[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 19, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44710-44713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-18245]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7066]
RIN 2127-AH50


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Glazing Materials

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document is intended to inform the public about NHTSA's 
research findings to date on advanced glazing materials that may 
prevent ejection of vehicle occupants through motor vehicle windows 
during crashes. The agency has published a report titled ``Ejection 
Mitigation Using Advanced Glazing: Status Report II.'' The agency 
invites the public to comment on the report and share information and 
views with the agency.

DATES: Comments must be received by November 16, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice number, and 
be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC. 20590 (Docket hours are from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 
p.m. Monday through Friday).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC. 20590:
    For non-legal issues: Mr. John Lee, Office of Crashworthiness 
Standards, NPS-11, telephone (202) 366-2264, facsimile (202) 493-2739, 
electronic mail ``[email protected]''
    For legal issues: Mr. Stephen P. Wood, Office of the Chief Counsel, 
telephone (202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820, electronic mail 
``[email protected]''

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In response to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA)

[[Page 44711]]

Authorization Act of 1991 and ongoing research into the overall issues 
of rollover and ejection mitigation, NHTSA initiated a specific 
research program concerning occupant protection in motor vehicle 
rollover crashes. NHTSA is addressing this occupant protection issue 
from two perspectives: (1) Preventing a rollover from occurring; and 
(2) protecting vehicle occupants if a rollover occurs, including 
reducing the likelihood of ejections. Almost 60 percent of rollover 
fatalities occur in the 10 percent of rollovers involving either 
complete or partial ejection of vehicle occupants. Occupant ejections 
occur either through structural failures, such as door openings, or 
through window openings. NHTSA is evaluating the potential of improved 
door latches, side head air bags, and advanced glazing systems \1\ to 
reduce occupant ejection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Glazing systems is an automotive industry term for 
transparent openings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These activities are detailed in the report ``Ejection Mitigation 
Using Advanced Glazing: Status Report II.'' This report has been placed 
in docket NHTSA-1996-1782.
    This report evaluates the progress of research since NHTSA issued 
its November 1995 report on occupant protection research to mitigate 
ejection through window openings. Each year, on average, about 7,300 
people are killed and 7,800 people are seriously injured because of 
partial or complete ejection through glazing openings such as windows 
and moon roofs. Of the fatalities, more than 4,400 are associated with 
vehicle rollovers. The majority of these rollover victims were not 
using seat belts. In fact, 98 percent of occupants completely ejected 
and killed during rollover crashes were unbelted.
    It is estimated that advanced glazing systems could save between 
500 and 1,300 lives per year. This estimate assumes a national seat 
belt use rate of about 66 percent (the yearly average and effectiveness 
percentages are based on data from 1992-1996 National Automotive 
Sampling System (NASS) Crashworthiness Data System (CDS)) and a 20 to 
51 percent range of effectiveness for advanced glazing systems in 
preventing ejection. Higher seat belt use rates directly reduce the 
estimated benefits of advanced glazing systems. For example, a 71 
percent seat belt use rate would reduce likely glazing benefits by 11 
percent. An 81 percent use rate would reduce glazing benefits by 34 
percent. As of the end of 1999, the U.S. national average seat belt use 
rate was 67 percent.
    In NHTSA's research program, four types of advanced glazing systems 
were evaluated: a high-penetration resistant (HPR) trilaminate (glass-
plastic-glass), a non-HPR trilaminate (a thinner glass-plastic-glass 
sandwich than the HPR window), a bilaminate (glass-plastic), and a 
polycarbonate (rigid plastic). Pilkington/Libbey-Owens-Ford assisted 
the agency in manufacturing prototype window systems for a General 
Motors C/K pickup side door. The original equipment window 
encapsulation (rigid plastic around the outer edge of the side window) 
was modified and replaced with advanced glazing design systems. 
Modifications were also made to the front door window frames to better 
retain the window during impact, while maintaining the window's ability 
to be raised and lowered. To date, this research has not evaluated the 
practicability or suitability of the proposed glazing systems in actual 
production vehicles. One known problem with the proposed designs is 
that they do not work on vehicles with frameless side windows. The 
proposed door modifications would either require significant redesign 
or not be suitable for these vehicles. Even for framed windows, some 
additional work (laceration, entrapment, test speeds, etc.) is needed 
to further examine the appropriate depth of the proposed designs. 
Although facial lacerations injuries are relative minor (AIS 1 or 2), 
they are very common and can be disfiguring. The agency plans to assess 
whether advanced glazings are more likely to cause lacerations than 
current glass. In regards to entrapment, analysis on the extracting of 
trapped occupants in vehicles with advanced glazing needs to be 
conducted. The agency plans to evaluate the ability of emergency rescue 
squad tools to cut through advanced glazing. In regards to test speeds, 
the advanced glazing systems were evaluated for their occupant 
retention potential at speeds of 24 kmph (15 mph). Additional tests and 
benefit analyses will be conducted at lower impact speeds.
    The previous status report (``Ejection Mitigation Using Advanced 
Glazing A Status Report,'' November 1995. Docket NHTSA 1996-1782 had 
estimated incremental production costs of $48 per vehicle for front 
side windows if trilaminate glazing were used and $79 per vehicle for 
front side windows if rigid plastic were used. The projected lead-time 
estimated in the previous status report was about 3 years. The cost, 
weight, and lead-time estimates are only applicable to vehicles with 
framed windows. The designs tested in this report should have 
incremental costs similar to the previous estimates.
    Three series of tests were performed on the advanced side glazing 
systems. First, NHTSA used an 18 kg (40 lb.) impactor (simulating upper 
body/head impacts) to evaluate potential occupant retention 
capabilities. Second, the agency used the free motion headform (FMH)(a 
4.5 kg (10 lb) device) specified for testing to the requirements of 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201 ``Occupant Protection in 
Interior Impact'' to evaluate the glazing systems' potential for 
causing head injuries. Third, the agency conducted sled tests with a 
full-sized 50th percentile adult male Side Impact Dummy (SID)/Hybrid 
III dummy to further evaluate the glazing systems' potential for 
causing head injuries and to evaluate neck injuries. Since ejection 
mitigation glazings will generally allow for greater contact time 
between the head and glazing than conventional side windows, the agency 
was concerned that there may be an increased risk of serious, head and 
neck injuries from contact with these new systems.
    The results indicated that all but the non-HPR trilaminate had good 
potential for providing adequate occupant retention. Impact with the 
advanced glazings with the FMH produced similar potential for head 
injuries as impacts with tempered glass in the current side windows. In 
the sled tests, the neck injury measurements from dummy impacts into 
glazings were not repeatable, especially for impacts into current 
production tempered side glass. Despite this wide variability of test 
results, impacts with tempered glass resulted in lower neck shear loads 
and moments than those with advanced glazings. In each case, tempered 
glass impacts produced the lowest neck injury measurements.
    Advanced glazing systems may yield significant safety benefits by 
reducing partial and complete ejections through side windows, 
particularly in rollover crashes. However, to ascertain the efficacy 
and safety of advanced glazing systems more fully, more research will 
be conducted into both the practicability of the prototype systems and 
the risk of negative, unintended consequences. Research needed to make 
a regulatory decision will be completed by the end of 2000. This 
additional research will include evaluation of the repeatability of the 
test procedures, refinement of the test procedures, evaluation of the 
likelihood of increased injuries due to partially opened windows, 
evaluation of impact speed, evaluation of the necessary door 
modifications, and development of performance criteria.

[[Page 44712]]

    Future and ongoing research, beyond the regulatory decision point, 
will include full vehicle testing conducted for both rollover and side 
impact crash scenarios. Evaluations will be conducted on the likelihood 
of increased injuries to belted occupants, the potential reduction in 
driving visibility due to thicker window frames and smaller windows, 
the potential for entrapment due to more rigid side windows.
    Standard test for laceration, window clarity and glass durability 
will be redone. As stated earlier, lacerations injuries are relative 
minor. Lacerations tests will be performed on available technology. The 
advanced glazing must still be clear for driving visibility. They will 
need to meet the light stability and luminous transmittance 
requirements of FMVSS 205 for driver visibility. Durability will still 
be required as with glass. The fleet field test results from the 
cooperative research agreement with PPG on daily wear of advanced 
glazing in GSA vehicles will be analyzed.
    Additionally, advanced glazing systems will be evaluated against 
other ejection prevention and mitigation strategies. These alternate 
ejection countermeasures, such as the recently introduced inflatable 
head protection systems, will also be evaluated at the same time in 
making a regulatory decision. General Motors has said that side head 
air bags will be standard equipment on all its vehicles by 2003. Ford 
Motor Company will make side head air bags available in some of its 
2001 sport utility vehicles.
    In a highway special investigation ``Bus Crashworthiness Issues'' 
from the National Transportation Safety Board in September 1999, NHTSA 
has received a safety recommendation to expand its research on current 
advanced glazing to include its applicability to motorcoach occupant 
ejection prevention, and revise window glazing requirements for newly 
manufactured motorcoaches based on the results of this research.
    For several years, NHTSA has conducted research on ejection 
mitigating glazing systems for use in light passenger vehicle side 
windows. Many of the advanced glazing systems and test procedures 
identified and developed in this research are probably applicable to 
motorcoach passenger side windows. However, because the crash 
environment that produces ejections in motorcoaches may be different 
from that for light passenger vehicles, some specific aspects of the 
test procedures may need to be modified.
    The agency has expanded its research plan on advanced glazing to 
include motorcoach passenger side windows. The first task in this new 
research is to identify the crash environment that produces occupant 
ejections in motorcoach crashes, and based on that, analytically 
determine the occupant-to-glazing impact conditions. Other important 
first steps in this research are to identify the types of glazing 
systems currently used in motorcoaches, and to determine if some of 
these have ejection mitigating capabilities. The agency will seek 
cooperation from outside sources in obtaining the glazing systems 
required for this research. These systems will be evaluated for their 
ability to mitigate ejections, while limiting increases to head, neck, 
and laceration injuries. Practicability and cost issues will also be 
examined. We expect to begin our evaluation of the glazing systems and 
test procedures in the fall of 2000.

II. Questions for the Public

    To assist the agency in acquiring the information it needs, NHTSA 
is including a list of questions and requests for data in this notice. 
For easy reference, the questions are numbered consecutively. NHTSA 
encourages commenters to provide specific responses for each question 
for which they have information or views. In order, to facilitate 
tabulation of the written comments in sequence, please identify the 
number of each question to which you are responding.
    NHTSA requests that the rationale for positions taken by commenters 
be very specific, including analysis of safety consequences. NHTSA 
encourages commenters to provide scientific analysis and data relating 
to materials, designs, testing, manufacturing and field experience.
    The following is a list of questions for which the agency would 
like to have answers. However, it does not purport to be an all-
inclusive list of subjects relevant to this research. NHTSA encourages 
commenters to provide any other data, analysis, argument or views they 
believe are relevant.
    1. Is the technology available for encapsulating windows in 
vehicles with frameless windows and for convertibles? Is it cost 
effective?
    2. How much crash damage could be done to the new encapsulated 
window frame and modified door frame designs and still have them be 
effective in preventing occupant ejection?
    3. Are there any known disadvantages of encapsulation and modified 
door frame design in vehicles with inflatable side impact air bags?
    4. Are there any known safety disadvantages of the encapsulation 
glazing and modified door frame design, such as entrapment?
    5. Is any work being done on human facial laceration measurement? 
If so, please describe that work and its results to date.
    6. Are the neck injury criteria discussed in this report 
sufficient? Can you recommend others? Do you have test data? If so, 
please provide them.
    7. Are the side head injury criteria discussed in this report 
sufficient? Can you recommend others? Do you have test data? If so 
please provide them.
    8. Do you have any information that addresses the repeatability of 
glazing impact tests? If so, please provide it.
    9. NHTSA used 24 kmph test speeds, simulating rollover. Are the 
glazing impact test speeds used by NHTSA in its testing adequate? If 
not why? What test speed is recommended and why?
    10. Please provide any comments and supporting material on the 
cost, weight increase, and lead-time to manufacture advanced glazing 
systems.
    11. Are side head airbags an alternative solution for reducing 
occupant ejection out of windows?
    12. Would side head air bags provide any benefits that would not be 
provided by advanced glazing?
    13. What benefits would advanced glazings offer that would not be 
derived from side head air bags?
    14. Beyond glazing and air bags are there other alternatives that 
might also be effective in reducing window ejections?
    15. Should the agency be working on both the advanced glazing and 
inflatable head restraint systems as viable, complementary technologies 
to solve the window ejection problem?
    16. Would the test procedures being considered for evaluating the 
retention capability of side glazings, as described in the report, also 
be suitable for evaluating this capability for inflatable retention 
devices?
    17. Based on the outcome of this research project, should the 
research show that the prevent of ejection can be mitigated without 
substantially increasing the potential for injury, should the agency 
require advanced glazing for passenger windows on motorcoaches and 
passenger windows on all types of buses categories?

III. Submission of Written Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.

[[Page 44713]]

    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). 
We established this limit to encourage the preparation of comments in a 
concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents 
to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES.
    In addition, for those comments of 4 or more pages in length, we 
request that you send 2 additional copies, as well as one copy on 
computer disc, to: Mr. John Lee, Light Duty Vehicle Division, NPS-11, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20590.
    We emphasize that this is not a requirement. However, we ask that 
you do this to aid us in expediting our review of all comments. The 
copy on computer disc may be in any format, although we would prefer 
that it be in WordPerfect 8.
    Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by 
logging onto the Dockets Management System website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain 
instructions for filing the document electronically.

How Can I be Sure That my Comments Were Received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above 
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed 
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover 
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential 
business information regulation (49 CFR part 512.)

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket 
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing 
a proposal (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that comment 
on that proposal.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location.
    You may also review the comments on the Internet. To access the 
comments on the Internet, take the following steps:
    (1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
    (2) On that page, click on ``search.''
    (3) On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the 
four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. 
Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type 
``1234.'' After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
    (4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You can then 
download the comments.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

    Issued: July 13, 2000.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 00-18245 Filed 7-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P