As discussed earlier in this notice, NHTSA has sought to develop requirements that are as performance-oriented as possible, and to include options for manufacturers that account for the kinds of technologies and designs that may be used. It is the agency's intent to permit the vehicle manufacturers to use any technology or design which can solve the problem of adverse effects of air bags to out-of-position occupants, so long as all of the standard's performance requirements can be met.
To aid the agency in obtaining useful comments, NHTSA is setting forth in this section a specific list of questions for commenters relating to a number of issues including, among other things: (1) whether the agency's overall proposal, and whether each of the proposed manufacturer options, would achieve an appropriate level of safety, and (2) whether additional manufacturer options or test procedures are needed to accommodate some technologies or designs. NHTSA notes that the vehicle manufacturers and air bag suppliers are in the best position to evaluate whether the proposed manufacturer options and test procedures are appropriate for the technologies and designs they have under development. Depending on the comments, the agency may issue a final rule providing some but not all of the proposed options, and/or provide additional manufacturer options or test procedures to accommodate some technologies or designs.
For easy reference, the questions are numbered consecutively. NHTSA encourages commenters to provide specific responses to each question for which they may have information or views. In addition, in order to facilitate tabulating the comments by issue, the agency encourages commenters to respond to the questions in sequence, and to identify the number of each question to which they are responding.
NHTSA requests that commenters provide as specific and documented a rationale as possible, including an analysis of safety consequences, for any positions that are taken. Commenters with a technical background are encouraged to provide scientific analysis of these matters.
The list of questions does not purport to be an all inclusive list of items or information which the public may have available and believe is valuable in assessing the issues. Commenters are encouraged to provide any other data that they believe are relevant.
1. Overall safety. Does the agency's overall proposal achieve an appropriate level of safety with respect to risks from air bags for out-of-position occupants?
a. Please address this question separately for the driver side and for the passenger side.
b. If a commenter believes that the proposal does not ensure an appropriate level of safety, please provide a detailed explanation of why. Please also describe in detail what additional or alternative requirements the agency should consider, and the kind of technologies, designs and lead time that would be needed to meet those requirements.
2. Adequacy of each proposed manufacturer option. Does each proposed manufacturer option ensure an appropriate level of safety with respect to the specific problem it addresses? How do the different options differ with respect to benefits and costs? If a commenter believes that a particular option should be changed or deleted for the final rule, please explain why. Also, please explain the consequences of changing or deleting the option, e.g., would greater lead time be needed to meet one of the remaining options?
3. Accommodation of all effective designs. Do the proposed manufacturer options accommodate all designs under development that would effectively address air bag-induced injuries and/or fatalities, and designs that are expected to be under development in the foreseeable future? More specifically, is there a need to either modify or add test procedures to the proposed options to accommodate particular technologies or designs, or to add additional options? If a commenter believes there is such a need, please provide a detailed explanation of why, both with respect to why the technology is not accommodated by the proposed options and why the technology will ensure an appropriate level of safety. Please also provide a detailed recommendation concerning what specific regulatory text the agency should adopt to accommodate the technology.
4. Possible unintended consequences. To what extent could the advanced technologies the manufacturers might adopt result in unintended adverse consequences? For example, could some occupants face higher risks than now? How should the agency consider that possibility in this rulemaking? Are there any additional or alternative requirements the agency should adopt to prevent such consequences?
5. Likely manufacturer responses. How would vehicle manufacturers likely respond to the proposed requirements, i.e., what technologies and design changes would they actually adopt? (Vehicle manufacturers are asked to provide a specific response to this question, with respect to their future product plans.)
6. Necessity of all proposed manufacturer options. Are any of the proposed manufacturer options unnecessary because no manufacturer would ever select the option?
7. Proposed test procedures--in general. NHTSA notes that some of the proposed test procedures are new. The agency requests specific comments on each of the proposed test procedures, including whether any of them should be made more specific and whether any additional conditions should be specified.
8. Proposed injury criteria. As discussed earlier in this notice, NHTSA is placing a technical paper in the docket which discusses the proposed injury criteria. The agency requests comments on each of the proposed injury criteria, the proposed calculation methods, and the proposed performance limits. The agency also requests comments on alternatives to the proposed criteria. Among other things, NHTSA requests commenters to address what risk levels are acceptable, what factors should be considered in selecting performance limits for different test requirements, and whether the same limits should be established for all test requirements, e.g., out-of-position tests, low speed tests, high speed tests. The agency also requests commenters to address how it should take account of uncertainties relating to the injury criteria, especially with respect to children.
9. Dummy recognition.
a. How should the agency address the suitability of test dummies and out-of-position occupant simulators (e.g., headforms) for testing technologies (e.g., weight sensors) for detecting the presence of occupants and technologies (e.g., infrared and ultra sound) for sensing the distance of occupants from an air bag? To what extent can the addition of simple surface treatments or clothing selection be used to solve this problem?
b. If full resolution of this or any other potential test procedure problems should necessitate the performance of longer range (multi-year) research, what interim approaches should the agency use for assessing performance? For example, one possible approach would be to permit vehicle manufacturers to specify the attributes of their suppression devices, e.g., the size of the suppression zone and to require out-of-position-type test requirements to be met for those conditions. If, for example, a manufacturer specified that the suppression zone for a vehicle's passenger-side air bag extended five inches from the centerpoint of the air bag cover, injury criteria performance limits would need to be met for infant and child dummies located anywhere outside that zone. Under such an interim approach, the introduction of effective suppression devices would not be delayed by potential problems related to completing the development of test procedures. While such an approach would not test the performance of the suppression device itself, vehicle manufacturers would have strong incentives, e.g., product liability considerations, to design the device so that it works properly under real world conditions. While the agency is hopeful that any potential test problems can be resolved in a timely manner before the final rule, it requests comments on adopting this type of interim approach, and on other potential interim approaches, should the need rise.
10. Seating procedure for 5th percentile adult female dummy. NHTSA notes that the seating procedure for the 5th percentile adult female dummy set forth in the proposed regulatory text is based on the equipment and procedures in SAE J826, "Devices for Use in Defining and Measuring Vehicle Seating Accommodations." The seating procedure is similar to that specified in Standard No. 208 for the Hybrid III 50th percentile adult male dummy. However, the agency is proposing, with respect to the SAE J826 equipment, certain adjustments in the lengths of the lower leg and thigh (femur) segments to make it appropriate for the 5th percentile adult female dummy. The agency is also aware that the SAE Hybrid III 5th Percentile Dummy Seating Procedures Task Group is developing specialized seating equipment to locate the 5th percentile adult female dummy. This equipment was expected to become available by mid-summer 1998, and the agency will place specifications for the equipment in the docket. NHTSA recognizes that this new equipment might be used as an alternative to that specified in the proposed regulatory text. The agency seeks comments on this issue.
11. Rough road tests. Are the proposed requirements and test procedures for the rough road tests appropriate? The agency is especially interested in comments concerning proposed specifications for road surface, speed, and distance of travel.
12. Telltales for automatic suppression. For vehicles which have automatic suppression features, are there both pros and cons to requiring telltale lights on the instrument panel to advise vehicle occupants of the operational status of the air bag? Please address this question separately for the driver position and the passenger position, and for rear facing infant seats and older children. If the agency did not require a telltale light, what procedure should it use in testing for determining whether an air bag is activated or deactivated?
13. Proposed automatic suppression test. The agency observes that the proposed automatic suppression test is new and may require further refinement. NHTSA therefore requests comments on all aspects of the proposed test procedure, including, but not limited to, the following issues. Is the proposed 165mm (6.5 inch) outside diameter hemispheric headform an appropriate simulator of an out-of-position occupant for the purposes of assessing the performance of an air bag suppression device? What other characteristics should the headform possess if the proposed headform is not sufficient? Should the agency specify the surface and other material of the headform? Will the hemispheric headform be recognized as a vehicle occupant by each of the various suppression systems under development? If not, are there changes in the headform that would make it recognizable?
14. Proposed dynamic out-of-position test. NHTSA notes that the proposed dynamic out-of-position test is newly developed. The agency requests commenters to address the following issues.
(a) When the proposed dynamic out-of-position test procedure is conducted for various vehicles, what are the likely trajectories of the dummies? Does the procedure result in the dummy moving directly toward a "worst-case" position in terms of potential air bag risk for each vehicle? If not, should any changes be made in the test procedure, e.g., changing initial dummy position? Please address this question separately for the 3-year old child, 6-year old child, and 5th percentile adult female dummies.
(b) The proposed seating procedures for the dummies specify the use of low friction material between the dummies and the seat. The agency has proposed to specify the use of certain readily available fabrics that could be used for this purpose. Comments are requested on other means of achieving a low friction condition, such as specifying a coefficient of static or sliding friction and the conditions for which the coefficients would apply. Specific values of a friction factor are solicited, as appropriate.
(c) Should the proposed dynamic out-of-position test be run at different speeds or angles? NHTSA notes that if a 24 km/h (15 mph) impact were specified, it is conceivable that manufacturers might be able to certify to this requirement by raising their deployment thresholds to, or slightly above, that level. The agency requests comments on whether higher deployment thresholds alone could be used to meet this test, and, if so, the safety implications of this type of countermeasure.
(d) What are reasonable tolerances on final impact speed and deceleration in order to ensure that a test is repeatable? Should a specific methodology be adopted to ensure an appropriate degree of repeatability?
15. Tests with child dummies.
(a) NHTSA is proposing that tests using infant dummies be conducted with any rear facing child restraint which was manufactured for sale in the United States between two years and ten years prior to the date the first vehicle of the model year carline of which the vehicle is a part was first offered for sale to a consumer. The agency is proposing the same approach, with respect to forward-facing child seats and booster seats, for tests using older child dummies. The agency requests comments on this approach. Is there an effective alternative means of ensuring that vehicle manufacturers take account of the variety of different child restraints in use as they design their systems?
(b) NHTSA is proposing to specify use of the 12-month-old CRABI dummy for tests using rear facing infant restraints. However, some rear facing infant restraints may only be certified for use with smaller infants, e.g., 9-month-olds. This raises the issue of whether the proposed dummy could be placed into these child restraints. The agency requests comments on how to address this issue.
(c) Some rear facing child seats are now produced for children older than 12 months. Should the agency specify additional test requirements to address this situation?
(d) Should the agency specify test requirements using car beds and, if so, what specific requirements?
16. Older Children. Standard No. 208 currently defines advanced air bag to include, among other things, a passenger air bag that provides an automatic means to ensure that the air bag does not deploy when a child seat or child with a total mass of 30 kg (66 pounds) or less is present on the front outboard passenger seat. That definition was included because vehicles with such air bags are not required to have certain warning labels.(20) NHTSA notes that the part of the definition referring to a child with a total mass of 30 kg (66 pounds) or less was included to reflect the possible use of weight sensors. The 30 kg (66 pound) threshold was originally suggested by Mercedes-Benz and corresponds to the weight of a 50th percentile 10-year-old and a 95th percentile 7-year-old. The agency stated that the threshold was far enough below the weight of a 5th percentile adult female (approximately 46 kg (101 pounds)) to avoid inadvertently deactivating the air bag when a small adult is occupying the seat. In today's proposal, the agency is not proposing a threshold as such but is instead proposing tests using specified dummies. The heaviest child dummy that would be used in testing a weight sensor intended to suppress air bag deployment for children would be the Hybrid III 6-year-old child dummy, which has a weight of approximately 24 kg (51.8 pounds). No Hybrid III child dummies are available that correspond a 9-year-old or 10-year-old. A similar issue would exist with respect to a sensor intended to suppress air bag deployment based on size, i.e., the largest size child dummy tested would be the 6-year-old. The agency requests comments on the potential gap between the size/weight of the 6-year-old child dummy and the largest/heaviest child for which suppression might be appropriate (based on presence as opposed to being out-of-position) and how the agency should deal with this issue. For example, should the agency ballast the 6-year-old child dummy to a greater weight when testing weight sensors?
17. Possible Information for Consumers. NHTSA notes that, during the phase-in of new requirements for advanced air bags, consumers may be interested in knowing which vehicles are certified to the new requirements. The agency requests comments on whether a means should be provided so that consumers can easily determine whether a vehicle has been certified to these requirements and, if so, which option(s) were selected. NHTSA also requests comments on what means should be established for communicating such information to consumers, should the agency decide to do so, e.g., a required statement on the certification label. The agency notes that such a statement or other means could also be used to determine whether the vehicle is permitted to have a retrofit on-off switch under Part 595.
18. Temperature. NHTSA notes that it is asking several questions related to temperature and air bag performance in connection with its consideration of a petition for rulemaking submitted by Parents for Safer Air Bags. A discussion of the petition is included in an appendix to this notice.
Does temperature have a significant effect on air bag deployment performance? Is there a need to address this variable in Standard No. 208? If so, what specific performance requirements and test procedures should be considered? How are vehicle manufacturers and suppliers currently addressing this issue? The agency specifically requests data related to temperature effects on sled and vehicle crash testing.
19. Possible requirements relating to turning off cruise controls upon air bag deployment. NHTSA notes that cruise controls are turned off when a vehicle is braked. Many crashes, however, do not involve braking. The agency requests comments on a possible requirement to require cruise controls to be turned off upon air bag deployment.
20. Possible requirements related to preventing air bag deployments during rescue operations following a crash. As the agency has monitored the real world performance of air bag deployments, it has noted scattered reports of air bags deploying during rescue operations following a crash. This can result in injury to rescue personnel and also cause further injury to occupants. In NHTSA's Emergency Rescue Guidelines for Air Bag Equipped Vehicles,(21) the agency explains that deactivating the vehicle's electrical system prevents deployment of all electrically initiated air bags after a specific time period. The specific times for different vehicles are identified as part of the guidelines. The times vary significantly for different vehicles, ranging from 0 seconds to 10 and even 20 minutes.
The agency requests comments on possible requirements relating to preventing air bag deployments during rescue operations following crashes. Should the agency specify requirements concerning air bag deactivation times relative to deactivation of the vehicle's electrical system for electrically initiated air bags, or some other means of deactivation? Should the agency specify any other requirements for these and/or other kinds of air bags?
21. Organization of Standard No. 208. Do commenters have any specific recommendations concerning the organization of the regulatory text for Standard No. 208, with respect to either or both the existing and the proposed text? The agency notes that one way of simplifying the standard would be to remove outdated text and to separate seat belt requirements from crash test requirements. NHTSA is especially interested in specific comments concerning how all of the crash test requirements, existing and proposed, could be organized in a simple manner.
22. Possible development of alternative unbelted crash test requirements. The vehicle manufacturers have raised various objections to the existing unbelted barrier test requirements. As discussed earlier in this notice, NHTSA is placing in the docket a technical paper which discusses the representativeness of those requirements with respect to real-world frontal crashes which have a potential to cause serious injury or fatality. NHTSA requests comments on that paper and on whether the agency should develop alternative unbelted crash test requirements. NHTSA requests commenters that advocate alternative unbelted crash test requirements to recommend specific alternative requirements and to address the following questions:
a. How do the recommended alternative requirements compare to the existing unbelted barrier test requirements (tests at any speed up to 48 km/h (30 mph), and at angles ranging from ± 30 degrees oblique to perpendicular, into a rigid barrier) with respect to representing the range of frontal crashes which have a potential to cause serious injuries or fatalities? In answering this question, please consider the entire range of tests incorporated into the existing requirements and the recommended alternative requirements. Please specifically address representativeness with respect to (1) crash pulses, (2) crash severities, and (3) occupant positioning, and provide separate answers for crashes likely to cause fatalities and crashes likely to cause serious but not fatal injuries.
b. How do the recommended alternative requirements compare to the existing requirements with respect to repeatability, reproducibility, and objectivity?
c. To what extent can it be concluded that a countermeasure needed to meet the recommended alternative would ensure protection in frontal crashes not directly represented by the test, e.g., crashes with different pulses (harder or softer) or different severities (more severe or less severe)? Please quantify the amount of protection that would be ensured in other types of crashes, i.e., what the injury criteria measurements would be. Please answer this same question for the existing unbelted barrier test requirements.
d. Commenters are asked to specifically address why they believe the recommended alternative is superior to the current requirements. In providing this answer, commenters are asked to respond to the following questions:
1. If the recommended alternative is believed to be representative of crashes not directly represented by the current requirements, should it be added to Standard No. 208 rather than replace the existing requirements?
2. If a commenter believes that air bag designs needed to meet the existing unbelted barrier test requirements provide less-than-optimum protection in other types of crashes, please provide specific examples and explain why advanced technologies permitting tailored air bag response cannot be used to meet the existing performance requirements and provide appropriate protection in the examples at issue.
23. Possibility of more children sitting in the front seat with advanced air bags. As vehicle manufacturers install advanced air bags which minimize the risks air bags pose to children, the public may believe that the front seat is now safe for children, and more children would then sit in the front seat. However, the back seat has always been safer for children, even before there were air bags. NHTSA conducted a study of children who died in crashes in the front and back seats of vehicles, very few of which had passenger air bags. The study concluded that placing children in the back reduces the risk of death in a crash by 27 percent, whether or not a child is restrained.(22) NHTSA requests comments on what steps it and others can take to address the possible problem of more children riding in the front seat with advanced air bags.
