REGULATIONSRoof Standard Still a Work in Progress WASHINGTON - Last summer, the U.S. Department of Transportation, through its National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), proposed a rule change intended to improve public safety. The office suggested revisions to the roof crush regulation - known as Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 216 (FVMSS 216) - that had been unchanged for 32 years. The proposed rule change included a number of changes, most notably the following:* The existing roof standard - that vehicle roofs be able to withstand a force of 5,000 pounds - would only remain for vehicles under a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 10,000 pounds.* For vehicles with a GVW of more than 10,000 pounds, the existing standard would be replaced with a regulation that would require vehicles roofs to be capable of withstanding a force of 2.5 times their
GVW.
Automakers
believe strengthening roofs isn't the prudent or most effective solution to reduce deaths and injuries from rollover accidents.
* In addition, a vehicle's headroom would be protected. Rather than the current rule that stipulates a roof plate's movement is restricted to a maximum of 5 inches, a more direct limit on headroom reduction was proposed, prohibiting any roof component from contacting a seated 50th-percentile male dummy under the application of a force equivalent to 2.5 times the unloaded vehicle weight.
* The rule contains a pre-emption clause, in the Civil Justice Reform section of the rule, that would override current state tort law, the rights of states and private citizens, and do less than what Congress intended.
* If adopted, the earliest the rules would come into effect is 2010.
The rule-making process requires the opportunity to respond, with all replies being considered. Objections to the rule came from a wide spectrum - including automakers, Congress, state advocates, public safety groups, research institutions, consumer advocates, private industry and individual citizens.
Automakers don't like the rule Automakers have responded with direct submissions to NHTSA, as well as by making public comment. The
Detroit News recently reported that during the past six months, "Detroit's Big Three automakers have met with federal officials to make the case that the proposed new rules and testing procedures are too stringent and unworkable. Some automakers said they won't be able to fully comply in time."
Complying with the proposed rules would be significantly more expensive than initial NHTSA estimates suggested. Automakers also believe strengthening roofs isn't the prudent or most effective solution to reduce deaths and injuries from rollover accidents. In their response to NHTSA, the automakers say that proper seat belt use, advanced restraint systems and stability control systems that avoid rollovers are the best way to save lives.
"The potential benefits from improving roof strength have never been all that substantial," says Charles Territo, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. He noted that the vast majority of rollover deaths are the result of occupants not wearing seat belts, rather than roof intrusion. In addition, he points out that adding weight to strengthen roofs could have the unintended consequence of making vehicles more top-heavy and prone to rollovers.
The costs in meeting new standards In an assessment done last August, NHTSA reported that 68 percent of current vehicles could meet the proposed new standard; the Agency now acknowledges this assessment was inaccurate, in part because the government didn't test the heaviest vehicles. According to The Detroit News report, the Big Three have all told NHTSA that many of their current vehicles wouldn't pass under the new requirements. As a result, complying with the proposed rules would be significantly more expensive than initial NHTSA estimates suggested. General Motors also claims NHTSA didn't follow its proposed testing procedures when it did its tests. As a result, says GM, NHTSA overstated roof strength by up to 21 percent.
Congress isn't happy In 1991, Congress told NHTSA to address issues involving rollover accidents, given the rising popularity of SUVs and minivans, which have higher centers of gravity and more prone to rollover. Congress ordered the Agency to rewrite its roof strength rules in 2005, subject to any proposed rules being approved by White House Office of Management and Budget for approval. This office determines whether the benefit of a proposed change outweighs the cost involved. This process led to led to the proposed changes to FVMSS 216 last August.
The National Association of Attorney Generals says NHTSA violated Executive Order 13132 when it failed to consult state groups about the impact of the proposed rule, especially the pre-emption effects. The Safety Research & Strategies Inc. (SRS) issued a report last January that highlights a number of critical responses regarding the pre-emption clause from members of Congress and others. The SRS report states, "The pre-emption clause has provided almost as much outcry for its negative impact on state budgets, for its infringements on states' and consumers' rights, and for its rejection of Congress' intent that these federal regulations should represent minimum public safety standards."
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) note that the Transportation Equity Act does not give NHTSA any authority to pre-empt any state law. The SRS quoted from a letter sent by the senators to NHTSA, where they wrote, "We are interested to learn how NHTSA concluded that pre-emption was the intention of Congress when it passed the Transportation Equity Act."
The ripple effect The National Association of Attorney Generals expressed outrage with the pre-emption clause, saying NHTSA violated Executive Order 13132 when it failed to consult state groups about the impact of the proposed rule, especially the pre-emption effects. The advocate group notes that the clause would force states, rather than the manufacturers and sellers of vehicles, to bear the costs of deaths and caring for those injured in rollover crashes. The SRS report cites Ted Miller, a spokesman for the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, as calling the proposed rule change a "glaring error" that would impact insurers, states and citizens negatively. Miller said that rollover victims unable to recover their costs would be forced into bankruptcy. States would then have to pick up some of those costs, which he conservatively estimated at $39 million annually. Other advocates went further, suggesting the proposed rule change protected automakers from liability regarding the injuries and deaths of citizens driving unsafe vehicles. They assert that limiting the recourse for injured parties to pursue compensation from the manufacturers infringes on the rights of consumers. By NHTSA's own account, the impact of the proposed measures would be an estimated 13 to 44 lives and 500 to 800 injuries, far lower than the numbers from prior years. The comments and criticism received are being considered by the Agency, which has yet to respond publicly and formally to them. NHTSA has, however, agreed to the testing of additional vehicles, especially the heavier models of some brands, until the end of this year. Rae Tyson, a NHTSA spokesman, confirms that the Agency is in the process of doing additional testing of vehicles: "There's no sense in rushing this. You've got to do it right. This is a very difficult issue."
(Sources: DOT,
SRS,
Detroit News)
