Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 74-14; Notice 101]

RIN 2127-AG17

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend a provision in the agency's

occupant crash protection standard which specifies that, during crash

tests, all portions of a test dummy must remain in the vehicle

throughout the test. NHTSA is considering a range of alternative

requirements, all of which would require the test dummy to remain in

the vehicle at the conclusion of the test. The agency is taking this

action to ensure that the standard's requirements are practicable. This

action results from a petition for rulemaking submitted by the American

Automobile Manufacturers Association.

DATES: Comments must be received by October 29, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice number of

this notice and be submitted to: Docket Section, Room 5109, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590. (Docket Room hours are 9:30 a.m.-4 p.m., Monday

through Friday.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Mr. 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: Mr. 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:

Current Automatic Protection Requirements

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, specifies, among other

things, ``automatic protection'' requirements for passenger cars and

light trucks. Vehicles must meet specified injury criteria, measured

using test dummies, during a barrier crash test, at speeds up to 30 mph

and at a

[[Page 45928]]

range of specified angles. The standard specifies several injury

criteria, including ones for the head and chest, and one specifying

that all portions of the dummies remain in the vehicle throughout the

test. For air-bag-equipped vehicles, the criteria must be met both when

the dummies are belted and when they are unbelted.

The automatic protection requirements have applied to passenger

cars since the late 1980's, and are currently being phased in for light

trucks. In establishing the requirements, NHTSA permitted a variety of

methods of providing automatic protection, including automatic belts

and air bags. Congress, however, included a provision in the Intermodal

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) directing NHTSA

to prescribe an amendment to Standard No. 208 to require, by the late

1990's, that all passenger cars and light trucks provide automatic

protection by means of air bags. The final rule implementing this

provision of ISTEA was published in the Federal Register (58 FR 46551)

on September 2, 1993.

The vehicle manufacturers are far ahead of the ISTEA implementation

schedule. Manufacturers have been providing air bags in a large number

of passenger cars for several years, and nearly every 1996 model year

passenger car will be equipped with both driver-side and passenger-side

air bags as standard equipment. A large number of model year 1996 light

trucks are also equipped with air bags.

Petition for Rulemaking

NHTSA has received a petition for rulemaking from the American

Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA) 1 requesting a change

in Standard No. 208's requirement that all portions of the dummies

remain in the vehicle at all times throughout the test. More

specifically, AAMA requested that the requirement be changed from:

``All portions of the test device shall be contained within the outer

surfaces of the vehicle passenger compartment,'' to: ``The test device

shall be within the vehicle passenger compartment at the completion of

the test.''

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

1 AAMA's member companies are Chrysler, Ford, and General

Motors.

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

AAMA argued that the existing requirement is ``an obsolete and

subjective criterion (that) is a relic of the early 1970's notion that

air bags alone could provide complete protection from frontal, lateral

and rollover collisions.'' That organization stated that ``(a)ir bags

have been recognized since at least 1984 as being a supplement to

safety belt restraints and they simply cannot prevent ejection or

partial ejection in all instances.''

AAMA provided the following further explanation for its request:

AAMA is convinced that a momentary, partial excursion of a test

dummy's extremity outside the outline of the door window opening

does not demonstrate a significant safety risk. Changes that might

be made to try to completely contain ``All portions of the test

dummy,'' such as smaller and softer air bags, may inhibit design of

the air bag for optimum performance in ``real-world'' impact

conditions. Structural changes necessary to try to keep all portions

of the test dummy completely within the occupant compartment may

hinder the overall occupant protection performance of the vehicle.

Accordingly, the specific requirement as it pertains to current

vehicles is unreasonable.

Recent NHTSA rulemaking has mandated compliance with specified

injury criteria, as measured with an instrumented test dummy, during

a dynamic side impact test described in FMVSS 214. The head of the

side impact dummy routinely, although momentarily, traverses outside

the confines of the vehicle during a FMVSS 214 dynamic side impact

test, and such an excursion is not considered a failure to meet the

requirements. This very limited dummy excursion through the window

opening does not demonstrate a significant safety risk in frontal or

front angular impacts. Applying this agency rationale clearly shows

that the FMVSS 208 dummy containment requirement, as specified, is

obsolete.

Since the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act

mandated that vehicle manufacturers provide dual air bags for all

vehicles by the 1999 model year, knowledge of the interaction

between a test dummy and an air bag in all types of vehicles has

grown. It is this more recent information that shows that a

requirement to maintain complete dummy containment throughout a

barrier impact test is both unreasonable and impracticable. For

example, during an impact, an unbelted test dummy acts like a linked

multi-piece projectile. The positions of its appendages during

impact and rebound are difficult to predict and even more difficult

to control. A test dummy tends to be unstable when seated in an

upright position. If not supported by seat backs and belts, it will

tip over easily. This instability also makes it difficult, if not

impossible, to predict the position of the test dummy as it rebounds

from an air bag system, especially during angular impacts. Momentary

partial excursion of hands, arms, shoulders and/or head is very

possible during impact or rebound, both during angular impacts and

during perpendicular impacts conducted with the windows open.

Many light trucks and vans, particularly those with higher

seating reference points relative to the ground, have relatively low

beltlines to provide appropriate driver vision characteristics. In

these vehicles, it is becoming increasingly apparent that during

angular impacts, parts of a dummy may randomly and momentarily, move

slightly outside the plane of the open window during rebound from

the air bag and knee bolster. These random dummy excursions result

directly from the reaction of the dummy to (1) contact with the air

bag and (2) the unpredictable motion of the vehicle as it reacts to

the angled barrier after the initial impact. Because of the relative

positioning of a driver to the steering wheel, which typically

houses the air bag, it is the driver dummy that is more likely to

exhibit a random, momentary excursion.

Maintaining each appendage of a test dummy completely within the

occupant compartment during an angular impact, a side impact or

during rollover testing is impracticable. However, AAMA supports the

position that the test dummy as a whole should remain within the

vehicle during the test, i.e., it should not be ejected from the

vehicle. The need for motor vehicle safety would be addressed in the

most appropriate manner if the regulation were to optimize the

performance of the air bag system, even though a dummy's head,

shoulder, hand or arm might momentarily extend through the door

glass.

This position is consistent with the desire to maintain vehicle

passenger compartment integrity and to prevent ejections.

Accordingly, AAMA recommends this requirement be changed to

incorporate the current understanding that a safety belt is required

to prevent ejection.

NHTSA held a meeting with representatives of AAMA and its member

companies to discuss the petition. One issue which was discussed was

the possibility of using a vehicle's windows to meet the dummy

containment requirement. Section S8.1.5 of Standard No. 208 provides

that ``(m)ovable vehicle windows and vents are, at the manufacturer's

option, placed in the fully closed position.'' While most vehicle

manufacturers select the option for windows to be open during testing,

a few select the option for windows to be closed.

AAMA stated that using windows to control dummy containment is not

a practicable option. According to the petitioner, current crash pulses

in certain vehicles are strong enough to cause permanent structural

deformation of the door frame and door, always resulting in broken

window glazing. These structural changes provide a path for partial

ejection of the test dummy during a crash test. AAMA also indicated

that manufacturers are designing their light trucks and vans to have

lower beltlines. (The beltline is the widest perimeter of the vehicle

when viewed from the top or plan view.) AAMA stated that crash forces

during Standard No. 208 testing can cause structural deformation of the

low-beltline front doors with attendant loss of the glazing's ability

to provide containment because the glazing breaks.

[[Page 45929]]

Another issue that was discussed at the meeting concerned the

ability to determine whether the current dummy containment requirement

has been met during a test. General Motors (GM) stated that determining

how far the dummy extends beyond the outer surface of the vehicle is

difficult when viewing test films. Even under controlled test

conditions, dummy extension is difficult to confirm because of camera

viewing angles and vehicle structural deformations. GM stated that two

different viewers of the same film may perceive the degree of test

dummy containment differently, or may even disagree whether the test

dummy has extended beyond the outer surface of the vehicle.

Proposal

After analyzing the arguments presented by AAMA in its petition and

in the subsequent meeting with agency personnel, NHTSA has decided that

the question of whether to issue the amendment requested by the

petitioner should be decided in the context of a rulemaking proceeding.

The agency will consider options ranging from no change in the standard

to adopting the amendment requested by the petitioner. The agency is

setting forth proposed regulatory text that falls within the middle

range of options:

All portions of the test device shall be within the vehicle

passenger compartment at the completion of the test. If the test is

conducted with safety belts fastened, the head of the test device

shall be contained within the outer surfaces of the vehicle

passenger compartment throughout the test.

In considering any petition to reduce the stringency of an existing

safety requirement, NHTSA is obviously concerned about the possible

impacts on safety. In the case of this requested change, however, it is

difficult to assess the possible impacts.

On the one hand, it is ``directionally incorrect'' to permit

partial dummy ejection, since there is a greater risk of injury to any

portion of a person's body that is outside of a vehicle during a crash.

Moreover, the requirement at issue is related to a critical area where

the agency is focusing significant resources and attention, i.e., full

and partial occupant ejections through windows, the subject of NHTSA's

advanced glazing initiative.

On the other hand, AAMA argues that the vehicle manufacturers'

experience in attempting to meet the requirement has shown that it is

impracticable. That is, AAMA contends that at least for some vehicles

and some test conditions, there are no available countermeasures to

meet the requirement. Moreover, AAMA contends that some possible

countermeasures, such as smaller air bags or structural changes, may

negatively affect safety. To the extent that NHTSA amended the standard

only to the extent necessary to ensure practicability, such an

amendment would not appear to have any effect on safety.

While AAMA has provided sufficient information for NHTSA to decide

to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency desires

additional information to fully assess this issue for a possible final

rule. The agency recognizes the need to ensure the practicability of

its standards, and that experience in implementing a new requirement

may demonstrate that a change is necessary. At the same time, before

reducing an existing safety requirement, NHTSA must carefully assess

the evidence indicating that a change is needed. The agency must also

carefully consider the evidence with respect to the necessary scope of

any such change.

NHTSA notes that the vehicle manufacturers have been certifying

air-bag-equipped passenger cars to the current requirement for a number

of years. The agency seeks additional information to assess the extent

to which the problem cited by AAMA may apply only to light trucks, only

to certain types of light trucks, or more generally to passenger cars

and light trucks.

NHTSA also seeks additional information to assess the extent to

which the problem cited by AAMA may apply to both the belted and

unbelted test conditions, or only to the unbelted test condition. The

agency notes that one of the purposes of safety belts is to prevent

occupant ejection, and that even partial ejection of a person's head

raises particular safety concerns. Therefore, one option that the

agency is considering is to adopt the amendment suggested by AAMA,

except that partial excursion of the dummy's head would be prohibited

throughout the test for the belted condition. This is the option that

is reflected in the proposed regulatory text.

In order to obtain the information needed to reach a final

decision, NHTSA is setting forth below a number of questions directed

toward the vehicle manufacturers. The agency is requesting more

specific information and data concerning the manufacturers' efforts to

meet the existing requirement and the problems they may have

experienced or may be experiencing. The agency recognizes that some of

this information may be confidential, e.g., it may relate to future

product plans. The agency requests that, to the extent possible,

manufacturers providing confidential information also provide a public

document that generally discusses the significance of the underlying

confidential data without revealing the data itself. For example, if a

manufacturer provides confidential test data relating to a specific

future product, it may be able to provide a general description of that

information and its significance without revealing the specific future

product. Such a general, non-confidential discussion would help the

public understand the relevant issues. Also, NHTSA could use that non-

confidential discussion in explaining whatever decision it reaches

concerning this matter. While the questions are directed toward

manufacturers, all interested persons, of course, may provide relevant

information in response to the questions.

Questions for Manufacturers

1. Please explain how you have met Standard No. 208's dummy

containment requirement for air-bag-equipped passenger cars. Have any

particular passenger car models posed particular difficulties? How did

you address those difficulties? Please address whether, and how, you

are currently having difficulty meeting the dummy containment

requirement for particular passenger car models.

2. For which light truck models (and passenger car models, if any)

are you having difficulty meeting the dummy containment requirement?

What design changes, including interior changes, air bag changes,

structural additions or modifications, bracing, material changes, and

window design changes, have you considered or investigated? To what

extent do each of these design changes enable a vehicle to meet the

dummy containment requirement? What tests have you conducted?

3. To what extent do the problems you are experiencing specifically

relate to: The unbelted condition, the belted condition, the full

frontal test condition, the angle test condition, the driver position,

and the passenger position?

4. Please provide specific information concerning any safety

tradeoffs associated with each of the designs identified in response to

Question 2. How do each of the changes affect test dummy responses,

including head injury criterion (HIC), chest g's, and femur loading?

5. What are the estimated costs of each of the changes identified

in response to Question 2?

6. Please explain why the design strategies used for passenger cars

are not

[[Page 45930]]

available for light trucks. Are there particular characteristics of

light trucks which create a problem? Does this problem exist for all

light trucks, or only for light trucks with particular characteristics?

7. To what extent have you considered the use of advanced glazing

concepts to meet the dummy containment requirement?

Proposed Effective Date

The proposed amendment would not impose any new requirements but

would instead ensure the practicability of Standard No. 208's

requirements. According, NHTSA has tentatively concluded that there

would be good cause for an effective date 60 days after publication of

a final rule.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866,

``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' NHTSA has considered the impact of

this rulemaking action under the Department of Transportation's

regulatory policies and procedures. This action has been determined to

be not ``significant'' under those policies and procedures.

As discussed above, the purpose of this proposed revision is to

ensure that Standard No. 208's requirements are practicable. While

NHTSA needs additional information to complete its analysis for

purposes of a final rule, the agency expects to conclude that a final

rule would not affect vehicle designs. Consequently, the proposal is

not expected to affect either occupant safety or compliance costs for

manufacturers. Accordingly, the agency concludes that preparation of a

full regulatory evaluation for this proposal is not warranted.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has considered the effects of this proposed rulemaking action

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that it would

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

The proposal affects motor vehicle manufacturers. Almost all motor

vehicle manufacturers would not qualify as small businesses. Moreover,

as discussed above, the proposal is not expected to affect compliance

costs for manufacturers.

National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this proposal for the purposes of the National

Environmental Policy Act and determined that a final rule adopting this

proposal would not have any significant impact on the quality of the

human environment.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

The agency has analyzed this proposal in accordance with the

principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 12612. NHTSA has

determined that this proposal does not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Civil Justice Reform

This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49

U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in

effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable

to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal

standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a

higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for

the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial

review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor

vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a

petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before

parties may file suit in court.

Comments

Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposal.

It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.

All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length (49 CFR 553.21).

Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without

regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage

commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.

If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim

of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including

the purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted

to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and

seven copies from which the purportedly confidential information has

been deleted should be submitted to the NHTSA Docket Section. A request

for confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting

forth the information specified in the agency's confidential business

information regulation. 49 CFR part 512.

All comments received by NHTSA before the close of business on the

comment closing date indicated above for the proposal will be

considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the

above address both before and after that date. To the extent possible,

comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Comments

received too late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be

considered as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on

the proposal will be available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA

will continue to file relevant information as it becomes available in

the docket after the closing date, and recommends that interested

persons continue to examine the docket for new material.

Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their

comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped

postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the

comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber

products, Tires.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that 49 CFR part

571 be amended as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

1. The authority citation for part 571 of Title 49 would continue

to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

2. Section 571.208 would be amended by revising S6.1.1 and S6.2.1

to read as follows:

Sec. 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant crash protection.

* * * * *

S6.1.1 All portions of the test device shall be within the vehicle

passenger compartment at the completion of the test. In the case of a

test conducted with safety belts fastened, the head of the test device

shall be contained within the outer surfaces of the vehicle passenger

compartment throughout the test.

* * * * *

S6.2.1 All portions of the test device shall be within the vehicle

passenger compartment at the completion of the test. In the case of a

test conducted with safety belts fastened, the head of the test device

shall be contained within the outer surfaces of the vehicle passenger

compartment throughout the test.

* * * * *

[[Page 45931]]

Issued on August 27, 1996.

Patricia Breslin,

Acting Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 96-22250 Filed 8-29-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P