[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30680-30770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11577]



[[Page 30679]]

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

Part II





Department of Transportation





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



National Highway Traffic Safety Administration



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



49 CFR Part 552 et al.



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Rules and 
Regulations  

[[Page 30680]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 552, 571, 585 and 595

[Docket No. NHTSA 00-7013; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AG70


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

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

ACTION: Final rule; interim final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule amends our occupant crash protection standard to 
require that future air bags be designed to create less risk of serious 
air bag-induced injuries than current air bags, particularly for small 
women and young children; and provide improved frontal crash protection 
for all occupants, by means that include advanced air bag technology. 
To achieve these goals, it adds a wide variety of new requirements, 
test procedures, and injury criteria, using an assortment of new 
dummies. It replaces the sled test with a rigid barrier crash test for 
assessing the protection of unbelted occupants.
    The issuance of this rule completes the implementation of our 1996 
comprehensive plan for reducing air bag risks. It is also required by 
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21), which was 
enacted in 1998.
    This rule will ensure that advanced air bag technologies are 
installed across the full spectrum of future fleets of motor vehicles. 
As a result, the air bags in those vehicles will be even more effective 
than the current redesigned air bags in saving lives. At the same time, 
those air bags will be much less likely than those redesigned air bags 
to cause deaths or serious injuries.
    The provisions of this rule, particularly the maximum test speed 
for the unbelted rigid barrier test, reflect the uncertainty associated 
with simultaneously achieving the twin goals of TEA 21. This 
uncertainty leads us to take an approach that best assures improved air 
bag protection for occupants of all sizes, without compromising efforts 
to reduce the risks of injury to vulnerable occupants, including 
children and short women seated very close to air bags and out-of-
position occupants. Such an approach is one that involves the least 
uncertainty for the occupants who have been most at risk. As long as 
the manufacturers improve the already substantial overall level of real 
world protection provided by current redesigned air bags, the 
uncertainty associated with the challenge of simultaneously achieving 
the twin goals of TEA 21 is best resolved at this point in favor of 
minimizing risk. This is especially true in the early stages of the 
introduction of advanced air bag technologies.
    In light of that uncertainty, we are selecting the lower of two 
proposed speeds as the maximum test speed for the unbelted rigid 
barrier crash test and issuing that part of this rule as an interim 
final rule. To resolve that uncertainty, we are planning a multi-year 
effort to obtain additional data. We will issue a final decision 
regarding the maximum test speed after giving notice and seeking public 
comment. If we were to increase the speed, we would provide leadtime 
commensurate with the extent of that increase.

DATES: Effective Date: The amendments made in this rule are effective 
June 12, 2000.
    The incorporation by reference of the publications listed in the 
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 12, 
2000.
    Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration must be received by June 
26, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket and 
notice number of this document and be submitted to: Administrator, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20590.
    In light of our decision to issue the maximum test speed for the 
unbelted rigid barrier test as an interim final rule, we are keeping 
the docket for this document open to receive public input. Persons 
making submissions to the docket should refer to the docket and notice 
number of this document. As we obtain and analyze data, we will place 
the results in that docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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 or Rebecca 
MacPherson, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-20. Telephone: (202) 366-2992. 
Fax: (202) 366-3820.
    You may send mail to these officials at the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For information about air bags and related 
rulemakings: Visit the home page of the NHTSA web site at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov and select ``Air Bags'' under ``Popular Information'' 
on the left hand side of the screen. On the next screen, select 
``Advanced Air Bags.''
    You may also view the materials in the docket for this rulemaking 
on the Internet. To do this, do the following:
    (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: The docket number for the Supplemental Proposal in this 
rulemaking is ``NHTSA 99-6407.'' If you want to view the materials 
filed for that notice, you would type ``6407.'' (For this rule, you 
would type ``7013.'') 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 and other materials.

    Note to readers: As an aid to readers who are outside the 
engineering community, we have provided 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 A 
at the end of the preamble, before the regulatory text. Readers may 
find it helpful to review that glossary before reading the rest of 
this document.

Table of Contents

I. Safety Problems
    A. Frontal Crashes and the ``Second Collision''--The Leading 
Cause of Occupant Deaths
    B. Preventing or Mitigating the Effects of the Second Collision 
Using Seat Belts and Air Bags
    C. Air Bag Risks and Fatalities
    D. Causes of Air Bag Fatalities
II. The Rule, Its Rationale, and Its Implementation
    A. Key Provisions of the Rule
    B. Other Provisions of the Rule
    C. Future Rulemaking Plans
    D. Monitoring of Implementation and Field Experience; Research 
and Technology Assessment
III. Our Proposals for Advanced Air Bags
    A. Our Initial Proposal (September 1998)
    B. Our Supplemental Proposal (November 1999)
IV. Public Comments on the Supplemental Proposal
V. Diagrams of the Rule Requirements
VI. Improving the Protection of Unbelted Occupants in Serious 
Crashes
    A. Summary of Proposed Requirements
    B. Type of Test

[[Page 30681]]

    C. Agency Decision to Establish Maximum Test Speed at 40 km/h 
(25 mph)
    1. The Supplemental Proposal
    2. Summary of Comments
    3. Decision on Maximum Test Speed
    D. Other Issues
    1. Location of 5th Percentile Adult Female Dummy
    2. Minimum Test Speed
VII. Improving the Protection of Belted Occupants in Serious Crashes
    A. Belted Rigid Barrier Crash Test
    B. Belted Offset Deformable Barrier Crash Test
VIII. Minimizing the Risk of Injuries and Deaths Caused by Air Bags
    A. Safety of Infants
    1. Option 1: Feature (e.g., Weight or Size Sensor) That 
Suppresses the Air Bag When an Infant Is Present
    2. Option 2: Low-Risk Deployment for Infants in Rear-Facing 
Child Safety Seats
    B. Safety of Young Children
    1. Option 1: Feature (e.g., Weight or Size Sensor) That 
Suppresses the Air Bag When a Child Is Present
    2. Option 2: Low-Risk Deployment for Young Children
    3. Option 3: Feature That Suppresses the Air Bag When a Child Is 
Out-of-Position
    C. Safety of Teenage and Adult Drivers
    1. Option 1: Low-Risk Deployment for Drivers
    2. Option 2: Feature That Suppresses the Air Bag When a Driver 
Is Out-of-Position
IX. Injury Criteria
    A. Head Injury Criteria
    B. Neck Injury Criteria
    C. Thoracic Criteria
    D. Other Criteria
X. Lead Time and Effective Date
    A. Large Manufacturers
    B. Limited Line, Small, Multi-Stage Manufacturers and Alterers
    1. Limited Line Manufacturers
    2. Small Manufacturers
    3. Multi-Stage Manufacturers and Alterers
XI. Availability of Original Equipment and Retrofit Manual On-Off 
Switches
XII. Warning Labels, Consumer Information, and Telltale Devices
    A. Warning Labels and Consumer Information
    B. Telltale Devices
XIII. Miscellaneous Issues
    A. Child Restraints Used for Testing Suppression and Low-Risk 
Deployment Features
    B. Dummy Positioning for Static Suppression and Low-Risk 
Deployment Tests
    C. Due Care Provision
    D. Selection of Compliance Options
    E. Credits for Early Compliance
    F. Choice Between Complying with Existing and/or New Injury 
Criteria and Test Requirements
    G. Time Periods for Measuring Injury Criteria During Tests
    H. Cruise Controls
    I. Rescue Operations
    J. Hybrid III Dummy Neck
    K. Seating Procedure for 5th Percentile Adult Female Dummy
    L. Deletion of Tests Between the Initial and the Supplemental 
Proposals
    M. Consideration of Unintended Consequences
    N. Reporting Requirements
    O. Use of Children and Adults for Testing Static Suppression 
Systems
    P. Small Business Concerns
    Q. Other Issues
    1. Ability to Comment Effectively on the Supplemental Proposal
    2. Resubmittal of Petition for Rulemaking by Donald Friedman and 
Carl Nash
XIV. Benefits and Costs
XV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Appendix A Glossary
Appendix B Evolution of the Air Bag Provisions in Standard No. 208
Appendix C Chronology of DOT and NHTSA Responses to Air Bag Risks 
and Fatalities
Appendix D Installation of Advanced Technologies in Current 
Production Motor Vehicles
Regulatory Text

I. Safety Problems

A. Frontal Crashes and the ``Second Collision''--The Leading Cause of 
Occupant Deaths

    Frontal crashes are the most significant cause of motor vehicle 
fatalities. More than \2/3\'s of the people killed in frontal crashes 
are unbelted. Young people, i.e., those in their teens and twenties, 
account for about 40 percent of the unbelted deaths.
    The frontal crash of a vehicle involves two collisions. The first 
collision occurs when the vehicle strikes another vehicle or an object 
such as a tree. The second collision is the human collision with the 
vehicle interior.
    When a vehicle collides with an object, a front seat occupant who 
is not wearing a seat belt becomes a projectile and keeps moving 
forward at speeds up to the vehicle's pre-crash speed. If that unbelted 
occupant is not protected by an air bag, the head or chest of the 
occupant usually slams into the steering wheel, dashboard, roof pillars 
or windshield. In the absence of an air bag, even belted occupants, 
particularly belted drivers, are likely to strike the vehicle interior 
with their head and neck or chest in a serious crash.

B. Preventing or Mitigating the Effects of the Second Collision Using 
Seat Belts and Air Bags

    To prevent or mitigate the effects of the second collision, 
Standard No. 208 requires that vehicles be equipped with seat belts and 
frontal air bags.\1\ Seats belts are estimated to save 9,500 lives in 
America each year. Research has found that lap/shoulder belts, when 
used properly, reduce the risk of fatal injury to front seat passenger 
car occupants by 45 percent and the risk of moderate-to-critical injury 
by 50 percent. For light truck occupants, seat belts reduce the risk of 
fatal injury by 60 percent and moderate-to-critical injury by 65 
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For a history of NHTSA's rulemaking concerning air bags, see 
Appendix B, ``Evolution of the Air Bag Provisions in Standard No. 
208.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Air bags are also highly effective in reducing fatalities from 
frontal crashes. Between 1986 and March 1, 2000, air bags have saved an 
estimated 5,303 front seat occupants (4,496 drivers (85 percent) and 
807 right front passengers (15 percent)).\2\ Of the 5,303 people, 72 
percent were unbelted and 28 percent belted. If observed seat belt use 
rates were to increase to 85 percent, the goal for 2000 set by DOT in 
1997, the distribution of lives saved would change from 72 percent 
unbelted/28 percent belted to 60 percent unbelted and 40 percent 
belted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ These estimates are based on comparisons of the frequency of 
front seat occupant deaths in vehicles without air bags and in 
vehicles with air bags. These life savings occurred predominantly in 
moderate and high speed crashes; i.e., those with a velocity change 
(delta V) above 20 mph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number of lives saved annually by air bags is continuing to 
increase as the percentage of air bag-equipped vehicles on the road 
increases. We estimate that air bags will save more than 3,200 lives 
annually in passenger cars and light trucks when all light vehicles on 
the road are equipped with driver and passenger air bags. This estimate 
is based on an anticipated fleet of vehicles meeting all of the 
requirements in this rule and on 1997 seat belt use rates (66.9 
percent, according to State-reported surveys). However, if observed 
seat belt use rates were to reach 85 percent, the annual savings of 
lives due to air bags would be reduced to approximately 2,400.

C. Air Bag Risks and Fatalities

    As the numbers above indicate, the attempt through seat belts and 
air bags to substitute a survivable event for an unsurvivable one or to 
substitute a less injurious event for a more injurious one is not 
always successful. While air bags are saving an increasing number of 
people in moderate and high speed crashes, they have occasionally 
caused fatalities, especially to unrestrained, out-of-position 
children, in relatively low speed crashes. As of April 1, 2000, NHTSA's 
Special Crash Investigation (SCI) program had confirmed a total of 158 
fatalities induced by the deployment of an air bag. Of that total, 92 
were children, 60 were drivers, and 6 were adult passengers. An 
additional 38 fatalities were under investigation by SCI on that date, 
but they had not been confirmed as having been induced by air bags.

[[Page 30682]]

    Changes have already occurred that are reducing the number of 
persons killed by air bags. Some changes are behavioral. As a result of 
public education programs, improved labeling and media coverage, the 
public is much more aware of the dangers air bags pose to children in 
the front seat and to drivers sitting too close to the air bag and is 
taking steps to reduce those dangers. For example, more children are 
being put in the back seat. More short-statured drivers are moving back 
from the steering wheel.
    Other changes are technological. First, as NHTSA noted in its 
report, ``Air Bag Technology in Light Passenger Vehicles'' (December 
1999), the air bag outputs (i.e., pressure rise rate and the peak 
pressure) were reduced significantly in many MY 1998 and later motor 
vehicles in comparison to the earlier vehicles.\3\ Hence, the sled test 
option successfully expedited the depowering of existing air bags. 
While there are many means by which air bag aggressiveness can be 
reduced, reducing air bag outputs is a quick means of accomplishing 
this goal. The agency's analyses also show that, between MY 1997 and MY 
1998, 50 to 60 percent of the vehicles in the fleet covered by the 1997 
IR lowered the output of the driver-side air bag, while about 40 to 50 
percent of the vehicles in that fleet lowered the output for the 
passenger side. Comparison of the data for MY 1997 and MY 1998 vehicles 
shows that, on average, the pressure rise rate in MY 1998 vehicles 
decreased about 22 percent for the driver air bag and 14 percent for 
the passenger air bags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The report indicates that some vehicle manufacturers had 
already depowered some air bags prior to the March 1997 rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data provided by the manufacturers also show that they have 
made significant changes in the design of their air bag systems other 
than the air bag pressure rise rate and peak pressure in their air bag 
designs, some over a period of many years.\4\ Thus, depowering is not 
the only technological option for reducing risk. One change is the 
recessing of driver air bags so that the module is located farther away 
from the plane of the steering wheel, and thus farther from the driver. 
Although this feature was not common in the early 1990s, it is found in 
almost half of the MY 1997 and MY 1998 vehicles in the responses to the 
1997 IR. Similarly, the air bag mounting location on the passenger side 
has also shown significant changes. Other features, such as cover tear 
patterns, tear pressure, fold patterns and the number and type of 
tethers, have changed in recent years, all of which may have 
collectively contributed to the reduced aggressiveness of air bags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Again, these changes began before the March 1997 rule, but 
have accelerated since then.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess the impact of the redesigned air bags on the numbers of 
air bag-induced fatalities, we used the available SCI data. We compared 
the rate per million registered vehicles of air bag-induced fatalities 
for the first 27 months that MY 1998 redesigned vehicles were on the 
road with the rate of air bag-induced fatalities for the first 27 
months that MY 1996-97 vehicles were on the road. We took this approach 
in an effort to ensure that the amount of exposure was comparable for 
both groups of vehicles. We found that the air bag-induced fatality 
rate for all MY 1998 vehicles is 66 percent less than the fatality rate 
for MY 1996-97 vehicles (0.48 for MY 1998 versus an average of 1.43 for 
MY 1996-97).
    Part of this reduction is the result of changes in vehicle design 
and part is the result of changes in behavior; i.e., using seat belts 
more frequently, moving children into the back seat, and moving the 
driver's seat further back. We found evidence of behavioral changes by 
examining the front seat and rear seat distributions of all child 
passengers (age 0 to 12) in passenger cars, survivors plus fatalities, 
in the Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) from 1995 through mid-
1999. In cars with passenger air bags, the percentage of toddlers and 
infants riding in the back seat increased from about 70 percent in 1995 
to about 90 percent in 1999.

D. Causes of Air Bag Fatalities

    Several factors are common to air bag-induced fatalities. First, 
they involve air bags that do not meet the suppression or low risk 
deployment requirements of this rule. Second, the occupants are 
generally very close to an air bag module when the air bag begins to 
deploy during a crash.\5\ The one fact that is common to all persons 
who died is not their height, weight, gender, or age. Instead, it is 
the fact that they were very close to an air bag when it started to 
deploy. For some people, e.g., infants in rear-facing infant seats, 
this occurred because they were initially sitting very close to the air 
bag. For the other occupants, this typically occurred because they were 
not restrained by seat belts or child safety seats and moved forward 
during pre-crash braking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Vehicle speed is not a causative factor. Most of the crashes 
involving fatalities that have been confirmed as air bag-induced 
occurred at relatively low speeds. If the passenger air bag had not 
deployed in those low speed crashes, the people would probably not 
have been killed or seriously injured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Closeness is a problem because, in order for an air bag to cushion 
an occupant's head, neck, chest and abdomen and keep the occupant from 
hitting the steering wheel, windshield or instrument panel, the air bag 
must move into place quickly. The force of a deploying air bag is 
greatest as the air bag begins to inflate. If occupants are very close 
to or in contact with the cover of an air bag that does not meet the 
low risk deployment requirements of this rule, they can be hit with 
enough force to cause serious injury or death when the air bag begins 
to inflate. This can be caused either by the cover as the air bag 
breaks out of the module (known as the ``punch-out'' effect) or by the 
unfolding and inflating air bag as it first conforms to the contours of 
the occupant and then moves rapidly into its fully-inflated shape 
(known as the ``membrane'' effect).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In general, a driver can avoid any serious air bag risks by 
sitting at least 10 inches away from the air bag (measured from the 
breastbone to the center of the air bag cover) and by wearing a lap/
shoulder seat belt. Teenage and adult passengers can avoid this risk 
by moving their seat as rearward as possible and wearing their seat 
belts. Even in a vehicle that does not have any air bags, children 
should ride in the rear seat whenever possible, since that is a 
significantly safer location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In all of the 92 SCI confirmed fatalities involving children, the 
children were very close to the instrument panel when the air bag 
deployed. Because of their proximity, the children sustained fatal head 
or neck injuries from the deploying passenger air bag.
    Eighteen fatally-injured infants were close to the air bag because 
they were in rear-facing infant seats installed directly in front of a 
passenger air bag. A rear-facing infant seat which is installed in the 
front seat of a vehicle with a passenger air bag will almost always 
position the infant's head very close to the passenger air bag. Several 
other infants were being held in the lap of a passenger.
    All but a few of the 74 fatally-injured older children were not 
using any type of restraint.\7\ Of those who were restrained, most were 
not correctly restrained. The non-use or improper use of occupant 
restraints allowed the vast majority of these children to move forward 
during pre-impact braking \8\ before the actual crash. As a result, 
they

[[Page 30683]]

were very close to the air bag when it deployed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NHTSA notes that almost all of the 68 fatally-injured 
children were 1-7 years old.
    \8\ Pre-impact braking was a factor in a very high percentage of 
crashes resulting in the deaths of the older children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As in the case of the children fatally injured by air bags, the key 
factor regarding the confirmed deaths of adults has been their 
closeness to the air bag when it deployed. The most common factor that 
allowed them to become very close to the air bag was the failure to use 
seat belts. Only 18 of the 60 drivers are known to have been properly 
restrained by lap and shoulder belts at the time of the crash.

II. The Rule, Its Rationale, and Its Implementation

A. Key Provisions of the Rule

Early Agency Efforts to Reduce Air Bag Risks
    Since the early 1990s, NHTSA has been taking steps to induce 
changes in behavior and technology to reduce the risk of such deaths 
and serious injuries to children and small adult drivers, especially 
when they are out-of-position.\9\ We focused our initial efforts to 
reduce air bag risks 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 always in the back 
seat and to ensure that they were always properly restrained. We 
required informative, text-only, warning labels to be placed in new 
motor vehicles and on child restraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Even before the 1990's, the issue of air bag-induced risks 
to out-of-position occupants was addressed by the agency in its 
rulemaking and research related to air bags. For a history of those 
earlier activities, see Appendix B at the end of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1996 Comprehensive Plan for Addressing Air Bag Risks
    To address the problems that arose with the air bags installed in 
many motor vehicles, the agency announced a comprehensive plan in 
November 1996. The plan set forth an array of immediate, interim and 
long-term measures. The immediate and interim measures focused on 
behavioral changes and relatively modest technological changes. The 
long-term measures focused on more significant technological changes, 
i.e., advanced air bag technologies. The immediate steps included 
expanding efforts to persuade parents to place their children in the 
rear seat; requiring new labels with eye-catching graphics and colors 
and strong, clear warning messages; extending the period of time for 
permitting the installation of original equipment on-off switches in 
new vehicles which either lacked a rear seat or had a rear seat too 
small to permit the installation of a child restraint system; and 
permitting the installation of retrofit on-off switches in vehicles-in-
use to protect people in at-risk groups. Because of the lead time 
needed to develop and install advanced air bag technologies, NHTSA 
announced plans to propose an interim measure to accelerate 
manufacturer efforts to redesign their air bags. In the long term, the 
agency said that it would conduct rulemaking to require the 
installation of advanced air bags.
Contribution of Behavioral Changes and the Current, Redesigned Air Bags 
to Reducing Air Bag Risks
    To implement the interim phase of the comprehensive plan and speed 
the redesigning and recertifying of air bags to reduce the risks to 
out-of-position occupants, we amended Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash 
Protection, 49 CFR 571.208, to establish a temporary option under which 
vehicle manufacturers could certify their vehicles based on a 48 km/h 
(30 mph) unbelted sled test using a 50th percentile adult male dummy, 
instead of the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier crash test using 
that dummy. 62 F.R. 12960; March 19, 1997.
    Available data indicate that the redesigned air bags, together with 
behavioral changes, such as placing more children in the back seat, 
have reduced the risks from air bags for the at-risk populations. 
Although these real-world data reflect only about two years of field 
experience with redesigned air bags, they preliminarily indicate that 
the redesigned air bags in model year (MY) 1998 and 1999 vehicles 
provide the same level of frontal crash protection as that provided by 
earlier air bags.
    While the redesigned air bags in current motor vehicles have 
contributed to the reduction in the risk of air bag-induced injuries, 
they can still cause death or serious injury to unrestrained occupants. 
We selected the provisions adopted in this rule to ensure that future 
air bags provide more frontal crash protection, and reduce risk 
further, than either the current redesigned air bags or air bags that 
would have been minimally compliant with the sled test.
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
    The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21), 
enacted by Congress in June 1998, requires us to issue a rule amending 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash 
Protection:

    * * * 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.)

    TEA 21 specifies that its twin goals are to be accomplished by 
means that include advanced air bag technologies. Although these 
technologies are beginning to be incorporated in some new vehicles, 
many aspects of those technologies are still undergoing development and 
refinement today.
    The rule is required to be consistent with section 30111 of Title 
49. Section 30111 requires that, among other things, Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards be practicable, meet the need for motor 
vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms.
    Under TEA 21, we were to issue the rule by September 1, 1999, 
unless we determined that the rule could not be issued by that date. 
The many issues in this rulemaking led us to make such a determination. 
We notified Congress of this determination in a letter dated August 3, 
1999. Therefore, under TEA 21, we were required to issue the rule by 
March 1, 2000.
    TEA 21 addresses various other issues, including the effective date 
and phase-in for the requirements adopted in this rule, as well as the 
opportunity to earn phase-in credits through early compliance. A 
complete discussion of TEA 21's provisions is included in the 1998 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). See 63 F.R. 49958 at 49961; 
September 18, 1998.
The Gathering of Information and Soliciting of Comments for This 
Rulemaking To Reduce Air Bag Risks Further
    Since 1996, the agency has been carefully laying the groundwork for 
completing the implementation of its comprehensive plan by issuing this 
rule. We have made extensive efforts to gather information and solicit 
public comments that would help us identify and adopt a sensible, 
effective array of requirements for increasing protection and 
minimizing risk. In February 1997, we held a public technical workshop 
on advanced air bag technologies. In December 1997, we sent an 
Information Request (IR) to the vehicle manufacturers to obtain 
detailed information concerning their changes in air bag design during 
the 1990s. In April 1998, Jet Propulsion Laboratories completed, at 
NHTSA's request, a report titled ``Advanced Air Bag Technology 
Assessment.'' In mid-1998, Congress made the judgment that advanced air 
bags should be required. It enacted TEA

[[Page 30684]]

21 mandating that we amend our occupant protection standard to require 
vehicle manufacturers to improve the protection provided by air bags 
and to reduce the risks associated with them by means that include 
advanced air bag technologies. Although TEA 21 required only that we 
seek public comment once on our proposals before taking final action, 
we asked for public comment twice. We issued a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) in September 1998, and a supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) in November 1999. To help us thoroughly 
explore the issues, we proposed or discussed in those two notices a 
variety of alternatives and posed a wide-ranging array of questions. 
Based on the information we received in response to the 1997 IR, we 
completed a report titled ``Air Bag Technology in Light Passenger 
Vehicles'' in December 1999.
Changes to Our Initial Proposals in Response to Information and 
Comments
    We carefully considered the information we gathered and the 
comments we received on the 1998 NPRM and appropriately adjusted our 
proposals in the 1999 SNPRM to respond to those materials. For example, 
based on the public comments on the NPRM regarding the type and number 
of tests needed to meet the risk minimization goals of TEA 21, we 
significantly reduced the number of those tests when we issued the 
SNPRM.
    Further, there was a substantial shift between the NPRM and SNPRM 
in the issues that needed to be resolved in determining which test 
should be specified to promote the improvements required by TEA 21 in 
the ability of vehicles to protect unbelted people in moderate to high 
speed crashes, i.e., those that are potentially fatal. In the NPRM, the 
primary issue was whether we should (1) retain the unbelted sled 
testing option, or (2) delete that option, leaving the existing 48 km/h 
(30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier crash testing provision as the sole 
basis for certification compliance with Standard No. 208's requirements 
regarding the protection of unbelted occupants.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As explained in greater detail below, this rule transforms 
unbelted rigid barrier testing under Standard No. 208 through the 
adoption of new and more stringent injury criteria, a new small 
adult female dummy seated far forward of where the existing mid-
sized adult male dummy is placed in compliance testing, a new belted 
offset test to ensure that sensors work properly in crashes that are 
not similar to a crash into a rigid barrier and the establishment of 
complementary risk reduction tests that will affect how 
manufacturers comply with the unbelted rigid barrier test in the 
future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the SNPRM, the primary issue regarding unbelted testing was what 
type of unbelted crash test should be specified, and at what top speed. 
We proposed several alternatives. One alternative was to test unbelted 
protection in an improved unbelted rigid barrier crash test with a top 
speed within the range of 40 to 48 km/h (25 to 30 mph). We said that if 
we issued a rule setting the maximum speed at 40 km/h (25 mph), 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 
was to test unbelted protection in an unbelted offset deformable 
barrier test with a maximum speed to be established in the rule within 
the range of 48 to 56 km/h (30 to 35 mph).
    In addition, we sought comment on other possibilities. One was 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 returning ``it to 48 km/h (30 mph) 
after an appropriate period of time, e.g., after the TEA 21 phase-in.'' 
Another was ``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.''
    Finally, we proposed in the SNPRM that the agency would not test at 
a speed of less than 29 km/h (18 mph) under the unbelted rigid barrier 
test alternative, and that the agency would not test at a speed of less 
than 35 km/h (22 mph) under the unbelted offset deformable barrier test 
alternative. This was not only a departure from the proposal in the 
NPRM, but also from prior agency practice. In the NPRM, we had proposed 
to test at any speed up to the maximum test speed. One reason for this 
change was that we wanted to be sure that the standard did not push 
deployment thresholds downward, i.e., cause air bags to be deployed at 
lower speeds than are appropriate for maximum occupant protection.
Public Comments on the SNPRM
    The commenters on the SNPRM, including vehicle manufacturers, air 
bag manufacturers, insurance companies, public interest groups, 
academia, and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), 
generally agreed with most aspects of that document. For example, the 
commenters agreed with the agency's proposals to reduce air bag-induced 
risks by specifying that driver air bags deploy in a low-risk manner in 
low speed crashes and the passenger air bags either deploy in that 
manner or turn off in the presence of young children.
    With respect to our proposals for improving occupant protection, 
most commenters supported replacing the unbelted sled test with an 
unbelted rigid barrier crash test. The vehicle manufacturers, which had 
opposed a rigid barrier test in their comments on the NPRM, agreed to a 
return to such a test.
    However, while there was a convergence of opinion as to the type of 
unbelted test, there was a sharp difference of opinion among the 
commenters on the SNPRM regarding the maximum speed for the unbelted 
rigid barrier crash test. Several safety advocacy and consumer groups 
urged that the maximum speed be kept at 48 km/h (30 mph). The vehicle 
manufacturers, air bag suppliers, an insurance industry safety 
organization, and several other organizations, believing that a maximum 
test speed of 48 km/h (30 mph) could make significant repowering 
necessary, urged that the maximum speed be set at 40 km/h (25 mph). 
They urged further that the speed be maintained at that level pending 
analysis of field experience with the air bags installed in motor 
vehicles during that period. For similar reasons, the NTSB also urged a 
maximum test speed of 40 km/h (25 mph).
    There were also significant differences of opinion regarding our 
proposals about the provision providing a due care defense against 
findings of noncompliance with the air bag requirements of Standard No. 
208 and about the wording of the statements regarding air bag-induced 
risks on the proposed vehicle labels.
    We note that a substantial number of comments were submitted to the 
docket for the SNPRM after the comment closing date. In preparing this 
rule, we have considered all comments placed in the docket on or before 
April 28, 2000.
The Development of a Data-Driven Rule
    Before we made decisions on which provisions should be included in 
this rule to improve air bag performance as required by TEA 21, we 
carefully considered the available information and the public comments, 
the underlying safety problems, the performance of air bag systems in 
current motor vehicles, the ability (including lead time needs) of 
vehicle manufacturers to achieve better performance in future motor 
vehicles, the air bag technology (including advanced air bag 
technology) currently available or being developed, the cost of 
compliance, and other factors. Because

[[Page 30685]]

the comments on the SNPRM focused on the alternatives for improving the 
protection provided by air bags, we were particularly careful in 
considering the comments concerning the costs, benefits and risks 
associated with each of those alternatives.
    The requirements in today's rule for improving protection and 
minimizing risk are challenging and will push the vehicle manufacturers 
to make needed safety improvements in air bag performance. Our 
decisions regarding the selection of those requirements was based on 
available test data and analysis, and our informed judgment about the 
best way of implementing the requirements of TEA 21.
The Principal Provisions of the Rule
    The rule will improve protection and minimize risk by requiring new 
tests and injury criteria and specifying the use of an entire family of 
test dummies: the existing dummy representing 50th percentile adult 
males, and new dummies representing 5th percentile adult females, six-
year old children, three-year old children, and one-year old infants. 
With the addition of those dummies, our occupant crash protection 
standard will more fully reflect the range in sizes of vehicle 
occupants. As noted above, most aspects of this rule are supported by 
most commenters on this rulemaking, including vehicle manufacturers, 
air bag manufacturers, insurance companies, public interest groups, 
academia, and the NTSB.
    The rule will be phased in during two stages. The first stage 
phase-in requires vehicles to be certified as passing the unbelted test 
requirements for both the 5th percentile adult female and 50th 
percentile adult male dummies in a 40 km/h (25 mph) rigid barrier 
crash, and belted test requirements for the same two dummies in a rigid 
barrier crash with a maximum test speed of 48 km/h (30 mph). In 
addition, the first stage requires vehicles to include technologies 
that will minimize risk for young children and small adults.
    The second stage phase-in requires vehicles to be certified as 
passing the belted test requirements for the 50th percentile adult male 
dummy at 56 km/h (35 mph). This requirement will ensure improved 
protection for belted occupants.
Risk Minimization Provisions Implemented During First Stage Phase-in
    During the first stage phase-in, from September 1, 2003 to August 
31, 2006, increasing percentages of motor vehicles will be required to 
meet requirements for minimizing air bag risks, primarily by either 
automatically turning off the air bag in the presence of young children 
or deploying the air bag in a manner much less likely to cause serious 
or fatal injury to out-of-position occupants. If they so wish, 
manufacturers may choose to use a combination of those two approaches.
    Manufacturers that decide to turn off the passenger air bag will 
use weight sensors and/or other means of detecting the presence of 
young children. To test the ability of those means to detect the 
presence of children, the rule specifies that child dummies be placed 
in child seats that are, in turn, placed on the passenger seat. It also 
specifies tests that are conducted with unrestrained child dummies 
sitting, kneeling, standing, or lying on the passenger seat.
    The ability of air bags to deploy in a low risk manner will be 
tested using child dummies on the passenger side and the small adult 
female dummy on the driver side. For manufacturers that decide to 
design their passenger air bags to deploy in a low risk manner, the 
rule specifies that unbelted child dummies be placed against the 
instrument panel. This location was selected because pre-crash braking 
can cause unrestrained children to move forward into or near that 
position before the air bag deploys. The air bag is then deployed. The 
ability of driver air bags to deploy in a low risk manner will be 
tested by placing the 5th percentile adult female dummy against the 
steering wheel and then deploying the air bag.
Protection Improvement Provisions Implemented During First Stage Phase-
in
    In addition, the vehicle manufacturers will be required to meet a 
rigid barrier crash test with both unbelted 5th percentile adult female 
dummies and unbelted 50th percentile adult male dummies. The unbelted 
rigid barrier test replicates what happens to motor vehicles and their 
occupants in real world crashes better than the current sled test does. 
The maximum test speed for unbelted dummy testing will be 40 km/h (25 
mph).
    Our decision to set the maximum test speed for unbelted dummy 
testing at 40 km/h (25 mph) is being issued as an interim final rule. 
We conclude that is the appropriate test speed for at least the TEA 21 
implementation period (MY2004-2007). That speed will provide vehicle 
manufacturers with the flexibility they need during that period to meet 
the technological challenges involved in simultaneously improving 
protection and minimizing risk. To achieve those twin goals, the 
manufacturers will have to comply with the wide variety of new 
requirements using an array of new dummies during this near-term time 
frame.
    However, we draw no final conclusion about the appropriateness of 
that test speed in the longer run. At this time, we cannot assess 
whether the uncertainty about the manufacturers' ability to improve 
protection further and minimize risk simultaneously will persist beyond 
the TEA 21 implementation period. In addition, while we believe that it 
is unlikely that a 40 km/h (25 mph) maximum test speed will lead to a 
reduction in high speed protection, we cannot rule out that 
possibility. If manufacturers were to engage in significant depowering, 
it could result in lesser crash performance for teenage and adult 
occupants. On the other hand, even if current levels of real world 
protection were only maintained, rather than improved, the marginal 
benefits of a 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted maximum test speed would be 
significantly diminished or eliminated.
    To help resolve these issues and concerns, we are planning a multi-
year effort to obtain additional data. The activities comprising that 
effort are described in the section below entitled, ``Monitoring of 
Implementation and Field Experience; Research and Technology 
Assessment.'' Based on the results of those information gathering and 
analysis efforts, we will make a final decision regarding the maximum 
test speed for unbelted dummy testing in the long run, after providing 
opportunity for informed public comment.
    There are still other additions to Standard No. 208. To ensure that 
vehicle manufacturers upgrade their crash sensing and software systems 
as necessary to prevent late air bag deployments in crashes with soft 
pulses, vehicles will be required to meet an up-to-40 km/h (25 mph) 
offset deformable barrier test using belted 5th percentile adult female 
dummies. A late air bag deployment would allow enough time for an 
unrestrained occupant to move forward into the steering wheel or 
instrument panel during a crash before the air bag deploys. Thus, the 
occupant would be in contact with or very close to the air bag module 
when the air bag deploys, creating a risk of severe or fatal injury. In 
addition, the 5th percentile female dummy is added to the 48 
km/h (30 mph) belted rigid barrier test.
Provision Implemented During Second Stage Phase-in
    During the second stage phase-in, from September 1, 2007 to August 
31, 2010, the maximum test speed for the belted rigid barrier test will 
increase

[[Page 30686]]

from 48 km/h (30 mph) to 56 km/h (35 mph) in tests with the 50th 
percentile adult male dummy only. As in the case of the first-stage 
requirements, this second-stage requirement will be phased in for 
increasing percentages of motor vehicles. We did not include the 5th 
percentile adult female dummy in this requirement because we have 
sparse information on the practicability of such a requirement. As 
noted below, we will initiate testing to examine this issue and 
anticipate proposing increasing the test speed for belted tests using 
the 5th percentile adult female dummy to 56 km/h (35 mph), beginning at 
the same time that the belted test must be met at that speed using the 
50th percentile adult male.
Schedule for Implementation
    We have changed the date on which the implementation of this rule 
begins from September 1, 2002, as proposed in the SNPRM, to September 
1, 2003. This gives vehicle manufacturers as much lead time as TEA 21 
allows for the first stage phase-in. TEA 21 does not permit a later 
starting date. This change will give the manufacturers a lead time of 
more than 3 years for vehicles produced during the first year (Model 
Year (MY) 2004) of that phase-in and more than 6 years for vehicles 
produced during MY 2007, the first MY in which vehicle manufacturers 
will be required to manufacture all of their vehicles in compliance 
with the first stage requirements without the aid of credits.
    We changed the starting date for the first stage in part because of 
the breadth of the challenges that the vehicle manufacturers will be 
required to meet during that stage. They will need to certify their 
vehicles to an unbelted barrier test instead of a sled test. Moreover, 
they will need to meet this test for the new 5th percentile adult 
female dummy seated all the way forward as well as for the existing 
50th percentile adult male dummy seated in the mid-track position. They 
will also need to meet a new belted offset deformable barrier test 
using the 5th percentile adult female dummy and a belted rigid barrier 
test for both 50th percentile adult male dummies and 5th percentile 
female dummies. For all of these tests, they will need to meet new 
injury criteria performance limits. Finally, the vehicle manufacturers 
will need to certify their vehicles to an array of test requirements to 
minimize the risk to infants, children, and other occupants from 
injuries and deaths caused by air bags using the 5th percentile adult 
female dummy and the child dummies. The starting date of September 1, 
2003 will give the manufacturers additional time to gain experience 
with the new dummies, final specifications for which have only recently 
been established.
    Further, the longer lead time for the first stage phase-in will 
also promote technological innovation regarding ways of minimizing 
risks. It will give vehicle manufacturers more time to complete 
development and testing of the advanced technologies they plan to use. 
Further, we are aware that suppliers are continuing work on additional 
technologies. The additional time will enable the manufacturers to 
explore further using some of these additional technologies.
Rationales for Risk Minimization Requirements
    The agency drafted the risk minimization requirements to give 
vehicle manufacturers a broad choice among those advanced air bag 
technologies that can be used either to turn air bags off in 
appropriate circumstances or cause air bags to deploy in a low risk 
manner.\11\ Thus, the vehicle manufacturers will have the freedom to 
choose from a variety of available technological solutions or to 
innovate by developing new ones if they so desire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The rule also establishes very general performance 
requirements for dynamic automatic suppression systems (DASS) and a 
special expedited petitioning and rulemaking process for considering 
procedures for testing advanced air bag systems incorporating a 
DASS. In response to comments, modifications have been made to 
address concerns about confidentiality and timing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate that if advanced air bag technologies (suppression and 
low risk deployment) are 100 percent reliable, they could have 
eliminated 95 percent of the known air bag fatalities that have 
occurred to date in low speed crashes. For example, weight sensors can 
be installed in the passenger seat so that the passenger air bag is 
turned off when children, from infants up to the typical 6-year-old, 
are present. The use of weight sensors for that purpose should 
essentially eliminate the risk of air bag-induced fatal injuries for 
children in that size and age range. Based on available data, it does 
not appear that turning air bags off for those young children would 
result in the loss of any benefits. There is an element of uncertainty 
about the level of reliability and effectiveness of the suppression for 
children from 0 to 6 years old and low risk deployment designs that 
will be actually installed in vehicles. We also note that we do not 
currently have a dummy suitable for assessing the effectiveness of 
suppression and low risk deployment for children ages 7-12. (See the 
section below entitled, ``Future Rulemaking Plans.'') Our decision 
concerning the maximum test speed for the unbelted rigid barrier test 
reflects, in part, these uncertainties and limitations.
    The availability of advanced air bag technologies for minimizing 
risks is not just a theoretical possibility. Vehicle manufacturers are 
very actively working on completing their development and testing of 
weight sensor systems so that they will be ready for installation for 
the passenger air bags in their motor vehicles. Installation could 
begin as early as the next model year.\12\ Means of reducing risk for 
drivers, including dual-stage air bags coupled with sensors for driver 
seat belt use and driver seat position, are already being installed in 
some vehicles. For a description of advanced technologies and a partial 
listing of current models equipped with one or more types of those 
technologies, see Appendix D, ``Advanced Technologies for Improving Air 
Bags.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The MY 2001 Ford Windstar will, according to a report in 
the April 24, 2000 edition of Automotive News, be equipped with an 
advanced air bag system ``designed to prevent the deployment of the 
front passenger airbag when sensors determine the passenger's weight 
is less than 45 pounds.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rationales for Protection Improvement Requirements
Replacing the Unbelted Sled Test With the Unbelted Rigid Barrier Crash 
Test
    The agency has decided to delete the sled test option and retain 
the unbelted rigid barrier crash test provision for the reasons 
explained in the NPRM and SNPRM. Among those reasons is that a crash 
test replicates how vehicle structures and air bag systems work 
together in real world crashes. A sled test cannot do that because 
while the vehicle is quickly decelerated in such a test, it never 
crashes into anything. As a result, the sled test cannot take into 
account the ability of a motor vehicle's structure to manage crash 
energy. Further, the sled test uses a generic crash pulse instead of 
the individual crash pulse of the particular vehicle being tested, and 
deploys all air bags at a fixed time during the event rather than 
having that decision made by the crash sensing system of the vehicle.
Selection of 40 km/h (25 mph) as Top Speed for Unbelted Rigid Barrier 
Test
    In developing today's rule, we gave serious consideration to 
specifying 40 km/h (25 mph) as the maximum speed for the unbelted rigid 
barrier test for an initial period (so that vehicle manufacturers could 
focus during that period on risk minimization) and then phasing-in a 48 
km/h (30 mph) unbelted test speed in the 2008 through 2010 model years. 
Our initial inclination to

[[Page 30687]]

increase the maximum test speed to 48 km/h (30 mph) during the second 
of two phase-ins reflected several considerations. First, our testing 
of vehicles with redesigned air bags indicated that the vast majority 
of current vehicles can meet that test using 50th percentile adult male 
dummies. Those test results were not rebutted by any significant test 
data provided by the motor vehicle manufacturers or others. Therefore, 
the record did not support the argument by the motor vehicle 
manufacturers and others that a 48 km/h (30 mph) test using a 50th 
percentile adult male dummy would require any kind of general 
``repowering'' of air bags.\13\ Second, we concluded that air bags 
could be designed to meet a 48 km/h (30 mph) test with both 5th 
percentile adult female dummies and 50th percentile adult male dummies 
without increasing risks to out-of-position occupants.\14\ Third, we 
believed that a specific requirement to return eventually to a 48 km/h 
(30 mph) test should be adopted to ensure that vehicle manufacturers 
did not engage in significant additional depowering of air bags, or 
make them substantially smaller, which would reduce their 
protectiveness to occupants in high speed crashes.\15\ We believed then 
that there could be an economic incentive to install air bags that were 
minimally compliant with a 40 km/h (25 mph) test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Based on NHTSA crash tests (including tests of some 
vehicles with stiff crash pulses) of a variety of types and sizes of 
vehicles in the current new vehicle fleet, we concluded that the air 
bags in the vast majority of current vehicles would pass a 48 km/h 
(30 mph) crash test using a 50th percentile adult male dummy with 
much the same compliance margins as before. Thus, we concluded that 
more power was not needed for those vehicles to pass that test with 
that dummy. Further, the fact that some current vehicles with stiff 
pulses meet the injury criteria suggested that vehicle manufacturers 
might not have to repower air bag systems in other stiff pulse 
vehicles in order to meet the criteria.
    More fundamentally, we reasoned that air bags that currently 
have enough power to meet the injury criteria using the 78 kg (172 
lb.) 50th percentile adult male dummy would not need more power to 
meet the criteria using the much lighter 50 kg (110 lb.) 5th 
percentile adult female dummy. Our tests indicate that the primary 
problem for the small female dummy in those current vehicles that do 
not satisfy the injury criteria in a 48 km/h (30 mph) test with the 
5th percentile adult female dummy is that the dummy experiences too 
much force in the neck or chest area. We said further that the 
solution for the smaller, lighter female dummy would not be to put 
additional power into the bag. Not only would that step be 
unnecessary to protect the 50th percentile adult male dummy, but 
also it would be likely to exacerbate the problems with the small 
female dummy. We concluded that the solution would be to redesign 
the air bag system---using recessed air bags and new sensors, 
multiple inflation levels, fold patterns, bias flaps, etc.---to 
assure compliance for both the 5th percentile adult female dummy and 
50th adult male dummy.
    \14\ We noted that tests of some current production vehicles 
demonstrate that they incorporate the designs and technologies 
necessary to enable them to comply at 48 km/h (30 mph) on both the 
driver and passenger sides with both dummies. These technologies 
include improved air bag folding, bias flaps, and internal baffles/
tethers. We believed that manufacturers could add other measures 
such as dual-stage inflators, seat position sensors, recessed air 
bag modules, and better energy-absorbing steering columns. If any 
vehicle manufacturer wished to do so, it could also develop and 
provide chambered, dual-stage air bags that are designed to fill 
fully only an inner chamber of the air bag, instead of the entire 
air bag, when the driver seat is near the full forward adjustment 
position on the seat track.
    \15\ We noted that the difference between a 40 km/h (25 mph) and 
a 48 km/h (30 mph) crash is significant. The significance does not 
lie in the 20 percent increase in speed, but in the 44 percent 
increase in crash energy. It is because of that increase in crash 
energy that the risk of serious or fatal injury is significantly 
higher at 48 km/h (30 mph) than at 40 km/h (25 mph). Further, a 
maximum test speed of 48 km/h (30 mph) represents a higher 
percentage of the crashes that produce serious or fatal occupant 
injuries. As a result, if air bags were designed only to minimally 
meet a 40 km/h (25 mph) crash test, many occupants, particularly 
larger occupants, would not be adequately protected in higher speed 
crashes. We estimated that 248 to 413 lives could be lost annually 
if manufacturers did only the minimum required of them by a 40 km/h 
(25 mph) crash test requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After further examination of the issues and the information before 
us, and an assessment of the areas of uncertainty about simultaneously 
improving protection and minimizing risk, we have concluded that the 
adoption of a 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted requirement would not be in the 
best overall interest of safety. We have decided instead to set the 
maximum test speed for the unbelted rigid barrier crash tests at 40 km/
h (25 mph) as an interim final rule. We selected that test speed based 
on several factors.
    First, particularly given the risks that the first generation of 
air bags posed to out-of-position children and small adult females, and 
the reaction of the public to those risks, it is very important that 
advanced air bags be properly designed from the very beginning. We note 
that air bags, by their nature, present a potential for safety trade-
offs not presented by other safety features. That is, while air bags 
dissipate crash energy for most occupants when they interact with them 
when fully inflated, the energy released during deployment could be 
injurious to out-of-position occupants in their interaction with an 
inflating air bag. This interaction of an occupant and a deploying air 
bag can be a source of serious injury or death. In contrast, other 
safety features typically just dissipate energy when occupants interact 
with components in the vehicle interior in crashes; they do not add 
energy. Because of this potential for death and injury, we want to be 
cautious in how far and how fast vehicle manufacturers are required to 
advance the state of advanced air bag technologies in their vehicles.
    Since a significant percentage of current vehicles can already 
satisfy the new unbelted barrier crash test at 40 km/h (25 mph) with 
both the 5th percentile adult female dummy and the 50th percentile 
adult male dummy, we conclude that setting the maximum speed at that 
level will help vehicle manufacturers to focus their resources and 
compliance efforts during the first stage on meeting the risk reduction 
requirements. We want to continue the progress already made in using 
technological means for reducing air bag-induced risks.
    While the manufacturers' resources for dealing with air bags, as 
well as all the other engineering issues associated with future motor 
vehicles, are extensive, there are limits to how much can be done at 
any one time. We need to consider the variety and complexity of changes 
in air bag testing and technology that will be required by this rule. 
As we noted above in the discussion of the implementation schedule, the 
array of new requirements that the manufacturers will have to meet in 
the first stage is challenging. We are requiring the use of a new test 
dummy (the 5th percentile adult female) in high speed tests, adding a 
new test (offset belted), adding new neck injury criteria, and making 
existing injury criteria more stringent (chest deflection). We are also 
adding an entire new series of risk minimization tests, which will 
require manufacturers to install air bag suppression systems or low-
risk deployment systems, or both.
    We are particularly concerned about the difficulties of trying to 
meet the unbelted rigid barrier test at 48 km/h (30 mph) with both 
adult dummies while simultaneously trying to reduce the risks of air 
bag-induced injuries and deaths. As noted above, the unbelted rigid 
barrier crash test specified by this rule for the future is an improved 
test that differs fundamentally from the unbelted rigid barrier test 
that Standard No. 208 has specified in the past. In the past, the 
Standard specified only that test and the belted rigid barrier test, 
and used only one dummy, the 50th percentile adult male dummy. The 
injury criteria for the unbelted rigid barrier crash test did not 
evaluate the potential for neck injuries and allowed even greater chest 
deflection. The Standard specified no other requirement (such as one 
for out-of-position testing) that had the effect of making it more 
difficult to achieve compliance with the unbelted rigid barrier test.

[[Page 30688]]

    In the future, however, greater efforts will be needed to comply 
with that test because manufacturers will be required to meet a greater 
variety of requirements.
    The unbelted rigid barrier test will have to be met using new or 
more stringent injury criteria with the new 5th percentile adult female 
dummy as well as the existing 50th percentile adult male dummy. The 
necessity of meeting those criteria with the 5th percentile adult 
female dummy placed in vehicle seats that have been moved all the way 
forward will add considerably to the challenge of meeting that test. 
For both belted and unbelted tests, we are adopting improved injury 
criteria to assure greater protection by air bags in high speed 
crashes. More specifically, we are changing the way in which the risk 
of head injuries is measured, adding a new neck injury measure that 
accounts for the combination of flexion, extension, tension, and 
compression, and reducing the amount of allowable chest deflection.
    Further, efforts to comply with the unbelted rigid barrier test 
will be affected by the simultaneous need to comply with the risk 
reduction requirements. In the future, air bags will be explicitly 
required to be tested for their potential to harm vulnerable occupants 
as well as offer protection in high-speed crashes.
    While advanced air bag technologies will facilitate simultaneously 
achieving the goals of improving protection and minimizing risk, we 
cannot forecast the pace of development of those technologies. Setting 
the maximum speed at 40 km/h (25 mph) will give vehicle manufacturers 
greater flexibility to choose among and gain experience with advanced 
air bag technologies. It will also give NHTSA a chance to gather data 
about the performance of vehicles using advanced air bag technologies. 
We want the installation of advanced air bag technologies by the 
vehicle manufacturers across the full spectrum of their fleets to be 
done correctly--the first time.
    Accordingly, we believe that it is preferable to take an approach 
that best assures improved air bag performance for occupants of all 
sizes, without compromising efforts to minimize the risks of injury to 
vulnerable occupants, including children and short women seated very 
close to air bags, and out-of-position occupants. Such an approach is 
one that involves the least uncertainty for the occupants who have been 
most at risk. In other words, as long as the manufacturers improve the 
already substantial overall level of air bag protection provided by 
current redesigned air bags, the uncertainty involved in meeting the 
challenge to improve high-speed protection and minimize risk 
simultaneously is best resolved at this point in favor of minimizing 
risk. This is especially true in the early stages of the introduction 
of advanced air bag technologies. Compared with a 48 km/h (30 mph) 
unbelted rigid barrier test, a 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted rigid barrier 
test presents less chance of inadvertently increasing risks to out-of-
position occupants.
    Second, while we believe that it should eventually be possible for 
vehicles to provide protection for both small females and mid-sized 
males in a 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted test without compromising efforts 
to minimize the risks of serious air bag-induced injuries, there are 
unresolved issues. Our laboratory tests and knowledge of advanced 
technologies do not tell us how or when developments might reach that 
point. They also do not provide us with a full picture of the real 
world consequences of adopting that test speed. Thus, this type of 
information, by itself, is not necessarily sufficient to enable us to 
determine whether adopting that speed is worthwhile, much less needed, 
from a safety standpoint.
    We assessed the relative merits of maximum test speeds of 40 km/h 
(25 mph) and 48 km/h (30 mph) in light of the initial advanced air bag 
systems that manufacturers will introduce over the next several years. 
Based on that assessment, we are concerned that the need for vehicle 
manufacturers to take steps to enable them to certify to a 48 km/h (30 
mph) unbelted test could create difficulties in improving protection 
and minimizing risks for the wide range of occupants and crashes in the 
real world. A good example of how these potential problems might occur 
relates to how a vehicle manufacturer might use a dual-stage air bag to 
meet the goals of this rulemaking.
    One strategy for meeting an unbelted 48 km/h (30 mph) barrier 
requirement for both 5th percentile adult females and 50th percentile 
adult males would be to use the first stage inflation level for the 5th 
percentile adult female and the second stage inflation level for the 
50th percentile adult male. However, under that strategy, the need to 
certify to the 48 km/h (30 mph) barrier test for the 5th percentile 
adult female dummy would require a relatively faster inflation in the 
first stage. Because that dummy will be placed in a vehicle seat moved 
all the way forward, the air bag will have to deploy especially quickly 
to provide protection. The use of a relatively faster first stage would 
conflict with the strategy of using as benign a first stage inflation 
level as possible in lower speed crashes to reduce risks to out-of-
position occupants. Alternatively, the vehicle manufacturer could use 
the second stage inflation level for both the 5th percentile adult 
female and 50th percentile adult male dummies. While this strategy 
might be a good one for passing a rigid barrier test, in which the 
dummy does not move forward much before deployment, it might not be a 
good strategy for high speed real world crashes in which small adult 
females, who already sit close to the air bag, and unrestrained 
children move considerably closer as a result of pre-crash braking.
    While we believe that dual-stage inflators represent a significant 
improvement over single level inflators, it is important to recognize 
that they have limitations. Some of these limitations could be overcome 
by inflators with more than two stages. However, this would add greater 
complexity, including additional gray zones. While these and other more 
advanced technologies, such as chambering and real time occupant 
position sensing, may become available in the future, we want to be 
cautious about the possibility of inducing manufacturers to install 
more advanced technologies before those technologies are fully ready. 
For example, vehicle manufacturers should gain real world experience 
with dual-stage inflators before they adopt inflators with additional 
stages. Also, in areas in which there is uncertainty as to what 
strategies might be best for safety, such as the specific performance 
characteristics for dual-level inflators, we want to be careful about 
adopting requirements that might be inappropriately design restrictive 
in making it difficult for vehicle manufacturers to design their air 
bags so that they perform well both in rigid barrier tests and in the 
wide range of real world crashes.
    Third, we are also aware that the vehicle manufacturers need design 
flexibility to address issues regarding performance in real world 
crashes not directly replicated by Standard No. 208's tests.
    As we have discussed on many occasions, one of the greatest 
limitations of non-advanced air bags is that they typically deploy in 
the same manner regardless of such factors as crash severity or 
occupant size, weight or position. In other words, they are non-
adjusting, one-size-fits-all air bags. One of the principal strategies 
for improving

[[Page 30689]]

air bag performance is to provide different levels of deployment for 
different situations.
    The most basic redesigned advanced air bags would allow different 
types of deployment to suit different crash situations. These air bags 
would have a dual-level inflator instead of a single-level inflator. 
Some vehicles already have such inflators. With two levels of 
inflation, the vehicle manufacturer can design the air bag system so 
that the level of inflation is dependent on such factors as crash 
severity, size and weight of the occupant, and position of the 
occupant. For example, the high level of inflation might be selected 
for high speed crashes and the low level of inflation for low speed 
crashes. Of course, the ability to select an inflation level based on 
these various factors would depend on the existence of sensors that 
provide relevant information about the above factors.
    Successful implementation of air bags designed to vary their 
performance in response to sensed differences in crash severity or 
other conditions presents a challenge to the manufacturers in that 
these air bags have ``gray'' or transition zones, i.e., ranges of 
conditions in which the air bag changes from one level of performance 
to another. At very low speeds, there will be uncertainty within a gray 
zone about whether the air bag will deploy or not deploy and at higher 
speeds, there will be uncertainty about which level of performance will 
be triggered. For example, there will be a gray zone of crash severity 
in which there is uncertainty whether a dual-stage air bag will deploy 
only its lowest powered stage or both stages.
    Particularly given the importance we place on vehicle manufacturers 
``getting it right'' the first time with advanced air bags, we believe 
it is appropriate for them to initially introduce relatively simple 
advanced systems, such as ones incorporating dual-level inflators and 
sensors that provide basic information about one or more of the factors 
identified above. While we believe that more complex systems, 
incorporating such features as several levels of inflation, chambering 
(e.g., creating, in effect, a small bag inside a larger bag) and real 
time occupant position sensing, offer promise of even greater benefits, 
there are significant uncertainties regarding the feasibility and thus 
availability of such systems, particularly the dynamic position sensing 
systems.
    Fourth, a 40 km/h (25 mph) maximum test speed gives vehicle 
manufacturers more flexibility to address the greater compliance 
problems associated with vehicles, e.g., SUVs, with particularly stiff 
crash pulses. Since unbelted occupants moving forward in frontal 
crashes of these vehicles will have to be engaged more quickly than in 
vehicles with softer crash pulses, the task of designing air bag 
systems in stiff pulse vehicles is significantly more challenging. Our 
test experience with LTVs using the 5th percentile adult female dummy 
is very limited. We have conducted only three 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted 
rigid barrier tests and only one 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted rigid 
barrier test of LTVs with that dummy. Particularly given this limited 
test experience, we believe there are uncertainties with respect to the 
ability of manufacturers to meet a 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier test 
requirement for both 50th percentile adult male dummies and 5th 
percentile adult female dummies.
    Fifth, we believe that it is unlikely that vehicle manufacturers 
will significantly depower their air bags and minimally comply with the 
40 km/h (25 mph) test. Our Final Economic Analysis concludes that there 
would not be any significant cost savings in installing air bags that 
were minimally compliant with a 40 km/h (25 mph) test. Vehicle 
manufacturers have not depowered their air bags so much that they 
minimally comply with the sled test. In fact, their current redesigned 
air bags significantly exceed the level of performance needed to meet 
not only the sled test, but also a 40 km/h (25 mph) rigid barrier crash 
test with the 50th percentile adult male dummy. As discussed above, the 
real world data to date for vehicles certified to the sled test, while 
preliminary, indicates that there has not been a loss of frontal crash 
protection compared to pre-MY 1998 vehicles.\16\ If this result 
continues, future bags will greatly exceed the minimum performance 
requirements of the 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted barrier test. Indeed, the 
vehicle manufacturers have indicated that they would not engage in 
significant, widespread additional depowering if a 40 km/h (25 mph) 
test were adopted. They argue that their need to perform well in 
NHTSA's 56 km/h (35 mph) belted NCAP tests limits, as a practical 
matter, any inclination that might theoretically otherwise exist to 
depower their air bags further. NHTSA notes that this rule increases 
the influence of 56 km/h (35 mph) belted testing by making passing such 
testing with 50th percentile adult male dummies mandatory. Thus, NHTSA 
believes that it is not risking a substantial loss of benefits by 
establishing an unbelted barrier test of 40 km/h (25 mph).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ To obtain a fuller understanding of these results, and the 
role played by the sled test and other provisions of Standard No. 
208 in obtaining them, the agency conducted tests and examined 
information obtained from the vehicle manufacturers. The vehicle 
manufacturers did not depower all models. There was a wide range in 
the power of pre-MY 1998 air bags. As to those models that they did 
depower, they did not depower their air bags as much as they said 
they could or as much as we anticipated they might when we prepared 
the economic analysis accompanying our 1997 final rule that adopted 
the sled test option. Instead, as NHTSA tests have shown, the 
manufacturers typically chose levels of power that still enabled 
them to pass the pre-existing 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted crash test 
with a 50th percentile adult male dummy. Further, these tests have 
revealed that vehicles with redesigned air bags pass that test with 
that dummy by roughly the same margin of compliance as earlier 
vehicles did. (It should be emphasized, as we note below in the 
section entitled, ``Selection of 40 km/h (25 mph) as Top Speed for 
Unbelted Rigid Barrier Test,'' that meeting the unbelted rigid 
barrier crash test at 48km/h (30 mph) with that dummy and a 5th 
percentile adult female dummy is significantly more challenging than 
meeting it with 50th percentile adult male dummy alone. It is still 
more challenging to meet that test with both dummies and minimize 
risk simultaneously. Thus, the ability to meet the 48 km/h (30 mph) 
unbelted crash test with a 50th percentile adult male dummy isn't, 
by itself, predictive of a vehicle manufacturer's ability to meet 
that test with both dummies, and the other requirements added by 
this rule.)
    As to the differences between the anticipated amount of 
depowering and the amount of depowering actually performed and as to 
the performance of the current redesigned air bags, we also note 
that, as discussed below, depowering is not the only way of reducing 
the aggressiveness of air bags. There are other design changes that 
were made by some manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sixth, our decision to replace the 48 km/h (30 mph) generic sled 
test with the 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test requires a 
significantly higher level of safety. The agency estimates that the 
sled test is roughly equivalent to a 35.5 km/h (22 mph) rigid barrier 
perpendicular (0 degree) crash. During the 1997 rulemaking, we looked 
at the relative safety consequences of an air bag designed to just meet 
the performance requirements associated with a 48 km/h (30 mph) generic 
sled test. The agency estimated the fatality impacts of designing a 
vehicle to minimally meet the performance requirements imposed by the 
current 48 km/h (30 mph) generic sled test and compared these to the 
fatality impacts of designing a vehicle to just meet the 40 km/h (25 
mph) unbelted rigid barrier test. If these different design tasks did 
not have any impact on air bag size, air bags designed to the 40 km/h 
(25 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test could save 64 to 144 more lives 
than air bags designed to the generic sled test (assumed to be 35.5 km/
h (22 mph)). If, on the other hand, air bags designed to the generic 
sled test would be smaller and provide no benefit in partial frontal 
impacts, because the 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test 
includes an up to 30

[[Page 30690]]

degree oblique test while the generic sled test has no angular 
component, 282 to 308 more lives (this range includes the 64 to 144 
estimates mentioned earlier) could be saved by air bags designed to the 
40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test with the oblique test than 
lives saved by air bags designed to just comply with the generic sled 
test.
    Increasing Belted Test Speed to 56 km/h (35 mph) for 50th 
Percentile Male Dummy. In the SNPRM, we asked for comment on whether we 
should increase the speed for the belted test using the 50th percentile 
adult male dummy from 48 km/h to 56 km/h (30 mph to 35 mph) if we 
adopted 40 km/h (25 mph) as the maximum test speed for the unbelted 
rigid barrier test. This rule adopts that provision. It will be phased-
in for increasing percentages of each manufacturer's fleet beginning in 
the 2008 model year. We did not propose including the 5th percentile 
adult female dummy in this requirement because we had sparse 
information on the practicability of such a requirement. NHTSA will 
initiate testing to examine this issue and anticipates proposing 
increasing the test speed for belted tests using the 5th percentile 
adult female dummy to 56 km/h (35 mph), beginning at the same time that 
the 50th percentile adult male is required to be used in belted testing 
at that speed.
    NHTSA notes that Standard No. 208 previously specified the same 
maximum test speed for both belted and unbelted rigid barrier testing. 
The practical consequence of specifying the same test speed for both 
types of testing was to make unbelted testing the primary determinant 
of air bag designs. The reason for this is that, at the same test 
speed, the unbelted test is more difficult to pass than the belted 
test. Consequently, air bag designers typically focused their attention 
on performance in the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted test. After they 
optimized performance attributes for that test, they conducted belted 
tests to ensure that there were not any anomalies. Nothing in the 
Standard required, or had the effect of requiring, designers to 
optimize air bag performance for belted occupants.
    Today's rule changes that. By specifying a maximum test speed for 
belted testing that is significantly higher that the maximum test speed 
for unbelted testing, Standard No. 208 will oblige occupant protection 
designers to focus separately on evaluating protection in both belted 
and unbelted testing as significant design factors, instead of having 
one type of testing serve simply as a check on the other. This is a 
major step forward for improving occupant protection for belted 
occupants. This step is in keeping with the agency's ongoing efforts in 
its Buckle Up America campaigns. It assures enhanced protection, 
especially for those 70 percent of occupants who currently wear their 
belts, and may help persuade those who do not wear their belts to do 
so.

B. Other Provisions of the Rule

    Facilitation of low risk deployment technologies. In the 
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM), we proposed that 
the low risk deployment requirements would have to be met for inflation 
levels at which air bags would deploy in rigid barrier crash tests at 
speeds up to 29 km/h (18 mph). 64 FR 60556; November 5, 1999. We also 
proposed that the injury criteria for the unbelted rigid barrier crash 
test would have to be met within the range between a minimum speed of 
29 km/h (18 mph) and the maximum speed, inclusive. Some vehicle 
manufacturers responded that being required to test under the low risk 
deployment option for the inflation level (or levels) at which their 
air bags would deploy in crashes below 29 km/h (18 mph), combined with 
being required to protect unbelted dummies in crashes at 29 km/h (18 
mph) and above, would limit design flexibility and discourage 
development of low risk deployment air bag systems. The manufacturers 
claimed that it is difficult with current sensors to design dual-stage 
air bags that could both meet the low risk deployment requirements and 
the barrier crash test injury criteria, particularly given the gray 
zone in which either a low level or high level deployment may occur.
    To avoid inadvertently discouraging the development of low risk 
deployment technologies, we have decided that air bags with multiple 
inflation levels must meet the injury criteria for the low risk 
deployment tests for the inflation levels at which the air bags would 
be deployed in crashes of 26 km/h (16 mph) or below (with unbelted 5th 
percentile adult female dummies at both seating positions), instead of 
crashes of 29 km/h (18 mph) or below. However, if these air bags do not 
deploy at all in crashes of 26 km/h (16 mph) or below, the injury 
criteria must be met using the lowest level of inflation. We have also 
decided to raise the lower end of the range of speeds at which the 
unbelted rigid barrier crash test is conducted from 29 km/h (18 mph) to 
32 km/h (20 mph). Together, these two changes are intended to 
facilitate use of the low risk deployment option by providing 
flexibility for the transition of dual-stage air bag systems from low 
level deployments designed to protect occupants in low speed crashes 
and not to injure out-of-position occupants in high level deployments 
designed to protect occupants from injuries in severe crashes.
    Elimination of unneeded tests. In developing this rule, as in 
developing the SNPRM, we looked for opportunities to reduce the number 
and types of test configurations necessary to assure that future air 
bags minimize the risk of air bag-induced injuries.\17\ We have made 
several further reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ As noted above, when we issued the SNPRM, we reduced the 
number of proposed dynamic and static tests, especially those 
relating to the proposed requirements for reducing the risks of air 
bags. We reduced, from 14 to nine, N 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. 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 proposed 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. We 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have dropped several test conditions for testing features (e.g., 
weight or size sensor) that suppress the air bag when an infant or 
young child is present. We eliminated some test conditions because we 
concluded that they were inappropriate for testing this type of 
feature. The test conditions we dropped for this reason included an 
unrestrained RFCSS tipped forward onto the dashboard and the 3 year old 
and 6 year old dummies placed in the low risk deployment positions, 
i.e., against the instrument panel.
    The basic concept behind weight sensors or other features that 
suppress the air bag when an infant or young child is present is to 
automatically suppress the air bag unless weight or some other factor 
indicates that an older child or adult is present. In testing such a 
device, we believe it is appropriate to test for a variety of positions 
an infant or young child might likely be placed in by a parent or 
caregiver or that might likely be assumed by the child. The conditions 
we are dropping do not fall within this category, but are instead ones 
that might occur dynamically as a

[[Page 30691]]

result of pre-crash braking. However, since the air bag would already 
be automatically suppressed by this type of device in such a situation, 
we do not believe it necessary to test for these conditions.
    We also proposed testing unrestrained rear-facing child seating 
systems (RFCSS) at any angle plus or minus 45 degrees from the vehicle 
seat's longitudinal plane. Because of difficulties in setting up the 
test and the unlikelihood that parents would place a RFCSS in an angled 
position, we have revised this test procedure to specify placement only 
at zero degrees of the longitudinal plane.
    As proposed in the SNPRM, we have dropped the requirement for 
conducting oblique angle tests on vehicles using belted 5th percentile 
adult female dummies. We have adopted the proposal because we believe 
that if a vehicle can pass the perpendicular test with 5th percentile 
adult female dummies and the oblique tests with unbelted 50th 
percentile adult male dummies, it will also pass the oblique test using 
5th percentile adult female dummies. Additionally, we have dropped the 
belted oblique angled tests for the belted 50th percentile adult male 
dummy. Given the unbelted oblique tests, we believe that the belted 
oblique angled tests are unnecessary.
    New, more stringent injury criteria. In the rule, we have added a 
neck injury criterion and adopted a more stringent limit on chest 
deflection. The injury criteria are very similar to the ones we 
proposed in the SNPRM. The Nij approach to the risk of neck injury was 
generally accepted by the vehicle manufacturers, although they 
requested some modifications. We have made those modifications.
    Due care provision. In the SNPRM, we proposed to maintain the ``due 
care'' provision for the existing crash test requirements and apply it 
to the new ones as well. However, we did not propose to apply the 
provision to test requirements that do not involve crashes, based on 
our belief that these tests are not affected by the variability 
associated with dynamically-induced dummy movement and/or vehicle 
deformation.
    In this rule, we have decided against extending the due care 
provision to new crash tests, although it will still be available for 
vehicles that are not certified to the advanced air bag requirements. 
Our testing has indicated that manufacturers can easily meet the new 
injury criteria with 50th percentile adult male dummies in a 40 km/h 
(25 mph) unbelted test with existing air bag systems and should be able 
to make what ever improvements are needed to do so with 5th percentile 
adult female dummies without major uncertainties before they are 
required to certify any vehicle as meeting the advanced air bag 
requirements of this rule. Based on our experience with Standard No. 
208 compliance activities, we do not believe there is an intrinsic need 
for a ``due care provision.'' Further, as we explained in the earlier 
notices in this rulemaking proceeding, the inclusion of such a 
provision in a safety standard does not fit very well with the overall 
statutory scheme.
    Extended availability of air bag on-off switches. As proposed, we 
have decided to sunset the provisions which allow original equipment 
(OE) and retrofit on-off switches under specified circumstances. 
However, instead of sunsetting those provisions at the end of the TEA 
21 phase-in period, as we proposed in the SNPRM, we are sunsetting them 
on September 1, 2012, two years after the end of the second phase-in. 
In response to a wide consensus among commenters, we have concluded 
that extending their availability to that date is desirable to ensure 
that consumers have had a chance to gain substantial experience with 
advanced air bag systems. This should ensure that confidence in those 
systems is strong enough by the sunset date to remove any desire for a 
manual on-off switch in vehicles produced with an advanced air bag.
    Labels with strong warning messages. We have decided to adopt a new 
permanent sun visor label for vehicles certified as meeting the 
requirements of this rule. We proposed to alter the wording of the 
label to reflect the lower risk that will be associated with advanced 
air bags. However, all commenters, including the safety groups which 
supported a higher maximum test speed for the unbelted rigid barrier 
test, objected. They noted that while advanced air bags will 
significantly reduce the risk of death or serious injury, they will not 
eliminate all risk. Accordingly, we have decided that the new label 
should have warnings similar to those on the current label. The label 
will also have new graphics. In addition, we have adopted a new 
temporary label that states that the vehicle meets the new requirements 
for advanced air bags. Like the new permanent label, the new temporary 
label will have warnings similar to those on the current temporary one.

C. Future Rulemaking Plans

    Final decision on maximum test speed for unbelted rigid barrier 
test. As noted above, we are planning a multi-year effort to obtain 
additional data to help resolve the issues and concerns relating to the 
maximum test speed for the unbelted rigid barrier test in the long run. 
Those activities are described in the section below entitled, 
``Monitoring of Implementation and Field Experience; Research and 
Technology Assessment.'' Based on the results of those information 
gathering and analysis efforts, we will make a final decision regarding 
the maximum test speed for unbelted dummy testing in the long run, 
after providing an opportunity for informed public comment.
    New rulemaking proposals. NHTSA plans to issue several proposals 
for further improvements in frontal occupant crash protection. One 
proposal would be to increase the maximum speed for the belted rigid 
barrier test using the 5th percentile adult female from 48 km/h to 56 
km/h (30 to 35 mph). That proposal would bring the top speed for belted 
testing with the 5th percentile adult female dummies into line with the 
top speed for belted testing with the 50th percentile adult male 
dummies adopted in this rule. To provide data to support that proposal, 
we plan to initiate testing with the 5th percentile adult female in 56 
km/h (35 mph) belted tests. We anticipate that if this proposal were 
adopted as a final rule, implementation would begin during the second 
stage phase-in established by today's rule. Because 56 km/h (35 mph) is 
the same speed at which we currently conduct our New Car Assessment 
Program (NCAP) frontal crash tests using belted 50th percentile adult 
male dummies, we will ask also for public comments on what adjustments, 
if any, we should make to the frontal NCAP test program.
    Another proposal would be to adopt a high speed belted offset 
deformable barrier test. The addition of this test to Standard No. 208 
would lead to improved vehicle structure, improved occupant compartment 
integrity and thus reduced injuries due to intrusion. This would 
benefit both belted and unbelted occupants. We submitted a first status 
report on this initiative to Congress in April 1997, and will submit a 
second one this spring. We expect to issue the proposal later this 
year.
    NHTSA is also developing proposals for adding additional test 
dummies to Part 572 of Title 49 CFR. The two dummies that are furthest 
along in their development are a dummy representing a 10-year-old child 
and a dummy representing a 95th percentile adult male.

[[Page 30692]]

D. Monitoring of Implementation and Field Experience; Research and 
Technology Assessment

    To promote the achievement of the goals of this rule and to obtain 
additional data that will aid us in making a final decision about the 
maximum test speed that should be specified for the unbelted rigid 
barrier test, we are planning a multi-year effort to obtain additional 
data.\18\ This effort will include a variety of activities. We will 
continue to gather and evaluate real-world crash data to monitor the 
effectiveness of redesigned and advanced air bags in protecting various 
groups and subgroups of occupants and in preventing air bag-induced 
deaths and injuries. We are going to continue our research program, 
including conducting unbelted barrier tests of current vehicles at 
various speeds, including 48 km/h (30 mph), and analyzing those test 
results. In that way, we can assess how well the manufacturers 
simultaneously preserve and improve protection for all occupants, 
belted and unbelted, and minimize risk. Further, we need to continue 
our research and testing regarding advanced air bag technologies to 
gain an understanding of the safety performance implications of various 
features of air bag design. In addition, we will prepare an annual 
``compliance margins'' report to assess the extent to which vehicle 
manufacturers exceed the 40 km/h (25 mph) test requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ NHTSA would welcome the help of interested persons in 
gathering data useful in achieving these purposes. The agency notes 
that the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers has offered to gather 
information on how people die in high speed crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Our Proposals for Advanced Air Bags

A. Our Initial Proposal (September 1998)

    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 to require vehicles to be equipped with 
advanced air bags that meet new, more rigorous performance 
requirements. The NPRM proposed to require advanced air bags in some 
new passenger cars and light trucks beginning September 1, 2002, and in 
all new cars and light trucks beginning September 1, 2005.
    We proposed several new performance requirements to ensure that the 
advanced air bags do not pose unreasonable risks to out-of-position 
occupants. The NPRM gave 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 either technologies that 
modulate or otherwise control air bag deployment so deploying air bags 
do not cause serious injuries or technologies that prevent air bag 
deployment if children or out-of-position occupants are present, or 
both.
    To ensure that the new air bags are designed to avoid causing 
injury to a broad array of occupants, we proposed test requirements 
using a family of dummies, including ones 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 about 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 protect an array of belted and unbelted occupants, 
including teenagers and small adults. The standard's current crash test 
requirements specify the use of 50th percentile adult male dummies 
only. We proposed also to specify the use of 5th percentile adult 
female dummies in crash tests. The weight and size of these dummies are 
representative of not only small women, but also many teenagers. By 
testing with both the 50th percentile adult male dummy and the 5th 
percentile adult female dummy, we can address the risks faced by most 
of the entire adult female population and much of the adult male 
population.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ A 95th percentile adult female, on average, weighs 199 lb 
and stands 5'7" tall. The 50th percentile adult male dummy weighs 
171 lb and stands 5'9" tall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the existing rigid barrier test, representing a 
relatively ``stiff'' or ``hard'' pulse crash when conducted 
perpendicularly, and a more moderate pulse crash when conducted 
obliquely, we proposed to add a deformable barrier crash test, 
representing a relatively ``soft'' pulse crash. This proposed new soft 
pulse 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, such as 
pole impacts. 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 
more likely to pose a risk to the occupant. We proposed to use belted 
5th percentile adult female dummies in this test because small adults 
sit farther forward than larger adults and thus represent a greater 
challenge for restraint system design.
    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 
that enabled the manufacturers to speed up the redesigning all of their 
air bags to reduce risks. The sled test also helped to ensure that 
protection would continue to be provided by air bags in high-speed 
crashes. Nevertheless, we stated that sled testing was not a fully 
satisfactory means of assessing the extent of occupant protection that 
a vehicle and its air bag together will afford occupants in the real 
world and thus was not suitable in the long run.
    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.

B. Our Supplemental Proposal (November 1999)

    We received comments on the September 1998 NPRM from a wide range 
of interested persons including vehicle manufacturers, air bag 
manufacturers, insurance companies, public interest groups, academia, 
and government agencies. Commenters expressed widely differing views as 
to how to accomplish the goals mandated by TEA 21-- improving the 
benefits of air bags, while minimizing risks from air bags.
    On November 5, 1999, in response to the public comments on our 1998 
NPRM and to other new information we obtained after issuing that 
proposal, we published the SNPRM (64 FR 60556), which updated and 
refined the amendments under consideration in this rulemaking.
    In the SNPRM, we reiterated the goals set for us by Congress in 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 emphasized the need to ensure that the needed 
improvements in occupant protection were made in accordance with the 
statutory implementation schedule.
    In developing the SNPRM, we sought to reduce the number of proposed 
tests to the extent possible without

[[Page 30693]]

significantly affecting the benefits of the NPRM. We were persuaded by 
the commenters that reducing the amount of testing was important, given 
the costs to manufacturers (and ultimately consumers) associated with 
certifying vehicles to such a large number of new test requirements. At 
the same time, we wanted to be sure that the final rule would include 
sufficient tests to ensure that air bags would meet the goals of 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 received and considered public comments on the various 
alternative approaches reflecting the more recent views and information 
available to us.
    The most significant differences between the NPRM and the SNPRM can 
be summarized as follows:
     Two alternative unbelted test procedures. While we 
proposed one unbelted test procedure in the NPRM, an up-to-48 km/h (30 
mph) rigid barrier test using the 50th percentile adult male dummy and 
the 5th percentile adult female dummy, we proposed and sought comments 
on two alternative unbelted test procedures in the SNPRM.
    The first alternative was an unbelted rigid barrier test whose 
injury criteria would have to be met within the range of a minimum 
speed of 29 km/h (18 mph) and a maximum speed to be established between 
40 to 48 km/h (25 to 30 mph), inclusive. Within this alternative was 
the potential 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 the maximum speed would return to 48 km/h (30 mph) after 
some period of time. We also sought comment on setting the maximum 
speed at 48 km/h (30 mph) but temporarily permitting relaxed injury 
criteria performance limits (e.g. 72 g chest acceleration limit instead 
of 60 g chest acceleration limit) in rigid barrier crashes between 40 
km/h (25 mph) and 48 km/h (30 mph).
    The second alternative was an unbelted offset deformable barrier 
test within the range of 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.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ We noted that IIHS's views had changed since making that 
recommendation. Its changed views were discussed in the SNPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed the 29 and 35 km/h (18 and 22 mph) lower ends of the 
ranges of test speeds for the two alternatives because we wanted to be 
sure that the standard would not inadvertently create incentives to 
push deployment thresholds downward; i.e., cause air bags to be 
deployed at lower speeds.
     Possible higher speed belted rigid barrier test. We stated 
that if we reduced the maximum speed of the unbelted rigid barrier test 
to 40 km/h (25 mph), 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) and use both 5th percentile adult female and 50th percentile adult 
male dummies.
     Reduced number of tests. In the SNPRM, we significantly 
reduced the total number of proposed tests as compared to the NPRM. In 
a number of situations, we 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 testing with the driver side engaged and separately 
testing 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 which suppress air bags in the presence of 
infants and children (e.g., weight sensors), we proposed a new option 
which would permit manufacturers to certify to requirements referencing 
actual 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, e.g., by turning off the air bags.
     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 proposed to require 
them only to assure compliance using each child restraint on a 
relatively short list of specified child restraint models. Those models 
would be chosen to be representative of the array of available child 
restraints. The list would be 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 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. 
However, we were persuaded by the commenters that the proposed test 
procedure was not appropriate for many 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 single test procedure may be appropriate for the broad 
spectrum of suppression technologies currently being developed, we 
proposed 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 eliminated 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 was not workable at 
this time. Moreover, we concluded that this option was unnecessary at 
this time, since other options were available for the range of 
effective technologies we understand to be currently under development.
    In developing the SNPRM, we carefully considered all of the 
comments we received in response to the NPRM. Moreover, because the 
SNPRM differed significantly in many aspects from the NPRM, we 
explained that we did not contemplate any further consideration of the 
comments on the NPRM in developing the final rule. We stated that if 
any persons believe that we did not adequately consider particular 
issues raised in comments on the NPRM, they should raise those

[[Page 30694]]

issues again in commenting on the SNPRM.
    Accordingly, in developing today's final rule, we have focused our 
consideration on the comments submitted in response to the SNPRM.

IV. Public Comments on the Supplemental Proposal

    As in the case of the NPRM, we received comments on the November 
1999 SNPRM from a wide range of interested persons including vehicle 
manufacturers, air bag manufacturers, insurance companies, public 
interest groups, and government agencies. In this section, we provide a 
general summary of those comments. A more detailed description of the 
comments is provided below in the sections which address the issues 
raised by commenters, and in the Final Economic Assessment and three 
separate technical papers which are being placed in the public docket.

Improving the Protection of Unbelted Occupants in Serious Crashes

    Nearly all commenters supported the unbelted rigid barrier test 
over the unbelted offset deformable barrier test.
    Vehicle manufacturers stated that the rigid barrier test is 
practicable and repeatable and does not entail the variability 
associated with deformable barriers and the kinematics of an offset 
test. They also stated that the European barrier used in the offset 
test is not appropriate for testing larger SUVs and light trucks.
    The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) stated that the unbelted offset 
test holds promise as a supplemental test, but is not yet suitable for 
inclusion in Standard No. 208. That organization stated that there are 
currently insufficient data to allow for a comprehensive analysis of 
the consequences that would accompany the adoption of the offset test.
    Some other commenters also argued that an unbelted offset test 
offers promise for the future, either as a replacement for the rigid 
barrier test or as a supplemental test.
    While a near-consensus of commenters supported adoption of an 
unbelted rigid barrier test, there was sharp disagreement over the 
maximum speed for that test. The vast majority of commenters, including 
all auto companies and all air bag suppliers, the Insurance Institute 
for Highway Safety (IIHS), and the National Transportation Safety Board 
(NTSB) supported a maximum speed of 40 km/h (25 mph). Safety groups 
including Public Citizen, CAS, Consumers Union, and Parents for Safer 
Air Bags (Parents) supported returning to 48 km/h (30 mph).
    The primary arguments made by those commenters supporting a maximum 
speed of 40 km/h (25 mph) can be summarized as follows:
     Current redesigned air bags work well.
     There has been no loss in benefits.
     There is no reason to believe that manufacturers would 
reduce air bag effectiveness in the future under a 40 km/h (25 mph) 
maximum test speed.
     A 40 km/h (25 mph) test speed allows flexibility to design 
air bags for all occupants.
     A return to a 48 km/h (30 mph) test speed would require a 
return to overly aggressive air bags.
     Aggressive air bags cause deaths in high speed crashes as 
well as low speed crashes.
     A 48 km/h (30 mph) test speed could result in disbenefits 
in low speed crashes.
     There are significant technological challenges in meeting 
a 48 km/h (30 mph) requirement for both the 50th percentile adult male 
dummy and the 5th percentile adult female dummy.
     Advanced technologies are not currently available that 
address aggressivity and practicability problems.
    The primary arguments made by those commenters supporting a maximum 
test speed of 48 km/h (30 mph) can be summarized as follows:
     A maximum test speed of 48 km/h (30 mph) will result in 
higher benefits than a test speed of 40 km/h (25 mph).
     Half of all fatalities in frontal crashes occur at a delta 
V above 48 km/h (30 mph); a maximum test speed of 48 km/h (30 mph) 
represents significantly more potentially fatal crashes than a test 
speed of 40 km/h (25 mph).
     In NHTSA tests, almost all vehicles with redesigned air 
bags passed the 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier test with the 50th 
percentile adult male dummy, implying that a return to a 48 km/h (30 
mph) test speed would not require a return to overly aggressive air 
bags.
     Advanced technologies can be used to enable all vehicles 
to meet requirements for high speed protection and risk reduction.
     There is no justification to reduce the test speed to 40 
km/h (25 mph).
     A 40 km/h (25 mph) test speed would not encourage use of 
advanced technologies.
     A 40 km/h (25 mph) test speed would be inconsistent with 
the TEA 21 requirement to improve protection for unbelted occupants.
     The increase of the belted test speed to 56 km/h (35 mph) 
would not recover lives lost as a result of reducing the unbelted test 
speed to 40 km/h (25 mph).
    While maximum speed was the most controversial issue concerning the 
unbelted test, commenters raised other issues as well. Some vehicle 
manufacturers objected to the proposal to test over a range of speeds 
from 29 km/h (18 mph) to the highest speed. They argued that being 
required to meet test requirements to ensure protection beginning at 29 
km/h (18 mph), combined with the proposal to test under the low risk 
deployment option for inflation level (or levels) that would be 
deployed in crashes below 29 km/h (18 mph), would limit design 
flexibility and discourage development of low risk deployment air bag 
systems.
    Another significant issue addressed by commenters concerned the 
seating procedure for the 5th percentile adult female dummy. Vehicle 
manufacturers objected to the proposal to test with the seat in the 
full forward position. They argued that occupants, including small 
females, rarely if ever sit in that position. They also argued that 
adoption of this position could result in consequences such as smaller, 
less protective air bags, and reduced ingress/egress space for rear 
passengers.
    Several safety advocacy groups argued in favor of testing with the 
seat in the full forward position. They argued that some occupants sit 
in that position and that it is necessary to test in the ``worst case'' 
condition.

Improving the Protection of Belted Occupants in Serious Crashes

    Commenters supported our proposal to add the 5th percentile adult 
female dummy to the existing 48 km/h (30 mph) belted rigid barrier 
test.
    Most supporters of a 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test, 
including most vehicle manufacturers, also supported increasing the 
maximum speed of the belted rigid barrier test to 56 km/h (35 mph). 
However, these commenters urged that the 56 km/h (35 mph) belted rigid 
barrier test be phased in after the TEA 21 phase-in period. They also 
urged that the higher speed test initially be conducted only with the 
50th percentile adult male dummy, and that a separate rulemaking be 
initiated to consider whether the 5th percentile adult female dummy 
should be tested at that speed.
    Most commenters also supported our proposal to add the up-to-40 km/
h (25 mph) offset deformable barrier test using belted 5th percentile 
adult female dummies. Some of these commenters, however, urged that an 
out-of-position test for the passenger side be developed as an 
alternative to the test.

[[Page 30695]]

DaimlerChrysler opposed adoption of this test, arguing that the 
European barrier used in the test is not appropriate for testing 
heavier vehicles such as SUVs and light trucks.
    Some commenters expressed concerns that our proposal would result 
in there being too many crash tests in Standard No. 208, and requested 
that we reconsider whether all of the proposed tests are needed.

Minimizing the Risk of Injuries and Deaths Caused by Air Bags

    Commenters supported the basic approach of our proposed 
requirements to minimizing the risk of injuries and deaths caused by 
air bags, including providing a variety of testing options that account 
for the kinds of effective technological solutions that are under 
development.
    Vehicle manufacturers argued that some of the test conditions 
specified for the proposed static suppression tests, including the 
range of seat back angles and seat track positions, would make the 
tests impracticable.
    Some commenters emphasized that we need to allow manufacturers to 
use both suppression and low risk technologies. As noted earlier, some 
commenters argued that adjustments need to be made in both the unbelted 
rigid barrier test requirements and in the requirements for the low 
risk deployment option to avoid limiting use of the low risk deployment 
option.
    Commenters were generally supportive of our proposal to permit 
manufacturers to certify to requirements referencing human beings in a 
stationary vehicle to test suppression systems, so long as steps are 
taken to ensure the safety of all subjects used for testing.

Other Issues

    Commenters generally supported the proposed injury criteria and 
associated performance limits, although vehicle manufacturers 
recommended some changes.
    We received numerous comments raising specific technical issues 
concerning how dummies are to be positioned for the various tests.
    Commenters generally argued that current provisions allowing manual 
on-off switches for air bags under certain circumstances should remain 
in effect for a longer period of time, and a number of commenters 
argued that existing warning labels should not be weakened or 
eliminated at this time.
    There was also significant differences of opinion regarding our 
proposals about the provision providing a due care defense against 
findings of noncompliance with the air bag requirements of Standard No. 
208.
    Several commenters raised concerns about possible unforeseen 
consequences resulting from the use of advanced air bag technologies.
    We received several comments expressing concern about the potential 
impacts of this rulemaking on small businesses.

V. Diagrams of the Final Rule Requirements

    After carefully considering the comments, we have decided to issue 
a final rule along the lines of the SNPRM. The key differences between 
the SNPRM and the final rule are discussed earlier and will not be 
repeated here. The test requirements to improve occupant protection for 
different size occupants, belted and unbelted, and to minimize risks to 
infants, children, and other occupants from injuries and deaths caused 
by air bags, are shown in Figures 1 and 2 below.

[[Page 30696]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MY00.000


[[Page 30697]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MY00.001

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 30698]]

VI. Improving the Protection of Unbelted Occupants in Serious 
Crashes

A. Summary of Proposed Requirements

    In the SNPRM, we proposed to phase out the unbelted sled test 
option as the requirements for advanced air bags are phased in. As 
explained below, sled tests have inherent limitations as compared to 
crash tests in measuring occupant protection.
    We explained that, unlike a full scale vehicle crash test, a sled 
test cannot measure the actual protection an occupant will receive in a 
crash. We noted that while the current sled test measures some 
performance attributes of the air bag, it cannot measure the 
performance provided by the vehicle structure in combination with the 
air bags or even the full air bag system by itself. We also noted that 
the sled test does not evaluate the actual timing of air bag deployment 
(e.g., crash sensors), does not replicate the actual crash pulse of a 
particular vehicle model, does not measure the potential for harm from 
vehicle components that are pushed back into the occupant compartment 
during a crash, and does not measure how a vehicle performs in angle 
crashes.
    The purpose of the sled test option was to make it easier for 
vehicle manufacturers to make quick changes to their air bags to reduce 
risks to out-of-position occupants. Vehicle manufacturers could not 
immediately incorporate advanced technologies in their vehicles, and 
the sled test facilitated the process of quickly certifying large 
numbers of vehicles with redesigned air bags to Standard No. 208. We 
believe the sled test has been useful as a short-term measure. Over the 
longer time frame, however, we believe that a better test is needed to 
ensure the protection of unbelted occupants.
    To replace the sled test, we proposed two alternative unbelted 
crash test procedures: an unbelted rigid barrier test and an unbelted 
offset deformable barrier test. We proposed that the unbelted rigid 
barrier test be conducted 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. The injury criteria would have to be met within the 
range of 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). This 
alternative was based on the unbelted crash test that has been part of 
Standard No. 208 for many years but which has, as a practical matter, 
been temporarily superseded by the sled test option since March 1997. 
The barrier test represents a vehicle striking a vehicle of the same 
size, weight and structure head on at the same speed.
    We indicated that within this first alternative, the potential 
existed for a phase-in sequence in which the maximum speed would 
temporarily be set at 40 km/h (25 mph) to provide vehicle manufacturers 
additional flexibility when they are introducing advanced air bags 
during the TEA 21 phase-in. Under this approach, the final rule could 
provide that a maximum speed of 48 km/h (30 mph) would apply after that 
period. We also indicated that if we were to reduce the maximum speed 
to 40 km/h (25 mph), 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).
    We proposed that the second alternative procedure, the unbelted 
offset deformable barrier test, would be conducted using both 50th 
percentile adult male dummies and 5th percentile adult female dummies, 
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). This 
alternative was based on a type of crash test used by IIHS and by 
Europe, except that unbelted dummies would be used.
    For both alternatives, we proposed to conduct the crash tests with 
50th percentile adult male dummies with the seat in the middle seat 
track position. However, we proposed in the SNPRM to conduct tests 
using 5th percentile adult female dummies with both the driver and 
passenger seats in the full forward position. We tentatively selected 
this position because some small adults sit there and because we 
believe that air bags should protect those people.
    We noted, however, that placement of the 5th percentile adult 
female dummy in the full forward position tests the occupant restraint 
system under a condition that may not generally occur in the real 
world. The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute 
(UMTRI) conducted a study in which it concluded that even 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 
(Docket No. NHTSA-1998-4405-69). Also, while some short-statured 
drivers might need to move the driver's seat all the way forward to 
reach the controls, a passenger in the front passenger seat would be 
less likely to have a similar need. Another concern was whether, in 
order to meet tests for conditions that rarely occur in the real world, 
manufacturers might select air bag designs that offer reduced 
protection for conditions that are more common in the real world. 
Accordingly, we requested comments on whether testing the 5th 
percentile adult female dummy with the seat 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.

B. Type of Test

    Commenters that previously advocated retention of the sled test 
indicated a willingness to accept the unbelted rigid barrier test. No 
commenters disputed the inherent limitations of sled tests as compared 
to crash tests. Nearly all commenters supported the unbelted rigid 
barrier test over the unbelted offset deformable barrier test. However, 
as discussed in the next section, the commenters that had previously 
supported the sled test wanted the maximum speed of the unbelted 
barrier test reduced to 40 km/h (25 mph).
    Vehicle manufacturers stated that the rigid barrier test is 
practicable and repeatable and does not entail the variability 
associated with deformable barriers and the kinematics of an offset 
test. They also stated that the European barrier used in the offset 
test is not appropriate for testing larger SUVs and light trucks. 
Several vehicle manufacturers, including GM, Honda and DaimlerChrysler, 
stated that a high speed unbelted offset test would pose problems for 
vehicle sensor systems.
    CAS stated that the unbelted offset test holds promise as a 
supplemental test, but is not yet suitable for inclusion in Standard 
No. 208. That organization stated that there are currently insufficient 
data to allow for a comprehensive analysis of the consequences that 
would accompany the adoption of the offset test.
    Several other commenters also argued that an unbelted offset test 
offers promise for the future, either as a replacement for the rigid 
barrier test or as a supplemental test. Ford stated that although not 
practicable during the TEA 21 phase-in period, it believes that a 48 
km/h (30 mph) offset test potentially represents a better long-term 
approach for enhancing unbelted protection.
    Parents stated that the final rule should include both the unbelted 
rigid barrier test and the unbelted offset test. That organization 
argued that the two tests provide distinct means of ensuring protection 
in very different circumstances, and that inclusion of both tests is 
necessary in order to ensure adequate protection for unbelted 
occupants.

[[Page 30699]]

    After considering the comments, we have decided to adopt the 
unbelted rigid barrier test to ensure protection for unbelted occupants 
in serious crashes. This is the unbelted crash test included in 
Standard No. 208 for the past 30 years. We also use a belted rigid 
barrier test for Standard No. 208 and our New Car Assessment Program 
(NCAP). Detailed information about this type of test is presented in a 
paper prepared by our Office of Research and Development titled 
``Updated Review of Potential Test Procedures for FMVSS No. 208.'' That 
paper was prepared to accompany our SNPRM.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ One commenter, DaimlerChrysler, submitted a critique of 
that paper as part of its comments. We are placing in the docket an 
addendum to the paper which responds to that critique.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that we sought comment in the SNPRM on the unbelted offset 
test principally to ensure that we received the benefit of public 
comments on all of the various alternative approaches that are 
available at this time. In the NPRM, we indicated that while we 
believed the unbelted rigid barrier test was 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 
was the offset deformable barrier test.
    However, the commenter that originally suggested consideration of 
the unbelted offset test, IIHS, withdrew its support before the SNPRM 
was published. No commenter on the SNPRM supported adopting the 
unbelted offset test instead of the unbelted rigid barrier test.
    As to Parents' recommendation that we adopt both unbelted tests, we 
believe that adoption of the proposed unbelted high speed offset test 
would be inappropriate at this time. We have scant data on the 
repeatability of this test. Nearly all the offset testing to date has 
used belted dummies. As noted above and also discussed in the SNPRM, 
several manufacturers have raised concerns that the proposed high speed 
unbelted offset test would pose problems for vehicle sensor systems. 
See 64 FR 60579.
    We also note that while we agree with Parents that the two high 
speed tests provide distinct means of ensuring protection in different 
circumstances, this does not mean that adoption of those particular two 
tests would be needed to ensure protection in those different 
circumstances. We believe that the combination of an unbelted rigid 
barrier test and belted offset tests can accomplish the same purpose.
    As discussed in the SNPRM, the high speed unbelted rigid barrier 
test and the high speed unbelted offset test are significantly 
different, and each has potential advantages as compared to the other. 
The two principal advantages of an offset test are that it provides a 
more challenging test of vehicle crash sensors and of vehicle 
structure. However, these areas of performance are addressed by belted 
offset tests as well as unbelted offset tests.
    As discussed later in this document, we are adopting an up to 40 
km/h (25 mph) belted offset deformable barrier test as part of today's 
final rule. This test will help ensure improved sensing systems, which 
will benefit both belted and unbelted occupants. We are also separately 
pursuing our previously-announced plans to consider adding a high speed 
belted offset test to Standard No. 208. This test would help ensure 
improved vehicle structure and reduced intrusion injuries, again 
benefitting both belted and unbelted occupants. Because the combination 
of an unbelted rigid barrier test and belted offset tests (either being 
adopted today or currently being considered by the agency for 
rulemaking) can accomplish the same purpose as an unbelted offset test, 
we do not currently plan to consider further adopting an unbelted 
offset test.

C. Agency Decision to Establish Maximum Speed at 40 km/h (25 mph)

1. The Supplemental Proposal
    In the SNPRM, we proposed that the maximum speed for the unbelted 
rigid barrier test be established within the range of 40 to 48 km/h (25 
to 30 mph).
    We stated that it was our intent to maximize, to the extent 
consistent with TEA 21, the protection that air bags offer in crashes 
potentially resulting in fatal injuries. Thus, we stated that it was 
our preference to establish such a test requirement at as high a 
severity as practicable. We stated that the 40 km/h (25 mph) lower end 
of the maximum test speed range was set forth for comment to ensure 
that commenters addressed a crash test recommended by AAM in late 
August 1999.
    We also stated that the potential existed 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. We explained that 
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.
    We noted that, in commenting on the NPRM, the commenters opposing 
the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted barrier test had 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 addressed each of these issues in the SNPRM. As to whether the 
test is representative of typical crashes, we stated that because the 
purpose of Standard No. 208 is primarily to reduce serious and fatal 
injuries, we believed that the relevant question is how representative 
the test is of the crashes that produce those injuries. We presented 
data from the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) for years 
1993-1997 showing, among other things, that about 50 percent of 
fatalities in frontal crashes occur at delta Vs below 48 km/h (30 mph), 
and about 50 percent occur at delta Vs above 48 km/h (30 mph). Looking 
separately at unbelted and belted occupants, we noted that 51 percent 
of the fatalities involving unbelted occupants and 47 percent of the 
fatalities involving belted occupants occur in frontal crashes at delta 
Vs below 48 km/h (30 mph). We noted 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 stated that 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. We also noted that 
because we were proposing to require vehicles to meet the unbelted test 
requirements for a range of speeds up to and including 48 km/h (30 
mph), we were addressing protection for lower severity crashes as well 
as higher severity crashes.
    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, we stated 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

[[Page 30700]]

of redesigned air bags was to test vehicles with those air bags in 48 
km/h (30 mph) barrier tests and see how they perform. We noted that we 
had 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, sizes, and crash 
pulses.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 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. 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 SUVs), an 
Expedition (large SUV), a Tacoma (pickup truck), a Voyager 
(minivan), and an Econoline (full-size van).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We stated that 11 of the 13 vehicles passed the injury criteria 
performance limits proposed in the SNPRM. For the driver position, 12 
of the 13 vehicles passed all the relevant injury criteria performance 
limits. 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 
vehicles, there was a greater than 20 percent margin of compliance for 
both the driver and passenger seating positions.
    Based on these test results, we stated that the tested vehicles 
with redesigned air bags, ranging widely in vehicle type and size, 
appeared 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.
    We also noted that the relevant issue for this rulemaking is not 
whether some MY 1998-99 vehicles with redesigned, single-inflation 
level air bags would not meet a 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted barrier test 
requirement. The more relevant issue is whether vehicles to be 
manufactured in MY 2003 and later would be able to comply with such a 
requirement, perhaps by means of currently available technologies not 
in many air bag systems as well as technologies still being or yet to 
be developed.
    We explained that 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.
    We also noted:

    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.

    In our Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) accompanying the 
SNPRM, we estimated the benefits of an unbelted rigid barrier test with 
a maximum speed of 40 km/h (25 mph) vs. 48 km/h (30 mph). The PEA 
concluded that if the full fleet of vehicles' air bags were designed in 
the context of unbelted 40 km/h (25 mph) rigid barrier and oblique 
tests, an estimated 214 to 397 lives saved annually by pre-MY 1998 air 
bags might not be saved.
2. Summary of Comments
    Commenters on the SNPRM nearly unanimously supported adoption of an 
unbelted rigid barrier test, but sharply disagreed over the maximum 
speed for that test. Safety advocacy groups, supported returning to 48 
km/h (30 mph). Most commenters, however, including all auto companies 
and all air bag suppliers, IIHS, and NTSB supported a maximum speed of 
40 km/h (25 mph).
    Commenters supporting 40 km/h (25 mph). Commenters supporting a 
maximum test speed of 40 km/h (25 mph) argued that there would not be a 
loss of benefits associated with a test at this speed, as compared to a 
48 km/h (30 mph) standard.
    AAM stated that the benefits of redesigned air bags will be 
maintained with a 40 km/h (25 mph) test. It argued that there is no 
reason to believe air bags designed to the sled test requirements have 
compromised protection, and that a 40 km/h (25 mph) barrier test is 
more severe than the sled test.
    AAM also stated that a new 40 km/h (25 mph) test cannot simply be 
compared to the old 48 km/h (30 mph) test because the new test would 
include additional injury criteria and an additional dummy. It stated 
that the benefits of the other tests included in the final rule, such 
as the new belted offset test and the low speed risk reduction tests, 
should also be considered.
    AAM argued that the analyses of benefits presented in the PEA are 
based on dummy readings from one dummy at one position in a single type 
of crash test in a single direction at a single speed. It stated that 
this approach is not comprehensive enough. AAM also argued that the 
strongest evidence that there are analytical limitations inherent in 
the agency's benefit analyses (past and present) is that past analyses 
predicting 1,250 lives lost from the adoption of the sled test that 
simply have not come true.
    AAM stated that it had considered the level-of-benefit question 
from two different perspectives. The first involved the generation of 
benefit estimates using a MADYMO math model to develop a theoretical 
``optimum'' design for both the 40 km/h (25 mph) and 48 km/h (30 mph) 
suite of tests. The performance of those designs was then modeled over 
a broad spectrum of real world crash configurations. Based upon an 
injury/fatality risk analysis of the model's output injury measures, 
relative benefits were calculated. The second perspective utilized an 
``opportunities matrix'' approach to examine relative benefits by 
generating effectiveness estimates and applying these estimates to the 
spectrum of real world crash conditions.
    According to AAM, both of these approaches yield the same 
conclusion--when considering air bag designs constrained by testing 
unbelted occupants at 40 km/h (25 mph) or 48 km/h (30 mph), the desired 
goal of reducing serious-to-fatal injuries in real world crashes is 
best served by requiring testing at 40 km/h (25 mph).
    GM submitted an analysis which it said explains why a 25 mph rigid 
barrier test drives air bag designs that protect unbelted occupants in 
severe frontal crashes. Among other things, it said that ride down 
analysis shows that a 25 mph rigid barrier test requires more air bag 
restraint capacity than an unbelted offset deformable barrier impact at 
40 mph.
    Vehicle manufacturers stressed the argument that the agency should 
focus on the experience of redesigned air bags in MY 1998 and MY 1999 
models. They argued that these redesigned air bags have provided real 
world benefits and that there is no evidence that more power is needed.

[[Page 30701]]

    Toyota stated that NHTSA's concern that manufacturers will 
substantially decrease power in future air bags compared to current 
systems is unfounded. It presented data comparing velocity vs. time 
traces for the sled test and the 40 km/h (25 mph) test for both an SUV 
and a sedan, and noted that the 40 km/h (25 mph) test pulses were more 
severe. Toyota argued that, in order to manage this level of energy, 
the air bags for these vehicles cannot be depowered further than the 
current levels, and that there is no reason to believe that air bags 
designed to the 40 km/h (25 mph) rigid barrier test will perform worse 
in high speed collisions than those designed to the sled pulse.
    IIHS stated that it does not agree that a high-speed barrier test 
using unbelted dummies will necessarily lead to improved protection for 
any occupants, belted or unbelted. That organization stated that it 
disagreed with what it characterized as the agency's claim that, unless 
it returns to the 48 km/h (30 mph) barrier test, air bags will offer 
inadequate protection to many unbelted occupants, especially large 
people in more severe frontal crashes. That organization stated that in 
a number of studies of air bag performance in moderate to severe 
frontal crashes, it has shown that drivers are not dying because air 
bags offer too little protection; rather, drivers are dying because of 
overwhelming intrusion that no air bag design can overcome, ejection of 
occupants, or because of injury from the air bag itself.
    IIHS argued that these observations call attention to what it 
believes are two errors in the agency's logic for returning to a 48 km/
h (30 mph) test. First, that commenter argued that if air bags are not 
powerful enough, there should be some real world cases in which the 
energy of the deploying bags was inadequate to protect individuals in 
otherwise survivable frontal crashes. IIHS stated that it is not aware 
of any such case. It also stated that the agency's concern that air 
bags certified to the unbelted generic sled pulse would be less 
effective in frontal crashes has no foundation in real world crash 
data.
    Second, IIHS argued that the agency has failed to appreciate that 
serious and fatal injuries from deploying air bags are happening not 
only in low speed crashes, but also in the high speed crashes in which 
air bags are supposed to be most effective. That commenter stated that 
a recent update (including 1996 data) of its analyses of driver 
fatalities in air bag-equipped cars indicates air bags were the most 
likely source of the fatal injuries in about 15 percent of frontal 
crash deaths. IIHS argued that the agency must account for these 
deaths, as well as those more easily documented in low speed crashes, 
before it can justify a return to the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted barrier 
test.
    IIHS also addressed the agency's concern that, without a ``severe 
crash test'' for unbelted occupants, manufacturers may reduce air bag 
inflation energy, or the size of air bags, thereby compromising their 
effectiveness. IIHS argued that such changes are constrained by other 
non-regulatory crash tests to which the manufacturers are subject. That 
organization stated that NCAP requires that air bags be reasonably deep 
in order to prevent dummies' heads from striking through the bags, and 
that offset crash testing by it and others worldwide means 
manufacturers will continue to install air bags with sufficient radial 
size to keep occupants squarely behind their air bags, even under 
conditions of sharp vehicle rotation.
    NADA argued that the agency's proposed advanced air bag performance 
criteria fail to account for reasonably projected increases in safety 
belt and child restraint usage or for the real-life incremental 
benefits attributable to ``depowered'' air bags. NADA stated that it is 
reasonable to assume that by MY 2003, proper driver and passenger 
(including children) seat belt usage and child restraint usage rates 
will exceed 80 percent, and that by MY 2006, these rates should exceed 
90 percent.
    Vehicle manufacturers also argued that it is difficult or 
impossible to comply with the 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier test for 
both the 50th percentile adult male dummies and the 5th percentile 
adult female dummies. They also argued that it may not be possible to 
satisfy both the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test for both 
dummies and the low risk deployment tests.
    AAM stated that while the agency has claimed that most vehicles 
with redesigned air bags continue to meet the unbelted 48 km/h (30 mph) 
barrier test, very little testing has been done with these same 
vehicles at 48 km/h (30 mph) with 5th percentile adult female dummies. 
AAM stated that the little testing that has been done produced a 50 
percent failure rate. That organization stated that this testing 
illustrates the design tensions that the industry has been emphasizing. 
According to that organization, these tensions result from technology 
constraints which presently discern limited information about occupant 
size and location, crash sensors with limited predictive capability and 
air bags with only two power levels.
    According to AAM, it is especially challenging to balance occupant 
protection for both the 5th percentile adult female and the 50th 
percentile adult male dummies and assure compliance with the barrier 
test. As an example, AAM cited the agency's test of the Toyota Tacoma, 
which resulted in an Nij of 2.65 for the 5th female passenger dummy, 
nearly three times the allowable injury reference value. According to 
AAM, the air bag size and fill needed to assure compliance with the 
chest injury limits with 50th percentile adult male dummies at 48 km/h 
(30 mph) results in noncompliant neck and thorax injury reference 
values for 5th percentile adult female dummies seated closer to the air 
bag. Conversely, according to AAM, if the air bag is sized for the 
unbelted 5th percentile female dummy at 48 km/h (30 mph), there is 
insufficient restraint of the unbelted 50th male dummy. AAM argued that 
testing at 40 km/h (25 mph) allows the restraint engineer to design the 
air bag to provide reasonable occupant protection for a broader range 
of occupant sizes.
    GM made arguments similar to those of AAM. It argued that the 
unbelted 48 km/h (30 mph) barrier test using the 50th percentile adult 
male dummy determines the restraint energy, drives the depth of the air 
bag, and requires a deeper air bag that has more potential to injure a 
5th percentile adult female. It argued that the unbelted 48 km/h (30 
mph) barrier test using the 5th percentile adult female would require a 
shallower air bag that would not assure compliance for an unbelted 50th 
percentile adult male. According to GM, a 40 km/h (25 mph) test would 
permit air bag depth to be optimized for both the 5th percentile adult 
female and 50th percentile adult male dummies.
    Ford stated that testing of the MY 2000 Taurus using 5th percentile 
adult female and 50th percentile adult male dummies demonstrates the 
difficulties of balancing requirements with a 48 
km/h (30 mph) test even for vehicles equipped with advanced 
technologies. That company noted that the MY 2000 Taurus has dual-level 
inflators and other advanced technologies.
    GM argued that there is no technology or combination of 
technologies existing today that could satisfy both the 48 km/h (30 
mph) unbelted rigid barrier test and the low risk deployment tests. 
Honda stated that it had concerns about being able to meet the rigid 
barrier test for the 50th percentile adult male dummy and also meet the 
low risk

[[Page 30702]]

deployment test for out-of-position occupants.
    Commenters supporting a maximum speed of 40 km/h (25 mph) also 
argued that a 48 km/h (30 mph) maximum speed would require a return to 
overly aggressive air bags.
    AAM stated that field evidence suggests that the current depowered 
air bags offer a high level of occupant protection in the real world 
while enhancing protection for at-risk groups. That organization stated 
that a return to 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted testing would require 
increasing air bag inflator outputs in some vehicles, serving to 
increase the risk of harm to certain groups.
    GM stated that it strongly recommends that ``depowered'' air bags 
continue to be the highest force level inflation boundary necessary to 
comply with Standard No. 208. It argued that given the positive 
indications from the field on the effects of depowering, and the 
continued positive indications in engineering laboratory testing, it 
would be a serious setback to motor vehicle safety should the agency 
send Standard No. 208 backwards by mandating a 48 km/h (30 mph) 
unbelted rigid barrier test.
    Toyota stated that it believes a return to 48 km/h (30 mph) 
unbelted barrier testing would require an increase in air bag power in 
many models. That company stated that, given the lack of evidence that 
higher powered air bags are necessary, it strongly believes that 
reinstating this requirement would serve only to increase risk to at-
risk groups, including out-of-position children and small statured 
adults.
    DaimlerChrysler argued that a return to the unbelted 48 km/h (30 
mph) barrier test would necessitate an increase in air bag inflator 
power, all things being equal. That commenter stated that staged 
inflators can reduce, but not eliminate, the risk to smaller and out-
of-position occupants in lower speed deployments. DaimlerChrysler 
asserted that to assure compliance, it would expect the power level of 
the staged deployment necessary to meet the requirements of an unbelted 
48 km/h (30 mph) impact to be comparable to the pre-depowering level.
    IIHS stated that while NHTSA crash tests indicate that some 
vehicles may meet the unbelted 48 km/h (30 mph) test without adding 
more energy, it believes the agency must recognize that this may not be 
possible in all, or even most, cases. That organization stated that 
when compliance becomes difficult, it will be far too easy for 
manufacturers to meet the 48 km/h (30 mph) test by increasing air bag 
inflation energy (or the second stage of the air bag).
    NTSB stated that it is concerned that the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted 
barrier test could result in a return to higher energy air bags.
    Recognizing the significant disagreement among commenters 
concerning whether there should be a return to the 48 km/h (30 mph) 
test, a broad range of commenters supporting a 40 km/h (25 mph) test 
argued that the solution should be for the agency to adopt a 40 km/h 
(25 mph) test in the current rulemaking, and defer any future 
consideration of a 48 km/h (30 mph) test. As part of this process, they 
recommended that NHTSA expedite a focused examination of frontal 
crashes with fatalities to determine, for vehicles with depowered air 
bags and the latest generation of advanced air bags, how people are 
dying in these crashes. A 48 km/h (30 mph) test would be considered 
further if scientific evidence indicated that the 40 km/h (25 mph) test 
resulted in inadequate protection. Supporters of this approach included 
NTSB, IIHS, AAM, the National Safety Council, the American Trauma 
Society, and the National Association of Governors' Highway Safety 
Representatives. AAM stated that it was committing to provide 
additional resources for a major real-world data gathering program to 
provide a greater factual basis for future air bag rulemakings.
    Commenters supporting 48 km/h (30 mph). Safety advocacy groups 
supporting a maximum test speed of 48 km/h (30 mph) argued that it 
would result in higher life-saving benefits than a 40 km/h (25 mph) 
speed.
    These commenters emphasized that half of all fatalities in frontal 
crashes occur at delta Vs above 48 km/h (30 mph). Parents argued that a 
48 km/h (30 mph) test speed is very typical of potentially fatal 
crashes since it is in the middle of the crash speeds that cause 
fatalities. That commenter also argued that air bag systems certified 
as meeting the injury criteria at the higher speeds proposed in the 
rule will have greater efficacy in severe frontal collisions than would 
air bags certified as complying at some lesser speed.
    CAS stated that the 5 mph difference between 40 km/h (25 mph) and 
48 km/h (30 mph) is substantial. It stated that a 48 km/h (30 mph) 
barrier crash is 40 percent more severe than a 40 km/h (25 mph) crash. 
It also stated that NHTSA data show that almost 20 percent of occupant 
fatalities in frontal crashes occur between 40 km/h (25 mph) and 48 km/
h (30 mph) delta V.
    Public Citizen stated that real world driving conditions require 
the return to a 48 km/h (30 mph) test. That organization stated that 
these conditions include higher speed limits, as well as the prevalence 
of vastly increased numbers of SUVs and LTVs designed with stiff front 
ends. Public Citizen stated that the stiffness of these vehicles, as 
well as other factors including higher mass, transmit increased forces 
to passenger cars in crashes.
    Public Citizen also argued that over the past 30 years, Americans 
have used the 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier test as the litmus test 
for a vehicle's crashworthiness. It noted that other motor vehicle 
safety standards are based on a 48 km/h (30 mph) test. Public Citizen 
stated that if the 48 km/h (30 mph) test were dropped, the public would 
view the decision as a step backward.
    Public Citizen stated that one indicator of the inadequacy of a 40 
km/h (25 mph) test is a statement by GM in the 1980's that it could 
pass an unbelted 40 km/h (25 mph) test with ``friendly interiors'' and 
no air bag at all.
    CAS also stated that a 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted test, even if 
coupled with a 56 km/h (35 mph) belted test, is but a slight variation 
of GM's proposal to Secretary Dole in 1984 for a 40 km/h (25 mph) 
unbelted and 48 km/h (30 mph) belted standard. CAS argued that if a car 
with friendly interiors could meet a 40 km/h (25 mph) barrier test in 
1984 without an air bag, as GM suggested then that it could, then the 
addition of a cosmetic air bag would enable a vehicle to meet Standard 
No. 208 today, even with its revised injury criteria.
    These commenters also cited the agency's estimates in the PEA that 
a 40 km/h (25 mph) test speed could result in 214 to 397 fewer lives 
saved each year.
    These safety advocacy groups also argued that there is no 
justification to reduce the longstanding 48 km/h (30 mph) test speed 
and that such a reduction would be inconsistent with the TEA 21 
requirement to improve protection of occupants of different sizes, 
belted and unbelted.
    CAS argued that reducing the unbelted test speed to 40 km/h (25 
mph) would decrease the level of protection for unbelted occupants who 
are involved in moderate to high speed collisions. According to that 
commenter, Congress cannot possibly have envisioned a backward step as 
an improvement to safety when it mandated that the advanced air bag 
rulemaking take place.
    Public Citizen stated that the whole point of upgrading Standard 
No. 208 is

[[Page 30703]]

to ensure that automakers make better air bag restraint systems and 
that the standard should reflect as much as possible the protection 
needed in real world crashes.
    According to Public Citizen, a 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted barrier 
test would force manufacturers to incorporate more advanced technology. 
Public Citizen argued that without the additional challenge of the 48 
km/h (30 mph) unbelted test, the automakers would have little 
motivation to move forward technologically in the future.
    These commenters strongly disagreed with the arguments of the 
industry and some others that a 48 km/h (30 mph) standard would require 
overly aggressive air bags or not be possible to meet for both 50th 
percentile adult male dummies and 5th percentile adult female dummies.
    Parents stated that the industry's rationale for a 40 km/h (25 mph) 
maximum speed is that the traditional 48 km/h (30 mph) speed compels 
production of air bag systems that are necessarily and unavoidably 
dangerous for small occupants in lower speed collisions. That 
organization stated that it strongly disagrees with this position. 
According to Parents, this position ignores the outstanding safety 
record of many well designed air bag systems that have complied with 
the 48 km/h (30 mph) requirement over the years. Parents also stated 
that this argument does not take into account advanced air bag 
technologies, the technologies that the advanced air bag rule is 
supposed to foster.
    Parents also argued that the SNPRM rebutted the industry's argument 
that adoption of a 48 km/h (30 mph) test speed would necessarily 
require vehicle manufacturers to revert to excessive deployment forces 
found in many systems prior to sled testing. Parents stated that the 
agency pointed out that virtually all of the depowered air bag systems 
it tested still passed the 48 km/h (30 mph) test. That organization 
also stated that compliance margins were fairly wide and typically as 
wide as margins used by industry in complying with the 48 km/h (30 mph) 
test. Parents stated that for systems that don't meet the 48 km/h (30 
mph) test, development of advanced technologies would allow these 
vehicles to also meet the test.
    Consumers Union argued that the agency's testing of 13 vehicles 
with redesigned air bags leads it to conclude that even before the 
comprehensive redesign in air bag systems contemplated in this 
rulemaking, a wide variety of vehicles with depowered air bags already 
can pass the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted test. That organization stated 
that, contrary to the industry argument, air bags in many varieties of 
vehicles apparently do not need to be repowered or made ``overly 
aggressive'' in order to pass the 48 km/h (30 mph) test.
    Consumers Union also stated that in NHTSA tests, two of four 
vehicles tested, the MY 1999 Saturn and MY 1998 Taurus, passed all the 
injury criteria for the driver and passenger using unbelted 5th 
percentile adult female and 50th percentile adult male dummies in 48 
km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier tests. That organization argued that if 
these vehicles can pass these tests even before they have been 
redesigned to meet a revised Standard No. 208, other vehicles can be 
engineered to do so as well. These tests were also cited by other 
commenters supporting a 48 km/h (30 mph) standard.
    Public Citizen argued that any trade-offs between meeting 
requirements for the 5th percentile adult female and 50th percentile 
adult male dummies can be overcome with the right combination of new 
technologies. Public Citizen cited dual or multi-level inflators, 
innovative folding patterns and bag shapes, lighter weight fabrics, 
tethers, pedal extenders, moving modules, deep dish steering wheels, 
collapsible steering columns, knee bolsters, stitching that keeps bags 
narrow to protect in low-level inflation and separates to protect 
occupants in higher impact crashes, top mounted vertically deploying 
air bags, chambered air bags (in effect, a smaller bag inside a larger 
one), and occupant position sensors that adjust deployment level or 
suppress deployment altogether.
    Public Citizen also stated that the new test requirements, 
including static and dynamic tests using infant, child and small adult 
size dummies, already address the manufacturers' concerns regarding the 
``excessive'' power of air bags in low severity crashes.
    Public Citizen expressed concern about the suggestion of some 
commenters that more data be collected before any decision is made to 
return to a 48 km/h (30 mph) test. It argued that this was an excuse to 
delay a safety standard and that there is plenty of real world 
experience with the 48 km/h (30 mph) test because it was in effect from 
1987 to 1997 and because most 1998 and 1999 models continued to comply 
with that test. Public Citizen argued further that there is a lack of 
data about a 40 km/h (25 mph) test since there never has been such a 
test requirement. It stated that the risky decision on this rulemaking 
would be to lower the test speed to 40 km/h (25 mph).
    Public Citizen stated that it believes the driving force behind the 
auto industry's support for a 40 km/h (25 mph) test is that they want 
to avoid the expense of designing energy absorbing structures for their 
SUV and light truck vehicles. It also argued that if the agency finds 
that the 48 km/h (30 mph) test is too forceful, it has the obligation 
to require vehicle manufacturers to inform all current owners of 48 km/
h (30 mph) air bag compliant vehicles of this fact and require the 
companies to recall and correct them.
    Syson-Hille and Associates presented an analysis of the history of 
air bags which it argued shows that the fatalities that have been 
caused by air bags are the result of poor air bag designs and not the 
48 km/h (30 mph) barrier test.
3. Response to Comments on Maximum Test Speed
    Because the selection of the maximum test speed for the unbelted 
barrier test represented the primary issue in the SNPRM on which there 
was significant disagreement among the commenters and drew a 
significant amount of public interest, we presented a full discussion 
of the rationale for selecting 40 km/h (25 mph) early in this document. 
In this section, we provide a specific response to the public comments 
on that issue, especially those comments which supported a 48 km/h (30 
mph) test speed.
    As indicated by the discussion we presented earlier in this 
document, we agree with a number of the arguments made by commenters 
supporting a 48 km/h (30 mph) test. We agree that a 48 km/h (30 mph) 
test would not require any kind of general ``repowering'' of air bags. 
We also agree that there are potential disadvantages associated with 
adopting a 40 km/h (25 mph) test, the most significant being that there 
could be significantly reduced safety benefits if manufacturers engaged 
in significant and widespread further depowering.
    However, there are important areas where we differ with the 
commenters supporting a 48 km/h (30 mph) test speed.
    First, we believe that setting the maximum speed at 48 km/h (30 
mph) during the TEA 21 phase-in period, as advocated by these 
commenters, would not allow manufacturers to focus initially on risk 
reduction, would not give the manufacturers as much flexibility in 
simultaneously improving high speed protection and risk reduction, and 
would not allow advanced air bag technologies to mature and 
manufacturers to gain experience with them before requiring the 
extensive use of these technologies.
    While these disadvantages would be partially mitigated by setting 
the

[[Page 30704]]

maximum speed at 40 km/h (25 mph) for an initial period and at 48 km/h 
(30 mph) thereafter, this approach would place a premium on our being 
able to project accurately the pace of development and the 
effectiveness of advanced air bag technologies. Depending on how 
advanced air bag technologies developed, this approach would still give 
the manufacturers less flexibility in simultaneously improving high 
speed protection and risk reduction.
    We believe that these uncertainties associated with advanced 
technologies, particularly the more complex ones, must be considered in 
selecting the maximum test speed. While we agree that many of the 
limitations associated with dual level inflators can be overcome by 
such features as multi-level inflation, chambering, and real time 
occupant position sensing, we believe there are significant 
uncertainties as to how quickly these more complex technologies can be 
implemented. There are advantages to vehicle manufacturers initially 
implementing simpler advanced technologies and learning from that 
experience before moving on to the more complex technologies.
    As discussed earlier, particularly given the risks that the first 
generation of air bags posed to out-of-position children and small 
adult females, and the reaction of the public to those risks, it is 
very important that advanced air bags be properly designed from the 
very beginning. Air bags have proven to be highly effective in saving 
lives. However, if advanced air bags proved to be unreliable, or to 
pose significant risks to out-of position children and small adult 
females, the public acceptability of air bags would be put at risk. For 
these reasons, we believe that, in selecting a maximum test speed, the 
uncertainty associated with meeting the challenge of simultaneously 
minimizing risk and improving protection is best resolved in favor of 
minimizing risk, as long as there is good reason to believe that it is 
unlikely that vehicle manufacturers would reduce the overall level of 
high speed protection being provided today.
    A second key area where we disagree with the commenters supporting 
a 48 km/h (30 mph) standard concerns the type of air bag system that 
would be produced under a 40 km/h (25 mph) standard. It is our view 
that the air bags most likely to be produced under a 40 km/h (25 mph) 
standard would offer at least as much overall high speed protection as 
the current redesign air bags. While manufacturers might make some 
adjustments in providing high speed protection for different size 
occupants, we believe it is unlikely that they would reduce the overall 
level of protection, much less switch to some kind of new, hypothetical 
air bag design that might minimally pass the 40 km/h (25 mph) test, but 
provide little or no protection to unbelted occupants in higher 
severity crashes.
    There are several reasons for this belief. First, the record shows 
that vehicle manufacturers did not respond to the flexibility provided 
by the sled test by providing air bags that minimally complied with the 
sled test. They did not depower their air bags as much as they could 
have, and, for the vast majority of their vehicles, they continued to 
provide air bags that passed the 48 km/h (30 mph) test with the 50th 
percentile adult male dummy.
    Second, the vehicle manufacturers have specifically committed to 
not reducing high speed protection of air bag systems through 
significant and widespread depowering. See letter from AAM and AIAM 
dated April 4, 2000 (Docket NHTSA-99-6407, item 126).
    Third, a 40 km/h (25 mph) maximum test speed does not create any 
significant cost incentive for vehicle manufacturers to provide reduced 
protection compared to a 48 km/h (30 mph) maximum test speed. As 
discussed in the FEA, we believe that costs are essentially the same 
for both test speeds. We also note that the vehicle manufacturers have 
stated that regardless of whether the maximum test speed is set at 40 
km/h (25 mph) or 48 km/h (30 mph), they will employ the same technology 
on vehicles.
    Fourth, there are other constraints that discourage significant 
further depowering. AAM and AIAM stated that air bag power cannot be 
significantly reduced and still permit air bags to perform well in the 
56 km/h (35 mph) belted NCAP tests. Those tests are the same as the 56 
km/h (35 mph) belted tests that will be added to Standard No. 208 
during the second phase-in established by this rule. We note that the 
need to perform well in angle tests in the 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted 
rigid barrier test will help ensure that vehicle manufacturers do not 
inappropriately shrink the size of current air bags.
    Fifth, as discussed earlier in this document, the vehicle 
manufacturers are already introducing new technologies that enhance 
protection and/or reduce risk, even though these technologies are not 
needed to meet current requirements.
    Public Citizen, CAS and the Consumer Federation of America argued 
that we should not rely on manufacturer representations that they will 
not further depower their vehicles. These commenters stated that there 
can be no enforcement of a promise, that what is in the rule is what 
the companies will comply with, and that anything else is illusory.
    Although our conclusion that vehicle manufacturers are unlikely to 
reduce the overall level of high speed protection provided by MY 1998 
and MY 1999 redesigned air bags rests in part on the representations of 
manufacturers, it is primarily based on factors other than promises. 
For all of the reasons discussed above, we believe that the 
manufacturers are, in fact, in a situation where prudent judgment 
dictates retaining the current overall level of protection in high 
speed crashes.
    We also plan to monitor how vehicle manufacturers respond to the 
advanced air bag mandate. If they should change their current plans and 
take actions that reduce the overall level of protection, we will 
respond appropriately. The possibility of rulemaking, including the 
reduced flexibility that could accompany a 48 km/h (30 mph) maximum 
test speed, is another incentive for vehicle manufacturers not to take 
such actions as they design their advanced air bags.
    As to Public Citizen's argument that vehicle manufacturers support 
a 40 
km/h (25 mph) maximum test speed because they want to avoid the expense 
of designing energy absorbing structures for SUVs and light trucks, we 
note that while such design changes would make it easier to pass a 48 
km/h (30 mph) test, it is by no means clear that the higher test speed 
would require such changes. Moreover, we note that IIHS said in its 
comments that adding the 56 km/h (35 mph) belted NCAP test to Standard 
No. 208 could encourage vehicle manufacturers to soften the crash 
pulses of SUVs and light trucks.
    We also disagree with the suggestion of some commenters that TEA 21 
precludes us from establishing a maximum test speed below 48 km/h (30 
mph). This view is based on the argument that any speed below the old 
48 km/h (30 mph) level cannot be considered to ``improve occupant 
protection,'' as required by TEA 21.
    This argument fails to consider the major differences between the 
older unbelted rigid barrier tests and the unbelted rigid barrier tests 
required by this new rule. The older unbelted rigid barrier test used a 
single test dummy, representing a 50th percentile adult male, 
positioned well back from the air bag. The only measure of the 
effectiveness of the air bag was its effectiveness in a high speed 
crash into a rigid barrier. There was no assessment

[[Page 30705]]

of risks for occupants who might be positioned near the air bag. The 
injury criteria included assessments of injury likelihood to the test 
dummy's head, chest, and upper legs.
    Today's rule mandates a much more comprehensive assessment of air 
bag protection. It adds an entirely new series of tests to assess low 
speed risk to occupants of many different sizes. For the first time in 
the history of Standard No. 208, the agency will use dummies 
representing a 12-month-old, a 3-year-old, a 6-year-old, and a 5th 
percentile adult female. All of these new dummies will be used in 
assessing risk of air bags. For the high speed test, performance will 
be evaluated using both the mid-sized male dummy positioned well back 
from the air bag and the new 5th percentile female dummy positioned as 
far forward as the seat allows. For both dummies in the high speed 
unbelted test, the limit on permissible chest responses has been made 
more stringent and an injury criteria has been added to assess the 
likelihood of neck injuries. Because of all these additional 
complexities and increased stringency, it is not correct to claim that 
setting the unbelted rigid barrier test speed below 48 km/h (30 mph) 
necessarily reduces protection to unbelted occupants.
    In addition, we note that the purpose of the new belted offset test 
is to help ensure that vehicle manufacturers upgrade their crash 
sensing and software systems, as necessary, to better address soft 
crash pulses. These improved crash sensing and software systems will 
benefit both belted and unbelted occupants.
    We also note that the suggestion that TEA 21 somehow requires an 
unbelted barrier test with a test speed not lower than 48 km/h (30 mph) 
is inconsistent with the language of that statute. In fact, TEA 21 
expressly left open the possibility of our retaining the sled test. 
That test has a severity level significantly below that of a 48 km/h 
(30 mph) barrier test and a 40 km/h (25 mph) barrier test.
    We also disagree with the argument of some commenters that if we 
decide that the 48 km/h (30 mph) test requires overly powerful air 
bags, we must require vehicle manufacturers to notify all current 
owners of vehicles with 48 km/h (30 mph) air bags of this fact and to 
recall and correct the vehicles. In the first place, while we are 
setting the maximum test speed at 40 km/h (25 mph), we have not 
determined that a 48 km/h (30 mph) test requires overly powerful air 
bags. Second, the fact that we are requiring manufacturers to provide 
improved air bags in new vehicles does not mean that earlier vehicles 
that do not meet the new requirements have a safety-related defect. If 
we were to accept that argument, every rulemaking we conduct to improve 
motor vehicle safety would result in earlier vehicles that did not 
satisfy the new requirements being considered to contain safety-related 
defects. This would be completely inconsistent with the statutory 
scheme set up by Congress. When the agency mandated automatic 
restraints, we did not require the recall of earlier vehicles without 
automatic restraints. Likewise, when Congress mandated air bags, we did 
not require the recall of earlier vehicles without air bags.
    A more detailed discussion of a number of the comments concerning 
the unbelted test is provided in separate agency documents which are 
being placed in the docket. Of particular note are the Final Economic 
Assessment, prepared by our Office of Plans and Policy, and a paper 
prepared by our Office of Research and Development titled ``High Speed 
Unbelted Test Requirements of FMVSS No. 208; Analysis of Issues Raised 
by Public Comments.''

D. Other Issues

1. Location of 5th Percentile Adult Female Dummy
    In both the NPRM and the SNPRM we proposed conducting the barrier 
tests with the 5th percentile adult female dummy in the full-forward 
seat track position. We stated that we believe the full-forward 
position to be the worst case position for an individual exposed to a 
deploying air bag and the most demanding of air bag systems. We also 
acknowledged in the SNPRM that this position would rarely need to be 
used, particularly on the passenger-side. We requested comment on 
whether testing in a seat track position other than full-forward would 
adequately protect occupants of all sizes while allowing sufficient 
design freedom.
    Consumers Union, CAS, and Advocates all supported our proposed seat 
track position. They cited the disproportionately high number of women 
160 cm (5'2") and under who have died as a result of a deploying air 
bag and argued that testing under this rule should be required under 
the most extreme conditions. CAS stated that the only condition under 
which the agency might consider an exception to this procedure is if 
adjustable pedals are present in the vehicle that would enable a 
typical small female to move away from the steering wheel hub. Public 
Citizen agreed with the agency's position in the SNPRM that if 
manufacturers can't provide protection in the full-forward position, 
they have option of moving that position back and making other 
adjustments, such as adjustable pedals, on the driver side.
    The NTSB stated that it believed the full-forward position could be 
inadequate if an individual could not reach the pedals while sitting 
against the seat back. It argued that we should position the dummy 
relative to the accelerator pedal rather than the seat track.
    Vehicle manufacturers, including AAM, DaimlerChrysler, Toyota and 
Honda, averred that the full-forward seating position was too extreme 
and unrepresentative of driving patterns in the real world. The 
manufacturers stated that a full-forward seat track could force 
manufacturers to move the seat track back, which could lead to less 
storage space, reduced ingress and egress space for rear passengers, 
and, in smaller vehicles, an inability to install properly rear facing 
safety restraints in the back seat. Manufacturers also contended that 
testing in the full-forward position could force them to design smaller 
air bags since there would be less room for inflation.
    The primary argument driving the manufacturers' comments is their 
assertion that few people ever drive in the full-forward position, as 
evidenced by the UMTRI study, as well as informal studies of their own. 
DaimlerChrysler and Honda recommended that the seat track position for 
the 5th percentile female be in accordance with the vehicle 
manufacturer's 5th percentile female seating reference position.
    We have decided to retain the requirement that the 5th percentile 
adult female dummy be tested in the full-forward position. As an 
initial matter, we ran 11 tests of production vehicles at 40 km/h (25 
mph) or greater using an unbelted 5th percentile adult female driver 
and passenger in the full-forward seat track position in a 
perpendicular rigid barrier test. Of these 11 tests, nine vehicles 
passed all of the applicable injury criteria on the driver side (5 at 
48 km/h (30 mph), 2 at 44 
km/h (27.5 mph), and 2 at 40 km/h (25 mph)). On the passenger side, 
seven out of 11 passed all applicable injury criteria. We tested two 
vehicles in the same 48 km/h (30 mph) test, but with the seat moved 
back 7.6 cm (3 inches) from the full-forward position. We found that 
this was roughly consistent with the UMTRI seating procedure in one 
vehicle and significantly further back than the UMTRI positioning would 
have been for the other. Moving the seat 7.6 cm (three inches) back 
also placed the dummy's chest approximately 25 cm

[[Page 30706]]

(ten inches) back from the steering hub. While both dummies on the 
driver's side passed the applicable injury criteria, one dummy on the 
passenger side exceeded the maximum allowable values for failed chest 
g's and femur loads. We also found that during these tests, the dummy 
on the driver side could not always reach the accelerator pedal. This 
fact, along with the numerous phone calls the agency has received over 
the past few years, indicates to us that at least some individuals are 
driving with the seat in the full-forward seat track position. If a 
vehicle is designed to be used in a particular position, we believe it 
is reasonable to assume that the position will be used at least some of 
the time.
    We are cognizant of the manufacturers' concern that today's rule 
may require them to limit the extent of seat track travel. To the 
extent this increases occupant protection, this would appear to be a 
positive move. We note that in some vehicles the seat will slide 
forward in order to ease access to the back seat, but will then lock 
into place somewhere further back on the seat track. Since today's rule 
would not require testing in a seat position that is not fixed in place 
when the vehicle is driven, we believe this type of design could 
continue to be used. Of greater concern is the claim that some smaller 
vehicles will no longer be able to accommodate rear facing child 
restraints in the rear seat. We strongly believe that in most instances 
manufacturers can and should design their vehicles to allow adult 
occupants to ride safely in the front seat and infants to ride safely 
in the back seat. However, we note that the need to place rear facing 
child restraints in the back seat may force the front seat passenger to 
pull the front seat full forward. In such a circumstance, the passenger 
will need the protection of a deploying air bag without being exposed 
to undue risk. This also applies to a passenger who moves the seat full 
forward because the rear seat is loaded with cargo. These two 
circumstances argue for, rather than against, the need to test the 
front seat in the full-forward position.
    We have decided against adopting the NTSB's recommendation that the 
seating procedure be based on distance from the accelerator pedal 
rather than seat track position. Our test requirements must be 
objective. We believe linking the position to distance from the pedal 
could introduce too many ambiguities into the seating procedure for it 
to remain sufficiently objective.
2. Minimum Test Speed
    In the SNPRM, we proposed that manufacturers would need to meet the 
unbelted rigid barrier test at any speed between 29 km/h (18 mph) and 
40 to 48 km/h (25 to 30 mph). This range represents a significant 
change from the belted barrier test and previous unbelted barrier 
tests, which have required injury criteria to be met at any speed up to 
48 km/h (30 mph).
    GM and Ford supported the proposed lower test parameter 29 km/h (18 
mph). AAM, DaimlerChrysler and Toyota supported a higher minimum test 
speed. VW and Honda supported a lower minimum test speed. Delphi urged 
the agency to return to its traditional ``any speed between zero and'' 
the maximum test speed, arguing that the minimum test speed will result 
in an unacceptable safety trade-off for individuals who could be aided 
by a deploying air bag in lower speed crashes.
    The concerns of the vehicle manufacturers opposed to the 29 km/h 
(18 mph) lower limit revolve around their ability to meet both the low 
risk deployment tests at any speed up to 29 km/h (18 mph) and the high 
speed tests at any speed between 29 km/h (18 mph) and 40 to 48 km/h (25 
to 30 mph). These manufacturers argued that the basic premise for dual-
stage inflation systems is that the first stage can be tailored to 
reduce risk for children while offering protection for 5th percentile 
adult while the second stage protects the 50th percentile male 
occupant. According to the manufacturers, in many cases the first stage 
air bag will not be sufficient to satisfy the injury criteria in a test 
at 29 km/h (18 mph). In order to assure compliance with both the 
unbelted crash test requirement and a low risk deployment option 
utilizing a dual-stage air bag system, a manufacturer arguably would 
either have to drop the threshold for the second stage air bag close to 
29 km/h (18 mph) to ensure compliance for the 50th percentile adult 
male or provide a higher-energy first stage inflator. The commenters 
asserted that if NHTSA were to impose the proposed speed range for the 
unbelted tests, we would create a situation that would make compliance 
with a low risk deployment option impossible, since it would not be 
possible to assure that only the first stage air bag deploys at 29 km/h 
(18 mph) for the out-of-position test. Since the reliability of dynamic 
suppression systems is still unproven, the application of a test 
requirement that precludes low risk deployment systems would create a 
problem at the driver position.
    On the other end of the spectrum, Delphi has argued that allowing a 
minimum test speed for the unbelted barrier test may result in serious 
injuries that could otherwise be avoided. Delphi stated that while it 
recognized that the proposed minimum test speed was intended to 
discourage lower air bag threshold speeds, unbelted occupants without 
an air bag may exceed the neck injury criterion in typical vehicle 
impacts between 16 and 22.4 km/h (10 and 14 mph). Delphi believes that 
NHTSA's objective in encouraging higher air bag threshold speeds is the 
reduction of injury risk to out-of-position occupants, the same 
objective addressed by the proposed advanced air bag systems. If the 
proposed advanced air bag systems are truly effective, Delphi asserts, 
lower thresholds should mitigate the injury risk that current systems 
pose. Accordingly, Delphi recommended that vehicle speed ranges be 
changed to 0 to 40 km/h (0 to 25 mph) for unbelted occupants in all 
rigid barrier and oblique barrier tests.
    We have decided to raise the minimum test speed for the unbelted 
test from 29 km/h (18 mph) to 32 km/h (20 mph) while decreasing the 
maximum threshold for the various out-of-position tests from 29 km/h 
(18 mph) to 26 km/h (16 mph). We believe that this difference in speed 
between the two tests will be sufficient to resolve manufacturers' 
concerns with the potential overlap of the low risk deployment and 
barrier tests. Today's requirement builds in a 6 km/h (4 mph) ``grey 
zone'' that will allow manufacturers to deploy both inflator stages, if 
needed, in all high speed tests, while preserving their ability to 
deploy only the first stage (or allow for deployment of a combination 
of benign stages) of the air bag in the low risk deployment tests. We 
are rejecting DaimlerChrysler's and Toyota's request that we test 
unbelted dummies only at 48 km/h (25 mph) because we continue to 
believe a range of speeds is necessary to adequately protect drivers 
and adult passengers.
    As to Delphi's concern that vehicle occupants will be afforded 
inadequate protection in the real world because of a lower parameter on 
the unbelted barrier tests, we note that vehicle manufacturers must 
still certify compliance to the belted test at all test speeds from 
zero to 48 km/h (30 mph), and must satisfy the low risk deployment 
criteria for the 5th percentile adult female on the driver's side.

[[Page 30707]]

VII. Improving the Protection of Belted Occupants in Serious 
Crashes

    In the SNPRM, we proposed two crash test requirements, both of 
which would have to be satisfied, to improve the protection of belted 
occupants in serious crashes. The first was a belted rigid barrier 
test; the second was a belted offset deformable barrier test.

A. Belted Rigid Barrier Test

    Standard No. 208 currently includes an up-to-48 km/h (30 mph) 
belted rigid barrier test (perpendicular and up to  30 
degrees oblique to perpendicular) using 50th percentile adult male 
dummies. As indicated earlier, this test represents a vehicle striking 
a like vehicle moving at the same rate of speed.
    In the SNPRM, we proposed to add use of the 5th percentile adult 
female dummy to this test, but only in the perpendicular mode. We 
proposed to limit use of this dummy to the perpendicular mode in light 
of our desire to avoid unnecessary test requirements and because we 
believed that if a vehicle can pass the perpendicular test with 5th 
percentile adult female dummies and the oblique tests with 50th 
percentile adult male dummies, it would also pass the oblique test 
using 5th percentile adult female dummies.
    As noted above, we also indicated that if we reduced the maximum 
speed of the unbelted test to 40 km/h (25 mph), 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). This is the same speed at which vehicles 
with belted dummies are tested in existing NCAP tests.
    The commenters on the SNPRM supported adding the 5th percentile 
adult female dummy to the existing belted rigid barrier requirements. 
Some commenters requested that we consider deletion of the existing 
belted oblique crash tests using 50th percentile adult male dummies. 
Honda stated that it believes that the unbelted oblique tests are 
sufficient to confirm that air bags offer sufficient protection for 
belted occupants in oblique crashes.
    Most commenters that supported a 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted rigid 
barrier test, including AAM, also supported increasing the maximum 
speed of the belted rigid barrier test from the current 48 km/h (30 
mph) to 56 km/h (35 mph). However, these commenters urged that the 56 
km/h (35 mph) belted rigid barrier test be phased in after the TEA 21 
phase-in period. They also urged that the higher speed test initially 
be limited to use of the 50th percentile adult male dummy, for which 
there is a large amount of test data because of NCAP. They urged 
further that a separate rulemaking be conducted to determine whether it 
is practicable to meet this test requirement using 5th percentile adult 
female dummies.
    IIHS stated that increasing the speed of the belted rigid barrier 
test to 56 km/h (35 mph) would accelerate the improvement of frontal 
crash protection afforded by light trucks. That organization stated 
that while many vehicles already perform well in the 56 km/h (35 mph) 
NCAP test, light trucks have been an exception. IIHS stated that their 
stiff frames and short front ends (relative to their mass) have led to 
short crash pulses that make it difficult to design effective, 
nonaggressive air bag systems. IIHS stated that it expects one result 
of subjecting all passenger vehicles to a 56 km/h (35 mph) belted 
requirement would be the softening of the front ends of light trucks. 
According to that organization, this would benefit not only the 
occupants of light trucks, but also the occupants of other vehicles 
with which the trucks collide. IIHS stated that to maximize the 
likelihood that structural changes, rather than more aggressive air bag 
systems, would be incorporated to meet the new requirements, a long 
phase-in period should be considered for light trucks.
    While most vehicle manufacturers supported increasing the belted 
rigid barrier test speed to 56 km/h (35 mph), as long as long lead time 
is provided, there were exceptions. Volkswagen stated that it believes 
there is no safety justification for such an increase and that, on the 
contrary, there could be potentially significant disadvantages to motor 
vehicle safety. That company stated that the higher crash speed imposes 
significantly increased energy absorption requirements on vehicle 
structures and air bag designs, which would lead to more aggressive 
designs. Volkswagen stated that this would be counterproductive to the 
concern of vehicle aggressivity/compatibility in the vehicle fleet and 
protection for the small driver and out-of-position children.
    After carefully considering the comments, we are adopting as final 
our proposal to use the existing 48 km/h (30 mph) belted rigid barrier 
test with some modifications. As an initial matter, we are requiring 
tests with the 5th percentile adult female dummy in the perpendicular 
mode. This will help ensure that vehicle manufacturers design air bags 
so as to improve protection to belted persons who sit in the full 
forward position, including short-statured adult female drivers.
    We have also decided to accept the recommendation of some 
commenters to eliminate the existing belted oblique tests using 50th 
percentile adult male dummies. The primary purpose of the oblique tests 
is to ensure that air bags are sufficiently wide to provide protection 
if an oblique crash results in the occupant moving forward at an angle. 
We agree that the unbelted oblique tests are more stringent than the 
belted oblique tests in this respect, since the belts limit occupant 
movement, and that the unbelted oblique tests, which are being 
retained, will ensure that air bags are sufficiently wide to provide 
protection to both belted and unbelted occupants in oblique crashes.
    We will require vehicle manufacturers to begin certifying 
compliance with the belted 50th percentile adult male dummy at 56 km/h 
(35 mph) starting in 2007. Compliance will be required under a phase-in 
schedule that is fully discussed later in this document. We also plan 
to initiate rulemaking in the near future proposing to increase the 
upper limit for the belted rigid barrier test from 48 km/h (30 mph) to 
56 km/h (35 mph) with the 5th percentile adult female dummy.
    We are unconvinced that a 56 km/h (35 mph) belted rigid barrier 
test will require more aggressive air bag systems and vehicle frames, 
as VW has contended. The 56 km/h (35 mph) belted barrier test has been 
used in NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) since 1979, and most 
vehicles today meet the injury criteria in today's rule at that speed. 
NHTSA's NCAP test experience with vehicles certified to the sled test 
has demonstrated that when manufacturers ``depowered'' their air bags, 
the vehicles performed as well in NCAP tests as they did previously. In 
an era when the government, the industry, and other groups are working 
hard to increase seat belt use among the general public, raising the 
belted test speed to 56 km/h (35 mph) for the 50th percentile test 
dummy is consistent with TEA-21s requirements to improve occupant 
protection for belted occupants. Testing at 56 km/h (35 mph) will 
result in manufacturers improving the combined performance of seat 
belts and air bags. Improving performance in this area can involve 
relatively simple changes in seat belt design, such as adding 
pretensioners or load limiters or modifying the belt system's 
elongation characteristics to interact more favorably with the air bag. 
As we are not requiring manufacturers to begin certifying any vehicles 
to this test speed before September 1, 2006, they have ample time to 
make changes to their

[[Page 30708]]

vehicles that do not involve increasing vehicle or air bag 
aggressivity.

B. Belted Offset Deformable Barrier Test

    In the SNPRM, we proposed to add a new crash test requirement to 
Standard No. 208, an up to 40 km/h (25 mph) offset deformable barrier 
test using belted 5th percentile adult female dummies (belted offset 
test). We proposed this test in an attempt to ensure that vehicle 
manufacturers upgrade their crash sensing and software systems, as 
necessary, to better address soft crash pulses. Research conducted by 
Transport Canada has shown that one of the causes of adverse effects of 
air bags is late deployment of some air bags in crashes with soft 
pulses, and the proposed test was one that Transport Canada has been 
using in its research program. We proposed that the test be conducted 
with the driver's side of the vehicle engaged with the barrier.
    Most commenters supported adding the belted offset test, although 
some urged that an out-of-position test for the passenger side be 
developed as an alternative to this test.
    AAM stated that it supports the proposed test, but claimed that its 
added safety benefit is questionable. That commenter stated that the 
test offers no added safety benefit in a rulemaking which also includes 
requirements for belted and unbelted 5th percentile adult female dummy 
rigid barrier crash testing and protection against air bag-induced 
injuries with suppression or low risk deployment performance. AAM 
noted, however, that if a vehicle manufacturer selected the suppression 
presence option for all of the child dummies, there would be no 
requirement to address minimizing risks to out-of-position passengers 
larger than six-year-olds. AAM recommended that an out-of-position test 
for the passenger side using 5th percentile adult female dummies be 
developed and proposed in a future rulemaking as an alternative to this 
test.
    AAM also argued that if a sensor system must detect and respond to 
a soft pulse in an offset deformable barrier regulatory test, it can 
result in designs with either low thresholds for deployment or in 
designs which have late deployments in the field. That organization 
also stated that offset testing with the proposed barrier is not ready 
for use for the full vehicle fleet in the United States. According to 
that organization, the European barrier used in the test was never 
designed for heavier SUVs and light trucks.
    General Motors and Ford each supported adding the proposed belted 
offset test to Standard No. 208 at this time, but urged that a 
passenger side out-of-position test be developed to either replace it 
or be provided as an optional alternative to it.
    Toyota stated that it generally accepts the proposed offset test as 
a means to assess sensor timing and out-of-position issues, but 
expressed concern about the appropriateness of the test for heavier 
vehicles like SUVs and light trucks. According to that company, these 
vehicles tend to either override the barrier or deform the face so 
badly that it essentially becomes an offset rigid barrier test, which 
does not represent actual car-to-car collisions in the real world.
    CAS stated that the proposed test should be included in the final 
rule. That organization stated that because of the problems air bag 
crash sensors have encountered in being able to discriminate between 
low speed and high speed crashes, this test is necessary to adequately 
assess sensor performance.
    CAS argued, however, that the test should be performed on both the 
driver and passenger side in order to prevent manufacturers from 
optimizing their vehicles solely on one side. That organization stated 
that if NHTSA adopts the test for the driver side only, a manufacturer 
might choose to add satellite crash sensors to the frontal crush zones 
of a vehicle only on the driver side. Advocates also expressed concern 
about requiring the test only with the driver side of the vehicle being 
struck.
    Parents stated that the test should be conducted with unbelted as 
well as belted occupants, and that this part of the SNPRM improperly 
favored belted occupants over unbelted ones.
    Delphi recommended increasing the speed range specified for the 
test to 0 to 48 km/h (30 mph) instead of 0 to 40 km/h (25 mph). That 
commenter noted that, for many vehicles, an air bag might not be 
required to satisfy the injury criteria at test speeds up to 40 km/h 
(25 mph). Thus, air bag systems might be designed with sufficiently 
high thresholds that they do not deploy in this test. Delphi stated 
that one of the objectives of the test is to evaluate performance in 
sensing threshold events, since there is a potential for occupants to 
be out-of-position when the air bag deploys in such situations. Delphi 
stated that it would be necessary to increase the maximum speed to 48 
km/h (30 mph) to cover the sensing threshold for many vehicles and that 
the significance of the test would be greatly diminished if this is not 
done.
    Consumers Union supported the addition of the proposed test, but 
urged that the test be conducted at 64 km/h (40 mph), instead of 40 km/
h (25 mph). CU questioned how much this test will contribute when it is 
run at what it views as a low and unchallenging speed. Public Citizen 
also supported the addition of the test while stating that a higher 
speed test, as a supplementary test of structure, intrusion, and 
sensitivity, would be welcome.
    NTSB expressed concern that inclusion of the offset deformable 
barrier test at the same time as advanced air bag technology is being 
developed might result in unforeseen problems. While that agency did 
not identify what those potential problems could be, it stated that it 
may be desirable to establish a separate schedule or a later phase-in.
    DaimlerChrysler stated that it opposes inclusion of the proposed 
belted offset deformable barrier test in Standard No. 208. That company 
cited concerns about the European barrier not being appropriate for 
testing heavier vehicles such as SUVs and light trucks. DaimlerChrysler 
recommended that the test be removed since advanced air bags, by 
definition, will be designed to pose less risk to out-of-position 
occupants. As an alternative, that company recommended replacing the 
belted offset deformable barrier test with a low risk deployment test 
for the passenger side.
    After carefully considering the comments, we have decided to adopt 
the belted offset test as proposed. We agree with the suggestion of 
several commenters that an out-of-position test using 5th percentile 
adult female dummies should be developed for the passenger side, and 
will conduct research on that issue. We note, however, that such a test 
would not necessarily serve as a replacement for a test that is 
intended to ensure improved crash sensing systems. We also agree with 
the suggestion of several commenters about the desirability of a high 
speed offset test to address intrusion and vehicle structure. We will 
continue to pursue our previously-announced plans to conduct separate 
rulemaking on the issue of whether to add a high speed offset test to 
Standard No. 208.
    We would like to note again that the main purpose of the belted 
offset test, at the proposed range of speeds, is to help ensure that 
vehicle manufacturers upgrade their crash sensing and software systems, 
as necessary, to better address soft crash pulses. Improved sensing 
technology will be particularly important if manufacturers design

[[Page 30709]]

vehicles with softer front ends to meet the 56 km/h (35 mph) belted 
rigid barrier test discussed earlier. As discussed in the September 
1998 NPRM, research conducted by Transport Canada has shown that one of 
the causes of adverse effects of air bags is late deployment of some 
air bags in crashes with a ``soft crash pulse.'' In order to reproduce 
the softer, longer duration crash pulse, it selected the 40 percent 
offset barrier. It conducted crash tests into the barrier at 8 km/h (5 
mph) increments up to 40 km/h (25 mph).
    Transport Canada found that at 40 km/h (25 mph), the air bag 
typically deployed and was sometimes so late that the test dummy would 
be right on the steering wheel at that time, a ``worst case'' 
condition. We noted in the NPRM that the problem of late deployment 
appeared to exist for only some vehicles. We noted further that it 
could be addressed by such means as improving computer algorithms and 
adding crash sensors to a vehicle's crush zone to provide additional 
and earlier information to use in the decision-making algorithm.
    A test that is intended to encourage improved sensing systems does 
not serve the same purpose as the low risk deployment test suggested by 
some commenters as an alternative or substitute. If, as a result of an 
improved sensing system, an air bag that previously would deploy after 
an occupant moves out-of-position now deploys in a timely manner, it 
can provide protection. However, if an air bag deploys so late that the 
occupant has already moved onto the steering wheel, it cannot provide 
protection. We encourage vehicle manufacturers to respond to this new 
test requirement by improving sensing systems and not just providing 
low risk deployment.
    As to Delphi's recommendation that we increase the speed range to 
48 km/h (30 mph), we note that such a speed is outside the scope of our 
proposal. To the extent that Delphi is suggesting that our test may not 
pick up a late deployment problem for vehicles that are designed with 
sufficiently high thresholds that the air bag does not deploy in this 
test, we acknowledge that in some instances a vehicle's air bag system 
may not deploy in this test. However, our experience has been that the 
vast majority of air bags deploy in offset barrier crash tests slightly 
below 40 km/h (25 mph). Additionally, when there is a deployment, we 
believe crash sensors are more rigorously tested in a 40 km/h (25 mph) 
test than in a higher speed test. We ran offset tests at both 40 km/h 
(25 mph) and 56 km/h (35 mph) prior to publication of the SNPRM. In 
reviewing the test results, we observed that the air bags in the 56 km/
h (35 mph) tests deployed significantly more quickly than in the 40 km/
h (25 mph) tests. Based on these observations, we believe that 
increasing the range of the offset deformable barrier test up to 48 km/
h (30 mph) will not test the sensor technology any more stringently 
than an up to 40 km/h (25 mph) offset deformable barrier test since the 
40 km/h (25 mph) test better replicates late deployments in the real 
world.
    In response to Parents, we note that the improved sensing systems 
required by this test will benefit both belted and unbelted occupants. 
The fact that this test is conducted in the belted condition only is 
not intended to favor belted occupants over unbelted occupants. The 
belted offset test may represent the worst case scenario since the belt 
allows the dummy's head and neck to rotate into the path of the 
deploying air bag. This condition may better test for potential neck 
injuries than an unbelted test. Additionally, some tests, such as the 
oblique tests, will be conducted only with unbelted occupants. We have 
designed the overall matrix of tests to meet the need for safety for 
all occupants, belted and unbelted, while avoiding unnecessary tests 
and compliance costs.
    We are not adopting the suggestion made by some commenters that the 
test be conducted both with the driver side of the vehicle engaged with 
the barrier and with the passenger side of the vehicle engaged with the 
barrier. We believe that testing with the driver side of the vehicle 
engaged with the barrier will be sufficient to help ensure that vehicle 
manufacturers improve their sensing systems.
    We recognize that this test, like any other, has limitations. For 
example, the test represents only one of many types of soft pulses, and 
one specific offset configuration. While it would always be possible to 
identify additional tests that represent potential real world 
situations, we must strike a balance between ensuring that there are 
sufficient tests to meet the need for safety and avoiding unwarranted 
compliance burdens. We believe that the addition of this test with only 
the driver side of the vehicle engaged with the barrier strikes this 
balance. However, we will monitor future air bag system designs and 
will consider changing this decision if we find that manufacturers are 
implementing sensor systems that optimize performance only for impacts 
into the driver's side of the vehicle.
    We believe that the concerns expressed by commenters about the 
appropriateness of the test barrier for heavier SUVs and light trucks 
are not significant with respect to a test conducted at speeds up to 40 
km/h (25 mph). Even if bottoming out occurs, the test still represents 
a relatively mild crash, and air bags should be designed to provide 
appropriate performance under a wide range of conditions.
    Similarly, we believe that AAM's concerns that an offset test can 
result in designs with either low thresholds for deployment or in 
designs which have late deployments in the field are not relevant to a 
test conducted at speeds up to 40 km/h (25 mph). As noted earlier, the 
vast majority of existing air bag systems deploy in offset deformable 
barrier tests below 40 km/h (25 mph). We will consider these concerns 
further if we separately propose to use the European barrier in a high 
speed offset test.
    As to NTSB's concern that adding this test at the same time as 
requiring advanced air bags may cause unforeseen problems of an 
unspecified nature, we note that vehicle manufacturers have been 
working to address the problem identified by Transport Canada for 
several years. Moreover, we believe that advanced air bag systems 
should easily be able to meet this requirement.

VIII. Minimizing the Risk of Injuries and Deaths Caused by Air Bags

    The one fact that is common to all persons who are at risk from air 
bags is that they are extremely close to the air bag at time of 
deployment. Behavioral changes, such as ensuring that children ride in 
the back seat and that all occupants are properly restrained, can 
sharply reduce the number of persons who are in such positions.
    However, to minimize air bag risks for the remaining persons who 
are most likely to be close to the air bag at time of deployment, one 
of two things must be done: either air bag deployment must be 
suppressed, or the air bag must be designed to deploy in such a manner 
that it does not cause a significant risk of injury to persons in such 
positions. Each of the technologies to minimize air bag risks follows 
one of these approaches.
    As we developed test requirements to minimize air bag risks, we 
needed to account for the fact that the persons who are potentially at 
risk vary from infants to adults, and have different potentials for 
injury. We therefore found it necessary to develop requirements using a 
variety of test dummy sizes. Moreover, since we wished to avoid 
requirements that are unnecessarily design-restrictive, it was 
necessary to develop a variety of testing options that

[[Page 30710]]

account for the kinds of effective technological solutions that are 
under development.
    We note that it was never our intention to limit manufacturers to 
using systems that provide only suppression, where appropriate, or low 
risk deployment, as opposed to systems that may combine suppression and 
low risk deployment. Moreover, we recognize that there may be safety 
benefits to using a combination of approaches and technologies.
    Even looking at suppression systems alone, the use of multiple 
technologies may provide benefits. For example, manufacturers might 
combine weight and pattern sensing to achieve greater reliability.
    Similarly, the combination of suppression and low risk deployment 
may better achieve the goal of minimizing air bag risks. For example, 
as Toyota noted, a system designed to suppress the passenger air bag 
for children below a specified weight would not suppress the air bag 
for a young child seated on an adult's lap. However, low risk 
deployment might prevent serious injury in such a situation.
    Because it is necessary to test the various types of suppression 
systems and low risk deployment systems differently, we proposed a 
variety of testing options that account for the kinds of effective 
technological solutions that are under development. Where more than one 
option is specified, a manufacturer must meet at least one option; 
nothing precludes the manufacturer from meeting more than one. The 
issue of certifying compliance to more than one option is discussed 
later in this document.
    Each of the test requirements we proposed in the SNPRM is discussed 
below.

A. Safety of Infants

    Infants in rear-facing child safety seats (RFCSS) and in 
convertible child restraints in the rear-facing mode 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 these restraints must never be 
placed in the front seat unless the air bag is turned off. While the 
current warning labels and educational campaigns have dramatically 
reduced the number of fatalities to infants over the past two years, we 
recognize that there are still some parents who ignore this advice and 
place their children at grave risk from a deploying air bag. SCI data 
shows that some infant fatalities have occurred because parents did not 
place their child in a RFCSS properly.
    In the SNPRM, in order to address the risks air bags pose to 
infants in child restraints designed to be used by them, 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 or convertible child restraint in 
the rear-facing mode.
1. Option 1: Feature (e.g., Weight or Size Sensor) That Suppresses the 
Air Bag When an Infant Is Present
    We proposed that 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 child restraints designed to be used for infants. The 
restraints would be placed in several specified positions during the 
static tests. Manufacturers would be required to assure compliance 
using any of the child restraints included in sections B and C of the 
list of representative child restraints that we proposed to add as an 
appendix to Standard No. 208, as well as the car bed listed in section 
A. The list would be periodically updated to reflect changes in the 
types and designs of available child restraints.
    In order to ensure that the suppression feature did not 
inappropriately suppress the air bag for small-statured adults, the air 
bag system would need to be activated during several static tests using 
a 5th percentile adult female dummy in the right front passenger seat. 
At the option of the manufacturer, human beings could be used in the 
place of the 5th percentile adult female dummy. We proposed 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. The issue of permitting 
manufacturers to certify to suppression requirements using human beings 
is discussed in greater detail later in this notice.
    AAM, GM, Toyota, Isuzu and DaimlerChrysler all argued in their 
comments that the static suppression tests to protect infants were too 
burdensome, notwithstanding our reduction of the number of child 
restraints that the agency would use in compliance testing. Concerns 
were raised in particular about the range of seat back angles and seat 
track positions, as well as the placement of a blanket on the 
restraints and testing with the handle and sunshield in a full-up and 
full-down position. The commenters also recommended that they only be 
required to assure compliance using a limited number of restraints in 
each section of the appendix (between one and three). Isuzu further 
argued that tests should only be conducted with belted restraints. Most 
of these arguments were repeated in comments on suppression testing for 
the 3-year-old and 6-year-old children.
    David Breed and IEE offered comments on the technology available 
for the static suppression systems. David Breed argued that the testing 
of convertible infant seats in a forward-facing mode would effectively 
eliminate the low risk deployment option for older children because 
manufacturers would be forced to rely on a weight-sensing system. 
According to that commenter, such a restriction could lead to safety 
trade-offs for older children who could benefit from a benignly 
deploying air bag.
    IEE argued that by testing suppression systems with a variety of 
child restraints, we are encouraging the use of discriminating systems 
rather than a non-discriminating system like a universal tag. IEE 
asserted that the non-discriminating systems are significantly more 
reliable than any discriminating systems currently available. The 
possibility that a non-discriminating system, like the Mercedes Baby-
Smart, could easily resolve problems with suppression technology was 
echoed by DaimlerChrysler.
    We note that testing performed by NHTSA at VRTC subsequent to 
publication of the SNPRM demonstrated that it is difficult to place 
some child restraints usable by infants in several of the proposed 
positions in some circumstances.
    The first such position is testing the unrestrained child restraint 
at any angle plus or minus 45 degrees from the vehicle seat's 
longitudinal plane. While achieving this position may be possible in 
vehicles that do not have contoured seats, in several of the vehicles 
we examined, the RFCSS flipped toward the center of the seat. As a 
practical matter, we do not believe parents or caregivers are likely to 
place a child restraint on the seat at a 45 degree angle. We believe 
the restraint would be placed roughly along the longitudinal plane, 
facing either the seat back or the

[[Page 30711]]

windshield. Accordingly, we have revised this test procedure to specify 
placement only at zero degrees of the longitudinal plane.
    The proposed position which specified that the restraint be tipped 
to rest on the dashboard was also difficult to achieve. The intent 
behind the test was to mimic a situation where, through pre-crash 
braking, a child restraint slides forward and flips onto the dashboard. 
Our SCI investigations have reported several instances where this type 
of movement has occurred, with devastating consequences for the child 
in the child restraint.
    However, this position does not test a condition for which static 
suppression systems are designed. Rather, such a position is one that 
would be appropriate as the final position in a test of a dynamic 
suppression system. We believe static suppression systems should be 
designed to classify occupants and to address positions where parents 
or caregivers place infants under normal driving conditions. It is 
exceptionally unlikely someone would drive with an infant's head wedged 
between the dashboard and the child restraint. We note, however, that 
the likelihood of a static suppression system failing to protect an 
occupant who slides into the proposed position during a crash is 
extremely remote since static suppression systems will either be set 
once the engine is turned on and not change regardless of the 
circumstances of the crash, or will have a cycling function in which 
the presence of the child seat will be read periodically, allowing a 
time history of the child seat position. Additionally, the presence of 
a child seat that is precariously placed on the edge of the vehicle 
seat would likely be construed as an empty seat. Most manufacturers 
have indicated that their systems will default to a no-fire condition 
if the sensing system perceives that the vehicle seat is unoccupied. 
Finally, this position would not test a static suppression system in an 
objective manner, as evidenced by the difficulties we experienced in 
placing the infant seat in the proposed position. Accordingly, we have 
eliminated this test requirement.
    The third condition which proved problematic in some instances was 
placement of the restraint with the vehicle seat in its full forward 
position. In smaller vehicles, the restraints often could not be placed 
in the front seat with the seat full forward. This was a particular 
problem with convertible restraints, which can be considerably larger 
RFCSSs. In some instances, the restraint hung suspended between the 
dashboard and the seat back. In other cases, the restraint had to be 
positioned at a severe angle in order to achieve contact with the seat 
cushion. Again, we do not believe parents or caregivers are likely to 
place a child restraint in a position where the restraint either tips 
forward onto the seat or where the restraint does not make any contact 
with the seat. Changes to the test procedures to account for this 
situation are discussed below.
    Toyota and GM argued that the proposed requirements specifying 
testing of the restraints at any seat track position and at any seat 
back angle between the nominal design position and 25 degrees rearward 
would require up to 40,000 different tests to assure compliance. We 
believe this argument severely overstates the situation. As long as the 
restraint fits in the vehicle interior, a suppression system that is 
entirely seat-based will be able to discriminate the presence of the 
restraint, regardless of the seat track position. Likewise a seat-based 
system will be able to detect the restraint regardless of whether the 
sunshield or handle is in an upright or stowed position or whether the 
restraint has a blanket on it.\23\ Systems that could have difficulty 
detecting these different conditions are those which have sensors that 
are not completely incorporated into the seat. Such systems will need 
to be able to detect where the restraint is located in the vehicle and 
whether there are any potential impediments to accurately sensing the 
presence of an infant, like a sunshield, handle or blanket. However, 
these systems' ability to detect a sunshield, handle, or blanket should 
not be affected by the belted, or unbelted, condition of the child 
restraint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ We note that seat-based systems may, however, need to 
``read'' the presence of a rear-facing infant restraint that has 
been stabilized with a rolled up towel or blanket in accordance with 
the restraint manufacturer's instructions. While we will not use 
such objects in conducting our compliance tests, the presence of a 
towel or blanket under the most rearward portion of the child 
restraint is a real world scenario which some seat-based systems may 
need to accommodate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In view of the fact that parents or caregivers who continue to 
place infants in the front seat may position the vehicle seat in a 
variety of seat track positions, we continue to believe that there is a 
need to test suppression systems in a variety of seat track positions. 
However, we have also concluded that testing the systems at discrete 
points along the seat track should be sufficient to ensure adequate 
performance throughout the entire range of seat track positions. 
Therefore, we have decided to specify test requirements for suppression 
technology at the vehicle seat's full-rear position, mid-track position 
and full-forward position. If the child restraint strikes the 
instrument panel or another portion of the vehicle interior when the 
seat is in the full-forward position, the vehicle seat will be moved 
back to the next detent that allows for clearance, or, in the case of 
automatic seats, until a maximum of 5mm (0.2) of clearance is achieved. 
A more complete discussion of this issue is provided later in this 
document.
    Finally, we determined that conducting tests using a belted child 
restraint with the vehicle seat back 25 degrees rearward of the seat 
back's nominal design position for the 50th percentile adult male was 
not always possible. As discussed later in this document, we have 
decided to limit the vehicle seat back angle for the infant suppression 
tests to the nominal seat back design position for the 50th percentile 
male.
    We have decided against allowing manufacturers to certify to only a 
limited number of the seats listed in the appendix. The number of 
applicable seats has already been honed down considerably from what was 
proposed in the NPRM. A further reduction could effectively allow 
manufacturers to design suppression systems that would not protect 
infants in child restraints representing a reasonable range of such 
restraints on the market.
    We have also decided to retain those test conditions involving 
unbelted restraints. Unfortunately, not everyone always installs child 
restraints (including RFCSSs) properly, as indicated by several 
fatalities in our SCI database. If we failed to test in unbelted 
conditions, suppression systems could be designed so that they only 
worked when the seat belt was fastened. Such a system could not protect 
these infants.
    While we understand David Breed's concern about testing convertible 
restraints in a forward-facing position, this test requirement is 
necessary and need not preclude low risk deployment for older children. 
As an initial matter, current air bag designs pose a risk to infants 
seated in forward-facing convertible child restraints, as indicated by 
the SCI data. However, advanced designs which eliminate that risk could 
still be used, even if a manufacturer chose to suppress the air bag for 
infants in these restraints. For example, we believe manufacturers 
could design a system that suppressed the air bag based on weight and 
pattern recognition that is limited to the expected weights of very 
young children and child restraints designed for use by infants. It is 
possible

[[Page 30712]]

that in some instances this technology could also suppress for a 
slightly older child in a convertible child seat. However, the 
manufacturer could also design the air bag system to deploy at a level 
that is non-injurious to a small child. Certification could be based on 
the low risk deployment test, and the potential suppression for the 
older child would provide supplemental protection.
    IEE and DaimlerChrysler may be correct that non-discriminating, 
tag-like systems could offer greater reliability than discriminating 
systems, assuming that the correct tagged child restraint is also used. 
However, such systems would not ensure safety for the numerous 
different child restraint designs and potential restraint positions 
that are used by the general public. Even making tags widely available, 
as DaimlerChrysler suggests, would not account for those individuals 
who do not have a tag on their particular child restraint, either 
because the restraint is not generally used in a given vehicle, or 
because they are unaware that the tags are available. Additionally, 
simply providing the tags would not assure that they were installed on 
the restraint properly or that the tag was properly aligned when the 
restraint was set in the vehicle seat.
    Technology like the Mercedes BabySmart appears to provide a 
reliable method of preventing air bag deployments when used properly. 
While we do not believe that these types of suppression systems alone 
will adequately meet the needs of motor vehicle safety, we do believe 
that they remain an excellent supplement to other systems.
    Further, belted tests conducted with child restraints that have the 
lower anchor attachments will need to be conducted both with the 
vehicle safety belt and, in vehicles with the corresponding anchors, 
with the attachments secured in the anchors with the safety belt 
unfastened. Such a requirement is necessary for various reasons. First, 
the anchors may fail to place sufficient weight on a seat to adequately 
test a suppression system. Second, a parent may fail to use the anchor 
system and use the belt system instead. Third, using a belt with the 
anchor system could result in damage to the system when the safety belt 
is cinched to 134 N (30 lb). Finally, the anchor attachments may 
prevent alignment of the child restraint along the defined vertical 
planes in low risk deployment tests. We note that Standard No. 213 does 
not contemplate seating systems where both the safety belt and the 
lower anchor attachments are used.
2. Option 2: Low-Risk Deployment for Infants in Rear-Facing Child 
Safety Seats
    We proposed to require that, if the low risk deployment option were 
selected, a vehicle would be required to meet specified injury criteria 
performance limits when the passenger air bag is deployed in the 
presence of a 12-month-old CRABI dummy placed in a belted rear-facing 
child restraint, either a RFCSS or a convertible restraint. As with the 
proposed test requirements for the suppression option, manufacturers 
would be required to assure compliance using each child restraint 
included in sections B and C of the proposed list of representative 
child restraints, although not with the car bed identified in section 
A.
    In the case of air bags with multiple inflation levels, the injury 
criteria performance limits would need to be met for any stage or 
combination of stages which may deploy in the presence of an infant in 
a rear-facing position in one of the listed restraints in a rigid 
barrier crash test at speeds up to 64 km/h (40 mph). Our intent was to 
cover all stages of inflation that could deploy in the presence of an 
infant in such a restraint.
    TRW stated that the requirement that the air bag deploy at the 
highest output is inconsistent with low risk deployment. That company 
stated that this will force manufacturers to employ automatic 
suppression technologies. TRW stated that NHTSA's analysis shows little 
incremental benefit to children from the addition of suppression 
technologies. That company stated that NHTSA's analysis also ignores 
potential for reduction in protection for adult occupants. TRW argued 
that we should revisit the low risk option.
    TRW also stated that if we do not revisit the low risk option, the 
final rule should be changed to accommodate unresolved technical issues 
with suppression technologies. That company stated that it has tested 
various suppression technologies with respect to their ability to 
classify accurately the proposed range of seating positions and seat 
belt cinching loads on the specified lists of car seats with pure 
weight and/or pattern sensing and found problematic issues with each 
technology.
    DaimlerChrysler stated that it does not see any justification for 
running the threshold compliance test for low risk deployment at 64 km/
h (40 mph). That commenter stated that since other test requirements 
are proposed at a maximum of 48 km/h (30 mph), this test should be run 
at 48 km/h (30 mph) also. DaimlerChrysler also argued that the proposed 
threshold compliance test was impracticable because it specified that 
testing could be conducted with child seats in any of the possible 
positions used for the suppression tests. That company stated that this 
would mean that five crashes would have to be performed for each child 
restraint on the list.
    After considering the comments, we continue to believe that it is 
appropriate to require vehicles that are certified to the low risk 
deployment option for infants to satisfy the injury criteria for all 
stages of inflation that could deploy in the presence of an infant in a 
rear facing restraint. As we discussed in the September 1998 NPRM, a 
child in such a restraint would be extremely close to the passenger air 
bag in any crash, regardless of crash severity. This is not the case 
with persons in any other risk group. Moreover, manufacturers have been 
working on suppression devices for this risk group for the longest 
time, since this was the first risk group that was identified. Since 
suppression is available for this risk group and since there are no 
known benefits from deploying an air bag for this group, it is 
appropriate to expect advanced air bags to essentially eliminate risk 
of serious injury or fatality resulting from air bag deployment to 
infants in RFCSS. There is no reason to permit continued use of systems 
that place infants at significant risk of serious injury or death from 
the air bag in crashes of any severity level.
    We do not believe that any reduction in safety to adults will occur 
from suppressing the passenger air bag for infants in RFCSS. While 
suppression of the passenger air bag for older children may raise the 
issue of a ``gray zone'' that could affect some adults, we do not 
believe that will be relevant to infant suppression technology.
    We originally proposed to require low risk deployment for all 
stages of the air bag that may deploy in a crash. The modified proposal 
to which DaimlerChrysler objects was an effort to accommodate systems 
which might be designed to always provide a lower level of deployment 
in the presence of a rear facing restraint, regardless of crash 
severity.
    We disagree with the argument that the proposed test procedure is 
impracticable. Because the low risk deployment test is only conducted 
in the presence of a belted child restraint, a manufacturer that 
designed a system that always provided a lower level of deployment in 
the presence of a rear facing restraint could determine what

[[Page 30713]]

level would deploy in a barrier crash test by means other than 
conducting barrier tests, e.g., by testing the sensor system that 
determined whether such a restraint was present.
    We note that we specified a barrier crash test at a speed up to 64 
km/h (40 mph) because some manufacturers may adopt a threshold higher 
than 48 km/h (30 mph) for deploying the highest level of inflation for 
the belted condition. Since these restraints are ordinarily belted, a 
speed higher than 48 km/h (30 mph) is needed to ensure that we cover 
all stages of inflation that could deploy in the presence of an infant 
in such a restraint.

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, weight and strength also makes 
them more vulnerable to injury when interacting with a deploying air 
bag. We strongly recommend that children through age 12 ride in the 
back seat, because the back seat is safer, whether or not a vehicle has 
air bags.
    In the SNPRM, 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 three 
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 child dummies.
    The three manufacturer options were: (1) Test requirements for a 
feature that suppresses the air bag when a child is present, e.g., a 
weight or size sensor; (2) 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, and (3) test requirements for 
a feature that suppresses the air bag when an occupant is out of 
position.
1. Option 1: Feature (e.g., Weight or Size Sensor) That Suppresses the 
Air Bag When a Child Is Present
    Our proposed requirements for an air bag suppression feature (e.g., 
weight or size sensor) that suppresses the air bag when a child is 
present were similar to the ones we proposed with respect to a 
suppression feature for infants. We proposed that if this option were 
selected, the air bag would need to be suppressed during several static 
tests using, in the right front passenger seat, a 3-year-old or 6-year-
old child dummy. The child dummy would be placed in several specified 
positions during the static tests. Manufacturers would be required to 
assure compliance using every child restraint appropriate for a given 
dummy size included in the proposed list of representative child 
restraints. The air bag system would be required to be activated during 
specified tests using a 5th percentile adult female dummy.
    We proposed to allow manufacturers to comply with and certify to 
these suppression requirements using children, instead of 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 system is activated 
for adults.
    We proposed to permit manufacturers to use human beings to check 
suppression features 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 selected this 
option, the suppression 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 the air bag 
system could not be suppressed for any human being within a specified 
weight/height range for 5th percentile adult females.
    In the SNPRM, we emphasized 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 
suppressed or not; these tests do not involve deploying the air bag or 
moving the vehicle. To ensure absolute safety, we proposed to require 
manufacturers selecting this option provide a method to assure that the 
air bag would not deploy during testing; such assurance could 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 
as if the air bag had not been deactivated or removed.
    By and large, the comments in response to this proposed requirement 
mirrored those already discussed under static suppression features for 
infants; i.e., there are too many child restraints, too many angles and 
too many seat track positions. Additional concerns were voiced about 
the requirement that child restraints be cinched at a force up to 134 N 
(30 pounds). Additionally, TRW stated that the task of discriminating 
between a child weighing up to 66 pounds and a 110-pound adult, while 
seemingly trivial, becomes more difficult when one takes into account 
the addition of child seats and seat belt cinching loads.
    For the reasons set forth in the prior discussion of the 
suppression tests for infants, we have decided to conduct tests with 
the vehicle seat in the full-rear, mid-track and full-forward 
positions. If the dummy, the child restraint, or the child's legs 
interfere with the instrument panel or other portion of the vehicle 
interior in the full-forward position, the vehicle seat will be moved 
back to the next detent that allows for clearance, or, in the case of 
automatic seats, until a maximum of 5mm (0.2 in) of clearance is 
achieved.
    Likewise, the seat back angle will be the manufacturer's nominal 
design position for the 50th percentile male for all tests, including 
the test with the 5th percentile adult female, except the tests where 
the child is sitting on the seat and leaning against the seat back 
(S22.2.2.2 and S24.2.1). A fuller discussion of seat back angle is 
provided later in this document.
    One test position for the 3-year-old child that we have modified is 
the position where the child is lying on the seat. While conducting 
tests at VRTC, we discovered that this position was problematic in 
vehicles with no middle seating position. The 3-year-old test dummy 
cannot assume a full fetal position in these vehicles. Accordingly, in 
our tests the dummy's legs and feet were not in contact with the 
passenger seat. We do not believe that the position needs to be 
included in the test matrix for a vehicle without a middle seating 
position because a child would not lie in this position for any length 
of time. However, in vehicles with a bench seat or with convertible 
bench seats, where the console can be converted into a middle seat, 
this position is a likely real world position. Accordingly, we have 
specified tests for this position only in vehicles with three 
designated seating positions in the front seat.
    We have also dropped the static suppression tests with the 3-year-
old and 6-year-old child dummies in the positions specified for the low 
risk deployment tests. Like the infant test where the child seat was 
flipped on to the instrument panel, we believe that these positions do 
not test a condition for which static suppression systems are designed; 
they are more appropriate as part of a dynamic suppression system that 
follows the trajectory of an occupant during a crash. Additionally,

[[Page 30714]]

we believe that any system that suppresses when the dummy is sitting on 
the edge of the seat with its spine vertical, a condition that is still 
required for both the 3-year-old and the 6-year-old, will respond no 
differently from when the dummy is placed in either of the low risk 
deployment options. Thus, even if the dropped tests did represent a 
position for which static suppression systems are designed, they would 
likely be redundant.
    Numerous comments were received regarding the cinching procedures 
for safety belts on child restraints. We have decided to keep the up-
to-134 N (30 lb) requirement. Belt systems that cannot be cinched up to 
this level of force will be cinched at as high a level as possible. In 
our testing at VRTC, we found that a 134 N (30 lb) tension can be 
easily achieved. While we continue to caution adults to place their 
children in the back seat whenever possible, a parent or caregiver who 
places a child in the front seat should be able to do so as safely as 
possible without shutting off any available suppression technology. We 
regularly encourage people to have their child restraints installed by 
individuals who have been trained to install these restraints properly. 
We also encourage parents to secure a child seat in a manner that 
eliminates slack between the restraint and the vehicle seat. We believe 
that it is appropriate to use a cinching level that can be achieved by 
an individual who knows how to properly install child restraints. 
However, we do agree with the commenters that the up-to-134 N (30 lb) 
tension range is inappropriate for belt-positioning booster seats, 
since a child could not sustain that amount of belt tension, even if it 
were possible to achieve with a test dummy. We are specifying that 
these restraints be installed, and that belts be used, in accordance 
with the restraint manufacturer's instructions.
    Since the 6-year-old child dummy is not tested in child restraints 
other than booster seats, we believe that the majority of the 
manufacturers' concerns about the suppression-activation ``gray zone'' 
are largely resolved. The 6-year-old child dummy weighs only 23.4 kg 
(51.6 lb). Likewise, the weight range for the six-year-old child who 
can be used for compliance testing has an upper parameter of 25.6 kg 
(56.5 lb). Because of constraints in Standard No. 213, booster seats 
generally do not weigh more than 4.5 kg (9.9 lb). Accordingly, the 
combined weight of the child or dummy and the booster seat should still 
be significantly below the weight at which suppression systems will 
assure that air bags are activated to protect adult occupants. As 
discussed earlier, vehicles with child restraint anchors will need to 
be tested both with and without any available child restraint anchor 
attachments secured to the passenger seat.
2. Option 2: Low-Risk Deployment for Young Children
    We proposed to require that, if the low risk deployment option were 
selected, a vehicle would be required to meet specified injury criteria 
performance limits when the passenger air bag is deployed in the 
presence of out-of-position 3-year-old and 6-year-old child dummies. We 
proposed that the test be conducted at two positions which tend to be 
``worst case'' positions in terms of injury risk. In one of these 
positions, the dummy's chest is on the instrument panel; in the other, 
the dummy's head is on the instrument panel. We proposed 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. Under our proposal, 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; i.e., the levels that would be deployed in crashes of 29 km/h 
(18 mph) or below.
    As discussed earlier in this document, some commenters, including 
AAM and Toyota, argued that the combination of testing for low risk 
deployment for inflation levels that would be deployed in crashes of 29 
km/h (18 mph) or below and testing to ensure protection in unbelted 
rigid barrier tests beginning at that same speed would limit design 
flexibility and discourage manufacturers from selecting the low risk 
deployment option. The reason for this is that the manufacturers claim 
it is difficult to design dual stage air bags that could both meet the 
low risk deployment requirements and the barrier crash test injury 
criteria, particularly given the gray zone in which either a low level 
or high level deployment may occur.
    On a separate but related issue, AAM recommended that the crash 
test to determine the air bag deployment level to be used for the low 
risk deployment test be conducted with a belted dummy matching the size 
for which the low risk option is certified. AAM stated that this would 
allow manufacturers to utilize an occupant detection system to govern 
the deployment that would be used for the low risk deployment test.
    TRW stated that the proposed injury criteria performance limits 
will make it very difficult to employ the low risk deployment option 
except in vehicles with unique geometry. That commenter stated that 
this would force the automobile manufacturers to employ suppression 
technologies.
    After considering the comments, we are adopting the proposed low 
risk deployment tests using 3-year-old and 6-year-old child dummies, 
with two modifications. First, the positioning procedures for one of 
the out-of-position tests has been significantly simplified. A fuller 
discussion of the reason for this change is provided later in the 
document. Secondly, in order to avoid inadvertently discouraging the 
development of low risk deployment technologies, the injury criteria 
will need to be met, in the case of air bags with multiple inflation 
levels, for the levels that would be deployed in crashes of 26 km/h (16 
mph) or below, as well as the relative timing of the multiple 
inflations, instead of crashes of 29 km/h (18 mph) or below. However, 
if the air bag did not deploy at all in crashes of 26 km/h (16 mph) or 
below, the injury criteria will need to be met using the lowest level 
of inflation.
    We believe that this change, coupled with the one discussed earlier 
in this document to increase the lower end of the range of speeds for 
which the unbelted rigid barrier test is conducted from 29 km/h (18 
mph) to 32 km/h (20 mph), will facilitate use of the low risk 
deployment option. As discussed earlier in this document, low risk 
deployment offers potential benefits over suppression, especially for 
children older than six years, and we wish to facilitate that option to 
the extent consistent with safety need. We also note that if 
manufacturers certify compliance for all levels of inflation that occur 
in crashes of 26 km/h (16 mph) or below, the same low risk levels of 
inflation are likely to occur in crashes slightly above that speed.
    We are not adopting AAM's recommendation to specify that the crash 
test to determine the air bag deployment level to be used for the low 
risk deployment test be conducted with a belted dummy matching the size 
for which the low risk option is certified. The final rule specifies 
that this crash test be conducted with an unbelted 50th percentile 
adult male dummy in the mid-track seat position. An out of position 
occupant, by definition, would always be unbelted. Determining the 
level of inflation with belted occupants would allow manufacturers to 
place technology in a vehicle that would meet the low risk deployment 
test requirements, but would not adequately protect for the condition 
that is experienced in the real world.

[[Page 30715]]

Additionally, while we are only testing the low risk deployment 
technology on the passenger side with three-year-old and six-year-old 
child dummies, a benign deployment in low speed crashes could provide 
ancillary benefits to larger occupants. We are concerned that using the 
child dummies to determine which stage or combination of stages of the 
air bag to deploy could unnecessarily limit the benefits of low risk 
deployment air bags.
    As to TRW's concern that the injury criteria performance limits 
make it difficult to comply with the low risk deployment option, we 
wish to ensure that low risk deployment air bags truly are low risk. 
Thus, the injury criteria limits must be set at a stringent level.
3. Option 3: Feature that Suppresses the Air Bag When a Child Is Out-
of-Position
    As discussed in previous notices, 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 accordingly developed 
separate requirements for such dynamic suppression devices.
    The development of requirements for dynamic suppression devices 
posed special problems, however. 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 
different technologies are currently being considered. Each of these 
technologies has particular attributes which affect the appropriateness 
of the means used to evaluate its performance. Given these factors, we 
were unable to develop a complete set of performance requirements and 
test procedures that would be appropriate for the range of potential 
DASS designs.
    Accordingly, we proposed to establish very general performance 
requirements for DASS and a special expedited petitioning and 
rulemaking process for considering procedures for testing advanced air 
bag systems incorporating a DASS. Target time limits for each phase of 
such a rulemaking were proposed. Anyone wishing to utilize 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 our consideration. 
If we deemed it appropriate to do so after evaluating the petition, we 
would publish a notice proposing to adopt the test procedure. After 
considering those comments, we would then decide whether the procedure 
should be added to Standard No. 208. If we decided to do so, and if the 
procedure were suitable for the DASS of any other vehicles, then the 
procedure could be used by the manufacturers of those vehicles as well 
as by the petitioner. We noted that we intended 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.
    Comments regarding DASS indicated general support for our proposal. 
Commenters addressing issues related to the DASS proposal included two 
manufacturers, DaimlerChrysler and GM, five suppliers, ASCI, Autoliv, 
Breed Technologies (Breed), Delphi and TRW, two trade groups, AORC and 
AAM, a public interest group, the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness 
(CRE) and one private individual (JCW). With one exception, JCW, all 
commenters agreed that the DASS requirements and test procedure 
proposed in the NPRM were unworkable and must be abandoned. Two 
commenters, Breed and ASCI, propounded the use of a sled test and 
disagreed with our judgment that development of a practical test 
procedure for evaluating DASS-equipped vehicles is not presently 
feasible.
    Several commenters voiced strong reservations regarding the DASS 
proposal we put forth in the SNPRM. JCW objected to the elimination of 
the DASS out-of-position requirements. JCW argued that without some 
form of suppression to protect people who are in the immediate vicinity 
of an air bag because of pre-crash braking, the safety potential of 
advanced air bags will be lost. Breed and ASCI stated that sled tests 
which accurately reproduce the movements of unrestrained occupants in 
pre-crash braking are currently available and should be used as a 
compliance test for DASS systems.
    One matter mentioned by a number of commenters concerned the 
confidentiality of information provided by petitioners seeking adoption 
and approval of a DASS compliance test procedure. AORC and AAM urged us 
to consider that manufacturers would be deterred from investing in DASS 
systems if the specifics of their proprietary technologies were 
published and made available to the public and to competitors. AAM 
suggested that this issue might be addressed by not requiring that the 
identity of the petitioner and the particular automobiles where a DASS 
system is to be installed be revealed to the public during the course 
of the petition and review process. Delphi and Autoliv contended that 
the proposed DASS petition procedures required the submission of too 
much proprietary information. In particular, Autoliv objected to the 
proposed requirements that petitioners must furnish a complete 
description and explanation of a DASS system and a complete description 
of the logic used by that system. CRE suggested that the only materials 
that need to be made public during the petition process are those that 
would allow for comment on the proposed test procedure and not on the 
specifics of the DASS system at issue. The organization strongly 
recommended that our final rule emphasize that the ``proposed rule'' 
that is being offered for public comment would consist only of a 
proposed test procedure that would not include the details of the 
technology used or the data submitted in support of the proposed test 
procedure.
    In addition to concerns about confidentiality, a number of 
commenters offered remarks about the expedited rulemaking procedure we 
proposed for DASS systems. Several commenters requested that the 
expedited procedures proposed for DASS systems be expanded to include 
all advanced air bag technologies. Autoliv, DaimlerChrysler, Breed, 
AORC and Delphi also suggested that the expedited rulemaking procedure 
be expanded to allow the use of new technologies in areas other than 
dynamic suppression systems. In regard to the timing of the proposed 
procedure, AAM suggested that we adopt a procedural timetable similar 
to that already used for evaluating the adequacy of anti-theft devices 
under 49 CFR Part 543. AORC and CRE urged us to expedite the regulatory 
approval process to the maximum extent possible. CRE also suggested 
that notice and comment could be eliminated altogether. If, CRE 
contends, initial DASS rulemakings do not stimulate any substantive 
comments by the public, we

[[Page 30716]]

would then be in a position to dispense with traditional notice and 
comment as the procedure would be superfluous.
    One commenter, GM, voiced substantial concerns about the effect 
that initial DASS rulemakings would have on subsequent petitions. In 
GM's view, the first successful DASS petitioner will define a large 
number of important conditions for DASS testing and test procedures. GM 
believes that there will be a very strong incentive for others in the 
industry to conform to the existing test procedure rather than develop 
a new or different technology, particularly because subsequent 
petitioners will face additional burdens in demonstrating that an 
existing DASS test cannot be used. GM urged us to use the traditional 
rulemaking process for the initial DASS petitions and provide adequate 
time for comment on any DASS proposal.
    After review of the comments received in response to the SNPRM, we 
are adopting the proposal with few modifications. We have not been 
presented with, and are not aware of, any information indicating that 
any feasible test procedure now exists for a DASS system. We are also 
declining to expand the scope of the expedited petition process to 
other areas of Standard No. 208. Unlike other air bag technologies, 
DASS technology is still in the early stages of development. Other 
technologies are more mature, and developments within these areas may 
be adequately addressed through traditional rulemaking procedures.
    The final rule makes several modifications to address 
confidentiality concerns. As the identity of the supplier or 
manufacturer would not be relevant to the evaluation of a test 
procedure and performance standard, we have modified section 552.13(e) 
to clarify that if a petitioner desires to have its identifying 
information withheld from public disclosure, it may request that the 
agency do so pursuant to 49 CFR Part 512. We have determined that the 
requirements outlined in section 552.14(b)(1) could be construed as 
demanding that all details of any algorithms and/or system logic be 
provided to the agency. Accordingly, the final rule provides that the 
description of the system logic may be limited to a flow chart or 
similar materials outlining the function of the system. We also wish to 
emphasize that pursuant to Part 512, petitioners may submit both 
confidential and non-confidential versions of their petitions and 
accompanying materials. These materials may include test films, 
printouts and similar data.
    The final rule also makes slight modifications to the procedural 
timetable for the petition process. In order to alleviate the concerns 
raised by the precedential effect of the initial DASS petition, we have 
specified an extended comment period for such a petition. Section 
552.15(c) of the final rule provides that we expect to employ a 30-day 
comment period in a DASS test procedure rulemaking. However, in the 
case of an initial petition or a petition raising particularly novel 
issues, we may provide 60 days for comments. Offering an extended 
comment period will provide interested parties with additional time to 
evaluate the proposed test procedure and its implications, particularly 
in regard to suitability for other DASS concepts or designs under 
development.
    We disagree with the argument that without some form of suppression 
to protect people who are in the immediate vicinity of an air bag 
because of pre-crash braking, the safety potential of advanced air bags 
will be lost. DASS systems represent one approach to minimizing air bag 
risks. As discussed elsewhere in this document, other approaches 
include deploying the air bag in a manner that does not cause harm and 
other types of suppression systems; e.g., suppressing the air bag when 
children are present.

C. Safety of Teenage and Adult Drivers

    Out-of-position drivers are at risk from air bags if they are 
extremely close to the air bag at the time of deployment. While any 
driver could potentially become out of position, small-statured drivers 
are more likely to be positioned on top of the air bag because they 
generally sit closer to the steering wheel than larger drivers.
    In the SNPRM, 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 two alternative test requirements, 
the selection of which would be at the option of the manufacturer.
    The manufacturer options proposed in the SNPRM 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 would not be 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.
    The two manufacturer options proposed in the SNPRM were: (1) 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 (2) test requirements for a feature that suppresses the 
driver air bag when the driver is out of position.
1. Option 1: Low-Risk Deployment for Drivers
    We proposed to require that, if the low risk deployment option were 
selected, a vehicle would be required to meet specified injury criteria 
performance limits when the driver air bag is deployed in the presence 
of an out-of-position 5th percentile adult female dummy. We proposed 
that the test be conducted at two positions which tend to be ``worst 
case'' positions in terms of injury risk. In one of these positions, 
the dummy's chin is on the air bag module; in the other, the dummy's 
chin is on the upper rim of the steering wheel. We proposed detailed 
positioning procedures for these two tests, since injury measures may 
vary considerably with position.
    Under our proposal, 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; i.e., the levels that 
would be deployed in crashes of 29 km/h (18 mph) or below. A driver 
would most likely be extremely close to the air bag in lower severity 
crashes, following pre-crash braking.
    The comments on the low risk deployment requirements for small 
drivers were similar to those on the requirements for young children. 
Our response is also similar.
    We are adopting the proposed low risk deployment tests using the 
5th percentile adult female dummy, with the same modifications we made 
for the tests using child dummies; i.e., simplified positioning 
procedures will be used, and injury criteria will need to be met, in 
the case of air bags with multiple inflation levels, for the levels and 
timing that will be deployed in crashes of 26 km/h (16 mph) or below, 
instead of crashes of 29 km/h (18 mph) or below, using unbelted 5th 
percentile adult female dummies. However, if the air bag did not deploy 
at all in crashes of 26 km/h (16 mph) or below, the injury criteria 
will need to be met at the lowest level of inflation. This modification 
will help facilitate low risk designs. Likewise, we are requiring the 
use of an unbelted 50th percentile adult male dummy seated in the mid-
track seat position in the crash test used to determine which stage or 
combination of stages to fire for the low risk deployment tests. Our 
rationale for this requirement is the same as for the

[[Page 30717]]

passenger side: larger occupants should not be deprived of ancillary 
benefits from more benign air bags in low speed crashes.
2. Option 2: Feature that Suppresses the Air Bag When a Driver Is Out-
Of-Position
    The testing of DASS devices for the driver air bag raises the same 
issues as testing ones for passenger air bags. In the SNPRM, we 
proposed the same type of requirements for both systems.
    The comments on the SNPRM were essentially the same for both types 
of DASS devices. The issues raised by the commenters are fully 
discussed under our discussion of DASS devices for passenger air bags, 
presented earlier in this document.

IX. Injury Criteria

    In the SNPRM, 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. The title of the paper was: 
``Development of Improved Injury Criteria for the Assessment of 
Advanced Automotive Restraints Systems--II.''
    Standard No. 208 currently specifies five performance requirements 
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) 
Head Injury Criterion (HIC) 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) 
forces transmitted axially through the upper legs must not exceed 10 
kilonewtons (kN) (2,250 lb).
    In the SNPRM, we generally proposed to apply these or similar 
injury criteria, and a new one addressing neck injury, to all of the 
dummies and tests, other than static suppression tests, covered by the 
proposal. However, the criteria and performance limits would be 
adjusted to maintain consistency with respect to the injury risks faced 
by different size occupants.
    A general discussion of the proposed injury criteria and 
performance limits, and the comments, is provided below. A more 
detailed discussion is provided in a supplemental technical paper 
titled ``Supplement: Development of Improved Injury Criteria for the 
Assessment of Advanced Automotive Restraint Systems--II'' which is 
being placed in the public docket.

A. Head Injury Criteria

    In the SNPRM, to address the risk of head injury, we proposed 
limits for the head injury criterion (HIC) for the 50th percentile 
adult male, 5th percentile adult female, 6-year-old child, 3-year-old 
child and 12-month-old infant dummies.
    The proposed HIC differed from that currently included in Standard 
No. 208 in that it would be evaluated over a 15 msec duration instead 
of 36 msec. This change was based on a recommendation by AAMA. That 
organization had 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. This proposed value is consistent with 
Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208.
    We noted in the SNPRM that the stringency of HIC 15/700 and HIC 36/
1000 appears to be equivalent for long duration pulses. This is because 
while HIC 15 produces a lower numerical value for long duration events, 
its lower failure threshold, 700, compensates for this reduction. We 
also noted that for pulse durations shorter than approximately 25 
milliseconds, the HIC 15/700 requirement is more stringent than the HIC 
36/1000 requirement. We stated that we believed 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.
    In the SNPRM we accordingly proposed to employ a 15 millisecond 
time interval whenever calculating the HIC function and to limit the 
maximum response of the adult male to 700 and limit the response of the 
smaller dummies to suitably scaled maximums.
    Commenters generally supported our proposal concerning HIC 15. 
However, AAM recommended that we adopt somewhat higher limits than we 
proposed for the 5th percentile adult female dummy (779 rather than 
700) and the 6-year-old child dummy (723 rather than 700). That 
organization argued that we were not consistent in applying scaling 
relationships from the 50th percentile adult male dummy to the other 
dummies.
    After considering the comments, we have decided to adopt the limits 
we proposed. We note that the data from which the HIC relationship was 
developed represented an elderly adult population.\24\ There is no 
basis to assume that the population had the dimensions of 50th 
percentile adult males. We believe it is reasonable to apply the same 
700 HIC limit to all persons who may be represented by the original 
data set, including 5th percentile adult females and 50th percentile 
adult males.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Hodgson, V.R., Thomas, L.M., ``Comparison of Head 
Acceleration Injury Indices in Cadaver Skull Fracture,'' SAE Paper 
No. 710854, Proceedings of the Fifteenth Stapp Car Crash Conference, 
1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to child dummies, in the absence of biomechanics data on the 
skull fracture and brain injury tolerances for children, we began by 
utilizing a scaling process to account for differences in both 
geometric size and material strength. However, after applying the 
scaling process, judgment must be used to determine if the scaled 
values are reasonable.
    For the 6-year-old child dummy, geometric and material scaling led 
to a limit of 723, which is higher than the 700 limit for adult 
dummies. However, in the absence of biomechanical data that 
substantiate a higher head injury tolerance for young children than for 
adults, we believe it is prudent and reasonable to limit the HIC value 
to 700 for the 6-year-old dummy.

B. Neck Injury Criteria

    In the SNPRM, to address the risk of neck injury, we proposed 
limits for the Nij neck injury criterion for the 50th percentile adult 
male, 5th percentile adult female, 6-year-old child, 3-year-old child 
and 12-month-old infant dummies. Nij is a new injury formula that 
accounts for the combination of flexion, extension, tension, and 
compression.
    The sled test option in Standard No. 208 currently addresses the 
risk of neck injury by means of separate limits on these four 
measurements as well as shear. We proposed Nij as an improvement over 
separate limits because it accounts for the superposition of loads and 
moments, and the additive effects on injury risk.
    The most significant comment on this issue came from AAM, which 
endorsed the Nij concept but recommended the inclusion of additional, 
more stringent tension/compression limits to independently control 
these potentially injurious loading modes. AAM also recommended 
further, minor adjustments to the proposed critical limits depending on 
whether they are being utilized for in-or out-of-position situations. 
AAM, IIHS, and NTSB stated that they were concerned that the peak 
tension and peak compression allowed by the Nij criteria when the 
moment value is zero are too great.

[[Page 30718]]

    We believe that there is merit in incorporating AAM's recommended 
additional tension/compression limits and adjustments to our original 
Nij proposals because they either mimic our originally proposed 
requirements very closely or add additional requirements that more 
stringently control potentially injurious loading modes. In addition, 
we accept an argument made by AAM that tensed neck muscles mitigate the 
effects of measured neck loads and will adopt that organization's 
recommendation for slightly higher neck limits for in-position testing 
for the adult dummies. However, because one would not expect muscle 
tensing in a situation simulated by the 5th percentile female out-of-
position low risk deployment tests, we are requiring manufacturers to 
meet more stringent criteria for Nij in those tests.
    DaimlerChrysler argued that tension should be the only neck injury 
criterion with the current Hybrid III dummy neck because it believes 
the neck may be inadequate for accurately assessing the potential for 
flexion/extension neck injury due to air bag loading. Toyota also 
recommended delaying the use of any neck injury criteria that contains 
extension. As discussed later in this document, we believe the current 
Hybrid III neck is adequate for the purposes of this rulemaking. 
Moreover, we are adopting Nij as the best available neck injury 
criterion.

C. Thoracic Criteria

    In the SNPRM, to address the risk of thoracic injury, we proposed 
individual limits on chest acceleration and chest deflection. This is 
the same approach as is currently used in Standard No. 208. However, we 
proposed to reduce the current deflection limit for the 50th percentile 
male dummy from 76 mm to 63 mm (from 3 in to 2.5 in).
    To obtain equivalent performance limits for the other size dummies, 
the mid-size male dummy limits were scaled, taking into account both 
geometric and material differences. We also considered other factors. 
We did not propose a chest deflection limit for the 12-month-old CRABI 
dummy because that dummy does not measure chest deflection.
    AAM supported individual limits on chest acceleration and chest 
deflection but argued that the chest acceleration limit for the 5th 
percentile adult female dummy should be 73 g's rather than the 60 g's 
proposed in the SNPRM. This was reiterated by some other commenters as 
well.
    AAM also requested slight adjustments in deflection limits for the 
3-year old and 5th percentile adult female dummies. In addition, AAM 
recommended the use of an additional criterion, rate of sternal 
deflection, to assess the risk of serious thoracic organ injuries in 
out-of-position tests. Toyota recommended using the rate of sternal 
deflection in place of chest acceleration for assessing thoracic injury 
risk. DaimlerChrysler presented a method using Kalman filters which it 
argued would result in a more reliable rate of deflection measures 
using chest deflection and acceleration measurements.
    After considering the comments, we are adopting the proposed 60 g's 
chest acceleration limit for the 5th percentile adult female dummy. 
AAM's recommended chest acceleration limit of 73 g's for this dummy was 
obtained using scaling procedures that only considered the effects of 
the geometric differences between 50th percentile adult males and 5th 
percentile adult females. However, we believe the additional effect of 
decrease in bone strength for the more elderly female population at 
risk in out-of-position situations should also be taken into account.
    The differences between our proposed deflection limits and those 
recommended by AAM are negligible. AAM recommended a chest deflection 
limit of 64 mm for the 50th percentile adult male dummy. In order to 
harmonize with the chest deflection limits used by Transport Canada, we 
proposed a 63 mm for chest deflection limit for the 50th percentile 
male. While we used the same scaling factors as the industry, this 
difference in the limit for the 50th percentile adult dummy accounts 
for the small differences (2mm) between the industry's recommendations 
and our proposals for some of the other dummies. Because these 
differences are negligible and because the proposed limit for the 50th 
percentile adult male dummy is consistent with international 
harmonization, we are adopting the limits proposed in the SNPRM.
    As to AAM's recommendation to use the rate of sternal deflection to 
assess the risk of serious thoracic organ injuries in out-of-position 
tests, we believe further analysis and research would be needed before 
such a new injury criterion could be added to Standard No. 208. We note 
that vehicle manufacturers are free to voluntarily consider rate of 
sternal deflection as they design their vehicles.

D. Other Criteria

    In the SNPRM, we proposed to apply a dummy containment requirement 
to all of the dummies except the 12-month-old infant dummy, and limits 
on upper leg forces to the 50th percentile adult male and 5th 
percentile adult female dummies. We believed the dummy containment 
requirement would not be relevant to the proposed low risk deployment 
test using the 12-month-old infant dummy, and that limits on upper leg 
forces would not be relevant to the proposed low risk deployment tests 
using the 12-month-old infant and 3- and 6-year-old child dummies.
    More specifically, with respect to limits on upper leg forces, we 
proposed to limit the axial loads in the femur for the adult dummies 
(10 kN for the 50th percentile male and 6.8 kN for the 5th percentile 
female). AAM and DaimlerChrysler stated that they support slightly more 
stringent femur limits of 9.1 kN for the 50th percentile male and 6.2 
kN for the 5th percentile female.
    After considering the comments, we are adopting the axial femur 
limits for the adult dummies as proposed. The current limit of 10 kN 
specified for the 50th percentile male has been used in Standard No. 
208 for many years. AAM has not presented information demonstrating 
that this value does not adequately ensure protection. Furthermore, AAM 
has not provided data or an explanation of the method it used to arrive 
at its recommended femur force limit for the 50th percentile male.
    The differences between the limits proposed in the SNPRM and those 
recommended by AAM are small, and adopting the slightly lower value 
recommended by AAM will have no effect on the overall safety benefits. 
We also believe that the slightly higher axial force limits we are 
adopting today may provide design flexibility for manufacturers to 
optimize head, neck and chest protection for the 50th percentile male 
and the 5th percentile female. Of course, vehicle manufacturers are 
free to voluntarily meet more stringent limits than those included in 
Standard No. 208.

X. Lead Time and 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 not 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

[[Page 30719]]

below, other amendments may be phased in later.

A. Large Manufacturers

    In the SNPRM, we proposed the following phase-in schedule, which 
would apply to all large manufacturers; i.e., those producing more than 
5,000 vehicles per year worldwide:
    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 noted that 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. We stated that this proposed date reflected 
the seriousness of the safety problem being addressed and the statutory 
requirement that the final rule become effective as rapidly as 
possible.
    We also requested comments on phase-in schedules and percentages 
other than the proposed 25%-40%-70%-100% schedule. We cited the example 
of a 40%-70%-100% schedule beginning one year later than the proposed 
schedule, but ending at the same time. This alternative was like the 
primary proposal, except that the first year of the proposed phase-in 
would be eliminated. We noted that 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. We also 
noted that 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 noted that while we had limited discretion in deciding when to 
make the final rule effective, we also have some discretion to make 
temporary adjustments in requirements 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. We noted that 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.
    AAM, GM, DaimlerChrysler and Honda all supported a phase-in that 
would not begin until September 1, 2003 and that was not fully 
effective until September 1, 2006. The primary arguments offered for 
delaying the phase-in were the pending new test dummy regulations and 
the remaining uncertainty of the advanced air bag technologies. Honda 
also asserted that the barrier tests using the 5th percentile adult 
female test dummy should be delayed until after final dummy 
specifications and revised seating procedures are issued, perhaps until 
September 1, 2005.
    CEI/CA argued that NHTSA's existing air bag experience should lead 
it to reject any mandate requiring technology and designs that are 
still under development. At a minimum, according to CEI/CA, the agency 
should establish requirements will not take effect until real-world 
data on such systems exists and has been analyzed. To the extent that 
it is statutorily constrained on this matter, it should set lead times 
at the absolute statutory maximum. These concerns are addressed in the 
section of this document dealing with unintended consequences.
    Public Citizen, CU, and CAS stated that manufacturers should not be 
given undue latitude in meeting the advanced air bag requirements. 
These groups said that the manufacturers had repeatedly stated during 
the drafting of TEA 21 that they would need not more than 30 months in 
which to implement the new designs. The groups also noted that some 
manufacturers are already introducing some types of advanced air bag 
technologies. Public Citizen argued that the agency should give greater 
weight to the command in TEA 21 that the final rule shall take effect 
as rapidly as possible, the history of manufacturers' assertions of the 
``impossibility'' of complying with new regulatory requirements, the 
test results of MY1999 vehicles, and the absence of data from 
manufacturers to substantiate their claim that the technology is not 
yet available.
    The NTSB expressed disappointment that it would be MY 2006 before 
all new vehicles would be equipped with advanced air bag systems. It 
suggested that NHTSA encourage manufacturers to install advanced air 
bags prior to the established phase-in schedule, perhaps through an 
incentive program.
    We have decided to implement a two-stage phase-in for advanced air 
bags. In the first phase-in, all portions of the final rule will be 
implemented, except the 56 km/h (35 mph) belted rigid barrier test. The 
first phase-in will be implemented as follows:
     35 percent of each manufacturer's light vehicles 
manufactured during the production year beginning on September 1, 2003 
with an allowance of advance credits for vehicles built after the 
effective date of the final rule;
     65 percent of each manufacturer's light vehicles 
manufactured during the production year beginning on September 1, 2004 
with an allowance of carryover credits from prior years;
     100 percent of each manufacturer's light vehicles 
manufactured during the production year beginning on September 1, 2005 
with an allowance of carryover credits from prior years; and,
     All light vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 
2006.
    In the second phase-in, the belted rigid barrier test at 56 km/h 
(35 mph) using the 50th percentile adult male dummy will be 
implemented. It will be phased in as follows:
     35 percent of each manufacturer's light vehicles 
manufactured during the production year beginning on September 1, 2007 
with an allowance of advance credits for vehicles built after September 
1, 2006;
     65 percent of each manufacturer's light vehicles 
manufactured during the production year beginning on September 1, 2008 
with an allowance of carryover credits from prior years in the second 
phase-in;
     100 percent of each manufacturer's light vehicles 
manufactured during the production year beginning on September 1, 2009 
with an allowance of carryover credits from prior years in the second 
phase-in; and,
     All light vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 
2010.
    We have decided to delay the start of the first phase-in until 
September 1, 2003 because of the number of new measures that 
manufacturers will have to take in order to certify a vehicle as 
complying with the advanced air bag requirements (i.e., meet new injury 
criteria, meet various test requirements with four new dummies, and 
meet the suppression and low risk deployment tests associated with air 
bag risk reduction). We note that the manufacturers' concerns over the 
pending dummy rulemakings and the seating procedure for the 5th 
percentile adult female dummy have been largely resolved by now. As an 
initial matter, all applicable dummies have now been incorporated into 
49 CFR Part 572, although petitions for reconsideration are currently 
pending.\25\ Additionally, the seating procedure for the 5th

[[Page 30720]]

percentile adult female is established in today's rule. We are 
confident that large vehicle manufacturers can meet the phase-in. As 
required by TEA 21, we are including provisions under which 
manufacturers to earn credits towards meeting the applicable phase-in 
percentages if they meet the new requirements ahead of schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Likewise, the final rule incorporating the offset 
deformable barrier into 49 CFR Part 587 was issued in March, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Limited Line, Small, Multi-Stage Manufacturers and Alterers

1. Limited Line Manufacturers
    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. Accordingly, we proposed to permit manufacturers that 
sell two or fewer carlines in the United States the option of omitting 
the first year of the phase-in if they achieved full compliance for the 
second year of the phase-in. We proposed to limit this alternative to 
manufacturers that produce two or fewer carlines in light of the 
statutory requirement concerning when the phase-in is to begin. We 
explained that absent such a limitation, it would technically be 
possible for the industry as a whole to delay introducing any advanced 
air bags for a year.
    Porsche supported permitting manufacturers that produce two or 
fewer carlines the option of omitting the first year of the phase-in if 
they achieve full compliance during the second. In addition, Porsche 
recommended specifying that the alternative phase-in for limited line 
manufacturers is available to manufacturers who meet the ``two carline 
or fewer'' criteria at any time between publication of the final rule 
and the start of the phase-in. Porsche argued that such a specification 
would resolve any possible confusion over whether the provision applies 
to manufacturers who, during the phase-in, evolve from a two carline 
manufacturer into a three or more carline manufacturer.
    We have decided to permit manufacturers that sell two or fewer 
carlines in the United States at the beginning of the first year of 
each phase-in (September 1, 2003 and September 1, 2006) the option of 
omitting the first year of each phase-in if they achieve full 
compliance by September 1, 2004, the beginning of the second year of 
the first phase-in and September 1, 2008, the beginning of the second 
year of the subsequent phase-in. This option is available only for 
limited line manufacturers since it would otherwise be possible for the 
industry as a whole to delay introducing any advanced air bags for a 
year.
    We decline to adopt Porsche's suggestion that this option be 
available for manufacturers which meet the ``two carline or fewer'' 
criterion at any time between publication of the final rule and the 
start of the phase-in. As manufacturers produce more lines, the 
rationale for this option diminishes. Therefore, any manufacturer that 
evolves from a two carline manufacturer into a three or more carline 
manufacturer during each phase-in will not qualify for the applicable 
limited line alternative phase-in. We believe that manufacturers will 
know in advance if they plan to evolve from a two carline manufacturer 
into a three or more car line manufacturer well before the phase-in and 
can plan their compliance accordingly.
2. Small Manufacturers
    To accommodate the needs of small volume manufacturers (SVMs), we 
proposed giving those manufacturers the option of waiting until the end 
of the phase-in to meet the new requirements. We explained that we were 
proposing to treat SVMs differently because of the complexity of the 
new requirements and the relatively short lead time before the phase-in 
begins. We explained that even the more streamlined set of requirements 
proposed in the SNPRM would require significant design changes and 
significant new testing. However, since the SVM provision would 
effectively allow SVMs to avoid the phase-in entirely, we also proposed 
to limit this option to manufacturers that produce fewer than 5,000 
vehicles per year worldwide.
    The Coalition of Small Volume Automobile Manufacturers (COSVAM) 
supported permitting SVMs to wait until the end of the phase-in to meet 
the new requirements. COSVAM stated that SVMs 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 SVMs source 
from large manufacturers and may source parts from a model which will 
not comply until the end of the phase-in. COSVAM also asked that the 
definition of small manufacturer for purposes of exclusion from the 
phase-in requirements be changed to include manufacturers that produce 
not more than 10,000 vehicles. COSVAM argued that the definition of 
small volume manufacturer should be based on the agency's overall 
statutory scheme and not on current production volumes.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Under 49 U.S.C. 30113(d) and 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i), 
manufacturers whose total motor vehicle production in the most 
recent year of production is not more than 10,000 may, on the basis 
of economic hardship, apply for a temporary exemption from the 
requirements of any of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We recognize the technical challenges SVMs will face as a result of 
the requirements included in today's rule. In addition, while we 
recognize the importance of providing SVMs with sufficient lead time to 
comply with the new requirements, we note that we do not have unlimited 
discretion as to how much leadtime we can provide. TEA 21 provides that 
if the phase-in begins on September 1, 2003, the final rule must become 
fully effective by September 1, 2006. No exceptions are given for small 
volume manufacturers. We have decided, therefore, to exercise the 
discretion we do have and not require SVMs to comply before the end of 
each phase-in period (September 1, 2006 and September 1, 2010, 
respectively). However, we are continuing to limit this provision to 
manufacturers that produce fewer than 5,000 vehicles per year 
worldwide. We note that COSVAM did not provide any analysis 
demonstrating a need to increase the number beyond 5,000.
3. Multi-Stage Manufacturers and Alterers
    Although we received comments in response to the original NPRM 
requesting that we provide an additional extension for multi-stage 
manufacturers and alterers beyond the end of the phase-in for large 
manufacturers, we did not propose such an extension in the SNPRM. We 
explained that we have limited discretion as to how much lead time we 
can provide, since TEA 21 provides no exceptions for multi-stage 
manufacturers or alterers. TEA 21 provides that if the phase-in begins 
on September 1, 2003, the final rule must become fully effective by 
September 1, 2006.
    We stated in the SNPRM that final stage manufacturers are 
accustomed to completing vehicles within limitations identified by 
chassis manufacturers so that they can certify their vehicles with 
limited or no additional testing. Therefore, we stated that the 
industry should be able to address the issues raised by the advanced 
air bag rulemaking. We also urged chassis manufacturers to communicate 
with their multi-stage manufacturer customers as soon as possible 
concerning any new limitations that

[[Page 30721]]

may be imposed as a result of the advanced air bag requirements. We 
stated that 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.
    The Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) (a trade 
association representing more than 95% of the van conversion industry) 
contended that its members need at least one year of lead time 
following full implementation of the new requirements for the large 
manufacturers. RVIA stated that this additional time is needed so that 
its members can obtain timely information from the chassis 
manufacturers, since guidance from incomplete vehicle manufacturers is 
generally not available until at or very near the startup of new or 
updated model production.
    RVIA supported allowing small volume final stage manufacturers and 
alterers to certify compliance with a generic sled test pulse, arguing 
that if final stage manufacturers install seating systems within the 
guidelines established by the chassis manufacturers, further full scale 
barrier crash testing is no longer necessary and should not be the only 
method available for determining compliance. RVIA stated that the 
potential technical and financial burden of the proposed full scale 
barrier dynamic testing requirements jeopardized the continued 
viability of small volume multi-stage manufacturers.
    The National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) supported the 
proposal to allow manufacturers of multi-stage vehicles to defer 
compliance until the end of the phase-in period. NTEA explained that 
given the level of research and testing likely to be required by the 
final rule, manufacturers of multi-stage vehicles need as much time as 
possible to generate the compliance information needed to certify these 
vehicles.
    We estimate that several hundred intermediate or final-stage 
vehicle manufacturers and alterers will be affected by today's rule. 
Multi-stage manufacturers modify incomplete vehicles (chassis), while 
alterers modify completed new vehicles that have been certified by 
their manufacturer as being in compliance with all applicable safety 
standards. With respect to Standard No. 208, most of the difficulties 
for multi-stage manufacturers and alterers involve changes to the 
vehicles' seats. If the advanced air bag system installed by the 
original vehicle or chassis manufacturer employs the seat as part of 
the system, by using such features as weight or position sensing 
components in the seat, any change to the vehicle's seat could affect 
the manufacturer's original certification. If the original manufacturer 
uses a weight or pressure system in the seat to turn the air bag off in 
appropriate circumstance, these manufacturers face a choice of using 
the original seat as is, relying on a supplier to provide the same 
sensing technology for their seats, or else certifying in some other 
way.
    We recognize that the set of requirements contained in today's rule 
will require significant design changes and significant new testing for 
all cars and light trucks. We also recognize the importance of 
providing all manufacturers, including multi-stage manufacturers and 
alterers, with sufficient lead time to comply with the new 
requirements. We note, however, that we do not have unlimited 
discretion as to how much lead time we can provide. According to TEA 
21, if the phase-in begins on September 1, 2003, the final rule must 
become fully effective by September 1, 2006. There are no exceptions 
for multi-stage manufacturers and alterers.
    We appreciate the technical challenges multi-stage manufacturers 
and alterers will face as a result of the requirements included in 
today's rule. In an effort to address the needs of these small 
businesses, we have decided to allow multi-stage manufacturers and 
alterers to defer compliance until the end of each phase-in period 
(September 1, 2006 and September 1, 2010, respectively).
    We believe that delaying the implementation schedule for multi-
stage manufacturers and alterers strikes the appropriate balance 
between improving air bag safety, particularly for infants, children, 
and small-statured adults, while accommodating the needs of these 
manufacturers. We believe that this approach will increase the 
likelihood that multi-stage manufacturers and alterers will know what 
type of advanced air bag technology chassis and vehicle manufacturers 
are using well before they need to comply. This should provide them 
sufficient time to address any technical issues associated with 
advanced air bag technology and to generate whatever compliance 
information may be needed.

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

    Standard No. 208 currently includes a temporary provision 
permitting manufacturers to provide as original equipment (OE) 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.
    Also, 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 49 CFR 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 were 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 SNPRM, we proposed to allow both OE on-off switches and 
retrofit on-off switches to be installed under the same conditions that 
currently govern such installation in all vehicles produced prior to 
September 1, 2005, the date we proposed to require all vehicles to have 
an advanced air bag system. We proposed to prohibit both OE switches 
in, and retrofit switches for, vehicles manufactured after the end of 
the phase-in. We noted that while we believed that reliable and safe 
air bag systems could be developed in a timely manner, thus removing 
the need for an on-off switch, we were concerned that those individuals 
who are currently at risk from air bags might lack confidence in the 
new systems, particularly when they are first introduced. However, we 
believed this problem would diminish during the course of the phase-in, 
as consumers heard about, and became familiar with, advanced air bags.
    Comments were submitted by AAM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, Toyota, 
AORC, Autoliv, Advocates, NADA, and Parents for Safer Air Bags. Except 
for NADA, all commenters supported allowing manual on off-switches, 
both retrofit and OE, after the end of the phase-in. Some of the 
commenters supported an indefinite allowance, while others supported 
the agency revisiting the issue at the end of the phase-in. 
Additionally, Ford urged that we allow shunts, which would permanently 
deactivate an air bag, rather than retrofit on-off switches for 
vehicles with advanced air bag systems,

[[Page 30722]]

stating that the market incentive to continue to produce retrofit 
switches is too small. NADA supported eliminating retrofit on-off 
switches for vehicles with advanced air bags, but allowing OE switches 
as a method of suppression compliance in vehicles where OE switches are 
currently allowed.
    We believe that by the end of the initial phase-in, manufacturers 
will have developed advanced air bag systems for most vehicles that are 
sufficiently reliable to obviate the need for manual air bag on-off 
switches. However, public acceptance of those advanced air bag systems 
may not be assured. Allowing on-off switches for some period after all 
vehicles are equipped with advanced air bag systems will provide 
parents with additional confidence until the reliability of all such 
systems has been verified based on real-world experience.
    We continue to believe, however, that allowing manufacturers to 
install switches indefinitely would be counter-productive. The switches 
provide an opportunity for misuse. Adults could turn off their 
passenger air bag systems even though those systems pose virtually no 
risk to an adult occupant, particularly one who is belted. In such 
circumstances, the occupant would not receive the benefit of the air 
bag in a high-speed crash. The same possibility for misuse would exist 
for children in vehicles certified to the low risk deployment option.
    Accordingly, we have decided to allow both OE and retrofit air bag 
on-off switches until September 1, 2012, two years after the end of the 
second phase-in. This additional time will allow manufacturers to 
perfect the suppression and low risk deployment systems in all their 
vehicles. Additionally, it will provide parents with additional time to 
satisfy themselves that the advanced systems work. Should we decide 
there is a continuing need for manual on-off switches beyond 2012, we 
can initiate rulemaking to extend the date at that time.
    We note that there will be some need for deactivation of some sort 
(via on-off switch or permanently) for at-risk individuals who cannot 
be accommodated through sensors or other suppression technology (such 
as handicapped individuals or individuals with certain medical 
conditions). At this point in time, we believe such needs can be best 
accommodated through the permanent deactivation authorization system 
currently used by NHTSA. This system allows the use of shunts as 
suggested by Ford in its comments.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Ford had also suggested that shunts be allowed in lieu of 
on-off switches. These shunts would permanently deactivate the air 
bag. We believe that allowing permanent deactivation for anyone 
other than individuals with special needs would not serve a safety 
need. Accordingly, we are rejecting this option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

XII. Warning Labels, Consumer Information, and Telltale Devices

A. Warning Labels and Consumer Information

    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 were aware of the dangers posed by 
passenger air bags to children.
    After reviewing the comments on the NPRM, we proposed in the SNPRM 
a replacement for the permanent sun visor label which contained 
statements taken from the 1996 labels regarding belt use and seating 
children in the rear seat. We also proposed substituting the word 
``CAUTION'' for the word ``WARNING'' in the heading of the label. 
Finally, we proposed a new graphic which showed a cut-away side view of 
a vehicle with a belted driver and a child in a child seat in the rear. 
In addition, NHTSA proposed a new temporary label that states that the 
vehicle meets the new requirements for advanced air bags. These 
proposals were in response to commenters concerns that some types of 
warnings should be retained for advanced air bags.
    Consistent with our proposal to require labels for vehicles with 
advanced air bags, we proposed to drop the current definition of 
``smart passenger air bags'' contained in S4.5.5 and an existing option 
to remove warning labels in vehicles with air bags that meet that 
definition (S4.5.1).
    In order to provide consumers with adequate information about their 
occupant restraint system, we proposed to require manufacturers to 
provide a written explanation of the vehicle's advanced passenger air 
bag system. We indicated that this explanation would probably be 
included in the vehicle owner's manual, although we requested comments 
on whether it would be desirable to have this information located 
elsewhere. Under our proposal, the explanation would need to include a 
discussion of 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.
    Fifteen commenters addressed the proposed changes to the air bag 
warning labels. Of these, five said little more than an expression of 
support for the proposal without much elaboration. On the other hand, 
four commenters representing consumer groups expressed strong concerns 
about any changes that ``weakened'' the warnings concerning air bags 
until the air bags meeting these new requirements are demonstrated to 
be effective in eliminating the risks associated with current air bags. 
One commenter also stated that research should be conducted before the 
air bag warning labels are changed. Additionally, very few commenters 
addressed our request for comments on the new graphic described above 
versus the previous graphic, which shows a rear-facing child seat being 
struck by an air bag.
    After reviewing the comments, we have decided to change the 
proposed label to reduce the perceived ``weakening.'' First, we have 
decided to continue to use ``WARNING'' in the heading rather than 
``CAUTION'' as we proposed in the SNPRM. Since no one objected to the 
proposed graphic, we are adopting the new graphic to help consumers 
distinguish between vehicles with various generations of air bags.
    One commenter asked us to allow the new labels in any vehicle 
certified to the new requirements, rather than limiting their usage to 
vehicles manufactured after September 1, 2002. Because manufacturers 
will be allowed to certify vehicles to the new requirement prior to 
this date, we are removing this restriction.
    One commenter also stated that the labels should be available in 
languages other than English. While we are not requiring this, 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.
    A few commenters wanted additional information added to the label 
related to specific issues with advanced air bags. GM wanted the option 
of adding instructions to inform users how to properly behave depending 
on whether the air bag was active or inactive. NTSB wanted to require 
information on what actions to take if the telltale is not illuminated. 
CAS suggested that information should be added explaining how belt use 
affects air bag performance. Because these types of information are 
very design specific, we are not changing the warning label to address 
these comments. However, we are modifying the existing prohibition 
against other information on the sun

[[Page 30723]]

visor to allow manufacturers the option of adding information, on a 
separate label, if they believe it is desirable to supplement the 
owner's manual information.
    With respect to the proposal requiring manufacturers to provide 
additional information on the performance and design of advanced air 
bags in the owner's manual, the few commenters who addressed this issue 
supported the proposal. Therefore, we are requiring the owner's manual 
to include accurate information on each of the topics proposed in the 
SNPRM, specifically:
     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.
     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.
     Information on how to contact the vehicle manufacturer 
concerning modifications for persons with disabilities that may affect 
the advanced air bag system.

B. Telltale Devices

    In the SNPRM, we proposed that vehicles with static suppression 
systems would be required to have a telltale, located on the dashboard, 
that indicated when the passenger air bag was off. We also stated that 
the telltale need not illuminate when the passenger seat was empty, 
even if the air bag was suppressed under such a circumstance, but that 
each system needed to be equipped with a mechanism that indicated every 
circumstance when the air bag was suppressed.
    Comments on the telltale were primarily from manufacturers and 
followed two basic themes. Some commenters argued that the requirement 
that the telltale be on the dashboard was overly stringent and 
inconsistent with the telltale location requirements for air bag on-off 
switches. Others commented that requiring a mechanism to determine all 
circumstances under which the air bag was suppressed did not make sense 
in the context of the telltale requirement. Ford also requested that we 
specifically allow more than one level of illumination to allow for 
changing light conditions.
    We have expanded the possible locations for the telltale in the 
final rule. However, we have decided against simply adopting the 
existing on-off switch location provisions. In response to a petition 
for rulemaking from a manufacturer, we have allowed on-off switch 
telltales to be located anywhere within the vehicle interior as long as 
they are clearly visible to all front seat occupants. We decided to 
allow such a broad location for these telltales because on-off switches 
are only in a limited number of vehicles and because the air bags can 
only be suppressed when the driver or passenger consciously turns the 
air bag off. With static suppression systems, an individual will have 
no way of knowing whether the air bag is suppressed other than the 
telltale. Accordingly, we believe that the telltales should not be 
placed in a location that is arguably ``clearly visible,'' but may not 
be easily seen while driving or is susceptible to being covered up. We 
agree, however, that restricting the telltale to the dashboard may be 
overly restrictive. We have changed the regulatory text to state that 
the telltale must be located inside the vehicle in a zone above and 
forward of the H-point of the driver seat, when that seat is in its 
forward most position. Additionally, the telltale cannot be placed in 
or immediately adjacent to a storage compartment if use of the 
compartment could block the telltale from either the driver's or 
passenger's view. Thus, for example, the telltale could be located on 
the cover to the glove compartment, or by the rearview mirror, but 
could not be located behind a cup-holder.
    The SNPRM did not require a single level of illumination for 
telltales. However, it also was not clear that multiple levels of 
illumination were allowed. We believe there may be a benefit to having 
multiple levels of illumination based on changes in the ambient light 
conditions. Accordingly, we have changed the regulatory text to 
specifically allow multiple levels of illumination as long as all 
levels are visible to individuals of all ages.
    We are allowing the telltale to be turned off when the passenger 
seat is empty because we believe many manufacturers may choose to have 
the default setting for their suppression systems be a suppressed air 
bag. In such an instance, the air bag would usually be suppressed. We 
are concerned that the near constant illumination of the telltale could 
lead people to ignore the telltale. Alternatively, people could attempt 
to disconnect the telltale so that they did not have to look at it all 
the time.
    In order to accommodate a design where the telltale was not 
illuminated when the seat was empty, but still allow for compliance 
testing of all of the proposed child seating positions, some of which 
could look to a suppression system like the seat was empty, we added a 
requirement that the vehicle come equipped with a mechanism that would 
indicate under all circumstances whether the passenger air bag was 
suppressed. The mechanism need not be contained within the interior of 
the vehicle, but could be a simple plug-in system where a piece of 
equipment is plugged into an outlet and provides the needed 
information. Alternatively, the mechanism could be the telltale that is 
required for all suppression situations other than an empty seat. In 
that instance, the telltale would need to illuminate in any of the test 
positions NHTSA used for compliance purposes.

XIII. Miscellaneous Issues

A. Child Restraints Used for Testing Suppression and Low-Risk 
Deployment Features

    As discussed earlier in this notice, we proposed in the SNPRM 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 that 
was appropriate for a child the size of the applicable dummy. In 
developing the proposed list of representative child restraints, we 
attempted to select seats that are produced by various manufacturers 
while limiting the overall number of restraints. We proposed to add the 
list of child restraints as an appendix to Standard No. 208, and 
indicated that we planned to update the list from time to time (with 
appropriate lead time).
    Comments can be broken down into four separate areas: NHTSA should 
develop a common ``footprint'' for

[[Page 30724]]

testing, the proposed list contains too many restraints, the proposed 
list does not contain enough restraints, and the list is either 
outdated or insufficiently detailed.
    AAM, GM, Volkswagen, DaimlerChrysler and AORC all urged NHTSA to 
develop a standard ``footprint'' that could be used to certify 
compliance with our suppression tests. Takata did not believe a single 
footprint was necessary, but urged that the number of potential 
footprints on child restraint systems be severely limited. These same 
commenters, along with Isuzu, stated that the list of child seats was 
still too long and should either be reduced or manufacturers should be 
allowed to certify to no more than three seats in each category, at the 
manufacturer's option. The CAS argued that the list should be longer, 
and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) urged us to add an 
oversized child seat designed for special needs children. Takata noted 
that the list did not include specific model numbers, and Evenflo noted 
that some of its seats on the list were no longer available or had been 
replaced by a different model.
    We agree with manufacturers that a common footprint test device 
would considerably ease their ability to meet the static suppression 
performance requirements for infants and for three-year-olds and six-
year-olds in child restraints. We also agree that our initial proposal 
to test with any seat produced over a ten-year period was overly 
expansive. However, the proposed number of seats in the SNPRM was 
dramatically reduced from the NPRM. These seats are real designs that 
are actually in use, not a test device which would never be used by a 
child. The only way we could guarantee that child restraints matched 
the footprint of this hypothetical test device would be to require the 
footprint to be incorporated into all child restraints. Even if we did 
not require that restraint manufacturers use the specific footprint, we 
would effectively limit their ability to produce any other type of 
restraint, since they could not assure parents that their seats would 
work with a vehicle's suppression system. Accordingly, we believe 
adopting a uniform test device with a specific footprint is 
inappropriate and overly design restrictive. Given the relatively small 
number of restraints on our list, we see no need to develop a specific 
test device.
    Likewise, we do not believe that manufacturers should have the 
option of certifying to only a limited number of the restraints on the 
list. We do not believe that requiring compliance with 24 seats is 
excessive, given the importance of reliability in a suppression system 
and the fact that the suppression tests are nondestructive. Children 
sitting in the front seat will not receive the benefit of a suppression 
system that does not recognize their presence in the seat. If 
manufacturers believe their planned suppression technology is 
insufficient to detect a wide variety of child restraints, they will 
need to either improve or supplement that technology.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ We recognize that a manufacturer choosing the low risk 
deployment option for infants would be required to assure compliance 
with the applicable injury criteria with a 12-month-old dummy in 
each of the restraints listed in sections B and C of Appendix A, 
making the restraint unusable in subsequent tests. However, we 
believe the low risk deployment for properly restrained infants to 
be the most important low risk test in this rulemaking, as an 
infant's head would always be in close proximity to a deploying air 
bag.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We do believe, however, that the seats on the list are adequately 
representative of both child restraint designs and manufacturers.\29\ 
Accordingly, we do not agree with the CAS that the list should be 
expanded. Nor do we believe it is necessary to add an oversized seat, 
as recommended by the AAP. These larger seats are not representative of 
seats that are typically found in vehicles and may be used by children 
who are considerably heavier than an average six-year-old. While these 
children should receive as much assurance of safety from a deploying 
air bag as all other children, we believe their needs can be 
accommodated by other means. Permanent air bag deactivation will 
continue to be available for individuals with unique medical or 
physical needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ In no way does the inclusion of a particular restraint on 
the list represent an endorsement of that restraint by the agency. 
Restraints have been placed on the list because we believe they are 
representative of many products on the market, not because they 
offer a unique design that we believe is somehow superior to other 
designs. Likewise, the choice of restraint manufacturer is not based 
on any belief by the agency that a particular manufacturer produces 
restraints that are superior to those of other manufacturers. 
Restraints were chosen from a variety of manufacturers so as to 
adequately survey the design decisions of the entire population of 
restraint manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on Evenflo and Takata's concerns that the proposed list was 
insufficiently detailed and out-of-date, we have amended the list by 
replacing restraints that are no longer available and providing model 
numbers. We have also tightened up the language of Appendix A so that 
the designated restraints are limited by a production date closer in 
time to the effective date of the final rule. As stated in the SNPRM, 
the list will be updated periodically to subtract restraints that are 
no longer in production and to add new restraints, particularly those 
that are manufactured in accordance with recent amendments to Standard 
No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, (64 FR 10786, March 5, 1999), that 
require child restraints manufactured on or after September 1, 2002, to 
have components that attach to the lower anchors of a vehicle's child 
restraint anchorage system. (The March 1999 rule requires the anchorage 
systems to be installed on a phased-in basis in new vehicles beginning 
September 1, 2000.) At this time we do not contemplate increasing the 
overall size of the list. Some period of lead time will be provided so 
that manufacturers have adequate time to incorporate any needed design 
changes into their air bag systems.

B. Dummy Positioning for Static Suppression and Low-Risk Deployment 
Tests

    AAM, GM, Toyota, Isuzu and DaimlerChrysler all argued in their 
comments that the static suppression tests were too burdensome, largely 
because of the range of seat back angles (from the nominal design 
position up to 25 degrees rearward of that position) and seat track 
positions (any position on the seat track or any height for adjustable 
seats). Breed Technologies stated that it did not believe the low risk 
test procedures adequately accounted for differences in vehicle 
geometry and that they were sufficiently ambiguous to lead to 
variations in procedure by different testing laboratories.
    As discussed earlier in this document, in view of the fact that 
parents or caregivers who place children or child restraints in the 
front seat will not all use a single seat track position, we have 
determined that there is a need to test in different seat track 
positions. However, we have also concluded that there is no need to 
conduct suppression tests at every possible seat track position. 
Accordingly, we have decided that for vehicles certified to the 
suppression option, we will test only at the vehicle seat's full-rear 
position, mid-track position and full-forward position. In instances in 
which the infant restraint contacts the dashboard in the full-forward 
position, the vehicle seat will be moved back to the next detent that 
allows for clearance, or, in the case of automatic seats, until a 
maximum of 5mm (0.2 in) of clearance is achieved. Likewise, in tests 
involving suppression systems for 3-year-old and 6-year-old children, 
if the dummy or child would interfere with the dashboard, the vehicle 
seat will be moved back in a similar manner.
    We have also determined that in many of the tests, testing with the 
seat back positioned 25 degrees rearward of

[[Page 30725]]

the vehicle seat's nominal design position for the 50th percentile male 
was problematic. We believe that in many vehicles it may be impossible 
to properly install a child restraint with the seat back reclined this 
far back. We also do not believe that there would be any reason to 
recline a seat that is occupied by a child restraint. Since all of the 
infant tests involve the use of some type of restraint, we have decided 
to limit the seat back angle for these tests to the nominal design 
position for the 50th percentile male. Tests involving the 3-year-old 
and 6-year-old children or dummies in child restraints present the same 
concerns and will be addressed in the same way. Likewise, many of the 
test procedures involving children who are not in any type of restraint 
are unrealistic if tested with the seat 25 degrees back from the 
nominal design position. For example, a kneeling child with his chest 
resting against the seat back would find it difficult to hold his or 
her position.
    The one position where we will recline the seat back is the test 
where the child is sitting on the seat and is leaning against the seat 
back (S22.2.2.2, S24.2.1). This test position will be conducted with 
the seat back at the manufacturer's nominal design position for the 
50th percentile male and at 25 degrees rearward of that position so as 
to test for children who have reclined their seat backs to take a nap. 
If the vehicle seat does not recline that far, we will test with the 
seat reclined as far as possible. We agree with manufacturers that 
parents should not drive with their children in such a position. 
However, as long as manufacturers design the passenger seat to recline, 
we believe some parents will allow their children to lie on a reclined 
seat.
    We have also decided to test whether the air bag system is active 
when the seat is occupied by a 5th percentile adult female at the seat 
back position achieved when positioning the fifth percentile adult 
female dummy in the passenger seat for dynamic tests. This should 
roughly approximate the nominal design position. Some commenters argued 
that the reclined position (i.e., 25 degrees rearward of the nominal 
design position) distributes an adult's weight in such a manner that a 
suppression system that relied heavily on weight distributed to the 
seat cushion may be unable to determine whether the occupant is an 
adult or a child. Other commenters have argued that their suppression 
systems can adequately detect the total weight of a reclined 5th 
percentile adult female. We believe that the ability to detect the 
total weight of the dummy in a reclined position may vary depending on 
the type of suppression technology used. We also believe that a 
reclining adult has less need for a deploying air bag than an adult who 
is upright, and therefor closer to the air bag at the time of 
deployment.
    We have changed the test that determines which stage or combination 
of stages of the air bag to deploy in the low risk deployment tests. As 
discussed earlier, the low risk deployment tests will only be conducted 
at speeds up to 26 km/h (16 mph). Accordingly, this test will be run at 
26 km/h (16 mph). If there is no air bag deployment in the test, we 
will deploy the first stage of the vehicle's air bag when conducting 
our compliance tests.
    Finally, we believe Breed's comments about the low risk deployment 
positions have merit. We have reduced the number of steps involved in 
placing the dummies because small adjustments to the procedure at each 
step, as well as the unique characteristics of the vehicle, could 
result in a final position that differed significantly from what we 
want, i.e., the head on the instrument panel or the chest on the 
instrument panel. By reducing the number of steps needed to achieve 
that position, we have reduced the amount of potential variability. The 
one exception is the low risk deployment test for both child dummies 
where the head is placed on the instrument panel. We have retained a 
specific step-by-step procedure for this test, because the location of 
the air bag module on the instrument panel is so variable that we are 
currently unable to define a position on the instrument panel that we 
believe with any confidence represents the worst case scenario. We do, 
however, have considerable experience with a step-by-step procedure. 
While we agree that variations in vehicle design may make it difficult 
to follow the test procedure, we believe that we have modified the 
procedure in a way that will yield appropriate and consistent results.

C. 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, we cited the complexity of the rigid 
barrier crash test of Standard No. 208. We stated that, because of this 
complexity, we believed that manufacturers needed assurance from the 
agency that, if they had made a good faith effort in designing their 
vehicles and had instituted adequate quality control measures, the 
vehicles would not be deemed to be in noncompliance because of an 
isolated failure to meet the injury criteria.
    In the SNPRM, we noted that, among the Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards, the ``due care provision'' is unique to Standard No. 208. We 
noted further that, for a variety of reasons, we disfavor including a 
``due care provision'' in any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We 
explained that the inclusion of such a provision in a safety standard 
does not fit very well with the overall statutory scheme, because it 
introduces a measure of subjectivity into the issue of whether a 
vehicle complies with a standard. We also explained that, based on our 
experience with Standard No. 208 compliance activities, we do not 
believe there is an intrinsic need for a ``due care provision.'' 
However, recognizing that this rulemaking for advanced air bags would 
require manufacturers to certify their vehicles to a significantly 
greater number of complex test requirements in a limited amount of 
time, including a 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted test with a new dummy, we 
stated that we did not believe that it would be appropriate to delete 
the provision at this time.
    Accordingly, in the SNPRM, we proposed to retain the ``due care 
provision'' and extend it to the new crash test requirements. We stated 
that we were not proposing to extend the provision to test requirements 
that do not involve crashes because these tests are not affected by the 
variability associated with dynamically-induced dummy movement and/or 
vehicle deformation.
    Commenters on the SNPRM presented sharply contrasting views 
concerning the due care provision. Vehicle manufacturers, air bag 
manufacturers and the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness urged that 
the due care provision be extended to the new static out-of-position 
tests as well as the new crash tests. They argued that there is as much 
variability associated with the static out-of-position tests as with 
crash tests, and argued that the due care provision will help resolve 
some practicability concerns.
    Other commenters, however, argued that the due care provision is 
not in the public interest. Parents stated that if a vehicle's air bag 
system fails to meet Standard No. 208, the adverse effects on the 
public are the same whether or not due care was exercised by the 
manufacturer. That organization stated that the due care provision 
works

[[Page 30726]]

against the public interest by providing vehicle manufacturers with a 
means of avoiding the recall of vehicles that fail to comply with 
Standard No. 208. Parents and Advocates also argued that the due care 
provision in Standard No. 208 is inconsistent with its statutory 
counterpart, which only relieves vehicle manufacturers of civil penalty 
liability if the agency concludes that the manufacturer exercised due 
care.
    Advocates stated that if the due care provision were retained and 
extended to other crash tests, the provision should be completely 
sunsetted at the end of the TEA-21 phase-in. Other commenters opposing 
the due care provision included Consumers Union, Public Citizen, and 
CAS.
    After considering the comments, we continue to disfavor including a 
due care provision in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and do 
not believe there is a need for the due care provision in Standard No. 
208. Accordingly, while we will retain the existing due care provisions 
for the sled test and the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted barrier test (both 
of which will expire on September 1, 2006), we have decided against 
including a due care provision in for vehicles certified to the 
advanced air bag requirements.
    As an initial matter, the static suppression tests are relatively 
simple pass-fail tests which do not involve deployment of an air bag or 
measurement of injury criteria on test dummies. Accordingly, we do not 
believe they raise the same compliance concerns as crash tests. The 
conditions under which either suppression or activation is required are 
specific and straightforward. Further, there are substantial 
differences between the conditions requiring suppression and those 
requiring activation. While there will undoubtedly be gray zones 
associated with suppression devices, those gray zones should be well 
outside the conditions for which either suppression or activation is 
required by the Standard.
    Additionally, there is no reason to extend the existing due care 
requirements for vehicles certified to the advanced air bag high speed 
requirements. The 48 km/h (30 mph) belted rigid barrier test has been a 
part of Standard No. 208 for several years and has not proven 
problematic for manufacturers. The 56 km/h (35 mph) belted test will 
not begin to be phased-in as a requirement for eight years, which 
should provide ample leadtime. The unbelted tests will be less 
stringent than the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test that 
was required prior to the 1997 final rule allowing the sled test 
option. Our testing has indicated that manufacturers can easily meet 
the new injury criteria with 50th percentile adult male dummies in a 40 
km/h (25 mph) unbelted test with existing air bag systems and should be 
able to make what ever improvements are needed to do so with 5th 
percentile adult female dummies without major uncertainties before they 
are required to certify any vehicle as meeting the advanced air bag 
requirements of this rule.
    We do not believe that not extending the due care provision will 
create any significant difficulties for manufacturers, given our 
practices and policies with respect to the enforcement of crash test 
requirements. Generally, we do not determine that a noncompliance 
exists merely because of an isolated test failure, if there is evidence 
that other tested similar units have met the Standard's performance 
requirements and there is no indication of the inadequate quality 
control procedures. Since the adoption of the provision in 1986, the 
agency has never found that a vehicle that failed to meet the 
performance requirements of the Standard should be deemed to be in 
compliance on the basis of the due care provision.

D. Selection of Compliance Options

    In the SNPRM, we proposed to require that where manufacturer 
options are specified, the manufacturer would be required to select the 
option by the time it certifies the vehicle and would not thereafter be 
permitted to 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 of 49 U.S.C. 30115), regardless of whether a 
vehicle complies with another option. We also proposed to specify that, 
upon request, manufacturers would be required to advise NHTSA of the 
compliance options selected for a given vehicle or vehicle model. On 
behalf of its members, AAM and AIAM argued in its joint comments that 
the proposed requirement does not meet the need for motor vehicle 
safety.
    We have decided to adopt the provision proposed in the SNPRM, which 
is consistent with the approach we have taken in other recent 
rulemakings in which compliance options have been allowed. Our 
rationale for this approach was recently set out in some detail in our 
denial of a petition for reconsideration of an amendment that added a 
compliance option to Standard No. 201, ``Occupant Protection in 
Interior Impact.'' 64 FR 69665 (December 14, 1999). We adopt that 
rationale for purposes of this final rule, but we are adding a short 
discussion to address a few additional matters.
    The final rule adopted by this notice provides numerous compliance 
options for manufacturers, far more than in any other standard we have 
previously adopted. For example, in order to reduce the risk of injury 
to various sizes of children, manufacturers may suppress the passenger 
air bag, either statically or dynamically, or assure that the air bag 
deploys in a benign manner. Likewise, manufacturers may use a benignly 
deploying air bag or a dynamic suppression system to reduce the risk of 
air bag injury to teenagers and small adult drivers. The existence of 
phase-ins provides manufacturers with additional options. While they 
must meet the applicable advanced air bag requirements for a specified 
percentage of vehicles during each phase-in, they have the option of 
certifying additional vehicles to those requirements in order to earn 
credits that can be applied to the percentages that need to be achieved 
in later years. Moreover, until September 1, 2006 (the end of the first 
phase-in), manufacturers may choose to certify compliance for at least 
a portion of their fleet with one of three different unbelted high-
speed test requirements: The sled test of S13,\30\ the long-standing 48 
km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test of S5.1.2(a), or the 40 km/h 
(25 mph) rigid barrier test of S5.1.2(b). Each of these three options 
has different injury criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The text of S13 has been slightly revised to indicate which 
set of injury criteria must be met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have provided manufacturers with myriad options to allow and 
encourage them to develop and implement technologically innovative 
advanced air bag systems. However, this does not mean that we believe 
that each option provides exactly the same safety benefits. Rather, we 
believe that the standard as a whole, including its requirement of an 
irrevocable choice among compliance options, strikes the proper balance 
between assuring an appropriate level of safety and allowing an 
appropriate degree of manufacturer flexibility.
    We have found that when some manufacturers are confronted with a 
compliance test failure indicating an apparent noncompliance with the 
option that they originally chose at the time they certified the 
vehicle, they have responded by asserting that their product complies 
with a different option. As explained in our earlier denial of 
reconsideration on this

[[Page 30727]]

subject, such shifting in the asserted basis for compliance creates 
obvious difficulties for us, both in managing our resources available 
for compliance testing and in ultimately assessing a vehicle or 
equipment's compliance. We believe that a system that allows us to 
effectively allocate our scarce enforcement resources to ensure that 
our safety standards are being met clearly meets the overall need for 
motor vehicle safety.
    In addition to preventing the unnecessary expenditure of resources, 
we also believe it is important for manufacturers to honor their 
certification commitments. The Safety Act does not allow for 
``recertification'' after the certification label has been applied. Nor 
does it contemplate allowing manufacturers ``two bites at the apple.'' 
Moreover, there is ample evidence that consumers often choose to 
purchase a particular vehicle because its manufacturer has advertised 
that it has certain safety features. In light of consumer interest in 
and concerns about air bag safety, this consumer practice is likely to 
continue or even increase in the context of this rule. We believe that 
consumers should be entitled to expect that manufacturers will produce 
vehicles that comply with the requirements to which they are certified.
    We note that a manufacturer that chooses to install multiple safety 
features that would independently comply with two or more of the 
specified compliance options in the standard is not prohibited from 
doing so. For example, a manufacturer may build a vehicle that meets 
both the static suppression and the low risk deployment requirements of 
today's rule. In such a case, it may be that a failure to comply with 
the option to which the vehicle was certified would be inconsequential 
to motor vehicle safety, such that a notification and remedy (i.e., 
recall) campaign would not be necessary. However, in view of the fact 
that not all compliance options provide precisely the same level of 
safety benefits, such an inconsequentiality determination would not be 
automatic.
    Although it is implicit from the foregoing discussion, we want to 
explicitly note that S4.8 applies to the decision by a manufacturer as 
to whether to certify a vehicle as complying with the advanced air bag 
requirements during each of the two phase-ins. If a manufacturer 
advises NHTSA (either in response to a request for compliance 
information or in a report submitted pursuant to 49 CFR Part 585) that 
it intends a particular vehicle or model to count as meeting the 
requirements of S14.1, S14.2, S14.3, or S14.4 during the applicable 
phase-in, a vehicle that failed to comply with the applicable 
performance requirements would be deemed to be in noncompliance with 
the standard, even if other vehicles produced by the manufacturer in 
the production year in question would have been sufficient to satisfy 
the specified percentage requirement for that year.
    We believe that such a regulatory approach is particularly critical 
in the context of this rule, since consumers will know whether a 
vehicle is represented as complying with the advanced air bag 
requirements from a variety of sources (e.g., the warning label in the 
vehicle, the owner's manual, manufacturer advertising, dealer sales 
staff, etc.) and may modify their behavior in reliance upon that 
representation (e.g., by allowing the smallest child to sit in the 
front seat to suppress the air bag). If in fact the vehicle does not 
provide the promised performance ( e.g., the suppression system does 
not function properly), the manufacturer would be required to notify 
NHTSA of the noncompliance and, unless the noncompliance were found to 
be inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, to remedy the problem.

E. Credits for Early Compliance

    To encourage early compliance with the advanced air bag final rule, 
we were directed by TEA 21 to include means by which manufacturers may 
earn credits toward future compliance. Credits, on a one-vehicle for 
one-vehicle basis, may be earned for vehicles that are certified as 
being in full compliance with the final rule before the beginning of 
each of the applicable phase-in periods. They may also be earned during 
the phase-ins if a manufacturer's production of complying vehicles for 
a model year exceeds the percentage of vehicles required to comply in 
that year. We are amending 49 CFR Part 585 to specify reporting 
requirements that will allow us to administer this provision. Credits 
for the first phase-in may be earned immediately after this final rule 
becomes effective, but credits for the second phase-in may only be 
earned starting on September 1, 2006. We are only allowing credits to 
be earned for vehicles manufactured one year prior to the initiation of 
the second phase-in because we believe manufacturers should first 
direct their efforts towards full implementation of the first phase-in, 
particularly the risk reduction requirements. Consistent with the prior 
discussion of compliance options, a manufacturer's decision to certify 
a vehicle to the advanced air bag requirements before or during the 
phase-ins will be irrevocable, even if the manufacturer would have been 
able to satisfy the percentage requirements for a given model year with 
other vehicles in its fleet.

F. Choice Between Complying With Existing and/or New Injury Criteria 
and Test Requirements

    In the SNPRM, we addressed, for vehicles not certified as being in 
full compliance with the final rule, the relationship of the proposed 
new injury criteria and performance limits to the existing test 
requirements of Standard No. 208. We stated that while some of the new 
and/or modified injury criteria and performance limits would apply to 
existing tests that are being retained in Standard No. 208, we were not 
proposing to change the injury criteria and performance limits for 
vehicles not certified to all of the requirements applicable to 
vehicles with advanced air bags.
    We stated that, as a general matter, vehicles produced between the 
time the final rule becomes effective and the time the phase-in is 
complete would be required to comply with and be certified to all the 
current requirements and current injury criteria or to all the 
requirements for advanced air bags and new injury criteria; there would 
be no opportunity to mix and match.
    However, as a possible exception to this, we requested 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 was 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. In light of the limitations of 
the sled test, we stated that, to the extent vehicle manufacturers 
wished to immediately design and certify vehicles to whatever set of 
unbelted crash test requirements was included in the final rule, there 
could be safety benefits.
    Several commenters, including AAM, DaimlerChrysler and Toyota, 
supported permitting manufacturers to begin immediately certifying to 
the new unbelted test in lieu of the sled test at the manufacturer's 
option, for vehicles without advanced air bags. In light of the 
comments and the discussion we presented in the SNPRM, we are including 
this option in the final rule. We have also decided to retain a 
manufacturer's option to certify to the existing 48 km/h (30 mph) 
unbelted barrier test to September 1, 2006. This

[[Page 30728]]

option will expire at the end of the phase-in because we believe that 
ultimately only a single set of injury criteria should apply to each 
test dummy.

G. Time Periods for Measuring Injury Criteria During Tests

    In the SNPRM, we proposed specific points for the end of the period 
for measuring injury criteria in both crash tests and low-risk 
deployment tests. We noted that, for dynamic crash tests, we 
historically have not measured injury criteria more than 300 
milliseconds after the vehicle impacts the barrier, and we proposed a 
300 millisecond time duration for the dynamic crash tests. For 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, we proposed to measure injury criteria for up to 100 
milliseconds after the air bag deploys.
    We indicated that these time parameters would not apply to the 
dummy containment requirement. 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 both 
the vehicle and the dummies have ceased moving.
    Comments were received from DaimlerChrysler, Toyota, Nissan, and 
Autoliv. Other than DaimlerChrysler, the commenters all supported 
truncating the test data at the point the dummy interacts with the 
vehicle interior and after the dummy's head had cleared the air bag. In 
the alternative, Nissan supported truncating the data in both the 
barrier tests and the low-risk deployment tests at 100ms. 
DaimlerChrysler, who commented only on the time-frame related to low-
risk deployment tests, noted that it was possible for peak injury 
criteria to be reached after 100 ms because of low output initiator 
delay times. Accordingly, it suggested that the data for all 
deployments be truncated at 300 ms or when the dummy ceases to be in 
contact with the air bag, whichever occurs first.
    Traditionally, we have not counted data that is recorded as the 
result of the dummy's head neck or torso striking the vehicle interior 
when the dummy is no longer engaged in the air bag. We continue to 
believe, as apparently do commenters, that the air bag is neither 
responsible for these injury values nor could the air bag have 
prevented these interactions with the vehicle compartment. However, we 
are concerned that truncating the data to the point at which the 
occupant is no longer engaged in the air bag is insufficiently 
objective for compliance purposes. While we intend to retain our 
existing policy on considering the location of the dummy relative to 
the vehicle interior and the air bag at the time peak injury 
measurements are recorded, we have decided to keep the time parameters 
for measuring data at specific level. Accordingly, data will be 
collected until 300 ms after the vehicle strikes the barrier in a 
dynamic crash.
    Based on DaimlerChrysler's observation and our knowledge of low 
risk deployment technologies, we agree that a 100 ms time-frame for the 
low risk deployment test may be too small. Consequently, the parameters 
for truncating data for the low risk deployment tests have been changed 
to the same parameters used for the barrier tests, i.e., 300 ms after 
the air bag deploys.

H. Cruise Controls

    In the SNPRM, we proposed to require that cruise controls be 
deactivated when any stage of an air bag system is deployed, and 
included a brief procedure to test whether this requirement was met. We 
noted that if the cruise control were not deactivated, it would 
continue to provide power to the vehicle, which could lead to a runaway 
condition.
    Only Consumers Union supported our proposal, stating a deactivated 
cruise control is a basic safety measure. AAM and DaimlerChrysler 
stated that we had not demonstrated a safety need for such a 
requirement and the proposed test procedure could make cruise control 
systems less reliable than they are currently. According to AAM, none 
of its members is aware of a single report of a cruise control 
remaining operational after an air bag deployment following a crash. 
DaimlerChrysler also noted that under most crash conditions, the cruise 
control is usually already deactivated by the time the air bag deploys, 
either because the vehicle's speed has fallen below a certain threshold 
or because the brakes have been applied. Additionally, cruise control 
systems generally requires a certain level of speed to operate, making 
compliance testing exceptionally difficult.
    We agree with AAM and DaimlerChrysler that there is no need to 
regulate cruise control interaction with air bags at this time. We also 
are unaware of any instances where the cruise control remained on after 
an air bag deployed. It appears that manufacturers have already 
resolved this potential scenario. Finally, the addition of a test 
procedure could add additional complexity and potential unreliability 
to an already complex system. Accordingly, while we believe that the 
cruise control should deactivate when an air bag deploys, we do not 
believe this is an area currently in need of regulation.

I. Rescue Operations

    In the SNPRM, we proposed 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. We proposed a 
brief procedure to test whether this requirement was met. The purpose 
of this requirement was to ensure that rescue workers have a 
standardized method and time for deactivating air bags, to neutralize 
any potential danger they may face. We noted that the air bags in most 
vehicles are deactivated within a minute or less after battery power is 
disconnected.
    Commenters generally supported the concept of having air bags 
automatically deactivate one to two minutes after a vehicle's battery 
power is shut off, although the NTSB argued that the deactivation time 
should be closer to ten seconds. AAM, Toyota, and DaimlerChrysler 
questioned the need for a requirement at all, since most manufacturers 
already deactivate the air bag within one to two minutes after the 
power is cut off. These commenters, along with AORC, Nissan, Delphi and 
TRW, all raised concerns over the proposed test procedure. 
Specifically, the commenters were concerned that the addition of an air 
bag firing voltage terminal to measure voltage changes within the air 
bag electrical system may actually cause unknown air bag deployment 
problems adversely affecting the system's overall safety effectiveness.
    We continue to believe that a short air bag deactivation time would 
eliminate confusion and unnecessary delays in rescue work. We also 
believe that a period of one minute or less is appropriate. It is 
sufficiently short to assist in rescue operations but not so brief as 
to create design problems for manufacturers. We are concerned, however, 
that any test procedure that would allow us to objectively measure when 
the air bag has been deactivated could cause unnecessary complexity in 
the air bag system and potentially reduce system reliability. As noted 
in the preamble and cited by commenters, the air bags in most vehicles 
are deactivated within one minute or less after battery power is 
disconnected. Since most vehicles already meet the proposed timing, we 
are not convinced

[[Page 30729]]

that there is a sufficient need to regulate this issue at this time.
    However, we urge manufacturers who do not design their air bag 
systems to shut off within one minute of power being cut off to work on 
reducing the time before such deactivation. Given the ability of most 
manufacturers to meet this time frame in existing vehicles, we do not 
believe this would pose a significant design challenge. Rescue 
personnel do not have the time or the resources to determine at a crash 
scene when an undeployed air bag will deactivate once power is cut off. 
A measure of uniformity in this area is desirable.

J. Hybrid III Dummy Neck

    In the SNPRM, we requested comments on two issues related to the 
Hybrid III dummy neck.
    First, we noted that 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 neck within 20 milliseconds of the 
initiation of large neck shear loads without observing substantial 
angular deformation of the dummy neck. We stated that while we believe 
that these are true loads being generated by the restraint system and 
not artifacts of an inappropriately designed neck transducer, we were 
uncertain whether this loading condition is biomechanically realistic. 
We requested commenters' views on this issue.
    Second, we sought comments on the appropriate channel frequency 
class (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.).
    Several commenters noted that they did observe the high moment/low 
rotation loading condition and one, DaimlerChrysler, offered test data 
to suggest that the dummy's neck design does not follow established 
biomechanical response corridors. However, none of the commenters, 
including DaimlerChrysler, provided the agency with any additional data 
to justify or develop alternative dummy neck response requirements that 
either verify the responses of the current Hybrid III design or provide 
the basis for improving it.
    Because of the need to minimize the likelihood of neck injuries and 
lack of testing alternatives, we will use the current Hybrid III neck 
designs in the final rule. However, we will immediately establish new 
and accelerate existing research and development efforts to further 
address this issue.
    As to filtering, AAM and DaimlerChrysler stated that they believe 
that the filters specified by SAE J211 are appropriate for evaluating 
neck injury and that sources of the spikes/noise need to be identified 
and eliminated.
    We agree with the commenters' suggestion that the SAE filter 
specifications for the individual neck loads are sufficient for 
evaluating neck injury potential. The sources of noise do not appear to 
be inherent in the dummy neck design, but rather are caused by 
incorrect assembly/maintenance of a specific dummy or by procedural 
variances which need to be corrected at the testing laboratories.
    However, because Nij combines the neck bending moment and the neck 
axial force which have different channel frequency classes (CFC 600 for 
moment, CFC 1000 for axial force), we believe it is more appropriate to 
have a pure channel class frequency of 600 for Nij. Thus, we are 
specifying that a CFC 600 be used for computing the axial force 
component of Nij, and CFC 1000 for computing the peak axial neck 
forces. Because J211 does not require phaseless filters for frequency 
channel classes above 200, we have specified that all measurements be 
conducted with phaseless filters.

K. Seating Procedure for 5th Percentile Adult Female Dummy

    Earlier in this notice, we discussed the issue of where the 5th 
percentile adult female dummy should be located during crash tests; 
i.e., with the seat full forward or in some other position. A related 
issue is what seating procedure to use for positioning that dummy.
    In the SNPRM, we proposed a seating procedure that 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 and procedures in SAE Standard J826.
    For the 5th percentile adult female dummy, we proposed a different 
seating procedure which does not use a manikin. In tests we conducted 
for positioning the 5th percentile adult female dummy, it made little 
difference whether a manikin was used or not. The proposed non-manikin 
procedure also made it easier to repeatedly position the 5th percentile 
adult female dummy.
    We are adopting the seating procedure we proposed in the SNPRM. 
Although we have reviewed the proposed SAE seating procedure for the 
5th percentile adult female in a dynamic crash test, we have decided 
against adopting this procedure because it has not yet been adopted by 
the SAE and may not be adopted, in any form, for some time. If the SAE 
does ultimately adopt a seating procedure that is different from the 
one we are adopting today, we will review that procedure and consider 
replacing our procedure.

L. Deletion of Tests Between the Initial and Supplemental Proposals

    Several commenters raised concerns about the deletion of several 
tests in the SNPRM that were proposed in the NPRM.
    Public Citizen, CAS and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 
expressed concern about deletion of rough road tests. AAP stated that 
the agency's rationale that this is an area that vehicle manufacturers 
will consider and address in the absence of Federal requirements could 
be used to justify elimination of all test requirements. AAP stated it 
does not think it is appropriate to eliminate safety tests related to 
obvious potential performance problems, particularly in cases where the 
consequences of performance failure could easily be the death of 
infants, children and adolescents.
    Commenters also raised concerns about deletion of the proposed 
vehicle integrity requirements and the option for a full scale dynamic 
out-of-position test.
    We note that we dropped each of these requirements in part because 
of problems with the proposed test procedures. A specific explanation 
for dropping each of the requirements is set forth in the SNPRM.
    While rough road performance is certainly important, we do not 
believe there is any evidence that this is likely to be a real world 
problem. It would also be difficult to develop a test procedure that 
would assure that a dummy responded like a human to the forces imparted 
by a rough road. Indeed, the procedure we had proposed in the NPRM 
turned out to be impractical and did not accomplish its objective. 
Given our limited resources, we do not believe there is a need at this 
time to develop test procedures in this area.
    As to the option for a full scale dynamic out-of-position test, we 
believe that other options included in today's final rule accommodate 
the various

[[Page 30730]]

advanced air bag technologies under development.
    While vehicle integrity is important, this is an area that is not 
directly related to advanced air bags, and we believe it is best 
addressed outside of that context.

M. Consideration of Unintended Consequences

    Some commenters raised concerns about the possibility of unintended 
consequences resulting from use of advanced air bag technologies.
    In a joint comment, CEI/CA stated that they were concerned that we 
had not required extensive real world testing of the complex air bag 
systems that would be necessary to meet an advanced air bag standard. 
Those organizations argued that the absence of such data at the time of 
the original air bag mandate unexpectedly resulted in scores of air 
bag-induced deaths to children and other occupants.
    CEI/CA also expressed concern that there have been large numbers of 
air bag-related recalls to remedy problems that testing alone failed to 
anticipate, such as weather-induced deterioration, and production and 
technological problems. They argued that the fact that these problems 
arose for the current generation of air bags indicates that the more 
complex systems envisioned by NHTSA will be even more prone to trouble.
    CEI/CA argued that we should give consideration to the possibility 
of merely approving, rather than mandating, advanced air bags.
    As noted above, CEI/CA argued also that NHTSA's existing air bag 
experience should lead it to reject any mandate requiring technology 
and designs that are still under development. At a minimum, according 
to CEI/CA, the agency should establish requirements will not take 
effect until real-world data on such systems exists and has been 
analyzed. To the extent that it is statutorily constrained on this 
matter, it should set lead times at the absolute statutory maximum.
    Congressman David M. McIntosh similarly expressed concern that this 
rulemaking is being conducted too quickly, without real world data on 
how advanced air bags operate. He characterized the original mandating 
of air bags as rushing into uncharted territory and said that before 
repeating that mistake, we should perform extensive real world trials 
on advanced air bags.
    As noted earlier in this final rule, the history of this agency's 
consideration of air bags is actually a very long one, having begun 
with a public meeting in 1969. Air bags were not mandated until 1991, 
when Congress enacted a law mandating that NHTSA amend its occupant 
protection standard to require the installation of air bags, thus 
eliminating the option of installing other types of automatic restraint 
systems such as automatic belts. Between those two events, there were 
more than 20 years of public proceedings, research projects and 
analyses conducted by NHTSA on the issue of air bags, research 
conducted by the vehicle manufacturers, the installation of air bags in 
10s of 1,000s of vehicles, and the announcement by vehicle 
manufacturers of plans for installing them in many more.
    To solve the problems that arose in the mid-1990s with many of the 
air bags installed in motor vehicles, the agency announced a 
comprehensive plan in November 1996. The plan set forth an array of 
immediate, interim and long term measures. The immediate and interim 
measures focused on behavioral changes and relatively modest 
technological changes. The long term measures focused on more 
significant technological changes, i.e., advanced air bag technologies. 
The immediate steps included urging parents to place their children in 
the rear seat and giving motorists at risk the chance to turn off their 
air bags, requiring new labels with eye-catching graphics and colors 
and strong, clear warning messages, permitting the installation of 
original equipment on-off switches in new vehicles in which young 
children could not be placed in a child restraint system in a rear 
seating position, and permitting the installation of retrofit on-off 
switches to protect people in at-risk groups. Because of the lead time 
needed for advanced air bag technologies, NHTSA adopted an interim 
measure to accelerate manufacturer efforts to depower their air bags 
and make other short term design changes. The agency did this by 
permitting manufacturers to certify their vehicles using a sled test 
instead of a crash test more closely simulating a real world crash. In 
the long term, the agency said that it would conduct rulemaking to 
require the installation of advanced air bags.
    Since 1996, the agency has been carefully laying the groundwork for 
completing the implementation of its comprehensive plan by issuing this 
final rule. As noted above, we have made extensive efforts to gather 
information and solicit public comments that would help us identify and 
select a sensible, effective array of requirements for increasing 
protection and minimizing risk. In February 1997, we held a public 
technical workshop on advanced air bag technologies. In December 1997, 
we sent an Information Request (IR) to the vehicle manufacturers to 
obtain detailed information concerning their changes in air bag design 
during the 1990s. In April 1998, Jet Propulsion Laboratories completed, 
at NHTSA's request, a report titled ``Advanced Air Bag Technology 
Assessment.'' In mid-1998, Congress made the judgment that advanced air 
bags should be required. It enacted TEA 21 mandating that we amend our 
occupant protection standard again, this time to require vehicle 
manufacturers to improve the protection provided by air bags and to 
reduce the risks associated with them by means that include advanced 
air bag technologies. Although TEA 21 required only that we seek public 
comment once on our proposals before taking final action, we asked for 
public comment twice. We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
in September 1998, and a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking 
(SNPRM) in November 1999. To help us thoroughly explore the issues, we 
proposed or discussed a variety of alternatives and posed a wide-
ranging array of questions.
    Further, before we decided on what to include in this final rule, 
we carefully considered the available information and the public 
comments, the underlying safety problems, the performance of current 
motor vehicles, the ability (including lead time needs) of vehicle 
manufacturers to achieve better performance in future motor vehicles, 
the air bag technology (including advanced air bag technology) 
currently available or being developed, the cost of compliance, and 
other factors. We also carefully considered the comments concerning the 
costs, benefits and risks associated with each alternative proposal.
    As required by the mandate to us in TEA 21, our final rule requires 
vehicle manufacturers to improve the protection provided by air bags 
and reduce the risks associated with air bags by means that include 
advanced air bag technologies. Thus, the final rule is very different 
from the one issued in 1984. That final rule mentioned advanced air bag 
technologies as a way of addressing concerns about air bags risks, but 
did not mandate their use to prevent unintended consequences. This 
final rule mandates their use.
    This final rule does not, however, mandate the use of particular 
advanced air bag technologies. The requirements in the final rule are 
performance-based requirements that give vehicle manufacturers the 
flexibility they requested to choose which type of advanced air bag 
technology they include in the vehicles.

[[Page 30731]]

    This final rule establishes requirements and procedures for testing 
the ability of advanced air bag systems to protect people in moderate 
to high speed crashes and to avoid creating risks in low speed crashes. 
There are new detailed test procedures for manufacturers to use in 
developing and testing their advanced passenger air bag systems to 
ensure that they either do not deploy at all in the presence of a young 
child or deploy in a low risk manner. Driver air bags are required to 
deploy in a low risk manner.
    The final rule contains additional complementary measures for 
reducing the likelihood of unintended consequences for front seat 
occupants. It retains the existing, strongly worded and brightly 
colored warning labels urging motorists to place children in the back 
seat and urging everyone to buckle up. We recognize that some motorists 
will nevertheless place a child in the front seat. Our final rule 
requires that if vehicle is equipped with a passenger air bag system 
that turns the air bag off in the presence of a young child, the 
vehicle must also have a telltale to inform motorists whether the air 
bag has been turned off. Further, we have extended the availability of 
OE air bag switches in vehicles in which child restraints cannot be 
placed in a rear seat and of retrofit switches for at-risk people.
    Finally, we have provided as much lead time as TEA 21 allows for 
vehicle manufacturers to comply with the advanced air bag requirements 
mandated by that law.

N. Reporting Requirements

    Also as with previous phase-ins, we proposed amendments to 49 CFR 
Part 585 to establish reporting requirements to allow us to administer 
the phase-in and the use of advanced credits. We received no comments 
on this proposal and have adopted the changes to Part 585, with several 
modifications to clarify the requirements and to account for the 
addition of a second phase-in.

O. Use of Children and Adults for Testing Static Suppression Systems

    In the SNPRM we proposed to permit manufacturers to use human 
beings to check suppression features in light of concerns that current 
dummies may not be sufficiently human-like to be recognized by some of 
the advanced technologies under development. If a manufacturer selected 
this option, the suppression 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 the air 
bag system could not be suppressed when the seat was occupied by a 
female within a height/weight range similar to that of a 5th percentile 
adult female.
    In the SNPRM, we emphasized 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 system 
would be activated or deactivated; these tests do not involve deploying 
the air bag or moving the vehicle. To ensure absolute safety, we 
proposed to require manufacturers selecting this option to provide a 
method to assure that the air bag would not deploy during testing; such 
assurance could be made by removal of the air bag.
    In general, commenters supported the use of humans under the 
conditions outlined in the SNPRM at least as a short-term measure. 
Manufacturers were generally concerned that the use of humans would 
present objectivity and reliability concerns. All of the manufacturers 
of vehicles and air bag systems who commented on this option addressed 
the industry efforts to develop a new test dummy that better replicates 
the human form than the current anthropomorphic test dummies. AORC, 
Consumers Union and AAP urged that the air bags be removed during tests 
with humans, arguing that removal is the only sure way to eliminate 
risk. GM and BMW were concerned that systems designed to recognize 
humans might not recognize the anthropomorphic test dummies in the 
vehicle crash tests.
    GM and IEE stated that the ranges of weight and size provided in 
the SNPRM should be tightened, claiming the given range would create 
too much variability for a system to accurately detect presence with 
sufficient reliability. At the same time, the NTSB, AAP, and Trauma 
Link at the Philadelphia Children's Hospital have suggested that we 
further expand the height and weight ranges specified in the SNPRM.
    We support the initiative industry has taken in developing a new, 
more human-like dummy. The prototype for a 5th percentile adult female 
dummy has already been developed by FTSS with support from various 
vehicle manufacturers. Based on presentations made to the agency, we 
believe a prototype for the 6-year-old child dummy will soon follow. 
Since we have not yet had an opportunity to study these new dummies, we 
are unable to comment on their suitability for suppression 
technologies. However, we can note that the dummies currently used in 
compliance tests were all designed for use in crash tests, and while 
their overall size and weight is representative of the humans they were 
designed to replicate, they do not demonstrate the same flexibility, 
muscle tone or weight distribution as humans. Once the new dummies have 
been fully developed, we will evaluate their suitability for testing 
suppression systems. It is our hope that we will soon be able to 
eliminate the use of humans as a compliance option for suppression 
systems.
    As long as humans can be used to meet the suppression test 
criteria, it is imperative that the risk to these individuals be 
eliminated. This may require manufacturers to physically remove the air 
bag. However, manufacturers may be able to eliminate risk without 
removing the air bags. If they can do this, we see no need to require 
that the air bags be removed.
    As for GM's and BMW's concerns that systems designed to recognize 
humans may not recognize dummies for crash tests, we note that we 
believe vehicles should be designed to protect people rather than test 
dummies. However, in order to meaningfully test for compliance to our 
standard, the air bag must fire in a crash test. Accordingly, 
manufacturers will need to design their systems in such a way that they 
can meet the crash test requirements with dummies located in the front 
seats.
    In order to accommodate designs geared to recognition of people 
rather than inanimate objects, we have provided in S4.12 that 
manufacturers of vehicles with human recognition systems must provide 
NHTSA with information and equipment necessary to circumvent the 
suppression system for vehicle crash tests.
    We have decided to keep the height and weight ranges proposed in 
the SNPRM. As noted above, the use of humans is intended as a temporary 
measure and will likely only be used until more human-like dummies can 
be developed. Accordingly, we believe it would be inappropriate to 
expand the height and weight ranges significantly beyond the height and 
weight of the applicable dummies. At the same time, we have decided 
against narrowing the height and weight ranges proposed in the SNPRM. 
Since suppression systems will ultimately have to work with people, a 
system that can only detect the presence of an individual within a 
tightly prescribed range would not perform adequately in the real 
world.

P. Small Business Concerns

    As discussed later in the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis section, 
the requirements contained in this final rule may have a significant 
impact on a

[[Page 30732]]

number of small businesses, including small volume manufacturers, 
multi-stage manufacturers, alterers, seating system suppliers, air bag 
sensor and component manufacturers, and dummy manufacturers. Because 
today's rule will increase the demand for advanced air bag system 
technology as well as dummies and dummy parts (e.g., accelerometers), 
we believe that today's rule will have a positive effect on the 
manufacturers of these products. We expect that today's rule will have 
a more significant impact on small volume manufacturers, multi-stage 
manufacturers, alterers, and seating system suppliers.
    In the preliminary regulatory flexibility analysis accompanying the 
SNPRM, we estimated that the final rule would affect approximately 11 
seating systems suppliers which are small businesses. We explained that 
these suppliers serve a niche market and estimated that they provide 
seats for less than two percent of the vehicles. We explained that 
depending on the technology chosen to meet the proposed advanced air 
bag rule, these suppliers would need to keep up with emerging 
technology.
    Bornemann Products Incorporated, a seating component manufacturer, 
stated that 98 percent of its sales are to multi-stage vehicle 
manufacturers who primarily manufacture individual, custom vehicles. 
Bornemann stated that this rule could completely eliminate the 
``niche'' market of individual custom vehicles. Bornemann stated that 
since original vehicle manufacturers will be reluctant to allow any 
changes to their chassis that could affect the air bag system, this 
rule would have a significant impact on seating system vendors and 
their suppliers (e.g., fabric and trim suppliers, polyurethane 
producers, etc.), multi-stage vehicle manufacturers, vendors who supply 
these manufacturers with items such as carpet, steel and wood, and 
their employees.
    Bornemann stated that NHTSA's estimate of 11 seating companies was 
incorrect, that the number is closer to 30 and that these 30 businesses 
have close to $80,000,000 in sales and employ around 2,500 people. 
Bornemann also estimated that the rule would have an impact on the 
following small businesses: direct seating system vendors (130 firms 
and around 5,000 employees); multi-stage manufacturers (around 250 with 
approximately 14,000 employees); and vendors who supply material for 
vehicles and seats (around 550 vendors and around 18,000 employees). 
Bornemann also stated that a temporary exemption from the rule would 
not lead to a permanent resolution of the problem due to the technical 
issues involved. Bornemann did not explain what those technical issues 
were nor did they explain to what extent they could not be addressed. 
Bornemann also did not discuss what specific differences between 
existing and future air bag requirements would create technical 
problems for them nor did they discuss what specific advanced air bag 
technologies would pose the greatest problems for them.
    The Coalition of Small Volume Automobile Manufacturers (COSVAM), 
RVIA, and NTEA addressed the potential impact the new advanced air bag 
requirements would have on small volume manufacturers, multi-stage 
manufacturers, and alterers. A discussion of their specific comments as 
well as our response to them is included earlier in the section 
addressing the rule's phase-in requirements.
    We appreciate the technical challenges small volume manufacturers, 
multi-stage manufacturers, alterers, and seating system suppliers will 
face as a result of the requirements included in today's rule. 
Therefore, we have considered whether there were any alternatives 
available that could simplify compliance for small businesses without 
adversely affecting safety.
    RVIA asked that we allow small volume final stage manufacturers and 
alterers to certify compliance with a generic sled test pulse. As 
explained earlier in today's rule as well as in both the NPRM and 
SNPRM, we do 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 provide occupants in the real world. Unlike a full 
scale vehicle crash test, a sled test does not, and cannot, measure the 
actual protection that an occupant will receive in a crash. The test 
can measure the limited performance attributes of the air bag, but not 
the performance provided by the full air bag system, much less the 
combination of the vehicle and its occupant crash protection system. It 
is that combination that determines the amount of protection actually 
received in a crash. We also note that it would be inconsistent with 
the Safety Act to allow multi-stage manufacturers and alterers to 
certify compliance with a generic sled test pulse. Under the Safety 
Act, we cannot base the applicability of our safety standards on the 
circumstances of the manufacturer, such as whether a vehicle is 
manufactured in one or more stages. Differences in the applicability of 
standards must be based instead on differences between vehicles, such 
as the differences between convertibles and sedans.
    We note that sled testing is an accepted engineering practice and 
nothing precludes manufacturers from using sled tests as a basis for 
their certification. We note, however, that sled testing does not test 
all of the attributes (such as weight sensing or presence sensing) of 
the countermeasures that may be used to comply with the requirements of 
today's rule.
    In light of the statutory mandates contained in TEA 21, the only 
alternative available to address the concerns of small businesses is to 
increase the lead time for small volume manufacturers, multi-stage 
manufacturers, and alterers. We note that COSVAM, RVIA, and NTEA all 
supported such an extension. Further, while we recognize and are 
sympathetic to the technical challenges small volume manufacturers, 
multi-stage manufacturers, and alterers will face as a result of the 
requirements included in today's rule, we emphasize that we have 
limited discretion as to how much lead time we can provide. TEA 21 
provides that if the phase-in begins on September 1, 2003, the final 
rule must become fully effective by September 1, 2006. No exceptions 
are given for multi-stage manufacturers, alterers, or small volume 
manufacturers.
    We acknowledge that there is no guarantee that this solution will 
ultimately solve all the technical problems of small businesses. We 
have no control over when manufacturers bring into compliance the 
vehicles they supply to multi-stage manufacturers during the phase-in 
period. In addition, we have no control over the particular advanced 
air bag technology vehicle manufacturers will use to comply with the 
new requirements (e.g., whether the system will incorporate the seat).
    Further, while we recognize that adapting to this technology may 
not be easy, it is necessary. Keeping pace with technology is not a new 
problem for these manufacturers. Manufacturers regularly incorporate 
new technology that improves the safety of their vehicles (e.g., 
antilock brakes). However, to help minimize the economic impact of this 
final rule on small businesses, we urge air bag suppliers, chassis 
manufacturers, and OEMs to provide these manufacturers with as much 
engineering expertise as possible to help them meet the new 
requirements, and to keep the overall impacts small.
    We note that we are undertaking efforts to address the needs of 
multi-stage manufacturers, alterers, and the businesses, such as 
Bornemann, that

[[Page 30733]]

supply them. We have established a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee to 
develop recommended amendments to the existing NHTSA regulations (49 
CFR Parts 567 and 568) governing the certification of vehicles built in 
two or more stages to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The 
purpose of the amendments would be to assign certification 
responsibilities more equitably among the various participants in the 
multi-stage vehicle manufacturing process. The Committee will develop 
its recommendations through a negotiation process. It consists of 
persons who represent the interests that would be affected by any such 
amendments, such as first-stage, intermediate and final-stage 
manufacturers of motor vehicles, equipment manufacturers, vehicle 
converters, testing facilities, trade associations that represent 
various manufacturing groups, and consumers. The Committee is 
addressing several issues that should, when resolved, assist multi-
stage manufacturers and alterers in complying with today's 
requirements. Such issues include, for example: the feasibility and 
cost effectiveness of alternate methods (e.g., testing, computer 
modeling, or other as-yet-unspecified methods) to ensure compliance of 
completed vehicles with requirements of applicable FMVSSs; mechanisms 
for incorporating alternate methods of ensuring compliance into these 
regulations; mechanisms for sharing costs of testing; and requirements 
tailored to the capabilities and circumstances of each class of 
vehicles.

Q. Other Issues

1. Ability to Comment Effectively on the Supplemental Proposal
    The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) has asserted in section I of its 
unpaginated, electronically-filed December 30, 1999 comments that the 
agency has engaged in an ``information blackout'' that has hampered the 
ability of CAS and others to understand and comment effectively on the 
SNPRM. In support of this assertion, CAS has cited both NHTSA's refusal 
to disclose materials submitted with claims of confidentiality by the 
motor vehicle manufacturers in response to the agency's December 17, 
1997 requests for information concerning air bag technology in MY 1990-
1998 light passenger vehicles (information requests) \31\ and alleged 
inadequacies in the agency's October 26, 1999 report summarizing those 
materials. Air Bag Technology in Light Passenger Vehicles (R&D 
Report).\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The withheld information is currently the subject of 
litigation between CAS (represented by Public Citizen Litigation 
Group) and NHTSA. All of the vehicle manufacturers that received and 
responded to the information requests , as well as several air bag 
suppliers, have intervened as defendants. CAS v. NHTSA, D.D.C., No. 
99-1759 (GK). The district court issued a decision denying the CAS' 
motion for summary judgement and granting NHTSA's and the 
intervenors' cross-motion for summary judgement on February 28, 
2000.
    \32\ On December 16, 1999, the agency published a revised 
version of the R&D Report (Revision 1) that contains minor technical 
corrections to the October 26, 1999 Report. Revision 1 has been 
docketed at NHTSA-1997-2814-62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA disagrees with CAS' general assertion that public commenters 
lack sufficient information to participate adequately in this 
rulemaking. The R&D Report is a lengthy document, consisting of a four-
page Executive Summary, 37 pages of text and five appendices, that 
incorporates six tables and 31 figures. It describes and analyzes in 
some detail, but in general terms that do not disclose the identities 
of manufacturers or vehicle makes/models, the technology (Section 2.0) 
and trends (Section 3.0) in air bag technology during the 1990s. In 
addition, the R&D Report describes out-of-position testing conducted by 
NHTSA on MY 1996, 1998, and 1999 production vehicles (Section 4.1) and 
rigid barrier testing of 13 MY 1998 and 1999 vehicles with redesigned 
air bags (Section 4.2), and discusses evolving air bag fatality trends 
using data from NHTSA's Special Crash Investigations (SCI) program 
(Section 5.0). The agency's conclusion that the R&D Report provides 
commenters with ample information on which to base their comments is 
borne out by the specificity and sophistication of the comments 
submitted by CAS.
    NHTSA also disagrees with CAS' more specific assertion that the 
absence of a discussion of air bag deployment thresholds in the R&D 
Report has inhibited comments on the SNPRM (CAS Comment, Section IA). 
Neither the SNPRM nor the NPRM on advanced air bags proposed to set a 
minimum deployment threshold limit. Furthermore, we did not receive 
information indicating that the vehicle manufacturers changed their 
deployment thresholds in response to the agency's March, 1997 sled test 
rule. Thus, commenters do not require specific information about 
deployment thresholds in order to present arguments in response to the 
SNPRM, and the deployment threshold issue is not directly relevant to 
this rulemaking action. Moreover, assuming that commenters wish to 
discuss deployment thresholds, data on this subject are readily 
available to commenters from other accessible sources. Data from 
NHTSA's National Accident Sampling System (NASS) that provides 
information about the ``delta Vs'' in actual crashes in which air bags 
have deployed is publicly available over NHTSA's Website and is widely 
used. In addition, information in publicly-available reports prepared 
by SCI provides delta-V information for crashes that have resulted in 
fatalities. These reports are publicly available and CAS has discussed 
these materials with specificity in Section IA and Attachment A of its 
comments.
    CAS' charges in sections IB and IC of its comments with respect to 
alleged absence from the R&D Report of detailed air bag design 
information, such as information with respect to the location and 
mounting of air bags, folding pattern details, and information about 
inflation stages is similarly flawed. Because NHTSA's standards are 
performance standards rather than design standards, the agency has not 
proposed specific designs in either the NPRM or SNPRM. Thus, air bag 
design information at the level of detail desired by CAS is not 
necessary in order to comment intelligently on the SNPRM. Moreover, 
contrary to CAS' description, the R&D Report does contain considerable 
design information. See, e.g., section 3.1 (Trend Analysis) and 
Appendix A, which includes 45 pages of detailed charts and graphs.
    CAS also has objected to the withholding of the manufacturers' 
crash test performance data (other than data concerning testing 
performed pursuant to the requirements of Standard No. 208). Again, 
this data has been subject to litigation between CAS and the agency. 
But, in the R&D Report, at section 4 and Appendix D, NHTSA has provided 
the public with data from agency testing on a variety of vehicles using 
5th percentile adult female dummies. CAS is obviously aware of these 
data; it has cited and discussed them in its comments.
2. Resubmittal of Petition for Rulemaking by Donald Friedman and Carl 
Nash
    In a joint comment, Carl Nash and Donald Friedman stated that they 
believe that attempting to regulate all aspects of air bags may be 
counterproductive. They also argued that setting a minimum threshold of 
approximately 29 km/h (18 mph) and prohibiting late deployments would 
most protect vehicle occupants. We did not propose to set a minimum 
threshold as part of this rulemaking. Accordingly, adding such a 
requirement to the final rule would be outside of the scope of

[[Page 30734]]

the rulemaking. However, we are requiring that manufacturers meet a low 
risk deployment test for drivers and for small children if the air bag 
does not suppress. We believe that these requirements will adequately 
protect most individuals who could be seriously injured or killed with 
current air bags. Likewise, we are requiring manufacturers to meet the 
applicable injury criteria in a 40 km/h (25 mph) offset deformable 
barrier crash test. As explained earlier in this document, that test is 
designed to prevent the late deployments to which Friedman and Nash 
object.
    In the SNPRM, we denied a petition by Mr. Friedman and Mr. Nash 
that would have required manufacturers to develop systems that would 
further encourage vehicle occupants to use their safety belts. In 
denying the petition, the agency stated that it does not have the legal 
authority to require such technology, although we are not discouraging 
manufacturers from voluntarily using such technology. The basis for our 
rationale is an amendment made to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1974 
after NHTSA had amended its occupant protection standard to require 
vehicle manufacturers of vehicles equipped with manual seat belts, 
instead of automatic protection, to install inducements for belt use. 
These inducements were either interlocks that prevented one from 
driving the vehicle unless the safety belt was used or buzzers that 
sounded continuously until the safety belts were attached.
    Friedman and Nash have resubmitted their petition in response to 
the SNPRM. As noted in the SNPRM, we do not believe we currently have 
the statutory authority to require such devices. Nor do we believe that 
requiring any device that is not a buzzer or an interlock is within our 
authority, given the 1974 amendment. Accordingly, we are denying their 
resubmission. Nevertheless, we agree with Mr. Friedman and Mr. Nash 
that in the twenty-five years since that amendment was enacted, 
patterns of safety belt usage have changed considerably. We are 
planning to monitor the level of public acceptance and effectiveness of 
systems that manufacturers are placing in their vehicles to encourage 
seat belt use. If it appears that these systems are working, it may be 
appropriate to seek to have the 1974 amendment either changed or 
repealed.

XIV. Benefits and Costs

    The Final Economic Assessment (FEA) 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. The intent of this 
rulemaking is to minimize risks caused by air bags to out-of-position 
occupants, especially infants and children, and to improve occupant 
protection provided by air bags for belted and unbelted occupants of 
all sizes. To achieve these goals, we are requiring vehicles to meet 
test procedures that broaden the scope of the current standard to 
ensure that occupants are properly protected under a wider variety of 
crash circumstances.
    The risk of injury from air bags arises when occupants are too 
close to the air bag when it inflates. Generally, those most at risk 
from injury are infants, young children, and out-of-position drivers. 
We estimate that in a fleet fully equipped with pre-model year (MY) 
1998 air bags, there would be 46 drivers, 18 infants, 105 children, and 
18 adult passengers at risk of being killed by air bags annually 
because they were out of position when the air bag deployed in low 
speed (25mph delta-v) crashes. We also estimate that if all vehicles 
had air bags, 38 drivers, 9 infants, 200 children, and 15 adult 
passengers would sustain serious to critical (MAIS 3-5) nonfatal injury 
because they were out of position in low severity crashes. A variety of 
technologies could be used to prevent these deaths and serious 
injuries, including weight or presence sensors to suppress the air bag, 
multi-stage inflators, and low risk deployment air bags.
    To address these concerns, the new suppression and low risk 
deployment tests employ crash dummies representing infants, 3-year-old 
children, 6-year-old children, and 5th percentile female drivers. These 
tests generally require either that the air bag be suppressed if 
certain risk conditions exist or that deployments occur at levels that 
produce a low probability of injury risk.
    Of the 187 potential at-risk fatalities, NHTSA estimates that 
suppression technologies could prevent up to 93 fatalities, low-risk 
air bags could prevent up to 154 fatalities, and multi-stage inflation 
systems could prevent up to 179 fatalities when combined with weight 
sensors used to suppress the air bag. Thus, more than 95 percent of the 
at-risk population in low speed deployments could be protected by 
technologies used to meet the test requirements. Of the 262 serious but 
nonfatal injuries, suppression technologies could prevent 151 injuries, 
low-risk air bags could prevent 191 injuries, and multi-stage inflation 
systems could prevent up to 252 injuries when combined with a weight 
sensor.
    There is some question about the reliability of suppression and low 
risk deployment countermeasures and further development of these 
countermeasures is necessary. To the extent that these systems are not 
as reliable as assumed, children and small adults would continue to be 
at risk. Even if suppression and low risk deployment technologies are 
completely reliable, there will remain some out-of-position individuals 
subject to the full force of the air bag under certain circumstances. 
The risks to out-of-position individuals could be greater with an air 
bag designed to provide a 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted performance 
compared to an air bag designed to provide 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted 
performance.
    The FEA also analyzes three alternative sets of high speed tests 
instituted to preserve and enhance air bag protection. Each test 
includes belted and unbelted frontal rigid barrier tests using 5th 
percentile adult female and 50th percentile adult male crash dummies, 
30 degree oblique tests into a rigid barrier using unbelted 50th 
percentile adult male dummies, and 40 percent offset frontal deformable 
barrier tests using 5th percentile adult female dummies. Alternative 1 
would require an unbelted 32 to 40 km/h (20 to 25 mph) frontal rigid 
barrier test, while Alternative 2 would require an unbelted 32 to 48 
km/h (20 to 30 mph) frontal rigid barrier test. Both alternatives would 
require a belted 0 to 48 km/h (0 to 30 mph) frontal rigid barrier test. 
Alternative 3 would require an unbelted 32 to 40 km/h (20 to 25 mph) 
frontal rigid barrier test, but would require a belted 0 to 56 km/h (0 
to 35 mph) frontal rigid barrier test for the 50th percentile adult 
male dummies and a belted 0 to 48 km/h (0 to 30 mph) frontal rigid 
barrier test for the 5th percentile adult female dummies. Chapter I of 
the FEA provides the detail of the alternative sets of high speed 
tests.
    A variety of technologies could be used to comply with these tests 
including modified air bag fold patterns, improved inflators, added 
sensors, multi-stage inflators, and pretensioners. Air bag systems 
designed to comply with the 40 km/h (25 mph) offset test would, over 
the lifetime of one model year's production, save 20-28 more lives and 
prevent 134-262 more nonfatal injuries than the pre-MY 1998 baseline 
vehicles. Systems designed to the 48 km/h (30 mph) tests with the 5th 
percentile female dummy would save 23 more lives (4 belted and 19 
unbelted)

[[Page 30735]]

and prevent 184 more nonfatal injuries (43 belted and 141 unbelted). 
Systems that meet the 56 km/h (35 mph) rigid barrier test with the 
belted 50th percentile male dummies would save from 0-4 more lives and 
prevent 256 to 486 more nonfatal injuries.
    Estimates of the relative impact of the unbelted high speed tests 
are subject to a degree of uncertainty for several reasons, not the 
least of which is the fact that no vehicles were ever subject to a 40 
km/h (25 mph) unbelted standard. We cannot estimate the most likely 
difference between setting the unbelted tests at the two different 
levels, because it depends on how the manufacturers would meet the 
alternative performance requirements.
    We have discussed in detail our reasons for believing that it is 
unlikely that vehicle manufacturers will significantly depower their 
air bags compared to the MY 1998-2000 fleet. Vehicle manufacturers have 
not depowered their air bags so much that they minimally comply with 
the sled test. Crash tests and field experience to date with vehicles 
certified to the sled test have indicated that there has not been a 
loss of frontal crash protection compared to pre-MY 1998 vehicles. If, 
as we expect, the manufacturers keep the same level of power as they 
currently have in MY 1998-2000, even with a 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted 
test requirement, then the difference in actual benefits between the 
two test speeds would be small or even eliminated.
    At the same time, we cannot rule out the possibility that air bags 
will be significantly depowered. To account for this possibility, we 
calculated a ``worst case'' scenario comparing the benefits at the 
minimum performance requirements of each speed. We derived point 
estimates using two different methods and different sets of 
assumptions. We estimate that vehicles designed with 48 
km/h (30 mph) air bags could provide 229 or 394 more lives saved than 
vehicles designed with minimally compliant 40 km/h (25 mph) air bags. 
However, we also estimate that 48 km/h (30 mph) air bags could result 
in an additional 1,345 serious injuries \33\ compared to vehicles 
designed with 40 km/h (25 mph) air bags. These point estimates do not 
necessarily define the full range of possible outcomes due to 
uncertainty regarding both data and assumptions under each method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The less aggressive single-stage air bag that can be 
designed to a 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted test can result in fewer air 
bag caused injuries at low speeds than an air bag designed to a 48 
km/h (30 mph) unbelted test. Thus, single-stage air bags designed to 
a 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted test can prevent more fatalities, while 
single-stage air bags designed to a 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted test 
can prevent more injuries. Multi-stage air bags are assumed to 
provide the same level of benefits during the first stage, whether 
the second stage is designed for a 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted test or 
a 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even assuming a worst case scenario, each of the three alternatives 
provide more potential benefits than the existing 48 km/h (30 mph) 
generic sled test. We estimate that the generic sled test is roughly 
equivalent to a 35 km/h (22 mph) rigid barrier perpendicular crash. 
During the 1997 rulemaking, we looked at the relative safety 
consequences of an air bag designed to just meet the performance 
requirements associated with a 48 km/h (30 mph) generic sled test. We 
estimated the fatality impacts of designing a vehicle to minimally meet 
the performance requirements imposed by the 48 km/h (30 mph) generic 
sled test and have compared these to the fatality impacts of designing 
a vehicle to just meet the 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted rigid barrier 
test. Assuming there is no impact on air bag size, air bags designed to 
the 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test would save 64 to 144 
more lives than air bags designed to the generic sled test. Assuming 
air bags designed to the generic sled test would be reduced in size and 
therefore provide no benefit in partial frontal impacts, 282 to 308 
more lives could be saved by air bags designed to the 40 km/h (25 mph) 
unbelted rigid barrier test because that test requirement includes 
testing vehicles at a 30 degree oblique angle, thus providing benefits 
in partial frontal impacts.
    Potential compliance costs for the final rule 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. Dynamic presence 
sensors are not available at this point in time. They have not been 
refined to the point that they are in use in vehicles and are not 
required by tests in any Alternative. However, they have the potential 
to provide more benefits on the passenger side than weight sensors or 
low risk air bags. Dynamic presence sensors could be used by 
manufacturers to meet the test requirements in the future. As such, the 
cost and benefits of these systems have been estimated. The range of 
potential costs for the compliance scenarios examined in this analysis 
is $21-$128 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.
    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 $1.3 
billion.

XV. 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 Final Economic Assessment (FEA) describing the 
costs and benefits of this rulemaking action. The costs and benefits 
are summarized earlier in this document.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We have considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) We have prepared a 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA), which is part of the FEA. The 
RFA concludes that the final rule could have a significant, short-term 
economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses, but the 
economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses need not be 
significant in the long run. Small organizations and small governmental 
units will not be significantly affected since the potential cost 
impacts associated with this rule should only slightly affect the price 
of new motor vehicles.
    The rule will directly affect motor vehicle manufacturers, second-
stage or final-stage manufacturers, and alterers; and indirectly affect 
air bag manufacturers, seating system manufacturers, and dummy 
manufacturers.
    There are approximately five main suppliers of air bag systems. The 
agency does not believe that any are small businesses. In addition, we 
believe that there may be some second and third tier

[[Page 30736]]

manufacturers of components of air bags or air bag sensors that are 
small businesses. We do not believe, however, that there is a 
substantial number of them. Since today's rule will increase the demand 
for air bag systems and advanced air bag system technology, we believe 
that today's rule will have a positive effect on air bag manufacturers 
and on second and third tier manufacturers of air bag components.
    There are several manufacturers of dummies and/or dummy parts. All 
of them are considered small businesses. While the rule will not impose 
any requirements on these manufacturers, we expect it will have a 
positive impact on these types of small businesses by increasing demand 
for dummies and/or dummy parts (e.g., accelerometers).
    For passenger car and light truck manufacturers, we estimate that 
there are only about four small manufacturers (SVMs) in the United 
States. We believe that these manufacturers, which serve a niche 
market, do not manufacture even 0.1 percent of total U.S. passenger car 
and light truck production per year. We note that these manufacturers 
are already required to certify compliance to Standard No. 208's air 
bag requirements under ISTEA. In the past, many of these manufacturers 
have petitioned for temporary relief from the air bag requirements on 
the basis of economic hardship. We anticipate that these manufacturers 
will encounter difficulty certifying compliance with the requirements 
being added to Standard No. 208 by today's rule.
    In an effort to address the needs of these SVMs, we have decided to 
allow them to wait until the end of the phase-in to meet the 
requirements of today's rule. This will give SVMs more time to perform 
the engineering analysis and generate the compliance data needed to 
comply with today's rule. Since the requirements in today's rule will 
enhance the safety of vehicles and air bags for infants, children, 
small-statured adults and both belted and unbelted occupants, we 
believe any delays in compliance should be granted in the narrowest of 
circumstances only. We are, therefore, limiting this option to 
manufacturers which produce fewer than 5,000 vehicles per year 
worldwide.
    RVIA asked that final-stage manufacturers be given a one-year 
extension after the end of the phase-in for large manufacturers. 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.
    NTEA supported the proposal to allow multi-stage produced vehicles 
to be phased in at the end of the phase-in period. NTEA requested that 
the phase-in period run from September 1, 2003 to September 1, 2006.
    In the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, we stated that we 
knew of 11 businesses that supply seating systems to van converters and 
others and that are small businesses. In addition, 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 manufacturers choose 
to meet the advanced air bag final rule, these suppliers will have to 
keep up with the technology.
    Bornemann Products Incorporated is a small business that provides 
seating components to second- and final-stage manufacturers and 
alterers. Bornemann argued that the cost per vehicle and the impact on 
small businesses could be significant. Bornemann stated that this rule 
could have a significant impact on the industry that supplies the 
``niche'' market of individual custom vehicles. Bornemann's concerns 
have been addressed extensively earlier in this document. We refer the 
reader to that discussion. Additional information concerning the 
projected impacts of today's rule on small entities is presented in the 
FEA.
    We believe that second- and final-stage manufacturers and alterers 
will choose to certify compliance in one of two ways. They will either 
(1) rely on suppliers to provide them with the same technology (weight 
sensing, seat track sensing, etc.) provided to the OEM manufacturers or 
(2) purchase the full seat from the OEM and, leaving the technology in 
place, re-upholster the seat. If they rely on manufacturers to supply 
them with the same technology, there will be a cost associated with 
installing the technology in the seat and assuring compliance (e.g., 
static testing) if they cannot pass through the supplier's 
certification. There will also be costs associated with certifying 
compliance with the rigid barrier test.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

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

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    The agency has analyzed this rulemaking in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and has 
determined that it does not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation 
of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule has no 
substantial effects on the States, or on the current Federal-State 
relationship, or on the current distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various local officials.

E. Unfunded Mandate Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to 
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects 
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to 
result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually 
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This rule will not 
have a significant expenditure of funds by State, local and tribal 
governments. However, the cost of the Rule will exceed the expenditure 
of over $100 million by the private sector. Rather than requiring a 
specific technology, this rule allows manufacturers to certify 
compliance with the advanced air bag requirements through a combination 
of several different technologies. Some of theses technologies, such as 
a dynamic suppression system, may be quite expensive. Other 
technologies, such as a weight sensor, are relatively cheap. The 
decision as to which technology to place in a particular vehicle rests 
with the manufacturer of that vehicle. A full assessment of the Rule's 
costs and benefits is provided in the FRA.

F. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This final 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.

[[Page 30737]]

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    In its November 5, 1999 supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, 
NHTSA sought public comment on its estimates of the additional 
collection of information burden imposed on the public as a result of 
this rulemaking. NHTSA received no comments on the collection of 
information issues.
    This final rule includes 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--For the six production 
years ending on August 31, 2003, August 31, 2004, August 31, 2005, 
August 31, 2007, August 31, 2008, and August 31, 2009, each 
manufacturer will be required to report once a year to NHTSA, its 
annual production of vehicles with advanced air bags. As previously 
explained, the reporting for the initial phase-in period will end with 
the information for the production year ending on August 31, 2005 and 
the reporting for the second phase-in will end with the information for 
the production year ending on August 31, 2009. The Office of Management 
and Budget has approved NHTSA's collection of this information, 
assigning the collection OMB clearance no. 2127-0599. NHTSA estimates 
that 1,260 burden hours a year (on all vehicle manufacturers) would be 
imposed as a result of this collection.
    Since today's rule specifies a second phase-in period, we will ask 
OMB to extend clearance no. 2127-0599 for the additional period of time 
that the second phase-in period will last. OMB grants extensions of 
collections for no more than three years at a time. We do not believe 
that future phase-in report collections will result in burdens on the 
public of more than 1,260 burden hours (on all vehicle manufacturers) a 
year.
    Air Bag Warning Labels--New air bag warning labels are specified in 
this final rule. 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.
    For the following reasons, NHTSA estimates that the new air bag 
warning labels would have no net increase in the information collection 
burden on the public. There are 24 motor vehicle manufacturers that 
will be affected by the air bag warning label requirement, and the 
labels will be placed on approximately 15,500,000 vehicles per year. 
The label will be placed on each vehicle once. Since, in this final 
rule, NHTSA specifies the exact content of the labels, the 
manufacturers will spend 0 hours developing the labels. NHTSA estimates 
the technical burden time (time required for affixing labels) to 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 will be 
3,100 hours (15.5 million vehicles multiplied by .0002 hours per 
label). Since the labels specified in this final rule replace existing 
labels, no additional burden is imposed on manufacturers.
    Advanced Air Bag Information in the Owner's Manual--This final rule 
requires advanced air bag information in the owner's manual that is in 
addition to the information already required under Standard No. 208. 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 a year on all vehicle 
manufacturers.

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 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. 
Standard No. 208 is extremely difficult to read as it contains multiple 
cross-references and has retained all of the requirements applicable to 
vehicle of different classes at different times. Because portions of 
today's rule amend existing text, much of that complexity remains. 
Additionally, the availability of multiple compliance options, 
differing injury criteria and a dual phase-in have added to the 
complexity of the regulation, particularly as the various requirements 
and options are accommodated throughout the initial phase-in. Once the 
initial phase-in is complete, much of the complexity will disappear. At 
that time, it would be appropriate to completely revise Standard No. 
208 to remove any options, requirements, and differentiations as to 
vehicle class that are no longer applicable.

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 \34\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 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.''

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

[[Page 30738]]

    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. We have reviewed the proposed 
SAE seating procedure for the 5th percentile adult female in a dynamic 
crash test. We have decided against adopting this procedure because it 
has not yet been adopted by SAE and may not be adopted, in any form, 
for some time. No other voluntary consensus standards are addressed by 
this rulemaking.

Appendix A--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.\35\ 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. Many of the redesigned air bags in MY 1998 and 1999 vehicles 
have 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 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.
    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 range of 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 
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 
by means of a generic acceleration pulse. 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 if the vehicle experienced that level of deceleration.

Fixed Barrier Crash Tests

    All of the crash tests adopted in this final rule 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 
fixed barrier crash tests are shown in Figure 3.
    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 30739]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MY00.002

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 30740]]

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 fatal crashes are unbelted. Unbelted 
tests are intended to evaluate the protection provided these 
persons, many of whom are teenagers and young adults.

Static Low Risk Deployment 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 steering wheel or instrument panel. 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 final rule adopts 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 
addresses 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 final rule specifies the use of 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.

Appendix B--Evolution of the Air Bag Provisions in Standard No. 208

    The occupant protection requirements in Standard No. 208 have 
been evolving for more than 30 years. It is only relatively 
recently, however, that vehicle manufacturers have actually been 
required to install any air bags. Although vehicle manufacturers 
first installed air bags in a small number of vehicles in the mid-
1970s and began installing air bags in a significant number of 
vehicles in the mid-1980s, it was not until the mid to late 1990s 
(MY 1997) that manufacturers were first required to install any air 
bags in any motor vehicle.
    We issued our first notice concerning air bags in 1969. 34 FR 
11148; July 2, 1969. In response to the low rate of seat belt use, 
we amended Standard No. 208 in 1971 to require automatic restraints 
(i.e., devices like air bags and automatic belts that protect in 
frontal crashes without requiring any action by the occupant) in all 
passenger cars in 48 km/h (30 mph) crash tests beginning with MY 
1976. 37 FR 3911; February 24, 1972.\36\ In Chrysler Corp. v. DOT, 
the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the basic validity of that 
requirement, finding it reasonable and practicable, but directed 
NHTSA to issue more precise test dummy specifications in order to 
achieve greater objectivity. After complying with that directive, 
NHTSA proposed automatic restraint requirements in 1974. We did not 
take final action on that proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Passenger cars manufactured between August 1973 and August 
1975, could meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 208 through any of 
three options, two of which were for automatic restraints. One of 
the automatic restraint options required automatic protection in 
frontal crashes and required manual seat belts at each designated 
seating position. The other automatic restraint option required 
automatic protection in frontal, side and rollover crashes and did 
not require any seat belts in the vehicle. The other option was for 
manual seat belts. Cf. 49 CFR 571.208 S4.1.2. These options were 
later extended in several rulemakings to August 31, 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Instead, after issuing a new notice in 1976 (41 FR 24070; June 
14, 1976) seeking comment on a variety of alternative actions 
including promoting seat belt use laws, requiring automatic 
restraints, and initiating a field test of automatic restraints, the 
Department decided in early 1977 to initiate a field test of 
automatic restraints. Pursuant to that decision, contracts were 
negotiated with vehicle manufacturers for the voluntary offering for 
sale of 500,000 automatic restraint passenger cars. It was 
anticipated that those passenger cars would be equipped with air 
bags.
    However, this field test was never completed. Instead, in mid-
1977, the Department decided to go ahead and once again mandate 
automatic restraints in passenger cars. 42 FR 34289; July 5, 1977. 
The requirements were to be phased in, beginning in MY1983. However, 
in 1981, NHTSA rescinded the requirements because it said that it 
was unable to find that more than minimal safety benefits would 
result from the vehicle manufacturers' plan to comply with the 
requirements by installing detachable automatic belts instead of air 
bags. 46 FR 53419; October 29, 1981.
    In June 1983, the Supreme Court held that NHTSA's rescission of 
the automatic restraint requirements was arbitrary and capricious. 
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association v. State Farm Mutual 
Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983). In particular, the 
Court found the agency had failed to present an adequate basis and 
explanation for rescinding the requirement.
    The Court unanimously found that, even if the agency was correct 
that detachable automatic belts would yield few benefits, that fact 
alone would not justify rescission. Instead, it would justify only a 
modification of the requirement to prohibit compliance by means of 
that type of automatic restraint. The Court also unanimously held 
that having concluded that detachable automatic belts would not 
result in significantly increased usage, NHTSA should have 
considered requiring that automatic belts be continuous (i.e., 
nondetachable) instead of detachable, or that Standard No. 208 be 
modified to require the installation of air bags.
    In response to the Supreme Court's decision, the Department 
issued a proposal in late 1983 seeking public comment on an array of 
alternatives similar to those in the Department's 1976 notice. 48 FR 
48622; October 19, 1983. Among those alternatives was mandating air 
bags.
    However, when the Department issued a rule in 1984, it did not 
establish such a mandate. Instead, it required that some type of 
automatic restraint be installed in passenger cars. Thus, the 
manufacturers had a choice of a variety of methods of providing 
automatic protection, including automatic seat belts and air bags, 
as long as certain specified performance requirements were met in a 
48 km/h (30 mph) crash test into a rigid barrier using 50th 
percentile adult male dummies. Further, the requirements gave 
vehicle manufacturers broad flexibility in selecting the design and 
performance characteristics of their automatic restraints as long as 
they met the performance requirements.
    The Department expressly recognized in its 1984 rule that the 
vehicle manufacturers had raised concerns about potential adverse 
effects of air bags to out-of-position occupants. In response to 
those concerns, the Department identified a variety of technological 
concepts for addressing those risks. See the July 11, 1984 Final 
Regulatory

[[Page 30741]]

Impact Analysis, pp. III-8 to 10.\37\ The flexibility provided by 
the 1984 rule included the opportunity for vehicle manufacturers to 
develop and incorporate those technologies, now known as advanced 
air bag technologies. However, that rule (unlike the one being 
adopted today) did not adopt any regulatory provisions requiring or 
encouraging the use of those technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ The July 11, 1984 Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA) 
listed a variety of potential technological means for addressing the 
problem of injuries associated with air bag deployments including 
dual level inflation systems and other technological measures such 
as bag shape and size, instrument panel contour, aspiration, and 
inflation technique. It also noted that a variety of different 
sensors could be used to trigger dual level inflation systems, e.g., 
a sensor that measures impact speed, a sensor that measures occupant 
size or weight and senses whether an occupant is out of position; 
and an electronic proximity sensor.
    For the most part, the introduction of these technologies in new 
motor vehicles did not begin until the late 1990's. A number of the 
vehicle manufacturers are known to be working now very actively on 
an array of advanced air bag technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The automatic protection requirements were phased in, beginning 
with MY 1987. Later, the requirements were extended to light trucks, 
beginning with MY 1995.
    A number of vehicle manufacturers initially chose to comply with 
those requirements by installing automatic belts in many of their 
vehicles. However, ultimately, the early decisions of some 
manufacturers to install air bags as standard equipment and the 
positive response of the market to those decisions led to a general 
move within the industry toward installing air bags in many 
passenger cars and light trucks by the early 1990's.
    In 1991, Congress included a provision in the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) directing us to amend Standard 
No. 208 to require that all passenger cars and light trucks provide 
automatic protection by means of air bags.\38\ ISTEA required air 
bags in all passenger cars beginning with MY 1998, and in all light 
trucks beginning with MY 1999. We published the rule implementing 
this mandate on September 2, 1993 (58 FR 46551).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ TEA 21 is thus the second Congressional act narrowing the 
discretion provided by the Department's 1984 rule regarding 
automatic protection. That rule mandated automatic protection, but 
explicitly provided discretion with respect to the type of automatic 
protection (e.g., automatic seat belts and air bags), and implicitly 
allowed the use of advanced air bag technologies.
    ISTEA mandated the installation of air bags. TEA 21 mandates the 
use of advanced air bag technologies or other means to reduce air 
bag-induced risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like the automatic restraint requirements issued in 1984, the 
air bag requirements issued in 1993 were performance requirements 
that did not specify the design of an air bag system. Instead, they 
gave vehicle manufacturers substantial design flexibility. They 
permitted, but did not require, vehicle manufacturers to develop and 
use advanced air bag technologies in designing their air bags to 
minimize the risks from air bags, in particular, the risk of serious 
injury to unbelted, out-of-position occupants, including children 
and small drivers.
    Thus, the manufacturers had significant freedom under Standard 
No. 208 to develop and install means of protecting the wide variety 
of occupants under a broad range of crash conditions, such as the 
types of crashes, the crash speeds at which the air bags deploy, the 
initial direction in which they deploy, the force with which they 
deploy, the time of deployment during the crash, air bag tethering 
and venting to control inflation force when a deploying air bag 
encounters an occupant close to the steering wheel or dashboard, the 
use of sensors to suppress air bag inflation in the presence of 
rear-facing child restraints or the presence of small children, the 
use of sensors to detect occupant position to prevent air bag 
inflation if appropriate, and the use of multi-stage inflators to 
adjust air bag force to the crash situation. Multi-stage inflators 
allow tailoring of air bag performance to match the circumstances of 
a crash. For example, air bag deployment can be tailored in response 
to crash severity so that force levels are lower in less severe 
crashes than they are in more severe crashes. The less severe 
crashes are the type of crashes in which full force is not needed 
and in which air bag-induced fatalities to out-of-position occupants 
have occurred.
    Until March 1997, the injury criteria limits in Standard No. 208 
had to be met for air bag-equipped vehicles in barrier crashes at 
speeds up to 48 km/h (30 mph), with the 50th percentile adult male 
dummies wearing seat belts, and in separate barrier crashes at those 
speeds with dummies unbelted. Then, however, concerns about the 
rising number of air bag-induced fatalities led us to publish a rule 
(62 FR 12960; March 19, 1997) 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 adopted this amendment for two principal reasons. First, 
the lead time for reducing a significant portion of the risk of air 
bag-induced fatalities through reducing the force of air bags as 
they deploy (i.e., depowering) was shorter than the lead time for 
addressing those risks through developing and installing advanced 
air bag technologies. Second, allowing manufacturers to use the less 
stringent, less expensive and easier to conduct sled test made it 
easier to maintain compliance with Standard No. 208 while depowering 
their air bags and making other design changes. This shortened the 
lead time for depowering, compared to the time it would have taken 
to recertify vehicles with depowered air bags using a barrier crash 
test.
    In the March 1997 rule, we specified that the sled test option 
would terminate on September 1, 2001. We concluded that there was no 
need to reduce Standard No. 208's performance requirements 
permanently, based on our belief in 1997 that advanced air bag 
technologies could be incorporated into new vehicles by 2001 and 
thus enable manufacturers to reduce air bag risks while continuing 
to meet the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted barrier crash test.
    The September 1, 2001 sunset date for the sled test option was 
superseded by a provision in TEA 21. In a paragraph titled 
``Coordination of Effective Dates,'' TEA 21 provides that the 
unbelted sled test option ``shall remain in effect unless and until 
changed by [the final rule for advanced air bags].''

Appendix C--Chronology of DOT and NHTSA Responses to Air Bag Risks and 
Fatalities

A. Introduction

    As the following chronology demonstrates, DOT/NHTSA have 
repeatedly and publicly addressed the issue of risk to out-of-
position occupants from air bags in regulatory decisions about 
automatic restraints and air bags for more than 20 years. More 
important, concerns about that issue helped to shape the DOT/NHTSA 
regulatory decisions during 1980s and 1990s.

B. Chronology

    In its 1977 rule requiring automatic restraints, the Department 
discussed the possibility of ``side effects of air bag 
installation'' at length. That discussion included the issue of 
risks for out-of-position occupants. 42 FR 34289; July 5, 1977.
    In 1981, Minicars, Inc., a NHTSA research contractor, issued 
reports on the successful efforts to build and test devices, 
including dual-stage inflators, for controlling passenger air bag 
inflation so as to avoid harming out-of-position children.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ ``Small Car Front Seat Passenger Inflatable Restraint 
System (Vol. I--Chevette and Omni),'' ``Small Car Front Seat 
Passenger Inflatable Restraint System (Vol. II--Citation),'' 
``Upgrade Volvo Production Restraint System.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In deciding in 1984 to issue rule requiring automatic 
restraints, the Department considered vehicle manufacturer comments 
that air bags would pose risks to out-of-position occupants, 
particularly in small cars. The lack of experience with the 
technical means for addressing those risks was one of the reasons 
expressly cited by the Department for rejecting the alternative of 
mandating air bags. 49 FR 28962, at 29001; July 17, 1984.
    While the Department noted in the 1984 rule that use of 
technical solutions such as sensors to adjust deployment could 
lessen the problem, it said that it could not ``state for certain 
that air bags will never cause injury or death to a child.'' As 
discussed above, other technical solutions were identified in the 
Final Regulatory Impact Analysis for that rule, including dual-stage 
inflation systems and other technological measures such as bag shape 
and size, instrument panel contour, aspiration, and inflation 
technique. It also noted that a variety of different sensors could 
be used to trigger dual-stage inflation systems.
    In 1985, NHTSA denied petitions for reconsideration of the 1984 
rule. NHTSA noted that the 1984 ``final rule acknowledged concerns 
about the effects of air bag systems on out-of-position occupants; 
however, it also explained that technical solutions are available to 
address the out-of-position occupant problem.'' NHTSA said that

[[Page 30742]]

concerns about air bag risks and a variety of other factors led to 
the Department's decision not to mandate air bags for all cars. 50 
FR 35233, at 35234; August 30, 1985.
    Two years later, in 1987, NHTSA amended Standard No. 208 to 
delay the requirement for any type of automatic restraint for the 
passenger seating position in a passenger car if the car had a 
driver air bag. This action was taken in response to a petition by 
Ford. The agency said that the length of the delay was based on the 
time that the vehicle manufacturers said was necessary to complete 
the development and installation of passenger air bags. Ford said in 
its petition that there were a number of uncertainties, including 
technical problems, concerning the development of those air bags. 
Ford said that it was concerned that passenger air bags could pose 
risks for standing children and other occupants who are out of 
position due, for example, to pre-crash braking. It said, however, 
that it expected to solve these problems if its petition were 
granted so that it could proceed in an orderly, controlled manner to 
gain experience with passenger-side applications. 52 FR 10096; March 
30, 1987.
    In 1991, NHTSA issued a rule amending Standard No. 201, Occupant 
Protection in Interior Impact, 49 CFR 571.201, to facilitate 
installation of top-mounted, vertically deploying passenger air 
bags. This rulemaking was conducted in response to a petition by 
Chrysler, which said that this type of air bag would reduce the 
risks for standing children and out-of-position occupants. Ford and 
GM supported the petition and concurred that these air bags had the 
potential for reducing risks to out-of-position children and adults. 
56 FR 26036; June 6, 1991.
    Also in 1991, NHTSA issued a Consumer Advisory warning owners of 
rear-facing child seats not to use such a restraint in the front 
seat of a vehicle equipped with a passenger air bag. This warning 
was based on preliminary results of testing regarding this problem. 
At that time, no casualties to infants had occurred.
    In the 1993 rule implementing the air bag mandate in ISTEA, 
NHTSA required vehicles equipped with air bags to bear labels on the 
sun visors providing four specific cautions, including a statement 
not to install rearward-facing child seats in front passenger 
positions, and advising the occupant to see the owner's manual for 
further information and explanations. 58 FR 46551; September 2, 
1993.
    In 1994, NHTSA issued a rule amending Standard No. 213, Child 
Restraint Systems, to require rear-facing child seats to bear a 
warning against using the restraint in any vehicle seating position 
equipped with an air bag. 59 FR 7643; February 16, 1994.
    In 1995, NHTSA issued a rule allowing manufacturers to install a 
manual device that motorists could use to deactivate the front 
passenger-side air bag in vehicles in which rear-facing child seats 
can only fit in the front seat. 60 FR 27233; May 23, 1995. On 
October 27, 1995, in response to several fatalities to improperly-
restrained children in air bag-equipped positions, NHTSA issued a 
strong warning in a press release. This release broadened the 
previous agency warnings about young children to apply to older 
children and even adults who may ride unrestrained.
    In 1996, the agency issued a rule requiring improved labeling on 
new vehicles and child restraints to provide greater assurance that 
drivers and other occupants are aware of the dangers posed by 
passenger air bags to children, particularly to children in rear-
facing infant restraints in vehicles with operational passenger air 
bags. 61 FR 60206; November 27, 1996.
    In 1997, the agency took three important steps to address air 
bag risks through vehicle safety rulemaking. First, we issued a rule 
extending until September 1, 2000, the existing provision permitting 
vehicle manufacturers to offer manual on-off switches for the 
passenger air bag for new vehicles without rear seats or with rear 
seats that are too small to accommodate rear-facing infant 
restraints. 62 FR 798; January 6, 1997. Second, we issued a rule 
temporarily amending Standard No. 208 to facilitate efforts of 
vehicle manufacturers to redesign their air bags quickly so that 
they inflate less aggressively. This change, coupled with the broad 
flexibility already provided by the standard's existing performance 
requirements, provided the vehicle manufacturers maximum flexibility 
to reduce the adverse effects of current air bags quickly. 62 FR 
12960; March 19, 1997. Third, we issued a rule exempting, under 
certain conditions, motor vehicle dealers and repair businesses from 
the ``make inoperative'' prohibition of 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 had been 
authorized by NHTSA. 62 FR 62406; November 21, 1997.

Appendix D--Installation of Advanced Technologies in Current Production 
Motor Vehicles

A. Introduction

    The level of risk of air bag-induced fatalities depends to a 
significant extent on air bag system design. There are various 
advanced air bag technologies that have been or are being developed 
and that, if incorporated in air bag systems, can improve protection 
of occupants of different sizes, belted and unbelted, and minimize 
the risks from air bags.\40\ For example, an air bag need not be 
designed so that it inflates with full force under all 
circumstances. Dual-stage inflators can be used in combination with 
various types of sensors (e.g., crash severity, seat position, and 
belt use) and improved algorithms to adjust the deployment threshold 
or air bag inflation pressure and pressure rise rate and thereby 
reduce risk. Different folding patterns and aspiration designs, as 
well as systems that suppress air bag deployment altogether in 
appropriate circumstances, also could reduce risk. For example, 
higher speed deployment thresholds could prevent deployment in low 
speed crashes, and weight sensors could be used to prevent 
deployment when children are present. In addition, recessed air bag 
modules, compartmentalized and internally-tethered air bags, bias 
flaps, and low break-out force covers could make deploying air bags 
more benign for out-of-position occupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Air bag systems are only one of many automotive 
applications of increasingly sophisticated technology. Equally 
sophisticated technology is being used in many other existing 
vehicle systems as well as in entirely new ones. Examples include 
backup obstacle detection warning systems, adaptive cruise controls, 
rollover sensors, rain-activated windshield wiper systems, global 
positioning systems, head-up displays of information on the 
windshield, night vision systems, antilock braking systems, and tire 
pressure monitoring systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Key Parts of Air Bag Systems

    In analyzing potential improvements in air bag system 
performance, it is useful to divide the system into 3 discrete 
parts:
    1. Information: Acquiring information about crashes and 
occupants,
    2. Analysis/Decision: Analyzing that information to determine 
the nature of the crash and the circumstances of the front seat 
occupants, and deciding how to adjust the response of the air bag 
system accordingly, and
    3. Response: Adjusting the performance of the air bag in 
response to the decisions regarding the acquired information.
    Air bag systems acquire information through the use of sensors. 
All air bag systems have some kind of crash sensor indicating the 
occurrence of a crash and its severity. The systems process 
information from the sensors and use an algorithm to make decisions 
on the desired air bag deployment and performance based on 
predictions about the crash event. The systems may also have sensors 
which provide information about such things as belt use, child seat 
use, occupant weight and size, seat adjustment position, and 
occupant location. The information from the sensors is used by the 
electronic control unit in making decisions as to whether and when 
the air bag is to be deployed. Air bags using advanced technologies 
could use the information to tailor the inflation levels of multi-
stage air bags.
    The information, analysis/decision, and response aspects of air 
bag systems each offer opportunities for improving occupant 
protection. With more and better information, improved decision-
making algorithms, and greater adjustment capability to tailor the 
inflation, an air bag system can be designed to provide an improved 
response.
    For example, with improved information about crash severity, the 
deploy/don't deploy decision can be made earlier in a crash. By 
deploying earlier during a crash, before the occupant has moved very 
far forward, the air bag can better protect the occupant and is less 
likely to pose risks to the occupant. If an air bag system includes 
sensors which provide information about occupant weight and/or size 
or location, it can be designed to suppress deployment in the 
presence of a young child or to deploy differently for small adults 
and large adults (e.g., a lower level of inflation for a smaller 
adult than that for a larger one).
    While some aspects of improved performance are dependent on more 
or better

[[Page 30743]]

sensor information, others are not. For example, while a suppression 
device requires information about occupant category or location, 
other approaches that could reduce air bag aggressiveness, such as 
improved fold patterns, lighter weight air bag fabrics, air bag 
cover design, low break-out force openings, tethering and bias flaps 
are not information-dependent.

C. Specific Advanced Technologies

    Sensors--General. Advanced air bag systems can use various types 
of sensors to obtain information about crashes, vehicles and their 
occupants. This information can be used to adapt the performance of 
the air bag to the particular circumstances of the crash. As noted 
above, it can be used in determining whether an air bag should 
deploy, when it should deploy, and (if it has multiple inflation 
levels) at what level of inflation (pressure rise) and inflation 
rate (pressure rise rate).
    Sensors--Crash severity. 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 moderate severity crash is sensed, both stages 
will fill the air bag with a specific time delay between the two 
stages; and if a more severe crash is sensed, both stages will fill 
the air bag either simultaneously or with a 5-10 msec interval in 
between the stages.
    Improvements are being made in crash sensing hardware to provide 
earlier crash detection and more accurate estimates of crash 
severity and proper decision for timely deployment. Current trends 
in crash sensor hardware involve the use of either a single-point 
electronic sensor or a combination of electromechanical and 
electronic sensors.\41\ Electronic sensors use microprocessor 
technology to compute the deceleration time history of the vehicle 
along with the integration of various other input factors to 
determine whether air bag deployment is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Based on information from the responses to the December 
1997 IR, 44 percent of the MY 1998 vehicles in the IR fleet had only 
one crash sensor and 73 percent had either a single electronic or a 
combination electronic and electromechanical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sensors--Passenger weight and seat pattern. Passenger air bag 
systems may incorporate advanced technologies to suppress the air 
bag in the presence of children to prevent undesirable deployments. 
To accomplish this, manufacturers are refining seat weight or seat 
pattern recognition systems for detecting passenger occupant size 
and/or position.
    For example, some occupant detection systems will use an array 
of sensors in the seat cushion to measure either the pressure 
distribution or deflection pattern resulting from the occupant in 
the seat to make a determination on whether to deploy or suppress 
the air bag system. Child safety seats, for example, are more 
readily identifiable by these systems, since they have a distinct 
``footprint'' when compared to the human buttocks.
    Weight sensing systems estimate the weight of the occupant 
through various load cell technologies located in the seat cushion 
or at the base of the seat. The latter approach has the potential 
for avoiding the possible difficulties that can be created for seat-
cushion weight sensors when the seat back is tilted back enough to 
transfer a significant portion of the occupant's weight from the 
seat cushion to the seat back. The algorithms associated with these 
devices can be designed to take into consideration and minimize the 
effects of belt cinch forces (for example, from child safety seats) 
by using belt tension-measuring hardware to make an adjusted 
assessment of weight.
    Sensors--Occupant size and/or location. Other advanced occupant 
detection systems under development use technologies, such as 
capacitive, ultrasonic, and infrared, for sensing occupant size and/
or location with respect to the air bag module. These are used in 
the development of dynamic and static suppression strategies.
    Strategies for static occupant detection systems \42\ include 
the ability to make a determination of whether air bag deployment is 
warranted (or what level of inflation is appropriate) for the size 
and/or position of the occupant (e.g., whether the occupant is a 
small child or a full-sized adult, or whether the occupant is 
against the seat back or is sitting on the edge of the seat, closer 
to the air bag). These technologies may be used in conjunction with 
seat weight sensing/pattern recognition systems (or seat belt use 
and crash severity sensing) to improve the reliability of the 
occupant classification and location estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Static detection systems monitor steady state conditions 
such as occupant weight. In contrast, dynamic detection systems 
continuously monitor an occupant's position in relation to the air 
bag module.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dynamic suppression strategies using advanced technologies, such 
as capacitive, ultrasonic, and infrared, will be able to make 
dynamic assessments of when an occupant is out of position by 
determining the location of the occupant during the course of a 
crash. These technologies must have rapid sensing capabilities and 
algorithms to make the air bag deployment or suppression decision, 
for example, in the event of pre-impact braking. These systems would 
have the added benefit of protecting not only children, but also 
out-of-position adults. (Note: This is another advanced technology 
still under development.)
    Sensors--Belt use or forward/aft seat adjustment position. Air 
bag systems may be linked to sensors that determine whether the 
occupant is using his or her seat belt and whether the occupant has 
positioned the vehicle seat along the seat track (i.e., all or 
nearly all the way forward or farther back). An advanced air bag 
system in vehicles with crash severity sensors and dual-stage 
inflators could use seat belt use information to adjust deployment 
thresholds or inflation levels depending on whether the occupant is 
belted or unbelted. Since an unbelted occupant is more susceptible 
than a belted occupant to injury in less severe crashes, the 
unbelted occupant needs the protection of an air bag at lower crash 
severities than a belted occupant does. Accordingly, the air bag 
would deploy at a lower threshold for an unbelted occupant.
    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, or mid-to-tall-statured drivers who move 
their seats farther back.
    In the MY 2000 Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable, the air bag system 
will fire the low energy strategy for the driver air bag when the 
seat is positioned in or near the full forward position. This 
provides a more benign deployment for small-statured occupants who 
sit closer to the air bag. Ford also provides the option of 
installing adjustable pedals on some of its vehicle platforms to 
assist driver occupants in positioning themselves further away from 
the air bag. Both seat position sensors and adjustable pedals can be 
used in conjunction with the previously mentioned seat belt use and 
crash severity information to affect air bag performance.
    Multiple crash severity thresholds. Some current production 
motor vehicles are using information from crash severity sensors in 
conjunction with seat belt use sensors to select the appropriate 
crash severity threshold levels for belted and unbelted occupants. 
For instance, dual speed thresholds for deploying air bags have been 
used in Mercedes-Benz vehicles produced for the U.S. market for 
several years. In these vehicles, the lower threshold for air bag 
deployment is approximately 19 km/h (12 mph) when occupant is 
unbelted and a higher threshold of approximately 29 km/h (18 mph) is 
utilized when the an occupant is belted. A belt buckle switch 
provides the information to allow the selection between these two 
thresholds. Other vehicle manufacturers also have implemented 
similar strategies.
    Multiple levels of inflation. In addition to using crash 
severity and seat belt use information for dual threshold 
strategies, this information also can be utilized to employ 
different inflation levels for belted and unbelted occupants through 
the use of a multi-stage air bag inflator. For instance, a belted 
occupant may only need a low powered inflation level, since the seat 
belts also provide restraint, while an unbelted occupant may require 
a full-powered air bag to provide a timely inflation and full 
protection by the air bag. Similarly, the crash severity information 
may be used with a multi-stage inflator to employ a low level of air 
bag inflation in a low severity crash or a full power inflation in a 
high severity crash, in which additional restraint is needed for 
occupant protection.
    Improved seat belt systems. Many advances have also been made in 
seat belt systems to improve their performance when used in 
conjunction with air bag systems. These systems can reduce the risk 
of air bag-induced injury to a belted occupant. Many production 
vehicles (approximately 180

[[Page 30744]]

vehicle models) \43\ are providing seat belt energy management 
features and/or pretensioners in MY 2000 vehicles. Pretensioners are 
devices that retract the seat belt to remove excess slack during a 
crash event. Energy management features, such as load limiting 
retractors or webbing tear stitching, allow yielding of the seat 
belt system in order to prevent too much force from being imposed on 
the occupant's upper chest or lap during a severe crash. This rule's 
adoption of a higher belted test speed is intended to encourage 
vehicle manufacturers to consider the use of such advanced 
technologies. Additional seat belt enhancements include adjustable 
anchorages, which allow the positioning of the shoulder strap to 
accommodate a person's size, and integrated seat belt systems, which 
mount the entire seat belt system directly into the seat to allow 
better belt fit and restraint performance. Development work also is 
being done on seat belt webbing spool-out sensors, which could 
provide additional information about an occupant's size and movement 
in relation to the air bag module.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ NHTSA brochure DOT HS 808 988: ``Buying a Safer Car 2000,'' 
September 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Improved air bag hardware. Manufacturers also have made advances 
in integrating countermeasures into the air bag hardware to mitigate 
injuries without compromising high speed occupant protection. For 
example, the driver air bag system of the MY 1999 Saturn SL1 has 
been designed with a number of injury-mitigating countermeasures. 
These include a patented I-tear seam cover, a unique air bag fold, 
recessed air bag module, 4 internal tether straps, and an air bag 
whose depth and volume are relatively small. The MY 1999 Saturn SL1 
passenger air bag also includes an internal bias flap, which 
redirects the flow of gas laterally instead of toward the occupant.
    Other available air bag hardware countermeasures which minimize 
the risks to out-of-position occupants include:
    Low break-out force covers--By reducing the amount of force 
needed for an air bag to break out of the module housing in the 
steering wheel or instrument panel, these covers help make it 
possible to reduce the ``punch out'' effect of deploying air bags.
    Radial deployment paths--For an air bag with a radial deployment 
path, the initial primary thrust of the deploying air bag is radial 
instead of toward the person sitting in front of the air bag.
    Compartmented air bags--These air bags can function as an air 
bag within an air bag. If coupled with a dual-stage inflator, the 
first stage can inflate the smaller, inner air bag for small adults 
seated near the steering wheel and both stages can inflate the full 
air bag.
    Pyrotechnic venting--One means of reducing the aggressiveness of 
a deploying air bag is to provide an alternative inflation path for 
venting air bag gases. If an out-of-position occupant is putting 
pressure on the air bag, the pressure can be vented in a different 
direction. This can be achieved through vent holes in the inflator 
canisters or pyrotechnically actuating vents which close holes in 
the reaction surface of the inflator canister.
    Air bag aspiration--Another means of reducing the aggressiveness 
of a deploying air bag is to use an aspirated inflation system to 
draw in outside air into the gas stream as the air bag is being 
filled. If an out-of-position occupant interferes with the 
deployment of the air bag, the pressure within the bag will 
increase, and the aspirating system would cease operating as soon as 
that increased pressure within the air bag reaches a predetermined 
design level.

D. Installation of Advanced Technologies in Current Production Motor 
Vehicles

    A steadily increasing number of passenger car models are now 
being equipped with some types of advanced air bag technologies. 
Many of these models are foreign luxury vehicles. However, both the 
MY2000 versions of the second best selling (Honda Accord) and third 
best selling (Ford Taurus) non-luxury passenger car models in 
calendar year 1999 are equipped with dual-stage air bags and various 
advanced technology sensors. While these air bag technologies are 
not sufficient by themselves to enable these vehicles to comply with 
this rule, their introduction is indicative of future possibilities.
    A partial list of MY 2000 models equipped with advanced air bag 
technologies appears below:
Acura 3.5 RL and 3.2 TL are equipped with:
    Dual-stage passenger air bag \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ According to the Acura website, the air bag system: 
automatically adjusts the deployment of the front passenger's air 
bag SRS based on the severity of the crash and whether or not the 
passenger is wearing the seat belt. During a slow speed collision, 
the dual-stage inflator system for the dash-mounted air bag is 
triggered in sequence, resulting in slower overall air bag 
deployment with less initial force. During a higher speed-collision, 
both inflators operate simultaneously for full immediate inflation 
in order to correspond with the greater impact force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Advanced crash severity sensor
    Passenger belt use sensor
BMW 3- and 5-models are equipped with:
    Advanced crash severity sensor
    Dual-threshold deployment for driver and passenger air bag
    Sensor to help prevent unnecessary deployment of passenger air 
bag
BMW 7-series models are equipped with:
    Advanced crash severity sensor
    Dual-threshold deployment for driver and passenger air bags
    Dual-stage passenger air bag
    Sensor to help prevent unnecessary deployment of passenger air 
bag
BMW X5 is equipped with:
    Dual-stage driver and passenger air bags
    Advanced crash severity sensor
    Driver and passenger belt use sensor
    Dual-threshold deployment for driver and passenger air bags
BMW Z3 and BMW M coupe/roadster are equipped with:
    Dual-threshold deployment for driver and passenger air bags
    Sensor to help prevent unnecessary passenger air bag deployment
Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable are equipped with:
    Dual-stage driver and passenger air bags
    Advanced crash severity sensor
    Driver seat position sensor
    Driver belt use sensor
    Power adjustable accelerator and brake pedals
Honda Accord is equipped with:
    Dual-stage passenger air bag
    Advanced crash severity sensor
    Passenger belt use sensor
Mercedes S-class and CL coupe are equipped with:
    Passenger air bag features dual inflation rates based on impact 
severity.
    Advanced crash severity sensor
Volvo S80 is equipped with:
    Passenger belt use sensor
    Dual deployment threshold for driver and passenger air bags

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 552

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

49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Incorporation by reference, 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 amends 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 continues to 
read as follows:

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

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

Subpart A--General

    3. A new subpart B is 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.

[[Page 30745]]

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 (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 shall 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 including, if 
requested, the name and address of the petitioner.
    (f) Not request confidential treatment for 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.


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 Standard No. 208 which the petitioner believes are appropriate 
for assessing a particular DASS.
    (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 unbelted 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 unbelted 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 
unbelted 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 
shall 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 unbelted 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 shall 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 shall include:
    (1) A description of the logic used by the DASS in determining 
whether to suppress the air bag or allow it to deploy. Such description 
shall 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

[[Page 30746]]

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 the DASS 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 shall 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 shall 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 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 to 60 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 continues 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 is amended as follows:
    A. By revising S3, S4.5.1 heading, S4.5.1(b)(1), S4.5.1(b)(2), 
S4.5.1(e), S4.5.1(f), S4.5.4, S5, S5.1, S6.1, S6.2, 6.4, S8.1.5, 
S10.6.1.1, S13 and S13.1;
    B. By removing S4.5.5;
    C. By adding S4.1.5.4, S4.2.6.3, S4.7, S4.8, S4.9, S4.10, S4.11, 
S4.12, S4.13, S5.1.1, S5.1.2, S6.6, S6.7, S14 through S29.3(b);
    D. By adding the heading ``Figures to Sec. 571.208'' at the end of 
the section and moving figures 2 through 7 to follow this heading 
(figure 1 is reserved); and
    E. By adding new figures 8, 9 and 10 in numerical order, and 
Appendix A after the figures, to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    S3. Application.
    (a) This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger 
vehicles, trucks, and buses. In addition, S9, Pressure vessels and 
explosive devices, applies to vessels designed to contain a pressurized 
fluid or gas, and to explosive devices, for use in the above types of 
motor vehicles as part of a system designed to provide protection to 
occupants in the event of a crash.
    (b) Notwithstanding any language to the contrary, any vehicle 
manufactured after March 19, 1997, and before September 1, 2006, that 
is subject to a dynamic crash test requirement conducted with unbelted 
dummies may meet the requirements specified in S5.1.2(a)(1), 
S5.1.2(a)(2), or S13 instead of the applicable unbelted requirement, 
unless the vehicle is certified to meet the requirements specified in 
S14.5, S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25.
    (c) For vehicles which are certified to meet the requirements 
specified in S13 instead of the otherwise applicable dynamic crash test 
requirement conducted with unbelted dummies, compliance with S13 shall, 
for purposes of Standards No. 201, 203 and 209, be deemed as compliance 
with the unbelted frontal barrier requirements of S5.1.2.
* * * * *
    S4.1.5.4 Passenger cars certified to S14. Each passenger car 
certified to S14 shall, at each front outboard designated seating 
position, meet the applicable frontal crash protection requirements of 
S5.1.2(b) by means of an inflatable restraint system that requires no 
action by vehicle occupants.
* * * * *
    S4.2.6.3 Trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
certified to S14. Each truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger vehicle 
with a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) or less and an unloaded vehicle 
weight of 2,495 kg (5,500 lb) or less certified to S14 shall, at each 
front outboard designated seating position, meet the applicable frontal 
crash protection requirements of S5.1.2(b) by means of an inflatable 
restraint system that requires no action by vehicle occupants.
* * * * *
    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 cm\2\ (4.7 in\2\).
    (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 in) in 
diameter.

[[Page 30747]]

    (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 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 ``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 cm\2\ (4.7 in\2\).
    (iii) The pictogram shall be black on a white background. The 
pictogram shall be no less than 30 mm (1.2 in) 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 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 cm\2\ (4.7 in\2\).
    (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 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 cm\2\ (4.7 in\2\).
    (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 an accurate description of the vehicle's 
air bag system in an easily understandable format. The owner's manual 
shall include a statement to the effect that the vehicle is equipped 
with an air bag and lap/shoulder belt at both front outboard seating 
positions, and that the air bag is a supplemental restraint at those 
seating positions. The information shall emphasize that all occupants, 
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 
S14.5, S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25, 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 
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, at a minimum, accurate 
information on the following topics:
    (i) a presentation and explanation of the main components of the 
advanced passenger air bag system.
    (ii) an explanation of how the components function together as part 
of the advanced passenger air bag system.
    (iii) the basic requirements for proper operation, including an 
explanation of the actions that may affect the proper functioning of 
the system.
    (iv) a complete description of the passenger air bag suppression 
system installed in the vehicle, including a discussion of any 
suppression zone.
    (v) an explanation of the interaction of the advanced passenger air 
bag system with other vehicle components, such as seat belts, seats or 
other components.
    (vi) 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.
    (vii) a discussion of the telltale light, specifying its location 
in the vehicle and explaining when the light is illuminated.
    (viii) 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, 2012 may be equipped with a device that deactivates the 
air bag installed at the right front outboard seating position in the 
vehicle, if all the conditions in S4.5.4.1 through S4.5.4.4 are 
satisfied.
* * * * *
    S4.7 Incorporation by reference. Society of Automotive Engineers 
(SAE) Recommended Practice J211/1 rev. Mar 95, ``Instrumentation for 
Impact Test--Part 1--Electronic Instrumentation,'' (SAE J211/1 rev. Mar 
95) is incorporated by reference in sections S4.13, S6.6, S13.1, 
S15.3.6, S19.4.4, S21.5.5, S23.5.5, and S25.4, Department of Defense 
MIL-S-13192P, 1988, ``Military Specification, Shoes, Men's, Dress, 
Oxford'', Amendment 1, October 14, 1994 (MIL-S-13192P) is incorporated 
by reference in section S8.1.8, and Department of Defense MIL-S-21711E, 
1982, ``Military Specification, Shoes, Women's'', Amendment 2, October 
14, 1994 (MIL-S-21711E) is incorporated by reference in section 
S16.2.5, and are thereby made part of this standard. The Director of 
the Federal Register approved the material incorporated by reference in 
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552 (a) and 1 CFR Part 51. A copy of SAE J211/
1 rev. Mar 95 may be obtained from SAE at the Society of Automotive 
Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096. A copy 
of

[[Page 30748]]

SAE J211/1 rev. Mar 95 and copies of MIL-S-13192P and MIL-S-21711E may 
be inspected at NHTSA's technical reference library, 400 Seventh 
Street, S.W., Room 5109, Washington, DC, or at the Office of the 
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 700, 
Washington, DC.
    S4.8 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 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, provide information 
regarding which of the compliance options it has selected for a 
particular vehicle or make/model.
    S4.9 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. With respect to the 
positioning of anthropomorphic dummies, torso and spine angle 
tolerances shall be  2 degrees unless otherwise stated, and 
leg, thigh, foot, and arm angle tolerances shall be  5 
degrees unless otherwise stated.
    S4.10 Metric values. Specifications and requirements are given in 
metric units with English units provided for reference. The metric 
values are controlling.
    S4.11 Test duration for purpose of measuring injury criteria.
    (a) For all barrier crashes, the injury criteria specified in this 
standard shall be met when calculated based on data recorded for 300 
milliseconds after the vehicle strikes the barrier. For low risk 
deployment tests, the injury criteria shall be met when calculated 
based on data recorded for 300 milliseconds after the air bag is 
signaled to deploy.
    (b) The requirements for dummy containment shall continue until 
both the vehicle and the dummies have ceased moving.
    S4.12 Suppression systems that do not detect dummies. For vehicles 
with occupant sensing systems that recognize humans and not dummies, 
such that the air bag or bags would not function in crash tests, the 
manufacturer shall provide NHTSA with information and equipment 
necessary to circumvent the suppression system for the crash test such 
that the restraint system operates as if 5th percentile adult female 
humans and 50th percentile adult male humans are seated in the vehicle.
    S4.13 Data channels. All data channels used in injury criteria 
calculations shall be filtered using a phaseless digital filter, such 
as the Butterworth four-pole phaseless digital filter specified in 
Appendix C of SAE J211/1, rev. Mar 95, incorporated by reference in 
S4.7.
* * * * *
    S5 Occupant crash protection requirements for the 50th percentile 
adult male dummy.
    S5.1 Frontal barrier crash test.
    S5.1.1 Belted test.
    (a) Vehicles not certified to S14. 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, and 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. 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(a), S6.3, S6.4(a), and 
S6.5 of this standard.
    (b) Vehicles certified to S14.
    (1) Vehicles certified to S14.1 or S14.2. 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 under the applicable conditions of S8 and 
S10. 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.
    (2) Vehicles certified to S14.3 or S14.4. Impact a vehicle 
traveling longitudinally forward at any speed, up to and including 56 
km/h (35 mph), into a fixed rigid barrier that is perpendicular to the 
line of travel of the vehicle under the applicable conditions of S8 and 
S10. 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.
    S5.1.2 Unbelted test.
    (a) Vehicles not certified to the requirements of S13 or S14. At 
the manufacturer's option, either one of the following unbelted tests 
shall be met:
    (1) 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, and 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 S10.7, S10.8, and 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(a), S6.3, S6.4(a), and S6.5 of 
this standard.
    (2) Impact a vehicle traveling longitudinally forward at any speed 
between 32 km/h (20 mph) and 40 km/h (25 mph), inclusive, into a fixed 
rigid barrier that is perpendicular to the line of travel of the 
vehicle, and 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 S10.7, S10.8, and 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.
    (b) Vehicles certified to the requirements of S14. Impact a vehicle 
traveling longitudinally forward at any speed between 32 km/h (20 mph) 
and 40 km/h (25 mph), inclusive, into a fixed rigid barrier that is 
perpendicular to the line of travel of the vehicle, and 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 S10.7, S10.8, and 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.
* * * * *
    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)(1) For any two points in time, t1 and t2, 
during the event which are separated by not more than a 36 millisecond 
time interval and where t1 is less than t2, the 
head injury criterion (HIC36) shall be determined using the 
resultant head acceleration at the center of gravity of the dummy head, 
ar, expressed as a multiple of g (the acceleration of 
gravity) and shall be calculated using the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MY00.003

    (2) The maximum calculated HIC36 value shall not exceed 
1,000.
    (b)(1) For any two points in time, t1 and t2, 
during the event which are separated by not more than a 15 millisecond 
time interval and where t1 is less than t2, the 
head injury criterion (HIC15) shall be determined using the 
resultant head acceleration at the center of gravity of the dummy head, 
ar,

[[Page 30749]]

expressed as a multiple of g (the acceleration of gravity) and shall be 
calculated using the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MY00.004

    (2) The maximum calculated HIC15 value shall not exceed 
700.
* * * * *
    S6.4 Chest deflection.
    (a) Compressive deflection of the sternum relative to the spine 
shall not exceed 76 mm (3.0 in).
    (b) Compressive deflection of the sternum relative to the spine 
shall not exceed 63 mm (2.5 in).
* * * * *
    S6.6 Neck injury. When measuring neck injury, each of the following 
injury criteria shall be met.
    (a) Nij.
    (1) The shear force (Fx), axial force (Fz), and bending moment (My) 
shall be measured by the dummy upper neck load cell for the duration of 
the crash event as specified in S4.10. Shear force, axial force, and 
bending moment shall be filtered for Nij purposes at SAE J211/1 rev. 
Mar 95 Channel Frequency Class 600 (see S4.7).
    (2) During the event, the axial force (Fz) can be either in tension 
or compression while the occipital condyle bending moment (Mocy) can be 
in either flexion or extension. This results in four possible loading 
conditions for Nij: tension-extension (Nte), tension-flexion (Ntf), 
compression-extension (Nce), or compression-flexion (Ncf).
    (3) When calculating Nij using the equation in S6.6(a)(4), the 
critical values, Fzc and Myc, are:

(i) Fzc=6806 N (1530 lbf) when Fz is in tension
(ii) Fzc=6160 N (1385 lbf) when Fz is in compression
(iii) Myc=310 Nm (229 lbf-ft) when a flexion moment exists at the 
occipital condyle
(iv) Myc=135 Nm (100 lbf-ft) when an extension moment exists at the 
occipital condyle.

    (4) At each point in time, only one of the four loading conditions 
occurs and the Nij value corresponding to that loading condition is 
computed and the three remaining loading modes shall be considered a 
value of zero. The expression for calculating each Nij loading 
condition is given by:

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

    (5) None of the four Nij values shall exceed 1.0 at any time during 
the event.
    (b) Peak tension. Tension force (Fz), measured at the upper neck 
load cell, shall not exceed 4170 N (937 lbf) at any time.
    (c) Peak compression. Compression force (Fz), measured at the upper 
neck load cell, shall not exceed 4000 N (899 lbf) at any time.
    S6.7 Unless otherwise indicated, instrumentation for data 
acquisition, data channel frequency class, and moment calculations are 
the same as given for the 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart E Hybrid III test 
dummy.
* * * * *
    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.
* * * * *
    S10.6.1.1 If the vehicle has an adjustable accelerator pedal, 
adjust it to the full forward position. Rest the right foot of the test 
dummy on the undepressed accelerator pedal with the rearmost point of 
the heel on the floor pan in the plane of the pedal. If the foot cannot 
be placed on the accelerator pedal, set it initially perpendicular to 
the lower leg and then place it as far forward as possible in the 
direction of the pedal centerline with the rearmost point of the heel 
resting on the floor pan. If the vehicle has an adjustable accelerator 
pedal and the right foot is not touching the accelerator pedal when 
positioned as above, move the pedal rearward until it touches the right 
foot. If the accelerator pedal still does not touch the foot in the 
full rearward position, leave the pedal in that position.
    S13 Alternative unbelted test available, under S3(b) of this 
standard, for certain vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2006.
    S13.1 Instrumentation for Impact Test--Part 1--Electronic 
Instrumentation. Under the applicable conditions of S8, mount the 
vehicle on a dynamic test platform at the vehicle attitude set forth in 
S13.3, so that the longitudinal center line of the vehicle is parallel 
to the direction of the test platform travel and so that movement 
between the base of the vehicle and the test platform is prevented. The 
test platform is instrumented with an accelerometer and data processing 
system having a frequency response of 60 channel class as specified in 
SAE J211/1 rev. Mar 95 (see S4.7). The accelerometer sensitive axis is 
parallel to the direction of test platform travel. The test is 
conducted at a velocity change approximating 48 km/h (30 mph) with 
acceleration of the test platform such that all points on the crash 
pulse curve within the corridor identified in Figure 6 are covered. An 
inflatable restraint is to be activated at 20 ms +/-2 ms from the time 
that 0.5 g is measured on the dynamic test platform. The test dummy 
specified in S8.1.8, placed in each front outboard designated seating 
position as specified in S10, excluding S10.7, S10.8, and S10.9, shall 
meet the injury criteria of S6.1, S6.2(a), S6.3, S6.4(a), S6.5, and 
S13.2 of this standard.
* * * * *
    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, 2003, and 
before September 1, 2006.
    (a) For vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States on or 
after September 1, 2003, and before September 1, 2006, a percentage of 
the manufacturer's production, as specified in S14.1.1, shall meet the 
requirements specified in S14.5.1(a), S14.5.2, S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19, 
S21, S23, and S25 (in addition to the other requirements specified in 
this standard).
    (b) Manufacturers that sell two or fewer carlines, as that term is 
defined at 49 CFR 583.4, in the United States 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, 2004, and before September 1, 2006, shall meet the 
requirements specified in S14.5.1(a), S14.5.2, S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19, 
S21, S23, and S25 (in addition to the other requirements specified in 
this standard).
    (c) Vehicles that are manufactured in two or more stages or that 
are altered (within the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) after having 
previously been certified in accordance with Part 567 of this chapter 
are not subject to the requirements of S14.1.
    (d) Vehicles that are 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, 2003, and 
before September 1, 2004. Subject to S14.1.2(a), for vehicles 
manufactured by a manufacturer on or after September 1, 2003, and 
before September 1, 2004, the amount of vehicles complying with 
S14.5.1(a), S14.5.2, S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25, shall 
be not less than 35 percent of:

[[Page 30750]]

    (a) If the manufacturer has manufactured vehicles for sale in the 
United States during both of the two production years prior to 
September 1, 2003, 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.
    S14.1.1.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2004, and 
before September 1, 2005. Subject to S14.1.2(b), for vehicles 
manufactured by a manufacturer on or after September 1, 2004, and 
before September 1, 2005, the amount of vehicles complying with 
S14.5.1(a), S14.5.2, S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 shall be 
not less than 65 percent of:
    (a) If the manufacturer has manufactured vehicles for sale in the 
United States during both of the two production years prior to 
September 1, 2004, 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.
    S14.1.1.3 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2005, and 
before September 1, 2006. Subject to S14.1.2(c), for vehicles 
manufactured by a manufacturer on or after September 1, 2005, and 
before September 1, 2006, the amount of vehicles complying with 
S14.5.1(a), S14.5.2, S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 shall be 
100 percent of the manufacturer's production during that period.
    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 June 12, 2000, 
but before September 1, 2004.
    (b) For purposes of complying with S14.1.1.2, a manufacturer may 
count a vehicle if it:
    (1) Is manufactured on or after June 12, 2000, but before September 
1, 2005, 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 June 12, 2000, but before September 
1, 2006, 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 that 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 that 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, 2006. Each 
vehicle shall meet the requirements specified in S14.5.1(a), S14.5.2, 
S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 (in addition to the other 
requirements specified in this standard).
    S14.3 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2007, and 
before September 1, 2010.
    (a) For vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States on or 
after September 1, 2007, and before September 1, 2010, a percentage of 
the manufacturer's production, as specified in S14.3.1, shall meet the 
requirements specified in S14.5.1(b), S14.5.2, S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19, 
S21, S23, and S25 (in addition to the other requirements specified in 
this standard).
    (b) Manufacturers that sell two or fewer carlines, as that term is 
defined at 49 CFR 583.4, in the United States 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, 2007, and before September 1, 2010, shall meet the 
requirements specified in S14.5.1(b), S14.5.2, S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19, 
S21, S23, and S25 (in addition to the other requirements specified in 
this standard).
    (c) Vehicles that are manufactured in two or more stages or that 
are altered (within the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) after having 
previously been certified in accordance with Part 567 of this chapter 
are not subject to the requirements of S14.3.
    (d) Vehicles that are manufactured by a manufacturer that produces 
fewer than 5,000 vehicles worldwide annually are not subject to the 
requirements of S14.3.
    S14.3.1 Phase-in schedule.
    S14.3.1.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2007, and 
before September 1, 2008. Subject to S14.3.2(a), for vehicles 
manufactured by a manufacturer on or after September 1, 2007, and 
before September 1, 2008, the amount of vehicles complying with 
S14.5.1(b), S14.5.2, S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25, shall 
be not less than 35 percent of:
    (a) If the manufacturer has manufactured vehicles for sale in the 
United States during both of the two production years prior to 
September 1, 2007, the manufacturer's average annual production of 
vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2005, and before 
September 1, 2008, or
    (b) The manufacturer's production on or after September 1, 2007, 
and before September 1, 2008.
    S14.3.1.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2008, and 
before September 1, 2009. Subject to S14.3.2(b), for vehicles 
manufactured by a manufacturer on or after September 1, 2008, and 
before September 1, 2009, the amount of vehicles complying with 
S14.5.1(b), S14.5.2, S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 shall be 
not less than 65 percent of:
    (a) If the manufacturer has manufactured vehicles for sale in the 
United States during both of the two production years prior to 
September 1, 2008, the manufacturer's average annual production of 
vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2006 and before 
September 1, 2009, or
    (b) The manufacturer's production on or after September 1, 2008, 
and before September 1, 2009.
    S14.3.1.3 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2009, and 
before September 1, 2010. Subject to S14.3.2(c), for vehicles 
manufactured by a manufacturer on or after September 1, 2009, and 
before September 1, 2010, the amount of vehicles complying with 
S14.5.1(b), S14.5.2, S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 shall be 
100 percent of the manufacturer's production during that period.
    S14.3.2 Calculation of complying vehicles.
    (a) For the purposes of complying with S14.3.1.1, a manufacturer 
may count a vehicle if it is manufactured on or after September 1, 
2006, but before September 1, 2008.
    (b) For purposes of complying with S14.3.1.2, a manufacturer may 
count a vehicle if it:
    (1) Is manufactured on or after September 1, 2006, but before 
September 1, 2009, and

[[Page 30751]]

    (2) Is not counted toward compliance with S14.3.1.1.
    (c) For purposes of complying with S14.3.1.3, a manufacturer may 
count a vehicle if it:
    (1) Is manufactured on or after September 1, 2006, but before 
September 1, 2010, and
    (2) Is not counted toward compliance with S14.3.1.1 or S14.3.1.2.
    S14.3.3   Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer.
    S14.3.3.1 For the purpose of calculating average annual production 
of vehicles for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles 
manufactured by each manufacturer under S14.3.1, a vehicle produced by 
more than one manufacturer shall be attributed to a single manufacturer 
as follows, subject to S14.3.3.2.
    (a) A vehicle that 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 that markets the vehicle.
    S14.3.3.2 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 S14.3.3.1.
    S14.4 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2010. Each 
vehicle shall meet the requirements specified in S14.5.1(b), S14.5.2, 
S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 (in addition to the other 
requirements specified in this standard).
    S14.5 Barrier test requirements using 50th percentile adult male 
dummies.
    S14.5.1 Rigid barrier belted test.
    (a) Each vehicle that is certified as complying with S14.1 or S14.2 
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(b)(1).
    (b) Each vehicle that is certified as complying with S14.3 or S14.4 
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(b)(2).
    S14.5.2 Rigid barrier unbelted 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 S5.1.2(b).
    S15 Rigid barrier test requirements using 5th percentile adult 
female dummies.
    S15.1 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 S15.3 of this standard when the vehicle is 
crash tested in accordance with the procedures specified in S16.1(a) of 
this standard with the anthropomorphic test devices restrained by a 
Type 2 seat belt assembly.
    S15.2 Unbelted test. Each vehicle that is certified as complying 
with S14 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 
S16.1(b) of this standard with the anthropomorphic test devices 
unbelted.
    S15.3 Injury criteria for the 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart O Hybrid III 
5th percentile female test dummy.
    S15.3.1 All portions of the test dummy shall be contained within 
the outer surfaces of the vehicle passenger compartment.
    S15.3.2 Head injury criteria.
    (a) For any two points in time, t1 and t2, 
during the event which are separated by not more than a 15 millisecond 
time interval and where t1 is less than t2, the 
head injury criterion (HIC15 ) shall be determined using the 
resultant head acceleration at the center of gravity of the dummy head, 
ar, expressed as a multiple of g (the acceleration of 
gravity) and shall be calculated using the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MY00.005

    (b) The maximum calculated HIC15 value shall not exceed 
700.
    S15.3.3 The resultant acceleration calculated from the output of 
the thoracic instrumentation 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 shall not exceed 52 mm 
(2.0 in).
    S15.3.5 The force transmitted axially through each femur shall not 
exceed 6805 N (1530 lb).
    S15.3.6 Neck injury. When measuring neck injury, each of the 
following injury criteria shall be met.
    (a) Nij.
    (1) The shear force (Fx), axial force (Fz), and bending moment (My) 
shall be measured by the dummy upper neck load cell for the duration of 
the crash event as specified in S4.10. Shear force, axial force, and 
bending moment shall be filtered for Nij purposes at SAE J211/1 rev. 
Mar95 Channel Frequency Class 600 (see S4.7).
    (2) During the event, the axial force (Fz) can be either in tension 
or compression while the occipital condyle bending moment (Mocy) can be 
in either flexion or extension. This results in four possible loading 
conditions for Nij: tension-extension (Nte), tension-flexion (Ntf), 
compression-extension (Nce), or compression-flexion (Ncf).
    (3) When calculating Nij using equation S15.3.6(a)(4), the critical 
values, Fzc and Myc, are:

(i) Fzc = 4287 N (964 lbf) when Fz is in tension
(ii) Fzc = 3880 N (872 lbf) when Fz is in compression
(iii) Myc = 155 Nm (114 lbf-ft) when a flexion moment exists at the 
occipital condyle
(iv) Myc = 67 Nm (49 lbf-ft) when an extension moment exists at the 
occipital condyle.

    (4) At each point in time, only one of the four loading conditions 
occurs and the Nij value corresponding to that loading condition is 
computed and the three remaining loading modes shall be considered a 
value of zero. The expression for calculating each Nij loading 
condition is given by:

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

    (5) None of the four Nij values shall exceed 1.0 at any time during 
the event.
    (b) Peak tension. Tension force (Fz), measured at the upper neck 
load cell, shall not exceed 2620 N (589 lbf) at any time.
    (c) Peak compression. Compression force (Fz), measured at the upper 
neck load cell, shall not exceed 2520 N (566 lbf) at any time.
    S15.3.7 Unless otherwise indicated, instrumentation for data 
acquisition, data channel frequency class, and moment calculations are 
the same as given for the 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart O Hybrid III 5th 
percentile female test dummy.
    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 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart O 5th percentile 
adult female test dummy at each front outboard seating position of a 
vehicle, in accordance with the procedures specified in S16.3 of this 
standard. Impact the vehicle traveling longitudinally forward at any 
speed, up

[[Page 30752]]

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.
    (b) Unbelted test. Place a 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart O 5th percentile 
adult female test dummy at each front outboard seating position of a 
vehicle, in accordance with the procedures specified in S16.3 of this 
standard, except S16.3.5. Impact the vehicle traveling longitudinally 
forward at any speed, from 32 km/h (20 mph) to 40 km/h (25 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.
    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 7 
1/2W shoe which meets the configuration and size specifications of MIL-
S-21711E (see S4.7) or its equivalent is placed on each foot of the 
test dummy.
    S16.2.6 Limb joints are set at one 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 20.6 deg. C and 22.2 deg. C ( 69 deg. F to 72 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 of 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 in the mid position. If there is no mid position, move the 
steering wheel rearward one position from the mid position.
    S16.2.10 Driver and passenger seat set-up.
    S16.2.10.1 Seat position adjustment.
    S16.2.10.1.1 If a seat is adjustable in the fore and aft and/or 
vertical directions, move the seat to the fowardmost seating position 
and mid-height position.
    S16.2.10.1.2 Establish a reference line on the outboard side of the 
seat cushion in a horizontal plane.
    S16.2.10.1.3 Measure and record the seat cushion angle with respect 
to the reference line established in S16.2.10.1.2.
    S16.2.10.1.4 Adjust the seat vertically as close to the mid-height 
position as possible. If possible, maintain the seat cushion reference 
angle measured in the middle and full forward condition in 
S16.2.10.1.3.
    S16.2.10.2 Lumbar support adjustment. Position adjustable lumbar 
supports so that the lumbar support is in its lowest, retracted or 
deflated adjustment position.
    S16.2.10.3 Cushion and side bolster adjustment. Position adjustable 
seat cushion and seat back side bolsters so that they are in the lowest 
or most open adjustment position.
    S16.3 Dummy seating positioning procedures. The 49 CFR 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's 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.
    S16.3.1.9 The term ``foot'' refers to the foot including the ankle.
    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 vertical 
longitudinal plane through the 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 to 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 in) side to side) to reduce friction 
between the dummy and the seat.
    S16.3.2.1.8 Before proceeding, attempt to return the seat to the 
full forward position if it has been moved from that location as 
specified in S16.3.2.1.2. If, at any step during the seating procedure, 
a dummy leg contacts the vehicle interior, position the seat at the 
next detent where there is no contact. If the seat is a power seat, 
position the seat to avoid contact while assuring that there is a 
maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) distance between the vehicle interior and the 
point on the dummy that would first contact the vehicle interior.
    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

[[Page 30753]]

bight. Inspect the abdomen to ensure 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.
    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 49 CFR 
Part 572, Subpart O, of this chapter). The angle shall be set to 20.0 
degrees  2.5 degrees. If this is not possible, adjust the 
pelvic angle as close to 20.0 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, adjust the lower 
neck bracket to level the head 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 knees at 160 to 170 mm (6.3 to 
6.7 in), with the thighs and legs of the dummy in vertical planes.
    S16.3.2.2.3. If either knee of the dummy contacts the vehicle 
interior, move the seat rearward to the next detent that provides 
clearance. If the seat is a power seat, move the seat rearward, while 
assuring that there is a maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) distance between the 
vehicle interior and the dummy knee closest to the vehicle interior.
    S16.3.2.3 Driver foot positioning.
    S16.3.2.3.1 If the vehicle has an adjustable accelerator pedal, 
adjust it to the full forward position. Rest the right foot of the test 
dummy on the undepressed accelerator pedal with the rearmost point of 
the heel on the floor pan in the plane of the pedal. If the foot cannot 
be placed on the accelerator pedal, set it initially perpendicular to 
the lower leg and then place it as far forward as possible in the 
direction of the pedal centerline with the rearmost point of the heel 
resting on the floor pan. If the vehicle has an adjustable accelerator 
pedal and the right foot is not touching the accelerator pedal when 
positioned as above, move the pedal rearward until it touches the right 
foot. If the accelerator pedal still does not touch the foot in the 
full rearward position, leave the pedal in that position.
    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 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 toe board and the floor pan.
    S16.3.2.3.4 If the left foot cannot be positioned on the toe board, 
place the foot flat on the floor pan as far forward as possible.
    S16.3.2.3.5 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 arms 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 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 lb) and not more than 22 N (5 lb), 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 Place the dummy in 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 vertical 
longitudinal plane through the center of the seat cushion.
    S16.3.3.1.4 Bench seats. The midsagittal plane of the dummy shall 
be vertical and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline and 
the same distance from the vehicle's longitudinal centerline as the 
midsagittal plane of the driver dummy.
    S16.3.3.1.5 Hold the dummy's thighs down and push rearward on the 
upper torso to 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 between the dummy's thighs and 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 in) side to side).
    S16.3.3.1.8 Before proceeding, attempt to return the seat to the 
full forward position if it has been moved from that location as 
specified in S16.3.3.1.2. If, at any step during the seating procedure, 
a dummy leg contacts the vehicle interior, position the seat at the 
detent where there is no contact. If the seats are power seats, 
position the seat to avoid contact while assuring that there is a 
maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) distance between the vehicle interior and the 
point on the dummy that would first contact the vehicle interior.
    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 bight. In addition, inspect the 
abdomen to insure that it is properly installed.
    S16.3.3.1.10 If it is not possible to orient the head level within 
 0.5 degrees, minimize the angle.
    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 49 CFR 
Part 572, Subpart O, of this chapter). The angle shall be set to 20.0 
degrees  2.5 degrees. If this is not possible, adjust the 
pelvic angle as close to 20.0 degrees as possible while keeping the 
transverse instrumentation platform of the head as level as possible 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, adjust the lower 
neck bracket to level the head as much as possible.

[[Page 30754]]

    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 knees at 160 to 170 mm (6.3 to 
6.7 in), 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, move the seat rearward to the next detent that 
provides clearance. If the seats are power seats, move the seat 
rearward for a maximum distance of 5 mm (0.2 in) between the vehicle 
interior and the dummy knee closest to the vehicle interior.
    S16.3.3.3 Passenger foot 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 thighs.
    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 horizontally 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, whichever occurs first.
    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 (for tests 
conducted with a belted dummy)
    S16.3.5.1 If an adjustable seat belt D-ring anchorage exists, place 
it in the manufacturer's design position for a 5th percentile adult 
female with the seat in the position specified in S16.2.11.1.
    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, S16.3.2.1.10, S16.3.3.1.9, and 
S16.3.3.1.10.
    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 lbf) to 18 N (4 lbf) 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. 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 test dummies.
    Each vehicle that is certified as complying with S14 shall, at each 
front outboard designated seating position, meet the injury criteria 
specified in S15.3 of this standard when the vehicle is crash tested in 
accordance with the procedures specified in S18 of this standard with 
the anthropomorphic test devices restrained by a Type 2 seat belt 
assembly.
    S18 Test procedure for offset frontal deformable barrier 
requirements using 5th percentile adult female dummies.
    S18.1 General provisions. Place a 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart O 5th 
percentile adult female test dummy at each front outboard seating 
position of a vehicle, in accordance with the procedures specified in 
S16.3 of this standard. Impact the vehicle traveling longitudinally 
forward at any speed, up to and including 40 km/h (25 mph), into a 
fixed offset deformable barrier under the conditions and procedures 
specified in S18.2 of this standard, impacting only the driver side of 
the vehicle.
    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 C 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 centerline of the vehicle parallel to the 
line of travel and perpendicular to the barrier face within a tolerance 
of  5 degrees. The test vehicle shall be aligned so that 
the vehicle strikes the barrier with 40 percent overlap on the left 
side of the vehicle, with the vehicle's front 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 
 50 mm (2.0 in) 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 
and convertible child restraints and car beds. 
    S19.1 Each vehicle certified as complying with S14 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 S19.2.3.
    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 
49 CFR Part 572 Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI child dummy in any of the 
child restraints identified in sections B and C of Appendix A of this 
standard and the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart K Newborn Infant dummy in any 
of the car beds identified in section A of Appendix A, as appropriate), 
and activation of the air bag system during each of the static tests 
specified in S20.3 (using the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart O 5th percentile 
adult female dummy).
    S19.2.2 The vehicle shall be equipped with at least one telltale 
which emits light whenever the passenger air bag system is deactivated 
and does not emit light whenever the passenger air bag system is 
activated, except that the telltale(s) need not illuminate when the 
passenger seat is unoccupied. Each telltale:
    (a) Shall emit yellow light;
    (b) Shall have the identifying words ``PASSENGER AIR BAG OFF'' on 
the telltale or within 25 mm (1.0 in) of the telltale; and
    (c) Shall not be combined with the readiness indicator required by 
S4.5.2 of this standard.
    (d) Shall be located within the interior of the vehicle and forward 
of and above the design H-point of both the driver's and the right 
front passenger's seat in

[[Page 30755]]

their forwardmost seating positions and shall not be located on or 
adjacent to a surface that can be used for temporary or permanent 
storage where use of the storage space could obscure the telltale from 
either the driver's or right front passenger's view.
    (e) Shall be visible to the driver and right front passenger under 
all driving conditions. The means for providing the required visibility 
may be adjustable to provide two or more levels of brightness, one of 
which is substantially discernable to a person, of any age, who has 
adapted to ambient daytime driving conditions, the other of which is 
substantially discernable to a driver, of any age, who has adapted to 
ambient nighttime driving conditions. The means for providing the 
required visibility may be adjustable manually or automatically, except 
that the telltale(s) may not be adjusted under any conditions to a 
level that is not visible, e.g., to the nighttime intensity during 
daytime driving conditions.
    S19.2.3 The vehicle shall be equipped with a mechanism that 
indicates whether the air bag system is suppressed, regardless of 
whether the passenger seat is occupied. The mechanism need not be 
located in the occupant compartment unless it is the telltale described 
in S19.2.2.
    S19.3 Option 2--Low risk deployment. Each vehicle shall meet the 
injury criteria specified in S19.4 of this standard when the passenger 
air bag is deployed in accordance with the procedures specified in 
S20.4.
    S19.4 Injury criteria for the 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart R 12-month-
old CRABI test 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 Head injury criteria.
    (a) For any two points in time, t1 and t2, 
during the event which are separated by not more than a 15 millisecond 
time interval and where t1 is less than t2, the 
head injury criterion (HIC15) shall be determined using the 
resultant head acceleration at the center of gravity of the dummy head, 
ar, expressed as a multiple of g (the acceleration of 
gravity) and shall be calculated using the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MY00.000

    (b) The maximum calculated HIC15 value shall not exceed 
390.
    S19.4.3 The resultant acceleration calculated from the output of 
the thoracic instrumentation shall not exceed 50 g's, except for 
intervals whose cumulative duration is not more than 3 milliseconds.
    S19.4.4 Neck injury. When measuring neck injury, each of the 
following injury criteria shall be met.
    (a) Nij.
    (1) The shear force (Fx), axial force (Fz), and bending moment (My) 
shall be measured by the dummy upper neck load cell for the duration of 
the crash event as specified in S4.10. Shear force, axial force, and 
bending moment shall be filtered for Nij purposes at SAE J211/1 rev. 
Mar95 Channel Frequency Class 600 (see S4.7).
    (2) During the event, the axial force (Fz) can be either in tension 
or extension while the occipital condyle bending moment (Mocy) can be 
in either flexion or extension. This results in four possible loading 
conditions for Nij: tension-extension (Nte), tension-flexion (Ntf), 
compression-extension (Nce), or compression-flexion (Ncf).
    (3) When calculating Nij using equation S19.4.4(a)(4), the critical 
values, Fzc and Myc, are:
    (i) Fzc = 1460 N (328 lbf) when Fz is in tension
    (ii) Fzc = 1460 N (328 lbf) when Fz is in compression
    (iii) Myc = 43 Nm (32 lbf-ft) when a flexion moment exists at the 
occipital condyle
    (iv) Myc = 17 Nm (13 lbf-ft) when an extension moment exists at the 
occipital condyle.
    (4) At each point in time, only one of the four loading conditions 
occurs and the Nij value corresponding to that loading condition is 
computed and the three remaining loading modes shall be considered a 
value of zero. The expression for calculating each Nij loading 
condition is given by:

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

    (5) None of the four Nij values shall exceed 1.0 at any time during 
the event.
    (b) Peak tension. Tension force (Fz), measured at the upper neck 
load cell, shall not exceed 780 N (175 lbf) at any time.
    (c) Peak compression. Compression force (Fz), measured at the upper 
neck load cell, shall not exceed 960 N (216 lbf) at any time.
    S19.4.5 Unless otherwise indicated, instrumentation for data 
acquisition, data channel frequency class, and moment calculations are 
the same as given for the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI 
test dummy.
    S20 Test procedure for S19.
    S20.1 General provisions.
    S20.1.1 Tests specifying the use of a car bed, a rear facing child 
restraint, or a convertible child restraint may be conducted using any 
such restraint listed in sections A, B, and C of Appendix A of this 
standard respectively. The car bed, rear facing child restraint, or 
convertible child restraint may be unused or have been previously used 
for static suppression tests only; if it has been used, there shall not 
be any visible damage prior to the test.
    S20.1.2 Each vehicle certified to this option shall comply in tests 
conducted with the right front outboard seating position at the full 
rearward seat track position, the middle seat track position, and the 
full forward seat track position. If the child restraint or dummy 
contacts the vehicle interior, move the seat rearward to the next 
detent that provides clearance. If the seat is a power seat, move the 
seat rearward while assuring that there is a maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) 
clearance. All tests are conducted with the seat height, if adjustable, 
in the mid-height position and with the seat back angle, if adjustable, 
at the manufacturer's nominal design seat back angle for a 50th 
percentile adult male as specified in S8.1.3.
    S20.1.3 If the car bed, rear facing child restraint, or convertible 
child restraint is equipped with a handle, the vehicle shall comply in 
tests conducted with the handle at both the child restraint 
manufacturer's recommended position for use in vehicles and in the 
upright position.
    S20.1.4 If the car bed, rear facing child restraint, or convertible 
child restraint is equipped with a sunshield, the vehicle shall comply 
in tests conducted with the sunshield both fully open and fully closed.
    S20.1.5 The vehicle shall comply in tests with the car bed, rear 
facing child restraint, or convertible child restraint uncovered and in 
tests with a towel or blanket weighing up to 1.0 kg (2.2 lb) placed on 
or over the restraint in any of the following positions:
    (a) with the blanket covering the top and sides of the restraint, 
and
    (b) with the blanket placed from the top of the vehicle's seat back 
to the forwardmost edge of the restraint.
    S20.1.6 Except as otherwise specified, if the car bed, rear facing 
child restraint, or convertible child restraint has an anchorage system 
as specified in S5.9 of FMVSS No. 213 and is tested in a vehicle with a 
right front outboard vehicle seat that has an anchorage system as 
specified in FMVSS No. 225, the vehicle shall comply with the belted 
test conditions both with the restraint anchorage system attached and 
unattached to the vehicle seat anchorage system and with the unbelted 
test

[[Page 30756]]

conditions with the restraint anchorage system unattached to the 
vehicle seat anchorage system.
    S20.1.7 Do not attach any tethers.
    S20.2 Static tests of automatic suppression feature which shall 
result in deactivation of the passenger air bag. Each vehicle that is 
certified as complying with S19.2 shall meet the following test 
requirements.
    S20.2.1 Belted rear facing and convertible child restraints.
    S20.2.1.1 The vehicle shall comply in tests using any child 
restraint specified in section B and section C of Appendix A of this 
standard.
    S20.2.1.2 Locate a vertical plane through the longitudinal 
centerline of the child restraint. This will be referred to as ``Plane 
A''.
    S20.2.1.3 For bucket seats, ``Plane B'' refers to a vertical plane 
parallel to the vehicle longitudinal centerline through the geometric 
center of the right front outboard vehicle seat. For bench seats, 
``Plane B'' refers to a vertical plane through the right front outboard 
vehicle seat parallel to the vehicle longitudinal centerline the same 
distance from the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle as the center 
of the steering wheel.
    S20.2.1.4 Facing rear.
    (a) The vehicle shall comply in both of the following positions, if 
applicable:
    (1) Without attaching the child restraint anchorage system as 
specified in S5.9 of FMVSS No. 213 to a vehicle seat anchorage system 
specified in FMVSS No. 225, align the child restraint system facing 
rearward such that Plane A is aligned with Plane B.
    (2) If the child restraint is certified to S5.9 of FMVSS No. 213, 
and the vehicle seat has an anchorage system as specified in FMVSS No. 
225, attach the child restraint to the vehicle seat anchorage instead 
of aligning the planes. Do not attach the vehicle safety belt.
    (b) While maintaining the child restraint positions achieved in 
S20.2.1.4(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) Place any adjustable seat belt anchorages at the vehicle 
manufacturer's nominal design position for a 50th percentile adult male 
occupant. Cinch the vehicle belts to any tension from zero up to 134 N 
(30 lb) to secure the child restraint. Measure belt tension in a flat, 
straight section of the lap belt between the child restraint belt path 
and the contact point with the belt anchor or vehicle seat, on the side 
away from the buckle (to avoid interference from the shoulder portion 
of the belt).
    (d) Position the 49 CFR 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 or place the ignition in the ``on'' 
position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and close all 
vehicle doors. Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag is 
deactivated.
    S20.2.1.5 Facing forward (convertible restraints only).
    (a) The vehicle shall comply in both of the following positions, if 
applicable:
    (1) Without attaching the child restraint anchorage system as 
specified in S5.9 of FMVSS No. 213 to a vehicle seat anchorage system 
specified in FMVSS No. 225, align the child restraint system facing 
forward such that Plane A is aligned with Plane B.
    (2) If the child restraint is certified to S5.9 of FMVSS No. 213, 
and the vehicle seat has an anchorage system as specified in FMVSS No. 
225, attach the child restraint to the vehicle seat anchorage instead 
of aligning the planes. Do not attach the vehicle safety belt.
    (b) While maintaining the child restraint positions achieved in 
S20.2.1.5(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) Place any adjustable seat belt anchorages at the vehicle 
manufacturer's nominal design position for a 50th percentile adult male 
occupant. Cinch the vehicle belts to any tension from zero up to 134 N 
(30 lb) to secure the child restraint. Measure belt tension in a flat, 
straight section of the lap belt between the child restraint belt path 
and the contact point with the belt anchor or vehicle seat, on the side 
away from the buckle (to avoid interference from the shoulder portion 
of the belt).
    (d) Position the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI dummy 
in the child restraint by following, to the extent possible, the 
manufacturer's instructions provided with the child restraint.
    (e) Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the ``on'' 
position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and close all 
vehicle doors. Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag is 
deactivated.
    S20.2.2 Unbelted rear facing and convertible child restraints.
    S20.2.2.1 The vehicle shall comply in tests using any child 
restraint specified in section B and section C of Appendix A of this 
standard.
    S20.2.2.2 Locate a vertical plane through the longitudinal 
centerline of the child restraint. This will be referred to as ``Plane 
A''.
    S20.2.2.3 For bucket seats, ``Plane B'' refers to a vertical plane 
parallel to the vehicle longitudinal centerline through the geometric 
center of the right front outboard vehicle seat. For bench seats, 
``Plane B'' refers to a vertical plane through the right front outboard 
seat parallel to the vehicle longitudinal centerline the same distance 
from the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle as the center of the 
steering wheel.
    S20.2.2.4 Facing rear.
    (a) Align the child restraint system facing rearward such that 
Plane A is aligned with Plane B and the child restraint is in contact 
with the seat back.
    (b) Position the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI dummy 
in the child restraint by following, to the extent possible, the 
manufacturer's instructions provided with the child restraint.
    (c) Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the ``on'' 
position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and close all 
vehicle doors. Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag is 
deactivated.
    S20.2.2.5 Facing forward.
    (a) Align the child restraint system facing forward such that Plane 
A is aligned with Plane B and the child restraint is in contact with 
the seat back.
    (b) Position the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI dummy 
in the child restraint by following, to the extent possible, the 
manufacturer's instructions provided with the child restraint.
    (c) Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the ``on'' 
position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and close all 
vehicle doors. Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag is 
deactivated.
    S20.2.3 Tests with a belted car bed.
    S20.2.3.1 The vehicle shall comply in tests using any car bed 
specified in section A of Appendix A of this standard.
    S20.2.3.2 (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) Place any adjustable seat belt anchorages at the vehicle 
manufacturer's nominal design position for a 50th percentile adult male 
occupant. Cinch the vehicle belts to any tension from zero up to 134 N 
(30 lb) to secure the car bed. Measure belt tension in a flat, straight 
section of the lap belt between the car bed belt path and the contact 
point with the belt anchor or vehicle seat, on the side away from the

[[Page 30757]]

buckle (to avoid interference from the shoulder portion of the belt).
    (c) Position the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart K Newborn Infant dummy in 
the car bed by following, to the extent possible, the car bed 
manufacturer's instructions for positioning infants provided with the 
car bed.
    (d) Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the ``on'' 
position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and close all 
vehicle doors. Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag is 
deactivated.
    S20.3 Static tests of automatic suppression feature which shall 
result in activation of the passenger air bag system.
    S20.3.1 Each vehicle certified to this option shall comply in tests 
conducted with the right front outboard seating position at the full 
rearward seat track position, the middle seat track position, and, 
subject to S16.3.3.1.8, the full forward seat track position. All tests 
are conducted with the seat height, if adjustable, in the mid-height 
position.
    S20.3.2 Place a 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart O 5th percentile adult 
female test dummy at the right front outboard seating position of the 
vehicle, in accordance with procedures specified in S16.3.3 of this 
standard, except as specified in S20.3.1, subject to the fore-aft seat 
positions in S20.3.1. Do not fasten the seat belt.
    S20.3.3 Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the 
``on'' position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and 
then close all vehicle doors.
    S20.3.4 Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag system is 
activated.
    S20.4 Low risk deployment test. Each vehicle that is certified as 
complying with S19.3 shall meet the following test requirements.
    S20.4.1 Position the right front outboard vehicle seat in the full 
forward seat track position, adjust the seat height (if adjustable) to 
the mid-height position, and adjust the seat back (if adjustable) to 
the nominal design position for a 50th percentile adult male as 
specified in S8.1.3. If the child restraint or dummy contacts the 
vehicle interior, move the seat rearward to the next detent that 
provides clearance. If the seat is a power seat, move the seat rearward 
while assuring that there is a maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) clearance.
    S20.4.2 The vehicle shall comply in tests using any child restraint 
specified in section B and section C of Appendix A to this standard.
    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 For bucket seats, ``Plane B'' refers to a vertical plane 
parallel to the vehicle longitudinal centerline through the geometric 
center of the right front outboard seat. For bench seats, ``Plane B'' 
refers to a vertical plane through the right front outboard seat 
parallel to the vehicle longitudinal centerline that is the same 
distance from the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle as the center 
of the steering wheel.
    S20.4.5 Align the child restraint system facing rearward such that 
Plane A is aligned with Plane B.
    S20.4.6 If the child restraint is certified to S5.9 of FMVSS No. 
213, and the vehicle seat has an anchorage system as specified in FMVSS 
No. 225, attach the child restraint to the vehicle seat anchorage 
instead of aligning the planes. Do not attach the vehicle safety belt.
    S20.4.7 While maintaining the child restraint position achieved in 
S20.4.5, 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. Place any 
adjustable seat belt anchorages at the manufacturer's nominal design 
position for a 50th percentile adult male occupant. Cinch the vehicle 
belts to any tension from zero up to 134 N (30 lb) to secure the child 
restraint. Measure belt tension in a flat, straight section of the lap 
belt between the child restraint belt path and the contact point with 
the belt anchor or vehicle seat, on the side away from the buckle (to 
avoid interference from the shoulder portion of the belt).
    S20.4.8 Position the 49 CFR 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.
    S20.4.9 Deploy the right front outboard frontal air bag system. If 
the air bag system contains a multistage inflator, the vehicle shall be 
able to comply at any stage or combination of stages or time delay 
between successive stages that could occur in the presence of an infant 
in a rear facing child restraint positioned according to S20.2.1 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 that is certified as complying with S14 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 or 
S28, as applicable.
    S21.2 Option 1--Automatic suppression feature. Each vehicle shall 
meet the requirements specified in S21.2.1 through S21.2.3.
    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 49 
CFR Part 572 Subpart P 3-year-old child dummy and, as applicable, any 
child restraint specified in section C and section D of Appendix A to 
this standard), and activation of the air bag system during each of the 
static tests specified in S22.3 (using a 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart O 5th 
percentile adult female dummy).
    S21.2.2 The vehicle shall be equipped with a telltale light meeting 
the requirements specified in S19.2.2.
    S21.2.3 The vehicle shall be equipped with a mechanism that 
indicates whether the air bag is suppressed, regardless of whether the 
passenger seat is occupied. The mechanism need not be located in the 
occupant compartment unless it is the telltale described in S21.2.2.
    S21.3 Option 2--Dynamic automatic suppression system that 
suppresses the air bag when an occupant is out of position. (This 
option is available under the conditions set forth in S27.1.) The 
vehicle shall be equipped with a dynamic automatic suppression system 
for the passenger air bag system which meets the requirements specified 
in S27.
    S21.4 Option 3--Low risk deployment. Each vehicle shall meet the 
injury criteria specified in S21.5 of this standard when the passenger 
air bag is deployed in accordance with both of the low risk deployment 
test procedures specified in S22.4.
    S21.5 Injury criteria for the 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart P 3-year-old 
child test 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 Head injury criteria.
    (a) For any two points in time, t1 and t2, 
during the event which are separated by not more than a 15 millisecond 
time interval and where t1 is less than t2, the 
head injury criterion (HIC15) shall be determined using the 
resultant head acceleration at the center of gravity of the dummy head, 
ar, expressed as a multiple of g (the acceleration of 
gravity) and shall be calculated using the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MY00.007

    (b) The maximum calculated HIC15 value shall not exceed 
570.

[[Page 30758]]

    S21.5.3 The resultant acceleration calculated from the output of 
the thoracic instrumentation 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, shall not exceed 34 
millimeters (1.3 in).
    S21.5.5 Neck injury. When measuring neck injury, each of the 
following injury criteria shall be met.
    (a) Nij.
    (1) The shear force (Fx), axial force (Fz), and bending moment (My) 
shall be measured by the dummy upper neck load cell for the duration of 
the crash event as specified in S4.10. Shear force, axial force, and 
bending moment shall be filtered for Nij purposes at SAE J211/1 rev. 
Mar95 Channel Frequency Class 600 (see S4.7).
    (2) During the event, the axial force (Fz) can be either in tension 
or compression while the occipital condyle bending moment (Mocy) can be 
in either flexion or extension. This results in four possible loading 
conditions for Nij: tension-extension (Nte), tension-flexion 
(Ntf),compression-extension (Nce), or compression-flexion (Ncf).
    (3) When calculating Nij using equation S21.5.5(a)(4), the critical 
values, Fzc and Myc, are:

(i) Fzc = 2120 N (477 lbf) when Fz is in tension
(ii) Fzc = 2120 N (477 lbf) when Fz is in compression
(iii) Myc = 68 Nm (50 lbf-ft) when a flexion moment exists at the 
occipital condyle
(iv) Myc = 27 Nm (20 lbf-ft) when an extension moment exists at the 
occipital condyle.

    (4) At each point in time, only one of the four loading conditions 
occurs and the Nij value corresponding to that loading condition is 
computed and the three remaining loading modes shall be considered a 
value of zero. The expression for calculating each Nij loading 
condition is given by:

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

    (5) None of the four Nij values shall exceed 1.0 at any time during 
the event.
    (b) Peak tension. Tension force (Fz), measured at the upper neck 
load cell, shall not exceed 1130 N (254 lbf) at any time.
    (c) Peak compression. Compression force (Fz), measured at the upper 
neck load cell, shall not exceed 1380 N (310 lbf) at any time.
    S21.5.6 Unless otherwise indicated, instrumentation for data 
acquisition, data channel frequency class, and moment calculations are 
the same as given in 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart P 3-year-old child test 
dummy.
    S22 Test procedure for S21.
    S22.1 General provisions and definitions.
    S22.1.1 Tests specifying the use of a forward facing child 
restraint, including a booster seat where applicable, may be conducted 
using any such restraint listed in section C and section D of Appendix 
A of this standard, respectively. The child restraint may be unused or 
have been previously used for static suppression tests only; if it has 
been used, there shall not be any visible damage prior to the test. 
Booster seats are to be used in the manner appropriate for a three-
year-old child of the same height and weight as the three-year-old 
child dummy.
    S22.1.2 Unless otherwise specified, each vehicle certified to this 
option shall comply in tests conducted with the right front outboard 
seating position at the full rearward seat track position, the middle 
seat track position, and the full forward seat track position. If the 
dummy contacts the vehicle interior, move the seat rearward to the next 
detent that provides clearance. If the seat is a power seat, move the 
seat rearward while assuring that there is a maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) 
clearance. All tests are conducted with the seat height, if adjustable, 
in the mid-height position, and with the seat back angle, if 
adjustable, at the manufacturer's nominal design seat back angle for a 
50th percentile adult male as specified in S8.1.3.
    S22.1.3 Except as otherwise specified, if the child restraint has 
an anchorage system as specified in S5.9 of FMVSS No. 213 and is tested 
in a vehicle with a right front outboard vehicle seat that has an 
anchorage system as specified in FMVSS No. 225, the vehicle shall 
comply with the belted test conditions both with the restraint 
anchorage system attached and unattached to the vehicle seat anchorage 
system and with the unbelted test conditions with the restraint 
anchorage system unattached to the vehicle seat anchorage system.
    S22.1.4 Do not attach any tethers.
    S22.1.5 The definitions provided in S16.3.1 apply to the tests 
specified in S22.
    S22.2 Static tests of automatic suppression feature which shall 
result in deactivation of the passenger air bag. Each vehicle that is 
certified as complying with S21.2 shall meet the following test 
requirements:
    S22.2.1 Belted test with forward facing child restraints or booster 
seats.
    S22.2.1.1 Install the restraint in the right front outboard seat in 
accordance, to the extent possible, with the child restraint 
manufacturer's instructions provided with the seat for use by children 
with the same height and weight as the three-year-old child dummy.
    S22.2.1.2 Locate a vertical plane through the longitudinal 
centerline of the child restraint. This will be referred to as ``Plane 
A'.
    S22.2.1.3 For bucket seats, ``Plane B'' refers to a vertical plane 
parallel to the vehicle longitudinal centerline through the geometric 
center of the right front outboard vehicle seat. For bench seats, 
``Plane B'' refers to a vertical plane through the right front outboard 
vehicle seat parallel to the vehicle longitudinal centerline the same 
distance from the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle as the center 
of the steering wheel.
    22.2.1.4 The vehicle shall comply in both of the following 
positions, if applicable:
    (a) Without attaching the child restraint anchorage system as 
specified in S5.9 of FMVSS No. 213 to a vehicle seat anchorage system 
specified in FMVSS No. 225 and without attaching any tethers, align the 
child restraint system facing forward such that Plane A is aligned with 
Plane B.
    (b) If the child restraint is certified to S5.9 of FMVSS No. 213, 
and the vehicle seat has an anchorage system as specified in FMVSS No. 
225, attach the child restraint to the vehicle seat anchorage instead 
of aligning the planes. Do not attach the vehicle safety belt.
    S22.2.1.5 Forward facing child restraint
    S22.2.1.5.1 Place any adjustable seat belt anchorages at the 
vehicle manufacturer's nominal design position for a 50th percentile 
adult male occupant. Cinch the vehicle belts to any tension from zero 
up to 134 N (30 lb) to secure the child restraint. Measure belt tension 
in a flat, straight section of the lap belt between the child restraint 
belt path and the contact point with the belt anchor or vehicle seat, 
on the side away from the buckle (to avoid interference from the 
shoulder portion of the belt).
    S22.2.1.5.2 Position the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart P 3-year-old child 
dummy in the child restraint such that the dummy's lower torso is 
centered on the child restraint and the dummy's spine is against the 
seat back of the child restraint. Place the arms at the dummy's sides.
    S22.2.1.5.3 Attach all belts that come with the child restraint 
that are appropriate for a child of the same height and weight as the 
three-year-old child dummy, if any, by following, to the extent 
possible, the manufacturer's

[[Page 30759]]

instructions for seating children provided with the child restraint.
    S22.2.1.6 Booster seat
    S22.2.1.6.1 Place any adjustable seat belt anchorages at the 
vehicle manufacturer's nominal design position for a 50th percentile 
adult male occupant. For booster seats designed to be secured to the 
vehicle seat even when empty, cinch the vehicle belts to any tension 
from zero up to 134 N (30 lb) to secure the booster seat. Measure belt 
tension in a flat, straight section of the lap belt between the child 
restraint belt path and the contact point with the belt anchor or 
vehicle seat, on the side away from the buckle (to avoid interference 
from the shoulder portion of the belt).
    S22.2.1.6.2 Position the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart P 3-year-old child 
dummy in the booster seat such that the dummy's lower torso is centered 
on the booster seat cushion and the dummy's spine is parallel to the 
booster seat back or, if there is no booster seat back, the vehicle 
seat back. Place the arms at the dummy's sides.
    S22.2.1.6.3 If applicable, attach all belts that come with the 
child restraint that are appropriate for a child of the same height and 
weight as the three-year-old child dummy, if any, by following, to the 
extent possible, the manufacturer's instructions for seating children 
provided with the child restraint.
    S22.2.1.6.4 If applicable, place the Type 2 manual belt around the 
test dummy and fasten the latch. Remove all slack from the lap belt 
portion. Pull the upper torso webbing out of the retractor and allow it 
to retract; repeat this four times. Apply a 9 to 18 N (2 to 4 lb) 
tension load to the lap belt. Allow the excess webbing in the upper 
torso belt to be retracted by the retractive force of the retractor.
    S22.2.1.7 Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the 
``on'' position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and 
then close all vehicle doors.
    S22.2.1.8 Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag is 
deactivated.
    S22.2.2 Unbelted tests with dummies. Place the 49 CFR Part 572 
Subpart P 3-year-old child dummy on the right front outboard seat in 
any of the following positions (without using a child restraint or 
booster seat or the vehicle's seat belts):
    S22.2.2.1 Sitting on seat with back against seat back
    (a) Position the dummy in the seated position and place it on the 
right front outboard seat.
    (b) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats, position the 
midsagittal plane of the dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline and the same distance from the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline as the center of the steering wheel. In the 
case 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 torso of the 
dummy against the seat back. Position the dummy's thighs against the 
seat cushion.
    (c) Allow the legs of the dummy to extend off the surface of the 
seat.
    (d) Rotate the dummy's upper arms down until they contact the seat 
back.
    (e) Rotate the dummy's lower arms until the dummy's hands contact 
the seat cushion.
    (f) Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the ``on'' 
position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and then close 
all vehicle doors.
    (g) Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag is deactivated.
    S22.2.2.2 Sitting on seat with back against reclined seat back. 
Repeat the test sequence in S22.2.2.1 with the seat back angle 25 
degrees rearward of the manufacturer's nominal design position for the 
50th percentile adult male. If the seat will not recline 25 degrees 
rearward of the nominal design position, use the closest position that 
does not exceed 25 degrees.
    S22.2.2.3 Sitting on seat with back not against seat back.
    (a) Position the dummy in the seated position and place it on the 
right front outboard seat.
    (b) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats, position the 
midsagittal plane of the dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline and the same distance from the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline as the center of the steering wheel. In the 
case 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 with the 
spine vertical so that the horizontal distance from the dummy's back to 
the seat back is no less than 25 mm (1 in) and no more than 150 mm (6 
in), as measured along the dummy's midsagittal plane at the mid-sternum 
level. To keep the dummy in position, a thread with a maximum breaking 
strength of 311 N (70 lb) that does not interfere with the air bag may 
be used to hold the dummy.
    (c) Position the dummy's thighs against the seat cushion.
    (d) Allow the legs of the dummy to extend off the surface of the 
seat.
    (e) Position the upper arms parallel to the spine and rotate the 
dummy's lower arms until the dummy's hands contact the seat cushion.
    (f) Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the ``on'' 
position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and then close 
all vehicle doors.
    (g) Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag is deactivated.
    S22.2.2.4 Sitting on seat edge, spine vertical, hands by the 
dummy's sides.
    (a) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats, position the 
midsagittal plane of the dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline and the same distance from the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline as the center of the steering wheel. In the 
case 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.
    (b) Position the dummy in the seated position forward in the seat 
such that the legs are vertical and rest against the front of the seat 
with the spine vertical. 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. To 
keep the dummy in position, a thread with a maximum breaking strength 
of 311 N (70 lb) that does not interfere with the air bag may be used 
to hold the dummy.
    (c) Place the upper arms parallel to the spine.
    (d) Lower the dummy's lower arms such that they contact the seat 
cushion.
    (e) Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the ``on'' 
position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and then close 
all vehicle doors.
    (f) Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag is deactivated.
    S22.2.2.5 Standing on seat, facing forward.
    (a) 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 a 
standing position on the right front outboard seat cushion facing the 
front of the vehicle while placing the heels of the dummy's feet in 
contact with the seat back.

[[Page 30760]]

    (b) Rest the dummy against the seat back, with the arms parallel to 
the spine.
    (c) If the head contacts the vehicle roof, recline the seat so that 
the head is no longer in contact with the vehicle roof, but allow no 
more than 5 mm (0.2 in) distance between the head and the roof. If the 
seat does not sufficiently recline to allow clearance, omit the test.
    (d) If necessary use a thread with a maximum breaking strength of 
311 N (70 lb) that does not interfere with the air bag or spacer blocks 
to keep the dummy in position.
    (e) Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the ``on'' 
position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and then close 
all vehicle doors.
    (f) Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag is deactivated.
    S22.2.2.6 Kneeling on seat, facing forward.
    (a) Position the dummy in a kneeling position by rotating the 
dummy's legs 90 degrees behind the dummy (from the standing position) 
with the toes pointed rearward as much as possible and with the arms 
parallel to the spine.
    (b) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats, position the 
midsagittal plane of the dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline and the same distance from the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline as the center of the steering wheel. In the 
case 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.
    (c) Position the kneeling dummy in the right front outboard seat 
with the dummy facing the front of the vehicle with its toes at the 
intersection of the seat back and seat cushion. Position the dummy so 
that the spine is vertical. Push down on the legs so that they contact 
the seat as much as possible and then release.
    (d) If necessary use a thread with a maximum breaking strength of 
311 N (70 lb) that does not interfere with the air bag or spacer blocks 
to keep the dummy in position.
    (e) Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the ``on'' 
position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and then close 
all vehicle doors.
    (f) Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag is deactivated.
    S22.2.2.7 Kneeling on seat, facing rearward.
    (a) Position the dummy in a kneeling position by rotating the 
dummy's legs 90 degrees behind the dummy (from the standing position) 
with the toes pointed rearward as much as possible and the arms 
parallel to the spine.
    (b) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats, position the 
midsagittal plane of the dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline and the same distance from the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline as the center of the steering wheel. In the 
case 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.
    (c) Position the kneeling dummy in the right front outboard seat 
with the dummy facing the rear of the vehicle. Position the dummy such 
that the dummy's head and torso are in contact with the seat back. Push 
down on the legs so that they contact the seat as much as possible and 
then release.
    (d) Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the ``on'' 
position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and then close 
all vehicle doors.
    (e) Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag is deactivated.
    S22.2.2.8 Lying on seat. This test is performed only in vehicles 
with 3 designated front seating positions.
    (a) Lay the dummy on the right front outboard seat such that the 
following criteria are met:
    (1) The midsagittal plane of the dummy is horizontal,
    (2) The dummy's spine is perpendicular to the vehicle's 
longitudinal axis,
    (3) The dummy's arms are parallel to its spine,
    (4) A plane passing through the two shoulder joints of the dummy is 
vertical,
    (5) The anterior of the dummy is facing the vehicle front,
    (6) The head of the dummy is positioned towards the passenger door, 
and
    (7) The horizontal distance from the topmost point of the dummy's 
head to the vehicle door is 50 to 100 mm (2-4 in).
    (b) Rotate the thighs as much as possible toward the chest of the 
dummy and rotate the legs as much as possible against the thighs.
    (c) Move the dummy's upper left arm parallel to the vehicle's 
transverse plane and the lower left arm 90 degrees to the upper arm. 
Rotate the lower left arm about the elbow joint and toward the dummy's 
head until movement is obstructed.
    (d) Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the ``on'' 
position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and then close 
all vehicle doors.
    (e) Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag is deactivated.
    S22.3 Static tests of automatic suppression feature which shall 
result in activation of the passenger air bag system.
    S22.3.1 Each vehicle certified to this option shall comply in tests 
conducted with the right front outboard seating position at the full 
rearward seat track position, the middle seat track position, and, 
subject to S16.3.3.1.8, the full forward seat track position. All tests 
are conducted with the seat height, if adjustable, in the mid-height 
position.
    S22.3.2 Place a 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart O 5th percentile adult 
female test dummy at the right front outboard seating position of the 
vehicle, in accordance with procedures specified in S16.3.3 of this 
standard, except as specified in S22.3.1. Do not fasten the seat belt.
    S22.3.3 Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the 
``on'' position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and 
then close all vehicle doors.
    S22.3.4 Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag system is 
activated.
    S22.4 Low risk deployment tests.
    S22.4.1 Each vehicle that is certified as complying with S21.4 
shall meet the following test requirements with the 49 CFR Part 572, 
Subpart P 3-year-old child dummy in both of the following positions: 
Position 1 (S22.4.2) and Position 2 (S22.4.3).
    S22.4.1.1 Locate and mark the center point of the dummy's chest/rib 
plate (the vertical mid-point of the frontal chest plate of the dummy 
on the midsagittal plane). This is referred to as ``Point 1.''
    S22.4.1.2 Locate the vertical plane parallel to the vehicle 
longitudinal centerline through the geometric center of the right front 
air bag tear seam. This is referred to as ``Plane D.''
    S22.4.1.3 Locate the horizontal plane through the geometric center 
of the right front air bag tear seam. This is referred to as ``Plane 
C.''
    S22.4.2 Position 1 (chest on instrument panel).
    S22.4.2.1 There are no seat track, seat height, or seat back angle 
requirements.
    S22.4.2.2 Place the dummy's midsagittal plane coincident with Plane 
D.
    S22.4.2.3 Initially position the thighs at a right angle to the 
spine and the legs at a right angle to the thighs. These angles may be 
adjusted to the extent necessary for the head and torso to attain their 
final positions.
    S22.4.2.4 With the dummy's thorax instrument cavity rear face 
vertical and Point 1 in Plane C, move the dummy forward until Point 1 
contacts the instrument panel. If the dummy's head contacts the 
windshield and keeps Point

[[Page 30761]]

1 from contacting the instrument panel, lower the dummy until there is 
no more than 5 mm (0.2 in) clearance between the head and the 
windshield.
    S22.4.2.5 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.
    S22.4.2.6 Position the legs of the dummy so that the legs are 
vertical and the feet rest flat on the floorboard (or the feet are 
positioned parallel to the floorboard) of the vehicle.
    S22.4.2.7 Use the seat adjustments (fore-aft, height) to keep the 
dummy in position. If necessary, thread with a maximum breaking 
strength of 311 N (70 lb) and spacer blocks may be used to support the 
dummy in position. The thread should support the torso rather than the 
head. Support the dummy so that there is minimum interference with the 
full rotational and translational freedom for the upper torso of the 
dummy and the thread does not interfere with the air bag.
    S22.4.3 Position 2 (head on instrument panel).
    S22.4.3.1 Place the passenger seat in the full rearward seating 
position. Place the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design seat 
back angle for a 50th percentile adult male as specified in S8.1.3. If 
adjustable in the vertical direction, place the seat in the mid-height 
position.
    S22.4.3.2 Place the dummy in the front passenger seat such that:
    S22.4.3.2.1 The dummy's midsagittal plane is coincident with Plane 
D. With the thighs on the seat, initially set the thighs perpendicular 
to the torso and the legs perpendicular to the thighs. Position the 
upper arms parallel to the torso and rotate the lower arms forward (at 
the elbow) sufficiently to prevent contact with or support from the 
seat.
    S22.4.3.2.2 The dummy is positioned in the seat such that the legs 
rest against the front of the seat and such that the dummy's thorax 
instrument cavity rear face is vertical. If it is not possible to 
position the dummy with the legs in the prescribed position, rotate the 
legs forward until the dummy is resting on the seat with the feet 
positioned flat on the floorboard.
    S22.4.3.3 Move the seat forward, while maintaining the thorax 
instrument cavity rear face orientation until any part of the dummy 
contacts the vehicle's instrument panel.
    S22.4.3.4 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 190 mm (7.5 in) or until contact is 
made, whichever is first. Maintain the thorax instrument cavity rear 
face vertical orientation.
    S22.4.3.5 If contact has not been made, apply a force towards the 
front of the vehicle on the spine of the dummy between the shoulder 
joints until the head or torso comes into contact with the vehicle's 
instrument panel.
    S22.4.3.6 If necessary, rotate the thighs and rotate the legs and 
feet so as not to impede the motion of the head/torso into the 
vehicle's instrument panel.
    S22.4.3.7 Rotate the lower arms forward if necessary to prevent 
contact with or support from the seat.
    S22.4.3.8 If necessary, thread with a maximum breaking strength of 
311 N (70 lb) and spacer blocks may be used to support the dummy in 
position. The thread should support the torso rather than the head. 
Support the dummy so that there is minimum interference with the full 
rotational and translational freedom for the upper torso of the dummy 
and the thread does not interfere with the air bag.
    S22.4.4 Deploy the right front outboard frontal air bag system. If 
the frontal air bag system contains a multistage inflator, the vehicle 
shall be able to comply with the injury criteria at any stage or 
combination of stages or time delay between successive stages that 
could occur in a rigid barrier crash test at or below 26 km/h (16 mph), 
under the test procedure specified in S22.5.
    S22.5 Test procedure for determining stages of air bag systems 
subject to low risk deployment test requirement.
    S22.5.1 Impact the vehicle traveling longitudinally forward at any 
speed, up to and including 26 km/h (16 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 and S10, excluding 
S10.7, S10.8, and S10.9.
    S22.5.2 Determine which inflation stage or combination of stages 
are fired and determine the time delay between successive stages. That 
stage or combination of stages, with time delay between successive 
stages, shall be used in deploying the air bag when conducting the low 
risk deployment tests described in S22.4, S24.4, and S26.
    S22.5.3 If the air bag does not deploy in the impact described in 
S22.5.1, the low risk deployment tests described in S22.4, S24.4, and 
S26 will be conducted with the first inflation stage of the air bag 
system.
    S23 Requirements using 6-year-old child dummies.
    S23.1 Each vehicle that is certified as complying with S14 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 or 
S28, as applicable.
    S23.2 Option 1--Automatic suppression feature. Each vehicle shall 
meet the requirements specified in S23.2.1 through S23.2.3.
    S23.2.1 The vehicle shall be equipped with an automatic suppression 
feature for the passenger frontal air bag system which results in 
deactivation of the air bag during each of the static tests specified 
in S24.2 (using a 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart N 6-year-old child dummy in 
any of the child restraints specified in section D of Appendix A of 
this standard), and activation of the air bag system during each of the 
static tests specified in S24.3 (using a 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart O 5th 
percentile adult female dummy).
    S23.2.2 The vehicle shall be equipped with a telltale light meeting 
the requirements specified in S19.2.2.
    S23.2.3 The vehicle shall be equipped with a mechanism that 
indicates whether the air bag is suppressed, regardless of whether the 
passenger seat is occupied. The mechanism need not be located in the 
occupant compartment unless it is the telltale described in S23.2.2.
    S23.3 Option 2--Dynamic automatic suppression system that 
suppresses the air bag when an occupant is out of position. (This 
option is available under the conditions set forth in S27.1.) The 
vehicle shall be equipped with a dynamic automatic suppression system 
for the passenger frontal air bag system which meets the requirements 
specified in S27.
    S23.4 Option 3--Low risk deployment. Each vehicle shall meet the 
injury criteria specified in S23.5 of this standard when the passenger 
air bag is statically deployed in accordance with both of the low risk 
deployment test procedures specified in S24.4.
    S23.5 Injury criteria for the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart N 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 Head injury criteria.
    (a) For any two points in time, t1 and t2, 
during the event which are separated by not more than a 15 millisecond 
time interval and where t1 is less than t2, the 
head injury criterion (HIC15) shall be determined using the 
resultant head acceleration at the center of gravity of the dummy head, 
ar, expressed as a multiple of g (the acceleration of 
gravity) and shall be calculated using the expression:

[[Page 30762]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MY00.008

    (b) The maximum calculated HIC15 value shall not exceed 
700.
    S23.5.3 The resultant acceleration calculated from the output of 
the thoracic instrumentation 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, shall not exceed 40 mm (1.6 
in).
    S23.5.5 Neck injury. When measuring neck injury, each of the 
following injury criteria shall be met.
    (a) Nij.
    (1) The shear force (Fx), axial force (Fz), and bending moment (My) 
shall be measured by the dummy upper neck load cell for the duration of 
the crash event as specified in S4.10. Shear force, axial force, and 
bending moment shall be filtered for Nij purposes at SAE J211/1 rev. 
Mar95 Channel Frequency Class 600 (see S4.7).
    (2) During the event, the axial force (Fz) can be either in tension 
or compression while the occipital condyle bending moment (Mocy) can be 
in either flexion or extension. This results in four possible loading 
conditions for Nij: tension-extension (Nte), tension-flexion (Ntf), 
compression-extension (Nce), or compression-flexion (Ncf).
    (3) When calculating Nij using equation S23.5.5(a)(4), the critical 
values, Fzc and Myc, are:

(i) Fzc = 2800 N (629 lbf) when Fz is in tension
(ii) Fzc = 2800 N (629 lbf) when Fz is in compression
(iii) Myc = 93 Nm (69 lbf-ft) when a flexion moment exists at the 
occipital condyle
(iv) Myc = 37 Nm (27 lbf-ft) when an extension moment exists at the 
occipital condyle.

    (4) At each point in time, only one of the four loading conditions 
occurs and the Nij value corresponding to that loading condition is 
computed and the three remaining loading modes shall be considered a 
value of zero. The expression for calculating each Nij loading 
condition is given by:

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

    (5) None of the four Nij values shall exceed 1.0 at any time during 
the event.
    (b) Peak tension. Tension force (Fz), measured at the upper neck 
load cell, shall not exceed 1490 N (335 lbf) at any time.
    (c) Peak compression. Compression force (Fz), measured at the upper 
neck load cell, shall not exceed 1820 N (409 lbf) at any time.
    S23.5.6 Unless otherwise indicated, instrumentation for data 
acquisition, data channel frequency class, and moment calculations are 
the same as given for the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart N 6-year-old child 
test dummy.
    S24 Test procedure for S23.
    S24.1 General provisions and definitions.
    S24.1.1 Tests specifying the use of a booster seat may be conducted 
using any such restraint listed in section D of Appendix A of this 
standard. The booster seat may be unused or have been previously used 
for static suppression tests only; if it has been used, there shall not 
be any visible damage prior to the test. Booster seats are to be used 
in the manner appropriate for a six-year-old child of the same height 
and weight as the six-year-old child dummy.
    S24.1.2 Unless otherwise specified, each vehicle certified to this 
option shall comply in tests conducted with the right front outboard 
seating position at the full rearward seat track position, the middle 
seat track position, and the full forward seat track position. If the 
dummy contacts the vehicle interior, move the seat rearward to the next 
detent that provides clearance. If the seat is a power seat, move the 
seat rearward while assuring that there is a maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) 
distance between the vehicle interior and the point on the dummy that 
would first contact the vehicle interior. All tests are conducted with 
the seat height, if adjustable, in the mid-height position, and with 
the seat back angle, if adjustable, at the manufacturer's nominal 
design seat back angle for a 50th percentile adult male as specified in 
S8.1.3.
    S24.1.3 Except as otherwise specified, if the booster seat has an 
anchorage system as specified in S5.9 of FMVSS No. 213 and is tested in 
a vehicle with a right front outboard vehicle seat that has an 
anchorage system as specified in FMVSS No. 225, the vehicle shall 
comply with the belted test conditions both with the restraint 
anchorage system attached and unattached to the vehicle seat anchorage 
system and with the unbelted test conditions with the restraint 
anchorage system unattached to the vehicle seat anchorage system.
    S24.1.4 Do not attach any tethers.
    S24.1.5 The definitions provided in S16.3.1 apply to the tests 
specified in S24.
    S24.2 Static tests of automatic suppression feature which shall 
result in deactivation of the passenger air bag. Each vehicle that is 
certified as complying with S23.2 shall meet the following test 
requirements.
    S24.2.1 Except as provided in S24.2.2, conduct all tests as 
specified in S22.2, except that the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart N 6-year-
old child dummy shall be used.
    S24.2.2. Exceptions. The tests specified in the following 
paragraphs of S22.2 need not be conducted: S22.2.1.5, S22.2.2.3, 
S22.2.2.5, S22.2.2.6, S22.2.2.7, and S22.2.2.8.
    S24.2.3. Sitting back in the seat and leaning on the right front 
passenger door
    (a) Position the dummy in the seated position and place the dummy 
in the right front outboard seat. For bucket seats, position the 
midsagittal plane of the dummy vertically such that it coincides with 
the vertical longitudinal plane through the longitudinal center line of 
the seat cushion. For bench seats, position the midsagittal plane of 
the dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal 
centerline and the same distance from the longitudinal centerline of 
the vehicle as the center of the steering wheel.
    (b) Place the dummy's back against the seat back and rest the 
dummy's thighs on the seat cushion.
    (c) Allow the legs and feet 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, move the seat rearward to the next 
detent that provides clearance. If the seat is a power seat, move the 
seat rearward, while assuring that there is a minimum of 5 mm (0.2 in) 
distance between the vehicle interior and the part of the dummy that 
was in contact with the vehicle interior.
    (d) Rotate the dummy's upper arms toward the seat back until they 
make contact.
    (e) Rotate the dummy's lower arms down until they contact the seat.
    (f) Close the vehicle's passenger-side door and then start the 
vehicle engine or place the ignition in the ``on'' position, whichever 
will turn on the suppression system.
    (g) Push against the dummy's left shoulder to lean the dummy 
against the door; close all remaining doors.
    (h) Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag is deactivated.
    S24.3 Static tests of automatic suppression feature which shall 
result in activation of the passenger air bag system.
    S24.3.1 Each vehicle certified to this option shall comply in tests 
conducted with the right front outboard seating position at the full 
rearward seat track position, the middle seat track position,

[[Page 30763]]

and, subject to S16.3.3.1.8, the full forward seat track position. All 
tests are conducted with the seat height, if adjustable, in the mid-
height position.
    S24.3.2 Place a 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart O 5th percentile adult 
female test dummy at the right front outboard seating position of the 
vehicle, in accordance with procedures specified in S16.3.3 of this 
standard, except as specified in S24.3.1. Do not fasten the seat belt.
    S24.3.3 Start the vehicle engine or place the ignition in the 
``on'' position, whichever will turn on the suppression system, and 
then close all vehicle doors.
    S24.3.4 Wait 10 seconds, then check whether the air bag system is 
activated.
    S24.4 Low risk deployment tests.
    S24.4.1 Each vehicle that is certified as complying with S23.4 
shall meet the following test requirements with the 49 CFR Part 572 
Subpart N 6-year-old child dummy in both of the following positions: 
Position 1 (S24.4.2) or Position 2 (S24.4.3).
    S24.4.1.1 Locate and mark the center point of the dummy's rib cage 
or sternum plate (the vertical mid-point of the frontal chest plate of 
the dummy on the midsagittal plane). This is referred to as ``Point 
1.''
    S24.4.1.2 Locate the vertical plane parallel to the vehicle 
longitudinal centerline through the geometric center of the right front 
air bag tear seam. This is referred to as ``Plane D.''
    S24.4.1.3 Locate the horizontal plane through the geometric center 
of the right front air bag tear seam. This is referred to as ``Plane 
C.''
    S24.4.2 Position 1 (chest on instrument panel).
    S24.4.2.1 There are no seat track, seat height, or seat back angle 
requirements.
    S24.4.2.2 Remove the legs of the dummy at the pelvic interface.
    S24.4.2.3 Place the dummy's midsagittal plane coincident with Plane 
D.
    S24.4.2.4 With the dummy's thorax instrument cavity rear face 6 
degrees forward of the vertical and Point 1 in Plane C, move the dummy 
forward until Point 1 contacts the instrument panel. If the dummy's 
head contacts the windshield and keeps Point 1 from contacting the 
instrument panel, lower the dummy until there is no more than 5 mm (0.2 
in) clearance between the head and the windshield.
    S24.4.2.5 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.
    S24.4.2.6 Use the seat adjustments (fore-aft, height) to keep the 
dummy in position. If necessary, thread with a maximum breaking 
strength of 311 N (70 lb) and spacer blocks may be used to support the 
dummy in position. The thread should support the torso rather than the 
head. Support the dummy so that there is minimum interference with the 
full rotational and translational freedom for the upper torso of the 
dummy and the thread does not interfere with the air bag.
    S24.4.3 Position 2 (head on instrument panel).
    S24.4.3.1 Place the passenger seat in 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. If adjustable in the vertical direction, place the seat 
in the mid-height position.
    S24.4.3.2 Place the dummy in the front passenger seat such that:
    S24.4.3.2.1 The dummy's midsagittal plane is coincident with Plane 
D. With the thighs on the seat, initially set the thighs perpendicular 
to the torso and the legs perpendicular to the thighs. Position the 
upper arms parallel to the torso and rotate the lower arms forward (at 
the elbow) sufficiently to prevent contact with or support from the 
seat.
    S24.4.3.2.2 The dummy is positioned in the seat such that the legs 
rest against the front of the seat and such that the dummy's thorax 
instrument cavity rear face is 6 degrees forward of vertical. If it is 
not possible to position the dummy with the legs in the prescribed 
position, rotate the legs forward until the dummy is resting on the 
seat with the feet positioned flat on the floorboard.
    S24.4.3.3 Move the seat forward, while maintaining the thorax 
instrument cavity rear face orientation until any part of the dummy 
contacts the vehicle's instrument panel.
    S24.4.3.4 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 190 mm (7.5 in) or until contact is 
made, whichever is first. Maintain the thorax instrument cavity rear 
face orientation.
    S24.4.3.5 If contact has not been made, apply a force towards the 
front of the vehicle on the spine of the dummy between the shoulder 
joints until the head or torso comes into contact with the vehicle's 
instrument panel.
    S24.4.3.6 If necessary, rotate the thighs and rotate the legs and 
feet so as not to impede the motion of the head/torso into the 
vehicle's instrument panel.
    S24.4.3.7 Rotate the lower arms forward if necessary to prevent 
contact with or support from the seat.
    S24.4.3.8 If necessary, thread with a maximum breaking strength of 
311 N (70 lb) and spacer blocks may be used to support the dummy in 
position. Thread should support the torso rather than the head. Support 
the dummy so that there is minimum interference with the full 
rotational and translational freedom for the upper torso of the dummy 
and the thread does not interfere with the air bag.
    S24.4.4 Deploy the right front outboard frontal air bag system. If 
the frontal air bag system contains a multistage inflator, the vehicle 
shall be able to comply with the injury criteria at any stage or 
combination of stages and at any time delay between successive stages 
that could occur in a rigid barrier crash at speeds up to 26 km/h (16 
mph) under the test procedure specified in S22.5.
    S25 Requirements using an out-of-position 5th percentile adult 
female dummy at the driver position.
    S25.1 Each vehicle certified as complying with S14 shall, at the 
option of the manufacturer, meet the requirements specified in S25.2 or 
S25.3 under the test procedures specified in S26 or S28, as 
appropriate.
    S25.2 Option 1--Dynamic automatic suppression system that 
suppresses the air bag when the driver 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 
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 by S15.3 of this standard, except as modified 
in S25.4, when the driver air bag is statically deployed in accordance 
with both of the low risk deployment test procedures specified in S26.
    S25.4 Neck injury criteria driver low risk deployment tests. When 
measuring neck injury in low risk deployment tests for the driver 
position, each of the following neck injury criteria shall be met.
    (a) Nij.
    (1) The shear force (Fx), axial force (Fz), and bending moment (My) 
shall be measured by the dummy upper neck load cell for the duration of 
the crash event as specified in S4.10. Shear force, axial force, and 
bending moment shall be filtered for Nij purposes at SAE J211/1 rev. 
Mar 95 Channel Frequency Class 600 (see S4.7).
    (2) During the event, the axial force (Fz) can be either in tension 
or compression while the occipital condyle bending moment (Mocy) can be 
in either flexion or extension. This results in four

[[Page 30764]]

possible loading conditions for Nij: tension-extension (Nte), tension-
flexion (Ntf), compression-extension (Nce), or compression-flexion 
(Ncf).
    (3) When calculating Nij using equation S25.4(a)(4), the critical 
values, Fzc and Myc, are:

(i) Fzc = 3880 N (872 lbf) when Fz is in tension
(ii) Fzc = 3880 N (872 lbf) when Fz is in compression
(iii) Myc = 155 Nm (114 lbf-ft) when a flexion moment exists at the 
occipital condyle
(iv) Myc = 61 Nm (45 lbf-ft) when an extension moment exists at the 
occipital condyle.

    (4) At each point in time, only one of the four loading conditions 
occurs and the Nij value corresponding to that loading condition is 
computed and the three remaining loading modes shall be considered a 
value of zero. The expression for calculating each Nij loading 
condition is given by:

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

    (5) None of the four Nij values shall exceed 1.0 at any time during 
the event.
    (b) Peak tension. Tension force (Fz), measured at the upper neck 
load cell, shall not exceed 2070 N (465 lbf) at any time.
    (c) Peak compression. Compression force (Fz), measured at the upper 
neck load cell, shall not exceed 2520 N (566 lbf) at any time.
    (d) Unless otherwise indicated, instrumentation for data 
acquisition, data channel frequency class, and moment calculations are 
the same as given in 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart O 5th percentile female 
test dummy.
    S26 Procedure for low risk deployment tests of driver air bag.
    S26.1 Each vehicle that is certified as complying with S25.3 shall 
meet the requirements of S25.3 and S25.4 with the 49 CFR Part 572 
Subpart O 5th percentile adult female dummy in both of the following 
positions: Driver position 1 (S26.2) and Driver position 2 (S26.3).
    S26.2 Driver position 1 (chin on module).
    S26.2.1 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. Set the rotation of the steering wheel so that the vehicle 
wheels are pointed straight ahead.
    S26.2.2 Locate the vertical plane parallel to the vehicle 
longitudinal axis which passes through the geometric center of the 
driver air bag tear seam. This is referred to as ``Plane E.''
    S26.2.3 Place the seat in the full rearward seating position. If 
adjustable in the vertical direction, place the seat in the mid-height 
position.
    S26.2.4 Place the dummy in a seated position with its midsagittal 
plane coincident with Plane E.
    S26.2.5 Initially position the legs at a 90-degree angle to the 
thighs. The legs may be adjusted if necessary to achieve the final head 
position.
    S26.2.6 Position the dummy's thorax instrument cavity rear face 6 
degrees forward (toward the front of the vehicle) of the steering wheel 
angle (i.e., if the steering wheel angle is 25 degrees from vertical, 
the thorax instrument cavity rear face angle is 31 degrees).
    S26.2.7 Move the seat forward, while retaining the thorax 
instrument cavity rear face orientation, to the forwardmost seat track 
position or until any portion of the dummy contacts the steering wheel, 
whichever occurs first.
    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 air 
bag module cover (dummy height can be adjusted using the seat height 
adjustments and/or spacer blocks). If the seat prevents the bottom of 
the 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 Slide the dummy forward on the seat until either the head 
or the torso contacts the steering wheel.
    S26.2.10 Use the seat adjustments (fore-aft, height) to keep the 
dummy in position. If necessary, thread with a maximum breaking 
strength of 311 N (70 lb) and spacer blocks may be used to support the 
dummy in position. The thread should support the torso rather than the 
head. Support the dummy so that there is minimum interference with the 
full rotational and translational freedom for the upper torso of the 
dummy and the thread does not interfere with the air bag.
    S26.3 Driver position 2 (chin on rim).
    S26.3.1 There are no seat track, seat height, or seat back angle 
requirements.
    S26.3.2 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. Set the rotation of the steering wheel so that the vehicle 
wheels are pointed straight ahead.
    S26.3.3 Locate the vertical plane parallel to the vehicle 
longitudinal axis which passes through the geometric center of the 
driver air bag tear seam. This is referred to as ``Plane E.''
    S26.3.4 Place the dummy in a seated position with its midsagittal 
plane coincident with Plane E.
    S26.3.5 Initially position the legs at a 90-degree angle to the 
thighs. The legs may be adjusted if necessary to achieve the final head 
position.
    S26.3.6 Position the dummy's thorax instrument cavity rear face 6 
degrees forward (toward the front of the vehicle) of the steering wheel 
angle (i.e., if the steering wheel angle is 25 degrees from vertical, 
the thorax instrument cavity rear face angle is 31 degrees).
    S26.3.7 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's head contacts the vehicle windshield or upper 
interior before the prescribed position can be obtained, lower the 
dummy until there is no more than 5 mm (0.2 in) clearance between the 
vehicle's windshield or upper interior, as applicable.
    S26.3.8 Use the seat adjustments (fore-aft, height) to keep the 
dummy in position. If necessary, thread with a maximum breaking 
strength of 311 N (70 lb) and spacer blocks may be used to support the 
dummy in position. The thread should support the torso rather than the 
head. Support the dummy so that there is minimum interference with the 
full rotational and translational freedom for the upper torso of the 
dummy and the thread does not interfere with the air bag.
    S26.4 Deploy the left front outboard frontal air bag system. If the 
air bag system contains a multistage inflator, the vehicle shall be 
able to comply with the injury criteria at any stage or combination of 
stages or time delay between successive stages that could occur in a 
rigid barrier crash at speeds up to 26 km/h (16 mph) under the test 
procedure specified in S22.5.
    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

[[Page 30765]]

    (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:
    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.
    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.
    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 (49 CFR 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 deployed in accordance with 
the procedures specified in S28.1.
    S27.5.2 Passenger (49 CFR Part 572 Subpart P 3-year-old child dummy 
and 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart N 6-year-old child dummy). Each vehicle 
shall meet the injury criteria specified in S21.5 and S23.5, as 
appropriate, when the passenger air bag is 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 (49 CFR Part 572 
Subpart O 5th percentile female dummy). [Reserved]
    S28.2 Passenger suppression zone verification test (49 CFR Part 572 
Subpart P 3-year-old child dummy and 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart N 6-year-
old child dummies). [Reserved]
    S28.3 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 shall 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 shall 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 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart P 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 in) tall 
may be used.
    (c) For S23.2, instead of using the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart N 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 in) 
tall may be used.
    (d) For S19.2, S21.2, and S23.2, instead of using the 49 CFR Part 
572 Subpart O 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 in) 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 to deactivate the air bag during 
compliance testing under S20.3, S22.2, S22.3, S24.2, and S24.3, and 
identify any parts or equipment necessary for deactivation; 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.

Figures to Sec. 571.208

* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 30766]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MY00.009


[[Page 30767]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MY00.010


[[Page 30768]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MY00.011

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 30769]]

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

    A. The following car bed, manufactured on or after December 1, 
1999, 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 02-719
    B. Any of the following rear facing child restraint systems, 
manufactured on or after December 1, 1999, 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.

Britax Handle with Care 191
Century 560 Institutional 4590
Century Smart Fit 4541
Cosco Arriva 02-750
Cosco Turnabout 02-772
Evenflo Discovery 209
Evenflo First Choice 204
Evenflo On My Way 207
Evenflo Position Right 200
Graco Infant 8457
Kolcraft Secura 43924

    C. Any of the following forward-facing convertible child 
restraint systems, manufactured on or after December 1, 1999, 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 161
Century Encore 4612
Cosco Touriva 02-584
Evenflo Champion 249
Evenflo Medallion 254
Fisher Price Safe-Embrace 79701
Kolcraft Performa 23308

    D. Any of the following forward-facing toddler/belt positioning 
booster systems, manufactured on or after December 1, 1999, 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 121
Century Next Step 4920
Cosco High Back Booster 02-442
Evenflo Right Fit 245

    6. Part 585 is 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   Petitions 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 lb) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 
kg (5500 lb) or less to submit reports, and maintain records related to 
the reports, concerning the number and identification of such vehicles 
that are certified as complying with 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 during the phase-ins of those requirements.


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 lb) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5500 lb) 
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. In 
addition, this part does not apply to manufacturers whose worldwide 
production of motor vehicles is less than 5000 vehicles in a production 
year.


Sec. 585.4  Definitions.

    (a) All terms defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102 are used in accordance 
with their statutory meaning.
    (b) The terms bus, gross vehicle weight rating or GVWR, 
multipurpose passenger vehicle, passenger car, and truck are used as 
defined in section 571.3 of this chapter.
    (c) For the purposes of this part, vehicles means passenger cars 
and trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 
3,855 kg (8500 lb) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg 
(5500 lb) or less manufactured for sale in the United States by 
manufacturers whose worldwide production of motor vehicles is equal to 
or greater than 5000 vehicles in a production year, and does not mean 
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.
    (d) Phase one of the advanced air bag requirements of Standard No. 
208 refers to the requirements set forth in S14.1, S14.2, S14.5.1(a), 
S14.5.2, S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 of Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, 49 CFR 571.208.
    (e) Phase two of the advanced air bag requirements of Standard No. 
208 refers to the requirements set forth in S14.3, S14.4, S14.5.1(b), 
S14.5.2, S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 of Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, 49 CFR 571.208.
    (f) Production year means the 12-month period between September 1 
of one year and August 31 of the following year, inclusive.
    (g) Limited line manufacturer means a manufacturer that sells two 
or fewer carlines, as that term is defined in 49 CFR 583.4, in the 
United States during a production year.


Sec. 585.5  Reporting requirements.

    (a) Advanced credit phase-in reporting requirements.
    (1) Within 60 days after the end of the production years ending 
August 31, 2000, August 31, 2001, August 31, 2002, and August 31, 2003, 
each manufacturer choosing to certify vehicles manufactured during any 
of those production years as complying with phase one of the advanced 
air bag requirements of Standard No. 208 shall submit a report to the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as specified in this 
section.
    (2) Within 60 days after the end of the production year ending 
August 31, 2007, each manufacturer choosing to certify vehicles 
manufactured during that production year as complying with phase two of 
the advanced air bag requirements of Standard No. 208 shall submit a 
report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as 
specified in this section.
    (3) Each report shall--
    (i) Identify the manufacturer;
    (ii) State the full name, title, and address of the official 
responsible for preparing the report;
    (iii) Identify the production year being reported on;
    (iv) Provide the information specified in paragraph (c) of this 
section;
    (v) Be written in the English language; and

[[Page 30770]]

    (vi) Be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.
    (b) Phase-in reporting requirements.
    (1) Within 60 days after the end of the production years ending 
August 31, 2004, August 31, 2005, and August 31, 2006, each 
manufacturer shall submit a report to the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration regarding its compliance with phase one of the 
advanced air bag requirements of Standard No. 208 for its vehicles 
produced in that production year. Each report shall also specify the 
number of advance credit vehicles, if any, that are being applied to 
the production year being reported on.
    (2) Within 60 days after the end of the production years ending 
August 31, 2008, August 31, 2009, and August 31, 2010, each 
manufacturer shall submit a report to the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration regarding its compliance with phase two of the 
advanced air bag requirements of Standard No. 208 for its vehicles 
produced in that production year. Each report shall also specify the 
number of advance credit vehicles, if any, that are being applied to 
the production year being reported on.
    (3) Each report shall--
    (i) Identify the manufacturer;
    (ii) State the full name, title, and address of the official 
responsible for preparing the report;
    (iii) For limited line manufacturers, specify whether the 
manufacturer has elected to comply with S14.1(a) or S14.1(b), or 
S14.3(a) or S14.3(b) of 49 CFR 571.208, as applicable;
    (iv) Identify the production year being reported on;
    (v) Contain a statement regarding whether or not the manufacturer 
complied with phase one of the advanced air bag requirements of 
Standard No. 208 or phase two of the advanced air bag requirements of 
Standard No. 208, as applicable to the period covered by the report, 
and the basis for that statement;
    (vi) Provide the information specified in paragraph (d) of this 
section;
    (vii) Be written in the English language; and
    (viii) Be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.
    (c) Advanced credit phase-in report content.
    (1) Production of complying vehicles.
    (i) With respect to the reports identified in section 585.5(a)(1), 
each manufacturer shall report for the production year for which the 
report is filed the number of vehicles, by make and model year, that 
meet the applicable advanced air bag requirements of Standard No. 208, 
and to which advanced air bag requirements the vehicles are certified.
    (ii) With respect to the report identified in section 585.5(a)(2), 
each manufacturer shall report the number of vehicles, by make and 
model year, that meet the applicable advanced air bag requirements of 
Standard No. 208, and to which advanced air bag requirements the 
vehicles are certified.
    (2) 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 or S14.3.3.2 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 number of vehicles covered by each contract in each 
production year.
    (d) Phase-in report content.
    (1) Basis for phase-in production requirements. For production 
years ending August 31, 2003, August 31, 2004, August 31, 2005, August 
31, 2007, August 31, 2008, and August 31, 2009, each manufacturer shall 
provide the number of vehicles manufactured in the current production 
year, or, at the manufacturer's option, for the current production year 
and each of the prior two production years if the manufacturer has 
manufactured vehicles during both of the two production years prior to 
the year for which the report is being submitted.
    (2) Production of complying vehicles. Each manufacturer shall 
report for the production year for which the report is filed the number 
of vehicles, by make and model year, that meet the applicable advanced 
air bag requirements of Standard No. 208, and to which advanced air bag 
requirements the vehicles are certified.
    (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 or S14.3.3.2 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 number of vehicles covered by each contract in each 
production year.


Sec. 585.6  Records.

    Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the Vehicle 
Identification Number of each vehicle for which information is reported 
under Sec. 585.5(c)(1) and (d)(2) until December 31, 2011.


Sec. 585.7  Petitions to extend period to file report.

    A petition for extension of the time to submit a report required 
under this part shall be received not later than 15 days before the 
report is due. The petition shall 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 continues 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 is 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, 
2012 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: May 4, 2000.
Rosalyn G. Millman,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-11577 Filed 5-5-00; 10:30 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P