NHTSA supplements Roof Crush Resistance proposal by providing new test results, revising the target population potentially affected and requesting comments on issues affecting the Final Rule. Docket No. 2008-0015.
Back on August 23, 2005, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to upgrade Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. As discussed in the NPRM, this ongoing rulemaking is part of a comprehensive plan for reducing the serious risk of rollover crashes and the risk of death and serious injury in those crashes. In addition to roof crush, other strategies in NHTSA's comprehensive approach include crash-avoidance initiatives such as electronic stability control which NHTSA claims would significantly reduce the number of rollovers, as well as crashworthiness efforts such as ejection mitigation and improved door lock strength which will lower the probability of ejection when rollovers do occur.
After analyzing the numerous comments to the NPRM and additional test results, on January 30, 2008 NHTSA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) for FMVSS 216. The SNPRM releases results on additional single-sided and two-sided tests through a link to the agency's internet vehicle crash test database as well as access to the recently completed agency's analysis of estimated benefits based on the relationship between roof intrusion and the probability of injury.
The agency is contemplating various alternatives for a final rule (FR). Each of the alternatives will directly affect the current fleet failure rate estimates, vehicle design changes and vehicle content necessary to meet those alternatives, and consequent benefits and costs. The estimated impacts of the FR will be changed by a number of factors. These include: Pass/Fail Rate of the Vehicle Test, Impact of Electronic Stability Control Safety Standard on Potential Benefits, Revised Cost and Weight Estimates, Two-Sided Testing Implications and Estimated Benefits Relationship of Intrusion and Probability of Injury. The agency believes that the cost estimates in the NPRM may increase due to the practice that manufacturers design to the heaviest design configuration within a platform, higher predicted gasoline prices and implications of two-sided testing.
The agency requests comments before March 17, 2008 on the costs of meeting the single-sided and two-sided testing alternative requirements for different types of vehicles for the proposed strength-to-weight ratio (SWR) of 2.5, as well as the alternatives of 3.0 and 3.5.