Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection; Anthropomorphic Test Dummy

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 571 and 572

[Docket No. NHTSA-98-4358]

RIN Nos. 2127-AG75, 2127-AG80, and 2127-AG94

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash

Protection; Anthropomorphic Test Dummy

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule makes permanent three interim final rules related to

the depowering of air bags. In March 1997, NHTSA amended the agency's

occupant crash protection standard to ensure that vehicle manufacturers

could quickly depower all air bags so that they inflate less

aggressively. More specifically, the agency adopted an unbelted sled

test protocol as a temporary alternative to the standard's full scale

unbelted barrier crash test. NHTSA took this action to provide an

immediate, but interim, solution to the problem of the fatalities and

injuries that air bags were causing in relatively low speed crashes to

small, but growing numbers of children, and occasionally to adult

occupants.

The agency subsequently issued three interim final rules related to

depowering. Two of the interim final rules made further amendments to

the occupant protection standard so that certain exclusions or special,

less stringent test requirements in related standards that applied to

vehicles certified to the unbelted barrier test would also apply to

vehicles certified to the alternative sled test. The third interim

final rule made modifications in the test dummy used in the occupant

protection standard so that it would be consistent with respect to the

instrumentation specified in the sled test protocol for measuring neck

injury criteria.

DATES: Effective Date: The amendments made in this rule are effective

September 1, 1998.

Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration must be received by

October 13, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket and

notice number of this notice and be submitted to: Administrator,

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about air bags and

related rulemakings: Visit the NHTSA web site at http://

www.nhtsa.dot.gov and select ``AIR BAGS: Information about air bags.''

For non-legal issues: Mr. John Lee, Light Duty Vehicle Division,

NPS-11, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2264. Fax: (202)

366-4329.

For legal issues: J. Edward Glancy, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-

20, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992. Fax: (202) 366-

3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On March 19, 1997, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (62 FR

12960) a final rule amending Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash

Protection, to ensure that vehicle manufacturers could quickly depower

all air bags so that they inflate less aggressively. More specifically,

the

[[Page 45960]]

agency adopted an unbelted sled test protocol, recommended by the

American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA), as a temporary

alternative to Standard No. 208's full scale unbelted barrier crash

test. The agency did not change the standard's full scale belted

barrier crash test. NHTSA took this action to provide an immediate, but

interim, solution to the problem of the fatalities and injuries that

current air bags are causing in relatively low speed crashes to small,

but growing numbers of children, and occasionally to adult occupants.

The agency subsequently issued three interim final rules related to

depowering. Two of the interim final rules made further amendments to

Standard No. 208 so that certain exclusions or special, less stringent

test requirements in related standards that applied to vehicles

certified to the unbelted barrier test would also apply to vehicles

certified to the alternative sled test.

The first of these interim final rules resulted from a request made

by AAMA in early April 1997. That organization advised the agency that

its member companies had discovered that certain provisions in Standard

No. 203, Impact protection for the driver from the steering control

system, and Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, could prevent or

substantially delay depowering. Each of those other standards specified

an exclusion from certain requirements for vehicles certified to meet

Standard No. 208's barrier crash test requirements. Thus, neither

exclusion would be available for a vehicle which was certified to

Standard No. 208's alternative sled test requirement.

In an interim final rule published in the Federal Register (62 FR

26425) on May 14, 1997, the agency amended Standard No. 208, so that

the exclusions in these two other standards would also be available for

vehicles certified to the sled test. NHTSA explained that this action

was necessary to prevent a delay in depowering, and also solicited

comments on the amendment. The agency noted that because there had not

been a prior opportunity for comment, it was limiting application of

the interim final rule to vehicles manufactured before September 1,

1998. However, NHTSA explained that it contemplated making the

amendment apply for the same duration as the depowering amendment.

The second of these interim final rules resulted from a request

made by AAMA in July 1997. That organization advised the agency that

its member companies had discovered that a similar provision in

Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact, could also

prevent or substantially delay depowering. That provision specified a

special, less stringent test requirement for vehicles which meet

Standard No. 208's barrier crash test requirements by means of an air

bag. Thus, the special requirement would also not apply to a vehicle

which was certified to Standard No. 208's alternative sled test

requirement.

Just as NHTSA decided to issue an interim final rule amending

Standard No. 208 in order that the exclusions in Standard Nos. 203 and

209 would also be available for vehicles certified to the sled test, so

it took similar action with respect to the special, less stringent test

requirement set forth in Standard No. 201. This interim final rule was

published in the Federal Register (62 FR 45172) on August 26, 1997. The

agency explained its belief that the Standard No. 201 situation

mirrored those involving the other two standards.

NHTSA provided specific analysis in the preambles for these two

interim final rules concerning Standards No. 201, 203 and 209. The

analyses were as follows:

Standard No. 201

Standard No. 201 specifies a number of requirements to provide

impact protection for occupants. One of the requirements concerns

instrument panels. The standard generally requires that when

specified portions of the instrument panel are impacted by a head

form at 15 mph, the deceleration of the head form must not exceed 80

g continuously for more than 3 milliseconds. To comply with this

requirement, vehicle manufacturers install energy absorbing

materials. The use of these materials can prevent or reduce the

severity of chest and head injuries resulting from contacts with the

instrument panel.

In June 1991, NHTSA published a final rule amending Standard No.

201 to specify a special, less stringent test requirement for

vehicles equipped with passenger air bags. 56 FR 26036; June 6,

1991. The final rule reduced the velocity specified in the head form

test for these vehicles from 15 mph to 12 mph.

The purpose of the June 1991 final rule was to facilitate the

introduction of more effective air bag designs, and provide an

incentive for the increased use of passenger-side air bags. (This

final rule was issued before Congress enacted the Intermodal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, which directed NHTSA to amend

Standard No. 208 to require air bags.) Vehicle manufacturers had

provided information showing that Standard No. 201's existing 15 mph

head form requirement created problems in designing top-mounted,

upward-deploying passenger air bags. Manufacturers had also

identified a number of benefits from installation of this type of

air bag, including reduced risk of injury to out-of-position

occupants or standing children. However, the final rule was not

limited to passenger air bags with upward-deploying systems, as the

agency wanted to allow manufacturers wide latitude in innovation for

all passenger air bags.

NHTSA believes that the rationale for Standard No. 201's

special, less stringent test requirement for vehicles equipped with

passenger air bags and certified to Standard No. 208's barrier test

is equally applicable to vehicles certified to the alternative sled

test. The concern about the need to meet Standard No. 201's 15 mph

head form test interfering with the design of passenger air bags,

especially top-mounted, upward-deploying systems, would not differ

depending on whether an air bag is depowered or not. Moreover, the

need to meet the 15 mph requirement would interfere with depowering.

Vehicle manufacturers presumably test their air-bag-equipped

vehicles to Standard No. 201's 12 mph head form requirement, rather

than the 15 mph requirement, based on the current special

requirement. Thus, the manufacturers do not know whether their

vehicles would pass the more stringent requirement.

If the special requirement were not extended to vehicles

certified to the alternative sled test, the vehicle manufacturers

would need to conduct significant testing to determine whether those

vehicles could comply with the 15 mph requirement. To the extent

that a vehicle could not comply, the manufacturer would then need to

determine whether it was possible to make design changes to achieve

compliance. All of this would result in significant delays to

depowering.

The agency also notes that the purposes of the depowering

amendment and the special requirement in Standard No. 201 are

complementary. While the depowering amendment was intended to

facilitate quick action to address the problem of deaths and

injuries to out-of-position occupants, the special requirement in

Standard No. 201 was intended, in part, to facilitate the use of

passenger air bag designs that reduce the risk of injury to out-of-

position occupants or standing children. A failure to extend the

special requirement in No. 201 to vehicles certified to the

alternative sled test could result in the perverse effect of

discouraging air bag designs that reduce the risk of injury to out-

of-position occupants or standing children.

Standard No. 203

Standard No. 203 specifies requirements for steering control

systems to minimize chest, neck, and facial injuries to the driver

as a result of impact. The standard does not apply to ``vehicles

that conform to the frontal barrier crash requirements (S5.1) of

Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208) by means of other than seat belt

assemblies.''

The agency adopted this exclusion in 1975, in response to a

petition from General Motors (GM). GM had advised that in developing

driver air bags, it found that the changes in the steering control

system made conformity with Standard No. 203 difficult and in some

cases impossible. GM petitioned the agency

[[Page 45961]]

to exclude vehicles which meet the frontal barrier crash

requirements of Standard No. 208 from Standard No. 203 on the

grounds that compliance with the latter would be redundant and

design restrictive in the development of air bags.

In deciding to provide the requested exclusion, NHTSA stated

that it had determined that the redundant protection offered by

Standard No. 203 is not justified where it directly interferes with

the development of a more advanced, convenient and effective

restraint system. 40 FR 17992, April 24, 1975. In the notice of

proposed rulemaking, the agency explained that the level of

protection offered by Standard No. 208's frontal barrier crash test

is at least equivalent to that of the 15-mile-per-hour body impact

of Standard No. 203. The agency also explained that Standard No.

208's barrier crash test requirements alone are designed to provide

adequate protection to the driver from impact forces. NHTSA noted

that in the case of an air bag, this protective level must be met by

the uncushioned steering control system below the system's

deployment level and by the air bag above the deployment level, at

any speed up to 30 mph.

NHTSA believes that the rationale for Standard No. 203's

exclusion for vehicles certified to Standard No. 208's barrier test

is also applicable to vehicles certified to the alternative sled

test. The concern about the need to meet Standard No. 203

interfering with the design of air bags would not differ depending

on whether an air bag is depowered or not. Moreover, the need to

meet Standard No. 203 would particularly interfere with depowering.

It is NHTSA's understanding, based on its discussions with AAMA,

that the vehicle manufacturers do not test their air-bag-equipped

vehicles to Standard No. 203, based on the current exclusion. Thus,

the manufacturers do not know whether their vehicles would pass

Standard No. 203's requirements.

In the absence of an exclusion for vehicles certified to the

alternative sled test, the vehicle manufacturers would need to

conduct significant testing to determine whether a vehicle could

comply with Standard No. 203. To the extent that a vehicle could not

comply, the manufacturer would then need to determine whether it was

possible to make design changes that would result in compliance. All

of this would result in significant delays to depowering.

NHTSA also believes that the protection specified by Standard

No. 203 is redundant to that offered by depowered air bags certified

to the alternative sled test. The agency notes that the alternative

sled test addresses the same safety problems as the full scale

barrier test.

In the depowering rulemaking, the agency recognized that a full

scale barrier test does offer a number of advantages over a sled

test. However, the agency decided to allow the sled test as a

temporary measure given the need to provide manufacturers with

maximum flexibility to respond rapidly to the risk posed by air bag

activation in low speed crashes. See 62 FR 12965--66, March 19,

1997.

The agency believes that this same consideration leads to

applying the Standard No. 203 exclusion to vehicles certified to the

alternative sled test, even if the degree of redundancy is somewhat

less than that afforded by the barrier test requirement. NHTSA notes

that the sled test requirement need only be met at a single change

in velocity, rather than at all speeds up to 30 mph. However, the

agency believes that a depowered air bag will provide protection at

speeds above the deployment level, and does not believe

manufacturers will reduce the protection currently being offered by

steering control systems at speeds below the deployment level.

Standard No. 209

One of the performance requirements specified by Standard No.

209 limits the amount that the webbing of a belt assembly is

permitted to extend or elongate when subjected to certain forces.

This requirement does not apply to seat belt assemblies that include

a load limiter and that are installed at designated seating

positions subject to the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208.

This exclusion had its origin in a petition for rulemaking

submitted by Mercedes-Benz (Mercedes). That company petitioned the

agency to exclude from the elongation requirement seat belt

assemblies installed in conjunction with air bags.

Mercedes was considering the use of a belt system that

incorporates a load-limiting device. A load-limiter is a seat belt

assembly component or feature that controls tension on the seat belt

to modulate the forces that are imparted to occupants restrained by

the belt assembly during a crash. These load-limiting systems are

intended to reduce head and upper torso injuries through increased

energy management.

Mercedes indicated that the webbing in its belt system would

elongate beyond the limits that were specified in Standard No. 209.

However, Mercedes argued that this type of belt system should be

allowed in vehicles equipped with air bags since the two systems

used in conjunction with one another can be designed to achieve the

maximum reduction in head injuries and upper torso injuries.

NHTSA adopted the exclusion requested by Mercedes in 1981. The

agency limited the exclusion to vehicles equipped with automatic

restraints since there were then no dynamic performance requirements

or injury criteria for manual belt systems used alone. See 46 FR

2618-19, January 12, 1981. Later, however, after it established

dynamic testing requirements for manual safety belt systems in

passenger cars and light trucks, the agency extended this exclusion

to permit the use of load limiters on all safety belts installed at

seating positions subject to dynamic testing. See 56 FR 15295, April

16, 1991.

With respect to whether this exclusion should apply to vehicles

certified to the alternative sled test, the key point is that these

vehicles will continue to have to be certified to Standard No. 208's

full scale belted barrier crash test. Thus, safety belts will

continue to be subject to the same dynamic performance requirements

as before the depowering final rule was issued. The agency therefore

believes there is no reason why this exclusion should not be

available for vehicles certified to the alternative sled test, which

addresses unbelted, rather than belted, performance.

The third interim final rule made modifications in the Hybrid III

test dummy used in Standard No. 208 to upgrade the dummy so that it

would be consistent with respect to the instrumentation specified in

the sled test protocol for measuring neck injury criteria. While the

sled test protocol specified use of a six-axis neck transducer, the

specifications for the Hybrid III dummy, set forth in Subpart E of Part

572, Anthropomorphic Test Devices, did not include that

instrumentation. This interim final rule was published in the Federal

Register (62 FR 27511) on May 20, 1997.

II. Comments

A. Exclusions From Certain Requirements of Standards No. 203 and 209

NHTSA received four comments on the interim final rule concerning

exclusions from certain requirements of Standards No. 203 and 209, from

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), the Insurance

Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), Mitsubishi, and Volkswagen. None

of the commenters opposed the extension of the exclusions; however,

Advocates raised a number of issues which it believed required further

analysis.

IIHS stated that it fully supports the amendment. That commenter

stated that the reasons for excluding the requirements regarding

steering controls systems (Standard No. 203) and belt elongation

(Standard No. 209) are just as applicable to vehicles certified to

Standard No. 208's unbelted sled test alternative as they are to

vehicles certified to the barrier crash test. IIHS stated that the

amendment should be retained as long as the sled test alternative is

available.

Mitsubishi and Volkswagen also supported the interim final rule and

requested that the exclusions be available for as long as the unbelted

sled test exists.

Advocates stated that it accepts that the extension of exemptions

from testing under Standards No. 203 and 209 are necessary in order to

ensure that depowering is not delayed. It also stated that it supports

depowering as a necessary temporary measure to improve the safety of

out-of-position occupants and does not want any delay in accomplishing

that goal.

That organization argued, however, that the interim final rule

raises concerns about the collateral results of

[[Page 45962]]

depowering. It stated that the agency had not presented any engineering

results or safety analyses to establish that, if the exemptions for

crash tested vehicles are extended to vehicles certified by sled test,

there will be no diminution of the safety protection afforded to

occupants under the circumstances and conditions addressed in Standards

No. 203 and No. 209.

With respect to Standard No. 203 protection for drivers from

vehicle steering columns, Advocates noted that the agency stated that

``manufacturers do not know whether their vehicles would pass Standard

No. 203's requirements.'' That organization stated that in light of

this information, it does not understand how the agency can conclude

that ``the protection specified by Standard No. 203 is redundant to

that offered by depowered air bags.'' Advocates argued that regardless

of the rate at which the inflator powers the air bag, the agency is

obliged to ascertain facts and conduct engineering evaluations in order

to make a determination that Standard No. 203 has no application at all

in vehicles with driver-side air bags.

As to seat belt elongation requirements under Standard No. 209,

Advocates stated that it understands the agency's rationale that safety

belt systems remain subject to dynamic performance requirements and

that the sled test applies to unbelted, rather than belted, performance

for occupant protection. That organization noted that the agency had

pointed out that the exclusion was originally provided on the basis

that air bags and load-limiter equipped seat belt systems ``used in

conjunction with one another can be designed to achieve maximum

reduction in head injuries and upper torso injuries.'' Advocates

argued, however, that the question that needs to be answered is what

effect depowering has on the combined performance of these occupant

protection systems for belted systems. Advocates stated that the

original exclusion most likely was granted in contemplation of the use

of full powered air bags meeting the 30 mph crash test and that, in

this situation as well, NHTSA is obliged to provide an engineering

analysis to prove that depowering has no deleterious effect on the

safety performance required under Standard No. 209.

Advocates also argued that the agency should provide the public

with another opportunity to comment after it has conducted safety and

engineering analyses. It also expressed concern about the use of an

interim final rule, arguing that these issues should have been raised

in the depowering rulemaking.

B. Special, Less Stringent Test Requirement for Standard No. 201

NHTSA received only one comment on the interim final rule

concerning the special, less stringent test requirement for Standard

No. 201, from Advocates. That organization concurred with the amendment

subject to the exception for depowered air bags remaining temporary.

Advocates stated that it believes there is a potential for increased

numbers of serious head impact injuries as a result of depowering. It

stated that the agency lacked any test data or other information to

support the change on a permanent basis. Advocates also expressed

additional concerns about the making of regulatory changes by means of

interim final rules.

C. Six-Axis Neck Transducer

NHTSA received seven comments on the interim final rule amending

specifications for the Hybrid III dummy to include the six-axis neck

transducer.

General Motors (GM), Ford, and IIHS supported making the changes

permanent. GM and Ford pointed out a typographical error in which

section 572.36(i)(8) identified a channel class of 1000 for femur

loads, instead of a channel class of 600.

The other commenters, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz (Mercedes), Toyota, and

Mitsubishi, requested either that use of the six-axis neck transducer

be optional or that a longer period of time be provided before it

becomes mandatory.

Nissan stated that there is not any need to require the six-axis

neck transducer for test requirements other than the sled test, since

the other tests do not include neck injury criteria. Given concerns

about the limited number of available six-axis transducers, that

company asked that the agency either limit application of the six-axis

neck transducer to the sled test or that it be optional for a period of

six months.

Mitsubishi similarly argued that the six-axis neck transducer

should only be specified for the sled test. That company argued that

manufacturers should have the option of using the neck transducer

structural replacement, three-axis neck transducer, or six-axis

transducer for barrier testing.

Mitsubishi noted that the agency had stated in the preamble to the

interim final rule that the six-axis transducer with appropriate head

modification is identical in mass, center of gravity location, and

rigidity compared to the three-axis neck transducer or neck transducer

replacement. That commenter argued, however, that it is concerned that

the modifications to the dummy to incorporate the six-axis transducers

might make it necessary for a manufacturer to re-test its vehicles, in

some cases, to be sure that are no unforeseeable differences in dummy

kinematics.

Mitsubishi also argued that since the barrier test does not include

neck injury criteria, requiring the six-axis transducer on the Hybrid

III dummy for barrier testing is unnecessarily burdensome. That

commenter stated that should the agency nonetheless make the six-axis

transducer a permanent requirement for all Hybrid III dummies, a lead

time of at least one year should be provided.

Mercedes stated that it believes there should be an interim period

of several years time where either a three-axis or six-axis neck

transducer may be used for the purpose of the sled test. Mercedes

stated that the three-axis neck transducer is sufficient for purposes

of measuring the neck injury criteria specified as part of Standard No.

208's sled test.

Toyota made similar arguments to those of some of the other

manufacturers concerning use of either the three-axis or six-axis

transducer, and the need for lead time if the agency makes the six-axis

transducer mandatory. Toyota also stated that it conducted a neck

calibration test to investigate the influence of a change from the

three-axis neck transducer to a six-axis neck transducer. It stated

that data for both transducers are in the requirement corridor, but

there is a difference in moment value. That company stated that, as a

result, it does not know to what extent this difference affects the

Head Injury Criterion value. Toyota stated that it would therefore need

time to investigate this influence on its vehicles under development,

as well as to assess the need for design changes.

III. Legislation Requiring Improved Air Bags

Subsequent to the comment closing dates for the three interim final

rules at issue, Congress required the agency to conduct rulemaking to

improve air bags. The NHTSA Reauthorization Act of 1998 directs the

agency to issue, not later than September 1, 1998,

a notice of proposed rulemaking to improve occupant protection for

occupants of different sizes, belted and unbelted, under Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, while minimizing the risk to

infants, children, and other occupants from injuries

[[Page 45963]]

and deaths caused by air bags, by means that include advanced air

bags.

In a paragraph titled ``Coordination of Effective Dates,'' the Act

provides that the unbelted sled test option ``shall remain in effect

unless and until changed by [the final rule for improved air bags].''

The Conference Report states that the current sled test certification

option remains in effect ``unless and until phased out according to the

schedule in the final rule.''

This legislation is relevant to the three interim final rules at

issue in two primary ways. First, the agency originally adopted the

sled test alternative (to which the interim final rules apply) as a

temporary amendment with a specific termination date. That date has

been superseded by the provision of the legislation which specifies

that the sled test remains in effect unless it is changed by the final

rule for improved air bags. Second, while the agency already had plans

to thoroughly examine in rulemaking what occupant protection

requirements are appropriate for the future, this rulemaking will be

conducted according to a statutory mandate.

IV. Agency Decision

After carefully considering the comments, NHTSA has decided to make

permanent all of the interim final rules. The agency notes that the

term ``permanent,'' as used in this context, is a word of art. It

refers to the reissuance, after notice and comment, of a final rule

initially issued as an interim final rule. The use of the term with

respect to the final rules relating to the sled test does not mean that

the agency is deciding in this rulemaking to make the sled test

permanent. The agency will address the duration of the sled test itself

in the separate rulemaking on advanced air bags.

A. Exclusions/Special Requirements Related to Standards No. 201, 203

and 209

As indicated above, the only commenter which raised concerns about

the exclusions/special requirements related to Standards No. 201, 203

and 209 was Advocates. In responding to that organization's concerns,

NHTSA believes it is important to emphasize that each of these

exclusions/special requirements was adopted in the past because of

considerations related to safety and air bags generally. In particular:

The agency adopted the special requirement in Standard No.

201 in 1991 primarily because of concerns that the existing Standard

No. 201 requirement created problems in designing top-mounted, upward-

deploying passenger air bags.

The agency adopted the Standard No. 203 exclusion in 1975

because that standard's existing requirement interfered with the

development of driver air bags.

The agency adopted the Standard No. 209 exclusion

concerning belt system elongation in 1981 because the standard's

existing requirement prevented the use of belts that, as part of a

combined seat belt/air bag system, achieved the maximum reduction in

head injuries and upper torso injuries.

None of these rationales varies depending on whether an air bag-

equipped vehicle is certified to a barrier test or a sled test, and

Advocates has not provided any arguments or analysis suggesting

otherwise. Additional ``engineering analysis'' is not needed to make

this obvious point. Thus, the agency believes it is necessary to extend

the special requirements/exclusions to vehicles certified to the sled

test. Otherwise, the requirements of Standard No. 201 would create

problems in designing top-mounted, upward-deploying passenger air bags,

Standard No. 203 would interfere with the development of driver air

bags, and Standard No. 209 would prevent the use of belts that, as part

of a combined seat belt/air bag system, achieve the maximum reduction

in head injuries and upper torso injuries.

NHTSA believes that Advocates' real concerns are with the potential

safety consequences related to depowering and with adoption of the

unbelted sled test, rather than with the special requirements/

exclusions that were the subject of the interim final rules at issue.

However, this concern will be addressed by the upcoming rulemaking

concerning advanced air bags. As indicated above, NHTSA will shortly be

issuing, pursuant to a statutory mandate, ``a notice of proposed

rulemaking to improve occupant protection for occupants of different

sizes, belted and unbelted, under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

No. 208, while minimizing the risk to infants, children, and other

occupants from injuries and deaths caused by air bags, by means that

include advanced air bags.'' NHTSA Reauthorization Act of 1998. The

agency will thoroughly consider, as part of this rulemaking, what

occupant protection requirements are appropriate for the future,

including issues related to the unbelted sled test.

As to Advocates' concerns about the use of interim final rules, the

agency agrees that this type of rulemaking procedure should only be

used where absolutely necessary, in accordance with statutory criteria.

The agency believes that the need to avoid delaying depowering

justified issuing the rules at issue on an interim basis.

NHTSA notes that, as part of today's final rule, it is also

amending the provision at issue in Standard No. 201 to reflect an

updated reference in Standard No. 208.

B. Six-Axis Neck Transducer

NHTSA is also making final the amendments to Part 572 so that the

Hybrid III test dummy incorporates the six-axis neck transducer. The

agency is correcting the typographical error identified by GM and Ford.

As noted earlier, the agency specified use of the six-axis neck

transducer as part of the final rule establishing the sled test

alternative, but needed to make a conforming amendment to Part 572 so

that the Hybrid III dummy incorporated that instrumentation. NHTSA

specified use of the six-axis neck transducer rather than the three-

axis transducer because the three-axis transducer does not provide

information about the effects of off-axis loading that may occur in air

bag impacts and crash tests involving the dummy's rotational

kinematics.

Those commenters which stated that the three-axis transducer could

be used to measure the neck injury criteria specified for Standard No.

208's unbelted sled test are correct. However, in specifying a test

procedure for measuring neck criteria, the agency believed it was

appropriate to specify the more advanced instrumentation. The six-axis

transducer has been available for about a decade and has been

extensively used by both the agency and industry. NHTSA has used the

six-axis transducer in its New Car Assessment Program and for nearly

all of its research and development tests.

NHTSA also notes that, as part of its upcoming rulemaking

concerning advanced air bags, it may consider the adoption of more

advanced neck injury criteria than currently specified in Standard No.

208. Such criteria are already used for research purposes. Measurement

of the more advanced injury criteria may require the additional

information provided by the six-axis transducer.

NHTSA disagrees that specification of the six-axis transducer is

burdensome. The agency will use that transducer in compliance testing.

However, manufacturers certifying compliance with the safety standards

are not required to follow exactly the compliance test procedures set

forth in the applicable standard. In fact, manufacturers are not even

required to

[[Page 45964]]

conduct any actual testing before certifying that their products comply

with applicable safety standards.

To avoid liability for civil penalties in connection with any

noncompliance that may be determined to exist, manufacturers must

exercise ``due care'' to assure compliance and in making their

certification. It may be simplest for a manufacturer to establish that

it exercised ``due care'' if the manufacturer has conducted testing

that strictly followed the compliance test procedures set forth in the

standard. However, ``due care'' might also be shown using modified test

procedures if the modifications were not likely to have had a

significant impact on the test results.

As discussed in the preamble to the May 1997 interim final rule,

the six-axis neck transducer with appropriate head modification is

identical in mass, center of gravity location, and rigidity with the

previously specified head that was equipped with either the neck

transducer structural replacement or the optionally available three-

axis neck transducer. Moreover, the modifications in the Hybrid III

dummy necessary to accommodate the six-axis neck transducer were very

minor.

This, coupled with the agency's experience in using the Hybrid III

dummy with the six-axis neck transducer, leads it to believe that use

of the six-axis transducer does not have any influence on measurements

of Standard No. 208's longstanding injury criteria, e.g., HIC. The

agency notes that while Toyota identified some difference in measuring

moment value, it did not present any data showing an effect on HIC.

Therefore, the agency believes there is no reason manufacturers could

not certify their vehicles based on tests using the dummy with the

three-axis neck transducer or its structural replacement, with the

possible exception (depending on the specific circumstances) of the

neck criteria for the sled test.

Some commenters suggested that the rule specify dummy neck options,

which would result in multiple dummy designs. For reasons discussed

earlier, this is not necessary. Reiterating the most significant

reasons, the agency has stated that it will test with the six-axis load

cell, the dummy changes to accomplish this change are simple to

implement, there is no indication that dummy HIC data are affected by

this neck configuration, and manufacturers are not required to use the

six-axis load cell.

Moreover, NHTSA observes that the manufacturer comments are now

over a year old. Thus, the amount of time requested by some of the

manufacturers for procuring and evaluating the six-axis neck

transducers has already passed. In the past year, vehicle manufacturers

and the agency have had considerable additional experience in this

area. The agency is not aware of any application or functional problems

that have resulted from specifying use of the six-axis transducer.

IV. Effective Date

The effective date for today's amendments is September 1, 1998. The

agency has selected this date because, while the amendments are already

in effect as interim final rules, some of them would expire on

September 1, 1998 in the absence of today's final rule.

V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under

E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies

and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O.

12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This action has been

determined to be ``nonsignificant'' under the Department of

Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures.

As to the exclusions/special requirements related to Standards No.

201, 203 and 209, the amendments do not impose any new requirements,

but simply ensure that the vehicle manufacturers do not face design

impediments with respect to air-bag-equipped vehicles certified to the

unbelted sled test that they do not face for air-bag-equipped vehicles

certified to the unbelted barrier test. As to the amendments related to

the Hybrid III test dummy, the amendments do not require any vehicle

design changes. Instead, they only require minor modifications in the

test dummies used to evaluate a vehicle's compliance with Standard No.

208. The incremental costs associated with procuring six axis neck

transducers, where manufacturers do not already have such transducers,

represent a negligible cost impact for vehicles. The agency concludes

that the impacts of the amendments are so minimal that a full

regulatory evaluation is not required.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this final rule under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this rule does not

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

As indicated above, as to the exclusions/special requirements

related to Standards No. 201, 203 and 209, the amendments do not impose

any new requirements but simply ensure that the vehicle manufacturers

do not face design impediments with respect to air-bag-equipped

vehicles certified to the unbelted sled test that they do not face for

air-bag-equipped vehicles certified to the unbelted barrier test.

As to the amendments related to the Hybrid III test dummy, the

amendments do not require any vehicle design changes but instead only

specify minor modifications in the test dummies used to evaluate a

vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. Further, the costs

associated with the amendments are so minor that they will not have any

effect on vehicle prices. Therefore, small organizations and small

governmental units are not affected in their capacity as purchasers of

vehicles.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-

511), there are no requirements for information collection associated

with this rule.

D. National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has also analyzed this rule under the National Environmental

Policy Act and determined that it will not have a significant impact on

the human environment.

E. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

NHTSA has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that this rule

will not have significant federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

F. Civil Justice Reform

This rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C.

30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a

State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable to the

same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal

standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a

higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for

the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial

review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor

vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a

petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before

parties may file suit in court.

[[Page 45965]]

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber

products, Tires.

49 CFR Part 572

Motor vehicle safety.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Chapter V is amended as

follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

1. The authority citation for part 571 of Title 49 continues to

read as follows:

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

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

2. Section 571.201 is amended by revising S5.1(b) to read as

follows:

Sec. 571.201 Standard No. 201; Occupant protection in interior impact.

* * * * *

S5.1 * * *

(b) A relative velocity of 19 kilometers per hour for vehicles that

meet the occupant crash protection requirements of S5.1 of 49 CFR

571.208 by means of inflatable restraint systems and meet the

requirements of S4.1.5.1(a)(3) by means of a Type 2 seat belt assembly

at the right front designated seating position, the deceleration of the

head form shall not exceed 80 g continuously for more than 3

milliseconds.

* * * * *

3. Section 571.208 is amended by revising the last sentence of S3

to read as follows:

Sec. 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant crash protection.

* * * * *

S3. * * * Compliance with S13 shall, for purposes of Standards No.

201, 203 and 209, be deemed as compliance with the unbelted frontal

barrier requirements of S5.1 of this section.

* * * * *

The interim final rule amending 49 CFR part 572 which was published

at 62 FR 27514 on May 20, 1997 is adopted as a final rule with the

following change:

PART 572--ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DEVICES

4. The authority citation for Part 572 of Title 49 continues to

read as follows:

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

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Subpart E--Hybrid III Test Dummy

5. Section 572.36 is amended by revising paragraph (i)(8) to read

as follows:

Sec. 572.36 Test conditions and instrumentation.

* * * * *

(i) * * *

(8) Femur Force--Class 600

* * * * *

Issued: August 25, 1998.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98-23240 Filed 8-27-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P