Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection, 25130-25132 [E6-6423]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
25130
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Wisconsin believed the proposed rule
was workable for intersections and
grade crossings controlled by traffic
signals, but not for crossings near
intersections that are controlled by stop
or yield signs. Wisconsin suggested
postponing the effectiveness of the rule
until the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD) was changed
to address the issue of traffic signals at
such intersections/crossings. Nevada
said all but one its grade crossings are
in rural areas, and all but two are poor
candidates for traffic signals. Nevada
said signalization for the crossings was
probably five to ten years in the future
and that relocating the railways or
closing the crossings was not feasible.
Nevada said relocation of roadways is
limited by geography and economic
development and that truck advisory
signs would be more appropriate for the
affected crossings, thus limiting overall
improvements to installation of signage.
New Jersey said replacing stop signs
with traffic signals would further
impede traffic flow already interrupted
by many signals, but agreed that it is
feasible and desirable to interconnect
traffic signals and adjust timing where
signals already exist.
Pennsylvania said it might be possible
to locate a stop sign or traffic control
device in some locations so that
vehicles encounter it before entering the
crossing. However, Pennsylvania noted
that apart from these potential solutions,
safety improvements become very
expensive or politically difficult to
enact.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Economic Impact of the Proposed Rule
Oklahoma and California argued that
Federal funding was necessary to
implement the rule. Connecticut
believed manpower requirements for
design and construction of crossing
improvements, including the financial
impacts, would likely exceed resources
available to State and local agencies and
private owners. The State estimated the
cost of installing signals that would be
activated by the approach of a train at
approximately $280,000 (per crossing,
presumably). Connecticut suggested
instituting a Federal program with a
funding source dedicated exclusively to
the problem of limited storage distance
at grade crossings.
Burden and Costs of Compliance Far
Exceed the Anticipated Benefits
Kansas said it did not have adequate
information to identify accidents related
to insufficient storage space. The State
said that its accident statistics for the
previous eight years revealed 109 CMVtrain accidents, or 13.6 per year, and
that even if all of these accidents were
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:39 Apr 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
caused by the problem of inadequate
storage space, the proposed rule would
be addressing a relatively minor
problem. Indiana believed storage space
was not a significant factor in its
accident record. The State said that, in
the past five years, only 6.4 percent of
train-vehicle collisions (78 out of 1,213)
involved truck-trailer combination
vehicles, and, of those, only 38
accidents (3.1 percent of the total) were
at a highway-railroad grade crossing
near an intersection. Indiana said even
if all 38 accidents were due to storage
problems, which it called unlikely, they
would still represent only a small part
of the State’s overall accident exposure.
Pennsylvania said there were 692,138
accidents in the State from 1993 through
1997, but only 31 involved CMVs and
trains and none of those accidents
involved vehicles approaching a
highway-railroad intersection where
traffic was stopped at a traffic control
device. Pennsylvania did not believe
that the proposed rule would have a
major impact on safety or that it would
be appropriate to initiate a laborintensive, field inventory effort to
collect the information requested.
Wisconsin said it averaged one fatal
train-truck accident every five years, or
about 3 percent of total train-vehicle
fatal accidents.
The Public Meeting
The DOT OMCS held a public
meeting on November 9, 1999, which
generated extensive testimony and
discussion regarding the issue of
highway-rail grade crossing safety. A
transcript of the meeting is in the docket
for this rulemaking. The discussion
focused on initiatives that could be
taken to prevent train-vehicle collisions
at grade crossings, but not on the
feasibility or advisability of the
proposed rule. The potential options
discussed involved changes to the grade
crossing environment, such as changes
to traffic control devices near grade
crossings; policy changes, such as
developing programs that would allow
CMVs to select routes to avoid grade
crossings near traffic control devices;
and educating CMV operators on actions
to take if a CMV becomes incapacitated
on a crossing.
FMCSA Decision
After reviewing the comments to the
NPRM and the transcript of the public
meeting, FMCSA has concluded that
this rulemaking has created a great deal
of misunderstanding and should be
terminated.
FHWA asked the States for
information on the number and location
of highway-railroad grade crossings
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
with inadequate storage space—and on
alternative crossings—as the first step in
estimating the costs and benefits of the
rule required by Section 112. In view of
the expected complexity of that
analysis, the Agency needed as much
information as possible. Many State
agencies, however, seem to have
assumed that they were required to
provide the information; that the final
rule would then require them to
reconstruct, rewire, reroute or otherwise
correct every inadequate crossing; and
that the Agency was indifferent to the
costs of such an undertaking. In fact, the
time, difficulty and cost involved in
collecting reliable data on highwayrailroad grade crossings became a
primary focus of the comments.
Section 112 requires a rule applicable
to motor carriers, not to States. If the
regulatory requirement prevented some
motor carriers from using a particular
crossing because the storage space is too
short for their normal vehicles, several
options are available (such as switching
to shorter trucks or using alternate
crossings) before any reconstruction
efforts suggested by the State
commenters need to be considered. And
even then, significant civil engineering
projects are likely to have a low priority.
Consultations among government
entities, truckers, and the shippers they
serve might produce quick and simple
solutions.
Therefore, FMCSA terminates this
rulemaking and will open a new one
less burdened by previous
misunderstandings. An NPRM to
address the requirements of Section 112
will be published when additional
analysis of grade crossing problems,
which is now under way, has been
completed.
In view of the foregoing, this
rulemaking proceeding is terminated.
Issued on: April 24, 2006.
Warren E. Hoemann,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6–6424 Filed 4–27–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA 2006–24390]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\28APP1.SGM
28APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Denial of petition for
rulemaking.
ACTION:
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY: This document denies a
petition for rulemaking submitted by
Mr. James E. Hofferberth asking the
agency to take a variety of steps related
to incorporating dummies representing
three-year-old, six-year-old and tenyear-old children and 95th percentile
adult males into the agency’s frontal
crash test programs.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For Non-Legal Issues: Ms. Catherine
Carneal, Office of Crashworthiness
Standards, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590,
Telephone: (202) 366–1284, Facsimile:
(202) 366–7002.
For Legal Issues: Mr. Chris Calamita,
Office of Chief Counsel, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 366–2992,
Facsimile: (202) 366–3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Summary of Petition
On September 9, 2005, Mr. James E.
Hofferberth submitted a petition for
rulemaking asking the agency to require
additional safety measures related to
protection of child and large adult male
occupants. He stated that the likelihood
and severity of injuries to vehicle
occupants is strongly dependent on
their size, and noted that the agency’s
frontal crash test standard specifies test
requirements using only 50th percentile
adult male dummies and 5th percentile
adult female dummies. The petitioner
stated that dummies representing threeyear-old, six-year-old and ten-year-old
children and 95th percentile adult
males are in existence and should be
incorporated into the agency’s frontal
crash test programs.
More specifically, Mr. Hofferberth’s
petition made four requests. The first
was that any motor vehicles certified for
compliance with the crash test
requirements of FMVSS No. 208,
‘‘Occupant crash protection,’’ also be
required to ‘‘have a permanent,
prominently displayed: (a) Notice that
specifies the occupant sizes for which
the vehicle is not in compliance with
the crash test performance requirements
of FMVSS No. 208, and (b) warning that
such persons, other than small children
using a child restraint system certified
for compliance with FMVSS No. 213,
‘‘Child restraint systems,’’ are not
protected by FMVSS No. 208,
‘‘Occupant crash protection,’’ and may
be exposed to a higher risk of injury and
fatality when riding in the vehicle.’’
Second, the petitioner requested an
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:39 Apr 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
‘‘order that vehicles claimed by the
manufacturer to be in compliance with
the performance requirements of
FMVSS No. 208 for occupant sizes other
than fifth percentile adult female and
fiftieth percentile adult male be
incorporated in the compliance test
program to verify the manufacturer’s
claim.’’ Third, he asked ‘‘that crash
testing using anthropomorphic
dummies representing three-year-old
children, six-year-old children, ten-yearold children, and ninety-fifth percentile
adults be routinely included in the New
Car Assessment Program (NCAP).’’
Finally, the petitioner asked that the
agency amend FMVSS No. 208 to add
crash test requirements using dummies
representing three-year-old children,
six-year-old children, ten-year-old
children, and ninety-fifth percentile
adults.
Mr. Hofferberth did not submit any
data in support of his petition.
Analysis and Decision
We begin by noting that the protection
of children in motor vehicle crashes is
one of our agency’s highest priorities.
We have taken a number of actions in
recent years to improve child safety, and
have a number of ongoing actions.
For example, on June 24, 2003, we
published in the Federal Register (68
FR 37620) a final rule making a number
of revisions in our safety standard for
child restraint systems, including
amendments for incorporating improved
test dummies, updated procedures used
to test child restraints, and an extension
of the standard to apply it to child
restraints recommended for use by
children up to 65 pounds (30
kilograms). Child restraints will be
tested using the most advanced test
dummies available today and tested to
conditions representing current model
vehicles.
On August 31, 2005, we published in
the Federal Register (70 FR 51720) a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
to further expand the applicability of
our safety standard on child restraint
systems to restraints recommended for
children up to 80 pounds. That proposal
would require booster seats and other
restraints to meet performance criteria
when tested with a crash test dummy
representative of a 10-year-old child.
NHTSA has also been evaluating the
merits of including child dummies in
the NCAP program pursuant to the
Transportation Recall Enhancement,
Accountability, and Documentation
(TREAD) Act. Section 14(b) of this Act
directed the Secretary of Transportation
to determine ‘‘whether to include child
restraints in each vehicle crash tested
under NCAP.’’ Two notices have been
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25131
published on the agency’s efforts in this
area: Notice of final decision on the
NCAP programs for child safety,
published in the Federal Register (70
FR 29815) on May 24, 2005, and
response to comments, notice of
decision for NCAP, published in the
Federal Register (70 FR 75536) on
December 20, 2005. These documents
discuss the agency’s decision to
maintain the current frontal impact test
procedures while conducting the
necessary research to evaluate if and
how the program could be modified to
include child dummies. Concurrently
with that effort, the agency is
conducting a special comprehensive
review of the entire NCAP program,
which is expected to be completed later
in 2006.
All of Mr. Hofferberth’s various
requests relate to incorporating
additional dummies to the agency’s
frontal crash test programs.
Implementation of any of his requests
would require substantial agency
resources. Extensive research and
testing would be needed to support a
rulemaking and/or develop a rating
program which incorporates child and/
or large size dummies. Among other
things, the agency would need to
thoroughly review equipment and test
procedures for validity and reliability
with respect to real-world collisions.
NHTSA currently has an insufficient
amount of data on child dummies in a
FMVSS No. 208 crash environment to
conduct a thorough crash test analysis.
Also, the agency has not conducted
rulemaking to include the 95th
percentile adult male dummy in the
Code of Federal Regulations, nor
conducted the research and testing that
would be needed to add this dummy to
NCAP or to propose to use it as part of
the Federal motor vehicle safety
standards.
These same issues are also relevant to
the petitioner’s request relating to
requiring manufacturers to provide
labels as to whether a vehicle would
pass the crash test requirements of
FMVSS No. 208 with dummies other
than those specified by the standard.1
To enable a determination to be made as
to whether a vehicle would pass these
requirements, the agency would need to
conduct the necessary research and
analyses to standardize test procedures,
injury criteria, and performance limits
for these dummies in these tests.
Finally, if the agency were to propose
adding new test requirements to FMVSS
1 We note that the agency has not conducted an
assessment as to its authority to issue this type of
requirement, and it is unnecessary to do so in order
to respond to this petition.
E:\FR\FM\28APP1.SGM
28APP1
25132
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
No. 208 or other requirements that
manufacturers would be required to
meet, it would also need to carefully
assess costs and benefits.
After carefully considering Mr.
Hofferberth’s petition, the agency has
decided to deny it. NHTSA has limited
resources, and, for the reasons discussed
above, rulemaking to implement the
petitioner’s requests would require
substantial agency resources. While the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:39 Apr 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
agency may in the future consider
adding additional dummies to its frontal
crash test and/or other programs, the
petitioner did not provide any data or
supporting documentation that
convinced us that we should change our
current priorities and devote additional
resources in this area.
In accordance with 49 CFR part 552,
this completes the agency’s review of
the petition.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30117 and 30162; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.50.
Issued on: April 24, 2006.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E6–6423 Filed 4–27–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
E:\FR\FM\28APP1.SGM
28APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 82 (Friday, April 28, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25130-25132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6423]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA 2006-24390]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
[[Page 25131]]
ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for rulemaking submitted by
Mr. James E. Hofferberth asking the agency to take a variety of steps
related to incorporating dummies representing three-year-old, six-year-
old and ten-year-old children and 95th percentile adult males into the
agency's frontal crash test programs.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For Non-Legal Issues: Ms. Catherine Carneal, Office of
Crashworthiness Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590,
Telephone: (202) 366-1284, Facsimile: (202) 366-7002.
For Legal Issues: Mr. Chris Calamita, Office of Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 366-2992, Facsimile: (202)
366-3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Summary of Petition
On September 9, 2005, Mr. James E. Hofferberth submitted a petition
for rulemaking asking the agency to require additional safety measures
related to protection of child and large adult male occupants. He
stated that the likelihood and severity of injuries to vehicle
occupants is strongly dependent on their size, and noted that the
agency's frontal crash test standard specifies test requirements using
only 50th percentile adult male dummies and 5th percentile adult female
dummies. The petitioner stated that dummies representing three-year-
old, six-year-old and ten-year-old children and 95th percentile adult
males are in existence and should be incorporated into the agency's
frontal crash test programs.
More specifically, Mr. Hofferberth's petition made four requests.
The first was that any motor vehicles certified for compliance with the
crash test requirements of FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash
protection,'' also be required to ``have a permanent, prominently
displayed: (a) Notice that specifies the occupant sizes for which the
vehicle is not in compliance with the crash test performance
requirements of FMVSS No. 208, and (b) warning that such persons, other
than small children using a child restraint system certified for
compliance with FMVSS No. 213, ``Child restraint systems,'' are not
protected by FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' and may be
exposed to a higher risk of injury and fatality when riding in the
vehicle.'' Second, the petitioner requested an ``order that vehicles
claimed by the manufacturer to be in compliance with the performance
requirements of FMVSS No. 208 for occupant sizes other than fifth
percentile adult female and fiftieth percentile adult male be
incorporated in the compliance test program to verify the
manufacturer's claim.'' Third, he asked ``that crash testing using
anthropomorphic dummies representing three-year-old children, six-year-
old children, ten-year-old children, and ninety-fifth percentile adults
be routinely included in the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP).''
Finally, the petitioner asked that the agency amend FMVSS No. 208 to
add crash test requirements using dummies representing three-year-old
children, six-year-old children, ten-year-old children, and ninety-
fifth percentile adults.
Mr. Hofferberth did not submit any data in support of his petition.
Analysis and Decision
We begin by noting that the protection of children in motor vehicle
crashes is one of our agency's highest priorities. We have taken a
number of actions in recent years to improve child safety, and have a
number of ongoing actions.
For example, on June 24, 2003, we published in the Federal Register
(68 FR 37620) a final rule making a number of revisions in our safety
standard for child restraint systems, including amendments for
incorporating improved test dummies, updated procedures used to test
child restraints, and an extension of the standard to apply it to child
restraints recommended for use by children up to 65 pounds (30
kilograms). Child restraints will be tested using the most advanced
test dummies available today and tested to conditions representing
current model vehicles.
On August 31, 2005, we published in the Federal Register (70 FR
51720) a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to further expand the
applicability of our safety standard on child restraint systems to
restraints recommended for children up to 80 pounds. That proposal
would require booster seats and other restraints to meet performance
criteria when tested with a crash test dummy representative of a 10-
year-old child.
NHTSA has also been evaluating the merits of including child
dummies in the NCAP program pursuant to the Transportation Recall
Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act. Section
14(b) of this Act directed the Secretary of Transportation to determine
``whether to include child restraints in each vehicle crash tested
under NCAP.'' Two notices have been published on the agency's efforts
in this area: Notice of final decision on the NCAP programs for child
safety, published in the Federal Register (70 FR 29815) on May 24,
2005, and response to comments, notice of decision for NCAP, published
in the Federal Register (70 FR 75536) on December 20, 2005. These
documents discuss the agency's decision to maintain the current frontal
impact test procedures while conducting the necessary research to
evaluate if and how the program could be modified to include child
dummies. Concurrently with that effort, the agency is conducting a
special comprehensive review of the entire NCAP program, which is
expected to be completed later in 2006.
All of Mr. Hofferberth's various requests relate to incorporating
additional dummies to the agency's frontal crash test programs.
Implementation of any of his requests would require substantial agency
resources. Extensive research and testing would be needed to support a
rulemaking and/or develop a rating program which incorporates child
and/or large size dummies. Among other things, the agency would need to
thoroughly review equipment and test procedures for validity and
reliability with respect to real-world collisions. NHTSA currently has
an insufficient amount of data on child dummies in a FMVSS No. 208
crash environment to conduct a thorough crash test analysis. Also, the
agency has not conducted rulemaking to include the 95th percentile
adult male dummy in the Code of Federal Regulations, nor conducted the
research and testing that would be needed to add this dummy to NCAP or
to propose to use it as part of the Federal motor vehicle safety
standards.
These same issues are also relevant to the petitioner's request
relating to requiring manufacturers to provide labels as to whether a
vehicle would pass the crash test requirements of FMVSS No. 208 with
dummies other than those specified by the standard.\1\ To enable a
determination to be made as to whether a vehicle would pass these
requirements, the agency would need to conduct the necessary research
and analyses to standardize test procedures, injury criteria, and
performance limits for these dummies in these tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We note that the agency has not conducted an assessment as
to its authority to issue this type of requirement, and it is
unnecessary to do so in order to respond to this petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, if the agency were to propose adding new test requirements
to FMVSS
[[Page 25132]]
No. 208 or other requirements that manufacturers would be required to
meet, it would also need to carefully assess costs and benefits.
After carefully considering Mr. Hofferberth's petition, the agency
has decided to deny it. NHTSA has limited resources, and, for the
reasons discussed above, rulemaking to implement the petitioner's
requests would require substantial agency resources. While the agency
may in the future consider adding additional dummies to its frontal
crash test and/or other programs, the petitioner did not provide any
data or supporting documentation that convinced us that we should
change our current priorities and devote additional resources in this
area.
In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this completes the agency's
review of the petition.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30162;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued on: April 24, 2006.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E6-6423 Filed 4-27-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
