[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 30, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18560-18600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05426]



[[Page 18559]]

Vol. 87

Wednesday,

No. 61

March 30, 2022

Part IV





Department of Transportation





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





National Highway Traffic Safety Administration





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





49 CFR Part 571





Occupant Protection for Vehicles With Automated Driving Systems; Final 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 18560]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0003]
RIN 2127-AM06


Occupant Protection for Vehicles With Automated Driving Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the occupant protection Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) to account for future vehicles that 
do not have the traditional manual controls associated with a human 
driver because they are equipped with Automated Driving Systems (ADS). 
This final rule makes clear that, despite their innovative designs, 
vehicles with ADS technology must continue to provide the same high 
levels of occupant protection that current passenger vehicles provide. 
The occupant protection standards are currently written for 
traditionally designed vehicles and use terms such as ``driver's seat'' 
and ``steering wheel,'' that are not meaningful to vehicle designs 
that, for example, lack a steering wheel or other driver controls. This 
final rule updates the standards in a manner that clarifies existing 
terminology while avoiding unnecessary terminology, and, in doing so, 
resolves ambiguities in applying the standards to ADS-equipped vehicles 
without traditional manual controls. In addition, this final rule 
amends the standards in a manner that maintains the existing regulatory 
text whenever possible, to make clear that this rule maintains the 
level of crash protection currently provided occupants in more 
traditionally designed vehicles. This final rule is limited to the 
crashworthiness standards to provide a unified set of regulatory text 
applicable to vehicles with and without ADS functionality.

DATES: Effective date: September 26, 2022. Optional early compliance 
(i.e., prior to the effective date) is permitted. Petitions for 
reconsideration must be received on or before May 16, 2022. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule 
was approved by the Director as of February 6, 2012.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, 
you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document 
and submit your petition to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, 
Washington, DC 20590.
    Privacy Act. The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is 
able to search the electronic form of all documents received into any 
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the document 
(or signing the document, 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.
    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any 
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three 
copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim 
to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 
at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In 
addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the 
claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the 
address given above. To facilitate social distancing due to COVID-19, 
NHTSA is treating electronic submission as an acceptable method for 
submitting confidential business information (CBI) to the Agency under 
49 CFR part 512. https://www.nhtsa.gov/coronavirus.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact 
Mr. Louis Molino, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, Telephone: 202-
366-1740, Facsimile: 202-493-2739. For legal issues, you may contact 
Ms. Sara R. Bennett, Telephone: 202-366-7304 or Mr. Daniel Koblenz, 
Telephone: 202-366-5329, Office of Chief Counsel. Address: National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. NPRM
III. Introduction to This Final Rule
IV. Implications
    a. New and Current Terms and Definitions
    1. NPRM's Approach to Driver Definition
    2. Newly Defined, New, Modified, and Relocated Terms
    3. Driver's Designated Seating Position, Manually Operated 
Driving Controls
    4. Passenger Seating Position
    5. Steering Wheel to Steering Control
    6. Outboard Designated Seating Position
    7. Row and Seat Outline
    8. Driver Air Bag and Driver Dummy
    b. Modifying Spatial References in Test Procedures and 
Definitions That Rely on the Presence of a Driver's Seat and/or 
Manual-Operated Driving Controls
    1. Driver's Seat
    2. Dummy Placement in Bench Seats
    3. Driver's Side and Passenger Side
    4. Steering Controls as a Spatial Reference
    c. Dual-Mode Certification
    d. Parking Brake and Transmission Position
V. Occupant-Less Vehicles
    a. General Observations
    b. FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials
    c. Vehicle Crash Compatibility
    d. FMVSS Nos. 212, Windshield Mounting and 219, Windshield Zone 
Intrusion
VI. FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection
    a. Advanced Air Bags
    b. Telltales
    c. Front Outboard Versus Center or Inboard Seating Position
    d. Suppression of Vehicle Motion When a Child Is Detected in the 
Driver's Seat
    e. Belts in Buses
    f. Corrections to FMVSS No. 208 Regulatory Text
VII. Amendments to Various FMVSSs
VIII. Effective Date
IX. Cost and Benefit Impacts of This Final Rule
X. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

I. Executive Summary

    NHTSA has been evaluating its Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards (FMVSSs) to identify where concepts or terminology used in 
the standards do not account for the designs that the agency expects, 
and industry confirms, could accompany certain vehicles equipped with 
Automated Driving Systems (ADSs).\1\ NHTSA has detailed in previous 
rulemaking notices the activities it has undertaken in its evaluation. 
These activities include initial evaluation of the FMVSSs,\2\ issuing 
Federal Register notices soliciting input from stakeholders,\3\ 
research on possible options available to

[[Page 18561]]

the agency to amend the FMVSSs,\4\ and public discussions with 
stakeholders.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An ADS is defined as the ``hardware and software that are 
collectively capable of performing the entire [dynamic driving task] 
on a sustained basis, regardless of whether it is limited to a 
specific operational design domain (ODD); this term is used 
specifically to describe a Level 3, 4, or 5 driving automation 
system.'' SAE International J3016_201806 Taxonomy and Definitions 
for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor 
Vehicles. While this notice uses the term ``ADS-equipped vehicle'' 
it focuses on SAE Level 4 and Level 5 vehicles that lack traditional 
manual controls.
    \2\ https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/12260.
    \3\ Removing Regulatory Barriers for Vehicles with Automated 
Driving Systems Request for Comment, 83 FR 6148 (Feb. 13, 2018); 
Removing Regulatory Barriers for Vehicles with Automated Driving 
Systems Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 84 FR 24433 (May 28, 
2019).
    \4\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/ads-dv_fmvss_vol1-042320-v8-tag.pdf.
    \5\ FMVSS Considerations for Automated Driving Systems 
Stakeholder Meeting, information available at https://www.vtti.vt.edu/fmvss/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This prior work resulted in the agency's March 30, 2020, notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) underlying this final rule.\6\ The NPRM 
proposed to revise its current crashworthiness \7\ (200-Series) FMVSSs 
to amend terms or other text to account for the unconventional interior 
designs that are expected to be present in certain ADS-equipped 
vehicles. An example of such an unconventional interior design would be 
those that lack driving controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 85 FR 17624.
    \7\ Throughout this notice, NHTSA uses ``crashworthiness'' and 
``occupant protection'' interchangeably because the agency considers 
the 200-Series FMVSSs to be focused on both.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the proposal, NHTSA proposed to amend the existing FMVSSs in a 
way that maintains the occupant protection performance currently 
required by the 200-Series FMVSSs while amending the wording that has 
or will become obsolete as applied to new designs, and to clarify for 
manufacturers developing ADS-equipped vehicles the application of a 
particular FMVSS to their vehicle. The NPRM also ensured these 
revisions accounted for dual-mode ADS-equipped vehicles (ADS-equipped 
vehicles that also have a conventional driving mode), as defined by SAE 
International (SAE).\8\ NHTSA also sought to remove requirements for 
which a safety need does not exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ An [ADS-Equipped] Dual-Mode Vehicle is defined as ``[a] type 
of ADS-equipped vehicle designed for both driverless operation and 
operation by a conventional driver for complete trips.'' SAE 
J3016_201806 Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving 
Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA received 45 comments on the NPRM.\9\ The proposal garnered 
comments from vehicle and equipment manufacturers, ADS developers, 
industry associations, consumer advocates, advocates for persons with 
disabilities, States, insurance organizations, a university, an oil 
independence advocacy group, and members of the general public. Many 
commenters supported the proposal and the use of definitional and 
textual changes to achieve the goals of the NPRM, though numerous other 
commenters argued that the agency's focus on this issue was premature. 
Regardless of their general position on the rule, most commenters did 
support NHTSA's suggestion that, to the extent any changes were 
finalized, they should be done in way that minimized the complexity of 
the changes to the FMVSSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0014. NHTSA received an additional 5 
comments that were determined to be completely unrelated to this 
notice (#4, #5, #6, #18, #52), and 1 duplicate submission (#42).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency acknowledges that uncertainty continues to exist around 
the development and potential deployment of ADS-equipped vehicles. 
Nevertheless, NHTSA believes it is appropriate to finalize this action 
at this time in anticipation of emerging ADS vehicle designs that NHTSA 
has seen in prototype form. The current designs generally involve 
forward-facing row seating \10\ and vehicles without manual driving 
controls. NHTSA has designed this final rule to minimize the changes to 
the FMVSSs and to maintain the level of occupant protection currently 
provided in all FMVSS compliant vehicles. This final rule provides 
regulatory certainty that, despite their innovative designs, vehicles 
with ADS technology must continue to provide the same high levels of 
occupant protection that current passenger vehicles provide. This final 
rule adopts most of the provisions included in the NPRM, with some 
exceptions summarized in the next section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Applying the occupant protection standards to forward-
facing seating is straightforward since the standards are generally 
designed with forward-facing seating in mind. In contrast, applying 
the standards to side-facing, campfire or other seating 
configurations is more complex and will involve more research, which 
is currently underway, and standard development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Differences Between the NPRM and Final Rule

    The differences between the NPRM and the final rule are generally 
minor and are fully explained in the relevant sections in this 
document. Some of the more substantive changes in this final rule are 
as follows.
     NHTSA believes that children should not occupy the 
``driver's'' position when the vehicle is operating in ADS mode and 
steering controls are present, given that the driver's seating position 
has not been designed to protect children in a crash. For example, the 
required limit on the rearward displacement of the steering column and 
forcefulness with which the air bag deploys have been optimized for 
adults and could pose a safety risk to children. The NPRM proposed that 
ADS vehicles must suppress vehicle motion when: (1) The vehicle 
contains a driver's seat (i.e., manually operated driving controls are 
available, but not necessarily functional during ADS operation); (2) 
the occupant of the driver's seat is classified by the air bag system 
as a child; and (3) the vehicle is in an operational state that does 
not require a driver (i.e., where the ADS is in control of the driving 
task). After review of the comments, for now, NHTSA has decided against 
adopting a vehicle motion suppression requirement in these 
circumstances. The agency would like to know more about the relative 
risk of a child seated in the ``driver's'' position as compared to the 
passenger position and whether there are other ways of addressing this 
safety concern than a requirement to suppress vehicle motion 
completely. The agency would also like to explore any necessary 
refinements to occupant detection and low risk deployment requirements 
and test procedures for the driver's seat.
     Proposed regulatory text would have changed the front row 
seat compartmentalization occupant protection requirements for large 
school buses (gross vehicle weight rating over 4,536 kg (10,000 lb.)) 
in ways not intended by NHTSA. Such text is not adopted by this final 
rule.
     NHTSA has modified FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash 
protection, to be clearer in the protections that are required for 
inboard seating positions in the front row of ADS-equipped vehicles.
     This final rule modifies the application section of FMVSS 
Nos. 212, Windshield mounting, and 219, Windshield zone intrusion, to 
make clear these standards exclude occupant-less vehicles, since these 
standards meet no safety need when there are no occupants to protect.
     NHTSA has decided not to move forward at this time with 
changing the FMVSS No. 226, Ejection mitigation, requirements for the 
ejection mitigation countermeasure readiness indicator. The agency will 
consider amendments to controls and displays in a separate rulemaking.
    Minor differences between the NPRM and this final rule are 
discussed in the appropriate sections in this preamble. Some of these 
differences include:
     Moving the definition of ``seat outline'' from FMVSS No. 
226 to Sec.  571.3, Definitions (see Section IV.a.7 of this preamble);
     Slightly revising the term used to describe occupant-less 
vehicles, to refer to at least ``one person'' rather than referring to 
``a designated seating position,'' (see Section V.a of this preamble); 
and
     In FMVSS No. 208, correcting a missed revision indicating 
there can be multiple front seat passengers (S19.2.2(e)) (see Section 
VI.f of this preamble), and adopting a wording change to clarify the 
air bag suppression

[[Page 18562]]

test procedure (S20.2, S22.2, S24.2) (see Section VI.a of this 
preamble).
    As was the case for the NPRM, to illustrate the precise changes 
that are being made within the context of the full regulatory text, we 
are providing in the docket for this rulemaking a document that 
contains the full regulatory text of each modified standard included in 
this final rule. The text is color coded in the following manner; blue 
bold underline (text added by the NPRM), red strikeout (text deleted by 
the NPRM), green bold underline (text added by the final rule), orange 
strikeout (text deleted by the final rule). (The information is 
provided for illustration purposes for the convenience of readers and 
does not change the amendments provided in the amendatory text of this 
final rule.)

Guiding Principles

    In the NPRM, NHTSA expressed certain ``guiding principles'' for 
this rulemaking, which continue to be relevant in this final rule. 
First, the amended FMVSS requirements in this final rule are intended 
to maintain the level of crashworthiness performance in vehicles with 
and without ADS functionality, including ADS-equipped vehicles that 
also have a conventional driving mode (dual-mode ADS vehicles). The 
level of performance required by the amended FMVSSs is just as 
appropriate for ADS-vehicles as it is for non-ADS vehicles in 
protecting the public against unreasonable risk of death or injury in a 
crash.\11\ More specifically, NHTSA sought to maintain the level of 
safety currently provided to occupants by applying the crash test 
performance requirements for the right front outboard occupant to the 
left front outboard occupant of ADS-vehicles, wherever possible. 
Similarly, occupants seated behind driving controls in ADS-vehicles 
(dual-mode ADS vehicles) will be protected just as drivers are today. 
Second, NHTSA sought to amend its standards to account for new designs, 
and to clarify for manufacturers developing ADS-equipped vehicles, 
particularly those that lack manual controls, that the standards apply 
to their vehicles. In short, NHTSA sought to clarify that a 
manufacturer of ADS-equipped vehicles must continue to apply occupant 
protection standards to its vehicles even if manual steering controls 
are not installed in the vehicle. Finally, for the convenience of 
readers and those familiar with the standards, NHTSA sought to amend 
the requirements in a manner that minimized the changes to the 
regulatory text of the standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(10) (from definition of ``motor vehicle 
safety'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule is purposefully limited in scope based on the 
bounds listed below.
    1. This final rule only applies to ADS-equipped vehicles that have 
seating configurations similar to non-ADS vehicles, i.e., forward-
facing front seating positions (conventional seating). Thus, NHTSA 
focused on conventional seating in this rulemaking, noting that 
additional research is necessary to understand and address different 
safety risks posed by vehicles with unconventional seating arrangements 
(e.g., rear-facing seats or campfire seating).
    2. This final rule addresses ADS-equipped vehicles designed 
exclusively to carry property (``occupant-less vehicles'') by amending 
the application of existing crashworthiness requirements for these 
vehicles, as appropriate. This final rule does not address potential 
vehicle-to-vehicle compatibility issues related to occupant-less 
vehicles, as the existing standards do not test for this issue.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Vehicle-to-vehicle compatibility refers to how well two 
vehicles match up in a two-vehicle crash. Vehicles that are heavier, 
with higher ground clearance, and with stiffer front ends can pose a 
higher injury risk to occupants in smaller cars. Currently NHTSA has 
no evidence of compatibility issues with occupant-less vehicles, but 
NHTSA is researching this area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. With one exception, this final rule refrains from amending 
requirements relating to telltales and warnings, as that area has 
implications beyond the 200-Series standards and is a subject of 
continuing NHTSA research. The exception to this is the air bag 
suppression telltale, which we believe is reasonable to address now. 
This is described further in section VI.b of this preamble.

Tables of Costs and Benefits

    This rule will eliminate the need for ADS-equipped -vehicle 
manufacturers to equip vehicles with redundant manual driving controls 
in vehicles that do not have manual driving capabilities, to comply 
with FMVSS. In turn, the cost impacts of this rule will be driven 
predominantly by the per-vehicle costs savings to each vehicle that 
would no longer need certain manual controls and the number of vehicles 
produced each year that will be produced without those controls. The 
Agency has reliable information on the former category, given that we 
generally know the current costs of this equipment, but can only 
estimate the broader effects. Thus, NHTSA calculated ranges of 
estimates of cost impacts using a variety of logical assumptions. NHTSA 
calculated the impact of the final rule on costs by analyzing 
production cost savings arising from forgoing the installation of 
manual steering controls. These cost savings are partially offset by 
incremental costs associated with augmenting safety equipment in the 
left front seating position to make that position equivalent to the 
right front seating position.
    NHTSA estimates that this rule would save approximately $995 per 
vehicle, as explained in greater detail in the RIA. NHTSA has conducted 
an analysis that shows how these cost savings would look if these types 
of vehicles entered the fleet to at least some degree. The results of 
this estimate show the present value of the final rule's estimated 
year-2050 savings to ADS-DV manufacturers and consumers, based on the 
assumption that there will be approximately 5.8 million affected 
vehicles, at a three-percent discount rate equal to $2.5 billion. At a 
seven-percent discount rate, the estimated year-2050 savings has a 
present value equal to approximately $0.9 billion, as presented in 
Table 1:

         Table 1--Estimated Total Monetized Annual Cost Impacts
[ADS-DV cost impacts in 2050, billions of 2018 dollars, 31% ADS-DV sales
                                 share]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Mean
     Dual-mode sales share offset            Discount rate         cost
                                                                  impact
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0%...................................  3% (Discounted back to      -$2.5
                                        2022).
0%...................................  7% (Discounted back to       -0.9
                                        2022).
30%..................................  3% (Discounted back to       -1.7
                                        2022).
30%..................................  7% (Discounted back to       -0.6
                                        2022).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These estimates represent an upper bound, in which ADS-DVs do not 
compete with dual-mode ADS-equipped vehicles (i.e., 5.8 million ADS-DVs 
are sold in 2050, with each including a measure of production cost 
savings associated with forgoing manual steering controls). Under the 
alternative EIA scenario in which one percent of new vehicle sales in 
2050 are comprised of ADS-DVs, the corresponding estimates are: A 
present value in 2022 of approximately $60 million at a three-percent 
discount rate; and approximately $20 million at a seven-percent 
discount rate.
    As a sensitivity analysis, NHTSA also considered an alternative 
case, in which ADS-DV sales in 2050 are reduced by 30 percent relative 
to the baseline, with the change in sales representing sales of

[[Page 18563]]

dual-mode ADS-equipped vehicles. This represents a case in which: (1) 
ADS-DV sales are split between approximately one-sixth fleet sales and 
five-sixths private ownership, per the EIA scenario; (2) one-seventh of 
fleet ADS-DV purchases in the baseline analysis are allocated to dual-
mode vehicle sales (i.e., approximately 1/7 x 1/6 of all ADS-DV sales); 
and (3) one-third of private ADS-DV purchases in the baseline analysis 
are allocated to dual-mode vehicle sales (i.e., approximately 1/3 x 5/6 
of all ADS-DV sales). Under this alternative scenario, savings to ADS-
DV manufacturers and consumers under the final rule would be 
approximately $1.7 billion at a three-percent discount rate, and 
approximately $0.6 billion at a seven-percent discount rate.
    There are no other quantified benefits associated with this final 
rule. NHTSA acknowledges that this final rule may impact safety and 
fuel consumption and would likely generate benefits associated with 
incremental producer and consumer surplus beyond the production cost 
savings quantified above. This final rule may also generate benefits 
that could lead to increased safety, reductions in administrative 
burden, and reductions in manufacturer uncertainty, though these 
benefits are also unquantified.
    The final rule is assumed to have no effect on the per-mile risk of 
travel in ADS-DVs, as it does not revise, remove, or establish anything 
associated with their safety performance. That is, the removal of 
manual steering controls is not assumed to offer any direct safety 
benefit or detriment for travel in ADS-DVs. However, it is feasible 
that changes in ADS-DV demand associated with the final rule (e.g., due 
to changes in vehicle design or decreases in cost) could increase the 
use of ADS-DVs. In turn, safety outcomes associated with the final rule 
would be equal to the net effects of: (1) Changes in per-mile fatality 
and injury risk for travel that is shifted from conventional vehicles 
to ADS-DVs; and (2) incremental fatalities and injuries for travel in 
ADS-DVs that would not have taken place in any vehicle otherwise. It is 
difficult to project net safety impacts associated with the final rule 
without information on: (1) Per-mile fatality and injury risk for ADS-
DVs and conventional vehicles over time; and (2) demand for travel in 
ADS-DVs and conventional vehicles as a function of ADS-DV price and 
design attributes. NHTSA continues to engage in various research, 
regulatory, and enforcement efforts associated with the safety of the 
automated driving system itself, but those activities are outside the 
scope of this rulemaking.
    The final rule could affect per-vehicle fuel consumption by 
changing the mass of ADS-DVs. NHTSA expects ADS-DV mass to either 
decrease (due to the removal of currently required equipment) slightly 
or remain essentially unchanged (due to the addition of automated 
steering components that offset the mass savings of the removed 
equipment) under the final rule. NHTSA acknowledges that, in principle, 
ADS-DV mass could increase (if vehicle seating configurations and 
amenities are changed sufficiently when exploiting the reduction in 
design constraints when removing manual steering controls) under the 
final rule. In any event, current corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) 
requirements are based on a vehicle's ``footprint,'' and thus any 
change in a vehicles mass will not affect a manufacturer's obligations 
under that program. Finally, as stated in the NPRM, NHTSA has not 
attempted to address the revisions that may be necessary to provide 
regulatory certainty for manufacturers that wish to self-certify ADS-
equipped vehicles with unconventional seating arrangements.
    The final rule would lead to a reduction in the number of standards 
from which manufacturers of ADS-DVs would have to seek exemptions. The 
reduction in exemption requests would be associated with a reduction in 
administrative costs for both manufacturers and NHTSA. NHTSA does not 
have sufficient information to establish a specific estimate of 
administrative cost savings. However, the cost savings would be 
expected to be small relative to the production cost savings associated 
with the rule.
    A less tangible, but still important, expected impact of the final 
rule would be a reduction in uncertainty for manufacturers of ADS-
equipped vehicles. The final rule provides clarity to manufacturers on 
constraints to developing FMVSS-compliant ADS-equipped vehicles. In 
turn, developmental paths for ADS-equipped vehicles could be 
implemented with greater precision and efficiency. The reduction in 
uncertainty could reduce not only the costs associated with 
manufacturing ADS-equipped vehicles, but also the time it would take to 
bring these vehicles to the market. An accelerated development timeline 
would be a benefit both to manufacturers and consumers.

II. NPRM

    On March 30, 2020, NHTSA issued an NPRM that proposed modifications 
to certain terms and other regulatory text in the 200-Series FMVSSs to 
account for ADS-equipped vehicles and certain interior designs that are 
expected to be present in these vehicles, including the lack of driving 
controls.\13\ The NPRM also included modifications to the regulatory 
text to take into account some dual-mode ADS-equipped vehicles.\14\ The 
NPRM sought to resolve whether occupant protection requirements ought 
to apply to occupant-less vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 85 FR 17624. As discussed below, however, the NPRM assumed 
the vehicles will have conventional forward-facing seating.
    \14\ An [ADS-Equipped] Dual-Mode Vehicle is defined as ``[a] 
type of ADS-equipped vehicle designed for both driverless operation 
and operation by a conventional driver for complete trips.'' SAE 
J3016_201806 Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving 
Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA's proposal sought to account for certain vehicle designs 
expected to accompany ADS-equipped vehicles in a manner that minimized 
textual additions and modifications to the 200-Series FMVSSs. The 
proposal discussed existing terms used in the standards that, through 
their use, made uncertain how regulatory text applies to vehicle 
designs that did not incorporate such terms. The proposal discussed 
existing terms that, by virtue of new vehicle designs, could be 
misunderstood, and defined them to clarify their meaning for ADS-
equipped vehicles. The NPRM proposed a few new terms and definitions 
and proposed relocating other terms and definitions. The NPRM proposed 
to modify regulatory text to address situations where there may be no 
driver seat, but multiple outboard passenger seats. The agency proposed 
to consider any left outboard seat that does not have immediate access 
to traditional manual controls (``manually operated driving controls'') 
as a ``passenger seat'' and mirror the test procedures and requirements 
from the right side.
    FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, is a primary focus of 
this rulemaking, as it is one of NHTSA's most complex standards, and 
many of this standard's performance requirements and test procedures 
were written with references to the ``driver's'' seating position. This 
emphasis on the driver's position in the standard reflected the fact 
that, with conventional (i.e., non-ADS) vehicles, the driver's seat 
should always be occupied by an individual of legal driving age during 
operation. For our discussions in this document we will typically refer 
to these individuals as adults, although they may in some cases be 
legally minors. The NPRM discussed the treatment of advanced air bags 
and

[[Page 18564]]

advanced air bag suppression telltales \15\ in ADS-equipped vehicles 
with two front outboard passenger seats. The NPRM proposed to require a 
separate telltale for each front outboard passenger seat, which must be 
visible from each front outboard seat. The NPRM addressed FMVSS No. 
208's seat belt requirements for ``medium-sized'' buses (with a gross 
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) between 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 
pounds (lb.)) and 11,793 kg (26,000 lb.)) and school buses (GVWR 
greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb.)). For such buses equipped with ADS 
without a driver's seat, NHTSA proposed that all front seats meet the 
protection requirements that must currently be met by the driver's 
seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The term ``telltale'' is defined in FMVSS No. 101; Controls 
and displays, as ``an optical signal that, when illuminated, shows 
the actuation of a device, a correct or improper functioning or 
condition, or a vehicle system's failure to function.'' The term is 
used in many other FMVSSs and is used in FMVSS No. 208 for an 
indicator of air bag operational status as a function of the 
occupant detection system of the seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM proposed to streamline the 200-Series FMVSSs so that 
requirements would not apply when the ADS-configured vehicle posed no 
safety need for the requirement. For example, the proposal took the 
position that, when there is not a steering wheel or steering column in 
a motor vehicle, FMVSS Nos. 203, Impact protection for the driver from 
the steering control system, and 204, Steering control rearward 
displacement, would not apply. Similarly, the NPRM proposed not to 
apply occupant protection standards to vehicles designed solely to 
carry cargo, rather than occupants (``occupant-less'' vehicles).\16\ 
This was accomplished by proposing to alter the ``application'' section 
of various FMVSSs to indicate that the standards only applied to a 
``truck'' with at least one designated seating position (DSP).\17\ The 
NPRM analysis concluded that this change was only required for FMVSS 
Nos. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact, 205, Glazing 
material, 206, Door locks and door retention components, 207, Seating 
systems, 208, Occupant crash protection, 214, Side Impact protection, 
216a, Roof crush resistance; Upgraded standard, and 226, Ejection 
mitigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ We note that a vehicle designed to carry standee passengers 
(e.g., a transit shuttle) would fall under one of NHTSA's other 
vehicle classifications.
    \17\ ``Designated seating position'' is defined in 49 CFR 571.3. 
Generally described, a DSP is a seat location that has a seating 
surface width of at least 330 millimeters (13 inches) as measured in 
the manner described in the definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

High-Level Summary of Comments on Overall Approach and Need for 
Rulemaking

    In response to the NPRM, NHTSA received 45 comments from vehicle 
and equipment manufacturers and ADS developers, industry associations, 
consumer advocates, advocates for persons with disabilities, States, 
insurance organizations, a university, an oil independence advocacy 
group, and members of the general public. Generally, most commenters 
supported the proposal, the revision of terms and use of definitional 
and textual changes to achieve the goals of the NPRM, and the agency's 
approach to minimize the complexity of the changes to the FMVSSs.\18\ 
However, various other commenters, particularly certain non-
governmental organizations, raised concerns about the agency's general 
approach to ADS regulation and the prioritization of this and similar 
rules, though many of these commenters had only minor comments 
concerning specific proposed technical changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ An additional 5 comments were received that were determined 
to be completely unrelated to this notice (#4, #5, #6, #18, #52), 
and 1 duplicate submission (#42).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Approximately 25 commenters across all commenter types agreed that 
there is a need for the proposal, and, of these, approximately 17 
commenters stated they agreed with the general approach. For example, 
General Motors (GM) commented that it supports the approach used in the 
NPRM and that ``when finalized into a final rule, [it] will provide 
needed regulatory certainty for certification, reduce certification 
costs and minimize (but not completely eliminate) the need for future 
NHTSA interpretation or exemption requests related to ADS-equipped 
vehicles.'' Waymo stated that the proposal would not reduce any 
protections for automated vehicles without manual controls and strongly 
supported the limitations in scope of the NPRM ``to crashworthiness 
standards to conventional occupant seating arrangements.'' The Alliance 
for Automotive Innovation (Alliance) stated that the rulemaking will 
work towards ``maintaining motor vehicle safety'' and ``reduce the need 
to rely on the administratively complex and time-consuming FMVSS 
exemption process.''
    Several commenters, though, questioned the need for the rulemaking 
action. The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) argued that a better 
allocation of limited government resources would be to focus on the 
``nearer-term technology improvements with immediate impact on the 
safety of occupants of conventional vehicles, pedestrians, and other 
vulnerable road users.'' CAS stated that such an approach was more 
appropriate because ``fully autonomous driving system-equipped vehicles 
[. . .] do not exist at this time.'' CAS also asserted that NHTSA 
should not permit traditional manual controls to be removed from 
vehicles ``until at least equivalent safety [of ADS-equipped vehicles] 
is proven.'' CAS stated that such controls ``might be deployable only 
as needed but are an absolute necessity for the many conceivable 
foreseen and unforeseen safety-critical situations that ADS-equipped 
vehicles will encounter.'' The National Safety Council (NSC) stated 
that ``shifting focus from tried-and-true vehicle standards is the 
wrong approach and evaluating the removal of those standards is 
premature at this time. As most ADS vehicle designs that might benefit 
from a revision of FMVSS standards are still on the drawing boards and 
unforeseen issues are certain to arise, eliminating current standards 
at this point is hasty.'' NSC argued that NHTSA should redirect 
resources and prioritize requiring advanced driver assistance systems 
(ADAS) and other technologies in vehicles. Consumer Reports (CR) also 
``question[ed] the present focus of the agency on `removal of 
regulatory barriers' rather than on developing and implementing 
standards for proven safety technologies,'' though CR also stated that 
it ``appreciate[s] the Agency's targeted approach on this topic'' and 
that the narrow scope of the NPRM ``is appropriate.'' The Insurance 
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) expressed concern that ``the 
current Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) creates a path for 
deploying into the market ADS-controlled vehicles without regulations 
that establish the ground rules for the safe behavior of ADS,'' Though 
it also stated that ``modifications proposed by NHTSA likely will be 
helpful to the entities developing automated driving systems (ADS) and 
the vehicles that will be controlled by ADS'' and that the ``changes 
answer some questions about how the occupants of ADS-controlled 
vehicles should be protected in the event of a crash.''

Agency Response

    NHTSA is sensitive to concerns raised regarding prioritizing 
rulemakings and other activities that emphasize other technologies, 
such as advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), instead of focusing 
on vehicles that remain in development. However, in the case of this 
rulemaking, the agency focused appropriate resources to address a 
narrow question. Further, NHTSA has

[[Page 18565]]

determined it is appropriate to proceed with this final rule at this 
time, as it will provide ADS manufacturers with certainty on how to 
comply with these FMVSSs and reaffirm the application of occupant 
protections standards to vehicles equipped with ADS. Thus, this final 
rule will have the limited effect of providing clarity on the specific 
issues addressed here, which will, at the very least, ensure that 
vehicles with ADS technology provide the same high levels of occupant 
protection that current passenger vehicles provide. Taking this action 
now will make clear that the crashworthiness standards apply to 
vehicles with ADS technologies.
    We also note that, in addition to this action, we have commenced 
rulemaking and other action on ADAS technologies. In the Spring 2021 
Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, NHTSA announced 
two rulemakings to require emergency braking performance for heavy and 
light vehicles and to require pedestrian automatic emergency braking 
performance in light vehicles.\19\ Furthermore, the agency is working 
on updates to its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP 5-star safety 
ratings program) to include additional modern vehicle safety 
technologies that can address crashes and promote safer behaviors. 
Thus, the agency is actively engaged in actions related to ADAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Heavy Vehicle Automatic Emergency Braking, http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202104&RIN=2127-AM36 
and Light Vehicle Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) with Pedestrian 
AEB, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202104&RIN=2127-AM37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 
(Safety Act), which NHTSA, by delegation, is tasked with administering, 
is to reduce traffic crashes and their resulting deaths and injuries, 
through carrying out research and establishing FMVSS.\20\ In 
establishing FMVSSs, NHTSA sets minimum performance standards that are 
objective and practicable, and that protect the public against an 
unreasonable risk of crashes occurring, and death or injury in the 
event a crash does occur.\21\ This final rule is consistent with the 
goals of the Safety Act by modifying the FMVSSs to account for vehicle 
designs that NHTSA anticipates will arise with deployment of ADS-
equipped vehicles, in a manner that provides occupants with at least 
the same protections afforded by existing standards that the agency has 
already found meet the need for motor vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 49 U.S.C. 30101.
    \21\ 49 U.S.C. 30111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although NHTSA understands concerns that this final rule is 
premature given the current state of ADS-equipped vehicle development, 
the agency has received many requests from industry for information to 
assist them in determining how existing FMVSSs apply to ADS-equipped 
vehicles developed without traditional manual controls (e.g., steering 
wheels) and other unconventional vehicle designs. In response to these 
requests, NHTSA conducted a preliminary analysis of the potential 
unintended barriers to these vehicle designs,\22\ issued requests for 
comment, held public meetings, and initiated rulemaking proceedings on 
the topic--including this rulemaking--to gather as much information as 
possible on how best to approach modernizing the FMVSS to account for 
these vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Kim, Perlman, Bogard, and Harrington (2016, March) Review 
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for Automated 
Vehicles, Preliminary Report. US DOT Volpe Center, Cambridge, MA. 
Available at: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/12260/dot_12260_DS1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There also continues to be progress toward development of ADS-
equipped vehicles. NHTSA knows of dozens of testing and development 
activities taking place in more than 40 States and the District of 
Columbia, many of which involve ADS-equipped vehicles that lack 
manually operated driving controls.\23\ In addition, one manufacturer 
of small, low speed, occupant-less ADS delivery vehicles received a 
temporary exemption from NHTSA to deploy up to 2,500 vehicles per year 
for two years.\24\ These activities, and the advancements toward 
development of ADS-equipped vehicles, have created an opportunity for 
new vehicle designs that warrants evaluation of current FMVSSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/automated-vehicles-safety/av-test-initiative-tracking-tool.
    \24\ 85 FR 7826 (Feb. 11, 2020). NHTSA has also received two 
other petitions for exemption for ADS-equipped vehicles that would 
lack manually operated driving controls. However, the agency has 
only requested comment on one of these petitions, which was later 
withdrawn. The agency is currently developing notices of receipt for 
the two other petitions it received, including GM's updated 
petition. See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autonomous-cruise-nhtsa-idUSKBN2762SP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When NHTSA promulgated most of the current FMVSSs, the agency did 
not consider the sorts of vehicle designs that would be possible if a 
vehicle could operate without human intervention. Today, an increasing 
number of companies are developing technologies to make that idea a 
reality. NHTSA is issuing this final rule to amend terminology, 
definitions, and other nomenclature found in the relevant FMVSS that 
inadvertently and unnecessarily impede the unconventional vehicle 
designs described by manufacturers.
    NHTSA identified the narrow scope of the NPRM clearly and has 
retained that scope for this final rule. Although the agency is 
sympathetic to many of the suggestions from CAS, CR, NSC and IIHS that 
NHTSA should focus on other vehicle safety issues and technologies, the 
agency believes it remains appropriate to finalize today's action on 
the narrow grounds identified in the NPRM, while continuing its other 
research and ongoing rulemaking actions on the issues identified by 
those commenters, including those related to ADS performance and ADAS 
technologies. Issues related to agency allocation of resources are also 
outside the scope of this final rule.
    NHTSA also disagrees with the IIHS assertion that this final rule 
alone creates a path for ADS deployment. NHTSA's existing FMVSSs do not 
prevent the deployment of ADS in vehicles configured like traditional 
vehicles (i.e., equipped with manually operated driving controls), when 
the vehicles meet all applicable FMVSSs. If the vehicle can be 
certified as meeting the FMVSSs, it can be deployed with ADS regardless 
of issuance of this final rule. This final rule simply makes targeted 
changes to the FMVSSs to account for certain vehicle designs that NHTSA 
has seen from some manufacturers or has otherwise been made aware. In 
addition, this final rule only addresses the crashworthiness standards. 
As the agency continues to assess how and whether to change other 
relevant FMVSSs in response to these types of vehicles, at this stage, 
an ADS-equipped vehicle may still be required to petition for and 
receive an exemption from NHTSA to be manufactured for sale, sold, 
offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction in 
interstate commerce, or imported into the United States.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 49 U.S.C. 30112(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule is substantially similar to the NPRM, with some 
alterations resulting from consideration of the comments. A summary of 
the substantive differences between the NPRM and final rule was 
provided in Section I of this preamble.

III. Introduction to This Final Rule

    This final rule preamble is organized by critical subject matter. 
First, the rule addresses subjects that affect all 200-Series FMVSSs, 
such as changes to the

[[Page 18566]]

terminology used in the standards. For example, the agency is defining 
some terms already used in many of the 200-Series FMVSSs to account for 
ADS-equipped vehicles (e.g., ``driver's designated seating position,'' 
``passenger seating position''), or is adopting new definitions as 
appropriate (``manually operated driving controls,'' ``steering 
control''). These changes to nomenclature provide clarity about how the 
crashworthiness FMVSSs apply to ADS-equipped vehicles and seek to amend 
the FMVSSs to include these new vehicle designs. Another issue that 
affects all 200-Series FMVSSs is the way in which the standards use 
features such as the ``driver's seat,'' ``passenger seat,'' and 
``steering controls'' as spatial references to describe where things 
are located within the vehicle. This final rule amends the terms so 
that the spatial references make sense as applied to the interior 
designs of ADS-equipped vehicles, which may, for example, lack a 
driver's seat and have an additional passenger seat instead. Other 
issues of general significance include clarifications regarding how the 
200-Series FMVSSs apply to vehicles that can be operated by both ADS 
and by a steering control (dual-mode vehicles), and how some test 
procedures pertain to vehicles that do not have components referenced 
therein (e.g., a manual parking brake mechanism).
    Second, this final rule achieves an objective of the agency with 
regards to ``occupant-less vehicles,'' by tailoring the 200-Series 
FMVSSs to exclude vehicles that are intended not to have human 
occupants. Occupant-less vehicles are designed for the transportation 
of property, not people, and have no DSPs. The agency has determined 
that the original safety need of the 200-Series FMVSSs no longer exists 
when there are no occupants to protect. A more fulsome discussion of 
this topic is provided in section V of this preamble.
    Third, this final rule preamble discusses amendments to terminology 
used in certain FMVSSs, and focuses on FMVSS No. 208 as a critical 
subject, as many of the performance requirements of this standard were 
written with reference to the driver's and passenger's seating 
positions. This final rule discusses changes to substantive 
requirements of the standard resulting from those revisions to 
terminology, such as the treatment of advanced air bags and advanced 
air bag suppression telltales in ADS-equipped vehicles, lockability 
requirements, and changes to FMVSS No. 208's seat belt requirements for 
medium-sized buses and large school buses following the removal of the 
term ``driver.''
    Fourth, after the FMVSS No. 208 discussion, this final rule 
discusses amendments to other FMVSSs.
    Lastly, the final rule discusses the effective date and cost 
impacts of the rule.

IV. Implications

a. New and Current Terms and Definitions

1. NPRM's Approach to Driver Definition
    In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to define, modify, or relocate existing 
terms and proposed new terms both to clarify application of the 200-
Series FMVSSs to ADS-equipped vehicles and to facilitate the 
implementation of other proposed regulatory changes. However, NHTSA did 
not propose to amend the definition of ``driver'' in 49 CFR 571.3 to 
include ADS, and it did so intentionally. NHTSA cited four primary 
reasons for this decision. First, NHTSA believed it would not be 
appropriate to consider changes to such a fundamental and ubiquitous 
concept (``driver'') in a rulemaking that focused solely on the 200-
Series without completing the additional research necessary to address 
implications for those other FMVSSs. Second, the regulatory changes 
NHTSA proposed in the NPRM did not necessitate examination of the issue 
of ``what is a driver.'' Third, NHTSA determined that revisiting the 
definition of driver would best be done in a different context, perhaps 
if the agency undertakes defining the ADS itself. Finally, keeping the 
current definition of driver was consistent with the input NHTSA 
received through the initial phase of a research project under which 
the FMVSSs were reviewed to identify potential approaches for 
addressing barriers.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ DOT HS 812 796, April 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding NHTSA's statements above, NHTSA received several 
comments suggesting amendments to the driver definition.\27\ However, 
none of these comments addressed NHTSA's four areas of concern. 
Accordingly, NHTSA does not amend the definition of driver in this 
final rule. However, the agency will consider the input received from 
comments on this rulemaking in proposing future regulatory actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ For example, some commenters suggested adding ``human'' or 
``conventional'' in front of driver. As the agency noted in the 
preamble to the NPRM, since the ``driver'' definition clearly 
indicates an ``occupant,'' specifying ``human'' is superfluous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Newly Defined, New, Modified, and Relocated Terms
    The agency proposed several changes to terms and definitions to 
implement the goals of the rulemaking. These definitions were proposed 
to be located or were already located in part 571.3, ``Definitions.'' 
Table 2, below, summarizes the NPRM's proposal for the reader.

           Table 2--Proposed Changes to Terms and Definitions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Proposed term or definition           Type            Justification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driver air bag means the air bag  New definition of   Clarify the
 installed for the protection of   existing term.      application of
 the occupant of the driver's                          occupant
 designated seating position.                          protection
                                                       requirements.
Driver dummy means the test       New definition of   Clarify the
 dummy positioned in the           existing term.      application of
 driver's designated seating                           occupant
 position.                                             protection
                                                       requirements.
Driver's designated seating       New definition of   Clarify the
 position means a designated       existing term.      application of
 seating position providing                            occupant
 immediate access to manually                          protection
 operated driving controls. As                         requirements.
 used in this part, the terms
 ``driver's seating position''
 and ``driver's seat'' shall
 have the same meaning as
 ``driver's designated seating
 position''.

[[Page 18567]]

 
Manually operated driving         New...............  Clarify the
 controls means a system of                            application of
 controls:.                                            occupant
(1) That are used by an occupant                       protection
 for real-time, sustained,                             requirements.
 manual manipulation of the
 motor vehicle's heading
 (steering) and/or speed
 (accelerator and brake); and.
(2) That are positioned such
 that they can be used by an
 occupant, regardless of whether
 the occupant is actively using
 the system to manipulate the
 vehicle's motion.
Outboard designated seating       Modification......  Clarify that the
 position means a designated                           undefined terms
 seating position where a                              ``outboard
 longitudinal vertical plane                           seating
 tangent to the outboard side of                       position'' and
 the seat cushion is less than                         ``outboard seat''
 12 inches from the innermost                          have the same
 point on the inside surface of                        meaning as
 the vehicle at a height between                       ``outboard
 the design H-point and the                            designated
 shoulder reference point (as                          seating
 shown in fig. 1 of Federal                            position.''
 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
 No. 210) and longitudinally
 between the front and rear
 edges of the seat cushion. As
 used in this part, the terms
 ``outboard seating position''
 and ``outboard seat'' shall
 have the same meaning as
 ``outboard designated seating
 position''.
Passenger seating position means  New definition of   Clarify the
 any designated seating position   existing term.      application of
 other than the driver's                               occupant
 designated seating position,                          protection
 except as noted below. As used                        requirements.
 in this part, the term
 ``passenger seat'' shall have
 the same meaning as ``passenger
 seating position.'' As used in
 this part, ``passenger seating
 position'' means a driver's
 designated seating position
 with stowed manual controls.
Row means a set of one or more    Relocation........  Eliminate the
 seats whose seat outlines do                          necessity to
 not overlap with the seat                             cross-reference
 outline of any other seats,                           FMVSS No. 226.
 when all seats are adjusted to
 their rearmost normal riding or
 driving position, when viewed
 from the side.
Steering control system means     Relocation;         To incorporate new
 the manually operated driving     Modification.       definition for
 control(s) used to control the                        ``manually
 vehicle heading and its                               operated driving
 associated trim hardware,                             controls,'' and
 including any portion of a                            to clarify that
 steering column assembly that                         the definition
 provides energy absorption upon                       applies to the
 impact. As used in this part,                         undefined terms
 the term ``steering wheel'' and                       ``steering
 ``steering control'' shall have                       wheel'' and
 the same meaning as ``steering                        ``steering
 control system''.                                     control.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proposing these definitions, NHTSA acknowledged that vehicle 
designs are changing in response to technological innovation. Given 
that the agency is already seeing ADS-equipped vehicles being designed 
to operate in a ``driverless'' mode at all times,\28\ and understanding 
that more vehicles may be designed as such in the future, the 
underlying assumption behind many of the current FMVSSs that manually 
operated driving controls will be present in all vehicles at all times 
is no longer controlling. For vehicles designed to be solely operated 
by an ADS, manually operated driving controls are logically 
unnecessary.\29\ To account for this, the NPRM proposed a regulatory 
scheme in which the affected standards would not assume that a vehicle 
will always have a driver's seat, a steering wheel and accompanying 
steering column, or just one front outboard passenger seating position. 
The definition modifications proposed allows the regulatory text, to be 
unambiguous related to, for example, which front seating positions are 
driver or passenger designated seating positions (DSPs). Taking the 
left front outboard seat as an example, this seating position may be a 
passenger seating position (modified definition) because it is not a 
driver's designation seating position (modified definition). It is not 
a driver's (DSP) because by virtue of the definition of driver 
(unmodified definition), it does not have access to a steering control 
system (modified definition), which is a type of manually-operated 
driving control (new definition).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See, e.g., Nuro R2X, discussed further below.
    \29\ Note that other regulatory changes to the FMVSS not 
impacted by this rulemaking (e.g., with regard to the 100-Series 
FMVSSs) would likely be necessary to permit such a vehicle to be 
manufactured for sale, even with the changes made by this rule 
(absent an exemption to the FMVSS under 49 CFR part 555). Note also 
that the Safety Act's defect provisions apply to an ADS and ADS-
equipped vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM proposed to accomplish this regulatory scheme by modifying 
the text of the affected standards so that the front outboard passenger 
seat performance requirements and test procedures would apply to all 
front outboard seating positions for these vehicles. For most 
standards, the NPRM proposed to accomplish this by slight textual 
changes that would enable the performance requirements and test 
procedures that currently apply to the right front passenger seat to be 
``mirrored'' for the left side of the vehicle. If the ADS-equipped 
vehicle retained a driver's seat, the NPRM proposed keeping performance 
requirements and test procedures for the driver's seat, when it exists, 
effectively unchanged. These proposed changes effectively turn occupant 
protection requirements for the driver's seat into ``if-equipped'' 
requirement, meaning that when a vehicle does not have a driver's seat, 
all front outboard seating positions must meet the current front 
outboard passenger seat requirements. The standards to which NHTSA 
proposed making this type of change were FMVSS Nos. 201, 208, 214, and 
226.
    Commenters generally supported NHTSA's proposed changes to the 
terms and definitions. Some commenters provided suggestions and minor 
modifications to the proposals. This final rule maintains the proposed 
definitions and changes to terminology,

[[Page 18568]]

except for ``passenger seating position.'' We address specific comments 
below.
3. Driver's Designated Seating Position, Manually Operated Driving 
Controls
    The NPRM proposed to define driver's designated seating position as 
``a designated seating position providing immediate access to manually 
operated driving controls. As used in this part [571], the terms 
`driver's seating position' and `driver's seat' shall have the same 
meaning as `driver's designated seating position.' ''
    This definition incorporated another proposed term, manually 
operated driving controls, which was defined in the NPRM as ``a system 
of controls: (1) That are used by an occupant for real-time, sustained, 
manual manipulation of the motor vehicle's heading (steering) and/or 
speed (accelerator and brake); and (2) That are positioned such that 
they can be used by an occupant, regardless of whether the occupant is 
actively using the system to manipulate the vehicle's motion. The 
definition of steering control system was clarified to state that it is 
a type of manually operated driving control.
Comments
    Many of the comments related to these definitions focused on 
``unconventional'' driving controls. The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) 
argued that the definition of ``driver's designated seating position'' 
should be written to exclude non-conventional controls such as 
joysticks, computers, tablet computers or wireless remote controls, and 
that reference should be made to controls that are ``permanently 
attached to the vehicle in a fixed location.'' In contrast, Tesla 
argued that the definition should consider situations where, for 
example, ``the manual controls may be removable, or where they may 
still be present, but are `locked' or rendered inoperative when the ADS 
is in control of the driving task, or where the vehicle may be operated 
remotely by portable steering controls within the vehicle (e.g., by 
cell phones or tablets).'' Tesla stated that the definitions may not 
fully consider the ``range of possibilities'' of types of controls, 
such as ``buttons, joysticks, screens'' and ``should not necessarily be 
determinative of whether the designated seating position should be 
considered a driver's rather than a passenger's seat for purposes of 
occupant protection.'' The Alliance and Toyota commented that there may 
be a lack of clarity with respect to joystick type controls as to how 
they would fit into the proposed definitional structure.
Agency Response
    NHTSA has considered the comments but is not revising the two 
proposed definitions. The agency concludes that CAS's suggested changes 
would add ambiguity to the definition of the driver designated seating 
position. The commenter's suggestion to add ``conventional'' to the 
definition raises a question about the meaning of this term. Similarly, 
we believe that making the recommended change to refer to permanently 
attached controls in a fixed location may cause confusion with respect 
to stowable controls that may be installed in ``dual-mode'' vehicles.
    NHTSA does not agree with Tesla that it is necessary at this time 
that the definition for manually operated driving controls account for 
the use of tablets or cell phones to control the vehicle. The new 
definition is meant to encompass traditional driving controls, not 
future controls that have not yet been developed. We also note that 
this rulemaking does not address joystick-type designs that are 
intended to be the only manual driving control or driving controls that 
have no fixed position at a particular seating location. Since this 
issue raises crash avoidance and crashworthiness safety concerns that 
are beyond the scope of this rulemaking action, we will not address the 
matter in this final rule.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ GM focused on the plural nature of the proposed definition 
to suggest that an unconventional control, such as a joystick, could 
in fact be a single manually operated control (not a system of 
controls) for use by a technician or for fleet management to move 
the vehicle across a lot, for example. GM believed that this single 
control would not be intended for use by a motorist for real-time, 
sustained manual manipulation of steering or acceleration or 
braking. Instead, GM envisioned this single control to be used for 
the short-term, temporary activation of the vehicle for fleet 
management purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tesla argued that only one of the terms ``steering control system'' 
and ``manually operated driving controls'' may be necessary, not both. 
NHTSA disagrees and believes having both terms allows for a more 
consistent regulatory text and less disruption from the existing text 
structure. Tesla claimed that the NPRM did not address the situation 
where the driving controls may still be present but are ``locked'' or 
``inoperative.'' The NPRM explicitly considered inoperative controls 
that remain in position.\31\ Tesla sought clarity on whether remote 
operation fell into the definition of ``manually operated driving 
controls.'' In response, under the definition of ``manually operated 
driving controls,'' it specifies that such controls are positioned such 
that they can be ``used by an occupant'' (emphasis added). Accordingly, 
the definition of ``manually operated driving controls'' excludes 
remote operation controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 85 FR at 17637, VI.a.vi.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Alliance stated there is a lack of clarity with respect to 
stowed manual controls. The commenter suggests the term ``stowed'' 
could mean a range of positions. The commenter points to the preamble 
statement that research may be needed into the ``transition of 
traditional manual controls in dual-mode ADS equipped vehicles.''
    To be clear, issues arising from the physical act of stowing manual 
controls is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. We believe the 
existing standards clearly provide for occupant protection when the 
controls are stowed, creating a passenger DSP. As for the meaning of 
the term ``stowed,'' it is the past tense of ``stow,'' which has the 
plain language meaning of ``pack or store away.'' In the 200-Series 
standards, it is a term that is already used in relation to air bags, 
seat belts, and sun visors. We believe that a stowed manually operated 
driving control will be self-evident. Stowed controls could have 
multiple potential stowed positions and configurations, but not 
positioned such that they can be used by the driver.
4. Passenger Seating Position
    The NPRM proposed to define ``passenger seating position'' as--any 
designated seating position other than the driver's designated seating 
position, except as noted below. As used in this part, the term 
``passenger seat'' shall have the same meaning as ``passenger seating 
position.'' As used in this part, ``passenger seating position'' means 
a driver's designated seating position with stowed manual controls.
    GM suggested slightly revising the last sentence in a manner that 
clarifies the provision about stowed controls. NHTSA agrees in part 
with GM's suggestion, and has decided in this final rule to change the 
last sentence to state:
    As used in this part, ``passenger seating position'' includes what 
was a driver's designated seating position prior to stowing of the 
manually operated driving controls.''
5. Steering Wheel to Steering Control
    The NPRM proposed to change the term ``steering wheel'' to 
``steering control'' in consideration of steering controls that may not 
be circular, such as those shaped more like an airplane yoke control. 
At every occurrence of the term ``steering wheel,'' the NPRM 
substituted the term ``steering control.'' These terms were meant to be 
synonymous as is evident by the use of

[[Page 18569]]

the terms in the proposed definition of ``steering control system.''
Comments
    Comments were generally supportive, although some commenters raised 
concerns about issues tangential to the proposal. The California State 
Transportation Agency \32\ (State of California, or CalSTA) and 
Securing American's Future Energy (SAFE) expressed support for the 
proposal. Safe Ride News (SRN) expressed concerns related to potential 
dangers for non-circular steering controls. Tesla did not comment on 
the change from ``wheel'' to ``control,'' but rather was concerned that 
the term ``steering control rim'' in FMVSS No. 208 implied a circular 
control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Comments submitted in coordination with the California 
Highway Patrol and the California Department of Motor Vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule will adopt the proposed change. With respect to 
SRN's concerns, the change in terminology does not newly enable 
manufacturers to equip vehicles with non-circular steering controls, 
since such controls were never prohibited. All of the standards that 
address the impact protection of steering controls remain in place. We 
also disagree with Tesla's contention that the use of the term ``rim'' 
limits the shape of the steering control to a round object. We believe 
``rim'' can reasonably be interpreted as ``outer edge.'' Thus, various 
shapes are possible. We decline to make any change to the term 
``steering control rim'' in this final rule.
6. Outboard Designated Seating Position
    NHTSA proposed to clarify that the terms ``outboard seating 
position'' and ``outboard seat'' have the same meaning as used in the 
existing definition of ``outboard designated seating position.'' Our 
analysis of the regulatory text of the crashworthiness FMVSSs, 
determined these three terms have the same meaning. Therefore, to 
clarify this point, we proposed added language specifying that 
``outboard seating position'' and ``outboard seat'' have the same 
meaning as ``outboard designated seating position.''
Comments
    There were no adverse comments made to this proposal and the final 
rule will adopt the proposed change.
7. Row and Seat Outline
    The NPRM proposed to relocate the definition of ``row,'' which is 
currently located in FMVSS No. 226, to Part 571.3. The term was 
proposed to be used in multiple standards (FMVSS Nos. 201, 206 and 
208). Moving it to part 571.3 would eliminate the need to insert a 
reference to its current location.
Comments
    There were no adverse comments related to moving the definition of 
``row.'' However, Alliance, Zoox and GM recommended that the definition 
of ``outline'' similarly be moved to part 571.3 because the definition 
of ``row'' uses this term. The final rule will make this change.
8. Driver Air Bag and Driver Dummy
    The NPRM proposed to define ``driver air bag,'' ``driver dummy.'' 
These are new definitions, but the terms already appear many times in 
the FMVSSs. This is also the case for ``passenger seating position'' 
and ``driver's designate seating position,'' which we discussed 
extensively above. However, there was previously no strong need to 
define these terms. NHTSA proposed to define them now because they help 
to clarify the application of the FMVSSs to ADS-equipped vehicles while 
maintaining their application to traditional vehicles and minimizing 
textual disruption.
Comments
    There were no adverse comments made to this proposal and the final 
rule will adopt the proposed change.

b. Modifying Spatial References in Test Procedures and Definitions That 
Rely on the Presence of a Driver's Seat and/or Manual-Operated Driving 
Controls

    FMVSS Nos. 201, 206, 208, 214, 216a, 225 and 226 contain terms or 
definitions that reference the driver's seat or steering controls to 
provide a spatial reference for where equipment in the vehicle must be 
installed, or test equipment (such as test dummies) placed in a 
compliance test. The NPRM proposed various changes addressing the 
situation where there is no driver's seat, a lone passenger seat, or no 
steering control to provide a spatial reference frame. In some 
instances, the agency proposed using the front row or the front 
outboard seating position as a reference rather than the driver's seat. 
In some cases, the ``left'' or ``right'' side of the vehicle was 
proposed to be used rather than ``driver's side'' or ``passenger 
side.''
1. Driver's Seat
    The NPRM proposed using the front row, or the seating reference 
point of a seat in the front row, as a spatial reference rather than 
the driver's seat. Such changes were proposed for FMVSS Nos. 201, 206, 
208 and 225, for buses.\33\ Most commenters were supportive of the 
proposed changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The Center for Auto Safety did not comment on the specifics 
of the change, but as with other bus-related issues, stated that 
``it is inappropriate to consider ADS for buses within the stated 
NPRM scope.'' NHTSA has responded to this issue earlier in this 
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMVSS No. 225, ``Child restraint anchorage systems,'' currently 
defines ``shuttle bus'' as ``a bus with only one row of forward-facing 
seating positions rearward of the driver's seat'' (emphasis added). The 
NPRM proposed modifying the definition to state that if the bus does 
not have a driver's seat, it would meet the definition of a shuttle bus 
if it has only one row of forward- facing seating positions rearward of 
the front row. The NPRM made no alteration for non-ADS vehicles.
Comments
    The Alliance supported the change to the definition of ``shuttle 
bus,'' but requested that this change be made for all vehicles, not 
just vehicles without driving controls, using the same language. In 
contrast, the State of California (CalSTA) commented that the 
``proposed change may result in practical design and configuration 
changes to shuttle buses. Further research into how these changes will 
impact occupant safety on shuttle buses, if at all, is needed and 
suggests that it may be premature to address at this time.'' The 
Alliance further addressed provisions for rear-facing front row 
seating.
    NHTSA is not implementing the Alliance's suggestion to apply the 
definitional change to non-ADS-equipped vehicles and is not accounting 
for rear-facing front row seating. This decision is in line with the 
agency's intent to focus this rulemaking narrowly to address unique 
designs that might be implicated by ADSs. This rulemaking is NHTSA's 
first step toward modernizing the FMVSSs to account for these new 
vehicle designs. No doubt there will be other steps, as the 
technologies mature, and suggestions for further amendments will be 
considered at those appropriate times.
    NHTSA disagrees with CalSTA since the changes will have no effect 
on vehicles with driver's seats. Further, it is our expectation that 
using a front row seat as a reference rather than a driver's seat will 
have little to no effect on the reference point location.
    For the reasons above and explained in the NPRM, this final rule 
adopts the changes that refer to the front row instead of to the 
driver's seat.
2. Dummy Placement in Bench Seats
    Currently FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 refer to the driver's DSP when

[[Page 18570]]

specifying where to place and position test dummies in bench seats of 
vehicles in the respective compliance tests. The NPRM proposed to use 
the seating reference point of outboard seats as the spatial reference 
for the lateral placement of test dummies when there is no driver's 
DSP.
Comments
    All comments were generally in favor of using the seating reference 
point of outboard seats as the spatial reference for the lateral 
placement of test dummies when there is no driver's DSP.
    The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) agreed with the proposed change to 
FMVSS No. 208 on the use of the seating reference point as the spatial 
reference for bench seats when there is no driver's seat. However, CAS 
stated: ``[T]his proposal should not pertain to vehicles that include 
fixed or deployable human-accessible primary or backup (potentially 
deployable on demand or need) controls.'' NHTSA understands this 
comment as conveying CAS's belief there should not be any reduction in 
the safety of the driver as a result of this final rule--a belief with 
which the agency agrees. The agency notes that the proposed regulatory 
text was purposefully drafted in a manner that would not affect the 
protection currently provided by vehicles with manually operated 
driving controls, i.e., those with a driver's seat.
    IIHS stated that the proposed method to position passenger side 
dummies in the absence of a ``driver's'' seat ``seems sensible.'' 
However, the commenter requested that the agency ``ensure that this 
change will not result in unrealistic dummy positioning for all 
relevant dummy sizes before making its proposed change.'' NHTSA has 
assessed how this final rule would impact dummy placement during 
compliance testing and concluded that the dummy positioning procedures 
are feasible for all the test dummies used in the standards, and dummy 
positioning would remain realistic for all tests. The Alliance 
supported the proposed language and suggested that such a method should 
be used with vehicles with unconventional steering controls. This 
suggestion is beyond the scope of this rulemaking but will be 
considered for future actions.
3. Driver's Side and Passenger Side
    FMVSS Nos. 206, 208, 216a and 226 refer to ``driver's side'' and 
``passenger side'' in describing substantive requirements and 
compliance test procedures. The NPRM proposed to substitute ``left 
side'' for driver's side and ``right side'' for passenger side.
Comments
    Some commenters were in favor of the approach NHTSA took in the 
NPRM. The Alliance supported the proposed language substituting ``left 
side'' for ``driver's side.'' CAS indicated that this approach is 
sufficient to provide for testing under FMVSS No. 208. CalSTA supported 
the proposal, stating that this approach does not result in any ``loss 
in meaning.'' The commenter also agreed with similar proposed changes 
in FMVSS Nos. 206, 214 and 216a.
    A few commenters did not support this change. In contrast to its 
comment about FMVSS No. 208, CAS stated that for FMVSS No. 214, 
optional manual controls normally associated with the driver's position 
could be located on the right side of the vehicle. CAS also contended 
that, for FMVSS No. 226, the proposed changes to ``left front door 
sill'' from ``driver's door sill'' could have implications for vehicles 
that may only have doors or seating on the right side of the vehicle. 
ZF stated that the question of whether this option would result in the 
same performance outcome is one that needs additional study because it 
is unclear to them that ``the occupant will be in the exact same 
position.''
    The agency is adopting its proposal to change references to the 
driver's and passenger side of the vehicle to the left and right side 
of the vehicle. With respect to CAS's concern about FMVSS No. 214, 
whether manual controls associated with a defined driver position are 
on the left or right side of the vehicle has no bearing on the 
application of the standard's requirements and test procedures to a 
vehicle. The standard's side impact protection requirements currently 
and will continue to apply equally to the left and right sides of the 
vehicle. Further, the spatial reference changes proposed for FMVSS No. 
214, S10.2 were nearly identical to the changes CAS supported in FMVSS 
No. 208. Regarding FMVSS No. 226, the agency is not aware of any 
vehicles under 10,000 lb. GVWR without a door on the left side of the 
vehicle. Regardless, placement of doors and seating on the right side 
of the vehicle does not affect the application of the requirements and 
test procedures of FMVSS No. 226. Finally, in response to ZF, we 
believe that it is reasonable to assume at this time that occupants 
would remain in the same position as currently contemplated by the 
standard, and thus, the same performance outcome could be expected by 
modifying the current language to ``left side'' and ``right side.'' 
NHTSA does not believe that additional research is necessary at this 
time since this rule only changes the term used to describe the seating 
position (``driver's'' seat) and not the performance requirements or 
placement of the seat itself. Finally, as mentioned previously, the 
scope of this rule includes conventional seating, not unconventional 
seating arrangements.
4. Steering Controls as a Spatial Reference
    FMVSS No. 201 S5.1.1(d) excludes from S5.1 ``areas outboard of any 
point of tangency on the instrument panel of a 165 mm diameter head 
form tangent to and inboard of a vertical longitudinal plane tangent to 
the inboard edge of the steering wheel.'' The NPRM proposed to amend 
S5.1.1(d) so that an area of the instrument panel excluded from S5.1 
(the impact procedure) would no longer be excluded if the steering 
control were not present, i.e., the exclusion only applies to 
situations where the steering control is present.
    CAS argued that the standard should apply to ADS-equipped vehicles 
that include optional manual controls that are either fixed or 
deployable if they are associated with a defined position. The Alliance 
believed additional clarity for S5.1.1(d) is needed for dual-mode 
vehicles with stowed controls, suggesting that NHTSA add the phrase 
``if the steering control is present or, in the case of dual-mode 
vehicles, fully deployed in manual driving mode'' to the beginning of 
S5.1.1(d).
    In response to CAS, the proposed amendment was intended to address 
vehicles without ``steering wheels'' and where the steering control is 
not present. The rule change was to ensure the protection provided by 
the current passenger side of the instrument panel (right side) is 
provided to the left side (former driver's side). The revised standard 
will provide the same level of protection as the current standard when 
a steering control system is present.
    Relatedly, NHTSA declines to make the Alliance's suggested 
clarification because it is unnecessary. Steering controls are defined 
as a type of ``manually operated driving control.'' Manually operated 
driving controls are ``positioned such that they can be used by an 
occupant.'' Thus, by definition, these controls are not stowed 
controls. The suggestion also raises additional questions related to 
how ``dual-mode vehicles,'' ``fully deployed,'' and ``manual driving 
mode'' should be defined.

c. Dual-Mode Certification

    The NPRM stated that for dual-mode vehicles with the capability of 
stowing driving controls, NHTSA would require

[[Page 18571]]

manufacturers to certify compliance with all applicable FMVSSs in both 
modes (i.e., with the manually operated driving controls available and 
with the controls stowed).\34\ When the manually operated driving 
controls are available, the vehicle would be subject to the FMVSS 
requirements at that DSP as applied to a driver's DSP. When they were 
stowed, the vehicle would be subject to the FMVSS requirements at the 
DSP as applied to a passenger seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 85 FR at 17634.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    Many commenters supported NHTSA's approach to dual-mode vehicles. 
IIHS noted that the agency's statement in the preamble \35\ that 
``NHTSA expects that manufacturers will need to certify compliance in 
both states (e.g., manually operated driving controls available and 
stowed)'' [emphasis added] was unclear and urged NHTSA to modify the 
regulatory text to ensure its expectation is met. The Automotive Safety 
Council (ASC), Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE), and Uber agreed 
with NHTSA's proposal to require that manufacturers certify compliance 
to, and conduct validation testing in, both modes. Tesla suggested that 
NHTSA add ``even more clarity regarding the applicability of the FMVSS 
to such [dual-mode] vehicles. Dual-mode vehicles are likely to be some 
of the first ADS-equipped vehicles on the road.'' In addition, Tesla 
believes it sees a conflict in the agency statements that a seating 
position is not a driver's DSP, i.e., it is a passenger DSP, if that 
position is not equipped with a manually operated driving control and 
the statement that a DSP remains a driver's DSP when driving controls 
are in place and the ADS is engaged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    Among commenters addressing the issue of certification of dual-mode 
vehicles, there was agreement on the need to certify in both modes. In 
response to IIHS, we have reviewed the regulatory text to assure the 
text is not worded in terms of ``expectations'' but is clear in terms 
of requirements.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Uber presented several hypothetical situations relating to 
the Safety Act's ``make inoperative'' provision, 49 U.S.C. 30122, 
which were beyond the scope of the NPRM. The Agency recommends 
persons seeking a request for interpretation of NHTSA's standards or 
regulations, or of the statutory provisions of the Safety Act, 
submit a request for interpretation to NHTSA's Chief Counsel's 
Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the Tesla comment about seeing a conflict in the 
agency statements that a seating position is not a driver's DSP, NHTSA 
believes these statements are not in conflict and clearly proceed from 
the terms used in the regulatory text (driver, steering control system, 
manually operated driving controls, driver's DSP, and passenger seating 
position). For example, the definition of ``manually operated driving 
controls'' makes no statement about the state of any ADS system. It 
simply states, among other things, that the controls are ``positioned 
such that they can be used by an occupant.'' While the steering 
controls might not be used, as would be the case of a dual-mode vehicle 
with the ADS engaged, the seating position where they are located and 
positioned for potential use, by definition, remains the driver's DSP.
    NHTSA believes that no additional regulatory text changes are 
needed beyond that proposed in the NPRM to assure clarity with respect 
to certification of dual-mode vehicles. NHTSA notes that if a left 
front seat has both a driver configuration and a passenger 
configuration, the agency may choose either configuration for 
compliance testing, or test both configurations.

d. Parking Brake and Transmission Position

    Many of the 200-Series FMVSSs incorporate a full vehicle crash test 
or other kind of dynamic vehicle test in the standard's compliance 
test. For some of these dynamic tests, a test condition applies such 
that the vehicle transmission is in neutral, and/or the parking brake 
applied. For vehicles without driver-accessible transmission shift 
selectors or parking brake mechanisms, NHTSA may not have readily 
available means to set the vehicle in neutral, activate a parking 
brake, or achieve other test conditions described in the compliance 
test.
    NHTSA did not propose any regulatory text changes related to 
interfacing with ADS-equipped vehicles on pre-test transmission and 
brake status. The agency believed such changes were unnecessary for the 
purposes of this notice, as the important factor for the 200-Series 
FMVSSs was whether the transmission was in the proper gear and the pre-
test brake activated; the way that pre-test state was achieved was of 
no consequence to performance of the crash test. It was envisioned that 
manufacturers would provide the know-how for the agency to achieve the 
necessary transmission and brake status when NHTSA conducts its 
compliance tests. However, comments were requested on this issue.
Comments
    Commenters were generally in agreement with the agency's approach. 
The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) supported the agency's views on this 
matter. The Alliance agreed that manufacturers could and would work 
with the agency to achieve the necessary transmission and parking brake 
status. Waymo stated that it ``agree[s] with the line of thinking that 
the important element is whether the transmission is in the proper gear 
and whether the pre-test brake is activated--not the manner in which 
that state is achieved.'' \37\ GM stated it would work with NHTSA and 
the agency's test labs should the need for such consultation arise. 
Alternatively, Tesla believed NHTSA should ``consider updates to the 
parking brake status in compliance testing where it may not reflect 
real-world scenarios.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Waymo stated the Agency should remain flexible in 
compliance testing in general: ``[t]o implement this principle, 
NHTSA could adopt policies allowing manufacturers to provide the 
tools and information necessary for the agency to conduct compliance 
tests in a manner befitting each manufacturer's unique automated 
vehicle designs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    NHTSA's view of how compliance tests would be conducted on vehicles 
without traditional transmission shift levers or parking brake 
mechanisms was supported by the commenters. The agency envisions 
compliance testing will be conducted with the above framework in mind. 
Tesla may be raising a point that certain test conditions may not be 
necessarily relevant or appropriate for some vehicles, if, for example, 
the vehicle parking brake status is not appropriate. While NHTSA agrees 
that FMVSS test conditions should be relevant and appropriate for the 
vehicle and for the safety need addressed by the standard at issue, the 
agency is not currently aware of a situation where the parking brake 
status is an inappropriate test condition or would be inappropriate for 
an ADS-equipped vehicle. Consistent with the NPRM, the final rule does 
not change any regulatory text related to interfacing with ADS-equipped 
vehicles on pre-test transmission and brake status.

V. Occupant-Less Vehicles

    Currently, the 200-Series ``vehicle'' standards apply to passenger 
cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, buses, and school 
buses. These vehicle types, as they are defined in 49 CFR 571.3, are 
all, by definition, passenger-carrying vehicles, except for ``trucks.'' 
(A driver of a truck is considered an occupant but is not

[[Page 18572]]

considered a ``passenger.'') Occupant-less vehicles would not have 
designated seating positions or any other vehicle features that aid in 
the transportation of seated or standing occupants. These vehicles, 
which would not even have a driver's DSP, are expected to be more 
oriented to commercial movement of goods. Thus, by definition, 
occupant-less vehicles cannot be categorized as a passenger car, MPV, 
or bus of any kind. The definition of ``truck'' in Sec.  571.3 is the 
only vehicle type definition that specifically covers vehicles designed 
to carry property and not ``persons.''
    Because occupant-less vehicles qualify as trucks,\38\ and since the 
200-Series standards apply to trucks, occupant-less vehicles are 
currently subject to the 200-Series standards even though they do not 
carry occupants. In the NPRM, NHTSA tentatively determined that a 
safety need did not exist to apply the existing 200-Series standards to 
occupant-less vehicles. In addition, the analysis concluded that for 
some 200-Series standards, the application to occupant-less trucks 
could create uncertainty about certification because the requirements 
are seemingly linked to the existence of specified designated seating 
positions. Accordingly, with respect to trucks, NHTSA proposed to amend 
the application sections of FMVSS Nos. 201, 205, 206, 207, 208, 214, 
216, and 226 to apply only to trucks with DSPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Under NHTSA's self-certification framework, manufacturers 
must certify their vehicles as meeting all FMVSSs applicable to the 
vehicle type, and, to do so, must classify their vehicles for 
purposes of determining which FMVSSs apply. NHTSA may take issue 
with that classification if the agency believes the manufacturer has 
misclassified the vehicle and thus failed to certify the compliance 
of the vehicle appropriately with applicable FMVSSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are some standards that are applicable to trucks that the 
NPRM did not propose to amend because they only apply if a DSP were 
present. One such example is FMVSS No. 202a, Head restraints. 
Similarly, the agency did not propose amending the applicability of 
FMVSS No. 203, Impact protection for the driver from the steering 
control system, and 204, Steering control rearward displacement, to 
trucks. As discussed in the NPRM, this is because those standards only 
apply to vehicles with steering controls, which an occupant-less 
vehicle necessarily lacks. No change was proposed for FMVSS No. 209, 
Seat belt assemblies, because the standard is an equipment standard, 
and no change was proposed for FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly 
anchorages, because that standard's requirements only apply to DSPs. 
That said, NHTSA requested comment on whether any ``additional changes 
are necessary or appropriate'' to accomplish the goals of the NPRM.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 85 FR at 17625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    Most commenters that addressed this issue were supportive of the 
proposal, but a few had reservations about how the approach could 
affect crash compatibility and other safety matters. A number of 
commenters focused on the applicability of FMVSS Nos. 203 and 204, 
FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials, FMVSS Nos. 212, Windshield mounting, 
and 219, Windshield zone intrusion.
    Most commenters believed that no safety need exists requiring 
occupant protection standards for occupant-less vehicles, and that the 
200-series standards were not relevant for such vehicles. The American 
Trucking Associations (ATA) specifically supported changes to standards 
that apply to trucks with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb.). 
Uber argued that ``equipment that is designed to protect occupants in 
traditional vehicles will do nothing but create unnecessary potential 
safety hazards in the event of a crash or if that equipment 
malfunctions.'' Nuro stated that applying occupant protection standards 
to occupant-less vehicles could degrade safety by adding weight and 
rigidity, which may increase ``the risk to occupants'' of other 
vehicles. A number of other commenters suggested that NHTSA overlooked 
several other 200-Series FMVSSs that should also be amended to exclude 
occupant-less trucks from their applicability, namely FMVSS Nos. 212 
and 219.
    Commenters expressing concern about the proposal included the State 
of California (CalSTA) regarding possible degradation to the safety of 
vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and bicyclists, if occupant-
less vehicle were excluded from FMVSS No. 205. The Automotive Safety 
Council (ASC) raised the potential for crash compatibility concerns 
stemming from the potential loss of energy absorption in a crash 
involving an occupant-less vehicle.
Agency Response
    While NHTSA believes the non-applicability of certain standards was 
implicit in the proposal, the agency has considered the comments and is 
adopting amendments to provide clarity. Several commenters (including 
the Alliance, the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), Nuro, and, 
Zoox) suggested that additional clarity is needed with respect to the 
200-Series FMVSSs sections the NPRM did not propose to modify. As 
discussed later below, NHTSA agrees to amend FMVSS Nos. 212 and 219 to 
clarify non-applicability to occupant-less vehicles.

a. General Observations

    The Center for Auto Safety argued that a truck with an optional or 
deployable control system should not be excluded from FMVSS Nos. 201, 
205 and 206. NHTSA would like to be clear that this subject pertains to 
occupant-less vehicles that are specifically designed not to contain 
occupants. NHTSA's intent is to keep the safety of occupants, including 
drivers, at the forefront of this rule.
    Nuro suggested three possible ways to limit the applicability of 
the FMVSSs to occupant-less vehicles: (1) A blanket exclusion in 
section 571.7; (2) a preamble statement; or (3) a change to all 
application sections. First, a blanket change to section 571.7 or to 
change ``all'' application sections would be overly broad and exceed 
the scope of this notice, which focuses exclusively on the 200-series 
standards. Second, a statement in the preamble would not provide 
appropriate transparency and clarity. In other words, the applicability 
of the standards to the vehicles in question would not be apparent from 
the actual text of the standards. Thus, to assure a full and careful 
consideration of the applicability of the FMVSSs to subject vehicles 
and avoid unintended consequences, NHTSA has decided to evaluate each 
standard and determine applicability on a standard-by-standard basis. 
In some cases, no change was needed because the non-applicability of 
the standard to occupant-less vehicles is indirect (e.g., by virtue of 
reference to a seating position, such as for FMVSS No. 202a).
    In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to exclude occupant-less trucks from 
the FMVSS occupant protection requirements, tentatively concluding 
that, ``the safety need that supports the crashworthiness requirement 
of FMVSS No. 208 for the protection of vehicle occupants does not exist 
for occupant-less trucks.'' While this final rule affirms this 
conclusion, the agency notes that the language proposed to accomplish 
this exclusion applies standards to ``trucks with at least one 
designated seating position.'' Commenters such as the National 
Disability Rights Network, in different contexts covered in Section 
VI.f of this preamble, raised the prospect of vehicles with ADS that do 
not include a DSP, but accommodate people with certain physical 
disabilities (e.g., through wheelchair securement mechanisms). NHTSA 
notes that the

[[Page 18573]]

definition of DSP only encompasses wheelchair securement devices for a 
``vehicle sold or introduced into interstate commerce for purposes that 
include carrying students to and from school or related events.'' 
Accordingly, the proposed applicability language (referring to trucks 
with at least one designated seating position) may leave ambiguity as 
to whether an occupant-less truck could be permissibly outfitted with a 
wheelchair securement mechanism and avoid occupant protection 
requirements. While the NPRM's preamble discussion tentatively 
concluded that occupant-less trucks do not present a safety need for 
occupant protection requirements, the language used to exclude such 
trucks was imprecise and conflicted with the tentative conclusion, 
which could lead to confusion. Accordingly, the agency has decided 
that, rather than amending the application sections to include ``trucks 
with at least one designated seating position,'' the final rule will 
specify, ``trucks designed to carry at least one person,'' which would 
include occupants in wheelchair securements. We believe this will 
ameliorate the problems related to referencing the DSP definition, yet 
will achieve the same purpose. We note that this change should not 
result in any reduction in objectivity since the definitions of 
passenger car, MPV, and bus all refer to being designed to carry a 
certain number of persons.

b. FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials

    CalSTA posited that vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and 
bicyclists, might be placed at risk if occupant-less vehicles are 
excluded from meeting FMVSS No. 205. The State suggested that ``[i]f 
the glazing materials standard is removed, a standard providing a 
commensurate level of safety for vulnerable road users should be 
implemented.''
    Given that one of NHTSA's guiding principles for this rulemaking 
was maintaining safety levels provided by existing FMVSS, the agency 
carefully considered this issue. The agency first analyzed the intended 
purpose of FMVSS No. 205. The focus of the Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE) standard, SAE J673-Automotive Safety Glasses--on which 
FMVSS No. 205 is based--was to benefit the occupants of motor vehicles. 
The purpose of Standard No. 205 as promulgated, and as specified today, 
references vehicle occupants and makes no mention to persons struck 
outside the vehicle. Nonetheless, the commenter raises the possibility 
that FMVSS No. 205 has had an unintended benefit for vulnerable road 
users, and the agency sought to understand any unintended consequences 
of this rulemaking. Accordingly, NHTSA undertook a thorough search, but 
found no crash data or research studies that could verify unintended 
benefits for pedestrians, cyclists or other persons resulting from 
FMVSS No. 205 glazing.
    The effect of glazing in pedestrian and other road users' 
collisions with motor vehicles is complex, as the crash may manifest 
potential tradeoffs between various design aspects of glazing and 
glazing retention. The center of the windshield, if it breaks on 
impact, can be a relatively forgiving area with respect to the impact 
forces/deceleration of the struck person. However, in contrast to the 
middle of the windshield, the area of windshield attachment, 
particularly at the A-pillars, may be relatively hazardous to a person 
striking it as the pillars are stiff structural elements. For a 
windshield to protect occupants, it must be adequately retained in a 
crash. FMVSS No. 212 specifies windshield mounting requirements that 
must be met, for the benefit of occupants, when subjected to a 48 km/h 
(30 mph) barrier crash test. In order to retain the windshield, the 
perimeter mounting must be sufficiently stiff. It is unclear whether or 
to what extent the crashworthiness test requirements of FMVSS No. 205 
contribute to, or are offset by, these forgiving yet stiff aspects of a 
windshield. That is, even if the glazing is forgiving in the center 
once it breaks, the windshield mounting must be stiff enough to meet 
FMVSS No. 212. Any overall benefit to pedestrians and cyclists from 
compliance with FMVSS No. 205 is uncertain.
    It bears noting that FMVSS No. 205 is an ``if equipped'' standard. 
Accordingly, the standard only requires FMVSS No. 205 glazing if 
vehicles have glazing. The extent to which occupant-less vehicles would 
have glazing is unknown at this time.
    In its comment, Nuro argued that, if manufacturers of occupant-less 
vehicles were not required to meet occupant protection requirements, 
they could concentrate on protection of other road users.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Nuro made similar arguments specific to FMVSS No. 205 in 
its petition for a temporary exemption from aspects of FMVSS No. 
500, which the Agency granted on February 11, 2020. Docket NHTSA-
2019-0017-0002; 85 FR 7826. FMVSS No. 500 requires low speed 
vehicles to have a windshield that meets FMVSS No. 205.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After consideration of the information above, NHTSA has decided 
that information is not available to substantiate the view that there 
would be lost safety benefits to pedestrians and other road users by 
excluding occupant-less vehicles from FMVSS No. 205. However, NHTSA 
will monitor this issue. In view of Nuro's statement above, NHTSA 
believes that the amendment adopted by this final rule may open up 
avenues for potential development of more pedestrian-friendly designs 
for occupant-less vehicles, though the agency is not relying on this 
belief in making the decision to exclude these vehicles, as these 
vehicles would not be required to make these changes.
    As to more general matters, both NADA and Ford asserted that the 
change to FMVSS No. 205 would not address the standard in its entirety, 
and that transmissibility/visibility aspects of the standard would need 
to be revisited in the future. In response, NHTSA notes that the NPRM 
proposed, and this final rule adopts, revisions to FMVSS No. 205 that 
apply the standard only to vehicles with occupants.
    In its comment to the NPRM, Nuro stated that, just as the NPRM 
proposed changes to FMVSS No. 205, conforming changes should be made to 
FMVSS No. 500, Low speed vehicles, and part 565, Vehicle identification 
number (VIN) requirements. Nuro sought a change to FMVSS No. 500 to 
make clear that a windshield is required only if the low speed vehicle 
had at least one DSP. In response, NHTSA has decided no change to the 
low speed vehicle standard is necessary because FMVSS No. 500 
incorporates by reference various aspects of other FMVSS. This means, 
in practice, that when NHTSA makes changes to FMVSS No. 205, those 
changes will automatically be incorporated into FMVSS No. 500. While 
the low speed vehicle standard refers to FMVSS No. 205, the change to 
the application section of FMVSS No. 205 makes clear that it does not 
apply to occupant-less vehicles. Also, other aspects of FMVSS No. 500 
will still apply to occupant-less vehicles, so changing FMVSS No. 500 
could be confusing.
    Nuro noted that part 565 requires that the VIN be visible through 
``the vehicle glazing'' by an observer ``whose eye-point is located 
outside the vehicle adjacent to the left windshield pillar.'' This 
final rule does not amend part 565, as the matter is beyond the scope 
of the NPRM. However, the agency understands the issue and will 
consider addressing it in a future action.

c. Vehicle Crash Compatibility

    The Automotive Safety Council (ASC) supported limiting the crash 
protection requirements of FMVSS No. 208 to

[[Page 18574]]

vehicles with at least one designated seating position but argued that 
measures are still needed to ensure adequate crash compatibility with 
the fleet. ASC referenced ADS 2.0 statements that ``unoccupied vehicles 
equipped with ADSs should provide geometric and energy absorption crash 
compatibility with existing vehicles on the road.'' ASC stated that 
crash compatibility ``is currently controlled to some degree by the 
crash requirements of FMVSS [No.] 208. Energy absorption in the crash 
by the unoccupied vehicle structure is a necessary factor in helping to 
protect the occupied vehicle passengers.''
    In its comment, Nuro mentioned that the preamble of the NPRM 
indicated NHTSA is considering crash compatibility research and 
possible rulemaking for occupant-less vehicles. Nuro stated that crash 
compatibility should not be the agency's initial foray into drafting 
standards for these vehicles. Nuro argued there is no reason to believe 
that occupant-less vehicles should be less compatible than existing 
vehicles, but that ``the opposite is true due to the lower mass and 
smaller size that can be achieved for vehicles that will not carry, and 
need not include protections for, humans.''
    The NPRM did not include provisions related to potential vehicle-
to-vehicle crash compatibility, and this final rule continues this 
approach. As stated in the NPRM, this is a complex issue that has not 
yet been adequately researched and we have no evidence that vehicle-to-
vehicle crash compatibility might cause adverse safety consequences at 
this time, as occupant-less vehicles do not exist in the fleet in any 
significant number. However, NHTSA is engaged in research on this 
subject and will also monitor on-road deployments. In addition, NHTSA 
does not agree with Nuro's assertion that all future occupant-less 
vehicles will necessarily be small and light and thereby a safer 
collision partner because NHTSA's decision in this final rule is not 
limited by weight and thus will apply to any occupant-less vehicle. 
NHTSA notes that the American Trucking Associations' comment on this 
subject, as previously mentioned in the Comments subsection of section 
V. of this preamble, was especially supportive of changes made to 
standards applying to occupant-less trucks with a GVWR greater than 
4,536 kg (10,000 lb.), thus indicating that there may be occupant-less 
vehicles that are much larger and heavier than Nuro's vehicles. 
Further, the fact that an occupant-less vehicle does not have to 
protect its own occupant does not mean that they will necessarily be 
designed to protect other road users more, as it is possible that 
manufacturers of occupant-less vehicles might tolerate increased risks 
to other road users in the interest of protecting their own cargo. 
Potential crash compatibility implications relating to occupant-less 
trucks is an area of interest for the agency and warrants further 
examination.

d. FMVSS Nos. 212, Windshield Mounting and 219, Windshield Zone 
Intrusion

    The NPRM requested comment on whether the agency had included all 
relevant FMVSSs that might need changes similar to those identified in 
the proposal. Many commenters suggested there was no safety need to 
apply FMVSS Nos. 212 and 219 to occupant-less vehicles, as there would 
be no occupants in the vehicles to protect with the countermeasures 
installed to meet these Windshield mounting and Windshield zone 
intrusion standards, respectively.
Agency Response
    NHTSA agrees that FMVSS No. 212 and 219 should also be amended to 
exclude occupant-less vehicles. It was an oversight by NHTSA not to 
have included those standards in the NPRM. The NPRM for this rulemaking 
action was broad and intended to include all crashworthiness (200-
Series FMVSSs) standards. In the NPRM, NHTSA discussed whether there 
was a need to apply FMVSSs that serve primarily to protect vehicle 
occupants to occupant-less vehicles, and whether those FMVSSs had a 
continuing safety purpose for occupant-less vehicles. NHTSA requested 
comment on ``whether additional changes are necessary or appropriate'' 
to accomplish the goals of the NPRM.\41\ This request sought the very 
input that NHTSA received from commenters on FMVSS Nos. 212 and 219, 
and was included in the NPRM with the intent of soliciting input on 
whether the agency had included all relevant FMVSSs that might need 
changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 85 FR at 17625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As requested, commenters provided additional input, and the 
comments received on FMVSS Nos. 212 and 219, helped NHTSA assure the 
final rule would address a more complete set of relevant standards. 
Given that NHTSA proposed FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials be amended 
so as not to require a windshield in an occupant-less vehicle to meet 
that standard due to an absence of a safety need for the glazing, 
failing to make conforming changes to FMVSS Nos. 212 and 219 would be 
inconsistent with both the Agency's intended outcome and with 
commenters' requests. The modifications to FMVSS Nos. 212 and 219 are 
the logical outgrowth of both the discussions related to occupant-less 
vehicles and the proposed regulatory text for FMVSS No. 205. Given the 
absence of a safety need to apply FMVSS No. 205 to occupant-less 
vehicles, there is also no safety need for occupant-less vehicles to 
retain a windshield to protect against injury from penetrating objects 
or ejection (FMVSS No. 212), or from windshield intrusion (FMVSS No. 
219).
    Accordingly, NHTSA is amending FMVSS Nos. 212 and 219 in this final 
rule to exclude trucks that are not designed to carry at least one 
person (occupant-less vehicles).

VI. FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection

    Making appropriate amendments to FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash 
protection is one of the most important aspects of this rulemaking. Not 
only is Standard No. 208 a significant 200-Series standard, but it 
includes several terms that differentiate a ``driver's'' position from 
a front ``passenger's'' seating position. Thus, translating the terms 
of FMVSS No. 208 to account for vehicles that do not have manually 
operated steering controls, or vehicles where the manually operated 
steering controls could be stowed, is central to this final rule.
    The NPRM discussed proposals for: Applying FMVSS No. 208's advanced 
air bag requirements to front outboard seats without manually operated 
driving controls (including to seats that had been considered a 
driver's seat); applying the standard's telltale requirements; applying 
requirements for front outboard seats to seats that are no longer 
``outboard''; and suppressing vehicle motion when a child restraint 
system is sensed in a seating position with manually operated steering 
controls. The NPRM also proposed amending FMVSS No. 208's bus 
requirements to account for buses equipped with ADS and that lack 
manually operated steering controls.
    FMVSS No. 208 currently establishes crash protection requirements 
that are the same for the driver's designated seating position (DSP) as 
for the right front outboard seating position (commonly referred to as 
the front passenger seat). The vehicle's compliance with the 
requirements is assessed in a frontal crash test using adult-sized 
crash test dummies.

[[Page 18575]]

    To minimize air bag risks to children and small-statured adults, 
however, FMVSS No. 208 also establishes ``advanced air bag'' 
requirements that, among other things, require the air bags at the 
right front DSP to either turn off automatically in the presence of 
detected young children, or deploy in a manner less likely to cause 
serious or fatal injury to child occupants. Manufacturers may also 
choose to combine these approaches. Vehicles that disable the passenger 
air bag utilize weight sensors and/or other means of detecting the 
presence of young children. To test detection capability, FMVSS No. 208 
specifies that child dummies be placed in child restraint systems 
(child seats) that are, in turn, placed on the passenger seat. It also 
specifies ``out-of-position'' tests that are conducted with 
unrestrained child dummies sitting, kneeling, standing, or lying on the 
passenger seat. For manufacturers that design their passenger air bags 
to deploy in a low risk manner, the standard specifies that unbelted 
child dummies be placed against the instrument panel. The air bag is 
then deployed. The ability of driver air bags to deploy in a low risk 
manner is tested by placing the 5th percentile adult female dummy 
against the steering wheel and then deploying the air bag.
    In the NPRM, NHTSA tentatively concluded that the most practical 
way to maintain occupant protection in ADS-equipped vehicles with no 
``manually operated driving controls'' (and thus, with no driver's 
seat) would be to treat any seat that does not have immediate access to 
such controls as a passenger seat under the standard. Thus, all front 
outboard seats in such vehicles are front outboard passenger seats and 
would be required to meet FMVSS No. 208's performance requirements that 
currently apply to the right front outboard passenger seat. For a seat 
located in the left front outboard position, this would be done by 
mirroring the test procedures and requirements from the right side. 
Among other things, to maintain the level of safety currently afforded 
to right front outboard passengers under FMVSS No. 208, NHTSA proposed 
requiring that all front outboard ``passenger seats'' meet advanced air 
bag requirements.
Comments
    Commenters were generally supportive of the proposed changes to 
FMVSS No. 208. Consumer Reports (CR) stated NHTSA should, ``maintain 
the maximum protection under the standard in any modification. In the 
case of vehicles without manual controls, this means treating each 
front seat as a front outboard passenger seat and requiring all the 
protections required by that designation.''
    Ford supported the proposal, but with a caveat that occupant 
protection requirements should not apply to an ``occasional use seat'' 
which is clearly marked.
    Safe Ride News (SRN) supported the proposed changes but raised the 
lockability requirements of S7.1.1.5a of FMVSS No. 208. These 
requirements require vehicles to have a seat belt assembly with a 
lockable lap belt at each seating position to facilitate the secure 
attachment of child restraint systems. The standard currently excludes 
the driver's seating position from lockability requirements, since, in 
traditional vehicles, a child restraint would not be installed at the 
driver's seat. SRN suggested NHTSA remove the exception from 
lockability for seats without manually operated driving controls or 
with stow-able controls in the left front seat.
Agency Response
    In response, NHTSA emphasizes that under this final rule, a left 
front DSP without manually operated driving controls is a passenger 
seat. Similarly, a left front DSP with stow-able controls will have a 
mode that makes it a passenger seat. In either case, the DSP would be 
required to have a lockable seat belt. In response to Ford, we would 
make clear that the requirements would apply if the seat in question 
meets the definition of a DSP. Part of the DSP definition allows the 
labeling of certain seats as ``not designated for occupancy while the 
vehicle is in motion.'' We believe this addresses Ford's concern, but 
the agency is not further expanding this provision. In the situation of 
a dual-mode vehicle whose controls are always in place, i.e., the 
controls cannot be stowed so the seat is always a driver's seat, the 
lockability requirements would not apply, since a child restraint is 
unlikely to be used at this DSP.\42\ Issues relating to children seated 
in a DSP with driving controls are discussed in more detail later in 
this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Further, NHTSA discourages the use of child restraints in 
this driver's designated seating position. A lockable belt at that 
position might imply that the DSP is appropriate for a child 
restraint, and it is not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CalSTA requested that NHTSA ensure that any changes in nomenclature 
relative to the terms ``passenger seat'' or ``driver's seat'' would not 
degrade occupant safety and requested research to confirm there is no 
unintended degradation of occupant safety.
    In response, NHTSA emphasizes that the left front outboard 
passenger will be required to have the same protection as the right 
front outboard passenger DSP, which for adults are the same 
requirements that would apply to a driver's seat. The current occupant 
protection requirements have been in place for almost 30 years. The 
immense technical data and information NHTSA and the occupant safety 
community have acquired over this period indicate there is no 
difference in the FMVSS No. 208 protection afforded adult occupants by 
the left or right front seating position. The data and other 
information on advanced air bag safety protections also indicate there 
are no technical reasons why the protections provided by a seat in the 
right front outboard seating position could not be mirrored by a 
passenger seat on the left side. Additional research is not necessary 
to verify that protections afforded to one seating position would be 
sufficient for the other seating position, as identical designs could 
be applied to the opposite sides of a vehicle.
    This final rule adopts the proposal's provisions relating to the 
left front seat when that DSP meets the definition of a passenger 
seating position. The final rule makes minor clarifying changes to the 
regulatory text in response to comments, which are discussed below. 
This final rule adopts the provisions of the NPRM that relate to 
advanced air bag requirements, telltale requirements (indicating air 
bag suppression for the left front outboard seating position), and 
other requirements, except as discussed below.

a. Advanced Air Bags

    As discussed in the proposal, applying advanced air bag 
requirements to all front outboard seating positions maintains the 
current levels of safety for ADS-equipped vehicles without manually 
operated driving controls. Applying the requirements meets the need for 
safety because an occupant will receive the same crash protection 
whether they choose to sit in the left or right front outboard seat. In 
addition, an important benefit of advanced air bags over conventional 
air bags is the protection of out-of-position occupants, particularly 
children. In a traditional vehicle, the occupant in the driver's seat 
is typically an adult. In contrast, occupants of the left front 
outboard passenger seats in an ADS-equipped vehicle without manually 
operated driving controls could possibly be children, as there would be 
no driving control mechanism at any position that may deter occupancy 
of the seating position by a child. NHTSA tentatively

[[Page 18576]]

concluded in the NPRM that the most straightforward way to protect 
children against air bag risks would be to require that any front 
outboard seat that could potentially be occupied by a child (i.e., a 
passenger seat) must meet the current advanced air bag requirements. 
This final rule adopts the provisions of the NPRM that relate to the 
protection of the left front seat occupant when that DSP meets this 
final rule's definition of a passenger seating position.
    With regard to the static suppression requirement of FMVSS No. 208 
S22.2 for the 3-year-old child dummy, GM and the Alliance asked that 
the regulatory text ``clearly specify that suppression is tested only 
for the seating position where the child dummy is placed.'' NHTSA 
agrees the clarification is warranted and has added language to S22.1 
to make clear that the relevant air bag that is to be suppressed is the 
air bag associated with the designated seating position being assessed. 
NHTSA has made similar clarifications to the text of FMVSS No. 208 
regarding tests with the 12-month-old (S20.2) and 6-year-old (S24.2) 
child dummies.
    NADA commented that air bag switch installation should apply, ``to 
the extent applicable and appropriate.'' However, air bag on/off switch 
requirements comprise a topic beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 
Accordingly, NHTSA is not considering this suggestion in this 
rulemaking.

b. Telltales

    FMVSS No. 208 currently requires that vehicles display a telltale, 
visible to the front row occupants, which indicates whether the front 
outboard passenger seat air bag is suppressed. Given that this 
rulemaking may result in multiple front outboard passenger seats, NHTSA 
proposed amending this requirement to specify that a separate telltale 
would be required for each outboard front passenger seat based upon the 
belief that doing so would maintain the current level of safety 
provided by the standard. The NPRM proposed that the current telltale's 
substantive performance criteria would remain the same to provide 
occupants with the same level of information about the status of each 
pertinent air bag as provided by the current standard. Because the left 
front seat without manually operated controls would be a passenger 
seat, the NPRM proposed to require an additional telltale.
    Commenters had differing views on this issue. The Alliance and GM 
requested that NHTSA consider a single telltale unit for both front 
outboard seating positions, so long as that telltale is visible from 
each seating position. The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) stated, ``it is 
important for occupants to verify the operational capability of safety-
critical equipment in vehicles they occupy, including telltales for 
suppression-based advanced air bag systems.'' Safe Ride News (SRN) 
supported requiring seat-specific telltales. Various commenters had 
concerns or suggestions that are addressed below.
Agency Response
    The final rule adopts the provisions of the NPRM, with a few 
modifications in response to comments received. The Alliance and GM 
requested allowing a single telltale for both front outboard seating 
positions. It is NHTSA's position that, while a single telltale unit 
that distinguishes both indicators would be acceptable, a single light 
indicating the suppression status of both air bag systems, but not 
distinguishing their individual state of suppression would not. 
Separate suppression telltales clarify which associated seating 
position is suppressed, allowing the corresponding passenger to respond 
to the information with appropriate action. Separate suppression 
telltales verify to the caregiver of children placed in seating 
positions that the corresponding air bag is suppressed and allow other 
users to determine whether the air bag corresponding to their seating 
position is properly functioning. Thus, this final rule requires the 
telltale to be clearly recognizable to a driver and any front outboard 
passenger with which seat each telltale is associated.
    IIHS argued that the proposal's use of ``any'' in reference to 
seating position requirements from which telltales required by FMVSS 
Nos. 226 (S4.2.2) and 208 (S19.2.2(d)) must be visible, is ambiguous, 
and suggested that the final rule use the term ``all.'' The IIHS 
comment seems to interpret the proposal as seeking to require that the 
suppression telltale be visible from any DSP in the vehicle. This is 
incorrect. The proposal restricted visibility to the front outboard 
seats for the FMVSS No. 208 telltale. Accordingly, the final rule will 
retain the word ``any'' in FMVSS No. 208 S19.2.2(d). Comments specific 
to the FMVSS No. 226 telltale are addressed later in this document.
    Safe Ride News commented that the location should be ``on the dash 
in easy-to-see, logical juxtaposition to the seat for which it 
applies.'' On the other hand, the Automotive Safety Council (ASC) 
believed that the location of the telltale should be chosen to provide 
information regardless of where an adult may be seated in the vehicle. 
As noted above in our response to IIHS, we decline to implement the 
suggestion that the suppression telltales be visible from all seating 
positions. While expanding telltale visibility requirements generally 
is worthy of discussion, it is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. As 
stated elsewhere in the proposal and this document, NHTSA plans to 
issue a separate notice that will focus on telltales and warnings for 
ADS-equipped vehicles. In the interim, this final rule will establish 
requirements that will allow front seat occupants in vehicles without 
manual controls to determine whether either outboard front seating 
position has a suppressed air bag.
    Disability rights advocacy groups (National Disability Rights 
Network (NDRN), Disability Rights Education Fund (DREDF), and the 
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD)) requested that NHTSA 
consider adding audible or haptic alerts to the visual alerts for 
suppression telltale information.\43\ NHTSA is not aware of any 
previous implementation of haptic non-driving related warnings. More 
information and research may be necessary to implement types of layered 
alerts to ensure that vehicle occupants receive clear information that 
would not confuse or conflict with other information. NHTSA is aware 
that audible warnings have been implemented and there may be merit to 
such an implementation. However, as we reasoned above, we decline to 
implement audible warnings now because they require a larger discussion 
and more input on how best to achieve the goals of providing 
information, while also avoiding confusing vehicle occupants. That 
discussion is beyond the scope of this rulemaking but could be explored 
in the forthcoming notice on telltales. The agency notes, though, that 
nothing in this rule would prohibit audible or haptic alerts when used 
to complement the required visual alert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ These groups also suggested the Agency look to information 
presented at the November 2019 meeting, NHTSA Research Public 
Meeting, [www.regulations.com NHTSA-2019-0083-0007]. Among many 
topics, this meeting covered research on vulnerable and disabled 
road users. The Agency presented a brief summary of a research 
program entitled ``Vulnerable and Disabled Road Users: 
Considerations Inside and Outside the Vehicle.'' The research 
program is ongoing and scheduled for completion in 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEE expressed concern that ADS-equipped vehicles might have no seat 
belt warning system as required by FMVSS No. 208, S7.3 because they may 
have no driver's DSP. IEE recommended that NHTSA require a seat belt 
reminder system in ADS vehicles that provides audio-visual warnings for 
unbelted occupants. The requested revisions are

[[Page 18577]]

beyond the scope of the present rulemaking. NHTSA may consider this 
issue in future agency work related to telltales and indicators for 
ADS-equipped vehicles.

c. Front Outboard Versus Center or Inboard Seating Position

    An ``outboard seating position'' is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as ``a 
designated seating position where a longitudinal vertical plane tangent 
to the outboard side of the seat cushion is less than 12 inches from 
the innermost point on the inside surface of the vehicle at a height 
between the design H-point and the shoulder reference point (as shown 
in fig. 1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210) and 
longitudinally between the front and rear edges of the seat cushion.'' 
FMVSS No. 208 requires, for most light vehicles (GVWR less than 4,536 
kg (10,000 lb.)), each ``outboard designated seating position,'' 
including the driver's seat, to have a lap/shoulder (Type 2) seat belt 
assembly that conforms to FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. 
Moreover, the subset of light vehicles that have a GVWR of less than 
3,855 kg (8,500 lb.) and unloaded weight of 2,495 kg (5,500 lb.) are 
statutorily required \44\ to have frontal air bag protection at the 
driver's and right front DSPs, which are evaluated by FMVSS No. 208's 
frontal barrier crash tests. Under FMVSS No. 208, any center seating 
positions in these light vehicles can be equipped with only a lap belt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, 
Public Law 102-240, 2508 (Dec. 18, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, NHTSA acknowledged that future vehicle designs might 
not have two front outboard seating positions. The agency sought to 
amend FMVSS No. 208 to be inclusive of and account for ADS-equipped 
vehicles (particularly those without driving controls) that might not 
have a front left outboard DSP or, for that matter, any outboard DSP, 
as those terms are defined in NHTSA's regulations. NHTSA envisioned 
that one or both of the outboard seating positions on a current vehicle 
could be moved toward the center of the vehicle and thus fall outside 
of the outboard seating position definition. NHTSA sought to amend 
FMVSS No. 208 to provide occupants of an ADS-equipped vehicle with 
fewer than two front outboard seating positions no degradation in the 
crash protection now required by the standard for vehicles that are not 
ADS vehicles. The agency requested comment on including in the final 
rule air bag (including out-of-position occupant protection) and lap/
shoulder (Type 2) seat belt protection to these inboard seating 
positions if outboard positions were removed. We also requested comment 
on the implications of such designs upon the statutory obligation for 
frontal air bags.
Comments
    Several entities, primarily consumer advocacy groups, commented in 
favor of providing Type 2 belts and air bags at all inboard seats. The 
Center for Auto Safety (CAS) stated that both lap/shoulder belts and 
air bags should be required for inboard seating positions in ADS-
equipped vehicles. Safe Ride News (SRN) commented that the front center 
seating position in ADS and non-ADS vehicles ``should no longer be 
allowed to be equipped with Type 1 (lap-only) belts, which are far less 
protective than Type 2 belts.'' SRN noted that it believes this request 
is even more important since it expects it will be more likely that 
children would be seated in the front row in ADS-equipped vehicles, 
though did not provide any support for this expectation. IEE requested 
FMVSS No. 208 require advanced air bags at inboard seats. The 
Automotive Safety Council (ASC) stated that ``automated vehicles may 
have increased usage/presence of a center seating position, possibly 
without accompanying outboard seating positions.'' ASC argued that ``it 
is reasonable'' to apply the out-of-position advanced air bag 
requirements for all front designated seating positions. IIHS stated 
that all designated seating positions should receive ``the same level 
of crash protection'' in ADS-equipped vehicles, and that front row 
center positions should be required to have Type 2 belts and air bag 
protection.
    Some commenters focused on the protection that should be afforded a 
single center seat. The Alliance commented that ``[w]here there is only 
a single forward-facing front row center seat (and no other front row 
seating positions), current levels of FMVSS 208 crash performance, 
including advanced air bag performance criteria, if applicable, should 
be required for that position.'' However, the commenter also stated, 
``there should not be a specific air bag installment requirement to 
meet this crash performance.'' Ford expressed support for the final 
rule ``to apply the current performance requirements for the passenger 
seat called out in FMVSS [No.] 208, to both outboard positions when 
there are no controls, or to the center seat when the outboard seating 
positions are absent.'' \45\ GM also suggested that ``where there is 
only a single forward-facing front row center seat, GM supports 
applying current right front outboard passenger side FMVSS [No.] 208 
crash performance requirements.'' ZF argued that if a single seat is 
installed in the front of the vehicle without driving controls, that 
occupant should be protected in the same manner as an outboard 
passenger occupant, including seat belts, and an air bag. The National 
Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) stated that ``any vehicle (ADS-
equipped or otherwise) with a single forward-facing front row center 
seat should be subject to FMVSS [No.] 208 crash performance 
requirements, including applicable advanced air bag performance 
criteria.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ To clarify, Ford suggested these occupant protection 
requirements should not apply to an ``occasional use seat'' which is 
clearly marked. This comment was addressed previously in this 
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters requested additional research on the issue. 
Waymo stated ``considerable technical research and a new proposed 
rule'' may be needed to address the protection that should be offered 
to inboard front seats when there are no outboard seats. Waymo also 
stated that ``[i]f such seating arrangements are in fact likely,'' 
Waymo prefers that NHTSA finalize this rule and deal with this 
``novel'' issue in a separate rulemaking. Tesla urged NHTSA first to 
conduct research on the appropriateness and type of equipment 
(especially for out-of-position) that is needed to protect an occupant 
in the non-outboard seating position, including, e.g., where the center 
seat could serve as both an armrest for outboard occupants and a 
foldable seat. CalSTA recommended further testing to ensure there is 
not an unintended compromise to occupant safety if implemented.
Agency Response
    In deciding how to respond in this final rule to the comments 
expressed on this topic, NHTSA considered its guiding principles for 
this rulemaking.\46\ One principle is for NHTSA to take every effort to 
maintain the level of crashworthiness performance in ADS-equipped 
vehicles without traditional manual controls currently required for 
vehicles without ADS functionality. Another is for NHTSA to adapt 
existing FMVSS requirements to ADS-equipped vehicles in a way that does 
not change requirements for non-ADS vehicles. In addition, NHTSA seeks 
to modify the FMVSSs in a manner that is more

[[Page 18578]]

attentive to the innovative interior designs that are expected to 
accompany ADS-equipped vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ These are set forth in the Executive Summary at the 
beginning of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applying these principles, NHTSA's decisions focus on protecting 
the public and minimizing any potential loss in crash protection 
provided by vehicles if outboard seats are removed in favor of inboard 
seats. Further, NHTSA primarily seeks to retain the protections from 
existing requirements in a manner that allows for innovators to develop 
certain alternative configurations that can accommodate vehicles with 
ADS. NHTSA has also made decisions considering the practicability of 
meeting requirements and the reasonableness of applying current FMVSS 
No. 208 requirements to inboard seat designs.
    Taking these principles into account, NHTSA notes that passenger 
cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 
less than 3,855 kg (8,500 lb.) and unloaded weight of 2,495 kg (5,500 
lb.) are already required to have advanced air bag systems installed at 
the front outboard seating positions. Accordingly, the agency has 
decided to apply the FMVSS No. 208 protections now applying to the 
outboard seating positions to inboard seating positions, to the extent 
technically feasible. This final rule adopts a balanced path between 
the commenters that desire air bag and lap/shoulder belt protection at 
all inboard seats and those that believe such protection should be 
required only at a single inboard seat.
    To accomplish this, this final rule will implement the following 
(see Figure 1). First, FMVSS No. 208 currently protects two designated 
seating positions in the front row of seats with a ``full'' suite of 
occupant protection countermeasures: Type 2 (lap/shoulder belt system), 
and an advanced air bag system. Those protected seats are currently the 
outboard seating positions. To maintain FMVSS No. 208's protection of 
two seating positions in the front row--to the extent technically 
feasible--this final rule continues protecting two designated seating 
positions in the front row with the full suite of protective 
countermeasures (Type 2 belt and advanced air bag). Thus, where there 
is a single inboard seat and one or no outboard seats, the single 
inboard seat would be required to have lap/shoulder seat belts and 
advanced air bag protection in that single front row inboard seat, and 
any one remaining outboard seat will continue to offer the same 
protection as it does currently in vehicles with driving controls (the 
full suite of crash protection).
    Second, NHTSA considered a front row with multiple inboard seats 
and one or no outboard seats. As discussed above, this final rule seeks 
to maintain protecting two designated seating positions in the front 
row with the full suite of protective countermeasures (Type 2 belt and 
advanced air bag). Thus, for this situation, the protection required by 
the vehicle depends on whether there is a remaining single outboard 
seat or not. If there is a remaining single outboard seat, that 
outboard DSP will be required to provide the full suite of protection 
(lap/shoulder seat belts and advanced air bag protection), and one of 
the inboard seats will be required to offer the same full suite. The 
manufacturer will have the discretion to determine which of the inboard 
seats will offer this protection. The other inboard seat (if any) would 
only require a lap belt (a lap/shoulder belt may be provided at the 
manufacturers' choice), as this is the requirement now specified for an 
inboard first row seat under FMVSS No. 208. Thus, the protection 
offered by this configuration is essentially the same as vehicles with 
driving controls and three front seats (i.e., two DSPs with full suite 
of protection and one with lap belt protection).
    In the second case, it is possible there is no outboard seat, but 
multiple inboard seats. For this situation, only a single inboard seat 
will be required to provide the full suite of protection (lap/shoulder 
seat belts and advanced air bag protection). The other inboard seat 
will only be required to offer a lap/shoulder belt. While the agency 
would like to require the full suite of protections for two DSPs in 
accordance with our principles above, we are not requiring a full suite 
of protection for the second DSP because of potential safety risks 
posed by air bags operating in close proximity to each other (e.g., 
interaction between the two air bags or between occupants in close 
proximity when reacting to the air bags), as in the case of two inboard 
side-by-side seats. Commenters Waymo, Tesla and CalSTA suggested that 
additional research may be needed to discern if there are any 
unintended consequences related to more than one inboard seat with 
frontal air bag protection being in close proximity. NHTSA agrees with 
these commenters and plans to conduct research to determine the minimum 
lateral distance between the seats where air bag protection could be 
provided to both DSPs. The agency does not know how commonly such 
vehicle configurations will be produced and will seek additional 
information on this issue before pursuing a regulatory mandate.
    To be clear, NHTSA does not believe any such research is needed for 
the situation where a single inboard passenger seat has frontal air bag 
protection, even with another non-air bag protected seat in close 
proximity. Neither does NHTSA believe that a separate rulemaking is 
necessary to provide FMVSS No. 208 protections to a single inboard 
seating position. This is because the technology required in that 
situation is used by the millions in vehicles today, with decades of 
experience (currently there are front outboard seating positions with 
Type 2 belts and air bags right next to a center seating position with 
a lap belt or Type 2 belt). Vehicle manufacturers may need to address 
the specifics of the vehicle interior geometry and crash pulse to 
develop an appropriate design, but the agency has no reason to believe 
that providing a full suite of protection to a single inboard seat will 
be more challenging than for an outboard seat.
    The above specified regulatory changes have been implemented in 
S4.1.5.6 and S4.5.6.4 of FMVSS No. 208. The regulatory approach taken 
in these sections was to point to the test procedures as specified for 
front outboard designated seating positions and apply them to the 
inboard seats, as appropriate. We believe that, except as noted below 
for bench seat positioning, the procedures as written can be performed 
on inboard seats, without adaptations. The agency has made minor edits 
to S16.2.10 and S16.2.10.3 to clarify positioning of inboard seats, in 
the case where seat positioning cannot be independently controlled.
    Finally, NHTSA carefully considered the Alliance comment on inboard 
seat protection suggesting that current levels of crash performance be 
provided, including advanced air bag performance criteria, but without 
a specific air bag installation requirement. We interpreted this to 
mean that any stipulation for ``inflatable restraint'' should be 
removed from S4.1.5.6.3, with all other provisions remaining. The 
agency is declining to make this change at this time. The text is 
clearer with the reference to ``inflatable restraint'' than without it. 
Also, there are questions of scope related to this request and NHTSA 
would like to consider further comments on the suggestion.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 18579]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR22.000

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

d. Suppression of Vehicle Motion When a Child Is Detected in the 
Driver's Seat

    Because some ADS-equipped vehicles may be designed with a driver's 
seat (i.e., a seat with immediate access to manually operated driving 
controls), NHTSA explored the possibility that a child may be seated in 
a driver's seat during ADS operation. As stated previously, NHTSA 
believes that children should not occupy the driver's position when the 
vehicle is operating in ADS mode and steering controls are present. 
Such a situation might occur when a caregiver places a child in this 
seat or when an older child places themselves in this position. This is 
a concern because a driver's seat is not a passenger seat, a driver's 
seat would not be subject to advanced air bag requirements protecting 
out-of-position children from air bag risks. In addition, the crash 
protection in the driver's seat is not tailored to a child. NHTSA was 
concerned about this possibility and proposed that ADS-equipped 
vehicles that have manually operated driving controls must render the 
vehicle incapable of motion if a child is detected in the driver's 
seat. The agency proposed that the ADS vehicle would be tested for 
compliance with this ``motion suppression'' requirement using the 12-
month-old, 3-year-old and 6-year-old child test dummies currently used 
for out-of-position testing in the standard.
    Many comments discussed this aspect of the proposal, with a variety 
of approaches. In general, commenters on this topic acknowledged that a 
potential problem exists that should be addressed but differed in their 
approach to a solution and beliefs about the readiness for a regulatory 
solution. Many non-industry commenters agreed with the proposal, as did 
some suppliers and an ADS developer. However, a couple commenters 
raised concerns about the proposal. Additional details on these 
comments are provided below.
    Many commenters, including Consumer Reports, Safe Ride News (SRN), 
Johns Hopkins University, IIHS, IEE, the Automotive Safety Council 
(ASC), and the Center for Auto Safety (CAS) supported NHTSA's proposal 
to require motion suppression if a child were detected in the driver's 
seat of an ADS-equipped vehicle. CAS stated that the vehicle should be 
immovable if any child were detected in the driver's seat

[[Page 18580]]

while the vehicle is stationary and should revert to a safe stop if a 
child is detected in the driver's seat while underway. CAS and SRN 
recommended that the suppression test be performed with a Hybrid III 
10-year-old child test dummy. Johns Hopkins University requested 
research on the behavior of occupants of various ages and sizes when 
seated as passengers in the driver position to ensure that they will 
receive the same protections.
    In contrast, a number of commenters expressed concerns about the 
proposal. The NDRN explained that ``child protections that limit the 
vehicle's motion would have the unintended consequence of prohibiting 
access and discriminating against adult drivers of short stature.'' 
This concern was also expressed by DREDF and CCS. NDRN stated that a 
vehicle's sensors would not know the difference between a child and an 
adult driver whose weight and height may be similar. The Alliance 
stated that ``whenever a child can be placed in front of an air bag 
when the vehicle is in motion the appropriate advanced air bag 
requirements should apply at that seating position.'' That said, the 
Alliance argued that ``the issue of vehicle motion suppression does not 
fall within the category of a simple technical translation of current 
FMVSS [No.] 208 requirements,'' but is an ``operational topic'' that 
NHTSA can and should address ``on a separate track.'' Waymo stated that 
it recognized the importance of protecting small children from air bag 
risks but had concerns about the proposed vehicle motion suppression 
approach. Waymo stated, ``it may be technically feasible to address 
that risk by requiring the same advanced air bag protections in the 
driver's seat of dual-mode vehicles as those that are currently 
required in the right front outboard passenger seat. In fact, there may 
be other technical solutions that would obviate the need for the NPRM's 
proposal. . . . Waymo is confident that auto manufacturers can develop 
sound technical ways to address this issue.''
    Ford stated that it ``appreciates NHTSA's safety concerns for child 
seats mounted in the driver seat of a `Dual mode' AV when the ADS is 
active,'' but sought an additional compliance option beyond motion 
suppression. Ford identified two risk categories for children in the 
driver's seat: Crash protections; and unintentional takeover of the 
driving task. Ford stated that the crash protection risk could be 
addressed by ``[e]nsur[ing] the same level of crash protection for 
children of various ages in the driver seat position as provided today 
in the passenger outboard seating position,'' while the risk of 
unintentional take-over could be addressed ``by suppressing manual 
requests to the steering control in ADS mode when a child is detected 
in the driver seat.'' GM asserted that motion suppression for dual-mode 
ADS-vehicles should not be the focus of the NPRM, but that it ``is 
aligned with the need to address child occupant safety in dual-mode 
ADS-equipped vehicles and would support applying existing air bag 
suppression requirements (and/or low risk deployment) to accomplish 
this.''
Agency Response
    NHTSA has decided not to adopt the proposal for motion suppression 
of the vehicle in this final rule. Additional information is needed to 
gain a fuller understanding of potential unintended consequences of the 
proposal, the potential safety problem related to interaction with 
driving controls, and available regulatory solutions before a final 
decision can be made. While the agency believes that FMVSS No. 208's 
air bag suppression test procedure could form the basis of a test 
procedure for a vehicle motion suppression regulatory option, such as 
that proposed in the NPRM,\47\ additional work is necessary to address 
problems relating to a vehicle's sensors distinguishing between a child 
and an adult driver similar in size to a child.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Many commenters were under the mistaken impression that the 
NPRM only proposed that the 12-month-old CRABI dummy was to be used 
to assure vehicle motion suppression. To clarify, the NPRM proposed 
to use the 12-month-old, the 3-year-old, and the 6-year-old child 
dummies in the proposed procedure.
    \48\ At this time, NHTSA is not aware of any production-ready 
technical solution for occupant detection that would be able to 
discriminate between a 6-year-old or younger child and an adult of a 
similar or smaller size, and does not know of a test procedure that 
could be used to test a system's ability to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While several commenters suggested potential alternative regulatory 
solutions, they are outside of the scope of this rulemaking, require 
research to determine their technical feasibility, or require further 
analysis to determine whether they would be consistent with the 
requirements of the Safety Act. Some suggested requiring the same 
advanced air bag protections in the driver's seat of dual-mode vehicles 
as those that are currently required in the right front outboard 
passenger seat. That approach does not address concerns with the effect 
the manually operated driving controls themselves could have on the 
children's crash protection. For instance, would an infant in a rear-
facing child restraint in a seating position with a steering control 
system be adequately protected when the air bag is suppressed? Would a 
child in a forward-facing child restraint in a seating position with a 
steering control system be adequately protected when the air bag is 
suppressed or in a low risk deployment state? How should test 
procedures be developed to assess the crash protection provided to 
children in a driver's seating positions relative to the passenger 
position? While caregivers are taught to transport children in rear 
seating positions, to what extent would children be transported in ADS 
vehicles in seating positions that have manually operated driving 
controls? To finalize a rule in this area, the agency would like to 
answer these questions, and those answers require additional research.
    NHTSA plans to initiate research into the possibility of 
alternative regulatory options that allow vehicle motion, but that also 
address the risk of children in a driver's seat. The agency is 
interested in the development of an analogous procedure to the child 
passenger low risk deployment tests, but for seats with manual 
controls. A test could be developed that assesses the injury risk from 
a deploying air bag on an out of position child. Another aspect of this 
research may attempt to discern whether the presence of the steering 
control (even with a suppressed or low risk deployment air bag) results 
in an unreasonable safety risk to an in-position child in the driver's 
seat compared to a child in a passenger seat.
    While NHTSA has decided not to proceed with adopting the proposed 
requirement for vehicle motion suppression, we disagree with the 
assertion that this proposal was not appropriate for the rulemaking. 
While the rulemaking focused on translating the current FMVSS No. 208 
requirements to account for ADS vehicles, the agency appropriately 
discerned what it believed to be a crash protection issue and a risk 
case that is a consequence of the vehicle design changes that may 
accompany vehicles equipped with ADS technology. After review of the 
comments, NHTSA has concluded that more information is needed to 
identify and understand the nature and extent of the potential safety 
problem and available regulatory alternatives.\49\ The agency 
anticipates revisiting this issue as more is learned from research and 
as the technologies develop.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ This decision accords with E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning 
and Review, Section 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Belts in Buses

    FMVSS No. 208 establishes seat belt requirements for ``medium-
sized'' buses

[[Page 18581]]

(with a GVWR between 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) and 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)) 
and ``large'' buses (GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)). For 
school buses, the driver's seating position is required to have a Type 
2 seat belt. For the other buses, the driver's seating position is 
required to have a Type 1 or 2 seat belt (alternatively, a vehicle may 
meet a crash test option in FMVSS No. 208, depending on the vehicle). 
The NPRM sought comment on how the belt requirement should apply to an 
ADS bus that does not have a driver's seat. Comments were requested on 
whether the standard should require a seat belt for all front seats, 
for just the left front outboard seating position, or for only at least 
one front passenger seat. NHTSA proposed that all front passenger seats 
should be protected with the same level of protection that would apply 
to the driver of a non-ADS vehicle. Our stated rationale was that there 
is likely a similar safety risk in all front row seats of these medium 
and large buses and that the prediction of where an individual might 
sit in the front row is likely to change in ADS-equipped vehicles. The 
NPRM discussed concerns with arbitrarily determining which front row 
occupant receives the protection of a seat belt or allowing 
manufacturers to make that determination. (See proposed amendments to 
FMVSS No. 208 S4.4.4.1.2, S4.4.4.2 and S4.4.5.3.)
    Many commenters (including the Alliance, Hyundai, Safe Kids, CAS, 
CalSTA, the Automotive Safety Council (ASC), Safe Ride News (SRN)) 
supported NHTSA's proposal. ASC also believed the proposed text should 
apply regardless of whether they are ADS or non-ADS vehicles and 
suggested there should be a seat belt warning for each position. SRN 
believed that the occupant protection formerly provided for an adult 
driver should be available for a supervisory adult or adults in school 
buses with ADS.
Agency Response
    The final rule adopts the proposed changes to the seat belts 
required for the front seats of medium sized buses (GVWR or more than 
4,536 kg (10,000 lb), but not greater than 11,793 (26,000 lb)) without 
driver's DSPs, but will not proceed with the changes for large school 
buses (GVWR of more than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb)).\50\ We will separate 
this discussion into large school buses and medium size non-school 
buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ FMVSS No. 222, ``School bus passenger seating and crash 
protection,'' considers buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg 
(10,000 lb.) as large school buses (S5(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For large school buses described above, we have decided that more 
examination is necessary before finalizing a requirement. The FMVSS No. 
222 compartmentalization requirements for passenger seats remain in 
place. We believe any changes to the compartmentalization requirement 
of FMVSS No. 222 for front row seats of novel ADS-equipped school buses 
require a more fulsome discussion before moving forward.
    NHTSA is finalizing its proposal for medium size buses, other than 
school buses, to require the same occupant protection at the front seat 
of an ADS as would currently be met by the driver's seat. However, 
modifying existing FMVSSs to require seat belt warnings for each bus 
seat would be outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    CAS submitted that school buses should not be included in this 
rulemaking due to the unique role a human driver has in interacting 
with and overseeing the student occupants. The commenter is concerned 
about a rulemaking that has the effect of encouraging the development 
of school buses with ADS, because school buses rely on the human driver 
for more tasks such as ``safety during ingress and egress, for 
discipline while underway, and for emergency evacuation in a variety of 
life-endangering situations.'' They argue that ``any proposed rule on 
occupant protection for driverless school buses should be withdrawn 
unless and until all safety aspects of such operation are considered.''
    In response, NHTSA believes the CAS request that this rulemaking 
action exclude any changes that affect school buses is unwarranted. The 
final rule simply updates terms in the standards to make them 
technology-neutral to account for ADS-equipped vehicles, particularly 
those without manual controls, while providing the same amount of 
occupant protection. NHTSA notes that Federal law does not prohibit 
installation of an ADS on a school bus, currently. CAS did not provide 
any particularized safety issues within the scope of this rulemaking 
that would justify NHTSA's not proceeding with amending the school bus 
FMVSSs. NHTSA does not regulate the use or operation of school buses, 
so even with this final rule, States or local school districts can 
continue to purchase only non-ADS school buses if they wish to do so, 
and existing operational and supervisory requirements on a State, local 
or school district level could apply as well.

f. Corrections to FMVSS No. 208 Regulatory Text

    NHTSA realized from some of the comments that editorial corrections 
should be made to some of the provisions of FMVSS No. 208.
    Zoox believed that a change in S19.2.2(e) is needed for consistency 
throughout the regulatory text. NHTSA agrees with Zoox that S19.2.2(e) 
should be changed such that the reference to the ``right front 
passenger'' is changed to ``any front outboard passenger.'' The agency 
believes this is consistent with changes made throughout the FMVSSs to 
address the situation where there may be more than one front outboard 
passenger.
    FMVSS No. 208, S4.2 defines, for use in that section, the term 
``vehicles manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities.'' 
The purpose of this definition was to allow an exception to the type of 
seat belt required in the driver's seating position in S4.2.1.2(b), 
which is a superseded section of FMVSS No. 208. The National Disability 
Rights Network (NDRN) commented that ``[l]anguage needs to be added to 
these provisions that takes into consideration the potential for 
wheelchair accessible ADS-equipped vehicles without manual controls or 
a driver's seat and reference to a front left outboard seat.''
    In response, S4.2.1.2(b) has been superseded and the term 
``vehicles manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities'' is 
no longer used anywhere in active portions of FMVSS No. 208, aside from 
the definition that is provided in S4.2. NHTSA interprets NDRN's 
comment as requesting that ``vehicles manufactured for operation by 
persons with disabilities'' be added in active portions of FMVSS No. 
208, as had been included in superseded portions of the standard. 
Though such a request is outside the scope of this final rule and 
requires additional analysis, NHTSA may consider similar language in 
future rulemakings.

VII. Amendments to Various FMVSSs

    This section discusses comments received on proposed amendments to 
various FMVSSs.

FMVSS Nos. 203, Impact Protection for the Driver From the Steering 
Control System and 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement

    NHTSA proposed modifying the application section (S2) of FMVSS Nos. 
203 and 204 to state that the standards do not apply to vehicles 
without steering controls. The agency tentatively determined that the 
proposed changes

[[Page 18582]]

would not reduce vehicle safety because, if no steering control is 
present at the seating position where the driver's seat would normally 
be located, that seating position would become a passenger seat that is 
still subject to the protection afforded by the requirements of FMVSS 
No. 201.
    Several commenters supported the proposed wording change, and no 
commenter opposed. NHTSA is adopting the change. In their comments to 
the NPRM the American Trucking Association stated their belief that 
FMVSS No. 204 applied to heavy trucks. In response to this comment we 
would like to clarify that FMVSS No. 204 does not apply to trucks with 
a GVWR over 10,000 lb.
    The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) discussed implications for 
vehicles with configurations that could change (i.e., a vehicle could 
have configurations with steering controls and without), but such 
controls do not meet the definition of a manually operated driving 
control while stowed. The agency believes that no change is necessary 
to address the CAS concern, because it is already addressed by virtue 
of the fact that when the steering control is not stowed, both FMVSS 
Nos. 203 and 204 apply (unless otherwise excluded).

FMVSS No. 207, Seating Systems--Driver's Seat Requirement

    NHTSA proposed to modify a requirement that a vehicle have a 
driver's seat (FMVSS No. 207, S4.1), to specify instead that a driver's 
seat would be required only for vehicles with manually operated driving 
controls. By virtue of the new definition of driver's seat (``driver's 
designated seating position'') and ``manually operated driving 
controls,'' a driver's seat inherently has immediate access to such 
controls. Therefore, the proposed addition to S4.1 would clarify that a 
vehicle equipped with ADS, without traditional driving controls, need 
not have a driver's seat.
    Most commenters responding to this issue (the California State 
Transportation Agency (CalSTA), GM, CAS) favored or were neutral on the 
proposal. GM noted that the NPRM's use of the term ``manually operated 
driving control'' as used in the requirement for a driver's seat in 
FMVSS No. 207 was incorrectly singular and instead should be plural. 
NHTSA agrees with this comment and has adopted the correction in the 
final rule.
    Tesla asked NHTSA to reconsider this requirement, stating that, 
``in certain circumstances involving dual-mode vehicles, the driver's 
designated seating position may become a passenger's designated seating 
position (e.g., when the manually operated driving controls are 
stowed).'' Tesla stated that in such cases, there may be no driver's 
designated seating position, which could create uncertainty about 
compliance with FMVSS 207, S4.1 for dual-mode vehicles.
    NHTSA does not understand how the situation Tesla describes creates 
uncertainty about S4.1 certification, since the driver's seat 
requirement is predicated on the presence of driving controls. If the 
vehicle were dual-mode with stowable controls, the manufacturer would 
need to provide a seat so that when the controls are in place, the seat 
would be available. Although such a system would be unnecessary, a 
manufacturer could provide a system that stows the driver's seat when 
the controls are stowed.

FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact Protection

    Zoox commented that the first sentence of FMVSS No. 214, S12.2.1(c) 
is unnecessary. This section of the standard refers to the positioning 
of the arms of the test dummy. The NPRM proposed adding a sentence to 
assure that the specification would apply if the vehicle had multiple 
front seat passenger dummies. However, since the specification would 
apply to any dummy, the additional sentence is redundant. NHTSA agrees 
with Zoox's assessment and is deleting the unnecessary text.

FMVSS No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protection

    The Alliance suggested that in S5.2(b), the term ``occupant 
compartment'' should be substituted for ``passenger and driver 
compartment.'' NHTSA did not propose changes to FMVSS No. 220 because 
the agency does not believe any are necessary.
    We decline to make the requested change to FMVSS No. 220 because 
the agency continues to believe no changes are necessary. We note that 
a lack of a driver simply indicates that there is only a passenger 
compartment.

FMVSS No. 226--Ejection Countermeasure Readiness Telltales

    The agency stated in the preamble of the NPRM that it would not 
address telltales and warnings as they relate to ADS vehicles where 
there is no requirement for any occupant to be seated in what is 
currently considered the driver's DSP.\51\ The NPRM stated that this is 
a broad topic that will be discussed in a future notice focused solely 
on these issues, where the agency can engage stakeholders on those 
issues requiring additional policy and technical discussion. The 
proposed regulatory text from the NPRM (in S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 226) 
included changes that inadvertently would have required the ejection 
mitigation countermeasure readiness indicator to be visible to the 
occupant of any DSP for vehicles without a driver's DSP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ The preamble stated (85 FR at 17630): ``The Agency notes 
that other barriers, such as those involving the ejection mitigation 
countermeasure indicator included in FMVSS No. 226, would be more 
appropriately addressed in the Agency's planned future notice 
relating to the appropriate applicability of telltale requirements 
in ADS-equipped vehicles.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule does not proceed with this proposal. Changes to the 
ejection mitigation readiness indicator in FMVSS No. 226 were not 
intended to be included in the scope of this rulemaking. The agency 
will take the comments received on this issue into consideration when 
developing its next actions related to telltales and indicators for 
ADS-equipped vehicles.

FMVSS No. 226, Ejection Mitigation--Modified Roof Definition

    FMVSS No. 226 excludes ``modified roof vehicles'' from the standard 
(S2). The existing FMVSS No. 226 definition of ``modified roof'' (in 
S3) uses the term ``driver's compartment.'' NHTSA proposed to make a 
simple substitution of ``occupant compartment'' to replace ``driver's 
compartment.'' We noted that this change would affect the applicability 
of the standard to all vehicles. However, we expected that it would not 
have any substantive effect on non-ADS vehicles, i.e., we expected that 
the driver's compartment and the occupant compartment would be 
identical and requested comment on our expectation.
    This final rule adopts the proposed change. Only CalSTA commented 
on this aspect of the proposal, and they did so in agreement with the 
change. CalSTA asserted that this modification will increase occupant 
safety. NHTSA does not have information demonstrating that this change 
affects the level of protection provided by current requirements, since 
the modification does not expand applicability.

VIII. Effective Date

    This final rule is effective 180 days after date of publication in 
the Federal Register, with optional early compliance permitted. 49 
U.S.C. 30111(d) states that a FMVSS may not become effective before the 
180th day the standard is prescribed unless good cause is shown that a 
different effective

[[Page 18583]]

date is in the public interest. This final rule makes modifications to 
existing FMVSSs in a way that does not require manufacturers of 
traditional vehicles to modify their products. Moreover, providing for 
optional early compliance will allow manufacturers to benefit 
immediately from the flexibility afforded by the modifications to the 
FMVSSs included in this final rule, providing the same relief as if the 
effective date were earlier.

IX. Cost and Benefit Impacts of This Final Rule

    A Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA) can be found in the 
docket for this final rule. A summary of the FRIA findings is provided 
below. The cost impacts of this rule will depend on the per-vehicle 
costs savings to each vehicle that would no longer need certain manual 
controls, times the number of vehicles produced each year that will be 
produced without those controls. The Agency has reliable information on 
the former category, given that we generally know the current costs of 
this equipment, but can only estimate the broader effects. Thus, NHTSA 
calculated the impact of the final rule on costs by analyzing 
production cost savings arising from forgoing the installation of 
manual steering controls. These cost savings are partially offset by 
incremental costs associated with augmenting safety equipment in the 
left front seating position to make that position equivalent to the 
right front seating position, i.e., when what would have previously 
been a driver's seating position would become a passenger seating 
position in an ADS-DV without manual controls.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ An ADS-DV is defined as ``[a] vehicle designed to be 
operated exclusively by a level 4 or level 5 ADS for all trips 
within its given operational design domain (ODD) limitations (if 
any).'' High driving automation (Level 4) is defined as ``[t]he 
sustained and ODD-specific performance by an ADS of the entire 
dynamic driving task (DDT) and DDT fallback without any expectation 
that a user will respond to a request to intervene.'' Full driving 
automation (Level 5) is defined as ``[t]he sustained and 
unconditional (i.e., not ODD-specific) performance by an ADS of the 
entire DDT and DDT fallback without any expectation that a user will 
respond to a request to intervene.'' SAE J3016_201806 Taxonomy and 
Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-
Road Motor Vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Monetized estimated per-vehicle cost impacts (2018 dollars) are 
presented by discount rate in Table IX-1 below based on a scenario 
presented by the Energy Information Administration (EIA),\53\ in which 
ADS-DVs represent 31 percent of the share of new light-duty vehicle 
sales in the year 2050:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Chase, N., Maples, J., and Schipper, M. (2018). Autonomous 
Vehicles: Uncertainties and Energy Implications. Issue in Focus from 
the Annual Energy Outlook 2018. Washington, DC: U.S. Energy 
Information Administration. Available at https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/av.php (last accessed October 22, 2019).

                          Table IX-1--Summary of Net Per-Vehicle Cost Impact Estimates
                                   [ADS-DV cost impacts in 2050, 2018 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Mean net cost
                 Discount rate                      impact          5th- to 95th-Percentile net cost impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0% (Effects in 2050)..........................           -$995  -$636 to -$1,350.
3% (Discounted back to 2022)..................            -435  -$279 to -$590.
7% Discounted back to 2022)...................            -149  -$96 to -$203.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ranges of estimates were identified within an uncertainty 
analysis addressing uncertainty in the average level of cost savings 
that would be achieved by ADS-DV manufacturers. The uncertainty 
analysis centered on identifying plausible ranges of the per-vehicle 
cost savings, with corresponding assumptions regarding the 
distributions of values across each range (i.e., the likelihood of 
observing a particular value). The uncertainty analysis generated 
50,000 simulated outcomes, across which the mean and percentile values 
reported in Table IX-2 were identified. In addition to the above ranges 
of estimates, the Agency performed a sensitivity analysis in which 30 
percent of ADS-DV sales in 2050 are comprised of dual-mode vehicles. 
See the FRIA for the results of that analysis.
    Although attempting to project the number of vehicles that may 
benefit from these savings is, of course, highly uncertain, NHTSA has 
conducted an analysis that shows how these cost savings would look if 
these types of vehicles became more present in the fleet, as explained 
in greater detail in the FRIA. NHTSA assumed that light-duty vehicle 
sales would follow the identical baseline path projected in the 
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Model \54\ through 2032 (the last 
year specified in the baseline), and then would continue to grow at the 
average annual growth rate in the baseline from 2027-2032 
(approximately 0.2 percent per year; the projected baseline growth rate 
was also approximately 0.2 percent per year for 2027-2032 in the CAFE 
Model) for each year after 2032, growing to 18.7 million new light-duty 
vehicles sold in 2050. NHTSA assumed that the share of new light-duty 
vehicle sales comprised of ADS-DVs would reach 31 percent in the year 
2050, based on the EIA scenario described above; \55\ thus, new ADS-DV 
sales in 2050 are assumed to be equal to 31 percent of 18.7 million, or 
5.8 million. Based on these assumptions, NHTSA estimates that the final 
rule would save ADS-DV manufacturers and consumers approximately $2.5 
billion in the year 2050 ($2.7 billion in production cost savings, 
offset partially by $0.2 billion in incremental costs) at a three-
percent discount rate; and approximately $0.7 billion in the year 2050 
($0.9 billion in production cost savings, offset partially by 
approximately $0.1 billion in incremental costs) at a seven-percent 
discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Detailed information on the CAFE Model, including model 
files, is available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/corporate-average-fuel-economy/compliance-and-effects-modeling-system.
    \55\ Chase, N., Maples, J., and Schipper, M. (2018). Autonomous 
Vehicles: Uncertainties and Energy Implications. Issue in Focus from 
the Annual Energy Outlook 2018. Washington, DC: U.S. Energy 
Information Administration. Available at https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/av.php (last accessed October 22, 2019).

[[Page 18584]]



           Table IX-2--Summary of Total Monetized Annual Benefit, Cost, and Net Cost Impact Estimates
                             [ADS-DV Cost impacts in 2050, billions of 2018 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Benefits       Incremental      Net cost
                          Discount rate                           (cost savings)       costs          impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3%..............................................................            $2.7            $0.2           -$2.5
7%..............................................................             0.9             0.1            -0.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated cost impacts above represent the subset of potential 
impacts that are quantifiable (albeit with considerable uncertainty) 
under the available information. NHTSA identified five unquantified 
benefit impacts associated with the final rule: impacts on fuel 
consumption, impacts on safety, incremental producer and consumer 
surplus, changes in administrative burden, and changes in manufacturer 
uncertainty. The final rule could affect per-vehicle fuel consumption 
by changing the mass of ADS-DVs. NHTSA expects ADS-DV mass to either 
decrease (due to the removal of currently required equipment) slightly 
or remain essentially unchanged (due to the addition of automated 
steering components that offset the mass savings of the removed 
equipment) under the final rule. NHTSA acknowledges that, in principle, 
ADS-DV mass could increase (if vehicle seating configurations and 
amenities are changed sufficiently when exploiting the reduction in 
design constraints when removing manual steering controls) under the 
final rule. Conversely, ADS-DV net mass could decrease for cases where 
vehicles are used for travel without occupants (e.g., automated 
deliveries or empty running between trips with occupants). However, we 
do not have data to support any specific projections in changes in 
vehicle mass.
    In any event, current corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) 
requirements are based on a vehicle's ``footprint,'' and thus any 
change in a vehicles mass will not affect a manufacturer's obligations 
under that program. Finally, as stated in the NPRM, NHTSA has not 
attempted to address the revisions that may be necessary to provide 
regulatory certainty for manufacturers that wish to self-certify ADS-
equipped vehicles with unconventional seating arrangements. The final 
rule is assumed to have no effect on the per-mile risk of travel in 
ADS-DVs, as it does not revise, remove, or establish anything 
associated with their safety performance. That is, the removal of 
manual steering controls is not assumed to offer any direct safety 
benefit or detriment for travel in ADS-DVs. However, it is feasible 
that changes in ADS-DV demand associated with the final rule (e.g., due 
to changes in vehicle design or decreases in cost) could increase the 
use of ADS-DVs. In turn, safety outcomes associated with the final rule 
would be equal to the net effects of: (1) Changes in per-mile fatality 
and injury risk for travel that is shifted from conventional vehicles 
to ADS-DVs; and (2) incremental fatalities and injuries for travel in 
ADS-DVs that would not have taken place in any vehicle otherwise. It is 
difficult to project net safety impacts associated with the final rule 
without information on: (1) Per-mile fatality and injury risk for ADS-
DVs and conventional vehicles over time; and (2) demand for travel in 
ADS-DVs and conventional vehicles as a function of ADS-DV price and 
design attributes.
    NHTSA recognizes that incremental consumer and producer surplus 
under the final rule would accrue in addition to the production cost 
savings estimated in the preceding section. That is, by reconfiguring 
seating configurations and amenities to exploit the lack of manual 
steering controls, ADS-DV manufacturers would generate incremental 
consumer and producer surplus as consumers' willingness-to-pay 
increases. However, NHTSA does not have sufficient information 
available on the demand and supply of ADS-DVs and their substitutes to 
estimate the components of incremental consumer and producer surplus 
that are not captured within the estimates of production cost savings. 
Thus, the share of incremental consumer and producer surplus not 
comprised of the cost savings identified in the preceding section is an 
unquantified benefit.
    The final rule would lead to a reduction in the number of standards 
from which manufacturers of ADS-DVs would have to seek exemptions. The 
reduction in exemption requests would be associated with a reduction in 
administrative costs for both manufacturers and NHTSA. NHTSA does not 
have sufficient information to establish a specific estimate of 
administrative cost savings. However, the cost savings would be 
expected to be small relative to the production cost savings associated 
with the rule.
    A less tangible, but still important, expected impact of the final 
rule would be a reduction in uncertainty for manufacturers of ADS-
equipped vehicles. The final rule provides clarity to manufacturers on 
constraints to developing FMVSS-compliant ADS-equipped vehicles. In 
turn, developmental paths for ADS-equipped vehicles could be 
implemented with greater precision and efficiency. The reduction in 
uncertainty could reduce not only the costs associated with 
manufacturing ADS-equipped vehicles, but also the time it would take to 
bring these vehicles to the market. An accelerated development timeline 
would be a benefit both to manufacturers and consumers.

X. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rulemaking action under 
E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 
1993), E.O. 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' and 
DOT regulatory requirements. This final rule is ``significant'' and was 
reviewed by OMB. This action is significant because it raises novel 
legal and policy issues surrounding the regulation of vehicles equipped 
with ADS and is the subject of much public interest and has anticipated 
annual economic impacts greater than $100 million. NHTSA has prepared a 
Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA) for this final rule, which can 
be found in the docket for this final rule. The cost savings of this 
final rule are described in the preamble and discussed in greater 
detail in the accompanying FRIA.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of proposed rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small

[[Page 18585]]

entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions). The Small Business Administration's 
regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a small business, in part, as a 
business entity ``which operates primarily within the United States.'' 
(13 CFR 121.105(a)(1)). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required 
if the head of an agency certifies the proposed or final rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require 
Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for 
certifying that a proposed or final rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    I certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule 
finalizes NHTSA's proposal of amendments to and clarifications of the 
application of existing occupant protection standards to vehicles 
equipped with ADS that also lack traditional manual controls. This 
final rule will apply to small motor vehicle manufacturers who wish to 
produce ADS without manual controls and with conventional seating 
arrangements (i.e., forward-facing, front row seats). In the NPRM, 
NHTSA analyzed current small manufacturers and current small ADS 
developers in detail in the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis 
(PRIA) for the NPRM, and found that none of the entities listed in the 
analysis would be impacted by this rulemaking. NHTSA received no 
comments on this analysis. For the reasons discussed in the PRIA and 
set forth in the FRIA, NHTSA concludes this rulemaking will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined this final rule pursuant to Executive Order 
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional 
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is 
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that 
the rulemaking will not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation 
of a federalism summary impact statement. This final rule will not have 
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision: 
When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a 
State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue 
in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a 
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is 
identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 
30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any 
non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the 
same aspect of performance.
    The express preemption provision described above is subject to a 
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety 
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from 
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this 
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle 
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express 
preemption provision may be preserved. However, the Supreme Court has 
recognized the possibility of implied preemption of such State common 
law tort causes of action by virtue of NHTSA's rules--even if not 
expressly preempted.
    This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon the 
higher standard effectively imposed through a State common law tort 
judgment against the manufacturer, notwithstanding the manufacturer's 
compliance with the NHTSA standard, creating an obstacle to the 
accomplishment and execution of that standard. If and when such a 
conflict does exist--for example, when the standard at issue is both a 
minimum and a maximum standard--the State common law tort cause of 
action is impliedly preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 
529 U.S. 861 (2000).
    Pursuant to E.O. 13132, NHTSA has considered whether this final 
rule could or should preempt State common law causes of action. The 
agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the preemptive 
effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that preemption will 
be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation. Under the principles 
enunciated in Geier it is possible that a rule of State tort law could 
conflict with a NHTSA safety standard if it created an obstacle to the 
accomplishment and execution of that standard. Since this final rule 
translates existing occupant protection standards to vehicles equipped 
with alternative cabin configurations that lack manual driving 
controls, NHTSA does not currently foresee the likelihood of any such 
tort requirements and does not have a basis for concluding that such a 
conflict exists.
    NHTSA solicited comments from the States and other interested 
parties on this assessment of issues relevant to E.O. 13132 in the 
NPRM. While one commenter touched on the organization's general support 
for the concept of federalism, it did not assert that the rulemaking 
was anything but an appropriate balance between State and Federal 
regulation.

Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et. seq., as added by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. NHTSA will submit a report containing 
this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United 
States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A 
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in 
the Federal Register. This action is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective sixty days after the date of 
publication in the Federal Register.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    When promulgating a regulation, Executive Order 12988 specifically 
requires that the agency must make every reasonable effort to ensure 
that the regulation, as appropriate: (1) Specifies in clear language 
the preemptive effect; (2) specifies in clear language the effect on 
existing Federal law or regulation, including all provisions repealed, 
circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or modified; (3) provides a clear 
legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, 
while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies in 
clear language the retroactive effect; (5) specifies whether 
administrative proceedings are to be required before parties may file 
suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly defines key terms; and (7) 
addresses other important issues affecting clarity

[[Page 18586]]

and general draftsmanship of regulations.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive 
effect of this final rule is discussed above in connection with 
Executive Order 13132. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement 
that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other 
administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental Health 
and Safety Risks)

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks,'' (62 FR 19885; April 23, 1997) applies to any 
proposed or final rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically 
significant,'' as defined in 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 a rule meets both 
criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the rule on children, and explain why the rule is preferable 
to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives 
considered by the Agency.
    This final rule is not expected to have a disproportionate health 
or safety impact on children. Consequently, no further analysis is 
required under Executive Order 13045.

Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, ``Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation,'' promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet 
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, 
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent 
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. NHTSA has analyzed 
this final rule under the policies and Agency responsibilities of 
Executive Order 13609, and has determined this rule would have no 
effect on international regulatory cooperation.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 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 final 
rule imposes no new reporting requirements on any person.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act and 1 CFR Part 51

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments shall 
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means 
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies 
and departments.'' Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as SAE. The NTTAA directs us 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when we decide not to 
use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    Pursuant to the above requirements, the agency conducted a review 
of voluntary consensus standards to determine if any were applicable to 
this final rule. NHTSA searched for, but did not find, voluntary 
consensus standards directly applicable to the amendments adopted in 
this final rule. Neither is NHTSA aware of any international 
regulations or Global Technical Regulation (GTR) activity addressing 
the subject of this final rule.
    SAE Standard J826-1980 was previously approved for use in Sec.  
571.208 and that approval continues unchanged.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires Federal 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). Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is 
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the agency to 
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives 
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of 
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable 
law. Moreover, section 205 allows the agency to adopt an alternative 
other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome 
alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation 
of why that alternative was not adopted.
    This final rule does not contain a mandate that would impose costs 
on any of the entities listed above of more than $100 million annually 
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). As a result, the 
requirements of Section 202 of the Act do not apply.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation 
of this final rule will not have any significant impact on the quality 
of the human environment.

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.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Incorporation by Reference, Motor vehicles, Motor vehicle safety.

Regulatory Text

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as 
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.


0
2. Section 571.3 is amended in paragraph (b) by:
0
a. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``Driver air bag,'' 
``Driver dummy,'' ``Driver's designated seating position,'' and 
``Manually operated driving controls'';
0
b. Revising the definition of ``Outboard designated seating position''; 
and
0
c. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``Passenger seating 
position,'' ``Row,'' ``Seat outline,'' and ``Steering control system''.
    The additions and revision read as follows:


Sec.  571.3   Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Driver air bag means the air bag installed for the protection of 
the occupant of the driver's designated seating position.
    Driver dummy means the test dummy positioned in the driver's 
designated seating position.

[[Page 18587]]

    Driver's designated seating position means a designated seating 
position providing immediate access to manually operated driving 
controls. As used in this part, the terms ``driver's seating position'' 
and ``driver's seat'' shall have the same meaning as ``driver's 
designated seating position.''
* * * * *
    Manually operated driving controls means a system of controls:
    (i) That are used by an occupant for real-time, sustained, manual 
manipulation of the motor vehicle's heading (steering) and/or speed 
(accelerator and brake); and
    (ii) That is positioned such that they can be used by an occupant, 
regardless of whether the occupant is actively using the system to 
manipulate the vehicle's motion.
* * * * *
    Outboard designated seating position means a designated seating 
position where a longitudinal vertical plane tangent to the outboard 
side of the seat cushion is less than 12 inches from the innermost 
point on the inside surface of the vehicle at a height between the 
design H-point and the shoulder reference point (as shown in fig. 1 of 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210) and longitudinally 
between the front and rear edges of the seat cushion. As used in this 
part, the terms ``outboard seating position'' and ``outboard seat'' 
shall have the same meaning as ``outboard designated seating 
position.''
* * * * *
    Passenger seating position means any designated seating position 
other than the driver's designated seating position, except as noted 
below. As used in this part, the term ``passenger seat'' shall have the 
same meaning as ``passenger seating position.'' As used in this part, 
``passenger seating position'' includes what was a ``driver's 
designated seating position'' prior to stowing of the present manually 
operated driving controls.
* * * * *
    Row means a set of one or more seats whose seat outlines do not 
overlap with the seat outline of any other seats, when all seats are 
adjusted to their rearmost normal riding or driving position, when 
viewed from the side.
* * * * *
    Seat outline means the outer limits of a seat projected laterally 
onto a vertical longitudinal vehicle plane.
* * * * *
    Steering control system means the manually operated driving control 
used to control the vehicle heading and its associated trim hardware, 
including any portion of a steering column assembly that provides 
energy absorption upon impact. As used in this part, the term 
``steering wheel'' and ``steering control'' shall have the same meaning 
as ``steering control system.''
* * * * *


0
3. Amend Sec.  571.201 by revising paragraph S2, the definition of the 
terms ``A-pillar,'' ``B-pillar,'' and ``Pillar'' in paragraph S3, and 
revising paragraphs S5.1(b), S5.1.1(d), S5.1.2(a), S6.3(b), S8.6, 
S8.20, and S8.24 to read as follows:


Sec.  571.201   Standard No. 201; Occupant protection in interior 
impact.

* * * * *
    S2. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars and to 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks designed to carry at least one 
person, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms or less, except that 
the requirements of S6 do not apply to buses with a GVWR of more than 
3,860 kilograms.
    S3. * * *
    A-pillar means any pillar that is entirely forward of a transverse 
vertical plane passing through the seating reference point of the 
driver's designated seating position or, if there is no driver's 
designated seating position, any pillar that is entirely forward of a 
transverse vertical plane passing through the seating reference point 
of the rearmost designated seating position in the front row of seats.
* * * * *
    B-pillar means the forwardmost pillar on each side of the vehicle 
that is, in whole or in part, rearward of a transverse vertical plane 
passing through the seating reference point of the driver's designated 
seating position or, if there is no driver's designated seating 
position, the forwardmost pillar on each side of the vehicle that is, 
in whole or in part, rearward of a transverse vertical plane passing 
through the seating reference point of the rearmost designated seating 
position in the front row of seats, unless:
    (1) There is only one pillar rearward of that plane and it is also 
a rearmost pillar; or
    (2) There is a door frame rearward of the A-pillar and forward of 
any other pillar or rearmost pillar.
* * * * *
    Pillar means any structure, excluding glazing and the vertical 
portion of door window frames, but including accompanying moldings, 
attached components such as safety belt anchorages and coat hooks, 
which:
    (1) If there is a driver's designated seating position, supports 
either a roof or any other structure (such as a roll-bar) that is above 
the driver's head, or if there is no driver's designated seating 
position, supports either a roof or any other structure (such as a 
roll-bar) that is above the occupant in the rearmost designated seating 
position in the front row of seats, or
    (2) Is located along the side edge of a window.
* * * * *
    S5.1 * * *
    (b) A relative velocity of 19 kilometers per hour for vehicles that 
meet the occupant crash protection requirements of S5.1 of 49 CFR 
571.208 by means of inflatable restraint systems and meet the 
requirements of S4.1.5.1(a)(3) by means of a Type 2 seat belt assembly 
at any front passenger designated seating position, the deceleration of 
the head form shall not exceed 80 g continuously for more than 3 
milliseconds
    S5.1.1 * * *
    (d) If the steering control is present, areas outboard of any point 
of tangency on the instrument panel of a 165 mm diameter head form 
tangent to and inboard of a vertical longitudinal plane tangent to the 
inboard edge of the steering control; or
* * * * *
    S5.1.2 * * *
    (a) The origin of the line tangent to the instrument panel surface 
shall be a point on a transverse horizontal line through a point 125 mm 
horizontally forward of the seating reference point of any front 
outboard passenger designated seating position, displaced vertically an 
amount equal to the rise which results from a 125 mm forward adjustment 
of the seat or 19 mm; and
* * * * *
    S6.3 * * *
    (b) Any target located rearward of a vertical plane 600 mm behind 
the seating reference point of the rearmost designated seating 
position. For altered vehicles and vehicles built in two or more 
stages, including ambulances and motor homes, any target located 
rearward of a vertical plane 300 mm behind the seating reference point 
of the driver's designated seating position or the rearmost designated 
seating position in the front row of seats, if there is no driver's 
designated seating position (tests for altered vehicles and vehicles 
built in two or more stages do not include, within the time period for 
measuring HIC(d), any free motion headform contact with components 
rearward of this plane). If an altered vehicle or vehicle built in two 
or more stages is equipped with a transverse

[[Page 18588]]

vertical partition positioned between the seating reference point of 
the driver's designated seating position and a vertical plane 300 mm 
behind the seating reference point of the driver's designated seating 
position, any target located rearward of the vertical partition is 
excluded.
* * * * *
    S8.6 Steering control and seats.
    (a) During targeting, the steering control and seats may be placed 
in any position intended for use while the vehicle is in motion.
    (b) During testing, the steering control and seats may be removed 
from the vehicle.
* * * * *
    S8.20 Adjustable steering controls--vehicle to pole test. 
Adjustable steering controls shall be adjusted so that the steering 
control hub is at the geometric center of the locus it describes when 
it is moved through its full range of driving positions.
* * * * *
    S8.24 Impact reference line--vehicle to pole test. On the striking 
side of the vehicle, place an impact reference line at the intersection 
of the vehicle exterior and a transverse vertical plane passing through 
the center of gravity of the head of the dummy seated in accordance 
with S8.28, in any front outboard designated seating position.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec.  571.203 by revising paragraph S2 and removing and 
reserving S3.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  571.203   Standard No. 203; Impact protection for the driver from 
the steering control system.

* * * * *
    S2. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars and to 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a gross vehicle 
weight rating of 4,536 kg or less. However, it does not apply to 
vehicles that conform to the frontal barrier crash requirements (S5.1) 
of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208) by means of other than seat belt 
assemblies. It also does not apply to walk-in vans or vehicles without 
a steering control.
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  571.204 by revising paragraph S2 to read as follows:


Sec.  571.204   Standard No. 204; Steering control rearward 
displacement.

* * * * *
    S2. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars and to 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. However, it does 
not apply to walk-in vans or vehicles without steering controls.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec.  571.205 by revising paragraph S3(a) to read as follows:


Sec.  571.205   Standard No. 205, Glazing materials.

* * * * *
    S3. * * *
    (a) This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger 
vehicles, trucks designed to carry at least one person, buses, 
motorcycles, slide-in campers, pickup covers designed to carry persons 
while in motion and low speed vehicles, and to glazing materials for 
use in those vehicles.
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  571.206 by revising paragraph S2, the definitions of 
``Side Front Door'' and ``Side Rear Door'' in paragraph S3, and 
paragraph S5.1.1.4(b)(1)(ii)(C) to read as follows:


Sec.  571.206   Standard No. 206; Door locks and door retention 
components.

* * * * *
    S2. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars, 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks designed to carry at least one 
person, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg 
or less.
    S3. * * *
    Side Front Door is a door that, in a side view, has 50 percent or 
more of its opening area forward of the rearmost point on the driver's 
seat back, when the seat back is adjusted to its most vertical and 
rearward position. For vehicles without a driver's designated seating 
position it is a door that in a side view, has 50 percent or more of 
its opening area forward of the rearmost point on the most rearward 
passenger's seat back in the front row of seats, when the seat backs 
are adjusted to their most vertical and rearward position.
    Side Rear Door is a door that, in a side view, has 50 percent or 
more of its opening area to the rear of the rearmost point on the 
driver's seat back, when the driver's seat is adjusted to its most 
vertical and rearward position. For vehicles without a driver's 
designated seating position it is a door that in a side view, has 50 
percent or more of its opening area rear of the rearmost point on the 
most rearward passenger's seat back in the front row of seats, when the 
seat backs are adjusted to their most vertical and rearward position.
* * * * *
    S5.1.1.4 * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) Transverse Setup 1. Orient the vehicle so that its transverse 
axis is aligned with the axis of the acceleration device, simulating a 
left-side impact.
* * * * *

0
8. Amend Sec.  571.207 by revising paragraphs S2 and S4.1 to read as 
follows:


Sec.  571.207   Standard No. 207; Seating systems.

* * * * *
    S2. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars, 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks designed to carry at least one 
person, and buses.
* * * * *
    S4.1 Driver's seat. Each vehicle with manually operated driving 
controls shall have a driver's designated seating position.
* * * * *

0
9. Amend Sec.  571.208 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraph S3(a);
0
b. Add paragraphs S4.1.5.6, S.4.1.5.6.1, S4.1.5.6.2, S4.1.5.6.3, 
S4.1.5.6.4, S4.1.5.6.5, S4.1.5.6.6;
0
c. Revise paragraphs S4.2 introductory text, S4.2.5.4(c), 
S4.2.5.5(a)(2), and S4.2.6.1.1;
0
d. Add paragraph S4.2.6.4;
0
e. Revise the definition of ``Perimeter-seating bus'' in S4.4.1, 
paragraphs S4.4.3.2.1, S4.4.3.2.2, S4.4.4.1.1, S4.4.4.1.2, S4.4.5.1.1, 
S4.4.5.1.2 introductory text, S4.4.5.1.2(e), S4.5.1(c)(3), S4.5.1(e)(1) 
introductory text, S4.5.1(e)(2) introductory text, S4.5.1 (e)(3) 
introductory text, S4.5.1(f)(1), S4.11(d), and S7.1.1.5(a);
0
f. Redesignate paragraph S7.1.6 as paragraph S7.1.1.6; and
0
g. Revise paragraphs S8.1.4, S8.2.7(c), S10.2.1, S10.2.2, S10.3.1, 
S10.3.2, S10.4.1.1, S10.4.1.2, S10.4.2.1, S10.5, S10.6.1, S10.6.2, 
S10.7, S13.3, S16.2.9, S16.2.9.1, S16.2.9.2, and S16.2.9.3, the heading 
for S16.2.10, and paragraphs S16.2.10.3, S16.3.2.1.4, S16.3.2.1.8, 
S16.3.2.1.9, S16.3.2.3.2, S16.3.2.3.3, S16.3.2.3.4, S16.3.3, S16.3.3.1, 
S16.3.3.1.2, S16.3.3.1.4, S16.3.3.2, S16.3.3.3, S16.3.4, S16.3.5, 
S19.2.1, S19.2.2 introductory text, S19.2.2(d), S19.2.2(e), S19.2.2(g), 
S19.2.2(h), S19.2.3, S19.3, S20.1.2, S20.2, S20.2.1.4, S20.2.2.3, 
S20.3, S20.3.1, S20.3.2, S20.4.1, S20.4.4, S20.4.9, S21.2.1, S21.2.3, 
S21.3, S21.4, S22.1.2, S22.1.3, S22.2, S22.2.1.1, S22.2.1.3, S22.2.2, 
S22.2.2.1(a) and (b), S22.2.2.3(a) and (b), S22.2.2.4(a), S22.2.2.5(a), 
S22.2.2.6(a) and (b), S22.2.2.7(a) and (b), S22.2.2.8(a) introductory 
text, S22.2.2.8(a)(6), S22.3, S22.3.1, S22.3.2, S22.4.2.2, S22.4.3.1, 
S22.4.3.2, S22.4.4, S22.5.1, S23.2.1, S23.2.3, S23.3, S23.4, S24.1.2, 
S24.1.3, S24.2 introductory text, S24.2.3

[[Page 18589]]

introductory text, S24.2.3(a), S24.3, S24.3.1, S24.3.2, S24.4.2.3 
introductory text, S24.4.3.1, S24.4.3.2 introductory text, S24.4.4, 
S26.2.1, S26.2.2, S26.2.4.3, S26.2.4.4, S26.2.5, S26.3.2, S26.3.3, 
S26.3.4.3, S26.3.5, S26.3.6, S26.3.7, S27.5.2, S27.6.2, S28.2, and 
S28.4;
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    S3. Application. (a) This standard applies to passenger cars, 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks designed to carry at least one 
person, and buses. In addition, S9, Pressure vessels and explosive 
devices, applies to vessels designed to contain a pressurized fluid or 
gas, and to explosive devices, for use in the above types of motor 
vehicles as part of a system designed to provide protection to 
occupants in the event of a crash.
* * * * *
    S4.1.5.6 Inboard designated seating positions in passenger cars 
without manually operated driving controls.
    S4.1.5.6.1 For vehicles specified in S4.1.5.6 with no outboard 
designated seating positions and with a single front inboard designated 
seating position, the vehicle shall at that position meet the 
requirements of S4.1.5.6.3 and S4.1.5.6.4. The above specified vehicles 
with multiple front inboard designated seating position shall at one 
inboard position meet the requirements S4.1.5.6.3 and S4.1.5.6.4 and at 
all other inboard positions meet the requirements of S4.1.5.6.6.
    S4.1.5.6.2 For vehicles specified in S4.1.5.6 with only one 
outboard designated seating position and a single front inboard 
designated seating position, the vehicle shall at that position meet 
the requirements of S4.1.5.6.3 and S4.1.5.6.4. The above specified 
vehicles with multiple front inboard designated seating position shall 
at one inboard position meet the requirements of S4.1.5.6.3 and 
S4.1.5.6.4 and at all other inboard positions meet the requirements of 
S4.1.5.6.5.
    S4.1.5.6.3 As specified in S4.1.5.6.1 and S4.1.5.6.2, the vehicles 
shall meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1.2(b) as 
specified for front outboard passenger designated seating positions by 
means of an inflatable restraint system that requires no action by 
vehicle occupants and the requirements of S14, as specified for front 
outboard passenger designated seating positions.
    S4.1.5.6.4 As specified in S4.1.5.6.1 and S4.1.5.6.2, the 
designated seating positions have a Type 2 seat belt assembly that 
conforms to Standard No. 209 and S7.1 through S7.3 of this standard, as 
specified for front outboard passenger designated seating positions.
    S4.1.5.6.5 As specified in S4.1.5.6.1 and S4.1.5.6.2, as 
appropriate, have a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms 
to Standard No. 209 and S7.1 through S7.3 of this standard.
    S4.1.5.6.6 As specified in S4.1.5.6.1 and S4.1.5.6.2, as 
appropriate, have a Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to Standard 
No. 209 and S7.1 through S7.3 of this standard, as specified for front 
outboard passenger designated seating positions.
* * * * *
    S4.2 Trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 
10,000 pounds or less. As used in this section, vehicles manufactured 
for operation by persons with disabilities means vehicles that 
incorporate a level change device (e.g., a wheelchair lift or a ramp) 
for onloading or offloading an occupant in a wheelchair, an interior 
element of design intended to provide the vertical clearance necessary 
to permit a person in a wheelchair to move between the lift or ramp and 
the driver's position or to occupy that position, and either an 
adaptive control or special driver's seating accommodation to enable 
persons who have limited use of their arms or legs to operate a 
vehicle. For purposes of this definition, special driver's seating 
accommodations include a driver's seat easily removable with means 
installed for that purpose or with simple tools, or a driver's seat 
with extended adjustment capability to allow a person to easily 
transfer from a wheelchair to the driver's seat.
* * * * *
    S4.2.5.4 * * *
    (c) Each truck, bus, and multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR 
of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds 
or less manufactured on or after September 1, 1995, but before 
September 1, 1998, whose driver's seating position complies with the 
requirements of S4.1.2.1(a) of this standard by means not including any 
type of seat belt and whose right front passenger seating position is 
equipped with a manual Type 2 seat belt that complies with S5.1 of this 
standard, with the seat belt assembly adjusted in accordance with 
S7.4.2, shall be counted as a vehicle complying with S4.1.2.1.
    S4.2.5.5 * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) Each truck, bus, and multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR 
of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds 
or less whose driver's seating position complies with the requirements 
of S4.1.2.1(a) by means not including any type of seat belt and whose 
right front passenger seating position is equipped with a manual Type 2 
seat belt that complies with S5.1 of this standard, with the seat belt 
assembly adjusted in accordance with S7.4.2, is counted as one vehicle.
* * * * *
    S4.2.6.1.1 The amount of trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles complying with the requirements of S4.1.5.1(a)(1) of this 
standard by means of an inflatable restraint system shall be not less 
than 80 percent of the manufacturer's total combined production of 
subject vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1997 and before 
September 1, 1998. Each truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger vehicle 
with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 
5,500 pounds or less manufactured on or after September 1, 1997 and 
before September 1, 1998, whose driver's seating position complies with 
S4.1.5.1(a)(1) by means of an inflatable restraint system and whose 
right front passenger seating position is equipped with a manual Type 2 
seat belt assembly that complies with S5.1 of this standard, with the 
seat belt assembly adjusted in accordance with S7.4.2 of this standard, 
shall be counted as a vehicle complying with S4.1.5.1(a)(1) by means of 
an inflatable restraint system. A vehicle shall not be deemed to be in 
noncompliance with this standard if its manufacturer establishes that 
it did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that such 
vehicle is not in conformity with the requirement of this standard.
* * * * *
    S4.2.6.4 Inboard designated seating positions in trucks, buses, and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles without manually operated driving 
controls and with a single or multiple front inboard designated seating 
position and no outboard seating positions and with a GVWR of 3,855 kg 
(8,500 lb) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5,500 
lb) or less. The above specified vehicles shall meet the requirements 
of S4.1.5.6 as specified for passenger cars.
* * * * *
    S4.4.1 * * *
    Perimeter-seating bus means a bus, which is not an over-the-road 
bus, that has 7 or fewer designated seating positions that are forward-
facing or can convert to forward-facing without the use of tools, and 
are rearward of the driver's designated seating position or

[[Page 18590]]

rearward of the outboard designated seating position(s) in the front 
row of seats, if there is no driver's designated seating position.
* * * * *
    S4.4.3.2.1 The driver's designated seating position and any 
outboard designated seating position not rearward of the driver's 
seating position shall be equipped with a Type 2 seat belt assembly. 
For a school bus without a driver's designated seating position, the 
outboard designated seating positions in the front row of seats shall 
be equipped with Type 2 seat belt assemblies. The seat belt assembly 
shall comply with Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209) and with S7.1 and 
S7.2 of this standard. The lap belt portion of the seat belt assembly 
shall include either an emergency locking retractor or an automatic 
locking retractor. An automatic locking retractor shall not retract 
webbing to the next locking position until at least \3/4\ inch of 
webbing has moved into the retractor. In determining whether an 
automatic locking retractor complies with this requirement, the webbing 
is extended to 75 percent of its length and the retractor is locked 
after the initial adjustment. If the seat belt assembly installed in 
compliance with this requirement incorporates any webbing tension-
relieving device, the vehicle owner's manual shall include the 
information specified in S7.4.2(b) of this standard for the tension-
relieving device, and the vehicle shall comply with S7.4.2(c) of this 
standard.
    S4.4.3.2.2 Passenger seating positions, other than those specified 
in S4.4.3.2.1, shall be equipped with Type 2 seat belt assemblies that 
comply with the requirements of S7.1.1.5, S7.1.5 and S7.2 of this 
standard.
* * * * *
    S4.4.4.1.1 First option--complete passenger protection system--
driver only. The vehicle shall meet the crash protection requirements 
of S5, with respect to an anthropomorphic test dummy in the driver's 
designated seating position, by means that require no action by vehicle 
occupants.
    S4.4.4.1.2 Second option--belt system. The vehicle shall, at the 
driver's designated seating position and all designated seating 
positions in the front row of seats, if there is no driver's designated 
seating position, be equipped with either a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat 
belt assembly that conforms to Sec.  571.209 of this part and S7.2 of 
this Standard. A Type 1 belt assembly or the pelvic portion of a dual 
retractor Type 2 belt assembly installed at these seating positions 
shall include either an emergency locking retractor or an automatic 
locking retractor. If a seat belt assembly includes an automatic 
locking retractor for the lap belt or the lap belt portion, that seat 
belt assembly shall comply with the following:
* * * * *
    S4.4.5.1.1 The driver's designated seating position and any 
outboard designated seating position not rearward of the driver's 
seating position shall be equipped with a Type 2 seat belt assembly. 
The seat belt assembly shall comply with Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 
571.209) and with S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard. For a bus without a 
driver's designated seating position, any outboard designated seating 
position in the front row of seats, shall be equipped with Type 2 seat 
belt assemblies. If a seat belt assembly installed in compliance with 
this requirement includes an automatic locking retractor for the lap 
belt portion, that seat belt assembly shall comply with paragraphs (a) 
through (c) of S4.4.4.1.2 of this standard. If a seat belt assembly 
installed in compliance with this requirement incorporates any webbing 
tension-relieving device, the vehicle owner's manual shall include the 
information specified in S7.4.2(b) of this standard for the tension-
relieving device, and the vehicle shall comply with S7.4.2(c) of this 
standard.
    S4.4.5.1.2 Passenger seating positions, other than those specified 
in S4.4.5.1.1 and seating positions on prison buses rearward of the 
driver's seating position, shall:
* * * * *
    (e) Comply with the requirements of S7.1.1.5, S7.1.1.6, S7.1.3, and 
S7.2 of this standard.
* * * * *
    S4.5.1 * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) If a vehicle does not have an inflatable restraint at any front 
seating position other than that for the driver's designated seating 
position, the pictogram may be omitted from the label shown in Figure 
6c.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) Except as provided in S4.5.1(e)(2) or S4.5.1(e)(3), each 
vehicle that is equipped with an inflatable restraint for the passenger 
position shall have a label attached to a location on the dashboard or 
the steering control hub that is clearly visible from all front seating 
positions. The label need not be permanently affixed to the vehicle. 
This label shall conform in content to the label shown in Figure 7 of 
this standard, and shall comply with the requirements of 
S4.5.1(e)(1)(i) through S4.5.1(e)(1)(iii).
* * * * *
    (2) Vehicles certified to meet the requirements specified in S19, 
S21, and S23 before December 1, 2003, that are equipped with an 
inflatable restraint for the passenger position shall have a label 
attached to a location on the dashboard or the steering control hub 
that is clearly visible from all front seating positions. The label 
need not be permanently affixed to the vehicle. This label shall 
conform in content to the label shown in either Figure 9 or Figure 12 
of this standard, at manufacturer's option, and shall comply with the 
requirements of S4.5.1(e)(2)(i) through S4.5.1(e)(2)(iv).
* * * * *
    (3) Vehicles certified to meet the requirements specified in S19, 
S21, and S23 on or after December 1, 2003, that are equipped with an 
inflatable restraint for the passenger position shall have a label 
attached to a location on the dashboard or the steering control hub 
that is clearly visible from all front seating positions. The label 
need not be permanently affixed to the vehicle. This label shall 
conform in content to the label shown in Figure 12 of this standard and 
shall comply with the requirements of S4.5.1(e)(3)(i) through 
S4.5.1(e)(3)(iv).
* * * * *
    (f) Information to appear in owner's manual. (1) The owner's manual 
for any vehicle equipped with an inflatable restraint system shall 
include an accurate description of the vehicle's air bag system in an 
easily understandable format. The owner's manual shall include a 
statement to the effect that the vehicle is equipped with an air bag 
and lap/shoulder belt at both front outboard seating positions, and 
that the air bag is a supplemental restraint at those seating 
positions. The information shall emphasize that all occupants should 
always wear their seat belts whether or not an air bag is also provided 
at their seating position to minimize the risk of severe injury or 
death in the event of a crash. The owner's manual shall also provide 
any necessary precautions regarding the proper positioning of 
occupants, including children, at seating positions equipped with air 
bags to ensure maximum safety protection for those occupants. The 
owner's manual shall also explain that no objects should be placed over 
or near the air bag on the instrument panel, because any such objects 
could cause harm if the vehicle is in a crash severe enough to cause 
the air bag to inflate.
* * * * *
    S4.11 * * *
    (d) For driver dummy low risk deployment tests, the injury criteria 
shall be met when calculated based on

[[Page 18591]]

data recorded for 125 milliseconds after the initiation of the final 
stage of air bag deployment designed to deploy in any full frontal 
rigid barrier crash up to 26 km/h (16 mph).
* * * * *
    S7.1.1.5 * * *
    (a) Each designated seating position, except the driver's 
designated seating position, and except any right front seating 
position that is equipped with an automatic belt, that is in any motor 
vehicle, except walk-in van-type vehicles and vehicles manufactured to 
be sold exclusively to the U.S. Postal Service, and that is forward-
facing or can be adjusted to be forward-facing, shall have a seat belt 
assembly whose lap belt portion is lockable so that the seat belt 
assembly can be used to tightly secure a child restraint system. The 
means provided to lock the lap belt or lap belt portion of the seat 
belt assembly shall not consist of any device that must be attached by 
the vehicle user to the seat belt webbing, retractor, or any other part 
of the vehicle. Additionally, the means provided to lock the lap belt 
or lap belt portion of the seat belt assembly shall not require any 
inverting, twisting or otherwise deforming of the belt webbing.
* * * * *
    S8.1.4 Adjustable steering controls are adjusted so that the 
steering control hub is at the geometric center of the locus it 
describes when it is moved through its full range of driving positions.
* * * * *
    S8.2.7 * * *
    (c) A vertical plane through the geometric center of the barrier 
impact surface and perpendicular to that surface passes through the 
driver's seating position seating reference point in the tested 
vehicle.
* * * * *
    S10.2.1 The driver dummy's upper arms shall be adjacent to the 
torso with the centerlines as close to a vertical plane as possible.
    S10.2.2 Any front outboard passenger dummy's upper arms shall be in 
contact with the seat back and the sides of the torso.
* * * * *
    S10.3.1 The palms of the driver dummy shall be in contact with the 
outer part of the steering control rim at the rim's horizontal 
centerline. The thumbs shall be over the steering control rim and shall 
be lightly taped to the steering control rim so that if the hand of the 
test dummy is pushed upward by a force of not less than 2 pounds and 
not more than 5 pounds, the tape shall release the hand from the 
steering control rim.
    S10.3.2 The palms of any passenger test dummy shall be in contact 
with the outside of the thigh. The little finger shall be in contact 
with the seat cushion.
* * * * *
    S10.4.1.1 In vehicles equipped with bench seats, the upper torso of 
the driver and front outboard passenger dummies shall rest against the 
seat back. The midsagittal plane of the driver dummy shall be vertical 
and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, and pass through 
the center of rotation of the steering control. The midsagittal plane 
of any passenger dummy shall be vertical and parallel to the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline and the same distance from the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline as the midsagittal plane of the driver dummy, 
if there is a driver's seating position. If there is no driver's 
seating position, the midsagittal plane of any front outboard passenger 
dummy shall be vertical and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal 
centerline, and pass through the seating reference point of the seat 
that it occupies.
    S10.4.1.2 In vehicles equipped with bucket seats, the upper torso 
of the driver and passenger dummies shall rest against the seat back. 
The midsagittal plane of the driver and any front outboard passenger 
dummy shall be vertical and shall coincide with the longitudinal 
centerline of the bucket seat.
* * * * *
    S10.4.2.1 H-point. The H-points of the driver and any front 
outboard passenger test dummies shall coincide within \1/2\ inch in the 
vertical dimension and \1/2\ inch in the horizontal dimension of a 
point \1/4\ inch below the position of the H-point determined by using 
the equipment and procedures specified in SAE Standard J826-1980 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  571.5), except that the length of 
the lower leg and thigh segments of the H-point machine shall be 
adjusted to 16.3 and 15.8 inches, respectively, instead of the 50th 
percentile values specified in Table 1 of SAE Standard J826-1980.
* * * * *
    S10.5 Legs. The upper legs of the driver and any front outboard 
passenger test dummies shall rest against the seat cushion to the 
extent permitted by placement of the feet. The initial distance between 
the outboard knee clevis flange surfaces shall be 10.6 inches. To the 
extent practicable, the left leg of the driver dummy and both legs of 
any front outboard passenger dummy shall be in vertical longitudinal 
planes. To the extent practicable, the right leg of the driver dummy 
shall be in a vertical plane. Final adjustment to accommodate the 
placement of feet in accordance with S10.6 for various passenger 
compartment configurations is permitted.
* * * * *
    S10.6.1 Driver dummy position.
* * * * *
    S10.6.2 Front outboard passenger dummy position.
* * * * *
    S10.7 Test dummy positioning for latchplate access. The reach 
envelopes specified in S7.4.4 of this standard are obtained by 
positioning a test dummy in the driver's or front outboard passenger 
seating position and adjusting that seating position to its forwardmost 
adjustment position. Attach the lines for the inboard and outboard arms 
to the test dummy as described in Figure 3 of this standard. Extend 
each line backward and outboard to generate the compliance arcs of the 
outboard reach envelope of the test dummy's arms.
* * * * *
    S13.3 Vehicle test attitude. When the vehicle is in its ``as 
delivered'' condition, measure the angle between the left side door 
sill and the horizontal. Mark where the angle is taken on the door 
sill. The ``as delivered'' condition is the vehicle as received at the 
test site, with 100 percent of all fluid capacities and all tires 
inflated to the manufacturer's specifications as listed on the 
vehicle's tire placard. When the vehicle is in its ``fully loaded'' 
condition, measure the angle between the left side door sill and the 
horizontal, at the same place the ``as delivered'' angle was measured. 
The ``fully loaded'' condition is the test vehicle loaded in accordance 
with S8.1.1(a) or (b) of Standard No. 208, as applicable. The load 
placed in the cargo area shall be centered over the longitudinal 
centerline of the vehicle. The pretest door sill angle, when the 
vehicle is on the sled, (measured at the same location as the as 
delivered and fully loaded condition) shall be equal to or between the 
as delivered and fully loaded door sill angle measurements.
* * * * *
    S16.2.9 Steering control adjustment.
    S16.2.9.1 Adjust a tiltable steering control, if possible, so that 
the steering control hub is at the geometric center of its full range 
of driving positions.
    S16.2.9.2 If there is no setting detent at the mid-position, lower 
the steering control to the detent just below the mid-position.
    S16.2.9.3 If the steering column is telescoping, place the steering 
column

[[Page 18592]]

in the mid-position. If there is no mid-position, move the steering 
control rearward one position from the mid-position.
    S16.2.10 Front seat set-up.
* * * * *
    S16.2.10.3 Seat position adjustment. If the front right outboard 
passenger seat does not adjust independently of the front left outboard 
seat, the front left outboard seat shall control the final position of 
the front right outboard passenger seat. If an inboard passenger seat 
does not adjust independently of an outboard seat, the outboard seat 
shall control the final position of the inboard passenger seat.
* * * * *
    S16.3.2.1.4 Bench seats. Position the midsagittal plane of the 
dummy vertical and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline 
and aligned within 10 mm (0.4 in) of the center 
of the steering control.
* * * * *
    S16.3.2.1.8 If needed, extend the legs slightly so that the feet 
are not in contact with the floor pan. Let the thighs rest on the seat 
cushion to the extent permitted by the foot movement. Keeping the leg 
and the thigh in a vertical plane, place the foot in the vertical 
longitudinal plane that passes through the centerline of the 
accelerator pedal. Rotate the left thigh outboard about the hip until 
the center of the knee is the same distance from the midsagittal plane 
of the dummy as the right knee 5 mm (0.2 in). 
Using only the control that primarily moves the seat fore and aft, 
attempt to return the seat to the full forward position. If either of 
the dummy's legs first contacts the steering control, then adjust the 
steering control, if adjustable, upward until contact with the steering 
control is avoided. If the steering control is not adjustable, separate 
the knees enough to avoid steering control contact. Proceed with moving 
the seat forward until either the leg contacts the vehicle interior or 
the seat reaches the full forward position. (The right foot may contact 
and depress the accelerator and/or change the angle of the foot with 
respect to the leg during seat movement.) If necessary to avoid contact 
with the vehicles brake or clutch pedal, rotate the test dummy's left 
foot about the leg. If there is still interference, rotate the left 
thigh outboard about the hip the minimum distance necessary to avoid 
pedal interference. If a dummy leg contacts the vehicle interior before 
the full forward position is attained, position the seat at the next 
detent where there is no contact. If the seat is a power seat, move the 
seat fore and aft to avoid contact while assuring that there is a 
maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) distance between the vehicle interior and the 
point on the dummy that would first contact the vehicle interior. If 
the steering control was moved, return it to the position described in 
S16.2.9. If the steering control contacts the dummy's leg(s) prior to 
attaining this position, adjust it to the next higher detent, or if 
infinitely adjustable, until there is 5 mm (0.2 in) clearance between 
the control and the dummy's leg(s).
    S16.3.2.1.9 For vehicles without adjustable seat backs, adjust the 
lower neck bracket to level the head as much as possible. For vehicles 
with adjustable seat backs, while holding the thighs in place, rotate 
the seat back forward until the transverse instrumentation platform of 
the head is level to within 0.5 degree, making sure that 
the pelvis does not interfere with the seat bight. Inspect the abdomen 
to ensure that it is properly installed. If the torso contacts the 
steering control, adjust the steering control in the following order 
until there is no contact: Telescoping adjustment, lowering adjustment, 
raising adjustment. If the vehicle has no adjustments, or contact with 
the steering control cannot be eliminated by adjustment, position the 
seat at the next detent where there is no contact with the steering 
control as adjusted in S16.2.9. If the seat is a power seat, position 
the seat to avoid contact while assuring that there is a maximum of 5 
mm (0.2 in) distance between the steering control as adjusted in 
S16.2.9 and the point of contact on the dummy.
* * * * *
    S16.3.2.3.2 Place the palms of the dummy in contact with the outer 
part of the steering control rim at its horizontal centerline with the 
thumbs over the steering control rim.
    S16.3.2.3.3 If it is not possible to position the thumbs inside the 
steering control rim at its horizontal centerline, then position them 
above and as close to the horizontal centerline of the steering control 
rim as possible.
    S16.3.2.3.4 Lightly tape the hands to the steering control rim so 
that if the hand of the test dummy is pushed upward by a force of not 
less than 9 N (2 lb) and not more than 22 N (5 lb), the tape releases 
the hand from the steering control rim.
    S16.3.3 Front outboard passenger dummy positioning.
    S16.3.3.1 Front outboard passenger torso/head/seat back angle 
positioning.
* * * * *
    S16.3.3.1.2 Fully recline the seat back, if adjustable. Install the 
dummy into any front outboard passenger seat, such that when the legs 
are 120 degrees to the thighs, the calves of the legs are not touching 
the seat cushion.
* * * * *
    S16.3.3.1.4 Bench seats. Position the midsagittal plane of the 
dummy vertical 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 midsagittal plane 
of the driver dummy, if there is a driver's seating position. 
Otherwise, the midsagittal plane of any front outboard passenger dummy 
shall be vertical, parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, 
and pass, within 10 mm (0.4 in), through the 
seating reference point of the seat that it occupies.
* * * * *
    S16.3.3.2 Front outboard passenger foot positioning.
* * * * *
    S16.3.3.3 Front outboard passenger arm/hand positioning.
* * * * *
    S16.3.4 Driver and front outboard passenger adjustable head 
restraints.
* * * * *
    S16.3.5 Driver and front outboard passenger manual belt adjustment 
(for tests conducted with a belted dummy)
* * * * *
    S19.2.1 The vehicle shall be equipped with an automatic suppression 
feature for any front outboard passenger air bag which results in 
deactivation of the air bag during each of the static tests specified 
in S20.2 (using the 49 CFR part 572 Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI child 
dummy in any of the child restraints identified in sections B and C of 
appendix A or A-1 of this standard, as appropriate and the 49 CFR part 
572 subpart K Newborn Infant dummy in any of the car beds identified in 
section A of appendix A or A-1, as appropriate), and activation of the 
air bag system during each of the static tests specified in S20.3 
(using the 49 CFR part 572 Subpart O 5th percentile adult female 
dummy).
    S19.2.2 The vehicle shall be equipped with telltales for each front 
outboard passenger seat which emit light whenever the associated front 
outboard passenger air bag system is deactivated and does not emit 
light whenever the associated front outboard passenger air bag system 
is activated, except that the telltale(s) need not illuminate when the 
associated front outboard passenger seat is unoccupied. For telltales 
associated with multiple front outboard passenger seats, it shall

[[Page 18593]]

be clearly recognizable to a driver and any front outboard passenger 
the seat with which seat each telltale is associated. Each telltale:
* * * * *
    (d) Shall be located within the interior of the vehicle and forward 
of and above the design H-point of both the driver's and any front 
outboard passenger's seat in their forwardmost seating positions and 
shall not be located on or adjacent to a surface that can be used for 
temporary or permanent storage of objects that could obscure the 
telltale from either the driver's or any-front outboard passenger's 
view, or located where the telltale would be obscured from the driver's 
view or the adjacent front outboard passenger's view if a rear-facing 
child restraint listed in appendix A or A-1, as appropriate, is 
installed in any-front outboard passenger's seat.
    (e) Shall be visible and recognizable to a driver and any front 
outboard passenger during night and day when the occupants have adapted 
to the ambient light roadway conditions.
* * * * *
    (g) Means shall be provided for making telltales visible and 
recognizable to the driver and any front outboard passenger under all 
driving conditions. The means for providing the required visibility may 
be adjustable manually or automatically, except that the telltales may 
not be adjustable under any driving conditions to a level that they 
become invisible or not recognizable to the driver and any front 
outboard passenger.
    (h) The telltale must not emit light except when any passenger air 
bag is turned off or during a bulb check upon vehicle starting.
    S19.2.3 The vehicle shall be equipped with a mechanism that 
indicates whether the air bag system is suppressed, regardless of 
whether any front outboard passenger seat is occupied. The mechanism 
need not be located in the occupant compartment unless it is the 
telltale described in S19.2.2.
    S19.3 Option 2--Low risk deployment. Each vehicle shall meet the 
injury criteria specified in S19.4 of this standard when any front 
outboard passenger air bag is deployed in accordance with the 
procedures specified in S20.4.
* * * * *
    S20.1.2 Unless otherwise specified, each vehicle certified to this 
option shall comply in tests conducted with any front outboard 
passenger seating position, if adjustable fore and aft, at full 
rearward, middle, and full forward positions. If the child restraint or 
dummy contacts the vehicle interior, move the seat rearward to the next 
detent that provides clearance, or if the seat is a power seat, using 
only the control that primarily moves the seat fore and aft, move the 
seat rearward while assuring that there is a maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) 
clearance between the dummy or child restraint and the vehicle 
interior.
* * * * *
    S20.2 Static tests of automatic suppression feature which shall 
result in deactivation of any front outboard passenger air bag, 
associated with that designated seating position. Each vehicle that is 
certified as complying with S19.2 shall meet the following test 
requirements.
* * * * *
    S20.2.1.4 For bucket seats, ``Plane B'' refers to a vertical plane 
parallel to the vehicle longitudinal centerline through the 
longitudinal centerline of any front outboard passenger vehicle seat 
cushion. For bench seats in vehicles with manually operated driving 
controls, ``Plane B'' refers to a vertical plane through any 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 control. For bench seats in 
vehicles without manually operated driving controls, ``Plane B'' refers 
to the vertical plane parallel to the vehicle longitudinal centerline, 
through any front outboard passenger seat's SgRP.
* * * * *
    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 any front outboard passenger vehicle seat 
cushion. For bench seats in vehicles with manually operated driving 
controls, ``Plane B'' refers to a vertical plane through any 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 control. For bench seats in vehicles without 
manually operated driving controls, ``Plane B'' refers to the vertical 
plane parallel to the vehicle longitudinal centerline, through any 
front outboard passenger seat's SgRP.
* * * * *
    S20.3 Static tests of automatic suppression feature which shall 
result in activation of any front outboard passenger air bag system.
    S20.3.1 Each vehicle certified to this option shall comply in tests 
conducted with any front outboard passenger seating position, if 
adjustable fore and aft, at the mid-height, in the full rearward and 
middle positions determined in S20.1.9.4, and the forward position 
determined in S16.3.3.1.8.
    S20.3.2 Place a 49 CFR part 572 subpart O 5th percentile adult 
female test dummy at any 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.
* * * * *
    S20.4.1 Position any front outboard passenger vehicle seat at the 
mid-height in the full forward position determined in S20.1.9.4, and 
adjust the seat back (if adjustable independent of the seat) to the 
nominal design position for a 50th percentile adult male as specified 
in S8.1.3. Position adjustable lumbar supports so that the lumbar 
support is in its lowest, retracted or deflated adjustment position. 
Position any adjustable parts of the seat that provide additional 
support so that they are in the lowest or most open adjustment 
position. If adjustable, set the head restraint at the full down and 
most forward position. If the child restraint or dummy contacts the 
vehicle interior, do the following: Using only the control that 
primarily moves the seat in the fore and aft direction, move the seat 
rearward to the next detent that provides clearance; or if the seat is 
a power seat, move the seat rearward while assuring that there is a 
maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) clearance.
* * * * *
    S20.4.4 For bucket seats, ``Plane B'' refers to a vertical plane 
parallel to the vehicle longitudinal centerline through the 
longitudinal centerline of any front outboard passenger seat cushion. 
For bench seats in vehicles with manually operated driving controls, 
``Plane B'' refers to a vertical plane through any front outboard 
passenger seat parallel to the vehicle longitudinal centerline that is 
the same distance from the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle as 
the center of the steering control. For bench seats in vehicles without 
manually operated driving controls, ``Plane B'' refers to the vertical 
plane parallel to the vehicle longitudinal centerline, through any 
front outboard passenger seat's SgRP.
* * * * *
    S20.4.9 Deploy any front outboard passenger frontal air bag system. 
If the air bag system contains a multistage inflator, the vehicle shall 
be able to comply at any stage or combination of stages or time delay 
between successive

[[Page 18594]]

stages that could occur in the presence of an infant in a rear facing 
child restraint and a 49 CFR part 572, subpart R 12-month-old CRABI 
dummy positioned according to S20.4, and also with the seat at the mid-
height, in the middle and full rearward positions determined in 
S20.1.9.4, in a rigid barrier crash test at speeds up to 64 km/h (40 
mph).
* * * * *
    S21.2.1 The vehicle shall be equipped with an automatic suppression 
feature for any front outboard passenger air bag which results in 
deactivation of the air bag during each of the static tests specified 
in S22.2 (using the 49 CFR part 572 subpart P 3-year-old child dummy 
and, as applicable, any child restraint specified in section C and 
section D of appendix A or A-1 of this standard, as appropriate), and 
activation of the air bag system during each of the static tests 
specified in S22.3 (using the 49 CFR part 572 subpart O 5th percentile 
adult female dummy).
* * * * *
    S21.2.3 The vehicle shall be equipped with a mechanism that 
indicates whether the air bag is suppressed, regardless of whether any 
front outboard passenger seat is occupied. The mechanism need not be 
located in the occupant compartment unless it is the telltale described 
in S21.2.2.
    S21.3 Option 2--Dynamic automatic suppression system that 
suppresses the air bag when an occupant is out of position. (This 
option is available under the conditions set forth in S27.1.) The 
vehicle shall be equipped with a dynamic automatic suppression system 
for any front outboard passenger air bag system which meets the 
requirements specified in S27.
    S21.4 Option 3--Low risk deployment. Each vehicle shall meet the 
injury criteria specified in S21.5 of this standard when any front 
outboard passenger air bag is deployed in accordance with both of the 
low risk deployment test procedures specified in S22.4.
* * * * *
    S22.1.2 Unless otherwise specified, each vehicle certified to this 
option shall comply in tests conducted with any front outboard 
passenger seating position at the mid-height, in the full rearward, 
middle, and the full forward positions determined in S22.1.7.4. If the 
dummy contacts the vehicle interior, using only the control that 
primarily moves the seat fore and aft, move the seat rearward to the 
next detent that provides clearance. If the seat is a power seat, move 
the seat rearward while assuring that there is a maximum of 5 mm (0.2 
in) clearance.
    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 any 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 Static tests of automatic suppression feature which shall 
result in deactivation of any front outboard passenger air bag, 
associated with that designated seating position. Each vehicle that is 
certified as complying with S21.2 shall meet the following test 
requirements:
* * * * *
    S22.2.1.1 Install the restraint in any 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 any front outboard passenger vehicle seat. For bench seats 
in vehicles with manually operated driving controls, ``Plane B'' refers 
to a vertical plane through any 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 control. For bench seats in vehicles without manually operated 
driving controls, ``Plane B'' refers to the vertical plane parallel to 
the vehicle longitudinal centerline, through any front outboard 
passenger seat's SgRP.
* * * * *
    S22.2.2 Unbelted tests with dummies. Place the 49 CFR part 572 
subpart P 3-year-old child dummy on any 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 * * *
    (a) Place the dummy on any front outboard passenger seat.
    (b) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats and with 
manually operated driving controls, 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 control. For bench seats in vehicles without 
manually operated driving controls, position the midsagittal plane of 
any front outboard dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline, within 10 mm (0.4 in) 
of the seating reference point of the seat that it occupies. In the 
case of vehicles equipped with bucket seats, position the midsagittal 
plane of any front outboard dummy vertically such that it coincides 
with the longitudinal centerline of the seat cushion, within 10 mm (0.4 in). Position the torso of the dummy 
against the seat back. Position the dummy's thighs against the seat 
cushion.
* * * * *
    S22.2.2.3 * * *
    (a) Place the dummy on any front outboard passenger seat.
    (b) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats and with 
manually operated driving controls, 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 control. For bench seats in vehicles without 
manually operated driving controls, position the midsagittal plane of 
any front outboard dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline, within 10 mm (0.4 in) 
of the seating reference point of the seat that it occupies. In the 
case of vehicles equipped with bucket seats, position the midsagittal 
plane of any front outboard dummy vertically such that it coincides 
with the longitudinal centerline of the seat cushion, within 10 mm (0.4 in). Position the dummy with the spine 
vertical so that the horizontal distance from the dummy's back to the 
seat back is no less than 25 mm (1.0 in) and no more than 150 mm (6.0 
in), as measured along the dummy's midsagittal plane at the mid-sternum 
level. To keep the dummy in position, a material with a maximum 
breaking strength of 311 N (70 lb) may be used to hold the dummy.
* * * * *
    S22.2.2.4 * * *
    (a) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats and with 
manually operated driving controls, position the midsagittal plane of 
the dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's

[[Page 18595]]

longitudinal centerline and the same distance from the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline, within 10 mm (0.4 in), 
as the center of the steering control. For bench seats in vehicles 
without manually operated driving controls, position the midsagittal 
plane of any front outboard dummy vertically and parallel to the 
vehicle's longitudinal centerline, within 10 mm (0.4 in) of the seating reference point of the seat that it 
occupies. In the case of vehicles equipped with bucket seats, position 
the midsagittal plane of any front outboard dummy vertically such that 
it coincides with the longitudinal centerline of the seat cushion, 
within 10 mm (0.4 in).
* * * * *
    S22.2.2.5 * * *
    (a) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats and with 
manually operated driving controls, 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 control rim. For bench seats in vehicles without 
manually operated driving controls, position the midsagittal plane of 
any front outboard dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline, within 10 mm (0.4 in) 
of the seating reference point of the seat that it occupies. In the 
case of vehicles equipped with bucket seats, position the midsagittal 
plane of any front outboard 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 any 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 * * *
    (a) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats and manually 
operated driving controls, 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 
control. For bench seats in vehicles without manually operated driving 
controls, position the midsagittal plane of any front outboard dummy 
vertically and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, 
within 10 mm (0.4 in) of the seating reference 
point of the seat that it occupies. In the case of vehicles equipped 
with bucket seats, position the midsagittal plane of any front outboard 
dummy vertically such that it coincides with the longitudinal 
centerline of the seat cushion, within 10 mm (0.4 in).
    (b) Position the dummy in a kneeling position in any 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 * * *
    (a) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats and manually 
operated driving controls, 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 
control. For bench seats in vehicles without manually operated driving 
controls, position the midsagittal plane of any front outboard dummy 
vertically and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, 
within 10 mm (0.4 in) of the seating reference 
point of the seat that it occupies. In the case of vehicles equipped 
with bucket seats, position the midsagittal plane of any front outboard 
dummy vertically such that it coincides with the longitudinal 
centerline of the seat cushion, within 10 mm (0.4 in).
    (b) Position the dummy in a kneeling position in any 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 * * *
    (a) Lay the dummy on any front outboard passenger vehicle seat such 
that the following criteria are met:
* * * * *
    (6) The head of the dummy is positioned towards the nearest 
passenger door, and
* * * * *
    S22.3 Static tests of automatic suppression feature which shall 
result in activation of any front outboard passenger air bag system.
    S22.3.1 Each vehicle certified to this option shall comply in tests 
conducted with any front outboard passenger seating position at the 
mid-height, in the full rearward, and middle positions determined in 
S22.1.7.4, and the forward position determined in S16.3.3.1.8.
    S22.3.2 Place a 49 CFR part 572 subpart O 5th percentile adult 
female test dummy at any 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.
* * * * *
    S22.4.2.2 Place the dummy in any front outboard passenger seat such 
that:
* * * * *
    S22.4.3.1 Place any front outboard passenger seat at the mid-
height, in full rearward seating position determined in S22.1.7.4. 
Place the seat back, if adjustable independent of the seat, 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. If adjustable, set the head restraint in 
the lowest and most forward position.
    S22.4.3.2 Place the dummy in any front outboard passenger seat such 
that:
* * * * *
    S22.4.4 Deploy any front outboard passenger frontal air bag system. 
If the frontal air bag system contains a multistage inflator, the 
vehicle shall be able to comply with the injury criteria at any stage 
or combination of stages or time delay between successive stages that 
could occur in a rigid barrier crash test at or below 26 km/h (16 mph), 
under the test procedure specified in S22.5.
* * * * *
    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's seating 
position according to S8 as it applies to that seating position and an 
unbelted 5th percentile adult female test dummy either in any front 
outboard passenger vehicle seating position according to S16 as it 
applies to that seating position or at any fore-aft seat position on 
any passenger side.
* * * * *
    S23.2.1 The vehicle shall be equipped with an automatic suppression 
feature for any front outboard passenger frontal air bag system which 
results in deactivation of the air bag during each of the static tests 
specified in S24.2 (using the 49 CFR part 572 subpart N 6-year-old 
child dummy in any of the child restraints specified in section D of 
appendix A or A-1 of this standard, as appropriate), and activation of 
the air bag system

[[Page 18596]]

during each of the static tests specified in S24.3 (using the 49 CFR 
part 572 subpart O 5th percentile adult female dummy).
* * * * *
    S23.2.3 The vehicle shall be equipped with a mechanism that 
indicates whether the air bag is suppressed, regardless of whether any 
front outboard passenger seat is occupied. The mechanism need not be 
located in the occupant compartment unless it is the telltale described 
in S23.2.2.
    S23.3 Option 2--Dynamic automatic suppression system that 
suppresses the air bag when an occupant is out of position. (This 
option is available under the conditions set forth in S27.1.) The 
vehicle shall be equipped with a dynamic automatic suppression system 
for any front outboard passenger frontal air bag system which meets the 
requirements specified in S27.
    S23.4 Option 3--Low risk deployment. Each vehicle shall meet the 
injury criteria specified in S23.5 of this standard when any front 
outboard passenger air bag is statically deployed in accordance with 
both of the low risk deployment test procedures specified in S24.4.
* * * * *
    S24.1.2 Unless otherwise specified, each vehicle certified to this 
option shall comply in tests conducted with any front outboard 
passenger seating position at the mid-height, in the full rearward seat 
track position, the middle seat track position, and the full forward 
seat track position as determined in this section. Using only the 
control that primarily moves the seat in the fore and aft direction, 
determine the full rearward, middle, and full forward positions of the 
SCRP. Using any seat or seat cushion adjustments other than that which 
primarily moves the seat fore-aft, determine the SCRP mid-point height 
for each of the three fore-aft test positions, while maintaining as 
closely as possible, the seat cushion angle determined in S16.2.10.3.1. 
Set the seat back angle, if adjustable independent of the seat, at the 
manufacturer's nominal design seat back angle for a 50th percentile 
adult male as specified in S8.1.3. If the dummy contacts the vehicle 
interior, move the seat rearward to the next detent that provides 
clearance. If the seat is a power seat, move the seat rearward while 
assuring that there is a maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) distance between the 
vehicle interior and the point on the dummy that would first contact 
the vehicle interior.
    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 any 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 Static tests of automatic suppression feature which shall 
result in deactivation of any passenger air bag, associated with that 
designated seating position. Each vehicle that is certified as 
complying with S23.2 of FMVSS No. 208 shall meet the following test 
requirements with the child restraint in any front outboard passenger 
vehicle seat under the following conditions:
* * * * *
    S24.2.3 Sitting back in the seat and leaning on any front outboard 
passenger door.
    (a) Place the dummy in the seated position in any 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 in vehicles with manually 
operated driving controls, 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 
rotation of the steering control. For bench seats in vehicles without 
manually operated driving controls, position the midsagittal plane of 
any front outboard dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline, within 10 mm (0.4 in) 
of the seating reference point of the seat that it occupies.
* * * * *
    S24.3 Static tests of automatic suppression feature which shall 
result in activation of any front outboard passenger air bag system.
    S24.3.1 Each vehicle certified to this option shall comply in tests 
conducted with any front outboard passenger seating position at the 
mid-height, in the full rearward and middle positions determined in 
S24.1.2, and the forward position determined in S16.3.3.1.8.
    S24.3.2 Place a 49 CFR part 572 subpart O 5th percentile adult 
female test dummy at any 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.
* * * * *
    S24.4.2.3 Place the dummy in any front outboard passenger seat such 
that:
* * * * *
    S24.4.3.1 Place any front outboard passenger seat at the mid-height 
full rearward seating position determined in S24.1.2. Place the seat 
back, if adjustable independent of the seat, 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 and most forward position.
    S24.4.3.2 Place the dummy in any front outboard passenger seat such 
that:
* * * * *
    S24.4.4 Deploy any front outboard passenger frontal air bag system. 
If the frontal air bag system contains a multistage inflator, the 
vehicle shall be able to comply with the injury criteria at any stage 
or combination of stages or time delay between successive stages that 
could occur in a rigid barrier crash test at or below 26 km/h (16 mph), 
under the test procedure specified in S22.5.
* * * * *
    S26.2.1 Adjust the steering controls so that the steering control 
hub is at the geometric center of the locus it describes when it is 
moved through its full range of driving positions. If there is no 
setting at the geometric center, position it one setting lower than the 
geometric center. Set the rotation of the steering control so that the 
vehicle wheels are pointed straight ahead.
    S26.2.2 Mark a point on the steering control cover that is 
longitudinally and transversely, as measured along the surface of the 
steering control cover, within 6 mm (0.2 in) of 
the point that is defined by the intersection of the steering control 
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

[[Page 18597]]

point located on the steering control cover. This is referred to as 
``Plane E.''
* * * * *
    S26.2.4.3 The dummy's thorax instrument cavity rear face is 6 
degrees forward (toward the front of the vehicle) of the steering 
control angle (i.e., if the steering control angle is 25 degrees from 
vertical, the thorax instrument cavity rear face angle is 31 degrees).
    S26.2.4.4 The initial transverse distance between the longitudinal 
centerlines at the front of the dummy's knees is 160 to 170 mm (6.3 to 
6.7 in), with the thighs and legs of the dummy in vertical planes.
* * * * *
    S26.2.5 Maintaining the spine angle, slide the dummy forward until 
the head/torso contacts the steering control.
* * * * *
    S26.3.2 Adjust the steering controls so that the steering control 
hub is at the geometric center of the locus it describes when it is 
moved through its full range of driving positions. If there is no 
setting at the geometric center, position it one setting lower than the 
geometric center. Set the rotation of the steering control so that the 
vehicle wheels are pointed straight ahead.
    S26.3.3 Mark a point on the steering control cover that is 
longitudinally and transversely, as measured along the surface of the 
steering control cover, within 6 mm (0.2 in) of 
the point that is defined by the intersection of the steering control 
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 control cover. This is referred to as ``Plane 
E.''
* * * * *
    S26.3.4.3 The dummy's thorax instrument cavity rear face is 6 
degrees forward (toward the front of the vehicle) of the steering 
control angle (i.e., if the steering control angle is 25 degrees from 
vertical, the thorax instrument cavity rear face angle is 31 degrees).
* * * * *
    S26.3.5 Maintaining the spine angle, slide the dummy forward until 
the head/torso contacts the steering control.
    S26.3.6 While maintaining the spine angle, position the dummy so 
that a point on the chin 40 mm (1.6 in) 3 mm (0.1 in) below the center of the mouth (chin point) is, within 
10 mm (0.4 in), in contact with a point on the 
steering control rim surface closest to the dummy that is 10 mm (0.4 
in) vertically below the highest point on the rim in Plane E. If the 
dummy's head contacts the vehicle windshield or upper interior before 
the prescribed position can be obtained, lower the dummy until there is 
no more than 5 mm (0.2 in) clearance between the vehicle's windshield 
or upper interior, as applicable.
    S26.3.7 If the steering control can be adjusted so that the chin 
point can be in contact with the rim of the uppermost portion of the 
steering control, adjust the steering control to that position. If the 
steering control contacts the dummy's leg(s) prior to attaining this 
position, adjust it to the next highest detent, or if infinitely 
adjustable, until there is a maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) clearance between 
the control and the dummy's leg(s). Readjust the dummy's torso such 
that the thorax instrument cavity rear face is 6 degrees forward of the 
steering control angle. Position the dummy so that the chin point is in 
contact, or if contact is not achieved, as close as possible to contact 
with the rim of the uppermost portion of the steering control.
* * * * *
    S27.5.2 Front outboard passenger (49 CFR part 572 subpart P 3-year-
old child dummy and 49 CFR part 572 subpart N 6-year-old child dummy). 
Each vehicle shall meet the injury criteria specified in S21.5 and 
S23.5, as appropriate, when any front outboard passenger air bag is 
deployed in accordance with the procedures specified in S28.2.
* * * * *
    S27.6.2 Front outboard passenger. The DASS shall suppress any front 
outboard passenger air bag before head, neck, or torso of the specified 
test device enters the ASZ when the vehicle is tested under the 
procedures specified in S28.4.
* * * * *
    S28.2 Front outboard passenger suppression zone verification test 
(49 CFR part 572 subpart P 3-year-old child dummy and 49 CFR part 572 
subpart N 6-year-old child dummies). [Reserved]
* * * * *
    S28.4 Front outboard passenger dynamic test procedure for DASS 
requirements. [Reserved]
* * * * *

0
10. Amend Sec.  571.212 by revising paragraph S3 to read as follows:


Sec.  571.212   Standard No. 212; Windshield mounting.

* * * * *
    S3. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars, and to 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks designed to carry at least one 
person, and buses having a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 
kilograms or less. However, it does not apply to forward control 
vehicles, walk-in van-type vehicles, or to open-body type vehicles with 
fold-down or removable windshields.
* * * * *

0
11. Amend Sec.  571.214 by revising paragraphs S2, S5(c)(4), S8.3.1.3, 
S8.4, S10.2, S10.3.1, S10.3.2, S10.3.2.3, S10.5, S12.1.1introductory 
text, S12.1.1(a)(1), S12.1.2 introductory text, S12.1.2(a)(1), 
S12.1.3(a)(1), S12.2.1(c), S12.3.1(d), S12.3.2(a)(4), S12.3.2(a)(8), 
S12.3.2(a)(9)(ii), S12.3.2(10), S12.3.3(a)(2), and S12.3.3(a)(4) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  571.214   Standard No. 214; Side impact protection.

* * * * *
    S2 Applicability. This standard applies to passenger cars, and to 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks designed to carry at least one 
person and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 
kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds (lb)) or less, except for walk-in vans, 
or otherwise specified.
* * * * *
    S5 * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) Vehicles in which the seat for the driver or any front outboard 
passenger has been removed and wheelchair restraints installed in place 
of the seat are excluded from meeting the vehicle-to-pole test at that 
position; and
* * * * *
    S8.3.1.3 Seat position adjustment. If the driver and any front 
outboard passenger seats do not adjust independently of each other, the 
struck side seat shall control the final position of the non-struck 
side seat. If the driver and any front outboard passenger seats adjust 
independently of each other, adjust both the struck and non-struck side 
seats in the manner specified in S8.3.1.
* * * * *
    S8.4 Adjustable steering controls. Adjustable steering controls are 
adjusted so that the steering control hub is at the geometric center of 
the locus it describes when it is moved through its full range of 
driving positions. If there is no setting detent in the mid-position, 
lower the steering control to the detent just below the mid-position. 
If the steering column is telescoping, place the steering column in the 
mid-position. If there is no mid-position, move the steering control 
rearward one position from the mid-position.
* * * * *
    S10.2 Vehicle test attitude. When the vehicle is in its ``as 
delivered,''

[[Page 18598]]

``fully loaded'' and ``as tested'' condition, locate the vehicle on a 
flat, horizontal surface to determine the vehicle attitude. Use the 
same level surface or reference plane and the same standard points on 
the test vehicle when determining the ``as delivered,'' ``fully 
loaded'' and ``as tested'' conditions. Measure the angles relative to a 
horizontal plane, front-to-rear and from left-to-right for the ``as 
delivered,'' ``fully loaded,'' and ``as tested'' conditions. The front-
to-rear angle (pitch) is measured along a fixed reference on the left 
and right front occupant's door sills. Mark where the angles are taken 
on the door sills. The left to right angle (roll) is measured along a 
fixed reference point at the front and rear of the vehicle at the 
vehicle longitudinal center plane. Mark where the angles are measured. 
The ``as delivered'' condition is the vehicle as received at the test 
site, with 100 percent of all fluid capacities and all tires inflated 
to the manufacturer's specifications listed on the vehicle's tire 
placard. When the vehicle is in its ``fully loaded'' condition, measure 
the angle between the left front occupant's door sill and the 
horizontal, at the same place the ``as delivered'' angle was measured. 
The ``fully loaded condition'' is the test vehicle loaded in accordance 
with S8.1 of this standard (49 CFR 571.214). The load placed in the 
cargo area is centered over the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. 
The vehicle ``as tested'' pitch and roll angles are between the ``as 
delivered'' and ``fully loaded'' condition, inclusive.
* * * * *
    S10.3.1 Driver and front outboard passenger seat set-up for 50th 
percentile male dummy. The driver and front outboard passenger seats 
are set up as specified in S8.3.1 of this standard, 49 CFR 571.214.
    S10.3.2. Driver and front outboard passenger seat set-up for 49 CFR 
part 572 Subpart V 5th percentile female dummy.
* * * * *
    S10.3.2.3 Seat position adjustment. If the driver and any front 
outboard passenger seats do not adjust independently of each other, the 
struck side seat shall control the final position of the non-struck 
side seat. If the driver and any front outboard passenger seats adjust 
independently of each other, adjust both the struck and non-struck side 
seats in the manner specified in S10.3.2.
* * * * *
    S10.5 Adjustable steering controls. Adjustable steering controls 
are adjusted so that the steering control hub is at the geometric 
center of the locus it describes when it is moved through its full 
range of driving positions. If there is no setting detent in the mid-
position, lower the steering control to the detent just below the mid-
position. If the steering column is telescoping, place the steering 
column in the mid-position. If there is no mid-position, move the 
steering control rearward one position from the mid-position.
* * * * *
    S12.1.1 Positioning a Part 572 Subpart F (SID) dummy in the 
driver's seating position.
    (a) * * *
    (1) For a bench seat. The upper torso of the test dummy rests 
against the seat back. The midsagittal plane of the test dummy is 
vertical and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, and 
passes through the center of the steering control.
* * * * *
    S12.1.2 Positioning a Part 572 Subpart F (SID) dummy in any front 
outboard passenger seating position.
    (a) * * *
    (1) For a bench seat. The upper torso of the test dummy rests 
against the seat back. The midsagittal plane of the test dummy is 
vertical and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline. For 
vehicles with manually operated driving controls the midsagittal plane 
of the test dummy is the same distance from the vehicle's longitudinal 
centerline as would be the midsagittal plane of a test dummy positioned 
in the driver's seating position under S12.1.1(a)(1). For vehicles 
without manually operated driving controls the midsagittal plane of the 
test dummy shall be vertical and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal 
centerline, and passes through any front outboard passenger seat's 
SgRP.
* * * * *
    S12.1.3 * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) For a bench seat. The upper torso of the test dummy rests 
against the seat back. The midsagittal plane of the test dummy is 
vertical and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, and, if 
possible, the same distance from the vehicle's longitudinal centerline 
as the midsagittal plane of a test dummy positioned in the driver's 
seating position under S12.1.1(a)(1) or left front passenger seating 
positioned under S12.1.2(a)(1) in vehicles without manually operated 
driving controls. If it is not possible to position the test dummy so 
that its midsagittal plane is parallel to the vehicle longitudinal 
centerline and is at this distance from the vehicle's longitudinal 
centerline, the test dummy is positioned so that some portion of the 
test dummy just touches, at or above the seat level, the side surface 
of the vehicle, such as the upper quarter panel, an armrest, or any 
interior trim (i.e., either the broad trim panel surface or a smaller, 
localized trim feature).
* * * * *
    S12.2.1 * * *
    (c) Arms. Place the dummy's upper arms such that the angle between 
the projection of the arm centerline on the mid-sagittal plane of the 
dummy and the torso reference line is 40[deg] 5[deg]. The 
torso reference line is defined as the thoracic spine centerline. The 
shoulder-arm joint allows for discrete arm positions at 0, 40, and 90 
degree settings forward of the spine.
* * * * *
    S12.3.1 * * *
    (d) Driver and any front outboard passenger dummy manual belt 
adjustment. Use all available belt systems. Place adjustable belt 
anchorages at the nominal position for a 5th percentile adult female 
suggested by the vehicle manufacturer.
* * * * *
    S12.3.2 * * *
    (a) * * *
    (4) Bench seats. Position the midsagittal plane of the dummy 
vertical and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline and 
aligned within 10 mm (0.4 in) of the center of 
the steering control rim.
* * * * *
    (8) If needed, extend the legs slightly so that the feet are not in 
contact with the floor pan. Let the thighs rest on the seat cushion to 
the extent permitted by the foot movement. Keeping the leg and the 
thigh in a vertical plane, place the foot in the vertical longitudinal 
plane that passes through the centerline of the accelerator pedal. 
Rotate the left thigh outboard about the hip until the center of the 
knee is the same distance from the midsagittal plane of the dummy as 
the right knee 5 mm (0.2 in). Using only the 
control that moves the seat fore and aft, attempt to return the seat to 
the full forward position. If either of the dummy's legs first contacts 
the steering control, then adjust the steering control, if adjustable, 
upward until contact with the steering control is avoided. If the 
steering control is not adjustable, separate the knees enough to avoid 
steering control contact. Proceed with moving the seat forward until 
either the leg contacts the vehicle interior or the seat reaches the 
full forward position. (The right foot may contact and depress the 
accelerator and/or change the angle of the foot with respect to the leg 
during seat movement.) If necessary to avoid

[[Page 18599]]

contact with the vehicle's brake or clutch pedal, rotate the test 
dummy's left foot about the leg. If there is still interference, rotate 
the left thigh outboard about the hip the minimum distance necessary to 
avoid pedal interference. If a dummy leg contacts the vehicle interior 
before the full forward position is attained, position the seat at the 
next detent where there is no contact. If the seat is a power seat, 
move the seat fore and aft to avoid contact while assuring that there 
is a maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) distance between the vehicle interior and 
the point on the dummy that would first contact the vehicle interior. 
If the steering control was moved, return it to the position described 
in S10.5. If the steering control contacts the dummy's leg(s) prior to 
attaining this position, adjust it to the next higher detent, or if 
infinitely adjustable, until there is 5 mm (0.2 in) clearance between 
the control and the dummy's leg(s).
    (9) * * *
    (ii) Vehicles with adjustable seat backs. While holding the thighs 
in place, rotate the seat back forward until the transverse 
instrumentation platform angle of the head is level to within 0.5 degrees, making sure that the pelvis does not interfere with 
the seat bight. (If the torso contacts the steering control, use 
S12.3.2(a)(10) before proceeding with the remaining portion of this 
paragraph.) If it is not possible to level the transverse 
instrumentation platform to within 0.5 degrees, select the 
seat back adjustment position that minimizes the difference between the 
transverse instrumentation platform angle and level, then adjust the 
neck bracket to level the transverse instrumentation platform angle to 
within 0.5 degrees if possible. If it is still not possible 
to level the transverse instrumentation platform to within 0.5 degrees, select the neck bracket angle position that 
minimizes the difference between the transverse instrumentation 
platform angle and level.
    (10) If the torso contacts the steering control, adjust the 
steering control in the following order until there is no contact: 
Telescoping adjustment, lowering adjustment, raising adjustment. If the 
vehicle has no adjustments or contact with the steering control cannot 
be eliminated by adjustment, position the seat at the next detent where 
there is no contact with the steering control as adjusted in S10.5. If 
the seat is a power seat, position the seat to avoid contact while 
assuring that there is a maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) distance between the 
steering control as adjusted in S10.5 and the point of contact on the 
dummy.
* * * * *
    S12.3.3 * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) Fully recline the seat back, if adjustable. Place the dummy 
into any passenger seat, such that when the legs are positioned 120 
degrees to the thighs, the calves of the legs are not touching the seat 
cushion.
* * * * *
    (4) Bench seats. Position the midsagittal plane of the dummy 
vertical 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 midsagittal plane of the 
driver dummy, if there is a driver's seating position. Otherwise, the 
midsagittal plane of any front outboard passenger dummy shall be 
vertical, parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, and pass, 
within 10 mm (0.4 in), through the seating 
reference point of the seating that it occupies.
* * * * *

0
12. Amend Sec.  571.216a by revising paragraph S3.1(a) introductory 
text and S7.1 to read as follows:


Sec.  571.216a   Standard No. 216a; Roof crush resistance; Upgraded 
standard.

* * * * *
    S3.1 * * *
    (a) This standard applies to passenger cars, and to multipurpose 
passenger vehicles, trucks designed to carry at least one person, and 
buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, according 
to the implementation schedule specified in S8 and S9 of this section. 
However, it does not apply to--
* * * * *
    S7.1 Support the vehicle off its suspension and rigidly secure the 
sills and the chassis frame (when applicable) of the vehicle on a rigid 
horizontal surface(s) at a longitudinal attitude of 0 degrees 0.5 degrees. Measure the longitudinal vehicle attitude along both 
the left and right front sill. Determine the lateral vehicle attitude 
by measuring the vertical distance between a level surface and a 
standard reference point on the bottom of the left and right front side 
sills. The difference between the vertical distance measured on the 
left front side and the right front side sills is not more than 10 mm. Close all windows, close and lock all doors, and close and 
secure any moveable roof panel, moveable shade, or removable roof 
structure in place over the occupant compartment. Remove roof racks or 
other non-structural components. For a vehicle built on a chassis-cab 
incomplete vehicle that has some portion of the added body structure 
above the height of the incomplete vehicle, remove the entire added 
body structure prior to testing (the vehicle's unloaded vehicle weight 
as specified in S5 includes the weight of the added body structure).
* * * * *

0
13. Amend Sec.  571.219 by revising paragraph S3 to read as follows:


Sec.  571.219   Standard No. 219; Windshield zone intrusion.

* * * * *
    S3. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars and to 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks designed to carry at least one 
person, and buses of 4,536 kilograms or less gross vehicle weight 
rating. However, it does not apply to forward control vehicles, walk-in 
van-type vehicles, or to open-body-type vehicles with fold-down or 
removable windshields.
* * * * *

0
14. Amend Sec.  571.225 by revising the definition of ``Shuttle bus'' 
in paragraph S3 to read as follows:


Sec.  571.225   Standard No. 225; Child restraint anchorage systems.

* * * * *
    S3. * * *
    Shuttle bus means a bus with only one row of forward-facing seating 
positions rearward of the driver's seat or, for a vehicle without 
manually operated controls, means a bus with only one row of forward-
facing seating positions rearward of all front row passenger seats.
* * * * *

0
15. Amend Sec.  571.226 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph S2;
0
b. Revising the definition of ``Modified roof'' in paragraph S3;
0
c. Removing the definitions of ``Row'' and ``Seat outline'' in 
paragraph S3; and
0
d. Revising paragraphs S6.1(d) and (f).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  571.226   Standard No. 226; Ejection mitigation.

* * * * *
    S2. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars, and to 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks designed to carry at least one 
person, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg or 
less, except walk-in vans, modified roof vehicles, convertibles, and 
vehicles with no doors or with doors that are designed to be easily 
attached or removed so the vehicle can be operated without doors. Also 
excluded from this standard are

[[Page 18600]]

law enforcement vehicles, correctional institution vehicles, taxis and 
limousines, if they have a fixed security partition separating the 1st 
and 2nd or 2nd and 3rd rows and if they are produced by more than one 
manufacturer or are altered (within the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7).
    S3. * * *
    Modified roof means the replacement roof on a motor vehicle whose 
original roof has been removed, in part or in total, or a roof that has 
to be built over the occupant compartment in vehicles that did not have 
an original roof over the occupant compartment.
* * * * *
    S6.1 * * *
    (d) Pitch: Measure the sill angle of the left front door sill and 
mark where the angle is measured.
* * * * *
    (f) Support the vehicle off its suspension such that the left front 
door sill angle is within 1 degree of that measured at the 
marked area in S6.1(d) and the vertical height difference of the two 
points marked in S6.1(e) is within 5 mm of the vertical 
height difference determined in S6.1(e).
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 
1.95 and 501.5.
Steven S. Cliff,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-05426 Filed 3-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P