Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Export-Controlled Information and Technology, 46807 [05-15930]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 154 / Thursday, August 11, 2005 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
48 CFR Parts 204, 235, and 252
[DFARS Case 2004–D010]
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement; ExportControlled Information and
Technology
Department of Defense (DoD).
Proposed rule; extension of
comment period.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: DoD is extending the
comment period for the proposed rule
published at 70 FR 39976 on July 12,
2005. The proposed rule contains
requirements for preventing
unauthorized disclosure of exportcontrolled information and technology
under DoD contracts. The comment
period is extended to accommodate
significant interest expressed with
regard to the proposed rule.
DATES: The ending date for submission
of comments is extended to October 12,
2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Amy Williams, Defense Acquisition
Regulations Council,
OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DAR), IMD 3C132,
3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC
20301–3062. Telephone (703) 602–0328;
facsimile (703) 602–0350. Please cite
DFARS Case 2004–D010.
Michele P. Peterson,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations
System.
[FR Doc. 05–15930 Filed 8–10–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–08–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA–2005–
21971]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition for
rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document denies a
petition for rulemaking to amend the
definition of frontal air bag system in
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 208, ‘‘Occupant crash
protection.’’ NHTSA has addressed this
issue in a recent final rule dated
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:00 Aug 10, 2005
Jkt 205001
46807
November 19, 2003, and in an
interpretation letter dated July 19, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
non-legal issues: Christopher Wiacek,
Office of Crashworthiness Standards,
NVS–112, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone: (202) 366–4801. Fax: (202)
366–7002.
For legal issues: Christopher Calamita,
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:
‘‘the intent of the term air bag is to
describe the components that make up
the passenger-side dash mounted and
driver-side steering wheel hubmounted, inflatable restraint used for
occupant protection in a frontal impact.
This does not refer to any other
pyrotechnic system such as a belt
pretensioner or inflatable knee bolster.’’
I. Background
16.3.1.14 The term ‘‘frontal air bag
system’’ describes the components
that make up the driver- and front
passenger inflatable restraints used
for occupant protection in a frontal
impact.
On May 12, 2000, NHTSA amended
FMVSS No. 208 to require that future air
bags be designed to create less risk of
serious air bag induced injuries than
current air bags, particularly for small
women and young children; and
provide improved frontal crash
protection for all occupants, by means
that include advanced air bag
technology (65 FR 30680; advanced air
bag rule). The advanced air bag rule
adopted a low risk deployment (LRD)
test to address the risk air bags pose to
out-of position occupants, particularly
those of small stature. The test is
performed by activating a frontal air bag
system with a test dummy in ‘‘worst
case’’ positions. For the driver position,
this included placing a 5th percentile
adult female test dummy’s chin on the
module and on the steering wheel. For
the passenger position, this included
placing a child dummy’s head and chest
in close proximity to the right front
passenger air bag module.
In a November 19, 2003, final rule, the
agency specifically addressed which air
bag system components are fired in the
LRD test in response to a request for a
clarification from DaimlerChrysler. The
agency stated, ‘‘While neither ‘‘air bag
[system]’’ or ‘‘inflatable restraint
[system]’’ is defined in FMVSS No. 208
or any other place in 49 CFR part 571,
the intent of the term ‘‘air bag’’ is to
describe the components that make up
the passenger-side dash-mounted and
driver-side steering wheel hubmounted, inflatable restraints used for
occupant protection in a frontal impact.
This does not refer to any other
pyrotechnic system such as a belt
pretensioner or inflatable knee bolster
(69 FR 65179, 65186).’’
On May 26, 2004, Toyota requested
NHTSA’s official interpretation of the
definition of ‘‘air bag system’’ as
applicable to FMVSS No. 208. NHTSA
responded on July 19, 2004, by stating
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
II. The Petition
On January 27, 2005, the Toyota
Motor North America, Inc. (Toyota),
petitioned NHTSA to amend FMVSS
No. 208 Section 16.3.1 General
provisions and definitions by adding
Section 16.3.1.14 as follows:
Toyota believes the current definition of
‘‘air bag’’ is restrictive and believes this
constraint limits alternative passive
restraint technologies in order to
provide appropriate levels of occupant
protection. They also opined that the
current definition is limiting in that it
suggests that manufacturers will always
design passive restraints systems that
will deploy from the steering wheel hub
or dash.
III. Discussion and Analysis
Toyota requested that the definition of
‘‘air bag’’ be expanded to include all
frontal inflatable restraints, specifically
as it applies to S26, Procedure for low
risk deployment tests of driver air bag.
As explained in the July 19, 2004
interpretation letter, the agency does not
have data available on the effect that
deploying devices, other than the frontal
passenger-side dash mounted and
driver-side steering wheel hub-mounted
air bags, will have on the advanced air
bag rule low risk deployment test
procedure. Nor does the agency have
any data on the performance of any
other pyrotechnic devices for out-ofposition occupants in the field.
Furthermore, there is concern that
deploying other pyrotechnic devices
could negatively impact the
repeatability of the low risk deployment
test even though they might deploy in
real world crashes. For these reasons,
the agency is denying the Toyota
petition. In accordance with 49 CFR part
552, this completes the agency’s review
of the petition for rulemaking.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162; delegations of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8.
E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM
11AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 154 (Thursday, August 11, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 46807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-15930]
[[Page 46807]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
48 CFR Parts 204, 235, and 252
[DFARS Case 2004-D010]
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Export-
Controlled Information and Technology
AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DoD is extending the comment period for the proposed rule
published at 70 FR 39976 on July 12, 2005. The proposed rule contains
requirements for preventing unauthorized disclosure of export-
controlled information and technology under DoD contracts. The comment
period is extended to accommodate significant interest expressed with
regard to the proposed rule.
DATES: The ending date for submission of comments is extended to
October 12, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Williams, Defense Acquisition
Regulations Council, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense
Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone (703) 602-0328;
facsimile (703) 602-0350. Please cite DFARS Case 2004-D010.
Michele P. Peterson,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
[FR Doc. 05-15930 Filed 8-10-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-08-P
