Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Windshield Zone Intrusion |
|---|
Topics: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
|
Christopher J. Bonanti
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
November 29, 2012
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 230 (Thursday, November 29, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71163-71166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28815]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA 2008-0124]
RIN 2127-AK13
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Windshield Zone Intrusion
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Withdrawal of rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document withdraws a rulemaking proposal to rescind
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 219, ``Windshield
zone intrusion.'' The agency has determined that there are two ongoing
regulatory developments that could influence vehicle designs by putting
a premium on the use of lighter or less rigid materials. These two
developments are U.S. fuel economy requirements and a global technical
regulation aimed at reducing injuries to pedestrians struck by
vehicles. As a result, the agency believes that vehicle designs with
regard to the hood and windshield are in a state of change and that the
implications of these developments should be better understood before
deciding whether to rescind FMVSS No. 219.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact
Mr. David Sutula, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, NHTSA, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: 202-366-3273) (Fax:
202-366-2739).
For legal issues, you may contact Ms. Analiese Marchesseault,
Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: 202-366-1723) (Fax: 202-366-3820).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. NPRM To Rescind FMVSS No. 219
III. Agency Response to Comments on the NPRM
A. The Changing Vehicle Fleet
B. Real World Data
C. Dummy and Air Bag Performance in Windshield Zone Intrusion
D. Industry Burden
E. Possible Effect of FMVSS No. 219 Rescission on State
Regulation
IV. Agency Decision To Withdraw the Rulemaking
I. Background
FMVSS No. 219, ``Windshield zone intrusion,'' provides that a
vehicle's hood must not enter a defined zone in front of the vehicle's
windshield during a full frontal crash test at 48 kilometers per hour
(km/h) (30 miles per hour (mph)). The purpose of the standard is to
reduce injuries and fatalities that result from occupant contact with
vehicle components, such as the hood, that are displaced into the
occupant compartment through the windshield opening or into the zone
immediately forward of the windshield aperture during a frontal crash.
FMVSS No. 219 specifies a protected zone at the daylight opening
(DLO) portion of the vehicle windshield. The protected zone is an area
encompassing the width of the windshield and that protrudes about 76 mm
(3 inches) from the outer surface of the windshield. In a 48 km/h (30
mph) frontal rigid barrier crash test, no part of the vehicle from
outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other
components designed to normally be in contact with the windshield, are
permitted to penetrate the protected zone to a depth of more than 6 mm
(0.25 inches) and no such part of a vehicle is permitted to penetrate
the inner surface of that portion of the windshield, within the DLO,
below the protected zone.
FMVSS No. 219, which took effect on September 1, 1976, applies to
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with
a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds)
or less, except for forward control vehicles, walk-in van-type
vehicles, or open-body-type vehicles with fold-down or removable
windshields. NHTSA has maintained this standard without substantive
revision since 1976.
II. NPRM To Rescind FMVSS No. 219
As part of a periodic review of existing vehicle safety regulations
to determine whether a continuing safety need exists for the standard
under review, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
that proposed to rescind FMVSS No. 219 on July 7, 2008.\1\ NHTSA
undertakes periodic reviews of its regulations under, inter alia, the
Department's 1979 Regulatory Policies and Procedures, under Executive
Order 12866 ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' and under section 610
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 501 et seq.). In addition,
NHTSA conducts reviews pursuant to its internal operating procedures.
During this review process, FMVSS No. 219 was identified as a standard
that could possibly be removed as unnecessary. The NPRM tentatively
concluded that the safety need that FMVSS No. 219 addresses was being
met by FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' and FMVSS No. 113,
``Hood latch system.'' The NPRM cited the improvements made to FMVSS
No. 208 over the years as well as the secondary latch position required
by FMVSS No. 113. Based on the performance requirements in FMVSS No.
208 and FMVSS No. 113, the agency tentatively concluded that FMVSS No.
219 was no longer necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 73 FR 38372.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our belief stemmed from the fact that FMVSS No. 219 had succeeded
in virtually eliminating the intrusion of vehicle components from
outside the occupant compartment into the windshield. The agency's
analysis of FMVSS compliance and New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)
tests indicated there had been no known incidents in which a crash
tested vehicle failed to meet the performance requirements in FMVSS No.
219. Furthermore, in a preliminary analysis of crashes in the National
Automotive Sampling System (NASS) Crashworthiness Data System (CDS), no
hood intrusions into the areas prescribed by FMVSS No. 219 were found
among full frontal crashes.
III. Agency Response to Comments on the NPRM
The following organizations submitted comments on the NPRM: Public
Citizen and the Center for Auto Safety (CAS) (the two commenters
submitted joint comments), Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
(Advocates), the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), and the
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance).\2\ The issues raised
include: changes in the vehicle fleet, real world data, dummy and air
bag performance in
[[Page 71164]]
windshield zone intrusion, industry burden and possible effects of
FMVSS No. 219 rescission on State regulation. The consumer advocacy
organizations and the insurance consortium did not support the NPRM,
while the vehicle manufacturer organization generally supported the
rescission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The members included: BMW Group, Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor
Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mitsubishi,
Porsche, Toyota, and Volkswagen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. The Changing Vehicle Fleet
Public Citizen/CAS stated, ``In coming years, there will be an
influx of new small cars from Europe and Asia, which will not
necessarily be designed with consideration of FMVSS [No.] 219 if it is
rescinded.'' Advocates stated that ``both long and short-term changes
in the vehicle fleet make this an inappropriate action to take at this
time.'' Advocates stated:
the vehicle manufacturing industry is in a rapidly evolving, dynamic
state and is developing radically new designs and types of motor
vehicles. Small, uniquely designed vehicles are being produced in
Europe and imported into the U.S. Three-wheel vehicles are also
nearing entry into the U.S. market. In the near future, production
of vehicles in China will supply many more models for import into
the U.S. market, and inexpensive passenger vehicles using new
designs are planned in India and other countries that may eventually
be sold in the U.S. In addition, alternative fuel vehicles will
incorporate unknown designs and features that, without the
performance requirement and safety protection for occupants provided
by FMVSS No. 219, may present safety threats that neither FMVSS No.
208 nor FMVSS No. 113 are equipped to prevent.
IIHS commented that ``NHTSA is underestimating the continuing
benefits of FMVSS [No.] 219, especially considering a growing global
market, while simultaneously overestimating the benefits of its
rescission.''
Agency Response: The agency agrees that the vehicle fleet is in a
period of change because of many factors. We agree that the U.S. fleet
may begin to see new entrants from foreign and domestic manufacturers
that have less experience with the FMVSS framework, in comparison to
manufacturers that have long been part of the U.S. market. In addition,
we also believe a period of change may be initiated by two specific
influences on vehicle design, the effects of which have not yet been
fully determined. Those influences are more stringent U.S. Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards and a global technical regulation
requiring changes in vehicle design aimed at minimizing injuries to
pedestrians that are struck by automobiles.
We believe manufacturers may begin using lighter materials to meet
CAFE standards, including materials in and around the hoods of
vehicles. Hood design could be affected by the use of lighter
materials. We, therefore, agree with commenters that suggested that
FMVSS No. 219 should remain in place to assure protection against hood
intrusion while the vehicle fleet evolves in response to CAFE
standards.
Additionally, in November 2008, the World Forum for Harmonization
of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) adopted Global Technical Regulation
(GTR) No. 9 (ECE/TRANS/180/Add. 9). GTR No. 9 is aimed at establishing
vehicle design criteria that will result in vehicles with hoods and
related hardware that will reduce the severity of injuries to
pedestrians struck by automobiles. Among the vehicle changes that
manufacturers are likely to consider as a result of implementation of
this GTR are softer, more deformable hood structures and alternative
hood designs that aid in protecting a pedestrian that is struck by a
vehicle. NHTSA is considering the benefit of adopting this GTR to
harmonize U.S. regulations with the international community. Canada is
currently considering adopting GTR No. 9, while Japan and the European
Commission already have adopted requirements in their domestic
regulations similar to those of the GTR.
Several vehicles have already shown up in the U.S. market that both
comply with FMVSS No. 219 and have incorporated the kinds of changes in
vehicle design anticipated by the GTR. The agency is concerned that a
pedestrian safety standard might increase the possibility that some
manufacturers would use hood hinges that are significantly less stiff,
to produce low injury values for pedestrian testing. It makes sense
that FMVSS No. 219 would be needed, at least during the initial
implementation of a pedestrian standard, to ensure that rearward
deformation of the vehicle's hood is not excessive in an FMVSS No. 219
type crash.
The agency agrees that there are unknowns associated with the
effect of new pedestrian safety designs on the vehicle fleet as they
pertain to FMVSS No. 219. Therefore, these unknowns warrant retaining
FMVSS No. 219, at least until the impact of these circumstances can be
more fully understood.
B. Real World Data
The IIHS and Public Citizen/CAS commented that NHTSA did not
provide sufficient real world data to support the rescission of FMVSS
No. 219. Public Citizen/CAS suggested that NHTSA should analyze the
effectiveness of FMVSS No. 219 and the potential consequences of
rescinding it before deciding whether to rescind the standard.
The IIHS stated that a review of NASS cases revealed that vehicle
hood penetration into the occupant compartment still occurs in a small
number of offset crashes, pole impacts, and severe underride collisions
with large trucks or tractor trailers. The IIHS said that it identified
NASS cases from 2002-2006 that involved crashes different from the 48
km/h (30 mph) flat barrier test required by FMVSS No. 219. The IIHS
suggested that FMVSS No. 219 be modified to address the types of
crashes seen in these NASS cases. Public Citizen/CAS also stated that
an offset frontal crash test should be incorporated into FMVSS No. 219.
CAS compiled a list of 40 recalls from model year 1980 through 2007
that related to defective hood latch equipment. The organization said,
``[T]he presence of FMVSS No. 113 does not protect occupants in the
face of these defects; therefore, the protection provided by FMVSS No.
219 ensures that occupants are not injured by an intruding roof [sic]
in the event of a latch failure.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NHTSA assumes that Public Citizen and the Center for Auto
Safety were referring to an intruding hood rather than an intruding
roof. [Footnote added.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Response: NHTSA has analyzed crash data to determine the
potential safety consequences of a decision to rescind FMVSS No. 219.
As discussed below, the analysis has shown that the safety need for the
standard for current vehicles is apparently being met by other
standards. Nonetheless, for reasons related to future vehicle designs,
we have decided not to rescind FMVSS No. 219.
NHTSA analyzed NASS cases of model year 2004-2008 vehicles with
dual frontal air bags that were coded as having hood intrusion. A total
of 78 cases were identified. Of these 78 NASS cases, only one case
involved an injury to a non-ejected occupant due to hood intrusion, and
the resulting injury was coded as a minor injury to the occupant's
right hand and arm. Based on nationally weighting this one case, NHTSA
estimates there are annually 127 minor injuries to non-ejected
occupants associated with hood intrusion.
The agency also analyzed more than 900 NASS cases that met the
following criteria: a 2000 model year vehicle, or newer, with a delta V
of 35 km/h (22 mph),\4\ or greater, with a primary frontal
[[Page 71165]]
impact and available air bags. The agency found only 12 cases in which
the hood intruded through the windshield. These cases involved frontal
offset, pole impact, and underride crashes. None of these crash modes
are required to be tested in FMVSS No. 219. The single NASS case with a
minor injury to the occupant's arm and hand, described in the previous
paragraph, was identified in this analysis as well. There were no other
occupant injuries resulting from hood intrusion found.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This delta V threshold was set in order to limit the number
of cases to a manageable level and to capture crashes around the
crash severity of the standard and just below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the agency also reviewed 230 Crash Injury Research
Engineering Network (CIREN) cases and found 9 cases that were coded
with hood intrusion, 4 of which had injuries associated with hood
intrusion. All of these cases involved exceedingly severe crashes under
conditions that far exceed the FMVSS No. 219 testing requirements, and
resulted in a significant loss of occupant space. These crashes were so
severe that they exceeded the parameters of any crash test in common
use, including offset or pole testing suggested by IIHS and Public
Citizen/CAS.
Details of the NASS and CIREN crashes discussed above are contained
in a technical report titled, ``Evaluation of NASS Cases for Windshield
Zone Intrusion,'' which may be found in Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0124 (the
docket for the July 7, 2008 NPRM).
C. Dummy and Air Bag Performance in Windshield Zone Intrusion
The IIHS commented that FMVSS No. 208 does not protect against
windshield zone intrusion in the same way that FMVSS No. 219 does
because, under FMVSS No. 208, an intrusion would have to occur and
strike a test dummy in the vehicle to be considered dangerous. Any
component intruding through a windshield should be considered a hazard,
IIHS stated, because when intrusion occurs, even slight changes to the
crash scenario could result in occupant injury.
Advocates commented that it is unclear how the dummy performance
requirements of FMVSS No. 208, which it suggested are intended to
protect occupants from injuries caused by contact with internal vehicle
surfaces, will serve to reflect impact injuries due to windshield
intrusion by external vehicle parts. It stated that the agency cannot
assure the public that only blunt impact injuries would occur if FMVSS
No. 219 were rescinded. Advocates also stated that FMVSS No. 208 will
not necessarily prevent lacerative injuries because it is unknown how
quickly air bags will deflate once punctured by a sharp object
protruding through the windshield or because an air bag, once having
performed its function, could start to deflate before an object
intrudes through a windshield. It stated that in real world crashes, an
object can strike an occupant without encountering an inflated air bag.
Agency Response: We believe that the concerns raised by Advocates
and IIHS about how well FMVSS No. 208 would protect vehicle occupants
against injury from objects intruding through a windshield during a
crash would merit further discussion in the event further steps were
taken to rescind the standard. The agency is today deciding not to
proceed with rescinding FMVSS No. 219 based primarily on changes that
are likely to occur in the vehicle fleet. Should the agency consider
rescinding FMVSS No. 219 at a future time, we will address all
appropriate issues then.
D. Industry Burden
The Alliance supported the agency's tentative assessment in the
NPRM that FMVSS Nos. 208 and 113 adequately protect against windshield
intrusion, that FMVSS No. 219 is redundant, and that the standard
imposes an unnecessary burden on manufacturers. The Alliance commented
that it ``supports the agency's periodic review of its regulations and
standards * * * to assure that out of date or ineffective regulations
or standards are not creating needless compliance burdens.''
Advocates, IIHS, and Public Citizen/CAS stated that FMVSS No. 219
testing imposes little burden or cost on vehicle manufacturers. IIHS
stated that FMVSS No. 219 testing poses little additional compliance
test burden because this aspect of safety is addressed at the same time
as other flat barrier dynamic testing. Furthermore, IIHS commented that
``[M]aintaining the standard creates little additional work for the
agency or manufacturers.'' Advocates stated that ``any cost savings to
industry would be extremely small.'' Public Citizen/CAS commented that
FMVSS No. 219 ``places a minimal burden on the industry.''
Agency Response: We note that we clearly stated in the NPRM that
any cost savings resulting from the rescission of FMVSS No. 219 would
be so minimal that the savings cannot be calculated. We note that the
requirements of FMVSS No. 219 may be assessed during the FMVSS No. 208
crash test.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The full frontal barrier tests in FMVSS No. 208 are now
performed at 56 km/m (35 mph), which is a more severe test than that
specified in FMVSS No. 219.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2004, NHTSA published a technical report analyzing the
cost and weight added by different FMVSSs.\6\ This report concluded
that there was no attributable weight or cost associated with FMVSS No.
219. This conclusion relied on the results of a NHTSA report \7\ that
sampled twelve make-models pre-standard and post-standard. The report
found no measurable or determinable weight or cost per vehicle
associated with FMVSS No. 219.\8\ Based on the negligible cost to
industry to maintain and test to the performance requirements in FMVSS
No. 219, the agency has concluded that FMVSS No. 219 does not place an
unreasonable burden on industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Tarbet, M.J., Cost and Weight Added by the Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards for Model Years 1968-2001 in Passenger Cars
and Light Trucks. NHTSA Technical Report No. DOT HS 809 834:128
(2004).
\7\ McVetty, T.N., Cross, A.J., and Parr, L.W., Cost Evaluation
for Two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards--FMVSS 113 Hood
Latch--Passenger Cars--FMVSS 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion--
Passenger Cars. NHTSA Technical Report No. DOT HS 806 187:19-36
(1982).
\8\ We note that in that report, the agency stated that ``it is
conceivable that a more thorough teardown study including vehicles a
year or two before 1976 could have revealed costs of changes made in
anticipation of FMVSS No. 219, if there were any.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Possible Effect of FMVSS No. 219 Rescission on State Regulation
The Alliance said that NHTSA ``should confirm in the notice
publishing the final rule the conclusion that the safety need addressed
by FMVSS No. 219 is addressed sufficiently by the current versions of
FMVSS No. 208 and FMVSS No. 113, leaving no room for State regulation
of this aspect of vehicle performance.'' The NPRM had stated the
agency's tentative determination that if FMVSS No. 219 were rescinded,
States would be free to regulate the aspect of motor vehicle
performance that was regulated by the standard (73 FR at 38374).
Agency Response: Our action today to withdraw the July 7, 2008 NPRM
will not change the current relationship between FMVSS No. 219 and
State regulation of this aspect of vehicle performance.
IV. Agency Decision To Withdraw the Rulemaking
The agency has decided to withdraw this rulemaking. There are
relatively new considerations affecting vehicle design, specifically,
enhanced corporate average fuel economy standards, and global technical
regulations for vehicle hoods that will reduce the severity of injuries
sustained by pedestrians that are struck by vehicles. These
[[Page 71166]]
considerations are likely to stimulate the use of lighter or less stiff
materials in vehicles. In addition, we may begin to see new entrants
from foreign and domestic manufacturers that have less experience with
the FMVSS framework, in comparison to manufacturers that have long been
part of the U.S. market. Therefore, the agency has concluded that now
is not an appropriate time to rescind FMVSS No. 219. The agency will
continue to monitor changes in the vehicle fleet that may occur as a
result of these new design considerations and will continue its process
of regularly reviewing the existing safety standards, which will
include FMVSS No. 219.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162; delegations of authority at 49 CFR
1.95 and 501.8.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-28815 Filed 11-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P