This Final Rule temporarily permits compliance with the old test methods that were required in FMVSS 208 prior to NHTSA's adoption of its Final Rule amendments on November 19, 2003.
Petitioners have indicated that compliance with the amended requirements of FMVSS 208, prior to resolution of their petitions for reconsideration, would cause substantial economic hardship because certification testing for the model year 2004 fleet has been completed. This rulemaking partially responds to their petitions for reconsideration by permitting manufacturers to temporarily certify vehicles according to the test procedures required prior to the effective date of the November 2003 final rule. These temporary test methods will be valid until August 31, 2004 and will be termed "FMVSS 208a".
NHTSA says that, "We have decided against any further extensions of the old procedures because we believe the new positioning procedures should not require any more than minor modifications by affected manufacturers." Manufacturers will then be required to meet the new requirements specified in the November 19, 2003 Federal Register Final Rule. This revised and temporary Final Rule was a result of several "Petitions For Reconsideration" which were received by NHTSA from both automobile manufacturers, child safety seat manufacturers, and also from manufacturer and supplier trade associations. These petitions were requested to prevent mid-model year disruptions in design as a result of ruling changes to several dummy positioning procedure requirements.
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON FRONTAL OFFSET CRASH TESTS
FMVSS No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection", does not currently have provisions in place to fully assess the potential for lower extremity injury in frontal crashes, such as injuries to the knee ligament, tibia, and ankle areas. The Insurance Institute For Highway Safety has been conducting high speed frontal offset deformable crash tests for the purpose of consumer crashworthiness ratings since 1995. In addition, several countries worldwide have now adopted frontal offset crash testing as part of their New Car Assessment Programs.
In 1997 the U.S House of representatives directed the NHTSA to work toward, "establishing a federal motor vehicle safety standard for frontal offset crash testing." Since then the agency has conducted testing to evaluate the feasibility of adopting a fixed offset deformable barrier crash in FMVSS 208. A preliminary determination revealed that the benefits from such a crash test could lead to an annual reduction of approximately 1,300 to 8,000 MAIS 2+ lower extremity injuries. Conversely, the agency also conducted vehicle-to-vehicle crash tests to investigate the potential for disbenefits from a fixed offset deformable barrier crash test. This testing demonstrated that, some SUV design changes that improved high speed frontal offset crash tests may also result in adverse effects on the occupants of their collision partners.
NHTSA is now soliciting comments from the public on a list of 10 questions. NHTSA believes the answers to these questions will assist the agency in acquiring the information it needs. NHTSA is encouraging commenters to provide their data, analysis, arguments or views they believe are relevant. Comments must be received by NHTSA by April 5, 2004. The following is an exact copy of the list of these questions for which the agency is requesting feedback:
1. Are NHTSA's anticipated safety benefits associated from a fixed offset deformable barrier crash test requirement provided in Section IV realistic? Please provide data to support any views.
2. In addition to potential disbenefits to the occupants of collision partners described in this notice, are there other potential disbenefits NHTSA should consider? Please provide data to support any views.
3. Is it necessary to stiffen the front corners of vehicles to do well in a fixed offset deformable barrier crash test? Please explain the answer. Also, is the answer to this question different for different vehicle classes? If so, please explain the answer for each vehicle class.
4. If stiffening the front corners of vehicles to do well in a fixed offset deformable barrier crash test is just one alternative for improving performance, what other types of countermeasures are available to achieve good performance in a fixed offset deformable barrier crash test? What are the costs and required lead-time associated with these countermeasures?
5. What are the constraints vehicle manufacturers must face in designing a vehicle to meet a high speed fixed offset deformable barrier crash test requirement? Which are the most difficult to overcome? What types of vehicles have the most constraints?
6. Is it necessary for the agency to consider alternative strategies to prevent vehicles from being too stiff or aggressively designed as a result of a fixed offset deformable barrier crash test requirement?
7. Are there certain vehicle classes or vehicle weights that should be exempted from a frontal offset crash test requirement? If so, please state the rationale for each vehicle class exemption or vehicle weight limitation.
8. This notice discussed one potential alternative strategy establishing an additional performance requirement to limit stiffness and/or energy management. Is this an appropriate strategy to pursue? If so, what requirement should be established?
9. Are there other alternative strategies, beyond those mentioned in this notice, which the agency should consider in conjunction with a fixed offset deformable barrier crash test requirement?
10. What optimum test speed should be employed in the fixed offset deformable barrier test so as to maximize occupant compartment integrity and at the same time ensure no undue stiffening of the fronts of large vehicles? What are the trade-offs between test speed and front-end stiffness of vehicles? Are the countermeasures dependent upon the test speed? If so, please explain the dependence.