[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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fa90969f9fba94928e899bd49e958ed49d958c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7812141d1d3816100c0b19561c170c561f170e">[email protected]</span></a>.
    On legal matters: Mr. Paul Atelsek, in the Office of the Chief 
Counsel, telephone: 202-366-2992, e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#14647560717867717f547a7c6067753a707b603a737b62"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="06766772636a75636d46686e7275672862697228616970">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>