Tuesday
`July 17, 1984
`
`-
`
`1 a
`
`Part II
`
`Department of
`Transportation
`National Highway Traffic Safety
`Administration
`
`49 CFR Part 571
`Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard;
`Occupant Crash Protection; Final Rule
`
`IPR2016-01794
`American Vehicular Science, LLC
`Exhibit 2015
`
`Page 1 of 50
`
`

`
`28962
`
`Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 17, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
`
`DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
`
`National Highway Traffic Safety
`Administration
`
`49 CFR Part 571
`[Docket No. 74-14; Notice No. 36]
`
`Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
`Standard; Occupant Crash Protection
`AGENCY: Department of Transportation
`(DOT).
`ACTION: Final rule.
`SUMMARY: This Rule requires the
`installation of automatic restraints in all
`new cars beginning with model year
`1990 (September 1, 1989] unless, prior to
`that time, state mandatory belt usage
`laws are enacted that cover at least two-
`thirds of the U.S. population. The
`requirement would be phased in by an
`increasing percentage of production
`over a three-year period beginnihg with
`model year 1987 (September 1, 1986). To
`further encourage the installation of
`advanced technology, the rule would
`treat cars.equipped with such
`technology other than automatic belts as
`equivalent to 1.5 vehicles during the o
`phase-in.
`DATES: The amendments made by this
`rule to the text of the Code of Federal
`Regulations are effective August 16,
`1984.
`The principal compliance dates for the
`rule, unless two-thirds of the population
`are covered by mandatory use laws, are:
`September 1, 1986-for phase-in
`requirement.
`September 1, 1989-for full
`implementation requirement.
`In addition: February 1, 1985-for
`center seating position exemption from
`automatic restraint provisions.
`ADDRESS: Petitions for reconsideration
`should refer to the docket and notice
`numbers set forth above and be
`submitted not later than August 16, 1984
`to: Administrator, National Highway
`Traffic Safety Administration, 400
`Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C.
`20590.
`FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
`Neil R. Eisner, Assistant General
`Counsel for Regulation and
`Enforcement, Department of
`Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
`Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-426-4723).
`SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
`Table of Contents
`I. Summary of the Final Rule.
`II. Background.
`A. Introduction.
`1. The Supreme Court Decision.
`2. The 1983 Suspension.
`3. The NPRM.
`
`4. The SNPRM.
`B. The Stafute.
`C. The Safety Problem.
`D. Current Occupant Protection Technology.
`1. Manual Belts.
`2. Automatic Belts.
`3. Airbags.
`4. Other Occupant Protection Technologies.
`Ill. Summary of the Public Comments.
`A. Introduction.
`B. Occupant Protection Systems.
`1. Usage.
`2. Effectiveness.
`3. Benefits.
`4. Public Acceptance
`5. Cost and Leadtime.
`6. Insurance Premium Changes.
`7. Other Issues.
`a. Product Liability
`b. Sodium Azide.
`c. Breed System.
`d. Automatic Belt Detachable.
`C. Alternatives.
`1. Retain.
`2. Amend.
`a. Airbag only.
`b. Airbags and Nondetachable Automatic
`Seatbelts.
`c. Passive Interiors.
`d. Small Cars.
`e. Center Seating Position.
`3. Rescind.
`4. Demonstration Program.
`5. Mandatory Belt Use Laws.
`a. General.
`b. SNPRM Alternative: No Automatic
`Restraint.
`c. SNPRM Alternative: Automatic Restraint.
`D. Test Procedures.
`1. Repeatability.
`2. Design to Conform.
`3. Thirty Degree (30.) Oblique Test.
`4. Adequacy of the Part 572 Dummy.
`5. Adoption of NCAP Test Procedures.
`6. Head Injury Criteria (HIC) Measurements.
`7. Testing of Safety Belts.
`8. Impact Test Speed.
`IV. Analysis of the Data.
`A. Usage of Occupant Protection System.
`1. General.
`2. Manual Belts.
`3. Automatic Belts.
`4. Airbags.
`5. Other Occupant Protection Technologies.
`B. Effectiveness of Occupant Protection
`Systems.
`1. General.
`2. Manual Belts.
`3. Automatic Belts.
`4. Airbags.
`5. Other Occupant Protection Technologies.
`6. Conclusions.
`C. Benefits of Occupant Protection Systems.
`1. Safety Benefits.
`2. Insurance Savings.
`D. Public Acceptance of Occupant Protection
`Systems.
`E. Cost and Leadtime for Occupant Protection
`Systems.
`1. Equipment.
`a. General.
`b. Manual Lap and Shoulder Belts.
`'c. Automatic Belts.
`d. Airbags.
`e. Other Occupant Protection Technologies.
`2. Investment.
`
`3. Insurance.
`4. Economic Impact.
`V. Analysis of the Alternatives.
`A. General.
`1. Introduction.
`2. Airbags.
`3. Nondetachable Automatic Seatbalts,
`4. Detachable Automatic Seatbelts.
`5. Demonstration Program.
`6. Mandatory State Safety Belt Usage Laws.
`7. Legislation to Require Consumer Option,
`8. Airbag Retrofit Capability,
`9. Passive Interiors.
`10. Center Seating Position.
`B. Rationale for Adoption of the Rule.
`1. The Requirement for Automatic Occupant
`Restraints.
`2. Center Seating Position,
`3. Mandatory Use Law Alternative.
`4. The Phase-in.
`5. The Credit for Non-Belt Restraints,
`C. Rationale for Not Adopting Other
`Alternatives.
`1. Retain. •
`2. Amend.
`a. Airbags only.
`b. Airbags and/or Nondetachable Automatic
`Seatbelt.
`c. Limited Seating Positions.
`d. Small Cars.
`3. Rescind.
`4. Demonstration Program.
`5. Other Mandatory Use Law Alternatives,
`6. Legislation to Require Consumer Option.
`7. Airbag Retrofit Capability.
`VI. Testing Procedures.
`A. Repeatability.
`B. Compliance Procedure.
`C. Test Dummies.
`D. Injury Criteria.
`E. Oblique Test Requirement.
`F. Other Teat Procedure Issues.
`VII. Regulatory Impacts.
`VIII. The Rule.
`I. Summary of the Final Rule
`After a thorough review of the Issue of
`automobile occupant protection,
`including the long regulatory history of
`the matter, the comments on the Notice
`of Proposed Ruleniaking (NPRM) and
`the Supplemental Notice of Proposed
`Rulemaking (SNPRM]; and extensive
`studies, analyses, and data on the
`subject; and the court decisions that
`have resulted from law suits over the
`different rulemaking actions, the
`Department of Transportation has
`reached a final decision that it believes
`will offer the best method of fulfilling
`the objectives and purpose of the
`governing statute, the National Traffic
`and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. As part
`of this decision, the Department has
`reached three basic conclusions:
`* Effectively enforced state
`mandatory seatbelt use laws (MULs)
`will provide the greatest safety benefits
`most quickly of any of the alternatives,
`with almost no additional cost.
`* Automatic occupant restraints
`provide demonstrable safety benefits,
`
`Page 2 of 50
`
`

`
`28963
`
`Federal Register I Vol. 49. No. 138 I Tuesday, ]uly 17, 193l4 I Rules and Regulations283
`FederalRe ster /Vol. 49, No. 138 /Tuesday, July 17,1934 /Rules and Regulations
`The 1983 Suspension
`(NHTSA) issued an order pursuant to
`and, unless a sufficient number of MULs
`section 103 of the National Traffic and
`are enacted, they must be required for
`On September 1, 1933, the Department
`Motor Vehicle Safety Act. 15 U.S.C.
`the most frequently used seats in
`suspended the automatic restraint
`1392, amending Federal Motor Vehicle
`passenger automobiles.
`requirement for one year to ensure that
`Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant
`o Automatic occupant protection
`sufficient time was available for
`Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208;
`systems that do not totally rely upon
`considering the issues raised by the
`"FMVSS 208"), by rescinding the
`belts, such as airbags or passive
`Supreme Court's decision (48 FR 39903).
`provisions that would have required the
`interiors, offer significant additional
`The NPRM,
`front seating positions in all new cars to
`potential for preventing fatalities and
`be equipped with automatic restraints
`injuries, at least in part because the
`On October 14,1933, the Department
`(46 FR 53419; October 29,1981).
`American public is likely to find them
`Issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
`less intrusive; their development and
`On June 24,1933, the Supreme Court
`(NPRM) (48 FR 4832) asking for
`availability should be encouraged
`held that NHTSA's rescission of the
`comment on a range of alternatives,
`through appropriate incentives.
`automatic restraint requirements was
`including the following:
`As a result of these conclusions, the
`arbitrary and capricious. Motor Vehicle
`Retain the automatic occupant
`Department has decided to require
`Manufacturers Association v. State
`protection requirements of FMVSS 203.
`automatic occupant protection in all
`Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.,
`Under this alternative, the substantive
`passenger automobiles based on a
`103 S.CL 2856. The agency had
`automatic occupant protection
`phased-in schedule beginning on
`rescinded because it was unable to find
`requirements of FMVSS 203 would be
`September 1,1986, with full
`that more than minimal safety benefits
`retained, but a new compliance date
`implementation being required by
`would result from the manufacturers'
`would have to be established.
`September 1,1989, unless, before April
`plans to comply with the requirement
`Compliance could be by any type of
`1,1989, two-thirds of the population of
`through the installation of automatic
`automatic restraint, including
`the United States are covered by MULs
`belts. In particular, the Court found the
`detachable belts.
`meeting specified conditions. More
`agency had failed to present an
`Amend the automatic occupant
`specifically, the rule would require the
`adequate basis and explanation for
`protection requrements of FMVSS 203.
`following:
`rescinding the requirement. The Court
`Numerous alternatives were proposed.
`Passenger cars manufactured for sale
`also stated that the agency must either
`For example, an amendment could
`in the United States after September 1,
`consider the matter further or adhere to
`require compliance by airbags only or
`1986, will have to have automatic
`or amend the standard along the lines
`by airbags or nondetachable automatic
`occupant restraints based on the
`that its "reasoned analysis" and
`belts only. Subaltemtives included
`following phase-in schedule:
`explanation supports.
`automatic protection for the full front
`o Ten percent of all automobiles
`By a five to four vote, the Court held
`seat, the outboard seating positions, or
`manufactured after September 1, 1986.
`that the agency had been too quick in
`the driver only. An additional
`a Twenty-five percent of all
`dismissing the benefits of detachable
`alternative would have required that
`automobiles manufactured after
`automatic belts. The Court stated that
`cars be manufactured with an airbag
`September 1,1987.
`the agency's explanation of its
`retrofit capability.
`* Forty percent of all automobiles
`rescission was not sufficient to enable
`Rescind the automatic occupant
`manufactured after September 1,1988.
`the Court to conclude that the agency's
`protection roquircments of FE, S5 203.
`e One-hundred percent of all
`action was the product of rcasoncd
`The Department could again rescind the
`automobiles manufactured after
`decision making. The Court found that
`September 1, 1989.
`requiremcnts if its analysis led it to that
`the agency had not taken account of the
`* The requirement for automatic
`conclusicn. The Supreme Court decision
`critical difference between datachable
`occupant restraints will be rescinded if
`does not bar reocission after the
`automatic belts and current manuc
`MULs meeting specified conditions are
`Department "consider[s] the matter
`belts. "A detached passive b~lt de
`passed by a sufficient number of states
`further."
`require an affirmative act to reconncct
`before April 1,1989 to cover two-thirds
`The NPM, also proposed other
`it. but-unlike a manual seatbelt-tho
`of the population of the United States.
`actions that could be taken in
`passive belt, once reattachcd, will
`o During the phase-in period, each
`conjunction with. or as a supplement to,
`continue to function automatically
`passenger automobile that is
`thc above alternatives. They were as
`unless again disconnected."
`manufactured with a system that
`folow:
`The Court unanimously found that,
`provides automatic protection to the
`Conduct a de-monstration program.
`even if the agency was correct that
`driver without automatic belts will be
`Such a proyarn could be along the
`detachable automatic belts v.oud yield
`given an extra credit equal to one-half of
`vol_ wary U-nez su-ested by Secretary
`few benefits, that fact alon e would not
`an automobile toward meeting the
`Cokiman in i37G and would be
`justify rescission. Instead, it would
`percentage requirement.
`accompanied by a temporary
`justify only a modification of the
`o The front center seat of passenger
`suspension of FMVSS 203's automatic
`requirement to prohibit compliance by
`cars will be exempt from the
`occupant protection requirements. It
`means of that type of automatic
`requirement for automatic occupant
`would be dcsigned to acquaint the
`restraint. The Court also unanimously
`protection.
`public with the automatic restraint
`held that having concluded that
`o Rear seats are not covered by the
`technologies so as to reduce the
`detachable automatic blts would not
`requirements for automatic protection.
`possibility of adverse public reaction
`result in s!Gnificiantly increased usage,
`and to obtain additional data to refine
`I. Background
`NHTSA should have considered
`effectiveness estimates.
`requiring that automatic belts be
`Introduction
`Seelk mandatory State safety belt
`continuous (i.e., nondetachable) instead
`usage laws. The Department could seek
`The Supreme Court Decision
`of detachable, or that FMVSS 208 be
`Federal legislation that would either
`modified to require the installation of
`On October 23, 1981, the National
`establish a seatbelt uie'requirement or
`airbags.
`Highway Traffic Safety Administration
`
`Page 3 of 50
`
`

`
`28964
`
`Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 17, 1984 /-Rules and Regulations
`
`provide incentives for the States to
`adopt and enforce such laws. If large
`numbers of persons wore existing
`manual belts, there would be less need
`for automatic restraints.
`Seek legislation mandating consumer
`option. Under this alternative, the
`Department would seek Federal
`legislation requiring manufacturers to
`provide consumers the option of
`purchasing any kind of restraint system:
`airbag, automatic belt, or manual belt.
`Following the issuance of the NPRM,
`the Department held public meetings in
`Los Angeles, Kansas City, and
`Washington, D.C. One hundred fifty-two
`people testified at these hearings. The
`public comment period on the NPRM
`closed on December 9, 1983. The
`Department received over 6,000
`comments on that NPRM by the close of
`the comment period. Since then, the
`Department has received an additional
`1,800 comments. Some of these
`comments raised issues or led to the
`identification of other alternatives on
`which the Department wanted to receive
`further public comment.
`The SNPRM
`As a result of the desire for additional
`public comment, the Department issued
`a supplemental notice of proposed
`rulemaking (SNPRM) on May 10, 1984
`(49 FR 20460).
`The SNPRM asked f6r comment on
`issues involving the following areas: The
`public acceptance of automatic
`restraints, the usage rates and the
`effectiveness of the various restraint
`systems, the benefits that would be
`derived from the various alternative
`means of protecting automobile front
`seat occupants, including potential
`insurance premium savings, and the
`testing procedures that would be
`required for automatic restraints. The
`SNPRM also sought comment on four
`additional proposed alternatives for
`occupant crash protection:
`Automatic restraints with waiver for
`mandatory use law States. Under this
`proposal, automatic restraints would be
`required in all cars manufactured after a
`set date, but this requirement would be
`waived for vehicles sold to residents of
`a State which had passed a mandatory
`safety belt use law (MUL).
`Automatic restraints unless three-
`fourths of States pass mandatory use
`laws. Under this proposal, automatic
`restraints would be required in all cars
`manufactured after a set date, unless
`three-fourths of the States had passed
`mandatory use laws before that date.
`Mandatory demonstration program.
`This alternative involves a mdndatory
`demonstration program, which was
`
`suggested by the Ford Motor Company.
`Each automobile manufacturer would be
`required to equip an average of five
`percent of its cars with automatic
`restraints over a four-year period.
`Driver's-side airbags in small cars.
`Under this alternative, airbags would be
`required only for small cars and only for
`the driver's position in those cars.
`The comment period on the SNPRM
`closed on June 13, 1984, The Department
`received over 130 comments.
`The Statute
`Pursuant to the National Traffic and
`Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as
`amended, the Department of
`Transportation is directed to "reduce
`traffic accidents and deaths and injuries
`to persons resulting from traffic
`accidents." The Act authorizes the
`Secretary of Transportation to issue
`motor vehicle safety standards that
`"shall be practicable, shall meet the
`need for motor vehicle safety, and shall
`be stated in objective terms." In issuing
`these standards, the Secretary is
`directed to consider "relevant available
`motor vehicle safety data," whether the
`proposed standard "is reasonable,
`practicable and appropriate for the
`particular type of motor vehicle.
`. for
`.
`which it is prescribed," and the "extent
`to which such standards will contribute
`to carrying Out the purposes" of the Act.
`The Safety Problem
`Occupants of front seats in passenger
`cars account for almost half of the
`deaths that occur annually in motor
`vehicle accidents (including pedestrian
`fatalities). In recent years (1981-1983),
`an average of approximately 22,000
`persons have been killed annually in the
`front seats of passenger cars; another
`300,000 suffered moderate to severe
`injuries and more than 2 million had
`minor injuries. Approximately 55
`percent of these fatalities and injuries
`occur in frontal impacts knd another 25
`percent occur in side impacts. Table 1
`shows the number of fatalities, by
`seating position, for 1975-1982, while
`Table 2 shows data for injuries, by
`severity and seating position, for 1982,
`the latest year for which such a
`breakdown is available. Table 3
`provides estimates of similar data for
`1990 to illustrate the impact of any
`rulemaking. For the 1990 data, it was
`assumed (for purposes of this
`rulemaking analysis only) that manual
`belt usage rates would remain the same
`as current rates.
`
`TABLE 1.-FRONT SEAT PASSENGER CAR
`FATALITIES WITH KNOWN SEATING POSITION
`
`Front
`Drier mk
`.d1
`
`Front Other
`right
`front
`
`TO
`
`1975 ................
`16,27P
`644
`Percent............
`72.2
`2.9
`602
`1976 ...............
`16.375
`Percent ..............
`72.1
`2.7
`1977 ................. 16,87
`577
`Percent .............
`72.0
`2.5
`1978 ..................
`18.224
`627
`Percent ..............
`72.7
`2.5
`513
`1979 ..................
`18.267
`Percent...........
`73.8
`2.1
`17.966
`1980 ............
`526
`Percent ..............
`73.3
`2.2
`1981 ............
`17.722
`460
`Percent ................
`1.9
`73.8
`373
`15.225
`1932 .................
`Percent ........... ....
`73.1
`1.8
`
`5,601
`21
`22,530
`0,t
`24.8
`100
`24
`22,719
`5,714
`25.1
`100
`01
`5.992
`14
`23,550
`0,|
`25.4
`100
`6.180
`10
`25,047
`0.1
`24.7
`100
`5,968
`0 24,754
`24A
`............
`100
`0 24,513
`6,012
`100
`24.5
`...........
`6,844
`24,032
`0
`24.3 .........
`100
`5,202
`10
`20.016
`100
`25.0
`0.1
`
`TABLE 2.-DISTRIBUTION OF FRONT SEAT
`PASSENGER CAR OCCUPANT INJURIES BY SE.
`VERITY LEVEL (1982)
`
`Injury
`seventy
`
`Dve
`
`Front
`mdd!
`
`Front
`right
`
`Othort
`front
`
`Minor .
`Moder-
`ate
`Serious..,
`Severe
`Critical
`Percent
`ofminor
`Inju-
`de.
`Percent
`of
`mod-
`erate
`to
`critical
`inju.
`rles....
`
`.38,519
`
`29.914 515,786
`
`2,528 1,930,745
`
`107,660
`45,627
`5.592
`.233
`
`6,467
`289
`0
`0
`
`47,417
`10,100
`2.411
`728
`
`1,604
`0
`0
`0
`
`243,140
`62,010
`0,003
`3,961
`
`71.7
`
`1.5
`
`26.6
`
`0.2
`
`100.0
`
`76.3
`
`2.1
`
`21.0
`
`0.0
`
`100.0
`
`TABLE 3.-PROJECTIONS OF FATAUTIES AND
`INJURIES FOR 1990
`
`Driver
`
`Front
`middle
`
`Front
`right
`
`Total
`
`18.050
`73.5
`
`Fatalities..........
`Percent ...............
`Moderate to
`critical:
`njuries.........
`2W0000
`Percent..........
`78.5
`Minor Injuries....... 2.110,000
`Percent .................
`71.5
`
`370
`1.5
`
`6,140
`25.0
`
`24,500
`100.0
`
`75.000
`370,000
`6,000
`1.5
`20.0
`100.0
`40.000 800,000 2,950.000
`1.5
`27.0
`100.0
`
`To fully understand the benefits of
`various occupant restraint systems, It Is
`helpful to recognize the frequency with
`which various front seating positions are
`used in cars involved in injury-
`producing accidents. As Tables I and 2
`illustrate, three-fourths of all front seat
`occupant fatalities and serious injuries
`are experienced by drivers and almost
`all of the remainder are passengers In
`the right outboard seat. Thus, automatic
`protection is likely to have three times
`the level of benefits for drivers as for
`front seat passengers. Additionally, not
`only are occupants of the center seat
`rarely involved in fatal or injury.
`
`Page 4 of 50
`
`

`
`Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 17, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
`
`2895
`
`producing crashes, but their involvement
`is declining as shown in the Tables. This
`. decline is thought to be occurring, at
`least in part, because of the decline in
`the number of automobiles
`manufactured with bench-style front
`seats.
`Current Occupant Restraint Technology
`Manual Belts
`Manual belts are safety belts that will
`provide protection in a crash if the
`occupant places the belt around himself
`or herself and attaches it. Manual belts
`can come in two types: Lap belts that fit
`around the pelvic region and combined
`lap and shoulder belts, which are found
`in the great majority of all new cars sold
`today. Manual shoulder belts are
`equipped with inertial reels that allow
`the belt webbing to play out so that the
`occupant can reach" forward freely in the
`occupant compartment under normal
`conditions, but lock the belt in place if a
`crash occurs. To remind occupants to
`use their belts, FMVSS 208 requires the
`installation of a brief (4-8 seconds)
`audible and visible reminder.
`Automatic Belts
`The automatic belt is similar in many
`respects to a manual belt but differs in
`that it is attached at one end between
`the seats in a two front seat car and at
`the other end to the interior of the door
`or, in the case of a beltivith a motorized
`anchorage, to the door frame. The belt
`moves out of the way when the door is
`opened and automatically moves into
`place around the occupant when the
`door is closed. Thus, the occupant need
`take no action to gain the protective
`benefits of the automatic belt.
`Automatic belts differ significantly in
`their design. Some designs consist of a
`single diagonal shoulder belt (2-point
`belt) with a knee bolster located under
`the dashboard to prevent the occupant
`from sliding forward under the belt.
`Other designs include both a lap and a
`shoulder belt (3-point belt). "
`The designs differ also in the features
`and devices included to encourage belt
`use by motorists and at the same time
`allow for-emergency egress if the car
`door cannot be opened following a
`crash. Several designs are described
`below.
`One design takes advantage of the
`opportunity for the manufacturer to
`include, on a strictly voluntary basis, an
`ignition interlock. The belt in that design
`detaches from the door, but must be
`reattached before the car can be started
`the next time. This type of automatic
`belt (2-point belt vvith knee bolster] has
`been installed in more than 320.000
`Volkswagen (VW) Rabbits over an
`
`eight-year period beginning in 1975. It
`was also installed on a small number of
`1978-79 General Motors (GM)
`Chevettes. It is still available as an
`option on Rabbits.
`Another design is similar in that the
`belt detaches, but there Is no ignition
`interlock. The belt may be detached and
`left that way without affecting the
`starting of the car. This was the type of
`automatic belt that most manufacturers
`had planned to use in complying with
`the automatic restraint requirement
`before the agency issued its rescission
`order. It was briefly offered by General
`Motors as a consumer option on a
`Cadillac model.
`A third type of automatic belt is a
`continuous belt that does not detach at
`either end. Some continuous belts use a
`spool release, which plays out
`additional webbing length. Sufficient
`slack is created by an emergency
`release lever so that the motorist can lift
`the belt out of his or her way and exit in
`an emergency. Another type of
`continuous belt with a spool release
`mechanism is the motorized belt. The
`belt's outer anchorage is not fixed to the
`door but runs along a track in the
`interior side of the door's vindow frame.
`When the door is opened, the anchorage
`moves forward along the track, pulling
`the belt out of the occupant's way.
`When the door is closed, the process is
`reversed so that the belt is placed
`around the seated occupant. This type of
`continuous belt. which is a two-point
`system with a knee bolster and which
`contains a manual lap belt, has been
`installed in all Toyota Cressidas for the
`last several model years and enhances
`occupant ingress and egress.
`Another type of continuous belt was
`installed on a small number of 1930
`Chevettes. The belt consisted of a single
`length of webbing that passed through a
`ring near the occupant's inboard hip and
`served both as a lap and a shoulder belt.
`The end of the lap belt that was
`connected to the lower rear corner of
`the door could be detached from the
`door. However, the end could not be
`pulled through the ring. Thus, the effect
`of detaching the lap belt was to create
`an elongated shoulder belt. The extra
`slack in the belt system enabled
`occupants to get out of their belt in the
`event of an emergency.
`Airbags
`Airbags are fabric cushions that are
`very rapidly inflated with gas to cushion
`the occupant and prevent him or her
`from colliding with the vehicle interior
`when a crash occurs that is strong
`enough to trigger a sensor in the vehicle.
`(Generally, the bag will inflate at a
`barrier equivalent impact speed of about
`
`12 miles per hour.) After the crash, the
`bag quickly deflates to permit steering
`control or emergency egress.
`In 197i-1976, General Motors
`produced approximately 11.000 full-
`sized Chevrolets, Bicks, Oldsmobiles
`and Cadillacs equipped with airbags.
`During the same period, Ford installed
`airbags in 831 Mercurys. A small
`number were installed in Volvos also.
`Today, only a single manufacturer,
`Mercedes Benz. is offering airbags in the
`United States. That company began
`offering airbag-equipped cars in this
`country beginning with the 1934 model
`year, it has been selling airbag cars
`outside the United States since late
`19E0. Since then. it has sold
`approximately 22,000 of those cars
`worldwide, with most sales occurring
`within the last year or so. GSA has
`contracted with Ford Motor Company to
`build 5,000 cars equipped with driver's
`side airbags. Delivery on these cars is
`expected to begin in Model Year 1985.
`Other Automatic Occupant Protection
`Technologies
`The automatic occupant protection
`provisions of FMVSS 203 do not specify
`that particular technologies, such as
`automatic belts or airbags, be used to
`comply with the standard. Rather, the
`standard requires a level of safety-
`performance that can be met by any
`technology chosen by the manufacturer.
`Although safety belts and airbags are
`the most widely discussed technologies,
`the use of "passive interiors" as a means
`of complianceis also generating interest.
`Under this approach, improvements
`are made to the vehicle structure.
`steering column, and interior padding so
`as to minimize potential occupant
`injuries. Thus, a "restraint" system, of-
`any k:ind, is unnecessary for occupant
`protection in frontal crashes. GM has
`been actively pursuing "passive
`interiors."
`Il. Summary of the Public Comments
`Introduction
`In this section of the preamble we
`have summarized the public comments
`on the Department's October 19.1933,
`NPRM and the May 14, 14, SNTIM.
`We have presented the summaries
`under headings that generally relate to
`the headings used in the subsequgnt
`portions of the preamble. Some of the
`comments are very generally stated and
`may relate to more than one isue.
`Because of the large number of public
`comments, we have provided a
`representative sample of the comments
`made and the commenters who made
`them. Subsequent portions of the
`
`Page 5 of 50
`
`

`
`-2696c6
`
`Federal Register / Vol. 49,-No.3138 / Tuesday. Tulv 17. 1984 / Rules and Re olatinsn
`
`preamble-discuss'the issues and
`alternatives and present the
`Department's position and response to
`the public comments. The comments-are
`analyzed and responded to irmore
`detail in the Department's Final
`Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA).
`Occupant Protection Systems
`Usage
`Vehicle manufacturers generally
`agreed that mandating automatic belts
`would increase usage initially. However,
`based on their expectation of installing
`detachable automatic belts if required to
`install some type of automatic
`protection, some car manufacturers
`generally predicted that use would fall
`close to the current levels for manual
`belts once-the belts were disconnected
`for the-first time. GM believes this to be
`true for detachable automatic belts, and
`for nondetachable automatic belts as
`well. Honda also believes that, while
`there would be an initial increase in
`restraint usage if automatic belts were
`mandated, long-term usage of autoxhatic
`belts might not be higher than current
`usage ofimanual belts. The key
`,determinants would be the.comfort and
`convenience of atitomatic belts. The
`other manufacturers believed that
`automatic belts would probably.produce
`some small usageincrease. Chrysler
`stated that usage for-automatic belts
`awould be less thanlO percentage points
`higher than currentusage for manual
`\belts. Ford commented that the use of
`nondetachable automatic belts would
`initially be higher than.the usage level
`for detechable-automatic-belts, but that
`over the long term it-would fall to the
`same level. Ford saidfurther that
`occasional belt users-would use
`automatic belts more often than they
`currently use. their manual belts, hut the
`overall level of usage w uld'not
`significantly rise.
`The car manufacturers generally
`believe that nondetachable automatic
`belts would not be practicable since
`consumers would object stronglyto
`them and, therefore, would defeat and
`possibly disable them. The
`manufacturers concluded that there
`would be little orno increase inusage
`over manual belt-ates.
`The Pacific Legal Foundation (PIF)
`said that mechanicallycomp~lled use by
`unwilling occupantsiwould be-no more
`likely to succeed 'than legally-compelled
`,use-by such persons.
`On the other hand,'the.American Seat
`Belt Council (ASBC) believes that usage
`of automatic belts would be 50 percent,
`which is roughly halfway between the
`current driver usage of 14 percent for
`manual belts and 80 percent for
`
`automatic belts with ignition interlocks.
`-Professor William Nordhaus of Yale
`University believes that use of
`automatic-belts would increase by 33
`percentage points. John Graham of
`Harvard University found that expert
`opinion varies on the extent to which
`automatic belts would increa.e usage.
`His survey of seven experts from that
`detachable automatic belts would
`increase usage by 10 percentage points
`with an 80 percent confidence interval
`of 50to 40 percentage points.
`The issue of use-inducing features or
`reminder mechanisms was raised by
`several-commenters. ASBC believes that
`a continuous buzzer could double usage,
`andthat buzzers, chimes and lights
`would all increase usage over levels that
`mould-be observed in vehicles without
`such features. VW stated that a
`continuous-buzzer mightbe as effective
`as an interlock. On the other hand, Ford
`state dthatwhile a continuous buzzer
`-svould:induce somenon-users to wear
`their safety-belts, driver irritation and
`actions to:permanently defeat the
`system-could also be anticipated.
`Effectiveness
`Manual Belts. The vehicle
`manufacturers-generally stated that
`current manual lap and shoulder belts
`are more effective (when used) than
`either automatic belts or airbags.
`However, the combination of an airbag
`-and manuallap and shoulder belts was
`acknowledged to be the most effective
`system of all.
`The Automobile Importers of America
`(AIA),estimated- manual belt
`effectiveness at 50 percent. Honda
`expressed the view that, based upon
`results of its 35 mile per hour crash
`testing, manual belts-may be more
`effective than airbags-in terms of-chest
`,-acceleration and femur load injury
`-criteria.
`Most-commenters on the SNPRM
`believed that the agency's range of
`effectiveness estimates-for manual belts
`is too low. ASBC concluded that the
`estimat- is -too low because the agency
`estimate, of lives saved-from manual belt
`usage is-approximately half the value
`previously~citedby the agency. Renault
`argued that manual belt -effectiveness
`data should not be adjusted, to account
`for the presumably more cautious
`driving behavior of belt users, since belt
`use may lead some individuals to drive
`faster in-the belief that they are better
`protected. V-W provided a-procedure for
`calculating manual belt effectivenes's
`from NHTSA's Fatal Accident Reporting
`System (FARS] data, which