[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 504-515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-33146]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 02-14165; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AI85


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

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

[[Page 505]]


ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document responds, in part, to petitions for 
reconsideration of the amendments we made in December 2001 to our May 
2000 Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 208 advanced air 
bag final rule. Because of the time constraints faced by vehicle 
manufacturers in certifying a portion of their fleet to the advanced 
air bag requirements, we are bifurcating our response. This document 
addresses those portions of the petitions that we believe are the most 
time sensitive or that address minor, easily resolved technical issues. 
In particular, we are responding to those portions regarding the length 
of time during which data will be collected during low risk deployment 
tests, a change in dummy positioning procedure for one of the driver 
position low risk deployment tests, and issues related to the air bag 
warning label and the telltale that indicates when the passenger air 
bag has been automatically suppressed. A second document addressing the 
remaining issues raised by the petitioners will be issued at a later 
date.

DATES: Effective Date: The amendments made in this rule are effective 
February 5, 2003.
    Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration of the amendments made by 
this rule must be received by February 20, 2003.

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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact 
Lori Summers, Chief, Light Duty Vehicle Division, Rulemaking, NVS-112. 
Telephone: (202) 366-1740. Fax: (202) 493-2739. E-mail: 
[email protected].
    For legal issues, you may contact Rebecca MacPherson, Office of 
Chief Counsel, NCC-112. 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., SW., Washington, DC 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background: The Advanced Air Bag Final Rule
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
III. Summary of Response to Issues in Petitions
IV. Time Duration for Low risk Deployment Tests
V. Test Procedure for the Driver Air Bag Systems
VI. Issues Related to Warning Labels and Telltale Requirements
    A. Warning labels
    B. Telltale requirements
VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background: The Advanced Air Bag Final Rule

    On May 12, 2000, we published in the Federal Register (65 FR 30680) 
a final rule and an interim final rule to require advanced air bags 
(Docket No. NHTSA 00-7013; Notice 7) (May 2000 final rule). The rule 
amended FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, to require that 
future air bags be designed so that they 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.
    The issuance of the May 2000 final rule completed the 
implementation of our 1996 comprehensive plan for reducing air bag 
risks. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21), 
which was enacted in 1998, required us to issue a rule amending 
Standard No. 208:

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.

    Eight petitions for reconsideration of the May 2000 final rule were 
submitted to the Agency (see Docket No. 7013). Four of the petitions 
were from manufacturers of vehicles or air bags. Petitions were also 
filed by three industry associations representing vehicle 
manufacturers, and by a coalition of four consumer groups. In addition, 
NHTSA received two requests for clarification within the time period 
for filing petitions and three comments that would have been considered 
petitions for reconsideration had they been timely filed. All 
submissions were addressed in the Agency response published in the 
Federal Register on December 18, 2001 that made several changes to the 
May 2000 final rule (66 FR 65376, Docket No. NHTSA 01-11110) (December 
2001 final rule).
    These changes included a number of refinements to the dummy 
positioning procedures for the low risk deployment tests and, to a 
lesser degree, for the automatic suppression tests. In the December 
2001 final rule, the Agency also modified the period of time during 
which the injury criteria must be met for the low risk deployment tests 
from 300 milliseconds (ms) to 125 ms after initiation of the final 
stage of an air bag designed to deploy in a 26 km/h (16 mph) rigid 
barrier crash. We also corrected an error in the regulatory text of the 
May 2000 final rule regarding the exclusivity of the new advanced air 
bag warning label on the sun visor and clarified that information 
regarding air bags or seat belts may be placed elsewhere in the vehicle 
as long as the information in those warnings is consistent with the 
information contained in the required label. Additionally, the 
regulatory text concerning the telltale light required for automatic 
suppression systems was changed to be more consistent with the 
requirements of FMVSS No. 101, Controls and Displays. Other changes 
that are not the subject of today's rule were also made.

II. Petitions for Reconsideration

    We have received eight petitions for reconsideration of the 
December 2001 final rule. These petitions were filed by the Alliance of 
Automotive Manufacturers (Alliance), Mitsubishi, Volkswagen, Honda, 
Porsche, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota. Additionally, BMW and 
Ferrari filed petitions shortly after the deadline for filing petitions 
for reconsideration had passed. Under agency regulations (49 CFR 
553.35(a)), late-filed petitions for reconsideration are treated as 
petitions for rulemaking. However, neither of these two petitions 
raised issues that had not also been addressed by the other timely 
petitioners for reconsideration. Thus, as a practical matter, the 
issues in the two petitions will be considered as part of the agency 
response to the timely-filed petitions for reconsideration. TRW 
submitted a request for clarification and a comment on one of the 
issues raised by all petitioners, namely the time-duration for meeting 
the injury criteria during the passenger-side low risk deployment 
tests. Several supplemental submissions were also submitted to the 
docket after the deadline for filing petitions for reconsideration.
    In this document, we are responding to those portions of the 
petitions regarding the time duration for collecting injury criteria 
data during the low risk deployment tests, a change in dummy 
positioning procedure for one of the driver position low risk 
deployment tests, and issues related to the air bag warning label and 
the automatic suppression telltale. Only those portions of the 
petitions directly related to these matters will be discussed in this

[[Page 506]]

document. The remaining issues will be addressed in a subsequent 
document.

III. Summary of Response to Petitions for Reconsideration

    As noted above, today's rule addresses only those issues raised in 
the petitions for reconsideration that are likely to have an important, 
immediate impact on vehicle manufacturers or that correct inadvertent 
changes that were made to the regulatory text in the December 2001 
final rule.
    Two significant issues are resolved by this document. First, we 
address the time duration for collecting injury criteria data during 
the tests to determine whether a low risk deployment air bag system 
complies with the standard. We have decided to grant the petitioners' 
request that the period for the three-year-old and six-year-old low 
risk deployment tests end at 100 ms after the air bag first starts to 
deploy instead of 125 ms after the final stage of the air bag starts to 
deploy. The longer time duration for low risk deployment tests 
specified in the December 2001 final rule will continue to apply to the 
driver position low risk deployment tests and to the infant low risk 
deployment tests.
    The second major issue involves the labeling requirements 
associated with all advanced air bag requirements. We have made changes 
to the current label, depicted in Figure 8 of the standard, and have 
decided to reinstate our prohibition against placing additional 
information regarding air bags on the sun visor. The current label will 
be allowed for vehicles certified to the advanced air bag requirements 
before September 1, 2003, although vehicle manufacturers may choose to 
use the new label, which is depicted in Figure 11, on those vehicles 
under the existing provision allowing early compliance. Notwithstanding 
the prohibition, we have also established a procedure under which a 
manufacturer may request permission to add design-specific information 
to the sun visor label with the Agency's approval. Today's rule also 
corrects an error in the regulatory text that suggested the new 
advanced air bag labels are only required for vehicles certified to the 
automatic suppression options.
    Finally, the rule makes a correction to the chin-on-module low risk 
deployment test position, corrects a couple of errors related to the 
telltale requirement for vehicles certified to the automatic 
suppression requirements, and makes a few minor, non-substantive 
changes.

IV. Time Duration for Low Risk Deployment Tests

    We adopted a specific period of time for meeting the injury 
criteria in the May 2000 final rule. In that rule, we required that all 
injury criteria be met for the first 300 ms of the test, a time period 
that we believed would encompass any air bag-related risk of injury. 
Several petitioners for reconsideration of that rule argued against 
adopting a 300 ms period for the low risk deployment tests.
    While rejecting the recommendation made by the Alliance that injury 
criteria be met for 300 ms or until the dummy is no longer in contact 
with the air bag, whichever occurs first, as inherently non-objective, 
we did modify the test duration for the low risk deployment tests in 
the December 2001 final rule.
    As discussed in that rule, the test duration for low risk 
deployment tests should accurately reflect the propensity of the 
deploying air bag to harm an occupant while it is deploying. Thus, we 
adopted a time duration for the low risk deployment test of 125 ms from 
the initiation of deployment of the final air bag stage that will fire 
in a 0-26 km/h (16 mph) crash. We believed this time frame would 
adequately measure air bag-related injuries without reflecting injuries 
due to secondary vehicle interior impacts (referred to below as 
``secondary impacts'') that are unrelated to air bag deployment. We 
noted that we intend to monitor our test data to determine whether the 
specified time period is, in fact, sufficient to include all air bag-
related injuries, leaving open the possibility of increasing the time 
duration if needed. We also noted that the 300 ms time duration remains 
in full effect for all barrier tests.
    In October 2001, the Alliance petitioned NHTSA to limit the time 
period to 100 ms from the initial deployment of the air bag. 
Alternatively, it suggested developing an algorithm that would 
determine when the forces imposed on the dummy by the air bag no longer 
significantly influences the movement of the dummy. In a supplemental 
submission, dated April 29, 2002, the Alliance dropped its support of 
this alternative approach.
    The Alliance argued that both the original 300 ms time frame and 
the new 125 ms after the initiation of the final stage of air bag 
deployment effectively prevent vehicle manufacturers from certifying 
compliance with the advanced air bag requirements using low risk 
deployment technologies. It stated that both time periods capture non-
representative secondary impacts with vehicle interior components 
(primarily the seat back on the passenger side). It argued that these 
interior vehicle impacts are artifacts of the test, which is static, 
and are not representative of what happens in real world crashes. It 
provided sled test data simulating a dynamic crash test compared to a 
low risk deployment test, suggesting that the interactions of test 
dummies with the vehicle's interior components during dynamic tests are 
not significant.
    The Alliance also claimed that the final stage of most multi-stage 
air bag systems that is not deployed in a crash to provide occupant 
protection is only deployed to expense the remaining air bag 
propellant, not to provide any additional protection for the affected 
occupant. It stated that this final ``dispensing'' stage would 
generally expense approximately 100 to 300 ms after the initial 
deployment of the air bag, a time delay which, it argued, is 
sufficiently late to prevent any risk of air bag-related injury. In 
addressing the agency's concerns with the injury potential of a 
secondary impact, the Alliance noted that it did not believe NHTSA's 
reliance on reports of secondary impacts in existing special crash 
investigation (SCI) cases was warranted since those cases involved air 
bags that would not meet the low risk deployment criteria. Accordingly, 
it did not believe the SCI cases were indicative of future air bag 
performance. Finally, the Alliance stated that a time duration of 125 
ms from the initial deployment of the air bag was too long to eliminate 
injuries attributable solely to secondary impacts.
    Toyota, Mitsubishi, DaimlerChrysler, Honda, Volkswagen, and Porsche 
all supported the Alliance request to end the period during which data 
are collected for compliance purposes at 100 ms after the initial 
deployment of the air bag. DaimlerChrysler also suggested that the seat 
back be adjusted to its fully reclined position (or the seat be 
removed) to avoid any possibility of a secondary impact.\1\ Honda 
suggested an alternative requirement under which the collection of data 
for compliance purposes would cease 10 ms after the dummy head no 
longer interacted with the air bag. It maintained that the maximum 
injury values, other than those related to secondary impacts, generally 
occurred during dummy head interaction with the air bag or very shortly 
(i.e., within 10 ms) thereafter,

[[Page 507]]

and therefore asked us to limit the period during which the injury 
criteria must be met and data are collected for the low risk deployment 
tests to 10 ms after dummy interaction with the air bag ceases. This 
approach had been presented earlier by the Alliance in an October 2001 
petition for rulemaking. Volkswagen and BMW suggested an alternative 
means of limiting the collection of compliance data would be to review 
the test video and data traces to separate air bag-induced injury 
readings from secondary impacts. They stated that such a method would 
most effectively ensure that all air bag-related injuries were captured 
without penalizing manufacturers for secondary impacts. BMW noted that 
NHTSA has established a precedent for using film analysis to determine 
compliance in FMVSS No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. 
TRW offered a similar alternative, under which film and data channel 
analyses would be used to limit the collection of compliance data. It 
also advocated a 300 ms time-frame for all rear-facing child seat 
testing. Autoliv advocated a much more basic approach under which NHTSA 
could make a case-by-case determination that the secondary impact was 
unrelated to the air bag.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In October 2001, DaimlerChrysler submitted a petition for 
rulemaking asking, in part, that the time duration for data 
collection be less than 100 ms after initiation of air bag 
deployment. However, in its petition for reconsideration, it 
supported the proposal set forth by the Alliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is a complex issue. As we noted in the preamble to both our 
May 2000 and the December 2001 final rules, we do not believe that all 
dummy contact with the vehicle interior would necessarily be the result 
of dummy interaction with an overly aggressive air bag. This is because 
a dummy subjected to the deployment of any air bag in a low risk 
deployment test will continue to move rearward until it strikes some 
object, and because the low risk deployment test does not take into 
account the forward momentum of the dummy that would typically be 
present in a real world crash in which the frontal impact air bags 
deploy. For these reasons, we are reluctant to retain the existing 
compliance data collection period, particularly because it may 
effectively preclude manufacturers from complying with the rule through 
the use of low risk deployment technologies. Nevertheless, we remain 
concerned that an air bag propelling the dummy backward with excessive 
force could result in secondary impacts relatively early in the crash 
event. These new low risk air bag technologies remain relatively 
untested by NHTSA, and we are somewhat dependent on the manufacturers' 
experience in the testing and development of their own systems.
    Accordingly, we have decided to limit the data collection for 
compliance purposes to 100 ms after initial deployment of the air bag 
for systems that are certified to either S21.4 (3-year-old) or S23.4 
(6-year-old), as requested by the Alliance and supported by other 
petitioners. All injury measurements recorded during that time that 
exceed the allowable values, regardless of the source of injury, will 
be considered noncompliances. We continue to believe that setting a 
specific time period is the simplest, most appropriate, and most 
objective way to determine which data to collect for compliance 
purposes. The basis for our decision is set forth below. However, as 
discussed in the December 2001 final rule, we will actually record the 
dummy injury measurements for a longer time period dependent upon the 
data collection system. If there is any indication that peak injury 
measurements recorded after 100 ms are the result of an air bag's 
aggressiveness, we may choose to initiate rulemaking to increase the 
period of time that data will be considered for compliance purposes.
    The primary thrust of the Alliance's petition is that, in a real 
world crash, a child would have sufficient forward momentum relative to 
the vehicle, and thus experience a lower change in velocity due to the 
air bag interaction, to prevent serious injuries resulting from 
secondary impacts with the interior of the vehicle. Thus, the high 
injury readings associated with secondary impacts in the static low 
risk deployment tests (primarily high neck injury readings) are 
artifacts of those tests and do not represent a real world condition. 
The Alliance presented one set of sled test results, comparing one low 
risk deployment test (6-year-old dummy in position 1) to a 26 km/h (16 
mph) dynamic sled test to support its position.
    We agree that the rebound velocity of a dummy in the static low 
risk deployment test does not replicate the rebound velocity of an out-
of-position occupant in a real world crash in which the occupant moves 
forward as a result of vehicle braking and crash dynamics. The forward 
momentum of the occupant in such a crash will reduce the velocity with 
which the occupant is thrown back into the seat. The amount of this 
forward momentum (and the resulting reduction in rearward momentum) is 
impact velocity-dependent. In low speed crashes, the forward momentum 
will be less than in higher speed crashes. Since air bags may be 
designed to deploy at impact speeds considerably less than the 26 km/h 
(16 mph) used in the Alliance sled test, we are uncertain that forward 
momentum alone will be sufficient to prevent rebound injuries that are 
the result of the air bag's propelling an individual rearward. 
Likewise, our experience with the SCI data indicates that secondary 
impacts are not limited to seat backs, but could be into the B-pillar, 
the door, or even the header. However, the SCI cases are inconclusive 
as to whether or not the secondary impacts result in more serious 
injury than those produced by the air bag.
    The Alliance also suggested that the agency's reliance on SCI data 
to justify our concern that secondary impacts could be the result of 
air bag interaction depended on old air bag designs that could not meet 
the low risk deployment requirements. The Alliance's point is well 
taken. We note that no vehicles in the SCI database were designed to 
meet the advanced air bag requirements. Indeed, to the best of our 
knowledge, there is only one SCI case of a ``lower powered'' (i.e., 
model year 1998 or later) air bag-equipped vehicle that resulted in a 
critical injury (AIS 5) and was also reported to have seat back 
contact. That case involved a 1999 Ford Contour. We do not believe the 
passenger air bag in that vehicle would be sufficiently benign to meet 
the low risk deployment requirements. We also have some concerns about 
our ability to attribute the serious injuries to seat back contact, as 
the subject case involved a crash in which the delta-V has been 
determined to be around 48 km/h (30 mph).
    The Alliance also indicated that the typical low risk deployment 
systems that are likely to be used in future vehicles would consist of 
an initial, benign deployment with a secondary ``expensing stage'' that 
would occur at least 100 ms after the initial deployment. It maintained 
that this ``expensing stage'' would occur so late in the crash event 
that it could not be the source of air bag interaction or rebound 
injury. It also provided data using an inflator designed to expense 40% 
of the air bag's propellant initially and 60% secondarily (40/60 air 
bag design). In that instance, the secondary deployment occurred 200 ms 
after the initial deployment and did not result in any excessive injury 
response measurements at the end of the crash event. As noted in the 
December 2001 final rule, our concern is with 40/60 air bag designs for 
which the second deployment has the propensity to cause injury. We do 
not find persuasive the Alliance's contention that the second stage of 
deployment will always be benign, but believe that injury measurement 
assessment for 100 ms will ensure that a second stage deployment does 
not occur during significant occupant engagement with the air bag.

[[Page 508]]

    Finally, the Alliance stated that a 125 ms fixed time duration is 
too long to exclude secondary impacts. To the extent we believe the 
majority of secondary impacts are not representative of what happens in 
real world crashes, the test duration should be sufficiently short to 
limit significantly the potential for secondary impacts while being of 
sufficient duration to capture the full air bag deployment. We believe 
a 100 ms time duration will capture the full air bag deployment and 
induce manufacturers to reduce the dummy rebound velocities into the 
seat back and cap the rebound velocity to some degree. There is no 
evidence that suggests that a 125 ms data collection would reduce the 
likelihood of injuries more than a 100 ms collection.
    We agree with manufacturers that high injury measurements due to 
secondary impacts can be an artifact of the low risk deployment test. 
The 100 ms time frame adopted today will minimize the likelihood that a 
vehicle occupant will be thrown into the seat back or other vehicle 
component prior to 100 ms, as vehicle manufacturers will need to ensure 
that their air bags are sufficiently benign to avoid such contacts 
during that time frame. This is because any failure of the injury 
criteria, regardless of whether it is the result of direct air bag 
interaction or a secondary interaction with another vehicle component, 
will be considered a noncompliance. It is for this reason that we are 
denying DaimlerChrysler's petition for an explicit exclusion of air bag 
stages that are not required to provide occupant protection and for 
performing the test with the seat back fully reclined or removed. 
However, as noted above, we will continue to monitor the test results, 
and initiate rulemaking if we determine that injury measures beyond 100 
ms are due to overly aggressive air bags.
    Vehicle manufacturers have not demonstrated that secondary impacts 
are a compliance problem on the driver side of the vehicle or with a 
rear-facing child restraint on the passenger side. Additionally, unlike 
the 3-year-old and 6-year-old dynamic tests relied on by the Alliance 
to support its position that secondary impacts are a test anomaly, 
there will not be a significant amount of forward momentum relative to 
the vehicle in a dynamic test with an infant dummy in a rear-facing 
child restraint. The infant dummy is restrained in a rear-facing child 
restraint that is coupled to the vehicle chassis via the vehicle seat 
belt system. Thus, the static test condition is more representative of 
the real world crash event. Accordingly, we are retaining the 
specification that data be collected for compliance purposes in S19.3 
(12-month-old) and S25.3 (driver-side) for 125 ms after initiation of 
the final stage of deployment for crashes up to 64 km/h (40 mph) and 26 
km/h (16 mph), respectively.
    We are rejecting the other suggestions offered by petitioners 
because we believe they are insufficiently objective. Honda's 
suggestion that data collection for compliance purposes end 10 ms after 
head interaction with the air bag ceases suffers from the same lack of 
objectivity as the Alliance petition that we denied in the December 
2001 final rule. It is simply not possible to determine with any 
assurance exactly when that interaction ceases. The suggestion of a 
film analysis is likewise impractical. Autoliv's suggestion that NHTSA 
make a case-by-case determination as to when the secondary impact is 
air bag-related would likely result in significant debate and pose 
legitimate concerns about objectivity, repeatability, and 
enforceability.
    We have changed S4.11(b) of the regulatory text to specify injury 
criteria will be considered for ``100 milliseconds after the initial 
deployment of the air bag'' rather than ``100 milliseconds after the 
air bag is signaled to deploy.'' The reason for this change is to be 
more precise about when the 100 ms time-frame begins. Manufacturers 
may, for very valid reasons, build time delay circuitry into their air 
bag systems. If the test duration began at the signaling of air bag 
deployment, the data acquisition period would be shortened by the 
period of the delay. Changing the regulatory text to ``initial 
deployment of the air bag'' is intended to capture that moment in time 
when the chemical or other process begins to inflate the air bag. If 
there is no designed delay built into the electrical circuitry, then 
the signal for air bag deployment and the initiation of deployment will 
effectively be coincident.

V. Test Procedure for the Driver Air Bag Systems

    As part of the December 2001 final rule, the agency made several 
changes to the regulatory text governing dummy positioning procedures. 
In many instances, these changes were intended to be substantive in 
nature. For example, we changed the location for positioning the dummy 
chin on the steering wheel in the driver chin-on-rim test (position 2) 
because we believed the change would lead to a more repeatable test 
procedure and would minimize the risk that the dummy chin would become 
lodged over the steering wheel, potentially distorting the dummy 
kinematics.
    However, many of the changes were made purely to improve the logic 
of how the test was to be performed and to create greater consistency 
among the various tests. For example, changes were made in the 
sequencing of the test procedure so that one could follow the procedure 
step-by-step. Likewise, terminology was made more uniform among the 
various tests. The agency did not intend these changes to have a 
substantive effect. Accordingly, the preamble to the December 2001 
final rule did not discuss the changes.
    Mitsubishi, Volkswagen, and Autoliv stated in their petitions that 
one of the changes to the driver chin-on-module test (position 1) 
(S26.2.6) made a substantive change to the test procedure that was not 
justified, or even discussed in the preamble. Follow-up letters by the 
Alliance, Ford and GM reiterated this concern. The position aligns the 
chin with the center of the area where the air bag deploys. The 
original position aligned the chin with the top of the air bag module. 
Petitioners have argued that the new specification lowers the dummy 
head position and could make the test more stringent and unrealistic. 
Additionally, Autoliv and Ford asked if the seat height could be 
adjusted to achieve the desired dummy height.
    Petitioners are correct that the change was not discussed. It was 
intended to create consistency between this test and other tests in 
which a portion of the dummy was to be positioned in alignment with the 
place in the vehicle where the air bag initially deploys. It was not 
intended to have a substantive effect. We do not know at this time 
whether lowering the dummy head a couple of inches will have a 
significant effect on recorded injury measurements. However, we 
recognize it could. Since no substantive change was intended, we have 
reverted back to the positioning language that was in the May 2000 
final rule. This language places the chin on the top of the air bag 
module. It also states that the dummy height can be adjusted using 
either the seat height adjustments or spacer blocks. All other changes 
to the chin-on-module positioning procedure adopted by the December 
2001 final rule are retained, at least at this time. However, other 
changes may be made in our second response to the petitions for 
reconsideration.

[[Page 509]]

VI. Issues Related to Warning Labels and Telltale Requirements

A. Warning Labels

    In the May 2000 final rule, we added a new warning label that must 
be used in vehicles with advanced air bags to replace the warning label 
currently required. The warning on the new label deleted the earlier 
label's statement: ``Never put a rear-facing child seat in the front'' 
in recognition that the advanced air bag requirements are intended 
specifically to minimize the risk related to air bag deployments. We 
also removed the statement on the label that is required in earlier 
motor vehicles that one should sit as far away from the air bag as 
possible because while this information is helpful, we did not believe 
it merited overcrowding the label. We added an instruction to read the 
vehicle owner's manual to learn more about the advanced air bag systems 
in the vehicle.
    We also stated in the preamble that we would not prohibit 
additional labels on the sun visor that provided design-specific 
information on how to use a vehicle's advanced air bag technology. As 
stated in the preamble to the May 2000 final rule, we intended to allow 
additional, design-specific information on the sun visor and near the 
new air bag warning label. However, the amendments to the regulatory 
text mistakenly maintained the existing prohibition against adding 
additional information on the sun visor.
    Accordingly, in the December 2001 rule, we amended the regulatory 
text to clarify that a label with such design specific information 
could be placed, at the manufacturer's option, on the sun visor 
alongside the air bag warning label. Alternatively, the manufacturer 
could determine that an additional label placed elsewhere in the 
vehicle, either permanently or temporarily, could best inform vehicle 
occupants about a particular characteristic of the vehicle's air bag 
system. We noted that advanced air bag systems are different from 
traditional air bag systems in that there is likely to be a variety of 
advanced air bag systems with differing and/or unique design 
characteristics. Thus, there may be instances in which a manufacturer 
determines that particular information should be conveyed regarding 
vehicle occupant behavior as it affects the performance of that 
vehicle's air bag system. We believe that the owner's manual alone may 
not be an adequate means of communicating that information to the 
vehicle owner and chose not to foreclose such communications through 
our rule.
    No change was made to the regulatory text regarding the placement 
of labels elsewhere in the vehicle because historically there has been 
no express prohibition against labels that convey specific, accurate 
information about air bags or seat belts in locations other than the 
sun visor. However, we did amend the regulatory text to clarify that 
any additional labels, regardless of where they are placed in the 
vehicle, cannot be confusing or misleading when read in conjunction 
with other labels required by this or other standards.
    The Alliance petitioned NHTSA to amend the labeling requirements of 
the December 2001 final rule in three respects. First, it asked NHTSA 
to reinstate its prohibition against other labels regarding air bags or 
seat belts on the sun visor. It claimed that we had not provided an 
adequate justification for reversing the position we adopted in 1993 
that additional information on the sun visor would contribute to 
information overload for the consumer, resulting overall in a less 
effective warning. Second, it petitioned the agency to reconsider its 
position on permitting other labels elsewhere within the vehicle 
interior (i.e., not located on the sun visor), urging us to adopt a 
blanket prohibition on additional air bag-related labels within the 
vehicle interior. Finally, it asked that the advanced air bag label be 
modified by adding a bulleted statement discouraging front seat 
installation of rear-facing infant seats.
    In its supplemental submission, the Alliance suggested additional 
changes that it believes would strengthen the required label. In its 
petition, the Alliance also noted an apparent error in the regulatory 
text that only mandated the use of the new label in vehicles with 
automatic suppression systems. DaimlerChrysler raised similar concerns. 
In addition, DaimlerChrysler noted an incorrect reference in the 
regulatory text governing labels to a previous section of the 
regulation that had been repealed. That change has been made.
    On April 26, 2002, GM requested that the revised effective date for 
any new label adopted by NHTSA be no sooner than September 1, 2003, 
with early compliance permitted. This request was made because GM is 
currently producing vehicles certified to the advanced air bag 
requirements which have the label required by the May 2000 and December 
2001 final rules. The Alliance reiterated GM's request in its 
supplemental submission.
    NHTSA always intended the new advanced air bag label, depicted in 
Figure 8, to be required in all vehicles certified to the advanced air 
bag requirements. Due to an error, the amended regulatory text that was 
adopted in the December 2001 final rule stated that the new label was 
only required for systems that use automatic suppression systems. We 
have amended the text to require that the required label be placed in 
all vehicles certified to the advanced air bag requirements, regardless 
of the technology used to meet the requirements.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As a practical matter, we do not believe any manufacturers 
will use an advanced air bag system that does not utilize an 
automatic suppression system for rear-facing child restraints, at 
least in the near future. Accordingly, all vehicles certified to the 
advanced air bag requirements would have the required label. 
However, at some point in the future manufacturers may choose to 
meet all of the passenger air bag requirements through some 
technology other than automatic suppression. Under the regulatory 
text erroneously adopted in the December 2001 final rule, no 
advanced air bag label would be required for those vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have decided to change the required label for vehicles certified 
to the advanced air bag requirements. This new label is depicted in 
Figure 11. It differs from the label in Figure 8 in that it includes a 
bullet statement that states ``never put a rear-facing child seat in 
the front''. The bullet will not be required in those vehicles that 
meet the requirements for an air bag on-off switch, i.e., the vehicle 
has no rear seat or a rear seat that is too small to accommodate a 
rear-facing child restraint. Although the advanced air bag systems are 
intended to minimize the risk of injury or death to infants in rear-
facing child restraints, the only means to completely eliminate the 
risk is to never place a child or infant in a rear-facing child seat in 
the vehicle's front seat. We believe it is important to continue to 
highlight the especially high risk of air bag-related injury or death 
to children in rear-facing child restraints and, indeed, to continue to 
educate the public about the need to ensure that all children ride 
properly restrained in the back seat, since this is the safest place 
for children, irrespective of air bag risks.
    We have not made the other changes advocated by the Alliance, 
namely the replacement of the phrase ``even with advanced air bags'' 
with the phrase ``death or serious injury can occur'' and the addition 
of the qualifier in the first bullet that the referenced children are 
``children 12 and under.'' As noted above, it is critical that vehicle 
occupants understand how their advanced systems work if they are to 
provide consistent protection--particularly those systems, such as 
automatic suppression, whose effectiveness could be directly affected 
by occupant behavior. By highlighting

[[Page 510]]

the advanced air bag features on the warning label, we believe vehicle 
owners will be more likely to heed the final bullet on the label, which 
is to consult their owner's manual for full details about the advanced 
air bag system.
    We have decided against adding the ``12 and under'' qualifier 
because we believe the qualifier has served its originally intended 
purpose, which was to educate the public to the size of occupant that 
may be at risk from an air bag deployment. We will continue to use the 
qualifier in our educational literature, and continue to believe it is 
a useful tool for helping distinguish those particularly at risk, but 
have chosen in the interest of brevity and clarity to make reference to 
``children'' on the sun-visor label rather than ``children 12 and 
under.''
    We are granting GM's request that the new label not be required 
until September 1, 2003, the first day of the phase-in implementing the 
advanced air bag requirements. This should provide vehicle 
manufacturers sufficient time to order and install the new labels 
without penalizing them for early compliance with the advanced air bag 
requirements. The current label will be allowed for vehicles certified 
to the advanced air bag requirements before September 1, 2003, although 
vehicle manufacturers may choose to use the new label depicted in 
Figure 11 on those vehicles under the existing provision allowing early 
compliance.
    As discussed above, the Alliance seeks reinstatement of a 
prohibition against supplemental air bag information on sun visors and 
the adoption of a prohibition against such information anywhere in the 
occupant compartment. The Alliance argues that these actions are 
necessary to prevent problems of dilution of message and information 
overload. It argues further that these problems are as large today as 
they were in the mid-late 1990s at the height of the air bag injury 
problem.
    The question of whether information overload may tend to dilute the 
message should be considered in light of changing technology and 
maturing communication needs. In the rulemakings addressing the air 
bags of the mid 1990s, the agency focused on the twin messages of 
moving away from air bags and properly using seat belts and other 
restraints. In considering what messages should be placed on the label, 
the Agency recognized that, from the point of view of occupant 
behavior, all airbag systems of that generation operated similarly. 
Vehicle occupants could not control how or whether an air bag would 
deploy, but could control whether they were properly seated within the 
vehicle and properly restrained.
    The messages of the 1990s remain critical. The incorporation of 
technologies to minimize the risks of air bags to occupants should not 
detract from the primary message that proper occupant seating and 
restraint use are the most critical factors in minimizing air bag 
induced injuries. However, the communication needs surrounding advanced 
air bags, while including the same needs as before, also involve 
additional complexities. The advent of advanced air bag technology may 
include air bag systems that respond differently based on the location 
or characteristics of a particular occupant. While the owner's manuals 
should contain detailed descriptions of each particular airbag system 
and how an occupant can best utilize it, the Agency remains convinced 
that there is benefit to permitting such information to be visible to 
occupants while riding in the vehicle.
    In the December 2001 final rule we tried to balance the potential 
need for additional design-specific information with the possibility of 
confusion by prohibiting labels with the potential to confuse or 
mislead a consumer when read in conjunction with the required label. 
The Alliance argues that the balance we tried to strike eliminates or 
reduces the benefits of consistency and repeated exposure that led us 
originally to mandate particular words and format and to avoid the 
possibility of diluting these important messages through too many or 
differing messages.
    We agree that a better balance can be struck. While the prohibition 
against potentially confusing or misleading labels remains, we will 
continue to permit manufacturers to add design specific information to 
their sun visor labels. However, to avoid the possibility of 
information overload, manufacturers must first seek the Agency's 
approval and may place additional design specific information on the 
label only after the Agency has granted them permission to do so.
    We have set up a procedure under which a vehicle manufacturer can 
ask for agency authorization to add specific language to the required 
sun visor warning label addressing the air bag system's unique 
features. The agency will only authorize or reject the label submitted 
by the manufacturer. It will not make any judgment as to whether one or 
more of a variety of labels best prevents information overload, or 
whether the new information best addresses a particular air bag risk, 
and it will not suggest alternative language if it rejects a 
manufacturer's request. Moreover, the agency will not verify or vouch 
for the accuracy of the information. The agency decision will be 
limited to a determination that the additional information is not 
confusing or misleading when the entire label is read as a whole and 
does not result in information overload; that is to say, the label is 
not conveying so much information that it is unlikely to be read or 
taken seriously. We believe this procedure will allow for the provision 
of design-specific warnings without diminishing the label's 
effectiveness due to information overload.
    In order to obtain NHTSA's authorization, the manufacturer's 
proposal must meet the following criteria:
    [sbull] The information that would be added must be design-specific 
and not applicable to all or most air bag systems;
    [sbull] The additional information must address situations in which 
foreseeable occupant behavior can affect air bag performance; and
    [sbull] The manufacturer's request must provide a mock-up of the 
label with the specific language that would be added to the label.
    Although this procedure places a burden on the agency to determine 
what constitutes information overload, we believe it will allow us to 
control the potential for information overload without substituting our 
judgment for the manufacturer's as to what information vis-a-vis a 
particular system is most important or germane. Because the information 
will be specific to the implementation of a particular air bag system 
in a particular vehicle, and not applicable to all or most airbag 
systems, we do not believe public comment would be helpful or necessary 
before making the determination.
    The Alliance also requests that we further prohibit any other 
labels or information elsewhere in the interior compartment of the 
vehicle. Standard No. 208 has not historically contained any such 
express prohibition. This lack has not led to increasing numbers of 
labels and confusing messages, perhaps because the question of whether 
labels could be placed elsewhere in the vehicle had not been debated. 
While we do not today extend the prohibition throughout the occupant 
compartment, should information overload from such additional labels 
threaten to become a problem, we may reconsider this decision.
    The procedure through which additional information can be placed on 
the sun visor label does not apply to additional labels or information 
placed elsewhere in the interior of the vehicle.

[[Page 511]]

However, our position on this matter should not be interpreted as a 
determination by us that the additional labels are needed or even 
particularly helpful. Rather, our decision reflects our belief that 
while the sun visor label is the best and most important way to 
communicate with the public, manufacturers should have the option of 
including additional information in the occupant compartment, on either 
a temporary or permanent basis, if they deem it appropriate to do so.

B. Telltale Requirements

    The May 2000 final rule required a telltale for vehicles with 
automatic suppression systems. The telltale has a specified message and 
must be positioned in a location forward of and above the H-point of 
the driver's and passenger's seat in their forwardmost position. The 
final rule allowed for multiple levels of illumination as long as the 
telltale remains visible at all times to front-seat occupants of all 
ages. The agency was petitioned to revise the May 2000 requirement that 
the telltale be visible to occupants of all ages, and to apply the 
requirements of Standard No. 101. We also received requests that the 
regulatory text be clarified to assure that the telltale would not be 
obstructed by a rear-facing child restraint, and that manufacturers be 
allowed to use the abbreviation ``pass'' in lieu of ``passenger'' in 
the message text. Based on a review of these petitions, we made changes 
to the regulatory text in the December 2001 final rule that brought the 
telltale requirements more in line with the requirements of FMVSS No. 
101, that relaxed the message requirement to allow an abbreviation of 
``passenger,'' and that required the telltale be placed so that rear-
facing child restraints could not obscure it.
    In its petition for reconsideration, the Alliance argued that the 
requirement that the telltale not be blockable by a rear-facing child 
restraint was too broad, although it supported the premise that a 
properly installed child restraint should not obscure the telltale. It 
maintained that the new requirement would make it necessary for 
manufacturers to test visibility using all possible child seats. It 
urged the agency to limit the requirement to those child seats listed 
in Appendix A of the standard.
    DaimlerChrysler requested additional flexibility in the wording of 
the required telltale message. Specifically, it has asked that 
manufacturers be allowed to use ``pass.'' rather than ``pass'' or 
``passenger,'' and that it be allowed to use ``airbag'' rather than 
``air bag''. It stated that it believes these changes would better 
clarify the telltale, particularly since ``air bag'' is generally 
spelled as a single word outside of the United States and Canada. It 
also requested that it be allowed to use lower case letters.
    In a request for clarification, Jaguar asked whether it was 
required to have the required telltale message backlit or otherwise 
illuminated, a result it said was necessitated by the regulatory text 
adopted in the December 2001 final rule.
    We believe the Alliance position on the telltale visibility has 
merit. Our primary concern is that a correctly installed child 
restraint should not restrict the visibility of the telltale. The 
original language, as adopted in the May 2000 final rule, required the 
telltale not be located in a position where the temporary or permanent 
storage of an object could obscure the telltale from either the 
driver's or right front passenger's view. The language was amended in 
the December 2001 final rule at the request of DaimlerChrysler. We 
agree that the placement of a child restraint would not necessarily be 
considered temporary or permanent storage of the restraint. The change 
was intended to address a likely condition that was not sufficiently 
described, not to impose any additional burden on the vehicle 
manufacturers. As noted by the Alliance, NHTSA does not require vehicle 
manufacturers to certify compliance of their automatic suppression 
systems using every child restraint on the market. While we expect 
these systems to work with all available child restraints, requiring 
manufacturers to actually demonstrate compliance with all child 
restraints would be unwieldy. This issue was discussed thoroughly in 
the May 2000 final rule. We believe it would be inappropriate to impose 
a greater burden on manufacturers vis-a-vis child restraints and 
telltale visibility than we have imposed on them for the actual 
suppression device. Accordingly, the regulatory text has been amended 
to reference only those child restraints in Appendix A that are 
designed to be installed in a rear-facing mode.
    We are denying DaimlerChrysler's request that manufacturers be 
provided with greater latitude in meeting the telltale's specified form 
and format requirements. The current requirements are not onerous and 
mirror the requirements that have been in place for manufacturer-
installed air bag on-off switches since 1995. We have already 
accommodated the manufacturers' space concerns, as well as their 
concerns regarding the sale of vehicles in Canada or Europe by allowing 
the abbreviation of ``passenger.'' Additionally, while it is true that 
the term ``air bag'' is typically spelled as a single word outside of 
the United States and Canada, we note that these vehicles are 
manufactured for the U.S. market. While manufacturers may choose to 
export vehicles with advanced air bag systems to other countries, those 
vehicles will not have to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 208. We 
also note that only Canada and the United States have adopted any 
advanced air bag requirements. The changes made in the December 2001 
final rule adequately address the U.S. and Canadian markets.
    As noted by Jaguar, the changes made in the December 2001 final 
rule had the effect of requiring the telltale message to be backlit or 
otherwise illuminated, even though the regulatory text specifically 
allows telltales that are not backlit. As noted above, the telltale 
requirements for automatic suppression systems were based on the 
existing telltale requirements for air bag on-off switches found at 
S4.5.4. We note that the earlier rule, published in the Federal 
Register on May 23, 1995 (60 FR 27233), directly addressed the issue 
raised by Jaguar. In that rulemaking, NHTSA had originally proposed 
that the identifying message be located on the telltale, i.e., the 
language would be backlit. In the final rule, we amended the proposed 
regulatory language to allow the required message to be either on the 
telltale or adjacent to it (within 25 mm). We stated that we believed 
having the required message adjacent to the telltale would be as 
effective a means of informing the driver or passenger of the purpose 
of the telltale as having the words located directly on the telltale. 
The same rationale applies to the telltale requirement for vehicles 
with automatic suppression systems.

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed 
under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' Although this 
document amends the agency's May 2000 final rule, which was 
economically significant, NHTSA has determined that this document does 
not affect the costs and benefits analysis for that final rule. Readers 
who are interested in the overall costs and benefits of advanced air 
bags are referred to the agency's Final Economic Assessment for the May 
2000 FMVSS

[[Page 512]]

No. 208 final rule (NHTSA Docket No. 7013). This rulemaking document 
has also been determined not to be significant under the Department's 
regulatory policies and procedures. The amendments made by this 
document impose no additional costs on manufacturers. Their impacts are 
so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation is not merited.

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.) This action will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
businesses because it does not significantly change the requirements of 
the May 2000 final rule or the December 2001 final rule. 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, if at all.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed these amendments for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act and determined that they 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.
    The final rule is not intended to preempt state tort civil actions, 
except that the required labels must contain the required text, and no 
additional text (unless approved by the agency in response to a 
manufacturer request), and any additional labels cannot be misleading 
or confusing, as specified in the regulatory text.

E. Unfunded Mandates 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). While the May 2000 
final rule is likely to result in over $100 million of annual 
expenditures by the private sector, today's final rule makes only small 
adjustments to the December 2001 rule, which, in turn, made only small 
adjustments to the May 2000 rule. Accordingly, this final rule will not 
result in a significant increase in cost to the private sector.

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.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless 
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This rule does not 
establish any new information collection requirements. The new label, 
depicted in 49 CFR 571.208, Figure 11, merely replaces the label 
currently depicted in 49 CFR 571.208, Figure 8. Since the contents of 
both labels are standardized, neither label constitutes an 
``information collection.''

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 requires 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 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 \3\ 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

[[Page 513]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. 
Technical standards are defined by the NHTSA as ``a 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency is not aware of any new voluntary consensus standards 
addressing the changes made to the May 2000 final rule or the December 
2001 final rule as a result of this final rule.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

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

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR Chapter V as 
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. 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.

    2. Section 571.208 is amended as follows:
    A. By removing the introductory text to S4.5.1,
    B. By revising S4.5.1 (a)(b), and (c), S4.11, S19.2.2, and S26.2.6, 
and
    C. By adding Figure 11 to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    S4.5.1 Labeling and owner's manual information.
    (a) Air bag maintenance or replacement information. If the vehicle 
manufacturer recommends periodic maintenance or replacement of an 
inflatable restraint system, as that term is defined in S4.1.5.1(b) of 
this standard, installed in a vehicle, that vehicle shall be labeled 
with the recommended schedule for maintenance or replacement. The 
schedule shall be specified by month and year, or in terms of vehicle 
mileage, or by intervals measured from the date appearing on the 
vehicle certification label provided pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567. The 
label shall be permanently affixed to the vehicle within the passenger 
compartment and lettered in English in block capital and numerals not 
less than three thirty-seconds of an inch high. This label may be 
combined with the label required by S4.5.1(b) of this standard to 
appear on the sun visor. If some regular maintenance or replacement of 
the inflatable restraint system(s) in a vehicle is recommended by the 
vehicle manufacturer, the owner's manual shall also set forth the 
recommended schedule for maintenance or replacement.
    (b) Sun visor air bag warning label. (1) Except as provided in 
S4.5.1(b)(2), each vehicle shall have a label permanently affixed to 
either side of the sun visor, at the manufacturer's option, at each 
front outboard seating position that is equipped with an inflatable 
restraint. The label shall conform in content to the label shown in 
either Figure 6a or 6b of this standard, as appropriate, and shall 
comply with the requirements of S4.5.1(b)(1)(i) through 
S4.5.1(b)(1)(iv).
    (i) The heading area shall be yellow with the word ``WARNING'' and 
the alert symbol in black.
    (ii) The message area shall be white with black text. The message 
area shall be no less than 30 cm2 (4.7 in2).
    (iii) The pictogram shall be black with a red circle and slash on a 
white background. The pictogram shall be no less than 30 mm (1.2 in) in 
diameter.
    (iv) If the vehicle does not have a back seat, the label shown in 
Figure 6a or 6b may be modified by omitting the statements: ``The BACK 
SEAT is the SAFEST place for children.''
    (2) Vehicles certified to meet the requirements specified in S19, 
S21, or S23 before September 1, 2003 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 either in Figure 8 or Figure 11 of this standard, at the 
manufacturer's option, 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 cm2 (4.7 in2).
    (iii) The pictogram shall be black on a white background. The 
pictogram shall be no less than 30 mm (1.2 in) in length.
    (iv) If the vehicle does not have a back seat, the label shown in 
the figure may be modified by omitting the statement: ``The BACK SEAT 
is the SAFEST place for CHILDREN.''
    (v) If the vehicle does not have a back seat or the back seat is 
too small to accommodate a rear-facing child restraint consistent with 
S4.5.4.1, the label shown in the figure may be modified by omitting the 
statement: ``Never put a rear-facing child seat in the front.''
    (3) Vehicles certified to meet the requirements specified in S19, 
S21, or S23 on or after September 1, 2003 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 11 of this standard and shall 
comply with the requirements of S4.5.1(b)(3)(i) through 
S4.5.1(b)(3)(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 
the figure may be modified by omitting the statement: ``The BACK SEAT 
is the SAFEST place for CHILDREN.''
    (v) If the vehicle does not have a back seat or the back seat is 
too small to accommodate a rear-facing child restraint consistent with 
S4.5.4.1, the label shown in the figure may be modified by omitting the 
statement: ``Never put a rear-facing child seat in the front.''
    (4) Design-specific information.
    (i) A manufacturer may request in writing that the Administrator 
authorize additional design-specific information to be placed on the 
air bag sun visor label for vehicles certified to meet the requirements 
specified in S19, S21, or S23. The label shall conform in content to 
the label shown in Figure 11 of this standard and shall comply with the 
requirements of S4.5.1(b)(3)(i) through S4.5.1(b)(3)(iv), except that 
the label may contain additional, design-specific information, if 
authorized by the Administrator.
    (ii) The request must meet the following criteria:
    (A) The request must provide a mock-up of the label with the 
specific language or pictogram the manufacturer requests permission to 
add to the label.
    (B) The additional information conveyed by the requested label must 
be specific to the design or technology of

[[Page 514]]

the air bag system in the vehicle and not applicable to all or most air 
bag systems.
    (C) The additional information conveyed by the requested label must 
address a situation in which foreseeable occupant behavior can affect 
air bag performance.
    (iii) The Administrator shall authorize or reject a request by a 
manufacturer submitted under S4.5.1(b)(4)(i) on the basis of whether 
the additional information could result in information overload or 
would otherwise make the label confusing or misleading. No 
determination will be made as to whether, in light of the above 
criteria, the particular information best prevents information overload 
or whether the information best addresses a particular air bag risk. 
Moreover, the Administrator will not verify or vouch for the accuracy 
of the information.
    (5) Limitations on additional labels.
    (i) Except for the information on an air bag maintenance label 
placed on the sun visor pursuant to S4.5.1(a) of this standard, or on a 
utility vehicle warning label placed on the sun visor that conforms in 
content, form, and sequence to the label shown in Figure 1 of 49 CFR 
575.105, no other information shall appear on the same side of the sun 
visor to which the sun visor air bag warning label is affixed.
    (ii) Except for the information in an air bag alert label placed on 
the sun visor pursuant to S4.5.1(c) of this standard, or on a utility 
vehicle warning label placed on the sun visor that conforms in content, 
form, and sequence to the label shown in Figure 1 of 49 CFR 575.105, no 
other information about air bags or the need to wear seat belts shall 
appear anywhere on the sun visor.
    (c) Air bag alert label. If the label required by S4.5.1(b) is not 
visible when the sun visor is in the stowed position, an air bag alert 
label shall be permanently affixed to that visor so that the label is 
visible when the visor is in that position. The label shall conform in 
content to the sun visor label shown in Figure 6(c) of this standard, 
and shall comply with the requirements of S4.5.1(c)(1) through 
S4.5.1(c)(3).
    (1) The message area shall be black with yellow text. The message 
area shall be no less than 20 square cm.
    (2) The pictogram shall be black with a red circle and slash on a 
white background. The pictogram shall be no less than 20 mm in 
diameter.
    (3) If a vehicle does not have an inflatable restraint at any front 
seating position other than that for the driver, the pictogram may be 
omitted from the label shown in Figure 6c.
* * * * *
    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.
    (b) For the 3-year-old and 6-year-old child dummy low risk 
deployment tests, the injury criteria specified in this standard shall 
be met when calculated on data recorded for 100 milliseconds after the 
initial deployment of the air bag.
    (c) For 12-month-old infant dummy low risk deployment tests, the 
injury criteria specified in the standard shall be met when calculated 
on data recorded for 125 milliseconds after the initiation of the final 
stage of air bag deployment designed to deploy in any full frontal 
rigid barrier crash up to 64 km/h (40 mph).
    (d) For driver-side low risk deployment tests, the injury criteria 
shall be met when calculated based on data recorded for 125 
milliseconds after the initiation of the final stage of air bag 
deployment designed to deploy in any full frontal rigid barrier crash 
up to 26 km/h (16 mph).
    (e) The requirements for dummy containment shall continue until 
both the vehicle and the dummies have ceased moving.
* * * * *
    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'' or 
``PASS 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 their forwardmost seating positions and shall 
not be located on or adjacent to a surface that can be used for 
temporary or permanent storage of objects that could obscure the 
telltale from either the driver's or right front passenger's view, or 
located where the telltale would be obscured from the driver's view if 
a rear-facing child restraint listed in Appendix A is installed in the 
right front passenger's seat.
    (e) Shall be visible and recognizable to a driver and right front 
passenger during night and day when the occupants have adapted to the 
ambient light roadway conditions.
    (f) Telltales need not be visible or recognizable when not 
activated.
    (g) Means shall be provided for making telltales visible and 
recognizable to the driver and right front passenger under all driving 
conditions. The means for providing the required visibility may be 
adjustable manually or automatically, except that the telltales may not 
be adjustable under any driving conditions to a level that they become 
invisible or not recognizable to the driver and right front passenger.
    (h) The telltale must not emit light except when the passenger air 
bag is turned off or during a bulb check upon vehicle starting.
* * * * *
    S26.2.6 While maintaining the spine angle, 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.
* * * * *

[[Page 515]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06JA03.001


    Issued on: December 31, 2002.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-33146 Filed 12-31-02 2:31 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C