Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Restraint Systems

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 74-14, Notice 112]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Restraint

Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of technical workshop; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces that NHTSA will be holding a public

workshop to explore technical issues relating to the agency's occupant

protection standard and smart air bags. The purposes of the workshop

are to--

Review the types of smart air bags (e.g., automatic

deactivation based on weight sensors, automatic deactivation based on

other or additional types of sensors, and automatic modulation of the

speed and force of air bag deployment so as not to seriously injure

occupants) and the specific technologies which can be used, singly or

in combination, to provide smart capability;

Assess the suitability of the agency's definitions of

smart passenger air bags (provided in the agency's November 27, 1996

labeling final rule), and discuss appropriate definitions for smart

driver air bags;

Assess which types of specific smart air bag technologies

or combinations of technologies are best suited for addressing

passenger risks

[[Page 2997]]

and which are best suited for addressing driver risks;

Consider what test procedures and test devices should be

proposed by the agency to assure the proper performance of each type of

smart air bag in the short run, and what procedures and devices would

be appropriate for the long term;

Consider whether, in the interest of promoting the early

availability of reliable smart air bags, manufacturers should be

encouraged or required to install relatively simple versions of smart

air bags in the short term;

Consider whether, in the interest of minimizing the risk

of air bag deaths and preserving or enhancing air bag benefits,

manufacturers should be encouraged or required to install more

sophisticated smart air bags in the long run;

Consider whether to use a phase-in and, if so, what phase-

in schedule(s) should be proposed for smart passenger and driver air

bags; and

Discuss other issues related to the rapid introduction of

smart air bag systems.

DATES: Public workshop: The public workshop will be held in Washington

DC on February 11 and 12, 1997, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Those wishing to participate in the workshop should contact Clarke

Harper, at the address or telephone number listed below, by January 31,

1997. Copies of statements to be presented on the first day of the

workshop should be provided to Mr. Harper by February 7, 1997.

Written comments: Written comments may be submitted to the agency

and must be received by February 21, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Public workshop: The public workshop will be held in room

2230 of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh St. SW., Washington DC 20590.

Written comments: All written comments must refer to the docket and

notice number of this notice and be submitted (preferable 10 copies) to

the Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA), Room 5109, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. Docket

hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clarke Harper, Office of

Crashworthiness Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC, 20590

(telephone 202-366-2264; fax 202-493-2739).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The history of NHTSA's consideration of air bags to address the

problem of deaths in frontal vehicle impacts is almost as long as the

history of the agency itself. In 1969, three years after the enactment

of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, the

agency held its first public meeting on air bags.

The agency's first requirement for automatic restraints (i.e.,

automatic belts or air bags) was issued in the early 1970's, but was

overturned on judicial review due to several ambiguities in the test

procedures. A requirement for automatic restraints was reissued by

Secretary Adams in 1977 and rescinded by the agency in the early 1980's

because it concluded that the vehicle manufacturers were planning to

install a type of automatic belt that the agency regarded as unlikely

to be effective in increasing belt use. After the U.S. Supreme Court

overturned the rescission, Secretary Dole reissued a requirement for

automatic restraints in 1984. The 1984 rule encouraged, but did not

require, the installation of air bags. Manufacturers continued under

the rule to have the option of installing automatic belts.

Since then, there has been considerable experience with air

bags.1 Manufacturers responded to the agency's third automatic

restraint requirement by voluntarily choosing to install significant

numbers of driver air bags instead of automatic belts in cars beginning

in model year 1986 and in light trucks beginning in model year 1991.

Installation of passenger air bags came somewhat later. Manufacturers

began voluntarily installing significant numbers of passenger air bags

in cars in model year 1989 and in light trucks in model year 1994. As

of the end of model year 1996, approximately 56 million driver air bags

and 27 million passenger air bags had been installed in cars and light

trucks. All were voluntarily installed. The first federally-required

air bags appeared after model year 1996. Mandatory installation of air

bags in passenger cars began with the current model year, model year

1997, pursuant to section 2508 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation

Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), and will begin for light trucks in

model year 1998.

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

\1\ The first installation of air bags occurred a decade

earlier. In the mid-1970's, driver and passenger air bags were

installed in approximately 10,000 passenger cars by General Motors.

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

While these air bags saved approximately 1,700 lives through the

end of 1996 and prevented many more serious injuries, they pose a

lethal danger to infants in rear-facing child seats and to some other

occupants, primarily unbelted ones, in low speed collisions. Air bags

are killing a growing number of children. They have also killed a

number of drivers, especially short women, although only one driver is

known to have been killed by an air bag in this country in calendar

year 1996.2

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

\2\ The agency's figures for driver fatalities are based on

information that NHTSA has developed through NHTSA's Special Crash

Investigation program and are not the result of a census. Studies of

Fatal Accident Reporting System data are underway to obtain more

precise figures.

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

The agency has conducted a series of rulemaking proceedings over

the last four years to address the risks posed by air bags. Most

recently, the agency issued two final rules on this issue. One required

new, attention-getting warning labels for child restraints and for

vehicles without a ``smart'' passenger air bag, i.e., an air bag that

automatically shuts off or adjusts its deployment so as not to

adversely affect children. The other final rule extended the period

during which manufacturers may install manual devices for deactivating

passenger air bags in vehicles lacking a rear seat that can accommodate

child restraints.

The agency also issued two proposals to provide interim solutions

to the adverse side effects of air bags. One proposal would permit the

deactivation of driver and passenger air bags in existing vehicles and

in vehicles manufactured during the next several model years. The other

proposal sets forth two alternatives to permit the depowering of air

bags.

The first alternative depowering proposal would increase the

current limit on the level of chest g's permitted in tests using an

unbelted dummy. While Standard 208 does not specify a particular level

of power, it does have the effect of limiting the extent to which air

bags can be depowered. Many air bags cannot be sufficiently depowered

without violating the existing limit or cutting into the compliance

margins needed by the manufacturers. The second alternative would allow

greater levels of depowering, by simplifying the test procedures and

specifying a single crash pulse regardless of vehicle size. It would

also allow all air bags in need of

[[Page 2998]]

depowering to be modified and tested more quickly.

II. Smart Air Bags

There is a consensus among national regulatory authorities in this

country and Canada, the vehicle industry and its suppliers, insurance

industry and consumer groups that the smart air bag is the best means

in the long term for preventing air bag deaths and preserving and even

enhancing air bag benefits. In a November 22, 1996 press conference,

NHTSA announced that it was considering issuing a proposal to mandate

the phasing-in of smart air bags, beginning with 1999 models.

The agency defined smart passenger air bags as follows in its final

rule on the new labels (S4.5.5 of Standard No. 208):

For purposes of this standard, a smart passenger air bag is a

passenger air bag that:

(a) Provides an automatic means to ensure that the air bag does not

deploy when a child seat or child with a total mass of 30 kg or less is

present on the front outboard passenger seat, or

(b) Incorporates sensors, other than or in addition to weight

sensors, which automatically prevent the air bag from deploying in

situations in which it might have an adverse effect on infants in rear-

facing child seats, and unbelted or improperly belted children, or

(c) Is designed to deploy in a manner that does not create a risk

of serious injury to infants in rear-facing child seats, and unbelted

or improperly belted children.

This definition was intended to broadly encompass passenger air bag

designs that automatically avoid injuring the two groups of children

shown by experience to be at special risk from air bags: infants in

rear-facing child seats, and children who are out-of-position (because

they are unbelted or improperly belted) when the air bag deploys. The

agency has not provided a definition for driver smart air bags.

Vehicle manufacturers and air bag suppliers are working on many

different design concepts that could, individually or when used with

other concepts, qualify as smart air bags. The simplest concept, for

passenger air bags, appears to be a weight sensor that would deactivate

the air bag when either no passenger or only a child of less than 30

kilograms or 66 pounds is present. Other concepts include automatic

deactivation based on other or additional types of sensors, such as

ones which sense occupant position, and automatic modulation of the

speed and force of air bag deployment (e.g., using dual or multiple

level inflators) so as not to seriously injure occupants.

Vehicle manufacturers have broad flexibility to introduce smart air

bags under the existing provisions of Standard No. 208. Smart air bags

were permissible under the 1984 requirements and continue to be

permissible today, even under the standard as amended pursuant to

ISTEA.3

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

\3\ The Standard's automatic protection requirements are

performance requirements and do not specify the design of an air

bag. Instead, vehicles must meet specified injury criteria,

including criteria for the head and chest, measured on properly

positioned test dummies, during a barrier crash test, at speeds up

to 30 mph.

While the Standard requires air bags to provide protection for

properly positioned adult occupants (belted and unbelted) in

relatively severe crashes, and very fast air bags may be necessary

to provide such protection, the standard does not require the same

speed of deployment in the presence of out-of-position occupants, or

even any deployment at all. Instead, the standard permits the use of

dual or multiple level inflator systems and automatic cut-off

devices to protect out-of-position occupants and rear-facing

infants. Therefore, regulatory changes are not needed to permit

manufacturers to implement these solutions.

The agency also notes that there are many other variables in air

bag design and related vehicle design that can affect potential

aggressivity. Variables related to air bag design include air bag

volume, fold patterns, tethering, venting, mass/material, shape and

size of air bag module opening, and module location and deployment

path. Related vehicle design variables include such things as

recessing the inflator/air bag in the steering wheel assembly or in

the dash, pedal adjusters, safety belt pretensioners and webbing

clamps. The standard's performance requirements permit manufacturers

to adjust all of these variables to minimize adverse effects of air

bags.

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

III. Air Bag Safety Meeting

On January 6, 1997, the NHTSA and the National Transportation

Safety Board co-sponsored an Air Bag Safety Meeting of interested

persons from government, industry and consumer groups. The participants

focused on behavioral solutions, including public education,

legislation regarding safety use laws, and enforcement, and on

technological solutions, especially smart air bags.

IV. Public Workshop

A. Purposes

The purposes of the workshop are to--

Review the types of smart air bags (e.g., automatic

deactivation based on weight sensors, automatic deactivation based on

other or additional types of sensors, and automatic modulation of the

speed and force of air bag deployment so as not to seriously injure

occupants) and the specific technologies which can be used, singly or

in combination, to provide smart capability;

Assess the suitability of the agency's definitions of

smart passenger air bags (provided in the agency's November 27, 1996

labeling final rule), and discuss appropriate definitions for smart

driver air bags;

Assess which types of specific smart air bag technologies

or combinations of technologies are best suited for addressing

passenger risks and which are best suited for addressing driver risks;

Consider what test procedures and test devices should be

proposed by the agency to assure the proper performance of each type of

smart air bag in the short run, and what procedures and devices would

be appropriate for the long term;

Consider whether, in the interest of promoting the early

availability of reliable smart air bags, manufacturers should be

encouraged or required to install relatively simple versions of smart

air bags in the short term;

Consider whether, in the interest of minimizing the risk

of air bag deaths and preserving or enhancing air bag benefits,

manufacturers should be encouraged or required to install more

sophisticated smart air bags in the long run;

Consider whether to use a phase-in and, if so, what phase-

in schedule(s) should be proposed for smart passenger and driver air

bags; and

Discuss other issues related to the rapid introduction of

smart air bag systems.

NHTSA is especially interested in specific technical input

concerning how a regulation, including appropriate test procedures, can

be crafted that would ensure that the adverse effects of air bags are

addressed by the expeditious implementation of effective, reliable

smart air bags, without being unnecessarily design restrictive. The

agency notes that there is limited time to develop new test procedures,

since the agency expects manufacturers to begin to phase in smart air

bags by model year 1999. Therefore, the agency solicits comments on

those requirements and test procedures that would be appropriate for

the short term (i.e., through model year 2002) and those that would be

appropriate in the long term.

At the January 6, 1997 air bag safety meeting, the American

Automobile Manufacturers Association recommended that the agency

consider the following three principles in developing a proposal for

smart air bags: (1) Optimize protection for restrained occupants, (2)

Do no harm to children and small-statured adults, and (3) Highest

feasible protection for unrestrained adults. The agency requests

comments on this recommendation and on possible test

[[Page 2999]]

procedures that could result in air bag designs consistent with these

principles.

The agency notes that there are particular challenges in developing

test procedures to ensure the proper functioning of smart air bag

concepts other than weight sensors. In the case of weight sensors, it

appears that a relatively simple, inexpensive static test procedure

could be developed. The procedure would check whether the sensor

ensured that the air bag was on or off under specified conditions

related to the amount of weight on the seat, and perhaps the

distribution of that weight.

However, dynamic procedures might be needed to assess the

performance of other smart air bag concepts. For example, in order to

measure the performance of a system which deactivated the air bag based

on occupant position, it might be necessary to check whether the sensor

would reliably turn the air bag off in such situations as that of a

child who is propelled into the dashboard as a result of pre-crash

braking just before a crash. In order to measure the performance of a

system which used automatic modulation of the speed and force of air

bag deployment, it might be necessary to check whether the forces from

the air bag would cause injury to occupants in various conditions,

possibly using dummies. NHTSA notes that, given the large number of

potential conditions involving out-of-position occupants, a wide array

of conditions might need to be tested to ensure adequate performance.

The agency requests comments on whether and how adequate

performance can or should be ensured solely by means of dynamic test

requirements, and, if not, what other regulatory approaches might be

appropriate. NHTSA notes that, in its rulemaking to improve the

stability and control of medium and heavy vehicles during braking, it

adopted the approach of requiring vehicles to be equipped with antilock

brake systems that meet a specific definition, and supplementing that

requirement with limited dynamic performance requirements. See 60 FR

13216; March 10, 1995. The agency requests comments on whether an

approach along those lines might be appropriate for a proposal for

smart air bags, either as an interim measure to get requirements in

place quickly or as a longer term approach as well.

NHTSA requests that vehicle manufacturers and air bag suppliers

provide written comments describing their recent and anticipated

efforts to develop and assess smart air bag technologies. The agency

specifically requests that they provide descriptions of their recent

and anticipated component and vehicle testing, market surveys, and any

other developmental work. NHTSA recognizes the sensitivity of this

information and will protect confidentiality as authorized by law.

B. Procedural Matters

February 11

The first day will be devoted to presentations by public

participants concerning technical issues. The time available for

individual presentations will be determined by the agency based on the

number of persons who submit requests to participate by the January 31

deadline. If necessary, parties with similar points of view will be

encouraged to coordinate their presentations to avoid duplication.

February 12

The second day will be devoted to an interactive discussion among

interested persons. Procedures for encouraging an exchange of ideas

during the interactive phase of the workshop will be discussed at the

beginning of the session on that day. Those persons interested in

actively participating in this phase of the workshop should contact Mr.

Harper not later than January 31. The agency will make available an

agenda setting forth the sequence of issues to be discussed during the

interactive phase.

To facilitate communication, NHTSA will provide auxiliary aids

(e.g., sign-language interpreter, braille materials, large print

materials and/or a magnifying device) to participants as necessary,

during the workshop. Any person desiring assistance of auxiliary aids

should contact Ms. Bernadette Millings, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness

Standards, telephone (202) 366-1740, no later than 10 days before the

workshop. For any presentation that will include slides, motion

pictures, or other visual aids, the presenters should bring at least

one copy to the workshop so that NHTSA can readily include the material

in the public record.

NHTSA will place a copy of any written statement in the docket for

this notice. In addition, the agency will make a verbatim record of the

public workshop and place a copy in the docket.

IV. Written Comments

Participation in the workshop is not a prerequisite for the

submission of written comments. NHTSA invites written comments from all

interested parties. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be

submitted.

If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim

of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including

purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to

the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and copies

from which the purportedly confidential information has been deleted

should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for

confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth

the information specified in the agency's confidential business

information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.

All comments received before the close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above will be considered. To the extent

possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be

considered. Comments will be available for inspection in the docket.

NHTSA will continue to file relevant information as it becomes

available in the docket after the closing date. It is therefore

recommended that interested persons continue to examine the docket for

new material.

Those desiring to be notified upon receipt of their comments in the

docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the

envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the comments, the docket

supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Issued on: January 14, 1997.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 97-1292 Filed 1-14-97; 4:28 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P