[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60556-60629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-28366]



[[Page 60555]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



National Highway Traffic Safety Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



49 CFR Parts 552, 571, 585, and 595



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 1999 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 60556]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 552, 571, 585, and 595

[Docket No. NHTSA 99-6407; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AG70


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

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

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).

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

SUMMARY: In September 1998, we proposed to upgrade our air bag 
requirements for passenger cars and light trucks to meet the twin goals 
mandated by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century: 
improving protection for occupants of all sizes, belted and unbelted, 
in moderate to high speed crashes; and minimizing the risks posed by 
air bags to infants, children, and other occupants, especially in low 
speed crashes. In response to the public comments on our 1998 proposal 
and to other new information obtained since issuing the proposal, we 
are issuing a supplemental proposal that updates and refines the 
amendments under consideration.
    With respect to the goal of improving protection, we are proposing 
to adopt one of the following alternative crash tests to evaluate the 
protection of unbelted occupants in moderate to high speed crashes, 
i.e., those that are potentially fatal. One alternative is an unbelted 
rigid barrier test (perpendicular and up to  30 degrees 
oblique to perpendicular) with a maximum speed to be established in the 
final rule within the range of 40 to 48 km/h (25 to 30 mph). If we 
reduce the maximum speed to 40 km/h (25 mph) permanently, we might also 
increase the maximum speed of the belted rigid barrier test from the 
current 48 km/h to 56 km/h (30 to 35 mph). Another alternative is an 
unbelted offset deformable barrier test with a maximum speed to be 
established in the final rule within the range of 48 to 56 km/h (30 to 
35 mph). The vehicle would have to meet the requirements both in tests 
with the driver side of the vehicle engaged with the barrier and in 
tests with the passenger side engaged.
    With respect to the goal of minimizing the risks of air bags in low 
speed crashes, we continue to propose performance requirements to 
ensure that future air bags do not pose unreasonable risk of serious 
injury to out-of-position occupants. We continue to propose to adopt a 
number of 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, technologies that prevent air bag deployment if 
children or out-of-position occupants are present, or a combination 
thereof.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that 
Docket Management receives them not later than December 30, 1999.

ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments in writing to: Docket 
Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. 
You may also submit your comments electronically by logging onto the 
Dockets Management System website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on 
``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain instructions for 
filing the document electronically. Regardless of how you submit your 
comments, you should mention the docket number of this document.
    You may call Docket Management at 202-366-9324 and visit the Docket 
from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

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, you may contact Clarke Harper, Chief, Light 
Duty Vehicle Division, NPS-11. Telephone: (202) 366-2264. Fax: (202) 
366-4329. E-mail: [email protected].
    For legal issues, you may contact Edward Glancy, Office of Chief 
Counsel, NCC-20. Telephone: (202) 366-2992. Fax: (202) 366-3820.
    You may send mail to both of these officials at the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Note to readers: As an aid to readers who are outside the 
engineering community, we have provided at the end of this document 
a glossary that briefly explains the key technical terms used in 
this preamble. In the case of the term, ``fixed barrier crash 
test,'' we have supplemented the explanation with illustrations. 
That glossary appears in Appendix B. Interested persons may find it 
helpful to review that glossary before reading the rest of this 
document.

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
    A. Statutory Requirements
    B. Existing Air Bag Requirements
    C. September 1998 NPRM
    D. Public Comments
    1. Tests for Requirements to Improve Occupant Protection for 
Different Size Occupants, Belted and Unbelted
    a. Belted Rigid Barrier Test
    b. Unbelted Rigid Barrier Test
    c. Up-to-40 km/h (25 mph) Offset Deformable Barrier Test
    2. Tests for Requirements to Minimize the Risk to Infants, 
Children and Other Occupants from Injuries and Deaths Caused by Air 
Bags
    a. Tests to Minimize Risks to Infants
    b. Tests to Minimize Risks to Children
    c. Tests to Minimize Risks to Adults
    3. Injury Criteria
    E. Events since September 1998
III. SNPRM for Advanced Air Bags
    A. Introduction
    B. Existing and Proposed Test Requirements
    1. Tests for Requirements to Improve Occupant Protection for 
Different Size Occupants, Belted and Unbelted
    a. September 1998 NPRM
    b. Comments on September 1998 NPRM
    c. SNPRM
    (i) Requirements for Tests with Unbelted Dummies
    (ii) Proposed Array of Crash Test Requirements
    (iii) Location and Seating Procedures for 5th Percentile Adult 
Female Dummy
    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 Young Children
    c. Safety of Small Teenage and Adult Drivers
    C. Injury Criteria
    1. Head Injury Criteria
    2. Neck Injury Criteria
    3. Thoracic Injury Criteria
    4. Lower Extremity Injury Criteria
    5. Other Criteria
    D. Lead Time and Proposed Effective Date
    1. Large Manufacturers
    2. Small Manufacturers and Multi-stage Manufacturers
    E. Availability of Original Equipment and Retrofit Manual On-Off 
Switches
    F. Warning Labels and Consumer Information
    G. Miscellaneous Issues
    1. Selection of Child Restraints
    2. Due Care Provision
    3. Selection of Options
    4. Relationship of Proposed New Injury Criteria to Existing Test 
Requirements
    5. Time Parameters for Measuring Injury Criteria During Tests
    6. Cruise Controls
    7. Rescue Operations
    8. Assessing Lower Extremity Injury Potential in Offset 
Deformable Crash Tests
    9. Hybrid III Dummy Neck

[[Page 60557]]

    H. Relationship between the NPRM, Comments on the NPRM and this 
SNPRM
IV. Costs and Benefits
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
VI. Submission of Comments
Proposed Regulatory Text
Appendix A--Response to Petition
Appendix B--Glossary

I. Executive Summary

    Since the early 1990's, NHTSA has been taking steps to reduce the 
risk that air bags will sometimes cause deaths, particularly to 
unrestrained children and small adults, and to maintain and improve the 
benefits of air bags. Our initial efforts to reduce the risks focused 
on a public education campaign to alert the public about the dangers of 
air bags to children in general and to infants in particular. We urged 
parents to place their children in the back seat whenever possible and 
to ensure that they were always properly restrained.
    Later, to speed the redesigning and recertifying of air bags that 
reduce the risks to out-of-position occupants, we established a 
temporary option allowing vehicle manufacturers to certify their 
vehicles based on an unbelted sled test. The sled test is simpler, less 
expensive, and easier to meet than the pre-existing 30 mph unbelted 
crash test. Limited available data appear to indicate that these 
redesigned air bags have reduced the risks from air bags for the at-
risk populations. However, it is not possible at this time to draw 
statistically significant conclusions about this.
    There is a greater amount of data on the overall benefits of air 
bags. These data indicate that the redesigned air bags \1\ provide 
essentially the same protection as that provided by earlier air bags. 
We have considered this information in light of agency tests showing 
that most of the tested vehicles, although certified to the sled tests, 
also passed the more stringent 30 mph unbelted crash test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See footnote 15 for an explanation of the term, ``redesigned 
air bags.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Manufacturers are developing an assortment of technologies, 
commonly referred to as advanced air bag technologies, to reduce the 
risks still further, for children, as well as adults. These 
technologies include dual-stage inflators which enable air bags to 
inflate with two different levels of power and which can be linked to 
various types of sensors including those that sense crash severity, 
belt use, and seat position (i.e., the location of a vehicle seat on 
its track). Occupant weight sensors and pattern sensors can be used to 
prevent an air bag from deploying at all in the presence of children.
    These advanced air bag technologies are not just hypothetical 
possibilities; vehicle manufacturers are beginning to install them in 
an increasing variety of vehicles. The MY 1999 Hyundai Sonata has a 
weight sensor designed to prevent the passenger air bag from deploying 
unless a weight of more than 66 pounds is detected on the passenger 
seat. Honda introduced a dual stage inflator in its MY 1999 Acura. The 
MY 2000 Ford Taurus and Honda Accord, which are among the highest 
selling models in this country, have dual-stage air bags. Some luxury 
vehicles also have advanced air bag technologies. For example, Mercedes 
and BMW have dual-stage air bags in some of their MY 2000 cars. The MY 
2000 Cadillac Seville has weight and pattern sensors in the passenger 
seat that work together to turn off the passenger air bag when children 
are present.
    In the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21),\2\ 
Congress mandated that we issue a final rule that requires the 
installation of air bags meeting, by means that include advanced air 
bag technologies, two goals: first, improving occupant protection for 
occupants of different sizes, regardless of whether they use their seat 
belts, and second, minimizing the risk to infants, children and other 
occupants of deaths and injuries caused by air bags. In accordance with 
TEA 21, we published a proposal in September 1998 to require the timely 
introduction of advanced air bags by all vehicle manufacturers and to 
establish procedures for testing the risk-reducing capabilities of the 
various types and combinations of advanced air bag technologies. Given 
the twin goals mandated by TEA 21, the proposal was necessarily both 
expansive and complex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The provisions in TEA 21 regarding air bags were contained 
in a part called The NHTSA Reauthorization Act of 1998. Given the 
greater public familiarity with the name TEA 21, we will refer to 
it, instead of the Reauthorization Act, in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To meet the first goal of improving occupant protection, we 
proposed a variety of tests using belted and unbelted dummies. We also 
proposed adding a new dummy representing short-statured adult females. 
Included in these proposals was a proposal to terminate the unbelted 
sled test option so that vehicles with advanced air bags would be 
tested in unbelted barrier crashes. The sled test option was valuable 
as a short-run expedient to make it easier for manufacturers to bring 
redesigned air bags to market quickly. However, for the long-run 
purpose of testing air bags to ensure that they are, and that they will 
continue to be, effective in protecting people in real world crashes, 
the agency tentatively concluded that air bags should be evaluated in 
tests simulating those crashes. In particular, the agency proposed to 
rely on an unbelted 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier crash test that 
approximates many of the real world crashes severe enough to pose 
significant risk of serious or fatal injury. Among the tests for belted 
occupants was a new 40 km/h (25 mph) offset deformable barrier test 
which was intended to evaluate the ability of crash sensors to sense 
soft pulse crashes.
    With respect to the second goal of minimizing the risks of air 
bags, the very breadth of the different technological approaches for 
meeting that goal necessitated we make our proposal even more expansive 
and complex. We proposed to adopt in the final rule an array of tests 
to accommodate these different technological approaches and the 
different choices being made by individual manufacturers about which 
types of those technologies to adopt. In some cases, we were able to 
propose generic tests that are suitable for all advanced air bags. In 
other cases, however, we had to propose tests that are tailored to 
particular technologies and that would apply to only those air bags 
incorporating those technologies. This array of tests was intended to 
provide the manufacturers with technology and design flexibility, while 
providing the agency with effective means of evaluating the performance 
of all of the different advanced air bag systems.
    The public comments and the agency research and analysis since our 
1998 NPRM have enabled us to refine and in some cases simplify the 
proposed amendments that we are considering. In view of the importance 
of some of the changes, we have decided to publish this SNPRM to obtain 
further public comment before making any final decisions and issuing a 
final rule.
    We have reduced the number of proposed dynamic and static tests, 
especially those relating to the proposed requirements for reducing the 
risks of air bags. We have reduced, from 14 to nine,\3\ the number of 
proposed dynamic crash tests that would be applicable to all vehicles. 
We originally proposed that vehicles equipped with static air bag 
suppression systems (e.g., weight sensors and pattern sensors) be 
subject to being tested with any child restraint manufactured over a 
ten-year period.

[[Page 60558]]

This would have created the possibility of testing with any one of 
several hundred different models of child restraints. Recognizing that, 
we solicited comments to aid us in identifying a much more limited 
number of specific models that would be representative of the array of 
available child restraints. Based on the public comments, we are now 
proposing to require that vehicles be able to meet the applicable 
requirements when tested with any one of a far more limited number of 
child restraints representing a cross-section of the restraints 
currently on the market.\4\ We have also significantly reduced the 
number of positions in which test dummies or child restraints could be 
placed for testing a static suppression system. This was accomplished 
largely by eliminating positions that were substantially similar to 
other positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The methodology for counting the number of proposed tests is 
explained later in this notice.
    \4\ For the infant dummy, 19 different seats; for the 3-year-old 
dummy, 12 different seats; and for the 6-year-old dummy, 5 different 
seats. These figures are not additive since some seats are used for 
tests with two different dummies. A total of 24 seats (12 infant 
seats, 7 convertible seats, and 5 booster seats) would be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing to expressly provide that manufacturers may use 
children or small women instead of dummies in static tests to provide a 
basis for certifying compliance with the proposed tests for static 
suppression systems. These are simple tests in which the vehicle does 
not move, and the air bags cannot deploy. We are making this proposal 
because existing anthropomorphic test dummies were not designed to 
replicate the weight distribution of sitting humans in a manner that 
would adequately test all suppression technologies, e.g., pressure/
pattern recognition sensors in the vehicle seat. Since the ultimate 
goal of our provisions concerning suppression systems is to achieve 
high reliability in detecting the presence of humans, the use of humans 
for the simple and limited purpose of testing the static suppression 
systems would make good sense. It is unnecessary to propose the use of 
infants for certification purposes, since all of the infant restraints 
should be detectable by any suppression system, regardless of whether 
they are occupied by a dummy or an infant.
    We have eliminated the proposed test for dynamic automatic 
suppression systems (DASS) and the proposed full scale out-of-position 
test including pre-crash braking. Public comments and our further 
testing have led us to conclude that these tests would require 
enhancements to dummy biofidelity and test procedure development that 
we could not complete in time for this rulemaking. Further, the 
commenters did not suggest any workable, effective tests that we could 
propose as replacements.
    Instead, we are taking a different approach that will provide 
flexibility to manufacturers that may wish in the future to certify 
advanced air bag systems incorporating a DASS to Standard No. 208. We 
believe that it is important in crafting our proposals regarding 
advanced air bags to facilitate efforts by the manufacturers to develop 
new and possibly better ways of reducing air bag risks. Accordingly, we 
are proposing to establish very general performance requirements for 
DASS and a special expedited petitioning and rulemaking process for 
considering procedures for testing advanced air bags incorporating one 
of these systems. Target time limits for each phase of such a 
rulemaking are proposed. Anyone wishing to market such advanced air 
bags could develop test procedures for demonstrating the compliance of 
their particular DASS with the performance requirements and submit 
those test procedures to the agency for its consideration. If the 
agency deems it appropriate to do so after evaluating the petition, the 
agency would publish a notice proposing to adopt the manufacturer's 
test procedure. After considering those comments, the agency would then 
decide whether the procedure should be added to Standard No. 208. If it 
decided to do so, and if the procedure were suitable for the DASS of 
any other vehicles, then the procedure could be used by those 
manufacturers of those vehicles as well as by the petitioning 
manufacturer. The agency intends to minimize the number of different 
test procedures that are adopted for DASS and to ensure ultimately that 
similar DASS are tested in the same way.
    We have also decided to change our proposed injury criteria. We 
have decided to drop our proposal for a new combined thoracic index 
(CTI) and instead maintain separate limits for thoracic acceleration 
and deflection.\5\ While CTI may be a better predictor of thoracic 
injury than chest acceleration and chest deflection independently, 
there is debate in the biomechanics community about the interpretation 
of the data. Consequently, we are pursuing further research to resolve 
the issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The thorax is the chest area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also proposing to change the existing head injury criterion 
(HIC) for the 50th percentile adult male dummy.\6\ HIC is currently 
required not to exceed 1,000 and is evaluated over a 36 millisecond 
period. We are proposing to evaluate the HIC over a maximum 15 
millisecond time interval with a requirement that it not exceed a 
maximum of 700. The agency historically has used a 36 millisecond time 
interval to measure HIC primarily because this method allowed the HIC 
measurement to indirectly capture risk of neck injury (until recently, 
a direct indication of neck injury risk was not a part of Standard 
208). With the addition of specific neck injury criteria to Standard 
208, the agency can switch to a 15 ms measurement interval which better 
corresponds to the underlying biomechanical research. We are proposing 
to change the HIC time interval to a maximum of 15 milliseconds for all 
dummy sizes and to revise the HIC limits by commensurate amounts, based 
on a scaling from the proposed new limit for the 50th percentile adult 
male dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ HIC consists of a formula which utilizes data regarding the 
acceleration of the dummy head in vehicle tests to produce a number 
to determine compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing a neck injury criteria (Nij) limit of 1.0, the 
calculation of which has been revised since the NPRM. In the NPRM, we 
requested comments on performance limits of Nij=1 and Nij=1.4. After 
considering the comments, the available biomechanical data, and testing 
which indicates that the more conservative or stringent value of 1.0 
can be met in current production vehicles, we are proposing a limit of 
1.0. The formulae underlying the calculation of Nij for smaller dummies 
incorporate scaling in recognition of the greater susceptibility of 
children to injury.
    Finally, we are proposing two alternative crash tests for 
evaluating the effectiveness of an advanced air bag in protecting 
unbelted occupants in a relatively high speed crash. These tests would 
be conducted with dummies representing 50th percentile adult males as 
well as with ones representing 5th percentile adult females. We 
contemplate adopting one of these tests in a final rule, although we 
could decide to require elements of both alternatives. We believe that 
crashing a complete vehicle into a barrier is needed to address the 
type of situation for which air bags are designed: frontal crashes 
involving vehicles striking another object with sufficient force that 
the impact of an occupant with the steering wheel, dashboard, or other 
interior surface could result in severe injuries or death.
    The first alternative is an unbelted rigid barrier test 
(perpendicular and up to  30 degrees oblique to 
perpendicular) with a maximum speed to be established in the final rule 
within the range of 40 to 48 km/h (25 to 30

[[Page 60559]]

mph). This alternative is similar to the test included in our 1998 
NPRM. The agency's intent in this rulemaking is to maximize, to the 
extent consistent with TEA 21, the protection that air bags offer in 
crashes potentially resulting in fatal injuries. Thus, the agency's 
preference is to establish such a test requirement at as high a 
severity as practicable. The 40 km/h (25 mph) lower end of the maximum 
test speed range is set forth for comment in this notice to ensure that 
commenters address a crash test recommended by the Alliance of 
Automobile Manufacturers in late August 1999. If we reduce the maximum 
speed to 40 km/h (25 mph) permanently, we might increase the maximum 
speed of the belted rigid barrier test from the current 48 km/h to 56 
km/h (30 to 35 mph). The increase could go into effect after the TEA 21 
phase-in period.
    The second alternative is an unbelted offset deformable barrier 
test with a maximum speed to be established in the final rule within 
the range of 48 to 56 km/h (30 to 35 mph). The vehicle would have to 
meet the requirements both in tests with the driver side of the vehicle 
engaged with the barrier and in tests with the passenger side engaged. 
As in the case of the first alternative, if the agency selected this 
second alternative for the final rule, it would establish the maximum 
speed at as high a level as practicable, consistent with TEA 21, to 
maximize the improvement in occupant protection in potentially fatal 
crashes.
    Regardless of which unbelted test or tests we ultimately adopt, we 
would retain a belted rigid barrier test with a maximum speed of 48 km/
h (30 mph) with both 50th percentile adult male and 5th percentile 
adult female dummies during the TEA 21 phase-in period.\7\ Further, we 
are continuing to propose an up-to-40 km/h (25 mph) offset deformable 
barrier test requirement, using belted 5th percentile adult female 
dummies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As noted above, if we permanently reduce the maximum test 
speed for the unbelted rigid barrier test to 40 km/h (25 mph), we 
might increase the maximum test speed for the belted rigid barrier 
test to 56 km/h (35 mph), effective sometime after that phase-in 
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also continuing to propose to eliminate provisions which 
allow original equipment (OE) and retrofit on-off switches under 
specified circumstances. Instead of proposing to phase these provisions 
out as advanced air bags are phased in, as proposed in the NPRM, we are 
proposing to allow OE and retrofit on-off switches to be installed 
under the same conditions that currently apply for all vehicles 
produced prior to September 1, 2005, the date by which all vehicles 
must have an advanced air bag system. We believe that by that time 
consumer confidence in the advanced air bag systems will be 
sufficiently strong to remove any desire for a manual on-off switch in 
vehicles produced with an advanced air bag.
    NHTSA is proposing a replacement for the permanent sun visor label 
for vehicles certified as meeting the requirements of this proposed 
rule. The label would have new graphics and contain statements 
regarding belt use and seating children in the rear seat. In addition, 
we are proposing a new temporary label that states that the vehicle 
meets the new requirements for advanced air bags. This label would 
replace the existing temporary label and include statements regarding 
seat belt use and children in rear seats.

II. Background

A. Statutory Requirements

    As part of TEA 21, Congress required us to issue an NPRM and final 
rule meeting two different, equally important goals:

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.

(Emphasis added.) \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The treatment by this provision of the twin goals and of the 
protection of belted and unbelted occupants differs significantly 
from the treatment that would have been given them by an earlier 
version of this mandate. That earlier version would have established 
a hierarchy of priorities, placing minimizing the risks of air bags 
above improving the protection they provide, and placing the 
protection of belted occupants above the protection of unbelted 
occupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Act provided that we were to issue the final rule by September 
1, 1999. However, if we determined that the final rule could not be 
completed by that date, the Act provided that the final rule could be 
issued as late as March 1, 2000. Because of the complexity of the 
issues and the need to issue this SNPRM, we determined that the final 
rule could not be completed by September 1, 1999. Under the Act, the 
final rule must therefore be issued by March 1, 2000.
    TEA 21 addressed various other issues, including the effective date 
for the final rule. A complete discussion of the Act's provisions is 
included in the 1998 NPRM. See 63 FR 49961.

B. Existing Air Bag Requirements

    Pursuant to a provision in the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), Standard No. 208 requires all passenger 
cars and light trucks to provide automatic protection by means of air 
bags.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ TEA 21 is thus the second in a succession of Congressional 
acts modifying the Department's 1984 final rule regarding automatic 
protection. That final rule mandated automatic protection, but 
explicitly provided discretion with respect to the type of automatic 
protection (automatic seat belts and air bags), and implicitly 
provided discretion with respect to the use of advanced air bag 
technologies. ISTEA eliminated the first area of discretion, 
mandating the installation of air bags. TEA 21 eliminates the second 
area of discretion, mandating the use of advanced air bag 
technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 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 adult 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, we published a final rule providing manufacturers with the 
option of certifying the air bag performance of their vehicles with an 
unbelted dummy in a sled test incorporating a 125 millisecond 
standardized crash pulse instead of in a vehicle-to-barrier crash test. 
We made this amendment primarily to expedite manufacturer efforts to 
reduce the force of air bags as they deploy.
    Under the March 1997 final rule, the sled test option was scheduled 
to terminate on September 1, 2001. We believed there was no need to 
permanently reduce Standard No. 208's performance requirements, since a 
variety of longer term alternatives were available to manufacturers to 
address adverse effects of air bags.
    The September 1, 2001 termination date for the sled test option was 
superseded by a provision in TEA 21. 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].''

C. September 1998 NPRM

    Pursuant to TEA 21, on September 18, 1998, we published in the 
Federal Register (63 FR 49958) a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
to upgrade Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, to require 
vehicles to

[[Page 60560]]

be equipped with advanced air bags that meet new, more rigorous 
performance requirements. 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.
    As we explained in that document, air bags have been shown to be 
highly effective in saving lives. They reduce fatalities in frontal 
crashes by about 30 percent. However, they also sometimes cause 
fatalities to infants in rear facing child safety seats and out-of-
position occupants.
    In the 1998 NPRM, we presented a full discussion of the safety 
issues related to air bags. We also presented a discussion of our 
comprehensive plan to address air bag fatalities, which includes 
requiring advanced air bags as a long-term solution.
    We proposed to add a new set of requirements to prevent air bags 
from causing injuries and to improve the protection that they provide 
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 NPRM gave 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, we proposed test requirements 
using dummies representing 12-month-old, 3-year-old and 6-year-old 
children, and 5th percentile adult females, as well as tests 
representing 50th percentile adult males. We noted that many of the 
proposed test procedures were new, and specifically requested comments 
with respect to their suitability for measuring the performance of the 
various advanced systems under development.
    We also proposed requirements to ensure that the new air bags are 
designed to cushion and protect an 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. We proposed also to specify use of 5th 
percentile adult female dummies in dynamic crash tests. 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 oblique tests, we proposed to add a 
deformable barrier crash test, representing a relatively ``soft'' pulse 
crash. This proposed new crash test requirement was intended to ensure 
that air bag systems are designed so that they do not deploy too late. 
Some current air bags deploy relatively late in certain types of 
crashes. If an air bag deploys too late, normally seated occupants may 
move too close to the air bag before it starts to inflate. In such a 
situation, the air bag is less likely to protect the occupant and may 
pose a risk to the occupant. We proposed to use 5th percentile adult 
female dummies in this test.
    We also proposed to phase out the unbelted sled test option as we 
phased in requirements for advanced air bags. We acknowledged that the 
sled test option has been an expedient and useful temporary measure to 
ensure that the vehicle manufacturers could quickly redesign all of 
their air bags and to help ensure that some protection would continue 
to be provided. Nevertheless, we stated that we did 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.
    Finally, we proposed new and/or upgraded injury criteria for each 
of the proposed new test requirements, and also proposed to upgrade 
some of the injury criteria for the standard's existing test 
requirements.

D. Public Comments

    We received comments from a wide range of interested persons 
including vehicle manufacturers, air bag manufacturers, insurance 
companies, public interest groups, academia, and government. Commenters 
generally supported the goals mandated by TEA 21--improving the 
benefits of air bags, while minimizing risks from air bags--but 
expressed widely differing views as to how to accomplish those goals.
    In this section of the preamble, we summarize the comments, 
particularly those relating to the major issues. Because of the large 
number of public comments, we have included a representative sample of 
the comments and the commenters who made them.
1. Tests for Requirements To Improve Occupant Protection for Different 
Size Occupants, Belted and Unbelted
    a. Belted Rigid Barrier Test.
    A number of vehicle manufacturers opposed adding a belted rigid 
barrier test using 5th percentile adult female dummies. These 
commenters argued that this particular test is redundant given the 
existing belted barrier test using 50th percentile adult male dummies 
and the other proposed tests using 5th percentile adult female dummies.
    The comments of the vehicle manufacturers on this issue were 
reflective of a more general theme running through their comments, 
i.e., they believed the NPRM was overly complex and included too many 
tests.
    b. Unbelted Rigid Barrier Test.
    Commenters had sharply different views on our proposal to phase out 
the unbelted sled test option and reinstate the up-to-48 km/h (30 mph) 
unbelted rigid barrier test. Many commenters, including all vehicle 
manufacturers and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), 
strongly opposed reinstating the unbelted rigid barrier test. These 
commenters generally argued that reinstating this test would 
necessitate a return to ``overly aggressive'' air bags and that the 
test is not representative of typical real world crashes. Vehicle 
manufacturers requested that the sled test option remain available for 
the long term. On the issue of possible alternative unbelted tests, 
IIHS suggested that, if we wish to phase out the sled test, we should 
consider replacing it with a 56 km/h (35 mph) offset deformable barrier 
test.
    On August 31, 1999, however, vehicle manufacturers and their trade 
associations, Alliance and AIAM, announced to the agency a recently 
reached consensus recommendation for an unbelted crash test. The 
industry recommended an unbelted rigid barrier crash test at 40 km/h 
(25 mph) using both 50th percentile adult male dummies and 5th 
percentile adult female dummies. The test would be conducted in the 
perpendicular mode only, i.e., there would be no oblique tests. No 
supporting data or written analyses were submitted to the agency at 
that meeting.
    Other commenters, including a number of advocacy groups, argued 
that the up-to-48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test is 
representative of a significant portion of real world crashes, and that 
improvements in vehicle and air bag designs will enable manufacturers 
to meet the test without

[[Page 60561]]

safety tradeoffs. Public Citizen argued that while the manufacturers 
attempt to blame the unbelted barrier test for the deaths and injuries 
caused by air bags, a closer examination suggests that manufacturers' 
design selection is the real cause of injuries. It further argued that 
TEA 21 contemplates that neither belted occupants nor unbelted 
occupants be favored under Standard 208 and that both deserve safe and 
effective protection by air bags.
    c. Up-to-40 km/h (25 mph) Offset Deformable Barrier Test.
    Commenters' views on the proposed up-to-25-mph belted offset 
deformable barrier test were mixed, but mostly supportive. Many 
commenters, including several advocacy groups and a number of vehicle 
manufacturers, supported the addition of an offset deformable barrier 
test.
    Some vehicle manufacturers requested that the test be conducted 
only with the driver's side engaged, instead of with either side 
engaged as proposed in the NPRM. The Association of International 
Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM) stated that a test with the driver's 
side engaged would more likely produce ``worst case'' driver out-of-
position locations and possible driver-side intrusion, and that a 
passenger side offset test would be redundant. Another suggestion made 
by some vehicle manufacturers was to conduct the test only at 40 km/h 
(25 mph), rather than at speeds up to 40 km/h (25 mph).
    General Motors (GM) stated that it agreed with the addition of the 
offset deformable barrier test only if the unbelted sled test option 
remained in effect. GM stated that the offset deformable barrier test 
augments the sled test by addressing the crash sensing aspects of 
performance.
    DaimlerChrysler argued that the addition of a 40 km/h (25 mph) 
belted offset deformable barrier test for the 5th percentile female is 
unnecessary in light of future ``depowered'' and/or advanced air bags. 
That commenter stated that injury risks to small occupants sitting near 
the driver air bag are adequately assessed using the proposed out-of-
position, low-risk deployment tests, which it endorses.
    Some vehicle manufacturers indicated that air bags might be 
designed so that they would not deploy in 40 km/h (25 mph) offset 
crashes.
2. Tests for Requirements To Minimize the Risk to Infants, Children and 
Other Occupants From Injuries and Deaths Caused by Air Bags
    a. Tests to minimize risks to infants.
    While commenters generally supported adding tests for infant 
safety, they raised a number of issues about the proposed tests.
    The vehicle manufacturers opposed the proposal to test with any 
infant seat manufactured during approximately the 10 years prior to the 
date of vehicle manufacture, citing practicability concerns. A number 
of vehicle manufacturers also argued that the agency proposed too many 
test positions. Commenters raised numerous concerns about the specific 
details of the proposed test procedures.
    Some commenters suggested that the agency require suppression in 
the presence of infants, instead of permitting a low-risk deployment 
option as well. These commenters cited uncertainties related to injury 
risk for infants and the lack of infant biomechanical data. They 
further questioned if there is any benefit from air bag deployments for 
infants.
    A number of commenters also raised concerns about whether 
suppression devices will be ready in time to meet the requirements for 
advanced air bags, and how reliable they will be.
    b. Tests to minimize risks to children.
    Commenters' views on the proposed tests for child safety were 
similar to those for infant safety. While supportive of adding tests in 
this area, vehicle manufacturers raised concerns about the number of 
child restraints, number of tests, and, in some cases, availability of 
reliable suppression devices.
    A number of commenters raised concerns about whether current child 
dummies are sufficiently human-like to be appropriate test devices for 
some of the advanced technologies under development. By way of example, 
concern was expressed that suppression devices that work by sensing the 
distributed weight pattern of a child on a seat may not recognize the 
pattern of a test dummy.
    Commenters raised numerous technical issues concerning the proposed 
options for automatic suppression features that suppress the air bag 
when an occupant is out-of-position (S27 of the regulatory text 
proposed in the NPRM). Some commenters argued that the proposal to test 
automatic suppression features using a moving headform is not 
appropriate for some of the devices under development, such as sensors 
designed to track the full body of the occupant and not just the head. 
Others expressed difficulties related to defining the size, shape, and 
orientation of the suppression plane, as well as the maximum response 
time of the system.
    Commenters also raised numerous technical issues concerning the 
dynamic out-of-position test (S29 of the regulatory text proposed in 
the NPRM). Some commenters stated that the dummy trajectories resulting 
in this test are unrealistic, and that the proposed vehicle crash test 
is neither repeatable nor reproducible. Others stated that the dummies 
do not move close enough to the air bag prior to deployment to 
represent a worst case out-of-position situation.
    c. Tests to minimize risks to adults.
    Commenters generally supported adding a low-risk deployment test 
using a 5th percentile adult female dummy at the driver seating 
position, although they raised a number of issues about the proposed 
test procedure. GM recommended that the driver low risk deployment test 
be made into a component test, outside of the vehicle.
    Commenters also raised the same concerns about the proposed options 
for automatic suppression features that suppress the air bag when an 
occupant is out-of-position (S27) and for the dynamic out-of-position 
test (S29) as they did in the context of tests to minimize risks to 
children.
    GM recommended that the agency also propose a low-risk deployment 
test using a 5th percentile adult female dummy at the passenger 
position. That company noted that if manufacturers selected the 
suppression (presence) option for child safety, there would be no out-
of-position test limiting aggressivity for adult passengers.
3. Injury Criteria
    Commenters raised numerous highly technical issues concerning 
several of proposed injury criteria and performance limits. Some 
commenters questioned the biomechanical basis for certain of the 
proposed new injury criteria. The AAMA suggested essentially a 
completely revised set of injury criteria.

E. Events Since September 1998

    A number of events relevant to this rulemaking have occurred since 
publication of the NPRM in September 1998. First, the development of 
advanced air bags by suppliers and vehicle manufacturers has continued.
    Acura introduced dual stage passenger side air bags in its MY 1999 
Acura RL. According to Acura's press release, ``(t)he dual stage air 
bags were designed to reduce the inflation speed to help protect 
children or small-framed adults. In a low speed collision, the dual-
stage inflator system is triggered in sequence resulting in slower air 
bag deployment with less initial force. In

[[Page 60562]]

higher speed collisions, both inflators operate simultaneously for full 
immediate inflation. The air bag system logic also controls the 
operation of the seat belt pretensioners. A new feature of the system 
detects whether the passenger's seat belt is fastened. If the seat belt 
is not fastened, the air bag deploys at full force at a lower collision 
speed to help offer more protection to the unbelted occupant.''
    Ford publicly announced in January 1999 that it will introduce 
advanced technology enabling its cars and trucks to analyze crash 
conditions and to use the results of the analyses in activating safety 
devices to better protect a range of occupants in a variety of frontal 
crash situations. Ford stated that its Advanced Restraints System 
features nearly a dozen technologically advanced components that work 
together to give front-seat occupants significantly enhanced protection 
during frontal crashes, taking into account their seating position, 
safety belt use and crash severity. That company indicated that 
elements of the system, which features technologies such as crash 
severity sensors, a driver-seat position sensor, a passenger weight 
sensor, safety belt usage sensors, dual-stage inflating air bags, 
safety belt pretensioners and energy management retractors, will debut 
in vehicles beginning in the 1999 calendar year. Ford stated that the 
company will introduce these new technologies on new and significantly 
freshened models until all its passenger cars, trucks and sport utility 
vehicles have the complete Advanced Restraints System.
    GM publicly announced in February 1999 that it will introduce 
technology in MY 2000 that is designed to detect the presence of a 
small child in the front passenger seat and suppress the deployment of 
the passenger frontal air bag in the event of a frontal crash. GM 
stated that weight-based sensors, coupled with pattern recognition 
technology, will distinguish between a child and a small adult female 
whose weight may be similar to a large child restrained in a child 
safety seat. If the front passenger seat is occupied by a small child, 
whether in a child safety seat or not, GM said that the air bag will 
not deploy. GM stated that it will introduce this technology on the 
Cadillac Seville in the 2000 calendar year, and that it has a roll-out 
plan to extend this technology throughout its product line.
    We have received more detailed confidential information from GM and 
Ford concerning their plans, as well as confidential information from 
other auto manufacturers concerning their latest plans to introduce 
various advanced technologies. We have also received confidential 
information from suppliers.
    Second, in April 1999, we held a public technical workshop 
concerning biomechanical injury criteria. The purpose of the workshop 
was to provide an additional opportunity for a continuing dialog with 
the biomechanics community and the public to assure that we considered 
appropriate injury criteria.
    Third, we have analyzed the public comments and also conducted 
additional testing. We conducted additional tests of current vehicles 
with redesigned air bags to determine how they perform in 48 km/h (30 
mph) rigid barrier crash tests. We selected vehicles that varied by 
class, stiffness, and manufacturer. We also used both 5th percentile 
adult female dummies and 50th percentile adult male dummies, belted and 
unbelted. We also conducted tests of several current vehicles with 
redesigned air bags to determine how they perform in 40 km/h (25 mph) 
rigid barrier crash tests, 48 km/h (30 mph) 30 degree right/left 
angular barrier tests (belted/unbelted), 56 km/h (35 mph) left/right 
side offset fixed deformable barrier crash tests, low speed 24 to 40 
km/h (15 to 25 mph) offset deformable crash tests and static out-of-
position tests. We also conducted sled tests at different crash 
severities with 95th percentile adult male dummies and MY 1999 and MY 
1997 replacement air bags.
    Fourth, we have continued to analyze available data to see how 
redesigned air bags are performing in the real world. We analyzed 1996 
to 1998 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data and found 
essentially the same number of fatalities in frontal impacts for MY 
1996 vehicles in 1996 FARS (730), as in MY 1997 vehicles in 1997 FARS 
(776), as in MY 1998 vehicles in 1998 FARS (732). The fatality rates 
per million registered vehicles indicate that MY 1996 (56 per million 
registered vehicles) had essentially the same fatality rates as MY 1997 
vehicles (55), while MY 1998 vehicles had a lower fatality rate (50). 
After controlling for safety belt use rates, that is, estimating the 
number of fatalities in each year if all three years had the same 1998 
usage rate, the fatality rates per million registered vehicles were the 
same for MY 1996 and MY 1997 (53), while MY 1998 had a lower fatality 
rate (50). Since an estimated 87 percent of MY 1998 vehicles have 
redesigned air bags, this suggests that there is essentially the same 
or slightly better protection provided by the redesigned air bags 
compared to pre-MY 1998 air bags. In assessing the significance of this 
information, we will consider the agency tests in which most of the 
tested vehicles, although certified to the sled tests, met or exceeded 
the historical performance requirements of the 48
km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier crash test.
    Another analysis compared the percent of fatalities in frontal 
impacts to all impacts for MY 1996 vehicles in calendar year 1996 
(38.9%), to MY 1997 vehicles in calendar year 1997 (41.3%), and to MY 
1998 vehicles in the first 6-months of calendar year 1998 (39.6%). As 
noted above, most of the MY 1998 vehicles have redesigned air bags. No 
statistically significant difference was found between the three sets 
of data. Again, this implies that the overall protection provided by 
the redesigned air bags is essentially the same as that provided by 
pre-MY 1998 air bags.
    Fifth, on August 31, 1999, and again on September 14, 1999, the 
vehicle manufacturers and their trade associations met with the agency 
and presented a consensus recommendation for an unbelted crash test. 
The industry recommended an unbelted rigid barrier crash test at 40 km/
h (25 mph) using both 50th percentile adult male dummies and 5th 
percentile adult female dummies. A letter regarding this recommendation 
was received from the Alliance (dated September 2, 1999).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This letter recommended that the agency adopt the following 
unbelted barrier test as an alternative to the current unbelted sled 
test:
    A 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted rigid barrier, using 5th percentile 
adult female dummies and 50th percentile adult male dummies, and the 
injury criteria recommended by AAMA in its Dec 98 submission to 
agency and endorsed by the Alliance in 1999. The test would be 
conducted perpendicularly only at 25 mph (w/ allowance for test 
variability) only, not up to 25 mph. The test would be fully phased-
in during TEA 21 phase-in period (MY's 2003-2006). Further, optional 
early compliance should be allowed. Upon publication of final rule, 
vehicle manufacturers should be allowed to comply with this 
recommended test (as opposed to either the sled test or 30 mph 
unbelted rigid barrier test), even in the absence of compliance with 
requirements intended to reduce the risks associated with air bags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a letter dated September 16, 1999, an assortment of commenters, 
including vehicle manufacturers, vehicle insurers, the American 
Automobile Association, the National Automobile Dealers Association, 
the American International Automobile Dealers Association, the American 
Trauma Society, the National Safety Council, IIHS, and the National 
Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives, opposed a 
return to the 30 mph unbelted rigid barrier test. This letter argued 
that a return to this test would require an overall increase in air bag 
maximum energy levels with a concomitant increase in risk. No 
supporting data or analysis

[[Page 60563]]

accompanied the letter. The letter also urged that NHTSA focus this 
rulemaking on reducing the risk of air bags to children and others, 
especially in low speed crashes, as compared to the agency's attempting 
to increase air bag-related benefits for unbelted occupants in higher 
speed crashes.
    In a letter dated September 29, 1999, Public Citizen, the Center 
for Auto Safety, and Parents for Safer Air Bags stated that they were 
``concerned by news reports that a consortium of vehicle manufacturers 
and insurers is pressing the agency not to reinstate the 30 mph barrier 
crash test for unbelted occupants.'' These organizations argued that 
the industry's position is based on the erroneous premise that 
protection of unbelted occupants in high-speed collisions causes the 
bags to be hazardous to small occupants in low-speed collisions.\11\ 
They also argued that abandonment of the unbelted 30 mph unbelted test 
would obviate the very purpose of the present rulemaking, the 
development and introduction of advanced air bags, and result in the 
use of generic ``lowest common denominator'' systems that can be 
readily be fitted in any vehicle but which seriously compromise safety. 
The letter stated that it should not be forgotten that air bags were 
originally conceived to protect unbelted occupants in horrific frontal 
collisions, and that this remains their principal efficacy to this day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The letter argued that the safety record of many well-
designed air bag systems over a ten year period belies this premise. 
The letter stated that a variety of design features allow for 
protection of unbelted occupants in severe crashes without imposing 
significant inflation risks in low-speed collisions, and cited 
vehicle structures with a longer crash pulse, variable inflation 
forces based on crash severity, higher thresholds (including ``dual 
thresholds'') and laterally-biased inflation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. SNPRM for Advanced Air Bags

A. Introduction

    Our primary goals in this rulemaking continue to be those set for 
us by TEA 21, i.e., 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. Further, we are seeking to ensure that the needed 
improvements in occupant protection are made in accordance with the 
statutory implementation schedule. After carefully reviewing the 
comments on the NPRM and other available information, we have developed 
an SNPRM to accomplish these goals.
    In developing this SNPRM, we focused on picking the most 
appropriate tests so that we could reduce the number of originally 
proposed tests without significantly affecting the benefits of the 
NPRM. We were persuaded by the commenters that reducing the amount of 
testing was important, given resource limitations, and the costs to 
manufacturers associated with certifying vehicles to such a large 
number of new test requirements. At the same time, we wanted to be sure 
that the SNPRM includes sufficient tests to ensure that air bags are 
redesigned to meet the goals mandated by TEA 21.
    Given the continued debate over what requirements should be relied 
upon to ensure protection to unbelted occupants, we also wanted to be 
sure that we have considered and received the benefit of public 
comments on the various alternative approaches reflecting the views and 
information now available to us.
    The most significant differences between the NPRM and the SNPRM can 
be summarized as follows:
     Two alternative unbelted tests. While we proposed one 
unbelted test in the NPRM, an up-to-48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier 
test, we are proposing and seeking comments on two alternative unbelted 
tests in this SNPRM. The first alternative is an unbelted rigid barrier 
test with a minimum speed of 29 km/h (18 mph) and a maximum speed to be 
established within the range of 40 to 48 km/h (25 to 30 mph). Within 
this alternative, the potential exists for a phase-in sequence in which 
the maximum speed would initially be set at 40 km/h (25 mph) to provide 
vehicle manufacturers additional flexibility when they are introducing 
advanced air bags during the phase-in. Under this phase-in sequence, 
the final rule could provide that a maximum speed of 48 km/h (30 mph) 
would apply after a reasonable period of time. If we reduce the maximum 
speed to 40 km/h (25 mph) permanently, we might also increase the 
maximum speed of the belted rigid barrier test from the current 48 km/h 
to 56 km/h (30 to 35 mph). The second alternative is an unbelted offset 
deformable barrier test with a minimum speed of 35 km/h (22 mph) and a 
maximum speed to be established within the range of 48 to 56 km/h (30 
to 35 mph). The latter alternative was developed in response to a 
recommendation made by IIHS in its comment on the NPRM.\12\ We are 
proposing the 29 and 35 km/h (18 and 22 mph) lower ends of the ranges 
of test speeds because we want to be sure that the standard does not 
inadvertently create incentives to push deployment thresholds downward, 
i.e., cause air bags to be deployed at lower speeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ IIHS's views have changed since making that recommendation. 
Its current views are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Possible higher speed belted rigid barrier test. We are 
also specifically requesting comment on a similar option for the belted 
test requirement, in which a 48 km/h (30 mph) test would be in effect 
through the TEA 21 phase-in, to be subsequently replaced with a 56 km/h 
(35 mph) test, using both 5th percentile adult female and 50th 
percentile adult male dummies.
     Reduced number of tests. We have significantly reduced the 
total number of proposed tests. In a number of situations, we have 
tentatively concluded that a proposed test could be deleted because the 
performance we sought to secure by means of that test would largely be 
assured by one or more of the other tests.
     Reduced offset testing. The proposed up-to-40 km/h (25 
mph) offset crash test using belted 5th percentile adult female dummies 
would be conducted only with the driver side of the vehicle engaged, 
instead of both with the driver side and with the passenger side 
engaged.
     Ensuring that certain static suppression systems can 
detect real children and adults. For our proposed static test 
requirements for systems (e.g., weight sensors) which suppress air bags 
in the presence of infants and children, we are proposing a new option 
which would permit manufacturers to certify to requirements referencing 
children, instead of 3-year-old and 6-year-old child dummies, in a 
stationary vehicle to test the suppression systems. (This option would 
not apply to systems designed to suppress the air bags only when an 
infant is present.) Adult human beings could also be used in the place 
of 5th percentile adult female dummies for the portions of those static 
test requirements which make sure that the air bag is activated for 
adults. Steps would be taken to ensure the safety of all subjects used 
for these tests.
     Reduced number of child restraints used for testing 
suppression systems. Instead of requiring manufacturers to assure 
compliance of a vehicle in tests using any child restraint which was 
manufactured for sale in the United States any time during a specified 
period prior to the manufacture of the vehicle, we would require them 
to assure compliance using any child restraint on a relatively short 
list of specific child restraint models. Those models would be chosen 
to be representative of the array of available child restraints. The 
list would be

[[Page 60564]]

updated from time to time to reflect changes in the types of available 
child restraints.
     Modified requirements for systems that suppress the air 
bag for out-of-position occupants. We have significantly modified the 
proposed requirements for systems that suppress the air bag when an 
occupant is out of position during a crash. In the NPRM, we proposed a 
single test procedure for all types of such suppression systems. We 
were persuaded by the commenters that the proposed test procedure was 
not appropriate for some of the systems that are currently under 
development. Because we did not have sufficient information or 
prototype hardware to develop a new test procedure, and because no one 
test procedure may be appropriate for a number of comparably effective 
suppression technologies, we are proposing a provision that would 
permit manufacturers or others to petition the agency to establish 
technology-specific test procedures under an expedited rulemaking 
process.
     No full scale dynamic out-of-position test requirements. 
We are eliminating from this rulemaking the proposed option for full 
scale dynamic out-of-position test requirements (the option which 
included pre-impact braking as part of the test procedure). We were 
persuaded by the commenters that the proposed test procedure is not 
workable at this time. Moreover, we believe this option is unnecessary 
at this time, since other options are available for the range of 
effective technologies we understand to be under development.
    The existing tests that would be retained as well as those proposed 
in this SNPRM are identified in Figures 1a, 1b and 2, below. Figures 1a 
and 1b show the two alternative sets of test requirements to improve 
occupant protection for different size occupants, belted and unbelted, 
in moderate to high speed crashes. Figure 2 shows test requirements to 
minimize the risk to infants, children, and other occupants from 
injuries and deaths caused by air bags, especially in low speed 
crashes.

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 60565]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.000



[[Page 60566]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.001



[[Page 60567]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.002



BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 60568]]

    A discussion of the specific proposed test requirements follows. We 
will first discuss requirements to improve protection for different 
size occupants, belted and unbelted, and will then discuss requirements 
to minimize risks from air bags. We also discuss in detail the major 
differences from the NPRM.

B. Existing and Proposed Test Requirements

1. Tests for Requirements To Improve Occupant Protection for Different 
Size Occupants, Belted and Unbelted
    a. September 1998 NPRM.
    In the NPRM, we proposed test requirements to improve occupant 
protection for different size occupants, belted and unbelted. The 
proposed requirements included rigid barrier tests and offset 
deformable barrier tests.
    Under the proposed rigid barrier test requirements in the NPRM, 
vehicles would have been required to meet injury criteria performance 
limits, including ones for the head, neck, chest, and femurs, measured 
on 50th percentile adult male and 5th percentile adult female test 
dummies during rigid barrier crash tests at any speed up to 48 km/h (30 
mph) and over the range of vehicle-to-crash-barrier angles from -30 
degrees to +30 degrees. Tests with 50th percentile adult male dummies 
would be conducted with the vehicle seat in the mid-track position; 
tests with 5th percentile adult female dummies would be conducted with 
the vehicle seats in the full forward position.\13\ Vehicles were to 
meet the injury criteria with belted and unbelted dummies. The purpose 
of the rigid barrier tests was to help ensure that vehicles protect 
different size occupants, belted and unbelted, from risk of serious or 
fatal injury in moderate to high speed crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ More specifically, the seat would be placed in the full 
forward position if the 5th percentile adult female dummy can be 
placed in the seat when it is in that position. Otherwise, the seat 
is moved back to the closest position to full forward that will 
allow the dummy to be placed in the seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed offset deformable barrier test requirements, 
vehicles would have been required to meet injury criteria performance 
limits during an up-to-40 km/h (25 mph) frontal offset deformable 
barrier test, using belted 5th percentile adult female dummies. The 
frontal offset test would have been conducted with either the driver 
side of the vehicle or the passenger side of the vehicle engaged with 
the barrier. The purpose of this test was to help ensure that vehicle 
manufacturers design their crash sensing and software systems to 
adequately address soft and long duration crash pulses.
    Our NPRM would have required as many as a total of 14 crash tests 
to improve occupant protection. This number is based on counting each 
rigid barrier test specifying use of a particular dummy as three tests, 
reflecting the assumption that, for typical vehicle and air bag 
designs, there would be three worst case conditions: 48 km/h (30 mph) 
at -30 degrees, 48 km/h (30 mph) at 0 degrees, and 48 km/h (30 mph) at 
+30 degrees.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The count of 14 tests reflects four rigid barrier tests 
(belted 50th percentile adult male dummy, unbelted 50th percentile 
adult male dummy, belted 5th percentile adult female dummy, and 
unbelted 5th percentile adult female dummy), each of which are 
counted as three tests. Thus, the rigid barrier tests account for 12 
of the 14 tests. The other two tests were the offset test with the 
driver side of the vehicle engaged with the barrier, and the offset 
test with the passenger side of the vehicle engaged with the 
barrier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our proposed requirements for improving occupant protection in 
potentially fatal crashes differed from the existing Standard No. 208 
in several important respects.
    First, vehicles would for the first time be required to be 
certified to crash test requirements using 5th percentile adult female 
dummies, which would be seated in the full forward seat track position. 
Historically, the standard has only specified the use of 50th 
percentile adult male dummies seated further back.
    Second, vehicles would be required for the first time to meet neck 
injury criteria performance limits in a crash test. Neck injuries are a 
particular concern for persons sitting close to the air bag.
    Third, vehicles would for the first time be required to comply with 
injury criteria limits in a 40 km/h (25 mph) frontal offset deformable 
barrier test with belted 5th percentile adult female dummies. The only 
frontal crash tests previously specified by the standard were rigid 
barrier tests.
    Fourth, we proposed to phase out the unbelted sled test option and 
return to the up-to-48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test 
requirement.\15\ However, it would be more than simply returning to the 
previous test requirement, since the unbelted rigid barrier test would 
now be conducted with 5th percentile adult female dummies as well as 
50th percentile adult male dummies. In addition, we proposed added 
injury criteria for the chest and neck.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ We explained in the NPRM that we added the sled test to 
Standard No. 208 in March 1997 as a temporary option to simplify and 
expedite the testing and certification of redesigned air bags that 
inflate less aggressively. We did so because the lead time needed 
for the relatively straightforward redesign measures contemplated by 
the manufacturers for MY 1998 vehicles, including the reduction of 
inflator power, was significantly shorter than the lead time for the 
technological solutions that are the subject of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to phase out the sled test option as we phased in the 
requirements for advanced air bags. We stated that while we believe the 
sled test option has been an expedient and useful temporary measure to 
ensure that the vehicle manufacturers could quickly redesign all of 
their air bags and to help ensure that some protection would continue 
to be provided by air bags, we did 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 real world 
crashes.
    We noted that the sled test, first, does not address vehicle 
factors that can significantly affect the level of protection provided 
in the real world and, second, is not representative of a significant 
number of potentially fatal real world crashes. Each of these 
limitations is significant. The first means that sled test results may 
have limited relationship to real world performance in many types and 
levels of severity of crash. The second means that sled test results 
may not be a good measure of air bag performance in the kinds of 
crashes in which air bags are supposed to save lives. While we proposed 
to return to the up-to-48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test 
requirement, we requested comments on possible alternative unbelted 
crash test requirements.
    b. Comments on 1998 NPRM.
    Our proposal to reinstate the up-to-48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid 
barrier test requirement was by far the most extensively debated issue 
of this rulemaking. As noted earlier, commenters had sharply different 
views on this aspect of the NPRM. In their initial comments, motor 
vehicle manufacturers and their trade associations strongly opposed 
returning to the up-to-48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test and 
urged that the sled test option remain in effect permanently. They 
argued that reinstating the up-to-48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid 
barrier test would prevent continued use of ``depowered'' air bags and 
require a return to ``overly aggressive'' air bags and that the test is 
not representative of typical real world crashes. They argued that the 
sled test includes a crash pulse that is more representative of typical 
real world crashes.
    On August 31, 1999, however, vehicle manufacturers and their trade 
associations presented to the agency a

[[Page 60569]]

consensus recommendation for an unbelted crash test. The industry 
recommended an unbelted rigid barrier crash test at 40 km/h (25 mph) 
using both 50th percentile adult male dummies and 5th percentile adult 
female dummies. The test would be conducted in the perpendicular mode 
only, i.e., there would be no unbelted oblique tests. Industry 
representatives argued that oblique tests are not needed to ensure wide 
air bags as vehicle manufacturers will provide them in light of other 
considerations, e.g., general safety considerations, the 48 km/h (30 
mph) belted rigid barrier crash testing, and IIHS and European high 
speed belted offset deformable barrier testing.
    In its comments on the NPRM, IIHS also opposed returning to the up-
to-48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test, for reasons similar to 
those cited by the vehicle manufacturers. However, that organization 
suggested that if we wish to phase out the sled test, we should 
consider replacing it with the 56 km/h (35 mph) European offset crash 
into a deformable barrier, using unbelted dummies, instead of the rigid 
barrier test. IIHS stated that this configuration would address not 
only protection in asymmetric crashes, but also some issues of 
intrusion that are related to restraint system performance, e.g., 
steering column movement. IIHS also stated that adoption of this test 
would be in the direction of harmonizing European and U.S. test 
procedures, the only difference being using unbelted versus belted 
dummies.
    On September 14, 1999, however, IIHS advised us that it now 
believes that an unbelted 56 km/h (35 mph) offset deformable barrier 
crash test would be inappropriate. That organization is concerned that 
including this test in Standard No. 208 might lead to an increase in 
unintended high-energy air bag deployments, posing risks to out-of-
position occupants, because of uncertainties in the sensing and 
algorithm capabilities in making proper deployment decisions. This 
potential problem is related to the nature of this crash test. During 
the initial phase of the test, i.e., during the crushing of the 
deformable barrier face, vehicles experience a long duration, low 
magnitude acceleration. The crash pulse in this phase of the test 
resembles that of a low speed crash. After the vehicle crushes the 
barrier face and reaches the underlying rigid portion, the remaining 
phase of the test is similar to a rigid barrier test. IIHS is concerned 
that because the initial phase of the test results in a crash pulse 
similar to that experienced in a low speed crash, air bag systems might 
not be able to distinguish between the offset test and a low speed 
crash during the time the decision whether to deploy the air bag must 
be made. If this were the case, an air bag system that was designed to 
meet an unbelted 56 km/h (35 mph) offset deformable barrier crash test 
by means of a high-energy air bag deployment might inappropriately 
provide the same kind of deployment in a low speed crash, thereby 
posing unnecessary risks to out-of-position occupants.
    The Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (AORC), representing 
manufacturers of air bags and seat belts, stated that while it believes 
the current sled test option serves a useful purpose, a sled test 
cannot provide a complete assessment of the crash protection provided 
by a vehicle/restraint system. That organization stated it believes 
that to fully assess crash protection for belted and unbelted 
occupants, barrier crash tests of complete vehicles should be included 
in the test requirements of Standard No. 208. AORC noted that complete 
vehicle barrier tests permit the evaluation of the vehicle's structure 
and its contribution to occupant protection. AORC recommended that 
additional analysis be conducted concerning what barrier and test 
conditions should be included in Standard No. 208.
    A number of commenters, including several public interest groups, 
argued that the up-to-48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test is 
representative of a significant portion of real world crashes, and that 
improvements in vehicle and air bag designs will enable manufacturers 
to meet the test without safety tradeoffs.
    As to the proposed belted tests, some vehicle manufacturers argued 
in their comments on the NPRM that a belted rigid barrier test using 
5th percentile adult female dummies would be redundant. They argued 
that the combination of other tests using 5th percentile adult female 
dummies plus the existing rigid barrier test using belted 50th 
percentile adult male dummies would address the same area of safety.
    Commenters' views on the proposed up-to-40 km/h (25 mph) belted 
offset deformable barrier test were mixed, but mostly supportive. Many 
commenters, including several safety advocacy groups and a number of 
vehicle manufacturers, supported the addition of an offset deformable 
barrier test.
    As noted earlier, some vehicle manufacturers requested that the 
test be conducted only with the driver's side engaged, instead of with 
either side engaged as proposed in the NPRM. The Association of 
International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM) stated that a test with 
the driver's side engaged would more likely produce worst case driver 
out-of-position locations and possible driver-side intrusion, and that 
a passenger side offset test would be redundant. Another suggestion 
made by some vehicle manufacturers was to conduct the test only at 40 
km/h (25 mph), rather than at speeds up to 40 km/h (25 mph).
    General Motors (GM) stated that it agreed with the addition of the 
offset deformable barrier test only if the unbelted sled test option 
remained in effect. GM stated that the offset deformable barrier test 
augments the sled test by addressing the crash sensing aspects of 
performance.
    DaimlerChrysler argued that the addition of a 40 km/h (25 mph) 
belted offset deformable barrier test for the 5th percentile adult 
female is unnecessary in light of future ``depowered'' and/or advanced 
air bags. That commenter stated that injury risks to small occupants 
sitting near the driver air bag are adequately assessed using the 
proposed out-of-position, low-risk deployment tests, which it endorses.
    c. SNPRM.
    We believe that the comments on the proposed test requirements to 
improve occupant protection for different size occupants, belted and 
unbelted, raise two primary questions:
    (1) What type and severity level of an unbelted crash test should 
be included in Standard No. 208?
    (2) Are some of the tests proposed in the NPRM redundant, given the 
other proposed tests?
    In the sections which follow, we will address what unbelted test 
requirements are needed to address the protection of unbelted teenagers 
and adults, and what overall set of requirements is needed to improve 
protection for different size occupants, belted and unbelted.

(i) Requirements for Tests With Unbelted Dummies

    As we address the issue of what unbelted requirements should be 
included in Standard No. 208 to address the protection of unbelted 
teenagers and adults, we believe the ultimate question for regulators, 
industry and the public is how the required safety features work in the 
real world. We will consider that question as we separately address two 
issues: (1) sled testing versus crash testing, and (2) alternative 
unbelted crash tests (e.g., rigid barrier crash tests, offset 
deformable tests, etc.) at various severity levels.
    Crash testing vs. sled testing. In a full-scale crash test, 
instrumented test dummies are placed in a production

[[Page 60570]]

vehicle, and the vehicle is actually crashed. Measurements from the 
test dummies are used to determine the forces, and injury potential, 
human beings would have experienced in the crash.
    Many different types of crash tests can be conducted, and the 
various types of crash tests can be conducted at different levels of 
severity. Commonly conducted crash tests include: (1) rigid barrier 
tests, in which a vehicle is crashed head-on (perpendicular) or at an 
angle into a rigid barrier, (2) offset deformable barrier tests, in 
which a vehicle is crashed into a barrier with a deformable face, with 
only a portion of the front of the vehicle (e.g., 40 percent) engaging 
the barrier, and (3) moving deformable barrier tests, in which a moving 
deformable barrier designed to be representative of particular vehicles 
is crashed into the test vehicle. Vehicle-to-vehicle crash tests, in 
which one vehicle is crashed into another vehicle, are sometimes used 
in research or product development.
    In a sled test, no crash takes place. The vehicle is essentially 
undamaged. The vehicle is placed on a sled-on-rails, and instrumented 
test dummies are placed in the vehicle. The sled is accelerated very 
rapidly backwards (relative to the direction that the occupants would 
be facing), so that the occupant compartment experiences the same 
motion as might be experienced in a crash. The air bags are manually 
deployed at a pre-selected time during the sled test. Measurements from 
the test dummies are used to determine the forces, and injury 
potential, human beings would have experienced during the test.
    In the NPRM, we explained that the agency has long specified full 
scale vehicle crash tests using instrumented dummies, in a variety of 
our standards, because it is only through such tests that the 
protection provided by the vehicle occupant protection system can be 
fully measured.
    In the NPRM, we cited several significant limitations of the 
current sled test, some of which are inherent to any sled test. We 
explained:

    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 a 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, 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. 63 FR 49971.

    Commenters supporting retention of the sled test did not dispute 
the inherent limitations of sled tests as compared to crash tests.
    AAMA argued that the single best argument for retaining the 
existing sled test is that ``it's working;'' AAMA contended that 
``depowered'' air bags in vehicles certified according to the sled test 
are saving the lives of occupants of all sizes, while reducing the harm 
to children and other out-of-position occupants.
    It is not clear, however, that the sled test is responsible for any 
of the benefits of redesigned air bags other than to the extent it made 
it easier for vehicle manufacturers to redesign and certify their 
existing air bags more quickly.
    As noted earlier, limited available data appear to indicate that 
redesigned air bags have reduced the risks from air bags for the at-
risk populations. However, it is not possible at this time to draw 
statistically significant conclusions about this. There is a greater 
amount of data on the overall benefits of air bags. These data indicate 
that there is essentially the same or slightly better protection 
provided by the redesigned air bags compared to earlier air bags.
    Regardless of how well vehicles with redesigned air bags are 
currently performing, however, the sled test itself cannot guarantee 
that future air bags would perform nearly so well. These vehicles and 
their air bags were initially designed to the unbelted barrier test, 
and their current air bags represent quick, partial redesigns of those 
air bags. Thus, their performance is still highly reflective of the 
unbelted test.
    While the sled test has made it easier for manufacturers to 
redesign and certify their vehicles more quickly, manufacturers could 
and did depower air bags under Standard No. 208's unbelted barrier 
test. As discussed below, available data suggest that most vehicles, 
while certified to the sled test, continue to meet the unbelted barrier 
test requirements (including the new neck injury criteria) with the 
50th percentile adult male dummies.
    Our goal in this rulemaking is to determine what requirements to 
protect

[[Page 60571]]

unbelted and other occupants should apply to vehicles in the future. 
AAMA's argument that the sled test is working does not take into 
account all of the kinds of less protective vehicles and air bags that 
would be permitted by the sled test, given its mildness, and which 
might be produced if the sled test were allowed to remain in effect on 
a long-term basis.
    The sled test is unable to offer any assurance that current 
vehicles and air bags are representative of what manufacturers would 
offer in the long run if the sled test were available as a permanent 
option. Nothing in the standard would inhibit manufacturers from making 
their air bags significantly smaller in both depth and width, and thus 
less protective in high speed crashes. In particular, narrower air bags 
could provide less protection in crashes involving oblique angles. The 
sled test also might permit ``face bags'' which do not provide chest 
protection or restraint for portions of the lower torso. In addition, 
the absence of an unbelted full-vehicle test at an appropriate severity 
level would permit vehicles to be designed with stiffer, less energy-
absorbing front ends, e.g., to provide more interior passenger or 
cargo-carrying space at the expense of frontal ``crush'' space.
    Moreover, unless balanced by an effective unbelted crash test 
requirement, the proposed new requirements to minimize air bag risks to 
out-of-position occupants have the potential to create an incentive for 
manufacturers to make their current air bags smaller and less 
protective. An inexpensive and relatively easy way to reduce risks from 
the air bag to out-of-position occupants is to further depower air bags 
and make them smaller. However, if air bags are depowered too much or 
made too small, they will not provide meaningful protection in high 
speed crashes.
    Our basic obligation is to issue Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards that establish a minimum level of performance that protects 
the public against unreasonable risk of crashes occurring because of 
the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle, and 
against unreasonable risk of death or injury in a crash. In this 
particular rulemaking, we are facing an array of safety problems, and 
TEA 21 as well as our pre-existing statutory authority, require that we 
address each of them.
    The most reliable way to determine how vehicles will perform in 
real world crashes is to crash them. That is why we believe that a 
crash test is needed. Sled tests are useful research tools, but they do 
not provide as full or accurate a measure of the occupant protection 
that a vehicle will provide in the real world.
    Given the importance of unbelted protection, we believe it is 
necessary to provide the public with assurance that the minimum level 
of performance for each vehicle will be required to be meaningful, 
based on careful scientific and engineering analysis. While we have 
carefully considered all of the comments concerning the sled test, we 
continue to believe that sled testing is an inadequate long-term means 
for ensuring that current levels of unbelted occupant protection are 
improved. This is based on the above-noted inherent limitations of sled 
tests, as compared to crash tests, in evaluating occupant protection. 
Whether one looks at IIHS with its offset crash test program, Europe 
with its offset NCAP program, or our experience with our NCAP, Standard 
No. 208 and Standard No. 214, it is widely acknowledged that crash 
tests, set at appropriate severity levels, provide the best means of 
evaluating the protection that occupants will receive in real world 
crashes.
    For this SNPRM, we urge commenters to focus on what specific 
unbelted complete vehicle crash tests are the most appropriate.
    Alternative unbelted crash tests. As we noted above, many different 
types of crash tests can be conducted, and the various types of crash 
tests can be conducted at different levels of severity and orientation. 
Commonly conducted crash tests include: (1) fixed rigid barrier tests, 
(2) fixed offset deformable barrier tests and (3) moving deformable 
barrier tests.
    If government or anyone else wants to determine whether a vehicle 
provides an appropriate degree of occupant protection in a potentially 
fatal or serious injury producing crash, the crash test must have the 
severity representative of those crashes. The fact that a test might 
indicate that an occupant would not be injured or killed in a 
relatively mild crash says nothing about whether the occupant would 
likely be killed in a more serious crash. That is why it is important 
to distinguish between the universe of all typical real world crashes 
and those typical real world crashes serious enough to pose a 
significant risk of serious or fatal injury. While one could argue that 
the most ``typical'' crash is probably a fender bender resulting in 
little or no personal injury, basing Standard No. 208 on such a test 
would not result in any savings in lives or reductions in serious 
injuries. Of course, there are many issues to consider in selecting a 
specific crash test, but we must focus on seeking to represent the kind 
of typical crashes that are potentially fatal, rather than typical 
crashes as a whole.
    When we issued the NPRM, we released a paper titled ``Review of 
Potential Test Procedures for FMVSS No. 208.'' The paper provided a 
detailed technical analysis of the various alternative crash tests. To 
accompany this SNPRM, we are releasing an updated version of that 
paper, which has been revised in light of comments and other new 
information. The paper shows that, among the currently available 
alternative crash tests, the rigid barrier test (perpendicular and up 
to 30 degrees oblique to perpendicular) represents the 
greatest number of real world crashes involving serious to fatal 
injuries. The only alternative crash test that would represent a 
greater number of such crashes would be one involving a moving 
deformable barrier, which is still undergoing research.
    In the NPRM, we noted that 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 fully engages another similar-sized 
or larger vehicle directly head-on or strikes a bridge abutment, the 
oblique rigid barrier tests result in crash pulses of longer duration, 
i.e., a ``softer'' crash pulse, which may occur when vehicles strike 
each other at various angles.
    We also noted that vehicles and air bags designed to comply with 
the unbelted rigid barrier test have been effective in saving lives. At 
the time of the NPRM, we estimated that air bags had saved the lives of 
about 3,148 drivers and passengers. Of these, 2,267 were unbelted. The 
rest, 881, were belted. If these levels of effectiveness are maintained 
(i.e., 21 percent in frontal crashes for restrained occupants and 34 
percent in 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.
    Commenters opposing the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted barrier test 
raised two primary issues. First, they argued that the test is not 
representative of typical crashes. Second, they argued that returning 
to this test would prevent continued use of ``depowered'' air bags and 
would require a return to ``overly aggressive'' air bags.
    We note that, in arguing that the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted barrier 
test is not representative of typical crashes, the commenters did not 
define what they meant by ``typical crashes.'' Given that

[[Page 60572]]

the purpose of Standard No. 208 is primarily to reduce serious-to-fatal 
injuries, we believe that question is whether that test is 
representative of the crashes that produce those injuries. More than 
18,000 drivers and right front passengers are killed each year in 
frontal impacts, and more than 290,000 drivers and right front 
passengers experience moderate to critical non-fatal injuries. These 
numbers would be significantly higher without effective air bags.
    In order to promulgate safety standards that protect the public 
against unreasonable risk of death or injury in a crash, and to fulfill 
our specific duty under TEA 21 to improve occupant protection for 
occupants of different sizes, belted and unbelted, it is necessary for 
Standard No. 208 to address these crashes. In addition, by requiring 
vehicles to provide protection over a range of crash severities, e.g., 
in tests at speeds ``up to'' a given velocity, we also address 
protection for lower severity crashes. The upper level severity must, 
however, be sufficient to ensure that manufacturers provide life-saving 
occupant protection in higher speed crashes.
    The following figures, derived from National Automotive Sampling 
System (NASS) data for years 1993-1997, show the cumulative 
distribution of injuries and fatalities in frontal crashes by delta 
V,\16\ for all occupants, belted occupants, and unbelted occupants:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ As used here, ``delta V'' refers to the crash-induced 
change in velocity of a vehicle in a crash. When looking at the 
severity of a crash and its influence on air bag design, delta V is 
not the only important factor. Another important factor is the time 
to reach that delta V. The time is important because it affects the 
speed at which the occupant strikes the interior of the vehicle, 
i.e., for a given delta V crash, the shorter the time duration, the 
higher the occupant impact speed.

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 60573]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.003



[[Page 60574]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.004



[[Page 60575]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.005



BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
    The figures show the cumulative distribution of injuries by delta V 
for fatalities, for MAIS 3+ injuries, and for MAIS 2+ injuries. MAIS 3+ 
injuries are those which are classified as serious or greater injury, 
while MAIS 2+ are those which are classified as moderate or 
greater.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The AIS or Abbreviated Injury Scale, first developed by the 
Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine in 1971, is a 
consensus-derived, anatomically based system that ranks individual 
injuries by body region on a scale of 1 to 6 as follows: 1=minor, 
2=moderate, 3=serious, 4=severe, 5=critical, and 6=maximum/currently 
untreatable. The AIS is intended as a measure of the severity of the 
injury itself and not as a measure of impairments or disabilities 
that may result from the injury. It does not assess the combined 
effects of multiple injuries to a patient. The AIS was revised and 
updated several times, with the most recent revision in 1990. MAIS 
represents the maximum injury severity (expressed in terms of AIS) 
of any injury received by a person, regardless of the nature or 
location of the injury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We can see several things by examining the figures. About 50 
percent of fatalities in frontal crashes occur at delta V's below 48 
km/h (30 mph), and about 50 percent occur at delta V's above 48 km/h 
(30 mph). Looking separately at unbelted and belted occupants, 51 
percent of the fatalities involving unbelted occupants and 47 percent 
of the fatalities involving belted occupants occur in frontal crashes 
at delta V's below 48 km/h (30 mph). We note that the delta V in NASS 
represents the speed at which the vehicle would strike a rigid barrier 
to duplicate the amount of energy absorbed in the crash. Thus, about 
half of fatalities in frontal crashes occur in crashes that are more 
severe than a 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier crash, and half of all 
frontal crash fatalities occur in crashes that are less severe than a 
48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier crash. Given that Standard No. 208's 
unbelted crash test requirements are intended to save lives, we 
disagree that 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier crashes are 
unrepresentative of the kinds of crashes in which we are seeking to 
ensure protection.
    As to the argument that returning to the unbelted 48 km/h (30 mph) 
rigid barrier test would prevent continued use of ``depowered'' air 
bags and require use of ``overly aggressive'' air bags, the agency will 
have to consider the information available to it in making a final 
decision.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ It is difficult to respond to the industry argument that 
the 48 km/h (30 mph) barrier test would prevent continued use of 
``depowered'' air bags because ``depowered'' is an amorphous, 
relative concept, not an absolute one. The term simply means ``less 
power than before.'' Saying that an air bag is depowered is not a 
statement that the air bag has more or less than some specific 
pressure rise rate or overall peak pressure of the air bag inflator. 
Thus, there is no way of examining or testing an air bag to 
determine whether it is ``depowered.''
    Further, not all pre-depowered air bags had the same level of 
power. Indeed, there was a wide variation in the level of power of 
pre-depowered air bags. Likewise, there is variation in the level of 
power of depowered air bags. In addition, Parents for Safer Air Bags 
(Parents) noted that many of today's vehicles incorporate a whole 
array of air bag design improvements, making it difficult to 
attribute the apparent decrease in air bag fatalities and injuries 
to any particular feature or combination of features.
    Accordingly, in this document, we generally use the term 
``redesigned'' in referring to air bags that have been changed in 
various ways since MY 1997, including, in many cases, a reduction in 
the pressure rise rate and/or overall peak pressure of the air bag 
inflator. These air bags have not been depowered as much as the sled 
test permits. Further, most of the redesigned air bags tested by the 
agency meet the unbelted 48 km/h (30 mph) barrier test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, we noted that, based on very limited data, it appeared 
that many, perhaps most, vehicles with redesigned air bags continue to 
meet the historical 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier requirements of 
Standard No. 208 (using 50th percentile adult male dummies and applying 
the current injury criteria performance limits) by fairly wide margins. 
At that time, we had tested five vehicles with redesigned driver air 
bags in unbelted 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid

[[Page 60576]]

barrier tests, and all passed Standard No. 208's previous injury 
criteria by significant margins. We had tested six vehicles with 
redesigned 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.
    Some vehicle manufacturers objected to our analysis in this area. 
They argued that, given the variability associated with testing 
different vehicles of the same design, the fact that a particular 
vehicle had passed a single test would not necessarily allow them to 
certify that model vehicle as complying with Standard No. 208 because 
there would not be a sufficient margin of compliance to ensure that all 
vehicles of that model would pass the test. Some manufacturers 
indicated that they need a 20 percent margin of compliance in order to 
so certify. Vehicle manufacturers also stated that they need to ensure 
that all variations and configurations of a model would pass the test 
and that, in some cases, we tested a configuration which would result 
in lower injury criteria readings than other variations and 
configurations.
    We continue to believe that a key way of assessing the validity of 
the argument that a return to the 48 km/h (30 mph) barrier test would--
at least in the absence of additional technological improvements--
prevent continued use of redesigned air bags is to test vehicles with 
those air bags in 48 km/h (30 mph) barrier tests and see how they 
perform. Therefore, since issuing our NPRM, we have conducted more 
barrier tests of vehicles with redesigned air bags.
    We have now tested a total of 13 MY 1998-99 vehicles with 
redesigned air bags in a perpendicular rigid barrier crash test at 48 
km/h (30 mph) with unbelted 50th percentile adult male driver and 
passenger dummies. The vehicles represented a wide range of vehicle 
types and sizes. In particular, the 13 vehicles included one sub-
compact car, one compact car, four mid-size cars (representing high 
sales volume vehicles), one full-size car, two mid-size sport utility 
vehicles, one full-size sport utility vehicle, one pickup truck, one 
minivan, and one full-size van.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The specific vehicles and their classes included a Saturn 
(sub-compact car), a Neon (compact car), an Intrepid, Camry, Taurus, 
and Accord (mid-size cars), an Acura RL (full-size car), an Explorer 
and Cherokee (mid-size SUV's), an Expedition (large SUV), a Tacoma 
(pickup truck), a Voyager (minivan), and an Econoline (full-size 
van).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the driver position, 12 of the 13 vehicles passed all the 
relevant injury criteria performance limits we are proposing in this 
SNPRM. In the one vehicle with a failure, the MY 1999 Acura RL, the 
driver dummy exceeded the femur load criteria. For the passenger 
position, 12 of the 13 vehicles also passed all of the relevant injury 
criteria performance limits. The MY 1998 Dodge Neon slightly exceeded 
the 60 g chest acceleration limit (with a value of 61.4 g). The other 
proposed injury criteria performance limits, (i.e., for HIC, chest 
deflection, and Nij) were easily met in all the tests; for most there 
was a greater than 20 percent margin of compliance for both the driver 
and passenger.
    Thus, the tested vehicles with redesigned air bags, ranging widely 
in vehicle type and size, appear to continue to meet Standard No. 208's 
48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test requirements for 50th 
percentile adult male dummies, many of them by wide margins.
    As to any vehicles that do not meet that test, at this point we 
simply note that TEA 21 affords lead time before all vehicles must meet 
whatever tests are incorporated in the final rule to be issued in this 
rulemaking.
    As to the issue of margin of compliance, we agree that 
manufacturers need to ensure that all of their vehicles meet a test 
requirement established by a Federal safety standard. However, we do 
not agree that this means a 20 percent margin of compliance is 
necessary. The chest g value is the injury criterion that is most 
likely to be the limiting factor in certifying to the 48 km/h (30 mph) 
unbelted rigid barrier test requirements for the 50th percentile adult 
male dummy. Examination of compliance and certification data for pre-
redesigned air bags shows that manufacturers often certified vehicles 
to the requirement with much less than a 20 percent margin of 
compliance. In fact, margins of compliance for our 48 km/h (30 mph) 
tests of vehicles with redesigned air bags were not that different from 
those with pre-redesigned air bags.
    We are not suggesting that every current production vehicle would 
comply with the unbelted 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier test. Instead, 
we are pointing out that a wide ranging sample of vehicle types and 
sizes meet the 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier test, for 50th percentile 
adult male dummies, with redesigned air bags.
    However, the ultimate issue of this rulemaking is not whether some 
MY 1998-99 vehicles with redesigned, single-inflation level air bags 
currently would not meet the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted barrier test 
requirement. As noted above, many of the air bags in current vehicles 
were not comprehensively redesigned, but are merely older designs of 
air bags with less power. TEA 21 mandates the issuance of a final rule 
based on means that include advanced air bag technologies. We believe 
the selection of future compliance tests under TEA 21 must be made in 
the context of those technologies, and not in the context of today's 
less sophisticated one-size-fits-all air bag designs. Today's air bag 
systems are not advanced air bags and thus do not respond to factors 
such as crash severity, occupant weight and occupant location. By 
contrast, the incorporation of advanced technologies would make air bag 
systems responsive to those factors. If a manufacturer decided to use a 
somewhat more powerful air bag to meet a 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted 
rigid barrier test, or to provide protection in more severe crashes, 
the manufacturer could use advanced air bag technologies to provide 
less powerful levels of inflation in lower severity crashes, for 
smaller occupants, for belted occupants, and for occupants sitting with 
the seat in the full-forward position. Manufacturers could also reduce 
aggressivity of air bags by various means such as optimizing fold 
patterns, different cover designs, lighter fabrics, etc. Advanced 
technologies would also enable the manufacturer to suppress air bag 
deployment in appropriate circumstances, such as when children are 
present.
    As we assess the type and severity level of an unbelted crash test 
should be included in Standard No. 208, we recognize that we must bear 
in mind that the issue of the suitability of a unbelted 48 km/h (30 
mph) rigid barrier test cannot be determined solely based on whether 
manufacturers can meet that test with redesigned air bags using 50th 
percentile male dummies. In the NPRM, we proposed not only to return to 
that test requirement, but also to require vehicles to be certified to 
several new crash test requirements and new injury criteria performance 
limits, including tests using 5th percentile adult female dummies in 
the full forward seat track position, and to requirements to minimize 
air bag risks. Vehicle manufacturers commented that some of the design 
options that are available in redesigning their air bags involve 
potential trade-offs in meeting the different proposed requirements. 
For example, the optimum size air bag for meeting test requirements for 
50th percentile adult dummies may make it more difficult to meet 
requirements for 5th percentile adult female dummies,

[[Page 60577]]

and vice versa. This issue, and the agency's testing of current 
vehicles to a variety of the proposed test requirements, are discussed 
later in this notice.
    Proposed alternative unbelted crash tests. In the NPRM, we 
indicated that while we believe the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid 
barrier test is a good approach, we were also willing to consider 
alternative unbelted crash tests. The only alternative unbelted crash 
test advocated by a commenter that could realistically be implemented 
within the time frame of this rulemaking is the unbelted 56 km/h (35 
mph) offset deformable barrier test suggested by IIHS. As noted 
earlier, IIHS stated that this configuration would address not only 
protection in asymmetric crashes but also some issues of intrusion that 
are related to restraint system performance, e.g., steering column 
movement.
    Given the continued debate over what requirements should apply to 
ensure protection to unbelted occupants, we want to be sure that we 
have considered and received the benefit of public comments on the 
various alternative approaches that are available at this time. One 
approach, of course, is the one we proposed in the NPRM, the unbelted 
rigid barrier test. We note that some have suggested that, instead of 
conducting this test at speeds up to 48 km/h (30 mph), we reduce the 
maximum speed. Ford, for example, suggested in 1995 that we adopt an 
upper speed of 40 km/h (25 mph). It coupled this suggestion with the 
further suggestion that the speed of the belted test be increased to 56 
km/h (35 mph).\20\ In its recent consensus statement, the Alliance has 
suggested a single speed test (perpendicular impact only) of 40 km/h 
(25 mph).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The agency examined Ford's recommendation in a status 
report titled ``On the Issue of Testing Air-Bag Equipped Vehicles 
with and without Belt Restraints at Different Speeds,'' November 2, 
1995. Originally docketed in the docket (No. 74-14; Notice 97-001) 
for a request for comments published by the agency November 9, 1995 
(60 FR 56554); more recently docketed in NHTSA-96-1772-002. In the 
1995 request for comments, the agency said:
    While NHTSA anticipates that these smart bag systems will 
substantially minimize adverse side effects of air bags in the not 
too distant future, this still leaves the question of what can be 
done in addition to public education for the near future. 
Manufacturers may be able to make adjustments to existing air bag 
systems. Further, NHTSA may be able to make temporary adjustments to 
its regulations if it is shown to be necessary to enable 
manufacturers to minimize any adverse side effects during this 
period.
    For example, Ford has requested that NHTSA amend its crash 
testing procedures in Standard No. 208. The standard currently 
requires test dummies to be protected in a 30 mile per hour (mph) 
crash both when wearing safety belts and when not wearing the belts 
(i.e., protected by the air bag alone). Ford asked that the test 
speed for the unbelted dummies be lowered to 25 mph, while the test 
speed for the belted dummies be raised to 35 mph. According to Ford, 
this change would allow manufacturers to better ``tune'' the 
interaction between the air bag and the safety belt so as to 
optimize the protection afforded to occupants who use their belts. 
Ford stated that the current testing procedure forces manufacturers 
to base occupant protection designs solely on the air bag, rather 
than the interaction between the air bag and the belt. Ford believes 
that such a change can reduce air bag-induced injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A second possible approach is an unbelted fixed offset deformable 
barrier test, along the lines suggested by IIHS in its comment on the 
September 1998 NPRM. While, as discussed above, that organization has 
recently identified some concerns about that test, we believe an 
unbelted offset deformable barrier test represents a sufficiently 
interesting alternative approach to warrant seeking public comment. As 
to the concern that IIHS recently identified about air bag systems 
possibly having difficulty distinguishing between the offset test and a 
low speed crash during the time the decision whether to deploy the air 
bag must be made, we note that it may be possible to address this 
potential problem by using advanced sensing systems. That is one of the 
issues for which we would like to receive public comments. By 
requesting public comments, we will obtain additional data and views to 
better enable us to make a thorough evaluation of the merits of 
including such a test in Standard No. 208.
    For this SNPRM, we are proposing and seeking comments on two 
alternative unbelted tests. The first alternative is the unbelted rigid 
barrier test (perpendicular and up to 30 degrees oblique to 
perpendicular with 50th percentile adult male dummies, but 
perpendicular only in tests with 5th percentile adult female dummies) 
with a maximum speed to be established within the range of 40 to 48 km/
h (25 to 30 mph). As part of this alternative, we are considering the 
possibility of coupling a lower speed for the unbelted barrier test 
with a higher speed for the belted barrier test. The second alternative 
is an unbelted offset deformable barrier test with a maximum speed to 
be established within the range of 48 to 56 km/h (30 to 35 mph). A 
vehicle would have to meet the requirements both in tests with the 
driver side of the vehicle engaged with the barrier and in tests with 
the passenger side engaged.
    We note that, in considering a range of upper severity levels, the 
upper severity level could be adjusted by either changing the test 
speed or applying different injury criteria limits at higher speeds. 
For example, in our rulemaking to facilitate quick redesign of air 
bags, in lieu of the sled test, we identified the possibility of 
maintaining the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test, but 
relaxing the limit on chest g's. We also note the possibility of 
specifying relaxed injury criteria performance limits or lower maximum 
test speeds that would apply during the TEA 21 phase-in period and more 
stringent ones that would apply thereafter.
    For all of the unbelted crash tests proposed in this document, 
protection would be required in crashes ranging from a specified 
minimum speed to a specified highest speed, rather than at all speeds 
``up to'' that specified highest speed.
    Under the unbelted rigid barrier test alternative, the agency would 
not test at a speed of less than 29 km/h (18 mph), and under the 
unbelted offset deformable barrier test alternative, the agency would 
not test at a speed of less than 35 km/h (22 mph). (We are proposing a 
higher minimum test speed for the latter alternative because, for a 
given speed, it is a less severe test.) This is a departure from the 
proposal in the NPRM and from prior agency practice. One reason for 
this change is that we want to be sure that the standard does not push 
deployment thresholds downward, i.e., cause air bags to be deployed at 
lower speeds than are appropriate for maximum occupant protection. 
Commenters indicated that, in order to meet neck injury criteria, air 
bag deployments might be required at very low speeds, even in crashes 
with a delta-V lower than 10 mph, particularly with the 5th percentile 
adult female dummy in the full forward position. While the issue of the 
most appropriate threshold for air bag deployment is complex, we 
believe there is a consensus that ``no fire'' thresholds should not be 
any lower than they are at present. Moreover, neck injuries are not a 
significant problem in lower speed crashes.
    The proposed high speed unbelted offset deformable barrier test 
would involve the same crash configuration as we proposed in the NPRM 
for the up-to-40 km/h (25 mph) belted offset deformable barrier test. 
Vehicles would have to meet the requirements in tests with both the 
vehicle and the passenger side of the vehicle engaged. The test would, 
of course, be conducted at higher speeds, and unbelted 50th percentile 
adult male dummies and 5th percentile adult female dummies would be 
used.

[[Page 60578]]

    The offset deformable barrier test is used in several ways in 
different parts of the world. The test has been adopted as a 
requirement in Europe at a speed of 56 km/h (35 mph), using belted 50th 
percentile adult male dummies, pursuant to EU Directive 96/79 EC. The 
test is also conducted in Europe at a higher speed, 64 km/h (40 mph), 
as part of the European New Car Assessment Program. The Australian New 
Car Assessment Program conducts the same test at the same speed. IIHS 
also conducts this test at the same speed, using belted 50th percentile 
adult male dummies to evaluate the crashworthiness of vehicles. 
Transport Canada is developing a test procedure using belted 5th 
percentile adult female dummies at impact speeds up to 40 km/h (25 mph) 
to evaluate air bag sensor performance and air bag aggressivity.
    While a great deal has been written on the subject of unbelted 
rigid barrier tests over the years, the high speed unbelted offset 
deformable barrier test is relatively new. We note that we have been 
conducting research for several years with the intention of proposing 
to add a high speed belted frontal offset test to Standard No. 208. For 
information about this research program, see our 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 our web site at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/CrashWorthy/
offrt.html.
    In our Report to Congress, and in the NPRM (63 FR 49958, at 49960), 
we stated that we were considering adding the European high speed 
belted frontal offset test to Standard No. 208 as a supplement to the 
existing tests. We stated in the Report that the Standard No. 208 rigid 
barrier test is most effective in preventing head and chest injuries 
and fatalities, but noted that it does not address lower limb and neck 
injuries.
    We stated further in the Report that while the frontal rigid 
barrier test of Standard No. 208 does not produce the vehicle intrusion 
observed in many real world crashes, it does depict those impacts which 
produce the highest risk of serious to fatal injuries resulting from 
frontal crashes. We stated that the European frontal test procedure 
does not address the highest risk of serious to fatal injuries 
occurring in frontal crashes and that, from our viewpoint, the European 
test conditions were not acceptable as an alternative to Standard No. 
208. We stated, however, that adoption of the European test could yield 
benefits in terms of a reduction in lower limb injuries.
    While our analysis of the European test was made in the context of 
a belted condition, it nonetheless raises the issue of whether the test 
is adequately representative of potentially fatal crashes. To address 
this issue, we have sought to compare the 56 km/h (35 mph) offset 
deformable barrier crash test recommended by IIHS to a 48 km/h (30 mph) 
rigid barrier test.
    Among other things, we have conducted 56 km/h (35 mph) offset 
deformable barrier crash tests on MY 1999 Dodge Intrepid and Toyota 
Tacoma vehicles. Comparing the crash pulses for these tests with the 
pulses of 40 and 48 km/h (25 and 30 mph) rigid barrier tests that we 
also conducted using these vehicles, we can make several observations. 
For each vehicle, there is a long duration, low magnitude acceleration 
during the initial phase of the test that is associated with the 
crushing of the deformable barrier face. After the crushing of the 
barrier face, the remaining segment of the crash pulse is similar to 
that for the 40 and 48 km/h (25 and 30 mph) rigid barrier tests, and 
this portion of the acceleration profile generally would fall in 
between the pulses for those two rigid barrier tests if adjusted with a 
time shift.
    A close look at these pulses suggests that, from the perspective of 
delta-V, the deformable barrier test is approximately equal in severity 
to a 45 km/h (28 mph) rigid barrier test. This is consistent with a 
rule of thumb within the research community that the offset test's 
barrier equivalent velocity is approximately 20 percent less than the 
impact speed.
    This observation is also supported by findings from our Advanced 
Frontal Research Program. We provided a number of vehicles tested in 
both collinear and oblique offset tests to NASS investigators for 
analysis. The investigators estimated delta Vs that were substantially 
lower than the impact speeds.\21\ Also, IIHS conducted a similar study 
and observed similar results,\22\ i.e., the range of delta Vs were 15 
to 28 percent lower than the impact speeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Stucki, Sheldon L. and Fessahaie, Osvaldo, ``Comparison of 
Measured Velocity Change in Frontal Crash Tests to NASS Computed 
Velocity Change,'' SAE Paper No. 980649, 1991 SAE International 
Congress and Exposition, Detroit, March 1998.
    \22\ O'Neill, Brian, Preuss, Charles A., and Nolan, James M., 
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, ``Relationships Between 
Computed Delta V and Impact Speeds for Offset Crashes'', Paper No. 
96-S9-O-11, Proceedings of Fifteenth International Technical 
Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Melbourne, Australia, 
May 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to note that although we estimate 45 km/h (28 mph) 
as the rigid barrier equivalent speed for the 56 km/h (35 mph) offset 
deformable barrier test, this does not mean that air bags designed to 
meet the 56 km/h (35 mph) offset deformable barrier test would provide 
a level of protection equivalent to that provided by air bags designed 
to meet a 45 km/h (28 mph) barrier-like crashes.
    When looking at the severity of a crash and its influence on air 
bag design, delta V is not the only important factor. Another important 
factor is the time to reach that delta V. The time is important because 
it affects the speed at which the occupant strikes the interior of the 
vehicle, i.e., for a given delta V crash, the shorter the time 
duration, the higher the occupant impact speed.
    As discussed in the test procedures paper, the offset crash test 
has a long duration deceleration pulse. As a result, occupants in a 
vehicle involved in such a crash would impact the interior components 
at lower speeds than occupants who were in a vehicle involved in 
barrier-like crashes. Because of this aspect of offset crashes, the 
test procedures paper separates the crash events in NASS and estimates 
a substantially lower target population for the offset test than for 
the rigid barrier test.
    The high speed unbelted rigid barrier test and the high speed 
unbelted offset deformable barrier test are significantly different, 
and each has potential advantages as compared to the other.
    Among the considerations that are relevant to the high speed 
unbelted rigid barrier test are the following--
     It involves a stiffer crash, thereby promoting the design 
of soft frontal structure and deeper air bags that provide more 
protection against AIS  3, life-threatening, head/chest 
injuries in higher speed crashes.
     It promotes the design of wider air bags which provide 
head and chest protection in the angular component of the test.
     It is a well known test condition. It has been part of 
Standard No. 208 since 1984.
     It may result in more repeatable test results than an 
offset test would provide. Since the offset test involves striking a 
soft structure, there may be a chance of air bag sensor timing 
variability. Variations in air bag sensor timing can lead to variations 
in occupant kinematics. The rigid barrier test, on the other hand, 
results in relatively consistent air bag deployment timings.
     The full frontal rigid barrier test represents a vehicle 
striking a like vehicle.
    Among the considerations that are relevant to the high speed 
unbelted

[[Page 60579]]

offset deformable barrier test are the following:
     It provides a more challenging test of the vehicle crash 
sensors. In order to provide optimal protection to the occupant in a 
crash, the crash sensors need to make a determination of when to fire 
the air bag as early as possible. However, the challenge in an offset 
deformable barrier crash test arises from the fact that the engagement 
of the offset deformable barrier results in a soft crash pulse which 
needs to be detected by the sensor for the algorithm to make the 
decision to deploy, and a harder crash pulse later in the event.
     It provides a more challenging test of the vehicle 
structure. The offset deformable barrier test engages only 40% of the 
front structure of the vehicle. Therefore, the crush is concentrated on 
one side and produces more intrusion into the occupant compartment. The 
full frontal rigid barrier test engages the entire front of the vehicle 
in a distributed loading pattern.
     It has greater potential for benefits related to injury 
from intrusion.
     The deformable barrier is known and used in other test 
configurations. The European offset crash test requirement and the IIHS 
crashworthiness evaluations are two examples.
     The deformable barrier can be bottomed out by sports 
utility vehicles and full size pick-up trucks due to their increased 
mass and stiffness of the structures involved. To the extent that the 
deformable barrier is bottomed out, it becomes more like an offset 
rigid barrier test, thereby potentially providing a more severe crash 
test for larger, heavier vehicles.
     The offset deformable barrier test is not representative 
of a vehicle-to-vehicle crash. It is perhaps most easily understood by 
comparing it to a full frontal rigid barrier test and an offset rigid 
barrier test. An offset rigid barrier test simulates a crash where the 
entire crash energy is absorbed by the structural members of the struck 
side. In an offset deformable barrier test, this energy is shared by 
the barrier and the vehicle structures. Comparing a full frontal rigid 
barrier test to an offset rigid barrier test conducted at the same 
speed, there is greater likelihood of intrusion. The crash pulse for 
the offset rigid barrier test would likely have about the same peak 
acceleration but a longer time duration. An offset deformable barrier 
test at the same speed would likely result in a lower peak acceleration 
and about the same time duration as the rigid offset barrier test.
     Comparing a 35 mph offset test to a 30 mph full frontal 
rigid barrier test, the peak g's are likely to less in the offset test, 
and the time duration of the crash pulse is likely to be substantially 
longer.
    As noted above, the concept of a high speed unbelted offset 
deformable barrier test is new, so there are very few available data 
for this test. However, we have tested two vehicles, the MY 1999 Toyota 
Tacoma and Dodge Intrepid, in unbelted 56 km/h (35 mph) offset tests 
using both 50th percentile adult male and 5th percentile adult female 
test dummies. One vehicle, the Tacoma, was able to meet the proposed 
injury criteria performance limits without difficulty (for both types 
of dummies and both left and right impacts), while the other vehicle, 
the Intrepid, had difficulty, particularly with the Nij injury criteria 
performance limits. Of course, neither of these vehicles was designed 
with the offset test in mind, so these tests have little relevance to 
the issue of whether vehicles could satisfy such a requirement.
    Some vehicle manufacturers have expressed concerns about an 
unbelted high speed offset test. GM has expressed concern about the 
ability of vehicle sensing systems to be able to sense the soft, 
deformable barrier face of the offset deformable barrier, and still be 
able to perform well in real world crashes. According to that company, 
its review of actual vehicle data traces plotting deceleration over 
time indicates that the frontal offset barrier impact initially looks 
much like a low speed crash, where no air bag or just a first stage air 
bag might be used. Because of this, a sensor system might not recognize 
until well into the crash that the vehicle is undergoing a higher 
speed, severe crash. GM believes that if this test were made a part of 
the standard, manufacturers would either have to design their sensors 
to fire any time they see a lower speed, soft impact, which would cause 
more low speed deployments, or design the sensors to optimize for real 
world crashes and risk failing this performance test in the standard.
    Honda expressed concern about the similarity in pulses between the 
40 km/h (25 mph) offset deformable barrier and the 56 km/h (35 mph) 
offset deformable barrier crashes. In an August 26, 1999 comment 
submitted to the docket, Honda stated that, even though these tests are 
dissimilar in terms of ultimate severity, the crash pulses looked 
similar during the initial decision period of up to 30 ms. This in part 
reflects the fact that the initial phase of the test is measuring the 
deformation of the soft barrier. According to Honda, the vehicle's 
analytical system will be unable to discern the crash severity and will 
not be able to accurately predict what stage to fire, or even whether 
to fire the air bag in a timely fashion. That company indicated that 
this may result in poor algorithm design.
    For additional analysis of the two alternative unbelted tests, 
readers are referred to the aforementioned paper and supplement 
prepared by our Office of Vehicle Safety Research concerning potential 
test procedures for Standard No. 208 and to the Preliminary Economic 
Assessment which accompanies this SNPRM.
    It is important to note that, whatever unbelted test is included in 
Standard No. 208, manufacturers will be required under the final rule 
to certify all of their vehicles to a wide variety of new test 
requirements, and in a very short period of time. The analysis we 
presented earlier in this document concerning how many vehicles 
currently appear to meet the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier 
requirements for 50th percentile adult male dummies was intended to 
address the allegation that a return to the test would prevent 
continued use of redesigned air bags and require a return to overly 
aggressive air bags; it did not represent an analysis of how easy it 
would be to meet that particular test requirement in the context of the 
overall set of proposed requirements.
    In commenting on the NPRM, vehicle manufacturers indicated that, as 
they consider various air bag designs, they face trade-offs in meeting 
different proposed test requirements. For example, the optimum air bag 
for meeting the unbelted rigid barrier test for the 50th percentile 
adult male driver dummy would be a large air bag filling the space 
between the dummy and the steering wheel. This would allow the 
restraining forces to be imparted earlier in the crash event and exert 
lower g forces on the occupant to allow optimal ride-down from the 
crash. A smaller air bag would be optimum for meeting the unbelted 
perpendicular rigid barrier test for 5th percentile adult female dummy 
in the full forward seating position, since she is positioned closer to 
the air bag and has less ride-down space to fill between the dummy and 
the steering wheel. If an excessively large air bag is used, neck 
readings for the 5th percentile adult female dummy will increase as the 
larger air bag pushes the head back. Of course, the smallest possible 
air bag would be optimum for meeting the proposed low risk deployment 
tests intended to minimize risks from air bags to out-of-position 
occupants. However, as air bags shrink,

[[Page 60580]]

so does their ability to provide protection, especially to larger 
occupants in crashes with potential for serious or fatal injuries. We 
note that while large air bags may be optimum for meeting the 30 mph 
unbelted rigid barrier test with 50th percentile adult male dummies, 
vehicle manufacturers have been able to meet the test with air bags of 
varying sizes.
    Recognizing the issues associated with the need to meet all of the 
proposed tests together, we have tested current vehicles under a 
variety of proposed test procedures. For four of the vehicles for which 
we conducted a 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier test using unbelted 50th 
percentile adult male dummies, we also conducted a 48 km/h (30 mph) 
rigid barrier test using unbelted 5th percentile adult female dummies. 
For all these tests, it bears emphasizing that these vehicles were not 
designed to comply with the final rule that will be issued in this 
rulemaking. Thus, while it is useful to know whether current vehicles 
already meet the tests, the test failures can tell us only which 
vehicles need to be redesigned. They do not indicate that vehicles 
cannot be redesigned in the time provided by TEA 21 to comply with that 
final rule.
    Three of the four unbelted 5th percentile adult female driver dummy 
responses in these tests passed all the injury criteria performance 
limits we are proposing in the SNPRM. (For the same make model 
vehicles, the 50th percentile adult male driver dummy also passed all 
the injury criteria performance limits.). In the fourth test, of the MY 
1999 Dodge Intrepid, the 5th percentile adult female driver dummy 
failed both the chest displacement and Nij performance limits; however 
the 50th percentile adult male driver dummy passed all the relevant 
injury criteria performance limits when tested in the same vehicle.
    Two of the four unbelted 5th percentile adult female passenger 
dummy responses passed all the injury criteria performance limits. The 
MY 1999 Dodge Intrepid slightly exceeded the chest g performance limit 
(with a value of 62.2 g) and the MY 1999 Toyota Tacoma significantly 
failed to meet the Nij performance limit (with a value of 2.65).
    Two of the four vehicles, the MY 1999 Saturn SL1 and the MY 1998 
Ford Taurus, however, passed all the injury criteria performance limits 
for the driver and passenger using both unbelted 5th percentile adult 
female and unbelted 50th percentile adult male dummies in the rigid 
barrier crash tests at 48 km/h (30 mph).
    We have also recently conducted rigid barrier tests at 48 km/h (30 
mph) using belted 50th percentile adult male and belted 5th percentile 
adult female dummies in MY 1998 and 1999 vehicles. In 18 tests 
conducted with the belted 50th percentile adult male dummies, the 
vehicles passed all the proposed injury criteria performance limits for 
both driver and passenger. In 17 tests conducted with belted 5th 
percentile adult female dummies, the vehicles passed all the injury 
criteria performance limits for the passenger dummy; however, the 
driver dummy exceeded the proposed Nij injury criteria performance 
limit in approximately 35% of the tests.
    We also conducted static out-of-position tests using the 5th 
percentile adult female driver dummy and 6-year-old child passenger 
dummy on six MY 1999 vehicles. The vehicles that were selected were the 
same as those used in the 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier test with 
unbelted 50th percentile adult male dummies. (Again, we note that the 
vehicles were not designed with these test requirements in mind.) Four 
out of six vehicles, including the MY 1999 Saturn SL1, passed all the 
static out-of-position test requirements on the driver's side. The 
remaining two vehicles failed the Nij criteria in Position 1, but 
passed all the criteria in Position 2.
    With the 6-year-old child dummies on the passenger side, only one 
vehicle, the MY 1999 Acura RL with a dual stage inflator, met all the 
proposed injury criteria performance limits in both Position 1 and 
Position 2 tests. Only the primary stage was fired in the tests.
    Looking at the various tests we have conducted, it appears that the 
proposed test requirements are achievable by a number of vehicles even 
though they were not designed to comply with those requirements. These 
vehicles meet the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted barrier test with both 
unbelted 50th percentile adult male dummies and unbelted 5th percentile 
adult female dummies, and the driver side out-of-position test, with 
single level inflators. The MY 1999 Saturn SL1 appears to be such a 
vehicle.
    Dual level inflators could make it easier to meet the tests. For 
example, a higher inflation rate could be used for 50th percentile 
adult males, while a lower inflation rate could be used for 5th 
percentile adult female drivers with the seat full forward and for 
child passengers.
    We note that, for the passenger side, a weight sensor or other 
suppression device might be needed to meet passenger side out-of-
position requirements for children, even if a dual level inflator is 
used. Moreover, a weight sensor or other suppression device would 
likely be needed to meet requirements for rear facing infant seats. 
However, the use of a weight sensor or other suppression device on the 
passenger side should not affect the ability of the vehicle to meet the 
proposed unbelted and belted crash test requirements using 50th 
percentile adult male dummies and 5th percentile adult female dummies, 
since the addition of such a device does not affect the characteristics 
of the air bag itself.
    While the proposed requirements appear to be achievable, the number 
of failures illustrate that many vehicles will need to be redesigned in 
a short period of time to meet a highly complex set of new 
requirements. In many cases, manufacturers will be introducing several 
new technologies simultaneously: dual level inflators, seat belt 
sensors, weight/pattern seat sensors, seat track position sensors, more 
complex algorithms, etc.
    In this context, we recognize that simultaneous implementation of 
these various proposals for minimizing risk and enhancing protection 
will necessitate considerable care and effort by the vehicle 
manufacturers. In a normal rulemaking, we would have broad discretion 
to adjust the implementation schedule to facilitate initial compliance. 
In this rulemaking, our discretion to set the schedule for implementing 
the amendments required by TEA 21 is limited by that Act. Our final 
rule must provide that the phasing-in of those amendments begins not 
later than September 1, 2003, and ends not later than September 1, 
2006.
    However, we believe that nothing in TEA 21 derogates our inherent 
authority to make temporary adjustments in the requirements we adopt 
if, in our judgment, such adjustments are necessary or prudent to 
promote the smooth and effective achievement of the goals of the 
amendments. For example, adjustments could be made to test speeds or 
injury criteria. One possibility would be to issue a final rule 
temporarily reducing the maximum speed for the unbelted rigid barrier 
test to 40 km/h (25 mph) (or some other speed, e.g., 44 km/h (27.5 
mph)) and then increasing it to 48 km/h (30 mph) after an appropriate 
period of time, e.g., after the TEA 21 phase-in. Another possibility 
would be to temporarily permit relaxed injury criteria performance 
limits (e.g., 72 g chest acceleration limit instead of 60 g chest 
acceleration limit) in unbelted rigid barrier tests between 25 mph and 
30 mph.

[[Page 60581]]

    This document seeks comment on still another possibility for the 
final rule: permanently reducing the unbelted rigid barrier test speed 
to 40 km/h (25 mph) and temporarily leaving the belted rigid barrier 
test speed at 48 km/h (30 mph). Under the final rule, the latter test 
speed would later, sometime after the TEA 21 phase-in schedule, 
increase to 56 km/h (35 mph).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ We recognize that this alternative would increase the test 
speed of the belted test to the level of the belted test currently 
conducted under NHTSA's NCAP program. If this alternative were 
chosen, NHTSA contemplates retaining the current NCAP test speed 
through the end of the TEA 21 phase-in period. The agency would then 
review that NCAP test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that we have previously considered, in rulemaking, a 40 km/
h (25 mph) maximum speed for the unbelted rigid barrier test. However, 
we considered this issue in the context of Standard No. 208's historic 
requirements, i.e., testing only with 50th percentile adult male 
dummies and the old injury criteria, which did not include neck 
criteria.
    Fifteen years ago, in our rulemaking establishing automatic 
protection requirements, GM advocated a 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted rigid 
barrier test to facilitate passive interiors, i.e., building in safety 
by improving such things as the steering columns and padding. At that 
time, GM believed passive interiors would be better than automatic 
restraints, i.e., air bags or automatic seat belts.
    Based on available test data, we concluded that it was generally 
evident that it was within the state-of-the art to pass Standard No. 
208's head and chest injury criteria at 40 km/h (25 mph) with unbelted 
50th percentile adult male dummies without air bags. We stated that we 
had virtually no data on what diminution in safety would occur if the 
lower standard were used and that there was no basis for making such a 
change. See final rule published in the Federal Register (49 FR 28962, 
28995; July 17, 1984).
    We also note that, for the vehicles we recently tested at 48 km/h 
(30 mph) for this rulemaking, we also tested a small subset at 40 km/h 
(25 mph) with unbelted 50th percentile male driver and passenger 
dummies. In the three tests, the vehicles passed all the proposed 
driver and passenger injury criteria performance limits with one 
exception involving a model year 1999 Toyota Tacoma. The passenger 
dummy exceeded the proposed Nij limit in this test. We also conducted 
two 40 km/h (25 mph) rigid barrier crash tests with unbelted 5th 
percentile adult female driver and passenger dummies. Again, the 
vehicles passed all the proposed driver and passenger injury criteria 
performance limits with one exception involving the model year 1999 
Toyota Tacoma. Again, the passenger dummy exceeded the proposed Nij 
limit on the passenger side.
    In light of the fact that vehicle manufacturers are now 
recommending an unbelted rigid barrier crash test alternative that 
omits the oblique tests, we also note that we addressed the possibility 
of eliminating the unbelted oblique tests in the aftermath of that same 
rulemaking. See NPRM published in the Federal Register (50 FR 14589, 
14592-14594) on April 12, 1985, and final rule published in the Federal 
Register (51 FR 9800, 9801-9802) on March 21, 1986.
    We decided to retain the oblique tests in that rulemaking. We noted 
that although oblique tests generally produce lower injury levels, they 
do not consistently produce that result. We also expressed concern that 
air bags that only need to meet a perpendicular impact could be made 
much smaller. We stated that, in such a case, in an oblique crash, an 
unbelted occupant could roll off the smaller bag and strike the A-
pillar or instrument panel.
    We welcome comments on how we should consider our past decisions 
and the rationales underlying them in this current rulemaking.
    We note that while we are seeking comments on alternative unbelted 
tests, including alternative speeds and injury criteria, we plan to 
adopt a single unbelted test or set of unbelted tests for the final 
rule. That is, we do not plan to provide a manufacturer option in this 
area. Depending on the comments, we may adopt some combination of the 
tests discussed above.
    To help us reach a decision on what unbelted test requirements 
should be included in Standard No. 208, we request commenters to 
address the following questions:
    1. How do the two proposed alternative unbelted crash tests compare 
in representing the range of frontal crashes which have a potential to 
cause serious injuries or fatalities? Please answer this separately for 
the low and high end of the proposed range of upper speeds for each 
alternative, i.e., 40 and 48 km/h (25 and 30 mph) for the unbelted 
rigid barrier test and 48 and 56 km/h (30 mph and 35 mph) for the 
unbelted offset deformable barrier test. In answering this question, 
please consider the entire range of tests incorporated into each 
alternative. Please specifically address representativeness with 
respect to (a) crash pulses, (b) crash severities, and (c) occupant 
positioning, and provide separate answers for crashes likely to cause 
fatalities and crashes likely to cause serious but not fatal injuries.
    2. How do the two alternatives compare with respect to 
repeatability, reproducibility, objectivity, and practicability issues?
    3. What effects would each of the alternative types of unbelted 
tests and each of the alternative maximum test speeds discussed in this 
SNPRM have on air bag design, performance, risks and benefits, and on 
amount of depowering permitted? Answers should focus particularly on 
unbelted 40 km/h (25 mph)/belted 56 km/h (35 mph) versus unbelted 48 
km/h (30 mph)/belted 48 km/h (30 mph), and on unbelted 56 km/h (35 
mph)offset/belted 48 km/h (30 mph) versus unbelted 48 km/h (30 mph)/
belted 48 km/h (30 mph). To what extent can it be concluded that a 
countermeasure needed to meet each alternative would ensure protection 
in frontal crashes not directly represented by the tests included in 
that alternative, e.g., crashes with different pulses (harder or 
softer) or different severities (more severe or less severe)? Please 
quantify, to the extent possible, the amount of protection that would 
be ensured in other types of crashes, i.e., what the injury criteria 
measurements would be. Please address whether and how the answer to 
this question would differ for the low and high end of the proposed 
range of upper speeds for each alternative.
    4. To what extent would current air bag systems (or air bag systems 
being developed for near-term application) have difficulty 
distinguishing between a high speed offset deformable barrier test and 
a low speed crash during the time the decision whether to deploy the 
air bag must be made? What technological solutions, e.g., advanced 
sensing systems (including use of satellite sensors and improved 
algorithms) are available to address this potential problem? How should 
we consider this issue in selecting among the available unbelted crash 
test alternatives?
    5. One reason for adopting a test requirement that is less 
stringent than another during the TEA 21 phase-in period would be to 
provide an extra margin of flexibility and facilitate compliance during 
the time vehicle manufacturers are introducing advanced air bags 
incorporating multiple new technologies. An example of such an approach 
would be the phase-in sequence described above in which the final rule 
would provide that the maximum speed for the unbelted rigid barrier 
test would initially be 40 km/h

[[Page 60582]]

(25 mph) (or some other speed) and then increase to 48 km/h (30 mph) 
after an appropriate fixed period of time. If we were to adopt a less 
stringent test requirement for an initial period, how long should that 
period be and why?
    6. What factors should we consider in selecting a maximum speed for 
the two alternatives?
    7. The severity of a crash test requirement could be adjusted 
either by reducing the maximum speed at which the test is conducted or 
by leaving the maximum speed unchanged, but relaxing the injury 
criteria performance limits for the tests that are conducted near the 
upper end of the range of test speeds. For example, if we were to 
reduce temporarily the severity of the unbelted up-to-48 km/h (30 mph) 
rigid barrier test, one possible way of doing this would be to reduce 
the stringency of the injury criteria performance limits between 40 km/
h (25 mph) (or some other speed) and 48 km/h (30 mph). While this could 
provide significant increased flexibility to vehicle manufacturers, it 
could still address the issue of protection in higher speed crashes. 
Also, certification and compliance test data could be directly compared 
to that obtained in 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier crash tests over 
many years. We specifically request comments on this approach and what 
injury criteria performance limits would be appropriate if we were to 
adopt it.
    8. Should we consider combining aspects from each of the two 
unbelted alternatives? For example, the unbelted rigid barrier test 
alternative includes both perpendicular and angle tests. A variation on 
this approach might be to retain the perpendicular test, but replace 
the angle tests with offset deformable barrier tests. We request 
comments on this or any other possible ways of combining aspects from 
the two unbelted alternatives.
    9. Given the existing and anticipated advanced air bag 
technologies, to what extent is it necessary, and why, to link 
decisions about improving protection to decisions about minimizing the 
risks? What portion of those risks would remain after full use of 
existing and anticipated advanced air bag technologies?
    10. If it is believed that a return to the 48 km/h (30 mph) 
unbelted barrier test would necessitate an increase in the power of any 
vehicle's air bags, indicate which models would need air bags with 
increased power and indicate the potential amount of increase. Explain 
how the amount of needed increase was determined and the effects on 
safety of such an increase.
    11. To what extent could non-air bag changes, such as improved 
crush zones, be used to avoid any increases in air bag aggressivity if 
there were a return to the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted barrier test? To 
what extent can advanced features such as improved fold patterns, 
lighter fabrics and recessed air bag modules be used to offset, or more 
than offset, any increases in power so that those increases do not 
result in increased air bag aggressivity?
    12. To what extent could the various types of static suppression be 
used to reduce the risk to children? In what circumstances would such 
suppression not minimize risk? To what extent could the lower level of 
dual-level inflators be linked with sensors of such factors as crash 
severity, seat position, belt use and weight/pattern be used to reduce 
the risk to drivers who adjust their seats full forward or nearly full 
forward? In what circumstances would such technology not minimize risk? 
If there would be residual risk to children or to those drivers after 
the use of those technologies, what is the magnitude of that risk? To 
what extent would that residual risk be affected by the decision 
regarding an unbelted test requirement?
    13. To what extent does each vehicle manufacturer plan to take full 
advantage, across their vehicle fleets, of the advanced air bag and 
other technologies mentioned in questions 11 and 12 above?
    14. Given that available test data indicate that some vehicles 
already meet or exceed the injury criteria for 50th percentile male 
dummies in unbelted 48 km/h (30 mph) tests, explain why those margins 
of compliance cannot be increased in the time provided by the TEA 21 
schedule and why other vehicles cannot be designed to achieve similar 
margins of compliance.
    15. Provide test data and analysis to support the answers to 
questions 1-14.
    16. To what extent do available test data regarding advanced air 
bag technologies support the appropriateness of or need for each of the 
alternative types unbelted tests and each of the alternative maximum 
test speeds discussed in this SNPRM? Answers should focus particularly 
on unbelted 40 km/h (25 mph)/belted 56 km/h (35 mph) versus unbelted 48 
km/h (30 mph)/belted 48 km/h (30 mph), and on unbelted 56 km/h (35 
mph)offset/belted 48 km/h (30 mph) versus unbelted 48 km/h (30 mph)/
belted 48 km/h (30 mph).
    17. What lead time would be needed for a 56 km/h (35 mph) belted 
rigid barrier test requirement?

ii. Proposed Array of Crash Test Requirements.

    As noted earlier, vehicle manufacturers argued that some of the 
crash test requirements we proposed in the NPRM were redundant, given 
the other tests. In developing this SNPRM, we have carefully considered 
whether we could reduce the number of proposed tests without 
significantly affecting the benefits of the NPRM. Using the methodology 
for counting tests discussed earlier in this document, we are proposing 
a total of nine crash tests instead of 14.
    The specific nine tests differ, of course, depending on which 
alternative unbelted tests are included.
    The set of nine tests which includes the unbelted rigid barrier 
test includes the following tests:

--belted rigid barrier test (perpendicular and up to  30 
degrees) using 50th percentile adult male dummies (counts as three 
tests: one at +30 degrees, one perpendicular, and one at -30 degrees);
--belted rigid barrier test (perpendicular only) using 5th percentile 
adult female dummies;
--unbelted rigid barrier test using 50th percentile adult male dummies 
(counts as three tests);
--unbelted rigid barrier test (perpendicular only) using 5th percentile 
adult female dummies; and
--belted up-to-40 km/h (25 mph) offset deformable barrier test (driver 
side of the vehicle engaged with the barrier) using 5th percentile 
adult female dummies.

    This set of proposed tests eliminates five tests that were included 
in the NPRM. First, for both the belted and unbelted rigid barrier 
tests, we are proposing to test the 5th percentile adult female dummy 
in the perpendicular test only, i.e., not in oblique tests. This would 
eliminate four tests.
    In many cases, crash tests become less stringent as dummies become 
lighter and/or closer to the air bag. However, this is not true if the 
dummy is so close that it contacts the air bag early in the deployment 
process. For the rigid barrier test using 5th percentile adult female 
dummies, the condition in which this would most likely occur is in a 
perpendicular impact. Therefore, we believe that the perpendicular 
tests (belted and unbelted) would address this concern. We also believe 
that, if the vehicle can pass the perpendicular test with 5th 
percentile female dummies and the oblique tests with 50th percentile 
adult male dummies, it will also pass

[[Page 60583]]

the oblique tests using 5th percentile adult female dummies.
    The primary function of the oblique test is to assure a wide air 
bag. The 50th percentile adult male dummy presents a greater challenge 
than the 5th percentile adult female dummy does in such a test. Thus, 
the oblique tests with the 5th percentile adult female dummy would add 
test costs without providing additional safety benefits.
    Second, for the belted up-to-40 km/h (25 mph) offset deformable 
barrier test, we are proposing that the test be conducted only with the 
driver side of the vehicle engaged with the barrier. This would 
eliminate one additional test. We believe that testing the vehicle on 
the driver side only would be a sufficient means of testing air bag 
sensing systems.
    We note, by contrast, that we believe it would be necessary to test 
the vehicle with each side of the vehicle engaged if we adopted the 
unbelted high speed offset deformable barrier test instead of the 
unbelted rigid barrier test to ensure that the air bags are wide enough 
to provide protection for occupants that move forward in a direction 
that is either to the right or left of perpendicular.
    The set of nine tests which includes the unbelted high speed offset 
deformable barrier test includes the following tests:

--belted rigid barrier test (perpendicular and  30 degrees) 
using 50th percentile adult male dummies (counts as three tests);
--belted rigid barrier test (perpendicular only) using 5th percentile 
adult female dummies;
--unbelted offset deformable barrier test (driver and passenger sides 
of vehicle engaging the barrier) using 50th percentile adult male 
dummies (counts as two tests);
--unbelted offset deformable barrier test (driver and passenger sides 
of vehicle engaging the barrier) using 5th percentile adult female 
dummies (counts as two tests); and
--belted up-to-40 km/h (25 mph) offset deformable barrier test (driver 
side of the vehicle engaged with the barrier) using 5th percentile 
adult female dummies.

    In the NPRM, we proposed specifications for the deformable barrier 
to be used in offset deformable barrier tests. The specifications for 
this barrier would be included in Part 587. We are not republishing the 
specifications in this SNPRM but expect to proceed to a final rule in a 
separate document. We do not expect any significant changes from the 
NPRM.
    We also proposed in the NPRM to include, for all crash tests 
specified by the standard, certain vehicle integrity requirements. The 
proposal specified that vehicle doors may not open during the crash 
test and that, after the crash test, it must be possible for 
technicians to open the doors and move the seats as necessary to allow 
evacuation of all occupants.
    Several commenters raised concerns about these proposed 
requirements, including ones relating to objectivity. After considering 
the comments, we have decided to drop these requirements from the 
SNPRM.
    While we believe it is important for doors to remain closed during 
crashes, and for occupants to be extricated from a vehicle after a 
crash, we believe that significant additional development of the 
proposed test procedures would be necessary for a final rule. Moreover, 
we believe this subject is sufficiently distinct from advanced air bags 
so as to best be considered in other contexts, particularly with the 
need for us to issue a final rule on advanced air bags by March 1, 
2000.

iii. Location and Seating Procedure for 5th Percentile Adult Female 
Dummy

    A seating procedure for the 5th percentile adult female test dummy 
is detailed in section S16 of the proposed regulatory text. The 
procedure takes into account two separate concerns. The first issue is 
where to place the vehicle seat during testing; the second issue is how 
to place the dummy in the vehicle seat.
    From the outset, crash tests with 50th percentile adult male 
dummies have been conducted with the seat in the middle seat track 
position. We do not propose to change that provision. However, we have 
proposed in the NPRM and this SNPRM to conduct tests with 5th 
percentile adult female dummies with both the driver and passenger 
seats in the full forward position. We believe that this is the most 
vulnerable position for occupants in the real world and is also the 
most demanding for the occupant protection system. Individual drivers 
who are approximately the size of the 5th percentile adult female dummy 
are the most likely, because of their size, to sit farther forward than 
the middle seat track position and are more likely than larger drivers 
to use the full forward position. Occupants of any size may 
occasionally use that seat position on the passenger side, depending on 
the passenger or cargo space needs in the back seat. As a general 
principle, we believe that people should be able to safely use a seat 
as it was designed to be used.
    If manufacturers find they cannot provide protection to individuals 
properly positioned in the forward track position, they have the option 
of moving that position back, particularly on the passenger side. With 
respect to the driver side, manufacturers might have to make other 
adjustments to the vehicle, such as providing adjustable pedals, that 
would allow small-statured drivers to operate the vehicle.
    Nevertheless, we are aware that the placement of the 5th percentile 
adult female dummy in the full forward position tests the occupant 
restraint system under a condition that may rarely occur in the real 
world. The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute 
(UMTRI) has found that drivers who are approximately the same size as 
the 5th percentile adult female dummy generally do not sit in the full 
forward seat track position. Other commenters have stated that the 
front passenger seat would never need to be placed in the full forward 
position due to occupant size. Rather, placement of the passenger seat 
in that track position would only occur on those rare occasions when 
the entire space in the back seat was needed for cargo or other 
purposes.
    Another concern is whether, in order to meet tests for conditions 
that rarely occur in the real world, manufacturers might select air bag 
designs that offer reduced fatality-reducing protection for conditions 
that are more common.
    We also note that, under our proposal, the 5th percentile adult 
female dummy would also be tested on the driver side in two out-of-
position tests that place the dummy directly on the air bag module. 
While this would not ensure protection in a high speed crash, it would 
ensure that the air bag does not cause harm.
    Accordingly, we are interested in comments on whether testing the 
5th percentile adult female dummy with the seat position in something 
other than the full forward seat track position would adequately 
protect properly-seated individuals of all sizes while potentially 
allowing more design freedom.
    The proposed seating procedure was developed considering the work 
performed by the SAE Hybrid III 5th Seating Procedure Task Group and by 
NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC). The 50th percentile 
Hybrid III adult male dummy is the only dummy currently used for 
Standard No. 208 compliance crash testing. For that testing, the dummy 
is positioned according to S10 of the standard. As part of that 
procedure, the H-point of the dummy is located using the manikin

[[Page 60584]]

and procedures in SAE Standard J826.\24\ For the 5th percentile adult 
female dummy, the SAE task group is currently voting and commenting on 
the acceptability of a procedure that uses an SAE Standard J826 50th 
percentile adult male manikin with reduced length legs to locate the H-
point of the 5th percentile adult female dummy. Then a dummy 
positioning procedure is used to place the female dummy at the H-point 
located by the modified manikin. It is unknown when this procedure will 
be completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The following dockets discussed the use of the J826 manikin 
for the 50th percentile adult male dummy.
    1. 74-14-Notice 39: NPRM to amend Part 572, allowing optional 
use of Hybrid II or III, sunset for use of Hybrid II.
    2. 74-14-Notice 45: Final Rule adopting Hybrid III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the absence of an SAE-accepted seating procedure for the 5th 
percentile adult female dummy, we decided to perform some of our own 
positioning tests so that a 5th percentile adult female procedure would 
be available for this rule. VRTC positioned a 5th percentile adult 
female dummy several times in various vehicles using a positioning 
procedure without intermediate seating devices. The H-point location 
was measured and the variation in H-point location between repeats was 
reviewed. Then the 5th percentile adult female prototype manikin 
(supplied by Ford Motor Company) was used to locate the H-point with 
respect to the seat. The variation in H-point location between repeats 
was reviewed.
    The procedures demonstrated that the location of the H-point of the 
5th percentile adult female dummy and the H-point of the 5th percentile 
adult female prototype manikin with respect to the seat were very 
similar. Longitudinally, the difference in the average ``H'' point 
location between the dummy and the manikin varied from 1 mm to 17 mm 
(0.04 in. to 0.67 in.). Vertically, the comparable figures were 4 mm to 
10 mm (0.16 in. to 0.41 in.). Since there was little difference between 
the two methods, the extra step of using the manikin to determine the 
H-point location was found to be unnecessary. In addition, there is no 
guarantee of when the 5th percentile adult female manikin would be 
available and accepted for use by the safety community. Therefore, VRTC 
developed the procedures that are in section S16 of the proposed rule.
    We believe it would be appropriate to use the manikin procedure for 
the 50th percentile adult male dummy and not for the 5th percentile 
adult female dummy. The 50th percentile adult male dummy (78 kg (171 
pounds)) is 28 kg (63 pounds) heavier than the 5th percentile adult 
female (49 kg (108 pounds)) and therefore much more difficult to 
maneuver into position. The 50th percentile adult male manikin H-point 
provides a specific target for this heavy dummy so that it can be 
positioned in the seat. The lighter 5th percentile adult female dummy 
does not need this target. In addition, the 5th percentile adult female 
buttocks profile may fit differently into a highly curved fitted seat 
than the 50th percentile adult male dummy and therefore the use of the 
50th percentile adult manikin for the 5th percentile adult female dummy 
seating procedure may cause more variability in dummy positioning. Thus 
we believe the proposed non-manikin procedure makes it easier to 
repeatedly position the 5th percentile adult female dummy.
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.
    Infants in rear-facing child safety seats (RFCSS) 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 we emphasize that infants in RFCSS must 
never be placed in the front seat unless the air bag is turned off.
    In the NPRM, in order to address the risks air bags pose to infants 
in RFCSS, we proposed two alternative test requirements, the selection 
of which would be at the option of the manufacturer. The two 
manufacturer options were: (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 Child Restraint Air Bag Interaction (CRABI) dummy in a RFCSS.
    Under the NPRM, 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 RFCSS, and also during rough road tests. The RFCSS would be 
placed in a variety of different positions during the static tests. In 
order to ensure that the suppression feature did 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.
    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 
RFCSS. In the case of air bags with multiple inflation levels, the 
injury criteria would need to be met for all levels.
    For our SNPRM, we are proposing the same two basic options, but 
with several changes.
    First, under the NPRM, manufacturers would have been 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 MY carline of which the vehicle is a part was 
first offered for sale to a consumer. For our SNPRM, manufacturers 
would be required to assure compliance using any child restraint 
included in a list of representative child restraints that we are 
proposing to add as an appendix to Standard No. 208. The list would be 
periodically updated to reflect changes in the types and designs of 
available child restraints. We believe this approach addresses the 
practicability and cost concerns raised by commenters but still ensures 
that vehicle manufacturers take account of the variety of different 
RFCSS as they design their systems. The issue of how we selected the 
proposed list of child restraints is discussed later in this notice.
    Second, our SNPRM drops the proposed rough road tests. We proposed 
those 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. The proposed 
tests were intended to ensure such devices were 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.
    After considering the comments, we have tentatively concluded that 
it is not necessary to include rough road tests in Standard No. 208. As 
we have discussed in other areas, in the context of a statutory scheme 
requiring us to issue performance requirements (as opposed to one 
requiring design requirements or government approval), it is neither 
appropriate nor possible for us to

[[Page 60585]]

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.
    We believe rough road performance is an area that vehicle 
manufacturers will consider and address in the absence of Federal 
requirements. We also note that a number of technical issues have been 
raised about the proposed rough road tests, including how to keep 
dummies from falling over during the tests. We do not believe it would 
be a good use of agency resources at this time to make further efforts 
to develop test procedures in this area. If necessary, failures to 
assure adequate air bag performance in the rough road context could be 
addressed under our authority to investigate safety-related defects.
    Third, for the proposed static tests that must result in 
deactivation of the passenger air bag, we have reduced the number of 
positions in which the infant dummy/child seat is tested from seven to 
five. Our proposal adds one new position, where the RFCSS is oriented 
so that the infant faces forward and the seat is then tipped against 
the instrument panel. This is a position that could occur as a result 
of pre-impact braking if the RFCSS is not secured by the vehicle belt 
system. We have dropped four of the positions proposed in the NPRM in 
order to reduce test complexity and costs. We believe that systems that 
would be suppressed at the five proposed positions would also be 
suppressed at the other positions.
    Fourth, for the tests designed to ensure that the suppression 
feature does not inappropriately suppress the air bag for small 
statured adults, human beings could be used in the place of 5th 
percentile adult female dummies. The subject of permitting human beings 
to be used in place of dummies for certain static tests is discussed in 
the next section.
    Fifth, we have made a change with respect to how air bags with 
multiple inflation levels would be tested for the low risk deployment 
test. As indicated above, we proposed in the NPRM to require injury 
criteria to be met for all levels of inflation. This reflected the fact 
that a child in a RFCSS would be extremely close to the passenger air 
bag in any crash.
    We have not changed our basic philosophy on this issue, but want to 
address the possibility that vehicles might be designed so that only a 
lower inflation level deploys in the presence of a RFCSS, regardless of 
crash severity. To address this possibility, we are proposing in this 
SNPRM to require injury criteria to be met for any stage or combination 
of stages which may deploy in the presence of an infant in a RFCSS in a 
rigid barrier crash test at speeds up to 64 km/h (40 mph). We believe 
that all stages of inflation that would deploy in the presence of a 
RFCSS would be encompassed in crash tests at that range of severity 
levels.
    b. Safety of Young 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. Their small size and weight also makes them more 
vulnerable to injury when interacting with a deploying air bag. We 
strongly recommend that young children ride in the back seat, because 
the back seat is safer whether or not a vehicle has air bags.
    In the NPRM, in order to address the risks air bags pose to young 
children who do ride in the front seat, we proposed requirements using 
both 3-year old and 6-year old child dummies. We proposed four 
alternative test requirements, the selection of which would be at the 
option of the manufacturer. Manufacturers could select different 
options for the 3-year-old and 6-year-old dummies.
    The four manufacturer options were: (1) test requirements for an 
air bag suppression feature that suppresses the air bag when a child is 
present, e.g., 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 and 6-year-old child dummies, or (4) full scale 
dynamic out-of-position test requirements, which include pre-impact 
braking as part of the test procedure.
    Our SNPRM follows the same basic approach as the NPRM, but with 
several differences.
    Most significantly, the number and type of manufacturer options are 
changed somewhat. Our SNPRM continues to include, with certain changes, 
the first and third of the options listed above, i.e., test 
requirements for an air bag suppression feature that suppresses the air 
bag when a child is present, e.g., a weight or size sensor, and test 
requirements for low risk deployment involving deployment of the air 
bag in the presence of out-of-position 3-year-old and 6-year-old child 
dummies.
    Our SNPRM also includes the second option, test requirements for an 
air bag suppression feature that suppresses the air bag when an 
occupant is out-of-position, but with major changes. The fourth option, 
testing with dynamic pre-crash braking, has been dropped from this 
rulemaking.
    In the sections which follow, we discuss the three options we are 
including in this SNPRM, as well as our reasons for any significant 
changes and for dropping the fourth option.
    Requirements for an air bag suppression feature (e.g., weight or 
size sensor) that suppresses the air bag when a child is present. As 
discussed in the NPRM, these requirements would be very similar to 
those being proposed with respect to a suppression feature for infants 
in RFCSS. Under the NPRM, 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 or 6-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. Some of the 
positions specify placing the dummy in a forward-facing child seat or 
booster seat. The air bag would be required to be activated during 
specified tests using a 5th percentile adult female dummy.
    For the SNPRM, we have made a number of changes similar to those 
discussed above with respect to a suppression feature for infants in 
RFCSS. In particular:
     Instead of requiring manufacturers to assure compliance in 
tests using any child restraint which was manufactured for sale in the 
United States for a specified number of years prior to manufacture, we 
would require them to assure compliance using any child restraint 
included in a list of representative child restraints that we are 
proposing to add as an appendix to Standard No. 208.
     We are dropping the proposed rough road tests.
     For the proposed static tests which must result in 
deactivation of the passenger air bag, we have reduced the number of 
positions in which the child dummy or child dummy/child seat are 
tested. For the three-year-old child dummy, the number of positions is 
reduced from 17 to 10. For the six-year-old child dummy, the number of 
positions is reduced from nine to six. We believe that systems that 
would be suppressed at the proposed positions would also be suppressed 
at the other positions.
    We are also proposing to allow manufacturers to comply with and 
certify to these suppression requirements using children, instead of

[[Page 60586]]

3-year-old and 6-year-old child dummies. Adult females could also be 
used in the place of 5th percentile adult female dummies for the 
portions of those test requirements which make sure that the air bag is 
activated for adults.
    We are proposing to permit manufacturers to use human beings in 
light of concerns that current dummies may not be sufficiently human-
like to be recognized by some of the advanced technologies under 
development. For example, suppression devices that work by sensing the 
distributed weight pattern of a human being may not recognize the 
pattern of a test dummy. If a manufacturer selects this option, the 
requirements would need to be met at each of the relevant positions for 
any human being within a specified weight/height range for 3-year-old 
and 6-year-old children and 5th percentile adult females.
    It is important to emphasize that these tests simply involve a 
child or adult assuming specified positions in the vehicle, with a 
technician checking (typically by looking at a light) whether the air 
bag would be activated or deactivated; these tests do not involve 
deploying the air bag or moving the vehicle. To ensure absolute safety, 
we are proposing to require manufacturers selecting this option to 
provide a method to assure that the air bag will not activate during 
testing; such assurance may be made by removal of the air bag. The 
manufacturer would also be required to provide a method to assure that 
the same test results would be obtained if the air bag had not been 
deactivated or removed.
    Test requirements for a feature that suppresses the air bag when a 
child is out-of-position. As discussed in the NPRM, we believe that a 
feature that suppresses the air bag when an occupant is out-of-
position, either initially or because of moving into such a location 
during pre-crash braking, needs to be tested very differently from one 
that suppresses the air bag whenever a child is present. While various 
static 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 moves 
into an out-of-position location. This is because one of the key 
criteria in determining whether the dynamic out-of-position suppression 
feature is effective is timing, i.e., whether the feature 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). We have 
accordingly developed separate requirements for such dynamic 
suppression devices.
    Under the NPRM, if this option were 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 stored.
    In the NPRM, we summarized the proposed test requirements as 
follows:

    [The] 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.  . . .
    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 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.

63 FR 49974, September 18, 1998.
    We received a number of comments on our proposal in this area. 
These comments were submitted by manufacturers, suppliers, industry 
groups and safety organizations.
    While the comments indicated general support for a test option that 
would permit this type of suppression design, the commenters raised 
many issues about the feasibility and appropriateness of the agency's 
proposed test procedure. We note that while much work is currently 
being done on the development of dynamic automatic suppression systems 
(DASS), the technology is still not mature. In addition, a number of 
differing technologies are currently being considered. Each one of 
these technologies has particular attributes which affect the 
appropriateness of the means used to evaluate its performance. This 
makes our task in formulating performance requirements and test 
procedures much more difficult.
    For this SNPRM, we have decided to drop the out-of-position 
suppression system test proposed in the NPRM. After considering the 
comments, we have concluded that procedure has several flaws.
    First, the use of a test headform, while allowing a quasi-static, 
in-vehicle test, appears to be inappropriate for several technologies 
now under consideration. In particular, the use of a headform alone, 
without an accompanying torso, presents severe difficulties for 
ultrasound based systems. In actual use, as opposed to a test, these 
systems use sound reflections from the torso as well as the head, in 
order to locate and track an occupant.
    We are also concerned that the use of a headform alone would not be 
appropriate for a DASS that uses information from multiple types of 
sensors. For example, seat belt sensors, seat mat pressure sensors, 
seat-mounted capacitance sensors, and seat location sensors might be 
incorporated in a suppression system to locate an occupant or measure 
the characteristics of an occupant and to assist the system in deciding 
whether to suppress an air bag.
    Second, the proposed test procedure's inclusion of a quasi-static, 
in-vehicle test may be inappropriate for evaluating the performance of 
some DASS designs. A system using inputs such as crash severity (change 
in velocity, rate of deceleration, etc.) could not be adequately tested 
by a quasi-static test. Similarly, such a test may not be adequately 
representative of an actual crash.
    However, we believe that DASS holds significant promise for 
improving occupant safety. Instead of foreclosing the use of such 
technology as a means of compliance, we have tentatively concluded that 
continued development of this technology warrants a different approach 
to rulemaking.
    We are therefore proposing an option which would specify minimum 
performance requirements for DASS, in conjunction with an amendment to 
our procedures governing petitions for rulemaking (49 CFR Part 552) 
that would facilitate expedited consideration and, if appropriate, 
adoption of a test procedure when technological advances make such 
dynamic suppression systems feasible. Under this SNPRM, we are 
proposing to require manufacturers seeking to manufacture vehicles 
under this compliance option to equip those vehicles with a DASS that 
automatically controls air bag deployment by sensing the location and 
the characteristics of an occupant, and determining, based on that 
information, whether the air bag

[[Page 60587]]

should be deployed. The DASS must be capable of turning off the air bag 
when an occupant enters into an Automatic Suppression Zone (ASZ) 
defined by the vehicle manufacturer.
    The proposal provides for specific expedited rulemaking procedures 
regarding the test procedures for evaluating these systems. Under these 
procedures, interested persons (which as a practical matter would 
likely be either vehicle manufacturers or air bag manufacturers) could 
submit a petition for rulemaking to establish, on an expedited basis, a 
test procedure for evaluating a DASS. Target time limits for each phase 
of such a rulemaking are proposed. As the petition would serve as a 
basis for our expedited adoption of a test procedure, it would need to 
contain specific detailed information. Included in this required 
information would be a complete description of the specifications, 
design, and performance of the system or systems to be tested by the 
suggested test; drawings and/or representative samples of the test 
devices and equipment to be employed in the test; test procedures, 
including test device positioning procedures for the suggested test; 
and data and films generated in performing the proposed test. Of 
course, the test must meet applicable statutory requirements relating 
to Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
    We could reject or withhold consideration of any petition that is 
incomplete. The petition would need to be submitted nine months before 
the requested effective date, to allow sufficient time for agency 
review and public comment.
    While a petitioner could submit confidential information in support 
of its petition, it would need to make public the complete test 
procedure and a sufficient general description of the system to enable 
us to provide a meaningful opportunity for public comment.
    If the agency published a notice proposing the adoption of the 
requested test procedure, it would then consider the public comments 
and decide whether the procedure should be added to Standard No. 208. 
If it decided to do so, and if the procedure were suitable for the DASS 
of any other vehicles, then the procedure could be used by those 
manufacturers of those vehicles as well as by the petitioning 
manufacturer.
    The agency emphasizes that its intention is that Standard No. 208 
ultimately provide that all similar DASSs, e.g., those relying on the 
same types of sensors, would be tested in the same fashion. Initially, 
however, the agency's efforts to facilitate the quick introduction of 
DASSs by conducting expedited rulemakings might result, in some cases, 
in the adoption of different procedures for similar DASSs. To minimize 
this possibility, the agency would expect manufacturers which decide to 
petition for the adoption of a procedure for a DASS, instead of relying 
upon a previously adopted procedure for the same or similar type of 
DASS, to justify the need for a new and different procedure. Further, 
the agency would seek in the long run to amend Standard No. 208 to 
eliminate any unnecessary duplication or variation in test procedures.
    Static tests to assure low-risk deployment of the air bag in the 
presence of out-of-position 3-year-old and 6-year-old child dummies. 
Our proposal in this area is not significantly different from the NPRM. 
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 and 6-year-
old child dummies. We are proposing that it be conducted at two 
positions which tend to be ``worst case'' positions in terms of injury 
risk. We are 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.
    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. While an infant in a RFCSS 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.
    In the NPRM, we proposed that the injury criteria would need to be 
met only for the inflation levels that would be deployed in crashes of 
32 km/h (20 mph) or below. In order to determine what inflation levels 
would deploy in such crashes, we proposed a test procedure which 
included three types of crash tests: a rigid barrier test, an offset 
frontal deformable barrier test, and a pole test.
    For the SNPRM, we are proposing that the injury criteria in static 
out-of-position tests would need to be met only for the levels that 
would be deployed in crashes of 29 km/h (18 mph) or below. We have 
reduced the upper speed from 32 to 29 km/h (20 mph to 18 mph) because 
some vehicle manufacturers may need to deploy both stages of a dual 
stage inflator in crashes with delta V's just over 32 km/h (20 mph), 
and because of the ``gray zone'' where it is uncertain whether one or 
both stages may deploy. We are also proposing to specify only a rigid 
barrier test for purposes of determining what inflation level would 
deploy in such crashes. To the extent that higher inflation level air 
bag deployments do not occur in rigid barrier tests at speeds up to 29 
km/h (18 mph), we do not believe that those higher inflation level air 
bag deployments would occur in offset frontal deformable barrier tests 
or pole crashes at the same speed.
    As noted earlier, we have tested six MY 1999 vehicles to the 
proposed out-of-position tests using 6-year-old child dummies. Only one 
vehicle, the MY 1999 Acura RL with a dual stage inflator, met all the 
proposed injury criteria performance limits for the 6-year-old child 
dummy in both Position 1 and Position 2 tests. This was the only one of 
the six vehicles with a dual stage inflator. Only the first stage was 
fired in the tests. This test illustrates the potential of dual stage 
inflators to meet the proposed out-of-position requirements using 3-
year-old and 6-year-old child dummies.
    Elimination of option for full scale dynamic out-of-position test 
requirements, which include pre-impact braking as part of the test 
procedure. In the NPRM, we included an option under which 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 
unrestrained 3-year-old or 6-year-old child dummies. We have decided to 
drop this option.
    As discussed in the NPRM, this was a new test and there were many 
uncertainties. After considering the comments, we have decided to drop 
this option at this time. We were persuaded by the commenters that 
significant additional development would be needed in the proposed test 
procedure to make it appropriate for a Federal motor vehicle safety 
standard. Moreover, we do not believe that such development could be 
completed in a timely manner for this rulemaking. We also believe the 
other options address the various types of technologies under 
development, and that this one is not necessary. However, as noted 
before, a manufacturer petitioning for a test procedure for dynamic 
automatic suppression systems could suggest a procedure using a full 
scale dynamic barrier test with pre-crash braking.
    c. Safety of Small Teenage and Adult Drivers.
    Out-of-position drivers are at risk from air bags if they are 
extremely close

[[Page 60588]]

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.
    The NPRM, in order to address the risks air bags pose to out-of-
position drivers, we proposed requirements using 5th percentile adult 
female dummies. We proposed three alternative test requirements, the 
selection of which would be at the option of the manufacturer.
    The manufacturer options proposed in the NPRM were 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 
drivers, it is 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 in 
tests with 5th percentile adult female dummies.
    The three manufacturer options proposed in the NPRM were: (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.
    For our SNPRM, we have made a number of changes similar to those 
discussed above with respect to three-year-old and six-year-old 
children, and for the same reasons. Our proposal for test requirements 
for low risk deployment involving deployment of the air bag in the 
presence of out-of-position 5th percentile adult female dummies is 
largely unchanged, although we have made the same change concerning 
level of inflation (i.e., levels that could deploy in a rigid barrier 
crash of up to 29 km/h (18 mph)) for which the test is conducted as 
discussed above with respect to child dummies. Our proposal for test 
requirements for an air bag suppression feature that suppresses the 
driver air bag when the driver is out of position has been replaced 
with one specifying a procedure by which manufacturers can petition for 
a test procedure to be added to Standard No. 208. Finally, we have 
dropped our proposal for full scale dynamic out-of-position test 
requirements.
    While we have carefully considered GM's suggestion that we add out-
of-position tests for adult passengers, we have decided not to make 
such a proposal at this time. Air bag risks to adult passengers are 
relatively low. Air bags do not pose the same risks for adult 
passengers as adult drivers and child passengers. Risks are higher for 
adult drivers because small-statured adults may need to sit relatively 
close to the air bag in order to drive. However, small-statured adults 
do not need to sit close to the passenger air bag. Young children are 
at special risk from air bags because, when unbelted or improperly 
belted, they are easily propelled against the air bag module during 
pre-crash braking.

C. Injury Criteria

    In the NPRM, we proposed injury criteria and performance limits for 
each size dummy. We placed in the public docket a technical paper which 
explained the basis for each of the proposed injury criteria, and for 
the proposed performance limits.
    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, evaluated over a 36 millisecond 
(msec) duration (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 10 kilonewtons (kN) (2,250 pounds).
    Under the NPRM, these and certain additional injury criteria would 
generally have been applied 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.
    For some types of injuries, we proposed alternative injury 
criteria. For chest injury, we proposed two alternatives: a new 
criterion, Combined Thoracic Index (CTI), which we had recently 
developed, or separate limits on chest acceleration and chest 
deflection. We also proposed two alternatives for neck injury criteria: 
an improved neck injury criterion, called Nij, or separate limits on 
flexion, extension, tension, compression and shear.
    For this SNPRM, we have reviewed all relevant comments on the NPRM 
as well as comments and documents submitted by biomechanics specialists 
at NHTSA-sponsored public meetings. Combining this new information with 
our previous analyses, we are proposing, in a number of instances, 
modified injury criteria and performance limits.
    A general discussion of the proposed injury criteria and 
performance limits is presented below. A detailed technical explanation 
is provided in a technical paper which is being placed in the public 
docket. The title of the paper is: ``Development of Improved Injury 
Criteria for the Assessment of Advanced Automotive Restraints Systems--
II.''
1. Head Injury Criteria
    As discussed in the technical report which accompanied the 
September 1998 NPRM, titled ``Development of Improved Injury Criteria 
for the Assessment of Advanced Automotive Restraint Systems,'' limits 
for the head injury criterion (HIC), evaluated over a 36 millisecond 
time interval, were proposed for the 50th percentile adult male, 5th 
percentile adult female, 6 year-old child, 3 year-old child and 12-
month-old infant dummies.
    Due to uncertainties regarding head injuries for children, we had 
investigated various scaling methods for developing HIC performance 
limits for the various size test dummies. The HIC limits proposed in 
the NPRM reflected a methodology that included both geometrical and 
material property scaling using the properties of the cranial sutures. 
This method was based on the assumption that the pediatric skull 
deformation is controlled by properties of the cranial sutures, rather 
than the skull bones.
    Comments received in response to the NPRM and at a public meeting 
held on April 20, 1999 focused primarily on two issues: (1) the time 
duration used for the computation of HIC and (2) the scaling of HIC for 
the child dummies. In general, commenters urged that more conservative 
values for HIC should be adopted for the child dummies and especially 
for the 12-month-old CRABI infant dummy. Commenters cited differences 
in structure between the compliant infant skull with soft cranial 
sutures and the adult skull in addition to the uncertain tolerances of 
the infant's brain.
    AAMA recommended that the duration for the HIC computations be 
limited to 15 milliseconds with a limit of 700 for the 50th percentile 
adult male dummy, which is consistent with Canadian Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 208. By way of comparison, Standard No. 208 
currently specifies, for that dummy, HIC computed over 36 milliseconds 
but with a limit of 1000.
    The basis for AAMA's recommended 15 millisecond duration was that, 
in the original biomechanical skull fracture

[[Page 60589]]

data from which HIC was derived, no specimen experienced a skull 
fracture and/or brain damage with a HIC duration greater than 13 
milliseconds. AAMA also argued that HIC 36 overestimates the risk of 
injury for long-duration head impacts with air bags. That organization 
cited a study where human volunteers who were restrained by air bags 
experienced HIC 36 greater than 1000 and did not experience brain 
injury or skull fracture.
    We note that NHTSA has previously been asked to limit the HIC 
duration to 15 or 17 milliseconds. In its earliest form, the HIC was 
calculated over the whole acceleration-time pulse duration without an 
imposed limiting time interval. Essentially, HIC values were calculated 
for all possible time increments starting with one millisecond and 
ending with the whole duration of the pulse including every time 
duration increment in between. The maximum value from this entire set 
was the HIC value used.
    On October 17, 1986, we issued a final rule adopting a maximum time 
interval of 36 milliseconds for calculating HIC. 51 FR 37028. We 
recognized that available human volunteer tests demonstrated that the 
probability of injury in long duration events was low, but reasoned 
that the agency should take a cautious approach and not significantly 
change the expected pass/fail ratios that the then unlimited HIC 
provided. Evaluation of a 17 millisecond limit against various test 
sets from NCAP and FMVSS 208 testing available at the time was found to 
reduce the failure rate from 46% to 35%. This fact led us to reject a 
request to reduce the HIC time interval to 15 to 17 milliseconds 
without a commensurate reduction of the maximum HIC value.
    However, to somewhat accommodate to the apparent over-stringency of 
the limited HIC for long duration events, we did limit the maximum time 
interval to 36 milliseconds. This allowed the maximum average long 
duration acceleration to rise to a limit of 60 g's.
    Today's proposal for reducing the 36 millisecond HIC time to 15 
milliseconds differs from what we previously considered because it is 
accompanied by a reduction in the maximum allowed value of HIC from 
1000 to 700. Based on an analysis of 295 recent NCAP tests, we have 
determined that the stringency of HIC15/700 and HIC36/1000 appear to be 
equivalent for long duration pulses. This is because while the HIC 15 
produces a lower numerical value for long duration events, its lower 
failure threshold, 700, compensates for this reduction. This is borne 
out by the fact that of the 295 NCAP tests examined, 260 passed and 18 
failed both criteria, 10 tests that failed HIC 15 passed HIC 36, while 
7 tests that failed HIC 36, passed HIC 15. We also note that for pulse 
durations shorter than approximately 25 milliseconds, the HIC 15=700 
requirement is more stringent than the HIC 36=1000 requirement. We 
believe this increased stringency would provide a desirable added 
measure of safety for the highly scaled, short duration HIC limits 
proposed for evaluating those impact events where children and small 
statured adults are involved. Thus, we are proposing to employ a 15 
millisecond time interval whenever calculating the HIC function and 
limiting the maximum response of the adult male to 700 and limiting the 
response of the smaller dummies to suitably scaled maximums.
    AAMA recommended employing a scaling technique for HIC15 that 
accounts for the differences in geometry and failure properties between 
children and adults. Several other researchers have also recommended, 
using similar techniques and assumptions, scaled performance limits for 
HIC15. We have also performed additional analysis using finite element 
modeling to develop yet another approach to scaling HIC. Recognizing 
that all of these techniques and the scaling relationships they produce 
are approximate, we have combined these results to develop modified, 
conservative, scaled HIC performance limits for the various child 
dummies.
2. Neck Injury Criteria
In the NPRM, we proposed two alternatives: (1) The Nij neck injury 
criterion, for which we solicited comments on performance limits of 
Nij=1 and Nij=1.4, and (2) separate limits on neck flexion, extension, 
tension, compression, and shear. AAMA and others commented that the Nij 
concept makes biomechanical sense. However, they recommended the use of 
individual limits for neck forces and moments. Other commenters stated 
that Nij=1 was more appropriate than Nij=1.4 for affording adequate 
protection to children. Some commenters suggested even lower limits for 
neck forces and moments for the child dummies.
    After considering the comments, we continue to believe that the 
superposition of loads and moments performed in the Nij calculation is 
the most appropriate metric to quantify neck injury risk. Therefore, in 
the SNPRM, we are proposing Nij as the neck injury criterion. However, 
in light of the comments, we have made some modifications to the 
proposed Nij calculations.
    We originally developed the Nij criterion using data from matched 
air bag exposure tests, using anesthetized pigs and the 3-year-old 
child dummy, conducted by Mertz et al. and Prasad et al. For the 
modified Nij, we decided to use certain assumptions made by Mertz (SAE 
paper No. 973318) in combining the measured tension force and extension 
moment. Re-analysis of the data after applying these assumptions 
results in new Nij tension and extension intercept values for the 3-
year-old dummy with Nij=1. The resulting Nij=1 threshold limit 
represents a 22% probability of Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 
3 neck injury using logistic regression. For this SNPRM, we 
are also using a scaling procedure recommended by AAMA which takes into 
account the failure strength of ligaments. The details of the 
development of the revised Nij neck injury criteria and the revised Nij 
critical values for all dummy sizes are provided in the technical paper 
cited above.
    As noted above, we requested comments on performance limits of 
Nij=1 and Nij=1.4. After considering the comments, the available 
biomechanical data, and testing which indicates that the more 
conservative value of 1.0 can be met in current production vehicles, we 
are proposing a limit of 1.0.
3. Thoracic Injury Criteria
    For chest injury, we proposed two alternatives in the NPRM: (1) A 
newly developed injury criterion called the Combined Thoracic Index 
(CTI), or (2) individual limits on chest acceleration and chest 
deflection. The CTI is a formula that linearly combines measured chest 
deflection and acceleration levels into a single value which is then 
limited to a maximum value. It was derived from our extensive cadaver 
test data base and was demonstrated to have the best injury predictive 
capability of all measures examined. The second alternative consisted 
of individual limits for chest acceleration and deflection, the 
approach currently used in Standard No. 208. The standard specifies, 
for the 50th percentile adult male dummy, a 60 g acceleration limit and 
a 76 mm (3 inch) deflection limit.
    Many commenters on the NPRM recommended maintaining individual 
limits for acceleration and deflection. AAMA recommended that the 
acceleration limit be maintained at 60 g but suggested that the 
deflection limit be reduced from 76 mm to 64 mm (3 inches to 2.5 
inches). Our analysis indicates that the recommended AAMA

[[Page 60590]]

limits, when both at their maximum, would be at a CTI level of 
approximately 1.2. However, because the CTI would allow greater 
accelerations with lesser deflection and greater deflection with lesser 
accelerations at allowable operational points, we believe the AAMA-
recommended two independent level criterion would be somewhat more 
stringent overall. Therefore, we believe the CTI limit proposed in the 
NPRM and AAMA's recommended individual limits are largely equivalent 
and that there is a slight safety benefit to adopting the individual 
limits of 60 g's of acceleration and 64 mm (2.5 inches) of chest 
deflection for the 50th percentile adult male dummy. For the SNPRM, we 
are proposing individual limits as recommended by AAMA.
    To obtain equivalent performance limits for the other size dummies, 
i.e., the 5th percentile adult female, 3- and 6-year-old child, and the 
12-month-old infant, the mid-size male dummy limits were scaled 
considering both geometric and material differences.
4. Lower Extremity Injury Criteria
    Standard No. 208 currently specifies an axial load limit of 10kN 
(2250 pounds) for the 50th percentile adult male dummy, as measured by 
a load cell at the location of the mid-shaft of the femur. The purpose 
of the axial load limit on the femur is to reduce the probability of 
fracture of the femur and also surrounding structures in the thigh, 
such as the patella and pelvis. In the NPRM, we proposed to maintain 
the current limit of 10 kN (2,250 pounds) for the 50th percentile adult 
male and proposed a new scaled down limit of 6.8 kN (1,529 pounds) for 
the 5th percentile adult female to account for the smaller bone size 
for all proposed test configurations.
    There was general support by commenters for including the femoral 
compressive loads for the 5th percentile adult female dummy specified 
in the NPRM in addition to maintaining the currently specified value 
for the 50th percentile adult male dummy. In the SNPRM, we are 
proposing the same axial femur limits as the NPRM: 10 kN (2,250 pounds) 
for the 50th percentile adult male and 6.8 kN (1,529 pounds) for the 
5th percentile adult female.
    AAMA recommended adding femoral compressive load limits for the 6-
year-old child dummy. Although we agree with AAMA that femoral 
compressive load limits for the 6-year-old child dummy are important to 
consider, the NPRM did not specify such limits because none of the 
proposed testing configurations imposed substantial loading on the 
lower extremities. We are therefore not proposing femoral compressive 
load limits in the SNPRM.
    The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended that 
tolerance levels of lower extremities be further investigated and 
validated. NTSB also suggested that we consider dummies such as an 
advanced lower extremity dummy for future incorporation into the 
standards. We are continuing the development of an advanced lower 
extremity test device, and continue to sponsor experimental impact 
injury research to determine the mechanisms and tolerances of the lower 
extremities, including the foot, ankle and leg. When this effort is 
complete, we will consider incorporating additional injury criteria 
into our safety standards.
    The assessment of lower extremity injury potential in high speed 
offset deformable crash tests is discussed in a separate section later 
in this notice.
5. Other Criteria
    As we consider adding new injury criteria or modifying existing 
injury criteria for Standard No. 208, it is logical to consider whether 
the injury criteria and performance limits we are considering would be 
appropriate for other safety standards, including Standards No. 201 and 
213, particularly if new child dummies were incorporated into Standard 
No. 213. While we are not proposing to amend those standards in this 
rulemaking, we request commenters to address whether the injury 
criteria and performance limits proposed in this SNPRM would be 
appropriate for those standards, and why or why not.

D. Lead Time and Proposed Effective Date

    TEA 21 specifies that the final rule on advanced air bags 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. 
Except as noted below, the phase-in of the required amendments must be 
completed by September 1, 2005. If the phase-in of the rule does not 
begin until September 1, 2003, we are authorized to delay the 
completion of the phase-in until September 1, 2006. As also noted 
below, other amendments may be phased-in later.
    As discussed in the NPRM, we have sought information by a variety 
of means to help us 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 the NPRM, 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 were in developing and implementing available 
technologies, we proposed 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.
    We proposed a separate alternative to address the special problems 
faced by limited line manufacturers in complying with phase-ins. We 
noted 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.
    We accordingly proposed 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. We 
proposed 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.
    As with previous phase-ins, we proposed 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, we proposed amendments to 49 CFR 
Part 585 to establish reporting requirements to accompany the phase-in.

[[Page 60591]]

    A number of commenters raised issues concerning the proposed phase-
in. We will discuss the issues separately for the large vehicle 
manufacturers and for small manufacturers and multi-stage 
manufacturers.
1. Large Manufacturers
    Honda stated that it would be virtually impossible to comply with 
the proposed phase-in. It cited the number of tests, the need for new 
testing facilities and personnel, and the lack of completed dummies. 
That company stated that assuming the final rule was reasonable and 
practical, it needs at least three years leadtime after the final rule 
and before the start of the phase-in, and a five-year phase-in. Volvo 
also stated that it needs three years after the final rule.
    We note that, for this particular rulemaking, we have limited 
discretion as to how much lead time we can provide. Under the statutory 
requirements discussed earlier in this section, assuming that the final 
rule is issued on March 1, 2000, it must become effective in phases 
beginning not earlier than September 1, 2002 (which is 30 months after 
March 1, 2000) and not later than September 1, 2003. Moreover, there is 
a limit as to how long the phase-in may be. If the phase-in begins on 
September 1, 2002, the required amendments must be fully effective by 
September 1, 2005. Only if the phase-in begins on September 1, 2003 may 
the agency delay making the required amendments fully effective until 
September 1, 2006.
    Under the statute, the agency is therefore precluded from providing 
the five-year phase-in requested by Honda. Whether the phase-in begins 
on September 1, 2002 or September 1, 2003, the required amendments must 
be fully effective not more than three years later.
    For this SNPRM, we are proposing the same phase-in for large 
manufacturers as in the NPRM. The proposed date for the start of the 
phase-in, September 1, 2002, would be 30 months after a final rule that 
was issued on March 1, 2000. This proposed date reflects the 
seriousness of the safety problem being addressed and the statutory 
requirement that the final rule become effective as rapidly as 
possible. Honda and Volvo did not demonstrate that this date cannot be 
met. We note that, as discussed earlier, several manufacturers will be 
introducing air bags with many of the features needed to comply with 
the proposed requirements for advanced air bags during MY 2000.
    Comments are requested on phase-in schedules and percentages other 
than the 25%-40%-70%-100% schedule proposed in this document. One 
example is a 40%-70%-100% schedule beginning one year later than the 
proposed schedule, but ending at the same time. This alternative is 
like the proposed one, except that the first year of the proposed 
phase-in is eliminated. This alternative schedule would offer 
additional leadtime at the beginning of the phase-in, while not 
compromising the final effective date for all new vehicles. With the 
availability of credits for early compliance, a manufacturer also would 
have additional time to develop and produce early-complying vehicles to 
meet the initial phase-in percentages.
    We recognize that simultaneous implementation of these various 
proposals will necessitate considerable care and effort by the vehicle 
manufacturers. In a normal rulemaking, we would have broad discretion 
to adjust the implementation schedule to facilitate compliance. In this 
rulemaking, our discretion to set the schedule for implementing the 
amendments required by TEA 21 is limited by that Act. As indicated 
above, our final rule must not provide that the phasing-in of those 
amendments begins any later than September 1, 2003, or ends any later 
than September 1, 2006.
    However, above and beyond our discretion to adjust the amendments 
for reasons of practicability, we also have some discretion to make 
temporary adjustments in them if, in our judgment, such adjustments are 
necessary or prudent to promote the smooth and effective implementation 
of the goals of TEA 21 through the introduction of advanced air bags. 
As discussed above, the final rule could temporarily reduce the injury 
criteria or test speeds during the TEA 21 phase-in and then terminate 
those reductions at the end or after the end of that phase-in.
2. Small Manufacturers and Multi-Stage Manufacturers
    The Coalition of Small Volume Automobile Manufacturers (COSVAM) 
stated that the extra year of leadtime we proposed for small volume 
manufacturers is insufficient to meet its members' needs. That 
organization requested that small volume manufacturers be treated the 
same as final stage manufacturers, i.e., not be required to meet the 
new requirements for advanced air bags until the end of the phase-in.
    COSVAM stated that small volume manufacturers need until the end of 
the phase-in because they cannot obtain new technology at the same time 
it is made available to large manufacturers, because they have 
difficulty getting suppliers to sell to them at all, and because some 
small volume manufacturers source from large manufacturers and may 
source parts from a model which will not comply until the end of the 
phase-in. AIAM stated that the law does not allow a reasonable 
timetable for phase-in even for large volume manufacturers, which will 
be given access to technology first, and that there is certainly no 
evidence that small volume manufacturers have the ability to comply in 
the second year of the phase-in.
    After considering the comments, we have decided to propose that 
small volume manufacturers be permitted to wait until the end of the 
phase-in to meet the new requirements. We note that we are proposing to 
treat small volume manufacturers differently than in previous 
rulemakings involving phase-ins because of two factors.
    The first factor is the complexity of the new requirements. Even 
the more streamlined set of requirements proposed in this SNPRM will 
require significant design changes and significant new testing for all 
cars and light trucks. The second factor is the relatively short 
leadtime before the phase-in is scheduled to begin.
    The proposed special treatment of small volume manufacturers would 
be in addition to our proposal to permit limited line manufacturers to 
wait until the second year of the phase-in to begin compliance if they 
then meet the new requirements for all of their vehicles.
    Because our new proposal for small volume manufacturers will have 
the effect of permitting them to avoid the phase-in entirely, it is 
critical to establish eligibility criteria that are as narrow as 
possible. Accordingly, we are proposing to limit this phase-in option 
to manufacturers which produce fewer than 5,000 vehicles per year 
worldwide.
    We specifically request comments on this proposed limitation. We 
note that COSVAM indicated that all of its members produce fewer than 
5,000 vehicles per year worldwide. However, that organization requested 
that we make this phase-in option available to all manufacturers which 
produce fewer than 10,000 vehicles per year worldwide. COSVAM did not 
explain why it believes the limitation should be set at this level.
    Several commenters, including the National Truck Equipment 
Association (NTEA) and the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association 
(RVIA), requested that multi-stage manufacturers and alterers be given 
a one-year extension after the end of the phase-in for large 
manufacturers. NTEA stated that given

[[Page 60592]]

the level of research and testing likely to be required by the final 
rule, chassis manufacturers will be hard pressed to complete work on 
time for their standard lineup of vehicles let alone those chassis to 
be used by multi-stage industry. That organization stated that an extra 
year would give chassis manufacturers more time to generate compliance 
information needed for commercial vehicles produced in two or more 
stages.
    RVIA stated that guidance from incomplete vehicle manufacturers is 
generally not available until at or very near the startup of new or 
updated model production and that, therefore, final stage manufacturers 
will need at least one additional year to meet the new requirements.
    While we have carefully considered the comments, we are not 
proposing an additional extension for final stage manufacturers, beyond 
the end of the phase-in. We note that, as discussed above, we have 
limited discretion as to how much leadtime we can provide. Under TEA 
21, if the phase-in begins on September 1, 2002, the final rule must 
become fully effective by September 1, 2005. There are no exceptions 
for multi-stage manufacturers.
    Moreover, we believe this is an issue which can be handled by the 
industry. Final stage manufacturers are used to completing vehicles 
within limitations identified by chassis manufacturers so that they can 
certify their vehicles with limited or no additional testing. We do 
believe it is important that the chassis manufacturers communicate with 
their final stage manufacturer customers as soon as possible concerning 
any new limitations that may be made as a result of the advanced air 
bag requirements. The chassis manufacturers should be able to identify 
the type and likely scope of any such new limitations well before the 
end of the phase-in. Even now, the chassis manufacturers should be able 
to identify the types of new limitations that are likely, given the 
proposed requirements and planned design changes. We would encourage 
chassis manufacturers and final stage manufacturers to begin 
discussions on these issues now.
    Atwood, a supplier of seating components, asked whether a generic 
type test could be developed to eliminate testing the entire family of 
test dummies. That company stated that it runs sled tests consisting of 
baseline tests of OE components and additional tests of its components. 
We do not believe it would be possible to develop a generic type test, 
for purposes of Standard No. 208, that could eliminate tests 
incorporating the family of dummies. Different size human beings 
respond differently in crashes, and it is therefore necessary to use 
different size dummies to test for the injury risks posed to occupants 
of varying sizes. Also, if a weight/pattern sensor in a seat is 
designed to suppress air bags for children and not for adults, it is 
necessary to test them both for children and adults.

E. Availability of Original Equipment and Retrofit Manual On-Off 
Switches

    As discussed in the NPRM, Standard No. 208 currently includes a 
temporary provision 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 RFCSS. This provision is scheduled to expire 
on September 1, 2000. However, in the NPRM, we proposed to extend this 
provision so that it phases out as the new requirements for advanced 
air bags are phased in. During the phase-in, OE manual on-off switches 
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.
    Also as discussed in the NPRM, on November 11, 1997, we 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. 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 final rule is set forth as Part 595, Retrofit On-Off 
Switches for Air Bags.
    The purpose of the exemption was 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, we explained that although vehicle manufacturers are beginning to 
replace current air bags 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 was needed 
for those groups of people at risk from current air bags in existing 
vehicles.
    In the NPRM, we proposed to phase out the availability of this 
exemption in the same manner as the temporary provision 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 RFCSS. Under the proposal, retrofit on-off switches would not be 
available for vehicles certified to the new advanced air bag 
requirements.
    We requested 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. We observed 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 air bag 
in a vehicle with a weight sensor would not deploy at all in the 
presence of young children. Therefore, there would be no safety reason 
to permit a retrofit on-off switch because of a need for a young child 
to ride in the front seat.
    Only a few commenters addressed the issue of OE and retrofit on-off 
switches. Two basic positions were given: either allow on-off switches 
regardless of the existence of advanced air bag technology, or phase-
out the switches as proposed in the NPRM. The central issue to each 
position is whether the advanced air bag systems will be sufficiently 
reliable to obviate the need for a manual switch.
    While we believe that reliable systems can be developed in a timely 
manner, thus removing the need for an on-off switch, we are concerned 
that those individuals who are currently at risk from air bags may lack 
confidence in the new systems, particularly when they are first 
introduced. However, we believe this problem will diminish during the 
course of the phase-in, as consumers hear about, and become familiar 
with, advanced air bags.
    Accordingly, in this SNPRM, we are proposing to allow both OE 
switches and retrofit switches to be installed under the same 
conditions that currently govern such installation in all vehicles 
produced prior to September 1, 2005, the date by which all vehicles 
must have an advanced air bag system. We believe that by that time 
consumer confidence in the advanced systems will be sufficiently strong 
to remove any desire for a manual switch in vehicles produced with an 
advanced air bag.

F. Warning Labels and Consumer Information

    As discussed in the NPRM, on November 27, 1996, we 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

[[Page 60593]]

not apply to vehicles with passenger air bags meeting specified 
criteria.
    In the NPRM, we similarly proposed that vehicles certified to the 
new advanced air bag requirements would not be subject to those warning 
label requirements. We requested 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.
    Thirteen commenters addressed the issue of retaining the existing 
air bag warning labels, including manufacturers, manufacturer 
associations, and consumer groups. At least until the reliability of 
newer air bag designs are proven by experience, all of the commenters 
supported the retention of a warning regarding the importance of 
children in rear seats. Most supported the inclusion of a seat belt use 
warning. Some commenters also addressed the issue of requiring 
manufacturers to provide information about which vehicles meet the new 
requirements. Consumer groups strongly supported such a requirement, 
while manufacturers and some others believed such a requirement was not 
necessary since the information would be provided voluntarily.
    Given the importance of the safety information at issue and in 
light of the widespread support for continued labeling, NHTSA is 
proposing a replacement for the permanent sun visor label for vehicles 
that meet the requirements of this proposed rule. The label would 
contain statements regarding belt use and seating children in the rear 
seat. These statements are good general advice; however, NHTSA requests 
comments on any currently known risks which would require more specific 
statements.
    The word ``CAUTION'' would be substituted for the word ``WARNING'' 
in the heading of the label. According to ANSI Z535.2, ``WARNING 
indicates a potentially hazardous situation which, if not avoided, 
could result in death or serious injury.'' ``CAUTION indicates a 
potentially hazardous situation which, if not avoided, may result in 
minor or moderate injury. It may also be used to alert against unsafe 
practices.'' Since there are currently no known specific risks 
associated with advanced air bags, ``Caution'' appears to be more 
appropriate as an alert against unsafe practices.
    We believe that the existing graphic is inappropriate for air bags 
meeting these requirements, as this risk is specifically tested for in 
the new requirements. Therefore, a new graphic has been developed which 
shows a cut-away side view of a vehicle with a belted driver and a 
child in a child seat in the rear.
    In addition, we are proposing a new temporary label that states 
that the vehicle meets the new requirements for advanced air bags. This 
label would replace the existing temporary label and include statements 
regarding seat belt use and children in rear seats. We request comment 
on how and where additional information regarding how the vehicle 
complies and other information about the new air bags should be made 
available. The options under consideration include requiring the 
information on the temporary label, in the owners manual, or in a 
separate required informational brochure.
    We are proposing to retain all other existing label requirements 
regarding location, size, etc. for the new labels. Also, as with the 
current labels, manufacturers may provide translations of the required 
English language message as long as all the requirements for the 
English label are met, including size.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ For further information about our policies in this area, 
see 59 FR 11200, 11201-202, March 10, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with our proposal to require labels for vehicles with 
advanced air bags, we are proposing to drop the current definition of 
``smart passenger air bags'' contained in S4.5.5 and the existing 
option to remove warning labels in vehicles with air bags that meet 
that definition (S4.5.1). The term ``smart air bag'' is simply an older 
term for advanced air bag. For the reasons discussed above, we believe 
that some warning label is needed for vehicles with advanced air bags. 
We also note that no manufacturer has taken advantage of the existing 
compliance option, and we believe that they will not do so in the 
future. Manufacturers have urged us to develop a single warning label 
that would apply to vehicles with advanced air bags. Thus, even if they 
do develop a system that meets the existing definition of smart 
passenger air bags, we do not think they would decide to produce 
vehicles without warning labels.
    In order to provide consumers with adequate information about their 
occupant restraint system, a manufacturer would also need to provide a 
written discussion of the vehicle's advanced passenger air bag system. 
This discussion would probably be included in the vehicle owner's 
manual, although we are interested in knowing whether it would be 
desirable to have this information located elsewhere. The discussion 
would need to explain the proper functioning of the advanced passenger 
air bag system and provide a summary of the actions that may affect the 
proper functioning of the system.
    We anticipate that several topics would need to be addressed. The 
information provided might need to include discussions of the following 
topics, as appropriate:
     A presentation and explanation of the main components of 
the advanced passenger air bag system.
     An explanation of how the components function together as 
part of the advanced passenger air bag system.
     The basic requirements for proper operation, including an 
explanation of the occupant actions that may affect the proper 
functioning of the system.
     A complete description of any passenger air bag 
suppression system installed in the vehicle including a discussion of 
the suppression zone and a discussion of the telltale light on the 
instrument panel, explaining that the light is only illuminated when 
the advanced passenger air bag system is suppressed, is not illuminated 
when the advanced passenger air bag system is activated, and informing 
the vehicle owner of the method used to indicate that the air bag 
suppression system is not operating properly.
     An explanation of the interaction of the advanced 
passenger air bag system with other vehicle components, such as seat 
belts, seats or other components.
     A summary of the expected outcomes when child restraint 
systems, children and small teenagers or adults are both properly and 
improperly positioned in the vehicle, including cautionary advice 
against improper placement of child restraint systems.
     Tips and guidelines to improve consumer understanding of 
the proper use of the advanced passenger air bag system.
     Information on how to contact the vehicle manufacturer 
concerning modifications for persons with disabilities that may affect 
the advanced air bag system.

G. Miscellaneous Issues

1. Selection of Child Restraints
    As discussed earlier in this notice, in order to reduce testing 
costs, we are proposing to require manufacturers to assure compliance 
with tests to minimize the risks from air bags to infants and young 
children using any child restraint on a specified list of 
representative child restraints. In developing the proposed list of 
representative child restraints, we attempted to select seats that are

[[Page 60594]]

produced by various manufacturers while limiting the overall number of 
restraints. The list was derived from a much more comprehensive list of 
restraints to be purchased by NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety 
Compliance for use in the agency's FY 2000 compliance test program.
    We believe the more comprehensive list represents the majority of 
child restraints currently on the market. That list was reduced, in 
part, by eliminating similar restraint systems, e.g., restraints that 
are sold as different models but which we believe provide the same 
footprint. For example, a particular restraint may come with both a T-
shield and a five-point harness system. We do not believe it would be 
necessary to test a suppression system using both restraints, since the 
difference between the two models is the type of system used to 
restrain the child and not the basic design of the seat. We further 
shortened the comprehensive list by eliminating restraints produced by 
a manufacturer who was already represented at least once within the 
particular class of child restraints. Other restraints, like the car 
bed, are the only one of their type and were placed on the list for 
that reason.
    We have tentatively decided to add the list of child restraints as 
an appendix to the proposed regulatory text. However, we plan to 
propose updating the list from time to time (with appropriate lead 
time). Of particular concern is the introduction of child restraints 
that will be developed to comply with the agency's recently issued rule 
on uniform child restraint anchorages.
2. Due Care Provision
    Since March 1986, Standard No. 208 has included as part of its 
various crash test requirements a provision stating that ``a vehicle 
shall not be deemed to be in noncompliance with this standard if its 
manufacturer establishes that it did not have reason to know in the 
exercise of due care that such vehicle is not in conformity with the 
requirement of this standard.'' In adding this provision, the agency 
cited the complexity of the Standard No. 208 test and stated that, 
because of this complexity, it believed that manufacturers needed 
assurance from the agency that, if they have made a good faith effort 
in designing their vehicles and have instituted adequate quality 
control measures, they will not face the recall of their vehicles 
because of an isolated apparent failure to meet one of the injury 
criteria.
    In the September 1998 NPRM, we did not propose to extend the ``due 
care provision'' to the various new proposed test requirements. Vehicle 
manufacturers commented that there may be greater variability 
associated with the new proposed test requirements than the old ones 
and that the ``due care provision'' is needed more than ever.
    In addressing this issue, we note that the ``due care provision'' 
is unique to Standard No. 208. The provision was initially adopted as 
part of the 1984 rulemaking requiring automatic protection, and was 
then extended as the various crash test requirements were extended. We 
did not, however, adopt a ``due care provision'' for the subsequent 
crash or other dynamic tests in other standards, such as Standards No. 
201 or 214.
    As a general matter, we disfavor including a ``due care provision'' 
in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. There are several 
reasons for this.
    First, the inclusion of such a provision in a safety standard does 
not fit very well with the overall statutory scheme. Safety standards 
are required to be objective. To the extent the question of whether a 
manufacturer exercised due care becomes a compliance issue, a measure 
of subjectivity is introduced into the standard. Also, the Safety Act 
itself includes a different ``due care provision.'' While the statutory 
due care defense can relieve a manufacturer of paying civil penalties 
for failure to comply with a safety standard, it does not relieve the 
manufacturer of recalling non-complying vehicles.
    Second, we do not believe there is an intrinsic need for a ``due 
care provision.'' Nothing in the history of Standard No. 208 compliance 
activities since 1984 indicates there is a need for such a provision. 
We also note, with respect to enforcement, that we have consistently 
taken the position that we will not require a manufacturer to recall 
large numbers of vehicles merely because of an isolated test failure, 
where there is evidence that other tested units have met the standard's 
performance requirements and there is no indication of the absence of 
adequate quality control procedures.
    Notwithstanding the fact that we generally disfavor including a 
``due care provision'' in a safety standard, we also recognize that 
Standard No. 208 has included such a provision as part of its crash 
test requirements for the past 13 years. Recognizing that this 
rulemaking for advanced air bags will require manufacturers to certify 
their vehicles to a significantly greater number of test requirements 
in a limited amount of time, we do not believe that now is an 
appropriate time to delete this provision.
    Accordingly, for this SNPRM, we are proposing to maintain the same 
``due care provision'' for the new crash test requirements as for the 
existing ones. However, we are not proposing to apply the provision to 
test requirements that do not involve crashes, as these tests are not 
affected by the variability associated with dynamically induced dummy 
movement and/or vehicle deformation.
3. Selection of Options
    In the NPRM, we proposed 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 would mean that failure to comply with the 
selected option would constitute a noncompliance with the standard (as 
well as a violation of the certification requirement), regardless of 
whether a vehicle complies with another option. We noted situations in 
the past where vehicle manufacturers have advised us that they had 
selected one compliance option, but then sought to change the option 
after being confronted with an apparent test failure.
    Vehicle manufacturers objected to this proposed requirement. AAMA 
stated that the proposed requirement would not meet the need for motor 
vehicle safety, since both options meet the need for motor vehicle 
safety.
    For this SNPRM, we are not changing this part of our proposal, 
except to add a provision clarifying that upon request, manufacturers 
will be required to advise the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance 
(OVSC) of particular compliance options selected for a given vehicle or 
vehicle model. We note that this issue has arisen in the context of 
several recent and ongoing rulemakings, and we are continuing to review 
the various comments and other submissions from manufacturers 
concerning this issue.
4. Relationship of the Proposed New Injury Criteria to Existing Test 
Requirements
    In this SNPRM, we are proposing a number of new and/or modified 
injury criteria and performance limits for vehicles certified to the 
requirements for advanced air bags. Some of these injury criteria and 
performance limits would apply to new tests, and some would apply to 
existing tests that are being retained in Standard No. 208.
    We are not proposing to change the injury criteria for vehicles not 
certified to the requirements for advanced air bags. As a general 
matter, vehicles produced between the time the final rule becomes 
effective and the time the phase-in is complete will be required to

[[Page 60595]]

comply with and be certified to the current requirements and current 
injury criteria or to the requirements for advanced air bags and new 
injury criteria; there will be no opportunity to mix and match.
    We believe it would be unnecessary and potentially 
counterproductive to apply the new injury criteria or performance 
limits to vehicles produced in the next several years which are not 
certified to all of the requirements for advanced air bags. It is our 
intention that the vehicle manufacturers focus their attention on 
designing vehicles that comply with the new requirements for advanced 
air bags, consistent with the phase-in period, rather than attempting 
in the short term to modify and/or recertify existing vehicles to meet 
new injury criteria.
    We also do not believe it would be a good use of our resources to 
conduct the analyses that would be needed to reevaluate what injury 
criteria and limits should apply to what test requirements for vehicles 
not yet redesigned to meet the requirements for advanced air bags. We 
note that injury criteria cannot be viewed in isolation. They apply 
both in the context of individual tests and in the context of arrays of 
tests. If the tests are more (or less) severe, the appropriate criteria 
may be less (or more) severe. There may be no direct relationship 
between the two.
    As a possible exception to requiring vehicles produced between the 
time the final rule becomes effective and the time the phase-in is 
complete to comply with and be certified to the current requirements 
and current injury criteria or to the requirements for advanced air 
bags and new injury criteria, we request comments on whether we should 
permit manufacturers to immediately certify their vehicles to whatever 
set of unbelted crash test requirements applicable to 50th percentile 
adult male dummies is adopted for the final rule, as an alternative to 
the currently available sled test or unbelted up-to-48 km/h (30 mph) 
rigid barrier test. As discussed earlier in this document, we believe 
the sled test has significant limitations as compared to a crash test. 
Therefore, to the extent vehicle manufacturers wished to immediately 
design and certify vehicles to whatever set of unbelted crash test 
requirements is included in the final rule, there could be safety 
benefits.
5. Time Parameters for Measuring Injury Criteria During Tests
    We have decided to propose specific end points for measuring injury 
criteria in both crash tests and low-risk deployment tests in order to 
resolve any uncertainty on the part of vehicle manufacturers and NHTSA 
as to when the measured injury criteria are relevant.
    In dynamic crash tests, we historically have not measured injury 
criteria more than 300 milliseconds after the vehicle impacts the 
barrier. In our experience, additional measurement is unnecessary. 
Accordingly, we are proposing a 300 millisecond time duration for the 
dynamic crash tests.
    The low risk deployment tests, which do not involve a complete 
vehicle crash and are intended only to address the potential adverse 
effects of an air bag, would not require as long a period of time to 
measure potential injuries. Accordingly, we are proposing injury 
measurements up to 100 milliseconds after the air bag deploys.
    Regardless of the time frame used to measure other injury criteria, 
all dummies would continue to be required to remain fully contained 
within the test vehicle until physically removed by a technician.
6. Cruise Controls
    In the NPRM, we asked about possible requirements for turning the 
cruise controls off when the air bag deploys. We were concerned that 
the cruise control, if not deactivated, would continue to provide power 
to the vehicle. This could lead to a runaway condition. Responding auto 
manufacturers (DaimlerChrysler, General Motors, Ford, Isuzu and the 
AIAM) saw no justification in turning off the cruise controls when the 
air bag deploys. Several commenters (JCW Consulting and Parents for 
Safer Air Bags) supported a requirement for deactivating cruise 
controls during a crash.
    We are concerned that cruise controls could create a safety problem 
if they continue to operate after air bag deployment. No manufacturer 
provided information that its vehicles would not continue to operate on 
cruise control after a crash for which the air bags deployed. Nor did 
any indicate that it would be impracticable, or even difficult, to 
implement an automatic air bag shut-off system. Accordingly, we have 
decided to propose that cruise controls be deactivated when any stage 
of an air bag system is deployed. We have included a brief procedure to 
test whether this requirement is met.
7. Rescue Operations
    In the NPRM, we also raised the possibility of adding requirements 
to prevent air bag deployments during rescue operations following a 
crash. We are aware of scattered reports of air bag deployments that 
take place after rescue personnel or ``first responders'' begin rescue 
operations. Many of the responding auto manufacturers (DaimlerChrysler, 
General Motors, Ford, VW, Toyota and AIAM) saw no justification in 
going forward with rescue provisions, believing that deactivation time 
requirements may limit design freedom. However, General Motors pointed 
out that rescue personnel frequently work under conditions so adverse 
as to preclude easy ``look-up'' of the information they need to know 
about deactivation times for a given model and MY of vehicle in any 
published rescue guideline. The National Transportation Safety Board 
stated that some universal method of deactivation should be 
incorporated into air bags to neutralize any potential danger for 
rescuers.
    We believe that a standardized air bag deactivation time would 
eliminate confusion and unnecessary delays during rescue work. As 
stated in our recent publication titled ``Rescue Procedures for Air 
Bag-equipped Vehicles,'' the air bags in most vehicles are deactivated 
within a minute or less after battery power is disconnected. We believe 
that deactivation times are generally decreasing and that a one minute 
``keep alive'' period is adequate for deployment requirements. 
Accordingly, we are proposing to require that all air bags become 
deactivated after a maximum one-minute ``keep alive'' period has 
elapsed after the vehicle battery power is disconnected. Again, we have 
included a brief procedure to test whether this requirement is met.
8. Assessing Lower Extremity Injury Potential in Offset Deformable 
Crash Tests
    In the discussion about possible adoption of a 48 to 56 km/h (30 to 
35 mph) unbelted offset deformable barrier crash test, we note that the 
test would have greater potential to produce benefits related to injury 
from intrusion. This would include addressing injuries sustained by 
lower extremities, such as ankle/foot, tibia, knees, femurs, and the 
pelvis bone. This type of injury can result in life-long disability.
    Crash data indicate a higher prevalence of lower extremity injuries 
in offset frontal collisions than in fully distributed frontal impacts. 
Lower extremity injuries occur at higher frequency at lower offset 
collision speeds than at comparable distributed collisions, 
particularly if floor pan intrusion is involved. Analysis of hospital 
data involving 42 front seat occupants who sustained below-the-

[[Page 60596]]

knee lower limb injuries in frontal crashes showed that the foot ankle-
complex accounted for nearly two thirds of all lower extremity trauma. 
This study indicated that direct foot contact with vehicle interior was 
the major injury mechanism (approximately 70%) while inversion-eversion 
and dorsiflexion made up the rest of the trauma. Since lower extremity 
injuries occur frequently, are disabling, and involve large medical 
costs, vehicle modifications to create a more crashworthy environment 
for the lower extremities would be an effective means to reduce the 
incidence and severity of these injuries.
    To assess the likelihood of lower limb injuries in an offset 
deformable barrier crash test, it would be necessary to modify the 
existing and proposed Part 572 dummies to add instrumentation to the 
lower limbs. Currently, none of the Part 572 dummies incorporate 
instrumentation for measured assessment of potential tibia and ankle-
foot injuries. However, two instrumented lower limb designs are 
available for installation on Hybrid III dummies. Denton, Inc. has been 
selling since the mid-1980's an instrumented tibia for the 50th 
percentile adult male dummy to assess tibia injury potential primarily 
due to axial loading. This tibia is a direct replacement for the 
regular Part 572 Subpart E non-instrumented tibia. The other design, 
still at the experimental-prototype stage is the THOR-LX being 
developed under our direction by General Engineering Systems Analysis 
Company (GESAC) and Applied Safety Technologies Corporation (ASTC). The 
THOR-LX includes tibia and an ankle foot complex with extensive 
instrumentation.
    In October 1998, Denton, Inc., announced commercial availability of 
a 12 channel instrumented tibia for the 5th percentile adult female 
Hybrid III dummy which can also be used as a direct replacement for the 
proposed Subpart O dummy's tibia. The Denton-design tibias are covered 
by Denton patents and to the best of our knowledge Denton is its sole 
manufacturer and supplier. While the automotive manufacturers have used 
the Denton tibia for the assessment of injuries based on the tibia 
index, some researchers have criticized this design for its unusual 
geometry, which could induce measurement errors. As a result, the tibia 
index has been considered to be a questionable injury assessment 
parameter. See ESU paper 98-37-0-11, SAE paper 962424 and SAE paper 
973301. We have performed limited evaluation of the 50th percentile 
adult male Denton tibia and found no significant problems in its use 
for tibia index measurement at the laboratory level, but have little 
experience in its application on dummies in vehicle crash tests.
    Inasmuch as the 5th percentile adult female instrumented Denton 
tibia has been commercially available for less than a year, we have 
neither laboratory nor vehicle experience to determine its utility and 
practicality when used as part of the Subpart O dummy for lower limb 
injury assessment purposes.
    The prototype THOR-LX for the 50th percentile adult male Hybrid III 
dummy has extensive biomechanical benchmarking incorporating a number 
of humanlike features, and is capable of assessing the potential of 
tibia, ankle and foot injuries with an extensive array of sensors. The 
THOR-LX has had limited application in sled tests and vehicle crash 
tests both at NHTSA and at several vehicle manufacturers.
    Completion of certification of prototype THOR-LX is currently 
expected by November 1, 1999. Extensive subsequent tests will be 
required to establish the repeatability and reproducibility of its 
commercial version in laboratory and vehicle tests, the consistency and 
utility of the measurements relative to the injury assessment potential 
and its merits in comparison to the Denton design.
    The design of THOR-LX for the 5th percentile adult female dummy is 
still to be completed, prototypes built, and evaluated. Earliest 
estimated availability of THOR-LX prototypes for the 5th percentile 
adult female Hybrid III dummy is in late spring of 2000. Inasmuch as 
the design of the THOR-LX has been sponsored by the government, its 
availability for manufacturing will be free of any restrictions.
    Injury assessment reference values (IARVs) for the Denton type 
design have been established and published in several technical 
documents. The IARVs, as published in proceedings of the Advisory Group 
for Aerospace Research and Development (AGARD), specify for the 5th 
percentile adult female dummy's tibia an axial compression limit of 
5104 N (1,147 pounds), and a Tibia Index of 1 for which the critical 
bending moment is 115 N-m (1,018 lbfin.) and critical compression force 
at 22.9 kN (5,148 pounds).
    IARVs for the THOR-LX are still to be developed. There is a 
considerable amount of biomechanics literature to provide a basis for 
setting of appropriate IARVs, but their interpretation for and 
applicability to the THOR-LX for injury assessment purposes is still to 
be done.
    As indicated above, a potential significant advantage to adopting a 
48 to 56 km/h (30 to 35 mph) unbelted offset deformable barrier crash 
test would be the benefits associated with reducing the number and 
severity of lower limb injuries. Recognizing the possibility of 
adopting this test, we request comments on how we should proceed in 
upgrading the 5th percentile adult female and 50th percentile adult 
male dummies so that they are capable of measuring lower limb injury 
potential, and in selecting/developing appropriate injury criteria.
9. Hybrid III Dummy Neck
    There have been crash test situations where the agency has observed 
high neck moments being generated at the upper load cell of the Hybrid 
III dummy within 20 milliseconds of the initiation of large neck shear 
loads without observing substantial angular deformation of the dummy 
neck. While we believe that these are true loads being generated by the 
restraint system and not artifacts of an inappropriately designed neck 
transducer, we are uncertain whether this loading condition is 
biomechanically realistic. That is, the current Hybrid III neck 
exhibits considerable bending resistance (i.e., inflexibility) at its 
occipital condyle joint. The inflexibility may allow large moments to 
be transmitted to the neck by the head without much relative motion. 
This, in turn, can create a situation in which the angular deflection 
due to the applied moment is opposed and even sometimes nullified by 
the superimposed angular deflection induced by the neck's shear force. 
Thus, high moments can be produced with little observable rotational 
deformation of the neck. In contrast to this, the human occipital 
condyle joint appears to have considerable laxity which requires it to 
experience significant rotation ( 20 degrees of the head 
with respect to C1) before it can sustain a substantial moment across 
it. This would suggest that rapid, high moments generated on a dummy 
without any concomitant head/neck rotation are possibly an artifact of 
Hybrid III's neck design and not necessarily a real load that 
contribute to the potential for neck injury.
    We seek comment on whether anyone else using the Hybrid III dummy 
has experienced this rapidly produced high moment/low angular 
deflection condition, whether they agree or disagree with our analysis 
of the mechanics and possible consequences of the situation, and 
whether they have any biomechanical data supporting either maintaining 
the current neck design or justifying its modification.

[[Page 60597]]

    We note that it would not be possible to modify in any significant 
way the current neck design within the time frame of this rulemaking, 
i.e., before the March 1, 2000 deadline for a final rule. Moreover, we 
believe that dummies with the current neck are adequate for measuring 
risk of neck injury in the proposed tests. To the extent that 
commenters advocate modifying the neck, we ask them to address how 
dummies with the current neck should be used in the final rule to 
measure risk of neck injury.
    There is another technical issue related to the Hybrid III dummy 
neck for which we are seeking public comment. On the selection of data 
channel, SAE J 211, paragraph 5, states ``that selection of frequency 
response class is dependent upon many considerations, some of which may 
be unique to a particular test.'' Further, SAE J211 notes that ``(t)he 
channel class recommendations for a particular application should not 
be considered to imply that all the frequencies passed by that channel 
are significant for the application.'' In the case of head-to-air bag 
interaction, the agency observed that the specified channel frequency 
class (CFC) for the neck at 1,000 for force and 600 for the bending 
moment admits neck data that has spikes of very short duration that may 
not be appropriate for evaluating the potential for neck injury to the 
human. Preliminary evidence indicates that the human neck response 
under similar impact would respond with considerably lower frequency 
response class data, which implies that the neck response data when 
processed for injury assessment should be filtered to a lower CFC level 
than suggested by SAE J211. Accordingly, the agency seeks comments on 
an appropriate CFC for evaluating data from neck load cells for injury 
assessment purposes and whether that CFC should depend on the impact 
environment (e.g., vehicle crash tests, out-of-position tests, etc.)

H. Relationship Between the NPRM, Comments on the NPRM and This SNPRM

    In developing this SNPRM, we have carefully considered all of the 
comments received in response to the NPRM. Moreover, as discussed 
throughout this document, we have made many changes in our proposal in 
response to the public comments.
    Because our SNPRM differs significantly in many aspects from the 
NPRM, we do not contemplate any further consideration of the comments 
on the NPRM in developing the final rule. If any persons believe that 
we did not adequately consider particular issues raised in comments on 
the NPRM, they should raise those issues again in commenting on the 
SNPRM. Moreover, they should not merely cite the old comments, but 
should explain why they believe the issues remain valid in the context 
of the SNPRM.

IV. Costs and Benefits

    We are placing in the docket a revised Preliminary Economic 
Assessment (PEA) to accompany this SNPRM. The PEA analyzes the 
potential impact of the proposed performance requirements and 
associated test procedures for advanced air bag systems. A summary of 
the PEA follows. We request comments on the analyses and estimates of 
costs and benefits presented in that document.

Benefits

    The assessment provides analyses of the safety benefits from tests 
that reduce the risk of injury from air bags in low-speed crashes, as 
well as from tests that improve the overall effectiveness of air bags 
in high speed crashes. For out-of-position occupants that are at risk 
of being injured by air bags, the agency estimates that out of 45 at-
risk drivers that would have been killed with pre-MY 1998 air bags, 21 
to 39 would be saved with low-risk air bags for the driver side. The 
agency also estimates that out of 136 passengers that would have been 
killed with pre-MY 1998 air bags, 91 would be saved with weight sensors 
and 122 to 132 would be saved with low-risk air bags. Of an estimated 
37 drivers that would have an MAIS 3-5 injury, 20 to 33 could be 
prevented by low-risk deployment air bags. Of an estimated 218 
passengers that would receive MAIS 3-5 injuries, about 149 could be 
prevented by a weight sensor and 168 to 202 could be prevented with a 
low-risk deployment air bag.
    The PEA also contains estimates of the benefits of incremental 
improvements in safety compared to a baseline of pre-MY 1998 air bag 
vehicles for each compliance scenario. These are calculated by taking 
the available test data (based on vehicles designed to the 48 kmph (30 
mph) unbelted test) and determining the benefits of bringing those test 
scores that are above the proposed injury criteria performance levels 
down to the level of the proposal in this SNPRM. This methodology 
assumes that manufacturers would make as few changes as possible to 
their fleet to meet the new proposals. Thus, it does not assume that 
manufacturers might completely redesign their air bag fleet if the 
final rule had a test for the high speed unbelted test other than the 
48 kmph (30 mph) rigid barrier test. This analysis found that improved 
safety from vehicles passing the high speed Alternative 1 proposals 
would save 70 to 226 \26\ lives and prevent 342 to 691 MAIS 2-5 
injuries. Combining the at-risk benefits and the high speed Alternative 
1 benefits results in a range of benefits of 161 to 226 lives saved and 
491 to 691 non-fatal MAIS 2-5 injuries prevented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Estimated benefits from at-risk groups and high speed tests 
can not be added to get a total since there is an overlap in 
benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A similar analysis was prepared for Alternative 2, however, there 
are such limited data available that the impact is uncertain. To the 
best of our knowledge, no vehicles have been designed to a 35-56 kmph 
(22-35 mph) offset deformable barrier test. The analysis for 
Alternative 2 uses test results from vehicles designed to meet a 30 mph 
unbelted rigid barrier test. It is questionable whether this gives 
appropriate results for the future benefits of such a test.
    Another set of analyses compares the data available on redesigned 
MY 1998/99 air bags compared to pre-MY 1998 air bags to examine how 
well the redesigned bags are doing compared to their predecessors. 
Based on the limited data available for analysis, redesigned MY 1998/99 
air bags appear to have significantly reduced the fatality rate to out-
of-position occupants in low-speed crashes (less than 25 mph delta V) 
to about 30 percent of the fatality rate of pre-MY 1998 air bags. 
However, limited real-world data indicate no statistically significant 
difference in overall fatality rates between the pre-MY 1998 and MY 
1998/99 air bags. Most test data between matched pairs of air bag 
vehicles show no difference for belted occupants and small differences 
for unbelted occupants when comparing the pre-MY 1998 and MY 1998/99 
air bags.
    The agency also estimated the benefits of an unbelted 29 to 40 kmph 
(18 to 25 mph) frontal rigid barrier test coupled with an increase in 
the belted test from the current up to 48 kmph (30 mph) test to an up 
to 56 kmph (35 mph) test. Assuming all vehicles air bags were designed 
to only meet the unbelted 25 mph rigid barrier and oblique tests, an 
estimated 214 to 397 lives saved by pre-MY 1998 air bags would not be 
saved. Assuming minor changes to the seat belt and air bag systems of 
these vehicles to meet the 56 kmph (35 mph) belted test, it is 
estimated that 6 to 13 belted occupant's lives could be saved by 
increasing the belted test speed to 56 kmph (35 mph). Overall, 201 to 
391 lives saved by pre-MY 1998 air bags might not be saved by the 48 
kmph (25

[[Page 60598]]

mph) unbelted/56 kmph (35 mph) belted option.
    Sensitivity analyses are provided on increases in safety belt use 
and the impact of using the MY 1998/99 air bags as a baseline for 
determining benefits.

Sled Tests

    NHTSA performed several analyses to estimate the impact of using 
the sled test in place of the 30 mph barrier test. One analytical 
approach assumed the possibility that air bags designed to the frontal 
sled test would provide benefits in full frontal impacts (12 o'clock 
strikes), but might provide no benefit in partial frontal impacts (10, 
11, 1, and 2 o'clock strikes). This analysis estimates that if all 
passenger and driver side air bags were changed to only provide 
benefits in pure frontals, the only test mode in the sled test, there 
could be as many as 245 lives that would not be saved by air bags every 
year for unbelted occupants.
    While the generic sled test has been part of FMVSS 208 since MY 
1998, these vehicles were not designed from the start with only the 
generic sled test as the unbelted test, but were redesigned from 
vehicles originally designed to meet the pre-MY 1998 standards which 
included a 48 kmph (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test. Another set of 
analyses attempts to provide estimates of the potential loss in 
benefits if all vehicles were designed to the minimum performance of 
the generic sled test instead of a full vehicle barrier test in terms 
of impact severity and speed. The agency estimates that the generic 
sled test is equivalent to a barrier test of 22 to 25 mph in velocity. 
The range of estimates are that 214 to 722 fewer fatalities could be 
prevented if all vehicles were designed to the minimum requirements of 
a sled test.

Costs

    Potential compliance costs for this proposal vary considerably and 
are dependent upon 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. The range of 
potential costs for the compliance scenarios examined in this analysis 
is $20-$127 per vehicle (1997 dollars). This amounts to a total 
potential annual cost of up to $2 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 from these requirements could total up to $85 over the lifetime 
of an average vehicle. This amounts to a potential cost savings of 
nearly $1.3 billion.

Net Cost Per Fatality Prevented

    Based on the analysis which assumes manufacturers would make the 
minimal amount of changes necessary to meet the proposals, net costs 
per equivalent fatality prevented estimates were made. 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 equivalent 
fatality saved from the scenarios examined in this analysis is a net 
savings of $1.3 million per equivalent fatality saved to a net cost of 
$2.6 million per equivalent fatality saved.

V. 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 is economically 
significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget 
under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' The rulemaking 
action has also 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. 601 et seq.) We have prepared 
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IFRA), which is part of the 
PEA. The IFRA tentatively concludes that the proposal could affect a 
substantial number of small businesses, but the economic impact on a 
substantial number of small businesses need not be significant. 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.
    The proposed rule would directly affect motor vehicle manufacturers 
and indirectly affect air bag manufacturers, seating 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. All 
of them 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 several hundred final stage vehicle manufacturers 
and alterers could also be affected by this proposal. These 
manufacturers buy incomplete vehicles, add seating systems to vehicles 
without seats, and replace existing seats with new ones. If a 
manufacturer uses a sensing system in the seat for weight or presence 
sensing, then the second-stage manufacturer or alterer may need to use 
seats from the original manufacturer or will need to rely on a seat 
manufacturer to provide the same technology. Otherwise the second-stage 
manufacturer may need to use the existing seat or else certify 
compliance with the standard after replacing the seats. We do not have 
estimates of the costs to these manufacturers at this time. We request 
those manufacturers to submit estimates as part of their comments on 
this SNPRM.
    NHTSA knows of 11 suppliers of seating systems that are small 
businesses. There are about 10 suppliers of seating systems that are 
not small businesses. The small businesses serve a niche market and 
provide seats for less than two percent of vehicles. Depending on the 
technology chosen to meet the proposed advanced air bag rule, these 
suppliers will need to keep up with emerging technology.

[[Page 60599]]

    The agency believes that the economic impact on many of the 
manufacturers affected by this proposal 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. The greatest burden would likely be 
borne by seating manufacturers who do not supply seats to anyone other 
than second-stage manufacturers and alterers. Depending on the 
technology employed by the vehicle manufacturers, these seating 
manufacturers may need to engage in new business arrangements to permit 
their seats to work with an existing sensing system. 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. 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). These effects are 
discussed above in Section IV of this preamble and in the PEA. The 
preamble and the PEA also identify and consider a reasonable number of 
regulatory alternatives for achieving the objectives of TEA 21. Given 
the requirement that an agency issuing a final rule subject to the Act 
select the ``least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule,'' we request 
comments that will aid the agency in making that selection.

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

    If made final, this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking 
would include the following ``collections of information,'' as that 
term is defined in 5 CFR Part 1320 Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the 
Public:
    Air Bag Phase-In Reporting Requirements--Once a year for four 
years, manufacturers would be required to report to NHTSA their annual 
production of vehicles with advanced air bags. As previously explained, 
we have proposed a four year phase-in period that ends in 2005. The 
Office of Management and Budget has approved NHTSA's collection of this 
information, assigning the collection OMB clearance no. 2127-0599. If 
this rule is made final, there would be 1,260 burden hours a year on 
the public resulting from this collection.
    Air Bag Warning Labels--New air bag warning labels are proposed in 
this SNPRM. At present, OMB has approved NHTSA's collection of labeling 
requirements under OMB clearance no. 2127-0512, Consolidated Labeling 
Requirements for Motor Vehicles (Except the Vehicle Identification 
Number). This clearance will expire on 6/30/2001, and is cleared for 
71,095 burden hours on the public.
    NHTSA estimates that the air bag warning labels would increase the 
information burden on the public as follows. There are 24 motor vehicle 
manufacturers that would be affected by the air bag warning label 
requirement, and the labels would be placed on approximately 15,000,000 
vehicles per year. The label would be placed on each vehicle once. 
Since NHTSA would specify the exact content of the labels, the 
manufacturers would spend 0 hours developing the labels. The technical 
burden (time required for affixing labels) would be .0002 hours per 
label. NHTSA estimates that the total annual burden imposed on the 
public as a result of the air bag warning labels would be 3,000 hours 
(15 million vehicles multiplied by .0002 hours per label). Since the 
proposed labels would replace existing labels, this constitutes no 
additional burden on manufacturers.
    Another way of estimating the burden associated with the labels is 
to assess the non-time related burden, i.e., the costs. The agency 
requests comments on the costs associated with labeling.
    Advanced Air Bag Information in the Owner's Manual--This rulemaking 
would require advanced air bag information in the owner's manual that 
is additional to the information already required under the standard. 
At present, OMB has approved NHTSA's collection of owner's manual 
requirements under OMB clearance no. 2127-0541 Consolidated 
Justification of Owner's Manual Requirements for Motor Vehicles and 
Motor Vehicle Equipment. This collection includes the burdens that 
would be imposed as a result of owners' manual information about air 
bags. This clearance will expire on 10/31/2001 and is cleared for 1,371 
burden hours on the public.
    Public comment is sought on NHTSA's estimate of the additional 
burden imposed on the public by the air bag warning label and whether 
the SNPRM would impose ``collections of information'' in addition to 
that for which NHTSA has already obtained clearances from OMB.

H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each

[[Page 60600]]

year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of 
this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

I. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. 
Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration 
of the following questions:

--Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
--Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
--What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them 
in your comments on this SNPRM.

J. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or 
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by us.
    This rulemaking directly involves decisions based on health risks 
that disproportionately affect children, namely, the risk of deploying 
air bags to children. However, this rulemaking serves to reduce, rather 
than increase, that risk.

K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary 
consensus standards \27\ in its regulatory activities unless doing so 
would be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory 
provisions regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise 
impractical. In meeting that requirement, we are required to consult 
with voluntary, private sector, consensus standards bodies. Examples of 
organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards 
bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 
the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available and 
potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are required 
by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of the 
reasons for not using such standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. 
Technical standards are defined by the NTTAA as ``performance-based 
or design-specific technical specifications and related management 
systems practices.'' They pertain to ``products and processes, such 
as size, strength, or technical performance of a product, process or 
material.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have incorporated the out-of-position tests one and two 
developed by the International Standards Organization (ISO) as part of 
the proposed low-risk deployment tests for the out-of-position 5th 
percentile adult female on the driver-side air bag and for the 6-year-
old child on the passenger-side air bag. No other voluntary consensus 
standards are addressed by this rulemaking.

VI. Submission of Comments

How Can I Influence NHTSA's Thinking on This Proposed Rule?

    In developing this SNPRM, we tried to address the concerns of all 
our stakeholders. Your comments will help us improve this rule. We 
invite you to provide different views on options we propose, new 
approaches we have not considered, new data, how this proposed rule may 
affect you, or other relevant information. We welcome your views on all 
aspects of this proposed rule, but request comments on specific issues 
throughout this document. We grouped these specific requests near the 
end of the sections in which we discuss the relevant issues. Your 
comments will be most effective if you follow the suggestions below:
    Explain your views and reasoning as clearly as possible.
     Provide solid technical and cost data to support your 
views.
     If you estimate potential costs, explain how you arrived 
at the estimate.
     Tell us which parts of the SNPRM you support, as well as 
those with which you disagree.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
     Offer specific alternatives.
     Refer your comments to specific sections of the SNPRM, 
such as the units or page numbers of the preamble, or the regulatory 
sections.
     Be sure to include the name, date, and docket number with 
your comments.

How do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). 
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES.
    In addition, for those comments of 4 or more pages in length, we 
request that you send 10 additional copies, as well as one copy on 
computer disc, to: Mr. Clarke Harper, Chief, Light Duty Vehicle 
Division, NPS-11, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. We emphasize that this is not 
a requirement. However, we ask that you do this to aid us in expediting 
our review of all comments. The copy on computer disc may be in any 
format, although we would prefer that it be in WordPerfect 8.
    Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by 
logging onto the Dockets Management System website at http://
dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain 
instructions for filing the document electronically.

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the

[[Page 60601]]

information you claim to be confidential business information, to the 
Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should submit two copies, from 
which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, 
to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. When 
you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential 
business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth 
the information specified in our confidential business information 
regulation. (49 CFR Part 512.)

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket 
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in 
developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider 
that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments 
on the Internet, take the following steps:
    (1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
    (2) On that page, click on ``search.''
    (3) On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the 
four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. 
Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type 
``1234.'' After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
    (4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may 
download the comments.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 552

    Administrative practice and procedure, Motor vehicle safety, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Tires.

49 CFR Part 585

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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 552--PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING, DEFECT, AND NON-COMPLIANCE 
ORDERS

    1. The authority citation for Part 552 of Title 49 would continue 
to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30111, 30118, and 30162; delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


Sec. 552.1 through 552.10  [Redesignated as Subpart A]

    2. Sections 552.1 through 552.10 would be designated as Subpart A 
and a new subpart heading would be added to read as follows:

Subpart A--General

    3. A new subpart B would be added to Part 552 to read as follows:

Subpart B--Petitions for Expedited Rulemaking To Establish Dynamic 
Automatic Suppression System Test Procedures for Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection

Sec.
552.11  Application.
552.12  Definitions.
552.13  Form of petition.
552.14  Content of petition.
552.15  Processing of petition.

Subpart B--Petitions for Expedited Rulemaking To Establish Dynamic 
Automatic Suppression System Test Procedures for Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection


Sec. 552.11  Application.

    This subpart establishes procedures for the submission and 
disposition of petitions filed by interested parties to initiate 
rulemaking to add a test procedure to 49 CFR 571.208, S28.


Sec. 552.12  Definitions.

    For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions apply:
    (a) Dynamic automatic suppression system (DASS) means a portion of 
an air bag system that automatically controls whether or not the air 
bag deploys during a crash by:
    (1) Sensing the location of an occupant, moving or still, in 
relation to the air bag;
    (2) Interpreting the occupant characteristics and location 
information to determine whether or not the air bag should deploy; and
    (3) Activating or suppressing the air bag system based on the 
interpretation of characteristics and occupant location information.
    (b) Automatic suppression zone or ASZ means a three-dimensional 
zone adjacent to the air bag cover, specified by the vehicle 
manufacturer, where air bag deployment will be suppressed by the DASS 
if a vehicle occupant enters the zone under specified conditions.
    (c) Standard No. 208 means 49 CFR 571.208.


Sec. 552.13  Form of petition.

    Each petition filed under this subpart shall--
    (a) Be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590.
    (b) Be written in the English language.
    (c) State the name and address of the petitioner.
    (d) Set forth in full the data, views and arguments of the 
petitioner supporting the requested test procedure, including all of 
the content information specified by Sec. 552.14. Any documents 
incorporated by reference in the procedure must be submitted with the 
petition.
    (e) Specify and segregate any part of the information and data 
submitted that the petitioner wishes to have withheld from public 
disclosure in accordance with Part 512 of this chapter.
    (f) Not request confidential treatment for any aspect of the 
requested test procedure and, to the extent confidential treatment is 
requested concerning a particular DASS or data and analysis submitted 
in support of the petition, provide a general non-confidential 
description of the operation of the DASS and of the data and analysis 
supporting the petition.
    (g) Set forth a requested effective date and be submitted at least 
nine months before that date.

[[Page 60602]]

Sec. 552.14  Content of petition.

    The petitioner shall provide the following information:
    (a) A set of proposed test procedures for S28.1, S28.2, S28.3, and 
S28.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 which the 
petitioner believes are appropriate for assessing a particular dynamic 
automatic suppression system.
    (1) For S28.1 of Standard No. 208, the petitioner shall specify at 
least one specific position for the Part 572, subpart O 5th percentile 
female dummy that is:
    (i) Outside but adjacent to the ASZ, and
    (ii) Representative of an occupant position that is likely to occur 
during a frontal crash.
    (2) For S28.2 of Standard No. 208, the petitioner shall specify at 
least one specific position for the Part 572 Subpart P 3-year-old child 
dummy and at least one specific position for the Part 572 Subpart N 6-
year-old child dummy that are:
    (i) Outside but adjacent to the ASZ, and
    (ii) Representative of occupant positions that are likely to occur 
during a frontal crash where pre-crash braking occurs.
    (3) For S28.3 of Standard No. 208, the petitioner shall specify a 
procedure which tests the operation of the DASS by moving a test device 
toward the driver air bag in a manner that simulates the motion of an 
occupant during pre-crash braking or other pre-crash maneuver. The 
petitioner shall include a complete description, including drawings and 
instrumentation, of the test device employed in the proposed test. The 
petitioner shall include in the procedure a means for determining 
whether the driver air bag was suppressed before any portion of the 
specified test device entered the ASZ during the test. The procedure 
must also include a means of determining when the specified test device 
occupies the ASZ.
    (4) For S28.4 of Standard No. 208, the petitioner shall specify a 
procedure which tests the operation of the DASS by moving a test device 
toward the passenger air bag in a manner that simulates the motion of 
an occupant during pre-crash braking or other pre-crash maneuver. The 
petitioner shall include a complete description, including drawings and 
instrumentation, of the test device employed in the proposed test. The 
petitioner shall include in the procedure a means for determining 
whether the passenger air bag was suppressed before any portion of the 
specified test device entered the ASZ during the test. The procedure 
must also include a means of determining when the specified test device 
occupies the ASZ.
    (b) A complete description and explanation of the particular DASS 
that the petitioner believes will be appropriately assessed by the 
recommended test procedures. This must include:
    (1) A complete description of the logic used by the DASS in 
determining whether to suppress the air bag or allow it to deploy. Such 
description must include flow charts or similar materials outlining the 
operation of the system logic, the system reaction time, the time 
duration used to evaluate whether the air bag should be suppressed or 
deployed, changes, if any, in system performance based on the size of 
an occupant and vehicle speed, and a description of the size and shape 
of the zone where under similar circumstances and conditions the DASS 
may either allow or suppress deployment. Such description shall also 
address whether and how the DASS discriminates between an occupant's 
torso or head entering the ASZ as compared to an occupant's hand or 
arm, and whether and how the DASS discriminates between an occupant 
entering the ASZ and an inanimate object such as a newspaper or ball 
entering the ASZ.
    (2) Detailed specifications for the size and shape of the ASZ, 
including whether the suppression zone is designed to change size or 
shape depending on the vehicle speed, occupant size, or other factors.
    (c) Analysis and data supporting the appropriateness, 
repeatability, reproducibility and practicability of each of the 
proposed test procedures.
    (1) For the procedures proposed for inclusion in S28.1 and S28.2 of 
Standard No. 208, the petitioner shall provide the basis for the 
proposed dummy positions, including but not limited to, why the 
positions are representative of what is likely to occur in real world 
crashes.
    (2) For the procedures proposed for inclusion in S28.3 and S28.4 of 
Standard No. 208, the petitioner shall provide:
    (i) A complete explanation of the means used in the proposed test 
to ascertain whether the air bag is suppressed or activated during the 
test.
    (ii) A complete description of the means used to evaluate the 
ability of a dynamic system to detect and respond to an occupant moving 
toward an air bag, including the method used to move a test device 
toward an air bag at speeds representative of occupant movement during 
pre-crash braking or other pre-crash maneuver.
    (iii) The procedure used for locating the test device inside a test 
vehicle in preparation for testing, including an accounting of the 
reference points used to specify such location.
    (iv) An explanation of the methods used to measure the amount of 
time needed by a suppression system to suppress an air bag once a 
suppression triggering event occurs.
    (v) High speed film or video of at least two tests of the DASS 
using the proposed test procedure.
    (vi) Data generated from not less than two tests of the DASS using 
the proposed test procedure, including an account of the data streams 
monitored during testing and complete samples of these data streams 
from not less than two tests performed under the proposed procedure.
    (d) Analysis concerning the variety of potential DASS designs for 
which the requested test procedure is appropriate; e.g., whether the 
test procedures are appropriate only for the specific DASS design 
contemplated by the petitioner, for all DASS designs incorporating the 
same technologies, or for all DASS designs.


Sec. 552.15   Processing of petition.

    (a) NHTSA will process any petition that contains the information 
specified by this subpart. If a petition fails to provide any of the 
information, NHTSA will not process the petition but will advise the 
petitioner of the information that must be provided if the agency is to 
process the petition. The agency will seek to notify the petitioner of 
any such deficiency within 30 days after receipt of the petition.
    (b) At any time during the agency's consideration of a petition 
submitted under this part, the Administrator may request the petitioner 
to provide additional supporting information and data and/or provide a 
demonstration of any of the requested test procedures. The agency will 
seek to make any such request within 60 days after receipt of the 
petition. Such demonstration may be at either an agency designated 
facility or one chosen by the petitioner, provided that, in either 
case, the facility must be located in North America. If such a request 
is not honored to the satisfaction of the agency, the petition will not 
receive further consideration until the requested information is 
submitted.
    (c) The agency will publish in the Federal Register either a Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking proposing adoption of the requested test 
procedures, possibly with changes and/or additions, or a notice denying 
the petition. The agency will seek to issue

[[Page 60603]]

either notice within 120 days after receipt of a complete petition. 
However, this time period may be extended by any time period during 
which the agency is awaiting additional information it requests from 
the petitioner or is awaiting a requested demonstration. The agency 
contemplates a 30 day comment period for any Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, and will endeavor to issue a final rule within 60 days 
thereafter.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    4. 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.

    5. Section 571.208 would be amended by revising S3, S4.5.1 heading, 
S4.5.1(b)(1), S4.5.1(b)(2), 4.5.1(e), S4.5.1(f), S4.5.4, S5.1, S5.1.1, 
S5.1.2, S6.1, S6.2, 6.4, S8.1.5 and S13, removing S4.5.5, adding 
S4.1.5.4, S4.2.6.3, S4.7, S4.8, S4.9, S5.4, S5.4.1, S5.4.2, S5.4.2.1, 
S5.4.2.2, S5.4.2.3, S5.4.2.4, S6.6, S6.7, S14 through S33.5, and adding 
new figures 8, 9 and 10 in numerical order and adding Appendix A at the 
end of the section after the figures to read as follows:


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

    [Proposed high speed test Alternative 1--unbelted rigid barrier 
(29-48 km/h) (18-30 mph), belted rigid barrier (0-48 km/h) (0-30 mph)--
consists of proposed sections S5.1.1, S5.1.2, S6.1, S6.2(b), S6.3, 
S6.4(b), S6.5, S6.6, S6.7, S14.3, S15.1, S15.2, S15.3, S15.4, S16.1(a), 
S16.1(b), S16.2, S16.3, S17.1, and S18. It does not include S5.4 or 
S17.2, i.e., if Alternative 1 were adopted, neither S5.4 nor S17.2 
would be adopted. Proposed high speed test Alternative 2--unbelted 
offset deformable barrier (35-56 km/h) (22-35 mph), belted rigid 
barrier(0-48 km/h) (0-30 mph)--consists of proposed sections S5.1.1, 
S5.4, S6.1, S6.2(b), S6.3, S6.4(b), S6.5, S6.6, S6.7, S14.3, S15.1, 
S15.3, S15.4, S16.1(a), S16.2, S16.3, S17.1, S17.2, and S18. It does 
not include S5.1.2, S15.2, or S16.1(b), i.e., if Alternative 2 were 
adopted, neither S5.1.2 nor S15.2 nor S16.1(b) would be adopted.]
* * * * *
    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 S14.3, S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, S25, 
S30, and S32.
    (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.
* * * * *
    S4.1.5.4  Passenger cars certified to S14. At each front outboard 
designated seating position meet the frontal crash protection 
requirements of S5.1.2 [under Alternative 1] [or] S5.4 [under 
Alternative 2] by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. A 
vehicle shall not be deemed to be in noncompliance with this standard 
if its manufacturer establishes that it did not have reason to know in 
the exercise of due care that such vehicle is not in conformity with 
the requirement of this standard.
* * * * *
    S4.2.6.3  Trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 
GVWR of 3,855 kg (8,500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight 
of 2,495 kg (5,500 pounds) or less certified to S14. Each truck, bus, 
or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8,500 
pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5,500 
pounds) or less certified to S14 shall, at each front outboard 
designated seating position, meet the frontal crash protection 
requirements of S5.1.2 [under Alternative 1] [or] S5.4 [under 
Alternative 2] by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. A 
vehicle shall not be deemed to be in noncompliance with this standard 
if its manufacturer establishes that it did not have reason to know in 
the exercise of due care that such vehicle is not in conformity with 
the requirement of this standard.
* * * * *
    S4.5.1  Labeling and owner's manual information. 
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Except as provided in S4.5.1(b)(2), each vehicle shall have a 
label permanently affixed to either side of the sun visor, at the 
manufacturer's option, at each front outboard seating position that is 
equipped with an inflatable restraint. The label shall conform in 
content to the label shown in either Figure 6a or 6b of this standard, 
as appropriate, and shall comply with the requirements of 
S4.5.1(b)(1)(i) through S4.5.1(b)(1)(iv).
    (i) The heading area shall be yellow with the word ``WARNING'' and 
the alert symbol in black.
    (ii) The message area shall be white with black text. The message 
area shall be no less than 30 cm2 (4.7 in2).
    (iii) The pictogram shall be black with a red circle and slash on a 
white background. The pictogram shall be no less than 30 mm (1.2 
inches) in diameter.
    (iv) If the vehicle does not have a back seat, the label shown in 
Figure 6a or 6b may be modified by omitting the statement: ``The BACK 
SEAT is the SAFEST place for children.''
    (2) Vehicles manufactured after September 1, 2002 and certified to 
meet the requirements specified in S19, S21, and S23, shall have a 
label permanently affixed to either side of the sun visor, at the 
manufacturer's option, at each front outboard seating position that is 
equipped with an inflatable restraint. The label shall conform in 
content to the label shown in Figure 8 of this standard and shall 
comply with the requirements of S4.5.1(b)(2)(i) through 
S4.5.1(b)(2)(iv).
    (i) The heading area shall be yellow with the word ``CAUTION'' and 
the alert symbol in black.
    (ii) The message area shall be white with black text. The message 
area shall be no less than 30 cm2 (4.7 in2).
    (iii) The pictogram shall be black on a white background. The 
pictogram shall be no less than 30 mm (1.2 inches) in length.
    (iv) If the vehicle does not have a back seat, the label shown in 
Figure 8 may be modified by omitting the statement: ``The BACK SEAT is 
the SAFEST place for CHILDREN.''
* * * * *
    (e) Label on the dashboard.
    (1) Except as provided in S4.5.1(e)(2), each vehicle that is 
equipped with an inflatable restraint for the passenger position shall 
have a label attached to a location on the dashboard or the steering 
wheel hub that is clearly visible

[[Page 60604]]

from all front seating positions. The label need not be permanently 
affixed to the vehicle. This label shall conform in content to the 
label shown in Figure 7 of this standard, and shall comply with the 
requirements of S4.5.1(e)(1)(i) through S4.5.1(e)(1)(iii).
    (i) The heading area shall be yellow with the word ``WARNING'' and 
the alert symbol in black.
    (ii) The message area shall be white with black text. The message 
area shall be no less than 30 cm2 (4.7 in2).
    (iii) If the vehicle does not have a back seat, the label shown in 
Figure 7 may be modified by omitting the statement: ``The back seat is 
the safest place for children 12 and under.''
    (2) Vehicles manufactured after September 1, 2002 and certified to 
meet the requirements specified in S19, S21, and S23, that are equipped 
with an inflatable restraint for the passenger position shall have a 
label attached to a location on the dashboard or the steering wheel hub 
that is clearly visible from all front seating positions. The label 
need not be permanently affixed to the vehicle. This label shall 
conform in content to the label shown in Figure 9 of this standard, and 
shall comply with the requirements of S4.5.1(e)(2)(i) through 
S4.5.1(e)(2)(iii).
    (i) The heading area shall be yellow with black text.
    (ii) The message area shall be white with black text. The message 
area shall be no less than 30 cm2 (4.7 in2).
    (iii) If the vehicle does not have a back seat, the label shown in 
Figure 9 may be modified by omitting the statement: ``The back seat is 
the safest place for children.''
    (f) Information to appear in owner's manual.
    (1) The owner's manual for any vehicle equipped with an inflatable 
restraint system shall include a description of the vehicle's air bag 
system in an easily understandable format. The owner's manual shall 
include a statement to the effect that the vehicle is equipped with an 
air bag and lap/shoulder belt at one or both front outboard seating 
positions, and that the air bag is a supplemental restraint at those 
seating positions. The information shall emphasize that all occupants, 
including the driver, should always wear their seat belts whether or 
not an air bag is also provided at their seating position to minimize 
the risk of severe injury or death in the event of a crash. The owner's 
manual shall also provide any necessary precautions regarding the 
proper positioning of occupants, including children, at seating 
positions equipped with air bags to ensure maximum safety protection 
for those occupants. The owner's manual shall also explain that no 
objects should be placed over or near the air bag on the instrument 
panel, because any such objects could cause harm if the vehicle is in a 
crash severe enough to cause the air bag to inflate.
    (2) For any vehicle certified to meet the requirements specified in 
S14.3, S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, S25, S30, and S32, the manufacturer 
shall also include in the vehicle's owner's manual a discussion of the 
advanced passenger air bag system installed in the vehicle. The 
discussion shall be written to explain the proper functioning of the 
advanced air bag system and shall provide a summary of the actions that 
may affect the proper functioning of the system. The discussion shall 
include, as a minimum, the following topics:
    (a) presentation and explanation of the main components of the 
advanced passenger air bag system.
    (b) explanation of how the components function together as part of 
the advanced passenger air bag system.
    (c) basic requirements for proper operation, including an 
explanation of the actions that may affect the proper functioning of 
the system.
    (d) a complete description of the passenger air bag suppression 
system installed in the vehicle including a discussion of any 
suppression zone.
    (e) an explanation of the interaction of the advanced passenger air 
bag system with other vehicle components, such as seat belts, seats or 
other components.
    (f) a summary of the expected outcomes when child restraint 
systems, children and small teenagers or adults are both properly and 
improperly positioned in the passenger seat, including cautionary 
advice against improper placement of child restraint systems.
    (g) tips and guidelines to improve consumer understanding of the 
proper use of the advanced passenger air bag system.
    (h) information on how to contact the vehicle manufacturer 
concerning modifications for persons with disabilities that may affect 
the advanced air bag system.
* * * * *
    S4.5.4  Passenger air bag manual cut-off device. Passenger cars, 
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured before 
September 1, 2005 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.
* * * * *
    S4.7  Selection of compliance options. 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. Each manufacturer shall, upon request from the Office 
of Vehicle Safety Compliance, provide information regarding which of 
the compliance options it has selected for a particular vehicle or 
make/model.
    S4.8  Values and tolerances. Wherever a range of values or 
tolerances are specified, requirements shall be met at all values 
within the range of values or tolerances. All angles and directions 
(e.g., vertical or horizontal) specified are approximate.
    S4.9  Metric values. Specifications and requirements are given in 
metric units with English units provided for reference. The metric 
values are controlling.
* * * * *
    S5  Occupant crash protection requirements.
    S5.1  Frontal barrier crash test.
    S5.1.1  Belted test. Impact a vehicle traveling longitudinally 
forward at any speed, up to and including 48 km/h (30 mph), into a 
fixed rigid barrier that is perpendicular to the line of travel of the 
vehicle, or at any angle up to 30 degrees in either direction from the 
perpendicular to the line of travel of the vehicle, under the 
applicable conditions of S8 and S10, including S10.9 (manual belt 
adjustment). For vehicles certified to S14 of this standard, the test 
dummy specified in S8.1.8 placed in each front outboard designated 
seating position shall meet the injury criteria of S6.1, S6.2(b), S6.3, 
S6.4(b), S6.5, and S6.6 of this standard. All other vehicles to which 
S5.1.1 is applicable shall meet the injury criteria of S6.1, S6.2(a), 
S6.3, S6.4(a), and S6.5.
    S5.1.2  Unbelted test. Impact a vehicle traveling longitudinally 
forward at any speed, between 29 km/h (18 mph) and 48 km/h (30 mph), 
inclusive, into a fixed rigid barrier that is perpendicular to the line 
of travel of the vehicle, or at any angle up to 30 degrees in either 
direction from the perpendicular to the line of travel of the vehicle 
under the applicable conditions of S8 and S10, excluding S10.9. The 
test dummy specified in S8.1.8 placed in each front outboard designated 
seating position shall meet the injury criteria of S6.1, S6.2(b), S6.3, 
S6.4(b), S6.5, and S6.6 of this standard.
* * * * *
    S5.4  Offset deformable barrier crash test.
    S5.4.1  General provisions. Place a Part 572 Subpart E Hybrid III 
50th percentile adult male test dummy at each front outboard seating 
position of

[[Page 60605]]

the vehicle, in accordance with procedures specified in S10. Impact the 
vehicle traveling longitudinally forward at any speed, between 35.4 km/
h (22 mph) and 56 km/h (35 mph), inclusive, into a fixed offset 
deformable barrier under the conditions specified in S5.4.2 of this 
standard. The test dummies shall meet the injury criteria specified in 
S6.1, S6.2(b), S6.3, S6.4(b), S6.5, and S6.6 of this standard.
    S5.4.2  Test conditions.
    S5.4.2.1  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.
    S5.4.2.2  General test conditions. All of the test conditions 
specified in S8.1 of this standard apply.
    S5.4.2.3  Dummy seating and positioning. The anthropomorphic test 
dummies are seated and positioned as specified in S10 of this standard.
    S5.4.2.4  Impact configuration. The test vehicle shall impact the 
barrier 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 overlap on either the left or the right side of the vehicle, 
with the vehicle's width engaging the barrier face such that the 
vehicle's longitudinal centerline is offset outboard of the edge of the 
barrier face by 10 percent of the vehicle's width  25 mm 
(1.0 inch) as illustrated in Figure 10. The vehicle width is defined as 
the maximum dimension measured across the widest part of the vehicle, 
including bumpers and molding but excluding such components as exterior 
mirrors, flexible mud flaps, marker lamps, and dual rear wheel 
configurations.
* * * * *
    S6.1  All portions of the test dummy shall be contained within the 
outer surfaces of the vehicle passenger compartment.
    S6.2  Head injury criteria.
    (a) The resultant acceleration at the center of gravity of the head 
shall be such that the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.010

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.
    (b) The resultant acceleration at the center of gravity of the head 
shall be such that the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.011

shall not exceed 700 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 15 millisecond time 
interval.
* * * * *
    S6.4  Chest deflection.
    (a) Compression deflection of the sternum relative to the spine, as 
determined by instrumentation shown in drawing 78051-218, revision U 
incorporated by reference in Part 572, subpart E of this chapter, shall 
not exceed 76 mm (3 inches).
    (b) Compressive deflection of the sternum relative to the spine, as 
determined by instrumentation shown in drawing 78051-317, revision A, 
incorporated by reference in Part 572, subpart E, shall not exceed 63 
mm (2.5 inches).
* * * * *
    S6.6  Neck injury. The biomechanical neck injury predictor, Nij, 
shall not exceed a value of 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 = 4500 N (1012 lbf) for tension
Fzc = 4500 N (1012 lbf) for compression
Myc = 310 Nm (229 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 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.
    S6.7  Test duration for purpose of measuring injury criteria. For 
tests conducted pursuant to S5.1.1, S5.1.2, and S5.4, the injury 
criteria shall be met up to 300 milliseconds after the vehicle strikes 
the barrier.
* * * * *
    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 prior to the time it certifies the 
vehicle.
* * * * *
    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 S14.3, S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, S25, S30, and S32 (in 
addition to the other requirements specified in this standard).
    (b) Manufacturers that 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 S14.3, S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, S25, S30, and 
S32 (in addition to the other requirements specified in this standard).
    (c) Each vehicle that is manufactured in two or more stages or that 
is altered (within the meaning of section 567.7 of

[[Page 60606]]

this chapter) after having previously been certified in accordance with 
Part 567 of this chapter is not subject to the requirements of S14.1.
    (d) Vehicles manufactured by a manufacturer that produces fewer 
than 5,000 vehicles worldwide annually are 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 S14.3, S15, 
S17, S19, S21, S23, S25, S30, and S32 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
    (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 S14.3, S15, 
S17, S19, S21, S23, S25, S30, and S32 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 S14.3, S15, 
S17, S19, S21, S23, S25, S30, and S32 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 if it 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 S14.3, S15, S17, S19, 
S21, S23, S25, S30, and S32 (in addition to the other requirements 
specified in this standard).
    S14.3  Barrier test requirements using 50th percentile adult male 
dummies.
    S14.3.1  Rigid barrier belted test. Each vehicle that is certified 
as complying with S14 shall, at each front outboard designated seating 
position, meet the injury criteria specified in S6.1, S6.2(b), S6.3, 
S6.4(b), S6.5, and S6.6 when tested under S5.1.1. A vehicle shall not 
be deemed to be in noncompliance with this paragraph if its 
manufacturer establishes that it did not have reason to know in the 
exercise of due care that such vehicle is not in conformity with the 
requirements of this paragraph.
    S14.3.2  Rigid barrier unbelted test. Each vehicle that is 
certified as complying with S14 shall comply with the requirements of 
S4.1.5.4 or S4.2.6.3 by means of an inflatable restraint system at the 
driver's and right front passenger's position that meets the injury 
criteria specified in S6.1, S6.2(b), S6.3, S6.4(b), S6.5, and S6.6 when 
tested under S5.1.2. A vehicle shall not be deemed to be in 
noncompliance with this paragraph if its manufacturer establishes that 
it did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that such 
vehicle is not in conformity with the requirements of this paragraph.
    S14.3.2  Offset deformable barrier unbelted test. Each vehicle that 
is certified as complying with S14 of this standard shall comply with 
the requirements of S4.1.5.4 or S4.2.6.3 that meets the injury criteria 
specified in S6.1, S6.2(b), S6.3, S6.4(b), S6.5, and S6.6 when tested 
under S5.4. A vehicle shall not be deemed to be in noncompliance with 
this paragraph if its manufacturer establishes that it did not have 
reason to know in the exercise of due care that such vehicle is not in 
conformity with the requirements of this paragraph.
    S15  Rigid barrier test requirements using 5th percentile adult 
female dummies.
    S15.1  Belted test. Each vehicle subject to S15 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 a Type 2 seat belt 
assembly. A vehicle shall not be deemed to be in noncompliance with 
this paragraph if its manufacturer establishes that it did not have 
reason to know in the exercise of due care that such vehicle is not in 
conformity with the requirements of this paragraph.
    S15.2  Unbelted test. Each vehicle subject to S15 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. A vehicle shall not be deemed 
to be in noncompliance with this paragraph if its manufacturer 
establishes that it did not have reason to know in the exercise of due 
care that such vehicle is not in conformity with the requirements of 
this paragraph.
    S15.3  Injury criteria (5th percentile adult female dummy).

[[Page 60607]]

    S15.3.1  All portions of the test dummy shall be contained within 
the outer surfaces of the vehicle passenger compartment.
    S15.3.2  The resultant acceleration at the center of gravity of the 
head shall be such that the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.012

shall not exceed 700 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 15 millisecond time 
interval.
    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 52 mm (2.0 inches).
    S15.3.5  The force transmitted axially through each thigh shall not 
exceed 6805 N (1530 pounds).
    S15.3.6  The biomechanical neck injury predictor, Nij, shall not 
exceed a value of 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 = 3370 N (758 lbf) for tension
Fzc = 3370 N (758 lbf) for compression
Myc = 155 Nm (114 lbf-ft) for flexion about occipital condyles
Myc = 62 Nm (46 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 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.
    S15.4  Test duration for purpose of measuring injury criteria. For 
tests conducted pursuant to S15 and S17, the injury criteria of S15.3 
shall be met up to 300 milliseconds after the vehicle strikes the 
barrier. For tests conducted pursuant to S26, the injury criteria shall 
be met up to 100 milliseconds after the air bag deploys.
    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) Belted test. Place a Part 572 Subpart O 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, 
including S16.3.5. Impact the vehicle traveling longitudinally forward 
at any speed, up to and including 48 km/h (30 mph), into a fixed rigid 
barrier that is perpendicular within a tolerance of  5 
degrees to the line of travel of the vehicle under the applicable 
conditions of S16.2 of this standard. The dummies shall meet the injury 
criteria specified in S15.3 of this standard.
    (b) Unbelted test. Place a Part 572 Subpart O 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, 
except S16.3.5. Impact the vehicle traveling longitudinally forward at 
any speed, from 29 km/h (18 mph) to 48 km/h (30 mph), inclusive, into a 
fixed rigid barrier that is perpendicular within a tolerance of 
5 degrees to the line of travel of the vehicle under the 
applicable conditions of S16.2 of this standard. The test dummies shall 
meet the injury criteria specified in S15.3 of this standard.
    S16.2  Test conditions.
    S16.2.1  The vehicle, including test devices and instrumentation, 
is loaded as in S8.1.1.
    S16.2.2  Movable vehicle windows and vents are placed in the fully 
closed position, unless the vehicle manufacturer chooses to specify a 
different adjustment position prior to the time the vehicle is 
certified.
    S16.2.3  Convertibles and open-body type vehicles have the top, if 
any, in place in the closed passenger compartment configuration.
    S16.2.4  Doors are fully closed and latched but not locked.
    S16.2.5  The dummy is clothed in form fitting 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.
    S16.2.6  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.
    S16.2.7  Instrumentation shall not affect the motion of dummies 
during impact.
    S16.2.8   The stabilized temperature of the dummy is at any level 
between 20 deg. C and 22 deg. C (68 deg. F to 71.6 deg. F).
    S16.2.9  Steering wheel adjustment.
    S16.2.9.1  Adjust a tiltable steering wheel, if possible, so that 
the steering wheel hub is at the geometric center when moved through 
its full range of driving positions.
    S16.2.9.2  If there is no setting detent at the mid position, lower 
the steering wheel to the detent just below the mid position.
    S16.2.9.3  If the steering column is telescoping, place the 
steering column as close as possible to the mid position.
    S16.2.10  Pedal adjustment. If pedals can be adjusted, adjust them 
to the full rear position (towards the rear of the vehicle) or until 
the pedal makes contact with the feet as defined in S16.3.2.3.
    S16.2.11  Driver and passenger seat set-up.
    S16.2.11.1  Seat position adjustment.
    S16.2.11.1.1  If a seat is adjustable in the fore and aft and/or 
vertical directions, move the seat to the forwardmost seat track 
position and full down vertical position.
    S16.2.11.1.2  Establish a reference line on the seat pan in a 
horizontal plane.
    S16.2.11.1.3  Measure and record the seat pan angle with respect to 
the reference line established in S16.2.11.1.2.
    S16.2.11.1.4  Adjust the seat vertically to the mid-height 
position. If

[[Page 60608]]

possible, maintain the seat pan reference angle measured in the full 
down and full forward condition in S16.2.11.1.3.
    S16.2.11.2  Lumbar support adjustment. Position adjustable lumbar 
supports so that the lumbar support is in its lowest, retracted or 
deflated adjustment position.
    S16.2.11.3  Side bolster adjustment. Position adjustable seat 
cushion or seat back side bolsters so that they are in the lowest or 
most open adjustment position.
    S16.3  Dummy seating positioning procedures. The Part 572 Subpart O 
5th percentile adult female test dummy is positioned as follows.
    S16.3.1  General provisions and definitions.
    S16.3.1.1  All angles are measured with respect to the horizontal 
plane.
    S16.3.1.2  The dummy's neck bracket is adjusted to align the zero 
degree index marks.
    S16.3.1.3  The term ``midsagittal plane'' refers to the vertical 
plane that separates the dummy into equal left and right halves.
    S16.3.1.4  The term ``vertical longitudinal plane'' refers to a 
vertical plane parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline.
    S16.3.1.5  The term ``vertical plane'' refers to a vertical plane, 
not necessarily parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline.
    S16.3.1.6  The term ``transverse instrumentation platform'' refers 
to the transverse instrumentation surface inside the dummy's skull 
casting to which the neck load cell mounts. This surface is 
perpendicular to the skull cap machined inferior superior mounting 
surface.
    S16.3.1.7.  The term ``thigh'' refers to the femur between, but not 
including, the knee and the pelvis.
    S16.3.1.8  The term ``leg'' refers to the lower part of the entire 
leg including the knee.
    S16.3.2  Driver dummy positioning.
    S16.3.2.1  Driver torso/head/seat back angle positioning.
    S16.3.2.1.1  Fully recline the seat back, if adjustable.
    S16.3.2.1.2  Install the dummy into the driver's seat. If 
necessary, move the seat rearward to facilitate dummy installation. If 
the seat cushion angle automatically changes as the seat is moved from 
the full forward position, restore the correct seat cushion angle when 
measuring the pelvic angle as specified in S16.3.2.1.11.
    S16.3.2.1.3  Bucket seats. Center the dummy on the seat cushion so 
that its midsagittal plane is vertical and coincides with the 
longitudinal center of the seat cushion.
    S16.3.2.1.4  Bench seats. Position the midsagittal plane of the 
dummy vertical and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline 
and aligned with the center of the steering wheel rim.
    S16.3.2.1.5  Hold the dummy's thighs down and push rearward on the 
upper torso until the dummy's pelvic angle measures 30-35 degrees. If 
it is not possible to achieve a pelvic angle of at least 30 degrees, 
maximize the dummy's pelvic angle.
    S16.3.2.1.6  Place the legs at 90 degrees to the thighs. Push 
rearward on the dummy's knees to force the pelvis into the seat so 
there is no gap between the pelvis and the seat back or until contact 
occurs between the back of the dummy's calves and the front of the seat 
cushion such that the angle between the dummy's thighs and legs begins 
to change.
    S16.3.2.1.7  Gently rock the upper torso relative to the lower 
torso laterally in a side to side motion three times through a 
 5 degree arc (approximately 51 mm (2 inches) side to side) 
to reduce friction between the dummy and the seat.
    S16.3.2.1.8  Before proceeding, make sure that the seat has been 
returned to the full forward position if it has been moved from that 
location as specified in S16.3.2.1.2. Adjust legs if required.
    S16.3.2.1.9  While holding the thighs in place, rotate the seat 
back forward until the transverse instrumentation platform of the head 
is level to within  0.5 degrees, making sure that the 
pelvis does not interfere with the seat bight. In addition, inspect the 
abdomen to insure that it is properly installed.
    S16.3.2.1.10  If it is not possible to achieve the head level 
within  0.5 degrees, minimize the angle and continue to 
S16.3.2.1.11.
    S16.3.2.1.11  Measure and set the dummy's pelvic angle using the 
pelvic angle gage (drawing TE-2504, incorporated by reference in Part 
572, subpart O, of this chapter). The angle shall be set to within 20.0 
degrees  2.5 degrees. If this is not possible, adjust the 
pelvic angle as close to 20.0 degrees  2.5 degrees as 
possible while keeping the transverse instrumentation platform of the 
head as level as possible as specified in S16.3.2.1.9 and S16.3.2.1.10.
    S16.3.2.1.12.  If the transverse instrumentation platform of the 
head is still not level, adjust the seat back angle to minimize the 
angle as much as possible.
    S16.3.2.1.13  In vehicles with a fixed seat back, the lower neck 
bracket can be adjusted to level the head within  0.5 
degrees or to minimize the angle as much as possible.
    S16.3.2.2  Driver thigh/knee/leg positioning.
    S16.3.2.2.1  Rest the dummy's thighs against the seat cushion to 
the extent permitted by the placement of the feet in S16.3.2.3.
    S16.3.2.2.2  Set the initial transverse distance between the 
longitudinal centerline of the dummy's thighs at the knees at 160 to 
170 mm (6.3 to 6.7 inches), with the thighs and legs of the dummy in 
vertical longitudinal planes.
    S16.3.2.2.3.  Move the dummy's right foot to the accelerator pedal 
by rotating the entire right thigh and leg at the dummy's hip joint 
while maintaining the dummy's torso setting.
    S16.3.2.2.4  If either knee of the dummy is in contact with the 
vehicle interior, translate the thigh(s) and leg(s) at the hip joint 
inboard or outboard with respect to the dummy midsagittal plane until 
no contact occurs while maintaining the thigh and leg in a vertical 
plane.
    S16.3.2.2.5  If contact still occurs, rotate the thigh(s) and 
leg(s) laterally at the hip joint with respect to the dummy midsagittal 
plane so that it is no longer in the vertical plane and no contact 
occurs.
    S16.3.2.3  Driver feet positioning.
    S16.3.2.3.1  Rest the right foot of the dummy on the undepressed 
accelerator pedal with the rearmost point of the heel on the floor pan 
in the plane of the pedal.
    S16.3.2.3.2  If the ball of the foot does not contact the pedal, 
change the angle of the foot relative to the leg such that the toe of 
the foot contacts the undepressed accelerator pedal.
    S16.3.2.3.3  If the foot still cannot contact the undepressed 
accelerator pedal, place the toe of the foot as close as possible to 
the pedal.
    S16.3.2.3.4  Place the left foot on the toe board 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 toe board and the 
floor pan.
    S16.3.2.3.5  If the left foot cannot be positioned on the toe 
board, place the foot flat on the floor pan as far forward as possible.
    S16.3.2.3.6  If the left foot does not contact the floor pan, place 
the foot parallel to the floor and place the leg as perpendicular to 
the thigh as possible.
    S16.3.2.4  Driver arm/hand positioning.
    S16.3.2.4.1  Place the dummy's upper arm adjacent to the torso with 
the arm centerlines as close to vertical as possible.
    S16.3.2.4.2  Place the palms of the dummy in contact with the outer 
part of the steering wheel rim at its horizontal

[[Page 60609]]

centerline with the thumbs inside the steering wheel rim.
    S16.3.2.4.3  If it is not possible to position the thumbs inside 
the steering wheel rim at its horizontal centerline, then position them 
above and as close to the horizontal centerline of the steering wheel 
rim as possible.
    S16.3.2.4.4  Lightly tape the hands 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) and not more than 22 N (5 pounds), the tape 
releases the hand from the steering wheel rim.
    S16.3.3  Passenger dummy positioning.
    S16.3.3.1  Passenger torso/head/seat back angle positioning.
    S16.3.3.1.1  Fully recline the seat back, if adjustable.
    S16.3.3.1.2  Install the dummy into the passenger's seat. If 
necessary, move the seat rearward to facilitate dummy installation. If 
the seat cushion angle automatically changes as the seat is moved from 
the full forward position, restore the correct seat cushion angle when 
measuring the pelvic angle in S16.3.3.1.11.
    S16.3.3.1.3  Bucket seats. Center the dummy on the seat cushion so 
that its midsagittal plane is vertical and coincides with the 
longitudinal center of the seat cushion.
    S16.3.3.1.4  Bench seats. The midsagittal plane shall be vertical 
and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline and the same 
distance from the vehicle's longitudinal centerline as the midsaggital 
plane of the driver dummy.
    S16.3.3.1.5  Hold the dummy's thighs down and push rearward on the 
upper torso until the dummy's pelvic angle measures 30-35 degrees. If 
it is not possible to achieve a pelvic angle of at least 30 degrees, 
maximize the dummy's pelvic angle.
    S16.3.3.1.6  Place the legs at 90 degrees to the thighs. Push 
rearward on the dummy's knees to force the pelvis into the seat so 
there is no gap between the pelvis and the seat back or until contact 
occurs between the back of the dummy's calves and the front of the seat 
cushion such that the angle of the dummy's legs begins to change.
    S16.3.3.1.7  Gently rock the upper torso relative to the lower 
torso laterally side to side three times through a  5 
degree arc (approximately 51 mm (2 inches) side to side) to reduce 
friction between the dummy and the seat.
    S16.3.3.1.8  Before proceeding, make sure that the seat has been 
returned to the full forward position if it had been moved from that 
location as specified in S16.3.3.1.2.
    S16.3.3.1.9  While holding the thighs in place, rotate the seat 
back forward until the transverse instrumentation platform of the head 
is level to within  0.5 degrees, making sure that the 
pelvis does not interfere with the seat bite. In addition, inspect the 
abdomen to insure that it is properly installed.
    S16.3.3.1.10  If it is not possible to achieve the head level 
within  0.5 degrees, minimize the angle and continue to 
S16.3.3.1.11.
    S16.3.3.1.11  Measure and set the dummy's pelvic angle using the 
pelvic angle gage (drawing TE-2504, incorporated by reference in Part 
572, Subpart O, of this chapter). The angle shall be set within 20.0 
degrees 
 2.5 degrees. If this is not possible, adjust the pelvic 
angle as close to 20.0 degrees  2.5 degrees as possible 
while keeping the transverse instrumentation platform of the head as 
level as specified in S16.3.3.1.9 and S16.3.3.1.10.
    S16.3.3.1.12  If the transverse instrumentation platform of the 
head is still not level, adjust the seat back angle to minimize the 
angle as much as possible.
    S16.3.3.1.13  In vehicles with a fixed seat back, the lower neck 
bracket can be adjusted to level the head within 
 0.5 degrees or to minimize the angle as much as possible.
    S16.3.3.2  Passenger thigh/knee/leg positioning.
    S16.3.3.2.1  Rest the dummy's thighs against the seat cushion to 
the extent permitted by the placement of the feet in S16.3.3.3.
    S16.3.3.2.2  Set the initial transverse distance between the 
longitudinal centerline of the dummy's thighs at the knees at 160 to 
170 mm (6.3 to 6.7 inches), with the thighs and legs of the dummy in 
vertical longitudinal planes.
    S16.3.3.2.3  If either knee of the dummy is in contact with the 
vehicle interior translate the thigh(s) and leg(s) at the hip joint 
inboard or outboard with respect to the dummy midsagittal plane until 
no contact occurs while maintaining the thigh and leg in a vertical 
plane.
    S16.3.3.2.4  If contact still occurs, rotate the thigh(s) and 
leg(s) laterally at the hip joint with respect to the dummy midsagittal 
plane so that it is no longer in the vertical plane and no contact 
occurs.
    S16.3.3.3  Passenger feet positioning.
    S16.3.3.3.1  Place the passenger's feet flat on the floor pan as 
far forward as possible.
    S16.3.3.3.2  If either foot does not entirely contact the floor 
pan, place the foot parallel to the floor and place the legs as 
perpendicular to the thighs as possible.
    S16.3.3.4  Passenger arm/hand positioning.
    S16.3.3.4.1  Place the dummy's upper arms in contact with the upper 
seat back and adjacent to the torso.
    S16.3.3.4.2  Place the palms of the dummy in contact with the 
outside of the thigh.
    S16.3.3.4.3  Place the little fingers in contact with the seat 
cushion.
    S16.3.4  Driver and passenger head restraint adjustment.
    S16.3.4.1.  Place each adjustable head restraint so that the 
vertical center of the head restraint is aligned with the center of 
gravity (CG) of the dummy head.
    S16.3.4.2  If the above position is not attainable, move the 
vertical center of the head restraint to the closest detent below the 
center of the head CG.
    S16.3.4.3  If the head restraint has a fore and aft adjustment, 
place the restraint in the forwardmost position or until contact with 
the head is made.
    S16.3.4.4  If the head restraint has an automatic adjustment, leave 
it where the system positions the restraint after the dummy is placed 
in the seat.
    S16.3.5  Driver and passenger manual belt adjustment (This applies 
only for tests conducted with a belted dummy.)
    S16.3.5.1  If an adjustable seat belt D-ring anchorage exists, 
place it in the full down position.
    S16.3.5.2  Place the Type 2 manual belt around the test dummy and 
fasten the latch.
    S16.3.5.3  Ensure that the dummy's head remains as level as 
possible, as specified in S16.3.2.1.9 and S16.3.2.1.10.
    S16.3.5.4  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.
    S17.1  Each vehicle subject to S17 of this standard shall, at each 
front outboard designated seating position, meet the injury criteria 
specified in S15.3 of this standard when the vehicle

[[Page 60610]]

is crash tested in accordance with the procedures specified in S18.1(a) 
of this standard with the Part 572 Subpart O 5th percentile adult 
female test dummy restrained by a Type 2 seat belt assembly. A vehicle 
shall not be deemed to be in noncompliance with this paragraph if its 
manufacturer establishes that it did not have reason to know in the 
exercise of due care that such vehicle is not in conformity with the 
requirements of this paragraph.
    S17.2  Each vehicle subject to S17 of this standard 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 S18.1(b) of this standard 
with the dummy unbelted. A vehicle shall not be deemed to be in 
noncompliance with this paragraph if its manufacturer establishes that 
it did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that such 
vehicle is not in conformity with the requirements of this paragraph.
    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 specified 
in the following paragraphs (a) and (b).
    (a) Belted test. Place a Part 572 Subpart O 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, 
including S16.3.5. 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, impacting only the driver side of the vehicle. The dummies 
shall meet the injury criteria specified in S15.3 of this standard.
    (b) Unbelted test. Place a Part 572 Subpart O 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, but 
not including S16.3.5. Impact the vehicle traveling longitudinally 
forward at any speed, from 35.4 km/h (22 mph) to 56 km/h (35 mph), 
inclusive, into a fixed offset deformable barrier under the conditions 
specified in S18.2 of this standard. The dummies shall meet the injury 
criteria specified in S15.3 of this standard.
    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 procedures. Position the anthropomorphic 
test dummies as specified in S16.3 of this standard.
    S18.2.4  Impact configuration. The test vehicle shall impact the 
barrier 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 
overlap on either the left or right side of the vehicle, with the 
vehicle's width engaging the barrier face such that the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline is offset outboard of the edge of the barrier 
face by 10 percent of the vehicle's width +/-25 mm (1.0 inch) as 
illustrated in Figure 10. The vehicle width is defined as the maximum 
dimension measured across the widest part of the vehicle, including 
bumpers and molding but excluding such components as exterior mirrors, 
flexible mud flaps, marker lamps, and dual rear wheel configurations.
    S19  Requirements to provide protection for infants in 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.
    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 during each of the static tests specified 
in S20.2 (using the Part 572 Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI child dummy 
restrained in any of the child restraints set forth in sections B and C 
of Appendix A to this section), and activation of the air bag during 
each of the static tests specified in S20.3 (using the Part 572 Subpart 
O 5th percentile Hybrid III adult female dummy).
    S19.2.2  The vehicle shall be equipped with a mechanism that 
indicates whether the occupant restraint system is suppressed. The 
mechanism need not be located in the occupant compartment.
    S19.2.3  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, except that the telltale need not illuminate when the 
passenger seat is unoccupied. 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 (1.0 inch) 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 S20.4 of this standard.
    S19.4  Injury criteria (12-month-old CRABI dummy).
    S19.4.1  All portions of the test dummy and child restraint shall 
be contained within the outer surfaces of the vehicle passenger 
compartment.
    S19.4.2  The resultant acceleration at the center of gravity of the 
head shall be such that the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.013

shall not exceed 390 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 15 millisecond time 
interval.
    S19.4.3  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.
    S19.4.4  The biomechanical neck injury predictor, Nij, shall not 
exceed a value of 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.

[[Page 60611]]

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 = 1465 N (329 lbf) for tension
Fzc = 1465 N (329 lbf) for compression
Myc = 43 Nm (32 lbf-ft) for flexion about occipital condyles
Myc = 17 Nm (13 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 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.
    S19.4.5  Test duration for purpose of measuring injury criteria. 
For tests conducted pursuant to S20.4, the injury criteria shall be met 
up to 100 milliseconds after the air bag deploys.
    S20  Test procedure for S19.
    S20.1  General provisions. Tests specifying the use of a rear 
facing child restraint, a convertible child restraint, or car bed may 
be conducted using any such restraint listed in sections A, B, and C of 
Appendix A of this standard. The rear facing child restraint, 
convertible child restraint, or car bed may be unused or used; if used, 
there must not be any visible damage prior to the test.
    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 and convertible child 
restraints.
    S20.2.1.1  Position the right front passenger vehicle seat at any 
seat track location, at any seat height, and at any seat back angle 
between the manufacturer's nominal design position for the 50th 
percentile adult male as specified in S8.1.3 and an additional 25 
degrees in the rearward direction (inclusive).
    S20.2.1.2  Tests in S20.2.1 may be conducted using any child 
restraint specified in section B or section C of Appendix A.
    S20.2.1.3  If the child restraint is equipped with a handle, tests 
may be conducted with the handle at either the child restraint 
manufacturer's recommended position for use in vehicles or in the 
upright position.
    S20.2.1.4  If the child restraint is equipped with a sunshield, 
tests may be conducted with the sunshield either fully open or fully 
closed.
    S20.2.1.5  Tests may be conducted with the child restraint 
uncovered or with a towel or blanket weighing up to 1.0 kg (2.2 pounds) 
placed on or over the child restraint in any of the following 
positions:
    (a) With the blanket covering the top and sides of the child 
restraint, or
    (b) With the blanket placed from the top of the vehicle's seat back 
to the forwardmost edge of the child restraint.
    S20.2.1.6  Locate a vertical plane through the longitudinal 
centerline of the child restraint. This will be referred to as ``Plane 
A''.
    S20.2.1.7  Locate a vertical plane parallel to the vehicle 
longitudinal centerline through the geometric center of the right front 
passenger vehicle seat pan. This will be referred to as ``Plane B''. 
For vehicles with bench seats, locate a vertical plane parallel to the 
vehicle longitudinal centerline through the geometric center of the air 
bag cover. This will be referred to as ``Plane B''.
    S20.2.1.8  Facing rear.
    (a) Align the child restraint system facing rearward such that 
``Plane A'' is aligned with ``Plane B''.
    (b) While maintaining the child restraint position achieved in 
S20.2.1.8(a), secure the child restraint by following, to the extent 
possible, the child restraint manufacturer's directions regarding 
proper installation of the restraint in the rear facing mode.
    (c) Cinch the vehicle belts to secure the child restraint in 
accordance with the procedures specified in Standard No. 213, except 
that any tension from zero up to 134 N (30 pounds) may be used.
    (d) Position the Part 572 Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI dummy in the 
child restraint by following, to the extent possible, the 
manufacturer's instructions for seating infants provided with the child 
restraint.
    (e) Start the vehicle engine and close all vehicle doors. Check 
whether the air bag is deactivated.
    S20.2.1.9  Facing forward (convertible restraints only).
    (a) Align the child restraint system facing forward such that 
``Plane A'' is aligned with ``Plane B''.
    (b) While maintaining the forward facing position achieved in 
S20.2.1.9(a), secure the child restraint by following, to the extent 
possible, the child restraint manufacturer's directions regarding 
proper installation of the restraint in the forward facing mode.
    (c) Cinch the vehicle belts to secure the child restraint in 
accordance with the procedures specified in Standard No. 213, except 
that any tension from zero up to 134 N (30 pounds) may be used.
    (d) Position the Part 572 Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI dummy in the 
child restraint by following, to the extent possible, the 
manufacturer's instructions for seating infants provided with the child 
restraint.
    (e) Start the vehicle engine and close all vehicle doors. Check 
whether the air bag is deactivated.
    S20.2.2  Test two--unbelted rear facing and convertible child 
restraints.
    S20.2.2.1  Position the right front passenger vehicle seat at any 
seat track location, at any seat height, and at any seat back angle 
between the manufacturer's nominal design position for the 50th 
percentile adult male as specified in S8.1.3 and an additional 25 
degrees in the rearward direction (inclusive).
    S20.2.2.2  Tests in S20.2.2 may be conducted using any child 
restraint specified in section B or section C of Appendix A to this 
section.
    S20.2.2.3  If the child restraint is equipped with a handle, tests 
may be conducted with the handle at either the child restraint 
manufacturer's recommended position for use in vehicles or in the 
upright position.
    S20.2.2.4  If the child restraint is equipped with a sunshield, 
tests may be conducted with the sunshield either fully open or fully 
closed.
    S20.2.2.5  Tests may be conducted with the child restraint 
uncovered or with a towel or blanket weighing up to 1.0 kg (2.2 pounds) 
placed on or over the child restraint in any of the following 
positions:
    (a) With the blanket covering the top and sides of the child 
restraint, or
    (b) With the blanket placed from the top of the vehicle's seat back 
to the forwardmost edge of the child restraint.
    S20.2.2.6  Locate a vertical plane through the longitudinal 
centerline of the child restraint. This will be referred to as ``Plane 
A''.
    S20.2.2.7  Locate a vertical plane parallel to the vehicle 
longitudinal centerline through the geometric center of the right front 
passenger vehicle seat pan. This will be referred to as ``Plane B''. 
For vehicles with bench seats, locate a vertical plane parallel to the 
vehicle longitudinal centerline through the geometric center of the air 
bag cover. This will be referred to as ``Plane B''.
    S20.2.2.8  Facing rear.
    (a) Align the child restraint system facing rearward such that 
``Plane A'' is aligned with ``Plane B'' and adjust the forwardmost part 
of the child restraint

[[Page 60612]]

in ``Plane A'' at any angle up to 45 degrees from ``Plane B''.
    (b) Position the Part 572 Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI dummy in the 
child restraint by following, to the extent possible, the 
manufacturer's instructions for seating infants provided with the child 
restraint.
    (c) Start the vehicle engine and close all vehicle doors. Check 
whether the air bag is deactivated.
    S20.2.2.9  Facing forward.
    (a) Align the child restraint system facing forward such that 
``Plane A'' is aligned with ``Plane B'' and adjust the forwardmost part 
of the child restraint in ``Plane A'' at any angle up to 45 degrees 
from ``Plane B''.
    (b) Position the Part 572 Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI dummy in the 
child restraint by following, to the extent possible, the 
manufacturer's instructions for seating infants provided with the child 
restraint.
    (c) Start the vehicle engine and close all vehicle doors. Check 
whether the air bag is deactivated.
    S20.2.2.10  Facing forward, tipped on instrument panel (convertible 
child restraints only).
    (a) Align the child restraint system facing forward such that 
``Plane A'' is aligned with ``Plane B''.
    (b) Position the Part 572 Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI dummy in the 
child restraint by following, to the extent possible, the 
manufacturer's instructions for seating infants provided with the child 
restraint.
    (c) Tip the rearwardmost part of the child restraint forward toward 
the instrument panel, while keeping the bottom portion of the child 
seat in contact with the vehicle seat. Position the child restraint 
such that it rests against the instrument panel. If the child restraint 
cannot reach the instrument panel and remain in contact with the 
vehicle seat, move the vehicle seat forward until contact can be 
achieved.
    (d) Start the vehicle engine and close all vehicle doors. Check 
whether the air bag is deactivated.
    S20.2.3  Test three-belted car bed.
    S20.2.3.1  Position the right front passenger vehicle seat at any 
seat track location, at any seat height, and at any seat back angle 
between the manufacturer's nominal design position for the 50th 
percentile adult male as specified in S8.1.3 and an additional 25 
degrees in the rearward direction (inclusive).
    S20.2.3.2  Tests may be conducted using any car bed specified in 
section A of Appendix A.
    S20.2.3.3  If the car bed is equipped with a handle, tests may be 
conducted with the handle at either the child restraint manufacturer's 
recommended position for use in vehicles or in the upright position.
    S20.2.3.4  If the car bed is equipped with a sunshield, tests may 
be conducted with the sunshield either fully open or fully closed.
    S20.2.3.5  Tests may be conducted with the car bed uncovered or 
with a towel or blanket weighing up to 1.0 kg (2.2 pounds) placed on or 
over the child restraint in any of the following positions:
    (a) With the blanket covering the top and sides of the car bed, or
    (b) With the blanket placed from the top of the vehicle's seat back 
to the forwardmost edge of the car bed.
    S20.2.3.6  Nominal position:
    (a) Install the car bed by following to the extent possible the car 
bed manufacturer's directions regarding proper installation of the car 
bed.
    (b) Cinch the vehicle belts to secure the child restraint in 
accordance with the procedures specified in Standard No. 213, except 
that any tension from zero up to 134 N (30 pounds) may be used.
    (c) Position the Part 572 Subpart K newborn dummy in the car bed by 
following, to the extent possible, the car bed manufacturer's 
instructions for seating infants provided with the car bed.
    (d) Start the vehicle engine and close all vehicle doors. Check 
whether the air bag is deactivated.
    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 at any seat 
track location, any seat height, and any seat back angle between the 
manufacturer's nominal design position for the 50th percentile adult 
male as specified in S8.1.3 and an additional 25 degrees in the 
rearward direction (inclusive).
    S20.3.2  Place a Part 572 Subpart O 5th percentile adult female 
test dummy at the right front seating position of the vehicle, in 
accordance with procedures specified in S16.3 of this standard, to the 
extent possible with the seat position that has been selected pursuant 
to S20.3.1.
    S20.3.3  Start the vehicle engine and then close all vehicle doors.
    S20.3.4  Check whether the air bag is activated.
    S20.4  Low risk deployment test.
    S20.4.1  Position the right front passenger vehicle seat in the 
full forward seat track position, the highest seat position (if 
adjustment is available), and adjust the seat back to the nominal 
design position for a 50th percentile adult male dummy as specified by 
the vehicle manufacturer.
    S20.4.2  Tests in S20.4 may be conducted using any child restraint 
specified in section B or section C of Appendix A.
    S20.4.3  Locate a vertical plane through the longitudinal 
centerline of the child restraint. This will be referred to as ``Plane 
A''.
    S20.4.4  Locate a vertical plane parallel to the vehicle 
longitudinal centerline through the geometric center of the air bag 
cover. This will be referred to as ``Plane B''.
    S20.4.4  Align the child restraint system facing rearward such that 
``Plane A'' is aligned with ``Plane B''.
    S20.4.5  While maintaining the child restraint position achieved in 
S20.4.4, secure the child restraint by following, to the extent 
possible, the child restraint manufacturer's directions regarding 
proper installation of the restraint in the rear facing mode.
    S20.4.6  Position the Part 572 subpart R 12-month-old CRABI dummy 
in the child restraint by following, to the extent possible, the 
manufacturer's instructions for seating infants provided with the child 
restraint.
    S20.4.7  Deploy the right front passenger air bag system. If the 
air bag contains a multistage inflator, any stage or combination of 
stages may be fired that could deploy in the presence of an infant in a 
rear-facing child restraint positioned according to S20.2.1 or S20.2.2 
in a rigid barrier crash test at speeds up to 64 km/h (40 mph).
    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.
    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 specified 
in S22.2 (using a child or a Part 572 Subpart P Hybrid III 3-year-old 
child dummy), and activation of the air bag during each of the static 
tests specified in S20.3 (using a female or a Part 572 Subpart O Hybrid 
III 5th percentile adult female dummy).
    S21.2.2  The vehicle shall be equipped with a mechanism that 
indicates whether the occupant restraint system is suppressed. The 
mechanism

[[Page 60613]]

need not be located in the occupant compartment.
    S21.2.3  The vehicle shall be equipped with a telltale light on the 
instrument panel meeting the requirements specified in S19.2.3.
    S21.3  Option 2--Dynamic automatic suppression system that 
suppresses the air bag when an occupant is out of position. (This 
option is available under the conditions set forth in S27.1.) The 
vehicle shall be equipped with a dynamic automatic suppression system 
for the passenger air bag which meets the requirements specified in 
S27.
    S21.4  Option 3--Low risk deployment. Each vehicle shall meet the 
injury criteria specified in S21.5 of this standard when the passenger 
air bag is statically deployed in accordance with the low risk 
deployment test procedures specified in S22.3.
    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.
    S21.5.2  The resultant acceleration at the center of gravity of the 
head shall be such that the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.014

shall not exceed 570 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 15 millisecond time 
interval.
    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 55 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 34 millimeters (1.3 inches).
    S21.5.5  The biomechanical neck injury predictor, Nij, shall not 
exceed a value of 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=2120 N (477 lbf) for tension
Fzc=2120 N (477 lbf) for compression
Myc=68 Nm (50 lbf-ft) for flexion about occipital condyles
Myc=27 Nm (20 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 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.
    S21.5.5  Test duration for purpose of measuring injury criteria. 
For tests conducted pursuant to S22.3, the injury criteria shall be met 
up to 100 milliseconds after the air bag deploys.
    S22  Test procedure for S21.
    S22.1  General provisions and definitions.
    S22.1.1  Tests specifying the use of a forward-facing child seat or 
booster seat may be conducted using any such seat listed in section C 
and section D of Appendix A of this standard. The child restraint may 
be unused or used; if used, there must not be any visible damage prior 
to the test.
    S22.1.2  The definitions provided in S16.3.1 apply to the tests 
specified in S22.
    S22.2  Static tests of automatic suppression feature which must 
result in deactivation of the passenger air bag when a child is 
present.
    S22.2.1  Test one--child in a forward-facing child seat or booster 
seat.
    S22.2.1.1  Position the right front passenger vehicle seat at any 
seat track location, at any seat height, and at any seat back angle 
between the manufacturer's nominal design position for the 50th 
percentile adult male as specified in S8.1.3.
    S22.2.1.2  Install the 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.
    S22.2.1.3  Cinch the vehicle belts to secure the child restraint in 
accordance with the procedures specified in Standard No. 213, except 
that any tension from zero up to 134 N (30 pounds) may be used.
    S22.2.1.4  Position the Part 572 Subpart P 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. Place the lower arms at the 
dummy's side.
    S22.2.1.5  Attach all appropriate forward-facing child seat or 
booster seat belts, if any, by following, to the extent possible, the 
manufacturer's instructions for seating children provided with the 
child restraint.
    S22.2.1.6  Start the vehicle engine and then close all vehicle 
doors.
    S22.2.1.7  Check whether the air bag is deactivated.
    S22.2.2  Test two--unbelted child.
    S22.2.2.1  Position the right front passenger vehicle seat at any 
seat track location, at any seat height, and at any seat back angle 
between the manufacturer's nominal design position for the 50th 
percentile adult male as specified in S8.1.3.
    S22.2.2.2  Place the Part 572 Hybrid III 3-year old child dummy on 
the right front passenger seat in any of the following positions 
(without using a forward-facing child restraint 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) Position the upper torso of the dummy against the seat back. In 
the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats, position the 
midsagittal plane of the dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline and the same distance from the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline as the center of the steering wheel rim. In the 
case of vehicles equipped with bucket seats, position the midsagittal 
plane of the dummy vertically such that it coincides with the 
longitudinal centerline of the

[[Page 60614]]

bucket seat. Position the dummy's thighs against the seat cushion.
    (3) Allow the legs of the dummy to extend off the surface of the 
seat. If this positioning of the dummy's legs is prevented by contact 
with the instrument panel, rotate the leg toward the floor until there 
is no contact with the instrument panel.
    (4) Rotate the dummy's upper arms down until they contact the seat.
    (5) Rotate the dummy's lower arms until the dummy's hands contact 
the seat.
    (6) Start the vehicle engine and then close all vehicle doors.
    (7) Check whether the air bag is deactivated.
    (b) Sitting on seat with back not against seat:
    (1) Position the dummy in the seated position and place it on the 
right front passenger seat.
    (2) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats, position the 
midsagittal plane of the dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline and the same distance from the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline as the center of the steering wheel rim. In the 
case of vehicles equipped with bucket seats, position the midsagittal 
plane of the dummy vertically such that it coincides with the 
longitudinal centerline of the bucket seat. Position the dummy so that 
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) Position the dummy's femurs against the seat cushion.
    (4) Allow the legs of the dummy to extend off the surface of the 
seat. If this positioning the dummy's legs is prevented by contact with 
the instrument panel, rotate the leg toward the floor until there is no 
contact with the instrument panel.
    (5) Rotate the dummy's lower arms until the dummy's hands contact 
the seat.
    (6) Start the vehicle engine and then close all vehicle doors.
    (7) Check whether the air bag is deactivated.
    (c) Sitting on seat edge, spine vertical, hands by the dummy's 
side:
    (1) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats, position the 
midsagittal plane of the dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline and the same distance from the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline as the center of the steering wheel rim. In the 
case of vehicles equipped with bucket seats, position the midsagittal 
plane of the dummy vertically such that it coincides with the 
longitudinal centerline of the bucket seat. 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 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 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.
    (5) Start the vehicle engine and then close all vehicle doors.
    (6) Check whether the air bag is deactivated.
    (d) Standing on seat, facing forward:
    (1) Position the dummy in the standing position. The arms may be at 
any position.
    (2) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats, position the 
midsagittal plane of the dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline and the same distance from the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline as the center of the steering wheel rim. In the 
case of vehicles equipped with bucket seats, position the midsagittal 
plane of the dummy vertically such that it coincides with the 
longitudinal centerline of the bucket seat. Position 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.
    (4) Start the vehicle engine and then close all vehicle doors.
    (5) Check whether the air bag is deactivated.
    (e) Kneeling on seat, facing forward:
    (1) Position the dummy in a kneeling position by rotating the 
dummy's legs 90 degrees behind the dummy (from the standing position).
    (2) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats, position the 
midsagittal plane of the dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline and the same distance from the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline as the center of the steering wheel rim. In the 
case of vehicles equipped with bucket seats, position the midsagittal 
plane of the dummy vertically such that it coincides with the 
longitudinal centerline of the bucket seat. Position 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's toes are in 
contact with the seat back. The arms may be at any position.
    (3) Start the vehicle engine and then close all vehicle doors.
    (4) Check whether the air bag is deactivated.
    (f) Kneeling on seat, facing rearward:
    (1) Position the dummy in a kneeling position by rotating the 
dummy's legs 90 degrees behind the dummy (from the standing position).
    (2) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats, position the 
midsagittal plane of the dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline and the same distance from the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline as the center of the steering wheel rim. In the 
case of vehicles equipped with bucket seats, position the midsagittal 
plane of the dummy vertically such that it coincides with the 
longitudinal centerline of the bucket seat. Position 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 may be at any position.
    (3) Start the vehicle engine and then close all vehicle doors.
    (4) Check whether the air bag is deactivated.
    (g) Lying on seat:
    (1) Lay the dummy on the right front passenger seat such that the 
following criteria are met:
    (i) The mid-sagittal plane of the dummy is horizontal,
    (ii) The dummy's spine is perpendicular to the vehicle longitudinal 
axis,
    (iii) The dummy's upper arms are parallel to its spine,
    (iv) 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),
    (v) The anterior of the dummy is facing the vehicle front, and the 
head is positioned towards the passenger door, and
    (vi) Leg position is not set and can be articulated to fit above 
conditions.
    (2) If the top of the dummy's head is not within 50 to 100 mm (2-4 
inches) of the vehicle side door structure, translate the dummy 
laterally so that the top of the dummy head is 50 to 100 mm (2-4 
inches) from the vehicle door structure.

[[Page 60615]]

    (3) Rotate the thighs toward the chest of the dummy and rotate the 
legs against the thighs.
    (4) Place the dummy's upper left arm parallel to the vehicle's 
transverse plane and the lower arm 90 degrees to the upper arm. Rotate 
the left lower arm down about the elbow joint until movement is 
obstructed. The final position should resemble a fetal position.
    (5) Start the vehicle engine and then close all vehicle doors.
    (6) Check whether the air bag is deactivated.
    (h) Low risk deployment test position 1.
    (1) Position the dummy in accordance with the position set forth in 
S22.3.2.
    (2) Start the vehicle engine and then close all vehicle doors.
    (3) Check whether the air bag is deactivated.
    (i) 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'' is defined as the vertical plane which passes 
through Point B and is parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal axis.
    (5) Move the passenger seat to the full rearward seating position.
    (6) Place the dummy in the front passenger seat such that:
    (i) Point A is located in Plane 2.
    (ii) A vertical plane through the shoulder joints of the dummy is 
90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
    (iii) The legs are positioned 90 degrees (right angle) from 
horizontal.
    (iv) The dummy is positioned forward in the seat such that the legs 
rest against the front of the seat and such that the dummy's upper 
spine plate is vertical.
    (7) Rotate the 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 the head C.G. is in Plane 1, or the spine 
angle at the upper spine plate is 45 degrees, whichever produces the 
greatest rotation.
    (8) Move the seat forward until the dummy comes in contact with the 
forward structure of the vehicle, or the seat is full forward, 
whichever occurs first.
    (9) To keep the 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 the dummy.
    (10) Start the vehicle engine and then close all vehicle doors.
    (11) Check whether the air bag is deactivated.
    S22.3  Low risk deployment test (Hybrid III 3-year-old child 
dummy).
    S22.3.1  Position the dummy according to any of the following 
positions: Position 1 (S22.3.2) or Position 2 (S22.3.3).
    S22.3.2  Position 1 (chest on instrument panel).
    S22.3.2.1  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.''
    S22.3.2.2  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.''
    S22.3.2.3  Locate the horizontal plane that passes through Point B. 
This will be referred to as ``Plane 1.''
    S22.3.2.4  Locate the vertical plane parallel to the vehicle 
longitudinal axis and passing through Point B. This will be referred to 
as ``Plane 2.''
    S22.3.2.5  Move the passenger seat to the full rearward seating 
position. Place the seat back in the nominal design position for a 50th 
percentile adult male dummy (S8.1.3) as specified by the vehicle 
manufacturer.
    S22.3.2.6  Place the dummy in the front passenger seat such that:
    S22.3.2.6.1  Point A is located in Plane 2.
    S22.3.2.6.2  A vertical plane through the dummy shoulder joints is 
at 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
    S22.3.2.6.3  The legs are positioned 90 degrees to the thighs.
    S22.3.2.6.4  The dummy is positioned forward in the seat such that 
the dummy's upper spine plate is vertical, and the legs rest against 
the front of the seat.
    S22.3.2.7  Move the dummy forward until the upper torso or head of 
the dummy makes contact with the instrument panel of the vehicle.
    S22.3.2.8  Once contact is made, raise the dummy 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. If additional height is 
required, the dummy may be raised with the use of spacers (foam blocks, 
etc.) placed on the floor of the vehicle.
    S22.3.2.9  Position the upper arms parallel to the spine and rotate 
the lower arms forward (at the elbow joint) sufficiently to prevent 
contact with or support from the seat.
    S22.3.2.10  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 and the legs are vertical. If necessary, 
raise the dummy vertically with the use of spacers (foam blocks, etc.) 
placed on the floor of the vehicle.
    S22.3.2.11  Support the dummy so that there is minimum interference 
with the full rotational and translational freedom for the upper torso 
of the dummy.
    S22.3.2.12  If necessary, tether the upper torso with a thread with 
a maximum breaking strength of 311 N (70 pounds) such that the tether 
is not situated in the air bag deployment envelope.
    S22.3.3  Position 2 (head on instrument panel).
    S22.3.3.1  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.''
    S22.3.3.2  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.''
    S22.3.3.3  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.''
    S22.3.3.4  Move the passenger seat to the full rearward seating 
position. Place the seat back in the nominal design position for a 50th 
percentile adult male (S8.1.3) as specified by the vehicle 
manufacturer.
    S22.3.3.4  Place the dummy in the front passenger seat such that:
    S22.3.3.4.1  Point A is located in Plane 2.
    S22.3.3.4.2  A vertical plane through the shoulder joints of the 
dummy is at 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
    S22.3.3.4.3  The legs are positioned 90 degrees (right angle) from 
horizontal.
    S22.3.3.4.4  The dummy is positioned forward in the seat such that 
the legs rest against the front of the seat and such that the dummy's 
upper spine plate is from vertical. Note: For some seats, it may not be 
possible to position the dummy with the legs in the prescribed 
position. In this situation, rotate the legs forward until the dummy is 
resting on the seat with the feet

[[Page 60616]]

positioned flat on the floorboard and the dummy's upper spine plate is 
vertical.
    S22.3.3.5  Move the seat forward, while maintaining the upper spine 
plate orientation until some portion of the dummy contacts the 
vehicle's instrument panel.
    S22.3.3.5.1  If contact has not been made with the vehicle's 
instrument panel 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.
    S22.3.3.5.2  Once contact is made, rotate the dummy forward until 
the head and/or upper torso are in contact with the vehicle's 
instrument panel. Rotation is achieved by applying a force towards the 
front of the vehicle on the spine of the dummy between the shoulder 
joints.
    S22.3.3.5.3  Rotate the thighs downward and rotate the legs and 
feet rearward (toward the rear of vehicle) so as not to impede the 
rotation of the head/torso into the vehicle's instrument panel.
    S22.3.3.5.4  Reposition the legs so that the feet rest flat on (or 
parallel to) the floorboard with each ankle joint positioned as nearly 
as possible to the midsaggital plane of the dummy.
    S22.3.3.5.5  If necessary, tether the upper torso with a thread 
with a maximum breaking strength of 311 N (70 pounds) and/or place a 
wedge under the dummy's pelvis. The tether may not be situated in the 
air bag deployment envelope. Note: If contact with the instrument panel 
cannot be made by sliding the dummy forward in the seat, then place the 
dummy in the forward-most position on the seat that will allow the 
head/upper torso to rest against the instrument panel of the vehicle.
    S22.3.3.6  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.
    S22.3.4  Deploy the right front passenger air bag. If the air bag 
contains a multistage inflator, any stage or combination of stages may 
be fired that could deploy in crashes at or below 29 km/h (18 mph), 
under the test procedure specified in S22.4.
    S22.4  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 or combination of stages that fires in 
the following rigid barrier test may be deployed when conducting the 
low risk deployment tests described in S22.3, S24.4, and S26.3. Impact 
the vehicle traveling longitudinally forward at any speed, up to and 
including 29 km/h (18 mph), into a fixed rigid barrier that is 
perpendicular 5 degrees to the line of travel of the 
vehicle under the applicable conditions of S8 of this standard.
    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.
    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 during each of the static tests specified 
in S24.2 (using a Part 572 Subpart N Hybrid III 6-year-old child 
dummy), and activation of the air bag during each of the static tests 
specified in S20.3 (using a Part 572 Subpart O Hybrid III 5th 
percentile adult female dummy).
    S23.2.2  The vehicle shall be equipped with a mechanism that 
indicates whether the occupant restraint system is suppressed. The 
mechanism need not be located in the occupant compartment.
    S23.2.3  The vehicle shall be equipped with a telltale light on the 
instrument panel meeting the requirements specified in S19.2.3.
    S23.3  Option 2-- Dynamic automatic suppression system that 
suppresses the air bag when an occupant is out of position. (This 
option is available under the conditions set forth in S27.1.) The 
vehicle shall be equipped with a dynamic automatic suppression system 
for the passenger air bag which meets the requirements specified in 
S27.
    S23.4  Option 3--Low risk deployment. Each vehicle shall meet the 
injury criteria specified in S23.5 of this standard when the passenger 
air bag is statically deployed in accordance with the procedures 
specified in S24.3.
    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.
    S23.5.2  The resultant acceleration at the center of gravity of the 
head shall be such that the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.015

shall not exceed 700 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 15 millisecond time 
interval.
    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 40 mm (1.6 inches).
    S23.5.5  The biomechanical neck injury predictor, Nij, shall not 
exceed a value of 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=2800 N (629 lbf) for tension
Fzc=2800 N (629 lbf) for compression
Myc=93 Nm (69 lbf-ft) for flexion about occipital condyles
Myc=39 Nm (29 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 1.0 at any point in time. When 
calculating NTE and NTF, all compressive loads 
shall be set to zero. Similarly, when calculating NCE

[[Page 60617]]

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.
    S23.5.6  Test duration for purpose of measuring injury criteria. 
For tests conducted pursuant to S23.5, the injury criteria shall be met 
up to 100 milliseconds after the air bag deploys.
    S24  Test procedure for S23.
    S24.1  General provisions and definitions. Tests specifying the use 
of a forward-facing child seat or booster seat may be conducted using 
any seat listed in Section D of Appendix A of this standard. The seat 
may be used or unused; if used there must not be any visible damage.
    S24.1.2  The definitions provided in S16.3.1 apply to the tests 
specified in S24.
    S24.2  Static tests of automatic suppression feature which must 
result in deactivation of the passenger air bag when a child is 
present.
    S24.2.1  Except as provided in S24.2.2, all tests specified in 
S22.2 shall be conducted using the 6-year-old Hybrid III child dummy.
    S24.2.2  Exceptions. The tests specified in the following 
paragraphs of S22.2 shall not be conducted using the 6-year-old Hybrid 
III child dummy: S22.2.2.2(d), (e), (f), (g), and (h).
    S24.2.3  Sitting back in the seat and leaning on the right front 
passenger door (This test is conducted using the 6-year-old Hybrid III 
child dummy but not the 3-year-old Hybrid III child dummy).
    (a) Position the right front passenger vehicle seat at any seat 
track location, at any seat height, and at any seat back angle between 
the manufacturer's nominal design position for the 50th percentile 
adult male as specified in S8.1.3.
    (b) Position the dummy in the seated position and place the dummy 
in the right front passenger seat.
    (c) 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 thighs 
resting on the seat cushion.
    (d) Allow the legs of the dummy to extend off the surface of the 
seat. If this positioning of the dummy's legs is prevented by contact 
with the instrument panel, rotate the leg toward the floor until there 
is no contact with the instrument panel.
    (e) Rotate the dummy's upper arms toward the seat back until they 
make contact.
    (f) Rotate the dummy's lower arms down until they contact the seat.
    (g) Lean the dummy against the outboard door.
    (h) Close the vehicle's passenger-side vehicle and then start the 
vehicle engine; close all remaining doors.
    (i) Check whether the air bag is deactivated.
    S24.3  Low risk deployment test (Hybrid III 6-year old child 
dummy).
    S24.3.1  Position the dummy according to any of the following 
positions: Position 1 (S24.3.2) or Position 2 (S24.3.3).
    S24.3.2  Position 1 (chest on instrument panel).
    S24.3.2.1  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.''
    S24.3.2.2  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.''
    S24.3.2.3  Locate the horizontal plane that passes through Point B. 
This will be referred to as ``Plane 1.''
    S24.3.2.4  Locate the vertical plane parallel to the vehicle 
longitudinal axis and passing through Point B. This will be referred to 
as ``Plane 2.''
    S24.3.2.5  Position the right front passenger vehicle seat at any 
seat track location, at any seat height, and at any seat back angle 
between the manufacturer's nominal design position for the 50th 
percentile adult male as specified in S8.1.3.
    S24.3.2.6  Place the dummy in the front passenger seat such that:
    S24.3.2.6.1  Point A is located in Plane 2.
    S24.3.2.6.2  A vertical plane through the dummy shoulder joints is 
at 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
    S24.3.2.6.3  The legs are positioned 90 degrees to the thighs.
    S24.3.2.6.4  The dummy is positioned forward in the seat such that 
the dummy's upper spine plate is 6 degrees forward (toward the front of 
the vehicle) of the vertical position, and the legs rest against the 
front of the seat or the feet are resting flat on the floorboard of the 
vehicle.
    S24.3.2.6.5  Mark this position, and remove the legs at the pelvic 
interface.
    S24.3.2.7  Move the dummy forward until the upper torso or head of 
the dummy makes contact with the vehicle's instrument panel.
    S24.3.2.8  Once contact is made, raise the dummy 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 any 
part of the dummy head and windshield is attained.
    S24.3.2.9  Position the upper arms parallel to the spine and rotate 
the lower arms forward (at the elbow joint) sufficiently to prevent 
contact with or support from the seat.
    S24.3.2.10  Support the dummy so that there is minimum interference 
with the full rotational and translational freedom for the upper torso 
of the dummy.
    S24.3.2.10.1  If necessary, tether the upper torso with a thread 
with a maximum breaking strength of 311 N (70 pounds) such that the 
tether is not situated in the air bag deployment envelope.
    S24.3.3  Position 2 (head on instrument panel).
    S24.3.3.1  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.''
    S24.3.3.2  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.''
    S24.3.3.3  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.''
    S24.3.3.4  Position the right front passenger vehicle seat at any 
seat track location, at any seat height, and at any seat back angle 
between the manufacturer's nominal design position for the 50th 
percentile adult male as specified in S8.1.3.
    S24.3.3.5  Place the dummy in the front passenger seat such that:
    S24.3.3.5.1  Point A is located in Plane 2.
    S24.3.3.5.2  A vertical plane through the shoulder joints of the 
dummy is at 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
    S24.3.3.5.3  The legs are positioned 90 degrees (right angle) from 
horizontal.
    S24.3.3.5.4  The dummy is positioned forward in the seat such that 
the legs rest against the front of the seat and such that the dummy's 
upper spine plate is 6 degrees forward (toward front of vehicle) of the 
vertical position.

    Note: For some seats, it may not be possible to position the 
dummy with the legs in the prescribed position. In this situation, 
rotate the 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 forward (toward the front of the vehicle) 
of the vertical position.

    S24.3.3.6  Move the seat forward, while maintaining the upper spine 
plate orientation until some portion of the dummy contacts the 
vehicle's instrument panel.

[[Page 60618]]

    S24.3.3.6.1  If contact has not been made with the vehicle's 
instrument panel 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.
    S24.3.3.6.2  Once contact is made, rotate the dummy forward until 
the head and/or upper torso are in contact with the vehicle's 
instrument panel. Rotation is achieved by applying a force towards the 
front of the vehicle on the spine of the dummy between the shoulder 
joints.
    S24.3.3.6.3  Rotate the legs and feet rearward (toward rear of 
vehicle) so as not to impede the rotation of the head/torso into the 
vehicle's instrument panel.
    S24.3.3.6.4  Reposition the legs so that the feet rest flat on (or 
parallel to) the floorboard with the ankle joints positioned as nearly 
as possible to the midsaggital plane of the dummy.
    S24.3.3.6.5  If necessary, tether the upper torso with a thread 
with a maximum breaking strength of 311 N (70 pounds) and/or place a 
wedge under the dummy's pelvis. The tether may not be situated in the 
air bag's deployment envelope.

    Note: If contact with the instrument panel cannot be made by 
sliding the dummy forward in the seat, then place the dummy in the 
forward-most position on the seat that will allow the head/upper 
torso to rest against the vehicle's instrument panel.

    S24.3.3.7  Position the upper arms parallel to the torso and rotate 
the lower arms forward sufficiently to prevent contact with or support 
from the seat.
    S24.3.4  Deploy the right front passenger air bag. If the air bag 
contains a multistage inflator, any stage or combination of stages may 
be fired that could deploy in crashes at or below 29 km/h (18 mph), 
under the test procedure specified in S22.4.
    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.
    S25.2  Option 1--Dynamic automatic suppression system. (This option 
is available under the conditions set forth in S27.1.) The vehicle 
shall be equipped with a dynamic automatic suppression system for the 
driver air bag which meets the requirements specified in S27.
    S25.3  Option 2--Low risk deployment. Each vehicle shall meet the 
injury criteria specified in S15.3 of this standard when the driver air 
bag is statically deployed in accordance with the procedures specified 
in S26 of this standard.
    S26  Test procedure for low risk deployment of driver-side air bag.
    S26.1  Position the Part 571 Subpart O 5th percentile adult female 
test dummy according to any of the following positions: Driver position 
1 (S26.2) or Driver position 2 (S26.3).
    S26.2  Driver position 1 (chin on module).
    26.2.1  Adjust the 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.
    S26.2.2  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.''
    S26.2.3  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.''
    S26.2.4  Locate the horizontal plane that passes through Point B. 
This will be referred to as ``Plane 1.''
    S26.2.5  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.''
    S26.2.6  Move the driver seat to the full rearward seating 
position. Place the seat back in the nominal design position for a 50th 
percentile adult male (S8.1.3) as specified by the vehicle 
manufacturer.
    S26.2.7  Place the dummy in the seat such that:
    S26.2.7.1  Point A is located in Plane 2.
    S26.2.7.2  A vertical plane through the dummy shoulder joints is at 
90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
    S26.2.7.3  The legs are positioned 90 degrees to the thighs.
    S26.2.7.4  Rotate the dummy forward until its upper spine plate 
angle is 6 degrees forward (toward the front of the vehicle) of the 
steering wheel angle.
    S26.2.8  Adjust the height of the dummy so that the bottom of the 
chin is in the same horizontal plane as the highest point of the module 
cover (dummy height can be adjusted using the seat position and/or 
spacer blocks). If the seat height prevents the bottom of chin from 
being in the same horizontal plane as the module cover, adjust the 
dummy height to as close to the prescribed position as possible.
    S26.2.9  Move the dummy forward, maintaining the upper spine plate 
angle and dummy height until the head or torso contacts the steering 
wheel.
    S26.2.10  If necessary, a thread with a maximum breaking strength 
of 311 N (70 pounds) may be used to hold the dummy against the steering 
wheel. Position the thread so as to eliminate or minimize any contact 
with the deploying air bag.
    S26.3  Driver position 2 (chin on rim).
    S26.3.1  The driver's seat track is not specified and may be 
positioned to best facilitate the positioning of the dummy.
    S26.3.2  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.''
    S26.3.3  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.''
    S26.3.4  Locate the horizontal plane that passes through Point B. 
This will be referred to as ``Plane 1.''
    S26.3.5  Locate the vertical plane perpendicular to Plane 1 which 
passes through Point B. This will be referred to as ``Plane 2.''
    S26.3.6  Place the dummy in the front driver seat so that Point A 
is located in Plane 2.
    S26.3.7  Rotate the dummy forward until its upper spine plate is 6 
degrees forward (toward the front of the vehicle) of the steering wheel 
angle.
    S26.3.8  Position the dummy so that the center of the chin is in 
contact with the uppermost portion of the rim of the steering wheel. Do 
not hook the chin over the top of the rim of the steering wheel. 
Position the chin to rest on the upper edge of the rim, without loading 
the neck. If the dummy head contacts the vehicle upper interior before 
the prescribed position can be obtained, the dummy height may be 
adjusted as close to the prescribed position as possible, while 
maintaining a 102 mm (0.4.08 inches) clearance 
from the vehicle's upper interior.
    S26.3.9  To raise the height of the dummy to attain the required 
positioning, spacer blocks (foam, etc.) may be 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. Position the thread so as to eliminate or minimize any 
contact with the deploying air bag.
    S26.4  Deploy the driver air bag. If the air bag contains a 
multistage inflator, any stage or combination of stages is fired that 
may deploy in crashes at or below 29 km/h (18 mph),

[[Page 60619]]

under the test procedure specified in S22.4.
    S27  Option for dynamic automatic suppression system that 
suppresses the air bag when an occupant is out-of-position.
    S27.1  Availability of option. This option is available for either 
air bag, singly or in conjunction, subject to the requirements of S27, 
if:
    (a) A petition for rulemaking to establish dynamic automatic 
suppression system test procedures is submitted pursuant to Subpart B 
of Part 552 and a test procedure applicable to the vehicle is added to 
S28 pursuant to the procedures specified by that subpart, or
    (b) A test procedure applicable to the vehicle is otherwise added 
to S28.
    S27.2  Definitions. For purposes of S27 and S28, the following 
definitions apply:
    Dynamic automatic suppression system or DASS means a portion of an 
air bag system that automatically controls whether or not the air bag 
deploys during a crash by:
    (1) Sensing the location of an occupant, moving or still, in 
relation to the air bag;
    (2) Interpreting the occupant characteristics and location 
information to determine whether or not the air bag should deploy; and
    (3) Activating or suppressing the air bag system based on the 
interpretation of occupant characteristics and location information.
    Automatic suppression zone or ASZ means a three-dimensional zone 
adjacent to the air bag cover, specified by the vehicle manufacturer, 
where the deployment of the air bag will be suppressed by the DASS if a 
vehicle occupant enters the zone under specified conditions.
    S27.3  Requirements. Each vehicle shall, at each applicable front 
outboard designated seating position, when tested under the conditions 
of S28 of this standard, comply with the requirements specified in 
S27.4 through S27.6.
    S27.4  Each vehicle shall be equipped with a DASS.
    S27.5  Static test requirement (low risk deployment for occupants 
outside the ASZ).
    S27.5.1  Driver (Part 572, Subpart O 5th percentile female dummy). 
Each vehicle shall meet the injury criteria specified in S15.3 of this 
standard when the driver air bag is statically deployed in accordance 
with the procedures specified in S28.1.
    S27.5.2  Passenger (Part 572, Subpart P 3-year-old child dummy and 
Part 572, Subpart N 6-year-old child dummy). Each vehicle shall meet 
the injury criteria specified in S21.5 and S23.5, as appropriate, when 
the passenger air bag is statically deployed in accordance with the 
procedures specified in S28.2.
    S27.6  Dynamic test requirement (suppression of air bag for 
occupants inside the ASZ).
    S27.6.1  Driver. The DASS shall suppress the driver air bag before 
the head, neck, or torso of the specified test device enters the ASZ 
when the vehicle is tested under the procedures specified in S28.3.
    S27.6.2  Passenger. The DASS shall suppress the passenger air bag 
before head, neck, or torso of the specified test device enters the ASZ 
when the vehicle is tested under the procedures specified in S28.4.
    S28  Test procedure for S27 of this standard. [Reserved]
    S28.1  Driver suppression zone verification test (part 572, subpart 
O 5th percentile female dummy). [Reserved]
    S28.2  Passenger suppression zone verification test ( part 572, 
subpart P 3-year-old child dummy and Part 572, subpart N 6-year-old 
child dummies). [Reserved)]
    S28.3  Driver dynamic test procedure for DASS requirements. 
[Reserved]
    S28.4  Passenger dynamic test procedure for DASS requirements. 
[Reserved]
    S29  Manufacturer option to certify vehicles to certain static 
suppression test requirements using human beings rather than test 
dummies.
    S29.1  At the option of the manufacturer, instead of using test 
dummies in conducting the tests for the following static test 
requirements, human beings may be used as specified. If human beings 
are used, they shall assume, to the extent possible, the final physical 
position specified for the corresponding dummies for each test.
    (a) If a manufacturer decides to certify a vehicle using a human 
being for a static test, it must use humans for the entire series of 
tests, e.g., 3-year-old children for each static test involving 3-year-
old test dummies. If a manufacturer decides to certify a vehicle using 
a test dummy for a static test, it must use test dummies for the entire 
series of tests, e.g., a Hybrid III 3-year-old child dummy for each 
static test involving 3-year-old test dummies.
    (b) For S21.2, instead of using the Part 572 Subpart P Hybrid III 
3-year-old child dummy, a human child who weighs between 13.4 and 18 kg 
(29.5 and 39.5 lb), and who is between 89 and 99 cm (35 and 39 inches) 
tall may be used.
    (c) For S23.2, instead of using the Part 572 Subpart N Hybrid III 
6-year-old child dummy, a human child who weighs between 21 and 25.6 kg 
(46.5 and 56.5 lb), and who is between 114 and 124.5 cm (45 and 49 
inches) tall may be used.
    (d) For S19.2, S21.2, and S23.2, instead of using the Part 572 
Subpart O Hybrid III 5th percentile adult female test dummy, a female 
who weighs between 46.7 and 51.25 kg (103 lb and 113 lb), and who is 
between 139.7 and 150 cm (55 and 59 inches) tall may be used.
    S29.2  Human beings shall be dressed in a cotton T-shirt, full 
length cotton trousers, and sneakers. Specified weights and heights 
include clothing.
    S29.3  A manufacturer exercising this option shall upon request--
    (a) Provide NHTSA with a method, and identify any parts or 
equipment necessary to deactivate the air bag during compliance testing 
under S20.3, S22.2, and S24.2; such assurance may be made by removing 
the air bag; and
    (b) Provide NHTSA with a method to assure that the same test 
results would be obtained if the air bag were not deactivated.
    S30  Cruise control deactivation.
    S30.1  If a vehicle is equipped with a cruise control device, this 
device shall be deactivated whenever any stage of the air bag system 
deploys.
    S30.2  The cruise control device shall be deactivated when the 
device is tested under the procedures specified in S31.
    S31  Test procedure for determining deactivation of cruise control.
    S31.1  Each vehicle that is equipped with a cruise control device 
shall be equipped with an electrical terminal that permits measurement 
of the cruise control voltage.
    S31.2  Start the vehicle engine and engage the cruise control.
    S31.3  Deploy any stage of the vehicle's frontal air bag system.
    S31.4  The voltage at the cruise control voltage terminal shall be 
zero within 100 ms after any stage of the vehicle's frontal air bag 
system deploys.
    S32  Provisions for emergency rescue operations.
    S32.1  The air bag system shall deactivate whenever battery power 
to the vehicle is interrupted for at least 60 seconds, and shall 
reactivate once power from the battery is restored.
    S32.2  The air bag system shall deactivate when the system is 
tested under the procedures specified in S33.
    S33  Test procedure for air bag deactivation during emergency 
rescue operations.
    S33.1  Each vehicle shall be equipped with an electrical terminal 
that permits measurement of the frontal air bag firing voltage. This 
terminal will

[[Page 60620]]

be referred to as the ``air bag firing voltage terminal.''
    S33.2  Start the vehicle engine. Disconnect the vehicle's battery 
power. Record the time of disconnect as time TD.
    S33.3  Measure the voltage at the air bag firing terminal at time 
TD plus 61 seconds.
    S33.4  The voltage at the air bag firing terminal shall remain zero 
after time TD plus 61 seconds until power is manually restored to the 
terminal.
    S33.5  Reconnect the battery. Start the vehicle engine. Record the 
time of engine start as time TR. Monitor the air bag readiness 
indicator (S4.5.2) at time TR plus 60 seconds to check if the air bag 
is activated, i.e., the indicator shall not be illuminated.

Figures to Sec. 571.208

 * * * * *

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 60621]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.006



[[Page 60622]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.007



[[Page 60623]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.008



BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 60624]]

Appendix A to Sec. 571.208--Selection of Child Restraint Systems

    A. The following car bed, manufactured between January 1, 1999 
and [insert date of final rule], may be used by the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration to test the suppression system of a 
vehicle that has been certified as being in compliance with 49 CFR 
Part 571.208 S19.

Cosco Dream Ride Car Bed

    B. Any of the following rear facing child restraint systems, 
manufactured between January 1, 1999 and [insert date of final 
rule], may be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration to test the suppression system of a vehicle that has 
been certified as being in compliance with 49 CFR Part 571.208 S19. 
When the restraint system comes equipped with a removable base, the 
test may be run either with the base attached or without the base.

Century Assura
Century 560 Institutional
Century Smart Fit
Cosco Arriva
Cosco Turnabout
Evenflo Discovery
Evenflo First choice
Evenflo On My Way
Fisher-Price Safe Embrace Infant
Graco Infant 7493
Kolcraft Secura

    C. Any of the following forward-facing convertible child 
restraint systems, manufactured between January 1, 1999 and [insert 
date of final rule], may be used by the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration to test the suppression system of a vehicle 
that has been certified as being in compliance with 49 CFR Part 
571.208 S19, or S21.

Britax Roundabout
Century Encore
Cosco Touriva
Evenflo Scout
Early Development Folder A-Lock
Fisher Price Safe-Embrace
Kolcraft Secure Fit

    D. Any of the following forward-facing toddler/belt positioning 
booster systems, manufactured between January 1, 1999 and [insert 
date of final rule], may be used by the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration as test devices to test the suppression system 
of a vehicle that has been certified as being in compliance with 49 
CFR Part 571.208 S21 or S23.

Britax Cruiser
Century Next Step
Cosco High Back Booster
Evenflo Evolution
Kolcraft Prodigy

    6. 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  Reporting requirements.
585.6  Records.
585.7  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.

    The purpose of these reporting requirements is to aid the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration in determining whether a 
manufacturer 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 
Sec. 571.3 of this chapter.
    (c) Advanced air bag requirements of Standard No. 208 refers to the 
requirements set forth in S14.3, S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, S25, S30, and 
S32 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, 49 CFR 571.208.
    (d) Production year means the 12-month period between September 1 
of one year and August 31 of the following year, inclusive.


Sec. 585.5  Reporting requirements.

    (a) Advanced credit phase-in reporting requirements. Within 60 days 
after the end of the production years ending August 31, 2000, August 
31, 2001, and August 31, 2002, each manufacturer choosing to certify 
vehicles according to the advanced air bag requirements of Standard No. 
208 shall submit a report to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration concerning its passenger cars, trucks, buses, and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles produced in that production year for 
advance credit for production years ending August 31, 2003, August 31, 
2004, or August 31, 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 production year being reported on;
    (4) Provide the information specified in paragraph (c) of this 
section;
    (5) Be written in the English language; and
    (6) Be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.
    (b) Phase-in 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 production year. Each report shall also 
include the number of pre-phase-in vehicles, if any, that are being 
applied to the production year being reported. 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 phase-in schedule paragraph from S14.1 of 49 CFR 
571.208 for which it has chosen to comply with until September 1, 2005;
    (4) Identify the production year being reported on;
    (5) 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;
    (6) Provide the information specified in paragraph (d) of this 
section;
    (7) Be written in the English language; and
    (8) Be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.

[[Page 60625]]

    (c) Advanced credit phase-in report content. (1) 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 (8,500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg 
(5,500 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.
    (d) Phase-in report content. (1) 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) Basis for phase-in production goals. For production years 
ending August 31, 2003, August 31, 2004 and August 31, 2005, each 
manufacturer shall provide the number of passenger cars and trucks, 
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg 
(8,500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg 
(5,500 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 (8,500 pounds) 
or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5,500 pounds) or 
less for sale in the United States must report the number of such 
vehicles manufactured during the current production year.
    (3) 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 (8,500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg 
(5,500 pounds or less that meet the advanced air bag requirements of 
Standard No. 208.
    (4) 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. 585.6  Records.

    Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the Vehicle 
Identification Number for each passenger car, multipurpose passenger 
vehicle, truck and bus for which information is reported under 
Secs. 585.5(c)(2) and (d)(3) until December 31, 2006.


Sec. 585.7  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. 585.5(a) and (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 595--RETROFIT ON-OFF SWITCHES FOR AIR BAGS

    7. 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.

    8. Section 595.5 would be amended by revising paragraph (a) 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 (5) of this section.
 * * * * *
    Issued on: October 26, 1999.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Acting Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
    Note: The following appendixes will not appear in the Code of 
Federal Regulations.

Appendix A to the Preamble--Response to Petition

    In conjunction with commenting on the NPRM, Carl Nash and Donald 
Friedman submitted a petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 
208 to ``require effective belt use inducement.'' The petitioners 
noted that such an amendment would need to be consistent with a 
provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which 
prohibits ignition interlocks and continuous buzzers.
    The petitioners stated that the inducements could include, but 
need not be limited to: (1) A continuous visual reminder to buckle 
seat belts located prominently on the instrument panel, (2) an 
intermittent, repeating audible suggestion (such as with a 
synthesized voice) warning occupants to buckle their seat belt, and 
(3) disruption of electrical power to such ``non-essential'' 
accessories as the radio, tape or CD player, and air conditioning. 
Mr. Nash and Mr. Friedman argued that a belt use inducement has the 
potential to save a minimum of 7,000 additional lives per year, and 
that, with an effective belt use inducement, NHTSA could 
simultaneously rescind Standard No. 208's unbelted test.
    After carefully considering the petition submitted by Mr. Nash 
and Mr. Friedman, we have decided to deny it. We note that Standard 
No. 208 already requires both a warning light and an audible signal 
to remind occupants to wear their seat belts. The required warning 
system is tied to the driver seat belt, and the light and audible 
signal are only required for a brief period after the driver starts 
the vehicle.
    In evaluating Mr. Nash's and Mr. Friedman's petition, we have 
considered whether the new requirements they recommend would (1) 
likely result in additional safety benefits, (2) be acceptable to 
the public, and (3) be within our statutory authority. None of their 
recommended requirements meet all of these criteria.
    We note that our agency's previous experience with ignition 
interlocks indicates that great care must be taken in requiring 
vehicle modifications to induce higher belt use, to avoid consumer 
backlash. As of August 1973, Standard No. 208 required all new cars 
to be equipped either with automatic protection or an ignition 
interlock for both front outboard seating positions. General Motors 
sold about ten thousand of its 1974 model year cars equipped with 
air bags that met the automatic protection requirement. Every other 
1974 model year car sold in the United States came with an ignition 
interlock, which prevented the engine from operating if either the 
driver or front seat outboard passenger failed to fasten their 
manual seat belt.

[[Page 60626]]

    In a notice published in the Federal Register (39 FR 10272) on 
March 19, 1974, we described the public reaction to the ignition 
interlock as follows: ``Public resistance to the belt-starter 
interlock system * * * has been substantial, with current tallies of 
proper lap-shoulder belt usage on 1974 models running at or below 
the 60% level. Even that figure is probably optimistic as a measure 
of results to be achieved, in light of the likelihood that as time 
passes the awareness that the forcing systems can be disabled, and 
the means for doing so will become more widely disseminated * * *''
    There were also speeches on the floor of both houses of Congress 
expressing the public's anger at the interlock requirement. On 
October 27, 1974, President Ford signed into law a bill that 
prohibited any Federal motor vehicle safety standard from requiring 
or permitting as a means of compliance any seat belt interlock 
system. In response to this change in the law, we published a final 
rule in the Federal Register (39 FR 38380) on October 31, 1974 that 
deleted the interlock option from Standard No. 208 effective 
immediately.
    We believe that the petitioner's recommendation for a Federal 
requirement for disruption of electrical power to such accessories 
as the radio, tape or CD player, and air conditioning, if a person 
is not wearing their seat belts, would be unacceptable to a 
significant portion of the public. Such a requirement would be 
indistinguishable in nature from a requirement for an interlock.
    As to the petitioners' recommendation that we require an 
intermittent, repeating audible suggestion (such as with a 
synthesized voice) warning occupants to buckle their seat belt, we 
are expressly prohibited from promulgating a requirement under the 
1974 amendments to the Safety Act. The petitioners recognized that 
the amendments prohibited us from requiring ``continuous buzzers.'' 
However, the term ``continuous buzzer'' was defined to mean any 
buzzer other than one which operates only during the 8 second period 
after the ignition is turned to the ``start'' or ``on'' position.\1\ 
Thus, we do not have the authority to require audible warnings 
outside that 8 second period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This provision was later codified using different language 
but without substantive change at 49 U.S.C. 30124.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we would have authority to require a continuous visual 
reminder, as also recommended by the petitioners, they did not 
provide any information indicating that such a reminder would likely 
result in additional safety benefits over the existing warning 
systems.
    We also note that, even if we believed that there existed an 
effective belt use inducement that we had authority to require and 
that was publicly acceptable, we could not simultaneously rescind 
Standard No. 208's unbelted test. First, there would be no way of 
knowing how effective any belt use inducement would be until after 
it had been in place for several years. Second, as we noted in the 
September 1998 NPRM, even in countries where seat belt use is 90 
percent, unbelted occupants still represent about 33 percent of all 
fatalities. We also note that TEA 21 requires us to conduct 
rulemaking to improve occupant protection for occupants of different 
sizes, belted and unbelted, while minimizing risks. Rescission of 
Standard No. 208's test requirements for unbelted occupants would 
not be consistent with the statutory requirement to improve 
protection for unbelted occupants.
    While we have decided to deny Mr. Nash's and Mr. Friedman's 
petition, for the reasons discussed above, we recognize that 
increased seat belt use offers the potential of enormous safety 
benefits. Even small increases in seat belt use offer the potential 
of significant savings in lives. We therefore encourage vehicle 
manufacturers to evaluate whether vehicle warning and other systems 
can be improved to increase seat belt use in ways that are 
acceptable to their customers.
    We note that, earlier this year, Ford announced plans to use a 
new ``Belt-Minder'' system that warns unbuckled drivers with an 
intermittent chime until they buckle their seat belts. Drivers who 
don't want to wear their belts can disable the intermittent chime by 
buckling, then unbuckling their belt. While we note that this is a 
system that we would not have authority to require, we are 
encouraged by Ford's innovative approach and are hopeful that it 
will result in increased seat belt use and savings in lives.

Appendix B to the Preamble--Glossary

Air Bags--In General

    Air bags are inflatable restraints. Enough gas must be pumped 
into them to cushion occupants. Otherwise, occupants, especially 
large ones, could ``bottom out'' the air bag and hit the vehicle 
interior in a crash. Thus, the amount of pressure within air bags 
must be carefully controlled. This is done by controlling both the 
rate at which gas is pumped into the air bag and the rate at which 
the gas is released from the air bag through vents or microscopic 
holes in the fabric itself.

Categories of Frontal Air Bags

    Advanced air bags. Advanced air bags are air bags that minimize 
the risk of serious injury to out-of-position occupants and provide 
improved protection to occupants in high speed crashes. They 
accomplish this either by incorporating various technologies that 
enable the air bags to adapt their performance to a wider range of 
occupant sizes and crash conditions and/or by being designed to both 
inflate in a manner that does not pose such risk as well as to 
provide improved protection. Some of these technologies are multi-
stage inflators, occupant position sensors, occupant weight and 
pattern sensors, and new air bag fold patterns. (The inflators and 
sensors are explained below.)
    Redesigned air bags.\1\ Redesigned air bags are bag systems used 
in vehicles that have been certified to the unbelted sled test 
option instead of the unbelted crash test option in Standard No. 
208. Typically, a redesigned air bag in a MY 1998 or 1999 vehicle 
model has less power than the air bags in earlier model years of 
that vehicle model. However, the power levels of current air bags 
vary widely. For example, the redesigned air bags in some current 
vehicles are more powerful than the unredesigned air bags in some 
earlier vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These air bags are also sometimes called depowered air bags, 
second generation air bags or next generation air bags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inflators

    Inflators are the devices which pump the gas into air bags to 
inflate them in a crash.
    Single stage inflators. Single stage inflators fill air bags 
with the same level of power in all crashes, regardless of whether 
the crash is a relatively low or high speed crash.
    Multi-stage inflators. Multi-stage inflators (also known as 
multi-level inflators) operate at different levels of power, 
depending on which stage is activated. The activation of the 
different stages can be linked to crash severity sensors. In a 
vehicle with dual-stage inflators, only the first stage (lowest 
level of power) will be activated in relatively low speed crashes, 
while the first and second stages (highest level of power) will be 
activated in higher speed crashes. As crash severity increases, so 
must the pressure inside the air bag in order to cushion the 
occupants.

Sensors

    Many advanced air bag systems utilize various sensors to obtain 
information about crashes, vehicles and their occupants. This 
information is used to adapt the performance of the air bag to the 
particular circumstances of the crash. It is used in determining 
whether an air bag should deploy and, if it should, and if the air 
bag has multiple inflation levels, at what level. Examples of these 
sensors include the following:
    Crash severity sensors. Crash severity sensors measure the 
severity of a crash, i.e., the rate of reduction in velocity when a 
vehicle strikes another object. If a relatively low severity crash 
is sensed, only the lowest stage of a dual-stage inflator will fill 
the air bag; if a more severe crash is sensed, both stages will fill 
the air bag, inflating it at a higher level.
    Belt use sensors. Belt use sensors determine whether an occupant 
is belted or not. An advanced air bag system in vehicles with crash 
severity sensors and dual-stage inflators might use belt use 
information to adjust deployment thresholds for unbelted and belted 
occupants. Since an unbelted occupant needs the protection of an air 
bag at lower speeds than a belted occupant does, the air bag would 
deploy at a lower threshold for an unbelted occupant. (Deployment 
thresholds are explained below.)
    Seat position sensors. Seat position sensors determine how far 
forward or back a seat is adjusted on its seat track. An advanced 
air bag system could be designed so a dual-stage air bag deploys at 
a lower level when the seat is all the way forward than it does when 
the seat is farther back. This would benefit those short-statured 
drivers who move their seats all the way forward.
    Occupant weight sensors. Occupant weight sensors measure the 
weight of an occupant. An advanced air bag system might use this 
information to prevent the air bag from deploying at all in the 
presence of children.

[[Page 60627]]

    Pattern sensors. Pattern sensors evaluate the impression made by 
an occupant or object on the seat cushion to make determinations 
about occupant presence and the overall size and position of the 
occupant. They could also sense the presence of a particular object 
like a child seat. An advanced air bag system might use this 
information to prevent the air bag from deploying in the presence of 
children. An advanced air bag system might utilize both an occupant 
weight sensor and an occupant pattern sensor.

Deployment Thresholds

    The term ``deployment threshold'' is typically used to refer to 
the lowest rate of reduction in vehicle velocity in a crash at which 
a particular air bag is designed to deploy.
    No-fire threshold. The no-fire threshold is the crash speed 
below which the air bag is designed to never deploy.
    All-fire threshold. The all-fire threshold is the crash speed at 
or above which the air bag is designed to always deploy.
    Gray zone. The gray zone is the range of speeds between the no-
fire and all-fire thresholds in which the air bag may or may not 
deploy.
    Vehicles with advanced air bags may have different deployment 
thresholds for belted and unbelted occupants, e.g., the deployment 
threshold may be higher if an occupant is belted. (See belt use 
sensors above.)

Crash Tests vs. Sled Tests

    In crash tests, instrumented test dummies are placed in a 
production vehicle which is then crashed into a barrier. 
Measurements from the test dummies are used to determine the forces, 
and estimate the risk of serious injury, that people would have 
experienced in the crash.
    In sled tests, no crash takes place. The vehicle is placed on a 
sled-on-rails, and instrumented test dummies are placed in the 
vehicle. The sled and vehicle are accelerated very rapidly backward. 
As the vehicle moves backward, the dummies move forward inside the 
vehicle in much the same way that people would in a frontal crash. 
The air bags are manually deployed at a pre-selected time during the 
sled test. Measurements from the dummies are used to determine the 
forces, and estimate the risk of serious injury, that people would 
have experienced in the crash.

Fixed Barrier Crash Tests

    All of the crash tests proposed in this SNPRM are fixed barrier 
crash tests, i.e., the test vehicle is crashed into a barrier that 
is fixed in place (as opposed to moving). The types of proposed 
fixed barrier crash tests are shown in Figure B1.
    Rigid barrier test, perpendicular impact. In a rigid barrier, 
perpendicular impact test, the vehicle is crashed straight into a 
rigid barrier that does not absorb any crash energy. The full width 
of the vehicle's front end hits the barrier.
    Rigid barrier, oblique impact test. In a rigid barrier, oblique 
impact test, the vehicle is crashed at an angle into a rigid 
barrier.
    Offset deformable barrier test. In an offset deformable barrier 
test, one side of a vehicle's front end, not the full width, is 
crashed into a barrier with a deformable face that absorbs some of 
the crash energy.

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 60628]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.009



BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 60629]]

Crash Pulses

    A crash pulse is the graph or picture of how quickly the vehicle 
occupant compartment is decelerating at different times during a 
crash.
    Stiff crash pulses. In crashes with stiff pulses, the occupant 
compartment decelerates very abruptly. An example of a crash with a 
stiff pulse would be a full head-on crash of a vehicle into a like 
vehicle. The perpendicular rigid barrier crash test produces a stiff 
crash pulse.
    Soft crash pulses. In crashes with soft pulses, the occupant 
compartment decelerates less abruptly, compared to crashes with hard 
pulses. An example of a crash with a soft pulse would be the crash 
of a vehicle into sand-filled barrels such as those seen at toll 
booths or at the leading edge of a concrete median barrier. The 
offset deformable barrier crash test and the 30 degree oblique rigid 
barrier crash test produce soft crash pulses.
    In crashes involving comparable reductions in velocity, an 
unrestrained occupant would hit the vehicle interior (i.e., steering 
wheel, instrument panel and windshield) at a much higher speed in a 
crash with a stiff pulse than in a crash with a soft pulse.

Belted and Unbelted Tests

    Belted tests use belted dummies, while unbelted tests use 
unbelted dummies. Despite increases in seat belt use, nearly 50 
percent of all occupants in potentially fatal crashes are unbelted. 
Unbelted tests are intended to evaluate the protection provided 
these persons, many of whom are teenagers and young adults.

Static Out-of-Position Tests

    Static out-of-position tests are called ``static'' because the 
vehicle does not move during the test. These tests are used to 
measure the risk that an air bag poses to out-of-position occupants. 
Test dummies are placed in specified positions that are extremely 
close to the air bag, typically with some portion of the dummy 
touching the air bag cover. The air bag is deployed. Measurements 
from the test dummy are used to determine the forces, and estimate 
the risk of serious injury, that people would have experienced in 
the crash.

Injury Criteria and Performance Limits--In General

    In a crash test, sled test, or static out-of-position test, 
measurements are taken from the test dummy instruments that indicate 
the forces that a person would have experienced under the same 
conditions. Standard No. 208 specifies several injury criteria. For 
each criterion, the Standard also specifies a performance limit, 
based on the level of forces that create a significant risk of 
producing serious injury.

Injury Criteria

    This SNPRM proposes performance limits for various injury 
criteria to address the risk of several types of injuries. Among 
these injury criteria are:
    Head Injury Criterion or HIC. Head Injury Criterion or HIC 
address the risk of head injury;
    Nij. Nij addresses the risk of neck injury; and
    Chest Acceleration and Chest Deflection. Chest Acceleration and 
Chest Deflection address the risk of chest injury.

Test Dummies

    This SNPRM proposes to use several test dummies to represent 
children and adults of different sizes. These dummies are:
    12-month old Crash Restraints Air Bag Interaction (CRABI) dummy, 
representing an infant;
    Hybrid III 3-year-old and 6-year-old child dummies, representing 
young children;
    Hybrid III 5th percentile adult female dummy, representing a 
small woman;
    Hybrid III 50th percentile adult male dummy, representing an 
average-size man.

[FR Doc. 99-28366 Filed 11-2-99; 8:56 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P