Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Roof Crush Resistance, 5484-5493 [08-392]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 20 (Wednesday, January 30, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5484-5493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-392]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0015]
RIN 2127-AG51


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Roof Crush Resistance

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

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This document supplements NHTSA's August 2005 proposal to 
upgrade the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on roof crush 
resistance. We issued that proposal as part of a comprehensive plan for 
reducing the serious risk of rollover crashes and the risk of death and 
serious injury in those crashes.
    In this document, we ask for public comment on a number of issues 
that may affect the content of the final rule, including possible 
variations in the proposed requirements. We are also announcing the 
release of the results of various vehicle tests conducted since the 
proposal and are inviting comments on how the agency should factor this 
new information into its final rule.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 17, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in 
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room 
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern 
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: (202) 493-2251.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the 
docket number of this document.
    You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9826.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public 
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this 
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided.
    Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking 
Analyses and Notices.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical issues: Mr. Christopher Wiacek, Office of Rulemaking, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 
SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-4801.
    For legal issues: Mr. Edward Glancy, Office of the Chief Counsel, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 
SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
    A. Overview of Standard 216
    B. Target Population of Standard 216
    C. Summary of 2005 Proposal
    D. Purpose of this SNPRM
II. Release of Vehicle Test Results
    A. Single-Sided Tests
    B. Two-Sided Tests
III. Discussion
    A. Pass/Fail Rate of the Vehicle Fleet
    B. Impact of Electronic Stability Control Safety Standard on 
Potential Benefits
    C. Revised Cost and Weight Estimates
    D. Two-Sided Testing Implications
    E. Other Factors
IV. Comments Sought
V. Public Participation
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
VII. Proposed Regulatory Text

I. Introduction

    On August 23, 2005, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (70 FR 
49223) a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to upgrade Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance.\1\ As 
discussed in the NPRM, this ongoing rulemaking is part of a 
comprehensive plan for reducing the serious risk of rollover crashes 
and the risk of death and serious injury in those crashes. In addition 
to roof crush, other strategies in the comprehensive approach include 
crash-avoidance initiatives such as electronic stability control which 
will significantly reduce the number of rollovers, as well as 
crashworthiness efforts such as ejection mitigation and improved door 
lock strength which will lower the probability of ejection when 
rollovers do occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Overview of Standard 216

    FMVSS No. 216 seeks to reduce deaths and serious injuries resulting 
from the roof being crushed and pushed into the occupant compartment 
when the roof strikes the ground during rollover crashes. The standard 
currently applies to passenger cars, and to multipurpose passenger 
vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 
pounds) or less.
    The standard requires that when a large steel test plate (sometimes 
referred to as a platen) is placed in contact with the roof of a 
vehicle and then pressed downward, simulating contact of the roof with 
the ground during a rollover crash, with steadily increasing force 
until a force equivalent to 1.5 times the unloaded weight of the 
vehicle is reached, the distance that the test plate has moved from the 
point of contact must not exceed 127 mm (5 inches). The criterion of 
the test plate not being permitted to move more than a specified amount 
is sometimes referred to as the ``platen travel'' criterion. Under S5 
of the standard, the application of force is limited to 22,240 Newtons 
(5,000 pounds) for passenger cars, even if the unloaded weight of the 
car times 1.5 is greater than that amount.

B. Target Population of Standard 216

    Due to the complex nature of a rollover event and the 
particularlized effect of each element of the comprehensive and 
systematic approach taken by the agency to address these crashes, each 
element addresses a specific segment of the total rollover problem.
    Table 1 below shows the target population that could potentially 
benefit from roof crush improvements.\2\ The target population for all 
light vehicles is stratified by injury severity. The table demonstrates 
how the final target population is derived from the broad category of 
rollovers by

[[Page 5485]]

eliminating cases in which roof strength improvements would not be 
effective. The final target populations are shown in bold at the bottom 
of the table. Numbers in the table shown in parenthesis are deducted 
from previous values to arrive at the final target population shown in 
bold. All other numbers represent the values that result from the 
restrictions noted in the left column. A full discussion of the basis 
for the target population is included in the August 2005 Preliminary 
Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The target population reflects a very minimal incorporation 
of ESC in the vehicle fleet. As discussed later in this SNPRM, the 
final regulatory analysis will be adjusted to reflect full 
incorporation of ESC into the vehicle fleet. ESC will significantly 
reduce the number of rollover fatalities, and further reduce the 
roof crush target population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One modification to that basis should be noted. In the PRIA, it was 
assumed that in cases in which there were fatal injuries which involved 
both the head and another body region at the highest MAIS level, the 
head injury was the cause of death. More recent analysis indicates that 
only about \2/3\'s of these deaths were attributable to the head 
injury. Based on this, the ``not sole injury'' category for fatalities 
was adjusted to reflect the assumption that 67% of these cases would be 
attributed to head injury, leaving a total of 476 fatalities as the 
final target population applicable for roof crush.

                   Table 1.--Target Population Potentially Affected by Improved Roof Strength
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   AIS 1            AIS 2           AIS 3-5         Fatalities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Convertible Light Vehicles in Rollovers.         199,549           37,661           21,933            9,011
Roof-Involved Rollover......................         164,007           32,862           19,520            7,679
No Fixed Object Collision on Top............         153,324           29,346           18,029            6,712
Not Totally Ejected.........................         149,632           25,949           12,638            3,227
Using Safety Restraints.....................         116,135           14,234            9,204            1,835
Front Outboard Seats........................         103,320           13,457            8,653            1,658
Not 12 Years Old or Younger.................         101,581           13,418            8,635            1,650
Roof Component Intrusion....................          64,123           10,339            6,747            1,125
Head, Neck, or Face Injury from Intruding             23,147            6,508            3,027              731
 Roof Component.............................
Injury--Not MAIS *..........................              (0)          (1,872)          (1,382)            (209)
Injury at MAIS--Not Sole Injury.............         (17,128)            (289)            (250)             (46)
Sole MAIS Injury............................           6,019            4,346            1,395             476
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This means that the most serious injury was to a portion of the body other than the head, neck or face.

    The target population relevant to FMVSS No. 216 in Table 1 is thus 
a relatively small subset of the occupants injured in rollovers. For 
fatalities, the estimated total for the target population is 5 percent 
of all non-convertible light vehicle rollover fatalities (476/9,011). 
For nonfatal injury categories, the estimated total ranges from 3 to 12 
percent. The most significant exclusions resulted from requirements 
that fatalities occurred in rollovers in which (1) the roof was damaged 
in a rollover, (2) the damage was not caused by collision with a fixed 
object, (3) the fatally injured occupants were not ejected, and (4) 
those occupants were belted.
    It is important to understand what this Table indicates about the 
safety potential of addressing roof crush. Even if there were some way 
to prevent every single rollover death resulting from roof crush, the 
total lives saved would be 476, not the approximately 10,000 deaths 
that result from rollover each year. This is why each initiative in 
NHTSA's comprehensive program to address the different aspects of the 
rollover problem is so important. Each initiative has a different 
target population. We have initiatives in place to:
    1. Reduce the occurrence of rollover crashes (e.g., the requirement 
for Electronic Stability Control on all light vehicles and the NCAP 
rollover ratings),
    2. Keep occupants inside the vehicle when rollovers occur (e.g., 
NHTSA's unstinting commitment to get passengers to buckle their seat 
belts every time they ride in a vehicle, as well as the requirement for 
enhanced door latches and the forthcoming new requirement for ejection 
mitigation), and
    3. Better protect the occupants kept inside the vehicle during the 
rollover (this rule to require enhanced roof crush resistance).
    Each of these three initiatives must work together to address the 
various aspects of the rollover problem. However, it is important to 
understand which portion of the rollover problem can be addressed by 
each of these three initiatives, so that there is a clear and correct 
understanding of the safety benefits potentially associated with each 
of the different types of actions to reduce rollover deaths and 
injuries.

C. Summary of 2005 Proposal

    To better address fatalities and injuries occurring in roof-
involved rollover crashes, we proposed in 2005 to extend the 
application of the standard to vehicles with a GVWR of up to 4,536 
kilograms (10,000 pounds), and to strengthen the requirements of FMVSS 
No. 216 by mandating that the vehicle roof structures withstand a force 
equivalent to 2.5 times the unloaded vehicle weight, and eliminating 
the 22,240 Newtons (5,000 pounds) force limit for passenger cars. 
Further, in recognition of the fact that the pre-test distance between 
the interior surface of the roof and a given occupant's head varies 
from vehicle model to vehicle model, we proposed to regulate roof 
strength by requiring that the crush not exceed the available headroom. 
Under the proposal, this requirement would replace the current limit on 
test plate movement.
    The proposed new limit would prohibit any roof component from 
contacting the head of a seated 50th percentile male dummy when the 
roof is subjected to a force equivalent to 2.5 times the unloaded 
vehicle weight. We note that this value is sometimes referred to as the 
strength-to-weight ratio (SWR), e.g., a SWR of 1.5, 2.5, and so forth.

D. Purpose of This SNPRM

    The agency has been carefully analyzing the numerous comments it 
received on its proposal. In addition, it has been analyzing the 
various additional vehicle tests, including both single-side tests and 
two-sided tests,\3\ conducted since the NPRM. In this document, we are 
inviting comments on how the agency should factor this new information 
into its decision. While the NPRM focused on a specified force 
equivalent to 2.5 times the unloaded vehicle weight, the agency could 
adopt

[[Page 5486]]

a higher or lower value for the final rule. With respect to two-sided 
vehicle testing, we believe that, with the additional tests conducted 
by the agency, there is now sufficient available information for the 
agency to consider a two-sided requirement as an alternative to the 
single-sided procedure described in the NPRM. The agency plans to 
evaluate both the single-sided and two-sided testing alternatives for 
the final rule. We are requesting comments that will help us reach a 
decision on that issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Note that in the most recent agency testing, headroom 
reduction had been assessed using a head positioning fixture in lieu 
of a 50th percentile dummy. Reports on these tests explain the 
procedure and type of fixture used to assess headroom reduction. (As 
explained elsewhere in this document, these test reports are being 
made available to the public through the agency's internet vehicle 
crash test database.) Please note further that the agency is 
considering whether this fixture should be specified in the final 
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing a final rule, the agency will consider the comments 
submitted on both the August 2005 NPRM and this document. Thus, there 
is no need for persons to re-submit the comments they provided for the 
NPRM. We note that we are generally not discussing the comments in this 
document, except for a few brief references that are relevant to the 
potential economic impact of our proposal. We also note that the 
proposed regulatory text in this document includes both the single-
sided and two-sided test requirement alternatives. The fact that the 
proposed regulatory text for the two alternatives does not reflect 
other changes suggested by commenters on the NPRM does not mean that we 
will not consider those recommended changes in developing a final rule.
    We are providing a 45-day comment period. We believe this is 
appropriate given that this is an SNPRM with a more limited focus than 
the NPRM, and given the need to comply with a statutory deadline.

II. Release of Vehicle Test Results

    The test reports for the additional vehicle tests conducted by 
NHTSA are being made available to the public through the agency's 
internet vehicle crash test database. We are placing a memorandum in 
the docket which provides the Web address for that database and lists 
the vehicle models and test numbers that are needed to reference the 
information in the database. The agency incorporates by reference these 
test reports as part of the record for this rulemaking.

A. Single-Sided Tests

    Since the publication of the NPRM, the agency has conducted 35 
additional single-sided tests. In this testing, the force was applied 
to one side of the roof over the front seat area. Force was applied 
until there was 127 mm (5 inches) of platen travel, unless head contact 
occurred first. The strength of the roof was measured prior to any 
subsequent testing the agency may have conducted on the second side. 
The agency is releasing these data to the public in conjunction with 
this document.
    A summary of the test results is presented in the Table 2 below.

                                                           Table 2.--Single-Sided Test Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Peak strength within 127 mm     Peak strength prior to head       Platen
                                                             Unloaded    --------------------------------             contact              displacement
                         Vehicle                          vehicle weight                                 --------------------------------     at head
                                                                (kg)             N              SWR              N              SWR        contact  (mm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 VW Jetta...........................................           1,443          72,613             5.1          72,613             5.1             158
2007 Scion tC...........................................           1,326          59,749             4.6          59,749             4.6             113
2006 Volvo XC90.........................................           2,020          90,188             4.6             N/A             N/A             N/A
2006 Honda Civic........................................           1,251          55,207             4.5          55,207             4.5             177
2007 Toyota Tacoma......................................           1,489          64,441             4.4          64,441             4.4             123
2006 Mazda 5............................................           1,535          66,621             4.4          66,621             4.4             155
2007 Toyota Camry.......................................           1,468          62,097             4.3          62,097             4.3             N/A
2007 Toyota Yaris.......................................           1,038          41,073               4          41,073               4             115
2006 Ford 500...........................................           1,657          63,181             3.9          63,181             3.9             150
2007 Nissan Frontier....................................           1,615          62,828             3.9          62,828             3.9             167
2006 Subaru Tribeca.....................................           1,907          72,306             3.9          72,306             3.9             112
2006 Mitsubishi Eclipse.................................           1,485          51,711             3.6          51,711             3.6             127
2006 Hummer H3..........................................           2,128          70,264             3.4          70,264             3.4             185
2006 Hyundai Sonata.....................................           1,505          46,662             3.2          46,662             3.2             131
2007 Dodge Caravan......................................           1,759          52,436               3          52,436               3             N/A
2006 Chrysler Crossfire.................................           1,357          38,179             2.9          38,179             2.9             107
2004 Honda Accord.......................................           1,413          38,281             2.8          38,281             2.8             140
2007 Saturn Outlook*....................................           2,133          57,222             2.7          57,222             2.7             N/A
2006 Ford Mustang.......................................           1,527          40,101             2.7          41,822             2.8             132
2005 Buick Lacrosse.....................................           1,590          40,345             2.6          40,345             2.6             126
2006 Sprinter Van*......................................           1,946          49,073             2.6             N/A             N/A             N/A
2004 Cadillac SRX.......................................           1,961          50,346             2.6          50,346             2.6             138
2007 Honda CRV..........................................           1,529          38,637             2.6          38,637             2.6             N/A
2007 Chrysler 300.......................................           1,684          41,257             2.5          41,257             2.5             N/A
2005 Buick Lacrosse.....................................           1,588          37,196             2.4          37,196             2.4             123
2006 Honda Ridgeline....................................           2,036          47,334             2.4          47,334             2.4             172
2007 Ford F-150*........................................           2,413          54,829             2.3          54,829             2.3             N/A
2007 Buick Lucerne......................................           1,690          38,268             2.3          38,268             2.3             N/A
2004 Chevrolet 2500 HD*.................................           2,450          55,934             2.3          56,294             2.3             171
2007 Pontiac G6.........................................           1,497          33,393             2.3          33,393             2.3             124
2007 Chevrolet Express*.................................           2,471          55,038             2.3          55,038             2.3             N/A
2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee................................           1,941          41,582             2.2          41,582             2.2             117
2007 Chevrolet Tahoe*...................................           2,462          49,878             2.1          49,878             2.1             N/A
2006 Dodge Ram*.........................................           2,287          37,596             1.7          42,578             1.9             158
2003 Ford F-250*........................................           2,658          44,776             1.7          44,776             1.7            205
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*GVWR greater than 6,000 pounds


[[Page 5487]]

    We observed from this recent testing that the range of SWRs for 
vehicles with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds (2722 kilograms) or less tended to 
be higher than the range of SWRs for vehicles with a GVWR greater than 
6,000 pounds (2722 kilograms). The SWR of many late model vehicles with 
a GVWR of 6,000 pounds (2722 kilograms) or less was substantially 
higher than the 2.5 value the agency focused on in the NPRM. 
Conversely, only two vehicles we tested with a GVWR greater than 6,000 
pounds (2722 kilograms) exceeded the 2.5 value.
    We note that the data presented in these tables do not factor in 
the full spectrum of weight ranges for the models tested. The SWR for 
each model was calculated using the unloaded vehicle weight (UVW) of 
the tested vehicle rather than the maximum vehicle weight. In comments 
on the NPRM, manufacturers said that vehicles would have to be designed 
to comply in their maximum weight configuration. NHTSA agrees with this 
comment and will reflect maximum weight configurations in the final 
rule analysis.
    We request comments on any other steps the agency should take in 
factoring these new test data into its decisions for the final rule.

B. Two-Sided Tests

    In the NPRM, the agency summarized the testing it had conducted to 
evaluate the strength of the second side of the roof of vehicles whose 
first side had already been tested. In this testing, after the force 
was applied to one side of the roof over the front seat area of a 
vehicle, the vehicle was repositioned and force was then applied on the 
opposite side of the roof over the front seat area. In performing these 
tests on both sides of a vehicle, the agency used the platen angle 
currently specified in FMVSS No. 216 (5[deg] x 25[deg]). We concluded 
that the strength of the roof on the second side of some vehicles may 
have been increased or decreased as a result of the deformation of the 
first side of the roof. The agency indicated that it planned to conduct 
further research before proposing rulemaking in this area.
    The agency has expanded the series of two-sided roof crush tests 
discussed in the NPRM. The agency has now conducted a total of 26 
sequential two-sided tests, as part of its evaluation, and is also 
releasing these data to the public in conjunction with this document.
    A summary of the test results is presented in the following Table 
3.

                      Table 3.--Results of 2-Sided Testing (5[deg] x 25[deg] Platen Angle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Peak SWR prior to 127 mm
                                                                of platen travel or head   Peak force
                            Vehicle                                      contact             change
                                                               --------------------------  (percent)
                                                                  1st side     2nd side
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 Chevrolet Express \4\....................................          2.3          1.7        -27.3
2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee......................................          2.2          1.6        -27.1
2007 Pontiac G6...............................................          2.3          1.7        -23.8
2005 Lincoln LS *.............................................          2.6          2.0        -21.3
2007 Saturn Outlook...........................................          2.7          2.2        -20.8
2003 Ford Crown Victoria *....................................          2.0          1.7        -19.5
2007 Ford F-150...............................................          2.3          1.9        -19.0
2007 Chevrolet Tahoe..........................................          2.1          1.7        -16.4
2007 Toyota Yaris.............................................          4.0          3.4        -15.8
2005 Buick LaCrosse...........................................          2.6          2.2        -13.5
2007 Toyota Tacoma............................................          4.4          3.9        -12.2
2007 Buick Lucerne............................................          2.3          2.1        -10.8
2003 Chevrolet Impala *.......................................          2.9          2.5         -9.9
2004 Lincoln LS *.............................................          2.5          2.2         -8.7
2006 Subaru Tribeca...........................................          3.9          3.5         -8.3
2007 Scion tC.................................................          4.6          4.3         -6.7
2006 Chrysler Crossfire.......................................          2.9          2.7         -5.6
2007 Dodge Caravan............................................          3.0          2.9         -5.3
2007 Honda CRV................................................          2.6          2.5         -4.9
2005 Buick LaCrosse...........................................          2.4          2.3         -3.4
2004 Nissan Quest *...........................................          2.8          2.7         -3.0
2001 GMC Sierra *.............................................          1.9          1.9         -1.3
2007 Chrysler 300.............................................          2.5          2.5          1.6
2004 Chrysler Pacifica *......................................          2.2          2.4          7.0
2007 Toyota Camry.............................................          4.3          4.7          9.0
2004 Land Rover Freelander *..................................          1.7          2.0         19.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Crush of first side stopped at windshield cracking.
\4\ Between the first and second side tests, the front door on the tested side was opened. Because of damage to
  the vehicle during the first side test, the door would not properly close. The door was clamped until the
  latch engaged, locking the door in place. This may have compromised the structural integrity of the roof and
  reduced the measured peak load on the second side.

    For the first eight tests (those with asterisks in the table), 
testing of the first side of the vehicle was conducted until the 
windshield cracked. This occurred between 90 and 100 mm (3.54 and 3.94 
inches) of platen travel for all vehicles except the Nissan Quest which 
required 135 mm (5.31 inches) of platen travel before the windshield 
cracked. The second side was then tested for 254 mm (10 inches) of 
platen travel. For all other tests, the first side was conducted to 127 
mm (5 inches) of platen travel unless head contact occurred first. The 
second side was then tested for 254 mm (10 inches) of platen travel. We 
note that in all 26 tests, the windshield cracked before completion of 
the first side test. In the first eight tests, the peak SWR was 
recorded at the time the windshield cracked on the first side. For all 
other testing, the SWR was recorded prior to 127 mm (5 inches) of 
platen travel or prior to head contact, whichever occurred first.
    The two-sided test results show that the first side test generally 
produces a weakening of the structure. This is

[[Page 5488]]

shown by the fact that the recorded SWR for the second side is 
generally lower than for the first side. On average, the peak strength 
for the second side was reduced by 8.7 percent. However, for several of 
the vehicles, we observed considerably higher reductions in peak 
strength. Of the 25 vehicles tested, excluding the Chevrolet Express, 
six experienced reductions in strength of 19 percent or greater.
    With respect to two-sided vehicle testing, we believe that the 
post-NPRM tests provide the agency with sufficient additional 
information for the agency to now consider a two-sided test requirement 
for the final rule. However, as discussed in the following sections, 
the agency seeks comment on the relative trade offs between the single-
sided and two-sided test procedures.

III. Discussion

    Based upon the results of the testing described above, the agency 
is contemplating various alternatives for a final rule. Each of the 
alternatives will directly affect the current fleet failure rate 
estimates, vehicle design changes and vehicle content necessary to meet 
those alternatives, and consequent benefits and costs. The agency has 
not completed cost/benefit analyses for these various alternatives, 
however, the agency will ensure that its decisions about these 
alternatives result in a final rule that is cost beneficial, as 
contemplated by Executive Order 12866.
    Public comments submitted in response to the NPRM and research 
conducted by NHTSA indicate some general conclusions that can be drawn 
regarding the directional impact of these alternatives, as well as 
subsequent changes in vehicle content and other factors that may 
influence the final rule.
    The August 2005 PRIA examined the proposed SWR of 2.5 and the 
alternative SWR of 3.0 times the unloaded vehicle weight. Estimated 
costs ranged from $88 to 95 million for the 2.5 SWR alternative and 
$1.2 to $1.3 billion for the 3.0 SWR alternative. Benefits were 
estimated to be 13 to 44 fatalities and 498 to 793 nonfatal injuries 
prevented for the 2.5 alternative, and 49 to 135 fatalities and 1540 to 
2151 nonfatal injuries prevented for the 3.0 alternative. The estimated 
impacts of the final rule will be changed by a number of factors. These 
include:

A. Pass/Fail Rate of the Vehicle Fleet

    In response to the NPRM, manufacturers commented that NHTSA's 
estimates underestimated the portion of the vehicle fleet that would 
require changes. The manufacturers noted that NHTSA's estimates were 
based on individual vehicles' actual weights, but that manufacturers 
would have to design roof structures to meet the maximum weight that 
each body design would be required to carry. Thus, for example, test 
results from a vehicle with a four-cylinder engine and manual 
transmission might not be indicative of the same vehicle with a six-
cylinder engine and automatic transmission option, even though they 
share the same body design and roof structure. The agency agrees with 
this comment and will make appropriate adjustments in its revised 
analysis for the final rule. In the NPRM, the agency estimated that 32 
percent of the vehicle fleet would have to be changed to meet the 2.5 
proposal, whereas manufacturers commented that the portion was over 80 
percent. Based on the agency's testing, more recent vehicle designs 
tested appear to have stronger roofs. Therefore, it is not yet clear 
what the actual failure rate will be. However, at this time, it appears 
likely that the impact of this adjustment will be to increase both the 
costs and benefits of the rule.

B. Impact of Electronic Stability Control Safety Standard on Potential 
Benefits

    The PRIA for the August 2005 NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 216 examined 
the model year (MY) 2005 fleet. During MY 2005, Electronic Stability 
Control (ESC) was voluntarily installed on roughly 18% of the new light 
vehicle fleet, and the PRIA took this into account.
    However, NHTSA published a proposal in September 2006 and a final 
rule \5\ in April 2007 requiring ESC on 100% of passenger cars and of 
light trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and vans (LTVs), 
effective September 1, 2011. Therefore, the FRIA for the final rule 
upgrading FMVSS No. 216 will adjust the target population for this 
rulemaking to reflect the ESC mandate. Since ESC is a highly effective 
countermeasure, preventing roughly half of all rollovers in passenger 
cars and LTVs, this adjustment will significantly reduce both the 
target population and the safety benefits associated with FMVSS No. 
216.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 66 FR 17236.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Revised Cost and Weight Estimates

    In the PRIA, NHTSA based its cost estimates on 4 vehicles: The 1997 
Plymouth Neon, the 1999 Ford E-150 Van, the 1997 Dodge Caravan, and the 
1998 Chevrolet S-10 pickup. These vehicles were used because they were 
the only vehicles for which the agency had finite element models which 
could be used to simulate the impact of roof design changes on roof 
strength. The agency used these vehicles to impute costs for the 
overall fleet based on the relative roof strength of a sample of tested 
vehicles. A similar procedure was used for vehicle weight changes. The 
PRIA estimated that the average cost per affected vehicle would be 
approximately $11 to meet the 2.5 SWR alternative and $51 for the 3.0 
SWR alternative, with individual model costs as high as $16 for the 2.5 
alternative and $84 for the 3.0 alternative. The PRIA also estimated 
average weight increases ranging from 2 to 14 kilograms (4 to 30 
pounds). Weight is a factor in the analysis because it influences both 
fuel economy, and the vehicle's center of gravity which can influence 
the vehicle's tendency to roll over.
    In response, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) 
submitted an analysis of costs and weights for 2 vehicle types--a large 
SUV and a large pickup truck.\6\ The Alliance estimates were based on 
engineering studies from a variety of manufacturers and represented a 
range of results for each vehicle type. The Alliance estimated that 
variable unit costs for a large SUV would range from $38 to $58 to meet 
a 2.5 SWR alternative, $60 to $90 to meet a 3.0 SWR alternative and 
$110 to $130 to meet a 3.5 SWR alternative. Based on NHTSA cost 
studies, total costs including overhead, markup and profit could be 50 
percent higher than these variable costs. The Alliance estimated the 
corresponding weight increases for these scenarios to be 27 to 30 
kilograms (60 to 67 pounds) for the 2.5 SWR, 68 to 122 kilograms (150 
to 270 pounds) for the 3.0 SWR, and 113 to 245 kilograms (250 to 540 
pounds) for the 3.5 SWR. For the large pickup truck the Alliance 
estimated that variable unit costs would range from $55 to $185 to meet 
a 2.5 SWR alternative, $100 to $200 to meet a 3.0 SWR alternative and 
$165 to $525 to meet a 3.5 SWR alternative. The Alliance estimate for 
corresponding weight increases for these scenarios were 17 to 31 
kilograms (38 to 68 pound) for the 2.5 SWR, 39 to 118 kilograms (85 to 
260 pounds) for the 3.0 SWR, and 54 to 236 kilograms (120 to 520 pound) 
for the 3.5 SWR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22143-249.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Alliance also contracted an independent study by Magna Steyr on 
the feasibility of modifying a crew cab pickup for compliance with the 
NPRM proposal (2.5 SWR). The study concluded that meeting the proposal 
in a 3-year lead time was feasible, but would add 33 kilograms (73 
pounds) and $76 to $98 in variable costs. It also found that if enough 
leadtime were

[[Page 5489]]

provided to allow implementation during a new production cycle, higher 
strength materials were feasible in conjunction with new tooling and 
this could result in a 5 kilogram (11 pound) savings in weight relative 
to the base vehicle. The Alliance data represent industry estimates of 
costs and weight impacts for the two types of vehicles--large SUVs and 
large pickup trucks--for which higher SWRs are likely to pose the most 
difficult challenges and result in the largest cost and weight 
penalties. However, these types of vehicles represent only a small 
portion of new vehicle sales (approximately 9 percent) and their design 
challenges are unlikely to be representative of the bulk of the vehicle 
fleet. The Alliance did not provide estimates for other vehicle types--
passenger cars, light pickups, crossover SUVs, etc. The agency believes 
that meeting a higher SWR may be significantly easier for the vehicle 
types not submitted by the Alliance based upon our fleet results. The 
agency will consider the Alliance estimates and results from its own 
research when developing the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, but at 
this time it is unclear whether unit costs will change significantly 
for vehicles other than large pickups and large SUVs.
    The agency has also conducted additional tear down studies. A study 
\7\ conducted by The Ohio State University examined the Volvo XC90 and 
the Ford Explorer. The study found that the XC-90 roof had roughly \1/
3\ more structural parts than the Explorer, and that implementing some 
of the XC-90 design concepts in the Ford Explorer would increase 
material and tooling costs by $81 and weight by 15 kilograms (33 
pounds). Additional work based on finite element models and cost 
teardown studies conducted by Ludtke Associates and the National Crash 
Analysis Center \8\ found that strengthening the 2003 Ford Explorer to 
3.0 SWR would raise the vehicle's price by $33 to $35 and increase its 
weight by 5 to 10 kilograms (10 to 23 pounds). They also examined a 
2000 Ford Taurus. The study indicated that raising the Taurus to a 3.0 
SWR would increase its price by $175 to $204, and increase its weight 
by 7 to 12 kilograms (15 to 27 pounds).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Available in the docket of this notice: Hutter, Erin E., 
``Improving Roof Crush Performance of a Sport Utility Vehicle,'' The 
Ohio State University, 2007.
    \8\ Available in the docket of this notice: ``Cost, Weight, and 
Lead Time Analysis Roof Crush Upgrade,'' Task Order No. 007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Two-Sided Testing Implications

    The two-sided testing conducted by NHTSA thus far indicate an 
average difference of approximately 8 percent lower peak force for the 
second side in vehicles under 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) GVWR \9\ 
and 17 percent lower peak force for the second side in vehicles over 
2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) GVWR.\10\ Thus, the adoption of a two-
sided alternative would result in some increase in the portion of the 
fleet that would fail the roof crush requirements beyond the portion 
estimated in the NPRM. This would increase the benefits as well as the 
costs of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Refers to vehicles with a GVWR equal to or less than 2,722 
kilograms (6,000 pounds).
    \10\ Refers to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 2,722 kilograms 
(6,000 pounds).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have conducted an analysis to examine the relative impact of 
one-sided testing vs. two-sided testing, based primarily on the results 
of the agency's own FMVSS No. 216 testing program. Since the 
publication of the October 2001 request for comment (66 FR 53376), the 
agency has conducted roof strength testing on 69 vehicles. Although 
these tests were conducted on specific vehicles, for this exercise, the 
results were adjusted to reflect the maximum unloaded vehicle weight 
configuration for each make/model. The agency tested 21 vehicles with 
GVWRs less than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) under a two-sided test 
regime. Eleven of these vehicles passed a 2.5 SWR on both the first and 
second side tested. Only five vehicles passed a 3.0 SWR on both sides 
and only four passed a 3.5 SWR. The agency also conducted two-sided 
tests on five vehicles with GVWRs over 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds). 
None of these vehicles passed a 2.5 or greater SWR. The agency also has 
single-sided testing data on 32 vehicles with GVWRs less than 2,722 
kilograms (6,000 pounds) and 11 vehicles with GVWRs over 2,722 
kilograms (6,000 pounds).
    The roof strength results for this sample of 69 vehicles were then 
sales weighted to estimate the relative pass-fail rates that might 
result for single-sided and two-sided test procedure alternatives. The 
estimates show nearly 100 percent of vehicles over 2,722 kilograms 
(6,000 pounds) GVWR failed under all scenarios. The vehicles with GVWR 
under 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) had higher failure rates for the 
two-sided tests when compared to the single-sided procedure. At a SWR 
of 2.5, the lighter vehicles are estimated to have a failure rate of 45 
percent for single-sided and 67 percent for two-sided tests. The 
failure rate increases with higher SWR scenarios. A summary of the 
results is presented in the following Table 4.

                              Table 4.--Estimated Fleet Failure Rates Based on GVWR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              GVWR                                    2.5 SWR         3.0 SWR         3.5 SWR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Two-Sided Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< 2,722 kg GVWR.................................................           67.2%           78.6%           85.0%
> 2,722 kg GVWR.................................................          100.0%          100.0%          100.0%
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................           75.1%           83.7%           88.6%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Single-Sided Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< 2,722 kg GVWR.................................................           44.5%           76.9%           80.9%
> 2,722 kg GVWR.................................................           98.9%          100.0%          100.0%
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................           57.6%           82.5%           85.5%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 5490]]

E. Other Factors

    In the NPRM, the agency estimated benefits based on post-crash 
headroom, the only basis for which a statistical relationship with 
injury reduction had been established. In that analysis, the agency 
estimated that the proposed 2.5 SWR requirement would prevent 13 to 44 
fatalities.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This range reflects two different methodologies that were 
examined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More recently, the agency has estimated benefits based on the 
relationship between intrusion and the probability of injury. This 
relationship was not established when the NPRM was published, but with 
the additional years of data available, a statistically significant 
relationship between intrusion and injury for belted occupants has 
since been established. A study regarding this relationship has 
undergone peer review and is available in the docket.\12\ This broader 
relationship, together with other factors, including the higher failure 
rates resulting from adjustments for maximum vehicle weight and the 
higher effective SWRs that result from this same issue will likely lead 
to slightly higher benefits than was estimated in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Available in the docket of the notice: Strashny, Alexander, 
``The Role of Vertical Roof Intrusion and Post-Crash Headroom in 
Predicting Roof Contact Injuries to the Head, Neck, or Face during 
FMVSS 216 Rollovers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, NHTSA estimated the cost of meeting the proposed 2.5 
SWR single-sided test requirement at $16-$17 \13\ for vehicles that do 
not already meet the standard, consisting of roughly $11 for design 
changes and $5-$6 for added lifetime fuel consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Under a 7% and 3% discount rate, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency believes that these cost estimates may increase for 
several reasons. The first is that manufacturers stated that vehicle 
body platforms must be designed to their heaviest possible design 
configuration. This means that a body platform that supports several 
different engine, transmission, and suspension options must be strong 
enough to pass the test requirements under the maximum weighted 
combination of these options. This could increase the effective SWR of 
the entire body platform and this would increase the average cost and 
weight impact of the required design changes. This would primarily be 
an issue for large trucks and SUVs, which are designed with a wide 
range of optional performance packages. It would be much less of a 
factor for passenger cars.
    A second reason costs might rise is that predicted gasoline prices 
may be higher than prices predicted in the NPRM. The NPRM fuel cost 
estimates were based on forecasts from the Energy Information 
Administration (EIA), which predicted an average pump price of roughly 
$1.46/gallon (2002 dollars) in 2007. The final rule will be based on 
EIA's latest predictions. It is expected that EIA's predictions will be 
higher than its earlier ones.
    A third reason costs may rise is that the cost estimates NHTSA used 
for the NPRM assumed single-sided tests. For the two-sided testing 
program alternative, the agency found an average difference of 
approximately 8-17 percent lower peak force for the second side 
(depending on vehicle weight class). Thus, some vehicle designs may 
need added strengthening to meet a two-sided test relative to a single-
sided test.
    Regardless of which alternative is adopted in the final rule, the 
agency will ensure that the final rule is cost beneficial, as 
contemplated by Executive Order 12866.

IV. Comments Sought

    The agency requests comments on the costs of meeting the single-
sided and two-sided testing alternative requirements for different 
types of vehicles for the proposed SWR of 2.5, as well as the 
alternatives of 3.0 and 3.5.
    1. In the single-sided test results, the agency observed that 
vehicles under 6,000 pounds achieved higher SWR levels than did those 
vehicles over 6,000 pounds. Should the agency consider different 
stringency requirements for vehicles according to their weight class? 
Will different design strategies be necessary to meet the requirements 
for vehicles under or over 6,000 pounds? What are the cost implications 
associated with different stringency requirements and different design 
strategies?
    2. In the agency's two-sided testing, an average reduction of about 
8% was observed in the second side SWR compared to the first side for 
vehicles under 6,000 pounds, compared to an average 17% reduction for 
those over 6,000 pounds. Table 4 also indicates a much higher failure 
rate for two-sided testing compared to a single-sided requirement, and 
appears to indicate that fleet failure rates (and consequently 
benefits) for a two-sided test at a 2.5 SWR would be comparable to a 
single-sided test at a higher SWR. What are the relative costs 
associated with, for example, a two-sided requirement at 2.5 SWR versus 
a single-sided test at 3.0 SWR? If comparable benefits can be achieved 
with a single-sided test at a higher SWR requirement compared to a two-
sided test at a lower SWR level, are there other considerations the 
agency should include in the FRIA?
    3. If a two-sided alternative is pursued in the final rule, will 
different design strategies be required to meet the requirements for 
vehicles under or over 6,000 pounds? What are the cost implications 
associated with these strategies?

V. Public Participation

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be 
more than 15 pages long.\14\ We established this limit to encourage you 
to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may 
attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no 
limit on the length of the attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 49 CFR 553.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please submit your comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. 
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: (202) 493-2251.
    If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) 
file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using Optical 
Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search 
and copy certain portions of your submissions.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of 
converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or 
electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for 
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet 
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data 
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the 
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed 
at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's 
guidelines may be accessed at https://

[[Page 5491]]

dmses.dot.gov/submit/DataQualityGuidelines.pdf.

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

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

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. When you send a comment 
containing information claimed to be confidential business information, 
you should include a cover letter setting forth the information 
specified in our confidential business information regulation.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 49 CFR 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted 
the claimed confidential business information, to the Docket by one of 
the methods set forth above.

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We will consider all comments received before the close of business 
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent 
possible, we will also consider comments received after that date. 
Therefore, if interested persons believe that any new information the 
agency places in the docket affects their comments, they may submit 
comments after the closing date concerning how the agency should 
consider that information for the final rule.
    If a comment is received too late for us to consider in developing 
a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that 
comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted By Other People?

    You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document 
(e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other 
interested persons) at any time by going to https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also 
read the materials at the Docket Management Facility by going to the 
street address given above under ADDRESSES. The Docket Management 
Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures. The Office of Management and Budget reviewed 
this rulemaking document under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review.'' This rulemaking action has been determined to be significant 
under Executive Order 12866 and the DOT Policies and Procedures because 
of Congressional and public interest.
    Our current understanding of the benefits and costs of this 
rulemaking is set forth on the pages above.
    NHTSA will prepare a Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA) 
describing the costs and benefits of this rulemaking action for the 
final rule. The FRIA will analyze alternatives considered by the agency 
and the final rule as issued, and will reflect consideration of 
comments addressing costs and benefits. The agency invites comments 
concerning how the alternatives to the proposal discussed in today's 
document could affect costs and benefits.

B. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
https://docketsinfo.dot.gov/.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

    In the August 2005 NPRM, the agency discussed relevant requirements 
related to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the National Environmental 
Policy Act, Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), the Unfunded Mandates 
Act, Civil Justice Reform, the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act, and the Paperwork Reduction Act. The variations in the 
proposal discussed in this document do not affect the agency's analyses 
in those areas. NHTSA will address comments in these areas in 
connection with the final rule.

VII. Proposed Regulatory Text

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Motor vehicle safety, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
part 571 as follows:

PART 571--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation of Part 571 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30166 and 30177; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Alternative 1 (Two-Sided Test)

    2. Amend Sec.  571.216 by:
    a. Revising S3 to read as set forth below;
    b. Adding to S4, in alphabetical order, new definitions of 
``Convertible'' and ``Roof component;''
    c. Revising S5 to read as set forth below;
    d. Removing S5.1;
    e. Revising S7.1 through S7.6 to read as set forth below;
    f. Adding S7.7 to read as set forth below; and
    g. Removing S8 through S8.4.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  571.216  Standard No. 216; Roof crush resistance.

* * * * *
    S3. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars, and to 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 
kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. However, it does not apply to--
    (a) School buses;
    (b) Vehicles that conform to the rollover test requirements (S5.3) 
of Standard No. 208 (Sec.  571.208) by means that require no action by 
vehicle occupants;
    (c) Convertibles, except for optional compliance with the standard 
as an alternative to the rollover test requirement (S5.3) of Standard 
No. 208; or
    (d) Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, other than chassis 
cabs, that conform to the roof crush requirements (S4) of Standard No. 
220 (Sec.  571.220).
    S4. Definitions.
* * * * *
    Convertible means a vehicle whose A-pillars are not joined with the 
B-pillars (or rearmost pillars) by a fixed, rigid structural member.
* * * * *
    Roof component means the A-pillar, B-pillar, roof side rail, front 
header, rear

[[Page 5492]]

header, roof, and all interior trim in contact with these components.
* * * * *
    S5. Requirements. When the test device described in S6 is used to 
apply a force to a vehicle's roof in accordance with S7, first to one 
side of the roof and then to the other side of the roof, no roof 
component or portion of the test device may contact the head or the 
neck of the seated Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy specified in 
49 CFR Part 572, Subpart E. The maximum applied force in Newtons is any 
value up to and including 2.5 times the unloaded vehicle weight of the 
vehicle, measured in kilograms and multiplied by 9.8.
* * * * *
    S7.1 Secure the vehicle in accordance with S7.1(a) through (d).
    (a) Support the vehicle off its suspension at a longitudinal 
vehicle attitude of 0 degrees  0.5 degrees. Measure the 
longitudinal vehicle attitude along both the driver and passenger sill. 
Determine the lateral vehicle attitude by measuring the vertical 
distance between a level surface and a standard reference point on the 
bottom of the driver and passenger side sills. The difference between 
the vertical distance measured on the driver side and the passenger 
side sills shall not exceed  1 cm.
    (b) Secure the vehicle with four stands. The locations for 
supporting the vehicle are defined in S7.1(c) or (d). Welding is 
permissible. The vehicle overhangs are not supported. Chains and wire 
rope are not used to secure the vehicle. Fix all non-rigid body mounts 
to prevent motion of the body relative to the frame. Close all windows, 
close and lock all doors, and secure any moveable or removable roof 
structure in place over the occupant compartment. Remove roof racks or 
other non-structural components.
    (c) For vehicles with manufacturer's designated jacking locations, 
locate the stands at or near the specified location.
    (d) For vehicles with undefined jacking locations, generalized 
jacking areas, or jacking areas that are not part of the vehicle body 
or frame, such as axles or suspension members, locate two stands in the 
region forward of the rearmost axle and two stands rearward of the 
forwardmost axle. All four stands shall be located between the axles on 
either the vehicle body or vehicle frame.
    S7.2 (a) Adjust the seats and steering controls in accordance with 
S8.1.2 and S.8.1.4 of 49 CFR 571.208.
    (b) Place adjustable seat backs in the manufacturer's nominal 
design riding position in the manner specified by the manufacturer. 
Place any adjustable anchorages at the manufacturer's nominal design 
position for a 50th percentile adult male occupant. Place each 
adjustable head restraint in its lowest adjustment position. Adjustable 
lumbar supports are positioned so that the lumbar support is in its 
lowest adjustment position.
    S7.3 Position the Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy specified 
in 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart E in accordance with S10.1 through 
S1