Anthropomorphic Test Devices; Denial of Petition for Reconsideration Regarding the Hybrid III 5th Percentile Female Test Dummy, Alpha Version, 13227-13229 [05-5342]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 52 / Friday, March 18, 2005 / Notices
snow plows to strike them when
operating over the hump. If the waiver
is granted, NS would raise the height of
the pilot plates or snow plow to allow
more clearance and would re-adjust the
height whenever it is necessary for a
hump assigned locomotive to be moved
from Bellevue or Roanoke yards.
Interested parties are invited to
participate in these proceedings by
submitting written views, data, or
comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in
connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a
hearing. If any interested party desires
an opportunity for oral comment, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before
the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these
proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (FRA–2005–
20384) and must be submitted to the
Docket Clerk, DOT Docket Management
Facility, Room PL–401 (Plaza Level),
400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590. Communications received within
45 days of the date of this notice will
be considered by FRA before final
action is taken. Comments received after
that date will be considered as far as
practicable. All written communications
concerning these proceedings are
available for examination during regular
business hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at the
above facility. All documents in the
public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet
at the docket facility’s Web site at
https://dms.dot.gov.
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78). The
Statement may also be found at https://
dms.dot.gov.
Issued in Washington, DC on March 14,
2005.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety
Standards and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 05–5363 Filed 3–17–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket Number: MARAD 2004–17114]
[Docket No. NHTSA–2000–6940]
Availability of a Finding of No
Significant Impact
Anthropomorphic Test Devices; Denial
of Petition for Reconsideration
Regarding the Hybrid III 5th Percentile
Female Test Dummy, Alpha Version
Department of Transportation,
Maritime Administration.
AGENCY:
Notice of the availability of a
finding of no significant impact.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is
to make available to the public the
Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) derived from the
Environmental Assessment (EA)
regarding the Port of Anchorage (Port)
Marine Terminal Redevelopment
Project. The purpose of the project is to
improve and enhance the existing dock
and terminal capability at the Port to
facilitate the transportation of goods and
people within the State of Alaska.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel E. Yuska, Jr., Environmental
Protection Specialist, Office of
Environmental Activities, U.S. Maritime
Administration, 400 7th Street, SW.,
Room 7209, Washington, DC 20590;
telephone (202) 366–0714, fax (202)
366–6988.
The
Maritime Administration, in
cooperation with the Port of Anchorage,
completed an EA that studied potential
environmental effects associated with
the redevelopment of the marine
terminal used by the Port. The EA
considered potential effects to the
natural and human environments
including: Air quality; water quality;
geology and soils; coastal resources;
terrestrial resources; aquatic resources;
navigation; hazardous materials;
cultural and historic resources; visual
and aesthetic resources; and other topics
associated with the proposed action.
The FONSI is based on the analysis
presented in the Marine Terminal
Redevelopment EA.
The FONSI and the EA are available
for review at Loussac Library in
Anchorage or online at https://
www.portofanchorage.org and https://
dms.dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
(Authority: 49 CFR 1.66.)
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Dated: March 11, 2005.
Joel C. Richard,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. 05–5335 Filed 3–17–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–81–P
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:14 Mar 17, 2005
Jkt 205001
13227
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Denial of petition for
reconsideration.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice denies an August
29, 2002, petition for reconsideration
submitted by DaimlerChrysler. The
petitioner asked the agency to delay the
effective date of the Hybrid III 5th
Percentile Female Test Dummy,
specified in the 49 CFR Part 572,
Subpart O final rule, ‘‘Response to
Petitions for Reconsideration’’ (67 FR
46400).
For
non-legal issues: Mr. Sean Doyle, Office
of Crashworthiness Standards, NVS–
111, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:
(202) 366–1740. Facsimile: (202) 473–
2629. Electronic Mail:
Sean.Doyle@nhtsa.dot.gov.
For legal issues: Mr. Christopher
Calamita, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC–
112, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:
(202) 366–2992. Facsimile: (202) 366–
3820. Electronic Mail:
Christopher.Calamita@nhtsa.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
DaimlerChrysler petitioned the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), in a letter
dated August 29, 2002, to delay the
September 13, 2002, effective date for
the dummy specified in the Part 572,
Subpart O final rule (67 FR 46400) until
all issues related to the neck are
resolved.
In the mid 1990’s, there had been
serious concern regarding air bag related
fatalities and injuries to small female
drivers seated close to deploying air
bags in low speed crashes. Crash data
showed that small-stature women often
experienced a higher potential for
serious injury in low speed crashes,
even when properly restrained. To help
deal with these concerns, NHTSA
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) on September 18,
1998, to upgrade Federal Motor Vehicle
E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM
18MRN1
13228
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 52 / Friday, March 18, 2005 / Notices
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208,
‘‘Occupant crash protection’’ (63 FR
49958). The NPRM proposed that
vehicles be equipped with advanced air
bags that meet new and more rigorous
performance requirements. The NPRM
proposed alternative options for
complying with the new set of
performance requirements to ensure that
new air bags were designed to avoid
causing injury to a broad array of
occupants. After receiving public
comments, the agency published a
supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (SNPRM) on November 5,
1999, for FMVSS No. 208 (64 FR 60556)
outlining the proposed Nij neck injury
criterion. DaimlerChrysler submitted
comments on December 23, 1999,
(NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA–99–6407)
in response to the SNPRM citing its
concerns over the need and usefulness
of the Nij specification as an adequate
neck injury measure in the advanced air
bag rule, and questioning the sufficiency
of the Hybrid III neck to measure
appropriately the injury producing
forces and movements as they relate to
the human neck.
Complementing the November 5,
1999, proposed rulemaking, the agency
incorporated in 49 CFR Part 572 the
specifications for the Hybrid III 5th
Percentile Female Test Dummy (65 FR
10961) on March 1, 2000. This dummy
was incorporated to permit assessment
of the potential for injury to smallstature adults and teenagers in frontal
crashes and to facilitate the
development of technologies that would
minimize the risk of injury from
deploying air bags, in part, through
application of Nij as an injury
assessment measure. In response to the
March 1, 2000, final rule,
DaimlerChrysler submitted a petition for
reconsideration on April 14, 2000, again
stating its concern with the need for and
use of Nij and the adequacy of the HIII
5th Percentile Female Dummy’s neck.
After consideration of
DaimlerChrysler’s and others’ comments
to the November 1999 SNPRM, the
agency published a final rule amending
FMVSS No. 208 on May 12, 2000 (65 FR
30680), adopting the proposed neck
injury criteria. Since the publication of
the advanced air bag final rule,
DaimlerChrysler has submitted
additional petitions to FMVSS No. 208
on June 26, 2000, and February 1, 2002,
reiterating its previous objection
regarding Nij and the Hybrid III 5th
Percentile Female Test Dummy’s neck.
The agency first addressed
DaimlerChrysler’s petitions for
reconsideration concerning the
adequacy of the Nij and the Hybrid III
5th Percentile Female Test Dummy’s
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:14 Mar 17, 2005
Jkt 205001
neck in the response to petitions for
reconsideration of the advanced air bag
rulemaking published on December 18,
2001 (66 FR 65376). On July 15, 2002,
the agency likewise denied the
DaimlerChrysler petition for
reconsideration (submitted April 14,
2000) of the adoption of the Hybrid III
5th Percentile Female into 49 CFR Part
571, Subpart O (67 FR 46400).
Analysis
In its petition for reconsideration
dated August 29, 2002, DaimlerChrysler
claimed that it either did not clearly
communicate its position in its April 14,
2000, petition for reconsideration of the
final rule (Subpart O) or NHTSA
misinterpreted what DaimlerChrysler
was attempting to convey. In particular
DaimlerChrysler stated that:
1. DaimlerChrysler only petitioned to
discontinue use of the Nij in
conjunction with the Hybrid-III neck
and did not petition to discontinue use
of the neck;
2. The agency believes that
DaimlerChrysler contends that the neck
muscles do not contribute to global
moments of the neck, when
DaimlerChrysler’s position is that
moments generated due to neck muscles
do not contribute to injury; and
3. The agency did not address
DaimlerChrysler’s claim that the basis of
the moment component of the Nij is the
local moments, and that the global
moments (the moments measured by the
Hybrid III [neck]) cannot be used to
estimate the local moments.
4. DaimlerChrysler questioned the
accuracy of the response of the Hybrid
III dummy neck with regards to the
moments recorded when there was little
head rotation.
After consideration of
DaimlerChrysler’s August 29, 2002,
petition for reconsideration of 49 CFR
Part 572, Subpart O final rule, NHTSA
concludes that there is no reasonable
justification to delay the
implementation date of the Hybrid III
5th Percentile Female Test Dummy final
rule as the petitioner requested. The
issues in this petition for
reconsideration were raised by
DaimlerChrysler previously, twice in
petitions of FMVSS No. 208 (June 26,
2000, Docket No. 00–7013 and February
1, 2002, Docket No. 01–1110) and once
in a petition of 49 CFR Part 572 (April
14, 2000, Docket No. 00–6940). The
agency fully understood and considered
the issues raised by DaimlerChrysler
when it denied those three previous
petitions. The agency does not believe it
is appropriate to challenge the validity
of Nij in a petition for reconsideration
of a rule implementing or amending 49
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
CFR Part 572, Subpart O, since the Nij
neck injury criteria is specified in
FMVSS No. 208 and is not relevant to
49 CFR Part 572.
NHTSA fully understands that
DaimlerChrysler only petitioned to
discontinue use of the Nij in
conjunction with the Hybrid III neck
and did not petition to completely
discontinue use of the neck. NHTSA
acknowledges the likelihood that injury
causing moments are those of the
ligamentous spine when some moment
levels are exceeded, as does the agency
acknowledge that the global neck
moments, measured by the Hybrid III
dummy neck, may include some
contribution from the muscle pairs, as
well as the local moment at the occipital
condyle (OC). However, the agency
disagrees that Nij cannot be used with
the Hybrid III dummy neck, since the
criteria was developed and validated for
that particular dummy neck.1
Furthermore, the Nij was adjusted to
account for possible muscle
contribution.
DaimlerChrysler also questioned the
accuracy of the response of the Hybrid
III dummy neck with regards to the
moments recorded when there was little
head rotation. The agency’s analysis of
air bag loading patterns with the Hybrid
III neck showed that in nearly all cases
with high moments at the OC, there was
also a corresponding high shear force
caused by direct contact between the air
bag and the neck. This correlation
between a high OC moment and high
shear force measured by the upper and
lower neck load cells were recorded
only when the air bag directly contacted
the neck. Moreover, this direct neck
contact did not always result in
significant head rotation. The agency,
therefore, believes the moments being
recorded are appropriate because they
are partly accounted for by the shear
force that is occurring during contact.
Lastly, the Transportation Equity Act
(TEA 21) initially specified the
implementation of advanced air bags by
September 1, 2002. The agency used
provisions allowed in the Act to extend
the implementation date from
September 1, 2002 to September 1,
2003, (January 1, 2003, Docket No. 02–
14270). To further ease the transition, a
phase-in period was established with
the first year of implementation reduced
1 ‘‘Development of Improved Injury Criteria for
the Assessment of Advanced Automotive Restraint
Systems—II’’ and ‘‘Supplemental: Development of
Improved Injury Criteria for the Assessment of
Advanced Automotive Restraint Systems—II’’
(NHTSA Docket # 1999–6407).
E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM
18MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 52 / Friday, March 18, 2005 / Notices
to 20% of the vehicle production.2
Consequently, 20% of the vehicle fleet
already complies with the advanced air
bag requirements, and within the next
few months the majority of the vehicle
fleet (65% of model year 2005 vehicles)
will comply with the advanced air bag
requirements. To date, there have been
no manufacturers unable to meet the
FMVSS No. 208 Nij requirements.
Conclusion
Inasmuch as the DaimlerChrysler’s
petition did not provide further test data
to support its petition, and the Nij limits
are practicable and have contributed to
the elimination of special risks for
small-statured occupants, the agency
finds no reason or justification for
giving the DaimlerChrysler petition
further consideration. Accordingly, the
DaimlerChrysler Petition for
Reconsideration of August 29, 2002, is
hereby denied.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162; delegations of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8.
Issued on: March 14, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 05–5342 Filed 3–17–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2005–20649]
Notice of Receipt of Petition for
Decision That Nonconforming 2003–
2004 Porsche Cayenne Multipurpose
Passenger Vehicles Are Eligible for
Importation
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for
decision that nonconforming 2003–2004
Porsche Cayenne multipurpose
passenger vehicles are eligible for
importation.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document announces
receipt by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a
petition for a decision that 2003–2004
Porsche Cayenne multipurpose
passenger vehicles that were not
originally manufactured to comply with
all applicable Federal motor vehicle
safety standards, are eligible for
importation into the United States
because (1) they are substantially
similar to vehicles that were originally
2 The second year of the phase-in requires 65%
of the production to comply with the advanced air
bag requirement.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:14 Mar 17, 2005
Jkt 205001
manufactured for importation into and
sale in the United States and that were
certified by their manufacturer as
complying with the safety standards,
and (2) they are capable of being readily
altered to conform to the standards.
DATES: The closing date for comments
on the petition is April 18, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to
the docket number and notice number,
and be submitted to: Docket
Management, Room PL–401, 400
Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC
20590. [Docket hours are from 9 a.m. to
5 p.m.]. Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you
may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, NHTSA (202–366–3151).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a
motor vehicle that was not originally
manufactured to conform to all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standards shall be refused admission
into the United States unless NHTSA
has decided that the motor vehicle is
substantially similar to a motor vehicle
originally manufactured for importation
into and sale in the United States,
certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of
the same model year as the model of the
motor vehicle to be compared, and is
capable of being readily altered to
conform to all applicable Federal motor
vehicle safety standards.
Petitions for eligibility decisions may
be submitted by either manufacturers or
importers who have registered with
NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As
specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA
publishes notice in the Federal Register
of each petition that it receives, and
affords interested persons an
opportunity to comment on the petition.
At the close of the comment period,
NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has
received, whether the vehicle is eligible
for importation. The agency then
publishes this decision in the Federal
Register.
US SPECS of Aberdeen, Maryland
(Registered Importer 03–321) has
petitioned NHTSA to decide whether
nonconforming 2003–2004 Porsche
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13229
Cayenne multipurpose passenger
vehicles are eligible for importation into
the United States. The vehicles which
US SPECS believes are substantially
similar are 2003–2004 Porsche Cayenne
multipurpose passenger vehicles that
were manufactured for importation into,
and sale in, the United States and
certified by their manufacturer as
conforming to all applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety standards.
The petitioner claims that it carefully
compared non-U.S. certified 2003–2004
Porsche Cayenne multipurpose
passenger vehicles to their U.S.-certified
counterparts, and found the vehicles to
be substantially similar with respect to
compliance with most Federal motor
vehicle safety standards.
US SPECS submitted information
with its petition intended to
demonstrate that non-U.S. certified
2003–2004 Porsche Cayenne
multipurpose passenger vehicles as
originally manufactured, conform to
many Federal motor vehicle safety
standards in the same manner as their
U.S. certified counterparts, or are
capable of being readily altered to
conform to those standards.
Specifically, the petitioner claims that
non-U.S. certified 2003–2004 Porsche
Cayenne multipurpose passenger
vehicles are identical to their U.Scertified counterparts with respect to
compliance with Standard Nos. 102
Transmission Shift Lever Sequence,
Starter Interlock, and Transmission
Braking Effect, 103 Windshield
Defrosting and Defogging Systems, 104
Windshield Wiping and Washing
Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 113 Hood
Latch System, 116 Motor Vehicle Brake
Fluids, 119 New Pneumatic Tires for
Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, 124
Accelerator Control Systems, 135
Passenger Car Brake Systems, 201
Occupant Protection in Interior Impact,
202 Head Restraints, 204 Steering
Control Rearward Displacement, 205
Glazing Materials, 207 Seating Systems,
210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, 212
Windshield Mounting, 214 Side Impact
Protection, 216 Roof Crush Resistance,
219 Windshield Zone Intrusion, and 302
Flammability of Interior Materials.
The petitioner also contends that the
vehicles are capable of being readily
altered to meet the following standards,
in the manner indicated:
Standard No. 101 Controls and
Displays: Replacement or conversion of
the speedometer to read in miles per
hours.
Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective
Devices and Associated Equipment:
Installation, on vehicles that are not
already so equipped, of U.S.-model
headlamps, front side marker lamps,
E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM
18MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 52 (Friday, March 18, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13227-13229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-5342]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2000-6940]
Anthropomorphic Test Devices; Denial of Petition for
Reconsideration Regarding the Hybrid III 5th Percentile Female Test
Dummy, Alpha Version
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Denial of petition for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice denies an August 29, 2002, petition for
reconsideration submitted by DaimlerChrysler. The petitioner asked the
agency to delay the effective date of the Hybrid III 5th Percentile
Female Test Dummy, specified in the 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart O final
rule, ``Response to Petitions for Reconsideration'' (67 FR 46400).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Mr. Sean Doyle,
Office of Crashworthiness Standards, NVS-111, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone: (202) 366-1740. Facsimile: (202) 473-2629. Electronic Mail:
Sean.Doyle@nhtsa.dot.gov.
For legal issues: Mr. Christopher Calamita, Office of Chief
Counsel, NCC-112, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992.
Facsimile: (202) 366-3820. Electronic Mail:
Christopher.Calamita@nhtsa.dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
DaimlerChrysler petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), in a letter dated August 29, 2002, to delay the
September 13, 2002, effective date for the dummy specified in the Part
572, Subpart O final rule (67 FR 46400) until all issues related to the
neck are resolved.
In the mid 1990's, there had been serious concern regarding air bag
related fatalities and injuries to small female drivers seated close to
deploying air bags in low speed crashes. Crash data showed that small-
stature women often experienced a higher potential for serious injury
in low speed crashes, even when properly restrained. To help deal with
these concerns, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
on September 18, 1998, to upgrade Federal Motor Vehicle
[[Page 13228]]
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection'' (63 FR
49958). The NPRM proposed that vehicles be equipped with advanced air
bags that meet new and more rigorous performance requirements. The NPRM
proposed alternative options for complying with the new set of
performance requirements to ensure that new air bags were designed to
avoid causing injury to a broad array of occupants. After receiving
public comments, the agency published a supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (SNPRM) on November 5, 1999, for FMVSS No. 208 (64 FR 60556)
outlining the proposed Nij neck injury criterion. DaimlerChrysler
submitted comments on December 23, 1999, (NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA-99-
6407) in response to the SNPRM citing its concerns over the need and
usefulness of the Nij specification as an adequate neck injury measure
in the advanced air bag rule, and questioning the sufficiency of the
Hybrid III neck to measure appropriately the injury producing forces
and movements as they relate to the human neck.
Complementing the November 5, 1999, proposed rulemaking, the agency
incorporated in 49 CFR Part 572 the specifications for the Hybrid III
5th Percentile Female Test Dummy (65 FR 10961) on March 1, 2000. This
dummy was incorporated to permit assessment of the potential for injury
to small-stature adults and teenagers in frontal crashes and to
facilitate the development of technologies that would minimize the risk
of injury from deploying air bags, in part, through application of Nij
as an injury assessment measure. In response to the March 1, 2000,
final rule, DaimlerChrysler submitted a petition for reconsideration on
April 14, 2000, again stating its concern with the need for and use of
Nij and the adequacy of the HIII 5th Percentile Female Dummy's neck.
After consideration of DaimlerChrysler's and others' comments to
the November 1999 SNPRM, the agency published a final rule amending
FMVSS No. 208 on May 12, 2000 (65 FR 30680), adopting the proposed neck
injury criteria. Since the publication of the advanced air bag final
rule, DaimlerChrysler has submitted additional petitions to FMVSS No.
208 on June 26, 2000, and February 1, 2002, reiterating its previous
objection regarding Nij and the Hybrid III 5th Percentile Female Test
Dummy's neck.
The agency first addressed DaimlerChrysler's petitions for
reconsideration concerning the adequacy of the Nij and the Hybrid III
5th Percentile Female Test Dummy's neck in the response to petitions
for reconsideration of the advanced air bag rulemaking published on
December 18, 2001 (66 FR 65376). On July 15, 2002, the agency likewise
denied the DaimlerChrysler petition for reconsideration (submitted
April 14, 2000) of the adoption of the Hybrid III 5th Percentile Female
into 49 CFR Part 571, Subpart O (67 FR 46400).
Analysis
In its petition for reconsideration dated August 29, 2002,
DaimlerChrysler claimed that it either did not clearly communicate its
position in its April 14, 2000, petition for reconsideration of the
final rule (Subpart O) or NHTSA misinterpreted what DaimlerChrysler was
attempting to convey. In particular DaimlerChrysler stated that:
1. DaimlerChrysler only petitioned to discontinue use of the Nij in
conjunction with the Hybrid-III neck and did not petition to
discontinue use of the neck;
2. The agency believes that DaimlerChrysler contends that the neck
muscles do not contribute to global moments of the neck, when
DaimlerChrysler's position is that moments generated due to neck
muscles do not contribute to injury; and
3. The agency did not address DaimlerChrysler's claim that the
basis of the moment component of the Nij is the local moments, and that
the global moments (the moments measured by the Hybrid III [neck])
cannot be used to estimate the local moments.
4. DaimlerChrysler questioned the accuracy of the response of the
Hybrid III dummy neck with regards to the moments recorded when there
was little head rotation.
After consideration of DaimlerChrysler's August 29, 2002, petition
for reconsideration of 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart O final rule, NHTSA
concludes that there is no reasonable justification to delay the
implementation date of the Hybrid III 5th Percentile Female Test Dummy
final rule as the petitioner requested. The issues in this petition for
reconsideration were raised by DaimlerChrysler previously, twice in
petitions of FMVSS No. 208 (June 26, 2000, Docket No. 00-7013 and
February 1, 2002, Docket No. 01-1110) and once in a petition of 49 CFR
Part 572 (April 14, 2000, Docket No. 00-6940). The agency fully
understood and considered the issues raised by DaimlerChrysler when it
denied those three previous petitions. The agency does not believe it
is appropriate to challenge the validity of Nij in a petition for
reconsideration of a rule implementing or amending 49 CFR Part 572,
Subpart O, since the Nij neck injury criteria is specified in FMVSS No.
208 and is not relevant to 49 CFR Part 572.
NHTSA fully understands that DaimlerChrysler only petitioned to
discontinue use of the Nij in conjunction with the Hybrid III neck and
did not petition to completely discontinue use of the neck. NHTSA
acknowledges the likelihood that injury causing moments are those of
the ligamentous spine when some moment levels are exceeded, as does the
agency acknowledge that the global neck moments, measured by the Hybrid
III dummy neck, may include some contribution from the muscle pairs, as
well as the local moment at the occipital condyle (OC). However, the
agency disagrees that Nij cannot be used with the Hybrid III dummy
neck, since the criteria was developed and validated for that
particular dummy neck.\1\ Furthermore, the Nij was adjusted to account
for possible muscle contribution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Development of Improved Injury Criteria for the Assessment
of Advanced Automotive Restraint Systems--II'' and ``Supplemental:
Development of Improved Injury Criteria for the Assessment of
Advanced Automotive Restraint Systems--II'' (NHTSA Docket
1999-6407).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DaimlerChrysler also questioned the accuracy of the response of the
Hybrid III dummy neck with regards to the moments recorded when there
was little head rotation. The agency's analysis of air bag loading
patterns with the Hybrid III neck showed that in nearly all cases with
high moments at the OC, there was also a corresponding high shear force
caused by direct contact between the air bag and the neck. This
correlation between a high OC moment and high shear force measured by
the upper and lower neck load cells were recorded only when the air bag
directly contacted the neck. Moreover, this direct neck contact did not
always result in significant head rotation. The agency, therefore,
believes the moments being recorded are appropriate because they are
partly accounted for by the shear force that is occurring during
contact.
Lastly, the Transportation Equity Act (TEA 21) initially specified
the implementation of advanced air bags by September 1, 2002. The
agency used provisions allowed in the Act to extend the implementation
date from September 1, 2002 to September 1, 2003, (January 1, 2003,
Docket No. 02-14270). To further ease the transition, a phase-in period
was established with the first year of implementation reduced
[[Page 13229]]
to 20% of the vehicle production.\2\ Consequently, 20% of the vehicle
fleet already complies with the advanced air bag requirements, and
within the next few months the majority of the vehicle fleet (65% of
model year 2005 vehicles) will comply with the advanced air bag
requirements. To date, there have been no manufacturers unable to meet
the FMVSS No. 208 Nij requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The second year of the phase-in requires 65% of the
production to comply with the advanced air bag requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
Inasmuch as the DaimlerChrysler's petition did not provide further
test data to support its petition, and the Nij limits are practicable
and have contributed to the elimination of special risks for small-
statured occupants, the agency finds no reason or justification for
giving the DaimlerChrysler petition further consideration. Accordingly,
the DaimlerChrysler Petition for Reconsideration of August 29, 2002, is
hereby denied.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162; delegations of authority at 49 CFR
1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8.
Issued on: March 14, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 05-5342 Filed 3-17-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
