[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 18, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41365-41367]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-15356]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 2001-11082 Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AH50


Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Withdrawal of advance notices of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This notice terminates rulemaking in which the agency was 
considering advanced glazing regulatory requirements for passenger cars 
and other light vehicles to reduce the risk of ejections in crashes. 
The agency's research and rulemaking efforts indicate that it is more 
appropriate for the agency to devote its research and rulemaking 
efforts to projects other than ejection mitigation through advanced 
glazing. However, with the advent of other ejection mitigation systems, 
particularly side air bag curtains, the agency will continue to explore 
the feasibility of ejection mitigation. The focus will shift from 
advanced glazing to consideration of more comprehensive, performance-
based test procedures. If such procedures are feasible, NHTSA will 
focus its efforts on establishing safety performance requirements for 
ejection mitigation that will allow vehicle manufacturers the 
discretion to choose any technology that fulfills the requirements.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Mr. John Lee, 
Office of

[[Page 41366]]

Crashworthiness Standards, NPS-11, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. 
Telephone (202) 366-2264. Fax: (202) 366-4329.
    For legal issues: Ms. Nancy Bell, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-20, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992. Fax: (202) 366-
3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Prior Agency Rulemaking Efforts

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
published two Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs) in 1988 
announcing that the agency was considering the proposal of requirements 
for passenger vehicles intended to reduce the risk of ejections in 
crashes where the side protection of the vehicle was a relevant factor. 
In one notice, (53 FR 31712, August 19, 1988) NHTSA considered ejection 
from passenger cars while in the other notice, (53 FR 31716, August 19, 
1988) the agency considered ejection from light trucks. The agency 
reported in both notices that a significant number of fatalities and 
serious injuries involved the partial or complete ejection of occupants 
through the doors or side windows.
    NHTSA suggested in both notices that new side window designs, 
incorporating different glazing/frames, may reduce the risk of 
ejections. More specifically, the agency discussed the suitability of 
using either trilaminate windshield-type glass or side glass with an 
additional inner layer of plastic to mitigate ejection (windshields are 
already required to contain an inner layer of plastic to mitigate 
ejection.) The agency also described its development of a method of 
anchoring these glazings to the window frame by encapsulating the 
plastic portion of the glazing in a frame, which could be designed to 
accommodate movable windows. NHTSA suggested one approach to setting a 
performance requirement for the glazing would require no penetration of 
the plastic layer of a side window when impacted at 32 km/h (20 mph) 
with an 18 kg (40 lb) glazing impact device. The glazing impact device 
was proposed to represent the combined head/shoulder effective mass 
that would impact the glazing.
    Numerous comments were received on the 1988 ANPRMs. Major issues 
were raised concerning the ANPRMs, primarily that the safety benefits 
were not quantified. Other comments included: (1) The injury criteria 
were not specified for side impact, (2) the practicability of glazing 
designs were questioned and had never been demonstrated, (3) the cost 
of advanced glazing was high, and (4) no objective and repeatable test 
procedure was proposed. Finally, the comments questioned the effect 
that ejection mitigating glazing would have on overall occupant 
injuries and fatalities, and whether this material would actually 
increase injuries to belted occupants due to head injury, neck loading, 
and lacerations.
    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Authorization 
Act of 1991 mandated that the agency initiate rulemaking on rollover 
protection. To fulfill this requirement, the agency published an ANPRM 
on January 3, 1992 (57 FR 242), soliciting information concerning 
rollover crashes, to assist the agency in planning a course of action 
on several rulemaking alternatives. Forty-two comments were received 
from vehicle manufacturers, safety groups, retailers of aftermarket 
automotive equipment, automotive consultants, and a concerned citizen. 
Although most of the comments addressed how to reduce rollover crashes, 
there were some comments on improved glazing to reduce ejections when 
rollovers do occur.
    Subsequently, a Rulemaking Plan titled ``Planning Document for 
Rollover Prevention and Injury Mitigation, Docket 91-68 No. 1'' was 
published for public review on September 29, 1992, (57 FR 44721). This 
planning document outlined crash avoidance and crashworthiness 
rulemaking approaches to reduce rollover-related injuries and 
fatalities. This document included a section concerning ejection 
mitigation using advanced glazing. Public comments on the glazing 
program were received from three organizations: Motor Vehicle 
Manufacturers Association, Chrysler Corporation, and Mitsubishi Motors 
Corporation (DOT Docket NHTSA-1996-1683). These comments were similar 
to the comments on the 1988 ANPRMs. The commenters questioned design 
practicability, the lack of standardized testing, and the potential for 
additional contact injuries.

B. Agency Advanced Glazing Research

    NHTSA continued its research program and, in November 1995, issued 
a report titled ``Ejection Mitigation Using Advanced Glazings: A Status 
Report'' (DOT Docket NHTSA-1996-1782). This report documented research, 
which established the problem size and potential benefits of preventing 
occupant ejection through the front side windows during automotive 
crashes. A prototype glazing system, consisting of a modified door and 
glazing materials, was designed and demonstrated. This glazing system 
was designed to use higher strength window materials to withstand the 
force of an occupant impact and to transfer impact forces from the 
glazing to the door and window frame of the vehicle.
    The prototype advanced glazing system was able to successfully 
retain an 18 kg (40 lb) mass impacting at 24 km/h (15 mph). (Subsequent 
to the 1988 ANPRMs, this test configuration was determined to be 
representative of an occupant's effective head/shoulder mass impacting 
the side glazing during a side impact or rollover event). The prototype 
glazing system was tested using a variety of window glazing materials 
(bilaminates, trilaminates, and polycarbonates), to assess a wide range 
of performance characteristics. Additionally, this research used the 
FMVSS No. 201 free-motion headform (FMH) to evaluate the potential for 
head injury to an occupant due to glazing impact. Preliminary testing 
with the FMH indicated a low potential for head injury from contacts 
with the prototype glazing system.
    A public meeting was held to present and discuss this research 
program. NHTSA received numerous comments from this public meeting and, 
based on these comments, extended the research program (DOT docket 
NHTSA-1996-1782). In November 1999, NHTSA issued a report titled 
``Ejection Mitigation Using Advanced Glazings: Status Report II'' (DOT 
docket NHTSA-1996-1782). This report extended several aspects of the 
previous research. A more current door/glazing system was evaluated 
using a variety of glazing materials. HYGE sled tests were conducted to 
evaluate the potential for neck injury from the use of advanced glazing 
systems. Additional tests were conducted to evaluate feasibility issues 
of using the 18 kg (40 lb) and FMH impactor component tests. The 
benefit-analysis was also updated to include more recent data and to 
address comments received in response to the previous report.
    The results indicated that all but the non-high penetration 
resistant trilaminates had good potential for providing adequate 
occupant retention. Impacts into the advanced glazings produced similar 
potential for head injuries as impacts using the current tempered glass 
side windows. However, the neck measurements from impacts into glazings 
were not repeatable. In some cases impacts into advanced glazings 
resulted in higher neck shear

[[Page 41367]]

loads and neck moments than those into tempered glass. Impacts into 
standard tempered glass resulted in axial loads that were comparable to 
those into the advanced glazings. For each neck injury measure, the 
lowest neck injury measurements were obtained from the tempered glass 
impacts.
    On July 19, 2000 (65 FR 44710), NHTSA published a request for 
comments on the agency's second advanced glazing status report (DOT 
docket NHTSA-2000-7066). NHTSA received 96 comments from auto 
manufacturers, suppliers, safety groups, a vehicle extraction 
specialist, an engineering service, and private individuals. NHTSA has 
carefully analyzed the information provided in the comments. The 
automotive manufacturers commented that advanced glazing may induce 
head, neck and lacerative injuries and recommended that NHTSA focus on 
occupant containment efforts by means of side curtain air bags. All 
other commenters believed that advanced glazings would enhance the 
overall safety performance of vehicles. The private citizens did not 
provide technical data, but they favored the use of advanced glazing in 
side and rear windows of vehicles based on their belief that up to 
1,300 lives may be saved each year. The manufacturers indicated that 
advanced glazing benefits assume a 66% belt use rate and the benefits 
would dramatically decline with increased seat belt use.

II. Agency Decision

    In the House of Representatives Conference Report on H.R. 4475, 
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 
2001, Congress noted that NHTSA had been considering the utility of 
advanced side glazing since 1991, and directed NHTSA to complete and 
issue a final report on advanced side glazing. In November 2001, NHTSA 
completed that directive and published a final report, ``Ejection 
Mitigation Using Advanced Glazing.'' Based on its rulemaking efforts 
and research documented in the report, NHTSA concludes that there is no 
reasonable possibility of proposing regulatory requirements for 
advanced glazing in the foreseeable future due to safety and cost 
concerns.
    Two primary reasons for this conclusion are the advent of other 
ejection mitigation systems, such as side air curtains and the need to 
develop performance standards for them, and the fact that advanced side 
glazing in some cases appears to increase the risk of neck injury. In 
addition, advanced side glazing would require modifications to, or the 
addition of, window frames on the side of vehicles and result in 
smaller side windows. For vehicles with framed windows, NHTSA estimates 
it would cost between $48 and $79 to modify the two front side windows. 
However, many vehicles today are produced without framed windows. NHTSA 
has no cost estimates for modifying windows without frames to accept 
advanced glazing. In addition, NHTSA has no cost estimates for 
modifying rear side windows for advanced side glazing. Advanced side 
glazing would require modifications to the design of all vehicles 
currently being produced to make their windows smaller, and the costs 
of such a design modification would be significant.
    Given these concerns, NHTSA believes it would be more appropriate 
to devote its research and rulemaking efforts with respect to ejection 
mitigation to projects other than advanced glazing. Thus, the agency 
will not continue to examine a potential requirement for advanced side 
glazing. The focus will shift from advanced glazing to the development 
of more comprehensive, performance-based test procedures. If such 
procedures prove feasible, NHTSA will focus its efforts on establishing 
the safety performance that must be achieved. For these reasons, NHTSA 
has decided to terminate rulemaking on the issue of advanced glazing.

    Issued on: June 13, 2002.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 02-15356 Filed 6-17-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P