[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 21, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2996-2999]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-1292]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 74-14, Notice 112]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Restraint
Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of technical workshop; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document announces that NHTSA will be holding a public
workshop to explore technical issues relating to the agency's occupant
protection standard and smart air bags. The purposes of the workshop
are to--
Review the types of smart air bags (e.g., automatic
deactivation based on weight sensors, automatic deactivation based on
other or additional types of sensors, and automatic modulation of the
speed and force of air bag deployment so as not to seriously injure
occupants) and the specific technologies which can be used, singly or
in combination, to provide smart capability;
Assess the suitability of the agency's definitions of
smart passenger air bags (provided in the agency's November 27, 1996
labeling final rule), and discuss appropriate definitions for smart
driver air bags;
Assess which types of specific smart air bag technologies
or combinations of technologies are best suited for addressing
passenger risks
[[Page 2997]]
and which are best suited for addressing driver risks;
Consider what test procedures and test devices should be
proposed by the agency to assure the proper performance of each type of
smart air bag in the short run, and what procedures and devices would
be appropriate for the long term;
Consider whether, in the interest of promoting the early
availability of reliable smart air bags, manufacturers should be
encouraged or required to install relatively simple versions of smart
air bags in the short term;
Consider whether, in the interest of minimizing the risk
of air bag deaths and preserving or enhancing air bag benefits,
manufacturers should be encouraged or required to install more
sophisticated smart air bags in the long run;
Consider whether to use a phase-in and, if so, what phase-
in schedule(s) should be proposed for smart passenger and driver air
bags; and
Discuss other issues related to the rapid introduction of
smart air bag systems.
DATES: Public workshop: The public workshop will be held in Washington
DC on February 11 and 12, 1997, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Those wishing to participate in the workshop should contact Clarke
Harper, at the address or telephone number listed below, by January 31,
1997. Copies of statements to be presented on the first day of the
workshop should be provided to Mr. Harper by February 7, 1997.
Written comments: Written comments may be submitted to the agency
and must be received by February 21, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Public workshop: The public workshop will be held in room
2230 of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh St. SW., Washington DC 20590.
Written comments: All written comments must refer to the docket and
notice number of this notice and be submitted (preferable 10 copies) to
the Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), Room 5109, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. Docket
hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clarke Harper, Office of
Crashworthiness Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC, 20590
(telephone 202-366-2264; fax 202-493-2739).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The history of NHTSA's consideration of air bags to address the
problem of deaths in frontal vehicle impacts is almost as long as the
history of the agency itself. In 1969, three years after the enactment
of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, the
agency held its first public meeting on air bags.
The agency's first requirement for automatic restraints (i.e.,
automatic belts or air bags) was issued in the early 1970's, but was
overturned on judicial review due to several ambiguities in the test
procedures. A requirement for automatic restraints was reissued by
Secretary Adams in 1977 and rescinded by the agency in the early 1980's
because it concluded that the vehicle manufacturers were planning to
install a type of automatic belt that the agency regarded as unlikely
to be effective in increasing belt use. After the U.S. Supreme Court
overturned the rescission, Secretary Dole reissued a requirement for
automatic restraints in 1984. The 1984 rule encouraged, but did not
require, the installation of air bags. Manufacturers continued under
the rule to have the option of installing automatic belts.
Since then, there has been considerable experience with air
bags.1 Manufacturers responded to the agency's third automatic
restraint requirement by voluntarily choosing to install significant
numbers of driver air bags instead of automatic belts in cars beginning
in model year 1986 and in light trucks beginning in model year 1991.
Installation of passenger air bags came somewhat later. Manufacturers
began voluntarily installing significant numbers of passenger air bags
in cars in model year 1989 and in light trucks in model year 1994. As
of the end of model year 1996, approximately 56 million driver air bags
and 27 million passenger air bags had been installed in cars and light
trucks. All were voluntarily installed. The first federally-required
air bags appeared after model year 1996. Mandatory installation of air
bags in passenger cars began with the current model year, model year
1997, pursuant to section 2508 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), and will begin for light trucks in
model year 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The first installation of air bags occurred a decade
earlier. In the mid-1970's, driver and passenger air bags were
installed in approximately 10,000 passenger cars by General Motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While these air bags saved approximately 1,700 lives through the
end of 1996 and prevented many more serious injuries, they pose a
lethal danger to infants in rear-facing child seats and to some other
occupants, primarily unbelted ones, in low speed collisions. Air bags
are killing a growing number of children. They have also killed a
number of drivers, especially short women, although only one driver is
known to have been killed by an air bag in this country in calendar
year 1996.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The agency's figures for driver fatalities are based on
information that NHTSA has developed through NHTSA's Special Crash
Investigation program and are not the result of a census. Studies of
Fatal Accident Reporting System data are underway to obtain more
precise figures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency has conducted a series of rulemaking proceedings over
the last four years to address the risks posed by air bags. Most
recently, the agency issued two final rules on this issue. One required
new, attention-getting warning labels for child restraints and for
vehicles without a ``smart'' passenger air bag, i.e., an air bag that
automatically shuts off or adjusts its deployment so as not to
adversely affect children. The other final rule extended the period
during which manufacturers may install manual devices for deactivating
passenger air bags in vehicles lacking a rear seat that can accommodate
child restraints.
The agency also issued two proposals to provide interim solutions
to the adverse side effects of air bags. One proposal would permit the
deactivation of driver and passenger air bags in existing vehicles and
in vehicles manufactured during the next several model years. The other
proposal sets forth two alternatives to permit the depowering of air
bags.
The first alternative depowering proposal would increase the
current limit on the level of chest g's permitted in tests using an
unbelted dummy. While Standard 208 does not specify a particular level
of power, it does have the effect of limiting the extent to which air
bags can be depowered. Many air bags cannot be sufficiently depowered
without violating the existing limit or cutting into the compliance
margins needed by the manufacturers. The second alternative would allow
greater levels of depowering, by simplifying the test procedures and
specifying a single crash pulse regardless of vehicle size. It would
also allow all air bags in need of
[[Page 2998]]
depowering to be modified and tested more quickly.
II. Smart Air Bags
There is a consensus among national regulatory authorities in this
country and Canada, the vehicle industry and its suppliers, insurance
industry and consumer groups that the smart air bag is the best means
in the long term for preventing air bag deaths and preserving and even
enhancing air bag benefits. In a November 22, 1996 press conference,
NHTSA announced that it was considering issuing a proposal to mandate
the phasing-in of smart air bags, beginning with 1999 models.
The agency defined smart passenger air bags as follows in its final
rule on the new labels (S4.5.5 of Standard No. 208):
For purposes of this standard, a smart passenger air bag is a
passenger air bag that:
(a) Provides an automatic means to ensure that the air bag does not
deploy when a child seat or child with a total mass of 30 kg or less is
present on the front outboard passenger seat, or
(b) Incorporates sensors, other than or in addition to weight
sensors, which automatically prevent the air bag from deploying in
situations in which it might have an adverse effect on infants in rear-
facing child seats, and unbelted or improperly belted children, or
(c) Is designed to deploy in a manner that does not create a risk
of serious injury to infants in rear-facing child seats, and unbelted
or improperly belted children.
This definition was intended to broadly encompass passenger air bag
designs that automatically avoid injuring the two groups of children
shown by experience to be at special risk from air bags: infants in
rear-facing child seats, and children who are out-of-position (because
they are unbelted or improperly belted) when the air bag deploys. The
agency has not provided a definition for driver smart air bags.
Vehicle manufacturers and air bag suppliers are working on many
different design concepts that could, individually or when used with
other concepts, qualify as smart air bags. The simplest concept, for
passenger air bags, appears to be a weight sensor that would deactivate
the air bag when either no passenger or only a child of less than 30
kilograms or 66 pounds is present. Other concepts include automatic
deactivation based on other or additional types of sensors, such as
ones which sense occupant position, and automatic modulation of the
speed and force of air bag deployment (e.g., using dual or multiple
level inflators) so as not to seriously injure occupants.
Vehicle manufacturers have broad flexibility to introduce smart air
bags under the existing provisions of Standard No. 208. Smart air bags
were permissible under the 1984 requirements and continue to be
permissible today, even under the standard as amended pursuant to
ISTEA.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Standard's automatic protection requirements are
performance requirements and do not specify the design of an air
bag. Instead, vehicles must meet specified injury criteria,
including criteria for the head and chest, measured on properly
positioned test dummies, during a barrier crash test, at speeds up
to 30 mph.
While the Standard requires air bags to provide protection for
properly positioned adult occupants (belted and unbelted) in
relatively severe crashes, and very fast air bags may be necessary
to provide such protection, the standard does not require the same
speed of deployment in the presence of out-of-position occupants, or
even any deployment at all. Instead, the standard permits the use of
dual or multiple level inflator systems and automatic cut-off
devices to protect out-of-position occupants and rear-facing
infants. Therefore, regulatory changes are not needed to permit
manufacturers to implement these solutions.
The agency also notes that there are many other variables in air
bag design and related vehicle design that can affect potential
aggressivity. Variables related to air bag design include air bag
volume, fold patterns, tethering, venting, mass/material, shape and
size of air bag module opening, and module location and deployment
path. Related vehicle design variables include such things as
recessing the inflator/air bag in the steering wheel assembly or in
the dash, pedal adjusters, safety belt pretensioners and webbing
clamps. The standard's performance requirements permit manufacturers
to adjust all of these variables to minimize adverse effects of air
bags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Air Bag Safety Meeting
On January 6, 1997, the NHTSA and the National Transportation
Safety Board co-sponsored an Air Bag Safety Meeting of interested
persons from government, industry and consumer groups. The participants
focused on behavioral solutions, including public education,
legislation regarding safety use laws, and enforcement, and on
technological solutions, especially smart air bags.
IV. Public Workshop
A. Purposes
The purposes of the workshop are to--
Review the types of smart air bags (e.g., automatic
deactivation based on weight sensors, automatic deactivation based on
other or additional types of sensors, and automatic modulation of the
speed and force of air bag deployment so as not to seriously injure
occupants) and the specific technologies which can be used, singly or
in combination, to provide smart capability;
Assess the suitability of the agency's definitions of
smart passenger air bags (provided in the agency's November 27, 1996
labeling final rule), and discuss appropriate definitions for smart
driver air bags;
Assess which types of specific smart air bag technologies
or combinations of technologies are best suited for addressing
passenger risks and which are best suited for addressing driver risks;
Consider what test procedures and test devices should be
proposed by the agency to assure the proper performance of each type of
smart air bag in the short run, and what procedures and devices would
be appropriate for the long term;
Consider whether, in the interest of promoting the early
availability of reliable smart air bags, manufacturers should be
encouraged or required to install relatively simple versions of smart
air bags in the short term;
Consider whether, in the interest of minimizing the risk
of air bag deaths and preserving or enhancing air bag benefits,
manufacturers should be encouraged or required to install more
sophisticated smart air bags in the long run;
Consider whether to use a phase-in and, if so, what phase-
in schedule(s) should be proposed for smart passenger and driver air
bags; and
Discuss other issues related to the rapid introduction of
smart air bag systems.
NHTSA is especially interested in specific technical input
concerning how a regulation, including appropriate test procedures, can
be crafted that would ensure that the adverse effects of air bags are
addressed by the expeditious implementation of effective, reliable
smart air bags, without being unnecessarily design restrictive. The
agency notes that there is limited time to develop new test procedures,
since the agency expects manufacturers to begin to phase in smart air
bags by model year 1999. Therefore, the agency solicits comments on
those requirements and test procedures that would be appropriate for
the short term (i.e., through model year 2002) and those that would be
appropriate in the long term.
At the January 6, 1997 air bag safety meeting, the American
Automobile Manufacturers Association recommended that the agency
consider the following three principles in developing a proposal for
smart air bags: (1) Optimize protection for restrained occupants, (2)
Do no harm to children and small-statured adults, and (3) Highest
feasible protection for unrestrained adults. The agency requests
comments on this recommendation and on possible test
[[Page 2999]]
procedures that could result in air bag designs consistent with these
principles.
The agency notes that there are particular challenges in developing
test procedures to ensure the proper functioning of smart air bag
concepts other than weight sensors. In the case of weight sensors, it
appears that a relatively simple, inexpensive static test procedure
could be developed. The procedure would check whether the sensor
ensured that the air bag was on or off under specified conditions
related to the amount of weight on the seat, and perhaps the
distribution of that weight.
However, dynamic procedures might be needed to assess the
performance of other smart air bag concepts. For example, in order to
measure the performance of a system which deactivated the air bag based
on occupant position, it might be necessary to check whether the sensor
would reliably turn the air bag off in such situations as that of a
child who is propelled into the dashboard as a result of pre-crash
braking just before a crash. In order to measure the performance of a
system which used automatic modulation of the speed and force of air
bag deployment, it might be necessary to check whether the forces from
the air bag would cause injury to occupants in various conditions,
possibly using dummies. NHTSA notes that, given the large number of
potential conditions involving out-of-position occupants, a wide array
of conditions might need to be tested to ensure adequate performance.
The agency requests comments on whether and how adequate
performance can or should be ensured solely by means of dynamic test
requirements, and, if not, what other regulatory approaches might be
appropriate. NHTSA notes that, in its rulemaking to improve the
stability and control of medium and heavy vehicles during braking, it
adopted the approach of requiring vehicles to be equipped with antilock
brake systems that meet a specific definition, and supplementing that
requirement with limited dynamic performance requirements. See 60 FR
13216; March 10, 1995. The agency requests comments on whether an
approach along those lines might be appropriate for a proposal for
smart air bags, either as an interim measure to get requirements in
place quickly or as a longer term approach as well.
NHTSA requests that vehicle manufacturers and air bag suppliers
provide written comments describing their recent and anticipated
efforts to develop and assess smart air bag technologies. The agency
specifically requests that they provide descriptions of their recent
and anticipated component and vehicle testing, market surveys, and any
other developmental work. NHTSA recognizes the sensitivity of this
information and will protect confidentiality as authorized by law.
B. Procedural Matters
February 11
The first day will be devoted to presentations by public
participants concerning technical issues. The time available for
individual presentations will be determined by the agency based on the
number of persons who submit requests to participate by the January 31
deadline. If necessary, parties with similar points of view will be
encouraged to coordinate their presentations to avoid duplication.
February 12
The second day will be devoted to an interactive discussion among
interested persons. Procedures for encouraging an exchange of ideas
during the interactive phase of the workshop will be discussed at the
beginning of the session on that day. Those persons interested in
actively participating in this phase of the workshop should contact Mr.
Harper not later than January 31. The agency will make available an
agenda setting forth the sequence of issues to be discussed during the
interactive phase.
To facilitate communication, NHTSA will provide auxiliary aids
(e.g., sign-language interpreter, braille materials, large print
materials and/or a magnifying device) to participants as necessary,
during the workshop. Any person desiring assistance of auxiliary aids
should contact Ms. Bernadette Millings, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness
Standards, telephone (202) 366-1740, no later than 10 days before the
workshop. For any presentation that will include slides, motion
pictures, or other visual aids, the presenters should bring at least
one copy to the workshop so that NHTSA can readily include the material
in the public record.
NHTSA will place a copy of any written statement in the docket for
this notice. In addition, the agency will make a verbatim record of the
public workshop and place a copy in the docket.
IV. Written Comments
Participation in the workshop is not a prerequisite for the
submission of written comments. NHTSA invites written comments from all
interested parties. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be
submitted.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and copies
from which the purportedly confidential information has been deleted
should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be considered. To the extent
possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be
considered. Comments will be available for inspection in the docket.
NHTSA will continue to file relevant information as it becomes
available in the docket after the closing date. It is therefore
recommended that interested persons continue to examine the docket for
new material.
Those desiring to be notified upon receipt of their comments in the
docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the comments, the docket
supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued on: January 14, 1997.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-1292 Filed 1-14-97; 4:28 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
