[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requirement is impracticable and outdated, stating that it is now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
