[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 221 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57565-57567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28351]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 95-79; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AG01
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Steering Control Rearward
Displacement
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to exclude certain vehicles from the
application of the agency's standard on steering control rearward
displacement. The excluded vehicles would be passenger cars and other
light vehicles that are certified to comply with the frontal barrier
crash test requirements of the agency's occupant crash protection
standard by means of an air bag. The agency believes that the
engineering considerations that go into designing a vehicle with air
bags would ensure that the vehicle would have the same performance for
steering control rearward displacement as is currently required by
regulation.
DATES: Comment Date: Comments must be received by January 16, 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: Mr. Clarke B. Harper, Office of
Vehicle Safety Standards, NPS-12, 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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the March 4, 1995 directive,
``Regulatory Reinvention Initiative,'' from the President to the heads
of departments and agencies, NHTSA has undertaken a review of all its
regulations and directives. During the course of this review, the
agency identified several regulations that are potential candidates for
rescission or amendment. One of these regulations is Standard No. 204,
Steering Control Rearward Displacement, which may be redundant for
certain vehicles, given the actions which are separately required to be
taken to comply with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.
Standard No. 204 specifies requirements that limit the rearward
motion of the steering column in a frontal crash. The standard
specifies that the upper end of the steering column and shaft may not
be displaced horizontally rearward more than 5 inches in a 30-mile-per-
hour frontal barrier crash test. The standard applies to passenger cars
and other light vehicles.
Standard No. 204 is one of the agency's original safety standards.
In conjunction with Standard No. 203, Impact Protection For The Driver
From The Steering Control System, the standard is intended to reduce
the likelihood of chest, neck or head injuries in frontal impact
accidents.
In 1975, NHTSA amended Standard No. 203 to exclude from its
requirements vehicles that complied with the frontal barrier crash test
requirements (S5.1) of Standard No. 208 by means other than safety
belts, i.e., by air bags. 40 FR 17992, April 24, 1975. NHTSA stated at
that time that redundant occupant crash protection offered by certain
standards is justified for those situations where the primary occupant
crash protection system fails or multiple collisions occur. However,
NHTSA determined that the redundant protection of Standard No. 203 was
not justified where it directly interfered with the development of a
more advanced, convenient and effective occupant protection system,
such as air bags.
In 1988, NHTSA denied a petition for rulemaking from Mitsubishi
which requested that the agency amend Standard No. 204 to exclude
vehicles that comply with the frontal barrier crash test requirements
of Standard No. 208 by means other than safety belts. 53 FR 780,
January 13, 1988. The agency stated:
The agency does not agree that the protection provided by
Standard No. 204 is unnecessary for vehicles equipped with air bags.
The standard essentially requires hardware to disconnect steering
gear movement from the steering column under crash conditions. The
standard provides protection to the driver of an air bag equipped
vehicle against chest, neck or head injuries which could occur in
frontal collisions at speeds below the deployment level of the
vehicle's air bag, or in angular impacts where an air bag might not
be as likely to deploy. NHTSA further believes that, in the absence
of Standard No. 204, it is possible for a steering assembly to
displace more than five inches in a situation where the injury
criteria of Standard No. 208 were met. Thus, although the driver's
impact with the assembly fell within the injury criteria of the
latter standard, the rearward motion of the assembly might entrap
the driver or make escape from the vehicle more difficult.
In the context of reviewing whether any of its requirements are no
longer necessary, NHTSA believes it is appropriate to reconsider the
position it took in denying the Mitsubishi petition. In particular, the
agency believes that it should distinguish between whether it is
possible for a steering assembly to displace more than five inches in a
situation where an air-bag-equipped vehicle meets the injury criteria
of Standard No. 208, and whether there is any reasonable likelihood of
such an event.
NHTSA believes that one of the most fundamental engineering
considerations that manufacturers take into account in designing an
air-bag-equipped vehicle is to provide a secure platform for the air
bag. This is because, in order to design an effective air bag, the
designer must know the relative location of the air bag and the
protected occupant. If the air bag platform were moving up or down, or
backwards or forward during a crash, it could adversely affect
performance. Since the driver air bag is located on the steering
column, NHTSA believes that the engineering consideration of ensuring
that the air bag platform remains secure will lead manufacturers to
take steps that will also ensure that Standard No. 204's specified
performance for steering control rearward displacement is satisfied,
even in the absence of such standard.
NHTSA also believes that another important engineering
consideration that manufacturers take into account in designing air-bag
equipped vehicles is ensuring that the air bags are not too close to
the vehicle occupants. This is an important consideration because a
deploying air bag can injure a person who is sitting too close to the
air bag.
The agency notes that the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association
(now called the American Automobile Manufacturers Association) was
sufficiently concerned about the issue of proper spacing between
vehicle occupants and air bags to petition NHTSA to require a vehicle
label that would, among other things, caution passengers not to sit
unnecessarily close to the point from which the air bag will be
deployed. As a result of this petition, the agency amended Standard No.
208
[[Page 57566]]
to require a label providing this information. See 57 FR 59043,
December 14, 1992, and 58 FR 46551, September 2, 1993.
The agency believes that manufacturers take account of this same
concern in designing their air-bag equipped vehicles. Hence, the
consideration of ensuring that the driver air bag is not too close to
the driver will lead manufacturers to limit rearward movement of the
steering column in a crash, i.e., movement toward the driver, even in
the absence of a regulation.
For the reasons discussed above, NHTSA has tentatively concluded
that the requirements of Standard No. 204 are unnecessary for vehicles
which are certified to comply with the frontal barrier crash test
requirements of Standard No. 208 by means of air bags. The agency is
accordingly proposing to exclude such vehicles from the applicability
of Standard No. 204.
The agency emphasizes that the reason for its tentative conclusion
that Standard No. 204 is unnecessary for these vehicles is its belief,
discussed above, that the engineering considerations that go into
designing a vehicle with air bags would ensure that the vehicle would
have the same performance for steering control rearward displacement as
is currently required by Standard No. 204. NHTSA continues to believe
in the importance of limiting steering control rearward displacement,
and specifically requests comments on its belief that Standard No.
208's air bag requirements will indirectly ensure this aspect of safety
performance. Comments are specifically sought on whether a rescission
of this requirement in Standard No. 204 could lead to an increase in
injuries of a type not protected against in Standard No. 208.
The agency is proposing an effective date of 30 days after
publication of a final rule. NHTSA believes that there would be good
cause for such an effective date since the amendment would not impose
any new requirements but instead reduce manufacturers' costs without
any adverse impact on safety.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies
and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O.
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This action has been
determined to be not ``significant'' under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. NHTSA believes
that there would be no gain or loss of benefits from Standards No. 204
as a result of excluding vehicles which are certified to comply with
the frontal barrier crash test requirements of Standard No. 208 by
means of air bags. This is because, for reasons discussed above, these
vehicles would continue to have the same performance with respect to
steering control rearward displacement as vehicles without air bags.
Manufacturers would have minor, nonquantifiable cost savings as they
would no longer have to certify compliance with this requirement.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this notice under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The rule would not impose any new requirements but
would instead exclude from the applicability of Standard No. 204 those
light vehicles that are equipped with air bags. The proposed rule, if
made final, would likely result in small, nonquantifiable cost savings
for motor vehicle manufacturers since they would not need to certify
the vehicles to Standard No. 204. The cost savings would be too small
to have any significant impact on vehicle prices. Therefore, small
businesses, small organizations and small governmental units which
purchase motor vehicles would not be significantly affected by the
proposed rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-
511), there are no requirements for information collection associated
with this proposed rule.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has also analyzed this proposed rule under the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have a
significant impact on the human environment.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
NHTSA has analyzed this proposal in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that this
proposed rule would not have significant 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.
Submission of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the 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
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 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 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
[[Page 57567]]
closing date, and it is recommended 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, 49 CFR part 571 would be amended
as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571 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 571.204 would be amended by revising S2 to read as
follows:
Sec. 571.204 Standard No. 204; Steering control rearward displacement.
* * * * *
S2. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars and to
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. However it does not
apply to vehicles that conform to the frontal barrier crash protection
requirement (S5.1) of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208) by means of an
inflatable restraint system. It also does not apply to walk-in vans.
* * * * *
Issued on November 13, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-28351 Filed 11-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
