[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 181 (Friday, September 18, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49958-50021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-23957]
[[Page 49957]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
49 CFR Parts 571, 585, 587, and 595
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Occupant Crash Protection;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 1998 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 49958]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 571, 585, 587, and 595
[Docket No. NHTSA 98-4405; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AG70
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The agency is proposing to upgrade the agency's occupant
protection standard to require advanced air bags. While current air
bags have been shown to be highly effective in reducing overall
fatalities, they sometimes cause fatalities to out-of-position
occupants, especially children. The agency's proposal would require
that improvements be made in the ability of air bags to cushion and
protect occupants of different sizes, belted and unbelted, and would
require air bags to be redesigned to minimize risks to infants,
children, and other occupants. 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.
The agency's proposal is consistent with provisions included in the
NHTSA Reauthorization Act of 1998 which mandate the issuance of a final
rule for advanced air bags.
An appendix to this document responds to several petitions
concerning requirements for air bag performance.
DATES: Comments must be received by December 17, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number and notice
number, and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (Docket hours are from
10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.)
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. Clarke Harper, Chief, 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. 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:
Table of Contents
I. Overview of Proposed Requirements
II. Executive Summary
III. Statutory Requirements
IV. Safety Problem and the Agency's Remedial Actions
A. Introduction
B. Background
1. Air Bags: Safety Issues
a. Lives Saved and Lost
b. Causes of Air Bag Fatalities
2. Air Bag Requirements
C. Comprehensive Agency Plan to Address Air Bag Fatalities
1. Interim Rulemaking Solutions
a. Existing and Future Vehicles-in-Use
b. New Vehicles
2. Longer-Term Rulemaking Solution
3. Educational Efforts; Child Restraint and Seat Belt Use Laws
V. Technological Opportunities
VI. Proposal for Advanced Air Bags
A. Introduction
B. Existing and Proposed Test Requirements
1. Tests for Requirements to Preserve and Improve Occupant
Protection for Different Size Occupants, Belted and Unbelted
a. Safety of Medium to Large Teenagers and Adults
b. Safety of Small Teenagers and Small Adults
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 3-Year-Old Children
c. Safety of 6-Year-Old Children
d. Safety of Small Teenage and Adult Drivers
C. Injury Criteria
D. Dummy Recognition
E. Lead Time and Proposed Effective Date
F. Selection of Options
G. Availability of Retrofit Manual On-Off Switches
H. Warning Labels
I. Questions
VII. Costs and Benefits
VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
IX. Request for Comments
Proposed Regulatory Text
Appendix--Response to Petitions
A. Petitions Requesting that New Test Requirements be Added to
Standard No. 208
B. Petition Requesting Extension of the Provision Allowing On-
Off Switches for Vehicles without Rear Seats or with Small Rear
Seats
C. Petitions Requesting a Permanent Option of Using Unbelted
Sled Test instead of Unbelted Barrier Test
D. Petition Objecting to NHTSA's Final Rule on Depowering
I. Overview of Proposed Requirements
The agency is proposing to upgrade Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash
Protection, to require advanced air bags. 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.
The agency is proposing to add a new set of requirements to prevent
air bags from causing injuries and to expand the existing set of
requirements intended to ensure that air bags cushion and protect
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 proposal gives
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, the agency would test the air bags using test dummies
representing 12-month-old, 3-year-old, and 6-year-old children and 5th
percentile adult females.
The agency is also proposing to ensure that the new air bags are
designed to cushion and protect a broader 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. Under the proposal, the agency would also use
5th percentile adult female dummies in the future. 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 angled tests, the agency is proposing to
add a deformable barrier crash test, representing a relatively ``soft''
pulse crash.1 In relatively ``soft'' pulse
[[Page 49959]]
crashes, some current air bags do not deploy until after the occupants
have moved so far forward that they are near the air bag cover when
deployment begins. Such ``late deployments'' lead to high risks of
injury. This proposed new crash test requirement is intended to ensure
that air bag systems are designed so that the air bag deploys earlier,
before normally seated occupants, including small-statured ones, move
too close to the air bag. The agency is proposing to use 5th percentile
adult female dummies in this test. If an air bag opens in time for
small-statured occupants, who generally sit relatively far forward, it
will open in time for taller occupants, who sit farther back.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Crash pulse'' means the acceleration-time history of the
occupant compartment of a vehicle during a crash. This is
represented typically in terms of g's of acceleration plotted
against time in milliseconds (1/1000 second). The crash pulse for a
given test is a major determinant of the stringency of the test, and
how representative the test is of how a particular vehicle will
perform in particular kinds of real world crashes. Generally
speaking, the occupant undergoes greater forces due to secondary
collisions with the vehicle interior and restraint systems if the
crash pulse g's are higher at the peak, or the duration of the crash
pulse is shorter, which would lead to higher overall average g
levels.
In a relatively ``hard'' pulse crash, a vehicle's occupant
compartment decelerates relatively abruptly, creating a high risk of
death or serious injury. In a relatively ``soft'' pulse crash, there
is a lower rate of deceleration and proportionately lower risk of
death or serious injury. The nature of the crash pulse for a vehicle
in a given frontal crash is affected by a number of factors,
including vehicle speed, the extent to which the vehicle structure
forward of the occupant compartment collapses in a controlled manner
so that some of the crash energy is absorbed, whether the struck
object is fixed in place, the extent to which the struck object
collapses and absorbs energy, and, in the case of non-fixed struck
objects, the relative mass of the vehicle and the struck object.
Large cars typically have relatively mild crash pulses, while small
cars and utility vehicles typically have more severe crash pulses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency is proposing to phase out the unbelted sled test option
as requirements for advanced air bags are phased in. Finally, NHTSA is
proposing new and/or upgraded injury criteria for all of the standard's
test requirements.
II. Executive Summary
Air bags have been shown to be highly effective in saving lives.
They reduce fatalities in frontal crashes by about 30 percent. As of
June 1, 1998, air bags had saved an estimated 3,148 drivers and
passengers since their introduction in 1986. However, as of that same
date, the agency had confirmed a total of 105 crashes in this country
in which an air bag deployment had resulted in fatal injuries.
These deaths did not occur at random; they typically involved
certain common factors. The persons who have been killed or seriously
injured by an air bag were extremely close to the air bag at the time
of deployment. The persons shown to be at greatest risk have been (1)
unrestrained young children, who can easily be propelled close to or
against the passenger air bag before the crash as a result of pre-crash
braking, (2) infants in rear facing child seats, who ride with their
heads extremely close to the passenger air bag, and (3) drivers
(especially unrestrained ones) who sit extremely close to the steering
wheel. These drivers are most likely to be small-statured women.
Since the problem of air bag deaths first emerged, NHTSA has taken
a number of steps to address the problem. In late November 1996, the
agency announced that it would be implementing a comprehensive plan of
rulemaking and other actions (e.g., consumer education and
encouragement of State seat belt use laws providing for primary
enforcement of their requirements) addressing the adverse effects of
air bags.
Recognizing that a relatively long period of lead time is required
to make some types of significant design changes to air bags, the
agency's comprehensive plan called for both interim and longer-term
solutions. The interim solutions included temporary adjustments in
Standard No. 208's performance requirements to ensure that the vehicle
manufacturers had maximum flexibility to address quickly the problem of
risks from air bags. One temporary change was to permit manufacturers
to certify their vehicles to an unbelted sled test option, in which a
vehicle is essentially stopped quickly, but not actually crashed,
instead of to the standard's full scale unbelted crash test, in which a
vehicle is actually crashed into a barrier. This made it much easier
for the manufacturers to make quick design changes to their air bags.
Another temporary change was to permit the vehicle manufacturers to
install manual on-off switches for passenger air bags in vehicles
without rear seats or with rear seats that are too small to accommodate
a rear facing child restraint.
Another interim measure taken by NHTSA was to require improved
labeling on new vehicles and child restraints to better ensure that
drivers and other occupants are aware of the dangers posed by passenger
air bags to children. Also, to address the problems faced by persons
who are in groups at special risk from air bags, the agency issued a
final rule exempting motor vehicle dealers and repair businesses from
the statutory prohibition against making federally required safety
equipment inoperative so that they may install retrofit manual on-off
switches for air bags in vehicles owned or used by such persons and
whose requests for switches have been approved by the agency.
In today's notice, NHTSA is proposing a longer-term solution. The
proposed amendments contemplate implementation of advanced air bag
system technology that would minimize or eliminate risks to out-of-
position occupants and enhance the benefits provided by air bags to
occupants of different sizes, belted and unbelted. The proposed
amendments are consistent with the NHTSA Reauthorization Act of 1998,
which requires advanced air bags.
In developing this proposal, the agency recognized that, to
minimize or eliminate air bag risks, either (1) air bag deployment must
be suppressed in situations that are risky to occupants, or (2) the air
bag must be designed to deploy in such a manner that it does not
present a significant risk of serious injury to out-of-position
occupants.
The agency has used a number of methods to obtain up-to-date
information regarding the technology needed for accomplishing these
purposes. These methods included meetings with individual
manufacturers, a public meeting and written information requests to
vehicle and air bag manufacturers for specified types of information.
In numerous meetings with vehicle manufacturers and air bag
suppliers, the agency discussed the steps that they were taking to
address adverse effects of air bags. The agency found that these
companies were working on a wide variety of technologies, involving one
or both of the approaches (i.e., modulation of deployment or
suppression of deployment) discussed above, to minimize or eliminate
air bag risks. Vehicle manufacturers and suppliers are working on
systems that would prevent an air bag from deploying in situations
where it might have an adverse effect, using, for example, sensors that
determine the weight, size, and/or location of the occupant. The
vehicle manufacturers and suppliers are also working on systems that
would modulate the speed and force of the air bag, using multiple level
inflators. The activation of those different levels is keyed to sensors
that determine such factors as crash severity, seat-track position,
occupant weight and/or size, and whether an occupant is belted or not.
They are also working on a variety of approaches that make air bags
less aggressive to out-of-position occupants, e.g., by changing fold
patterns, deployment paths, and venting systems.
NHTSA conducted a public meeting in February 1997 to obtain
information about available technologies, and separately asked the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Jet Propulsion
Laboratory (JPL) for help in obtaining information. JPL surveyed the
automotive industry and conducted
[[Page 49960]]
an analysis of the readiness of advanced air bag technologies.
Also, in April 1998, the agency sent an information request
concerning advanced air bag technology to nine air bag suppliers. This
effort supplemented NHTSA's other efforts to obtain information in this
area and was intended to ensure that the agency had the most up-to-date
information possible for this rulemaking.
The agency considered the information obtained in these various
endeavors, as well as other available information, in developing this
proposal.
To minimize air bag risks, the proposed amendments specify
alternative options that would allow use of the differing kinds of
technological solutions being developed or considered by the
manufacturers to effectively address this problem. For example, the
agency is proposing options that would test the performance of air bags
designed to inflate in a manner so they do not cause injuries. These
options, which are based on an approach recommended by the American
Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA), specify static out-of-
position tests. The agency is proposing use of several child dummies
(representing an infant, a 3-year-old, and a 6-year-old) and the Hybrid
III 5th percentile adult female dummy in these tests. Injury criteria
would be specified for each of the new dummies. The agency is also
proposing options that would test the performance of systems designed
to suppress air bag deployment in the presence of children and/or out-
of-position occupants.
NHTSA believes the proposed amendments would permit the vehicle
manufacturers to use any technology or design which can effectively
address the problem of adverse effects of air bags to out-of-position
occupants, without detracting from the ability of the vehicle to meet
Standard No. 208's other occupant protection requirements. The design
changes that can be used to meet the proposed requirements range from
relatively simple changes in the way air bags deploy to advanced
systems incorporating sensors which vary air bag deployment depending
on the size, weight and dynamic position of an occupant and crash
severity.
In addition to proposing requirements to address air bag risks to
out-of-position occupants, NHTSA is proposing to add to the standard's
dynamic frontal crash test requirements to ensure that improved
protection is provided to teenagers and adults of different sizes,
belted and unbelted, especially ones of smaller stature. Under Standard
No. 208's longstanding dynamic crash requirements, vehicles must meet
specified injury criteria, including ones for the head and chest,
measured on 50th percentile adult male test dummies (both belted and
unbelted) during rigid barrier crashes at any speed up to and including
48 km/h (30 mph) and at any angle up to 30
degrees.2 Thus, manufacturers are required to assure
compliance with occupant protection requirements in full scale vehicle
crashes representing a wide range of severities and crash pulses that
could potentially cause fatal injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As discussed elsewhere in this notice, Standard No. 208
currently includes an option for manufacturers to certify their
vehicles to an unbelted sled test as an alternative to the unbelted
barrier test requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, despite their compliance with requirements specifying the
use of 50th percentile adult male dummies, some current air bags may
not provide appropriate protection to small adult occupants. Most
significantly, some designs do not take account of the special needs of
occupants who must sit relatively close to the air bag, such as small-
statured women drivers. In order to provide protection to someone who
sits close to the air bag, an air bag must deploy early in a crash
event. However, the air bags of some vehicles deploy late in certain
kinds of crashes (such as ones with soft pulses), after a small-
statured driver, even though belted, has struck the steering wheel. In
such a situation, the air bag cannot provide protection and may cause
harm. This same problem is faced by persons who sit close to the
passenger-side air bag.
To address this problem, NHTSA is proposing to add new dynamic
crash test requirements using 5th percentile adult female dummies.
Protection would be required to be demonstrated in a new ``offset
deformable barrier crash test,'' a test which replicates a kind of real
world crash likely to result in late deployment of many current air
bags. This test measures the performance of the sensor system as well
as the air bag in a 25-mph crash with a ``soft'' pulse, and would use
restrained dummies only. In addition, 5th percentile adult female
dummies would be added to the standard's existing 30-mph dynamic crash
test requirements, using both restrained and unrestrained dummies.
The agency has developed injury criteria and seat positioning
procedures that it believes are appropriate for small females. Among
other things, the agency is including neck injury criteria, since
persons close to the air bag at deployment are at greater risk of neck
injury. NHTSA notes that it is also proposing to upgrade the current
injury criteria specified for 50th percentile adult male dummies, and
to add neck injury criteria, to make them consistent with what the
agency is proposing for 5th percentile adult female dummies.
NHTSA recognizes that adding additional sizes of dummies would
increase testing costs, but believes that their addition is needed to
ensure that air bag performance is appropriate for occupants of
different sizes. NHTSA notes that upgrading Standard No. 208 by adding
a greater array of dummy sizes would parallel the agency's recent
upgrading of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, through the
addition of a greater array of sizes and weights of child test
dummies.3 Just as that final rule improved the safety of
child restraint systems by providing for evaluation of performance in a
more thorough manner, the addition of different size test dummies to
Standard No. 208 would improve protection for all occupants by
requiring more thorough evaluation of a vehicle's occupant protection
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 60 FR 35126, July 6, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency notes that it may issue a separate document proposing to
add the Hybrid III 95th percentile adult male dummy to Standard No.
208. With the addition of that dummy, occupant protection would be
measured for adult occupant sizes ranging from small-statured females
to large-statured males. The agency is not proposing to add the Hybrid
III 95th percentile adult male dummy in this notice because development
of that dummy has not yet reached the stage where it is appropriate for
incorporation into a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.
NHTSA also notes that during calendar year 1999 it expects to
propose a higher speed frontal offset requirement than that specified
for the current barrier test. The agency is still conducting research
regarding such a requirement. In addition, as more advanced technology
is developed, the agency may develop proposals to require further
enhancements in occupant protection under Standard No. 208.
To provide vehicle manufacturers sufficient time to complete
development of advanced air bag designs meeting the new requirements
proposed in today's notice, and implement them into their cars and
light trucks, NHTSA is proposing a phase-in of the upgraded
requirements beginning September 1, 2002, with full implementation
required effective September 1, 2005. The agency is proposing to
provide credits for early compliance with the rule. To address
[[Page 49961]]
the special problems faced by limited line manufacturers in complying
with phase-ins, the agency is proposing to permit manufacturers which
produce two or fewer carlines 4 the option of omitting the
first year of the phase-in if they achieve full compliance effective
September 1, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The term ``carline'' refers to a group of vehicles which has
a degree of commonality in construction (e.g., body, chassis). The
term is used in NHTSA's automobile parts content labeling program
and is defined at 49 CFR Sec. 583.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA notes that Standard No. 208 contains several provisions,
noted above, that were added as temporary measures to address air bag
risks. One is the provision permitting manufacturers to provide manual
on-off switches for passenger air bags in vehicles without rear seats
or with rear seats too small to accommodate a rear facing infant seat.
It expires on September 1, 2000.
The other is the provision permitting certification based on the
unbelted sled test alternative to the unbelted barrier test
requirements. It was scheduled to expire on September 1, 2001. However,
notwithstanding the expiration date currently specified in the standard
for the unbelted sled test option, the NHTSA Reauthorization Act of
1998 provides that the sled test option ``shall remain in effect unless
and until changed by [the final rule for advanced 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.''
In this notice, the agency is proposing to amend Standard No. 208
so that both the sled test option and the manual on-off switch
provision are phased out as the new requirements for advanced air bags
are phased in. During the phase-in, the sled test option and manual
cutoff provision would not apply to any vehicles certified to the
upgraded requirements, but would be available for vehicles not so
certified under the same conditions as they are currently available.
Thus, as manufacturers develop advanced air bags, they would need to
ensure that vehicles equipped with these devices meet all of Standard
No. 208's longstanding performance requirements as well as the new ones
being proposed today.
The agency is similarly proposing to amend its regulation
permitting the installation of retrofit on-off switches to specify that
these devices cannot be installed in vehicles that have been certified
to the new requirements for advanced air bags.
NHTSA notes that, as discussed later in this notice, the auto
industry and other commenters have raised a number of objections to the
existing unbelted barrier test requirements.5 While the
agency is not proposing alternatives to those requirements in this
notice, it is requesting comments on whether it should develop
alternative unbelted crash test requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The most significant objection is the argument that air bags
designed to enable vehicles to meet the unbelted barrier test at 30
mph will be too powerful for occupants, especially children, who are
extremely close to the air bag at time of deployment. The agency
notes, however, that this objection has been made primarily in the
context of the continued use of current, single inflation level air
bags, instead of the advanced ones that are the subject of this
proposal. Another significant objection concerns how representative
the barrier test is of real world crashes. As discussed later in
this notice, NHTSA is placing in the docket a technical paper which
analyzes the representativeness of those requirements with respect
to real-world crashes which have a potential to cause serious injury
or fatality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice also provides the agency's response to all outstanding
petitions concerning air bag performance.
III. Statutory Requirements
As part of the NHTSA Reauthorization Act of 1998,6
Congress required the agency to conduct rulemaking to improve air bags.
The Act directed NHTSA 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 and deaths caused by air
bags, by means that include advanced air bags.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The NHTSA Reauthorization Act of 1998 is part of P.L. 105-
178.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Act directs the agency to issue the final rule not later than
September 1, 1999. However, if it determines that the final rule cannot
be completed by that date, the final rule must be issued no later than
March 1, 2000. The final rule must be consistent both with the
provisions of the NHTSA Reauthorization Act of 1998 and with 49 U.S.C.
Sec. 30111, which specifies the requirements for Federal motor vehicle
safety standards.
The final rule 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. The final rule must become fully
effective by September 1, 2005. However, if the phase-in of the final
rule does not begin until September 1, 2003, NHTSA is authorized to
delay making the final rule fully effective until September 1, 2006.
To encourage early compliance, NHTSA is directed to include in the
NPRM means by which manufacturers may earn credits toward future
compliance. Credits, on a one-vehicle for one-vehicle basis, may be
earned for vehicles which are certified as being in full compliance
with the final rule and which are so certified before the beginning of
the phase-in period. They may also be earned during the phase-in if a
manufacturer's production of complying vehicles for a model year
exceeds the percentage of vehicles required to comply in that year.
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].''
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.''
IV. Safety Problem and the Agency's Remedial Actions
A. Introduction
While air bags are providing significant overall safety benefits,
NHTSA is concerned that current air bags have adverse effects on
certain groups of people in limited situations. Of particular concern,
NHTSA has confirmed 105 primarily low speed crashes in which the
deployment of an air bag resulted in fatal injuries to an occupant, as
of June 1, 1998. NHTSA believes that none of these occupants would have
died if the air bag had not deployed.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The vast majority of the deaths appear to have occurred in
crashes in which the vehicle had a change in velocity of less than
15 mph. Almost all occurred in crashes with a change of velocity
less than 20 mph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The primary factor linking these deaths is the proximity of
occupants to the air bag when it deployed. These deaths occurred under
circumstances in which the occupant's upper body was very near the air
bag when it deployed.
There were two other factors common to many of the deaths. First,
apart from 13 infants fatally injured while riding in rear-facing
infant seats, most of the fatally injured people were not using any
type of child seat or seat belt. This allowed the people to move
forward more readily than properly restrained occupants under
conditions of pre-impact braking or low level crashes. Second, the air
bags involved in those deaths were, like all current air bags, so-
called ``one-size-fits-all'' air bags that
[[Page 49962]]
have a single inflation level.8 These air bags deploy with
the same force in very low speed crashes as they do in higher speed
crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Federal safety standards do not require a ``one-size-
fits-all'' approach to designing air bags. They permit a wide
variety of technologies that would enable air bags to deploy with
less force in lower speed crashes or when occupants are out of
position or suppress deployment altogether in appropriate
circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most direct behavioral solution to the problem of child
fatalities from air bags is for children to be properly belted in the
back seat whenever possible, while the most direct behavioral solution
for the adult fatalities is to use seat belts and move the driver seat
as far back as practicable. Implementing these solutions necessitates
increasing the percentage of children who are seated in the back and
properly restrained in child safety seats. It also necessitates
improving the current 69 percent rate of seat belt usage by a
combination of methods, including the enactment of State primary seat
belt use laws.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In States with ``secondary'' seat belt use laws, a motorist
may be ticketed for failure to wear a seat belt only if there is a
separate basis for stopping the motorist, such as the violation of a
separate traffic law. This hampers enforcement of the law. In States
with primary laws, a citation can be issued solely because of
failure to wear seat belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most direct technical solution to the problem of fatalities
from air bags is to require that motor vehicle manufacturers install
advanced air bags that protect occupants from the adverse effects that
can occur from being too close to a deploying air bag.
All of these solutions are being pursued by the agency. However,
until advanced air bags are incorporated into the vehicle fleet,
behavioral changes based on better information and communication about
potential hazards and simple, non-automatic technology are the best
means of addressing fatalities from air bags, especially those
involving children.
To partially implement these solutions, and preserve the benefits
of air bags, while reducing the risk of injury to certain people, NHTSA
issued several final rules in the past year-and-a-half.
One rule requires new passenger cars and light trucks to bear new,
enhanced air bag warning labels. (61 FR 60206; November 27, 1996)
Another rule provided vehicle manufacturers with the temporary
option of certifying compliance based on a sled test using an unbelted
dummy, instead of conducting a vehicle-to-barrier crash test using an
unbelted dummy. (62 FR 12960; March 19, 1997) While vehicle
manufacturers could have depowered many or most of their vehicles' air
bags without changes to Standard No. 208, the final rule expedited this
process. In view of concerns that the gentler crash pulse of the sled
test would enable many vehicles to meet Standard No. 208's existing
injury criteria without an air bag deploying, the agency added neck
injury criteria to help ensure that air bags deploy and are not
depowered so much as to be ineffective. Unless the air bags deployed, a
vehicle would be very unlikely to be able to pass the neck injury
criteria limits. The agency concluded that depowering current single-
inflation level air bags would most likely reduce the adverse effects
of these air bags, although it also expressed concern that depowering
could result in less protection being provided to occupants in higher
speed crashes, especially for those who are unbelted and/or heavier
than average.
NHTSA has also issued two final rules related to manual on-off
switches. One extends the temporary time period during which vehicle
manufacturers are permitted to offer manual on-off switches for the
passenger air bag for vehicles without rear seats or with rear seats
that are too small to accommodate rear facing infant seats. (62 FR 798;
January 6, 1997) The other final rule exempts motor vehicle dealers and
repair businesses from the statutory prohibition against making
federally-required safety equipment inoperative so that they may
install retrofit manual on-off switches for driver and passenger air
bags in vehicles owned by or used by persons who are in groups at
special risk from air bags and whose requests for switches have been
authorized by the agency. (62 FR 62406; November 21, 1997)
On the behavioral side, the agency has initiated a national
campaign to increase usage of seat belts through the enactment of
primary seat belt use laws, more public education, and more effective
enforcement of existing belt use and child safety seat use laws.
In conjunction with the National Aeronautical and Space
Administration, as well as Transport Canada, and in cooperation with
domestic and foreign vehicle manufacturers, restraint system suppliers
and others through the Motor Vehicle Safety Research Advisory Committee
(MVSRAC), NHTSA has undertaken data analysis and research to address
remaining questions concerning the development and introduction of
advanced air bags.
In today's notice, the agency is proposing to require advanced air
bags.
B. Background
1. Air Bags: Safety Issues
a. Lives saved and lost. Air bags have proven to be highly
effective in reducing fatalities from frontal crashes, the most
prevalent fatality and injury-causing type of crash. Frontal crashes
cause 64 percent of all driver and right-front passenger fatalities.
NHTSA estimates that, between 1986 and June 1, 1998, air bags have
saved about 3,148 drivers and passengers (2,725 drivers (87 percent)
and 423 passengers (13 percent)).10 Of the 3,148, 2,267 (72
percent) were unbelted and 881 (28 percent) were belted. These agency
estimates are based on comparisons of the frequency of front seat
occupant deaths in vehicles without air bags and in vehicles with air
bags. Approximately half of those lives were saved in the last two
years. These savings occurred primarily in moderate and high speed
crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Studies published in the November 5, 1997 issue of the
Journal of the American Medical Association by the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and by the Center for Risk
Analysis at the Harvard School of Public Health confirm the overall
value of passenger air bags, while urging action be taken quickly to
address the loss of children's lives due to those air bags. IIHS
found that passenger air bags were associated with a substantial
reduction in crash deaths. The Center evaluated the cost-
effectiveness of passenger air bags and concluded that they produce
savings at costs comparable to many well-accepted medical and public
health practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the mandate in the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) for the installation of air bags in all
passenger cars and light trucks, the number of air bags in vehicles on
the road will increase each year. As a result, the annual number of
lives saved by air bags will continue to increase each year. Based on
current levels of effectiveness, air bags will save more than 3,200
lives each year in passenger cars and light trucks when all light
vehicles on the road are equipped with dual air bags. This estimate is
based on current seat belt use rates (about 69 percent, according to
State-reported surveys).
While air bags are saving large numbers of people in moderate and
high speed crashes, they sometimes cause fatalities, especially to
children, in lower speed crashes. As of June 1, 1998, NHTSA's Special
Crash Investigation program had confirmed a total of 105 crashes in
which the deployment of an air bag resulted in fatal injuries. Sixty-
one of those fatalities involved children. Four adult passengers have
also been fatally injured. Forty drivers are known to have been fatally
injured.
Just as the number of lives saved per year will rise as more
vehicles are
[[Page 49963]]
equipped with air bags, so will the number of fatalities caused by air
bags, absent either advanced air bags or changes in occupant behavior.
Using the year 2000 as a point of reference, if all passenger vehicles
on the road were equipped with air bags, air bags would save 3,215
lives annually. However, there would be 214 fatalities annually--33
infants in rear facing child seats, 129 other children, 41 drivers, and
11 adult passengers.
It is important to note that these estimates are based on pre-model
year 1998 air bags and on the assumption that there are no changes in
occupant demographics, driver/passenger behavior, belt use, child
restraint use, or the percent of children sitting in the front seat.
However, as noted above, changes have already occurred that have
reduced the potential number of fatalities. Manufacturers redesigned
most air bags for model year 1998 to reduce the adverse effects of air
bags. Moreover, additional changes are anticipated. As public education
programs succeed in creating better awareness of occupant safety
issues, and as auto manufacturers voluntarily continue to improve their
air bags, the potential adverse effects of air bags will be further
reduced. Nonetheless, the agency believes that the air bag fatalities
that have occurred to date, and the potentially much larger number of
air bag fatalities that could occur when all light vehicles are
equipped with air bags, demonstrate the need for regulatory action in
this area.
b. Causes of air bag fatalities. Air bag fatalities are caused by a
combination of proximity to deploying air bags and the current designs
of those air bags. The one fact that is common to all persons who died
is not their height, weight, gender, or age. Instead, it is the fact
that they were too close to the air bag when it started to deploy. For
some, this occurred because they were initially sitting too close to
the air bag. More often, this occurred because they were not restrained
by seat belts or child safety seats and were thrown forward during pre-
crash braking.
Air bags are designed to save lives and prevent injuries by
cushioning occupants as they move forward in a frontal crash. They keep
an occupant's head, neck, and chest from hitting the steering wheel or
instrument panel. To accomplish this, an air bag must move into place
quickly. The force of a deploying air bag is greatest as the air bag
begins to inflate. The force decreases as the air bag inflates further.
Occupants who are very close to or in contact with the cover of a
stored air bag when the air bag begins to inflate can be hit with
enough force to suffer serious injury or death. In general, a driver
can avoid this risk by sitting at least 10 inches away from the air bag
(measured from the breastbone to the center of the air bag cover) and
wearing safety belts. Teenage and adult passengers can avoid this risk
by moving their seat back and wearing their safety belts. Children
should ride in the rear seat whenever possible.
The confirmed fatalities involving children have a number of fairly
consistent characteristics. First, 13 infants were in rear-facing
infant seats that were installed in front of a passenger side air bag.
Second, the vast majority of the older children were not using any type
of restraint.11 Third, as noted above, the crashes occurred
at relatively low speeds. If the passenger air bag had not deployed in
those crashes, the children would probably not have been killed or
seriously injured. Fourth, the infants and older children were very
close to the instrument panel when the air bag deployed. A rear-facing
infant seat which is installed in the front seat of a vehicle with a
passenger side air bag will always position the infant's head very
close to the air bag. For essentially all of the older children, the
non-use or improper use of occupant restraints or the failure to use
the restraints most appropriate to the child's weight and age, in
conjunction with pre-impact braking, resulted in the forward movement
of the children prior to the actual crash. As a result, they were very
close to the air bag when it deployed. Because of their proximity, the
children sustained fatal head or neck injuries from the deploying
passenger air bag.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 39 of the 48 forward-facing children who were fatally
injured by air bags were not using any type of belt or other
restraint. The remaining children included some who were riding with
their shoulder belts behind them and some who were wearing lap and
shoulder belts but who also should have been in booster seats
because of their small size and weight. Booster seat use could have
improved shoulder belt fit and performance. These various factors
and pre-crash braking allowed the children to get too close to the
air bag when it began to inflate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As in the case of the children fatally injured by air bags, the key
factor regarding the confirmed adult deaths has been their proximity to
the air bag when it deployed. The most common reason for their
proximity was failure to use seat belts. Only 11 of the 40 drivers were
known to be properly restrained by lap and shoulder belts at the time
of the crash. As in the case of children, the deaths of drivers have
occurred primarily in low speed crashes.
The other cause of air bag fatalities is the design of current air
bags. Air bag fatalities are not a problem inherent in the concept of
air bags or in the agency's occupant restraint standard. That standard
has always permitted, but not required, vehicle manufacturers to use a
variety of design features that would reduce or eliminate the
fatalities that have been occurring, e.g., higher deployment thresholds
that will prevent deployment in low speed crashes, sensors that adjust
the deployment threshold depending on whether the occupant is
belted,12 different folding patterns and aspiration designs,
dual stage inflators,13 new air bag designs like the Autoliv
``Gentle Bag'' that deploys first radially and then toward the
occupant, and advanced air bags that either adjust deployment force or
suppress deployment altogether in appropriate circumstances. While some
of these features are new or are still under development, others have
been around (at least conceptually) for more than a decade. The agency
identified a number of these features in conjunction with its 1984
decision concerning automatic occupant protection and noted that
vehicle manufacturers could choose among those features to address the
problems reported by those manufacturers concerning out-of-position
occupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For example, Mercedes-Benz offers passenger air bags whose
deployment threshold is 12 mph if the passenger is unbelted and 18
mph if the passenger is belted.
\13\ The passenger-side air bags installed in approximately
10,000 GM cars in the 1970's were equipped with dual stage
inflators. Today, for example, Autoliv, a Swedish manufacturer of
air bags, has a ``gas generator that inflates in two steps, giving
the bag time to unfold and the vent holes to be freed before the
second inflation starts. Should the bag then encounter an occupant,
any excessive gas--and indeed bag pressure--will exit through the
vent holes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Standard No. 208 permits vehicle manufacturers to install
air bags incorporating those advanced features, very few current air
bags do so. Instead, vehicle manufacturers have thus far used designs
that inflate with the same force under all circumstances. Although the
vehicle manufacturers are now working to incorporate advanced features
in their air bags, the introduction of air bags with those features is
only just beginning.
Partly in view of the lead time needed to incorporate those
advanced features, vehicle manufacturers first took the quicker step of
depowering their air bags. Under a recent temporary amendment to
Standard No. 208, vehicle manufacturers have expedited their
introduction of depowered or otherwise redesigned air bags. While these
modified air bags will reduce, but not eliminate, the incidence of air
bag-
[[Page 49964]]
caused deaths, they still deploy with the same force in all crashes,
regardless of severity, and regardless of occupant weight or location.
Many manufacturers introduced substantial numbers of these less
powerful air bags in model year 1998.
2. Air Bag Requirements
Today's air bag requirements evolved over a 25-year period. NHTSA
issued its first public notice concerning air bags in the late 1960's.
Although vehicle manufacturers began installing air bags in 1986, it
was not until the fall of 1996 that manufacturers were first required
to install air bags in any motor vehicles.14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Air bag firsts--In view of the confusion evident in some
public comments in recent rulemakings and even in some media
accounts about when air bags were first required, and by whom, the
agency has set forth a brief chronology below:
1972 First year in which vehicle manufacturers had the
option of installing air bags in passenger cars as a means of
complying with Standard No. 208. Prior to that year, vehicle
manufacturers had to comply means of installing manual lap and
shoulder belts. GM installed driver and passenger air bags in
approximately 10,000 passenger cars in the mid-1970's.
1986 First year in which vehicle manufacturers no
longer had the option of installing manual belts and were required
instead to install some type of automatic protection (either
automatic belts or air bags) in some passenger cars. This
requirement was issued by Secretary Dole in 1984. At the time of
that issuance, the agency expressly noted that vehicle manufacturers
had expressed concerns about air bags and out-of-position occupants.
In response to those concerns, NHTSA identified a variety of
technological remedies whose use was permissible under the Standard.
Between 1986 and 1996, vehicle manufacturers chose to comply with
the automatic protection requirements by installing over 35 million
driver air bags and over 18 million passenger air bags in passenger
cars. Another 12 million driver air bags and almost 3 million
passenger air bags were installed in light trucks in that same time
period.
1996 First year in which vehicle manufacturers were
required to install air bags in some passenger cars. This
requirement was mandated by the 1991 Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the requirements for automatic protection (i.e., protection by
means that require no action by the occupant) were adopted in 1984 for
passenger cars, they were expressed in broad performance terms that
provided vehicle manufacturers with choices of a variety of methods of
providing automatic protection, including automatic belts and air bags.
Further, the requirements gave vehicle manufacturers broad flexibility
in selecting the performance characteristics of air bags. Later, those
requirements were extended to light trucks. While vehicle manufacturers
initially installed automatic belts in many of their vehicles,
ultimately, strong market preference for air bags led manufacturers to
move toward installing them in all of their passenger cars and light
trucks.
In 1991, Congress included a provision in ISTEA directing NHTSA to
amend Standard No. 208 to require that all passenger cars and light
trucks provide automatic protection by means of air bags. ISTEA
required at least 95 percent of each manufacturer's passenger cars
manufactured on or after September 1, 1996, and before September 1,
1997, to be equipped with an air bag and a manual lap/shoulder belt at
both the driver and right front passenger seating positions. Every
passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1997, must be so
equipped. The same basic requirements were phased in for light trucks
one year later.15 The final rule implementing this provision
of ISTEA was published in the Federal Register (58 FR 46551) on
September 2, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ At least 80 percent of each manufacturer's light trucks
manufactured on or after September 1, 1997 and before September 1,
1998 must be equipped with an air bag and a manual lap/shoulder
belt. Every light truck manufactured on or after September 1, 1998
must be so equipped.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard No. 208's 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
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, the agency published a final rule
temporarily amending Standard No. 208 to provide the option of testing
air bag performance with an unbelted dummy in a sled test incorporating
a 125 millisecond standardized crash pulse instead of in a vehicle-to-
barrier crash test. This amendment was made primarily to expedite
manufacturer efforts to reduce the force of air bags as they deploy.
Standard No. 208's current automatic protection requirements, like
those established 14 years ago in 1984, apply to the performance of the
vehicle as a whole, and not to the air bag as a separate item of motor
vehicle equipment. The broad vehicle performance requirements permit
vehicle manufacturers to ``tune'' the performance of the air bag to the
specific attributes of each of their vehicles.
The Standard's requirements also permit manufacturers to design
seat belts and air bags to work together. Before air bags, seat belts
had to do all the work of restraining an occupant and reducing the
likelihood that the occupant will strike the interior of the vehicle in
a frontal crash. Another consequence of not having air bags was that
vehicle manufacturers had to use relatively rigid and unyielding seat
belts that can concentrate a lot of force along a narrow portion of the
belted occupant's body in a serious crash. This concentration of force
created a risk of bone fractures and injury to underlying organs. The
presence of an air bag increases the vehicle manufacturer's ability to
protect belted occupants. Through using force management devices, such
as load limiters, a manufacturer can design seat belts to extend or
release additional belt webbing before the belts concentrate too much
force on the belted occupant's body. When these new belts stretch or
extend, the deployed air bag is there to prevent the belted occupant
from striking the vehicle interior.
Further, as noted above, Standard No. 208 permits, but does not
require, vehicle manufacturers to design their air bags to minimize the
risk of serious injury to unbelted, out-of-position occupants,
including children and small drivers. The standard gives the
manufacturers significant freedom to select specific attributes to
protect all occupants, including attributes such as (1) the crash
speeds at which the air bags deploy, (2) the force with which they
deploy, (3) air bag tethering and venting to reduce inflation force
when a deploying air bag encounters an occupant close to the steering
wheel or the instrument panel, (4) the use of sensors to both detect
the presence of rear-facing child restraints and the presence of small
children and prevent air bag inflation, (5) the use of sensors to
detect occupant position and prevent air bag inflation if appropriate,
and (6) the use of multi-stage versus single stage inflators. Multi-
stage inflators enable air bags to deploy with lower force in low speed
crashes, the type of crashes in which children and drivers have been
fatally injured, and with more force in higher speed crashes.
C. Comprehensive Agency Plan To Address Air Bag Fatalities
In late November 1996, NHTSA announced that it would be
implementing a comprehensive plan of rulemaking and other actions
(e.g., consumer education and encouragement of State seat belt use laws
providing for primary enforcement of their requirements) addressing the
adverse
[[Page 49965]]
effects of air bags.16 While there is a general consensus
that the best approach to preserving the benefits of air bags while
preventing air bag fatalities will ultimately be the introduction of
advanced air bag systems, those air bags are not immediately available.
Accordingly, the agency has focused on rulemaking and other actions to
help reduce the adverse effects of air bags in existing vehicles as
well as in vehicles produced during the next several model years. The
actions which have been taken, or are being taken, include the
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ For a discussion of the actions taken by NHTSA before
November 1996 to address the adverse effects of air bags, see pp.
40787-88 of the agency's NPRM published August 6, 1996 (61 FR
40784).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Interim Rulemaking Solutions
a. Existing and future vehicles-in-use. On November 11, 1997, NHTSA
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. Sec. 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 purpose of the exemption is to preserve the benefits of air
bags while reducing the risk that some people have of being seriously
or fatally injured by current air bags. The exemption also allows
consumers to have new vehicles retrofitted with on-off switches after
the purchase of those vehicles. It does not, however, allow consumers
to purchase new vehicles already equipped with on-off switches.
(Another rule, discussed below, allows manufacturers to ``factory
install'' manual on-off switches for vehicles with no, or small, rear
seats.)
b. New vehicles. On November 27, 1996, the agency published in the
Federal Register (61 FR 60206) a final rule amending Standards No. 208
and No. 213 to require improved labeling on new vehicles and child
restraints to better ensure that drivers and other occupants are aware
of the dangers posed by passenger air bags to children, particularly to
children in rear-facing infant restraints in vehicles with operational
passenger air bags. The improved labels were required on new vehicles
beginning February 25, 1997, and were required on child restraints
beginning May 27, 1997.
On January 6, 1997, the agency published in the Federal Register
(62 FR 798) a final rule extending until September 1, 2000, an existing
provision in Standard No. 208 permitting vehicle manufacturers to offer
manual on-off switches for the passenger air bag for new vehicles
without rear seats or with rear seats that are too small to accommodate
rear-facing infant restraints.
On March 19, 1997, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (62 FR
12960) a final rule temporarily amending Standard No. 208 to facilitate
efforts of vehicle manufacturers to depower their air bags quickly so
that they inflate less aggressively. This change, coupled with the
broad flexibility already provided by the standard's existing
performance requirements, provided the vehicle manufacturers maximum
flexibility to quickly reduce the adverse effects of current air bags.
Vehicle manufacturers provided air bags that were depowered or
otherwise redesigned for a large number of model year 1998 vehicles.
2. Longer-Term Rulemaking Solution
In today's notice, NHTSA is proposing to require advanced air bags.
The agency is proposing new performance requirements 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.
3. Educational Efforts; Child Restraint and Seat Belt Use Laws
In addition to taking these actions, and conducting extensive
public education efforts, the Department of Transportation announced in
the spring of 1997 a national strategy to increase seat belt and child
seat use. Higher use rates would decrease air bag fatalities and the
chance of adverse safety tradeoffs occurring as a result of turning off
air bags. The plan to increase seat belt and child seat use has four
elements: stronger public-private partnerships; stronger State seat
belt and child seat use laws (e.g., laws providing for primary
enforcement of seat belt use requirements); active, high-visibility
enforcement of these laws; and effective public education. Substantial
benefits could be obtained from achieving higher seat belt use rates.
For example, if observed belt use increased from 69 percent to 90
percent, an estimated additional 5,400 lives would be saved annually
over the estimated 10,414 lives currently being saved by seat belts. In
addition, an estimated 129,000 injuries would be prevented annually.
The economic savings from these incremental reductions in both
fatalities and injuries would be $8.5 billion annually.
V. Technological Opportunities
The air bag suppliers and vehicle manufacturers are working on a
wide range of advanced technologies to upgrade air bag system
performance, including but not limited to addressing adverse effects of
air bags to out-of-position occupants. To illustrate the kinds of
technological opportunities that are available, NHTSA is including a
discussion on this subject presented by JPL in the Executive Summary of
its Advanced Air Bag Technology Assessment. For additional information,
interested persons are referred to the full JPL report, NHTSA's
Preliminary Economic Assessment for this proposal and the references it
cites, and the docket for this and other notices relating to Standard
No. 208.
The JPL Executive Summary includes the following discussion of
technological opportunities (section numbers are omitted):
Model year 2001. The technologies that are being developed and that
may be available for model year 2001 provide both improved information
and improved response. 17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ NHTSA notes that JPL, in identifying and analyzing
parameters to reflect the functions that may be required of advanced
technology, classified those parameters by the information provided
about the crash and the occupants and the air bag system response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information
Crash sensor/control systems with improved algorithms will
better discriminate when air bag deployment is necessary for occupant
crash protection, will provide better threshold control, and will
determine the appropriate inflation level for two-stage inflators.
Belt use status sensors can detect when an occupant is
belted so that the air bag deployment threshold can be raised when
belts are in use. (These are currently in use in some cars.)
Seat position sensors provide an approximate surrogate
measure of occupant size and proximity to the air bag module. They can
be used in combination with belt status sensors to determine the
appropriate inflator output.
Seat belt spool-out sensors could provide additional
information about an occupant's size and proximity to the air bag
module. These sensors were not mentioned as being part of any current
industry use strategy and therefore may not be available by model year
2001.
Static proximity (occupant position) sensors could
identify occupants in the keep-out zone, but will be available only if
an aggressive development program is
[[Page 49966]]
undertaken. They would not reduce injuries to all out-of-position
occupants, and they could be ``fooled'' some of the time.
Response
Automatic suppression can prevent inflation when sensors
determine that an ccupant is in a keep-out zone where injuries could
occur.
Two-stage inflators can permit relatively soft inflation
for crashes of lower threshold velocity, and full inflation when
necessary for crashes of high threshold velocity.
Compartmented air bags, radial deployments, and bags with
lighter-weight fabrics may reduce the size of the keep-out zone.
Advanced belts can improve restraint system safety and
protectiveness. They may include pretensioners that can provide better
coupling of the occupant to the seat for improved ride-down during the
crash. Also, they can, to some degree, limit occupant proximity to the
air bag module. Load limiters can also improve belt performance by
reducing maximum belt loads on the occupant. (Pretensioners and load
limiters are currently in some vehicles.)
Model year 2003. By model year 2003, there could be evolutionary
changes in some of the systems and the possibility of the introduction
of occupant and proximity sensors.
Information
Crash sensor/control system algorithms will continue to be
improved.
Belt use sensors will be widely used already.
Integrated occupant and proximity sensors could be
available that would identify occupants in the keep-out zone or those
who would enter it.
Precrash sensors may be available, but their application
requires further investigation.
Response
Automatic suppression to prevent inflation will be
available for use with proximity sensors.
Multistage inflators to provide more tailored responses
for a variety of occupants and crash severities could be available, if
needed.
Bag designs will continue to be improved, permitting a
reduction of the keep-out zone.
Pretensioners and load limiters will be placed in
increasing numbers of vehicles. Air belts will be available to improve
safety belt effectiveness.
NHTSA notes that the JPL report presents tables listing specific
technologies for advanced safety restraint systems and providing a
summary of advanced technology characteristics. The technology items
discussed in the JPL report include:
Sensors
--Pre-Crash Sensing
--Crash Severity Sensors
--Sensing Diagnostic Modules/Crash Algorithms
--Belt Use Sensors
--Belt Spool-Out Sensors
--Seat Position Sensors
--Occupant Classification Sensors
--Occupant Proximity Motion Sensors
--Computational Systems/Algorithms
Inflators
--Non-Azide Propellants
--Hybrid Inflators
--Heated Gas Inflators
--Multistage Inflators
--Inflators With Tailorable Mass Flow Rate
Air Bags
--New Fabrics and Coatings
--New Woven Fabrics and Bag Construction
--New Bag Shapes and Compartmented Bags
--New Air Bag Venting Systems
Seat Belt Systems
--Pretensioners
--Load Limiting Devices
--Inflatable Seat Belts
The JPL report also presents an assessment of the merits of advanced
technologies.
The JPL report cautioned that expected improvements in the safety
and protectiveness of air bags must be tempered by the understanding
that there are key technology developments that need to be
accomplished, namely:
Air bag deployment time variability must be reduced by
improvements in the vehicle crush/crash sensor system.
Inflator variability must be reduced so that dual-stage
inflators can be applied effectively.
System and component reliability must receive diligent
attention to achieve the high levels required under field conditions.
Occupant sensors must be developed that can distinguish
with high accuracy small, medium, and large adults; children; and
infant seats.
Position sensors to measure occupant proximity to the air
bag module with the required response time and accuracy must be
demonstrated.
The JPL report noted that all of the above are the subject of
current development, but development, test, and integration of the
advanced technologies needs to be accelerated to enable their
incorporation into production vehicles.
The JPL report also notes that its projections of technology
availability are based on limited contacts with a limited number of
vehicle manufacturers and suppliers, and that the state of the art of
advanced air bag technologies is in a high state of flux. The report
notes that the projected technologies, as well as other technologies,
may advance more or less rapidly than indicated.
NHTSA has had more extensive contacts than JPL with suppliers and
vehicle manufacturers, and more recent ones. Based on confidential
information shared with the agency during those contacts, NHTSA
believes that the JPL report is conservative in its assessment of the
stages that some suppliers have reached in developing new technologies
and the model year in which some of the very highly advanced air bag
designs will first be introduced.
NHTSA recognizes, however, that different suppliers and vehicle
manufacturers are at different stages in their development of advanced
air bags, and also face different constraints and challenges, e.g.,
different states-of-the-art of their current air bag systems,
engineering resources, number of vehicles for which air bags need to be
redesigned, etc. The agency believes the proposed date for the
beginning of the phase-in, the phase-in itself, and also the proposal
of a number of manufacturer options to reflect different available
design choices, would accommodate these differing situations.
VI. Proposal for Advanced Air Bags
A. Introduction
NHTSA's goals in this rulemaking are to enhance the benefits of air
bags for all occupants while eliminating or minimizing risks from air
bags, and to ensure that the needed improvements in occupant protection
are made expeditiously, and in accordance with the recently adopted
statutory deadlines. As discussed in the preceding section of this
notice, the vehicle manufacturers and their suppliers are already
pursuing a wide variety of technological opportunities that can be used
to achieve these goals.
The sheer number and variety of available technological
opportunities creates special challenges from a regulatory perspective.
While the availability of multiple technologies generally makes it
easier to solve the current problems with air bags quickly, it also
means that the agency must take special care to ensure that the
regulatory language it adopts will not be unnecessarily design-
restrictive.
Among other things, the agency wishes to avoid:
Inadvertently preventing the use of superior air bag
designs;
[[Page 49967]]
Favoring one viable technology or design over another,
where either would meet the need for safety;
Requiring an expensive solution, where an inexpensive one
will work; or
Requiring implementation of a particular technology before
it can be appropriately developed.
In seeking to ensure that its proposal is not unnecessarily design-
restrictive, the agency has sought to develop requirements that are as
performance-oriented as possible, and to include manufacturer options
that accommodate for the kinds of technological solutions that the
agency knows are under development.
Moreover, since the ultimate question for regulators, industry, and
the public is how the required safety features will work in the real
world, NHTSA has sought to specify test procedures that most closely
replicate the real world conditions that affect the possibility of
traffic deaths and injuries.
As a result, NHTSA is proposing to require manufacturers to meet
improved performance criteria in additional tests using a wider array
of test dummies. The existing and proposed tests are identified in
Figures 1 and 2, below. Figure 1 shows tests for requirements to
preserve and improve occupant protection for different size occupants,
belted and unbelted. Figure 2 shows tests for requirements to minimize
the risk to infants, children, and other occupants from injuries and
deaths caused by air bags.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 49968]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.000
[[Page 49969]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.001
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
[[Page 49970]]
NHTSA notes that, in the future, it expects to propose a higher
speed frontal offset test requirement and also is considering proposing
one or more tests using 95th percentile adult male dummies. The agency
is not proposing a higher speed frontal offset test requirement at this
time because it is still conducting research regarding such a
requirement. 18 The agency is not proposing tests using 95th
percentile adult male dummies at this time because the development of
that dummy is not expected to be completed until sometime next year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ For information concerning the agency's research program,
interested persons are referred to the agency's 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 NHTSA's web site. The address for the section of the
web site where this report is located is ``http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/
cars/rules/CrashWorthy/''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the proposed performance requirements identified in Figures 1
and 2, vehicle manufacturers would be required to show that the air
bags in their vehicles provide protection to small stature occupants as
well as to average size males, and to adopt one or more of a number of
available design features that will minimize the risk caused by air
bags to infants in rear-facing child restraints, out-of-position
children, or other out-of-position occupants in low speed crashes.
The test matrix identified in Figures 1 and 2 represents a natural
evolution and refinement of Standard No. 208's current requirements.
The agency has always sought to include in the standard test procedures
that replicate the real world factors that affect the possibility of
traffic deaths and injuries. This is the best way to ensure that
required safety features will perform well not only in compliance
tests, but also in the real world.
Among other things, the agency has long specified full scale
vehicle crash tests using instrumented dummies because it is only
through such tests that the protection provided by a vehicle and its
occupant protection system can be fully measured. Different vehicle
models have different crash pulses. The results of crash tests reflect
not only the performance of the air bag, but how a particular vehicle
model crumples and absorbs energy in a crash, i.e., its individual
crash pulse. The use of crash tests necessitates that vehicle
manufacturers take into account the crash pulse of their vehicles, the
air bag design, occupant compartment design features, seat belt design
(for belted tests) and specific attributes of each of their subsystems.
Also, the agency has long included tests for air bag-equipped
vehicles using both belted and unbelted dummies, since a large number
of occupants in the United States continue to ride unbelted. Even
today, nearly half of all occupants in potentially fatal crashes do not
wear their seat belts. Teenagers are particularly likely to ride
unbelted.
Moreover, the Standard has long included test conditions that
replicate a variety of different types of crashes. Of particular note,
the standard's longstanding barrier test requirements specify crash
tests at any speed up to and including 48 km/h (30 mph), and at a range
of impact angles.
NHTSA has also always sought to maximize manufacturer flexibility
in providing effective occupant protection. As the agency has stated
many times, Standard No. 208 has never specified the design of an air
bag. Manufacturers have been free to design their air bags in any
manner they like, e.g., any size, any inflation level, etc. so long as
the standard's injury criteria limits are not exceeded in specified
crash tests.
Today's proposal follows these longstanding practices by proposing
to add new tests that replicate additional real world factors that
affect the possibility of deaths and injuries which are not directly
addressed by the standard's current requirements. Manufacturers would
continue to be permitted maximum design freedom in designing their air
bags, so long as the standard's injury criteria performance limits are
met in specified tests.
Manufacturers can use many different technologies and designs to
meet the proposed requirements. One approach is for manufacturers to
develop air bags that inflate in a manner that does not cause injuries
to out-of-position occupants. Several air bag suppliers have recently
demonstrated air bags that incorporate improved folding patterns and
internal tethering and venting to reduce the risk of injury to out-of-
position occupants. For example, Autoliv has demonstrated an
``umbrella'' air bag that deploys first radially and then toward the
vehicle occupant. It also may be possible to design air bags that use
vents or other means of preventing further deployment if the air bag is
blocked by the occupant during inflation. Again, under today's
proposal, manufacturers would be permitted flexibility in designing
their air bags as long as all of the standard's performance
requirements are met in specified tests.
A discussion of each of the specific proposed test requirements
follows, in the general order presented in Figures 1 and 2.
B. Existing and Proposed Test Requirements
1. Tests for Requirements To Preserve and Improve Occupant Protection
for Different Size Occupants, Belted and Unbelted
a. Safety of medium to large teenagers and adults. Standard No. 208
has long required vehicles to meet specified injury criteria, including
criteria for the head and chest, measured on 50th percentile adult male
test dummies during a rigid barrier crash test at any speed up to 48
km/h (30 mph) and over the range of angles from -30 degrees to +30
degrees. The standard has required air-bag-equipped vehicles to meet
the criteria both with the dummies belted and unbelted.
If a vehicle crash test is to measure the overall ability of a
vehicle and its occupant protection system to prevent fatalities and
serious injuries, the crash test must have the severity of a
potentially fatal crash. It is also important that the crash test make
it necessary for vehicle manufacturers to design and equip their
vehicles so that they provide protection in a range of potentially
fatal crashes, recognizing that no single type of crash test can be
directly representative of all the myriad potentially fatal crashes
that occur in the real world.
The longstanding barrier test requirement specified in Standard No.
208 simulates a wide range of potentially fatal crashes, both with
respect to severity and crash pulse. The test is conducted at any speed
up to 48 km/h (30 mph), meaning that protection must be provided at all
such speeds, e.g., 32 km/h (20 mph) and 40 km/h (25 mph), as well as 48
km/h (30 mph). The test is also conducted at any angle between 30
degrees to the left and 30 degrees to the right. 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
strikes a bridge abutment or fully engages another similar-sized or
larger vehicle directly head-on, the angled rigid barrier tests result
in crash pulses of longer duration, i.e., a softer crash pulse.
The rigid barrier test requirements have been an integral part of
the standard's automatic crash protection requirements and have
resulted in enormous savings of lives. As noted above, NHTSA estimates
that air bags have saved about 3,148 drivers and passengers. Of these,
2,725 were unbelted and 423 were belted. If these levels of
effectiveness are maintained, i.e., 21 percent in frontal crashes for
restrained occupants and 34 percent in
[[Page 49971]]
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. Standard
No. 208's current requirements thus represent one of NHTSA's most
effective regulations in terms of the numbers of lives saved.
As also noted earlier in this notice, the agency amended Standard
No. 208 in March 1997 to provide a temporary option for manufacturers
to certify their vehicles to an unbelted sled test as an alternative to
the unbelted barrier test requirement. NHTSA established the sled test
option to ensure that the vehicle manufacturers could quickly depower
all air bags so that they inflate less aggressively.19 While
vehicle manufacturers could have depowered many or most of their
vehicles' air bags without changes to Standard No. 208, the final rule
expedited this process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The agency's initial steps regarding technological
solutions focused on depowering primarily because the lead time
needed for depowering was significantly shorter than the lead time
for the technological solutions that are the subject of this
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the March 1997 final rule, the sled test option was scheduled
to terminate on September 1, 2001. The agency explained that there was
no need to permanently reduce Standard No. 208's performance
requirements to enable manufacturers to fully address the adverse
effects of air bags. This is because there were various alternatives
already allowed by the standard to address the problem that did not
necessitate reducing the standard's performance requirements. While the
agency specified a several year duration for the alternative sled test,
it indicated that it would revisit the end date, to the extent
appropriate, in its future rulemaking on advanced air bags. See 62 FR
12968; March 19, 1997.
The September 1, 2001 termination date for the sled test option has
been superseded by the NHTSA Reauthorization Act of 1998. 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].'' 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.''
In light of the Act, the agency is proposing to phase out the sled
test option as the requirements for advanced air bags are phased in.
While NHTSA believes the sled test option has been an expedient and
useful temporary measure to ensure that the vehicle manufacturers could
quickly depower all of their air bags and to help ensure that some
protection would continue to be provided, the agency does 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. The sled test, first, excludes vehicle
factors that can significantly affect the level of protection received
in the real world and, second, is insufficiently representative of
potentially fatal real world crashes.
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 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 in a real world, 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.
As noted below in the appendix to this preamble, NHTSA received
several petitions for reconsideration concerning the sled test's sunset
date (subsequently superseded by the NHTSA Reauthorization Act of
1998). The
[[Page 49972]]
agency notes that its proposal to phase the option out as the
requirements for advanced air bags are phased in will provide
additional time for the vehicle manufacturers to redesign their air
bags to avoid causing harm and to provide improved protection for all
occupants, belted and unbelted. In the appendix, the agency provides
additional reasons supporting its proposal for terminating the sled
test option, including a discussion of the importance for safety of
maintaining effective unbelted frontal crash test requirements.
NHTSA is requesting comments on whether it should develop potential
alternative unbelted crash test requirements. The auto industry and
other parties have raised a number of objections to the existing
unbelted barrier test requirements. NHTSA is willing to consider
alternatives and to that end is placing a technical paper on this
subject in the docket. Among other things, the paper compares the
existing rigid barrier test to tests using a stationary deformable
barrier and a movable deformable barrier.
With respect to the current barrier test requirements, and as
discussed later in this notice in a section titled ``Injury Criteria,''
the agency is proposing to upgrade the standard's chest injury criteria
and to add neck injury criteria. NHTSA notes that, as part of
developing this proposal for advanced air bags, it considered the
latest available information concerning injury criteria for both the
existing 50th percentile adult male dummy and for each of the proposed
new dummies. The agency is placing in the public docket a technical
paper which explains the basis for each of the proposed injury criteria
and the proposed performance limits.
NHTSA is also proposing to include, for all crash tests specified
by Standard No. 208, certain vehicle integrity requirements. These
requirements would specify that vehicle doors may not open during the
crash test. For many years the agency has monitored whether doors open
during 30 mph frontal barrier crash tests. In the agency's experience,
doors remain closed in these crash tests. Since vehicles already can
and do comply with this requirement, this proposal would establish this
norm as a minimum level of safety. This requirement would support the
agency goal of mitigating the fatalities and serious injuries
attributable to complete and partial ejections.
This proposal would also specify that, after crash testing,
vehicles having a roof of rigid construction (i.e., vehicles other than
convertibles), must meet the following requirements. It must be
possible, without the use of tools, to open at least one door, if there
is one, per each row of seats. Further, where there is no such door, it
must be possible to move the seats or tilt their backrests as necessary
to allow the evacuation of all the occupants. This post crash door
opening check has always been a demonstration part of the agency's
compliance test procedure. The purpose is to demonstrate the potential
for entrapment. After each test, the technicians approach the vehicle
and try to open the vehicle doors. In the majority of these full
frontal crash tests conducted by the agency, the technicians are able
to open the vehicle doors without the use of tools. This process is
recorded on the test films. The agency is proposing to add this door
opening requirement to the regulation. NHTSA does not have any
information indicating that there would anything other than a minimal
cost impact associated with this proposed requirement, but requests
comments on this issue.
b. Safety of small teenagers and small adults. Another part of the
agency's proposal that is intended to enhance the benefits of air bags
is to require vehicles to meet performance requirements for 5th
percentile adult female dummies in the same tests long specified for
50th percentile adult male dummies.
Accordingly, the agency is proposing to require vehicles to meet
specified injury criteria, including criteria for the head, neck,
chest, and femurs, measured on 5th percentile adult female test dummies
during a rigid barrier crash test at any speed up to 48 km/h (30 mph)
and at the same range of angles applicable to the tests using 50th
percentile male dummies. Under the proposal, vehicles must meet the
criteria both with the dummies belted and unbelted.
Certain of the proposed injury criteria differ from those specified
or proposed for 50th percentile adult male dummies to reflect the
different injury risks faced by 5th percentile adult females. Dummy
seating positions are also adjusted to reflect 5th percentile adult
females. The agency is proposing that tests be conducted with the
dummies seated in a full forward position. While many 5th percentile
adult females can sit further back, the proposed test will ensure that
protection is provided in a more extreme position, but one where air
bags can still provide protection.
NHTSA is proposing to specify the use of the Hybrid III 5th
percentile adult female dummy. The Society of Automotive Engineers has
guided the development of this dummy, and that work is nearly complete.
Therefore, the motor vehicle industry is familiar with this dummy.
NHTSA has not, however, yet proposed to add this dummy to Part 572, the
agency's regulation containing specifications for the various dummies
it specifies in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The agency
expects to propose adding the Hybrid III 5th percentile adult female
dummy to Part 572 later this year.\19\a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\a The proposed rule to add Hybrid III 5th
percentile adult female dummy to Part 572 published in the Federal
Register September 3, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA is also proposing one additional barrier test requirement
using 5th percentile adult female dummies, an up to 40 km/h (25 mph)
offset deformable barrier test requirement, using restrained dummies.
Research conducted by Transport Canada has shown that one of the
causes of adverse effects of air bags is late deployment of some air
bags in crashes with a ``soft crash pulse.'' In order to reproduce the
softer, longer duration crash pulse, it selected the 40 percent offset
barrier. It conducted crash tests into the barrier at 8 km/h (5 mph)
increments up to 40 km/h (25 mph). These tests were conducted with a
5th percentile adult female belted dummy in a full-forward position, to
simulate short stature drivers and the high belt use pattern in Canada.
It found that at 40 km/h (25 mph), all the air bag systems of the
vehicles tested would deploy. It also found that even for a belted
driver, the deployment of the air bag frequently was so late that the
test dummy would be right on the steering wheel, a ``worst case''
condition. The test procedure was shown to be a good test for the head,
neck and chest loading on the dummy by the air bag.
NHTSA notes that the timing of air bag deployment is determined by
a vehicle's crash sensing system, including both the crash sensing
hardware and associated computer algorithm, i.e., the software. The
decision to deploy an air bag is necessarily predictive, that is, the
decision that a crash will be severe enough to warrant air bag
deployment must be made very early in the crash if the air bag is to
deploy in time to provide protection. The work done by Transport
Canada, as well as other research, has indicated that the crash sensing
systems of some vehicles need to be improved to better evaluate some
crash pulses.
The agency is proposing a 40 km/h (25 mph) offset deformable
barrier crash test requirement to help ensure that vehicle
manufacturers upgrade their crash sensing and software systems, as
necessary, to better address soft crash pulses. The proposed test is
essentially
[[Page 49973]]
the one that Transport Canada has been conducting for purposes of
research. Restrained 5th percentile adult female dummies would be
positioned in the same full forward position being proposed for the
rigid barrier test discussed above, and the same injury criteria limits
would apply. Since this is a relatively low energy test, it should be
very easy to meet the injury criteria limits so long as the air bag
deploys early in the crash event before the dummy moves very far
forward.
Based on the testing conducted by Transport Canada, the problem of
late deployments appears to be a problem with only some vehicles, at
least in the environment measured in this particular crash test. The
agency expects that the problem can be solved using a number of readily
available approaches. These include improving computer algorithms, and
adding crash sensors, e.g., using extra sensors mounted in the crush
zone of the vehicle to provide additional, and earlier, information to
use in the decision making algorithm. A longer term means of ensuring
that air bags deploy early in a crash would be to use anticipatory
crash sensors.
The agency is also proposing specifications for the deformable
barrier to be used in this test. The specifications for this barrier
would be included in Part 587.
2. Tests for Requirements To Minimize the Risk to Infants, Children and
Other Occupants From Injuries and Deaths Caused by Air Bags
The one fact that is common to all persons who are at risk from air
bags is that they are extremely close to the air bag at time of
deployment. Behavioral changes, such as ensuring that children ride in
the back seat and that all occupants are properly restrained, can
sharply reduce the number of persons who are in such positions.
However, to minimize or eliminate air bag risks for the remaining
persons who may be close to the air bag at time of deployment, one of
two things must be done: either air bag deployment must be suppressed,
or the air bag must be designed to deploy in such a manner that it does
not cause a significant risk of injury to persons in such positions.
All of the technologies to minimize or eliminate air bag risks follow
one of these approaches.
As NHTSA developed test requirements to minimize or eliminate air
bag risks, it needed to account for the fact that the persons who are
potentially at risk vary from infants to adults, and have different
potentials for injury. The agency therefore found it necessary to
develop requirements using a variety of test dummy sizes. Moreover,
since the agency wished to avoid requirements that are unnecessarily
design-restrictive, it was necessary to develop a variety of
manufacturer options that account for the kinds of effective
technological solutions that the agency knows are under development.
Each of the test requirements being proposed by the agency is
discussed below.
a. Safety of infants. Infants in rear facing child seats 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 NHTSA emphasizes that rear facing infant
seats must never be placed in the front seat unless the air bag is
turned off.
In order to address the risks air bags pose to infants in rear
facing child seats, NHTSA is proposing two alternative test
requirements, the selection of which would be at the option of the
manufacturer. The two manufacturer options are: (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 Crash Restraints Air Bag Interaction (CRABI)
dummy in a rear facing child restraint.
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 rear
facing infant seat, and also during rough road tests. The rear facing
infant seat would be placed in a variety of different positions during
the static tests. In order to ensure that the suppression feature does
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.
The agency is proposing rough road 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. For example, depending on the design of the
sensor, occupant movement such as bouncing might cause the weight
sensor to read a higher weight or lower weight. The agency believes
that such devices should be 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.
If the automatic suppression feature option were selected, a
manufacturer would be required to provide 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. This telltale would advise vehicle occupants of the
operational status of the air bag. In addition, the agency would use
the telltale to determine, during the tests discussed above, whether
the air bag is appropriately activated or deactivated.
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
rear facing infant seat. The agency is proposing injury criteria
appropriate for a 12 month old child. In the case of air bags with
multiple inflation levels, the injury criteria would need to be met for
all levels.
NHTSA notes that there are uncertainties associated with all of the
injury criteria proposed by this notice, especially those for children.
Because experimental test data are generally not available from
children, it is necessary to estimate injury tolerances by other means,
e.g., by applying scaling methods to adult data. Particularly because
injury mechanisms may differ in some respects between adults and
children, there are necessarily some uncertainties associated with
injury criteria developed by these means.
NHTSA requests comments on how to take account of these
uncertainties in this rulemaking. For example, the agency is proposing
a HIC limit of 660 for the 12-month old CRABI dummy in a rear facing
child restraint. However, there are uncertainties as to how much risk
of injury is represented by this value. The agency requests commenters
to address the appropriateness of the proposed value, and on whether
the agency should permit a low risk deployment option or instead
require suppression for infants in rear facing child restraints.
With respect to that part of the proposed low risk deployment
option that would require injury criteria limits to be met for all
levels of a multi-level air bag, NHTSA notes that a child in a rear
facing infant seat would be extremely close to the passenger air bag in
any crash, regardless of crash severity. Moreover, based on discussions
with suppliers and vehicle manufacturers, the agency believes that the
development of technologies which
[[Page 49974]]
suppress the passenger air bag in the presence of a rear facing infant
seat is nearing completion. Thus, it appears reasonable to expect
advanced air bag designs to essentially eliminate risk of serious
injury or fatality resulting from air bag deployment to children in
rear facing infant seats. Of course, even with advanced air bags,
children in rear facing infant seats, like other children, will be
safer in the back seat.
Under both test procedures, manufacturers would be 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 model year carline of which the vehicle is a part
was first offered for sale to a consumer. This would ensure that
vehicle manufacturers take account of the variety of different rear
facing child restraints in use as they design their systems. The
restraints used for compliance testing could be unused or used;
however, if used, there could not be any visible damage prior to the
test. The agency requests comments on whether there are alternative
means of achieving this result, e.g., specifying use of several
representative devices.
NHTSA is proposing to specify use of the 12 month old CRABI dummy.
The motor vehicle industry is familiar with this dummy, and the agency
expects to propose adding it to Part 572 later this year.
b. Safety of 3-year-old 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. NHTSA strongly
recommends that young children ride in the back seat, which is a much
safer location whether or not a vehicle has air bags.
In order to address the risks air bags pose to young children who
do ride in the front seat, NHTSA is proposing requirements using both
3-year old and 6-year old child dummies. While there are both
similarities and overlap between the requirements using the different
dummies, the agency will discuss them separately (and cover them
separately in the proposed regulatory text) because a manufacturer
might choose to select different compliance options for the two
dummies.
As to 3-year-old child dummies, the agency is proposing four
alternative test requirements, the selection of which would be at the
option of the manufacturer. The four manufacturer options are: (1) test
requirements for an air bag suppression feature that suppresses the air
bag when a child is present, i.e., 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 child dummies, and (4) full scale dynamic
out-of-position test requirements, which include pre-impact braking as
part of the test procedure.
NHTSA is proposing to specify use of the Hybrid III 3-year-old
child dummy. The motor vehicle industry is familiar with this dummy,
and the agency expects to propose adding it to Part 572 later this
year.
Requirements for an air bag suppression feature (weight or size
sensor) that suppresses the air bag when a child is present. These
requirements would mirror those being proposed with respect to a
suppression feature for infants in rear facing child seats. 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 child dummy, and also during rough road tests.
The child dummy would be placed in a variety of different positions
during the static tests. Because the effectiveness of such a feature
depends on the air bag being suppressed regardless of how a child may
be positioned, and given the ease of conducting such tests, the agency
is specifying a relatively large number of such positions. Some of the
positions specify placing the dummy in a forward-facing child seat or
booster seat.
In order to ensure that the suppression feature does 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. A manufacturer would
also be required to provide 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.
Test requirements for an air bag suppression feature that
suppresses the air bag when a child is out-of position. The agency
believes that a suppression feature that suppresses the air bag when an
occupant is out-of-position would need to be tested very differently
than one which suppresses the air bag whenever a child is present.
While various static and rough road 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 is out of position. This is because one of the key
criteria in determining whether the latter type of suppression feature
is effective is whether it 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) before a crash. The agency has
accordingly developed separate test requirements for such devices.
If this option is 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
located.
This 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.
Apparatus that could be used to conduct this test would include a
pneumatically operated ram whose stroke is sufficient to propel a 165
mm (6.5 inch) headform from a point of origin to a point forward of the
automatic suppression plane of the test vehicle. Once activated, the
pneumatic ram will propel the headform toward the air bag at up to 11
km/h (7 mph). The test headform consists simply of a 165mm (6.5 inch)
outside diameter hemispherical shell. This headform is not instrumented
nor is it intended to impact with the interior of the vehicle.
Therefore, the agency is not specifying that it have a particular mass
in an effort to provide maximum flexibility in configuring a test
apparatus.
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
[[Page 49975]]
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.
NHTSA notes that the test procedure it is proposing for air bag
suppression features that suppress the air bag when an occupant is out-
of-position is similar to one developed by GM. The agency is placing a
copy of the GM procedure in the docket.
The agency requests comments as to whether the proposed test
procedure would accommodate air bag suppression systems under
development. In particular, the agency requests comments as to whether
these suppression systems would ``recognize'' the test device.
Additional questions concerning this proposed test procedure are
included in a section titled ``Questions'' later in this notice.
Static tests involving deployment of the air bag in the presence of
out-of-position 3-year old child dummies. 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 child dummies. Because this test is
relatively difficult to run (it requires deployment of an air bag), the
agency is proposing that it be conducted at two positions which tend to
be ``worst case'' positions in terms of injury risk. The agency is 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. The agency is
proposing injury criteria appropriate for a 3-year-old child.
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, e.g., crashes of 32 km/h (20 mph)
or below. The agency notes that while an infant in a rear facing child
seat 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. Of the 46 older children NHTSA has confirmed as
having been killed by a passenger air bag, 38, or 83 percent, were in
crashes with a delta V of 24 km/h (15 mph) or below, and all were in
crashes with a delta V of 32 km/h (20 mph) or below.
NHTSA requests comments concerning the threshold below which air
bag deployment levels should be required to meet injury criteria and
above which the injury criteria would not apply. The agency also
requests comments concerning test procedures.
Full scale dynamic out-of-position test requirements, which include
pre-impact braking as part of the test procedure. Under this option, 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 an unrestrained 3-year-old child dummy.
Pre-crash braking would be simulated by a vehicle, initially
accelerated to the predetermined pretest speed, that is retarded by
application of a suitable pre-crash deceleration prior to contact with
the rigid barrier. The agency believes that a 24 km/h (15 mph) impact
speed with the rigid barrier would generate the crash pulse necessary
to evaluate occupant crash protection to the out-of-position occupant.
Further details on this alternative test procedure are set forth in the
proposed regulatory text (see proposed S29 and S30 for Standard No.
208).
The agency is requesting comments on what impact speed should be
specified, as well as on other aspects of the test procedure for this
requirement, including dummy seating procedures. Depending on the
comments, the agency may modify the test speeds, dummy seating
procedures, or other aspects of the test procedure for the final rule.
c. Safety of 6-year-old children. These test requirements would
include the same basic tests and options as specified for 3-year old
child dummies, except that 6-year-old child dummies would be used in
place of 3-year old child dummies. The agency believes it is necessary
to specify requirements for 6-year-old child dummies as well as 3-year-
old child dummies because a device that worked for one might not work
for the other. For example, an automatic suppression feature that
suppressed air bag deployment in the presence of a 3-year-old child
dummy, based on information about size and/or weight, might not
suppress air bag deployment in the presence of the larger, heavier 6-
year-old child dummy.
The agency notes that, with respect to requirements for an air bag
suppression feature (weight or size sensor) that suppresses the air bag
when a child is present, some of the positions specified for the 3-
year-old child dummy would not apply to the 6-year-old child dummy.
This is because the 6-year-old child dummy is too large to be placed in
those positions.
NHTSA is proposing to specify use of the Hybrid III 6-year-old
child dummy. The Society of Automotive Engineers has guided the
development of this dummy, and recently completed that work. Therefore,
the motor vehicle industry is familiar with this dummy. The agency
published an NPRM in the Federal Register (63 FR 35171) to add the
Hybrid III 6-year-old child dummy to Part 572 on June 29, 1998.
d. Safety of small teenage and adult drivers. Out-of-position
drivers are at risk from air bags if they are extremely close 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.
In order to address the risks air bags pose to out-of-position
drivers, NHTSA is proposing requirements using 5th percentile adult
female dummies. The agency is proposing three alternative test
requirements, the selection of which would be at the option of the
manufacturer.
The manufacturer options are 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 female drivers, it is
obviously 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 for
5th percentile adult female dummies.
The three manufacturer options being proposed by the agency are:
(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.
Again, the manufacturer options which the agency is proposing
largely mirror the similar ones being proposed for 3-year-old and 6-
year old child dummies. The test procedures are adjusted to reflect the
driver, rather than the right front passenger position, and the
different dummy. The proposed injury criteria are the same as being
proposed for other tests using the 5th percentile adult female dummy.
The agency also notes that the option specifying test requirements
for an air bag suppression feature that suppresses the driver air bag
when an occupant is out of position would include both static tests and
tests using a moving test device. The static tests are needed to,
[[Page 49976]]
among other things, ensure that the driver air bag is not
inappropriately deactivated because the driver's arms are near the air
bag. Further details on this alternative test procedure are set forth
in the proposed regulatory text (see proposed S25.2, S27 and S28 for
Standard No. 208).
The agency also notes that the proposed full scale dynamic out-of-
position test requirements, which include pre-impact braking as part of
the test procedure, represent a surrogate for a variety of crash
situations where the driver might be essentially against the steering
wheel, in addition to directly addressing situations involving pre-
crash braking. These other situations include ones where small-statured
persons drive in a position where they are extremely close to the air
bag all of the time.
C. Injury Criteria
NHTSA is proposing injury criteria and performance limits that it
believes are appropriate for each size dummy. The agency is placing in
the public docket a technical paper which explains the basis for each
of the proposed injury criteria, and for the proposed performance
limits. The title of the paper is ``Development of Improved Injury
Criteria for the Assessment of Advanced Automotive Restraint Systems.''
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, (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 2250 pounds.
Under today's proposal, NHTSA would generally apply these and
certain additional injury criteria 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. Also, with respect to some types of injuries, the agency is
considering alternative injury criteria.
For chest injury, NHTSA is considering two alternatives. Under the
first, or primary, alternative, the agency would add a new criterion,
Combined Thoracic Index (CTI), which was recently developed by the
agency. New analyses of cadaver test data using a variety of restraint
system combinations indicate that thoracic injury prediction can be
improved by considering a linear combination of chest deflection and
chest acceleration rather than solely by considering the criteria
independently. CTI links the combined effect of both parameters with
the risk of injury.
In proposing to add CTI, the agency has considered whether to
adjust the existing limits on chest deflection and/or chest
acceleration. In the absence of the existing injury criteria, the
proposed CTI limit (CTI = 1) would permit (for the Hybrid III 50th
percentile adult male dummy) chest deflection to exceed 76 mm (3
inches) when acceleration is very low, and acceleration to exceed 60
g's when chest deflection is very low.
NHTSA notes that, in the case of chest deflection, the current 76
mm (3 inch) limit is very close to the limit capable of being measured
by the Hybrid III 50th percentile adult male dummy. Therefore, it does
not appear to be possible to adjust this parameter in a meaningful way.
In the case of chest acceleration, the agency notes that it does not
have any cadaver data concerning injury risk associated with very low
deflection and chest acceleration above 60 g's. The agency requests
comments on this issue. NHTSA is especially interested in data and/or
analyses concerning the risk of injury associated with low deflection
and high acceleration.
As the second alternative for chest injury, the agency would simply
continue to maintain separate limits on chest acceleration and chest
deflection.
NHTSA is also proposing to add neck injury criteria. The agency
notes that it added neck injury criteria as part of the temporary sled
test alternative, although the standard does not otherwise specify neck
injury criteria. The neck injury criteria for the sled test alternative
include separate limits on flexion, extension, tension, compression and
shear.
NHTSA has recently developed an improved neck injury criterion,
called Nij. The agency believes that a disadvantage associated with
specifying separate limits for flexion, extension, tension,
compression, and shear is that it does not account for the
superposition of loads and moments, and the additive effects on injury
risk. The agency developed Nij to take account of these effects.
NHTSA is considering two alternatives with respect to neck injury
criteria. Under the first, or primary alternative, the agency would add
Nij to Standard No. 208. In terms of performance limits, the agency is
requesting comments on Nij=1.4 and on Nij=1. As discussed in the
technical paper concerning injury criteria, Nij=1 reflects certain
critical values developed using biomechanical data. However, based on
concerns about practicability, particularly with respect to tests
specifying use of the 5th percentile adult female dummy, as well as
concerns about correlations between biomechanical data and real-world
crash data, the agency believes that Nij=1.4 might be a more
appropriate performance limit. NHTSA requests comments on this issue.
As an alternative to Nij, NHTSA is also requesting comments on
establishing separate limits on flexion, extension, tension,
compression and shear, i.e., the approach adopted for the sled test
alternative. The proposed regulatory text includes this second
alternative as well as Nij.
As indicated earlier in this section, NHTSA is generally proposing
to apply the same injury criteria to all of the dummies covered by
today's proposal, adjusted to maintain consistency with respect to the
injury risks faced by different size occupants. There are, however,
some exceptions to this. The agency is not proposing to apply the dummy
containment injury criterion to the 12 month old CRABI dummy since that
criterion does not appear to be relevant to the low risk deployment
test using that dummy. The agency is not proposing chest deflection or
CTI requirements for the 12 month old CRABI dummy because that dummy
does not measure chest deflection. (As indicated above, chest
deflection is needed to calculate CTI.)
The agency requests comments on the proposed injury criteria, on
how they are calculated, and on the proposed performance limits. To
help facilitate focused comments, the agency is including specific
values for each performance limit in the proposed regulatory text.
However, NHTSA is considering a range of limits above and below each
specified value. Depending on the public comments, the agency may adopt
for the final rule values higher or lower than the ones included in the
proposed regulatory text. The agency requests commenters to address
what values should be selected for the final rule, their rationale for
their recommendation, and the implications of adopting lower or higher
values than those specified in the proposed regulatory text.
D. Dummy Recognition
The agency has explained many times that, in developing crash test
dummies for regulatory and research purposes, it seeks to ensure
insofar as possible that the measurements obtained on the dummy for
measuring injury risk are the same as would be obtained on a human
[[Page 49977]]
being. In other words, the dummy is used as a surrogate for determining
how a human being would fare in a particular crash situation.
As the agency proposes to specify the use of dummies and an out-of-
position occupant simulator to test suppression devices, it is
similarly necessary to ensure that the test results using these devices
will be as close as possible to those that would occur when a human
being is present. NHTSA notes, however, that test dummy compatibility
with air bag occupant presence and range sensors is not possible in all
cases using the currently available dummies. Some technologies, e.g.,
ultrasonic and active infrared, can be used to recognize human beings
but may not recognize current dummies or the out-of-position occupant
simulator.
NHTSA notes that it is monitoring research, funded by General
Motors, by the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory that
specifically investigates and addresses this subject. The project
objectives compare the characteristic output signals generated by both
human subjects and test dummies, in response to current and projected
air bag sensors of the following general types: ultrasonic/acoustic,
active infrared, passive infrared, capacitive, and electric field.
However, this is a longer-range research project, and is not expected
to be completed by the time of the final rule.
Specialized dummy treatments may be required to enable the test
dummy and out-of-position occupant simulator to properly interface with
the full range of projected sensor technologies. However, it is
possible that relatively straightforward surface treatments or clothing
selection may suffice for compatibility with ultrasonic and active
infrared sensor types.
The agency requests comments on this issue.
E. Lead Time and Proposed Effective Date
NHTSA has sought information by a variety of means to help it
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 three different formal actions, the agency has gathered
information concerning lead time. First, the agency held a public
meeting on advanced air bags on February 11 and 12, 1997, in Washington
D.C. The proceedings of that meeting are included in Docket NHTSA-97-
2814. Next, and as discussed earlier in this notice, JPL conducted, at
NHTSA's request, a survey of the automotive industry and independent
analysis concerning the readiness of the advanced air bag technologies.
Finally, the agency contracted Management Engineering Associates (MEA),
an engineering management consulting company, to conduct a feasibility
study on advanced air bag technologies.
These three sources of information indicated the same basic time
schedules: currently available technological solutions such as seat
sensors, seat belt buckle sensors, dual-stage inflators and advanced
air bag fold patterns, can be and will be in production between model
year 1999 and model year 2002. More sophisticated systems such as
dynamic occupant position sensing systems and pre-crash sensors, will
be available after September 1, 2001.
NHTSA has also held numerous meetings with the vehicle
manufacturers and suppliers during the past two years. The companies
have shared confidential information with the agency about their
ongoing development efforts and future product plans.
The agency notes that lead time for technology still under
development typically depends on two things: initial development to
demonstrate that a concept is feasible, and then further development to
apply the technology to a specific vehicle design. These typically
involve efforts both by suppliers and by vehicle manufacturers. In this
field of technology, it appears that much of the innovative development
is being borne by the component suppliers, based on performance
specifications defined by the vehicle manufacturers. First the systems
are designed, tested and produced in limited quantities by the
component manufacturers. Next these systems are turned over to the
vehicle manufacturers. The vehicle manufacturers then conduct prototype
design verifications, conduct production level equipment verification
and finally complete production and include the systems in their new
vehicles. MEA estimates the vehicle manufacturers' cycle could take an
average of 36 months.
The suppliers and vehicle manufacturers have, however, been working
on various advanced technologies for several years. Thus, to a large
degree, lead time is dependent on where the suppliers and vehicle
manufacturers are currently in their development and implementation
efforts. As discussed earlier in this notice, NHTSA believes that
different suppliers and vehicle manufacturers are at different stages
with respect to designing advanced air bags, and also face different
constraints and challenges, e.g., different states-of-the-art of their
current air bag systems, engineering resources, number of vehicles for
which air bags need to be redesigned, etc. NHTSA believes that these
differing situations can best be accommodated by phasing in
requirements for advanced air bags.
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 are in developing and implementing available
technologies, the agency is proposing 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.
The agency is proposing a separate alternative to address the
special problems faced by limited line manufacturers in complying with
phase-ins. The agency notes 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.
NHTSA is accordingly proposing 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. The agency is proposing 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. Without
such a limitation, it would technically be possible for the industry as
a whole to delay introducing any advanced air bags for a year. However,
the agency doubts
[[Page 49978]]
that any full-line vehicle manufacturers would want to take advantage
of the alternative, given the need to achieve full compliance by
September 1, 2003.
As with previous phase-ins, the agency is proposing 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, NHTSA is proposing reporting
requirements to accompany the phase-in. The agency is proposing to
include the reporting requirements in 49 CFR Part 585, which currently
specifies automatic restraint phase-in reporting requirements. Since
the phase-ins currently addressed by Part 585 are complete, effective
September 1, 1998, the agency is proposing to replace the existing
language with regulatory text addressing the phase-in of Standard No.
208's requirements for advanced air bags.
NHTSA believes that the proposed phase-in addresses two potential
concerns. First, the agency believes that it would not be possible for
manufacturers which produce large numbers of models of passenger cars
and lights trucks to simultaneously design and implement advanced air
bags in all of their vehicles at once. All manufacturers have limited
engineering resources, and the same resources are often used for
different models. The proposed phase-in will address this concern.
Second, NHTSA wishes to see advanced air bags implemented
expeditiously, but wants to encourage the vehicle manufacturers to
adopt the best designs possible. The agency believes the proposed
phase-in balances these competing concerns.
The new air bag designs having the potential to offer the greatest
safety benefits, e.g. designs that would tailor inflation based on the
widest variety of relevant information including dynamic occupant
proximity, also have the longest lead times. If an effective date were
too early, it might force manufacturers working on such advanced
designs to drop those plans and adopt designs with shorter lead times.
At the same time, the agency recognizes that relatively simple
solutions, with shorter lead times, can be used to solve current
problems with air bags. The agency therefore does not want endless
quests for the ``perfect'' air bag to unnecessarily delay solving the
current problems.
An issue which is closely related to lead time for advanced air
bags is the time when amendments providing temporary reductions in
Standard No. 208's performance requirements should expire. The
amendment 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 rear facing infant seat is scheduled to expire
on September 1, 2000. The amendment providing a generic sled test
alternative to Standard No. 208's unbelted barrier test requirements
originally had an expiration date of September 1, 2001, although, as
discussed earlier in this notice, this date has been superseded by the
NHTSA Reauthorization Act of 1998.
The agency received petitions objecting to the expiration dates for
these temporary amendments. In an appendix to this notice, NHTSA is
denying the petition concerning on-off switches to the extent that it
requests making the switch amendment permanent. However, the agency is
granting it to the extent that it is proposing phase out the switch
amendment as the upgraded requirements are phased in. The petitions
concerning the sled test option were mooted by the NHTSA
Reauthorization Act. As in the case of the switch amendment, the agency
is proposing to phase out the sled test option as the new requirements
are phased in.
During the proposed phase-in, the temporary amendments (sled test
alternative and OEM manual on-off switches for certain vehicles) 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. Thus, as manufacturers developed advanced
air bags, they would need to ensure that vehicles equipped with these
devices meet all of Standard No. 208's longstanding performance
requirements as well as the new ones being proposed today.
F. Selection of Options
NHTSA notes that, where a safety standard provides manufacturers
more than one compliance option, the agency needs to know which option
has been selected in order to conduct a compliance test. Moreover,
based on previous experience with enforcing standards that include
compliance options, the agency is aware that a manufacturer confronted
with an apparent noncompliance for the option it has selected (based on
a compliance test) may respond by arguing that its vehicles comply with
a different option for which the agency has not conducted a compliance
test. This response creates obvious difficulties for the agency in
managing its available resources for carrying out its enforcement
responsibilities, e.g., the possible need to conduct multiple
compliance tests (possibly involving full-scale vehicle crash tests)
for first one compliance option, then another, to determine whether
there is a noncompliance.
To address this problem, the agency is proposing 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 will mean that failure
to comply with the selected option will constitute a noncompliance with
the standard regardless of whether a vehicle complies with another
option.
Similarly, for manufacturers which select the option for an
automatic suppression feature that suppresses the air bag when an
occupant is out of position, the agency is proposing to require that
the manufacturer must select the passenger side automatic suppression
plane and the driver side automatic suppression plane by the time it
certifies the vehicle, and may not thereafter select different planes.
This is to avoid situations where the agency conducts compliance tests
using the automatic suppression planes selected by the manufacturer and
is later told, after a test indicates an apparent noncompliance, that
the vehicle may comply for different automatic suppression planes.
G. Availability of Retrofit Manual On-Off Switches
As discussed earlier in this notice, on November 11, 1997, NHTSA
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. Sec. 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 approved by
NHTSA. The final rule is set forth as Part 595, Retrofit On-Off
Switches for Air Bags.
The purpose of the exemption is 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, NHTSA explained that although vehicle manufacturers are beginning
to replace current air bags
[[Page 49979]]
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 is needed now for those groups of people
at risk from current air bags in existing vehicles.
Just as NHTSA is proposing to phase out the temporary amendments to
Standard No. 208 as the upgraded requirements are phased in, the agency
is also proposing to phase out the availability of this exemption.
Under the proposal, retrofit on-off switches would not be available for
vehicles which have been certified to the advanced air bag requirements
being proposed in today's notice.
NHTSA requests 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. The agency observes 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 side air bag in a vehicle with a weight sensor would not
deploy at all in the presence of young children. Therefore, there would
no safety reason to permit a retrofit passenger side on-off switch
because of a need for a young child to ride in the front seat. The
agency requests any commenters who advocate any continued availability
of retrofit on-off switches to discuss how the existing eligibility
criteria should be tailored to the specific technologies that would be
used in vehicles certified to the advanced air bag requirements being
proposed in today's notice.
H. Warning Labels
As indicated in an earlier section of this notice, on November 27,
1996, the agency 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 not apply to
vehicles with passenger air bags meeting specified criteria. The agency
is similarly proposing that vehicles certified to the advanced air bag
requirements being proposed today would not be subject to those warning
label requirements. The agency requests 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.
I. Questions
As discussed earlier in this notice, NHTSA has sought to develop
requirements that are as performance-oriented as possible, and to
include options for manufacturers that account for the kinds of
technologies and designs that may be used. It is the agency's intent to
permit the vehicle manufacturers to use any technology or design which
can solve the problem of adverse effects of air bags to out-of-position
occupants, so long as all of the standard's performance requirements
can be met.
To aid the agency in obtaining useful comments, NHTSA is setting
forth in this section a specific list of questions for commenters
relating to a number of issues including, among other things: (1)
whether the agency's overall proposal, and whether each of the proposed
manufacturer options, would achieve an appropriate level of safety, and
(2) whether additional manufacturer options or test procedures are
needed to accommodate some technologies or designs. NHTSA notes that
the vehicle manufacturers and air bag suppliers are in the best
position to evaluate whether the proposed manufacturer options and test
procedures are appropriate for the technologies and designs they have
under development. Depending on the comments, the agency may issue a
final rule providing some but not all of the proposed options, and/or
provide additional manufacturer options or test procedures to
accommodate some technologies or designs.
For easy reference, the questions are numbered consecutively. NHTSA
encourages commenters to provide specific responses to each question
for which they may have information or views. In addition, in order to
facilitate tabulating the comments by issue, the agency encourages
commenters to respond to the questions in sequence, and to identify the
number of each question to which they are responding.
NHTSA requests that commenters provide as specific and documented a
rationale as possible, including an analysis of safety consequences,
for any positions that are taken. Commenters with a technical
background are encouraged to provide scientific analysis of these
matters.
The list of questions does not purport to be an all inclusive list
of items or information which the public may have available and believe
is valuable in assessing the issues. Commenters are encouraged to
provide any other data that they believe are relevant.
1. Overall safety. Does the agency's overall proposal achieve an
appropriate level of safety with respect to risks from air bags for
out-of-position occupants?
a. Please address this question separately for the driver side and
for the passenger side.
b. If a commenter believes that the proposal does not ensure an
appropriate level of safety, please provide a detailed explanation of
why. Please also describe in detail what additional or alternative
requirements the agency should consider, and the kind of technologies,
designs and lead time that would be needed to meet those requirements.
2. Adequacy of each proposed manufacturer option. Does each
proposed manufacturer option ensure an appropriate level of safety with
respect to the specific problem it addresses? How do the different
options differ with respect to benefits and costs? If a commenter
believes that a particular option should be changed or deleted for the
final rule, please explain why. Also, please explain the consequences
of changing or deleting the option, e.g., would greater lead time be
needed to meet one of the remaining options?
3. Accommodation of all effective designs. Do the proposed
manufacturer options accommodate all designs under development that
would effectively address air bag-induced injuries and/or fatalities,
and designs that are expected to be under development in the
foreseeable future? More specifically, is there a need to either modify
or add test procedures to the proposed options to accommodate
particular technologies or designs, or to add additional options? If a
commenter believes there is such a need, please provide a detailed
explanation of why, both with respect to why the technology is not
accommodated by the proposed options and why the technology will ensure
an appropriate level of safety. Please also provide a detailed
recommendation concerning what specific regulatory text the agency
should adopt to accommodate the technology.
4. Possible unintended consequences. To what extent could the
advanced technologies the manufacturers might adopt result in
unintended adverse consequences? For example, could some occupants face
higher risks than now? How should the agency consider that possibility
in this rulemaking? Are there any additional or alternative
requirements the agency should adopt to prevent such consequences?
5. Likely manufacturer responses. How would vehicle manufacturers
likely respond to the proposed requirements, i.e., what technologies
and design changes would they actually
[[Page 49980]]
adopt? (Vehicle manufacturers are asked to provide a specific response
to this question, with respect to their future product plans.)
6. Necessity of all proposed manufacturer options. Are any of the
proposed manufacturer options unnecessary because no manufacturer would
ever select the option?
7. Proposed test procedures--in general. NHTSA notes that some of
the proposed test procedures are new. The agency requests specific
comments on each of the proposed test procedures, including whether any
of them should be made more specific and whether any additional
conditions should be specified.
8. Proposed injury criteria. As discussed earlier in this notice,
NHTSA is placing a technical paper in the docket which discusses the
proposed injury criteria. The agency requests comments on each of the
proposed injury criteria, the proposed calculation methods, and the
proposed performance limits. The agency also requests comments on
alternatives to the proposed criteria. Among other things, NHTSA
requests commenters to address what risk levels are acceptable, what
factors should be considered in selecting performance limits for
different test requirements, and whether the same limits should be
established for all test requirements, e.g., out-of-position tests, low
speed tests, high speed tests. The agency also requests commenters to
address how it should take account of uncertainties relating to the
injury criteria, especially with respect to children.
9. Dummy recognition. a. How should the agency address the
suitability of test dummies and out-of-position occupant simulators
(e.g., headforms) for testing technologies (e.g., weight sensors) for
detecting the presence of occupants and technologies (e.g., infrared
and ultra sound) for sensing the distance of occupants from an air bag?
To what extent can the addition of simple surface treatments or
clothing selection be used to solve this problem?
b. If full resolution of this or any other potential test procedure
problems should necessitate the performance of longer range (multi-
year) research, what interim approaches should the agency use for
assessing performance? For example, one possible approach would be to
permit vehicle manufacturers to specify the attributes of their
suppression devices, e.g., the size of the suppression zone and to
require out-of-position-type test requirements to be met for those
conditions. If, for example, a manufacturer specified that the
suppression zone for a vehicle's passenger-side air bag extended five
inches from the centerpoint of the air bag cover, injury criteria
performance limits would need to be met for infant and child dummies
located anywhere outside that zone. Under such an interim approach, the
introduction of effective suppression devices would not be delayed by
potential problems related to completing the development of test
procedures. While such an approach would not test the performance of
the suppression device itself, vehicle manufacturers would have strong
incentives, e.g., product liability considerations, to design the
device so that it works properly under real world conditions. While the
agency is hopeful that any potential test problems can be resolved in a
timely manner before the final rule, it requests comments on adopting
this type of interim approach, and on other potential interim
approaches, should the need rise.
10. Seating procedure for 5th percentile adult female dummy. NHTSA
notes that the seating procedure for the 5th percentile adult female
dummy set forth in the proposed regulatory text is based on the
equipment and procedures in SAE J826, ``Devices for Use in Defining and
Measuring Vehicle Seating Accommodations.'' The seating procedure is
similar to that specified in Standard No. 208 for the Hybrid III 50th
percentile adult male dummy. However, the agency is proposing, with
respect to the SAE J826 equipment, certain adjustments in the lengths
of the lower leg and thigh (femur) segments to make it appropriate for
the 5th percentile adult female dummy. The agency is also aware that
the SAE Hybrid III 5th Percentile Dummy Seating Procedures Task Group
is developing specialized seating equipment to locate the 5th
percentile adult female dummy. This equipment was expected to become
available by mid-summer 1998, and the agency will place specifications
for the equipment in the docket. NHTSA recognizes that this new
equipment might be used as an alternative to that specified in the
proposed regulatory text. The agency seeks comments on this issue.
11. Rough road tests. Are the proposed requirements and test
procedures for the rough road tests appropriate? The agency is
especially interested in comments concerning proposed specifications
for road surface, speed, and distance of travel.
12. Telltales for automatic suppression. For vehicles which have
automatic suppression features, are there both pros and cons to
requiring telltale lights on the instrument panel to advise vehicle
occupants of the operational status of the air bag? Please address this
question separately for the driver position and the passenger position,
and for rear facing infant seats and older children. If the agency did
not require a telltale light, what procedure should it use in testing
for determining whether an air bag is activated or deactivated?
13. Proposed automatic suppression test. The agency observes that
the proposed automatic suppression test is new and may require further
refinement. NHTSA therefore requests comments on all aspects of the
proposed test procedure, including, but not limited to, the following
issues. Is the proposed 165mm (6.5 inch) outside diameter hemispheric
headform an appropriate simulator of an out-of-position occupant for
the purposes of assessing the performance of an air bag suppression
device? What other characteristics should the headform possess if the
proposed headform is not sufficient? Should the agency specify the
surface and other material of the headform? Will the hemispheric
headform be recognized as a vehicle occupant by each of the various
suppression systems under development? If not, are there changes in the
headform that would make it recognizable?
14. Proposed dynamic out-of-position test. NHTSA notes that the
proposed dynamic out-of-position test is newly developed. The agency
requests commenters to address the following issues.
(a) When the proposed dynamic out-of-position test procedure is
conducted for various vehicles, what are the likely trajectories of the
dummies? Does the procedure result in the dummy moving directly toward
a ``worst-case'' position in terms of potential air bag risk for each
vehicle? If not, should any changes be made in the test procedure,
e.g., changing initial dummy position? Please address this question
separately for the 3-year old child, 6-year old child, and 5th
percentile adult female dummies.
(b) The proposed seating procedures for the dummies specify the use
of low friction material between the dummies and the seat. The agency
has proposed to specify the use of certain readily available fabrics
that could be used for this purpose. Comments are requested on other
means of achieving a low friction condition, such as specifying a
coefficient of static or sliding friction and the conditions for which
the coefficients would apply. Specific values of a friction factor are
solicited, as appropriate.
[[Page 49981]]
(c) Should the proposed dynamic out-of-position test be run at
different speeds or angles? NHTSA notes that if a 24 km/h (15 mph)
impact were specified, it is conceivable that manufacturers might be
able to certify to this requirement by raising their deployment
thresholds to, or slightly above, that level. The agency requests
comments on whether higher deployment thresholds alone could be used to
meet this test, and, if so, the safety implications of this type of
countermeasure.
(d) What are reasonable tolerances on final impact speed and
deceleration in order to ensure that a test is repeatable? Should a
specific methodology be adopted to ensure an appropriate degree of
repeatability?
15. Tests with child dummies. (a) NHTSA is proposing that tests
using infant dummies be conducted with any rear facing child restraint
which was manufactured for sale in the United States between two years
and ten years prior to the date the first vehicle of the model year
carline of which the vehicle is a part was first offered for sale to a
consumer. The agency is proposing the same approach, with respect to
forward-facing child seats and booster seats, for tests using older
child dummies. The agency requests comments on this approach. Is there
an effective alternative means of ensuring that vehicle manufacturers
take account of the variety of different child restraints in use as
they design their systems?
(b) NHTSA is proposing to specify use of the 12-month-old CRABI
dummy for tests using rear facing infant restraints. However, some rear
facing infant restraints may only be certified for use with smaller
infants, e.g., 9-month-olds. This raises the issue of whether the
proposed dummy could be placed into these child restraints. The agency
requests comments on how to address this issue.
(c) Some rear facing child seats are now produced for children
older than 12 months. Should the agency specify additional test
requirements to address this situation?
(d) Should the agency specify test requirements using car beds and,
if so, what specific requirements?
16. Older children. Standard No. 208 currently defines advanced air
bag to include, among other things, a passenger air bag that provides
an automatic means to ensure that the air bag does not deploy when a
child seat or child with a total mass of 30 kg (66 pounds) or less is
present on the front outboard passenger seat. That definition was
included because vehicles with such air bags are not required to have
certain warning labels.20 NHTSA notes that the part of the
definition referring to a child with a total mass of 30 kg (66 pounds)
or less was included to reflect the possible use of weight sensors. The
30 kg (66 pound) threshold was originally suggested by Mercedes-Benz
and corresponds to the weight of a 50th percentile 10-year-old and a
95th percentile 7-year-old. The agency stated that the threshold was
far enough below the weight of a 5th percentile adult female
(approximately 46 kg (101 pounds)) to avoid inadvertently deactivating
the air bag when a small adult is occupying the seat. In today's
proposal, the agency is not proposing a threshold as such but is
instead proposing tests using specified dummies. The heaviest child
dummy that would be used in testing a weight sensor intended to
suppress air bag deployment for children would be the Hybrid III 6-
year-old child dummy, which has a weight of approximately 24 kg (51.8
pounds). No Hybrid III child dummies are available that correspond a 9-
year-old or 10-year-old. A similar issue would exist with respect to a
sensor intended to suppress air bag deployment based on size, i.e., the
largest size child dummy tested would be the 6-year-old. The agency
requests comments on the potential gap between the size/weight of the
6-year-old child dummy and the largest/heaviest child for which
suppression might be appropriate (based on presence as opposed to being
out-of-position) and how the agency should deal with this issue. For
example, should the agency ballast the 6-year-old child dummy to a
greater weight when testing weight sensors?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See 61 FR 40784, 40791-92, August 6, 1996; 61 FR 60206,
November 27, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Possible information for consumers. NHTSA notes that, during
the phase-in of new requirements for advanced air bags, consumers may
be interested in knowing which vehicles are certified to the new
requirements. The agency requests comments on whether a means should be
provided so that consumers can easily determine whether a vehicle has
been certified to these requirements and, if so, which option(s) were
selected. NHTSA also requests comments on what means should be
established for communicating such information to consumers, should the
agency decide to do so, e.g., a required statement on the certification
label. The agency notes that such a statement or other means could also
be used to determine whether the vehicle is permitted to have a
retrofit on-off switch under Part 595.
18. Temperature. NHTSA notes that it is asking several questions
related to temperature and air bag performance in connection with its
consideration of a petition for rulemaking submitted by Parents for
Safer Air Bags. A discussion of the petition is included in an appendix
to this notice.
Does temperature have a significant effect on air bag deployment
performance? Is there a need to address this variable in Standard No.
208? If so, what specific performance requirements and test procedures
should be considered? How are vehicle manufacturers and suppliers
currently addressing this issue? The agency specifically requests data
related to temperature effects on sled and vehicle crash testing.
19. Possible requirements relating to turning off cruise controls
upon air bag deployment. NHTSA notes that cruise controls are turned
off when a vehicle is braked. Many crashes, however, do not involve
braking. The agency requests comments on a possible requirement to
require cruise controls to be turned off upon air bag deployment.
20. Possible requirements related to preventing air bag deployments
during rescue operations following a crash. As the agency has monitored
the real world performance of air bag deployments, it has noted
scattered reports of air bags deploying during rescue operations
following a crash. This can result in injury to rescue personnel and
also cause further injury to occupants. In NHTSA's Emergency Rescue
Guidelines for Air Bag Equipped Vehicles,21 the agency
explains that deactivating the vehicle's electrical system prevents
deployment of all electrically initiated air bags after a specific time
period. The specific times for different vehicles are identified as
part of the guidelines. The times vary significantly for different
vehicles, ranging from 0 seconds to 10 and even 20 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ These guidelines are available on NHTSA's website at http:/
/www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/ems/airbag/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency requests comments on possible requirements relating to
preventing air bag deployments during rescue operations following
crashes. Should the agency specify requirements concerning air bag
deactivation times relative to deactivation of the vehicle's electrical
system for electrically initiated air bags, or some other means of
deactivation? Should the agency specify any other requirements for
these and/or other kinds of air bags?
21. Organization of Standard No. 208. Do commenters have any
specific recommendations concerning the
[[Page 49982]]
organization of the regulatory text for Standard No. 208, with respect
to either or both the existing and the proposed text? The agency notes
that one way of simplifying the standard would be to remove outdated
text and to separate seat belt requirements from crash test
requirements. NHTSA is especially interested in specific comments
concerning how all of the crash test requirements, existing and
proposed, could be organized in a simple manner.
22. Possible development of alternative unbelted crash test
requirements. The vehicle manufacturers have raised various objections
to the existing unbelted barrier test requirements. As discussed
earlier in this notice, NHTSA is placing in the docket a technical
paper which discusses the representativeness of those requirements with
respect to real-world frontal crashes which have a potential to cause
serious injury or fatality. NHTSA requests comments on that paper and
on whether the agency should develop alternative unbelted crash test
requirements. NHTSA requests commenters that advocate alternative
unbelted crash test requirements to recommend specific alternative
requirements and to address the following questions:
a. How do the recommended alternative requirements compare to the
existing unbelted barrier test requirements (tests at any speed up to
48 km/h (30 mph), and at angles ranging from 30 degrees
oblique to perpendicular, into a rigid barrier) with respect to
representing the range of frontal crashes which have a potential to
cause serious injuries or fatalities? In answering this question,
please consider the entire range of tests incorporated into the
existing requirements and the recommended alternative requirements.
Please specifically address representativeness with respect to (1)
crash pulses, (2) crash severities, and (3) occupant positioning, and
provide separate answers for crashes likely to cause fatalities and
crashes likely to cause serious but not fatal injuries.
b. How do the recommended alternative requirements compare to the
existing requirements with respect to repeatability, reproducibility,
and objectivity?
c. To what extent can it be concluded that a countermeasure needed
to meet the recommended alternative would ensure protection in frontal
crashes not directly represented by the test, e.g., crashes with
different pulses (harder or softer) or different severities (more
severe or less severe)? Please quantify the amount of protection that
would be ensured in other types of crashes, i.e., what the injury
criteria measurements would be. Please answer this same question for
the existing unbelted barrier test requirements.
d. Commenters are asked to specifically address why they believe
the recommended alternative is superior to the current requirements. In
providing this answer, commenters are asked to respond to the following
questions:
1. If the recommended alternative is believed to be representative
of crashes not directly represented by the current requirements, should
it be added to Standard No. 208 rather than replace the existing
requirements?
2. If a commenter believes that air bag designs needed to meet the
existing unbelted barrier test requirements provide less-than-optimum
protection in other types of crashes, please provide specific examples
and explain why advanced technologies permitting tailored air bag
response cannot be used to meet the existing performance requirements
and provide appropriate protection in the examples at issue.
23. Possibility of more children sitting in the front seat with
advanced air bags. As vehicle manufacturers install advanced air bags
which minimize the risks air bags pose to children, the public may
believe that the front seat is now safe for children, and more children
would then sit in the front seat. However, the back seat has always
been safer for children, even before there were air bags. NHTSA
conducted a study of children who died in crashes in the front and back
seats of vehicles, very few of which had passenger air bags. The study
concluded that placing children in the back reduces the risk of death
in a crash by 27 percent, whether or not a child is
restrained.22 NHTSA requests comments on what steps it and
others can take to address the possible problem of more children riding
in the front seat with advanced air bags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ For a further discussion of this subject, see NHTSA's final
rule concerning on-off switches, 62 FR 62406, 62420 (footnote 23),
November 21, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Costs and Benefits
NHTSA is placing in the docket a Preliminary Economic Assessment
(PEA) which analyzes the potential impact of the proposed new
performance requirements and associated test procedures for advanced
air bag systems. The Executive Summary of that document summarizes its
conclusions as follows.
Compliance scenarios. This analysis identified and analyzed three
groups of possible compliance scenarios that combine the mandatory and
optional test procedures for each risk group. Each scenario includes
the three mandatory 5th percentile female dummy tests, as well as the
existing 50th percentile male dummy frontal barrier tests with upgraded
injury criteria. One scenario (Option #1) assumes that out-of-position
children and driver requirements will be met with the out-of-position
suppression test, while infant requirements will be met with the infant
presence suppression test. A second scenario (Option #2) assumes that
requirements for all three groups will be met with the low risk
deployment test. A third scenario (Option #3) assumes that child and
adult requirements are met with the dynamic out-of-position test, and
the infant requirements are met with the infant presence suppression
test.
Methodology. The analysis estimates the benefits and costs of
incremental improvements in safety compared to two different baselines.
The first is a baseline of pre-MY 1998 air bag vehicles. Tables E-1 and
E-2 provide cost and benefits estimates assuming a pre-MY 1998 air bag
vehicle baseline. The second baseline assumes that all vehicles are
designed to the sled test and provide benefits in full frontal impacts
(12 o'clock strikes), but no benefit in partial frontal impacts (10,
11, 1, and 2 o'clock strikes). Table E-3 provides costs and benefits
assuming a baseline of vehicles designed to the sled test. Neither of
these baselines reflect potential shifts in occupant demographics,
driver/passenger behavior, belt use, child restraint use, or the
percent of children sitting in the front right seat due to education
efforts and labeling. The agency requests comments on alternative
baselines, including ways to predict future changes in occupant
behavior, and including the likely evolution of air bag designs in the
absence of this rulemaking.
While primary and alternative injury criteria performance limits
are proposed and analyzed in this assessment, only the primary proposal
results are discussed in this executive summary.
Safety impacts. Potential safety impacts of this proposal are
dependent on the specific method chosen by manufacturers to meet the
proposed test requirements. Some countermeasures reach a larger target
population and potentially provide more benefits than others, although
each might adequately meet test requirements. For example, a weight
sensor could suppress the air bag up to its design limit for weight,
but would not suppress the air bag for heavier occupants. Thus, in
Table E-1, it is assumed that a 54 pound weight
[[Page 49983]]
sensor would be utilized to meet the ``Suppression When Presence'' test
with the 6 year-old dummy. While it could potentially save 102 children
ages 1 to 12, it could not save all 129 children in that age category,
because it is estimated that the remaining children will weigh more
than 54 pounds. Multi-stage inflation systems are an example of a
system that could potentially impact a wider range of injuries than do
proximity sensors.
The ranges of potential safety impacts by test type are shown in
Table E-1 and total fatality benefits for the three examined compliance
options are shown in Table E-2. The estimated range of fatalities
prevented from the three scenarios is 226-239 annually. Of these, 25
are in high speed tests and the remainder are in tests to minimize
risks to out-of-position occupants. These estimated lives saved can
also be broken into 167-175 passengers and 59-64 drivers. Injuries were
not examined in this preliminary analysis because research to establish
injury impacts has not been completed. However, the agency believes
there will be significant injury reductions, particularly chest
injuries.
Table E-1.--Estimated Target Population and Lives Saved Annually for the Primary Proposal Compared to Pre-MY
1998 Air Bags
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passengers
---------------------------------------
Tests Drivers 1-12 year Total
RFCSS old Adult
children
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Out-of-Position Target Population.............. 41 33 129 11 214
Estimated Lives Saved by Different Tests (These
are not additive):
Suppression When Presence.................. NA 33 102 NA 135
Suppression When Out-of-Position........... 41 NP 129 11 181
Low Risk Deployment........................ 36-39 31-33 114-122 10 191-204
Dynamic Out-Of-Position.................... 36-39 NP 114-122 10 160-171
25 mph Offset Barrier..................... 36-39 0 0 10 46-49
In-Position Target Population.............. 6,778 NP NP 1,501 8,279
Estimated Lives Saved by Different Tests (These
are additive):
30 MPH, Belted/Unbelted 50th Male.......... 11 NP NP 0 11
30 MPH, Belted/Unbelted 5th Percentile
Female.................................... 5 NP NP 1 6
25 MPH Offset Barrier...................... 7 NP NP 1 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NP: Not proposed test for this group.
Costs. Potential compliance costs for this proposal vary
considerably and are dependent on 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. Table E-2
lists the range of compliance costs for each compliance option. The
range of potential costs for the compliance scenarios examined in this
analysis is $22-$162. This amounts to a total potential annual cost of
up to $2.5 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 are shown in Table
E-2. Property damage savings from these requirements could total up to
$158 over the lifetime of an average vehicle. This amounts to a total
potential cost savings of nearly $2.5 billion over the lifetime of a
complete model year's fleet.
Net cost per fatality Prevented. Table E-2 summarizes the cost per
fatality prevented of each compliance option. 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 fatality saved from the
scenarios examined in this analysis is a savings of $9.4 million per
fatality saved to a cost of $4.8 million per fatality saved. The range
for passenger-side impacts is more favorable than for driver-side
impacts. This is due to the potential property damage savings from
suppressing air bags for children, and because there are far fewer out-
of-position drivers at risk than there are passengers, particularly
children. Passenger side costs vary from a savings of $14.7 million per
fatality to a cost of $4.5 million per fatality. On the driver's side,
costs range from zero to a cost of $21.2 million per fatality
prevented.
Table E-2.--Summary of Costs and Benefits Compared to Pre-MY 1998 Air Bags
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lifetime property Net cost (net savings)
Cost per vehicle Annual total costs Annual fatalities prevented damage savings per Net cost (net savings) per discounted fatality
(1997 dollars) (billions) (after 7% discount) vehicle per vehicle saved (millions) **
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Option #1 OOP $75-$162............... $1.16-$2.51............ 239 (172)........................ $21-$158............... $4-$53................. $0.3-$4.8M.
Suppression*, Child Suppression.
Compliance Option #2 Low Risk $22-$56................ $0.34-$0.86............ 226-233 (163-168)................ $21-$158............... $1-$(102).............. $(9.4)-$0.1.
Deployment.
[[Page 49984]]
Compliance Option #3 Dynamic $24-$162............... $0.37-$2.51............ 228-233 (165-168)................ $21-$158............... $2-$4.................. $0.2-$0.4.
OOP*, Child Suppression.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: OOP = out-of-position. All three options include offset barrier and frontal barrier tests.
** Net cost per discounted fatality saved is computed by taking the net cost per vehicle times 15.5 million vehicles divided by discounted fatalities prevented.
Sled tests. Sled tests were temporarily allowed as an alternative
method to certify compliance with FMVSS 208 in March 1997 in order to
facilitate introduction of depowered air bags. A provision of the NHTSA
Reauthorization Act (P.L. 105-178) provided that this method would
remain in effect until changed by rule. This analysis thus addresses
the relative merits of full frontal barrier tests and the sled test
alternative. NHTSA is proposing to eliminate the sled test alternative
because it is not representative of real world crashes that have the
potential for serious injury or fatality, and it does not adequately
test how well the vehicle and its restraint system protect outboard
front seat occupants in those situations. Relatively modest changes
have occurred thus far in air bag designs that use the sled test for
compliance. However, NHTSA is concerned that potentially, air bag
systems designed only to pass the sled test would expose occupants in
higher speed crashes to significant increases in crash forces. For
example, because the sled test is only a ``12 o'clock'' test, there is
concern that it could lead to decreased air bag volume, which would
provide less protection in frontal crashes at offset angles and to
unbelted passengers in any frontal high speed crash. NHTSA examined air
bag data supplied by nine auto manufacturers in response to an
information request issued by the agency in December 1997. The agency
found that of 42 passenger side model year 1998 systems examined, 10
had decreased air bag volume. Eight of these ten decreased the width of
the air bag. This demonstrates that air bags designed to meet the sled
test may provide protection to a smaller area of the occupant
compartment, or in a narrower set of collision angles.
The effectiveness of air bags decreases as the crash moves further
away from direct frontal impacts--31 percent effective at 12 o'clock, 9
percent effective in 11 and 1 o'clock impacts and 5 percent effective
in 10 and 2 o'clock impacts. If air bag designs provided no benefit in
partial frontal impacts (10, 11, 1, and 2 o'clock), an estimated 319
lives would not be saved annually by air bags. In addition, the
agency's analysis of limited test data of MY 1998 air bag vehicles
versus pre-MY 1998 air bag vehicles estimated that 16 to 86 lives may
not be saved in full frontal impacts by MY 1998 air bags that have been
certified to the sled test. In total, 335 to 405 lives potentially
would not be saved by vehicles designed to the sled test, rather than
to the barrier test. Table E-3 shows that the net cost per fatality
saved ranges from a savings of $3.4 million per fatality saved to a
cost of $2.0 million per fatality saved.
In designing a low risk air bag, it will be more difficult for the
manufacturers to meet all of the test conditions with an unbelted rigid
barrier test than with a sled test. Many more sled tests than barrier
tests can be run in a day and sled tests are less expensive to run than
vehicle tests into a barrier. The development effort to design to the
unbelted barrier test is more complex because many more factors have to
be accounted for, including the angle test. The agency is not sure what
would be the difference in vehicle costs between the two tests. If air
bags are made smaller with the sled test, some minor savings in the air
bag and sodium azide pellets would accrue. No additional cost has been
added to Table E-3. However, since air-bag equipped vehicles have met
the unbelted test in the past, there is little need to redesign air
bags when suppression is the technology of choice.
Table E-3.--Summary of Costs and Benefits Compared to Air Bags Designed to the Sled Test
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lifetime property Net cost (net savings)
Cost per vehicle (1997 Annual total costs Annual fatalities prevented damage savings per Net cost (net savings) per discounted fatality
dollars) (billions) (after 7% discount) vehicle per vehicle saved (millions)**
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Option #1 OOP $75-$162............... $1.16-$2.51............ 574-644 (414-465)................ $21-$158............... $4-$53................. $0.1-$2.0M.
Suppression*, Child Suppression.
Compliance Option #2 Low Risk $22-$56................ $0.34-$0.86............ 561-638 (405-460)................ $21-$158............... $1-$(102).............. $(3.4)-$0.3.
Deployment.
Compliance Option #3 Dynamic $24-$162............... $0.37-$2.51............ 563-638 (406-460)................ $21-$158............... $2-$4.................. $0.09-$0.1.
OOP*, Child Suppression.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: OOP = out-of-position. All three options include offset barrier and frontal barrier tests. There would be additional unquantified minor costs between the sled test and the unbelted
rigid barrier test.
** Net cost per discounted fatality saved is computed by taking the net cost per vehicle times 15.5 million vehicles divided by discounted fatalities prevented.
[[Page 49985]]
VIII. 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 was reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning
and Review.'' The rulemaking action has 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. Sec. 601 et seq.) I hereby
certify that the proposed amendment would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed rule would directly affect motor vehicle manufacturers
and indirectly affect air bag 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 which 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 final stage vehicle manufacturers and alterers
could also be affected by this proposal. However, since the agency
believes that final stage manufacturers and alterers receive vehicles
which are already equipped with air bags, the proposal would not have
any significant effect on final stage manufacturers or alterers.
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.
For the reasons discussed above, the small entities which would
most likely be affected by this proposal are small vehicle
manufacturers and dummy manufacturers. The number of such manufacturers
is so small that, regardless of whether the economic impact on them was
significant or not, the proposed rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The agency believes, further, that the economic impact on these
manufacturers 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. 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. However, 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). This assessment is
included in the PEA.
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
The Department of Transportation is submitting the following
information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (P.L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
For further information contact: Complete copies of each request
for collection of information may be obtained from Mr. Michael
Robinson, NHTSA Information Collection Clearance Officer, NHTSA, 400
Seventh Street, SW, Room 6123, Washington, DC. Mr. Robinson's telephone
number is (202) 366-9456. Please identify the relevant collection of
information by referring to ``Phase-in Production Reporting
Requirements for Advanced Air Bags.''
Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Title: Phase-in Production Reporting Requirements for Advanced Air
Bags.
Type of Request: Routine.
OMB Clearance Number: 2127-New.
[[Page 49986]]
Form Number: This collection of information would use no standard
forms.
Affected Public: The respondents are 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. The agency estimates that there are
about 21 such manufacturers.
Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
Resulting from the Collection of Information: NHTSA estimates that the
total annual hour burden is 1260 hours.
Estimated Costs: NHTSA estimates the total annual cost burden, in
dollars, to be $37,800.
Summary of the Collection of Information: This collection would
require 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 annually 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) during the phase-in of those requirements. The phase-in
would be completed in three years.
Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed use of the
Information: The purpose of the reporting requirements would be to aid
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in determining
whether a manufacturer 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 has complied with the advanced air bag requirements of Standard
No. 208 during the phase-in of those requirements.
IX. Request for Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposal.
Two copies should be submitted to Docket Management at the address
given at the beginning of this document.
In addition, for those comments of four or more pages in length, it
is requested but not required that 10 additional copies, as well as one
copy on computer disc, be sent to: Mr. Clarke Harper, Chief, Light Duty
Vehicle Division, NPS-11, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. This
would aid the agency in expediting its review of all the comments. The
copy on computer disc may be in any format, although the agency would
prefer that it be in WordPerfect 8.
All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and two
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to Docket Management. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available
for examination in the docket at the above address both before and
after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the
closing date will also be considered. Comments received too late for
consideration in regard to this action will be considered as
suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments will be available
for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue to file relevant
information as it becomes available in the docket after the closing
date, and recommends that interested persons continue to examine the
docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber
products, Tires.
49 CFR Part 585
Motor vehicles, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
49 CFR Part 587
Motor vehicle safety.
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 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. 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.
2. Section 571.208 would be amended by revising S3, S4.5.1
introductory text, and S4.5.4, adding S6.6 through S6.7, revising
S8.1.5 and S13, and adding S14 through S30.2.4, to read as follows:
Sec. 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant crash protection.
* * * * *
S3. Application.
(a) This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks, 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 S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25.
(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 of this section.
(d) Wherever tolerances are specified, requirements shall be met at
all values within the tolerances.
* * * * *
S4.5.1 Labeling and owner's manual information. The labels
specified in S4.5.1 (b), (c), and (e) of this standard
[[Page 49987]]
are not required for vehicles that have a passenger side air bag
meeting the criteria specified in S4.5.5 of this standard or which are
certified to the requirements specified in S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, and
S25 of this standard.
* * * * *
S4.5.4 Passenger Air Bag Manual Cut-off Device. Passenger cars,
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured before
September 1, 2005 and not certified to meet the requirements specified
in S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 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.
* * * * *
[Proposed Alternative One--Chest includes existing requirements for
chest acceleration (S6.3) and chest deflection (S6.4) plus Combined
Thoracic Index (proposed S6.6); Proposed Alternative Two--Chest
includes existing requirements for chest acceleration and chest
deflection]
S6.6 (This only applies to vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2005 and to vehicles manufactured before that time which
are certified to the requirements specified in S15, S17, S19, S21, S23,
and S25 of this standard.) Combined Thoracic Index (CTI) shall not
exceed 1.0. The equation for calculating the CTI criterion is given by
CTI = (Amax/Aint) + (Dmax/
Dint)
where Aint and Dint are intercept values defined
as
Aint = 85 g's for spine acceleration intercept, and
Dint = 102 mm (4.0 in.) for sternal deflection intercept.
Calculation of CTI requires measurement of upper spine triaxial
acceleration filtered at SAE class 180 and sternal deflection filtered
at SAE class 600. From the measured data, a 3-msec clip maximum value
of the resultant spine acceleration (Amax) and the maximum
chest deflection (Dmax) shall be determined.
S6.7
[Proposed Alternative One--Neck]
The biomechanical neck injury predictor, Nij, shall not exceed a
value of [the agency is considering values of 1.4 and 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 = 3600 N (809 lbf) for tension
Fzc = 3600 N (809 lbf) for compression
Myc = 410 Nm (302 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 [the agency is considering values
of 1.4 and 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.
[Proposed Alternative Two--Neck]
Neck injury criteria. Using the six axis upper neck load cell (ref.
Denton drawing C-1709) that is mounted between the bottom of the skull
and the top of the neck as shown in drawing 78051-218, the peak forces
and moments measured at the occipital condyles shall not exceed:
Axial Tension = 3300 N (742 lbf)
Axial Compression = 4000 N (899 lbf)
Fore-and-Aft Shear = 3100 N (697 lbf)
Flexion Bending Moment = 190 Nm (140 lbf-ft)
Extension Bending Moment = 57 Nm (42 lbf-ft)
SAE Class 1000 shall be used to filter the axial tension, axial
compression, and fore-and-aft shear. SAE Class 600 shall be used to
filter the measured moment and fore-and-aft shear used to compute the
flexion bending moment and extension bending moment at the occipital
condyles.
* * * * *
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.
* * * * *
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 S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 (in addition to the other
requirements specified in this standard). 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.
(b) Manufacturers which 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 S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 (in addition
to the other requirements specified in this standard). 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.
(c) Each vehicle that is manufactured in two or more stages or that
is altered (within the meaning of Sec. 567.7 of this chapter) after
having previously been certified in accordance with part 567 of this
chapter is 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 S15, S17, S19,
S21, S23 and S25 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
[[Page 49988]]
(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 S15, S17, S19,
S21, S23 and S25 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 S15, S17, S19,
S21, S23 and S25 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 it if 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 S15, S17, S19, S21,
S23, and S25 (in addition to the other requirements specified in this
standard). 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.
S14.3 Vehicle integrity requirements. Each vehicle certified to
the requirements of S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 of this standard
shall meet the following vehicle integrity criteria during the crash
and/or at the conclusion of each crash test, as specified, that is part
of a requirement under this standard to which the vehicle is certified
(this includes the crash tests that are part of requirements other than
those identified earlier in this paragraph):
(a) The latching mechanism of each door shall hold the door closed
throughout the test.
(b) After the impact, it must be possible, without the use of
tools, to open at least one door, if there is one, per row of seats
and, where there is no such door, to move the seats or tilt their
backrests as necessary to allow the evacuation of all the occupants;
this is, however, only applicable to vehicles having a roof of rigid
construction.
S15 Rigid barrier test requirements using 5th percentile adult
female dummies.
S15.1. Each vehicle 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.
S15.2 Each vehicle 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 the Type 2 seat belt assembly.
S15.3 Injury criteria (5th percentile adult female dummy).
S15.3.1 All portions of the test dummy shall be contained within
the outer surfaces of the vehicle passenger compartment throughout the
test.
S15.3.2 The resultant acceleration at the center of gravity of the
head shall be such that the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.002
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.
[Proposed Alternative One--Chest includes requirements for chest
acceleration (proposed S15.3.3), chest deflection (proposed S15.3.4)
and Combined Thoracic Index (proposed S15.3.6; Proposed Alternative
Two--Chest includes requirements for chest acceleration and chest
deflection]
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 62 mm (2.5 inches).
S15.3.5 The force transmitted axially through each upper leg shall
not exceed 6805 N (1530 pounds).
S15.3.6 Combined Thoracic Index (CTI) shall not exceed 1.0. The
equation for calculating the CTI criterion is given by
CTI = (Amax/Aint) + (Dmax/
Dint)
where Aint and Dint are intercept values defined
as
Aint = 85 g's for spine acceleration intercept, and
Dint = 83 mm (3.3 in.) for sternal deflection intercept.
[[Page 49989]]
Calculation of CTI requires measurement of upper spine triaxial
acceleration filtered at SAE class 180 and sternal deflection filtered
at SAE class 600. From the measured data, a 3-msec clip maximum value
of the resultant spine acceleration (Amax) and the maximum
chest deflection (Dmax) shall be determined. S15.3.7
[Proposed Alternative One--Neck]
The biomechanical neck injury predictor, Nij, shall not exceed a
value of [the agency is considering values of 1.4 and 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 = 3200 N (719 lbf) for tension
Fzc = 3200 N (719 lbf) for compression
Myc = 210 Nm (155 lbf-ft) for flexion about occipital condyles
Myc = 60 Nm (44 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 [the agency is considering values
of 1.4 and 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.
[Proposed Alternative Two--Neck]
Neck injury criteria. Using the six axis upper neck load cell [a
drawing incorporated by reference in Part 572 would be identified in
the final rule] that is mounted between the bottom of the skull and the
top of the neck as shown in drawing [a drawing incorporated by
reference in Part 572 would be identified in the final rule], the peak
forces and moments measured at the occipital condyles shall not exceed:
Axial Tension = 2080 N (468 lbf)
Axial Compression = 2520 N (567 lbf)
Fore-and-Aft Shear = 1950 N (438 lbf)
Flexion Bending Moment = 95 Nm (70 lbf-ft)
Extension Bending Moment = 28 Nm (21 lbf-ft)
SAE Class 1000 shall be used to filter the axial tension, axial
compression, and fore-and-aft shear. SAE Class 600 shall be used to
filter the measured moment and fore-and-aft shear used to compute the
flexion bending moment and extension bending moment at the occipital
condyles.
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) Unbelted testing. Place a Part 572 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. No
additional action, such as fastening a manual belt, is taken. Impact
the vehicle traveling longitudinally forward at any speed, up to and
including 48 km/h (30 mph), into a fixed collision barrier that is
perpendicular to the line of travel of the vehicle, or at any angle up
to 30 degrees from the perpendicular to the line of travel of the
vehicle under the applicable conditions of S16.2 of this standard.
Determine whether the vehicle integrity criteria specified in S14.3 and
the injury criteria specified in S15.3 of this standard are met.
(b) Belted testing. Place a Part 572 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. Fasten
the manual Type 2 seat belt assembly at each of these positions around
the dummy occupying the position, in accordance with S16.3.10 of this
standard. Impact the vehicle traveling longitudinally forward at any
speed, up to and including 48 km/h (30 mph), into a fixed collision
barrier that is perpendicular to the line of travel of the vehicle, or
at any angle up to 30 degrees from the perpendicular to the line of
travel of the vehicle under the applicable conditions of S16.3 of this
standard. Determine whether the vehicle integrity criteria specified in
S14.3 and the injury criteria specified in S15.3 of this standard are
met.
S16.2 Test conditions.
S16.2.1 The vehicle including test devices and instrumentation, is
loaded as follows:
(a) Passenger cars. A passenger car is loaded to its unloaded
vehicle weight plus its rated cargo and luggage capacity weight,
secured in the luggage area, plus the weight of the necessary
anthropomorphic test devices.
(b) Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. A
multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, or bus is loaded to its unloaded
vehicle weight plus 136 kg (300 pounds) or its rated cargo and luggage
capacity weight, whichever is less, secured in the load carrying area
and distributed as nearly as possible in proportion to the gross axle
weight ratings, plus the weight of the necessary anthropomorphic test
devices. For the purposes of S16.2.1, unloaded vehicle weight does not
include the weight of the work-performing accessories. Vehicles are
tested to a maximum unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5500 pounds).
(c) Fuel system capacity. With the test vehicle on a level surface,
pump the fuel from the vehicle's fuel tank and then operate the engine
until it stops. Then, add Stoddard solvent to the vehicle's fuel tank
in an amount which is equal to not less than 92 and not more than 94
percent of the fuel tank's usable capacity stated by the vehicle's
manufacturer. In addition, add the amount of Stoddard solvent needed to
fill the entire fuel system from the fuel tank through the engine's
induction system.
(d) Vehicle test attitude. Determine the distance between a level
surface and a standard reference point on the test vehicle's body,
directly above each wheel opening, when the vehicle is in its ``as
delivered'' condition. The ``as delivered'' condition is the vehicle as
received at the test site, with 100 percent of all fluid capacities and
all tires inflated to the manufacturer's specifications as listed on
the vehicle's tire placard. Determine the distance between the same
level surface and the same standard reference points in the vehicle's
``fully loaded condition.'' The ``fully loaded condition'' is the test
vehicle loaded in accordance with S16.2.1(a) or (b) of this standard,
as applicable. The load placed in the cargo area shall be centered over
the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. The pretest vehicle
attitude shall be equal to either the as delivered or fully loaded
attitude or between the as delivered attitude and the fully loaded
attitude.
[[Page 49990]]
S16.2.2 Adjustable seats are in the forwardmost adjustment
position and if separately adjustable in a vertical direction, are at
the uppermost position.
S16.2.3 Place adjustable seat backs at an angle of 18+/-2 degrees
from vertical, if adjustable. Place any manually adjustable anchorages
midway between extreme positions. If there is no midway position for an
adjustable anchorage, place it in the next highest position. Place each
adjustable head restraint in its highest adjustment position.
Adjustable lumbar supports are positioned so that the lumbar support is
in its lowest adjustment position.
S16.2.4 Adjustable steering controls are adjusted 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. In the
event that the adjustable steering wheel cannot be placed in the center
of its movement, the wheel is placed at the next lowest position.
S16.2.5 Movable vehicle windows and vents are placed in the fully
closed position, unless the vehicle manufacturer chooses to specify a
different adjustment position.
S16.2.6 Convertibles and open-body type vehicles have the top, if
any, in place in the closed passenger compartment configuration.
S16.2.7 Doors are fully closed and latched but not locked.
S16.2.8 The anthropomorphic test dummies used for crash testing
shall be the 5th percentile adult female test dummy specified in Part
572 of this Chapter.
S16.2.9 The Part 572 5th percentile adult female dummy is clothed
in formfitting 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.
S16.2.10 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.
S16.2.11 Instrumentation does not affect the motion of dummies
during impact.
S16.2.12 The stabilized temperature of the Part 572 5th percentile
adult female test dummy is at any level between 20 degrees C and 22
degrees C.
S16.3 Dummy Seating Positioning Procedures. The Part 572 5th
percentile adult female test dummy is positioned as follows.
S16.3.1 Head. The transverse instrumentation platform of the head
shall be horizontal within \1/2\ degree. To level the head of the
dummy, the following sequences must be followed. First, adjust the
position of the H point within the limits set forth in S16.3.5.1 of
this standard to level the transverse instrumentation platform of the
head of the test dummy. If the transverse instrumentation platform of
the head is still not level, then adjust the pelvic angle of the test
dummy within the limits specified in S16.3.5.2 of this standard. If the
transverse instrumentation platform of the head is still not level,
then adjust the neck bracket of the dummy the minimum amount necessary
from the non-adjusted ``0'' setting to ensure that the transverse
instrumentation platform of the head is horizontal within \1/2\ degree.
The test dummy shall remain within the limits specified in S16.3.5.1
and S16.3.5.2 of this standard after any adjustment of the neck
bracket.
S16.3.2 Arms.
S16.3.2.1 The driver's upper arms shall be adjacent to the torso
with the centerlines as close to a vertical plane as possible.
S16.3.2.2 The passenger's upper arms shall be in contact with the
seat back and the sides of the torso.
S16.3.3 Hands.
S16.3.3.1 The palms of the driver test dummy shall be in contact
with the outer part of the steering wheel rim at the rim's horizontal
centerline. The thumbs shall be over the steering wheel rim and shall
be lightly taped 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
force) and not more than 22 N (5 pounds force), the tape shall release
the hand from the steering wheel rim.
S16.3.3.2 The palms of the passenger test dummy shall be in
contact with the outside of the dummy's thigh. The little finger shall
be in contact with the seat cushion.
S16.3.4 Upper torso.
S16.3.4.1 In vehicles equipped with bench seats, the upper torso
of the driver and passenger test dummies shall rest against the seat
back. The midsagittal plane of the driver dummy shall be vertical and
parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, and pass through the
center of the steering wheel rim. The midsagittal plane of the
passenger dummy shall be vertical and parallel to the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline and the same distance from the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline as the midsagittal plane of the driver dummy.
S16.3.4.2 In vehicles equipped with bucket seats, the upper torso
of the driver and passenger test dummies shall rest against the seat
back. The midsagittal plane of the driver and the passenger dummy shall
be vertical and shall coincide with the longitudinal centerline of the
bucket seat.
S16.3.5 Lower Torso.
S16.3.5.1 H-point. The H-point of the driver and passenger test
dummies shall coincide within 13 mm (.5 inch) in the vertical dimension
and 13 mm (.5 inch) in the horizontal dimension of a point 6 mm (.25
inch) below the position of the H-point determined using the equipment
and procedures specified in SAE J826 (Apr 80) except that the length of
the lower leg and thigh segments of the H-point machine shall be
adjusted to 325 mm (12.8 inches) and 342 mm (13.5 inches),
respectively, instead of the 50th percentile values specified in Table
1 of SAE J826.
S16.3.5.2 Pelvic angle. As determined using the pelvic angle gage
(GM drawing 78051-532 incorporated by reference in Part 572, Subpart E
of this chapter) which is inserted into the H-point gaging hole of the
dummy, the angle measured from the horizontal on the 76 mm (3 inches)
flat surface of the gage shall be 22\1/2\ degrees plus or minus 2\1/2\
degrees.
S16.3.6 Legs. The upper legs of the driver and passenger test
dummies shall rest against the seat cushion to the extent permitted by
placement of the feet. The initial distance between the outboard knee
clevis flange surfaces shall be 483 mm (19 inches). To the extent
practicable, the left leg of the driver dummy and both legs of the
passenger dummy shall be in vertical longitudinal planes. To the extent
practicable, the right leg of the driver dummy shall be in a vertical
plane. Final adjustment to accommodate placement of feet in accordance
with S16.3.7 of this standard for various passenger compartment
configurations is permitted.
S16.3.7 Feet. The feet of the driver test dummy shall be
positioned in accordance with S16.3.7.1(a) and S16.3.7.1(b) of this
standard. The feet of the passenger test dummy shall be positioned in
accordance with S16.3.7.2.1(a) and S16.3.7.2.1(b) of this standard or
S16.3.7.2.2(a) and S16.3.7.2.2(b) of this standard, as appropriate.
S16.3.7.1 Driver position feet placement.
(a) Rest the right foot of the test dummy on the undepressed
accelerator pedal with the rearmost point of the heel on the floor pan
in the plane of the
[[Page 49991]]
pedal. If the heels cannot reach the floor, for adjustable seats lower
the seat until the heels touch the floor. For non adjustable seats and
for adjustable seats that do not permit dummy heel contact in the
lowest adjustment position, adjust the lower limbs until the heels
touch the floor. Check the H-point location in S16.3.5.1 to maintain
the least deviation from the previous setting. If the foot cannot be
placed on the accelerator pedal, set it initially perpendicular to the
lower leg and place it as far forward as possible in the direction of
the pedal centerline with the rearmost point of the heel resting on the
floor pan. Except as prevented by contact with a vehicle surface, place
the right leg so that the upper and lower leg centerlines fall, as
close as possible, in a vertical plane without inducing torso movement.
(b) Place the left foot on the toeboard 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 toeboard and the floor pan
and not on the wheelwell projection. If the foot cannot be positioned
on the toeboard, set it initially perpendicular to the lower leg and
place it as far forward as possible with the heel resting on the floor
pan. If necessary to avoid contact with the vehicle's brake or clutch
pedal, rotate the test dummy's left foot about the lower leg. If there
is still pedal interference, rotate the left leg outboard about the hip
the minimum necessary to avoid the pedal interference. Except as
prevented by contact with a vehicle surface, place the left leg so that
the upper and lower leg centerlines fall, as close as possible, in a
vertical plane. For vehicles with a foot rest that does not elevate the
left foot above the level of the right foot, place the left foot on the
foot rest so that the upper and lower leg centerlines fall in a
vertical plane.
S16.3.7.2 Passenger position feet placement.
S16.3.7.2.1 Vehicles with a flat floor pan/toeboard.
(a) Place the right and left feet on the vehicle's floor pan with
the heels resting on the floor pan as close as possible to the
intersection point with the toeboard. If the heels cannot reach the
floor, for adjustable seats lower the seat until the heels touch the
floor. For non adjustable seats and for adjustable seats that do not
permit dummy heel contact in the lowest adjustment position, adjust the
lower limbs until the heels touch the floor. Check the H-point location
in S16.3.5.1 to maintain the least deviation from the previous setting.
(b) Place the right and left legs so that the upper and lower leg
centerlines fall in vertical longitudinal planes.
S16.3.7.2.2 Vehicles with wheelhouse projections in passenger
compartment.
(a) Place the right and left feet flat in the well of the floor
pan/toeboard and not on the wheelhouse projection. If the feet cannot
be placed flat on the toeboard, for adjustable seats lower the seat
until the heels touch the floor. For non-adjustable seats and for
adjustable seats that do not permit dummy heel contact in the lowest
position, set them perpendicular to the lower leg centerlines.
(b) If it is not possible to maintain vertical and longitudinal
planes through the upper and lower leg centerlines for each leg, place
the left leg so that its upper and lower centerlines fall, as closely
as possible, in a vertical longitudinal plane and place the right leg
so that its upper and lower leg centerlines fall, as closely as
possible, in a vertical plane. Adjust both legs so that the foot is in
contact with the floor pan and/or toe board and both knee heights
deviate by no more than 10 mm.
S16.3.8 Manual belt adjustment for dynamic testing. With the test
dummy at its designated seating position as specified by the
appropriate requirements of S16.3.1 through S16.3.7 of this standard,
place the Type 2 manual belt around the test dummy and fasten the
latch. 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. Each vehicle 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 of this standard with
the anthropomorphic test dummy restrained by the Type 2 seat belt
assembly.
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 follows.
Place a Part 572 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. Fasten the manual Type 2 seat belt
assembly at each of these positions around the dummy occupying the
position, in accordance with S16.3.8 of this standard. 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. Determine
whether the vehicle integrity criteria specified in S14.3 and the
injury criteria specified in S15.3 of this standard are met.
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 and positioning. The anthropomorphic test
dummies are seated and positioned as specified in S16.3 of this
standard.
S18.2.4 Impact configuration. The test vehicle shall impact the
barrier specified in Subpart B of Part 587, 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 of the vehicle's width engaging the
barrier face for any of the following conditions: the right edge of the
barrier face is offset to the left of the vehicle's longitudinal
centerline by 10 percent of the vehicle's width +/-20 mm (0.8 inch), or
the left edge of the barrier face is offset to the right of the
vehicle's longitudinal centerline by 10 percent of the vehicle's width
+/-20 mm (0.8 inch). The vehicle width is defined as the maximum
dimension measured across the widest part of the vehicle, excluding
exterior mirrors, flexible mud flaps and marker lamps, but including
bumpers, molding, sheet metal protrusions, and dual wheels, as standard
equipment.
S19 Requirements using 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.
[[Page 49992]]
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 after each of the static tests (using the
12 month old CRABI child dummy in a rear facing infant restraint)
specified in S20.2, activation of the air bag after each of the static
tests (using a 5th percentile adult female dummy) specified in S20.3,
deactivation of the air bag throughout the rough road tests (using a 12
month old child dummy in a rear facing infant restraint) specified in
S20.4, and activation of the air bag throughout the rough road tests
(using a 5th percentile adult female dummy) specified in S20.5.
S19.2.2 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. 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 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 of this standard.
S19.4 Injury criteria (12 month old CRABI dummy).
S19.4.1 The resultant acceleration at the center of gravity of the
head shall be such that the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.003
shall not exceed 660 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.
S19.4.2 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 40 g's, except for intervals whose cumulative duration is
not more than 3 milliseconds.
S19.4.3
[Proposed Alternative One--Neck]
The biomechanical neck injury predictor, Nij, shall not exceed a
value of [the agency is considering values of 1.4 and 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 = 2200 N (495 lbf) for tension
Fzc = 2200 N (495 lbf) for compression
Myc = 85 Nm (63 lbf-ft) for flexion about occipital condyles
Myc = 25 Nm (18 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 [the agency is considering
values of 1.4 and 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.
[Proposed Alternative Two--Neck]
Neck injury criteria. Using the six axis upper neck load cell [a
drawing incorporated by reference in Part 572 would be identified in
the final rule] that is mounted between the bottom of the skull and the
top of the neck as shown in drawing [a drawing incorporated by
reference in Part 572 would be identified in the final rule], the peak
forces and moments measured at the occipital condyles shall not exceed:
Axial Tension = 1150 N (259 lbf)
Axial Compression = 1390 N (312 lbf)
Fore-and-Aft Shear = 1080 N (243 lbf)
Flexion Bending Moment = 39 Nm (29 lbf-ft)
Extension Bending Moment = 12 Nm (9 lbf-ft)
SAE Class 1000 shall be used to filter the axial tension, axial
compression, and fore-and-aft shear. SAE Class 600 shall be used to
filter the measured moment and fore-and-aft shear used to compute the
flexion bending moment and extension bending moment at the occipital
condyles.
S20 Test procedure for S19.
S20.1 General provisions.
S20.1.1 Tests specifying the use of a rear facing child restraint
are conducted using any rear facing child restraint (including
convertible types) which was manufactured for sale in the United States
between two years and ten years prior to the date the model year
carline of which the vehicle is a part was (or will be) first offered
for sale to a consumer. The rear facing child restraint may be unused
or used; if used, there must not be any visible damage prior to the
test.
S20.1.2 Tests are conducted with the engine operating.
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 child restraint, facing rear.
S20.2.1 Place the right front passenger vehicle seat in any
position, i.e., any seat track location, any seat height, any seat back
angle.
S20.2.1.2 Install the Part 572 12-month old CRABI dummy in any
rear facing child restraint in accordance with the manufacturer's
instructions provided with the seat pursuant to Standard No. 213.
S20.2.1.3 Install the rear facing child restraint in the right
front passenger seat of the vehicle in accordance, to the extent
possible, with the child restraint manufacturer's instructions provided
on the seat pursuant to Standard No. 213 and with the instructions in
the vehicle owner's manual. Cinch the vehicle belts to any level to
secure the rear facing child restraint.
S20.2.1.4 Place the rear facing child restraint handle at any
angle.
S20.2.1.5 Place any towel or blanket, with any weight up to 1 kg
(2.2 pounds), on or over the rear facing child restraint in any manner.
S20.2.1.6 Start the vehicle engine and then close all vehicle
doors.
S20.2.1.7 Monitor the telltale light to check whether the air bag
is deactivated, i.e., the light must be illuminated.
[[Page 49993]]
S20.2.2 Test two--unbelted rear facing child restraint.
S20.2.2.1 Place the right front passenger vehicle seat in any
position, i.e., any seat track location, any seat height, any seat back
angle.
S20.2.2.2 Install the Part 572 12-month old CRABI dummy in any
rear facing child restraint in accordance with the manufacturer's
instructions provided with the seat pursuant to Standard No. 213.
S20.2.2.3 Install the rear facing child restraint with the dummy
on the right front passenger seat of the vehicle in any of the
following positions (without using the vehicle's seat belts):
(a) In the same position as that specified in S20.2.1.3 of this
standard,
(b) In the same position as specified in (a) of this section, but
rotated 180 degrees so that the dummy is facing the front of the
vehicle;
(c) In the same position as specified in (a) of this section, but
rotated 90 degrees so that the dummy is facing the driver position and
the side of the child restraint is in contact with the front passenger
seat back;
(d) In the same position as specified in (a) of this section, but
rotated 90 degrees so that the dummy is facing the passenger door and
the side of the child restraint is in contact with the front passenger
seat back;
(e) In a position 127 mm (5 inches) forward of the position
specified in (a) of this section, with the orientation specified in (c)
of this section (if the child restraint is not stable, move it forward
toward the edge of the seat until it can rest in equilibrium);
(f) In the same position specified in (e) of this section, but
rotated 180 degrees so that the dummy is facing the passenger door.
S20.2.2.4 Place the rear facing child restraint handle at any
angle.
S20.2.2.5 Place any towel or blanket, with any weight up to 1 kg
(2.2 pounds), on or over the rear facing child restraint in any manner.
S20.2.2.6 Close all vehicle doors.
S20.2.2.7 Monitor the telltale light to check whether the air bag
is deactivated, i.e., the light must remain illuminated for the entire
time the child seat is positioned as described.
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 in any
position, i.e., any seat track location, any seat height, any seat back
angle.
S20.3.2 Place a Part 572 5th percentile adult female test dummy at
the right front seating position of a vehicle, in accordance with
procedures specified in S16.3 of this standard, to the extent possible
with the seat position that has been selected.
S20.3.3 Monitor the telltale light to check whether the air bag is
activated for the entire time the 5th percentile adult female test
dummy is positioned as described.
S20.4 Rough road tests of automatic suppression feature, during
which the passenger air bag must be deactivated.
S20.4.1 Place the right front passenger vehicle seat in any
position, i.e., any seat track location, any seat height, any seat back
angle.
S20.4.2 Install the Part 572 12-month old CRABI dummy in any rear
facing child restraint.
S20.4.3 Install the rear facing child restraint in the right front
passenger seat of the vehicle in accordance, to the extent possible,
with the child restraint manufacturer's instructions provided with the
seat pursuant to Standard No. 213 and with the instructions in the
vehicle owner's manual. Cinch the vehicle belts to any level to secure
the rear facing child restraint.
S20.4.4 Drive the vehicle at any speed up to 40 km/h (25 mph) for
any distance between 0.2 km (\1/8\ mile) and 0.4 km (\1/4\ mile) over
any of the following types of road surfaces:
(a) Washboard surface. A paved lane which consists of a series of
uniform bumps with a height of 16 mm 5 mm (0.6 inches
0.2 inches) and spaced 100 mm 5 mm (4 inches
0.2 inches) from center to center, perpendicular to the
line of travel across the full width of the lane;
(b) Surface with dips. A paved lane which consists of a series of
uniform mounds with a height of 76 mm 5 mm (3 inches
0.2 inches) and spaced 1650 mm 10 mm (65
inches 0.4 inches) from center to center.
S20.4.5 Monitor the telltale light during the test to check
whether the air bag remains deactivated throughout the test, i.e., the
light must remain illuminated.
S20.5 Rough road tests of automatic suppression feature, during
which the passenger air bag must be activated.
S20.5.1 Place a Part 572 5th percentile adult female test dummy in
the right front passenger position of a vehicle, in accordance with
procedures specified in S16.3 of this standard.
S20.5.2 Drive the vehicle at any speed up to 40 km/h (25 mph) for
any distance between 0.2 km (\1/8\ mile) and 0.4 km (\1/4\ mile) over
any of the road surfaces specified in S20.4.4.
S20.5.3 Monitor the telltale light during the test to check
whether the air bag remains activated throughout the test, i.e., the
light must remain off.
S20.6 Low risk deployment test.
S20.6.1 Place the right front passenger vehicle seat in the full
forward seat track position, the highest seat position (if adjustment
is available), and any seat back angle.
S20.6.2 Install the Part 572 12-month old CRABI dummy in any rear
facing child restraint in accordance with the manufacturer's
instructions provided with the seat pursuant to Standard No. 213.
S20.6.3 Locate and mark the center point of the top of the rear
facing child restraint. This will be referred to as ``Point A''.
S20.6.4 Install the rear facing child restraint in the right front
passenger seat of the vehicle in accordance, to the extent possible,
with the child restraint manufacturer's instructions provided with the
seat pursuant to Standard No. 213 and with the instructions in the
vehicle owner's manual.
S20.6.5 Locate a point on the air bag cover that is the geometric
center of the air bag cover. This will be referred to as ``Point B''.
S20.6.6 Translate the rear facing child restraint system (parallel
to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle) such that Point A on the child
restraint system is lined up with Point B on the air bag cover to form
a vertical plane parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
S20.6.7 Cinch the vehicle belts to any level to secure the rear
facing child restraint.
S20.6.8 Deploy the right front passenger air bag system. If the
air bag contains a multistage inflator, any stage is fired.
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, except that, at the option of the
manufacturer, the vehicle may instead meet the requirements specified
in S29.
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 (using a 3-
year-old child dummy) specified in S22.2, activation of the air bag
after each of the static tests (using a 5th percentile adult female
dummy) specified in S20.3, deactivation of the
[[Page 49994]]
air bag throughout the rough road tests (using a 3-year-old child
dummy) specified in S22.3, and activation of the air bag throughout the
rough road tests (using a 5th percentile adult female dummy) specified
in S20.5.
S21.2.2 The vehicle shall be equipped with a telltale light on the
instrument panel meeting the requirements specified in S19.2.2.
S21.3 Option 2--Automatic suppression feature that suppresses the
air bag when an occupant is out of position.
S21.3.1 The vehicle shall be equipped with an automatic
suppression feature for the passenger air bag which meets the
requirements specified in S27.
S21.3.2 The vehicle shall be equipped with a telltale light on the
instrument panel meeting the requirements specified in S19.2.2.
S21.4 Option 3--Low risk deployment (Hybrid III 3-year-old child
dummy). 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
S22.4.
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 throughout the
test.
S21.5.2 The resultant acceleration at the center of gravity of the
head shall be such that the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.004
shall not exceed 900 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.
[Proposed Alternative One--Chest includes requirements for chest
acceleration (proposed S21.5.3), chest deflection (proposed S21.5.4)
and Combined Thoracic Index (proposed S21.5.5; Proposed Alternative
Two--Chest includes requirements for chest acceleration and chest
deflection]
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 50 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 42 millimeters (1.7 inches).
S21.5.5 Combined Thoracic Index (CTI) shall not exceed 1.0. The
equation for calculating the CTI criterion is given by
CTI = (Amax/Aint) + (Dmax/
Dint)
where Aint and Dint are intercept values defined
as Aint = 70 g's for spine acceleration intercept, and
Dint = 57 mm (2.2 in.) for sternal deflection intercept.
Calculation of CTI requires measurement of upper spine triaxial
acceleration filtered at SAE class 180 and sternal deflection filtered
at SAE class 600. From the measured data, a 3-msec clip maximum value
of the resultant spine acceleration (Amax) and the maximum
chest deflection (Dmax) shall be determined.
S21.5.6
[Proposed Alternative One--Neck]
The biomechanical neck injury predictor, Nij, shall not exceed a
value of [the agency is considering values of 1.4 and 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 = 2500 N (562 lbf) for tension
Fzc = 2500 N (562 lbf) for compression
Myc = 100 Nm (74 lbf-ft) for flexion about occipital condyles
Myc = 30 Nm (22 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 [the agency is considering values
of 1.4 and 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.
[Proposed Alternative Two--Neck]
Neck injury criteria. Using the six axis upper neck load cell [a
drawing incorporated by reference in Part 572 would be identified in
the final rule] that is mounted between the bottom of the skull and the
top of the neck as shown in drawing [a drawing incorporated by
reference in Part 572 would be identified in the final rule], the peak
forces and moments measured at the occipital condyles shall not exceed:
Axial Tension = 1270 N (286 lbf)
Axial Compression = 1540 N (346 lbf)
Fore-and-Aft Shear = 1200 N (270 lbf)
Flexion Bending Moment = 46 Nm (34 lbf-ft)
Extension Bending Moment = 14 Nm (10 lbf-ft)
SAE Class 1000 shall be used to filter the axial tension, axial
compression, and fore-and-aft shear. SAE Class 600 shall be used to
filter the measured moment and fore-and-aft shear used to compute the
flexion bending moment and extension bending moment at the occipital
condyles.
S22 Test procedure for S21.
S22.1 General provisions.
S22.1.1 Tests specifying the use of a forward-facing child seat or
booster seat are conducted using any such seat recommended for a child
weighing 34 pounds which was manufactured for sale in the United States
between two years and ten years prior to the date the model year
carline of which the vehicle is a part was (or will be) first offered
for sale to a consumer. The seat may be unused or used; if used, there
must not be any visible damage.
S22.1.2 Tests are conducted with the engine operating.
S22.2 Static tests of automatic suppression feature which must
result in deactivation of the passenger air bag.
S22.2.1 Test one--child in a forward-facing child seat or booster
seat.
S22.2.1.1 Install any 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 pursuant to Standard No. 213 and with the instructions in the
vehicle owner's manual.
[[Page 49995]]
S22.2.1.2 Position the Part 572 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. The lower arms are placed at the dummy's
side.
S22.2.1.3 Attach all appropriate forward-facing child seat or
booster seat belts, if any, and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2 of
Standard No. 213.
S22.2.1.4 Attach all appropriate vehicle belts and tighten them as
specified in S6.1.2 of Standard No. 213.
S22.2.1.5 Place the right front passenger vehicle seat in any
position, i.e., any seat track location, any seat height, any seat back
angle.
S22.2.1.6 Start the vehicle engine and then close all vehicle
doors.
S22.2.1.7 Monitor telltale light to check whether the air bag is
deactivated.
S22.2.2 Test two--unbelted child.
S22.2.2.1 Place the right front passenger vehicle seat in any
position, i.e., any seat track location, any seat height, any seat back
panel.
S22.2.2.2 Place the Part 572 Hybrid III 3-year old child dummy on
the right front passenger seat, or on the floor in front of the right
front passenger seat, as appropriate, in any of the following positions
(without using a forward-facing child seat 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) The upper torso of the dummy rests against the seat back. In
the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats, the midsagittal plane
of the dummy is vertical 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, the midsagittal plane of the dummy
is vertical and coincides with the longitudinal centerline of the
bucket seat. The dummy's femurs are against the seat cushion.
(3) Allow the lower legs of the dummy to extend off the surface of
the seat. If positioning the dummy's lower legs is prevented by contact
with the instrument panel, rotate the lower leg toward the floor.
(4) Position the dummy's upper arms down until they contact the
seat.
(b) Sitting on seat with back not against seat:
(1) Position the dummy in the seated position and place the dummy
in the right front passenger seat.
(2) In the case of vehicles equipped with bench seats, the
midsagittal plane of the dummy is vertical 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, the
midsagittal plane of the dummy is vertical and coincides with the
longitudinal centerline of the bucket seat. 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) Lower the dummy's upper legs and dummy's femurs against the
seat cushion.
(4) Allow the lower limbs of the dummy to extend off the surface of
the seat.
(5) Rotate the dummy's lower arms until the dummy's hands come to
rest on the seat.
(c) Sitting on seat edge with hands on the instrument panel (This
test is conducted with the seat in any seat track positions that permit
the dummy's hands to be placed on the instrument panel.):
(1) 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 lower 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 lower
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 instrument
panel.
(d) Sitting on seat edge, spine vertical, hands by the dummy's
side:
(1) 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 lower 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 lower
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.
(e) Sitting back in the seat and leaning on the right front
passenger door:
(1) Position the dummy in the seated position and place the dummy
in the right front passenger seat.
(2) 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 upper
legs resting on the seat cushion.
(3) Allow the lower legs of the dummy to extend off the surface of
the seat. If positioning the dummy's lower legs is prevented by contact
with the instrument panel, rotate the lower leg toward the floor.
(4) Position the dummy's upper arms against the seat back by
rotating the dummy's upper arms toward the seat back until they make
contact.
(5) Rotate the dummy's lower arms down until they contact the seat.
(6) Lean the dummy against the outboard door.
(f) Standing on seat, facing forward:
(1) Position the dummy in the standing position. The arms are at
any position.
(2) Center 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.
(g) Standing on seat, facing rearward:
(1) Position the dummy in the standing position. The arms are at
any position.
(2) Center the dummy on the right front passenger seat cushion
facing the rear of the vehicle while placing the toes of the dummy feet
in contact with the seat back.
(3) Rest the dummy against the seat back.
(h) Kneeling on seat, facing forward:
(1) Place the dummy in a kneeling position by rotating the dummy's
lower legs 90 degrees behind the dummy (from the standing position).
(2) Place 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 toes are in contact with the seat back. The arms are at any
position.
(i) Kneeling on seat, facing rearward:
(1) Place the dummy in a kneeling position by rotating the dummy's
lower legs 90 degrees behind the dummy (from the standing position).
[[Page 49996]]
(2) Place 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 are at any
position.
(j) Standing on floor (This test is only conducted with the seat in
its rearmost track position.):
(1) Position the dummy in the standing position.
(2) Place the dummy standing on the floor in front of the right
front passenger seat, facing forward and with the dummy's midsaggital
plane parallel to the longitudinal plane through the centerline of the
vehicle and including the geometric center of the air bag cover, in any
position from the one where the dummy contacts the instrument panel
rearwards to the one where the dummy contacts the seat. The arms are at
any position.
(k) Lying on seat (This test is only conducted with the seat in the
position specified.):
(1) Lay the dummy on the right front passenger seat such that the
following criteria are met:
(A) The mid-sagittal plane of the dummy is horizontal,
(B) The dummy's spine is perpendicular to the vehicle longitudinal
axis,
(C) Upper arms are parallel to dummy spine,
(D) 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),
(E) The anterior of the dummy is facing the vehicle front, and
(F) Leg position is not set and can be articulated to fit above
conditions.
(2) Adjustable seats are in the adjustment position midway between
the forwardmost and rearmost positions, and if separately adjustable in
a vertical direction, are at the lowest position. If an adjustment
position does not exist midway between the forwardmost and rearmost
positions, the closest adjustment position to the rear of the midpoint
is used.
(3) Position the dummy so that the top of dummy head is within 10
mm of the vehicle side door structure.
(4) Rotate upper legs toward chest of dummy and rotate lower legs
against the upper legs.
(5) Place dummy upper left arm parallel with the vehicle transverse
plane and the lower arm 90 deg. to the upper arm. Rotate lower arm down
about the elbow joint until movement is obstructed. Final position
should resemble a fetal position.
(l) Low risk deployment test position 1. The procedure for
determining this position is set forth in S22.4.2.
(m) Low risk deployment test position 2. The procedure for
determining this position is set forth in S22.4.3.
(n) 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'' to defined as the vertical plane which passes
through Point B and is parallel to the vehicle longitudinal axis.
(5) Move the passenger seat to the full rearward seating position.
(6) Place the dummy in the front passenger seat such that:
(A) Point A is located in Plane 2.
(B) A vertical plane through the shoulder joints of the dummy is at
90 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
(C) The lower legs are positioned 90 deg. (right angle) from
horizontal.
(D) The dummy is positioned forward in the seat such the lower legs
rest against the front of the seat and such that the dummy's upper
spine plate is 0 deg. forward (toward front of vehicle) of the vertical
position.
(7) Rotate 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 head C.G. is in Plane 1, or spine angle
at the upper spine plate is 45 deg., whichever produces the greatest
rotation.
(8) Move seat forward until contact with the forward structure of
the vehicle, or seat is full forward, whichever occurs first.
(9) To keep 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 dummy.
(o) Kneeling on the floor.
(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''.
(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) Determine the height of this point above the floorboard of the
vehicle. This height defines a horizontal plane that passes through
Point B. This will be referred to as ``Plane 1''.
(4) A second plane, ``Plane 2'', to be defined as a vertical plane
which passes through Point B.
(5) Move the passenger seat to the full rearward seating position.
(6) Remove the dummy lower legs at the knee joint.
(7) Center the dummy laterally so that Point A is coincident with
Plane 2 and the upper spine plate is in a vertical position.
(8) With the use of spacers (wooden or foam blocks, etc.) position
the dummy in a seated position with the H-point located 165 mm
10 mm (6.5 inches 0.4 inches) above the floor
of the vehicle. Maintain the upper spine plate orientation.
(9) Position the upper leg 90 deg. to the spine.
(10) Move the dummy forward until contact is made with the forward
structure of the vehicle. If necessary, the upper torso can be tethered
with a thread with a maximum breaking strength of 311 N (70 pounds).
Care should be taken that any such tether is not situated anywhere
within the deployment envelope of the air bag.
(11) Position the arms parallel to the spine/torso of the dummy.
(p) Sitting on seat edge, head contacting the lower-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 longitudinal axis.
(5) Move the passenger seat to the full rearward seating position.
(6) Place the dummy in the front passenger seat such that:
(A) Point A is located in Plane 2.
(B) A vertical plane through the shoulder joints of the dummy is at
90 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
(C) The lower legs are positioned 90 deg. (right angle) from
horizontal.
(D) The dummy is positioned forward in the seat such that the lower
legs rest
[[Page 49997]]
against the front of the seat and such that the dummy's upper spine
plate is 0 degrees 2 degrees forward (toward front of
vehicle) of the vertical position.
(7) Rotate 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 head C.G. is in Plane 1, or spine angle
at the upper spine plate is 75 degrees 2 degrees, whichever
produces the greatest rotation.
(8) Move seat forward until contact with the forward structure of
the vehicle, or seat is full forward, whichever occurs first.
(9) To keep 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 dummy.
S22.2.2.3 Close all vehicle doors.
S22.2.2.4 Monitor the telltale light to check whether the air bag
is deactivated, i.e., the light must be illuminated.
S22.3 Rough road tests of automatic suppression feature, during
which the passenger air bag must be deactivated.
S22.3.1 Following completion of any of the tests specified in
S22.2, and without changing the position of the vehicle seat or the
dummy, drive or move the vehicle at any speed up to 40 km/h (25 mph)
for any distance over any of the types of road surfaces specified in
S20.4.4. (The vehicle may be moved by any external source to protect
the driver from a dummy that could fall over.)
S22.3.2 Monitor the telltale light during the test to check
whether the air bag remains deactivated throughout the test, i.e., the
light must remain illuminated.
S22.4 Low risk deployment test (Hybrid III 3-year-old child
dummy).
S22.4.1 Position the dummy according to any of the following
positions: Position 1 (S22.4.2) or Position 2 (S22.4.3).
S22.4.2 Position 1.
S22.4.2.1 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.''
S22.4.2.2 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.''
S22.4.2.3 Locate the horizontal plane that passes through Point B.
This will be referred to as ``Plane 1.''
S22.4.2.4 Locate the vertical plane parallel to the vehicle
longitudinal axis and passing through Point B. This will be referred to
as ``Plane 2.''
S22.4.2.5 Move the passenger seat to the full rearward track
seating position. Place the seat back in the nominal upright position
as specified by the vehicle manufacturer.
S22.4.2.6 Place the dummy in the front passenger seat such that:
S22.4.2.6.1 Point A is located in Plane 2.
S22.4.2.6.2 A vertical plane through the dummy shoulder joints is
at 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
S22.4.2.6.3 The lower legs are positioned 90 degrees to the upper
legs.
S22.4.2.6.4 The dummy is positioned forward in the seat such that
the dummy's upper spine plate is 0 degrees 2 degrees
forward (toward front of vehicle) of the vertical position, and the
lower legs rest against the front of the seat.
S22.4.2.7 Move the dummy forward until the upper torso or head of
the dummy makes contact with the forward structure of the vehicle.
S22.4.2.8 Once contact is made, as outlined in paragraph
S22.4.2.7, the dummy is then raised 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.
S22.4.2.9 Position the upper arm parallel to the spine and rotate
the lower arm forward (at the elbow joint) sufficiently to prevent
contact with or support from the seat.
S22.4.2.10 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.
S22.4.2.11 Support the dummy so that there is minimum interference
with the full rotational and translational freedom for the upper torso
of the dummy.
S22.4.2.11.1 The stature of the 3 year old child dummy is such
that an upright standing posture is often possible. If additional
height is required, the dummy is raised with the use of spacers (foam
blocks, etc.) placed on the floor of the vehicle.
S22.4.2.11.2 If necessary, the upper torso is tethered with a
thread with a maximum breaking strength of 311 N (70 pounds). Care
should be taken that any such tether is not situated in the air bag
deployment envelope.
S22.4.2.12 In calculation of the injury criteria as specified in
paragraph S21.5, data are truncated prior to dummy interaction with
vehicle components after the dummy's head is clear of the air bag.
S22.4.3 Position 2.
S22.4.3.1 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.''
S22.4.3.2 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.'' 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.''
S22.4.3.3 Move the passenger seat to the full rearward seating
position.
S22.4.3.4 Place the dummy in the front passenger seat such that:
S22.4.3.4.1 Point A is located in Plane 2.
S22.4.3.4.2 A vertical plane through the shoulder joints of the
dummy is at 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
S22.4.3.4.3 The lower legs are positioned 90 degrees (right angle)
from horizontal.
S22.4.3.4.4 The dummy is positioned forward in the seat such that
the lower legs rest against the front of the seat and such that the
dummy's upper spine plate is 0 degrees 2 degrees forward
(toward front of vehicle) of the vertical position. Note: For some
seats, it may not be possible to fully seat the dummy with the lower
legs in the prescribed position. In this situation, rotate the lower
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
0 degrees 2 degrees forward (toward the front of vehicle)
of the vertical position.
S22.4.3.5 Move the seat forward, while maintaining the upper spine
plate orientation until some portion of the dummy contacts the forward
structure of the vehicle.
S22.4.3.5.1 If contact has not been made with the forward
structure of the vehicle 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.
S22.4.3.5.2 Once contact is made, rotate the dummy forward until
the head and/or upper torso are in contact with the instrument panel of
the vehicle. Rotation is achieved by applying a force towards the front
of the vehicle on the spine of the dummy between the shoulder joints.
S22.4.3.5.3 The upper legs are rotated downward and the lower legs
and feet are rotated rearward (toward the rear of vehicle) so as not to
impede the rotation of the head/torso into the forward structures of
the vehicle.
[[Page 49998]]
S22.4.3.5.4 The legs are repositioned so that the feet rest flat
on (or parallel to) the floorboard with the ankle joint positioned as
nearly as possible to the midsaggital plane of the dummy.
S22.4.3.5.5 If necessary, the upper torso is tethered with a
thread with a maximum breaking strength of 311 N (70 pounds) and/or
wedge under the dummy's pelvis. Care should be taken that any such
tether is not situated anywhere within the deployment envelope of the
air bag. Note: If contact with the dash cannot be made by sliding the
dummy forward in the seat, then place the dummy in the forward-most
position on the seat which will allow the head/upper torso to rest
against the instrument panel of the vehicle.
S22.4.3.6 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.
S22.4.3.7 In calculation of the injury criteria as specified in
paragraph S21.5, data are truncated prior to dummy interaction with
vehicle components after the dummy's head is clear of the air bag.
S22.4.4 Deploy the right front passenger air bag system. If the
air bag contains a multistage inflator, any stage is fired that may
deploy in crashes below 32 km/h (20 mph) [the agency is also
considering a range of speeds above and below this value], under the
test procedure specified in S22.5.
S22.4.5 Determine whether the injury criteria specified in S21.5
of this standard are met.
S22.5 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(s) that fire in any of the following
tests are subject to the low risk deployment test requirement.
S22.5.1 Rigid barrier test. Impact the vehicle traveling
longitudinally forward at any speed, up to and including 32 km/h (20
mph) [the agency is also considering a range of speeds above and below
this value], into a fixed collision barrier that is perpendicular to
the line of travel of the vehicle, or at any angle up to 30 degrees
from the perpendicular to the line of travel of the vehicle under the
applicable conditions of S8 of this standard.
S22.5.2 Offset frontal deformable barrier test. Impact the vehicle
traveling longitudinally forward at any speed, up to and including 32
km/h (20 mph) [the agency is also considering a range of speeds above
and below this value], into a fixed offset deformable barrier under the
conditions specified in S18.2 of this standard.
S22.5.3 Pole test. Impact the vehicle traveling longitudinally
forward at any speed, up to and including 32 km/h (20 mph) [the agency
is also considering a range of speeds above and below this value], into
a fixed cylindrical pole with a diameter of 255 15 mm (10
0.6 inches), under the applicable conditions of S8 of this
standard. The vehicle impact point is at any point on the front of the
vehicle that is within the middle 80 percent of the width of the
vehicle.
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, except that, at the option of the
manufacturer, the vehicle may instead meet the requirements specified
in S27 or S29.
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 as part of each of the static tests
specified in S24.2, activation of the air bag after each of the static
tests (using a 5th percentile adult female dummy) specified in S20.3,
deactivation of the air bag throughout the rough road tests (using a 6-
year-old child dummy) specified in S24.3, and activation of the air bag
throughout the rough road tests (using a 5th percentile adult female
dummy) specified in S20.5.
S23.2.2 The vehicle shall be equipped with a telltale light on the
instrument panel meeting the requirements specified in S19.2.2.
S23.3 Option 2--Automatic suppression feature that suppresses the
air bag when an occupant is out of position.
S23.3.1 The vehicle shall be equipped with an automatic
suppression feature for the passenger air bag which meets the
requirements specified in S27.
S23.3.2 The vehicle shall be equipped with a telltale light on the
instrument panel meeting the requirements specified in S19.2.2.
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 of this standard.
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 throughout the
test.
S23.5.2 The resultant acceleration at the center of gravity of the
head shall be such that the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.005
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.
[Proposed Alternative One--Chest includes requirements for chest
acceleration (proposed S23.5.3), chest deflection (proposed S23.5.4)
and Combined Thoracic Index (proposed S23.5.5; Proposed Alternative
Two--Chest includes requirements for chest acceleration and chest
deflection]
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 47 mm (1.9 inches).
S23.5.5 Combined Thoracic Index (CTI) shall not exceed 1.0. The
equation for calculating the CTI criterion is given by
CTI=(Amax/Aint) + (Dmax/
Dint)
where Aint and Dint are intercept values defined
as Aint = 85 g's for spine acceleration intercept, and
Dint = 63 mm (2.5 in.) for sternal deflection intercept.
Calculation of CTI requires measurement of upper spine triaxial
acceleration filtered at SAE class 180 and sternal deflection filtered
at SAE class 600. From the measured data, a 3-msec clip maximum value
of the resultant spine acceleration (Amax) and the maximum
chest deflection (Dmax) shall be determined.
S23.5.6
[Proposed Alternative One--Neck]
The biomechanical neck injury predictor, Nij, shall not exceed a
value of [the agency is considering values of 1.4 and 1.0] at any point
in time. The
[[Page 49999]]
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=2900 N (652 lbf) for tension
Fzc=2900 N (652 lbf) for compression
Myc=125 Nm (92 lbf-ft) for flexion about occipital condyles
Myc=40 Nm (30 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 [the agency is considering values
of 1.4 and 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.
[Proposed Alternative Two--Neck]
Neck injury criteria. Using the six axis upper neck load cell [a
drawing incorporated by reference in Part 572 would be identified in
the final rule] that is mounted between the bottom of the skull and the
top of the neck as shown in drawing [a drawing incorporated by
reference in Part 572 would be identified in the final rule], the peak
forces and moments measured at the occipital condyles shall not exceed:
Axial Tension = 1490 N (335 lbf)
Axial Compression = 1800 N (405 lbf)
Fore-and-Aft Shear = 1400 N (315 lbf)
Flexion Bending Moment = 57 Nm ( 42 lbf-ft)
Extension Bending Moment = 17 Nm (13 lbf-ft)
SAE Class 1000 shall be used to filter the axial tension, axial
compression, and fore-and-aft shear. SAE Class 600 shall be used to
filter the measured moment and fore-and-aft shear used to compute the
flexion bending moment and extension bending moment at the occipital
condyles.
S24 Test procedure for S23.
S24.2 Static tests of automatic suppression feature which must
result in deactivation of the passenger air bag.
S24.2.1 Except as provided in S24.2.2, all tests specified in S22
using the 3-year-old Hybrid III child dummy are conducted using the 6-
year old Hybrid III child dummy. However, for tests specifying the use
of a forward-facing child seat or booster seat any such seat
recommended for a child weighing 52 pounds is used instead of a seat
recommended for a child weighing 34 pounds.
S24.2.2 Exceptions.
S24.2.2.1 The tests specified in the following paragraphs of S22
are not conducted using the 6-year-old Hybrid III child dummy:
S22.2.2.2(f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l) and (m).
S24.2.2.2 The test specified in S22.2.2.2(o) is conducted using
the 6-year-old Hybrid III child dummy. However, in positioning the 6-
year-old child dummy, the following procedures are used in place of
those specified in S22.2.2.2(o)(7) and (8):
(1) Center the dummy laterally so that Point A is coincident with
Plane 2 and the upper spine plate is 6 degrees 2 degrees
forward of the vertical position.
(2) With the use of spacers (wooden blocks, etc.) position the
dummy in a seated position with the H-point located 230 mm (9 inches)
15 mm (0.6 inches) above the floor of the vehicle.
Maintain the upper spine plate orientation.
S24.3 Road tests of automatic suppression feature, during which
the passenger air bag must be deactivated. All tests specified in S22
using the 3-year-old Hybrid III child dummy are conducted using the 6-
year old Hybrid III child dummy.
S24.4 Low risk deployment test (Hybrid III 6-year old child
dummy).
S24.4.1 Position the dummy according to any of the following
positions: Position 1 (S24.4.2) or Position 2 (S24.4.3).
S24.4.2 Position 1.
S24.4.2.1 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.''
S24.4.2.2 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.''
S24.4.2.3 Locate the horizontal plane that passes through Point B.
This will be referred to as ``Plane 1.''
S24.4.2.4 Locate the vertical plane parallel to the vehicle
longitudinal axis and passing through Point B. This will be referred to
as ``Plane 2.''
S24.4.2.5 Move the passenger seat to the full rearward track
seating position. Place the seat back in the nominal upright position
as specified by the vehicle manufacturer.
S24.4.2.6 Place the dummy in the front passenger seat such that:
S24.4.2.6.1 Point A is located in Plane 2.
S24.4.2.6.2 A vertical plane through the dummy shoulder joints is
at 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
S24.4.2.6.3 The lower legs are positioned 90 degrees
2 degrees to the upper legs.
S24.4.2.6.4 The dummy is positioned forward in the seat such that
the dummy's upper spine plate is 6 degrees 2 degrees
forward (toward front of vehicle) of the vertical position, and the
lower legs rest against the front of the seat or the feet are resting
flat on the floorboard of the vehicle.
S24.4.2.6.5 Mark this position, and remove the legs at the pelvic
interface.
S24.4.2.7 Move the dummy forward until the upper torso or head of
the dummy makes contact with the forward structure of the vehicle.
S24.4.2.8 Once contact is made, as outlined in paragraph
S24.4.2.7, the dummy is then raised 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 windshield is attained.
S24.4.2.9 Position the upper arms parallel to the spine and rotate
the lower arm forward (at the elbow joint) sufficiently to prevent
contact with or support from the seat.
S24.4.2.10 Support the dummy so that there is minimum interference
with the full rotational and translational freedom for the upper torso
of the dummy.
S24.4.2.10.1 If necessary, the upper torso is tethered with a
thread with a maximum breaking strength of 311 N (70 pounds). Care
should be taken that any such tether is not situated in air bag
deployment envelope.
S24.4.2.11 In calculation of the injury criteria as specified in
paragraph S23.5, data are truncated prior to dummy interaction with
vehicle components after the dummy's head is clear of the air bag.
S24.4.3 Position 2.
S24.4.3.1 Locate and mark the center point of the dummy's chest/
rib plate
[[Page 50000]]
(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.''
S24.4.3.2 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.'' 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.''
S24.4.3.3 Move the passenger seat to the full rearward seating
position.
S24.4.3.4 Place the dummy in the front passenger seat such that:
S24.4.3.4.1 Point A is located in Plane 2.
S24.4.3.4.2 A vertical plane through the shoulder joints of the
dummy is at 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
S24.4.3.4.3 The lower legs are positioned 90 degrees (right angle)
from horizontal.
S24.4.3.4.4 The dummy is positioned forward in the seat such that
the lower legs rest against the front of the seat and such that the
dummy's upper spine plate is 6 degrees 2 degrees forward
(toward front of vehicle) of the vertical position. Note: For some
seats, it may not be possible to fully seat the dummy with the lower
legs in the prescribed position. In this situation, rotate the lower
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 2 degrees forward (toward front of vehicle) of
the vertical position.
S24.4.3.5 Move the seat forward, while maintaining the upper spine
plate orientation until some portion of the dummy contacts the forward
structure of the vehicle.
S24.4.3.5.1 If contact has not been made with the forward
structure of the vehicle 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.
S24.4.3.5.2 Once contact is made, rotate the dummy forward until
the head and/or upper torso are in contact with the dashboard of the
vehicle. Rotation is achieved by applying a force towards the front of
the vehicle on the spine of the dummy between the shoulder joints.
S24.4.3.5.3 The lower legs and feet are rotated rearward (toward
rear of vehicle) so as not to impede the rotation of the head/torso
into the forward structures of the vehicle.
S24.4.3.5.4 The legs are repositioned so that the feet rest flat
on (or parallel to) the floorboard with the ankle joint positioned as
nearly as possible to the midsaggital plane of the dummy.
S24.4.3.5.5 If necessary, the upper torso is tethered with a
thread with a maximum breaking strength of 311 N (70 pounds) and/or
wedge under the dummy's pelvis. Care should be taken that any such
tether is not situated anywhere within the deployment envelope of the
air bag. Note: If contact with the dash cannot be made by sliding the
dummy forward in the seat, then place the dummy in the forward-most
position on the seat which will allow the head/upper torso to rest
against the dashboard of the vehicle.
S24.4.3.6 Position the upper arms parallel to the torso and rotate
the lower arm forward sufficiently to prevent contact with or support
from the seat.
S24.4.3.7 In calculation of the injury criteria as specified in
paragraph S23.5 of this standard, data are truncated prior to dummy
interaction with vehicle components after the dummy's head is clear of
the air bag.
S24.4.4 Deploy the right front passenger air bag system. If the
air bag contains a multistage inflator, any stage is fired that may
deploy in crashes below 32 km/h (20 mph) [the agency is also
considering a range of speeds above and below this value], under the
test procedure specified in S22.5 of this standard.
S24.4.5 Determine whether the injury criteria specified in S23.5
of this standard are met.
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, under
the test procedures specified in S26 of this standard, except that, at
the option of the manufacturer, the vehicle may instead meet the
requirements specified in S29 of this standard.
S25.2 Option 1--Automatic suppression feature. Each vehicle shall
meet the requirements specified in S25.2.1 through S25.2.3.
S25.2.1 The vehicle shall be equipped with an automatic
suppression feature for the driver air bag which results in
deactivation of the air bag after each of the static tests (using a 5th
percentile adult female dummy) specified in S26.2 and activation of the
air bag after each of the static tests specified in S26.3 of this
standard.
S25.2.2 The vehicle shall be equipped with an automatic
suppression feature for the driver air bag which meets the requirements
specified in S27 of this standard.
S25.2.3 The vehicle shall be equipped with a telltale light on the
instrument panel which is illuminated whenever the driver air bag is
deactivated and not illuminated whenever the driver air bag is
activated. The telltale:
(a) Shall be clearly visible from all front seating positions;
(b) Shall be yellow;
(c) Shall have the identifying words ``DRIVER AIR BAG OFF'' on the
telltale or within 25 mm (1 inch) of the telltale; and
(d) Shall not be combined with the readiness indicator required by
S4.5.2 of this standard.
S25.3 Option 2--Low risk deployment. Each vehicle shall meet the
injury criteria specified in S15.3 of this standard when the passenger
air bag is statically deployed in accordance with the procedures
specified in S26 of this standard.
S26 Test procedure for S25 of this standard.
S26.1 General provisions. Tests are conducted with the engine
operating.
S26.2 Static tests of automatic suppression feature which must
result in deactivation of the driver air bag.
S26.2.1 Place the 5th percentile adult female dummy in the driver
seating position. Position the dummy, the seat, and the steering wheel
according to any of the following specifications:
(a) The specifications set forth in S26.4 for Driver Position 1;
(b) The specifications set forth in S26.4 for Driver Position 2.
S26.2.2 Close all vehicle doors.
S26.2.3 Monitor telltale light to check whether the air bag is
deactivated, i.e., the light must be illuminated.
S26.3 Static tests of automatic suppression feature which must
result in activation of the driver air bag.
S26.3.1 Test one--5th percentile adult female dummy.
S26.3.1.1 Place the driver seat in any position, i.e., any seat
track location, any seat height, any seat back angle.
S26.3.1.2 Place a Part 572 5th percentile adult female test dummy
at the driver seating position of a vehicle in any of the following
positions (if the dummy's hands cannot reach the steering wheel for a
particular seat location, the arms and hands are positioned alongside
the side of dummy):
(a) In accordance with procedures specified in S16.3 of this
standard, to the extent possible with the seat position that has been
selected;
(b) In the same position as specified in S26.3.1.2(a) of this
standard, except that the right arm is gripped to the steering wheel at
any position;
[[Page 50001]]
(c) In the same position as specified in S26.3.1.2(a) of this
standard, except that the left arm is gripped to the steering wheel at
any position;
(d) In the same position as specified in S26.3.1.2(a) of this
standard, except that the right and left arms are gripped to the
steering wheel at any position.
S26.3.1.3 Close all vehicle doors.
S26.3.1.4 Monitor the telltale light to check whether the air bag
is activated, i.e., the light must be off.
S26.3.2 Test two--50th percentile adult male dummy.
S26.3.2.1 Place the driver seat in any position, i.e., any seat
track location, any seat height, any seat back angle.
S26.3.2.2 Place a Part 572 Hybrid III 50th percentile adult male
test dummy at the driver seating position of a vehicle in any of the
following positions (if the dummy's hands cannot reach the steering
wheel for a particular seat location, the arms and hands are positioned
alongside the side of dummy):
(a) In accordance with procedures specified in S10 of this
standard, to the extent possible with the seat position that has been
selected;
(b) In the same position as specified in S26.3.2.2(a) of this
standard, except that the right arm is gripped to the steering wheel at
any position;
(c) In the same position as specified in S26.3.2.2(a) of this
standard, except that the left arm is gripped to the steering wheel at
any position;
(d) In the same position as specified in S26.3.2.2(a) of this
standard, except that the right and left arms are gripped to the
steering wheel at any position.
S26.3.2.3 Close all vehicle doors.
S26.3.2.4 Monitor the telltale light to check whether the air bag
is activated, i.e., the light must be off.
S26.4 Low risk deployment test.
S26.4.1 Position the dummy according to any of the following
positions: Driver position 1 (S26.4.2) or Driver position 2 (S26.4.3).
S26.4.2 Driver position 1.
26.4.2.1 Adjust 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.
S26.4.2.2 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.''
S26.4.2.3 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.''
S26.4.2.4 Locate the horizontal plane that passes through Point B.
This will be referred to as ``Plane 1.''
S26.4.2.5 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.''
S26.4.2.6 Place the dummy in the front driver seat so that:
(a) Point A is located in Plane 2.
(b) Seat position is adjusted during placement to obtain the
correct dummy orientation.
S26.4.2.7 The dummy is rotated forward until the dummy's upper
spine plate angle is 6 degrees 2 degrees forward (toward
the front of the vehicle) of the steering wheel angle.
S26.4.2.8 The height of the dummy is then adjusted so that the
bottom of the chin is in the same horizontal plane as the top of the
module cover (dummy height can be adjusted using the seat position and/
or spacer blocks). If seat height prevents the bottom of chin from
being in the same horizontal plane as the module cover, the dummy
height is adjusted as close to the prescribed position as possible.
S26.4.2.9 Move dummy forward maintaining upper spine plate angle
and dummy height until head or torso contact the steering wheel.
S26.4.2.10 If necessary, a thread with a maximum breaking strength
of 311 N (70 pounds) is used to hold the dummy against the steering
wheel. The thread is positioned so as to eliminate or minimize any
contact with the deploying air bag.
S26.4.2.11 In calculation of the injury criteria as specified in
paragraph S15.3, data are truncated prior to dummy interaction with
vehicle components after the dummy's head is clear of the air bag.
S26.4.3 Driver Position 2.
S26.4.3.1 The driver's seat track is not specified and may be
positioned to best facilitate the positioning of the dummy.
S26.4.3.2 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.''
S26.4.3.3 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.''
S26.4.3.4 Locate the horizontal plane that passes through Point B.
This will be referred to as ``Plane 1.''
S26.4.3.5 Locate the vertical plane perpendicular to Plane 1 which
passes through Point B. This will be referred to as ``Plane 2.''
S26.4.3.6 Place the dummy in the front driver seat so that:
(a) Point A is located in Plane 2.
(b) Seat position is adjusted during placement to obtain the
correct dummy orientation.
S26.4.3.7 The dummy is rotated forward until the dummy's upper
spine plate is 6 degrees 2 degrees forward (toward the
front of the vehicle) of the steering wheel angle.
S26.4.3.8 The dummy is positioned so that the center of the chin
is in contact with the uppermost portion of the rim of the steering
wheel. The chin is not hooked over the top of the rim of the steering
wheel. It is positioned to rest on the upper edge of the rim, without
loading the neck. If the dummy head interferes with the vehicle upper
interior before the prescribed position can be obtained, the dummy
height is adjusted as close to the prescribed position as possible,
while maintaining a 10 2 mm clearance with the vehicle
upper interior.
S26.4.3.9 To raise the height of the dummy to attain the required
positioning, spacer blocks (foam, etc.) are 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. The thread is positioned so as to eliminate or minimize
any contact with the deploying air bag.
S26.4.3.10 In calculation of the injury criteria as specified in
paragraph S15.3 of this standard, data are truncated prior to dummy
interaction with vehicle components after the dummy's head is clear of
the air bag.
S26.4.4 Deploy the driver air bag. If the air bag contains a
multistage inflator, any stage is fired that may deploy in crashes
below 32 km/h (20 mph) [the agency is also considering a range of
speeds above and below this value], under the test procedure specified
in S22.5 of this standard.
S26.4.5 Determine whether the injury criteria specified in S15.3
of this standard are met.
S27 Option for automatic suppression feature that suppresses the
air bag when an occupant is out-of-position.
S27.1 Each vehicle shall, at each front outboard designated
seating position, when tested under the conditions of S28 of this
standard, comply with the requirements specified in S27.2.1(a) and
S27.2.2(a) of this standard at the target locations specified in S28.3
of this standard when tested using the out of position occupant
simulator described in S28.2 of this standard at any speed up to and
[[Page 50002]]
including 11 km/h (7 mph). Each vehicle shall, in addition, meet the
requirements specified in S27.1.1(b) and S27.2.2(b) of this standard
using the specified test dummies. If a manufacturer selects this
option, it shall select the passenger side automatic suppression plane
(S28.7.1 of this standard) and the driver side automatic suppression
plane (S28.7.2 of this standard) by the time of certification of the
vehicle and may not thereafter select different planes.
S27.2 Performance Criterion.
S27.2.1 Passenger Side.
(a) The air bag disabling device shall deactivate the passenger
side air bag and illuminate a telltale within 10 ms after any portion
of the out of position occupant simulator passes through the vertical
plane specified in S28.7.1 of this standard.
(b) The injury criteria specified in S21.5 of this standard shall
be met when the passenger side air bag is deployed toward the Hybrid
III 3-year-old child dummy when that test device is located in any
position where all portions of the head, neck and torso of the dummy
are tangent to or behind the air bag suppression plane. If the air bag
contains a multistage inflator, any stage is fired.
S27.2.2 Driver Side.
(a) The air bag disabling device shall deactivate the driver side
air bag and illuminate a telltale within 10 ms after any portion of the
out of position occupant simulator passes through the plane specified
in S28.7.2 of this standard.
(b) The injury criteria specified in S15.3 of this standard shall
be met when the driver side air bag is deployed toward the Hybrid III
5th percentile adult female dummy when that test device is located in
any position where all portions of the head, neck and torso of the
dummy are tangent to or behind the air bag suppression plane. If the
air bag contains a multistage inflator, any stage is fired.
S28 Test procedure for S27 of this standard.
S28.1 Target location and test conditions. The vehicle shall be
tested and the target areas specified in S28.3 of this standard located
under the following conditions.
S28.1.1 Vehicle test attitude.
(a) The vehicle is supported off its suspension at an attitude
determined in accordance with S28.1.1(b).
(b) Directly above each wheel opening, determine the vertical
distance between a level surface and a standard reference point on the
test vehicle's body under the conditions of S28.1.1(b)(1) through
S28.1.1(b)(2).
(1) The vehicle is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight.
(2) All tires are inflated to the manufacturer's specifications
listed on the vehicle's tire placard.
S28.1.2 Windows and Sunroofs.
(a) Movable vehicle windows, including sunroofs, are placed in the
fully open position.
(b) Any window rearward of the B-pillar and any window on the
opposite side of the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle from the
target area may be removed.
S28.1.3 Convertible tops. The top, if any, of convertibles and
open-body type vehicles is in the closed passenger compartment
configuration.
S28.1.4 Doors.
(a) The front side door on the same side of the longitudinal
centerline of the vehicle as the target area is fully closed and
latched but not locked.
(b) The front side door on the opposite side of the longitudinal
centerline of the vehicle from the target area, and any door rearward
of the B-pillar, including rear hatchbacks or tailgates, may be open or
removed.
S28.1.5 Steering wheel and seats.
(a) The steering wheel may be placed in any position intended for
use while the vehicle is in motion.
(b) The seats may be removed from the vehicle unless removal will
impair operation of the air bag disabling system.
S28.2 Out-of-Position Occupant Simulator. The out of position
occupant simulator used for testing is a hemisphere, with a diameter of
165 mm (6.5 inches) 5 mm (0.2 inch).
S28.3 Occupant Simulator Aiming Zone. The occupant simulator
aiming zone is determined according to the following procedure. (See
Figures 8 and 9.)
S28.3.1 Passenger Side.
(a) Locate the geometric center of the passenger side air bag
cover. Identify this point as Point P.
(b) Locate the line that connects Point P and CG-F (for the front
outboard passenger position) as described in S28.4(a). Identify this
line as Line P.
(c) Locate a circle with a diameter of 500 mm 5 mm (20
inches 0.2 inch) centered on Line P on the plane described
in S28.7.1 of this standard. Identify this circle as Circle T.
(d) Locate a transverse horizontal plane (Plane 1) 100 mm
5 mm (4 inches 0.2 inch) below the transverse
horizontal plane tangent to the lower edge of the air bag cover.
(e) The area of the vehicle to be targeted by the out of position
occupant simulator is that area of Circle T within the vehicle above
the intersection of Plane 1 and the plane described in S28.7.1 of this
standard.
S28.3.2 Driver Side.
(a) Locate the geometric center of the driver side air bag cover.
Identify this point as Point D.
(b) Locate the line that connects Point D and CG-F (for the driver
position) as described in S28.4(a) of this standard. Identify this line
as Line D.
(c) Locate a circle with a diameter of 500 mm 5 mm (20
inches 0.2 inch) centered on Line D on the plane described
in S28.7.2 of this standard. Identify this circle as Circle U.
(d) Locate a transverse horizontal plane (Plane 2) tangent to the
lower edge of the air bag cover.
(e) The area of the vehicle to be targeted by the out of position
occupant simulator is that area of Circle U within the vehicle above
the intersection of Plane 2 and the plane described in S28.7.2 of this
standard.
S28.4 Location of head center of gravity for front outboard
designated seating positions (CG-F). For determination of head center
of gravity, all directions are in reference to the seat orientation.
(a) Location of CG-F. For front outboard designated seating
positions, the head center of gravity with the seat in its rearmost
adjustment position (CG-F2) is located 160 mm 5 mm (6.3
inches 0.2 inch) rearward and 660 mm 15 mm
(26 inches 0.6 inch) upward from the seating reference
point.
S28.5 Test configuration.
(a) Passenger Side. The out of position occupant simulator is
guided along a velocity vector originating at any point within the
vehicle to any point within the target area specified in S28.3.1(e) of
this standard, and passing through the plane described in S28.7.1 of
this standard.
(b) Driver Side. The out of position occupant simulator is guided
along a velocity vector originating at any point within the vehicle to
any point within the target area specified in S28.3.2(e) of this
standard, and passing through the plane described in S28.7.2 of this
standard.
S28.6 Multiple tests.
A vehicle being tested may be tested multiple times.
S28.7 Automatic suppression plane.
S28.7.1 Passenger Side. The automatic suppression plane of a
vehicle is the transverse vertical plane passing through the rearmost
point at which the Hybrid III three year old child dummy test device
may approach the passenger side air bag when it deploys while meeting
the injury criteria specified in S21.5 of this standard. If the
[[Page 50003]]
air bag contains a multistage inflator, any stage is fired.
S28.7.2 Driver Side. The automatic suppression plane of a vehicle
is located as follows:
(a) Locate the plane A tangent to the rear face of the steering
wheel rim.
(b) Locate the plane B parallel to plane A and passing through the
geometric center of the air bag cover.
(c) The automatic suppression plane is a plane parallel to plane B
and passing through the point nearest to plane B where any portion of a
5th percentile adult female dummy may be located in the event of air
bag deployment and meet the injury criteria specified in S15.3 of this
standard. If the air bag contains a multistage inflator, any stage is
fired.
S29 Dynamic out-of-position test option. At the option of the
vehicle manufacturer, a pre-impact deceleration test as specified in
S30, may be used in place of the tests specified in S21, S23, and S25
of this section. Each vehicle shall, at each front outboard designated
seating position, meet the injury criteria specified in S15.3, S21.5,
and S23.5, and the vehicle integrity criteria specified in S14.3, in
accordance with the test procedures specified in S30 of this standard.
S30 Test procedure for pre-crash deceleration impact test.
S30.1 General Provisions. The vehicle is impacted into a rigid
barrier, perpendicular to the barrier face as follows. Place a Part 572
5th percentile adult female test dummy at the driver seating position
and any of the following test dummies at the right front designated
seating position: a Hybrid III 3-year-old child dummy or a Hybrid III
6-year old child dummy. The manual safety belts are not to be fastened
in any position. Accelerate the vehicle to a velocity of 32 km/h (20
mph) [the agency is also considering a range of speeds above and below
this value] and then decelerate the vehicle such that the vehicle
achieves a barrier impact speed of 24 km 2 km (15 mph
1 mph) [the agency is also considering a range of speeds
above and below this value] at impact. The deceleration is initiated
2.1 meters 200 mm (7 ft 0.66 ft) from the
impact barrier.
S30.2 Test Conditions.
S30.2.1 Pre-crash Deceleration Impact Conditions. Impact a vehicle
traveling longitudinally and decelerating to a speed of 24 km/h
2 km/h (15 mph 1 mph) [the agency is also
considering a range of values above and below this value], into a fixed
collision barrier that is perpendicular to the line of travel of the
vehicle.
S30.2.2 Loading. The vehicle, including the test devices and
instrumentation, is loaded as specified in S16.2 of this standard.
S30.2.3 Dummy Seating and positioning. The 5th percentile adult
female dummy is seated and positioned as specified in S16.3 of this
standard, except that prior to seating the dummy, two pieces of low
friction material, i.e., a silk or acetate cloth material having a 75
denier warp and a 150 denier filling, and a 225 count with a 68 pick,
having linear dimensions no less than 60 cm (23.6 inches) by 60 cm
(23.6 inches), are placed on the seat. If the Hybrid III 3-year-old
child dummy is used at the right front designated seating position, it
is seated and positioned as specified in S30.2.3.1 of this standard. If
the Hybrid III 6-year-old child dummy is used at the right front
designated seating position, it is seated and positioned as specified
in S30.2.3.2 of this standard.
S30.2.3.1 Seating procedure for Hybrid III 3-year-old child dummy.
S30.2.3.1.1 The passenger side automatic suppression plane of a
vehicle is that specified in S28.7.1.
S30.2.3.1.2 Place two pieces of low friction material, i.e., a
silk or acetate cloth material having a 75 denier warp and a 150 denier
filling, and a 225 count with a 68 pick, having linear dimensions no
less than 60 cm (23.6 inches) by 60 cm (23.6 inches), on the seat.
S30.2.3.1.3 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''.
S30.2.3.1.4 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''. 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''.
S30.2.3.1.5 Move the passenger seat to the full rearward seating
position.
S30.2.3.1.6 Place the Hybrid III 3-year-old child dummy in the
front passenger seat, on the low friction fabric sheets, such that:
(a) Point A is to be located in Plane 2.
(b) A vertical plane through the shoulder joints of the dummy shall
be at 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
(c) The lower legs are positioned 90 degrees 2 degrees
(right angle) from horizontal.
(d) The dummy is positioned forward in the seat such the lower legs
rest against the front of the seat and such that the dummy's upper
spine plate is 0 degrees 2 degrees forward (toward front
of vehicle) of the vertical position. Note: For some seats, it may not
be possible to fully seat the dummy with the lower legs in the
prescribed position. In this situation, rotate the lower 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 0 degrees
2 degrees forward (toward front of vehicle) of the
vertical position.
S30.2.3.1.7 Move the seat forward, while maintaining the upper
spine plate orientation until the seat is in the full forward seating
position or any part of the head or torso of the dummy intersects a
plane parallel to the Automatic Suppression Plane, located 300 mm
15 mm (12 inches 0.6 inch) rearward of the
Automatic Suppression Plane, whichever occurs first.
S30.2.3.1.8 The legs should be repositioned so that the feet rest
flat on (or parallel to) the floorboard with the ankle joint positioned
as nearly as possible to the medial plane of the dummy.
S30.2.3.1.9 If necessary, the upper torso can be tethered with a
thread with a maximum breaking strength of 311 N (70 pounds) and/or
wedge under dummy's pelvis. Care should be taken that any such tether
is not situated anywhere within the deployment envelope of the air bag.
S30.2.3.1.10 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.
S30.2.3.1.11 Sufficient slack should be maintained in the
instrumentation wiring harness so that the dummy motion is not
restricted by the harness.
S30.2.3.2 Seating procedure for Hybrid III 6-year-old child dummy.
S30.2.3.2.1 The passenger side automatic suppression plane of a
vehicle is that specified in S28.7.1.
S30.2.3.2.2 Place two pieces of low friction material, i.e., a
silk or acetate cloth material having a 75 denier warp and a 150 denier
filling, and a 225 count with a 68 pick, having linear dimensions no
less than 60 cm (23.6 inches) by 60 cm (23.6 inches), on the seat.
S30.2.3.2.3 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''.
S30.2.3.2.4 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
[[Page 50004]]
B''. 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''.
S30.2.3.2.5 Move the passenger seat to the full rearward seating
position.
S30.2.3.2.6 Place the dummy in the front passenger seat, on the
low friction fabric sheets, such that:
(a) Point A is to be located in Plane 2.
(b) A vertical plane through the shoulder joints of the dummy shall
be at 90 degrees 2 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the
vehicle.
(c) The lower legs are positioned 90 degrees 2 degrees
(right angle) from horizontal.
(d) The dummy is positioned forward in the seat such the lower legs
rest against the front of the seat and such that the dummy's upper
spine plate is 6 degrees 2 degrees forward (toward front
of vehicle) of the vertical position. Note: For some seats, it may not
be possible to fully seat the dummy with the lower legs in the
prescribed position. In this situation, rotate the lower 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
2 degrees forward (toward front of vehicle) of the
vertical position.
S30.2.3.2.7 Move the seat forward, while maintaining the upper
spine plate orientation until the seat is in the full forward seating
position or any part of the head or torso of the dummy intersects a
plane parallel to the Automatic Suppression Plane, located 300 mm
15 mm (12 inches 0.6 inch) rearward of the
Automatic Suppression Plane, whichever occurs first.
S30.2.3.2.8 The legs should be repositioned so that the feet rest
flat on (or parallel to) the floorboard with the ankle joint positioned
as nearly as possible to the midsagittal plane of the dummy.
S30.2.3.2.9 If necessary, the upper torso can be tethered with a
thread with a maximum breaking strength of 311 N (70 pounds) and/or
wedge under dummy's pelvis. Care should be taken that any such tether
is not situated anywhere within the deployment envelope of the air bag.
S30.2.3.2.10 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.
S30.2.3.2.11 Sufficient slack should be maintained in the
instrumentation wiring harness so that the dummy motion is not
restricted by the harness.
S30.2.4 Impact configuration. The vehicle is accelerated to a
speed of 32 km/h 2 km/h (20 mph 1.3 mph) [the
agency is also considering a range of values above and below this
value]. Pre-crash deceleration is initiated such that the vehicle
impacts the barrier perpendicular to the barrier face at a velocity of
24 km/h 2 km/h (15 mph, 1 mph) [the agency is
also considering a range of values above and below this value]. The
deceleration is initiated 2.1 meters 200 mm (7 ft
0.66 ft) [the agency is also considering a range of values
above and below this value] from the impact barrier. Vehicle
deceleration is 0.8 0.3 g's [the agency is also
considering a range of values above and below this value] prior to
barrier contact.
3. Figures 8 and 9 would be added immediately following Figure 7 to
read as follows:
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 50005]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.006
[[Page 50006]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.007
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
[[Page 50007]]
4. 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 Response to inquiries.
585.6 Reporting requirements.
585.7 Records.
585.8 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.
This purpose of these reporting requirements is to aid the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration in determining whether a
manufacturer 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 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
section 571.3 of this chapter.
(c) Production year means the 12-month period between September 1
of one year and August 31 of the following year, inclusive.
Sec. 585.5 Response to inquiries.
During the production years ending August 31, 2003, August 31,
2004, and August 31, 2005, each manufacturer shall, upon request from
the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, provide information regarding
which vehicle make/models are certified as complying with the
requirements of S14 of Standard No. 208.
Sec. 585.6 Reporting requirements.
(a) Phase-in selection reporting requirement. Within 60 days after
the end of the production year ending August 31, 2003, each
manufacturer choosing to comply with one of the phase-in schedules
permitted by S14.1 of 49 CFR Sec. 571.208 shall submit a report to the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration stating which phase-in
schedule it will comply with until September 1, 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 paragraph for the phase-in schedule selected;
(4) Be written in the English language; and
(5) Be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.
(b) General 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 year. 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) 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;
(5) Provide the information specified in Sec. 585.6(c);
(6) Be written in the English language; and
(7) Be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.
(c) Report content--(1) Basis for phase-in production goals. Each
manufacturer shall provide the number 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 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 (8500 pounds)
or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5500 pounds) or
less for sale in the United States must report the number of such
vehicles manufactured during the current production year. However,
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 (8500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg
(5500 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.
Sec. 585.7 Records.
Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the Vehicle
Identification Number for each passenger car, multipurpose passenger
vehicle, truck
[[Page 50008]]
and bus for which information is reported under Sec. 585.6(c)(2) until
December 31, 2006.
Sec. 585.8 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. 585.6(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 587--DEFORMABLE BARRIERS
5. The authority citation for part 587 would be revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
6. The heading of part 587 would be revised to read as set forth
above.
7. The heading ``Subpart A--General'' would be inserted immediately
before section 587.1.
8. Section 587.1 would be revised to read as follows:
Sec. 587.1 Scope.
This part describes deformable impact barriers that are to be used
for testing compliance of motor vehicles with motor vehicle safety
standards.
9. Section 587.3 would be revised to read as follows:
Sec. 587.3 Application.
This part does not in itself impose duties or liabilities on any
person. It is a description of tools that measure the performance of
occupant protection systems required by the safety standards that
incorporated it. It is designed to be referenced by, and become part
of, the test procedures specified in motor vehicle safety standards
such as Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No.
214, Side Impact Protection.
Subpart B--[Amended]
10. The heading ``Subpart B--Side Impact Moving Deformable
Barrier'' would be inserted immediately after the end of section 587.3.
Secs. 587.7 through 587.10 [Reserved]
11. Sections 587.7 through 587.10 would be reserved.
Subpart C--[Amended]
12. The heading ``Subpart C--Offset Deformable Barrier'' would be
inserted immediately after the end of section 587.10.
Sec. 587.11 [Reserved]
13. Section 587.11 would be reserved.
14. Sections 587.12 through 587.17 would be added to read as
follows:
Sec. 587.12 General description.
The fixed offset deformable barrier is comprised of two elements: A
fixed collision barrier and a deformable face (Figure 1). The base unit
is a fixed barrier and must be adequate to not deflect or displace
during the vehicle impact. The deformable face is 200 mm (7.8 inches)
15 mm (0.6 inch) off the ground, and consists of two
separate layers of aluminum honeycomb and an aluminum covering.
Sec. 587.13 Component And Material Specifications.
The dimensions of the barrier are illustrated in Figure 1 of this
part. The dimensions of the individual components of the barrier are
listed separately below. All dimensions allow a tolerance of
2.5 mm (0.1 inch) unless otherwise specified.
(a) Main honeycomb block.
(1) Dimensions. The main section of the deformable face of the
fixed barrier has the following dimensions. The height is 650 mm (25.6
inches) (in direction of honeycomb ribbon axis), the width is 1,000 mm
(39.4 inches), and the depth is 450 mm (17.7 inches) (in direction of
honeycomb cell axes).
(2) Material. The main section of the deformable face of the fixed
barrier is constructed of the following material. The honeycomb is
manufactured out of aluminum, 3003 (ISO 209, part 1), with a foil
thickness of 0.076 mm (0.003 inches) 1 mm (0.040 inch)
0.004 mm (0.002 inch), an aluminum honeycomb cell size of
19.14 mm (0.75 inches), a density of 28.6 kg/m\3\ (1.78 lb/ft
3) 2kg/m\3\ (0.25 1b/ft \3\) and a crush
strength of 0.342 MPa (49.6 psi) + 0%-10%, in accordance with the
certification procedure described in section 587.14.
(b) Bumper element.
(1) Dimensions. The bumper element of the deformable face of the
fixed barrier has the following dimensions. The height is 330 mm (13
inches)(in direction of honeycomb ribbon axis), the width is 1,000 mm
(39.4 inches), and the depth is 90 mm (3.5 inches)(in direction of
honeycomb cell axes).
(2) Material. The bumper element of the deformable face of the
fixed barrier is constructed of the following material. The honeycomb
is manufactured out of aluminum 3003 (ISO 209, part 1), foil thickness
of 0.076 mm(0.003 inch) 0.004 mm (0.0002 inch), cell size
of 6.4 mm (0.25 inch) 1 mm (0.040 inch), density of 82.6
kg/m\3\ (5.15 lb/ft \3\) 3 kg/m\3\ (0.19 lb/ft \3\), and
crush strength of 1.711 MPa (248 psi) + 0%-10%, in accordance with the
certification procedure described in section 587.14.
(c) Backing sheet.
(1) Dimensions. The deformable barrier backing sheet has the
following dimensions. The height is 800 mm (31.5 inches), the width is
1,000 mm (39.4 inches) inch), and the thickness is 2.0 mm (0.078 inch)
0.1 mm (0.004 inch).
(2) Material. The deformable barrier backing sheet is manufactured
out of Aluminum 5251/5052.
(d) Cladding sheet.
(1) Dimensions. The cladding sheet of the main section of the
deformable face of the fixed barrier has the following dimensions. The
length is 1,700 mm (66.9 inches), the width is 1,000 mm (39.4 inches),
and the thickness is 0.81 mm (0.03 inch) 0.07 mm (0.003
inch).
(2) Material. The cladding sheet of the main section of the
deformable face of the fixed barrier is manufactured out of Aluminum
5251/5052.
(e) Bumper facing sheet.
(1) Dimensions. The bumper facing sheet has the following
dimensions. The height is 330 mm(13 inches), the width is 1,000 mm(39.4
inches), and the thickness is 0.81 mm (0.03 inch) 0.07 mm
(0.003 inch)
(2) Material. The bumper facing sheet is manufactured out of
aluminum 5251/5052.
(f) Adhesive. The adhesive to be used throughout should be a two-
part polyurethane.
Sec. 587.14 Aluminum honeycomb certification.
The following procedure is applied to materials for the frontal
impact barrier, these materials having a crush strength of 0.342 MPa
(49.6 psi) and 1.711 MPa (248 psi). (See Figure 1.)
(a) Sample locations. To ensure uniformity of crush strength across
the whole of the barrier face, 8 samples are taken from 4 locations
evenly spaced across the honeycomb block. For a block to pass
certification, 7 of these 8 samples must meet the crush strength
requirements of the following sections. Any part of the block may then
be used for a barrier. The location of the samples depends on the size
of the honeycomb block. First, four samples, each measuring 300 mm
(11.8 inches) x 300 mm (11.8 inches) x 50 mm (1.97 inches)thick are
cut from the block of barrier face material. (See Figure 2 for how to
locate these samples on a typical
[[Page 50009]]
honeycomb block.) Each of these larger samples are cut into samples for
certification testing (150 mm (5.9 inches) x 150 mm (5.9 inches) x
50 mm (1.97 inches)). Certification is based on the testing of two
samples from each of the four locations.
(b) Sample size. Samples of the following size are used for
testing. The length is 150 mm(5.9 inches) 6 mm (0.24
inch), the width is 150 mm (5.9 inches) 6 mm (0.24 inch),
and the thickness is 50 mm (1.97 inches) 2 mm (0.078
inch). The walls of incomplete cells around the edge of the sample are
trimmed as follows (See Figure 3). In the width ``W'' direction, the
fringes must be no greater than 1.8 mm (0.07 inch); in the length
(``L'') direction, half the length of one bonded cell wall (in the
ribbon direction) must be left at either end of the specimen.
(c) Area measurement. The length of the sample is measured in three
locations, 12.7 mm (0.5 inch) from each end and in the middle, and
recorded as L1, L2, and L3 (Figure 3). In the same manner, the width is
measured and recorded as W1, W2 and W3 (Figure 3). These measurements
are taken on the centerline of the thickness. The crush area is then
calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.008
(d) Crush rate and distance. The sample is crushed at a rate of not
less than 5.1 mm/min (0.2 in/min) and not more than 7.6 mm/min (0.29
in/min). The minimum crush distance is 16.5 mm(0.65 inch). Force versus
deflection data are to be collected in either analogue or digital form
for each sample tested. If analogue data are collected then a means of
converting this to digital must be available. All digital data must be
collected at a rate consistent with SAE J211, 1995.
(e) Crush strength determination. Ignore all data prior to 6.4 mm
(0.25 inch) of crush and after 16.5 mm (0.65 inch) of crush. Divide the
remaining data into three sections or displacement intervals (n =
1,2,3) (see Figure 4) as follows. Interval one should be at 6.4-9.7 mm
(0.25-0.38 inch) deflection, inclusive. Interval two should be at 9.7-
13.2 mm (0.38-0.52 inch) deflection, exclusive. Interval three is 13.2-
16.5 mm (0.52-0.65 inch) deflection, inclusive. Find the average for
each section as follows: where m represents the number of data points
measured in each of the three intervals. Calculate the crush strength
of each section as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.009
where m represents the number of data points measured in each of the
three intervals. Calculate the crush strength of each section as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.010
(f) Sample crush strength specification. For a honeycomb sample to
pass this certification, the following condition must be met. For the
0.342 MPa (49.6 psi) material, the strength be equal or greater than
0.308 MPa (45 psi) but less than or equal to 0.342 MPa (49.6 psi) for
all three compression intervals. For the 1.711 MPa (248 psi) material
the strength must be equal to or greater than 1.540 MPa (223 psi) but
less than or equal to 1.711 MPa (248 psi) for each of the compression
intervals.
(g) Block crush strength specification. Eight samples are to be
tested, from four locations, evenly spaced across the block. For a
block to pass certification, 7 of the 8 samples must meet the crush
strength specification of the previous section. Any part of the block
may then be used for a barrier.
(h)(1) The testing hardware must have a capacity of applying 13.3
kN (3,000 lb) over a stroke of at least 16.5 mm (0.65 inches), at a
constant and known rate. The crush plates must be parallel (within
0.127 mm (0.005 inch)), be at least 165 mm x 165 mm (6.5 inch x 6.5
inch) in size, have a surface roughness approximately equivalent to 60
grit sandpaper, and be marked to ensure centering of the applied load
on the sample.
(2) The hardware used for certifying aluminum honeycomb must be
capable of applying sufficient load (13.3 kN (3,000 lb)), over at least
a 16.5 mm (0.65 inch) stroke. The crush rate must be constant and
known. To ensure that the load is applied to the entire sample, the top
and bottom crush plates must be no smaller than 165 mm by 165 mm (6.5
inch x 6.5 inch). The engaging surfaces of the crush plates must also
have a roughness approximately equivalent to 60 grit sandpaper. The
bottom crush plate should be marked to ensure that the applied load is
centered on the sample.
(3) The crush plate assemblies must have an average angular
rigidity (about axes normal to the direction of crush) of at least 1017
Nm/deg (750 ft-lb/deg), over the range of 0 to 203 N m (0 to 150 ft-lb)
applied torque.
Sec. 587.15 Adhesive Bonding Procedure.
Immediately before bonding, aluminum sheet surfaces to be bonded
must be thoroughly cleaned using a suitable solvent, such as 1-1-1
Trichloroethane. This is to be carried out at least twice or as
required to eliminate grease or dirt deposits. The cleaned surfaces
must then be abraded using 120 grit abrasive paper. Metallic/silicon
carbide abrasive paper is not to be used. The surfaces must be
thoroughly abraded and the abrasive paper changed regularly during the
process to avoid clogging, which may lead to a polishing effect.
Following abrading, the surfaces must be thoroughly cleaned again, as
above. In total, the surfaces must be solvent cleaned at least four
times. All dust and deposits left as a result of the abrading process
must be removed, as these will adversely affect bonding. The adhesive
should be applied to one surface only, using a ribbed rubber roller. In
cases where honeycomb is to be bonded to aluminum sheet, the adhesive
should be applied to the aluminum sheet only. A maximum of 0.5 kg/m\2\
(11.9 lb/ft\2\) be applied evenly over the surface, giving a maximum
film thickness of 0.5 mm (0.02 inch).
Sec. 587.16 Construction.
(a) The main honeycomb block is bonded to the backing sheet with
adhesive such that the cell axes are perpendicular to the sheet. The
cladding is bonded to the front surface of the honeycomb block. The top
and bottom surfaces of the cladding sheet must not be bonded to the
main honeycomb block but should be positioned closely to it. The
cladding sheet must be adhesively bonded to the backing sheet at the
mounting flanges. The bumper element must be adhesively bonded to the
front of the cladding sheet such that the cell axes are perpendicular
to the sheet. The bottom of the bumper element must be flush with the
bottom surface of the cladding sheet. The bumper facing sheet must be
adhesively bonded to the front of the bumper element.
(b) The bumper element must then be divided into three equal
sections by means of two horizontal slots. These slots must be cut
through the entire depth of the bumper section and extend the whole
width of the bumper. The slots must be cut using a saw; their width
must be the width of the blade used and must not exceed 4.0 mm (0.16
inch).
(c) Clearance holes for mounting the barrier are to be drilled in
the mounting flanges (shown in Figure 2.) The holes must be 20 mm (0.79
inch) in diameter. Five holes must be drilled in the top flange at a
distance of 40 mm (1.57 inches) from the top edge of the flange and
five holes in the bottom flange, 40
[[Page 50010]]
mm (1.6 inches) from the bottom edge of that flange. The holes must be
spaced 100 mm, 300 mm (11.8 inches), 500 mm (19.7 inches), 700 mm (27.5
inches), 900 mm (35.4 inches) horizontally, from either edge of the
barrier. All holes must be drilled to 1 mm (0.04 inch) of
the nominal distances.
Sec. 587.17 Mounting.
(a) The deformable barrier must be rigidly fixed to the edge of a
mass of not less than 7 x 104 kg (154,324 lbs) or to some
structure attached thereto. The attachment of the barrier face must be
such that the vehicle must not contact any part of the structure more
than 75 mm (2.9 inches) from the top surface of the barrier (excluding
the upper flange) during any stage of the impact. (A mass, the end of
which is between 925 mm (36.4 inches) and 1000 mm (39.4 inches) high
and at least 1000 mm (39.4 inches) deep, is considered to satisfy this
requirement.) The front face of the surface to which the deformable
barrier is attached must be flat and continuous over the height and
width of the face and must be vertical 1 degree and
perpendicular 1 degree to the axis of the run-up track.
The attachment surface must not be displaced more than 10 mm (0.4 inch)
during the test. If necessary, additional anchorage or arresting
devices must be used to prevent displacement of the barrier. The edge
of the deformable barrier must be aligned with the edge of the ridged
barrier appropriate for the side of the vehicle to be tested.
(b) The deformable barrier must be fixed to the fixed barrier by
means of ten bolts, five in the top mounting flange and five in the
bottom. These bolts must be at least 8 mm (0.3 inch) in diameter. Steel
clamping strips must be used for both the top and bottom mounting
flanges (figures 1 and 2). These strips must be 60 mm (2.4 inches) high
and 1000 mm (39.4 inches) wide and have thickness of at least 3 mm
(0.12 inch). Five clearance holes of 20 mm (0.8 inch) diameter must be
drilled in both strips to correspond with those in the mounting flange
on the barrier (see section 587.16(c)). None of the fixtures must fail
in the impact test.
15. Figures 1 through 5 would be added to Part 587.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 50011]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.011
[[Page 50012]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.012
[[Page 50013]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.013
[[Page 50014]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.014
[[Page 50015]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18SE98.015
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
[[Page 50016]]
PART 595--RETROFIT ON-OFF SWITCHES FOR AIR BAGS
16. 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.
17. Section 595.5 would be amended by revising paragraph (a) and
adding paragraph (b)(6) 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 (6) of this section:
(b) * * *
(6) The vehicle was not certified to meet the advanced air bag
requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, i.e.,
the requirements specified in S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 of 49
CFR 571.208.
Issued: September 1, 1998.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
Appendix--Response to Petitions
Note: The following appendix will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.
NHTSA has received a number of petitions and recommendations
which address air bag performance requirements. These include
petitions for rulemaking concerning the adverse effects of air bags,
recommendations from NTSB, and petitions for reconsideration of
several regulatory actions addressing this problem on an interim
basis.
In this appendix, NHTSA discusses and responds to those
outstanding petitions and recommendations which address air bag
performance requirements. In some cases, the agency presents its
initial response to a petition; in other cases, the agency discusses
how today's proposal for advanced air bags provides a further
response to petitions for rulemaking which have already been
granted. NHTSA notes that it will respond in other notices to any
outstanding petitions addressing other types of air bag-related
issues, e.g., consumer information requirements and retrofit on-off
switches.
A. Petitions Requesting That New Test Requirements Be Added to Standard
No. 208
1. August 1996 Petition From AAMA
As part of AAMA's August 1996 petition requesting that an
unbelted sled test be allowed as an alternative to the existing
unbelted barrier crash test to facilitate quick depowering of air
bags, that organization also petitioned the agency to propose driver
and passenger out-of-position occupant test requirements, based on
the latest ISO test practices, as a way of testing the injury
potential of air bags for those occupants. AAMA recommended that the
agency use the Hybrid III 5th percentile adult female dummy at the
driver position and an appropriate child dummy at the passenger
position. AAMA stated that additional work was needed to more fully
develop the ISO protocol to a level appropriate for an amendment to
Standard No. 208.
Today's proposal for advanced air bags includes out-of-position
occupant requirements based on the ISO test procedures, using the
Hybrid III 5th percentile adult female dummy and several child
dummies. This notice is therefore in further response to AAMA's
petition.
2. September 1996 Petition From Anita Glass Lindsey
On September 1, 1996, Anita Glass Lindsey submitted a petition
to amend Standard No. 208 to specify use of a 5th percentile adult
female test dummy in testing vehicles for compliance with the
standard's air bag requirements. NHTSA granted the petition in the
preamble its NPRM concerning depowering. 62 FR 807, 827; January 6,
1997. The agency stated that it contemplated initiating a new
rulemaking proceeding to propose the adoption of a 5th percentile
adult female dummy and to specify injury criteria and limits,
including neck injury criteria and limits, suitable for that dummy.
Today's proposal for advanced air bags proposes the adoption of
the Hybrid III 5th percentile adult female dummy and related test
requirements and injury criteria. The notice is therefore in further
response to Ms. Lindsey's petition.
3. September 1996 NTSB Safety Recommendations
On September 17, 1996, the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) issued a number of safety recommendations to NHTSA for
reducing the problem of child fatalities caused by air bags. These
recommendations are as follows:
1. Immediately evaluate passenger air bags based on all
available sources, including NHTSA's recent crash testing, and then
publicize the findings and modify performance and testing
requirements, as appropriate, based on the findings of the
evaluation.
2. Immediately revise Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208,
Occupant Crash Protection, to establish performance requirements for
passenger air bags based on testing procedures that reflect actual
accident environments, including pre-impact braking, out-of-position
child occupants (belted and unbelted), properly positioned belted
child occupants, and with the seat track in the forward-most
position.
3. Evaluate the effect of higher deployment thresholds for
passenger air bags in combination with the recommended changes in
air bag performance certification testing, and then modify the
deployment thresholds based on the findings of the evaluation.
4. Establish a timetable to implement intelligent air bag
technology that will moderate or prevent the air bag from deployment
if full deployment would pose an injury hazard to a belted or
unbelted occupant in the right front seating position, such as a
child who is seated too close to the instrument panel, a child who
moves forward because of pre-impact braking, or a child who is
restrained in a rear-facing child restraint system.
5. Determine the feasibility of applying technical solutions to
vehicles not covered by NHTSA's proposed rulemaking of August 1,
1996, to prevent air bag-induced injuries to children in the
passenger position.
Today's proposal for advanced air bags is responsive to these
recommendations.
4. November 1996 Petitions From Public Citizen and the Center for
Auto Safety
On November 8, 1996, the Center for Auto Safety (CFAS)
petitioned the agency to amend Standard No. 208 to specify that a
vehicle's air bags must not deploy in a crash if the vehicle's
change of velocity is less than 12 mph. CFAS noted that many of the
crashes resulting in air bag fatalities, especially those of
children, involved very low changes in vehicle velocity.
On November 20, 1996, CFAS and Public Citizen petitioned the
agency to begin rulemaking to require dual inflation air bags. In
low-speed crashes, these bags would inflate more slowly, and thus
less aggressively, than then-current air bags. In higher-speed
crashes, they would inflate at the same rate as then-current air
bags. The petitioners asserted that their proposal is the best
solution in the near future and is superior to depowering, since
depowering involves ``some trade-off in safety protection and will
not add significant protection for unrestrained children.''
NHTSA considered and discussed these petitions during its
depowering rulemaking. The agency believes that higher deployment
thresholds and dual or multiple level inflators are among the
available alternatives for reducing adverse effects of air bags.
However, NHTSA is not proposing to require either alternative
because it believes such a requirement would be unnecessarily
design-restrictive, given the other available alternatives.
Moreover, the agency believes that neither a requirement for
higher deployment thresholds alone nor a requirement for dual or
multiple level inflators would be a sufficient longer term approach
for the agency to adopt. NHTSA is concerned that a requirement for
higher deployment thresholds would discourage the use of multiple
level inflators, which the agency believes offer greater potential
benefits. A requirement for multiple level inflators would be
inadequate because it would not measure injury risk, e.g., the
possibility that even the lower inflation level might cause
fatalities to out-of-position occupants.
5. February 1997 Petition From Parents for Safer Air Bags
On February 28, 1997, Parents for Safer Air Bags petitioned
NHTSA to (1) investigate the effect of temperature on air bag
inflation and (2) incorporate performance requirements in Standard
No. 208 that require compliance with the standard at -40 deg. C
(-40 deg. F) and at 82 deg. C (180 deg. F).
[[Page 50017]]
That organization stated that it had been advised by engineering
experts that temperature can materially affect air bag pressure. It
supplied a graph showing how inflator performance typically varies
by temperature in a tank test. It expressed concern that an occupant
in Minnesota in the winter may ``bottom out'' as a result of
excessive depowering while an occupant in Arizona in the summer may
be struck with excessive bag punch even with depowering.
The Parents' Coalition stated that it had been advised that the
most effective test protocol to insure proper air bag performance in
variant climatic conditions is a static deployment with pendulum
loading that simulates occupant acceleration and tests for bottom
out and rebound. The petitioner stated that the air bag inflator and
module should be cooled to -40 deg. F. (and heated to 180 deg. F.)
and then tested at those temperatures.
NHTSA agrees that temperature will have an effect on any gas.
Since air bag inflation is dependent on gas, temperature may have an
effect on inflation characteristics. Therefore, the agency agrees
that the vehicle manufacturers need to take account of temperature
issues as they design their air bags. The agency notes, however,
that few if any people would operate their vehicles at the extreme
temperatures cited by the petitioner. Moreover, to the extent that
an inflator was at an extreme temperature at the beginning of a
trip, the temperature would likely move close to the occupant
compartment's operating temperature after a few minutes.
The agency believes that the relevant issues to consider in
responding to the Parents' Coalition petition are whether this is an
issue which needs to be addressed by Federal regulation and, if so,
what type of regulation. NHTSA has tentatively concluded that there
is not a demonstrated need to include temperature requirements in
Standard No. 208, but it is requesting comments on this issue.
NHTSA notes that, in issuing today's proposal for advanced air
bags, the agency has tentatively concluded that a substantial number
of additional performance requirements need to be added to Standard
No. 208 to ensure that the vehicle manufacturers design their air
bags to provide appropriate protection under a wider variety of
circumstances. However, in the context of a statutory scheme
requiring the agency to issue performance requirements (as opposed
to one requiring design requirements or government approval), it is
neither appropriate nor possible for the agency to 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.
Based on an examination of available data, NHTSA is not aware of
a need to add temperature requirements to Standard No. 208. The
agency has evaluated its Special Crash Investigations of air bag
fatalities and serious injuries, and has been unable to find any
relationship between temperature and air-bag-induced injuries.
NHTSA also believes that it would be relatively difficult to
develop temperature requirements that would be appropriate for
Standard No. 208. The agency does not believe that a pendulum test,
by itself, would be desirable because it would not measure injury
criteria.
However, the agency believes that manufacturers can, and should,
consider temperature performance as they design their air bags. They
are in a position to know how significant temperature variation is
to the performance of a particular air bag design, and can conduct
the kinds of testing that are suited to each such design.
As indicated above, while the agency has tentatively concluded
that there is not a need to include temperature requirements in
Standard No. 208, it is requesting comments on this issue. The
agency is particularly interested in receiving comments from air bag
manufacturers and vehicle manufacturers concerning what testing and
other steps they have taken to ensure that air bag performance is
appropriate under varying temperature conditions, the steps they
have taken in the context of depowering their air bags (e.g., how
they may have addressed the possibility that depowered air bags
might be more likely to ``bottom out'' in cold temperatures), and
how they plan to address the issue in the context of advanced air
bag designs.
6. April 1998 Petition From CFAS, Consumer Federation of America,
Parents for Safer Air Bags, and Public Citizen
On April 20, 1998, CFAS, Consumer Federation of America, Parents
for Safer Air Bags, and Public Citizen submitted a joint petition
requesting that the agency upgrade Standard No. 208 to include
testing of the ``family of dummies'' in (1) barrier tests up to and
including 30 mph (belted and unbelted), (2) moderate speed off-set
deformable barrier tests (belted and unbelted), and (3) static tests
with out-of-position dummies. The petitioners stated that this
comprehensive set of tests would ensure that air bag systems are
safe and effective in ``real world'' crash conditions, not just in
the ``single crash scenario'' in the present standard.
The petitioners argued that the present requirements in Standard
No. 208 are under-inclusive, since they require testing only of the
properly positioned, average-sized adult male dummy in a 30 mph
collision. They stated that the standard omits testing of child
sized dummies, small women dummies, out-of-position dummies, and
dummies of any size and position in low-speed collisions. The
petitioners also stated that the standard omits off-set crashes into
a deformable barrier--tests that reveal the ability of the crash
sensor to promptly detect the crash event and deploy the bag before
the occupant has had time to move dangerously close to the air bag.
According to the petitioners, these gaps in Standard No. 208
have allowed air bag systems to enter the market that have caused
severe and fatal injuries to child passengers and small women
drivers in minor collisions. The petitioners believe that the
solution is the upgrading of Standard No. 208's air bag performance
requirements, as summarized earlier in this section.
The petitioners also emphasized that they believe the unbelted
30 mph barrier test should be reinstated. Noting that some
automobile manufacturers are urging permanent elimination of that
test in favor of the current sled test option, the petitioners
stated that the agency should reject this recommendation due to the
serious inadequacies of the sled test. Among other things, the
petitioners stated that the sled test (1) uses a ``fictitious'' 125
millisecond crash pulse that fails to account for the fact that some
vehicles have a much faster crash pulse; (2) does not allow
observation of how the vehicle crushes; (3) does not allow
observation of the occupant's interaction with the vehicle structure
in an actual crash (the so-called occupant ``kinematics''); and (4)
fails to test the effectiveness of the vehicle's crash sensors.
NHTSA notes that it received this petition as it was nearing
completion of its proposal for advanced air bags. Nonetheless, the
agency has carefully analyzed the petition. The agency believes that
while not identical, today's proposal is essentially consistent with
the approach recommended by the petitioners. Accordingly, the agency
has decided to grant the petition and views today's proposal as
responsive to the petition.
NHTSA notes that it agrees with the petitioners that the current
requirements of Standard No. 208 are under-inclusive and need to be
upgraded. However, the agency believes it is incorrect to
characterize the standard's longstanding barrier test requirements
as ``a single crash scenario.'' Given that the current standard
specifies that vehicles must be able to comply with the barrier test
at different speeds, different angles, and with both belted and
unbelted dummies,23 the standard simulates a wide variety
of real world crash scenarios. However, the agency agrees that the
standard needs to be upgraded so that it directly addresses a number
of crash scenarios not simulated by the barrier test, such as ones
involving out-of-position occupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ As discussed elsewhere in this notice, the standard
currently includes an unbelted sled test option that may be selected
as an alternative to the unbelted barrier test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Petition Requesting Extension of the Provision Allowing On-Off
Switches for Vehicles Without Rear Seats or With Small Rear Seats
On January 6, 1997, NHTSA published a final rule in the Federal
Register (62 FR 798) extending until September 1, 2000 the time
period during which vehicle manufacturers are permitted to offer
manual on-off switches for the passenger-side air bag for vehicles
without rear seats or with rear seats that are too small to
accommodate rear facing infant seats. The agency extended the option
from an earlier date so that manufacturers would have more time to
implement better, automatic solutions.
GM requested the agency to reconsider its position regarding
this ``sunset'' date. That company essentially argued that there is
still
[[Page 50018]]
considerable uncertainty as to whether such automatic solutions will
be available by September 1, 2000.
NHTSA has decided to grant GM's petition. In today's proposal
for advanced air bags, the agency is proposing, among other things,
to require automatic means for ensuring that passenger air bags do
not pose a risk to children in rear facing infant seats. In
developing this proposal, the agency has considered the lead time
needed to implement these solutions. The agency has therefore
tentatively concluded that it should extend the date for this
``sunset'' so that the temporary amendment would expire as the
upgraded performance requirements are phased in.
During the proposed phase-in, manual on-off switches would not
be available for any vehicles certified to the upgraded
requirements, but would be available for other vehicles if those
vehicles do not have rear seats or have rear seats that are too
small to accommodate rear facing infant seats.
C. Petitions Requesting a Permanent Option of Using Unbelted Sled Test
Instead of Unbelted Barrier Test
As discussed earlier in this notice, NHTSA is proposing to amend
Standard No. 208 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 current air bag designs. The current standard provides
vehicle manufacturers with the flexibility necessary to introduce
advanced air bags, but does not require them to do so.
Partially because Standard No. 208 has always provided the
flexibility to address the problem of out-of-position occupants, the
agency specified in its depowering rulemaking that the alternative
sled test was a temporary measure, instead of a permanent one. NHTSA
explained that there is no need to permanently reduce Standard No.
208's performance requirements to enable manufacturers to choose
alternatives to the current single inflation level air bags and thus
avoid the adverse effects of those air bags. Those requirements
permit manufacturers to install air bags that adapt deployment based
on one or more factors such as crash severity, belt use, and
occupant size, weight or position, or that inflate in a manner that
is not seriously harmful to out-of-position occupants.
NHTSA decided to make the alternative sled test available until
advanced air bags could be introduced. It specified that the
alternative sled test would ``sunset'' on September 1, 2001, based
on its judgment in the Spring of 1997 that vehicle manufacturers
could install some types of advanced air bags in their fleets by
that date. The agency recognized, however, that there was
uncertainty as to how quickly advanced air bags could be
incorporated into the entire fleet. Accordingly, the agency
indicated that it would revisit the sunset date, to the extent
appropriate, in its future rulemaking on advanced air bags. See 62
FR 12968, March 19, 1997.
NHTSA received four petitions requesting that the agency
eliminate the sunset date for the alternative unbelted sled test.
The petitions were submitted by AAMA, AIAM, Ford, and IIHS.
The agency notes that the sunset date (September 1, 2001)
specified in the standard has been superseded by the NHTSA
Reauthorization Act of 1998. The Act ensures that the sled test
option will remain in place at least until the vehicle manufacturers
introduce advanced air bags. As discussed earlier in this notice,
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].'' 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.''
Since the Act overrides the provision in Standard No. 208
sunsetting the sled test alternative, the Act effectively moots the
petitions for reconsideration concerning that provision.
Accordingly, there is no need to set out the arguments made in those
petitions. Further, those arguments and their underlying premises
have themselves been superseded in some respects by the Act, having
been submitted long before the air bag provisions of the Act were
formulated and enacted. For example, many of those arguments were
premised on the continued use of the current, single inflation level
air bags, instead of the advanced air bags mandated by Congress in
the Act.
Nevertheless, those arguments were generally considered by the
agency before deciding to propose terminating the sled test
alternative. The following discussion supplements the discussion in
the preamble of the reasons for issuing that proposal.
Adoption in 1997 of the Temporary Sled Test Option. AAMA first
petitioned the agency to provide a sled test alternative to the
unbelted barrier test requirements in August 1996. By the time that
organization submitted its petition, it had become clear that while
the single inflation level air bag designs then being installed by
the industry were highly effective in reducing teenager and adult
fatalities from frontal crashes, they also sometimes caused
fatalities to out-of-position occupants, especially children, in low
speed crashes. NHTSA and the industry were then seeking solutions
that could be implemented quickly to reduce the adverse effects of
air bags, while also maintaining, to the extent possible, the
benefits of air bags.
In analyzing AAMA's rulemaking petition, the agency recognized
that there were downsides to the approach recommended by that
organization. Unlike a full scale vehicle crash test, a sled test
does not, and cannot, measure the actual protection that an occupant
will receive in a crash. The test can measure limited performance
attributes of the air bag, but not the performance provided by the
full air bag system, much less the combination of the vehicle and
its occupant crash protection system. It is that combination that
determines the amount of protection actually received by occupants
in a real world crash.
NHTSA was faced with a difficult decision in evaluating AAMA's
rulemaking petition to permit use of the sled test. The agency
wanted the industry to quickly mitigate the adverse effects of its
then-current air bag designs, which the auto industry said it would
do if the agency adopted the sled test, but the agency did not want
to reduce the protection being ensured by Standard No. 208.
Faced with this dilemma, NHTSA carefully analyzed whether a
reduction in stringency of the Standard was necessary in the short
term to address adverse effects of air bags to out-of-position
occupants. A review of the record showed that a wide range of
technological solutions were, and had been, available to prevent
adverse effects of air bags, and still enable vehicles to meet
Standard No. 208's barrier crash test requirements.24
However, these technologies generally could not be implemented as
quickly as depowering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ In its 1984 decision, the Department had expressly
recognized that the vehicle manufacturers had raised concerns about
potential adverse effects of air bags to out-of-position occupants.
In response to those concerns, the Department had identified a
variety of available technological means for addressing those risks.
The July 11, 1984 Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA) listed a
variety of potential technological means for addressing the problem
of injuries associated with air bag deployments (FRIA, pp. III-8 to
10) including dual level inflation systems and other technological
measures such as bag shape and size, instrument panel contour,
aspiration, and inflation technique. It also noted that a variety of
different sensors could be used to trigger dual level inflation
systems, e.g., a sensor that measures impact speed, a sensor that
measures occupant size or weight and senses whether an occupant is
out of position; and an electronic proximity sensor. However, the
auto manufacturers generally did not adopt any of these
technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the rulemaking record before it, NHTSA decided to
adopt the sled test alternative requested by the auto industry
25 and supported by others to be absolutely sure that,
given the air bag designs then being used by the industry, the
vehicle manufacturers had the necessary flexibility to address the
problem of adverse effects of air bags in the shortest time
possible. The agency recognized that there were longer term
technological solutions that did not require a reduction in the
safety protection afforded by Standard No. 208. It further
recognized that many or most vehicles could have their air bags
substantially depowered and still meet the standard's longstanding
barrier test requirements. Nevertheless, NHTSA wanted to make sure
that the standard did not prevent quick action by the manufacturers
that would reduce air bag risks while still providing a measure of
protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The sled test alternative adopted by NHTSA, with a 125
msec pulse, had a more stringent pulse than the one first advocated
by AAMA. That organization first recommended a 143 msec pulse.
However, testing by NHTSA showed that a vehicle could pass Standard
No. 208's requirements without an air bag with the 143 msec pulse.
The more stringent pulse was recommended by AAMA in a later
submission. Further testing by the agency showed that some vehicles
could pass Standard No. 208's requirements without an air bag even
with the 125 msec pulse. Given this testing, NHTSA added new neck
injury criteria to the sled test alternative, to help ensure that
the vehicle manufacturers did not depower their air bags to a point
where they would provide little benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency took this action because the sled test offered
advantages that, in the short
[[Page 50019]]
run, outweighed the fundamental shortcomings of that test as a
representation of potentially fatal real world crashes and thus as a
reliable predictor of real world performance. Much of the sled
test's short run value lay in the fact that it was simpler and less
costly to conduct than a barrier crash test and that, by simplifying
compliance testing through removal of some of the key elements
related to real world performance, it made compliance much easier to
achieve, and to demonstrate.
At the same time, the agency made it clear that it viewed the
reduction in the standard's safety requirements as a short-term
interim measure, while the vehicle manufacturers develop and
implement better solutions. 62 FR 12968. The agency considered the
sled test to be a short term means of ensuring that the vehicle
manufacturers could quickly depower all of their air bags, but not
an effective long-term means for measuring a vehicle's occupant
protection.
Proposal to Sunset the Sled Test Option. NHTSA has proposed to
sunset the unbelted sled test option in part because the agency
believes that ensuring continued protection of unbelted occupants is
vital to motor vehicle safety. About half of the occupants in
potentially fatal crashes are still unbelted. Moreover, youth are
overrepresented among unbelted victims in fatal crashes. Young
people of both sexes, but particularly males, are disproportionately
represented among the unbelted. It is well known that the young are
more prone to risky behavior. As drivers grow older, they mature and
adopt safer driving and riding habits. 26 By continuing
to provide effective air bag protection for the unbelted, the agency
and the vehicle manufacturers can help give young drivers and
passengers a better chance of safely passing through their risk-
prone years. Providing effective air bag protection for the unbelted
will also help other disproportionately represented groups, such as
rural residents and members of minorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS)
reported in August 1997 that young adults (16-24 years old) were
observed with the lowest belt use rate (less than 50%) of any of the
reported observed categories. The NOPUS data report findings of
trained observers at controlled intersections. A copy of the NOPUS
report is available at the NHTSA web site under the category
``Reports and Research Notes''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The auto industry suggests that unbelted occupants would
continue to be provided a level of protection even in the absence of
an unbelted barrier test requirement. However, they have not
provided any specific information concerning what level of
protection would be provided. The agency tentatively concludes that
such protection can best be measured, and ensured, in full scale
vehicle crash tests.
In order to determine the amount of life-saving and injury-
reducing protection that is provided by the combination of a vehicle
and its air bags to unbelted occupants, it is necessary to test a
vehicle in situations in which an unbelted occupant would, in the
absence of an effective air bag, typically face a significant risk
of serious injury or death. This need is met by the unbelted 48 km/h
(30 mph) barrier test requirement, which is representative of a
significant percentage of such real world crashes. A NHTSA paper
titled ``Review of Potential Test Procedures for FMVSS No. 208,''
notes that data from the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS)
indicate that the barrier crash pulse (full and oblique) represents
about three-quarters of real world collisions. A copy of this paper
is being placed in the public docket.
NHTSA believes that Standard No. 208 should continue to address
the protection of the nearly 50 percent of all occupants in
potentially fatal crashes who are still unbelted. Apart from the
substantial numbers of lives at stake, the experience with current
single inflation level air bags suggests that the agency should
amend Standard No. 208 to ensure occupant protection in a wider
variety of real world crash scenarios, rather than narrowing its
scope.
Nevertheless, some petitioners have argued that NHTSA should
drop the unbelted barrier requirement based on an expectation that
seat belt use will substantially increase in the future. The agency
recognizes that as seat belt use increases, the percentage of real
world crashes that is directly represented by the unbelted barrier
test decreases. However, there are several reasons why the agency
tentatively concludes that dropping that test requirement would not
be appropriate, particularly at this time.
First, future projections of increases in seat belt use are
uncertain, and seat belt use in potentially fatal crashes is
currently little over 50 percent. The agency tentatively concludes
that it should not reduce safety performance requirements for nearly
one-half the occupants involved in potentially fatal crashes,
particularly on the basis of uncertain projections about future seat
belt use.
Second, even as seat belt use increases, the persons not using
seat belts will tend to be over-involved in potentially fatal
crashes. Teenagers are among the persons least likely to use seat
belts. They are also much more likely than other groups to be
involved in potentially fatal crashes. Moreover, even in countries
where seat belt use is 90 percent, unbelted occupants still
represent about 33 percent of all fatalities.
The arguments made by the petitioners regarding the effect of
the barrier test on air bag performance were typically premised on
the continued use of the current, one-size-fits-all, air bag
designs. They did not address the range of advanced air bag
technologies that may be employed to meet the barrier test
requirements. The issue about the compliance tests that should be
used in the future should be determined in the context of the air
bag technology to be used in the future, and not in the context of
the older air bag designs currently in use. When the full range of
advanced air bag technologies is considered, the agency believes
that it is apparent that the vehicle manufacturers can address the
adverse effects of air bags to out-of-position occupants, and
provide excellent protection to both belted and unbelted occupants.
The agency believes the appropriate solution to the current air
bag problems is to preserve and enhance the life-saving and injury-
reducing benefits that air bags are providing to all occupants,
belted and unbelted, while dramatically reducing or eliminating
fatalities and serious injuries caused by air bags. In the longer
run, the agency believes its plan to adopt requirements for advanced
air bags and maintain an effective unbelted vehicle test requirement
will achieve this goal.
The agency believes that justifying the elimination of the
unbelted barrier test based on the shortcomings of current (or pre-
depowered) air bag designs has parallels to the rationale for the
agency's decision in the early 1980's to rescind the automatic
restraint requirements. The agency rescinded those requirements for
the stated reason that many vehicle manufacturers had initially
chosen to comply with them by detachable automatic seat belts,
instead of either nondetachable automatic seat belts or air bags,
and that those detachable belts might not significantly improve
vehicle safety. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously concluded that
the appropriate regulatory response to ineffective or undesirable
design choices by the vehicle manufacturers regarding automatic
restraints was not simply to rescind the requirements for those
restraints, but first to consider the alternative of amending the
requirements to ensure better technological choices in the future.
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 403
U.S. 29 (1983). The reasoning underlying that decision suggests that
the fact that the air bag designs chosen to date do not meet all
safety considerations is not a sufficient reason, by itself, to
undercut or negate the broad, longstanding performance requirements
for air bags, given that there are other, superior alternative
designs from which to choose. Instead, the appropriate long-term
solution is to amend the requirements to ensure that the
manufacturers select and install better air bag designs in the
future.
In arguing for permanent retention of the sled test, the
petitioners made a number of arguments about the potential benefits
of depowered air bags. However, NHTSA does not believe that it is
necessary to retain the sled test to obtain the benefits of
depowered air bags. Ultimately, the issue is not whether some
vehicles with depowered, single inflation level air bags do not
today meet the 48 km/h (30 mph) barrier test requirement. As noted
above, the issue about future compliance tests should be determined
in the context of future air bag technology, and not in the context
of today's less sophisticated air bag designs. Various advanced air
bag technologies can be used that will provide full protection in
compliance with such substantial test crashes, while not injuring
out-of-position occupants.
As discussed above, the primary reason NHTSA decided to adopt
the temporary sled test alternative in its depowering rulemaking was
because of its desire to ensure that the vehicle manufacturers could
depower all of their single inflation level air bags quickly. The
certification testing that vehicle manufacturers would have needed
to conduct to ensure that their depowered air bags continued to meet
the 48 km/h (30 mph) barrier test would have prevented the quick
depowering of all air bags. However, the agency did not determine
that multi-inflation
[[Page 50020]]
level or even single inflation level depowered air bags could not,
given sufficient time, be produced that would also meet the 48 km/h
(30 mph) barrier test.27
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Depowering has a very short leadtime because it can be
accomplished simply by reducing the amount of propellant in existing
air bag designs. If longer leadtime is assumed, however,
manufacturers can make air bags less aggressive by means such as
changing folding patterns and deployment paths, with a smaller
chance of creating difficulties with respect to the barrier test
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this connection, the agency notes that, based on very limited
data, it appears that many, perhaps most, vehicles with depowered
air bags continue to meet Standard No. 208's unbelted barrier test
requirements by wide margins. NHTSA has tested five vehicles with
depowered driver air bags in unbelted 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier
tests, and all passed Standard No. 208's injury criteria by
significant margins.28 The agency has tested six vehicles
with depowered 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.29
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ These vehicles included the Taurus, Explorer, Neon, Camry
and Accord.
\29\ The vehicles which passed the standard's injury criteria by
significant margins included the Taurus, Explorer, Caravan, Camry
and Accord. The exception was the Neon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA notes that the petitioners suggested that it should
evaluate the real world safety impacts of depowering before deciding
whether to restore the barrier test. This suggestion does not take
into account the limitations of the sled test alternative for
measuring the occupant protection provided in a potentially fatal
crash, especially as compared to an actual crash test. Further,
there is some question whether determining the level of protection
provided by the current depowered air bags would enable the agency
to assess the level of safety ensured by the sled test. The sled
test gives vehicle manufacturers broad flexibility to design and
install air bags that are significantly more depowered than the
current depowered air bags. In comparing regulatory alternatives,
the question for the agency to answer is the level of safety
protection actually required by different alternatives instead of
the safety protection that is currently provided, or may in the
future be provided, voluntarily by the manufacturers.
These concerns are particularly relevant in considering any kind
of permanent change to a safety standard. Since the agency analyzed
the sled test amendment as a relatively short-term, interim means of
ensuring that manufacturers could quickly depower their vehicles'
existing air bags, it primarily analyzed the safety impacts of the
changes the vehicle manufacturers said they would make. The agency
did not analyze the safety implications of replacing the barrier
test with a sled test on a long-term basis.
NHTSA does not know what kind of occupant protection the vehicle
manufacturers would chose to provide if the sled test alternative
were made permanent. As indicated above, based on very limited data,
it appears that many vehicles with depowered air bags continue to
meet Standard No. 208's unbelted barrier test requirements by wide
margins. If the manufacturers continued to voluntarily meet the
barrier test requirements for nearly all of their vehicles, the
safety impacts of the sled test alternative would obviously be
minimal.
However, the agency has no assurance that the vehicle
manufacturers would continue to voluntarily meet the barrier test
requirements if the sled test alternative were made permanent. The
vehicles with depowered air bags being produced in model year 1998
were not primarily designed to meet the sled test. Instead, the
vehicles were designed several years ago to meet the barrier test
requirements but now have depowered air bags. There is no way of
reliably predicting how the vehicle manufacturers would design their
vehicles in the context of a permanent sled test alternative.
As to concerns about international harmonization, NHTSA supports
international harmonization, when it is consistent with the adoption
of best safety practices. For the reasons discussed above, the
agency tentatively concludes that permanent retention of the sled
test alternative would not be consistent with best safety practices.
Questions for commenters concerning the proposed sunsetting.
While the information currently available to the agency on balance
supports the proposal to sunset the sled test, the agency wishes to
have as much information as possible to aid it in making a sound
final decision regarding this proposal. To the end, the agency
invites public comment on:
1. Criteria for assessing tests. What objective criteria should
be used to evaluate and compare the available alternative types of
compliance test procedures, e.g., the rigid barrier crash test and
the sled test. Such criteria might include, but not be limited to:
A. Impact of a procedure on design flexibility;
B. Extent to which a procedure ensures that good real world
performance is provided;
C. Extent to which a procedure creates the potential for
degradation of real world performance;
D. Extent to which a procedure is representative of the varied
real world crashes in which serious and fatal injuries occur; and
E. Administrative considerations, such as repeatability and
costs of test conducted pursuant to a procedure.
2. Comparison and ranking of tests. How do the alternative test
procedures rank when compared to each other based on the criteria
listed above and any other appropriate objective criteria, and based
on advanced air bag technology? The agency emphasizes that any
comparisons submitted to the agency should be forward-looking ones
in terms of technology. Some past comparisons of the barrier crash
test and sled test have been of limited utility and relevance
because they have been premised on the continued use of old air bag
technology.
D. Petition Objecting to NHTSA's Final Rule on Depowering
Donald Friedman petitioned the agency to reconsider its decision
to allow the sled test alternative even on a temporary basis. He
argued that the problem of fatalities in low-speed air bag
deployment crashes arose because some motor vehicle manufacturers
failed to fully meet their legal responsibilities, that NHTSA
responded belatedly and inappropriately with an amendment that will
not prevent some of the low speed crash deployment fatalities, that
the sled test amendment compromises the safety purpose of Standard
No. 208 so that the standard no longer meets the need for motor
vehicle safety, and that the agency had not formally considered all
reasonable, available alternatives.
Mr. Friedman asked that the rulemaking be reopened with a
broader spectrum of proposed options. He stated that NHTSA should
not take at face value the industry's claim that the only way it can
respond to the current situation is to depower air bags. The
petitioner stated that, at a minimum, the options should include (1)
making no change in the standard while encouraging manufacturers to
raise the minimum crash speed at which air bags deploy, (2)
recommending under any depowering option that manufacturers use more
effective belt-use inducements in their new vehicles, and (3)
recommending that manufacturers offer pedal extension attachments
for short people who request them.
The petitioner also requested that the agency consider
alternatives for the period after the next several years, including
that NHTSA recommend that manufacturers use available voluntary
consensus standards organizations or professional societies to draft
recommended practices for air bag safety within the requirements of
the original Standard No. 208. The petitioner stated that he opposes
rulemaking to add major requirements to reduce the potential of harm
from air bag deployment. Mr. Friedman stated that it took 20 years
to get the automatic crash protection standard in place, and it is
unlikely that the agency could make a major revision of this
standard effective in less than a decade.
After carefully considering Mr. Friedman's petition, the agency
has decided to deny it. NHTSA believes that it considered a
reasonable range of interim approaches for addressing the problem of
adverse effects from air bags, and that the temporary depowering
amendment was a reasonable part of the interim approach selected by
the agency.
The agency notes that it addressed a range of alternatives in
both the NPRM and the final rule for depowering. Contrary to the
allegation of the petitioner, NHTSA did not take at face value the
industry's claim that the only way it can respond to the current
situation is to depower air bags. In the final rule on depowering,
NHTSA explained its position on this subject as follows:
NHTSA notes that, in its January 1997 proposal, it discussed a
variety of alternative approaches for addressing the adverse effects
of air bags, including higher deployment thresholds, dual level
inflators, smart air
[[Page 50021]]
bags, and various other changes to air bags. In issuing its
proposal, the agency recognized that, for many vehicles, depowering
has a shorter lead time than any of the other alternatives. The
agency also explained that a change in Standard No. 208 is not
needed to permit manufacturers to implement these other
alternatives. The agency explained further:
The agency expects to ultimately require smart air bags through
rulemaking. In the meantime, the agency is not endorsing depowering
over other solutions. Instead, the agency is proposing a regulatory
change to add depowering to the alternatives available to the
vehicle manufacturers to address this problem on a short-term basis.
To the extent that manufacturers can implement superior alternatives
for some vehicles, the agency would encourage them to do so.
NHTSA shares the concern of the Parent's Coalition that
depowering will not likely save all children and will likely result
in trade-offs for adults. That is why the agency is limiting the
duration of its depowering amendments and plans to conduct
rulemaking to require smart air bags. In the meantime, however,
NHTSA wants to be sure that the vehicle manufacturers have the
necessary tools to address immediately the problem of adverse
effects of air bags. Standard No. 208's existing performance
requirements do restrict the use of depowering, since substantially
depowering the air bags of many vehicles would make those vehicles
incapable of complying with the standard's injury criteria in a 30
mph barrier crash test. Accordingly, to permit use of this
alternative, it is necessary to amend Standard No. 208.
The issuance of any rule narrowing the discretion that vehicle
manufacturers have had since the 1984 decision, whether by requiring
depowering, higher thresholds, other changes to air bags, or smart
air bags, would involve considerably more complex issues than a
rulemaking simply adding greater flexibility. The agency would need
to assess safety effects, practicability, and leadtime for the
entire vehicle fleet. NHTSA will assess those types of issues in its
rulemaking for smart air bags. The agency notes that there may not
be any reason to have higher deployment thresholds with some types
of smart air bags, since a low-power inflation may be automatically
selected for low severity crashes.
Until the agency conducts its rulemaking regarding smart air
bags, it believes it is best to focus on ensuring that manufacturers
have appropriate flexibility to address the problem of adverse
effects of air bags. This will enable the manufacturers to select
the solutions which can be accomplished most quickly for their
individual models. NHTSA encourages the vehicle manufacturers to use
the best available alternative solutions that can be quickly
implemented for their vehicles, whether depowering, higher
thresholds, other changes to air bags, smart air bags, or a
combination of the above. The agency notes again that the vehicle
manufacturers need not wait for further rulemaking to begin
installing smart air bags, and encourages them to move in that
direction expeditiously.
NHTSA notes that Mr. Friedman did not address or challenge the
specific rationales provided by the agency for the temporary
depowering amendment. Moreover, he did not address the agency's
overall comprehensive plan of rulemaking and other actions
addressing the adverse effects of air bags, or explain why his
various recommendations constitute a better approach. (This
comprehensive plan was discussed in the depowering final rule at 62
FR 12961-62). Accordingly, the agency has concluded that the
petitioner has not provided a basis for reopening the depowering
rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 98-23957 Filed 9-14-98; 12:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
