[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 65 (Monday, April 5, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17622-17627]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-7546]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571 and 572

[Docket No. NHTSA 2003-11398]


Denial of Petition for Rulemaking

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

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This notice denies a two part petition submitted by the 
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) under a cover letter of 
July 19, 2002. The petitioner asked the agency to amend: (1) Part 572 
by adding two new subparts to set out specifications for the Occupant 
Classification Anthropomorphic Test Devices (OCATD-5 and -6), and (2) 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208 specifications to 
allow alternative use of OCATD-5 and -6 for manufacturer certification 
of static suppression test requirements.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Non-Legal Issues: Mr. Stan 
Backaitis, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, NVS-110, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone (202) 366-4912. Fax: (202) 473-2629.
    For Legal Issues: Ms. Rebecca MacPherson, Office of Chief Counsel, 
NCC-20, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992, Fax: 
(202) 366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 
(Alliance) in a letter of July 19, 2002, petitioned the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to amend part 572 by 
adding two new subparts to set out specifications for the Occupant 
Classification Anthrpomorphic Test Devices (OCATD-5 and -6) and to 
amend FMVSS No. 208 to allow alternative use of OCATD-5 and -6 for 
manufacturer certification of advanced air bag static suppression test 
requirements. The petition was accompanied by a University of Michigan 
Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) based Technical Report 
containing the following attachments: (1) ``Anthropometric and 
Performance Standards for the OCATDs'' (Attachment A), (2) 
``Quantitative Evaluation of the Seat Pressure Measurements, Body 
Weight Distribution and Posture Effects on Those Measurements'' 
(Attachment B), and (3) OCATD-5 and -6 drawing packages (Attachments C 
and D, respectively).

Issues Raised in the Petitions

    FMVSS No. 208 requires that frontal passenger air bag systems 
either suppress deployment or deploy in a low risk manner during 
frontal collisions when a small child is present. Also the manufacturer 
must pass the dynamic performance requirements of the standard, which 
usually requires deployment of the air bag for the 5th percentile 
female dummy. One provision of the standard specifies that suppression 
systems may be tested using either small adult female and six-year-old 
Hybrid-III dummies, or human volunteers who approximately match those 
body sizes. The Alliance states that:
    (1) Crash test dummies are poorly suited to the development and 
certification of the occupant classification components of some 
advanced air bag systems because:
     Hybrid-III and THOR crash dummies do not produce 
required humanlike seat surface pressure distributions,
     Development of occupant classification systems 
requires testing of surrogates in a wide range of postures, but many 
postures that are possible for humans cannot be attained with the 
specified crash test dummies, and
     Hybrid-III dummies are difficult to position and 
may not appear human-like to some types of sensors used for occupant 
classification purposes.

[[Page 17623]]

    (2) Testing with human volunteers is time-consuming and requires a 
large number of subjects. It reduces repeatability to a level that is 
unacceptable for product development and would not provide the 
objectivity of compliance should the vehicle subsequently be tested 
with different human beings.
    (3) The OCATD-5 and -6 should be added to FMVSS No. 208 as an 
optional means of certifying vehicles to the static suppression test 
requirements because (1) they are capable of comparable performance to 
the Hybrid-III 6-year-old and 5th percentile female dummies for 
purposes of occupant classification using pressure distribution 
discrimination, and (2) they offer the advantage of superior 
flexibility and posture capability compared to the Hybrid-III dummies.

Background

    Appendix D of the Final Rule preamble for FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant 
crash protection,'' (65 FR 30743, May 12, 2000) notes, that:

    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).
* * * * *
    Strategies for static occupant detection systems 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.

    Furthermore, the agency noted in 65 FR 30693, May 12, 2000, that:

    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.

    The Alliance stated in its petition that:

    Development and testing of occupant classification systems also 
requires testing surrogates in a wide range of postures, but many 
postures that are possible for humans cannot be attained with crash 
dummies. In particular, the Hybrid-III dummies are difficult to 
position and may not appear human-like to some types of sensor 
systems used for occupant classification. Testing with human 
volunteers, which is time-consuming and requires large numbers of 
subjects, reduces repeatability to a level that is unacceptable for 
product development and would not provide the objectivity of 
compliance should the vehicle subsequently be tested with different 
human beings.

    The Alliance cited a 1999 UMTRI study in which it is claimed that 
``existing human surrogates, such as the Hybrid-III and THOR crash test 
dummies, do not produce human-like seat surface pressure distributions 
(Reed et al., Technical Report UMTRI-99-46, 1999b).''
    A similar observation was voiced in Toyota's comments to the FMVSS 
No. 208 Supplementary Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [NHTSA-1999-6407] 
for advanced air bags concerning the suitability of current test 
dummies and humans in automatic suppression tests. Toyota urged the 
agency to work initially with industry in developing better test 
dummies capable of activating automatic suppression systems when 
occupancy conditions warrant deployment suppression. Mitsubishi's 
comments echoed this request. Toyota claims as many as 50 percent of 
the tests conducted by/or on behalf of Toyota with the 5th percentile 
adult female test dummy did not detect the presence of that dummy at 
the weight needed to turn off the suppression system. Toyota also 
voiced dissatisfaction with the option of certifying their systems 
using humans who are within specified height and weight range. Toyota 
believes those parameters allow too much variation in physiology to 
make humans practical test objects. Toyota maintained that NHTSA should 
specify that it will conduct its compliance tests using the same test 
subjects or devices that vehicle manufacturers employed to certify 
their suppression systems.
    In line with these concerns, the petitioners stated that 
specialized test devices need to be developed to represent humans 
quantitatively in at least the following set of characteristics: (1) 
External anthropometry, (2) accurate skeletal linkage and joints, (3) 
total body mass and segment masses, and (4) most importantly, seat 
surface pressure distributions. As a result, the Alliance has provided 
financial support for the development of two such devices, called 
OCATDs, in the small adult female and six-year-old child 
configurations. In March 2000, First Technology Safety Systems (FTSS) 
was awarded the prime contract to develop and build the prototype 
OCATDs. UMTRI, as a subcontractor to FTSS, was to provide anthropometry 
and performance specifications for the small adult female and six-year-
old child.
    An initial literature search was conducted by UMTRI to establish 
the body dimensions and surface contours of the typical six-year-old 
child. This information was used to determine the anthropometric 
specifications for the OCATD-6. Subsequently, seat surface pressure 
distributions produced by sixty-eight children and small women were 
measured in a range of seats and postures to determine the pressure 
distribution performance targets for both the small adult female OCATD-
5 and OCATD-6.
    A second research program at UMTRI involved quantitative 
comparisons of the seat surface pressure distributions and weight 
distributions produced by the small adult female and six-year-old 
Hybrid-III dummies. The distributions were measured and compared to 
those produced by human occupants and the OCATDs [Reed et al., 
Technical Report UMTRI-2000-38, 2000]. The quantitative comparison was 
made using pressure-distribution parameters that were demonstrated in 
the previous research to have value for occupant classification 
purposes. The positions and postures of the surrogates were recorded 
using a coordinate measurement machine to quantify the repeatability of 
the installation procedures. In addition, the support forces under the 
feet of the surrogate were recorded to evaluate the extent to which the 
weight borne by the seat varied with posture.

OCATD Construction

    The UMTRI report notes that initial anthropometry and weight 
targets for the OCATD-5 and OCATD-6 were defined by the stature and 
weight ranges specified in FMVSS No. 208. OCATD-5 represents a 5th 
percentile size small female with a stature of 1450 mm (55 in.) and 
weight of 46.7 kg (103 lb). OCATD-6 represents a six-year-old child 
with a stature of 1181 mm (46.5 in.) and weight of 23.5 kg (51.6 lb). 
These specifications were subsequently verified by using the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission and National Health

[[Page 17624]]

and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data bases as reference.
    The OCATDs were constructed as soft, deformable, headless, and 
armless devices having the shape, anthropometry, and mass of the human 
torso and legs. The OCATD's fundamental construction is a soft 
deformable urethane flesh material molded over a human-like skeleton 
similar to a surrogate developed in prior years for the seat 
manufacturing industry. [Don Adams et al, SAE 1999-01-0627]. 
The OCATD skeleton is made from molded plastic with metal inserts at 
the joints. Pivots at the T12/Ll and L5/S1 vertebrae locations allow 
the spine to rotate in the sagittal \1\ plane, and ball joints at the 
femur/pelvis interface allow hip rotation and leg abduction/adduction 
to simulate various human postures. The joints can be locked, allowing 
the dummy to sit erect without external support. The torso section is 
divided into three segments--upper thorax, abdomen, and pelvis/thighs. 
The abdominal segment is made of compressible urethane foam to allow 
the device to lean forward, and is removable to access ballast weights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Sagittal--inferior/superior plane parallel to the 
longitudinal axis of the body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Torso Postures

    The UMTRI report claims that the OCATD devices can be pre-
positioned to three torso orientations: Normal (design), reclined to 48 
degrees, and erect. The normal torso orientation of a seated occupant, 
as determined in the UMTRI seating study, is defined by a thorax back 
angle of 24.6 degrees relative to the vertical. In erect orientation, 
the OCATD spine joints can be locked into position for unsupported 
seating. The posture and torso orientation can be monitored with tilt 
sensors in the pelvis and spine.

Analysis of the Petition

    The Alliance petition notes that the OCATDs have only slightly 
better performance than Hybrid-III 6-year-old and 5th percentile female 
dummies for purposes of occupant classification using pressure 
distribution discrimination. However, the Alliance believes the OCATDs 
may have the added advantage of superior flexibility and posture 
capability compared to the Hybrid-III devices. The Alliance thinks the 
results of its research will ``provide quantitative guidance to 
manufacturers for selecting surrogates, and developing test procedures 
for use with advanced air bags''.
    Since the Alliance petition is based primarily on UMTRI's 
evaluation of the OCATDs, we have examined the UMTRI report for the 
benefits claimed in the Alliance petition. The UMTRI report notes that 
the measured seat pressure data were analyzed with three objectives:
    1. To determine the pressure distribution parameters from human 
tests that provide the greatest ability to classify occupant size,
    2. To identify performance targets for the OCATD devices with 
respect to seat surface distribution, and
    3. To assess the performance of the OCATDs relative to the 
performance targets.

Pressure Distribution Parameters

    The UMTRI report notes that of the measured data, three parameters 
emerged that could be used to describe the seat surface pressure 
distributions. UMTRI found that in sorting pressure distributions by 
the resulting R2 value, the best predictors for normal 
seating posture were: (1) The PeakRowWidth \2\ (R2=0.88), 
(2) CentroidRowWidth \3\ (R2=0.86), and (3) PseudoweightLb 
\4\ (R2=0.85). For non-normal seating postures, the best 
predictor is the PseudoweightLb (R2=0.78). Further studies indicate 
that correlation among parameters, using their multiples, do not 
substantially improve the prediction of body weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Lateral width of pressure distribution at fore-and aft 
location at the highest pressure, evaluated under contact area 
exceeding 10mmHg.
    \3\ Summation of pressures across all sensors multiplying by 
sensor area and expressing the results in pounds.
    \4\ PseudoweightLB is the product of the sensor area and 
pressure and is a rough measure of the weight borne by the seat 
cushion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The analysis of a large number of pressure distribution parameters 
allowed UMTRI to specify and evaluate the OCATD performance. The OCATD 
pressure distributions are determined, to a large extent, by the weight 
of the occupant and the external anthropometry (hip breadth, buttock-
to-knee length, etc.). The analysis of pressure distribution data from 
human subjects demonstrated that the parameters of pressure 
distribution that are useful for occupant classification also relate to 
scale (width and length of the respective contact area of the buttocks 
with the seat cushion). Consequently, UMTRI believes that using 
representative anthropometry for the OCATDs is a major part of 
achieving representative pressure distributions.
    UMTRI noted that the observed OCATD seated pressure parameter 
values can be assessed by comparing them to the distribution of similar 
parameter values expected for people who meet the OCATD stature and 
weight criteria. If the OCATD parameter values lie within one standard 
deviation of the target, the OCATDs are substantially representative of 
the occupant category. If the discrepancy is larger than two standard 
deviations, the OCATD parameter values are unusual for the 
corresponding anthropomorphic category.
    Using this approach, UMTRI found the quantitative performance of 
the OCATDs with respect to human pressure distribution to be good. 
Among the top ten classification parameters, the OCATDs generally 
differed by less than one standard deviation from the targets. UMTRI 
claims that in percentage terms, the deviations from the targets are 
generally less than five percent.

Pressure Distribution Measuring Systems

    UMTRI observed that defining the precision and accuracy for seat 
pressure distribution measurement systems is extremely difficult. A 
number of very difficult to control variables plague the technology of 
pressure measurements. For example, when a pressure mat is placed 
between two flat surfaces, pressure can be applied and measurements 
made in readily quantified ways. However, the interface between a 
occupant's compliant buttocks and a compliant seat is not flat, and may 
include substantial shear stress, as well as normal stress related 
pressure measurements. Thus, in actual evaluation of such compliant 
surfaces, it is very difficult to determine the ``true'' pressure. 
UMTRI notes that measurements of seat surface pressure distribution are 
at best regarded as approximate and used as relative measures only. For 
example, measuring the pressure distribution on two seats with the same 
subject might lead to the conclusion that the pressure was higher on 
one seat than the other. UMTRI states that the difference can not be 
confidently quantified within ten or 15 percent because of differences 
in the shape and contours of the contact area and the limitations of 
the sensor system. Accordingly, the ability of the OCATDs to produce 
consistent measurements in compliance tests would always be in 
question.

Application Issues

    UMTRI indicated that pressure measurements are strongly affected by 
the occupant's posture. Over the range of postures and subjects 
studied, the effects of posture on pressure distribution may be larger 
than the effects of body size. This poses problems for validating the 
OCATD

[[Page 17625]]

pressure distribution performance. Thigh posture strongly affects 
contact area, and is one of the parameters most useful for occupant 
classification, making it an important factor for OCATD validity. UMTRI 
suggested that the OCATD should be used in a range of thigh postures 
from fully to minimally engaged, representing a range of the seat 
loading conditions expected in the field. The extremes might capture 
the human variance in ``normal'' postures and be an appropriate way to 
specify OCATD positioning for certification testing.
    The UMTRI test data show that the OCATD pressure distributions are 
likely to be most representative of human pressure distributions in 
soft seats. In seats that are very firm, the OCATD contact area tends 
to be smaller than that of comparably sized humans. This is because the 
OCATD flesh is stiffer than that of humans. In a firm seat, the OCATD 
flesh does not spread as widely as the softer human tissue, and 
consequently produces a smaller contact area. However, UMTRI found that 
differences in contact areas between firm and soft seats were smaller 
than differences due to leg(s) postures.

Repeatability and Reproducibility

    UMTRI observed that because of limitations of pressure distribution 
measurement technology, the OCATD itself is probably more repeatable 
than the sensors used to measure the contact pressures. UMTRI also 
found, that the posture and the positioning of the OCATD appeared to be 
more important than the shape or stiffness of the device in determining 
the seat surface pressure distribution. Hence, repeatability and 
reproducibility studies of the OCATDs need to focus primarily on 
installation variability. In addition, UMTRI recommended that 
procedures and test tools need to be developed to verify that soft 
tissue stiffness and contours of the OCATDs remain within 
specification.

Comparison of OCATDs With Hybrid-III Dummies

    The UMTRI report claims that seat surface pressure distributions 
produced by the OCATDs are visually more similar to human pressure 
distributions than those produced by the Hybrid-IIIs. However, our 
review of UMTRI's quantitative analysis found that the small adult 
female Hybrid-III is approximately as representative of small adult 
women as the OCATD-5 with respect to the parameters of seat surface 
pressure distribution that are related to the occupant's body weight.
    UMTRI found the six-year-old Hybrid-III pressure distribution 
parameters to be somewhat less representative of six-year-old children 
than the OCATD-6. The pressure distributions were somewhat narrower and 
smaller in area than those obtained with humans. However, even in this 
respect, the data from the UMTRI study indicated that pressure 
distributions produced by the Hybrid-III dummies were generally within 
the range of variability expected for humans of similar size.
    UMTRI noted that OCATD buttock contours and spacing of the peak 
pressure from the ischial tuberosity bones appear to be a better match 
to the human pressure distributions than those produced by the Hybrid-
IIIs. UMTRI observed that much of the correspondence is not meaningful, 
because neither the contours nor the location and spacing of these peak 
pressures are useful for occupant classification purposes. These 
observations appear to project UMTRI's findings based on this specific 
study. However, the agency is aware that some suppression systems 
utilize seat map pressure sensors to classify the occupant based upon 
its morphology (www.iee.lu/EN/AutoProd/).
    The only parameter in which the Hybrid-IIIs differed substantially 
from the OCATDs and the human targets in the UMTRI study was 
``PseudoweightLb''. However, ``PseudoweightLb'' is difficult to 
interpret because it is affected by the shape and contours of the 
contact surface. The pressure distribution measurement system measures 
the aggregate force perpendicular to the surface of the measurement 
pad. However, as described above, shear stresses on compliant surfaces 
are in evidence and responsible for much of the measurement 
inaccuracies. Thus, UMTRI believes, the more flattened buttock shape of 
the Hybrid-III dummies may have accounted for the difference in 
``PseudoWeightLb'' assessment.
    UMTRI noted that the OCATDs are easier to position and are capable 
of a wider range of postures than the Hybrid-III counterparts. However, 
the FMVSS No. 208 advanced air bag certification test procedures do not 
require a large range of postures for air bag suppression testing. 
Thus, while there might be interest by some vehicle manufacturers to 
employ the OCATDs for vehicle development purposes, there is virtually 
no advantage in using them in FMVSS No. 208 compliance tests.
    As only one of each type of OCATDs was used by UMTRI in its 
testing, it is possible that differences within any new surrogate 
category could affect the findings. These differences may become even 
larger through their use and as the flesh materials age. Also, as with 
any study of this type, the applicability of the findings is limited to 
the types of seats and postures used. The characteristics of the 
pressure distribution measurement system would also greatly influence 
the test results. In particular, a pressure sensing system with lower 
resolution, such as most of those used by vehicle manufacturers in 
production seats, may show substantially larger or smaller differences 
between the various surrogates and the humans. Inasmuch as the Alliance 
has not provided estimates of potential variabilities, the agency is 
not in a position to address this issue.

Other Considerations

    The agency has no testing experience with the OCATDs. The 
Alliance's (summer 2002) offer to provide the agency one of the OCATDs 
for evaluation purposes did not materialize in its delivery; while the 
agency, due to other high priorities and in expectation of receiving 
the OCATD, had not pursued its independent acquisition. However, in the 
interim, the agency has gained considerable knowledge about the OCATDs 
during the review of the UMTRI reports, such as their usefulness and 
applicability for air bag suppression purposes. In addition, a limited 
amount of information was also obtained when FTSS made an introductory 
presentation to agency staff in the spring of 2002, and at the 
government-industry meeting in July 2002. The latter information is 
available on the NHTSA Web site.
    FTSS has disclosed that it has sold over 20 OCATDs. A larger 
portion of them are female versions. The purchasers are mostly 
manufacturers producing vehicles for the U.S. market. However, the 
agency has no knowledge on how the manufacturers are using these test 
devices, whether their use is providing correct signals for sensing the 
need to activate/deactivate deployment systems, and whether the devices 
can effectively replace the human population for the intended purposes.
    FTSS also indicated that some users may be considering capacitive 
systems for activation purposes. In such systems, FTSS suggested the 
possibility of incorporating copper wire mesh that would be imbedded in 
the OCATD skin. The intention of this effort would be to simulate the 
capacitive properties of the human body. However, UMTRI notes that the 
built-in electrical properties would not necessarily reflect a 
particular size human. Accordingly, these types of systems by 
themselves may not be sufficient discriminators for suppression 
purposes. It appears that

[[Page 17626]]

manufacturers considering use of capacitive systems would have to find 
other methods to match the outputs of complementary weight distribution 
or pressure sensing systems.

Summary of Analysis and Conclusions

    Review and analysis of the documents presented in the petition lead 
to the following observations and conclusions:
    1. Contact pressure measuring technology shows the need for a 
substantial amount of development before it can be used reliably and 
repeatably for pressure distribution and pressure pattern measurements.
    2. Since the choice of the in-vehicle seat based pressure sensing 
system is controlled by vehicle manufacturers, the agency would have 
great difficulty assuring the suitability and appropriateness of the 
OCATDs for assessing adequacy and effectiveness of any particular 
suppression system for the intended human population.
    3. Because vehicle models and seat designs change quite frequently, 
the built-in pressure sensing system in a vehicle seat might be 
tailored for the OCATDs rather than correctly sensing the suppression 
for the intended population groups.
    4. The supporting materials provided with the petition indicate 
that the proposed OCATDs are only marginally different or better, if at 
all, than the Hybrid-III dummies in replicating human-like seating 
pressure distribution measurements. Accordingly, there is virtually no 
advantage in using the OCATDs as substitutes for Hybrid-III dummies 
within the parameters currently specified for compliance suppression 
testing.
    5. Pressure distributions for the OCATDs and Hybrid-III dummies 
fall within the general range of variability expected for humans of 
similar size. Thus the OCATDs do not provide any more effective sensing 
for deployment suppression than the Hybrid-III dummies.
    6. The OCATDs may have some advantages for more accurate pressure 
measurement distribution on firmer seats, but this is still to be 
demonstrated.
    7. Posture variations and leg support appear to have more 
significant effects on pressure distribution parameter measurements 
than the occupant's weight and size. Procedures to stabilize the OCATD 
set-up and assure consistency of contact pressure measurements are 
still to be established.
    8. The agency has no knowledge that the OCATDs are easier to 
position than comparable Hybrid-III dummies for certification purposes. 
Considering the small size and low weight of the Hybrid-III small 
female and 6-year-old dummies, the agency does not believe the supplied 
data support significant use advantages between the two dummy types.
    9. While the petitioner notes that the OCATDs offer a significantly 
wider range of postures than Hybrid-III dummies, the agency compliance 
requirements limit the application of the female dummy to only one 
posture and the six-year-old to four seated posture configurations 
(normally seated, leaning against the door, reclined and full up front) 
in suppression tests.
    10. The agency has not tested or evaluated either of the petitioned 
OCATDs or pressure sensing instruments. Agency personnel would have to 
develop technical expertise and equipment to deal with the devices and 
the various sensing technologies as well as their limitations for no 
apparent benefit.
    11. To test, evaluate, and incorporate the OCATDs, as petitioned by 
the Alliance, would require a large expenditure of scarce agency 
resources and divert them from work that would yield far greater safety 
benefit.
    12. In view of the limitations and/or questionable usefulness of 
the OCATDs for occupant sensing, their alternate use for compliance 
certification would not be acceptable either from the safety assurance 
point of view or for avoidance of claims and counterclaims on the 
appropriateness of the test results with respect to human test 
subjects.
    13. The agency sees no reason why vehicle manufacturers should not 
use the OCATDs for their own purposes as opposed to aid in 
certification, if they are convinced that OCATDs will provide them 
superior flexibility in the design of better functioning air bag 
suppression systems. However, the agency sees neither any advantages 
nor need in using the OCATDs within the parameters currently specified 
for deployment of suppression certification tests.

Summary of Agency Position and Decision

    The agency has decided to deny the Alliance petition to incorporate 
the OCATD-5 and -6 test devices into part 572. The agency finds that 
the Alliance has not provided compelling evidence that would support 
the need to specify the OCATD-5 and -6 devices as alternates to the 
Hybrid-III small female and the six-year-old dummies, or human 
volunteers, in FMVSS No. 208 for suppression certification tests. The 
Alliance documentation failed to demonstrate how use of the OCATDs 
would provide an advantage due to their superior flexibility and 
posture capability in the currently specified agency test procedure. 
Accordingly, the agency is also denying the Alliance petition for 
alternate use of OCATD-5 and -6 for manufacturer certification to 
static suppression test requirements in FMVSS No. 208.
    Agency analysis of the petitioner's data indicates that of the two 
OCATDs, only the OCATD-5 appears to have marginally better pressure 
distribution indications than the respective Hybrid-III dummy. Even so, 
both OCATDs and Hybrid-III dummies fall within the general range of 
variability expected for humans of similar size. In addition, the 
agency has no substantiating evidence to verify the Alliance claim that 
OCATDs are easier to position than comparable Hybrid-III dummies. 
Considering the small size and low weight of the Hybrid-III small 
female and the 6-year-old dummies, and the few positions specified for 
FMVSS No. 208 certification, the agency believes the supplied data do 
not support OCATDs' use for static air bag deployment suppression 
tests.
    The agency does not agree with the Alliance assertion that 
development and testing of occupant classification systems, as 
currently specified in the agency compliance procedures, require 
testing surrogates capable of a wide range of postures. It needs to be 
noted that agency compliance specifications limit the female dummy set-
up to only one posture for suppression testing and four different 
postures for the six-year-old. The agency has had no difficulties in 
its tests to attain the required positions and postures with the 
respective Hybrid-III dummies. Furthermore, GM and Honda have already 
certified advanced static suppression systems without indication of the 
need for OCATDs to advance this technology.
    We agree with the Alliance that testing with human volunteers is 
time-consuming and requires large numbers of subjects. However, none of 
the available human surrogates will assure 100 percent suppression 
effectiveness. The agency allowed testing with humans in order to 
permit those vehicle manufacturers who are uncomfortable with the 
results from dummy tests to certify the suppression systems with 
suitable human vehicle occupants.
    Our review of the contact pressure measuring technology for shaped 
and conforming seat cushions show the need for a substantial amount of 
further research before ``true'' pressure measurements can be made. 
Accordingly, the agency believes the

[[Page 17627]]

application of OCATDs for compliance certification is premature. 
Without reasonably standardized pressure measuring technology, the 
consistency of the OCATDs' performance can not be properly evaluated.
    The agency has made provisions in the advanced air bag rulemaking 
to allow introduction of new technologies for suppression and the 
development of low level deployment activation systems. However, agency 
review of the proposed OCATD technology, based on the Alliance report, 
indicates that the OCATDs mostly parallel the capabilities of currently 
specified Hybrid-III test dummies for measuring seating pressures and 
do not provide additional occupant sensing and discrimination 
capabilities. The data in the UMTRI technical report indicate that 
there is very little potential to develop the OCATDs into better or 
more powerful discriminatory tools without substantial further 
research. Therefore, it would not be cost beneficial for the agency to 
initiate the extensive and expensive process incorporating the OCATDs 
into part 572 merely to have them available as parallel surrogates to 
the Hybrid-III dummies. However, the agency does not discourage use of 
the OCATDs by those vehicle manufacturers who are convinced that OCATDs 
will provide them the needed flexibilities for the development of 
better functioning suppression systems.
    In conclusion, NHTSA denies both parts of this petition for 
rulemaking based on lack of compelling evidence that adoption of the 
OCATDs into part 572 and their specification in FMVSS No. 208 would 
improve the suppression and activation/deactivation of air bag systems 
and the safety of the motoring public. Furthermore, the agency has no 
plans to conduct research on design and performance of the OCATDs with 
the intent purpose either to incorporate them into part 572 or to 
specify their use for deployment suppression certification tests in 
FMVSS No. 208.

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

    Issued on: March 30, 2004.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards.
[FR Doc. 04-7546 Filed 4-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P