[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 138 (Monday, July 20, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38799-38802]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19217]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[NHTSA Docket No. 98-4027, Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AG01
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Steering Control Rearward
Displacement
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Termination of rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document terminates a rulemaking proceeding in which the
agency proposed to exclude from its standard on steering control
rearward displacement air bag-equipped passenger cars and other light
vehicles certified as complying with the agency's occupant crash
protection standard based upon the frontal barrier crash test. The
agency proposed this exclusion because the engineering need to provide
a stable air bag platform in order to perform consistently during an
unrestrained dynamic crash test would ensure that vehicle manufacturers
design their vehicles so that there would be little steering control
rearward displacement. That necessity would obviate the need for
manufacturers to conduct another crash test just to certify steering
control rearward displacement performance.
However, since the proposal, the agency has temporarily allowed the
manufacturers to certify their vehicles to the occupant protection
standard based upon an unrestrained sled test and a restrained (or
belted) barrier test. The capability of the steering column to provide
a stable platform for the air bag is not tested in a sled test since no
structural deformation of the structure occurs nor does the restrained
occupant 30 mph barrier test adequately evaluate the platform stability
since the belted dummy does not significantly load the steering
assembly. NHTSA anticipates that nearly all manufacturers will certify
to the unrestrained occupant protection standard based on the less
rigorous sled test procedure. Therefore, the agency is terminating this
rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
On technical matters: Mr. John Lee, in the Office of
Crashworthiness Standards, telephone: 202-366-4924, facsimile: 202-493-
2739, e-mail: jlee@nhtsa.dot.gov.
On legal matters: Mr. Paul Atelsek, in the Office of the Chief
Counsel, telephone: 202-366-2992, e-mail: patelsek@nhtsa.dot.gov.
The mailing address is: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Pursuant to the March 4, 1995 directive, ``Regulatory Reinvention
Initiative,'' from the President to the heads of departments and
agencies, NHTSA undertook a review of all its regulations and
directives. During the course of this review, the agency identified
several regulations as potential candidates for rescission or
amendment. One of these regulations was Standard No. 204, Steering
Control Rearward Displacement. The agency concluded at that time that
requiring compliance with the standard appeared to be redundant for
certain vehicles, given the actions which were separately required to
be taken to comply with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.
Standard No. 204 specifies a dynamic crash test to measure the
rearward displacement of a vehicle's steering column to ensure that the
driver is not ``speared'' by the column. The standard specifies that
the upper end of the steering column and shaft may not be displaced
horizontally rearward more than 5 inches (127 mm) in a 30-mile-per-hour
frontal barrier crash test. The standard applies to passenger cars and
other light vehicles.
Passenger cars and light vehicles are also required to pass a
dynamic test specified in Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection.
For unrestrained occupants, Standard No. 208 requires either a frontal
impact crash test into a rigid barrier at 30 mph or a dynamic sled
test, with the performance measured by the impact forces on an
anthropomorphic test dummy rather than by the displacement of a vehicle
component. Air bags became mandatory in all passenger cars on September
1, 1997, and will be required in all light vehicles by September 1,
1998. Since March 19, 1997, it has been permissible to certify vehicles
on the basis of a sled test instead of a crash test. The agency
believes that the great majority of auto manufacturers are now
certifying vehicles using the sled test.
On November 16, 1995, the agency published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, (60 FR 57565) proposing that vehicles be excluded from
having to comply with Standard No. 204 if these vehicles were certified
to comply with the frontal barrier crash test requirements of Standard
No. 208 by means of an air bag. The basis for the proposal was that the
engineering considerations that govern 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. One of the most fundamental engineering
considerations when designing an air bag equipped vehicle is to provide
a secure platform for the air bag. The designer must know the relative
location of the air bag and the protected occupant during a crash
because, if the air bag platform were moving up or down, or backward or
forward during a crash, it could adversely affect air bag performance.
Since the driver's air bag is located in the steering column, the
NPRM stated that the engineering measures necessary to provide a secure
air bag platform will also ensure that Standard No. 204's specified
performance for steering control rearward displacement is satisfied,
even if the standard were no longer applicable. In case the public knew
of some factors that NHTSA had not considered, NHTSA also asked for
comment on whether there was any possibility that the proposed Standard
No. 204 exclusion might result in an increase in injuries not protected
against by Standard No. 208. The NPRM stated that the proposed rule
would have minor, nonquantifiable cost savings. The public comment
period closed on January 16, 1997.
Subsequent to the issuance of the NPRM on Standard No. 204, on
March 19, 1997, in order to facilitate the
[[Page 38800]]
depowering of air bags, the agency temporarily amended Standard 208 to
permit vehicle manufacturers to certify their vehicles using a sled
test procedure, rather than a crash test. In the sled test, there is no
possibility of steering column movement due to deformation of the
vehicle structure from crash forces, regardless of how good or bad the
steering column design. Although the standard still permits
manufacturers to certify their vehicles using the frontal barrier crash
test using an unrestrained test dummy, as specified in S5.1, as noted
above, essentially all manufacturers are now using the sled test for
Standard No. 208 certification. The standard still requires a belted
barrier test. Currently, the agency is in the midst of developing an
NPRM on improved air bags that may reinstate some form of barrier test
requirement.
II. Summary of Public Comments
The agency received six comments on the proposal to exclude air bag
equipped vehicles from Standard No. 204. Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety (Advocates) and Mr. Lee F. Graser (an automobile
reconstructionist) were generally opposed to the proposal. The
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the American Automobile
Manufacturers Association (AAMA), and two auto manufacturers,
Volkswagen and Mitsubishi, supported the proposal. The following is a
brief summary of these comments.
As noted above, two commenters disagreed with excluding these
vehicles from Standard No. 204. Mr. Lee F. Graser, President of LAS-KDS
Inc. (an automobile reconstructionist) commented that the current
standard was ``incredibly successful in removing the ``spear-like''
qualities from the steering column.'' He based his comment on 30 years
of experience in rebuilding automobiles damaged in a crash, and
examining thousands of wrecked automobiles. He agreed that vehicles
will continue to meet the crash test standards at 30 miles per hour,
but said that in more severe (i.e., higher speed) crashes, the
exclusion from the requirement will remove an important safety margin
and result in the reintroduction of a hazard eliminated long ago.
Advocates was concerned that the exclusion would exacerbate a
danger that it believes exists even with Standard No. 204 in place. Its
main concern was the ``dangers due to the proximate positioning of the
drivers to the steering wheel air bag modules.'' It noted that short
women and many older drivers must sit further forward than other
drivers to comfortably reach the steering wheel. In such cases, it
stated, the distance from the air bag to the driver's chest would be
6.5 to 4.5 inches. Drivers seated in this zone could be injured by the
deploying air bag. Advocates' apparent concern with this exclusion is
that, without Standard No. 204, the steering column would move
rearward, even closer to the driver, prior to air bag deployment. If
this occurred, there would be a very forceful impact of the air bag on
the driver (air bag deployment force would be greater on a driver
closer to the housing).
Advocates also argued that there was no supporting data for the
exclusion and therefore the agency's proposed action could be
considered capricious. Advocates commented that NHTSA has no data to
support the presumption that manufacturers will continue to maintain
compliance with Standard No. 204 if this exclusion is provided.
Advocates also suggested that NHTSA needs test data showing that
vehicles that do not comply with Standard No. 204 could still ensure
safety of small passengers and not increase the risk of exacerbating
trauma from steering wheels.
Finally, Advocates noted the request for comment that NHTSA had
issued on air bag-related injuries (NHTSA Docket 74-14, Notice 97, 60
FR 65554, November 9, 1995). Advocates stated that it could not
understand why the agency would complicate the understanding of this
complex injury issue by adding another major variable (i.e., a presumed
increase in steering wheel movement).
Four commenters agreed with excluding air bag equipped vehicles
from Standard No. 204. Mitsubishi concurred without substantive
comment. Volkswagen concurred and commented that the exclusion would
save it testing costs of about $20,000 plus the cost of the vehicle for
each car line because an extra crash test was required by Standard No.
204. It stated that the savings might be as much as $700,000 on a new
car line, because a prototype vehicle would have to be used in the
testing.
Volkswagen also noted that a proposal to make a similar exclusion
from the ECE version of this standard is under discussion in Europe,
implying that NHTSA should adopt the proposal in the interest of
harmonization.
The AAMA supported the proposal. The AAMA confirmed that for an air
bag equipped vehicle, the steering column location must remain
relatively stable during a Standard No. 208 barrier test to
consistently meet the test requirements. It provided an analysis of
NHTSA's own Standard No. 204 ``indicant'' test reports for member
companies: GM, Ford and Chrysler. The AAMA stated that the NHTSA
indicant test data showed that the displacement was zero in most cases
and well below the 5.0 inch (12.7 cm) limit in all cases. The AAMA also
pointed out that, in a 1981 evaluation of the standard, the agency
found that steering wheel rearward displacement was highly correlated
to the vehicle's change in velocity during the crash (Delta V). ``An
Evaluation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for Passenger Car
Steering Assemblies'', Standard No. 203--``Impact Protection for the
Driver'', Standard No. 204 ``Rearward Column Displacement,'' January
1981, NHTSA Technical Report DOT HS 805 705. The agency evaluation
indicated that, in crashes with a Delta V of less than 15 mph, there
was virtually no rearward displacement. The AAMA did not provide any
data from the motor vehicle manufacturers. It agreed that the proposal
should be effective 30 days after the final rule.
The IIHS supported the proposed exclusion from Standard No. 204,
stating that the current dynamic test in Standard No. 208 with an
unbelted dummy is more than sufficient to limit excessive rearward
steering wheel displacement in a centric crash specified by Standard
No. 204. However, it was concerned that Standard No. 204's centric flat
barrier crash test is inadequate, because steering control rearward
displacement continues to be a problem in offset crashes. To support
this offset crash concern, IIHS cited data from offset crash tests of
16 vehicles that showed rearward displacements of up to 6.7 inches (17
cm). It also provided a summary of an actual fatal offset crash which
it believes might not have been fatal if the column had not moved
rearward by 7.5 inches (19 cm). IIHS urged NHTSA to continue work on
offset testing, and explore rulemaking on the subject.
III. Discussion of Issues
A. Don't Change a Standard That Works
Mr. Graser stated that Standard No. 204 has resulted in significant
improvement in occupant protection by removing the spear-like qualities
of the steering column. Advocates stated that there was no basis for
the agency's presumption that motor vehicle manufacturers will maintain
compliance after exclusion from Standard No. 204.
The agency agrees with Mr. Graser that designs that conform to
Standard No. 204 mitigate chest injuries. The standard did accomplish
its purpose,
[[Page 38801]]
according to the agency's analysis. In the agency's regulatory
evaluation of the benefits of its steering column regulations (Standard
Nos. 204 and 203, Impact Protection for the Driver From the Steering
Control System), NHTSA estimated that the two steering column standards
in tandem were cost-effective and prevented 1,300 fatalities and 23,000
nonfatal injuries per year when all automobiles complied. (Note that
the agency has already excluded from Standard No. 203 vehicles that
comply with Standard No. 208 using air bags because it concluded that
requiring compliance with Standard No. 203 was redundant (40 FR 17992,
April 24, 1975)). Therefore, Standard No. 204 did prompt some useful
changes in steering column design.
The NPRM was based on the assumption that manufacturers would have
to conduct a dynamic crash test with unbelted dummies for Standard No.
208, an assumption that is no longer valid.
Vehicle manufacturers must design a stable air bag platform to
ensure good, repeatable performance for the air bag in a crash. In
other words, steering columns must be designed to ensure the air bag
mounted in the steering wheel hub will remain in a constant position
relative to the driver during a crash. However, Standard No. 208's
unbelted performance requirements would adequately control steering
column movement only during a full-barrier crash test. Conversely, the
sled test does not ensure that the steering column will be adequately
designed. Additionally, the belted occupant 30 mph barrier test, which
is still required, does not adequately evaluate the air bag platform
stability since the belted dummy does not significantly load the
steering assembly.
B. Risk of Air Bag Injury to Small Occupants
In response to Advocates' concern about negative safety impacts on
smaller occupants, the agency notes that rearward displacement of the
steering column may not contribute to close proximity air bag
deployments because displacement and deployment may occur at different
times during a crash. To illustrate, in a standard barrier test the air
bag begins to deploy between 15 to 20 milliseconds after impact and is
completely deployed by 50 to 60 milliseconds after impact. In these
crash tests, steering column dynamic rearward displacement and steering
column collapse almost always occur after completion of air bag
deployment, starting at about 60 milliseconds. During a Standard No.
208 unbelted full barrier impact compliance test, this steering column-
occupant interaction is measured by the Hybrid III dummy. Therefore,
excessive rearward displacement of the steering column in unbelted full
barrier-type impacts would likely impact the dummy and cause a failure
of the Standard No. 208 test. However, due to the wide variety of crash
types in the real-world, the agency can see the potential for
situations where steering column movement and air bag deployment could
occur at the same time.
C. Supporting Data
In response to Advocates' complaint that NHTSA has no data to
justify this proposed exclusion, NHTSA based its NPRM on an engineering
analysis of the steering column design requirements implied or
necessitated by the then-existing Standard No. 208 full-barrier impact
requirements.
Moreover, it would have been impossible to generate the test data
on non-compliant vehicles that Advocates says is necessary. Evidence
indicates that all vehicle designs comply with Standard No. 204, so
there are no non-complying vehicles to test. NHTSA reviewed the results
of Standard No. 204 compliance tests before publishing the NPRM. The
results of that review are in the docket. In that review, the agency
found that in the last 28 years, there have been three cases worthy of
further investigation, but no actual non-compliances. No air bag-
equipped vehicle has failed this test.
The agency reviewed its 1996 calendar year information requests to
vehicle manufacturers, which resulted in the submission of 36 reports
of Standard No. 204 compliance tests. This 1996 sample includes 25
passenger cars and 11 light trucks. A summary of the steering column
rearward displacement data from these manufacturer reports has been
placed in the docket. The average value of the maximum dynamic
horizontal deflection was 42 millimeters (1.6 inches). The range of
horizontal deflections ranged from 0 mm (0 in.) to 99 mm (3.9 in.).
However, history may not be a guide when the assumptions are
changed. NHTSA agrees with Advocates that there is no evidence that
sled-tested and belted-barrier-tested vehicles will continue to comply
with Standard No. 204.
D. Cost
The agency believes the cost savings that Volkswagen suggested
would result from excluding vehicles from Standard No. 204
certification are overly optimistic. Vehicle manufacturers would
probably ``piggyback'' tests on a prototype, i.e., the single test of a
prototype vehicle could include indicant tests of Standard Nos. 204,
208, 212, and 301. Therefore, computer modeling and piggyback testing
would significantly reduce this cost burden, especially during the
vehicle developmental phase.
E. Offset Testing Program
In response to IIHS' urging that NHTSA pursue offset testing, the
agency notes that an offset testing program is part of the Standard No.
208 Upgrade program, one of the elements in NHTSA's Strategic Execution
Plan. Additionally, on January 2, 1998, the Center for Auto Safety
(CAS) submitted a petition for rulemaking, requesting the addition of
an offset test requirement within Standard No. 208.
The agency's FY 1997 and FY 1998 appropriations included funding to
work on establishing a frontal offset crash protection safety standard.
NHTSA will analyze the steering column behavior in offset crashes as
part of this effort. The issues raised by IIHS and CAS, of whether to
include a steering column displacement restriction within the
requirements of an offset test standard, will be included in the offset
program decision-making process.
IV. Agency Decision
In the final rule (March 19, 1997; 62 FR 12960) enhancing
manufacturers' abilities to depower air bags, NHTSA 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. In the final rule's
preamble, NHTSA discussed the disadvantages of the sled test as an
indicator of real world performance, including the fact that the sled
test does not evaluate ``the steering column's energy absorbing
characteristics and load bearing capability.'' (62 FR at 12966). Sled
testing effectively removes the measurement of the stability of the
steering column as a factor affecting measured levels of occupant
protection performance. NHTSA has never proposed to exclude from
Standard No. 204 vehicles whose certification of compliance with
Standard No. 208 was based upon the sled test or the belted barrier
test.
NHTSA understands that almost all the vehicle manufacturers are now
certifying compliance with Standard No. 208 based on the sled test,
instead of the unbelted frontal barrier test. Further, the
manufacturers have
[[Page 38802]]
indicated that they will continue to rely on the sled test option while
it remains available.
The March 19, 1997, final rule provided that the sled test option
would expire on September 1, 2001. Several petitions for
reconsideration have been filed requesting the agency to extend that
date or to make the option permanent. NHTSA is currently considering
those petitions. In addition, as part of its advanced air bag
rulemaking, the agency is considering the possibility of requiring some
form of barrier test.
Based on these understandings, NHTSA is terminating rulemaking to
exclude from Standard No. 204 vehicles that comply with Standard No.
208. Given that the vehicle manufacturers are expected to rely on the
sled test (to meet Standard No. 208 requirements) for the next several
years, there is no need during that period for an exclusion from
Standard No. 204 for vehicles certified to Standard No. 208 based on
the barrier test. If circumstances change in the future, the agency
will consider appropriate action at that time.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)
Issued on: July 14, 1998.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 98-19217 Filed 7-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
