Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 101 / Thursday, May 25, 1995 / Notices 27805

Federal Aviation Administration

Request for Comment and Information;

Draft Report to Congress on Potential

Hazards to Aircraft by Locating Waste

Disposal Sites in Vicinity of Airports

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for comment regarding

Report to Congress on the potential

hazards to aircraft by locating waste

disposal sites in the vicinity of airports.

SUMMARY: This notice requests comment

to help fulfill a requirement in Section

203 of the Airport and Airway Safety

Capacity, Noise Improvement, and

Intermodal Transportation Act of 1992

(Public Law 102–581).

Section 203(b)(2) directs the Secretary

of Transportation to conduct a study to

determine whether a municipal solid

waste facility, located within a 5-mile

radius of the end of a runway, has the

potential for attracting or sustaining bird

movements (from feeding, watering, or

roosting in the area) and poses a hazard

to runways or approach and departure

patterns of aircraft. The Secretary of

Transportation has directed the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) to

conduct this study.

This notice solicits comments from

the public on a draft report, as directed

by Congress. The FAA believes a widerange of public views will be beneficial

in developing a comprehensive final

Report to Congress.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 26, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send all comments in

triplicate to: Airport Safety and

Compliance Branch, AAS–310, Federal

Aviation Administration, 800

Independence Ave., SW, Washington,

DC 20591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Benedict D. Castellano, Manager,

Airport Safety and Compliance Branch,

AAS–310, Federal Aviation

Administration, 800 Independence

Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20591.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

maintains that there exists a potential

safety hazard when a waste disposal site

is located within 5,000 feet of a runway

used by piston-powered aircraft and

within 10,000 feet of a runway used by

turbo-engine aircraft. Additionally,

when a waste disposal site is located

within a 5-mile radius of a runway, such

site may be incompatible with aircraft

operations when the site attracts or

sustains hazardous bird movements

from feeding, watering, or roosting areas

into or across the runways and/or

approach and departure paths of

aircraft.

In conducting the study mandated by

Congress, the FAA examined the history

of birds striking aircraft and reviewed

several scientific papers published on

the subject of landfills and birds. A draft

report has been developed which

outlines Federal regulations and

policies on the subject, and discusses

the basis of FAA criteria for siting of

landfills. The report contains FAA’s

findings and future concerns. It includes

a recommendation for continuing the

current policy to object to the

establishment of waste disposal sites

within the criteria specified above.

All comments received on this draft

report will be fully considered in the

development of the final report, to be

submitted to Congress.

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 19,

1995.

Ray Uhl,

Acting Director, Office of Airport Safety and

Standards.

Draft Report on the Potential Hazards

to Aircraft in Locating Waste Disposal

Sites in the Vicinity of Airport

Purpose

This report is submitted to Congress

in response to Section 203(b)(2) of the

Airport and Airway Safety, Capacity,

Noise Improvement, and Intermodal

Transportation Act of 1992 which

directs the Secretary of Transportation

to conduct a study to determine whether

a municipal solid waste facility, located

within a 5-mile radius of the end of a

runway, has the potential for attracting

or sustaining bird movements (from

feeding, watering, or roosting in the

area) and poses a hazard to runways or

approach and departure patterns of

aircraft.

Scope of Report

Because most wildlife movements are

seasonally influenced, a complete study

of the issues presented would require

that researchers document all wildlife

activity for at least 1 year. In order to

produce more credible information, at

least 3 years of study data would be

necessary to calculate valid statistical

averages. Given the limited time frame

specified in the Act for completing this

study, it was not considered feasible to

formulate and carry out a fully scientific

research project to address the issue of

siting landfills near airports. Instead,

this report was developed from

historical data, past studies, and

research on the incidents and accidents

involving bird strikes and aircraft, and

on the potential of solid waste disposal

sites to attract and sustain bird

movements.

Aircraft Bird Strikes Historical

Background

It is generally agreed that birds and

aircraft are not compatible even though

they share the common thread of flight.

Bird strikes with aircraft were recorded

as early as 1912, when a Wright Flyer

crashed after striking a bird off the

Pacific coast. Calbraith Rodgers, the

pilot who drowned in the crash, became

the first aviation fatality attributed to a

bird strike.

Developments over the last 80 years

have brought aviation to unprecedented

levels of sophistication. However, this

increased level of sophistication has not

provided aircraft with an immunity to

damages resulting from strikes with

wildlife. Modern aircraft carry more

passengers at greater speeds than ever

before, thus increasing the potential for

catastrophe. At high speed, even small

animals become damaging projectiles to

large aircraft. According to V.F.E.

Soloman, a noted Canadian bird hazard

specialist, a 4-pound bird struck at 260

knots exerts a force of 14 tons; at 520

knots, the force becomes 57 tons.

Bird strikes have been responsible for

more than 100 deaths in the United

States. Some of the more notable

accidents that were attributed to bird

strikes included: On March 10, 1960, a

Lockheed Electra departing Boston’s

Logan Airport struck starlings and

crashed, resulting in 62 deaths. In 1973,

a Learjet departing Dekalb-Peachtree

Airport in Georgia struck a flock of

cowbirds (small blackbirds) and

ingested them into the engines. Both

engines sustained compressor stalls,

causing the aircraft to crash, killing all

seven on board. On November 12, 1975,

a DC–10 departing John F. Kennedy

Airport ingested gulls on takeoff roll,

aborted the takeoff, caught fire, and was

completely destroyed. The accident

resulted in a number of injuries, but no

deaths. Fortunately, the 139 passengers,

who were airline employees, were able

to evacuate the burning craft quickly.

Although it has been argued that these

accidents are no longer relevant and that

modern aircraft have become more

resistant to damage and disaster from

bird strikes, this is not the case, In 1988,

in Bahar Dar, Ethiopia, a Boeing–737 on

takeoff struck a flock of speckled

pigeons and crashed, killing 35

passengers and injuring 21 others.

The reports that followed the

incidents mentioned above noted that

birds had been attracted by either waste

disposal operations or by trash on or

about the vicinity of the airport.

Following the 1973 Learjet crash, the
27806 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 101 / Thursday, May 25, 1995 / Notices

1Final Environmental Impact Statement, Gull

Hazard Reduction Program, John F. Kennedy

International Airport, United States Department of

Agriculture, May 1994, pp. 1–7, 1–10.

2 Jerrold L. Bellant et al., ‘‘Gull and Other Bird

Abundance at Three Mixed Solid Waste Landfills

in Northern Ohio,’’ DOT Interim Report, DTFA01–

91–Z–02004, (1992), p. 23.

3 David W. Lake, ‘‘Airport Bird Hazards

Associated With Solid Waste Disposal Facilities,’’

Proceedings: Wildlife Hazards to Aircraft

Conference and Training Workshop, (1984), p. 221.

4 George R. Davidson, Jr. et al., ‘‘Land Disposal

Sites Near Airports Reporting Bird/Aircraft

Hazards,’’ Open-File Report, (TSR 1.6.004/0), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1971, p. 2.

National Transportation Safety Board

recommended that the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) ‘‘implement a

procedure for more stringent and

continued surveillance of all facilities

subject to the provisions of the Airport

and Airway Development Act and

impose timely sanctions against

operators of facilities, which receive

federal aid and do not fully comply with

the requirements imposed upon them by

the provisions of this act.’’ A provision

in the Act specifies that grant recipients,

to the extent reasonable, maintain

compatible land uses around an airport.

Whether or not a catastrophe results,

bird hazards can be responsible for

unnecessary risk and expense. The FAA

receives an average of 2,000 bird strike

reports each year. This reporting system

is voluntary and does not reflect the

total number of strikes or cost estimates

of damage to aircraft or the aviation

industry. It is generally accepted that

more than half of all strikes go

unreported. Far less information is

received on cost estimates. Information

regarding the amount of damage is

seldom reported because pilots

normally fill out the strike report before

the actual extent of damage is

determined.

However, damage to aircraft from

birds can be severe and costly.

According to a recent Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) for John F.

Kennedy International Airport, after

ingesting 1 bird, a Boeing-747 aborted

its takeoff, blew 10 tires, and damaged

the brakes while stopping. The resulting

damage from this one incident cost the

airline $200,000. Additionally, the EIS

reported that between 1979 and 1993,

bird strikes caused 46 instances of

engine damage, 22 instances of

nonengine damage, and 51 aborted

takeoffs (USDA 1994).1

Landfills as Attractions to Birds

A number of scientific papers have

been published regarding the

association of birds and waste disposal

operations. It is generally accepted that

large numbers of birds commonly

frequent landfills in search of food. In

a recent study conducted by the United

States Department of Agriculture’s

Denver Wildlife Research Center

(DWRC) for the FAA, 699,477

individual birds of 42 species were

recorded at 3 landfills in 958

observation periods (Belant et al. 1994).2

Although gulls may be found at inland

landfills, they are one of the more

common bird species associated with

coastal landfills. Additionally, crows,

starlings, blackbirds, pigeons, sparrows,

and vultures have been documented as

common visitors to most landfills

regardless of the location (Lake 1984).3

Bird populations that impact human

health and safety have been less

understood and documented. However,

in 1971 the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) released a report that

surveyed land disposal sites reporting

bird aircraft hazards. In the discussion

section on page 26 it stated, ‘‘there is

little doubt that improper solid waste

disposal sites in many areas of the

country contribute to the bird/aircraft

strike hazard at airports.’’ Furthermore,

it was stated in the summary and

conclusions that, ‘‘analysis of judgments

following two lawsuits resulting from

aircraft/bird strike accidents indicated a

strong possibility that both government

and a disposal site owner could be

liable for an accident attributed to birds

if the disposal site was knowingly

attracting birds and contributing to the

risk of bird/aircraft collisions’’

(Davidson et al. 1971).4 Considering the

reports referenced above, FAA believes

there is enough information available to

support the conclusion that landfills are

attractive to birds and that a potential

hazard will exist whenever numbers of

birds are drawn into or across air traffic

corridors.

The FAA has initiated research to

understand, identify, and manage

potentially hazardous wildlife

populations better on or near airports.

Actual research is being completed

under a contract with DWRC. DWRC is

recognized as one of the most

experienced organizations in the field of

nuisance wildlife management.

Although wildlife hazard research is

currently underway, it remains in

preliminary stages. This preliminary

research will establish a solid data base

that will be used for later comparisons.

More research is also needed to assess

the effectiveness of wildlife control

techniques. It is common for operators

of waste disposal facilities to include

wildlife control techniques in proposals

to locate or expand operations in the

vicinity of airports. These techniques

include the use of pyrotechnic devices,

broadcast bird distress calls, and as a

last resort, lethal control. Although

these controls are often presented as

being sufficient to offset any wildlife

attraction caused by the landfill activity,

there is little documentation that these

controls will significantly mitigate the

attractiveness of a landfill to birds over

an extended period. Thus, there is no

assurance that such efforts would

actually alleviate a bird hazard near an

airport should one arise after the landfill

is constructed. There exists ample

information regarding bird dependence

on landfills. Conversely, there is little

information documenting successful

long-term mitigation of the problem.

Landfill Siting Near Airports

Locating a waste disposal site,

particularly in and around urban areas,

has become a very serious problem for

most communities, from both physical

and political viewpoints. As a result,

there has been an increasing need to

expand existing sites and establish new

waste disposal facilities and landfills. A

proposal to establish such a facility

close to a populated or recreational area

will, in most cases, result in

considerable controversy and public

opposition. Landfill proponents often

consider or select sites located at the

end of runways or in the vicinity of

airports as solutions to these issues.

These locations are often near, but

outside, population centers; are noise

impacted or otherwise unattractive for

building development; provide readily

available and inexpensive land; and

generally provide a location with good

road access. As a result, these sites

stand a much greater chance of being

accepted by the public for landfill use.

Because of its concern that the

attractiveness of these landfills to bird

populations has a potential to impact

the safety of aircraft operating to and

from airports, the FAA has taken a

number of actions and established

policies and procedures to evaluate the

impact of potential landfill sites

adjacent to airports.

Federal Regulations, Policies, and

Procedures

A. Federal Aviation Regulations Part

139. Airports which serve any

scheduled or unscheduled passenger

operation of an air carrier that is

conducted with an aircraft having a

seating capacity of more than 30

passengers are required by Federal

Aviation Regulations Part 139 to have

an airport operating certificate from the

FAA. This certificate is only granted

after the airport is inspected by an FAA

airport certification inspector to ensure
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 101 / Thursday, May 25, 1995 / Notices 27807

that all minimum safety standards of

Part 139 have been met. Under Section

139.337, all operators of certificated

airports shall provide for ‘‘the conduct

of an ecological study, acceptable to the

Administrator, when any of the

following events occurs on or near the

airport: (1) An air carrier aircraft

experiences a multiple bird strike or

engine ingestion. (2) An air carrier

experiences a damaging collision with

wildlife other than birds. (3) WIldlife of

a size or in numbers capable of causing

an event described in paragraph (a) (1)

or (2) of this section is observed to have

access to any airport flight pattern or

movement area.’’ Based in part on this

study, FAA may require the airport

operator to formulate and implement a

wildlife hazard management plan.

B. Order 5200.5A, Waste Disposal

Sites On Or Near Airports. FAA issued

Order 5200.5 on October 16, 1974, to

provide internal guidance regarding

FAA’s official position on siting

landfills near airports in an effort to

reduce potential airport/wildlife

hazards. The current Order 5200.5A,

‘‘Waste Disposal Sites On or Near

Airports,’’ and the original Order

5200.5, contain criteria concerning the

establishment, elimination, or

monitoring of landfills, open dumps,

waste disposal sites, or other similar

facilities on or in the vicinity of airports.

Orders, such as 5200.5A, are internal

directives that provides guidance to

FAA employees. Advisory circulars are

public information and may be

instructive to those who receive grants

from the FAA. These orders and

advisory circulars have no authority

over facilities located off airport

property. Also, FAA has no authority to

approve or redirect land use outside of

the airport perimeter. For airports that

receive Federal funds, the owner,

operator, or grant recipient must comply

with terms of the grant obligation to the

extent reasonable to restrict the use of

land adjacent to or in the immediate

vicinity of the airport to activities and

purposes compatible with normal

airport operations. However, in most

cases landfills are located outside the

airport property and are often beyond

the airport owner’s jurisdictional

control.

Order 5200.5A sets forth the policy

that waste disposal sites are

incompatible with aircraft operations

when located within those areas

adjacent to an airport that are defined

through the application of the following

three criteria: (1) when located within

10,000 feet of any runway end used or

planned to be used by turbine-powered

aircraft; (2) within 5,000 feet of any

runway end used by piston-powered

aircraft; and (3) when located within a

5-mile radius of a runway end, such that

it attracts or sustains hazardous bird

movements from feeding, watering, or

roosting areas into or across the

runways and/or approach and departure

paths of aircraft. Although frequent

movements of birds across aircraft

approach and departure paths could be

a safety concern beyond the 5-mile

radius, this distance was considered a

reasonable limit for application of the

FAA criteria. The earlier version of the

FAA order had no such limit.

C. FAA Notification Requirements. To

assist FAA in its ability to monitor the

siting of landfills near airports, the

Congress in 1992 enacted legislation to

amend the Federal Aviation Act to

allow the Secretary of Transportation to

require that persons proposing to

establish sanitary landfills notify the

Secretary when such notice will

promote safety and the efficient use or

preservation of navigable airspace. A

proposed FAA regulatory amendment

will establish an area within a 5-mile

radius from an airport for requiring such

a notification.

D. EPA Notification Requirements.

Because of safety concerns and a lack of

jurisdiction, FAA actively sought the

assistance of the EPA to consider airport

safety concerns when processing

landfill siting permits. FAA suggested

that the criteria in Order 5200.5A be

incorporated into EPA’s revision of its

solid waste disposal regulations. As a

result of FAA comments, the EPA

adopted a regulatory requirement in the

Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria,

40 Code of Federal Regulations Section

258.10, that landfill owners or operators

notify the affected airport and

appropriate FAA office whenever they

intend to expand or propose a new

landfill within 5 miles of an airport.

However, EPA chose not to prohibit

landfill operations within the 5,000 and

10,000 foot distance criteria identified

by FAA. Instead, it required operators

within these areas to demonstrate to the

State agency having the authority to

issue the permit that the operation does

not pose a bird hazard to aircraft.

Basis of FAA Criteria for Siting of

Landfills

FAA believes that any open

household or putrescible waste disposal

activity within 5,000 feet of a runway

serving piston-powered aircraft and

10,000 feet from a runway serving

turbine-powered aircraft is incompatible

with safe aircraft operations. Outside

this criteria but within 5 miles of the

runway edge, FAA will review proposed

landfill locations on a case-by-case

basis. Under these circumstances, if the

site falls directly under the approach or

departure path or has the potential to

increase birds in the active airspace,

FAA will generally consider the site as

being incompatible with the airport. If

the site were located between the

10,000-foot limit and the 5-mile limit

away from the approach or departure

path and would not likely attract birds

across the active airspace, FAA will not

consider the site incompatible. During

this case-by-case evaluation, factors

such as the native bird populations,

local geography, and the airport traffic

patters are considered.

The distance used in FAA’s guidance

is based on several factors. Bird strikes

are voluntarily reported to FAA from

ground level to several thousand feet

above ground level (AGL). Most bird

strikes occur below 500 feet with

numbers diminishing to insignificant

levels above 3,000 feet. Based on normal

performance characteristics, departing

aircraft should be at approximately 500

feet AGL after traveling 10,000 feet from

the runway end and approaching 3,000

feet AGL at 5 miles. These distances and

altitudes form the basis for the

minimum criteria designated for a

turbine-powered aircraft.

Criteria for piston-powered aircraft

specifies a lesser distance of 5,000 feet

due to different performance

characteristics. These aircraft are slower

and make more noise relative to a bird’s

ability to respond. The engine noise and

slower airspeed allow the operator and

bird more time to react and avoid

striking each other. Additionally,

piston-powered aircraft do not have

engine intakes that can ingest birds.

The 5-mile area is specified in Order

5200.5A to allow FAA the opportunity

to review the traffic patterns, geography,

and juxtaposition of the proposed

landfill site and airport. As birds do not

respect minimum distances, this review

provides FAA an early opportunity to

comment on proposed disposal sites in

critical air traffic areas immediately

outside the 5,000 and 10,000 foot zones.

The review also takes into account

existing numbers of birds in the area

and other natural, man-made, or

geographical features such as refuges,

water reservoirs, or coastlines that may

be located across air traffic paths from

the proposed disposal site. As a note of

reference, the 5-mile radius is also used

in other countries, such as Canada,

which restricts landfill development

within 8 kilometers, or 4.8 miles of an

airport reference point.

Future Concerns

There are indications that bird species

with the greatest potential to create

wildlife hazards on airports are
27808 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 101 / Thursday, May 25, 1995 / Notices

increasing and that future resolutions to

these hazards may become more

complex. Certain species that frequent

landfills, such as ring-billed gulls, are

increasing in unprecedented numbers.

At the same time, the public is

becoming more involved in wildlife

management issues. The National

Environmental Policy Act may require

public involvement in the solution of a

wildlife-related airport safety problem.

The public’s involvement may be costly

and time consuming, resulting in a

trade-off of accepting potential hazards

while possible solutions are debated.

The likelihood of bird strikes may be

further exacerbated by design changes to

modern aircraft, which incorporate

larger inlet engines to achieve reduced

noise levels. These larger, quieter

engines give birds less warning and

require them to avoid a larger surface

area.

Findings

1. FAA believes that current data is

insufficient to permit an accurate and

consistent quantification of the risk

created by locating landfills within 5

miles of an airport. Although a

quantified risk assessment is not

available, the potential hazard of bird

strikes has been established in reports

following aircraft accidents.

2. FAA believes that landfills

constitute a potential hazard to aviation

if located within 5 miles from a runway

end for the following reasons:

a. Bird strikes in the vicinity of waste

disposal activities located within 5

miles of an airport have been a factor in

numerous accidents, some involving

loss of human life.

b. Bird activity is generally recognized

to occur at altitudes that brings it into

the path of aircraft during approach and

departure operations, the most critical

time for aircraft performance.

c. Modern aircraft, with quieter

engines and larger engine inlets,

increase the potential for bird strikes

due to the reduced warning resulting

from quieter engines with greater frontal

areas which combine to increase the

chances of birds being struck or

ingested.

d. Bird mitigation techniques,

although offered as a solution, have not

been proven effective over extended

periods of time. In addition, future

mitigation programs will become more

complicated and require more time to

implement, resulting in a trade-off of

potential hazards.

e. Landfills are intense attractants to

birds. When located in or adjacent to

airspace used by aircraft, a potential

hazard will result.

3. As total bird control is not possible,

the best solution is to restrict actions on

or in the vicinity of an active airport to

reduce bird attractions.

4. The distance criteria contained in

FAA Order 52.005A serve as a

reasonable basis for determining the

incompatibility of a landfill site with

airport operations.

Recommendations

Although not a solution to all airportrelated bird hazards, locating intense

attractions to wildlife, such as landfills,

outside the areas specified by the FAA

reduces the risk of a potentially

hazardous collision between aircraft and

birds. Progress has been made toward

this goal by the EPA. Although EPA

stops short of prohibiting landfills

within the 5,000 and 10,000 foot areas

designated by the FAA, it does require

that operators of existing municipal

solid waste landfills within those areas

demonstrate to the State agency that

issues municipal solid waste permits

that such units do not pose a bird

hazard to aircraft. Additionally,

proponents of new or expanded landfill

sites within 5 miles of an airport must

notify the affected airport and the FAA

of their intentions.

In an effort to enhance aviation safety.

FAA recommends that no new or

expanded municipal solid waste or

putrescible landfill be located within

the FAA specified 5,000 and 10,000 foot

criteria or in the approach/departure

areas within 5 miles of an airport if

deemed incompatible with safe aircraft

operations.

[FR Doc. 95–12899 Filed 5–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Research and Development Programs

Meeting

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces a

public meeting at which NHTSA will

describe and discuss specific research

and development projects and request

suggestions for agenda topics.

DATES AND TIMES: The National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration will hold

a public meeting devoted primarily to

presentations of specific research and

development projects on June 27, 1995,

beginning at 1:30 p.m. and ending at

approximately 5:00 p.m. The deadline

for interested parties to suggest agenda

topics is 4:15 p.m. on June 8, 1995.

Questions may be submitted in advance

regarding the agency’s research and

development projects. They must be

submitted in writing by June 19, 1995,

to the address given below. If sufficient

time is available, questions received

after the June 19 date will be answered

at the meeting in the discussion period.

The individual, group, or company

asking a question does not have to be

present for the question to be answered.

A consolidated list of the questions

submitted by June 19 will be available

at the meeting and will be mailed to

requesters after the meeting.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

the Ramada Inn, near Detroit Metro

Airport, 8270 Wickham Rd., Romulus,

MI 48174. Suggestions for specific R&D

topics as described below and questions

for the June 27, 1995, meeting relating

to the agency’s research and

development programs should be

submitted to the Office of the Associate

Administrator for Research and

Development, NRD–01, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Room 6206, 400 Seventh St., SW,

Washington, DC 20590. The fax number

is 202–366–5930.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

NHTSA intends to provide detailed

presentations about its research and

development programs in a series of

quarterly public meetings. The series

started in April 1993. The purpose is to

make available more complete and

timely information regarding the

agency’s research and development

programs. This tenth meeting in the

series will be held on June 27, 1995.

NHTSA requests suggestions from

interested parties on the specific agenda

topics. NHTSA will base its decisions

about the agenda, in part, on the

suggestions it receives by close of

business at 4:15 p.m. on June 8, 1995.

Before the meeting, it will publish a

notice with an agenda listing the

research and development topics to be

discussed. NHTSA asks that the

suggestions be taken from the list below

and that they be limited to six, in

priority order, so that the presentations

at the June 27 R&D meeting can be most

useful to the audience. Please note that

almost all of these topics have been

discussed at the previous nine meetings

to some extent and that presentations at

the tenth meeting will be reports on

current status, results, and plans.

Specific Crashworthiness R&D topics

are:

Improved frontal crash protection

problem analysis and program status,

Advanced glazing research,

Highway traffic injury studies,

Head and neck injury research,