[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 161 (Friday, August 20, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51598-51608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-18967]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18905]
RIN 2127-AJ42


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

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

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document responds, in part, to petitions for 
reconsideration of the amendments we made in November 2003 to the 
advanced air bag provisions in the occupant crash protection standard. 
Because of time constraints faced by vehicle manufacturers in 
certifying vehicles under procedures established in the November 2003 
final rule, we bifurcated our response. This document is the second of 
two documents responding to the petitions. It addresses those issues 
raised by petitioners regarding positioning of the 5th percentile adult 
female, six-year-old and three-year-old test dummies; determination of 
target points during low risk deployment tests; specifications for 
child restraint systems for automatic suppression system tests; and 
clarification of seat adjustment procedures.

DATES: Effective date: The amendments made in this rule are effective 
September 1, 2004.
    Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration must be received by 
October 4, 2004 and should refer to this docket and the notice number 
of this document and be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 
20590.
    Note that all petitions received will be posted without change to 
http://dms.dot.gov including any personal information provided. Please 
see the Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking Analysis and Notices.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact 
Louis Molino, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at (202) 366-2264, 
and fax him at (202) 493-2739.
    For legal issues, you may contact Christopher Calamita, Office of 
Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-2992, and fax him at (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
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
III. Summary of Response to Petitions
IV. Test Dummy Positioning Procedures
    A. Left Foot--5th Percentile Adult Female Test Dummy (Barrier 
Test)
    B. Right Foot--5th Percentile Adult Female Test Dummy (Barrier 
Test)
    C. Chin-on-Steering Wheel Test Procedure
    D. Head-on-Instrument Panel Test Procedure
V. Plane C and Plane D
VI. Child Restraint Systems--Appendix A
VII. Seat Positioning Procedures
VIII. Miscellaneous
IX. Effective Date
X. Rulemaking Analysis and Notices

I. Background

    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant 
crash protection, specifies performance requirements for the protection 
of vehicle occupants in crashes (49 CFR 571.208). On May 12, 2000, we 
published an interim final rule that amended FMVSS No. 208 to require 
advanced air bags (65 FR 30680: Docket No. NHTSA 00-7013; Notice 1) 
(Advanced Air Bag Rule). Among other things, the rule addressed the 
risk of serious air bag-induced injuries, particularly for small women 
and young children, and amended FMVSS No. 208 to require that future 
air bags be designed to minimize such risk. The Advanced Air Bag Rule 
established a rigid barrier crash test with a 5th percentile adult 
female test dummy, as well as several low risk deployment and out-of-
position tests using a range of dummy sizes.
    The agency received multiple petitions for reconsideration to the 
Advanced Air Bag Rule. Petitioners raised a large number of concerns 
about the various test procedures in their written submissions. To 
address these issues adequately, the agency held a technical workshop 
so that we could better understand the specific concerns and better 
determine if the test procedures needed refinement.\1\ The agency then 
addressed each petition in a Federal Register notice published on 
December 18, 2001 and made several changes to the Advanced Air Bag Rule 
(66 FR 65376; Docket No. NHTSA 01-11110). These changes included a 
number of refinements to the test dummy positioning procedures in the 
barrier tests and the low risk deployment tests. The December 2001 
final rule also amended the list of child restraint systems in Appendix 
A for use in certain compliance tests through the removal of child 
restraints no longer in production and the addition of other child 
restraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The workshop was held on December 6, 2000, at NHTSA's 
Vehicle Research and Test Center in East Liberty, Ohio. 
Representatives of 18 vehicle manufacturers and 13 seat, sensor, and 
dummy manufacturers attended the workshop. Five different vehicles 
were used as test vehicles. Some of the five had been provided by 
manufacturers because they were experiencing particular problems 
with following the existing test procedures in these vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 19, 2003, the agency published a final rule that 
responded, in part, to petitions for reconsideration of the amendments 
made in the December

[[Page 51599]]

2001 final rule to the Advanced Air Bag Rule (68 FR 65179; Docket No. 
NHTSA 03-16476, Notice 1). In particular, we amended portions of FMVSS 
No. 208 regarding seat positioning procedures when using the 5th 
percentile adult female test dummy in the barrier test and the low risk 
deployment test and when using the 3-year-old and 6-year-old test 
dummies in the low risk deployment test; the fore and aft seat location 
for rear facing child restraint systems (RFCRSs); and the seat track 
position for the low risk deployment test. We also responded to 
petitions for reconsideration regarding test dummy positioning 
procedure issues, specifically those addressing positioning of the feet 
of the 5th percentile adult female test dummy; positioning of out-of-
position test dummies; and positioning of test dummy hands. The 
November 2003 final rule amended the definitions of ``Plane C'' and 
``Plane D'' as they relate to test dummy positioning, Point 1 under the 
low risk deployment tests, and addressed other reference points and 
definitions. The November 2003 final rule also amended the list of 
child restraint systems in Appendix A to be used in certain compliance 
testing.

II. Petitions for Reconsideration

    In response to the November 2003 final rule, the agency received 
seven petitions for reconsideration. Petitions were submitted by 
Evenflo Company, Inc. (Evenflo), Maserati S.p.A. (Maserati), Alliance 
of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance), TRW Automotive (TRW), 
Automotive Occupant Restraint Council (AORC), and American Honda Motor 
Co., Inc. (Honda). A petition was also received from Ferrari S.p.A. 
(Ferrari), but was later withdrawn without a subsequent submission. 
Petitioners have asked the agency to reconsider the following issues.

Left Foot--5th Percentile Adult Female Test Dummy (Barrier Test)

    Honda petitioned the agency to permit positioning of the left foot 
of the 5th percentile adult female test dummy on a vehicle's footrest, 
a position, it stated, that is more representative of a ``real world'' 
configuration. Honda explained that in some situations, the current 
procedure for positioning the left foot may still result in a portion 
of the left foot remaining on a vehicle's footrest or sloping part of 
the floorpan near the foot rest. The petitioner stated that such a 
position could influence measured injury criteria.

Right Foot--5th Percentile Adult Female Test Dummy (Barrier Test)

    In its petition for reconsideration, the Alliance stated that right 
foot positioning procedure for the 5th percentile adult female test 
dummy in the rigid barrier test could result in an unrealistic 
position. The Alliance explained that under the procedures in 
S16.3.2.2.1(a) and S16.3.2.2.3 of FMVSS No. 208, a test dummy's foot 
can be positioned such that it does not contact either the floor or toe 
boards, necessitating the use of a spacer block. It further stated that 
such a position is unrealistic and could affect the foot and lower leg 
kinematics. To address this issue, the Alliance requested the procedure 
be amended to reflect a more ``real-world'' position. In the 
alternative, the Alliance requested that the agency specify the 
material properties of the spacer block in order to reduce potential 
test variability.

Chin-on-Rim Test Procedure

    The Alliance and Honda requested that the agency amend the chin-on-
rim test procedure to provide for consistency and repeatability in 
testing out-of-position drivers. The Alliance requested that for 
vehicle models with adjustable and non-adjustable steering wheels, the 
adjustable steering wheel be positioned as close as possible to the 
position of the non-adjustable steering wheel. Honda requested that the 
agency specify the shape of the spacer blocks that are to be used when 
needed to position the dummy's chin on the steering wheel. Honda stated 
that the pre-test load applied to the neck can vary with the shape of 
the spacer blocks.

Head-on-Instrument Panel Test Procedure

    Honda petitioned the agency to permit rotation of the lower legs 
when positioning the head of the six-year-old dummy on the instrument 
panel in order to prevent bracing by the feet on the vehicle floor. 
Honda stated that this bracing prevents the torso from being rotated 
into position.
    Honda also requested that spacer blocks be permitted when space is 
present between the six-year-old dummy's feet and the vehicle floor. 
Honda stated that variation in the position of the feet due to lack of 
contact with the floor results in variation in the force required to 
maintain the thigh angle. Again with regard to the six-year-old dummy, 
Honda requested that the head-on-instrument panel test procedure 
specify the point and direction for applying the 222 N force to prevent 
differences in dummy position.

Plane C and Plane D

    The AORC and Maserati petitioned the agency to revert to the method 
established in the December 2001 final rule for defining Planes C and 
D. In the alternative, Maserati, along with the Alliance, requested 
clarification of the procedure for determining the volumetric centers 
of an uninflated and statically inflated air bag, which are used to 
define Planes C and D. Maserati stated that the new definition of Plane 
C may alter the positioning of the dummy in low risk deployment testing 
by 50 mm and that the effect of this altered position on compliance is 
unknown at this time. Similarly, the Alliance stated that one of its 
members has reported that the redefined Plane C may alter the 
positioning of the dummy by 30 mm.

Child Restraint Systems--Appendix A

    Evenflo and TRW have requested that Appendix A be amended to 
reflect child restraint systems (CRSs) currently manufactured and 
available for retail purchase. Evenflo stated that several of the 
discontinued CRS models in Appendix A are no longer available. TRW 
alternatively petitioned the agency to create a separate Appendix to 
indicate which CRSs will be used in testing beyond 2006. To facilitate 
the use of automatic suppression systems based on weight detection, 
Honda petitioned the agency to limit the weight of CRSs. Honda also 
petitioned the agency to permit 18 months of lead time for the amended 
Appendix A.
    The Alliance requested that the agency develop a procedure for 
installing CRSs equipped with lower anchorages and tether attachments. 
The Alliance stated that artificially tight installations can cause 
some occupant classification systems to misclassify the occupant. The 
Alliance also requested that the effective date for the revised 
Appendix A be postponed until September 1, 2005.

Seat Positioning Procedures

    The Alliance has requested that the agency specify a vertical seat 
position for use in determining the seat cushion reference angle. 
Specifically, the Alliance requested that the seat be positioned in the 
full rear and full down position when determining the seat cushion 
reference angle. The Alliance also requested that S16.2.10.3.2 and 
S16.2.10.3.3 of FMVSS No. 208 be amended to specify that the reference 
point used in these sections is the seat cushion reference point.

[[Page 51600]]

Effective Date of the Test Procedures

    Several petitioners stated that the January 20, 2004 effective date 
for the test procedures established in the November 2003 final rule did 
not provide sufficient lead time. There was concern that the revisions, 
particularly to the procedure for defining of Planes C and D, would 
require mid-model year recertification.
    In response to petitioners' concerns with the effective date for 
the new procedures the agency published a final rule January 27, 2004, 
which permits manufacturers to temporarily certify vehicles according 
to the test procedures required prior to the effective date of the 
November 2003 final rule until September 1, 2004 (69 FR 3837; Docket 
No. 03-16476; Notice 2). Today's document addresses the remaining 
issues.

III. Summary of Response to Petitions

    As previously noted, this document addresses the following issues 
raised in the petitions for reconsideration: issues involving dummy 
positioning procedures, target points referencing Plane C and Plane D, 
issues associated with the child restraints specified in Appendix A of 
FMVSS No. 208, and corrections to the regulatory text.
    This document amends the procedure for placement of the left foot 
of the 5th percentile adult female test dummy in the barrier crash. As 
amended, the procedure specifies that both outboard and inboard hip 
rotation is permitted to avoid foot contact with a vehicle's footrest 
or pedal. We are maintaining the positioning procedure established for 
the 5th percentile adult female test dummy's right foot, and decline to 
establish material specifications for the spacer blocks permitted under 
this positioning procedure. Further, we decline to establish material, 
shape, or size specifications for spacer blocks permitted under the 
chin on rim low risk deployment test procedure.
    We are amending the dummy positioning procedure for the head-on-
instrument panel low risk deployment test. The procedure is amended to 
provide greater flexibility in positioning the 6-year-old and 3-year-
old test dummies. We are also clarifying the direction of the 
application of force used to position the test dummies.
    The agency is maintaining the current methods for determining 
Planes C and D, which reference an axis based on the volumetric centers 
of an undeployed and statically inflated air bag.
    We are also maintaining Appendix A as established in the November 
2003 final rule. However, we are amending the effective date of Subpart 
C for testing with CRSs equipped with lower anchor attachments and a 
tether strap (LATCH) to specify that these restraints need not be 
tested prior to September 1, 2006.
    Additionally, we are making several amendments to provide 
consistency within the regulation with regards to incorporated 
procedures and terminology.

IV. Test Dummy Positioning Procedures

A. Left Foot--5th Percentile Adult Female Test Dummy (Barrier Test)

    In response to the petition from Honda, we are amending the 
procedure for placement of the left foot of the 5th percentile adult 
female test dummy in the barrier crash to permit hip rotation to both 
the inboard and the outboard. This will help address Honda's concern 
that the left foot may have a position that is partially on the 
footrest. While this amendment should assist in avoiding this partial 
contact, we recognize that there may be instances in which partial 
footrest contact is unavoidable.
    The December 2001 final rule amended the driver's left foot 
positioning requirement by stipulating that the foot must not be placed 
on a vehicle's footrest, wheel-well projection, clutch, brake, or 
accelerator pedal. In response to petitions, the agency provided 
additional positioning flexibility so that pedal and footrest avoidance 
would be possible. S16.3.2.2.6, which specifies positioning procedures 
to avoid undesirable foot contact, was amended to permit foot flexion 
at the ankle in conjunction with the previously permitted foot rotation 
and hip rotation. The agency also provided guidance on the priority for 
dummy adjustment in avoiding prohibited contact.
    The agency is unsure why Honda was unable to avoid footrest contact 
using the procedure provided. The petitioner did not provide details as 
to why contact occurred. However, we believe it may have been due to 
the restriction in S16.3.2.2.6(c) that hip rotation must be to the 
outboard. The restriction on hip rotation was originally established 
when only pedal contact by the left foot was to be avoided. It was not 
the agency's intent to restrict hip rotation to the outboard only. 
Accordingly, we are amending the procedure to permit rotation to both 
the outboard and the inboard. This should address Honda's concern that 
the test dummy's left foot can have a position that is partially on the 
footrest. We are also amending the procedure to clarify that 
repositioning of the leg to avoid pedal and footrest contact is 
applicable to S16.3.2.2.4, S16.3.2.2.5 and S16.3.2.2.6.
    We are denying Honda's petition to permit placement of the left 
foot on the footrest. The agency has previously addressed this issue in 
the November 2003 final rule when establishing the current procedures. 
Honda has not provided any additional information to justify our 
reaching a different conclusion now. Although the positioning procedure 
allows partial footrest contact, this should arise if the only way to 
avoid pedal contact is footrest contact. Again, as we stated in the 
November 2003 final rule, we believe this conflict will be rare. In 
addition, placement of the entire foot on the footrest in some vehicle 
designs may be unnatural or impossible to achieve. Further, we have no 
data that indicate variations in foot positioning significantly affects 
injury measurements.

B. Right Foot--5th Percentile Adult Female Test Dummy (Barrier Test)

    The agency is maintaining the positioning procedure for the right 
foot of the 5th percentile adult female test dummy as currently 
specified for the barrier test under the November 2003 final rule. In 
response to a petition for reconsideration and a request for 
information, we previously amended the right foot positioning procedure 
for the 5th percentile adult female test dummy in the rigid barrier 
test. The November 2003 final rule addressed the situation in which the 
right heel of the 5th percentile adult female test dummy cannot 
initially contact the vehicle floor, by allowing for the extension of 
the lower leg toward the accelerator pedal rather than leaving the leg 
hanging vertically. If the heel can initially contact the floor, but 
cannot maintain contact with the floor and reach the accelerator pedal, 
lower leg extension with the heel leaving the floor is also the 
preferred position. If the final position results in the heel being off 
the floor, FMVSS No. 208 permits the use of a spacer block to provide 
support. Figure 13 in FMVSS No. 208 provides the block dimensions.
    The November 2003 final rule stated that lowering the seat is not 
an acceptable solution for getting the test dummy's right foot to reach 
the floor. The agency believes that the procedure established in the 
November 2003 final rule is the most appropriate, and notes that the 
Alliance submitted additional comments withdrawing its concern that the 
positioning was potentially unrealistic. Further, the agency declines 
to specify the material properties of the

[[Page 51601]]

spacer block. We do not have reason to believe that the material used 
for the spacer block will affect injury measurements when a vehicle is 
subjected to a barrier test with a 5th percentile female dummy. 
Further, the petitioner did not submit any data to demonstrate 
otherwise.

C. Chin-on-Steering Wheel Test Procedure

    We are maintaining the 5th percentile adult female test dummy 
positioning procedure for the low risk deployment (LRD) test as 
currently specified. The Advanced Air Bag Rule adopted a LRD test to 
address the risk air bags pose to out-of-position drivers, particularly 
those of small stature. The test is performed using two ``worst case'' 
positions: placing the dummy's chin on the module and placing the 
dummy's chin on the steering wheel. As originally established in the 
Advanced Air Bag Rule, the 5th percentile adult female test dummy's 
chin was to be placed on the steering wheel rim ``without loading the 
neck.'' In the December 2001 final rule, we permitted the use of 
supporting blocks to position the dummy and removed the prohibition 
from loading the dummy's neck. However, we did not specify the shape of 
the supporting blocks.
    Honda petitioned the agency to specify the position and shape of 
the support blocks, stating that variation in the blocks can result in 
variation in the load applied to the test dummy's neck. As a result, 
Honda continued, neck injury data are not repeatable. Honda submitted 
neck injury criteria measurements from test dummies positioned with 
three different support block configurations. Honda's data demonstrated 
that the different configurations resulted in different initial neck 
load value ranges and different neck injury criteria measurement ranges 
(See Honda's petition; Docket No. NHTSA-2003-16476-9).
    Honda's petition regarding this issue involves the procedure as 
amended by the December 2001 final rule. Since Honda's petition was 
submitted long after the deadline for petitioning for reconsideration 
of that final rule, we are treating Honda's petition as a petition for 
rulemaking per 49 CFR 553.35(a). We are denying the petition because 
Honda did not show that any difference in the injury criteria 
measurements was statistically significant. Further, Honda did not 
demonstrate that these differences would affect a manufacturer's 
ability to comply with the injury criteria requirements. The highest 
neck injury measurement recorded by Honda was one-third that of the 
maximum permitted under the standard.
    We do not believe that the shape, material, or placement of the 
spacer blocks will produce any statistically significant difference in 
injury measurements when a 5th percentile adult female test dummy is 
subjected to a LRD test. Therefore, we are not specifying the material, 
shape, or positioning of the spacer blocks.
    Further, we are not amending the procedure in response to the 
Alliance's request that for vehicle models with adjustable and non-
adjustable steering wheels, the adjustable steering wheel should be 
positioned as close as possible to the position of the non-adjustable 
steering wheel. As stated above, the goal of compliance under this test 
condition is to provide a worst-case position (See 68 FR 65183). The 
purpose of the regulatory provision allowing movement of an adjustable 
steering wheel is to increase the probability of actually attaining 
this position. Additionally, the Alliance did not provide any data to 
demonstrate that the desired test dummy position would be attainable 
with the adjustable steering wheel positioned as it requested. 
Therefore, we do not support the Alliance's request for this change.

D. Head-on-Instrument Panel Test Procedure

    To address concerns raised by Honda regarding a potential inability 
to properly position a six-year-old test dummy, as well as a three-
year-old test dummy, in the head-on-instrument panel test, we are 
amending the procedure to provide greater flexibility in positioning 
the 6-year-old test dummy. We are also clarifying the direction of the 
application of force used to position the test dummy.
    The November 2003 final rule clarified the positioning procedure 
for the 6-year-old and three-year-old test dummies in the head-on-
instrument panel LRD test (S22.4.3.5 and S24.4.3.5) to accommodate the 
situation in which the dummy torso could not be pushed against the 
instrument panel without forcing the femur angle to change. The 
procedure was amended to specify that the test dummy could be rotated 
about its seat contact and then about the test dummy's H-point and that 
a 222 N load may be applied to achieve contact between the head/torso 
and the instrument panel.
    In Honda's petition, it stated that clarification provided in the 
November 2003 final rule might not permit dummy placement as specified, 
particularly in vehicle designs in which the seat is very low relative 
to the floor pan. The petitioner indicated that in vehicles with very 
low seats, the test dummy's feet contact the floor pan, resulting in 
rotation about the foot contact. Honda suggested that the only apparent 
way to relieve this contact was to extend the dummy's legs. The agency 
agrees with Honda, and is amending the procedure to permit extension of 
a test dummy's legs in instances in which contact with the floor pan 
prohibits rotation about the seat contact or test dummy's H-point.
    Honda also stated that the procedure as amended in the November 
2003 final rule failed to specify the direction of the application of 
the 222 N load on the test dummy's torso. S22.4.3.5 and S24.4.3.5 
specify that the load is to be applied ``towards the front of the 
vehicle on the spine of the dummy between the shoulder blades.'' 
However, to provide additional clarity, the procedure is amended to 
provide that, in relation to the test dummy, the 222 N load is to be 
applied perpendicular to the thorax instrument cavity rear face.
    Further, Honda requested that spacer blocks be permitted to support 
a test dummy in order to maintain the appropriate femur angle, if the 
dummy loses contact with the seat during the positioning procedure. We 
note that S24.4.3.6 currently permits the use of spacer blocks to 
support dummy position. This allowance includes the use of spacer 
blocks to support a test dummy's lower legs, and addresses Honda's 
request.

V. Plane C and Plane D

    The agency is maintaining the current method, as established in the 
November 2003 final rule, for determining Planes C and D. Planes C and 
D are used to identify target points for positioning the 5th percentile 
adult female, 6-year-old, and 3-year-old test dummies in the LRD test 
procedures. Both planes reference an axis based on the volumetric 
centers of the undeployed and statically inflated air bag. The November 
2003 final rule established the statically inflated air bag method 
(SIABM) to provide a more objective method for determining the location 
of Planes C and D.
    Maserati and the AORC requested that the procedure revert back to 
the previous method for determining the air bag target points. In its 
petition, Maserati stated that the new method of targeting would result 
in a 50 mm drop in the location of the target point in one of its 
vehicles. In the alternative, Maserati requested additional lead time 
under the current procedure. The Alliance, stating that one of its 
members believes that the new method will result

[[Page 51602]]

in a 30 mm drop, also requested additional lead time. The agency has 
already addressed the issue of lead time in the January 2004 final 
rule.
    We continue to believe that the SIABM targeting method for 
positioning test dummies provides a more objective procedure and more 
clearly defines the agency's intent when it originally specified ``the 
opening through which the air bag deploys.'' The agency realizes that, 
particularly for top mounted air bags, the target point under the SIABM 
will be lower than under the previous technique. A lower target point 
may actually be more favorable for top mounted designs, which have 
already been shown to be less injurious to out-of-position occupants. 
This is due to the fact that the dummy will be farther from the initial 
path of the deploying air bag and will experience lower forces. 
Petitioners have not demonstrated how a lowering of the target point 
would adversely affect their ability to meet the LRD injury criteria. 
As stated in the January 2004 final rule, we believe the new 
positioning procedures should not require any more than minor 
modifications by affected manufacturers.
    To provide additional clarification with regards to the SIABM, we 
note that each LRD test that requires an air bag target point also 
dictates the positions of interior components for the actual LRD test 
in question. Thus, in determining the volumetric center of the 
statically inflated air bag, these same component positions should be 
honored.
    Additionally, the November 2003 final rule established the SIABM in 
S22.4.1.2 (3-year-old LRD), S24.4.1.2 (6-year-old LRD), 26.2.2 (5th 
percentile adult female chin on module), but inadvertently failed to 
amend S26.3.3 (5th percentile adult female chin on rim). That omission 
is corrected in today's final rule.

VI. Child Restraint Systems--Appendix A

    We are maintaining Appendix A as established in the November 2003 
final rule. However, in response to petitions, we will not require 
manufacturers to certify that their vehicles comply with the 
suppression requirements using the LATCH-equipped CRSs until September 
1, 2006.
    If manufacturers rely on an airbag suppression system to minimize 
the risk to occupants in child restraint systems, FMVSS No. 208 
requires manufacturers to certify that the vehicles comply with the 
suppression requirements when tested with the CRSs specified in 
Appendix A (See S19, S21 and S23). Appendix A provides a list of CRSs 
that the agency has determined to be representative of the systems 
currently in use in the vehicle fleet. In the November 2003 final rule, 
we revised the list to add two new CRSs and remove three from Appendix 
A. The added systems are equipped with LATCH, a configuration required 
under FMVSS No. 213, Child restraint systems, since September 1, 2002.
    The Alliance petitioned the agency to extend the effective date for 
the new Appendix A until September 1, 2005. It stated that the lead 
time provided, approximately nine and a half months, was not adequate. 
Further, the Alliance stated that the agency did not provide any notice 
or opportunity for public comment regarding the amendments to Appendix 
A.
    In the Advanced Air Bag Rule, the agency stated that the appendix 
would be periodically updated to reflect changes and designs in 
available CRSs (65 FR 30710). In the December 2001 final rule, we did 
note that generally one year of lead time will be provided for 
amendments to the appendix, but stressed the importance of establishing 
a list that is representative of real world usage (66 FR 65390).
    The revisions to Appendix A in the November 2003 final rule were 
made in response to issues raised by Evenflo. The agency amended 
Appendix A in the November 2003 final rule to include LATCH-equipped 
CRSs in an effort to be representative of real world use. The agency 
recognized that the lead time provided for manufacturers would be less 
than 12 months. However, the agency also recognized that CRSs have been 
required to be LATCH equipped since September 1, 2002.
    To ensure the robustness of automatic suppression systems, a 
manufacturer must be able to certify that the system operates under 
conditions representative of real world use. This includes operation 
when used with CRS designs that have been sold for almost two years. 
However, as the Alliance noted, the agency does not yet have a 
compliance test procedure in place for testing seats installed by means 
of the LATCH anchorages. Therefore, the effective date for the LATCH 
equipped CRSs in Appendix A is extended until September 1, 2006. By 
that time, the agency will have developed a compliance test procedure 
for securing a LATCH-equipped CRS to a vehicle using the lower anchor 
attachments.
    In its petition, the Alliance also noted that Subpart C of Appendix 
A includes the Britax Expressway ISOFIX seat. The Alliance correctly 
points out that Subpart C is described as containing forward-facing 
convertible seats, yet the Expressway is not a convertible seat and the 
manufacturer of the Expressway recommends against using it in the 
rearward direction. Although not a convertible restraint, the 
Expressway is recommended for children with a weight as low as 20 lb. 
The Expressway design, while recommended for infants, cannot be clearly 
categorized under the existing subparts of Appendix A containing infant 
restraint systems (i.e., Subpart B--rear-facing infant seats, Subpart 
C--forward-facing convertible seats). However, the agency determined 
that the Expressway is best placed in Subpart C, which contains 
restraints used in a forward-facing configuration.
    S19, Requirements to provide protection for infants in rear facing 
and convertible child restraints and car beds, specifies that under the 
automatic suppression compliance option, a vehicle must comply when 
tested using a 12-month-old test dummy and child restraint systems 
listed in Subpart B and Subpart C. The test procedure at S20 for S19, 
incorporates procedures representative of CRS misuse to reflect real 
world CRS installation. This includes installing a CRS listed in 
Subpart C in both the forward- and rear-facing position when belted and 
unbelted. Consistent with the goal of reflecting real world misuse, we 
will test the Britax ISOFIX Expressway in both directions. However, we 
note that if a manufacturer does not provide instructions for routing a 
vehicle's safety belt to secure a restraint for a given position (e.g., 
rear-facing), we will not test the restraint belted in that position. 
We will test the restraint facing forward in a belted configuration and 
both forward and rear-facing in an unbelted configuration to represent 
misuse. We are also amending Subpart C and Subpart D (forward facing 
toddler/belt-positioning booster systems) to describe more accurately 
the CRSs that are in these subparts.
    Both Evenflo and TRW commented that Appendix A contains CRSs no 
longer in production and no longer available. Evenflo provided 
suggestions as to possible replacements. TRW stated that the lack of 
availability of CRSs in Appendix A as impeding restraint system 
development. TRW petitioned the agency to include currently available 
CRSs or to create a separate appendix for use beyond 2006.
    We are not amending Appendix A as requested by Evenflo and TRW. As 
stated above, the appendix is intended to be representative of CRSs in 
use by the public, not merely CRSs that are currently on the market. 
The November 2003 final rule established a procedure for amending 
Appendix A. Seats will be

[[Page 51603]]

added or removed when real world usage would make this appropriate.
    Additionally, we do not believe Appendix A is hindering development 
of an LRD restraint system for infants, as suggested by TRW. 
Developmental tests need not use every CRS in Appendix A. These systems 
should be sufficiently robust that the absence of one or more seats 
represented in Appendix A in the development process should not impact 
compliance.
    Honda's petition to restrict the maximum weight of CRSs is beyond 
the scope of the rulemaking notices that resulted in the November 2003 
final rule. Such a restriction would need to be addressed through an 
amendment to FMVSS No. 213 and not FMVSS No. 208. Honda has resubmitted 
this as a rulemaking petition for FMVSS No. 213. This issue will be 
addressed in a separate notice.

VII. Seat Positioning Procedures

    S16 specifies the test procedures for rigid barrier test 
requirements using a 5th percentile adult female test dummy. 
S16.2.10.3.1 specifies that the seat cushion reference line is set to 
the middle of a range consisting of all possible angles with the seat 
cushion reference point (SCRP) in the rearmost position. The Alliance 
petitioned the agency to specify that a seat be placed in the full down 
position before the seat cushion is positioned to the middle of the 
range. It stated that the range of angles may vary with vertical 
position.
    The agency recognized that a range of seat or seat cushions angles 
might vary with vertical position. As such, once a seat's SCRP is moved 
to the rearmost position, the range of angles is determined through use 
of any and all controls, other than those that primarily move the seat 
or seat cushion fore or aft. This includes those that adjust vertical 
position. To our knowledge, determination of the range is not dependent 
on the starting vertical position prior to moving the SCRP rearward.

VIII. Miscellaneous

    In the November 2003 final rule, the agency replaced the term 
``right front outboard'' with ``front outboard passenger'' when 
referring to the passenger air bag in S20.4.9, S22.4.4 and S24.4.4. It 
was our intent to make similar amendments for all references to 
passenger air bags, but inadvertently, this was not done. Therefore, we 
are replacing ``right front outboard,'' ``right front passenger,'' and 
``right front'' with ``front outboard passenger'' in S20, S22, and S24.
    Additionally, the Alliance noted that in S16.2.10.3.2 and 
S16.2.10.3.3, the word ``cushion'' was left out of the phrase ``seat 
cushion reference point.'' We also identified a similar omission in 
S26.3.1. To rectify this appropriately, the agency is amending the text 
and use the acronym SCRP in each of these sections.

IX. Effective Date

    The amendments adopted in today's document are effective beginning 
September 1, 2004. This date is the same as the compliance date 
established in the January 2004 final rule for the November 2003 final 
rule. Today's final rule extends the compliance date for testing with 
specified restraint CRSs for a period of two years. If today's final 
rule was not effective September 1, 2004, manufacturers would be 
required to comply with the amendments in the November 2003 final rule 
on that date despite the fact that the compliance date for certain 
amendments is extended in today's document. Manufacturers would be 
required to comply with the delayed provisions for an interim period 
until today's document became effective at some later date. This could 
result in unnecessary costs for manufacturers. Further, we have 
determined that the changes made in this document do not impact a 
manufacturer's ability to certify a vehicle.

X. 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 has not been reviewed 
by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review,'' because it was not deemed significant under the 
executive order. The rulemaking action has also been determined to not 
be significant under the Department's regulatory policies and 
procedures. The agency has concluded that the impacts of today's 
amendments are so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation is not 
required. The amendments adopted in this document will neither increase 
nor decrease to cost of compliance. 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 final rule (Docket 
No. NHTSA-2000-7013-02). NHTSA has determined that the costs and 
benefits analysis provided in that document are unaffected by today's 
rule.

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 
remain unchanged from the December 2001 final rule.

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.

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.

[[Page 51604]]

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.

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 vehicles 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 a phase-in. Once 
the phase-ins are 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 \2\ in its regulatory activities unless doing so 
would be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory 
provisions regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise 
impractical. In meeting that requirement, we are required to consult 
with voluntary, private sector, consensus standards bodies. Examples of 
organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards 
bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 
the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available and 
potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are required 
by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of the 
reasons for not using such standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. 
Technical standards are defined by the NTTAA as ``performance-based 
or design-specific technical specifications and related management 
systems practices.'' They pertain to ``products and processes, such 
as size, strength, or technical performance of a product, process or 
material.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency is not aware of any new voluntary consensus standards 
addressing the changes made to the May 2000 final rule, the December 
2001 final rule or the November 2003 final rule as a result of this 
final rule.

L. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all submissions 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment or petition (or signing the comment or petition, 
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). 
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 
19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

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


0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR Chapter V as 
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
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.


0
2. Section 571.208 is amended by revising S16.2.10.3.2, S16.2.10.3.3, 
S16.3.2.2.4, S16.3.2.2.6, S20.1.6, S20.2.2.3, S20.3.2, S22.1.3, 
S22.2.1.1, S22.2.1.3, S22.2.2, S22.2.2.1(a), S22.2.2.3(a), 
S22.2.2.5(a), S22.2.2.6(b), S22.2.2.7(b), S22.2.2.8(a), S22.3.2, 
S22.4.3.5, S22.5.1, S24.1.3, S24.2.3 heading and (a), S24.3.2, 
S24.4.3.5, S26.3.1, S26.3.3, Appendix A to Sec.  571.208, and adding 
S16.3.2.2.7 to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    S16.2.10.3.2 Using only the control that primarily moves the seat 
fore and aft, move the SCRP to the full forward position.
    S16.2.10.3.3 If the seat or seat cushion height is adjustable, 
other than by the controls that primarily move the seat or seat cushion 
fore and aft, determine the maximum and minimum heights of the SCRP, 
while maintaining, as closely as possible, the angle determined in 
S16.2.10.3.1. Set the SCRP at the midpoint height with the seat cushion 
reference line angle set as closely as possible to the angle determined 
in S16.2.10.3.1. Mark location of the seat for future reference.
* * * * *
    S16.3.2.2.4 Place the left foot on the toe-board with the rearmost 
point of the heel resting on the floor pan as close as

[[Page 51605]]

possible to the point of intersection of the planes described by the 
toe-board and floor pan.
* * * * *
    S16.3.2.2.6 If the left foot does not contact the floor pan, place 
the foot parallel to the floor and place the lower leg as perpendicular 
to the thigh as possible.
    S16.3.2.2.7 When positioning the test dummy under S16.3.2.2.4, 
S16.3.2.2.5, and S16.2.2.6, avoid contact between the left foot of the 
test dummy and the vehicle's brake pedal, clutch pedal, wheel well 
projection, and foot rest. To avoid this contact, use the three foot 
position adjustments listed in paragraphs (a) through (c). The 
adjustment options are listed in priority order, with each subsequent 
option incorporating the previous. In making each adjustment, move the 
foot the minimum distance necessary to avoid contact. If it is not 
possible to avoid all prohibited foot contact, give priority to 
avoiding brake or clutch pedal contact.
    (a) Rotate (abduction/adduction) the test dummy's left foot about 
the lower leg,
    (b) Plantar flex the foot,
    (c) Rotate the left leg about the hip in either an outboard or 
inboard direction.
* * * * *
    S20.1.6 Except as otherwise specified, if the car bed, rear facing 
child restraint, or convertible child restraint has an anchorage system 
as specified in S5.9 of FMVSS No. 213 and is tested in a vehicle with a 
front outboard passenger vehicle seat that has an anchorage system as 
specified in FMVSS No. 225, the vehicle shall comply in the belted 
tests with the restraint anchorage system attached to the vehicle seat 
anchorage system and the vehicle seat belt unattached. It shall also 
comply in the belted test requirements with the restraint anchorage 
system unattached to the vehicle seat anchorage system and the vehicle 
seat belt attached. The vehicle shall comply in the unbelted tests with 
the restraint anchorage system unattached to the vehicle seat anchorage 
system.
* * * * *
    S20.2.2.3 For bucket seats, ``Plane B'' refers to a vertical plane 
parallel to the vehicle longitudinal centerline through the 
longitudinal centerline of the front outboard passenger vehicle seat 
cushion. For bench seats, ``Plane B'' refers to a vertical plane 
through the front outboard passenger seat parallel to the vehicle 
longitudinal centerline the same distance from the longitudinal 
centerline of the vehicle as the center of the steering wheel.
* * * * *
    S20.3.2 Place a 49 CFR part 572 subpart O 5th percentile adult 
female test dummy at the front outboard passenger seating position of 
the vehicle, in accordance with procedures specified in S16.3.3 of this 
standard, except as specified in S20.3.1, subject to the fore-aft seat 
positions in S20.3.1. Do not fasten the seat belt.
* * * * *
    S22.1.3 Except as otherwise specified, if the child restraint has 
an anchorage system as specified in S5.9 of FMVSS No. 213 and is tested 
in a vehicle with a front outboard passenger vehicle seat that has an 
anchorage system as specified in FMVSS No. 225, the vehicle shall 
comply with the belted test conditions with the restraint anchorage 
system attached to the vehicle seat anchorage system and the vehicle 
seat belt unattached. It shall also comply with the belted test 
conditions with the restraint anchorage system unattached to the 
vehicle seat anchorage system and the vehicle seat belt attached.
* * * * *
    S22.2.1.1 Install the restraint in the front outboard passenger 
vehicle seat in accordance, to the extent possible, with the child 
restraint manufacturer's instructions provided with the seat for use by 
children with the same height and weight as the 3-year-old child dummy.
* * * * *
    S22.2.1.3 For bucket seats, ``Plane B'' refers to a vertical 
longitudinal plane through the longitudinal centerline of the seat 
cushion of the front outboard passenger vehicle seat. For bench seats, 
``Plane B'' refers to a vertical plane through the front outboard 
passenger vehicle seat parallel to the vehicle longitudinal centerline 
the same distance from the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle as 
the center of the steering wheel.
* * * * *
    S22.2.2 Unbelted tests with dummies. Place the 49 CFR part 572 
subpart P 3-year-old child dummy on the front outboard passenger 
vehicle seat in any of the following positions (without using a child 
restraint or booster seat or the vehicle's seat belts):
    S22.2.2.1 Sitting on seat with back against seat back.
    (a) Place the dummy on the front outboard passenger seat.
* * * * *
    S22.2.2.3 Sitting on seat with back not against seat back.
    (a) Place the dummy on the front outboard passenger seat.
* * * * *
    S22.2.2.5 Standing on seat, facing forward.
    (a) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats, position the 
midsagittal plane of the dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline and the same distance from the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline, within 10 mm (0.4 in), 
as the center of the steering wheel rim. In the case of vehicles 
equipped with bucket seats, position the midsagittal plane of the dummy 
vertically such that it coincides with the longitudinal centerline of 
the seat cushion, within 10 mm (0.4 in). 
Position the dummy in a standing position on the front outboard 
passenger seat cushion facing the front of the vehicle while placing 
the heels of the dummy's feet in contact with the seat back.
* * * * *
    S22.2.2.6 Kneeling on seat, facing forward.
* * * * *
    (b) Position the dummy in a kneeling position in the front outboard 
passenger vehicle seat with the dummy facing the front of the vehicle 
with its toes at the intersection of the seat back and seat cushion. 
Position the dummy so that the spine is vertical. Push down on the legs 
so that they contact the seat as much as possible and then release. 
Place the arms parallel to the spine.
* * * * *
    S22.2.2.7 Kneeling on seat, facing rearward.
* * * * *
    (b) Position the dummy in a kneeling position in the front outboard 
passenger vehicle seat with the dummy facing the rear of the vehicle. 
Position the dummy such that the dummy's head and torso are in contact 
with the seat back. Push down on the legs so that they contact the seat 
as much as possible and then release. Place the arms parallel to the 
spine.
* * * * *
    S22.2.2.8 Lying on seat. This test is performed only in vehicles 
with 3 designated front seating positions.
    (a) Lay the dummy on the front outboard passenger vehicle seat such 
that the following criteria are met:
    (1) The midsagittal plane of the dummy is horizontal,
    (2) The dummy's spine is perpendicular to the vehicle's 
longitudinal axis,
    (3) The dummy's arms are parallel to its spine,
    (4) A plane passing through the two shoulder joints of the dummy is 
vertical,

[[Page 51606]]

    (5) The anterior of the dummy is facing the vehicle front,
    (6) The head of the dummy is positioned towards the passenger door, 
and
    (7) The horizontal distance from the topmost point of the dummy's 
head to the vehicle door is 50 to 100 mm (2-4 in).
    (8) The dummy is as far back in the seat as possible.
* * * * *
    S22.3.2 Place a 49 CFR part 572 subpart O 5th percentile adult 
female test dummy at the front outboard passenger seating position of 
the vehicle, in accordance with procedures specified in S16.3.3 of this 
standard, except as specified in S22.3.1. Do not fasten the seat belt.
* * * * *
    S22.4.3.5 If head/torso contact with the instrument panel has not 
been made, maintain the angle of the thighs with respect to the 
horizontal while applying a force towards the front of the vehicle on 
the spine of the dummy between the shoulder joints, perpendicular to 
the thorax instrument cavity rear face, until the head or torso comes 
into contact with the vehicle's instrument panel or until a maximum 
force of 222 N (50 lb) is achieved. If the head/torso is still not in 
contact with the instrument panel, hold the femurs and release the 222 
N (50 lb) force. While maintaining the relative angle between the torso 
and the femurs, roll the dummy forward on the seat cushion, without 
sliding, until head/torso contact with the instrument panel is 
achieved. If seat contact is lost prior to or during femur rotation out 
of the horizontal plane, constrain the dummy to rotate about the dummy 
H-point. If the dummy cannot be rolled forward on the seat due to 
contact of the dummy feet with the floor pan, extend the lower legs 
forward, at the knees, until floor pan contact is avoided.
* * * * *
    S22.5.1 The test described in S22.5.2 shall be conducted with an 
unbelted 50th percentile adult male test dummy in the driver seating 
position according to S8 as it applies to that seating position and an 
unbelted 5th percentile adult female test dummy either in the front 
outboard passenger vehicle seating position according to S16 as it 
applies to that seating position or at any fore-aft seat position on 
the passenger side.
* * * * *
    S24.1.3 Except as otherwise specified, if the booster seat has an 
anchorage system as specified in S5.9 of FMVSS No. 213 and is used 
under this standard in testing a vehicle with a front outboard 
passenger vehicle seat that has an anchorage system as specified in 
FMVSS No. 225, the vehicle shall comply with the belted test conditions 
with the restraint anchorage system attached to the FMVSS No. 225 
vehicle seat anchorage system and the vehicle seat belt unattached. It 
shall also comply with the belted test conditions with the restraint 
anchorage system unattached to the FMVSS No. 225 vehicle seat anchorage 
system and the vehicle seat belt attached. The vehicle shall comply 
with the unbelted test conditions with the restraint anchorage system 
unattached to the FMVSS No. 225 vehicle seat anchorage system.
* * * * *
    S24.2.3 Sitting back in the seat and leaning on the front outboard 
passenger door.
    (a) Place the dummy in the seated position in the front outboard 
passenger vehicle seat. For bucket seats, position the midsagittal 
plane of the dummy vertically such that it coincides with the 
longitudinal centerline of the seat cushion, within 10 mm 
(0.4 in). For bench seats, position the midsagittal plane 
of the dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal 
centerline and the same distance from the longitudinal centerline of 
the vehicle, within 10 mm (0.4 in), as the 
center of the steering wheel.
* * * * *
    S24.3.2 Place a 49 CFR part 572 subpart O 5th percentile adult 
female test dummy at the front outboard passenger seating position of 
the vehicle, in accordance with procedures specified in S16.3.3 of this 
standard, except as specified in S24.3.1. Do not fasten the seat belt.
* * * * *
    S24.4.3.5 If head/torso contact with the instrument panel has not 
been made, maintain the angle of the thighs with respect to the 
horizontal while applying a force towards the front of the vehicle on 
the spine of the dummy between the shoulder joints, perpendicular to 
the thorax instrument cavity rear face, until the head or torso comes 
into contact with the vehicle's instrument panel or until a maximum 
force of 222 N (50 lb) is achieved. If the head/torso is still not in 
contact with the instrument panel, hold the femurs and release the 222 
N (50 lb) force. While maintaining the relative angle between the torso 
and the femurs, roll the dummy forward on the seat cushion, without 
sliding, until head/torso contact with the instrument panel is 
achieved. If seat contact is lost prior to or during femur rotation out 
of the horizontal plane, constrain the dummy to rotate about the dummy 
H-point. If the dummy cannot be rolled forward on the seat due to 
contact of the dummy feet with the floor pan, extend the lower legs 
forward, at the knees, until floor pan contact is avoided.
* * * * *
    S26.3.1 Place the seat and seat cushion in the position achieved in 
S16.2.10.3.1. If the seat or seat cushion is adjustable in the vertical 
direction by adjustments other than that which primarily moves the seat 
or seat cushion fore-aft, determine the maximum and minimum heights of 
the SCRP at this position, while maintaining the seat cushion reference 
line angle as closely as possible. Place the SCRP in the mid-height 
position. If the seat back is adjustable independent of the seat, place 
the seat back at the manufacturer's nominal design seat back angle for 
a 50th percentile adult male as specified in S8.1.3. Position any 
adjustable parts of the seat that provide additional support so that 
they are in the lowest or most open adjustment position. Position an 
adjustable head restraint in the lowest position.
* * * * *
    S26.3.3 Mark a point on the steering wheel cover that is 
longitudinally and transversely, as measured along the surface of the 
steering wheel cover, within 6 mm (0.2 in) of 
the point that is defined by the intersection of the steering wheel 
cover and a line between the volumetric center of the smallest volume 
that can encompass the folded undeployed air bag and the volumetric 
center of the static fully inflated air bag. Locate the vertical plane 
parallel to the vehicle longitudinal centerline through the point 
located on the steering wheel cover. This is referred to as ``Plane 
E.''
* * * * *

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

    A. The following car bed, manufactured on or after December 1, 
1999, may be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration to test the suppression system of a vehicle that is 
manufactured on or after the effective date specified in the table 
below and that has been certified as being in compliance with 49 CFR 
571.208 S19:

[[Page 51607]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Effective and termination dates
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  January 17, 2002                    September 1, 2004.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cosco Dream Ride 02-719...............  Effective..........................  Remains Effective.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. Any of the following rear facing child restraint systems, 
manufactured on or after December 1, 1999, may be used by the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to test the 
suppression system of a vehicle that is manufactured on or after the 
effective date and prior to the termination date specified in the 
table below and that has been certified as being in compliance with 
49 CFR 571.208 S19. When the restraint system comes equipped with a 
removable base, the test may be run either with the base attached or 
without the base.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Effective and termination dates
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  January 17, 2002                    September 1, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Handle with Care 191...........  Effective..........................  Remains Effective.
Century Assura 4553...................  Effective..........................  Remains Effective.
Century Avanta SE 41530...............  Effective..........................  Terminated.
Century Smart Fit 4543................  Effective..........................  Remains Effective.
Cosco Arriva 02727....................  Effective..........................  Remains Effective.
Cosco Opus 35 02603...................  Effective..........................  Terminated.
Evenflo Discovery Adjust Right 212....  Effective..........................  Remains Effective.
Evenflo First Choice 204..............  Effective..........................  Remains Effective.
Evenflo On My Way Position Right V 282  Effective..........................  Terminated.
Graco Infant 8457.....................  Effective..........................  Remains Effective.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C. Any of the following forward facing toddler and forward-
facing convertible child restraint systems, manufactured on or after 
December 1, 1999, may be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration to test the suppression system of a vehicle that is 
manufactured on or after the effective date and prior to the 
termination date specified in the table below and that has been 
certified as being in compliance with 49 CFR 571.208 S19, or S21. 
(Note: Any child restraint listed in this subpart that is not 
recommended for use in a rear-facing position by its manufacturer is 
excluded from use in S20.2.1.4):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Effective and termination dates
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  January 17, 2002                    September 1, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Roundabout 161.................  Effective..........................  Remains Effective.
Britax Expressway.....................  ...................................  Effective.
Century Encore 4612...................  Effective..........................  Remains Effective.
Century STE 1000 4416.................  Effective..........................  Remains Effective.
Cosco Olympian 02803..................  Effective..........................  Remains Effective.
Cosco Touriva 02519...................  Effective..........................  Remains Effective.
Evenflo Horizon V 425.................  Effective..........................  Remains Effective.
Evenflo Medallion 254.................  Effective..........................  Remains Effective.
Safety 1st Comfort Ride 22-400........  ...................................  Effective.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    D. Any of the following forward-facing toddler/belt positioning 
booster systems and belt positioning booster systems, manufactured 
on or after December 1, 1999, may be used by the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration as test devices to test the 
suppression system of a vehicle that is manufactured on or after the 
effective date and prior to the termination date specified in the 
table below and that has been certified as being in compliance with 
49 CFR 571.208 S21 or S23:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Effective and termination dates
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  January 17, 2002                    September 1, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Roadster 9004..................  Effective..........................  Remains Effective.
Century Next Step 4920................  Effective..........................  Remains Effective.
Cosco High Back Booster 02-442........  Effective..........................  Remains Effective.
Evenflo Right Fit 245.................  Effective..........................  Remains Effective.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[[Page 51608]]

    Issued: August 13, 2004.
Jacqueline Glassman,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 04-18967 Filed 8-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P