# Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A98-23957 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** September 18, 1998 - **Citation:** 63 FR 49958 ## Text 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 cons [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A98-23957. Public record. Not legal advice.