[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 63 (Thursday, April 2, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16215-16216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-8451]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-97-2714]
RIN 2127-AG17


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

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

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This action withdraws the proposed rulemaking which considered 
allowing partial ejection of the Hybrid III dummy during crash tests 
under FMVSS No. 208. The NPRM addressing the proposed change was 
published on August 30, 1996. 61 FR 45927. NHTSA is terminating this 
rulemaking because it believes full containment is an important safety 
issue. Additionally while NHTSA was aware that the problem addressed by 
the petition occurs only in a limited number of vehicles and under 
limited circumstances before it issued the NPRM, it is now also aware 
that the problem is now being successfully addressed by vehicle 
manufacturers. The agency notes that future rulemakings in the area of 
glazing may provide manufacturers with an opportunity to further 
correct any partial ejection problems.

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: Ms. Rebecca MacPherson, 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:

Background

    On August 18, 1995, the American Automobile Manufacturers 
Association (AAMA) submitted a petition for rulemaking to amend Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant Crash 
Protection.'' The petition sought to amend the standard's provisions 
which currently require that the test dummy must remain within the test 
vehicle throughout a crash test sequence. AAMA averred that the 
requirement is impracticable and outdated, stating that it is now 
widely recognized that air bags are a supplemental restraint system 
which cannot adequately restrain an unbelted occupant. AAMA also 
claimed that partial ejections of the test dummies were random and 
momentary. AAMA requested that S6.1.1 of FMVSS No. 208 be changed from 
``[A]ll portions of the test device shall be contained within the outer 
surfaces of the vehicle passenger compartment throughout the test'' to 
``[T]he test device shall be within the vehicle passenger compartment 
at the completion of the test.''
    After reviewing AAMA's petition, NHTSA issued an NPRM on August 30, 
1996 (61 FR 45927). The agency stated that the question of whether to 
issue the amendment requested by the petitioner should be decided in 
the context of a rulemaking proceeding. NHTSA issued several specific 
requests for information so that it could accurately evaluate both the 
scope of the problem and whether there were options available other 
than eliminating the containment requirement in FMVSS No. 208. NHTSA 
said it would consider options ranging from making no change in the 
standard to adopting the amendment requested by the petitioner. The 
agency set forth proposed regulatory text that falls within the middle 
of the range of options:

    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.

NHTSA identified a number of relevant issues and requested information 
on the

[[Page 16216]]

extent of the problems faced by the vehicle manufacturers.

Summary of Comments

    Four automobile manufacturers and two safety groups responded to 
the NPRM. Ford supported NHTSA's proposed amendment to S6.1.1 and 
S6.2.1, while Suzuki, Volkswagen and General Motors all supported the 
language suggested by AAMA. Advocates for Highway Safety and the 
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) both opposed the change 
suggested in the NPRM, although IIHS agreed that some loosening of the 
containment requirement may be advisable.
    Volkswagen said that it has had no problems meeting FMVSS No. 208's 
current containment criteria. It also stated, however, that it is 
concerned that compliance problems may arise in the future which could 
require countermeasures which may not be in the best interest of 
overall vehicle safety. Suzuki stated that it has occasionally 
experienced problems with dummy containment, but only when the window 
is open. Suzuki maintains that changing the containment requirement 
will eliminate the need to test vehicles twice to assure that the 
containment requirement is met, once with the windows open (to aid in 
filming) and once with the windows closed (to confine the dummy). 
Suzuki would like to see the current standard changed so that it could 
eliminate testing redundancy.
    Ford and GM both responded that they have had containment problems 
which have required countermeasures, primarily with light truck and 
vans (LTVs). Ford said that it has not had any problems with dummy 
containment in its passenger cars. GM reported that the problems that 
it encountered with its passenger cars have been resolved by closing 
the car windows. Both Ford and GM said they have experienced problems 
with their LTVs that have required more extensive corrective measures. 
Apparently, all problems with the LTVs are the result of the window 
glass breaking, allowing partial ejection.
    According to Ford, all of its concerns relate to the unbelted dummy 
condition in the angular barrier test. Ford stated that its difficulty 
with its light trucks has been due to their higher seating position 
relative to the beltline and shorter front ends which lead to door 
deformation and resulting glass breakage. Ford also suggested that it 
believes the shoulder joint of the Hybrid III dummy was non-biofidelic 
and was responsible for some of its problems. Ford stated that it has 
been able to resolve these problems through various means which prevent 
glass breakage and a reduction of the dummy's lateral velocity.
    GM stated it has experienced dummy containment problems largely 
during unbelted, angle impact testing, although it also indicated that 
problems have been noted during belted driver dummy rebound in angled 
impacts. GM has confidentially provided the agency with a discussion of 
the problems they have encountered as well as their methods of 
resolving those problems.

Decision To Withdraw

    NHTSA has decided to withdraw this rulemaking because it does not 
believe there is a current justification for reducing this important 
safety requirement. Retention of the requirement is important since the 
requirement addresses partial ejection. An analysis of the Fatal 
Analysis Reporting System (FARS) from 1992 to 1996 indicates that 
partial ejection remains a significant safety problem. FARS indicates 
that, in that five year period, a partial ejection was involved in 
8,234 fatalities. NHTSA cannot determine how many of these individuals 
would have survived their injuries had they not been partially ejected. 
During that same period, FARS reveals that in crashes involving at 
least one fatality, 1,103 people were partially ejected and suffered an 
incapacitating injury, while only 351 partially ejected people suffered 
a non-capacitating injury. An analysis of the General Estimate System 
(GES) for 1995 and 1996 1 indicates that approximately 2,000 
individuals who were partially ejected from a passenger vehicle 
suffered an incapacitating injury and approximately 1,000 people 
suffered non-incapacitating injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Prior to 1995, the GES data collection system did not 
distinguish ejections between total ejections and partial ejections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Only Ford and GM expressed any problem with meeting the dummy 
containment criteria. Both of these companies have reported that they 
have been able to resolve their problems through various means.
    Based on the manufacturers' comments to the NPRM, NHTSA does not 
believe that the partial ejections in the compliance tests noted by 
manufacturers in those comments support the concerns raised in the AAMA 
petition. AAMA contended that the partial ejections are random. If the 
partial ejections in compliance tests were truly random, manufacturers 
should not have been able to successfully address those ejections. 
Likewise, AAMA's contention that the dummy containment requirement is 
outdated since air bags are a supplemental restraint system has been 
contradicted by the information supplied by manufacturers, i.e., 
information indicating that GM is having some containment problems with 
belted dummies.
    To the extent that dummy containment problems are thought to be due 
to a non-biofidelic shoulder on the Hybrid III dummy, either 
manufacturer can file a petition for rulemaking on that issue. Ford had 
previously filed such a petition which was denied due to a lack of 
supporting data. Ford indicated in response to the NPRM that it has 
since generated that data.
    As noted above, NHTSA believes that partial ejection of vehicle 
occupants remains a serious safety problem. Accordingly, the agency has 
embarked on several safety initiatives since the promulgation of the 
NPRM which may result in the development of countermeasures that will 
aid manufacturers in addressing dummy containment issues both in the 
context of FMVSS No. 208 and in the real world. Objective 6B of the 
agency's Strategic Execution Plan states that NHTSA will improve the 
crash protection performance of motor vehicles for occupants, 
pedestrians, and cyclists through research and engineering standards. 
Its first milestone under this objective is to assess the need and 
develop procedures for ejection-mitigating vehicle improvements, 
including glazing, door latch integrity, and restraints, in front, 
side, and rear crashes.
    Based on the above discussion, the agency has decided that it is in 
the best interests of safety to withdraw this rulemaking.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    Issued: March 26, 1998.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Performance Safety Standards.
[FR Doc. 98-8451 Filed 4-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P