[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 14, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26425-26427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-12640]
[[Page 26425]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 74-14; Notice 117]
RIN 2127--AG80
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In March 1997, NHTSA temporarily amended the agency's occupant
crash protection standard to ensure that vehicle manufacturers can
quickly depower all air bags so that they inflate less aggressively.
More specifically, the agency adopted an unbelted sled test protocol as
a temporary alternative to the standard's full scale unbelted barrier
crash test. NHTSA took this action to provide an immediate, but
interim, solution to the problem of the fatalities and injuries that
current air bag designs are causing in relatively low speed crashes to
small, but growing numbers of children, and occasionally to adult
occupants. This document makes a further amendment to the agency's
occupant crash protection standard, so that certain exclusions from
requirements in two other safety standards that are available for
vehicles certified to the unbelted barrier test will also be available
for vehicles certified to the alternative sled test. This action is
necessary to prevent a delay in depowering. NHTSA also solicits
comments on this amendment.
DATES: Effective date: The amendments made by this interim final rule
are effective May 9, 1997.
Comments: Comments must be received on or before July 14, 1997.
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 information about air bags and related rulemakings: Visit the
NHTSA web site at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov and select ``AIR BAGS:
Information about air bags.''
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: J. 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: 0n March 19, 1997, NHTSA published in the
Federal Register (62 FR 12960) a final rule temporarily amending
Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, to ensure that vehicle
manufacturers can quickly depower all air bags so that they inflate
less aggressively. More specifically, the agency adopted an unbelted
sled test protocol, recommended by the American Automobile
Manufacturers Association (AAMA), as a temporary alternative to
Standard No. 208's full scale unbelted barrier crash test. The agency
did not change the standard's full scale belted barrier crash test.
NHTSA took this action to provide an immediate, but interim,
solution to the problem of the fatalities and injuries that current air
bag designs are causing in relatively low speed crashes to small, but
growing numbers of children, and occasionally to adult occupants. The
sled test alternative will be available for vehicles manufactured
before September 1, 2001, by which time the agency expects the vehicle
manufacturers to be able to adopt more advanced air bags that will
address these problems.
In early April 1997, AAMA advised the agency that its member
companies had discovered that certain provisions in Standard No. 203,
Impact protection for the driver from the steering control system, and
Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, could prevent or substantially
delay depowering. In each case, the other standard specified an
exclusion from certain requirements for vehicles certified to meet
Standard No. 208's barrier crash test requirements. The exclusion would
thus not be available for a vehicle which was certified to Standard No.
208's alternative sled test requirement.
NHTSA notes that neither it nor the commenters on the depowering
proposal identified the issue of whether these exclusions in standards
other than Standard No. 208 should be available for vehicles certified
to the alternative sled test requirement. The agency did, however, make
it clear that it believes it is critical to ensure that vehicle
manufacturers can quickly depower all air bags so that they inflate
less aggressively. NHTSA therefore does not want the vehicle
manufacturers to face any unnecessary impediments to depowering.
In that context, the agency has considered whether the exclusions
in Standards No. 203 and 209 should be made available for vehicles
certified to the alternative sled test requirement. The agency's
analysis for each of the standards is set forth below.
Standard No. 203, Impact Protection for the Driver From the
Steering Control System
Standard No. 203 specifies requirements for steering control
systems to minimize chest, neck, and facial injuries to the driver as a
result of impact. The standard does not apply to ``vehicles that
conform to the frontal barrier crash requirements (S5.1) of Standard
No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208) by means of other than seat belt assemblies.''
The agency adopted this exclusion in 1975, in response to a
petition from General Motors (GM). GM had advised that in developing
driver air bags, it found that the changes in the steering control
system made conformity with Standard No. 203 difficult and in some
cases impossible. GM petitioned the agency to exclude vehicles which
meet the frontal barrier crash requirements of Standard No. 208 from
Standard No. 203 on the grounds that compliance with the latter would
be redundant and design restrictive in the development of air bags.
In deciding to provide the requested exclusion, NHTSA stated that
it had determined that the redundant protection offered by Standard No.
203 is not justified where it directly interferes with the development
of a more advanced, convenient and effective restraint system. 40 FR
17992, April 24, 1975. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency
explained that the level of protection offered by Standard No. 208's
frontal barrier crash test is at least equivalent to that of the 15-
mile-per-hour body impact of Standard No. 203. The agency also
explained that Standard No. 208's barrier crash test requirements alone
are designed to provide adequate protection to the driver from impact
forces. NHTSA noted that in the case of an air bag, this protective
level must be met by the uncushioned steering control system below the
system's deployment level and by the air bag above the deployment
level, at any speed up to 30 mph.
NHTSA believes that the rationale for Standard No. 203's exclusion
for vehicles certified to Standard No. 208's barrier test is also
applicable to vehicles
[[Page 26426]]
certified to the alternative sled test. The concern about the need to
meet Standard No. 203 interfering with the design of air bags would not
differ depending on whether an air bag is depowered or not. Moreover,
the need to meet Standard No. 203 would particularly interfere with
depowering.
It is NHTSA's understanding, based on its discussions with AAMA,
that the vehicle manufacturers do not test their air-bag-equipped
vehicles to Standard No. 203, based on the current exclusion. Thus, the
manufacturers do not know whether their vehicles would pass Standard
No. 203's requirements.
In the absence of an exclusion for vehicles certified to the
alternative sled test, the vehicle manufacturers would need to conduct
significant testing to determine whether a vehicle could comply with
Standard No. 203. To the extent that a vehicle could not comply, the
manufacturer would then need to determine whether it was possible to
make design changes that would result in compliance. All of this would
result in significant delays to depowering.
NHTSA also believes that the protection specified by Standard No.
203 is redundant to that offered by depowered air bags certified to the
alternative sled test. The agency notes that the alternative sled test
addresses the same safety problems as the full scale barrier test.
In the depowering rulemaking, the agency recognized that a full
scale barrier test does offer a number of advantages over a sled test.
However, the agency decided to allow the sled test as a temporary
measure given the need to provide manufacturers with maximum
flexibility to respond rapidly to the risk posed by air bag activation
in low speed crashes. See 62 FR 12965-66, March 19, 1997.
The agency believes that this same consideration leads to applying
the Standard No. 203 exclusion to vehicles certified to the alternative
sled test, even if the degree of redundancy is somewhat less than that
afforded by the barrier test requirement. NHTSA notes that the sled
test requirement need only be met at a single change in velocity,
rather than at all speeds up to 30 mph. However, the agency believes
that a depowered air bag will provide protection at speeds above the
deployment level, and does not believe manufacturers will reduce the
protection currently being offered by steering control systems at
speeds below the deployment level.
Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies
One of the performance requirements specified by Standard No. 209
limits the amount that the webbing of a belt assembly is permitted to
extend or elongate when subjected to certain forces. This requirement
does not apply to seat belt assemblies that include a load limiter and
that are installed at designated seating positions subject to the
requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208.
This exclusion had its origin in a petition for rulemaking
submitted by Mercedes-Benz (Mercedes). That company petitioned the
agency to exclude from the elongation requirement seat belt assemblies
installed in conjunction with air bags.
Mercedes was considering the use of a belt system that incorporates
a load-limiting device. A load-limiter is a seat belt assembly
component or feature that controls tension on the seat belt to modulate
the forces that are imparted to occupants restrained by the belt
assembly during a crash. These load-limiting systems are intended to
reduce head and upper torso injuries through increased energy
management.
Mercedes indicated that the webbing in its belt system would
elongate beyond the limits that were specified in Standard No. 209.
However, Mercedes argued that this type of belt system should be
allowed in vehicles equipped with air bags since the two systems used
in conjunction with one another can be designed to achieve the maximum
reduction in head injuries and upper torso injuries.
NHTSA adopted the exclusion requested by Mercedes in 1981. The
agency limited the exclusion to vehicles equipped with automatic
restraints since there were then no dynamic performance requirements or
injury criteria for manual belt systems used alone. See 46 FR 2618-19,
January 12, 1981. Later, however, after it established dynamic testing
requirements for manual safety belt systems in passenger cars and light
trucks, the agency extended this exclusion to permit the use of load
limiters on all safety belts installed at seating positions subject to
dynamic testing. See 56 FR 15295, April 16, 1991.
With respect to whether this exclusion should apply to vehicles
certified to the alternative sled test, the key point is that these
vehicles will continue to have to be certified to Standard No. 208's
full scale belted barrier crash test. Thus, safety belts will continue
to be subject to the same dynamic performance requirements as before
the depowering final rule was issued. The agency therefore believes
there is no reason why this exclusion should not be available for
vehicles certified to the alternative sled test, which addresses
unbelted, rather than belted, performance.
NHTSA finds that the issuance of this interim final rule without
prior opportunity for comment is necessary in view of the fact that
depowering would be significantly delayed if the standard were not
amended. For the same reason, the agency finds for good cause that it
is in the public interest to establish an immediate effective date for
this amendment. The amendment imposes no new requirements but instead
provides additional flexibility to manufacturers by removing a design
restriction.
NHTSA is requesting comments on this amendment. Because there has
not been a prior opportunity for comment, the agency is limiting
application of this interim final rule to vehicles manufactured before
September 1, 1998. However, NHTSA contemplates making the amendment
apply for the same duration as the depowering amendment, i.e., for
vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2001. The agency will
announce a final decision as soon as possible after the comment closing
date.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. 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 ``nonsignificant'' under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. The amendment does
not impose any new requirements but simply ensures that the vehicle
manufacturers do not face previously unidentified impediments in
depowering air bags. The agency concludes that the impacts of the
amendment are so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation is not
required. Readers who are interested in the costs and benefits of
depowering are referred to the agency's regulatory evaluation for that
rulemaking action, which remains valid.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this final rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this rule does not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The amendment does not impose any new requirements but simply
ensures that the vehicle manufacturers do not
[[Page 26427]]
face previously unidentified impediments in depowering air bags.
Further, since no price increases are associated with the rule, small
organizations and small governmental units are not to be affected in
their capacity as purchasers of vehicles.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-
511), there are no requirements for information collection associated
with this rule.
D. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has also analyzed this rule under the National Environmental
Policy Act and determined that it will not have a significant impact on
the human environment.
E. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
NHTSA has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that this rule
will not have significant federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
F. Civil Justice Reform
This rule does 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 document.
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 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 this rulemaking action will be
considered as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on
the document 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, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety, Motor
vehicles, Rubber and rubber products, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 is amended as
follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571 of title 49 continues 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 is amended by revising S3 to read as follows:
Sec. 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant crash protection.
* * * * *
S3. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. In addition, S9,
Pressure vessels and explosive devices, applies to vessels designed to
contain a pressurized fluid or gas, and to explosive devices, for use
in the above types of motor vehicles as part of a system designed to
provide protection to occupants in the event of a crash.
Notwithstanding any language to the contrary, any vehicle manufactured
after March 19, 1997 and before September 1, 2001 that is subject to a
dynamic crash test requirement conducted with unbelted dummies may meet
the requirements specified in S13 instead of the applicable unbelted
requirement. For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1998,
compliance with S13 shall, for purposes of Standards No. 203 and 209,
be deemed as compliance with the unbelted frontal barrier requirements
of S5.1 of this section.
* * * * *
Issued on: May 8, 1997.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-12640 Filed 5-9-97; 2:01 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
