Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 49223

20590–0001. You must identify the FAA also be accessed through the FAA’s Web The Proposed Amendment Docket No. FAA–2005–22047 and page at http://www.faa.gov or the In consideration of the foregoing, the Airspace Docket No. 05–ANM–10 at the Federal Register’s Web page at http:// Federal Aviation Administration beginning of your comments. You may www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as You may review the public docket also submit comments through the follows: Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. containing the proposal, any comments FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken received, and any final disposition in PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, McElroy, Airspace and Rules, Office of person in the Dockets Office (see B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR System Operations Airspace and AIM, ADDRESSES section for address and TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND Federal Aviation Administration, 800 phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 REPORTING POINTS Independence Avenue, SW., p.m., Monday through Friday, except Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) Federal holidays. An informal docket 1. The authority citation for part 71 267–8783. may also be examined during normal continues to read as follows: business hours at the office of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, Regional Air Traffic Division, Federal 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– Comments Invited Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind 1963 Comp., p. 389. Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, Interested parties are invited to § 71.1 [Amended] participate in this proposed rulemaking 98055–4056. Persons interested in being placed on 2. The incorporation by reference in by submitting such written data, views, a mailing list for future NPRM’s should 14 CFR 71.1 of the FAA Order 7400.9M, or arguments, as they may desire. contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking, Airspace Designations and Reporting Comments that provide the factual basis (202) 267–9677, for a copy of Advisory Points, dated August 30, 2004, and supporting the views and suggestions Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed effective September 16, 2004, is presented are particularly helpful in Rulemaking Distribution System, which amended as follows: developing reasoned regulatory describes the application procedure. decisions on the proposal. Comments Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal are specifically invited on the overall History Airways regulatory, aeronautical, economic, On June 29, 2005, the Salt Lake City * * * * * environmental, and energy-related Air Route Traffic Control Center V–343 (Revised) aspects of the proposal. (ARTCC) requested Federal Airway V– Communications should identify both 343 be extended to accommodate From Dubios, ID; Bozeman, MT, INT docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA– Bozeman, MT, 302°T/284°M and Whitehall, arriving instrument air traffic at BTM. MT, 342°T/324°M Radials. 2005–22047 and Airspace Docket No. This action responds to this request. 05–ANM–10) and be submitted in * * * * * triplicate to the Docket Management Proposal Issued in Washington, DC, on August 16, System (see ADDRESSES section for The FAA is proposing an amendment 2005. address and phone number). You may to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Edith V. Parish, also submit comments through the (14 CFR) part 71 to modify Federal Acting Manager, Airspace and Rules. Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. Airway V–343 by extending the airway [FR Doc. 05–16748 Filed 8–22–05; 8:45 am] Commenters wishing the FAA to from the Bozeman, MT, VORTAC to the BILLING CODE 4910–13–P acknowledge receipt of their comments initial approach fix for the RNAV on this action must submit with those runway 15 approach to the BTM, MT. comments a self-addressed, stamped The FAA has determined that this postcard on which the following proposed regulation only involves an DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION statement is made: ‘‘Comments to established body of technical National Highway Traffic Safety Docket No. FAA–2005–22047 and regulations for which frequent and Administration Airspace Docket No. 05–ANM–10.’’ The routine amendments are necessary to postcard will be date/time stamped and keep them operationally current. 49 CFR Part 571 returned to the commenter. Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) All communications received on or Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ [Docket No. NHTSA–2005–22143] before the specified closing date for under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not RIN 2127–AG51 comments will be considered before a ‘‘significant rule’’ under Department of taking action on the proposed rule. The Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Federal Motor Vehicle Safety proposal contained in this action may Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; Standards; Roof Crush Resistance be changed in light of comments February 26, 1979); and (3) does not received. All comments submitted will warrant preparation of a regulatory AGENCY: National Highway Traffic be available for examination in the evaluation as the anticipated impact is Safety Administration (NHTSA), public docket both before and after the so minimal. Since this is a routine Department of Transportation. closing date for comments. A report matter that will only affect air traffic ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking summarizing each substantive public procedures and air navigation, it is (NPRM). contact with FAA personnel concerned certified that this proposed rule, when with this rulemaking will be filed in the promulgated, will not have a significant SUMMARY: As part of a comprehensive docket. economic impact on a substantial plan for reducing the serious risk of rollover crashes and the risk of death Availability of NPRM’s number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. and serious injury in those crashes, this An electronic copy of this document document proposes to upgrade the may be downloaded through the List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 agency’s safety standard on roof crush Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. Recently Airspace, Incorporation by reference, resistance in several ways. First, we are published rulemaking documents can Navigation (air). proposing to extend the application of

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:15 Aug 22, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 49224 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules

the standard to vehicles with a Gross Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, X. Costs Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 4,536 NVS–224, National Highway Traffic XI. Lead Time kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. Safety Administration, 400 7th Street, XII. Request for Comments XIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices Second, we are proposing to increase SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT the applied force to 2.5 times each (202) 366–5359. Fax: (202) 366–3081. e- Regulatory Policies and Procedures vehicle’s unloaded weight, and to mail: [email protected]. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act eliminate an existing limit on the force For legal issues: Mr. George Feygin, C. National Environmental Policy Act applied to passenger cars. Third, we are Attorney Advisor, Office of the Chief D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) proposing to replace the current limit on Counsel, NCC–112, National Highway E. Unfunded Mandates Act the amount of roof crush with a new Traffic Safety Administration, 400 7th F. Civil Justice Reform requirement for maintenance of enough Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act headroom to accommodate a mid-size Telephone: (202) 366–5834. Fax: (202) H. Paperwork Reduction Act adult male occupant. 366–3820. E-mail: I. Plain Language Because the impacts of this [email protected]. J. Privacy Act rulemaking would affect and be affected SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: XIV. Vehicle Safety Act by other aspects of the comprehensive XV. Proposed Regulatory Text Table of Contents effort to reduce rollover-related injuries I. Executive Summary and Overview and fatalities, we are also seeking I. Executive Summary and Overview comments on some of those other II. Background As part of a comprehensive plan for aspects. A. Current Performance Requirements reducing the risk of death and serious B. Previous Rulemaking, Petitions, and injury from rollover crashes, this notice DATES: You should submit your October 2001 Request for Comments proposes to upgrade Federal Motor comments early enough to ensure that Concerning Performance Requirements Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. Docket Management receives them not 1. Extension of Roof Crush Standard to 216, Roof Crush Resistance. This later than November 21, 2005. Light Trucks 2. Plate Positioning Procedure standard, which seeks to reduce deaths ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 3. Upgrade of Performance Requirements and serious injuries resulting from [identified by DOT Docket Number C. Consumer Information on Rollover crushing of the roof into the occupant NHTSA–2005–22143] by any of the Resistance compartment as a result of ground following methods: D. Development of Comprehensive Plan contact during rollover crashes, • Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. III. Overall Rollover Problem and the currently applies to passenger cars, and Follow the instructions for submitting Agency’s Comprehensive Response to multipurpose passenger vehicles, comments on the DOT electronic docket A. Overall Rollover Problem trucks and buses with a GVWR of 2,722 site. B. Agency’s Comprehensive Response kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less. The • Fax: 1–202–493–2251. IV. The Role of Roof Intrusion in the Rollover standard requires that when a large steel • Mail: Docket Management Facility; Problem A. Rollover Induced Vertical Roof test plate is forced down onto the roof U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 of a vehicle, simulating contact with the Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Intrusion B. Occupant Injuries in Rollover Crashes ground in rollover crashes, the vehicle Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590– Resulting in Roof Intrusion roof structure must withstand a force 001. equivalent to 1.5 times the unloaded • V. Previous Rollover and Roof Crush Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on Mitigation Research weight of the vehicle, without the test the plaza level of the Nassif Building, A. Vehicle Testing plate moving more than 127 mm (5 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, B. Analytical Research inches). Under S5 of the standard, the DC, between 9 am and 5 pm, Monday C. Latest Agency Testing and Analysis application of force is limited to 22,240 through Friday, except Federal holidays. 1. Vehicle Testing Newtons (5,000 pounds) for passenger • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 2. Revised Tie-Down Testing VI. Summary of Comments in Response to cars. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the Recent agency data show that nearly online instructions for submitting the October 2001 Request for Comments VII. Agency Proposal 24,000 occupants are seriously injured comments. A. Proposed Application and 10,000 occupants are fatally injured Instructions: All submissions must 1. MPVs, Trucks and Buses with a GVWR in approximately 273,000 non- include the agency name and docket of 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 pounds) or convertible light vehicle rollover number or Regulatory Identification Less crashes that occur each year. In order to Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Note 2. Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More identify how many of these occupants that all comments received will be Stages might benefit from this proposal, the posted without change to http:// 3. Convertibles agency analyzed real-world injury data dms.dot.gov including any personal B. Proposed Amendments to the Roof in order to determine the number of information provided. Please see the Strength Requirements 1. Increased Force Requirement occupant injuries that could be Privacy Act heading under Regulatory 2. Headroom Requirement attributed to roof intrusion. The agency Notices. C. Proposed Amendments to the Test examined only front outboard occupants Docket: For access to the docket to Procedures who were belted, not fully ejected from read background documents or 1. Retaining the Current Test Procedure their vehicles, whose most severe injury comments received, go to http:// 2. Dynamic Testing was associated with roof contact, and dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL– 3. Revised Tie-Down Procedure whose seating position was located 401 on the plaza level of the Nassif 4. Plate Positioning Procedure below a roof component that Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., VIII. Other Issues experienced vertical intrusion as a A. Agency Response to Hogan Petition Washington, DC, between 9 am and 5 result of a rollover crash. NHTSA pm, Monday through Friday, except B. Agency Response to Ford and RVIA Petition estimates that there are about 807 Federal holidays. C. Request for Comments on Advanced seriously and approximately 596 fatally FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Restraints injured occupants that fit these criteria. technical issues: Ms. Amanda Prescott, IX. Benefits The agency believes that some of these

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:15 Aug 22, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 49225

occupants would benefit from this II. Background B. Previous Rulemaking, Petitions, and proposal. October 2001 Request for Comments A. Current Performance Requirements To better address fatalities and Concerning Performance Requirements injuries occurring in roof-involved FMVSS No. 216 currently applies to 1. Extension of Roof Crush Standard to rollover crashes, we are proposing to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger Light Trucks extend the application of the standard to vehicles (MPVs), trucks, and buses 1 vehicles with a GVWR of up to 4,536 with a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 In an effort to reduce deaths and kilograms (10,000 pounds), and to pounds) or less. The standard requires injuries resulting from roof crush into strengthen the requirements of FMVSS that the ‘‘roof over the front seat area’’ 2 the passenger compartment area in No. 216 by mandating that the vehicle must withstand a force equivalent to 1.5 rollover crashes, the agency established roof structures withstand a force times the unloaded weight of the FMVSS No. 216, ‘‘Roof crush equivalent to 2.5 times the unloaded vehicle. For passenger cars, this force is resistance.’’ Specifically, the agency vehicle weight, and eliminating the limited to a maximum of 22,240 N sought to address the strength of roof 22,240 Newtons (5,000 pounds) force (5,000 pounds). Specifically, the structures located over the front seat limit for passenger cars. Further, we are vehicle’s roof must prevent the test plate area of passenger cars. Compliance with proposing a new direct limit on from moving more than 127 mm (5 the standard was first required on headroom reduction, which would inches) in the specified test. September 1, 1973. On April 17, 1991, NHTSA published replace the current limit of test plate To test compliance, a vehicle is a final rule amending FMVSS No. 216 movement. This new limit would secured on a rigid horizontal surface, to extend its application to MPVs, prohibit any roof component from and a steel rectangular plate is angled trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 2,722 contacting a seated 50th percentile male and positioned on the roof to simulate kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less.5 The dummy under the application of a force vehicle-to-ground contact over the front final rule adopted the same equivalent to 2.5 times the unloaded seat area. This plate is used to apply the requirements and test procedures as vehicle weight. For vehicles built in two specified force to the roof structure. those applicable to passenger cars, or more stages, the agency is proposing Currently, no test device is used to except for the 22,240 Newton (5,000 an option of certifying to the roof crush simulate an occupant in the front seat pound) limit on the applied force. requirements of FMVSS No. 220, area. Compliance with the final rule was ‘‘School bus rollover protection,’’ In order to simulate vehicle-to-ground required on September 1, 1994. instead of FMVSS No. 216. Finally, in contact, the plate is tilted forward at a response to several petitions, we 5-degree angle, along its longitudinal 2. Plate Positioning Procedure reexamined the current testing axis, and rotated outward at a 25-degree Subsequently, NHTSA published a procedures and are proposing certain angle, along its lateral axis, so that the final rule (1999 final rule) responding to modifications to the vehicle tie-down plate’s outboard side is lower than its several petitions for rulemaking seeking procedure and test plate positioning for inboard side. The edges of the test plate to revise the test plate positioning raised or altered roof vehicles. are positioned based on fixed points on procedure.6 Prior to the 1999 final rule, Consistent with the agency’s the vehicle’s roof. the test plate was positioned based on continuing effort to reduce rollover- For vehicles with conventional roofs, initial point of contact with the roof. related injuries and fatalities, this the forward edge of the plate is After establishing the initial point of document requests additional comments positioned 254 mm (10 inches) forward contact, the test plate was moved on certain other countermeasures that of the forwardmost point on the roof, forward until its forwardmost edge was could further this initiative. including the windshield trim. This positioned 254 mm (10 inches) in front Specifically, we ask for comments same position is required for vehicles of the initial point of contact. For related to seat belt pretensioners that with raised 3 or altered 4 roofs, unless certain vehicles with aerodynamically could limit vertical head excursion in a the initial point of contact with the plate sloped roofs, this procedure resulted in rollover event. is rearward of the front seat area. In the test plate being positioned rearward 7 The agency used two alternative those instances, the plate is moved of the roof over the front seat area. methods to estimate the benefits of this forward until its rearward edge is Consequently, the plate did not apply proposal. Under the first alternative, we tangent to the rear of the front seat area. the force in the location contemplated estimate that this proposal would by the standard, i.e., over the front occupants. In some instances, the test prevent 793 non-fatal injuries and 13 1 For simplicity, this notice will refer to MPVs, fatalities. Under the second alternative, trucks, and buses collectively as light trucks. plate was positioned such that the edge we estimate that this proposal would 2 The roof over the front seat area means the of the plate was in contact with the roof, prevent 498 non-fatal injuries and 44 portion of the roof, including windshield trim, which resulted in excessive and forward of a transverse plane passing through a unrealistic deformation during testing. fatalities. The annual equivalent lives point 162 mm rearward of the seating reference saved are estimated at 39 and 55, point of the rearmost front outboard seating Similar problems occurred in testing respectively. position. vehicles with raised or altered roofs. 3 ‘‘Raised roof’’ means, with respect to a roof, The 1999 final rule addressed the The estimated average cost in 2003 which includes an area that protrudes above the difficulty in testing aerodynamically dollars, per vehicle, of meeting the surrounding exterior roof structure, that protruding sloped roofs by specifying that the test proposed requirements would be $10.67 area of the roof. plate be positioned 254 mm (10 inches) per affected vehicle. Added weight from 4 ‘‘Altered roof’’ means the replacement roof on forward of the forwardmost point of the design changes is estimated to increase a motor vehicle whose original roof has been removed, in part or in total, and replaced by a roof roof (including the windshield trim). lifetime fuel costs by $5.33 to $6.69 per that is higher than the original roof. The This ensured that the leading edge of vehicle. The cost per year for the vehicle replacement roof on a motor vehicle whose original fleet is estimated to be $88–$95 million. roof has been replaced, in whole or in part, by a roof that consists of glazing materials, such as those 5 See 56 FR 15510. The cost per equivalent life saved is in T-tops and sunroofs, and is located at the level 6 See 64 FR 22567 (April 27, 1999). estimated to range from $2.1 to $3.4 of the original roof, is not considered to be an 7 Examples of these vehicles include model year million. altered roof. 1999 Ford Taurus and Dodge Neon.

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:15 Aug 22, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 49226 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules

the plate did not contact the roof and ‘‘Inverted Vehicle Drop Test motor vehicle safety information to that the test plate applied the force over Procedure.’’ The petitioner also consumers.15 the front seat area. requested that NHTSA require ‘‘roll After the agency reviewed the NAS Certain vehicles with raised or altered cages’’ to be standard in all cars. study, we issued a Request for roofs experienced plate positioning NHTSA granted this petition on January Comments proposing to use Static difficulties similar to those in vehicles 8, 1997, believing that the inverted drop Stability Factor to indicate rollover risk with aerodynamically sloped roofs test had merit for further agency in single-vehicle crashes, as a part of because the initial contact point on the consideration. The agency addresses the NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program roof occurred not over the front seat issues raised in this petition in Section (NCAP). That program provides area, but on the raised rear portion of VIII(A) of this document. consumers with vehicle safety the roof. Consequently, the 1999 final On October 22, 2001, NHTSA information, including crash test results, rule provided for a secondary test published a Request for Comments to aid consumers in their vehicle procedure intended for vehicles with (RFC) to assist in an upgrade of FMVSS purchase decisions.16 In 2001, the raised or altered roofs. Under this new No. 216 and in addressing issues raised agency issued a final decision to use the test procedure, the test plate is moved by the Hogan petition requesting that Static Stability Factor to indicate forward until the rearward edge is the agency adopt dynamic testing.11 In rollover risk in single-vehicle crashes tangent to the transverse vertical plane the RFC, the agency posed questions and to incorporate the new rating into located at the rear of the roof over the related to (1) current FMVSS No. 216 NCAP.17 front seat area. test requirements and procedures; (2) Section 12 of the Transportation On June 11, 1999, the Recreational the viability of introducing dynamic Recall, Enhancement, Accountability Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) testing; and (3) ways to limit headroom and Documentation (TREAD) Act of and Ford Motor Company (Ford) reduction. The agency received over 50 November 2000 mandated that NHTSA submitted petitions for reconsideration comments from the public. The agency develop a dynamic rollover resistance to amend the 1999 final rule.8 used the information gathered from test for the purposes of aiding consumer Petitioners argued that the secondary these responses in preparing this NPRM. information. On October 14, 2003, plate positioning test procedure A summary of comments is provided in NHTSA modified the New Car produced rear edge plate loading onto Section VI of this document. Assessment Program to include the roof of some raised and altered roof dynamic rollover tests.18 NHTSA’s vehicles that caused excessive C. Consumer Information on Rollover rollover resistance rating information is deformation uncharacteristic of real- Resistance available at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ world rollover crashes. Specifically, ncap/. petitioners argued that positioning the In 1991, Congress instructed NHTSA test plate such that the rear edge of the to assess rollover occupant protection as D. Development of Comprehensive Plan plate is at the rearmost point of the front a part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). In 2002, the agency formed an occupant area resulted in stress Integrated Project Team (IPT) to concentration, which produced ISTEA required the agency to initiate rulemaking to address the injuries and examine the rollover problem and make excessive deformation and even roof recommendations on how to reduce penetration. Petitioners argued that this fatalities associated with rollover crashes. In response to that mandate, rollovers and improve safety when type of loading is uncommon to real- rollovers nevertheless occur. In June world rollovers. Consequently, NHTSA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) that 2003, based on the work of the team, the petitioners asked the agency to agency published a report entitled, reconsider adopting the secondary plate summarized statistics and research in rollover crashes, sought answers to ‘‘Initiatives to Address the Mitigation of positioning procedure for raised or 19 several questions about vehicle stability Vehicle Rollover.’’ The report altered roof vehicles.9 The agency recommended improving vehicle responds to these petitions for and rollover crashes, and outlined possible regulatory and other stability, ejection mitigation, roof crush reconsideration in Section VIII(B) of this resistance, as well as road improvement document. approaches to reduce rollover fatalities.12 NHTSA also published a and behavioral strategies aimed at 3. Upgrade of Performance report to Congress that detailed the consumer education. Requirements agency’s efforts on rollover occupant III. Overall Rollover Problem and the On May 6, 1996, the agency received protection.13 Agency’s Comprehensive Response a petition for rulemaking from Hogan, In 1994, the agency proposed a new This proposal to upgrade our safety 10 Smith & Alspaugh, P.C. (Hogan). consumer information regulation to standard on roof crush resistance is one Hogan argued that the current static require that passenger cars and light part of a comprehensive agency plan for requirements in FMVSS No. 216 bear no multipurpose passenger vehicles and reducing the serious risk of rollover relationship to real-world rollover crash trucks be labeled with information 14 crashes and the risk of death and serious conditions and therefore should be about their resistance to rollover. injury when rollover crashes do occur. replaced with a more realistic test such However, after issuing the notice of as the inverted vehicle drop test defined proposed rulemaking, Congress directed A. Overall Rollover Problem in the Society of Automotive Engineers NHTSA not to issue a final rule on Rollovers are especially lethal Recommended Practice J996 (SAE J996), vehicle rollover labeling until the crashes. While rollovers comprise just agency had reviewed a study by the 3% of all light passenger vehicle 8 See Docket Nos. NHTSA–99–5572–3 & NHTSA– National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on crashes, they account for almost one- 99–5572–2, respectively at: http://dms.dot.gov/ how to most effectively communicate search/searchFormSimple.cfm. 15 9 On January 31, 2000, the agency published a See 65 FR 34998 at 35001 (June 1, 2000). partial response to petitions delaying application of 11 See 66 FR 53376. 16 See 65 FR 34998 (June 1, 2000). the new secondary plate positioning testing 12 See 57 FR 242 (January 3, 1992). 17 See 66 FR 3388 (January 12, 2001). procedure until October 25, 2000. See 65 FR 4579. 13 See Docket Number NHTSA 1999–5572–35. 18 See 68 FR 59250. 10 See Docket No. NHTSA–2005–22143. 14 See 59 FR 33254 (June 28, 1994). 19 See Docket Number NHTSA 2003–14622–1.

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:15 Aug 22, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 49227

third of all occupant fatalities in light windows 23 or side doors.24 Those who NHTSA estimates that 23,793 serious vehicles, and more than 60 percent of are not ejected, including belted injuries 27 and 9,942 fatalities occur in occupant deaths in the SUV segment of occupants, are fatally injured as a result 272,925 non-convertible light duty the light vehicle population.20 of impact with the vehicle interior. vehicle 28 rollover crashes each year. In Rollover fatalities are strongly Approximately 273,000 non- evaluating the risks of fatalities and associated with the following factors: A convertible light vehicles were towed serious injuries associated with rollover single vehicle crash (83 percent), a rural crashes, NHTSA has concluded that crash location (60 percent), a high-speed after a police-reported rollover crash each year. Of these 273,000 light vehicle rollover crashes involving light duty (55 mph or higher) road (72 percent), vehicles present a higher risk of injury nighttime (66 percent), off-road rollover crashes, 223,000 were single- vehicle rollover crashes. Previous compared to frontal, side, and rear tripping/tipping mechanism (60 impacts.29 percent), young (under 30 years old) agency data indicate that in ninety-five driver (46 percent), male driver (73 (95) percent of single-vehicle rollover In arriving at our conclusions, percent), alcohol-related (40 percent), crashes, the vehicles were tripped, NHTSA used (1) the Fatality Analysis and/or speed-related (40 percent).21 either by on-road mechanisms such as Reporting System (FARS) from 1997 The agency previously estimated that potholes and wheel rims digging into through 2002 to determine the annual approximately 64 percent of about the pavement or by off-road average number of fatalities in non- 10,000 occupants fatally injured in mechanisms such as curbs, soft soil, and convertible light duty vehicles, and (2) rollovers each year are injured when guardrails.25 Eighty-three (83) percent of the National Automotive Sampling they are either partially or completely single-vehicle rollover crashes occurred System Crashworthiness Data System ejected during the rollover. after the vehicle left the roadway.26 Five (NASS–CDS) from 1997 through 2002 to Approximately 53 percent of the fatally (5) percent of single vehicle rollovers determine the annual average number of injured are completely ejected, and 72 were untripped rollovers. They occurred seriously injured survivors of towaway percent are unbelted.22 Most of the as a result of tire and/or road interface crashes. These estimates were combined fatally injured are ejected through side friction. to produce the results in Table 1.30

TABLE 1.—RISK OF FATALITY AND SERIOUS INJURY TO OCCUPANTS OF NON-CONVERTIBLE LIGHT VEHICLES INVOLVED IN A TOWAWAY CRASHES BY CRASH TYPE [NASS–CDS & FARS 1997–2002]

Percent of oc- Total Percent of Fatal and cupants fatally Crash type occupants Fatalities occupants serious or seriously fatally injured injuries injured

Rollover ...... 467,120 9,942 2.1 33,735 7.2 Frontal Impact ...... 2,786,378 12,480 0.4 58,031 2.1 Side Impact ...... 1,218,068 7,932 0.6 29,964 2.5 Rear Impact ...... 414,711 1,029 0.2 2,338 0.6

The estimates in Table 1 show that to other crash modes. Further, younger injury risks experienced by belted compared to other crash events, such as drivers, who may be more likely to vehicle occupants, and vehicle frontal, side, and rear impacts, rollover become involved in rollovers, might occupants that had not been fully crashes present a greater risk of fatal or also be less likely to use a safety ejected. Although the injury risk serious injury. However, the higher restraint.31 estimates for belted occupants are injury risks in rollover crashes may Accordingly, to refine further the lower, they remain higher for rollover largely result from greater likelihood of injury risk estimates more relevant to crashes than for other crash modes. full ejection from the vehicle, compared this proposal, we examined the rollover

20 See Automotive News World Congress, Center, Inc., SAE Government/Industry Meeting, 26 See id. ‘‘Meeting the Safety Challenge’’ Jeffrey W. Runge, May 10, 2004, slide 2, http://www- 27 Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 3 to 5. M.D., Administrator, NHTSA, January 14, 2003, nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-01/SAE/SAE2004/ 28 We refer to vehicles with GVWR less than or _ page 3, 4; (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/ EjectMitigate Duffy.pdf. equal to 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) as light announce/speeches/030114Runge/ 24 See IPT Rollover Report at http://www- duty vehicles. AutomotiveNewsFinal.pdf); see also The Honorable nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/vrtc/ca/capubs/ 29 Jeffrey W. Runge, M.D., Administrator, NHTSA, Injury risk is measured by the ratio of fatal and IPTRolloverMitigationReport/ (Page 12). serious injuries to the number of occupants before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 25 See id. at 6. Tripped rollovers result from a involved in towaway crashes. Transportation. U.S. Senate, February 26, 2003; vehicle’s sideways motion, as opposed to its 30 NASS–CDS estimates have been adjusted to (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/announce/ forward motion. When sideways motion is account for cases with unknown or missing data. testimony/SUVtestimony02–26–03.htm); see also suddenly interrupted, for example, when a vehicle 31 IPT Rollover Report at http://www- is sliding sideways and its tires on one side For younger drivers and rollovers, see William nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/vrtc/ca/capubs/ encounter something that stops them from sliding, Deutermann, ‘‘Characteristics of Fatal Rollover IPTRolloverMitigationReport/ (Page 7). the vehicle may roll over. Whether or not the Crashes,’’ DOT HS 809 438, April 2002 (http:// 21 See id. at 8. vehicle rolls over in that situation depends on its www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/ 22 See IPT Rollover Report at http://www- speed in a sideways direction (lateral velocity). By 2002/809–438.pdf). For younger occupants and seat nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/vrtc/ca/capubs/ measuring certain vehicle dimensions, it is possible belt use, see Donna Glassbrenner, ‘‘Safety Belt Use IPTRolloverMitigationReport/ (Page 5). to calculate each make/model’s theoretical in 2003,’’ DOT HS 809 729, May 2004 (http://www- 23 Status of NHTSA’s Ejection Mitigation minimum lateral sliding velocity for this type of nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2004/ Research, J. Stephen Duffy, Transportation Research rollover to occur. 809729.pdf).

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:15 Aug 22, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 49228 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 2.—RISKS OF FATALITY AND SERIOUS INJURY TO NOT FULLY EJECTED OCCUPANTS AND BELTED OCCUPANTS OF NON-CONVERTIBLE LIGHT VEHICLES INVOLVED IN A TOWAWAY CRASH BY CRASH TYPE [NASS–CDS and FARS 1997 to 2002]

Percent of not fully Percent of not fully Percent of belted occu- Percent of belted occu- ejected occupants fatally ejected occupants fatally pants fatally injured pants fatally or seriously Crash type injured (regardless of or seriously injured (re- (regardless of injured (regardless of belt use) gardless of belt use) ejection status) ejection status)

Rollover ...... 1.1 4.3 0.7 3.5 Frontal Impact...... 0.4 2.0 0.3 1.4 Side Impact...... 0.6 2.3 0.5 1.9 Rear Impact...... 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.3

B. Agency’s Comprehensive Response ensure their continued deployment in the damage.34 This information was derived vehicle fleet. from NASS–CDS (1997 to 2002). • The agency has published a Enhancing other aspects of occupant Vertical roof intrusion is recorded in comprehensive plan to reduce rollover protection, such as door retention (FMVSS NASS–CDS when it exceeds 2 cm (0.8 206), occupant restraints (FMVSS 208) and related fatalities and injuries. It is clear inches). that the most effective way to reduce roof crush (FMVSS 216). For example, advanced safety belt systems incorporating Using the NASS–CDS data from 1997 deaths and injuries in rollover crashes is pretensioners may help keep occupants from to 2002, we conclude that out of the to prevent the rollover crash from impacting the roof structure during a total of 272,925 light duty vehicle occurring. Countermeasures to help rollover. rollovers in towaway crashes, 220,452 reduce rollover occurrence include: • The continued enactment of primary rolled more than one-quarter turn.35 The • Providing consumers with information to safety belt laws and a continued focus on the 52,473 vehicles that experienced only a make informed decisions when purchasing enforcement of such laws. Safety belt use is one-quarter turn were excluded from the vehicles. The agency’s New Car Assessment a critical feature of reducing rollover-related fatalities and injuries. Approximately 75 analysis because one-quarter turn Program provides information on rollover rollovers usually do not result in risk predictions for light vehicles. Starting percent of the people killed or injured in single-vehicle rollovers are unbelted. vertical roof intrusion since they do not with the 2004 model year, NHTSA is making experience roof-to-ground contact. We risk predictions that are based both on the Twenty-nine states have yet to enact primary vehicle’s static stability factor and its belt laws. Of those, twenty-one states report found that out of the 220,452 vehicles performance in the agency’s dynamic safety belt use below the national average of that rolled more than one-quarter turn, 80 percent.33 (fishhook) test. 175,253 experienced vertical intrusion • Continued research and development of All of these countermeasures must of some roof component. We estimate advanced vehicle technologies, such as work together to help create a driving that in 82 percent (142,954) of these electronic control systems, road departure environment in which rollovers can be cases, the most severe roof intrusion warnings and rollover sensors. For example, avoided and rollover-related fatalities occurred over the front seat positions. preliminary data indicates that electronic and injuries minimized. States Approximately 92 percent of the fatally stability control systems appear effectively to legislatures, the enforcement or seriously injured belted occupants reduce the occurrence of single-vehicle community (including police officers, crashes.32 Vehicle manufacturers continue to who were not fully ejected were in front prosecutors and judges), vehicle makers seats. develop and deploy such technologies. and their suppliers and the driving • Continued focus on the enforcement of In addition, NHTSA examined how laws discouraging impaired driving and public all play critical parts in vertical roof intrusion relates to a compliance with speed limits and other safe eliminating the 10,000 rollover-related vehicle’s body type and GVWR. We driving behavior. As noted above, rollovers fatalities suffered each year. compared passenger cars, light trucks often involve speed (40%) and/or alcohol Government also plays a role in currently subject to the standard, and (40%), and tend to be associated with ensuring that safety requirements are light trucks with a GVWR greater than younger (46%), male (73%) drivers. mandated when the benefits of doing so 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) but less are established. This proposal to than or equal to 4,536 kilograms (10,000 Countermeasures are also needed to upgrade our roof crush standard is only mitigate injuries and fatalities when pounds). The estimates in Table 3 show one such effort by the agency to address that light trucks not subject to the rollovers do occur. Such the rollover hazard. countermeasures include: current standard experienced patterns of • IV. The Role of Roof Intrusion in the roof intrusion which were slightly Continued focus on ejection mitigation greater than vehicles already subject to measures, such as side curtain airbags and Rollover Problem rollover sensors. Such technologies are the requirements of FMVSS No. 216. A. Rollover Induced Vertical Roof Further, the heavier vehicles above increasingly made available to the vehicle Intrusion buying public. The agency will continue 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) collaborative research efforts and, if The agency has examined data on experienced a greater maximum vertical appropriate, will establish regulations to vehicle rollovers resulting in roof roof intrusion.

32 Dang, Jennifer, ‘‘Preliminary Results Analyzing Farmer ‘‘Effect of electronic stability control,’’ roof component (A-pillar, B-pillar, roof, roof side the Effectiveness of Electronic Stability Control Traffic Injury Prevention 5:4 (317–25). rail, windshield header, and backlight header). (ESC) Systems,’’ DOT HS 809 790, September 2004. 35 A quarter turn occurs when the vehicle tips Several recent studies in Japan and Europe also 33 See http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/ over from the upright position onto either of its indicate that ESC systems reduce single vehicle airbags/809713.pdf. crashes. However, the samples of vehicles equipped 34 Roof damage is measured by the maximum sides. with these systems were small. See also, C.M. degree of vertical intrusion into the vehicle by a

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:15 Aug 22, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 49229

TABLE 3.—PERCENT OF VEHICLES INVOLVED IN ROLLOVER CRASHES (MORE THAN ONE QUARTER-TURN) BY DEGREE OF VERTICAL ROOF INTRUSION [1997–2002 NASS–CDS and 2002 Polk National Vehicle Population Profile (NVPP)]

Light trucks subject to Light trucks with GVWR Maximum vertical roof Passenger cars FMVSS No. 216 > 2,722 and ≤ 4,536 Kg intrusion (percent) (percent) (percent)

No Intrusion ...... 23,071 (23) 17,805 (19) 14,322 (17) 3 to 7 cm ...... 22,219 (22) 19,264 (20) 1,499 (6) 8 to 14 cm ...... 22,285 (22) 12,354 (13) 5,122 (21) 15 to 29 cm ...... 25,260 (25) 31,184 (33) 10,487 (42) 30 to 45 cm ...... 4,810 (5) 12,225 (13) 2,107 (8) 46 cm or more ...... 2,334 (2) 2,695 (3) 1,253 (5)

Total ...... 100,075 (100) 95,586 (100) 24,791 (100) Average Amount of Intrusion ...... 82.4 mm 111.3 mm 150.5 mm

Total Number of Vehicles ...... 220,452

B. Occupant Injuries in Rollover Crashes pole. Using NASS–CDS (1997—2002) according to belt use, MAIS source, and Resulting in Roof Intrusion data, NHTSA estimates that 4 percent of roof intrusion is illustrated in Figure 1. In addition to examining the risk of vehicles involved in rollovers collided Thus, although the number of serious injuries associated with rollover events, with fixed objects in a way that caused and fatal injuries resulting from and the prevalence of roof intrusions roof damage. The agency excluded these rollovers is very high, the number of resulting from rollover, the agency vehicles in assessing potential benefits occupants who could potentially benefit examined actual occupant injuries and of this proposal because we found that from upgraded roof crush resistance fatalities resulting from roof intrusions roof damage observed from fixed object requirements is considerably more that occurred after the vehicle rolled collisions was often catastrophic in limited. However, despite the relatively more than one-quarter turn or end-over- nature and exhibited different small number of rollover occupants who end. Some occupants sustaining these deformation patterns than roof-to- may directly benefit from this proposal, injuries could potentially benefit from ground impacts due to the localization the agency believes that roof crush of the force. The agency believes that upgrading the roof crush resistance resistance is an integral part of the this proposal is not likely to have requirements. occupant protection system, necessary appreciable benefits for these types of Again, the agency limited this injury to ensure benefits can be obtained from analysis to belted occupants who were collisions. Finally, the occupant MAIS designing other rollover mitigation tools not fully ejected from their vehicles. In injury must have resulted from contact order to determine the number of with a roof component.37 (such as padding and the restraint occupant injuries that could be Our refined analysis shows that system) to provide better protection attributed to roof intrusion, the injury annually, there are an estimated 807 against injuries resulting from rollover. data were further limited to only front seriously and 596 fatally injured belted We note that seriously and fatally outboard occupants.36 Further, NHTSA occupants (1,403 total) involved in injured occupants who had a non-MAIS excluded rollover crashes producing rollovers resulting in roof intrusion that roof contact injury may also derive some roof intrusion as a result of a collision suffered MAIS injury from roof contact. benefit from decreased roof intrusion. with a fixed object such as a tree or a The rollover injury distributions BILLING CODE 4910–59–U

36 We excluded rear outboard belted occupants the most severe roof intrusion occurred over the 37 MAIS injury is the most severe (maximum AIS) because FMVSS No. 216 requires that the roof over front seat position. Further, we lacked the injury for the occupant. the front seat area withstand the applied force. As headroom data necessary to estimate potential previously stated, in 82 percent of relevant crashes, benefits to rear seat occupants.

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:15 Aug 22, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 49230 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C A. Vehicle Testing rollover crashes. These tests were V. Previous Rollover and Roof Crush The agency vehicle testing program expected to produce severe roof Mitigation Research has consisted of: (1) Full vehicle intrusion in order to help the agency Prior to issuing the October 2001 RFC, dynamic rollover testing; (2) inverted investigate possible roof crush NHTSA conducted a research program vehicle drop testing; and (3) comparing countermeasures and compare roof to examine potential methods for inverted drop testing to a modified strengths. NHTSA designed a rollover improving the roof crush resistance FMVSS No. 216 test. test cart that was similar to the dolly performance requirements. This The agency conducted over 25 full- rollover cart (as defined in FMVSS No. program included vehicle testing and scale dynamic rollover tests to evaluate 208, ‘‘Occupant crash protection’’), and analytical research. roof integrity and failure modes in vertically elevated it 1.2 meters.

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:15 Aug 22, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 EP23AU05.022 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 49231

Pneumatic cylinders were used to B. Analytical Research document entitled ‘‘Roof Crush initiate the vehicle’s angular In 1994, NHTSA conducted an Research: Load Plate Angle momentum. However, these test analytical study to explore the Determination and Initial Fleet 43 conditions proved so severe it was relationship between roof intrusion and Evaluation.’’ difficult to identify which vehicles had the severity of occupant injury. To Subsequently, NHTSA conducted better performing roof structures and determine the extent of the correlation further testing on another set of ten which had the worse performing roof between roof intrusion and occupant vehicles with a seated 50th percentile 38 44 structures. Due to severity of roof injury, the agency conducted a Hybrid III dummy. All ten vehicles crush and demonstrated lack of comparative study using NASS–CDS.41 withstood an applied force of 1.5 times repeatability of results, this test The study evaluated two sets of belted the unloaded vehicle weight before the procedure did not provide a reliable occupants involved in rollover events to occupant headroom was exhausted.45 performance measure for roof crush determine if headroom reduction was Seven out of ten vehicles exceeded an resistance. Based on these tests, the related to the risk of head injury in applied force of 2.5 times the unloaded agency determined that the rollover crashes. One set of occupants vehicle weight before the occupant development of an improved roof crush had received head injuries from roof headroom was exhausted. One vehicle, standard based on dynamic rollover contact, the second set of occupants had a Subaru Forester, withstood an applied testing was not feasible, so we not. force of 4.0 times the unloaded vehicle proceeded to investigate alternatives. We observed the following: (1) weight before the occupant headroom NHTSA then evaluated the inverted Headroom reduction (pre-crash versus was exhausted. drop test procedure based on the SAE post-crash) of more than 70 percent The agency also tested 10 vehicles as J996 procedure. Previous research had substantially increased the risk of head a part of NHTSA’s compliance suggested that the inverted drop test injury from roof contact; (2) as the program.46 These vehicles were tested produced deformation patterns similar severity of the injury increased, the in a manner similar to the 20 vehicles to those observed in real-world percentage of cases with no remaining described above. However, these crashes.39 NHTSA conducted a series of headroom increased; (3) when the vehicles were only crushed to inverted drop tests and concluded that intrusion exceeded the original approximately 127 mm (5 inches) of they were not necessarily better than headroom, the percentage of injured plate displacement. The data gathered quasi-static tests in representing occupants was 1.8 times the percentage from these tests were useful in vehicle-to-ground interaction occurring of uninjured occupants; and (4) the evaluating the roof crush performance of during rollover. Further, the inverted average percent of headroom reduction the fleet under the current requirements, drop test procedure was significantly for injured occupants was more than which is discussed in greater detail in more difficult to conduct because it twice that of uninjured occupants. In other sections of this notice.47 required a cumbersome procedure for sum, the agency believes that there is a 2. Revised Tie-Down Testing suspending and inverting the vehicle. relationship between the amount of roof The agency concluded that the quasi- intrusion and the risk of injury to belted As previously discussed, in 1999, the static test procedure is simpler and occupants in rollover events. agency issued a final rule revising the produces more repeatable results. test plate positioning procedures.48 In C. Latest Agency Testing and Analysis Further, the agency found that both response to the NPRM which preceded the inverted drop and quasi-static tests 1. Vehicle Testing the 1999 final rule, Ford commented that different laboratories employ produced loading and crush patterns Recently, the agency conducted roof various methods to secure the vehicle comparable to those of the dynamic crush tests to ascertain roof strength of for FMVSS No. 216 testing. Ford stated rollover test.40 Although the roof crush more recent model year (MY) vehicles. loading sequence in real-world crashes First, the agency conducted testing on that the initial point of contact of the differs from that of the quasi-static ten vehicles equipped with string test plate varied between laboratories, procedure, we determined that the roof potentiometers to measure the which resulted in different roof crush crush patterns observed in quasi-static relationship between external plate resistance. Ford attributed the variation tests provide a good representation of movement and available occupant in initial contact point to the variation in tie-down methodologies.49 In the real-world roof deformations. This headroom.42 All ten vehicles withstood finding, coupled with the better an applied force of 1.5 times the response to the Ford comment, the consistency and repeatability of the unloaded vehicle weight before the agency indicated it would address the variability in tie-down procedures quasi-static procedure, led the agency to occupant headroom was exhausted. Six 50 conclude that the quasi-static procedure out of ten vehicles attained a peak force separately. provides a suitable representation of the greater than 2.5 times the unloaded 43 real-world dynamic loading conditions, vehicle weight before the occupant See Docket Number NHTSA–2005–22143. 44 2nd group of vehicles: MY2003 Ford Focus, and the most appropriate one on which headroom was exhausted. The detailed MY2003 Chevy Cavalier, MY2003 Subaru Forester, to focus our upgrade efforts. summary and analysis of testing and MY2002 Toyota Tacoma, MY2001 Ford Taurus, simulation research is contained in the MY2003 Chevy Impala, MY2002 Nissan Xterra, MY2003 Ford F–150, MY2003 Ford Expedition, and 38 Several identical vehicles with different levels MY2003 Chevy Express 15-passenger van. of roof reinforcement were subjected to the test. 41 Kanianthra, Joseph and Rains, Glen, 45 See Docket Number NHTSA–2005–22143. Accordingly, we expected to observe some ‘‘Determination of the Significance of Roof Crush on 46 variability in roof performance. Head and Neck Injury to Passenger Vehicle Compliance group of vehicles: MY2003 Mini 39 Michael J. Leigh and Donald T. Willke, Occupants in Rollover Crashes,’’ SAE Paper 950655, Cooper, MY2003 Mazda 6, MY2003 Kia Sorento, ‘‘Upgraded Rollover Roof Crush Protection: Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, MY2003 Chevrolet Trailblazer, MY2003 Ford Rollover Test and NASS Case Analysis,’’ Docket 1994. Windstar, MY2004 Honda Element, MY2004 Chrysler Pacifica, MY2004 Land Rover Freelander, NHTSA–1996–1742–18, June 1992; and Glen C. 42 1st group of vehicles: MY2002 Dodge Ram MY2004 Nissan Quest, and MY2004 Lincoln LS. Rains and Mike Van Voorhis, ‘‘Quasi Static and 1500, MY2002 Toyota Camry, MY2002 Ford 47 Dynamic Roof Crush Testing,’’ DOT HS 808–873, Mustang, MY2002 Honda CRV, MY2002 Ford See Docket Number NHTSA–2005–22143. 1998. Explorer, MY2001 Ford Crown Victoria, MY2001 48 See 64 FR 22567 (April 27, 1999). 40 ‘‘Rollover Roof Crush Studies,’’ Contract Chevy Tahoe, MY1999 Ford E–150, MY1998 Chevy 49 See Docket 94–097–N02–010. DTNH22–92–D–07323, 1993. S10 Pickup, and MY1997 Dodge Grand Caravan. 50 See 64 FR 22567 at 22576 (April 27, 1999).

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:15 Aug 22, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 49232 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules

The tie-down procedure was that the agency adopt a fully dynamic that a minimum headroom clearance evaluated as part of the vehicle testing rollover test procedure. requirement should be established discussed in Section V(C)(1). While The Alliance, GM, DC and Biomech because real-world data indicate that some of the vehicles used for testing stated that there are not any data to roof crush is directly related to head and were previously converted to sled bucks support extending application of neck injuries. as a method to restrain vehicle motion, FMVSS No. 216 to heavier vehicles, Finally, NHTSA received several the agency does not consider converting which, they believe, have significantly comments suggesting that the agency vehicles into sled bucks to be a viable different rollover characteristics. By adopt new requirements to minimize tie-down procedure. Two different contrast, Consumers Union (CU), Public occupant excursion in rollover crashes methods of securing vehicles were Citizen and several individual and require vehicles to have rollover explored. The first method secured the commenters supported extending sensors. Additionally, we received vehicle using rigidly attached vertical application of the standard to vehicles comments from DC, Biomech, and Ford supports and chains. The second with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 suggesting that the agency develop a method used only rigidly attached pounds) because of the widespread use biofidelic rollover test dummy or at vertical supports. of heavier sport utility vehicles for least modify the Hybrid III. Based on the test results, the agency family transportation. These believes that both methods sufficiently commenters also expressed their VII. Agency Proposal restrain vehicle motion. The agency is concerns about the rollover propensity Based on available information, proposing to adopt the second tie-down of passenger vans. including long-term and more recent method using only rigidly attached CU, Public Citizen, and Safety agency research, the assessment of crash vertical supports. Eliminating the use of Analysis and Forensic Engineering and injury statistics, and evaluation of chains prevents any pre-test stress (SAFE) suggested that a modified load comments in response to the October resulting from tightening of chains. The plate size and position would better 2001 RFC, the agency has tentatively agency believes that this method may replicate the typical location and concluded that FMVSS No. 216 should result in a more consistent location of concentration of forces in a rollover be upgraded in order to mitigate serious the initial contact point of the test plate. event. However, DC and Biomech stated and fatal injuries resulting from rollover The details on the tie-down procedure that further changes to the current load crashes. Specifically, NHTSA is testing, including photographs and plate size and position would not proposing to: relevant data, please see the docket. appreciably reduce injuries and might • Extend the application of the lead to unintended compliance and VI. Summary of Comments in Response standard to MPVs, trucks, and buses enforcement problems. with a GVWR greater than 2,722 to the October 2001 Request for Center for Injury Research Comments kilograms (6,000 pounds), but not recommended that NHTSA include a greater than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 NHTSA received over fifty comments sequential test of both sides of the pounds). in response to the October 2001 RFC. vehicle roof at a roll angle of 50-degrees • Allow vehicles manufactured in The comments were submitted by since the existing FMVSS No. 216 two or more stages, other than chassis- vehicle manufacturers, trade ensures reasonable strength only on the cabs, to be certified to the roof crush associations, consumer advocacy near side of the roof. requirements of FMVSS No. 220, groups, and individuals. Specific With regard to the force application instead of FMVSS No. 216. comments are addressed in Section VII requirement, Ford and Nissan stated • Clarify the definition and scope of of this document. Below is a summary that the current level of 1.5 times the exclusion for convertibles. of comments in response to the October unloaded vehicle weight is a sufficient • Require that vehicles subject to the 2001 RFC. test requirement. However, Public standard withstand the force of 2.5 The agency received several Citizen, Carl Nash, and Hans Hauschild times their unloaded vehicle weight. comments in favor of retaining the recommended an increased load and • Eliminate the 22,240 Newton current FMVSS No. 216 requirements application rate to replicate the dynamic maximum force limit for passenger cars. and rejecting a dynamic testing forces occurring in a rollover event. • Replace the current plate movement alternative. First, the Alliance of Public Citizen, CU and several limit with a new direct limit on Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance), individual commenters suggested that headroom reduction, which would DaimlerChrysler (DC), General Motors FMVSS No. 216 testing should be prohibit any roof component or the test (GM), and Biomech, Inc. (Biomech), conducted without the windshield and/ plate from contacting the 50th suggested that there are not any data to or side glazing because glazing materials percentile male Hybrid III dummy suggest that stronger roofs would reduce often break during the first quarter turn seated in either front outboard severity of injuries in rollover crashes. and provide virtually no support to the designated seating position. Second, Nissan North America, Inc. roof structure in subsequent turns. • Revise the vehicle tie-down (Nissan) and Ford suggested that the With respect to a direct headroom procedure to minimize variability in current test procedure is the most reduction limit, Ford, Nissan, GM, DC testing. appropriate one from the standpoint of and Biomech stated that there is not any • Revise the test device positioning to repeatability of test conditions and indication that limiting headroom minimize variability in testing. results. reduction can offer quantifiable benefits By contrast, NHTSA received several for either belted or unbelted occupants. A. Proposed Application comments opposing the current quasi- Specialty Equipment Marketers static test procedure. Advocates for Association (SEMA) expressed concern 1. MPVs, Trucks and Buses with a Highway Safety (Advocates) and Public that any proposed headroom regulation GVWR of 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Citizen stated that the current test would create a substantial problem for pounds) or Less procedure does not accurately measure aftermarket manufacturers of sunroofs, Currently, FMVSS No. 216 applies to vehicle roof strength and impact moon roofs and other roof-mounted passenger cars and to MPVs, trucks and response in real-world rollover crashes. accessories. Public Citizen, Nash and buses with a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms Therefore, the commenters suggested other individual commenters suggested (6,000 pounds) or less. However, it does

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:15 Aug 22, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 49233

not apply to school buses, convertibles, greater percentage of light trucks groups of vehicles (and actually slightly and vehicles that conform to the traveling on U.S. highways. higher for heavier light trucks), these rollover test requirements in S5.3 of In addition, sales of new light trucks data do not suggest a lesser risk of roof FMVSS No. 208. with a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 contact to occupants of light trucks with As discussed in Section II(B), the pounds) to 4,536 kilograms (10,000 a GVWR between 2,722 kilograms (6,000 agency amended FMVSS No. 216 on pounds) GVWR have been increasing pounds) and 4,536 kilograms (10,000 April 17, 1991 by extending application rapidly. According to Polk New Vehicle pounds) in rollovers than to occupants of the standard to include MPVs, trucks, Registry, the number of new of lighter vehicles. and buses with a GVWR of 2,722 registrations has increased from 2.3 Our research indicates that many kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less. The million for model year 1997 to 3.5 vehicles with a GVWR between 2,722 agency sought to ensure that those million for model year 2001.52 That kilograms (6,000 pounds) and 4,536 vehicles offered a level of roof crush number represents 21 percent of the kilograms (10,000 pounds) would protection comparable to that offered by total number of light duty vehicles sold comply with current roof crush passenger cars. in the United States in 2001. With the requirements of FMVSS No. 216. The Prior to the 1991 final rule, NHTSA increasing sales volume of ‘‘heavier’’ agency recently conducted roof crush proposed to extend the application of light trucks, the number of passenger- testing on six vehicles with a GVWR the standard up to the GVWR of 4,536 carrying vehicles not subject to the over 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds).53 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. requirements of FMVSS No. 216 is All six vehicles met the requirements of However, because of concerns regarding increasing every year. the current standard.54 We anticipate the feasibility of this proposal, the Also, we note that analysis of recent that the compliance burdens associated agency adopted a more limited safety data shows that a significant with the proposed roof strength extension and indicated it would number of serious and fatal injuries requirements would be similar for investigate this issue further before occur during rollovers in light trucks vehicles with a GVWR between 2,722 conducting further rulemaking.51 with a GVWR between 2,722 kilograms kilograms (6,000 pounds) and 4,536 As previously discussed in Section (6,000 pounds) and 4,536 kilograms kilograms (10,000 pounds) as for those IV(A), recent data indicate that a (10,000 pounds). Specifically, 412 lighter vehicles already subject to the significant number of serious and fatal belted, not fully ejected occupants are requirements of FMVSS No. 216. injuries occur during rollovers of light killed or seriously injured every year in Finally, we are cognizant that trucks with a GVWR between 2,722 light trucks with a GVWR between 2,722 increasing roof crush resistance kilograms (6,000 pounds) and 4,536 kilograms (6,000 pounds) and 4,536 requirements could potentially add kilograms (10,000 pounds). Based on kilograms (10,000 pounds) involved in weight to the roof and pillars, thereby these injury data and the responses to rollover crashes resulting in roof increasing the vehicle center of gravity the October 2001 RFC, the agency is intrusion. Among these 412 fatally or (CG) height and rollover propensity.55 once again proposing to extend the seriously injured occupants, we NHTSA examined the potential effects application of the standard to include estimate that 129 could potentially of a more stringent roof crush light trucks with a GVWR up to 4,536 benefit from upgraded roof crush requirement on vehicle rollover kilograms (10,000 pounds). resistance requirements because they propensity. In Appendix A to the In comments on the October 2001 suffered their most severe (MAIS) injury Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis RFC, the Alliance, DC, GM, and from roof contact. (PRIA), the agency estimated the change Biomech all stated that there are little or Further, the number of light trucks in the CG height for two vehicles 56 with no data to support extending the with a GVWR between 2,722 kilograms a finite element model that was used to application of the standard to 4,536 (6,000 pounds) and 4,536 kilograms evaluate possible design changes and kilograms (10,000 pounds). In contrast, (10,000 pounds) involved in a fatal costs associated with this proposal. CU, Public Citizen, and several rollover increased from 1,187 in 1997 to NHTSA then analyzed six additional individual commenters stated that the 1,589 in 2001. vehicles to provide a more weight limit should be raised up to DC and other commenters also argued representative estimate of potential 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) GVWR that larger vehicles have a higher ratio impacts. Our analysis indicates that the due to widespread use of sports utility of height-to-width, which tends to potential CG height increases 57 were vehicles for family transportation and produce less intrusion in rollover very small; i.e., within the tolerance of their concerns regarding rollover risks crashes. However, no data were what can be physically measured. associated with 15-passenger vans. provided to support their argument. In We also note that, in addition to A significant percentage of light addition, Table 3 shows that 55 percent structural integrity of the vehicle, other trucks are not yet subject to the of light trucks with a GVWR between new vehicle design considerations requirements of FMVSS No. 216. 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) and affecting the handling and stability of Specifically, Polk New Vehicle 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) that the vehicle, such as vehicle track width, Registration data show that out of a total were involved in rollover crashes suspension system, and placard tire of 8,800,000 new light trucks registered experienced at least 15 cm (5.9 inches) pressure, have a commensurate or even in 2003, more than 44 percent of vertical roof intrusion. At the same greater influence on rollover propensity. (3,900,000) had a GVWR between 2,722 time, only 49 percent of light trucks kilograms (6,000 pounds) and 4,536 with a GVWR of less than 2,722 53 The six vehicles were: MY 1999 Ford E–150, kilograms (10,000 pounds), and MY 2001 Chevrolet Tahoe, MY 2002 Dodge Ram, kilograms (6,000 pounds) and 32 MY 2003 Ford F–150, MY 2003 Ford Expedition, therefore are not subject to current percent of passenger vehicles and MY 2003 Chevy Express. requirements of FMVSS No. 216. Given experienced similar intrusion levels. 54 See Docket Number NHTSA–2005–22143. that the data in Table 3 show a greater Because the likelihood of roof intrusion 55 NHTSA estimates that about one third of all average roof crush for heavier light exceeding 15 cm (5.9 inches) is vehicles would require changes to meet the trucks, the agency believes that this fleet proposed standard. relatively similar among the three 56 MY 1998 Dodge Neon and MY 1999 Ford E– data suggest the need to regulate a 150 52 http://www.polk.com/products/ 57 Less than 1 mm for the Neon, and less than 2 51 See 56 FR 15510 (April 17, 1991). new_vehicle_data.asp. mm for the F–150.

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:15 Aug 22, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 49234 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules

An expanded discussion of the potential appropriate for the particular type of In reaching that conclusion, the impacts is included in the PRIA. motor vehicle for which it is prescribed agency had focused on a comment in Further, previous NHTSA research is intended to ensure that consumers are the Senate Report: evaluated four Nissan vehicles modified provided an array of purchasing choices In determining whether any proposed 58 for increased roof strength. The CG and to preclude standards that will standard is ‘‘appropriate’’ for the particular height for each modified vehicle varied effectively eliminate certain types of type of motor-vehicle * * * for which it is between 25 mm above and 25 mm vehicles from the market. See Chrysler prescribed, the committee intends that the below the baseline vehicle. We also note Corporation v. Dept. of Transportation, Secretary will consider the desirability of that the CG height varied by more than 472 F.2d 659,679 (6th Cir. 1972) (agency affording consumers continued wide range of 6 mm even between two similar choices in the selection of motor vehicles. may not establish a standard that Thus it is not intended that standards will be baseline vehicles. This data further effectively eliminates convertibles and supports the agency’s findings that set which will eliminate or necessarily be the sports cars from the market). Second, same for small cars or such widely accepted increases in the roof structural strength the agency may not provide exemptions models as convertibles and sports cars, so will not have a physically measurable for single manufacturers beyond those long as all motor vehicles meet basic influence on the CG height, and that specified by statute. See Nader v. Volpe, minimum standards. Such differences, of influence on CG is commensurate with 320 F. Supp. 266 (D.D.C. 1970), motion course, would be based on the type of vehicle other vehicle design characteristics and rather than its place of origin or any special to vacate affirmance denied, 475 F.2d production variations. circumstances of its manufacturer. For the foregoing reasons, the agency 916 (DC Cir. 1973). Finally, the agency must provide adequate compliance Focusing on the last sentence of that proposes to extend the application of passage, the agency had concluded that FMVSS No. 216 to MPVs, trucks and provisions applicable to final stage manufacturers. Failing to provide these the number of stages in which a vehicle buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms was built was a ‘‘special circumstance[s] (10,000 pounds) or less. manufacturers with a means of establishing compliance would render a of its manufacturer,’’ (see, e.g., 60 FR 2. Vehicles Manufactured in Two or standard impracticable as to them. See 38749, 38758, July 28, 1995), rather than More Stages National Truck Equipment Association considering a multi-stage vehicle to be For vehicles manufactured in two or v. National Highway Traffic Safety a ‘‘type of vehicle.’’ But see NTEA (at more stages,59 other than vehicles Administration, 919 F.2d 1148 (6th Cir. 1151) (Noting the agency’s regulation incorporating chassis-cabs,60 we are 1990) (‘‘NTEA’’). defining ‘‘incomplete vehicle’’ as ‘‘as assemblage consisting as a minimum, of proposing giving their manufacturers One of the traditional ways in which the option of certifying them to either frame and chassis structure, power the agency has handled compliance train, steering system, suspension the existing roof crush requirements of issues associated with multi-stage FMVSS No. 220, School Bus Rollover system, and braking system, to the vehicles has been simply to exclude extent that those systems are to be part Protection, or the proposed new roof from the scope of the standard all crush requirements of FMVSS No. 216. of the completed vehicle that requires vehicles, single-stage as well as multi- further manufacturing operations * * * FMVSS No. 220 uses a horizontal plate, stage, within the upper GVWR range of instead of the angled plate of Standard to become a completed vehicle. 49 CFR light vehicles, typically from 8,500 568.3 (1989).’’ No. 216. pounds GVWR to 10,000 pounds Multi-stage vehicles are aimed at a We have reconsidered our historical GVWR. Many of the multi-stage vehicles variety of niche markets, most of which view in light of relevant case law and manufactured for commercial use our experience with the compliance are too small to be serviced 61 economically by single stage cluster in that GVWR range. difficulties imposed on final stage manufacturers. Some multi-stage The agency traditionally took this manufacturers. We note that the vehicles are built from chassis-cabs that approach because the agency language we had previously considered have intact roof designs. Others are built historically was of the view that it could to be a limitation does not appear in the from less complete vehicles and are not subject vehicles built in multiple- statutory text. Nothing in the statutory designed to service particular needs— stages to any different requirements text implies that Congress intended that often necessitating the addition by the than those built in a single-stage. That incomplete vehicles not be deemed a final stage manufacturer of its own roof was because the agency had construed vehicle type subject to special or occupant compartment. In 49 U.S.C. 30111(b)(3), which instructs consideration during the regulatory considering requirements applicable to the agency to ‘‘consider whether a process. We believe the sentence found this segment of the motor vehicle proposed standard is reasonable, in the Senate Report was intended to market, the agency must consider a practicable, and appropriate for the avoid regulatory distinctions based on manufacturer-specific criteria (such as number of principles. particular type of motor vehicle . . . for place of production or manner of First, the mandate in the Vehicle which it is prescribed,’’ as precluding importation). This is consistent with the Safety Act that the agency consider such an approach. whether a proposed standard is Court’s conclusion in Nader v. Volpe, supra, that the agency cannot give 61 As the Court noted in NTEA (at 1158): ‘‘The 58 ‘‘Design Modification for a 1989 Nissan Pick- Administration could meet the needs of final-stage exemptions to particular manufacturers up—Final Report,’’ DOT HS 807 925, NTIS, manufacturers in many ways. It could exempt from beyond those provided by the statute. Springfield, Virginia, 1991. the steering column displacement standard all We also had overlooked the existence 59 Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages commercial vehicles or all vehicles finished by of relevant physical attributes of multi- are assembled by several independent entities with final-stage manufacturers. It could exempt those the ‘‘final stage’’ manufacturer assuming the vehicles for which a final-stage manufacturer stage vehicles. Most multi-stage vehicles ultimate responsibility for certifying the completed cannot pass through the certification from the have distinct physical features related to vehicle. incomplete vehicle manufacturers. It could change their end use. Especially in the context 60 Under 49 CFR 567.3, chassis-cab means an the pass through regulations. It could reexamine the of the difficulties of serving niche incomplete vehicle, with a completed occupant issue and prove that final-stage manufacturers can compartment, that requires only the addition of conduct engineering studies, and then provide in markets, the physical limitations of cargo-carrying, work-performing, or load-bearing the regulation that such studies exceed the incomplete vehicles can adversely affect components to perform its intended functions. capacities of final-stage manufacturers.’’ the ability of multi-stage manufacturers

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:15 Aug 22, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 49235

to design safety performance into their special issues for multi-stage Accordingly, the agency proposes to completed vehicles. manufacturers. limit the exclusion from the Further, as previously applied, our In these circumstances, NHTSA requirements of FMVSS No. 216 to only interpretation limits our ability to believes that the requirements of those vehicles whose A-pillars are not secure increases in safety. Excluding all FMVSS No. 220 appear to offer a joined with the B-pillars, thus providing vehicles within a given GVWR range reasonable avenue to balance the desire consistency with the definition of a from a safety requirement because of the to respond to the needs of multi-stage convertible in S3 of FMVSS No. 201. To possible compliance difficulties of some manufacturers and the need to increase clarify the scope of the exemption for of those vehicles means not obtaining safety in rollover crashes. Several states convertible vehicles, we are proposing the safety benefits of that requirement already require ‘‘para-transit’’ vans and to add the definition of convertibles for any of those vehicles. Likewise, other buses, which are typically contained in S3 of 49 CFR 571.201 to applying less stringent requirement to manufactured in multiple stages, to the definition section in FMVSS No. all of those vehicles because of multi- comply with the roof crush 216. stage considerations would also entail a requirements of FMVSS No. 220. These The agency seeks comments on the loss of safety benefits. states include Pennsylvania, Minnesota, following: It would be perverse to conclude that Wisconsin, Tennessee, Michigan, Utah, 1. The number of vehicle lines that Vehicle Safety Act permits us to exclude Alabama, and California. NHTSA fall under the definition of ‘‘open-body all vehicles within a certain GVWR tentatively concludes that these state type vehicles,’’ but do not fall under the range primarily based on the requirements show the burden on multi- definition of convertibles. compliance difficulties of multi-stage stage manufacturers for evaluating roof 2. The roof crush performance of vehicles within that range, but not to strength in accordance with FMVSS No. open-body type vehicles that do not fall exclude only the multi-stage vehicles 220 is not unreasonable, and applying under the definition of convertibles. within that range, thus enabling FMVSS No. 220 to these vehicles would 3. The feasibility of requiring that consumers to obtain the safety benefits ensure that there are some requirements open-body type vehicles meet FMVSS of regulating the other vehicles within for roof crush protection where none No. 216. that weight range. currently exist. In the context of this rulemaking, we B. Proposed Amendments to the Roof believe it appropriate to consider 3. Convertibles Strength Requirements incomplete vehicles, other than those Currently, convertibles are excluded 1. Increased Force Requirement incorporating chassis-cabs, as a vehicle from the requirements of FMVSS No. type subject to different regulatory 216. FMVSS No. 216 does not define the Currently, FMVSS No. 216 requires requirements. We anticipate that final term ‘‘convertibles.’’ However, S3 of 49 that the lower surface of the test plate stage manufacturers using chassis cabs CFR 571.201 defines ‘‘convertibles’’ as not move more than 127 mm (5 inches), to produce multi-stage vehicles would vehicles whose A-pillars are not joined when it is used to apply a force equal be in position to take advantage of with the B-pillars (or rearmost pillars) to 1.5 times the unloaded weight of the ‘‘pass-through certification’’ of chassis by a fixed, rigid structural member. In vehicle to the roof over the front seat cabs, and therefore do not propose a previous rulemaking, NHTSA stated area. For passenger cars, the applied including such vehicles in the category that ‘‘open-body type vehicles’’ 62 are a force cannot exceed 22,240 Newtons of those for whom this optional subset of convertibles and are therefore (5,000 pounds). As a result, passenger compliance method is available. excluded from the requirements of cars that have an unloaded weight above Thus, we are proposing to allow final FMVSS No. 216.63 1,512 kilograms (3,333 pounds) are, in stage manufacturers to certify non- However, NHTSA has reassessed its effect, tested to a less stringent chassis-cab vehicles to the roof crush position with respect to ‘‘open-body requirement than other passenger cars requirements of FMVSS No. 220, as an type vehicles.’’ Specifically, we believe and light trucks under the current alternative to the requirements of that we were incorrect in stating that standard.64 Based on the agency FMVSS No. 216. We decided to propose ‘‘open-body type vehicles’’ were a analysis of crash data, as well as this approach instead of excluding most subset of convertibles because some comments in response to the October multi-stage vehicles by proposing to open-body type vehicles do not fall 2001 RFC, NHTSA is proposing to exclude all vehicles with a GVWR above under the definition of convertibles in require that the roof over the front seat 8,500 pounds. The latter approach S3 of FMVSS No. 201. For example, a area withstand the force increase equal would have excluded some vehicles, Jeep Wrangler has a rigid structural to 2.5 times the unloaded weight of the e.g., 15-passenger vans and vehicles member that connects the A-pillars to vehicle, and to eliminate the 22,240 built from chassis-cabs, that we the B-pillars. The Jeep Wrangler is an Newton (5,000 pound) force limit for tentatively conclude should be subject ‘‘open-body type vehicle’’ because it has passenger cars. to the proposed upgraded requirements a removable compartment top, but it of FMVSS No. 216. does not fall under the definition of Increase Applied Force to 2.5 Times the The requirements in FMVSS No. 220 convertibles because its A-pillars are Unloaded Vehicle Weight have been effective for school buses, but connected with the B-pillars through the NHTSA believes that FMVSS No. 216 we are concerned that they may not be structural member. could protect front seat occupants better as effective for other vehicle types. As The agency believes that ‘‘open-body if the applied force requirement reduced noted above, the FMVSS No. 216 test type vehicles’’ such as the Jeep the extent of roof crush occurring in real procedure results in roof deformations Wrangler are capable of offering roof world crashes. That is, the increased that are consistent with the observed crush protection over the front seat area. applied force requirement would lead to crush patterns in the real world for light stronger roofs and reduce the roof crush vehicles. Because of this, NHTSA’s 62 An open-body type vehicle is a vehicle having severity observed in real world crashes. preference would be to use the FMVSS no occupant compartment top or an occupant compartment top that can be installed or removed We observed that in many real-world No. 216 test procedure for light vehicles. by the user at his convenience. See Part 49 CFR rollovers, vehicles subject to the However, this approach would fail to 571.3. consider the practicability problems and 63 See 56 FR 15510 (April 17, 1991). 64 5,000 pounds ÷ 1.5 = 3,333 pounds.

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:15 Aug 22, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 49236 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules

requirements of FMVSS No. 216 between the A-pillar and roof requirement to FMVSS No. 216 and experienced vertical roof intrusion attachment and the vehicle floor. The would have to conduct significant greater than the test plate movement peak force from the drop tests was additional analysis in order to evaluate limit of 127 mm (5 inches). Specifically, limited to only the first 74 mm (3 the energy absorption requirement and from the 1997–2002 NASS–CDS data, inches) of roof crush because some of determine appropriate parameters for we estimate that 32 percent of passenger the vehicles rolled and contacted the testing. Accordingly, the agency is not cars and 49 percent of light trucks with ground with the front of the hood. proposing an energy absorption a GVWR under 2,722 kilograms (6,000 Similarly, the peak quasi-static force requirement in this document. pounds) exceed 150 mm (5.9 inches) of was limited during the first 127 mm (5 Nevertheless, the agency would vertical roof intrusion. Further, 55 inches) of plate movement. This report welcome comments on energy percent of light trucks with a GVWR showed that for the nine quasi-static absorption test described by SAFE and greater than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 tests, the peak force-to-weight ratio Syson-Hille. pounds) and less than or equal to 4,536 ranged from 1.8 to 2.5. Six of these Eliminate 22,240 Newton Force Limit kilograms (10,000 pounds) exceed 150 vehicle models were dropped at a height for Passenger Cars mm (5.9 inches) of vertical roof calculated to set the potential energy of intrusion.65 Based on these data, we the suspended vehicle equal to the static At the inception of the standard, some have tentatively concluded that the test tests. For these dynamic tests, the peak passenger cars were not subjected to the force should be increased. force-to-weight ratio ranged from 2.1 to full requirements of the standard, which Accordingly, NHTSA is proposing to 3.1. In sum, the agency concluded that mandated the roof over the front seat increase the applied force requirement 2.5 was a good representation of the area to withstand the force of 1.5 times to 2.5 times 66 the unloaded vehicle observed range of peak force-to-weight the unloaded vehicle weight. For weight in order to better protect vehicle ratio. passenger cars, this force was limited to occupants by reducing the amount of The agency believes that 22,240 Newtons (5,000 pounds). That roof intrusion in rollover crashes. The manufacturers will comply with this meant that heavier passenger cars were agency believes that reduction in roof standard by strengthening not tested at 1.5 times their unloaded intrusion would better protect vehicle reinforcements in roof pillars, by vehicle weight. In fact, every passenger occupants. increasing the gauge of steel used in car weighing more than 1,512 kg (3,333 Public Citizen and several individual roofs or by using higher strength pounds) was subjected to less stringent commenters on the October 2001 RFC materials. The agency estimates that 32 requirements. The purpose of this limit suggested that NHTSA require a vehicle percent of all current passenger car and was to avoid making it necessary for to withstand an applied force of 3.0 to light truck models will need changes to manufacturers to redesign large cars that 3.5 times the unloaded vehicle weight meet the 2.5 load factor requirement. could not meet the full roof strength in order to better replicate dynamic The agency has tentatively concluded requirements of the standard.68 At the forces occurring in rollover crashes. Carl that 2.5 constitutes a load factor time, the agency believed that requiring Nash suggested that the agency propose appropriate to enhance roof crush larger passenger cars to comply with the a new requirement that the roof must performance. As described above, roof full (1.5 times the unloaded vehicle sustain 1.5 times vehicle’s GVWR before crush performance is but one of several weight) requirement would be 127 mm (5 inches) of plate movement measures necessary to reduce rollover unnecessary because heavy passenger and sustain a force that does not drop related fatalities and injuries. Continued cars had lower rollover propensity. more than 10 percent during the test. improvements in driver behavior, However, as explained below, the After the force of 1.5 times the GVWR combined with advanced technologies agency tentatively concludes that has been achieved, the force should be such as electronic stability control occupants of passenger cars weighing increased to 2.5 times the vehicle’s systems and lane departure warnings more than 1,512 kg (3,333 pounds) are GVWR without any further roof will further reduce those fatalities and sustaining rollover-related injuries and deformation. injuries. therefore require the same level of roof In response to these comments, the Further, NHTSA’s New Car crush protection as other vehicles agency notes that it previously Assessment Program (NCAP) provides a subject to the standard. conducted a study (Rains study) 67 that strong incentive for manufacturers to While passenger car rollover measured peak forces generated during design vehicles that will attain favorable propensity is lower than it is for light quasi-static testing under FMVSS No. Static Stability Factors (representing the trucks, these vehicles can and do 216 and under SAE J996 inverted drop relatively numerous tripped rollovers) experience rollover crashes. Recent testing. In the Rains study, nine quasi- and that will perform well in the crash data indicate that this is just as static tests were first conducted. The dynamic maneuver (representing the true for passenger cars with unloaded energy absorption was measured and relatively few untripped rollovers), as vehicle weight of over 1,512 kg (3,333 used to determine the appropriate well as meeting the minimum load pounds), as it is for cars with lower corresponding height for the inverted factor of 2.5. unloaded vehicle weights. Specifically, Safety Analysis and Forensic drop conditions. Six of the vehicles out of an annually estimated 6,274 Engineering (SAFE) and Syson-Hille were then dropped onto a load plate. seriously or fatally injured belted and and Associates argued that solely The roof displacement was measured not fully ejected occupants of passenger attaining the peak force is not a useful using a string potentiometer connected cars involved in rollovers resulting in indicator of roof crush resistance roof intrusion, an estimated 1,460 (23 65 Table 3 shows the percent of roof-involved performance because the peak forces percent) were in passenger cars that had rollover vehicles with particular degrees of vertical often drop significantly due to breaking an unloaded vehicle weight of over roof intrusion by vehicle body type. glass and other structural failures. They 1,512 kg (3,333 pounds). Further, 66 NHTSA’s rationale for selecting a factor of 2.5 recommend an energy absorption corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) is discussed below in the response to public requirement in order to prevent roof data have shown that from 1991 to 2001, comments about the appropriate level of the factor. 67 Glen C. Rains and Mike Van Voorhis, ‘‘Quasi collapse after initial peak forces are the average weight of passenger cars has Static and Dynamic Roof Crush Testing,’’ DOT HS attained. The agency has not previously 808–873, 1998. considered adding an energy absorption 68 See 54 FR 46276.

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:15 Aug 22, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 49237

increased more than 7 percent.69 This the head of an average size front seat occupant’s head after rollover) on trend suggests that more passenger cars occupant. injuries to the head, neck, or face from are being subjected to less stringent roof Therefore, the agency is proposing a contact with a roof component. We crush resistance requirements each year. more direct limit on headroom examined light duty vehicles that rolled Based on these data, the agency believes reduction that would prohibit any roof more than one-quarter turn to the side that occupants of passenger vehicles component from contacting a seated or end-over-end and did not collide with unloaded vehicle weight of over 50th percentile male dummy under the with fixed objects. The vehicle 1,512 kg (3,333 pounds) should be application of a force equivalent to 2.5 occupants were adults who were belted afforded the same level of roof crush times the unloaded vehicle weight. This and seated in the front outboard seats protection that is being offered by direct headroom reduction limit would and who were not ejected. Based on this lighter passenger cars and light trucks. ensure that motorists receive an report, the agency estimates that 14 In addition, we note that the adequate level of roof crush protection percent of the non-ejected, belted manufacturers already produce heavier regardless of the type of vehicle in occupants sitting in the two front passenger cars that exceed the current which they ride. outboard seats suffered a roof contact In response to the October 2001 RFC, requirements of the standard. Recently, injury to the head, neck, or face, and 0.1 Ford, Nissan, GM, DC, and Biomech the agency tested several passenger cars percent died as a result of such an commented that real-world data with an unloaded weight of near or over injury. indicate that it is not possible to 1,512 kilograms (3,333 pounds). The The agency analyzed crash data using estimate quantifiable benefits of roof of each vehicle withstood the force two sets of headroom measurement headroom reduction limits. However, parameters from NCAP/FMVSS No. 208 of at least 1.5 times the unloaded Ford also suggested that reducing the frontal testing and CU testing. Using vehicle weight. For example, MY 2002 roof/pillar deformation might benefit NCAP/FMVSS No. 208 headroom Ford Crown Victoria with an unloaded belted occupants if it results in the measurement parameters, we estimate vehicle weight of 1,788 kilograms (3,942 occupant not contacting the roof. that 9 percent of occupants with post- pounds) withstood an applied force of In contrast, Public Citizen and crash headroom above the top of their almost 2 times the unloaded vehicle numerous individual commenters head experienced roof contact injuries weight (3671 kilograms (8,093 pounds)) asserted that a minimum headroom to the head, neck, or face, compared to before 127 mm (5 inches) of plate clearance requirement should be 34 percent for occupants with post- movement was attained. A MY 2004 established because they believe that crash headroom below the top of their Lincoln LS with an unloaded vehicle roof crush is related to head and neck head. Using CU vehicle headroom weight of 1,663 kilograms (3,666 injury. Nash stated that limiting the measurement parameters, we estimate pounds) withstood an applied force of extent and character of roof intrusions that 10 percent of occupants with post- slightly greater than 2.5 times (4,290 can virtually eliminate the risks of crash headroom above the top of their kilograms, (9,458 pounds)) the unloaded serious head and neck injury to head experienced roof contact injuries vehicle weight before 127 mm (5 inches) restrained occupants in rollover crashes. to the head, neck, or face, compared to of plate movement was attained. Nash suggested that NHTSA define 32 percent for occupants with post- 2. Headroom Requirement headroom reduction limits by using a crash headroom below their head. After 50th percentile dummy seat in the front conducting bivariate and multivariate The current standard requires that the outboard seat. Public Citizen and analyses, we conclude that positive lower surface of the test device not several other commenters suggested that post-crash headroom (residual space move more than 127 mm (5 inches) the standard contain an occupant over the occupant’s head after the under the specified applied force. The survival space/non-encroachment zone, rollover) reduced the likelihood of purpose of the requirement is to limit which would not be intruded upon suffering a roof contact injury to the the amount of roof intrusion into the during the test, using a 95th percentile head, neck, or face. This real world data occupant compartment. However, the dummy. shows quantifiable benefits of limiting agency now believes that the 127 mm (5 The 95th percentile Hybrid III male headroom reduction. inch) limit is not the most effective way dummy has not been incorporated into As previously stated, the agency is to ensure that front seat area occupants 49 CFR Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test proposing to prohibit any roof are protected from roof intrusion into Devices, and is not yet available for component or the test device from the occupant compartment. Specifically, compliance purposes. When the dummy contacting a seated 50th percentile male we are concerned that this requirement is available, the agency will consider Hybrid III dummy under the specified does not provide adequate protection to whether it is appropriate to propose applied force. However, the agency is front outboard occupants of vehicles using this dummy for compliance concerned that there may be some low with a small amount of occupant testing. roofline vehicles 71 in which the 50th headroom and may impose a needless To help evaluate the value of a percentile Hybrid III dummy would burden on vehicles with a large amount minimum headroom requirement, have relatively little available headroom of occupant headroom. For example, in NHTSA performed statistical analysis when positioned properly in the seat. a full size van with a substantial amount and published its findings in a report That is, we are concerned that, in some of pre-crush headroom, the 127 mm (5 entitled, ‘‘Determining the Statistical limited circumstances, the headroom inch) plate movement limit ensures that Significance of Post-Crash Headroom for between the head of a 50th percentile the collapsed portion of the roof would Predicting Roof Contact Injuries to the male dummy and the roof liner is so not contact the front seat occupants. Head, Neck, or Face during FMVSS No. small that even minimal deformation However, in a low roofline sports 216 Relevant Rollovers.’’ 70 This report resulting from the application of the vehicle, the 127 mm (5 inch) plate examined the effect of post-crash required force would lead to test failure. movement limit might allow the headroom (defined as the vertical Accordingly, NHTSA requests crushed portion of the roof to contact distance from the top of the occupant’s comments on whether any additional or head to the top of the roof liner over the substitute requirements would be 69 http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/CAFE/ NewPassengerCarFleet.htm. 70 See Docket Number NHTSA–2005–22143. 71 Ford GT, Lamborghini Gallardo.

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:15 Aug 22, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 49238 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules

appropriate for low roofline vehicles in vertical axes at the center of the roof approximately 127 mm (5 inches) of order to make the standard practicable. side, usually about the top of the B- plate motion using a variety of roll and The agency believes that many pillar. CU and several individual pitch angles. The simulations predicted vehicles subject to the current commenters recommended that a more that the Caravan roof would attain requirements of FMVSS No. 216 would representative plate angle should be 45- similar amounts of deformation at a meet the proposed limit on headroom degrees for vehicles with a taller, lower force level using 10-degree pitch reduction. In the recent tests of 20 narrower body configuration. SAFE and 45-degree roll (10–45) application vehicles of various types and sizes in stated that the roll angle should be angles compared to the current 5-degree which the roofs were crushed to 254 increased in an attempt to simulate the pitch and 25-degree roll (5–25) mm (10 inches) of displacement, translational effect of the vehicle application angles. In addition, a 1998 thirteen vehicles had remaining traveling across the ground. Chevrolet S10 pickup model was headroom under an applied force of 2.5 In response, NHTSA reviewed NASS– analyzed in subsequent simulations, but times the unloaded vehicle weight. CDS crash data to examine roof led to less conclusive results. These thirteen vehicles were randomly deformation patterns and compare real- The results of the finite element distributed through the various vehicle world roof damage to compliance modeling study were sufficiently types. Based on these tests, the agency tests.72 The agency also compared its encouraging to conduct a series of believes that vehicle manufacturers are findings to the previous study on roof modified FMVSS No. 216 tests. Two capable of complying with the proposed deformation patterns.73 The agency tests were conducted on Dodge Caravan, headroom requirements. In response to evaluated the damage to the A- and B- Chevrolet S10, and 2002 Ford Explorer the concerns expressed by SEMA with pillars, roof rails and roof plane of the vehicles using both the current 5–25 respect to installation of sunroofs and vehicles. Based on the NASS–CDS crash degree application angles as well as moon roofs, we note that one of the data, we believe that the current test using modified 10–45 degree tested vehicles was a Nissan Quest procedure is capable of applying loads application angles. Each test was equipped with a Sky ViewTM glass- resulting in crush patterns consistent conducted until 254 mm (10 inches) of paneled roof consisting of a sunroof and with those that occur in the real world. load plate movement was achieved. two separate glass panels. This vehicle To further validate the crush patterns The roof damage produced by the two withstood the force of up to 2.8 times of the current FMVSS No. 216 test configurations was generally the unloaded vehicle weight with 3 compliance test, the agency evaluated similar. The tests using 10–45 degree inches of displacement. previous tests that compared application angles had some additional Finally, in conjunction with the deformation patterns of multiple lateral damage. However, the damage proposed headroom requirement, inverted drop tests to the quasi-static was localized near the roof side rail and NHTSA is proposing to create a test procedure at different levels of did not extend laterally to the midline definition for ‘‘roof component,’’ which crush. The tests showed a correlation in of the vehicle. The force distribution is similar to the definition found in the deformation patterns, and this applied to the front and back of the load NASS–CDS. Specifically, a ‘‘roof correlation increased as the crush levels plate changed considerably between the component’’ would include the A-pillar, became more severe. two test configurations. The test B-pillar, front header, rear header, roof The agency also evaluated a previous configuration using the 10–45 degree side rails, roof, and all the dynamic guardrail test to compare application angles applied almost all of corresponding interior trim. Due to vast deformation patterns of a dynamic test the force to the forward ram located variations in roof designs, the agency procedure to the current quasi-static near the front of the load plate. proposes a ‘‘no-contact’’ requirement for test. A guardrail initiated a dynamic Comparatively, the 5–25 configuration all roof components, as opposed to only rollover on a 1989 Nissan pickup truck. applied only two-thirds of the force to the actual roof structure. The agency The resulting rollover produced one the front ram. Based on the similarity of requests comments on the proposed roof-to-ground impact. The agency the post-test damage patterns and definition. recorded the intrusion levels throughout general force levels, the agency the area of the vehicle roof. The concluded that there was not sufficient C. Proposed Amendments to the Test deformation pattern and intrusion Procedures reason to propose a change in the load magnitudes of the dynamic rollover plate configuration at this time. 1. Retaining the Current Test Procedure were compared to a static crush test of Testing without windshield and/or the same vehicle model. The resulting side windows in place. Public Citizen, To test compliance, the vehicle is comparison plot showed good linear secured on a rigid horizontal surface, CU, and several individual commenters correlation between the two stated that the quasi-static test should be and a steel rectangular plate is angled 74 deformations. conducted without the windshield and/ and positioned on the roof to simulate NHTSA also conducted a finite vehicle-to-ground contact over the front or side glass. The comments stated that element modeling study to examine the the glass usually breaks after the first seat area. This plate is used to apply the effect of using alternative roll and pitch specified force to the roof structure. quarter-turn, resulting in virtually no angles for the current FMVSS No. 216 support to the roof on subsequent Plate position and angle. In response test procedure.75 A model of a 1998 to the October 2001 RFC, the agency rollovers, and that the roof crush Dodge Caravan was used to simulate severity substantially increases after the received several suggestions regarding extended FMVSS No. 216 tests for the current quasi-static test procedure. integrity of the windshield is breached. The agency believes that windshields Specifically, CU suggested establishing 72 See Docket Number NHTSA–1999–5572–95. a new plate position, for which the 73 Michael J. Leigh and Donald T. Willke, provide some structural support to the specific application points would be (1) ‘‘Upgraded Rollover Roof Crush Protection: roof even after the windshield breaks the top of the A-pillar; (2) the top of the Rollover Test and NASS Case Analysis,’’ Docket because the force-deflection plots in rear most pillar, either the B-pillar on a NHTSA–1996–1742–18, June 1992. some of the recent test vehicles (e.g., 74 See Docket No. NHTSA–2005–22143. Ford Explorer, Ford Mustang, Toyota pickup, C-pillar on sedans or the D- 75 ‘‘Roof Crush Research: Load Plate Angle pillar on station wagons, SUVs or Determination and Initial Fleet Evaluation.’’ Docket Camry, Honda CRV) show little or no minivans; and (3) the horizontal and No. NHTSA–2005–22143. drop in force level after the windshield

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:15 Aug 22, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 49239

integrity was compromised.76 Further, Crown Victoria, the first and second suffer 12 times the risk of serious examination of real-world rollover side force curves tracked similarly injuries compared to belted, non-ejected crashes indicates that the windshield except between 50–90 mm of crush. occupants on the near side of the rolling rarely separates from the vehicle, and During that portion of the curve, the vehicle. However, as a result of therefore, does provide some crush local peak was reduced 17 percent on correcting the errors, the ratio changes resistance. Because NHTSA believes the second side. However, after 90 mm, from 12 to 1, to between 2.4 and 1. that the vehicle should be tested with the second side force curve tracked In preparing this document, NHTSA all structural components that would be similarly to the previously tested Crown analyzed NASS–CDS (1997 to 2002) present in a real-world rollover crash, Victoria 80 that was crushed to 254 mm data to evaluate the Delphi research we decline to propose testing without (10 inches) of plate movement. For the paper with respect to merits of testing the windshield or other glazing. Freelander, the second side force curve both sides of the roof over the front seat Near and far side testing. NHTSA showed an increase in force over the area. The analysis included belted front received comments from Public Citizen first side, starting at approximately 40 outboard adults who were not fully and the Center for Injury Research mm of plate movement. As a result, the ejected in a manner similar to the regarding near and far side testing.77 local peak force was increased by Delphi research paper, but it further The comments stated that vehicle approximately 20 percent on the second restricted the analysis to vehicles that occupants on the far side of the rollover side. In contrast, the second side force rolled only two to four quarter turns to have a much greater risk of serious curve of the Lincoln LS showed a the side. We estimate the risk of a injury than occupants on the near side. decrease in force starting at serious injury, defined as a maximum Therefore, the comments suggested that approximately 40 mm of plate AIS injury of 3 or greater, to be 29 NHTSA require that both sides of the movement. As a result, the local peak seriously injured persons per 1000 ‘‘far same vehicle withstand the force equal force was decreased by approximately side’’ occupants and 30 seriously to 2.5 times the unloaded vehicle 20 percent on the second side. injured persons per 1000 ‘‘near side’’ weight. That is, after the force is applied To evaluate the repeatability of the occupants for a ratio of about 1 to 1. to one side of the vehicle, the vehicle is tests, the agency performed the identical Based on this analysis, the agency then repositioned and the force is test procedure on a second Lincoln LS. believes that there is no significant applied on the opposite side of the roof For the second LS test, both the first and increase in risk for far side belted, non- over the front seat area. Public Citizen second side force curves tracked ejected occupants. cited a recent paper by researchers at similarly to the curves of the first LS test In summary, NHTSA continues to Delphi Automotive and Saab, which up to approximately 40 mm. However, believe that the quasi-static test compared the injury risk depending on the local peak for the first side was procedure is repeatable and capable of the seating position of an occupant slightly lower than the first test and the simulating real-world rollover relative to the direction of the rollover local peak for the second side was deformation patterns. Based on the crash.78 From this study, Public Citizen slightly higher than the first test on the deformation patterns observed in concluded that belted, non-ejected second side. As a result, the difference NASS–CDS cases, finite element occupants on the far side suffer 12 times in the local peak force between the first modeling, and various controlled the risk of serious injuries compared to and second side was approximately 10 vehicle testing, the agency believes that belted, non-ejected occupants on the percent. changing the test plate angle is not near side of the rolling vehicle. In conclusion, the agency believes necessary. Further, the agency believes In response, NHTSA conducted six that some vehicles may have weakened that the vehicle should be tested with tests (2 Lincoln LS, Ford Crown or strengthened far side roof structures all structural components that would be Victoria, Chrysler Pacifica, Nissan as a result of a near side impact. present in a real-world rollover crash, Quest, Land Rover Freelander), in However, based on the few vehicles and therefore we decline to propose which both sides of the vehicle roof tested, NHTSA does not have enough testing without the windshield or other were crushed. Using the current FMVSS information to make a decision on the glazing. Finally, the agency plans to No. 216 test plate angles, the first side merits of testing both sides of the roof further evaluate the safety need for was crushed up to approximately 100 over the front seat area. The agency testing both sides of the roof over the mm (4 inches) of plate movement. The plans to conduct further research before front seat area on the same vehicle, test plate motion compromised the it proposes rulemaking action in this before proposing such a requirement. windshield structure in each vehicle. area. 2. Dynamic Testing On July 26, 2004, JP Research, Inc. The similar procedure was performed In response to the October 2001 RFC, on the opposite side of the vehicle. submitted an evaluation of the Delphi Automotive and Saab research paper we received several comments However, the crush was extended up to suggesting that the agency adopt some 254 mm (10 inches) of plate movement. (Delphi research paper) 81 relied upon by Public Citizen.82 JP Research form of dynamic testing of roof crush Detailed reports for these tests are resistance. Specifically, CU and Stilson 79 discussed the paper with one of the available in the NHTSA docket. Consulting urged the agency to adopt In summary, the first and second side principal authors and verified that the dynamic testing to replicate better the force deflection curves track similarly paper contained errors. Previously, influence of variable crush patterns and for the Pacifica and Quest. For the Public Citizen concluded that belted, non-ejected occupants on the far side vehicle dynamic elements that occur in real-world crashes. Further, Hans 76 See id. 77 Near side is the side toward which the vehicle 80 ‘‘Roof Crush Research: Load Plate Angle Hauschild, Hogan, Donald Slavik, and begins to roll and far side is the trailing side of the Determination and Initial Fleet Evaluation.’’ Docket Coben and Associates suggested that roll. No. NHTSA–2005–22143. NHTSA adopt the SAE J996 inverted 78 Parenteau, Chantal, Madana Gopal, David 81 Parenteau, Chantal, Madana Gopal, David drop test because it better replicates Viano. ‘‘Near and Far-Side Adult Front Passenger Viano. ‘‘Near and Far-Side Adult Front Passenger real-world rollover dynamics. Kinematics in a Vehicle Rollover.’’ SAE Technical Kinematics in a Vehicle Rollover.’’ SAE Technical Paper 2001–01–0176, SAE 2001 World Congress, Paper 2001–01–0176, SAE 2001 World Congress, The Alliance argued that dynamic March 2001. March 2001. testing was unrepeatable. DC and 79 See Docket Number NHTSA–2005–22143. 82 See Docket Number NHTSA–1999–5572–93. Biomech stated that they have not

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:15 Aug 22, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 49240 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules

evaluated dynamic rollover testing and FMVSS No. 208 dolly test is useful for ejection criteria for belted and unbelted do not know what injury criteria might examining potential occupant occupants. be appropriate for assessing dynamic kinematics in rollovers, but may not be Although the agency is open to performance. NTEA stated that the feasible for pass/fail regulatory purposes further investigating the JRS test, we benefits of adopting dynamic roof crush due to resultant variability in roof have no data regarding the repeatability testing are unclear. Further, NTEA impacts and intrusion. of dummy injury and roof intrusion stated that dynamic rollover testing was The FMVSS No. 208 dolly test was measurements. In addition to data on neither economically nor originally developed only as an repeatability, NHTSA would need technologically feasible. occupant containment test. The test was further information on its performance GM, DC, and Biomech stated that not developed to evaluate the loads on measures, practicability, and relevance inverted drop testing is not repeatable specific vehicle components. The to real-world injuries. and cannot accurately represent real- agency believes this test lacks sufficient In summary, NHTSA is not proposing world rollovers. Further, Ford stated repeatability to serve as a structural a dynamic test procedure at this time. that the drop test does not represent the component compliance requirement. As previously stated, the agency multi-axis, real-world condition with Biomech Inc. suggested that the believes that the current test procedure respect to time duration of impact, and agency consider using the Controlled is repeatable and capable of simulating does not replicate centrifugal forces on Rollover Impact System (CRIS) device 83 real-world rollover deformation the occupant because the velocity of because it overcomes the shortcomings patterns. Further, the agency is unaware roof rail impact with the ground in a of drop testing (lack of roll and of any dynamic test procedures that rollover is a function of the vehicle’s translational velocity-limiting time provide a sufficiently repeatable test roll rate, translational velocity and exposure of roof-to-ground contact) by environment. vertical velocity. Public Citizen asserted incorporating important test parameters 3. Revised Tie-Down Procedures that the SAE J996 inverted drop test (roll angle, vertical and horizontal does not accurately reproduce the velocities and pitch and yaw of the Based on recent testing described in lateral sliding forces present in a vehicle). Ford believes that the CRIS is Section V(C), NHTSA is proposing to rollover crash. Carl Nash stated that the able to create repeatable dynamic revise the vehicle tie-down procedure in inverted drop test can be useful, but rollover impact simulations for the first order to improve test repeatability. does not properly simulate the lateral roof-to-ground impact. By contrast, Specifically, the agency is proposing to friction forces that are typical in SAFE and several other individual specify that the vehicle be secured with rollovers on the road. comments suggested that the 4 vertical supports welded or fixed to Based on research discussed in conclusions drawn from the CRIS both the vehicle and the test fixture. If Section V(A) NHTSA believes that the tests 84 mischaracterize the real-world the vehicle support locations are not inverted drop test does not replicate rollover dynamics because the tests metallic, a suitable epoxy or an adhesive real-world rollovers better than the were designed to support the hypothesis could be used in place of welding. current quasi-static method of testing. that roof crush does not cause occupant Under the proposal, the vertical Further, the inverted drop test does not injuries. supports would be located at the produce results as repeatable as the The agency believes the CRIS device manufacturers’ designated jack points. If quasi-static method. Specifically, is helpful in understanding occupant the jack points are not sufficiently NHTSA believes that the drop test kinematics during rollover crashes. defined, the vertical supports would be would not apply a consistent directional However, NHTSA believes that the located between the front and rear axles force among tested vehicles because of device does not provide the level of on the vehicle body or frame such that the vehicle roll that is introduced after the distance between the fore and aft the initial roof impact. Depending on repeatability needed, because the CRIS locations is maximized. If the jack the geometry of the roof and hood, test is repeatable only up to the initial points are located on the axles or vehicles may experience different load contact with ground. After initial roof suspension members, the vertical stands paths as they roll onto its hood or front- impact, the CRIS test allows the vehicle end structure. to continue rolling, resulting in an would be located between the front and Advocates for Highway Safety unrepeatable test condition. rear axles on the vehicle body or frame (Advocates) suggested that the agency Lastly, NHTSA received several such that the distance between the fore consider adopting a series of tests for comments regarding the Jordan Rollover and aft locations is maximized. All non- ensuring adequate roof strength. System (JRS) test device. The JRS device rigid body mounts would be made rigid Specifically, Advocates suggested rotates a vehicle body structure on a to prevent motion of the vehicle body adopting a test similar to the FMVSS rotating apparatus (‘‘spit’’) while the relative to the vehicle frame. No. 208 dolly test. Donald Friedman road surface moves along the track and The agency believes this method of stated that NHTSA should consider contacts the roof structure. Public securing the vehicle would increase test using the FMVSS No. 208 dolly test for Citizen and the Center for Injury repeatability. Welding the support research. By contrast, the Alliance, GM, Research believe that the JRS test can be stands to the vehicle would reduce Nissan, Ford, and DC stated that the conducted with dummies that testing complexity and variability of FMVSS No. 208 dolly test is not demonstrate whether vehicle roof results associated with the use of chains repeatable and does not emulate the performance meets objective injury and and jackstands. In addition, the agency dynamics of real-world rollover crashes. believes that using the jacking point for Further, the test was not developed to 83 The CRIS consists of a towed semi-trailer, vertical support attachment is which suspends and drops a rotating vehicle from appropriate because the jacking points predict roof crush performance. a support frame cantilevered off the rear of the Hauschild suggested that the FMVSS trailer. are designed to accommodate No. 208 dolly test, while appropriate for 84 Moffatt, E.A., Cooper, E.R., Croteau, J.J., attachments and withstand certain loads evaluating occupant retention for belted Orlowski, K.F., Marth, D.R., and Carter, J.W. without damaging the vehicle. ‘‘Matched-Pair Impacts of Rollcaged and Production In previous comments to the Docket, and unbelted occupants, would not be Roof Cars Using the Controlled Rollover Impact appropriate for evaluating roof strength. System (CRIS),’’ Society of Automotive Engineers, Ford suggested that vehicle overhangs Slavik and Syson-Hille asserted that the 2003–01–0172, Detroit, Michigan, 2003. should be supported by jackstands in

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:15 Aug 22, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 49241

order to minimize vehicle distortion.85 relationship to real-world rollover crash altered roof vehicles that caused However, the agency does not believe conditions, and therefore, should be excessive deformation uncharacteristic that it is necessary to support the replaced with a more realistic test such of real-world rollover crashes. vehicle overhangs. In fact, supporting as inverted drop test. On January 8, Specifically, petitioners argued that the vehicle overhangs with jackstands 1997, NHTSA granted this petition, positioning the test plate such that the could distort the shape of the vehicle believing that the inverted drop test had rear edge of the plate is at the rearmost prior to testing. merit for further agency consideration. point of the front occupant area resulted After careful evaluation of the issues in stress concentration, which produced 4. Plate Positioning Procedure presented by the Hogan petition, the excessive deformation and roof Currently, the standard contains two agency has decided against adopting the penetration. Petitioners stressed that test plate positioning procedures. The inverted drop test or other dynamic test this type of loading is uncommon to primary procedure applies to most procedures because we believe that real-world rollovers. Consequently, vehicles. It places the midpoint of the these tests are not better than the petitioners asked the agency to forward edge of the lower surface of the current quasi-static test in replicating reconsider adopting the secondary plate test device within 10 mm (0.4 inches) of real-world rollover crash conditions. positioning procedure for raised or the transverse vertical plane 254 mm (10 The agency fully discussed altered roof vehicles. Ford also provided inches) forward of the forwardmost alternatives to the current quasi-static computer analysis that showed non- point on the exterior surface of the roof. test in Section VII(C)(1), (2). First, distributed loading near the edge plate The secondary procedure applies to NHTSA conducted a series of inverted contact when the secondary plate multipurpose passenger vehicles and drop tests and concluded that the tests position was used. buses with raised or altered roofs, at the were not better than quasi-static tests in As discussed in Section VII(C)(4), the option of the manufacturer. It places the representing vehicle-to-ground agency is proposing to eliminate the midpoint of the rearward edge of the interaction occurring during rollover, secondary test procedure (49 CFR lower surface of the test device within and were more difficult to conduct § 571.216, S7.4) and to require that all 10 mm (0.4 inches) of the transverse because they require suspending and vehicles subject to FMVSS No. 216 use vertical plane located at the rear of the inverting the vehicle.87 Second, NHTSA the primary test procedure in S7.3. roof over the front seat area. conducted dynamic rollover tests and Specifically, all vehicles would be The agency is proposing to specify the observed that dynamic testing created tested such that the midpoint of the primary test procedure for all vehicles. test conditions so severe it was difficult forward edge of the lower surface of the The agency believes that this test plate to discriminate between good and bad test plate is within 10 mm (0.4 inches) positioning procedure produces performing roof structures, and that the of the transverse vertical plane 254 mm repeatable and reliable means for testing occupant kinematics and roof crush (10 inches) forward of the forwardmost roof strength. The agency believes that during dynamic rollover were point on the exterior surface of the roof. the secondary plate positioning test unrepeatable. The agency is unaware of C. Request for Comments on Advanced procedure produces rear edge plate any dynamic test procedures that loading onto the roof of some raised and Restraints provide a sufficiently repeatable test altered roof vehicles that cause In evaluating the effectiveness of seat environment. Finally, we believe quasi- excessive deformation uncharacteristic belt restraints in mitigating rollover- static testing adequately represent real of real-world rollover crashes. Because related injury, NHTSA developed a world dynamic deformation patterns an optimum plate position cannot be rollover test device, the ‘‘rollover occurring in rollovers. 90 established for all roof shapes, the For the reasons discussed above and restraints tester’’ (RRT). RRT was used testing of some raised and altered roof to simulate rollover conditions and in Section VI(C)(1), NHTSA is vehicles will result in loading the roof evaluate the effectiveness of: (1) Typical withdrawing the open rulemaking on rearward of the front seat area. However, 3-point lap and shoulder belt system; (2) the Hogan petition. Instead, the agency NHTSA believes that this is preferable D-ring 91 adjustments, (3) belt proposes to adopt the new roof strength to edge contact because edge contact pretensioners; (4) integrated seats; 92 requirements discussed elsewhere in produces localized concentrated forces and (5) inflatable tubular torso restraint this document. upon the roof typically resulting in (ITTR) in preventing occupant excessive shear deformation of a small B. Agency Response to Ford and RVIA excursion in a rollover event.93 region. In some circumstances, the plate Petition Following testing, we arrived at the following conclusions: (1) The will essentially punch through the sheet On June 11, 1999, Ford 88 and RVIA 89 maximum head excursion was much metal instead of loading the structure. submitted petitions for reconsideration higher during the test (when dummy The agency believes that removing the to the April 27, 1999, final rule (64 FR was upside down in the restraint), secondary plate position would also 22567), which established the primary compared to static pre- and post-test make vehicle testing more objective and and secondary test plate positioning head excursion measurements; (2) practicable. Accordingly, the agency procedures specified in S7.3 and S7.4, raising the D-ring decreased the dummy proposes to eliminate the secondary respectively. Petitioners argued that the positioning procedure. head vertical and horizontal excursion secondary plate positioning test VIII. Other Issues procedure produced rear edge plate 90 See http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-01/ loading onto the roof of some raised and A. Agency Response to Hogan Petition Esv/esv16/98S8W34.PDF. 91 D-ring is the upper anchorage of the three-point As previously discussed, on May 6, 87 For more details on the inverted drop test seat belt assembly. 1996, the agency received a petition for evaluation please see Section VII(C)(1), and Glen C. 92 An integrated seat is a seat that includes the rulemaking from Hogan.86 The Rains and Mike Van Voorhis, ‘‘Quasi Static and seat belt mechanism and assembly in the seat petitioner claimed that the test Dynamic Roof Crush Testing,’’ DOT HS 808–873, instead of on the B-pillar. 1998. 93 Rains, Glen C., et al., ‘‘Evaluation of Restraints requirements of FMVSS No. 216 bear no 88 Docket No. NHTSA–99–5572–2 (http:// Effectiveness in Simulated Rollover Conditions,’’ dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf37/57806_web.pdf). 16th International Technical Conference on the 85 See Docket Number 94–097–N02–010. 89 Docket No. NHTSA–99–5572–3 (http:// Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, 98–S8–W–34, 86 See Docket No. 2005–22143. dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf39/62547_web.pdf). Windsor, Canada, 1998.

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:15 Aug 22, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 49242 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules

in both 3-point lap and shoulder belt pretensioning systems, electric estimate is conservative since limiting system and ITTR; (3) compared to retractors, inflatable seat belts, and four- roof crush might also benefit those conventional seats, the integrated seat point harnesses. occupants who have roof crush related significantly reduced occupant Since advanced restraints have the injuries that are not MAIS. That is some excursion; (4) initiating belt potential for contributing to the occupants are injured as a result of roof pretensioners before testing the comprehensive effort to reduce rollover- crush, but their most severe injury integrated seat (thus simulating pre- related injuries and fatalities, the agency resulted from something other than roof rollover activation of the pretensioners) would like comments on the following crush. provided additional benefit; and (5) issues: Based on the first approach, the compared to a conventional lap and 1. Could requiring advanced restraints agency estimates that the proposed shoulder seat belt system, the ITTR systems on vehicles significantly reduce requirements would prevent 13 fatalities more effectively restrained the vertical head excursion and decrease occupant and 793 non-fatal injuries. We estimate and longitudinal excursion of the injury values in rollovers? 39 annual equivalent lives saved. dummy. 2. Which kinds of advanced restraints We note, however, that because we In addition to the agency testing, systems are the most effective at narrowed the case sample to reflect several other studies indicate that minimizing vertical occupant excursion specific crash characteristics, the agency pretensioned restraint systems can during rollovers? has a very limited sample of relevant reduce the amount of vertical head 3. What is the current state of cases at its disposal. Further, some of excursion compared to the typical 3- technology with respect to the relevant cases within that sample point lap and shoulder belt system.94 By pretensioning systems that are capable lacked some data elements, resulting in contrast, a Nissan study showed that the of activating in a rollover event as well data gaps. At the same time, certain maximum occupant injury values in as other crash modes? What are the individual cases were assigned very rollovers did not decrease for occupants associated costs? large sample weight by the NASS–CDS with activated pretensioners, compared 4. What procedures would be database. This distorted the overall to occupants without pretensioners.95 appropriate for testing performance of profile of relevant injuries (case weight In response to the October 2001 RFC, advanced seat belt systems? At what spikes). As a result, the agency believes we received several suggestions with values should the pretension sensor that the characteristics of this limited respect to enhancing occupant activate? sample may not accurately represent the protection in rollover crashes by means 5. What would be an appropriate limit full benefits resulting from the proposed of using better seat belts. Slavik for the force exerted by a pretensioning roof crush resistance upgrade. suggested amending FMVSS Nos. 208 system on an occupant and how would Under the second approach, the and 209 to require the use of it be measured? agency again examined the same injury pretensioners that activate in rollovers IX. Benefits cases discussed in the first approach. However, in evaluating actual crashes, before the vehicle rolls 90-degrees, and The agency examined the relationship retractors that lock and remain locked the agency noted that post-crash between injuries in rollover crashes and negative headroom 97 measurements for at least five seconds after the the amount of post-crash headroom and pretensioner is fired. Syson-Hille and available from FARS and NASS–CDS found a statistically significant databases were related to occupant’s Associates stated that NHTSA should relationship between injury rates and continue its efforts to increase seat belt actual height. For example, the amount instances in which the roof intruded of post-crash headroom in a vehicle use rates, and consider amending below the occupant’s normal seating FMVSS Nos. 208, 209, and 210 to occupied by a taller person would be height. The injury patterns were less different from post-crash headroom of ensure that belts provide enhanced serious in cases in which roof intrusion occupant protection and remain the same vehicle occupied by a shorter did not encroach on the pre-crash person. fastened in rollover crashes. headroom of the occupant; i.e., when On August 7, 2003, NHTSA met with To better estimate how this proposal the deformed roof structure did not representatives of the Automotive would benefit occupants of varying intrude below the top of the seated Occupant Restraints Council (AORC) to heights, the agency assumed that the occupant’s head. discuss seat belt technologies that have probability of occupant height in each Using two alternative analytical actual relevant rollover case would be the potential for improving occupant approaches, the agency prepared two protection in rollover crashes.96 AORC equal to the national distribution of estimates of safety benefits resulting occupant heights. That is, an occupant made a presentation entitled, ‘‘Seat Belt from the proposed roof crush resistance Technologies Improving Occupant of any size might have been involved in upgrade. The second approach was a crash that fits the agency’s case Protection in Rollover.’’ In the developed to cure shortcomings in the presentation, AORC discussed several criteria. We calculated the odds of the first approach. occupant in each case being of a height seat belt technologies including Under the first approach, the agency to benefit from the proposed analyzed specific cases of actual injuries 94 requirements. This calculation differed Pywell, James et al., ‘‘Characterization of Belt and fatalities involving belted occupants Restraint Systems in Quasi-Static Vehicle Rollover for each rollover case based on amount that were not fully ejected during Tests,’’ SAE Paper 973334, Society of Automotive of actual roof intrusion and vehicle Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 1997; and Moffatt, rollovers. Using FARS and NASS–CDS design. As a result, the agency was able Edward et al., ‘‘Head Excursion of Seat Belted databases, we analyzed only those cases to use a more refined case sample to Cadaver, Volunteers and Hybrid III ATD in a in which the roof intrusion occurred Dynamic/Static Rollover Fixture,’’ SAE Paper estimate the benefits of the proposed over the injured occupant’s seat, and the 973347, Society of Automotive Engineers, requirements. We were able to estimate Warrendale, PA, 1997. MAIS was in fact caused by roof contact how any occupant would benefit from 95 Hare, Barry et al., ‘‘Analysis of Rollover with the occupant. We sought to stronger roofs in each actual crash case. Restraint Performance with and without Seat Belt estimate how an injured or killed Pretensioner at Vehicle Trip,’’ SAE Paper 2002–01– 0941, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, occupant in each specific case might 97 Negative headroom means post-crash PA, 2002. have benefited from a stronger roof headroom that is below the occupant’s seated 96 See Docket Number NHTSA 2003–14622–10. structure. The agency believes that this height.

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:15 Aug 22, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 49243

This approach minimized case weight force of about 20 percent greater than would result in additional fuel spikes inherent to the first approach 2.5 times their vehicle weight.98 expenditures in the amount of $29.4 to used to estimate potential benefits of We estimate the price increase for the $36.9 million per year, resulting in the this proposal. purchaser (consumer cost) to improve total annual fleet costs of $88 to $95 Under the second approach, the the Neon roof strength to 2.5 times the million ($58.6 + $29.4) or ($58.6 + agency estimates that the proposed unloaded vehicle weight with a 20 $36.9).101 requirements would prevent 44 fatalities percent compliance margin to be $3.02, and 498 non-fatal injuries. We estimate and the consumer cost to improve the XI. Lead Time 55 equivalent lives saved annually. E–150 roof strength to 2.5 times the We note however, that the second unloaded vehicle weight with a 20 NHTSA proposes that the approach assumes a random percent compliance margin to be manufacturers be required to comply relationship between the height of $29.66.99 Further, we estimated the with the new requirements for FMVSS drivers and the headroom in vehicles average cost of strengthening the roof No. 216 on and after the first September that they purchase. The agency believes structure of vehicles that do not meet 1 that occurs more than three years (36 that the relationship between vehicle the proposed requirements to be months) after the issuance of the final headroom and occupant size is $10.67.100 rule. Based on recent agency testing, the insignificant in most cases. It is likely In addition to finite element vehicle agency estimates that 68 percent of the that taller drivers adjust the seat modeling, the agency tested a current fleet already complies with the positions to prevent uncomfortable representative sample of 20 recent proposed roof strength requirements. proximity to the roof. model year vehicles to estimate what Accordingly, the proposed roof strength The agency requests comments on percentage of the overall fleet already requirements would not necessitate both approaches for estimating benefits complies with the proposed fleet-wide roof structure changes. of this proposal. A more detailed requirements. Based on the current sales NHTSA believes that vehicle discussion of the estimated benefits data, these 20 vehicles represent a manufacturers have engineering and associated with this proposal are in the current vehicle fleet population of manufacturing resources that would PRIA. approximately 5.9 million vehicles. enable vehicles to meet the new X. Costs Seven of the 20 vehicles tested by the requirements three years after the agency failed the proposed roof crush publication of the final rule. We request The agency estimates that upgrading resistance requirements. The seven the roof crush resistance standard comments on the lead time necessary to failing vehicles represent a vehicle fleet comply with the proposal requirements. would result in annual fleet costs of $88 population of approximately 1.9 to $95 million. The total fleet cost is million. The cost of upgrading these 1.9 XII. Request for Comments based on structural changes and impacts million vehicles would be $20.3 on fuel economy. The average cost of million. How Do I Prepare and Submit strengthening the roof structure of We estimate that 17 million new Comments? vehicles that do not meet the proposed vehicles would be subject to the Your comments must be written and requirements is estimated to be $10.67 proposed requirements. Accordingly, in English. To ensure that your per vehicle, with an annual fleet cost of before accounting for weight gain comments are correctly filed in the $58.6 million. We estimate that implications, we estimate the total fleet Docket, please include the docket approximately 32 percent of the current cost to be $58.6 million (17 million ÷ 5.9 number of this document in your vehicle fleet would need improvements million × $20.3 million). Additionally, the changes made to comments. Your comments must not be to meet the proposed upgraded 102 requirements. The average fuel economy increase roof strength may require more than 15 pages long. We impact cost is estimated to be $5.33 to heavier materials and or reinforcements established this limit to encourage you $6.69 per vehicle, with an annual fleet that could increase the weight of the to write your primary comments in a cost of $29.4 to $36.9 million. vehicle. This weight increase may concise fashion. However, you may We estimated the structural costs adversely affect the vehicle’s fuel attach necessary additional documents using finite element vehicle modeling in economy and thus increase the amount to your comments. There is no limit on which various components of two of fuel it consumes over its lifetime. We the length of the attachments. Please vehicles that do not meet the proposed estimate that the average weight gain submit two copies of your comments, requirements were upgraded until the necessary to upgrade the roof crush including the attachments, to Docket two vehicles met the proposed resistance of the vehicle fleet of 17 Management at the address given above requirements, and roof crush tests of million vehicles is 0.6 lbs per vehicle. under ADDRESSES. Comments may also twenty recent model year vehicles. The We estimate that this added weight be submitted to the docket two vehicles were a 1998 Plymouth electronically by logging onto the Neon passenger car, and a 1999 Ford E– 98 The agency assumes that manufacturers would Docket Management System Web site at 150 van. The initial baseline crush tests design their vehicles so that they can meet a http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ‘‘Help & standard with a 20% compliance margin in order of the Neon and Ford E–150 showed to address production and performance variability Information’’ or ‘‘Help/Info’’ to obtain that each vehicle could withstand a roof concerns. Vehicle manufacturers normally include instructions for filing the document crush force of about 1.9 times its compliance margins in their vehicle designs to electronically. If you are submitting unloaded weight. Neither vehicle would assure that each vehicle could pass the applicable comments electronically as a PDF test requirements. In this case, a safety margin of comply with the proposed requirements 20 percent would require that vehicles withstand (Adobe) file, we ask that the documents because the roof over the front seat area applied force of 3 times the unloaded vehicle submitted be scanned using Optical cannot withstand a force of 2.5 times the weight (1.2 × 2.5). Character Recognition (OCR) process, unloaded vehicle weight. 99 These improvements include changes in the thus allowing the agency to search and Through an iterative process, material strength (steel gage, for example) of various vehicle components. improvements were reflected within the 100 The consumer cost average estimate was 101 For details on the fuel economy impacts, finite element model until the Neon and weighted for relative roof strength of different please see the PRIA. E–150 could withstand a roof crush vehicles and corresponding sales volumes. 102 See 49 CFR 553.21.

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:15 Aug 22, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 49244 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules

copy certain portions of your as an informal suggestion for future proposed rules on small businesses, submissions.103 rulemaking action. small organizations and small Please note that pursuant to the Data governmental jurisdictions. I have How Can I Read the Comments Quality Act, in order for substantive considered the possible effects of this Submitted By Other People? data to be relied upon and used by the rulemaking action under the Regulatory agency, it must meet the information You may read the materials placed in Flexibility Act and certify that it would quality standards set forth in the OMB the docket for this document (e.g., the not have a significant economic impact and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. comments submitted in response to this on a substantial number of small Accordingly, we encourage you to document by other interested persons) entities. consult the guidelines in preparing your by going to the street address given Under 13 CFR 121.201, the Small comments. OMB’s guidelines may be above under ADDRESSES. The hours of Business Administration (SBA) defines accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ the Docket Management System (DMS) small business (for the purposes of omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT’s are indicated above in the same receiving SBA assistance) as a business guidelines may be accessed at http:// location. with less than 750 employees. Most of dmses.dot.gov/submit/ You may also read the materials on the manufacturers of recreation DataQualityGuidelines.pdf. the Internet. To do so, take the following vehicles, conversion vans, and steps: specialized work trucks are small How Can I Be Sure That My Comments (1) Go to the Web page of the Were Received? businesses that manufacture vehicles in Department of Transportation DMS two or more stages. Some of these If you wish Docket Management to (http://dms.dot.gov/search/ manufacturers produce vehicles that notify you upon its receipt of your searchFormSimple.cfm). would be subject to the proposed (2) On that page type in the five-digit comments, enclose a self-addressed, requirements, as their GVWR is less docket number cited in the heading of stamped postcard in the envelope than or equal to 10,000 pounds. While this document. After typing the docket containing your comments. Upon the number of these small businesses receiving your comments, Docket number, click on ‘‘search.’’ (3) On the next page (‘‘Docket Search potentially affected by this proposal is Management will return the postcard by substantial, the economic impact upon mail. Results’’), which contains docket summary information for the materials these entities will not be significant for How Do I Submit Confidential Business in the docket you selected, scroll down the following reasons: Information? and click on the desired materials. You 1. As indicated in Section VII(A)(2), we are proposing to allow vehicles If you wish to submit any information may download the materials. manufactured in two or more stages under a claim of confidentiality, you XIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices should submit three copies of your (other than chassis-cabs), to certify to complete submission, including the A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT the roof crush requirements of FMVSS information you claim to be confidential Regulatory Policies and Procedures No. 220, instead of FMVSS No. 216. business information, to the Chief This aspect of our proposal will afford NHTSA has considered the impact of significant economic relief to small Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given this rulemaking action under Executive above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION businesses because some of them are Order 12866 and the Department of already required by the States to certify CONTACT. In addition, you should Transportation’s regulatory policies and submit two copies, from which you to the requirements of FMVSS No. 220. procedures. The Office of Management Thus, the proposal would not require have deleted the claimed confidential and Budget reviewed this rulemaking business information, to Docket additional expenditure by these small document under E.O. 12866, businesses. Management at the address given above ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review.’’ under ADDRESSES. When you send a 2. Small businesses using chassis cabs This rulemaking action has been would be in position to take advantage comment containing information determined to be significant under claimed to be confidential business of ‘‘pass-through certification,’’ and Executive Order 12866 and the DOT therefore, are not expected to incur any information, you should include a cover Policies and Procedures because of letter setting forth the information additional expenditures. Congressional and public interest. This 3. We believe that some of the specified in our confidential business rulemaking action is not economically vehicles manufactured by these small information regulation.104 significant because the estimated yearly businesses already comply with the Will the Agency Consider Late costs do not exceed $100 million. The proposed requirements.106 Comments? total estimated recurring fleet cost for all In addition to small businesses that changes proposed by this document is We will consider all comments that manufacture vehicles in two or more $88 to $95 million. NHTSA is placing in Docket Management receives before the stages, there are four manufacturers of the public docket a PRIA describing the close of business on the comment passenger cars that are small costs and benefits of this rulemaking 107 closing date indicated above under businesses. All of these action.105 The costs and benefits are also DATES. To the extent possible, we will manufacturers could be affected by the summarized in Sections IX and X above. also consider comments that Docket proposed requirements. However, the We estimate that, if adopted, this Management receives after that date. If economic impact upon these entities proposal would result in 13–44 fewer Docket Management receives a comment will not be significant for the following fatalities and 498–793 fewer non-fatal too late for us to consider in developing reasons. injuries each year. a final rule (assuming that one is 1. While the average cost for roof issued), we will consider that comment B. Regulatory Flexibility Act crush resistance upgrades was estimated at approximately $12 per vehicle, the The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 cost of upgrading the roof structures of 103 Optical character recognition (OCR) is the (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires agencies process of converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or electronic fax file, into to evaluate the potential effects of their 106 As discussed in Section X above, 68% of the computer-editable text. current fleet meets the proposed requirements. 104 See 49 CFR Part 512. 105 See Docket No. NHTSA–2005–22143. 107 Avanti, Panoz, Saleen, Shelby.

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:15 Aug 22, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 49245

passenger cars is lower because we and other effects of proposed or final without negatively affecting vehicle believe that this cost is a function of rules that include a Federal mandate dynamics and rollover propensity. The weight of the vehicle. For example, the likely to result in the expenditure by agency has tentatively concluded that cost of upgrading the roof structure of State, local or tribal governments, in the our proposal would not adversely affect Dodge Neon, a passenger vehicle, was aggregate, or by the private sector, of vehicle dynamics and cause vehicles to estimated at $3. more than $100 million annually become more prone to rollovers. In 2. The agency believes that a cost ($120.7 million as adjusted annually for contrast, the agency believes that either increase of $3 to $12 would not have a inflation with base year of 1995). The a broad State performance requirement significant economic impact upon small assessment may be combined with other for greater levels of roof crush resistance businesses that manufacture passenger assessments, as it is here. or a narrower requirement mandating cars because these costs can be passed This proposal is not likely to result in that increased roof strength be achieved onto the consumer. This increase would expenditures by State, local or tribal by a particular specified means, would represent, at most, less than one-half of governments or automobile frustrate the agency’s objectives by one tenth of a percent of the least manufacturers and/or their suppliers of upsetting the balance between efforts to expensive vehicle manufactured by the more than $120.7 million annually. The increase roof strength and reduce four entities.108 agency estimates that upgrading the roof rollover propensity. 3. We believe that some of the crush resistance standard would result Increasing current roof crush vehicles manufactured by these small in annual fleet costs of $88 to $95 resistance requirements too much could businesses already comply with the million. No expenditures by State, local potentially result in added weight to the proposed requirements.109 or tribal governments are expected. A roof and pillars, thereby increasing the 4. Some of the vehicles manufactured full assessment of the rule’s costs and vehicle center of gravity (CG) height and by these small businesses are benefits is provided in the PRIA. rollover propensity. In order to avoid this, we sought to strike a careful convertibles not subject to this proposal. F. Civil Justice Reform balance between improving roof crush C. National Environmental Policy Act This NPRM would not have any resistance and potentially negative NHTSA has analyzed this proposal for retroactive effect. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets effects of too large an increase upon the the purposes of the National forth a procedure for judicial review of vehicle’s rollover propensity. Environmental Policy Act. The agency final rules establishing, amending, or We recognize that there is a variety of has determined that implementation of revoking Federal motor vehicle safety potential ways to increase roof crush this action would not have any standards. That section does not require resistance beyond the proposed level. significant impact on the quality of the submission of a petition for However, we believe that any effort to human environment. Upgrading the roof reconsideration or other administrative impose either more stringent crush resistance standard may impact proceedings before parties may file suit requirements or specific methods of the weight of the vehicles subject to that in court. compliance would frustrate our standard and consequently result in the State action on safety issues within balanced approach to preventing reduced fuel economy for these the purview of a Federal agency may be rollovers from occurring as well as the vehicles. However, the agency believes limited or even foreclosed by express deaths and injuries that result when that the resulting impact on language in a congressional enactment, rollovers nevertheless occur. environment will be insignificant. A full by implication from the depth and First, we believe that requiring a more discussion of fuel economy implications breadth of a congressional scheme that stringent level of roof crush resistance is in the PRIA. occupies the legislative field, or by for all vehicles could increase rollover implication because of a conflict with a propensity of many vehicles and D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) congressional enactment. In this regard, thereby create offsetting adverse safety The agency has analyzed this we note that section 30103(b) of 49 consequences. While the agency is rulemaking in accordance with the U.S.C. provides, ‘‘When a motor vehicle aware of at least several current vehicle principles and criteria contained in safety standard is in effect under this models that provide greater roof crush Executive Order 13132 and has chapter, a State or a political resistance than would be required under determined that it does not have subdivision of a State may prescribe or our proposal, requiring greater levels of sufficient federal implications to continue in effect a standard applicable roof crush resistance for all vehicles warrant consultation with State and to the same aspect of performance of a could, depending on the methods of local officials or the preparation of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle construction and materials used, and on federalism summary impact statement. equipment only if the standard is other factors, render other vehicles more The proposal would not have any identical to the standard prescribed prone to rollovers, thus frustrating the substantial impact on the States, or on under this chapter.’’ Thus, all differing agency’s objectives in this rulemaking. the current Federal-State relationship, state statutes and regulations would be Second, we believe that requiring or on the current distribution of power preempted. vehicle manufacturers to improve roof and responsibilities among the various Further, it is our tentative judgment crush resistance by a specific method local officials. that safety would best be promoted by would also frustrate agency goals. The the careful balance we have struck in optimum methods for addressing the E. Unfunded Mandates Act this proposal among a variety of risks of rollover crashes vary The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act considerations and objectives regarding considerably for different vehicles, and of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a rollover safety. As discussed above, this requiring specific methods for written assessment of the costs, benefits proposal is a part of a comprehensive improving roof crush resistance could plan for reducing the serious risk of interfere with the efforts to develop 108 Approximately $25,000. rollover crashes and the risk of death optimal solutions. Moreover, some 109 As discussed in Section X above, 68% of the and serious injury in those crashes. The methods of improving roof crush current fleet meets the proposed requirements. We believe this may be especially true for high objective of this proposal is to increase resistance are costlier than others. The performance vehicles typically manufactured by the requirement for roof crush resistance resources diverted to increasing roof small businesses. only to the extent that it can be done strength using one of the costlier

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:15 Aug 22, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 49246 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules

methods could delay or even prevent J. Privacy Act anticipate receiving an even more vehicle manufacturers from equipping Anyone is able to search the comprehensive array of relevant their vehicles with advanced vehicle electronic form of all comments information in response to this technologies for reducing rollovers, received into any of our dockets by the proposal. Further, in preparing this such as Electronic Stability Control. name of the individual submitting the document, the agency carefully Based on the foregoing, if the proposal comment (or signing the comment, if evaluated previous agency research and were adopted as a final rule, it would submitted on behalf of an association, vehicle testing that was relevant to this preempt all conflicting State common business, labor union, etc.). You may proposal. We also conducted additional law requirements, including rules of tort review DOT’s complete Privacy Act testing in support of this document. law. Statement in the Federal Register Finally, the agency conducted a detailed published on April 11, 2000 (Volume statistical analysis in order to estimate G. National Technology Transfer and risks of death or injury associated with Advancement Act 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov. roof crush, and to determine the Under the National Technology relevant target population and potential Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 XVI. Vehicle Safety Act costs and benefits of our proposal. In (NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104–113), ‘‘all Federal Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor sum, this document reflects our agencies and departments shall use Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), consideration of all relevant, available technical standards that are developed the Secretary of Transportation is motor vehicle safety information. or adopted by voluntary consensus responsible for prescribing motor Fourth, to ensure that requiring standards bodies, using such technical vehicle safety standards that are greater roof crush resistance is standards as a means to carry out policy practicable, meet the need for motor practicable, the agency tested a number objectives or activities determined by vehicle safety, and are stated in of vehicles and found that many already the agencies and departments.’’ As objective terms.110 ‘‘Motor vehicle safety comply with the proposed discussed in Section V, we evaluated standard’’ means a minimum requirements, while others could the Society of Automotive Engineers performance standard for motor vehicles comply with relatively inexpensive (SAE) inverted drop testing procedure, or motor vehicle equipment. When modifications to their roof structure. In but decided against proposing it. We prescribing such standards, the response to the request for comments, were unable to identify any other Secretary must consider all relevant, the agency received no indication that relevant technical standards. The available motor vehicle safety the proposed roof crush resistance agency requests comments on other information.111 The Secretary must also requirements were impracticable. relevant technical standards. consider whether a proposed standard is However, based on the latest information from the manufacturers and H. Paperwork Reduction Act reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the types of motor vehicles or motor our own testing, we are proposing to Under the Paperwork Reduction Act vehicle equipment for which it is amend the test procedure for vehicles of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), prescribed and the extent to which the with raised or altered roofs to provide Federal agencies must obtain approval standard will further the statutory additional assurance of practicability.113 from the Office of Management and purpose of reducing traffic accidents To improve practicability still further, Budget (OMB) for each collection of and associated deaths.112 The the agency also proposes to revise the information they conduct, sponsor, or responsibility for promulgation of tie-down procedure. Because we are require through regulations. NHTSA has Federal motor vehicle safety standards especially concerned with practicability reviewed this proposal and determined is delegated to NHTSA. of this proposal as it applies to vehicles that it does not contain collection of In proposing to improve roof crush manufactured in two or more stages, we information requirements. resistance, the agency carefully are proposing to allow the certification considered these statutory requirements. I. Plain Language of these vehicles to the roof crush First, we believe that this proposal requirements of FMVSS No. 220. In Executive Order 12866 requires each will meet the need for motor vehicle sum, we believe that this proposal to agency to write all rules in plain safety because the proposed applied improve roof crush resistance is language. Application of the principles force requirement would lead to practicable. of plain language includes consideration stronger roofs and reduce the roof crush Fifth, the proposed regulatory text of the following questions: severity observed in real world crashes, following this preamble is stated in • Have we organized the material to thus better protecting front seat objective terms in order to specify suit the public’s needs? occupants. precisely what performance is required • Are the requirements in the rule Second, we believe that the roof crush and how performance will be tested to clearly stated? resistance standard subject of this ensure compliance with the standard. • Does the rule contain technical proposal is performance oriented Specifically, a large steel test plate language or jargon that isn’t clear? because it requires only that the vehicle would be forced down onto the roof of • Would a different format (grouping roof be able to withstand a certain a vehicle. If the displaced roof structure and order of sections, use of headings, amount of applied force. The standard does not contact the head or neck of the paragraphing) make the rule easier to does not specify the means by which the dummy seated inside the vehicle, the understand? vehicle must meet the standard. • vehicle passes the test. The agency Would more (but shorter) sections Third, this proposal was preceded by believes that this test procedure is be better? a Request for Comments, which • sufficiently objective and would not Could we improve clarity by adding facilitated the efforts of the agency to result in any uncertainty as to whether tables, lists, or diagrams? obtain and consider relevant motor • a given vehicle satisfies the proposed What else could we do to make the vehicle safety information. We roof crush resistance requirements. rule easier to understand? If you have any responses to these 110 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). 113 The agency previously adopted a ‘‘secondary’’ questions, please include them in your 111 49 U.S.C. 30111(b). test procedure for vehicles with raised or altered comments on this proposal. 112 Id. roofs which proved to be an impracticable solution.

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:15 Aug 22, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 49247

Finally, we believe that this proposal requirement (S5.3) of Standard No. 208; (c) For vehicles with manufacturer’s is reasonable and appropriate for motor or designated jacking locations, locate the vehicles subject to the proposed (d) Vehicles manufactured in two or stands at or near the specified location. requirements. As discussed elsewhere more stages, other than chassis cabs, (d) For vehicles with undefined in this notice, the agency is concerned that conform to the roof crush jacking locations, generalized jacking with the amount of fatalities and serious requirements (S4) of Standard No. 220 areas, or jacking areas that are not part injuries resulting from rollovers. Our (§ 571.220). of the vehicle body or frame, such as statistical data indicate that vehicles S4. Definitions. axles or suspension members, locate subject to the proposed requirements are two stands in the region forward of the involved in rollovers that cause death * * * * * rearmost axle and two stands rearward and serious injury. Accordingly, we Convertible means a vehicle whose A- of the forwardmost axle. All four stands believe that this proposal is appropriate pillars are not joined with the B-pillars shall be located between the axles on for vehicles that are or would become (or rearmost pillars) by a fixed, rigid either the vehicle body or vehicle frame. subject to FMVSS No. 216 because it structural member. S7.2(a) Adjust the seats and steering furthers the agency’s objective of * * * * * controls in accordance with S8.1.2 and preventing deaths and serious injuries Roof component means the A-pillar, S.8.1.4 of 49 CFR 571.208. associated with roof crush occurring in B-pillar, roof side rail, front header, rear (b) Place adjustable seat backs in the some of the rollovers. header, roof, and all interior trim in manufacturer’s nominal design riding contact with these components. position in the manner specified by the XV. Proposed Regulatory Text manufacturer. Place any adjustable * * * * * List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 anchorages at the manufacturer’s S5. Requirements. When the test nominal design position for a 50th Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and device described in S6 is used to apply percentile adult male occupant. Place recordkeeping requirements, Tires. a force to either side of the forward edge each adjustable head restraint in its In consideration of the foregoing, of a vehicle’s roof in accordance with lowest adjustment position. Adjustable NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR Part S7, no roof component or portion of the lumbar supports are positioned so that 571 as follows: test device may contact the head or the the lumbar support is in its lowest neck of the seated Hybrid III 50th adjustment position. PART 571—[AMENDED] percentile male dummy specified in 49 S7.3 Position the Hybrid III 50th CFR Part 572, Subpart E. The maximum percentile male dummy specified in 49 1. The authority citation of Part 571 applied force in Newtons is at least 2.5 would continue to read as follows: CFR Part 572, Subpart E in accordance times the unloaded vehicle weight of with S10.1 through S10.6.2.2 of 49 CFR Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 2011, 30115, the vehicle, measured in kilograms and 571.208, in the front outboard 30166 and 30177; delegation of authority at multiplied by 9.8. A particular vehicle designated seating position on the side 49 CFR 1.50. need not meet the requirements on the of the vehicle being tested. 2. Section 571.216 would be amended second side of the vehicle, after being S7.4 Orient the test device as shown by: tested at one location. in Figure 1 of this section, so that— a. Revising S3 to read as set forth * * * * * (a) Its longitudinal axis is at a forward below; S7.1 Secure the vehicle in accordance angle (in side view) of 5 degrees below b. Adding to S4, in alphabetical order, with S7.1(a) through (d). the horizontal, and is parallel to the new definitions of ‘‘Convertible’’ and (a) Support the vehicle off its vertical plane through the vehicle’s ‘‘Roof component;’’ suspension at a longitudinal vehicle longitudinal centerline; (b) Its transverse axis is at an outboard c. Revising S5 to read as set forth attitude of 0 degrees ± 0.5 degrees. angle, in the front view projection, of 25 below; Measure the longitudinal vehicle d. Removing S5.1; degrees below the horizontal. attitude along both the driver and e. Revising S7.1 through S7.6 to read S7.5 Maintaining the orientation passenger sill. Determine the lateral as set forth below; and specified in S7.4— vehicle attitude by measuring the f. Removing S8 through S8.4. (a) Lower the test device until it vertical distance between a level surface The revisions and additions read as initially makes contact with the roof of and a standard reference point on the follows: the vehicle. bottom of the driver and passenger side (b) Position the test device so that— § 571.216 Standard No. 216; Roof crush sills. The difference between the vertical (1) The longitudinal centerline on its resistance. distance measured on the driver side lower surface is within 10 mm of the * * * * * and the passenger side sills shall not initial point of contact, or on the center ± S3. Application. This standard exceed 1 cm. of the initial contact area, with the roof; applies to passenger cars, and to (b) Secure the vehicle with four and multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks stands. The locations for supporting the (2) The midpoint of the forward edge and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 vehicle are defined in S7.1(c) or (d). of the lower surface of the test device is kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. Welding is permissible. The vehicle within 10 mm of the transverse vertical However, it does not apply to— overhangs are not supported. Chains plane 254 mm forward of the (a) School buses; and wire rope are not used to secure the forwardmost point on the exterior (b) Vehicles that conform to the vehicle. Fix all non-rigid body mounts surface of the roof, including rollover test requirements (S5.3) of to prevent motion of the body relative windshield trim, that lies in the Standard No. 208 (§ 571.208) by means to the frame. Close all windows, close longitudinal vertical plane passing that require no action by vehicle and lock all doors, and secure any through the vehicle’s longitudinal occupants; moveable or removable roof structure in centerline. (c) Convertibles, except for optional place over the occupant compartment. S7.6 Apply force so that the test compliance with the standard as an Remove roof racks or other non- device moves in a downward direction alternative to the rollover test structural components. perpendicular to the lower surface of

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:15 Aug 22, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 49248 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules

the test device at a rate of not more than For legal issues: Dorothy Nakama, percent offset, fixed deformable barrier 13 millimeters per second until reaching Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC–112, crash test. In 1998, Australia introduced the force level specified in S5. Guide the National Highway Traffic Safety a similar regulation for new passenger test device so that throughout the test it Administration, 400 Seventh Street, car model approvals. In addition to moves, without rotation, in a straight SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: these regulations, several consumer line with its lower surface oriented as (202) 366–2992. Fax: (202) 366–3820. information programs also began to specified in S7.4(a) and S7.4(b). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: utilize the EU Directive 96/79 EC crash Complete the test within 120 seconds. test procedure, but raised the impact Table of Contents * * * * * speed to 64 km/h. These programs I. Background included the European New Car Issued: July 15, 2005. II. Summary of Request for Comments Assessment Program (EuroNCAP), Stephen R. Kratzke, III. Analysis of Comments Australia NCAP (ANCAP), Japan NCAP Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. IV. Rationale for Withdrawal and the Insurance Institute for Highway [FR Doc. 05–16661 Filed 8–19–05; 8:45 am] V. Conclusion Safety (IIHS) Crashworthiness BILLING CODE 4910–59–U I. Background Evaluation program in the U.S. Given the world-wide focus on the Improving occupant protection in fixed offset deformable barrier crash test frontal crashes is a major goal of the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION procedure, the conferees on the National Highway Traffic Safety appropriations legislation for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Frontal Department of Transportation for FY Administration crashes are the most frequent cause of 1997 directed NHTSA to work ‘‘toward motor vehicle fatalities. In 1972, establishing a Federal motor vehicle 49 CFR Parts 571 and 572 NHTSA promulgated FMVSS No. 208 to safety standard for frontal offset crash [Docket No. NHTSA–2005–21698] improve the frontal crash protection testing’’ in fiscal year 1997.2 NHTSA provided to motor vehicle occupants. was further directed to consider the RIN 2127–AH73 and 2127–AI39 The dynamic performance requirements harmonization potential with other of the standard include frontal rigid countries and to work with interested Federal Motor Vehicle Safety barrier crash tests, at angles between Standards; Occupant Crash ± parties, including the automotive perpendicular and 30 degrees with industry, under standard rulemaking Protection; Anthropomorphic Test belted and unbelted dummies.1 Devices; Instrumented Lower Legs for procedures. In 1997, NHTSA submitted Occupant protection is evaluated based a Report to Congress 3 on the status of 50th Percentile Male and 5th Percentile on data acquired from anthropomorphic Female Hybrid III Dummies the agency’s efforts toward establishing test dummies positioned in the driver a high speed frontal offset crash test AGENCY: National Highway Traffic and right front passenger seats. Data requirement. The agency made a Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. collection instrumentation is mounted preliminary assessment that the ACTION: Withdrawal of rulemakings. in the head, neck, chest, and femurs of adoption of the EU 96/79 EC frontal the test dummies. offset test procedure, in addition to the SUMMARY: On February 3, 2004, NHTSA NHTSA initiated research in the early current requirements of FMVSS No. published a notice in the Federal 1990s to develop performance tests not 208, could result in substantial benefits, Register requesting comments on currently included in FMVSS No. 208, since lower leg injuries were typically whether to propose adding a high speed such as high severity frontal offset associated with long-term recovery and frontal offset crash test to Federal Motor crashes that involve only partial significant economic cost. However, the Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. engagement of a vehicle’s front Report to Congress also made note of 208, ‘‘Occupant crash protection.’’ The structure. Such performance tests result NHTSA’s concerns relative to the notice informed the public about recent in large amounts of occupant potential for exacerbating small and testing the agency conducted to assess compartment intrusion and increased large car incompatibility, as a result of the benefits and/or disbenefits of such potential for intrusion-related injury. adopting a frontal offset crash test an approach. Based on our analysis of The agency also instrumented the procedure. those comments, and other information dummies in these tests with advanced During 1998–2002, NHTSA gathered by the agency, we have lower leg instrumentation, not currently completed over 25 frontal offset crash decided to withdraw the rulemaking required in FMVSS No. 208, to assess tests in an attempt to answer a number proceeding to amend FMVSS No. 208 to the potential for lower extremity injury, of research questions. Specifically, what include a high speed frontal offset crash specifically, to the knee, tibia, and are the merits of a fixed offset test requirement. Additional research ankle. deformable barrier crash test procedure and data analyses are needed to make an During the same time period, and what is the most appropriate informed decision on rulemaking in this considerable international research dummy size, lower leg instrumentation area. Additionally, we have decided to focused on the development of a fixed and impact speed? Dummy injury withdraw the related rulemaking offset deformable barrier crash test measures from the fixed offset proceeding to amend part 572 to include procedure. In December 1996, the deformable barrier crash tests lower leg instrumentation until further European Union (EU) adopted the EU demonstrated the potential for injury testing necessary for federalization is Directive 96/79 EC for frontal crash reductions over and above the full completed. protection. This directive required frontal rigid barrier test configuration.4 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For vehicle compliance with a 56 km/h, 40 non-legal issues: Lori Summers, Office 2 Conference Report 104–785, September 16, of Crashworthiness Standards, NVS– 1 In March of 1997, NHTSA temporarily amended 1996. This report accompanied H.R. 3675. 112, National Highway Traffic Safety FMVSS No. 208 so that passenger cars and light 3 Report to Congress, ‘‘Status Report on trucks had the option of using a sled test for Establishing a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, meeting the unrestrained dummy requirements. Standard for Frontal Offset Crash Testing,’’ April SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone This option will be phased out in accordance with 1997. (202) 366–1740. Fax: (202) 366–7002. the advanced air bag rulemaking schedule. 4 Docket No. NHTSA–1998–3332.

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:15 Aug 22, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1