[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 170 (Friday, August 30, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45927-45931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22250]


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

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