Home

« NHTSA ANNOUNCES NEW CRASH, ROLLOVER TEST RESULTS | Main | LAP BELT RESTRAINT COLLECTION POSTED »

November 28, 2005

NOBODY LIKES NHTSA ROOF-CRUSH RULE PLAN

The comment period for NHTSA’s plan to amend its roof-crush rule, FMVSS 216, closed Nov. 21. A few days later NHTSA posted comments received during the prior week from safety advocates, engineering experts, state officials, auto industry members and others. It was clear from the comments that most commenters were unhappy with the plan, although for widely varying reasons. Safety advocates and some engineering experts blasted it as much too little, much too late, and urged that the static test now in the standard be replaced with a dynamic test replicating real-world rollover conditions. Auto company interests generally wanted test and compliance-date aspects of the proposal weakened. Safety advocates opposed the civil-liberties preemption proposal; industry interests supported it. A state governor was critical of both the proposed standard and of NHTSA’s failure to consult with states before proposing that the standard preempt law suits against manufacturers for alleged defects in complying vehicles. (See October postings for more information on the preemption proposal.) Two U.S. senators, Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa), joined in writing a letter to NHTSA critizing the proposal. "Congress mandated that NHTSA establish standards to 'reduce vehicle rollover crashes and mitigate deaths and injuries associated with such crashes.' It seems to us that this end will not be served by the new proposed rule," they said.

Typical of safety advocate views was this excerpt from the statement of Public Citizen:

“Astoundingly, NHTSA’s proposed rule, issued after three decades without an upgrade, requires only a token increase in roof strength and fails to provide an adequate level of rollover crashworthiness consistent with current technology. In fact, the proposed rule is so de minimis that 70 percent of the current vehicle fleet does not need to make any improvement to meet the proposed standards,4 and costs for vehicles requiring improvement is a measly $10.61. At a conceptual level, the proposal sets the roof strength standard without consideration of the critical role of roof crush resistance in determining the performance of other features important in protecting occupants in rollovers. This misunderstanding, which separates roof crush resistance from the dynamic event of a rollover, cripples the agency’s attempt to address rollover crashworthiness. Instead of maintaining this failed strategy, the agency should require compliance with the dolly rollover test now part of the occupant containment standard in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, currently an alternative means of certifying compliance with FMVSS No. 216, the roof crush resistance rule. The 208 test is conducted regularly by all of the major manufacturers and produces repeatable results from the standpoint of occupant injury. Only a dynamic test is capable of measuring the success of the standard in preventing roof crush and consequent occupant injury.”

See the full statement here.

To view all comments submitted to NHTSA in the FMVSS 216 rulemaking, do the following:

  1. Go to the DOT.
  2. Under “agency,” choose “NHTSA”.
  3. Under “calendar year,” select “2005”.
  4. Under “category,” choose “rulemaking”.
  5. In “docket subject,” write “roof crush”.
  6. Click on “search”

When the list of comments appears, click “reverse” at top of page to see most recent comments.

Posted by MVHAP at November 28, 2005 04:25 PM