[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60556-60629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-28366]
[[Page 60555]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
49 CFR Parts 552, 571, 585, and 595
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 1999 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 60556]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 552, 571, 585, and 595
[Docket No. NHTSA 99-6407; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AG70
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In September 1998, we proposed to upgrade our air bag
requirements for passenger cars and light trucks to meet the twin goals
mandated by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century:
improving protection for occupants of all sizes, belted and unbelted,
in moderate to high speed crashes; and minimizing the risks posed by
air bags to infants, children, and other occupants, especially in low
speed crashes. In response to the public comments on our 1998 proposal
and to other new information obtained since issuing the proposal, we
are issuing a supplemental proposal that updates and refines the
amendments under consideration.
With respect to the goal of improving protection, we are proposing
to adopt one of the following alternative crash tests to evaluate the
protection of unbelted occupants in moderate to high speed crashes,
i.e., those that are potentially fatal. One alternative is an unbelted
rigid barrier test (perpendicular and up to 30 degrees
oblique to perpendicular) with a maximum speed to be established in the
final rule within the range of 40 to 48 km/h (25 to 30 mph). If we
reduce the maximum speed to 40 km/h (25 mph) permanently, we might also
increase the maximum speed of the belted rigid barrier test from the
current 48 km/h to 56 km/h (30 to 35 mph). Another alternative is an
unbelted offset deformable barrier test with a maximum speed to be
established in the final rule within the range of 48 to 56 km/h (30 to
35 mph). The vehicle would have to meet the requirements both in tests
with the driver side of the vehicle engaged with the barrier and in
tests with the passenger side engaged.
With respect to the goal of minimizing the risks of air bags in low
speed crashes, we continue to propose performance requirements to
ensure that future air bags do not pose unreasonable risk of serious
injury to out-of-position occupants. We continue to propose to adopt a
number of options for complying with those requirements so that vehicle
manufacturers would be free to choose from a variety of effective
technological solutions and to develop new ones if they so desire. With
this flexibility, they could use technologies that modulate or
otherwise control air bag deployment so deploying air bags do not cause
serious injuries, technologies that prevent air bag deployment if
children or out-of-position occupants are present, or a combination
thereof.
DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them not later than December 30, 1999.
ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments in writing to: Docket
Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.
You may also submit your comments electronically by logging onto the
Dockets Management System website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on
``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain instructions for
filing the document electronically. Regardless of how you submit your
comments, you should mention the docket number of this document.
You may call Docket Management at 202-366-9324 and visit the Docket
from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about air bags and
related rulemakings: Visit the NHTSA web site at http://
www.nhtsa.dot.gov and select ``Air Bags'' under ``Popular
Information.''
For non-legal issues, you may contact Clarke Harper, Chief, Light
Duty Vehicle Division, NPS-11. Telephone: (202) 366-2264. Fax: (202)
366-4329. E-mail: [email protected]
For legal issues, you may contact Edward Glancy, Office of Chief
Counsel, NCC-20. Telephone: (202) 366-2992. Fax: (202) 366-3820.
You may send mail to both of these officials at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Note to readers: As an aid to readers who are outside the
engineering community, we have provided at the end of this document
a glossary that briefly explains the key technical terms used in
this preamble. In the case of the term, ``fixed barrier crash
test,'' we have supplemented the explanation with illustrations.
That glossary appears in Appendix B. Interested persons may find it
helpful to review that glossary before reading the rest of this
document.
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
A. Statutory Requirements
B. Existing Air Bag Requirements
C. September 1998 NPRM
D. Public Comments
1. Tests for Requirements to Improve Occupant Protection for
Different Size Occupants, Belted and Unbelted
a. Belted Rigid Barrier Test
b. Unbelted Rigid Barrier Test
c. Up-to-40 km/h (25 mph) Offset Deformable Barrier Test
2. Tests for Requirements to Minimize the Risk to Infants,
Children and Other Occupants from Injuries and Deaths Caused by Air
Bags
a. Tests to Minimize Risks to Infants
b. Tests to Minimize Risks to Children
c. Tests to Minimize Risks to Adults
3. Injury Criteria
E. Events since September 1998
III. SNPRM for Advanced Air Bags
A. Introduction
B. Existing and Proposed Test Requirements
1. Tests for Requirements to Improve Occupant Protection for
Different Size Occupants, Belted and Unbelted
a. September 1998 NPRM
b. Comments on September 1998 NPRM
c. SNPRM
(i) Requirements for Tests with Unbelted Dummies
(ii) Proposed Array of Crash Test Requirements
(iii) Location and Seating Procedures for 5th Percentile Adult
Female Dummy
2. Tests for Requirements to Minimize the Risk to Infants,
Children and Other Occupants from Injuries and Deaths Caused by Air
Bags
a. Safety of Infants
b. Safety of Young Children
c. Safety of Small Teenage and Adult Drivers
C. Injury Criteria
1. Head Injury Criteria
2. Neck Injury Criteria
3. Thoracic Injury Criteria
4. Lower Extremity Injury Criteria
5. Other Criteria
D. Lead Time and Proposed Effective Date
1. Large Manufacturers
2. Small Manufacturers and Multi-stage Manufacturers
E. Availability of Original Equipment and Retrofit Manual On-Off
Switches
F. Warning Labels and Consumer Information
G. Miscellaneous Issues
1. Selection of Child Restraints
2. Due Care Provision
3. Selection of Options
4. Relationship of Proposed New Injury Criteria to Existing Test
Requirements
5. Time Parameters for Measuring Injury Criteria During Tests
6. Cruise Controls
7. Rescue Operations
8. Assessing Lower Extremity Injury Potential in Offset
Deformable Crash Tests
9. Hybrid III Dummy Neck
[[Page 60557]]
H. Relationship between the NPRM, Comments on the NPRM and this
SNPRM
IV. Costs and Benefits
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
VI. Submission of Comments
Proposed Regulatory Text
Appendix A--Response to Petition
Appendix B--Glossary
I. Executive Summary
Since the early 1990's, NHTSA has been taking steps to reduce the
risk that air bags will sometimes cause deaths, particularly to
unrestrained children and small adults, and to maintain and improve the
benefits of air bags. Our initial efforts to reduce the risks focused
on a public education campaign to alert the public about the dangers of
air bags to children in general and to infants in particular. We urged
parents to place their children in the back seat whenever possible and
to ensure that they were always properly restrained.
Later, to speed the redesigning and recertifying of air bags that
reduce the risks to out-of-position occupants, we established a
temporary option allowing vehicle manufacturers to certify their
vehicles based on an unbelted sled test. The sled test is simpler, less
expensive, and easier to meet than the pre-existing 30 mph unbelted
crash test. Limited available data appear to indicate that these
redesigned air bags have reduced the risks from air bags for the at-
risk populations. However, it is not possible at this time to draw
statistically significant conclusions about this.
There is a greater amount of data on the overall benefits of air
bags. These data indicate that the redesigned air bags \1\ provide
essentially the same protection as that provided by earlier air bags.
We have considered this information in light of agency tests showing
that most of the tested vehicles, although certified to the sled tests,
also passed the more stringent 30 mph unbelted crash test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See footnote 15 for an explanation of the term, ``redesigned
air bags.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers are developing an assortment of technologies,
commonly referred to as advanced air bag technologies, to reduce the
risks still further, for children, as well as adults. These
technologies include dual-stage inflators which enable air bags to
inflate with two different levels of power and which can be linked to
various types of sensors including those that sense crash severity,
belt use, and seat position (i.e., the location of a vehicle seat on
its track). Occupant weight sensors and pattern sensors can be used to
prevent an air bag from deploying at all in the presence of children.
These advanced air bag technologies are not just hypothetical
possibilities; vehicle manufacturers are beginning to install them in
an increasing variety of vehicles. The MY 1999 Hyundai Sonata has a
weight sensor designed to prevent the passenger air bag from deploying
unless a weight of more than 66 pounds is detected on the passenger
seat. Honda introduced a dual stage inflator in its MY 1999 Acura. The
MY 2000 Ford Taurus and Honda Accord, which are among the highest
selling models in this country, have dual-stage air bags. Some luxury
vehicles also have advanced air bag technologies. For example, Mercedes
and BMW have dual-stage air bags in some of their MY 2000 cars. The MY
2000 Cadillac Seville has weight and pattern sensors in the passenger
seat that work together to turn off the passenger air bag when children
are present.
In the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21),\2\
Congress mandated that we issue a final rule that requires the
installation of air bags meeting, by means that include advanced air
bag technologies, two goals: first, improving occupant protection for
occupants of different sizes, regardless of whether they use their seat
belts, and second, minimizing the risk to infants, children and other
occupants of deaths and injuries caused by air bags. In accordance with
TEA 21, we published a proposal in September 1998 to require the timely
introduction of advanced air bags by all vehicle manufacturers and to
establish procedures for testing the risk-reducing capabilities of the
various types and combinations of advanced air bag technologies. Given
the twin goals mandated by TEA 21, the proposal was necessarily both
expansive and complex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The provisions in TEA 21 regarding air bags were contained
in a part called The NHTSA Reauthorization Act of 1998. Given the
greater public familiarity with the name TEA 21, we will refer to
it, instead of the Reauthorization Act, in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To meet the first goal of improving occupant protection, we
proposed a variety of tests using belted and unbelted dummies. We also
proposed adding a new dummy representing short-statured adult females.
Included in these proposals was a proposal to terminate the unbelted
sled test option so that vehicles with advanced air bags would be
tested in unbelted barrier crashes. The sled test option was valuable
as a short-run expedient to make it easier for manufacturers to bring
redesigned air bags to market quickly. However, for the long-run
purpose of testing air bags to ensure that they are, and that they will
continue to be, effective in protecting people in real world crashes,
the agency tentatively concluded that air bags should be evaluated in
tests simulating those crashes. In particular, the agency proposed to
rely on an unbelted 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier crash test that
approximates many of the real world crashes severe enough to pose
significant risk of serious or fatal injury. Among the tests for belted
occupants was a new 40 km/h (25 mph) offset deformable barrier test
which was intended to evaluate the ability of crash sensors to sense
soft pulse crashes.
With respect to the second goal of minimizing the risks of air
bags, the very breadth of the different technological approaches for
meeting that goal necessitated we make our proposal even more expansive
and complex. We proposed to adopt in the final rule an array of tests
to accommodate these different technological approaches and the
different choices being made by individual manufacturers about which
types of those technologies to adopt. In some cases, we were able to
propose generic tests that are suitable for all advanced air bags. In
other cases, however, we had to propose tests that are tailored to
particular technologies and that would apply to only those air bags
incorporating those technologies. This array of tests was intended to
provide the manufacturers with technology and design flexibility, while
providing the agency with effective means of evaluating the performance
of all of the different advanced air bag systems.
The public comments and the agency research and analysis since our
1998 NPRM have enabled us to refine and in some cases simplify the
proposed amendments that we are considering. In view of the importance
of some of the changes, we have decided to publish this SNPRM to obtain
further public comment before making any final decisions and issuing a
final rule.
We have reduced the number of proposed dynamic and static tests,
especially those relating to the proposed requirements for reducing the
risks of air bags. We have reduced, from 14 to nine,\3\ the number of
proposed dynamic crash tests that would be applicable to all vehicles.
We originally proposed that vehicles equipped with static air bag
suppression systems (e.g., weight sensors and pattern sensors) be
subject to being tested with any child restraint manufactured over a
ten-year period.
[[Page 60558]]
This would have created the possibility of testing with any one of
several hundred different models of child restraints. Recognizing that,
we solicited comments to aid us in identifying a much more limited
number of specific models that would be representative of the array of
available child restraints. Based on the public comments, we are now
proposing to require that vehicles be able to meet the applicable
requirements when tested with any one of a far more limited number of
child restraints representing a cross-section of the restraints
currently on the market.\4\ We have also significantly reduced the
number of positions in which test dummies or child restraints could be
placed for testing a static suppression system. This was accomplished
largely by eliminating positions that were substantially similar to
other positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The methodology for counting the number of proposed tests is
explained later in this notice.
\4\ For the infant dummy, 19 different seats; for the 3-year-old
dummy, 12 different seats; and for the 6-year-old dummy, 5 different
seats. These figures are not additive since some seats are used for
tests with two different dummies. A total of 24 seats (12 infant
seats, 7 convertible seats, and 5 booster seats) would be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing to expressly provide that manufacturers may use
children or small women instead of dummies in static tests to provide a
basis for certifying compliance with the proposed tests for static
suppression systems. These are simple tests in which the vehicle does
not move, and the air bags cannot deploy. We are making this proposal
because existing anthropomorphic test dummies were not designed to
replicate the weight distribution of sitting humans in a manner that
would adequately test all suppression technologies, e.g., pressure/
pattern recognition sensors in the vehicle seat. Since the ultimate
goal of our provisions concerning suppression systems is to achieve
high reliability in detecting the presence of humans, the use of humans
for the simple and limited purpose of testing the static suppression
systems would make good sense. It is unnecessary to propose the use of
infants for certification purposes, since all of the infant restraints
should be detectable by any suppression system, regardless of whether
they are occupied by a dummy or an infant.
We have eliminated the proposed test for dynamic automatic
suppression systems (DASS) and the proposed full scale out-of-position
test including pre-crash braking. Public comments and our further
testing have led us to conclude that these tests would require
enhancements to dummy biofidelity and test procedure development that
we could not complete in time for this rulemaking. Further, the
commenters did not suggest any workable, effective tests that we could
propose as replacements.
Instead, we are taking a different approach that will provide
flexibility to manufacturers that may wish in the future to certify
advanced air bag systems incorporating a DASS to Standard No. 208. We
believe that it is important in crafting our proposals regarding
advanced air bags to facilitate efforts by the manufacturers to develop
new and possibly better ways of reducing air bag risks. Accordingly, we
are proposing to establish very general performance requirements for
DASS and a special expedited petitioning and rulemaking process for
considering procedures for testing advanced air bags incorporating one
of these systems. Target time limits for each phase of such a
rulemaking are proposed. Anyone wishing to market such advanced air
bags could develop test procedures for demonstrating the compliance of
their particular DASS with the performance requirements and submit
those test procedures to the agency for its consideration. If the
agency deems it appropriate to do so after evaluating the petition, the
agency would publish a notice proposing to adopt the manufacturer's
test procedure. After considering those comments, the agency would then
decide whether the procedure should be added to Standard No. 208. If it
decided to do so, and if the procedure were suitable for the DASS of
any other vehicles, then the procedure could be used by those
manufacturers of those vehicles as well as by the petitioning
manufacturer. The agency intends to minimize the number of different
test procedures that are adopted for DASS and to ensure ultimately that
similar DASS are tested in the same way.
We have also decided to change our proposed injury criteria. We
have decided to drop our proposal for a new combined thoracic index
(CTI) and instead maintain separate limits for thoracic acceleration
and deflection.\5\ While CTI may be a better predictor of thoracic
injury than chest acceleration and chest deflection independently,
there is debate in the biomechanics community about the interpretation
of the data. Consequently, we are pursuing further research to resolve
the issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The thorax is the chest area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also proposing to change the existing head injury criterion
(HIC) for the 50th percentile adult male dummy.\6\ HIC is currently
required not to exceed 1,000 and is evaluated over a 36 millisecond
period. We are proposing to evaluate the HIC over a maximum 15
millisecond time interval with a requirement that it not exceed a
maximum of 700. The agency historically has used a 36 millisecond time
interval to measure HIC primarily because this method allowed the HIC
measurement to indirectly capture risk of neck injury (until recently,
a direct indication of neck injury risk was not a part of Standard
208). With the addition of specific neck injury criteria to Standard
208, the agency can switch to a 15 ms measurement interval which better
corresponds to the underlying biomechanical research. We are proposing
to change the HIC time interval to a maximum of 15 milliseconds for all
dummy sizes and to revise the HIC limits by commensurate amounts, based
on a scaling from the proposed new limit for the 50th percentile adult
male dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ HIC consists of a formula which utilizes data regarding the
acceleration of the dummy head in vehicle tests to produce a number
to determine compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing a neck injury criteria (Nij) limit of 1.0, the
calculation of which has been revised since the NPRM. In the NPRM, we
requested comments on performance limits of Nij=1 and Nij=1.4. After
considering the comments, the available biomechanical data, and testing
which indicates that the more conservative or stringent value of 1.0
can be met in current production vehicles, we are proposing a limit of
1.0. The formulae underlying the calculation of Nij for smaller dummies
incorporate scaling in recognition of the greater susceptibility of
children to injury.
Finally, we are proposing two alternative crash tests for
evaluating the effectiveness of an advanced air bag in protecting
unbelted occupants in a relatively high speed crash. These tests would
be conducted with dummies representing 50th percentile adult males as
well as with ones representing 5th percentile adult females. We
contemplate adopting one of these tests in a final rule, although we
could decide to require elements of both alternatives. We believe that
crashing a complete vehicle into a barrier is needed to address the
type of situation for which air bags are designed: frontal crashes
involving vehicles striking another object with sufficient force that
the impact of an occupant with the steering wheel, dashboard, or other
interior surface could result in severe injuries or death.
The first alternative is an unbelted rigid barrier test
(perpendicular and up to 30 degrees oblique to
perpendicular) with a maximum speed to be established in the final rule
within the range of 40 to 48 km/h (25 to 30
[[Page 60559]]
mph). This alternative is similar to the test included in our 1998
NPRM. The agency's intent in this rulemaking is to maximize, to the
extent consistent with TEA 21, the protection that air bags offer in
crashes potentially resulting in fatal injuries. Thus, the agency's
preference is to establish such a test requirement at as high a
severity as practicable. The 40 km/h (25 mph) lower end of the maximum
test speed range is set forth for comment in this notice to ensure that
commenters address a crash test recommended by the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers in late August 1999. If we reduce the maximum
speed to 40 km/h (25 mph) permanently, we might increase the maximum
speed of the belted rigid barrier test from the current 48 km/h to 56
km/h (30 to 35 mph). The increase could go into effect after the TEA 21
phase-in period.
The second alternative is an unbelted offset deformable barrier
test with a maximum speed to be established in the final rule within
the range of 48 to 56 km/h (30 to 35 mph). The vehicle would have to
meet the requirements both in tests with the driver side of the vehicle
engaged with the barrier and in tests with the passenger side engaged.
As in the case of the first alternative, if the agency selected this
second alternative for the final rule, it would establish the maximum
speed at as high a level as practicable, consistent with TEA 21, to
maximize the improvement in occupant protection in potentially fatal
crashes.
Regardless of which unbelted test or tests we ultimately adopt, we
would retain a belted rigid barrier test with a maximum speed of 48 km/
h (30 mph) with both 50th percentile adult male and 5th percentile
adult female dummies during the TEA 21 phase-in period.\7\ Further, we
are continuing to propose an up-to-40 km/h (25 mph) offset deformable
barrier test requirement, using belted 5th percentile adult female
dummies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ As noted above, if we permanently reduce the maximum test
speed for the unbelted rigid barrier test to 40 km/h (25 mph), we
might increase the maximum test speed for the belted rigid barrier
test to 56 km/h (35 mph), effective sometime after that phase-in
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also continuing to propose to eliminate provisions which
allow original equipment (OE) and retrofit on-off switches under
specified circumstances. Instead of proposing to phase these provisions
out as advanced air bags are phased in, as proposed in the NPRM, we are
proposing to allow OE and retrofit on-off switches to be installed
under the same conditions that currently apply for all vehicles
produced prior to September 1, 2005, the date by which all vehicles
must have an advanced air bag system. We believe that by that time
consumer confidence in the advanced air bag systems will be
sufficiently strong to remove any desire for a manual on-off switch in
vehicles produced with an advanced air bag.
NHTSA is proposing a replacement for the permanent sun visor label
for vehicles certified as meeting the requirements of this proposed
rule. The label would have new graphics and contain statements
regarding belt use and seating children in the rear seat. In addition,
we are proposing a new temporary label that states that the vehicle
meets the new requirements for advanced air bags. This label would
replace the existing temporary label and include statements regarding
seat belt use and children in rear seats.
II. Background
A. Statutory Requirements
As part of TEA 21, Congress required us to issue an NPRM and final
rule meeting two different, equally important goals:
to improve occupant protection for occupants of different sizes,
belted and unbelted, under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.
208, while minimizing the risk to infants, children, and other
occupants from injuries and deaths caused by air bags, by means that
include advanced air bags.
(Emphasis added.) \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The treatment by this provision of the twin goals and of the
protection of belted and unbelted occupants differs significantly
from the treatment that would have been given them by an earlier
version of this mandate. That earlier version would have established
a hierarchy of priorities, placing minimizing the risks of air bags
above improving the protection they provide, and placing the
protection of belted occupants above the protection of unbelted
occupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Act provided that we were to issue the final rule by September
1, 1999. However, if we determined that the final rule could not be
completed by that date, the Act provided that the final rule could be
issued as late as March 1, 2000. Because of the complexity of the
issues and the need to issue this SNPRM, we determined that the final
rule could not be completed by September 1, 1999. Under the Act, the
final rule must therefore be issued by March 1, 2000.
TEA 21 addressed various other issues, including the effective date
for the final rule. A complete discussion of the Act's provisions is
included in the 1998 NPRM. See 63 FR 49961.
B. Existing Air Bag Requirements
Pursuant to a provision in the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), Standard No. 208 requires all passenger
cars and light trucks to provide automatic protection by means of air
bags.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ TEA 21 is thus the second in a succession of Congressional
acts modifying the Department's 1984 final rule regarding automatic
protection. That final rule mandated automatic protection, but
explicitly provided discretion with respect to the type of automatic
protection (automatic seat belts and air bags), and implicitly
provided discretion with respect to the use of advanced air bag
technologies. ISTEA eliminated the first area of discretion,
mandating the installation of air bags. TEA 21 eliminates the second
area of discretion, mandating the use of advanced air bag
technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The automatic protection requirements are performance requirements.
The standard does not specify the design of an air bag. Instead, when
tested under specified test conditions, vehicles must meet specified
limits for injury criteria, including criteria for the head, chest and
thighs, measured on 50th percentile adult male test dummies.
Until recently, these criteria limits had to be met for air bag-
equipped vehicles in barrier crashes at speeds up to 48 km/h (30 mph),
both with the dummies belted and with them unbelted. However, on March
19, 1997, we published a final rule providing manufacturers with the
option of certifying the air bag performance of their vehicles with an
unbelted dummy in a sled test incorporating a 125 millisecond
standardized crash pulse instead of in a vehicle-to-barrier crash test.
We made this amendment primarily to expedite manufacturer efforts to
reduce the force of air bags as they deploy.
Under the March 1997 final rule, the sled test option was scheduled
to terminate on September 1, 2001. We believed there was no need to
permanently reduce Standard No. 208's performance requirements, since a
variety of longer term alternatives were available to manufacturers to
address adverse effects of air bags.
The September 1, 2001 termination date for the sled test option was
superseded by a provision in TEA 21. In a paragraph titled
``Coordination of Effective Dates,'' the Act provides that the unbelted
sled test option ``shall remain in effect unless and until changed by
[the final rule for advanced air bags].''
C. September 1998 NPRM
Pursuant to TEA 21, on September 18, 1998, we published in the
Federal Register (63 FR 49958) a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
to upgrade Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, to require
vehicles to
[[Page 60560]]
be equipped with advanced air bags that meet new, more rigorous
performance requirements. The advanced air bags would be required in
some new passenger cars and light trucks beginning September 1, 2002,
and in all new cars and light trucks beginning September 1, 2005.
As we explained in that document, air bags have been shown to be
highly effective in saving lives. They reduce fatalities in frontal
crashes by about 30 percent. However, they also sometimes cause
fatalities to infants in rear facing child safety seats and out-of-
position occupants.
In the 1998 NPRM, we presented a full discussion of the safety
issues related to air bags. We also presented a discussion of our
comprehensive plan to address air bag fatalities, which includes
requiring advanced air bags as a long-term solution.
We proposed to add a new set of requirements to prevent air bags
from causing injuries and to improve the protection that they provide
occupants in frontal crashes. There would be several new performance
requirements to ensure that the advanced air bags do not pose
unreasonable risks to out-of-position occupants.
The NPRM gave alternative options for complying with those
requirements so that vehicle manufacturers would be free to choose from
a variety of effective technological solutions and to develop new ones
if they so desire. With this flexibility, they could use technologies
that modulate or otherwise control air bag deployment so deploying air
bags do not cause serious injuries or that prevent air bag deployment
if children or out-of-position occupants are present.
To ensure that the new air bags are designed to avoid causing
injury to a broad array of occupants, we proposed test requirements
using dummies representing 12-month-old, 3-year-old and 6-year-old
children, and 5th percentile adult females, as well as tests
representing 50th percentile adult males. We noted that many of the
proposed test procedures were new, and specifically requested comments
with respect to their suitability for measuring the performance of the
various advanced systems under development.
We also proposed requirements to ensure that the new air bags are
designed to cushion and protect an array of belted and unbelted
occupants, including teenagers and small women. The standard's current
dynamic crash test requirements specify the use of 50th percentile
adult male dummies only. We proposed also to specify use of 5th
percentile adult female dummies in dynamic crash tests. The weight and
size of these dummies are representative of not only small women, but
also many teenagers.
In addition to the existing rigid barrier test, representing a
relatively ``stiff'' or ``hard'' pulse crash in perpendicular tests and
a more moderate pulse crash in oblique tests, we proposed to add a
deformable barrier crash test, representing a relatively ``soft'' pulse
crash. This proposed new crash test requirement was intended to ensure
that air bag systems are designed so that they do not deploy too late.
Some current air bags deploy relatively late in certain types of
crashes. If an air bag deploys too late, normally seated occupants may
move too close to the air bag before it starts to inflate. In such a
situation, the air bag is less likely to protect the occupant and may
pose a risk to the occupant. We proposed to use 5th percentile adult
female dummies in this test.
We also proposed to phase out the unbelted sled test option as we
phased in requirements for advanced air bags. We acknowledged that the
sled test option has been an expedient and useful temporary measure to
ensure that the vehicle manufacturers could quickly redesign all of
their air bags and to help ensure that some protection would continue
to be provided. Nevertheless, we stated that we did not consider sled
testing to be an adequate long-term means of assessing the extent of
occupant protection that a vehicle and its air bag will afford
occupants in the real world.
Finally, we proposed new and/or upgraded injury criteria for each
of the proposed new test requirements, and also proposed to upgrade
some of the injury criteria for the standard's existing test
requirements.
D. Public Comments
We received comments from a wide range of interested persons
including vehicle manufacturers, air bag manufacturers, insurance
companies, public interest groups, academia, and government. Commenters
generally supported the goals mandated by TEA 21--improving the
benefits of air bags, while minimizing risks from air bags--but
expressed widely differing views as to how to accomplish those goals.
In this section of the preamble, we summarize the comments,
particularly those relating to the major issues. Because of the large
number of public comments, we have included a representative sample of
the comments and the commenters who made them.
1. Tests for Requirements To Improve Occupant Protection for Different
Size Occupants, Belted and Unbelted
a. Belted Rigid Barrier Test.
A number of vehicle manufacturers opposed adding a belted rigid
barrier test using 5th percentile adult female dummies. These
commenters argued that this particular test is redundant given the
existing belted barrier test using 50th percentile adult male dummies
and the other proposed tests using 5th percentile adult female dummies.
The comments of the vehicle manufacturers on this issue were
reflective of a more general theme running through their comments,
i.e., they believed the NPRM was overly complex and included too many
tests.
b. Unbelted Rigid Barrier Test.
Commenters had sharply different views on our proposal to phase out
the unbelted sled test option and reinstate the up-to-48 km/h (30 mph)
unbelted rigid barrier test. Many commenters, including all vehicle
manufacturers and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS),
strongly opposed reinstating the unbelted rigid barrier test. These
commenters generally argued that reinstating this test would
necessitate a return to ``overly aggressive'' air bags and that the
test is not representative of typical real world crashes. Vehicle
manufacturers requested that the sled test option remain available for
the long term. On the issue of possible alternative unbelted tests,
IIHS suggested that, if we wish to phase out the sled test, we should
consider replacing it with a 56 km/h (35 mph) offset deformable barrier
test.
On August 31, 1999, however, vehicle manufacturers and their trade
associations, Alliance and AIAM, announced to the agency a recently
reached consensus recommendation for an unbelted crash test. The
industry recommended an unbelted rigid barrier crash test at 40 km/h
(25 mph) using both 50th percentile adult male dummies and 5th
percentile adult female dummies. The test would be conducted in the
perpendicular mode only, i.e., there would be no oblique tests. No
supporting data or written analyses were submitted to the agency at
that meeting.
Other commenters, including a number of advocacy groups, argued
that the up-to-48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test is
representative of a significant portion of real world crashes, and that
improvements in vehicle and air bag designs will enable manufacturers
to meet the test without
[[Page 60561]]
safety tradeoffs. Public Citizen argued that while the manufacturers
attempt to blame the unbelted barrier test for the deaths and injuries
caused by air bags, a closer examination suggests that manufacturers'
design selection is the real cause of injuries. It further argued that
TEA 21 contemplates that neither belted occupants nor unbelted
occupants be favored under Standard 208 and that both deserve safe and
effective protection by air bags.
c. Up-to-40 km/h (25 mph) Offset Deformable Barrier Test.
Commenters' views on the proposed up-to-25-mph belted offset
deformable barrier test were mixed, but mostly supportive. Many
commenters, including several advocacy groups and a number of vehicle
manufacturers, supported the addition of an offset deformable barrier
test.
Some vehicle manufacturers requested that the test be conducted
only with the driver's side engaged, instead of with either side
engaged as proposed in the NPRM. The Association of International
Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM) stated that a test with the driver's
side engaged would more likely produce ``worst case'' driver out-of-
position locations and possible driver-side intrusion, and that a
passenger side offset test would be redundant. Another suggestion made
by some vehicle manufacturers was to conduct the test only at 40 km/h
(25 mph), rather than at speeds up to 40 km/h (25 mph).
General Motors (GM) stated that it agreed with the addition of the
offset deformable barrier test only if the unbelted sled test option
remained in effect. GM stated that the offset deformable barrier test
augments the sled test by addressing the crash sensing aspects of
performance.
DaimlerChrysler argued that the addition of a 40 km/h (25 mph)
belted offset deformable barrier test for the 5th percentile female is
unnecessary in light of future ``depowered'' and/or advanced air bags.
That commenter stated that injury risks to small occupants sitting near
the driver air bag are adequately assessed using the proposed out-of-
position, low-risk deployment tests, which it endorses.
Some vehicle manufacturers indicated that air bags might be
designed so that they would not deploy in 40 km/h (25 mph) offset
crashes.
2. Tests for Requirements To Minimize the Risk to Infants, Children and
Other Occupants From Injuries and Deaths Caused by Air Bags
a. Tests to minimize risks to infants.
While commenters generally supported adding tests for infant
safety, they raised a number of issues about the proposed tests.
The vehicle manufacturers opposed the proposal to test with any
infant seat manufactured during approximately the 10 years prior to the
date of vehicle manufacture, citing practicability concerns. A number
of vehicle manufacturers also argued that the agency proposed too many
test positions. Commenters raised numerous concerns about the specific
details of the proposed test procedures.
Some commenters suggested that the agency require suppression in
the presence of infants, instead of permitting a low-risk deployment
option as well. These commenters cited uncertainties related to injury
risk for infants and the lack of infant biomechanical data. They
further questioned if there is any benefit from air bag deployments for
infants.
A number of commenters also raised concerns about whether
suppression devices will be ready in time to meet the requirements for
advanced air bags, and how reliable they will be.
b. Tests to minimize risks to children.
Commenters' views on the proposed tests for child safety were
similar to those for infant safety. While supportive of adding tests in
this area, vehicle manufacturers raised concerns about the number of
child restraints, number of tests, and, in some cases, availability of
reliable suppression devices.
A number of commenters raised concerns about whether current child
dummies are sufficiently human-like to be appropriate test devices for
some of the advanced technologies under development. By way of example,
concern was expressed that suppression devices that work by sensing the
distributed weight pattern of a child on a seat may not recognize the
pattern of a test dummy.
Commenters raised numerous technical issues concerning the proposed
options for automatic suppression features that suppress the air bag
when an occupant is out-of-position (S27 of the regulatory text
proposed in the NPRM). Some commenters argued that the proposal to test
automatic suppression features using a moving headform is not
appropriate for some of the devices under development, such as sensors
designed to track the full body of the occupant and not just the head.
Others expressed difficulties related to defining the size, shape, and
orientation of the suppression plane, as well as the maximum response
time of the system.
Commenters also raised numerous technical issues concerning the
dynamic out-of-position test (S29 of the regulatory text proposed in
the NPRM). Some commenters stated that the dummy trajectories resulting
in this test are unrealistic, and that the proposed vehicle crash test
is neither repeatable nor reproducible. Others stated that the dummies
do not move close enough to the air bag prior to deployment to
represent a worst case out-of-position situation.
c. Tests to minimize risks to adults.
Commenters generally supported adding a low-risk deployment test
using a 5th percentile adult female dummy at the driver seating
position, although they raised a number of issues about the proposed
test procedure. GM recommended that the driver low risk deployment test
be made into a component test, outside of the vehicle.
Commenters also raised the same concerns about the proposed options
for automatic suppression features that suppress the air bag when an
occupant is out-of-position (S27) and for the dynamic out-of-position
test (S29) as they did in the context of tests to minimize risks to
children.
GM recommended that the agency also propose a low-risk deployment
test using a 5th percentile adult female dummy at the passenger
position. That company noted that if manufacturers selected the
suppression (presence) option for child safety, there would be no out-
of-position test limiting aggressivity for adult passengers.
3. Injury Criteria
Commenters raised numerous highly technical issues concerning
several of proposed injury criteria and performance limits. Some
commenters questioned the biomechanical basis for certain of the
proposed new injury criteria. The AAMA suggested essentially a
completely revised set of injury criteria.
E. Events Since September 1998
A number of events relevant to this rulemaking have occurred since
publication of the NPRM in September 1998. First, the development of
advanced air bags by suppliers and vehicle manufacturers has continued.
Acura introduced dual stage passenger side air bags in its MY 1999
Acura RL. According to Acura's press release, ``(t)he dual stage air
bags were designed to reduce the inflation speed to help protect
children or small-framed adults. In a low speed collision, the dual-
stage inflator system is triggered in sequence resulting in slower air
bag deployment with less initial force. In
[[Page 60562]]
higher speed collisions, both inflators operate simultaneously for full
immediate inflation. The air bag system logic also controls the
operation of the seat belt pretensioners. A new feature of the system
detects whether the passenger's seat belt is fastened. If the seat belt
is not fastened, the air bag deploys at full force at a lower collision
speed to help offer more protection to the unbelted occupant.''
Ford publicly announced in January 1999 that it will introduce
advanced technology enabling its cars and trucks to analyze crash
conditions and to use the results of the analyses in activating safety
devices to better protect a range of occupants in a variety of frontal
crash situations. Ford stated that its Advanced Restraints System
features nearly a dozen technologically advanced components that work
together to give front-seat occupants significantly enhanced protection
during frontal crashes, taking into account their seating position,
safety belt use and crash severity. That company indicated that
elements of the system, which features technologies such as crash
severity sensors, a driver-seat position sensor, a passenger weight
sensor, safety belt usage sensors, dual-stage inflating air bags,
safety belt pretensioners and energy management retractors, will debut
in vehicles beginning in the 1999 calendar year. Ford stated that the
company will introduce these new technologies on new and significantly
freshened models until all its passenger cars, trucks and sport utility
vehicles have the complete Advanced Restraints System.
GM publicly announced in February 1999 that it will introduce
technology in MY 2000 that is designed to detect the presence of a
small child in the front passenger seat and suppress the deployment of
the passenger frontal air bag in the event of a frontal crash. GM
stated that weight-based sensors, coupled with pattern recognition
technology, will distinguish between a child and a small adult female
whose weight may be similar to a large child restrained in a child
safety seat. If the front passenger seat is occupied by a small child,
whether in a child safety seat or not, GM said that the air bag will
not deploy. GM stated that it will introduce this technology on the
Cadillac Seville in the 2000 calendar year, and that it has a roll-out
plan to extend this technology throughout its product line.
We have received more detailed confidential information from GM and
Ford concerning their plans, as well as confidential information from
other auto manufacturers concerning their latest plans to introduce
various advanced technologies. We have also received confidential
information from suppliers.
Second, in April 1999, we held a public technical workshop
concerning biomechanical injury criteria. The purpose of the workshop
was to provide an additional opportunity for a continuing dialog with
the biomechanics community and the public to assure that we considered
appropriate injury criteria.
Third, we have analyzed the public comments and also conducted
additional testing. We conducted additional tests of current vehicles
with redesigned air bags to determine how they perform in 48 km/h (30
mph) rigid barrier crash tests. We selected vehicles that varied by
class, stiffness, and manufacturer. We also used both 5th percentile
adult female dummies and 50th percentile adult male dummies, belted and
unbelted. We also conducted tests of several current vehicles with
redesigned air bags to determine how they perform in 40 km/h (25 mph)
rigid barrier crash tests, 48 km/h (30 mph) 30 degree right/left
angular barrier tests (belted/unbelted), 56 km/h (35 mph) left/right
side offset fixed deformable barrier crash tests, low speed 24 to 40
km/h (15 to 25 mph) offset deformable crash tests and static out-of-
position tests. We also conducted sled tests at different crash
severities with 95th percentile adult male dummies and MY 1999 and MY
1997 replacement air bags.
Fourth, we have continued to analyze available data to see how
redesigned air bags are performing in the real world. We analyzed 1996
to 1998 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data and found
essentially the same number of fatalities in frontal impacts for MY
1996 vehicles in 1996 FARS (730), as in MY 1997 vehicles in 1997 FARS
(776), as in MY 1998 vehicles in 1998 FARS (732). The fatality rates
per million registered vehicles indicate that MY 1996 (56 per million
registered vehicles) had essentially the same fatality rates as MY 1997
vehicles (55), while MY 1998 vehicles had a lower fatality rate (50).
After controlling for safety belt use rates, that is, estimating the
number of fatalities in each year if all three years had the same 1998
usage rate, the fatality rates per million registered vehicles were the
same for MY 1996 and MY 1997 (53), while MY 1998 had a lower fatality
rate (50). Since an estimated 87 percent of MY 1998 vehicles have
redesigned air bags, this suggests that there is essentially the same
or slightly better protection provided by the redesigned air bags
compared to pre-MY 1998 air bags. In assessing the significance of this
information, we will consider the agency tests in which most of the
tested vehicles, although certified to the sled tests, met or exceeded
the historical performance requirements of the 48
km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier crash test.
Another analysis compared the percent of fatalities in frontal
impacts to all impacts for MY 1996 vehicles in calendar year 1996
(38.9%), to MY 1997 vehicles in calendar year 1997 (41.3%), and to MY
1998 vehicles in the first 6-months of calendar year 1998 (39.6%). As
noted above, most of the MY 1998 vehicles have redesigned air bags. No
statistically significant difference was found between the three sets
of data. Again, this implies that the overall protection provided by
the redesigned air bags is essentially the same as that provided by
pre-MY 1998 air bags.
Fifth, on August 31, 1999, and again on September 14, 1999, the
vehicle manufacturers and their trade associations met with the agency
and presented a consensus recommendation for an unbelted crash test.
The industry recommended an unbelted rigid barrier crash test at 40 km/
h (25 mph) using both 50th percentile adult male dummies and 5th
percentile adult female dummies. A letter regarding this recommendation
was received from the Alliance (dated September 2, 1999).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ This letter recommended that the agency adopt the following
unbelted barrier test as an alternative to the current unbelted sled
test:
A 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted rigid barrier, using 5th percentile
adult female dummies and 50th percentile adult male dummies, and the
injury criteria recommended by AAMA in its Dec 98 submission to
agency and endorsed by the Alliance in 1999. The test would be
conducted perpendicularly only at 25 mph (w/ allowance for test
variability) only, not up to 25 mph. The test would be fully phased-
in during TEA 21 phase-in period (MY's 2003-2006). Further, optional
early compliance should be allowed. Upon publication of final rule,
vehicle manufacturers should be allowed to comply with this
recommended test (as opposed to either the sled test or 30 mph
unbelted rigid barrier test), even in the absence of compliance with
requirements intended to reduce the risks associated with air bags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a letter dated September 16, 1999, an assortment of commenters,
including vehicle manufacturers, vehicle insurers, the American
Automobile Association, the National Automobile Dealers Association,
the American International Automobile Dealers Association, the American
Trauma Society, the National Safety Council, IIHS, and the National
Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives, opposed a
return to the 30 mph unbelted rigid barrier test. This letter argued
that a return to this test would require an overall increase in air bag
maximum energy levels with a concomitant increase in risk. No
supporting data or analysis
[[Page 60563]]
accompanied the letter. The letter also urged that NHTSA focus this
rulemaking on reducing the risk of air bags to children and others,
especially in low speed crashes, as compared to the agency's attempting
to increase air bag-related benefits for unbelted occupants in higher
speed crashes.
In a letter dated September 29, 1999, Public Citizen, the Center
for Auto Safety, and Parents for Safer Air Bags stated that they were
``concerned by news reports that a consortium of vehicle manufacturers
and insurers is pressing the agency not to reinstate the 30 mph barrier
crash test for unbelted occupants.'' These organizations argued that
the industry's position is based on the erroneous premise that
protection of unbelted occupants in high-speed collisions causes the
bags to be hazardous to small occupants in low-speed collisions.\11\
They also argued that abandonment of the unbelted 30 mph unbelted test
would obviate the very purpose of the present rulemaking, the
development and introduction of advanced air bags, and result in the
use of generic ``lowest common denominator'' systems that can be
readily be fitted in any vehicle but which seriously compromise safety.
The letter stated that it should not be forgotten that air bags were
originally conceived to protect unbelted occupants in horrific frontal
collisions, and that this remains their principal efficacy to this day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The letter argued that the safety record of many well-
designed air bag systems over a ten year period belies this premise.
The letter stated that a variety of design features allow for
protection of unbelted occupants in severe crashes without imposing
significant inflation risks in low-speed collisions, and cited
vehicle structures with a longer crash pulse, variable inflation
forces based on crash severity, higher thresholds (including ``dual
thresholds'') and laterally-biased inflation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. SNPRM for Advanced Air Bags
A. Introduction
Our primary goals in this rulemaking continue to be those set for
us by TEA 21, i.e., to improve occupant protection for occupants of
different sizes, belted and unbelted, while minimizing the risk to
infants, children, and other occupants from injuries and deaths caused
by air bags. Further, we are seeking to ensure that the needed
improvements in occupant protection are made in accordance with the
statutory implementation schedule. After carefully reviewing the
comments on the NPRM and other available information, we have developed
an SNPRM to accomplish these goals.
In developing this SNPRM, we focused on picking the most
appropriate tests so that we could reduce the number of originally
proposed tests without significantly affecting the benefits of the
NPRM. We were persuaded by the commenters that reducing the amount of
testing was important, given resource limitations, and the costs to
manufacturers associated with certifying vehicles to such a large
number of new test requirements. At the same time, we wanted to be sure
that the SNPRM includes sufficient tests to ensure that air bags are
redesigned to meet the goals mandated by TEA 21.
Given the continued debate over what requirements should be relied
upon to ensure protection to unbelted occupants, we also wanted to be
sure that we have considered and received the benefit of public
comments on the various alternative approaches reflecting the views and
information now available to us.
The most significant differences between the NPRM and the SNPRM can
be summarized as follows:
Two alternative unbelted tests. While we proposed one
unbelted test in the NPRM, an up-to-48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier
test, we are proposing and seeking comments on two alternative unbelted
tests in this SNPRM. The first alternative is an unbelted rigid barrier
test with a minimum speed of 29 km/h (18 mph) and a maximum speed to be
established within the range of 40 to 48 km/h (25 to 30 mph). Within
this alternative, the potential exists for a phase-in sequence in which
the maximum speed would initially be set at 40 km/h (25 mph) to provide
vehicle manufacturers additional flexibility when they are introducing
advanced air bags during the phase-in. Under this phase-in sequence,
the final rule could provide that a maximum speed of 48 km/h (30 mph)
would apply after a reasonable period of time. If we reduce the maximum
speed to 40 km/h (25 mph) permanently, we might also increase the
maximum speed of the belted rigid barrier test from the current 48 km/h
to 56 km/h (30 to 35 mph). The second alternative is an unbelted offset
deformable barrier test with a minimum speed of 35 km/h (22 mph) and a
maximum speed to be established within the range of 48 to 56 km/h (30
to 35 mph). The latter alternative was developed in response to a
recommendation made by IIHS in its comment on the NPRM.\12\ We are
proposing the 29 and 35 km/h (18 and 22 mph) lower ends of the ranges
of test speeds because we want to be sure that the standard does not
inadvertently create incentives to push deployment thresholds downward,
i.e., cause air bags to be deployed at lower speeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ IIHS's views have changed since making that recommendation.
Its current views are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possible higher speed belted rigid barrier test. We are
also specifically requesting comment on a similar option for the belted
test requirement, in which a 48 km/h (30 mph) test would be in effect
through the TEA 21 phase-in, to be subsequently replaced with a 56 km/h
(35 mph) test, using both 5th percentile adult female and 50th
percentile adult male dummies.
Reduced number of tests. We have significantly reduced the
total number of proposed tests. In a number of situations, we have
tentatively concluded that a proposed test could be deleted because the
performance we sought to secure by means of that test would largely be
assured by one or more of the other tests.
Reduced offset testing. The proposed up-to-40 km/h (25
mph) offset crash test using belted 5th percentile adult female dummies
would be conducted only with the driver side of the vehicle engaged,
instead of both with the driver side and with the passenger side
engaged.
Ensuring that certain static suppression systems can
detect real children and adults. For our proposed static test
requirements for systems (e.g., weight sensors) which suppress air bags
in the presence of infants and children, we are proposing a new option
which would permit manufacturers to certify to requirements referencing
children, instead of 3-year-old and 6-year-old child dummies, in a
stationary vehicle to test the suppression systems. (This option would
not apply to systems designed to suppress the air bags only when an
infant is present.) Adult human beings could also be used in the place
of 5th percentile adult female dummies for the portions of those static
test requirements which make sure that the air bag is activated for
adults. Steps would be taken to ensure the safety of all subjects used
for these tests.
Reduced number of child restraints used for testing
suppression systems. Instead of requiring manufacturers to assure
compliance of a vehicle in tests using any child restraint which was
manufactured for sale in the United States any time during a specified
period prior to the manufacture of the vehicle, we would require them
to assure compliance using any child restraint on a relatively short
list of specific child restraint models. Those models would be chosen
to be representative of the array of available child restraints. The
list would be
[[Page 60564]]
updated from time to time to reflect changes in the types of available
child restraints.
Modified requirements for systems that suppress the air
bag for out-of-position occupants. We have significantly modified the
proposed requirements for systems that suppress the air bag when an
occupant is out of position during a crash. In the NPRM, we proposed a
single test procedure for all types of such suppression systems. We
were persuaded by the commenters that the proposed test procedure was
not appropriate for some of the systems that are currently under
development. Because we did not have sufficient information or
prototype hardware to develop a new test procedure, and because no one
test procedure may be appropriate for a number of comparably effective
suppression technologies, we are proposing a provision that would
permit manufacturers or others to petition the agency to establish
technology-specific test procedures under an expedited rulemaking
process.
No full scale dynamic out-of-position test requirements.
We are eliminating from this rulemaking the proposed option for full
scale dynamic out-of-position test requirements (the option which
included pre-impact braking as part of the test procedure). We were
persuaded by the commenters that the proposed test procedure is not
workable at this time. Moreover, we believe this option is unnecessary
at this time, since other options are available for the range of
effective technologies we understand to be under development.
The existing tests that would be retained as well as those proposed
in this SNPRM are identified in Figures 1a, 1b and 2, below. Figures 1a
and 1b show the two alternative sets of test requirements to improve
occupant protection for different size occupants, belted and unbelted,
in moderate to high speed crashes. Figure 2 shows test requirements to
minimize the risk to infants, children, and other occupants from
injuries and deaths caused by air bags, especially in low speed
crashes.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 60565]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.000
[[Page 60566]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.001
[[Page 60567]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.002
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
[[Page 60568]]
A discussion of the specific proposed test requirements follows. We
will first discuss requirements to improve protection for different
size occupants, belted and unbelted, and will then discuss requirements
to minimize risks from air bags. We also discuss in detail the major
differences from the NPRM.
B. Existing and Proposed Test Requirements
1. Tests for Requirements To Improve Occupant Protection for Different
Size Occupants, Belted and Unbelted
a. September 1998 NPRM.
In the NPRM, we proposed test requirements to improve occupant
protection for different size occupants, belted and unbelted. The
proposed requirements included rigid barrier tests and offset
deformable barrier tests.
Under the proposed rigid barrier test requirements in the NPRM,
vehicles would have been required to meet injury criteria performance
limits, including ones for the head, neck, chest, and femurs, measured
on 50th percentile adult male and 5th percentile adult female test
dummies during rigid barrier crash tests at any speed up to 48 km/h (30
mph) and over the range of vehicle-to-crash-barrier angles from -30
degrees to +30 degrees. Tests with 50th percentile adult male dummies
would be conducted with the vehicle seat in the mid-track position;
tests with 5th percentile adult female dummies would be conducted with
the vehicle seats in the full forward position.\13\ Vehicles were to
meet the injury criteria with belted and unbelted dummies. The purpose
of the rigid barrier tests was to help ensure that vehicles protect
different size occupants, belted and unbelted, from risk of serious or
fatal injury in moderate to high speed crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ More specifically, the seat would be placed in the full
forward position if the 5th percentile adult female dummy can be
placed in the seat when it is in that position. Otherwise, the seat
is moved back to the closest position to full forward that will
allow the dummy to be placed in the seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the proposed offset deformable barrier test requirements,
vehicles would have been required to meet injury criteria performance
limits during an up-to-40 km/h (25 mph) frontal offset deformable
barrier test, using belted 5th percentile adult female dummies. The
frontal offset test would have been conducted with either the driver
side of the vehicle or the passenger side of the vehicle engaged with
the barrier. The purpose of this test was to help ensure that vehicle
manufacturers design their crash sensing and software systems to
adequately address soft and long duration crash pulses.
Our NPRM would have required as many as a total of 14 crash tests
to improve occupant protection. This number is based on counting each
rigid barrier test specifying use of a particular dummy as three tests,
reflecting the assumption that, for typical vehicle and air bag
designs, there would be three worst case conditions: 48 km/h (30 mph)
at -30 degrees, 48 km/h (30 mph) at 0 degrees, and 48 km/h (30 mph) at
+30 degrees.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The count of 14 tests reflects four rigid barrier tests
(belted 50th percentile adult male dummy, unbelted 50th percentile
adult male dummy, belted 5th percentile adult female dummy, and
unbelted 5th percentile adult female dummy), each of which are
counted as three tests. Thus, the rigid barrier tests account for 12
of the 14 tests. The other two tests were the offset test with the
driver side of the vehicle engaged with the barrier, and the offset
test with the passenger side of the vehicle engaged with the
barrier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our proposed requirements for improving occupant protection in
potentially fatal crashes differed from the existing Standard No. 208
in several important respects.
First, vehicles would for the first time be required to be
certified to crash test requirements using 5th percentile adult female
dummies, which would be seated in the full forward seat track position.
Historically, the standard has only specified the use of 50th
percentile adult male dummies seated further back.
Second, vehicles would be required for the first time to meet neck
injury criteria performance limits in a crash test. Neck injuries are a
particular concern for persons sitting close to the air bag.
Third, vehicles would for the first time be required to comply with
injury criteria limits in a 40 km/h (25 mph) frontal offset deformable
barrier test with belted 5th percentile adult female dummies. The only
frontal crash tests previously specified by the standard were rigid
barrier tests.
Fourth, we proposed to phase out the unbelted sled test option and
return to the up-to-48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test
requirement.\15\ However, it would be more than simply returning to the
previous test requirement, since the unbelted rigid barrier test would
now be conducted with 5th percentile adult female dummies as well as
50th percentile adult male dummies. In addition, we proposed added
injury criteria for the chest and neck.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ We explained in the NPRM that we added the sled test to
Standard No. 208 in March 1997 as a temporary option to simplify and
expedite the testing and certification of redesigned air bags that
inflate less aggressively. We did so because the lead time needed
for the relatively straightforward redesign measures contemplated by
the manufacturers for MY 1998 vehicles, including the reduction of
inflator power, was significantly shorter than the lead time for the
technological solutions that are the subject of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We proposed to phase out the sled test option as we phased in the
requirements for advanced air bags. We stated that while we believe the
sled test option has been an expedient and useful temporary measure to
ensure that the vehicle manufacturers could quickly redesign all of
their air bags and to help ensure that some protection would continue
to be provided by air bags, we did not consider sled testing to be an
adequate long-term means of assessing the extent of occupant protection
that a vehicle and its air bag will afford occupants in real world
crashes.
We noted that the sled test, first, does not address vehicle
factors that can significantly affect the level of protection provided
in the real world and, second, is not representative of a significant
number of potentially fatal real world crashes. Each of these
limitations is significant. The first means that sled test results may
have limited relationship to real world performance in many types and
levels of severity of crash. The second means that sled test results
may not be a good measure of air bag performance in the kinds of
crashes in which air bags are supposed to save lives. While we proposed
to return to the up-to-48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test
requirement, we requested comments on possible alternative unbelted
crash test requirements.
b. Comments on 1998 NPRM.
Our proposal to reinstate the up-to-48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid
barrier test requirement was by far the most extensively debated issue
of this rulemaking. As noted earlier, commenters had sharply different
views on this aspect of the NPRM. In their initial comments, motor
vehicle manufacturers and their trade associations strongly opposed
returning to the up-to-48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test and
urged that the sled test option remain in effect permanently. They
argued that reinstating the up-to-48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid
barrier test would prevent continued use of ``depowered'' air bags and
require a return to ``overly aggressive'' air bags and that the test is
not representative of typical real world crashes. They argued that the
sled test includes a crash pulse that is more representative of typical
real world crashes.
On August 31, 1999, however, vehicle manufacturers and their trade
associations presented to the agency a
[[Page 60569]]
consensus recommendation for an unbelted crash test. The industry
recommended an unbelted rigid barrier crash test at 40 km/h (25 mph)
using both 50th percentile adult male dummies and 5th percentile adult
female dummies. The test would be conducted in the perpendicular mode
only, i.e., there would be no unbelted oblique tests. Industry
representatives argued that oblique tests are not needed to ensure wide
air bags as vehicle manufacturers will provide them in light of other
considerations, e.g., general safety considerations, the 48 km/h (30
mph) belted rigid barrier crash testing, and IIHS and European high
speed belted offset deformable barrier testing.
In its comments on the NPRM, IIHS also opposed returning to the up-
to-48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test, for reasons similar to
those cited by the vehicle manufacturers. However, that organization
suggested that if we wish to phase out the sled test, we should
consider replacing it with the 56 km/h (35 mph) European offset crash
into a deformable barrier, using unbelted dummies, instead of the rigid
barrier test. IIHS stated that this configuration would address not
only protection in asymmetric crashes, but also some issues of
intrusion that are related to restraint system performance, e.g.,
steering column movement. IIHS also stated that adoption of this test
would be in the direction of harmonizing European and U.S. test
procedures, the only difference being using unbelted versus belted
dummies.
On September 14, 1999, however, IIHS advised us that it now
believes that an unbelted 56 km/h (35 mph) offset deformable barrier
crash test would be inappropriate. That organization is concerned that
including this test in Standard No. 208 might lead to an increase in
unintended high-energy air bag deployments, posing risks to out-of-
position occupants, because of uncertainties in the sensing and
algorithm capabilities in making proper deployment decisions. This
potential problem is related to the nature of this crash test. During
the initial phase of the test, i.e., during the crushing of the
deformable barrier face, vehicles experience a long duration, low
magnitude acceleration. The crash pulse in this phase of the test
resembles that of a low speed crash. After the vehicle crushes the
barrier face and reaches the underlying rigid portion, the remaining
phase of the test is similar to a rigid barrier test. IIHS is concerned
that because the initial phase of the test results in a crash pulse
similar to that experienced in a low speed crash, air bag systems might
not be able to distinguish between the offset test and a low speed
crash during the time the decision whether to deploy the air bag must
be made. If this were the case, an air bag system that was designed to
meet an unbelted 56 km/h (35 mph) offset deformable barrier crash test
by means of a high-energy air bag deployment might inappropriately
provide the same kind of deployment in a low speed crash, thereby
posing unnecessary risks to out-of-position occupants.
The Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (AORC), representing
manufacturers of air bags and seat belts, stated that while it believes
the current sled test option serves a useful purpose, a sled test
cannot provide a complete assessment of the crash protection provided
by a vehicle/restraint system. That organization stated it believes
that to fully assess crash protection for belted and unbelted
occupants, barrier crash tests of complete vehicles should be included
in the test requirements of Standard No. 208. AORC noted that complete
vehicle barrier tests permit the evaluation of the vehicle's structure
and its contribution to occupant protection. AORC recommended that
additional analysis be conducted concerning what barrier and test
conditions should be included in Standard No. 208.
A number of commenters, including several public interest groups,
argued that the up-to-48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test is
representative of a significant portion of real world crashes, and that
improvements in vehicle and air bag designs will enable manufacturers
to meet the test without safety tradeoffs.
As to the proposed belted tests, some vehicle manufacturers argued
in their comments on the NPRM that a belted rigid barrier test using
5th percentile adult female dummies would be redundant. They argued
that the combination of other tests using 5th percentile adult female
dummies plus the existing rigid barrier test using belted 50th
percentile adult male dummies would address the same area of safety.
Commenters' views on the proposed up-to-40 km/h (25 mph) belted
offset deformable barrier test were mixed, but mostly supportive. Many
commenters, including several safety advocacy groups and a number of
vehicle manufacturers, supported the addition of an offset deformable
barrier test.
As noted earlier, some vehicle manufacturers requested that the
test be conducted only with the driver's side engaged, instead of with
either side engaged as proposed in the NPRM. The Association of
International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM) stated that a test with
the driver's side engaged would more likely produce worst case driver
out-of-position locations and possible driver-side intrusion, and that
a passenger side offset test would be redundant. Another suggestion
made by some vehicle manufacturers was to conduct the test only at 40
km/h (25 mph), rather than at speeds up to 40 km/h (25 mph).
General Motors (GM) stated that it agreed with the addition of the
offset deformable barrier test only if the unbelted sled test option
remained in effect. GM stated that the offset deformable barrier test
augments the sled test by addressing the crash sensing aspects of
performance.
DaimlerChrysler argued that the addition of a 40 km/h (25 mph)
belted offset deformable barrier test for the 5th percentile adult
female is unnecessary in light of future ``depowered'' and/or advanced
air bags. That commenter stated that injury risks to small occupants
sitting near the driver air bag are adequately assessed using the
proposed out-of-position, low-risk deployment tests, which it endorses.
c. SNPRM.
We believe that the comments on the proposed test requirements to
improve occupant protection for different size occupants, belted and
unbelted, raise two primary questions:
(1) What type and severity level of an unbelted crash test should
be included in Standard No. 208?
(2) Are some of the tests proposed in the NPRM redundant, given the
other proposed tests?
In the sections which follow, we will address what unbelted test
requirements are needed to address the protection of unbelted teenagers
and adults, and what overall set of requirements is needed to improve
protection for different size occupants, belted and unbelted.
(i) Requirements for Tests With Unbelted Dummies
As we address the issue of what unbelted requirements should be
included in Standard No. 208 to address the protection of unbelted
teenagers and adults, we believe the ultimate question for regulators,
industry and the public is how the required safety features work in the
real world. We will consider that question as we separately address two
issues: (1) sled testing versus crash testing, and (2) alternative
unbelted crash tests (e.g., rigid barrier crash tests, offset
deformable tests, etc.) at various severity levels.
Crash testing vs. sled testing. In a full-scale crash test,
instrumented test dummies are placed in a production
[[Page 60570]]
vehicle, and the vehicle is actually crashed. Measurements from the
test dummies are used to determine the forces, and injury potential,
human beings would have experienced in the crash.
Many different types of crash tests can be conducted, and the
various types of crash tests can be conducted at different levels of
severity. Commonly conducted crash tests include: (1) rigid barrier
tests, in which a vehicle is crashed head-on (perpendicular) or at an
angle into a rigid barrier, (2) offset deformable barrier tests, in
which a vehicle is crashed into a barrier with a deformable face, with
only a portion of the front of the vehicle (e.g., 40 percent) engaging
the barrier, and (3) moving deformable barrier tests, in which a moving
deformable barrier designed to be representative of particular vehicles
is crashed into the test vehicle. Vehicle-to-vehicle crash tests, in
which one vehicle is crashed into another vehicle, are sometimes used
in research or product development.
In a sled test, no crash takes place. The vehicle is essentially
undamaged. The vehicle is placed on a sled-on-rails, and instrumented
test dummies are placed in the vehicle. The sled is accelerated very
rapidly backwards (relative to the direction that the occupants would
be facing), so that the occupant compartment experiences the same
motion as might be experienced in a crash. The air bags are manually
deployed at a pre-selected time during the sled test. Measurements from
the test dummies are used to determine the forces, and injury
potential, human beings would have experienced during the test.
In the NPRM, we explained that the agency has long specified full
scale vehicle crash tests using instrumented dummies, in a variety of
our standards, because it is only through such tests that the
protection provided by the vehicle occupant protection system can be
fully measured.
In the NPRM, we cited several significant limitations of the
current sled test, some of which are inherent to any sled test. We
explained:
Unlike a full scale vehicle crash test, a sled test does not,
and cannot, measure the actual protection an occupant will receive
in a crash. The current sled test measures limited performance
attributes of the air bag, but cannot measure the performance
provided by the vehicle structure in combination with the air bags
or even the full air bag system by itself.
Among other shortcomings, the sled test does not evaluate the
actual timing of air bag deployment. Deployment timing is a critical
component of the safety afforded by an air bag. If the air bag
deploys too late, the occupant may already have struck the interior
of the vehicle before deployment begins.
Air bag timing is affected by parts of the air bag system which
are not tested during a sled test, i.e., the crash sensors and
computer crash algorithm. A barrier crash test evaluates the ability
of sensors to detect a crash and the ability of an algorithm to
predict, on the basis of initial sensing of the rate of increase in
force levels, whether crash forces will reach levels high enough to
warrant deployment. However, the sled test does not evaluate these
critical factors. The ability of an algorithm to correctly, and
quickly, predict serious crashes is critical. The signal for an air
bag to deploy must come very early in a crash, when the crash forces
are just beginning to be sensed by the air bag system. A delay in an
air bag's deployment could mean that the air bag deploys too late to
provide any protection. In a sled test, the air bag is artificially
deployed at a predetermined time. The time of deployment in a sled
test is artificial and may differ significantly from the time when
the air bag would deploy during an actual crash involving the same
vehicle.
Second, the current generic sled pulse does not replicate the
actual crash pulse of a particular vehicle model, i.e., the specific
manner in which the front of the vehicle deforms during a crash,
thereby absorbing energy. The actual crash pulse of a vehicle is a
critical factor in occupant protection. A crash pulse affects the
timing of air bag deployment and the ability of an air bag to
cushion and protect an occupant. However, the current sled test does
not use the crash pulse of the vehicle being tested. In many cases,
the crash pulse used in the sled test is not even one approximately
representative of the test vehicle. The sled test uses the crash
pulse of a large passenger car for all vehicles, regardless of their
type or size. This crash pulse is appropriate for large passenger
cars, but not for light trucks and smaller cars since they typically
have much ``stiffer'' crash pulses than that of the sled test. In
the real world, deceleration of light trucks and smaller cars, and
their occupants, occurs more quickly than is simulated by the sled
test. Thus, the sled test results may overstate the level of
occupant protection that would be provided by a vehicle and its air
bag system in the real world. An air bag that can open in a timely
fashion and provide adequate cushioning in a soft pulse crash may
not be able to do so in a stiffer pulse crash. This is because an
occupant of a crashing vehicle moves forward, relative to the
vehicle, more quickly in a stiffer pulse crash than in a softer
pulse crash.
Third, a sled test does not measure the potential for harm from
vehicle components that are pushed back into the occupant
compartment during a crash. Examples of components that may intrude
into the occupant compartment include the steering wheel, an A-
pillar and the toe-board. Since a sled test does not involve any
kind of crash or deformation of the vehicle, it implicitly assumes
that such intrusion does not occur in crashes. Thus, the sled test
may indicate that a vehicle provides good protection when, as a
result of steering wheel or other intrusion, the vehicle will
actually provide poor protection in a real world crash.
Fourth, the sled test does not measure how a vehicle performs in
angled crashes. It only tests vehicles in a perpendicular crash. In
the real world, frontal crashes occur at varying angles, resulting
in occupants moving toward the steering wheel and instrument panel
in a variety of trajectories. The specification of angled tests in
conjunction with the barrier test requirement ensures that a vehicle
is tested under these real world conditions. 63 FR 49971.
Commenters supporting retention of the sled test did not dispute
the inherent limitations of sled tests as compared to crash tests.
AAMA argued that the single best argument for retaining the
existing sled test is that ``it's working;'' AAMA contended that
``depowered'' air bags in vehicles certified according to the sled test
are saving the lives of occupants of all sizes, while reducing the harm
to children and other out-of-position occupants.
It is not clear, however, that the sled test is responsible for any
of the benefits of redesigned air bags other than to the extent it made
it easier for vehicle manufacturers to redesign and certify their
existing air bags more quickly.
As noted earlier, limited available data appear to indicate that
redesigned air bags have reduced the risks from air bags for the at-
risk populations. However, it is not possible at this time to draw
statistically significant conclusions about this. There is a greater
amount of data on the overall benefits of air bags. These data indicate
that there is essentially the same or slightly better protection
provided by the redesigned air bags compared to earlier air bags.
Regardless of how well vehicles with redesigned air bags are
currently performing, however, the sled test itself cannot guarantee
that future air bags would perform nearly so well. These vehicles and
their air bags were initially designed to the unbelted barrier test,
and their current air bags represent quick, partial redesigns of those
air bags. Thus, their performance is still highly reflective of the
unbelted test.
While the sled test has made it easier for manufacturers to
redesign and certify their vehicles more quickly, manufacturers could
and did depower air bags under Standard No. 208's unbelted barrier
test. As discussed below, available data suggest that most vehicles,
while certified to the sled test, continue to meet the unbelted barrier
test requirements (including the new neck injury criteria) with the
50th percentile adult male dummies.
Our goal in this rulemaking is to determine what requirements to
protect
[[Page 60571]]
unbelted and other occupants should apply to vehicles in the future.
AAMA's argument that the sled test is working does not take into
account all of the kinds of less protective vehicles and air bags that
would be permitted by the sled test, given its mildness, and which
might be produced if the sled test were allowed to remain in effect on
a long-term basis.
The sled test is unable to offer any assurance that current
vehicles and air bags are representative of what manufacturers would
offer in the long run if the sled test were available as a permanent
option. Nothing in the standard would inhibit manufacturers from making
their air bags significantly smaller in both depth and width, and thus
less protective in high speed crashes. In particular, narrower air bags
could provide less protection in crashes involving oblique angles. The
sled test also might permit ``face bags'' which do not provide chest
protection or restraint for portions of the lower torso. In addition,
the absence of an unbelted full-vehicle test at an appropriate severity
level would permit vehicles to be designed with stiffer, less energy-
absorbing front ends, e.g., to provide more interior passenger or
cargo-carrying space at the expense of frontal ``crush'' space.
Moreover, unless balanced by an effective unbelted crash test
requirement, the proposed new requirements to minimize air bag risks to
out-of-position occupants have the potential to create an incentive for
manufacturers to make their current air bags smaller and less
protective. An inexpensive and relatively easy way to reduce risks from
the air bag to out-of-position occupants is to further depower air bags
and make them smaller. However, if air bags are depowered too much or
made too small, they will not provide meaningful protection in high
speed crashes.
Our basic obligation is to issue Federal motor vehicle safety
standards that establish a minimum level of performance that protects
the public against unreasonable risk of crashes occurring because of
the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle, and
against unreasonable risk of death or injury in a crash. In this
particular rulemaking, we are facing an array of safety problems, and
TEA 21 as well as our pre-existing statutory authority, require that we
address each of them.
The most reliable way to determine how vehicles will perform in
real world crashes is to crash them. That is why we believe that a
crash test is needed. Sled tests are useful research tools, but they do
not provide as full or accurate a measure of the occupant protection
that a vehicle will provide in the real world.
Given the importance of unbelted protection, we believe it is
necessary to provide the public with assurance that the minimum level
of performance for each vehicle will be required to be meaningful,
based on careful scientific and engineering analysis. While we have
carefully considered all of the comments concerning the sled test, we
continue to believe that sled testing is an inadequate long-term means
for ensuring that current levels of unbelted occupant protection are
improved. This is based on the above-noted inherent limitations of sled
tests, as compared to crash tests, in evaluating occupant protection.
Whether one looks at IIHS with its offset crash test program, Europe
with its offset NCAP program, or our experience with our NCAP, Standard
No. 208 and Standard No. 214, it is widely acknowledged that crash
tests, set at appropriate severity levels, provide the best means of
evaluating the protection that occupants will receive in real world
crashes.
For this SNPRM, we urge commenters to focus on what specific
unbelted complete vehicle crash tests are the most appropriate.
Alternative unbelted crash tests. As we noted above, many different
types of crash tests can be conducted, and the various types of crash
tests can be conducted at different levels of severity and orientation.
Commonly conducted crash tests include: (1) fixed rigid barrier tests,
(2) fixed offset deformable barrier tests and (3) moving deformable
barrier tests.
If government or anyone else wants to determine whether a vehicle
provides an appropriate degree of occupant protection in a potentially
fatal or serious injury producing crash, the crash test must have the
severity representative of those crashes. The fact that a test might
indicate that an occupant would not be injured or killed in a
relatively mild crash says nothing about whether the occupant would
likely be killed in a more serious crash. That is why it is important
to distinguish between the universe of all typical real world crashes
and those typical real world crashes serious enough to pose a
significant risk of serious or fatal injury. While one could argue that
the most ``typical'' crash is probably a fender bender resulting in
little or no personal injury, basing Standard No. 208 on such a test
would not result in any savings in lives or reductions in serious
injuries. Of course, there are many issues to consider in selecting a
specific crash test, but we must focus on seeking to represent the kind
of typical crashes that are potentially fatal, rather than typical
crashes as a whole.
When we issued the NPRM, we released a paper titled ``Review of
Potential Test Procedures for FMVSS No. 208.'' The paper provided a
detailed technical analysis of the various alternative crash tests. To
accompany this SNPRM, we are releasing an updated version of that
paper, which has been revised in light of comments and other new
information. The paper shows that, among the currently available
alternative crash tests, the rigid barrier test (perpendicular and up
to 30 degrees oblique to perpendicular) represents the
greatest number of real world crashes involving serious to fatal
injuries. The only alternative crash test that would represent a
greater number of such crashes would be one involving a moving
deformable barrier, which is still undergoing research.
In the NPRM, we noted that while the perpendicular rigid barrier
test results in crash pulses of short duration, e.g., the kind of pulse
that a vehicle experiences when it fully engages another similar-sized
or larger vehicle directly head-on or strikes a bridge abutment, the
oblique rigid barrier tests result in crash pulses of longer duration,
i.e., a ``softer'' crash pulse, which may occur when vehicles strike
each other at various angles.
We also noted that vehicles and air bags designed to comply with
the unbelted rigid barrier test have been effective in saving lives. At
the time of the NPRM, we estimated that air bags had saved the lives of
about 3,148 drivers and passengers. Of these, 2,267 were unbelted. The
rest, 881, were belted. If these levels of effectiveness are maintained
(i.e., 21 percent in frontal crashes for restrained occupants and 34
percent in frontal crashes for unrestrained occupants), air bags will
save more than 3,000 lives each year in passenger cars and light trucks
when all light vehicles on the road are equipped with dual air bags.
Commenters opposing the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted barrier test
raised two primary issues. First, they argued that the test is not
representative of typical crashes. Second, they argued that returning
to this test would prevent continued use of ``depowered'' air bags and
would require a return to ``overly aggressive'' air bags.
We note that, in arguing that the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted barrier
test is not representative of typical crashes, the commenters did not
define what they meant by ``typical crashes.'' Given that
[[Page 60572]]
the purpose of Standard No. 208 is primarily to reduce serious-to-fatal
injuries, we believe that question is whether that test is
representative of the crashes that produce those injuries. More than
18,000 drivers and right front passengers are killed each year in
frontal impacts, and more than 290,000 drivers and right front
passengers experience moderate to critical non-fatal injuries. These
numbers would be significantly higher without effective air bags.
In order to promulgate safety standards that protect the public
against unreasonable risk of death or injury in a crash, and to fulfill
our specific duty under TEA 21 to improve occupant protection for
occupants of different sizes, belted and unbelted, it is necessary for
Standard No. 208 to address these crashes. In addition, by requiring
vehicles to provide protection over a range of crash severities, e.g.,
in tests at speeds ``up to'' a given velocity, we also address
protection for lower severity crashes. The upper level severity must,
however, be sufficient to ensure that manufacturers provide life-saving
occupant protection in higher speed crashes.
The following figures, derived from National Automotive Sampling
System (NASS) data for years 1993-1997, show the cumulative
distribution of injuries and fatalities in frontal crashes by delta
V,\16\ for all occupants, belted occupants, and unbelted occupants:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ As used here, ``delta V'' refers to the crash-induced
change in velocity of a vehicle in a crash. When looking at the
severity of a crash and its influence on air bag design, delta V is
not the only important factor. Another important factor is the time
to reach that delta V. The time is important because it affects the
speed at which the occupant strikes the interior of the vehicle,
i.e., for a given delta V crash, the shorter the time duration, the
higher the occupant impact speed.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 60573]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.003
[[Page 60574]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.004
[[Page 60575]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.005
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
The figures show the cumulative distribution of injuries by delta V
for fatalities, for MAIS 3+ injuries, and for MAIS 2+ injuries. MAIS 3+
injuries are those which are classified as serious or greater injury,
while MAIS 2+ are those which are classified as moderate or
greater.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The AIS or Abbreviated Injury Scale, first developed by the
Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine in 1971, is a
consensus-derived, anatomically based system that ranks individual
injuries by body region on a scale of 1 to 6 as follows: 1=minor,
2=moderate, 3=serious, 4=severe, 5=critical, and 6=maximum/currently
untreatable. The AIS is intended as a measure of the severity of the
injury itself and not as a measure of impairments or disabilities
that may result from the injury. It does not assess the combined
effects of multiple injuries to a patient. The AIS was revised and
updated several times, with the most recent revision in 1990. MAIS
represents the maximum injury severity (expressed in terms of AIS)
of any injury received by a person, regardless of the nature or
location of the injury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We can see several things by examining the figures. About 50
percent of fatalities in frontal crashes occur at delta V's below 48
km/h (30 mph), and about 50 percent occur at delta V's above 48 km/h
(30 mph). Looking separately at unbelted and belted occupants, 51
percent of the fatalities involving unbelted occupants and 47 percent
of the fatalities involving belted occupants occur in frontal crashes
at delta V's below 48 km/h (30 mph). We note that the delta V in NASS
represents the speed at which the vehicle would strike a rigid barrier
to duplicate the amount of energy absorbed in the crash. Thus, about
half of fatalities in frontal crashes occur in crashes that are more
severe than a 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier crash, and half of all
frontal crash fatalities occur in crashes that are less severe than a
48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier crash. Given that Standard No. 208's
unbelted crash test requirements are intended to save lives, we
disagree that 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier crashes are
unrepresentative of the kinds of crashes in which we are seeking to
ensure protection.
As to the argument that returning to the unbelted 48 km/h (30 mph)
rigid barrier test would prevent continued use of ``depowered'' air
bags and require use of ``overly aggressive'' air bags, the agency will
have to consider the information available to it in making a final
decision.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ It is difficult to respond to the industry argument that
the 48 km/h (30 mph) barrier test would prevent continued use of
``depowered'' air bags because ``depowered'' is an amorphous,
relative concept, not an absolute one. The term simply means ``less
power than before.'' Saying that an air bag is depowered is not a
statement that the air bag has more or less than some specific
pressure rise rate or overall peak pressure of the air bag inflator.
Thus, there is no way of examining or testing an air bag to
determine whether it is ``depowered.''
Further, not all pre-depowered air bags had the same level of
power. Indeed, there was a wide variation in the level of power of
pre-depowered air bags. Likewise, there is variation in the level of
power of depowered air bags. In addition, Parents for Safer Air Bags
(Parents) noted that many of today's vehicles incorporate a whole
array of air bag design improvements, making it difficult to
attribute the apparent decrease in air bag fatalities and injuries
to any particular feature or combination of features.
Accordingly, in this document, we generally use the term
``redesigned'' in referring to air bags that have been changed in
various ways since MY 1997, including, in many cases, a reduction in
the pressure rise rate and/or overall peak pressure of the air bag
inflator. These air bags have not been depowered as much as the sled
test permits. Further, most of the redesigned air bags tested by the
agency meet the unbelted 48 km/h (30 mph) barrier test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPRM, we noted that, based on very limited data, it appeared
that many, perhaps most, vehicles with redesigned air bags continue to
meet the historical 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier requirements of
Standard No. 208 (using 50th percentile adult male dummies and applying
the current injury criteria performance limits) by fairly wide margins.
At that time, we had tested five vehicles with redesigned driver air
bags in unbelted 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid
[[Page 60576]]
barrier tests, and all passed Standard No. 208's previous injury
criteria by significant margins. We had tested six vehicles with
redesigned passenger air bags in unbelted 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid
barrier tests, and all but one passed the standard's injury criteria
performance limits by significant margins.
Some vehicle manufacturers objected to our analysis in this area.
They argued that, given the variability associated with testing
different vehicles of the same design, the fact that a particular
vehicle had passed a single test would not necessarily allow them to
certify that model vehicle as complying with Standard No. 208 because
there would not be a sufficient margin of compliance to ensure that all
vehicles of that model would pass the test. Some manufacturers
indicated that they need a 20 percent margin of compliance in order to
so certify. Vehicle manufacturers also stated that they need to ensure
that all variations and configurations of a model would pass the test
and that, in some cases, we tested a configuration which would result
in lower injury criteria readings than other variations and
configurations.
We continue to believe that a key way of assessing the validity of
the argument that a return to the 48 km/h (30 mph) barrier test would--
at least in the absence of additional technological improvements--
prevent continued use of redesigned air bags is to test vehicles with
those air bags in 48 km/h (30 mph) barrier tests and see how they
perform. Therefore, since issuing our NPRM, we have conducted more
barrier tests of vehicles with redesigned air bags.
We have now tested a total of 13 MY 1998-99 vehicles with
redesigned air bags in a perpendicular rigid barrier crash test at 48
km/h (30 mph) with unbelted 50th percentile adult male driver and
passenger dummies. The vehicles represented a wide range of vehicle
types and sizes. In particular, the 13 vehicles included one sub-
compact car, one compact car, four mid-size cars (representing high
sales volume vehicles), one full-size car, two mid-size sport utility
vehicles, one full-size sport utility vehicle, one pickup truck, one
minivan, and one full-size van.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The specific vehicles and their classes included a Saturn
(sub-compact car), a Neon (compact car), an Intrepid, Camry, Taurus,
and Accord (mid-size cars), an Acura RL (full-size car), an Explorer
and Cherokee (mid-size SUV's), an Expedition (large SUV), a Tacoma
(pickup truck), a Voyager (minivan), and an Econoline (full-size
van).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the driver position, 12 of the 13 vehicles passed all the
relevant injury criteria performance limits we are proposing in this
SNPRM. In the one vehicle with a failure, the MY 1999 Acura RL, the
driver dummy exceeded the femur load criteria. For the passenger
position, 12 of the 13 vehicles also passed all of the relevant injury
criteria performance limits. The MY 1998 Dodge Neon slightly exceeded
the 60 g chest acceleration limit (with a value of 61.4 g). The other
proposed injury criteria performance limits, (i.e., for HIC, chest
deflection, and Nij) were easily met in all the tests; for most there
was a greater than 20 percent margin of compliance for both the driver
and passenger.
Thus, the tested vehicles with redesigned air bags, ranging widely
in vehicle type and size, appear to continue to meet Standard No. 208's
48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test requirements for 50th
percentile adult male dummies, many of them by wide margins.
As to any vehicles that do not meet that test, at this point we
simply note that TEA 21 affords lead time before all vehicles must meet
whatever tests are incorporated in the final rule to be issued in this
rulemaking.
As to the issue of margin of compliance, we agree that
manufacturers need to ensure that all of their vehicles meet a test
requirement established by a Federal safety standard. However, we do
not agree that this means a 20 percent margin of compliance is
necessary. The chest g value is the injury criterion that is most
likely to be the limiting factor in certifying to the 48 km/h (30 mph)
unbelted rigid barrier test requirements for the 50th percentile adult
male dummy. Examination of compliance and certification data for pre-
redesigned air bags shows that manufacturers often certified vehicles
to the requirement with much less than a 20 percent margin of
compliance. In fact, margins of compliance for our 48 km/h (30 mph)
tests of vehicles with redesigned air bags were not that different from
those with pre-redesigned air bags.
We are not suggesting that every current production vehicle would
comply with the unbelted 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier test. Instead,
we are pointing out that a wide ranging sample of vehicle types and
sizes meet the 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier test, for 50th percentile
adult male dummies, with redesigned air bags.
However, the ultimate issue of this rulemaking is not whether some
MY 1998-99 vehicles with redesigned, single-inflation level air bags
currently would not meet the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted barrier test
requirement. As noted above, many of the air bags in current vehicles
were not comprehensively redesigned, but are merely older designs of
air bags with less power. TEA 21 mandates the issuance of a final rule
based on means that include advanced air bag technologies. We believe
the selection of future compliance tests under TEA 21 must be made in
the context of those technologies, and not in the context of today's
less sophisticated one-size-fits-all air bag designs. Today's air bag
systems are not advanced air bags and thus do not respond to factors
such as crash severity, occupant weight and occupant location. By
contrast, the incorporation of advanced technologies would make air bag
systems responsive to those factors. If a manufacturer decided to use a
somewhat more powerful air bag to meet a 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted
rigid barrier test, or to provide protection in more severe crashes,
the manufacturer could use advanced air bag technologies to provide
less powerful levels of inflation in lower severity crashes, for
smaller occupants, for belted occupants, and for occupants sitting with
the seat in the full-forward position. Manufacturers could also reduce
aggressivity of air bags by various means such as optimizing fold
patterns, different cover designs, lighter fabrics, etc. Advanced
technologies would also enable the manufacturer to suppress air bag
deployment in appropriate circumstances, such as when children are
present.
As we assess the type and severity level of an unbelted crash test
should be included in Standard No. 208, we recognize that we must bear
in mind that the issue of the suitability of a unbelted 48 km/h (30
mph) rigid barrier test cannot be determined solely based on whether
manufacturers can meet that test with redesigned air bags using 50th
percentile male dummies. In the NPRM, we proposed not only to return to
that test requirement, but also to require vehicles to be certified to
several new crash test requirements and new injury criteria performance
limits, including tests using 5th percentile adult female dummies in
the full forward seat track position, and to requirements to minimize
air bag risks. Vehicle manufacturers commented that some of the design
options that are available in redesigning their air bags involve
potential trade-offs in meeting the different proposed requirements.
For example, the optimum size air bag for meeting test requirements for
50th percentile adult dummies may make it more difficult to meet
requirements for 5th percentile adult female dummies,
[[Page 60577]]
and vice versa. This issue, and the agency's testing of current
vehicles to a variety of the proposed test requirements, are discussed
later in this notice.
Proposed alternative unbelted crash tests. In the NPRM, we
indicated that while we believe the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid
barrier test is a good approach, we were also willing to consider
alternative unbelted crash tests. The only alternative unbelted crash
test advocated by a commenter that could realistically be implemented
within the time frame of this rulemaking is the unbelted 56 km/h (35
mph) offset deformable barrier test suggested by IIHS. As noted
earlier, IIHS stated that this configuration would address not only
protection in asymmetric crashes but also some issues of intrusion that
are related to restraint system performance, e.g., steering column
movement.
Given the continued debate over what requirements should apply to
ensure protection to unbelted occupants, we want to be sure that we
have considered and received the benefit of public comments on the
various alternative approaches that are available at this time. One
approach, of course, is the one we proposed in the NPRM, the unbelted
rigid barrier test. We note that some have suggested that, instead of
conducting this test at speeds up to 48 km/h (30 mph), we reduce the
maximum speed. Ford, for example, suggested in 1995 that we adopt an
upper speed of 40 km/h (25 mph). It coupled this suggestion with the
further suggestion that the speed of the belted test be increased to 56
km/h (35 mph).\20\ In its recent consensus statement, the Alliance has
suggested a single speed test (perpendicular impact only) of 40 km/h
(25 mph).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The agency examined Ford's recommendation in a status
report titled ``On the Issue of Testing Air-Bag Equipped Vehicles
with and without Belt Restraints at Different Speeds,'' November 2,
1995. Originally docketed in the docket (No. 74-14; Notice 97-001)
for a request for comments published by the agency November 9, 1995
(60 FR 56554); more recently docketed in NHTSA-96-1772-002. In the
1995 request for comments, the agency said:
While NHTSA anticipates that these smart bag systems will
substantially minimize adverse side effects of air bags in the not
too distant future, this still leaves the question of what can be
done in addition to public education for the near future.
Manufacturers may be able to make adjustments to existing air bag
systems. Further, NHTSA may be able to make temporary adjustments to
its regulations if it is shown to be necessary to enable
manufacturers to minimize any adverse side effects during this
period.
For example, Ford has requested that NHTSA amend its crash
testing procedures in Standard No. 208. The standard currently
requires test dummies to be protected in a 30 mile per hour (mph)
crash both when wearing safety belts and when not wearing the belts
(i.e., protected by the air bag alone). Ford asked that the test
speed for the unbelted dummies be lowered to 25 mph, while the test
speed for the belted dummies be raised to 35 mph. According to Ford,
this change would allow manufacturers to better ``tune'' the
interaction between the air bag and the safety belt so as to
optimize the protection afforded to occupants who use their belts.
Ford stated that the current testing procedure forces manufacturers
to base occupant protection designs solely on the air bag, rather
than the interaction between the air bag and the belt. Ford believes
that such a change can reduce air bag-induced injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A second possible approach is an unbelted fixed offset deformable
barrier test, along the lines suggested by IIHS in its comment on the
September 1998 NPRM. While, as discussed above, that organization has
recently identified some concerns about that test, we believe an
unbelted offset deformable barrier test represents a sufficiently
interesting alternative approach to warrant seeking public comment. As
to the concern that IIHS recently identified about air bag systems
possibly having difficulty distinguishing between the offset test and a
low speed crash during the time the decision whether to deploy the air
bag must be made, we note that it may be possible to address this
potential problem by using advanced sensing systems. That is one of the
issues for which we would like to receive public comments. By
requesting public comments, we will obtain additional data and views to
better enable us to make a thorough evaluation of the merits of
including such a test in Standard No. 208.
For this SNPRM, we are proposing and seeking comments on two
alternative unbelted tests. The first alternative is the unbelted rigid
barrier test (perpendicular and up to 30 degrees oblique to
perpendicular with 50th percentile adult male dummies, but
perpendicular only in tests with 5th percentile adult female dummies)
with a maximum speed to be established within the range of 40 to 48 km/
h (25 to 30 mph). As part of this alternative, we are considering the
possibility of coupling a lower speed for the unbelted barrier test
with a higher speed for the belted barrier test. The second alternative
is an unbelted offset deformable barrier test with a maximum speed to
be established within the range of 48 to 56 km/h (30 to 35 mph). A
vehicle would have to meet the requirements both in tests with the
driver side of the vehicle engaged with the barrier and in tests with
the passenger side engaged.
We note that, in considering a range of upper severity levels, the
upper severity level could be adjusted by either changing the test
speed or applying different injury criteria limits at higher speeds.
For example, in our rulemaking to facilitate quick redesign of air
bags, in lieu of the sled test, we identified the possibility of
maintaining the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test, but
relaxing the limit on chest g's. We also note the possibility of
specifying relaxed injury criteria performance limits or lower maximum
test speeds that would apply during the TEA 21 phase-in period and more
stringent ones that would apply thereafter.
For all of the unbelted crash tests proposed in this document,
protection would be required in crashes ranging from a specified
minimum speed to a specified highest speed, rather than at all speeds
``up to'' that specified highest speed.
Under the unbelted rigid barrier test alternative, the agency would
not test at a speed of less than 29 km/h (18 mph), and under the
unbelted offset deformable barrier test alternative, the agency would
not test at a speed of less than 35 km/h (22 mph). (We are proposing a
higher minimum test speed for the latter alternative because, for a
given speed, it is a less severe test.) This is a departure from the
proposal in the NPRM and from prior agency practice. One reason for
this change is that we want to be sure that the standard does not push
deployment thresholds downward, i.e., cause air bags to be deployed at
lower speeds than are appropriate for maximum occupant protection.
Commenters indicated that, in order to meet neck injury criteria, air
bag deployments might be required at very low speeds, even in crashes
with a delta-V lower than 10 mph, particularly with the 5th percentile
adult female dummy in the full forward position. While the issue of the
most appropriate threshold for air bag deployment is complex, we
believe there is a consensus that ``no fire'' thresholds should not be
any lower than they are at present. Moreover, neck injuries are not a
significant problem in lower speed crashes.
The proposed high speed unbelted offset deformable barrier test
would involve the same crash configuration as we proposed in the NPRM
for the up-to-40 km/h (25 mph) belted offset deformable barrier test.
Vehicles would have to meet the requirements in tests with both the
vehicle and the passenger side of the vehicle engaged. The test would,
of course, be conducted at higher speeds, and unbelted 50th percentile
adult male dummies and 5th percentile adult female dummies would be
used.
[[Page 60578]]
The offset deformable barrier test is used in several ways in
different parts of the world. The test has been adopted as a
requirement in Europe at a speed of 56 km/h (35 mph), using belted 50th
percentile adult male dummies, pursuant to EU Directive 96/79 EC. The
test is also conducted in Europe at a higher speed, 64 km/h (40 mph),
as part of the European New Car Assessment Program. The Australian New
Car Assessment Program conducts the same test at the same speed. IIHS
also conducts this test at the same speed, using belted 50th percentile
adult male dummies to evaluate the crashworthiness of vehicles.
Transport Canada is developing a test procedure using belted 5th
percentile adult female dummies at impact speeds up to 40 km/h (25 mph)
to evaluate air bag sensor performance and air bag aggressivity.
While a great deal has been written on the subject of unbelted
rigid barrier tests over the years, the high speed unbelted offset
deformable barrier test is relatively new. We note that we have been
conducting research for several years with the intention of proposing
to add a high speed belted frontal offset test to Standard No. 208. For
information about this research program, see our Report to Congress,
Status Report on Establishing a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
for Frontal Offset Crash Testing, April 1997. This report is available
on our web site at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/CrashWorthy/
offrt.html.
In our Report to Congress, and in the NPRM (63 FR 49958, at 49960),
we stated that we were considering adding the European high speed
belted frontal offset test to Standard No. 208 as a supplement to the
existing tests. We stated in the Report that the Standard No. 208 rigid
barrier test is most effective in preventing head and chest injuries
and fatalities, but noted that it does not address lower limb and neck
injuries.
We stated further in the Report that while the frontal rigid
barrier test of Standard No. 208 does not produce the vehicle intrusion
observed in many real world crashes, it does depict those impacts which
produce the highest risk of serious to fatal injuries resulting from
frontal crashes. We stated that the European frontal test procedure
does not address the highest risk of serious to fatal injuries
occurring in frontal crashes and that, from our viewpoint, the European
test conditions were not acceptable as an alternative to Standard No.
208. We stated, however, that adoption of the European test could yield
benefits in terms of a reduction in lower limb injuries.
While our analysis of the European test was made in the context of
a belted condition, it nonetheless raises the issue of whether the test
is adequately representative of potentially fatal crashes. To address
this issue, we have sought to compare the 56 km/h (35 mph) offset
deformable barrier crash test recommended by IIHS to a 48 km/h (30 mph)
rigid barrier test.
Among other things, we have conducted 56 km/h (35 mph) offset
deformable barrier crash tests on MY 1999 Dodge Intrepid and Toyota
Tacoma vehicles. Comparing the crash pulses for these tests with the
pulses of 40 and 48 km/h (25 and 30 mph) rigid barrier tests that we
also conducted using these vehicles, we can make several observations.
For each vehicle, there is a long duration, low magnitude acceleration
during the initial phase of the test that is associated with the
crushing of the deformable barrier face. After the crushing of the
barrier face, the remaining segment of the crash pulse is similar to
that for the 40 and 48 km/h (25 and 30 mph) rigid barrier tests, and
this portion of the acceleration profile generally would fall in
between the pulses for those two rigid barrier tests if adjusted with a
time shift.
A close look at these pulses suggests that, from the perspective of
delta-V, the deformable barrier test is approximately equal in severity
to a 45 km/h (28 mph) rigid barrier test. This is consistent with a
rule of thumb within the research community that the offset test's
barrier equivalent velocity is approximately 20 percent less than the
impact speed.
This observation is also supported by findings from our Advanced
Frontal Research Program. We provided a number of vehicles tested in
both collinear and oblique offset tests to NASS investigators for
analysis. The investigators estimated delta Vs that were substantially
lower than the impact speeds.\21\ Also, IIHS conducted a similar study
and observed similar results,\22\ i.e., the range of delta Vs were 15
to 28 percent lower than the impact speeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Stucki, Sheldon L. and Fessahaie, Osvaldo, ``Comparison of
Measured Velocity Change in Frontal Crash Tests to NASS Computed
Velocity Change,'' SAE Paper No. 980649, 1991 SAE International
Congress and Exposition, Detroit, March 1998.
\22\ O'Neill, Brian, Preuss, Charles A., and Nolan, James M.,
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, ``Relationships Between
Computed Delta V and Impact Speeds for Offset Crashes'', Paper No.
96-S9-O-11, Proceedings of Fifteenth International Technical
Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Melbourne, Australia,
May 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to note that although we estimate 45 km/h (28 mph)
as the rigid barrier equivalent speed for the 56 km/h (35 mph) offset
deformable barrier test, this does not mean that air bags designed to
meet the 56 km/h (35 mph) offset deformable barrier test would provide
a level of protection equivalent to that provided by air bags designed
to meet a 45 km/h (28 mph) barrier-like crashes.
When looking at the severity of a crash and its influence on air
bag design, delta V is not the only important factor. Another important
factor is the time to reach that delta V. The time is important because
it affects the speed at which the occupant strikes the interior of the
vehicle, i.e., for a given delta V crash, the shorter the time
duration, the higher the occupant impact speed.
As discussed in the test procedures paper, the offset crash test
has a long duration deceleration pulse. As a result, occupants in a
vehicle involved in such a crash would impact the interior components
at lower speeds than occupants who were in a vehicle involved in
barrier-like crashes. Because of this aspect of offset crashes, the
test procedures paper separates the crash events in NASS and estimates
a substantially lower target population for the offset test than for
the rigid barrier test.
The high speed unbelted rigid barrier test and the high speed
unbelted offset deformable barrier test are significantly different,
and each has potential advantages as compared to the other.
Among the considerations that are relevant to the high speed
unbelted rigid barrier test are the following--
It involves a stiffer crash, thereby promoting the design
of soft frontal structure and deeper air bags that provide more
protection against AIS 3, life-threatening, head/chest
injuries in higher speed crashes.
It promotes the design of wider air bags which provide
head and chest protection in the angular component of the test.
It is a well known test condition. It has been part of
Standard No. 208 since 1984.
It may result in more repeatable test results than an
offset test would provide. Since the offset test involves striking a
soft structure, there may be a chance of air bag sensor timing
variability. Variations in air bag sensor timing can lead to variations
in occupant kinematics. The rigid barrier test, on the other hand,
results in relatively consistent air bag deployment timings.
The full frontal rigid barrier test represents a vehicle
striking a like vehicle.
Among the considerations that are relevant to the high speed
unbelted
[[Page 60579]]
offset deformable barrier test are the following:
It provides a more challenging test of the vehicle crash
sensors. In order to provide optimal protection to the occupant in a
crash, the crash sensors need to make a determination of when to fire
the air bag as early as possible. However, the challenge in an offset
deformable barrier crash test arises from the fact that the engagement
of the offset deformable barrier results in a soft crash pulse which
needs to be detected by the sensor for the algorithm to make the
decision to deploy, and a harder crash pulse later in the event.
It provides a more challenging test of the vehicle
structure. The offset deformable barrier test engages only 40% of the
front structure of the vehicle. Therefore, the crush is concentrated on
one side and produces more intrusion into the occupant compartment. The
full frontal rigid barrier test engages the entire front of the vehicle
in a distributed loading pattern.
It has greater potential for benefits related to injury
from intrusion.
The deformable barrier is known and used in other test
configurations. The European offset crash test requirement and the IIHS
crashworthiness evaluations are two examples.
The deformable barrier can be bottomed out by sports
utility vehicles and full size pick-up trucks due to their increased
mass and stiffness of the structures involved. To the extent that the
deformable barrier is bottomed out, it becomes more like an offset
rigid barrier test, thereby potentially providing a more severe crash
test for larger, heavier vehicles.
The offset deformable barrier test is not representative
of a vehicle-to-vehicle crash. It is perhaps most easily understood by
comparing it to a full frontal rigid barrier test and an offset rigid
barrier test. An offset rigid barrier test simulates a crash where the
entire crash energy is absorbed by the structural members of the struck
side. In an offset deformable barrier test, this energy is shared by
the barrier and the vehicle structures. Comparing a full frontal rigid
barrier test to an offset rigid barrier test conducted at the same
speed, there is greater likelihood of intrusion. The crash pulse for
the offset rigid barrier test would likely have about the same peak
acceleration but a longer time duration. An offset deformable barrier
test at the same speed would likely result in a lower peak acceleration
and about the same time duration as the rigid offset barrier test.
Comparing a 35 mph offset test to a 30 mph full frontal
rigid barrier test, the peak g's are likely to less in the offset test,
and the time duration of the crash pulse is likely to be substantially
longer.
As noted above, the concept of a high speed unbelted offset
deformable barrier test is new, so there are very few available data
for this test. However, we have tested two vehicles, the MY 1999 Toyota
Tacoma and Dodge Intrepid, in unbelted 56 km/h (35 mph) offset tests
using both 50th percentile adult male and 5th percentile adult female
test dummies. One vehicle, the Tacoma, was able to meet the proposed
injury criteria performance limits without difficulty (for both types
of dummies and both left and right impacts), while the other vehicle,
the Intrepid, had difficulty, particularly with the Nij injury criteria
performance limits. Of course, neither of these vehicles was designed
with the offset test in mind, so these tests have little relevance to
the issue of whether vehicles could satisfy such a requirement.
Some vehicle manufacturers have expressed concerns about an
unbelted high speed offset test. GM has expressed concern about the
ability of vehicle sensing systems to be able to sense the soft,
deformable barrier face of the offset deformable barrier, and still be
able to perform well in real world crashes. According to that company,
its review of actual vehicle data traces plotting deceleration over
time indicates that the frontal offset barrier impact initially looks
much like a low speed crash, where no air bag or just a first stage air
bag might be used. Because of this, a sensor system might not recognize
until well into the crash that the vehicle is undergoing a higher
speed, severe crash. GM believes that if this test were made a part of
the standard, manufacturers would either have to design their sensors
to fire any time they see a lower speed, soft impact, which would cause
more low speed deployments, or design the sensors to optimize for real
world crashes and risk failing this performance test in the standard.
Honda expressed concern about the similarity in pulses between the
40 km/h (25 mph) offset deformable barrier and the 56 km/h (35 mph)
offset deformable barrier crashes. In an August 26, 1999 comment
submitted to the docket, Honda stated that, even though these tests are
dissimilar in terms of ultimate severity, the crash pulses looked
similar during the initial decision period of up to 30 ms. This in part
reflects the fact that the initial phase of the test is measuring the
deformation of the soft barrier. According to Honda, the vehicle's
analytical system will be unable to discern the crash severity and will
not be able to accurately predict what stage to fire, or even whether
to fire the air bag in a timely fashion. That company indicated that
this may result in poor algorithm design.
For additional analysis of the two alternative unbelted tests,
readers are referred to the aforementioned paper and supplement
prepared by our Office of Vehicle Safety Research concerning potential
test procedures for Standard No. 208 and to the Preliminary Economic
Assessment which accompanies this SNPRM.
It is important to note that, whatever unbelted test is included in
Standard No. 208, manufacturers will be required under the final rule
to certify all of their vehicles to a wide variety of new test
requirements, and in a very short period of time. The analysis we
presented earlier in this document concerning how many vehicles
currently appear to meet the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier
requirements for 50th percentile adult male dummies was intended to
address the allegation that a return to the test would prevent
continued use of redesigned air bags and require a return to overly
aggressive air bags; it did not represent an analysis of how easy it
would be to meet that particular test requirement in the context of the
overall set of proposed requirements.
In commenting on the NPRM, vehicle manufacturers indicated that, as
they consider various air bag designs, they face trade-offs in meeting
different proposed test requirements. For example, the optimum air bag
for meeting the unbelted rigid barrier test for the 50th percentile
adult male driver dummy would be a large air bag filling the space
between the dummy and the steering wheel. This would allow the
restraining forces to be imparted earlier in the crash event and exert
lower g forces on the occupant to allow optimal ride-down from the
crash. A smaller air bag would be optimum for meeting the unbelted
perpendicular rigid barrier test for 5th percentile adult female dummy
in the full forward seating position, since she is positioned closer to
the air bag and has less ride-down space to fill between the dummy and
the steering wheel. If an excessively large air bag is used, neck
readings for the 5th percentile adult female dummy will increase as the
larger air bag pushes the head back. Of course, the smallest possible
air bag would be optimum for meeting the proposed low risk deployment
tests intended to minimize risks from air bags to out-of-position
occupants. However, as air bags shrink,
[[Page 60580]]
so does their ability to provide protection, especially to larger
occupants in crashes with potential for serious or fatal injuries. We
note that while large air bags may be optimum for meeting the 30 mph
unbelted rigid barrier test with 50th percentile adult male dummies,
vehicle manufacturers have been able to meet the test with air bags of
varying sizes.
Recognizing the issues associated with the need to meet all of the
proposed tests together, we have tested current vehicles under a
variety of proposed test procedures. For four of the vehicles for which
we conducted a 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier test using unbelted 50th
percentile adult male dummies, we also conducted a 48 km/h (30 mph)
rigid barrier test using unbelted 5th percentile adult female dummies.
For all these tests, it bears emphasizing that these vehicles were not
designed to comply with the final rule that will be issued in this
rulemaking. Thus, while it is useful to know whether current vehicles
already meet the tests, the test failures can tell us only which
vehicles need to be redesigned. They do not indicate that vehicles
cannot be redesigned in the time provided by TEA 21 to comply with that
final rule.
Three of the four unbelted 5th percentile adult female driver dummy
responses in these tests passed all the injury criteria performance
limits we are proposing in the SNPRM. (For the same make model
vehicles, the 50th percentile adult male driver dummy also passed all
the injury criteria performance limits.). In the fourth test, of the MY
1999 Dodge Intrepid, the 5th percentile adult female driver dummy
failed both the chest displacement and Nij performance limits; however
the 50th percentile adult male driver dummy passed all the relevant
injury criteria performance limits when tested in the same vehicle.
Two of the four unbelted 5th percentile adult female passenger
dummy responses passed all the injury criteria performance limits. The
MY 1999 Dodge Intrepid slightly exceeded the chest g performance limit
(with a value of 62.2 g) and the MY 1999 Toyota Tacoma significantly
failed to meet the Nij performance limit (with a value of 2.65).
Two of the four vehicles, the MY 1999 Saturn SL1 and the MY 1998
Ford Taurus, however, passed all the injury criteria performance limits
for the driver and passenger using both unbelted 5th percentile adult
female and unbelted 50th percentile adult male dummies in the rigid
barrier crash tests at 48 km/h (30 mph).
We have also recently conducted rigid barrier tests at 48 km/h (30
mph) using belted 50th percentile adult male and belted 5th percentile
adult female dummies in MY 1998 and 1999 vehicles. In 18 tests
conducted with the belted 50th percentile adult male dummies, the
vehicles passed all the proposed injury criteria performance limits for
both driver and passenger. In 17 tests conducted with belted 5th
percentile adult female dummies, the vehicles passed all the injury
criteria performance limits for the passenger dummy; however, the
driver dummy exceeded the proposed Nij injury criteria performance
limit in approximately 35% of the tests.
We also conducted static out-of-position tests using the 5th
percentile adult female driver dummy and 6-year-old child passenger
dummy on six MY 1999 vehicles. The vehicles that were selected were the
same as those used in the 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier test with
unbelted 50th percentile adult male dummies. (Again, we note that the
vehicles were not designed with these test requirements in mind.) Four
out of six vehicles, including the MY 1999 Saturn SL1, passed all the
static out-of-position test requirements on the driver's side. The
remaining two vehicles failed the Nij criteria in Position 1, but
passed all the criteria in Position 2.
With the 6-year-old child dummies on the passenger side, only one
vehicle, the MY 1999 Acura RL with a dual stage inflator, met all the
proposed injury criteria performance limits in both Position 1 and
Position 2 tests. Only the primary stage was fired in the tests.
Looking at the various tests we have conducted, it appears that the
proposed test requirements are achievable by a number of vehicles even
though they were not designed to comply with those requirements. These
vehicles meet the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted barrier test with both
unbelted 50th percentile adult male dummies and unbelted 5th percentile
adult female dummies, and the driver side out-of-position test, with
single level inflators. The MY 1999 Saturn SL1 appears to be such a
vehicle.
Dual level inflators could make it easier to meet the tests. For
example, a higher inflation rate could be used for 50th percentile
adult males, while a lower inflation rate could be used for 5th
percentile adult female drivers with the seat full forward and for
child passengers.
We note that, for the passenger side, a weight sensor or other
suppression device might be needed to meet passenger side out-of-
position requirements for children, even if a dual level inflator is
used. Moreover, a weight sensor or other suppression device would
likely be needed to meet requirements for rear facing infant seats.
However, the use of a weight sensor or other suppression device on the
passenger side should not affect the ability of the vehicle to meet the
proposed unbelted and belted crash test requirements using 50th
percentile adult male dummies and 5th percentile adult female dummies,
since the addition of such a device does not affect the characteristics
of the air bag itself.
While the proposed requirements appear to be achievable, the number
of failures illustrate that many vehicles will need to be redesigned in
a short period of time to meet a highly complex set of new
requirements. In many cases, manufacturers will be introducing several
new technologies simultaneously: dual level inflators, seat belt
sensors, weight/pattern seat sensors, seat track position sensors, more
complex algorithms, etc.
In this context, we recognize that simultaneous implementation of
these various proposals for minimizing risk and enhancing protection
will necessitate considerable care and effort by the vehicle
manufacturers. In a normal rulemaking, we would have broad discretion
to adjust the implementation schedule to facilitate initial compliance.
In this rulemaking, our discretion to set the schedule for implementing
the amendments required by TEA 21 is limited by that Act. Our final
rule must provide that the phasing-in of those amendments begins not
later than September 1, 2003, and ends not later than September 1,
2006.
However, we believe that nothing in TEA 21 derogates our inherent
authority to make temporary adjustments in the requirements we adopt
if, in our judgment, such adjustments are necessary or prudent to
promote the smooth and effective achievement of the goals of the
amendments. For example, adjustments could be made to test speeds or
injury criteria. One possibility would be to issue a final rule
temporarily reducing the maximum speed for the unbelted rigid barrier
test to 40 km/h (25 mph) (or some other speed, e.g., 44 km/h (27.5
mph)) and then increasing it to 48 km/h (30 mph) after an appropriate
period of time, e.g., after the TEA 21 phase-in. Another possibility
would be to temporarily permit relaxed injury criteria performance
limits (e.g., 72 g chest acceleration limit instead of 60 g chest
acceleration limit) in unbelted rigid barrier tests between 25 mph and
30 mph.
[[Page 60581]]
This document seeks comment on still another possibility for the
final rule: permanently reducing the unbelted rigid barrier test speed
to 40 km/h (25 mph) and temporarily leaving the belted rigid barrier
test speed at 48 km/h (30 mph). Under the final rule, the latter test
speed would later, sometime after the TEA 21 phase-in schedule,
increase to 56 km/h (35 mph).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ We recognize that this alternative would increase the test
speed of the belted test to the level of the belted test currently
conducted under NHTSA's NCAP program. If this alternative were
chosen, NHTSA contemplates retaining the current NCAP test speed
through the end of the TEA 21 phase-in period. The agency would then
review that NCAP test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that we have previously considered, in rulemaking, a 40 km/
h (25 mph) maximum speed for the unbelted rigid barrier test. However,
we considered this issue in the context of Standard No. 208's historic
requirements, i.e., testing only with 50th percentile adult male
dummies and the old injury criteria, which did not include neck
criteria.
Fifteen years ago, in our rulemaking establishing automatic
protection requirements, GM advocated a 40 km/h (25 mph) unbelted rigid
barrier test to facilitate passive interiors, i.e., building in safety
by improving such things as the steering columns and padding. At that
time, GM believed passive interiors would be better than automatic
restraints, i.e., air bags or automatic seat belts.
Based on available test data, we concluded that it was generally
evident that it was within the state-of-the art to pass Standard No.
208's head and chest injury criteria at 40 km/h (25 mph) with unbelted
50th percentile adult male dummies without air bags. We stated that we
had virtually no data on what diminution in safety would occur if the
lower standard were used and that there was no basis for making such a
change. See final rule published in the Federal Register (49 FR 28962,
28995; July 17, 1984).
We also note that, for the vehicles we recently tested at 48 km/h
(30 mph) for this rulemaking, we also tested a small subset at 40 km/h
(25 mph) with unbelted 50th percentile male driver and passenger
dummies. In the three tests, the vehicles passed all the proposed
driver and passenger injury criteria performance limits with one
exception involving a model year 1999 Toyota Tacoma. The passenger
dummy exceeded the proposed Nij limit in this test. We also conducted
two 40 km/h (25 mph) rigid barrier crash tests with unbelted 5th
percentile adult female driver and passenger dummies. Again, the
vehicles passed all the proposed driver and passenger injury criteria
performance limits with one exception involving the model year 1999
Toyota Tacoma. Again, the passenger dummy exceeded the proposed Nij
limit on the passenger side.
In light of the fact that vehicle manufacturers are now
recommending an unbelted rigid barrier crash test alternative that
omits the oblique tests, we also note that we addressed the possibility
of eliminating the unbelted oblique tests in the aftermath of that same
rulemaking. See NPRM published in the Federal Register (50 FR 14589,
14592-14594) on April 12, 1985, and final rule published in the Federal
Register (51 FR 9800, 9801-9802) on March 21, 1986.
We decided to retain the oblique tests in that rulemaking. We noted
that although oblique tests generally produce lower injury levels, they
do not consistently produce that result. We also expressed concern that
air bags that only need to meet a perpendicular impact could be made
much smaller. We stated that, in such a case, in an oblique crash, an
unbelted occupant could roll off the smaller bag and strike the A-
pillar or instrument panel.
We welcome comments on how we should consider our past decisions
and the rationales underlying them in this current rulemaking.
We note that while we are seeking comments on alternative unbelted
tests, including alternative speeds and injury criteria, we plan to
adopt a single unbelted test or set of unbelted tests for the final
rule. That is, we do not plan to provide a manufacturer option in this
area. Depending on the comments, we may adopt some combination of the
tests discussed above.
To help us reach a decision on what unbelted test requirements
should be included in Standard No. 208, we request commenters to
address the following questions:
1. How do the two proposed alternative unbelted crash tests compare
in representing the range of frontal crashes which have a potential to
cause serious injuries or fatalities? Please answer this separately for
the low and high end of the proposed range of upper speeds for each
alternative, i.e., 40 and 48 km/h (25 and 30 mph) for the unbelted
rigid barrier test and 48 and 56 km/h (30 mph and 35 mph) for the
unbelted offset deformable barrier test. In answering this question,
please consider the entire range of tests incorporated into each
alternative. Please specifically address representativeness with
respect to (a) crash pulses, (b) crash severities, and (c) occupant
positioning, and provide separate answers for crashes likely to cause
fatalities and crashes likely to cause serious but not fatal injuries.
2. How do the two alternatives compare with respect to
repeatability, reproducibility, objectivity, and practicability issues?
3. What effects would each of the alternative types of unbelted
tests and each of the alternative maximum test speeds discussed in this
SNPRM have on air bag design, performance, risks and benefits, and on
amount of depowering permitted? Answers should focus particularly on
unbelted 40 km/h (25 mph)/belted 56 km/h (35 mph) versus unbelted 48
km/h (30 mph)/belted 48 km/h (30 mph), and on unbelted 56 km/h (35
mph)offset/belted 48 km/h (30 mph) versus unbelted 48 km/h (30 mph)/
belted 48 km/h (30 mph). To what extent can it be concluded that a
countermeasure needed to meet each alternative would ensure protection
in frontal crashes not directly represented by the tests included in
that alternative, e.g., crashes with different pulses (harder or
softer) or different severities (more severe or less severe)? Please
quantify, to the extent possible, the amount of protection that would
be ensured in other types of crashes, i.e., what the injury criteria
measurements would be. Please address whether and how the answer to
this question would differ for the low and high end of the proposed
range of upper speeds for each alternative.
4. To what extent would current air bag systems (or air bag systems
being developed for near-term application) have difficulty
distinguishing between a high speed offset deformable barrier test and
a low speed crash during the time the decision whether to deploy the
air bag must be made? What technological solutions, e.g., advanced
sensing systems (including use of satellite sensors and improved
algorithms) are available to address this potential problem? How should
we consider this issue in selecting among the available unbelted crash
test alternatives?
5. One reason for adopting a test requirement that is less
stringent than another during the TEA 21 phase-in period would be to
provide an extra margin of flexibility and facilitate compliance during
the time vehicle manufacturers are introducing advanced air bags
incorporating multiple new technologies. An example of such an approach
would be the phase-in sequence described above in which the final rule
would provide that the maximum speed for the unbelted rigid barrier
test would initially be 40 km/h
[[Page 60582]]
(25 mph) (or some other speed) and then increase to 48 km/h (30 mph)
after an appropriate fixed period of time. If we were to adopt a less
stringent test requirement for an initial period, how long should that
period be and why?
6. What factors should we consider in selecting a maximum speed for
the two alternatives?
7. The severity of a crash test requirement could be adjusted
either by reducing the maximum speed at which the test is conducted or
by leaving the maximum speed unchanged, but relaxing the injury
criteria performance limits for the tests that are conducted near the
upper end of the range of test speeds. For example, if we were to
reduce temporarily the severity of the unbelted up-to-48 km/h (30 mph)
rigid barrier test, one possible way of doing this would be to reduce
the stringency of the injury criteria performance limits between 40 km/
h (25 mph) (or some other speed) and 48 km/h (30 mph). While this could
provide significant increased flexibility to vehicle manufacturers, it
could still address the issue of protection in higher speed crashes.
Also, certification and compliance test data could be directly compared
to that obtained in 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier crash tests over
many years. We specifically request comments on this approach and what
injury criteria performance limits would be appropriate if we were to
adopt it.
8. Should we consider combining aspects from each of the two
unbelted alternatives? For example, the unbelted rigid barrier test
alternative includes both perpendicular and angle tests. A variation on
this approach might be to retain the perpendicular test, but replace
the angle tests with offset deformable barrier tests. We request
comments on this or any other possible ways of combining aspects from
the two unbelted alternatives.
9. Given the existing and anticipated advanced air bag
technologies, to what extent is it necessary, and why, to link
decisions about improving protection to decisions about minimizing the
risks? What portion of those risks would remain after full use of
existing and anticipated advanced air bag technologies?
10. If it is believed that a return to the 48 km/h (30 mph)
unbelted barrier test would necessitate an increase in the power of any
vehicle's air bags, indicate which models would need air bags with
increased power and indicate the potential amount of increase. Explain
how the amount of needed increase was determined and the effects on
safety of such an increase.
11. To what extent could non-air bag changes, such as improved
crush zones, be used to avoid any increases in air bag aggressivity if
there were a return to the 48 km/h (30 mph) unbelted barrier test? To
what extent can advanced features such as improved fold patterns,
lighter fabrics and recessed air bag modules be used to offset, or more
than offset, any increases in power so that those increases do not
result in increased air bag aggressivity?
12. To what extent could the various types of static suppression be
used to reduce the risk to children? In what circumstances would such
suppression not minimize risk? To what extent could the lower level of
dual-level inflators be linked with sensors of such factors as crash
severity, seat position, belt use and weight/pattern be used to reduce
the risk to drivers who adjust their seats full forward or nearly full
forward? In what circumstances would such technology not minimize risk?
If there would be residual risk to children or to those drivers after
the use of those technologies, what is the magnitude of that risk? To
what extent would that residual risk be affected by the decision
regarding an unbelted test requirement?
13. To what extent does each vehicle manufacturer plan to take full
advantage, across their vehicle fleets, of the advanced air bag and
other technologies mentioned in questions 11 and 12 above?
14. Given that available test data indicate that some vehicles
already meet or exceed the injury criteria for 50th percentile male
dummies in unbelted 48 km/h (30 mph) tests, explain why those margins
of compliance cannot be increased in the time provided by the TEA 21
schedule and why other vehicles cannot be designed to achieve similar
margins of compliance.
15. Provide test data and analysis to support the answers to
questions 1-14.
16. To what extent do available test data regarding advanced air
bag technologies support the appropriateness of or need for each of the
alternative types unbelted tests and each of the alternative maximum
test speeds discussed in this SNPRM? Answers should focus particularly
on unbelted 40 km/h (25 mph)/belted 56 km/h (35 mph) versus unbelted 48
km/h (30 mph)/belted 48 km/h (30 mph), and on unbelted 56 km/h (35
mph)offset/belted 48 km/h (30 mph) versus unbelted 48 km/h (30 mph)/
belted 48 km/h (30 mph).
17. What lead time would be needed for a 56 km/h (35 mph) belted
rigid barrier test requirement?
ii. Proposed Array of Crash Test Requirements.
As noted earlier, vehicle manufacturers argued that some of the
crash test requirements we proposed in the NPRM were redundant, given
the other tests. In developing this SNPRM, we have carefully considered
whether we could reduce the number of proposed tests without
significantly affecting the benefits of the NPRM. Using the methodology
for counting tests discussed earlier in this document, we are proposing
a total of nine crash tests instead of 14.
The specific nine tests differ, of course, depending on which
alternative unbelted tests are included.
The set of nine tests which includes the unbelted rigid barrier
test includes the following tests:
--belted rigid barrier test (perpendicular and up to 30
degrees) using 50th percentile adult male dummies (counts as three
tests: one at +30 degrees, one perpendicular, and one at -30 degrees);
--belted rigid barrier test (perpendicular only) using 5th percentile
adult female dummies;
--unbelted rigid barrier test using 50th percentile adult male dummies
(counts as three tests);
--unbelted rigid barrier test (perpendicular only) using 5th percentile
adult female dummies; and
--belted up-to-40 km/h (25 mph) offset deformable barrier test (driver
side of the vehicle engaged with the barrier) using 5th percentile
adult female dummies.
This set of proposed tests eliminates five tests that were included
in the NPRM. First, for both the belted and unbelted rigid barrier
tests, we are proposing to test the 5th percentile adult female dummy
in the perpendicular test only, i.e., not in oblique tests. This would
eliminate four tests.
In many cases, crash tests become less stringent as dummies become
lighter and/or closer to the air bag. However, this is not true if the
dummy is so close that it contacts the air bag early in the deployment
process. For the rigid barrier test using 5th percentile adult female
dummies, the condition in which this would most likely occur is in a
perpendicular impact. Therefore, we believe that the perpendicular
tests (belted and unbelted) would address this concern. We also believe
that, if the vehicle can pass the perpendicular test with 5th
percentile female dummies and the oblique tests with 50th percentile
adult male dummies, it will also pass
[[Page 60583]]
the oblique tests using 5th percentile adult female dummies.
The primary function of the oblique test is to assure a wide air
bag. The 50th percentile adult male dummy presents a greater challenge
than the 5th percentile adult female dummy does in such a test. Thus,
the oblique tests with the 5th percentile adult female dummy would add
test costs without providing additional safety benefits.
Second, for the belted up-to-40 km/h (25 mph) offset deformable
barrier test, we are proposing that the test be conducted only with the
driver side of the vehicle engaged with the barrier. This would
eliminate one additional test. We believe that testing the vehicle on
the driver side only would be a sufficient means of testing air bag
sensing systems.
We note, by contrast, that we believe it would be necessary to test
the vehicle with each side of the vehicle engaged if we adopted the
unbelted high speed offset deformable barrier test instead of the
unbelted rigid barrier test to ensure that the air bags are wide enough
to provide protection for occupants that move forward in a direction
that is either to the right or left of perpendicular.
The set of nine tests which includes the unbelted high speed offset
deformable barrier test includes the following tests:
--belted rigid barrier test (perpendicular and 30 degrees)
using 50th percentile adult male dummies (counts as three tests);
--belted rigid barrier test (perpendicular only) using 5th percentile
adult female dummies;
--unbelted offset deformable barrier test (driver and passenger sides
of vehicle engaging the barrier) using 50th percentile adult male
dummies (counts as two tests);
--unbelted offset deformable barrier test (driver and passenger sides
of vehicle engaging the barrier) using 5th percentile adult female
dummies (counts as two tests); and
--belted up-to-40 km/h (25 mph) offset deformable barrier test (driver
side of the vehicle engaged with the barrier) using 5th percentile
adult female dummies.
In the NPRM, we proposed specifications for the deformable barrier
to be used in offset deformable barrier tests. The specifications for
this barrier would be included in Part 587. We are not republishing the
specifications in this SNPRM but expect to proceed to a final rule in a
separate document. We do not expect any significant changes from the
NPRM.
We also proposed in the NPRM to include, for all crash tests
specified by the standard, certain vehicle integrity requirements. The
proposal specified that vehicle doors may not open during the crash
test and that, after the crash test, it must be possible for
technicians to open the doors and move the seats as necessary to allow
evacuation of all occupants.
Several commenters raised concerns about these proposed
requirements, including ones relating to objectivity. After considering
the comments, we have decided to drop these requirements from the
SNPRM.
While we believe it is important for doors to remain closed during
crashes, and for occupants to be extricated from a vehicle after a
crash, we believe that significant additional development of the
proposed test procedures would be necessary for a final rule. Moreover,
we believe this subject is sufficiently distinct from advanced air bags
so as to best be considered in other contexts, particularly with the
need for us to issue a final rule on advanced air bags by March 1,
2000.
iii. Location and Seating Procedure for 5th Percentile Adult Female
Dummy
A seating procedure for the 5th percentile adult female test dummy
is detailed in section S16 of the proposed regulatory text. The
procedure takes into account two separate concerns. The first issue is
where to place the vehicle seat during testing; the second issue is how
to place the dummy in the vehicle seat.
From the outset, crash tests with 50th percentile adult male
dummies have been conducted with the seat in the middle seat track
position. We do not propose to change that provision. However, we have
proposed in the NPRM and this SNPRM to conduct tests with 5th
percentile adult female dummies with both the driver and passenger
seats in the full forward position. We believe that this is the most
vulnerable position for occupants in the real world and is also the
most demanding for the occupant protection system. Individual drivers
who are approximately the size of the 5th percentile adult female dummy
are the most likely, because of their size, to sit farther forward than
the middle seat track position and are more likely than larger drivers
to use the full forward position. Occupants of any size may
occasionally use that seat position on the passenger side, depending on
the passenger or cargo space needs in the back seat. As a general
principle, we believe that people should be able to safely use a seat
as it was designed to be used.
If manufacturers find they cannot provide protection to individuals
properly positioned in the forward track position, they have the option
of moving that position back, particularly on the passenger side. With
respect to the driver side, manufacturers might have to make other
adjustments to the vehicle, such as providing adjustable pedals, that
would allow small-statured drivers to operate the vehicle.
Nevertheless, we are aware that the placement of the 5th percentile
adult female dummy in the full forward position tests the occupant
restraint system under a condition that may rarely occur in the real
world. The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute
(UMTRI) has found that drivers who are approximately the same size as
the 5th percentile adult female dummy generally do not sit in the full
forward seat track position. Other commenters have stated that the
front passenger seat would never need to be placed in the full forward
position due to occupant size. Rather, placement of the passenger seat
in that track position would only occur on those rare occasions when
the entire space in the back seat was needed for cargo or other
purposes.
Another concern is whether, in order to meet tests for conditions
that rarely occur in the real world, manufacturers might select air bag
designs that offer reduced fatality-reducing protection for conditions
that are more common.
We also note that, under our proposal, the 5th percentile adult
female dummy would also be tested on the driver side in two out-of-
position tests that place the dummy directly on the air bag module.
While this would not ensure protection in a high speed crash, it would
ensure that the air bag does not cause harm.
Accordingly, we are interested in comments on whether testing the
5th percentile adult female dummy with the seat position in something
other than the full forward seat track position would adequately
protect properly-seated individuals of all sizes while potentially
allowing more design freedom.
The proposed seating procedure was developed considering the work
performed by the SAE Hybrid III 5th Seating Procedure Task Group and by
NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC). The 50th percentile
Hybrid III adult male dummy is the only dummy currently used for
Standard No. 208 compliance crash testing. For that testing, the dummy
is positioned according to S10 of the standard. As part of that
procedure, the H-point of the dummy is located using the manikin
[[Page 60584]]
and procedures in SAE Standard J826.\24\ For the 5th percentile adult
female dummy, the SAE task group is currently voting and commenting on
the acceptability of a procedure that uses an SAE Standard J826 50th
percentile adult male manikin with reduced length legs to locate the H-
point of the 5th percentile adult female dummy. Then a dummy
positioning procedure is used to place the female dummy at the H-point
located by the modified manikin. It is unknown when this procedure will
be completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The following dockets discussed the use of the J826 manikin
for the 50th percentile adult male dummy.
1. 74-14-Notice 39: NPRM to amend Part 572, allowing optional
use of Hybrid II or III, sunset for use of Hybrid II.
2. 74-14-Notice 45: Final Rule adopting Hybrid III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the absence of an SAE-accepted seating procedure for the 5th
percentile adult female dummy, we decided to perform some of our own
positioning tests so that a 5th percentile adult female procedure would
be available for this rule. VRTC positioned a 5th percentile adult
female dummy several times in various vehicles using a positioning
procedure without intermediate seating devices. The H-point location
was measured and the variation in H-point location between repeats was
reviewed. Then the 5th percentile adult female prototype manikin
(supplied by Ford Motor Company) was used to locate the H-point with
respect to the seat. The variation in H-point location between repeats
was reviewed.
The procedures demonstrated that the location of the H-point of the
5th percentile adult female dummy and the H-point of the 5th percentile
adult female prototype manikin with respect to the seat were very
similar. Longitudinally, the difference in the average ``H'' point
location between the dummy and the manikin varied from 1 mm to 17 mm
(0.04 in. to 0.67 in.). Vertically, the comparable figures were 4 mm to
10 mm (0.16 in. to 0.41 in.). Since there was little difference between
the two methods, the extra step of using the manikin to determine the
H-point location was found to be unnecessary. In addition, there is no
guarantee of when the 5th percentile adult female manikin would be
available and accepted for use by the safety community. Therefore, VRTC
developed the procedures that are in section S16 of the proposed rule.
We believe it would be appropriate to use the manikin procedure for
the 50th percentile adult male dummy and not for the 5th percentile
adult female dummy. The 50th percentile adult male dummy (78 kg (171
pounds)) is 28 kg (63 pounds) heavier than the 5th percentile adult
female (49 kg (108 pounds)) and therefore much more difficult to
maneuver into position. The 50th percentile adult male manikin H-point
provides a specific target for this heavy dummy so that it can be
positioned in the seat. The lighter 5th percentile adult female dummy
does not need this target. In addition, the 5th percentile adult female
buttocks profile may fit differently into a highly curved fitted seat
than the 50th percentile adult male dummy and therefore the use of the
50th percentile adult manikin for the 5th percentile adult female dummy
seating procedure may cause more variability in dummy positioning. Thus
we believe the proposed non-manikin procedure makes it easier to
repeatedly position the 5th percentile adult female dummy.
2. Tests for Requirements To Minimize the Risk to Infants, Children and
Other Occupants From Injuries and Deaths Caused by Air Bags
a. Safety of Infants.
Infants in rear-facing child safety seats (RFCSS) are at
significant risk from deploying air bags, since the rear facing
orientation of the child seat places their heads extremely close to the
air bag cover. This is why we emphasize that infants in RFCSS must
never be placed in the front seat unless the air bag is turned off.
In the NPRM, in order to address the risks air bags pose to infants
in RFCSS, we proposed two alternative test requirements, the selection
of which would be at the option of the manufacturer. The two
manufacturer options were: (1) test requirements for an automatic air
bag suppression feature or (2) test requirements for low-risk
deployment involving deployment of the air bag in the presence of a 12-
month old Child Restraint Air Bag Interaction (CRABI) dummy in a RFCSS.
Under the NPRM, if the automatic suppression feature option were
selected, the air bag would need to be suppressed during several static
tests using, in the right front passenger seat, a 12 month old child
dummy in a RFCSS, and also during rough road tests. The RFCSS would be
placed in a variety of different positions during the static tests. In
order to ensure that the suppression feature did not inappropriately
suppress the air bag for small-statured adults, the air bag would need
to be activated during several static tests using a 5th percentile
adult female dummy in the right front passenger seat, and also during
rough road tests using that dummy.
If the low risk deployment option were selected, a vehicle would be
required to meet specified injury criteria when the passenger air bag
is deployed in the presence of a 12 month old child dummy placed in a
RFCSS. In the case of air bags with multiple inflation levels, the
injury criteria would need to be met for all levels.
For our SNPRM, we are proposing the same two basic options, but
with several changes.
First, under the NPRM, manufacturers would have been required to
assure compliance in tests using any child restraint capable of being
used in the rear facing position which was manufactured for sale in the
United States between two years and ten years prior to the date the
first vehicle of the MY carline of which the vehicle is a part was
first offered for sale to a consumer. For our SNPRM, manufacturers
would be required to assure compliance using any child restraint
included in a list of representative child restraints that we are
proposing to add as an appendix to Standard No. 208. The list would be
periodically updated to reflect changes in the types and designs of
available child restraints. We believe this approach addresses the
practicability and cost concerns raised by commenters but still ensures
that vehicle manufacturers take account of the variety of different
RFCSS as they design their systems. The issue of how we selected the
proposed list of child restraints is discussed later in this notice.
Second, our SNPRM drops the proposed rough road tests. We proposed
those tests to address the possibility that some types of automatic
suppression features, e.g., weight sensors, might be ``fooled'' by
occupant movement associated with riding on rough roads. The proposed
tests were intended to ensure such devices were designed so they do not
turn on the air bag in the presence of a small child who is bouncing as
a result of riding on a rough road, and so that they do not turn off
the air bag in the presence of a small-statured adult who is bouncing
as a result of riding on a rough road.
After considering the comments, we have tentatively concluded that
it is not necessary to include rough road tests in Standard No. 208. As
we have discussed in other areas, in the context of a statutory scheme
requiring us to issue performance requirements (as opposed to one
requiring design requirements or government approval), it is neither
appropriate nor possible for us to
[[Page 60585]]
address every real world variable that can affect safety. Ultimately,
the vehicle manufacturers must be expected to design their vehicles not
only so they meet the performance requirements specified by the Federal
motor vehicle safety standards, but also in light of the full range of
real world conditions their vehicles will experience.
We believe rough road performance is an area that vehicle
manufacturers will consider and address in the absence of Federal
requirements. We also note that a number of technical issues have been
raised about the proposed rough road tests, including how to keep
dummies from falling over during the tests. We do not believe it would
be a good use of agency resources at this time to make further efforts
to develop test procedures in this area. If necessary, failures to
assure adequate air bag performance in the rough road context could be
addressed under our authority to investigate safety-related defects.
Third, for the proposed static tests that must result in
deactivation of the passenger air bag, we have reduced the number of
positions in which the infant dummy/child seat is tested from seven to
five. Our proposal adds one new position, where the RFCSS is oriented
so that the infant faces forward and the seat is then tipped against
the instrument panel. This is a position that could occur as a result
of pre-impact braking if the RFCSS is not secured by the vehicle belt
system. We have dropped four of the positions proposed in the NPRM in
order to reduce test complexity and costs. We believe that systems that
would be suppressed at the five proposed positions would also be
suppressed at the other positions.
Fourth, for the tests designed to ensure that the suppression
feature does not inappropriately suppress the air bag for small
statured adults, human beings could be used in the place of 5th
percentile adult female dummies. The subject of permitting human beings
to be used in place of dummies for certain static tests is discussed in
the next section.
Fifth, we have made a change with respect to how air bags with
multiple inflation levels would be tested for the low risk deployment
test. As indicated above, we proposed in the NPRM to require injury
criteria to be met for all levels of inflation. This reflected the fact
that a child in a RFCSS would be extremely close to the passenger air
bag in any crash.
We have not changed our basic philosophy on this issue, but want to
address the possibility that vehicles might be designed so that only a
lower inflation level deploys in the presence of a RFCSS, regardless of
crash severity. To address this possibility, we are proposing in this
SNPRM to require injury criteria to be met for any stage or combination
of stages which may deploy in the presence of an infant in a RFCSS in a
rigid barrier crash test at speeds up to 64 km/h (40 mph). We believe
that all stages of inflation that would deploy in the presence of a
RFCSS would be encompassed in crash tests at that range of severity
levels.
b. Safety of Young Children.
Young children are at special risk from air bags because, when
unbelted, they are easily propelled close to the air bag as a result of
pre-crash braking. Their small size and weight also makes them more
vulnerable to injury when interacting with a deploying air bag. We
strongly recommend that young children ride in the back seat, because
the back seat is safer whether or not a vehicle has air bags.
In the NPRM, in order to address the risks air bags pose to young
children who do ride in the front seat, we proposed requirements using
both 3-year old and 6-year old child dummies. We proposed four
alternative test requirements, the selection of which would be at the
option of the manufacturer. Manufacturers could select different
options for the 3-year-old and 6-year-old dummies.
The four manufacturer options were: (1) test requirements for an
air bag suppression feature that suppresses the air bag when a child is
present, e.g., a weight or size sensor, (2) test requirements for an
air bag suppression feature that suppresses the air bag when an
occupant is out of position, (3) test requirements for low risk
deployment involving deployment of the air bag in the presence of out-
of-position 3-year old and 6-year-old child dummies, or (4) full scale
dynamic out-of-position test requirements, which include pre-impact
braking as part of the test procedure.
Our SNPRM follows the same basic approach as the NPRM, but with
several differences.
Most significantly, the number and type of manufacturer options are
changed somewhat. Our SNPRM continues to include, with certain changes,
the first and third of the options listed above, i.e., test
requirements for an air bag suppression feature that suppresses the air
bag when a child is present, e.g., a weight or size sensor, and test
requirements for low risk deployment involving deployment of the air
bag in the presence of out-of-position 3-year-old and 6-year-old child
dummies.
Our SNPRM also includes the second option, test requirements for an
air bag suppression feature that suppresses the air bag when an
occupant is out-of-position, but with major changes. The fourth option,
testing with dynamic pre-crash braking, has been dropped from this
rulemaking.
In the sections which follow, we discuss the three options we are
including in this SNPRM, as well as our reasons for any significant
changes and for dropping the fourth option.
Requirements for an air bag suppression feature (e.g., weight or
size sensor) that suppresses the air bag when a child is present. As
discussed in the NPRM, these requirements would be very similar to
those being proposed with respect to a suppression feature for infants
in RFCSS. Under the NPRM, if this option were selected, the air bag
would need to be deactivated during several static tests using, in the
right front passenger seat, a 3-year-old or 6-year-old child dummy and
also during rough road tests. The child dummy would be placed in a
variety of different positions during the static tests. Some of the
positions specify placing the dummy in a forward-facing child seat or
booster seat. The air bag would be required to be activated during
specified tests using a 5th percentile adult female dummy.
For the SNPRM, we have made a number of changes similar to those
discussed above with respect to a suppression feature for infants in
RFCSS. In particular:
Instead of requiring manufacturers to assure compliance in
tests using any child restraint which was manufactured for sale in the
United States for a specified number of years prior to manufacture, we
would require them to assure compliance using any child restraint
included in a list of representative child restraints that we are
proposing to add as an appendix to Standard No. 208.
We are dropping the proposed rough road tests.
For the proposed static tests which must result in
deactivation of the passenger air bag, we have reduced the number of
positions in which the child dummy or child dummy/child seat are
tested. For the three-year-old child dummy, the number of positions is
reduced from 17 to 10. For the six-year-old child dummy, the number of
positions is reduced from nine to six. We believe that systems that
would be suppressed at the proposed positions would also be suppressed
at the other positions.
We are also proposing to allow manufacturers to comply with and
certify to these suppression requirements using children, instead of
[[Page 60586]]
3-year-old and 6-year-old child dummies. Adult females could also be
used in the place of 5th percentile adult female dummies for the
portions of those test requirements which make sure that the air bag is
activated for adults.
We are proposing to permit manufacturers to use human beings in
light of concerns that current dummies may not be sufficiently human-
like to be recognized by some of the advanced technologies under
development. For example, suppression devices that work by sensing the
distributed weight pattern of a human being may not recognize the
pattern of a test dummy. If a manufacturer selects this option, the
requirements would need to be met at each of the relevant positions for
any human being within a specified weight/height range for 3-year-old
and 6-year-old children and 5th percentile adult females.
It is important to emphasize that these tests simply involve a
child or adult assuming specified positions in the vehicle, with a
technician checking (typically by looking at a light) whether the air
bag would be activated or deactivated; these tests do not involve
deploying the air bag or moving the vehicle. To ensure absolute safety,
we are proposing to require manufacturers selecting this option to
provide a method to assure that the air bag will not activate during
testing; such assurance may be made by removal of the air bag. The
manufacturer would also be required to provide a method to assure that
the same test results would be obtained if the air bag had not been
deactivated or removed.
Test requirements for a feature that suppresses the air bag when a
child is out-of-position. As discussed in the NPRM, we believe that a
feature that suppresses the air bag when an occupant is out-of-
position, either initially or because of moving into such a location
during pre-crash braking, needs to be tested very differently from one
that suppresses the air bag whenever a child is present. While various
static tests can be used to determine whether the latter type of
suppression device is effective, they would be of limited utility in
testing a feature that suppresses the air bag when an occupant moves
into an out-of-position location. This is because one of the key
criteria in determining whether the dynamic out-of-position suppression
feature is effective is timing, i.e., whether the feature works quickly
enough in a situation where an occupant is propelled out of position as
a result of pre-crash braking (or other pre-crash maneuvers). We have
accordingly developed separate requirements for such dynamic
suppression devices.
Under the NPRM, if this option were selected by the vehicle
manufacturer, the manufacturer would be required to provide a telltale
indicating whether the air bag was activated or deactivated. Operation
of the suppression feature would be tested through the use of a moving
test device which would be guided toward the area in the vehicle where
the air bag is stored.
In the NPRM, we summarized the proposed test requirements as
follows:
[The] test device would begin its course of travel in a forward
direction toward a target area inside the vehicle. This target area,
the air bag suppression zone, consists of a portion of a circle
centered on the geometric center of the vehicle's air bag cover. The
function of the air bag suppression system would be tested through
the use of a headform propelled toward the air bag suppression zone
at any speed up to 11 km/h (7 mph)--equivalent to a typical speed
that the head of an occupant attains in pre-crash braking. When the
test fixture enters the area near the air bag--the air bag
suppression zone--where injuries are likely to occur if the air bag
deploys, the telltale is monitored to determine if the suppression
feature has disabled the air bag. . . .
The automatic suppression plane of the vehicle, the point at
which the air bag suppression feature must be activated when the
plane is crossed by the headform, is located at that point rearward
of the air bag and forwardmost of the center of gravity of the head
of a seated occupant which the manufacturer determines to be that
point where, if the air bag is deployed, a 3-year-old child dummy
would meet specified injury criteria.
63 FR 49974, September 18, 1998.
We received a number of comments on our proposal in this area.
These comments were submitted by manufacturers, suppliers, industry
groups and safety organizations.
While the comments indicated general support for a test option that
would permit this type of suppression design, the commenters raised
many issues about the feasibility and appropriateness of the agency's
proposed test procedure. We note that while much work is currently
being done on the development of dynamic automatic suppression systems
(DASS), the technology is still not mature. In addition, a number of
differing technologies are currently being considered. Each one of
these technologies has particular attributes which affect the
appropriateness of the means used to evaluate its performance. This
makes our task in formulating performance requirements and test
procedures much more difficult.
For this SNPRM, we have decided to drop the out-of-position
suppression system test proposed in the NPRM. After considering the
comments, we have concluded that procedure has several flaws.
First, the use of a test headform, while allowing a quasi-static,
in-vehicle test, appears to be inappropriate for several technologies
now under consideration. In particular, the use of a headform alone,
without an accompanying torso, presents severe difficulties for
ultrasound based systems. In actual use, as opposed to a test, these
systems use sound reflections from the torso as well as the head, in
order to locate and track an occupant.
We are also concerned that the use of a headform alone would not be
appropriate for a DASS that uses information from multiple types of
sensors. For example, seat belt sensors, seat mat pressure sensors,
seat-mounted capacitance sensors, and seat location sensors might be
incorporated in a suppression system to locate an occupant or measure
the characteristics of an occupant and to assist the system in deciding
whether to suppress an air bag.
Second, the proposed test procedure's inclusion of a quasi-static,
in-vehicle test may be inappropriate for evaluating the performance of
some DASS designs. A system using inputs such as crash severity (change
in velocity, rate of deceleration, etc.) could not be adequately tested
by a quasi-static test. Similarly, such a test may not be adequately
representative of an actual crash.
However, we believe that DASS holds significant promise for
improving occupant safety. Instead of foreclosing the use of such
technology as a means of compliance, we have tentatively concluded that
continued development of this technology warrants a different approach
to rulemaking.
We are therefore proposing an option which would specify minimum
performance requirements for DASS, in conjunction with an amendment to
our procedures governing petitions for rulemaking (49 CFR Part 552)
that would facilitate expedited consideration and, if appropriate,
adoption of a test procedure when technological advances make such
dynamic suppression systems feasible. Under this SNPRM, we are
proposing to require manufacturers seeking to manufacture vehicles
under this compliance option to equip those vehicles with a DASS that
automatically controls air bag deployment by sensing the location and
the characteristics of an occupant, and determining, based on that
information, whether the air bag
[[Page 60587]]
should be deployed. The DASS must be capable of turning off the air bag
when an occupant enters into an Automatic Suppression Zone (ASZ)
defined by the vehicle manufacturer.
The proposal provides for specific expedited rulemaking procedures
regarding the test procedures for evaluating these systems. Under these
procedures, interested persons (which as a practical matter would
likely be either vehicle manufacturers or air bag manufacturers) could
submit a petition for rulemaking to establish, on an expedited basis, a
test procedure for evaluating a DASS. Target time limits for each phase
of such a rulemaking are proposed. As the petition would serve as a
basis for our expedited adoption of a test procedure, it would need to
contain specific detailed information. Included in this required
information would be a complete description of the specifications,
design, and performance of the system or systems to be tested by the
suggested test; drawings and/or representative samples of the test
devices and equipment to be employed in the test; test procedures,
including test device positioning procedures for the suggested test;
and data and films generated in performing the proposed test. Of
course, the test must meet applicable statutory requirements relating
to Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
We could reject or withhold consideration of any petition that is
incomplete. The petition would need to be submitted nine months before
the requested effective date, to allow sufficient time for agency
review and public comment.
While a petitioner could submit confidential information in support
of its petition, it would need to make public the complete test
procedure and a sufficient general description of the system to enable
us to provide a meaningful opportunity for public comment.
If the agency published a notice proposing the adoption of the
requested test procedure, it would then consider the public comments
and decide whether the procedure should be added to Standard No. 208.
If it decided to do so, and if the procedure were suitable for the DASS
of any other vehicles, then the procedure could be used by those
manufacturers of those vehicles as well as by the petitioning
manufacturer.
The agency emphasizes that its intention is that Standard No. 208
ultimately provide that all similar DASSs, e.g., those relying on the
same types of sensors, would be tested in the same fashion. Initially,
however, the agency's efforts to facilitate the quick introduction of
DASSs by conducting expedited rulemakings might result, in some cases,
in the adoption of different procedures for similar DASSs. To minimize
this possibility, the agency would expect manufacturers which decide to
petition for the adoption of a procedure for a DASS, instead of relying
upon a previously adopted procedure for the same or similar type of
DASS, to justify the need for a new and different procedure. Further,
the agency would seek in the long run to amend Standard No. 208 to
eliminate any unnecessary duplication or variation in test procedures.
Static tests to assure low-risk deployment of the air bag in the
presence of out-of-position 3-year-old and 6-year-old child dummies.
Our proposal in this area is not significantly different from the NPRM.
If the low risk deployment option were selected, a vehicle would be
required to meet specified injury criteria when the passenger air bag
is deployed in the presence of out-of-position 3-year-old and 6-year-
old child dummies. We are proposing that it be conducted at two
positions which tend to be ``worst case'' positions in terms of injury
risk. We are also proposing more detailed positioning procedures for
these two tests than for many of those proposed for the static
suppression tests, since injury measures may vary considerably with
position.
In the case of air bags with multiple inflation levels, the injury
criteria would need to be met only for the levels that would be
deployed in lower severity crashes. While an infant in a RFCSS would
always be extremely close to the passenger air bag, this is not true
for older children. An older child would most likely be extremely close
to the air bag in lower severity crashes, following pre-crash braking.
In the NPRM, we proposed that the injury criteria would need to be
met only for the inflation levels that would be deployed in crashes of
32 km/h (20 mph) or below. In order to determine what inflation levels
would deploy in such crashes, we proposed a test procedure which
included three types of crash tests: a rigid barrier test, an offset
frontal deformable barrier test, and a pole test.
For the SNPRM, we are proposing that the injury criteria in static
out-of-position tests would need to be met only for the levels that
would be deployed in crashes of 29 km/h (18 mph) or below. We have
reduced the upper speed from 32 to 29 km/h (20 mph to 18 mph) because
some vehicle manufacturers may need to deploy both stages of a dual
stage inflator in crashes with delta V's just over 32 km/h (20 mph),
and because of the ``gray zone'' where it is uncertain whether one or
both stages may deploy. We are also proposing to specify only a rigid
barrier test for purposes of determining what inflation level would
deploy in such crashes. To the extent that higher inflation level air
bag deployments do not occur in rigid barrier tests at speeds up to 29
km/h (18 mph), we do not believe that those higher inflation level air
bag deployments would occur in offset frontal deformable barrier tests
or pole crashes at the same speed.
As noted earlier, we have tested six MY 1999 vehicles to the
proposed out-of-position tests using 6-year-old child dummies. Only one
vehicle, the MY 1999 Acura RL with a dual stage inflator, met all the
proposed injury criteria performance limits for the 6-year-old child
dummy in both Position 1 and Position 2 tests. This was the only one of
the six vehicles with a dual stage inflator. Only the first stage was
fired in the tests. This test illustrates the potential of dual stage
inflators to meet the proposed out-of-position requirements using 3-
year-old and 6-year-old child dummies.
Elimination of option for full scale dynamic out-of-position test
requirements, which include pre-impact braking as part of the test
procedure. In the NPRM, we included an option under which a vehicle
would be required to meet injury criteria in a rigid barrier crash test
that included pre-impact braking as part of the test procedure, using
unrestrained 3-year-old or 6-year-old child dummies. We have decided to
drop this option.
As discussed in the NPRM, this was a new test and there were many
uncertainties. After considering the comments, we have decided to drop
this option at this time. We were persuaded by the commenters that
significant additional development would be needed in the proposed test
procedure to make it appropriate for a Federal motor vehicle safety
standard. Moreover, we do not believe that such development could be
completed in a timely manner for this rulemaking. We also believe the
other options address the various types of technologies under
development, and that this one is not necessary. However, as noted
before, a manufacturer petitioning for a test procedure for dynamic
automatic suppression systems could suggest a procedure using a full
scale dynamic barrier test with pre-crash braking.
c. Safety of Small Teenage and Adult Drivers.
Out-of-position drivers are at risk from air bags if they are
extremely close
[[Page 60588]]
to the air bag at time of deployment. While any driver could
potentially become out of position, small-statured drivers are more
likely to become out of position because they sit closer to the
steering wheel than larger drivers.
The NPRM, in order to address the risks air bags pose to out-of-
position drivers, we proposed requirements using 5th percentile adult
female dummies. We proposed three alternative test requirements, the
selection of which would be at the option of the manufacturer.
The manufacturer options proposed in the NPRM were similar to those
using 3-year-old and 6-year-old child dummies, with one significant
exception. Since air bags provide safety benefits to small-statured
drivers, it is not appropriate to permit manufacturers to suppress air
bag deployment under all conditions in the presence of such occupants.
Therefore, this type of suppression feature would not be permitted in
tests with 5th percentile adult female dummies.
The three manufacturer options proposed in the NPRM were: (1) test
requirements for an air bag suppression feature that suppresses the
driver air bag when the driver is out of position, (2) test
requirements for low risk deployment involving deployment of the air
bag in the presence of out-of-position 5th percentile adult female
dummies, and (3) full scale dynamic out-of-position test requirements,
which include pre-impact braking as part of the test procedure.
For our SNPRM, we have made a number of changes similar to those
discussed above with respect to three-year-old and six-year-old
children, and for the same reasons. Our proposal for test requirements
for low risk deployment involving deployment of the air bag in the
presence of out-of-position 5th percentile adult female dummies is
largely unchanged, although we have made the same change concerning
level of inflation (i.e., levels that could deploy in a rigid barrier
crash of up to 29 km/h (18 mph)) for which the test is conducted as
discussed above with respect to child dummies. Our proposal for test
requirements for an air bag suppression feature that suppresses the
driver air bag when the driver is out of position has been replaced
with one specifying a procedure by which manufacturers can petition for
a test procedure to be added to Standard No. 208. Finally, we have
dropped our proposal for full scale dynamic out-of-position test
requirements.
While we have carefully considered GM's suggestion that we add out-
of-position tests for adult passengers, we have decided not to make
such a proposal at this time. Air bag risks to adult passengers are
relatively low. Air bags do not pose the same risks for adult
passengers as adult drivers and child passengers. Risks are higher for
adult drivers because small-statured adults may need to sit relatively
close to the air bag in order to drive. However, small-statured adults
do not need to sit close to the passenger air bag. Young children are
at special risk from air bags because, when unbelted or improperly
belted, they are easily propelled against the air bag module during
pre-crash braking.
C. Injury Criteria
In the NPRM, we proposed injury criteria and performance limits for
each size dummy. We placed in the public docket a technical paper which
explained the basis for each of the proposed injury criteria, and for
the proposed performance limits.
Standard No. 208 currently specifies five injury criteria for the
Hybrid III 50th percentile adult male dummy in barrier crash tests: (1)
dummy containment--all portions of the dummy must be contained in the
vehicle passenger compartment throughout the test, (2) HIC (Head Injury
Criterion) must not exceed 1,000, evaluated over a 36 millisecond
(msec) duration (3) chest acceleration must not exceed 60 g's, (4)
chest deflection must not exceed 76 mm (3 inches), and (5) upper leg
forces must not exceed 10 kilonewtons (kN) (2,250 pounds).
Under the NPRM, these and certain additional injury criteria would
generally have been applied to all of the dummies covered by the
proposal. However, the criteria would be adjusted to maintain
consistency with respect to the injury risks faced by different size
occupants.
For some types of injuries, we proposed alternative injury
criteria. For chest injury, we proposed two alternatives: a new
criterion, Combined Thoracic Index (CTI), which we had recently
developed, or separate limits on chest acceleration and chest
deflection. We also proposed two alternatives for neck injury criteria:
an improved neck injury criterion, called Nij, or separate limits on
flexion, extension, tension, compression and shear.
For this SNPRM, we have reviewed all relevant comments on the NPRM
as well as comments and documents submitted by biomechanics specialists
at NHTSA-sponsored public meetings. Combining this new information with
our previous analyses, we are proposing, in a number of instances,
modified injury criteria and performance limits.
A general discussion of the proposed injury criteria and
performance limits is presented below. A detailed technical explanation
is provided in a technical paper which is being placed in the public
docket. The title of the paper is: ``Development of Improved Injury
Criteria for the Assessment of Advanced Automotive Restraints Systems--
II.''
1. Head Injury Criteria
As discussed in the technical report which accompanied the
September 1998 NPRM, titled ``Development of Improved Injury Criteria
for the Assessment of Advanced Automotive Restraint Systems,'' limits
for the head injury criterion (HIC), evaluated over a 36 millisecond
time interval, were proposed for the 50th percentile adult male, 5th
percentile adult female, 6 year-old child, 3 year-old child and 12-
month-old infant dummies.
Due to uncertainties regarding head injuries for children, we had
investigated various scaling methods for developing HIC performance
limits for the various size test dummies. The HIC limits proposed in
the NPRM reflected a methodology that included both geometrical and
material property scaling using the properties of the cranial sutures.
This method was based on the assumption that the pediatric skull
deformation is controlled by properties of the cranial sutures, rather
than the skull bones.
Comments received in response to the NPRM and at a public meeting
held on April 20, 1999 focused primarily on two issues: (1) the time
duration used for the computation of HIC and (2) the scaling of HIC for
the child dummies. In general, commenters urged that more conservative
values for HIC should be adopted for the child dummies and especially
for the 12-month-old CRABI infant dummy. Commenters cited differences
in structure between the compliant infant skull with soft cranial
sutures and the adult skull in addition to the uncertain tolerances of
the infant's brain.
AAMA recommended that the duration for the HIC computations be
limited to 15 milliseconds with a limit of 700 for the 50th percentile
adult male dummy, which is consistent with Canadian Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 208. By way of comparison, Standard No. 208
currently specifies, for that dummy, HIC computed over 36 milliseconds
but with a limit of 1000.
The basis for AAMA's recommended 15 millisecond duration was that,
in the original biomechanical skull fracture
[[Page 60589]]
data from which HIC was derived, no specimen experienced a skull
fracture and/or brain damage with a HIC duration greater than 13
milliseconds. AAMA also argued that HIC 36 overestimates the risk of
injury for long-duration head impacts with air bags. That organization
cited a study where human volunteers who were restrained by air bags
experienced HIC 36 greater than 1000 and did not experience brain
injury or skull fracture.
We note that NHTSA has previously been asked to limit the HIC
duration to 15 or 17 milliseconds. In its earliest form, the HIC was
calculated over the whole acceleration-time pulse duration without an
imposed limiting time interval. Essentially, HIC values were calculated
for all possible time increments starting with one millisecond and
ending with the whole duration of the pulse including every time
duration increment in between. The maximum value from this entire set
was the HIC value used.
On October 17, 1986, we issued a final rule adopting a maximum time
interval of 36 milliseconds for calculating HIC. 51 FR 37028. We
recognized that available human volunteer tests demonstrated that the
probability of injury in long duration events was low, but reasoned
that the agency should take a cautious approach and not significantly
change the expected pass/fail ratios that the then unlimited HIC
provided. Evaluation of a 17 millisecond limit against various test
sets from NCAP and FMVSS 208 testing available at the time was found to
reduce the failure rate from 46% to 35%. This fact led us to reject a
request to reduce the HIC time interval to 15 to 17 milliseconds
without a commensurate reduction of the maximum HIC value.
However, to somewhat accommodate to the apparent over-stringency of
the limited HIC for long duration events, we did limit the maximum time
interval to 36 milliseconds. This allowed the maximum average long
duration acceleration to rise to a limit of 60 g's.
Today's proposal for reducing the 36 millisecond HIC time to 15
milliseconds differs from what we previously considered because it is
accompanied by a reduction in the maximum allowed value of HIC from
1000 to 700. Based on an analysis of 295 recent NCAP tests, we have
determined that the stringency of HIC15/700 and HIC36/1000 appear to be
equivalent for long duration pulses. This is because while the HIC 15
produces a lower numerical value for long duration events, its lower
failure threshold, 700, compensates for this reduction. This is borne
out by the fact that of the 295 NCAP tests examined, 260 passed and 18
failed both criteria, 10 tests that failed HIC 15 passed HIC 36, while
7 tests that failed HIC 36, passed HIC 15. We also note that for pulse
durations shorter than approximately 25 milliseconds, the HIC 15=700
requirement is more stringent than the HIC 36=1000 requirement. We
believe this increased stringency would provide a desirable added
measure of safety for the highly scaled, short duration HIC limits
proposed for evaluating those impact events where children and small
statured adults are involved. Thus, we are proposing to employ a 15
millisecond time interval whenever calculating the HIC function and
limiting the maximum response of the adult male to 700 and limiting the
response of the smaller dummies to suitably scaled maximums.
AAMA recommended employing a scaling technique for HIC15 that
accounts for the differences in geometry and failure properties between
children and adults. Several other researchers have also recommended,
using similar techniques and assumptions, scaled performance limits for
HIC15. We have also performed additional analysis using finite element
modeling to develop yet another approach to scaling HIC. Recognizing
that all of these techniques and the scaling relationships they produce
are approximate, we have combined these results to develop modified,
conservative, scaled HIC performance limits for the various child
dummies.
2. Neck Injury Criteria
In the NPRM, we proposed two alternatives: (1) The Nij neck injury
criterion, for which we solicited comments on performance limits of
Nij=1 and Nij=1.4, and (2) separate limits on neck flexion, extension,
tension, compression, and shear. AAMA and others commented that the Nij
concept makes biomechanical sense. However, they recommended the use of
individual limits for neck forces and moments. Other commenters stated
that Nij=1 was more appropriate than Nij=1.4 for affording adequate
protection to children. Some commenters suggested even lower limits for
neck forces and moments for the child dummies.
After considering the comments, we continue to believe that the
superposition of loads and moments performed in the Nij calculation is
the most appropriate metric to quantify neck injury risk. Therefore, in
the SNPRM, we are proposing Nij as the neck injury criterion. However,
in light of the comments, we have made some modifications to the
proposed Nij calculations.
We originally developed the Nij criterion using data from matched
air bag exposure tests, using anesthetized pigs and the 3-year-old
child dummy, conducted by Mertz et al. and Prasad et al. For the
modified Nij, we decided to use certain assumptions made by Mertz (SAE
paper No. 973318) in combining the measured tension force and extension
moment. Re-analysis of the data after applying these assumptions
results in new Nij tension and extension intercept values for the 3-
year-old dummy with Nij=1. The resulting Nij=1 threshold limit
represents a 22% probability of Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS)
3 neck injury using logistic regression. For this SNPRM, we
are also using a scaling procedure recommended by AAMA which takes into
account the failure strength of ligaments. The details of the
development of the revised Nij neck injury criteria and the revised Nij
critical values for all dummy sizes are provided in the technical paper
cited above.
As noted above, we requested comments on performance limits of
Nij=1 and Nij=1.4. After considering the comments, the available
biomechanical data, and testing which indicates that the more
conservative value of 1.0 can be met in current production vehicles, we
are proposing a limit of 1.0.
3. Thoracic Injury Criteria
For chest injury, we proposed two alternatives in the NPRM: (1) A
newly developed injury criterion called the Combined Thoracic Index
(CTI), or (2) individual limits on chest acceleration and chest
deflection. The CTI is a formula that linearly combines measured chest
deflection and acceleration levels into a single value which is then
limited to a maximum value. It was derived from our extensive cadaver
test data base and was demonstrated to have the best injury predictive
capability of all measures examined. The second alternative consisted
of individual limits for chest acceleration and deflection, the
approach currently used in Standard No. 208. The standard specifies,
for the 50th percentile adult male dummy, a 60 g acceleration limit and
a 76 mm (3 inch) deflection limit.
Many commenters on the NPRM recommended maintaining individual
limits for acceleration and deflection. AAMA recommended that the
acceleration limit be maintained at 60 g but suggested that the
deflection limit be reduced from 76 mm to 64 mm (3 inches to 2.5
inches). Our analysis indicates that the recommended AAMA
[[Page 60590]]
limits, when both at their maximum, would be at a CTI level of
approximately 1.2. However, because the CTI would allow greater
accelerations with lesser deflection and greater deflection with lesser
accelerations at allowable operational points, we believe the AAMA-
recommended two independent level criterion would be somewhat more
stringent overall. Therefore, we believe the CTI limit proposed in the
NPRM and AAMA's recommended individual limits are largely equivalent
and that there is a slight safety benefit to adopting the individual
limits of 60 g's of acceleration and 64 mm (2.5 inches) of chest
deflection for the 50th percentile adult male dummy. For the SNPRM, we
are proposing individual limits as recommended by AAMA.
To obtain equivalent performance limits for the other size dummies,
i.e., the 5th percentile adult female, 3- and 6-year-old child, and the
12-month-old infant, the mid-size male dummy limits were scaled
considering both geometric and material differences.
4. Lower Extremity Injury Criteria
Standard No. 208 currently specifies an axial load limit of 10kN
(2250 pounds) for the 50th percentile adult male dummy, as measured by
a load cell at the location of the mid-shaft of the femur. The purpose
of the axial load limit on the femur is to reduce the probability of
fracture of the femur and also surrounding structures in the thigh,
such as the patella and pelvis. In the NPRM, we proposed to maintain
the current limit of 10 kN (2,250 pounds) for the 50th percentile adult
male and proposed a new scaled down limit of 6.8 kN (1,529 pounds) for
the 5th percentile adult female to account for the smaller bone size
for all proposed test configurations.
There was general support by commenters for including the femoral
compressive loads for the 5th percentile adult female dummy specified
in the NPRM in addition to maintaining the currently specified value
for the 50th percentile adult male dummy. In the SNPRM, we are
proposing the same axial femur limits as the NPRM: 10 kN (2,250 pounds)
for the 50th percentile adult male and 6.8 kN (1,529 pounds) for the
5th percentile adult female.
AAMA recommended adding femoral compressive load limits for the 6-
year-old child dummy. Although we agree with AAMA that femoral
compressive load limits for the 6-year-old child dummy are important to
consider, the NPRM did not specify such limits because none of the
proposed testing configurations imposed substantial loading on the
lower extremities. We are therefore not proposing femoral compressive
load limits in the SNPRM.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended that
tolerance levels of lower extremities be further investigated and
validated. NTSB also suggested that we consider dummies such as an
advanced lower extremity dummy for future incorporation into the
standards. We are continuing the development of an advanced lower
extremity test device, and continue to sponsor experimental impact
injury research to determine the mechanisms and tolerances of the lower
extremities, including the foot, ankle and leg. When this effort is
complete, we will consider incorporating additional injury criteria
into our safety standards.
The assessment of lower extremity injury potential in high speed
offset deformable crash tests is discussed in a separate section later
in this notice.
5. Other Criteria
As we consider adding new injury criteria or modifying existing
injury criteria for Standard No. 208, it is logical to consider whether
the injury criteria and performance limits we are considering would be
appropriate for other safety standards, including Standards No. 201 and
213, particularly if new child dummies were incorporated into Standard
No. 213. While we are not proposing to amend those standards in this
rulemaking, we request commenters to address whether the injury
criteria and performance limits proposed in this SNPRM would be
appropriate for those standards, and why or why not.
D. Lead Time and Proposed Effective Date
TEA 21 specifies that the final rule on advanced air bags must
become effective in phases as rapidly as practicable beginning not
earlier than September 1, 2002, and no sooner than 30 months after the
issuance of the final rule, but not later than September 1, 2003.
Except as noted below, the phase-in of the required amendments must be
completed by September 1, 2005. If the phase-in of the rule does not
begin until September 1, 2003, we are authorized to delay the
completion of the phase-in until September 1, 2006. As also noted
below, other amendments may be phased-in later.
As discussed in the NPRM, we have sought information by a variety
of means to help us determine when the vehicle manufacturers can
provide advanced air bag systems to consumers. This is known as lead
time. Vehicle lead time is a complex issue, especially when it involves
technology and designs that are still under development.
In the NPRM, taking account of all available information, including
but not limited to the wide variety of available technologies that can
be used to improve air bags (and thereby meet the proposed
requirements) and information concerning where the different suppliers
and vehicle manufacturers were in developing and implementing available
technologies, we proposed to phase in the new requirements in
accordance with the following implementation schedule:
25 percent of each manufacturer's light vehicles manufactured
during the production year beginning September 1, 2002;
40 percent of each manufacturer's light vehicles manufactured
during the production year beginning September 1, 2003;
70 percent of each manufacturer's light vehicles manufactured
during the production year beginning September 1, 2004;
All vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2005.
We proposed a separate alternative to address the special problems
faced by limited line manufacturers in complying with phase-ins. We
noted that a phase-in generally permits vehicle manufacturers
flexibility with respect to which vehicles they choose to initially
redesign to comply with new requirements. However, if a manufacturer
produces a very limited number of lines, e.g., one or two, a phase-in
would not provide such flexibility.
We accordingly proposed to permit manufacturers which produce two
or fewer carlines the option of omitting the first year of the phase-in
if they achieve full compliance effective September 1, 2003. We
proposed to limit this alternative to manufacturers which produce two
or fewer carlines in light of the statutory requirement concerning when
the phase-in is to begin.
As with previous phase-ins, we proposed to exclude vehicles
manufactured in two or more stages and altered vehicles from the phase-
in requirements. These vehicles would be subject to the advanced air
bag requirements effective September 1, 2005. They would, of course, be
subject to Standard No. 208's existing requirements before and
throughout the phase-in.
Also as with previous phase-ins, we proposed amendments to 49 CFR
Part 585 to establish reporting requirements to accompany the phase-in.
[[Page 60591]]
A number of commenters raised issues concerning the proposed phase-
in. We will discuss the issues separately for the large vehicle
manufacturers and for small manufacturers and multi-stage
manufacturers.
1. Large Manufacturers
Honda stated that it would be virtually impossible to comply with
the proposed phase-in. It cited the number of tests, the need for new
testing facilities and personnel, and the lack of completed dummies.
That company stated that assuming the final rule was reasonable and
practical, it needs at least three years leadtime after the final rule
and before the start of the phase-in, and a five-year phase-in. Volvo
also stated that it needs three years after the final rule.
We note that, for this particular rulemaking, we have limited
discretion as to how much lead time we can provide. Under the statutory
requirements discussed earlier in this section, assuming that the final
rule is issued on March 1, 2000, it must become effective in phases
beginning not earlier than September 1, 2002 (which is 30 months after
March 1, 2000) and not later than September 1, 2003. Moreover, there is
a limit as to how long the phase-in may be. If the phase-in begins on
September 1, 2002, the required amendments must be fully effective by
September 1, 2005. Only if the phase-in begins on September 1, 2003 may
the agency delay making the required amendments fully effective until
September 1, 2006.
Under the statute, the agency is therefore precluded from providing
the five-year phase-in requested by Honda. Whether the phase-in begins
on September 1, 2002 or September 1, 2003, the required amendments must
be fully effective not more than three years later.
For this SNPRM, we are proposing the same phase-in for large
manufacturers as in the NPRM. The proposed date for the start of the
phase-in, September 1, 2002, would be 30 months after a final rule that
was issued on March 1, 2000. This proposed date reflects the
seriousness of the safety problem being addressed and the statutory
requirement that the final rule become effective as rapidly as
possible. Honda and Volvo did not demonstrate that this date cannot be
met. We note that, as discussed earlier, several manufacturers will be
introducing air bags with many of the features needed to comply with
the proposed requirements for advanced air bags during MY 2000.
Comments are requested on phase-in schedules and percentages other
than the 25%-40%-70%-100% schedule proposed in this document. One
example is a 40%-70%-100% schedule beginning one year later than the
proposed schedule, but ending at the same time. This alternative is
like the proposed one, except that the first year of the proposed
phase-in is eliminated. This alternative schedule would offer
additional leadtime at the beginning of the phase-in, while not
compromising the final effective date for all new vehicles. With the
availability of credits for early compliance, a manufacturer also would
have additional time to develop and produce early-complying vehicles to
meet the initial phase-in percentages.
We recognize that simultaneous implementation of these various
proposals will necessitate considerable care and effort by the vehicle
manufacturers. In a normal rulemaking, we would have broad discretion
to adjust the implementation schedule to facilitate compliance. In this
rulemaking, our discretion to set the schedule for implementing the
amendments required by TEA 21 is limited by that Act. As indicated
above, our final rule must not provide that the phasing-in of those
amendments begins any later than September 1, 2003, or ends any later
than September 1, 2006.
However, above and beyond our discretion to adjust the amendments
for reasons of practicability, we also have some discretion to make
temporary adjustments in them if, in our judgment, such adjustments are
necessary or prudent to promote the smooth and effective implementation
of the goals of TEA 21 through the introduction of advanced air bags.
As discussed above, the final rule could temporarily reduce the injury
criteria or test speeds during the TEA 21 phase-in and then terminate
those reductions at the end or after the end of that phase-in.
2. Small Manufacturers and Multi-Stage Manufacturers
The Coalition of Small Volume Automobile Manufacturers (COSVAM)
stated that the extra year of leadtime we proposed for small volume
manufacturers is insufficient to meet its members' needs. That
organization requested that small volume manufacturers be treated the
same as final stage manufacturers, i.e., not be required to meet the
new requirements for advanced air bags until the end of the phase-in.
COSVAM stated that small volume manufacturers need until the end of
the phase-in because they cannot obtain new technology at the same time
it is made available to large manufacturers, because they have
difficulty getting suppliers to sell to them at all, and because some
small volume manufacturers source from large manufacturers and may
source parts from a model which will not comply until the end of the
phase-in. AIAM stated that the law does not allow a reasonable
timetable for phase-in even for large volume manufacturers, which will
be given access to technology first, and that there is certainly no
evidence that small volume manufacturers have the ability to comply in
the second year of the phase-in.
After considering the comments, we have decided to propose that
small volume manufacturers be permitted to wait until the end of the
phase-in to meet the new requirements. We note that we are proposing to
treat small volume manufacturers differently than in previous
rulemakings involving phase-ins because of two factors.
The first factor is the complexity of the new requirements. Even
the more streamlined set of requirements proposed in this SNPRM will
require significant design changes and significant new testing for all
cars and light trucks. The second factor is the relatively short
leadtime before the phase-in is scheduled to begin.
The proposed special treatment of small volume manufacturers would
be in addition to our proposal to permit limited line manufacturers to
wait until the second year of the phase-in to begin compliance if they
then meet the new requirements for all of their vehicles.
Because our new proposal for small volume manufacturers will have
the effect of permitting them to avoid the phase-in entirely, it is
critical to establish eligibility criteria that are as narrow as
possible. Accordingly, we are proposing to limit this phase-in option
to manufacturers which produce fewer than 5,000 vehicles per year
worldwide.
We specifically request comments on this proposed limitation. We
note that COSVAM indicated that all of its members produce fewer than
5,000 vehicles per year worldwide. However, that organization requested
that we make this phase-in option available to all manufacturers which
produce fewer than 10,000 vehicles per year worldwide. COSVAM did not
explain why it believes the limitation should be set at this level.
Several commenters, including the National Truck Equipment
Association (NTEA) and the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association
(RVIA), requested that multi-stage manufacturers and alterers be given
a one-year extension after the end of the phase-in for large
manufacturers. NTEA stated that given
[[Page 60592]]
the level of research and testing likely to be required by the final
rule, chassis manufacturers will be hard pressed to complete work on
time for their standard lineup of vehicles let alone those chassis to
be used by multi-stage industry. That organization stated that an extra
year would give chassis manufacturers more time to generate compliance
information needed for commercial vehicles produced in two or more
stages.
RVIA stated that guidance from incomplete vehicle manufacturers is
generally not available until at or very near the startup of new or
updated model production and that, therefore, final stage manufacturers
will need at least one additional year to meet the new requirements.
While we have carefully considered the comments, we are not
proposing an additional extension for final stage manufacturers, beyond
the end of the phase-in. We note that, as discussed above, we have
limited discretion as to how much leadtime we can provide. Under TEA
21, if the phase-in begins on September 1, 2002, the final rule must
become fully effective by September 1, 2005. There are no exceptions
for multi-stage manufacturers.
Moreover, we believe this is an issue which can be handled by the
industry. Final stage manufacturers are used to completing vehicles
within limitations identified by chassis manufacturers so that they can
certify their vehicles with limited or no additional testing. We do
believe it is important that the chassis manufacturers communicate with
their final stage manufacturer customers as soon as possible concerning
any new limitations that may be made as a result of the advanced air
bag requirements. The chassis manufacturers should be able to identify
the type and likely scope of any such new limitations well before the
end of the phase-in. Even now, the chassis manufacturers should be able
to identify the types of new limitations that are likely, given the
proposed requirements and planned design changes. We would encourage
chassis manufacturers and final stage manufacturers to begin
discussions on these issues now.
Atwood, a supplier of seating components, asked whether a generic
type test could be developed to eliminate testing the entire family of
test dummies. That company stated that it runs sled tests consisting of
baseline tests of OE components and additional tests of its components.
We do not believe it would be possible to develop a generic type test,
for purposes of Standard No. 208, that could eliminate tests
incorporating the family of dummies. Different size human beings
respond differently in crashes, and it is therefore necessary to use
different size dummies to test for the injury risks posed to occupants
of varying sizes. Also, if a weight/pattern sensor in a seat is
designed to suppress air bags for children and not for adults, it is
necessary to test them both for children and adults.
E. Availability of Original Equipment and Retrofit Manual On-Off
Switches
As discussed in the NPRM, Standard No. 208 currently includes a
temporary provision permitting manufacturers to provide manual on-off
switches for air bags in vehicles without rear seats or with rear seats
too small to accommodate a RFCSS. This provision is scheduled to expire
on September 1, 2000. However, in the NPRM, we proposed to extend this
provision so that it phases out as the new requirements for advanced
air bags are phased in. During the phase-in, OE manual on-off switches
would not be available for vehicles certified to the upgraded
requirements, but would be available for other vehicles under the same
conditions as they are currently available.
Also as discussed in the NPRM, on November 11, 1997, we published
in the Federal Register (62 FR 62406) a final rule exempting, under
certain conditions, motor vehicle dealers and repair businesses from
the ``make inoperative'' prohibition in 49 U.S.C. 30122 by allowing
them to install retrofit manual on-off switches for air bags in
vehicles owned by people whose request for a switch is authorized by
NHTSA. The final rule is set forth as Part 595, Retrofit On-Off
Switches for Air Bags.
The purpose of the exemption was to preserve the benefits of air
bags while reducing the risk of serious or fatal injury that current
air bags pose to identifiable groups of people. In issuing that final
rule, we explained that although vehicle manufacturers are beginning to
replace current air bags with new air bags having some advanced
attributes, i.e., attributes that will automatically minimize or avoid
the risks created by current air bags, an interim solution was needed
for those groups of people at risk from current air bags in existing
vehicles.
In the NPRM, we proposed to phase out the availability of this
exemption in the same manner as the temporary provision permitting
manufacturers to provide manual on-off switches for air bags in
vehicles without rear seats or with rear seats too small to accommodate
a RFCSS. Under the proposal, retrofit on-off switches would not be
available for vehicles certified to the new advanced air bag
requirements.
We requested comments, however, on whether retrofit on-off switches
should continue to be available under eligibility criteria revised to
be appropriately reflective of the capabilities of advanced air bag
technology. We observed that if such switches were to be available at
all, the criteria would need to be much narrower since the risks would
be smaller than they are currently. For example, the passenger air bag
in a vehicle with a weight sensor would not deploy at all in the
presence of young children. Therefore, there would be no safety reason
to permit a retrofit on-off switch because of a need for a young child
to ride in the front seat.
Only a few commenters addressed the issue of OE and retrofit on-off
switches. Two basic positions were given: either allow on-off switches
regardless of the existence of advanced air bag technology, or phase-
out the switches as proposed in the NPRM. The central issue to each
position is whether the advanced air bag systems will be sufficiently
reliable to obviate the need for a manual switch.
While we believe that reliable systems can be developed in a timely
manner, thus removing the need for an on-off switch, we are concerned
that those individuals who are currently at risk from air bags may lack
confidence in the new systems, particularly when they are first
introduced. However, we believe this problem will diminish during the
course of the phase-in, as consumers hear about, and become familiar
with, advanced air bags.
Accordingly, in this SNPRM, we are proposing to allow both OE
switches and retrofit switches to be installed under the same
conditions that currently govern such installation in all vehicles
produced prior to September 1, 2005, the date by which all vehicles
must have an advanced air bag system. We believe that by that time
consumer confidence in the advanced systems will be sufficiently strong
to remove any desire for a manual switch in vehicles produced with an
advanced air bag.
F. Warning Labels and Consumer Information
As discussed in the NPRM, on November 27, 1996, we published in the
Federal Register (61 FR 60206) a final rule which, among other things,
amended Standard No. 208 to require improved labeling on new vehicles
to better ensure that drivers and other occupants are aware of the
dangers posed by passenger air bags to children. These warning label
requirements did
[[Page 60593]]
not apply to vehicles with passenger air bags meeting specified
criteria.
In the NPRM, we similarly proposed that vehicles certified to the
new advanced air bag requirements would not be subject to those warning
label requirements. We requested comments, however, concerning whether
any of the existing labeling requirements should be retained for
vehicles with advanced air bags and/or whether any other labeling
requirements should be applied to these vehicles.
Thirteen commenters addressed the issue of retaining the existing
air bag warning labels, including manufacturers, manufacturer
associations, and consumer groups. At least until the reliability of
newer air bag designs are proven by experience, all of the commenters
supported the retention of a warning regarding the importance of
children in rear seats. Most supported the inclusion of a seat belt use
warning. Some commenters also addressed the issue of requiring
manufacturers to provide information about which vehicles meet the new
requirements. Consumer groups strongly supported such a requirement,
while manufacturers and some others believed such a requirement was not
necessary since the information would be provided voluntarily.
Given the importance of the safety information at issue and in
light of the widespread support for continued labeling, NHTSA is
proposing a replacement for the permanent sun visor label for vehicles
that meet the requirements of this proposed rule. The label would
contain statements regarding belt use and seating children in the rear
seat. These statements are good general advice; however, NHTSA requests
comments on any currently known risks which would require more specific
statements.
The word ``CAUTION'' would be substituted for the word ``WARNING''
in the heading of the label. According to ANSI Z535.2, ``WARNING
indicates a potentially hazardous situation which, if not avoided,
could result in death or serious injury.'' ``CAUTION indicates a
potentially hazardous situation which, if not avoided, may result in
minor or moderate injury. It may also be used to alert against unsafe
practices.'' Since there are currently no known specific risks
associated with advanced air bags, ``Caution'' appears to be more
appropriate as an alert against unsafe practices.
We believe that the existing graphic is inappropriate for air bags
meeting these requirements, as this risk is specifically tested for in
the new requirements. Therefore, a new graphic has been developed which
shows a cut-away side view of a vehicle with a belted driver and a
child in a child seat in the rear.
In addition, we are proposing a new temporary label that states
that the vehicle meets the new requirements for advanced air bags. This
label would replace the existing temporary label and include statements
regarding seat belt use and children in rear seats. We request comment
on how and where additional information regarding how the vehicle
complies and other information about the new air bags should be made
available. The options under consideration include requiring the
information on the temporary label, in the owners manual, or in a
separate required informational brochure.
We are proposing to retain all other existing label requirements
regarding location, size, etc. for the new labels. Also, as with the
current labels, manufacturers may provide translations of the required
English language message as long as all the requirements for the
English label are met, including size.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ For further information about our policies in this area,
see 59 FR 11200, 11201-202, March 10, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with our proposal to require labels for vehicles with
advanced air bags, we are proposing to drop the current definition of
``smart passenger air bags'' contained in S4.5.5 and the existing
option to remove warning labels in vehicles with air bags that meet
that definition (S4.5.1). The term ``smart air bag'' is simply an older
term for advanced air bag. For the reasons discussed above, we believe
that some warning label is needed for vehicles with advanced air bags.
We also note that no manufacturer has taken advantage of the existing
compliance option, and we believe that they will not do so in the
future. Manufacturers have urged us to develop a single warning label
that would apply to vehicles with advanced air bags. Thus, even if they
do develop a system that meets the existing definition of smart
passenger air bags, we do not think they would decide to produce
vehicles without warning labels.
In order to provide consumers with adequate information about their
occupant restraint system, a manufacturer would also need to provide a
written discussion of the vehicle's advanced passenger air bag system.
This discussion would probably be included in the vehicle owner's
manual, although we are interested in knowing whether it would be
desirable to have this information located elsewhere. The discussion
would need to explain the proper functioning of the advanced passenger
air bag system and provide a summary of the actions that may affect the
proper functioning of the system.
We anticipate that several topics would need to be addressed. The
information provided might need to include discussions of the following
topics, as appropriate:
A presentation and explanation of the main components of
the advanced passenger air bag system.
An explanation of how the components function together as
part of the advanced passenger air bag system.
The basic requirements for proper operation, including an
explanation of the occupant actions that may affect the proper
functioning of the system.
A complete description of any passenger air bag
suppression system installed in the vehicle including a discussion of
the suppression zone and a discussion of the telltale light on the
instrument panel, explaining that the light is only illuminated when
the advanced passenger air bag system is suppressed, is not illuminated
when the advanced passenger air bag system is activated, and informing
the vehicle owner of the method used to indicate that the air bag
suppression system is not operating properly.
An explanation of the interaction of the advanced
passenger air bag system with other vehicle components, such as seat
belts, seats or other components.
A summary of the expected outcomes when child restraint
systems, children and small teenagers or adults are both properly and
improperly positioned in the vehicle, including cautionary advice
against improper placement of child restraint systems.
Tips and guidelines to improve consumer understanding of
the proper use of the advanced passenger air bag system.
Information on how to contact the vehicle manufacturer
concerning modifications for persons with disabilities that may affect
the advanced air bag system.
G. Miscellaneous Issues
1. Selection of Child Restraints
As discussed earlier in this notice, in order to reduce testing
costs, we are proposing to require manufacturers to assure compliance
with tests to minimize the risks from air bags to infants and young
children using any child restraint on a specified list of
representative child restraints. In developing the proposed list of
representative child restraints, we attempted to select seats that are
[[Page 60594]]
produced by various manufacturers while limiting the overall number of
restraints. The list was derived from a much more comprehensive list of
restraints to be purchased by NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance for use in the agency's FY 2000 compliance test program.
We believe the more comprehensive list represents the majority of
child restraints currently on the market. That list was reduced, in
part, by eliminating similar restraint systems, e.g., restraints that
are sold as different models but which we believe provide the same
footprint. For example, a particular restraint may come with both a T-
shield and a five-point harness system. We do not believe it would be
necessary to test a suppression system using both restraints, since the
difference between the two models is the type of system used to
restrain the child and not the basic design of the seat. We further
shortened the comprehensive list by eliminating restraints produced by
a manufacturer who was already represented at least once within the
particular class of child restraints. Other restraints, like the car
bed, are the only one of their type and were placed on the list for
that reason.
We have tentatively decided to add the list of child restraints as
an appendix to the proposed regulatory text. However, we plan to
propose updating the list from time to time (with appropriate lead
time). Of particular concern is the introduction of child restraints
that will be developed to comply with the agency's recently issued rule
on uniform child restraint anchorages.
2. Due Care Provision
Since March 1986, Standard No. 208 has included as part of its
various crash test requirements a provision stating that ``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.'' In adding this provision, the agency
cited the complexity of the Standard No. 208 test and stated that,
because of this complexity, it believed that manufacturers needed
assurance from the agency that, if they have made a good faith effort
in designing their vehicles and have instituted adequate quality
control measures, they will not face the recall of their vehicles
because of an isolated apparent failure to meet one of the injury
criteria.
In the September 1998 NPRM, we did not propose to extend the ``due
care provision'' to the various new proposed test requirements. Vehicle
manufacturers commented that there may be greater variability
associated with the new proposed test requirements than the old ones
and that the ``due care provision'' is needed more than ever.
In addressing this issue, we note that the ``due care provision''
is unique to Standard No. 208. The provision was initially adopted as
part of the 1984 rulemaking requiring automatic protection, and was
then extended as the various crash test requirements were extended. We
did not, however, adopt a ``due care provision'' for the subsequent
crash or other dynamic tests in other standards, such as Standards No.
201 or 214.
As a general matter, we disfavor including a ``due care provision''
in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. There are several
reasons for this.
First, the inclusion of such a provision in a safety standard does
not fit very well with the overall statutory scheme. Safety standards
are required to be objective. To the extent the question of whether a
manufacturer exercised due care becomes a compliance issue, a measure
of subjectivity is introduced into the standard. Also, the Safety Act
itself includes a different ``due care provision.'' While the statutory
due care defense can relieve a manufacturer of paying civil penalties
for failure to comply with a safety standard, it does not relieve the
manufacturer of recalling non-complying vehicles.
Second, we do not believe there is an intrinsic need for a ``due
care provision.'' Nothing in the history of Standard No. 208 compliance
activities since 1984 indicates there is a need for such a provision.
We also note, with respect to enforcement, that we have consistently
taken the position that we will not require a manufacturer to recall
large numbers of vehicles merely because of an isolated test failure,
where there is evidence that other tested units have met the standard's
performance requirements and there is no indication of the absence of
adequate quality control procedures.
Notwithstanding the fact that we generally disfavor including a
``due care provision'' in a safety standard, we also recognize that
Standard No. 208 has included such a provision as part of its crash
test requirements for the past 13 years. Recognizing that this
rulemaking for advanced air bags will require manufacturers to certify
their vehicles to a significantly greater number of test requirements
in a limited amount of time, we do not believe that now is an
appropriate time to delete this provision.
Accordingly, for this SNPRM, we are proposing to maintain the same
``due care provision'' for the new crash test requirements as for the
existing ones. However, we are not proposing to apply the provision to
test requirements that do not involve crashes, as these tests are not
affected by the variability associated with dynamically induced dummy
movement and/or vehicle deformation.
3. Selection of Options
In the NPRM, we proposed to require that where manufacturer options
are specified, the manufacturer must select the option by the time it
certifies the vehicle and may not thereafter select a different option
for the vehicle. This would mean that failure to comply with the
selected option would constitute a noncompliance with the standard (as
well as a violation of the certification requirement), regardless of
whether a vehicle complies with another option. We noted situations in
the past where vehicle manufacturers have advised us that they had
selected one compliance option, but then sought to change the option
after being confronted with an apparent test failure.
Vehicle manufacturers objected to this proposed requirement. AAMA
stated that the proposed requirement would not meet the need for motor
vehicle safety, since both options meet the need for motor vehicle
safety.
For this SNPRM, we are not changing this part of our proposal,
except to add a provision clarifying that upon request, manufacturers
will be required to advise the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance
(OVSC) of particular compliance options selected for a given vehicle or
vehicle model. We note that this issue has arisen in the context of
several recent and ongoing rulemakings, and we are continuing to review
the various comments and other submissions from manufacturers
concerning this issue.
4. Relationship of the Proposed New Injury Criteria to Existing Test
Requirements
In this SNPRM, we are proposing a number of new and/or modified
injury criteria and performance limits for vehicles certified to the
requirements for advanced air bags. Some of these injury criteria and
performance limits would apply to new tests, and some would apply to
existing tests that are being retained in Standard No. 208.
We are not proposing to change the injury criteria for vehicles not
certified to the requirements for advanced air bags. As a general
matter, vehicles produced between the time the final rule becomes
effective and the time the phase-in is complete will be required to
[[Page 60595]]
comply with and be certified to the current requirements and current
injury criteria or to the requirements for advanced air bags and new
injury criteria; there will be no opportunity to mix and match.
We believe it would be unnecessary and potentially
counterproductive to apply the new injury criteria or performance
limits to vehicles produced in the next several years which are not
certified to all of the requirements for advanced air bags. It is our
intention that the vehicle manufacturers focus their attention on
designing vehicles that comply with the new requirements for advanced
air bags, consistent with the phase-in period, rather than attempting
in the short term to modify and/or recertify existing vehicles to meet
new injury criteria.
We also do not believe it would be a good use of our resources to
conduct the analyses that would be needed to reevaluate what injury
criteria and limits should apply to what test requirements for vehicles
not yet redesigned to meet the requirements for advanced air bags. We
note that injury criteria cannot be viewed in isolation. They apply
both in the context of individual tests and in the context of arrays of
tests. If the tests are more (or less) severe, the appropriate criteria
may be less (or more) severe. There may be no direct relationship
between the two.
As a possible exception to requiring vehicles produced between the
time the final rule becomes effective and the time the phase-in is
complete to comply with and be certified to the current requirements
and current injury criteria or to the requirements for advanced air
bags and new injury criteria, we request comments on whether we should
permit manufacturers to immediately certify their vehicles to whatever
set of unbelted crash test requirements applicable to 50th percentile
adult male dummies is adopted for the final rule, as an alternative to
the currently available sled test or unbelted up-to-48 km/h (30 mph)
rigid barrier test. As discussed earlier in this document, we believe
the sled test has significant limitations as compared to a crash test.
Therefore, to the extent vehicle manufacturers wished to immediately
design and certify vehicles to whatever set of unbelted crash test
requirements is included in the final rule, there could be safety
benefits.
5. Time Parameters for Measuring Injury Criteria During Tests
We have decided to propose specific end points for measuring injury
criteria in both crash tests and low-risk deployment tests in order to
resolve any uncertainty on the part of vehicle manufacturers and NHTSA
as to when the measured injury criteria are relevant.
In dynamic crash tests, we historically have not measured injury
criteria more than 300 milliseconds after the vehicle impacts the
barrier. In our experience, additional measurement is unnecessary.
Accordingly, we are proposing a 300 millisecond time duration for the
dynamic crash tests.
The low risk deployment tests, which do not involve a complete
vehicle crash and are intended only to address the potential adverse
effects of an air bag, would not require as long a period of time to
measure potential injuries. Accordingly, we are proposing injury
measurements up to 100 milliseconds after the air bag deploys.
Regardless of the time frame used to measure other injury criteria,
all dummies would continue to be required to remain fully contained
within the test vehicle until physically removed by a technician.
6. Cruise Controls
In the NPRM, we asked about possible requirements for turning the
cruise controls off when the air bag deploys. We were concerned that
the cruise control, if not deactivated, would continue to provide power
to the vehicle. This could lead to a runaway condition. Responding auto
manufacturers (DaimlerChrysler, General Motors, Ford, Isuzu and the
AIAM) saw no justification in turning off the cruise controls when the
air bag deploys. Several commenters (JCW Consulting and Parents for
Safer Air Bags) supported a requirement for deactivating cruise
controls during a crash.
We are concerned that cruise controls could create a safety problem
if they continue to operate after air bag deployment. No manufacturer
provided information that its vehicles would not continue to operate on
cruise control after a crash for which the air bags deployed. Nor did
any indicate that it would be impracticable, or even difficult, to
implement an automatic air bag shut-off system. Accordingly, we have
decided to propose that cruise controls be deactivated when any stage
of an air bag system is deployed. We have included a brief procedure to
test whether this requirement is met.
7. Rescue Operations
In the NPRM, we also raised the possibility of adding requirements
to prevent air bag deployments during rescue operations following a
crash. We are aware of scattered reports of air bag deployments that
take place after rescue personnel or ``first responders'' begin rescue
operations. Many of the responding auto manufacturers (DaimlerChrysler,
General Motors, Ford, VW, Toyota and AIAM) saw no justification in
going forward with rescue provisions, believing that deactivation time
requirements may limit design freedom. However, General Motors pointed
out that rescue personnel frequently work under conditions so adverse
as to preclude easy ``look-up'' of the information they need to know
about deactivation times for a given model and MY of vehicle in any
published rescue guideline. The National Transportation Safety Board
stated that some universal method of deactivation should be
incorporated into air bags to neutralize any potential danger for
rescuers.
We believe that a standardized air bag deactivation time would
eliminate confusion and unnecessary delays during rescue work. As
stated in our recent publication titled ``Rescue Procedures for Air
Bag-equipped Vehicles,'' the air bags in most vehicles are deactivated
within a minute or less after battery power is disconnected. We believe
that deactivation times are generally decreasing and that a one minute
``keep alive'' period is adequate for deployment requirements.
Accordingly, we are proposing to require that all air bags become
deactivated after a maximum one-minute ``keep alive'' period has
elapsed after the vehicle battery power is disconnected. Again, we have
included a brief procedure to test whether this requirement is met.
8. Assessing Lower Extremity Injury Potential in Offset Deformable
Crash Tests
In the discussion about possible adoption of a 48 to 56 km/h (30 to
35 mph) unbelted offset deformable barrier crash test, we note that the
test would have greater potential to produce benefits related to injury
from intrusion. This would include addressing injuries sustained by
lower extremities, such as ankle/foot, tibia, knees, femurs, and the
pelvis bone. This type of injury can result in life-long disability.
Crash data indicate a higher prevalence of lower extremity injuries
in offset frontal collisions than in fully distributed frontal impacts.
Lower extremity injuries occur at higher frequency at lower offset
collision speeds than at comparable distributed collisions,
particularly if floor pan intrusion is involved. Analysis of hospital
data involving 42 front seat occupants who sustained below-the-
[[Page 60596]]
knee lower limb injuries in frontal crashes showed that the foot ankle-
complex accounted for nearly two thirds of all lower extremity trauma.
This study indicated that direct foot contact with vehicle interior was
the major injury mechanism (approximately 70%) while inversion-eversion
and dorsiflexion made up the rest of the trauma. Since lower extremity
injuries occur frequently, are disabling, and involve large medical
costs, vehicle modifications to create a more crashworthy environment
for the lower extremities would be an effective means to reduce the
incidence and severity of these injuries.
To assess the likelihood of lower limb injuries in an offset
deformable barrier crash test, it would be necessary to modify the
existing and proposed Part 572 dummies to add instrumentation to the
lower limbs. Currently, none of the Part 572 dummies incorporate
instrumentation for measured assessment of potential tibia and ankle-
foot injuries. However, two instrumented lower limb designs are
available for installation on Hybrid III dummies. Denton, Inc. has been
selling since the mid-1980's an instrumented tibia for the 50th
percentile adult male dummy to assess tibia injury potential primarily
due to axial loading. This tibia is a direct replacement for the
regular Part 572 Subpart E non-instrumented tibia. The other design,
still at the experimental-prototype stage is the THOR-LX being
developed under our direction by General Engineering Systems Analysis
Company (GESAC) and Applied Safety Technologies Corporation (ASTC). The
THOR-LX includes tibia and an ankle foot complex with extensive
instrumentation.
In October 1998, Denton, Inc., announced commercial availability of
a 12 channel instrumented tibia for the 5th percentile adult female
Hybrid III dummy which can also be used as a direct replacement for the
proposed Subpart O dummy's tibia. The Denton-design tibias are covered
by Denton patents and to the best of our knowledge Denton is its sole
manufacturer and supplier. While the automotive manufacturers have used
the Denton tibia for the assessment of injuries based on the tibia
index, some researchers have criticized this design for its unusual
geometry, which could induce measurement errors. As a result, the tibia
index has been considered to be a questionable injury assessment
parameter. See ESU paper 98-37-0-11, SAE paper 962424 and SAE paper
973301. We have performed limited evaluation of the 50th percentile
adult male Denton tibia and found no significant problems in its use
for tibia index measurement at the laboratory level, but have little
experience in its application on dummies in vehicle crash tests.
Inasmuch as the 5th percentile adult female instrumented Denton
tibia has been commercially available for less than a year, we have
neither laboratory nor vehicle experience to determine its utility and
practicality when used as part of the Subpart O dummy for lower limb
injury assessment purposes.
The prototype THOR-LX for the 50th percentile adult male Hybrid III
dummy has extensive biomechanical benchmarking incorporating a number
of humanlike features, and is capable of assessing the potential of
tibia, ankle and foot injuries with an extensive array of sensors. The
THOR-LX has had limited application in sled tests and vehicle crash
tests both at NHTSA and at several vehicle manufacturers.
Completion of certification of prototype THOR-LX is currently
expected by November 1, 1999. Extensive subsequent tests will be
required to establish the repeatability and reproducibility of its
commercial version in laboratory and vehicle tests, the consistency and
utility of the measurements relative to the injury assessment potential
and its merits in comparison to the Denton design.
The design of THOR-LX for the 5th percentile adult female dummy is
still to be completed, prototypes built, and evaluated. Earliest
estimated availability of THOR-LX prototypes for the 5th percentile
adult female Hybrid III dummy is in late spring of 2000. Inasmuch as
the design of the THOR-LX has been sponsored by the government, its
availability for manufacturing will be free of any restrictions.
Injury assessment reference values (IARVs) for the Denton type
design have been established and published in several technical
documents. The IARVs, as published in proceedings of the Advisory Group
for Aerospace Research and Development (AGARD), specify for the 5th
percentile adult female dummy's tibia an axial compression limit of
5104 N (1,147 pounds), and a Tibia Index of 1 for which the critical
bending moment is 115 N-m (1,018 lbfin.) and critical compression force
at 22.9 kN (5,148 pounds).
IARVs for the THOR-LX are still to be developed. There is a
considerable amount of biomechanics literature to provide a basis for
setting of appropriate IARVs, but their interpretation for and
applicability to the THOR-LX for injury assessment purposes is still to
be done.
As indicated above, a potential significant advantage to adopting a
48 to 56 km/h (30 to 35 mph) unbelted offset deformable barrier crash
test would be the benefits associated with reducing the number and
severity of lower limb injuries. Recognizing the possibility of
adopting this test, we request comments on how we should proceed in
upgrading the 5th percentile adult female and 50th percentile adult
male dummies so that they are capable of measuring lower limb injury
potential, and in selecting/developing appropriate injury criteria.
9. Hybrid III Dummy Neck
There have been crash test situations where the agency has observed
high neck moments being generated at the upper load cell of the Hybrid
III dummy within 20 milliseconds of the initiation of large neck shear
loads without observing substantial angular deformation of the dummy
neck. While we believe that these are true loads being generated by the
restraint system and not artifacts of an inappropriately designed neck
transducer, we are uncertain whether this loading condition is
biomechanically realistic. That is, the current Hybrid III neck
exhibits considerable bending resistance (i.e., inflexibility) at its
occipital condyle joint. The inflexibility may allow large moments to
be transmitted to the neck by the head without much relative motion.
This, in turn, can create a situation in which the angular deflection
due to the applied moment is opposed and even sometimes nullified by
the superimposed angular deflection induced by the neck's shear force.
Thus, high moments can be produced with little observable rotational
deformation of the neck. In contrast to this, the human occipital
condyle joint appears to have considerable laxity which requires it to
experience significant rotation ( 20 degrees of the head
with respect to C1) before it can sustain a substantial moment across
it. This would suggest that rapid, high moments generated on a dummy
without any concomitant head/neck rotation are possibly an artifact of
Hybrid III's neck design and not necessarily a real load that
contribute to the potential for neck injury.
We seek comment on whether anyone else using the Hybrid III dummy
has experienced this rapidly produced high moment/low angular
deflection condition, whether they agree or disagree with our analysis
of the mechanics and possible consequences of the situation, and
whether they have any biomechanical data supporting either maintaining
the current neck design or justifying its modification.
[[Page 60597]]
We note that it would not be possible to modify in any significant
way the current neck design within the time frame of this rulemaking,
i.e., before the March 1, 2000 deadline for a final rule. Moreover, we
believe that dummies with the current neck are adequate for measuring
risk of neck injury in the proposed tests. To the extent that
commenters advocate modifying the neck, we ask them to address how
dummies with the current neck should be used in the final rule to
measure risk of neck injury.
There is another technical issue related to the Hybrid III dummy
neck for which we are seeking public comment. On the selection of data
channel, SAE J 211, paragraph 5, states ``that selection of frequency
response class is dependent upon many considerations, some of which may
be unique to a particular test.'' Further, SAE J211 notes that ``(t)he
channel class recommendations for a particular application should not
be considered to imply that all the frequencies passed by that channel
are significant for the application.'' In the case of head-to-air bag
interaction, the agency observed that the specified channel frequency
class (CFC) for the neck at 1,000 for force and 600 for the bending
moment admits neck data that has spikes of very short duration that may
not be appropriate for evaluating the potential for neck injury to the
human. Preliminary evidence indicates that the human neck response
under similar impact would respond with considerably lower frequency
response class data, which implies that the neck response data when
processed for injury assessment should be filtered to a lower CFC level
than suggested by SAE J211. Accordingly, the agency seeks comments on
an appropriate CFC for evaluating data from neck load cells for injury
assessment purposes and whether that CFC should depend on the impact
environment (e.g., vehicle crash tests, out-of-position tests, etc.)
H. Relationship Between the NPRM, Comments on the NPRM and This SNPRM
In developing this SNPRM, we have carefully considered all of the
comments received in response to the NPRM. Moreover, as discussed
throughout this document, we have made many changes in our proposal in
response to the public comments.
Because our SNPRM differs significantly in many aspects from the
NPRM, we do not contemplate any further consideration of the comments
on the NPRM in developing the final rule. If any persons believe that
we did not adequately consider particular issues raised in comments on
the NPRM, they should raise those issues again in commenting on the
SNPRM. Moreover, they should not merely cite the old comments, but
should explain why they believe the issues remain valid in the context
of the SNPRM.
IV. Costs and Benefits
We are placing in the docket a revised Preliminary Economic
Assessment (PEA) to accompany this SNPRM. The PEA analyzes the
potential impact of the proposed performance requirements and
associated test procedures for advanced air bag systems. A summary of
the PEA follows. We request comments on the analyses and estimates of
costs and benefits presented in that document.
Benefits
The assessment provides analyses of the safety benefits from tests
that reduce the risk of injury from air bags in low-speed crashes, as
well as from tests that improve the overall effectiveness of air bags
in high speed crashes. For out-of-position occupants that are at risk
of being injured by air bags, the agency estimates that out of 45 at-
risk drivers that would have been killed with pre-MY 1998 air bags, 21
to 39 would be saved with low-risk air bags for the driver side. The
agency also estimates that out of 136 passengers that would have been
killed with pre-MY 1998 air bags, 91 would be saved with weight sensors
and 122 to 132 would be saved with low-risk air bags. Of an estimated
37 drivers that would have an MAIS 3-5 injury, 20 to 33 could be
prevented by low-risk deployment air bags. Of an estimated 218
passengers that would receive MAIS 3-5 injuries, about 149 could be
prevented by a weight sensor and 168 to 202 could be prevented with a
low-risk deployment air bag.
The PEA also contains estimates of the benefits of incremental
improvements in safety compared to a baseline of pre-MY 1998 air bag
vehicles for each compliance scenario. These are calculated by taking
the available test data (based on vehicles designed to the 48 kmph (30
mph) unbelted test) and determining the benefits of bringing those test
scores that are above the proposed injury criteria performance levels
down to the level of the proposal in this SNPRM. This methodology
assumes that manufacturers would make as few changes as possible to
their fleet to meet the new proposals. Thus, it does not assume that
manufacturers might completely redesign their air bag fleet if the
final rule had a test for the high speed unbelted test other than the
48 kmph (30 mph) rigid barrier test. This analysis found that improved
safety from vehicles passing the high speed Alternative 1 proposals
would save 70 to 226 \26\ lives and prevent 342 to 691 MAIS 2-5
injuries. Combining the at-risk benefits and the high speed Alternative
1 benefits results in a range of benefits of 161 to 226 lives saved and
491 to 691 non-fatal MAIS 2-5 injuries prevented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Estimated benefits from at-risk groups and high speed tests
can not be added to get a total since there is an overlap in
benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A similar analysis was prepared for Alternative 2, however, there
are such limited data available that the impact is uncertain. To the
best of our knowledge, no vehicles have been designed to a 35-56 kmph
(22-35 mph) offset deformable barrier test. The analysis for
Alternative 2 uses test results from vehicles designed to meet a 30 mph
unbelted rigid barrier test. It is questionable whether this gives
appropriate results for the future benefits of such a test.
Another set of analyses compares the data available on redesigned
MY 1998/99 air bags compared to pre-MY 1998 air bags to examine how
well the redesigned bags are doing compared to their predecessors.
Based on the limited data available for analysis, redesigned MY 1998/99
air bags appear to have significantly reduced the fatality rate to out-
of-position occupants in low-speed crashes (less than 25 mph delta V)
to about 30 percent of the fatality rate of pre-MY 1998 air bags.
However, limited real-world data indicate no statistically significant
difference in overall fatality rates between the pre-MY 1998 and MY
1998/99 air bags. Most test data between matched pairs of air bag
vehicles show no difference for belted occupants and small differences
for unbelted occupants when comparing the pre-MY 1998 and MY 1998/99
air bags.
The agency also estimated the benefits of an unbelted 29 to 40 kmph
(18 to 25 mph) frontal rigid barrier test coupled with an increase in
the belted test from the current up to 48 kmph (30 mph) test to an up
to 56 kmph (35 mph) test. Assuming all vehicles air bags were designed
to only meet the unbelted 25 mph rigid barrier and oblique tests, an
estimated 214 to 397 lives saved by pre-MY 1998 air bags would not be
saved. Assuming minor changes to the seat belt and air bag systems of
these vehicles to meet the 56 kmph (35 mph) belted test, it is
estimated that 6 to 13 belted occupant's lives could be saved by
increasing the belted test speed to 56 kmph (35 mph). Overall, 201 to
391 lives saved by pre-MY 1998 air bags might not be saved by the 48
kmph (25
[[Page 60598]]
mph) unbelted/56 kmph (35 mph) belted option.
Sensitivity analyses are provided on increases in safety belt use
and the impact of using the MY 1998/99 air bags as a baseline for
determining benefits.
Sled Tests
NHTSA performed several analyses to estimate the impact of using
the sled test in place of the 30 mph barrier test. One analytical
approach assumed the possibility that air bags designed to the frontal
sled test would provide benefits in full frontal impacts (12 o'clock
strikes), but might provide no benefit in partial frontal impacts (10,
11, 1, and 2 o'clock strikes). This analysis estimates that if all
passenger and driver side air bags were changed to only provide
benefits in pure frontals, the only test mode in the sled test, there
could be as many as 245 lives that would not be saved by air bags every
year for unbelted occupants.
While the generic sled test has been part of FMVSS 208 since MY
1998, these vehicles were not designed from the start with only the
generic sled test as the unbelted test, but were redesigned from
vehicles originally designed to meet the pre-MY 1998 standards which
included a 48 kmph (30 mph) unbelted rigid barrier test. Another set of
analyses attempts to provide estimates of the potential loss in
benefits if all vehicles were designed to the minimum performance of
the generic sled test instead of a full vehicle barrier test in terms
of impact severity and speed. The agency estimates that the generic
sled test is equivalent to a barrier test of 22 to 25 mph in velocity.
The range of estimates are that 214 to 722 fewer fatalities could be
prevented if all vehicles were designed to the minimum requirements of
a sled test.
Costs
Potential compliance costs for this proposal vary considerably and
are dependent upon the method chosen by manufacturers to comply.
Methods such as modified fold patterns and inflator adjustments can be
accomplished for little or no cost. More sophisticated solutions such
as proximity sensors can increase costs significantly. The range of
potential costs for the compliance scenarios examined in this analysis
is $20-$127 per vehicle (1997 dollars). This amounts to a total
potential annual cost of up to $2 billion, based on 15.5 million
vehicle sales per year.
Property Damage Savings
Compliance methods that involve the use of suppression technology
have the potential to produce significant property damage cost savings
because they prevent air bags from deploying unnecessarily. This saves
repair costs to replace the passenger side air bag, and frequently to
replace windshields damaged by the air bag deployment. Property damage
savings from these requirements could total up to $85 over the lifetime
of an average vehicle. This amounts to a potential cost savings of
nearly $1.3 billion.
Net Cost Per Fatality Prevented
Based on the analysis which assumes manufacturers would make the
minimal amount of changes necessary to meet the proposals, net costs
per equivalent fatality prevented estimates were made. Property damage
savings have the potential to offset all, or nearly all of the cost of
meeting this proposal. The maximum range of cost per equivalent
fatality saved from the scenarios examined in this analysis is a net
savings of $1.3 million per equivalent fatality saved to a net cost of
$2.6 million per equivalent fatality saved.
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures. This rulemaking document is economically
significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' The rulemaking
action has also been determined to be significant under the
Department's regulatory policies and procedures. NHTSA is placing in
the public docket a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) describing
the costs and benefits of this rulemaking action. The costs and
benefits are summarized earlier in this document.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) We have prepared
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IFRA), which is part of the
PEA. The IFRA tentatively concludes that the proposal could affect a
substantial number of small businesses, but the economic impact on a
substantial number of small businesses need not be significant. Small
organizations and small governmental units would not be significantly
affected since the potential cost impacts associated with this proposed
action should only slightly affect the price of new motor vehicles.
The proposed rule would directly affect motor vehicle manufacturers
and indirectly affect air bag manufacturers, seating manufacturers and
dummy manufacturers.
For passenger car and light truck manufacturers, NHTSA estimates
that there are only about four small manufacturers in the United
States. These manufacturers serve a niche market, and the agency
believes that small manufacturers do not manufacture even 0.1 percent
of total U.S. passenger car and light truck production per year. The
agency notes that these manufacturers are already required to provide
air bags and certify compliance to Standard No. 208's dynamic impact
requirements. Since the proposal would add additional test requirements
for air bags, it would increase compliance costs for these, as well as
other, vehicle manufacturers.
The agency does not believe that there are any small air bag
manufacturers.
There are several manufacturers of dummies and/or dummy parts. All
of them are considered small businesses. While the proposed rule would
not impose any requirements on these manufacturers, it would be
expected to have a positive impact on these types of small businesses
by increasing demand for dummies.
NHTSA notes that several hundred final stage vehicle manufacturers
and alterers could also be affected by this proposal. These
manufacturers buy incomplete vehicles, add seating systems to vehicles
without seats, and replace existing seats with new ones. If a
manufacturer uses a sensing system in the seat for weight or presence
sensing, then the second-stage manufacturer or alterer may need to use
seats from the original manufacturer or will need to rely on a seat
manufacturer to provide the same technology. Otherwise the second-stage
manufacturer may need to use the existing seat or else certify
compliance with the standard after replacing the seats. We do not have
estimates of the costs to these manufacturers at this time. We request
those manufacturers to submit estimates as part of their comments on
this SNPRM.
NHTSA knows of 11 suppliers of seating systems that are small
businesses. There are about 10 suppliers of seating systems that are
not small businesses. The small businesses serve a niche market and
provide seats for less than two percent of vehicles. Depending on the
technology chosen to meet the proposed advanced air bag rule, these
suppliers will need to keep up with emerging technology.
[[Page 60599]]
The agency believes that the economic impact on many of the
manufacturers affected by this proposal would be small. While the small
vehicle manufacturers would face additional compliance costs, the
agency believes that air bag suppliers would likely provide much of the
engineering expertise necessary to meet the new requirements, thereby
helping to keep the overall impacts small. The agency also notes that,
in the unlikely event that a small vehicle manufacturer did face
substantial economic hardship, it could apply for a temporary exemption
for up to three years. See 49 CFR Part 555. It could subsequently apply
for a renewal of such an exemption. The greatest burden would likely be
borne by seating manufacturers who do not supply seats to anyone other
than second-stage manufacturers and alterers. Depending on the
technology employed by the vehicle manufacturers, these seating
manufacturers may need to engage in new business arrangements to permit
their seats to work with an existing sensing system. While the proposed
requirements would increase the demand for dummies, thereby having a
positive impact on dummy manufacturers, the agency does not believe
that such increased demand would be sufficient to create a significant
economic impact on the dummy manufacturers. The agency requests
comments concerning the economic impact on small vehicle manufacturers
and dummy manufacturers.
Additional information concerning the potential impacts of the
proposed requirements on small entities is presented in the PEA.
C. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this proposed amendment for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have
any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
D. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
The agency has analyzed this proposed amendment in accordance with
the principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 12612. NHTSA
has determined that the proposed amendment does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
E. Unfunded Mandates Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to
result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). These effects are
discussed above in Section IV of this preamble and in the PEA. The
preamble and the PEA also identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives for achieving the objectives of TEA 21. Given
the requirement that an agency issuing a final rule subject to the Act
select the ``least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule,'' we request
comments that will aid the agency in making that selection.
F. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
This proposed rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under
section 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety
standard is in effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety
standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not
identical to the Federal standard, except to the extent that the state
requirement imposes a higher level of performance and applies only to
vehicles procured for the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a
procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or
revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not
require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other
administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
If made final, this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
would include the following ``collections of information,'' as that
term is defined in 5 CFR Part 1320 Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the
Public:
Air Bag Phase-In Reporting Requirements--Once a year for four
years, manufacturers would be required to report to NHTSA their annual
production of vehicles with advanced air bags. As previously explained,
we have proposed a four year phase-in period that ends in 2005. The
Office of Management and Budget has approved NHTSA's collection of this
information, assigning the collection OMB clearance no. 2127-0599. If
this rule is made final, there would be 1,260 burden hours a year on
the public resulting from this collection.
Air Bag Warning Labels--New air bag warning labels are proposed in
this SNPRM. At present, OMB has approved NHTSA's collection of labeling
requirements under OMB clearance no. 2127-0512, Consolidated Labeling
Requirements for Motor Vehicles (Except the Vehicle Identification
Number). This clearance will expire on 6/30/2001, and is cleared for
71,095 burden hours on the public.
NHTSA estimates that the air bag warning labels would increase the
information burden on the public as follows. There are 24 motor vehicle
manufacturers that would be affected by the air bag warning label
requirement, and the labels would be placed on approximately 15,000,000
vehicles per year. The label would be placed on each vehicle once.
Since NHTSA would specify the exact content of the labels, the
manufacturers would spend 0 hours developing the labels. The technical
burden (time required for affixing labels) would be .0002 hours per
label. NHTSA estimates that the total annual burden imposed on the
public as a result of the air bag warning labels would be 3,000 hours
(15 million vehicles multiplied by .0002 hours per label). Since the
proposed labels would replace existing labels, this constitutes no
additional burden on manufacturers.
Another way of estimating the burden associated with the labels is
to assess the non-time related burden, i.e., the costs. The agency
requests comments on the costs associated with labeling.
Advanced Air Bag Information in the Owner's Manual--This rulemaking
would require advanced air bag information in the owner's manual that
is additional to the information already required under the standard.
At present, OMB has approved NHTSA's collection of owner's manual
requirements under OMB clearance no. 2127-0541 Consolidated
Justification of Owner's Manual Requirements for Motor Vehicles and
Motor Vehicle Equipment. This collection includes the burdens that
would be imposed as a result of owners' manual information about air
bags. This clearance will expire on 10/31/2001 and is cleared for 1,371
burden hours on the public.
Public comment is sought on NHTSA's estimate of the additional
burden imposed on the public by the air bag warning label and whether
the SNPRM would impose ``collections of information'' in addition to
that for which NHTSA has already obtained clearances from OMB.
H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each
[[Page 60600]]
year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of
this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
I. Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1,
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language.
Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration
of the following questions:
--Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
--Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
--What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this SNPRM.
J. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by us.
This rulemaking directly involves decisions based on health risks
that disproportionately affect children, namely, the risk of deploying
air bags to children. However, this rulemaking serves to reduce, rather
than increase, that risk.
K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary
consensus standards \27\ in its regulatory activities unless doing so
would be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory
provisions regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise
impractical. In meeting that requirement, we are required to consult
with voluntary, private sector, consensus standards bodies. Examples of
organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards
bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM),
the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available and
potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are required
by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of the
reasons for not using such standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
Technical standards are defined by the NTTAA as ``performance-based
or design-specific technical specifications and related management
systems practices.'' They pertain to ``products and processes, such
as size, strength, or technical performance of a product, process or
material.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have incorporated the out-of-position tests one and two
developed by the International Standards Organization (ISO) as part of
the proposed low-risk deployment tests for the out-of-position 5th
percentile adult female on the driver-side air bag and for the 6-year-
old child on the passenger-side air bag. No other voluntary consensus
standards are addressed by this rulemaking.
VI. Submission of Comments
How Can I Influence NHTSA's Thinking on This Proposed Rule?
In developing this SNPRM, we tried to address the concerns of all
our stakeholders. Your comments will help us improve this rule. We
invite you to provide different views on options we propose, new
approaches we have not considered, new data, how this proposed rule may
affect you, or other relevant information. We welcome your views on all
aspects of this proposed rule, but request comments on specific issues
throughout this document. We grouped these specific requests near the
end of the sections in which we discuss the relevant issues. Your
comments will be most effective if you follow the suggestions below:
Explain your views and reasoning as clearly as possible.
Provide solid technical and cost data to support your
views.
If you estimate potential costs, explain how you arrived
at the estimate.
Tell us which parts of the SNPRM you support, as well as
those with which you disagree.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
Offer specific alternatives.
Refer your comments to specific sections of the SNPRM,
such as the units or page numbers of the preamble, or the regulatory
sections.
Be sure to include the name, date, and docket number with
your comments.
How do I Prepare and Submit Comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
ADDRESSES.
In addition, for those comments of 4 or more pages in length, we
request that you send 10 additional copies, as well as one copy on
computer disc, to: Mr. Clarke Harper, Chief, Light Duty Vehicle
Division, NPS-11, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. We emphasize that this is not
a requirement. However, we ask that you do this to aid us in expediting
our review of all comments. The copy on computer disc may be in any
format, although we would prefer that it be in WordPerfect 8.
Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by
logging onto the Dockets Management System website at http://
dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain
instructions for filing the document electronically.
How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How Do I Submit 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
[[Page 60601]]
information you claim to be confidential business information, to the
Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above 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 under ADDRESSES. When
you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential
business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in our confidential business information
regulation. (49 CFR Part 512.)
Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in
developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider
that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are
indicated above in the same location.
You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments
on the Internet, take the following steps:
(1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
(2) On that page, click on ``search.''
(3) On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the
four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document.
Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type
``1234.'' After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
(4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may
download the comments.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 552
Administrative practice and procedure, Motor vehicle safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Tires.
49 CFR Part 585
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 595
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
Chapter V as follows:
PART 552--PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING, DEFECT, AND NON-COMPLIANCE
ORDERS
1. The authority citation for Part 552 of Title 49 would continue
to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30111, 30118, and 30162; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Sec. 552.1 through 552.10 [Redesignated as Subpart A]
2. Sections 552.1 through 552.10 would be designated as Subpart A
and a new subpart heading would be added to read as follows:
Subpart A--General
3. A new subpart B would be added to Part 552 to read as follows:
Subpart B--Petitions for Expedited Rulemaking To Establish Dynamic
Automatic Suppression System Test Procedures for Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection
Sec.
552.11 Application.
552.12 Definitions.
552.13 Form of petition.
552.14 Content of petition.
552.15 Processing of petition.
Subpart B--Petitions for Expedited Rulemaking To Establish Dynamic
Automatic Suppression System Test Procedures for Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection
Sec. 552.11 Application.
This subpart establishes procedures for the submission and
disposition of petitions filed by interested parties to initiate
rulemaking to add a test procedure to 49 CFR 571.208, S28.
Sec. 552.12 Definitions.
For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions apply:
(a) Dynamic automatic suppression system (DASS) means a portion of
an air bag system that automatically controls whether or not the air
bag deploys during a crash by:
(1) Sensing the location of an occupant, moving or still, in
relation to the air bag;
(2) Interpreting the occupant characteristics and location
information to determine whether or not the air bag should deploy; and
(3) Activating or suppressing the air bag system based on the
interpretation of characteristics and occupant location information.
(b) Automatic suppression zone or ASZ means a three-dimensional
zone adjacent to the air bag cover, specified by the vehicle
manufacturer, where air bag deployment will be suppressed by the DASS
if a vehicle occupant enters the zone under specified conditions.
(c) Standard No. 208 means 49 CFR 571.208.
Sec. 552.13 Form of petition.
Each petition filed under this subpart shall--
(a) Be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590.
(b) Be written in the English language.
(c) State the name and address of the petitioner.
(d) Set forth in full the data, views and arguments of the
petitioner supporting the requested test procedure, including all of
the content information specified by Sec. 552.14. Any documents
incorporated by reference in the procedure must be submitted with the
petition.
(e) Specify and segregate any part of the information and data
submitted that the petitioner wishes to have withheld from public
disclosure in accordance with Part 512 of this chapter.
(f) Not request confidential treatment for any aspect of the
requested test procedure and, to the extent confidential treatment is
requested concerning a particular DASS or data and analysis submitted
in support of the petition, provide a general non-confidential
description of the operation of the DASS and of the data and analysis
supporting the petition.
(g) Set forth a requested effective date and be submitted at least
nine months before that date.
[[Page 60602]]
Sec. 552.14 Content of petition.
The petitioner shall provide the following information:
(a) A set of proposed test procedures for S28.1, S28.2, S28.3, and
S28.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 which the
petitioner believes are appropriate for assessing a particular dynamic
automatic suppression system.
(1) For S28.1 of Standard No. 208, the petitioner shall specify at
least one specific position for the Part 572, subpart O 5th percentile
female dummy that is:
(i) Outside but adjacent to the ASZ, and
(ii) Representative of an occupant position that is likely to occur
during a frontal crash.
(2) For S28.2 of Standard No. 208, the petitioner shall specify at
least one specific position for the Part 572 Subpart P 3-year-old child
dummy and at least one specific position for the Part 572 Subpart N 6-
year-old child dummy that are:
(i) Outside but adjacent to the ASZ, and
(ii) Representative of occupant positions that are likely to occur
during a frontal crash where pre-crash braking occurs.
(3) For S28.3 of Standard No. 208, the petitioner shall specify a
procedure which tests the operation of the DASS by moving a test device
toward the driver air bag in a manner that simulates the motion of an
occupant during pre-crash braking or other pre-crash maneuver. The
petitioner shall include a complete description, including drawings and
instrumentation, of the test device employed in the proposed test. The
petitioner shall include in the procedure a means for determining
whether the driver air bag was suppressed before any portion of the
specified test device entered the ASZ during the test. The procedure
must also include a means of determining when the specified test device
occupies the ASZ.
(4) For S28.4 of Standard No. 208, the petitioner shall specify a
procedure which tests the operation of the DASS by moving a test device
toward the passenger air bag in a manner that simulates the motion of
an occupant during pre-crash braking or other pre-crash maneuver. The
petitioner shall include a complete description, including drawings and
instrumentation, of the test device employed in the proposed test. The
petitioner shall include in the procedure a means for determining
whether the passenger air bag was suppressed before any portion of the
specified test device entered the ASZ during the test. The procedure
must also include a means of determining when the specified test device
occupies the ASZ.
(b) A complete description and explanation of the particular DASS
that the petitioner believes will be appropriately assessed by the
recommended test procedures. This must include:
(1) A complete description of the logic used by the DASS in
determining whether to suppress the air bag or allow it to deploy. Such
description must include flow charts or similar materials outlining the
operation of the system logic, the system reaction time, the time
duration used to evaluate whether the air bag should be suppressed or
deployed, changes, if any, in system performance based on the size of
an occupant and vehicle speed, and a description of the size and shape
of the zone where under similar circumstances and conditions the DASS
may either allow or suppress deployment. Such description shall also
address whether and how the DASS discriminates between an occupant's
torso or head entering the ASZ as compared to an occupant's hand or
arm, and whether and how the DASS discriminates between an occupant
entering the ASZ and an inanimate object such as a newspaper or ball
entering the ASZ.
(2) Detailed specifications for the size and shape of the ASZ,
including whether the suppression zone is designed to change size or
shape depending on the vehicle speed, occupant size, or other factors.
(c) Analysis and data supporting the appropriateness,
repeatability, reproducibility and practicability of each of the
proposed test procedures.
(1) For the procedures proposed for inclusion in S28.1 and S28.2 of
Standard No. 208, the petitioner shall provide the basis for the
proposed dummy positions, including but not limited to, why the
positions are representative of what is likely to occur in real world
crashes.
(2) For the procedures proposed for inclusion in S28.3 and S28.4 of
Standard No. 208, the petitioner shall provide:
(i) A complete explanation of the means used in the proposed test
to ascertain whether the air bag is suppressed or activated during the
test.
(ii) A complete description of the means used to evaluate the
ability of a dynamic system to detect and respond to an occupant moving
toward an air bag, including the method used to move a test device
toward an air bag at speeds representative of occupant movement during
pre-crash braking or other pre-crash maneuver.
(iii) The procedure used for locating the test device inside a test
vehicle in preparation for testing, including an accounting of the
reference points used to specify such location.
(iv) An explanation of the methods used to measure the amount of
time needed by a suppression system to suppress an air bag once a
suppression triggering event occurs.
(v) High speed film or video of at least two tests of the DASS
using the proposed test procedure.
(vi) Data generated from not less than two tests of the DASS using
the proposed test procedure, including an account of the data streams
monitored during testing and complete samples of these data streams
from not less than two tests performed under the proposed procedure.
(d) Analysis concerning the variety of potential DASS designs for
which the requested test procedure is appropriate; e.g., whether the
test procedures are appropriate only for the specific DASS design
contemplated by the petitioner, for all DASS designs incorporating the
same technologies, or for all DASS designs.
Sec. 552.15 Processing of petition.
(a) NHTSA will process any petition that contains the information
specified by this subpart. If a petition fails to provide any of the
information, NHTSA will not process the petition but will advise the
petitioner of the information that must be provided if the agency is to
process the petition. The agency will seek to notify the petitioner of
any such deficiency within 30 days after receipt of the petition.
(b) At any time during the agency's consideration of a petition
submitted under this part, the Administrator may request the petitioner
to provide additional supporting information and data and/or provide a
demonstration of any of the requested test procedures. The agency will
seek to make any such request within 60 days after receipt of the
petition. Such demonstration may be at either an agency designated
facility or one chosen by the petitioner, provided that, in either
case, the facility must be located in North America. If such a request
is not honored to the satisfaction of the agency, the petition will not
receive further consideration until the requested information is
submitted.
(c) The agency will publish in the Federal Register either a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking proposing adoption of the requested test
procedures, possibly with changes and/or additions, or a notice denying
the petition. The agency will seek to issue
[[Page 60603]]
either notice within 120 days after receipt of a complete petition.
However, this time period may be extended by any time period during
which the agency is awaiting additional information it requests from
the petitioner or is awaiting a requested demonstration. The agency
contemplates a 30 day comment period for any Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, and will endeavor to issue a final rule within 60 days
thereafter.
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
4. The authority citation for Part 571 of Title 49 would continue
to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
5. Section 571.208 would be amended by revising S3, S4.5.1 heading,
S4.5.1(b)(1), S4.5.1(b)(2), 4.5.1(e), S4.5.1(f), S4.5.4, S5.1, S5.1.1,
S5.1.2, S6.1, S6.2, 6.4, S8.1.5 and S13, removing S4.5.5, adding
S4.1.5.4, S4.2.6.3, S4.7, S4.8, S4.9, S5.4, S5.4.1, S5.4.2, S5.4.2.1,
S5.4.2.2, S5.4.2.3, S5.4.2.4, S6.6, S6.7, S14 through S33.5, and adding
new figures 8, 9 and 10 in numerical order and adding Appendix A at the
end of the section after the figures to read as follows:
Sec. 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant crash protection.
[Proposed high speed test Alternative 1--unbelted rigid barrier
(29-48 km/h) (18-30 mph), belted rigid barrier (0-48 km/h) (0-30 mph)--
consists of proposed sections S5.1.1, S5.1.2, S6.1, S6.2(b), S6.3,
S6.4(b), S6.5, S6.6, S6.7, S14.3, S15.1, S15.2, S15.3, S15.4, S16.1(a),
S16.1(b), S16.2, S16.3, S17.1, and S18. It does not include S5.4 or
S17.2, i.e., if Alternative 1 were adopted, neither S5.4 nor S17.2
would be adopted. Proposed high speed test Alternative 2--unbelted
offset deformable barrier (35-56 km/h) (22-35 mph), belted rigid
barrier(0-48 km/h) (0-30 mph)--consists of proposed sections S5.1.1,
S5.4, S6.1, S6.2(b), S6.3, S6.4(b), S6.5, S6.6, S6.7, S14.3, S15.1,
S15.3, S15.4, S16.1(a), S16.2, S16.3, S17.1, S17.2, and S18. It does
not include S5.1.2, S15.2, or S16.1(b), i.e., if Alternative 2 were
adopted, neither S5.1.2 nor S15.2 nor S16.1(b) would be adopted.]
* * * * *
S3. Application.
(a) This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks, 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.
(b) Notwithstanding any language to the contrary, any vehicle
manufactured after March 19, 1997 and before September 1, 2005 that is
subject to a dynamic crash test requirement conducted with unbelted
dummies may meet the requirements specified in S13 instead of the
applicable unbelted requirement, unless the vehicle is certified to
meet the requirements specified in S14.3, S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, S25,
S30, and S32.
(c) For vehicles which are certified to meet the requirements
specified in S13 instead of the otherwise applicable dynamic crash test
requirement conducted with unbelted dummies, compliance with S13 shall,
for purposes of Standards No. 201, 203 and 209, be deemed as compliance
with the unbelted frontal barrier requirements of S5.1.
* * * * *
S4.1.5.4 Passenger cars certified to S14. At each front outboard
designated seating position meet the frontal crash protection
requirements of S5.1.2 [under Alternative 1] [or] S5.4 [under
Alternative 2] by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. 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.
* * * * *
S4.2.6.3 Trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a
GVWR of 3,855 kg (8,500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight
of 2,495 kg (5,500 pounds) or less certified to S14. Each truck, bus,
or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8,500
pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5,500
pounds) or less certified to S14 shall, at each front outboard
designated seating position, meet the frontal crash protection
requirements of S5.1.2 [under Alternative 1] [or] S5.4 [under
Alternative 2] by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. 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.
* * * * *
S4.5.1 Labeling and owner's manual information.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Except as provided in S4.5.1(b)(2), each vehicle shall have a
label permanently affixed to either side of the sun visor, at the
manufacturer's option, at each front outboard seating position that is
equipped with an inflatable restraint. The label shall conform in
content to the label shown in either Figure 6a or 6b of this standard,
as appropriate, and shall comply with the requirements of
S4.5.1(b)(1)(i) through S4.5.1(b)(1)(iv).
(i) The heading area shall be yellow with the word ``WARNING'' and
the alert symbol in black.
(ii) The message area shall be white with black text. The message
area shall be no less than 30 cm2 (4.7 in2).
(iii) The pictogram shall be black with a red circle and slash on a
white background. The pictogram shall be no less than 30 mm (1.2
inches) in diameter.
(iv) If the vehicle does not have a back seat, the label shown in
Figure 6a or 6b may be modified by omitting the statement: ``The BACK
SEAT is the SAFEST place for children.''
(2) Vehicles manufactured after September 1, 2002 and certified to
meet the requirements specified in S19, S21, and S23, shall have a
label permanently affixed to either side of the sun visor, at the
manufacturer's option, at each front outboard seating position that is
equipped with an inflatable restraint. The label shall conform in
content to the label shown in Figure 8 of this standard and shall
comply with the requirements of S4.5.1(b)(2)(i) through
S4.5.1(b)(2)(iv).
(i) The heading area shall be yellow with the word ``CAUTION'' and
the alert symbol in black.
(ii) The message area shall be white with black text. The message
area shall be no less than 30 cm2 (4.7 in2).
(iii) The pictogram shall be black on a white background. The
pictogram shall be no less than 30 mm (1.2 inches) in length.
(iv) If the vehicle does not have a back seat, the label shown in
Figure 8 may be modified by omitting the statement: ``The BACK SEAT is
the SAFEST place for CHILDREN.''
* * * * *
(e) Label on the dashboard.
(1) Except as provided in S4.5.1(e)(2), 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
wheel hub that is clearly visible
[[Page 60604]]
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).
(i) The heading area shall be yellow with the word ``WARNING'' and
the alert symbol in black.
(ii) The message area shall be white with black text. The message
area shall be no less than 30 cm2 (4.7 in2).
(iii) If the vehicle does not have a back seat, the label shown in
Figure 7 may be modified by omitting the statement: ``The back seat is
the safest place for children 12 and under.''
(2) Vehicles manufactured after September 1, 2002 and certified to
meet the requirements specified in S19, S21, and S23, 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 wheel 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 9 of this standard, and
shall comply with the requirements of S4.5.1(e)(2)(i) through
S4.5.1(e)(2)(iii).
(i) The heading area shall be yellow with black text.
(ii) The message area shall be white with black text. The message
area shall be no less than 30 cm2 (4.7 in2).
(iii) If the vehicle does not have a back seat, the label shown in
Figure 9 may be modified by omitting the statement: ``The back seat is
the safest place for children.''
(f) Information to appear in owner's manual.
(1) The owner's manual for any vehicle equipped with an inflatable
restraint system shall include a 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 one or 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,
including the driver, 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.
(2) For any vehicle certified to meet the requirements specified in
S14.3, S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, S25, S30, and S32, the manufacturer
shall also include in the vehicle's owner's manual a discussion of the
advanced passenger air bag system installed in the vehicle. The
discussion shall be written to explain the proper functioning of the
advanced air bag system and shall provide a summary of the actions that
may affect the proper functioning of the system. The discussion shall
include, as a minimum, the following topics:
(a) presentation and explanation of the main components of the
advanced passenger air bag system.
(b) explanation of how the components function together as part of
the advanced passenger air bag system.
(c) basic requirements for proper operation, including an
explanation of the actions that may affect the proper functioning of
the system.
(d) a complete description of the passenger air bag suppression
system installed in the vehicle including a discussion of any
suppression zone.
(e) an explanation of the interaction of the advanced passenger air
bag system with other vehicle components, such as seat belts, seats or
other components.
(f) a summary of the expected outcomes when child restraint
systems, children and small teenagers or adults are both properly and
improperly positioned in the passenger seat, including cautionary
advice against improper placement of child restraint systems.
(g) tips and guidelines to improve consumer understanding of the
proper use of the advanced passenger air bag system.
(h) information on how to contact the vehicle manufacturer
concerning modifications for persons with disabilities that may affect
the advanced air bag system.
* * * * *
S4.5.4 Passenger air bag manual cut-off device. Passenger cars,
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured before
September 1, 2005 may be equipped with a device that deactivates the
air bag installed at the right front passenger position in the vehicle,
if all the conditions in S4.5.4.1 through S4.5.4.4 are satisfied.
* * * * *
S4.7 Selection of compliance options. Where manufacturer options
are specified, the manufacturer shall select the option by the time it
certifies the vehicle and may not thereafter select a different option
for the vehicle. Each manufacturer shall, upon request from the Office
of Vehicle Safety Compliance, provide information regarding which of
the compliance options it has selected for a particular vehicle or
make/model.
S4.8 Values and tolerances. Wherever a range of values or
tolerances are specified, requirements shall be met at all values
within the range of values or tolerances. All angles and directions
(e.g., vertical or horizontal) specified are approximate.
S4.9 Metric values. Specifications and requirements are given in
metric units with English units provided for reference. The metric
values are controlling.
* * * * *
S5 Occupant crash protection requirements.
S5.1 Frontal barrier crash test.
S5.1.1 Belted test. Impact a vehicle traveling longitudinally
forward at any speed, up to and including 48 km/h (30 mph), into a
fixed rigid barrier that is perpendicular to the line of travel of the
vehicle, or at any angle up to 30 degrees in either direction from the
perpendicular to the line of travel of the vehicle, under the
applicable conditions of S8 and S10, including S10.9 (manual belt
adjustment). For vehicles certified to S14 of this standard, the test
dummy specified in S8.1.8 placed in each front outboard designated
seating position shall meet the injury criteria of S6.1, S6.2(b), S6.3,
S6.4(b), S6.5, and S6.6 of this standard. All other vehicles to which
S5.1.1 is applicable shall meet the injury criteria of S6.1, S6.2(a),
S6.3, S6.4(a), and S6.5.
S5.1.2 Unbelted test. Impact a vehicle traveling longitudinally
forward at any speed, between 29 km/h (18 mph) and 48 km/h (30 mph),
inclusive, into a fixed rigid barrier that is perpendicular to the line
of travel of the vehicle, or at any angle up to 30 degrees in either
direction from the perpendicular to the line of travel of the vehicle
under the applicable conditions of S8 and S10, excluding S10.9. The
test dummy specified in S8.1.8 placed in each front outboard designated
seating position shall meet the injury criteria of S6.1, S6.2(b), S6.3,
S6.4(b), S6.5, and S6.6 of this standard.
* * * * *
S5.4 Offset deformable barrier crash test.
S5.4.1 General provisions. Place a Part 572 Subpart E Hybrid III
50th percentile adult male test dummy at each front outboard seating
position of
[[Page 60605]]
the vehicle, in accordance with procedures specified in S10. Impact the
vehicle traveling longitudinally forward at any speed, between 35.4 km/
h (22 mph) and 56 km/h (35 mph), inclusive, into a fixed offset
deformable barrier under the conditions specified in S5.4.2 of this
standard. The test dummies shall meet the injury criteria specified in
S6.1, S6.2(b), S6.3, S6.4(b), S6.5, and S6.6 of this standard.
S5.4.2 Test conditions.
S5.4.2.1 Offset frontal deformable barrier. The offset frontal
deformable barrier shall conform to the specifications set forth in
Subpart B of Part 587 of this chapter.
S5.4.2.2 General test conditions. All of the test conditions
specified in S8.1 of this standard apply.
S5.4.2.3 Dummy seating and positioning. The anthropomorphic test
dummies are seated and positioned as specified in S10 of this standard.
S5.4.2.4 Impact configuration. The test vehicle shall impact the
barrier with the longitudinal line of the vehicle parallel to the line
of travel, and perpendicular to the barrier face. The test vehicle
shall be aligned so that the vehicle strikes the barrier with 40
percent overlap on either the left or the right side of the vehicle,
with the vehicle's width engaging the barrier face such that the
vehicle's longitudinal centerline is offset outboard of the edge of the
barrier face by 10 percent of the vehicle's width 25 mm
(1.0 inch) as illustrated in Figure 10. The vehicle width is defined as
the maximum dimension measured across the widest part of the vehicle,
including bumpers and molding but excluding such components as exterior
mirrors, flexible mud flaps, marker lamps, and dual rear wheel
configurations.
* * * * *
S6.1 All portions of the test dummy shall be contained within the
outer surfaces of the vehicle passenger compartment.
S6.2 Head injury criteria.
(a) The resultant acceleration at the center of gravity of the head
shall be such that the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.010
shall not exceed 1,000 where a is the resultant acceleration expressed
as a multiple of g (the acceleration of gravity), and t1 and
t2 are any two points in time during the crash of the
vehicle which are separated by not more than a 36 millisecond time
interval.
(b) The resultant acceleration at the center of gravity of the head
shall be such that the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.011
shall not exceed 700 where a is the resultant acceleration expressed as
a multiple of g (the acceleration of gravity), and t1 and
t2 are any two points in time during the crash of the
vehicle which are separated by not more than a 15 millisecond time
interval.
* * * * *
S6.4 Chest deflection.
(a) Compression deflection of the sternum relative to the spine, as
determined by instrumentation shown in drawing 78051-218, revision U
incorporated by reference in Part 572, subpart E of this chapter, shall
not exceed 76 mm (3 inches).
(b) Compressive deflection of the sternum relative to the spine, as
determined by instrumentation shown in drawing 78051-317, revision A,
incorporated by reference in Part 572, subpart E, shall not exceed 63
mm (2.5 inches).
* * * * *
S6.6 Neck injury. The biomechanical neck injury predictor, Nij,
shall not exceed a value of 1.0 at any point in time. The following
procedure shall be used to compute Nij. The axial force (Fz) and
flexion/extension moment about the occipital condyles (My) shall be
used to calculate four combined injury predictors, collectively
referred to as Nij. These four combined values represent the
probability of sustaining each of four primary types of cervical
injuries; namely tension-extension (NTE), tension-flexion
(NTF), compression-extension (NCE), and
compression-flexion (NCF) injuries. Axial force shall be
filtered at SAE class 1000 and flexion/extension moment (My) shall be
filtered at SAE class 600. Shear force, which shall be filtered at SAE
class 600, is used only in conjunction with the measured moment to
calculate the effective moment at the location of the occipital
condyles. The equation for calculating the Nij criteria is given by:
Nij = (Fz / Fzc) + (My / Myc)
where Fzc and Myc are critical values corresponding to:
Fzc = 4500 N (1012 lbf) for tension
Fzc = 4500 N (1012 lbf) for compression
Myc = 310 Nm (229 lbf-ft) for flexion about occipital condyles
Myc = 125 Nm (92 lbf-ft) for extension about occipital condyles
Each of the four Nij values shall be calculated at each point in time,
and all four values shall not exceed 1.0 at any point in time. When
calculating NTE and NTF, all compressive loads
shall be set to zero. Similarly, when calculating NCE and
NCF, all tensile loads shall be set to zero. In a similar
fashion, when calculating NTE and NCE, all
flexion moments shall be set to zero. Likewise, when calculating
NTF and NCF, all extension moments shall be set
to zero.
S6.7 Test duration for purpose of measuring injury criteria. For
tests conducted pursuant to S5.1.1, S5.1.2, and S5.4, the injury
criteria shall be met up to 300 milliseconds after the vehicle strikes
the barrier.
* * * * *
S8.1.5 Movable vehicle windows and vents are placed in the fully
closed position, unless the vehicle manufacturer chooses to specify a
different adjustment position prior to the time it certifies the
vehicle.
* * * * *
S13 Alternative unbelted test available, under S3(b) of this
standard, for certain vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2005.
* * * * *
S14 Advanced air bag requirements for passenger cars and for
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855
kg (8500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg
(5500 pounds) or less, except for walk-in van-type trucks or vehicles
designed to be sold exclusively to the U.S. Postal Service.
S14.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2002 and
before September 1, 2005.
(a) For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2002 and
before September 1, 2005, a percentage of the manufacturer's
production, as specified in S14.1.1, shall meet the requirements
specified in S14.3, S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, S25, S30, and S32 (in
addition to the other requirements specified in this standard).
(b) Manufacturers that manufacture two or fewer carlines, as that
term is defined at 49 CFR 583.4, may, at the option of the
manufacturer, meet the requirements of this paragraph instead of
paragraph (a) of this section. Each vehicle manufactured on or after
September 1, 2003 and before September 1, 2005 shall meet the
requirements specified in S14.3, S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, S25, S30, and
S32 (in addition to the other requirements specified in this standard).
(c) Each vehicle that is manufactured in two or more stages or that
is altered (within the meaning of section 567.7 of
[[Page 60606]]
this chapter) after having previously been certified in accordance with
Part 567 of this chapter is not subject to the requirements of S14.1.
(d) Vehicles manufactured by a manufacturer that produces fewer
than 5,000 vehicles worldwide annually are not subject to the
requirements of S14.1.
S14.1.1 Phase-in schedule.
S14.1.1.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2002 and
before September 1, 2003. Subject to S14.1.2(a), for vehicles
manufactured by a manufacturer on or after September 1, 2002 and before
September 1, 2003, the amount of vehicles complying with S14.3, S15,
S17, S19, S21, S23, S25, S30, and S32 shall be not less than 25 percent
of:
(a) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1, 2000 and before September 1,
2003, or
(b) The manufacturer's production on or after September 1, 2002 and
before September 1, 2003.
S14.1.1.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2003 and
before September 1, 2004. Subject to S14.1.2(b), for vehicles
manufactured by a manufacturer on or after September 1, 2003 and before
September 1, 2004, the amount of vehicles complying with S14.3, S15,
S17, S19, S21, S23, S25, S30, and S32 shall be not less than 40 percent
of:
(a) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1, 2001 and before September 1,
2004, or
(b) The manufacturer's production on or after September 1, 2003 and
before September 1, 2004.
S14.1.1.3 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2004 and
before September 1, 2005. Subject to S14.1.2(c), for vehicles
manufactured by a manufacturer on or after September 1, 2004 and before
September 1, 2005, the amount of vehicles complying with S14.3, S15,
S17, S19, S21, S23, S25, S30, and S32 shall be not less than 70 percent
of:
(a) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1, 2002 and before September 1,
2005, or
(b) The manufacturer's production on or after September 1, 2004 and
before September 1, 2005.
S14.1.2 Calculation of complying vehicles.
(a) For the purposes of complying with S14.1.1.1, a manufacturer
may count a vehicle if it is manufactured on or after [the date 30 days
after publication of the final rule would be inserted], but before
September 1, 2003.
(b) For purposes of complying with S14.1.1.2, a manufacturer may
count a vehicle if it:
(1) Is manufactured on or after [the date 30 days after publication
of the final rule would be inserted], but before September 1, 2004, and
(2) Is not counted toward compliance with S14.1.1.1.
(c) For purposes of complying with S14.1.1.3, a manufacturer may
count a vehicle if it:
(1) Is manufactured on or after [the date 30 days after publication
of the final rule would be inserted], but before September 1, 2005, and
(2) Is not counted toward compliance with S14.1.1.1 or S14.1.1.2.
S14.1.3 Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer.
S14.1.3.1 For the purpose of calculating average annual production
of vehicles for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles
manufactured by each manufacturer under S14.1.1, a vehicle produced by
more than one manufacturer shall be attributed to a single manufacturer
as follows, subject to S14.1.3.2.
(a) A vehicle which is imported shall be attributed to the
importer.
(b) A vehicle manufactured in the United States by more than one
manufacturer, one of which also markets the vehicle, shall be
attributed to the manufacturer which markets the vehicle.
S14.1.3.2 A vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer shall
be attributed to any one of the vehicle's manufacturers specified by an
express written contract, reported to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration under 49 CFR Part 585, between the manufacturer
so specified and the manufacturer to which the vehicle would otherwise
be attributed under S14.1.3.1.
S14.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2005. Each
vehicle shall meet the requirements specified in S14.3, S15, S17, S19,
S21, S23, S25, S30, and S32 (in addition to the other requirements
specified in this standard).
S14.3 Barrier test requirements using 50th percentile adult male
dummies.
S14.3.1 Rigid barrier belted test. Each vehicle that is certified
as complying with S14 shall, at each front outboard designated seating
position, meet the injury criteria specified in S6.1, S6.2(b), S6.3,
S6.4(b), S6.5, and S6.6 when tested under S5.1.1. A vehicle shall not
be deemed to be in noncompliance with this paragraph 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
requirements of this paragraph.
S14.3.2 Rigid barrier unbelted test. Each vehicle that is
certified as complying with S14 shall comply with the requirements of
S4.1.5.4 or S4.2.6.3 by means of an inflatable restraint system at the
driver's and right front passenger's position that meets the injury
criteria specified in S6.1, S6.2(b), S6.3, S6.4(b), S6.5, and S6.6 when
tested under S5.1.2. A vehicle shall not be deemed to be in
noncompliance with this paragraph 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 requirements of this paragraph.
S14.3.2 Offset deformable barrier unbelted test. Each vehicle that
is certified as complying with S14 of this standard shall comply with
the requirements of S4.1.5.4 or S4.2.6.3 that meets the injury criteria
specified in S6.1, S6.2(b), S6.3, S6.4(b), S6.5, and S6.6 when tested
under S5.4. A vehicle shall not be deemed to be in noncompliance with
this paragraph 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 requirements of this paragraph.
S15 Rigid barrier test requirements using 5th percentile adult
female dummies.
S15.1 Belted test. Each vehicle subject to S15 shall, at each
front outboard designated seating position, meet the injury criteria
specified in S15.3 of this standard when the vehicle is crash tested in
accordance with the procedures specified in S16 of this standard with
the anthropomorphic test dummy restrained by a Type 2 seat belt
assembly. A vehicle shall not be deemed to be in noncompliance with
this paragraph 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 requirements of this paragraph.
S15.2 Unbelted test. Each vehicle subject to S15 shall, at each
front outboard designated seating position, meet the injury criteria
specified in S15.3 of this standard when the vehicle is crash tested in
accordance with the procedures specified in S16 of this standard with
the anthropomorphic test dummy unbelted. A vehicle shall not be deemed
to be in noncompliance with this paragraph 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 requirements of
this paragraph.
S15.3 Injury criteria (5th percentile adult female dummy).
[[Page 60607]]
S15.3.1 All portions of the test dummy shall be contained within
the outer surfaces of the vehicle passenger compartment.
S15.3.2 The resultant acceleration at the center of gravity of the
head shall be such that the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.012
shall not exceed 700 where a is the resultant acceleration expressed as
a multiple of g (the acceleration of gravity), and t1 and
t2 are any two points in time during the crash of the
vehicle which are separated by not more than a 15 millisecond time
interval.
S15.3.3 The resultant acceleration calculated from the output of
the thoracic instrumentation shown in drawing [a drawing incorporated
by reference in Part 572 would be identified in the final rule] shall
not exceed 60 g's, except for intervals whose cumulative duration is
not more than 3 milliseconds.
S15.3.4 Compression deflection of the sternum relative to the
spine, as determined by instrumentation shown in drawing [a drawing
incorporated by reference in Part 572 would be identified in the final
rule] shall not exceed 52 mm (2.0 inches).
S15.3.5 The force transmitted axially through each thigh shall not
exceed 6805 N (1530 pounds).
S15.3.6 The biomechanical neck injury predictor, Nij, shall not
exceed a value of 1.0 at any point in time. The following procedure
shall be used to compute Nij. The axial force (Fz) and flexion/
extension moment about the occipital condyles (My) shall be used to
calculate four combined injury predictors, collectively referred to as
Nij. These four combined values represent the probability of sustaining
each of four primary types of cervical injuries; namely tension-
extension (NTE), tension-flexion (NTF),
compression-extension (NCE), and compression-flexion
(NCF) injuries. Axial force shall be filtered at SAE class
1000 and flexion/extension moment (My) shall be filtered at SAE class
600. Shear force, which shall be filtered at SAE class 600, is used
only in conjunction with the measured moment to calculate the effective
moment at the location of the occipital condyles. The equation for
calculating the Nij criteria is given by:
Nij = (Fz / Fzc) + (My / Myc)
where Fzc and Myc are critical values corresponding to:
Fzc = 3370 N (758 lbf) for tension
Fzc = 3370 N (758 lbf) for compression
Myc = 155 Nm (114 lbf-ft) for flexion about occipital condyles
Myc = 62 Nm (46 lbf-ft) for extension about occipital condyles
Each of the four Nij values shall be calculated at each point in time,
and all four values shall not exceed 1.0 at any point in time. When
calculating NTE and NTF, all compressive loads
shall be set to zero. Similarly, when calculating NCE and
NCF, all tensile loads shall be set to zero. In a similar
fashion, when calculating NTE and NCE, all
flexion moments shall be set to zero. Likewise, when calculating
NTF and NCF, all extension moments shall be set
to zero.
S15.4 Test duration for purpose of measuring injury criteria. For
tests conducted pursuant to S15 and S17, the injury criteria of S15.3
shall be met up to 300 milliseconds after the vehicle strikes the
barrier. For tests conducted pursuant to S26, the injury criteria shall
be met up to 100 milliseconds after the air bag deploys.
S16. Test procedures for rigid barrier test requirements using 5th
percentile adult female dummies.
S16.1 General provisions. Crash testing to determine compliance
with the requirements of S15 of this standard is conducted as specified
in the following paragraphs (a) and (b).
(a) Belted test. Place a Part 572 Subpart O 5th percentile adult
female test dummy at each front outboard seating position of a vehicle,
in accordance with procedures specified in S16.3 of this standard,
including S16.3.5. Impact the vehicle traveling longitudinally forward
at any speed, up to and including 48 km/h (30 mph), into a fixed rigid
barrier that is perpendicular within a tolerance of 5
degrees to the line of travel of the vehicle under the applicable
conditions of S16.2 of this standard. The dummies shall meet the injury
criteria specified in S15.3 of this standard.
(b) Unbelted test. Place a Part 572 Subpart O 5th percentile adult
female test dummy at each front outboard seating position of a vehicle,
in accordance with procedures specified in S16.3 of this standard,
except S16.3.5. Impact the vehicle traveling longitudinally forward at
any speed, from 29 km/h (18 mph) to 48 km/h (30 mph), inclusive, into a
fixed rigid barrier that is perpendicular within a tolerance of
5 degrees to the line of travel of the vehicle under the
applicable conditions of S16.2 of this standard. The test dummies shall
meet the injury criteria specified in S15.3 of this standard.
S16.2 Test conditions.
S16.2.1 The vehicle, including test devices and instrumentation,
is loaded as in S8.1.1.
S16.2.2 Movable vehicle windows and vents are placed in the fully
closed position, unless the vehicle manufacturer chooses to specify a
different adjustment position prior to the time the vehicle is
certified.
S16.2.3 Convertibles and open-body type vehicles have the top, if
any, in place in the closed passenger compartment configuration.
S16.2.4 Doors are fully closed and latched but not locked.
S16.2.5 The dummy is clothed in form fitting cotton stretch
garments with short sleeves and above the knee length pants. A size 8W
shoe which meets the configuration and size specifications of MIL-S
13912 change ``P'' or its equivalent is placed on each foot of the test
dummy.
S16.2.6 Limb joints are set at 1 g, barely restraining the weight
of the limb when extended horizontally. Leg joints are adjusted with
the torso in the supine position.
S16.2.7 Instrumentation shall not affect the motion of dummies
during impact.
S16.2.8 The stabilized temperature of the dummy is at any level
between 20 deg. C and 22 deg. C (68 deg. F to 71.6 deg. F).
S16.2.9 Steering wheel adjustment.
S16.2.9.1 Adjust a tiltable steering wheel, if possible, so that
the steering wheel hub is at the geometric center when moved through
its full range of driving positions.
S16.2.9.2 If there is no setting detent at the mid position, lower
the steering wheel to the detent just below the mid position.
S16.2.9.3 If the steering column is telescoping, place the
steering column as close as possible to the mid position.
S16.2.10 Pedal adjustment. If pedals can be adjusted, adjust them
to the full rear position (towards the rear of the vehicle) or until
the pedal makes contact with the feet as defined in S16.3.2.3.
S16.2.11 Driver and passenger seat set-up.
S16.2.11.1 Seat position adjustment.
S16.2.11.1.1 If a seat is adjustable in the fore and aft and/or
vertical directions, move the seat to the forwardmost seat track
position and full down vertical position.
S16.2.11.1.2 Establish a reference line on the seat pan in a
horizontal plane.
S16.2.11.1.3 Measure and record the seat pan angle with respect to
the reference line established in S16.2.11.1.2.
S16.2.11.1.4 Adjust the seat vertically to the mid-height
position. If
[[Page 60608]]
possible, maintain the seat pan reference angle measured in the full
down and full forward condition in S16.2.11.1.3.
S16.2.11.2 Lumbar support adjustment. Position adjustable lumbar
supports so that the lumbar support is in its lowest, retracted or
deflated adjustment position.
S16.2.11.3 Side bolster adjustment. Position adjustable seat
cushion or seat back side bolsters so that they are in the lowest or
most open adjustment position.
S16.3 Dummy seating positioning procedures. The Part 572 Subpart O
5th percentile adult female test dummy is positioned as follows.
S16.3.1 General provisions and definitions.
S16.3.1.1 All angles are measured with respect to the horizontal
plane.
S16.3.1.2 The dummy's neck bracket is adjusted to align the zero
degree index marks.
S16.3.1.3 The term ``midsagittal plane'' refers to the vertical
plane that separates the dummy into equal left and right halves.
S16.3.1.4 The term ``vertical longitudinal plane'' refers to a
vertical plane parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline.
S16.3.1.5 The term ``vertical plane'' refers to a vertical plane,
not necessarily parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline.
S16.3.1.6 The term ``transverse instrumentation platform'' refers
to the transverse instrumentation surface inside the dummy's skull
casting to which the neck load cell mounts. This surface is
perpendicular to the skull cap machined inferior superior mounting
surface.
S16.3.1.7. The term ``thigh'' refers to the femur between, but not
including, the knee and the pelvis.
S16.3.1.8 The term ``leg'' refers to the lower part of the entire
leg including the knee.
S16.3.2 Driver dummy positioning.
S16.3.2.1 Driver torso/head/seat back angle positioning.
S16.3.2.1.1 Fully recline the seat back, if adjustable.
S16.3.2.1.2 Install the dummy into the driver's seat. If
necessary, move the seat rearward to facilitate dummy installation. If
the seat cushion angle automatically changes as the seat is moved from
the full forward position, restore the correct seat cushion angle when
measuring the pelvic angle as specified in S16.3.2.1.11.
S16.3.2.1.3 Bucket seats. Center the dummy on the seat cushion so
that its midsagittal plane is vertical and coincides with the
longitudinal center of the seat cushion.
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 with the center of the steering wheel rim.
S16.3.2.1.5 Hold the dummy's thighs down and push rearward on the
upper torso until the dummy's pelvic angle measures 30-35 degrees. If
it is not possible to achieve a pelvic angle of at least 30 degrees,
maximize the dummy's pelvic angle.
S16.3.2.1.6 Place the legs at 90 degrees to the thighs. Push
rearward on the dummy's knees to force the pelvis into the seat so
there is no gap between the pelvis and the seat back or until contact
occurs between the back of the dummy's calves and the front of the seat
cushion such that the angle between the dummy's thighs and legs begins
to change.
S16.3.2.1.7 Gently rock the upper torso relative to the lower
torso laterally in a side to side motion three times through a
5 degree arc (approximately 51 mm (2 inches) side to side)
to reduce friction between the dummy and the seat.
S16.3.2.1.8 Before proceeding, make sure that the seat has been
returned to the full forward position if it has been moved from that
location as specified in S16.3.2.1.2. Adjust legs if required.
S16.3.2.1.9 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 degrees, making sure that the
pelvis does not interfere with the seat bight. In addition, inspect the
abdomen to insure that it is properly installed.
S16.3.2.1.10 If it is not possible to achieve the head level
within 0.5 degrees, minimize the angle and continue to
S16.3.2.1.11.
S16.3.2.1.11 Measure and set the dummy's pelvic angle using the
pelvic angle gage (drawing TE-2504, incorporated by reference in Part
572, subpart O, of this chapter). The angle shall be set to within 20.0
degrees 2.5 degrees. If this is not possible, adjust the
pelvic angle as close to 20.0 degrees 2.5 degrees as
possible while keeping the transverse instrumentation platform of the
head as level as possible as specified in S16.3.2.1.9 and S16.3.2.1.10.
S16.3.2.1.12. If the transverse instrumentation platform of the
head is still not level, adjust the seat back angle to minimize the
angle as much as possible.
S16.3.2.1.13 In vehicles with a fixed seat back, the lower neck
bracket can be adjusted to level the head within 0.5
degrees or to minimize the angle as much as possible.
S16.3.2.2 Driver thigh/knee/leg positioning.
S16.3.2.2.1 Rest the dummy's thighs against the seat cushion to
the extent permitted by the placement of the feet in S16.3.2.3.
S16.3.2.2.2 Set the initial transverse distance between the
longitudinal centerline of the dummy's thighs at the knees at 160 to
170 mm (6.3 to 6.7 inches), with the thighs and legs of the dummy in
vertical longitudinal planes.
S16.3.2.2.3. Move the dummy's right foot to the accelerator pedal
by rotating the entire right thigh and leg at the dummy's hip joint
while maintaining the dummy's torso setting.
S16.3.2.2.4 If either knee of the dummy is in contact with the
vehicle interior, translate the thigh(s) and leg(s) at the hip joint
inboard or outboard with respect to the dummy midsagittal plane until
no contact occurs while maintaining the thigh and leg in a vertical
plane.
S16.3.2.2.5 If contact still occurs, rotate the thigh(s) and
leg(s) laterally at the hip joint with respect to the dummy midsagittal
plane so that it is no longer in the vertical plane and no contact
occurs.
S16.3.2.3 Driver feet positioning.
S16.3.2.3.1 Rest the right foot of the dummy on the undepressed
accelerator pedal with the rearmost point of the heel on the floor pan
in the plane of the pedal.
S16.3.2.3.2 If the ball of the foot does not contact the pedal,
change the angle of the foot relative to the leg such that the toe of
the foot contacts the undepressed accelerator pedal.
S16.3.2.3.3 If the foot still cannot contact the undepressed
accelerator pedal, place the toe of the foot as close as possible to
the pedal.
S16.3.2.3.4 Place the left foot on the toe board with the rearmost
point of the heel resting on the floor pan as close as possible to the
point of intersection of the planes described by the toe board and the
floor pan.
S16.3.2.3.5 If the left foot cannot be positioned on the toe
board, place the foot flat on the floor pan as far forward as possible.
S16.3.2.3.6 If the left foot does not contact the floor pan, place
the foot parallel to the floor and place the leg as perpendicular to
the thigh as possible.
S16.3.2.4 Driver arm/hand positioning.
S16.3.2.4.1 Place the dummy's upper arm adjacent to the torso with
the arm centerlines as close to vertical as possible.
S16.3.2.4.2 Place the palms of the dummy in contact with the outer
part of the steering wheel rim at its horizontal
[[Page 60609]]
centerline with the thumbs inside the steering wheel rim.
S16.3.2.4.3 If it is not possible to position the thumbs inside
the steering wheel rim at its horizontal centerline, then position them
above and as close to the horizontal centerline of the steering wheel
rim as possible.
S16.3.2.4.4 Lightly tape the hands to the steering wheel rim so
that if the hand of the test dummy is pushed upward by a force of not
less than 9 N (2 pounds) and not more than 22 N (5 pounds), the tape
releases the hand from the steering wheel rim.
S16.3.3 Passenger dummy positioning.
S16.3.3.1 Passenger torso/head/seat back angle positioning.
S16.3.3.1.1 Fully recline the seat back, if adjustable.
S16.3.3.1.2 Install the dummy into the passenger's seat. If
necessary, move the seat rearward to facilitate dummy installation. If
the seat cushion angle automatically changes as the seat is moved from
the full forward position, restore the correct seat cushion angle when
measuring the pelvic angle in S16.3.3.1.11.
S16.3.3.1.3 Bucket seats. Center the dummy on the seat cushion so
that its midsagittal plane is vertical and coincides with the
longitudinal center of the seat cushion.
S16.3.3.1.4 Bench seats. The midsagittal plane shall be vertical
and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline and the same
distance from the vehicle's longitudinal centerline as the midsaggital
plane of the driver dummy.
S16.3.3.1.5 Hold the dummy's thighs down and push rearward on the
upper torso until the dummy's pelvic angle measures 30-35 degrees. If
it is not possible to achieve a pelvic angle of at least 30 degrees,
maximize the dummy's pelvic angle.
S16.3.3.1.6 Place the legs at 90 degrees to the thighs. Push
rearward on the dummy's knees to force the pelvis into the seat so
there is no gap between the pelvis and the seat back or until contact
occurs between the back of the dummy's calves and the front of the seat
cushion such that the angle of the dummy's legs begins to change.
S16.3.3.1.7 Gently rock the upper torso relative to the lower
torso laterally side to side three times through a 5
degree arc (approximately 51 mm (2 inches) side to side) to reduce
friction between the dummy and the seat.
S16.3.3.1.8 Before proceeding, make sure that the seat has been
returned to the full forward position if it had been moved from that
location as specified in S16.3.3.1.2.
S16.3.3.1.9 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 degrees, making sure that the
pelvis does not interfere with the seat bite. In addition, inspect the
abdomen to insure that it is properly installed.
S16.3.3.1.10 If it is not possible to achieve the head level
within 0.5 degrees, minimize the angle and continue to
S16.3.3.1.11.
S16.3.3.1.11 Measure and set the dummy's pelvic angle using the
pelvic angle gage (drawing TE-2504, incorporated by reference in Part
572, Subpart O, of this chapter). The angle shall be set within 20.0
degrees
2.5 degrees. If this is not possible, adjust the pelvic
angle as close to 20.0 degrees 2.5 degrees as possible
while keeping the transverse instrumentation platform of the head as
level as specified in S16.3.3.1.9 and S16.3.3.1.10.
S16.3.3.1.12 If the transverse instrumentation platform of the
head is still not level, adjust the seat back angle to minimize the
angle as much as possible.
S16.3.3.1.13 In vehicles with a fixed seat back, the lower neck
bracket can be adjusted to level the head within
0.5 degrees or to minimize the angle as much as possible.
S16.3.3.2 Passenger thigh/knee/leg positioning.
S16.3.3.2.1 Rest the dummy's thighs against the seat cushion to
the extent permitted by the placement of the feet in S16.3.3.3.
S16.3.3.2.2 Set the initial transverse distance between the
longitudinal centerline of the dummy's thighs at the knees at 160 to
170 mm (6.3 to 6.7 inches), with the thighs and legs of the dummy in
vertical longitudinal planes.
S16.3.3.2.3 If either knee of the dummy is in contact with the
vehicle interior translate the thigh(s) and leg(s) at the hip joint
inboard or outboard with respect to the dummy midsagittal plane until
no contact occurs while maintaining the thigh and leg in a vertical
plane.
S16.3.3.2.4 If contact still occurs, rotate the thigh(s) and
leg(s) laterally at the hip joint with respect to the dummy midsagittal
plane so that it is no longer in the vertical plane and no contact
occurs.
S16.3.3.3 Passenger feet positioning.
S16.3.3.3.1 Place the passenger's feet flat on the floor pan as
far forward as possible.
S16.3.3.3.2 If either foot does not entirely contact the floor
pan, place the foot parallel to the floor and place the legs as
perpendicular to the thighs as possible.
S16.3.3.4 Passenger arm/hand positioning.
S16.3.3.4.1 Place the dummy's upper arms in contact with the upper
seat back and adjacent to the torso.
S16.3.3.4.2 Place the palms of the dummy in contact with the
outside of the thigh.
S16.3.3.4.3 Place the little fingers in contact with the seat
cushion.
S16.3.4 Driver and passenger head restraint adjustment.
S16.3.4.1. Place each adjustable head restraint so that the
vertical center of the head restraint is aligned with the center of
gravity (CG) of the dummy head.
S16.3.4.2 If the above position is not attainable, move the
vertical center of the head restraint to the closest detent below the
center of the head CG.
S16.3.4.3 If the head restraint has a fore and aft adjustment,
place the restraint in the forwardmost position or until contact with
the head is made.
S16.3.4.4 If the head restraint has an automatic adjustment, leave
it where the system positions the restraint after the dummy is placed
in the seat.
S16.3.5 Driver and passenger manual belt adjustment (This applies
only for tests conducted with a belted dummy.)
S16.3.5.1 If an adjustable seat belt D-ring anchorage exists,
place it in the full down position.
S16.3.5.2 Place the Type 2 manual belt around the test dummy and
fasten the latch.
S16.3.5.3 Ensure that the dummy's head remains as level as
possible, as specified in S16.3.2.1.9 and S16.3.2.1.10.
S16.3.5.4 Remove all slack from the lap belt. Pull the upper torso
webbing out of the retractor and allow it to retract; repeat this
operation four times. Apply a 9 N (2 pound force) to 18 N (4 pound
force) tension load to the lap belt. If the belt system is equipped
with a tension-relieving device, introduce the maximum amount of slack
into the upper torso belt that is recommended by the manufacturer in
the owner's manual for the vehicle. If the belt system is not equipped
with a tension-relieving device, allow the excess webbing in the
shoulder belt to be retracted by the retractive force of the retractor.
S17 Offset frontal deformable barrier requirements using 5th
percentile adult female dummies.
S17.1 Each vehicle subject to S17 of this standard shall, at each
front outboard designated seating position, meet the injury criteria
specified in S15.3 of this standard when the vehicle
[[Page 60610]]
is crash tested in accordance with the procedures specified in S18.1(a)
of this standard with the Part 572 Subpart O 5th percentile adult
female test dummy restrained by a Type 2 seat belt assembly. A vehicle
shall not be deemed to be in noncompliance with this paragraph 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
requirements of this paragraph.
S17.2 Each vehicle subject to S17 of this standard shall, at each
front outboard designated seating position, meet the injury criteria
specified in S15.3 of this standard when the vehicle is crash tested in
accordance with the procedures specified in S18.1(b) of this standard
with the dummy unbelted. A vehicle shall not be deemed to be in
noncompliance with this paragraph 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 requirements of this paragraph.
S18 Test procedure for offset frontal deformable barrier
requirements using 5th percentile adult female dummies.
S18.1 General provisions. Crash testing to determine compliance
with the requirements of S17 of this standard is conducted as specified
in the following paragraphs (a) and (b).
(a) Belted test. Place a Part 572 Subpart O 5th percentile adult
female test dummy at each front outboard seating position of a vehicle,
in accordance with procedures specified in S16.3 of this standard,
including S16.3.5. Impact the vehicle traveling longitudinally forward
at any speed, up to and including 40 km/h (25 mph), into a fixed offset
deformable barrier under the conditions specified in S18.2 of this
standard, impacting only the driver side of the vehicle. The dummies
shall meet the injury criteria specified in S15.3 of this standard.
(b) Unbelted test. Place a Part 572 Subpart O 5th percentile adult
female test dummy at each front outboard seating position of a vehicle,
in accordance with procedures specified in S16.3 of this standard, but
not including S16.3.5. Impact the vehicle traveling longitudinally
forward at any speed, from 35.4 km/h (22 mph) to 56 km/h (35 mph),
inclusive, into a fixed offset deformable barrier under the conditions
specified in S18.2 of this standard. The dummies shall meet the injury
criteria specified in S15.3 of this standard.
S18.2 Test conditions.
S18.2.1 Offset frontal deformable barrier. The offset frontal
deformable barrier shall conform to the specifications set forth in
Subpart B of Part 587 of this chapter.
S18.2.2 General test conditions. All of the test conditions
specified in S16.2 of this standard apply.
S18.2.3 Dummy seating procedures. Position the anthropomorphic
test dummies as specified in S16.3 of this standard.
S18.2.4 Impact configuration. The test vehicle shall impact the
barrier with the longitudinal line of the vehicle parallel to the line
of travel and perpendicular to the barrier face. The test vehicle shall
be aligned so that the vehicle strikes the barrier with 40 percent
overlap on either the left or right side of the vehicle, with the
vehicle's width engaging the barrier face such that the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline is offset outboard of the edge of the barrier
face by 10 percent of the vehicle's width +/-25 mm (1.0 inch) as
illustrated in Figure 10. The vehicle width is defined as the maximum
dimension measured across the widest part of the vehicle, including
bumpers and molding but excluding such components as exterior mirrors,
flexible mud flaps, marker lamps, and dual rear wheel configurations.
S19 Requirements to provide protection for infants in rear facing
child restraints.
S19.1 Each vehicle shall, at the option of the manufacturer, meet
the requirements specified in S19.2 or S19.3, under the test procedures
specified in S20.
S19.2 Option 1--Automatic suppression feature. Each vehicle shall
meet the requirements specified in S19.2.1 through S19.2.2.
S19.2.1 The vehicle shall be equipped with an automatic
suppression feature for the passenger air bag which results in
deactivation of the air bag during each of the static tests specified
in S20.2 (using the Part 572 Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI child dummy
restrained in any of the child restraints set forth in sections B and C
of Appendix A to this section), and activation of the air bag during
each of the static tests specified in S20.3 (using the Part 572 Subpart
O 5th percentile Hybrid III adult female dummy).
S19.2.2 The vehicle shall be equipped with a mechanism that
indicates whether the occupant restraint system is suppressed. The
mechanism need not be located in the occupant compartment.
S19.2.3 The vehicle shall be equipped with a telltale light on the
instrument panel which is illuminated whenever the passenger air bag is
deactivated and not illuminated whenever the passenger air bag is
activated, except that the telltale need not illuminate when the
passenger seat is unoccupied. The telltale:
(a) Shall be clearly visible from all front seating positions;
(b) Shall be yellow;
(c) Shall have the identifying words ``PASSENGER AIR BAG OFF'' on
the telltale or within 25 mm (1.0 inch) of the telltale; and
(d) Shall not be combined with the readiness indicator required by
S4.5.2 of this standard.
S19.3 Option 2--Low risk deployment. Each vehicle shall meet the
injury criteria specified in S19.4 of this standard when the passenger
air bag is statically deployed in accordance with the procedures
specified in S20.4 of this standard.
S19.4 Injury criteria (12-month-old CRABI dummy).
S19.4.1 All portions of the test dummy and child restraint shall
be contained within the outer surfaces of the vehicle passenger
compartment.
S19.4.2 The resultant acceleration at the center of gravity of the
head shall be such that the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.013
shall not exceed 390 where a is the resultant acceleration expressed as
a multiple of g (the acceleration of gravity), and t1 and
t2 are any two points in time during the crash of the
vehicle which are separated by not more than a 15 millisecond time
interval.
S19.4.3 The resultant acceleration calculated from the output of
the thoracic instrumentation shown in drawing [a drawing incorporated
by reference in Part 572 would be identified in the final rule] shall
not exceed 50 g's, except for intervals whose cumulative duration is
not more than 3 milliseconds.
S19.4.4 The biomechanical neck injury predictor, Nij, shall not
exceed a value of 1.0 at any point in time. The following procedure
shall be used to compute Nij. The axial force (Fz) and flexion/
extension moment about the occipital condyles (My) shall be used to
calculate four combined injury predictors, collectively referred to as
Nij. These four combined values represent the probability of sustaining
each of four primary types of cervical injuries; namely tension-
extension (NTE), tension-flexion (NTF),
compression-extension (NCE), and compression-flexion
(NCF) injuries. Axial force shall be filtered at SAE class
1000 and flexion/extension moment (My) shall be filtered at SAE class
600.
[[Page 60611]]
Shear force, which shall be filtered at SAE class 600, is used only in
conjunction with the measured moment to calculate the effective moment
at the location of the occipital condyles. The equation for calculating
the Nij criteria is given by:
Nij = (Fz/Fzc) + (My/Myc)
where Fzc and Myc are critical values corresponding to:
Fzc = 1465 N (329 lbf) for tension
Fzc = 1465 N (329 lbf) for compression
Myc = 43 Nm (32 lbf-ft) for flexion about occipital condyles
Myc = 17 Nm (13 lbf-ft) for extension about occipital condyles
Each of the four Nij values shall be calculated at each point in time,
and all four values shall not exceed 1.0 at any point in time. When
calculating NTE and NTF, all compressive loads
shall be set to zero. Similarly, when calculating NCE and
NCF, all tensile loads shall be set to zero. In a similar
fashion, when calculating NTE and NCE, all
flexion moments shall be set to zero. Likewise, when calculating
NTF and NCF, all extension moments shall be set
to zero.
S19.4.5 Test duration for purpose of measuring injury criteria.
For tests conducted pursuant to S20.4, the injury criteria shall be met
up to 100 milliseconds after the air bag deploys.
S20 Test procedure for S19.
S20.1 General provisions. Tests specifying the use of a rear
facing child restraint, a convertible child restraint, or car bed may
be conducted using any such restraint listed in sections A, B, and C of
Appendix A of this standard. The rear facing child restraint,
convertible child restraint, or car bed may be unused or used; if used,
there must not be any visible damage prior to the test.
S20.2 Static tests of automatic suppression feature which must
result in deactivation of the passenger air bag.
S20.2.1 Test one--belted rear facing and convertible child
restraints.
S20.2.1.1 Position the right front passenger vehicle seat at any
seat track location, at any seat height, and at any seat back angle
between the manufacturer's nominal design position for the 50th
percentile adult male as specified in S8.1.3 and an additional 25
degrees in the rearward direction (inclusive).
S20.2.1.2 Tests in S20.2.1 may be conducted using any child
restraint specified in section B or section C of Appendix A.
S20.2.1.3 If the child restraint is equipped with a handle, tests
may be conducted with the handle at either the child restraint
manufacturer's recommended position for use in vehicles or in the
upright position.
S20.2.1.4 If the child restraint is equipped with a sunshield,
tests may be conducted with the sunshield either fully open or fully
closed.
S20.2.1.5 Tests may be conducted with the child restraint
uncovered or with a towel or blanket weighing up to 1.0 kg (2.2 pounds)
placed on or over the child restraint in any of the following
positions:
(a) With the blanket covering the top and sides of the child
restraint, or
(b) With the blanket placed from the top of the vehicle's seat back
to the forwardmost edge of the child restraint.
S20.2.1.6 Locate a vertical plane through the longitudinal
centerline of the child restraint. This will be referred to as ``Plane
A''.
S20.2.1.7 Locate a vertical plane parallel to the vehicle
longitudinal centerline through the geometric center of the right front
passenger vehicle seat pan. This will be referred to as ``Plane B''.
For vehicles with bench seats, locate a vertical plane parallel to the
vehicle longitudinal centerline through the geometric center of the air
bag cover. This will be referred to as ``Plane B''.
S20.2.1.8 Facing rear.
(a) Align the child restraint system facing rearward such that
``Plane A'' is aligned with ``Plane B''.
(b) While maintaining the child restraint position achieved in
S20.2.1.8(a), secure the child restraint by following, to the extent
possible, the child restraint manufacturer's directions regarding
proper installation of the restraint in the rear facing mode.
(c) Cinch the vehicle belts to secure the child restraint in
accordance with the procedures specified in Standard No. 213, except
that any tension from zero up to 134 N (30 pounds) may be used.
(d) Position the Part 572 Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI dummy in the
child restraint by following, to the extent possible, the
manufacturer's instructions for seating infants provided with the child
restraint.
(e) Start the vehicle engine and close all vehicle doors. Check
whether the air bag is deactivated.
S20.2.1.9 Facing forward (convertible restraints only).
(a) Align the child restraint system facing forward such that
``Plane A'' is aligned with ``Plane B''.
(b) While maintaining the forward facing position achieved in
S20.2.1.9(a), secure the child restraint by following, to the extent
possible, the child restraint manufacturer's directions regarding
proper installation of the restraint in the forward facing mode.
(c) Cinch the vehicle belts to secure the child restraint in
accordance with the procedures specified in Standard No. 213, except
that any tension from zero up to 134 N (30 pounds) may be used.
(d) Position the Part 572 Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI dummy in the
child restraint by following, to the extent possible, the
manufacturer's instructions for seating infants provided with the child
restraint.
(e) Start the vehicle engine and close all vehicle doors. Check
whether the air bag is deactivated.
S20.2.2 Test two--unbelted rear facing and convertible child
restraints.
S20.2.2.1 Position the right front passenger vehicle seat at any
seat track location, at any seat height, and at any seat back angle
between the manufacturer's nominal design position for the 50th
percentile adult male as specified in S8.1.3 and an additional 25
degrees in the rearward direction (inclusive).
S20.2.2.2 Tests in S20.2.2 may be conducted using any child
restraint specified in section B or section C of Appendix A to this
section.
S20.2.2.3 If the child restraint is equipped with a handle, tests
may be conducted with the handle at either the child restraint
manufacturer's recommended position for use in vehicles or in the
upright position.
S20.2.2.4 If the child restraint is equipped with a sunshield,
tests may be conducted with the sunshield either fully open or fully
closed.
S20.2.2.5 Tests may be conducted with the child restraint
uncovered or with a towel or blanket weighing up to 1.0 kg (2.2 pounds)
placed on or over the child restraint in any of the following
positions:
(a) With the blanket covering the top and sides of the child
restraint, or
(b) With the blanket placed from the top of the vehicle's seat back
to the forwardmost edge of the child restraint.
S20.2.2.6 Locate a vertical plane through the longitudinal
centerline of the child restraint. This will be referred to as ``Plane
A''.
S20.2.2.7 Locate a vertical plane parallel to the vehicle
longitudinal centerline through the geometric center of the right front
passenger vehicle seat pan. This will be referred to as ``Plane B''.
For vehicles with bench seats, locate a vertical plane parallel to the
vehicle longitudinal centerline through the geometric center of the air
bag cover. This will be referred to as ``Plane B''.
S20.2.2.8 Facing rear.
(a) Align the child restraint system facing rearward such that
``Plane A'' is aligned with ``Plane B'' and adjust the forwardmost part
of the child restraint
[[Page 60612]]
in ``Plane A'' at any angle up to 45 degrees from ``Plane B''.
(b) Position the Part 572 Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI dummy in the
child restraint by following, to the extent possible, the
manufacturer's instructions for seating infants provided with the child
restraint.
(c) Start the vehicle engine and close all vehicle doors. Check
whether the air bag is deactivated.
S20.2.2.9 Facing forward.
(a) Align the child restraint system facing forward such that
``Plane A'' is aligned with ``Plane B'' and adjust the forwardmost part
of the child restraint in ``Plane A'' at any angle up to 45 degrees
from ``Plane B''.
(b) Position the Part 572 Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI dummy in the
child restraint by following, to the extent possible, the
manufacturer's instructions for seating infants provided with the child
restraint.
(c) Start the vehicle engine and close all vehicle doors. Check
whether the air bag is deactivated.
S20.2.2.10 Facing forward, tipped on instrument panel (convertible
child restraints only).
(a) Align the child restraint system facing forward such that
``Plane A'' is aligned with ``Plane B''.
(b) Position the Part 572 Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI dummy in the
child restraint by following, to the extent possible, the
manufacturer's instructions for seating infants provided with the child
restraint.
(c) Tip the rearwardmost part of the child restraint forward toward
the instrument panel, while keeping the bottom portion of the child
seat in contact with the vehicle seat. Position the child restraint
such that it rests against the instrument panel. If the child restraint
cannot reach the instrument panel and remain in contact with the
vehicle seat, move the vehicle seat forward until contact can be
achieved.
(d) Start the vehicle engine and close all vehicle doors. Check
whether the air bag is deactivated.
S20.2.3 Test three-belted car bed.
S20.2.3.1 Position the right front passenger vehicle seat at any
seat track location, at any seat height, and at any seat back angle
between the manufacturer's nominal design position for the 50th
percentile adult male as specified in S8.1.3 and an additional 25
degrees in the rearward direction (inclusive).
S20.2.3.2 Tests may be conducted using any car bed specified in
section A of Appendix A.
S20.2.3.3 If the car bed is equipped with a handle, tests may be
conducted with the handle at either the child restraint manufacturer's
recommended position for use in vehicles or in the upright position.
S20.2.3.4 If the car bed is equipped with a sunshield, tests may
be conducted with the sunshield either fully open or fully closed.
S20.2.3.5 Tests may be conducted with the car bed uncovered or
with a towel or blanket weighing up to 1.0 kg (2.2 pounds) placed on or
over the child restraint in any of the following positions:
(a) With the blanket covering the top and sides of the car bed, or
(b) With the blanket placed from the top of the vehicle's seat back
to the forwardmost edge of the car bed.
S20.2.3.6 Nominal position:
(a) Install the car bed by following to the extent possible the car
bed manufacturer's directions regarding proper installation of the car
bed.
(b) Cinch the vehicle belts to secure the child restraint in
accordance with the procedures specified in Standard No. 213, except
that any tension from zero up to 134 N (30 pounds) may be used.
(c) Position the Part 572 Subpart K newborn dummy in the car bed by
following, to the extent possible, the car bed manufacturer's
instructions for seating infants provided with the car bed.
(d) Start the vehicle engine and close all vehicle doors. Check
whether the air bag is deactivated.
S20.3 Static tests of automatic suppression feature which must
result in activation of the passenger air bag.
S20.3.1 Place the right front passenger vehicle seat at any seat
track location, any seat height, and any seat back angle between the
manufacturer's nominal design position for the 50th percentile adult
male as specified in S8.1.3 and an additional 25 degrees in the
rearward direction (inclusive).
S20.3.2 Place a Part 572 Subpart O 5th percentile adult female
test dummy at the right front seating position of the vehicle, in
accordance with procedures specified in S16.3 of this standard, to the
extent possible with the seat position that has been selected pursuant
to S20.3.1.
S20.3.3 Start the vehicle engine and then close all vehicle doors.
S20.3.4 Check whether the air bag is activated.
S20.4 Low risk deployment test.
S20.4.1 Position the right front passenger vehicle seat in the
full forward seat track position, the highest seat position (if
adjustment is available), and adjust the seat back to the nominal
design position for a 50th percentile adult male dummy as specified by
the vehicle manufacturer.
S20.4.2 Tests in S20.4 may be conducted using any child restraint
specified in section B or section C of Appendix A.
S20.4.3 Locate a vertical plane through the longitudinal
centerline of the child restraint. This will be referred to as ``Plane
A''.
S20.4.4 Locate a vertical plane parallel to the vehicle
longitudinal centerline through the geometric center of the air bag
cover. This will be referred to as ``Plane B''.
S20.4.4 Align the child restraint system facing rearward such that
``Plane A'' is aligned with ``Plane B''.
S20.4.5 While maintaining the child restraint position achieved in
S20.4.4, secure the child restraint by following, to the extent
possible, the child restraint manufacturer's directions regarding
proper installation of the restraint in the rear facing mode.
S20.4.6 Position the Part 572 subpart R 12-month-old CRABI dummy
in the child restraint by following, to the extent possible, the
manufacturer's instructions for seating infants provided with the child
restraint.
S20.4.7 Deploy the right front passenger air bag system. If the
air bag contains a multistage inflator, any stage or combination of
stages may be fired that could deploy in the presence of an infant in a
rear-facing child restraint positioned according to S20.2.1 or S20.2.2
in a rigid barrier crash test at speeds up to 64 km/h (40 mph).
S21 Requirements using 3 year old child dummies.
S21.1 Each vehicle shall, at the option of the manufacturer, meet
the requirements specified in S21.2, S21.3, or S21.4 under the test
procedures specified in S22.
S21.2 Option 1--Automatic suppression feature that always
suppresses the air bag when a child is present. Each vehicle shall meet
the requirements specified in S21.2.1 through S21.2.2.
S21.2.1 The vehicle shall be equipped with an automatic
suppression feature for the passenger air bag which results in
deactivation of the air bag during each of the static tests specified
in S22.2 (using a child or a Part 572 Subpart P Hybrid III 3-year-old
child dummy), and activation of the air bag during each of the static
tests specified in S20.3 (using a female or a Part 572 Subpart O Hybrid
III 5th percentile adult female dummy).
S21.2.2 The vehicle shall be equipped with a mechanism that
indicates whether the occupant restraint system is suppressed. The
mechanism
[[Page 60613]]
need not be located in the occupant compartment.
S21.2.3 The vehicle shall be equipped with a telltale light on the
instrument panel meeting the requirements specified in S19.2.3.
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 the passenger air bag 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 the passenger
air bag is statically deployed in accordance with the low risk
deployment test procedures specified in S22.3.
S21.5 Injury criteria for Hybrid III 3-year-old child dummy.
S21.5.1 All portions of the test dummy shall be contained within
the outer surfaces of the vehicle passenger compartment.
S21.5.2 The resultant acceleration at the center of gravity of the
head shall be such that the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.014
shall not exceed 570 where a is the resultant acceleration expressed as
a multiple of g (the acceleration of gravity), and t1 and
t2 are any two points in time during the crash of the
vehicle which are separated by not more than a 15 millisecond time
interval.
S21.5.3 The resultant acceleration calculated from the output of
the thoracic instrumentation shown in drawing [a drawing incorporated
by reference in Part 572 would be identified in the final rule] shall
not exceed 55 g's, except for intervals whose cumulative duration is
not more than 3 milliseconds.
S21.5.4 Compression deflection of the sternum relative to the
spine, as determined by instrumentation shown in drawing [a drawing
incorporated by reference in Part 572 would be identified in the final
rule] shall not exceed 34 millimeters (1.3 inches).
S21.5.5 The biomechanical neck injury predictor, Nij, shall not
exceed a value of 1.0 at any point in time. The following procedure
shall be used to compute Nij. The axial force (Fz) and flexion/
extension moment about the occipital condyles (My) shall be used to
calculate four combined injury predictors, collectively referred to as
Nij. These four combined values represent the probability of sustaining
each of four primary types of cervical injuries; namely tension-
extension (NTE), tension-flexion (NTF),
compression-extension (NCE), and compression-flexion
(NCF) injuries. Axial force shall be filtered at SAE class
1000 and flexion/extension moment (My) shall be filtered at SAE class
600. Shear force, which shall be filtered at SAE class 600, is used
only in conjunction with the measured moment to calculate the effective
moment at the location of the occipital condyles. The equation for
calculating the Nij criteria is given by:
Nij=(Fz/Fzc)+(My/Myc)
where Fzc and Myc are critical values corresponding to:
Fzc=2120 N (477 lbf) for tension
Fzc=2120 N (477 lbf) for compression
Myc=68 Nm (50 lbf-ft) for flexion about occipital condyles
Myc=27 Nm (20 lbf-ft) for extension about occipital condyles
Each of the four Nij values shall be calculated at each point in time,
and all four values shall not exceed 1.0 at any point in time. When
calculating NTE and NTF, all compressive loads
shall be set to zero. Similarly, when calculating NCE and
NCF, all tensile loads shall be set to zero. In a similar
fashion, when calculating NTE and NCE, all
flexion moments shall be set to zero. Likewise, when calculating
NTF and NCF, all extension moments shall be set
to zero.
S21.5.5 Test duration for purpose of measuring injury criteria.
For tests conducted pursuant to S22.3, the injury criteria shall be met
up to 100 milliseconds after the air bag deploys.
S22 Test procedure for S21.
S22.1 General provisions and definitions.
S22.1.1 Tests specifying the use of a forward-facing child seat or
booster seat may be conducted using any such seat listed in section C
and section D of Appendix A of this standard. The child restraint may
be unused or used; if used, there must not be any visible damage prior
to the test.
S22.1.2 The definitions provided in S16.3.1 apply to the tests
specified in S22.
S22.2 Static tests of automatic suppression feature which must
result in deactivation of the passenger air bag when a child is
present.
S22.2.1 Test one--child in a forward-facing child seat or booster
seat.
S22.2.1.1 Position the right front passenger vehicle seat at any
seat track location, at any seat height, and at any seat back angle
between the manufacturer's nominal design position for the 50th
percentile adult male as specified in S8.1.3.
S22.2.1.2 Install the forward-facing child seat or booster seat in
the right front passenger seat in accordance, to the extent possible,
with the child restraint manufacturer's instructions provided with the
seat.
S22.2.1.3 Cinch the vehicle belts to secure the child restraint in
accordance with the procedures specified in Standard No. 213, except
that any tension from zero up to 134 N (30 pounds) may be used.
S22.2.1.4 Position the Part 572 Subpart P Hybrid III 3-year-old
child dummy seated in the forward-facing child seat or booster seat
such that the dummy's lower torso is centered on the forward-facing
child seat or booster seat cushion and the dummy's spine is parallel to
the forward-facing child seat or booster seat back or, if there is no
booster seat back, the vehicle seat back. Place the lower arms at the
dummy's side.
S22.2.1.5 Attach all appropriate forward-facing child seat or
booster seat belts, if any, by following, to the extent possible, the
manufacturer's instructions for seating children provided with the
child restraint.
S22.2.1.6 Start the vehicle engine and then close all vehicle
doors.
S22.2.1.7 Check whether the air bag is deactivated.
S22.2.2 Test two--unbelted child.
S22.2.2.1 Position the right front passenger vehicle seat at any
seat track location, at any seat height, and at any seat back angle
between the manufacturer's nominal design position for the 50th
percentile adult male as specified in S8.1.3.
S22.2.2.2 Place the Part 572 Hybrid III 3-year old child dummy on
the right front passenger seat in any of the following positions
(without using a forward-facing child restraint or booster seat or the
vehicle's seat belts):
(a) Sitting on seat with back against seat.
(1) Position the dummy in the seated position and place it on the
right front passenger seat.
(2) Position the upper torso of the dummy against the seat back. In
the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats, position the
midsagittal plane of the dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline and the same distance from the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline as the center of the steering wheel rim. In the
case of vehicles equipped with bucket seats, position the midsagittal
plane of the dummy vertically such that it coincides with the
longitudinal centerline of the
[[Page 60614]]
bucket seat. Position the dummy's thighs against the seat cushion.
(3) Allow the legs of the dummy to extend off the surface of the
seat. If this positioning of the dummy's legs is prevented by contact
with the instrument panel, rotate the leg toward the floor until there
is no contact with the instrument panel.
(4) Rotate the dummy's upper arms down until they contact the seat.
(5) Rotate the dummy's lower arms until the dummy's hands contact
the seat.
(6) Start the vehicle engine and then close all vehicle doors.
(7) Check whether the air bag is deactivated.
(b) Sitting on seat with back not against seat:
(1) Position the dummy in the seated position and place it on the
right front passenger seat.
(2) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats, position the
midsagittal plane of the dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline and the same distance from the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline as the center of the steering wheel rim. In the
case of vehicles equipped with bucket seats, position the midsagittal
plane of the dummy vertically such that it coincides with the
longitudinal centerline of the bucket seat. Position the dummy so that
the horizontal distance from the dummy's back to the seat back is no
less than 25 mm (1 inch) and no more than 150 mm (6 inches), as
measured from the dummy's mid-sagittal plane at the mid-sternum level.
(3) Position the dummy's femurs against the seat cushion.
(4) Allow the legs of the dummy to extend off the surface of the
seat. If this positioning the dummy's legs is prevented by contact with
the instrument panel, rotate the leg toward the floor until there is no
contact with the instrument panel.
(5) Rotate the dummy's lower arms until the dummy's hands contact
the seat.
(6) Start the vehicle engine and then close all vehicle doors.
(7) Check whether the air bag is deactivated.
(c) Sitting on seat edge, spine vertical, hands by the dummy's
side:
(1) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats, position the
midsagittal plane of the dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline and the same distance from the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline as the center of the steering wheel rim. In the
case of vehicles equipped with bucket seats, position the midsagittal
plane of the dummy vertically such that it coincides with the
longitudinal centerline of the bucket seat. Position the dummy in the
seated position and place it on the right front passenger seat with the
dummy's legs positioned 90 degrees (i.e., right angle) from the
horizontal.
(2) Position the dummy forward in the seat such that the legs rest
against the front of the seat with the spine in the vertical direction.
If the dummy's feet contact the floorboard, rotate the legs forward
until the dummy is resting on the seat with the feet positioned flat on
the floorboard and the dummy spine vertical.
(3) Extend the dummy's arms directly in front of the dummy parallel
to the floor of the vehicle.
(4) Lower the dummy's arms such that they contact the seat.
(5) Start the vehicle engine and then close all vehicle doors.
(6) Check whether the air bag is deactivated.
(d) Standing on seat, facing forward:
(1) Position the dummy in the standing position. The arms may be at
any position.
(2) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats, position the
midsagittal plane of the dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline and the same distance from the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline as the center of the steering wheel rim. In the
case of vehicles equipped with bucket seats, position the midsagittal
plane of the dummy vertically such that it coincides with the
longitudinal centerline of the bucket seat. Position the dummy on the
right front passenger seat cushion facing the front of the vehicle
while placing the heels of the dummy feet in contact with the seat
back.
(3) Rest the dummy against the seat back.
(4) Start the vehicle engine and then close all vehicle doors.
(5) Check whether the air bag is deactivated.
(e) Kneeling on seat, facing forward:
(1) Position the dummy in a kneeling position by rotating the
dummy's legs 90 degrees behind the dummy (from the standing position).
(2) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats, position the
midsagittal plane of the dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline and the same distance from the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline as the center of the steering wheel rim. In the
case of vehicles equipped with bucket seats, position the midsagittal
plane of the dummy vertically such that it coincides with the
longitudinal centerline of the bucket seat. Position the kneeling dummy
in the right front passenger seat with the dummy facing the front of
the vehicle. Position the dummy such that the dummy's toes are in
contact with the seat back. The arms may be at any position.
(3) Start the vehicle engine and then close all vehicle doors.
(4) Check whether the air bag is deactivated.
(f) Kneeling on seat, facing rearward:
(1) Position the dummy in a kneeling position by rotating the
dummy's legs 90 degrees behind the dummy (from the standing position).
(2) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats, position the
midsagittal plane of the dummy vertically and parallel to the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline and the same distance from the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline as the center of the steering wheel rim. In the
case of vehicles equipped with bucket seats, position the midsagittal
plane of the dummy vertically such that it coincides with the
longitudinal centerline of the bucket seat. Position the kneeling dummy
in the right front passenger seat with the dummy facing the rear of the
vehicle. Position the dummy such that the dummy's head is in contact
with the seat back. The arms may be at any position.
(3) Start the vehicle engine and then close all vehicle doors.
(4) Check whether the air bag is deactivated.
(g) Lying on seat:
(1) Lay the dummy on the right front passenger seat such that the
following criteria are met:
(i) The mid-sagittal plane of the dummy is horizontal,
(ii) The dummy's spine is perpendicular to the vehicle longitudinal
axis,
(iii) The dummy's upper arms are parallel to its spine,
(iv) A plane passing through the two shoulder joints of the dummy
is vertical and intersects the geometric center of the seat bottom (the
seat bottom is the plan view part of the seat from the forward most
part of the seat back to the forward most part of the seat),
(v) The anterior of the dummy is facing the vehicle front, and the
head is positioned towards the passenger door, and
(vi) Leg position is not set and can be articulated to fit above
conditions.
(2) If the top of the dummy's head is not within 50 to 100 mm (2-4
inches) of the vehicle side door structure, translate the dummy
laterally so that the top of the dummy head is 50 to 100 mm (2-4
inches) from the vehicle door structure.
[[Page 60615]]
(3) Rotate the thighs toward the chest of the dummy and rotate the
legs against the thighs.
(4) Place the dummy's upper left arm parallel to the vehicle's
transverse plane and the lower arm 90 degrees to the upper arm. Rotate
the left lower arm down about the elbow joint until movement is
obstructed. The final position should resemble a fetal position.
(5) Start the vehicle engine and then close all vehicle doors.
(6) Check whether the air bag is deactivated.
(h) Low risk deployment test position 1.
(1) Position the dummy in accordance with the position set forth in
S22.3.2.
(2) Start the vehicle engine and then close all vehicle doors.
(3) Check whether the air bag is deactivated.
(i) Sitting on seat edge, head contacting the mid-face of the
instrument panel.
(1) Locate and mark the center point of the dummy's rib cage or
sternum plate. (The vertical mid-point on the mid-sagittal plane of the
frontal chest plate of the dummy). This will be referred to as ``Point
A.''
(2) Locate the point on the air bag module cover that is the
geometric center of the air bag module cover. This will be referred to
as ``Point B''.
(3) Locate the horizontal plane that passes through Point B. This
will be referred to as ``Plane 1''.
(4) ``Plane 2'' is defined as the vertical plane which passes
through Point B and is parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal axis.
(5) Move the passenger seat to the full rearward seating position.
(6) Place the dummy in the front passenger seat such that:
(i) Point A is located in Plane 2.
(ii) A vertical plane through the shoulder joints of the dummy is
90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
(iii) The legs are positioned 90 degrees (right angle) from
horizontal.
(iv) The dummy is positioned forward in the seat such that the legs
rest against the front of the seat and such that the dummy's upper
spine plate is vertical.
(7) Rotate the dummy's torso by applying a force towards the front
of the vehicle on the spine of the dummy between the shoulder joints.
Continue applying force until the head C.G. is in Plane 1, or the spine
angle at the upper spine plate is 45 degrees, whichever produces the
greatest rotation.
(8) Move the seat forward until the dummy comes in contact with the
forward structure of the vehicle, or the seat is full forward,
whichever occurs first.
(9) To keep the dummy in position, a thread with a maximum breaking
strength of 311 N (70 pounds) that does not interfere with the
suppression device may be used to hold the dummy.
(10) Start the vehicle engine and then close all vehicle doors.
(11) Check whether the air bag is deactivated.
S22.3 Low risk deployment test (Hybrid III 3-year-old child
dummy).
S22.3.1 Position the dummy according to any of the following
positions: Position 1 (S22.3.2) or Position 2 (S22.3.3).
S22.3.2 Position 1 (chest on instrument panel).
S22.3.2.1 Locate and mark the center point of the dummy's chest/
rib plate (the vertical mid-point on the mid-sagittal plane of the
frontal chest plate of the dummy). This will be referred to as ``Point
A.''
S22.3.2.2 Locate the point on the air bag module cover that is the
geometric center of the air bag module cover. This is referred to as
``Point B.''
S22.3.2.3 Locate the horizontal plane that passes through Point B.
This will be referred to as ``Plane 1.''
S22.3.2.4 Locate the vertical plane parallel to the vehicle
longitudinal axis and passing through Point B. This will be referred to
as ``Plane 2.''
S22.3.2.5 Move the passenger seat to the full rearward seating
position. Place the seat back in the nominal design position for a 50th
percentile adult male dummy (S8.1.3) as specified by the vehicle
manufacturer.
S22.3.2.6 Place the dummy in the front passenger seat such that:
S22.3.2.6.1 Point A is located in Plane 2.
S22.3.2.6.2 A vertical plane through the dummy shoulder joints is
at 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
S22.3.2.6.3 The legs are positioned 90 degrees to the thighs.
S22.3.2.6.4 The dummy is positioned forward in the seat such that
the dummy's upper spine plate is vertical, and the legs rest against
the front of the seat.
S22.3.2.7 Move the dummy forward until the upper torso or head of
the dummy makes contact with the instrument panel of the vehicle.
S22.3.2.8 Once contact is made, raise the dummy vertically until
Point A lies within Plane 1 (the vertical height to the center of the
air bag) or until a minimum clearance of 6 mm (0.25 inches) between the
dummy head and the windshield is attained. If additional height is
required, the dummy may be raised with the use of spacers (foam blocks,
etc.) placed on the floor of the vehicle.
S22.3.2.9 Position the upper arms parallel to the spine and rotate
the lower arms forward (at the elbow joint) sufficiently to prevent
contact with or support from the seat.
S22.3.2.10 Position the lower limbs of the dummy so that the feet
rest flat on the floorboard (or the feet are positioned parallel to the
floorboard) of the vehicle and the legs are vertical. If necessary,
raise the dummy vertically with the use of spacers (foam blocks, etc.)
placed on the floor of the vehicle.
S22.3.2.11 Support the dummy so that there is minimum interference
with the full rotational and translational freedom for the upper torso
of the dummy.
S22.3.2.12 If necessary, tether the upper torso with a thread with
a maximum breaking strength of 311 N (70 pounds) such that the tether
is not situated in the air bag deployment envelope.
S22.3.3 Position 2 (head on instrument panel).
S22.3.3.1 Locate and mark the center point of the dummy's chest/
rib plate (the vertical mid-point on the mid-sagittal plane of the
frontal chest plate of the dummy). This will be referred to as ``Point
A.''
S22.3.3.2 Locate the point on the air bag module cover that is the
geometric center of the air bag module cover. This will be referred to
as ``Point B.''
S22.3.3.3 Locate the vertical plane which passes through Point B
and is parallel to the vehicle longitudinal axis. This will be referred
to as ``Plane 2.''
S22.3.3.4 Move the passenger seat to the full rearward seating
position. Place the seat back in the nominal design position for a 50th
percentile adult male (S8.1.3) as specified by the vehicle
manufacturer.
S22.3.3.4 Place the dummy in the front passenger seat such that:
S22.3.3.4.1 Point A is located in Plane 2.
S22.3.3.4.2 A vertical plane through the shoulder joints of the
dummy is at 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
S22.3.3.4.3 The legs are positioned 90 degrees (right angle) from
horizontal.
S22.3.3.4.4 The dummy is positioned forward in the seat such that
the legs rest against the front of the seat and such that the dummy's
upper spine plate is from vertical. Note: For some seats, it may not be
possible to position the dummy with the legs in the prescribed
position. In this situation, rotate the legs forward until the dummy is
resting on the seat with the feet
[[Page 60616]]
positioned flat on the floorboard and the dummy's upper spine plate is
vertical.
S22.3.3.5 Move the seat forward, while maintaining the upper spine
plate orientation until some portion of the dummy contacts the
vehicle's instrument panel.
S22.3.3.5.1 If contact has not been made with the vehicle's
instrument panel at the full forward seating position of the seat,
slide the dummy forward on the seat until contact is made. Maintain the
upper spine plate orientation.
S22.3.3.5.2 Once contact is made, rotate the dummy forward until
the head and/or upper torso are in contact with the vehicle's
instrument panel. Rotation is achieved by applying a force towards the
front of the vehicle on the spine of the dummy between the shoulder
joints.
S22.3.3.5.3 Rotate the thighs downward and rotate the legs and
feet rearward (toward the rear of vehicle) so as not to impede the
rotation of the head/torso into the vehicle's instrument panel.
S22.3.3.5.4 Reposition the legs so that the feet rest flat on (or
parallel to) the floorboard with each ankle joint positioned as nearly
as possible to the midsaggital plane of the dummy.
S22.3.3.5.5 If necessary, tether the upper torso with a thread
with a maximum breaking strength of 311 N (70 pounds) and/or place a
wedge under the dummy's pelvis. The tether may not be situated in the
air bag deployment envelope. Note: If contact with the instrument panel
cannot be made by sliding the dummy forward in the seat, then place the
dummy in the forward-most position on the seat that will allow the
head/upper torso to rest against the instrument panel of the vehicle.
S22.3.3.6 Position the upper arms parallel to the upper spine
plate and rotate the lower arm forward sufficiently to prevent contact
with or support from the seat.
S22.3.4 Deploy the right front passenger air bag. If the air bag
contains a multistage inflator, any stage or combination of stages may
be fired that could deploy in crashes at or below 29 km/h (18 mph),
under the test procedure specified in S22.4.
S22.4 Test procedure for determining stages of air bags subject to
low risk deployment test requirement. In the case of an air bag with a
multistage inflator, any stage or combination of stages that fires in
the following rigid barrier test may be deployed when conducting the
low risk deployment tests described in S22.3, S24.4, and S26.3. Impact
the vehicle traveling longitudinally forward at any speed, up to and
including 29 km/h (18 mph), into a fixed rigid barrier that is
perpendicular 5 degrees to the line of travel of the
vehicle under the applicable conditions of S8 of this standard.
S23 Requirements using 6-year-old child dummies.
S23.1 Each vehicle shall, at the option of the manufacturer, meet
the requirements specified in S23.2, S23.3, or S23.4, under the test
procedures specified in S24.
S23.2 Option 1--Automatic suppression feature that always
suppresses the air bag when a child is present. Each vehicle shall meet
the requirements specified in S23.2.1 through S23.2.2.
S23.2.1 The vehicle shall be equipped with an automatic
suppression feature for the passenger air bag which results in
deactivation of the air bag during each of the static tests specified
in S24.2 (using a Part 572 Subpart N Hybrid III 6-year-old child
dummy), and activation of the air bag during each of the static tests
specified in S20.3 (using a Part 572 Subpart O Hybrid III 5th
percentile adult female dummy).
S23.2.2 The vehicle shall be equipped with a mechanism that
indicates whether the occupant restraint system is suppressed. The
mechanism need not be located in the occupant compartment.
S23.2.3 The vehicle shall be equipped with a telltale light on the
instrument panel meeting the requirements specified in S19.2.3.
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 the passenger air bag 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 the passenger
air bag is statically deployed in accordance with the procedures
specified in S24.3.
S23.5 Injury criteria (Hybrid III 6-year-old child dummy).
S23.5.1 All portions of the test dummy shall be contained within
the outer surfaces of the vehicle passenger compartment.
S23.5.2 The resultant acceleration at the center of gravity of the
head shall be such that the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.015
shall not exceed 700 where a is the resultant acceleration expressed as
a multiple of g (the acceleration of gravity), and t1 and
t2 are any two points in time during the crash of the
vehicle which are separated by not more than a 15 millisecond time
interval.
S23.5.3 The resultant acceleration calculated from the output of
the thoracic instrumentation shown in drawing [a drawing incorporated
by reference in Part 572 would be identified in the final rule] shall
not exceed 60 g's, except for intervals whose cumulative duration is
not more than 3 milliseconds.
S23.5.4 Compression deflection of the sternum relative to the
spine, as determined by instrumentation [a drawing incorporated by
reference in Part 572 would be identified in the final rule] shall not
exceed 40 mm (1.6 inches).
S23.5.5 The biomechanical neck injury predictor, Nij, shall not
exceed a value of 1.0 at any point in time. The following procedure
shall be used to compute Nij. The axial force (Fz) and flexion/
extension moment about the occipital condyles (My) shall be used to
calculate four combined injury predictors, collectively referred to as
Nij. These four combined values represent the probability of sustaining
each of four primary types of cervical injuries; namely, tension-
extension (NTE), tension-flexion (NTF),
compression-extension (NCE), and compression-flexion
(NCF) injuries. Axial force shall be filtered at SAE class
1000 and flexion/extension moment (My) shall be filtered at SAE class
600. Shear force, which shall be filtered at SAE class 600, is used
only in conjunction with the measured moment to calculate the effective
moment at the location of the occipital condyles. The equation for
calculating the Nij criteria is given by:
Nij=(Fz/Fzc)+(My/Myc)
where Fzc and Myc are critical values corresponding to:
Fzc=2800 N (629 lbf) for tension
Fzc=2800 N (629 lbf) for compression
Myc=93 Nm (69 lbf-ft) for flexion about occipital condyles
Myc=39 Nm (29 lbf-ft) for extension about occipital condyles
Each of the four Nij values shall be calculated at each point in time,
and all four values shall not exceed 1.0 at any point in time. When
calculating NTE and NTF, all compressive loads
shall be set to zero. Similarly, when calculating NCE
[[Page 60617]]
and NCF, all tensile loads shall be set to zero. In a
similar fashion, when calculating NTE and NCE,
all flexion moments shall be set to zero. Likewise, when calculating
NTF and NCF, all extension moments shall be set
to zero.
S23.5.6 Test duration for purpose of measuring injury criteria.
For tests conducted pursuant to S23.5, the injury criteria shall be met
up to 100 milliseconds after the air bag deploys.
S24 Test procedure for S23.
S24.1 General provisions and definitions. Tests specifying the use
of a forward-facing child seat or booster seat may be conducted using
any seat listed in Section D of Appendix A of this standard. The seat
may be used or unused; if used there must not be any visible damage.
S24.1.2 The definitions provided in S16.3.1 apply to the tests
specified in S24.
S24.2 Static tests of automatic suppression feature which must
result in deactivation of the passenger air bag when a child is
present.
S24.2.1 Except as provided in S24.2.2, all tests specified in
S22.2 shall be conducted using the 6-year-old Hybrid III child dummy.
S24.2.2 Exceptions. The tests specified in the following
paragraphs of S22.2 shall not be conducted using the 6-year-old Hybrid
III child dummy: S22.2.2.2(d), (e), (f), (g), and (h).
S24.2.3 Sitting back in the seat and leaning on the right front
passenger door (This test is conducted using the 6-year-old Hybrid III
child dummy but not the 3-year-old Hybrid III child dummy).
(a) Position the right front passenger vehicle seat at any seat
track location, at any seat height, and at any seat back angle between
the manufacturer's nominal design position for the 50th percentile
adult male as specified in S8.1.3.
(b) Position the dummy in the seated position and place the dummy
in the right front passenger seat.
(c) Place the dummy's lower torso on the outboard portion of the
seat with the dummy's back against the seat back and the dummy's thighs
resting on the seat cushion.
(d) Allow the legs of the dummy to extend off the surface of the
seat. If this positioning of the dummy's legs is prevented by contact
with the instrument panel, rotate the leg toward the floor until there
is no contact with the instrument panel.
(e) Rotate the dummy's upper arms toward the seat back until they
make contact.
(f) Rotate the dummy's lower arms down until they contact the seat.
(g) Lean the dummy against the outboard door.
(h) Close the vehicle's passenger-side vehicle and then start the
vehicle engine; close all remaining doors.
(i) Check whether the air bag is deactivated.
S24.3 Low risk deployment test (Hybrid III 6-year old child
dummy).
S24.3.1 Position the dummy according to any of the following
positions: Position 1 (S24.3.2) or Position 2 (S24.3.3).
S24.3.2 Position 1 (chest on instrument panel).
S24.3.2.1 Locate and mark the center point of the dummy's rib cage
or sternum plate (the vertical mid-point on the mid-sagittal plane of
the frontal chest plate of the dummy). This will be referred to as
``Point A.''
S24.3.2.2 Locate the point on the air bag module cover that is the
geometric center of the air bag module cover. This will be referred to
as ``Point B.''
S24.3.2.3 Locate the horizontal plane that passes through Point B.
This will be referred to as ``Plane 1.''
S24.3.2.4 Locate the vertical plane parallel to the vehicle
longitudinal axis and passing through Point B. This will be referred to
as ``Plane 2.''
S24.3.2.5 Position the right front passenger vehicle seat at any
seat track location, at any seat height, and at any seat back angle
between the manufacturer's nominal design position for the 50th
percentile adult male as specified in S8.1.3.
S24.3.2.6 Place the dummy in the front passenger seat such that:
S24.3.2.6.1 Point A is located in Plane 2.
S24.3.2.6.2 A vertical plane through the dummy shoulder joints is
at 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
S24.3.2.6.3 The legs are positioned 90 degrees to the thighs.
S24.3.2.6.4 The dummy is positioned forward in the seat such that
the dummy's upper spine plate is 6 degrees forward (toward the front of
the vehicle) of the vertical position, and the legs rest against the
front of the seat or the feet are resting flat on the floorboard of the
vehicle.
S24.3.2.6.5 Mark this position, and remove the legs at the pelvic
interface.
S24.3.2.7 Move the dummy forward until the upper torso or head of
the dummy makes contact with the vehicle's instrument panel.
S24.3.2.8 Once contact is made, raise the dummy vertically until
Point A lies within Plane 1 (the vertical height to the center of the
air bag) or until a minimum clearance of 6 mm (0.25 inches) between any
part of the dummy head and windshield is attained.
S24.3.2.9 Position the upper arms parallel to the spine and rotate
the lower arms forward (at the elbow joint) sufficiently to prevent
contact with or support from the seat.
S24.3.2.10 Support the dummy so that there is minimum interference
with the full rotational and translational freedom for the upper torso
of the dummy.
S24.3.2.10.1 If necessary, tether the upper torso with a thread
with a maximum breaking strength of 311 N (70 pounds) such that the
tether is not situated in the air bag deployment envelope.
S24.3.3 Position 2 (head on instrument panel).
S24.3.3.1 Locate and mark the center point of the dummy's chest/
rib plate (the vertical mid-point on the mid-sagittal plane of the
frontal chest plate of the dummy). This will be referred to as ``Point
A.''
S24.3.3.2 Locate the point on the air bag module cover that is the
geometric center of the air bag module cover. This will be referred to
as ``Point B.''
S24.3.3.3 Locate the vertical plane which passes through Point B
and is parallel to the vehicle longitudinal axis. This will be referred
to as ``Plane 2.''
S24.3.3.4 Position the right front passenger vehicle seat at any
seat track location, at any seat height, and at any seat back angle
between the manufacturer's nominal design position for the 50th
percentile adult male as specified in S8.1.3.
S24.3.3.5 Place the dummy in the front passenger seat such that:
S24.3.3.5.1 Point A is located in Plane 2.
S24.3.3.5.2 A vertical plane through the shoulder joints of the
dummy is at 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
S24.3.3.5.3 The legs are positioned 90 degrees (right angle) from
horizontal.
S24.3.3.5.4 The dummy is positioned forward in the seat such that
the legs rest against the front of the seat and such that the dummy's
upper spine plate is 6 degrees forward (toward front of vehicle) of the
vertical position.
Note: For some seats, it may not be possible to position the
dummy with the legs in the prescribed position. In this situation,
rotate the legs forward until the dummy is resting on the seat with
the feet positioned flat on the floorboard and the dummy's upper
spine plate is 6 degrees forward (toward the front of the vehicle)
of the vertical position.
S24.3.3.6 Move the seat forward, while maintaining the upper spine
plate orientation until some portion of the dummy contacts the
vehicle's instrument panel.
[[Page 60618]]
S24.3.3.6.1 If contact has not been made with the vehicle's
instrument panel at the full forward seating position of the seat,
slide the dummy forward on the seat until contact is made. Maintain the
upper spine plate orientation.
S24.3.3.6.2 Once contact is made, rotate the dummy forward until
the head and/or upper torso are in contact with the vehicle's
instrument panel. Rotation is achieved by applying a force towards the
front of the vehicle on the spine of the dummy between the shoulder
joints.
S24.3.3.6.3 Rotate the legs and feet rearward (toward rear of
vehicle) so as not to impede the rotation of the head/torso into the
vehicle's instrument panel.
S24.3.3.6.4 Reposition the legs so that the feet rest flat on (or
parallel to) the floorboard with the ankle joints positioned as nearly
as possible to the midsaggital plane of the dummy.
S24.3.3.6.5 If necessary, tether the upper torso with a thread
with a maximum breaking strength of 311 N (70 pounds) and/or place a
wedge under the dummy's pelvis. The tether may not be situated in the
air bag's deployment envelope.
Note: If contact with the instrument panel cannot be made by
sliding the dummy forward in the seat, then place the dummy in the
forward-most position on the seat that will allow the head/upper
torso to rest against the vehicle's instrument panel.
S24.3.3.7 Position the upper arms parallel to the torso and rotate
the lower arms forward sufficiently to prevent contact with or support
from the seat.
S24.3.4 Deploy the right front passenger air bag. If the air bag
contains a multistage inflator, any stage or combination of stages may
be fired that could deploy in crashes at or below 29 km/h (18 mph),
under the test procedure specified in S22.4.
S25 Requirements using an out-of-position 5th percentile adult
female dummy at the driver position.
S25.1 Each vehicle shall, at the option of the manufacturer, meet
the requirements specified in S25.2 or S25.3 of this standard.
S25.2 Option 1--Dynamic automatic suppression system. (This option
is available under the conditions set forth in S27.1.) The vehicle
shall be equipped with a dynamic automatic suppression system for the
driver air bag which meets the requirements specified in S27.
S25.3 Option 2--Low risk deployment. Each vehicle shall meet the
injury criteria specified in S15.3 of this standard when the driver air
bag is statically deployed in accordance with the procedures specified
in S26 of this standard.
S26 Test procedure for low risk deployment of driver-side air bag.
S26.1 Position the Part 571 Subpart O 5th percentile adult female
test dummy according to any of the following positions: Driver position
1 (S26.2) or Driver position 2 (S26.3).
S26.2 Driver position 1 (chin on module).
26.2.1 Adjust the steering controls so that the steering wheel 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.
S26.2.2 Locate the point on the air bag module cover that is the
geometric center of the steering wheel. This will be referred to as
``Point B.''
S26.2.3 Locate and mark the center point of the dummy's rib cage
or sternum plate (the vertical mid-point on the mid-sagittal plane of
the frontal chest plate of the dummy). This will be referred to as
``Point A.''
S26.2.4 Locate the horizontal plane that passes through Point B.
This will be referred to as ``Plane 1.''
S26.2.5 Locate the vertical plane perpendicular to Plane 1 and
parallel to the vehicle longitudinal axis which passes through Point B.
This will be referred to as ``Plane 2.''
S26.2.6 Move the driver seat to the full rearward seating
position. Place the seat back in the nominal design position for a 50th
percentile adult male (S8.1.3) as specified by the vehicle
manufacturer.
S26.2.7 Place the dummy in the seat such that:
S26.2.7.1 Point A is located in Plane 2.
S26.2.7.2 A vertical plane through the dummy shoulder joints is at
90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
S26.2.7.3 The legs are positioned 90 degrees to the thighs.
S26.2.7.4 Rotate the dummy forward until its upper spine plate
angle is 6 degrees forward (toward the front of the vehicle) of the
steering wheel angle.
S26.2.8 Adjust the height of the dummy so that the bottom of the
chin is in the same horizontal plane as the highest point of the module
cover (dummy height can be adjusted using the seat position and/or
spacer blocks). If the seat height prevents the bottom of chin from
being in the same horizontal plane as the module cover, adjust the
dummy height to as close to the prescribed position as possible.
S26.2.9 Move the dummy forward, maintaining the upper spine plate
angle and dummy height until the head or torso contacts the steering
wheel.
S26.2.10 If necessary, a thread with a maximum breaking strength
of 311 N (70 pounds) may be used to hold the dummy against the steering
wheel. Position the thread so as to eliminate or minimize any contact
with the deploying air bag.
S26.3 Driver position 2 (chin on rim).
S26.3.1 The driver's seat track is not specified and may be
positioned to best facilitate the positioning of the dummy.
S26.3.2 Locate the point on the air bag module cover that is the
geometric center of the steering wheel. This will be referred to as
``Point B.''
S26.3.3 Locate and mark the center point of the dummy's rib cage
or sternum plate (the vertical mid-point on the mid-sagittal plane of
the frontal chest plate of the dummy). This will be referred to as
``Point A.''
S26.3.4 Locate the horizontal plane that passes through Point B.
This will be referred to as ``Plane 1.''
S26.3.5 Locate the vertical plane perpendicular to Plane 1 which
passes through Point B. This will be referred to as ``Plane 2.''
S26.3.6 Place the dummy in the front driver seat so that Point A
is located in Plane 2.
S26.3.7 Rotate the dummy forward until its upper spine plate is 6
degrees forward (toward the front of the vehicle) of the steering wheel
angle.
S26.3.8 Position the dummy so that the center of the chin is in
contact with the uppermost portion of the rim of the steering wheel. Do
not hook the chin over the top of the rim of the steering wheel.
Position the chin to rest on the upper edge of the rim, without loading
the neck. If the dummy head contacts the vehicle upper interior before
the prescribed position can be obtained, the dummy height may be
adjusted as close to the prescribed position as possible, while
maintaining a 102 mm (0.4.08 inches) clearance
from the vehicle's upper interior.
S26.3.9 To raise the height of the dummy to attain the required
positioning, spacer blocks (foam, etc.) may be placed on the driver's
seat beneath the dummy. If necessary, a thread with a maximum breaking
strength of 311 N (70 pounds) is used to hold the dummy against the
steering wheel. Position the thread so as to eliminate or minimize any
contact with the deploying air bag.
S26.4 Deploy the driver air bag. If the air bag contains a
multistage inflator, any stage or combination of stages is fired that
may deploy in crashes at or below 29 km/h (18 mph),
[[Page 60619]]
under the test procedure specified in S22.4.
S27 Option for dynamic automatic suppression system that
suppresses the air bag when an occupant is out-of-position.
S27.1 Availability of option. This option is available for either
air bag, singly or in conjunction, subject to the requirements of S27,
if:
(a) A petition for rulemaking to establish dynamic automatic
suppression system test procedures is submitted pursuant to Subpart B
of Part 552 and a test procedure applicable to the vehicle is added to
S28 pursuant to the procedures specified by that subpart, or
(b) A test procedure applicable to the vehicle is otherwise added
to S28.
S27.2 Definitions. For purposes of S27 and S28, the following
definitions apply:
Dynamic automatic suppression system or DASS means a portion of an
air bag system that automatically controls whether or not the air bag
deploys during a crash by:
(1) Sensing the location of an occupant, moving or still, in
relation to the air bag;
(2) Interpreting the occupant characteristics and location
information to determine whether or not the air bag should deploy; and
(3) Activating or suppressing the air bag system based on the
interpretation of occupant characteristics and location information.
Automatic suppression zone or ASZ means a three-dimensional zone
adjacent to the air bag cover, specified by the vehicle manufacturer,
where the deployment of the air bag will be suppressed by the DASS if a
vehicle occupant enters the zone under specified conditions.
S27.3 Requirements. Each vehicle shall, at each applicable front
outboard designated seating position, when tested under the conditions
of S28 of this standard, comply with the requirements specified in
S27.4 through S27.6.
S27.4 Each vehicle shall be equipped with a DASS.
S27.5 Static test requirement (low risk deployment for occupants
outside the ASZ).
S27.5.1 Driver (Part 572, Subpart O 5th percentile female dummy).
Each vehicle shall meet the injury criteria specified in S15.3 of this
standard when the driver air bag is statically deployed in accordance
with the procedures specified in S28.1.
S27.5.2 Passenger (Part 572, Subpart P 3-year-old child dummy and
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
the passenger air bag is statically deployed in accordance with the
procedures specified in S28.2.
S27.6 Dynamic test requirement (suppression of air bag for
occupants inside the ASZ).
S27.6.1 Driver. The DASS shall suppress the driver air bag before
the head, neck, or torso of the specified test device enters the ASZ
when the vehicle is tested under the procedures specified in S28.3.
S27.6.2 Passenger. The DASS shall suppress the 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 Test procedure for S27 of this standard. [Reserved]
S28.1 Driver suppression zone verification test (part 572, subpart
O 5th percentile female dummy). [Reserved]
S28.2 Passenger suppression zone verification test ( part 572,
subpart P 3-year-old child dummy and Part 572, subpart N 6-year-old
child dummies). [Reserved)]
S28.3 Driver dynamic test procedure for DASS requirements.
[Reserved]
S28.4 Passenger dynamic test procedure for DASS requirements.
[Reserved]
S29 Manufacturer option to certify vehicles to certain static
suppression test requirements using human beings rather than test
dummies.
S29.1 At the option of the manufacturer, instead of using test
dummies in conducting the tests for the following static test
requirements, human beings may be used as specified. If human beings
are used, they shall assume, to the extent possible, the final physical
position specified for the corresponding dummies for each test.
(a) If a manufacturer decides to certify a vehicle using a human
being for a static test, it must use humans for the entire series of
tests, e.g., 3-year-old children for each static test involving 3-year-
old test dummies. If a manufacturer decides to certify a vehicle using
a test dummy for a static test, it must use test dummies for the entire
series of tests, e.g., a Hybrid III 3-year-old child dummy for each
static test involving 3-year-old test dummies.
(b) For S21.2, instead of using the Part 572 Subpart P Hybrid III
3-year-old child dummy, a human child who weighs between 13.4 and 18 kg
(29.5 and 39.5 lb), and who is between 89 and 99 cm (35 and 39 inches)
tall may be used.
(c) For S23.2, instead of using the Part 572 Subpart N Hybrid III
6-year-old child dummy, a human child who weighs between 21 and 25.6 kg
(46.5 and 56.5 lb), and who is between 114 and 124.5 cm (45 and 49
inches) tall may be used.
(d) For S19.2, S21.2, and S23.2, instead of using the Part 572
Subpart O Hybrid III 5th percentile adult female test dummy, a female
who weighs between 46.7 and 51.25 kg (103 lb and 113 lb), and who is
between 139.7 and 150 cm (55 and 59 inches) tall may be used.
S29.2 Human beings shall be dressed in a cotton T-shirt, full
length cotton trousers, and sneakers. Specified weights and heights
include clothing.
S29.3 A manufacturer exercising this option shall upon request--
(a) Provide NHTSA with a method, and identify any parts or
equipment necessary to deactivate the air bag during compliance testing
under S20.3, S22.2, and S24.2; such assurance may be made by removing
the air bag; and
(b) Provide NHTSA with a method to assure that the same test
results would be obtained if the air bag were not deactivated.
S30 Cruise control deactivation.
S30.1 If a vehicle is equipped with a cruise control device, this
device shall be deactivated whenever any stage of the air bag system
deploys.
S30.2 The cruise control device shall be deactivated when the
device is tested under the procedures specified in S31.
S31 Test procedure for determining deactivation of cruise control.
S31.1 Each vehicle that is equipped with a cruise control device
shall be equipped with an electrical terminal that permits measurement
of the cruise control voltage.
S31.2 Start the vehicle engine and engage the cruise control.
S31.3 Deploy any stage of the vehicle's frontal air bag system.
S31.4 The voltage at the cruise control voltage terminal shall be
zero within 100 ms after any stage of the vehicle's frontal air bag
system deploys.
S32 Provisions for emergency rescue operations.
S32.1 The air bag system shall deactivate whenever battery power
to the vehicle is interrupted for at least 60 seconds, and shall
reactivate once power from the battery is restored.
S32.2 The air bag system shall deactivate when the system is
tested under the procedures specified in S33.
S33 Test procedure for air bag deactivation during emergency
rescue operations.
S33.1 Each vehicle shall be equipped with an electrical terminal
that permits measurement of the frontal air bag firing voltage. This
terminal will
[[Page 60620]]
be referred to as the ``air bag firing voltage terminal.''
S33.2 Start the vehicle engine. Disconnect the vehicle's battery
power. Record the time of disconnect as time TD.
S33.3 Measure the voltage at the air bag firing terminal at time
TD plus 61 seconds.
S33.4 The voltage at the air bag firing terminal shall remain zero
after time TD plus 61 seconds until power is manually restored to the
terminal.
S33.5 Reconnect the battery. Start the vehicle engine. Record the
time of engine start as time TR. Monitor the air bag readiness
indicator (S4.5.2) at time TR plus 60 seconds to check if the air bag
is activated, i.e., the indicator shall not be illuminated.
Figures to Sec. 571.208
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 60621]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.006
[[Page 60622]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.007
[[Page 60623]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.008
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
[[Page 60624]]
Appendix A to Sec. 571.208--Selection of Child Restraint Systems
A. The following car bed, manufactured between January 1, 1999
and [insert date of final rule], may be used by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration to test the suppression system of a
vehicle that has been certified as being in compliance with 49 CFR
Part 571.208 S19.
Cosco Dream Ride Car Bed
B. Any of the following rear facing child restraint systems,
manufactured between January 1, 1999 and [insert date of final
rule], may be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration to test the suppression system of a vehicle that has
been certified as being in compliance with 49 CFR Part 571.208 S19.
When the restraint system comes equipped with a removable base, the
test may be run either with the base attached or without the base.
Century Assura
Century 560 Institutional
Century Smart Fit
Cosco Arriva
Cosco Turnabout
Evenflo Discovery
Evenflo First choice
Evenflo On My Way
Fisher-Price Safe Embrace Infant
Graco Infant 7493
Kolcraft Secura
C. Any of the following forward-facing convertible child
restraint systems, manufactured between January 1, 1999 and [insert
date of final rule], may be used by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration to test the suppression system of a vehicle
that has been certified as being in compliance with 49 CFR Part
571.208 S19, or S21.
Britax Roundabout
Century Encore
Cosco Touriva
Evenflo Scout
Early Development Folder A-Lock
Fisher Price Safe-Embrace
Kolcraft Secure Fit
D. Any of the following forward-facing toddler/belt positioning
booster systems, manufactured between January 1, 1999 and [insert
date of final rule], may be used by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration as test devices to test the suppression system
of a vehicle that has been certified as being in compliance with 49
CFR Part 571.208 S21 or S23.
Britax Cruiser
Century Next Step
Cosco High Back Booster
Evenflo Evolution
Kolcraft Prodigy
6. Part 585 would be revised to read as follows:
PART 585--ADVANCED AIR BAG PHASE-IN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Sec.
585.1 Scope.
585.2 Purpose.
585.3 Applicability.
585.4 Definitions.
585.5 Reporting requirements.
585.6 Records.
585.7 Petition to extend period to file report.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Sec. 585.1 Scope.
This part establishes requirements for manufacturers of passenger
cars and trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR
of 3,855 kg (8500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of
2,495 kg (5500 pounds) or less to submit a report, and maintain records
related to the report, concerning the number of such vehicles that meet
the advanced air bag requirements of Standard No. 208, ``Occupant crash
protection'' (49 CFR 571.208).
Sec. 585.2 Purpose.
The purpose of these reporting requirements is to aid the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration in determining whether a
manufacturer has complied with the advanced air bag requirements of
Standard No. 208.
Sec. 585.3 Applicability.
This part applies to manufacturers of passenger cars and trucks,
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg
(8500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5500
pounds) or less. However, this part does not apply to any manufacturers
whose production consists exclusively of walk-in vans, vehicles
designed to be sold exclusively to the U.S. Postal Service, vehicles
manufactured in two or more stages, and vehicles that are altered after
previously having been certified in accordance with part 567 of this
chapter.
Sec. 585.4 Definitions.
(a) All terms defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102 are used in their
statutory meaning.
(b) Bus, gross vehicle weight rating or GVWR, multipurpose
passenger vehicle, passenger car, and truck are used as defined in
Sec. 571.3 of this chapter.
(c) Advanced air bag requirements of Standard No. 208 refers to the
requirements set forth in S14.3, S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, S25, S30, and
S32 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, 49 CFR 571.208.
(d) Production year means the 12-month period between September 1
of one year and August 31 of the following year, inclusive.
Sec. 585.5 Reporting requirements.
(a) Advanced credit phase-in reporting requirements. Within 60 days
after the end of the production years ending August 31, 2000, August
31, 2001, and August 31, 2002, each manufacturer choosing to certify
vehicles according to the advanced air bag requirements of Standard No.
208 shall submit a report to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration concerning its passenger cars, trucks, buses, and
multipurpose passenger vehicles produced in that production year for
advance credit for production years ending August 31, 2003, August 31,
2004, or August 31, 2005. Each report shall--
(1) Identify the manufacturer;
(2) State the full name, title, and address of the official
responsible for preparing the report;
(3) Identify the production year being reported on;
(4) Provide the information specified in paragraph (c) of this
section;
(5) Be written in the English language; and
(6) Be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.
(b) Phase-in reporting requirements. Within 60 days after the end
of the production years ending August 31, 2003, August 31, 2004 and
August 31, 2005, each manufacturer shall submit a report to the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning its
compliance with the advanced air bag requirements of Standard No. 208
for its passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger
vehicles produced in that production year. Each report shall also
include the number of pre-phase-in vehicles, if any, that are being
applied to the production year being reported. Each report shall--
(1) Identify the manufacturer;
(2) State the full name, title, and address of the official
responsible for preparing the report;
(3) Identify the phase-in schedule paragraph from S14.1 of 49 CFR
571.208 for which it has chosen to comply with until September 1, 2005;
(4) Identify the production year being reported on;
(5) Contain a statement regarding whether or not the manufacturer
complied with the advanced air bag requirements of Standard No. 208 for
the period covered by the report and the basis for that statement;
(6) Provide the information specified in paragraph (d) of this
section;
(7) Be written in the English language; and
(8) Be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.
[[Page 60625]]
(c) Advanced credit phase-in report content. (1) Manufacturers are
not required to report any information with respect to those vehicles
that are walk-in vans, vehicles designed to be sold exclusively to the
U.S. Postal Service, vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, and
vehicles that are altered after previously having been certified in
accordance with part 567 of this chapter.
(2) Production. Each manufacturer shall report for the production
year for which the report is filed the number of passenger cars and
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855
kg (8,500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg
(5,500 pounds) or less that meet the advanced air bag requirements of
Standard No. 208.
(3) Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer. Each
manufacturer whose reporting of information is affected by one or more
of the express written contracts permitted by S14.1.3.2 of Standard No.
208 shall:
(i) Report the existence of each contract, including the names of
all parties to the contract and explain how the contract affects the
report being submitted.
(ii) Report the actual number of vehicles covered by each contract.
(d) Phase-in report content. (1) Manufacturers are not required to
report any information with respect to those vehicles that are walk-in
vans, vehicles designed to be sold exclusively to the U.S. Postal
Service, vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, and vehicles that
are altered after previously having been certified in accordance with
part 567 of this chapter.
(2) Basis for phase-in production goals. For production years
ending August 31, 2003, August 31, 2004 and August 31, 2005, each
manufacturer shall provide the number of passenger cars and trucks,
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg
(8,500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg
(5,500 pounds) or less manufactured for sale in the United States for
each of the three previous production years, or, at the manufacturer's
option, for the current production year. A new manufacturer that has
not previously manufactured passenger cars and trucks, buses and
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8,500 pounds)
or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5,500 pounds) or
less for sale in the United States must report the number of such
vehicles manufactured during the current production year.
(3) Production. Each manufacturer shall report for the production
year for which the report is filed the number of passenger cars and
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855
kg (8,500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg
(5,500 pounds or less that meet the advanced air bag requirements of
Standard No. 208.
(4) Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer. Each
manufacturer whose reporting of information is affected by one or more
of the express written contracts permitted by S14.1.3.2 of Standard No.
208 shall:
(i) Report the existence of each contract, including the names of
all parties to the contract and explain how the contract affects the
report being submitted.
(ii) Report the actual number of vehicles covered by each contract.
Sec. 585.6 Records.
Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the Vehicle
Identification Number for each passenger car, multipurpose passenger
vehicle, truck and bus for which information is reported under
Secs. 585.5(c)(2) and (d)(3) until December 31, 2006.
Sec. 585.7 Petitions to extend period to file report.
A petition for extension of the time to submit a report must be
received not later than 15 days before expiration of the time stated in
Sec. 585.5(a) and (b). The petition must be submitted to:
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. The filing of a petition does
not automatically extend the time for filing a report. A petition will
be granted only if the petitioner shows good cause for the extension,
and if the extension is consistent with the public interest.
PART 595--RETROFIT ON-OFF SWITCHES FOR AIR BAGS
7. The authority citation for part 595 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30122 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
8. Section 595.5 would be amended by revising paragraph (a) to read
as follows:
Sec. 595.5 Requirements.
(a) Beginning January 19, 1998, a dealer or motor vehicle repair
business may modify a motor vehicle manufactured before September 1,
2005 by installing an on-off switch that allows an occupant of the
vehicle to turn off an air bag in that vehicle, subject to the
conditions in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
* * * * *
Issued on: October 26, 1999.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Acting Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
Note: The following appendixes will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.
Appendix A to the Preamble--Response to Petition
In conjunction with commenting on the NPRM, Carl Nash and Donald
Friedman submitted a petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No.
208 to ``require effective belt use inducement.'' The petitioners
noted that such an amendment would need to be consistent with a
provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which
prohibits ignition interlocks and continuous buzzers.
The petitioners stated that the inducements could include, but
need not be limited to: (1) A continuous visual reminder to buckle
seat belts located prominently on the instrument panel, (2) an
intermittent, repeating audible suggestion (such as with a
synthesized voice) warning occupants to buckle their seat belt, and
(3) disruption of electrical power to such ``non-essential''
accessories as the radio, tape or CD player, and air conditioning.
Mr. Nash and Mr. Friedman argued that a belt use inducement has the
potential to save a minimum of 7,000 additional lives per year, and
that, with an effective belt use inducement, NHTSA could
simultaneously rescind Standard No. 208's unbelted test.
After carefully considering the petition submitted by Mr. Nash
and Mr. Friedman, we have decided to deny it. We note that Standard
No. 208 already requires both a warning light and an audible signal
to remind occupants to wear their seat belts. The required warning
system is tied to the driver seat belt, and the light and audible
signal are only required for a brief period after the driver starts
the vehicle.
In evaluating Mr. Nash's and Mr. Friedman's petition, we have
considered whether the new requirements they recommend would (1)
likely result in additional safety benefits, (2) be acceptable to
the public, and (3) be within our statutory authority. None of their
recommended requirements meet all of these criteria.
We note that our agency's previous experience with ignition
interlocks indicates that great care must be taken in requiring
vehicle modifications to induce higher belt use, to avoid consumer
backlash. As of August 1973, Standard No. 208 required all new cars
to be equipped either with automatic protection or an ignition
interlock for both front outboard seating positions. General Motors
sold about ten thousand of its 1974 model year cars equipped with
air bags that met the automatic protection requirement. Every other
1974 model year car sold in the United States came with an ignition
interlock, which prevented the engine from operating if either the
driver or front seat outboard passenger failed to fasten their
manual seat belt.
[[Page 60626]]
In a notice published in the Federal Register (39 FR 10272) on
March 19, 1974, we described the public reaction to the ignition
interlock as follows: ``Public resistance to the belt-starter
interlock system * * * has been substantial, with current tallies of
proper lap-shoulder belt usage on 1974 models running at or below
the 60% level. Even that figure is probably optimistic as a measure
of results to be achieved, in light of the likelihood that as time
passes the awareness that the forcing systems can be disabled, and
the means for doing so will become more widely disseminated * * *''
There were also speeches on the floor of both houses of Congress
expressing the public's anger at the interlock requirement. On
October 27, 1974, President Ford signed into law a bill that
prohibited any Federal motor vehicle safety standard from requiring
or permitting as a means of compliance any seat belt interlock
system. In response to this change in the law, we published a final
rule in the Federal Register (39 FR 38380) on October 31, 1974 that
deleted the interlock option from Standard No. 208 effective
immediately.
We believe that the petitioner's recommendation for a Federal
requirement for disruption of electrical power to such accessories
as the radio, tape or CD player, and air conditioning, if a person
is not wearing their seat belts, would be unacceptable to a
significant portion of the public. Such a requirement would be
indistinguishable in nature from a requirement for an interlock.
As to the petitioners' recommendation that we require an
intermittent, repeating audible suggestion (such as with a
synthesized voice) warning occupants to buckle their seat belt, we
are expressly prohibited from promulgating a requirement under the
1974 amendments to the Safety Act. The petitioners recognized that
the amendments prohibited us from requiring ``continuous buzzers.''
However, the term ``continuous buzzer'' was defined to mean any
buzzer other than one which operates only during the 8 second period
after the ignition is turned to the ``start'' or ``on'' position.\1\
Thus, we do not have the authority to require audible warnings
outside that 8 second period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This provision was later codified using different language
but without substantive change at 49 U.S.C. 30124.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we would have authority to require a continuous visual
reminder, as also recommended by the petitioners, they did not
provide any information indicating that such a reminder would likely
result in additional safety benefits over the existing warning
systems.
We also note that, even if we believed that there existed an
effective belt use inducement that we had authority to require and
that was publicly acceptable, we could not simultaneously rescind
Standard No. 208's unbelted test. First, there would be no way of
knowing how effective any belt use inducement would be until after
it had been in place for several years. Second, as we noted in the
September 1998 NPRM, even in countries where seat belt use is 90
percent, unbelted occupants still represent about 33 percent of all
fatalities. We also note that TEA 21 requires us to conduct
rulemaking to improve occupant protection for occupants of different
sizes, belted and unbelted, while minimizing risks. Rescission of
Standard No. 208's test requirements for unbelted occupants would
not be consistent with the statutory requirement to improve
protection for unbelted occupants.
While we have decided to deny Mr. Nash's and Mr. Friedman's
petition, for the reasons discussed above, we recognize that
increased seat belt use offers the potential of enormous safety
benefits. Even small increases in seat belt use offer the potential
of significant savings in lives. We therefore encourage vehicle
manufacturers to evaluate whether vehicle warning and other systems
can be improved to increase seat belt use in ways that are
acceptable to their customers.
We note that, earlier this year, Ford announced plans to use a
new ``Belt-Minder'' system that warns unbuckled drivers with an
intermittent chime until they buckle their seat belts. Drivers who
don't want to wear their belts can disable the intermittent chime by
buckling, then unbuckling their belt. While we note that this is a
system that we would not have authority to require, we are
encouraged by Ford's innovative approach and are hopeful that it
will result in increased seat belt use and savings in lives.
Appendix B to the Preamble--Glossary
Air Bags--In General
Air bags are inflatable restraints. Enough gas must be pumped
into them to cushion occupants. Otherwise, occupants, especially
large ones, could ``bottom out'' the air bag and hit the vehicle
interior in a crash. Thus, the amount of pressure within air bags
must be carefully controlled. This is done by controlling both the
rate at which gas is pumped into the air bag and the rate at which
the gas is released from the air bag through vents or microscopic
holes in the fabric itself.
Categories of Frontal Air Bags
Advanced air bags. Advanced air bags are air bags that minimize
the risk of serious injury to out-of-position occupants and provide
improved protection to occupants in high speed crashes. They
accomplish this either by incorporating various technologies that
enable the air bags to adapt their performance to a wider range of
occupant sizes and crash conditions and/or by being designed to both
inflate in a manner that does not pose such risk as well as to
provide improved protection. Some of these technologies are multi-
stage inflators, occupant position sensors, occupant weight and
pattern sensors, and new air bag fold patterns. (The inflators and
sensors are explained below.)
Redesigned air bags.\1\ Redesigned air bags are bag systems used
in vehicles that have been certified to the unbelted sled test
option instead of the unbelted crash test option in Standard No.
208. Typically, a redesigned air bag in a MY 1998 or 1999 vehicle
model has less power than the air bags in earlier model years of
that vehicle model. However, the power levels of current air bags
vary widely. For example, the redesigned air bags in some current
vehicles are more powerful than the unredesigned air bags in some
earlier vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These air bags are also sometimes called depowered air bags,
second generation air bags or next generation air bags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inflators
Inflators are the devices which pump the gas into air bags to
inflate them in a crash.
Single stage inflators. Single stage inflators fill air bags
with the same level of power in all crashes, regardless of whether
the crash is a relatively low or high speed crash.
Multi-stage inflators. Multi-stage inflators (also known as
multi-level inflators) operate at different levels of power,
depending on which stage is activated. The activation of the
different stages can be linked to crash severity sensors. In a
vehicle with dual-stage inflators, only the first stage (lowest
level of power) will be activated in relatively low speed crashes,
while the first and second stages (highest level of power) will be
activated in higher speed crashes. As crash severity increases, so
must the pressure inside the air bag in order to cushion the
occupants.
Sensors
Many advanced air bag systems utilize various sensors to obtain
information about crashes, vehicles and their occupants. This
information is used to adapt the performance of the air bag to the
particular circumstances of the crash. It is used in determining
whether an air bag should deploy and, if it should, and if the air
bag has multiple inflation levels, at what level. Examples of these
sensors include the following:
Crash severity sensors. Crash severity sensors measure the
severity of a crash, i.e., the rate of reduction in velocity when a
vehicle strikes another object. If a relatively low severity crash
is sensed, only the lowest stage of a dual-stage inflator will fill
the air bag; if a more severe crash is sensed, both stages will fill
the air bag, inflating it at a higher level.
Belt use sensors. Belt use sensors determine whether an occupant
is belted or not. An advanced air bag system in vehicles with crash
severity sensors and dual-stage inflators might use belt use
information to adjust deployment thresholds for unbelted and belted
occupants. Since an unbelted occupant needs the protection of an air
bag at lower speeds than a belted occupant does, the air bag would
deploy at a lower threshold for an unbelted occupant. (Deployment
thresholds are explained below.)
Seat position sensors. Seat position sensors determine how far
forward or back a seat is adjusted on its seat track. An advanced
air bag system could be designed so a dual-stage air bag deploys at
a lower level when the seat is all the way forward than it does when
the seat is farther back. This would benefit those short-statured
drivers who move their seats all the way forward.
Occupant weight sensors. Occupant weight sensors measure the
weight of an occupant. An advanced air bag system might use this
information to prevent the air bag from deploying at all in the
presence of children.
[[Page 60627]]
Pattern sensors. Pattern sensors evaluate the impression made by
an occupant or object on the seat cushion to make determinations
about occupant presence and the overall size and position of the
occupant. They could also sense the presence of a particular object
like a child seat. An advanced air bag system might use this
information to prevent the air bag from deploying in the presence of
children. An advanced air bag system might utilize both an occupant
weight sensor and an occupant pattern sensor.
Deployment Thresholds
The term ``deployment threshold'' is typically used to refer to
the lowest rate of reduction in vehicle velocity in a crash at which
a particular air bag is designed to deploy.
No-fire threshold. The no-fire threshold is the crash speed
below which the air bag is designed to never deploy.
All-fire threshold. The all-fire threshold is the crash speed at
or above which the air bag is designed to always deploy.
Gray zone. The gray zone is the range of speeds between the no-
fire and all-fire thresholds in which the air bag may or may not
deploy.
Vehicles with advanced air bags may have different deployment
thresholds for belted and unbelted occupants, e.g., the deployment
threshold may be higher if an occupant is belted. (See belt use
sensors above.)
Crash Tests vs. Sled Tests
In crash tests, instrumented test dummies are placed in a
production vehicle which is then crashed into a barrier.
Measurements from the test dummies are used to determine the forces,
and estimate the risk of serious injury, that people would have
experienced in the crash.
In sled tests, no crash takes place. The vehicle is placed on a
sled-on-rails, and instrumented test dummies are placed in the
vehicle. The sled and vehicle are accelerated very rapidly backward.
As the vehicle moves backward, the dummies move forward inside the
vehicle in much the same way that people would in a frontal crash.
The air bags are manually deployed at a pre-selected time during the
sled test. Measurements from the dummies are used to determine the
forces, and estimate the risk of serious injury, that people would
have experienced in the crash.
Fixed Barrier Crash Tests
All of the crash tests proposed in this SNPRM are fixed barrier
crash tests, i.e., the test vehicle is crashed into a barrier that
is fixed in place (as opposed to moving). The types of proposed
fixed barrier crash tests are shown in Figure B1.
Rigid barrier test, perpendicular impact. In a rigid barrier,
perpendicular impact test, the vehicle is crashed straight into a
rigid barrier that does not absorb any crash energy. The full width
of the vehicle's front end hits the barrier.
Rigid barrier, oblique impact test. In a rigid barrier, oblique
impact test, the vehicle is crashed at an angle into a rigid
barrier.
Offset deformable barrier test. In an offset deformable barrier
test, one side of a vehicle's front end, not the full width, is
crashed into a barrier with a deformable face that absorbs some of
the crash energy.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 60628]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO99.009
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
[[Page 60629]]
Crash Pulses
A crash pulse is the graph or picture of how quickly the vehicle
occupant compartment is decelerating at different times during a
crash.
Stiff crash pulses. In crashes with stiff pulses, the occupant
compartment decelerates very abruptly. An example of a crash with a
stiff pulse would be a full head-on crash of a vehicle into a like
vehicle. The perpendicular rigid barrier crash test produces a stiff
crash pulse.
Soft crash pulses. In crashes with soft pulses, the occupant
compartment decelerates less abruptly, compared to crashes with hard
pulses. An example of a crash with a soft pulse would be the crash
of a vehicle into sand-filled barrels such as those seen at toll
booths or at the leading edge of a concrete median barrier. The
offset deformable barrier crash test and the 30 degree oblique rigid
barrier crash test produce soft crash pulses.
In crashes involving comparable reductions in velocity, an
unrestrained occupant would hit the vehicle interior (i.e., steering
wheel, instrument panel and windshield) at a much higher speed in a
crash with a stiff pulse than in a crash with a soft pulse.
Belted and Unbelted Tests
Belted tests use belted dummies, while unbelted tests use
unbelted dummies. Despite increases in seat belt use, nearly 50
percent of all occupants in potentially fatal crashes are unbelted.
Unbelted tests are intended to evaluate the protection provided
these persons, many of whom are teenagers and young adults.
Static Out-of-Position Tests
Static out-of-position tests are called ``static'' because the
vehicle does not move during the test. These tests are used to
measure the risk that an air bag poses to out-of-position occupants.
Test dummies are placed in specified positions that are extremely
close to the air bag, typically with some portion of the dummy
touching the air bag cover. The air bag is deployed. Measurements
from the test dummy are used to determine the forces, and estimate
the risk of serious injury, that people would have experienced in
the crash.
Injury Criteria and Performance Limits--In General
In a crash test, sled test, or static out-of-position test,
measurements are taken from the test dummy instruments that indicate
the forces that a person would have experienced under the same
conditions. Standard No. 208 specifies several injury criteria. For
each criterion, the Standard also specifies a performance limit,
based on the level of forces that create a significant risk of
producing serious injury.
Injury Criteria
This SNPRM proposes performance limits for various injury
criteria to address the risk of several types of injuries. Among
these injury criteria are:
Head Injury Criterion or HIC. Head Injury Criterion or HIC
address the risk of head injury;
Nij. Nij addresses the risk of neck injury; and
Chest Acceleration and Chest Deflection. Chest Acceleration and
Chest Deflection address the risk of chest injury.
Test Dummies
This SNPRM proposes to use several test dummies to represent
children and adults of different sizes. These dummies are:
12-month old Crash Restraints Air Bag Interaction (CRABI) dummy,
representing an infant;
Hybrid III 3-year-old and 6-year-old child dummies, representing
young children;
Hybrid III 5th percentile adult female dummy, representing a
small woman;
Hybrid III 50th percentile adult male dummy, representing an
average-size man.
[FR Doc. 99-28366 Filed 11-2-99; 8:56 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
