Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection, 46807-46808 [05-15957]

Download as PDF 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 46808 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 154 / Thursday, August 11, 2005 / Proposed Rules Issued on: August 4, 2005. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. 05–15957 Filed 8–10–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P VerDate jul<14>2003 14:00 Aug 10, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 154 (Thursday, August 11, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46807-46808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-15957]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

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

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 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:

I. Background

    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 hub-mounted, 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 ``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 hub-mounted, 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.''

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:

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.

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-of-position 
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.


[[Page 46808]]


    Issued on: August 4, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 05-15957 Filed 8-10-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.