[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 7, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17605-17618]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-7908]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0093]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Roof Crush Resistance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document responds to two petitions for reconsideration of
a May 12, 2009 final rule that upgraded the agency's safety standard on
roof crush resistance. The first petition requested the agency to
reconsider its decision to apply a lower roof strength-to-weight ratio
requirement to heavier light vehicles, i.e., ones with a gross vehicle
weight rating greater than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds), than to
other light vehicles. The second requested reconsideration of that
decision as well as the agency's decision not to adopt a dynamic
rollover test requirement as part of this rulemaking. After carefully
considering the petitions, we are denying them. This document also
responds to supplemental requests made by the petitioners.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call
Christopher J. Wiacek, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards,
telephone 202-366-4801. For legal issues, you may call J. Edward
Glancy, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, telephone 202-366-2992. You may
send mail to these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington,
DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
III. Today's Document and Related Actions
IV. Response to Petitions
A. Request That All Vehicles With a GVWR Not Greater Than 4,536
Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) Be Required To Meet a 3.0 SWR
1. May 2009 Final Rule Discussion
2. Overall Rationale for Request and Petitioners' Argument
Concerning Costs
3. Petitioners' Argument Concerning Equity
4. Consequences of Lower Roof Crush Protection for Heavier Light
Vehicles and Documentation From NTSB
5. Agency's Cost-Benefit Analysis
B. Request That Agency Adopt a Dynamic Testing Provision
[[Page 17606]]
1. May 2009 Final Rule Discussion
2. Overall Rationale for Request
3. Introduction to Response
4. Petitioner's Claim That Quasi-Static Test and Criteria Do Not
Reasonably Differentiate Between the Injury Risk of Compliant and
Non-Compliant Vehicles
5. Petitioner's Claim That JRS Test Device Has Been Available
for Two Years and Extensive Test Data Submissions Show It To Be
Reliable, Repeatable, Validated to Real World Injury Risk and
Accurate in Assessing Comparative Injury Potential Performance
C. Other Issues
I. Background
On May 12, 2009, as part of a comprehensive plan for reducing the
serious risk of rollover crashes and the risk of death and serious
injury in those crashes, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (74 FR
22348) a final rule \1\ substantially upgrading Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Docket No. NHTSA-2009-093.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, for the vehicles currently subject to the standard, i.e.,
passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses
with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 2,722 kilograms (6,000
pounds) or less, the rule doubled the amount of force the vehicle's
roof structure must withstand in the specified test, from 1.5 times the
vehicle's unloaded weight to 3.0 times the vehicle's unloaded weight.
We note that this value is sometimes referred to as the strength-to-
weight ratio (SWR), e.g., a SWR of 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and so forth.
Second, the rule extended the applicability of the standard so that
it will also apply to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 2,722 kilograms
(6,000 pounds), but not greater than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds).
The rule established a force requirement of 1.5 times the vehicle's
unloaded weight for these newly included vehicles.
Third, the rule required all of the above vehicles to meet the
specified force requirements in a two-sided test, instead of a single-
sided test, i.e., the same vehicle must meet the force requirements
when tested first on one side and then on the other side of the
vehicle. Fourth, the rule established a new requirement for maintenance
of headroom, i.e., survival space, during testing in addition to the
existing limit on the amount of roof crush. The rule also included a
number of special provisions, including ones related to leadtime, to
address the needs of multi-stage manufacturers, alterers, and small
volume manufacturers.
The rulemaking action to improve roof strength was part of our
comprehensive plan for addressing the serious problem of rollover
crashes. There are more than 10,000 fatalities in rollover crashes each
year. To address that problem, our comprehensive plan includes actions
to: (1) Reduce the occurrence of rollovers, (2) mitigate ejection, and
(3) enhance occupant protection when rollovers occur (improved roof
crush resistance is included in this third category). A more complete
discussion of our plan was included in the preamble to the May 2009
roof crush resistance final rule (74 FR 22348).
The roof crush final rule, by itself, addressed a relatively small
subset of that problem. Our analysis shows that of the more than 10,000
fatalities, roof strength is relevant to only about seven percent
(about 667) of those fatalities. We estimated that the May 2009 rule
will prevent 135 of those 667 fatalities.
The portions of our comprehensive plan that will have the highest
life-saving benefits are the ones to reduce the occurrence of rollovers
(prevention) and to mitigate ejection (occupant containment). We
estimate that by preventing rollovers, electronic stability control
(ESC) will reduce the more than 10,000 fatalities that occur in
rollover crashes each year by 4,200 to 5,500 fatalities (and also
provide significant additional life-saving benefits by preventing other
types of crashes). In the area of mitigating ejection, significant
life-benefits are and/or will occur by our continuing efforts to
increase seat belt use and our rulemaking on ejection mitigation. We
note that on December 2, 2009, we published in the Federal Register (74
FR 63180) a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish a new
safety standard to reduce the partial and complete ejection of vehicle
occupants through side windows in crashes, particularly rollover
crashes.
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
We received two petitions for reconsideration. One was jointly
submitted by Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Center for Auto
Safety, Consumer Federation of America and Ms. Joan Claybrook. We will
refer to these petitioners jointly as ``Advocates et al.'' in the rest
of this document. The other petition was submitted by the Center for
Injury Research (CfIR).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Petitions for reconsiderations are available in Docket No.
NHTSA-2009-093.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates et al. requested reconsideration of the agency's decision
to apply a lower SWR requirement to vehicles with a GVWR greater than
2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) than to lighter vehicles (1.5 SWR vs.
3.0 SWR).
These petitioners argued that NHTSA's overall rationale for the 1.5
SWR requirement is inadequate, and that the agency has a duty to
provide uniform, equal levels of safety protection to vehicle occupants
in all light vehicles without regard to distinctions based on what they
consider to be arbitrary factors such as vehicle weight. They
specifically argued that the agency did not establish any specific
standard for judging the reasonableness of the costs involved in
increasing the stringency of the SWR for vehicles greater than 2,722
kilograms (6,000 pounds).
Advocates et al. made a variety of additional arguments in support
of their request, including ones related to how the agency has
addressed reasonableness of costs in a prior rulemaking, a claim that
the consequences of inadequate roof protection for larger vehicles is
more severe than for light passenger vehicles, concerns about 15-
passenger vans, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
investigations and recommendations, and a claim that the agency's cost-
benefit analysis underestimates the number of lives that could be saved
by much stronger roofs.
CfIR asked us to reconsider the final rule with respect to the
lower SWR requirement for heavier light vehicles, and also with respect
to our decision not to adopt a dynamic test. That petitioner cited
three basic reasons for NHTSA to reconsider the final rule. First, it
argued that the quasi-static test and criteria does not reasonably
differentiate between the injury risk of compliant and non-compliant
vehicles. Second, CfIR argued that contrary to NHTSA assertions, the
Jordan Rollover System (JRS) dynamic test has been available for two
years and extensive data submissions show it to be reliable,
repeatable, validated to real world rollover injury risk and accurate
in assessing comparative injury potential performance. Third, CfIR
argued that drivers and passengers of heavier light vehicles up to
4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) GVWR deserve the same rollover
protection as occupants of vehicles with a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms
(6,000 pounds) or less. This petitioner argued that these heavier
vehicles are often less stable, occupants are more vulnerable and the
vehicles are used more frequently in off-road transportation.
In its petition, CfIR cited numerous submissions it had made to the
docket. This petitioner requested that the agency review the data
previously
[[Page 17607]]
submitted and summarized in its petition and consider the following
actions: adjust the rule to allow for an alternate dynamic compliance
test, propose and allow for an alternative dynamic test for the
agency's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) ratings, allow for non-
compliance or compliance exceptions based on submitted dynamic test
evidence, correct statements made by the agency regarding the JRS'
repeatability and reliability in testing a vehicle's dynamic
performance that the petitioner considers to be misleading and
inaccurate, and apply the same SWR for lighter vehicles to heavier
vehicles with passenger seating positions of three or more. CfIR also
claimed that the agency made errors with respect to the target
population used to identify benefits and in addressing the effect of
roof racks on the strength of the roof.
In September 2009, CfIR submitted a document it called a
``supplement'' to its petition for reconsideration. It attached a
document discussing JRS test results which it said indicate that an SWR
of 4.1 is required to minimize roof crush injury potential. CfIR stated
that it requested reconsideration of JRS dynamic testing for the final
rule for two reasons: (1) Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's \3\
(IIHS) SWR of 4 or greater has gained industry acceptance and timely
voluntary compliance, and (2) the JRS test fixture accurately measures
post crash negative headroom and can assess the injury potential of
occupant protection systems. It stated that its supplement requests
further (1) raising the static test criteria to the dynamically derived
SWR criteria of 4, and (2) initiating a dynamic rollover
crashworthiness NCAP program using the JRS fixture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In March 2009, the IIHS launched a new roof strength rating
system. According to the IIHS, a metal plate is pushed against one
side of a roof at a constant speed. To earn a good rating, the roof
must withstand a force of 4 times the vehicle's weight before
reaching 5 inches of crush. This is called a strength-to-weight
ratio. For an acceptable rating, the minimum required strength-to-
weight ratio is 3.25. A marginal rating value is 2.5. Anything lower
than that is poor. http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr032409.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CfIR also provided the agency a copy of a document titled
``Scientific Review & Evaluation of the Jordan Rollover System (JRS)
Impact Crash Test Device.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Available in Docket No. NHTSA-2009-093.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Today's Document and Related Actions
In this document, we provide our response to the petitions for
reconsideration of the May 2009 final rule upgrading FMVSS No. 216.
We are also publishing two separate documents related to the May
2009 final rule. One is a fuller response to comments submitted by NTEA
on our proposal to upgrade FMVSS No. 216. The other is a correcting
rule. The correcting rule incorporates a provision that was discussed
in the preamble but inadvertently omitted from the regulatory text. As
explained in the preamble, the agency decided to exclude a narrow
category of multi-stage vehicles from FMVSS No. 216 altogether, multi-
stage trucks with a GVWR greater than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds)
not built on either a chassis cab or an incomplete vehicle with a full
exterior van body. The regulatory text inadvertently omitted the
reference to incomplete vehicles with a full exterior van body.
IV. Response to Petitions
After carefully considering the two petitions, we have decided to
deny them. The reasons for our denial are set forth below. Our
discussion is divided into two main sections, one addressing issues
related to the lower SWR requirement for heavier light vehicles and the
other addressing issues related to our decision to adopt a quasi-static
test requirement.
A. Request That All Vehicles With a GVWR Not Greater Than 4,536
Kilograms (10,000 pounds) Be Required To Meet a 3.0 SWR
1. May 2009 Final Rule Discussion
In our May 2009 final rule, we adopted an SWR requirement of 3.0
for vehicles with a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less, and
1.5 for vehicles with a GVWR greater than 2,722 kilograms (6,000
pounds) and less than or equal to 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds).
In the preamble to that document, we explained that while the
rulemaking involved a number of key decisions, the selection of an SWR
requirement was the most important one for both costs and benefits. We
note that our analysis, presented in detail in the Final Regulatory
Impact Analysis (FRIA), showed that for the alternatives we evaluated,
benefits in terms of reduced fatalities continued to rise with higher
SWR levels due to reduced intrusion. For vehicles designed to have
higher SWR levels, the benefits continued to rise because the vehicle
roofs experience less intrusion in higher severity crashes. We
explained further, however, that costs also increase substantially with
higher SWR levels, so NHTSA needed to select the appropriate balance of
safety benefits to added costs.
We explained that under the Safety Act, NHTSA must issue safety
standards that are both practicable and meet the need for motor vehicle
safety. 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30111(a). The agency considers economic
factors, including costs, as part of ensuring that standards are
reasonable, practicable, and appropriate.
In Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm, 463 U.S.
29, 54-55 (1983), the Supreme Court indicated that the agency was
correct, in making its decisions about safety standards, to consider
reasonableness of monetary and other costs associated with the
standards. With respect to the agency's future revisiting of its
earlier conclusion that the cost of detachable automatic seat belts was
unreasonable in relation to the expected benefits from such belts, the
Court stated, however, that ``(i)n reaching its judgment, NHTSA should
bear in mind that Congress intended safety to be the preeminent factor
under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act:''
``The Committee intends that safety shall be the overriding
consideration in the issuance of standards under this bill. The
Committee recognizes * * * that the Secretary will necessarily
consider reasonableness of cost, feasibility and adequate
leadtime.'' S.Rep. No. 1301, at 6, U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News
1966, p. 2714.
``In establishing standards the Secretary must conform to the
requirement that the standard be practicable. This would require
consideration of all relevant factors, including technological
ability to achieve the goal of a particular standard as well as
consideration of economic factors. Motor vehicle safety is the
paramount purpose of this bill and each standard must be related
thereto.'' H.Rep. No. 1776, at 16.
We explained that, in making our decision concerning SWR, we were
guided by the statutory language, legislative history, and the Supreme
Court's construction of the Safety Act, as well as by the specific
requirement in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) for us to
upgrade FMVSS No. 216 relating to roof strength for driver and
passenger sides for motor vehicles with a GVWR of not more than 4,536
kilograms (10,000 pounds). We explained that we considered both costs
and benefits, bearing in mind that Congress intended safety to be the
preeminent factor under the Safety Act.
As indicated above, our analysis showed that while benefits
continued to rise with higher SWR levels, costs also increase
substantially. We explained that the challenge was to push to a level
where the safety benefits are still reasonable in relation to the
associated costs. We explained further that, as part
[[Page 17608]]
of this, we considered issues related to cost effectiveness. We noted
that the agency's analysis of cost effectiveness was presented in the
FRIA and summarized in the preamble.
We also explained that another important factor in the selection of
the SWR requirements was that there are much higher costs relative to
benefits associated with any level SWR requirement for vehicles with a
GVWR greater than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) as compared to the
lighter vehicles that were already subject to the standard.
We noted that there are a number of reasons for this differential
between heavier and lighter vehicles. The absolute strength needed to
meet a specific SWR is a function of the vehicle's unloaded weight. By
way of example, to meet a 2.0 SWR, an unloaded vehicle that weighs
1,360 kilograms (3,000 pounds) must have a roof structure capable of
withstanding 26,690 N (6,000 pounds) of force, while an unloaded
vehicle that weighs 2,268 kilograms (5,000 pounds) must have a roof
structure capable of withstanding 44,482 N (10,000 pounds) of force.
This means more structure or reinforcement are needed for the heavier
vehicle, which means more cost and weight. Moreover, vehicles in the
heavier category have not previously been subject to FMVSS No. 216, so
they have not been required to meet the existing 1.5 SWR single-sided
requirement.
We also noted that, at the same time, these heavier vehicles
account for only a very small part of the target population of
occupants who might benefit from improved roof strength. Only 5 percent
of the fatalities in the overall target population (33 in terms of a
specific number) occur in vehicles over 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds)
GVWR. Ninety-five percent of the fatalities (635 in terms of a specific
number) occur in vehicles under 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) GVWR.
These differences reflect the fact that there are far fewer vehicles in
this category in the on-road fleet, and may reflect their frequency of
use as working vehicles.
We stated that we recognized the argument that all light vehicles
should meet the same SWR requirements, to ensure the same minimum level
of protection in a rollover crash. We explained, however, that in
selecting particular requirements for a final rule, we believed that
our focus needed to be on saving lives while also considering costs and
relative risk. We stated (74 FR 22360):
What is necessary to meet the need for safety and is practicable
for one type or size of vehicle may not be necessary or reasonable,
practicable and appropriate for another type or size of vehicle.
Thus, to the extent the goal of establishing the same SWR
requirements for all light vehicles would have the effect of either
unnecessarily reducing the number of lives saved in lighter vehicles
or imposing substantially higher, unreasonable costs on heavier
vehicles despite their lesser relative risk, we believe it is
appropriate to adopt different requirements for different vehicles.
We also observe that because the same SWR requirement is
significantly more stringent for heavier vehicles than lighter
vehicles (due to SWR being a multiple of unloaded vehicle weight),
establishing the same SWR requirement for heavier vehicles is not
simply a matter of expecting manufacturers to provide the same
countermeasures as they do for light vehicles.
We included specific explanations as to why we adopted a 3.0 SWR
requirement for vehicles with a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds)
or less and a 1.5 SWR requirement for vehicles with a GVWR greater than
2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds).
While we will not repeat all of the details of the reasons we
provided for our decision concerning the 3.0 SWR required for vehicles
with a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less, we noted that an
SWR requirement of 3.0 prevented about 66 percent more fatalities than
one at 2.5, 133 instead of 80. However, costs increased by a
considerably higher percentage, resulting in a less favorable cost per
equivalent life saved, $5.7 million to $8.5 million for 3.0 SWR as
compared to $3.8 million to $7.2 million for 2.5 SWR. We explained that
in these particular circumstances, we believed that a 3.0 SWR
requirement was appropriate and the costs reasonable given the
increased benefits. We explained that while the cost per equivalent
life saved was relatively high compared to other NHTSA rulemakings, we
concluded that the higher safety benefits, the legislative mandate for
an upgrade, the technical feasibility of making roofs this strong, and
the fact that these costs were generally within the range of accepted
values justified moving NHTSA's roof crush standards to a 3.0 SWR for
vehicles that have been subject to the 1.5 SWR requirements.
As to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 2,722 kilograms (6,000
pounds), we noted that these vehicles are not currently subject to
FMVSS No. 216 and, because of their greater unloaded vehicle weight,
these vehicles posed greater design challenges. These heavier vehicles
also tend to have greater variations in packaging options (4-wheel
drive, extended/crew cabs, engine size, etc.) which span a larger range
of unloaded vehicle weights for a given body design. In response to the
NPRM, vehicle manufacturers noted that to minimize their manufacturing
tooling costs, they would need to design their roof strength
performance to the worst-case weight for a given model line. We also
noted that given the relatively small target population for these
vehicles, the benefits will necessarily be small regardless of the SWR
selected.
We explained that after considering our original proposal of a SWR
of 2.5 and the available information, we concluded that a SWR of 1.5
was appropriate for these heavier vehicles. We noted that the
requirement we were adopting is more stringent than the longstanding
requirement that has applied to lighter vehicles until this rulemaking
because it is a two-sided requirement. The FRIA estimated that two
fatalities and 46 nonfatal injuries will be prevented annually by this
requirement. We stated that because of the high cost relative to the
benefits for all of the alternatives for these heavier vehicles, from
the 1.5 SWR alternative and above, any alternative we select would
adversely affect the overall cost effectiveness of this rulemaking
(covering all light vehicles).
We stated that we believed that a SWR of 1.5 is appropriate for
these heavier vehicles. We stated that given the requirements of
SAFETEA-LU, we needed to ensure that the standard results in improved
real world roof crush resistance for these vehicles. We declined,
however, to adopt a SWR higher than 1.5 for vehicles with a GVWR
greater than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds), given the small additional
benefits (4 additional lives saved and 137 nonfatal injuries prevented)
and substantially higher costs. We explained that adopting a SWR of 2.0
for these vehicles would more than double the costs of the rule for
these vehicles.
2. Overall Rationale for Request and Petitioners' Argument Concerning
Costs
In their petition for reconsideration, Advocates et al. argued that
the agency's rationale for a SWR of 1.5 for heavier light vehicles is
inadequate. While they conceded that cost burdens are a consideration
to be taken into account, these petitioners claimed that the agency had
unwarrantedly elevated cost considerations above the need to secure
substantial increases in benefits for people involved in rollover
crashes in light vehicles above 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) GVWR.
While the petitioners acknowledged the agency's discussion of the
Supreme Court's decision in Motor Vehicle
[[Page 17609]]
Manufacturers Association v. State Farm, they argued that NHTSA did not
establish any specific standard for judging the reasonableness of costs
involved in increasing the stringency of the SWR for vehicles greater
than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds). They stated that the point at
issue, whether the costs are reasonable with respect to higher SWR
levels for these vehicles, was not independently established by an
appeal to any specific, recognized test that the agency sets forth for
objective assessment of ``what costs are tolerable for gaining
additional safety benefits.''
While we believe that the basis for our decision concerning SWR was
adequately presented and explained in the final rule, we will provide a
more detailed discussion in responding to the petitions for
reconsideration.
We begin by elaborating on our earlier discussion of the Supreme
Court's statement in State Farm that safety is the pre-eminent factor
in vehicle safety rulemaking. We note that neither the Court nor the
passages of legislative history it quoted suggested that the pre-
eminence of safety considerations leaves no significant role for other
considerations to influence rulemaking decisions. The Court's opinion,
as well as each of the two passages of legislative history, all
emphasize that it is necessary and appropriate to consider costs as
well as other non-safety factors, in making those decisions. We take
the pre-eminence of safety to mean that strict considerations of
economic efficiency do not govern vehicle safety rulemaking. We do not,
however, understand it to mean that we must establish requirements
whose benefits are mathematically significantly disproportionate to
their costs, especially when the costs are large in absolute terms.
As to the suggestion that we establish a specific numerical test
for determining whether costs are reasonable in relation to likely
benefits and apply it across the board to particular rulemakings,
regardless of their individual circumstances, we decline to do so.
Adoption of a formulaic calculus of decisionmaking would preclude a
careful, fact-based assessing and weighing of competing considerations.
We must consider all relevant factors in the context of the facts in
any particular rulemaking, and therefore cannot consider safety in
isolation or without due regard to those other factors.
We can, however, identify the types of facts that lead us to give
careful scrutiny to reasonableness of costs in a rulemaking, and which
lead us to place increased weight on this factor as we consider all
other relevant factors in reaching a particular decision. Specifically,
we give scrutiny to the issue of reasonableness of costs in rulemakings
where our analyses indicate that either the overall rulemaking, or a
significant portion of the rulemaking, is borderline with respect to
whether it is cost beneficial, i.e., whether the benefits of the
rulemaking exceed the costs. Moreover, in situations where either the
overall rulemaking or a significant portion of the rulemaking appears
likely to result in net disbenefits, i.e., net losses, our scrutiny
increases as the size of the potential net disbenefits increases, and
the weight we accordingly place on this factor increases.
The agency did weigh the competing considerations and relevant
factors for this rule. Although Advocates et al. argue that the agency
merely cited the fact that there are increased costs, the agency
presented detailed cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost analyses in its
FRIA for the roof crush resistance final rule and summarized those
analyses in the preamble. Among other items, these analyses looked at
the number of fatalities that the rule would prevent. In fact, in the
FRIA, NHTSA published a table summarizing costs and benefits for
various SWR alternatives (1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5). The agency also
considered one-sided and two-sided tests. See FRIA, pp. 125-134. Based
on the analysis of the alternatives in the FRIA and after considering
the comments received, the agency changed the SWR requirement from that
included in the proposal. In the NPRM, the agency included a 2.5 SWR,
one-sided requirement for all vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms
(10,000 pounds) or less. While the agency lowered the SWR requirement,
as compared to the NPRM, to 1.5 for the heavier light vehicles in the
final rule, the agency actually raised the SWR to 3.0 for vehicles with
a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less. This was done, in
part, because doing so would prevent significantly more fatalities.
In an effort to respond to the petition of Advocates et al., the
agency is including a recitation of how the agency came to its
conclusions relating to the change in SWR. As with any rule, the
estimates of cost effectiveness rely on a number of important inputs
and calculations.\5\ For example, the cost effectiveness of the rule
was estimated for each alternative using both 3% and 7% discount rates.
The net benefits for each alternative represent the difference between
total costs and the total monetary value of benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ It is important to note that many benefit and cost
calculations changed between publication of the PRIA and FRIA. These
changes are detailed in the FRIA. For example, the agency's inputs
changed due to the increased use of electronic stability control and
for increased seat belt use. The agency also made adjustments to
calculations of costs. For example, the agency's cost inputs changed
because the agency received more information concerning vehicle
weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to calculate net benefits, it is necessary to use a value
per statistical life saved (VSL). Guidance from the Office of the
Secretary of Transportation (OST) specifies a value of $5.8 million,
with recommendations that values of $3.2 million and $8.4 million also
be considered to account for uncertainty. We note that this guidance is
available on the OST Web site.\6\ We also note that the value of $5.8
million was adopted in February 2008 and represented an increase from
an earlier value of $3.0 million that had been adopted in January 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/reports/080205.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The monetary value of benefits used by NHTSA also included $300,000
in economic costs prevented. Thus, for our primary estimates, the
monetary value of benefits was estimated by assigning a value of $6.1
million to each equivalent fatality prevented.
The FRIA includes cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost analyses for
various alternatives considered by the agency. As noted in the
preamble, nearly all alternatives covering vehicles from 2,723 and
4,536 kilograms (6,001 and 10,000 pounds) GVWR yield net losses rather
than net savings to society. The agency's specific estimates of net
benefits for two-sided test requirements with alternative SWRs are
presented in the following table.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Table VII-4 of the FRIA. We note that NHTSA identified
minor errors in Table VII-4. The agency is placing a corrected table
in the docket. The numbers presented in this document are the
corrected numbers.
Net Benefits; Vehicles > 2,722 Kilograms (6,000 Pounds); 2-Sided Tests;
$5.8 Million VSL*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SWR alternative Net benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.5................................... $55 million to $180 million.
2.0................................... $123 million to $547 million.
2.5................................... $590 million to $1,189 million.
3.0................................... $1,280 million to $2,136
million.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Based on $5.8 million VSL plus $300,000 economic costs.
This table shows that for light vehicles with a GVWR greater than
[[Page 17610]]
2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds), all of these alternative SWRs,
including the one we adopted, result in net losses to society, and also
that net losses increase by a substantial amount at each higher
alternative. For example, it is clear that going successively to each
alternative above 1.5 can result in additional hundreds of millions of
dollars of net losses. The net losses from the 3.0 SWR alternative, the
one advocated by the petitioners, would be well in excess of a billion
dollars.
We also note that consideration of uncertainties related to VSL
does not significantly affect these numbers. The net losses are
slightly higher using a VSL of $3.2 million and slightly lower using a
VSL of $8.4 million. See Tables VII-5 and VII-6 of the FRIA. However,
even using a VSL of $8.4 million, the net losses are $50 million to
$174 million for an SWR of 1.5 and $101 million to $524 million for an
SWR of 2.0, and continue to rise substantially for higher SWRs.
The FRIA presents cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost analyses in a
number of different ways, including calculations of cost per equivalent
life saved for different alternatives. The cost per equivalent life
saved for all of the alternatives identified in the table above is well
above the range of plausible VSL, i.e., the range where they would be
considered cost-beneficial. See Table VII-3 of the FRIA. We note that,
while well above this range, the cost per equivalent life saved is
slightly less disfavorable for a 2.0 SWR than a 1.5 SWR ($18.8 million
to $72.0 million vs. $27.9 million to $90.3 million). However, given
the small number of additional benefits and the substantially higher
costs associated with the 2.0 SWR alternative, the net losses for this
alternative are substantially higher than for the 1.5 SWR alternative
($123 million to $547 million vs. $55 million to $180 million). The
cost per equivalent life saved for an SWR of 3.0 would be $88.4 million
to $140.0 million.
NHTSA and other agencies evaluate cost-effectiveness and benefit-
cost analyses as part of ensuring that they and the public are fully
aware of the consequences of their rulemaking decisions. Societies have
limited resources and many alternative ways of using those resources,
including many alternative ways of reducing risks. To the extent that
various regulatory alternatives result in increasingly high costs to
achieve limited safety benefits and net losses to society rather than
net benefits, they raise the issue of whether those societal resources
could better be used elsewhere, especially when the net losses are
substantial. While NHTSA has always placed primary importance on safety
benefits, it has never considered safety without regard to cost
implications.
In our May 2009 final rule, we adopted a SWR of 1.5 for the heavier
light vehicles despite the fact that, at this level, our analyses
showed that there would be net losses to society. The reasons for this
are cited above. We declined, however, to adopt a SWR higher than 1.5
for vehicles with a GVWR greater than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds).
As we stated in the FRIA, ``the cost/equivalent fatality for vehicles
over 6,000 lbs. GVWR is roughly 12-16 times that for the lighter
vehicles at any given SWR.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ FRIA at p. 120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The costs of the rule for these vehicles are substantial at 1.5
SWR, i.e., $70.9 million to $195.0 million, and would increase to
$182.3 million to $605.9 million for an SWR of 2.0. See Table VII-2 of
the FRIA. Moreover, as noted above, given the small number of
additional benefits and the substantially higher costs associated with
the 2.0 SWR alternative, the net losses to society for this portion of
the rulemaking would increase from the range of $55 million to $180
million for the 1.5 SWR alternative to the range of $123 million to
$547 million for the 2.0 SWR alternative. Also, the increased net
losses for still higher SWRs would be very substantial, e.g., well in
excess of a billion dollars for SWR of 3.0. Given the small number of
additional benefits, the magnitude of the net losses to society, and
given how far outside the range of cost per equivalent life that would
ordinarily be considered to be cost-beneficial, we believe our decision
not to adopt an SWR higher than 1.5 for these vehicles is reasonable,
and we do not accept these petitioners' argument that the agency
unwarrantedly elevated cost considerations above safety.
Advocates et al. also claimed that NHTSA had previously reached a
significantly different result in similar circumstances, citing the
agency's 1995 rule amending FMVSS No. 201, Occupant Protection in
Interior Impact, to require light vehicles to provide protection when
an occupant's head strikes upper interior components. They specifically
cited the agency's decision to include components in the rear seating
area of light trucks and vans (LTVs), despite a great disparity in the
costs per equivalent life saved between preventing fatalities in front
seat areas and preventing fatalities in rear seat areas, and despite a
very high cost per equivalent life saved for the latter areas.
As indicated earlier, we decline to define or otherwise adopt any
specific numerical test related to costs and benefits as determinative
as to whether costs are reasonable or not. We instead consider all
relevant factors in any particular rulemaking, and do not consider this
factor in isolation. Moreover, NHTSA rulemakings where either the
overall rulemaking or a signification portion of the rulemaking is
borderline with respect to whether the benefits exceed the costs or
where there may appear to be net disbenefits are rare. For these
reasons, and in light of the unique nature of the issues involved in
such rulemakings, we do not consider the specific decisions we reach in
one of these rulemakings to be directly comparable to other
rulemakings. We note that while the overall FMVSS No. 201 rulemaking
was highly cost-beneficial, the overall FMVSS No. 216 rulemaking is
not.\9\ We also note that the agency decided in the former rulemaking
that coverage of the rear seat areas was particularly necessary because
children are disproportionately likely to be seated in the rear,
instead of the front, seating area and would be subject to head
injuries unless the rear seating areas were included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Adjusted to 2007 economics, the cost per equivalent life
saved for the overall FMVSS No. 201 rulemaking was $1.1 million to
$1.3 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Petitioners' Argument Concerning Equity
Advocates et al. made arguments related to equity. They claimed
that it is inequitable to those who travel in large vans and large
sport utility vehicles (SUVs) for those vehicles to be subject to a
lower standard for roof crush resistance safety. They noted that the
agency proposed an SWR of 2.5 for all light vehicles, and the
petitioners claimed that the agency ``reneged on the need to provide
equal safety for all light motor vehicle occupants in the final rule.''
CfIR argued that drivers and passengers of light trucks, SUVs and vans
to 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) GVWR deserve the same rollover
protection as occupants of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) GVWR
vehicles. It stated that trucks, SUVs and vans which accommodate four
to 15 passengers are primarily used by commercial operators, schools,
social groups, and non-profit entities.
In responding to these arguments, we note that we explained in the
final rule preamble that while we recognized the argument that all
light vehicles should meet the same SWR requirements, to ensure the
same minimum level of
[[Page 17611]]
protection in a rollover crash, we believed in selecting particular
requirements for a final rule that our focus needed to be on saving
lives while also considering costs and relative risk. We stated that
what is necessary to meet the need for safety and is practicable for
one type or size of vehicle may not be necessary or reasonable,
practicable and appropriate for another type or size of vehicle.
We explained further that, to the extent the goal of establishing
the same SWR requirements for all light vehicles would have the effect
of either unnecessarily reducing the number of lives saved in lighter
vehicles or imposing substantially higher, unreasonable costs on
heavier vehicles despite their lesser relative risk, we believed it was
appropriate to adopt different requirements for different vehicles.
NHTSA considers all relevant factors, including, where appropriate,
special concerns. As noted above, in a FMVSS No. 201 rulemaking, the
agency decided that it was particularly necessary to protect children,
who are often seated in the rear and who would be susceptible to head
injuries unless the rear seating areas were included.
The agency has never, however, adopted a position that identical
safety requirements should apply to all light vehicles or at all
seating positions regardless of considerations such as relative risks
and costs. The Vehicle Safety Act requires us to issue standards that
meet the need for motor vehicle safety. For any given aspect of vehicle
safety performance, the need for motor vehicle safety, which is defined
in the Act in terms of unreasonable risk, varies by type and size/
weight of vehicle, as well as by other factors. Given those differences
in risk, the type and level of regulation that is reasonable,
practicable and appropriate for one vehicle type may differ from that
for another vehicle type. Moreover, we believe that adopting an
inflexible position of identical requirements regardless of the
particular circumstances would be contrary to public safety. Such a
position, in combination with the fact that often some light vehicles
have greater compliance difficulties than other light vehicles and thus
might not be able to achieve as high a level of performance as those
other vehicles, could force the adoption of lower, less protective
requirements for all light vehicles.
Given these considerations, we do not accept the petitioners'
arguments concerning equity.
4. Consequences of Lower Roof Crush Protection for Heavier Light
Vehicles and Documentation From NTSB
Advocates et al. argued that the consequences of what they term
inadequate roof crush protection for large light truck and van
occupants are more severe than for light passenger vehicles. They also
argued that NTSB comments, investigations, and recommendations document
the serious occupant risks of death and injury in large van rollover
crashes.
The petitioners stated that the greater weight of the heavier
vehicle places higher loads on the roof and roof supports during a
rollover. They also stated that certain heavier passenger vehicles will
be even more inadequately protected from intrusive roof crush in
rollover crashes than lighter passenger vehicles because they have long
roofs and multi-row seating, especially 8-occupant large SUVs, and 12-
and 15-passenger vans. They stated that the specified test requirements
do not test the crush resistance of C-, D- and E- pillars of heavier,
longer passenger vehicles.
Advocates et al. also noted that NHTSA has published repeated
advisories and research analyses warning of the very high rollover
propensity of 15-passenger vans. They stated in its latest research
note, titled Fatalities to Occupants of 15-Passenger Vans, 2003-
2007,\10\ NHTSA stressed that ``15-passenger vans with 10 or more
occupants had a rollover rate in single vehicle crashes that is nearly
three times the rate of those that had fewer than five occupants.''
They also noted that the research report indicated that, in 2007,
fatalities of occupants of 15-passenger vans increased nearly 20
percent from the previous year, as well as other data from that report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Fatalities to Occupants of 15-Passenger Vans, 2003-2007,
Traffic Safety Facts: Research Note, DOT HS 811 143, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, May 2009, at page 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners stated that NTSB also emphasized the need for much
stronger roofs in heavy passenger vans both in its accident reports and
in its comments filed with NHTSA rulemaking dockets on passenger
vehicle roof crush resistance. Advocates et al. stated that in
commenting on NHTSA's NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 216, NTSB pointed out
that heavier vehicles such as 12- and 15-passenger vans, not subjected
to the roof strength standard, were experiencing patterns of roof
intrusion greater than vehicles already subject to the requirements and
cited two investigations it conducted concerning the safety need for
vehicles between 2,722 and 4,536 kilograms (6,000 and 10,000 pounds)
GVWR to meet roof crush resistance requirements. These petitioners
included a discussion of these investigations, and asserted that
NHTSA's roof crush final rule does not fulfill NTSB recommendations for
vans and heavier vehicles.
In reaching its decision on the roof crush final rule, NHTSA
carefully considered the consequences of alternative SWR requirements
for the heavier light vehicles. As discussed above, as part of this,
the agency conducted a detailed analysis of the benefits and costs at
alternative SWR levels, which is presented in detail in the agency's
FRIA. Among other things, the agency conducted a detailed analysis of
the target population of occupants who would be likely to benefit from
a stronger roof due to an upgrade of FMVSS No. 216, and how they would
benefit from stronger roofs meeting alternative SWR level requirements.
While we adopted, for reasons discussed in the final rule preamble
(and also discussed above), a lower SWR level for the heavier light
vehicles than for ones with a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) or
less, the 1.5 SWR requirement we adopted is more stringent than the
longstanding requirement that has applied to lighter vehicles until
this rulemaking. The standard now requires a two-sided test. We also
note that since the amount of force that a vehicle's roof must
withstand in the specified test is a multiple of the vehicle's unloaded
weight, e.g., 1.5 times the unloaded weight of the vehicle, the amount
of force that is applied to a vehicle's roof is higher for heavier
vehicles than lighter vehicles at any constant SWR.
Advocates et al. raised specific issues concerning the safety of
larger passenger vans. We note that, as discussed in the May 2009
research note \11\ they cited, and in documents referenced by that
note, NHTSA developed a specific action plan for 15-passenger van
safety. In September 2003, the agency published the NHTSA Action Plan
for 15-Passenger Van Safety. It described a number of research
programs, consumer information activities and potential regulatory
actions with which NHTSA intended to address the safety of 15-passenger
van users. The plan was updated in November 2004 and the most recent
update to the plan was
[[Page 17612]]
prepared in April 2008.\12\ The action plan is discussed at pp. 4 to 5
of the referenced May 2009 research note.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The research note available on NHTSA's Web site at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811143.PDF.
\12\ This update is available on NHTSA's Web site at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/studies/15PassVans/VAP_rev1_2008.pdf.
\13\ We note that there is some overlap between the actions in
the agency's action plan for 15-passenger van safety and its
comprehensive plan for addressing the serious problem of rollover
crashes, discussed earlier in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupant protection for 12- and 15-passenger van continues to be an
agency priority and, as a result of the agency's rulemaking to upgrade
FMVSS No. 216, these vehicles will for the first time be required to
comply with FMVSS No. 216. The May 2009 research note indicated that
fatalities, both total and in vans that rolled over, have been on a
declining trend since 2001. As noted by the petitioner, there was an
increase in 2007; however, we expect that the safety benefits that will
occur as a result of new regulatory requirements adopted in connection
with the agency's action plan for 15-passenger van safety and its
comprehensive plan to address the serious problem of rollover crashes
will increase over time as the new requirements are phased in and as an
increasing percentage of the on-road fleet meet these requirements.
As part of our rulemaking to upgrade FMVSS No. 216, we considered
the comments and recommendation of the NTSB. In the final rule, we
indicated that the rule would address the NTSB's recommendation H-03-
16, to include 12- and 15-passenger vans in FMVSS No. 216, to minimize
the extent to which survivable space is compromised in the event of a
rollover accident. We plan to consult further with NTSB about its
recommendation. We note that the petitioners have not provided any
information that would lead us to change our view that the rule
addresses that NTSB recommendation.
In its petition, CFiR also requested the agency to adopt a higher
SWR for the heavier light vehicles with passenger seating positions of
three or more. CfIR stated that these vehicles are often less stable,
occupants are more vulnerable, and the vehicles are used more
frequently in off-road transportation. As part of analyzing the target
population of occupants who would be likely to benefit from a stronger
roof due to an upgrade of FMVSS No. 216, the agency has already
accounted for issues related to the stability of these vehicles and
vulnerability of their occupants. Historically, vehicles with a GVWR
between 2,723 and 4,536 kilograms (6,001 and 10,000 pounds) comprise
approximately 20 percent of the fleet with over 90 percent of these
heavy vehicles allowing for three or more seating positions.\14\ As to
the issue of more frequent off-road use, we note that the relevant
agency sources would not collect data for crashes that happen during
off-road transportation such as at work sites. However, CfIR has not
provided any supporting information relating to its claim that the
vehicles are used more frequently in off-road transportation, or that
there are any significant number of rollover crashes that would
meaningfully affect the target population used by the agency for its
analysis of benefits and costs. We therefore do not accept this
argument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ According to the 2007 model year Polk Automotive vehicle
registration data, standard cab pickup trucks with one row of
seating and at least two designated seating positions account for
approximately 10 percent of all vehicles registered with a GVWR
between 2,723 and 4,536 kilograms (6,001 and 10,000 pounds).
Extended cab pickup trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles that
have the capacity to seat three or more occupants account for the
remaining registrations in this vehicle weight class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Agency's Cost-Benefit Analysis
Advocates et al. argued that NHTSA's cost-benefit analysis
underestimates the number of lives that could be saved by much stronger
roofs. They cited benefits estimates submitted by the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) in a March 2008 comment and in a
subsequent publication. These petitioners stated that in that
publication IIHS claimed that NHTSA underestimated roof strength
improvement benefits due to the agency's mistaken belief that there
will be no benefits for unbelted occupants or those occupants who risk
ejection. They also said that IIHS provided much higher estimates of
benefits than NHTSA.
Advocates et al. claimed that the agency failed to discuss or
respond to the initial IIHS benefits estimate in the final rule. They
claimed that while the agency engaged in ``a highly detailed, extensive
evaluation in the FRIA of the strengths and weaknesses of the study
attached by IIHS to its docket comments,'' the agency failed in this
supporting document to evaluate the benefits claims proffered by IIHS.
The petitioners stated that the central point of the IIHS submission to
the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) docket was to
emphasize that the agency had dramatically underestimated the benefits
of adopting a stronger fleet-wide FMVSS No. 216. Advocates et al.
claimed that NHTSA ignored the merits of the IIHS benefits analysis
``notwithstanding the internal debate set forth in the FRIA over some
aspects of the methodology and data selected by IIHS in conducting its
study.''
NHTSA does not accept the claim of these petitioners that the
agency ignored the merits of the IIHS benefits analysis. We begin by
emphasizing that NHTSA's decision is based in significant part on the
agency's Final Regulatory Impact Analysis. In section VII of the
preamble to the final rule, titled Costs and Benefits, we explained
that ``(t)he agency addresses the comments concerning its analysis of
costs and benefits in detail in the FRIA.'' 74 FR 22377. We also noted
that, in the final rule preamble, we summarized the agency's estimates
of costs and benefits and discussed the comments concerning target
population and roof crush as a cause of injury.
In the FRIA, the agency provided a detailed 5-page discussion of
the various IIHS studies, including both their methodology and
conclusions (see pages 47-51). This discussion addressed the IIHS
submissions from March 2008, May 2008, and February 2009, representing
the most recent IIHS research submitted prior to publication of the
final rule in May 2009. This same discussion also addressed comments by
JP Research, which submitted its own evaluation of the IIHS study, and
argued that there were significant flaws in its methodology.
NHTSA's discussion in the FRIA showed the limitations of the IIHS
methodology and showed that its conclusions regarding ejections and
belt use are not supported by the data. This discussion was not, as
Advocates et al. suggest, an ``internal debate'' but an evaluation of
the merits of the IIHS study and its findings. The FRIA also described
the agency's own study, which applied previously peer-reviewed methods
specifically to ejections and unbelted occupants, and which
contradicted the IIHS studies. Given these considerations, the agency
did not accept the benefit estimates provided by IIHS. The relevant
issues concerning estimated benefits are addressed in much greater
detail in Chapter IV of the FRIA.
Advocates et al. did not address any of the detailed criticisms of
the IIHS analyses discussed by NHTSA in the FRIA, but simply claimed in
its petition that the agency had ignored the merits of the IIHS study.
Given the above discussion, we do not accept that claim.
Advocates also criticized the agency's adjustment of future target
populations to reflect the required installation of electronic
stability control (ESC) in all passenger vehicles. Advocates stated
that the agency has only projected safety benefits as the fleet
gradually is
[[Page 17613]]
equipped with ESC, including large vans, but no actual crash data
specifically verifying that rollovers have been reduced in large vans
as a direct result of ESC.
The analysis presented by NHTSA in the FRIA reflects a projection
of annual impacts that will occur when the entire vehicle fleet has
been designed to include both ESC and stronger roofs, not the impacts
to today's on-road fleet. In numerous studies as well as in vehicle
tests, ESC has been shown to significantly reduce rollover crashes in
passenger vehicles. During the course of the ESC rulemaking, when
projecting the costs and benefits of ESC, NHTSA used effectiveness
estimates based on sound, peer reviewed statistical studies to project
the benefits of ESC in all passenger vehicles, including large vans. We
note that in comments concerning the PRIA for ESC, Advocates
acknowledged that the installation of ESC would impact the FMVSS No.
216 rulemaking by reducing the number of rollovers.
ESC will be standard equipment on all passenger vehicles before the
new roof crush requirements become effective. This means that future
vehicle fleets containing the stronger roofs required by FMVSS No. 216
will experience fewer rollover crashes than are experienced by the
current on-road fleet. It would be inappropriate to compare the costs
of improving roof strength to benefits derived from current fatality
and injury levels without first adjusting for the significant impact
that ESC will have on the crash experience of future vehicle fleets
with enhanced roof strength.
Advocates et al. also claimed that ESC may not be effective in
large vans. At the time NHTSA did its statistical analysis of this
issue, there were too few vans on the road with ESC to analyze them
separately from other vehicles. However, NHTSA has tested ESC on large
vans and found that it is effective in improving stability in potential
rollover scenarios. This study \15\ found that ``* * * installation of
ESC on 15-passenger vans may have important safety benefits in some,
but not necessarily all, on-road driving situations.'' This is
reasonably consistent with ESC applicability in other vehicles where it
is highly effective in many circumstances, but cannot prevent rollover
in all situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Forkenbrock, G.J., and Garrott, W.R., ``Testing the
Rollover Resistance of Two 15-Passenger Vans with Multiple Load
Configurations,'' National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Washington, DC, June 2004, DOT HS 809 704.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, large vans make up a very small portion of the target
population. NHTSA examined the sample cases included in its target
population and did not find any cases involving large vans that met the
criteria for inclusion. This does not imply that there would never be
such cases, but it does indicate that they are a relatively rare
occurrence.
One possible reason, aside from the relative rarity of these
vehicles in the fleet, is that roof crush typically is only an issue in
vehicles that roll more than one quarter turn. The general shape of
large vans, with more extensive areas of sheet metal on each side,
makes it less likely that they would roll more than one quarter turn.
In NHTSA's Crashworthiness Data System (CDS) from 2004-2008, the
portion of crash-involved passenger cars that rolled over was roughly
equal to the portion of crash-involved vans that rolled over, but,
passenger cars were twice as likely as vans to roll more than one
quarter turn and thus expose their occupants to potential roof
intrusion.
Given the above considerations, we decline to reconsider the target
population related to ESC considerations.
B. Request That Agency Adopt a Dynamic Testing Provision
1. May 2009 Preamble Discussion
As discussed in the preamble to our May 2009 final rule, we
developed our proposal to upgrade roof crush resistance requirements
after considerable analysis and research, including conducting a
research program to examine potential test procedures that might be
adopted to improve the roof crush resistance requirements. The agency
testing program included full vehicle dynamic rollover testing,
inverted vehicle drop testing, and comparing inverted drop testing to a
modified FMVSS No. 216 test. After considering the results of the
testing and other available information, the agency concluded that the
quasi-static procedure generates results that suitably represent the
real-world dynamic loading damage patterns, and is the most appropriate
one on which to focus our upgrade efforts.
We did not propose a dynamic test procedure in either the NPRM or
the SNPRM. We did discuss in the NPRM a number of types of dynamic
tests and why we were not including them in the proposal. With respect
to the JRS test, we noted that although the agency was open to further
investigating that test, we had no data regarding the repeatability of
dummy injury and roof intrusion measurements, and would also need
further information on its performance measures, practicability, and
relevance to real-world injuries. We stated that, in summary, we were
not proposing a dynamic test procedure and that we believed the current
quasi-static test procedure is repeatable and capable of simulating
real-world deformation patterns. We also stated that we were unaware of
any dynamic test procedures that provide a sufficiently repeatable test
environment.
Consumer advocacy organizations and a number of other commenters
argued that it is not enough to upgrade the current quasi-static
requirement, and that a dynamic test requirement is needed. While
specific recommendations varied, one was for the agency to adopt an
upgraded quasi-static requirement now, and to proceed with further
rulemaking at this time for a dynamic test.
After reviewing the comments, we declined to pursue a dynamic test
as part of that rulemaking, or to initiate a separate rulemaking for a
dynamic test. We included an analysis of the comments recommending a
dynamic test in an appendix.
We stated in the preamble that we were still not aware of any
dynamic test procedure that provides a sufficiently repeatable test
environment. We stated further that while some commenters argued that
certain procedures are repeatable, the agency was not persuaded by the
arguments and data they presented. We also noted that, for reasons
discussed in the appendix, there are significant issues associated with
each of the cited dynamic test procedures related to possible use in a
Federal motor vehicle safety standard.
We explained further that, also of importance for this rulemaking,
even if NHTSA were to identify a particular dynamic test procedure,
among the many known to be available, as likely to be suitable for
assessing roof crush resistance (something we have not been able to do
thus far), we would need additional years of research to evaluate and
refine, as necessary, the procedure in order to develop a proposal,
including evaluating it in the context of the current vehicle fleet. We
stated that it has not yet been determined whether any dynamic test
requirement that might be identified by NHTSA's research would produce
significant additional benefits beyond those that will be produced by
the substantial upgrade of the quasi-static procedure that we adopted
in that rule.
NHTSA stated that it agreed, however, with pursuing a dynamic test
as our ultimate goal. We stated that we would like to have one for
rollover crashes just as we do for front and side crashes. We
[[Page 17614]]
stated that we could not adopt or even propose one now because of
issues related to test repeatability, a dummy, and lack of injury
criteria. We explained that we are pursuing further research for a
dynamic test. In the meantime, we did not want to delay a significant
upgrade of FMVSS No. 216 that will save 135 lives each year.
2. Overall Rationale for Request
As discussed above, CfIR asked us to reconsider our decision not to
adopt a dynamic test. It cited two basic reasons for the agency to
reconsider this issue.
First, CfIR argued that the quasi-static test and criteria do not
reasonably differentiate between the injury risk of compliant and non-
compliant vehicles. Second, the petitioner argued that, contrary to
NHTSA's assertions, the Jordan Rollover System (JRS) dynamic test has
been available for two years and extensive data submissions show it to
be reliable, repeatable, validated to real world rollover injury risk
and accurate in assessing comparative injury potential performance.
In its petition, CfIR cited numerous submissions it had made to the
docket. This petitioner requested that the agency review the data
previously submitted and summarized in its petition and consider the
following actions related to a dynamic test: Adjust the rule to allow
for an alternate dynamic compliance test, propose and allow for an
alternative dynamic test for NCAP ratings, allow for non-compliance or
compliance exceptions based on submitted dynamic test evidence, and
correct statements made by the agency regarding the JRS' repeatability
and reliability in testing a vehicle's dynamic performance that the
petitioner considers to be misleading and inaccurate.
3. Introduction to Response
In responding to CfIR, we begin by noting that we do not consider a
request to add a dynamic test requirement, including as an alternative
test, to be a petition for reconsideration of the final rule. As we did
not propose regulatory text to add a dynamic test procedure in either
the NPRM or the SNPRM and did not invite comment on the possibility of
including such a procedure in the final rule, adding a dynamic test
procedure was not within the scope of this rulemaking. Our discussion
in the preamble of the NPRM explaining why we were not including a
dynamic test in the proposal did not put such a test within the scope
of notice. We will nonetheless discuss the issues raised by CfIR as
part of explaining our position in these areas.
We also note that CfIR requested that we propose and allow for an
alternative dynamic test for NCAP ratings. In the preamble to the final
rule, we addressed comments concerning NCAP by explaining that the
purpose of this rulemaking is to upgrade our roof strength standard. We
said that the issue of whether roof strength might be addressed in some
way in our NCAP program would be considered separately in the context
of that program. Moreover, the possibility of addressing roof strength
in our NCAP program is not a rulemaking issue. Therefore, we are not
addressing issues concerning NCAP in this document.
In addition, we note that CfIR has asked the agency to make a
variety of conclusions relating to the use of the JRS in research and
concerning how it compares to certain respects to various dynamic tests
included in the agency's standards. See p. 4 of CfIR's supplement to
its petition for reconsideration.
We are not providing such conclusions. NHTSA provided an analysis
of comments concerning dynamic testing, including a discussion of
several specific tests, for the limited purpose of explaining its
decision whether to pursue a dynamic test as part of the current
rulemaking (which would have meant issuing either a new NPRM or an
SNPRM) or to initiate at this time a separate rulemaking for a dynamic
test. We were not providing a comprehensive analysis of any of these
various tests, and we do not take any position concerning the use of
these tests in research.
4. Petitioner's Claim That Quasi-Static Test and Criteria Do Not
Reasonably Differentiate Between the Injury Risk of Compliant and Non-
Compliant Vehicles
CfIR claimed that the quasi-static test and criteria do not
reasonably differentiate between the injury risk of compliant and non-
compliant vehicles. It argued that some compliant vehicles have
substantially greater injury risk than some non-compliant vehicles and
vice-versa, as shown by IIHS real world rollover statistics and JRS
dynamic test data.
The petitioner stated further that the agency's final rule, as
compared to the earlier version of FMVSS No. 216, has as its basis a
slightly modified test and significantly increased criteria for
compliance with only a statistically inferred cumulative damage effect
on injury potential. CfIR stated that its concern is that impact
injuries are dynamic non-cumulative events and are a composite function
of a vehicle's roll and pitch orientation, structural strength,
geometry, elasticity and stiffness as well as occupant kinematics,
interaction and effectiveness of protection features. It stated that
only dynamic testing can accurately consider these variables and rate
vehicles accordingly.
We do not accept CfIR's argument that the quasi-static test does
not reasonably differentiate between the injury risk of compliant and
non-compliant vehicles. NHTSA addressed the relationship between the
FMVSS No. 216 quasi-static test procedure, alternative SWR levels, and
injury risk throughout the rulemaking to upgrade the standard. We note
that two studies \16\ the agency conducted in support of the final rule
have shown significant correlations between vertical roof intrusion and
occupant injury from head contact. These studies significantly relate
static test performance of a vehicle's roof to real world occupant
safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0016: Strashny, Alexander,
``The Role of Vertical Roof Intrusion and Post-Crash Headroom in
Predicting Roof Contact Injuries to the Head, Neck, or Face during
FMVSS 216 Rollovers,'' and NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22143:
Austin, Rory, et al., ``The Role of Post-Crash Headroom in
Predicting Roof Contact Injuries to the Head, Neck, or Face During
FMVSS No. 216 Rollovers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our SNPRM, when the second peer-reviewed study was released, the
agency explained (73 FR 5490):
More recently, the agency has estimated benefits based on the
relationship between intrusion and the probability of injury. This
relationship was not established when the NPRM was published, but
with the additional years of data available, a statistically
significant relationship between intrusion and injury for belted
occupants has since been established. A study regarding this
relationship has undergone peer review and is available in the
docket. This broader relationship, together with other factors,
including the higher failure rates resulting from adjustments for
maximum vehicle weight and the higher effective SWRs that result
from this same issue will likely lead to slightly higher benefits
than was estimated in the NPRM.
The agency included in the FRIA a detailed discussion of how it
analyzed benefits.
While CfIR has submitted numerous JRS test results and some
analysis concerning those results and FMVSS No. 216 performance, it has
not presented a comprehensive evaluation of real world occupant safety
and JRS performance measures. We have concluded that further research
would be needed to establish a correlation between performance on the
JRS and real world occupant safety.
The agency recognizes that a dynamic test, if coupled with suitable
injury criteria and dummy, has the potential to
[[Page 17615]]
assess some aspects of injury risk to occupants in rollover crashes
that are not addressed by the current quasi-static test. Some of these
risks are addressed by other parts of our comprehensive plan for
reducing the serious risk of rollover crashes and the risk of death and
serious injury in those crashes, including our rulemaking for ejection
mitigation. Moreover, as discussed in the final rule preamble, we are
pursuing further research for a dynamic test. However, the potential
benefits that might result from a future rulemaking for a dynamic test
requirement do not provide an appropriate reason to delay the
significant upgrade of FMVSS No. 216 set forth in the May 2009 final
rule that is estimated to save 135 lives each year.
As discussed above, CfIR requested that we adjust the rule to allow
for an alternate dynamic compliance test or allow for non-compliance or
compliance exceptions based on submitted dynamic test evidence.
We decline to permit such an alternative. Although we are pursuing
further research on dynamic tests, we have not identified the JRS test
as being suitable for inclusion in FMVSS No. 216.
5. Petitioner's Claim That JRS Test Device Has Been Available for Two
Years and Extensive Test Data Submissions Show It To Be Reliable,
Repeatable, Validated to Real World Injury Risk and Accurate in
Assessing Comparative Injury Potential Performance
In its petition, CfIR claimed that, contrary to NHTSA assertions,
the JRS dynamic test device has been available for two years and
extensive test data submissions show it to be reliable, repeatable,
validated to real world rollover injury risk and accurate in assessing
comparative injury potential performance.
NHTSA considered all comments submitted in response to a Request
for Comments (RFC) notice published in 2001, the NPRM, and the SNPRM
prior to developing the final rule. However, we continue to believe
that there are significant issues that require further research,
including ones related to correlation of JRS performance measures with
real world occupant safety and repeatability, as to whether the JRS
device would be suitable to use for purposes of a test requirement in a
Federal motor vehicle safety standard.
In discussing the issue of a dynamic rollover test, we believe it
is important to distinguish between the various types of dynamic tests
that might be developed and their purposes. As we discussed in the
final rule preamble, rollover crashes are complex and chaotic events.
Rollovers can range from a single quarter turn to eight or more quarter
turns, with the duration of the rollover crash lasting from one to
several seconds. The wide range of rollover conditions occurs because
these crashes largely occur off road where the vehicle motion is highly
influenced by roadside conditions.
The variety and complexity of real-world rollover crashes create
significant challenges in developing dynamic tests suitable for a
Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Rollover crash tests presented
to and/or conducted by the agency have indicated a great degree of
variability in vehicle and occupant kinematics.
In assessing whether a potential dynamic test would be appropriate
for a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, the agency must consider
such issues as (1) Whether the test is representative of real-world
crashes with respect to what happens to the vehicle and any specified
test dummies; (2) for the specific aspect of performance at issue,
whether the test is sufficiently representative of enough relevant
real-world crashes to drive appropriate countermeasures and, if not,
the number and nature of necessary tests to achieve that purpose; (3)
whether the test is repeatable and reproducible so that the standard
will be objective and practicable; and (4) whether the test dummies to
be specified are biofidelic for the purposes used.
In considering the possibility of a dynamic rollover test in the
context of this particular FMVSS No. 216 rulemaking, we primarily
focused on whether a particular test would appropriately assess roof
crush resistance. As we explained in the NPRM and in subsequent
documents, the record showed that the quasi-static procedure provides a
suitable representation of the real-world dynamic loading damage
patterns, and an appropriate procedure to use in upgrading the
standard.
It is possible that an alternative dynamic test could be used to
assess roof crush resistance in a manner similar to that of the current
quasi-static test. For example, measurements of headroom might be taken
before and after a dynamic crash test, and it also might be possible to
measure available headroom during a crash test. CfIR cited what it
referred to as post crash negative headroom.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ CfIR defined post crash negative headroom as being the
equivalent of post crash cumulative roof crush.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The potential benefits of a dynamic rollover test could be much
larger if the test provided direct measurements of injury risks in a
crash test that is representative of real-world crashes and there were
a dummy suitable for that purpose. The agency's dynamic front and side
impact test requirements were developed based upon crash types and
injury outcomes in the field using anthropomorphic test dummies that
were developed for specific crash tests.
In addressing the issue of repeatability in its petition, CfIR
cites data which it argues show that the procedure tests vehicles in a
repeatable and reliable way, with acceptable variances, to the inputs
supplied by the person conducting the test. It cites variances for road
speed, contact pitch angle and contact roll angle. The data it
presented suggest that it is able to control these test parameters with
minimal variation.
However, while it is necessary for these kinds of control
parameters to be repeatable, that is only one aspect of evaluating
repeatability and reproducibility. Repeatability must be evaluated
using outcome or performance measures. This would include whatever
performance criteria were to be included in a standard.
Moreover, if the agency were to identify the JRS test (among the
many potential alternative dynamic tests) as likely to be suitable to
include in FMVSS No. 216, we would need additional research to evaluate
and refine, as necessary, the procedure to develop a proposal,
including evaluating it in the context of the current vehicle fleet.
The agency would need, for example, to evaluate the appropriate levels
for the various inputs, appropriate performance criteria,
repeatability, and so forth.
As noted earlier, rollover crash tests can have an undesirable
amount of variability in vehicle and occupant kinematics. Moreover,
there are many types of rollover crashes, and within each crash type
the vehicle speed and other parameters can vary widely. A curb trip can
be a very fast event with a relatively high lateral acceleration. Soil
and gravel trips have lower lateral accelerations than a curb trip and
lower initial roll rates. Fall-over rollovers are the longest duration
events. Viano and Parenteau \18\ correlated eight different tests to
six rollover definitions from NASS-CDS. Their analysis indicated that
the types of rollovers occurring in the real-world varied
significantly.
[[Page 17616]]
Occupant kinematics will also vary with these crash types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Viano D, Parenteau C., ``Rollover Crash Sensing and Safety
Overview,'' SAE 2004-01-0342.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous issues would need to be addressed to assess the
suitability of using the JRS (or any other dynamic test), in a Federal
motor vehicle safety standard as a more comprehensive test providing
direct measurements of various injury risks. As previously discussed,
these would include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) For
which of the various kinds of real-world rollover crashes the test
would be representative and in what ways with respect to what happens
to the vehicle and any specified test dummies during the test, (2) for
each specific aspect of performance at issue, whether the test is
sufficiently representative of enough relevant real-world crashes, and
also whether there are appropriate performance criteria, to drive
appropriate countermeasures, (3) whether the test is repeatable and
reproducible with respect to both input and output measures (included
any performance criteria) so that the standard will be objective and
practicable, (4) whether the test dummies to be specified are
biofidelic for the purposes used, (5) the extent to which the test
addresses real-world injuries not already addressed by other Federal
motor vehicle safety standards so that the test requirement would
likely result in significant safety benefits, and (6) how the test
compares to other possible dynamic tests, as well as possible non-
dynamic tests, for the purpose of achieving these safety benefits.
Our analysis of potential dynamic tests is complicated by the
following factors:
The currently available anthropomorphic test devices
(i.e., dummies) were not designed for use in rollover testing and have
not been shown to be valid for such use.\19\ Frontal impact test
dummies and side impact test dummies are not interchangeable and
neither is suitable for use in a rollover test. The Hybrid III dummies,
for example, were designed for high acceleration impacts and their
motion does not resemble human response under multi axis low
acceleration loading found in rollover crashes. While CfIR claims to
have developed a more appropriate neck, this device has not been
documented, had its biomechanical response demonstrated and correlated
to human response corridors, or independently evaluated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Lai, W. III, B. E., Richards, D., Carhart, M. Newberry,
W., and Corrigan, C.F., ``Evaluation of human surrogate models for
rollover,'' SAE 2005-01-0941; Yamaguchi, G.T., Carhart, M. R.,
Larson R., Richards, D., Pierce, J., Raasch, C.C., Scher, I., and
Corrigan, C.F., ``Electromyographic activity and posturing of the
human neck during rollover tests,'' SAE-2005-01-0302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are no generally accepted performance measures to
evaluate dynamic vehicle performance in rollover crashes. CfIR claimed
that ``NHTSA, IIHS, and consensus biomechanical performance criteria
have been established and generally accepted,'' but have not
substantiated that claim or otherwise demonstrated the validity of the
performance measures they recommend for measuring injury risk in this
context. CfIR has attempted to compare measurements between vehicles
and evaluate their performance measures based on their consistency with
anecdotal observations regarding rollover safety.\20\ However, CfIR has
not shown that this is a generally accepted approach for measuring
real-world injury risk or otherwise demonstrated its validity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See, for example, Transcript of proceedings during the
question and answers session, J. G. Paver, D. Friedman, F. Carlin,
J. Bish, and J. Caplinger, ``Development of Rollover Injury
Assessment Instrumentation and Criteria,'' Injury Biomechanics
Research, Proceedings of the Thirty-Sixth International Workshop,
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given these issues, as well as others discussed in the final rule
preamble and appendix, we believe that there are significant issues as
to whether the JRS would be suitable to use for purposes of a test
requirement to include in a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.
As discussed in the final rule preamble, we would like to have a
dynamic performance test for rollover crashes just as we do for front
and side crashes. To that end, we are pursuing further research into
the feasibility of a comprehensive dynamic test.
We are sponsoring research that will include the following: (1)
Assess vehicle, crash, occupant and injury patterns in rollover crashes
through epidemiologic investigations; (2) develop priorities and
parameter ranges for dynamic rollover research that are derived from
analytical, epidemiological, and computational investigations; (3)
develop a dynamic test fixture and associated test procedure capable of
simulating the dynamic rollover loading environment; (4) perform a
baseline evaluation of the sensitivity of the vehicle and occupant
response to static and dynamic vehicle parameters; (5) evaluate the
biofidelity of currently available anthropometric test devices in terms
of their ability to predict injury risk in rollover environments; and
(6) evaluate the predictive capabilities of current injury criteria for
the most common rollover injuries.
Also, for several years, NHTSA has evaluated the performance of
occupant restraint systems in a simulated rollover environment. This
test series has evaluated the performance of a variety of restraint
systems in limiting occupant motion during a simulated roof to ground
impact. NHTSA has recently initiated a research program to conduct full
scale rollover tests to evaluate whether the relative performance of
advanced restraints shown in laboratory testing can be replicated in a
full scale rollover test. NHTSA is conducting a series of full vehicle
rollover tests with similarly restrained front and rear seat occupants
on the same side of a large SUV. The agency desires to establish a
comparable inertial environment between two occupants on the same side
of the vehicle to compare restraint performance.
While we hope in the future to be able to consider rulemaking to
establish a dynamic rollover test, we believe that significant
additional research is needed before that would be possible. We will be
conducting and sponsoring our own research and will monitor the
research of others, including the petitioner's. However, for the
reasons discussed in this document and in the other documents we issued
in the context of the rulemaking to upgrade FMVSS No. 216, we are not
prepared to initiate rulemaking for a dynamic rollover test at this
time.
We note that our views concerning a dynamic test appear to be
similar to those of IIHS. In its March 24, 2009 Status Report,\21\ IIHS
stated, under the heading ``A Dynamic Test Would Be Ideal, But Which
One?'':
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4403.pdf.
A dynamic test could fill in the missing data. However, the best
way to conduct such a test and how to evaluate the results are still
under debate.
Real rollover crashes occur in lots of ways, and engineers have
come up with different kinds of tests to address various aspects of
these crashes -- dolly rollovers, curb trips, dirt trips,
corkscrews, and fallovers, among others. No single test best
represents the broad spectrum of actual crashes.
Measuring how a roof crushes in a dynamic test is trickier than
in a static test, and some testing methods would preclude having
dummies inside the vehicles. The dummy itself is a problem because
none of the existing types was designed to assess injury risk in a
rollover crash. Some dummies may not even move like people do when
turned upside down.
A further complication is that many rollovers are preceded by
other events that may affect occupants' positions when their
[[Page 17617]]
vehicles roll. This means researchers will have to figure out the
best position for a dummy in a dynamic test.
In the end, specifying a dynamic test is a big task that's only
just started. In the meantime, Institute research shows that making
roofs stronger as measured in a relatively simple test will prevent
many injuries and deaths in rollover crashes.
C. Other Issues
In this section, we address several additional issues raised by
CfIR.
Benefits Estimates
In its petition, CfIR presented benefits estimates based on JRS
test results and also based on IIHS estimates of benefits. The
petitioner claimed, with respect to affected population and benefits,
that ``(c)ontrary to submitted JRS evidence of the benefits of reduced
roof crush in preserving side windows and avoiding ejection portals,
the agency predicts only 667 lives saved.'' We note that the 667 figure
is the target population of occupants who might benefit from improved
roof strength rather than the number of lives saved. CfIR claimed that
the agency justified its prediction ``by characterizing the effect of
their own statistical injury potential data and ignoring the comparable
IIHS ejection, and a general 50% reduction of incapacitating injury
benefit to restrained, unrestrained and ejected occupants.''
The issue raised by CfIR about the IIHS estimates of benefits is
essentially the same as the one raised by Advocates et al. As discussed
earlier in this document, our decision not to accept the IIHS estimates
of benefits was based on a detailed analysis of the IIHS studies and
methodology presented in the FRIA. CfIR et al. did not address any of
the detailed criticisms of the IIHS analyses discussed by NHTSA in the
FRIA, but simply claimed in its petition that the agency had ignored
the IIHS estimates. Given the above discussion, including that
presented in the context of the claim made by Advocates et al. we do
not accept CfIR's claim. We also do not accept estimates of benefits
presented by CfIR that rely on the IIHS estimates of benefits that we
did not accept.
CfIR Supplement to Petition
As noted earlier, in September 2009, CfIR submitted a document it
called a ``supplement'' to its petition for reconsideration. It
attached a document discussing JRS test results which it said indicate
that an SWR of 4.1 is required to minimize roof crush injury potential.
CfIR stated it requested reconsideration of JRS dynamic testing for the
final rule for two reasons: (1) IIHS's SWR of 4 or greater has gained
industry acceptance and timely voluntary compliance, and (2) the JRS
test fixture accurately measures post crash negative headroom and can
assess the injury potential of occupant protection systems. It stated
that its supplement requests further (1) raising the static test
criteria to the dynamically derived SWR criteria of 4, and (2)
initiating a dynamic rollover crashworthiness NCAP program using the
JRS fixture.
We note that we may, in responding to a petition for
reconsideration, consider supplementary information provided in support
of a request included in that petition. We observe that raising the
static SWR criterion to 4 is a new request that is not within the scope
of CfIR's petition.
Moreover, the fact that IIHS has selected a SWR of 4, in a one-
sided test, in order for a vehicle to be rated as ``good'' does not
provide a reason for us to conduct rulemaking for a higher SWR. We
explained the basis for our decisions concerning SWR in the May 2009
final rule preamble, and CfIR has not provided any reasons for us to
conduct further rulemaking on that issue.
Paper Titled ``Scientific Review and Evaluation of the Jordan Rollover
System (JRS) Impact Crash Test Device''
CfIR submitted a paper titled ``Scientific Review and Evaluation of
the Jordan Rollover System (JRS) Impact Crash Test Device.'' \22\ While
we reviewed that paper, we believe that it does not provide sufficient
new information to lead us to change our position that there are
significant issues as to whether the JRS would be suitable to use for
purposes of a test requirement to include in a Federal motor vehicle
safety standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See NHTSA-2009-0093: Scientific Review & Evaluation of the
Jordan Rollover System (JRS) Impact Crash Test Device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alleged Errors
In an appendix to its petition for reconsideration, CfIR identified
what it characterized as ``notable errors'' regarding the JRS in the
body of the May 2009 final rule preamble and in Appendix A of that
document. We have discussed earlier in this document a number of the
issues raised by CfIR in this appendix, and are providing additional
discussion about several issues raised by CfIR in that appendix below.
Beyond the issues discussed earlier in this document and the additional
discussion below, we believe that much of the information CfIR provides
in its appendix simply represent comment about our statements. We
believe there is no need to discuss each of these detailed comments, as
they do not provide information that would lead us to change our
position that there are significant issues as to whether the JRS would
be suitable to use for purposes of a test requirement to include in a
Federal motor vehicle safety standard.
Discussion on roof racks. CfIR claimed that NHTSA observed that the
roof racks the agency looked at had no appreciable effect on SWR, but
ignored its submissions on the substantial Nissan Xterra (and Land
Rover Discovery) tubular racks and the panel-mounted Jeep Grand
Cherokee racks which it asserted focused loading and created deep
intruding buckles. As discussed in the final rule preamble, the
existing FMVSS No. 216 test procedure specified removal of roof racks
prior to platen positioning or load application. We did not propose to
change that specification and, after considering a comment submitted by
Xprts, did not change it in the final rule. See 49 FR 22371.
We reviewed the JRS test submissions, and it continues to be our
view that there has not been any demonstration that roof racks
contribute substantially to roof crush so as to warrant changing the
current specification. We note that we reviewed the materials provided
by CfIR and, based on what was presented, could not draw a conclusion
whether the roof rack degraded the performance of the roof in the test.
Moreover, given the issues discussed earlier in this document, it is
not clear what significance JRS test results such as these would have
in showing how significant a potential problem might be in the real
world.
As we discussed in the final preamble, the agency reviewed NASS-CDS
and could not find any relationship that roof racks cause catastrophic
deformation of the roof in a rollover. The agency stated:
* * * We reviewed several NASS-CDS cases \23\ of utility
vehicles with roof racks that had undergone rollover crashes. Our
review did not support the contention that the presence of a roof
rack initiated buckling of the roof and increased the risk of
occupant injury. There was also no general trend concerning injury
severity and presence of a roof rack in the reviewed cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Photographs collected from NASS-CDS Case Query Page. NASS-
CDS cases examined: 100121, 102005185, 146004985, 161005827,
656500082, 471300143, and 129005218.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17618]]
We further reviewed our fatal hardcopy case files \24\ and could
not identify a single case where the roof rack appeared to aggravate
the deformation of the roof structure. 74 FR 22372.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Docket Number NHTSA 2005-22143-56: Roof Crush Analysis
Using 1997-2001 NASS Case Review.
Discussion about repeatability of test dummy and initial restraint
positioning. We included a discussion in Appendix A of the final rule
stating that because the JRS is spinning prior to initiating the
vehicle test, there are concerns about how to establish the initial
belt position on the test dummy in a manner that is consistent with
real world conditions. We stated that the lateral acceleration prior to
rollover initiation can cause a belted occupant to introduce slack in
the belt. We stated that there is also the additional complication of
the timing for firing the rollover curtains and/or pretensioners in the
JRS pre-spin cycle.
CfIR stated that this is a reference to the CRIS test and is not
appropriate to the JRS. However, we believe the language cited by CfIR
as incorrect is ambiguous as the vehicle spins in the JRS just prior to
impact with the roadway surface, where the CRIS has the vehicle
spinning at full velocity prior to impact with the ground. Therefore,
both the JRS and CRIS have the vehicle in a pre-spin prior to impact
with the road surface.
D. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, we deny the petitions for
reconsideration submitted by Advocates et al. and CfIR.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30166 and 30177;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued: April 2, 2010.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2010-7908 Filed 4-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P