.
    b. Causes of air bag fatalities. Air bag fatalities are caused by a 
combination of proximity to deploying air bags and the current designs 
of those air bags. The one fact that is common to all persons who died 
is not their height, weight, gender, or age. Instead, it is the fact 
that they were too close to the air bag when it started to deploy. For 
some, this occurred because they were initially sitting too close to 
the air bag. More often, this occurred because they were not restrained 
by seat belts or child safety seats and were thrown forward during pre-
crash braking.
    Air bags are designed to save lives and prevent injuries by 
cushioning occupants as they move forward in a frontal crash. They keep 
an occupant's head, neck, and chest from hitting the steering wheel or 
instrument panel. To accomplish this, an air bag must move into place 
quickly. The force of a deploying air bag is greatest as the air bag 
begins to inflate. The force decreases as the air bag inflates further.
    Occupants who are very close to or in contact with the cover of a 
stored air bag when the air bag begins to inflate can be hit with 
enough force to suffer serious injury or death. In general, a driver 
can avoid this risk by sitting at least 10 inches away from the air bag 
(measured from the breastbone to the center of the air bag cover) and 
wearing safety belts. Teenage and adult passengers can avoid this risk 
by moving their seat back and wearing their safety belts. Children 
should ride in the rear seat whenever possible.
    The confirmed fatalities involving children have a number of fairly 
consistent characteristics. First, 13 infants were in rear-facing 
infant seats that were installed in front of a passenger side air bag. 
Second, the vast majority of the older children were not using any type 
of restraint.11 Third, as noted above, the crashes occurred 
at relatively low speeds. If the passenger air bag had not deployed in 
those crashes, the children would probably not have been killed or 
seriously injured. Fourth, the infants and older children were very 
close to the instrument panel when the air bag deployed. A rear-facing 
infant seat which is installed in the front seat of a vehicle with a 
passenger side air bag will always position the infant's head very 
close to the air bag. For essentially all of the older children, the 
non-use or improper use of occupant restraints or the failure to use 
the restraints most appropriate to the child's weight and age, in 
conjunction with pre-impact braking, resulted in the forward movement 
of the children prior to the actual crash. As a result, they were very 
close to the air bag when it deployed. Because of their proximity, the 
children sustained fatal head or neck injuries from the deploying 
passenger air bag.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 39 of the 48 forward-facing children who were fatally 
injured by air bags were not using any type of belt or other 
restraint. The remaining children included some who were riding with 
their shoulder belts behind them and some who were wearing lap and 
shoulder belts but who also should have been in booster seats 
because of their small size and weight. Booster seat use could have 
improved shoulder belt fit and performance. These various factors 
and pre-crash braking allowed the children to get too close to the 
air bag when it began to inflate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As in the case of the children fatally injured by air bags, the key 
factor regarding the confirmed adult deaths has been their proximity to 
the air bag when it deployed. The most common reason for their 
proximity was failure to use seat belts. Only 11 of the 40 drivers were 
known to be properly restrained by lap and shoulder belts at the time 
of the crash. As in the case of children, the deaths of drivers have 
occurred primarily in low speed crashes.
    The other cause of air bag fatalities is the design of current air 
bags. Air bag fatalities are not a problem inherent in the concept of 
air bags or in the agency's occupant restraint standard. That standard 
has always permitted, but not required, vehicle manufacturers to use a 
variety of design features that would reduce or eliminate the 
fatalities that have been occurring, e.g., higher deployment thresholds 
that will prevent deployment in low speed crashes, sensors that adjust 
the deployment threshold depending on whether the occupant is 
belted,12 different folding patterns and aspiration designs, 
dual stage inflators,13 new air bag designs like the Autoliv 
``Gentle Bag'' that deploys first radially and then toward the 
occupant, and advanced air bags that either adjust deployment force or 
suppress deployment altogether in appropriate circumstances. While some 
of these features are new or are still under development, others have 
been around (at least conceptually) for more than a decade. The agency 
identified a number of these features in conjunction with its 1984 
decision concerning automatic occupant protection and noted that 
vehicle manufacturers could choose among those features to address the 
problems reported by those manufacturers concerning out-of-position 
occupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For example, Mercedes-Benz offers passenger air bags whose 
deployment threshold is 12 mph if the passenger is unbelted and 18 
mph if the passenger is belted.
    \13\ The passenger-side air bags installed in approximately 
10,000 GM cars in the 1970's were equipped with dual stage 
inflators. Today, for example, Autoliv, a Swedish manufacturer of 
air bags, has a ``gas generator that inflates in two steps, giving 
the bag time to unfold and the vent holes to be freed before the 
second inflation starts. Should the bag then encounter an occupant, 
any excessive gas--and indeed bag pressure--will exit through the 
vent holes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although Standard No. 208 permits vehicle manufacturers to install 
air bags incorporating those advanced features, very few current air 
bags do so. Instead, vehicle manufacturers have thus far used designs 
that inflate with the same force under all circumstances. Although the 
vehicle manufacturers are now working to incorporate advanced features 
in their air bags, the introduction of air bags with those features is 
only just beginning.
    Partly in view of the lead time needed to incorporate those 
advanced features, vehicle manufacturers first took the quicker step of 
depowering their air bags. Under a recent temporary amendment to 
Standard No. 208, vehicle manufacturers have expedited their 
introduction of depowered or otherwise redesigned air bags. While these 
modified air bags will reduce, but not eliminate, the incidence of air 
bag-

[[Page 49964]]

caused deaths, they still deploy with the same force in all crashes, 
regardless of severity, and regardless of occupant weight or location. 
Many manufacturers introduced substantial numbers of these less 
powerful air bags in model year 1998.
2. Air Bag Requirements
    Today's air bag requirements evolved over a 25-year period. NHTSA 
issued its first public notice concerning air bags in the late 1960's. 
Although vehicle manufacturers began installing air bags in 1986, it 
was not until the fall of 1996 that manufacturers were first required 
to install air bags in any motor vehicles.14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Air bag firsts--In view of the confusion evident in some 
public comments in recent rulemakings and even in some media 
accounts about when air bags were first required, and by whom, the 
agency has set forth a brief chronology below:
     1972 First year in which vehicle manufacturers had the 
option of installing air bags in passenger cars as a means of 
complying with Standard No. 208. Prior to that year, vehicle 
manufacturers had to comply means of installing manual lap and 
shoulder belts. GM installed driver and passenger air bags in 
approximately 10,000 passenger cars in the mid-1970's.
     1986 First year in which vehicle manufacturers no 
longer had the option of installing manual belts and were required 
instead to install some type of automatic protection (either 
automatic belts or air bags) in some passenger cars. This 
requirement was issued by Secretary Dole in 1984. At the time of 
that issuance, the agency expressly noted that vehicle manufacturers 
had expressed concerns about air bags and out-of-position occupants. 
In response to those concerns, NHTSA identified a variety of 
technological remedies whose use was permissible under the Standard. 
Between 1986 and 1996, vehicle manufacturers chose to comply with 
the automatic protection requirements by installing over 35 million 
driver air bags and over 18 million passenger air bags in passenger 
cars. Another 12 million driver air bags and almost 3 million 
passenger air bags were installed in light trucks in that same time 
period.
     1996 First year in which vehicle manufacturers were 
required to install air bags in some passenger cars. This 
requirement was mandated by the 1991 Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the requirements for automatic protection (i.e., protection by 
means that require no action by the occupant) were adopted in 1984 for 
passenger cars, they were expressed in broad performance terms that 
provided vehicle manufacturers with choices of a variety of methods of 
providing automatic protection, including automatic belts and air bags. 
Further, the requirements gave vehicle manufacturers broad flexibility 
in selecting the performance characteristics of air bags. Later, those 
requirements were extended to light trucks. While vehicle manufacturers 
initially installed automatic belts in many of their vehicles, 
ultimately, strong market preference for air bags led manufacturers to 
move toward installing them in all of their passenger cars and light 
trucks.
    In 1991, Congress included a provision in ISTEA directing NHTSA to 
amend Standard No. 208 to require that all passenger cars and light 
trucks provide automatic protection by means of air bags. ISTEA 
required at least 95 percent of each manufacturer's passenger cars 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1996, and before September 1, 
1997, to be equipped with an air bag and a manual lap/shoulder belt at 
both the driver and right front passenger seating positions. Every 
passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1997, must be so 
equipped. The same basic requirements were phased in for light trucks 
one year later.15 The final rule implementing this provision 
of ISTEA was published in the Federal Register (58 FR 46551) on 
September 2, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ At least 80 percent of each manufacturer's light trucks 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1997 and before September 1, 
1998 must be equipped with an air bag and a manual lap/shoulder 
belt. Every light truck manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 
must be so equipped.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Standard No. 208's automatic protection requirements are 
performance requirements. The standard does not specify the design of 
an air bag. Instead, when tested under specified test conditions, 
vehicles must meet specified limits for injury criteria, including 
criteria for the head, chest and thighs, measured on 50th percentile 
male test dummies. Until recently, these criteria limits had to be met 
for air bag-equipped vehicles in barrier crashes at speeds up to 48 km/
h (30 mph), both with the dummies belted and with them unbelted.
    However, on March 19, 1997, the agency published a final rule 
temporarily amending Standard No. 208 to provide the option of testing 
air bag performance with an unbelted dummy in a sled test incorporating 
a 125 millisecond standardized crash pulse instead of in a vehicle-to-
barrier crash test. This amendment was made primarily to expedite 
manufacturer efforts to reduce the force of air bags as they deploy.
    Standard No. 208's current automatic protection requirements, like 
those established 14 years ago in 1984, apply to the performance of the 
vehicle as a whole, and not to the air bag as a separate item of motor 
vehicle equipment. The broad vehicle performance requirements permit 
vehicle manufacturers to ``tune'' the performance of the air bag to the 
specific attributes of each of their vehicles.
    The Standard's requirements also permit manufacturers to design 
seat belts and air bags to work together. Before air bags, seat belts 
had to do all the work of restraining an occupant and reducing the 
likelihood that the occupant will strike the interior of the vehicle in 
a frontal crash. Another consequence of not having air bags was that 
vehicle manufacturers had to use relatively rigid and unyielding seat 
belts that can concentrate a lot of force along a narrow portion of the 
belted occupant's body in a serious crash. This concentration of force 
created a risk of bone fractures and injury to underlying organs. The 
presence of an air bag increases the vehicle manufacturer's ability to 
protect belted occupants. Through using force management devices, such 
as load limiters, a manufacturer can design seat belts to extend or 
release additional belt webbing before the belts concentrate too much 
force on the belted occupant's body. When these new belts stretch or 
extend, the deployed air bag is there to prevent the belted occupant 
from striking the vehicle interior.
    Further, as noted above, Standard No. 208 permits, but does not 
require, vehicle manufacturers to design their air bags to minimize the 
risk of serious injury to unbelted, out-of-position occupants, 
including children and small drivers. The standard gives the 
manufacturers significant freedom to select specific attributes to 
protect all occupants, including attributes such as (1) the crash 
speeds at which the air bags deploy, (2) the force with which they 
deploy, (3) air bag tethering and venting to reduce inflation force 
when a deploying air bag encounters an occupant close to the steering 
wheel or the instrument panel, (4) the use of sensors to both detect 
the presence of rear-facing child restraints and the presence of small 
children and prevent air bag inflation, (5) the use of sensors to 
detect occupant position and prevent air bag inflation if appropriate, 
and (6) the use of multi-stage versus single stage inflators. Multi-
stage inflators enable air bags to deploy with lower force in low speed 
crashes, the type of crashes in which children and drivers have been 
fatally injured, and with more force in higher speed crashes.

C. Comprehensive Agency Plan To Address Air Bag Fatalities

    In late November 1996, NHTSA announced that it would be 
implementing a comprehensive plan of rulemaking and other actions 
(e.g., consumer education and encouragement of State seat belt use laws 
providing for primary enforcement of their requirements) addressing the 
adverse

[[Page 49965]]

effects of air bags.16 While there is a general consensus 
that the best approach to preserving the benefits of air bags while 
preventing air bag fatalities will ultimately be the introduction of 
advanced air bag systems, those air bags are not immediately available. 
Accordingly, the agency has focused on rulemaking and other actions to 
help reduce the adverse effects of air bags in existing vehicles as 
well as in vehicles produced during the next several model years. The 
actions which have been taken, or are being taken, include the 
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For a discussion of the actions taken by NHTSA before 
November 1996 to address the adverse effects of air bags, see pp. 
40787-88 of the agency's NPRM published August 6, 1996 (61 FR 
40784).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Interim Rulemaking Solutions
    a. Existing and future vehicles-in-use. On November 11, 1997, NHTSA 
published in the Federal Register (62 FR 62406) a final rule exempting, 
under certain conditions, motor vehicle dealers and repair businesses 
from the ``make inoperative'' prohibition in 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30122 by 
allowing them to install retrofit manual on-off switches for air bags 
in vehicles owned by people whose request for a switch is authorized by 
NHTSA. The purpose of the exemption is to preserve the benefits of air 
bags while reducing the risk that some people have of being seriously 
or fatally injured by current air bags. The exemption also allows 
consumers to have new vehicles retrofitted with on-off switches after 
the purchase of those vehicles. It does not, however, allow consumers 
to purchase new vehicles already equipped with on-off switches. 
(Another rule, discussed below, allows manufacturers to ``factory 
install'' manual on-off switches for vehicles with no, or small, rear 
seats.)
    b. New vehicles. On November 27, 1996, the agency published in the 
Federal Register (61 FR 60206) a final rule amending Standards No. 208 
and No. 213 to require improved labeling on new vehicles and child 
restraints to better ensure that drivers and other occupants are aware 
of the dangers posed by passenger air bags to children, particularly to 
children in rear-facing infant restraints in vehicles with operational 
passenger air bags. The improved labels were required on new vehicles 
beginning February 25, 1997, and were required on child restraints 
beginning May 27, 1997.
    On January 6, 1997, the agency published in the Federal Register 
(62 FR 798) a final rule extending until September 1, 2000, an existing 
provision in Standard No. 208 permitting vehicle manufacturers to offer 
manual on-off switches for the passenger air bag for new vehicles 
without rear seats or with rear seats that are too small to accommodate 
rear-facing infant restraints.
    On March 19, 1997, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (62 FR 
12960) a final rule temporarily amending Standard No. 208 to facilitate 
efforts of vehicle manufacturers to depower their air bags quickly so 
that they inflate less aggressively. This change, coupled with the 
broad flexibility already provided by the standard's existing 
performance requirements, provided the vehicle manufacturers maximum 
flexibility to quickly reduce the adverse effects of current air bags. 
Vehicle manufacturers provided air bags that were depowered or 
otherwise redesigned for a large number of model year 1998 vehicles.
2. Longer-Term Rulemaking Solution
    In today's notice, NHTSA is proposing to require advanced air bags. 
The agency is proposing new performance requirements to improve 
occupant protection for occupants of different sizes, belted and 
unbelted, while minimizing the risk to infants, children, and other 
occupants from injuries and deaths caused by air bags.
3. Educational Efforts; Child Restraint and Seat Belt Use Laws
    In addition to taking these actions, and conducting extensive 
public education efforts, the Department of Transportation announced in 
the spring of 1997 a national strategy to increase seat belt and child 
seat use. Higher use rates would decrease air bag fatalities and the 
chance of adverse safety tradeoffs occurring as a result of turning off 
air bags. The plan to increase seat belt and child seat use has four 
elements: stronger public-private partnerships; stronger State seat 
belt and child seat use laws (e.g., laws providing for primary 
enforcement of seat belt use requirements); active, high-visibility 
enforcement of these laws; and effective public education. Substantial 
benefits could be obtained from achieving higher seat belt use rates. 
For example, if observed belt use increased from 69 percent to 90 
percent, an estimated additional 5,400 lives would be saved annually 
over the estimated 10,414 lives currently being saved by seat belts. In 
addition, an estimated 129,000 injuries would be prevented annually. 
The economic savings from these incremental reductions in both 
fatalities and injuries would be $8.5 billion annually.

V. Technological Opportunities

    The air bag suppliers and vehicle manufacturers are working on a 
wide range of advanced technologies to upgrade air bag system 
performance, including but not limited to addressing adverse effects of 
air bags to out-of-position occupants. To illustrate the kinds of 
technological opportunities that are available, NHTSA is including a 
discussion on this subject presented by JPL in the Executive Summary of 
its Advanced Air Bag Technology Assessment. For additional information, 
interested persons are referred to the full JPL report, NHTSA's 
Preliminary Economic Assessment for this proposal and the references it 
cites, and the docket for this and other notices relating to Standard 
No. 208.
    The JPL Executive Summary includes the following discussion of 
technological opportunities (section numbers are omitted):
    Model year 2001. The technologies that are being developed and that 
may be available for model year 2001 provide both improved information 
and improved response. 17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\  NHTSA notes that JPL, in identifying and analyzing 
parameters to reflect the functions that may be required of advanced 
technology, classified those parameters by the information provided 
about the crash and the occupants and the air bag system response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Information

     Crash sensor/control systems with improved algorithms will 
better discriminate when air bag deployment is necessary for occupant 
crash protection, will provide better threshold control, and will 
determine the appropriate inflation level for two-stage inflators.
     Belt use status sensors can detect when an occupant is 
belted so that the air bag deployment threshold can be raised when 
belts are in use. (These are currently in use in some cars.)
     Seat position sensors provide an approximate surrogate 
measure of occupant size and proximity to the air bag module. They can 
be used in combination with belt status sensors to determine the 
appropriate inflator output.
     Seat belt spool-out sensors could provide additional 
information about an occupant's size and proximity to the air bag 
module. These sensors were not mentioned as being part of any current 
industry use strategy and therefore may not be available by model year 
2001.
     Static proximity (occupant position) sensors could 
identify occupants in the keep-out zone, but will be available only if 
an aggressive development program is

[[Page 49966]]

undertaken. They would not reduce injuries to all out-of-position 
occupants, and they could be ``fooled'' some of the time.

Response

     Automatic suppression can prevent inflation when sensors 
determine that an ccupant is in a keep-out zone where injuries could 
occur.
     Two-stage inflators can permit relatively soft inflation 
for crashes of lower threshold velocity, and full inflation when 
necessary for crashes of high threshold velocity.
     Compartmented air bags, radial deployments, and bags with 
lighter-weight fabrics may reduce the size of the keep-out zone.
     Advanced belts can improve restraint system safety and 
protectiveness. They may include pretensioners that can provide better 
coupling of the occupant to the seat for improved ride-down during the 
crash. Also, they can, to some degree, limit occupant proximity to the 
air bag module. Load limiters can also improve belt performance by 
reducing maximum belt loads on the occupant. (Pretensioners and load 
limiters are currently in some vehicles.)
    Model year 2003. By model year 2003, there could be evolutionary 
changes in some of the systems and the possibility of the introduction 
of occupant and proximity sensors.

Information

     Crash sensor/control system algorithms will continue to be 
improved.
     Belt use sensors will be widely used already.
     Integrated occupant and proximity sensors could be 
available that would identify occupants in the keep-out zone or those 
who would enter it.
     Precrash sensors may be available, but their application 
requires further investigation.

Response

     Automatic suppression to prevent inflation will be 
available for use with proximity sensors.
     Multistage inflators to provide more tailored responses 
for a variety of occupants and crash severities could be available, if 
needed.
     Bag designs will continue to be improved, permitting a 
reduction of the keep-out zone.
     Pretensioners and load limiters will be placed in 
increasing numbers of vehicles. Air belts will be available to improve 
safety belt effectiveness.
    NHTSA notes that the JPL report presents tables listing specific 
technologies for advanced safety restraint systems and providing a 
summary of advanced technology characteristics. The technology items 
discussed in the JPL report include:

Sensors

--Pre-Crash Sensing
--Crash Severity Sensors
--Sensing Diagnostic Modules/Crash Algorithms
--Belt Use Sensors
--Belt Spool-Out Sensors
--Seat Position Sensors
--Occupant Classification Sensors
--Occupant Proximity Motion Sensors
--Computational Systems/Algorithms

Inflators

--Non-Azide Propellants
--Hybrid Inflators
--Heated Gas Inflators
--Multistage Inflators
--Inflators With Tailorable Mass Flow Rate

Air Bags

--New Fabrics and Coatings
--New Woven Fabrics and Bag Construction
--New Bag Shapes and Compartmented Bags
--New Air Bag Venting Systems

Seat Belt Systems

--Pretensioners
--Load Limiting Devices
--Inflatable Seat Belts

The JPL report also presents an assessment of the merits of advanced 
technologies.
    The JPL report cautioned that expected improvements in the safety 
and protectiveness of air bags must be tempered by the understanding 
that there are key technology developments that need to be 
accomplished, namely:
     Air bag deployment time variability must be reduced by 
improvements in the vehicle crush/crash sensor system.
     Inflator variability must be reduced so that dual-stage 
inflators can be applied effectively.
     System and component reliability must receive diligent 
attention to achieve the high levels required under field conditions.
     Occupant sensors must be developed that can distinguish 
with high accuracy small, medium, and large adults; children; and 
infant seats.
     Position sensors to measure occupant proximity to the air 
bag module with the required response time and accuracy must be 
demonstrated.
    The JPL report noted that all of the above are the subject of 
current development, but development, test, and integration of the 
advanced technologies needs to be accelerated to enable their 
incorporation into production vehicles.
    The JPL report also notes that its projections of technology 
availability are based on limited contacts with a limited number of 
vehicle manufacturers and suppliers, and that the state of the art of 
advanced air bag technologies is in a high state of flux. The report 
notes that the projected technologies, as well as other technologies, 
may advance more or less rapidly than indicated.
    NHTSA has had more extensive contacts than JPL with suppliers and 
vehicle manufacturers, and more recent ones. Based on confidential 
information shared with the agency during those contacts, NHTSA 
believes that the JPL report is conservative in its assessment of the 
stages that some suppliers have reached in developing new technologies 
and the model year in which some of the very highly advanced air bag 
designs will first be introduced.
    NHTSA recognizes, however, that different suppliers and vehicle 
manufacturers are at different stages in their development of advanced 
air bags, and also face different constraints and challenges, e.g., 
different states-of-the-art of their current air bag systems, 
engineering resources, number of vehicles for which air bags need to be 
redesigned, etc. The agency believes the proposed date for the 
beginning of the phase-in, the phase-in itself, and also the proposal 
of a number of manufacturer options to reflect different available 
design choices, would accommodate these differing situations.

VI. Proposal for Advanced Air Bags

A. Introduction

    NHTSA's goals in this rulemaking are to enhance the benefits of air 
bags for all occupants while eliminating or minimizing risks from air 
bags, and to ensure that the needed improvements in occupant protection 
are made expeditiously, and in accordance with the recently adopted 
statutory deadlines. As discussed in the preceding section of this 
notice, the vehicle manufacturers and their suppliers are already 
pursuing a wide variety of technological opportunities that can be used 
to achieve these goals.
    The sheer number and variety of available technological 
opportunities creates special challenges from a regulatory perspective. 
While the availability of multiple technologies generally makes it 
easier to solve the current problems with air bags quickly, it also 
means that the agency must take special care to ensure that the 
regulatory language it adopts will not be unnecessarily design-
restrictive.
    Among other things, the agency wishes to avoid:
     Inadvertently preventing the use of superior air bag 
designs;

[[Page 49967]]

     Favoring one viable technology or design over another, 
where either would meet the need for safety;
     Requiring an expensive solution, where an inexpensive one 
will work; or
     Requiring implementation of a particular technology before 
it can be appropriately developed.
    In seeking to ensure that its proposal is not unnecessarily design-
restrictive, the agency has sought to develop requirements that are as 
performance-oriented as possible, and to include manufacturer options 
that accommodate for the kinds of technological solutions that the 
agency knows are under development.
    Moreover, since the ultimate question for regulators, industry, and 
the public is how the required safety features will work in the real 
world, NHTSA has sought to specify test procedures that most closely 
replicate the real world conditions that affect the possibility of 
traffic deaths and injuries.
    As a result, NHTSA is proposing to require manufacturers to meet 
improved performance criteria in additional tests using a wider array 
of test dummies. The existing and proposed tests are identified in 
Figures 1 and 2, below. Figure 1 shows tests for requirements to 
preserve and improve occupant protection for different size occupants, 
belted and unbelted. Figure 2 shows tests for requirements to minimize 
the risk to infants, children, and other occupants from injuries and 
deaths caused by air bags.

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 49968]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.000



[[Page 49969]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.001



BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 49970]]

    NHTSA notes that, in the future, it expects to propose a higher 
speed frontal offset test requirement and also is considering proposing 
one or more tests using 95th percentile adult male dummies. The agency 
is not proposing a higher speed frontal offset test requirement at this 
time because it is still conducting research regarding such a 
requirement. 18 The agency is not proposing tests using 95th 
percentile adult male dummies at this time because the development of 
that dummy is not expected to be completed until sometime next year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\  For information concerning the agency's research program, 
interested persons are referred to the agency's Report to Congress, 
Status Report on Establishing a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard for Frontal Offset Crash Testing, April 1997. This report 
is available on NHTSA's web site. The address for the section of the 
web site where this report is located is ``http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/
cars/rules/CrashWorthy/''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed performance requirements identified in Figures 1 
and 2, vehicle manufacturers would be required to show that the air 
bags in their vehicles provide protection to small stature occupants as 
well as to average size males, and to adopt one or more of a number of 
available design features that will minimize the risk caused by air 
bags to infants in rear-facing child restraints, out-of-position 
children, or other out-of-position occupants in low speed crashes.
    The test matrix identified in Figures 1 and 2 represents a natural 
evolution and refinement of Standard No. 208's current requirements. 
The agency has always sought to include in the standard test procedures 
that replicate the real world factors that affect the possibility of 
traffic deaths and injuries. This is the best way to ensure that 
required safety features will perform well not only in compliance 
tests, but also in the real world.
    Among other things, the agency has long specified full scale 
vehicle crash tests using instrumented dummies because it is only 
through such tests that the protection provided by a vehicle and its 
occupant protection system can be fully measured. Different vehicle 
models have different crash pulses. The results of crash tests reflect 
not only the performance of the air bag, but how a particular vehicle 
model crumples and absorbs energy in a crash, i.e., its individual 
crash pulse. The use of crash tests necessitates that vehicle 
manufacturers take into account the crash pulse of their vehicles, the 
air bag design, occupant compartment design features, seat belt design 
(for belted tests) and specific attributes of each of their subsystems.
    Also, the agency has long included tests for air bag-equipped 
vehicles using both belted and unbelted dummies, since a large number 
of occupants in the United States continue to ride unbelted. Even 
today, nearly half of all occupants in potentially fatal crashes do not 
wear their seat belts. Teenagers are particularly likely to ride 
unbelted.
    Moreover, the Standard has long included test conditions that 
replicate a variety of different types of crashes. Of particular note, 
the standard's longstanding barrier test requirements specify crash 
tests at any speed up to and including 48 km/h (30 mph), and at a range 
of impact angles.
    NHTSA has also always sought to maximize manufacturer flexibility 
in providing effective occupant protection. As the agency has stated 
many times, Standard No. 208 has never specified the design of an air 
bag. Manufacturers have been free to design their air bags in any 
manner they like, e.g., any size, any inflation level, etc. so long as 
the standard's injury criteria limits are not exceeded in specified 
crash tests.
    Today's proposal follows these longstanding practices by proposing 
to add new tests that replicate additional real world factors that 
affect the possibility of deaths and injuries which are not directly 
addressed by the standard's current requirements. Manufacturers would 
continue to be permitted maximum design freedom in designing their air 
bags, so long as the standard's injury criteria performance limits are 
met in specified tests.
    Manufacturers can use many different technologies and designs to 
meet the proposed requirements. One approach is for manufacturers to 
develop air bags that inflate in a manner that does not cause injuries 
to out-of-position occupants. Several air bag suppliers have recently 
demonstrated air bags that incorporate improved folding patterns and 
internal tethering and venting to reduce the risk of injury to out-of-
position occupants. For example, Autoliv has demonstrated an 
``umbrella'' air bag that deploys first radially and then toward the 
vehicle occupant. It also may be possible to design air bags that use 
vents or other means of preventing further deployment if the air bag is 
blocked by the occupant during inflation. Again, under today's 
proposal, manufacturers would be permitted flexibility in designing 
their air bags as long as all of the standard's performance 
requirements are met in specified tests.
    A discussion of each of the specific proposed test requirements 
follows, in the general order presented in Figures 1 and 2.

B. Existing and Proposed Test Requirements

1. Tests for Requirements To Preserve and Improve Occupant Protection 
for Different Size Occupants, Belted and Unbelted
    a. Safety of medium to large teenagers and adults. Standard No. 208 
has long required vehicles to meet specified injury criteria, including 
criteria for the head and chest, measured on 50th percentile adult male 
test dummies during a rigid barrier crash test at any speed up to 48 
km/h (30 mph) and over the range of angles from -30 degrees to +30 
degrees. The standard has required air-bag-equipped vehicles to meet 
the criteria both with the dummies belted and unbelted.
    If a vehicle crash test is to measure the overall ability of a 
vehicle and its occupant protection system to prevent fatalities and 
serious injuries, the crash test must have the severity of a 
potentially fatal crash. It is also important that the crash test make 
it necessary for vehicle manufacturers to design and equip their 
vehicles so that they provide protection in a range of potentially 
fatal crashes, recognizing that no single type of crash test can be 
directly representative of all the myriad potentially fatal crashes 
that occur in the real world.
    The longstanding barrier test requirement specified in Standard No. 
208 simulates a wide range of potentially fatal crashes, both with 
respect to severity and crash pulse. The test is conducted at any speed 
up to 48 km/h (30 mph), meaning that protection must be provided at all 
such speeds, e.g., 32 km/h (20 mph) and 40 km/h (25 mph), as well as 48 
km/h (30 mph). The test is also conducted at any angle between 30 
degrees to the left and 30 degrees to the right. While the 
perpendicular rigid barrier test results in crash pulses of short 
duration, e.g., the kind of pulse that a vehicle experiences when it 
strikes a bridge abutment or fully engages another similar-sized or 
larger vehicle directly head-on, the angled rigid barrier tests result 
in crash pulses of longer duration, i.e., a softer crash pulse.
    The rigid barrier test requirements have been an integral part of 
the standard's automatic crash protection requirements and have 
resulted in enormous savings of lives. As noted above, NHTSA estimates 
that air bags have saved about 3,148 drivers and passengers. Of these, 
2,725 were unbelted and 423 were belted. If these levels of 
effectiveness are maintained, i.e., 21 percent in frontal crashes for 
restrained occupants and 34 percent in

[[Page 49971]]

frontal crashes for unrestrained occupants, air bags will save more 
than 3,000 lives each year in passenger cars and light trucks when all 
light vehicles on the road are equipped with dual air bags. Standard 
No. 208's current requirements thus represent one of NHTSA's most 
effective regulations in terms of the numbers of lives saved.
    As also noted earlier in this notice, the agency amended Standard 
No. 208 in March 1997 to provide a temporary option for manufacturers 
to certify their vehicles to an unbelted sled test as an alternative to 
the unbelted barrier test requirement. NHTSA established the sled test 
option to ensure that the vehicle manufacturers could quickly depower 
all air bags so that they inflate less aggressively.19 While 
vehicle manufacturers could have depowered many or most of their 
vehicles' air bags without changes to Standard No. 208, the final rule 
expedited this process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The agency's initial steps regarding technological 
solutions focused on depowering primarily because the lead time 
needed for depowering was significantly shorter than the lead time 
for the technological solutions that are the subject of this 
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the March 1997 final rule, the sled test option was scheduled 
to terminate on September 1, 2001. The agency explained that there was 
no need to permanently reduce Standard No. 208's performance 
requirements to enable manufacturers to fully address the adverse 
effects of air bags. This is because there were various alternatives 
already allowed by the standard to address the problem that did not 
necessitate reducing the standard's performance requirements. While the 
agency specified a several year duration for the alternative sled test, 
it indicated that it would revisit the end date, to the extent 
appropriate, in its future rulemaking on advanced air bags. See 62 FR 
12968; March 19, 1997.
    The September 1, 2001 termination date for the sled test option has 
been superseded by the NHTSA Reauthorization Act of 1998. In a 
paragraph titled ``Coordination of Effective Dates,'' the Act provides 
that the unbelted sled test option ``shall remain in effect unless and 
until changed by [the final rule for advanced air bags].'' The 
Conference Report states that the current sled test certification 
option remains in effect ``unless and until phased out according to the 
schedule in the final rule.''
    In light of the Act, the agency is proposing to phase out the sled 
test option as the requirements for advanced air bags are phased in. 
While NHTSA believes the sled test option has been an expedient and 
useful temporary measure to ensure that the vehicle manufacturers could 
quickly depower all of their air bags and to help ensure that some 
protection would continue to be provided, the agency does not consider 
sled testing to be an adequate long-term means of assessing the extent 
of occupant protection that a vehicle and its air bag will afford 
occupants in the real world. The sled test, first, excludes vehicle 
factors that can significantly affect the level of protection received 
in the real world and, second, is insufficiently representative of 
potentially fatal real world crashes.
    Unlike a full scale vehicle crash test, a sled test does not, and 
cannot, measure the actual protection an occupant will receive in a 
crash. The current sled test measures limited performance attributes of 
the air bag, but cannot measure the performance provided by the vehicle 
structure in combination with the air bags or even the full air bag 
system by itself.
    Among other shortcomings, the sled test does not evaluate the 
actual timing of air bag deployment. Deployment timing is a critical 
component of the safety afforded by an air bag. If the air bag deploys 
too late, the occupant may already have struck the interior of the 
vehicle before deployment begins.
    Air bag timing is affected by parts of the air bag system which are 
not tested during a sled test, i.e., the crash sensors and computer 
crash algorithm. A barrier crash test evaluates the ability of sensors 
to detect a crash and the ability of an algorithm to predict, on the 
basis of initial sensing of the rate of increase in force levels, 
whether crash forces will reach levels high enough to warrant 
deployment. However, the sled test does not evaluate these critical 
factors. The ability of an algorithm to correctly, and quickly, predict 
serious crashes is critical. The signal for an air bag to deploy must 
come very early in a crash, when the crash forces are just beginning to 
be sensed by the air bag system. A delay in an air bag's deployment 
could mean that the air bag deploys too late to provide any protection. 
In a sled test, the air bag is artificially deployed at a predetermined 
time. The time of deployment in a sled test is artificial and may 
differ significantly from the time when the air bag would deploy during 
an actual crash involving the same vehicle.
    Second, the current generic sled pulse does not replicate the 
actual crash pulse of a particular vehicle model, i.e., the specific 
manner in which the front of the vehicle deforms during a crash, 
thereby absorbing energy. The actual crash pulse of a vehicle is a 
critical factor in occupant protection. A crash pulse affects the 
timing of air bag deployment and the ability of an air bag to cushion 
and protect an occupant. However, the current sled test does not use 
the crash pulse of the vehicle being tested. In many cases, the crash 
pulse used in the sled test is not even one approximately 
representative of the test vehicle. The sled test uses the crash pulse 
of a large passenger car for all vehicles, regardless of their type or 
size. This crash pulse is appropriate for large passenger cars, but not 
for light trucks and smaller cars since they typically have much 
``stiffer'' crash pulses than that of the sled test. In the real world, 
deceleration of light trucks and smaller cars, and their occupants, 
occurs more quickly than is simulated by the sled test. Thus, the sled 
test results may overstate the level of occupant protection that would 
be provided by a vehicle and its air bag system in the real world. An 
air bag that can open in a timely fashion and provide adequate 
cushioning in a soft pulse crash may not be able to do so in a stiffer 
pulse crash. This is because an occupant of a crashing vehicle moves 
forward, relative to the vehicle, more quickly in stiffer pulse crash 
than in a softer pulse crash.
    Third, a sled test does not measure the potential for harm from 
vehicle components that are pushed back into the occupant compartment 
during a crash. Examples of components that may intrude into the 
occupant compartment include the steering wheel, an A-pillar and the 
toe-board. Since a sled test does not involve any kind of crash or 
deformation of the vehicle, it implicitly assumes that such intrusion 
does not occur in crashes. Thus, the sled test may indicate that a 
vehicle provides good protection when, as a result of steering wheel or 
other intrusion in a real world, the vehicle will actually provide poor 
protection in a real world crash.
    Fourth, the sled test does not measure how a vehicle performs in 
angled crashes. It only tests vehicles in a perpendicular crash. In the 
real world, frontal crashes occur at varying angles, resulting in 
occupants moving toward the steering wheel and instrument panel in a 
variety of trajectories. The specification of angled tests in 
conjunction with the barrier test requirement ensures that a vehicle is 
tested under these real world conditions.
    As noted below in the appendix to this preamble, NHTSA received 
several petitions for reconsideration concerning the sled test's sunset 
date (subsequently superseded by the NHTSA Reauthorization Act of 
1998). The

[[Page 49972]]

agency notes that its proposal to phase the option out as the 
requirements for advanced air bags are phased in will provide 
additional time for the vehicle manufacturers to redesign their air 
bags to avoid causing harm and to provide improved protection for all 
occupants, belted and unbelted. In the appendix, the agency provides 
additional reasons supporting its proposal for terminating the sled 
test option, including a discussion of the importance for safety of 
maintaining effective unbelted frontal crash test requirements.
    NHTSA is requesting comments on whether it should develop potential 
alternative unbelted crash test requirements. The auto industry and 
other parties have raised a number of objections to the existing 
unbelted barrier test requirements. NHTSA is willing to consider 
alternatives and to that end is placing a technical paper on this 
subject in the docket. Among other things, the paper compares the 
existing rigid barrier test to tests using a stationary deformable 
barrier and a movable deformable barrier.
    With respect to the current barrier test requirements, and as 
discussed later in this notice in a section titled ``Injury Criteria,'' 
the agency is proposing to upgrade the standard's chest injury criteria 
and to add neck injury criteria. NHTSA notes that, as part of 
developing this proposal for advanced air bags, it considered the 
latest available information concerning injury criteria for both the 
existing 50th percentile adult male dummy and for each of the proposed 
new dummies. The agency is placing in the public docket a technical 
paper which explains the basis for each of the proposed injury criteria 
and the proposed performance limits.
    NHTSA is also proposing to include, for all crash tests specified 
by Standard No. 208, certain vehicle integrity requirements. These 
requirements would specify that vehicle doors may not open during the 
crash test. For many years the agency has monitored whether doors open 
during 30 mph frontal barrier crash tests. In the agency's experience, 
doors remain closed in these crash tests. Since vehicles already can 
and do comply with this requirement, this proposal would establish this 
norm as a minimum level of safety. This requirement would support the 
agency goal of mitigating the fatalities and serious injuries 
attributable to complete and partial ejections.
    This proposal would also specify that, after crash testing, 
vehicles having a roof of rigid construction (i.e., vehicles other than 
convertibles), must meet the following requirements. It must be 
possible, without the use of tools, to open at least one door, if there 
is one, per each row of seats. Further, where there is no such door, it 
must be possible to move the seats or tilt their backrests as necessary 
to allow the evacuation of all the occupants. This post crash door 
opening check has always been a demonstration part of the agency's 
compliance test procedure. The purpose is to demonstrate the potential 
for entrapment. After each test, the technicians approach the vehicle 
and try to open the vehicle doors. In the majority of these full 
frontal crash tests conducted by the agency, the technicians are able 
to open the vehicle doors without the use of tools. This process is 
recorded on the test films. The agency is proposing to add this door 
opening requirement to the regulation. NHTSA does not have any 
information indicating that there would anything other than a minimal 
cost impact associated with this proposed requirement, but requests 
comments on this issue.
    b. Safety of small teenagers and small adults. Another part of the 
agency's proposal that is intended to enhance the benefits of air bags 
is to require vehicles to meet performance requirements for 5th 
percentile adult female dummies in the same tests long specified for 
50th percentile adult male dummies.
    Accordingly, the agency is proposing to require vehicles to meet 
specified injury criteria, including criteria for the head, neck, 
chest, and femurs, measured on 5th percentile adult female test dummies 
during a rigid barrier crash test at any speed up to 48 km/h (30 mph) 
and at the same range of angles applicable to the tests using 50th 
percentile male dummies. Under the proposal, vehicles must meet the 
criteria both with the dummies belted and unbelted.
    Certain of the proposed injury criteria differ from those specified 
or proposed for 50th percentile adult male dummies to reflect the 
different injury risks faced by 5th percentile adult females. Dummy 
seating positions are also adjusted to reflect 5th percentile adult 
females. The agency is proposing that tests be conducted with the 
dummies seated in a full forward position. While many 5th percentile 
adult females can sit further back, the proposed test will ensure that 
protection is provided in a more extreme position, but one where air 
bags can still provide protection.
    NHTSA is proposing to specify the use of the Hybrid III 5th 
percentile adult female dummy. The Society of Automotive Engineers has 
guided the development of this dummy, and that work is nearly complete. 
Therefore, the motor vehicle industry is familiar with this dummy. 
NHTSA has not, however, yet proposed to add this dummy to Part 572, the 
agency's regulation containing specifications for the various dummies 
it specifies in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The agency 
expects to propose adding the Hybrid III 5th percentile adult female 
dummy to Part 572 later this year.\19\a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\a The proposed rule to add Hybrid III 5th 
percentile adult female dummy to Part 572 published in the Federal 
Register September 3, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is also proposing one additional barrier test requirement 
using 5th percentile adult female dummies, an up to 40 km/h (25 mph) 
offset deformable barrier test requirement, using restrained dummies.
    Research conducted by Transport Canada has shown that one of the 
causes of adverse effects of air bags is late deployment of some air 
bags in crashes with a ``soft crash pulse.'' In order to reproduce the 
softer, longer duration crash pulse, it selected the 40 percent offset 
barrier. It conducted crash tests into the barrier at 8 km/h (5 mph) 
increments up to 40 km/h (25 mph). These tests were conducted with a 
5th percentile adult female belted dummy in a full-forward position, to 
simulate short stature drivers and the high belt use pattern in Canada. 
It found that at 40 km/h (25 mph), all the air bag systems of the 
vehicles tested would deploy. It also found that even for a belted 
driver, the deployment of the air bag frequently was so late that the 
test dummy would be right on the steering wheel, a ``worst case'' 
condition. The test procedure was shown to be a good test for the head, 
neck and chest loading on the dummy by the air bag.
    NHTSA notes that the timing of air bag deployment is determined by 
a vehicle's crash sensing system, including both the crash sensing 
hardware and associated computer algorithm, i.e., the software. The 
decision to deploy an air bag is necessarily predictive, that is, the 
decision that a crash will be severe enough to warrant air bag 
deployment must be made very early in the crash if the air bag is to 
deploy in time to provide protection. The work done by Transport 
Canada, as well as other research, has indicated that the crash sensing 
systems of some vehicles need to be improved to better evaluate some 
crash pulses.
    The agency is proposing a 40 km/h (25 mph) offset deformable 
barrier crash test requirement to help ensure that vehicle 
manufacturers upgrade their crash sensing and software systems, as 
necessary, to better address soft crash pulses. The proposed test is 
essentially

[[Page 49973]]

the one that Transport Canada has been conducting for purposes of 
research. Restrained 5th percentile adult female dummies would be 
positioned in the same full forward position being proposed for the 
rigid barrier test discussed above, and the same injury criteria limits 
would apply. Since this is a relatively low energy test, it should be 
very easy to meet the injury criteria limits so long as the air bag 
deploys early in the crash event before the dummy moves very far 
forward.
    Based on the testing conducted by Transport Canada, the problem of 
late deployments appears to be a problem with only some vehicles, at 
least in the environment measured in this particular crash test. The 
agency expects that the problem can be solved using a number of readily 
available approaches. These include improving computer algorithms, and 
adding crash sensors, e.g., using extra sensors mounted in the crush 
zone of the vehicle to provide additional, and earlier, information to 
use in the decision making algorithm. A longer term means of ensuring 
that air bags deploy early in a crash would be to use anticipatory 
crash sensors.
    The agency is also proposing specifications for the deformable 
barrier to be used in this test. The specifications for this barrier 
would be included in Part 587.
2. Tests for Requirements To Minimize the Risk to Infants, Children and 
Other Occupants From Injuries and Deaths Caused by Air Bags
    The one fact that is common to all persons who are at risk from air 
bags is that they are extremely close to the air bag at time of 
deployment. Behavioral changes, such as ensuring that children ride in 
the back seat and that all occupants are properly restrained, can 
sharply reduce the number of persons who are in such positions.
    However, to minimize or eliminate air bag risks for the remaining 
persons who may be close to the air bag at time of deployment, one of 
two things must be done: either air bag deployment must be suppressed, 
or the air bag must be designed to deploy in such a manner that it does 
not cause a significant risk of injury to persons in such positions. 
All of the technologies to minimize or eliminate air bag risks follow 
one of these approaches.
    As NHTSA developed test requirements to minimize or eliminate air 
bag risks, it needed to account for the fact that the persons who are 
potentially at risk vary from infants to adults, and have different 
potentials for injury. The agency therefore found it necessary to 
develop requirements using a variety of test dummy sizes. Moreover, 
since the agency wished to avoid requirements that are unnecessarily 
design-restrictive, it was necessary to develop a variety of 
manufacturer options that account for the kinds of effective 
technological solutions that the agency knows are under development.
    Each of the test requirements being proposed by the agency is 
discussed below.
    a. Safety of infants. Infants in rear facing child seats are at 
significant risk from deploying air bags, since the rear facing 
orientation of the child seat places their heads extremely close to the 
air bag cover. This is why NHTSA emphasizes that rear facing infant 
seats must never be placed in the front seat unless the air bag is 
turned off.
    In order to address the risks air bags pose to infants in rear 
facing child seats, NHTSA is proposing two alternative test 
requirements, the selection of which would be at the option of the 
manufacturer. The two manufacturer options are: (1) test requirements 
for an automatic air bag suppression feature or (2) test requirements 
for low-risk deployment involving deployment of the air bag in the 
presence of a 12-month old Crash Restraints Air Bag Interaction (CRABI) 
dummy in a rear facing child restraint.
    If the automatic suppression feature option were selected, the air 
bag would need to be suppressed during several static tests using, in 
the right front passenger seat, a 12 month old child dummy in a rear 
facing infant seat, and also during rough road tests. The rear facing 
infant seat would be placed in a variety of different positions during 
the static tests. In order to ensure that the suppression feature does 
not inappropriately suppress the air bag for small statured adults, the 
air bag would need to be activated during several static tests using a 
5th percentile adult female dummy in the right front passenger seat, 
and also during rough road tests using that dummy.
    The agency is proposing rough road tests to address the possibility 
that some types of automatic suppression features, e.g., weight 
sensors, might be ``fooled'' by occupant movement associated with 
riding on rough roads. For example, depending on the design of the 
sensor, occupant movement such as bouncing might cause the weight 
sensor to read a higher weight or lower weight. The agency believes 
that such devices should be designed so they do not turn on the air bag 
in the presence of a small child who is bouncing as a result of riding 
on a rough road, and so that they do not turn off the air bag in the 
presence of a small-statured adult who is bouncing as a result of 
riding on a rough road.
    If the automatic suppression feature option were selected, a 
manufacturer would be required to provide a telltale light on the 
instrument panel which is illuminated whenever the passenger air bag is 
deactivated and not illuminated whenever the passenger air bag is 
activated. This telltale would advise vehicle occupants of the 
operational status of the air bag. In addition, the agency would use 
the telltale to determine, during the tests discussed above, whether 
the air bag is appropriately activated or deactivated.
    If the low risk deployment option were selected, a vehicle would be 
required to meet specified injury criteria when the passenger air bag 
is deployed in the presence of a 12 month old child dummy placed in a 
rear facing infant seat. The agency is proposing injury criteria 
appropriate for a 12 month old child. In the case of air bags with 
multiple inflation levels, the injury criteria would need to be met for 
all levels.
    NHTSA notes that there are uncertainties associated with all of the 
injury criteria proposed by this notice, especially those for children. 
Because experimental test data are generally not available from 
children, it is necessary to estimate injury tolerances by other means, 
e.g., by applying scaling methods to adult data. Particularly because 
injury mechanisms may differ in some respects between adults and 
children, there are necessarily some uncertainties associated with 
injury criteria developed by these means.
    NHTSA requests comments on how to take account of these 
uncertainties in this rulemaking. For example, the agency is proposing 
a HIC limit of 660 for the 12-month old CRABI dummy in a rear facing 
child restraint. However, there are uncertainties as to how much risk 
of injury is represented by this value. The agency requests commenters 
to address the appropriateness of the proposed value, and on whether 
the agency should permit a low risk deployment option or instead 
require suppression for infants in rear facing child restraints.
    With respect to that part of the proposed low risk deployment 
option that would require injury criteria limits to be met for all 
levels of a multi-level air bag, NHTSA notes that a child in a rear 
facing infant seat would be extremely close to the passenger air bag in 
any crash, regardless of crash severity. Moreover, based on discussions 
with suppliers and vehicle manufacturers, the agency believes that the 
development of technologies which

[[Page 49974]]

suppress the passenger air bag in the presence of a rear facing infant 
seat is nearing completion. Thus, it appears reasonable to expect 
advanced air bag designs to essentially eliminate risk of serious 
injury or fatality resulting from air bag deployment to children in 
rear facing infant seats. Of course, even with advanced air bags, 
children in rear facing infant seats, like other children, will be 
safer in the back seat.
    Under both test procedures, manufacturers would be required to 
assure compliance in tests using any child restraint capable of being 
used in the rear facing position which was manufactured for sale in the 
United States between two years and ten years prior to the date the 
first vehicle of the model year carline of which the vehicle is a part 
was first offered for sale to a consumer. This would ensure that 
vehicle manufacturers take account of the variety of different rear 
facing child restraints in use as they design their systems. The 
restraints used for compliance testing could be unused or used; 
however, if used, there could not be any visible damage prior to the 
test. The agency requests comments on whether there are alternative 
means of achieving this result, e.g., specifying use of several 
representative devices.
    NHTSA is proposing to specify use of the 12 month old CRABI dummy. 
The motor vehicle industry is familiar with this dummy, and the agency 
expects to propose adding it to Part 572 later this year.
     b. Safety of 3-year-old children. Young children are at special 
risk from air bags because, when unbelted, they are easily propelled 
close to the air bag as a result of pre-crash braking. NHTSA strongly 
recommends that young children ride in the back seat, which is a much 
safer location whether or not a vehicle has air bags.
    In order to address the risks air bags pose to young children who 
do ride in the front seat, NHTSA is proposing requirements using both 
3-year old and 6-year old child dummies. While there are both 
similarities and overlap between the requirements using the different 
dummies, the agency will discuss them separately (and cover them 
separately in the proposed regulatory text) because a manufacturer 
might choose to select different compliance options for the two 
dummies.
    As to 3-year-old child dummies, the agency is proposing four 
alternative test requirements, the selection of which would be at the 
option of the manufacturer. The four manufacturer options are: (1) test 
requirements for an air bag suppression feature that suppresses the air 
bag when a child is present, i.e., a weight or size sensor, (2) test 
requirements for an air bag suppression feature that suppresses the air 
bag when an occupant is out of position, (3) test requirements for low 
risk deployment involving deployment of the air bag in the presence of 
out-of-position 3-year old child dummies, and (4) full scale dynamic 
out-of-position test requirements, which include pre-impact braking as 
part of the test procedure.
    NHTSA is proposing to specify use of the Hybrid III 3-year-old 
child dummy. The motor vehicle industry is familiar with this dummy, 
and the agency expects to propose adding it to Part 572 later this 
year.
    Requirements for an air bag suppression feature (weight or size 
sensor) that suppresses the air bag when a child is present. These 
requirements would mirror those being proposed with respect to a 
suppression feature for infants in rear facing child seats. If this 
option were selected, the air bag would need to be deactivated during 
several static tests using, in the right front passenger seat, a 3-year 
old child dummy, and also during rough road tests.
    The child dummy would be placed in a variety of different positions 
during the static tests. Because the effectiveness of such a feature 
depends on the air bag being suppressed regardless of how a child may 
be positioned, and given the ease of conducting such tests, the agency 
is specifying a relatively large number of such positions. Some of the 
positions specify placing the dummy in a forward-facing child seat or 
booster seat.
    In order to ensure that the suppression feature does not 
inappropriately suppress the air bag for small statured adults, the air 
bag would need to be activated during several static tests using a 5th 
percentile adult female dummy in the right front passenger seat, and 
also during rough road tests using that dummy. A manufacturer would 
also be required to provide a telltale light on the instrument panel 
which is illuminated whenever the passenger air bag is deactivated and 
not illuminated whenever the passenger air bag is activated.
    Test requirements for an air bag suppression feature that 
suppresses the air bag when a child is out-of position. The agency 
believes that a suppression feature that suppresses the air bag when an 
occupant is out-of-position would need to be tested very differently 
than one which suppresses the air bag whenever a child is present. 
While various static and rough road tests can be used to determine 
whether the latter type of suppression device is effective, they would 
be of limited utility in testing a feature that suppresses the air bag 
when an occupant is out of position. This is because one of the key 
criteria in determining whether the latter type of suppression feature 
is effective is whether it works quickly enough in a situation where an 
occupant is propelled out of position as a result of pre-crash braking 
(or other pre-crash maneuvers) before a crash. The agency has 
accordingly developed separate test requirements for such devices.
    If this option is selected by the vehicle manufacturer, the 
manufacturer would be required to provide a telltale indicating whether 
the air bag was activated or deactivated. Operation of the suppression 
feature would be tested through the use of a moving test device which 
would be guided toward the area in the vehicle where the air bag is 
located.
    This test device would begin its course of travel in a forward 
direction toward a target area inside the vehicle. This target area, 
the air bag suppression zone, consists of a portion of a circle 
centered on the geometric center of the vehicle's air bag cover. The 
function of the air bag suppression system would be tested through the 
use of a headform propelled toward the air bag suppression zone at any 
speed up to 11 km/h (7 mph)--equivalent to a typical speed that the 
head of an occupant attains in pre-crash braking. When the test fixture 
enters the area near the air bag--the air bag suppression zone--where 
injuries are likely to occur if the air bag deploys, the telltale is 
monitored to determine if the suppression feature has disabled the air 
bag.
    Apparatus that could be used to conduct this test would include a 
pneumatically operated ram whose stroke is sufficient to propel a 165 
mm (6.5 inch) headform from a point of origin to a point forward of the 
automatic suppression plane of the test vehicle. Once activated, the 
pneumatic ram will propel the headform toward the air bag at up to 11 
km/h (7 mph). The test headform consists simply of a 165mm (6.5 inch) 
outside diameter hemispherical shell. This headform is not instrumented 
nor is it intended to impact with the interior of the vehicle. 
Therefore, the agency is not specifying that it have a particular mass 
in an effort to provide maximum flexibility in configuring a test 
apparatus.
    The automatic suppression plane of the vehicle, the point at which 
the air bag suppression feature must be activated when the plane is 
crossed by the headform, is located at that point rearward of the air 
bag and forwardmost

[[Page 49975]]

of the center of gravity of the head of a seated occupant which the 
manufacturer determines to be that point where, if the air bag is 
deployed, a 3-year-old child dummy would meet specified injury 
criteria.
    NHTSA notes that the test procedure it is proposing for air bag 
suppression features that suppress the air bag when an occupant is out-
of-position is similar to one developed by GM. The agency is placing a 
copy of the GM procedure in the docket.
    The agency requests comments as to whether the proposed test 
procedure would accommodate air bag suppression systems under 
development. In particular, the agency requests comments as to whether 
these suppression systems would ``recognize'' the test device. 
Additional questions concerning this proposed test procedure are 
included in a section titled ``Questions'' later in this notice.
    Static tests involving deployment of the air bag in the presence of 
out-of-position 3-year old child dummies. If the low risk deployment 
option were selected, a vehicle would be required to meet specified 
injury criteria when the passenger air bag is deployed in the presence 
of out-of-position 3-year-old child dummies. Because this test is 
relatively difficult to run (it requires deployment of an air bag), the 
agency is proposing that it be conducted at two positions which tend to 
be ``worst case'' positions in terms of injury risk. The agency is also 
proposing more detailed positioning procedures for these two tests than 
for many of those proposed for the static suppression tests, since 
injury measures may vary considerably with position. The agency is 
proposing injury criteria appropriate for a 3-year-old child.
    In the case of air bags with multiple inflation levels, the injury 
criteria would need to be met only for the levels that would be 
deployed in lower severity crashes, e.g., crashes of 32 km/h (20 mph) 
or below. The agency notes that while an infant in a rear facing child 
seat would always be extremely close to the passenger air bag, this is 
not true for older children. An older child would most likely be 
extremely close to the air bag in lower severity crashes, following 
pre-crash braking. Of the 46 older children NHTSA has confirmed as 
having been killed by a passenger air bag, 38, or 83 percent, were in 
crashes with a delta V of 24 km/h (15 mph) or below, and all were in 
crashes with a delta V of 32 km/h (20 mph) or below.
    NHTSA requests comments concerning the threshold below which air 
bag deployment levels should be required to meet injury criteria and 
above which the injury criteria would not apply. The agency also 
requests comments concerning test procedures.
    Full scale dynamic out-of-position test requirements, which include 
pre-impact braking as part of the test procedure. Under this option, a 
vehicle would be required to meet injury criteria in a rigid barrier 
crash test that included pre-impact braking as part of the test 
procedure, using an unrestrained 3-year-old child dummy.
    Pre-crash braking would be simulated by a vehicle, initially 
accelerated to the predetermined pretest speed, that is retarded by 
application of a suitable pre-crash deceleration prior to contact with 
the rigid barrier. The agency believes that a 24 km/h (15 mph) impact 
speed with the rigid barrier would generate the crash pulse necessary 
to evaluate occupant crash protection to the out-of-position occupant. 
Further details on this alternative test procedure are set forth in the 
proposed regulatory text (see proposed S29 and S30 for Standard No. 
208).
    The agency is requesting comments on what impact speed should be 
specified, as well as on other aspects of the test procedure for this 
requirement, including dummy seating procedures. Depending on the 
comments, the agency may modify the test speeds, dummy seating 
procedures, or other aspects of the test procedure for the final rule.
    c. Safety of 6-year-old children. These test requirements would 
include the same basic tests and options as specified for 3-year old 
child dummies, except that 6-year-old child dummies would be used in 
place of 3-year old child dummies. The agency believes it is necessary 
to specify requirements for 6-year-old child dummies as well as 3-year-
old child dummies because a device that worked for one might not work 
for the other. For example, an automatic suppression feature that 
suppressed air bag deployment in the presence of a 3-year-old child 
dummy, based on information about size and/or weight, might not 
suppress air bag deployment in the presence of the larger, heavier 6-
year-old child dummy.
    The agency notes that, with respect to requirements for an air bag 
suppression feature (weight or size sensor) that suppresses the air bag 
when a child is present, some of the positions specified for the 3-
year-old child dummy would not apply to the 6-year-old child dummy. 
This is because the 6-year-old child dummy is too large to be placed in 
those positions.
    NHTSA is proposing to specify use of the Hybrid III 6-year-old 
child dummy. The Society of Automotive Engineers has guided the 
development of this dummy, and recently completed that work. Therefore, 
the motor vehicle industry is familiar with this dummy. The agency 
published an NPRM in the Federal Register (63 FR 35171) to add the 
Hybrid III 6-year-old child dummy to Part 572 on June 29, 1998.
    d. Safety of small teenage and adult drivers. Out-of-position 
drivers are at risk from air bags if they are extremely close to the 
air bag at time of deployment. While any driver could potentially 
become out of position, small statured drivers are more likely to 
become out of position because they sit closer to the steering wheel 
than larger drivers.
    In order to address the risks air bags pose to out-of-position 
drivers, NHTSA is proposing requirements using 5th percentile adult 
female dummies. The agency is proposing three alternative test 
requirements, the selection of which would be at the option of the 
manufacturer.
    The manufacturer options are similar to those using 3-year-old and 
6-year-old child dummies, with one significant exception. Since air 
bags provide safety benefits to small statured female drivers, it is 
obviously not appropriate to permit manufacturers to suppress air bag 
deployment under all conditions in the presence of such occupants. 
Therefore, this type of suppression feature would not be permitted for 
5th percentile adult female dummies.
    The three manufacturer options being proposed by the agency are: 
(1) test requirements for an air bag suppression feature that 
suppresses the driver air bag when the driver is out of position, (2) 
test requirements for low risk deployment involving deployment of the 
air bag in the presence of out-of-position 5th percentile adult female 
dummies, and (3) full scale dynamic out-of-position test requirements, 
which include pre-impact braking as part of the test procedure.
    Again, the manufacturer options which the agency is proposing 
largely mirror the similar ones being proposed for 3-year-old and 6-
year old child dummies. The test procedures are adjusted to reflect the 
driver, rather than the right front passenger position, and the 
different dummy. The proposed injury criteria are the same as being 
proposed for other tests using the 5th percentile adult female dummy.
    The agency also notes that the option specifying test requirements 
for an air bag suppression feature that suppresses the driver air bag 
when an occupant is out of position would include both static tests and 
tests using a moving test device. The static tests are needed to,

[[Page 49976]]

among other things, ensure that the driver air bag is not 
inappropriately deactivated because the driver's arms are near the air 
bag. Further details on this alternative test procedure are set forth 
in the proposed regulatory text (see proposed S25.2, S27 and S28 for 
Standard No. 208).
    The agency also notes that the proposed full scale dynamic out-of-
position test requirements, which include pre-impact braking as part of 
the test procedure, represent a surrogate for a variety of crash 
situations where the driver might be essentially against the steering 
wheel, in addition to directly addressing situations involving pre-
crash braking. These other situations include ones where small-statured 
persons drive in a position where they are extremely close to the air 
bag all of the time.

C. Injury Criteria

    NHTSA is proposing injury criteria and performance limits that it 
believes are appropriate for each size dummy. The agency is placing in 
the public docket a technical paper which explains the basis for each 
of the proposed injury criteria, and for the proposed performance 
limits. The title of the paper is ``Development of Improved Injury 
Criteria for the Assessment of Advanced Automotive Restraint Systems.''
    Standard No. 208 currently specifies five injury criteria for the 
Hybrid III 50th percentile adult male dummy in barrier crash tests: (1) 
dummy containment--all portions of the dummy must be contained in the 
vehicle passenger compartment throughout the test, (2) HIC (Head Injury 
Criterion) must not exceed 1,000, (3) chest acceleration must not 
exceed 60 g's, (4) chest deflection must not exceed 76 mm (3 inches), 
and (5) upper leg forces must not exceed 2250 pounds.
    Under today's proposal, NHTSA would generally apply these and 
certain additional injury criteria to all of the dummies covered by the 
proposal. However, the criteria would be adjusted to maintain 
consistency with respect to the injury risks faced by different size 
occupants. Also, with respect to some types of injuries, the agency is 
considering alternative injury criteria.
    For chest injury, NHTSA is considering two alternatives. Under the 
first, or primary, alternative, the agency would add a new criterion, 
Combined Thoracic Index (CTI), which was recently developed by the 
agency. New analyses of cadaver test data using a variety of restraint 
system combinations indicate that thoracic injury prediction can be 
improved by considering a linear combination of chest deflection and 
chest acceleration rather than solely by considering the criteria 
independently. CTI links the combined effect of both parameters with 
the risk of injury.
    In proposing to add CTI, the agency has considered whether to 
adjust the existing limits on chest deflection and/or chest 
acceleration. In the absence of the existing injury criteria, the 
proposed CTI limit (CTI = 1) would permit (for the Hybrid III 50th 
percentile adult male dummy) chest deflection to exceed 76 mm (3 
inches) when acceleration is very low, and acceleration to exceed 60 
g's when chest deflection is very low.
    NHTSA notes that, in the case of chest deflection, the current 76 
mm (3 inch) limit is very close to the limit capable of being measured 
by the Hybrid III 50th percentile adult male dummy. Therefore, it does 
not appear to be possible to adjust this parameter in a meaningful way. 
In the case of chest acceleration, the agency notes that it does not 
have any cadaver data concerning injury risk associated with very low 
deflection and chest acceleration above 60 g's. The agency requests 
comments on this issue. NHTSA is especially interested in data and/or 
analyses concerning the risk of injury associated with low deflection 
and high acceleration.
    As the second alternative for chest injury, the agency would simply 
continue to maintain separate limits on chest acceleration and chest 
deflection.
    NHTSA is also proposing to add neck injury criteria. The agency 
notes that it added neck injury criteria as part of the temporary sled 
test alternative, although the standard does not otherwise specify neck 
injury criteria. The neck injury criteria for the sled test alternative 
include separate limits on flexion, extension, tension, compression and 
shear.
    NHTSA has recently developed an improved neck injury criterion, 
called Nij. The agency believes that a disadvantage associated with 
specifying separate limits for flexion, extension, tension, 
compression, and shear is that it does not account for the 
superposition of loads and moments, and the additive effects on injury 
risk. The agency developed Nij to take account of these effects.
    NHTSA is considering two alternatives with respect to neck injury 
criteria. Under the first, or primary alternative, the agency would add 
Nij to Standard No. 208. In terms of performance limits, the agency is 
requesting comments on Nij=1.4 and on Nij=1. As discussed in the 
technical paper concerning injury criteria, Nij=1 reflects certain 
critical values developed using biomechanical data. However, based on 
concerns about practicability, particularly with respect to tests 
specifying use of the 5th percentile adult female dummy, as well as 
concerns about correlations between biomechanical data and real-world 
crash data, the agency believes that Nij=1.4 might be a more 
appropriate performance limit. NHTSA requests comments on this issue.
    As an alternative to Nij, NHTSA is also requesting comments on 
establishing separate limits on flexion, extension, tension, 
compression and shear, i.e., the approach adopted for the sled test 
alternative. The proposed regulatory text includes this second 
alternative as well as Nij.
    As indicated earlier in this section, NHTSA is generally proposing 
to apply the same injury criteria to all of the dummies covered by 
today's proposal, adjusted to maintain consistency with respect to the 
injury risks faced by different size occupants. There are, however, 
some exceptions to this. The agency is not proposing to apply the dummy 
containment injury criterion to the 12 month old CRABI dummy since that 
criterion does not appear to be relevant to the low risk deployment 
test using that dummy. The agency is not proposing chest deflection or 
CTI requirements for the 12 month old CRABI dummy because that dummy 
does not measure chest deflection. (As indicated above, chest 
deflection is needed to calculate CTI.)
    The agency requests comments on the proposed injury criteria, on 
how they are calculated, and on the proposed performance limits. To 
help facilitate focused comments, the agency is including specific 
values for each performance limit in the proposed regulatory text. 
However, NHTSA is considering a range of limits above and below each 
specified value. Depending on the public comments, the agency may adopt 
for the final rule values higher or lower than the ones included in the 
proposed regulatory text. The agency requests commenters to address 
what values should be selected for the final rule, their rationale for 
their recommendation, and the implications of adopting lower or higher 
values than those specified in the proposed regulatory text.

D. Dummy Recognition

    The agency has explained many times that, in developing crash test 
dummies for regulatory and research purposes, it seeks to ensure 
insofar as possible that the measurements obtained on the dummy for 
measuring injury risk are the same as would be obtained on a human

[[Page 49977]]

being. In other words, the dummy is used as a surrogate for determining 
how a human being would fare in a particular crash situation.
    As the agency proposes to specify the use of dummies and an out-of-
position occupant simulator to test suppression devices, it is 
similarly necessary to ensure that the test results using these devices 
will be as close as possible to those that would occur when a human 
being is present. NHTSA notes, however, that test dummy compatibility 
with air bag occupant presence and range sensors is not possible in all 
cases using the currently available dummies. Some technologies, e.g., 
ultrasonic and active infrared, can be used to recognize human beings 
but may not recognize current dummies or the out-of-position occupant 
simulator.
    NHTSA notes that it is monitoring research, funded by General 
Motors, by the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory that 
specifically investigates and addresses this subject. The project 
objectives compare the characteristic output signals generated by both 
human subjects and test dummies, in response to current and projected 
air bag sensors of the following general types: ultrasonic/acoustic, 
active infrared, passive infrared, capacitive, and electric field. 
However, this is a longer-range research project, and is not expected 
to be completed by the time of the final rule.
    Specialized dummy treatments may be required to enable the test 
dummy and out-of-position occupant simulator to properly interface with 
the full range of projected sensor technologies. However, it is 
possible that relatively straightforward surface treatments or clothing 
selection may suffice for compatibility with ultrasonic and active 
infrared sensor types.
    The agency requests comments on this issue.

E. Lead Time and Proposed Effective Date

    NHTSA has sought information by a variety of means to help it 
determine when the vehicle manufacturers can provide advanced air bag 
systems to consumers. This is known as lead time. Vehicle lead time is 
a complex issue, especially when it involves technology and designs 
that are still under development.
    In three different formal actions, the agency has gathered 
information concerning lead time. First, the agency held a public 
meeting on advanced air bags on February 11 and 12, 1997, in Washington 
D.C. The proceedings of that meeting are included in Docket NHTSA-97-
2814. Next, and as discussed earlier in this notice, JPL conducted, at 
NHTSA's request, a survey of the automotive industry and independent 
analysis concerning the readiness of the advanced air bag technologies. 
Finally, the agency contracted Management Engineering Associates (MEA), 
an engineering management consulting company, to conduct a feasibility 
study on advanced air bag technologies.
    These three sources of information indicated the same basic time 
schedules: currently available technological solutions such as seat 
sensors, seat belt buckle sensors, dual-stage inflators and advanced 
air bag fold patterns, can be and will be in production between model 
year 1999 and model year 2002. More sophisticated systems such as 
dynamic occupant position sensing systems and pre-crash sensors, will 
be available after September 1, 2001.
    NHTSA has also held numerous meetings with the vehicle 
manufacturers and suppliers during the past two years. The companies 
have shared confidential information with the agency about their 
ongoing development efforts and future product plans.
    The agency notes that lead time for technology still under 
development typically depends on two things: initial development to 
demonstrate that a concept is feasible, and then further development to 
apply the technology to a specific vehicle design. These typically 
involve efforts both by suppliers and by vehicle manufacturers. In this 
field of technology, it appears that much of the innovative development 
is being borne by the component suppliers, based on performance 
specifications defined by the vehicle manufacturers. First the systems 
are designed, tested and produced in limited quantities by the 
component manufacturers. Next these systems are turned over to the 
vehicle manufacturers. The vehicle manufacturers then conduct prototype 
design verifications, conduct production level equipment verification 
and finally complete production and include the systems in their new 
vehicles. MEA estimates the vehicle manufacturers' cycle could take an 
average of 36 months.
    The suppliers and vehicle manufacturers have, however, been working 
on various advanced technologies for several years. Thus, to a large 
degree, lead time is dependent on where the suppliers and vehicle 
manufacturers are currently in their development and implementation 
efforts. As discussed earlier in this notice, NHTSA believes that 
different suppliers and vehicle manufacturers are at different stages 
with respect to designing advanced air bags, and also face different 
constraints and challenges, e.g., different states-of-the-art of their 
current air bag systems, engineering resources, number of vehicles for 
which air bags need to be redesigned, etc. NHTSA believes that these 
differing situations can best be accommodated by phasing in 
requirements for advanced air bags.
    Taking account of all available information, including but not 
limited to the wide variety of available technologies that can be used 
to improve air bags (and thereby meet the proposed requirements) and 
information concerning where the different suppliers and vehicle 
manufacturers are in developing and implementing available 
technologies, the agency is proposing to phase in the new requirements 
in accordance with the following implementation schedule:
    25 percent of each manufacturer's light vehicles manufactured 
during the production year beginning September 1, 2002;
    40 percent of each manufacturer's light vehicles manufactured 
during the production year beginning September 1, 2003;
    70 percent of each manufacturer's light vehicles manufactured 
during the production year beginning September 1, 2004;
    All vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2005.
    The agency is proposing a separate alternative to address the 
special problems faced by limited line manufacturers in complying with 
phase-ins. The agency notes that a phase-in generally permits vehicle 
manufacturers flexibility with respect to which vehicles they choose 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.
    NHTSA is accordingly proposing to permit manufacturers which 
produce two or fewer carlines the option of omitting the first year of 
the phase-in if they achieve full compliance effective September 1, 
2003. The agency is proposing to limit this alternative to 
manufacturers which produce two or fewer carlines in light of the 
statutory requirement concerning when the phase-in is to begin. Without 
such a limitation, it would technically be possible for the industry as 
a whole to delay introducing any advanced air bags for a year. However, 
the agency doubts

[[Page 49978]]

that any full-line vehicle manufacturers would want to take advantage 
of the alternative, given the need to achieve full compliance by 
September 1, 2003.
    As with previous phase-ins, the agency is proposing to exclude 
vehicles manufactured in two or more stages and altered vehicles from 
the phase-in requirements. These vehicles would be subject to the 
advanced air bag requirements effective September 1, 2005. They would, 
of course, be subject to Standard No. 208's existing requirements 
before and throughout the phase-in.
    Also as with previous phase-ins, NHTSA is proposing reporting 
requirements to accompany the phase-in. The agency is proposing to 
include the reporting requirements in 49 CFR Part 585, which currently 
specifies automatic restraint phase-in reporting requirements. Since 
the phase-ins currently addressed by Part 585 are complete, effective 
September 1, 1998, the agency is proposing to replace the existing 
language with regulatory text addressing the phase-in of Standard No. 
208's requirements for advanced air bags.
    NHTSA believes that the proposed phase-in addresses two potential 
concerns. First, the agency believes that it would not be possible for 
manufacturers which produce large numbers of models of passenger cars 
and lights trucks to simultaneously design and implement advanced air 
bags in all of their vehicles at once. All manufacturers have limited 
engineering resources, and the same resources are often used for 
different models. The proposed phase-in will address this concern.
    Second, NHTSA wishes to see advanced air bags implemented 
expeditiously, but wants to encourage the vehicle manufacturers to 
adopt the best designs possible. The agency believes the proposed 
phase-in balances these competing concerns.
    The new air bag designs having the potential to offer the greatest 
safety benefits, e.g. designs that would tailor inflation based on the 
widest variety of relevant information including dynamic occupant 
proximity, also have the longest lead times. If an effective date were 
too early, it might force manufacturers working on such advanced 
designs to drop those plans and adopt designs with shorter lead times. 
At the same time, the agency recognizes that relatively simple 
solutions, with shorter lead times, can be used to solve current 
problems with air bags. The agency therefore does not want endless 
quests for the ``perfect'' air bag to unnecessarily delay solving the 
current problems.
    An issue which is closely related to lead time for advanced air 
bags is the time when amendments providing temporary reductions in 
Standard No. 208's performance requirements should expire. The 
amendment permitting manufacturers to provide manual on-off switches 
for air bags in vehicles without rear seats or with rear seats too 
small to accommodate a rear facing infant seat is scheduled to expire 
on September 1, 2000. The amendment providing a generic sled test 
alternative to Standard No. 208's unbelted barrier test requirements 
originally had an expiration date of September 1, 2001, although, as 
discussed earlier in this notice, this date has been superseded by the 
NHTSA Reauthorization Act of 1998.
    The agency received petitions objecting to the expiration dates for 
these temporary amendments. In an appendix to this notice, NHTSA is 
denying the petition concerning on-off switches to the extent that it 
requests making the switch amendment permanent. However, the agency is 
granting it to the extent that it is proposing phase out the switch 
amendment as the upgraded requirements are phased in. The petitions 
concerning the sled test option were mooted by the NHTSA 
Reauthorization Act. As in the case of the switch amendment, the agency 
is proposing to phase out the sled test option as the new requirements 
are phased in.
    During the proposed phase-in, the temporary amendments (sled test 
alternative and OEM manual on-off switches for certain vehicles) would 
not be available for vehicles certified to the upgraded requirements, 
but would be available for other vehicles under the same conditions as 
they are currently available. Thus, as manufacturers developed advanced 
air bags, they would need to ensure that vehicles equipped with these 
devices meet all of Standard No. 208's longstanding performance 
requirements as well as the new ones being proposed today.

F. Selection of Options

    NHTSA notes that, where a safety standard provides manufacturers 
more than one compliance option, the agency needs to know which option 
has been selected in order to conduct a compliance test. Moreover, 
based on previous experience with enforcing standards that include 
compliance options, the agency is aware that a manufacturer confronted 
with an apparent noncompliance for the option it has selected (based on 
a compliance test) may respond by arguing that its vehicles comply with 
a different option for which the agency has not conducted a compliance 
test. This response creates obvious difficulties for the agency in 
managing its available resources for carrying out its enforcement 
responsibilities, e.g., the possible need to conduct multiple 
compliance tests (possibly involving full-scale vehicle crash tests) 
for first one compliance option, then another, to determine whether 
there is a noncompliance.
    To address this problem, the agency is proposing to require that 
where manufacturer options are specified, the manufacturer must select 
the option by the time it certifies the vehicle and may not thereafter 
select a different option for the vehicle. This will mean that failure 
to comply with the selected option will constitute a noncompliance with 
the standard regardless of whether a vehicle complies with another 
option.
    Similarly, for manufacturers which select the option for an 
automatic suppression feature that suppresses the air bag when an 
occupant is out of position, the agency is proposing to require that 
the manufacturer must select the passenger side automatic suppression 
plane and the driver side automatic suppression plane by the time it 
certifies the vehicle, and may not thereafter select different planes. 
This is to avoid situations where the agency conducts compliance tests 
using the automatic suppression planes selected by the manufacturer and 
is later told, after a test indicates an apparent noncompliance, that 
the vehicle may comply for different automatic suppression planes.

G. Availability of Retrofit Manual On-Off Switches

    As discussed earlier in this notice, on November 11, 1997, NHTSA 
published in the Federal Register (62 FR 62406) a final rule exempting, 
under certain conditions, motor vehicle dealers and repair businesses 
from the ``make inoperative'' prohibition in 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30122 by 
allowing them to install retrofit manual on-off switches for air bags 
in vehicles owned by people whose request for a switch is approved by 
NHTSA. The final rule is set forth as Part 595, Retrofit On-Off 
Switches for Air Bags.
    The purpose of the exemption is to preserve the benefits of air 
bags while reducing the risk of serious or fatal injury that current 
air bags pose to identifiable groups of people. In issuing that final 
rule, NHTSA explained that although vehicle manufacturers are beginning 
to replace current air bags

[[Page 49979]]

with new air bags having some advanced attributes, i.e., attributes 
that will automatically minimize or avoid the risks created by current 
air bags, an interim solution is needed now for those groups of people 
at risk from current air bags in existing vehicles.
    Just as NHTSA is proposing to phase out the temporary amendments to 
Standard No. 208 as the upgraded requirements are phased in, the agency 
is also proposing to phase out the availability of this exemption. 
Under the proposal, retrofit on-off switches would not be available for 
vehicles which have been certified to the advanced air bag requirements 
being proposed in today's notice.
    NHTSA requests comments, however, on whether retrofit on-off 
switches should continue to be available under eligibility criteria 
revised to be appropriately reflective of the capabilities of advanced 
air bag technology. The agency observes that if such switches were to 
be available at all, the criteria would need to be much narrower since 
the risks would be smaller than they are currently. For example, the 
passenger side air bag in a vehicle with a weight sensor would not 
deploy at all in the presence of young children. Therefore, there would 
no safety reason to permit a retrofit passenger side on-off switch 
because of a need for a young child to ride in the front seat. The 
agency requests any commenters who advocate any continued availability 
of retrofit on-off switches to discuss how the existing eligibility 
criteria should be tailored to the specific technologies that would be 
used in vehicles certified to the advanced air bag requirements being 
proposed in today's notice.

H. Warning Labels

    As indicated in an earlier section of this notice, on November 27, 
1996, the agency published in the Federal Register (61 FR 60206) a 
final rule which, among other things, amended Standard No. 208 to 
require improved labeling on new vehicles to better ensure that drivers 
and other occupants are aware of the dangers posed by passenger air 
bags to children. These warning label requirements did not apply to 
vehicles with passenger air bags meeting specified criteria. The agency 
is similarly proposing that vehicles certified to the advanced air bag 
requirements being proposed today would not be subject to those warning 
label requirements. The agency requests comments, however, concerning 
whether any of the existing labeling requirements should be retained 
for vehicles with advanced air bags and/or whether any other labeling 
requirements should be applied to these vehicles.

I. Questions

    As discussed earlier in this notice, NHTSA has sought to develop 
requirements that are as performance-oriented as possible, and to 
include options for manufacturers that account for the kinds of 
technologies and designs that may be used. It is the agency's intent to 
permit the vehicle manufacturers to use any technology or design which 
can solve the problem of adverse effects of air bags to out-of-position 
occupants, so long as all of the standard's performance requirements 
can be met.
    To aid the agency in obtaining useful comments, NHTSA is setting 
forth in this section a specific list of questions for commenters 
relating to a number of issues including, among other things: (1) 
whether the agency's overall proposal, and whether each of the proposed 
manufacturer options, would achieve an appropriate level of safety, and 
(2) whether additional manufacturer options or test procedures are 
needed to accommodate some technologies or designs. NHTSA notes that 
the vehicle manufacturers and air bag suppliers are in the best 
position to evaluate whether the proposed manufacturer options and test 
procedures are appropriate for the technologies and designs they have 
under development. Depending on the comments, the agency may issue a 
final rule providing some but not all of the proposed options, and/or 
provide additional manufacturer options or test procedures to 
accommodate some technologies or designs.
    For easy reference, the questions are numbered consecutively. NHTSA 
encourages commenters to provide specific responses to each question 
for which they may have information or views. In addition, in order to 
facilitate tabulating the comments by issue, the agency encourages 
commenters to respond to the questions in sequence, and to identify the 
number of each question to which they are responding.
    NHTSA requests that commenters provide as specific and documented a 
rationale as possible, including an analysis of safety consequences, 
for any positions that are taken. Commenters with a technical 
background are encouraged to provide scientific analysis of these 
matters.
    The list of questions does not purport to be an all inclusive list 
of items or information which the public may have available and believe 
is valuable in assessing the issues. Commenters are encouraged to 
provide any other data that they believe are relevant.
    1. Overall safety. Does the agency's overall proposal achieve an 
appropriate level of safety with respect to risks from air bags for 
out-of-position occupants?
    a. Please address this question separately for the driver side and 
for the passenger side.
    b. If a commenter believes that the proposal does not ensure an 
appropriate level of safety, please provide a detailed explanation of 
why. Please also describe in detail what additional or alternative 
requirements the agency should consider, and the kind of technologies, 
designs and lead time that would be needed to meet those requirements.
    2. Adequacy of each proposed manufacturer option. Does each 
proposed manufacturer option ensure an appropriate level of safety with 
respect to the specific problem it addresses? How do the different 
options differ with respect to benefits and costs? If a commenter 
believes that a particular option should be changed or deleted for the 
final rule, please explain why. Also, please explain the consequences 
of changing or deleting the option, e.g., would greater lead time be 
needed to meet one of the remaining options?
    3. Accommodation of all effective designs. Do the proposed 
manufacturer options accommodate all designs under development that 
would effectively address air bag-induced injuries and/or fatalities, 
and designs that are expected to be under development in the 
foreseeable future? More specifically, is there a need to either modify 
or add test procedures to the proposed options to accommodate 
particular technologies or designs, or to add additional options? If a 
commenter believes there is such a need, please provide a detailed 
explanation of why, both with respect to why the technology is not 
accommodated by the proposed options and why the technology will ensure 
an appropriate level of safety. Please also provide a detailed 
recommendation concerning what specific regulatory text the agency 
should adopt to accommodate the technology.
    4. Possible unintended consequences. To what extent could the 
advanced technologies the manufacturers might adopt result in 
unintended adverse consequences? For example, could some occupants face 
higher risks than now? How should the agency consider that possibility 
in this rulemaking? Are there any additional or alternative 
requirements the agency should adopt to prevent such consequences?
    5. Likely manufacturer responses. How would vehicle manufacturers 
likely respond to the proposed requirements, i.e., what technologies 
and design changes would they actually

[[Page 49980]]

adopt? (Vehicle manufacturers are asked to provide a specific response 
to this question, with respect to their future product plans.)
    6. Necessity of all proposed manufacturer options. Are any of the 
proposed manufacturer options unnecessary because no manufacturer would 
ever select the option?
    7. Proposed test procedures--in general. NHTSA notes that some of 
the proposed test procedures are new. The agency requests specific 
comments on each of the proposed test procedures, including whether any 
of them should be made more specific and whether any additional 
conditions should be specified.
    8. Proposed injury criteria. As discussed earlier in this notice, 
NHTSA is placing a technical paper in the docket which discusses the 
proposed injury criteria. The agency requests comments on each of the 
proposed injury criteria, the proposed calculation methods, and the 
proposed performance limits. The agency also requests comments on 
alternatives to the proposed criteria. Among other things, NHTSA 
requests commenters to address what risk levels are acceptable, what 
factors should be considered in selecting performance limits for 
different test requirements, and whether the same limits should be 
established for all test requirements, e.g., out-of-position tests, low 
speed tests, high speed tests. The agency also requests commenters to 
address how it should take account of uncertainties relating to the 
injury criteria, especially with respect to children.
    9. Dummy recognition. a. How should the agency address the 
suitability of test dummies and out-of-position occupant simulators 
(e.g., headforms) for testing technologies (e.g., weight sensors) for 
detecting the presence of occupants and technologies (e.g., infrared 
and ultra sound) for sensing the distance of occupants from an air bag? 
To what extent can the addition of simple surface treatments or 
clothing selection be used to solve this problem?
    b. If full resolution of this or any other potential test procedure 
problems should necessitate the performance of longer range (multi-
year) research, what interim approaches should the agency use for 
assessing performance? For example, one possible approach would be to 
permit vehicle manufacturers to specify the attributes of their 
suppression devices, e.g., the size of the suppression zone and to 
require out-of-position-type test requirements to be met for those 
conditions. If, for example, a manufacturer specified that the 
suppression zone for a vehicle's passenger-side air bag extended five 
inches from the centerpoint of the air bag cover, injury criteria 
performance limits would need to be met for infant and child dummies 
located anywhere outside that zone. Under such an interim approach, the 
introduction of effective suppression devices would not be delayed by 
potential problems related to completing the development of test 
procedures. While such an approach would not test the performance of 
the suppression device itself, vehicle manufacturers would have strong 
incentives, e.g., product liability considerations, to design the 
device so that it works properly under real world conditions. While the 
agency is hopeful that any potential test problems can be resolved in a 
timely manner before the final rule, it requests comments on adopting 
this type of interim approach, and on other potential interim 
approaches, should the need rise.
    10. Seating procedure for 5th percentile adult female dummy. NHTSA 
notes that the seating procedure for the 5th percentile adult female 
dummy set forth in the proposed regulatory text is based on the 
equipment and procedures in SAE J826, ``Devices for Use in Defining and 
Measuring Vehicle Seating Accommodations.'' The seating procedure is 
similar to that specified in Standard No. 208 for the Hybrid III 50th 
percentile adult male dummy. However, the agency is proposing, with 
respect to the SAE J826 equipment, certain adjustments in the lengths 
of the lower leg and thigh (femur) segments to make it appropriate for 
the 5th percentile adult female dummy. The agency is also aware that 
the SAE Hybrid III 5th Percentile Dummy Seating Procedures Task Group 
is developing specialized seating equipment to locate the 5th 
percentile adult female dummy. This equipment was expected to become 
available by mid-summer 1998, and the agency will place specifications 
for the equipment in the docket. NHTSA recognizes that this new 
equipment might be used as an alternative to that specified in the 
proposed regulatory text. The agency seeks comments on this issue.
    11. Rough road tests. Are the proposed requirements and test 
procedures for the rough road tests appropriate? The agency is 
especially interested in comments concerning proposed specifications 
for road surface, speed, and distance of travel.
    12. Telltales for automatic suppression. For vehicles which have 
automatic suppression features, are there both pros and cons to 
requiring telltale lights on the instrument panel to advise vehicle 
occupants of the operational status of the air bag? Please address this 
question separately for the driver position and the passenger position, 
and for rear facing infant seats and older children. If the agency did 
not require a telltale light, what procedure should it use in testing 
for determining whether an air bag is activated or deactivated?
    13. Proposed automatic suppression test. The agency observes that 
the proposed automatic suppression test is new and may require further 
refinement. NHTSA therefore requests comments on all aspects of the 
proposed test procedure, including, but not limited to, the following 
issues. Is the proposed 165mm (6.5 inch) outside diameter hemispheric 
headform an appropriate simulator of an out-of-position occupant for 
the purposes of assessing the performance of an air bag suppression 
device? What other characteristics should the headform possess if the 
proposed headform is not sufficient? Should the agency specify the 
surface and other material of the headform? Will the hemispheric 
headform be recognized as a vehicle occupant by each of the various 
suppression systems under development? If not, are there changes in the 
headform that would make it recognizable?
    14. Proposed dynamic out-of-position test. NHTSA notes that the 
proposed dynamic out-of-position test is newly developed. The agency 
requests commenters to address the following issues.
    (a) When the proposed dynamic out-of-position test procedure is 
conducted for various vehicles, what are the likely trajectories of the 
dummies? Does the procedure result in the dummy moving directly toward 
a ``worst-case'' position in terms of potential air bag risk for each 
vehicle? If not, should any changes be made in the test procedure, 
e.g., changing initial dummy position? Please address this question 
separately for the 3-year old child, 6-year old child, and 5th 
percentile adult female dummies.
    (b) The proposed seating procedures for the dummies specify the use 
of low friction material between the dummies and the seat. The agency 
has proposed to specify the use of certain readily available fabrics 
that could be used for this purpose. Comments are requested on other 
means of achieving a low friction condition, such as specifying a 
coefficient of static or sliding friction and the conditions for which 
the coefficients would apply. Specific values of a friction factor are 
solicited, as appropriate.

[[Page 49981]]

    (c) Should the proposed dynamic out-of-position test be run at 
different speeds or angles? NHTSA notes that if a 24 km/h (15 mph) 
impact were specified, it is conceivable that manufacturers might be 
able to certify to this requirement by raising their deployment 
thresholds to, or slightly above, that level. The agency requests 
comments on whether higher deployment thresholds alone could be used to 
meet this test, and, if so, the safety implications of this type of 
countermeasure.
    (d) What are reasonable tolerances on final impact speed and 
deceleration in order to ensure that a test is repeatable? Should a 
specific methodology be adopted to ensure an appropriate degree of 
repeatability?
    15. Tests with child dummies. (a) NHTSA is proposing that tests 
using infant dummies be conducted with any rear facing child restraint 
which was manufactured for sale in the United States between two years 
and ten years prior to the date the first vehicle of the model year 
carline of which the vehicle is a part was first offered for sale to a 
consumer. The agency is proposing the same approach, with respect to 
forward-facing child seats and booster seats, for tests using older 
child dummies. The agency requests comments on this approach. Is there 
an effective alternative means of ensuring that vehicle manufacturers 
take account of the variety of different child restraints in use as 
they design their systems?
    (b) NHTSA is proposing to specify use of the 12-month-old CRABI 
dummy for tests using rear facing infant restraints. However, some rear 
facing infant restraints may only be certified for use with smaller 
infants, e.g., 9-month-olds. This raises the issue of whether the 
proposed dummy could be placed into these child restraints. The agency 
requests comments on how to address this issue.
    (c) Some rear facing child seats are now produced for children 
older than 12 months. Should the agency specify additional test 
requirements to address this situation?
    (d) Should the agency specify test requirements using car beds and, 
if so, what specific requirements?
    16. Older children. Standard No. 208 currently defines advanced air 
bag to include, among other things, a passenger air bag that 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 (66 pounds) or less is 
present on the front outboard passenger seat. That definition was 
included because vehicles with such air bags are not required to have 
certain warning labels.20 NHTSA notes that the part of the 
definition referring to a child with a total mass of 30 kg (66 pounds) 
or less was included to reflect the possible use of weight sensors. The 
30 kg (66 pound) threshold was originally suggested by Mercedes-Benz 
and corresponds to the weight of a 50th percentile 10-year-old and a 
95th percentile 7-year-old. The agency stated that the threshold was 
far enough below the weight of a 5th percentile adult female 
(approximately 46 kg (101 pounds)) to avoid inadvertently deactivating 
the air bag when a small adult is occupying the seat. In today's 
proposal, the agency is not proposing a threshold as such but is 
instead proposing tests using specified dummies. The heaviest child 
dummy that would be used in testing a weight sensor intended to 
suppress air bag deployment for children would be the Hybrid III 6-
year-old child dummy, which has a weight of approximately 24 kg (51.8 
pounds). No Hybrid III child dummies are available that correspond a 9-
year-old or 10-year-old. A similar issue would exist with respect to a 
sensor intended to suppress air bag deployment based on size, i.e., the 
largest size child dummy tested would be the 6-year-old. The agency 
requests comments on the potential gap between the size/weight of the 
6-year-old child dummy and the largest/heaviest child for which 
suppression might be appropriate (based on presence as opposed to being 
out-of-position) and how the agency should deal with this issue. For 
example, should the agency ballast the 6-year-old child dummy to a 
greater weight when testing weight sensors?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See 61 FR 40784, 40791-92, August 6, 1996; 61 FR 60206, 
November 27, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. Possible information for consumers. NHTSA notes that, during 
the phase-in of new requirements for advanced air bags, consumers may 
be interested in knowing which vehicles are certified to the new 
requirements. The agency requests comments on whether a means should be 
provided so that consumers can easily determine whether a vehicle has 
been certified to these requirements and, if so, which option(s) were 
selected. NHTSA also requests comments on what means should be 
established for communicating such information to consumers, should the 
agency decide to do so, e.g., a required statement on the certification 
label. The agency notes that such a statement or other means could also 
be used to determine whether the vehicle is permitted to have a 
retrofit on-off switch under Part 595.
    18. Temperature. NHTSA notes that it is asking several questions 
related to temperature and air bag performance in connection with its 
consideration of a petition for rulemaking submitted by Parents for 
Safer Air Bags. A discussion of the petition is included in an appendix 
to this notice.
    Does temperature have a significant effect on air bag deployment 
performance? Is there a need to address this variable in Standard No. 
208? If so, what specific performance requirements and test procedures 
should be considered? How are vehicle manufacturers and suppliers 
currently addressing this issue? The agency specifically requests data 
related to temperature effects on sled and vehicle crash testing.
    19. Possible requirements relating to turning off cruise controls 
upon air bag deployment. NHTSA notes that cruise controls are turned 
off when a vehicle is braked. Many crashes, however, do not involve 
braking. The agency requests comments on a possible requirement to 
require cruise controls to be turned off upon air bag deployment.
    20. Possible requirements related to preventing air bag deployments 
during rescue operations following a crash. As the agency has monitored 
the real world performance of air bag deployments, it has noted 
scattered reports of air bags deploying during rescue operations 
following a crash. This can result in injury to rescue personnel and 
also cause further injury to occupants. In NHTSA's Emergency Rescue 
Guidelines for Air Bag Equipped Vehicles,21 the agency 
explains that deactivating the vehicle's electrical system prevents 
deployment of all electrically initiated air bags after a specific time 
period. The specific times for different vehicles are identified as 
part of the guidelines. The times vary significantly for different 
vehicles, ranging from 0 seconds to 10 and even 20 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ These guidelines are available on NHTSA's website at http:/
/www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/ems/airbag/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency requests comments on possible requirements relating to 
preventing air bag deployments during rescue operations following 
crashes. Should the agency specify requirements concerning air bag 
deactivation times relative to deactivation of the vehicle's electrical 
system for electrically initiated air bags, or some other means of 
deactivation? Should the agency specify any other requirements for 
these and/or other kinds of air bags?
    21. Organization of Standard No. 208. Do commenters have any 
specific recommendations concerning the

[[Page 49982]]

organization of the regulatory text for Standard No. 208, with respect 
to either or both the existing and the proposed text? The agency notes 
that one way of simplifying the standard would be to remove outdated 
text and to separate seat belt requirements from crash test 
requirements. NHTSA is especially interested in specific comments 
concerning how all of the crash test requirements, existing and 
proposed, could be organized in a simple manner.
    22. Possible development of alternative unbelted crash test 
requirements. The vehicle manufacturers have raised various objections 
to the existing unbelted barrier test requirements. As discussed 
earlier in this notice, NHTSA is placing in the docket a technical 
paper which discusses the representativeness of those requirements with 
respect to real-world frontal crashes which have a potential to cause 
serious injury or fatality. NHTSA requests comments on that paper and 
on whether the agency should develop alternative unbelted crash test 
requirements. NHTSA requests commenters that advocate alternative 
unbelted crash test requirements to recommend specific alternative 
requirements and to address the following questions:
    a. How do the recommended alternative requirements compare to the 
existing unbelted barrier test requirements (tests at any speed up to 
48 km/h (30 mph), and at angles ranging from 30 degrees 
oblique to perpendicular, into a rigid barrier) with respect to 
representing the range of frontal crashes which have a potential to 
cause serious injuries or fatalities? In answering this question, 
please consider the entire range of tests incorporated into the 
existing requirements and the recommended alternative requirements. 
Please specifically address representativeness with respect to (1) 
crash pulses, (2) crash severities, and (3) occupant positioning, and 
provide separate answers for crashes likely to cause fatalities and 
crashes likely to cause serious but not fatal injuries.
    b. How do the recommended alternative requirements compare to the 
existing requirements with respect to repeatability, reproducibility, 
and objectivity?
    c. To what extent can it be concluded that a countermeasure needed 
to meet the recommended alternative would ensure protection in frontal 
crashes not directly represented by the test, e.g., crashes with 
different pulses (harder or softer) or different severities (more 
severe or less severe)? Please quantify the amount of protection that 
would be ensured in other types of crashes, i.e., what the injury 
criteria measurements would be. Please answer this same question for 
the existing unbelted barrier test requirements.
    d. Commenters are asked to specifically address why they believe 
the recommended alternative is superior to the current requirements. In 
providing this answer, commenters are asked to respond to the following 
questions:
    1. If the recommended alternative is believed to be representative 
of crashes not directly represented by the current requirements, should 
it be added to Standard No. 208 rather than replace the existing 
requirements?
    2. If a commenter believes that air bag designs needed to meet the 
existing unbelted barrier test requirements provide less-than-optimum 
protection in other types of crashes, please provide specific examples 
and explain why advanced technologies permitting tailored air bag 
response cannot be used to meet the existing performance requirements 
and provide appropriate protection in the examples at issue.
    23. Possibility of more children sitting in the front seat with 
advanced air bags. As vehicle manufacturers install advanced air bags 
which minimize the risks air bags pose to children, the public may 
believe that the front seat is now safe for children, and more children 
would then sit in the front seat. However, the back seat has always 
been safer for children, even before there were air bags. NHTSA 
conducted a study of children who died in crashes in the front and back 
seats of vehicles, very few of which had passenger air bags. The study 
concluded that placing children in the back reduces the risk of death 
in a crash by 27 percent, whether or not a child is 
restrained.22 NHTSA requests comments on what steps it and 
others can take to address the possible problem of more children riding 
in the front seat with advanced air bags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ For a further discussion of this subject, see NHTSA's final 
rule concerning on-off switches, 62 FR 62406, 62420 (footnote 23), 
November 21, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Costs and Benefits

    NHTSA is placing in the docket a Preliminary Economic Assessment 
(PEA) which analyzes the potential impact of the proposed new 
performance requirements and associated test procedures for advanced 
air bag systems. The Executive Summary of that document summarizes its 
conclusions as follows.
    Compliance scenarios. This analysis identified and analyzed three 
groups of possible compliance scenarios that combine the mandatory and 
optional test procedures for each risk group. Each scenario includes 
the three mandatory 5th percentile female dummy tests, as well as the 
existing 50th percentile male dummy frontal barrier tests with upgraded 
injury criteria. One scenario (Option #1) assumes that out-of-position 
children and driver requirements will be met with the out-of-position 
suppression test, while infant requirements will be met with the infant 
presence suppression test. A second scenario (Option #2) assumes that 
requirements for all three groups will be met with the low risk 
deployment test. A third scenario (Option #3) assumes that child and 
adult requirements are met with the dynamic out-of-position test, and 
the infant requirements are met with the infant presence suppression 
test.
    Methodology. The analysis estimates the benefits and costs of 
incremental improvements in safety compared to two different baselines. 
The first is a baseline of pre-MY 1998 air bag vehicles. Tables E-1 and 
E-2 provide cost and benefits estimates assuming a pre-MY 1998 air bag 
vehicle baseline. The second baseline assumes that all vehicles are 
designed to the sled test and provide benefits in full frontal impacts 
(12 o'clock strikes), but no benefit in partial frontal impacts (10, 
11, 1, and 2 o'clock strikes). Table E-3 provides costs and benefits 
assuming a baseline of vehicles designed to the sled test. Neither of 
these baselines reflect potential shifts in occupant demographics, 
driver/passenger behavior, belt use, child restraint use, or the 
percent of children sitting in the front right seat due to education 
efforts and labeling. The agency requests comments on alternative 
baselines, including ways to predict future changes in occupant 
behavior, and including the likely evolution of air bag designs in the 
absence of this rulemaking.
    While primary and alternative injury criteria performance limits 
are proposed and analyzed in this assessment, only the primary proposal 
results are discussed in this executive summary.
    Safety impacts. Potential safety impacts of this proposal are 
dependent on the specific method chosen by manufacturers to meet the 
proposed test requirements. Some countermeasures reach a larger target 
population and potentially provide more benefits than others, although 
each might adequately meet test requirements. For example, a weight 
sensor could suppress the air bag up to its design limit for weight, 
but would not suppress the air bag for heavier occupants. Thus, in 
Table E-1, it is assumed that a 54 pound weight

[[Page 49983]]

sensor would be utilized to meet the ``Suppression When Presence'' test 
with the 6 year-old dummy. While it could potentially save 102 children 
ages 1 to 12, it could not save all 129 children in that age category, 
because it is estimated that the remaining children will weigh more 
than 54 pounds. Multi-stage inflation systems are an example of a 
system that could potentially impact a wider range of injuries than do 
proximity sensors.
    The ranges of potential safety impacts by test type are shown in 
Table E-1 and total fatality benefits for the three examined compliance 
options are shown in Table E-2. The estimated range of fatalities 
prevented from the three scenarios is 226-239 annually. Of these, 25 
are in high speed tests and the remainder are in tests to minimize 
risks to out-of-position occupants. These estimated lives saved can 
also be broken into 167-175 passengers and 59-64 drivers. Injuries were 
not examined in this preliminary analysis because research to establish 
injury impacts has not been completed. However, the agency believes 
there will be significant injury reductions, particularly chest 
injuries.

  Table E-1.--Estimated Target Population and Lives Saved Annually for the Primary Proposal Compared to Pre-MY  
                                                  1998 Air Bags                                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Passengers                          
                                                             ---------------------------------------            
                     Tests                         Drivers                  1-12 year                   Total   
                                                                 RFCSS         old         Adult                
                                                                             children                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Out-of-Position Target Population..............           41           33          129           11          214
Estimated Lives Saved by Different Tests (These                                                                 
 are not additive):                                                                                             
    Suppression When Presence..................           NA           33          102           NA          135
    Suppression When Out-of-Position...........           41           NP          129           11          181
    Low Risk Deployment........................        36-39        31-33      114-122           10      191-204
    Dynamic Out-Of-Position....................        36-39           NP      114-122           10      160-171
     25 mph Offset Barrier.....................        36-39            0            0           10        46-49
    In-Position Target Population..............        6,778           NP           NP        1,501        8,279
Estimated Lives Saved by Different Tests (These                                                                 
 are additive):                                                                                                 
    30 MPH, Belted/Unbelted 50th Male..........           11           NP           NP            0           11
    30 MPH, Belted/Unbelted 5th Percentile                                                                      
     Female....................................            5           NP           NP            1            6
    25 MPH Offset Barrier......................            7           NP           NP            1            8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NP: Not proposed test for this group.                                                                           

    Costs. Potential compliance costs for this proposal vary 
considerably and are dependent on the method chosen by manufacturers to 
comply. Methods such as modified fold patterns and inflator adjustments 
can be accomplished for little or no cost. More sophisticated solutions 
such as proximity sensors can increase costs significantly. Table E-2 
lists the range of compliance costs for each compliance option. The 
range of potential costs for the compliance scenarios examined in this 
analysis is $22-$162. This amounts to a total potential annual cost of 
up to $2.5 billion, based on 15.5 million vehicle sales per year.
    Property damage savings. Compliance methods that involve the use of 
suppression technology have the potential to produce significant 
property damage cost savings because they prevent air bags from 
deploying unnecessarily. This saves repair costs to replace the 
passenger side air bag, and frequently to replace windshields damaged 
by the air bag deployment. Property damage savings are shown in Table 
E-2. Property damage savings from these requirements could total up to 
$158 over the lifetime of an average vehicle. This amounts to a total 
potential cost savings of nearly $2.5 billion over the lifetime of a 
complete model year's fleet.
    Net cost per fatality Prevented. Table E-2 summarizes the cost per 
fatality prevented of each compliance option. Property damage savings 
have the potential to offset all, or nearly all of the cost of meeting 
this proposal. The maximum range of cost per fatality saved from the 
scenarios examined in this analysis is a savings of $9.4 million per 
fatality saved to a cost of $4.8 million per fatality saved. The range 
for passenger-side impacts is more favorable than for driver-side 
impacts. This is due to the potential property damage savings from 
suppressing air bags for children, and because there are far fewer out-
of-position drivers at risk than there are passengers, particularly 
children. Passenger side costs vary from a savings of $14.7 million per 
fatality to a cost of $4.5 million per fatality. On the driver's side, 
costs range from zero to a cost of $21.2 million per fatality 
prevented.

                                                           Table E-2.--Summary of Costs and Benefits Compared to Pre-MY 1998 Air Bags                                                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                          Lifetime property                               Net cost (net savings)
                                      Cost per  vehicle       Annual total costs       Annual fatalities prevented        damage savings per     Net cost (net savings)  per discounted fatality
                                      (1997  dollars)             (billions)               (after 7% discount)                 vehicle                per vehicle          saved  (millions) ** 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Option #1 OOP          $75-$162...............  $1.16-$2.51............  239 (172)........................  $21-$158...............  $4-$53.................  $0.3-$4.8M.            
 Suppression*, Child Suppression.                                                                                                                                                               
Compliance Option #2 Low Risk     $22-$56................  $0.34-$0.86............  226-233 (163-168)................  $21-$158...............  $1-$(102)..............  $(9.4)-$0.1.           
 Deployment.                                                                                                                                                                                    

[[Page 49984]]

                                                                                                                                                                                                
Compliance Option #3 Dynamic      $24-$162...............  $0.37-$2.51............  228-233 (165-168)................  $21-$158...............  $2-$4..................  $0.2-$0.4.             
 OOP*, Child Suppression.                                                                                                                                                                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: OOP = out-of-position. All three options include offset barrier and frontal barrier tests.                                                                                              
** Net cost per discounted fatality saved is computed by taking the net cost per vehicle times 15.5 million vehicles divided by discounted fatalities prevented.                                

    Sled tests. Sled tests were temporarily allowed as an alternative 
method to certify compliance with FMVSS 208 in March 1997 in order to 
facilitate introduction of depowered air bags. A provision of the NHTSA 
Reauthorization Act (P.L. 105-178) provided that this method would 
remain in effect until changed by rule. This analysis thus addresses 
the relative merits of full frontal barrier tests and the sled test 
alternative. NHTSA is proposing to eliminate the sled test alternative 
because it is not representative of real world crashes that have the 
potential for serious injury or fatality, and it does not adequately 
test how well the vehicle and its restraint system protect outboard 
front seat occupants in those situations. Relatively modest changes 
have occurred thus far in air bag designs that use the sled test for 
compliance. However, NHTSA is concerned that potentially, air bag 
systems designed only to pass the sled test would expose occupants in 
higher speed crashes to significant increases in crash forces. For 
example, because the sled test is only a ``12 o'clock'' test, there is 
concern that it could lead to decreased air bag volume, which would 
provide less protection in frontal crashes at offset angles and to 
unbelted passengers in any frontal high speed crash. NHTSA examined air 
bag data supplied by nine auto manufacturers in response to an 
information request issued by the agency in December 1997. The agency 
found that of 42 passenger side model year 1998 systems examined, 10 
had decreased air bag volume. Eight of these ten decreased the width of 
the air bag. This demonstrates that air bags designed to meet the sled 
test may provide protection to a smaller area of the occupant 
compartment, or in a narrower set of collision angles.
    The effectiveness of air bags decreases as the crash moves further 
away from direct frontal impacts--31 percent effective at 12 o'clock, 9 
percent effective in 11 and 1 o'clock impacts and 5 percent effective 
in 10 and 2 o'clock impacts. If air bag designs provided no benefit in 
partial frontal impacts (10, 11, 1, and 2 o'clock), an estimated 319 
lives would not be saved annually by air bags. In addition, the 
agency's analysis of limited test data of MY 1998 air bag vehicles 
versus pre-MY 1998 air bag vehicles estimated that 16 to 86 lives may 
not be saved in full frontal impacts by MY 1998 air bags that have been 
certified to the sled test. In total, 335 to 405 lives potentially 
would not be saved by vehicles designed to the sled test, rather than 
to the barrier test. Table E-3 shows that the net cost per fatality 
saved ranges from a savings of $3.4 million per fatality saved to a 
cost of $2.0 million per fatality saved.
    In designing a low risk air bag, it will be more difficult for the 
manufacturers to meet all of the test conditions with an unbelted rigid 
barrier test than with a sled test. Many more sled tests than barrier 
tests can be run in a day and sled tests are less expensive to run than 
vehicle tests into a barrier. The development effort to design to the 
unbelted barrier test is more complex because many more factors have to 
be accounted for, including the angle test. The agency is not sure what 
would be the difference in vehicle costs between the two tests. If air 
bags are made smaller with the sled test, some minor savings in the air 
bag and sodium azide pellets would accrue. No additional cost has been 
added to Table E-3. However, since air-bag equipped vehicles have met 
the unbelted test in the past, there is little need to redesign air 
bags when suppression is the technology of choice.

                                                    Table E-3.--Summary of Costs and Benefits Compared to Air Bags Designed to the Sled Test                                                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                          Lifetime property                               Net cost (net savings)
                                   Cost per vehicle (1997     Annual total costs       Annual fatalities prevented        damage savings per     Net cost (net savings)  per discounted fatality
                                          dollars)                (billions)               (after 7% discount)                 vehicle                per vehicle          saved  (millions)**  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Option #1 OOP          $75-$162...............  $1.16-$2.51............  574-644 (414-465)................  $21-$158...............  $4-$53.................  $0.1-$2.0M.            
 Suppression*, Child Suppression.                                                                                                                                                               
Compliance Option #2 Low Risk     $22-$56................  $0.34-$0.86............  561-638 (405-460)................  $21-$158...............  $1-$(102)..............  $(3.4)-$0.3.           
 Deployment.                                                                                                                                                                                    
Compliance Option #3 Dynamic      $24-$162...............  $0.37-$2.51............  563-638 (406-460)................  $21-$158...............  $2-$4..................  $0.09-$0.1.            
 OOP*, Child Suppression.                                                                                                                                                                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: OOP = out-of-position. All three options include offset barrier and frontal barrier tests. There would be additional unquantified minor costs between the sled test and the unbelted    
  rigid barrier test.                                                                                                                                                                           
** Net cost per discounted fatality saved is computed by taking the net cost per vehicle times 15.5 million vehicles divided by discounted fatalities prevented.                                


[[Page 49985]]

VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was reviewed by the 
Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning 
and Review.'' The rulemaking action has been determined to be 
significant under the Department's regulatory policies and procedures. 
NHTSA is placing in the public docket a Preliminary Economic Assessment 
(PEA) describing the costs and benefits of this rulemaking action. The 
costs and benefits are summarized earlier in this document.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. 601 et seq.) I hereby 
certify that the proposed amendment would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    The proposed rule would directly affect motor vehicle manufacturers 
and indirectly affect air bag manufacturers and dummy manufacturers.
    For passenger car and light truck manufacturers, NHTSA estimates 
that there are only about four small manufacturers in the United 
States. These manufacturers serve a niche market, and the agency 
believes that small manufacturers do not manufacture even 0.1 percent 
of total U.S. passenger car and light truck production per year. The 
agency notes that these manufacturers are already required to provide 
air bags and certify compliance to Standard No. 208's dynamic impact 
requirements. Since the proposal would add additional test requirements 
for air bags, it would increase compliance costs for these, as well as 
other, vehicle manufacturers.
    The agency does not believe that there are any small air bag 
manufacturers. There are several manufacturers of dummies and/or dummy 
parts which are considered small businesses. While the proposed rule 
would not impose any requirements on these manufacturers, it would be 
expected to have a positive impact on these types of small businesses 
by increasing demand for dummies.
    NHTSA notes that final stage vehicle manufacturers and alterers 
could also be affected by this proposal. However, since the agency 
believes that final stage manufacturers and alterers receive vehicles 
which are already equipped with air bags, the proposal would not have 
any significant effect on final stage manufacturers or alterers.
    Small organizations and small governmental units would not be 
significantly affected since the potential cost impacts associated with 
this proposed action should only slightly affect the price of new motor 
vehicles.
    For the reasons discussed above, the small entities which would 
most likely be affected by this proposal are small vehicle 
manufacturers and dummy manufacturers. The number of such manufacturers 
is so small that, regardless of whether the economic impact on them was 
significant or not, the proposed rule would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    The agency believes, further, that the economic impact on these 
manufacturers would be small. While the small vehicle manufacturers 
would face additional compliance costs, the agency believes that air 
bag suppliers would likely provide much of the engineering expertise 
necessary to meet the new requirements, thereby helping to keep the 
overall impacts small. The agency also notes that, in the unlikely 
event that a small vehicle manufacturer did face substantial economic 
hardship, it could apply for a temporary exemption for up to three 
years. See 49 CFR Part 555. It could subsequently apply for a renewal 
of such an exemption. While the proposed requirements would increase 
the demand for dummies, thereby having a positive impact on dummy 
manufacturers, the agency does not believe that such increased demand 
would be sufficient to create a significant economic impact on the 
dummy manufacturers. However, the agency requests comments concerning 
the economic impact on small vehicle manufacturers and dummy 
manufacturers.
    Additional information concerning the potential impacts of the 
proposed requirements on small entities is presented in the PEA.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this proposed amendment for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have 
any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

D. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

    The agency has analyzed this proposed amendment in accordance with 
the principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 12612. NHTSA 
has determined that the proposed amendment does not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism 
Assessment.

E. Unfunded Mandates Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to 
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects 
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to 
result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually 
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This assessment is 
included in the PEA.

F. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This proposed rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under 
section 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety 
standard is in effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety 
standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not 
identical to the Federal standard, except to the extent that the state 
requirement imposes a higher level of performance and applies only to 
vehicles procured for the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a 
procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or 
revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not 
require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other 
administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Department of Transportation is submitting the following 
information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (P.L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    For further information contact: Complete copies of each request 
for collection of information may be obtained from Mr. Michael 
Robinson, NHTSA Information Collection Clearance Officer, NHTSA, 400 
Seventh Street, SW, Room 6123, Washington, DC. Mr. Robinson's telephone 
number is (202) 366-9456. Please identify the relevant collection of 
information by referring to ``Phase-in Production Reporting 
Requirements for Advanced Air Bags.''
    Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
    Title: Phase-in Production Reporting Requirements for Advanced Air 
Bags.
    Type of Request: Routine.
    OMB Clearance Number: 2127-New.

[[Page 49986]]

    Form Number: This collection of information would use no standard 
forms.
    Affected Public: The respondents are manufacturers of passenger 
cars and trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR 
of 3,855 kg (8500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 
2,495 kg (5500 pounds) or less. The agency estimates that there are 
about 21 such manufacturers.
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden 
Resulting from the Collection of Information: NHTSA estimates that the 
total annual hour burden is 1260 hours.
    Estimated Costs: NHTSA estimates the total annual cost burden, in 
dollars, to be $37,800.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: This collection would 
require manufacturers of passenger cars and trucks, buses, and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8500 pounds) 
or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5500 pounds) or 
less to annually submit a report, and maintain records related to the 
report, concerning the number of such vehicles that meet the advanced 
air bag requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 
CFR 571.208) during the phase-in of those requirements. The phase-in 
would be completed in three years.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed use of the 
Information: The purpose of the reporting requirements would be to aid 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in determining 
whether a manufacturer of passenger cars and trucks, buses, and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8500 pounds) 
or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5500 pounds) or 
less has complied with the advanced air bag requirements of Standard 
No. 208 during the phase-in of those requirements.

IX. Request for Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposal. 
Two copies should be submitted to Docket Management at the address 
given at the beginning of this document.
    In addition, for those comments of four or more pages in length, it 
is requested but not required that 10 additional copies, as well as one 
copy on computer disc, be sent to: Mr. Clarke Harper, Chief, Light Duty 
Vehicle Division, NPS-11, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. This 
would aid the agency in expediting its review of all the comments. The 
copy on computer disc may be in any format, although the agency would 
prefer that it be in WordPerfect 8.
    All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length (49 CFR 553.21). 
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without 
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage 
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
    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 two 
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been 
deleted should be submitted to Docket Management. 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, and will be available 
for examination in the docket at the above address both before and 
after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the 
closing date will also be considered. Comments received too late for 
consideration in regard to this action will be considered as 
suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments will be available 
for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue to file relevant 
information as it becomes available in the docket after the closing 
date, and recommends that interested persons continue to examine the 
docket for new material.
    Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their 
comments in the rules 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

49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber 
products, Tires.

49 CFR Part 585

    Motor vehicles, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

49 CFR Part 587

    Motor vehicle safety.

49 CFR Part 595

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
Chapter V as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for Part 571 of Title 49 would continue 
to read as follows:

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

    2. Section 571.208 would be amended by revising S3, S4.5.1 
introductory text, and S4.5.4, adding S6.6 through S6.7, revising 
S8.1.5 and S13, and adding S14 through S30.2.4, to read as follows:


Sec. 571.208  Standard No. 208; Occupant crash protection.

* * * * *
    S3. Application.
    (a) This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger 
vehicles, trucks, and buses. In addition, S9, Pressure vessels and 
explosive devices, applies to vessels designed to contain a pressurized 
fluid or gas, and to explosive devices, for use in the above types of 
motor vehicles as part of a system designed to provide protection to 
occupants in the event of a crash.
    (b) Notwithstanding any language to the contrary, any vehicle 
manufactured after March 19, 1997 and before September 1, 2005 that is 
subject to a dynamic crash test requirement conducted with unbelted 
dummies may meet the requirements specified in S13 instead of the 
applicable unbelted requirement, unless the vehicle is certified to 
meet the requirements specified in S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25.
    (c) For vehicles which are certified to meet the requirements 
specified in S13 instead of the otherwise applicable dynamic crash test 
requirement conducted with unbelted dummies, compliance with S13 shall, 
for purposes of Standards No. 201, 203 and 209, be deemed as compliance 
with the unbelted frontal barrier requirements of S5.1 of this section.
    (d) Wherever tolerances are specified, requirements shall be met at 
all values within the tolerances.
* * * * *
    S4.5.1  Labeling and owner's manual information. The labels 
specified in S4.5.1 (b), (c), and (e) of this standard

[[Page 49987]]

are not required for vehicles that have a passenger side air bag 
meeting the criteria specified in S4.5.5 of this standard or which are 
certified to the requirements specified in S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, and 
S25 of this standard.
* * * * *
    S4.5.4  Passenger Air Bag Manual Cut-off Device. Passenger cars, 
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured before 
September 1, 2005 and not certified to meet the requirements specified 
in S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 may be equipped with a device that 
deactivates the air bag installed at the right front passenger position 
in the vehicle, if all the conditions in S4.5.4.1 through S4.5.4.4 are 
satisfied.
* * * * *
[Proposed Alternative One--Chest includes existing requirements for 
chest acceleration (S6.3) and chest deflection (S6.4) plus Combined 
Thoracic Index (proposed S6.6); Proposed Alternative Two--Chest 
includes existing requirements for chest acceleration and chest 
deflection]
    S6.6  (This only applies to vehicles manufactured on or after 
September 1, 2005 and to vehicles manufactured before that time which 
are certified to the requirements specified in S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, 
and S25 of this standard.) Combined Thoracic Index (CTI) shall not 
exceed 1.0. The equation for calculating the CTI criterion is given by

CTI = (Amax/Aint) + (Dmax/
Dint)

where Aint and Dint are intercept values defined 
as

Aint = 85 g's for spine acceleration intercept, and 
Dint = 102 mm (4.0 in.) for sternal deflection intercept.

    Calculation of CTI requires measurement of upper spine triaxial 
acceleration filtered at SAE class 180 and sternal deflection filtered 
at SAE class 600. From the measured data, a 3-msec clip maximum value 
of the resultant spine acceleration (Amax) and the maximum 
chest deflection (Dmax) shall be determined.
    S6.7

[Proposed Alternative One--Neck]

    The biomechanical neck injury predictor, Nij, shall not exceed a 
value of [the agency is considering values of 1.4 and 1.0] at any point 
in time. The following procedure shall be used to compute Nij. The 
axial force (Fz) and flexion/extension moment about the occipital 
condyles (My) shall be used to calculate four combined injury 
predictors, collectively referred to as Nij. These four combined values 
represent the probability of sustaining each of four primary types of 
cervical injuries; namely tension-extension (NTE), tension-
flexion (NTF), compression-extension (NCE), and 
compression-flexion (NCF) injuries. Axial force shall be 
filtered at SAE class 1000 and flexion/extension moment (My) shall be 
filtered at SAE class 600. Shear force, which shall be filtered at SAE 
class 600, is used only in conjunction with the measured moment to 
calculate the effective moment at the location of the occipital 
condyles. The equation for calculating the Nij criteria is given by

Nij = (Fz/Fzc) + (My/Myc)

where Fzc and Myc are critical values corresponding to:

Fzc = 3600 N (809 lbf) for tension
Fzc = 3600 N (809 lbf) for compression
Myc = 410 Nm (302 lbf-ft) for flexion about occipital condyles
Myc = 125 Nm (92 lbf-ft) for extension about occipital condyles

Each of the four Nij values shall be calculated at each point in time, 
and all four values shall not exceed [the agency is considering values 
of 1.4 and 1.0] at any point in time. When calculating NTE 
and NTF, all compressive loads shall be set to zero. 
Similarly, when calculating NCE and NCF, all 
tensile loads shall be set to zero. In a similar fashion, when 
calculating NTE and NCE, all flexion moments 
shall be set to zero. Likewise, when calculating NTF and 
NCF, all extension moments shall be set to zero.

[Proposed Alternative Two--Neck]

    Neck injury criteria. Using the six axis upper neck load cell (ref. 
Denton drawing C-1709) that is mounted between the bottom of the skull 
and the top of the neck as shown in drawing 78051-218, the peak forces 
and moments measured at the occipital condyles shall not exceed:

Axial Tension = 3300 N (742 lbf)
Axial Compression = 4000 N (899 lbf)
Fore-and-Aft Shear = 3100 N (697 lbf)
Flexion Bending Moment = 190 Nm (140 lbf-ft)
Extension Bending Moment = 57 Nm (42 lbf-ft)

SAE Class 1000 shall be used to filter the axial tension, axial 
compression, and fore-and-aft shear. SAE Class 600 shall be used to 
filter the measured moment and fore-and-aft shear used to compute the 
flexion bending moment and extension bending moment at the occipital 
condyles.
* * * * *
    S8.1.5  Movable vehicle windows and vents are placed in the fully 
closed position, unless the vehicle manufacturer chooses to specify a 
different adjustment position.
* * * * *
    S13  Alternative unbelted test available, under S3(b) of this 
standard, for certain vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2005. 
* * * * *
    S14  Advanced air bag requirements for passenger cars and for 
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 
kg (8500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg 
(5500 pounds) or less, except for walk-in van-type trucks or vehicles 
designed to be sold exclusively to the U.S. Postal Service. 
    S14.1  Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2002 and 
before September 1, 2005. 
    (a) For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2002 and 
before September 1, 2005, a percentage of the manufacturer's 
production, as specified in S14.1.1, shall meet the requirements 
specified in S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 (in addition to the other 
requirements specified in this standard). Where manufacturer options 
are specified, the manufacturer shall select the option by the time it 
certifies the vehicle and may not thereafter select a different option 
for the vehicle.
    (b) Manufacturers which manufacture two or fewer carlines, as that 
term is defined at 49 CFR 583.4, may, at the option of the 
manufacturer, meet the requirements of this paragraph instead of 
paragraph (a) of this section. Each vehicle manufactured on or after 
September 1, 2003 and before September 1, 2005 shall meet the 
requirements specified in S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 (in addition 
to the other requirements specified in this standard). Where 
manufacturer options are specified, the manufacturer shall select the 
option by the time it certifies the vehicle and may not thereafter 
select a different option for the vehicle.
    (c) Each vehicle that is manufactured in two or more stages or that 
is altered (within the meaning of Sec. 567.7 of this chapter) after 
having previously been certified in accordance with part 567 of this 
chapter is not subject to the requirements of S14.1.
    S14.1.1  Phase-in Schedule. 
    S14.1.1.1  Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2002 and 
before September 1, 2003. Subject to S14.1.2(a), for vehicles 
manufactured by a manufacturer on or after September 1, 2002 and before 
September 1, 2003, the amount of vehicles complying with S15, S17, S19, 
S21, S23 and S25 shall be not less than 25 percent of:
    (a) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2000 and before September 1, 
2003, or

[[Page 49988]]

    (b) The manufacturer's production on or after September 1, 2002 and 
before September 1, 2003.
    S14.1.1.2  Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2003 and 
before September 1, 2004. Subject to S14.1.2(b), for vehicles 
manufactured by a manufacturer on or after September 1, 2003 and before 
September 1, 2004, the amount of vehicles complying with S15, S17, S19, 
S21, S23 and S25 shall be not less than 40 percent of:
    (a) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2001 and before September 1, 
2004, or
    (b) The manufacturer's production on or after September 1, 2003 and 
before September 1, 2004.
    S14.1.1.3  Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2004 and 
before September 1, 2005. Subject to S14.1.2(c), for vehicles 
manufactured by a manufacturer on or after September 1, 2004 and before 
September 1, 2005, the amount of vehicles complying with S15, S17, S19, 
S21, S23 and S25 shall be not less than 70 percent of:
    (a) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2002 and before September 1, 
2005, or
    (b) The manufacturer's production on or after September 1, 2004 and 
before September 1, 2005.
    S14.1.2  Calculation of complying vehicles. 
    (a) For the purposes of complying with S14.1.1.1, a manufacturer 
may count a vehicle it if is manufactured on or after [the date 30 days 
after publication of the final rule would be inserted], but before 
September 1, 2003.
    (b) For purposes of complying with S14.1.1.2, a manufacturer may 
count a vehicle if it:
    (1) Is manufactured on or after [the date 30 days after publication 
of the final rule would be inserted], but before September 1, 2004, and
    (2) Is not counted toward compliance with S14.1.1.1.
    (c) For purposes of complying with S14.1.1.3, a manufacturer may 
count a vehicle if it:
    (1) Is manufactured on or after [the date 30 days after publication 
of the final rule would be inserted], but before September 1, 2005, and
    (2) Is not counted toward compliance with S14.1.1.1 or S14.1.1.2.
    S14.1.3  Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer. 
    S14.1.3.1  For the purpose of calculating average annual production 
of vehicles for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles 
manufactured by each manufacturer under S14.1.1, a vehicle produced by 
more than one manufacturer shall be attributed to a single manufacturer 
as follows, subject to S14.1.3.2.
    (a) A vehicle which is imported shall be attributed to the 
importer.
    (b) A vehicle manufactured in the United States by more than one 
manufacturer, one of which also markets the vehicle, shall be 
attributed to the manufacturer which markets the vehicle.
    S14.1.3.2  A vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer shall 
be attributed to any one of the vehicle's manufacturers specified by an 
express written contract, reported to the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration under 49 CFR part 585, between the manufacturer 
so specified and the manufacturer to which the vehicle would otherwise 
be attributed under S14.1.3.1.
    S14.2  Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2005. Each 
vehicle shall meet the requirements specified in S15, S17, S19, S21, 
S23, and S25 (in addition to the other requirements specified in this 
standard). Where manufacturer options are specified, the manufacturer 
shall select the option by the time it certifies the vehicle and may 
not thereafter select a different option for the vehicle.
    S14.3  Vehicle integrity requirements. Each vehicle certified to 
the requirements of S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 of this standard 
shall meet the following vehicle integrity criteria during the crash 
and/or at the conclusion of each crash test, as specified, that is part 
of a requirement under this standard to which the vehicle is certified 
(this includes the crash tests that are part of requirements other than 
those identified earlier in this paragraph):
    (a) The latching mechanism of each door shall hold the door closed 
throughout the test.
    (b) After the impact, it must be possible, without the use of 
tools, to open at least one door, if there is one, per row of seats 
and, where there is no such door, to move the seats or tilt their 
backrests as necessary to allow the evacuation of all the occupants; 
this is, however, only applicable to vehicles having a roof of rigid 
construction.
    S15  Rigid barrier test requirements using 5th percentile adult 
female dummies. 
    S15.1.  Each vehicle shall, at each front outboard designated 
seating position, meet the injury criteria specified in S15.3 of this 
standard when the vehicle is crash tested in accordance with the 
procedures specified in S16 of this standard with the anthropomorphic 
test dummy unbelted.
    S15.2  Each vehicle shall, at each front outboard designated 
seating position, meet the injury criteria specified in S15.3 of this 
standard when the vehicle is crash tested in accordance with the 
procedures specified in S16 of this standard with the anthropomorphic 
test dummy restrained by the Type 2 seat belt assembly.
    S15.3  Injury criteria (5th percentile adult female dummy).
    S15.3.1  All portions of the test dummy shall be contained within 
the outer surfaces of the vehicle passenger compartment throughout the 
test.
    S15.3.2  The resultant acceleration at the center of gravity of the 
head shall be such that the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.002

shall not exceed 1,000 where a is the resultant acceleration expressed 
as a multiple of g (the acceleration of gravity), and t1 and t2 are any 
two points in time during the crash of the vehicle which are separated 
by not more than a 36 millisecond time interval.

[Proposed Alternative One--Chest includes requirements for chest 
acceleration (proposed S15.3.3), chest deflection (proposed S15.3.4) 
and Combined Thoracic Index (proposed S15.3.6; Proposed Alternative 
Two--Chest includes requirements for chest acceleration and chest 
deflection]

    S15.3.3  The resultant acceleration calculated from the output of 
the thoracic instrumentation shown in drawing [a drawing incorporated 
by reference in Part 572 would be identified in the final rule] shall 
not exceed 60 g's, except for intervals whose cumulative duration is 
not more than 3 milliseconds.
    S15.3.4  Compression deflection of the sternum relative to the 
spine, as determined by instrumentation shown in drawing [a drawing 
incorporated by reference in Part 572 would be identified in the final 
rule] shall not exceed 62 mm (2.5 inches).
    S15.3.5  The force transmitted axially through each upper leg shall 
not exceed 6805 N (1530 pounds).
    S15.3.6  Combined Thoracic Index (CTI) shall not exceed 1.0. The 
equation for calculating the CTI criterion is given by

CTI = (Amax/Aint) + (Dmax/
Dint)

where Aint and Dint are intercept values defined 
as

Aint = 85 g's for spine acceleration intercept, and
Dint = 83 mm (3.3 in.) for sternal deflection intercept.


[[Page 49989]]


Calculation of CTI requires measurement of upper spine triaxial 
acceleration filtered at SAE class 180 and sternal deflection filtered 
at SAE class 600. From the measured data, a 3-msec clip maximum value 
of the resultant spine acceleration (Amax) and the maximum 
chest deflection (Dmax) shall be determined. S15.3.7

[Proposed Alternative One--Neck]
    The biomechanical neck injury predictor, Nij, shall not exceed a 
value of [the agency is considering values of 1.4 and 1.0] at any point 
in time. The following procedure shall be used to compute Nij. The 
axial force (Fz) and flexion/extension moment about the occipital 
condyles (My) shall be used to calculate four combined injury 
predictors, collectively referred to as Nij. These four combined values 
represent the probability of sustaining each of four primary types of 
cervical injuries; namely tension-extension (NTE), tension-
flexion (NTF), compression-extension (NCE), and 
compression-flexion (NCF) injuries. Axial force shall be 
filtered at SAE class 1000 and flexion/extension moment (My) shall be 
filtered at SAE class 600. Shear force, which shall be filtered at SAE 
class 600, is used only in conjunction with the measured moment to 
calculate the effective moment at the location of the occipital 
condyles. The equation for calculating the Nij criteria is given by

Nij = (Fz/Fzc) + (My/Myc)

where Fzc and Myc are critical values corresponding to:

Fzc = 3200 N (719 lbf) for tension
Fzc = 3200 N (719 lbf) for compression
Myc = 210 Nm (155 lbf-ft) for flexion about occipital condyles
Myc = 60 Nm (44 lbf-ft) for extension about occipital condyles

Each of the four Nij values shall be calculated at each point in time, 
and all four values shall not exceed [the agency is considering values 
of 1.4 and 1.0] at any point in time. When calculating NTE 
and NTF, all compressive loads shall be set to zero. 
Similarly, when calculating NCE and NCF, all 
tensile loads shall be set to zero. In a similar fashion, when 
calculating NTE and NCE, all flexion moments 
shall be set to zero. Likewise, when calculating NTF and 
NCF, all extension moments shall be set to zero.

[Proposed Alternative Two--Neck]

    Neck injury criteria. Using the six axis upper neck load cell [a 
drawing incorporated by reference in Part 572 would be identified in 
the final rule] that is mounted between the bottom of the skull and the 
top of the neck as shown in drawing [a drawing incorporated by 
reference in Part 572 would be identified in the final rule], the peak 
forces and moments measured at the occipital condyles shall not exceed:

Axial Tension = 2080 N (468 lbf)
Axial Compression = 2520 N (567 lbf)
Fore-and-Aft Shear = 1950 N (438 lbf)
Flexion Bending Moment = 95 Nm (70 lbf-ft)
Extension Bending Moment = 28 Nm (21 lbf-ft)

SAE Class 1000 shall be used to filter the axial tension, axial 
compression, and fore-and-aft shear. SAE Class 600 shall be used to 
filter the measured moment and fore-and-aft shear used to compute the 
flexion bending moment and extension bending moment at the occipital 
condyles.
    S16. Test procedures for rigid barrier test requirements using 5th 
percentile adult female dummies. 
    S16.1  General provisions. Crash testing to determine compliance 
with the requirements of S15 of this standard is conducted as specified 
in the following paragraphs (a) and (b).
    (a) Unbelted testing. Place a Part 572 5th percentile adult female 
test dummy at each front outboard seating position of a vehicle, in 
accordance with procedures specified in S16.3 of this standard. No 
additional action, such as fastening a manual belt, is taken. Impact 
the vehicle traveling longitudinally forward at any speed, up to and 
including 48 km/h (30 mph), into a fixed collision barrier that is 
perpendicular to the line of travel of the vehicle, or at any angle up 
to 30 degrees from the perpendicular to the line of travel of the 
vehicle under the applicable conditions of S16.2 of this standard. 
Determine whether the vehicle integrity criteria specified in S14.3 and 
the injury criteria specified in S15.3 of this standard are met.
    (b) Belted testing. Place a Part 572 5th percentile adult female 
test dummy at each front outboard seating position of a vehicle, in 
accordance with procedures specified in S16.3 of this standard. Fasten 
the manual Type 2 seat belt assembly at each of these positions around 
the dummy occupying the position, in accordance with S16.3.10 of this 
standard. Impact the vehicle traveling longitudinally forward at any 
speed, up to and including 48 km/h (30 mph), into a fixed collision 
barrier that is perpendicular to the line of travel of the vehicle, or 
at any angle up to 30 degrees from the perpendicular to the line of 
travel of the vehicle under the applicable conditions of S16.3 of this 
standard. Determine whether the vehicle integrity criteria specified in 
S14.3 and the injury criteria specified in S15.3 of this standard are 
met.
    S16.2  Test conditions. 
    S16.2.1  The vehicle including test devices and instrumentation, is 
loaded as follows:
    (a) Passenger cars. A passenger car is loaded to its unloaded 
vehicle weight plus its rated cargo and luggage capacity weight, 
secured in the luggage area, plus the weight of the necessary 
anthropomorphic test devices.
    (b) Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. A 
multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, or bus is loaded to its unloaded 
vehicle weight plus 136 kg (300 pounds) or its rated cargo and luggage 
capacity weight, whichever is less, secured in the load carrying area 
and distributed as nearly as possible in proportion to the gross axle 
weight ratings, plus the weight of the necessary anthropomorphic test 
devices. For the purposes of S16.2.1, unloaded vehicle weight does not 
include the weight of the work-performing accessories. Vehicles are 
tested to a maximum unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5500 pounds).
    (c) Fuel system capacity. With the test vehicle on a level surface, 
pump the fuel from the vehicle's fuel tank and then operate the engine 
until it stops. Then, add Stoddard solvent to the vehicle's fuel tank 
in an amount which is equal to not less than 92 and not more than 94 
percent of the fuel tank's usable capacity stated by the vehicle's 
manufacturer. In addition, add the amount of Stoddard solvent needed to 
fill the entire fuel system from the fuel tank through the engine's 
induction system.
    (d) Vehicle test attitude. Determine the distance between a level 
surface and a standard reference point on the test vehicle's body, 
directly above each wheel opening, when the vehicle is in its ``as 
delivered'' condition. The ``as delivered'' condition is the vehicle as 
received at the test site, with 100 percent of all fluid capacities and 
all tires inflated to the manufacturer's specifications as listed on 
the vehicle's tire placard. Determine the distance between the same 
level surface and the same standard reference points in the vehicle's 
``fully loaded condition.'' The ``fully loaded condition'' is the test 
vehicle loaded in accordance with S16.2.1(a) or (b) of this standard, 
as applicable. The load placed in the cargo area shall be centered over 
the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. The pretest vehicle 
attitude shall be equal to either the as delivered or fully loaded 
attitude or between the as delivered attitude and the fully loaded 
attitude.

[[Page 49990]]

    S16.2.2  Adjustable seats are in the forwardmost adjustment 
position and if separately adjustable in a vertical direction, are at 
the uppermost position.
    S16.2.3  Place adjustable seat backs at an angle of 18+/-2 degrees 
from vertical, if adjustable. Place any manually adjustable anchorages 
midway between extreme positions. If there is no midway position for an 
adjustable anchorage, place it in the next highest position. Place each 
adjustable head restraint in its highest adjustment position. 
Adjustable lumbar supports are positioned so that the lumbar support is 
in its lowest adjustment position.
    S16.2.4  Adjustable steering controls are adjusted so that the 
steering wheel hub is at the geometric center of the locus it describes 
when it is moved through its full range of driving positions. In the 
event that the adjustable steering wheel cannot be placed in the center 
of its movement, the wheel is placed at the next lowest position.
    S16.2.5  Movable vehicle windows and vents are placed in the fully 
closed position, unless the vehicle manufacturer chooses to specify a 
different adjustment position.
    S16.2.6  Convertibles and open-body type vehicles have the top, if 
any, in place in the closed passenger compartment configuration.
    S16.2.7  Doors are fully closed and latched but not locked.
    S16.2.8  The anthropomorphic test dummies used for crash testing 
shall be the 5th percentile adult female test dummy specified in Part 
572 of this Chapter.
    S16.2.9  The Part 572 5th percentile adult female dummy is clothed 
in formfitting cotton stretch garments with short sleeves and above the 
knee length pants. A size 8W shoe which meets the configuration and 
size specifications of MIL-S 13912 change ``P'' or its equivalent is 
placed on each foot of the test dummy.
    S16.2.10  Limb joints are set at 1 g, barely restraining the weight 
of the limb when extended horizontally. Leg joints are adjusted with 
the torso in the supine position.
    S16.2.11  Instrumentation does not affect the motion of dummies 
during impact.
    S16.2.12  The stabilized temperature of the Part 572 5th percentile 
adult female test dummy is at any level between 20 degrees C and 22 
degrees C.
    S16.3  Dummy Seating Positioning Procedures. The Part 572 5th 
percentile adult female test dummy is positioned as follows.
    S16.3.1  Head. The transverse instrumentation platform of the head 
shall be horizontal within \1/2\ degree. To level the head of the 
dummy, the following sequences must be followed. First, adjust the 
position of the H point within the limits set forth in S16.3.5.1 of 
this standard to level the transverse instrumentation platform of the 
head of the test dummy. If the transverse instrumentation platform of 
the head is still not level, then adjust the pelvic angle of the test 
dummy within the limits specified in S16.3.5.2 of this standard. If the 
transverse instrumentation platform of the head is still not level, 
then adjust the neck bracket of the dummy the minimum amount necessary 
from the non-adjusted ``0'' setting to ensure that the transverse 
instrumentation platform of the head is horizontal within \1/2\ degree. 
The test dummy shall remain within the limits specified in S16.3.5.1 
and S16.3.5.2 of this standard after any adjustment of the neck 
bracket.
    S16.3.2  Arms.
    S16.3.2.1  The driver's upper arms shall be adjacent to the torso 
with the centerlines as close to a vertical plane as possible.
    S16.3.2.2  The passenger's upper arms shall be in contact with the 
seat back and the sides of the torso.
    S16.3.3  Hands.
    S16.3.3.1  The palms of the driver test dummy shall be in contact 
with the outer part of the steering wheel rim at the rim's horizontal 
centerline. The thumbs shall be over the steering wheel rim and shall 
be lightly taped to the steering wheel rim so that if the hand of the 
test dummy is pushed upward by a force of not less than 9 N (2 pounds 
force) and not more than 22 N (5 pounds force), the tape shall release 
the hand from the steering wheel rim.
    S16.3.3.2  The palms of the passenger test dummy shall be in 
contact with the outside of the dummy's thigh. The little finger shall 
be in contact with the seat cushion.
    S16.3.4  Upper torso.
    S16.3.4.1  In vehicles equipped with bench seats, the upper torso 
of the driver and passenger test dummies shall rest against the seat 
back. The midsagittal plane of the driver dummy shall be vertical and 
parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, and pass through the 
center of the steering wheel rim. The midsagittal plane of the 
passenger dummy shall be vertical and parallel to the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline and the same distance from the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline as the midsagittal plane of the driver dummy.
    S16.3.4.2  In vehicles equipped with bucket seats, the upper torso 
of the driver and passenger test dummies shall rest against the seat 
back. The midsagittal plane of the driver and the passenger dummy shall 
be vertical and shall coincide with the longitudinal centerline of the 
bucket seat.
    S16.3.5  Lower Torso.
    S16.3.5.1  H-point. The H-point of the driver and passenger test 
dummies shall coincide within 13 mm (.5 inch) in the vertical dimension 
and 13 mm (.5 inch) in the horizontal dimension of a point 6 mm (.25 
inch) below the position of the H-point determined using the equipment 
and procedures specified in SAE J826 (Apr 80) except that the length of 
the lower leg and thigh segments of the H-point machine shall be 
adjusted to 325 mm (12.8 inches) and 342 mm (13.5 inches), 
respectively, instead of the 50th percentile values specified in Table 
1 of SAE J826.
    S16.3.5.2  Pelvic angle. As determined using the pelvic angle gage 
(GM drawing 78051-532 incorporated by reference in Part 572, Subpart E 
of this chapter) which is inserted into the H-point gaging hole of the 
dummy, the angle measured from the horizontal on the 76 mm (3 inches) 
flat surface of the gage shall be 22\1/2\ degrees plus or minus 2\1/2\ 
degrees.
    S16.3.6  Legs. The upper legs of the driver and passenger test 
dummies shall rest against the seat cushion to the extent permitted by 
placement of the feet. The initial distance between the outboard knee 
clevis flange surfaces shall be 483 mm (19 inches). To the extent 
practicable, the left leg of the driver dummy and both legs of the 
passenger dummy shall be in vertical longitudinal planes. To the extent 
practicable, the right leg of the driver dummy shall be in a vertical 
plane. Final adjustment to accommodate placement of feet in accordance 
with S16.3.7 of this standard for various passenger compartment 
configurations is permitted.
    S16.3.7  Feet. The feet of the driver test dummy shall be 
positioned in accordance with S16.3.7.1(a) and S16.3.7.1(b) of this 
standard. The feet of the passenger test dummy shall be positioned in 
accordance with S16.3.7.2.1(a) and S16.3.7.2.1(b) of this standard or 
S16.3.7.2.2(a) and S16.3.7.2.2(b) of this standard, as appropriate.
    S16.3.7.1  Driver position feet placement.
    (a) Rest the right foot of the test dummy on the undepressed 
accelerator pedal with the rearmost point of the heel on the floor pan 
in the plane of the

[[Page 49991]]

pedal. If the heels cannot reach the floor, for adjustable seats lower 
the seat until the heels touch the floor. For non adjustable seats and 
for adjustable seats that do not permit dummy heel contact in the 
lowest adjustment position, adjust the lower limbs until the heels 
touch the floor. Check the H-point location in S16.3.5.1 to maintain 
the least deviation from the previous setting. If the foot cannot be 
placed on the accelerator pedal, set it initially perpendicular to the 
lower leg and place it as far forward as possible in the direction of 
the pedal centerline with the rearmost point of the heel resting on the 
floor pan. Except as prevented by contact with a vehicle surface, place 
the right leg so that the upper and lower leg centerlines fall, as 
close as possible, in a vertical plane without inducing torso movement.
    (b) Place the left foot on the toeboard with the rearmost point of 
the heel resting on the floor pan as close as possible to the point of 
intersection of the planes described by the toeboard and the floor pan 
and not on the wheelwell projection. If the foot cannot be positioned 
on the toeboard, set it initially perpendicular to the lower leg and 
place it as far forward as possible with the heel resting on the floor 
pan. If necessary to avoid contact with the vehicle's brake or clutch 
pedal, rotate the test dummy's left foot about the lower leg. If there 
is still pedal interference, rotate the left leg outboard about the hip 
the minimum necessary to avoid the pedal interference. Except as 
prevented by contact with a vehicle surface, place the left leg so that 
the upper and lower leg centerlines fall, as close as possible, in a 
vertical plane. For vehicles with a foot rest that does not elevate the 
left foot above the level of the right foot, place the left foot on the 
foot rest so that the upper and lower leg centerlines fall in a 
vertical plane.
    S16.3.7.2  Passenger position feet placement.
    S16.3.7.2.1  Vehicles with a flat floor pan/toeboard.
    (a) Place the right and left feet on the vehicle's floor pan with 
the heels resting on the floor pan as close as possible to the 
intersection point with the toeboard. If the heels cannot reach the 
floor, for adjustable seats lower the seat until the heels touch the 
floor. For non adjustable seats and for adjustable seats that do not 
permit dummy heel contact in the lowest adjustment position, adjust the 
lower limbs until the heels touch the floor. Check the H-point location 
in S16.3.5.1 to maintain the least deviation from the previous setting.
    (b) Place the right and left legs so that the upper and lower leg 
centerlines fall in vertical longitudinal planes.
    S16.3.7.2.2  Vehicles with wheelhouse projections in passenger 
compartment.
    (a) Place the right and left feet flat in the well of the floor 
pan/toeboard and not on the wheelhouse projection. If the feet cannot 
be placed flat on the toeboard, for adjustable seats lower the seat 
until the heels touch the floor. For non-adjustable seats and for 
adjustable seats that do not permit dummy heel contact in the lowest 
position, set them perpendicular to the lower leg centerlines.
    (b) If it is not possible to maintain vertical and longitudinal 
planes through the upper and lower leg centerlines for each leg, place 
the left leg so that its upper and lower centerlines fall, as closely 
as possible, in a vertical longitudinal plane and place the right leg 
so that its upper and lower leg centerlines fall, as closely as 
possible, in a vertical plane. Adjust both legs so that the foot is in 
contact with the floor pan and/or toe board and both knee heights 
deviate by no more than 10 mm.
    S16.3.8  Manual belt adjustment for dynamic testing. With the test 
dummy at its designated seating position as specified by the 
appropriate requirements of S16.3.1 through S16.3.7 of this standard, 
place the Type 2 manual belt around the test dummy and fasten the 
latch. Remove all slack from the lap belt. Pull the upper torso webbing 
out of the retractor and allow it to retract; repeat this operation 
four times. Apply a 9 N (2 pound force) to 18 N (4 pound force) tension 
load to the lap belt. If the belt system is equipped with a tension-
relieving device, introduce the maximum amount of slack into the upper 
torso belt that is recommended by the manufacturer in the owner's 
manual for the vehicle. If the belt system is not equipped with a 
tension-relieving device, allow the excess webbing in the shoulder belt 
to be retracted by the retractive force of the retractor.
    S17  Offset frontal deformable barrier requirements using 5th 
percentile adult female dummies. Each vehicle shall, at each front 
outboard designated seating position, meet the injury criteria 
specified in S15.3 of this standard when the vehicle is crash tested in 
accordance with the procedures specified in S18 of this standard with 
the anthropomorphic test dummy restrained by the Type 2 seat belt 
assembly.
    S18  Test procedure for offset frontal deformable barrier 
requirements using 5th percentile adult female dummies.
    S18.1  General provisions. Crash testing to determine compliance 
with the requirements of S17 of this standard is conducted as follows. 
Place a Part 572 5th percentile adult female test dummy at each front 
outboard seating position of a vehicle, in accordance with procedures 
specified in S16.3 of this standard. Fasten the manual Type 2 seat belt 
assembly at each of these positions around the dummy occupying the 
position, in accordance with S16.3.8 of this standard. Impact the 
vehicle traveling longitudinally forward at any speed, up to and 
including 40 km/h (25 mph), into a fixed offset deformable barrier 
under the conditions specified in S18.2 of this standard. Determine 
whether the vehicle integrity criteria specified in S14.3 and the 
injury criteria specified in S15.3 of this standard are met.
    S18.2  Test conditions.
    S18.2.1  Offset frontal deformable barrier. The offset frontal 
deformable barrier shall conform to the specifications set forth in 
Subpart B of Part 587 of this chapter.
    S18.2.2  General test conditions. All of the test conditions 
specified in S16.2 of this standard apply.
    S18.2.3  Dummy seating and positioning. The anthropomorphic test 
dummies are seated and positioned as specified in S16.3 of this 
standard.
    S18.2.4  Impact configuration. The test vehicle shall impact the 
barrier specified in Subpart B of Part 587, with the longitudinal line 
of the vehicle parallel to the line of travel, and perpendicular to the 
barrier face. The test vehicle shall be aligned so that the vehicle 
strikes the barrier with 40 percent of the vehicle's width engaging the 
barrier face for any of the following conditions: the right edge of the 
barrier face is offset to the left of the vehicle's longitudinal 
centerline by 10 percent of the vehicle's width +/-20 mm (0.8 inch), or 
the left edge of the barrier face is offset to the right of the 
vehicle's longitudinal centerline by 10 percent of the vehicle's width 
+/-20 mm (0.8 inch). The vehicle width is defined as the maximum 
dimension measured across the widest part of the vehicle, excluding 
exterior mirrors, flexible mud flaps and marker lamps, but including 
bumpers, molding, sheet metal protrusions, and dual wheels, as standard 
equipment.
    S19  Requirements using rear facing child restraints.
    S19.1  Each vehicle shall, at the option of the manufacturer, meet 
the requirements specified in S19.2 or S19.3, under the test procedures 
specified in S20.

[[Page 49992]]

    S19.2  Option 1--Automatic suppression feature. Each vehicle shall 
meet the requirements specified in S19.2.1 through S19.2.2.
    S19.2.1  The vehicle shall be equipped with an automatic 
suppression feature for the passenger air bag which results in 
deactivation of the air bag after each of the static tests (using the 
12 month old CRABI child dummy in a rear facing infant restraint) 
specified in S20.2, activation of the air bag after each of the static 
tests (using a 5th percentile adult female dummy) specified in S20.3, 
deactivation of the air bag throughout the rough road tests (using a 12 
month old child dummy in a rear facing infant restraint) specified in 
S20.4, and activation of the air bag throughout the rough road tests 
(using a 5th percentile adult female dummy) specified in S20.5.
    S19.2.2  The vehicle shall be equipped with a telltale light on the 
instrument panel which is illuminated whenever the passenger air bag is 
deactivated and not illuminated whenever the passenger air bag is 
activated. The telltale:
    (a) Shall be clearly visible from all front seating positions;
    (b) Shall be yellow;
    (c) Shall have the identifying words ``PASSENGER AIR BAG OFF'' on 
the telltale or within 25 mm of the telltale; and
    (d) Shall not be combined with the readiness indicator required by 
S4.5.2 of this standard.
    S19.3  Option 2--Low risk deployment. Each vehicle shall meet the 
injury criteria specified in S19.4 of this standard when the passenger 
air bag is statically deployed in accordance with the procedures 
specified in S20 of this standard.
    S19.4  Injury criteria (12 month old CRABI dummy).
    S19.4.1  The resultant acceleration at the center of gravity of the 
head shall be such that the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.003

shall not exceed 660 where a is the resultant acceleration expressed as 
a multiple of g (the acceleration of gravity), and t1 and 
t2 are any two points in time during the crash of the 
vehicle which are separated by not more than a 36 millisecond time 
interval.
    S19.4.2  The resultant acceleration calculated from the output of 
the thoracic instrumentation shown in drawing [a drawing incorporated 
by reference in Part 572 would be identified in the final rule] shall 
not exceed 40 g's, except for intervals whose cumulative duration is 
not more than 3 milliseconds.
    S19.4.3

[Proposed Alternative One--Neck]

    The biomechanical neck injury predictor, Nij, shall not exceed a 
value of [the agency is considering values of 1.4 and 1.0] at any point 
in time. The following procedure shall be used to compute Nij. The 
axial force (Fz) and flexion/extension moment about the occipital 
condyles (My) shall be used to calculate four combined injury 
predictors, collectively referred to as Nij. These four combined values 
represent the probability of sustaining each of four primary types of 
cervical injuries; namely tension-extension (NTE), tension-
flexion (NTF), compression-extension (NCE), and 
compression-flexion (NCF) injuries. Axial force shall be filtered at 
SAE class 1000 and flexion/extension moment (My) shall be filtered at 
SAE class 600. Shear force, which shall be filtered at SAE class 600, 
is used only in conjunction with the measured moment to calculate the 
effective moment at the location of the occipital condyles. The 
equation for calculating the Nij criteria is given by

Nij = (Fz/Fzc) + (My/Myc)

where Fzc and Myc are critical values corresponding to:

Fzc = 2200 N (495 lbf) for tension
Fzc = 2200 N (495 lbf) for compression
Myc = 85 Nm (63 lbf-ft) for flexion about occipital condyles
Myc = 25 Nm (18 lbf-ft) for extension about occipital condyles

    Each of the four Nij values shall be calculated at each point in 
time, and all four values shall not exceed [the agency is considering 
values of 1.4 and 1.0] at any point in time. When calculating 
NTE, and NTF, all compressive loads shall be set 
to zero. Similarly, when calculating NCE and NCF, 
all tensile loads shall be set to zero. In a similar fashion, when 
calculating NTE and NCE, all flexion moments 
shall be set to zero. Likewise, when calculating NTF and 
NCF, all extension moments shall be set to zero.
[Proposed Alternative Two--Neck]
    Neck injury criteria. Using the six axis upper neck load cell [a 
drawing incorporated by reference in Part 572 would be identified in 
the final rule] that is mounted between the bottom of the skull and the 
top of the neck as shown in drawing [a drawing incorporated by 
reference in Part 572 would be identified in the final rule], the peak 
forces and moments measured at the occipital condyles shall not exceed:

Axial Tension = 1150 N (259 lbf)
Axial Compression = 1390 N (312 lbf)
Fore-and-Aft Shear = 1080 N (243 lbf)
Flexion Bending Moment = 39 Nm (29 lbf-ft)
Extension Bending Moment = 12 Nm (9 lbf-ft)

SAE Class 1000 shall be used to filter the axial tension, axial 
compression, and fore-and-aft shear. SAE Class 600 shall be used to 
filter the measured moment and fore-and-aft shear used to compute the 
flexion bending moment and extension bending moment at the occipital 
condyles.
    S20  Test procedure for S19.
    S20.1  General provisions.
    S20.1.1  Tests specifying the use of a rear facing child restraint 
are conducted using any rear facing child restraint (including 
convertible types) which was manufactured for sale in the United States 
between two years and ten years prior to the date the model year 
carline of which the vehicle is a part was (or will be) first offered 
for sale to a consumer. The rear facing child restraint may be unused 
or used; if used, there must not be any visible damage prior to the 
test.
    S20.1.2  Tests are conducted with the engine operating.
    S20.2  Static tests of automatic suppression feature which must 
result in deactivation of the passenger air bag.
    S20.2.1  Test one--belted rear facing child restraint, facing rear.
    S20.2.1  Place the right front passenger vehicle seat in any 
position, i.e., any seat track location, any seat height, any seat back 
angle.
    S20.2.1.2  Install the Part 572 12-month old CRABI dummy in any 
rear facing child restraint in accordance with the manufacturer's 
instructions provided with the seat pursuant to Standard No. 213.
    S20.2.1.3  Install the rear facing child restraint in the right 
front passenger seat of the vehicle in accordance, to the extent 
possible, with the child restraint manufacturer's instructions provided 
on the seat pursuant to Standard No. 213 and with the instructions in 
the vehicle owner's manual. Cinch the vehicle belts to any level to 
secure the rear facing child restraint.
    S20.2.1.4  Place the rear facing child restraint handle at any 
angle.
    S20.2.1.5  Place any towel or blanket, with any weight up to 1 kg 
(2.2 pounds), on or over the rear facing child restraint in any manner.
    S20.2.1.6  Start the vehicle engine and then close all vehicle 
doors.
    S20.2.1.7  Monitor the telltale light to check whether the air bag 
is deactivated, i.e., the light must be illuminated.

[[Page 49993]]

    S20.2.2  Test two--unbelted rear facing child restraint.
    S20.2.2.1  Place the right front passenger vehicle seat in any 
position, i.e., any seat track location, any seat height, any seat back 
angle.
    S20.2.2.2  Install the Part 572 12-month old CRABI dummy in any 
rear facing child restraint in accordance with the manufacturer's 
instructions provided with the seat pursuant to Standard No. 213.
    S20.2.2.3  Install the rear facing child restraint with the dummy 
on the right front passenger seat of the vehicle in any of the 
following positions (without using the vehicle's seat belts):
    (a) In the same position as that specified in S20.2.1.3 of this 
standard,
    (b) In the same position as specified in (a) of this section, but 
rotated 180 degrees so that the dummy is facing the front of the 
vehicle;
    (c) In the same position as specified in (a) of this section, but 
rotated 90 degrees so that the dummy is facing the driver position and 
the side of the child restraint is in contact with the front passenger 
seat back;
    (d) In the same position as specified in (a) of this section, but 
rotated 90 degrees so that the dummy is facing the passenger door and 
the side of the child restraint is in contact with the front passenger 
seat back;
    (e) In a position 127 mm (5 inches) forward of the position 
specified in (a) of this section, with the orientation specified in (c) 
of this section (if the child restraint is not stable, move it forward 
toward the edge of the seat until it can rest in equilibrium);
    (f) In the same position specified in (e) of this section, but 
rotated 180 degrees so that the dummy is facing the passenger door.
    S20.2.2.4  Place the rear facing child restraint handle at any 
angle.
    S20.2.2.5  Place any towel or blanket, with any weight up to 1 kg 
(2.2 pounds), on or over the rear facing child restraint in any manner.
    S20.2.2.6  Close all vehicle doors.
    S20.2.2.7  Monitor the telltale light to check whether the air bag 
is deactivated, i.e., the light must remain illuminated for the entire 
time the child seat is positioned as described.
    S20.3  Static tests of automatic suppression feature which must 
result in activation of the passenger air bag.
    S20.3.1  Place the right front passenger vehicle seat in any 
position, i.e., any seat track location, any seat height, any seat back 
angle.
    S20.3.2  Place a Part 572 5th percentile adult female test dummy at 
the right front seating position of a vehicle, in accordance with 
procedures specified in S16.3 of this standard, to the extent possible 
with the seat position that has been selected.
    S20.3.3  Monitor the telltale light to check whether the air bag is 
activated for the entire time the 5th percentile adult female test 
dummy is positioned as described.
    S20.4  Rough road tests of automatic suppression feature, during 
which the passenger air bag must be deactivated.
    S20.4.1  Place the right front passenger vehicle seat in any 
position, i.e., any seat track location, any seat height, any seat back 
angle.
    S20.4.2  Install the Part 572 12-month old CRABI dummy in any rear 
facing child restraint.
    S20.4.3  Install the rear facing child restraint in the right front 
passenger seat of the vehicle in accordance, to the extent possible, 
with the child restraint manufacturer's instructions provided with the 
seat pursuant to Standard No. 213 and with the instructions in the 
vehicle owner's manual. Cinch the vehicle belts to any level to secure 
the rear facing child restraint.
    S20.4.4  Drive the vehicle at any speed up to 40 km/h (25 mph) for 
any distance between 0.2 km (\1/8\ mile) and 0.4 km (\1/4\ mile) over 
any of the following types of road surfaces:
    (a) Washboard surface. A paved lane which consists of a series of 
uniform bumps with a height of 16 mm  5 mm (0.6 inches 
 0.2 inches) and spaced 100 mm  5 mm (4 inches 
 0.2 inches) from center to center, perpendicular to the 
line of travel across the full width of the lane;
    (b) Surface with dips. A paved lane which consists of a series of 
uniform mounds with a height of 76 mm  5 mm (3 inches 
 0.2 inches) and spaced 1650 mm  10 mm (65 
inches  0.4 inches) from center to center.
    S20.4.5  Monitor the telltale light during the test to check 
whether the air bag remains deactivated throughout the test, i.e., the 
light must remain illuminated.
    S20.5  Rough road tests of automatic suppression feature, during 
which the passenger air bag must be activated.
    S20.5.1  Place a Part 572 5th percentile adult female test dummy in 
the right front passenger position of a vehicle, in accordance with 
procedures specified in S16.3 of this standard.
    S20.5.2  Drive the vehicle at any speed up to 40 km/h (25 mph) for 
any distance between 0.2 km (\1/8\ mile) and 0.4 km (\1/4\ mile) over 
any of the road surfaces specified in S20.4.4.
    S20.5.3  Monitor the telltale light during the test to check 
whether the air bag remains activated throughout the test, i.e., the 
light must remain off.
    S20.6  Low risk deployment test.
    S20.6.1  Place the right front passenger vehicle seat in the full 
forward seat track position, the highest seat position (if adjustment 
is available), and any seat back angle.
    S20.6.2  Install the Part 572 12-month old CRABI dummy in any rear 
facing child restraint in accordance with the manufacturer's 
instructions provided with the seat pursuant to Standard No. 213.
    S20.6.3  Locate and mark the center point of the top of the rear 
facing child restraint. This will be referred to as ``Point A''.
    S20.6.4  Install the rear facing child restraint in the right front 
passenger seat of the vehicle in accordance, to the extent possible, 
with the child restraint manufacturer's instructions provided with the 
seat pursuant to Standard No. 213 and with the instructions in the 
vehicle owner's manual.
    S20.6.5  Locate a point on the air bag cover that is the geometric 
center of the air bag cover. This will be referred to as ``Point B''.
    S20.6.6  Translate the rear facing child restraint system (parallel 
to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle) such that Point A on the child 
restraint system is lined up with Point B on the air bag cover to form 
a vertical plane parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
    S20.6.7  Cinch the vehicle belts to any level to secure the rear 
facing child restraint.
    S20.6.8  Deploy the right front passenger air bag system. If the 
air bag contains a multistage inflator, any stage is fired.
    S21  Requirements using 3 year old child dummies.
    S21.1  Each vehicle shall, at the option of the manufacturer, meet 
the requirements specified in S21.2, S21.3, or S21.4 under the test 
procedures specified in S22, except that, at the option of the 
manufacturer, the vehicle may instead meet the requirements specified 
in S29.
    S21.2  Option 1--Automatic suppression feature that always 
suppresses the air bag when a child is present. Each vehicle shall meet 
the requirements specified in S21.2.1 through S21.2.2.
    S21.2.1  The vehicle shall be equipped with an automatic 
suppression feature for the passenger air bag which results in 
deactivation of the air bag during each of the static tests (using a 3-
year-old child dummy) specified in S22.2, activation of the air bag 
after each of the static tests (using a 5th percentile adult female 
dummy) specified in S20.3, deactivation of the

[[Page 49994]]

air bag throughout the rough road tests (using a 3-year-old child 
dummy) specified in S22.3, and activation of the air bag throughout the 
rough road tests (using a 5th percentile adult female dummy) specified 
in S20.5.
    S21.2.2  The vehicle shall be equipped with a telltale light on the 
instrument panel meeting the requirements specified in S19.2.2.
    S21.3  Option 2--Automatic suppression feature that suppresses the 
air bag when an occupant is out of position.
    S21.3.1  The vehicle shall be equipped with an automatic 
suppression feature for the passenger air bag which meets the 
requirements specified in S27.
    S21.3.2  The vehicle shall be equipped with a telltale light on the 
instrument panel meeting the requirements specified in S19.2.2.
    S21.4  Option 3--Low risk deployment (Hybrid III 3-year-old child 
dummy). Each vehicle shall meet the injury criteria specified in S21.5 
of this standard when the passenger air bag is statically deployed in 
accordance with the low risk deployment test procedures specified in 
S22.4.
    S21.5  Injury criteria for Hybrid III 3-year-old child dummy.
    S21.5.1  All portions of the test dummy shall be contained within 
the outer surfaces of the vehicle passenger compartment throughout the 
test.
    S21.5.2  The resultant acceleration at the center of gravity of the 
head shall be such that the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.004

shall not exceed 900 where a is the resultant acceleration expressed as 
a multiple of g (the acceleration of gravity), and t1 and 
t2 are any two points in time during the crash of the 
vehicle which are separated by not more than a 36 millisecond time 
interval.

[Proposed Alternative One--Chest includes requirements for chest 
acceleration (proposed S21.5.3), chest deflection (proposed S21.5.4) 
and Combined Thoracic Index (proposed S21.5.5; Proposed Alternative 
Two--Chest includes requirements for chest acceleration and chest 
deflection]

    S21.5.3  The resultant acceleration calculated from the output of 
the thoracic instrumentation shown in drawing [a drawing incorporated 
by reference in Part 572 would be identified in the final rule] shall 
not exceed 50 g's, except for intervals whose cumulative duration is 
not more than 3 milliseconds.
    S21.5.4  Compression deflection of the sternum relative to the 
spine, as determined by instrumentation shown in drawing [a drawing 
incorporated by reference in Part 572 would be identified in the final 
rule] shall not exceed 42 millimeters (1.7 inches).
    S21.5.5  Combined Thoracic Index (CTI) shall not exceed 1.0. The 
equation for calculating the CTI criterion is given by

CTI = (Amax/Aint) + (Dmax/
Dint)

where Aint and Dint are intercept values defined 
as Aint = 70 g's for spine acceleration intercept, and 
Dint = 57 mm (2.2 in.) for sternal deflection intercept.

    Calculation of CTI requires measurement of upper spine triaxial 
acceleration filtered at SAE class 180 and sternal deflection filtered 
at SAE class 600. From the measured data, a 3-msec clip maximum value 
of the resultant spine acceleration (Amax) and the maximum 
chest deflection (Dmax) shall be determined.
    S21.5.6

[Proposed Alternative One--Neck]

    The biomechanical neck injury predictor, Nij, shall not exceed a 
value of [the agency is considering values of 1.4 and 1.0] at any point 
in time. The following procedure shall be used to compute Nij. The 
axial force (Fz) and flexion/extension moment about the occipital 
condyles (My) shall be used to calculate four combined injury 
predictors, collectively referred to as Nij. These four combined values 
represent the probability of sustaining each of four primary types of 
cervical injuries; namely tension-extension (NTE), tension-
flexion (NTF), compression-extension (NCE), and 
compression-flexion (NCF) injuries. Axial force shall be 
filtered at SAE class 1000 and flexion/extension moment (My) shall be 
filtered at SAE class 600. Shear force, which shall be filtered at SAE 
class 600, is used only in conjunction with the measured moment to 
calculate the effective moment at the location of the occipital 
condyles. The equation for calculating the Nij criteria is given by

Nij = (Fz/Fzc) + (My/Myc)

where Fzc and Myc are critical values corresponding to:

Fzc = 2500 N (562 lbf) for tension
Fzc = 2500 N (562 lbf) for compression
Myc = 100 Nm (74 lbf-ft) for flexion about occipital condyles
Myc = 30 Nm (22 lbf-ft) for extension about occipital condyles

Each of the four Nij values shall be calculated at each point in time, 
and all four values shall not exceed [the agency is considering values 
of 1.4 and 1.0] at any point in time. When calculating NTE 
and NTF, all compressive loads shall be set to zero. 
Similarly, when calculating NCE and NCF, all 
tensile loads shall be set to zero. In a similar fashion, when 
calculating NTE and NCE, all flexion moments 
shall be set to zero. Likewise, when calculating NTF and 
NCF, all extension moments shall be set to zero.

[Proposed Alternative Two--Neck]

    Neck injury criteria. Using the six axis upper neck load cell [a 
drawing incorporated by reference in Part 572 would be identified in 
the final rule] that is mounted between the bottom of the skull and the 
top of the neck as shown in drawing [a drawing incorporated by 
reference in Part 572 would be identified in the final rule], the peak 
forces and moments measured at the occipital condyles shall not exceed:

Axial Tension = 1270 N (286 lbf)
Axial Compression = 1540 N (346 lbf)
Fore-and-Aft Shear = 1200 N (270 lbf)
Flexion Bending Moment = 46 Nm (34 lbf-ft)
Extension Bending Moment = 14 Nm (10 lbf-ft)

SAE Class 1000 shall be used to filter the axial tension, axial 
compression, and fore-and-aft shear. SAE Class 600 shall be used to 
filter the measured moment and fore-and-aft shear used to compute the 
flexion bending moment and extension bending moment at the occipital 
condyles.
    S22  Test procedure for S21.
    S22.1  General provisions.
    S22.1.1  Tests specifying the use of a forward-facing child seat or 
booster seat are conducted using any such seat recommended for a child 
weighing 34 pounds which was manufactured for sale in the United States 
between two years and ten years prior to the date the model year 
carline of which the vehicle is a part was (or will be) first offered 
for sale to a consumer. The seat may be unused or used; if used, there 
must not be any visible damage.
    S22.1.2  Tests are conducted with the engine operating.
    S22.2  Static tests of automatic suppression feature which must 
result in deactivation of the passenger air bag.
    S22.2.1  Test one--child in a forward-facing child seat or booster 
seat.
    S22.2.1.1  Install any forward-facing child seat or booster seat in 
the right front passenger seat in accordance, to the extent possible, 
with the child restraint manufacturer's instructions provided with the 
seat pursuant to Standard No. 213 and with the instructions in the 
vehicle owner's manual.

[[Page 49995]]

    S22.2.1.2  Position the Part 572 Hybrid III 3-year-old child dummy 
seated in the forward-facing child seat or booster seat such that the 
dummy's lower torso is centered on the forward-facing child seat or 
booster seat cushion and the dummy's spine is parallel to the forward-
facing child seat or booster seat back or, if there is no booster seat 
back, the vehicle seat back. The lower arms are placed at the dummy's 
side.
    S22.2.1.3  Attach all appropriate forward-facing child seat or 
booster seat belts, if any, and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2 of 
Standard No. 213.
    S22.2.1.4  Attach all appropriate vehicle belts and tighten them as 
specified in S6.1.2 of Standard No. 213.
    S22.2.1.5  Place the right front passenger vehicle seat in any 
position, i.e., any seat track location, any seat height, any seat back 
angle.
    S22.2.1.6  Start the vehicle engine and then close all vehicle 
doors.
    S22.2.1.7  Monitor telltale light to check whether the air bag is 
deactivated.
    S22.2.2  Test two--unbelted child.
    S22.2.2.1  Place the right front passenger vehicle seat in any 
position, i.e., any seat track location, any seat height, any seat back 
panel.
    S22.2.2.2  Place the Part 572 Hybrid III 3-year old child dummy on 
the right front passenger seat, or on the floor in front of the right 
front passenger seat, as appropriate, in any of the following positions 
(without using a forward-facing child seat or booster seat or the 
vehicle's seat belts):
    (a) Sitting on seat with back against seat:
    (1) Position the dummy in the seated position and place it on the 
right front passenger seat;
    (2) The upper torso of the dummy rests against the seat back. In 
the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats, the midsagittal plane 
of the dummy is vertical 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 rim. In the case of 
vehicles equipped with bucket seats, the midsagittal plane of the dummy 
is vertical and coincides with the longitudinal centerline of the 
bucket seat. The dummy's femurs are against the seat cushion.
    (3) Allow the lower legs of the dummy to extend off the surface of 
the seat. If positioning the dummy's lower legs is prevented by contact 
with the instrument panel, rotate the lower leg toward the floor.
    (4) Position the dummy's upper arms down until they contact the 
seat.
    (b) Sitting on seat with back not against seat:
    (1) Position the dummy in the seated position and place the dummy 
in the right front passenger seat.
    (2) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats, the 
midsagittal plane of the dummy is vertical 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 
rim. In the case of vehicles equipped with bucket seats, the 
midsagittal plane of the dummy is vertical and coincides with the 
longitudinal centerline of the bucket seat. The horizontal distance 
from the dummy's back to the seat back is no less than 25 mm (1 inch) 
and no more than 150 mm (6 inches), as measured from the dummy's mid-
sagittal plane at the mid-sternum level.
    (3) Lower the dummy's upper legs and dummy's femurs against the 
seat cushion.
    (4) Allow the lower limbs of the dummy to extend off the surface of 
the seat.
    (5) Rotate the dummy's lower arms until the dummy's hands come to 
rest on the seat.
    (c) Sitting on seat edge with hands on the instrument panel (This 
test is conducted with the seat in any seat track positions that permit 
the dummy's hands to be placed on the instrument panel.):
    (1) Position the dummy in the seated position and place it on the 
right front passenger seat with the dummy's legs positioned 90 degrees 
(i.e., right angle) from the horizontal.
    (2) Position the dummy forward in the seat such that the lower legs 
rest against the front of the seat with the spine in the vertical 
direction. If the dummy's feet contact the floorboard, rotate the lower 
legs forward until the dummy is resting on the seat with the feet 
positioned flat on the floorboard and the dummy spine vertical.
    (3) Extend the dummy's arms directly in front of the dummy parallel 
to the floor of the vehicle.
    (4) Lower the dummy's arms such that they contact the instrument 
panel.
    (d) Sitting on seat edge, spine vertical, hands by the dummy's 
side:
    (1) Position the dummy in the seated position and place it on the 
right front passenger seat with the dummy's legs positioned 90 degrees 
(i.e., right angle) from the horizontal.
    (2) Position the dummy forward in the seat such that the lower legs 
rest against the front of the seat with the spine in the vertical 
direction. If the dummy's feet contact the floorboard, rotate the lower 
legs forward until the dummy is resting on the seat with the feet 
positioned flat on the floorboard and the dummy spine vertical.
    (3) Extend the dummy's arms directly in front of the dummy parallel 
to the floor of the vehicle.
    (4) Lower the dummy's arms such that they contact the seat.
    (e) Sitting back in the seat and leaning on the right front 
passenger door:
    (1) Position the dummy in the seated position and place the dummy 
in the right front passenger seat.
    (2) Place the dummy's lower torso on the outboard portion of the 
seat with the dummy's back against the seat back and the dummy's upper 
legs resting on the seat cushion.
    (3) Allow the lower legs of the dummy to extend off the surface of 
the seat. If positioning the dummy's lower legs is prevented by contact 
with the instrument panel, rotate the lower leg toward the floor.
    (4) Position the dummy's upper arms against the seat back by 
rotating the dummy's upper arms toward the seat back until they make 
contact.
    (5) Rotate the dummy's lower arms down until they contact the seat.
    (6) Lean the dummy against the outboard door.
    (f) Standing on seat, facing forward:
    (1) Position the dummy in the standing position. The arms are at 
any position.
    (2) Center the dummy on the right front passenger seat cushion 
facing the front of the vehicle while placing the heels of the dummy 
feet in contact with the seat back.
    (3) Rest the dummy against the seat back.
    (g) Standing on seat, facing rearward:
    (1) Position the dummy in the standing position. The arms are at 
any position.
    (2) Center the dummy on the right front passenger seat cushion 
facing the rear of the vehicle while placing the toes of the dummy feet 
in contact with the seat back.
    (3) Rest the dummy against the seat back.
    (h) Kneeling on seat, facing forward:
    (1) Place the dummy in a kneeling position by rotating the dummy's 
lower legs 90 degrees behind the dummy (from the standing position).
    (2) Place the kneeling dummy in the right front passenger seat with 
the dummy facing the front of the vehicle. Position the dummy such that 
the dummy toes are in contact with the seat back. The arms are at any 
position.
    (i) Kneeling on seat, facing rearward:
    (1) Place the dummy in a kneeling position by rotating the dummy's 
lower legs 90 degrees behind the dummy (from the standing position).

[[Page 49996]]

    (2) Place the kneeling dummy in the right front passenger seat with 
the dummy facing the rear of the vehicle. Position the dummy such that 
the dummy's head is in contact with the seat back. The arms are at any 
position.
    (j) Standing on floor (This test is only conducted with the seat in 
its rearmost track position.):
    (1) Position the dummy in the standing position.
    (2) Place the dummy standing on the floor in front of the right 
front passenger seat, facing forward and with the dummy's midsaggital 
plane parallel to the longitudinal plane through the centerline of the 
vehicle and including the geometric center of the air bag cover, in any 
position from the one where the dummy contacts the instrument panel 
rearwards to the one where the dummy contacts the seat. The arms are at 
any position.
    (k) Lying on seat (This test is only conducted with the seat in the 
position specified.):
    (1) Lay the dummy on the right front passenger seat such that the 
following criteria are met:
    (A) The mid-sagittal plane of the dummy is horizontal,
    (B) The dummy's spine is perpendicular to the vehicle longitudinal 
axis,
    (C) Upper arms are parallel to dummy spine,
    (D) A plane passing through the two shoulder joints of the dummy is 
vertical and intersects the geometric center of the seat bottom (the 
seat bottom is the plan view part of the seat from the forward most 
part of the seat back to the forward most part of the seat),
    (E) The anterior of the dummy is facing the vehicle front, and
    (F) Leg position is not set and can be articulated to fit above 
conditions.
    (2) Adjustable seats are in the adjustment position midway between 
the forwardmost and rearmost positions, and if separately adjustable in 
a vertical direction, are at the lowest position. If an adjustment 
position does not exist midway between the forwardmost and rearmost 
positions, the closest adjustment position to the rear of the midpoint 
is used.
    (3) Position the dummy so that the top of dummy head is within 10 
mm of the vehicle side door structure.
    (4) Rotate upper legs toward chest of dummy and rotate lower legs 
against the upper legs.
    (5) Place dummy upper left arm parallel with the vehicle transverse 
plane and the lower arm 90 deg. to the upper arm. Rotate lower arm down 
about the elbow joint until movement is obstructed. Final position 
should resemble a fetal position.
    (l) Low risk deployment test position 1. The procedure for 
determining this position is set forth in S22.4.2.
    (m) Low risk deployment test position 2. The procedure for 
determining this position is set forth in S22.4.3.
    (n) Sitting on seat edge, head contacting the mid-face of the 
instrument panel.
    (1) Locate and mark the center point of the dummy's rib cage or 
sternum plate. (The vertical mid-point on the mid-sagittal plane of the 
frontal chest plate of the dummy). This will be referred to as ``Point 
A.''
    (2) Locate the point on the air bag module cover that is the 
geometric center of the air bag module cover. This will be referred to 
as ``Point B''.
    (3) Locate the horizontal plane that passes through Point B. This 
will be referred to as ``Plane 1''.
    (4) ``Plane 2'' to defined as the vertical plane which passes 
through Point B and is parallel to the vehicle longitudinal axis.
    (5) Move the passenger seat to the full rearward seating position.
    (6) Place the dummy in the front passenger seat such that:
    (A) Point A is located in Plane 2.
    (B) A vertical plane through the shoulder joints of the dummy is at 
90 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
    (C) The lower legs are positioned 90 deg. (right angle) from 
horizontal.
    (D) The dummy is positioned forward in the seat such the lower legs 
rest against the front of the seat and such that the dummy's upper 
spine plate is 0 deg. forward (toward front of vehicle) of the vertical 
position.
    (7) Rotate dummy's torso by applying a force towards the front of 
the vehicle on the spine of the dummy between the shoulder joints. 
Continue applying force until head C.G. is in Plane 1, or spine angle 
at the upper spine plate is 45 deg., whichever produces the greatest 
rotation.
    (8) Move seat forward until contact with the forward structure of 
the vehicle, or seat is full forward, whichever occurs first.
    (9) To keep dummy in-position, a thread with a maximum breaking 
strength of 311 N (70 pounds) that does not interfere with the 
suppression device may be used to hold dummy.
    (o) Kneeling on the floor.
    (1) Locate and mark the center point of the dummy's chest/rib 
plate. (The vertical mid-point on the mid-sagittal plane of the frontal 
chest plate of the dummy). This will be referred to as ``Point A''.
    (2) Locate the point on the air bag module cover that is the 
geometric center of the air bag module cover. This will be referred to 
as ``Point B''.
    (3) Determine the height of this point above the floorboard of the 
vehicle. This height defines a horizontal plane that passes through 
Point B. This will be referred to as ``Plane 1''.
    (4) A second plane, ``Plane 2'', to be defined as a vertical plane 
which passes through Point B.
    (5) Move the passenger seat to the full rearward seating position.
    (6) Remove the dummy lower legs at the knee joint.
    (7) Center the dummy laterally so that Point A is coincident with 
Plane 2 and the upper spine plate is in a vertical position.
    (8) With the use of spacers (wooden or foam blocks, etc.) position 
the dummy in a seated position with the H-point located 165 mm 
 10 mm (6.5 inches  0.4 inches) above the floor 
of the vehicle. Maintain the upper spine plate orientation.
    (9) Position the upper leg 90 deg. to the spine.
    (10) Move the dummy forward until contact is made with the forward 
structure of the vehicle. If necessary, the upper torso can be tethered 
with a thread with a maximum breaking strength of 311 N (70 pounds). 
Care should be taken that any such tether is not situated anywhere 
within the deployment envelope of the air bag.
    (11) Position the arms parallel to the spine/torso of the dummy.
    (p) Sitting on seat edge, head contacting the lower-face of the 
instrument panel.
    (1) Locate and mark the center point of the dummy's rib cage or 
sternum plate. (The vertical mid-point on the mid-sagittal plane of the 
frontal chest plate of the dummy). This will be referred to as ``Point 
A.''
    (2) Locate the point on the air bag module cover that is the 
geometric center of the air bag module cover. This will be referred to 
as ``Point B''.
    (3) Locate the horizontal plane that passes through Point B. This 
will be referred to as ``Plane 1''.
    (4) ``Plane 2'' is defined as the vertical plane which passes 
through Point B and is parallel to the vehicle longitudinal axis.
    (5) Move the passenger seat to the full rearward seating position.
    (6) Place the dummy in the front passenger seat such that:
    (A) Point A is located in Plane 2.
    (B) A vertical plane through the shoulder joints of the dummy is at 
90 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
    (C) The lower legs are positioned 90 deg. (right angle) from 
horizontal.
    (D) The dummy is positioned forward in the seat such that the lower 
legs rest

[[Page 49997]]

against the front of the seat and such that the dummy's upper spine 
plate is 0 degrees 2 degrees forward (toward front of 
vehicle) of the vertical position.
    (7) Rotate dummy's torso by applying a force towards the front of 
the vehicle on the spine of the dummy between the shoulder joints. 
Continue applying force until head C.G. is in Plane 1, or spine angle 
at the upper spine plate is 75 degrees 2 degrees, whichever 
produces the greatest rotation.
    (8) Move seat forward until contact with the forward structure of 
the vehicle, or seat is full forward, whichever occurs first.
    (9) To keep dummy in-position, a thread with a maximum breaking 
strength of 311 N (70 pounds) that does not interfere with the 
suppression device may be used to hold dummy.
    S22.2.2.3  Close all vehicle doors.
    S22.2.2.4  Monitor the telltale light to check whether the air bag 
is deactivated, i.e., the light must be illuminated.
    S22.3  Rough road tests of automatic suppression feature, during 
which the passenger air bag must be deactivated.
    S22.3.1  Following completion of any of the tests specified in 
S22.2, and without changing the position of the vehicle seat or the 
dummy, drive or move the vehicle at any speed up to 40 km/h (25 mph) 
for any distance over any of the types of road surfaces specified in 
S20.4.4. (The vehicle may be moved by any external source to protect 
the driver from a dummy that could fall over.)
    S22.3.2  Monitor the telltale light during the test to check 
whether the air bag remains deactivated throughout the test, i.e., the 
light must remain illuminated.
    S22.4  Low risk deployment test (Hybrid III 3-year-old child 
dummy).
    S22.4.1  Position the dummy according to any of the following 
positions: Position 1 (S22.4.2) or Position 2 (S22.4.3).
    S22.4.2  Position 1.
    S22.4.2.1  Locate and mark the center point of the dummy's rib cage 
or sternum plate (the vertical mid-point on the mid-sagittal plane of 
the frontal chest plate of the dummy). This will be referred to as 
``Point A.''
    S22.4.2.2  Locate the point on the air bag module cover that is the 
geometric center of the air bag module cover. This is referred to as 
``Point B.''
    S22.4.2.3  Locate the horizontal plane that passes through Point B. 
This will be referred to as ``Plane 1.''
    S22.4.2.4  Locate the vertical plane parallel to the vehicle 
longitudinal axis and passing through Point B. This will be referred to 
as ``Plane 2.''
    S22.4.2.5  Move the passenger seat to the full rearward track 
seating position. Place the seat back in the nominal upright position 
as specified by the vehicle manufacturer.
    S22.4.2.6  Place the dummy in the front passenger seat such that:
    S22.4.2.6.1  Point A is located in Plane 2.
    S22.4.2.6.2  A vertical plane through the dummy shoulder joints is 
at 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
    S22.4.2.6.3  The lower legs are positioned 90 degrees to the upper 
legs.
    S22.4.2.6.4  The dummy is positioned forward in the seat such that 
the dummy's upper spine plate is 0 degrees  2 degrees 
forward (toward front of vehicle) of the vertical position, and the 
lower legs rest against the front of the seat.
    S22.4.2.7  Move the dummy forward until the upper torso or head of 
the dummy makes contact with the forward structure of the vehicle.
    S22.4.2.8  Once contact is made, as outlined in paragraph 
S22.4.2.7, the dummy is then raised vertically until Point A lies 
within Plane 1 (the vertical height to the center of the air bag) or 
until a minimum clearance of 6 mm (0.25 inches) between the dummy head 
and the windshield is attained.
    S22.4.2.9  Position the upper arm parallel to the spine and rotate 
the lower arm forward (at the elbow joint) sufficiently to prevent 
contact with or support from the seat.
    S22.4.2.10  Position the lower limbs of the dummy so that the feet 
rest flat on the floorboard (or the feet are positioned parallel to the 
floorboard) of the vehicle.
    S22.4.2.11  Support the dummy so that there is minimum interference 
with the full rotational and translational freedom for the upper torso 
of the dummy.
    S22.4.2.11.1  The stature of the 3 year old child dummy is such 
that an upright standing posture is often possible. If additional 
height is required, the dummy is raised with the use of spacers (foam 
blocks, etc.) placed on the floor of the vehicle.
    S22.4.2.11.2  If necessary, the upper torso is tethered with a 
thread with a maximum breaking strength of 311 N (70 pounds). Care 
should be taken that any such tether is not situated in the air bag 
deployment envelope.
    S22.4.2.12  In calculation of the injury criteria as specified in 
paragraph S21.5, data are truncated prior to dummy interaction with 
vehicle components after the dummy's head is clear of the air bag.
    S22.4.3  Position 2.
    S22.4.3.1  Locate and mark the center point of the dummy's chest/
rib plate (the vertical mid-point on the mid-sagittal plane of the 
frontal chest plate of the dummy). This will be referred to as ``Point 
A.''
    S22.4.3.2  Locate the point on the air bag module cover that is the 
geometric center of the air bag module cover. This will be referred to 
as ``Point B.'' Locate the vertical plane which passes through Point B 
and is parallel to the vehicle longitudinal axis. This will be referred 
to as ``Plane 2.''
    S22.4.3.3  Move the passenger seat to the full rearward seating 
position.
    S22.4.3.4  Place the dummy in the front passenger seat such that:
    S22.4.3.4.1  Point A is located in Plane 2.
    S22.4.3.4.2  A vertical plane through the shoulder joints of the 
dummy is at 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
    S22.4.3.4.3  The lower legs are positioned 90 degrees (right angle) 
from horizontal.
    S22.4.3.4.4  The dummy is positioned forward in the seat such that 
the lower legs rest against the front of the seat and such that the 
dummy's upper spine plate is 0 degrees  2 degrees forward 
(toward front of vehicle) of the vertical position. Note: For some 
seats, it may not be possible to fully seat the dummy with the lower 
legs in the prescribed position. In this situation, rotate the lower 
legs forward until the dummy is resting on the seat with the feet 
positioned flat on the floorboard and the dummy's upper spine plate is 
0 degrees  2 degrees forward (toward the front of vehicle) 
of the vertical position.
    S22.4.3.5  Move the seat forward, while maintaining the upper spine 
plate orientation until some portion of the dummy contacts the forward 
structure of the vehicle.
    S22.4.3.5.1  If contact has not been made with the forward 
structure of the vehicle at the full forward seating position of the 
seat, slide the dummy forward on the seat until contact is made. 
Maintain the upper spine plate orientation.
    S22.4.3.5.2  Once contact is made, rotate the dummy forward until 
the head and/or upper torso are in contact with the instrument panel of 
the vehicle. Rotation is achieved by applying a force towards the front 
of the vehicle on the spine of the dummy between the shoulder joints.
    S22.4.3.5.3  The upper legs are rotated downward and the lower legs 
and feet are rotated rearward (toward the rear of vehicle) so as not to 
impede the rotation of the head/torso into the forward structures of 
the vehicle.

[[Page 49998]]

    S22.4.3.5.4  The legs are repositioned so that the feet rest flat 
on (or parallel to) the floorboard with the ankle joint positioned as 
nearly as possible to the midsaggital plane of the dummy.
    S22.4.3.5.5  If necessary, the upper torso is tethered with a 
thread with a maximum breaking strength of 311 N (70 pounds) and/or 
wedge under the dummy's pelvis. Care should be taken that any such 
tether is not situated anywhere within the deployment envelope of the 
air bag. Note: If contact with the dash cannot be made by sliding the 
dummy forward in the seat, then place the dummy in the forward-most 
position on the seat which will allow the head/upper torso to rest 
against the instrument panel of the vehicle.
    S22.4.3.6  Position the upper arms parallel to the upper spine 
plate and rotate the lower arm forward sufficiently to prevent contact 
with or support from the seat.
    S22.4.3.7  In calculation of the injury criteria as specified in 
paragraph S21.5, data are truncated prior to dummy interaction with 
vehicle components after the dummy's head is clear of the air bag.
    S22.4.4  Deploy the right front passenger air bag system. If the 
air bag contains a multistage inflator, any stage is fired that may 
deploy in crashes below 32 km/h (20 mph) [the agency is also 
considering a range of speeds above and below this value], under the 
test procedure specified in S22.5.
    S22.4.5  Determine whether the injury criteria specified in S21.5 
of this standard are met.
    S22.5  Test procedure for determining stages of air bags subject to 
low risk deployment test requirement. In the case of an air bag with a 
multistage inflator, any stage(s) that fire in any of the following 
tests are subject to the low risk deployment test requirement.
    S22.5.1  Rigid barrier test. Impact the vehicle traveling 
longitudinally forward at any speed, up to and including 32 km/h (20 
mph) [the agency is also considering a range of speeds above and below 
this value], into a fixed collision barrier that is perpendicular to 
the line of travel of the vehicle, or at any angle up to 30 degrees 
from the perpendicular to the line of travel of the vehicle under the 
applicable conditions of S8 of this standard.
    S22.5.2  Offset frontal deformable barrier test. Impact the vehicle 
traveling longitudinally forward at any speed, up to and including 32 
km/h (20 mph) [the agency is also considering a range of speeds above 
and below this value], into a fixed offset deformable barrier under the 
conditions specified in S18.2 of this standard.
    S22.5.3  Pole test. Impact the vehicle traveling longitudinally 
forward at any speed, up to and including 32 km/h (20 mph) [the agency 
is also considering a range of speeds above and below this value], into 
a fixed cylindrical pole with a diameter of 255  15 mm (10 
 0.6 inches), under the applicable conditions of S8 of this 
standard. The vehicle impact point is at any point on the front of the 
vehicle that is within the middle 80 percent of the width of the 
vehicle.
    S23  Requirements using 6 year old child dummies.
    S23.1  Each vehicle shall, at the option of the manufacturer, meet 
the requirements specified in S23.2, S23.3, or S23.4, under the test 
procedures specified in S24, except that, at the option of the 
manufacturer, the vehicle may instead meet the requirements specified 
in S27 or S29.
    S23.2  Option 1--Automatic suppression feature that always 
suppresses the air bag when a child is present. Each vehicle shall meet 
the requirements specified in S23.2.1 through S23.2.2.
    S23.2.1  The vehicle shall be equipped with an automatic 
suppression feature for the passenger air bag which results in 
deactivation of the air bag as part of each of the static tests 
specified in S24.2, activation of the air bag after each of the static 
tests (using a 5th percentile adult female dummy) specified in S20.3, 
deactivation of the air bag throughout the rough road tests (using a 6-
year-old child dummy) specified in S24.3, and activation of the air bag 
throughout the rough road tests (using a 5th percentile adult female 
dummy) specified in S20.5.
    S23.2.2  The vehicle shall be equipped with a telltale light on the 
instrument panel meeting the requirements specified in S19.2.2.
    S23.3  Option 2--Automatic suppression feature that suppresses the 
air bag when an occupant is out of position.
    S23.3.1  The vehicle shall be equipped with an automatic 
suppression feature for the passenger air bag which meets the 
requirements specified in S27.
    S23.3.2  The vehicle shall be equipped with a telltale light on the 
instrument panel meeting the requirements specified in S19.2.2.
    S23.4  Option 3--Low risk deployment. Each vehicle shall meet the 
injury criteria specified in S23.5 of this standard when the passenger 
air bag is statically deployed in accordance with the procedures 
specified in S24 of this standard.
    S23.5  Injury criteria (Hybrid III 6-year old child dummy).
    S23.5.1  All portions of the test dummy shall be contained within 
the outer surfaces of the vehicle passenger compartment throughout the 
test.
    S23.5.2  The resultant acceleration at the center of gravity of the 
head shall be such that the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.005

shall not exceed 1,000 where a is the resultant acceleration expressed 
as a multiple of g (the acceleration of gravity), and t1 and 
t2 are any two points in time during the crash of the 
vehicle which are separated by not more than a 36 millisecond time 
interval.

[Proposed Alternative One--Chest includes requirements for chest 
acceleration (proposed S23.5.3), chest deflection (proposed S23.5.4) 
and Combined Thoracic Index (proposed S23.5.5; Proposed Alternative 
Two--Chest includes requirements for chest acceleration and chest 
deflection]

    S23.5.3  The resultant acceleration calculated from the output of 
the thoracic instrumentation shown in drawing [a drawing incorporated 
by reference in Part 572 would be identified in the final rule] shall 
not exceed 60 g's, except for intervals whose cumulative duration is 
not more than 3 milliseconds.
    S23.5.4  Compression deflection of the sternum relative to the 
spine, as determined by instrumentation [a drawing incorporated by 
reference in Part 572 would be identified in the final rule] shall not 
exceed 47 mm (1.9 inches).
    S23.5.5  Combined Thoracic Index (CTI) shall not exceed 1.0. The 
equation for calculating the CTI criterion is given by

CTI=(Amax/Aint) + (Dmax/
Dint)

where Aint and Dint are intercept values defined 
as Aint = 85 g's for spine acceleration intercept, and 
Dint = 63 mm (2.5 in.) for sternal deflection intercept.

    Calculation of CTI requires measurement of upper spine triaxial 
acceleration filtered at SAE class 180 and sternal deflection filtered 
at SAE class 600. From the measured data, a 3-msec clip maximum value 
of the resultant spine acceleration (Amax) and the maximum 
chest deflection (Dmax) shall be determined.
    S23.5.6

[Proposed Alternative One--Neck]

    The biomechanical neck injury predictor, Nij, shall not exceed a 
value of [the agency is considering values of 1.4 and 1.0] at any point 
in time. The

[[Page 49999]]

following procedure shall be used to compute Nij. The axial force (Fz) 
and flexion/extension moment about the occipital condyles (My) shall be 
used to calculate four combined injury predictors, collectively 
referred to as Nij. These four combined values represent the 
probability of sustaining each of four primary types of cervical 
injuries; namely tension-extension (NTE), tension-flexion 
(NTF), compression-extension (NCE), and 
compression-flexion (NCF) injuries. Axial force shall be 
filtered at SAE class 1000 and flexion/extension moment (My) shall be 
filtered at SAE class 600. Shear force, which shall be filtered at SAE 
class 600, is used only in conjunction with the measured moment to 
calculate the effective moment at the location of the occipital 
condyles. The equation for calculating the Nij criteria is given by

Nij=(Fz/Fzc) + (My/Myc)

where Fzc and Myc are critical values corresponding to:

Fzc=2900 N (652 lbf) for tension
Fzc=2900 N (652 lbf) for compression
Myc=125 Nm (92 lbf-ft) for flexion about occipital condyles
Myc=40 Nm (30 lbf-ft) for extension about occipital condyles

Each of the four Nij values shall be calculated at each point in time, 
and all four values shall not exceed [the agency is considering values 
of 1.4 and 1.0] at any point in time. When calculating NTE 
and NTF, all compressive loads shall be set to zero. 
Similarly, when calculating NCE and NCF, all 
tensile loads shall be set to zero. In a similar fashion, when 
calculating NTE and NCE, all flexion moments 
shall be set to zero. Likewise, when calculating NTF and 
NCF, all extension moments shall be set to zero.

[Proposed Alternative Two--Neck]

    Neck injury criteria. Using the six axis upper neck load cell [a 
drawing incorporated by reference in Part 572 would be identified in 
the final rule] that is mounted between the bottom of the skull and the 
top of the neck as shown in drawing [a drawing incorporated by 
reference in Part 572 would be identified in the final rule], the peak 
forces and moments measured at the occipital condyles shall not exceed:

Axial Tension = 1490 N (335 lbf)
Axial Compression = 1800 N (405 lbf)
Fore-and-Aft Shear = 1400 N (315 lbf)
Flexion Bending Moment = 57 Nm ( 42 lbf-ft)
Extension Bending Moment = 17 Nm (13 lbf-ft)

SAE Class 1000 shall be used to filter the axial tension, axial 
compression, and fore-and-aft shear. SAE Class 600 shall be used to 
filter the measured moment and fore-and-aft shear used to compute the 
flexion bending moment and extension bending moment at the occipital 
condyles.
    S24  Test procedure for S23.
    S24.2  Static tests of automatic suppression feature which must 
result in deactivation of the passenger air bag.
    S24.2.1  Except as provided in S24.2.2, all tests specified in S22 
using the 3-year-old Hybrid III child dummy are conducted using the 6-
year old Hybrid III child dummy. However, for tests specifying the use 
of a forward-facing child seat or booster seat any such seat 
recommended for a child weighing 52 pounds is used instead of a seat 
recommended for a child weighing 34 pounds.
    S24.2.2  Exceptions.
    S24.2.2.1   The tests specified in the following paragraphs of S22 
are not conducted using the 6-year-old Hybrid III child dummy: 
S22.2.2.2(f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l) and (m).
    S24.2.2.2   The test specified in S22.2.2.2(o) is conducted using 
the 6-year-old Hybrid III child dummy. However, in positioning the 6-
year-old child dummy, the following procedures are used in place of 
those specified in S22.2.2.2(o)(7) and (8):
    (1) Center the dummy laterally so that Point A is coincident with 
Plane 2 and the upper spine plate is 6 degrees  2 degrees 
forward of the vertical position.
    (2) With the use of spacers (wooden blocks, etc.) position the 
dummy in a seated position with the H-point located 230 mm (9 inches) 
 15 mm (0.6 inches) above the floor of the vehicle. 
Maintain the upper spine plate orientation.
    S24.3  Road tests of automatic suppression feature, during which 
the passenger air bag must be deactivated. All tests specified in S22 
using the 3-year-old Hybrid III child dummy are conducted using the 6-
year old Hybrid III child dummy.
    S24.4  Low risk deployment test (Hybrid III 6-year old child 
dummy).
    S24.4.1  Position the dummy according to any of the following 
positions: Position 1 (S24.4.2) or Position 2 (S24.4.3).
    S24.4.2  Position 1.
    S24.4.2.1  Locate and mark the center point of the dummy's rib cage 
or sternum plate (the vertical mid-point on the mid-sagittal plane of 
the frontal chest plate of the dummy). This will be referred to as 
``Point A.''
    S24.4.2.2  Locate the point on the air bag module cover that is the 
geometric center of the air bag module cover. This will be referred to 
as ``Point B.''
    S24.4.2.3  Locate the horizontal plane that passes through Point B. 
This will be referred to as ``Plane 1.''
    S24.4.2.4  Locate the vertical plane parallel to the vehicle 
longitudinal axis and passing through Point B. This will be referred to 
as ``Plane 2.''
    S24.4.2.5  Move the passenger seat to the full rearward track 
seating position. Place the seat back in the nominal upright position 
as specified by the vehicle manufacturer.
    S24.4.2.6  Place the dummy in the front passenger seat such that:
    S24.4.2.6.1  Point A is located in Plane 2.
    S24.4.2.6.2  A vertical plane through the dummy shoulder joints is 
at 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
    S24.4.2.6.3  The lower legs are positioned 90 degrees  
2 degrees to the upper legs.
    S24.4.2.6.4  The dummy is positioned forward in the seat such that 
the dummy's upper spine plate is 6 degrees  2 degrees 
forward (toward front of vehicle) of the vertical position, and the 
lower legs rest against the front of the seat or the feet are resting 
flat on the floorboard of the vehicle.
    S24.4.2.6.5  Mark this position, and remove the legs at the pelvic 
interface.
    S24.4.2.7  Move the dummy forward until the upper torso or head of 
the dummy makes contact with the forward structure of the vehicle.
    S24.4.2.8  Once contact is made, as outlined in paragraph 
S24.4.2.7, the dummy is then raised vertically until Point A lies 
within Plane 1 (the vertical height to the center of the air bag) or 
until a minimum clearance of 6 mm (0.25 inches) between the dummy head 
and windshield is attained.
    S24.4.2.9  Position the upper arms parallel to the spine and rotate 
the lower arm forward (at the elbow joint) sufficiently to prevent 
contact with or support from the seat.
    S24.4.2.10  Support the dummy so that there is minimum interference 
with the full rotational and translational freedom for the upper torso 
of the dummy.
    S24.4.2.10.1  If necessary, the upper torso is tethered with a 
thread with a maximum breaking strength of 311 N (70 pounds). Care 
should be taken that any such tether is not situated in air bag 
deployment envelope.
    S24.4.2.11  In calculation of the injury criteria as specified in 
paragraph S23.5, data are truncated prior to dummy interaction with 
vehicle components after the dummy's head is clear of the air bag.
    S24.4.3  Position 2.
    S24.4.3.1  Locate and mark the center point of the dummy's chest/
rib plate

[[Page 50000]]

(the vertical mid-point on the mid-sagittal plane of the frontal chest 
plate of the dummy). This will be referred to as ``Point A.''
    S24.4.3.2  Locate the point on the air bag module cover that is the 
geometric center of the air bag module cover. This will be referred to 
as ``Point B.'' Locate the vertical plane which passes through Point B 
and is parallel to the vehicle longitudinal axis. This will be referred 
to as ``Plane 2.''
    S24.4.3.3  Move the passenger seat to the full rearward seating 
position.
    S24.4.3.4  Place the dummy in the front passenger seat such that:
    S24.4.3.4.1  Point A is located in Plane 2.
    S24.4.3.4.2  A vertical plane through the shoulder joints of the 
dummy is at 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
    S24.4.3.4.3  The lower legs are positioned 90 degrees (right angle) 
from horizontal.
    S24.4.3.4.4  The dummy is positioned forward in the seat such that 
the lower legs rest against the front of the seat and such that the 
dummy's upper spine plate is 6 degrees  2 degrees forward 
(toward front of vehicle) of the vertical position. Note: For some 
seats, it may not be possible to fully seat the dummy with the lower 
legs in the prescribed position. In this situation, rotate the lower 
legs forward until the dummy is resting on the seat with the feet 
positioned flat on the floorboard and the dummy's upper spine plate is 
6 degrees  2 degrees forward (toward front of vehicle) of 
the vertical position.
    S24.4.3.5  Move the seat forward, while maintaining the upper spine 
plate orientation until some portion of the dummy contacts the forward 
structure of the vehicle.
    S24.4.3.5.1  If contact has not been made with the forward 
structure of the vehicle at the full forward seating position of the 
seat, slide the dummy forward on the seat until contact is made. 
Maintain the upper spine plate orientation.
    S24.4.3.5.2  Once contact is made, rotate the dummy forward until 
the head and/or upper torso are in contact with the dashboard of the 
vehicle. Rotation is achieved by applying a force towards the front of 
the vehicle on the spine of the dummy between the shoulder joints.
    S24.4.3.5.3  The lower legs and feet are rotated rearward (toward 
rear of vehicle) so as not to impede the rotation of the head/torso 
into the forward structures of the vehicle.
    S24.4.3.5.4  The legs are repositioned so that the feet rest flat 
on (or parallel to) the floorboard with the ankle joint positioned as 
nearly as possible to the midsaggital plane of the dummy.
    S24.4.3.5.5  If necessary, the upper torso is tethered with a 
thread with a maximum breaking strength of 311 N (70 pounds) and/or 
wedge under the dummy's pelvis. Care should be taken that any such 
tether is not situated anywhere within the deployment envelope of the 
air bag. Note: If contact with the dash cannot be made by sliding the 
dummy forward in the seat, then place the dummy in the forward-most 
position on the seat which will allow the head/upper torso to rest 
against the dashboard of the vehicle.
    S24.4.3.6  Position the upper arms parallel to the torso and rotate 
the lower arm forward sufficiently to prevent contact with or support 
from the seat.
    S24.4.3.7  In calculation of the injury criteria as specified in 
paragraph S23.5 of this standard, data are truncated prior to dummy 
interaction with vehicle components after the dummy's head is clear of 
the air bag.
    S24.4.4  Deploy the right front passenger air bag system. If the 
air bag contains a multistage inflator, any stage is fired that may 
deploy in crashes below 32 km/h (20 mph) [the agency is also 
considering a range of speeds above and below this value], under the 
test procedure specified in S22.5 of this standard.
    S24.4.5  Determine whether the injury criteria specified in S23.5 
of this standard are met.
    S25  Requirements using an out-of-position 5th percentile adult 
female dummy at the driver position.
    S25.1  Each vehicle shall, at the option of the manufacturer, meet 
the requirements specified in S25.2 or S25.3 of this standard, under 
the test procedures specified in S26 of this standard, except that, at 
the option of the manufacturer, the vehicle may instead meet the 
requirements specified in S29 of this standard.
    S25.2  Option 1--Automatic suppression feature. Each vehicle shall 
meet the requirements specified in S25.2.1 through S25.2.3.
    S25.2.1  The vehicle shall be equipped with an automatic 
suppression feature for the driver air bag which results in 
deactivation of the air bag after each of the static tests (using a 5th 
percentile adult female dummy) specified in S26.2 and activation of the 
air bag after each of the static tests specified in S26.3 of this 
standard.
    S25.2.2  The vehicle shall be equipped with an automatic 
suppression feature for the driver air bag which meets the requirements 
specified in S27 of this standard.
    S25.2.3  The vehicle shall be equipped with a telltale light on the 
instrument panel which is illuminated whenever the driver air bag is 
deactivated and not illuminated whenever the driver air bag is 
activated. The telltale:
    (a) Shall be clearly visible from all front seating positions;
    (b) Shall be yellow;
    (c) Shall have the identifying words ``DRIVER AIR BAG OFF'' on the 
telltale or within 25 mm (1 inch) of the telltale; and
    (d) Shall not be combined with the readiness indicator required by 
S4.5.2 of this standard.
    S25.3  Option 2--Low risk deployment. Each vehicle shall meet the 
injury criteria specified in S15.3 of this standard when the passenger 
air bag is statically deployed in accordance with the procedures 
specified in S26 of this standard.
    S26  Test procedure for S25 of this standard.
    S26.1  General provisions. Tests are conducted with the engine 
operating.
    S26.2  Static tests of automatic suppression feature which must 
result in deactivation of the driver air bag.
    S26.2.1  Place the 5th percentile adult female dummy in the driver 
seating position. Position the dummy, the seat, and the steering wheel 
according to any of the following specifications:
    (a) The specifications set forth in S26.4 for Driver Position 1;
    (b) The specifications set forth in S26.4 for Driver Position 2.
    S26.2.2  Close all vehicle doors.
    S26.2.3  Monitor telltale light to check whether the air bag is 
deactivated, i.e., the light must be illuminated.
    S26.3  Static tests of automatic suppression feature which must 
result in activation of the driver air bag.
    S26.3.1  Test one--5th percentile adult female dummy.
    S26.3.1.1  Place the driver seat in any position, i.e., any seat 
track location, any seat height, any seat back angle.
    S26.3.1.2  Place a Part 572 5th percentile adult female test dummy 
at the driver seating position of a vehicle in any of the following 
positions (if the dummy's hands cannot reach the steering wheel for a 
particular seat location, the arms and hands are positioned alongside 
the side of dummy):
    (a) In accordance with procedures specified in S16.3 of this 
standard, to the extent possible with the seat position that has been 
selected;
    (b) In the same position as specified in S26.3.1.2(a) of this 
standard, except that the right arm is gripped to the steering wheel at 
any position;

[[Page 50001]]

    (c) In the same position as specified in S26.3.1.2(a) of this 
standard, except that the left arm is gripped to the steering wheel at 
any position;
    (d) In the same position as specified in S26.3.1.2(a) of this 
standard, except that the right and left arms are gripped to the 
steering wheel at any position.
    S26.3.1.3  Close all vehicle doors.
    S26.3.1.4  Monitor the telltale light to check whether the air bag 
is activated, i.e., the light must be off.
    S26.3.2  Test two--50th percentile adult male dummy.
    S26.3.2.1  Place the driver seat in any position, i.e., any seat 
track location, any seat height, any seat back angle.
    S26.3.2.2  Place a Part 572 Hybrid III 50th percentile adult male 
test dummy at the driver seating position of a vehicle in any of the 
following positions (if the dummy's hands cannot reach the steering 
wheel for a particular seat location, the arms and hands are positioned 
alongside the side of dummy):
    (a) In accordance with procedures specified in S10 of this 
standard, to the extent possible with the seat position that has been 
selected;
    (b) In the same position as specified in S26.3.2.2(a) of this 
standard, except that the right arm is gripped to the steering wheel at 
any position;
    (c) In the same position as specified in S26.3.2.2(a) of this 
standard, except that the left arm is gripped to the steering wheel at 
any position;
    (d) In the same position as specified in S26.3.2.2(a) of this 
standard, except that the right and left arms are gripped to the 
steering wheel at any position.
    S26.3.2.3  Close all vehicle doors.
    S26.3.2.4  Monitor the telltale light to check whether the air bag 
is activated, i.e., the light must be off.
    S26.4  Low risk deployment test.
    S26.4.1  Position the dummy according to any of the following 
positions: Driver position 1 (S26.4.2) or Driver position 2 (S26.4.3).
    S26.4.2  Driver position 1.
    26.4.2.1  Adjust steering controls so that the steering wheel hub 
is at the geometric center of the locus it describes when it is moved 
through its full range of driving positions. If there is no setting at 
the geometric center, position it one setting lower than the geometric 
center.
    S26.4.2.2  Locate the point on the air bag module cover that is the 
geometric center of the steering wheel. This will be referred to as 
``Point B.''
    S26.4.2.3  Locate and mark the center point of the dummy's rib cage 
or sternum plate (the vertical mid-point on the mid-sagittal plane of 
the frontal chest plate of the dummy). This will be referred to as 
``Point A.''
    S26.4.2.4  Locate the horizontal plane that passes through Point B. 
This will be referred to as ``Plane 1.''
    S26.4.2.5  Locate the vertical plane perpendicular to Plane 1 and 
parallel to the vehicle longitudinal axis which passes through Point B. 
This will be referred to as ``Plane 2.''
    S26.4.2.6  Place the dummy in the front driver seat so that:
    (a) Point A is located in Plane 2.
    (b) Seat position is adjusted during placement to obtain the 
correct dummy orientation.
    S26.4.2.7  The dummy is rotated forward until the dummy's upper 
spine plate angle is 6 degrees  2 degrees forward (toward 
the front of the vehicle) of the steering wheel angle.
    S26.4.2.8  The height of the dummy is then adjusted so that the 
bottom of the chin is in the same horizontal plane as the top of the 
module cover (dummy height can be adjusted using the seat position and/
or spacer blocks). If seat height prevents the bottom of chin from 
being in the same horizontal plane as the module cover, the dummy 
height is adjusted as close to the prescribed position as possible.
    S26.4.2.9  Move dummy forward maintaining upper spine plate angle 
and dummy height until head or torso contact the steering wheel.
    S26.4.2.10  If necessary, a thread with a maximum breaking strength 
of 311 N (70 pounds) is used to hold the dummy against the steering 
wheel. The thread is positioned so as to eliminate or minimize any 
contact with the deploying air bag.
    S26.4.2.11  In calculation of the injury criteria as specified in 
paragraph S15.3, data are truncated prior to dummy interaction with 
vehicle components after the dummy's head is clear of the air bag.
    S26.4.3  Driver Position 2.
    S26.4.3.1  The driver's seat track is not specified and may be 
positioned to best facilitate the positioning of the dummy.
    S26.4.3.2  Locate the point on the air bag module cover that is the 
geometric center of the steering wheel. This will be referred to as 
``Point B.''
    S26.4.3.3  Locate and mark the center point of the dummy's rib cage 
or sternum plate (the vertical mid-point on the mid-sagittal plane of 
the frontal chest plate of the dummy). This will be referred to as 
``Point A.''
    S26.4.3.4  Locate the horizontal plane that passes through Point B. 
This will be referred to as ``Plane 1.''
    S26.4.3.5  Locate the vertical plane perpendicular to Plane 1 which 
passes through Point B. This will be referred to as ``Plane 2.''
    S26.4.3.6  Place the dummy in the front driver seat so that:
    (a) Point A is located in Plane 2.
    (b) Seat position is adjusted during placement to obtain the 
correct dummy orientation.
    S26.4.3.7  The dummy is rotated forward until the dummy's upper 
spine plate is 6 degrees  2 degrees forward (toward the 
front of the vehicle) of the steering wheel angle.
    S26.4.3.8  The dummy is positioned so that the center of the chin 
is in contact with the uppermost portion of the rim of the steering 
wheel. The chin is not hooked over the top of the rim of the steering 
wheel. It is positioned to rest on the upper edge of the rim, without 
loading the neck. If the dummy head interferes with the vehicle upper 
interior before the prescribed position can be obtained, the dummy 
height is adjusted as close to the prescribed position as possible, 
while maintaining a 10  2 mm clearance with the vehicle 
upper interior.
    S26.4.3.9  To raise the height of the dummy to attain the required 
positioning, spacer blocks (foam, etc.) are placed on the driver's seat 
beneath the dummy. If necessary, a thread with a maximum breaking 
strength of 311 N (70 pounds) is used to hold the dummy against the 
steering wheel. The thread is positioned so as to eliminate or minimize 
any contact with the deploying air bag.
    S26.4.3.10  In calculation of the injury criteria as specified in 
paragraph S15.3 of this standard, data are truncated prior to dummy 
interaction with vehicle components after the dummy's head is clear of 
the air bag.
    S26.4.4  Deploy the driver air bag. If the air bag contains a 
multistage inflator, any stage is fired that may deploy in crashes 
below 32 km/h (20 mph) [the agency is also considering a range of 
speeds above and below this value], under the test procedure specified 
in S22.5 of this standard.
    S26.4.5  Determine whether the injury criteria specified in S15.3 
of this standard are met.
    S27  Option for automatic suppression feature that suppresses the 
air bag when an occupant is out-of-position.
    S27.1  Each vehicle shall, at each front outboard designated 
seating position, when tested under the conditions of S28 of this 
standard, comply with the requirements specified in S27.2.1(a) and 
S27.2.2(a) of this standard at the target locations specified in S28.3 
of this standard when tested using the out of position occupant 
simulator described in S28.2 of this standard at any speed up to and

[[Page 50002]]

including 11 km/h (7 mph). Each vehicle shall, in addition, meet the 
requirements specified in S27.1.1(b) and S27.2.2(b) of this standard 
using the specified test dummies. If a manufacturer selects this 
option, it shall select the passenger side automatic suppression plane 
(S28.7.1 of this standard) and the driver side automatic suppression 
plane (S28.7.2 of this standard) by the time of certification of the 
vehicle and may not thereafter select different planes.
    S27.2  Performance Criterion.
    S27.2.1  Passenger Side.
    (a) The air bag disabling device shall deactivate the passenger 
side air bag and illuminate a telltale within 10 ms after any portion 
of the out of position occupant simulator passes through the vertical 
plane specified in S28.7.1 of this standard.
    (b) The injury criteria specified in S21.5 of this standard shall 
be met when the passenger side air bag is deployed toward the Hybrid 
III 3-year-old child dummy when that test device is located in any 
position where all portions of the head, neck and torso of the dummy 
are tangent to or behind the air bag suppression plane. If the air bag 
contains a multistage inflator, any stage is fired.
    S27.2.2  Driver Side.
    (a) The air bag disabling device shall deactivate the driver side 
air bag and illuminate a telltale within 10 ms after any portion of the 
out of position occupant simulator passes through the plane specified 
in S28.7.2 of this standard.
    (b) The injury criteria specified in S15.3 of this standard shall 
be met when the driver side air bag is deployed toward the Hybrid III 
5th percentile adult female dummy when that test device is located in 
any position where all portions of the head, neck and torso of the 
dummy are tangent to or behind the air bag suppression plane. If the 
air bag contains a multistage inflator, any stage is fired.
    S28  Test procedure for S27 of this standard.
    S28.1  Target location and test conditions. The vehicle shall be 
tested and the target areas specified in S28.3 of this standard located 
under the following conditions.
    S28.1.1  Vehicle test attitude.
    (a) The vehicle is supported off its suspension at an attitude 
determined in accordance with S28.1.1(b).
    (b) Directly above each wheel opening, determine the vertical 
distance between a level surface and a standard reference point on the 
test vehicle's body under the conditions of S28.1.1(b)(1) through 
S28.1.1(b)(2).
    (1) The vehicle is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight.
    (2) All tires are inflated to the manufacturer's specifications 
listed on the vehicle's tire placard.
    S28.1.2  Windows and Sunroofs.
    (a) Movable vehicle windows, including sunroofs, are placed in the 
fully open position.
    (b) Any window rearward of the B-pillar and any window on the 
opposite side of the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle from the 
target area may be removed.
    S28.1.3  Convertible tops. The top, if any, of convertibles and 
open-body type vehicles is in the closed passenger compartment 
configuration.
    S28.1.4  Doors.
    (a) The front side door on the same side of the longitudinal 
centerline of the vehicle as the target area is fully closed and 
latched but not locked.
    (b) The front side door on the opposite side of the longitudinal 
centerline of the vehicle from the target area, and any door rearward 
of the B-pillar, including rear hatchbacks or tailgates, may be open or 
removed.
    S28.1.5  Steering wheel and seats.
    (a) The steering wheel may be placed in any position intended for 
use while the vehicle is in motion.
    (b) The seats may be removed from the vehicle unless removal will 
impair operation of the air bag disabling system.
    S28.2  Out-of-Position Occupant Simulator. The out of position 
occupant simulator used for testing is a hemisphere, with a diameter of 
165 mm (6.5 inches)  5 mm (0.2 inch).
    S28.3  Occupant Simulator Aiming Zone. The occupant simulator 
aiming zone is determined according to the following procedure. (See 
Figures 8 and 9.)
    S28.3.1  Passenger Side.
    (a) Locate the geometric center of the passenger side air bag 
cover. Identify this point as Point P.
    (b) Locate the line that connects Point P and CG-F (for the front 
outboard passenger position) as described in S28.4(a). Identify this 
line as Line P.
    (c) Locate a circle with a diameter of 500 mm  5 mm (20 
inches  0.2 inch) centered on Line P on the plane described 
in S28.7.1 of this standard. Identify this circle as Circle T.
    (d) Locate a transverse horizontal plane (Plane 1) 100 mm 
 5 mm (4 inches  0.2 inch) below the transverse 
horizontal plane tangent to the lower edge of the air bag cover.
    (e) The area of the vehicle to be targeted by the out of position 
occupant simulator is that area of Circle T within the vehicle above 
the intersection of Plane 1 and the plane described in S28.7.1 of this 
standard.
    S28.3.2  Driver Side.
    (a) Locate the geometric center of the driver side air bag cover. 
Identify this point as Point D.
    (b) Locate the line that connects Point D and CG-F (for the driver 
position) as described in S28.4(a) of this standard. Identify this line 
as Line D.
    (c) Locate a circle with a diameter of 500 mm  5 mm (20 
inches  0.2 inch) centered on Line D on the plane described 
in S28.7.2 of this standard. Identify this circle as Circle U.
    (d) Locate a transverse horizontal plane (Plane 2) tangent to the 
lower edge of the air bag cover.
    (e) The area of the vehicle to be targeted by the out of position 
occupant simulator is that area of Circle U within the vehicle above 
the intersection of Plane 2 and the plane described in S28.7.2 of this 
standard.
    S28.4  Location of head center of gravity for front outboard 
designated seating positions (CG-F). For determination of head center 
of gravity, all directions are in reference to the seat orientation.
    (a) Location of CG-F. For front outboard designated seating 
positions, the head center of gravity with the seat in its rearmost 
adjustment position (CG-F2) is located 160 mm  5 mm (6.3 
inches  0.2 inch) rearward and 660 mm  15 mm 
(26 inches  0.6 inch) upward from the seating reference 
point.
    S28.5  Test configuration.
    (a) Passenger Side. The out of position occupant simulator is 
guided along a velocity vector originating at any point within the 
vehicle to any point within the target area specified in S28.3.1(e) of 
this standard, and passing through the plane described in S28.7.1 of 
this standard.
    (b) Driver Side. The out of position occupant simulator is guided 
along a velocity vector originating at any point within the vehicle to 
any point within the target area specified in S28.3.2(e) of this 
standard, and passing through the plane described in S28.7.2 of this 
standard.
    S28.6  Multiple tests.
    A vehicle being tested may be tested multiple times.
    S28.7  Automatic suppression plane.
    S28.7.1  Passenger Side. The automatic suppression plane of a 
vehicle is the transverse vertical plane passing through the rearmost 
point at which the Hybrid III three year old child dummy test device 
may approach the passenger side air bag when it deploys while meeting 
the injury criteria specified in S21.5 of this standard. If the

[[Page 50003]]

air bag contains a multistage inflator, any stage is fired.
    S28.7.2  Driver Side. The automatic suppression plane of a vehicle 
is located as follows:
    (a) Locate the plane A tangent to the rear face of the steering 
wheel rim.
    (b) Locate the plane B parallel to plane A and passing through the 
geometric center of the air bag cover.
    (c) The automatic suppression plane is a plane parallel to plane B 
and passing through the point nearest to plane B where any portion of a 
5th percentile adult female dummy may be located in the event of air 
bag deployment and meet the injury criteria specified in S15.3 of this 
standard. If the air bag contains a multistage inflator, any stage is 
fired.
    S29  Dynamic out-of-position test option. At the option of the 
vehicle manufacturer, a pre-impact deceleration test as specified in 
S30, may be used in place of the tests specified in S21, S23, and S25 
of this section. Each vehicle shall, at each front outboard designated 
seating position, meet the injury criteria specified in S15.3, S21.5, 
and S23.5, and the vehicle integrity criteria specified in S14.3, in 
accordance with the test procedures specified in S30 of this standard.
    S30  Test procedure for pre-crash deceleration impact test.
    S30.1  General Provisions. The vehicle is impacted into a rigid 
barrier, perpendicular to the barrier face as follows. Place a Part 572 
5th percentile adult female test dummy at the driver seating position 
and any of the following test dummies at the right front designated 
seating position: a Hybrid III 3-year-old child dummy or a Hybrid III 
6-year old child dummy. The manual safety belts are not to be fastened 
in any position. Accelerate the vehicle to a velocity of 32 km/h (20 
mph) [the agency is also considering a range of speeds above and below 
this value] and then decelerate the vehicle such that the vehicle 
achieves a barrier impact speed of 24 km  2 km (15 mph 
 1 mph) [the agency is also considering a range of speeds 
above and below this value] at impact. The deceleration is initiated 
2.1 meters  200 mm (7 ft  0.66 ft) from the 
impact barrier.
    S30.2  Test Conditions.
    S30.2.1  Pre-crash Deceleration Impact Conditions. Impact a vehicle 
traveling longitudinally and decelerating to a speed of 24 km/h 
 2 km/h (15 mph  1 mph) [the agency is also 
considering a range of values above and below this value], into a fixed 
collision barrier that is perpendicular to the line of travel of the 
vehicle.
    S30.2.2  Loading. The vehicle, including the test devices and 
instrumentation, is loaded as specified in S16.2 of this standard.
    S30.2.3  Dummy Seating and positioning. The 5th percentile adult 
female dummy is seated and positioned as specified in S16.3 of this 
standard, except that prior to seating the dummy, two pieces of low 
friction material, i.e., a silk or acetate cloth material having a 75 
denier warp and a 150 denier filling, and a 225 count with a 68 pick, 
having linear dimensions no less than 60 cm (23.6 inches) by 60 cm 
(23.6 inches), are placed on the seat. If the Hybrid III 3-year-old 
child dummy is used at the right front designated seating position, it 
is seated and positioned as specified in S30.2.3.1 of this standard. If 
the Hybrid III 6-year-old child dummy is used at the right front 
designated seating position, it is seated and positioned as specified 
in S30.2.3.2 of this standard.
    S30.2.3.1  Seating procedure for Hybrid III 3-year-old child dummy.
    S30.2.3.1.1  The passenger side automatic suppression plane of a 
vehicle is that specified in S28.7.1.
    S30.2.3.1.2  Place two pieces of low friction material, i.e., a 
silk or acetate cloth material having a 75 denier warp and a 150 denier 
filling, and a 225 count with a 68 pick, having linear dimensions no 
less than 60 cm (23.6 inches) by 60 cm (23.6 inches), on the seat.
    S30.2.3.1.3  Locate and mark the center point of the dummy's chest/
rib plate. (The vertical mid-point on the mid-sagittal plane of the 
frontal chest plate of the dummy). This will be referred to as ``Point 
A''.
    S30.2.3.1.4  Locate the point on the air bag module cover that is 
the geometric center of the air bag module cover. This will be referred 
to as ``Point B''. Locate the vertical plane which passes through Point 
B and is parallel to the vehicle longitudinal axis. This will be 
referred to as ``Plane 2''.
    S30.2.3.1.5  Move the passenger seat to the full rearward seating 
position.
    S30.2.3.1.6  Place the Hybrid III 3-year-old child dummy in the 
front passenger seat, on the low friction fabric sheets, such that:
    (a) Point A is to be located in Plane 2.
    (b) A vertical plane through the shoulder joints of the dummy shall 
be at 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
    (c) The lower legs are positioned 90 degrees  2 degrees 
(right angle) from horizontal.
    (d) The dummy is positioned forward in the seat such the lower legs 
rest against the front of the seat and such that the dummy's upper 
spine plate is 0 degrees  2 degrees forward (toward front 
of vehicle) of the vertical position. Note: For some seats, it may not 
be possible to fully seat the dummy with the lower legs in the 
prescribed position. In this situation, rotate the lower legs forward 
until the dummy is resting on the seat with the feet positioned flat on 
the floorboard and the dummy's upper spine plate is 0 degrees 
 2 degrees forward (toward front of vehicle) of the 
vertical position.
    S30.2.3.1.7  Move the seat forward, while maintaining the upper 
spine plate orientation until the seat is in the full forward seating 
position or any part of the head or torso of the dummy intersects a 
plane parallel to the Automatic Suppression Plane, located 300 mm 
 15 mm (12 inches  0.6 inch) rearward of the 
Automatic Suppression Plane, whichever occurs first.
    S30.2.3.1.8  The legs should be repositioned so that the feet rest 
flat on (or parallel to) the floorboard with the ankle joint positioned 
as nearly as possible to the medial plane of the dummy.
    S30.2.3.1.9  If necessary, the upper torso can be tethered with a 
thread with a maximum breaking strength of 311 N (70 pounds) and/or 
wedge under dummy's pelvis. Care should be taken that any such tether 
is not situated anywhere within the deployment envelope of the air bag.
    S30.2.3.1.10  Position the upper arms parallel to the upper spine 
plate and rotate the lower arm forward sufficiently to prevent contact 
with or support from the seat.
    S30.2.3.1.11  Sufficient slack should be maintained in the 
instrumentation wiring harness so that the dummy motion is not 
restricted by the harness.
    S30.2.3.2  Seating procedure for Hybrid III 6-year-old child dummy.
    S30.2.3.2.1  The passenger side automatic suppression plane of a 
vehicle is that specified in S28.7.1.
    S30.2.3.2.2  Place two pieces of low friction material, i.e., a 
silk or acetate cloth material having a 75 denier warp and a 150 denier 
filling, and a 225 count with a 68 pick, having linear dimensions no 
less than 60 cm (23.6 inches) by 60 cm (23.6 inches), on the seat.
    S30.2.3.2.3  Locate and mark the center point of the dummy's chest/
rib plate. (The vertical mid-point on the mid-sagittal plane of the 
frontal chest plate of the dummy). This will be referred to as ``Point 
A''.
    S30.2.3.2.4  Locate the point on the air bag module cover that is 
the geometric center of the air bag module cover. This will be referred 
to as ``Point

[[Page 50004]]

B''. Locate the vertical plane which passes through Point B and is 
parallel to the vehicle longitudinal axis. This will be referred to as 
``Plane 2''.
    S30.2.3.2.5  Move the passenger seat to the full rearward seating 
position.
    S30.2.3.2.6  Place the dummy in the front passenger seat, on the 
low friction fabric sheets, such that:
    (a) Point A is to be located in Plane 2.
    (b) A vertical plane through the shoulder joints of the dummy shall 
be at 90 degrees  2 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the 
vehicle.
    (c) The lower legs are positioned 90 degrees  2 degrees 
(right angle) from horizontal.
    (d) The dummy is positioned forward in the seat such the lower legs 
rest against the front of the seat and such that the dummy's upper 
spine plate is 6 degrees  2 degrees forward (toward front 
of vehicle) of the vertical position. Note: For some seats, it may not 
be possible to fully seat the dummy with the lower legs in the 
prescribed position. In this situation, rotate the lower legs forward 
until the dummy is resting on the seat with the feet positioned flat on 
the floorboard and the dummy's upper spine plate is 6 degrees 
 2 degrees forward (toward front of vehicle) of the 
vertical position.
    S30.2.3.2.7  Move the seat forward, while maintaining the upper 
spine plate orientation until the seat is in the full forward seating 
position or any part of the head or torso of the dummy intersects a 
plane parallel to the Automatic Suppression Plane, located 300 mm 
 15 mm (12 inches  0.6 inch) rearward of the 
Automatic Suppression Plane, whichever occurs first.
    S30.2.3.2.8  The legs should be repositioned so that the feet rest 
flat on (or parallel to) the floorboard with the ankle joint positioned 
as nearly as possible to the midsagittal plane of the dummy.
    S30.2.3.2.9  If necessary, the upper torso can be tethered with a 
thread with a maximum breaking strength of 311 N (70 pounds) and/or 
wedge under dummy's pelvis. Care should be taken that any such tether 
is not situated anywhere within the deployment envelope of the air bag.
    S30.2.3.2.10  Position the upper arms parallel to the upper spine 
plate and rotate the lower arm forward sufficiently to prevent contact 
with or support from the seat.
    S30.2.3.2.11  Sufficient slack should be maintained in the 
instrumentation wiring harness so that the dummy motion is not 
restricted by the harness.
    S30.2.4  Impact configuration. The vehicle is accelerated to a 
speed of 32 km/h  2 km/h (20 mph  1.3 mph) [the 
agency is also considering a range of values above and below this 
value]. Pre-crash deceleration is initiated such that the vehicle 
impacts the barrier perpendicular to the barrier face at a velocity of 
24 km/h  2 km/h (15 mph,  1 mph) [the agency is 
also considering a range of values above and below this value]. The 
deceleration is initiated 2.1 meters  200 mm (7 ft 
 0.66 ft) [the agency is also considering a range of values 
above and below this value] from the impact barrier. Vehicle 
deceleration is 0.8  0.3 g's [the agency is also 
considering a range of values above and below this value] prior to 
barrier contact.
    3. Figures 8 and 9 would be added immediately following Figure 7 to 
read as follows:

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 50005]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.006



[[Page 50006]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.007


BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 50007]]

    4. Part 585 would be revised to read as follows:

PART 585--ADVANCED AIR BAG PHASE-IN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Sec.
585.1  Scope.
585.2  Purpose.
585.3  Applicability.
585.4  Definitions.
585.5  Response to inquiries.
585.6  Reporting requirements.
585.7  Records.
585.8  Petition to extend period to file report.

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


Sec. 585.1  Scope.

    This part establishes requirements for manufacturers of passenger 
cars and trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR 
of 3,855 kg (8500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 
2,495 kg (5500 pounds) or less to submit a report, and maintain records 
related to the report, concerning the number of such vehicles that meet 
the advanced air bag requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant crash 
protection (49 CFR 571.208).


Sec. 585.2  Purpose.

    This purpose of these reporting requirements is to aid the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration in determining whether a 
manufacturer of passenger cars and trucks, buses, and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8500 pounds) or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5500 pounds) or less has complied 
with the advanced air bag requirements of Standard No. 208.


Sec. 585.3  Applicability.

    This part applies to manufacturers of passenger cars and trucks, 
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg 
(8500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5500 
pounds) or less. However, this part does not apply to any manufacturers 
whose production consists exclusively of walk-in vans, vehicles 
designed to be sold exclusively to the U.S. Postal Service, vehicles 
manufactured in two or more stages, and vehicles that are altered after 
previously having been certified in accordance with part 567 of this 
chapter.


Sec. 585.4  Definitions.

    (a) All terms defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102 are used in their 
statutory meaning.
    (b) Bus, gross vehicle weight rating or GVWR, multipurpose 
passenger vehicle, passenger car, and truck are used as defined in 
section 571.3 of this chapter.
    (c) Production year means the 12-month period between September 1 
of one year and August 31 of the following year, inclusive.


Sec. 585.5  Response to inquiries.

    During the production years ending August 31, 2003, August 31, 
2004, and August 31, 2005, each manufacturer shall, upon request from 
the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, provide information regarding 
which vehicle make/models are certified as complying with the 
requirements of S14 of Standard No. 208.


Sec. 585.6  Reporting requirements.

    (a) Phase-in selection reporting requirement. Within 60 days after 
the end of the production year ending August 31, 2003, each 
manufacturer choosing to comply with one of the phase-in schedules 
permitted by S14.1 of 49 CFR Sec. 571.208 shall submit a report to the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration stating which phase-in 
schedule it will comply with until September 1, 2005. Each report 
shall--
    (1) Identify the manufacturer;
    (2) State the full name, title, and address of the official 
responsible for preparing the report;
    (3) Identify the paragraph for the phase-in schedule selected;
    (4) Be written in the English language; and
    (5) Be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.
    (b) General reporting requirements. Within 60 days after the end of 
the production years ending August 31, 2003, August 31, 2004, and 
August 31, 2005, each manufacturer shall submit a report to the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning its 
compliance with the advanced air bag requirements of Standard No. 208 
for its passenger cars, trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles produced in that year. Each report shall--
    (1) Identify the manufacturer;
    (2) State the full name, title, and address of the official 
responsible for preparing the report;
    (3) Identify the production year being reported on;
    (4) Contain a statement regarding whether or not the manufacturer 
complied with the advanced air bag requirements of Standard No. 208 for 
the period covered by the report and the basis for that statement;
    (5) Provide the information specified in Sec. 585.6(c);
    (6) Be written in the English language; and
    (7) Be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.
    (c) Report content--(1) Basis for phase-in production goals. Each 
manufacturer shall provide the number of passenger cars and trucks, 
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg 
(8500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5500 
pounds) or less manufactured for sale in the United States for each of 
the three previous production years, or, at the manufacturer's option, 
for the current production year. A new manufacturer that has not 
previously manufactured passenger cars and trucks, buses, and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8500 pounds) 
or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5500 pounds) or 
less for sale in the United States must report the number of such 
vehicles manufactured during the current production year. However, 
manufacturers are not required to report any information with respect 
to those vehicles that are walk-in vans, vehicles designed to be sold 
exclusively to the U.S. Postal Service, vehicles manufactured in two or 
more stages, and vehicles that are altered after previously having been 
certified in accordance with part 567 of this chapter.
    (2) Production. Each manufacturer shall report for the production 
year for which the report is filed the number of passenger cars and 
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 
kg (8500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg 
(5500 pounds) or less that meet the advanced air bag requirements of 
Standard No. 208.
    (3) Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer. Each 
manufacturer whose reporting of information is affected by one or more 
of the express written contracts permitted by S14.1.3.2 of Standard No. 
208 shall:
    (i) Report the existence of each contract, including the names of 
all parties to the contract, and explain how the contract affects the 
report being submitted.
    (ii) Report the actual number of vehicles covered by each contract.


Sec. 585.7  Records.

    Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the Vehicle 
Identification Number for each passenger car, multipurpose passenger 
vehicle, truck

[[Page 50008]]

and bus for which information is reported under Sec. 585.6(c)(2) until 
December 31, 2006.


Sec. 585.8  Petitions to extend period to file report.

    A petition for extension of the time to submit a report must be 
received not later than 15 days before expiration of the time stated in 
Sec. 585.6(b). The petition must be submitted to: Administrator, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20590. The filing of a petition does not automatically 
extend the time for filing a report. A petition will be granted only if 
the petitioner shows good cause for the extension, and if the extension 
is consistent with the public interest.

PART 587--DEFORMABLE BARRIERS

    5. The authority citation for part 587 would be revised to read as 
follows:

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

    6. The heading of part 587 would be revised to read as set forth 
above.
    7. The heading ``Subpart A--General'' would be inserted immediately 
before section 587.1.
    8. Section 587.1 would be revised to read as follows:


Sec. 587.1  Scope.

    This part describes deformable impact barriers that are to be used 
for testing compliance of motor vehicles with motor vehicle safety 
standards.
    9. Section 587.3 would be revised to read as follows:


Sec. 587.3  Application.

    This part does not in itself impose duties or liabilities on any 
person. It is a description of tools that measure the performance of 
occupant protection systems required by the safety standards that 
incorporated it. It is designed to be referenced by, and become part 
of, the test procedures specified in motor vehicle safety standards 
such as Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 
214, Side Impact Protection.

Subpart B--[Amended]

    10. The heading ``Subpart B--Side Impact Moving Deformable 
Barrier'' would be inserted immediately after the end of section 587.3.


Secs. 587.7 through 587.10  [Reserved]

    11. Sections 587.7 through 587.10 would be reserved.

Subpart C--[Amended]

    12. The heading ``Subpart C--Offset Deformable Barrier'' would be 
inserted immediately after the end of section 587.10.


Sec. 587.11  [Reserved]

    13. Section 587.11 would be reserved.
    14. Sections 587.12 through 587.17 would be added to read as 
follows:


Sec. 587.12  General description.

    The fixed offset deformable barrier is comprised of two elements: A 
fixed collision barrier and a deformable face (Figure 1). The base unit 
is a fixed barrier and must be adequate to not deflect or displace 
during the vehicle impact. The deformable face is 200 mm (7.8 inches) 
 15 mm (0.6 inch) off the ground, and consists of two 
separate layers of aluminum honeycomb and an aluminum covering.


Sec. 587.13  Component And Material Specifications.

    The dimensions of the barrier are illustrated in Figure 1 of this 
part. The dimensions of the individual components of the barrier are 
listed separately below. All dimensions allow a tolerance of 
 2.5 mm (0.1 inch) unless otherwise specified.
    (a) Main honeycomb block.
    (1) Dimensions. The main section of the deformable face of the 
fixed barrier has the following dimensions. The height is 650 mm (25.6 
inches) (in direction of honeycomb ribbon axis), the width is 1,000 mm 
(39.4 inches), and the depth is 450 mm (17.7 inches) (in direction of 
honeycomb cell axes).
    (2) Material. The main section of the deformable face of the fixed 
barrier is constructed of the following material. The honeycomb is 
manufactured out of aluminum, 3003 (ISO 209, part 1), with a foil 
thickness of 0.076 mm (0.003 inches)  1 mm (0.040 inch) 
 0.004 mm (0.002 inch), an aluminum honeycomb cell size of 
19.14 mm (0.75 inches), a density of 28.6 kg/m\3\ (1.78 lb/ft 
3)  2kg/m\3\ (0.25 1b/ft \3\) and a crush 
strength of 0.342 MPa (49.6 psi) + 0%-10%, in accordance with the 
certification procedure described in section 587.14.
    (b) Bumper element.
    (1) Dimensions. The bumper element of the deformable face of the 
fixed barrier has the following dimensions. The height is 330 mm (13 
inches)(in direction of honeycomb ribbon axis), the width is 1,000 mm 
(39.4 inches), and the depth is 90 mm (3.5 inches)(in direction of 
honeycomb cell axes).
    (2) Material. The bumper element of the deformable face of the 
fixed barrier is constructed of the following material. The honeycomb 
is manufactured out of aluminum 3003 (ISO 209, part 1), foil thickness 
of 0.076 mm(0.003 inch)  0.004 mm (0.0002 inch), cell size 
of 6.4 mm (0.25 inch)  1 mm (0.040 inch), density of 82.6 
kg/m\3\ (5.15 lb/ft \3\)  3 kg/m\3\ (0.19 lb/ft \3\), and 
crush strength of 1.711 MPa (248 psi) + 0%-10%, in accordance with the 
certification procedure described in section 587.14.
    (c) Backing sheet.
    (1) Dimensions. The deformable barrier backing sheet has the 
following dimensions. The height is 800 mm (31.5 inches), the width is 
1,000 mm (39.4 inches) inch), and the thickness is 2.0 mm (0.078 inch) 
 0.1 mm (0.004 inch).
    (2) Material. The deformable barrier backing sheet is manufactured 
out of Aluminum 5251/5052.
    (d) Cladding sheet.
    (1) Dimensions. The cladding sheet of the main section of the 
deformable face of the fixed barrier has the following dimensions. The 
length is 1,700 mm (66.9 inches), the width is 1,000 mm (39.4 inches), 
and the thickness is 0.81 mm (0.03 inch)  0.07 mm (0.003 
inch).
    (2) Material. The cladding sheet of the main section of the 
deformable face of the fixed barrier is manufactured out of Aluminum 
5251/5052.
    (e) Bumper facing sheet.
    (1) Dimensions. The bumper facing sheet has the following 
dimensions. The height is 330 mm(13 inches), the width is 1,000 mm(39.4 
inches), and the thickness is 0.81 mm (0.03 inch)  0.07 mm 
(0.003 inch)
    (2) Material. The bumper facing sheet is manufactured out of 
aluminum 5251/5052.
    (f) Adhesive. The adhesive to be used throughout should be a two-
part polyurethane.


Sec. 587.14  Aluminum honeycomb certification.

    The following procedure is applied to materials for the frontal 
impact barrier, these materials having a crush strength of 0.342 MPa 
(49.6 psi) and 1.711 MPa (248 psi). (See Figure 1.)
    (a) Sample locations. To ensure uniformity of crush strength across 
the whole of the barrier face, 8 samples are taken from 4 locations 
evenly spaced across the honeycomb block. For a block to pass 
certification, 7 of these 8 samples must meet the crush strength 
requirements of the following sections. Any part of the block may then 
be used for a barrier. The location of the samples depends on the size 
of the honeycomb block. First, four samples, each measuring 300 mm 
(11.8 inches)  x  300 mm (11.8 inches)  x  50 mm (1.97 inches)thick are 
cut from the block of barrier face material. (See Figure 2 for how to 
locate these samples on a typical

[[Page 50009]]

honeycomb block.) Each of these larger samples are cut into samples for 
certification testing (150 mm (5.9 inches)  x  150 mm (5.9 inches)  x  
50 mm (1.97 inches)). Certification is based on the testing of two 
samples from each of the four locations.
    (b) Sample size. Samples of the following size are used for 
testing. The length is 150 mm(5.9 inches)  6 mm (0.24 
inch), the width is 150 mm (5.9 inches)  6 mm (0.24 inch), 
and the thickness is 50 mm (1.97 inches)  2 mm (0.078 
inch). The walls of incomplete cells around the edge of the sample are 
trimmed as follows (See Figure 3). In the width ``W'' direction, the 
fringes must be no greater than 1.8 mm (0.07 inch); in the length 
(``L'') direction, half the length of one bonded cell wall (in the 
ribbon direction) must be left at either end of the specimen.
    (c) Area measurement. The length of the sample is measured in three 
locations, 12.7 mm (0.5 inch) from each end and in the middle, and 
recorded as L1, L2, and L3 (Figure 3). In the same manner, the width is 
measured and recorded as W1, W2 and W3 (Figure 3). These measurements 
are taken on the centerline of the thickness. The crush area is then 
calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.008

    (d) Crush rate and distance. The sample is crushed at a rate of not 
less than 5.1 mm/min (0.2 in/min) and not more than 7.6 mm/min (0.29 
in/min). The minimum crush distance is 16.5 mm(0.65 inch). Force versus 
deflection data are to be collected in either analogue or digital form 
for each sample tested. If analogue data are collected then a means of 
converting this to digital must be available. All digital data must be 
collected at a rate consistent with SAE J211, 1995.
    (e) Crush strength determination. Ignore all data prior to 6.4 mm 
(0.25 inch) of crush and after 16.5 mm (0.65 inch) of crush. Divide the 
remaining data into three sections or displacement intervals (n = 
1,2,3) (see Figure 4) as follows. Interval one should be at 6.4-9.7 mm 
(0.25-0.38 inch) deflection, inclusive. Interval two should be at 9.7-
13.2 mm (0.38-0.52 inch) deflection, exclusive. Interval three is 13.2-
16.5 mm (0.52-0.65 inch) deflection, inclusive. Find the average for 
each section as follows: where m represents the number of data points 
measured in each of the three intervals. Calculate the crush strength 
of each section as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.009

where m represents the number of data points measured in each of the 
three intervals. Calculate the crush strength of each section as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.010

    (f) Sample crush strength specification. For a honeycomb sample to 
pass this certification, the following condition must be met. For the 
0.342 MPa (49.6 psi) material, the strength be equal or greater than 
0.308 MPa (45 psi) but less than or equal to 0.342 MPa (49.6 psi) for 
all three compression intervals. For the 1.711 MPa (248 psi) material 
the strength must be equal to or greater than 1.540 MPa (223 psi) but 
less than or equal to 1.711 MPa (248 psi) for each of the compression 
intervals.
    (g) Block crush strength specification. Eight samples are to be 
tested, from four locations, evenly spaced across the block. For a 
block to pass certification, 7 of the 8 samples must meet the crush 
strength specification of the previous section. Any part of the block 
may then be used for a barrier.
    (h)(1) The testing hardware must have a capacity of applying 13.3 
kN (3,000 lb) over a stroke of at least 16.5 mm (0.65 inches), at a 
constant and known rate. The crush plates must be parallel (within 
0.127 mm (0.005 inch)), be at least 165 mm  x  165 mm (6.5 inch  x  6.5 
inch) in size, have a surface roughness approximately equivalent to 60 
grit sandpaper, and be marked to ensure centering of the applied load 
on the sample.
    (2) The hardware used for certifying aluminum honeycomb must be 
capable of applying sufficient load (13.3 kN (3,000 lb)), over at least 
a 16.5 mm (0.65 inch) stroke. The crush rate must be constant and 
known. To ensure that the load is applied to the entire sample, the top 
and bottom crush plates must be no smaller than 165 mm by 165 mm (6.5 
inch  x  6.5 inch). The engaging surfaces of the crush plates must also 
have a roughness approximately equivalent to 60 grit sandpaper. The 
bottom crush plate should be marked to ensure that the applied load is 
centered on the sample.
    (3) The crush plate assemblies must have an average angular 
rigidity (about axes normal to the direction of crush) of at least 1017 
Nm/deg (750 ft-lb/deg), over the range of 0 to 203 N m (0 to 150 ft-lb) 
applied torque.


Sec. 587.15  Adhesive Bonding Procedure.

    Immediately before bonding, aluminum sheet surfaces to be bonded 
must be thoroughly cleaned using a suitable solvent, such as 1-1-1 
Trichloroethane. This is to be carried out at least twice or as 
required to eliminate grease or dirt deposits. The cleaned surfaces 
must then be abraded using 120 grit abrasive paper. Metallic/silicon 
carbide abrasive paper is not to be used. The surfaces must be 
thoroughly abraded and the abrasive paper changed regularly during the 
process to avoid clogging, which may lead to a polishing effect. 
Following abrading, the surfaces must be thoroughly cleaned again, as 
above. In total, the surfaces must be solvent cleaned at least four 
times. All dust and deposits left as a result of the abrading process 
must be removed, as these will adversely affect bonding. The adhesive 
should be applied to one surface only, using a ribbed rubber roller. In 
cases where honeycomb is to be bonded to aluminum sheet, the adhesive 
should be applied to the aluminum sheet only. A maximum of 0.5 kg/m\2\ 
(11.9 lb/ft\2\) be applied evenly over the surface, giving a maximum 
film thickness of 0.5 mm (0.02 inch).


Sec. 587.16  Construction.

    (a) The main honeycomb block is bonded to the backing sheet with 
adhesive such that the cell axes are perpendicular to the sheet. The 
cladding is bonded to the front surface of the honeycomb block. The top 
and bottom surfaces of the cladding sheet must not be bonded to the 
main honeycomb block but should be positioned closely to it. The 
cladding sheet must be adhesively bonded to the backing sheet at the 
mounting flanges. The bumper element must be adhesively bonded to the 
front of the cladding sheet such that the cell axes are perpendicular 
to the sheet. The bottom of the bumper element must be flush with the 
bottom surface of the cladding sheet. The bumper facing sheet must be 
adhesively bonded to the front of the bumper element.
    (b) The bumper element must then be divided into three equal 
sections by means of two horizontal slots. These slots must be cut 
through the entire depth of the bumper section and extend the whole 
width of the bumper. The slots must be cut using a saw; their width 
must be the width of the blade used and must not exceed 4.0 mm (0.16 
inch).
    (c) Clearance holes for mounting the barrier are to be drilled in 
the mounting flanges (shown in Figure 2.) The holes must be 20 mm (0.79 
inch) in diameter. Five holes must be drilled in the top flange at a 
distance of 40 mm (1.57 inches) from the top edge of the flange and 
five holes in the bottom flange, 40

[[Page 50010]]

mm (1.6 inches) from the bottom edge of that flange. The holes must be 
spaced 100 mm, 300 mm (11.8 inches), 500 mm (19.7 inches), 700 mm (27.5 
inches), 900 mm (35.4 inches) horizontally, from either edge of the 
barrier. All holes must be drilled to  1 mm (0.04 inch) of 
the nominal distances.


Sec. 587.17  Mounting.

    (a) The deformable barrier must be rigidly fixed to the edge of a 
mass of not less than 7  x  104 kg (154,324 lbs) or to some 
structure attached thereto. The attachment of the barrier face must be 
such that the vehicle must not contact any part of the structure more 
than 75 mm (2.9 inches) from the top surface of the barrier (excluding 
the upper flange) during any stage of the impact. (A mass, the end of 
which is between 925 mm (36.4 inches) and 1000 mm (39.4 inches) high 
and at least 1000 mm (39.4 inches) deep, is considered to satisfy this 
requirement.) The front face of the surface to which the deformable 
barrier is attached must be flat and continuous over the height and 
width of the face and must be vertical  1 degree and 
perpendicular  1 degree to the axis of the run-up track. 
The attachment surface must not be displaced more than 10 mm (0.4 inch) 
during the test. If necessary, additional anchorage or arresting 
devices must be used to prevent displacement of the barrier. The edge 
of the deformable barrier must be aligned with the edge of the ridged 
barrier appropriate for the side of the vehicle to be tested.
    (b) The deformable barrier must be fixed to the fixed barrier by 
means of ten bolts, five in the top mounting flange and five in the 
bottom. These bolts must be at least 8 mm (0.3 inch) in diameter. Steel 
clamping strips must be used for both the top and bottom mounting 
flanges (figures 1 and 2). These strips must be 60 mm (2.4 inches) high 
and 1000 mm (39.4 inches) wide and have thickness of at least 3 mm 
(0.12 inch). Five clearance holes of 20 mm (0.8 inch) diameter must be 
drilled in both strips to correspond with those in the mounting flange 
on the barrier (see section 587.16(c)). None of the fixtures must fail 
in the impact test.
    15. Figures 1 through 5 would be added to Part 587.

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 50011]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.011



[[Page 50012]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.012



[[Page 50013]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.013



[[Page 50014]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.014



[[Page 50015]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.015



BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 50016]]

PART 595--RETROFIT ON-OFF SWITCHES FOR AIR BAGS

    16. The authority citation for part 595 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30122 and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    17. Section 595.5 would be amended by revising paragraph (a) and 
adding paragraph (b)(6) to read as follows:


Sec. 595.5  Requirements.

    (a) Beginning January 19, 1998, a dealer or motor vehicle repair 
business may modify a motor vehicle manufactured before September 1, 
2005 by installing an on-off switch that allows an occupant of the 
vehicle to turn off an air bag in that vehicle, subject to the 
conditions in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section:
    (b) * * *
    (6) The vehicle was not certified to meet the advanced air bag 
requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, i.e., 
the requirements specified in S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 of 49 
CFR 571.208.

    Issued: September 1, 1998.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.

Appendix--Response to Petitions

    Note: The following appendix will not appear in the Code of 
Federal Regulations.

    NHTSA has received a number of petitions and recommendations 
which address air bag performance requirements. These include 
petitions for rulemaking concerning the adverse effects of air bags, 
recommendations from NTSB, and petitions for reconsideration of 
several regulatory actions addressing this problem on an interim 
basis.
    In this appendix, NHTSA discusses and responds to those 
outstanding petitions and recommendations which address air bag 
performance requirements. In some cases, the agency presents its 
initial response to a petition; in other cases, the agency discusses 
how today's proposal for advanced air bags provides a further 
response to petitions for rulemaking which have already been 
granted. NHTSA notes that it will respond in other notices to any 
outstanding petitions addressing other types of air bag-related 
issues, e.g., consumer information requirements and retrofit on-off 
switches.

A. Petitions Requesting That New Test Requirements Be Added to Standard 
No. 208

1. August 1996 Petition From AAMA

    As part of AAMA's August 1996 petition requesting that an 
unbelted sled test be allowed as an alternative to the existing 
unbelted barrier crash test to facilitate quick depowering of air 
bags, that organization also petitioned the agency to propose driver 
and passenger out-of-position occupant test requirements, based on 
the latest ISO test practices, as a way of testing the injury 
potential of air bags for those occupants. AAMA recommended that the 
agency use the Hybrid III 5th percentile adult female dummy at the 
driver position and an appropriate child dummy at the passenger 
position. AAMA stated that additional work was needed to more fully 
develop the ISO protocol to a level appropriate for an amendment to 
Standard No. 208.
    Today's proposal for advanced air bags includes out-of-position 
occupant requirements based on the ISO test procedures, using the 
Hybrid III 5th percentile adult female dummy and several child 
dummies. This notice is therefore in further response to AAMA's 
petition.

2. September 1996 Petition From Anita Glass Lindsey

    On September 1, 1996, Anita Glass Lindsey submitted a petition 
to amend Standard No. 208 to specify use of a 5th percentile adult 
female test dummy in testing vehicles for compliance with the 
standard's air bag requirements. NHTSA granted the petition in the 
preamble its NPRM concerning depowering. 62 FR 807, 827; January 6, 
1997. The agency stated that it contemplated initiating a new 
rulemaking proceeding to propose the adoption of a 5th percentile 
adult female dummy and to specify injury criteria and limits, 
including neck injury criteria and limits, suitable for that dummy.
    Today's proposal for advanced air bags proposes the adoption of 
the Hybrid III 5th percentile adult female dummy and related test 
requirements and injury criteria. The notice is therefore in further 
response to Ms. Lindsey's petition.

3. September 1996 NTSB Safety Recommendations

    On September 17, 1996, the National Transportation Safety Board 
(NTSB) issued a number of safety recommendations to NHTSA for 
reducing the problem of child fatalities caused by air bags. These 
recommendations are as follows:
    1. Immediately evaluate passenger air bags based on all 
available sources, including NHTSA's recent crash testing, and then 
publicize the findings and modify performance and testing 
requirements, as appropriate, based on the findings of the 
evaluation.
    2. Immediately revise Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, 
Occupant Crash Protection, to establish performance requirements for 
passenger air bags based on testing procedures that reflect actual 
accident environments, including pre-impact braking, out-of-position 
child occupants (belted and unbelted), properly positioned belted 
child occupants, and with the seat track in the forward-most 
position.
    3. Evaluate the effect of higher deployment thresholds for 
passenger air bags in combination with the recommended changes in 
air bag performance certification testing, and then modify the 
deployment thresholds based on the findings of the evaluation.
    4. Establish a timetable to implement intelligent air bag 
technology that will moderate or prevent the air bag from deployment 
if full deployment would pose an injury hazard to a belted or 
unbelted occupant in the right front seating position, such as a 
child who is seated too close to the instrument panel, a child who 
moves forward because of pre-impact braking, or a child who is 
restrained in a rear-facing child restraint system.
    5. Determine the feasibility of applying technical solutions to 
vehicles not covered by NHTSA's proposed rulemaking of August 1, 
1996, to prevent air bag-induced injuries to children in the 
passenger position.
    Today's proposal for advanced air bags is responsive to these 
recommendations.

4. November 1996 Petitions From Public Citizen and the Center for 
Auto Safety

    On November 8, 1996, the Center for Auto Safety (CFAS) 
petitioned the agency to amend Standard No. 208 to specify that a 
vehicle's air bags must not deploy in a crash if the vehicle's 
change of velocity is less than 12 mph. CFAS noted that many of the 
crashes resulting in air bag fatalities, especially those of 
children, involved very low changes in vehicle velocity.
    On November 20, 1996, CFAS and Public Citizen petitioned the 
agency to begin rulemaking to require dual inflation air bags. In 
low-speed crashes, these bags would inflate more slowly, and thus 
less aggressively, than then-current air bags. In higher-speed 
crashes, they would inflate at the same rate as then-current air 
bags. The petitioners asserted that their proposal is the best 
solution in the near future and is superior to depowering, since 
depowering involves ``some trade-off in safety protection and will 
not add significant protection for unrestrained children.''
    NHTSA considered and discussed these petitions during its 
depowering rulemaking. The agency believes that higher deployment 
thresholds and dual or multiple level inflators are among the 
available alternatives for reducing adverse effects of air bags. 
However, NHTSA is not proposing to require either alternative 
because it believes such a requirement would be unnecessarily 
design-restrictive, given the other available alternatives.
    Moreover, the agency believes that neither a requirement for 
higher deployment thresholds alone nor a requirement for dual or 
multiple level inflators would be a sufficient longer term approach 
for the agency to adopt. NHTSA is concerned that a requirement for 
higher deployment thresholds would discourage the use of multiple 
level inflators, which the agency believes offer greater potential 
benefits. A requirement for multiple level inflators would be 
inadequate because it would not measure injury risk, e.g., the 
possibility that even the lower inflation level might cause 
fatalities to out-of-position occupants.

5. February 1997 Petition From Parents for Safer Air Bags

    On February 28, 1997, Parents for Safer Air Bags petitioned 
NHTSA to (1) investigate the effect of temperature on air bag 
inflation and (2) incorporate performance requirements in Standard 
No. 208 that require compliance with the standard at -40 deg. C 
(-40 deg. F) and at 82 deg. C (180 deg. F).

[[Page 50017]]

    That organization stated that it had been advised by engineering 
experts that temperature can materially affect air bag pressure. It 
supplied a graph showing how inflator performance typically varies 
by temperature in a tank test. It expressed concern that an occupant 
in Minnesota in the winter may ``bottom out'' as a result of 
excessive depowering while an occupant in Arizona in the summer may 
be struck with excessive bag punch even with depowering.
    The Parents' Coalition stated that it had been advised that the 
most effective test protocol to insure proper air bag performance in 
variant climatic conditions is a static deployment with pendulum 
loading that simulates occupant acceleration and tests for bottom 
out and rebound. The petitioner stated that the air bag inflator and 
module should be cooled to -40 deg. F. (and heated to 180 deg. F.) 
and then tested at those temperatures.
    NHTSA agrees that temperature will have an effect on any gas. 
Since air bag inflation is dependent on gas, temperature may have an 
effect on inflation characteristics. Therefore, the agency agrees 
that the vehicle manufacturers need to take account of temperature 
issues as they design their air bags. The agency notes, however, 
that few if any people would operate their vehicles at the extreme 
temperatures cited by the petitioner. Moreover, to the extent that 
an inflator was at an extreme temperature at the beginning of a 
trip, the temperature would likely move close to the occupant 
compartment's operating temperature after a few minutes.
    The agency believes that the relevant issues to consider in 
responding to the Parents' Coalition petition are whether this is an 
issue which needs to be addressed by Federal regulation and, if so, 
what type of regulation. NHTSA has tentatively concluded that there 
is not a demonstrated need to include temperature requirements in 
Standard No. 208, but it is requesting comments on this issue.
    NHTSA notes that, in issuing today's proposal for advanced air 
bags, the agency has tentatively concluded that a substantial number 
of additional performance requirements need to be added to Standard 
No. 208 to ensure that the vehicle manufacturers design their air 
bags to provide appropriate protection under a wider variety of 
circumstances. However, in the context of a statutory scheme 
requiring the agency to issue performance requirements (as opposed 
to one requiring design requirements or government approval), it is 
neither appropriate nor possible for the agency to address every 
real world variable that can affect safety. Ultimately, the vehicle 
manufacturers must be expected to design their vehicles not only so 
they meet the performance requirements specified by the Federal 
motor vehicle safety standards, but also in light of the full range 
of real world conditions their vehicles will experience.
    Based on an examination of available data, NHTSA is not aware of 
a need to add temperature requirements to Standard No. 208. The 
agency has evaluated its Special Crash Investigations of air bag 
fatalities and serious injuries, and has been unable to find any 
relationship between temperature and air-bag-induced injuries.
    NHTSA also believes that it would be relatively difficult to 
develop temperature requirements that would be appropriate for 
Standard No. 208. The agency does not believe that a pendulum test, 
by itself, would be desirable because it would not measure injury 
criteria.
    However, the agency believes that manufacturers can, and should, 
consider temperature performance as they design their air bags. They 
are in a position to know how significant temperature variation is 
to the performance of a particular air bag design, and can conduct 
the kinds of testing that are suited to each such design.
    As indicated above, while the agency has tentatively concluded 
that there is not a need to include temperature requirements in 
Standard No. 208, it is requesting comments on this issue. The 
agency is particularly interested in receiving comments from air bag 
manufacturers and vehicle manufacturers concerning what testing and 
other steps they have taken to ensure that air bag performance is 
appropriate under varying temperature conditions, the steps they 
have taken in the context of depowering their air bags (e.g., how 
they may have addressed the possibility that depowered air bags 
might be more likely to ``bottom out'' in cold temperatures), and 
how they plan to address the issue in the context of advanced air 
bag designs.

6. April 1998 Petition From CFAS, Consumer Federation of America, 
Parents for Safer Air Bags, and Public Citizen

    On April 20, 1998, CFAS, Consumer Federation of America, Parents 
for Safer Air Bags, and Public Citizen submitted a joint petition 
requesting that the agency upgrade Standard No. 208 to include 
testing of the ``family of dummies'' in (1) barrier tests up to and 
including 30 mph (belted and unbelted), (2) moderate speed off-set 
deformable barrier tests (belted and unbelted), and (3) static tests 
with out-of-position dummies. The petitioners stated that this 
comprehensive set of tests would ensure that air bag systems are 
safe and effective in ``real world'' crash conditions, not just in 
the ``single crash scenario'' in the present standard.
    The petitioners argued that the present requirements in Standard 
No. 208 are under-inclusive, since they require testing only of the 
properly positioned, average-sized adult male dummy in a 30 mph 
collision. They stated that the standard omits testing of child 
sized dummies, small women dummies, out-of-position dummies, and 
dummies of any size and position in low-speed collisions. The 
petitioners also stated that the standard omits off-set crashes into 
a deformable barrier--tests that reveal the ability of the crash 
sensor to promptly detect the crash event and deploy the bag before 
the occupant has had time to move dangerously close to the air bag.
    According to the petitioners, these gaps in Standard No. 208 
have allowed air bag systems to enter the market that have caused 
severe and fatal injuries to child passengers and small women 
drivers in minor collisions. The petitioners believe that the 
solution is the upgrading of Standard No. 208's air bag performance 
requirements, as summarized earlier in this section.
    The petitioners also emphasized that they believe the unbelted 
30 mph barrier test should be reinstated. Noting that some 
automobile manufacturers are urging permanent elimination of that 
test in favor of the current sled test option, the petitioners 
stated that the agency should reject this recommendation due to the 
serious inadequacies of the sled test. Among other things, the 
petitioners stated that the sled test (1) uses a ``fictitious'' 125 
millisecond crash pulse that fails to account for the fact that some 
vehicles have a much faster crash pulse; (2) does not allow 
observation of how the vehicle crushes; (3) does not allow 
observation of the occupant's interaction with the vehicle structure 
in an actual crash (the so-called occupant ``kinematics''); and (4) 
fails to test the effectiveness of the vehicle's crash sensors.
    NHTSA notes that it received this petition as it was nearing 
completion of its proposal for advanced air bags. Nonetheless, the 
agency has carefully analyzed the petition. The agency believes that 
while not identical, today's proposal is essentially consistent with 
the approach recommended by the petitioners. Accordingly, the agency 
has decided to grant the petition and views today's proposal as 
responsive to the petition.
    NHTSA notes that it agrees with the petitioners that the current 
requirements of Standard No. 208 are under-inclusive and need to be 
upgraded. However, the agency believes it is incorrect to 
characterize the standard's longstanding barrier test requirements 
as ``a single crash scenario.'' Given that the current standard 
specifies that vehicles must be able to comply with the barrier test 
at different speeds, different angles, and with both belted and 
unbelted dummies,23 the standard simulates a wide variety 
of real world crash scenarios. However, the agency agrees that the 
standard needs to be upgraded so that it directly addresses a number 
of crash scenarios not simulated by the barrier test, such as ones 
involving out-of-position occupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\  As discussed elsewhere in this notice, the standard 
currently includes an unbelted sled test option that may be selected 
as an alternative to the unbelted barrier test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Petition Requesting Extension of the Provision Allowing On-Off 
Switches for Vehicles Without Rear Seats or With Small Rear Seats

    On January 6, 1997, NHTSA published a final rule in the Federal 
Register (62 FR 798) extending until September 1, 2000 the time 
period during which vehicle manufacturers are permitted to offer 
manual on-off switches for the passenger-side air bag for vehicles 
without rear seats or with rear seats that are too small to 
accommodate rear facing infant seats. The agency extended the option 
from an earlier date so that manufacturers would have more time to 
implement better, automatic solutions.
    GM requested the agency to reconsider its position regarding 
this ``sunset'' date. That company essentially argued that there is 
still

[[Page 50018]]

considerable uncertainty as to whether such automatic solutions will 
be available by September 1, 2000.
    NHTSA has decided to grant GM's petition. In today's proposal 
for advanced air bags, the agency is proposing, among other things, 
to require automatic means for ensuring that passenger air bags do 
not pose a risk to children in rear facing infant seats. In 
developing this proposal, the agency has considered the lead time 
needed to implement these solutions. The agency has therefore 
tentatively concluded that it should extend the date for this 
``sunset'' so that the temporary amendment would expire as the 
upgraded performance requirements are phased in.
    During the proposed phase-in, manual on-off switches would not 
be available for any vehicles certified to the upgraded 
requirements, but would be available for other vehicles if those 
vehicles do not have rear seats or have rear seats that are too 
small to accommodate rear facing infant seats.

C. Petitions Requesting a Permanent Option of Using Unbelted Sled Test 
Instead of Unbelted Barrier Test

    As discussed earlier in this notice, NHTSA is proposing to amend 
Standard No. 208 to improve occupant protection for occupants of 
different sizes, belted and unbelted, while minimizing the risk to 
infants, children, and other occupants from injuries and deaths 
caused by current air bag designs. The current standard provides 
vehicle manufacturers with the flexibility necessary to introduce 
advanced air bags, but does not require them to do so.
    Partially because Standard No. 208 has always provided the 
flexibility to address the problem of out-of-position occupants, the 
agency specified in its depowering rulemaking that the alternative 
sled test was a temporary measure, instead of a permanent one. NHTSA 
explained that there is no need to permanently reduce Standard No. 
208's performance requirements to enable manufacturers to choose 
alternatives to the current single inflation level air bags and thus 
avoid the adverse effects of those air bags. Those requirements 
permit manufacturers to install air bags that adapt deployment based 
on one or more factors such as crash severity, belt use, and 
occupant size, weight or position, or that inflate in a manner that 
is not seriously harmful to out-of-position occupants.
    NHTSA decided to make the alternative sled test available until 
advanced air bags could be introduced. It specified that the 
alternative sled test would ``sunset'' on September 1, 2001, based 
on its judgment in the Spring of 1997 that vehicle manufacturers 
could install some types of advanced air bags in their fleets by 
that date. The agency recognized, however, that there was 
uncertainty as to how quickly advanced air bags could be 
incorporated into the entire fleet. Accordingly, the agency 
indicated that it would revisit the sunset date, to the extent 
appropriate, in its future rulemaking on advanced air bags. See 62 
FR 12968, March 19, 1997.
    NHTSA received four petitions requesting that the agency 
eliminate the sunset date for the alternative unbelted sled test. 
The petitions were submitted by AAMA, AIAM, Ford, and IIHS.
    The agency notes that the sunset date (September 1, 2001) 
specified in the standard has been superseded by the NHTSA 
Reauthorization Act of 1998. The Act ensures that the sled test 
option will remain in place at least until the vehicle manufacturers 
introduce advanced air bags. As discussed earlier in this notice, 
the Act provides that the unbelted sled test option ``shall remain 
in effect unless and until changed by [the final rule for advanced 
air bags].'' The Conference Report states that the current sled test 
certification option remains in effect ``unless and until phased out 
according to the schedule in the final rule.''
    Since the Act overrides the provision in Standard No. 208 
sunsetting the sled test alternative, the Act effectively moots the 
petitions for reconsideration concerning that provision. 
Accordingly, there is no need to set out the arguments made in those 
petitions. Further, those arguments and their underlying premises 
have themselves been superseded in some respects by the Act, having 
been submitted long before the air bag provisions of the Act were 
formulated and enacted. For example, many of those arguments were 
premised on the continued use of the current, single inflation level 
air bags, instead of the advanced air bags mandated by Congress in 
the Act.
    Nevertheless, those arguments were generally considered by the 
agency before deciding to propose terminating the sled test 
alternative. The following discussion supplements the discussion in 
the preamble of the reasons for issuing that proposal.
    Adoption in 1997 of the Temporary Sled Test Option. AAMA first 
petitioned the agency to provide a sled test alternative to the 
unbelted barrier test requirements in August 1996. By the time that 
organization submitted its petition, it had become clear that while 
the single inflation level air bag designs then being installed by 
the industry were highly effective in reducing teenager and adult 
fatalities from frontal crashes, they also sometimes caused 
fatalities to out-of-position occupants, especially children, in low 
speed crashes. NHTSA and the industry were then seeking solutions 
that could be implemented quickly to reduce the adverse effects of 
air bags, while also maintaining, to the extent possible, the 
benefits of air bags.
    In analyzing AAMA's rulemaking petition, the agency recognized 
that there were downsides to the approach recommended by that 
organization. Unlike a full scale vehicle crash test, a sled test 
does not, and cannot, measure the actual protection that an occupant 
will receive in a crash. The test can measure limited performance 
attributes of the air bag, but not the performance provided by the 
full air bag system, much less the combination of the vehicle and 
its occupant crash protection system. It is that combination that 
determines the amount of protection actually received by occupants 
in a real world crash.
    NHTSA was faced with a difficult decision in evaluating AAMA's 
rulemaking petition to permit use of the sled test. The agency 
wanted the industry to quickly mitigate the adverse effects of its 
then-current air bag designs, which the auto industry said it would 
do if the agency adopted the sled test, but the agency did not want 
to reduce the protection being ensured by Standard No. 208.
    Faced with this dilemma, NHTSA carefully analyzed whether a 
reduction in stringency of the Standard was necessary in the short 
term to address adverse effects of air bags to out-of-position 
occupants. A review of the record showed that a wide range of 
technological solutions were, and had been, available to prevent 
adverse effects of air bags, and still enable vehicles to meet 
Standard No. 208's barrier crash test requirements.24 
However, these technologies generally could not be implemented as 
quickly as depowering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\  In its 1984 decision, the Department had expressly 
recognized that the vehicle manufacturers had raised concerns about 
potential adverse effects of air bags to out-of-position occupants. 
In response to those concerns, the Department had identified a 
variety of available technological means for addressing those risks. 
The July 11, 1984 Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA) listed a 
variety of potential technological means for addressing the problem 
of injuries associated with air bag deployments (FRIA, pp. III-8 to 
10) including dual level inflation systems and other technological 
measures such as bag shape and size, instrument panel contour, 
aspiration, and inflation technique. It also noted that a variety of 
different sensors could be used to trigger dual level inflation 
systems, e.g., a sensor that measures impact speed, a sensor that 
measures occupant size or weight and senses whether an occupant is 
out of position; and an electronic proximity sensor. However, the 
auto manufacturers generally did not adopt any of these 
technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the rulemaking record before it, NHTSA decided to 
adopt the sled test alternative requested by the auto industry 
25 and supported by others to be absolutely sure that, 
given the air bag designs then being used by the industry, the 
vehicle manufacturers had the necessary flexibility to address the 
problem of adverse effects of air bags in the shortest time 
possible. The agency recognized that there were longer term 
technological solutions that did not require a reduction in the 
safety protection afforded by Standard No. 208. It further 
recognized that many or most vehicles could have their air bags 
substantially depowered and still meet the standard's longstanding 
barrier test requirements. Nevertheless, NHTSA wanted to make sure 
that the standard did not prevent quick action by the manufacturers 
that would reduce air bag risks while still providing a measure of 
protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\  The sled test alternative adopted by NHTSA, with a 125 
msec pulse, had a more stringent pulse than the one first advocated 
by AAMA. That organization first recommended a 143 msec pulse. 
However, testing by NHTSA showed that a vehicle could pass Standard 
No. 208's requirements without an air bag with the 143 msec pulse. 
The more stringent pulse was recommended by AAMA in a later 
submission. Further testing by the agency showed that some vehicles 
could pass Standard No. 208's requirements without an air bag even 
with the 125 msec pulse. Given this testing, NHTSA added new neck 
injury criteria to the sled test alternative, to help ensure that 
the vehicle manufacturers did not depower their air bags to a point 
where they would provide little benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency took this action because the sled test offered 
advantages that, in the short

[[Page 50019]]

run, outweighed the fundamental shortcomings of that test as a 
representation of potentially fatal real world crashes and thus as a 
reliable predictor of real world performance. Much of the sled 
test's short run value lay in the fact that it was simpler and less 
costly to conduct than a barrier crash test and that, by simplifying 
compliance testing through removal of some of the key elements 
related to real world performance, it made compliance much easier to 
achieve, and to demonstrate.
    At the same time, the agency made it clear that it viewed the 
reduction in the standard's safety requirements as a short-term 
interim measure, while the vehicle manufacturers develop and 
implement better solutions. 62 FR 12968. The agency considered the 
sled test to be a short term means of ensuring that the vehicle 
manufacturers could quickly depower all of their air bags, but not 
an effective long-term means for measuring a vehicle's occupant 
protection.
    Proposal to Sunset the Sled Test Option. NHTSA has proposed to 
sunset the unbelted sled test option in part because the agency 
believes that ensuring continued protection of unbelted occupants is 
vital to motor vehicle safety. About half of the occupants in 
potentially fatal crashes are still unbelted. Moreover, youth are 
overrepresented among unbelted victims in fatal crashes. Young 
people of both sexes, but particularly males, are disproportionately 
represented among the unbelted. It is well known that the young are 
more prone to risky behavior. As drivers grow older, they mature and 
adopt safer driving and riding habits. 26 By continuing 
to provide effective air bag protection for the unbelted, the agency 
and the vehicle manufacturers can help give young drivers and 
passengers a better chance of safely passing through their risk-
prone years. Providing effective air bag protection for the unbelted 
will also help other disproportionately represented groups, such as 
rural residents and members of minorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS) 
reported in August 1997 that young adults (16-24 years old) were 
observed with the lowest belt use rate (less than 50%) of any of the 
reported observed categories. The NOPUS data report findings of 
trained observers at controlled intersections. A copy of the NOPUS 
report is available at the NHTSA web site under the category 
``Reports and Research Notes''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The auto industry suggests that unbelted occupants would 
continue to be provided a level of protection even in the absence of 
an unbelted barrier test requirement. However, they have not 
provided any specific information concerning what level of 
protection would be provided. The agency tentatively concludes that 
such protection can best be measured, and ensured, in full scale 
vehicle crash tests.
    In order to determine the amount of life-saving and injury-
reducing protection that is provided by the combination of a vehicle 
and its air bags to unbelted occupants, it is necessary to test a 
vehicle in situations in which an unbelted occupant would, in the 
absence of an effective air bag, typically face a significant risk 
of serious injury or death. This need is met by the unbelted 48 km/h 
(30 mph) barrier test requirement, which is representative of a 
significant percentage of such real world crashes. A NHTSA paper 
titled ``Review of Potential Test Procedures for FMVSS No. 208,'' 
notes that data from the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) 
indicate that the barrier crash pulse (full and oblique) represents 
about three-quarters of real world collisions. A copy of this paper 
is being placed in the public docket.
    NHTSA believes that Standard No. 208 should continue to address 
the protection of the nearly 50 percent of all occupants in 
potentially fatal crashes who are still unbelted. Apart from the 
substantial numbers of lives at stake, the experience with current 
single inflation level air bags suggests that the agency should 
amend Standard No. 208 to ensure occupant protection in a wider 
variety of real world crash scenarios, rather than narrowing its 
scope.
    Nevertheless, some petitioners have argued that NHTSA should 
drop the unbelted barrier requirement based on an expectation that 
seat belt use will substantially increase in the future. The agency 
recognizes that as seat belt use increases, the percentage of real 
world crashes that is directly represented by the unbelted barrier 
test decreases. However, there are several reasons why the agency 
tentatively concludes that dropping that test requirement would not 
be appropriate, particularly at this time.
    First, future projections of increases in seat belt use are 
uncertain, and seat belt use in potentially fatal crashes is 
currently little over 50 percent. The agency tentatively concludes 
that it should not reduce safety performance requirements for nearly 
one-half the occupants involved in potentially fatal crashes, 
particularly on the basis of uncertain projections about future seat 
belt use.
    Second, even as seat belt use increases, the persons not using 
seat belts will tend to be over-involved in potentially fatal 
crashes. Teenagers are among the persons least likely to use seat 
belts. They are also much more likely than other groups to be 
involved in potentially fatal crashes. Moreover, even in countries 
where seat belt use is 90 percent, unbelted occupants still 
represent about 33 percent of all fatalities.
    The arguments made by the petitioners regarding the effect of 
the barrier test on air bag performance were typically premised on 
the continued use of the current, one-size-fits-all, air bag 
designs. They did not address the range of advanced air bag 
technologies that may be employed to meet the barrier test 
requirements. The issue about the compliance tests that should be 
used in the future should be determined in the context of the air 
bag technology to be used in the future, and not in the context of 
the older air bag designs currently in use. When the full range of 
advanced air bag technologies is considered, the agency believes 
that it is apparent that the vehicle manufacturers can address the 
adverse effects of air bags to out-of-position occupants, and 
provide excellent protection to both belted and unbelted occupants.
    The agency believes the appropriate solution to the current air 
bag problems is to preserve and enhance the life-saving and injury-
reducing benefits that air bags are providing to all occupants, 
belted and unbelted, while dramatically reducing or eliminating 
fatalities and serious injuries caused by air bags. In the longer 
run, the agency believes its plan to adopt requirements for advanced 
air bags and maintain an effective unbelted vehicle test requirement 
will achieve this goal.
    The agency believes that justifying the elimination of the 
unbelted barrier test based on the shortcomings of current (or pre-
depowered) air bag designs has parallels to the rationale for the 
agency's decision in the early 1980's to rescind the automatic 
restraint requirements. The agency rescinded those requirements for 
the stated reason that many vehicle manufacturers had initially 
chosen to comply with them by detachable automatic seat belts, 
instead of either nondetachable automatic seat belts or air bags, 
and that those detachable belts might not significantly improve 
vehicle safety. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously concluded that 
the appropriate regulatory response to ineffective or undesirable 
design choices by the vehicle manufacturers regarding automatic 
restraints was not simply to rescind the requirements for those 
restraints, but first to consider the alternative of amending the 
requirements to ensure better technological choices in the future. 
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 403 
U.S. 29 (1983). The reasoning underlying that decision suggests that 
the fact that the air bag designs chosen to date do not meet all 
safety considerations is not a sufficient reason, by itself, to 
undercut or negate the broad, longstanding performance requirements 
for air bags, given that there are other, superior alternative 
designs from which to choose. Instead, the appropriate long-term 
solution is to amend the requirements to ensure that the 
manufacturers select and install better air bag designs in the 
future.
    In arguing for permanent retention of the sled test, the 
petitioners made a number of arguments about the potential benefits 
of depowered air bags. However, NHTSA does not believe that it is 
necessary to retain the sled test to obtain the benefits of 
depowered air bags. Ultimately, the issue is not whether some 
vehicles with depowered, single inflation level air bags do not 
today meet the 48 km/h (30 mph) barrier test requirement. As noted 
above, the issue about future compliance tests should be determined 
in the context of future air bag technology, and not in the context 
of today's less sophisticated air bag designs. Various advanced air 
bag technologies can be used that will provide full protection in 
compliance with such substantial test crashes, while not injuring 
out-of-position occupants.
    As discussed above, the primary reason NHTSA decided to adopt 
the temporary sled test alternative in its depowering rulemaking was 
because of its desire to ensure that the vehicle manufacturers could 
depower all of their single inflation level air bags quickly. The 
certification testing that vehicle manufacturers would have needed 
to conduct to ensure that their depowered air bags continued to meet 
the 48 km/h (30 mph) barrier test would have prevented the quick 
depowering of all air bags. However, the agency did not determine 
that multi-inflation

[[Page 50020]]

level or even single inflation level depowered air bags could not, 
given sufficient time, be produced that would also meet the 48 km/h 
(30 mph) barrier test.27
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Depowering has a very short leadtime because it can be 
accomplished simply by reducing the amount of propellant in existing 
air bag designs. If longer leadtime is assumed, however, 
manufacturers can make air bags less aggressive by means such as 
changing folding patterns and deployment paths, with a smaller 
chance of creating difficulties with respect to the barrier test 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this connection, the agency notes that, based on very limited 
data, it appears that many, perhaps most, vehicles with depowered 
air bags continue to meet Standard No. 208's unbelted barrier test 
requirements by wide margins. NHTSA has tested five vehicles with 
depowered driver air bags in unbelted 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier 
tests, and all passed Standard No. 208's injury criteria by 
significant margins.28 The agency has tested six vehicles 
with depowered passenger air bags in unbelted 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid 
barrier tests, and all but one passed the standard's injury criteria 
performance limits by significant margins.29
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ These vehicles included the Taurus, Explorer, Neon, Camry 
and Accord.
    \29\ The vehicles which passed the standard's injury criteria by 
significant margins included the Taurus, Explorer, Caravan, Camry 
and Accord. The exception was the Neon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA notes that the petitioners suggested that it should 
evaluate the real world safety impacts of depowering before deciding 
whether to restore the barrier test. This suggestion does not take 
into account the limitations of the sled test alternative for 
measuring the occupant protection provided in a potentially fatal 
crash, especially as compared to an actual crash test. Further, 
there is some question whether determining the level of protection 
provided by the current depowered air bags would enable the agency 
to assess the level of safety ensured by the sled test. The sled 
test gives vehicle manufacturers broad flexibility to design and 
install air bags that are significantly more depowered than the 
current depowered air bags. In comparing regulatory alternatives, 
the question for the agency to answer is the level of safety 
protection actually required by different alternatives instead of 
the safety protection that is currently provided, or may in the 
future be provided, voluntarily by the manufacturers.
    These concerns are particularly relevant in considering any kind 
of permanent change to a safety standard. Since the agency analyzed 
the sled test amendment as a relatively short-term, interim means of 
ensuring that manufacturers could quickly depower their vehicles' 
existing air bags, it primarily analyzed the safety impacts of the 
changes the vehicle manufacturers said they would make. The agency 
did not analyze the safety implications of replacing the barrier 
test with a sled test on a long-term basis.
    NHTSA does not know what kind of occupant protection the vehicle 
manufacturers would chose to provide if the sled test alternative 
were made permanent. As indicated above, based on very limited data, 
it appears that many vehicles with depowered air bags continue to 
meet Standard No. 208's unbelted barrier test requirements by wide 
margins. If the manufacturers continued to voluntarily meet the 
barrier test requirements for nearly all of their vehicles, the 
safety impacts of the sled test alternative would obviously be 
minimal.
    However, the agency has no assurance that the vehicle 
manufacturers would continue to voluntarily meet the barrier test 
requirements if the sled test alternative were made permanent. The 
vehicles with depowered air bags being produced in model year 1998 
were not primarily designed to meet the sled test. Instead, the 
vehicles were designed several years ago to meet the barrier test 
requirements but now have depowered air bags. There is no way of 
reliably predicting how the vehicle manufacturers would design their 
vehicles in the context of a permanent sled test alternative.
    As to concerns about international harmonization, NHTSA supports 
international harmonization, when it is consistent with the adoption 
of best safety practices. For the reasons discussed above, the 
agency tentatively concludes that permanent retention of the sled 
test alternative would not be consistent with best safety practices.
    Questions for commenters concerning the proposed sunsetting. 
While the information currently available to the agency on balance 
supports the proposal to sunset the sled test, the agency wishes to 
have as much information as possible to aid it in making a sound 
final decision regarding this proposal. To the end, the agency 
invites public comment on:
    1. Criteria for assessing tests. What objective criteria should 
be used to evaluate and compare the available alternative types of 
compliance test procedures, e.g., the rigid barrier crash test and 
the sled test. Such criteria might include, but not be limited to:
    A. Impact of a procedure on design flexibility;
    B. Extent to which a procedure ensures that good real world 
performance is provided;
    C. Extent to which a procedure creates the potential for 
degradation of real world performance;
    D. Extent to which a procedure is representative of the varied 
real world crashes in which serious and fatal injuries occur; and
    E. Administrative considerations, such as repeatability and 
costs of test conducted pursuant to a procedure.
    2. Comparison and ranking of tests. How do the alternative test 
procedures rank when compared to each other based on the criteria 
listed above and any other appropriate objective criteria, and based 
on advanced air bag technology? The agency emphasizes that any 
comparisons submitted to the agency should be forward-looking ones 
in terms of technology. Some past comparisons of the barrier crash 
test and sled test have been of limited utility and relevance 
because they have been premised on the continued use of old air bag 
technology.

D. Petition Objecting to NHTSA's Final Rule on Depowering

    Donald Friedman petitioned the agency to reconsider its decision 
to allow the sled test alternative even on a temporary basis. He 
argued that the problem of fatalities in low-speed air bag 
deployment crashes arose because some motor vehicle manufacturers 
failed to fully meet their legal responsibilities, that NHTSA 
responded belatedly and inappropriately with an amendment that will 
not prevent some of the low speed crash deployment fatalities, that 
the sled test amendment compromises the safety purpose of Standard 
No. 208 so that the standard no longer meets the need for motor 
vehicle safety, and that the agency had not formally considered all 
reasonable, available alternatives.
    Mr. Friedman asked that the rulemaking be reopened with a 
broader spectrum of proposed options. He stated that NHTSA should 
not take at face value the industry's claim that the only way it can 
respond to the current situation is to depower air bags. The 
petitioner stated that, at a minimum, the options should include (1) 
making no change in the standard while encouraging manufacturers to 
raise the minimum crash speed at which air bags deploy, (2) 
recommending under any depowering option that manufacturers use more 
effective belt-use inducements in their new vehicles, and (3) 
recommending that manufacturers offer pedal extension attachments 
for short people who request them.
    The petitioner also requested that the agency consider 
alternatives for the period after the next several years, including 
that NHTSA recommend that manufacturers use available voluntary 
consensus standards organizations or professional societies to draft 
recommended practices for air bag safety within the requirements of 
the original Standard No. 208. The petitioner stated that he opposes 
rulemaking to add major requirements to reduce the potential of harm 
from air bag deployment. Mr. Friedman stated that it took 20 years 
to get the automatic crash protection standard in place, and it is 
unlikely that the agency could make a major revision of this 
standard effective in less than a decade.
    After carefully considering Mr. Friedman's petition, the agency 
has decided to deny it. NHTSA believes that it considered a 
reasonable range of interim approaches for addressing the problem of 
adverse effects from air bags, and that the temporary depowering 
amendment was a reasonable part of the interim approach selected by 
the agency.
    The agency notes that it addressed a range of alternatives in 
both the NPRM and the final rule for depowering. Contrary to the 
allegation of the petitioner, NHTSA did not take at face value the 
industry's claim that the only way it can respond to the current 
situation is to depower air bags. In the final rule on depowering, 
NHTSA explained its position on this subject as follows:
    NHTSA notes that, in its January 1997 proposal, it discussed a 
variety of alternative approaches for addressing the adverse effects 
of air bags, including higher deployment thresholds, dual level 
inflators, smart air

[[Page 50021]]

bags, and various other changes to air bags. In issuing its 
proposal, the agency recognized that, for many vehicles, depowering 
has a shorter lead time than any of the other alternatives. The 
agency also explained that a change in Standard No. 208 is not 
needed to permit manufacturers to implement these other 
alternatives. The agency explained further:

    The agency expects to ultimately require smart air bags through 
rulemaking. In the meantime, the agency is not endorsing depowering 
over other solutions. Instead, the agency is proposing a regulatory 
change to add depowering to the alternatives available to the 
vehicle manufacturers to address this problem on a short-term basis. 
To the extent that manufacturers can implement superior alternatives 
for some vehicles, the agency would encourage them to do so.

    NHTSA shares the concern of the Parent's Coalition that 
depowering will not likely save all children and will likely result 
in trade-offs for adults. That is why the agency is limiting the 
duration of its depowering amendments and plans to conduct 
rulemaking to require smart air bags. In the meantime, however, 
NHTSA wants to be sure that the vehicle manufacturers have the 
necessary tools to address immediately the problem of adverse 
effects of air bags. Standard No. 208's existing performance 
requirements do restrict the use of depowering, since substantially 
depowering the air bags of many vehicles would make those vehicles 
incapable of complying with the standard's injury criteria in a 30 
mph barrier crash test. Accordingly, to permit use of this 
alternative, it is necessary to amend Standard No. 208.
    The issuance of any rule narrowing the discretion that vehicle 
manufacturers have had since the 1984 decision, whether by requiring 
depowering, higher thresholds, other changes to air bags, or smart 
air bags, would involve considerably more complex issues than a 
rulemaking simply adding greater flexibility. The agency would need 
to assess safety effects, practicability, and leadtime for the 
entire vehicle fleet. NHTSA will assess those types of issues in its 
rulemaking for smart air bags. The agency notes that there may not 
be any reason to have higher deployment thresholds with some types 
of smart air bags, since a low-power inflation may be automatically 
selected for low severity crashes.
    Until the agency conducts its rulemaking regarding smart air 
bags, it believes it is best to focus on ensuring that manufacturers 
have appropriate flexibility to address the problem of adverse 
effects of air bags. This will enable the manufacturers to select 
the solutions which can be accomplished most quickly for their 
individual models. NHTSA encourages the vehicle manufacturers to use 
the best available alternative solutions that can be quickly 
implemented for their vehicles, whether depowering, higher 
thresholds, other changes to air bags, smart air bags, or a 
combination of the above. The agency notes again that the vehicle 
manufacturers need not wait for further rulemaking to begin 
installing smart air bags, and encourages them to move in that 
direction expeditiously.
    NHTSA notes that Mr. Friedman did not address or challenge the 
specific rationales provided by the agency for the temporary 
depowering amendment. Moreover, he did not address the agency's 
overall comprehensive plan of rulemaking and other actions 
addressing the adverse effects of air bags, or explain why his 
various recommendations constitute a better approach. (This 
comprehensive plan was discussed in the depowering final rule at 62 
FR 12961-62). Accordingly, the agency has concluded that the 
petitioner has not provided a basis for reopening the depowering 
rulemaking.

[FR Doc. 98-23957 Filed 9-14-98; 12:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P