[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 167 (Friday, August 28, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45959-45965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-23240]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 571 and 572
[Docket No. NHTSA-98-4358]
RIN Nos. 2127-AG75, 2127-AG80, and 2127-AG94
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash
Protection; Anthropomorphic Test Dummy
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule makes permanent three interim final rules related to
the depowering of air bags. In March 1997, NHTSA amended the agency's
occupant crash protection standard to ensure that vehicle manufacturers
could quickly depower all air bags so that they inflate less
aggressively. More specifically, the agency adopted an unbelted sled
test protocol as a temporary alternative to the standard's full scale
unbelted barrier crash test. NHTSA took this action to provide an
immediate, but interim, solution to the problem of the fatalities and
injuries that air bags were causing in relatively low speed crashes to
small, but growing numbers of children, and occasionally to adult
occupants.
The agency subsequently issued three interim final rules related to
depowering. Two of the interim final rules made further amendments to
the occupant protection standard so that certain exclusions or special,
less stringent test requirements in related standards that applied to
vehicles certified to the unbelted barrier test would also apply to
vehicles certified to the alternative sled test. The third interim
final rule made modifications in the test dummy used in the occupant
protection standard so that it would be consistent with respect to the
instrumentation specified in the sled test protocol for measuring neck
injury criteria.
DATES: Effective Date: The amendments made in this rule are effective
September 1, 1998.
Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration must be received by
October 13, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket and
notice number of this notice and be submitted to: Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590.
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: Information about air bags.''
For non-legal issues: Mr. John Lee, Light Duty Vehicle Division,
NPS-11, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2264. Fax: (202)
366-4329.
For legal issues: J. Edward Glancy, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-
20, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
SW, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992. Fax: (202) 366-
3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On March 19, 1997, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (62 FR
12960) a final rule amending Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash
Protection, to ensure that vehicle manufacturers could quickly depower
all air bags so that they inflate less aggressively. More specifically,
the
[[Page 45960]]
agency adopted an unbelted sled test protocol, recommended by the
American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA), as a temporary
alternative to Standard No. 208's full scale unbelted barrier crash
test. The agency did not change the standard's full scale belted
barrier crash test. NHTSA took this action to provide an immediate, but
interim, solution to the problem of the fatalities and injuries that
current air bags are causing in relatively low speed crashes to small,
but growing numbers of children, and occasionally to adult occupants.
The agency subsequently issued three interim final rules related to
depowering. Two of the interim final rules made further amendments to
Standard No. 208 so that certain exclusions or special, less stringent
test requirements in related standards that applied to vehicles
certified to the unbelted barrier test would also apply to vehicles
certified to the alternative sled test.
The first of these interim final rules resulted from a request made
by AAMA in early April 1997. That organization advised the agency that
its member companies had discovered that certain provisions in Standard
No. 203, Impact protection for the driver from the steering control
system, and Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, could prevent or
substantially delay depowering. Each of those other standards specified
an exclusion from certain requirements for vehicles certified to meet
Standard No. 208's barrier crash test requirements. Thus, neither
exclusion would be available for a vehicle which was certified to
Standard No. 208's alternative sled test requirement.
In an interim final rule published in the Federal Register (62 FR
26425) on May 14, 1997, the agency amended Standard No. 208, so that
the exclusions in these two other standards would also be available for
vehicles certified to the sled test. NHTSA explained that this action
was necessary to prevent a delay in depowering, and also solicited
comments on the amendment. The agency noted that because there had not
been a prior opportunity for comment, it was limiting application of
the interim final rule to vehicles manufactured before September 1,
1998. However, NHTSA explained that it contemplated making the
amendment apply for the same duration as the depowering amendment.
The second of these interim final rules resulted from a request
made by AAMA in July 1997. That organization advised the agency that
its member companies had discovered that a similar provision in
Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact, could also
prevent or substantially delay depowering. That provision specified a
special, less stringent test requirement for vehicles which meet
Standard No. 208's barrier crash test requirements by means of an air
bag. Thus, the special requirement would also not apply to a vehicle
which was certified to Standard No. 208's alternative sled test
requirement.
Just as NHTSA decided to issue an interim final rule amending
Standard No. 208 in order that the exclusions in Standard Nos. 203 and
209 would also be available for vehicles certified to the sled test, so
it took similar action with respect to the special, less stringent test
requirement set forth in Standard No. 201. This interim final rule was
published in the Federal Register (62 FR 45172) on August 26, 1997. The
agency explained its belief that the Standard No. 201 situation
mirrored those involving the other two standards.
NHTSA provided specific analysis in the preambles for these two
interim final rules concerning Standards No. 201, 203 and 209. The
analyses were as follows:
Standard No. 201
Standard No. 201 specifies a number of requirements to provide
impact protection for occupants. One of the requirements concerns
instrument panels. The standard generally requires that when
specified portions of the instrument panel are impacted by a head
form at 15 mph, the deceleration of the head form must not exceed 80
g continuously for more than 3 milliseconds. To comply with this
requirement, vehicle manufacturers install energy absorbing
materials. The use of these materials can prevent or reduce the
severity of chest and head injuries resulting from contacts with the
instrument panel.
In June 1991, NHTSA published a final rule amending Standard No.
201 to specify a special, less stringent test requirement for
vehicles equipped with passenger air bags. 56 FR 26036; June 6,
1991. The final rule reduced the velocity specified in the head form
test for these vehicles from 15 mph to 12 mph.
The purpose of the June 1991 final rule was to facilitate the
introduction of more effective air bag designs, and provide an
incentive for the increased use of passenger-side air bags. (This
final rule was issued before Congress enacted the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, which directed NHTSA to amend
Standard No. 208 to require air bags.) Vehicle manufacturers had
provided information showing that Standard No. 201's existing 15 mph
head form requirement created problems in designing top-mounted,
upward-deploying passenger air bags. Manufacturers had also
identified a number of benefits from installation of this type of
air bag, including reduced risk of injury to out-of-position
occupants or standing children. However, the final rule was not
limited to passenger air bags with upward-deploying systems, as the
agency wanted to allow manufacturers wide latitude in innovation for
all passenger air bags.
NHTSA believes that the rationale for Standard No. 201's
special, less stringent test requirement for vehicles equipped with
passenger air bags and certified to Standard No. 208's barrier test
is equally applicable to vehicles certified to the alternative sled
test. The concern about the need to meet Standard No. 201's 15 mph
head form test interfering with the design of passenger air bags,
especially top-mounted, upward-deploying systems, would not differ
depending on whether an air bag is depowered or not. Moreover, the
need to meet the 15 mph requirement would interfere with depowering.
Vehicle manufacturers presumably test their air-bag-equipped
vehicles to Standard No. 201's 12 mph head form requirement, rather
than the 15 mph requirement, based on the current special
requirement. Thus, the manufacturers do not know whether their
vehicles would pass the more stringent requirement.
If the special requirement were not extended to vehicles
certified to the alternative sled test, the vehicle manufacturers
would need to conduct significant testing to determine whether those
vehicles could comply with the 15 mph requirement. To the extent
that a vehicle could not comply, the manufacturer would then need to
determine whether it was possible to make design changes to achieve
compliance. All of this would result in significant delays to
depowering.
The agency also notes that the purposes of the depowering
amendment and the special requirement in Standard No. 201 are
complementary. While the depowering amendment was intended to
facilitate quick action to address the problem of deaths and
injuries to out-of-position occupants, the special requirement in
Standard No. 201 was intended, in part, to facilitate the use of
passenger air bag designs that reduce the risk of injury to out-of-
position occupants or standing children. A failure to extend the
special requirement in No. 201 to vehicles certified to the
alternative sled test could result in the perverse effect of
discouraging air bag designs that reduce the risk of injury to out-
of-position occupants or standing children.
Standard No. 203
Standard No. 203 specifies requirements for steering control
systems to minimize chest, neck, and facial injuries to the driver
as a result of impact. The standard does not apply to ``vehicles
that conform to the frontal barrier crash requirements (S5.1) of
Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208) by means of other than seat belt
assemblies.''
The agency adopted this exclusion in 1975, in response to a
petition from General Motors (GM). GM had advised that in developing
driver air bags, it found that the changes in the steering control
system made conformity with Standard No. 203 difficult and in some
cases impossible. GM petitioned the agency
[[Page 45961]]
to exclude vehicles which meet the frontal barrier crash
requirements of Standard No. 208 from Standard No. 203 on the
grounds that compliance with the latter would be redundant and
design restrictive in the development of air bags.
In deciding to provide the requested exclusion, NHTSA stated
that it had determined that the redundant protection offered by
Standard No. 203 is not justified where it directly interferes with
the development of a more advanced, convenient and effective
restraint system. 40 FR 17992, April 24, 1975. In the notice of
proposed rulemaking, the agency explained that the level of
protection offered by Standard No. 208's frontal barrier crash test
is at least equivalent to that of the 15-mile-per-hour body impact
of Standard No. 203. The agency also explained that Standard No.
208's barrier crash test requirements alone are designed to provide
adequate protection to the driver from impact forces. NHTSA noted
that in the case of an air bag, this protective level must be met by
the uncushioned steering control system below the system's
deployment level and by the air bag above the deployment level, at
any speed up to 30 mph.
NHTSA believes that the rationale for Standard No. 203's
exclusion for vehicles certified to Standard No. 208's barrier test
is also applicable to vehicles certified to the alternative sled
test. The concern about the need to meet Standard No. 203
interfering with the design of air bags would not differ depending
on whether an air bag is depowered or not. Moreover, the need to
meet Standard No. 203 would particularly interfere with depowering.
It is NHTSA's understanding, based on its discussions with AAMA,
that the vehicle manufacturers do not test their air-bag-equipped
vehicles to Standard No. 203, based on the current exclusion. Thus,
the manufacturers do not know whether their vehicles would pass
Standard No. 203's requirements.
In the absence of an exclusion for vehicles certified to the
alternative sled test, the vehicle manufacturers would need to
conduct significant testing to determine whether a vehicle could
comply with Standard No. 203. To the extent that a vehicle could not
comply, the manufacturer would then need to determine whether it was
possible to make design changes that would result in compliance. All
of this would result in significant delays to depowering.
NHTSA also believes that the protection specified by Standard
No. 203 is redundant to that offered by depowered air bags certified
to the alternative sled test. The agency notes that the alternative
sled test addresses the same safety problems as the full scale
barrier test.
In the depowering rulemaking, the agency recognized that a full
scale barrier test does offer a number of advantages over a sled
test. However, the agency decided to allow the sled test as a
temporary measure given the need to provide manufacturers with
maximum flexibility to respond rapidly to the risk posed by air bag
activation in low speed crashes. See 62 FR 12965--66, March 19,
1997.
The agency believes that this same consideration leads to
applying the Standard No. 203 exclusion to vehicles certified to the
alternative sled test, even if the degree of redundancy is somewhat
less than that afforded by the barrier test requirement. NHTSA notes
that the sled test requirement need only be met at a single change
in velocity, rather than at all speeds up to 30 mph. However, the
agency believes that a depowered air bag will provide protection at
speeds above the deployment level, and does not believe
manufacturers will reduce the protection currently being offered by
steering control systems at speeds below the deployment level.
Standard No. 209
One of the performance requirements specified by Standard No.
209 limits the amount that the webbing of a belt assembly is
permitted to extend or elongate when subjected to certain forces.
This requirement does not apply to seat belt assemblies that include
a load limiter and that are installed at designated seating
positions subject to the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208.
This exclusion had its origin in a petition for rulemaking
submitted by Mercedes-Benz (Mercedes). That company petitioned the
agency to exclude from the elongation requirement seat belt
assemblies installed in conjunction with air bags.
Mercedes was considering the use of a belt system that
incorporates a load-limiting device. A load-limiter is a seat belt
assembly component or feature that controls tension on the seat belt
to modulate the forces that are imparted to occupants restrained by
the belt assembly during a crash. These load-limiting systems are
intended to reduce head and upper torso injuries through increased
energy management.
Mercedes indicated that the webbing in its belt system would
elongate beyond the limits that were specified in Standard No. 209.
However, Mercedes argued that this type of belt system should be
allowed in vehicles equipped with air bags since the two systems
used in conjunction with one another can be designed to achieve the
maximum reduction in head injuries and upper torso injuries.
NHTSA adopted the exclusion requested by Mercedes in 1981. The
agency limited the exclusion to vehicles equipped with automatic
restraints since there were then no dynamic performance requirements
or injury criteria for manual belt systems used alone. See 46 FR
2618-19, January 12, 1981. Later, however, after it established
dynamic testing requirements for manual safety belt systems in
passenger cars and light trucks, the agency extended this exclusion
to permit the use of load limiters on all safety belts installed at
seating positions subject to dynamic testing. See 56 FR 15295, April
16, 1991.
With respect to whether this exclusion should apply to vehicles
certified to the alternative sled test, the key point is that these
vehicles will continue to have to be certified to Standard No. 208's
full scale belted barrier crash test. Thus, safety belts will
continue to be subject to the same dynamic performance requirements
as before the depowering final rule was issued. The agency therefore
believes there is no reason why this exclusion should not be
available for vehicles certified to the alternative sled test, which
addresses unbelted, rather than belted, performance.
The third interim final rule made modifications in the Hybrid III
test dummy used in Standard No. 208 to upgrade the dummy so that it
would be consistent with respect to the instrumentation specified in
the sled test protocol for measuring neck injury criteria. While the
sled test protocol specified use of a six-axis neck transducer, the
specifications for the Hybrid III dummy, set forth in Subpart E of Part
572, Anthropomorphic Test Devices, did not include that
instrumentation. This interim final rule was published in the Federal
Register (62 FR 27511) on May 20, 1997.
II. Comments
A. Exclusions From Certain Requirements of Standards No. 203 and 209
NHTSA received four comments on the interim final rule concerning
exclusions from certain requirements of Standards No. 203 and 209, from
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), Mitsubishi, and Volkswagen. None
of the commenters opposed the extension of the exclusions; however,
Advocates raised a number of issues which it believed required further
analysis.
IIHS stated that it fully supports the amendment. That commenter
stated that the reasons for excluding the requirements regarding
steering controls systems (Standard No. 203) and belt elongation
(Standard No. 209) are just as applicable to vehicles certified to
Standard No. 208's unbelted sled test alternative as they are to
vehicles certified to the barrier crash test. IIHS stated that the
amendment should be retained as long as the sled test alternative is
available.
Mitsubishi and Volkswagen also supported the interim final rule and
requested that the exclusions be available for as long as the unbelted
sled test exists.
Advocates stated that it accepts that the extension of exemptions
from testing under Standards No. 203 and 209 are necessary in order to
ensure that depowering is not delayed. It also stated that it supports
depowering as a necessary temporary measure to improve the safety of
out-of-position occupants and does not want any delay in accomplishing
that goal.
That organization argued, however, that the interim final rule
raises concerns about the collateral results of
[[Page 45962]]
depowering. It stated that the agency had not presented any engineering
results or safety analyses to establish that, if the exemptions for
crash tested vehicles are extended to vehicles certified by sled test,
there will be no diminution of the safety protection afforded to
occupants under the circumstances and conditions addressed in Standards
No. 203 and No. 209.
With respect to Standard No. 203 protection for drivers from
vehicle steering columns, Advocates noted that the agency stated that
``manufacturers do not know whether their vehicles would pass Standard
No. 203's requirements.'' That organization stated that in light of
this information, it does not understand how the agency can conclude
that ``the protection specified by Standard No. 203 is redundant to
that offered by depowered air bags.'' Advocates argued that regardless
of the rate at which the inflator powers the air bag, the agency is
obliged to ascertain facts and conduct engineering evaluations in order
to make a determination that Standard No. 203 has no application at all
in vehicles with driver-side air bags.
As to seat belt elongation requirements under Standard No. 209,
Advocates stated that it understands the agency's rationale that safety
belt systems remain subject to dynamic performance requirements and
that the sled test applies to unbelted, rather than belted, performance
for occupant protection. That organization noted that the agency had
pointed out that the exclusion was originally provided on the basis
that air bags and load-limiter equipped seat belt systems ``used in
conjunction with one another can be designed to achieve maximum
reduction in head injuries and upper torso injuries.'' Advocates
argued, however, that the question that needs to be answered is what
effect depowering has on the combined performance of these occupant
protection systems for belted systems. Advocates stated that the
original exclusion most likely was granted in contemplation of the use
of full powered air bags meeting the 30 mph crash test and that, in
this situation as well, NHTSA is obliged to provide an engineering
analysis to prove that depowering has no deleterious effect on the
safety performance required under Standard No. 209.
Advocates also argued that the agency should provide the public
with another opportunity to comment after it has conducted safety and
engineering analyses. It also expressed concern about the use of an
interim final rule, arguing that these issues should have been raised
in the depowering rulemaking.
B. Special, Less Stringent Test Requirement for Standard No. 201
NHTSA received only one comment on the interim final rule
concerning the special, less stringent test requirement for Standard
No. 201, from Advocates. That organization concurred with the amendment
subject to the exception for depowered air bags remaining temporary.
Advocates stated that it believes there is a potential for increased
numbers of serious head impact injuries as a result of depowering. It
stated that the agency lacked any test data or other information to
support the change on a permanent basis. Advocates also expressed
additional concerns about the making of regulatory changes by means of
interim final rules.
C. Six-Axis Neck Transducer
NHTSA received seven comments on the interim final rule amending
specifications for the Hybrid III dummy to include the six-axis neck
transducer.
General Motors (GM), Ford, and IIHS supported making the changes
permanent. GM and Ford pointed out a typographical error in which
section 572.36(i)(8) identified a channel class of 1000 for femur
loads, instead of a channel class of 600.
The other commenters, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz (Mercedes), Toyota, and
Mitsubishi, requested either that use of the six-axis neck transducer
be optional or that a longer period of time be provided before it
becomes mandatory.
Nissan stated that there is not any need to require the six-axis
neck transducer for test requirements other than the sled test, since
the other tests do not include neck injury criteria. Given concerns
about the limited number of available six-axis transducers, that
company asked that the agency either limit application of the six-axis
neck transducer to the sled test or that it be optional for a period of
six months.
Mitsubishi similarly argued that the six-axis neck transducer
should only be specified for the sled test. That company argued that
manufacturers should have the option of using the neck transducer
structural replacement, three-axis neck transducer, or six-axis
transducer for barrier testing.
Mitsubishi noted that the agency had stated in the preamble to the
interim final rule that the six-axis transducer with appropriate head
modification is identical in mass, center of gravity location, and
rigidity compared to the three-axis neck transducer or neck transducer
replacement. That commenter argued, however, that it is concerned that
the modifications to the dummy to incorporate the six-axis transducers
might make it necessary for a manufacturer to re-test its vehicles, in
some cases, to be sure that are no unforeseeable differences in dummy
kinematics.
Mitsubishi also argued that since the barrier test does not include
neck injury criteria, requiring the six-axis transducer on the Hybrid
III dummy for barrier testing is unnecessarily burdensome. That
commenter stated that should the agency nonetheless make the six-axis
transducer a permanent requirement for all Hybrid III dummies, a lead
time of at least one year should be provided.
Mercedes stated that it believes there should be an interim period
of several years time where either a three-axis or six-axis neck
transducer may be used for the purpose of the sled test. Mercedes
stated that the three-axis neck transducer is sufficient for purposes
of measuring the neck injury criteria specified as part of Standard No.
208's sled test.
Toyota made similar arguments to those of some of the other
manufacturers concerning use of either the three-axis or six-axis
transducer, and the need for lead time if the agency makes the six-axis
transducer mandatory. Toyota also stated that it conducted a neck
calibration test to investigate the influence of a change from the
three-axis neck transducer to a six-axis neck transducer. It stated
that data for both transducers are in the requirement corridor, but
there is a difference in moment value. That company stated that, as a
result, it does not know to what extent this difference affects the
Head Injury Criterion value. Toyota stated that it would therefore need
time to investigate this influence on its vehicles under development,
as well as to assess the need for design changes.
III. Legislation Requiring Improved Air Bags
Subsequent to the comment closing dates for the three interim final
rules at issue, Congress required the agency to conduct rulemaking to
improve air bags. The NHTSA Reauthorization Act of 1998 directs the
agency to issue, not later than September 1, 1998,
a notice of proposed rulemaking 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
[[Page 45963]]
and deaths caused by air bags, by means that include advanced air
bags.
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 improved air bags].''
The Conference Report states that the current sled test certification
option remains in effect ``unless and until phased out according to the
schedule in the final rule.''
This legislation is relevant to the three interim final rules at
issue in two primary ways. First, the agency originally adopted the
sled test alternative (to which the interim final rules apply) as a
temporary amendment with a specific termination date. That date has
been superseded by the provision of the legislation which specifies
that the sled test remains in effect unless it is changed by the final
rule for improved air bags. Second, while the agency already had plans
to thoroughly examine in rulemaking what occupant protection
requirements are appropriate for the future, this rulemaking will be
conducted according to a statutory mandate.
IV. Agency Decision
After carefully considering the comments, NHTSA has decided to make
permanent all of the interim final rules. The agency notes that the
term ``permanent,'' as used in this context, is a word of art. It
refers to the reissuance, after notice and comment, of a final rule
initially issued as an interim final rule. The use of the term with
respect to the final rules relating to the sled test does not mean that
the agency is deciding in this rulemaking to make the sled test
permanent. The agency will address the duration of the sled test itself
in the separate rulemaking on advanced air bags.
A. Exclusions/Special Requirements Related to Standards No. 201, 203
and 209
As indicated above, the only commenter which raised concerns about
the exclusions/special requirements related to Standards No. 201, 203
and 209 was Advocates. In responding to that organization's concerns,
NHTSA believes it is important to emphasize that each of these
exclusions/special requirements was adopted in the past because of
considerations related to safety and air bags generally. In particular:
The agency adopted the special requirement in Standard No.
201 in 1991 primarily because of concerns that the existing Standard
No. 201 requirement created problems in designing top-mounted, upward-
deploying passenger air bags.
The agency adopted the Standard No. 203 exclusion in 1975
because that standard's existing requirement interfered with the
development of driver air bags.
The agency adopted the Standard No. 209 exclusion
concerning belt system elongation in 1981 because the standard's
existing requirement prevented the use of belts that, as part of a
combined seat belt/air bag system, achieved the maximum reduction in
head injuries and upper torso injuries.
None of these rationales varies depending on whether an air bag-
equipped vehicle is certified to a barrier test or a sled test, and
Advocates has not provided any arguments or analysis suggesting
otherwise. Additional ``engineering analysis'' is not needed to make
this obvious point. Thus, the agency believes it is necessary to extend
the special requirements/exclusions to vehicles certified to the sled
test. Otherwise, the requirements of Standard No. 201 would create
problems in designing top-mounted, upward-deploying passenger air bags,
Standard No. 203 would interfere with the development of driver air
bags, and Standard No. 209 would prevent the use of belts that, as part
of a combined seat belt/air bag system, achieve the maximum reduction
in head injuries and upper torso injuries.
NHTSA believes that Advocates' real concerns are with the potential
safety consequences related to depowering and with adoption of the
unbelted sled test, rather than with the special requirements/
exclusions that were the subject of the interim final rules at issue.
However, this concern will be addressed by the upcoming rulemaking
concerning advanced air bags. As indicated above, NHTSA will shortly be
issuing, pursuant to a statutory mandate, ``a notice of proposed
rulemaking 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.'' NHTSA Reauthorization Act of 1998. The
agency will thoroughly consider, as part of this rulemaking, what
occupant protection requirements are appropriate for the future,
including issues related to the unbelted sled test.
As to Advocates' concerns about the use of interim final rules, the
agency agrees that this type of rulemaking procedure should only be
used where absolutely necessary, in accordance with statutory criteria.
The agency believes that the need to avoid delaying depowering
justified issuing the rules at issue on an interim basis.
NHTSA notes that, as part of today's final rule, it is also
amending the provision at issue in Standard No. 201 to reflect an
updated reference in Standard No. 208.
B. Six-Axis Neck Transducer
NHTSA is also making final the amendments to Part 572 so that the
Hybrid III test dummy incorporates the six-axis neck transducer. The
agency is correcting the typographical error identified by GM and Ford.
As noted earlier, the agency specified use of the six-axis neck
transducer as part of the final rule establishing the sled test
alternative, but needed to make a conforming amendment to Part 572 so
that the Hybrid III dummy incorporated that instrumentation. NHTSA
specified use of the six-axis neck transducer rather than the three-
axis transducer because the three-axis transducer does not provide
information about the effects of off-axis loading that may occur in air
bag impacts and crash tests involving the dummy's rotational
kinematics.
Those commenters which stated that the three-axis transducer could
be used to measure the neck injury criteria specified for Standard No.
208's unbelted sled test are correct. However, in specifying a test
procedure for measuring neck criteria, the agency believed it was
appropriate to specify the more advanced instrumentation. The six-axis
transducer has been available for about a decade and has been
extensively used by both the agency and industry. NHTSA has used the
six-axis transducer in its New Car Assessment Program and for nearly
all of its research and development tests.
NHTSA also notes that, as part of its upcoming rulemaking
concerning advanced air bags, it may consider the adoption of more
advanced neck injury criteria than currently specified in Standard No.
208. Such criteria are already used for research purposes. Measurement
of the more advanced injury criteria may require the additional
information provided by the six-axis transducer.
NHTSA disagrees that specification of the six-axis transducer is
burdensome. The agency will use that transducer in compliance testing.
However, manufacturers certifying compliance with the safety standards
are not required to follow exactly the compliance test procedures set
forth in the applicable standard. In fact, manufacturers are not even
required to
[[Page 45964]]
conduct any actual testing before certifying that their products comply
with applicable safety standards.
To avoid liability for civil penalties in connection with any
noncompliance that may be determined to exist, manufacturers must
exercise ``due care'' to assure compliance and in making their
certification. It may be simplest for a manufacturer to establish that
it exercised ``due care'' if the manufacturer has conducted testing
that strictly followed the compliance test procedures set forth in the
standard. However, ``due care'' might also be shown using modified test
procedures if the modifications were not likely to have had a
significant impact on the test results.
As discussed in the preamble to the May 1997 interim final rule,
the six-axis neck transducer with appropriate head modification is
identical in mass, center of gravity location, and rigidity with the
previously specified head that was equipped with either the neck
transducer structural replacement or the optionally available three-
axis neck transducer. Moreover, the modifications in the Hybrid III
dummy necessary to accommodate the six-axis neck transducer were very
minor.
This, coupled with the agency's experience in using the Hybrid III
dummy with the six-axis neck transducer, leads it to believe that use
of the six-axis transducer does not have any influence on measurements
of Standard No. 208's longstanding injury criteria, e.g., HIC. The
agency notes that while Toyota identified some difference in measuring
moment value, it did not present any data showing an effect on HIC.
Therefore, the agency believes there is no reason manufacturers could
not certify their vehicles based on tests using the dummy with the
three-axis neck transducer or its structural replacement, with the
possible exception (depending on the specific circumstances) of the
neck criteria for the sled test.
Some commenters suggested that the rule specify dummy neck options,
which would result in multiple dummy designs. For reasons discussed
earlier, this is not necessary. Reiterating the most significant
reasons, the agency has stated that it will test with the six-axis load
cell, the dummy changes to accomplish this change are simple to
implement, there is no indication that dummy HIC data are affected by
this neck configuration, and manufacturers are not required to use the
six-axis load cell.
Moreover, NHTSA observes that the manufacturer comments are now
over a year old. Thus, the amount of time requested by some of the
manufacturers for procuring and evaluating the six-axis neck
transducers has already passed. In the past year, vehicle manufacturers
and the agency have had considerable additional experience in this
area. The agency is not aware of any application or functional problems
that have resulted from specifying use of the six-axis transducer.
IV. Effective Date
The effective date for today's amendments is September 1, 1998. The
agency has selected this date because, while the amendments are already
in effect as interim final rules, some of them would expire on
September 1, 1998 in the absence of today's final rule.
V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies
and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O.
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This action has been
determined to be ``nonsignificant'' under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures.
As to the exclusions/special requirements related to Standards No.
201, 203 and 209, the amendments do not impose any new requirements,
but simply ensure that the vehicle manufacturers do not face design
impediments with respect to air-bag-equipped vehicles certified to the
unbelted sled test that they do not face for air-bag-equipped vehicles
certified to the unbelted barrier test. As to the amendments related to
the Hybrid III test dummy, the amendments do not require any vehicle
design changes. Instead, they only require minor modifications in the
test dummies used to evaluate a vehicle's compliance with Standard No.
208. The incremental costs associated with procuring six axis neck
transducers, where manufacturers do not already have such transducers,
represent a negligible cost impact for vehicles. The agency concludes
that the impacts of the amendments are so minimal that a full
regulatory evaluation is not required.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this final rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this rule does not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
As indicated above, as to the exclusions/special requirements
related to Standards No. 201, 203 and 209, the amendments do not impose
any new requirements but simply ensure that the vehicle manufacturers
do not face design impediments with respect to air-bag-equipped
vehicles certified to the unbelted sled test that they do not face for
air-bag-equipped vehicles certified to the unbelted barrier test.
As to the amendments related to the Hybrid III test dummy, the
amendments do not require any vehicle design changes but instead only
specify minor modifications in the test dummies used to evaluate a
vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. Further, the costs
associated with the amendments are so minor that they will not have any
effect on vehicle prices. Therefore, small organizations and small
governmental units are not affected in their capacity as purchasers of
vehicles.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-
511), there are no requirements for information collection associated
with this rule.
D. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has also analyzed this rule under the National Environmental
Policy Act and determined that it will not have a significant impact on
the human environment.
E. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
NHTSA has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that this rule
will not have significant federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
F. Civil Justice Reform
This rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under 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.
[[Page 45965]]
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber
products, Tires.
49 CFR Part 572
Motor vehicle safety.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Chapter V is amended as
follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571 of Title 49 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.201 is amended by revising S5.1(b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 571.201 Standard No. 201; Occupant protection in interior impact.
* * * * *
S5.1 * * *
(b) A relative velocity of 19 kilometers per hour for vehicles that
meet the occupant crash protection requirements of S5.1 of 49 CFR
571.208 by means of inflatable restraint systems and meet the
requirements of S4.1.5.1(a)(3) by means of a Type 2 seat belt assembly
at the right front designated seating position, the deceleration of the
head form shall not exceed 80 g continuously for more than 3
milliseconds.
* * * * *
3. Section 571.208 is amended by revising the last sentence of S3
to read as follows:
Sec. 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant crash protection.
* * * * *
S3. * * * 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 of this section.
* * * * *
The interim final rule amending 49 CFR part 572 which was published
at 62 FR 27514 on May 20, 1997 is adopted as a final rule with the
following change:
PART 572--ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DEVICES
4. The authority citation for Part 572 of Title 49 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Subpart E--Hybrid III Test Dummy
5. Section 572.36 is amended by revising paragraph (i)(8) to read
as follows:
Sec. 572.36 Test conditions and instrumentation.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(8) Femur Force--Class 600
* * * * *
Issued: August 25, 1998.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-23240 Filed 8-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
