Federal Register, Volume 72 Issue 158 (Thursday, August 16, 2007)

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 158 (Thursday, August 16, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46021-46023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-16139]

[[Page 46021]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 2007-27818]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

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

ACTION: Denial of petition for expedited rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for expedited rulemaking
submitted by the Smart Vision group to amend Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant Crash Protection.'' The
petition requested that the agency add a test procedure for the Dynamic
Automatic Suppression System (DASS) option under the advanced air bag
options in accordance with Part 552, Subpart B.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: David Sutula,
Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at (202) 366-3273. Fax: (202) 493-
2739.
For legal issues: Edward Glancy, Office of Chief Counsel, at (202)
366-2992. Fax: (202) 366-3820.
You may send mail to these officials at the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. The Petition

On November 24, 2004, NHTSA received a petition for expedited
rulemaking to establish a Dynamic Automatic Suppression System (DASS)
test procedure, in accordance with 49 CFR Part 552, Subpart B. The
petitioners, a consortium of four companies called Smart Vision,
included: TRW, International Electronics Engineering (IEE), Siemens VDO
and Bosch. The petitioners requested that the agency expedite adoption
of their proposed test procedure for passenger side DASSs under S28.4
of FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection.'' The petition further
requested that the agency, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 552.13(g), establish
an effective date for the procedure nine months after the submission
date of the petition.

A. Initial Agency Response

On December 20, 2004,\1\ NHTSA responded in a letter to the
petitioners that they had failed to provide certain information
required for the agency to consider the petition submission to be
complete. On February 15, 2005, TRW and IEE submitted the requested
information, submitted a revised test procedure proposal for the agency
to consider, and requested that their petitions be considered
independently. TRW and IEE also informed the agency that Siemens VDO
and Bosch elected not to submit the required information to complete
their petitions, and were no longer participating in the Smart Vision
group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ See Docket for this letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed Test Procedure \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ A copy of the proposed procedure can be found in the Docket
for this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The test procedure proposed by the petitioners uses a topographical
representation of a Hybrid III 3-year-old test dummy \3\ attached to
what the petitioners describe as a thruster device. In this notice we
will refer to the representation of the Hybrid III dummy as the test
manikin. The thruster consists of a base plate that is placed in the
right front passenger seat of the test vehicle, leveled, and secured to
minimize movement. A motor is used to propel the test manikin linearly
along a guided path in the base plate. The test manikin is then moved
toward the automatic suppression zone (ASZ) along a horizontal,
longitudinal path at a constant acceleration of 0.5 g until the DASS
generates a signal indicating that the suppression zone has been
breached. Three test sequences are initiated to determine a median
suppression distance. Upon determination of the median suppression
distance, the test manikin is moved horizontally rearward of the
instrument panel (IP) by the median suppression distance and the
passenger air bag deployed. Compliance is determined by measuring
injury criteria in accordance with FMVSS No. 208 S21.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ See 49 CFR part 572 Subpart P. At the option of the
manufacturer, the DASS may be certified for 6-year-old compliance
only by using the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy in 49 CFR part
572 Subpart N in place of the Hybrid III 3-year-old test dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

FMVSS No. 208 specifies performance requirements for the protection
of vehicle occupants in crashes (49 CFR 571.208). On May 12, 2000,\4\
we published an interim final rule that amended FMVSS No. 208 to
require advanced air bags (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 static suppression tests using a range of dummy sizes
and a number of specified child restraint systems (CRSs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ See 65 FR 30680, May 12, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Advanced Air Bag Rule allows for passenger side compliance
through any of three different options: Low Risk Deployment (LRD),
which defines a reduced deployment strength for occupants in close
proximity to the air bag; suppression when a child is present, or DASS,
which senses the location of an occupant with respect to the air bag,
interprets the occupant characteristics and movement, and determines
whether or not to allow the air bag to deploy. Performance tests for
determining compliance with the LRD and suppression (presence) options
were specified in the Advanced Air Bag Rule. A performance test for
determining compliance with the DASS option was not specified in the
rule because at that time it was not known what technologies would be
used to attempt to meet the DASS option.
Accordingly, we established very general performance requirements
for DASS and a special petition and expedited rulemaking process (49
CFR Part 552 Subpart B) for consideration of procedures for testing
advanced air bag systems incorporating DASS. Among the components, this
expedited rulemaking process: (1) Provides a definition for DASSs, (2)
Requires the petitioner to submit specific information about the
operation of the DASS and a proposed test method and supporting data
and analyses to complete a rulemaking, (3) Allows the agency to request
additional information if the petition fails to provide any of the
information, and (4) Allows the agency to request additional supporting
information and a DASS demonstration at any time during consideration
of the petition.
After evaluating the petition, the agency would publish either a
notice proposing to adopt the test procedure (or adopt the test
procedure with changes or additions), or publish a notice denying the
petition. After considering those comments on a proposed procedure, we
would then decide whether the procedure should become a final rule and
be added to Standard No. 208. We noted in the Advanced Air Bag Rule
that we intended to minimize the number of different test procedures
that are adopted for DASS and to ensure

[[Page 46022]]

ultimately that similar DASS are tested in the same way.

III. Agency Request for Additional Information

In June 2005, the agency responded in a letter to the petitioners
informing them that their petitions had been determined to be complete,
would be considered simultaneously to the extent possible, and
requested additional information and supporting data. The agency
believed that the requested information was necessary to fully evaluate
the petitions and to be able to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) for a DASS test procedure. The agency request for information
addressed three main areas of concern: Dummy acceleration and
kinematics, occupant recognition, and system latency.

A. Information Request Topics

Dummy Acceleration and Kinematics: The agency noted that the
petition's choice of a constant horizontal acceleration in the vehicle
longitudinal direction and the magnitude of the selected acceleration
were based on the exploration of pre-impact braking as the only pre-
crash vehicle maneuver. The agency asked about the likelihood that
occupants may have more complex motion than that simulated by the
proposed test procedure and how pre-crash maneuvering or long-duration,
low-acceleration pre-crash events might influence the occupant's motion
relative to the vehicle interior. The agency further believes that some
crash events have a sufficiently long duration, allowing for
significant occupant movement prior to the main deceleration event
resulting in an air bag deployment decision. This was supported by
event data recorder output collected from NHTSA's Special Crash
Investigation \5\ program on vehicles with Advanced Occupant Protection
Systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ Cases can be viewed on the agency's Web site at www-nass.nhtsa.dot.gov/BIN/logon.exe/airmislogon. Within the case type
menu, select Advanced Occupant Protection Systems--AOPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Occupant Recognition: Section S14(b)(1) of 49 CFR Part 552 requires
the petitioner to provide a description of the logic used by DASS to
discriminate between an occupant's torso or head entering the ASZ as
compared to an occupant's hand or arm, and whether and how the DASS
discriminates between an occupant entering the ASZ and an inanimate
object such as a newspaper or ball. The petitioner submitted a
description of the DASS logic. However the proposed performance test
used a single topographical representation of the Hybrid III 3-year-old
test dummy. The agency believes that this manikin could appear to the
DASS to be an occupant, but many other real world occupants could have
significantly different optical characteristics. The agency requested
additional information regarding any testing that had been performed
verifying the system logic, and inquired if the proposed procedure
should include a metric that verifies the system's occupant
discrimination logic.
System Latency: Because there is a short delay, due to information
processing and communication speed, there would be a difference between
where the DASS ``thinks'' the occupant is located at any time and where
the occupant is truly located. The agency requested additional
information regarding DASS strategies for counteracting system latency
errors and inquired if the proposed test procedure should include a
metric with differing acceleration profiles to assess the impact of
system latency on DASS performance.

B. Petitioner Response

On November 30, 2005, the petitioners responded to the agency
request for additional information. The petitioners provided additional
information where possible, proposed that the agency issue a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to help identify recommended solutions to
areas where the petitioners could not provide answers to the agency's
request for information, and requested an implementation date for the
proposed test procedure of September 1, 2006.
Dummy Acceleration and Kinematics: The petitioners agreed that more
complex occupant motion is possible during pre-crash maneuvering.
However, the petitioners commented that the proposed test procedure was
designed to capture the most common pre-crash movement in a repeatable
manner and that it would not be possible to design a certification test
procedure for ``any'' imaginable movement. The petitioners further
commented that a test procedure with a pivoting movement would require
development of a completely new tester and would not offer any further
quality to the certification procedure. The petitioners commented that
they had data demonstrating the viability of the proposed 0.5g
acceleration profile in the proposed test procedure, but that they did
not have supporting data for increasing the acceleration for the
certification test or for increasing the duration of the test.
Occupant Recognition: The petitioners commented that a separate
test of the logic should not be part of the certification test
procedure. Rather, the complete DASS should be tested and the logic
verified through a pass or fail result of a test of the system. The
petitioners acknowledged that occupant recognition logic had been
individually tested through ``due-care'' testing, and offered to review
that data with the agency separately and confidentially.
System Latency: The petitioners commented that they were not aware
of any well-founded data or measurements that would allow defining a
worst case acceleration. Rather, it was suggested that certification
testing would cover a significant portion of real-life situations. The
petitioners further commented that a DASS, when incorporated into a
vehicle, would provide for any expected system latency by extending the
ASZ further into the occupant compartment. It was noted that a DASS
could be tailored to provide several suppression zones depending on the
air bag module and the occupant characteristics.

IV. Ex Parte Meeting With Smart Vision

On September 25, 2006, the agency met with the petitioners to
discuss their November 30, 2005 response. The agency informed the
petitioners that in its review of the petitioner response, there
remained several areas of concern. Specifically, the agency expressed
concern that the petitioners did not provide any data to indicate that
a DASS would operate outside of the test dummy scenario, and it is
unclear what occupant accelerations and kinematics should be considered
in the test procedure. It was further explained that it was unclear
what the deployment risk would be with an occupant in the ASZ due to
system latency, that the proposed test procedure was not fully
completed and would need to be refined through the NPRM process, and
that the requested implementation date of September 2006 was not
realistic considering the questions that remained.
The agency also proposed a collaborative research program with the
petitioners to develop data to support the proposed test procedure and
allay the agency concerns. A key element of the proposed research was
availability of a DASS-equipped vehicle on which to perform the
required research. In separate correspondence subsequent to the
September 25, 2006 meeting, the petitioners declined to participate in
a cooperative research program citing a lack of availability of a DASS-
equipped test vehicle and a shift in market

[[Page 46023]]

demand away from advanced occupant detection systems, such as a DASS.

V. Conclusion

The DASS option is intended to provide manufacturers the
flexibility of deploying an air bag when such a deployment would not be
harmful and may be potentially beneficial, as opposed to suppressing
the air bag or relying on a low risk deployment. However, central to
this idea is the availability of a test procedure that accurately
describes the ``real world'' conditions to delineate DASS performance,
regardless of the basic technology used within the suppression system.
While there may be great potential benefits through use of occupant
protection systems such as a DASS, there must also be robust and
repeatable test protocols to assess such systems. The agency believes
that the Smart Vision proposed test procedure was simply not sufficient
for the agency to expedite a rulemaking that would establish the
benchmark for assessment of future DASSs.
The agency continues to have interest in obtaining test data that
would support development of a test procedure to assess DASSs. We
welcome developers of DASS safety systems to approach the agency with
proposals for collaborative research for such test procedure
development. Specifically, the agency is interested in research that
would address the areas of concern expressed above.
In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this completes the agency's
review of the petition.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30162;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Dated: August 10, 2007.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E7-16139 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P