Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Protection in Interior Impact; Side Impact Protection; Fuel System Integrity; Electric-Powered Vehicles: Electrolyte Spillage and Electrical Shock Protection; Side Impact Phase-In Reporting Requirements, 51908-51973 [07-4360]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
51908
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Parts 571 and 585
[Docket No. NHTSA–29134]
RIN 2127–AJ10
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Occupant Protection in
Interior Impact; Side Impact
Protection; Fuel System Integrity;
Electric-Powered Vehicles: Electrolyte
Spillage and Electrical Shock
Protection; Side Impact Phase-In
Reporting Requirements
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This final rule incorporates a
dynamic pole test into Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
214, ‘‘Side impact protection.’’ To meet
the test, vehicle manufacturers will
need 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 and torso
side 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. The side air bag systems
installed to meet the requirements of
this final rule will also reduce fatalities
and injuries caused by partial ejections
through side windows.
Vehicles will be tested with two new,
scientifically advanced test dummies
representing a wide range of occupants,
from mid-size males to small females. A
test dummy known as the ES–2re will
represent mid-size adult male
occupants. A test dummy known as the
SID–IIs will represent smaller stature
occupants. The SID–IIs is the size of a
5th percentile adult female.
This final rule also enhances FMVSS
No. 214’s moving deformable barrier
(MDB) test. The current 50th percentile
male dummy in the front seat of tested
vehicles will be replaced with the more
biofidelic ES–2re. In the rear seat, the
new 5th percentile female SID–IIs
dummy will be used, thus improving
protection to a greater segment of
occupants seated in rear seating
positions.
The ‘‘Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU),’’ was
enacted in August 2005. Section 10302
of the Act directed the agency ‘‘to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
complete a rulemaking proceeding
under chapter 301 of title 49, United
States Code, to establish a standard
designed to enhance passenger motor
vehicle occupant protection, in all
seating positions, in side impact
crashes.’’ In accordance with § 10302,
the side impact air bags installed in
front seats and vehicle changes made to
rear seats will enhance, substantially,
passenger motor vehicle occupant
protection in side impacts.
DATES: Effective date: The date on
which this final rule amends the CFR is
November 13, 2007.
Petition date: If you wish to petition
for reconsideration of this rule, your
petition must be received by October 26,
2007.
Compliance dates: This final rule
adopts a four-year phase-in of the new
test requirements. The phase-in begins
on September 1, 2009. By September 1,
2012, all vehicles must meet the
upgraded pole and barrier test
requirements of the standard, with
certain exceptions. Alterers,
manufacturers of vehicles produced in
more than one stage, and manufacturers
of vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
rating greater than 3,855 kilograms (kg)
(8,500 pounds (lb)) have until
September 1, 2013 to meet the upgraded
pole and barrier test requirements.
Manufacturers can earn credits toward
meeting the applicable phase-in
percentages by producing compliant
vehicles ahead of schedule, beginning
November 13, 2007 and ending at the
conclusion of the phase-in.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for
reconsideration of this rule, you should
refer in your petition to the docket
number of this document and submit
your petition to: Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., West Building,
Washington, DC 20590.
The petition will be placed in the
docket. Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all documents
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 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you
may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
non-legal issues, you may call
Christopher J. Wiacek, NHTSA Office of
Crashworthiness Standards, telephone
202–366–4801. For legal issues, you
may call Deirdre R. Fujita, NHTSA
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Office of Chief Counsel, telephone 202–
366–2992. You may send mail to these
officials at the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., West Building,
Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
a. Final Rule
b. How the Final Rule Differs From the
NPRM
c. Congressional Mandate
II. Safety Need
III. NPRM
a. Summary of Main Aspects of the
Proposal Preceding This Final Rule
1. Oblique Pole Test
2. Moving Deformable Barrier (MDB) Test
3. Lead Time
A. Oblique Pole Test
B. MDB Test
b. NPRMs on 49 CFR Part 572
c. Comment Periods Reopened Until April
12, 2005; Request for Comment
IV. NHTSA 214 Fleet Testing Program
V. Summary of Comments
VI. Response to Comments
a. Critical Decisions
1. 50th Percentile Male Dummy
A. We Are Denying the Alliance’s
WorldSID Petition
B. The Side Impact Dummy Can Be
Upgraded Now to the ES–2re Without
Further Delay
C. The ES–2re Is an Improvement Over the
ES–2
D. The ES–2re Should Measure More Than
HIC
2. The 5th Percentile Female Dummy
A. The 5th Percentile Adult Female
Dummy Is an Integral Part of This
Upgrade
i. Need for the 5th Percentile Dummy in
the Pole Test
ii. Need for the 5th Percentile Dummy in
the MDB Test
iii. Beyond the Voluntary Commitment
B. However, Not All of the Proposed FRG
Changes Are Needed
b. Aspects of the Pole Test Procedure
1. Speed
2. Angle
3. Positioning the Seat for the Test
A. Fore-and-Aft Seating Position
B. Head Restraints
4. Impact Reference Line
5. Test Attitude
6. Rear Seat Pole Test
7. Door Closed
8. FMVSS No. 201 Pole Test
9. Quasi Static Test
10. Vehicle Exclusions
11. Practicability
12. International Harmonization
c. Aspects of the MDB Test Procedure
1. The Moving Deformable Barrier
2. A Reasonable Balancing of the Test
Burden
A. Arm Position
B. Reducing the Number of Tests
3. Other
d. Injury Criteria
1. Head Injury Criterion
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
2. Thorax (Chest) Criteria
A. ES–2re
i. Chest Deflection
ii. ES–2re Lower Spine Acceleration
B. SID–IIs Lower Spine Acceleration
3. ES–2re Abdominal Criterion
4. Pelvic Criterion
A. ES–2re
B. SID–IIs
e. Lead Time
1. Pole Test
2. MDB Test
f. Related Side Impact Programs
1. Out-of-Position Testing
2. Side NCAP
3. Cross-References to FMVSS No. 214
g. Comments on the PEA
VII. Costs and Benefits
VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
IX. Appendices
I. Executive Summary
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
a. Final Rule
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 214, ‘‘Side
impact protection,’’ currently provides
thoracic and pelvic protection in a test
using a moving deformable barrier to
simulate being struck in the side by
another vehicle. NHTSA is upgrading
FMVSS No. 214 by requiring all
passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg or less
(10,000 lb or less) to protect front seat
occupants in a vehicle-to-pole test
simulating a vehicle crashing sideways
into narrow fixed objects like utility
poles and trees. By doing so it requires
vehicle manufacturers to assure head
and improved chest protection in side
crashes for a wide range of occupant
sizes and over a broad range of seating
positions. It will ensure the installation
of new technologies, such as side
curtain air bags 1 and torso side air bags,
which are capable of improving head
and thorax protection to occupants of
vehicles that crash into poles and trees
and of vehicles that are laterally struck
by a higher-riding vehicle. The side air
bag systems installed to meet the
requirements of this final rule will also
reduce fatalities and injuries caused by
partial ejections through side windows.2
This will be the first time that head
injury criteria must be met under the
1 These different side air bag systems are
described in a glossary in Appendix A to this
preamble.
2 Improving side impact protection and reducing
the risk of ejection are prominent in the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s strategies
to improve occupant protection. Further
requirements to mitigate ejection are being
developed by the agency to fulfill Sec. 10301 of
SAFETEA–LU, which amended the National
Highway and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301) to require the Secretary to issue by
October 1, 2009 an ejection mitigation final rule
reducing complete and partial ejections of
occupants from outboard seating positions (49
U.S.C. 30128(c)(1)).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
standard. In addition, thoracic,
abdominal and pelvic protection in the
FMVSS No. 214 crash tests must also be
provided.
Vehicles will be tested with two new,
scientifically advanced test dummies
representing a wide range of occupants,
from mid-size males to small females. A
test dummy known as the ES–2re will
represent mid-size adult male
occupants. The ES–2re, a modified
version of the European ES–2 side
impact dummy, has improved
biofidelity and enhanced injury
assessment capability compared to all
other mid-size adult male dummies
used today. A test dummy known as the
SID–IIs will represent smaller stature
occupants. The SID–IIs is the size of a
5th percentile adult female. Crash data
indicate that 34 percent of all serious
and fatal injuries to near-side occupants
in side impacts occurred to occupants 5
feet 4 inches (163 cm) or less, who are
better represented by the 5th percentile
dummy.3 (Specifications for the ES–2re
and SID–IIs dummies have already been
adopted into the agency’s regulation for
anthropomorphic test dummies, 49 CFR
Part 572. For the ES–2re, the final rule
was published December 14, 2006; 71
FR 75304 (NHTSA Docket 25441). For
the SID–IIs, the final rule published
December 14, 2006; 71 FR 75342
(Docket 25442).)
This final rule also enhances FMVSS
No. 214’s moving deformable barrier
(MDB) test. In the test, the current 50th
percentile male dummy in the front seat
of tested vehicles will be replaced with
the more biofidelic ES–2re. In the rear
seat, the 5th percentile female SID–IIs
dummy will be used, to enhance
protection to a greater segment of
occupants seated in rear seating
positions. The 50th percentile male
dummy and the 5th percentile female
dummy together better represent the atrisk population than one dummy alone.
Through use of both test dummies,
vehicles must provide head, enhanced
thoracic and pelvic protection to
occupants ranging from mid-size males
to small occupants in vehicle-to-vehicle
side crashes.
We estimate that this final rule will
prevent 311 fatalities and 361 serious
injuries a year 4 when fully
implemented throughout the light
3 Samaha R. S., Elliott D. S., ‘‘NHTSA Side Impact
Research: Motivation for Upgraded Test
Procedures,’’ 18th International Technical
Conference on the Enhanced Safety Of Vehicles
Conference (ESV), Paper No. 492, 2003.
4 Benefits and costs are estimated assuming 100
percent installation of Electronic Stability Control
(ESC) systems in vehicles, and are based on
manufacturers’ current and planned installation of
side air bags.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
51909
vehicle fleet. Countermeasures that not
only reduce head injuries, but that also
help reduce partial ejections through
side windows, can save additional lives.
The cost of the most likely potential
countermeasure—a 2-sensor per vehicle
window curtain and separate thorax
side air bag system—compared to no
side air bags is estimated to be $243 per
vehicle. After analyzing the data
voluntarily submitted by manufacturers
on their planned installation of side air
bag systems, we estimate this final rule
will increase the average vehicle cost by
$33 5 and increase total annual costs for
the fleet by $560 million. We provide
sufficient lead time to ensure that
compliance is practicable.
The agency’s data show that the
majority of side air bag systems are
currently equipped with two side
impact sensors. If the market share of
the two-sensor and four-sensor systems
remains unchanged, the incremental
cost for the most likely air bag system
(curtain and thorax bag two-sensor
countermeasure) would be about $620
million, or $37 per vehicle, assuming all
light vehicles will be equipped with
curtain air bags.
This final rule fulfills the mandate of
the ‘‘Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users,’’ which was signed by
President George W. Bush in August
2005. Evidently aware of the agency’s
pending notice of proposed rulemaking
to upgrade FMVSS No. 214, Section
10302 of the Act directed the agency ‘‘to
complete a rulemaking proceeding
under chapter 301 of title 49, United
States Code, to establish a standard
designed to enhance passenger motor
vehicle occupant protection, in all
seating positions, in side impact
crashes.’’
State of the Art
The state of knowledge and
practicability of measures that can be
taken to improve side impact protection
are considerably greater than they were
just a decade ago. Extensive work by
those involved in the design,
manufacture and evaluation of vehicle
safety systems have led to substantial
progress in crash test dummies, injury
criteria and countermeasures used to
mitigate side impacts. Inflatable side
impact air bags (SIABs) have become
5 There are a wide variety of baseline side air bag
systems planned for MY 2011. Some of these
systems meet the final rule requirements, while
manufacturers need to incorporate wider side air
bags in others or add wide thorax side air bags or
window curtains. The $33 incremental cost
estimate is a weighted average of the costs to bring
all these different baseline conditions into
compliance with the final rule.
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
51910
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
available in current production vehicles.
They vary widely in designs, sizes,
mounting locations, methods of
inflation and areas of coverage. For
example, side impact protection systems
include door-mounted thorax bags, seatmounted thorax bags, seat-mounted
head/thorax bags, and head protection
systems that deploy from the roof rails
(e.g., inflatable curtains, and inflatable
tubular structures).
While varied in design, SIABs make
possible vast improvements in head and
torso protection that can be provided in
side impacts. Head injuries alone
account for 41 percent of the total
deaths in the target population
addressed by this final rule. For smallerstature occupants, head injury
represents a higher proportion of the
serious injuries than it does for larger
occupants, as a result of relatively more
head contacts with the striking vehicle.6
NHTSA estimates that SIABs reduce
fatality risk for nearside occupants by an
estimated 24 percent; torso bags alone,
by 14 percent.7
These remarkable improvements can
accrue at reasonable costs. Vehicle
manufacturers are already installing
SIABs in some of their new vehicles. On
December 4, 2003, the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers, the
Association of International Automobile
Manufacturers (AIAM), and the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
(IIHS) announced a new voluntary
commitment to enhance occupant
protection in front-to-side and front-tofront crashes. The industry initiative
consisted of improvements and research
made in several phases, focusing, among
other things, on accelerating the
installation of SIABs.8
6 Samaha,
supra.
Regulatory Impact Analysis, ‘‘FMVSS No.
214; Amending side impact dynamic test; Adding
oblique pole test.’’ Braver and Kyrychenko (2003)
estimated that torso bags plus head protection
reduced drivers’ fatality risk in nearside impacts by
45 percent relative to drivers in cars without SIABs.
Braver and Kyrychenko, ‘‘Efficacy of Side Airbags
in Reducing Driver Deaths in Driver-Side
Collisions,’’ IIHS Status Report, Vol. 38, August 26,
2003. That study was based on fewer crash data
than those used by NHTSA in its 2005 analysis.
8 See Docket NHTSA–2003–14623–13. Alliance
and AIAM members agreed to this voluntary
commitment. Under Phase 1 of the voluntary
commitment, manufacturers have agreed that, not
later than September 1, 2007, at least 50 percent of
each manufacturer’s new passenger car and light
truck (GVWR up to 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) production
intended for sale in the U.S. will be designed in
accordance with either of the following head
protection alternatives: (a) HIC36 performance of
1000 or less for a SID–H3 crash dummy in the
driver’s seating position in an FMVSS No. 201 pole
impact test, or (b) HIC15 performance of 779 or less
(with no direct head contact with the barrier) for a
SID–IIs crash dummy in the driver’s seating
position in the IIHS MDB perpendicular side
impact test. HIC36 means the calculation of HIC is
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
7 Final
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
Through voluntary efforts,
manufacturers are able to begin
equipping vehicles with advanced
technologies and are able to advance
safety more quickly than through the
regulatory process. In formulating this
regulation, we have been mindful to
remain consistent with the
technological advances upon which the
industry’s voluntary commitment were
based, so as not to discourage further
implementation while manufacturers
develop designs and technologies that
are able to comply with this regulation.
This regulation builds on the same
technologies that will be used by the
industry to meet its voluntary
commitment, and takes them even
further.
The industry’s voluntary commitment
demonstrated the feasibility of SIABs as
a fleet-wide countermeasure and
ushered in a new stage in the regulatory,
research and technological
developments relating to side impact
protection.9 This final rule broadens
and fortifies this stage. Establishing
these requirements as an FMVSS
assures enhanced protection to all
purchasers of vehicles, from those
buying the most economical cars to
purchasers of luxury trucks, to
consumers in between. Together, the
near term voluntary commitment and
this final rule will achieve
unprecedented side impact protection
benefits.
b. How the Final Rule Differs From the
NPRM
The noteworthy changes from the
NPRM are outlined below and
explained in detail later in this
preamble. More minor changes (e.g.,
arm position of the dummies for the
MDB tests, procedures for determining
vehicle test attitude for the MDB test)
are discussed in the appropriate
sections of this preamble.
A. The agency proposed to use a SID–
IIs Build C small female test dummy to
limited to a maximum time interval of 36
milliseconds. HIC15 refers to a HIC calculating using
a maximum time interval of 15 milliseconds. In
Phase 2, not later than September 1, 2009, 100
percent of each manufacturer’s new passenger car
and light truck (GVWR up to 3,855 kg) (8,500 lb)
production will be designed in accordance with the
IIHS MDB recommended practice of HIC15
performance of 779 or less for a SID–IIs crash
dummy in the driver’s seating position. The
voluntary commitment provides exclusions for
vehicles ‘‘that a manufacturer determines, due to
basic practicability and functionality reasons,
cannot meet the performance criteria, and would
have to be eliminated from the market if
compliance were required.’’ (Alliance comment to
Docket 17694, page 4, April 12, 2005.)
9 Section IV of the May 17, 2004 NPRM discusses
the regulatory, research and technological
developments related to FMVSS No. 214, from 1990
to the present. 69 FR at 27993.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
which the agency had added ‘‘floating
rib guide’’ (FRG) components to
increase the durability of the dummy.
The dummy with the FRG modification
was called the ‘‘SID–IIsFRG.’’
Comments to the NPRM maintained that
the entirety of the FRG modifications
was unnecessary, and that the totality of
the FRG modifications needlessly
reduced the biofidelity and
functionality of the dummy. Some
commenters suggested alternative
means of improving the durability of the
Build Level C dummy. After reviewing
the comments to the NPRM and
available test data, including the
performance of the SID–IIs dummy in
vehicle tests conducted with 2004–2005
model year (MY) vehicles 10 [hereinafter
‘‘214 fleet testing program’’], we have
decided to adopt some, but not all, of
the FRG modifications, and to adopt the
commenters’ alternative suggested
revisions to Build Level C. The SID–IIs
dummy adopted today into FMVSS No.
214 is referred to as the SID–IIs ‘‘Build
Level D’’ crash test dummy.11 Build
Level D incorporates features stemming
from the FRG and from users’ efforts to
enhance the functionality of predecessor
SID–IIs dummies.
B. Mindful of the magnitude of this
rulemaking and the principles for
regulatory decisionmaking set forth in
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, NHTSA
examined the benefits and costs of this
rulemaking and, based on that analysis,
took steps to reduce unnecessary test
burdens associated with this final rule.
After reviewing the comments to the
NPRM and available test data, including
MDB testing conducted in the NHTSA
214 fleet testing program, we have
decided to require one MDB test per
side of the vehicle. The MDB test
specifies use of an ES–2re (50th
percentile adult male) dummy in the
front seating position and a SID–IIs (5th
percentile adult female) dummy in the
rear. Virtually all vehicles tested in the
214 fleet testing program met the MDB
requirements when tested with SID–IIs
in the front seat and the ES–2re dummy
in the rear. Accordingly, we concluded
that no additional benefits would accrue
from an MDB test with the dummies so
configured.
C. After reviewing the comments to
the NPRM, the results of the 214 fleet
10 See Section IV of this preamble; also NHTSA’s
technical report of the test program, ‘‘NHTSA Fleet
Testing for FMVSS No. 214 Upgrade MY 2004–
2005,’’ April 2006, Docket 25441–11 (25441 is the
docket for the ES–2re test dummy final rule); and
memorandum regarding location of the test date.
December 6, 2006, Docket 25441–9.
11 Docket 25442; final rule adopting SID–IIs Build
Level D dummy into 49 CFR Part 572.
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
testing program and production plans
which show installation of side air bags
in vehicles ahead of the proposed
schedule, we have determined that it
would be practicable to provide a twoyear lead time instead of the four-year
lead time proposed in the NPRM
leading up to the beginning of the
phased-in pole test requirements.
Compared to the original schedule, this
would accelerate the benefits expected
to be provided by side air bag systems
and other countermeasures by phasingin the requirements starting with 20
percent of model year (MY) 2010
vehicles. As explained in the FRIA, the
phase-in schedule and percentages of
this final rule facilitate the installation
of side impact air bags and other safety
countermeasures in light vehicles as
quickly as possible, while the allowance
of advanced credits provides
manufacturers a way of allocating their
resources in an efficient manner to meet
the schedule. At the same time, we are
also adding a fourth year to the
proposed 3-year phase-in period and are
making other adjustments to the
schedule for heavier vehicles, to
enhance the practicability of meeting
the new requirements and provide
additional flexibility to manufacturers
to meet the requirements. Accordingly,
under the phase-in schedule adopted in
this final rule, the following percentages
of each manufacturer’s vehicles will be
required to meet the new requirements:
—20 percent of ‘‘light’’ vehicles (gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) less or
equal to 3,855 kilograms (kg) (8,500
pounds) (lb) manufactured during the
period from September 1, 2009 to
August 31, 2010;
—50 percent of light vehicles
manufactured during the period from
September 1, 2010 to August 31, 2011;
—75 percent of light vehicles
manufactured during the period from
September 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012;
—100 percent of light vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1,
2012, including limited line and small
volume vehicles;
—100 percent of vehicles with a GVWR
greater than 3,855 kg (8,500 lb)
manufactured on or after September 1,
2013 and vehicles produced by
alterers and multistage manufacturers.
In addition, vehicle manufacturers
will be able to earn credits for meeting
the requirements ahead of schedule.
We are providing more lead time to
meet the pole test requirements to
manufacturers of vehicles with a GVWR
greater than 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) because
the vehicles have never been regulated
under FMVSS No. 214’s dynamic
requirements and are not subject to the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
industry’s voluntary commitment to
install side air bags. Because more
redesign of the vehicle side structure,
interior trim, and/or optimization of
dynamically deploying head/side
protection systems may be needed in
these vehicles than in light vehicles,
this final rule does not subject these
vehicles to the pole test requirements
until September 1, 2013.
D. We have decided to adopt a phasein for the MDB test, and align the phasein schedule with the oblique pole test
requirements, with advance credits. In
our test program, the SID–IIs in the rear
seat of several vehicles measured
elevated rib deflections and high pelvic
loads that did not meet the injury
criterion. This information indicated
that structural and/or other changes to
the rear seat of some vehicles are
needed to provide improved chest and
pelvic protection in the MDB test. An
aligned phase-in will allow
manufacturers to optimize engineering
resources to design vehicles that meet
the MDB and pole test requirements
simultaneously, thus reducing costs.
Manufacturers will also be able to use
credits to more efficiently distribute
their resources to meet the
requirements.
E. For this final rule, the agency has
re-examined the baseline fleet
conditions projected to the compliance
date of this final rule and has therefore
adjusted the target population that
would benefit from this rulemaking. In
determining the target population for
this final rule, the agency has assumed
a 100 percent Electronic Stability
Control (ESC) penetration in the model
MY 2011 new vehicle fleet, and has
further adjusted the estimated benefits
of the rule by considering data from
vehicle manufacturers on their planned
installation of side air bags and on
projected sales through model year MY
2011. Based on that information, the
agency estimates that this rulemaking
will save 311 fatalities and 361 serious
injuries a year.12 These values are lower
than the NPRM’s estimated benefits of
1,027 fatalities and 999 serious injuries
saved annually, because the proposed
estimates were based on the distribution
of the different types of side air bag
systems in the MY 2003 new vehicle
fleet and did not assume 100% ESC
penetration.
For this final rule, because the agency
has used more extensive information,
including manufacturers’ planned
installation of side air bags through MY
2011, the cost estimates of this final rule
12 This estimates that window curtains, thorax
side impact air bags, and two sensors per vehicle
will be used.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
51911
are also lower than those of the NPRM.
The average vehicle incremental cost of
the curtain and thorax bag two-sensor
countermeasure is estimated to increase
the average vehicle cost by $33, which
is lower than the estimated NPRM cost
of $177 per vehicle.
c. Congressional Mandate
On August 10, 2005, President Bush
signed the ‘‘Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users,’’ (SAFETEA–LU),
Public Law 109–59 (Aug. 10, 2005; 119
Stat. 1144), to authorize funds for
Federal-aid highways, highway safety
programs, and transit programs, and for
other purposes. Section 10302(a) of
SAFETEA–LU provides:
Sec. 10302. Side-Impact Crash
Protection Rulemaking
(a) Rulemaking.—The Secretary shall
complete a rulemaking proceeding under
chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code,
to establish a standard designed to enhance
passenger motor vehicle occupant protection,
in all seating positions, in side impact
crashes. The Secretary shall issue a final rule
by July 1, 2008.
At the time of the enactment of
§ 10302(a), the agency’s notice of
proposed rulemaking to upgrade
FMVSS No. 214 was pending. This final
rule completes the rulemaking
proceeding under consideration, and
enhances the side impact protection of
all the seating positions that the NPRM
had proposed to upgrade.13 In this
rulemaking, we considered several
regulatory alternatives (see Chapter IX
of the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis)
and, consistent with Executive Order
12866, have maximized the benefits of
those alternatives in the cost effective
range.
We interpret SAFETEA–LU as
providing us a fair amount of discretion.
This regulation was initiated by NHTSA
prior to enactment of SAFETEA–LU and
we are required by the statute to
complete it. We believe that SAFETEA–
LU requires us to enhance the occupant
protection of all seating positions under
13 Enhancing the protection of the seating
positions under consideration in the NPRM
addresses over 99% of the non-rollover side impact
fatalities. In our analysis of vehicle sales, we found
that 0 percent of passenger cars and 22 percent of
light trucks have 3 or more rows of seats (minivans,
some SUVs, and some full size vans). Assuming
that passenger cars and light trucks each have 50
percent of all light vehicle sales, about 11 percent
of all light vehicle sales will involve vehicles with
3 or more rows of seating. Looking at adult fatalities
in side impacts in which non-rollovers were the
primary event, there were 17 fatalities in the 3rd,
4th, or 5th rows. In comparison, in the same types
of non-rollover side impacts, there were 8,570 adult
fatalities in all rows. The 3+ row seats comprise 0.2
percent of the fatalities in that population (17/8,570
= 0.002).
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
51912
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
consideration in the NPRM (front and
rear outboard seating positions), without
specifying the particular regulatory
instruments or approaches that should
be used to enhance occupant protection
in those seating positions. SAFETEA–
LU requires that this rulemaking be
conducted in compliance with the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.),
which includes the directive that our
motor vehicle safety standards ‘‘shall be
practicable, meet the need for motor
vehicle safety, and be stated in objective
terms’ (49 U.S.C. 30111(a)). Thus, in
responding to the comments to the
NPRM (see section VI of this preamble),
we must ensure that the upgraded
FMVSS No. 214 final rule meets the
criteria of Section 30111 (that it is
practicable, that it meets the need for
safety, and that it is stated in objective
terms), while meeting the instruction of
SAFETEA–LU that the final rule
enhance occupant side impact
protection in the seating positions under
consideration in the NPRM.
This final rule enhances side impact
protection in the front seating positions
by requiring manufacturers to provide
head protection in side impacts for the
first time in the Federal safety
standards. Due to the biofidelity of the
current side impact dummy (SID) head
and neck, the agency had determined
that it was not appropriate to assess
head injury with that dummy.14 This
final rule adopts into FMVSS No. 214
two technologically advanced test
dummies that have superior injury risk
measurement capabilities compared to
the SID, including the ability to assess
the likelihood of head injury. The two
test dummies represent occupants of
different sizes: One represents an
occupant of the size of a 5th percentile
adult female, the other a mid-size (50th
percentile) adult male. Use of both
dummies in FMVSS No. 214 assures
that occupant protection in side impacts
is afforded across a wide range of
occupant sizes. Further, this final rule
adopts a dynamic pole test into FMVSS
No. 214, specifying performance
requirements that vehicles must meet
when tested with the test dummies.
Adoption of the pole test will result in
the installation of new technologies,
such as side curtain air bags and torso
side air bags, which are capable of
improving protection to an occupant’s
head, thorax, abdomen and pelvis. The
use of the two crash test dummies in the
pole test will require manufacturers to
assure whole-body protection of front
seat occupants, from small stature
females sitting as close as they can to
the steering wheel, to mid-size males
sitting mid-track.
The final rule also enhances front seat
occupant protection by specifying use of
the new mid-size male dummy in the
standard’s MDB test, which simulates a
vehicle-to-vehicle crash. With its highly
developed instrumentation and ability
to assess rib deflections, the ES–2re will
more thoroughly evaluate the degree to
which manufacturers have designed
vehicles’ front seats to protect occupants
in vehicle-to-vehicle side crashes.
This final rule enhances occupant
crash protection in rear seats as well.
For the first time in the Federal motor
vehicle safety standards, a limit is
adopted on the risk of head injury for
rear seat occupants. In addition, this
final rule specifies the use of the 5th
percentile adult female test dummy in
testing rear seats in the MDB test of
FMVSS No. 214. This change will
enable NHTSA to assess better the
ability of the rear seat environment to
protect children, the elderly and small
adults—a more vulnerable population
than the mid-size adult male
population—in vehicle-to-vehicle
crashes. The dummy is more
representative of rear seat occupants
than the SID. Further, the injury
assessment reference values we will use
with the dummy are set at levels that
reflect the effect of aging on tolerance.
II. Safety Need
In the 2004 Fatality Analysis
Reporting System (FARS), there were
9,270 side impact fatalities. For our
target population, as described in the
Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA)
for this final rule, we excluded from
these side impact fatalities those cases
which were not relevant to the oblique
pole and/or MDB crash conditions of
this final rule. This left us with a target
population of 2,311 fatalities and 5,891
non-fatal serious to critical MAIS 3–5
injuries for near-side occupants. The
2,311 fatalities were divided into two
groups for the analysis: (1) Vehicle to
pole impacts; and (2) vehicle-to-vehicle
or other roadside objects impacts, which
include partial ejections in these
cases.15
In this target population, 41 percent of
the total fatalities are caused by head/
face injuries, 34 percent by chest
injuries and 6 percent by abdominal
injuries. In contrast, for the 5,891 nonfatal MAIS 3–5 target population, chest
injuries are the predominate and
maximum injury source, accounting for
48 percent. Head/face injuries account
for 20 percent, and abdominal injuries
account for two percent. Combining all
serious to fatal injuries, chest injuries
account for 49 percent, head/face
injuries account for 26 percent, and
abdominal injuries account for three
percent.
For these two groups, we made an
adjustment for estimated benefits that
would result from the installation of
Electronic Stability Control (ESC)
systems in vehicles, based on an
assumption that model year 2011
vehicles would be equipped with ESC.16
The ESC adjustment is shown below in
Table 1:
TABLE 1.—TARGET POPULATION ADJUSTED WITH ESC
[Fatalities and MAIS 3+ for occupants, Delta–V Range of 12–25 mph]
Crash mode
MAIS 3
MAIS 4
MAIS 5
Fatal
368
3,713
210
903
72
177
219
1,823
Total ..........................................................................................................
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Veh-to-Pole ......................................................................................................
Veh-to-Veh/others ............................................................................................
4,081
1,113
249
2,042
14 Report to Congress, ‘‘Status of NHTSA Plan for
Side Impact Regulation Harmonization and
Upgrade,’’ March 1999, Docket NHTSA–98–3935–
10.
15 The agency’s analysis also found some fatality
benefits for far-side unbelted occupants. In 2004
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
FARS, there were 1,441 unbelted far-side occupant
fatalities in side impacts.
16 Manufacturers’ product plans submitted to the
agency indicated that 71 percent of the MY 2011
light vehicles will be equipped with ESC. For the
purposes of estimating benefits for today’s final
rule, we have assumed that more vehicles will be
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
ESC-equipped, in part because the final rule on
electronic stability control systems requires all MY
2012 vehicles to have ESC (Docket 27662).
Accordingly, to estimate benefits for this FMVSS
No. 214 final rule, we have assumed 100 percent
of the MY 2011 light vehicles will have ESC.
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
We also made an adjustment based on
the estimated benefits that would result
from the FMVSS No. 201 upper interior
requirements for the A–pillar, B–pillar,
and roof side rail.17 For the head, chest,
abdomen and pelvis injuries, the
fatalities for each crash mode, as
adjusted for the effects of ESC and
51913
FMVSS No. 201, are shown below in
Table 2:
TABLE 2.—FATALITIES ADJUSTED, FRONT OCCUPANTS WITH ESC AND FMVSS NO. 201 HEAD, CHEST,
ABDOMEN AND PELVIS
Crash mode
Head
Chest
Abdomen
Pelvis
Total
Veh-to-Pole ..........................................................................
Veh-to-Veh/others ................................................................
142
493
27
689
0
137
0
63
169
1,382
Total ..............................................................................
635
716
137
63
1,551
1. Oblique Pole Test
The NPRM proposed a pole test for
FMVSS No. 214, and proposed to apply
it to all passenger vehicles with a GVWR
of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less. The
vehicle-to-pole test is similar to but
more demanding than the one currently
used optionally in FMVSS No. 201. The
proposal was to propel a vehicle
sideways into a rigid pole at an angle of
75 degrees rather than the 90-degree
angle used in FMVSS No. 201.18 (We
refer to the test using the 75-degree
impact angle as the ‘‘oblique pole test.’’)
The test speed was proposed as any
speed up to 32 km/h (20 mph) 19 rather
than the maximum test speed of FMVSS
No. 201’s optional pole test (29 km/h
(18 mph)). The 75-degree angle of
impact and 32 km/h test speed made the
pole test more representative than the
FMVSS No. 201 test of real world side
crashes into narrow objects.20 Crashes
with a delta-V of 32 km/h (20 mph) or
higher result in approximately half of
the seriously injured occupants in
narrow object near-side crashes.
The NPRM proposed using the ES–2re
(50th percentile adult male) test
dummy, and the SID–IIs (5th percentile
adult female) test dummy as modified
by the addition of floating rib guide
(FRG) modifications.
The ES–2re is technically superior to
both the SID–H3 50th percentile male
test dummy currently used in the
optional pole test of FMVSS No. 201
and the SID dummy now used in the
MDB test of FMVSS No. 214. NHTSA
proposed injury criteria for the ES–2re’s
injury measuring instrumentation of the
dummy’s head, thorax, abdomen and
pelvis. HIC was to be limited to 1,000
measured in a 36 millisecond time
interval (HIC36). Chest deflection could
not be greater than 42 mm (1.65 in) for
any rib. Resultant lower spine
acceleration could not be greater than 82
g. Abdominal loads could not exceed
2,500 Newtons (N) (562 lb). For pelvic
injury, the NPRM proposed to limit
pubic symphysis force to 6,000 N (1,349
lb).
The SID–IIs test dummy was
developed by the Occupant Safety
Research Partnership (OSRP), a research
group under the umbrella of the U.S.
Council for Automotive Research
(USCAR).21 NHTSA proposed to modify
the dummy by adding the FRG
modifications (the modified dummy is
referred to as the SID–IIsFRG). Injury
criteria for the SID–IIsFRG’s head,
thorax, and pelvis were proposed. HIC36
was to be limited to 1,000. For thoracic
injury, the agency proposed a limit of 82
g on the resultant lower spine
acceleration. A pelvic injury criterion of
the sum of the iliac and acetabular
forces measured on the dummy was
proposed at 5,100 N. A limitation on rib
deflection was not proposed because
NHTSA wanted to obtain more
information on the SID–IIsFRG’s rib
deflection measurement capability and
the deflection criteria that would be
appropriate to apply to the dummy. For
the same reasons, an abdominal injury
criterion for the dummy was not
proposed.
The NPRM presented test data from
full scale oblique pole tests using a midsize male dummy, and a small female
dummy, to indicate the performance of
vehicles in providing occupant
protection in these side impacts. (These
data are presented in Table 1 of
Appendix C to this final rule.) As
discussed in the NPRM, there were nine
17 In 1995, NHTSA issued a final rule amending
FMVSS No. 201, ‘‘Occupant protection in interior
impact,’’ to require passenger cars, and trucks,
buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a
gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb)
or less, to provide protection when an occupant’s
head strikes certain upper interior components,
including pillars, side rails, headers, and the roof,
during a crash. The amendments added procedures
and performance requirements for a new in-vehicle
test, which were phased in beginning in model year
1999.
18 FMVSS No. 201 employs an optional pole test
to permit the installation of dynamically deploying
upper interior head protection systems. This test
was part of a set of amendments adopted in 1998
to permit, but not require, the installation of
dynamically deploying upper interior head
protection systems that were then under
development (63 FR 41451; August 4, 1998). In the
optional crash test, the vehicle is propelled at a
speed between 24 km/h (15 mph) and 29 km/h (18
mph) into a rigid pole at an angle of 90 degrees. The
pole test injury criterion is HIC of 1000. The May
17, 2004 NPRM requested comment on adopting the
FMVSS No. 201 pole test instead of the oblique pole
test that was the preferred agency approach at the
NPRM stage.
19 While 20 mph converts to 32.2 km/h, we are
rounding 32.2 km/h to 32 km/h.
20 When testing the driver side of the vehicle, an
impact reference line is drawn on the vehicle’s
exterior where it intersects with a vertical plane
passing through the head CG of the seated driver
dummy at an angle of 75 degrees from the vehicle’s
longitudinal centerline measured counterclockwise
from the vehicle’s positive X axis (see S10.14 of the
regulatory text set forth in today’s document). When
testing the front passenger side, the impact
reference line would be drawn where it intersects
with a vertical plane passing through the head CG
of the passenger dummy seated in the front
outboard designated seating position at an angle of
285 degrees from the vehicle’s longitudinal
centerline measured counterclockwise from the
vehicle’s positive X axis as defined in S10.14 of
today’s regulatory text. The vehicle is aligned so
that, when the pole contacts the vehicle, the vertical
center line of the pole surface as projected on the
pole’s surface, in the direction of the vehicle
motion, is within a surface area on the vehicle
exterior bounded by two vertical planes in the
direction of the vehicle motion and 38 mm (1.5
inches) forward and aft of the impact reference line.
The test vehicle would be propelled sideways into
the pole. Its line of forward motion would form an
angle of 75 degrees (or 285 degrees) (±3 degrees) in
the left (or right) side impact measured from the
vehicle’s positive X axis in the counterclockwise
direction.
21 USCAR consists of DaimlerChrysler, Ford and
General Motors. The SID–IIs is used by Transport
Canada for research purposes, and by the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), a nonprofit
group funded by insurers, in IIHS’s 48 km/h (30
mph) side crash test consumer information
program.
III. NPRM
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
a. Summary of Main Aspects of the
Proposal Preceding This Final Rule
NHTSA published the NPRM for this
FMVSS No. 214 final rule on May 17,
2004 (69 FR 27990, Docket No. 17694).
The NPRM provided a 150-day
comment period on the proposal. The
150-day period closed October 14, 2004.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:47 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
51914
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
tests using a mid-size male dummy. In
four of the tests, the test dummy was
positioned in the driver’s seating
position as specified in the FMVSS No.
214 MDB test procedure, i.e., the seat
was positioned mid-track. The other
tests were conducted with the seat
positioned as specified in FMVSS No.
201.22 Among other things, the NPRM
data showed that the vehicles with air
curtain systems performed well in
providing head protection to occupants
of the size of a 50th percentile adult
male. Data for the 2004 Honda Accord
demonstrated the practicability of
meeting all of the NPRM’s proposed
injury criteria for the pole test using the
FMVSS No. 214 seating procedure with
the ES–2re dummy.
As discussed in the NPRM, one of the
tests of a combination head/chest air bag
system illustrated how the impact angle
of the pole test can influence the level
of protection provided by a vehicle’s
side air bags. An oblique pole test of a
1999 Nissan Maxima with a head/chest
side impact air bag resulted in a HIC
score of 5,254. The HIC of the Maxima
in a 90-degree FMVSS No. 201 pole test
resulted in a HIC score of 130. In the
NPRM, NHTSA stated its expectation
that, to comply with the proposed
oblique pole test requirements,
manufacturers will likely install head
protection systems extending
sufficiently toward the A-pillar to
protect the head in the 75-degree
approach angle test. The agency also
noted that a 32 km/h (20 mph) oblique
pole test has at least 15 percent more
kinetic energy than an FMVSS No. 201
90-degree pole test at 18 mph.23
The NPRM also discussed the results
of three full scale oblique pole tests
using the small female dummy on a
2003 Camry with an air curtain and
thorax bag, a 2000 Saab 9–5 with a
combination bag, and a 2002 Ford
Explorer (see Table 2 of Appendix C).
The agency stated that in the NPRM that
the HIC36 values generally exceeded the
1,000 limit, and pelvic forces exceeded
the proposed 5,100 N limit. In contrast,
a 2003 Camry whose air curtain and
thorax bags were remotely fired at 11
22 Under the FMVSS No. 201 seating procedure,
the dummy’s head is positioned such that the point
at the intersection of the rear surface of its head and
a horizontal line parallel to the longitudinal
centerline of the vehicle passing through the head’s
center of gravity is at least 50 mm (2 in) forward
of the front edge of the B-pillar. If needed, the seat
back angle is adjusted, a maximum of 5 degrees,
until the 50 mm (2 in) B-pillar clearance is
achieved. If this is not sufficient to produce the
desired clearance, the seat is moved forward to
achieve that result.
23 Test results using the FMVSS No. 201 pole test
procedures were presented in the NPRM, 69 FR at
28008.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
milliseconds (ms) produced a HIC36 of
512, and a 4,580 N pelvic force on the
dummy.
2. Moving Deformable Barrier (MDB)
Test
The current MDB test uses a 50th
percentile adult male test dummy that
was developed in the 1980s, and does
not use a 5th percentile female dummy
in the test. The NPRM proposed
replacing the 50th percentile male
dummy used with the technically
advanced, more biofidelic ES–2re, and
adding to the test the small female test
dummy. For the first time in the MDB
test, a head injury criterion was
proposed.
The NPRM presented test results from
FMVSS No. 214 MDB tests of a 2001
Ford Focus and a 2002 Chevrolet Impala
using an ES–2re dummy in the driver
and rear passenger seating positions (the
data are set forth in Appendix C). These
vehicles did not have side air bags in
either front or rear seating positions.
The test data from the NPRM showed
that the Focus met the proposed test
requirements when tested with the ES–
2re, while the Impala did not. The
Impala failed to meet the 44 mm rib
deflection criterion for the driver
dummy (45.6 mm), and produced an
abdominal force on the rear seat dummy
of 4,409 N (proposed limit was between
2,400–2,800 N). An examination of the
passenger compartment interior
revealed a protruding armrest of the
Impala that contacted the abdominal
area of the dummy, causing the high
force reading.
As discussed in the NPRM, tests of a
2001 Ford Focus and 2002 Chevolet
Impala using the SID–IIsFRG in the
driver and rear passenger seating
positions showed that the Focus almost
fully complied with the proposed MDB
test requirements. Only the pelvic force
for the driver dummy was exceeded in
the test, which was attributed to an
intruding armrest. The Impala was able
to meet all of the driver injury criteria
but failed to meet the limits on lower
spine acceleration and pelvic force for
the SID–IIs in the rear seat, due to an
armrest design. As discussed in the
NPRM, in an MDB test of a 2001 Buick
Le Sabre equipped with a front seat
thorax side air bag, the vehicle met all
the proposed criteria for both the front
and rear seat dummies.
3. Lead Time
A. Oblique Pole Test
The agency proposed a lead time
thought to be sufficient to ensure that
compliance would be practicable, while
seeking to make sure that the benefits of
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the rule can be realized as soon as
practicable. The NPRM proposed to
phase in the upgraded side impact pole
test requirements. The agency proposed
to phase in the new test requirement
beginning approximately four years
from the date of publication of a final
rule. The phase-in was proposed to be
over three years, in accordance with the
following schedule:
20 percent of each manufacturer’s
light vehicles manufactured during the
production year beginning four years
after publication of a final rule;
50 percent of each manufacturer’s
light vehicles manufactured during the
production year beginning five years
after publication of a final rule;
All vehicles manufactured on or after
a date six years after publication of a
final rule.
NHTSA proposed to include
provisions under which manufacturers
can earn credits toward meeting the
applicable phase-in percentages if they
meet the new requirements ahead of
schedule. Alternatives were also
provided to address the special
problems faced by manufacturers
producing limited line vehicles and
vehicles manufactured in more than one
stage, and vehicle alterers. Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements for
manufacturers to administer
conformance with the phase-in were
also proposed.
B. MDB Test
NHTSA proposed that the upgraded
MDB test would be effective
approximately 4 years after publication
of a final rule. The agency tentatively
concluded that a phase-in was
unnecessary because the requirements
could be met by padding and simple
redesigns of the armrest area. This
contrasted with the agency’s belief
about the vehicle changes entailed by
the oblique pole test. Comments were
requested on whether a phase in for the
MDB test was appropriate.
b. NPRMs on 49 CFR Part 572
The agency issued notices of
proposed rulemaking to add the
specifications and performance
requirements for the ES–2re dummy and
for the SID–IIs dummy into the agency’s
regulation on anthropomorphic test
devices (49 CFR part 572). The NPRM
on the ES–2re dummy was published on
September 15, 2004 (69 FR 55550;
Docket 18864), and the NPRM on the
SID–IIs was published on December 8,
2004 (69 FR 70947, Docket 18865).
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
c. Comment Periods Reopened Until
April 12, 2005; Request for Comment
On January 12, 2005, NHTSA
reopened the comment period for the
May 17, 2004 NPRM on FMVSS No. 214
and for the September 15, 2004 NPRM
adding the ES–2re 50th percentile adult
male dummy to 49 CFR Part 572 (70 FR
2105; Dockets 17694 and 18864). That
action responded to a petition from the
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
that requested an additional 8 months to
submit comments. NHTSA determined
that a 90-day extension of time was
sufficient and that an 8-month extension
was unwarranted and contrary to the
public interest. The January 2005
document also requested comments on
an addendum to an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA) relating to the
NPRM on the oblique pole test. The
addendum to the IRFA discussed the
economic impacts of the proposed rule
on small vehicle manufacturers. The
comment periods were reopened until
April 12, 2005.
Later, the Alliance petitioned to
extend the comment period for the
December 8, 2004 NPRM on adding the
SID–IIs 5th percentile female test
dummy to 49 CFR Part 572, which was
scheduled to close on March 8, 2005.
NHTSA agreed to extend the comment
period for that NPRM to April 12, 2005,
to align the comment closing date for
that NPRM with the comment closing
dates for the NPRMs on FMVSS No. 214
and the ES–2re (70 FR 11189; March 8,
2005; Docket 18865).
IV. NHTSA 214 Fleet Testing Program
In 2005, the agency conducted a 214
fleet testing program, a series of side
impact crash tests to obtain information
on how current vehicles performed in
the oblique pole and MDB tests with the
SID–IIs and ES–2re test dummies, and,
in turn, on how the dummies performed
in the full vehicle crash tests. Fourteen
vehicle models were tested. Thirteen
models were evaluated in the pole test,
10 of these 13 were tested with both the
51915
SID–IIs (5th percentile female) and the
ES–2re (50th percentile male) test
dummies. Three of the 13 were tested
with just the ES–2re test dummy. Seven
of the 13 were tested also to the MDB
tests using the SID–IIs and the ES–2re
test dummies. One vehicle model was
tested only to an MDB test using the
SID–IIs (5th percentile female) test
dummy. (See Table 3, ‘‘Test Matrix.’’)
The agency selected vehicles that
represented different vehicle classes
comprising the current vehicle fleet. Six
rated a ‘‘Good’’ or ‘‘Acceptable’’ score in
IIHS’s side impact consumer rating
program,24 three rated a ‘‘Poor,’’ and all
had head curtains or combination side
impact air bags. Six of the vehicles had
a combination of both a head curtain air
bag and an additional torso air bag in
the front seating positions. Four had
only a head curtain air bag. Four
vehicles had a seat-mounted head and
torso combination air bag system, two of
which were convertibles.
TABLE 3.—TEST MATRIX
Vehicles (model year 2005 unless
noted)
Side air bag type:
AC=air curtain;
Comb=head/chest
SIAB;
Th=thorax or chest
SIAB
Toyota Corolla .................................
VW Jetta .........................................
Saturn Ion .......................................
Honda Accord* ................................
Suzuki Forenza ...............................
Beetle Convertible ...........................
Saab 9–3 Convertible .....................
Ford 500 ..........................................
Toyota Sienna* ...............................
Subaru Forester ..............................
AC + Th .................
AC + Th .................
AC ..........................
AC + Th .................
Comb .....................
Comb .....................
Comb .....................
AC + Th .................
AC + Th .................
Comb .....................
Honda CRV .....................................
Chevy Colorado (4x2 Ext. Cab) ......
Ford Expedition ...............................
Dodge 2500 (Reg Cab) ..................
AC
AC
AC
AC
+ Th .................
..........................
..........................
..........................
Oblique pole
FMVSS No. 214
MDB
Vehicle class/weight
SID–IIs
Light PC .........................................
Compact PC ...................................
Compact PC ...................................
Medium ..........................................
Compact PC ...................................
Medium ..........................................
Medium ..........................................
Heavy PC .......................................
Minivan ...........................................
Small sport utility vehicle (SUV)
(certified PC) Curb wt=3143 lb
(medium PC).
Small SUV ......................................
Small Pickup ..................................
Large SUV .....................................
Large Pickup ..................................
ES–2rd
SID–IIs
ES–2re
√
√
√
√
................
................
................
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
................
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
................
................
√
................
√
√
√
√
√
................
................
................
√
................
√
√
√
√
................
√
√
√
√
√
................
................
................
√
................
................
................
* 2004 Vehicles.
** Vehicles were categorized by their curb weight.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Light passenger car (PC) = (907–1.133
kg) or (2,000–2,499 lb).
Compact PC = (1,134–1,360 kg) or
(2,500–2,999 lb).
Medium PC = (1,361–1,587 kg) or
(3,000–3,499 lb).
Heavy PC = (1,588 kg or more) or
(3,500 lb or more).
A detailed summary of the results of
the test program is set forth in NHTSA’s
technical report of the test program,
‘‘NHTSA Fleet Testing for FMVSS No.
214 Upgrade MY 2004–2005,’’ April
2006, (Docket 25441, items 9 and 11).
Key findings of the test program are
highlighted below.
Oblique Pole Test With SID–IIs
As discussed in the test report, 10 of
the vehicles in the matrix were tested
with the SID–IIs dummy in the oblique
pole test. The test results are presented
in Table 4. Thoracic and abdominal rib
deflections were monitored.
24 IIHS’s side impact consumer information
program ranks vehicles based on performance when
impacted perpendicularly by a moving barrier at
about 30 mph. https://www.iihs.org/ratings/
side_test_info.html.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
51916
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4.—OBLIQUE POLE TEST RESULTS—SID–IIS DUMMY
Driver
Lower spine
(Gs)
HIC36
Proposed Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARVs) ...
Toyota Corolla ......................................................................
VW Jetta ..............................................................................
Saturn Ion ............................................................................
Honda Accord* .....................................................................
Ford Five Hundred ...............................................................
Toyota Sienna* ....................................................................
Subaru Forester ...................................................................
Honda CRV ..........................................................................
Chevy Colorado 4x2 ext cab ...............................................
Ford Expedition ....................................................................
1000
418
478
5203
567
1173
2019
160
531
896
5661
Pelvic force
(N)
82
70
54
110
63
92
67
55
68
135
96
** 5,525
***
7876
5755
10848
6542
6956
4707
4670
9387
8249
Thorax
deflection
(mm)
(monitored)
Abdominal
deflection
(mm)
(monitored)
38
47
33
32
31
37
46
31
26
31
35
45
49
34
52
30
57
58
45
36
59
53
* MY2004.
** See Section VI.d.4.B of this preamble for a discussion of why we increased the proposed 5,100 N requirement to 5,525 N.
*** No data.
Most of the tested vehicles will need
some design improvements to be
certified as meeting the injury criteria
limits for HIC, lower spine acceleration
and/or pelvic force adopted by this final
rule. Some vehicles will need more
redesign than others. Some vehicles
produced HIC, lower spine acceleration
and/or pelvic force values that were
greater than the injury assessment
reference values (IARVs) of this final
rule, while others were within the
values but were close to the margin. For
purposes of evaluating the current
performance of these tested vehicles in
relation to the IARVs of this final rule,
we identified ‘‘elevated’’ values to be
those that were within 80 percent of an
IARV. The Subaru Forester and Honda
CRV were the only vehicles that were
below the IARVs,25 but even these
vehicles had lower spine acceleration
and/or pelvic loads that were elevated
(in excess of 80 percent of the IARVs).
HIC (SID–IIs in the Pole Test)
Four of the 10 vehicles tested with the
SID–IIs (40 percent) exceeded HIC 1000:
the Saturn Ion, Ford Five Hundred,
Toyota Sienna, and Ford Expedition.
The Saturn Ion, Ford Expedition, and
the Toyota Sienna’s side curtain air bag
deployed but the SID–IIs dummy’s head
hit the front edge of the curtain’s front
pocket or tethered portion of the
curtain, which was not inflated so as to
cushion the impact.
The Ford Five Hundred had a head
curtain and a thorax bag. It appears from
test film that the Ford Five Hundred’s
sensor deployed the curtain at
approximately 85 ms after time zero,
while the dummy’s head hit the pole at
the front edge of the curtain at
approximately 60 ms after time zero.
The same four vehicles produced
relatively good HIC scores with the ES–
2re dummy in the oblique pole test.
information program). In all of these
tests, the lower spine acceleration
values were also elevated (exceeding 82
g or within 80 percent of 82 g (i.e., 66
g)). The 6 tests were of the: 2005 Toyota
Corolla, 2005 Saturn Ion, 2005 Ford
Five Hundred, 2004/05 Toyota Sienna,
2005 Chevy Colorado 4x2 extended cab,
and the 2005 Ford Expedition.
Lower Spine Acceleration (SID–IIs in
the Pole Test)
Thirteen tests were performed with
the ES–2re dummy in the driver’s
seating position. Data from the tests are
set forth in Table 5. The data were
analyzed assuming a 44 mm limit on rib
deflection and a 2,500 N limit for
abdominal force. Four vehicles
produced results that were less than all
of the injury assessment reference
values: the VW Jetta, VW Beetle
convertible, Saab 9–3 convertible and
the Honda Accord.
The lower spine acceleration readings
were generally consistent with the SID–
IIs’s rib deflections. Two of the 10
vehicle tests with the SID–IIs resulted in
rib deflection measurements exceeding
38 mm for the thoracic rib (which
corresponds to a 50 percent risk of AIS
3+ injury). Six out of 10 exceeded 45
mm for the abdominal rib (45 mm is
used by IIHS in its consumer
Pelvic Force (SID–IIs in the Pole Test)
Seven of the 10 vehicles exceeded
5,525 N (one vehicle lost data
completely). The Honda Accord and the
Volkswagen (VW) Jetta exceeded 5,525
N, yet had relatively lower numbers for
the other injury criteria.
Oblique Pole Test With ES–2re
TABLE 5.—ES–2RE OBLIQUE POLE RESULTS
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Driver
Proposed IARVs ..................................................................
Toyota Corolla ......................................................................
VW Jetta ..............................................................................
Saturn Ion ............................................................................
Honda Accord ......................................................................
VW Beetle Convertible .........................................................
Saab 93 Convertible ............................................................
Ford 500 ...............................................................................
25 The Toyota Corolla was also below the IARVs,
for the data collected. However, the pelvic force
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Thorax
deflection
(mm)
HIC 36
Jkt 211001
1000
473
652
806
446
315
254
422
Abdominal
force (N)
44
50
36
50
31
37
40
35
data were not available in the test. Like the Subaru
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2500
1178
1663
1494
1397
1018
841
3020
Pelvic force
(N)
Lower
spine (G’s)
(monitored)
6000
3041
3372
1585
2463
3815
2914
2133
Forester and Honda CRV, the lower spine
acceleration was elevated in the test.
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
82
65
60
76
52
69
49
68
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
51917
TABLE 5.—ES–2RE OBLIQUE POLE RESULTS—Continued
Driver
Thorax
deflection
(mm)
HIC 36
Toyota Sienna ......................................................................
Subaru Forester ...................................................................
Honda CRV ..........................................................................
Chevy Colorado 4x2 ext cab ...............................................
Ford Expedition ....................................................................
Dodge Ram 2500 (GVWR 8800)* .......................................
667
2054
639
785
689
5748
Abdominal
force (N)
47
43
50
46
26
47
1751
1377
929
2655
6973
1846
Pelvic force
(N)
Lower
spine (G’s)
(monitored)
2127
2291
903
3373
2575
**
60
46
53
90
75
86
* Air bag did not deploy.
** No data.
HIC (ES–2re in the Pole Test)
The tests showed that an effective
inflatable head protection system can be
successful in reducing HIC.
Most HIC values were less than HIC
1,000. An exception was the Subaru
Forester, the test of which resulted in a
HIC reading of 2,054. This vehicle had
a head and thorax combination air bag
that deployed from the vehicle’s seat. In
the test, the air bag was pushed
rearward by the intruding B-pillar and
door structure. As a result, the dummy’s
head hit the pole, causing the HIC of
2,054.
Another exception was the Dodge
2500, which is the only heavy duty
pickup truck with optional side
curtains. In the pole test, the curtain air
bag did not deploy, causing the ES–2re
dummy’s head to hit the pole (HIC
5,748). In a retest using this vehicle
model in which the air bags were
remotely deployed, the HIC was 331.
Rib Deflection (ES–2re in the Pole Test)
Table 5 shows that six of the vehicles
produced chest deflection values greater
than 44 mm (the Toyota Corolla, Saturn
Ion, Toyota Sienna, Honda CRV, Chevy
Colorado extended cab pick up, and the
Dodge 2500 truck). In another vehicle,
the Subaru Forester, the ES–2re
measured 43 mm of chest deflection.
Out of those seven vehicles, three had
curtains with thorax bags: the Toyota
Corolla, Toyota Sienna and Honda CRV.
The Forester had a combination head/
thorax bag. The Ion, Chevy Colorado
and Dodge 2500 had only a curtain.
Seven vehicles produced results that
were under 44 mm (VW Jetta, Honda
Accord, VW Beetle convertible, Saab 9–
3 convertible, the Ford Five Hundred,
Subaru Forester, and the Ford
Expedition). However, the chest
deflection measures for five of these
vehicles (VW Jetta, VW Beetle
convertible, Saab 9–3 convertible, Ford
Five Hundred, and the Subaru Forester)
were between 35 and 44 mm (i.e., were
within 80 percent of 44 mm). The VW
Jetta, Honda Accord, and Ford Five
Hundred had a curtain and torso bag.
The VW Beetle and Saab 9–3, in
addition to the Subaru Forester, had
combo bags. The Ford Expedition had
only a curtain.
Lower Spine Acceleration (ES–2re in
the Pole Test)
The ES–2re’s lower spine acceleration
readings in the pole test were relatively
consistent with the dummy’s rib
deflection readings.
In eleven of the vehicles that
measured high rib deflections exceeding
44 mm or that were within 80 percent
of 44 mm, 5 of these had lower spine
acceleration values that were also
elevated (exceeding 82 g or within 80
percent of 82 g). The 5 vehicles were
the: Saturn Ion, VW Beetle, Ford Five
Hundred, Chevy Colorado and the
Dodge 2500. The Toyota Corolla had an
elevated lower spine acceleration of 65
g. The lower spine acceleration of the
ES–2re was elevated (75 g) in the test of
the Ford Expedition when the dummy’s
rib deflection was low (26 mm).
However, the lower spine could have
been detecting the high abdominal force
reading on the ES–2re in that test (6,973
N).
Abdominal Force (ES–2re in the Pole
Test)
Three vehicles produced abdominal
force readings that exceeded 2,500 N
(the Ford Five Hundred, Chevy
Colorado and the Ford Expedition). The
Chevy Colorado and Ford Expedition
did not have torso air bags.
MDB Tests With SID–IIs
We conducted eight FMVSS No. 214
MDB tests with the SID–IIs in both the
driver’s seating position and in the left
rear occupant’s seating position. Data
from the tests are set forth in Table 6
(driver) and Table 7 (rear passenger).
The data show that all but three
vehicles produced dummy
measurements that were below the
proposed IARVs for both the driver and
rear occupant. The SID–IIs in the driver
seat of the Saturn Ion test measured a
8,993 N pelvic force. The Saturn Ion
was not equipped with a thoracic side
bag. It appears from the test film that the
dummy’s pelvis impacted a rigid area at
the front part of the Ion’s armrest. The
SID–IIs in the rear seat of the Honda
Accord measured 6,917 N in pelvic
force, and the SID–IIs in the rear seat of
the Suzuki Forenza measured a 6,557 N
pelvic force.
In tests of 4 of the vehicles with the
SID–IIs in the rear, the monitored rib
deflection measurements were high
(over 38 mm for the thoracic rib and 45
mm for the abdominal rib), and in 2
vehicles they were within 80 percent of
38 mm or 45 mm.
TABLE 6.—MDB TEST RESULTS USING THE SID–IIS—DRIVER
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Driver
Proposed IARVs ..................................................................
Toyota Corolla ......................................................................
VW Jetta ..............................................................................
Saturn Ion ............................................................................
Suzuki Forenza ....................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Lower spine
(Gs)
HIC36
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
1000
78
46
189
69
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Pelvic force
(N)
82
59
30
53
53
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
5525
4655
2639
8993
4948
11SER2
Thorax
deflection
(mm)
(monitored)
38
17
12
19
27
Abdominal
deflection
(mm)
(monitored)
45
26
18
39
27
51918
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 6.—MDB TEST RESULTS USING THE SID–IIS—DRIVER—Continued
Driver
Lower spine
(Gs)
HIC36
Honda Accord* .....................................................................
Ford 500 ...............................................................................
Subaru Forrester ..................................................................
Honda CRV ..........................................................................
104
46
43
38
Pelvic force
(N)
50
31
37
32
Thorax
deflection
(mm)
(monitored)
4150
2140
3066
1350
Abdominal
deflection
(mm)
(monitored)
20
16
11
16
22
25
11
8
* MY 2004.
TABLE 7.—MDB TEST RESULTS USING THE SID–IIS—LEFT REAR PASSENGER
Passenger
Lower spine
(Gs)
HIC36
Proposed IARVs ..................................................................
Toyota Corolla ......................................................................
VW Jetta ..............................................................................
Saturn Ion ............................................................................
Suzuki Forenza ....................................................................
Honda Accord* .....................................................................
Ford 500 ...............................................................................
Subaru Forrester ..................................................................
Honda CRV ..........................................................................
1000
330
103
220
773
298
216
150
107
Pelvic force
(N)
82
57
52
73
73
57
42
43
56
5525
3182
3026
3964
6557
6917
2925
3572
3149
Thorax
deflections
(mm)
(monitored)
Abdominal
deflections
(mm)
(monitored)
38
35
49
47
41
30
45
24
37
45
33
43
52
46
32
46
26
40
* MY 2004.
MDB Test With ES–2re
We conducted seven FMVSS No. 214
MDB tests with the ES–2re in both the
driver’s seating position and in the left
rear occupant’s seating position. The
vehicle models were the same ones that
were tested with the SID–IIs in the MDB
tests, above. Data from the tests are set
forth in Tables 8 and 9. The dummy
responses were low relative to the
IARVs.
TABLE 8.—ES–2RE MDB TEST RESULTS—DRIVER
Driver
Thorax
deflection
(mm)
HIC36
Proposed IARVs ..................................................................
Toyota Corolla ......................................................................
VW Jetta ..............................................................................
Saturn Ion ............................................................................
Honda Accord ......................................................................
Ford 500 ...............................................................................
Subaru Forrester ..................................................................
Honda CRV ..........................................................................
1000
73
101
110
109
66
44
100
Abdominal
force
(N)
44
25
26
29
37
25
21
35
2500
722
733
1524
557
1006
598
524
Pubic symph.
force
(N)
6000
3223
1969
2431
1983
1176
1694
1137
Lower spine
(G’s)
(monitored)
82
40
28
52
38
35
33
31
TABLE 9.—ES–2RE MDB TEST RESULTS—REAR PASSENGER
Passenger
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Proposed IARVs ..................................................................
Toyota Corolla ......................................................................
VW Jetta ..............................................................................
Saturn Ion ............................................................................
Honda Accord ......................................................................
Ford 500 ...............................................................................
Subaru Forrester ..................................................................
Honda CRV ..........................................................................
General Observations
NHTSA has made the following
general observations from the agency’s
214 fleet testing program.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
Thorax
deflection
(mm)
HIC36
1000
248
211
168
223
213
226
126
Abdominal
force
(N)
44
20
29
27
23
25
23
5
• Overall, currently installed side
impact head protection systems (HPS)
consisting of an air curtain or
combination head/thorax air bag were
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2500
1355
1378
1511
810
1649
967
1192
Pubic symph.
force
(N)
6000
2771
2542
2275
2405
1407
1948
1847
Lower spine
(G’s)
(monitored)
82
58
53
47
53
44
35
33
effective in mitigating head
accelerations, resulting in low to
moderate HIC readings for the ES–2re
and SID–IIs dummies in both MDB and
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
oblique pole tests. Vehicles equipped
with well-designed combo bags, and air
curtains that extend toward the A-pillar
when inflated, generally were the better
performers in the oblique pole tests.
• Some currently installed side
impact HPS that provide relatively low
head protection response values to the
SID–IIs driver dummy in the MDB test
do not necessarily provide the same low
level head responses in the oblique pole
test.
• In the oblique pole tests, vehicles
that provided adequate protection for
the ES–2re do not necessarily provide
the same level of protection for the SID–
IIs. The data show the importance of
using more than one size test dummy to
evaluate the overall performance of a
vehicle in providing head protection to
occupants in the oblique pole test mode.
• In oblique pole tests using the SID–
IIs, most vehicles produced pelvic force
readings above the proposed criterion.
In the MDB tests with the SID–IIs seated
in the driver’s position, only one vehicle
produced a pelvic force greater than
5,525 N. All other vehicles subjected to
the MDB test with the SID–IIs seated in
the driver’s position had pelvic force
readings below 5,525 N.
• The SID–IIs in the rear seats of
vehicles subjected to the MDB test had
elevated thoracic and/or abdominal rib
deflections that were not observed in
MDB tests of those same vehicles with
the ES–2re in the rear seats.
• The results of oblique pole tests in
which the air curtain did not deploy or
deployed later in the event indicate
needed air bag sensor improvement.
• The convertibles equipped with
head/thorax combination air bags
produced measurements that were
below the proposed injury criteria,
demonstrating the effectiveness and
feasibility of these HPS for convertible
body types.
• Some vehicles that received ‘‘Good’’
or ‘‘Acceptable’’ ratings from IIHS for
the rear passenger exceeded proposed
IARVs in our MDB tests using the SID–
IIs.
• The vehicles that were tested with
the ES–2re that produced dummy
readings below the proposed IARVs in
the pole and MDB tests were: 2004
Honda Accord, 2005 Volkswagen Jetta,
2005 Volkswagen Beetle Convertible,
and the 2005 Saab 93 Convertible. The
vehicles that were tested with the SID–
IIs that produced readings below the
proposed IARVs in the pole and MDB
tests were: 2005 Toyota Corolla, 2005
Subaru Forester and the 2005 Honda
CRV.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
V. Summary of Comments
This section provides an overview of
the significant comments to the
proposal to upgrade FMVSS No. 214.
All together, NHTSA received 35
comments to the proposal to upgrade
FMVSS No. 214.26 Commenters
included—
Vehicle manufacturers and/or vehicle
manufacturer associations (the Alliance
of Automobile Manufacturers
(Alliance 27), American Honda Motor
Co., Inc. (Honda), the Association of
International Automobile
Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM 28), Nissan
North America, Inc. (Nissan), Lotus
Engineering (Lotus), Ferrari SpA
(Ferrari), Maserati SpA (Maserati), the
Recreation Vehicle Industry
Association, Inc. (RVIA), Specialty
Equipment Market Association (SEMA),
the National Mobility Equipment
Dealers Association (NMEDA) and the
National Truck Equipment Association
(NTEA));
Air bag equipment suppliers (Autoliv
and TRW);
Research groups (IIHS), the
International Harmonized Research
Activities (IHRA) Side Impact Working
Group (SIWG);
Consumer groups (Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates),
Public Citizen, and Consumers Union);
And private individuals.
Overview of the Comments
The vehicle manufacturers supported
enhancing side impact protection but
had concerns about how the proposed
rulemaking would comport with the
initiatives they have already undertaken
or agreed to undertake towards that goal
(e.g., the ‘‘voluntary commitment’’ of
major automakers in the U.S. to phase
in side air bags for drivers in vehicles
up to 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) GVWR). The
vehicle manufacturers strongly
supported the incorporation of
WorldSID 29 into FMVSS No. 214,
26 The NPRMs proposing to add the ES–2re and
SID–IIs dummy specifications to 49 CFR part 572
each received comments separately from the
FMVSS No. 214 NPRM. Those comments are
addressed in full in final rules that were published
separately from this document and are discussed
here to the extent relevant to the FMVSS No. 214
final rule.
27 The Alliance is made up of BMW group,
DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, General
Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota,
and Volkswagen.
28 AIAM Technical Affairs Committee members
are: Aston Martin, Ferrari/Maserati, Honda,
Hyundai, Isuzu, Kia, Nissan, Peugeot, Renault,
Subaru, Suzuki, Bosch, Delphi, Denso, and Hitachi.
29 WorldSID is considered by industry to be the
next-generation 50th percentile male side impact
dummy. It was developed by industry
representatives from the U.S., Europe and Japan and
by the European and Japanese governments (see
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
51919
marked by the Alliance submitting,
concurrently with its comment on the
FMVSS No. 214 NPRM, a petition for
rulemaking asking NHTSA to initiate
rulemaking to incorporate WorldSID
into Part 572 and to use the dummy in
the upgrade of FMVSS No. 214 (NHTSA
Docket 17252). The Alliance further
suggested that, prior to use of WorldSID,
the ES–2 dummy should be used
(without the rib extensions), and only to
the extent of protecting the head. The
Alliance believed that there was no
safety need for the 5th percentile SID–
IIs adult female crash test dummy in the
proposed pole and MDB tests. No
commenter supported the floating rib
guide modifications proposed by
NHTSA for the SID–IIs dummy.
Air bag supplier Autoliv supported
use of the ES–2re in tests and supported
use of the 32 km/h (20 mph) test speed
in the oblique pole test. Autoliv stated
that NHTSA was correct in its belief that
an oblique pole test will encourage
larger bags than a perpendicular pole
test. Air bag supplier TRW believed that
adoption of the NPRM will result in
substantial reductions in injuries and
severity in side impacts. TRW stated
that technology exists to meet the
proposed requirements of the NPRM
within the timeframe and that it saw no
major issues with the proposed test
conditions. TRW believed that systems
designed to meet the proposed
requirements could have acceptable
performance in out-of-position
situations.
Vehicle manufacturers raised issues
or had questions about aspects of
conducting the proposed test procedure
for the oblique pole test. The Alliance
supported the 75-degree angle of the
test, but suggested that the test speed
should be bounded at 26 km/h to 32
km/h (16 to 20 mph) (the NPRM
proposed that the test would be
conducted at any speed up to and
including 32 km/h (20 mph)). Maserati
and Ferrari supported the 90 degree 29
km/h (18 mph) pole test used in the
European New Car Assessment Program
(Euro NCAP). The IHRA SIWG
expressed concern about the NPRM
preempting the outcome of international
deliberations of the SIWG regarding the
side impact pole test procedure. Vehicle
manufacturers also commented on
technical aspects of the test procedure,
such as how the vehicle seat should be
positioned along the seat track, where
on the pole the vehicle should impact;
Docket No. 2000–17252). This future dummy is
believed by its developers to have better biofidelity
than existing dummies, and is intended to better
predict a wider range of injury potential in side
impact testing than current dummies.
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51920
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
installed products interact with
equipment or systems used by vehicle
manufacturers to meet the FMVSS No.
214 requirements.
In October 2006, to estimate the costs
and benefits of the final rule, NHTSA
sent letters asking vehicle
manufacturers to submit voluntarily
information on the installation of side
air bags in present and future vehicles.
Information was received from seven
manufacturers, whose information
related to about 90 percent of light
vehicle sales.
and how the test dummies and head
restraints should be positioned.
Consumer groups generally supported
the proposed rule, but suggested that the
agency should adopt further
requirements. Advocates, Consumers
Union, and Public Citizen wanted more
stringent injury criteria limits than those
proposed (e.g., HIC of 800), and
recommended extending the oblique
pole test to rear seating positions.
Comments were also received on the
types of vehicles that should be
excluded from the pole test, and on the
lead time needed to comply with the
proposed oblique pole test and with the
changes to the MDB test. Nissan
submitted test data 30 of one small
vehicle and two mid-size vehicles tested
according to the proposed test
procedures for the oblique pole test and
MDB test. The commenter said that the
data indicate that curtain air bags may
be needed in some vehicles to meet the
pole test requirements, and that some
vehicles could need a full redesign of
the door structure, including the
modification or addition of air bags, to
meet the MDB test requirements. Nissan
requested that the MDB test
requirements be phased-in along the
same schedule that would be
implemented for the pole test, and that
both phase-ins be over a 4-year rather
than 3-year period.
Comments were also received on
NHTSA’s Preliminary Economic
Assessment (PEA), which analyzed the
costs and benefits and other impacts of
the proposed rule. Maserati and Ferrari
believed that NHTSA underestimated
their costs to comply with the proposed
rule. The Alliance believed that: In
estimating benefits, we should have
identified as the target population all
potentially injured occupants of
relatively modern vehicles for whom the
countermeasures are designed; that the
proposed changes to the MDB test
should have a benefits estimate; that we
did not demonstrate the practicability of
meeting the proposed test requirements,
in that ‘‘no one single vehicle has been
subjected to the entire suite of proposed
crash tests’’; and that the principles set
forth in the Data Quality Act were not
met (the commenter believed that some
of the data in the PEA had errors and
that the PEA contained some
unsupported assumptions). The
Specialty Equipment Market
Association (SEMA) stated that
‘‘aftermarket equipment manufacturers
and other entities that diagnose, service,
repair and upgrade motor vehicles’’ may
be affected by the final rule if their
1. 50th Percentile Male Dummy
The Alliance, AIAM, IIHS, Honda,
Maserati, Ferrari, Advocates, and
Autoliv commented on the proposal to
use the ES–2re test dummy to represent
the mid-size male occupant. Generally,
the vehicle manufacturers opposed the
ES–2re, preferring instead the
WorldSID. In its petition for rulemaking,
the Alliance asked NHTSA to consider
adopting the WorldSID into Part 572
and using the dummy in the phase-in of
the pole test requirements.31 The
Alliance stated that WorldSlD would
further enhance occupant protection
and the international harmonization of
safety standards.
However, other commenters
acknowledged that WorldSID is not yet
ready for use in a safety standard. IIHS
said that while WorldSID might be more
biofidelic than any other existing
dummy, ‘‘developmental testing is not
complete on the new, state-of-the art
dummy, and therefore the time is not
ripe for its inclusion in rulemaking.’’
IIHS did not believe that WorldSID was
necessary in order for the agency to
increase the requirements for protection
30 Submitted under a request for confidential
treatment.
31 https://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf91/
325474_web.pdf
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
VI. Response to the Comments
a. Critical Decisions
We made several critical decisions in
our analysis of the comments. These
decisions were critical in defining the
safety problem, the test dummies that
should be used to address the safety
problem, and the crash tests that should
be used to evaluate measures to
ameliorate the safety problem.
Specifically, these decisions pertained
to:
Which test dummy should be used to
represent the mid-size male;
Whether the standard should limit
more than HIC; and
Whether FMVSS No. 214 should use
a small female dummy in the pole and
MDB tests.
These decisions are discussed in this
section.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
of the midsize male in side impacts. In
this interim period while the WorldSID
continues to be evaluated, IIHS
supported the ES–2re over the SID and
SID–H3 dummies because of the
improved biofidelity of the ES–2re and
the more sensitive information the ES–
2re can provide on rib deflection
characteristics and pelvic loading.
Autoliv also supported the ES–2re’s
replacing the SID–H3 dummy, based on
the improved biofidelity of the proposed
dummy and the tendency toward closer
harmonization with other global test
requirements. ‘‘Using the same test
dummy globally would allow
manufacturers to focus on optimizing
the air bag design to the performance
requirements of the more biofidelic
dummy.’’
A. We Are Denying the Alliance’s
WorldSID Petition
We are denying the Alliance’s petition
for rulemaking because the WorldSID is
not ready for use in Federal regulations,
nor has it been established that it has
achieved a completed design allowing a
full assessment of the dummy’s
potential use in FMVSS No. 214. The
WorldSID committee has been
modifying the dummy’s design,
including modifications to the dummy’s
ribs (June/July 2006), to address
durability and other problems that
NHTSA found during the agency’s
evaluation of the dummy.
NHTSA has been working with the
WorldSID committee to evaluate the
functionality of the dummy as a
potential research and compliance test
device. We undertook a three-phase
program to evaluate the dummy’s
repeatability, durability and usefulness.
The program consisted of: (a)
Laboratory-based anthropometry, mass,
instrumentation and extensive
subsystem evaluations; (b) sled tests;
and (c) vehicle crash tests. During phase
(a) of the program (the subsystem
evaluation), we observed cracking of rib
damping material, which led to several
modifications of the rib design by the
WorldSID committee. The committee
sent the revised ribs to NHTSA in
August 2006 for evaluation in the
agency test program. During evaluation
of the rib modifications, concerns over
the pelvis design arose when it was
observed that the pelvis wing contacted
on onboard data acquisition component
mounted below the lumbar spine. The
agency and the WorldSID committee are
presently evaluating modifications to
the pelvis design to eliminate this
problem.
Once the pelvis modifications can be
evaluated and the internal contact issue
has been resolved, NHTSA will resume
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
evaluation of the modifications to the
ribs. However, because we cannot know
at this point what the outcome of the
evaluation will be and because we will
not know the outcome for a
considerable period of time, we are
denying the Alliance’s petition. If the
evaluation indicates that the WorldSID
design is complete, the agency will then
consider whether rulemaking should be
undertaken 32 to possibly incorporate
use of the dummy as a test device
during the phase-in period of the
requirements adopted today. In the
meantime, advancements in occupant
protection can be achieved today by
upgrading the side impact dummy used
in FMVSS No. 214 to the ES–2re,
without waiting for a future test
dummy.
B. The Side Impact Dummy Should Be
Upgraded Now to the ES–2re Without
Further Delay
The technology of the ES–2re
represents a significant advance over the
SID dummy. The ES–2re has enhanced
injury assessment capabilities compared
to devices existing today, which allows
for a fuller assessment of the types and
magnitudes of the injuries occurring in
side impacts and of the efficacy of
countermeasures in improving occupant
protection. The ES–2re dummy has
provisions for instrumentation that can
assess the potential for head injury (it
measures the resultant head
acceleration, which is used to calculate
the Head Injury Criterion (HIC)) and
thoracic injuries in terms of rib
deflections and spine and rib
accelerations. Chest deflection has been
shown to be the best predictor of
thoracic injuries in low-speed side
impact crashes. It is a better injury risk
measure than TTI(d) (a chest
acceleration-based criterion measured
by SID). The ES–2re can also assess the
risk of abdominal injuries through three
load cells to assess the magnitude of
lateral and oblique forces, and the risk
of pubic symphysis injuries by way of
load cell measurements, as well as
pelvis acceleration.
The more advanced test dummy
makes possible a more complete
assessment of vehicle performance in
side impacts, which, together with
appropriate injury assessment criteria,
will lead to greatly enhanced side
impact protection for occupants. In an
MDB test described in the May 2004
NPRM (69 FR at 28010), the ES–2re
detected a high abdominal force in the
32 The suitability of WorldSID for use in FMVSS
No. 214 and as a part 572 test device would
ultimately be determined through notice-andcomment rulemaking, in accordance with statutory
criteria.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
Chevrolet Impala at the dummy’s
abdominal area that was caused by an
intruding armrest. Because the SID does
not measure abdominal force, this
potential injury risk will be newly
detected by the ES–2re. Accordingly,
this final rule adopts the ES–2re for the
pole test and for testing the front seat of
vehicles in FMVSS No. 214’s MDB test.
C. The ES–2re Is an Improvement Over
the ES–2
The Alliance supported the ES–2 as a
temporary alternative test device,
pending the availability of WorldSID.
The Alliance supported the ES–2
because the dummy is already
implemented in both EuroNCAP and the
UN ECE-regulation 95.02 Supplement 1,
i.e., ‘‘at least the ES–2 is harmonized
with Europe and already in widespread
use.’’ The Alliance stated that OSRP
gave the ES–2 a biofidelity rating of 4.6
and the ES–2re an overall rating of 4.3
using the ISO-based ranking. (In the ISO
ranking system, a dummy with a higher
value is considered more biofidelic than
one with a lower value.)
The ES–2re is more appropriate for
use in FMVSS No. 214 than the ES–2
dummy. As explained in the May 2004
NPRM and in the rulemaking
incorporating the ES–2re into 49 CFR
part 572,33 the ES–2 dummy has a
deficiency that limits its usefulness in
FMVSS No. 214. The agency determined
that, in a number of vehicle crash tests,
the back plate of the ES–2’s upper torso
grabbed into the seat back of the vehicle,
which lowered the rib deflections
measured by the dummy. (‘‘Design,
Development, and Evaluation of the ES–
2re Side Crash Test Dummy,’’ May
2004, NHTSA Docket No. 17694–11.)
This ‘‘back plate grabbing’’ problem
has long existed in the ES–2 line of
dummies. Although efforts were
undertaken to address the problem in
dummies preceding the ES–2, the back
plate grabbing problem has continued
with the ES–2. Back plate grabbing has
been seen within the ES–2 in the nongovernmental European New Car
Assessment Program (EuroNCAP) on
side impact. EuroNCAP accounts for the
problem by adjusting downward the
consumer rating scores of vehicles when
back plate grabbing is deemed to have
occurred.
The ES–2re has rib extensions that
solve the back plate grabbing problem of
the ES–2. The rib extensions provide a
continuous loading surface that nearly
encircles the thorax and encloses the
posterior gap of the ES–2 ribcage that
33 NPRM at 69 FR 55550, September 15, 2004,
Docket 18864; final rule at 71 FR 75304, December
14, 2006, Docket 25441.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
51921
was responsible for the ‘‘grabbing’’
effects. Test data show that the rib
extensions reduced the back plate
grabbing force to insignificant amounts
in vehicle side impact tests that had
previously yielded large back plate
loads with the ES–2. The rib extensions
did not affect rib deflection responses in
tests of vehicles that had not originally
yielded high back plate loads.
The biofidelity, repeatability,
reproducibility, and other aspects of the
ES–2re are discussed at length in the
agency’s December 14, 2006 final rule
adopting the ES–2re into 49 CFR part
572 (see Docket 25441). With regard to
Toyota’s and the Alliance’s comment 34
that the rib extensions reduced the ISObased biofidelity assessment of the ES–
2 from 4.6 to 4.3, or from ‘‘fair’’ to
‘‘marginal,’’ we conclude that the
reduced ISO rating is an acceptable
outcome of having the rib extensions.
The back plate loading problem of the
ES–2 renders the ES–2 non-lifelike. If
the rib extensions reduce slightly the
ISO biofidelity rating but enables
NHTSA to use a dummy that has the
measurement capabilities of the ES–2
and no back plate loading problem, we
conclude that the lower rating is
acceptable. We note that the ISO rating
represents an improvement over the
SID, which received a rating of 2.3
(Byrnes, et al., ‘‘ES–2 Dummy
Biomechanical Responses,’’ 2002, Stapp
Car Crash Journal, Vol. 46, #2002–22–
0014, p. 353). The ES–2re biofidelity
rating also compares favorably to that of
the SID–H3, which received an overall
rating of 3.8. Both the SID and SID–H3
have performed well in driving the
installation of life-saving
countermeasures that have substantially
improved the safety of occupants in side
impacts.35
In short, we cannot accept the ES–2
test dummy because of the back plate
loading problem. With the rib
extensions of the ES–2re, the back plate
loading problem is solved. The ES–2re
will enhance levels of side impact
protection provided by FMVSS No. 214.
The enhancements will be seen in
vehicles produced in the near term,
regardless of the future assessment of
WorldSID.
34 The commenters neither provided reference to
a published report nor provided supporting data
related to the claim that the overall ISO score for
the ES–2re is 4.3. The absence of foundation for the
comment limits our ability to respond.
35 The ES–2re also has improved injury
assessment capability compared to the SID and
SID–H3 mid-size male dummies. The ES–2re
dummy will enhance the protection afforded by
vehicles to the affecting population, especially
those represented by a 50th percentile male
dummy. Thus, this final rule adopts the ES–2re and
not the SID or the SID–H3 dummies.
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
51922
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
D. The ES–2re Should Measure More
Than HIC
The Alliance suggested that the midsize male dummy in the upgraded
requirements of FMVSS No. 214 should
measure only HIC. While supporting the
ES–2 over the ES–2re, the Alliance
stated that both test dummies have
design features that affect the dummies’
thoracic responses and the resulting rib
deflection measurements. According to
the commenter, the ‘‘limited stroke
piston/cylinder mechanism’’ of the
dummies can bind in a lateral impact,
and the ‘‘binding potential is further
compounded as the lateral impact
becomes more oblique.’’
The Alliance also stated that both the
ES–2 and ES–2re dummies incorporate
a shoulder design that makes the
kinematics of the dummy unlike that of
a cadaver. The commenter stated that
the human shoulder compresses inward
and moves slightly rearward in impacts
from the front or side, while the
dummies’ shoulders are designed to
rotate forward, preventing the arm from
interacting with intruding structures.
The Alliance stated, ‘‘In full-scale
vehicle tests, the WorldSID shoulder
deflects laterally inward replicating a
more human like response.’’
Additionally, the Alliance believed
that the ES–2 and ES–2re dummies—
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
are too narrow through the abdomen and
pelvis and do not represent the
anthropometry of either the U.S. or world
populations. Also, in full-scale tests
conducted by the OSRP, the ES–2 measured
abdominal forces below the Injury
Assessment Reference Values (IARV), while
the WorldSID measured abdominal
deflections above the IARV. This indicates
that the ES–2 abdominal region is too narrow
to properly interact with intruding vehicle
structures and is inadequately instrumented,
causing it to erroneously miss a potential risk
of abdominal injury. The WorldSID can
better assess the risk of abdominal injury
because its anthropometry better matches
that of the human population and it is
equipped to measure abdominal deflection.
Because the Alliance believed there
are deficiencies with the ES–2, the
commenter said that NHTSA should just
require manufacturers to meet a head
protection criterion, and not criteria
assessing injury to the thorax, abdomen
or pelvis.
We are denying this request. Our
analysis of the thoracic response of the
ES–2re demonstrated that the dummy’s
thoracic responses provided valid data.
We analyzed crash data from oblique
and perpendicular pole tests of two
vehicles: A 1999 Maxima and a 2001
Saturn. The vehicles were not equipped
with side air bag systems. The rib
deflections of the ES–2re in the driver’s
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
seating position were almost identical in
the oblique and perpendicular pole
tests. The rib deflections of the
dummies were consistent in time and
were of similar magnitude. There was
no indication of flat-topping, binding or
distortion of the deflection signal due to
oblique loading. In addition, T1 driver
lateral acceleration was consistent and
did not show differences between
oblique and perpendicular impacts. (See
‘‘Lateral vs. Oblique Impacts of the ES–
2 Dummy in Pole and MDB Tests,’’
April 2006, a copy of which is in Docket
25441).
Both the lower spine accelerations
(T12) and the summed abdominal forces
for the driver ES–2re were higher in the
oblique pole test configuration.
However, the oblique pole test was run
at a higher impact speed than the
perpendicular test (20 mph versus 18
mph), which likely increased the
measurements. Also, in the oblique pole
test, the lower part of the dummy torso
appears to be loaded earlier in the crash
event than in a perpendicular test,
which indicates that the T12 and
abdominal forces could be higher
because initial loading is more through
the lower part of the torso.
We also analyzed the measurements
of the ES–2re in FMVSS No. 214 MDB
tests of a 2001 Ford Focus, 2002
Chevolet Impala equipped with a combo
head/thorax side air bag for the driver,
and a 2004 Honda Accord equipped
with a thorax bag. Overall, the driver rib
deflections were higher than the
deflections for the rear passenger
dummy. However, a different loading
environment caused the lower rib
deflections for the ES–2re in the rear
seat as compared to the driver. Rib
deflections showed a slow rise, and the
peaks occurred about 10 milliseconds
later than those of the driver dummy.
The loading duration was also
considerably longer. The passenger rib
deflections were consistently lower
towards the bottom of the ribcage. Id.
For the Focus, the driver and
passenger T12 accelerations were
comparable. For the Impala and Accord,
the rear passenger T12 acceleration was
larger than that of the driver dummy.
This difference could be attributed to
the fact that both the Impala and Accord
had a thorax side air bag for the driver
position and none for the rear passenger
position.
The data from the tests did not show
a sensitivity to oblique loading in the
dummy’s abdomen. The passenger
abdominal force for the Impala was very
large compared to the driver abdominal
force, but this was due primarily to large
structural intrusions (the test film shows
the arm rest intruding into the dummy
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
in the MDB test). This indicates a
localized loading through the abdomen
for the Impala passenger (resulting in an
off-loading condition for the chest and,
thus, much lower rib deflection
measurements as compared to the driver
dummy). For the Accord, the passenger
abdominal force was larger than the
driver abdominal force, but the
difference could be attributed to the side
air bag in the driver position.
The Alliance contended that the ES–
2re’s shoulder has a biomechanical flaw
in that the shoulder moves forward
relative to the rest of the dummy, while,
according to the commenter, the
WorldSID dummy’s shoulder moves
rearward. The Alliance believes that a
rearward motion is consistent with that
exhibited by post mortem human
subjects (PMHS) in rigid impactor tests.
The commenter did not demonstrate the
relevance to this rulemaking of
movement of the dummy’s shoulder
frontward or rearward. Use of the
dummy in vehicle crash tests has
indicated no detrimental effects due to
shoulder design, such as rib flat-topping
or distortion of signals, showing that the
shoulder has reached its limit for range
of motion or has otherwise performed
unacceptably due to a forward motion of
the clavicles.
In conclusion, the data show that
there are no deficiencies with the ES–
2re that justify limiting its injury
assessment to that of HIC only. The data
show that there is virtually no effect due
to oblique loading in the driver ES–2re
deflection readings in oblique pole tests
as compared to perpendicular pole
impacts. The data also do not
demonstrate an indication of sensitivity
to oblique loading in MDB tests. To the
contrary, the test data from the Impala
test show that the abdominal response
of the ES–2re in the rear passenger
position in the MDB test detected
critical loading by intruding vehicle
structures at the lower torso level.
Further discussion of the agency’s
response to comments about the
biofidelity of the ES–2re can be found
in the December 14, 2006 49 CFR Part
572 final rule on the ES–2re (see Docket
25441).
Anthropomorphic test devices are
constantly evolving and advancing due
in part to worldwide research efforts
toward improving the biofidelity,
durability and injury-measurement
capabilities of the test devices. Adopting
the ES–2re and the injury assessment
reference values associated with the risk
of injury to an occupant’s thorax,
abdomen and pelvis will enhance the
safety of occupants in side impacts. In
a NASS study of side impact crashes, it
was estimated that between 8.5 percent
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
and 21.8 percent of all AIS 3+ injuries
are to the abdomen of restrained near
side front seat occupants.36 The
important gains in occupant protection
that can be achieved by the ES–2re
should not be delayed or lost on the
grounds that a more advanced test
dummy may be available in the future.
2. The 5th Percentile Female Dummy
A. The 5th Percentile Adult Female
Dummy Is an Integral Part of This
Upgrade
The Alliance suggested that NHTSA
should incorporate only a 50th
percentile male test dummy in both the
pole and MDB tests and completely
forego use of the 5th percentile female
dummy in the final rule. The
commenter believed that the agency did
not provide data showing that realworld safety will be improved by use of
the 5th percentile dummy ‘‘beyond the
benefits provided by the industry’s
front-to-side voluntary commitment and
the IIHS side impact rating test.’’
i. Need for the 5th Percentile Dummy in
the Pole Test
According to the Alliance, crash
data 37 demonstrate that narrow object
side impacts are ‘‘far more likely to
involve 50th percentile-male-sized
occupants than 5th percentile-femalesized occupants.’’ 38 According to the
Alliance, only 4.7 percent of nearside
front outboard occupant crashes
involved a tree or pole impact, and only
0.28 percent of nearside front outboard
occupant crashes with trees or poles
involved occupants with a height of 47
to 61 inches. Therefore, the Alliance
argued, only the 50th percentile adult
male dummy is needed in the pole test.
We have considered the Alliance’s
reasoning but conclude that: (a) Tree/
pole impacts comprise a significant
safety problem (b) involving smaller
occupants.
Tree/Pole Impacts
We disagree with several of the
Alliance’s claims. The first concerns the
magnitude of the side impact safety
problem posed by tree or pole impacts.
The commenter believes that 4.7 percent
of nearside front outboard occupant
crashes involved a tree of pole impact.
That determination was based on the
commenter’s analysis of all side crashes
occurring in 1990–2002 that resulted in
any injury, from minor (AIS 1) to fatal.39
Because there are many more AIS 1 and
51923
2 injuries in the accident database than
AIS 3+ injuries, we believe that
including AIS 1 and 2 injuries in the
analysis masks the frequency of tree or
pole impacts in crashes causing serious
(AIS 3+) injuries and underestimates the
harm addressed by this rulemaking. As
discussed below and in the NPRM , an
analysis that is focused on side
crashes 40 resulting in a fatal injury
shows that 21 percent of these crashes
involved side impacts with rigid narrow
objects.
As discussed in the NPRM, NHTSA
analyzed fatalities in the 1991, 1995,
and 1999 FARS files using non-rollover,
near-side impact data. We have now
also updated the analysis for 2004
FARS.41 The fatalities occurred in the
front and rear seats of light vehicles in
side impacts with various objects. The
percentage of vehicle-to-rigid narrow
object impacts has remained stable at
approximately 23 percent of the total
number of fatal side impact crashes. The
percentage of collisions with LTVs has
increased, while the percentage of
collisions with passenger cars has
decreased over time. The results of the
analysis are presented below in Table
10:
TABLE 10.—OCCUPANT FATALITY DISTRIBUTION
[Non-rollover near-side impacts]
Collisions with
passenger cars
(percent)
FARS
FARS
FARS
FARS
1991
1995
1999
2004
MY
MY
MY
MY
1987
1991
1995
2000
and
and
and
and
Later
Later
Later
Later
Light
Light
Light
Light
Vehicles
Vehicles
Vehicles
Vehicles
Given the number of tree or pole side
crashes that occur, the analysis shows
that tree or pole side impacts are overrepresented in terms of fatally injured
occupants.
......................
......................
......................
......................
Collisions with
LTVs
(percent)
28.9
24.8
20.5
15.4
Collisions with
rigid narrow
objects
(percent)
27.1
33.0
36.3
38.5
20.1
21.2
21.0
23.2
Collisions with
other vehicles/
objects
(percent)
24.0
21.0
22.2
22.9
The second aspect of the Alliance’s
reasoning with which we disagree
concerns the involvement of small
stature occupants in tree or pole side
crashes. The commenter believes that
only 0.28 percent of nearside front
outboard occupant crashes with trees or
poles involved occupants with a height
of 47 to 61 inches, and so the 5th
percentile female dummy is not needed
in the pole test.
We analyzed accident data on drivers
involved in side impacts to examine
characteristics of drivers seriously
injured or killed in tree or pole impacts.
We found in analyzing 1990–2001
National Automotive Sampling System
Crashworthiness Data System (NASS
CDS) 42 crash data that smaller stature
drivers (height up to 5 feet 4 inches)
comprise approximately 28 percent of
seriously or fatally injured drivers in
narrow object side impacts. The 1990–
2001 NASS CDS data also indicate that
there are differences in the body region
distribution of serious injuries between
small and medium stature occupants
that are seriously injured in these side
36 Samaha, R.S., Elliot, D., ‘‘NHTSA Side Impact
Research: Motivation for Upgraded Test
Procedures,’’ supra.
37 The commenter performed an analysis of 1990–
2002 NASS CDS side crashes with a lateral deltaV range of 12–25 mph, involving model years of
1990 or newer vehicles in non-rollover side impacts
(nearside front-outboard occupants of age 12 years
or older with a fatality or known MAIS, and no total
ejections).
38 The Alliance believed that the 5th percentile
adult female dummy represented occupants only of
heights of 47 to 61 inches.
39 Lateral delta-V range of 12–25 mph, model
years of 1990 or newer vehicles, non-rollover side
impacts, nearside front-outboard occupants of age
12 years or older.
40 2001 FARS nearside non-rollover fatalities,
model year 1995 and newer vehicles struck vehicle.
41 The slight differences in distributions in Table
10 of this preamble and those of Table 1 of the
NPRM (69 FR at 27993) are due to new runs of the
data and minor differences in the definition of
‘‘other’’ vehicle types.
42 NASS CDS has detailed data on a
representative, random sample of thousands of
minor, serious, and fatal crashes. Field research
teams located at Primary Sampling Units across the
country study about 5,000 crashes a year involving
passenger cars, light trucks, vans, and utility
vehicles.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Small Stature Occupants Are Seriously
Injured in Tree/Pole Impacts
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51924
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
collisions. The data suggest that smaller
stature occupants have a higher
proportion of head, abdominal and
pelvic injuries than medium stature
occupants, and a lesser proportion of
chest injuries. (‘‘NHTSA Side Impact
Research: Motivation for Upgraded Test
Procedures,’’ Samaha, et al. (2003).)
The appropriateness of an
anthropomorphic test device for a
dynamic test depends in part on its
ability to represent occupants involved
or injured in the crash simulated by the
dynamic test. There are only two side
impact dummies existing today
representing the sizes of occupants
seriously injured in side impacts: the
SID–IIs and the mid-size adult male
dummies (e.g., the ES–2re). The height
of a smaller stature (5th percentile)
adult female is 59 inches (4 feet 11
inches). The height of a mid-size adult
male is about 69 inches (5 feet 9 inches).
The mid-point between the two is 64
inches (5 feet 4 inches). Drivers less
than 64 inches in height are usually
female and/or elderly, and are closer in
physiology to a 5th percentile female
than to a 50th percentile male. (Drivers
taller than 64 inches could also be
represented by the SID–IIs since driver
height falls along a continuum.
However, for purposes of our analysis of
the impacts of this rulemaking, we had
to make a cut-off and did so at 64
inches.) Accordingly, we have
determined that the SID–IIs, with its
height of 59 inches (4 feet 11 inches), is
representative of occupants of heights
up to 64 inches (5 feet 4 inches). The
assumption that a 5th percentile adult
female dummy is representative of
occupants of heights up to 64 inches (5
feet 4 inches) is consistent with the
approach taken by the agency in
analyzing the impacts of advanced air
bags under FMVSS No. 208, ‘‘Occupant
crash protection.’’
The Alliance recommended that
NHTSA assume that the SID–IIs only
represented occupants with a height of
47 (3 feet 11 inches) to 61 (5 feet 1 inch)
inches. We believe this assumption is
overly restrictive. Sixty-two-, 63- and
64-inch tall adults, mostly women, are
more similar in build to the SID–IIs than
to the 50th percentile male dummy.
As explained in the next section,
including the 5th percentile female
dummy in the oblique pole test will
gain real world benefits beyond those
attained using just a mid-size adult male
dummy in the pole test. We estimate
that the inclusion of the SID–IIs in the
oblique pole test will save an additional
78 lives beyond the fatalities saved by
changes to vehicle designs to meet an
oblique pole test using the 50th
percentile male dummy alone. These
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
lives lost annually of smaller stature
occupants, many of whom are elderly,
constitutes a safety problem that
incorporation of the SID–IIs will
address.
Current Side Air Bags Will Be Made
Even Better To Enhance Protection to
Smaller Stature Drivers
Current combination head/thorax air
bags and side curtains generally perform
well in the IIHS consumer information
program side impact tests. They will do
even better under our regulation.
The Alliance believed that we should
not be concerned that some side air bag
systems we tested did not meet the
IARVs with the SID–IIs. The commenter
believed that ‘‘current side air bag
systems are proving to be very effective
in real-world side impacts * * * [and]
that the agency’s concerns are
unfounded and unwarranted regarding
current side airbag designs failing to
activate properly or providing sufficient
coverage in real-world crash situations.’’
The primary impact of this regulation
on motor vehicle safety will be to ensure
that head protection is provided in
passenger vehicles, and to improve on
the protection of current bags. In our
214 fleet testing program, current side
air bags did not always meet the
proposed criteria when tested with the
SID–IIs dummy. In the agency’s tests of
10 vehicles, seven exceeded the injury
criteria for the 5th percentile female
dummy in the oblique pole test (four
exceeded HIC, four exceeded the lower
spine, and seven exceeded the pelvic
force criteria). In the Ford Five Hundred
and Saturn Ion tests, we observed that
the side air bags deployed after the 5th
percentile female dummy had already
moved toward the very front of the air
bag at pole contact and had hit a portion
of the air curtain/tether interface that
was not inflated to cushion the impact,
which resulted in HIC readings of 1,173
(Ford Five Hundred) and 5,203 (Saturn
Ion). In the Ford Expedition test, we
observed that the SID–IIs rotated around
the curtain and contacted a portion of
the air curtain/tether interface that was
not inflated to cushion the impact,
which resulted in an HIC value of 5,661.
If the ES–2re were the only test
dummy used in the pole test,
countermeasures installed for the ES–
2re might not protect the population
(shorter and/or elderly drivers)
represented by the 5th percentile female
dummy. In the four air bag curtain tests
discussed above, the HIC values for the
ES–2re were moderate to low. The 5th
percentile female dummy’s head is
positioned lower than that of the ES–2re
because of sitting height differences
between the two dummies. The SID–IIs
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
is also farther forward than the ES–2re
adult male dummy, which leads to
differences in the interplay between the
dummy and the vehicle side structure,
roof and side air bag system. The
differences in size and sitting position
between the two dummies affects more
than HIC responses. In the agency’s
oblique pole test of the Volkwagen Jetta,
the pelvic force reading of the SID–IIs
was 7,876 N, while the vehicle met all
the IARVs for the 50th percentile male
dummy.
Air bag sensors could also be
improved. As discussed in the NPRM
(69 FR at 27998), the side air bags in two
vehicles that were certified as meeting
the requirements of a perpendicular
crash test (the FMVSS No. 201 90degree pole test) did not deploy when
tested with the 5th percentile female
dummy in the oblique pole test. We do
not consider this to be a matter of a test
artifact or other anomaly of the
laboratory test conditions. We conclude
that the oblique localized loading in the
pole test (from the two distinct narrow
impact locations corresponding to the
seating positions of both sizes of test
dummies) will induce more robust crash
sensors that will lead to further
protection in the field.
ii. Need for the 5th Percentile Dummy
in the MDB Test
The Alliance believed that crash data
demonstrate that occupants with heights
less than 65 inches are involved in
vehicle-to-vehicle side impacts with a
‘‘significant frequency,’’ i.e., that adult
male and adult females are similarly
represented in vehicle-to-vehicle
crashes in the delta-V range of 12–25
mph, in which a front, outboard struckside occupant receives a serious-to-fatal
injury. The commenter also determined
that vehicle-to-vehicle side impacts are
significantly more frequent compared to
tree/pole side impacts. However, the
commenter believed that ‘‘[T]he
industry’s voluntary agreement already
includes requirements for an MDB test
using a 5th percentile female dummy;
we believe NHTSA has not
demonstrated the need to overlay this
agreement with a 5th percentile female
MDB regulatory test requirement.’’
Ferrari stated that we did not clearly
identify the expected benefits from the
use of the dummy in the MDB test.
Ferrari further stated that, even if the
population represented by the 5th
percentile female dummy were at a
greater risk of head and abdominal
injuries, the SID–IIs dummy would not
provide any increased benefit to this
population because the dummy ‘‘does
not have any feature able to measure
abdominal injuries, and the risk of
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
injuries to the head is much better
assessed by the pole impact test (not the
MDB test). The introduction of the SID–
2s [sic], lacking even a chest deflection
criterion, would not supplement in any
way the protection provided by the
introduction of the ES–2 or ES–2re.’’
Agency response: Based on our
evaluation of available data, we have
decided to require only one MDB test
(per side of the vehicle). The MDB test
specifies use of an ES–2re (50th
percentile adult male) dummy in the
front seating position and a SID–IIs (5th
percentile adult female) dummy in the
rear.
The NPRM proposed to use the ES–
2re dummy in both the front and rear
outboard seating positions on both sides
of the vehicle, and also proposed use of
the SID–IIs dummy in the front and rear
outboard seating positions on both sides
of the vehicle. We issued the proposal
based in part on crash data indicating
that 35 percent of all serious and fatal
injuries to nearside occupants occurred
to occupants 5 feet 4 inches (or 163
centimeters) or less, which are best
represented by the 5th percentile female
dummy (69 FR at 27991). We also
considered the results of two MDB tests
with the SID–IIsFRG dummy that had
indicated a need for the dummy. In a
test of a 2001 Ford Focus, the pelvic
force was exceeded for the driver
dummy (5,621 N). In a test of a 2002
Chevrolet Impala, the left rear dummy’s
lower spine acceleration and pelvic
force criteria were exceeded (89 g and
5,711 N, respectively). Based on those
results, we expected that improvements
to the arm rest area and other structural
components would be required to
improve protection for the 5th
percentile occupants (69 FR at 28011).
Since the NPRM, we have conducted
eight MDB tests with the SID–IIs
dummy in predominantly model year
2005 vehicles. Our crash test results
have shown that vehicles newer than
the 2001 Focus and the 2002 Impala are
generally able to meet the proposed
injury criteria when tested with this
dummy. (The 2001 Focus has since
undergone a mid-cycle design change
with head/torso combo bags becoming
optional for model year 2005 vehicles.
The 2002 Impala has since been
redesigned with model year 2006
vehicles having curtain and thorax bags
as standard equipment.)
MDB Test of the Front Seat
For the driver dummy, 7 of 8 vehicles
met the criteria. The one exception for
the front seat was the 2005 Saturn Ion,
which resulted in the SID–IIs driver
dummy exceeding the pelvic force
criterion (8,993 N).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
The Saturn Ion in the test was
equipped with an air curtain, but lacked
a thorax-mounted side air bag. The lack
of thoracic air bag protection may have
led to the high pelvic force measured by
the dummy. In our pole testing, the
Saturn Ion exceeded the limits on HIC
(5,203), lower spine acceleration (110 g)
and pelvic force (5,755 N). It also scored
‘‘poor’’ in the IIHS side impact
crashworthiness evaluation. Based on
this complete array of testing with this
vehicle, we believe that needed
improvements to comply with the
oblique pole tests of this final rule will
likely address the one SID–IIs driver
dummy failure that the agency observed
in its MDB test.
Thus, based on the available data that
show:
(a) All vehicles except the Ion meeting
the MDB test when tested with the SID–
IIs in the front seat; and
(b) Countermeasures to address the
Ion’s failing the pelvic criterion in the
front seat of the pole test when tested
with the SID–IIs could address the
failure of the vehicle to meet the pelvic
criterion in the MDB front seat test—
The agency has decided not to adopt
an MDB test with the SID–IIs in the
front seating positions.
The benefits from an MDB test with
the SID–IIs in the front seat will likely
be absorbed by the SID–IIs front seat
oblique pole test requirements, as
suggested by some of the commenters.
That is, a countermeasure such as a
thorax air bag in the front seat of the Ion
installed to meet the pole test
requirements could also enable the Ion
to meet the pelvic criterion of the MDB
rest. Thus, the MDB test of the front seat
with the SID–IIs dummy is unlikely to
lead to improved occupant protection,
and is not warranted for adoption into
FMVSS No. 214.
(On the other hand, adoption of the
ES–2re dummy in the MDB tests to test
the front seat of vehicles is warranted.
The reasons for adopting the ES–2re in
the front seat of this test are explained
in section VI.c of this preamble.)
MDB Test of the Rear Seat
The test of the rear seat with the SID–
IIs resulted in high pelvic forces in the
Honda Accord and in the Suzuki
Forenza. We were concerned about
these results because rear seat occupants
are predominantly made up of smaller
stature occupants, e.g., children, who
more closely resemble the
anthropometry of the SID–IIs than a
50th percentile adult male. All vehicles
met all the criteria proposed in the
NPRM when tested with the ES–2re
50th percentile male dummy.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
51925
In addition, we observed that in the
tests of the VW Jetta, Saturn Ion, Ford
Five Hundred, and Honda Accord, and
the Suzuki Forenza,43 the SID–IIs
dummy in the rear seat of the MDB test
had elevated thoracic and/or abdominal
rib deflections that were not observed
with the rear seat ES–2re dummy. We
felt that the rib deflections of the SID–
IIs were noteworthy, since many experts
consider deflection to be the best
predictor of thoracic injury.44 We
believed that the SID–IIs’s elevated rib
deflections in the rear seat indicated
that side impact crashworthiness
designs in the rear were possibly in
need of improvement to better protect
rear seat occupants, particularly
children and other smaller stature
occupants.
Incorporation of the SID–IIs into the
rear seat MDB test enables us to monitor
readily the rib deflections measured in
the test 45 to assess how the rear seat
environment is protecting children and
small occupants. While the agency did
not propose thoracic and abdominal rib
deflection requirements for the 5th
percentile female dummy and thus is
not adopting rib deflection limits in this
final rule, we are considering a future
rulemaking to adopt limits on the
thoracic and abdominal rib deflections
measured by the SID–IIs in the FMVSS
No. 214 MDB and pole tests. The
rulemaking could be a part of a
rulemaking to incorporate WorldSID
into FMVSS No. 214, if such a
rulemaking were to ensue, or it could be
developed on its own.
Incorporation of the SID–IIs into
FMVSS No. 214’s MDB test of the rear
seat enhances protection of rear seat
occupants also because the 5th
percentile adult female dummy better
represents the anthropometry of rear
seat occupants than the SID or the ES–
2re (50th percentile male dummies).
The average seated height of rearoutboard occupants is approximately
81.6 centimeters (cm).46 The sitting
43 The Forenza was not tested with the ES–2re
dummy.
44 Kuppa, S., Eppinger, R., McKoy, F., Nguyen, T.,
Yoganandan, N., Pintar, F., ‘‘Development of Side
Impact Thoracic Injury Criteria and their
Application to the Modified ES–2 Dummy with Rib
Extensions (ES–2re),’’ Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol.
47 October 2003, The Stapp Association. A paper
demonstrating that deflections are the best
predictors of injury in frontal impacts is by Kent et
al. (Kent, R., Crandall, J., Bolton, J., Prasad, P.,
Nusholtz, G., Mertz, H., ‘‘The Influence of
Superficial Soft Tissues and Restraint Condition on
Thoracic Skeletal Injury Prediction,’’ Stapp Car
Crash Journal, Vol. 45, November 2003, The Stapp
Association.)
45 We will also monitor the SID–IIs rib deflections
in the oblique pole test.
46 A ratio of sitting height to standing height,
developed by the University of Michigan
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
Continued
11SER2
51926
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
height of the SID–IIs is approximately
78.8 cm, while that of the ES–2re is 88.4
cm. The SID–IIs is closer in height to the
average outboard rear seat occupant
than the SID or the ES–2re. The SID–
IIs’s ability to assess the risk of head
injury through the measurement of HIC
will better ensure that head protection
is provided to children and smaller
stature adults in rear seating positions
than through use of the 50th percentile
adult male test dummies.
Safety will also be enhanced by this
final rule using the SID–IIs in the rear
seat since this smaller sized dummy
will fit in more vehicles, and therefore
exclude few vehicles that cannot
accommodate the 50th percentile male
dummy. (Currently, S3(b) of FMVSS No.
214 excludes the rear seat in passenger
cars that have rear seating areas that are
so small that the 50th percentile adult
male test dummy cannot be
accommodated according to the
positioning procedure specified in the
standard.) We believe use of the SID–IIs
in the rear will provide the agency with
the ability to test more vehicles that
have rear seats too small to
accommodate the mid-size male
dummy. On the other hand, we have
decided not to adopt the ES–2re dummy
in the rear seat of the MDB tests. Our
reasons are explained in section VI.c of
this preamble.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
iii. Beyond the Voluntary Commitment
Test data demonstrate the benefit of
having the SID–IIs in the pole test,
notwithstanding the industry’s
voluntary agreement.47 In the agency’s
side impact test program, vehicles that
were rated ‘‘Good’’ in the IIHS side
crashworthiness evaluation when tested
with the SID–IIs exceeded one or more
of the injury criteria of this rule when
tested with the SID–IIs in our pole test
program. In the pole test of the
Volkwagen Jetta, which IIHS scored
‘‘Good,’’ the pelvic force (7,876 N)
exceeded the IARV (limit 5,525 N). In
the pole test of the Honda Accord, the
SID–IIs’s pelvic force criterion was over
10,000 N. The industry’s voluntary
commitment does not commit to
reducing these pelvic forces. However,
Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI), is
approximately 0.54. Applying this ratio to the real
world rear seat occupant data, the mean sitting
height of occupants in rear outboard seats
(excluding those in infant and toddler child
restraint systems) is 81.6 cm.
47 The industry’s voluntary commitment is a
commitment to meet IIHS’s recommended practice
of HIC15 performance of 779 or less for a SID–IIs
crash dummy in the driver’s seating position and
does not include at this time performance criteria
for other body regions, specifically, the thoracic and
abdominal regions. The voluntary commitment also
does not address the right front or rear seat
passenger positions at this time.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
we can ensure improvement as a result
of manufacturers’ meeting the pole
requirements of this final rule.
B. However, Not All of the Proposed
FRG Changes Are Needed
The SID–IIs test dummy has been
used by Transport Canada in crash tests
since the late 1990s and is used by IIHS
in its consumer information program for
ranking vehicle performance. In its
initial evaluation of the dummy,
NHTSA had found some durability
problems with the dummy’s shoulder
and ribcage and some chest transducer
mechanical failures. To improve the
durability of the dummy, NHTSA
modified the dummy to incorporate,
among other things, floating rib guides
to better stabilize the dummy’s ribs. (See
69 FR at 70948.)
The durability problem arose in 6.7
meters per second (m/s) sled tests of the
SID–IIs Build C dummy using a rigid
wall with a 101 mm abdominal offset.48
Damage in some of the tests included
deformed abdominal ribs, bent
abdominal potentiometer shafts, and/or
gouged damping material, caused by
vertical motion of the ribs and/or
excessive rib compression. The agency
concluded that, under those test
circumstances, portions of the
abdominal and thorax ribs during their
extreme compression were extending
beyond the boundaries of existing rib
guides, and that under some test
conditions, were moving out of their
initial plane of translation. Such out of
plane translation caused the linear
deflection transducer pivots to exceed
their angular motion limits, resulting in
transducer shaft failures and rib
damping material gouging due to
interaction between the extended ribs
and the rib guides.
NHTSA developed the floating rib
guide system to prevent the compressed
ribs from leaving the outside perimeter
of the rib guides and thereby prevent
damage to surrounding areas. Rib guides
were used to ‘‘float’’ with the ribs as
they expanded in the anterior-posterior
direction during rib compression. This
was intended not only to eliminate the
problem of ribs extending outside the
boundaries of the rib guides, but also
retain the ribs in their initial plane and
thereby prevent damage to the
transducer shaft. To further prevent
damage (bending) of potentiometer
shafts and damage to potentiometer
housings, the rib stops were reshaped
48 The agency conducted the tests to replicate
biomechanical sled test impact configurations
previously reported by Maltese et al. (‘‘Response
Corridors of Human Surrogates in Lateral Impacts,’’
Technical Paper 2002–22–0017. Proceedings, 46th
Stapp Car Crash Conference, 2002).
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and changed from a flexible urethane
material to vinyl-coated aluminum. The
maximum lateral rib deflection of the
dummy was also reduced from 69 mm
to 60 mm to further protect the
instrumentation.49
While NHTSA tentatively determined
there was a need for the FRG
modifications, the agency noted in the
December 8, 2004 Part 572 NPRM that
there were other views as to the need for
the FRG changes to the dummy (69 FR
at 70954). The NPRM noted that
Transport Canada, IIHS and the industry
had used the unmodified SID–IIs
dummy for several years to their
satisfaction.
Comments on the proposed FRG
changes: All commenters responding to
this issue were opposed to or expressed
concern about adopting the FRG
modifications to the SID–IIs dummy.
Commenters believed that the
unmodified Build Level C and/or Build
Level D dummies were sufficiently
durable for crash tests. In its October 14,
2004 comments on the NPRM, the
Alliance stated that the OSRP SID–IIs
Upgrade Task Group 50 had agreed to
enhancements of the SID–IIs Build C
dummy or modifications incorporated
into the Build D dummy, but, the
Alliance emphasized, OSRP had
steadfastly maintained that there was no
durability problem requiring the floating
rib guide change to the dummy’s thorax.
The Alliance believed that NHTSA’s
Vehicle Research and Test Center
(VRTC)—
proposed the addition of floating rib guides
to the SID–IIs dummy based on a small series
of sled tests, including a single abdominal
offset sled test in which the ribs were
damaged and exited the original rib guides.
The test was performed with an improperly
positioned and improperly scaled abdominal
plate that simulated a rigid armrest. This
setup produced a very severe impact
condition for the SID–IIs (AF05) dummy.
Instead of being scaled for the AF05, the test
was performed with an abdominal plate that
was offset 100 mm, which are the test
conditions for the ES–2 (AM50) dummy.
Further, the 100 mm offset is at the extreme
end of the range of armrest width in typical
vehicles. In addition, the abdominal plate is
rigid and therefore provided a more severe
impact surface than do typically padded and
deformable vehicle armrests. This test setup
49 The FRG design also encompassed other
changes to improve the durability of the dummy.
The shoulder rib guide of the dummy was reshaped
and deepened beyond the front edge of the shoulder
rib to keep the shoulder rib from moving vertically
during its compression. The damping material of
the shoulder rib assembly was made thinner and
spanned the entire width of the steel band.
50 The Alliance stated in its comment, ‘‘The OSRP
SID–IIs Upgrade Task Group is responsible for
coordinating, evaluating and approving any design
modifications to the SID–IIs dummy, originally
designed in 1994–95.’’
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
produced an impact condition for the AF05
dummy more severe than that of full-scale
vehicle tests, since the dummy’s ribs were
damaged in the sled test but no rib damage
occurred in the vehicle tests using the SID–
IIs Version C.
The Alliance further stated that the
agency’s concern about the accuracy of
the acceleration and deflection
measurements of the Build Level C
dummy due to the ribs not staying in
place ‘‘does not follow logically because
it is quite normal to have the ribs
deform during impact by expanding in
the fore-aft dimension of the chest. The
fact that they change shape and do not
stay in place has nothing to do with the
accuracy of the deflection
measurements.’’
IIHS also objected to the agency’s use
of the 6.7 m/s test. IIHS found the FRG
version of the SID–IIs ‘‘an unacceptable
and unnecessary compromise of the
original dummy’s biofidelity to address
an unproven durability problem’’
(March 4, 2005 comment to Docket
18865). IIHS stated:
Not only have NHTSA’s own vehicle crash
tests failed to show any durability problems
with the original dummy design, but Institute
and industry experience confirms the
dummy is durable enough for crash testing.
As of October 2004 the Institute had
conducted 48 side impact tests with the SID–
IIs dummies positioned in the driver and rear
outboard seating positions, for a total of 96
SID–IIs test exposures. Of these only 6
caused any damage to the dummy; in 4 tests
the dummy’s shoulder was damaged, and in
2 tests one of the abdominal ribs did not pass
post-test verification. Similar trends are
found in the Occupant Safety Research
Partnership (OSRP) dataset, which includes
tests conducted by DaimlerChrysler, General
Motors, the Institute, and Transport Canada.
Of the 241 SID–IIs test exposures (or 1,446
exposures to the dummies’ individual ribs),
only 21 tests (8.7 percent) caused any
dummy damage; of these only 3 tests (0.3
percent of total rib exposures) exhibited any
evidence of ribs catching on the vertical
guides.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
IIHS recommended that NHTSA
adopt the SID–IIs Build Level C or the
Build Level D dummy into FMVSS No.
214. IIHS stated (Docket 18865):
Build Level D would incorporate many of
the design upgrades currently in the FRG
version that would improve the dummy
while maintaining its high biofidelity rating.
The changes IIHS supports for build level D
include redesign of the shoulder rib and rib
guide, neck mounting bracket, rib stops, and
spine box. Using either C- or D-level SID–IIs
would permit the agency to draw on the
dummy’s accumulated crash test experience
to incorporate rib deflection data among the
FMVSS 214 requirements.
Some commenters expressed a view
that the SID–IIsFRG dummy was itself
not an adequate a test device for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
incorporation into 49 CFR part 572. The
Alliance stated that in full vehicle crash
tests, there are significant differences in
the shape and magnitude of the chest
deflection responses of the SID–IIsFRG
and the Build C dummy, with the SID–
IIsFRG having ‘‘greatly reduced’’
deflections. The Alliance stated that
researchers at Transport Canada and
elsewhere found ‘‘no flat-topping in the
original SID–IIs, but severe flat topping
in the SID–IIsFRG.’’ Nissan stated that it
has observed scratching of the SID–
IIsFRG’s rib guides created by rib
contact and was concerned that this
phenomenon could reduce test
repeatability using the dummy over
time, or may negatively affect the
accuracy of the rib data.
Some commenters believed that it was
more advantageous to adopt the SID–IIs
Build Level C or Build Level D dummy
than the SID–IIsFRG. The Alliance
stated that the ISO 9790 biofidelity
rating of the SID–IIsFRG is only ‘‘fair’’
(5.9), while that of the SID–IIs Build C
was ‘‘good’’ (7.0). IIHS expressed
serious concern that the FRG
modification ‘‘has considerably
degraded’’ the SID–IIs dummy’s
biofidelity. IIHS supported the Build
Level C or D dummies in the rulemaking
because it would permit the agency to
incorporate rib deflection data in test
requirements. IIHS stated:
Without rib deflection limits for tests with
the small dummy, the proposed side impact
standard will not establish the same
minimum levels of protection for vehicle
occupants of various sizes. It is disappointing
that part of NHTSA’s reason for not including
SID–IIsFRG rib deflection limits was the need
to study the issue further. By favoring the
FRG modified dummy the agency is ignoring
the accumulated test experience with the
original dummy.
Advocates expressed ‘‘misgivings over
the lack of chest deflection
measurement capability for the 5th
percentile SID–IIsFRG female dummy.’’
Honda expressed concern that the SID–
IIsFRG is not commonly used by
automakers today. Honda stated that,
‘‘The use of SID–IIs [Build Level C or D]
will expand because it is specified in
the [industry’s] voluntarily commitment
on FMVSS No. 214.’’ TRW said that
using ‘‘known and accepted’’ test
dummies could help expedite motor
vehicle manufacturers’ meeting their
‘‘voluntary commitment’’ to install
inflatable side head protection systems.
Agency response: After reviewing the
comments and other information, we
have decided to use the SID–IIs Build
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
51927
Level D test dummy, rather than the
FRG dummy, in FMVSS No. 214.51
The SID–IIsFRG floating rib guide
concept was developed to improve the
durability of the SID–IIs dummy under
extremely severe impact conditions. We
have concluded that data now available
to the agency do not support a need for
all of the floating rib guide design. The
test conditions precipitating the
development of the FRG were
exceptionally severe and appear to be
unlike vehicle crashes to which the
crash dummy is exposed.
The OSRP task group and IIHS noted
that the type of damage reported by
NHTSA in VRTC sled tests was not
experienced in their full scale vehicle
crash tests. Our own testing bears this
out. Since the time of the NPRM,
NHTSA has used the SID–IIs (Build D)
in over 24 oblique pole and MDB crash
tests without seeing structural or
functional problems with the dummy.
In addition, the agency evaluated four
SID–IIs Build D dummies in extensive
component, sled, and pole and MDB
vehicle crash tests without sustaining
functionality and durability problems.
The Build D dummy has many of the
enhancements of the SID–IIsFRG and
some enhancements similar to FRG
features, including new rib stops, larger
motion ranges of potentiometers pivots,
1⁄2 inch diameter potentiometers, and
enhancements to the shoulder structure.
The shoulder enhancements address
bending deformation of the shoulder rib,
delamination and/or gouging damage to
the deflection transducer. All of these
enhancements have improved the
structural integrity of the dummy and
have eliminated the need for all of the
floating rib guide design changes.
We further believe that there are
advantages to adopting the SID–IIs
Build D dummy rather than the SID–
IIsFRG beyond what is needed for the
durability of the dummy. As noted by
the commenters, while the FRG was
very successful in containing the ribs
within the rib guides and in preventing
potentiometer-transducer failures, the
floating rib guides added mass and
additional stiffness to the ribs. As a
result, the FRG became less human-like,
rib deflections seriously reduced, and
the shape of the deflection-time
histories changed compared to testing
under similar loading conditions
without the FRG. Id.
51 A final rule adopting the Build Level D into 49
CFR part 572 was published December 14, 2006, 71
FR 75342, Docket 25442. The part 572 final rule
discusses the biofidelity, repeatability,
reproducibility, durability, and other aspects of the
dummy. The document discusses the agency’s
decision to adopt some but not the entirety of the
floating rib guide design.
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
51928
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
IIHS uses the SID–IIs in its side
impact consumer information program.
IIHS noted in its comments to the
NPRM that Build D would incorporate
many of the design upgrades currently
in the FRG version that would improve
the dummy while maintaining the
dummy’s high biofidelity rating.
Transport Canada plans to continue
using the SID–IIs in its research
program. Using Build D in FMVSS No.
214 means that the same dummy will be
used in governmental and nongovernmental consumer information
and research programs. This consistency
will enhance the testing of vehicles by
making the test results from NHTSA,
Transport Canada, IIHS and industry in
many ways more comparable. Using the
same test dummy will also more
effectively focus research and design
efforts on more consistent and effective
countermeasures that will most
successfully protect smaller stature
occupants. Accordingly, this final rule
adopts use of the SID–IIs test dummy
into the compliance tests of FMVSS No.
214.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
b. Aspects of the Pole Test Procedure
In the NPRM, the agency proposed a
dynamic vehicle-to-pole test that is
similar to the one used to test some
vehicles under FMVSS No. 201, except
that the test procedure would involve an
angle of impact of 75 degrees (instead of
90 degrees) and a test speed of up to and
including 32 km/h (20 mph) (instead of
24–29 km/h (15–18 mph)). We further
proposed to amend FMVSS No. 201
such that, if the oblique 32 km/h (20
mph) pole test were added to FMVSS
No. 214, vehicles certified to the latter
test would be excluded from having to
be certified to FMVSS No. 201’s 90
degree, 29 km/h (18 mph) pole test.
Virtually all of the commenters
supported the adoption of a pole test to
enhance side impact occupant
protection further. These commenters
included the Alliance, which supported
a 32 km/h (20 mph) test using a 75degree oblique impact angle. However,
Ferrari, Lotus, and Maserati supported a
pole test that was harmonized with the
pole test of EuroNCAP (perpendicular
29 km/h (18 mph) impact).
1. Speed
The NPRM proposed (in section
S9.1.1 of the proposed regulatory text)
that each vehicle must meet the oblique
pole test requirements when tested ‘‘at
any speed up to and including 32 km/
h (20 mph).’’ The agency also requested
comments on the alternative of a 29 km/
h (18 mph) test speed, which is used in
the optional perpendicular pole test of
FMVSS No. 201.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
Nearly all commenters supported the
32 km/h (20 mph) test speed. The
Alliance supported a 32 km/h (20 mph)
test speed, but recommended bounding
it with a lower bound as is done with
the FMVSS No. 201 optional pole test.
FMVSS No. 201 sets a lower limit of 24
km/h (15 mph) in the pole test. In
setting the FMVSS No. 201 final rule,
NHTSA concluded that a 24 km/h (15
mph) lower limit was appropriate
because 24 km/h (15 mph) represented
the point at which occupants experience
moderate to serious (AIS 2 and AIS 3)
injuries. The agency believed that
testing at impact speeds below which a
dynamic head protection system would
deploy or offer any meaningful safety
benefits would serve no purpose. (64 FR
69665, December 14, 1999.) The
Alliance and DaimlerChrysler
commented that, since the increase in
lateral velocity from a 29 km/h (18 mph)
perpendicular pole test to a 32 km/h (20
mph) 75-degree oblique test is only 1.3
mph, the minimum oblique test speed
should be 1 mph over the current
minimum perpendicular test speed of
24 km/h (15 mph) in FMVSS No. 201.
Public Citizen expressed its support
for a 32 km/h (20 mph) test speed,
stating that such a speed ‘‘appropriately
protects from the depth of intrusion that
occurs when passenger cars are hit in
the side by a pickup truck or SUV.’’ A
private individual, Mr. William Watson,
believed that the designs needed to
comply with the higher test speed
would not place an undue burden upon
manufacturers, but simply provide a
higher margin of safety for occupants.
Autoliv supported the higher test speed
of 32 km/h (20 mph) on the basis that
the commenter believed it would benefit
more occupants in real world crashes. It
also stated that the higher speed would
present some challenges, particularly for
the new criteria for thorax protection.
However, Autoliv did not anticipate that
these challenges would affect its ability
to meet product demand during the
proposed phase-in requirements. TRW
believed that the side protection
systems designed to meet the
requirements of the NPRM could
perform acceptably for out-of-position
(OOP) occupants.
Opposed to the 32 km/h (20 mph) test
speed were Ferrari and Maserati. Ferrari
believed that increasing the pole test
speed from 18 to 20 mph would be
excessively burdensome, forcing
manufacturers to redesign side
structures and head protection side
bags. Further, Ferrari believed that it
would force an increase in the power of
the head protection side bag, which
might lead to an increased injury risk
for children and occupants that are
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
OOP. The commenter believed that a
pole test that is consistent with the
EuroNCAP side pole impact test, i.e., an
18 mph perpendicular pole test, is the
only way the test can be reasonable and
practicable for small volume
manufacturers.
Agency response: After carefully
reviewing the comments, the agency has
decided to adopt the pole test speed
proposed in the NPRM. The oblique
pole test procedure is conducted at any
speed up to and including 32 km/h (20
mph). A higher test speed than 29 km/
h (18 mph) will provide for a higher
degree of safety and will benefit more
occupants in the real world. As
previously noted in the NPRM for this
final rule, the agency found that crashes
with a delta-V of 32 km/h (20 mph) or
higher result in approximately half of
the seriously injured occupants in
narrow object side impact crashes (69
FR at 27997). A test conducted at 32
km/h (20 mph) maximum speed better
represents the speed of real world
crashes that result in serious injury than
an 18-mph test. Based on our testing, we
believe that it is feasible to meet the test
requirements at 32 km/h (20 mph) and
there would be little cost differential.
The practicability of meeting the
requirements at the 32 km/h (20 mph)
test speed was evidenced by the results
of the agency’s testing of the model year
2005 Subaru Forester, Volkswagen
Beetle and Saab 9–3. We further note
that the Beetle and the Saab 9–3 were
also reported to be in compliance with
the voluntary TWG requirements for
out-of-position occupant assessment.
Further, Autoliv and TRW commented
that countermeasures could be designed
to meet the higher speed oblique pole
test, and also perform acceptably for
out-of-position occupants.
We do not agree with the Alliance’s
suggestion of narrowing the oblique
pole test speed range to 26 km/h to 32
km/h (16 to 20 mph). Limiting the test
speed range would not ensure
protection for side impact crashes that
occur at delta-Vs under 26 km/h (16
mph). Our crash databases have shown
that crashes with a delta-V of 26 km/h
(16 mph) or less result in approximately
a third of the fatalities and almost half
of the MAIS 3–5 non-fatally injured
occupants in near-side crashes. This
analysis was based on front-outboard
adult occupants with serious or fatal
injuries in 1997–2003 NASS nonrollover, near-side crashes.52 Based on
the crash data, we believe that there is
52 Delta-V distributions were derived from 1997–
2003 CDS. Fatalities were adjusted to the 2001
FARS level, and non-fatal injuries to the 2001 GES
level.
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
a demonstrated safety need to require
manufacturers to ensure that vehicles
provide improved protection in crashes
below 26 km/h (16 mph).
We note that our motivation for this
rulemaking was to establish a
comprehensive side impact upgrade that
required a systems approach to improve
protection against head, thoracic,
abdominal and pelvic injuries in a
vehicle-to-pole test. It was not to
duplicate FMVSS No. 201, which is
primarily intended to address head
impacts to the vehicle interior
compartment. Only as a consideration of
regulatory burden did we explore the
degree to which the oblique pole test
duplicated the requirements of FMVSS
No. 201. While compliance with the
FMVSS No. 214 oblique pole test
supersedes the need to conduct a
FMVSS No. 201 pole test, the agency
did not intend to mimic the boundary
conditions of that test.
Nor do we want to. When the 24 to
29 km/h (15 to 18 mph) pole test speed
range was adopted in FMVSS No. 201
in 1999, side impact air bag systems
were only starting to emerge. The goal
of the agency in adopting a lower limit
in FMVSS No. 201 was to reduce test
burdens and to facilitate the
introduction of these systems. The goal
of today’s rulemaking is to upgrade
overall side impact protection,
particularly in pole-type crashes. Since
1999, side impact air bags have become
proven countermeasures that are
effective in protecting against head,
chest, abdominal and pelvic injuries,
and in helping retain an occupant
within the safe environment of the
vehicle compartment. If the
countermeasure is effective in reducing
the risk of serious injury in crashes
below 26 km/h (16 mph), we know of
no compelling reason not to set a
performance requirement that would
necessitate its employment. If deploying
the air bag is not needed to meet the
injury criteria at a speed below a certain
threshold, the manufacturer can make a
manufacturing decision based on that
fact when designing the vehicle. It may
pose a test burden for the manufacturer
to determine what that threshold should
be, but it is a burden that is offset by the
enhancement to side impact protection
achievable in pole-type crashes.
For different vehicle designs, the
threshold of when an air bag is needed
to meet the injury criteria could differ.
Establishing a lower test speed range in
the oblique pole test could have the
causal effect of establishing ‘‘design
points’’ for restraint systems that may or
may not be optimal to vehicle design.
The threshold for air bag deployment
(gray zone) can be dependent on many
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
vehicle attributes, such as side structure
strength, energy absorption, air bag
characteristics, etc. One vehicle design
may be able to meet the injury criteria
without an air bag at 24 km/h (15 mph),
while another might need an air bag to
meet an oblique pole test at that same
speed. To prescribe a 26 km/h (16 mph)
lower bound for the test speed might
force a test condition that may not be
ideal for occupant safety, given
individual gray zones and compliance
margins. Therefore, to ensure occupant
protection at impact speeds below 26
km/h (16 mph), the final rule adopts the
proposed oblique pole test conditions
up to and including 32 km/h (20 mph),
rather than a reduced range of 26 km/
h (16 mph) to 32 km/h (20 mph).
The agency is also not persuaded by
Ferrari’s comments that the oblique pole
test would be excessively burdensome.
As discussed in the lead time section of
this notice, the agency believes that
vehicle manufacturers will have ample
time to redesign their vehicles to meet
the new requirements. By complying
with the FMVSS No. 214 oblique test,
excessive burden from complying with
the FMVSS No. 201 pole test is
removed.
2. Angle
The proposed 75-degree impact angle
was generally supported except by
Ferrari, Lotus and Maserati, which
supported a 90-degree test similar to
that of EuroNCAP. Ferrari added that an
oblique pole test would force the
manufacturers to focus their efforts on
specific test conditions, detrimental to
other ones (e.g., out-of-position
occupants).
DaimlerChrysler believed that the
perpendicular pole impact versus the
75-degree impact is not radically
different and would provide similar
levels of occupant protection. However,
it stated that the perpendicular
approach had qualitative benefits, such
as simplicity in test setup,
reproducibility, test dummy capability,
and harmonization. The commenter
stated that, although the agency has
encountered specific cases in which a
vehicle designed to comply with the
perpendicular impact failed to detect
the 75-degree oblique pole impact,
DaimlerChrysler was not aware of this
as a real world issue.
In support of the proposed impact
angle, William Watson believed that the
75-degree pole test is a clear
improvement over the perpendicular
test in terms of the real world
applicability and occupant protection.
However, Mr. Watson stated that
choosing one specific test angle might
lead to restraint and sensor designs that
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
51929
perform poorly for other angles. He
believed that more than one impact
angle should be tested, given the
agency’s data that suggests a difference
of 15 degrees can produce significantly
different sensing responses. Therefore,
the commenter recommended that we
retain the current perpendicular pole
test and add the 75-degree oblique test
as a supplemental requirement.
Agency response: The agency has
decided to adopt the 75-degree impact
angle proposed in the NPRM. The
agency concludes that the oblique pole
test will enhance safety because it is
more representative of real-world side
impact pole crashes than a 90-degree
test. Frontal oblique crashes account for
the highest percentage of seriously
injured (MAIS 3+) near-side occupants
in narrow object crashes, and our
research indicates that the 75-degree
impact is repeatable to simulate in a
laboratory test.
A 75-degree approach angle is
preferable to a 90-degree angle because
the oblique impact exposes the
dummy’s head and thorax to both
longitudinal and lateral crash forces that
are typically experienced in real world
side impacts. Weighted 1999–2001
NASS CDS side impact data show that
in narrow object crashes, serious head
and chest are dominant for both small
and large stature occupants (69 FR
27998). The oblique pole test thus better
emulates real world crash conditions
than a perpendicular impact. NHTSA
estimates that 311 lives would be saved
by the oblique pole test using a 50th
percentile adult male dummy and a 5th
percentile adult female dummy,53 while
224 lives would be saved by a
perpendicular test using the same
dummies. At a 3 percent discount rate,
the cost per equivalent life saved is
$1.84 million for an oblique impact test
requirement, and $2.11 million for a
perpendicular test requirement. At a 7
percent discount rate, the cost per
equivalent life saved is $2.31 million for
the oblique test, and $2.65 million for a
perpendicular test.
Combination and other SIABs will
generally be more protective if the
agency adopted a 75-degree vehicle-topole test instead of a 90-degree one,
particularly if the SID–IIs and ES–2re
dummies were both used in the pole
test. A SIAB just wide enough to meet
a perpendicular pole test may be less
protective in an oblique crash, as the
occupant in an oblique crash will move
laterally and forward at an angle rather
than moving strictly laterally into the air
53 With
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
a curtain and 2-sensor system.
11SER2
51930
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
bag.54 Some torso air bags may need to
be redesigned to extend the air pocket
further forward toward the A-pillar to
provide coverage in a 75-degree oblique
test. The VW Jetta, Honda Accord, and
Subaru Forester received ‘‘Good’’ ratings
in IIHS’s side impact consumer
information program when tested with
the SID–IIs in a perpendicular impact.
However, in our 214 fleet testing
program with the SID–IIs, the VW Jetta
resulted in a pelvic force value of 7,876
N, which exceeds the 5,525 N criterion
of this final rule. In an oblique test, the
SID–IIs in the Honda Accord measured
a pelvic force value of 10,848 N. The
Subaru Forester tested obliquely with
the SID–IIs resulted in an abdominal
deflection value of 45 mm. The oblique
pole test will require these vehicles to
provide protection of the 5th percentile
adult female’s abdomen/pelvis areas;
these improvements would not
generally result from a 90-degree test.
Other examples of how an oblique
versus perpendicular impact can affect
a vehicle’s ability to provide head
protection were provided in the NPRM.
In a 75-degree test of a Nissan Maxima
with the ES–2 dummy, the head of the
dummy rotated into the pole
notwithstanding the presence of a
combination head/thorax side impact
air bag. The HIC score was 5,254. In a
90-degree test, the same model year
Maxima produced a HIC score of 130.55
In our test program, four of the 10
vehicles tested with the SID–IIs had side
air curtains that exceeded 1,000 HIC in
the oblique impact (see the agency’s
docketed technical report on the test
program, summarized in Section IV of
this preamble, for a full discussion of
the test program). The SID–IIs rotated
around the front edge of the air bag or
hit the front-most pocket of the curtain,
which allowed for the dummy’s head to
contact a portion of the air curtain/
tether interface that did not cushion the
impact. HIC values were in the
thousands. These curtains will be more
protective when designed to meet
oblique pole test requirements.
54 Using two dummies in a 90-degree pole test
will not necessarily lead to wider, more protective
SIABs. If the SIAB were seat-mounted, the seatmounted SIAB would travel along the seat track
with the dummies. A SIAB could be tuned to meet
a 90-degree pole test with both dummies and not
provide benefits in an oblique impact.
55 Other data from crash tests conducted in
support of the NPRM showed that side air bags in
a Ford Explorer and a Toyota Camry that were
certified as meeting the requirements of the 90degree pole test of FMVSS No. 201 did not inflate
at all in an oblique (75 degree) test using a 5th
percentile female dummy. The HIC results for the
5th percentile female (SID–IIsFRG) dummy placed
in the driver’s seats of these vehicles were in the
thousands (13,125 and 8,706, respectively).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
Wider and more protective side air
curtains resulting from an oblique pole
test will be beneficial in reducing partial
occupant ejection through side
windows.56 There were 5,400 ejected
fatalities through front side windows in
2001. The fatality rate for an ejected
vehicle occupant is three times as great
as that for an occupant who remains
inside of the vehicle. The best way to
reduce complete ejection is for
occupants to wear their safety belts.
However, of the 5,400 ejected fatalities
through front side windows, 2,200 were
from partial ejections. Fatal injuries
from partial ejection can occur even to
belted occupants,57 when their head
protrudes outside the window and
strikes the ground in a rollover or strikes
the striking object (e.g., pole or a taller
vehicle hood) in a side impact. Window
curtains that meet the oblique pole test
will better protect against these partial
ejections.
We are not supportive of maintaining
both the 75-degree oblique pole test and
the FMVSS No. 201 pole test in the
standard, as suggested by Mr. Watson.
While the inclusion of both tests could
provide more assurance of occupant
safety, we are concerned whether the
test burdens are justified. Although we
found in our testing that some air bag
systems that met the FMVSS No. 201
pole test did not deploy the air bag in
the agency’s 75-degree oblique pole test,
we do not expect the opposite trend
from the adoption of this regulation.
Vehicles will be subject to testing by
IIHS in its side impact consumer
information program, which conducts
90-degree MDB tests. Side air bag
sensors will therefore be designed to
sense such impact orientations. Further,
even in the absence of the IIHS test, we
believe that the use of two test
dummies, two seating procedures and
an oblique angle in the FMVSS No. 214
pole test will induce the use of sensor
designs and mounting locations that
will be sufficiently robust to detect both
75-degree and 90-degree impacts.
3. Positioning the Seat for the Test
A. Fore-and-Aft Seating Position
For the oblique pole test, the agency
proposed to position the test dummies
fore-and-aft along the vehicle seat track,
according to the current FMVSS No. 214
seat positioning procedure, as opposed
to the procedure specified in FMVSS
No. 201. The proposed procedure would
56 ‘‘Rollover Ejection Mitigation Using Inflatable
Tubular Structures,’’ Simula, et al., 1998; ‘‘Status of
NHTSA’s Ejection Mitigation Research Program,’’
Willke, et al., ESV 2003.
57 About 60 percent of the partial ejections
occurred to belted occupants.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
place the seat at the full-forward
position for the 5th percentile female
dummy and the mid-track position for
the 50th percentile male dummy.
Public Citizen and Advocates
supported NHTSA’s proposed seating
position for the dummies. They believed
that these positions would assure that
air bags installed to comply with the
standard would provide a relatively
broad zone of protection. While
supporting the two proposed seating
positions, Mr. Watson believed that
NHTSA should also test with the seating
position fully forward, mid-track, and
fully rearward to ensure the widest
restraint coverage and the most robust
sensing technique.
DaimlerChrysler and the Alliance
supported the mid-track seating position
for the ES–2 dummy. However, the
Alliance stated that the WorldSID test
dummy should be positioned according
to the seat track and seat back
adjustment procedure based on a
University of Michigan Transportation
Research Institute (UMTRI) Seating
Accommodation Model. The Alliance
stated that the UMTRI model is based
on a study of actual seating positions
selected by drivers who are the same
size as the 50th percentile adult male
frontal dummy and the 5th percentile
adult female frontal crash test dummy.
In its comment, IIHS stated that the
UMTRI seat position should be used for
both the 5th female dummy and for the
ES–2re 50th percentile dummy. IIHS
believed that the UMTRI procedure is
more representative of real world
seating behavior, which IIHS stated is
typically rearward of the proposed
positions. IIHS stated that if the agency
decides to use the mid-track position for
the 50th percentile male dummy, the
range of occupant sizes protected by the
proposed head protection will not be as
large as intended by the agency.
Nissan did not support the proposed
seat positions for the pole test. It
believed that the dummy in the
proposed positions might be close
enough to the A- or B-pillar that these
structures would interfere with the
dummy’s head prior to contact with the
pole. Nissan believes that this
circumstance could result in reduced
test repeatability, and it therefore
recommended the seat positions used in
the FMVSS No. 201 pole test procedure.
Ferrari objected to the proposed
positioning procedure for the 50th
percentile male dummy. Ferrari stated
that using only the control that
primarily moves the seat in the foreand-aft direction, as proposed in the
new procedure, changes the mid-point
of the seating position from the current
position.
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Agency response: After carefully
reviewing the comments on seating
procedures, the agency decided to adopt
the NPRM proposal on positioning the
test dummies fore-and-aft along the
vehicle seat track. We agree with
commenters that stated these positions
(full forward for the 5th percentile
female dummy; mid-track for the 50th
percentile male dummy) would assure
that air bags installed to comply with
the standard would provide a relatively
broad zone of protection. While we also
agree with Mr. Watson’s suggestion that
testing with the seat positioned in the
full rearward position could provide
even more coverage, we also had to
maintain a level of practicability in
establishing the requirements.
Positioning the dummy further rearward
could present potential B-pillar
interference and repeatability issues,
such as those cited by Nissan. Neither
the agency nor the commenter has data
to support such a proposal at this time.
We were not persuaded by IIHS’s
suggestion of using the UMTRI seat
track and seat back adjustment for the
SID–IIs and ES–2re dummies in the
oblique pole test configuration. On
February 23, 2004, NHTSA denied a
petition for rulemaking to adopt the
UMTRI procedure in FMVSS No. 214.58
The agency concluded that there was a
lack of evidence supporting the UMTRI
procedure. IIHS noted in their FMVSS
No. 214 comments that the UMTRI
seating procedure typically positions
both dummies rearward of the proposed
positions. However, no data was
provided to support the claim that the
UMTRI position provided more
coverage than that proposed by the
NPRM. Furthermore, no data was
provided to support that such a change
in seating procedure would be
practicable, repeatable, and result in
measurable benefit. Therefore, we are
not considering it for incorporation into
FMVSS No. 214.
The Alliance’s recommendation on
how to seat the WorldSID dummy is out
of scope for this rulemaking. As
previously discussed, research will need
to be conducted in conjunction with the
federalization of that dummy.
In response to Nissan, we do not agree
that the seating procedure would result
in A- or B-pillar interference with the
dummy’s head prior to contact with the
pole. We have not observed this in our
crash tests to date. Further, no data was
submitted to the agency to support this
claim. Furthermore, our testing has
shown that the oblique pole test
procedure is repeatable. Accordingly,
we do not agree it is necessary to adopt
58 See
69 FR 8161.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
the FMVSS No. 201 pole test seating
procedure.
In response to Ferrari, this final rule
adopts the specification of the new
positioning procedure that only the
control that primarily moves the seat in
the fore-and-aft direction is used to
position the seat along the seat track.
This procedure is simpler than the
current FMVSS No. 214 procedure, and
produces more repeatable seat
positioning of complex power seats than
the current procedure. We also believe
that the differences, if any, in seat
placement along the seat track will be
minimal. The new procedure was used
successfully in NHTSA’s 214 fleet
testing program (see Section IV, supra).
B. Head Restraints
The Alliance and Honda requested
clarification of the positioning of head
restraints for all seating positions. In the
proposed regulatory text, sections that
involve seating the SID–IIs dummy in
the front and rear seats (proposed
8.3.2.2 and 8.3.3.2, respectively) state
that any adjustable head restraint is to
be positioned in the lowest and most
forward position. However, sections that
involve seating the ES–2re dummy in
the front and rear seats (sections 8.3.1.2
and 8.3.4) state that any adjustable head
restraint is to be positioned in the
lowest and most forward position for
the front seat, and in its highest position
for the rear seat. The Alliance
recommended that any adjustable head
restraints be placed in the
manufacturers’ specified position, while
Honda believes the head restraints
should be positioned in its highest
position, as currently required by
FMVSS No. 214.
Agency response: We concur with the
need for clarification of the proposed
regulatory text pertaining to head
restraint positioning. The agency’s
intent was to maintain the head restraint
positioning currently used in the MDB
test of FMVSS No. 214 for the ES–2re
dummy (highest and most forward
adjustment position) and to position the
head restraint in the lowest and most
forward position for the SID–IIs dummy.
Accordingly, we have revised the ES–
2re regulatory text to reflect our intent.
We were not persuaded by the
Alliance’s recommendation to adopt the
manufacturer’s specified position for
head restraint adjustment. The highest
position of adjustment has been used for
the SID dummy in FMVSS No. 214 MDB
tests for many years, and we do not
anticipate any significant differences in
head restraint interaction with the ES–
2re dummy that would warrant a change
in specification. Furthermore, the
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
51931
Alliance did not provide a rationale for
its requested change.
The final rule does, however, add
clarification in the regulatory text for
head restraint designs with adjustable
backset when tested with the ES–2re
dummy. Proposed paragraph S8.3.1.2 is
amended to specify that an adjustable
head restraint must be positioned to its
highest and most forward adjustment
position.
4. Impact Reference Line
S10.12.2 states that the test vehicle is
propelled sideways so that its line of
forward motion forms an angle of 285
(or 75) degrees (+/¥3 degrees) for the
right (or left) side impact with the
vehicle’s longitudinal centerline. The
angle is measured counterclockwise
from the vehicle’s positive X-axis. The
impact reference line is aligned with the
center line of the rigid pole surface, as
viewed in the direction of vehicle
motion, so that, when the vehicle-topole contact occurs, the center line
contacts the vehicle area bounded by
two vertical planes parallel to and 38
mm (1.5 inches) forward and aft of the
impact reference line.
Ferrari commented that contact
between the center line of the rigid pole
surface and the vehicle does not
represent the initial contact between the
pole and the vehicle. Ferrari requested
that the proposed test procedure be
modified so that the 38 mm tolerance
refers to the initial impact point rather
than the contact point of the center line
of the pole surface as viewed from the
direction of the vehicle motion.
Agency response: Ferrari provided
two schematics to illustrate its
comments. (https://dmses.dot.gov/
docimages/pdf92/338984_web.pdf) In
the schematics, Ferrari erroneously
interpreted the forward motion of the
test vehicle relative to the pole and
initial impact point. In order to achieve
the proper impact configuration, the test
vehicle is propelled sideways at an
angle (285 degrees for right and 75
degree for left side impact) into the
stationary pole, not perpendicular as
shown in the schematics. To clarify the
test set up, the agency has decided to
include in the compliance test
procedure a schematic depicting the
impact configuration.
5. Test Attitude
The NPRM proposed to refine how
the vehicle test attitude is determined.
Currently, the vehicle attitude is defined
by measurements made from the ground
(a level surface) to a reference point
placed on the vehicle body above each
of the wheels. These measurements are
made with the vehicle in the ‘‘as
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51932
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
delivered,’’ ‘‘fully loaded,’’ and ‘‘pre-test
(or as tested)’’ conditions. The NPRM
proposed that the method used to
determine the test attitude be revised to
align with that used in S13.3 of FMVSS
No. 208. In that provision, a test attitude
is determined based on door-sill angle
measurements to control the vehicle’s
pitch attitude.
The NPRM also proposed to define
the vehicle’s roll attitude by a left to
right angle measured along a fixed
reference point at the front and rear of
the vehicle at the vehicle longitudinal
center plane. NHTSA proposed these
changes because measuring the angles
more directly will better facilitate, and
more accurately determine, the vehicle
attitudes than by use of the method in
current S6.2 of FMVSS No. 214
(specifying test procedures for the MDB
test). In the MDB test, the dummy and
vehicle instrumentation, high-speed
cameras, associated brackets and
instrumentation umbilical lines that are
added to the vehicle make it difficult
sometimes to achieve the corridor
between the as delivered and fully
loaded attitudes, particularly at the right
front position of the vehicle. The agency
also requested comments on keeping the
present method used to determine
vehicle test attitude, but adding a ± 10
mm tolerance.
DaimlerChrysler and the Alliance
commented that there was no proposed
specification regarding the vehicle’s
vertical position relative to ground.
They believed that, for the MDB test, the
resultant vehicle setup might not
reproduce the intended relationship
between the vehicle and MDB. The
Alliance also stated that while the
procedure would provide for
measurement of vehicle pitch and roll
attitude, it is not clear that this offers
benefit with regard to execution of the
test. The Alliance recommended that
the current set procedure be retained
with the following exception: in
determining the fully loaded vehicle
weight and attitude, there should be
specifications on placing weights
representing the necessary test dummies
in the seating positions. Finally, the
Alliance suggested that we provide
direction on determining test attitude
and ride height for vehicles equipped
with dynamic suspension systems that
adjust ride height based on vehicle
velocity or that can be manually set by
the driver for differing road conditions
(e.g., off-road, luxury ride, etc.).
Agency response: The vehicle attitude
specifications assure that proper
attitude is attained prior to impact. As
stated in the NPRM, the agency believed
that measuring pitch and roll angles
more directly and more accurately
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
determines the vehicle attitude than
using the current method. The agency
used the proposed method during the
214 fleet testing program conducted in
support of this final rule. The test
vehicles were loaded in accordance
with S8.1, using instructions in the draft
test procedure. Ballast representing the
weight of the test device was placed in
the seat to determine the ‘‘fully loaded’’
condition. The proposed method
yielded the intended result of assuring
proper attitude in the agency’s pole
tests. For these reasons, the agency has
decided to adopt the proposed revised
method for the pole test.
For the MDB test, the agency agrees
that a specification regarding the
vehicle’s vertical position relative to
ground is desirable. The agency has
decided to maintain the present method
used to determine vertical height
measurements, but is adding a ± 10 mm
tolerance. In addition, instructions to
assure that conventional and dynamic
suspensions are exercised prior to
taking attitude measurements have been
included in the agency’s test procedure.
Regarding the Alliance’s suggestion
that there should be specifications on
placing weights representing the
necessary test dummies in the seating
positions, NHTSA currently allows
various forms of ballast (other than an
actual dummy). We do not believe that
instructions are needed regarding what
ballast should be used or how the
ballast should be placed on the seat for
proper weight distribution. For our 214
fleet testing program, one test laboratory
used a ‘‘ballast dummy’’ to attain the
fully loaded condition, while another
used sand bags. Both methods were
acceptable, yielding valid results.
6. Rear Seat Pole Test
The NPRM proposed to apply the pole
test to only the driver and front
outboard passenger seats because years
of conducting the optional pole test in
FMVSS No. 201 have yielded
substantial information about meeting
pole test requirements for those seats,
while far less information was known
about the rear seat. The agency also
believed that rear seat occupants make
up a small percentage of the seriously
injured occupants in side crashes. We
also found it compelling that side air
curtains generally cover both front and
rear side window openings and thus
would also afford some degree of head
protection to rear seat occupants even in
the absence of a test applying to the rear
seat. We also recognized that applying
the test to the rear seats would require
at least twice as many tests per vehicle,
increasing the cost and burden of the
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
rulemaking, with minimal assured
benefit.
Consumers Union, Advocates, Public
Citizen, and Mr. Watson expressed
concern about not applying the test to
the rear seat. The commenters believed
that equivalent protection in side
impacts should be provided to rear seat
occupants. Advocates commented that
either the agency must also apply the
pole test to rear seats or should modify
the current FMVSS No. 214 MDB so that
it induces dynamic protection
countermeasures for the rear seat
occupants. Advocates and Public
Citizen believed that an additional pole
test would encourage manufacturers to
install side air bags for rear occupants
and improve protection for the elderly
and children, who are often seated in
the rear of the vehicle. Mr. Watson
believed that air bag sensing
arrangements may not be able to deploy
the countermeasures for a variety of rear
door impacts, and therefore
recommended that the agency require
an identical pole test for the rear seat
occupant. Autoliv suggested possibly
regulating only head impacts for rear
seat occupants since few vehicles have
been currently developed for rear seat
thorax protection during a pole impact.
Agency response: We have decided
against applying the pole test to the rear
seating positions. As noted earlier in
this preamble, rear seat safety is
enhanced by this final rule in several
ways. For the first time, a HIC criterion
is adopted for rear seat occupants. In
addition, use of the SID–IIs (5th
percentile adult female) test dummy in
testing rear seats in the MDB test of
FMVSS No. 214 (discussed later in this
preamble) will assess the rear seat
environment in protecting children, the
elderly and small adults—a more
vulnerable population than the mid-size
adult male population—in rear seating
positions in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes.
The SID–IIs dummy is more
representative of rear seat occupants
than SID, and the injury assessment
reference values we will use with the
dummy are set at levels that reflect the
effect of aging on tolerance.
However, with specific regard to the
pole test, a consideration of several
factors leads us to decline to apply the
pole test to rear seating positions.
Directly applying the pole test to the
rear seat is not necessary for the pole
test to enhance rear seat safety. Air
curtains cover both front and rear side
window openings, and are tethered to
the A- and C-pillars of vehicles.
Curtains tethered to the A- and C-pillars
will be large enough to cover both front
and rear side window openings and will
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
afford protection to both front and rear
seat occupants in side impacts.
We believe that manufacturers will
increasingly install air curtains in their
vehicles because air curtains can
potentially be used as a countermeasure
in preventing ejection in rollovers.
(‘‘NHTSA Vehicle Safety Rulemaking
Priorities and Supporting Research:
2003–2006,’’ July 2003, Docket 15505.)
NHTSA has announced that it is
developing a proposal for an ejection
mitigation containment requirement.59
NHTSA believes that side curtains
installed pursuant to FMVSS No. 214’s
pole test could readily be developed to
satisfy the desired properties of a
countermeasure. (NHTSA report
‘‘Initiatives to Address the Mitigation of
Rollovers,’’ supra.) We believe that
manufacturers will install curtains in
increasing numbers of vehicles in
response to this final rule, the voluntary
commitment, and in anticipation of
NHTSA’s ejection mitigation
rulemaking. The curtains will provide
head protection to front and rear seat
occupants in side impacts.
We have also decided against
applying the pole test to rear seating
positions because, as noted in the
NPRM, according to 1999 and 2000
Fatality Analysis Reporting System
(FARS) data, the front outboard seating
positions account for 89.2 percent of
total fatalities and 88.8 percent of total
injured occupants in passenger cars, and
86.6 percent and 87.6 percent of total
fatalities and total injured occupants in
LTVs. While these are for all crash
conditions, the percentages for side
impacts with narrow objects are similar.
In nearside crashes, rear occupants
make up 7.3 percent, 10.2 percent and
4.4 percent of seriously injured persons
in crashes with passenger cars, LTVs
and narrow objects, respectively. As
stated in the NPRM (69 FR 28011), the
1997–2001 NASS CDS annualized
fatality distribution for rear outboard
occupants indicates there were 22
fatalities caused by a vehicle-to-pole
side crash, 7 of which were due to head
injury.
In addition, we are not applying the
pole test to rear positions out of a
concern that more needs to be known
about seat-mounted SIABs in rear
seating positions. Currently, almost no
vehicle has seat-mounted air bag
systems in rear seats. If a pole test were
applied to the rear seat, seat-mounted
SIABs might emerge to meet chest
protection requirements. At this time,
59 Additionally, Sec. 10301 of SAFETEA–LU
requires the Secretary to issue by October 1, 2009
an ejection mitigation final rule reducing complete
and partial ejections of occupants from outboard
seating positions (49 U.S.C. 30128(c)(1)).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
we have limited information about the
performance of rear seat-mounted air
bag systems in meeting the TWG
performance guidelines. We believe that
more has to be learned about the risk to
children in rear seating positions before
we proceed with adopting a requirement
that will encourage the installation of
seat-mounted SIABs as a
countermeasure to that requirement.
7. Door Closed
FMVSS No. 214 currently prohibits
any side door that is struck by the MDB
from separating totally from the vehicle
(currently in S5.3.1 of the standard).
The standard also requires any door
(including a rear hatchback or tailgate)
that is not struck by the moving
deformable barrier to meet the following
requirements: the door shall not
disengage from the latched position; the
latch shall not separate from the striker,
and the hinge components shall not
separate from each other or from their
attachment to the vehicle; and neither
the latch nor the hinge systems of the
door shall pull out of their anchorages.
The NPRM proposed to apply the same
door separation/opening prohibitions to
vehicles tested in the vehicle-to-pole
tests.
The only comments on the proposal
were from Advocates and Public
Citizen, which opposed the proposal.
The commenters believed that, to
improve ‘‘anti-ejection
countermeasures’’ the standard should
not permit struck doors to become
unlatched in the pole test.
Agency response: This final rule does
not make a change from the proposal.
NHTSA has not observed the struck
door unlatching in the optional pole test
of FMVSS No. 201, or in the agency’s
vehicle pole tests discussed in the
technical report on the test program.
The test data indicate that vehicle
manufacturers are already designing
their vehicles such that the struck door
will not unlatch during the pole test.
8. FMVSS No. 201 Pole Test
FMVSS No. 201 specifies an optional
90-degree, 29 km/h (18 mph) pole test
using a SID–H3 driver dummy (1000
HIC36 test criterion). The NPRM
proposed to amend FMVSS No. 201 to
exclude vehicles certified to FMVSS No.
214’s oblique 32 km/h (20 mph) pole
test from the 90-degree, 29 km/h (18
mph) pole test in FMVSS No. 201. The
agency believed that a vehicle that met
the oblique 32 km/h (20 mph) pole test
would also meet FMVSS No. 201’s 90degree 29 km/h (18 mph) test. Thus, the
agency proposed to eliminate the
FMVSS No. 201 optional pole test for
vehicles certified to the FMVSS No. 214
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
51933
oblique pole test, to delete an
unnecessary test burden on
manufacturers.
Advocates, AIAM and the Alliance
supported the agency’s proposal to
exclude vehicles meeting an FMVSS No.
214 pole test from FMVSS No. 201’s 90degree, 29 km/h (18 mph) pole test.
Advocates agreed with the NPRM that a
vehicle meeting the proposed pole test
would also meet the optional pole test
of FMVSS No. 201.
Honda suggested a further exclusion
of vehicles from a requirement of
FMVSS No. 201. Honda asked NHTSA
to consider excluding vehicles from the
armrest requirements of S5.5.1 if the
vehicles comply with the oblique pole
test of FMVSS No. 214. Honda believes
that: ‘‘If a vehicle meets the proposed
requirements, that compliance should
supercede the armrest requirements of
FMVSS 201.’’60
Agency response: The FMVSS No. 214
oblique pole test encompasses and goes
beyond the FMVSS No. 201 pole crash
test and thus renders unnecessary the
latter test. Seat-mounted side impact air
bags that deploy into an area far enough
forward to cushion a 5th percentile
female dummy’s head in a 32 km/h (20
mph) oblique impact are also likely to
protect a 50th percentile male’s head in
a perpendicular one. Similarly, an air
curtain tethered to the A- and C-pillars
that meets an oblique crash test is also
likely to provide coverage in a
perpendicular crash. Accordingly, this
final rule adopts the proposed
amendment to FMVSS No. 201. It
should be noted that targets near the
stowed HPS are still subject to the head
form test of FMVSS No. 201, conducted
at the 19.3 km/h (12 mph) test speed
specified in that standard.
This final rule does not make Honda’s
suggested deletion of the arm rest
requirements of FMVSS No. 201. The
suggested change was not proposed in
the NPRM.
9. Quasi Static Test
The Alliance, AIAM, Lotus, Maserati,
and Ferrari suggested that NHTSA
delete the quasi-static test requirements
from FMVSS No. 214 if the pole test is
60 FMVSS No. 201 requires each armrest to meet
one of the following: (a) Be constructed with
energy-absorbing material and deflect or collapse
laterally at least 50 mm without permitting contact
with the underlying rigid material; (b) be
constructed with energy-absorbing material that
deflects or collapses to within 32 mm of a rigid test
panel surface without permitting contact with any
rigid material, and the rigid material between 13
and 32 mm from the panel surface must have a
minimum vertical height of not less than 25 mm;
or (c) along not less than 50 continuous mm of its
length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically
in side elevation, provide at least 55 mm of
coverage within the pelvic impact area.
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
51934
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
adopted. (A summary of FMVSS No.
214’s current requirements is in
Appendix B of this preamble.) The
quasi-static requirements limit the
extent to which the side door structure
of a vehicle is pushed into the passenger
compartment during a side impact. The
standard requires each side door to
resist crush forces that are applied by a
piston pressing a 300 mm (12 inch) steel
cylinder against the door’s outer surface
in a laboratory test. Since the
requirement became effective in 1973,
vehicle manufacturers have generally
chosen to meet the requirement by
reinforcing the side doors with metal
beams. Ferrari stated, ‘‘The purpose of
the static door crush resistance test in
the existing FMVSS No. 214 is to
guarantee the ability of the vehicle to
provide some kind of protection in a
side impact against a narrow object.’’
Commenters believed that the pole test
would assess the same performance,
making the quasi-static test redundant
and burdensome.
In contrast, Public Citizen
recommended that the agency evaluate
the potential for adding an intrusion
limit to the proposed pole test, in
addition to the dummy injury criteria.
The suggested requirement would
regulate the amount of pole intrusion
into the occupant survival space. Public
Citizen believes that the level of
intrusion into the occupant space is
closely correlated with the level of
occupant injury risk.
Agency response: This final rule does
not remove the quasi-static test from
FMVSS No. 214. Removing the test is
beyond the scope of the NPRM. Further,
there is a safety need for the test. To
meet the quasi-static test, vehicle
manufacturers have equipped vehicles
with side door beams which transmit
the force sideways to the struck vehicle,
thus reducing the amount of intrusion
toward the occupant and slowing down
the rate of that intrusion.61 NHTSA
found that the side door beams were 14
percent effective in reducing fatality risk
for nearside and farside occupants in
single-vehicle side impacts.62 When this
group of crashes was further limited to
impacts with a single fixed object,
fatality reduction was 23 percent. The
agency believes that the beam acts like
an internal guard to allow a car to slide
past a pole or tree, with a longer,
shallower crush pattern on the car.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
61 Kahane,
C.J., An Evaluation of Side Impact
Crash, FMVSS 214 TTI(d) Improvements and Side
air Bags, NHTSA Technical Report No. DOT HS 810
748, Washington, DC 2007.
62 Kahane, C.J., An Evaluation of Side Structure
Improvements in Response to Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard 214, NHTSA Technical
Report No. DOT HS 806 314, Washington, DC 1982.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
Beams were also found to be effective in
lower-speed multivehicle crashes,
reducing the risk of nonfatal injuries.
Kahane (2007). The quasi-static test is
needed, particularly for doors of the
vehicle that are not impacted by the
pole in the oblique pole test (such as the
rear compartment doors).
This final rule does not add an
intrusion limit to the pole test
requirements adopted today. Adding an
intrusion limit is beyond the scope of
the NPRM. Further, not enough
information is known at this time about
the need for an intrusion limit, given
that the injury criteria of the pole test
act to limit the risk of injury to an
occupant.
10. Vehicle Exclusions
The agency proposed subjecting
vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb) or less to the oblique pole
test, with certain exceptions. The
agency proposed excluding: motor
homes, tow trucks, dump trucks,
ambulances and other emergency
rescue/medical vehicles (including
vehicles with fire-fighting equipment),
vehicles equipped with wheelchair lifts,
vehicles with raised or altered roof
designs, and vehicles which have no
doors, or exclusively have doors that are
designed to be easily attached or
removed so that the vehicle can be
operated without doors. The agency
believed that many vehicles within
these categories tend to have unusual
side structures that may not be suitable
for pole testing or have features that
could pose practicability problems in
meeting the test. Comments were
requested on the need to exclude other
types of vehicles from the pole test,
such as convertibles that lack a roof
structure enabling the installation of an
air curtain.
The proposed exclusions are adopted,
except to the extent discussed below in
this section.
i. GVWR. Advocates and Public
Citizen supported the inclusion of
vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb) or less, while the Alliance
believed that vehicles above a GVWR of
3,855 kg (8,500 lb) should be excluded.
The Alliance believed that the agency
did not show that the requirement
would be practicable for vehicles with
a GVWR above 3,855 kg (8,500 lb), and
also stated that a safety need for
applying the pole test to those vehicles
has not been shown.
Agency response: After consideration
of the comments and test data from the
NHTSA 214 fleet testing program (see
Section IV of this preamble, supra) and
other information, we are adopting the
proposal that the performance
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
requirements for the oblique pole test
should apply to all vehicles with a
GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less.
One of the vehicle models the agency
tested in its vehicle research program
had a 4,082 kg (9,000 lb) GVWR. This
was a model year 2005 Dodge Ram 2500
equipped with side curtain air bags. The
agency tested this vehicle in two
vehicle-to-pole tests with the ES–2re
dummy. In the first test, the side curtain
air bags did not deploy, and
consequently, the ES–2re dummy
resulted in high injury measures,
including a HIC of 5,748, 47 mm of rib
deflection, and a lower spine
acceleration of 86 g. The test results
demonstrated a need for improved
sensors and side impact protection for
the occupants of this vehicle. In the
second test, using the same vehicle
model, the side curtain air bags were
deployed remotely at 12 msec,63 and the
resulting HIC value was 331. The results
of this test showed that the deployment
of the side curtain air bag resulted in
significant HIC reductions for the ES–
2re dummy (from 5,748 to 331). The ES–
2re dummy was chosen for use in the
agency’s testing since it is likely to be
the most challenging pole test
configuration of the two required. The
ES–2re is equipped with more
instrumentation in the abdomen and
thorax, and its larger mass requires more
energy management by the restraint
system. Although the rib deflections and
abdominal force measurements for the
ES–2re exceeded the IARVs, the vehicle
was not equipped with a thorax side air
bag. We believe that these measures
would be improved with a thorax side
air bag, and possible structural
enhancements.
The agency does not agree with the
Alliance that vehicles over 3,855 kg
(8,500 lb) GVWR should be excluded
from the pole test. In side impacts with
poles and trees, the objects struck are
typically taller than the striking vehicle.
There are no indications of any lesser
safety need for side impact protection
for these vehicles. These vehicles are
driven on the same roads and at the
same times as other LTVs, and are thus
subject to the same safety risks as other
LTVs. NHTSA is not aware of any
special characteristic of these vehicles
that would reduce such risks.64 In
addition, the Alliance did not suggest
63 Since the side crash sensor was unable to
deploy the air bags in the oblique pole test
configuration in the first test, the side curtain air
bags were deployed remotely.
64 Moreover, since the industry’s voluntary
commitment to install side air bags in vehicles does
not apply to vehicles with a GVWR greater than
3,855 kg (8,500 lb), applying the pole test to the
vehicles assures that SIABs will be provided.
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
why the pole test might be practicable
for vehicles with lower GVWR, but not
for vehicles with a GVWR above 3,855
kg (8,500 lb). We believe manufacturers
can employ comparable restraint
systems and countermeasure strategies
to comply with the oblique pole test.
However, the test of the Dodge Ram
2500 (9,000 lb GVWR) indicated that
vehicles with a GVWR greater than
3,855 kg (8,500 lb) may need more time
than other vehicles to meet the pole test
requirements, since the vehicles have
never been regulated under FMVSS No.
214’s dynamic requirements and are not
subject to the industry’s voluntary
commitment to install side air bags.
These vehicles may need more
structural enhancements than other
vehicles since they will be newly
subject to side crash requirements, and
a demanding pole test at that.
Accordingly, this final rule provides
vehicles with a GVWR greater than
3,855 kg (8,500 lb) until the last year of
the phase-in to meet the pole test
requirements.
ii. Convertibles. The Alliance, AIAM,
Nissan, DaimlerChrysler and Lotus
recommended the exclusion of
convertible vehicles from the pole test.
The Alliance stated that we did not
demonstrate it is practicable to
implement countermeasures, while
meeting the TWG OOP guidelines. It
also believed that convertible vehicles
should be excluded from all
requirements because the lack of roof
structure affects the overall response of
a vehicle in a pole test, not just the HIC
response.
AIAM believed that the inherent
design constraints of convertibles
prevent the compliance of the proposed
pole test. Similarly, Nissan believed that
convertibles lack the structural
components necessary to store and
deploy a curtain air bag and that these
vehicles should be excluded from the
HIC response requirement in the pole
test. DaimlerChrysler believed that
convertibles should be excluded
because, the commenter stated, it is not
practicable within the architectural
limitations of convertibles to provide
the supplemental structure to the
vehicle to replace what the roof and roof
rail can contribute in sedans and coupes
to reduce penetration by the pole into
the occupant compartment. Lotus
commented that the lightweight
performance convertible type vehicle
would not be able to comply with the
pole test requirements without the
introduction of some new, and as yet
unknown, technology.
Autoliv commented that it is
currently working on developing a
restraint system to protect occupants in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
a pole impact for applications such as
a convertible. Autoliv stated that the
systems do not, however, address the
structural challenges that may be
involved in applying the pole test
requirement to all vehicles that lack a
roof structure.
Agency response: After careful
consideration of the comments, NHTSA
has decided against excluding
convertibles from the pole test
requirements. In our comparative
analysis between convertibles and all
other passenger cars in side impact
crashes with fixed objects, it was found
that 11.3 percent of convertible fatalities
are from single vehicle side impacts into
poles/trees, compared to 6.5 percent of
other passenger car fatalities from single
vehicle side impacts into poles/trees.
The fatality rate 65 from single vehicle
side impacts into poles/trees is 9.64 for
convertibles, and 6.12 for all other
passenger cars. When specifically
looking at pole/tree fatality rates,
convertibles are 58 percent higher than
all other passenger cars. In general,
NHTSA’s crash data indicate that
convertibles have higher rates of
fatalities in run-off-the-road type
crashes, such as single vehicle side
impacts, rollovers, etc. Consequently,
requiring enhanced protection against
tree and pole side impacts will be
paramount in improving the safety of
these vehicles.
We have also observed head/thorax
countermeasures that are effective and
practicable for installation in
convertible body types. While we agree
with Nissan that roof-rail design air
curtains may not be practicable to
deploy and store in a convertible
vehicle, we do believe that head/thorax
air bag systems, or even door-mounted
inflatable curtains, as introduced in the
2006 model year Volvo C70 convertible,
have merit. In our 214 fleet testing
program, we included two convertible
vehicle models in our crash test matrix.
These were the 2005 model year Saab 9–
3 convertible and 2005 model year
Volkswagen Beetle. Both vehicle models
were tested in the oblique pole test with
the ES–2re dummy.66 In each case, the
65 Data source: FARS 1999–2003. Model years
1998–2002 were used. Total registration years (in
millions) were 140.8 for all other passenger cars and
4.7 for convertibles. The fatalities per million
registration years in single vehicle side crashes
were 11.32 for all other passenger cars and 16.71
for convertibles. The fatalities per million
registration years in single vehicle side ‘‘pole/tree’’
crashes were 6.12 for all other passenger cars and
9.64 for convertibles.
66 The ES–2re dummy was chosen for use in the
agency’s testing since it is likely to be more
challenging pole test configuration than the SID–IIs
test. We determined that it would dbe more difficult
for seat-mounted systems to meet the performance
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
51935
vehicle was able to meet the
requirements of this final rule and
demonstrated that compliance with the
requirements for both head and chest
injury criteria is practicable. For the
Saab, HIC was 254, chest deflection was
40 mm, abdominal force was 841 N, and
pelvic force was 2914 N. For the Beetle,
HIC was 315, chest deflection was 37
mm, abdominal force was 1018 N, and
pelvic force was 3815 N.67 The Saab 9–
3 and Volkswagen Beetle demonstrated
practicability along a range of the
convertible cost spectrum. This fact,
combined with the higher fatality risk
mentioned earlier, leads NHTSA to
believe that head/thorax
countermeasures will be at least as costeffective for convertibles as they are for
other vehicles. We are not persuaded
that solutions are unknown or not
available to convertibles as a whole, as
suggested by Lotus.
In response to the Alliance’s concern
about meeting the TWG OOP guidelines,
we note that vehicle manufacturers for
both the Saab 9–3 and the VW Beetle
reported that they comply with the
TWG OOP guidelines according to our
2005 Buying a Safer Car information.
Therefore, we believe that the agency
has demonstrated practicability of the
pole test and of meeting the head and
chest requirements. Our tests have
shown that the lack of a roof structure
in the pole test was not an
insurmountable design obstacle for
providing improved side crash
protection. Therefore, we conclude that
HIC, and all other applicable injury
measures, should be regulated in this
test.
iii. Proximity to a Door
Maserati and Ferrari noted that under
the current S3(e)(1) of FMVSS No. 214’s
quasi-static test, a vehicle need not meet
the static test requirements for any side
door located so that no point on a 10inch horizontal longitudinal line
passing through and bisected by the Hpoint of a manikin placed in any seat
falls within the transverse, horizontal
projection of the door’s opening. The
commenters believed that under that
provision, a vehicle is excluded from
the static test requirement if its side
door is located so that the H-point of the
manikin is below the sill of the vehicle.
Ferrari stated, ‘‘if a vehicle is exempt
criteria using the ES–2 than when tested with the
SID–IIs. The ES–2re is equipped with more
instrumentation in the abdomen and thorax, and its
larger mass requires more energy management by
the restraint system.
67 Injury criteria are: HIC 1000, chest deflection
44 mm, abdominal force 2500 N, and pelvic force
6000 N.
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
51936
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
under current S3(e), it should likewise
be exempt from the proposed pole test.’’
Agency response: We do not agree
with Maserati and Ferrari that an
exclusion from the pole test
requirements is appropriate if the Hpoint of a manikin placed in any seat is
below the sill of the vehicle, and thus
does not fall ‘‘within the transverse,
horizontal projection of the door’s
opening.’’ The agency’s rationale for the
exclusion in question from the static test
does not apply to the pole test.
In the June 14, 1991 FMVSS No. 214
final rule that adopted the exclusion (56
FR 27427), the agency stated that there
was little safety benefit from having a
side door beam requirement for those
door openings that are unlikely to have
occupants sitting near them (i.e., within
10 inches of the door opening). In the
static test, the loading device is centered
on the door opening, and a load is
applied until a specified load is
achieved. The door must prevent
intrusion of the door structure. If no
occupant will be seated within 10
inches of the door opening, the
requirement limiting intrusion to 10
inches is unnecessary. (As to whether
the exclusion should apply to situations
where the manikin is seated within 10
inches of the door, but below the sill,
will not be addressed today.)
In the oblique pole test, the pole is
aligned with the head CG of the seated
dummy. An occupant who is seated
‘‘outboard’’ next to a door but below the
transverse, horizontal projection of the
door’s opening could suffer injuries,
especially head injury, in a tree/pole
impact if side air bags or other
countermeasures were not installed.
Accordingly, the pole test requirement
will yield meaningful results for the
vehicles in question, and the exclusion
will not be extended as requested.
iv. Removable Doors
The Alliance and DaimlerChrysler
believed that vehicles without doors or
easily removable doors, now excluded
from the MDB and quasi-static tests
under S2(c) and S3(e)(4) of the current
standard, respectively, should also be
excluded from the pole test since the
lack of door structure makes meeting the
test requirements impracticable. On the
other hand, Advocates objected to
excluding vehicles with no or
removable doors since, the commenter
believed, the exclusion would allow
manufacturers to avoid providing
adequate side impact protection.
Agency response: We agree with
excluding vehicles without doors or
easily removable doors from the oblique
pole test since the lack of door structure
makes meeting the test requirements
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
impracticable, as suggested by
DaimlerChrysler. No data were provided
by Advocates, or other commenters, to
suggest that there are engineering
solutions or countermeasures to meet
the dynamic pole test requirements for
vehicles without doors or easily
removable doors. We believe that
applying the pole test to those vehicles
would effectively eliminate them from
the marketplace.
v. Vehicles With Partitions
NTEA recommended an additional
exclusion of vehicles equipped with a
partition behind the front seat area.
NTEA believed that ‘‘a bulkhead or
partition will almost certainly invalidate
any chassis manufacturer’s compliance
statement that may be available for a
vehicle equipped with side impact
protection such as a side curtain air
bag.’’
Agency response: We do not agree
with an exclusion of partition-equipped
vehicles. We believe the exclusion is too
broad and could encompass more
vehicles than necessary. NTEA noted
that the affected vehicles typically
include panel vans with a bulkhead to
separate the front seat occupants from
bulk cargo placed in the rear, or buses
with a partition separating the bus
driver from the rest of the passenger
compartment. We note that the vehicles
also include police vehicles, taxis, and
limousines. Although we acknowledge
that a bulkhead or partition installed by
a second-stage manufacturer or alterer is
incompatible with some current side
curtain air bag systems tethered from
the A- to C-pillars, second-stage
manufacturers and alterers have
alternatives, discussed below, that
would enable them to certify to the pole
test.
We believe that incomplete vehicles
and completed cargo vans will be
available with seat-mounted or doormounted head/thorax air bag systems.
Not all cargo vans will have side curtain
air bag systems that are tethered from
the A- to the C-pillar. Cargo van
manufacturers are not likely to install Ato C-pillar side curtain air bag systems
since these vehicles have no rear seats
or rear window openings. (Likewise,
small bus manufacturers are not likely
to extend side air curtains the full
length of the bus.) Since the pole test is
only applied to the driver and right
front passenger seating locations,
incomplete cargo van manufacturers
will likely certify the vehicles to the
pole test using seat-mounted SIABs (or
may develop air curtain technology that
involve designs other than tethering the
curtain to the A- and C-pillars). A
partition can be installed in these
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
vehicles without invalidating the
incomplete manufacturer’s compliance
statement.
We also note that this final rule
provides alterers and multi stage vehicle
manufacturers an extra year of lead time
to accommodate any necessary
changes.68 Between now and that date,
they can work with manufacturers of
incomplete and complete vehicles to
develop seat-mounted SIABs and other
technologies that would enable them to
install the life-saving devices in vehicles
that have partitions.
vi. Wheelchair Restraints
NMEDA believed that we should
exclude vehicles with wheelchair
restraints that allow the wheelchair to
be used as a designated seating position.
NMEDA noted ‘‘many wheelchair users
drive their vehicles from a wheelchair
or ride in the front row passenger
position, again in a wheelchair. In these
cases, the wheelchair is secured to the
vehicle floor, and the occupant is
restrained with a type 2 seat belt
assembly.’’
Agency response: An exclusion of any
vehicle with wheelchair restraints is
overly broad. However, we agree that
vehicles in which a wheelchair is to be
used in place of the driver’s or right
front passenger’s seating position
should be excluded from the pole test
for that seating position. The vehicles
are excluded out of practicability
concerns. If a seat that had seatmounted SIABs were removed from a
front outboard seating position, the
vehicle would no longer have the
countermeasure installed to meet the
pole test. Installing a complying air
curtain in these vehicles is likely
beyond the capabilities of most small
businesses modifying the vehicle. Even
if the vehicle were originally
manufactured with an air curtain, a
vehicle tested to the oblique pole test
with the test dummy in a wheelchair
instead of the OEM driver or passenger
seat might not meet the test
requirements. Accordingly, vehicles in
which the seat for the driver or right
front passenger has been removed and
wheelchair restraints installed in place
of the seat are excluded from meeting
the oblique pole test at that removed
seating position.
68 This accords with the amendments set forth in
the agency’s final rule on ‘‘Vehicles Built in Two
or More Stages,’’ 70 FR 7414, February 14, 2005,
Docket 5673. The February 14, 2005 final rule also
added a new process under which intermediate and
final-stage manufacturers and alterers can obtain
temporary exemptions from dynamic performance
requirements (49 CFR part 555).
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
vii. Altered (Modified) Roof or Lowered
Floor
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
The agency proposed excluding
vehicles with altered or raised roof
designs from the pole test, and proposed
using the definitions for ‘‘altered roof’’
and ‘‘raised roof’’ set forth in FMVSS
No. 216, ‘‘Roof crush resistance.’’ 69
NMEDA suggested that vehicles with
altered or raised roofs should be
excluded from both the HIC and
thoracic requirements because, the
commenter believed, side air bag
systems may have to be disabled to
accommodate the raised/altered roof
conversion. Similarly, the commenter
believed that modifiers lowering the
floor by modifying the SIAB sensor
system as originally installed would
also have an extremely difficult time to
certify.
Agency response: We agree that
vehicles that have had the roof rail or
floor rail modified should be excluded
from the pole test.70 The vehicles are
excluded out of practicability concerns,
because roof rails and floor rails are
typically integral parts of side impact
protection systems. Modifying the roof
or floor rail structures may affect the
vehicle’s performance in meeting the
oblique pole test requirements.
This final rule slightly expands the
proposed definition of ‘‘altered roof,’’
because the FMVSS No. 216 definition
was too narrow to meet the intent of the
agency in excluding vehicles with
altered roof rails. The proposed
definition of altered roof (from FMVSS
No. 216) only applied to a replacement
roof that is higher than the original roof.
We have modified the definition such
that it is not incumbent on the
replacement roof being higher than the
original roof. There would be
practicability issues in meeting the pole
test for entities modifying the original
roof rails of a vehicle even if the
replacement roof were not higher than
69 FMVSS No. 216 defines ‘‘altered roof’’ as: ‘‘the
replacement roof on a motor vehicle whose original
roof has been removed, in part or in total, and
replaced by a roof that is higher than the original
roof. The replacement roof on a motor vehicle
whose original roof has been replaced, in whole or
in part, by a roof that consists of glazing materials,
such as those in T-tops and sunroofs, and is located
at the level of the original roof, is not considered
to be an altered roof.’’ FMVSS No. 216 states:
‘‘Raised roof means, with respect to a roof which
includes an area that protrudes above the
surrounding exterior roof structure, that protruding
area of the roof.’’
70 Vehicles with lowered floors are currently not
excluded from the MDB test. Alterers and
multistage manufacturers have been certifying their
vehicles with lowered floors to the MDB test since
1998. Given the practicability of meeting the
current MDB test, this final rule does not exclude
lowered floor vehicles from the applicability of the
MDB test adopted today.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
the original roof. In addition, if the
original roof rail were modified, there
would also be practicability problems
for entities using glazing materials in
the replacement roof. Thus, unlike the
FMVSS No. 216 definition, the FMVSS
No. 214 definition does not exclude
from the definition replacement roofs on
vehicles whose original roof has been
replaced by a roof that consists of
glazing materials. This final rule also
excludes on practicability grounds
vehicles that have had their original roof
rails removed and not replaced, i.e., as
in the conversion of a hardtop vehicle
to a convertible. Entities involved in
such conversions are usually small
businesses. The FMVSS No. 214
definition is changed to ‘‘modified roof’’
to distinguish it from the FMVSS No.
216 definition of altered roof.
viii. 6-Way Seats
NMEDA stated that mobility industry
companies commonly replace front row
seats with extended travel seat bases
(‘‘6-way seats’’) to facilitate vehicle
access. It believed that because the
modified seat bases are generally less
stable than the original seats, the pole
test would result in higher HIC values
in vehicles with extended movement
seating systems than in vehicles with
OEM seat bases. NMEDA thus
recommended that we exclude vehicles
with extended travel seating systems
installed as a part of a second-stage
manufacturing process or by a vehicle
alterer.
Agency response: We have decided
that vehicles with extended travel seat
bases and other seating systems
designed to facilitate vehicle access are
not excluded from this final rule.
NMEDA provided no data to support its
assertion that a modified seat base
would necessarily cause extended
movement and higher HIC values in the
required tests. Further, no explanation
was provided as to why these seat bases
cannot be built structurally comparable
to the original seat. We do not believe
that providing additional
reinforcements to secure the seat is an
insurmountable engineering task. If
higher HIC values are occurring, that
supports our belief that better designs
are needed for occupants of these
vehicles.
ix. Multistage Manufacturers
NTEA suggested that the final rule
exclude ‘‘vehicles built in two or more
stages that are equipped with a cargo
carrying, load bearing or workperforming body or equipment.’’ The
commenter stated that its members
typically certify that their vehicles meet
dynamic testing standards by ‘‘using so-
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
51937
called ‘pass-through’ compliance.’’
NTEA is concerned that chassis
manufacturers ‘‘may state that
subsequent stage manufacturers are
unable to do anything in the vicinity of’’
side curtain air bags or head bags.
The commenter also believed that
there are no viable alternatives available
to its members to demonstrate
compliance other than by using passthrough compliance. NTEA stated that
its members cannot certify vehicles
based on engineering analyses because
its members do not have the necessary
level of experience with a new
requirement of this nature, or previous
crash test data, which NTEA believed
are needed for an engineering analyses.
NTEA stated that computer modeling is
unavailable because the commenter
believed it would be very expensive and
not widely available to its members. The
commenter stated that consortium
dynamic testing is unavailable because
the FMVSS No. 214 tests ‘‘are vehicle
specific, [so] even minor trim
differences in a single model could
produce significantly different test
results, let alone varying chassis and
body combinations.’’ With regard to
actual crash testing, NTEA stated: ‘‘It
would be a practical impossibility for
these companies to test each of these
configurations to sell the one or two of
each configuration that have been
ordered by a customer.’’
Agency response: NHTSA declines
NTEA’s request to exclude from the pole
test vehicles built in two or more stages
that are equipped with a cargo carrying,
load bearing or work-performing body
or equipment. We do not believe that
there is a need for a blanket exclusion
of these vehicles. NTEA was concerned
that incomplete vehicle manufacturers
‘‘may state that subsequent stage
manufacturers are unable to do anything
in the vicinity of’’ side curtain air bags
or head bags. We believe that
incomplete vehicle manufacturers will
accommodate the needs of final-stage
manufacturers to produce the vehicles.
Chassis-cabs, a type of incomplete
vehicle often acquired by final-stage
manufacturers for manufacturing
vehicles, have a significant portion of
the occupant compartment completed.
Chassis-cab manufacturers will likely
produce incomplete vehicles with seator roof-mounted head/thorax air bag
systems already installed. As long as the
final-stage manufacturer meets the
conditions of the incomplete vehicle
document (and NTEA has not shown
that final stage manufacturers will not
be able to meet those conditions) the
manufacturers may rely on the
incomplete vehicle manufacturer’s
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
51938
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
certification and pass it through when
certifying the completed vehicle.71
To the degree that final stage
manufacturers must certify the
compliance of their vehicles other than
by using ‘‘pass-through’’ certification,
we have provided these manufacturers
until September 1, 2014 to work with
manufacturers of incomplete vehicles,
seating systems and SIABs to develop
systems that will enable them to certify
to FMVSS No. 214’s pole test. They can
obtain seat-mounted SIABs and work
with the suppliers, individually or as a
consortium, to develop the information
to install the seat-mounted systems in
their vehicles. Because a wholesale
exclusion of vehicles built in two or
more stages that are equipped with a
cargo carrying, load bearing or workperforming body or equipment has not
been justified, we are not adopting an
across-the-board exclusion of these
vehicles.
x. Other Issues
The NPRM proposed excluding tow
trucks and dump trucks from the pole
test. NTEA commented that it was not
aware of any dump trucks or tow trucks
with GVWRs of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or
less, so the vehicles would be excluded
from the pole test based on the GVWR
of the vehicles. Considering this
information, the express exclusion is
unnecessary, and we have removed it
from the regulatory text. (For that
reason, we have also removed the
express exclusion from the section
excluding vehicles from the MDB test
requirements.)
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
11. Practicability
The Alliance believed that the agency
did not demonstrate that attaining the
IARVs would be practicable. The
commenter stated, ‘‘Based on the
information provided to support the
NPRM, the agency has not identified
one single vehicle that has met all of the
proposed injury criteria in all of the
proposed tests. Indeed, no one single
vehicle has been subject to the entire
suite of proposed crash tests. Therefore,
the practicability of the proposed rule
has not been demonstrated.’’
NHTSA disagrees with the
commenter’s view. In our test program,
the Subaru Forester and the Honda CRV
met the performance criteria for the
SID–IIs dummy. The Honda Accord and
VW Jetta almost met all the IARVs when
tested with the SID–IIs dummy. The
71 The February 14, 2005 final rule amended the
certification requirements of 49 CFR part 567 to
allow the use of pass-through certification so that
it can be used not only for multistage vehicles based
on chassis-cabs, but also for those based on other
types of incomplete vehicles. Id.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
Accord and Jetta had relatively low
values for HIC and lower spine
acceleration, and did not meet only the
pelvic force criterion. The Honda
Accord, VW Jetta, VW Beetle
convertible, and Saab 9–3 convertible
met the performance criteria for the ES–
2re.
It is not surprising that the vehicles
we tested did not meet the IARVs for
both the SID–IIs and the ES–2re,
because the oblique pole test was
developed to induce improvements that
would protect more occupants in more
crash situations than current vehicles.
NHTSA need not demonstrate that any
current vehicle meets all the new
requirements to show that an FMVSS
will be practicable within the meaning
of the Safety Act when fully
implemented. A determination of
practicability calls for an exercise in
judgment by the agency, based on
information about the performance of
current designs and the likely effect of
design improvements and new
technologies on performance.
The fact that no current designs met
the requirements when tested with both
the SID–IIs and the ES–2re does not
show the requirements will not be
practicable, but it does require the
agency to use its judgment carefully to
ensure that the new requirements will
be practicable within the lead time
provided. In this case, we have ensured
that the provided lead time and phasein schedule assures that manufacturers
can make long range plans for improved
sensor designs, SIABs and arm rests to
meet the IARVs for both test dummies.
The test results from our 2005 test
program show that some SIABs
performed well with the SID–IIs, while
others performed well with the ES–2re.
We believe that current SIAB systems
can be redesigned and implemented to
provide occupant protection to the
populations represented by both the
SID–IIs and the ES–2re test dummies.
For example, some window curtains
adequately protect the head of the midsize male dummy but may need to be
widened and lengthened to ensure that
the head of the SID–IIs is cushioned at
the forward edge of the curtain. Some
vehicles may need to use a seatmounted SIAB (existing technology), in
addition to a curtain, to meet the
thoracic, abdominal and/or pelvic injury
criteria for both dummies. We believe
that vehicle manufacturers are capable
of making these and other
improvements to SIAB systems.
Manufacturers have made steady and
notable progress in developing,
improving and implementing SIABs. To
illustrate, in 1998, only 0.04% of
passenger cars sold in the U.S. had head
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
side air bag systems. In 2002, 22% of
passenger cars were so equipped, and by
2009, under the voluntary commitment,
manufacturers have projected that 100%
of passenger vehicles will have head
side air bag systems. Based on the vast
knowledge that manufacturers have
been able to gain in developing and
implementing side air bag technologies,
we are confident that manufacturers
will be able to make the improvements
to current systems that will enable the
systems to meet the upgraded FMVSS
No. 214 requirements adopted today.
12. International Harmonization
The Australian government was
concerned that NHTSA’s side impact
proposal would forestall the outcome of
deliberations of the International
Harmonized Research Activities (IHRA)
Side Impact Working Group (SIWG)
regarding a side impact pole test
procedure, and the dummies used in the
test.72 Our decisions today should not
hamper the potential for global
harmonization of side impact
regulations.
Today’s final rule is consistent with
NHTSA’s policy goal of harmonizing
with non-U.S. safety requirements
except to the extent needed to address
safety problems here in the U.S. We
noted in the NPRM that, worldwide,
there are numerous countries that have
side impact protection requirements or
governmental or non-governmental side
impact consumer information programs.
While these side impact programs are
similar to those of the U.S., the safety
need addressed by those programs is
different from the side impact safety
need in the U.S., due in large part to
fleet differences. NHTSA’s underlying
impetus to require side impact head
protection is purely driven by the
hundreds of lives that could be saved
each year on U.S. roadways.
c. Aspects of the MDB Test Procedure
A number of commenters responded
to the NPRM’s proposed changes to the
dynamic MDB side impact test in
FMVSS No. 214. The NPRM did not
propose changes to the MDB itself.
1. The Moving Deformable Barrier
IIHS, Advocates, CU and Public
Citizen believed that the agency should
change the design of the moving
deformable barrier (MDB) used in the
dynamic test to better reflect side
impact risks in the current vehicle fleet.
Advocates, CU and Public Citizen
believed that an upgraded MDB should
be used to test all vehicles up to 4,536
kg (10,000 lb). Advocates further stated:
72 See
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
Docket No. NHTSA–2004–17694–43.
11SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘If NHTSA does not extend the
proposed oblique pole test to rear
seating areas in passenger vehicles, only
a MDB-based test that actually results in
head injury’is worthwhile in connection
with adding a head injury measure and
criterion to the current Standard No.
214 dynamic test.’’ IIHS stated: ‘‘If the
agency does not take this opportunity to
improve the barrier and if it decides to
accept less biofidelic dummy options, it
is difficult to see what benefits will
accrue from the additional MDB tests
that have been proposed.’’
Agency response: NHTSA considers a
redesign of the MDB as a longer term
project beyond the scope of the present
rulemaking. As noted in the NPRM (69
FR at 27992), initiatives to improve
vehicle compatibility between passenger
cars and LTVs in side crashes are likely
to change the characteristics of striking
vehicles in the future. Further, the
marketplace is currently fluctuating.
When future changes to the fleet have
been identified, we can then determine
how the agency’s existing MDB should
be modified to represent striking
vehicles.
In response to Advocates, we do not
agree that the absence of a pole test
requirement for rear seat occupants
necessitates the inclusion of a new MDB
test that results in head injury. The SID–
IIs in the rear seat of several of the
vehicles in our test program measured
high pelvic loading in FMVSS No. 214
MDB tests. Use of the dummy in the
MDB tests and the information it
provides about rear seat performance
will result in improvements to rear seat
occupant protection. Contrary to IIHS,
we believe that the use of the ES–2re
and SID–IIs dummies will add value to
the current upgrade until such a time
when a more thorough evaluation of the
vehicle fleet and its characteristics can
be modeled.
2. A Reasonable Balancing of the Test
Burden
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
A. Arm Position
The NPRM proposed that the driver
dummy arm position must be 40 degrees
relative to torso, and that the arm for all
dummies other than the driver dummy
would have the arm in line with the
torso. The Alliance commented that, to
reduce test burdens and test variability,
the arm position for the dummies
should be set in the detent representing
a 40 degree angle between the torso and
the arm for all seating positions
specified in the MDB test.
To reduce test burdens and
variability, the agency agrees with the
Alliance’s recommendation to set the
arm position for the dummy in the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
51939
driver and front passenger seating
positions in the detent representing a 40
degree angle between the torso and the
arm. Under this change, the front seat
dummies’ arms will be angled in the
same manner on both the right and left
sides of the vehicle (i.e., the front seat
dummy’s arm nearest the door will be
raised). This helps to reduce the test
burden of the MDB test without
decreasing crash protection, since it
should be easier for manufacturers to
design and better assure that a vehicle
will meet the MDB requirements when
impacted on either the right or left sides
of the vehicle using data from an MDB
test of only one side of the vehicle.
Based upon pendulum impact tests to
the dummy’s thorax in which the arm
was positioned down and another with
a dummy without an arm, the maximum
rib deflection occurred when the thorax
was fully exposed. We believe that
raising the arm of the dummy in the
passenger seat test exposes the dummy’s
thorax in the same way achieved by a
dummy without an arm, and that this
change to the procedure will thus not
degrade the robustness of the test.
pelvic force and lower spine
measurements when tested with the
SID–IIs due to an intruding armrest.
Because this final rule incorporates the
SID–IIs dummy in the MDB rear seat
test, countermeasures that will be
installed to reduce the pelvic force and
lower spine acceleration values of the
SID–IIs in the rear seat should also
address the performance of the rear seat
in protecting mid-size adults. Use of the
ES–2re in the rear seat of the MDB test
would not result in an enhancement of
occupant protection.
We do not believe that testing with
only the SID–IIs dummy in the rear will
degrade rear seat occupant protection to
mid-size adult occupants. Our side
NCAP program presently uses a midsized adult male dummy (the SID–H3)
in the rear seating position in the MDB
NCAP test, which complements the
FMVSS No. 214 MDB test. We will
make sure that any future revisions to
the NCAP program will continue to
complement the standard as upgraded
today.
B. Reducing the Number of Tests
To reduce unnecessary test burdens,
today’s final rule specifies that the MDB
test will be conducted with an ES–2re
in the front seat and a SID–IIs in the rear
seat. We will not test using a SID–IIs
dummy in the front seat, for the reasons
provided earlier in this preamble in the
section titled, ‘‘Need for the 5th
percentile dummy in the MDB test.’’ In
contrast, the ES–2re in the front seat
will enhance safety at that seating
position because of the dummy’s
enhanced abilities to measure HIC,
thoracic and abdominal rib deflections,
and pelvic loads. (The current FMVSS
No. 214 side impact dummy (SID) does
not measure HIC, rib deflections or have
any type mechanism that assesses the
risk of abdominal injury.)
However, we will not use an ES–2re
in the rear seat. In our side impact test
program, the ES–2re’s responses in the
rear seat passed the injury assessment
reference values and were generally
low. Further, while the ES–2re dummy
has rib and abdominal measurement
capabilities, the dummy was not able to
detect the elevated injury measures
found by the SID–IIs dummy in the rear
seat MDB tests. Out of the nine tests
conducted with the ES–2re rear
passenger dummy, only one vehicle had
an elevated abdominal force
measurement in these tests, as reported
in the NPRM (69 FR at 28010). The test
was of the 2002 Chevrolet Impala,
which has since been redesigned. The
2002 Impala test also resulted in high
NMEDA suggested that: ‘‘Mobility
vehicles having raised/altered roofs,
lowered floors and vehicles equipped
with extended travel seating systems be
required to meet only the MDB test with
the new mid-size male, and therefore be
exempt from the MDB requirements for
the small female test dummy, until such
time as the NHTSA can determine if, in
fact, the small female is the most
accurate representation of the stature of
mobility vehicle occupants.’’
Agency response: We do not support
this suggestion. We are not persuaded
by NMEDA’s theory that mobility
vehicle occupants could be statistically
larger than the rest of the population of
motor vehicle occupants such that
testing with the 5th percentile adult
female dummy would not be beneficial.
The SID–IIs 5th percentile adult female
dummy represents a population that
generally has lower impact tolerance
levels than the 50th percentile adult
male represented by the ES–2re. As
explained in the next section of this
preamble, our injury criteria for the
SID–IIs was developed taking into
account the occupant’s age, bone mass
and size. The injury tolerance levels for
the SID–IIs were normalized to that for
a 56-year-old, rather than that for a 45year-old as done for the ES–2re. We
have no basis for assuming that the SID–
IIs will not be an appropriate test device
for testing the rear seat of vehicles
manufactured for mobility impaired
occupants, and in fact have good reason
to think that it will be.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3. Other
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
51940
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
As previously discussed, the agency
has reduced the MDB requirements to
only include the ES–2re dummy in the
front seating position and the SID–IIs
dummy in the rear. This reduces the test
burden for vehicle manufacturers and
should address NMEDA’s concerns
about the driver seating position.
d. Injury Criteria
In determining the suitability of a
dummy for side impact testing, the
agency considers the dummy’s injury
assessment capabilities relative to
human body regions at risk in the real
world crash environment. Crash data
indicate that head, chest, abdomen and
pelvic injuries are prevalent in side
impacts. Accordingly, injury criteria
were proposed for the ES–2re’s head,
thorax, abdomen, and pelvis.
The types of injury criteria proposed
by NHTSA for the ES–2re were
generally consistent with those
developed by ECE/WP.29, by the
European Union in its directive EU 96/
27/EC, and by EuroNCAP for rating
vehicles. Four of NHTSA’s proposed
injury criteria were specified in EU 96/
27/EC for use with the EuroSID–1
dummy.73 For the SID–IIs, injury
criteria were proposed for the head,
lower spine, and pelvis. The NPRM did
not propose thoracic or abdominal
deflection limits using the SID–
IIsFRG.74
A technical report titled, ‘‘Injury
Criteria for Side Impact Dummies,’’
May, 2004 (NHTSA docket number
17694) was made available to the public
at https://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/
pdf89/285284_web.pdf. The report was
peer reviewed in accordance with the
Office of Management and Budget’s
(OMB) June 15, 2005 information
quality guidelines. Three peer reviewers
from academia and industry, considered
experts in the field of impact
biomechanics and side impact,
reviewed the document. The reviewers’
comments and the agency’s response
thereto are available to the public
through the DOT peer review website
https://www.dot.gov/peerrt.htm.
1. Head Injury Criterion
NHTSA proposed to require a head
injury criterion (HIC) limit of 1000
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
73 NHTSA
decided not to use the chest viscous
injury criteria, V*C ≤ 1.0, because we did not find
the V*C criterion to be repeatable and reproducible
in our research.
74 The agency did not propose a limit on
deflections because, in pendulum tests, the FRG
design reduced the SID–IIs’s dummy’s deflection
measurement capability when the ribs were struck
in angled pendulum impacts. NHTSA wanted to
obtain more information about the FRG’s effect on
rib deflections before proposing deflection criteria
in FMVSS No. 214.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
(measured in a 36 millisecond time
interval). HIC36 1000 relates to a 50
percent risk of head injury. The HIC36
1000 criterion is used throughout the
FMVSSs and provides a measure with
which the agency and the industry have
substantial experience. The HIC36 1000
criterion is used in the optional pole test
of FMVSS No. 201.
Comments on HIC proposal: The
Alliance, Nissan, Ferrari, Maserati, and
DaimlerChrysler supported the
proposed HIC36 criterion of 1000.
Advocates and Public Citizen supported
a HIC36 criterion of 800, believing that
the criterion would reduce the risk of
AIS 3+ injury to approximately 35
percent, and that the limit is achievable
by current vehicles. Dr. Albert King, a
private individual, submitted a paper he
co-authored that hypothesized that
brain injury is governed by brain
response and not the input acceleration.
He suggested that the brain response to
input translation and rotational head
acceleration can be obtained through
finite element models and injury
potential estimated using strain and
strain rates in the brain tissue.
Agency response: This final rule
adopts the HIC36 criterion of 1000. The
HIC36 limit of 1000 was selected to
accord with the FMVSS No. 201 head
protection standard. Vehicle
manufacturers have experience with the
1000 HIC limit.
Significant research is needed before
the potential for estimating brain injury
risk using finite element brain models
can be assessed. NHTSA did not
propose to use a finite element brain
model for head injury assessment and
this final rule does not adopt such a
method.
2. Thorax (Chest) Criteria
A. ES–2re
NHTSA proposed two criteria to
measure thoracic injury when using the
ES–2re: Chest deflection and resultant
lower spine acceleration. Chest
deflection has been shown to be the best
predictor of thoracic injuries for side
impact. The agency believed it to be a
better injury risk measure than TTI(d)
for the ES–2re dummy.75 We added
spinal acceleration criteria because we
75 TTI(d), a chest acceleration-based criteria,
when combined with anthropometric data, was
developed by NHTSA (Eppinger, R. H., Marcus,
J. H., Morgan, R. M., (1984), ‘‘Development of
Dummy and Injury Index for NHTSA’s Thoracic
Side Impact Protection Research Program,’’ SAE
Paper No. 840885, Government/Industry Meeting
and Exposition, Washington, D.C.; Morgan, R. M.,
Marcus, J. H., Eppinger, R. H., (1986), ‘‘Side
Impact—The Biofidelity of NHTSA’s Proposed ATD
and Efficacy of TTI,’’ SAE Paper No. 861877, 30th
Stapp Car Crash Conference) and is included in the
FMVSS No. 214 side impact protection standard.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
believed that spinal accelerations might
detect severe loading conditions that are
undetected by the unidirectional
deflection measurements. Lower spine
acceleration may not have a causal
relationship with thoracic injury but is
a good indicator of the overall loading
to the thorax. The agency believed that
in concert, the two thoracic criteria
would enhance injury assessment in a
vehicle side crash test, and result in
reduced chest injuries as compared to
the use of TTI(d) in current FMVSS No.
214.
NHTSA selected the two criteria
based upon a series of 42 side impact
sled tests using fully instrumented post
mortem human subjects (PMHS) and 16
sled tests using the ES–2re, conducted
at the Medical College of Wisconsin
(MCW). NHTSA conducted the analysis
using logistic regression with injury
outcome in the PMHS sled tests as the
response, and ES–2re dummy measured
physical parameters (maximum rib
deflections, TTI, maximum spinal
accelerations) in similar sled tests as the
covariates. The subjects’ anthropometric
data such as age, gender, and mass were
also included as covariates since the
agency believed that they might
influence injury outcome.76 This
method of analysis provided injury
criteria that could directly be applied to
the ES–2re dummy.
i. Chest Deflection
Chest deflection was proposed to be
not greater than 42 mm for any rib
(reflecting an approximate 50 percent
risk of an AIS 3+ injury). The NPRM
sought comment on an alternative
criterion within the range of 35 to 44
mm (1.38 to 1.73 in). The 44 mm (1.73
in) value corresponded to a 50 percent
risk of serious injury for a 45-year-old
occupant.77 The agency determined
upon reanalyzing a data set that was
used when NHTSA undertook the 1990
rulemaking adopting the MDB test into
FMVSS No. 214 that the current TTI(d)
of 85 g’s corresponds approximately to
a 50 percent risk of AIS 3+ injury. Thus,
NHTSA tentatively concluded that a rib
deflection limit of 44 mm (1.73 in) for
the ES–2re could be acceptable on the
basis that it was approximately
equivalent to the risk of injury
76 Kuppa, S., Eppinger, R., McKoy, F., Nguyen, T.,
Pintar, F., Yoganandan, Y., ‘‘Development of Side
Impact Thoracic Injury Criteria and their
Application to the Modified ES–2 Dummy with Rib
Extensions (ES–2re),’’ Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol.
47, October, 2003.
77 Logistic regression analysis using cadaver
injury and anthropometry information along with
the ES–2 measurements indicate that the age of the
subject at the time of death had a significant
influence on the injury outcome (p<0.05). Id.
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
addressed by the current TTI(d)
requirement in FMVSS No. 214.78
Comments on the ES–2re chest
deflection: In an August 16, 2005
comment, the Alliance noted that the
injury risk curve from which NHTSA
derived its proposed chest deflection
limit of 44 mm was based on the MCW
studies that analyzed the responses of
PMHS and the ES–2re. The Alliance
believed that an injury risk curve
developed for the ES–2 dummy should
be used instead, particularly if the
agency agrees with the Alliance’s
suggestion to use the ES–2 dummy.
Moreover, the commenter stated,
NHTSA proposed a chest deflection
requirement of 42 mm to harmonize
with the EU regulation for the EuroSID–
1. The Alliance stated that the ES–2
dummy rib deflections have been
observed to be approximately 25 to 100
percent larger than those for the
EuroSID–1 under the same test
conditions. The commenter stated:
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Given the difference in deflections noted
between the EuroSID–1 and ES–2 dummies,
the Alliance believes that the injury limit for
thoracic deflection in the ES–2 should be at
least 25% greater than the limit derived from
the risk curve if the EuroSID–1 is used.
Therefore, the value of 42 mm in the
European regulation derived with EuroSID–
1 would be multiplied by 1.25, which leads
to a value of 53 mm for the deflection limit
proposed by the Alliance.
Advocates and Public Citizen
believed that even the 35 mm deflection
limit at the low end of the proposed
range was too high to protect the elderly
population. Advocates believed that the
proposal ‘‘will disproportionately take
the lives of, and inflict much more
serious injuries on, occupants 65 years
of age and older’’ and stated that it did
not support any value within the range
proposed.
Agency response: This final rule
adopts a chest deflection threshold of 44
mm, which corresponds to a 50 percent
risk of AIS 3+ injury for a 45-year-old.
We do not agree with the Alliance’s
suggestion that, because the ES–2
dummy records higher rib defections
than the EuroSID–1, the chest deflection
limit for this final rule should be 53
mm.
Many researchers have shown that the
ES–2 dummy records higher rib
deflections than the EuroSID–1. Samaha
et al. reported higher rib deflections
with the ES–2 dummy than with the
EuroSID–1 dummy in identical side
impact vehicle crash tests conducted in
78 NHTSA
reanalyzed the Eppinger data set that
was used in the 1990 MDB rulemaking. Kuppa et
al., ‘‘Development of Side Impact Thoracic Injury
Criteria and their Application to the Modified ES–
2 Dummy with Rib Extensions (ES–2re),’’ id.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
accordance with the EU 96/EC/27 side
impact procedure.79 When developing
the NPRM, we determined that the
thorax of the ES–2 was so different from
that of the predecessor EuroSID–1
dummy that previously-generated
EuroSID–1 data should not be used in
analyzing the ES–2 and its associated
thoracic injury criteria. Consequently,
NHTSA stated in the NPRM that, in
developing the injury criteria for the
ES–2re, we would use risk curves and
other information resulting from our
research conducted with the ES–2re. (69
FR at 28002)
That research included paired sled
tests at the Medical College of
Wisconsin with PMHS and the ES–2re
dummy in various impact wall
configurations. ‘‘Injury Criteria for Side
Impact Dummies,’’ supra. The analysis
of the test data indicated a 50 percent
risk of thoracic injury at 44 mm of
maximum thoracic rib deflection. We
viewed favorably that a rib deflection
limit of approximately 44 mm for the
ES–2re would be harmonized with the
42 mm limit in the EU regulation, in
that the IARV of 42 mm in the EU
regulation corresponded to a 50 percent
risk of nine rib fractures, which was
associated with serious injury (internal
organ injuries and flail chest). (69 FR at
28002, footnote 33.) That is, the chest
deflection limits of the two regulations
generally correspond to equivalent
limits on the risk of serious chest injury,
which could promote the development
of similar countermeasures.
With regard to the comment from
Advocates and Public Citizen, the
agency acknowledges that the elderly
and small size occupants generally have
lower impact tolerance levels than
younger, larger occupants. For this
reason, the injury tolerance levels for
the 5th percentile female were
normalized to that for a 56-year-old,
rather than that for a 45-year-old as
done for the 50th percentile male
dummy. These injury tolerance levels
are reasonable, balancing to the extent
possible the dual goals of practicability
and optimum safety performance. The
agency thus believes that a final rule
that uses both the 5th percentile adult
female dummy and the 50th percentile
male dummy affords practicable
protection to the elderly as well as to a
more generalized population.
79 Samaha, R., Maltese, M., Bolte, J., (2001),
‘‘Evaluation of the ES–2 Dummy in Representative
Side Impacts,’’ Seventeenth International Technical
Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles,
Paper No. 486, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Washington, DC.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
51941
ii. ES–2re Lower Spine Acceleration
Resultant lower spine acceleration
was proposed to be not greater than 82
g (reflecting a 50 percent risk of an AIS
3+ injury). The upper and lower spine
of the ES–2re is instrumented with triaxial accelerometers (x, y, and z
direction corresponding to anteriorposterior, lateral medial, and inferiorsuperior). In both oblique pole and MDB
side vehicle crashes, loading can be in
various directions due to the
complexities of the intruding surfaces.
Therefore, NHTSA believed that to
account for overall loading, resultant
accelerations should be measured.
Comments on ES–2re lower spine
acceleration: The Alliance did not agree
with the use of the lower spine
acceleration as a supplementary
criterion for thoracic injury criterion.
The Alliance believed that the criterion
is a poor predictor of injury outcome.
The Alliance stated that ‘‘thoracic
deflection is a direct measure of injury
potential by itself and that the addition
of acceleration will only unnecessarily
restrict designs using an unproven and
poorly correlated parameter.’’ Further,
the Alliance suggested that the lower
spine acceleration criterion might be
unnecessary for the ES–2re, in that the
dummy’s rib deflection readings alone
should detect injurious loading of the
thorax.
Agency response: We have
determined that it is unnecessary to
limit lower spine acceleration in the
pole and MDB tests of the ES–2re
dummy. Accordingly, this final rule
does not adopt the lower spine
acceleration limit in this rulemaking for
the ES–2re. In the oblique pole tests
conducted in our 214 fleet testing
program, the ES–2re’s lower spine
acceleration readings were relatively
consistent with the dummy’s rib
deflection readings. Eleven tests showed
elevated rib deflections. Of these eleven,
five also had elevated lower spine
acceleration. The lower spine
acceleration of the ES–2re was elevated
(75 g) in one vehicle (the Ford
Expedition) when the dummy’s rib
deflection was low (26 mm), but the
lower spine response could have been
elevated due to high abdominal loads
(the ES–2 recorded a 6,973 N abdominal
force in that test). Because the lower
spine acceleration measurements fairly
tracked the ES–2re’s rib deflections, we
conclude that, in the oblique pole and
MDB tests, the lower spine acceleration
criterion is unnecessary for the ES–2re.
80 The dummy’s rib deflection
80 In its comment, Honda noted that the NPRM
May 17, 2004 specified that acceleration data from
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
Continued
11SER2
51942
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
measurements alone will detect
injurious loading of the thorax.
Although we are not adopting the
lower spine acceleration limit as
suggested by the Alliance, we do not
agree with the Alliance’s suggestion that
the addition of acceleration will
unnecessarily restrict designs. The
Alliance submitted no data or any other
information explaining or substantiating
this comment. Further, we have not
seen inconsistencies between the rib
deflection and lower spine acceleration
criteria that support that contention.
B. SID–IIs Lower Spine Acceleration
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
For the SID–IIs dummy, the agency
proposed a limit of 82 g on the resultant
lower spine acceleration, which is a
measure of loading severity to the
thorax. In vehicle crashes, loading can
be in various directions. Therefore,
NHTSA believed that to account for
overall loading, resultant accelerations
should be considered rather than lateral
acceleration alone. The agency
recognized that dummy-measured
accelerations for the level of loading
severities experienced in vehicle
crashes might not have a causal
relationship to injury outcome.
However, the agency believed that they
are good indicators of thoracic injury in
cadaver testing and of overall loading to
the dummy thorax.
NHTSA selected the 82 g resultant
lower spine acceleration based upon a
Receiver Operator Characteristic curve
(ROC) developed using the data from
the series of MCW PMHS sled tests and
the sled tests conducted with the SID–
IIs dummy under impact conditions
identical to those of the MCW tests.
NHTSA estimated the thoracic criteria
that were associated with a 50th percent
risk of AIS 3+ injury in the PMHS. As
noted above, accelerations measured in
a pole and MDB crash test soundly
the accelerometers on the ES–2re lower spine
would be filtered at channel frequency class of 1000
Hz (proposed S11.5(b)(3), 69 FR at 28027). Honda
believed that SAE filter channel class 180 should
be used instead, and pointed out that NHTSA used
SAE filter channel class 180 in developing the
injury criteria for the side impact dummies. The
commenter is correct that S11.5(b)(3) of the NPRM
should have specified SAE filter class 180.
NHTSA’s intent to adopt SAE filter class 180 is
shown by the document referenced by Honda, and
by the December 14, 2006 final rule adopting the
ES–2re dummy into 49 CFR part 572, which
specifies SAE filter class 180 in 572.189(4).
However, because we are not adopting the lower
spine acceleration injury assessment limit, the
specification for the lower spine filter class is not
necessary and we have removed the filter class
specification from FMVSS No. 214. In addition, this
final rule specifies that the dummy’s rib deflection
data are filtered at channel frequency class 600 Hz,
not 180 Hz, in accordance with SAE Recommended
Practice J211, ‘‘Instrumentation For Impact Test,
Part 1, Electronic Instrumentation.’’
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
indicate overall loading to the dummy
thorax, which, in turn, can be used to
indicate when the thorax has been
exposed to overload conditions in a
crash. However, to minimize instances
where accelerations above the threshold
value results in no serious injury, the
agency set the maximum lower spine
acceleration at 82 g. (See ‘‘Injury Criteria
for Side Impact Dummies,’’ id.) The
agency also believed that the age of the
subject involved in a side impact affects
injury outcome. Subject age in the MCW
sled test data was found to have
significant influence on injury outcome
and so was included in the injury
models. (NHTSA normalized the risk
curve to the average occupant age of 56
years.)
Comments on SID–IIs lower spine
acceleration: The Alliance disagreed
with the proposal to use a deflectionbased criterion for the ES–2re and an
acceleration-based criterion for the
small female dummy.81 The Alliance
believed that limiting accelerations
would not assure that thoracic injury
will not occur, and that chest deflection
is the best predictor of injury. The
Alliance stated: ‘‘It is possible to have
balanced restraint loads, as indicated by
low thoracic spine accelerations, but to
have large, injurious rib deflections.
Limits must be placed on thoracic and
abdominal rib deflections to assure that
the risks of thoracic and abdominal
injuries are at acceptable levels for the
simulated accident condition.’’
IIHS likewise strongly supported the
use of deflection measures.
Advocates took ‘‘no specific position’’
on the proposed limit of 82 g but
believed that the value might be
excessive with regard to older vehicle
occupants. The commenter agreed with
the NPRM that resultant accelerations
should be considered rather than lateral
acceleration alone.
Agency response: NHTSA agrees with
the Alliance and IIHS that the SID–IIs
thoracic and abdominal rib deflections
are a critical part of the dummy.
However, adopting limits on the rib
deflections of the SID–IIs would be
outside the scope of this rulemaking and
thus is not a part of this final rule.
Nonetheless, as stated earlier in this
preamble, we may undertake future
rulemaking to propose to limit the
thoracic and abdominal rib deflections
measured by the SID–IIs in the FMVSS
No. 214 MDB and pole tests.
Since we are not adopting in this final
rule thoracic and abdominal deflections
for the SID–IIs, a criterion for lower
spine acceleration is especially
81 The Alliance stated that it supported use of the
SID–IIs dummy for research purposes.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
important. The criterion can detect
injurious loading conditions to the
abdomen and lower thorax. Test data
from the agency’s 214 fleet testing
program indicate that 6 of the 10 vehicle
tests with the SID–IIs resulted in rib
deflection measurements exceeding a
limit of 38 mm for the thoracic rib
(which corresponds to a 50 percent risk
of AIS 3+ injury), and/or a limit of 45
mm for the abdominal rib (the 45 mm
limit is used by IIHS in its consumer
information program). In all of these, the
lower spine acceleration values were
also elevated (exceeding 82 g or within
80 percent of 82 g (i.e., 66 g)). The 6
tests were of the: 2005 Toyota Corolla,
2005 Saturn Ion, 2005 Ford Five
Hundred, 2004/05 Toyota Sienna, 2005
Chevy Colorado 4x2 extended cab, and
the 2005 Ford Expedition. Likewise, the
lower spine acceleration criterion
identified elevated loading conditions
in the test of the 2005 Honda CRV. In
that test, the SID–IIs abdominal rib
deflection was 36 mm (within 80
percent of 45 mm), and the lower spine
was 68 g (within 80 percent of 82 g).
Thus, the data show that the lower
spine acceleration readings were
generally consistent with the SID–IIs’s
rib deflections. The criterion was
generally able to identify tests in which
a vehicle was unable to keep rib
deflections from exceeding threshold
levels. The lower spine acceleration
criterion meets the need for a good
indicator of thoracic injury and of
overall loading to the dummy thorax.
The lower spine acceleration is
particularly needed in the absence of a
rib deflection criterion for the SID–IIs,
or any other mechanism that will ensure
that vehicles are best designed with
abdominal and thoracic protection for
the small occupant in mind. In the
future, if NHTSA were to adopt limits
on the thoracic and abdominal rib
deflections measured by the SID–IIs in
the FMVSS No. 214 crash tests, the
agency would consider as part of that
rulemaking the need for limiting both
lower spine acceleration and rib
deflections.
Resultant accelerations will be
measured rather than lateral
acceleration alone, for the reasons
provided in the NPRM. In response to
Advocates, the injury tolerance level for
the 5th percentile female were
normalized to that for a 56 year old,
rather than that for a 45 year old as done
for the 50th percentile male dummy.
The 82 g injury tolerance level is
reasonable, balancing to the extent
possible the dual goals of practicability
and optimum safety performance.
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
3. ES–2re Abdominal Criterion
The ES–2re dummy offers abdominal
injury assessment capability, a feature
that is not present in the SID dummy.
The agency proposed an abdominal
injury criterion of 2,500 Newtons (N)
(562 pounds). The agency sought
comment on an alternative abdominal
injury criterion within the range of
2,400–2,800 N (540–629 pounds). This
range corresponds to an approximate
30–50 percent risk of AIS 3+ injury.
The proposed abdominal injury
criterion was developed using cadaver
drop test data from Walfisch, et al.
(1980).82 Analysis of this data indicated
that applied force was the best predictor
of abdominal injury, and an applied
force of 2,500 N (562 pounds)
corresponds to a 33 percent risk of AIS
3+ injury. The MCW sled test data
indicated that the applied abdominal
force on the cadavers was
approximately equal to the total
abdominal force in the ES–2re dummy
under similar test conditions.
Comments on abdomen proposal:
Ferrari supported the proposed
abdominal force limit of 2,500 N
because it was consistent with
harmonization. The Alliance stated that
the 2,500 N limit appears to be
reasonable. The Alliance also stated that
there were inconsistencies in the
calculations of total abdominal force in
the NPRM. In some cases the abdominal
loading was calculated through
instantaneous summation of the
individual load cells, while in other
cases the summation of individual peak
values was utilized. The Alliance stated
that it believed that an instantaneous
summation of the abdominal load cells
is the correct method to determine the
total abdominal force in the ES–2
dummy.
Agency response: This final rule
adopts an abdominal force limit of 2,500
N for the reasons provided in the
proposal. In response to the Alliance,
the abdominal force has and will be
calculated as the instantaneous
summation of the abdominal load cell
measurements.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
4. Pelvic Criterion
A. ES–2re
NHTSA proposed an ES–2re pelvic
force limit of not greater than 6,000 N
(1,349 pounds) (25 percent risk of AIS
3+ injury). The ES–2re has two pelvic
measurement capabilities. First, the ES–
2re has instrumentation to measure
pelvic acceleration, as does the SID
82 Walfisch, G., Fayon, C., Terriere, J., et al.,
‘‘Designing of a Dummy’s Abdomen for Detecting
Injuries in Side Impact Collisions, 5th International
IRCOBI Conference, 1980.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
dummy. However, unlike the SID, the
ES–2re is also capable of measuring the
force (load) at the pubic symphysis,
which is the region of the pelvis where
the majority of injuries occur. A field
analysis of 219 occupants in side impact
crashes by Guillemot, et al. (1998)
showed that the most common injury to
the pelvis was fracture of the pubic rami
(pelvic ring disruption).83 Pubic rami
fractures are the first to occur because
it is the weak link in the pelvis.
The NPRM proposed to limit only
pubic symphysis force. The agency did
not propose an acceleration-based
criterion because the agency believed
that an injury threshold limit on pelvic
acceleration is dependent on the impact
location and the type of loading
(distributed versus concentrated).
Therefore, the agency did not believe
that pelvic acceleration is as good a
predictor of pelvic fracture as force. The
scientific literature has documented that
force alone is a good predictor of pelvic
injury.84 Further, the pubic symphysis
load injury criterion has been applied in
the European side impact regulation EU
96/27/EC as well as the EuroNCAP
Program, so there is experience with
this measure and some demonstration of
its usefulness. The criterion in those
programs is 6,000 N (1,349 lb).
Comments on ES–2re pelvis proposal:
The Alliance did not agree with the
NPRM that the ES–2re dummy has
provisions for instrumentation that can
assess the potential for acetabulum and
public symphysis injuries by way of
load cell measurements. In its August
2005 comment, the Alliance stated that
although vehicles can meet a 6,000 N
criterion, it is concerned that no
experiments have been published
documenting what the pubic symphysis
load was at time of fracture, or as a
function of external load for a human
subject. The Alliance also stated that
there are no data on the relationship of
pubic symphysis load with impact
velocity. The commenter recommended
further study of the issue before a
criterion is adopted.
Ferrari agreed with the pelvic force
limit of 6,000 N, while Advocates
believed that the proposed pelvic force
83 Guillemot H., Besnault B., Robin, S., et al.,
‘‘Pelvic Injuries In Side Impact Collisions: A Field
Accident Analysis And Dynamic Tests On Isolated
Pelvic Bones,’’ Proceedings of the 16th ESV
Conference, Windsor (1998).
84 Bouquet, et al. (1998) performed cadaver
pendulum impact tests and showed that the pubic
symphysis load cell in the EuroSID–1 dummy was
a good predictor of pelvic fracture. See Bouquet, R,
Ramet, M, Bermond, F, Caire, Y, Talantikite, Y,
Robin, S, Voiglio, E, ‘‘Pelvis Human Response to
Lateral Impact,’’ Proceedings of the 16th Enhanced
Safety of Vehicles (ESV) Conference (1998).
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
51943
limit of 6,000 N is too high to protect
the elderly.
Agency response: NHTSA used the
Bouquet pendulum test data to relate
the applied pelvic force to cadavers to
the pubic symphysis force of the
EuroSID–1 dummy for identical test
conditions. The impact surface in these
tests loaded the iliac crest as well as the
trochanter.85 The impactor mass varied
between 12 kg to 16 kg and the impactor
speed from 6 m/s to 13.7 m/s. Since the
EuroSID–1 pelvis is similar to that of the
ES–2re, the similar relationship would
apply to the ES–2re. For AIS 2+ injured
subjects, the dummy pubic force
corresponds to 0.455 times applied
pelvic force to the cadaver.
The reanalysis of the Bouquet data
after normalizing for the weight of the
subject as well as the confirmation of
the injury risk curves using the Zhu and
Cavanaugh test data suggests that
NHTSA’s injury risk curves and applied
injury threshold for AIS 3+ pelvic
fractures are reasonable. While the
relationship between the ES–2 pubic
loads and the cadaver applied force are
dependent on the loading condition,
similar scaling relationships have been
used successfully for years for the
EuroSID–I in the EU regulation.
B. SID–IIs
For the SID–IIs dummy, the pelvic
injury criterion was developed from an
analysis of the same cadaver impact
data that was used for the development
of the ES–2re pelvic injury criterion.
The measured loads in these impact
tests were distributed over a broad area
of the pelvis that included the iliac crest
and the greater trochanter. The
measured applied pelvic force to the
cadaveric subjects was mass-scaled to
represent the applied forces on a 5th
percentile female. Under similar impact
conditions, the scaled applied pelvic
force on the cadaveric subjects was
assumed to be equal to the sum of the
iliac and acetabular forces measured on
the SID–IIs dummy.86 Therefore, the
pelvic injury risk curves developed for
the SID–IIs dummy were based on the
maximum of the sum of the measured
acetabular and iliac force. The proposed
5,100 N force level for the SID–IIs
corresponded approximately to a 25
percent risk of AIS 2+ pelvic fracture.87
85 The bony protrusion at the top of the femoral
shaft opposite the ball of the hip joint.
86 IIHS used the same assumption when
developing performance standards for its consumer
ratings program. See Arbalaez, R. A., et al.,
‘‘Comparison of the EuroSID–2 and SID–IIs in
Vehicle Side Impact Tests with the IIHS Barrier,’’
46th Stapp Car Crash Journal (2002).
87 In the IIHS side impact consumer ratings
program, 5,100 N is the injury parameter cutoff
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
Continued
11SER2
51944
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Comments on SID–IIs pelvis proposal:
The Alliance commented that NHTSA’s
assumption that the normalized applied
pelvic force in the cadaver tests was
equal to the sum of the forces in iliac
wing and acetabulum was not based on
test data. In a September 2, 2005
comment, the Alliance submitted
component test data showing the
distribution of forces between the iliac
and acetabulum measured by PMHS and
the SID–IIs. The commenter disagreed
with the normalization of pelvic
responses by the mass of the subject
because, the commenter stated, the
Alliance’s data suggest only a weak
relationship between pelvic mass and
geometry with the overall subject mass.
The commenter believed that the sum of
the internal forces (acetabulum plus
sacro-iliac) is approximately 75 percent
of the applied external force on the SID–
IIs dummy. Based on this information,
the Alliance stated that ‘‘Even though
the injury risk curves and associated
relationship between PMHS and
dummy data would have to [be] recalculated based on non-normalized
data, an initial IARV for 25% risk of AIS
3+ pelvic injury could be set at 8.55kN
(0.75*11.4kN) for maximum combined
acetabulum and iliac loads.’’
The Alliance also stated that there
were inconsistencies in the calculations
of combined pelvic force in the NPRM.
In some cases the combined pelvis
loading was calculated through
instantaneous summation of the iliac
and acetabulum load cells, while in
other cases the summation of individual
peak values was utilized. The Alliance
stated that it believed that an
instantaneous summation of the iliac
and acetabulum load cells is the correct
method to determine the combined
pelvic force for the SID–IIs.
Advocates said that older occupants
suffering pelvic fracture are at a much
higher risk of death. Advocates believed
that vehicles equipped with side thorax
bags could be able to meet a lower
value. The commenter agreed with
NHTSA that resultant accelerations
should be considered rather than lateral
acceleration alone.
Agency response: The Bouquet pelvic
impact test data indicated that for the
same test conditions, the applied force
on a lighter subject that results in injury
was lower than that on a heavier
subject. The agency continues to believe
that such data should be normalized to
a representative anthropometric subject.
The normalizing procedure adopted was
that of mass scaling, which has been
applied by other researchers as well.88
To obtain the injury risk curve for a
small female, the agency normalized the
pelvic force data from the Bouquet
pelvic impact tests to that of a small
female weighing 48 kg (105 lb), as
indicated in the technical document,
‘‘Injury Criteria for Side Impact
Dummies,’’ supra. In addition, the risk
curve was adjusted to that for a 56 year
old. At the time of developing the risk
curve, there was no data available to
relate the applied cadaver pelvic force
in the Bouquet tests to equivalent
acetabular and iliac force measured in
the SID–IIs. Therefore, it was assumed
that the applied cadaver pelvic force is
equal to the sum of acetabular and iliac
force in the SID–IIs.
NHTSA analyzed the SID–IIs data
submitted by the Alliance on September
2, 2005 in conjunction with the relevant
cadaver tests from Bouquet. We believe
that the submitted data suggested that
the sum of acetabular and iliac force of
the SID–IIs is approximately 1.21 times
that of the applied cadaver force under
similar impact conditions of the
Bouquet test setup. Accordingly, rather
than the proposed pelvic force limit of
5,100 N, we have adopted a pelvic force
IARV limit of 5,525 N, which
corresponds to a 25% risk of AIS 2+
injury using also a factor for reduced
bone strength in older women (0.88).
We note that IIHS considered a 5,525 N
pelvic force to be in the middle of the
acceptable range for the IIHS consumer
ratings program.
The combined pelvic force is
calculated as an instantaneous
summation of the measurements from
the iliac and acetabulum load cells.
In response to Advocates, the 5,525 N
sum of acetabular and iliac force
corresponds to the pelvic injury
tolerance for a 56 year old 5th percentile
female. This tolerance level thus
accounts for the age of the occupant,
and provides practicable protection to
the elderly occupant.
For convenience of the reader, the
injury criteria adopted by this final rule
are summarized below in Table 11:
TABLE 11.—FINAL RULE INJURY CRITERIA
Chest
deflection
(mm)
HIC36
ES–2re .................................................................................
SID–IIs .................................................................................
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
1. Pole Test
The agency proposed a phase-in
period for the new vehicle-to-pole test
based on crash test data (see, e.g.,
Appendix C of this preamble), the
technologies that could be used to meet
the proposed testing requirements, and
the relatively low percentage of the fleet
that had side air bags that were capable
of meeting the proposed requirements.
The NPRM proposed to include
provisions under which manufacturers
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
44
N/A
Abdominal
force
(N)
N/A
82
2,500
N/A
Pelvic
force
(N)
6,000
5,525
can earn credits towards meeting the
applicable phase-in percentages if they
meet the new requirements ahead of
schedule. The NPRM proposed the
following phase-in schedule:
—During the production year beginning
four years after publication of a final
rule, 20 percent of each
manufacturer’s light vehicles
manufactured during the production
year must comply with the
requirements of the oblique pole test;
—During the production year beginning
five years after publication of a final
rule, 50 percent of each
manufacturer’s light vehicles
manufactured during that production
year must comply with the
requirements;
—All vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1 six years after
publication of a final rule must
comply with the requirements.
In addition, we proposed a separate
alternative to address the special
problems faced by limited line
manufacturers, alterers, and multistage
manufacturers in complying with the
88 Zhu, J., Cavanaugh, J., King, A., ‘‘Pelvic
Biomechanical Response and Padding Benefits in
Side Impact Based on a Cadaveric Test Series,’’ SAE
e. Lead Time
value for the ‘‘Good-Acceptable’’ range for the
combined acetabulum and ilium force values.
https://www.highwaysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/
measures_side.pdf
1,000
1,000
Lower
spine
(g)
Paper No. 933128, 37th Stapp Car Crash
Conference, 1993.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
phase-in. NHTSA accordingly proposed
to permit these manufacturers the
option of achieving full compliance
when the phase-in is completed.
Comments received: The Alliance
supported the proposed phase-in
schedule for the oblique pole test. Air
bag supplier TRW believed that the
technology exists to meet the proposed
performance requirements within the
proposed timeframes and stated that it
was prepared to respond to the needs of
the manufacturers. Advocates,
Consumers Union, and Public Citizen
supported a three-year phase-in but
recommended that the phase-in period
begin two years after publication of a
final rule. Advocates stated that if the
agency were to adopt an earlier starting
year than what had been proposed, it
would support a more protracted phasein of four years for the new pole test and
a two-year phase in of an upgraded
MDB test. These commenters believed
that the earlier phase-in period is
supported by agency test results that the
commenters believed showed that the
majority of vehicles could comply
relatively quickly with the new
requirements.
RVIA supported the agency’s proposal
to allow alterers and multistage
manufacturers to certify compliance at
the end of the phase-in period.
However, both RVIA and NTEA stated
that chassis manufacturers do often not
provide information until the last
possible moment before the compliance
date. Therefore, these commenters
requested that we allow multistage
manufacturers and alterers an additional
year for compliance certification.
Maserati and Ferrari supported the
proposal to allow small volume vehicle
manufacturers until the end of the
phase-in period before having to certify
for compliance.
Agency response: After reviewing the
comments to the NPRM, the results of
the 214 fleet testing program, and
production plans which show
installation of side air bags in vehicles
ahead of the proposed schedule, we
have determined that it would be
practicable to provide a 2-year lead time
instead of the 4-year lead time proposed
in the NPRM leading up to the
beginning of the phased-in pole test
requirements. Compared to the original
schedule, this would accelerate the
benefits expected to be provided by side
air bag systems and other
countermeasures by phasing-in the
requirements starting with 20 percent of
model year (MY) 2010 vehicles.
Comments from air bag suppliers
indicate that the schedule is practicable.
As explained in the FRIA, the phasein schedule and percentages of this final
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
rule facilitate the installation of side
impact air bags and other safety
countermeasures in light vehicles as
quickly as possible, while the allowance
of advanced credits provides
manufacturers a way of allocating their
resources in an efficient manner to meet
the schedule. At the same time, many of
the vehicles tested by the agency using
the ES–2re and SID–IIs dummies
produced dummy readings that
exceeded the new pole test performance
requirements. This confirms our belief
that vehicle manufacturers are at
different stages with respect to
designing side impact air bags, and also
face different constraints and challenges
(e.g., differences in the technological
advances incorporated in their current
air bag systems, in engineering
resources, and in the number and type
of vehicles in which air bags need to be
redesigned). Further, manufacturers’
product plans also show that they are at
different stages with regard to planning
for installation of side impact air bags,
particularly thorax bags in light trucks.
Our rationale for the lead time and
phase-in is discussed in detail in the
FRIA for this final rule, and is
summarized below.
• The agency analyzed the product
plans submitted by seven vehicle
manufacturers, whose combined
production accounts for approximately
90 percent of all light vehicle sales,
responding to an NHTSA request for
planned side air bag installations and
projected sales through model year (MY)
2011. The data show that 90 percent of
all MY 2010 light vehicles will be
equipped with side air bags protecting
the head, and 72 percent will be
equipped with side air bags protecting
the thorax. The percentage of side air
bags protecting the head is fairly
uniform between the manufacturers;
however, there are large differences
between manufacturers in the
percentage of thorax bags being
planned, particularly for light trucks.
• The agency’s 214 fleet testing
program indicated that the majority of
currently available head side air bags
would meet the head protection
requirement of this final rule’s pole test
(about 80 percent of tested vehicles
equipped with head air bags passed the
pole test). However, of the vehicles
tested equipped with thorax bags, only
56 percent met the chest requirement in
the pole test. One large truck (GVWR
greater than 8,500 lb) that was tested
also exceeded the injury criteria,
indicating that structural changes may
be needed.
• From our testing, it appears that the
pole test data show that side air bags
installed in most passenger cars and
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
51945
small and medium size light trucks
(including SUVs and minivans) may not
need extensive modifications. While
some of the window curtains and thorax
bags we tested were not wide enough to
provide the protection desired in the
oblique impacts when tested with the
SID–IIs 5th percentile female dummy,
we believe that a two-year lead time is
reasonable to redesign the head and
thorax bags. It also appeared that
extensive vehicle structural
modifications were not necessary for the
passenger cars and small and medium
size light trucks. On the other hand, we
estimate that it will take longer than two
years to add a thorax bag to a vehicle
model that has not had one previously.
• For large light trucks, the test
results indicate that structural changes
may be needed. This is why we have
provided a longer lead time for vehicles
with a GVWR greater than 8,500 lb.
Based on our experience, if structural
changes are needed, the modification
could be done within 3–4 years.
The agency analyzed the above factors
in determining the lead time and phasein requirements of this final rule. The 20
percent level at the two-year mark
reflects the manufacturers’ production
plans for the next two years: for vehicles
that already have side air bags but
whose bags do not comply with the pole
test, two years provides sufficient time
for manufacturers to make bags wider
and potentially make other changes to
pass the test, while it takes longer than
two years to add one to a vehicle that
has not had one previously. The 50
percent phase-in percentage with a
three-year lead time could result in one
manufacturer introducing side thorax
air bags ahead of its plans, but we
believe it would be practicable to
introduce thorax bags with 3 years of
lead time, particularly with the use of
advanced credits. The 75 percent phasein percentage was adopted to elongate
the phase-in schedule one year longer
than proposed, to provide vehicle
manufacturers the flexibility of a fouryear phase-in schedule to incorporate
side structure and restraint system
modifications into their production
cycles. Most vehicle lines would likely
experience some level of redesign over
the next three to four years. The
additional phase-in year provides more
opportunity to incorporate side impact
protection design changes during the
course of each manufacturer’s normal
production cycle.
In addition, as discussed in section
IV.b.10 of this preamble, ‘‘Vehicle
exclusions,’’ this final rule provides
more lead time to meet the pole test
requirements to manufacturers of
vehicles with a GVWR greater than
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
51946
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
3,855 kg (8,500 lb) than proposed in the
NPRM. These vehicles need more lead
time because they have never been
regulated under FMVSS No. 214’s
dynamic requirements and are not
subject to the industry’s voluntary
commitment to install side air bags.
Because these vehicles may need more
redesign of the vehicle side structure,
interior trim, and/or optimization of
dynamically deploying head/side
protection systems than light vehicles,
this final rule does not subject these
vehicles to the pole test requirements
until September 1, 2013.
In response to the RVIA and NTEA,
NHTSA has issued a final rule
pertaining to certification requirements
for vehicles built in two or more stages
and altered vehicles.89 In relevant part,
the multi-stage certification final rule
amended 49 CFR 571.8, Effective Date,
to add a new subparagraph (b) providing
as follows:
Vehicles built in two or more stages and
altered vehicles. Unless Congress directs or
the agency expressly determines that this
paragraph does not apply, the date for
manufacturer certification of compliance
with any standard, or amendment to a
standard, that is issued on or after September
1, 2006 is, insofar as its application to
intermediate and final-stage manufacturers
and alterers is concerned, one year after the
last applicable date for manufacturer
certification of compliance. Nothing in this
provision shall be construed as prohibiting
earlier compliance with the standard or
amendment or as precluding NHTSA from
extending a compliance effective date for
intermediate and final-stage manufacturers
and alterers by more than one year.
Applying the above provision of the
February 14, 2005 final rule to this
rulemaking, we have provided finalstage manufacturers and alterers an
additional year after completion of the
phase-in to certify compliance of their
vehicles with the pole test requirements.
The manufacturers may voluntarily
certify compliance with the standard
prior to this date.
For convenience of the reader, the
phase-in schedule (with advanced
credits) adopted by this final rule is
summarized below and in Table 12:
—20 percent of a vehicle manufacturer’s
‘‘light’’ vehicles (GVWR less than or
equal to 3,855 kg (8,500 lb))
manufactured during the period from
September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2010
will be required to comply with the
standard; 90
—50 percent of light vehicles
manufactured during the period from
September 1, 2010 to August 31, 2011;
—75 percent of light vehicles
manufactured during the period from
September 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012;
—All light vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2012, including
those produced by limited line and
small volume manufacturers, without
use of credits;
—All vehicles with a GVWR greater
than 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) manufactured
on or after September 1, 2013 and all
vehicles produced by alterers and
multistage manufacturers, without use
of credits.
TABLE 12.—FINAL RULE PHASE-IN SCHEDULE
Percent of each manufacturer’s vehicles that must comply
during the production period 91
Production period
September
September
September
On or after
1, 2009 to August 31, 2010 ...................................................
1, 2010 to August 31, 2011 ...................................................
1, 2011 to August 31, 2012 ...................................................
September 1, 2012 ................................................................
On or after September 1, 2013 ................................................................
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
2. MDB test
The agency believed that
manufacturers could meet the
requirements of the upgraded MDB test
without the need for a phase-in period.
Therefore, we proposed that the
upgraded MDB test would be effective 4
years after publication of a final rule.
The agency requested comments on
whether it would be appropriate to
establish a phase-in for this requirement
and whether a lead time shorter than 4
years would be appropriate.
The Alliance, DaimlerChrysler,
Nissan, and Ferrari did not support the
different effective dates for the pole test
and the MDB test. The Alliance believed
that ‘‘occupant safety benefits are
optimized and manufacturers’
engineering resources are best utilized if
the MDB and pole test requirements are
addressed in vehicle designs
89 See
70 FR 7414 (Feb. 14, 2005).
line and small volume manufacturers,
alterers, and multistage manufacturers, are
excluded from the 20/50/75 phase-in requirements.
A small volume manufacturer is an original vehicle
90 Limited
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
20 percent (excluding vehicles GVWR >8,500 lb).
50 percent of vehicles (excluding vehicles GVWR >8,500 lb).
75 percent of vehicles (excluding vehicles GVWR >8,500 lb).
All vehicles (excluding vehicles GVWR >8,500 lb), all vehicles produced by limited line and small volume manufacturers.
All vehicles GVWR >8,500 lb, all vehicles manufactured by alterers
and multistage manufacturers.
simultaneously.’’ The commenter also
suggested that there should be an
opportunity for limited line
manufacturers to apply credits against
the full compliance requirement for one
year. DaimlerChrysler anticipated that
‘‘the requirements represented in the
oblique pole test may effect [sic]
structural changes which, in turn, will
influence performance in the MDB test
mode.’’ DaimlerChrysler believed that
designing to the MDB and pole tests
‘‘represents a development task which
will require at least one product cycle
(6 to 8 years) to complete.’’
Nissan stated that its experience with
side impact crashes leads it to believe
that significant changes would be
necessary to comply with the proposed
MDB requirements. It also noted that the
application of advanced credits would
allow Nissan to more efficiently
distribute resources to meet the
proposed requirements.
Ferrari believed that ‘‘improved chest
protection would be needed even by
vehicles whose armrest is already
designed to reduce the risk of
abdominal injuries, and changes would
also be needed to vehicles that provide
good to optimum chest protection when
tested according to SINCAP or
EuroNCAP.’’ In Ferrari’s opinion, the
upgraded MDB test would require equal,
if not greater, amount of redesign as the
pole test. Therefore, it recommended the
same phase-in time as was proposed for
the pole test.
In contrast, Advocates, Consumers
Union, and Public Citizen supported not
having a phase-in for the upgraded MDB
test.
Agency response: After consideration
of the comments, NHTSA has decided
manufacturer that produces or assembles fewer than
5,000 vehicles annually for sale in the United
States. Limited line and small volume
manufacturers, alterers, and multistage
manufacturers are provided extra lead time so that
they may maximize resources in planning to
comply with the final rule.
91 Limited line and small volume manufacturers,
alterers, and multistage manufacturers, are
excluded from the 20/50/75 phase-in requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
to adopt a phase-in for the MDB test,
and align the phase-in schedule with
the oblique pole test requirements, with
advance credits. An aligned phase-in
will allow manufacturers to optimize
engineering resources to design vehicles
that meet the MDB and pole test
requirements simultaneously, thus
reducing costs. Manufacturers, such as
Nissan, will also be able to use credits
to more efficiently distribute their
resources to meet the requirements. It
will also allow limited line
manufacturers the opportunity to
comply with the phase-in schedule with
credits, or alternatively to achieve full
compliance when the phase-in is
completed. Final-stage manufacturers
and alterers will be required to comply
with the MDB test requirements at the
end of the phase in, but may voluntarily
certify compliance with the
requirements prior to this date.
In response to Advocates, Consumers
Union, and Public Citizen, the agency
believes that it is appropriate to provide
flexibility to manufacturers to upgrade
both the pole and MDB requirements on
the same schedule. When the agency
published the NPRM, we did not
anticipate that vehicles would need
many structural changes to comply with
the MDB test. We originally thought that
the countermeasures necessitated by the
rulemaking would entail a simple
redesign of the door trim armrest area
with additional padding and/or recontouring of the door trim surface.
However, upon review of the comments
and the results of our own limited
testing with the SID–IIs in the MDB
tests, we agree with Nissan and Ferrari
that required changes might involve a
redesign of the vehicle side structure,
particularly to address high pelvic
loading and elevated rib deflections of
the SID–IIs in the rear seats of some
vehicles. By aligning the phase-in
schedule of the new MDB requirements
with the pole test, the agency believes
that vehicle manufacturers can better
optimize their vehicle designs and the
overall occupant protection systems for
side impact crashes.
In addition, the Alliance, Honda, and
other commenters requested NHTSA to
consider adopting the WorldSID into 49
CFR part 572 and using the dummy in
the phase-in of this final rule. We are
currently evaluating the dummy for
possible incorporation into part 572. If
incorporation of the dummy appears
reasonable, we could undertake
rulemaking on the WorldSID to integrate
the dummy into the pole and MDB tests
of FMVSS No. 214 during the phase-in
period of this final rule. We may also
consider rulemaking to incorporate
thoracic and abdominal rib deflection
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
criteria for the SID–IIs in the pole and
MDB tests adopted today. By aligning
the phase-in schedule of the new MDB
requirements with the pole test, more
flexibility is provided for the possible
implementation of those rulemaking
actions.
f. Related Side Impact Programs
1. Out-of-Position Testing
Background. The agency has been
concerned about the potential risks of
side impact air bags (SIAB) to out-ofposition (OOP) occupants, particularly
children, from the first appearance of
side air bag systems in vehicles. NHTSA
initiated research in the fall of 1998 into
the interactions between OOP children
and side air bags. In April 1999, NHTSA
held a public meeting to discuss the
potential benefits and risks of side
impact air bags and the development of
possible test procedures to assess those
risks.92
Safety Need. The agency has
investigated over 110 side impact air
bag deployment crashes through
NHTSA’s Special Crash Investigations
unit in order to determine whether a
problem exists related to OOP
occupants. There have been no fatalities
and only one confirmed AIS 3+ injury
due to a side air bag, this to a 76-yearold male driver. Side air bags 93 do not
appear to pose a safety risk to OOP
children, even taking into account
exposure risks.
Technical Working Group
Recommended Procedures. In July 1999,
the Alliance, AIAM, the Automotive
Occupant Restraints Council, and IIHS
formed a technical working group
(TWG) to develop recommended test
procedures and performance
requirements to evaluate the risk of side
air bags to children who are out-ofposition. In August 2000, the TWG
issued a draft report, ‘‘Recommended
Procedures For Evaluating Occupant
Injury Risk From Deploying Side Air
Bags,’’ The Side Air Bag Out-Of-Position
Injury Technical Working Group,
Adrian K. Lund (IIHS) Chairman,
August 8, 2000. This report was revised
in July 2003. The proposed procedures
were based on the work of Working
Group 3 of the International
Organization of Standard (ISO)
Technical Committee 10, which had
92 The
agency has placed materials in Docket
NHTSA–1999–5098 relating to the risks to out-ofposition occupants from SIAB.
93 For the purposes of this discussion, ‘‘side air
bags’’ means side thorax air bags and combination
thorax/head air bags, and not window curtains or
inflatable tubular structures. Our testing found no
reason for concern with window curtains or
inflatable tubular structures and out-of-position
children or adults.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
51947
developed draft procedures for
evaluating side impact air bags.94
Under the TWG procedures, a 5th
percentile female side impact dummy
(SID–IIs), a 3-year-old and a 6-year-old
Hybrid III frontal child dummy are
placed in several positions close to the
side air bag systems. The TWG
procedures address side air bags that
deploy from the seat backs (seatmounted), those that deploy from the
door or rear quarter panel, typically just
below the window sill (side-mounted),
those that deploy from the roof rail
above the door (roof-mounted), and
roof-rail and seat back/door systems.
After the dummy is positioned as
specified in the procedures, the air bag
is deployed statically, and the dummy
injury measures due to the deployment
of the air bag are determined. The
measured forces are compared to TWG’s
‘‘Injury Reference Values’’ and ‘‘Injury
Research Values.’’ 95 The TWG’s limits
on the Injury Reference Values are
mostly the same as those in FMVSS No.
208 for OOP testing of frontal air bags.
NHTSA initiated a research program
to evaluate the TWG procedures and
propose, if necessary, any alternatives
and modifications to assess the injury
risk to OOP children. The agency’s test
program included 11 vehicles equipped
with front seat side air bags and one
vehicle equipped with rear seat side air
bags. The TWG OOP test procedures
were used as the baseline for selecting
test positions. However, tests were
performed with the basic TWG
procedures with and without NHTSA
variations. Many different types of
production systems, including doormounted thorax bags, seat-mounted
head-thorax combination bags, and roofmounted head protection systems, were
tested using 3-year-old and 6-year-old
Hybrid–III child dummies. The results
were reported in a technical paper,
‘‘Evaluation of Injury Risk from Side
Impact Air Bags.’’ (Proceedings of the
17th ESV Conference, June 2001, Paper
# 331.) The main purpose of the test
program was to assess the potential
safety risks that any system could pose
to OOP small adults and children due
to deploying side air bags.
The main observations from the
agency’s research is summarized in the
following:
94 ‘‘Road Vehicles—Test Procedures for
Evaluating Occupant Interactions with Deploying
Side Impact Airbags.’’ The ISO procedures were
finalized in October 2001 (ISO–TR 14933, October
2001).
95 Injury Reference values are those that the
majority of the TWG believed have a strong
scientific basis. Injury Research Values are those
that TWG believes currently have less scientific
support or insufficient test experience to allow full
confidence in their accuracy.
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51948
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
The TWG procedures address dummy
sizes, seating positions, and expand the
traditional injury assessment measures.
The TWG procedures are quite
comprehensive and are very successful
at discriminating between aggressive
and non-aggressive SIABs.
The TWG procedures are adequate
baseline procedures for SIAB OOP
testing to minimize unreasonable risks
to children and small adults.
For the 3- and 6-year-old dummies,
the TWG test procedures do not always
find the worst case conditions for some
current SIAB systems.
The NPRM. The NPRM sought
information on how meeting the
requirements proposed by the NPRM
would affect manufacturers’ ability to
meet the TWG procedures. The NPRM
stated that the agency will continue to
monitor compliance with the TWG test
procedures and requirements by
automotive manufacturers, and will
conduct further testing of new air bag
designs.
Comments: DaimlerChrysler
commented that at this time, it does not
know the extent of which the OOP
occupants, as specified in the TWG,
would be affected by the proposed
requirements in the NPRM. However,
DaimlerChrysler anticipated that side
air bags designed in accordance to the
NPRM may be in conflict with the TWG
OOP requirements. Conversely, TRW
believed that the side protection
systems designed to meet the
requirements of the NPRM could
perform acceptably for OOP occupants.
TRW also stated that it supports the
efforts of the OOP TWG and does not
believe there is a need for regulatory
activity in this area.
Agency response: We have considered
the comments on whether meeting the
requirements proposed by the NPRM
would affect manufacturers’ ability to
meet the TWG procedures.
DaimlerChrysler, the only vehicle
manufacturer commenting on this issue,
stated it had no data to support its
suggestion of a potential conflict
between TWG and the proposed
requirements of the NPRM, but
anticipated there may be some.
NHTSA’s testing has shown that,
during the course of the 214 fleet testing
program, there have been vehicles that
have met the new requirements of this
final rule and have also been reported
to meet the TWG procedures. The Jetta,
Volkswagen Beetle Convertible, Saab 9–
3 Convertible and Honda Accord have
met the pole test injury criteria with the
ES–2re and have been certified by their
respective manufacturer to the TWG
OOP requirements. The Honda CRV met
the pole test criteria with the SID–IIs
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
and also has been certified to TWG
OOP. These examples show that the
oblique pole and MDB test requirements
are not in conflict with the TWG
guidelines. Further, air bag supplier
TRW stated that side impact protection
systems designed to meet the
requirements of the NPRM could
perform acceptably for OOP occupants.
Based on the available information, we
conclude that vehicles are able to meet
the requirements of this final rule and
those of the TWG OOP.
The agency monitors compliance with
the TWG requirements by vehicle
manufacturers. As part of the agency’s
Buying a Safer Car consumer
information program, we publish
whether a vehicle was certified to the
TWG OOP requirements. We only state
that a vehicle has met those
requirements after the manufacturer has
provided data showing that it conforms
to TWG OOP. The agency also conducts
spot testing to verify those results. If the
knowledge we gain from our test
program indicates that further actions
are needed, we will take appropriate
actions to do so.
2. Side NCAP
Honda asked that NHTSA use
WorldSID in testing vehicles under the
side impact new car assessment
program if the manufacturer uses
WorldSID for that vehicle’s FMVSS No.
214 certification. Autoliv wanted
NHTSA to address the effects of the
rulemaking on NCAP. ‘‘If there is a
significant difference between Lateral
NCAP and FMVSS 214 (MDB) test
conditions and requirements, there may
be significant challenges in meeting
requirements of both (potentially
conflicting) test conditions.’’
Agency response: We have carefully
considered Honda’s suggestion.
However, since we are not engaged in a
rulemaking action on the WorldSID
dummy at the present time, we can only
commit to study the merit of Honda’s
suggestion during the course of our
future research.
In response to Autoliv, we do not
anticipate significant challenges or
potential conflicts in meeting the
requirements of both side NCAP and the
final rule. The upgrade to FMVSS No.
214 is an enhancement to the protection
currently provided by the standard.
Based on our crash testing to date,
vehicles that achieved a rating of four
stars or better for both occupants in side
NCAP tests will likely be among the
better performers in meeting the
requirements of the final rule. (The
FMVSS No. 214 test is conducted at a
lower speed than the side NCAP test.)
We believe countermeasures, such as
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
new side structure enhancements, new
crash sensors and/or algorithms, and/or
new head protection systems, will only
improve a vehicle’s performance in side
NCAP and other side impact crashes.
Nonetheless, NHTSA carefully
ensures that any changes to NCAP are
based on sound science and careful,
objective analysis of supporting data.96
With the two new crash test dummies
and a new crash test configuration
added to the standard, the agency will
continue to evaluate how to tailor the
side NCAP program to complement the
upgraded requirements of FMVSS No.
214.
3. Cross-References to FMVSS No. 214
Honda pointed out that FMVSS Nos.
201, 301 and 305 contain crossreferences to sections of FMVSS No. 214
that will be renumbered by this final
rule. We are amending those crossreferences in FMVSS Nos. 201, 301 and
305 to achieve consistency with today’s
final rule.
g. Comments on the PEA
Several comments were received on
the agency’s preliminary economic
assessment (PEA) for the NPRM.
Commenters included Maserati and
Ferrari, the Alliance, and the Specialty
Equipment Manufacturers Association
(SEMA).
Maserati and Ferrari believed that
NHTSA underestimated the costs of
small manufacturers to comply with the
proposed rule. The Alliance had
questions about how the PEA estimated
the benefits of the rulemaking, e.g., how
the agency identified the target
population of potentially injured
occupants that would be addressed by
the rulemaking. The Alliance also
believed that we did not demonstrate
the practicability of meeting the
proposed test requirements, and stated
that the principles set forth in the Data
Quality Act were not met (the
commenter believed that some of the
data in the PEA had errors and that the
PEA contained some unsupported
assumptions).
The agency has responded to the
comments on the costs and benefits
analysis and other issues of the PEA in
the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis
(FRIA) 97 (see Appendix G of the FRIA),
96 NHTSA has announced plans to evaluate near
and long-term approaches to enhance NCAP
activities. ‘‘The New Car Assessment Program;
Suggested Approaches for Enhancements,’’ 72 FR
3473; January 25, 2007, Docket 26555. An
enhancement under consideration is to include the
pole test in NCAP assesssments.
97 The FRIA may be obtained by contacting
Docket Management at the address or telephone
number provided at the beginning of this document.
You may also read the document via the Internet,
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
which has been placed in the agency’s
docket for this final rule.
VII. Costs and Benefits
As noted above, we have prepared an
FRIA to accompany this final rule. The
FRIA provides an analysis of the
potential impacts of the vehicle-to-pole
side impact test and the modifications
to the MDB test. It also addresses
comments the agency received in
response to the agency’s Preliminary
Economic Assessment that accompanied
the NPRM. A summary of the FRIA
follows.
Benefits. The agency identified the
baseline target population and then
estimated the fatality or injury reduction
rate. The target population was defined
as occupants who sustained fatal and/or
AIS 3+ injuries to the head, chest,
abdomen or pelvis in side crashes.
Target fatalities and MAIS 3–5 injuries
were derived from 2000–2004 CDS. The
agency limited the target population to
crashes in which the delta–V was in the
range of 19 to 40 km/h (12 to 25 mph).
In identifying the target population,
occupants with heights of 165 cm (65
inches) or taller were assumed to be
represented by the 50th percentile male
dummy (the ES–2re), and the remaining
occupants were assumed to be
represented by the 5th percentile female
dummy (the SID–IIs). As discussed in
the FRIA, several additional
adjustments were made to the target
population to address voluntary
commitments, belt use, children, etc.
The target population was then
determined to be 2,311 fatalities and
5,891 non-fatal serious to critical MAIS
AIS 3–5 injuries in crashes with a deltaV of 19 to 40 km/h (12–25 mph) for
near-side occupants.98 The 2,311
fatalities were divided into two groups
for the analysis: (1) Vehicle-to-pole
impacts; and (2) vehicle-to-vehicle or
other roadside object impacts, which
include partial ejections in these cases.
Further adjustments were made for
assumed full compliance with the
FMVSS No. 201 upper interior
requirements, 100 percent Electronic
Stability Control (ESC) penetration in
the model year (MY) 2011 new vehicle
fleet, current performance that conforms
to the final rule requirements adopted
today (based on the results of the
NHTSA 214 fleet testing program), and
manufacturers’ planned installation of
side air bags.99 The incremental benefits
of the final rule are estimated as:
—266 fatalities saved and 352 AIS 3–5
injuries prevented, if a combination
51949
air bag, 2-sensor per vehicle system
were used. (The combination air bag,
2-sensor system would be the least
costly side air bag system that would
enable a vehicle to meet the standard.)
—311 fatalities saved and 361 MAIS 3–
5 injuries prevented, if a window
curtain and thorax air bag 2-sensor
system were used.
—311 fatalities saved and 371 MAIS 3–
5 injuries prevented, if a window
curtain and thorax air bag 4-sensor
system were used.
Window curtains are estimated to
have more benefits than combination air
bags because we assumed that window
curtains would have an impact on
partial ejections that occur in side
impacts without rollover, while we
assume no benefits for combination air
bags in far-side partial ejections without
rollover. No benefits are claimed for
complete ejections in rollovers, since
the effectiveness of the combination air
bags or window curtains to contain
occupants in a rollover event has not
been established at this time.
The majority of the benefits are for
front seat occupants, but a small number
of benefits are included for rear seat
occupants.
TABLE 13.—BENEFITS OF THE FINAL RULE BY COUNTERMEASURE 100
Combination
air bag
2 sensors
Fatalities .......................................................................................................................................
AIS 3–5 Injuries ...........................................................................................................................
266
352
Curtain &
thorax bags
2 sensors
311
361
Curtain &
thorax bags
4 sensors
311
371
Potential compliance costs for the pole
test vary considerably, and are
dependent upon the types of head and
thorax side air bags chosen by the
manufacturers and the number of
sensors used in the system. As noted
above, NHTSA estimates that the
combination air bag, 2-sensor system
would be the least costly side air bag
system that would enable a vehicle to
meet the standard.
The costs for installing new systems
are estimated to range from:
—a wide combination head/thorax side
air bag system with two sensors at
$126 per vehicle,
—to wide window curtains and wide
thorax side air bags with four sensors
at a cost of $280 per vehicle.
Given the level of compliance found
in our vehicle testing 101 and the
manufacturers’ planned installation of
side air bags in MY 2011, the total
annual incremental cost to meet this
final rule with the lower cost
combination air bag is estimated to be
$429 million. The total annual
incremental cost for the wide window
by following the instructions in the section below
entitled, ‘‘Viewing Docket Submissions.’’ The FRIA
will be listed in the docket summary.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Costs. In the FRIA, the agency
discusses the costs of the different
technologies that could be used to
comply with the tests, and also
estimates compliance tests costs. Based
on the results of the 2005 tests of
vehicles with side air bags (Section IV
of this preamble, supra), the agency
estimates that the majority of vehicle
manufacturers currently installing side
head air bag systems will have to widen
their present air bags. They might not
need to add side impact sensors to their
vehicles or develop more advanced
sensors to meet an oblique pole test.
model year (MY) 2011. For remaining
manufacturers, MY 2006 side air bag percentages
were assumed to remain constant through MY 2011.
The projected MY 2011 side air bag sales data show
that the majority of vehicles (about 93%) will be
equipped with side air bags. Based on the sales
data, we expect that about 95% and 78% of these
vehicles will be equipped with curtain and thorax
bags, respectively.
100 The benefits of 100 percent of the fleet having
side air bags compared to 0 percent of the fleet
having side air bags, assuming 100 percent of
vehicles have Electronic Stability Control systems,
are estimated to be 976 fatalities and 932 AIS 3–
5 injuries.
101 We assumed that the performance of side air
bags that would have been installed in MY 2011
vehicles in the absence of the oblique pole test
requirements would have been equivalent to the
performance observed in the agency’s tests of MY
2005 vehicles.
98 The Agency’s analysis also found some fatality
benefits for far-side unbelted occupants. In 2004
FARS, there were 1,441 unbelted far-side occupant
fatalities in side impacts.
99 Seven manufacturers (comprising about 90
percent of all light vehicle sales) submitted
confidential data responding to a NHTSA request
for planned side air bag and projected sales through
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
51950
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
curtains and wide thorax side air bags
with four sensors is estimated to be $1.1
billion (2004 dollars). This amounts to
a range of total incremental annual cost
of $429 million to $1.1 billion.
The agency’s data show that the
majority of side air bag systems are
currently equipped with two side
impact sensors. The total annual
incremental cost for the most likely air
bag system (curtain and thorax bag twosensor countermeasure) would be about
$560 million.
TABLE 14.—INCREMENTAL TOTAL COSTS AND VEHICLE COSTS
[$2004]
Combination
head/thorax
side air bags
Incremental total costs .................................................................................................................
Total vehicle cost per system ......................................................................................................
Window curtain and thorax
side air bags,
2 sensors
Window curtain and thorax
side air bags,
4 sensors
*$560
243
**$1.1
280
*$429
126
*Million.
**Billion.
Cost Per Equivalent Fatality
Prevented. NHTSA estimated the costs
per equivalent life saved, using a 3 and
a 7 percent discount rate. The low end
of the range is $1.6 million per
equivalent life saved, using a 3 percent
discount rate. That low end estimate
equivalent life saved, using a 7 percent
discount rate. The high end estimate
assumes that manufacturers will install
separate window curtains and thorax air
bags with four sensors.
assumes that manufacturers will install
combination head/thorax air bags rather
than separate window curtains and
thorax air bags, in vehicles that
currently have no side impact air bags
or only thorax side impact air bags. The
high end of the range is $4.6 million per
TABLE 15.—COSTS PER EQUIVALENT LIFE SAVED PRESENT DISCOUNTED VALUE
[in millions]
Combination
head/thorax
side air bags
Cost per equivalent life saved
3% Discount Rate ........................................................................................................................
7% Discount Rate ........................................................................................................................
Net Benefits. Net benefit analysis
differs from cost effectiveness analysis
in that it requires that benefits be
assigned a monetary value, and that this
value is compared to the monetary value
$1.6
2.0
of costs to derive a net benefit. NHTSA
estimates that the high end of the net
benefits is $561 million for the
combination head/thorax air bags using
a 3 percent discount rate and the low
Window curtain and thorax
side air bags,
2 sensors
Window curtain and thorax
side air bags,
4 sensors
$1.8
2.3
$3.7
4.6
end is negative $225 million for the
curtain + thorax bags with four sensors,
using a 7 percent discount rate. Both of
these are based on a $3.7 million cost
per equivalent life saved.
TABLE 16.—NET BENEFITS WITH $3.7M COST PER LIFE
[In millions]
Benefit
Net benefit
Countermeasure
3% discount
Combo + 2 Sensors .........................................................................................
Curtain + 2 Sensors .........................................................................................
Curtain + 4 Sensors .........................................................................................
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
a. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The agency has considered the impact
of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866 and the
Department of Transportation’s
regulatory policies and procedures. This
rulemaking is economically significant
and was reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under E.O.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
$990
1,127
1,131
12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
Review.’’ The rulemaking action has
also been determined to be significant
under the Department’s regulatory
policies and procedures. The FRIA fully
discusses the estimated costs and
benefits of this rulemaking action. The
costs and benefits are summarized in
section VII of this preamble, supra.
b. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, as amended, requires agencies to
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
7% discount
$787
895
899
3% discount
$561
567
7
7% discount
$357
336
¥225
evaluate the potential effects of their
proposed and final rules on small
businesses, small organizations and
small governmental jurisdictions. I
hereby certify that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Small organizations and small
governmental units will not be
significantly affected since the potential
cost impacts associated with this action
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
will not significantly affect the price of
new motor vehicles.
The rule will directly affect motor
vehicle manufacturers. NHTSA
requested comments on an addendum to
the initial regulatory flexibility analysis
(IRFA) that was contained in the
Preliminary Economic Assessment
(PEA) for the May 17, 2004 NPRM on
FMVSS No. 214 (Docket No. 17694).
The addendum to the IRFA discusses
the economic impacts on small vehicle
manufacturers, of which there are
four 102 (70 FR 2105; January 12, 2005).
NHTSA stated in the addendum that
our tentative conclusion was that the
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on the four
manufacturers. We believed that the
small vehicle manufacturers are not
likely to certify compliance with a
vehicle test, but will use a combination
of component testing by air bag
suppliers and engineering judgment.
Already much of the air bag work for
these small vehicle manufacturers is
done by air bag suppliers. Typically, air
bag suppliers are supplying larger
vehicle manufacturers during the
development and phase-in period, and
do not have the design capabilities to
handle all of the smaller manufacturers.
The rulemaking proposal accounted for
this limitation by proposing to allow
small manufacturers that have limited
lines to comply with the upgraded
requirements at the end of the phase-in
period, to reduce the economic impact
of the rule on these small entities.
As explained in the addendum, we
also believed that the rulemaking would
not have a significant impact on the
small vehicle manufacturers because the
market for the vehicles produced by
these entities is highly inelastic.
Purchasers of these vehicles are
attracted by the desire to have an
unusual vehicle. Further, all light
vehicles must comply with the
upgraded side impact requirements.
Since the price of complying with the
rule will likely be passed on to the final
consumer, the price of competitor’s
models will increase by similar
amounts. In addition, we did not believe
that raising the price of a vehicle to
include the value of a combination
head-thorax side air bag will have
much, if any, effect on vehicle sales.
The agency received no comments on
the addendum to the IRFA concerning
the impacts of the rule on small vehicle
manufacturers.
For the reasons explained in the
IRFA, NHTSA concludes that this final
rule will not have a significant impact
on small vehicle manufacturers.
102 Avanti,
Panoz, Saleen, and Shelby.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
The final rule indirectly affects air bag
manufacturers, dummy manufacturers
and seating manufacturers. The agency
does not believe that there are any small
manufacturers of air bags. There are
several manufacturers of dummies and/
or dummy parts, some of which are
considered small businesses. The rule is
expected to have a positive impact on
these types of small businesses by
increasing demand for dummies.
NHTSA knows of approximately 21
suppliers of seating systems, about half
of which are small businesses. If seatmounted head/thorax air bags are used
to meet the new pole test, the cost of the
seats will increase. However, we believe
that the costs will be passed on to the
consumer. NHTSA believes that air bag
manufacturers will provide the seat
suppliers with the engineering expertise
necessary to meet the new requirements.
NHTSA notes that final-stage vehicle
manufacturers and alterers buy
incomplete vehicles, add seating
systems to vehicles without seats, and/
or make other modifications to the
vehicle, such as replacing existing seats
with new ones or raising the roofs of
vehicles. A second-stage manufacturer
or alterer modifying a vehicle with a
seat-mounted thorax air bag might need
to use the existing seat or rely on a seat
manufacturer to provide the necessary
technology. In either case, the impacts
of this final rule on such entities will
not be significant. Final-stage
manufacturers or alterers engaged in
raising the roofs of vehicles will not be
affected by this rulemaking, since this
final rule excludes vehicles with raised
or altered roofs from the pole test.
The Specialty Equipment Market
Association (SEMA) believed that
‘‘aftermarket equipment manufacturers
and other entities that diagnose, service,
repair and upgrade motor vehicles’’ may
be affected by the final rule if their
installed products interact with
equipment or systems used by vehicle
manufacturers to meet the FMVSS No.
214 requirements. SEMA’s comment
focused on three issues. The following
discusses those comments and our
responses thereto.
1. SEMA said that, with regard to
frontal air bags and air bag sensors
installed pursuant to FMVSS No. 208,
‘‘Occupant crash protection,’’
manufacturers of aftermarket leather
and fabric seating products frequently
have not had access to electronic
information about the frontal air bag
sensor in the vehicle seat. Consequently,
SEMA stated, the aftermarket
manufacturer or installer could not
reprogram the sensor after the product
has been installed, and in many
instances, had to return the vehicle to
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
51951
the dealership for reprogramming.
SEMA suggested that NHTSA should—
make sure that electronic data is open and
available in such a way so as not to preclude
installation, servicing, or repair of legal
aftermarket equipment * * * Specifically,
SEMA believes it is appropriate to follow the
EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] OBD
[on-board diagnostic system] precedent in
that any and all electronic data, or any that
can be accessed through the available
technology, must be made available to the
vehicle owner to the extent that such access
is available to other parties. Further, SEMA
believes it is appropriate that NHTSA
consider setting standards for data retrieval
communication protocols, connectors and
tools, and that such information and tools be
made available to the public in a timely and
cost-effective manner.
Agency response: Requiring vehicle
manufacturers to ensure that electronic
information about the SIABs is ‘‘open
and available * * * so as not to
preclude installation, servicing, or
repair’’ of aftermarket equipment is
beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
Furthermore, we do not have any
information showing that such a
requirement is necessary or appropriate
at this time. Vehicles currently include
many complex systems, and although
dealer involvement may be necessary in
some cases, the marketplace has made
available sufficient information to
permit convenient maintenance and
repair of such systems. We do not
believe that SIAB technology will prove
any different in this regard. There are a
substantial number of vehicles currently
equipped with SIAB systems—some
portion of which it is expected would
have had aftermarket modifications of
the types suggested by SEMA—and
there has been no indication of any
problem to date. Additional information
may become available in the future that
sheds light on how SIAB systems
interact with other vehicle equipment
and systems. We will monitor the data
and test information we receive on this
issue, and we encourage all interested
parties to share relevant information
with the agency and the public as it
becomes available. If we later find
significant safety risks associated with
the interaction between SIAB systems
and items of equipment (aftermarket or
otherwise), we will work toward
addressing these possible problems.
Further, we are not requiring vehicle
manufacturers to share all electronic
data with the vehicle owner. Such a
requirement is unnecessary at this time,
for the reasons discussed above. We
have not been presented with any
evidence of a safety or compatibility
problem between SIABs and other
vehicle systems or equipment, and the
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51952
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
market has tended to respond to
consumer demands that sufficient
information be provided to permit third
party vehicle servicing. Nonetheless,
NHTSA strongly encourages SEMA and
its members to develop relationships
with vehicle and SIAB system
manufacturers to research and find
solutions to these questions.
2. SEMA stated that ‘‘many
dealerships have received service
bulletins from the vehicle manufacturer
warning them against the installation of
aftermarket seat covers, citing concern
that installation may interfere with the
front seat airbag sensors.’’ SEMA
suggested that NHTSA should ‘‘issue a
regulation or policy statement which
states that it is illegal to issue service
bulletins or other communications that
warn dealers about potential warranty
denial based on the mere presence or
installation of aftermarket equipment.’’
Agency response: We are unable to
concur with SEMA that NHTSA should
provide the requested regulation and/or
policy statement governing the
communications between manufacturers
and dealers on warranties.
Communications between vehicle
manufacturers and their dealers on the
warranties is a topic that is beyond the
scope of the rulemaking. However, we
encourage OEMs and the aftermarket
sales industry to work together to share
information on the effect of aftermarket
equipment on vehicle warranties.
3. SEMA believed that NHTSA did
not consider all of the small businesses
potentially impacted by the final rule.
The commenter believed that the rule
‘‘will directly affect a number of small
entities including manufacturers and
installers of seating equipment, interior
upholstery, sunroofs and running
boards. Beyond that, there are
potentially thousands of small entities
that may have the opportunity to
diagnose, service, repair and upgrade
motor vehicles.’’ SEMA stated, ‘‘While it
may be possible to work with the air bag
manufacturers to design seating
equipment, upholstery, sunroofs,
running boards and other items of
equipment that may effect [sic] air bag
sensors, the information is of little value
if the vehicle’s computer system needs
to be reprogrammed to accommodate
the new equipment. The reg-flex
analysis does not take into account that
the vehicle manufacturers are the source
of this information, not the air bag
manufacturers. Unless such service
information is forthcoming, thousands
of small businesses may be directly
impacted by the rule change.’’
Agency response: In responding to
this comment, we note that NHTSA is
not required to perform a regulatory
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
flexibility analysis for entities not
directly impacted by its rulemaking. In
its 2003 publication titled ‘‘A Guide for
Government Agencies: How to Comply
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act’’
(‘‘RFA Guide’’), the Small Business
Administration states that ‘‘[t]he courts
have held that the RFA requires an
agency to perform a regulatory
flexibility analysis of small entity
impacts only when a rule directly
regulates them.’’ 103 The cases cited by
the RFA Guide indicate that a rule
‘‘directly regulates’’ only the entities to
which the rule applies—for example,
electric utilities but not independent
electricity cooperatives in a FERC ratesetting regulation,104 or automobile
manufacturers but not aftermarket
businesses in an EPA ‘deemed-tocomply’ rule.105 In Motor & Equipment
Mfrs. Ass’n v. Nichols, the D.C. Circuit
described the distinction as follows:
‘‘The RFA itself distinguishes between
small entities subject to an agency rule,
to which its requirements apply, and
those not subject to the rule, to which
the requirements do not apply.’’ 106
This final rule establishes
performance requirements for side
impact protection and applies to new
motor vehicles. The only entities subject
to these requirements are vehicle
manufacturers. NHTSA has already
analyzed the potential impacts of the
rule on these directly affected entities,
as the FRIA makes clear. Nothing in this
rule subjects the entities described by
SEMA to NHTSA’s regulation.
With that said, although NHTSA has
no obligation to perform a regulatory
flexibility analysis to consider the
potential impacts of this final rule on
such non-directly regulated entities, we
are nevertheless concerned about the
impact our rules have on all parties.
Again, we have considered the effects
that this final rule might have on
aftermarket motor vehicle equipment
manufacturers and the motor vehicle
103 Office of Advocacy, United States Small
Business Administration, ‘‘A Guide for Government
Agencies: How to Comply with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act,’’ 2003, p. 20.
104 Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), 773 F.2d
327, 341 (DC Cir. 1985) (stating that ‘‘Congress did
not intend to require that every agency consider
every indirect effect that any regulation might have
on small businesses in any stratum of the national
economy.’’).
105 Motor & Equipment Mfrs. Ass’n v. Nichols,
142 F.3d 449, 467 (DC Cir. 1998) (holding that
‘‘Because the deemed-to-comply rule did not
subject any aftermarket businesses to regulation,
EPA was not required to conduct a flexibility
analysis as to small aftermarket businesses. It was
only obliged to consider the impact of the rule on
small automobile manufacturers subject to the rule,
and it met that obligation.’’).
106 Id., fn 18, at 467 (describing 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3)
and (4)).
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
service industry. The agency is not
aware of any significant compatibility
problems between SIAB systems and
other vehicle equipment, and SEMA
provided no evidence that side air bag
technology will preclude installation,
servicing, or repair of aftermarket
equipment, including whether and the
degree to which particular aftermarket
modifications of a vehicle entail the
reprogramming of a vehicle’s computer
system. The agency cannot hypothesize
on all possible interactions between
SIAB technologies and different vehicle
equipment, and we are unable to
address speculative arguments regarding
compatibility problems for which there
is no evidence. There are a substantial
number of vehicles currently equipped
with SIAB systems—some portion of
which it is expected would have had
aftermarket modifications of the types
suggested by SEMA—and there has been
no indication of any problem to date.
Nonetheless, we encourage
manufacturers of aftermarket equipment
that cannot independently assess
whether their products will affect
original SIAB systems to collaborate
with air bag and vehicle manufacturers
to make that assessment or to undertake
concerted testing to develop products
that are compatible with the SIABs.
SEMA’s comment indicated that
companies that supply leather or fabric
seating already ‘‘have tested their
products to ensure that the leather or
fabric does not adversely impact the air
bag seat sensors.’’ 107 We believe that the
aftermarket installers of other products
can likewise embark on testing or
collaborative work with air bag and
vehicle manufacturers to ensure that the
installation is compatible with the
vehicles’ SIAB systems.
Further, aftermarket businesses have
already been servicing vehicles with
SIABs and other complex systems that
use computer technology. Although
vehicle dealer involvement may be
necessitated in some cases, we do not
believe that involvement has resulted in
a significant economic impact on the
businesses. The marketplace has
generally made available sufficient
information to permit the aftermarket
installation of equipment, and the
maintenance and repair of vehicles with
SIAB and other systems. There is no
indication that vehicle manufacturers
and dealers have not made and will not
continue to make necessary information
reasonably available to the aftermarket
sales and service industries. However,
107 See also submission from Kugi Florian in
NHTSA Docket 17694 (Walser aftermarket seat
cover made compatible with seat-mounted side air
bags).
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
we will continue to monitor the data
and test information we receive on this
issue, and we encourage all interested
parties to share relevant information
with the agency and the public as it
becomes available. If we later find
problems with the information being
made available to the aftermarket sales
and service industries, we will take
appropriate steps to address these
problems.
For the aforementioned reasons, we
conclude that this rule will not have a
significant negative economic impact on
a substantial number of small
entities.108
c. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today’s final
rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and
concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local
governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking
process. The agency has concluded that
the rule does not have federalism
implications because the rule does not
have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’
Further, no consultation is needed to
discuss the preemptive effect of today’s
rule. NHTSA rules can have preemptive
effect in at least two ways. First, the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act contains an express
preemptive provision: ‘‘When a motor
vehicle safety standard is in effect under
this chapter, a State or a political
subdivision of a State may prescribe or
continue in effect a standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance of a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment only if the standard is
identical to the standard prescribed
under this chapter.’’ 49 U.S.C.
30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command
that preempts State law, not today’s
rulemaking, so consultation would be
inappropriate.
In addition to the express preemption
noted above, the Supreme Court has
also recognized that State requirements
imposed on motor vehicle
manufacturers, including sanctions
imposed by State tort law, can stand as
an obstacle to the accomplishment and
execution of a NHTSA safety standard.
When such a conflict is discerned, the
Supremacy Clause of the Constitution
makes their State requirements
108 Additional information concerning the
potential impacts of the requirements on small
entities is presented in the FRIA.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
unenforceable. See Geier v. American
Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
NHTSA has not outlined such potential
State requirements in today’s
rulemaking, however, in part because
such conflicts can arise in varied
contexts, but it is conceivable that such
a conflict may become clear through
subsequent experience with today’s
standard and test regime. NHTSA may
opine on such conflicts in the future, if
warranted. See id. at 883–86.
d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal
agencies to prepare a written assessment
of the costs, benefits and other effects of
proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of more than $100
million annually (adjusted annually for
inflation, with base year of 1995). These
effects are discussed earlier in this
preamble and in the FRIA. UMRA also
requires an agency issuing a final rule
subject to the Act to select the ‘‘least
costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative that achieves
the objectives of the rule.’’
The preamble and the FRIA identify
and consider a number of alternatives,
concerning factors such as test speed,
test angle, number and type of dummies
used in the test, and phase-in schedule.
Alternatives considered by and rejected
by us would not fully achieve the
objectives of the alternative preferred by
NHTSA (a reasonable balance between
the benefits and costs of a 20 mph
oblique pole test with the ES–2re and
the SID–IIs, and a reasonable balance of
the benefits and costs of an upgrade of
the MDB test). Further, Section IX of the
FRIA discusses three alternative
regulatory approaches to the oblique
pole test that we considered: (a) Using
the 90 degree pole test set forth in
FMVSS No. 201; (b) using the Voluntary
Commitment approach (perpendicular
moving barrier test with one test
dummy); and (c) applying a pole test to
front and rear seats. The agency believes
that it has selected the most costeffective alternative that achieves the
objectives of the rulemaking.
e. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this final rule
for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The agency
has determined that implementation of
this action will not have any significant
impact on the quality of the human
environment.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
51953
f. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice
Reform)
With respect to the review of the
promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988,
‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729,
February 7, 1996) requires that
Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies
the effect on existing Federal law or
regulation; (3) provides a clear legal
standard for affected conduct, while
promoting simplification and burden
reduction; (4) clearly specifies the
retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (7) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any
guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. This document is consistent
with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes
as follows. The preemptive effect of this
rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes
further that there is no requirement that
individuals submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other
administrative proceeding before they
may file suit in court.
g. Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 requires each
agency to write all rules in plain
language. Application of the principles
of plain language includes consideration
of the following questions:
• Have we organized the material to
suit the public’s needs?
• Are the requirements in the rule
clearly stated?
• Does the rule contain technical
language or jargon that isn’t clear?
• Would a different format (grouping
and order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing) make the rule easier to
understand?
• Would more (but shorter) sections
be better?
• Could we improve clarity by adding
tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the
rule easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these
questions, please write to us with your
views.
h. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
Under the PRA of 1995, a person is
not required to respond to a collection
of information by a Federal agency
unless the collection displays a valid
OMB control number. The final rule
contains a collection of information
because of the proposed phase-in
reporting requirements. There is no
burden to the general public.
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51954
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
The collection of information requires
manufacturers of passenger cars and of
trucks, buses and MPVs with a GVWR
of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, to
annually submit a report, and maintain
records related to the report, concerning
the number of such vehicles that meet
the vehicle-to-pole and MDB test
requirements of FMVSS No. 214 during
the phase-in of those requirements. The
phase-in of both the pole and MDB test
requirements will cover three years. The
purpose of the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements is to assist
the agency in determining whether a
manufacturer of vehicles has complied
with the requirements during the phasein period.
We are submitting a request for OMB
clearance of the collection of
information required under today’s final
rule. These requirements and our
estimates of the burden to vehicle
manufacturers are as follows:
NHTSA estimates that there are 21
manufacturers of passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536
kg (10,000 lb) or less;
NHTSA estimates that the total
annual reporting and recordkeeping
burden resulting from the collection of
information is 1,260 hours;
NHTSA estimates that the total
annual cost burden, in U.S. dollars, will
be $0. No additional resources will be
expended by vehicle manufacturers to
gather annual production information
because they already compile this data
for their own use.
A Federal Register document has
provided a 60-day comment period
concerning the collection of
information. The Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) promulgated
regulations describing what must be
included in such a document. Under
OMB’s regulations (5 CFR 320.8(d)),
agencies must ask for public comment
on the following:
(1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and
assumptions used;
(3) How to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and,
(4) How to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
The NPRM requested that
organizations and individuals wishing
to submit comments on the information
collection requirements direct them to
the docket for the NPRM. The agency
did not receive any comments on the
information collection requirements.
i. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Under the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104–113),
all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards
bodies, using such technical standards as a
means to carry out policy objectives or
activities determined by the agencies and
departments.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that
are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, such as the
International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) and the Society of
Automotive Engineers. The NTTAA
directs us to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when we decide not
to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
When NHTSA developed the vehicleto-pole test that was adopted into
FMVSS No. 201, the agency based the
test on a proposed ISO test procedure
found in ISO/SC10/WG1 (October
2001). In developing today’s final rule,
we considered the draft ISO standard
and ISO draft technical reports related
to side air bags performance to guide
our decision-making to the extent
consistent with the Safety Act. The
notable differences between the draft
ISO standard and this final rule relate
to: the diameter of the pole (ISO draft
technical reports recommend the use of
a 350 mm pole, while NHTSA uses a
254 mm pole in FMVSS No. 201 and
will use such a pole in FMVSS No. 214),
and the angle of approach of the test
vehicle to the pole (ISO specifies 90
degrees, while our final rule uses a 75
degree angle). The agency’s reasons for
a 254 mm pole were discussed in the
NPRM. The reasons for an oblique, 32
km/h (20 mph), angle of approach were
discussed earlier in this document.
IX. Appendices
Appendix A—Glossary
Categories of Side Air Bags
Combined (also called ‘‘integrated,’’
‘‘combination’’ or ‘‘combo’’) side air bag
system. Incorporates both a head air bag
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
system and a torso side air bag into one
unit that is typically installed in the seat
back.
Curtain. A ‘‘curtain’’ type side air bag
system (referred to as ‘‘curtain bags,’’
‘‘side curtain air bags,’’ ‘‘window
curtains,’’ ‘‘air curtains,’’ or ‘‘AC’’). A
curtain is an inflatable device that is
fixed at two points, one at the front end
of the vehicle’s A-pillar and the other
along the roof rail near the C-pillar. It is
installed and stored un-deployed under
the roof rail headliner. When deployed,
the curtain inflates to provide a
cushioned contact surface for the head,
spanning the side of the vehicle, down
from the roof rail across the windows.
This system would provide head
protection for front and possibly rear
seat occupants in outboard seating
positions in side crashes.
Head air bag system (or head
protection system (HPS)). The term
comprises different types of head
protection systems, such as curtain bags,
installed either as a stand alone system
or combined with a thorax side air bag.
Side impact air bag (SIAB). The term
refers to side air bags generally.
Torso (or thorax) side air bag. A
‘‘torso’’ (or ‘‘thorax’’) side air bag that
can be installed in either the seat back
or the vehicle door. As the name
indicates, the system would provide
protection for the torso but not for the
head.
Appendix B—Existing FMVSS No. 214
FMVSS No. 214 specifies two types of
performance requirements intended to
protect the thoracic and pelvic regions
of an occupant: ‘‘quasi-static’’
requirements and ‘‘dynamic’’
requirements. They apply to passenger
cars and to multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks, and buses with a
GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less
and 6,000 lb or less, respectively.
The quasi-static requirements limit
the extent to which the side door
structure of a vehicle is pushed into the
passenger compartment during a side
impact. The standard requires each side
door to resist crush forces that are
applied by a piston pressing a 300 mm
(12 inch) steel cylinder against the
door’s outer surface in a laboratory test.
Since the requirement became effective
in 1973, vehicle manufacturers have
generally chosen to meet the
requirement by reinforcing the side
doors with metal beams.
The dynamic side impact test
currently regulates the level of crash
forces that can be experienced by an
occupant’s chest and pelvis when seated
in a vehicle struck in a side impact. The
dynamic requirements focus on thoracic
and pelvic protection because contact
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
between the thorax and the side interior
has been the primary source of serious
injuries and fatalities.
The dynamic side impact test
simulates a 90-degree intersection
impact of a striking vehicle traveling 48
km/h (30 mph) into a target (i.e., test)
vehicle traveling 24 km/h (15 mph).
This is achieved by running a moving
deformable barrier (MDB), which has all
wheels rotated 27 degrees (crab angle)
from the longitudinal axis, into the side
of a stationary (test) vehicle at a 90degree contact angle with a 54 km/h
(33.5 mph) closing speed. At the initial
contact, the longitudinal axes of the
MDB and the test vehicle are
perpendicular to each other. Two 50th
percentile adult male side impact
dummies (SIDs) are used in the target
vehicle. They are positioned on the
struck side of the vehicle, one in the
front seat with the other directly behind
in the rear seat.
The MDB, which simulates the
striking (i.e., bullet) vehicle, has a mass
of 1,361 kilograms (kg) (3,000 lb). The
weight of the MDB and the geometry
and material properties of the MDB’s
aluminum honeycomb contact face were
derived from an adjustment of the
average properties of the vehicle fleet
(passenger cars and LTVs) in existence
at the time of the development of the
dynamic side impact regulation.
The test procedures focus on the
dummy’s chest and pelvis acceleration
responses, which have been correlated
with crash and test data regarding the
conditions that produce serious
51955
occupant injuries. The instrumented
dummies must not exhibit chest
accelerations and pelvic accelerations
above specified thresholds in order to
pass the test. The maximum rib and
spine accelerations measured on the
chest are averaged into a single metric
called the Thoracic Trauma Index
(TTI(d)), which has an 85g limit for 4door vehicles and a 90g limit for 2-door
vehicles. The pelvic acceleration has a
130g limit.
Appendix C—Test Data From NPRM
The NPRM presented the following
data from tests of an ES–2re and a SID–
IIsFRG dummy in oblique pole and
FMVSS No. 214 MDB tests.
TABLE 1 TO APPENDIX C.—75-DEGREE POLE TEST RESULTS ES–2 DUMMY OR ES–2RE DUMMY
Test vehicle
Restraint*
Rib-def.
(mm)
HIC36
Proposed limits ....
1,000
Lower spine
(g)
*** 35–44
Abd.-force
(N)
Pubic-force
(N)
82
***2,400 –
2,800
6,000
51.2
49.0
51.7
52.5
1,550
1,370
1,437
1,165
1,130
1,730
2,463
1,849
45.1
51.4
58.3
78.2
98.4
1,196
1,553
1,382
1,224
2,674
2,368
1,700
2,673
2,377
2,317
Test Results Using FMVSS No. 214 Seating Position
1999
2000
2004
2004
Volvo S80** ..............................
Saab 9–5** ...............................
Honda Accord** ........................
Toyota Camry** ........................
AC+Th .................
Comb ...................
AC+Th .................
AC+Th .................
329
171
446
452
48.7
49.4
30.7
43.4
Test Results Using FMVSS No. 201 Seating Position
1999
1999
2000
2001
2002
Nissan Maxima .........................
Volvo S80 .................................
Saab 9–5 ..................................
Saturn L200 ..............................
Ford Explorer** .........................
Comb ...................
AC+Th .................
Comb ...................
AC ........................
AC ........................
5,254
465
243
670
629
35.7
40.7
49.9
52.3
43.0
*Comb. = combination head/chest SIAB; AC = air curtain; Thorax or Th=chest SIAB.
**Test was conducted with the ES–2re dummy.
***The agency stated that a particular value within this range would be selected.
TABLE 2 TO APPENDIX C.—75-DEGREE POLE TEST RESULTS
[SID–IIsFRG dummy]
Test vehicle
Restraint *
Proposed limits ...............................................
2003 Toyota Camry (tested April 2003) .........
2003 Toyota Camry (tested March 2003) ......
2000 Saab 9–5 ...............................................
2002 Ford Explorer .........................................
.........................................................................
AC+Th (remotely fired at 11 ms) ...................
AC+Th (bags did not deploy) .........................
Comb ..............................................................
AC (remotely fired at 13 ms) .........................
Lower spine
(g)
HIC36
1,000
512
8,706
2,233
4,595
82
70
78
67
101
Pelvis
(N)
5,100
4,580
5,725
6,045
7,141
* Comb.=head/chest SIAB; AC=air curtain; Th=chest SIAB
TABLE 3 TO APPENDIX C.—FMVSS NO. 214 MDB TEST RESULTS
[ES–2re driver]
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Test vehicle
Restraint HPS
and/or SIAB
Proposed limits ..................................
2001 Ford Focus ...............................
2002 Chevrolet Impala ......................
..............................
None ....................
None ....................
Rib-def.
(mm)
HIC36
1,000
137
69
Lower spine
(g)
* 35–44
36
46
82
60
49
* The agency stated that a particular value within this range would be selected.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
Abd.-force
(N)
* 2,400–2,800
1,648
1,225
Pubic-symph.
(N)
6,000
2,833
1,789
51956
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4 TO APPENDIX C.—FMVSS NO. 214 MDB TEST RESULTS
[ES–2re rear passenger]
Test vehicle
Restraint HPS
and/or SIAB
Proposed limits ..................................
2001 Ford Focus ...............................
2002 Chevrolet Impala ......................
..............................
None ....................
None ....................
Rib-def.
(mm)
HIC36
1,000
174
187
Lower spine
(g)
35–44
20
12
82
59
58
Abd.-force
(N)
*2,400–2,800
1,121
4,409
Pubic-symph.
(N)
6,000
2,759
2,784
*The agency stated that a particular value within this range would be selected.
TABLE 5 TO APPENDIX C.—FMVSS NO. 214 MDB TEST RESULTS
[SID–IIsFRG driver]
Test vehicle
Restraint HPS and/or SIAB
Proposed limits ........................................................................
2001 Ford Focus .....................................................................
2002 Chevrolet Impala ............................................................
2001 Buick Le Sabre ...............................................................
................................................
None ......................................
None ......................................
Thorax ....................................
Lower spine
(g)
HIC36
1,000
181
76
130
82
72
52
67
Pelvis (N)
5,100
5,621
2,753
4,672
TABLE 6 TO APPENDIX C.—FMVSS NO. 214 MDB TEST RESULTS
[SID–IIsFRG rear passenger]
Test vehicle
Restraint HPS and/or SIAB
Proposed limits ........................................................................
2001 Ford Focus .....................................................................
2002 Chevrolet Impala ............................................................
2001 Buick Le Sabre ...............................................................
................................................
None ......................................
None ......................................
None ......................................
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Incorporation by reference,
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Tires.
49 CFR Part 585
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
I In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA amends 49 CFR Chapter V as
set forth below.
PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR
VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.201 is amended by
revising S6.2(b)(3), adding S6.2(b)(4),
and revising S8.18, S8.19 and S8.28, to
read as follows:
I
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
§ 571.201 Standard No. 201; Occupant
protection in interior impact.
*
*
*
*
*
S6.2 Vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2002 and vehicles
built in two or more stages
manufactured after September 1, 2006.
* * *
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
(b) * * *
(3) Except as provided in S6.2(b)(4),
each vehicle shall, when equipped with
a dummy test device specified in 49
CFR part 572, subpart M, and tested as
specified in S8.16 through S8.28,
comply with the requirements specified
in S7 when crashed into a fixed, rigid
pole of 254 mm in diameter, at any
velocity between 24 kilometers per hour
(15 mph) and 29 kilometers per hour (18
mph).
(4) Vehicles certified as complying
with the vehicle-to-pole requirements of
S9 of 49 CFR 571.214, Side Impact
Protection, need not comply with the
pole test requirements specified in
S6.2(b)(3) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
S8.18 Adjustable seats—vehicle to
pole test. Initially, adjustable seats shall
be adjusted as specified in S8.3.1 of
Standard 214 (49 CFR 571.214).
S8.19 Adjustable seat back
placement—vehicle to pole test.
Initially, position adjustable seat backs
in the manner specified in S8.3.1 of
Standard 214 (49 CFR 571.214).
*
*
*
*
*
S8.28 Positioning procedure for the
Part 572 Subpart M test dummy—
vehicle to pole test. The part 572,
subpart M, test dummy is initially
positioned in the front outboard seating
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Lower spine
(g)
HIC36
1,000
526
153
221
82
65
89
77
Pelvis
(N)
5,100
3,997
5,711
4,041
position on the struck side of the
vehicle in accordance with the
provisions of S12.1 of Standard 214 (49
CFR 571.214), and the vehicle seat is
positioned as specified in S8.3.1 of that
standard. The position of the dummy is
then measured as follows. Locate the
horizontal plane passing through the
dummy head center of gravity. Identify
the rearmost point on the dummy head
in that plane. Construct a line in the
plane that contains the rearward point
of the front door daylight opening and
is perpendicular to the longitudinal
vehicle centerline. Measure the
longitudinal distance between the
rearmost point on the dummy head and
this line. If this distance is less than 50
mm (2 inches) or the point is not
forward of the line, then the seat and/
or dummy positions is adjusted as
follows. First, the seat back angle is
adjusted, a maximum of 5 degrees, until
a 50 mm (2 inches) distance is achieved.
If this is not sufficient to produce the 50
mm (2 inches) distance, the seat is
moved forward until the 50 mm (2
inches) distance is achieved or until the
knees of the dummy contact the
dashboard or knee bolster, whichever
comes first. If the required distance
cannot be achieved through movement
of the seat, the seat back angle is
adjusted even further forward until the
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
50 mm (2 inches) distance is obtained
or until the seat back is in its fully
upright locking position.
*
*
*
*
*
I 3. Section 571.214 is revised to read
as follows:
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
§ 571.214 Standard No. 214; Side impact
protection.
S1 Scope and purpose.
(a) Scope. This standard specifies
performance requirements for protection
of occupants in side impacts.
(b) Purpose. The purpose of this
standard is to reduce the risk of serious
and fatal injury to occupants of
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks and buses in side
impacts by specifying strength
requirements for side doors, limiting the
forces, deflections and accelerations
measured on anthropomorphic
dummies in test crashes, and by other
means.
S2 Applicability. This standard
applies to passenger cars, and to
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks
and buses with a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (kg)
(10,000 pounds (lb)) or less, except for
walk-in vans, or otherwise specified.
S3 Definitions.
Contoured means, with respect to a
door, that the lower portion of its front
or rear edge is curved upward, typically
to conform to a wheel well.
Double side doors means a pair of
hinged doors with the lock and latch
mechanisms located where the door lips
overlap.
Limited line manufacturer means a
manufacturer that sells three or fewer
carlines, as that term is defined in 49
CFR 585.4, in the United States during
a production year.
Lowered floor means the replacement
floor on a motor vehicle whose original
floor has been removed, in part or in
total, and replaced by a floor that is
lower than the original floor.
Modified roof means the replacement
roof on a motor vehicle whose original
roof has been removed, in part or in
total.
Raised roof is used as defined in
paragraph S4 of 49 CFR 571.216.
Walk-in van means a special cargo/
mail delivery vehicle that has only one
designated seating position. That
designated seating position must be
forward facing and for use only by the
driver. The vehicle usually has a thin
and light sliding (or folding) side door
for easy operation and a high roof
clearance that a person of medium
stature can enter the passenger
compartment area in an up-right
position.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
S4 Requirements. Subject to the
exceptions of S5—
(a) Passenger cars. Passenger cars
must meet the requirements set forth in
S6 (door crush resistance), S7 (moving
deformable barrier test), and S9
(vehicle-to-pole test), subject to the
phased-in application of S7 and S9.
(b) Multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks and buses with a GVWR of 2,722
kg or less (6,000 lb or less).
Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks
and buses with a GVWR of 2,722 kg or
less (6,000 lb or less) must meet the
requirements set forth in S6 (door crush
resistance), S7 (moving deformable
barrier test), and S9 (vehicle-to-pole
test), subject to the phased-in
application of S7 and S9.
(c) Multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks and buses with a GVWR greater
than 2,722 kg (6,000 lb). Multipurpose
passenger vehicles, trucks and buses
with a GVWR greater than 2,722 kg
(6,000 lb) must meet the requirements
set forth in S6 (door crush resistance)
and S9 (vehicle-to-pole test), subject to
the phased-in application of S9.
S5 General exclusions.
(a) Exclusions from S6 (door crush
resistance). A vehicle need not meet the
requirements of S6 (door crush
resistance) for—
(1) Any side door located so that no
point on a ten-inch horizontal
longitudinal line passing through and
bisected by the H–point of a manikin
placed in any seat, with the seat
adjusted to any position and the seat
back adjusted as specified in S8.4, falls
within the transverse, horizontal
projection of the door’s opening,
(2) Any side door located so that no
point on a ten-inch horizontal
longitudinal line passing through and
bisected by the H–point of a manikin
placed in any seat recommended by the
manufacturer for installation in a
location for which seat anchorage
hardware is provided, with the seat
adjusted to any position and the seat
back adjusted as specified in S8.3, falls
within the transverse, horizontal
projection of the door’s opening,
(3) Any side door located so that a
portion of a seat, with the seat adjusted
to any position and the seat back
adjusted as specified in S8.3, falls
within the transverse, horizontal
projection of the door’s opening, but a
longitudinal vertical plane tangent to
the outboard side of the seat cushion is
more than 254 mm (10 inches) from the
innermost point on the inside surface of
the door at a height between the H–
point and shoulder reference point (as
shown in Figure 1 of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 (49
CFR 571.210)) and longitudinally
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
51957
between the front edge of the cushion
with the seat adjusted to its
forwardmost position and the rear edge
of the cushion with the seat adjusted to
its rearmost position.
(4) Any side door that is designed to
be easily attached to or removed (e.g.,
using simple hand tools such as pliers
and/or a screwdriver) from a motor
vehicle manufactured for operation
without doors.
(b) Exclusions from S7 (moving
deformable barrier test). The following
vehicles are excluded from S7 (moving
deformable barrier test):
(1) Motor homes, ambulances and
other emergency rescue/medical
vehicles (including vehicles with firefighting equipment), vehicles equipped
with wheelchair lifts, and vehicles
which have no doors or exclusively
have doors that are designed to be easily
attached or removed so the vehicle can
be operated without doors.
(2) Passenger cars with a wheelbase
greater than 130 inches need not meet
the requirements of S7 as applied to the
rear seat.
(3) Passenger cars, multipurpose
passenger vehicles, trucks and buses
need not meet the requirements of S7
(moving deformable barrier test) as
applied to the rear seat for side-facing
rear seats and for rear seating areas that
are so small that a Part 572 Subpart V
dummy representing a 5th percentile
adult female cannot be accommodated
according to the positioning procedure
specified in S12.3.4 of this standard.
(4) Multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks and buses with a GVWR of more
than 2,722 kg (6,000 lb) need not meet
the requirements of S7 (moving
deformable barrier test).
(c) Exclusions from S9 (vehicle-topole test). The following vehicles are
excluded from S9 (vehicle-to-pole test)
(wholly or in limited part, as set forth
below):
(1) Motor homes;
(2) Ambulances and other emergency
rescue/medical vehicles (including
vehicles with fire-fighting equipment)
except police cars;
(3) Vehicles with a lowered floor or
raised or modified roof and vehicles that
have had the original roof rails removed
and not replaced;
(4) Vehicles in which the seat for the
driver or right front passenger has been
removed and wheelchair restraints
installed in place of the seat are
excluded from meeting the vehicle-topole test at that position; and
(5) Vehicles that have no doors, or
exclusively have doors that are designed
to be easily attached or removed so that
the vehicle can be operated without
doors.
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51958
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
S6 Door Crush Resistance
Requirements. Except as provided in
section S5, each vehicle shall be able to
meet the requirements of either, at the
manufacturer’s option, S6.1 or S6.2,
when any of its side doors that can be
used for occupant egress is tested
according to procedures described in
S6.3 of this standard (49 CFR 571.214).
S6.1 With any seats that may affect
load upon or deflection of the side of
the vehicle removed from the vehicle,
each vehicle must be able to meet the
requirements of S6.1.1 through S6.1.3.
S6.1.1 Initial crush resistance. The
initial crush resistance shall not be less
than 10,000 N (2,250 lb).
S6.1.2 Intermediate crush resistance.
The intermediate crush resistance shall
not be less than 1,557 N (3,500 lb).
S6.1.3 Peak crush resistance. The
peak crush resistance shall not be less
than two times the curb weight of the
vehicle or 3,114 N (7,000 lb), whichever
is less.
S6.2 With seats installed in the
vehicle, and located in any horizontal or
vertical position to which they can be
adjusted and at any seat back angle to
which they can be adjusted, each
vehicle must be able to meet the
requirements of S6.2.1 through S6.2.3.
S6.2.1 Initial crush resistance. The
initial crush resistance shall not be less
than 10,000 N (2,250 lb).
S6.2.2 Intermediate crush resistance.
The intermediate crush resistance shall
not be less than 1,946 N (4,375 lb).
S6.2.3 Peak crush resistance. The
peak crush resistance shall not be less
than three and one half times the curb
weight of the vehicle or 5,338 N (12,000
lb), whichever is less.
S6.3 Test procedures for door crush
resistance. The following procedures
apply to determining compliance with
S6.1 and S6.2 of S6, Door crush
resistance requirements.
(a) Place side windows in their
uppermost position and all doors in
locked position. Place the sill of the side
of the vehicle opposite to the side being
tested against a rigid unyielding vertical
surface. Fix the vehicle rigidly in
position by means of tiedown
attachments located at or forward of the
front wheel centerline and at or
rearward of the rear wheel centerline.
(b) Prepare a loading device
consisting of a rigid steel cylinder or
semi-cylinder 305 mm (12 inches) in
diameter with an edge radius of 13 mm
(1⁄2 inch). The length of the loading
device shall be such that—
(1) For doors with windows, the top
surface of the loading device is at least
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
13 mm (1⁄2 inch) above the bottom edge
of the door window opening but not of
a length that will cause contact with any
structure above the bottom edge of the
door window opening during the test.
(2) For doors without windows, the
top surface of the loading device is at
the same height above the ground as
when the loading device is positioned
in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of
this section for purposes of testing a
front door with windows on the same
vehicle.
(c) Locate the loading device as
shown in Figure 1 (side view) of this
section so that—
(1) Its longitudinal axis is vertical.
(2) Except as provided in paragraphs
(c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, its
longitudinal axis is laterally opposite
the midpoint of a horizontal line drawn
across the outer surface of the door 127
mm (5 inches) above the lowest point of
the door, exclusive of any decorative or
protective molding that is not
permanently affixed to the door panel.
(i) For contoured doors on trucks,
buses, and multipurpose passenger
vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb) or less, if the length of the
horizontal line specified in this
paragraph (c)(2) is not equal to or greater
than 559 mm (22 inches), the line is
moved vertically up the side of the door
to the point at which the line is 559 mm
(22 inches) long. The longitudinal axis
of the loading device is then located
laterally opposite the midpoint of that
line.
(ii) For double side doors on trucks,
buses, and multipurpose passenger
vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb) or less, its longitudinal axis
is laterally opposite the midpoint of a
horizontal line drawn across the outer
surface of the double door span, 127
mm (5 inches) above the lowest point on
the doors, exclusive of any decorative or
protective molding that is not
permanently affixed to the door panel.
(3) Except as provided in paragraphs
(c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section, its
bottom surface is in the same horizontal
plane as the horizontal line drawn
across the outer surface of the door 127
mm (5 inches) above the lowest point of
the door, exclusive of any decorative or
protective molding that is not
permanently affixed to the door panel.
(i) For contoured doors on trucks,
buses, and multipurpose passenger
vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb) or less, its bottom surface is
in the lowest horizontal plane such that
every point on the lateral projection of
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the bottom surface of the device on the
door is at least 127 mm (5 inches),
horizontally and vertically, from any
edge of the door panel, exclusive of any
decorative or protective molding that is
not permanently affixed to the door
panel.
(ii) For double side doors, its bottom
surface is in the same horizontal plane
as a horizontal line drawn across the
outer surface of the double door span,
127 mm (5 inches) above the lowest
point of the doors, exclusive of any
decorative or protective molding that is
not permanently affixed to the door
panel.
(d) Using the loading device, apply a
load to the outer surface of the door in
an inboard direction normal to a vertical
plane along the vehicle’s longitudinal
centerline. Apply the load continuously
such that the loading device travel rate
does not exceed 12.7 mm (0.5 inch) per
second until the loading device travels
457 mm (18 inches). Guide the loading
device to prevent it from being rotated
or displaced from its direction of travel.
The test is completed within 120
seconds.
(e) Record applied load versus
displacement of the loading device,
either continuously or in increments of
not more than 25.4 mm (1 inch) or 91
kg (200 pounds) for the entire crush
distance of 457 mm (18 inches).
(f) Determine the initial crush
resistance, intermediate crush
resistance, and peak crush resistance as
follows:
(1) From the results recorded in
paragraph (e) of this section, plot a
curve of load versus displacement and
obtain the integral of the applied load
with respect to the crush distances
specified in paragraphs (f)(2) and (3) of
this section. These quantities, expressed
in mm-kN (inch-pounds) and divided by
the specified crush distances, represent
the average forces in kN (pounds)
required to deflect the door those
distances.
(2) The initial crush resistance is the
average force required to deform the
door over the initial 152 mm (6 inches)
of crush.
(3) The intermediate crush resistance
is the average force required to deform
the door over the initial 305 mm (12
inches) of crush.
(4) The peak crush resistance is the
largest force recorded over the entire
457 mm (18-inch) crush distance.
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
S7 Moving Deformable Barrier
(MDB) Requirements. Except as
provided in section S5, when tested
under the conditions of S8 each vehicle
shall meet S7.3 and the following
requirements in a 53 ± 1.0 km/h (33.5
mph) impact in which the vehicle is
struck on either side by a moving
deformable barrier.
S7.1 MDB test with SID. For vehicles
manufactured before September 1, 2009,
the following requirements must be met.
The following requirements also apply
to vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2009 that are not part of
the percentage of a manufacturer’s
production meeting the MDB test with
advanced test dummies (S7.2 of this
section) or are otherwise excluded from
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
the phase-in requirements of S7.2.
(Vehicles manufactured before
September 1, 2009 may meet S7.2, at the
manufacturer’s option.)
S7.1.1 The test dummy specified in
49 CFR Part 572 Subpart F (SID) is
placed in the front and rear outboard
seating positions on the struck side of
the vehicle, as specified in S11 and S12
of this standard (49 CFR 571.214).
S7.1.2 When using the Part 572
Subpart F dummy (SID), the following
performance requirements must be met.
(a) Thorax. The Thoracic Trauma
Index (TTI(d)) shall not exceed:
(1) 85 g for a passenger car with four
side doors, and for any multipurpose
passenger vehicle, truck, or bus; and,
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
51959
(2) 90 g for a passenger car with two
side doors, when calculated in
accordance with the following formula:
TI(d) = 1⁄2(GR + GLS)
Where the term ‘‘GR’’ is the greater of
the peak accelerations of either the
upper or lower rib, expressed in g’s and
the term ‘‘GLS’’ is the lower spine (T12)
peak acceleration, expressed in g’s. The
peak acceleration values are obtained in
accordance with the procedure specified
in S11.5.
(b) Pelvis. The peak lateral
acceleration of the pelvis, as measured
in accordance with S11.5, shall not
exceed 130 g’s.
S7.2 MDB test with advanced test
dummies.
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
ER11SE07.000</GPH>
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
S7.2.1 Vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2009 to August 31,
2012.
(a) Except as provided in S7.2.4 of
this section, for vehicles manufactured
on or after September 1, 2009 to August
31, 2012, a percentage of each
manufacturer’s production, as specified
in S13.1.1, S13.1.2, and S13.1.3, shall
meet the requirements of S7.2.5 and
S7.2.6 when tested with the test dummy
specified in those sections. Vehicles
manufactured before September 1, 2012
may be certified as meeting the
requirements of S7.2.5 and S7.2.6.
(b) For vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2009 that are not part
of the percentage of a manufacturer’s
production meeting S7.2.1 of this
section, the requirements of S7.1 of this
section must be met.
(c) Place the Subpart U ES–2re 50th
percentile male dummy in the front seat
and the Subpart V SID–IIs 5th percentile
female test dummy in the rear seat. The
test dummies are placed and positioned
in the front and rear outboard seating
positions on the struck side of the
vehicle, as specified in S11 and S12 of
this standard (49 CFR 571.214).
S7.2.2 Vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2012.
(a) Subject to S7.2.4 of this section,
each vehicle manufactured on or after
September 1, 2012 must meet the
requirements of S7.2.5 and S7.2.6, when
tested with the test dummy specified in
those sections.
(b) Place the Subpart U ES–2re 50th
percentile male dummy in the front seat
and the Subpart V SID–IIs 5th percentile
female test dummy in the rear seat. The
test dummies are placed and positioned
in the front and rear outboard seating
positions on the struck side of the
vehicle, as specified in S11 and S12 of
this standard (49 CFR 571.214).
S7.2.3 [Reserved]
S7.2.4 Exceptions from the MDB
phase-in; special allowances.
(a)(1) Vehicles that are manufactured
on or after September 1, 2012 by an
original vehicle manufacturer that
produces or assembles fewer than 5,000
vehicles annually for sale in the United
States are not subject to S7.2.1 of this
section (but are subject to S7.2.2);
(2) Vehicles that are manufactured on
or after September 1, 2012 by a limited
line manufacturer are not subject to
S7.2.1 of this section (but are subject to
S7.2.2).
(b) Vehicles that are altered (within
the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) before
September 1, 2013 after having been
previously certified in accordance with
part 567 of this chapter, and vehicles
manufactured in two or more stages
before September 1, 2013, are not
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
subject to S7.2.1. Vehicles that are
altered on or after September 1, 2013,
and vehicles that are manufactured in
two or more stages on or after
September 1, 2013, must meet the
requirements of S7.2.5 and S7.2.6, when
tested with the test dummy specified in
those sections. Place the Subpart U ES–
2re 50th percentile male dummy in the
front seat and the Subpart V SID–IIs 5th
percentile female test dummy in the rear
seat. The test dummies are placed and
positioned in the front and rear
outboard seating positions on the struck
side of the vehicle, as specified in S11
and S12 of this standard (49 CFR
571.214).
S7.2.5 Dynamic performance
requirements using the Part 572 Subpart
U dummy (ES–2re 50th percentile male)
dummy. Use the 49 CFR Part 572
Subpart U ES–2re dummy specified in
S11 with measurements in accordance
with S11.5. The following criteria shall
be met:
(a) The HIC shall not exceed 1000
when calculated in accordance with the
following formula:
t
HIC = [
2
1
adt ] 2.5 ( t 2 − t1 )
( t 2 − t1 ) ∫
t1
Where the term a is the resultant head
acceleration at the center of gravity of
the dummy head expressed as a
multiple of g (the acceleration of
gravity), and t1 and t2 are any two
points in time during the impact which
are separated by not more than a 36
millisecond time interval and where t1
is less than t2.
(b) Thorax. The deflection of any of
the upper, middle, and lower ribs, shall
not exceed 44 mm (1.65 inches).
(c) Force measurements.
(1) The sum of the front, middle and
rear abdominal forces, shall not exceed
2,500 N (562 lb).
(2) The pubic symphysis force shall
not exceed 6,000 N (1,350 pounds).
S7.2.6 Dynamic performance
requirements using the Part 572 Subpart
V SID–IIs (5th percentile female)
dummy. Use the 49 CFR Part 572
Subpart V SID–IIs 5th percentile female
dummy specified in S11 with
measurements in accordance with
S11.5. The following criteria shall be
met:
(a) The HIC shall not exceed 1000
when calculated in accordance with the
following formula:
t
HIC = [
2
1
2.5
∫ adt ] (t 2 − t1 )
( t 2 − t1 ) t1
Where the term a is the resultant head
acceleration expressed as a multiple of
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
g (the acceleration of gravity), and t1
and t2 are any two points in time during
the impact which are separated by not
more than a 36 millisecond time
interval.
(b) The resultant lower spine
acceleration shall not exceed 82 g.
(c) The sum of the acetabular and iliac
pelvic forces shall not exceed 5,525 N.
S7.3 Door opening.
(a) Any side door that is struck by the
moving deformable barrier shall not
separate totally from the vehicle.
(b) Any door (including a rear
hatchback or tailgate) that is not struck
by the moving deformable barrier shall
meet the following requirements:
(1) The door shall not disengage from
the latched position;
(2) The latch shall not separate from
the striker, and the hinge components
shall not separate from each other or
from their attachment to the vehicle.
(3) Neither the latch nor the hinge
systems of the door shall pull out of
their anchorages.
S8 Test conditions for determining
compliance with moving deformable
barrier requirements. General test
conditions for determining compliance
with the moving deformable barrier test
are specified below. Additional
specifications may also be found in S12
of this standard (49 CFR 571.214).
S8.1 Test weight. Each vehicle is
loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight,
plus 136 kg (300 pounds) or its rated
cargo and luggage capacity (whichever
is less), secured in the luggage or loadcarrying area, plus the weight of the
necessary anthropomorphic test
dummies. Any added test equipment is
located away from impact areas in
secure places in the vehicle. The
vehicle’s fuel system is filled in
accordance with the following
procedure. With the test vehicle on a
level surface, pump the fuel from the
vehicle’s fuel tank and then operate the
engine until it stops. Then, add
Stoddard solvent to the test vehicle’s
fuel tank in an amount that is equal to
not less than 92 percent and not more
than 94 percent of the fuel tank’s usable
capacity stated by the vehicle’s
manufacturer. In addition, add the
amount of Stoddard solvent needed to
fill the entire fuel system from the fuel
tank through the engine’s induction
system.
S8.2 Vehicle test attitude. Determine
the distance between a level surface and
a standard reference point on the test
vehicle’s body, directly above each
wheel opening, when the vehicle is in
its ‘‘as delivered’’ condition. The ‘‘as
delivered’’ condition is the vehicle as
received at the test site, filled to 100
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
ER11SE07.004</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
ER11SE07.003</MATH>
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51960
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
percent of all fluid capacities and with
all tires inflated to the manufacturer’s
specifications listed on the vehicle’s tire
placard. Determine the distance
between the same level surface and the
same standard reference points in the
vehicle’s ‘‘fully loaded condition.’’ The
‘‘fully loaded condition’’ is the test
vehicle loaded in accordance with S8.1
of this standard (49 CFR 571.214). The
load placed in the cargo area is centered
over the longitudinal centerline of the
vehicle. The pretest vehicle attitude is
equal to either the as delivered or fully
loaded attitude or between the as
delivered attitude and the fully loaded
attitude, +/¥10 mm.
S8.3 Adjustable seats.
S8.3.1 50th Percentile Male Dummy
In Front Seats.
S8.3.1.1 Lumbar support
adjustment. Position adjustable lumbar
supports so that the lumbar support is
in its lowest, retracted or deflated
adjustment position.
S8.3.1.2 Other seat adjustments.
Position any adjustable parts of the seat
that provide additional support so that
they are in the lowest or non-deployed
adjustment position. Position any
adjustable head restraint in the highest
and most forward position. Place
adjustable seat backs in the
manufacturer’s nominal design riding
position in the manner specified by the
manufacturer. If the position is not
specified, set the seat back at the first
detent rearward of 25° from the vertical.
S8.3.1.3 Seat position adjustment. If
the passenger seat does not adjust
independently of the driver seat, the
driver seat shall control the final
position of the passenger seat.
S8.3.1.3.1 Using only the controls
that primarily move the seat and seat
cushion independent of the seat back in
the fore and aft directions, move the seat
cushion reference point (SCRP) to the
rearmost position. Using any part of any
control, other than those just used,
determine the full range of angles of the
seat cushion reference line and set the
seat cushion reference line to the
middle of the range. Using any part of
any control other than those that
primarily move the seat or seat cushion
fore and aft, while maintaining the seat
cushion reference line angle, place the
SCRP to its lowest position.
S8.3.1.3.2 Using only the control
that primarily moves the seat fore and
aft, move the seat cushion reference
point to the mid travel position. If an
adjustment position does not exist
midway between the forwardmost and
rearmost positions, the closest
adjustment position to the rear of the
midpoint is used.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
S8.3.1.3.3 If the seat or seat cushion
height is adjustable, other than by the
controls that primarily move the seat or
seat cushion fore and aft, set the height
of the seat cushion reference point to
the minimum height, with the seat
cushion reference line angle set as
closely as possible to the angle
determined in S8.3.1.3.1. Mark location
of the seat for future reference.
S8.3.2 [Reserved]
S8.3.3 5th Percentile Female
Dummy in Second Row Seat.
S8.3.3.1 Lumbar support
adjustment. Position adjustable lumbar
supports so that the lumbar support is
in its lowest, retracted or deflated
adjustment position.
S8.3.3.2 Other seat adjustments.
Position any adjustable parts of the seat
that provide additional support so that
they are in the lowest or non-deployed
adjustment position. Position any
adjustable head restraint in the lowest
and most forward position. Place
adjustable seat backs in the
manufacturer’s nominal design riding
position in the manner specified by the
manufacturer. If the position is not
specified, set the seat back at the first
detent rearward of 25° from the vertical.
S8.3.3.3 Seat position adjustment.
Using only the controls that primarily
move the seat and seat cushion
independent of the seat back in the fore
and aft directions, move the seat
cushion reference point (SCRP) to the
rearmost position. Using any part of any
control, other than those just used,
determine the full range of angles of the
seat cushion reference line and set the
seat cushion reference line to the
middle of the range. Using any part of
any control other than those that
primarily move the seat or seat cushion
fore and aft, while maintaining the seat
cushion reference line angle, place the
SCRP to its lowest position. Mark
location of the seat for future reference.
S8.4 Adjustable steering wheel.
Adjustable steering controls are adjusted
so that the steering wheel hub is at the
geometric center of the locus it
describes when it is moved through its
full range of driving positions. If there
is no setting detent in the mid-position,
lower the steering wheel to the detent
just below the mid-position. If the
steering column is telescoping, place the
steering column in the mid-position. If
there is no mid-position, move the
steering wheel rearward one position
from the mid-position.
S8.5 Windows and sunroofs.
Movable vehicle windows and vents are
placed in the fully closed position on
the struck side of the vehicle. Any
sunroof shall be placed in the fully
closed position.
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
51961
S8.6 Convertible tops. Convertibles
and open-body type vehicles have the
top, if any, in place in the closed
passenger compartment configuration.
S8.7 Doors. Doors, including any
rear hatchback or tailgate, are fully
closed and latched but not locked.
S8.8 Transmission and brake
engagement. For a vehicle equipped
with a manual transmission, the
transmission is placed in second gear.
For a vehicle equipped with an
automatic transmission, the
transmission is placed in neutral. For all
vehicles, the parking brake is engaged.
S8.9 Moving deformable barrier. The
moving deformable barrier conforms to
the dimensions shown in Figure 2 and
specified in 49 CFR Part 587.
S8.10 Impact configuration. The test
vehicle (vehicle A in Figure 3) is
stationary. The line of forward motion
of the moving deformable barrier
(vehicle B in Figure 3) forms an angle
of 63 degrees with the centerline of the
test vehicle. The longitudinal centerline
of the moving deformable barrier is
perpendicular to the longitudinal
centerline of the test vehicle when the
barrier strikes the test vehicle. In a test
in which the test vehicle is to be struck
on its left (right) side: All wheels of the
moving deformable barrier are
positioned at an angle of 27 ± 1 degrees
to the right (left) of the centerline of the
moving deformable barrier; and the left
(right) forward edge of the moving
deformable barrier is aligned so that a
longitudinal plane tangent to that side
passes through the impact reference line
within a tolerance of ± 51 mm (2 inches)
when the barrier strikes the test vehicle.
S8.11 Impact reference line. Place a
vertical reference line at the location
described below on the side of the
vehicle that will be struck by the
moving deformable barrier.
S8.11.1 Passenger cars.
(a) For vehicles with a wheelbase of
2,896 mm (114 inches) or less, 940 mm
(37 inches) forward of the center of the
vehicle’s wheelbase.
(b) For vehicles with a wheelbase
greater than 2,896 mm (114 inches), 508
mm (20 inches) rearward of the
centerline of the vehicle’s front axle.
S8.11.2 Multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks and buses.
(a) For vehicles with a wheelbase of
2,489 mm (98 inches) or less, 305 mm
(12 inches) rearward of the centerline of
the vehicle’s front axle, except as
otherwise specified in paragraph (d) of
this section.
(b) For vehicles with a wheelbase of
greater than 2,489 mm (98 inches) but
not greater than 2,896 mm (114 inches),
940 mm (37 inches) forward of the
center of the vehicle’s wheelbase, except
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
51962
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
as otherwise specified in paragraph (d)
of this section.
(c) For vehicles with a wheelbase
greater than 2,896 mm (114 inches), 508
mm (20 inches) rearward of the
centerline of the vehicle’s front axle,
except as otherwise specified in
paragraph (d) of this section.
(d) At the manufacturer’s option, for
different wheelbase versions of the same
model vehicle, the impact reference line
may be located by the following:
(1) Select the shortest wheelbase
vehicle of the different wheelbase
versions of the same model and locate
on it the impact reference line at the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
location described in (a), (b) or (c) of
this section, as appropriate;
(2) Measure the distance between the
seating reference point (SgRP) and the
impact reference line;
(3) Maintain the same distance
between the SgRP and the impact
reference line for the version being
tested as that between the SgRP and the
impact reference line for the shortest
wheelbase version of the model.
(e) For the compliance test, the impact
reference line will be located using the
procedure used by the manufacturer as
the basis for its certification of
compliance with the requirements of
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
this standard. If the manufacturer did
not use any of the procedures in this
section, or does not specify a procedure
when asked by the agency, the agency
may locate the impact reference line
using either procedure.
S8.12 Anthropomorphic test
dummies. The anthropomorphic test
dummies used to evaluate a vehicle’s
performance in the moving deformable
barrier test conform to the requirements
of S11 and are positioned as described
in S12 of this standard (49 CFR
571.214).
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
51963
ER11SE07.001</GPH>
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
BILLING CODE 4910–59–C
S9 Vehicle-to-Pole Requirements.
S9.1 Except as provided in S5, when
tested under the conditions of S10:
S9.1.1 Except as provided in S9.1.3
of this section, for vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1,
2009 to August 31, 2012, a percentage
of each manufacturer’s production, as
specified in S13.1.1, S13.1.2, and
S13.1.3, shall meet the requirements of
S9.2.1, S9.2.2, and S9.2.3 when tested
under the conditions of S10 into a fixed,
rigid pole of 254 mm (10 inches) in
diameter, at any velocity up to and
including 32 km/h (20 mph). Vehicles
manufactured before September 1, 2012
that are not subject to the phase-in may
be certified as meeting the requirements
specified in this section.
S9.1.2 Except as provided in S9.1.3
of this section, each vehicle
manufactured on or after September 1,
2012, must meet the requirements of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
S9.2.1, S9.2.2 and S9.2.3, when tested
under the conditions specified in S10
into a fixed, rigid pole of 254 mm (10
inches) in diameter, at any speed up to
and including 32 km/h (20 mph).
S9.1.3 Exceptions from the phase-in;
special allowances.
(a)(1) Vehicles that are manufactured
by an original vehicle manufacturer that
produces or assembles fewer than 5,000
vehicles annually for sale in the United
States are not subject to S9.1.1 of this
section (but are subject to S9.1.2);
(2) Vehicles that are manufactured by
a limited line manufacturer are not
subject to S9.1.1 of this section (but are
subject to S9.1.2).
(b) Vehicles that are altered (within
the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) before
September 1, 2013 after having been
previously certified in accordance with
part 567 of this chapter, and vehicles
manufactured in two or more stages
before September 1, 2013, are not
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
subject to S9.1.1. Vehicles that are
altered on or after September 1, 2013,
and vehicles that are manufactured in
two or more stages on or after
September 1, 2013, must meet the
requirements of S9, when tested under
the conditions specified in S10 into a
fixed, rigid pole of 254 mm (10 inches)
in diameter, at any speed up to and
including 32 km/h (20 mph).
(c) Vehicles with a gross vehicle
weight rating greater than 3,855 kg
(8,500 lb) manufactured before
September 1, 2013 are not subject to
S9.1.1 or S9.1.2 of this section. These
vehicles may be voluntarily certified to
meet the pole test requirements prior to
September 1, 2013. Vehicles with a
gross vehicle weight rating greater than
3,855 kg (8,500 lb) manufactured on or
after September 1, 2013 must meet the
requirements of S9.2.1, S9.2.2 and
S9.2.3, when tested under the
conditions specified in S10 into a fixed,
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
ER11SE07.002</GPH>
51964
t
HIC = [
2
1
2.5
∫ adt ] (t 2 − t1 )
( t 2 − t1 ) t1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Where the term a is the resultant head
acceleration at the center of gravity of
the dummy head expressed as a
multiple of g (the acceleration of
gravity), and t1 and t2 are any two
points in time during the impact which
are separated by not more than a 36
millisecond time interval and where t1
is less than t2.
(b) Thorax. The deflection of any of
the upper, middle, and lower ribs, shall
not exceed 44 mm (1.65 inches).
(c) Force measurements.
(1) The sum of the front, middle and
rear abdominal forces, shall not exceed
2,500 N (562 pounds).
(2) The pubic symphysis force shall
not exceed 6,000 N (1,350 pounds).
S9.2.2 Dynamic performance
requirements using the Part 572 Subpart
V SID–IIs (5th percentile female)
dummy. When using the SID–IIs Part
572 Subpart V dummy, use the
specifications of S11 of this standard (49
CFR 571.214). When using the dummy,
the following performance requirements
must be met.
(a) The HIC shall not exceed 1000
when calculated in accordance with the
following formula:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
t
HIC = [
2
1
adt ] 2.5 ( t 2 − t1 )
( t 2 − t1 ) ∫
t1
Where the term a is the resultant head
acceleration at the center of gravity of
the dummy head expressed as a
multiple of g (the acceleration of
gravity), and t1 and t2 are any two
points in time during the impact which
are separated by not more than a 36
millisecond time interval and where t1
is less than t2.
(b) Resultant lower spine acceleration
must not exceed 82 g.
(c) The sum of the acetabular and iliac
pelvic forces must not exceed 5,525 N.
S9.2.3 Door opening.
(a) Any side door that is struck by the
pole shall not separate totally from the
vehicle.
(b) Any door (including a rear
hatchback or tailgate) that is not struck
by the pole shall meet the following
requirements:
(1) The door shall not disengage from
the latched position; and
(2) The latch shall not separate from
the striker, and the hinge components
shall not separate from each other or
from their attachment to the vehicle.
(3) Neither the latch nor the hinge
systems of the door shall pull out of
their anchorages.
S10. General test conditions for
determining compliance with vehicle-topole requirements. General test
conditions for determining compliance
with the vehicle-to-pole test are
specified below and in S12 of this
standard (49 CFR 571.214).
S10.1 Test weight. Each vehicle is
loaded as specified in S8.1 of this
standard (49 CFR 571.214).
S10.2 Vehicle test attitude. When
the vehicle is in its ‘‘as delivered,’’
‘‘fully loaded’’ and ‘‘as tested’’
condition, locate the vehicle on a flat,
horizontal surface to determine the
vehicle attitude. Use the same level
surface or reference plane and the same
standard points on the test vehicle when
determining the ‘‘as delivered,’’ ‘‘fully
loaded’’ and ‘‘as tested’’ conditions.
Measure the angles relative to a
horizontal plane, front-to-rear and from
left-to-right for the ‘‘as delivered,’’
‘‘fully loaded,’’ and ‘‘as tested’’
conditions. The front-to-rear angle
(pitch) is measured along a fixed
reference on the driver’s and front
passenger’s door sill. Mark where the
angles are taken on the door sill. The
left to right angle (roll) is measured
along a fixed reference point at the front
and rear of the vehicle at the vehicle
longitudinal center plane. Mark where
the angles are measured. The ‘‘as
delivered’’ condition is the vehicle as
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
received at the test site, with 100
percent of all fluid capacities and all
tires inflated to the manufacturer’s
specifications listed on the vehicle’s tire
placard. When the vehicle is in its
‘‘fully loaded’’ condition, measure the
angle between the driver’s door sill and
the horizontal, at the same place the ‘‘as
delivered’’ angle was measured. The
‘‘fully loaded condition’’ is the test
vehicle loaded in accordance with S8.1
of this standard (49 CFR 571.214). The
load placed in the cargo area is centered
over the longitudinal centerline of the
vehicle. The vehicle ‘‘as tested’’ pitch
and roll angles are between the ‘‘as
delivered’’ and ‘‘fully loaded’’
condition, inclusive.
S10.3 Adjustable seats.
S10.3.1 Driver and front passenger
seat set-up for 50th percentile male
dummy. The driver and front passenger
seats are set up as specified in S8.3.1 of
this standard, 49 CFR 571.214.
S10.3.2. Driver and front passenger
seat set-up for 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart
V 5th percentile female dummy.
S10.3.2.1 Lumbar support
adjustment. Position adjustable lumbar
supports so that the lumbar support is
in its lowest, retracted or deflated
adjustment position.
S10.3.2.2 Other seat adjustments.
Position any adjustable parts of the seat
that provide additional support so that
they are in the lowest or non-deployed
adjustment position. Position any
adjustable head restraint in the lowest
and most forward position. Place
adjustable seat backs in the
manufacturer’s nominal design riding
position in the manner specified by the
manufacturer. If the position is not
specified, set the seat back at the first
detent rearward of 25° from the vertical.
S10.3.2.3 Seat position adjustment.
If the passenger seat does not adjust
independently of the driver seat, the
driver seat controls the final position of
the passenger seat.
S10.3.2.3.1 Using only the controls
that primarily move the seat and seat
cushion independent of the seat back in
the fore and aft directions, move the seat
cushion reference point (SCRP) to the
rearmost position. Using any part of any
control, other than those just used,
determine the full range of angles of the
seat cushion reference line and set the
seat cushion reference line to the
middle of the range. Using any part of
any control other than those that
primarily move the seat or seat cushion
fore and aft, while maintaining the seat
cushion reference line angle, place the
SCRP to its lowest position.
S10.3.2.3.2 Using only the control
that primarily moves the seat fore and
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
ER11SE07.006</GPH>
rigid pole of 254 mm (10 inches) in
diameter, at any speed up to and
including 32 km/h (20 mph).
S9.2 Requirements. Each vehicle
shall meet these vehicle-to-pole test
requirements when tested under the
conditions of S10 of this standard. At
NHTSA’s option, either the 50th
percentile adult male test dummy (ES–
2re dummy, 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart U)
or the 5th percentile adult female test
dummy (SID–IIs, 49 CFR Part 572
Subpart V) shall be used in the test. At
NHTSA’s option, either front outboard
seating position shall be tested. The
vehicle shall meet the specific
requirements at all front outboard
seating positions.
S9.2.1 Dynamic performance
requirements using the Part 572 Subpart
U (ES–2re 50th percentile male) dummy.
When using the ES–2re Part 572 Subpart
U dummy, use the specifications of S11
of this standard (49 CFR 571.214). When
using the dummy, the following
performance requirements must be met
using measurements in accordance with
S11.5.
(a) The HIC shall not exceed 1000
when calculated in accordance with the
following formula:
51965
ER11SE07.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51966
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
aft, move the seat reference point to the
most forward position.
S10.3.2.3.3 If the seat or seat
cushion height is adjustable, other than
by the controls that primarily move the
seat or seat cushion fore and aft, set the
seat reference point to the midpoint
height, with the seat cushion reference
line angle set as close as possible to the
angle determined in S10.3.2.3.1. Mark
location of the seat for future reference.
S10.4 Positioning dummies for the
vehicle-to-pole test.
(a) 50th percentile male test dummy
(49 CFR Part 572 Subpart U ES–2re
dummy). The 50th percentile male test
dummy is positioned in the front
outboard seating position on the struck
side of the vehicle in accordance with
the provisions of S12.2 of this standard,
49 CFR 571.214.
(b) 5th percentile female test dummy
(49 CFR Part 572 Subpart V SID–IIs
dummy). The 5th percentile female test
dummy is positioned in the front
outboard seating positions on the struck
side of the vehicle in accordance with
the provisions of S12.3 of this standard,
49 CFR 571.214.
S10.5 Adjustable steering wheel.
Adjustable steering controls are adjusted
so that the steering wheel hub is at the
geometric center of the locus it
describes when it is moved through its
full range of driving positions. If there
is no setting detent in the mid-position,
lower the steering wheel to the detent
just below the mid-position.
S10.6 Windows and sunroofs.
Movable vehicle windows and vents are
placed in the fully closed position on
the struck side of the vehicle. Any
sunroof is placed in the fully closed
position.
S10.7 Convertible tops. Convertibles
and open-body type vehicles have the
top, if any, in place in the closed
passenger compartment configuration.
S10.8 Doors. Doors, including any
rear hatchback or tailgate, are fully
closed and latched but not locked.
S10.9 Transmission and brake
engagement. For a vehicle equipped
with a manual transmission, the
transmission is placed in second gear.
For a vehicle equipped with an
automatic transmission, the
transmission is placed in neutral. For all
vehicles, the parking brake is engaged.
S10.10 Rigid pole. The rigid pole is
a vertical metal structure beginning no
more than 102 millimeters (4 inches)
above the lowest point of the tires on
the striking side of the test vehicle when
the vehicle is loaded as specified in S8.1
and extending above the highest point
of the roof of the test vehicle. The pole
is 254 mm (10 inches) ± 6 mm (0.25 in)
in diameter and set off from any
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
mounting surface, such as a barrier or
other structure, so that the test vehicle
will not contact such a mount or
support at any time within 100
milliseconds of the initiation of vehicle
to pole contact.
S10.11 Impact reference line. The
impact reference line is located on the
striking side of the vehicle at the
intersection of the vehicle exterior and
a vertical plane passing through the
center of gravity of the head of the
dummy seated in accordance with S12
in the front outboard designated seating
position. The vertical plane forms an
angle of 285 (or 75) degrees with the
vehicle’s longitudinal centerline for the
right (or left) side impact test. The angle
is measured counterclockwise from the
vehicle’s positive X-axis as defined in
S10.13.
S10.12 Impact configuration.
S10.12.1 The rigid pole is stationary.
S10.12.2 The test vehicle is
propelled sideways so that its line of
forward motion forms an angle of 285
(or 75) degrees (±3 degrees) for the right
(or left) side impact with the vehicle’s
longitudinal centerline. The angle is
measured counterclockwise from the
vehicle’s positive X-axis as defined in
S10.13. The impact reference line is
aligned with the center line of the rigid
pole surface, as viewed in the direction
of vehicle motion, so that, when the
vehicle-to-pole contact occurs, the
center line contacts the vehicle area
bounded by two vertical planes parallel
to and 38 mm (1.5 inches) forward and
aft of the impact reference line.
S10.13 Vehicle reference coordinate
system. The vehicle reference
coordinate system is an orthogonal
coordinate system consisting of three
axes, a longitudinal axis (X), a
transverse axis (Y), and a vertical axis
(Z). X and Y are in the same horizontal
plane and Z passes through the
intersection of X and Y. The origin of
the system is at the center of gravity of
the vehicle. The X-axis is parallel to the
longitudinal centerline of the vehicle
and is positive to the vehicle front end
and negative to the rear end. The Y-axis
is positive to the left side of the vehicle
and negative to the right side. The Zaxis is positive above the X-Y plane and
negative below it.
S11 Anthropomorphic test
dummies. The anthropomorphic test
dummies used to evaluate a vehicle’s
performance in the moving deformable
barrier and vehicle-to-pole tests are
specified in 49 CFR part 572. In a test
in which the test vehicle is to be struck
on its left side, each dummy is to be
configured and instrumented to be
struck on its left side, in accordance
with part 572. In a test in which the test
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
vehicle is to be struck on its right side,
each dummy is to be configured and
instrumented to be struck on its right
side, in accordance with part 572.
S11.1 Clothing.
(a) 50th percentile male. Each test
dummy representing a 50th percentile
male is clothed in formfitting cotton
stretch garments with short sleeves and
midcalf length pants. Each foot of the
test dummy is equipped with a size
11EEE shoe, which meets the
configuration size, sole, and heel
thickness specifications of MIL–S–
13192 (1976) and weighs 0.68 ± 0.09
kilograms (1.25 ± 0.2 lb).
(b) 5th percentile female. The 49 CFR
Part 572 Subpart V test dummy
representing a 5th percentile female is
clothed in formfitting cotton stretch
garments with short sleeves and about
the knee length pants. Each foot has on
a size 7.5W shoe that meets the
configuration and size specifications of
MIL–S–2171E or its equivalent.
S11.2 Limb joints.
(a) For the 50th percentile male
dummy, set the limb joints at between
1 and 2 g. Adjust the leg joints with the
torso in the supine position. Adjust the
knee and ankle joints so that they just
support the lower leg and the foot when
extended horizontally (1 to 2 g
adjustment).
(b) For the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart
V 5th percentile female dummy, set the
limb joints at slightly above 1 g, barely
restraining the weight of the limb when
extended horizontally. The force needed
to move a limb segment does not exceed
2 g throughout the range of limb motion.
Adjust the leg joints with the torso in
the supine position.
S11.3 The stabilized temperature of
the test dummy at the time of the test
is at any temperature between 20.6
degrees C and 22.2 degrees C.
S11.4 Acceleration data.
Accelerometers are installed on the
head, rib, spine and pelvis components
of various dummies as required to meet
the injury criteria of the standard.
Accelerations measured from different
dummy components may use different
filters and processing methods.
S11.5 Processing Data.
(a) Subpart F (SID) test dummy.
(1) Process the acceleration data from
the accelerometers mounted on the ribs,
spine and pelvis of the Subpart F
dummy with the FIR100 software
specified in 49 CFR 572.44(d). Process
the data in the following manner:
(i) Filter the data with a 300 Hz, SAE
Class 180 filter;
(ii) Subsample the data to a 1600 Hz
sampling rate;
(iii) Remove the bias from the
subsampled data; and
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
(iv) Filter the data with the FIR100
software specified in 49 CFR 572.44(d),
which has the following
characteristics—
(A) Passband frequency 100 Hz.
(B) Stopband frequency 189 Hz.
(C) Stopband gain ¥50 db.
(D) Passband ripple 0.0225 db.
(2) [Reserved.]
(b) Subpart U (ES–2re 50th percentile
male) test dummy.
(1) The rib deflection data are filtered
at channel frequency class 600 Hz.
Abdominal and pubic force data are
filtered at channel frequency class of
600 Hz.
(2) The acceleration data from the
accelerometers installed inside the skull
cavity of the ES–2re test dummy are
filtered at channel frequency class of
1000 Hz.
(c) Subpart V (SID–IIs 5th percentile
female) test dummy.
(1) The acceleration data from the
accelerometers installed inside the skull
cavity of the SID–IIs test dummy are
filtered at channel frequency class of
1000 Hz.
(2) The acceleration data from the
accelerometers installed on the lower
spine of the SID–IIs test dummy are
filtered at channel frequency class of
180 Hz.
(3) The iliac and acetabular forces
from load cells installed in the pelvis of
the SID–IIs are filtered at channel
frequency class of 600 Hz.
S12 Positioning procedures for the
anthropomorphic test dummies.
S12.1 50th percentile male test
dummy—49 CFR Part 572 Subpart F
(SID). Position a correctly configured
test dummy, conforming to the
applicable requirements of part 572
Subpart F of this chapter, in the front
outboard seating position on the side of
the test vehicle to be struck by the
moving deformable barrier and, if the
vehicle has a second seat, position
another conforming test dummy in the
second seat outboard position on the
same side of the vehicle, as specified in
S12.1.3. Each test dummy is restrained
using all available belt systems in all
seating positions where such belt
restraints are provided. Adjustable belt
anchorages are placed at the midadjustment position. In addition, any
folding armrest is retracted. Additional
positioning procedures are specified
below.
S12.1.1 Positioning a Part 572
Subpart F (SID) dummy in the driver
position.
(a) Torso. Hold the dummy’s head in
place and push laterally on the nonimpacted side of the upper torso in a
single stroke with a force of 66.7–89.0
N (15–20 lb) towards the impacted side.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
(1) For a bench seat. The upper torso
of the test dummy rests against the seat
back. The midsagittal plane of the test
dummy is vertical and parallel to the
vehicle’s longitudinal centerline, and
passes through the center of the steering
wheel.
(2) For a bucket seat. The upper torso
of the test dummy rests against the seat
back. The midsagittal plane of the test
dummy is vertical and parallel to the
vehicle’s longitudinal centerline, and
coincides with the longitudinal
centerline of the bucket seat.
(b) Pelvis.
(1) H–point. The H–points of each test
dummy coincide within 12.7 mm (1⁄2
inch) in the vertical dimension and 12.7
mm (1⁄2 inch) in the horizontal
dimension of a point that is located 6.4
mm (1⁄4 inch) below the position of the
H–point determined by using the
equipment for the 50th percentile and
procedures specified in SAE J826 (1980)
(incorporated by reference; see 49 CFR
571.5), except that Table 1 of SAE J826
is not applicable. The length of the
lower leg and thigh segments of the H–
point machine are adjusted to 414 and
401 mm (16.3 and 15.8 inches),
respectively.
(2) Pelvic angle. As determined using
the pelvic angle gauge (GM drawing
78051–532 incorporated by reference in
part 572, Subpart E of this chapter)
which is inserted into the H–point
gauging hole of the dummy, the angle of
the plane of the surface on the lumbarpelvic adaptor on which the lumbar
spine attaches is 23 to 25 degrees from
the horizontal, sloping upward toward
the front of the vehicle.
(3) Legs. The upper legs of each test
dummy rest against the seat cushion to
the extent permitted by placement of the
feet. The left knee of the dummy is
positioned such that the distance from
the outer surface of the knee pivot bolt
to the dummy’s midsagittal plane is
152.4 mm (6.0 inches). To the extent
practicable, the left leg of the test
dummy is in a vertical longitudinal
plane.
(4) Feet. The right foot of the test
dummy rests on the undepressed
accelerator with the heel resting as far
forward as possible on the floorpan. The
left foot is set perpendicular to the
lower leg with the heel resting on the
floorpan in the same lateral line as the
right heel.
S12.1.2 Positioning a Part 572
Subpart F (SID) dummy in the front
outboard seating position.
(a) Torso. Hold the dummy’s head in
place and push laterally on the nonimpacted side of the upper torso in a
single stroke with a force of 66.7–89.0
N (15–20 lb) towards the impacted side.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
51967
(1) For a bench seat. The upper torso
of the test dummy rests against the seat
back. The midsagittal plane of the test
dummy is vertical and parallel to the
vehicle’s longitudinal centerline, and
the same distance from the vehicle’s
longitudinal centerline as would be the
midsagittal plane of a test dummy
positioned in the driver position under
S12.1.1(a)(1).
(2) For a bucket seat. The upper torso
of the test dummy rests against the seat
back. The midsagittal plane of the test
dummy is vertical and parallel to the
vehicle’s longitudinal centerline, and
coincides with the longitudinal
centerline of the bucket seat.
(b) Pelvis.
(1) H–point. The H–points of each test
dummy coincide within 12.7 mm (1⁄2
inch) in the vertical dimension and 12.7
mm (1⁄2 inch) in the horizontal
dimension of a point that is located 6.4
mm (1⁄4 inch) below the position of the
H–point determined by using the
equipment for the 50th percentile and
procedures specified in SAE J826 (1980)
(incorporated by reference; see 49 CFR
571.5), except that Table 1 of SAE J826
is not applicable. The length of the
lower leg and thigh segments of the H–
point machine are adjusted to 414 and
401 mm (16.3 and 15.8 inches),
respectively.
(2) Pelvic angle. As determined using
the pelvic angle gauge (GM drawing
78051–532 incorporated by reference in
part 572, Subpart E of this chapter)
which is inserted into the H–point
gauging hole of the dummy, the angle of
the plane of the surface on the lumbarpelvic adaptor on which the lumbar
spine attaches is 23 to 25 degrees from
the horizontal, sloping upward toward
the front of the vehicle.
(c) Legs. The upper legs of each test
dummy rest against the seat cushion to
the extent permitted by placement of the
feet. The initial distance between the
outboard knee clevis flange surfaces is
292 mm (11.5 inches). To the extent
practicable, both legs of the test
dummies in outboard passenger
positions are in vertical longitudinal
planes. Final adjustment to
accommodate placement of feet in
accordance with S12.1.2(d) for various
passenger compartment configurations
is permitted.
(d) Feet. The feet of the test dummy
are placed on the vehicle’s toeboard
with the heels resting on the floorpan as
close as possible to the intersection of
the toeboard and floorpan. If the feet
cannot be placed flat on the toeboard,
they are set perpendicular to the lower
legs and placed as far forward as
possible so that the heels rest on the
floorpan.
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51968
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
S12.1.3 Positioning a Part 572
Subpart F (SID) dummy in the rear
outboard seating positions.
(a) Torso. Hold the dummy’s head in
place and push laterally on the nonimpacted side of the upper torso in a
single stroke with a force of 66.7–89.0
N (15–20 lb) towards the impacted side.
(1) For a bench seat. The upper torso
of the test dummy rests against the seat
back. The midsagittal plane of the test
dummy is vertical and parallel to the
vehicle’s longitudinal centerline, and, if
possible, the same distance from the
vehicle’s longitudinal centerline as the
midsagittal plane of a test dummy
positioned in the driver position under
S12.1.1(a)(1). If it is not possible to
position the test dummy so that its
midsagittal plane is parallel to the
vehicle longitudinal centerline and is at
this distance from the vehicle’s
longitudinal centerline, the test dummy
is positioned so that some portion of the
test dummy just touches, at or above the
seat level, the side surface of the
vehicle, such as the upper quarter panel,
an armrest, or any interior trim (i.e.,
either the broad trim panel surface or a
smaller, localized trim feature).
(2) For a bucket or contoured seat.
The upper torso of the test dummy rests
against the seat back. The midsagittal
plane of the test dummy is vertical and
parallel to the vehicle’s longitudinal
centerline, and coincides with the
longitudinal centerline of the bucket or
contoured seat.
(b) Pelvis.
(1) H–point. The H–points of each test
dummy coincide within 12.7 mm (1⁄2
inch) in the vertical dimension and 12.7
mm (1⁄2 inch) in the horizontal
dimension of a point that is located 6.4
mm (1⁄4 inch) below the position of the
H–point determined by using the
equipment for the 50th percentile and
procedures specified in SAE J826 (1980)
(incorporated by reference; see 49CFR
571.5), except that Table 1 of SAE J826
is not applicable. The length of the
lower leg and thigh segments of the H–
point machine are adjusted to 414 and
401 mm (16.3 and 15.8 inches),
respectively.
(2) Pelvic angle. As determined using
the pelvic angle gauge (GM drawing
78051–532 incorporated by reference in
part 572, Subpart E of this chapter)
which is inserted into the H–point
gauging hole of the dummy, the angle of
the plane of the surface on the lumbarpelvic adaptor on which the lumbar
spine attaches is 23 to 25 degrees from
the horizontal, sloping upward toward
the front of the vehicle.
(c) Legs. Rest the upper legs of each
test dummy against the seat cushion to
the extent permitted by placement of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
feet. The initial distance between the
outboard knee clevis flange surfaces is
292 mm (11.5 inches). To the extent
practicable, both legs of the test
dummies in outboard passenger
positions are in vertical longitudinal
planes. Final adjustment to
accommodate placement of feet in
accordance with S12.1.3(d) for various
passenger compartment configurations
is permitted.
(d) Feet. Place the feet of the test
dummy flat on the floorpan and beneath
the front seat as far as possible without
front seat interference. If necessary, the
distance between the knees may be
changed in order to place the feet
beneath the seat.
S12.2 50th percentile male test
dummy—49 CFR Part 572 Subpart U
(ES–2re).
S12.2.1 Positioning an ES–2re
dummy in all seating positions. Position
a correctly configured ES–2re test
dummy, conforming to the applicable
requirements of part 572 of this chapter,
in the front outboard seating position on
the side of the test vehicle to be struck
by the moving deformable barrier or
pole. Restrain the test dummy using all
available belt systems in the seating
positions where the belt restraints are
provided. Place adjustable belt
anchorages at the mid-adjustment
position. Retract any folding armrest.
(a) Upper torso.
(1) The plane of symmetry of the
dummy coincides with the vertical
median plane of the specified seating
position.
(2) Bend the upper torso forward and
then lay it back against the seat back.
Set the shoulders of the dummy fully
rearward.
(b) Pelvis. Position the pelvis of the
dummy according to the following:
(1) Position the pelvis of the dummy
such that a lateral line passing through
the dummy H–points is perpendicular
to the longitudinal center plane of the
seat. The line through the dummy H–
points is horizontal with a maximum
inclination of ± 2 degrees. The dummy
may be equipped with tilt sensors in the
thorax and the pelvis. These
instruments can help to obtain the
desired position.
(2) The correct position of the dummy
pelvis may be checked relative to the H–
point of the H–point Manikin by using
the M3 holes in the H–point back plates
at each side of the ES–2re pelvis. The
M3 holes are indicated with ‘‘Hm’’. The
‘‘Hm’’ position should be in a circle
with a radius of 10 mm (0.39 inches)
round the H–point of the H–point
Manikin.
(c) Arms. For the driver seating
position and for the front outboard
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
seating position, place the dummy’s
upper arms such that the angle between
the projection of the arm centerline on
the mid-sagittal plane of the dummy
and the torso reference line is 40° ± 5°.
The torso reference line is defined as the
thoracic spine centerline. The shoulderarm joint allows for discrete arm
positions at 0, 40, and 90 degree settings
forward of the spine.
(d) Legs and Feet. Position the legs
and feet of the dummy according to the
following:
(1) For the driver’s seating position,
without inducing pelvis or torso
movement, place the right foot of the
dummy on the un-pressed accelerator
pedal with the heel resting as far
forward as possible on the floor pan. Set
the left foot perpendicular to the lower
leg with the heel resting on the floor pan
in the same lateral line as the right heel.
Set the knees of the dummy such that
their outside surfaces are 150 ± 10 mm
(5.9 ± 0.4 inches) from the plane of
symmetry of the dummy. If possible
within these constraints, place the
thighs of the dummy in contact with the
seat cushion.
(2) For other seating positions,
without inducing pelvis or torso
movement, place the heels of the
dummy as far forward as possible on the
floor pan without compressing the seat
cushion more than the compression due
to the weight of the leg. Set the knees
of the dummy such that their outside
surfaces are 150 ± 10 mm (5.9 ± 0.4
inches) from the plane of symmetry of
the dummy.
S12.3 5th percentile female test
dummy—49 CFR Part 572 Subpart V
(SID–IIs). Position a correctly configured
5th percentile female Part 572 Subpart
V (SID–IIs) test dummy, conforming to
the applicable requirements of part 572
of this chapter, in the front outboard
seating position on the side of the test
vehicle to be struck by the pole and, for
the moving deformable barrier, if the
vehicle has a second seat, position a
conforming test dummy in the second
seat outboard position on the same side
of the vehicle (side to be struck) as
specified in S12.3.4. Retract any folding
armrest. Additional procedures are
specified below.
S12.3.1 General provisions and
definitions.
(a) Measure all angles with respect to
the horizontal plane unless otherwise
stated.
(b) Adjust the SID–IIs dummy’s neck
bracket to align the zero degree index
marks.
(c) Other seat adjustments. The
longitudinal centerline of a bucket seat
cushion passes through the SgRP and is
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
parallel to the longitudinal centerline of
the vehicle.
(d) Driver and passenger manual belt
adjustment. Use all available belt
systems. Place adjustable belt
anchorages at the nominal position for
a 5th percentile adult female suggested
by the vehicle manufacturer.
(e) Definitions.
(1) The term ‘‘midsagittal plane’’
refers to the vertical plane that separates
the dummy into equal left and right
halves.
(2) The term ‘‘vertical longitudinal
plane’’ refers to a vertical plane parallel
to the vehicle’s longitudinal centerline.
(3) The term ‘‘vertical plane’’ refers to
a vertical plane, not necessarily parallel
to the vehicle’s longitudinal centerline.
(4) The term ‘‘transverse
instrumentation platform’’ refers to the
transverse instrumentation surface
inside the dummy’s skull casting to
which the neck load cell mounts. This
surface is perpendicular to the skull
cap’s machined inferior-superior
mounting surface.
(5) The term ‘‘thigh’’ refers to the
femur between, but not including, the
knee and the pelvis.
(6) The term ‘‘leg’’ refers to the lower
part of the entire leg including the knee.
(7) The term ‘‘foot’’ refers to the foot,
including the ankle.
(8) For leg and thigh angles, use the
following references:
(i) Thigh—a straight line on the thigh
skin between the center of the 1⁄2-13
UNC–2B tapped hole in the upper leg
femur clamp and the knee pivot
shoulder bolt.
(ii) Leg—a straight line on the leg skin
between the center of the ankle shell
and the knee pivot shoulder bolt.
(9) The term ‘‘seat cushion reference
point’’ (SCRP) means a point placed on
the outboard side of the seat cushion at
a horizontal distance between 150 mm
(5.9 in) and 250 mm (9.8 in) from the
front edge of the seat used as a guide in
positioning the seat.
(10) The term ‘‘seat cushion reference
line’’ means a line on the side of the seat
cushion, passing through the seat
cushion reference point, whose
projection in the vehicle vertical
longitudinal plane is straight and has a
known angle with respect to the
horizontal.
S12.3.2 5th percentile female driver
dummy positioning.
(a) Driver torso/head/seat back angle
positioning.
(1) With the seat in the position
determined in S10.3.2, use only the
control that moves the seat fore and aft
to place the seat in the rearmost
position. If the seat cushion reference
line angle automatically changes as the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
seat is moved from the full forward
position, maintain, as closely as
possible, the seat cushion reference line
angle determined in S10.3.2.3.3, for the
final forward position when measuring
the pelvic angle as specified in
S12.3.3(a)(11). The seat cushion
reference line angle position may be
achieved through the use of any seat or
seat cushion adjustments other than that
which primarily moves the seat or seat
cushion fore-aft.
(2) Fully recline the seat back, if
adjustable. Install the dummy into the
driver’s seat, such that when the legs are
positioned 120 degrees to the thighs, the
calves of the legs are not touching the
seat cushion.
(3) Bucket seats. Center the dummy
on the seat cushion so that its
midsagittal plane is vertical and passes
through the SgRP within ±10 mm (±0.4
in).
(4) Bench seats. Position the
midsagittal plane of the dummy vertical
and parallel to the vehicle’s longitudinal
centerline and aligned within ±10 mm
(±0.4 in) of the center of the steering
wheel rim.
(5) Hold the dummy’s thighs down
and push rearward on the upper torso
to maximize the dummy’s pelvic angle.
(6) Place the legs at 120 degrees to the
thighs. Set the initial transverse distance
between the longitudinal centerlines at
the front of the dummy’s knees at 160
to 170 mm (6.3 to 6.7 in), with the
thighs and legs of the dummy in vertical
planes. Push rearward on the dummy’s
knees to force the pelvis into the seat so
there is no gap between the pelvis and
the seat back or until contact occurs
between the back of the dummy’s calves
and the front of the seat cushion.
(7) Gently rock the upper torso
relative to the lower torso laterally in a
side to side motion three times through
a ± 5 degree arc (approximately 51 mm
(2 in) side to side).
(8) If needed, extend the legs slightly
so that the feet are not in contact with
the floor pan. Let the thighs rest on the
seat cushion to the extent permitted by
the foot movement. Keeping the leg and
the thigh in a vertical plane, place the
foot in the vertical longitudinal plane
that passes through the centerline of the
accelerator pedal. Rotate the left thigh
outboard about the hip until the center
of the knee is the same distance from
the midsagittal plane of the dummy as
the right knee ± 5 mm (± 0.2 in). Using
only the control that moves the seat fore
and aft, attempt to return the seat to the
full forward position. If either of the
dummy’s legs first contacts the steering
wheel, then adjust the steering wheel, if
adjustable, upward until contact with
the steering wheel is avoided. If the
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
51969
steering wheel is not adjustable,
separate the knees enough to avoid
steering wheel contact. Proceed with
moving the seat forward until either the
leg contacts the vehicle interior or the
seat reaches the full forward position.
(The right foot may contact and depress
the accelerator and/or change the angle
of the foot with respect to the leg during
seat movement.) If necessary to avoid
contact with the vehicle’s brake or
clutch pedal, rotate the test dummy’s
left foot about the leg. If there is still
interference, rotate the left thigh
outboard about the hip the minimum
distance necessary to avoid pedal
interference. If a dummy leg contacts
the vehicle interior before the full
forward position is attained, position
the seat at the next detent where there
is no contact. If the seat is a power seat,
move the seat fore and aft to avoid
contact while assuring that there is a
maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) distance
between the vehicle interior and the
point on the dummy that would first
contact the vehicle interior. If the
steering wheel was moved, return it to
the position described in S10.5. If the
steering wheel contacts the dummy’s
leg(s) prior to attaining this position,
adjust it to the next higher detent, or if
infinitely adjustable, until there is 5 mm
(0.2 in) clearance between the wheel
and the dummy’s leg(s).
(9) For vehicles without adjustable
seat backs, adjust the lower neck bracket
to level the head as much as possible.
For vehicles with adjustable seat backs,
while holding the thighs in place, rotate
the seat back forward until the
transverse instrumentation platform of
the head is level to within ± 0.5 degree,
making sure that the pelvis does not
interfere with the seat bight. Inspect the
abdomen to ensure that it is properly
installed. If the torso contacts the
steering wheel, adjust the steering wheel
in the following order until there is no
contact: telescoping adjustment,
lowering adjustment, raising
adjustment. If the vehicle has no
adjustments or contact with the steering
wheel cannot be eliminated by
adjustment, position the seat at the next
detent where there is no contact with
the steering wheel as adjusted in S10.5.
If the seat is a power seat, position the
seat to avoid contact while assuring that
there is a maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in)
distance between the steering wheel as
adjusted in S10.5 and the point of
contact on the dummy.
(10) If it is not possible to achieve the
head level within ± 0.5 degrees,
minimize the angle.
(11) Measure and set the dummy’s
pelvic angle using the pelvic angle gage.
The angle is set to 20.0 degrees ± 2.5
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51970
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
degrees. If this is not possible, adjust the
pelvic angle as close to 20.0 degrees as
possible while keeping the transverse
instrumentation platform of the head as
level as possible by adjustments
specified in S12.3.2(a)(9) and (10).
(12) If the dummy is contacting the
vehicle interior after these adjustments,
move the seat rearward until there is a
maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) between the
contact point of the dummy and the
interior of the vehicle or if it has a
manual seat adjustment, to the next
rearward detent position. If after these
adjustments, the dummy contact point
is more than 5 mm (0.2 in) from the
vehicle interior and the seat is still not
in its forwardmost position, move the
seat forward until the contact point is 5
mm (0.2 in) or less from the vehicle
interior, or if it has a manual seat
adjustment, move the seat to the closest
detent position without making contact,
or until the seat reaches its forwardmost
position, whichever occurs first.
(b) Driver foot positioning.
(1) If the vehicle has an adjustable
accelerator pedal, adjust it to the full
forward position. If the heel of the right
foot can contact the floor pan, follow the
positioning procedure in
S12.3.2(b)(1)(i). If not, follow the
positioning procedure in
S12.3.2(b)(1)(ii).
(i) Rest the right foot of the test
dummy on the un-depressed accelerator
pedal with the rearmost point of the
heel on the floor pan in the plane of the
pedal. If the foot cannot be placed on
the accelerator pedal, set it initially
perpendicular to the leg and then place
it as far forward as possible in the
direction of the pedal centerline with
the rearmost point of the heel resting on
the floor pan. If the vehicle has an
adjustable accelerator pedal and the
right foot is not touching the accelerator
pedal when positioned as above, move
the pedal rearward until it touches the
right foot. If the accelerator pedal in the
full rearward position still does not
touch the foot, leave the pedal in that
position.
(ii) Extend the foot and lower leg by
decreasing the knee flexion angle until
any part of the foot contacts the undepressed accelerator pedal or the
highest part of the foot is at the same
height as the highest part of the pedal.
If the vehicle has an adjustable
accelerator pedal and the right foot is
not touching the accelerator pedal when
positioned as above, move the pedal
rearward until it touches the right foot.
(2) If the ball of the foot does not
contact the pedal, increase the ankle
plantar flexion angle such that the toe
of the foot contacts or is as close as
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
possible to contact with the undepressed accelerator pedal.
(3) If, in its final position, the heel is
off of the vehicle floor, a spacer block
is used under the heel to support the
final foot position. The surface of the
block in contact with the heel has an
inclination of 30 degrees, measured
from the horizontal, with the highest
surface towards the rear of the vehicle.
(4) Place the left foot on the toe-board
with the rearmost point of the heel
resting on the floor pan as close as
possible to the point of intersection of
the planes described by the toe-board
and floor pan, and not on or in contact
with the vehicle’s brake pedal, clutch
pedal, wheel-well projection or foot rest,
except as provided in S12.3.2(b)(6).
(5) If the left foot cannot be positioned
on the toe board, place the foot
perpendicular to the lower leg
centerline as far forward as possible
with the heel resting on the floor pan.
(6) If the left foot does not contact the
floor pan, place the foot parallel to the
floor and place the leg perpendicular to
the thigh as possible. If necessary to
avoid contact with the vehicle’s brake
pedal, clutch pedal, wheel-well, or foot
rest, use the three foot position
adjustments listed in S12.3.2(b)(1)(i)–
(ii). The adjustment options are listed in
priority order, with each subsequent
option incorporating the previous. In
making each adjustment, move the foot
the minimum distance necessary to
avoid contact. If it is not possible to
avoid all prohibited foot contact,
priority is given to avoiding brake or
clutch pedal contact:
(i) Rotate (abduction/adduction) the
test dummy’s left foot about the lower
leg;
(ii) Planar flex the foot;
(iii) Rotate the left leg outboard about
the hip.
(c) Driver arm/hand positioning.
(1) Place the dummy’s upper arm
such that the angle between the
projection of the arm centerline on the
midsagittal plane of the dummy and the
torso reference line is 40° ± 5°. The torso
reference line is defined as the thoracic
spine centerline. The shoulder-arm joint
allows for discrete arm positions at 0, ±
40, ± 90, ± 140, and 180 degree settings
where positive is forward of the spine.
(2) [Reserved.]
S12.3.3 5th percentile female front
passenger dummy positioning
(a) Passenger torso/head/seat back
angle positioning.
(1) With the seat at the mid-height in
the full-forward position determined in
S10.3.2, use only the control that
primarily moves the seat fore and aft to
place the seat in the rearmost position,
without adjusting independent height
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
controls. If the seat cushion reference
angle automatically changes as the seat
is moved from the full forward position,
maintain, as closely as possible, the seat
cushion reference line angle determined
in S10.3.2.3.3, for the final forward
position when measuring the pelvic
angle as specified in S12.3.3(a)(11). The
seat cushion reference line angle
position may be achieved through the
use of any seat or seat cushion
adjustments other than that which
primarily moves the seat or seat cushion
fore-aft.
(2) Fully recline the seat back, if
adjustable. Place the dummy into the
passenger’s seat, such that when the legs
are positioned 120 degrees to the thighs,
the calves of the legs are not touching
the seat cushion.
(3) Bucket seats. Place the dummy on
the seat cushion so that its midsagittal
plane is vertical and passes through the
SgRP within ± 10 mm (± 0.4 in).
(4) Bench seats. Position the
midsagittal plane of the dummy vertical
and parallel to the vehicle’s longitudinal
centerline and the same distance from
the vehicle’s longitudinal centerline,
within + 10 mm (± 0.4 in), as the
midsagittal plane of the driver dummy.
(5) Hold the dummy’s thighs down
and push rearward on the upper torso
to maximize the dummy’s pelvic angle.
(6) Place the legs at 120 degrees to the
thighs. Set the initial transverse distance
between the longitudinal centerlines at
the front of the dummy’s knees at 160
to 170 mm (6.3 to 6.7 in), with the
thighs and legs of the dummy in vertical
planes. Push rearward on the dummy’s
knees to force the pelvis into the seat so
there is no gap between the pelvis and
the seat back or until contact occurs
between the back of the dummy’s calves
and the front of the seat cushion.
(7) Gently rock the upper torso
relative to the lower torso laterally in a
side to side motion three times through
a ± 5 degree arc (approximately 51 mm
(2 in) side to side).
(8) If needed, extend the legs slightly
so that the feet are not in contact with
the floor pan. Let the thighs rest on the
seat cushion to the extent permitted by
the foot movement. With the feet
perpendicular to the legs, place the
heels on the floor pan. If a heel will not
contact the floor pan, place it as close
to the floor pan as possible. Using only
the control that primarily moves the seat
fore and aft, attempt to return the seat
to the full forward position. If a dummy
leg contacts the vehicle interior before
the full forward position is attained,
position the seat at the next detent
where there is no contact. If the seats are
power seats, position the seat to avoid
contact while assuring that there is a
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) distance
between the vehicle interior and the
point on the dummy that would first
contact the vehicle interior.
(9) For vehicles without adjustable
seat backs, adjust the lower neck bracket
to level the head as much as possible.
For vehicles with adjustable seat backs,
while holding the thighs in place, rotate
the seat back forward until the
transverse instrumentation platform of
the head is level to within ± 0.5 degree,
making sure that the pelvis does not
interfere with the seat bight. Inspect the
abdomen to ensure that it is properly
installed.
(10) If it is not possible to achieve the
head level within ± 0.5 degrees,
minimize the angle.
(11) Measure and set the dummy’s
pelvic angle using the pelvic angle gage.
The angle is set to 20.0 degrees ± 2.5
degrees. If this is not possible, adjust the
pelvic angle as close to 20.0 degrees as
possible while keeping the transverse
instrumentation platform of the head as
level as possible by adjustments
specified in S12.3.3(a)(9) and (10).
(12) If the dummy is contacting the
vehicle interior after these adjustments,
move the seat rearward until there is a
maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) between the
contact point of the dummy and the
interior of the vehicle or if it has a
manual seat adjustment, to the next
rearward detent position. If after these
adjustments, the dummy contact point
is more than 5 mm (0.2 in) from the
vehicle interior and the seat is still not
in its forwardmost position, move the
seat forward until the contact point is 5
mm (0.2 in) or less from the vehicle
interior, or if it has a manual seat
adjustment, move the seat to the closest
detent position without making contact,
or until the seat reaches its forwardmost
position, whichever occurs first.
(b) Passenger foot positioning.
(1) Place the front passenger’s feet flat
on the toe board.
(2) If the feet cannot be placed flat on
the toe board, set them perpendicular to
the leg center lines and place them as
far forward as possible with the heels
resting on the floor pan.
(3) Place the rear seat passenger’s feet
flat on the floor pan and beneath the
front seat as far as possible without front
seat interference.
(c) Passenger arm/hand positioning.
Place the dummy’s upper arm such that
the angle between the projection of the
arm centerline on the mid-sagittal plane
of the dummy and the torso reference
line is 40° ± 5°. The torso reference line
is defined as the thoracic spine
centerline. The shoulder-arm joint
allows for discrete arm positions at 0,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:07 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
± 40, ± 90, ± 140, and 180 degree settings
where positive is forward of the spine.
S12.3.4 5th percentile female in rear
outboard seating positions.
(a) Set the rear outboard seat at the
full rearward, full down position
determined in S8.3.3.
(b) Fully recline the seat back, if
adjustable. Install the dummy into the
passenger’s seat, such that when the legs
are 120 degrees to the thighs, the calves
of the legs are not touching the seat
cushion.
(c) Place the dummy on the seat
cushion so that its midsagittal plane is
vertical and coincides with the vertical
longitudinal plane through the center of
the seating position SgRP within ± 10
mm (± 0.4 mm).
(d) Hold the dummy’s thighs down
and push rearward on the upper torso
to maximize the dummy’s pelvic angle.
(e) Place the legs at 120 degrees to the
thighs. Set the initial transverse distance
between the longitudinal centerlines at
the front of the dummy’s knees at 160
to 170 mm (6.3 to 6.7 in), with the
thighs and legs of the dummy in vertical
planes. Push rearward on the dummy’s
knees to force the pelvis into the seat so
there is no gap between the pelvis and
the seat back or until contact occurs
between the back of the dummy’s calves
and the front of the seat cushion.
(f) Gently rock the upper torso
laterally side to side three times through
a ± 5 degree arc (approximately 51 mm
(2 in) side to side).
(g) If needed, extend the legs slightly
so that the feet are not in contact with
the floor pan. Let the thighs rest on the
seat cushion to the extent permitted by
the foot movement. With the feet
perpendicular to the legs, place the
heels on the floor pan. If a heel will not
contact the floor pan, place it as close
to the floor pan as possible.
(h) For vehicles without adjustable
seat backs, adjust the lower neck bracket
to level the head as much as possible.
For vehicles with adjustable seat backs,
while holding the thighs in place, rotate
the seat back forward until the
transverse instrumentation platform of
the head is level to within ± 0.5 degrees,
making sure that the pelvis does not
interfere with the seat bight. Inspect the
abdomen to insure that it is properly
installed.
(i) If it is not possible to orient the
head level within ± 0.5 degrees,
minimize the angle.
(j) Measure and set the dummy’s
pelvic angle using the pelvic angle
gauge. The angle is set to 20.0 degrees
± 2.5 degrees. If this is not possible,
adjust the pelvic angle as close to 20.0
degrees as possible while keeping the
transverse instrumentation platform of
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
51971
the head as level as possible, as
specified in S12.3.4(h) and (i).
(k) Passenger foot positioning.
(1) Place the passenger’s feet flat on
the floor pan.
(2) If the either foot does not contact
the floor pan, place the foot parallel to
the floor and place the leg as
perpendicular to the thigh as possible.
(l) Passenger arm/hand positioning.
Place the rear dummy’s upper arm such
that the angle between the projection of
the arm centerline on the midsagittal
plane of the dummy and the torso
reference line is 0° ± 5°. The torso
reference line is defined as the thoracic
spine centerline. The shoulder-arm joint
allows for discrete arm positions at 0,
± 40, ± 90, ± 140, and 180 degree settings
where positive is forward of the spine.
S13 Phase-in of moving deformable
barrier and vehicle-to-pole performance
requirements for vehicles manufactured
on or after September 1, 2009 and
before September 1, 2012.
S13.1 Vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2009 and before
September 1, 2012. At anytime during
the production years ending August 31,
2012 and August 31, 2013, each
manufacturer shall, upon request from
the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,
provide information identifying the
vehicles (by make, model and vehicle
identification number) that have been
certified as complying with the moving
deformable barrier test with advanced
test dummies (S7.2) and vehicle-to-pole
test requirements (S9.2) of this standard.
The manufacturer’s designation of a
vehicle as a certified vehicle is
irrevocable.
S13.1.1 Vehicles manufactured on
or after September 1, 2009 and before
September 1, 2010. Subject to S13.4, for
vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2009 and before
September 1, 2010, the number of
vehicles complying with S7.2 and S9.2
shall be not less than 20 percent of:
(a) The manufacturer’s average annual
production of vehicles manufactured in
the three previous production years; or
(b) The manufacturer’s production in
the current production year.
S13.1.2 Vehicles manufactured on
or after September 1, 2010 and before
September 1, 2011. Subject to S13.4, for
vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2010 and before
September 1, 2011, the number of
vehicles complying with S7.2 and S9.2
shall be not less than 50 percent of:
(a) The manufacturer’s average annual
production of vehicles manufactured in
the three previous production years; or
(b) The manufacturer’s production in
the current production year.
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51972
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
S13.1.3 Vehicles manufactured on
or after September 1, 2011 and before
September 1, 2012. Subject to S13.4, for
vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2011 and before
September 1, 2012, the number of
vehicles complying with S7.2 and S9.2
shall be not less than 75 percent of:
(a) The manufacturer’s average annual
production of vehicles manufactured in
the three previous production years; or
(b) The manufacturer’s production in
the current production year.
S13.2 Vehicles produced by more
than one manufacturer.
S13.2.1 For the purpose of
calculating average annual production
of vehicles for each manufacturer and
the number of vehicles manufactured by
each manufacturer under S13.1.1 and
S13.1.2, a vehicle produced by more
than one manufacturer shall be
attributed to a single manufacturer as
follows, subject to S13.2.2.
(a) A vehicle that is imported shall be
attributed to the importer.
(b) A vehicle manufactured in the
United States by more than one
manufacturer, one of which also
markets the vehicle, shall be attributed
to the manufacturer that markets the
vehicle.
S13.2.2 A vehicle produced by more
than one manufacturer shall be
attributed to any one of the vehicle’s
manufacturers specified by an express
written contract, reported to the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration under 49 CFR part 585,
between the manufacturer so specified
and the manufacturer to which the
vehicle would otherwise be attributed
under S13.2.1.
S13.3 For the purposes of
calculating average annual production
of vehicles for each manufacturer and
the number of vehicles manufactured by
each manufacturer under S13.1.1 and
S13.1.2, do not count any vehicle that
is excluded by Standard No. 214 from
the moving deformable barrier test with
the ES–2re or SID–IIs test dummies
(S7.2) or from the vehicle-to-pole test
requirements.
S13.4 Calculation of complying
vehicles.
(a) For the purposes of calculating the
vehicles complying with S13.1.1, a
manufacturer may count a vehicle if it
is manufactured on or after October 11,
2007, but before September 1, 2010.
(b) For purposes of complying with
S13.1.2, a manufacturer may count a
vehicle if it—
(1) Is manufactured on or after
October 11, 2007, but before September
1, 2011 and,
(2) Is not counted toward compliance
with S13.1.1.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
(c) For purposes of complying with
S13.1.3, a manufacturer may count a
vehicle if it—
(1) Is manufactured on or after
October 11, 2007, but before September
1, 2012 and,
(2) Is not counted toward compliance
with S13.1.1 or S13.1.2.
(c) For the purposes of calculating
average annual production of vehicles
for each manufacturer and the number
of vehicles manufactured by each
manufacturer, each vehicle that is
excluded from having to meet the
applicable requirement is not counted.
I 4. Section 571.301 is amended by
revising S6.3(b) and S7.2(b), to read as
follows:
§ 571.301
integrity.
Standard No. 301; Fuel system
S6.3 Side moving barrier crash.
* * *
(b) Vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2004. When the vehicle is
impacted laterally on either side by a
moving deformable barrier at 53 ± 1.0
km/h with 49 CFR part 572, subpart F
test dummies at positions required for
testing by S7.1.1 of Standard 214, under
the applicable conditions of S7 of this
standard, fuel spillage shall not exceed
the limits of S5.5 of this standard.
*
*
*
*
*
S7.2 Side moving barrier test
conditions. * * *
(b) Vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2004. The side moving
deformable barrier crash test conditions
are those specified in S8 of Standard
214 (49 CFR 571.214).
I 5. Section 571.305 is amended by
revising S6.3 and S7.5, to read as
follows:
§ 571.305 Standard No. 305; Electricpowered vehicles: electrolyte spillage and
electrical shock protection.
*
*
*
*
*
S6.3 Side moving deformable barrier
impact. The vehicle must meet the
requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3
when it is impacted from the side by a
barrier that conforms to part 587 of this
chapter that is moving at any speed up
to and including 54 km/h, with 49 CFR
part 572, subpart F test dummies
positioned in accordance with S7 of
Sec. 571.214 of this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
S7.5 Side moving deformable barrier
impact test conditions. In addition to
the conditions of S7.1 and S7.2, the
conditions of S8 of Sec. 571.214 of this
chapter apply to the conduct of the side
moving deformable barrier impact test
specified in S6.3.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
PART 585—PHASE–IN REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS
6. The authority citation for part 585
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.50.
7. Part 585 is amended by adding
Subpart H to read as follows:
I
Subpart H—Side Impact Protection Phasein Reporting Requirements
Sec.
585.71 Scope.
585.72 Purpose.
585.73 Applicability.
585.74 Definitions.
585.75 Response to inquiries.
585.76 Reporting requirements.
585.77 Records.
Subpart H—Side Impact Protection
Phase-in Reporting Requirements
§ 585.71
Scope.
This part establishes requirements for
manufacturers of passenger cars, and of
trucks, buses and multipurpose
passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536
kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds) or less,
to submit a report, and maintain records
related to the report, concerning the
number of such vehicles that meet the
moving deformable barrier test
requirements of S7 of Standard No. 214,
Side impact protection (49 CFR
571.214), and the vehicle-to-pole test
requirements of S9 of that standard.
§ 585.72
Purpose.
The purpose of these reporting
requirements is to assist the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration
in determining whether a manufacturer
has complied with the requirements of
Standard No. 214, Side Impact
Protection (49 CFR 571.214).
§ 585.73
Applicability.
This part applies to manufacturers of
passenger cars, and of trucks, buses and
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a
GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less.
However, this part does not apply to
vehicles excluded by S2 and S5 of
Standard No. 214 (49 CFR 571.214) from
the requirements of that standard.
§ 585.74
Definitions.
(a) All terms defined in 49 U.S.C.
30102 are used in their statutory
meaning.
(b) Bus, gross vehicle weight rating or
GVWR, multipurpose passenger vehicle,
passenger car, and truck are used as
defined in § 571.3 of this chapter.
(c) Production year means the 12month period between September 1 of
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
one year and August 31 of the following
year, inclusive.
(d) Limited line manufacturer means
a manufacturer that sells three or fewer
carlines, as that term is defined in 49
CFR 583.4, in the United States during
a production year.
§ 585.75
Response to inquiries.
At anytime during the production
years ending August 31, 2010, and
August 31, 2013, each manufacturer
shall, upon request from the Office of
Vehicle Safety Compliance, provide
information identifying the vehicles (by
make, model and vehicle identification
number) that have been certified as
complying with the moving deformable
barrier and vehicle-to-pole tests of
FMVSS No. 214 (49 CFR 571.214). The
manufacturer’s designation of a vehicle
as a certified vehicle is irrevocable.
§ 585.76
Reporting requirements
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
(a) Advanced credit phase-in
reporting requirements. (1) Within 60
days after the end of the production
years ending August 31, 2008, and
August 31, 2009, each manufacturer
choosing to certify vehicles
manufactured during any of those
production years as complying with the
upgraded moving deformable barrier
(S7.2 of Standard No. 214)(49 CFR
571.214) or vehicle-to-pole requirements
(S9) of Standard No. 214 shall submit a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
report to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration providing the
information specified in paragraph (c) of
this section and in § 585.2 of this part.
(b) Phase-in reporting requirements.
Within 60 days after the end of each of
the production years ending August 31,
2010, August 31, 2011, and August 31,
2012, each manufacturer shall submit a
report to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration concerning its
compliance with the moving deformable
barrier requirements of S7 of Standard
No. 214 and with the vehicle-to-pole
requirements of S9 of that Standard for
its vehicles produced in that year. Each
report shall provide the information
specified in paragraph (c) of this section
and in section 585.2 of this part.
(c) Advanced credit phase-in report
content—(1) Production of complying
vehicles. With respect to the reports
identified in § 585.76(a), each
manufacturer shall report for the
production year for which the report is
filed the number of vehicles, by make
and model year, that are certified as
meeting the moving deformable barrier
test requirements of S7.2 of Standard
No. 214, Side impact protection (49 CFR
571.214), and the vehicle-to-pole test
requirements of S9 of that standard.
(d) Phase-in report content—(1) Basis
for phase-in production goals. Each
manufacturer shall provide the number
of vehicles manufactured in the current
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
51973
production year, or, at the
manufacturer’s option, in each of the
three previous production years. A new
manufacturer that is, for the first time,
manufacturing passenger cars for sale in
the United States must report the
number of passenger cars manufactured
during the current production year.
(2) Production of complying vehicles.
Each manufacturer shall report for the
production year being reported on, and
each preceding production year, to the
extent that vehicles produced during the
preceding years are treated under
Standard No. 214 as having been
produced during the production year
being reported on, information on the
number of passenger vehicles that meet
the moving deformable barrier test
requirements of S7 of Standard No. 214,
Side Impact Protection (49 CFR
571.214), and the vehicle-to-pole test
requirements of S9 of that standard.
§ 585.77
Records
Each manufacturer shall maintain
records of the Vehicle Identification
Number for each vehicle for which
information is reported under § 585.76
until December 31, 2016.
Issued on: August 30, 2007.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 07–4360 Filed 9–5–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM
11SER2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 11, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51908-51973]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4360]
[[Page 51907]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
49 CFR Parts 571 and 585
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Protection in Interior
Impact; Side Impact Protection; Fuel System Integrity; Electric-Powered
Vehicles: Electrolyte Spillage and Electrical Shock Protection; Side
Impact Phase-In Reporting Requirements; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 51908]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 571 and 585
[Docket No. NHTSA-29134]
RIN 2127-AJ10
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Protection in
Interior Impact; Side Impact Protection; Fuel System Integrity;
Electric-Powered Vehicles: Electrolyte Spillage and Electrical Shock
Protection; Side Impact Phase-In Reporting Requirements
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule incorporates a dynamic pole test into Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 214, ``Side impact
protection.'' To meet the test, vehicle manufacturers will need 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
and torso side 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. The side
air bag systems installed to meet the requirements of this final rule
will also reduce fatalities and injuries caused by partial ejections
through side windows.
Vehicles will be tested with two new, scientifically advanced test
dummies representing a wide range of occupants, from mid-size males to
small females. A test dummy known as the ES-2re will represent mid-size
adult male occupants. A test dummy known as the SID-IIs will represent
smaller stature occupants. The SID-IIs is the size of a 5th percentile
adult female.
This final rule also enhances FMVSS No. 214's moving deformable
barrier (MDB) test. The current 50th percentile male dummy in the front
seat of tested vehicles will be replaced with the more biofidelic ES-
2re. In the rear seat, the new 5th percentile female SID-IIs dummy will
be used, thus improving protection to a greater segment of occupants
seated in rear seating positions.
The ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU),'' was enacted in August 2005.
Section 10302 of the Act directed the agency ``to complete a rulemaking
proceeding under chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, to
establish a standard designed to enhance passenger motor vehicle
occupant protection, in all seating positions, in side impact
crashes.'' In accordance with Sec. 10302, the side impact air bags
installed in front seats and vehicle changes made to rear seats will
enhance, substantially, passenger motor vehicle occupant protection in
side impacts.
DATES: Effective date: The date on which this final rule amends the CFR
is November 13, 2007.
Petition date: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this
rule, your petition must be received by October 26, 2007.
Compliance dates: This final rule adopts a four-year phase-in of
the new test requirements. The phase-in begins on September 1, 2009. By
September 1, 2012, all vehicles must meet the upgraded pole and barrier
test requirements of the standard, with certain exceptions. Alterers,
manufacturers of vehicles produced in more than one stage, and
manufacturers of vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating greater
than 3,855 kilograms (kg) (8,500 pounds (lb)) have until September 1,
2013 to meet the upgraded pole and barrier test requirements.
Manufacturers can earn credits toward meeting the applicable phase-in
percentages by producing compliant vehicles ahead of schedule,
beginning November 13, 2007 and ending at the conclusion of the phase-
in.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule,
you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document
and submit your petition to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building,
Washington, DC 20590.
The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all documents 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 (Volume 65, Number 70;
Pages 19477-78) or you may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call
Christopher J. Wiacek, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards,
telephone 202-366-4801. For legal issues, you may call Deirdre R.
Fujita, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, telephone 202-366-2992. You may
send mail to these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington,
DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
a. Final Rule
b. How the Final Rule Differs From the NPRM
c. Congressional Mandate
II. Safety Need
III. NPRM
a. Summary of Main Aspects of the Proposal Preceding This Final
Rule
1. Oblique Pole Test
2. Moving Deformable Barrier (MDB) Test
3. Lead Time
A. Oblique Pole Test
B. MDB Test
b. NPRMs on 49 CFR Part 572
c. Comment Periods Reopened Until April 12, 2005; Request for
Comment
IV. NHTSA 214 Fleet Testing Program
V. Summary of Comments
VI. Response to Comments
a. Critical Decisions
1. 50th Percentile Male Dummy
A. We Are Denying the Alliance's WorldSID Petition
B. The Side Impact Dummy Can Be Upgraded Now to the ES-2re
Without Further Delay
C. The ES-2re Is an Improvement Over the ES-2
D. The ES-2re Should Measure More Than HIC
2. The 5th Percentile Female Dummy
A. The 5th Percentile Adult Female Dummy Is an Integral Part of
This Upgrade
i. Need for the 5th Percentile Dummy in the Pole Test
ii. Need for the 5th Percentile Dummy in the MDB Test
iii. Beyond the Voluntary Commitment
B. However, Not All of the Proposed FRG Changes Are Needed
b. Aspects of the Pole Test Procedure
1. Speed
2. Angle
3. Positioning the Seat for the Test
A. Fore-and-Aft Seating Position
B. Head Restraints
4. Impact Reference Line
5. Test Attitude
6. Rear Seat Pole Test
7. Door Closed
8. FMVSS No. 201 Pole Test
9. Quasi Static Test
10. Vehicle Exclusions
11. Practicability
12. International Harmonization
c. Aspects of the MDB Test Procedure
1. The Moving Deformable Barrier
2. A Reasonable Balancing of the Test Burden
A. Arm Position
B. Reducing the Number of Tests
3. Other
d. Injury Criteria
1. Head Injury Criterion
[[Page 51909]]
2. Thorax (Chest) Criteria
A. ES-2re
i. Chest Deflection
ii. ES-2re Lower Spine Acceleration
B. SID-IIs Lower Spine Acceleration
3. ES-2re Abdominal Criterion
4. Pelvic Criterion
A. ES-2re
B. SID-IIs
e. Lead Time
1. Pole Test
2. MDB Test
f. Related Side Impact Programs
1. Out-of-Position Testing
2. Side NCAP
3. Cross-References to FMVSS No. 214
g. Comments on the PEA
VII. Costs and Benefits
VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
IX. Appendices
I. Executive Summary
a. Final Rule
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 214, ``Side
impact protection,'' currently provides thoracic and pelvic protection
in a test using a moving deformable barrier to simulate being struck in
the side by another vehicle. NHTSA is upgrading FMVSS No. 214 by
requiring all passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR) of 4,536 kg or less (10,000 lb or less) to protect front seat
occupants in a vehicle-to-pole test simulating a vehicle crashing
sideways into narrow fixed objects like utility poles and trees. By
doing so it requires vehicle manufacturers to assure head and improved
chest protection in side crashes for a wide range of occupant sizes and
over a broad range of seating positions. It will ensure the
installation of new technologies, such as side curtain air bags \1\ and
torso side air bags, which are capable of improving head and thorax
protection to occupants of vehicles that crash into poles and trees and
of vehicles that are laterally struck by a higher-riding vehicle. The
side air bag systems installed to meet the requirements of this final
rule will also reduce fatalities and injuries caused by partial
ejections through side windows.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These different side air bag systems are described in a
glossary in Appendix A to this preamble.
\2\ Improving side impact protection and reducing the risk of
ejection are prominent in the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's strategies to improve occupant protection. Further
requirements to mitigate ejection are being developed by the agency
to fulfill Sec. 10301 of SAFETEA-LU, which amended the National
Highway and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to
require the Secretary to issue by October 1, 2009 an ejection
mitigation final rule reducing complete and partial ejections of
occupants from outboard seating positions (49 U.S.C. 30128(c)(1)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This will be the first time that head injury criteria must be met
under the standard. In addition, thoracic, abdominal and pelvic
protection in the FMVSS No. 214 crash tests must also be provided.
Vehicles will be tested with two new, scientifically advanced test
dummies representing a wide range of occupants, from mid-size males to
small females. A test dummy known as the ES-2re will represent mid-size
adult male occupants. The ES-2re, a modified version of the European
ES-2 side impact dummy, has improved biofidelity and enhanced injury
assessment capability compared to all other mid-size adult male dummies
used today. A test dummy known as the SID-IIs will represent smaller
stature occupants. The SID-IIs is the size of a 5th percentile adult
female. Crash data indicate that 34 percent of all serious and fatal
injuries to near-side occupants in side impacts occurred to occupants 5
feet 4 inches (163 cm) or less, who are better represented by the 5th
percentile dummy.\3\ (Specifications for the ES-2re and SID-IIs dummies
have already been adopted into the agency's regulation for
anthropomorphic test dummies, 49 CFR Part 572. For the ES-2re, the
final rule was published December 14, 2006; 71 FR 75304 (NHTSA Docket
25441). For the SID-IIs, the final rule published December 14, 2006; 71
FR 75342 (Docket 25442).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Samaha R. S., Elliott D. S., ``NHTSA Side Impact Research:
Motivation for Upgraded Test Procedures,'' 18th International
Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety Of Vehicles Conference
(ESV), Paper No. 492, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule also enhances FMVSS No. 214's moving deformable
barrier (MDB) test. In the test, the current 50th percentile male dummy
in the front seat of tested vehicles will be replaced with the more
biofidelic ES-2re. In the rear seat, the 5th percentile female SID-IIs
dummy will be used, to enhance protection to a greater segment of
occupants seated in rear seating positions. The 50th percentile male
dummy and the 5th percentile female dummy together better represent the
at-risk population than one dummy alone. Through use of both test
dummies, vehicles must provide head, enhanced thoracic and pelvic
protection to occupants ranging from mid-size males to small occupants
in vehicle-to-vehicle side crashes.
We estimate that this final rule will prevent 311 fatalities and
361 serious injuries a year \4\ when fully implemented throughout the
light vehicle fleet. Countermeasures that not only reduce head
injuries, but that also help reduce partial ejections through side
windows, can save additional lives. The cost of the most likely
potential countermeasure--a 2-sensor per vehicle window curtain and
separate thorax side air bag system--compared to no side air bags is
estimated to be $243 per vehicle. After analyzing the data voluntarily
submitted by manufacturers on their planned installation of side air
bag systems, we estimate this final rule will increase the average
vehicle cost by $33 \5\ and increase total annual costs for the fleet
by $560 million. We provide sufficient lead time to ensure that
compliance is practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Benefits and costs are estimated assuming 100 percent
installation of Electronic Stability Control (ESC) systems in
vehicles, and are based on manufacturers' current and planned
installation of side air bags.
\5\ There are a wide variety of baseline side air bag systems
planned for MY 2011. Some of these systems meet the final rule
requirements, while manufacturers need to incorporate wider side air
bags in others or add wide thorax side air bags or window curtains.
The $33 incremental cost estimate is a weighted average of the costs
to bring all these different baseline conditions into compliance
with the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency's data show that the majority of side air bag systems
are currently equipped with two side impact sensors. If the market
share of the two-sensor and four-sensor systems remains unchanged, the
incremental cost for the most likely air bag system (curtain and thorax
bag two-sensor countermeasure) would be about $620 million, or $37 per
vehicle, assuming all light vehicles will be equipped with curtain air
bags.
This final rule fulfills the mandate of the ``Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,''
which was signed by President George W. Bush in August 2005. Evidently
aware of the agency's pending notice of proposed rulemaking to upgrade
FMVSS No. 214, Section 10302 of the Act directed the agency ``to
complete a rulemaking proceeding under chapter 301 of title 49, United
States Code, to establish a standard designed to enhance passenger
motor vehicle occupant protection, in all seating positions, in side
impact crashes.''
State of the Art
The state of knowledge and practicability of measures that can be
taken to improve side impact protection are considerably greater than
they were just a decade ago. Extensive work by those involved in the
design, manufacture and evaluation of vehicle safety systems have led
to substantial progress in crash test dummies, injury criteria and
countermeasures used to mitigate side impacts. Inflatable side impact
air bags (SIABs) have become
[[Page 51910]]
available in current production vehicles. They vary widely in designs,
sizes, mounting locations, methods of inflation and areas of coverage.
For example, side impact protection systems include door-mounted thorax
bags, seat-mounted thorax bags, seat-mounted head/thorax bags, and head
protection systems that deploy from the roof rails (e.g., inflatable
curtains, and inflatable tubular structures).
While varied in design, SIABs make possible vast improvements in
head and torso protection that can be provided in side impacts. Head
injuries alone account for 41 percent of the total deaths in the target
population addressed by this final rule. For smaller-stature occupants,
head injury represents a higher proportion of the serious injuries than
it does for larger occupants, as a result of relatively more head
contacts with the striking vehicle.\6\ NHTSA estimates that SIABs
reduce fatality risk for nearside occupants by an estimated 24 percent;
torso bags alone, by 14 percent.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Samaha, supra.
\7\ Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, ``FMVSS No. 214; Amending
side impact dynamic test; Adding oblique pole test.'' Braver and
Kyrychenko (2003) estimated that torso bags plus head protection
reduced drivers' fatality risk in nearside impacts by 45 percent
relative to drivers in cars without SIABs. Braver and Kyrychenko,
``Efficacy of Side Airbags in Reducing Driver Deaths in Driver-Side
Collisions,'' IIHS Status Report, Vol. 38, August 26, 2003. That
study was based on fewer crash data than those used by NHTSA in its
2005 analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These remarkable improvements can accrue at reasonable costs.
Vehicle manufacturers are already installing SIABs in some of their new
vehicles. On December 4, 2003, the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers, the Association of International Automobile
Manufacturers (AIAM), and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
(IIHS) announced a new voluntary commitment to enhance occupant
protection in front-to-side and front-to-front crashes. The industry
initiative consisted of improvements and research made in several
phases, focusing, among other things, on accelerating the installation
of SIABs.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Docket NHTSA-2003-14623-13. Alliance and AIAM members
agreed to this voluntary commitment. Under Phase 1 of the voluntary
commitment, manufacturers have agreed that, not later than September
1, 2007, at least 50 percent of each manufacturer's new passenger
car and light truck (GVWR up to 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) production
intended for sale in the U.S. will be designed in accordance with
either of the following head protection alternatives: (a)
HIC36 performance of 1000 or less for a SID-H3 crash
dummy in the driver's seating position in an FMVSS No. 201 pole
impact test, or (b) HIC15 performance of 779 or less
(with no direct head contact with the barrier) for a SID-IIs crash
dummy in the driver's seating position in the IIHS MDB perpendicular
side impact test. HIC36 means the calculation of HIC is
limited to a maximum time interval of 36 milliseconds.
HIC15 refers to a HIC calculating using a maximum time
interval of 15 milliseconds. In Phase 2, not later than September 1,
2009, 100 percent of each manufacturer's new passenger car and light
truck (GVWR up to 3,855 kg) (8,500 lb) production will be designed
in accordance with the IIHS MDB recommended practice of
HIC15 performance of 779 or less for a SID-IIs crash
dummy in the driver's seating position. The voluntary commitment
provides exclusions for vehicles ``that a manufacturer determines,
due to basic practicability and functionality reasons, cannot meet
the performance criteria, and would have to be eliminated from the
market if compliance were required.'' (Alliance comment to Docket
17694, page 4, April 12, 2005.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through voluntary efforts, manufacturers are able to begin
equipping vehicles with advanced technologies and are able to advance
safety more quickly than through the regulatory process. In formulating
this regulation, we have been mindful to remain consistent with the
technological advances upon which the industry's voluntary commitment
were based, so as not to discourage further implementation while
manufacturers develop designs and technologies that are able to comply
with this regulation. This regulation builds on the same technologies
that will be used by the industry to meet its voluntary commitment, and
takes them even further.
The industry's voluntary commitment demonstrated the feasibility of
SIABs as a fleet-wide countermeasure and ushered in a new stage in the
regulatory, research and technological developments relating to side
impact protection.\9\ This final rule broadens and fortifies this
stage. Establishing these requirements as an FMVSS assures enhanced
protection to all purchasers of vehicles, from those buying the most
economical cars to purchasers of luxury trucks, to consumers in
between. Together, the near term voluntary commitment and this final
rule will achieve unprecedented side impact protection benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Section IV of the May 17, 2004 NPRM discusses the
regulatory, research and technological developments related to FMVSS
No. 214, from 1990 to the present. 69 FR at 27993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. How the Final Rule Differs From the NPRM
The noteworthy changes from the NPRM are outlined below and
explained in detail later in this preamble. More minor changes (e.g.,
arm position of the dummies for the MDB tests, procedures for
determining vehicle test attitude for the MDB test) are discussed in
the appropriate sections of this preamble.
A. The agency proposed to use a SID-IIs Build C small female test
dummy to which the agency had added ``floating rib guide'' (FRG)
components to increase the durability of the dummy. The dummy with the
FRG modification was called the ``SID-IIsFRG.'' Comments to the NPRM
maintained that the entirety of the FRG modifications was unnecessary,
and that the totality of the FRG modifications needlessly reduced the
biofidelity and functionality of the dummy. Some commenters suggested
alternative means of improving the durability of the Build Level C
dummy. After reviewing the comments to the NPRM and available test
data, including the performance of the SID-IIs dummy in vehicle tests
conducted with 2004-2005 model year (MY) vehicles \10\ [hereinafter
``214 fleet testing program''], we have decided to adopt some, but not
all, of the FRG modifications, and to adopt the commenters' alternative
suggested revisions to Build Level C. The SID-IIs dummy adopted today
into FMVSS No. 214 is referred to as the SID-IIs ``Build Level D''
crash test dummy.\11\ Build Level D incorporates features stemming from
the FRG and from users' efforts to enhance the functionality of
predecessor SID-IIs dummies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Section IV of this preamble; also NHTSA's technical
report of the test program, ``NHTSA Fleet Testing for FMVSS No. 214
Upgrade MY 2004-2005,'' April 2006, Docket 25441-11 (25441 is the
docket for the ES-2re test dummy final rule); and memorandum
regarding location of the test date. December 6, 2006, Docket 25441-
9.
\11\ Docket 25442; final rule adopting SID-IIs Build Level D
dummy into 49 CFR Part 572.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Mindful of the magnitude of this rulemaking and the principles
for regulatory decisionmaking set forth in Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, NHTSA examined the benefits and costs
of this rulemaking and, based on that analysis, took steps to reduce
unnecessary test burdens associated with this final rule. After
reviewing the comments to the NPRM and available test data, including
MDB testing conducted in the NHTSA 214 fleet testing program, we have
decided to require one MDB test per side of the vehicle. The MDB test
specifies use of an ES-2re (50th percentile adult male) dummy in the
front seating position and a SID-IIs (5th percentile adult female)
dummy in the rear. Virtually all vehicles tested in the 214 fleet
testing program met the MDB requirements when tested with SID-IIs in
the front seat and the ES-2re dummy in the rear. Accordingly, we
concluded that no additional benefits would accrue from an MDB test
with the dummies so configured.
C. After reviewing the comments to the NPRM, the results of the 214
fleet
[[Page 51911]]
testing program and production plans which show installation of side
air bags in vehicles ahead of the proposed schedule, we have determined
that it would be practicable to provide a two-year lead time instead of
the four-year lead time proposed in the NPRM leading up to the
beginning of the phased-in pole test requirements. Compared to the
original schedule, this would accelerate the benefits expected to be
provided by side air bag systems and other countermeasures by phasing-
in the requirements starting with 20 percent of model year (MY) 2010
vehicles. As explained in the FRIA, the phase-in schedule and
percentages of this final rule facilitate the installation of side
impact air bags and other safety countermeasures in light vehicles as
quickly as possible, while the allowance of advanced credits provides
manufacturers a way of allocating their resources in an efficient
manner to meet the schedule. At the same time, we are also adding a
fourth year to the proposed 3-year phase-in period and are making other
adjustments to the schedule for heavier vehicles, to enhance the
practicability of meeting the new requirements and provide additional
flexibility to manufacturers to meet the requirements. Accordingly,
under the phase-in schedule adopted in this final rule, the following
percentages of each manufacturer's vehicles will be required to meet
the new requirements:
--20 percent of ``light'' vehicles (gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)
less or equal to 3,855 kilograms (kg) (8,500 pounds) (lb) manufactured
during the period from September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2010;
--50 percent of light vehicles manufactured during the period from
September 1, 2010 to August 31, 2011;
--75 percent of light vehicles manufactured during the period from
September 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012;
--100 percent of light vehicles manufactured on or after September 1,
2012, including limited line and small volume vehicles;
--100 percent of vehicles with a GVWR greater than 3,855 kg (8,500 lb)
manufactured on or after September 1, 2013 and vehicles produced by
alterers and multistage manufacturers.
In addition, vehicle manufacturers will be able to earn credits for
meeting the requirements ahead of schedule.
We are providing more lead time to meet the pole test requirements
to manufacturers of vehicles with a GVWR greater than 3,855 kg (8,500
lb) because the vehicles have never been regulated under FMVSS No.
214's dynamic requirements and are not subject to the industry's
voluntary commitment to install side air bags. Because more redesign of
the vehicle side structure, interior trim, and/or optimization of
dynamically deploying head/side protection systems may be needed in
these vehicles than in light vehicles, this final rule does not subject
these vehicles to the pole test requirements until September 1, 2013.
D. We have decided to adopt a phase-in for the MDB test, and align
the phase-in schedule with the oblique pole test requirements, with
advance credits. In our test program, the SID-IIs in the rear seat of
several vehicles measured elevated rib deflections and high pelvic
loads that did not meet the injury criterion. This information
indicated that structural and/or other changes to the rear seat of some
vehicles are needed to provide improved chest and pelvic protection in
the MDB test. An aligned phase-in will allow manufacturers to optimize
engineering resources to design vehicles that meet the MDB and pole
test requirements simultaneously, thus reducing costs. Manufacturers
will also be able to use credits to more efficiently distribute their
resources to meet the requirements.
E. For this final rule, the agency has re-examined the baseline
fleet conditions projected to the compliance date of this final rule
and has therefore adjusted the target population that would benefit
from this rulemaking. In determining the target population for this
final rule, the agency has assumed a 100 percent Electronic Stability
Control (ESC) penetration in the model MY 2011 new vehicle fleet, and
has further adjusted the estimated benefits of the rule by considering
data from vehicle manufacturers on their planned installation of side
air bags and on projected sales through model year MY 2011. Based on
that information, the agency estimates that this rulemaking will save
311 fatalities and 361 serious injuries a year.\12\ These values are
lower than the NPRM's estimated benefits of 1,027 fatalities and 999
serious injuries saved annually, because the proposed estimates were
based on the distribution of the different types of side air bag
systems in the MY 2003 new vehicle fleet and did not assume 100% ESC
penetration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ This estimates that window curtains, thorax side impact air
bags, and two sensors per vehicle will be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this final rule, because the agency has used more extensive
information, including manufacturers' planned installation of side air
bags through MY 2011, the cost estimates of this final rule are also
lower than those of the NPRM. The average vehicle incremental cost of
the curtain and thorax bag two-sensor countermeasure is estimated to
increase the average vehicle cost by $33, which is lower than the
estimated NPRM cost of $177 per vehicle.
c. Congressional Mandate
On August 10, 2005, President Bush signed the ``Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,''
(SAFETEA-LU), Public Law 109-59 (Aug. 10, 2005; 119 Stat. 1144), to
authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and
transit programs, and for other purposes. Section 10302(a) of SAFETEA-
LU provides:
Sec. 10302. Side-Impact Crash Protection Rulemaking
(a) Rulemaking.--The Secretary shall complete a rulemaking
proceeding under chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, to
establish a standard designed to enhance passenger motor vehicle
occupant protection, in all seating positions, in side impact
crashes. The Secretary shall issue a final rule by July 1, 2008.
At the time of the enactment of Sec. 10302(a), the agency's notice
of proposed rulemaking to upgrade FMVSS No. 214 was pending. This final
rule completes the rulemaking proceeding under consideration, and
enhances the side impact protection of all the seating positions that
the NPRM had proposed to upgrade.\13\ In this rulemaking, we considered
several regulatory alternatives (see Chapter IX of the Final Regulatory
Impact Analysis) and, consistent with Executive Order 12866, have
maximized the benefits of those alternatives in the cost effective
range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Enhancing the protection of the seating positions under
consideration in the NPRM addresses over 99% of the non-rollover
side impact fatalities. In our analysis of vehicle sales, we found
that 0 percent of passenger cars and 22 percent of light trucks have
3 or more rows of seats (minivans, some SUVs, and some full size
vans). Assuming that passenger cars and light trucks each have 50
percent of all light vehicle sales, about 11 percent of all light
vehicle sales will involve vehicles with 3 or more rows of seating.
Looking at adult fatalities in side impacts in which non-rollovers
were the primary event, there were 17 fatalities in the 3rd, 4th, or
5th rows. In comparison, in the same types of non-rollover side
impacts, there were 8,570 adult fatalities in all rows. The 3+ row
seats comprise 0.2 percent of the fatalities in that population (17/
8,570 = 0.002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We interpret SAFETEA-LU as providing us a fair amount of
discretion. This regulation was initiated by NHTSA prior to enactment
of SAFETEA-LU and we are required by the statute to complete it. We
believe that SAFETEA-LU requires us to enhance the occupant protection
of all seating positions under
[[Page 51912]]
consideration in the NPRM (front and rear outboard seating positions),
without specifying the particular regulatory instruments or approaches
that should be used to enhance occupant protection in those seating
positions. SAFETEA-LU requires that this rulemaking be conducted in
compliance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49
U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), which includes the directive that our motor
vehicle safety standards ``shall be practicable, meet the need for
motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms' (49 U.S.C.
30111(a)). Thus, in responding to the comments to the NPRM (see section
VI of this preamble), we must ensure that the upgraded FMVSS No. 214
final rule meets the criteria of Section 30111 (that it is practicable,
that it meets the need for safety, and that it is stated in objective
terms), while meeting the instruction of SAFETEA-LU that the final rule
enhance occupant side impact protection in the seating positions under
consideration in the NPRM.
This final rule enhances side impact protection in the front
seating positions by requiring manufacturers to provide head protection
in side impacts for the first time in the Federal safety standards. Due
to the biofidelity of the current side impact dummy (SID) head and
neck, the agency had determined that it was not appropriate to assess
head injury with that dummy.\14\ This final rule adopts into FMVSS No.
214 two technologically advanced test dummies that have superior injury
risk measurement capabilities compared to the SID, including the
ability to assess the likelihood of head injury. The two test dummies
represent occupants of different sizes: One represents an occupant of
the size of a 5th percentile adult female, the other a mid-size (50th
percentile) adult male. Use of both dummies in FMVSS No. 214 assures
that occupant protection in side impacts is afforded across a wide
range of occupant sizes. Further, this final rule adopts a dynamic pole
test into FMVSS No. 214, specifying performance requirements that
vehicles must meet when tested with the test dummies. Adoption of the
pole test will result in the installation of new technologies, such as
side curtain air bags and torso side air bags, which are capable of
improving protection to an occupant's head, thorax, abdomen and pelvis.
The use of the two crash test dummies in the pole test will require
manufacturers to assure whole-body protection of front seat occupants,
from small stature females sitting as close as they can to the steering
wheel, to mid-size males sitting mid-track.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Report to Congress, ``Status of NHTSA Plan for Side Impact
Regulation Harmonization and Upgrade,'' March 1999, Docket NHTSA-98-
3935-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule also enhances front seat occupant protection by
specifying use of the new mid-size male dummy in the standard's MDB
test, which simulates a vehicle-to-vehicle crash. With its highly
developed instrumentation and ability to assess rib deflections, the
ES-2re will more thoroughly evaluate the degree to which manufacturers
have designed vehicles' front seats to protect occupants in vehicle-to-
vehicle side crashes.
This final rule enhances occupant crash protection in rear seats as
well. For the first time in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards,
a limit is adopted on the risk of head injury for rear seat occupants.
In addition, this final rule specifies the use of the 5th percentile
adult female test dummy in testing rear seats in the MDB test of FMVSS
No. 214. This change will enable NHTSA to assess better the ability of
the rear seat environment to protect children, the elderly and small
adults--a more vulnerable population than the mid-size adult male
population--in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes. The dummy is more
representative of rear seat occupants than the SID. Further, the injury
assessment reference values we will use with the dummy are set at
levels that reflect the effect of aging on tolerance.
II. Safety Need
In the 2004 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), there were
9,270 side impact fatalities. For our target population, as described
in the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA) for this final rule, we
excluded from these side impact fatalities those cases which were not
relevant to the oblique pole and/or MDB crash conditions of this final
rule. This left us with a target population of 2,311 fatalities and
5,891 non-fatal serious to critical MAIS 3-5 injuries for near-side
occupants. The 2,311 fatalities were divided into two groups for the
analysis: (1) Vehicle to pole impacts; and (2) vehicle-to-vehicle or
other roadside objects impacts, which include partial ejections in
these cases.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The agency's analysis also found some fatality benefits for
far-side unbelted occupants. In 2004 FARS, there were 1,441 unbelted
far-side occupant fatalities in side impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this target population, 41 percent of the total fatalities are
caused by head/face injuries, 34 percent by chest injuries and 6
percent by abdominal injuries. In contrast, for the 5,891 non-fatal
MAIS 3-5 target population, chest injuries are the predominate and
maximum injury source, accounting for 48 percent. Head/face injuries
account for 20 percent, and abdominal injuries account for two percent.
Combining all serious to fatal injuries, chest injuries account for 49
percent, head/face injuries account for 26 percent, and abdominal
injuries account for three percent.
For these two groups, we made an adjustment for estimated benefits
that would result from the installation of Electronic Stability Control
(ESC) systems in vehicles, based on an assumption that model year 2011
vehicles would be equipped with ESC.\16\ The ESC adjustment is shown
below in Table 1:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Manufacturers' product plans submitted to the agency
indicated that 71 percent of the MY 2011 light vehicles will be
equipped with ESC. For the purposes of estimating benefits for
today's final rule, we have assumed that more vehicles will be ESC-
equipped, in part because the final rule on electronic stability
control systems requires all MY 2012 vehicles to have ESC (Docket
27662). Accordingly, to estimate benefits for this FMVSS No. 214
final rule, we have assumed 100 percent of the MY 2011 light
vehicles will have ESC.
Table 1.--Target Population Adjusted With ESC
[Fatalities and MAIS 3+ for occupants, Delta-V Range of 12-25 mph]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crash mode MAIS 3 MAIS 4 MAIS 5 Fatal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veh-to-Pole..................................... 368 210 72 219
Veh-to-Veh/others............................... 3,713 903 177 1,823
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 4,081 1,113 249 2,042
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 51913]]
We also made an adjustment based on the estimated benefits that
would result from the FMVSS No. 201 upper interior requirements for the
A-pillar, B-pillar, and roof side rail.\17\ For the head, chest,
abdomen and pelvis injuries, the fatalities for each crash mode, as
adjusted for the effects of ESC and FMVSS No. 201, are shown below in
Table 2:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ In 1995, NHTSA issued a final rule amending FMVSS No. 201,
``Occupant protection in interior impact,'' to require passenger
cars, and trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a
gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, to
provide protection when an occupant's head strikes certain upper
interior components, including pillars, side rails, headers, and the
roof, during a crash. The amendments added procedures and
performance requirements for a new in-vehicle test, which were
phased in beginning in model year 1999.
Table 2.--Fatalities Adjusted, Front Occupants With ESC and FMVSS No. 201 Head, Chest, Abdomen and Pelvis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crash mode Head Chest Abdomen Pelvis Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veh-to-Pole..................... 142 27 0 0 169
Veh-to-Veh/others............... 493 689 137 63 1,382
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 635 716 137 63 1,551
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. NPRM
a. Summary of Main Aspects of the Proposal Preceding This Final Rule
NHTSA published the NPRM for this FMVSS No. 214 final rule on May
17, 2004 (69 FR 27990, Docket No. 17694). The NPRM provided a 150-day
comment period on the proposal. The 150-day period closed October 14,
2004.
1. Oblique Pole Test
The NPRM proposed a pole test for FMVSS No. 214, and proposed to
apply it to all passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb)
or less. The vehicle-to-pole test is similar to but more demanding than
the one currently used optionally in FMVSS No. 201. The proposal was to
propel a vehicle sideways into a rigid pole at an angle of 75 degrees
rather than the 90-degree angle used in FMVSS No. 201.\18\ (We refer to
the test using the 75-degree impact angle as the ``oblique pole
test.'') The test speed was proposed as any speed up to 32 km/h (20
mph) \19\ rather than the maximum test speed of FMVSS No. 201's
optional pole test (29 km/h (18 mph)). The 75-degree angle of impact
and 32 km/h test speed made the pole test more representative than the
FMVSS No. 201 test of real world side crashes into narrow objects.\20\
Crashes with a delta-V of 32 km/h (20 mph) or higher result in
approximately half of the seriously injured occupants in narrow object
near-side crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ FMVSS No. 201 employs an optional pole test to permit the
installation of dynamically deploying upper interior head protection
systems. This test was part of a set of amendments adopted in 1998
to permit, but not require, the installation of dynamically
deploying upper interior head protection systems that were then
under development (63 FR 41451; August 4, 1998). In the optional
crash test, the vehicle is propelled at a speed between 24 km/h (15
mph) and 29 km/h (18 mph) into a rigid pole at an angle of 90
degrees. The pole test injury criterion is HIC of 1000. The May 17,
2004 NPRM requested comment on adopting the FMVSS No. 201 pole test
instead of the oblique pole test that was the preferred agency
approach at the NPRM stage.
\19\ While 20 mph converts to 32.2 km/h, we are rounding 32.2
km/h to 32 km/h.
\20\ When testing the driver side of the vehicle, an impact
reference line is drawn on the vehicle's exterior where it
intersects with a vertical plane passing through the head CG of the
seated driver dummy at an angle of 75 degrees from the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline measured counterclockwise from the vehicle's
positive X axis (see S10.14 of the regulatory text set forth in
today's document). When testing the front passenger side, the impact
reference line would be drawn where it intersects with a vertical
plane passing through the head CG of the passenger dummy seated in
the front outboard designated seating position at an angle of 285
degrees from the vehicle's longitudinal centerline measured
counterclockwise from the vehicle's positive X axis as defined in
S10.14 of today's regulatory text. The vehicle is aligned so that,
when the pole contacts the vehicle, the vertical center line of the
pole surface as projected on the pole's surface, in the direction of
the vehicle motion, is within a surface area on the vehicle exterior
bounded by two vertical planes in the direction of the vehicle
motion and 38 mm (1.5 inches) forward and aft of the impact
reference line. The test vehicle would be propelled sideways into
the pole. Its line of forward motion would form an angle of 75
degrees (or 285 degrees) (3 degrees) in the left (or
right) side impact measured from the vehicle's positive X axis in
the counterclockwise direction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPRM proposed using the ES-2re (50th percentile adult male)
test dummy, and the SID-IIs (5th percentile adult female) test dummy as
modified by the addition of floating rib guide (FRG) modifications.
The ES-2re is technically superior to both the SID-H3 50th
percentile male test dummy currently used in the optional pole test of
FMVSS No. 201 and the SID dummy now used in the MDB test of FMVSS No.
214. NHTSA proposed injury criteria for the ES-2re's injury measuring
instrumentation of the dummy's head, thorax, abdomen and pelvis. HIC
was to be limited to 1,000 measured in a 36 millisecond time interval
(HIC36). Chest deflection could not be greater than 42 mm
(1.65 in) for any rib. Resultant lower spine acceleration could not be
greater than 82 g. Abdominal loads could not exceed 2,500 Newtons (N)
(562 lb). For pelvic injury, the NPRM proposed to limit pubic symphysis
force to 6,000 N (1,349 lb).
The SID-IIs test dummy was developed by the Occupant Safety
Research Partnership (OSRP), a research group under the umbrella of the
U.S. Council for Automotive Research (USCAR).\21\ NHTSA proposed to
modify the dummy by adding the FRG modifications (the modified dummy is
referred to as the SID-IIsFRG). Injury criteria for the SID-IIsFRG's
head, thorax, and pelvis were proposed. HIC36 was to be
limited to 1,000. For thoracic injury, the agency proposed a limit of
82 g on the resultant lower spine acceleration. A pelvic injury
criterion of the sum of the iliac and acetabular forces measured on the
dummy was proposed at 5,100 N. A limitation on rib deflection was not
proposed because NHTSA wanted to obtain more information on the SID-
IIsFRG's rib deflection measurement capability and the deflection
criteria that would be appropriate to apply to the dummy. For the same
reasons, an abdominal injury criterion for the dummy was not proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ USCAR consists of DaimlerChrysler, Ford and General Motors.
The SID-IIs is used by Transport Canada for research purposes, and
by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), a nonprofit
group funded by insurers, in IIHS's 48 km/h (30 mph) side crash test
consumer information program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPRM presented test data from full scale oblique pole tests
using a mid-size male dummy, and a small female dummy, to indicate the
performance of vehicles in providing occupant protection in these side
impacts. (These data are presented in Table 1 of Appendix C to this
final rule.) As discussed in the NPRM, there were nine
[[Page 51914]]
tests using a mid-size male dummy. In four of the tests, the test dummy
was positioned in the driver's seating position as specified in the
FMVSS No. 214 MDB test procedure, i.e., the seat was positioned mid-
track. The other tests were conducted with the seat positioned as
specified in FMVSS No. 201.\22\ Among other things, the NPRM data
showed that the vehicles with air curtain systems performed well in
providing head protection to occupants of the size of a 50th percentile
adult male. Data for the 2004 Honda Accord demonstrated the
practicability of meeting all of the NPRM's proposed injury criteria
for the pole test using the FMVSS No. 214 seating procedure with the
ES-2re dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Under the FMVSS No. 201 seating procedure, the dummy's head
is positioned such that the point at the intersection of the rear
surface of its head and a horizontal line parallel to the
longitudinal centerline of the vehicle passing through the head's
center of gravity is at least 50 mm (2 in) forward of the front edge
of the B-pillar. If needed, the seat back angle is adjusted, a
maximum of 5 degrees, until the 50 mm (2 in) B-pillar clearance is
achieved. If this is not sufficient to produce the desired
clearance, the seat is moved forward to achieve that result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the NPRM, one of the tests of a combination head/
chest air bag system illustrated how the impact angle of the pole test
can influence the level of protection provided by a vehicle's side air
bags. An oblique pole test of a 1999 Nissan Maxima with a head/chest
side impact air bag resulted in a HIC score of 5,254. The HIC of the
Maxima in a 90-degree FMVSS No. 201 pole test resulted in a HIC score
of 130. In the NPRM, NHTSA stated its expectation that, to comply with
the proposed oblique pole test requirements, manufacturers will likely
install head protection systems extending sufficiently toward the A-
pillar to protect the head in the 75-degree approach angle test. The
agency also noted that a 32 km/h (20 mph) oblique pole test has at
least 15 percent more kinetic energy than an FMVSS No. 201 90-degree
pole test at 18 mph.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Test results using the FMVSS No. 201 pole test procedures
were presented in the NPRM, 69 FR at 28008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPRM also discussed the results of three full scale oblique
pole tests using the small female dummy on a 2003 Camry with an air
curtain and thorax bag, a 2000 Saab 9-5 with a combination bag, and a
2002 Ford Explorer (see Table 2 of Appendix C). The agency stated that
in the NPRM that the HIC36 values generally exceeded the
1,000 limit, and pelvic forces exceeded the proposed 5,100 N limit. In
contrast, a 2003 Camry whose air curtain and thorax bags were remotely
fired at 11 milliseconds (ms) produced a HIC36 of 512, and a
4,580 N pelvic force on the dummy.
2. Moving Deformable Barrier (MDB) Test
The current MDB test uses a 50th percentile adult male test dummy
that was developed in the 1980s, and does not use a 5th percentile
female dummy in the test. The NPRM proposed replacing the 50th
percentile male dummy used with the technically advanced, more
biofidelic ES-2re, and adding to the test the small female test dummy.
For the first time in the MDB test, a head injury criterion was
proposed.
The NPRM presented test results from FMVSS No. 214 MDB tests of a
2001 Ford Focus and a 2002 Chevrolet Impala using an ES-2re dummy in
the driver and rear passenger seating positions (the data are set forth
in Appendix C). These vehicles did not have side air bags in either
front or rear seating positions. The test data from the NPRM showed
that the Focus met the proposed test requirements when tested with the
ES-2re, while the Impala did not. The Impala failed to meet the 44 mm
rib deflection criterion for the driver dummy (45.6 mm), and produced
an abdominal force on the rear seat dummy of 4,409 N (proposed limit
was between 2,400-2,800 N). An examination of the passenger compartment
interior revealed a protruding armrest of the Impala that contacted the
abdominal area of the dummy, causing the high force reading.
As discussed in the NPRM, tests of a 2001 Ford Focus and 2002
Chevolet Impala using the SID-IIsFRG in the driver and rear passenger
seating positions showed that the Focus almost fully complied with the
proposed MDB test requirements. Only the pelvic force for the driver
dummy was exceeded in the test, which was attributed to an intruding
armrest. The Impala was able to meet all of the driver injury criteria
but failed to meet the limits on lower spine acceleration and pelvic
force for the SID-IIs in the rear seat, due to an armrest design. As
discussed in the NPRM, in an MDB test of a 2001 Buick Le Sabre equipped
with a front seat thorax side air bag, the vehicle met all the proposed
criteria for both the front and rear seat dummies.
3. Lead Time
A. Oblique Pole Test
The agency proposed a lead time thought to be sufficient to ensure
that compliance would be practicable, while seeking to make sure that
the benefits of the rule can be realized as soon as practicable. The
NPRM proposed to phase in the upgraded side impact pole test
requirements. The agency proposed to phase in the new test requirement
beginning approximately four years from the date of publication of a
final rule. The phase-in was proposed to be over three years, in
accordance with the following schedule:
20 percent of each manufacturer's light vehicles manufactured
during the production year beginning four years after publication of a
final rule;
50 percent of each manufacturer's light vehicles manufactured
during the production year beginning five years after publication of a
final rule;
All vehicles manufactured on or after a date six years after
publication of a final rule.
NHTSA proposed to include provisions under which manufacturers can
earn credits toward meeting the applicable phase-in percentages if they
meet the new requirements ahead of schedule. Alternatives were also
provided to address the special problems faced by manufacturers
producing limited line vehicles and vehicles manufactured in more than
one stage, and vehicle alterers. Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for manufacturers to administer conformance with the
phase-in were also proposed.
B. MDB Test
NHTSA proposed that the upgraded MDB test would be effective
approximately 4 years after publication of a final rule. The agency
tentatively concluded that a phase-in was unnecessary because the
requirements could be met by padding and simple redesigns of the
armrest area. This contrasted with the agency's belief about the
vehicle changes entailed by the oblique pole test. Comments were
requested on whether a phase in for the MDB test was appropriate.
b. NPRMs on 49 CFR Part 572
The agency issued notices of proposed rulemaking to add the
specifications and performance requirements for the ES-2re dummy and
for the SID-IIs dummy into the agency's regulation on anthropomorphic
test devices (49 CFR part 572). The NPRM on the ES-2re dummy was
published on September 15, 2004 (69 FR 55550; Docket 18864), and the
NPRM on the SID-IIs was published on December 8, 2004 (69 FR 70947,
Docket 18865).
[[Page 51915]]
c. Comment Periods Reopened Until April 12, 2005; Request for Comment
On January 12, 2005, NHTSA reopened the comment period for the May
17, 2004 NPRM on FMVSS No. 214 and for the September 15, 2004 NPRM
adding the ES-2re 50th percentile adult male dummy to 49 CFR Part 572
(70 FR 2105; Dockets 17694 and 18864). That action responded to a
petition from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers that requested
an additional 8 months to submit comments. NHTSA determined that a 90-
day extension of time was sufficient and that an 8-month extension was
unwarranted and contrary to the public interest. The January 2005
document also requested comments on an addendum to an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) relating to the NPRM on the
oblique pole test. The addendum to the IRFA discussed the economic
impacts of the proposed rule on small vehicle manufacturers. The
comment periods were reopened until April 12, 2005.
Later, the Alliance petitioned to extend the comment period for the
December 8, 2004 NPRM on adding the SID-IIs 5th percentile female test
dummy to 49 CFR Part 572, which was scheduled to close on March 8,
2005. NHTSA agreed to extend the comment period for that NPRM to April
12, 2005, to align the comment closing date for that NPRM with the
comment closing dates for the NPRMs on FMVSS No. 214 and the ES-2re (70
FR 11189; March 8, 2005; Docket 18865).
IV. NHTSA 214 Fleet Testing Program
In 2005, the agency conducted a 214 fleet testing program, a series
of side impact crash tests to obtain information on how current
vehicles performed in the oblique pole and MDB tests with the SID-IIs
and ES-2re test dummies, and, in turn, on how the dummies performed in
the full vehicle crash tests. Fourteen vehicle models were tested.
Thirteen models were evaluated in the pole test, 10 of these 13 were
tested with both the SID-IIs (5th percentile female) and the ES-2re
(50th percentile male) test dummies. Three of the 13 were tested with
just the ES-2re test dummy. Seven of the 13 were tested also to the MDB
tests using the SID-IIs and the ES-2re test dummies. One vehicle model
was tested only to an MDB test using the SID-IIs (5th percentile
female) test dummy. (See Table 3, ``Test Matrix.'')
The agency selected vehicles that represented different vehicle
classes comprising the current vehicle fleet. Six rated a ``Good'' or
``Acceptable'' score in IIHS's side impact consumer rating program,\24\
three rated a ``Poor,'' and all had head curtains or combination side
impact air bags. Six of the vehicles had a combination of both a head
curtain air bag and an additional torso air bag in the front seating
positions. Four had only a head curtain air bag. Four vehicles had a
seat-mounted head and torso combination air bag system, two of which
were convertibles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ IIHS's side impact consumer information program ranks
vehicles based on performance when impacted perpendicularly by a
moving barrier at about 30 mph. https://www.iihs.org/ratings/side_
test_info.html.
Table 3.--Test Matrix
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Side air bag type: AC=air Oblique pole FMVSS No. 214 MDB
Vehicles (model year 2005 unless curtain; Comb=head/chest SIAB; Vehicle class/weight -----------------------------------------------
noted) Th=thorax or chest SIAB SID-IIs ES-2rd SID-IIs ES-2re
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Corolla........................ AC + Th.......................... Light PC..................... [radic] [radic] [radic] [radic]
VW Jetta.............................. AC + Th.......................... Compact PC................... [radic] [radic] [radic] [radic]
Saturn Ion............................ AC............................... Compact PC................... [radic] [radic] [radic] [radic]
Honda Accord*......................... AC + Th.......................... Medium....................... [radic] [radic] [radic] [radic]
Suzuki Forenza........................ Comb............................. Compact PC................... .......... .......... [radic] ..........
Beetle Convertible.................... Comb............................. Medium....................... .......... [radic] .......... ..........
Saab 9-3 Convertible.................. Comb............................. Medium....................... .......... [radic] .......... ..........
Ford 500.............................. AC + Th.......................... Heavy PC..................... [radic] [radic] [radic] [radic]
Toyota Sienna*........................ AC + Th.......................... Minivan...................... [radic] [radic] .......... ..........
Subaru Forester....................... Comb............................. Small sport utility vehicle [radic] [radic] [radic] [radic]
(SUV) (certified PC) Curb
wt=3143 lb (medium PC).
Honda CRV............................. AC + Th.......................... Small SUV.................... [radic] [radic] [radic] [radic]
Chevy Colorado (4x2 Ext. Cab)......... AC............................... Small Pickup................. [radic] [radic] .......... ..........
Ford Expedition....................... AC............................... Large SUV.................... [radic] [radic] .......... ..........
Dodge 2500 (Reg Cab).................. AC............................... Large Pickup................. .......... [radic] .......... ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 2004 Vehicles.
** Vehicles were categorized by their curb weight.
Light passenger car (PC) = (907-1.133 kg) or (2,000-2,499 lb).
Compact PC = (1,134-1,360 kg) or (2,500-2,999 lb).
Medium PC = (1,361-1,587 kg) or (3,000-3,499 lb).
Heavy PC = (1,588 kg or more) or (3,500 lb or more).
A detailed summary of the results of the test program is set forth
in NHTSA's technical report of the test program, ``NHTSA Fleet Testing
for FMVSS No. 214 Upgrade MY 2004-2005,'' April 2006, (Docket 25441,
items 9 and 11). Key findings of the test program are highlighted
below.
Oblique Pole Test With SID-IIs
As discussed in the test report, 10 of the vehicles in the matrix
were tested with the SID-IIs dummy in the oblique pole test. The test
results are presented in Table 4. Thoracic and abdominal rib
deflections were monitored.
[[Page 51916]]
Table 4.--Oblique Pole Test Results--SID-IIs Dummy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thorax Abdominal
Lower spine Pelvic force deflection deflection
Driver HIC36 (Gs) (N)
