81 FR 86684 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 231 (December 1, 2016)

Page Range		86684-86687
FR Document		2016-28126

This document denies a petition for rulemaking, submitted by Ms. Scheryn Bennett, requesting that the National Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) require every vehicle to be equipped with an emergency glass breaking tool. The data available to the agency shows there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the actual number of occupants that may have died due solely to drowning while trapped in an immersed vehicle. The potential effectiveness of such a tool to successfully aid an occupant's safe exit from an immersed vehicle is also not known. In the absence of a requirement that each vehicle have a glass breaking tool, nothing prevents vehicle manufacturers from providing a tool or other means to allow vehicle evacuation during immersion. Additionally, consumers can purchase their own tool and locate it in the vehicle where they would be likely to access it in an emergency.

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 231 (Thursday, December 1, 2016)

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 231 (Thursday, December 1, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 86684-86687]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28126]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0054]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for rulemaking, submitted by
Ms. Scheryn Bennett, requesting that the National Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) require every vehicle to be equipped with an
emergency glass breaking tool. The data available to the agency shows
there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the actual number of
occupants that may have died due solely to drowning while trapped in an
immersed vehicle. The potential effectiveness of such a tool to
successfully aid an occupant's safe exit from an immersed vehicle is
also not known. In the absence of a requirement that each vehicle have
a glass breaking tool, nothing prevents vehicle manufacturers from
providing a tool or other means to allow vehicle evacuation during
immersion. Additionally, consumers can purchase their own tool and
locate it in the vehicle where they would be likely to access it in an
emergency.

DATES: This denial is effective as of December 1, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Office of Crashworthiness Standards, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For Non-Legal Issues: Mr. James Myers, Office of Crashworthiness
Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 493-0031,
Facsimile: (202) 493-2739.
For Legal Issues: Ms. Rebecca Yoon, Office of Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 366-2992.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Petition
III. Analysis of Petition
A. Preliminary Analysis of Real World Data
B. Potential Effectiveness of Tool
C. Costs Effectiveness
D. Response to Standard Equipment Statement
IV. Conclusion

I. Background

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (``Safety Act,''
49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for
new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The
prescribed motor vehicle safety standards must be practicable, meet the
need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms. NHTSA
does not endorse any vehicles or items of equipment. Further, NHTSA
does not approve or certify vehicles or equipment. Instead, the Safety
Act establishes a ``self-certification'' process under which each
manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all
applicable safety standards. NHTSA has not established any standards
pertaining to an emergency glass breaking tool, nor has the agency ever
established a requirement that they must be provided with any vehicle.

II. Petition

On January 22, 2014, Ms. Scheryn Bennett, (henceforth referred to
as Ms. Bennett), requested that NHTSA require every vehicle to be
equipped with an ``emergency window breaker.'' Ms. Bennett cited the
drowning deaths of a mother and her two minor children during an August
2011 flash flood in Pittsburgh, PA, and wrote that ``evidence showed
they [the victims] attempted to kick out the windows in their
minivan.'' Ms. Bennett expressed a concern for vehicle occupants to
exit a passenger vehicle via a window after the vehicle has become
trapped in water such that the water interrupts the vehicle electrical
system, rendering the power windows inoperable. Additionally, Ms.
Bennett contended that ``[j]ust as a spare tire and jack are standard
in all vehicles so should an emergency window breaker.''

III. Analysis of Petition

As a general matter, any proposed safety standard issued by NHTSA
must meet the need for motor vehicle safety. Typically, we assess
whether a standard would meet the need for motor vehicle safety by
analyzing the real-world safety problem (which is the ``safety need''),
and then analyzing how well the safety problem can be addressed by the
standard we are proposing (whether the safety need is met by the
standard). It is challenging for the agency to justify a new regulation
based only on an

[[Page 86685]]

assumption that a particular vehicle safety feature or piece of
equipment has potential for reducing injury or death in some crash
scenarios.

A. Preliminary Analysis of Real World Data

Ms. Bennett provided a newspaper article reporting on the death of
a mother and her two children that drowned in their minivan during a
severe flash flood event. We searched for additional data that could
support the existence of a safety need which could be addressed by an
emergency window breaking tool. NHTSA's data review for this petition
examined the information available in the agency's Fatality Analysis
Reporting System (FARS) and Not-in-Traffic Surveillance (NiTS)
databases. We also examined vehicle related cataclysmic drowning
incident information available from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Web site.
NHTSA's FARS database is a nationwide census of yearly data
regarding fatal injuries suffered in motor vehicle traffic crashes.
However, it does not capture fatalities that occur directly as a result
of a cataclysm, such as flooding. An example of this would be a motor
vehicle swept away while a bridge the vehicle was crossing is washed
out during a hurricane or flood. Accidents related to a cataclysm, but
occurring after the cataclysm has ended, would be traffic crashes and
would be in FARS. Such an example could be where a motor vehicle is
driven into water after a hurricane or flood where a bridge was washed
out.
In the 2011 technical paper Drowning Deaths in Motor Vehicle
Traffic Accidents,\1\ NHTSA reviewed data available in FARS and linked
it to Multiple Cause of Death (MCoD) data from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC). The information indicated that drowning
was involved in approximately 1 percent of the average annual motor
vehicle occupant traffic fatalities for the time period reviewed for
the paper (or 384 motor vehicle occupant traffic fatalities annually).
NHTSA further analyzed the data for indications of possible occupant
trauma that would indicate the fatally injured occupant(s) could have
been unable to self-evacuate from their vehicle because of their
physical condition at the time of the vehicle immersion. These included
potentially incapacitating crash scenarios such as vehicle rollovers,
impacts with fixed objects, alcohol levels at or above the legal limit,
and occupant ejection cases. Removing incidents involving vehicle
rollovers and alcohol/drug usage from the above 384 fatalities yielded
an annual average of 81 crash fatalities involving accidental drowning.
We further excluded events in which the vehicle struck a fixed object
prior to entering the water. Based upon this analysis, there were 28
drowning fatalities that were caused by crashes where vehicle immersion
or unknown factors were the first harmful event.\2\ These 28
individuals are the group most likely to have been in a position to
self-evacuate from their immersed vehicle. However, the database
details are insufficient to conclusively determine which of these
fatalities occurred solely due to drowning and not factors such as
physical trauma, seat belt issues, confusion, or other unknown issues,
and thus may have survived if an emergency glass breaking tool had been
available in the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ ``Drowning Deaths In Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents''; Rory
Austin; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 22nd
Experimental Safety of Vehicles Conference, Washington, DC, Paper
Number 11-0170, 2011. (http://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/22/files/22ESV-000170.pdf)
\2\ Ibid, Table 7 records an annual average of 106 fatalities
for immersion events with no rollover. Per FARS database inquiry, 25
of these fatalities had BAC .08 or higher (105 minus 25 equals 81).
Of the remaining fatalities, 53 were from incidents where the
vehicle collided with a fixed object prior to entering the water.
This leaves 28 average annual crash fatalities possibly due solely
to drowning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA also examined the information available in our NiTS database.
The NiTS database tracks nontraffic crashes which occur off of public
roads in locations such as private roads, driveways, parking lots, and
undeveloped areas. Unfortunately, the system does not have any linked
mortality data, which prevents a similar analysis to the one for
traffic fatalities using FARS. Furthermore, while the database can list
a most harmful event of immersion when applicable, the results
previously presented above from the technical paper Drowning Deaths in
Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents \3\ indicate that this variable does
not provide a good proxy for counting drowning deaths. Additionally,
the event details available are insufficient to determine if the
individuals died inside or outside of their vehicles. Thus, this
database could not provide data supporting a safety need for this
petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Ibid., page 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA also researched flood related fatality information available
on the NOAA Web site. The NOAA Web site uses data obtained from the
CDC. Reviewing the listed event circumstances for only fatalities in
which the persons died inside \4\ a motor vehicle, there were on
average 34 people annually that died inside their vehicles for the
years 2010-2014.\5\ The information available on the NOAA Web site does
not permit an evaluation into possible escape methods that may have
benefitted these individuals, which makes it difficult to use this
information to establish a safety need. It is further not possible to
determine the extent to which there is an overlap in the fatality count
between the 28 FARS fatalities and the 34 NOAA fatalities of people
dying each year inside their vehicles during motor vehicle water
immersion incidents. Neither is it possible to determine whether these
people had compromised physical conditions due to event induced trauma
or whether unknown physical barriers such as event damaged vehicle
systems prevented them from escaping their vehicle interiors prior to
drowning. NHTSA's review of the available information did not provide
data to support the safety need listed in Ms. Bennett's petition. The
information does not reveal whether the people died in these accidents
due solely to drowning or from some other cause. Because it cannot be
determined exactly how these people died, it is challenging to develop
specific safety recommendations that could prevent this type of
fatality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ The NOAA data lists fatalities for people that escaped their
trapped vehicle as a vehicle related fatality. The NOAA data also
lists ATV and horse and buggy in the vehicle related category. These
fatalities were excluded from our analysis since an emergency glass
breaking tool would likely not have helped these people.
\5\ The NOAA information lists the following in-vehicle
fatalities for vehicles trapped in floodwaters: 2010 44 fatalities;
2011 60 fatalities; 2012 9 fatalities; 2013 31 fatalities; and 2014
24 fatalities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Potential Effectiveness of Tool

Multiple types of glass breaking tools are commercially available
for consumers to purchase. The tools can be attached to a key chain,
attached to a seat belt, mounted in the vehicle interior, or stored in
a convenient location within the vehicle interior. These tools are
intended to quickly and efficiently break the tempered glass \6\
material of a passenger vehicle's side window in order to create a
vehicle emergency egress location. Currently-available glass breaking
tools may be

[[Page 86686]]

quite capable of vacating tempered glass from a window opening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ Per ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 the term ``tempered glass'' means a
single piece of specially treated sheet, plate, or float glass
possessing mechanical strength substantially higher than annealed
glass. When broken at any point the entire piece breaks into small
pieces that have relatively dull edges as compared to those of
broken pieces of annealed glass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, the glass breaking tools will not quickly and efficiently
break those passenger vehicle side windows constructed with laminated
glass \7\ material.\8\ The capability of glass breaking tools to break
plastic glazing materials permitted for use in motor vehicles by FMVSS
No. 205 is also unknown. Information on the percentage of passenger
vehicles with side or rear windows constructed of laminated glass or
plastic glazing materials is not collected by the agency. An
examination of information available from the Enhanced Protective Glass
Automotive Association indicates at least four dozen passenger vehicle
models may have laminated glass material at vehicle locations other
than the front windshield.\9\ These vehicles tend to be lower volume,
luxury models. Even in vehicles with laminated glass in side windows,
there may be other windows with tempered glass, such as the rear window
or potentially a sunroof. Drivers and occupants would need to not only
know which windows are breakable by the emergency glass breaking tool
and which are not, but would also need to be prepared to respond
accordingly as their vehicle is filling with water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ Per ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 the term ``laminated glass'' means
two or more pieces of sheet, plate, or float glass bonded together
by an intervening layer or layers of plastic material. It will crack
or break under sufficient impact, but the pieces of glass tend to
adhere to the plastic. If a hole is produced, the edges are likely
to be less jagged than would be the case with ordinary annealed
glass.
\8\ ``Type of Glass in Your Car's Windows Could Change Escape
Plan''; Deanna Dewberry, News 5 NBCDFW.com; May 6, 2013 (2014 NBC
Universal Media, LLC.) http://www.nbcdfw.com/investigations/Type-of-Glass-in-Your-Cars-Windows-Could-Change-Escape-Plan-206353031.html;
last accessed May 15, 2015.
\9\ ``Enhanced Protective Glass Applications''; Enhanced
Protective Glass Automotive Association; http://www.epgaa.com/?page_id=1673; last accessed May 15, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are other concerns related to the potential effectiveness of
a requirement for such a tool beyond knowing which vehicle windows can
or cannot be broken with the tool. First, it is not clear to the agency
that a vehicle driver or passenger would be aware of the existence of
such a device, its location, or how and when it should be used without
additional information being provided. It is unclear whether
information in the owner's manual would be sufficient to properly
educate the vehicle occupants as to the existence of the device and its
use. It is reasonable to assume the device would need to be located
within the occupant compartment. However, the agency questions how
likely it would be for the tool to be used if the tool was hidden away
in the glove compartment or other non-visible location, or whether the
tool would need to always be visible and within reach for it to be used
when needed. The answer to that question may be tied to the success of
the educational information referred to above.
There are many situationally dependent, time critical decisions
that conscious occupants may face if their vehicle becomes immersed in
water, particularly if it is caught in a flash flood. Do the occupants
need to leave the vehicle interior to avoid drowning and how quickly
should that happen? What is the best way to safely exit the vehicle?
What is the fastest, most survivable path to exit the flood waters?
What special considerations are needed to help children get out of the
vehicle if only one adult is present? All of these decisions and many
more must be made within a few seconds once such a life threatening
event begins. Once a vehicle becomes completely submerged, the
occupants will face a reduced chance of survival.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ Gordon G. Giesbrecht, ``My Car Is Sinking: Automobile
Submersion, Lessons in Vehicle Escape,'' Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine, Volume 81, Issue 8, August 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of the above issues are open questions that will affect the
real world effectiveness of a requirement to provide an emergency glass
breaking tool. Based on the information available to NHTSA about the
apparent size of the safety problem (i.e., the number of people who die
each year from drowning in their vehicle because they could not open
the window and were not otherwise incapacitated) and the lack of
information available about how well emergency glass breaking tools
might address that safety problem, the agency is unable to say with
confidence that a requirements for an emergency window breaking tool
would meet the need for safety, as required by the Safety Act.

C. Cost Effectiveness

Anecdotal market research on commercially available tempered glass
breaking tools shows that there are a variety of tools marketed as
emergency window glass breaking tools. They are generally either a type
of hammer or a spring loaded punch. Some of the available tools are
intended solely for breaking glass. Other tools provide additional
functionality such as seat belt cutters, flashlights, or even tire
pressure gauges. Purchase costs for these tools range from
approximately $3.50 to $20.00 each.
In addition to the preliminary nature of the above cost estimates,
there are several other barriers to making a reasonable estimate of the
cost effectiveness of a potential requirement for this tool. First, as
previously discussed, the available motor vehicle crash information
suggests that the number of people that might be expected to require a
means of escaping an immersed vehicle through a window opening may be
on the order of 28 persons annually. However, as also outlined above,
there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding any estimate, as the
data does not permit a conclusive determination on the number of
fatalities due solely to drowning, even when immersion is the first
harmful event. Second, the potential effectiveness of the tool measured
by an occupant's ability to safely exit a vehicle is not known.
Although the glass breaking tool is expected to easily shatter tempered
glass when used, there are other factors that are very likely to reduce
the effectiveness of the tool. High among these would be a lack of
knowledge of the existence of the tool and finding it as a vehicle
becomes immersed. Thus, the uncertainty in the population of vehicle
occupants that require the tool and in its potential effectiveness
results in a highly uncertain assessment of potential benefits. Any
resulting cost effectiveness estimate would be tenuous.

D. Response to Standard Equipment Statement

Ms. Bennett wrote that spare tires and jacks are ``standard'' on
all vehicles. This is not correct; NHTSA has issued no standard or
regulation which requires vehicles to be provisioned with a spare tire
and tools for changing tires. Many vehicles do not have a spare tire
and jack, but rather other means of facilitating the temporary driving
of a vehicle after a tire becomes flat, such as an inflator and sealant
kit or run-flat tires.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ Your next car may not have a spare tire; Jim Travers;
Consumer Reports.Org article; Published August 16, 2014; last
accessed May 15, 2015; http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/08/your-next-car-may-not-have-a-spare-tire/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The vehicle original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) may offer
consumers the option to purchase motor vehicle equipment that provides
safety benefits beyond the minimum requirements of the various FMVSS.
Just as several OEMs sell optional first aid and road side assistance
kits for their vehicles, they could sell an appropriate

[[Page 86687]]

glass breaking tool with recommended procedures for usage during an
emergency.
Consumers also have the option to equip their vehicles with
emergency safety equipment. Items such as fire extinguishers,
automotive tool kits, aftermarket vehicle jacks and lug wrenches,
battery jumper cables, first aid kits, winter emergency survival kits,
survival kits for desert travel, and vehicle break down kits are items
available for consumers to purchase for emergency preparedness.
Consumers who do purchase safety items for their vehicles may be more
likely to know where these items are stored in their vehicles and how
to use the equipment. All vehicle operators are strongly encouraged to
understand their vehicle's capabilities and safety features, their
expected driving environment, and to be prepared for possible emergency
situations.

IV. Conclusion

NHTSA shares Ms. Bennett's desire to prevent deaths in motor
vehicles. However, at this time there are several substantial obstacles
to proposing an objective motor vehicle safety standard to assist
vehicle occupants in evacuating a passenger vehicle that has become
immersed in water.
First, as previously explained, the data available to the agency
shows there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding any estimate of
occupants requiring the use of the glass breaking tool. Second, the
potential effectiveness of the tool to provide drivers and occupants
with a method to safely exit a vehicle during an immersion event is not
known. Due to the uncertainty surrounding whether the glass breaking
tool would successfully aid all occupants in all vehicles during a
vehicle immersion situation, NHTSA cannot justify a mandate for such a
tool.
Even without a requirement that each vehicle have a glass breaking
tool, there is nothing to keep vehicle manufacturers from providing it
or other means to allow vehicle evacuation during immersion. In
addition, consumers can purchase their own tool and locate it in the
vehicle where they would be likely to access it in an emergency. Those
consumers who do this may be more aware of the existence of the tool
when the need to use it arises than would occupants of a vehicle where
the tool has been provided as standard equipment.
In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, NHTSA hereby denies Ms. Scheryn
Bennett's January 22, 2014, petition to require every vehicle to be
equipped with ``an emergency window breaker.''

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30162;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2016-28126 Filed 11-30-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

86684 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules

registration, or certification in a State to DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION B. Potential Effectiveness of Tool
perform physical examinations and C. Costs Effectiveness
maintain documentation of and National Highway Traffic Safety D. Response to Standard Equipment
Administration Statement
completion of all training required by IV. Conclusion
this section and § 390.105(c) and
390.111(a)(iv). The certified VA medical 49 CFR Part 571 I. Background
examiner must make this [Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0054] The National Traffic and Motor
documentation available to an Vehicle Safety Act (‘‘Safety Act,’’ 49
authorized representative of FMCSA or Federal Motor Vehicle Safety U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) authorizes NHTSA
an authorized representative of Federal, Standards to issue safety standards for new motor
State, or local government. The certified AGENCY: National Highway Traffic vehicles and new items of motor vehicle
VA medical examiner must provide this Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. equipment. The prescribed motor
documentation within 48 hours of the vehicle safety standards must be
ACTION: Denial of petition for
request for investigations and within 10 practicable, meet the need for motor
rulemaking.
days of the request for regular audits of vehicle safety, and be stated in objective
eligibility. SUMMARY: This document denies a terms. NHTSA does not endorse any
petition for rulemaking, submitted by vehicles or items of equipment. Further,
* * * * *
Ms. Scheryn Bennett, requesting that the NHTSA does not approve or certify
PART 391—QUALIFICATIONS OF National Traffic Safety Administration vehicles or equipment. Instead, the
DRIVERS AND LONGER (NHTSA) require every vehicle to be Safety Act establishes a ‘‘self-
COMBINATION VEHICLES (LCV) equipped with an emergency glass certification’’ process under which each
breaking tool. The data available to the manufacturer is responsible for
DRIVER INSTRUCTORS
agency shows there is a great deal of certifying that its products meet all
■ 8. The authority citation for part 391 uncertainty surrounding the actual applicable safety standards. NHTSA has
is revised to read as follows: number of occupants that may have not established any standards pertaining
died due solely to drowning while to an emergency glass breaking tool, nor
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 504, 508, 31133, has the agency ever established a
trapped in an immersed vehicle. The
31136, 31149, and 31502; sec. 4007(b) of Pub. requirement that they must be provided
potential effectiveness of such a tool to
L. 102–240, 105 Stat. 1914, 2152; sec. 114 of with any vehicle.
successfully aid an occupant’s safe exit
Pub. L. 103–311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1677; sec.
from an immersed vehicle is also not II. Petition
215 of Pub. L. 106–159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1767;
known. In the absence of a requirement
sec. 32934 of Pub. L. 112–141, 126 Stat. 405, On January 22, 2014, Ms. Scheryn
that each vehicle have a glass breaking
830; sec. 5403 and 5524 of Pub. L. 114–94, Bennett, (henceforth referred to as Ms.
129 Stat. 1312, 1548, 1560; and 49 CFR 1.87.
tool, nothing prevents vehicle
manufacturers from providing a tool or Bennett), requested that NHTSA require
■ 9. In 391.43, revise paragraph (b) to other means to allow vehicle evacuation every vehicle to be equipped with an
read as follows: during immersion. Additionally, ‘‘emergency window breaker.’’ Ms.
consumers can purchase their own tool Bennett cited the drowning deaths of a
§ 391.43 Medical examination; certificate and locate it in the vehicle where they mother and her two minor children
of physical examination. would be likely to access it in an during an August 2011 flash flood in
* * * * * emergency. Pittsburgh, PA, and wrote that
‘‘evidence showed they [the victims]
(b) Exceptions. (1) A licensed DATES: This denial is effective as of attempted to kick out the windows in
optometrist may perform so much of the December 1, 2016. their minivan.’’ Ms. Bennett expressed a
medical examination as pertains to ADDRESSES: Office of Crashworthiness concern for vehicle occupants to exit a
visual acuity, field of vision, and the Standards, National Highway Traffic passenger vehicle via a window after the
ability to recognize colors as specified Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey vehicle has become trapped in water
in paragraph (10) of § 391.41(b). Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. such that the water interrupts the
(2) A certified VA medical examiner FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: vehicle electrical system, rendering the
must only perform medical For Non-Legal Issues: Mr. James power windows inoperable.
examinations of veteran operators. Myers, Office of Crashworthiness Additionally, Ms. Bennett contended
* * * * * Standards, National Highway Traffic that ‘‘[j]ust as a spare tire and jack are
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey standard in all vehicles so should an
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, emergency window breaker.’’
1.87 on: November 23, 2016. Telephone: (202) 493–0031, Facsimile: III. Analysis of Petition
T.F. Scott Darling, III, (202) 493–2739.
Administrator. For Legal Issues: Ms. Rebecca Yoon, As a general matter, any proposed
[FR Doc. 2016–28746 Filed 11–30–16; 8:45 am] Office of Chief Counsel, National safety standard issued by NHTSA must
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, meet the need for motor vehicle safety.
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Typically, we assess whether a standard
would meet the need for motor vehicle
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Washington, DC 20590, Telephone:
(202) 366–2992. safety by analyzing the real-world safety
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
problem (which is the ‘‘safety need’’),
and then analyzing how well the safety
Table of Contents problem can be addressed by the
I. Background standard we are proposing (whether the
II. Petition safety need is met by the standard). It is
III. Analysis of Petition challenging for the agency to justify a
A. Preliminary Analysis of Real World Data new regulation based only on an

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:51 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM 01DEP1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 86685

assumption that a particular vehicle immersion. These included potentially which the persons died inside 4 a motor
safety feature or piece of equipment has incapacitating crash scenarios such as vehicle, there were on average 34 people
potential for reducing injury or death in vehicle rollovers, impacts with fixed annually that died inside their vehicles
some crash scenarios. objects, alcohol levels at or above the for the years 2010–2014.5 The
legal limit, and occupant ejection cases. information available on the NOAA
A. Preliminary Analysis of Real World
Removing incidents involving vehicle Web site does not permit an evaluation
Data
rollovers and alcohol/drug usage from into possible escape methods that may
Ms. Bennett provided a newspaper the above 384 fatalities yielded an have benefitted these individuals,
article reporting on the death of a annual average of 81 crash fatalities which makes it difficult to use this
mother and her two children that involving accidental drowning. We information to establish a safety need. It
drowned in their minivan during a further excluded events in which the is further not possible to determine the
severe flash flood event. We searched vehicle struck a fixed object prior to extent to which there is an overlap in
for additional data that could support entering the water. Based upon this the fatality count between the 28 FARS
the existence of a safety need which analysis, there were 28 drowning fatalities and the 34 NOAA fatalities of
could be addressed by an emergency fatalities that were caused by crashes people dying each year inside their
window breaking tool. NHTSA’s data where vehicle immersion or unknown vehicles during motor vehicle water
review for this petition examined the factors were the first harmful event.2 immersion incidents. Neither is it
information available in the agency’s These 28 individuals are the group most possible to determine whether these
Fatality Analysis Reporting System likely to have been in a position to self- people had compromised physical
(FARS) and Not-in-Traffic Surveillance evacuate from their immersed vehicle.
(NiTS) databases. We also examined conditions due to event induced trauma
However, the database details are or whether unknown physical barriers
vehicle related cataclysmic drowning insufficient to conclusively determine
incident information available from the such as event damaged vehicle systems
which of these fatalities occurred solely prevented them from escaping their
National Oceanic and Atmospheric due to drowning and not factors such as
Administration (NOAA) Web site. vehicle interiors prior to drowning.
physical trauma, seat belt issues, NHTSA’s review of the available
NHTSA’s FARS database is a confusion, or other unknown issues,
nationwide census of yearly data information did not provide data to
and thus may have survived if an support the safety need listed in Ms.
regarding fatal injuries suffered in motor emergency glass breaking tool had been
vehicle traffic crashes. However, it does Bennett’s petition. The information does
available in the vehicle. not reveal whether the people died in
not capture fatalities that occur directly NHTSA also examined the
as a result of a cataclysm, such as these accidents due solely to drowning
information available in our NiTS
flooding. An example of this would be or from some other cause. Because it
database. The NiTS database tracks
a motor vehicle swept away while a cannot be determined exactly how these
nontraffic crashes which occur off of
bridge the vehicle was crossing is people died, it is challenging to develop
public roads in locations such as private
washed out during a hurricane or flood. specific safety recommendations that
roads, driveways, parking lots, and
Accidents related to a cataclysm, but could prevent this type of fatality.
undeveloped areas. Unfortunately, the
occurring after the cataclysm has ended, system does not have any linked B. Potential Effectiveness of Tool
would be traffic crashes and would be mortality data, which prevents a similar
in FARS. Such an example could be analysis to the one for traffic fatalities Multiple types of glass breaking tools
where a motor vehicle is driven into using FARS. Furthermore, while the are commercially available for
water after a hurricane or flood where database can list a most harmful event consumers to purchase. The tools can be
a bridge was washed out. of immersion when applicable, the attached to a key chain, attached to a
In the 2011 technical paper Drowning results previously presented above from seat belt, mounted in the vehicle
Deaths in Motor Vehicle Traffic the technical paper Drowning Deaths in interior, or stored in a convenient
Accidents,1 NHTSA reviewed data Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents 3 location within the vehicle interior.
available in FARS and linked it to indicate that this variable does not These tools are intended to quickly and
Multiple Cause of Death (MCoD) data provide a good proxy for counting efficiently break the tempered glass 6
from the Centers for Disease Control and drowning deaths. Additionally, the material of a passenger vehicle’s side
Prevention (CDC). The information event details available are insufficient to window in order to create a vehicle
indicated that drowning was involved determine if the individuals died inside emergency egress location. Currently-
in approximately 1 percent of the or outside of their vehicles. Thus, this available glass breaking tools may be
average annual motor vehicle occupant database could not provide data
traffic fatalities for the time period supporting a safety need for this 4 The NOAA data lists fatalities for people that
reviewed for the paper (or 384 motor petition. escaped their trapped vehicle as a vehicle related
vehicle occupant traffic fatalities NHTSA also researched flood related fatality. The NOAA data also lists ATV and horse
annually). NHTSA further analyzed the and buggy in the vehicle related category. These
fatality information available on the fatalities were excluded from our analysis since an
data for indications of possible occupant NOAA Web site. The NOAA Web site emergency glass breaking tool would likely not
trauma that would indicate the fatally uses data obtained from the CDC. have helped these people.
injured occupant(s) could have been Reviewing the listed event 5 The NOAA information lists the following in-

unable to self-evacuate from their vehicle fatalities for vehicles trapped in
circumstances for only fatalities in floodwaters: 2010 44 fatalities; 2011 60 fatalities;
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

vehicle because of their physical 2012 9 fatalities; 2013 31 fatalities; and 2014 24
condition at the time of the vehicle 2 Ibid, Table 7 records an annual average of 106 fatalities.
fatalities for immersion events with no rollover. Per 6 Per ANSI/SAE Z26.1–1996 the term ‘‘tempered
1 ‘‘Drowning Deaths In Motor Vehicle Traffic FARS database inquiry, 25 of these fatalities had glass’’ means a single piece of specially treated
Accidents’’; Rory Austin; National Highway Traffic BAC .08 or higher (105 minus 25 equals 81). Of the sheet, plate, or float glass possessing mechanical
Safety Administration; 22nd Experimental Safety of remaining fatalities, 53 were from incidents where strength substantially higher than annealed glass.
Vehicles Conference, Washington, DC, Paper the vehicle collided with a fixed object prior to When broken at any point the entire piece breaks
Number 11–0170, 2011. (http://www- entering the water. This leaves 28 average annual into small pieces that have relatively dull edges as
esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/22/files/22ESV- crash fatalities possibly due solely to drowning. compared to those of broken pieces of annealed
000170.pdf) 3 Ibid., page 7. glass.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:51 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM 01DEP1

86686 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules

quite capable of vacating tempered glass questions how likely it would be for the range from approximately $3.50 to
from a window opening. tool to be used if the tool was hidden $20.00 each.
However, the glass breaking tools will away in the glove compartment or other In addition to the preliminary nature
not quickly and efficiently break those non-visible location, or whether the tool of the above cost estimates, there are
passenger vehicle side windows would need to always be visible and several other barriers to making a
constructed with laminated glass 7 within reach for it to be used when reasonable estimate of the cost
material.8 The capability of glass needed. The answer to that question effectiveness of a potential requirement
breaking tools to break plastic glazing may be tied to the success of the for this tool. First, as previously
materials permitted for use in motor educational information referred to discussed, the available motor vehicle
vehicles by FMVSS No. 205 is also above. crash information suggests that the
unknown. Information on the There are many situationally number of people that might be
percentage of passenger vehicles with dependent, time critical decisions that expected to require a means of escaping
side or rear windows constructed of an immersed vehicle through a window
conscious occupants may face if their
laminated glass or plastic glazing opening may be on the order of 28
vehicle becomes immersed in water,
materials is not collected by the agency. persons annually. However, as also
particularly if it is caught in a flash
An examination of information available outlined above, there is a great deal of
flood. Do the occupants need to leave
from the Enhanced Protective Glass uncertainty surrounding any estimate,
the vehicle interior to avoid drowning
Automotive Association indicates at as the data does not permit a conclusive
and how quickly should that happen?
least four dozen passenger vehicle determination on the number of
What is the best way to safely exit the
models may have laminated glass fatalities due solely to drowning, even
vehicle? What is the fastest, most
material at vehicle locations other than when immersion is the first harmful
survivable path to exit the flood waters?
the front windshield.9 These vehicles event. Second, the potential
What special considerations are needed effectiveness of the tool measured by an
tend to be lower volume, luxury models.
to help children get out of the vehicle occupant’s ability to safely exit a vehicle
Even in vehicles with laminated glass in
if only one adult is present? All of these is not known. Although the glass
side windows, there may be other
decisions and many more must be made breaking tool is expected to easily
windows with tempered glass, such as
within a few seconds once such a life shatter tempered glass when used, there
the rear window or potentially a
threatening event begins. Once a vehicle are other factors that are very likely to
sunroof. Drivers and occupants would
becomes completely submerged, the reduce the effectiveness of the tool.
need to not only know which windows
occupants will face a reduced chance of High among these would be a lack of
are breakable by the emergency glass
survival.10 knowledge of the existence of the tool
breaking tool and which are not, but
would also need to be prepared to All of the above issues are open and finding it as a vehicle becomes
respond accordingly as their vehicle is questions that will affect the real world immersed. Thus, the uncertainty in the
filling with water. effectiveness of a requirement to population of vehicle occupants that
There are other concerns related to provide an emergency glass breaking require the tool and in its potential
the potential effectiveness of a tool. Based on the information available effectiveness results in a highly
requirement for such a tool beyond to NHTSA about the apparent size of the uncertain assessment of potential
knowing which vehicle windows can or safety problem (i.e., the number of benefits. Any resulting cost
cannot be broken with the tool. First, it people who die each year from effectiveness estimate would be
is not clear to the agency that a vehicle drowning in their vehicle because they tenuous.
driver or passenger would be aware of could not open the window and were
D. Response to Standard Equipment
the existence of such a device, its not otherwise incapacitated) and the
Statement
location, or how and when it should be lack of information available about how
used without additional information well emergency glass breaking tools Ms. Bennett wrote that spare tires and
being provided. It is unclear whether might address that safety problem, the jacks are ‘‘standard’’ on all vehicles.
information in the owner’s manual agency is unable to say with confidence This is not correct; NHTSA has issued
would be sufficient to properly educate that a requirements for an emergency no standard or regulation which
the vehicle occupants as to the existence window breaking tool would meet the requires vehicles to be provisioned with
of the device and its use. It is reasonable need for safety, as required by the Safety a spare tire and tools for changing tires.
to assume the device would need to be Act. Many vehicles do not have a spare tire
located within the occupant and jack, but rather other means of
C. Cost Effectiveness facilitating the temporary driving of a
compartment. However, the agency
vehicle after a tire becomes flat, such as
Anecdotal market research on
an inflator and sealant kit or run-flat
7 Per ANSI/SAE Z26.1–1996 the term ‘‘laminated commercially available tempered glass
glass’’ means two or more pieces of sheet, plate, or tires.11
breaking tools shows that there are a The vehicle original equipment
float glass bonded together by an intervening layer
or layers of plastic material. It will crack or break variety of tools marketed as emergency manufacturers (OEMs) may offer
under sufficient impact, but the pieces of glass tend window glass breaking tools. They are consumers the option to purchase motor
to adhere to the plastic. If a hole is produced, the generally either a type of hammer or a vehicle equipment that provides safety
edges are likely to be less jagged than would be the spring loaded punch. Some of the
case with ordinary annealed glass. benefits beyond the minimum
8 ‘‘Type of Glass in Your Car’s Windows Could available tools are intended solely for requirements of the various FMVSS. Just
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Change Escape Plan’’; Deanna Dewberry, News 5 breaking glass. Other tools provide as several OEMs sell optional first aid
NBCDFW.com; May 6, 2013 (2014 NBC Universal additional functionality such as seat belt and road side assistance kits for their
Media, LLC.) http://www.nbcdfw.com/ cutters, flashlights, or even tire pressure
investigations/Type-of-Glass-in-Your-Cars- vehicles, they could sell an appropriate
Windows-Could-Change-Escape-Plan-
gauges. Purchase costs for these tools
206353031.html; last accessed May 15, 2015. 11 Your next car may not have a spare tire; Jim
9 ‘‘Enhanced Protective Glass Applications’’; 10 Gordon G. Giesbrecht, ‘‘My Car Is Sinking: Travers; Consumer Reports.Org article; Published
Enhanced Protective Glass Automotive Association; Automobile Submersion, Lessons in Vehicle August 16, 2014; last accessed May 15, 2015; http://
http://www.epgaa.com/?page_id=1673; last Escape,’’ Aviation, Space, and Environmental www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/08/your-
accessed May 15, 2015. Medicine, Volume 81, Issue 8, August 2010. next-car-may-not-have-a-spare-tire/index.htm.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:51 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM 01DEP1

Document Created: 2018-02-14 09:00:38
Document Modified: 2018-02-14 09:00:38

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Proposed Rules
Action		Denial of petition for rulemaking.
Dates		This denial is effective as of December 1, 2016.
Contact		For Non-Legal Issues: Mr. James Myers, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 493-0031, Facsimile: (202) 493-2739.
FR Citation		81 FR 86684

81 FR 86684 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 231 (December 1, 2016)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration