[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 39 (Friday, February 27, 2004)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 9229-9230]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-4400]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 2003-14165; Notice 2]


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

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

ACTION: Response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: On January 6, 2003, the agency published a final rule amending 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant crash 
protection.'' That final rule responded, in part, to petitions for 
reconsideration of the December 18, 2001, final rule. The Association 
of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM), the Alliance of 
Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance), and the American Honda Motor Co., 
Inc. (Honda) submitted petitions for reconsideration of the January 6, 
2003, final rule.
    The petitioners request that the time duration for low risk 
deployment (LRD) testing for the 5th percentile female and rear facing 
infant dummies be reduced to 100 milliseconds (ms). Petitioners also 
requested the option of testing at either the previous or current 
target points for one of the 5th percentile female LRD tests. Finally, 
the petitioners requested that the removable label located on the 
dashboard or steering wheel hub have a bullet added to make it 
consistent with the new visor label.
    NHTSA published a technical amendment on August 20, 2003 (68 FR 
50077), addressing the label issue. This document denies the remaining 
petitions for reconsideration of the January 6, 2003, final rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Louis Molino, 
Office of Crashworthiness Standards, NVS-112, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. 
Telephone (202) 366-2264. Fax: (202) 493-2290. For legal issues, 
Christopher Calamita or Rebecca MacPherson, Office of Chief Counsel, at 
(202) 366-2992. Fax: (202) 366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. The Petitions
    A. Time Duration for Low Risk Deployment (LRD) Testing
    1. Discussion and Analysis
    B. Target Position for 5th Percentile Female Dummy LRD Test
    1. Discussion and Analysis
III. Conclusions

I. Background

    On December 18, 2001, NHTSA issued a final rule, Response to 
Petitions for Reconsideration of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant Crash Protection'' (66 FR 65376). The 
December 18, 2001, final rule was in response to petitions for 
reconsideration of the May 12, 2000, final rule (65 FR 30680), which, 
among other things, added advanced air bag requirements to FMVSS No. 
208. By February 6, 2002, NHTSA received 10 petitions for 
reconsideration of the December 18, 2001, rule. On January 6, 2003, the 
agency published a Final Rule (68 FR 504), which responded, in part, to 
these petitions for reconsideration of the December 18, 2001, final 
rule. The January 6, 2003, final rule specifically addressed several 
issues. These were the length of time data are collected during low 
risk deployment (LRD) tests for the three-year-old (3YO) and six-year-
old (6YO) dummy positions, a change in dummy positioning procedure for 
one of the driver position LRD tests, and issues related to the air bag 
warning labels and the telltale that indicates when the passenger air 
bag has been automatically suppressed.

II. The Petitions

    The Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM), 
the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance), and Honda 
submitted petitions for reconsideration of the January 6, 2003, final 
rule. The petitions addressed the following issues.

A. Time Duration for Low Risk Deployment (LRD) Testing

    In the January 6, 2003, final rule (68 FR 504) the agency modified 
the LRD test procedure using the 3YO and 6YO dummies such that the data 
acquisition would be limited to 100 ms after initiation of the first 
stage of air bag deployment. Previously, the data acquisition period 
was 125 ms after initiation of the final stage of air bag deployment. 
We stated our rational for modifying the data acquisition period for 
the 3YO and 6YO tests as follows:

    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.

    The Alliance and Honda subsequently requested that the agency 
reconsider its decision not to reduce the time duration for the 5th 
percentile female driver LRD test to 100 ms. Both the Alliance and 
Honda provided test data from a single LRD test using a 5th percentile 
female dummy. The Alliance further requested that the same duration be 
set for the rear-facing infant LRD test.
    In its petition, the Alliance characterized the data previously 
provided for the 3YO and 6YO LRD tests as follows:

    [T]he 3 and 6-year-old tests demonstrated that secondary impacts 
from static deployments were significantly more severe than those 
encountered in real world crashes due to the momentum of the 
occupant in such crashes. Since the fifth female has a greater mass 
than the 6-year-old, the influence of dummy momentum in reducing 
secondary impact severity in real world crashes is expected to be 
even greater.

    For the rear-facing infant test, the Alliance argued that the 
agency's previous justification, that the infant in a rear-facing child 
restraint system will not have significant momentum, is not correct. It 
contended:

    Based on the laws of physics, the Alliance agrees with NHTSA 
that the seat belt will reduce the momentum of the child and child 
restraint in the brief time interval between the crash initiation 
and the time when the air bag significantly interacts with the child 
restraint. However, since seat belts can only provide tensile forces 
(not compression), once the rear facing child seat interacts with 
the air bag and begins to move/pivot toward the vehicle seat back 
the belts become slack and no longer react [to] the remaining 
momentum of the child seat/dummy. Since this occurs very early in 
the crash, there is still a significant ``momentum effect'' that 
reduces the seat back interaction in real world crashes compared to 
that measured in static deployment tests.
1. Discussion and Analysis
    In the agency's original analysis that led to the reduction in the 
data acquisition period for the 3YO and 6YO dummy tests, we also 
considered reducing the duration for the LRD tests using the rear-
facing infant and 5th percentile female driver dummies (68

[[Page 9230]]

FR 508). We decided against doing so for the following reasons:

    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.

    With respect to an infant in a rear-facing child restraint, the 
agency disagrees with the petitioner's arguments that ``significant'' 
momentum remains once the rear-facing child seat begins to interact 
with the air bag. We still believe, as previously argued, that the 
belted infant seat limits the momentum effects. In addition, the 
proximity of the infant seat to the instrument panel does not allow 
generation of significant velocity relative to the vehicle. Therefore, 
the static LRD test with the infant is a sufficiently representative 
approximation of the real world crash event so there is no need for the 
test to be truncated at 100 ms. Therefore this aspect of the petition 
is denied.
    The petition pertaining to the 5th percentile female LRD test is 
denied for the following reasons. In the real world, small stature 
drivers are generally in close proximity to the air bag prior to pre-
impact braking due to their need to reach the gas pedal or see over the 
instrument panel. Thus, in a crash they have little travel space to 
generate significant velocity relative to the vehicle. Therefore, the 
static LRD test with the 5th percentile female dummy is a sufficiently 
representative approximation of the real world crash event for small 
stature occupants, so again, there is no need for the test to be 
truncated at 100 ms.
    Also, once a driver is out-of-position and is up against the 
undeployed air bag, that driver rides down the impact with the vehicle 
until the air bag deploys, and thus generates no velocity relative to 
the occupant compartment. Unlike a child that does not have his/her 
feet planted on the floorboard or has its knees braced against the knee 
bolsters and thus may move forward under the instrument panel, the 
driver is likely to remain in contact with the steering wheel until the 
air bag deploys. Therefore, once again, the static LRD test with the 
5th percentile female dummy is a sufficiently representative 
approximation of the real world crash event for small stature 
occupants, and the test should not be truncated at 100 ms.
    Finally, more than 40 advanced air bag compliant vehicle models 
were available before the end of 2003, with more than 20 available on 
October 1, 2003. In order to sell these vehicles, the manufacturers had 
to certify compliance with the driver LRD performance requirements. 
This indicates that compliance to the 5th percentile female dummy LRD 
performance requirements does not appear to be a problem, and relief is 
not necessary.

B. Target Position for 5th Percentile Female Dummy LRD Test

    In the January 6, 2003, final rule (68 FR 508), the agency modified 
S26.2.6, as requested by the manufacturers, to position the dummy chin 
at the top of the module. This was a reversion back to the May 12, 
2000, final rule from the December 18, 2001, final rule, which had 
placed the target at the air bag opening. We provided the following 
explanation:

    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.

    The Alliance and AIAM petitioned the agency to allow either test 
position until September 1, 2004. The Alliance stated:

    [D]ue to the fact that many manufacturers either already or will 
shortly have vehicles for sale that are certified to the previous 
version of this position, the 30-day effective date does not provide 
sufficient lead-time for manufacturers to retest and certify these 
vehicles to the new requirement. As such, the compliance of these 
vehicles with the advanced air bag requirements may be in jeopardy.
1. Discussion and Analysis
    The agency is denying the petition to allow manufacturers to 
certify compliance at either of the two chin-on-module positions until 
September 1, 2004. Compliance and certification test results show very 
little difference between the results using the two test positions, 
which indicates that there is no need for the requested change.

III. Conclusions

    For the LRD test using the rear-facing infant dummy, NHTSA 
continues to believe that the belted infant seat limits the momentum 
effects and that the proximity of the infant seat to the instrument 
panel does not allow generation of significant velocity relative to the 
vehicle. Therefore, the agency is denying the petition to truncate the 
LRD test for the rear facing infant dummy at 100 ms after initiation of 
air bag deployment.
    With respect to the LRD test using the 5th percentile female dummy, 
small stature drivers have little travel space to generate significant 
velocity relative to the vehicle, and once a driver is out-of-position 
and is up against the undeployed air bag, the driver rides down the 
impact with the vehicle until the air bag deploys, thus generating no 
velocity relative to occupant compartment. Additionally, more than 40 
advanced air bag compliant vehicle models were available before the end 
of 2003, with more than 20 available on October 1, 2003. This indicates 
that assuring compliance with the 5th percentile female dummy LRD test 
requirements is not a problem, and relief is unnecessary. Therefore, we 
are denying the petition to truncate the 5th percentile female dummy 
LRD test at 100 ms.
    Finally, the agency is denying the petition to allow manufacturers 
to test at either chin-on-module test position until September 1, 2004. 
Compliance and certification test results show very little difference 
between either test position and, therefore, relief is unnecessary.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 
1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8.

    Issued on: February 24, 2004.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 04-4400 Filed 2-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P