# Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A96-22250

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** August 30, 1996
- **Citation:** 61 FR 45927

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A96-22250. Public record. Not legal advice.