
[Federal Register: June 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 113)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 28209-28212]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15jn09-23]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 581

[Docket Number NHTSA-2009-0047]

 
Bumper Standard; Petition for Rulemaking

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: On July 1, 2008, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 
(IIHS) petitioned the agency to amend the existing bumper standard, to 
require compliance by light trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles 
(SUVs), which NHTSA often refers to collectively as LTVs. The agency 
had already begun re-evaluating the bumper standard in anticipation of 
the vote on a Global Technical Regulation on pedestrian safety. NHTSA 
requests comments and information to assist the agency in determining 
whether to grant or deny the IIHS petition.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that 
Docket Management receives them not later than August 14, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the docket notice number cited at the 
beginning of this notice and be submitted to Docket Management, Room 
W12-140, ground level, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West 
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. 
Telephone: 1-800-647-5527.
     Fax: (202) 493-2251.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public 
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this 
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://
docketsinfo.dot.gov/.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to the street address listed above. The internet 
access to the docket will be at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
online instructions for accessing the dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hisham Mohamed, Consumer Standards 
Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 
Jersey Ave., SE., West Building, Room W43-437, NVS-131, Washington, DC 
20590. Mr. Mohamed's telephone number is 202-366-0307; E-mail: 
hisham.mohamed@dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The agency's bumper standard, set forth at 49 CFR part 581, 
establishes requirements for the impact resistance of vehicles in low 
speed front and rear collisions. The purpose of the standard is to 
reduce physical damage to the front and rear ends of a passenger motor 
vehicle from low speed collisions. The standard applies to passenger 
motor vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicles and low speed 
vehicles.
    The history of the Part 581 bumper standard has been long and 
complex. In its initial efforts in the field of bumper regulation, 
NHTSA issued Federal

[[Page 28210]]

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 215, Exterior Protection, 
under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety 
Act), now codified as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. FMVSS No. 215 was 
initially implemented on September 1, 1972.
    On October 20, 1972, Congress enacted the Motor Vehicle Information 
and Cost Savings Act (the Cost Savings Act). Title I of that Act, now 
codified as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 325, provided for promulgation of bumper 
standards to reduce the economic loss resulting from damage to 
passenger motor vehicles involved in motor vehicle accidents. The 
statute specifies that when prescribing a bumper standard, the agency 
must design the standard to obtain the maximum feasible reduction of 
costs to the public, considering the costs and benefits of carrying out 
the standard; the effect of the standard on insurance costs and legal 
fees and costs; savings in consumer time and inconvenience; and health 
and safety, including emission standards. 49 U.S.C. 32502(d).
    Pursuant to both the authority of the Cost Savings Act and the 
Safety Act, NHTSA established the Part 581 Bumper Standard in 1976. 41 
RF 9346 (March 4, 1976). As adopted, this standard combined the safety 
features of FMVSS 215 with new damage resistance criteria intended to 
promote consumer cost savings. There have been a number of amendments 
to the bumper standard since that time.
    NHTSA's bumper standard does not apply to vehicles classified as 
trucks (because they are not passenger motor vehicles) or multipurpose 
passenger vehicles (because they are a type of passenger motor vehicles 
excluded by the agency when it established the bumper standard) the 
category which includes vehicles commonly referred to as SUVs. The Cost 
Savings Act specifically excludes trucks from any bumper standards and 
allows the agency to exempt multipurpose passenger vehicles from bumper 
standards. Both of these vehicle types could be regulated under the 
authority of the Safety Act. Since trucks are excluded from bumper 
standards under the Cost Saving Act, any bumper standard for these 
vehicles would need to be issued solely on the criteria included in the 
Safety Act.
    In the past NHTSA has denied petitions to extend the bumper 
standard to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles. In August 1984, 
the agency denied two petitions for rulemaking, asking the agency to 
establish safety requirements for bumpers on vehicles other than 
passenger cars (49 FR 34049, Aug. 28, 1984). The first petitioner 
requested the agency to establish a bumper height requirement for all 
vehicles. The second petitioner requested the agency to require rear 
bumpers on pick-up trucks.
    NHTSA responded by stating that while it was conceivable that a 
bumper height requirement for vehicles other than passenger cars could 
result in some slight, non-quantifiable safety benefits relating to 
unrepaired damage, the agency was unaware of any data indicating any 
significant safety problem with bumpers (or lack of rear bumper) on 
pick-up trucks, vans or utility vehicles, relating to mismatch 
problems, crash energy management, or side impact intrusion. Neither 
petitioner provided any such data.
    In its response, NHTSA also stated that in considering possible 
rulemaking, the agency must consider both safety issues and whether a 
proposed requirement would be reasonable, practicable and appropriate 
for the particular type of motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle 
equipment for which it is prescribed. This is specifically required by 
the Safety Act.
    The agency concluded that establishing a bumper height requirement 
for vehicles other than passenger cars or requiring rear bumpers on 
pick-up trucks could significantly reduce the utility of the vehicle 
types in question. At that time, the agency did not have data showing 
that there was a safety problem that would justify rulemaking.
    In February 1991, the agency again denied a petition for rulemaking 
regarding bumper heights for small trucks and SUVs (56 FR 7826, Feb. 
26, 1991). The petitioner was concerned that these vehicles could 
override the hood of passenger cars in crashes. In responding to the 
petition, the agency noted that the bumper standard did not apply to 
trucks or multipurpose passenger vehicles. NHTSA stated that it 
believed it would be inappropriate to require bumpers of these vehicles 
to be at the same height as those of passenger cars. The agency stated 
that these types of vehicles require greater ground clearance than 
passenger cars, to enable them to clear obstacles and hazards 
characteristic of commercial and occasional off-road operation. The 
agency stated that, for the same reason, requiring underride guards on 
trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles would be inappropriate. The 
requirement recommended by the petitioner would have significantly 
reduced the utility of the vehicle types in question. Therefore, the 
agency believed that such a requirement would not be reasonable, 
practicable or appropriate for these vehicle types.
    NHTSA also noted that while the agency recognized that many of 
these other vehicles were manufactured with bumpers mounted somewhat 
higher than passenger car bumpers, it did not have evidence of any 
significant safety problems resulting from those differences. 
Additionally, the agency analyzed data from the 1989 Fatal Accident 
Reporting System (FARS) file \1\, a census of all fatal motor vehicle 
crashes on U.S. roads. The analysis indicated that there were no 
incidences of underride or override reported as a specific cause of the 
car occupant fatality, and the agency stated it was unaware of any data 
indicating a safety problem to be addressed by a rulemaking addressing 
bumper heights of pickup trucks, vans or sport utility vehicles. 
However, a review of the 2007 FARS data on ``Deaths among Occupants of 
Passenger Cars with Underride or Override Reported'' shows that the 
data includes 206 occupants who died in cars with underride or override 
reported, including 34 in crashes that involved at least one light 
truck or van. Thirteen of these fatalities occurred in two-vehicle 
crashes. All 13 involved a pickup truck, and 10 involved front damage 
to the car. The agency notes that although this data reflects that some 
fatalities have involved occupants who died in cars with underride or 
override reported, the data does not reflect the travel or crash speed 
for these crashes. We note that the crash or travel speed for these 
crashes could be above the speed requirements of the bumper standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The acronym ``FARS'' now stands for the ``Fatality Analysis 
Reporting System.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The IIHS Petition

    In July 2008 the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) 
petitioned NHTSA to extend the bumper standard to light trucks, vans, 
and SUVs (collectively, LTVs). The IIHS stated that it is legal to sell 
new LTVs in the United States without any bumpers, and this produces 
several undesirable consequences. The IIHS stated that many LTVs 
provide virtually no protection for vital safety-related parts such as 
headlights and taillights, which often sustain damage in low-speed 
collisions. The IIHS stated that LTVs owners have to pay for expensive 
repairs to fenders, grilles, and other parts that sustain unnecessary 
damage in low-speed collisions. Further, IIHS stated that vehicle 
manufacturers which choose to equip their LTVs with bumpers do not have 
to make them

[[Page 28211]]

compatible in height with passenger vehicle bumpers. IIHS stated that 
LTV bumpers can be much higher than car bumpers, which results in 
excessive damage to the passenger vehicles with which they collide at 
low speeds.
    The IIHS also stated that crash test results and data from 
insurance claims demonstrate the safety and property damage 
consequences of allowing inadequate bumpers, or none at all, on LTVs. 
The petitioner stated that by applying passenger vehicle bumper 
requirements to LTVs, NHTSA would make bumpers more compatible across 
the range of passenger vehicles. The petitioner also stated that this 
would enhance occupant safety and, at the same time, reduce costly 
damage to property in low-speed collisions, a subject which NHTSA and 
the automotive industry are addressing in the broader issue of vehicle 
compatibility. (Docket: NHTSA-2003-14623).
    We note that NHTSA had already begun re-evaluating the bumper 
standard in anticipation of a vote on the Global Technical Regulation 
(GTR) on pedestrian safety, (see notice at 73 FR 55201 for further 
discussion of the GTR). The agency is also aware that there has been a 
significant change in vehicle registration in the U.S. that has 
resulted from an increased market shift to light trucks since the most 
recent revision of the bumper standard in 1982. The IIHS petition on 
its own does not provide sufficient support for the requested action, 
but our evaluation leads us to think that it may be an appropriate time 
to reconsider past agency decisions on extending the bumper standard to 
other vehicles.
    NHTSA requests comments to assist the agency in deciding whether to 
grant or deny the IIHS petition. To inform the agency's decision, the 
following are key issues that the agency would like commenters to 
address. In particular, the agency requests that commenters include 
documents, studies, test protocols, data, or references which support 
their comments.

Cost/Benefits

    (1) The petitioner reported that crash tests demonstrate that there 
are bumper height mismatches between SUVs and passenger cars based on 
four tested MY 2008 SUVs and five tested MY 2004 SUVs. The petitioner 
reported that crash tests with greater bumper mismatches tend to 
produce damage with higher repair costs. Are these results 
representative of the current SUV fleet? Are the results likely to 
reflect the future mix of SUVs? Are there any comparable data available 
for other LTVs?
    (2) Are there any estimates of the costs and benefits of extending 
the bumper standard to LTVs? Can these costs and benefits be estimated 
separately for SUVs, minivans, and pickups? Can these costs and 
benefits be estimated separately for unibody and body on frame SUVs, 
and for different SUVs by size? Can these costs and benefits be 
estimated separately for the front and rear bumpers? Also, what would 
be the specific safety benefits of extending the bumper standard to 
these vehicles (separate from other types of benefits)?
    (3) Should NHTSA consider a more-extensive upgrade to the bumper 
standard for all light vehicles? Does the current standard adequately 
protect passenger cars, given the current and projected mix of crash 
partners? What are the estimated repair costs for vehicles with 
matching and mismatching bumpers at various crash speeds (for example, 
2.5 and 5 mph)? Can the benefits and costs be estimated separately for 
the front and rear bumpers?
    (4) Over the past decades, the passenger vehicle fleet has shifted 
from a fleet containing primarily cars to a fleet with a much higher 
percentage of light trucks. FHWA data show that growth in total miles 
driven by ``Two-axle, four-tire trucks,'' a category that includes most 
or all light trucks used as passenger vehicles, averaged 5.1% annually 
from 1985 through 2005.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0089.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the future mix of the fleet is uncertain, the agency seeks 
comment and data on the current usage patterns for light trucks. Since 
past agency decisions have focused on the utility of these vehicles, 
are there any data that provide the current usage patterns of light 
trucks? Are there vehicle features that distinguish light trucks which 
are primarily work vehicles from those that are used primarily as 
passenger vehicles?
    (5) For an LTV, what is the probability of being involved in low 
speed crashes over the vehicle's lifetime? And what is the difference 
in repair and inconvenience costs for matching and mismatching vehicle 
bumpers? Also what is the frequency of vehicle crashes at various low 
speed impacts (for example, 2.5, 5, 7.5 and 10 mph)? Please provide 
data.

Vehicle Compatibility

    Bumper mismatch represents one aspect of the broader issue of 
vehicle compatibility being addressed by NHTSA and the automotive 
industry. NHTSA is addressing self-protection in the near-term through 
improved side impact protection. On September 11, 2007 (72 FR 51908), 
the agency published a final rule upgrading the requirements of FMVSS 
No. 214, ``Side impact protection,'' to assure head and improved chest 
protection in side crashes. It will lead to the installation of new 
technologies such as side curtain air bags, which are capable of 
improving head and thorax protection to occupants of vehicles that 
crash into poles and trees and vehicles that are laterally struck by a 
higher-riding vehicle.
    To improve partner protection for occupants in struck vehicles, 
NHTSA has conducted research enabling the effect of matching height of 
the frontal structures and stiffness. NHTSA is also pursuing refinement 
of its data collection to enhance the better understanding of the fleet 
geometry during crashes.
    In addition to NHTSA's initiatives, the automobile industry has 
developed and committed to a set of voluntary design guidelines and 
performance criteria for enhancing vehicle-to-vehicle compatibility. 
One of the requirement options is for the light truck's primary frontal 
energy absorbing structure to geometrically overlap at least 50 percent 
of the zone established by NHTSA in its bumper standard (49 CFR part 
581) for passenger cars. An alternative to this option is for a 
secondary structure to have a lower edge no higher than the bottom of 
the Part 581 bumper zone. By September 1, 2009, 100 percent of 
participating manufacturers' new light truck production intended for 
sale in the United States must comply with one of these approaches.
    (6) IIHS reported that Ford has reduced the bumper height mismatch 
for one of its popular SUVs without compromising vehicle function on 
loading ramps and off-road. What data are available to support this 
statement? How have the design changes on this vehicle changed its 
approach and departure angles? What were the trade-offs, if any, in 
reducing the bumper-height mismatch for this vehicle? Would there be 
problems in redesigning other LTVs to comply with the bumper standard 
and what would these problems be? What will be the cost of redesigning 
LTVs to comply with the bumper standard?
    (7) What data are available to indicate any significant safety 
problem with bumpers (or lack of rear bumper) on pick-up trucks, vans 
or utility vehicles, relating to mismatch problems, crash energy 
management, or side impact intrusion?

[[Page 28212]]

    (8) How much overlap in bumper height is needed between the front 
of one vehicle and the rear of another vehicle to eliminate or reduce 
bumper mismatch?
    (9) Is there a way to define vehicle characteristics that require a 
higher bumper, such that some LTVs could be exempt from a bumper height 
standard, while others would be required to supply bumpers of certain 
heights?
    (10) Please provide data to support incidences of underride or 
override reported as a specific cause of vehicle occupant injury or 
fatality. What is the availability of data indicating a safety problem 
that could have been addressed by a rulemaking addressing bumper 
heights of pickup trucks, vans or sport utility vehicles? Please 
provide specific details.
    (11) To what extent does the U.S. fleet of LTVs meet the bumper 
standard requirements? What are the bumper costs, weights and heights 
(i.e. measurements of the bumper structural element from the ground) of 
the different types of LTVs in the U.S. fleet?

Pedestrian Safety

    (12) Ongoing work on the pedestrian safety GTR has shown that 
changes in the vehicle geometry can have a profound effect on 
pedestrian leg injuries when struck by the front bumper. Any decision 
to change the bumper standard should therefore consider, if not 
provide, an in-depth analysis of pedestrian injuries and fatalities 
related to the bumper standard. Are there any analyses on the effect of 
vehicle frontal geometry changes on pedestrian safety that could happen 
as a result if LTVs were required to comply with the existing bumper 
standard? Please provide information on these analyses.
    (13) What impact would a change to the bumper standard have on the 
potential for manufacturers to also meet the pedestrian safety GTR 
requirements? Please provide information on that data.

New Technologies

    (14) Vehicle height could be adjusted for on or off-road usage, for 
example, by using air suspension. Recent development in materials and 
designs has helped introduce height adjustable suspension on some SUVs. 
What is the available data on the feasibility, costs and benefits of 
using vehicle height adjustment technologies to comply with a 
requirement for these vehicles to meet the current bumper standard? Are 
there any data on the extent to which SUVs operated on the public roads 
have their height adjusted to on-road position? Please provide 
information on these data.

Statutory Criteria

    (15) As noted earlier, since trucks are excluded from bumper 
standards under the Cost Savings Act, any bumper standards for these 
vehicles would need to meet the criteria in the Safety Act. The current 
bumper standard was developed under the criteria of the Cost Savings 
Act. Could a straight forward extension of the bumper standard to 
trucks be justified under the criteria of the Safety Act alone? If so, 
how? If not, why not?

Public Participation

A. How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your primary comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 
553.21). However, you may attach additional documents to your primary 
comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES.
    Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically on the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
online instructions for submitting comments.

B. How can I be sure my comments were received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

C. How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, send three copies of your complete submission, 
including the information you claim to be confidential business 
information, to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 
Include a cover letter supplying the information specified in our 
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).
    In addition, send two copies from which you have deleted the 
claimed confidential business information to Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES, or submit them electronically 
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

D. Will the agency consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date.

E. How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by the Docket Management at the 
address given under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are indicated 
above in the same location. To read the comments on the Internet, go to 
http: //www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for 
accessing the docket.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information on the docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the docket for new material.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32502; 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    Issued on: June 4, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9-13531 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
