Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Protection in Interior Impact; Side Impact Protection; Side Impact Phase-In Reporting Requirements, 32473-32485 [E8-11273]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 111 / Monday, June 9, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Subsector or industry code
Exceptions and/or limitations
562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal.
562212 Solid Waste Landfill .............................
562213 Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators.
562219 Other Nonhazardous Waste Treatment
and Disposal.
562920 Materials Recovery Facilities ...............
[FR Doc. E8–12856 Filed 6–6–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Parts 571 and 585
[Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0104]
RIN 2127–AK27
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Occupant Protection in
Interior Impact; Side Impact
Protection; Side Impact Phase-In
Reporting Requirements
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions
for reconsideration.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document responds to
petitions for reconsideration of a
September 11, 2007 final rule that
substantially upgraded Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
214, ‘‘Side Impact Protection,’’ by
incorporating a vehicle-to-pole test into
the standard, adopting technicallyadvanced test dummies and enhanced
injury criteria, and incorporating the
advanced dummies into the standard’s
moving deformable barrier test. To
respond to petitioners’ concerns about
lead time as quickly as possible, the
agency is publishing its response to the
petitions in parts. Today’s document
addresses lead time issues, and other
matters that need to be resolved or
clarified concerning lead time and the
phasing-in of the new requirements. A
second document will be published
subsequently that addresses the other
issues raised by the petitions.
DATES: Effective date: August 8, 2008. If
you wish to petition for reconsideration
of this rule, your petition must be
received by July 24, 2008.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for
reconsideration of this rule, you should
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:11 Jun 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
32473
Limited to facilities regulated
42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.
Limited to facilities regulated
42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.
Limited to facilities regulated
42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.
Limited to facilities regulated
42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.
Limited to facilities regulated
42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C,
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C,
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C,
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C,
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C,
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).
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
a. Alliance
b. General Motors (GM)
c. Toyota
d. Honda
e. Nissan
f. Porsche
g. Volkswagen (VW)
h. National Truck Equipment Association
(NTEA)
i. Bosch
III. To Which Issues From the Petitions for
Reconsideration Does This Rule
Respond?
IV. The Issues To Be Addressed in a Later
Document
V. Response to Petitions
a. Extension of Lead Time and Phase-In
Percentages
b. Test Speed
c. Effective Date for Convertible Vehicles
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
d. Effective Date for Vehicles Manufactured
in More Than One Stage and for Altered
Vehicles
e. Clarifications and Corrections
1. Earning Credits for Early Compliance
2. SID–IIs Dummy Arm Positioning
3. Definition of Limited Line Manufacturer
4. Reinstate the Seat Adjustment Procedure
for 50th Percentile SID and SID–HIII
Dummy in the MDB and FMVSS No. 201
Pole Tests, Respectively
VI. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Appendix to Preamble
I. Background
On September 11, 2007, NHTSA
published a final rule that substantially
upgraded Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 214, ‘‘Side
impact protection,’’ (72 FR 51908,
Docket No. NHTSA–29134).1 Until the
final rule, FMVSS No. 214 provided
only thoracic and pelvic protection in a
test using a moving deformable barrier
(MDB) to simulate an intersection
collision with one vehicle being struck
in the side by another vehicle. NHTSA
upgraded FMVSS No. 214 to require all
light 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, such as utility
poles and trees. By doing so it required
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 ensured the installation of
new technologies, such as side curtain
air bags 2 and torso side air bags, which
are capable of improving head and
thorax protection to occupants of
1 The final rule fulfilled the mandate of the ‘‘Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU),’’
which was signed by President George W. Bush in
August 2005. Evidently aware of the agency’s thenpending 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.’’
2 These different side air bag systems are
described in a glossary in Appendix A to the
September 11, 2007 final rule (72 FR at 51954).
E:\FR\FM\09JNR1.SGM
09JNR1
32474
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 111 / Monday, June 9, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
vehicles that crash into poles and trees
or of vehicles that are laterally struck by
a higher-riding vehicle. The side air bag
systems installed to meet the
requirements of the final rule also
reduce fatalities and injuries caused by
partial ejections through side windows.
Under the September 11, 2007 final
rule, vehicles will be tested with two
new, scientifically advanced test
dummies representing a range of
occupants from mid-size males to small
females. A test dummy known as the
ES–2re represents mid-size adult male
occupants. The ES–2re 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, the size of a 5th percentile adult
female, represents smaller stature
occupants. This dummy better
represents occupants 5 feet 4 inches
(163 cm) or less, which crash data
indicates comprise 34 percent of all
serious and fatal injuries to near-side
occupants in side impacts.3
The September 11, 2007 final rule
also enhanced FMVSS No. 214’s MDB
test by specifying the use of the ES–2re
dummy in the front seat and the SID–
IIs dummy in the rear seating position.
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.
After reviewing the comments to the
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 4
preceding the final rule, the results of
the agency’s FMVSS No. 214 fleet
testing program and manufacturers’
production plans which showed
installation of side air bags in vehicles
ahead of the schedule proposed in the
NPRM, the September 11, 2007 final
rule adopted a two-year lead time prior
to the beginning of the phased-in pole
test requirements. We provided for a
four-year phase-in period, made
allowance for use of advanced credits
towards meeting the new requirements,
and made 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. We also
adopted a phase-in for the MDB test and
aligned the phase-in schedule with the
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
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 69 FR 27990; May 17, 2004, Docket No.
NHTSA–2004–17694; reopening of comment
period, 70 FR 2105; January 12, 2005.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:11 Jun 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
oblique pole test requirements,
providing also for the use of advance
credits.
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
The agency received petitions for
reconsideration of the September 11,
2007 final rule from: the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance),5
General Motors North America (GM),
Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
(Toyota), American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc. (Honda), Nissan North America,
Inc. (Nissan), Porsche Cars North
America, Inc. (Porsche), the National
Truck Equipment Association (NTEA),
and Robert Bosch LLC (Bosch). The
issues raised by the petitioners are
summarized below.
a. Alliance
The Alliance stated that it supports
the goal of improving side impact
occupant protection beyond that already
accomplished and generally supports
the changes to FMVSS No. 214. The
Alliance petitioned for agency
reconsideration of the following issues: 6
1. Lead time. The final rule specifies
that manufacturers must begin meeting
the upgraded pole and MDB test
requirements on a phased-in schedule
beginning September 1, 2009. The
petitioner asked NHTSA to begin the
start of the phase-in on September 1,
2011.
2. Lower bound on speed range for the
pole test. The final rule specifies that
vehicles must meet the requirements of
the pole test when tested ‘‘at any speed
up to and including 32 km/h (20 mph).’’
The petitioner asked that the pole test
speed be specified as 26 to 32
kilometers per hour (km/h) (16 to 20
miles per hour) (mph).
3. Clarification of phase-in
requirements. The final rule adopted a
phased-in compliance schedule for the
MDB test, aligned the phase-in schedule
with the oblique pole test, and provided
for the use of advance credits to meet
the MDB requirements. The Alliance
asked us to clarify that for each
production year, the agency meant to
have separate, concurrent phase-in
requirements for the MDB and pole
tests.
4. Convertibles. The final rule applied
the pole test requirements to convertible
vehicles after the agency had made a
determination that it was practicable for
the vehicles to meet the requirements.
The Alliance petitioned the agency to
5 5 The Alliance is made up of BMW group,
Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Company, General
Motors, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mazda, Mitsubishi
Motors, Porsche, Toyota, and Volkswagen.
6 Categorization of the issues into these nine areas
was made by the Alliance in its petition.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
allow convertible vehicles to follow the
lead time requirements applicable to
vehicles with a GVWR between 8,500
and 10,000 pounds, i.e., 100 percent of
vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1 of the fifth production year
after the start of the phase-in.
5. SID–IIs pelvic criterion. The final
rule adopted a pelvic force injury
assessment reference value of 5,525
Newtons (N) for the SID–IIs small
female dummy. The petitioner asked
that this value be changed to 8,550 N.
6. Rear seat dummy arm positioning
in the MDB test. The final rule specifies
that the SID–IIs dummy in the rear seat
of the vehicle has its upper arm in the
down position. The petitioner asked
that the arm be set in the detent
representing a 45 degree angle between
the torso and the arm.
7. Multi-stage and altered vehicles,
including vehicles with partitions. The
petitioner recommended that NHTSA
‘‘exempt’’ multi-stage/altered vehicles
(including vehicles with partitions
behind the front seats) from the oblique
pole test requirements.
8. FMVSS No. 301 dummy
application. The petitioner asked that
the wording of FMVSS No. 301, ‘‘Fuel
system integrity,’’ be revised to specify
that the agency will conduct the side
crash test of that standard using
whichever dummies the manufacturer
has used to certify the vehicle to FMVSS
No. 214.
9. Corrections of test procedures and
typographical errors. The petitioner
cited omissions or errors in the
regulatory text in need of correction.
b. General Motors (GM)
GM, an Alliance member, expressed
support for the Alliance’s petition and
elaborated on its concern about the lack
of a lower bound for the speed of the
pole test. The petitioner stated that
attempts to comply with the ‘‘up to’’ 32
km/h (20 mph) test speed will require
vehicles to sacrifice significant
immunity from unwanted deployments
which will increase the frequency of
unnecessary air bag deployments. GM
petitioned NHTSA to either bound the
test speed at a lower speed of 26 km/h
(16 mph) or 23 km/h (14.3 mph), or
delay implementation of the ‘‘up to’’
aspect of the requirement until the end
of the phase-in to allow for additional
sensing technology development.
c. Toyota
Toyota, an Alliance member,
expressed support for the Alliance’s
petition and elaborated on its concern
about lead time and the pole impact test
speed of ‘‘up to’’ 32 km/h (20 mph).
Toyota requested that the phase-in be
E:\FR\FM\09JNR1.SGM
09JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 111 / Monday, June 9, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
effective from September 1, 2011. The
petitioner noted that though side air
bags have advanced in the years since
NHTSA’s NPRM, they are only one
portion of the system and their
deployment depends heavily on the
capability of the sensors.
The petitioner stated that the typical
side air bag sensor is a deceleration
sensor, or G sensor. Toyota said that the
state of technology for G sensors, while
highly advanced, is limited by
deployment ‘‘gray zones’’ that denote
the measurement tolerance of the
sensor. The petitioner noted that realworld evidence of inadvertent
deployments exist. In late 2006, the
2005-late 2006 model year Scion tC
vehicles were recalled when complaints
were received of inadvertent
deployment of the side air bag when the
door was slammed. It noted there have
been other investigations by NHTSA
into complaints for other manufacturers’
vehicles as well. Toyota recommended
that NHTSA require 26 km/h as the
lowest limit of impact velocity in the
pole test, since bounding the lower
impact velocity in that way would make
it possible to distinguish the G sensor
output necessary for side air bag
deployment from the output
characteristic of a door slam or minor
impact event.
d. Honda
Honda supported the upgraded
FMVSS No. 214 and sought correction
and clarification with respect to
referenced materials and test
procedures, such as making FMVSS No.
214 consistent with cross-references to
the test dummy used in the FMVSS No.
301 and 305 crash tests, providing for
adjustment of telescopic steering
columns, and clarifying adjustment of
seat belt shoulder anchorages.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
e. Nissan
Nissan requested additional lead time
before the start of the phase-in period.
The petitioner stated that the upgraded
FMVSS No. 214 requirements will
necessitate a redesign of the side impact
air bag system, and that the pending
rulemaking activity in the area of
ejection mitigation raises concerns that
a near-term rulemaking on ejection
mitigation will put significant
additional strain on Nissan’s
engineering resources and increase costs
of compliance for both regulations.7 The
7 NHTSA has announced that it is developing a
proposal for an ejection mitigation containment
requirement. (‘‘NHTSA Vehicle Safety Rulemaking
Priorities and Supporting Research: 2003–2006,’’
July 2003, Docket 15505.) Additionally, Sec. 10301
of SAFETEA–LU requires the Secretary to issue by
October 1, 2009 an ejection mitigation final rule
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:11 Jun 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
petitioner requested that NHTSA begin
phasing-in the requirements on
September 1, 2010. Further, the
petitioner requested that we delay the
effective date for convertible vehicles
until a year after completion of the
phase-in for other vehicle types, i.e.,
under the schedule of the September 11,
2007 final rule, until September 1, 2014.
f. Porsche
Porsche, an Alliance member,
expressed support for the Alliance’s
petition and elaborated on its concern
about lead time, the rear seat dummy
arm position, and the pole impact test
speed. The petitioner stated that two
years of lead time is inadequate because
the final rule imposes new crash test
requirements, incorporates new test
dummies with unresolved issues and
new injury criteria, and ‘‘compliance
with all of the requirements, plus
adequate compliance margins, has not
been demonstrated by NHTSA.’’
g. Volkswagen (VW)
VW, an Alliance member, expressed
support for the Alliance’s petition and
elaborated on its belief that convertible
models should be excluded from the
pole test due to practicability issues.
h. National Truck Equipment
Association (NTEA)
NTEA requested that NHTSA
‘‘exempt multi-stage produced vehicles
such as specialized work trucks from
the new requirements of this
regulation.’’ Alternatively, NTEA
requested that NHTSA ‘‘consider
amending the phased-in effective dates
such that the effective date for multistage produced vehicles with a gross
vehicle weight rating greater than 8,500
is September 1, 2014 (one year later
than the effective date for single stage
produced vehicles).’’
i. Bosch
Bosch stated that it fully supported
the pole test but asked that NHTSA
‘‘modify the test set-up by optionally
allowing information being made
available from the Electronic Stability
Control [ESC] on the vehicle CAN-bus.
This would allow advanced restraint
electronics to achieve the same
performance and occupant protection as
in real world accidents.’’ Bosch stated
that in the test set-up specified in the
final rule, no ESC signals are
communicated on the vehicle CAN-bus,
since the vehicle is not sliding laterally
with wheels moving on the ground. As
a result, the petitioner stated, ‘‘advanced
reducing complete and partial ejections of
occupants from outboard seating positions (49
U.S.C. 30128(c)(1)).
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32475
restraint triggering algorithms cannot
utilize any ESC data, resulting in
significantly later TTF [time-to-fire] and
thus reduced occupant protection.’’
Bosch believed that certain sensor
information should be used to trigger
the side curtain air bags and torso side
air bags as soon as possible. Bosch
recommended that the agency should
‘‘directly feed-in the lateral velocity of
20 mph cos (15°),’’ or feed in ‘‘the ESCdata communicated on the CAN-bus
during a real lateral pole crash (with 20
mph under 75°)’’ provided by the
original equipment manufacturer.
III. To Which Issues From the Petitions
for Reconsideration Does This Rule
Respond?
To respond to petitioners’ concerns
about lead time as quickly as possible,
the agency is publishing its response to
the petitions for reconsideration in
parts. Today’s document addresses lead
time issues, and other matters that need
to be resolved or clarified concerning
lead time and the phasing-in of the new
requirements. A second document will
be published subsequently that
addresses the other issues raised by the
petitions.
This final rule:
a. Extends the lead time period before
manufacturers must begin phasing in
vehicles to meet the upgraded FMVSS
No. 214 requirements to September 1,
2010 and amends the percentages of
manufacturers’ vehicles that are
required to meet the new requirements
from 20/50/75/all to 20/40/60/80/all 8;
b. Specifies the test speed for the pole
test as ‘‘26 km/h to 32 km/h’’ (16 mph
to 20 mph) until the end of the phasein, at which time vehicles must meet the
requirements of the pole test when
tested ‘‘at any speed up to and including
32 km/h (20 mph)’’;
c. Delays the effective date for
convertible vehicles until after
completion of the phase-in for other
vehicle types, i.e., until September 1,
2015;
d. Delays the effective date for multistage vehicles and alterers until after
completion of the phase-in for all other
vehicle types, i.e., until September 1,
2016; and,
e. Corrects the omissions and minor
errors found in the regulatory text
relating to the earning of credits for
early compliance, the SID–IIs dummy
arm positioning, the definition of
limited line manufacturer, and the
reinstatement of the seat adjustment
procedure for the SID dummy.
8 ‘‘All’’ vehicles must meet the requirements
without the use of advance credits.
E:\FR\FM\09JNR1.SGM
09JNR1
32476
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 111 / Monday, June 9, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Each of these issues is discussed
below in this preamble.
IV. The Issues To Be Addressed in a
Later Document
The issues from the petitions for
reconsideration that we will be
resolving in a later notice are listed
below. We will address requests
pertaining to:
a. The SID–IIs pelvic criterion;
b. Whether vehicles manufactured in
more than one stage, particularly with
partitions, should be excluded from the
pole test;
c. The specification as to which test
dummy will be used in FMVSS No. 301
and FMVSS No. 305 crash tests;
d. Bosch’s suggestion to optionally
allow sensor information to be fed into
the restraint triggering algorithms; and,
e. Further correction of typographical
and other minor errors in the regulatory
text set forth in the September 11, 2007
final rule.
V. Response to Petitions
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
a. Extension of Lead Time and Phase-In
Percentages
The Alliance, GM, Nissan, Porsche
and Toyota petitioned the agency to
revise the lead time schedule. There was
general concern regarding the technical
and practical challenges of meeting the
new requirements with two years of
lead time.
NHTSA specified a two-year lead time
in the September 11, 2007 final rule
based on an analysis of product plans
submitted by seven vehicle
manufacturers, whose combined
production accounted for approximately
90 percent of all light vehicle sales. The
data on planned side air bag
installations and projected sales through
model year (MY) 2011 indicated 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 was
fairly uniform between the
manufacturers. Further, according to
test results from the agency’s FMVSS
No. 214 fleet testing program, we
estimated 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,
with regard to thorax bags, the product
plans indicated there were large
differences between manufacturers in
the percentage of thorax bags being
planned, particularly for light trucks.
Also, of the vehicles tested equipped
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:11 Jun 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
with thorax bags, only 56 percent met
the chest requirement in the pole test.
From our FMVSS No. 214 fleet testing
program, we believed that side air bags
installed in most passenger cars and
small and medium size light trucks
(including SUVs and minivans) would
not need extensive modifications to
meet the new FMVSS No. 214
requirements. Instead, we believed that
the rule would only result in current
side air bags having to be widened and
the inflators made more robust,
redesigns that we believed could
reasonably be made with a two-year
lead time and the phase-in percentages
of the final rule.9 We believed that,
while some vehicles would need an
added sensor at the location of the SID–
IIs 5th percentile female dummy at the
full-forward seating position, current
sensor technology used today (e.g., to
meet the ‘‘voluntary commitment’’ made
by auto manufacturers) 10 would
generally suffice to enable
manufacturers to certify vehicles to the
pole test requirements. We believed that
extensive vehicle structural
modifications were not necessary for
passenger cars and small and medium
size light trucks to meet the pole test
requirements, while it would take
longer than two years to add a thorax
bag to a vehicle model that has not had
one previously (e.g., vehicles with a
GVWR greater than 8,500 lb).
Moreover, based on our experience, if
structural changes were needed, the
modification could be done within three
to four years since most vehicle lines
would likely experience some level of
redesign over the next three to four
9 Under the phase-in schedule adopted in the
final rule, the following percentages of each
manufacturer’s vehicles were required to meet the
new requirements: 20 percent of a ‘‘light’’ vehicles
(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 multi-stage
manufacturers. Vehicle manufacturers were able to
earn credits for meeting the requirements ahead of
schedule.
10 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 side impact air bags.
See footnote 8 of the September 11, 2007 final rule
(72 FR 51910).
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
years. Accordingly, the 75 percent
phase-in percentage was adopted to
elongate the phase-in schedule one year
longer than proposed and to provide
vehicle manufacturers the flexibility of
a four-year phase-in schedule to
incorporate side structure and restraint
system modifications into their
production cycles for those vehicles
needing such changes. The additional
phase-in year provided more
opportunity to incorporate side impact
protection design changes during the
course of each manufacturer’s normal
production cycle.
After considering the information
submitted in the petitions for
reconsideration, NHTSA has decided to
provide an additional year of lead time
to the two-year lead time provided in
the final rule. The agency’s
determination of the lead time of the
final rule was based in large part on the
information from the manufacturer
survey, on the conformance dates of the
voluntary commitment,11 and on the
results of the FMVSS No. 214 fleet
testing program. We assumed, based on
the information, that manufacturers
would be able to meet the requirements
with current sensor designs and
configurations, did not need to redesign
vehicle interior spacing, or to undertake
a substantial door and seat redesign to
accommodate the side air bag systems
needed to meet the requirements of the
pole test. We recognized that the final
rule would necessitate changes to the air
bag design, inflator characteristics and
door trim and roof rail designs, which
typically are associated with a threeyear lead time for implementation.
However, we assumed that a two-year
lead time would be sufficient given our
estimate that 90 percent of MY 2010
light vehicles will be equipped with
side air bags protecting the head,
11 Under Phase 1 of the voluntary commitment,
manufacturers 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 Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) MDB
perpendicular side impact test. 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. See Docket NHTSA–2003–14623–
13.
E:\FR\FM\09JNR1.SGM
09JNR1
32477
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 111 / Monday, June 9, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
presumably in conformance with the
voluntary agreement.
Information submitted by the
petitioners indicates that
notwithstanding conformance with the
voluntary agreement, new changes will
have to be incorporated into vehicles to
meet the pole test requirements,
including new sensors and wider air
bags, as well as changes to interior
spacing configurations, door, seat and
roof designs. Current side air bag
systems conforming to the voluntary
commitment will need to be made more
robust to meet the FMVSS No. 214 pole
test,12 and that for vehicles that do not
meet the pole test, redesigning the
vehicle interior to accommodate
systems that meet the requirements is a
significant undertaking that cannot be
accomplished within two years.13 Data
from pole tests we conducted in support
of NHTSA’s New Car Assessment
Program (NCAP) support this
assessment. We tested six vehicles that
were in conformance with the voluntary
agreement and that had been
characterized as ‘‘good’’ performers in
the IIHS rating program. Of these, four
of the six vehicles did not meet the
criteria of the pole test when tested with
the SID–IIs test dummy: two vehicles
need improved head protection, and
four vehicles need better pelvic
protection. The results of the testing are
set forth in Table 1, below.
TABLE 1. SID—IIS OBLIQUE POLE TESTS WITH VEHICLES RATED ‘‘GOOD’’ BY IIHS
NHTSA test No. *
V06287
V06293
V06285
V06284
V06286
V06283
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
Vehicles
2007
2007
2007
2006
2006
2007
Vehicle class
Honda Pilot ........
Nissan Quest .....
Ford Escape ......
VW Passat .........
Subaru Impreza
Toyota Avalon ...
Side air bag type
SUV ............................
Van .............................
SUV ............................
Medium PC .................
Medium PC .................
Heavy PC ...................
Curtain
Curtain
Curtain
Curtain
Combo
Curtain
HIC36
+ Torso ...........
........................
+ Torso ...........
+ Torso ...........
........................
+ Torso ...........
1000
3464
5694
407
323
184
642
Lower spine
(Gs)
Pelvis force
(N)
82
68
79
65
40
58
62
5525
6649
5786
6515
3778
4377
6672
* Test numbers correspond to those in the NHTSA vehicle crash test database, https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/nrd-11/veh_db.html.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
To provide manufacturers more time
to meet the upgraded FMVSS No. 214
requirements, this document extends
the lead time period before
manufacturers must begin phasing in
vehicles to meet the upgraded FMVSS
No. 214 requirements to September 1,
2010. Thus, three years of lead time
have been provided to account for
redesigns to the vehicle interior
necessitated by the demands of the pole
test. At the same time, we do not believe
that more than a total of three years of
lead time should be necessary, since
interior redesigns typically can be
achieved in three years and since we
have also extended the phase-in period.
To facilitate the installation of side
impact air bags and other safety
countermeasures to meet the new
requirements in light vehicles as quickly
as possible, we are providing only one
additional year of lead time, but we are
adjusting the phase-in schedule of
manufacturers’ vehicles that are
required to meet the new requirements
from 20/50/75/all to 20/40/60/80/all.14
The adjusted schedule will also
continue to couple the phase-in of the
MDB with the pole test to enhance the
practicability of meeting the new
requirements. Moreover, Nissan is
correct that the agency’s upcoming
rulemaking on ejection mitigation
12 E.g., the Alliance stated in its petition for
reconsideration (p. 5): ‘‘NHTSA’s fleet data has
demonstrated that, in order to comply with the
requirements using the ES2–re and SID–IIs
dummies, a vehicle manufacturer will need to
provide countermeasures beyond the installation of
a side curtain air bag or a combination side air bag.’’
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:11 Jun 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
containment requirements will build on
the foundations laid by the September
11, 2007 final rule.15 For the
convenience of the reader, the revised
compliance schedule is shown in Table
A of the Appendix to this preamble.
b. Test Speed
The agency has decided to retain in
the long run that the FMVSS No. 214
pole test requirements must be met at
any speed ‘‘up to’’ 32 km/h (20 mph),
but has decided to bound the test speed
at a lower speed of 26 km/h (16 mph)
until the end of the phase-in to allow for
additional sensing technology
development.
The suggestion that the pole test
speed should be limited to 26 to 32 km/
h (16 to 20 mph) was made by the
Alliance and some other commenters to
the NPRM. In our final rule, we decided
against the suggestion because our crash
data showed that crashes with a deltaV of 26 km/h (16 mph) or less resulted
in approximately a third of the fatalities
and almost half of the MAIS 3–5 nonfatal injured occupants in near-side
crashes.16 Based on the crash data, we
believed there was a safety need to
require manufacturers to ensure that
vehicles provide improved protection in
crashes below 26 km/h (16 mph). We
wanted to ensure that occupants would
be protected if, for example, head
13 Toyota
petition for reconsideration.
amended provisions related to the phasein percentages, including the phase-in requirements
for convertible vehicles, vehicles manufactured in
more than one stage, and altered vehicles are
addressed in sections below in this preamble.
14 Other
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
contact could occur with a pole or other
rigid narrow object. We also believed
that the threshold for deployment of
side impact air bags would vary based
on vehicle design. 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 or occupant
protection.
We continue to believe that
prescribing a 26 km/h (16 mph) lower
bound for the test speed might force a
test condition that would not be ideal
for vehicle safety. An occupant’s head
could strike a pole or rigid narrow
object in crashes at less than 26 km/h
(16 mph). To address the fatalities and
serious injuries occurring in near-side
crashes with a delta-V of 26 km/h (16
mph) or less, we again decline the
request to permanently bound the pole
test speed to 26 to 32 km/h (16 to 20
mph).
However, at the time of the final rule,
the agency was not aware of any
technical challenges to manufacturers to
comply with the pole test requirements
at the lower range of test speeds. The
agency assumed the side impact sensing
technology had developed to the state
where sensors could discriminate
between collision events at lower
speeds and non-crash events. The
15 NHTSA believes that side curtains installed
pursuant to FMVSS No. 214’s pole test could be one
countermeasure developed to satisfy ejection
mitigation requirements.
16 The analysis was based upon front-outboard
adult occupants with serious or fatal injuries in
1997–2003 NASS non-rollover, near-side crashes.
E:\FR\FM\09JNR1.SGM
09JNR1
32478
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 111 / Monday, June 9, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
comments to the NPRM did not raise
concerns about the ability of current
sensing technology to operate
satisfactorily at the lower test speeds,
and we did not consider in our fleet
testing program the potential problems
sensors would have in detecting crashes
from non-crash events at the lower
speeds.
The petitions for reconsideration now
bring to light the limitations of current
sensing technology to distinguish
between situations where the side air
bag should and should not deploy. GM
confirmed our understanding that the
lower speed at which side air bags will
need to deploy will differ based upon
the vehicle size, weight and available
crush space between the occupant and
the door trim. The petitioners also
suggested that side air bag deployment
will depend on whether the SID–IIs 5th
percentile female test dummy or the ES–
2re 50th percentile adult male test
dummy is seated in the vehicle. We
agree with the petitioners’ explanations
that side crashes require the sensing
system to quickly discern whether to
deploy the air bag. GM stated that side
crashes not only require a much faster
decision-making process compared to
frontal impacts, but they typically
require deployment at much lower
vehicle crash energy levels, which
makes them difficult to distinguish from
abuse and other non-deployment events.
According to petitioners, current
sensing strategies (which use
deceleration sensors, or ‘‘G sensors’’)
cannot at lower test speeds distinguish
the output needing side air bag
deployment from the output
characteristic of a door slamming or
minor impact event. Petitioners also
stated that at lower speeds in both the
FMVSS No. 214 pole and MDB tests, the
G sensor output is similar in magnitude
and profile to door slams.
Unintended side air bag deployments
have posed problems in the past, when
side air bags were first introduced on
the market in the late 1990s. Table 2
shows investigations conducted by
NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) into unintended side air bag
deployments. Separate from Table 2,
there have also been a number of other
manufacturer voluntary recalls
involving unintended side air bag
deployments.
TABLE 2.—ODI INVESTIGATIONS INTO UNINTENDED SIDE AIR BAG DEPLOYMENTS
ODI investigation No.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
PE04–081
PE99–061
PE99–017
PE00–042
RQ00–013
PE02–011
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
Vehicle model(s)
2001–2002 Volkswagen Jetta, Golf and GTI ..................
1998–1999 Cadillac DeVille ............................................
1999 BMW 3–Series .......................................................
1999–2000 Lincoln Continental ......................................
1997 Mercedes Benz E & SL Class ...............................
1999–2001 BMW 3–Series .............................................
After considering the issues raised by
the petitioners, we are concerned about
the potential safety implications
associated with side air bags deploying
without a side impact crash. NHTSA
concludes that if the pole test speed
were not bounded in the near term with
a test speed of 26 km/h (16 mph),
unwarranted deployments of the side air
bags could become an issue and could
negatively impact public acceptance of
side air bags. The agency has thus
decided to provide the manufacturers
more time to select and develop the
proper technology for their vehicles.
Accordingly, we are delaying the
implementation of the ‘‘up to’’
requirements to the end of the phase-in.
To meet the requirement that the pole
test injury criteria must be met at any
speed ‘‘up to’’ 32 km/h (20 mph),
manufacturers will have to use new
technologies and/or more sophisticated
algorithms that distinguish a real crash
from a non-event. GM indicated that it
is working on the new sensing
technologies, but needs additional time
to develop them. We are therefore
granting the request of the petitioner to
bound the test speed range from 26
km/h to 32 km/h (16 to 20 mph) until
the end of the phase-in. By providing
manufacturers one year extra lead time
and by extending the phase-in another
year, the manufacturers will have
sufficient time to develop the crash
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:11 Jun 06, 2008
ODI resolution
Jkt 214001
Closed without recall.
02V217 for 215K vehicles.
99V063 for 32,500 vehicles.
Closed without recall.
00V388 for 16,255 vehicles.
02V223 for 20,500 vehicles.
sensing technology to meet the full
speed range of the pole test.
c. Effective Date for Convertible Vehicles
VW requested that convertibles be
excluded from the pole test altogether
‘‘due to their structural limitations
which preclude the installation of roofmounted curtain air bags for occupant
protection.’’ The Alliance requested that
convertible vehicles be allowed to
follow the lead time requirements
applicable to vehicles with a GVWR
greater than 8,500 lb, i.e., all vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1 of
the fifth production year after the start
of the phase-in. The Alliance stated that
it did not believe the challenges for
convertible vehicles to meet the side
pole test requirements are
insurmountable. However, the Alliance
stated, due to the inherent design
constraints of convertibles (i.e., lack of
pillars and roof rail to store and deploy
curtain air bags) and the need to apply
significant structural changes, the lead
time needed to ensure compliance with
the pole test is significantly longer for
convertibles than for non-convertible
vehicles. Nissan similarly requested that
we delay the effective date for
convertible vehicles until the last year
of the phase-in, to provide
manufacturers time to develop new
potential countermeasures for
convertibles, such as a seat-mounted
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
thorax and curtain air bag deployed
from the door.
In our FMVSS No. 214 fleet testing
program, we tested two convertible
vehicle models, the 2005 model year
Saab 9–3 convertible and 2005 model
year Volkswagen Beetle. Both vehicle
models were tested to the oblique pole
test requirements using an ES–2re
dummy and in each case, the vehicle
met the requirements of the final rule.
The tests were conducted with the ES–
2re 50th percentile male dummy
because the agency believed it would be
more difficult for convertibles to meet
the pole test with the ES–2re than with
the SID–IIs 5th percentile female
dummy. 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. In their petitions for
reconsideration, the Alliance and VW
disagreed that the ES–2re dummy test
was more challenging. The Alliance
cited the FMVSS No. 214 fleet testing
results and stated ‘‘that the vast majority
of these vehicles had larger injury
assessment values when tested with the
SID–IIs dummy: six out of ten vehicles
had larger HIC36 values, nine out of ten
vehicles had larger lower spine
acceleration values, and all vehicles
[footnote in text: ‘Pelvic Force data for
the SID–IIs was not available for one of
the ten vehicles tested’] had larger
E:\FR\FM\09JNR1.SGM
09JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 111 / Monday, June 9, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
pelvic force values.’’ As a result, the
Alliance stated, ‘‘NHTSA has not
demonstrated practicability of this rule
as applied to convertibles’’ and
requested more lead time for convertible
vehicles.
After considering the issues raised by
the petitioners, we have decided against
VW’s request to exclude convertibles
from the pole test requirements. As
explained in the September 11, 2007
final rule, there is safety need to include
convertible vehicles in the pole test. In
our comparative analysis between
convertibles and all other passenger cars
in side impact crashes with fixed
objects, we 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 17 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 indicated 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 demonstrated the
practicability of meeting the pole test for
convertible vehicles. The 2005 Saab
9–3 convertible and the 2005
Volkswagen Beetle met the pole test
requirements with seat-mounted head/
thorax air bag systems. There are other
countermeasures that are effective and
practicable for installation in
convertible body types, such as doormounted upward-inflating curtains as
introduced in the 2006 model year
Volvo C70 convertible and which
Nissan has indicated they are now
developing for its vehicles. We disagree
with the Alliance that, as shown in the
FMVSS No. 214 fleet testing program,
we should not have used the ES–2re
dummy to assess the practicability of
meeting the pole test. The Alliance
compared the performance of vehicles
tested with the ES–2re and the SID–IIs
17 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:11 Jun 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
to conclude that the SID–IIs resulted in
a more rigorous test of the side air bag
system. However, almost all of the
vehicles cited by the Alliance (nine of
ten vehicles) were equipped with roofmounted window curtain side air bags.
In determining which test dummy, the
ES–2re or the SID–IIs, would produce a
more demanding evaluation of a
countermeasure available to convertible
vehicles, we sought to assess the
practicability of meeting the pole test
with a seat-mounted side air bag system
since convertibles will not have the
roof-mounted countermeasure available
to them. For seat-mounted systems, we
determined that using the ES–2re, with
its larger mass and more complex
instrumentation as compared to the
SID–IIs, would be more challenging to
manufacturers of convertible vehicles in
the pole test. Our test data showed that
the two convertible vehicles evaluated
in the FMVSS No. 214 fleet testing
program met the pole test requirements.
As for testing with the SID–IIs,
practicability was also shown by the
results of the 2005 Subaru Forester
tested in the FMVSS No. 214 fleet
testing program. While not a
convertible, the vehicle had a seatmounted head and thorax combination
side air bag that met the injury criteria
of the pole test when tested with the
SID–IIs. A recent oblique pole test of the
2006 VW Passat showed that the seatmounted torso side air bag passed the
lower spine and pelvic force injury
criteria of the pole test with the SID–IIs
test dummy (see Table 1, supra), again
demonstrating the potential use of
effective seat-mounted countermeasures
for convertible vehicles in protecting
small occupants.
Nonetheless, although data indicate
that manufacturers are capable of
installing countermeasures in
convertible vehicles to meet the pole
test, we agree that some manufacturers
need more time to develop new
countermeasures for convertible
vehicles and implement changes to the
door trim, packaging and air bag
systems to meet the pole test
requirements. Door-mounted, upwardly
deploying curtain air bag technology
remains a feasible option for head
protection in convertibles. To provide
manufacturers of convertibles more time
to develop more advanced technologies,
this final rule delays the compliance
date for convertibles until September 1,
2015.
d. Effective Date for Vehicles
Manufactured in More Than One Stage
and for Altered Vehicles
The September 11, 2007 final rule
specified a compliance date of
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32479
September 1, 2013, that applied to
vehicles with a GVWR greater than
3,855 kg (8,500 lb), to altered vehicles,
and to vehicles manufactured in more
than one stage. NTEA requested that
NHTSA amend the compliance dates
‘‘such that the effective date for multistage produced vehicles with a gross
vehicle weight rating greater than 8,500
is September 1, 2014 (one year later
than the effective date for single stage
produced vehicles).’’ NTEA stated that
it would not be possible for
manufacturers of vehicles produced in
more than one stage (‘‘multi-stage
manufacturers’’) of vehicles with a
GVWR greater than 3,855 kg (8,500 lb)
to comply on the same date as the
chassis manufacturers of those vehicles,
since multi-stage manufacturers ‘‘cannot
begin planning their compliance
strategies until the chassis
manufacturers have validated the single
stage version of the chassis.’’
NHTSA has decided to grant the
request to provide multi-stage
manufacturers additional time to meet
the upgraded FMVSS No. 214
requirements. Today’s final rule
provides vehicles manufactured in more
than one stage and altered vehicles until
a year after completion of the phase-in
for all other vehicle types, i.e., until
September 1, 2016, to meet the pole test
and the upgraded MDB test. To enhance
the ability of manufacturers of these
vehicles (which are often small
businesses) to manage resources to meet
the upgraded FMVSS No. 214
requirements, NHTSA is delaying the
effective date for all vehicles
manufactured in more than one stage
and altered vehicles subject to the
upgraded FMVSS No. 214 requirements,
and not just vehicles with a GVWR
greater than 3,855 kg (8,500 lb). This is
consistent with the agency’s final rule
on ‘‘Vehicles Built In Two Or More
Stages,’’ 70 FR 7414, February 14, 2005.
e. Clarifications and Corrections
This final rule corrects some of the
omissions and minor errors found in the
regulatory text, as discussed below.
1. Earning Credits for Early Compliance
The final rule adopted a phased-in
compliance schedule for the MDB test,
aligned the phase-in schedule of the
MDB test with that of the pole test, and
provided for the use of advance credits
to meet the MDB and pole test
requirements. The Alliance asked us to
clarify that for each production year, the
agency meant to have separate,
concurrent phase-in requirements for
the MDB and pole tests. Stated
differently, the petitioner asked for
clarification as to whether
E:\FR\FM\09JNR1.SGM
09JNR1
32480
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 111 / Monday, June 9, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
manufacturers may earn a credit toward
meeting the upgraded MDB requirement
if a vehicle met the upgraded MDB
requirement, and not the pole test,
ahead of schedule, and vice versa (i.e.,
manufacturers may earn a credit toward
meeting the pole test requirement if a
vehicle met the pole test ahead of
schedule, and not the upgraded MDB
requirement).
Our answer is yes. We did not intend
that a vehicle may only earn a credit if
it met both the upgraded MDB and pole
tests. In the September 11, 2007 final
rule, we aligned the MDB and pole test
phase-in schedules, and provided
advance credits, to let manufacturers
optimize engineering resources in
designing vehicles that met the MDB
and pole test requirements
simultaneously, thus reducing costs. We
sought to enable manufacturers the
ability to use credits in a manner that
efficiently distributes their resources to
meet the requirements. To enhance
manufacturers’ ability to optimize the
allocation of engineering resources and
to encourage the early introduction of
vehicles meeting the upgraded MDB test
or the pole test, the phase-in schedules
for the MDB and pole test requirements
were made separate and concurrent.
Thus, a vehicle that is not subject to the
MDB test (e.g., a vehicle with a GVWR
greater than 6,000 lb) may earn a credit
toward the pole test if the manufacturer
installed side air bags meeting the
FMVSS No. 214 pole test ahead of
schedule. Similarly, with separate
compliance schedules, a manufacturer
has incentive to modify a vehicle to
meet the upgraded MDB requirements
in the short term, to earn a credit toward
the MDB phase-in, even when the
vehicle needs a few years to meet the
pole test. The agency has clarified the
regulatory text of the standard to make
clear that the phase-in schedules are
separate and that manufacturers may
earn credits for meeting the MDB test
separate from earning credits for
meeting the pole test, and vice versa.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
2. SID–IIs Dummy Arm Positioning
In the preamble to the September 11,
2007 final rule, we specified that the
SID–IIs arm position for the dummy
seated in the driver and front passenger
seating positions will be 40 degrees
relative to torso (72 FR at 51939).18 The
Alliance petitioned: (a) To change this
18 On page 51939 of the September 11, 2007 final
rule (72 FR at 51939), second full sentence of the
second column, we described how the arm of the
SID–IIs in the front seating positions would be
raised in the ‘‘MDB’’ test. We meant to describe the
SID–IIs arm position in the pole test, since the SID–
IIs is not used in the front seating positions in the
MDB test.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:11 Jun 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
specification to one that specifies that
the arm position is set in the detent
representing a 45 degree angle between
the torso and the arm; and (b) to use this
specification for all seating positions in
both the pole test and MDB tests.
The agency agrees to these
suggestions. The reference to the 40
degree angle relative to torso was
incorrect, as the shoulder-arm joint
allows for discrete arm positions at 0, ±
45, ± 90, ± 135, and 180 degree settings
where positive is forward of the spine,
and does not have a discrete 40 degree
setting.19 Further, the agency
inadvertently did not address in the
September 11, 2007 final rule the arm
position for the rear seat dummy. We
agree with the Alliance that the arm
position for the rear seat dummy should
be placed at the 45 degree angle detent
position, for the reasons explained in
the September 11, 2007 final rule
(testing with the arm up reduces
possible interactions with the armrest—
and resulting test variability—and also
will not degrade the robustness of the
test). Further, we agree with the
petitioner that testing with the arm up
results in a more meaningful test, as the
dummy’s thorax is fully exposed to the
door trim.
3. Definition of Limited Line
Manufacturer
In the regulatory text of FMVSS No.
214 published in the September 11,
2007 final rule, the definition of
‘‘limited line manufacturer’’ states that
the term ‘‘carline’’ is defined in 49 CFR
585.4. Delphi pointed out that the
reference to 585.4 is incorrect. The
correct reference is 49 CFR 583.4. (See
definition of ‘‘limited line
manufacturer’’ in Subpart H of Part 585,
‘‘Side Impact Protection Phase-In
Reporting Requirements,’’ published
with the FMVSS No. 214 final rule,
September 11, 2007. 72 FR 51972). This
document makes the correction to
FMVSS No. 214.
4. Reinstate the Seat Adjustment
Procedure for 50th Percentile SID and
SID–HIII Dummy in the MDB and
FMVSS No. 201 Pole Tests, Respectively
The final rule adopted the seat
adjustment procedure for the 50th
percentile male ES–2re dummy
proposed in the NPRM and removed
from the regulatory text the procedure
previously used for the 50th percentile
male SID dummy in the MDB test. The
19 Similarly, the September 11, 2007 regulatory
text states that the dummy’s shoulder-arm joint
allows for a discrete arm position at a ±140 degree
setting where positive is forward of the spine. The
value should be ‘‘135’’ degrees rather than ‘‘140’’
degrees. This document makes the correction.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
seat adjustment procedure referenced
for the pole test using the SID–HIII
dummy (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart M) in
FMVSS No. 201, ‘‘Occupant protection
in interior impact,’’ was also changed to
be consistent. The Alliance petitioned
the agency to reinstate the seat
adjustment procedure that had been in
FMVSS No. 214 before the September
11, 2007 final rule (‘‘pre-existing seat
adjustment procedure’’) to use with the
SID and SID–HIII dummy because the
new seat adjustment procedure can
result in a different seat position and
dummy location than when using the
pre-existing seat adjustment procedure.
The petitioners stated that vehicles
currently certified to FMVSS Nos. 214
and 201 with the SID and SID–HIII
would have to be recertified to account
for changes in the seat position and
dummy location.
The agency agrees with the Alliance
that the new seat adjustment procedure
can place the SID and SID–HIII dummy
at a slightly different location in the
vehicle when compared to the preexisting seat adjustment procedure. It
was not our intent for manufacturers to
recertify vehicles to a new dummy
position with the SID and SID–HIII
dummy during the phase-out of the preexisting FMVSS requirements.
Therefore, we agree to reinstitute the
pre-existing seat adjustment procedure
for use with the SID in the MDB test
until the phase-in of the new
requirements is complete and for use
with the SID–HIII in FMVSS No. 201
pole tests. Thus, when the SID and SID–
HIII are used in compliance testing, the
seat adjustment procedure that had been
in FMVSS No. 214 before the September
11, 2007 will be used. When we use the
ES–2re dummy in compliance tests, we
will use the new seating procedure
adopted in the September 11, 2007 final
rule.
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking document was not
reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not
considered to be significant under E.O.
12866 or the Department’s Regulatory
Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034;
February 26, 1979). This document
amends the lead time and phase-in
percentages set forth in the September
11, 2007 final rule and specifies the test
speed for the pole test as 26 km/h to 32
km/h (16 mph to 20 mph) until the end
of the phase-in. These changes are made
to reflect better the capabilities of
manufacturers in meeting the
E:\FR\FM\09JNR1.SGM
09JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 111 / Monday, June 9, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
requirements of the September 11, 2007
final rule. The document also corrects
minor errors and clarifies text of the
final rule. The minimal impacts of
today’s amendment do not warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, as amended, requires agencies to
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
will not affect the price of new motor
vehicles.
The rule will have a positive effect on
motor vehicle manufacturers. This final
rule amends the lead time and phase-in
percentages set forth in the September
11, 2007 final rule and specifies the test
speed for the pole test as 26 km/h to 32
km/h (16 mph to 20 mph) until the end
of the phase-in. These changes will
positively affect vehicle manufacturers,
including small vehicle manufacturers,
of which there are four,20 in that it
better reflects the manufacturing
capabilities of the manufacturers in
meeting the September 11, 2007 final
rule than the lead time and phase-in
requirements as originally established in
that document. The rule also provides
more time to final-stage manufacturers
and alterers to meet the requirements of
the September 11, 2007 final rule. This
will have a positive impact on those
manufacturers, as they will be given
more time and thus more flexibility to
manage their engineering designs and
resources in planning for compliance
with the FMVSS No. 214 upgrade.
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.’’
20 Avanti,
Panoz, Saleen, and Shelby.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:11 Jun 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
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
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
requirements. NHTSA may opine on
such conflicts in the future, if
warranted. See id. at 883–86.
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). This
final rule will not result in expenditures
by State, local or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector in
excess of $100 million annually.
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 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32481
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 (6) 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.
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 September
11, 2007 final rule contained a
collection of information because of the
phase-in reporting requirements. There
is no burden to the general public.
The September 11, 2007 final rule
required 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 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 phase-in
period. Today’s final rule extends the
lead time period and phase-in of both
the pole and MDB test requirements.
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
E:\FR\FM\09JNR1.SGM
09JNR1
32482
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 111 / Monday, June 9, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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.
The September 11, 2007 final rule
discussed that NHTSA considered a
proposed ISO test procedure found in
ISO/SC10/WG1 (October 2001) and ISO
draft technical reports related to side air
bags performance to guide our decisionmaking to the extent consistent with the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.). In
today’s final rule, we explain our
reasons for retaining the requirement
that the FMVSS No. 214 pole test injury
criteria must be met at any speed ‘‘up
to’’ 32 km/h (20 mph).
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.
Appendix to Preamble
TABLE A OF APPENDIX.—PERCENT OF EACH MANUFACTURER’S VEHICLES THAT MUST COMPLY WITH THE POLE AND
MDB TESTS DURING THE PRODUCTION PERIOD
Pole test
MDB test
Exclusions from pole test
GVWR > 8,500 lb
Convertibles
Percent of vehicles that
must comply with pole
test during production
period *
Production period
Pole test speed
Percent of vehicles that
must comply with MDB
test during production
period *
September 1, 2010 to
August 31, 2011.
September 1, 2011 to
August 31, 2012.
September 1, 2012 to
August 31, 2013.
September 1, 2013 to
August 31, 2014.
On or after September
1, 2014.
26 to 32 km/h .........
Excluded ................
Excluded ................
20 percent ....................
20 percent.
26 to 32 km/h .........
Excluded ................
Excluded ................
40 percent ....................
40 percent.
26 to 32 km/h .........
Excluded ................
Excluded ................
60 percent ....................
60 percent.
26 to 32 km/h .........
Excluded ................
Excluded ................
80 percent ....................
80 percent.
Up to 32 km/h ........
Excluded ................
Excluded ................
‘‘All’’ vehicles excluding
altered and multistage vehicles; all vehicles produced by
limited line and small
volume manufacturers.
On or after September
1, 2015.
Up to 32 km/h ........
Included .................
Included .................
On or after September
1, 2016.
Up to 32 km/h ........
................................
................................
‘‘All’’ vehicles excluding
altered and multistage vehicles; all vehicles produced by
limited line and small
volume manufacturers.
All vehicles GVWR >
8.500 lb, and
convertibles, excluding altered and multistage vehicles.
All altered and multistage vehicles.
All altered and multistage vehicles.
* Limited line and small volume manufacturers, alterers, and multistage manufacturers are excluded from the 20/40/60/80 phase-in requirements for both the pole and MDB tests.
List of Subjects
PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR
VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
49 CFR Part 571
*
Imports, Incorporation by reference,
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Tires.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
49 CFR Part 585
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA amends 49 CFR Chapter V as
set forth below.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:11 Jun 06, 2008
§ 571.201 Standard No. 201; Occupant
protection in interior impact.
Jkt 214001
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 S8.18, S8.19, and the first
sentence of S8.28, to read as follows:
I
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
*
*
S8.18 Adjustable seats—vehicle to
pole test. Initially, adjustable seats shall
be adjusted as specified in S8.3.2.1 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 S8.3.2.2 of
Standard 214 (49 CFR 571.214).
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\09JNR1.SGM
09JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 111 / Monday, June 9, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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
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 S8.3.2.1 and
S8.3.2.2 of that standard. * * *
I 3. Section 571.214 is amended by:
I a. Revising the definition of ‘‘Limited
line manufacturer’’ in S3;
I b. Revising S7.1;
I c. Revising the heading of S7.2.1,
paragraphs S7.2.1(a) and 7.2.1(b), the
heading of S7.2.2, paragraph S7.2.2(a),
S7.2.4, and the heading of S8.3.1;
I d. Adding S8.3.2, S8.3.2.1, and
S8.3.2.2;
I e. Revising S9.1, S9.1.1, S9.1.2, S9.1.3,
S12.3.2(c), S12.3.3(c), S12.3.4(l), S13
heading, S13.1, S13.1.1, S.13.1.2,
S13.1.3, and adding S13.1.4; and
I f. Revising S13.3, and 13.4.
The revised and added text reads as
follows:
§ 571.214 Standard No. 214; Side impact
protection.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
S3 Definitions.
* * *
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.
*
*
*
*
*
S7.1 MDB test with SID. For vehicles
manufactured before September 1, 2010,
the following requirements must be met.
The following requirements also apply
to vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2010 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
the phase-in requirements of S7.2.
(Vehicles manufactured before
September 1, 2010 may meet S7.2, at the
manufacturer’s option.)
*
*
*
*
*
S7.2 MDB test with advanced test
dummies.
S7.2.1 Vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2010 to August 31,
2014.
(a) Except as provided in S7.2.4 of
this section, for vehicles manufactured
on or after September 1, 2010 to August
31, 2014, a percentage of each
manufacturer’s production, as specified
in S13.1.1, S13.1.2, S13.1.3, and
S13.1.4, shall meet the requirements of
S7.2.5 and S7.2.6 when tested with the
test dummy specified in those sections.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:11 Jun 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
Vehicles manufactured before
September 1, 2014 may be certified as
meeting the requirements of S7.2.5 and
S7.2.6.
(b) For vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2010 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.
*
*
*
*
*
S7.2.2 Vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2014.
(a) Subject to S7.2.4 of this section,
each vehicle manufactured on or after
September 1, 2014 must meet the
requirements of S7.2.5 and S7.2.6, when
tested with the test dummy specified in
those sections.
*
*
*
*
*
S7.2.4 Exceptions from the MDB
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 S7.2.1 of this
section (but vehicles that will be
manufactured on or after September 1,
2014 are subject to S7.2.2);
(2) Vehicles that are manufactured by
a limited line manufacturer are not
subject to S7.2.1 of this section (but
vehicles that will be manufactured on or
after September 1, 2014 are subject to
S7.2.2).
(b) Vehicles that are altered (within
the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) before
September 1, 2016 after having been
previously certified in accordance with
part 567 of this chapter, and vehicles
manufactured in two or more stages
before September 1, 2016, are not
subject to S7.2.1. Vehicles that are
altered on or after September 1, 2016,
and vehicles that are manufactured in
two or more stages on or after
September 1, 2016, 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).
*
*
*
*
*
S8.3.1 50th Percentile Male ES–2re
Dummy (49 CFR Part 572 Subpart U) In
Front Seats
*
*
*
*
*
S8.3.2 50th Percentile Male SID
Dummy (49 CFR Part 572 Subpart F) in
Front and Rear Seats
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32483
S8.3.2.1 Adjustable seats.
Adjustable seats are placed in the
adjustment position midway between
the forward most and rearmost
positions, and if separately adjustable in
a vertical direction, are at the lowest
position. If an adjustment position does
not exist midway between the forward
most and rearmost positions, the closest
adjustment position to the rear of the
mid-point is used.
S8.3.2.2 Adjustable seat back
placement. 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. Place each adjustable head
restraint in its highest adjustment
position. Position adjustable lumbar
supports so that they are set in their
released, i.e., full back position.
*
*
*
*
*
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,
2010 to August 31, 2014, a percentage
of each manufacturer’s production, as
specified in S13.1.1, S13.1.2, S13.1.3,
and S13.1.4 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 between 26
km/h to 32 km/h (16 to 20 mph)
inclusive. Vehicles manufactured before
September 1, 2014 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,
2014, 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, rigid pole of 254 mm (10
inches) in diameter, at any speed up to
and including 32 km/h (20 mph). All
vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2014 must meet S9.1.2
without the use of advance credits.
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 vehicles manufactured on
or after September 1, 2014 by these
manufacturers are subject to S9.1.2);
(2) Vehicles that are manufactured by
a limited line manufacturer are not
E:\FR\FM\09JNR1.SGM
09JNR1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
32484
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 111 / Monday, June 9, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
subject to S9.1.1 of this section (but
vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2014 by these
manufacturers are subject to S9.1.2).
(b) Vehicles that are altered (within
the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) before
September 1, 2016 after having been
previously certified in accordance with
part 567 of this chapter, and vehicles
manufactured in two or more stages
before September 1, 2016, are not
subject to S9.1.1. Vehicles that are
altered on or after September 1, 2016,
and vehicles that are manufactured in
two or more stages on or after
September 1, 2016, must meet the
requirements of S9.1.2, 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, 2015 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, 2015. Vehicles with a
gross vehicle weight rating greater than
3,855 kg (8,500 lb) manufactured on or
after September 1, 2015 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,
rigid pole of 254 mm (10 inches) in
diameter, at any speed up to and
including 32 km/h (20 mph).
(d)(1) Convertibles manufactured
before September 1, 2015 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, 2015.
(2) Convertibles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2015 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,
rigid pole of 254 mm (10 inches) in
diameter, at any speed up to and
including 32 km/h (20 mph).
*
*
*
*
*
S12.3.2 5th percentile female driver
dummy positioning.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Driver arm/hand positioning. 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 45° ± 5°. The torso reference line is
defined as the thoracic spine centerline.
The shoulder-arm joint allows for
discrete arm positions at 0, ± 45, ± 90,
± 135, and 180 degree settings where
positive is forward of the spine.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:11 Jun 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
S12.3.3 5th percentile female front
passenger dummy positioning.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Passenger arm/hand positioning.
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 45° ± 5°. The torso reference line
is defined as the thoracic spine
centerline. The shoulder-arm joint
allows for discrete arm positions at 0, ±
45, ± 90, ± 135, and 180 degree settings
where positive is forward of the spine.
S12.3.4 5th percentile female in rear
outboard seating positions.
*
*
*
*
*
(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 45° ± 5°. The torso
reference line is defined as the thoracic
spine centerline. The shoulder-arm joint
allows for discrete arm positions at 0, ±
45, ± 90, ± 135, and 180 degree settings
where positive is forward of the spine.
S13 Phase-in of moving deformable
barrier and vehicle-to-pole performance
requirements.
S13.1 Vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2010 and before
September 1, 2014. At anytime during
the production years ending August 31,
2011, August 31, 2012, August 31, 2013,
and August 31, 2014, 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), or the vehicles (by make, model
and vehicle identification number) that
have been certified as complying with
the vehicle-to-pole test requirements
(S9.1) of this standard. The
manufacturer’s designation of a vehicle
as a certified vehicle meeting S7.2 or
S9.1 is irrevocable.
S13.1.1 Vehicles manufactured on
or after September 1, 2010 and before
September 1, 2011.
(a) 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
shall be not less than 20 percent of:
(1) The manufacturer’s average annual
production of vehicles manufactured in
the three previous production years; or
(2) The manufacturer’s production in
the current production year.
(b) Subject to S13.4, for vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1,
2010 and before September 1, 2011, the
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
number of vehicles complying with S9.1
shall be not less than 20 percent of:
(1) The manufacturer’s average annual
production of vehicles manufactured in
the three previous production years; or
(2) The manufacturer’s production in
the current production year.
S13.1.2 Vehicles manufactured on
or after September 1, 2011 and before
September 1, 2012.
(a) 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
shall be not less than 40 percent of:
(1) The manufacturer’s average annual
production of vehicles manufactured in
the three previous production years; or
(2) The manufacturer’s production in
the current production year.
(b) Subject to S13.4, for vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1,
2011 and before September 1, 2012, the
number of vehicles complying with S9.1
shall be not less than 40 percent of:
(1) The manufacturer’s average annual
production of vehicles manufactured in
the three previous production years; or
(2) The manufacturer’s production in
the current production year.
S13.1.3 Vehicles manufactured on
or after September 1, 2012 and before
September 1, 2013.
(a) Subject to S13.4, for vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1,
2012 and before September 1, 2013, the
number of vehicles complying with S7.2
shall be not less than 60 percent of:
(1) The manufacturer’s average annual
production of vehicles manufactured in
the three previous production years; or
(2) The manufacturer’s production in
the current production year.
(b) Subject to S13.4, for vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1,
2012 and before September 1, 2013, the
number of vehicles complying with S9.1
shall be not less than 60 percent of:
(1) The manufacturer’s average annual
production of vehicles manufactured in
the three previous production years; or
(2) The manufacturer’s production in
the current production year.
S13.1.4 Vehicles manufactured on
or after September 1, 2013 and before
September 1, 2014.
(a) Subject to S13.4, for vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1,
2013 and before September 1, 2014, the
number of vehicles complying with S7.2
shall be not less than 80 percent of:
(1) The manufacturer’s average annual
production of vehicles manufactured in
the three previous production years; or
(2) The manufacturer’s production in
the current production year.
(b) Subject to S13.4, for vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1,
2013 and before September 1, 2014, the
E:\FR\FM\09JNR1.SGM
09JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 111 / Monday, June 9, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
number of vehicles complying with S9.1
shall be not less than 80 percent of:
(1) The manufacturer’s average annual
production of vehicles manufactured in
the three previous production years; or
(2) The manufacturer’s production in
the current production year.
*
*
*
*
*
S13.3(a) 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(a),
S13.1.2(a), S13.1.3(a), and S13.1.4(a), 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).
(b) 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(b),
S13.1.2(b), S13.1.3(b), and S13.1.4(b), do
not count any vehicle that is excluded
by Standard No. 214 from the vehicleto-pole test (S9).
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, 2011.
(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, 2012 and,
(2) Is not counted toward compliance
with S13.1.1.
(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, 2013 and,
(2) Is not counted toward compliance
with S13.1.1 or S13.1.2.
(d) For purposes of complying with
S13.1.4, a manufacturer may count a
vehicle if it—
(1) Is manufactured on or after
October 11, 2007 but before September
1, 2014 and,
(2) Is not counted toward compliance
with S13.1.1, S13.1.2, or S13.1.3.
(e) For the purposes of calculating
average annual production of vehicles
for each manufacturer and the number
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:11 Jun 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
of vehicles manufactured by each
manufacturer, each vehicle that is
excluded from having to meet the
applicable requirement is not counted.
PART 585—PHASE-IN REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS
1. 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.
Subpart H—Side Impact Protection
Phase-in Reporting Requirements
I
2. Revise § 585.75 to read as follows.
§ 585.75
Response to inquiries.
At any time during the production
years ending August 31, 2011, August
31, 2012, August 31, 2013, and August
31, 2014, 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) or the vehicles (by make, model
and vehicle identification number) that
have been certified as complying with
the vehicle-to-pole test requirements
(S9.1) of FMVSS No. 214 (49 CFR
571.214). The manufacturer’s
designation of a vehicle as a certified
vehicle that meets S7.2 or S9.1 is
irrevocable.
I 3. Revise § 585.76 (a), (b), (c), and
(d)(2) to read as follows.
§ 585.76
Reporting requirements.
(a) Advanced credit phase-in
reporting requirements. (1) Within 60
days after the end of the production
years ending August 31, 2008, through
August 31, 2014, 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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32485
the production years ending August 31,
2011, August 31, 2012, August 31, 2013,
and August 31, 2014, 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 that are certified as
meeting the vehicle-to-pole test
requirements of S9 of Standard No. 214.
(d) Phase-in report content—
*
*
*
*
*
(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 vehicles that meet the
moving deformable barrier test
requirements of S7 of Standard No. 214,
Side Impact Protection (49 CFR
571.214), and the number of vehicles
that meet the vehicle-to-pole test
requirements of S9 of that standard.
I 4. Revise § 585.77 to read as follows.
§ 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, 2018.
Issued on: May 15, 2008.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8–11273 Filed 6–6–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
E:\FR\FM\09JNR1.SGM
09JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 111 (Monday, June 9, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32473-32485]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-11273]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 571 and 585
[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0104]
RIN 2127-AK27
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Protection in
Interior Impact; Side Impact Protection; Side Impact Phase-In Reporting
Requirements
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document responds to petitions for reconsideration of a
September 11, 2007 final rule that substantially upgraded Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 214, ``Side Impact Protection,'' by
incorporating a vehicle-to-pole test into the standard, adopting
technically-advanced test dummies and enhanced injury criteria, and
incorporating the advanced dummies into the standard's moving
deformable barrier test. To respond to petitioners' concerns about lead
time as quickly as possible, the agency is publishing its response to
the petitions in parts. Today's document addresses lead time issues,
and other matters that need to be resolved or clarified concerning lead
time and the phasing-in of the new requirements. A second document will
be published subsequently that addresses the other issues raised by the
petitions.
DATES: Effective date: August 8, 2008. If you wish to petition for
reconsideration of this rule, your petition must be received by July
24, 2008.
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).
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. Background
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
a. Alliance
b. General Motors (GM)
c. Toyota
d. Honda
e. Nissan
f. Porsche
g. Volkswagen (VW)
h. National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA)
i. Bosch
III. To Which Issues From the Petitions for Reconsideration Does
This Rule Respond?
IV. The Issues To Be Addressed in a Later Document
V. Response to Petitions
a. Extension of Lead Time and Phase-In Percentages
b. Test Speed
c. Effective Date for Convertible Vehicles
d. Effective Date for Vehicles Manufactured in More Than One
Stage and for Altered Vehicles
e. Clarifications and Corrections
1. Earning Credits for Early Compliance
2. SID-IIs Dummy Arm Positioning
3. Definition of Limited Line Manufacturer
4. Reinstate the Seat Adjustment Procedure for 50th Percentile
SID and SID-HIII Dummy in the MDB and FMVSS No. 201 Pole Tests,
Respectively
VI. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Appendix to Preamble
I. Background
On September 11, 2007, NHTSA published a final rule that
substantially upgraded Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 214, ``Side impact protection,'' (72 FR 51908, Docket No. NHTSA-
29134).\1\ Until the final rule, FMVSS No. 214 provided only thoracic
and pelvic protection in a test using a moving deformable barrier (MDB)
to simulate an intersection collision with one vehicle being struck in
the side by another vehicle. NHTSA upgraded FMVSS No. 214 to require
all light 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, such as utility poles and trees. By doing so it required
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 ensured the installation of new technologies,
such as side curtain air bags \2\ and torso side air bags, which are
capable of improving head and thorax protection to occupants of
[[Page 32474]]
vehicles that crash into poles and trees or of vehicles that are
laterally struck by a higher-riding vehicle. The side air bag systems
installed to meet the requirements of the final rule also reduce
fatalities and injuries caused by partial ejections through side
windows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The final rule fulfilled the mandate of the ``Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA-LU),'' which was signed by President George W.
Bush in August 2005. Evidently aware of the agency's then-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.''
\2\ These different side air bag systems are described in a
glossary in Appendix A to the September 11, 2007 final rule (72 FR
at 51954).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the September 11, 2007 final rule, vehicles will be tested
with two new, scientifically advanced test dummies representing a range
of occupants from mid-size males to small females. A test dummy known
as the ES-2re represents mid-size adult male occupants. The ES-2re 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, the size of a 5th percentile adult female, represents
smaller stature occupants. This dummy better represents occupants 5
feet 4 inches (163 cm) or less, which crash data indicates comprise 34
percent of all serious and fatal injuries to near-side occupants in
side impacts.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The September 11, 2007 final rule also enhanced FMVSS No. 214's MDB
test by specifying the use of the ES-2re dummy in the front seat and
the SID-IIs dummy in the rear seating position. 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.
After reviewing the comments to the notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) \4\ preceding the final rule, the results of the agency's FMVSS
No. 214 fleet testing program and manufacturers' production plans which
showed installation of side air bags in vehicles ahead of the schedule
proposed in the NPRM, the September 11, 2007 final rule adopted a two-
year lead time prior to the beginning of the phased-in pole test
requirements. We provided for a four-year phase-in period, made
allowance for use of advanced credits towards meeting the new
requirements, and made 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. We also adopted a phase-in for the MDB test and aligned
the phase-in schedule with the oblique pole test requirements,
providing also for the use of advance credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 69 FR 27990; May 17, 2004, Docket No. NHTSA-2004-17694;
reopening of comment period, 70 FR 2105; January 12, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
The agency received petitions for reconsideration of the September
11, 2007 final rule from: the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
(Alliance),\5\ General Motors North America (GM), Toyota Motor North
America, Inc. (Toyota), American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda), Nissan
North America, Inc. (Nissan), Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
(Porsche), the National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA), and Robert
Bosch LLC (Bosch). The issues raised by the petitioners are summarized
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 5 The Alliance is made up of BMW group, Chrysler LLC, Ford
Motor Company, General Motors, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mazda, Mitsubishi
Motors, Porsche, Toyota, and Volkswagen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Alliance
The Alliance stated that it supports the goal of improving side
impact occupant protection beyond that already accomplished and
generally supports the changes to FMVSS No. 214. The Alliance
petitioned for agency reconsideration of the following issues: \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Categorization of the issues into these nine areas was made
by the Alliance in its petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Lead time. The final rule specifies that manufacturers must
begin meeting the upgraded pole and MDB test requirements on a phased-
in schedule beginning September 1, 2009. The petitioner asked NHTSA to
begin the start of the phase-in on September 1, 2011.
2. Lower bound on speed range for the pole test. The final rule
specifies that vehicles must meet the requirements of the pole test
when tested ``at any speed up to and including 32 km/h (20 mph).'' The
petitioner asked that the pole test speed be specified as 26 to 32
kilometers per hour (km/h) (16 to 20 miles per hour) (mph).
3. Clarification of phase-in requirements. The final rule adopted a
phased-in compliance schedule for the MDB test, aligned the phase-in
schedule with the oblique pole test, and provided for the use of
advance credits to meet the MDB requirements. The Alliance asked us to
clarify that for each production year, the agency meant to have
separate, concurrent phase-in requirements for the MDB and pole tests.
4. Convertibles. The final rule applied the pole test requirements
to convertible vehicles after the agency had made a determination that
it was practicable for the vehicles to meet the requirements. The
Alliance petitioned the agency to allow convertible vehicles to follow
the lead time requirements applicable to vehicles with a GVWR between
8,500 and 10,000 pounds, i.e., 100 percent of vehicles manufactured on
or after September 1 of the fifth production year after the start of
the phase-in.
5. SID-IIs pelvic criterion. The final rule adopted a pelvic force
injury assessment reference value of 5,525 Newtons (N) for the SID-IIs
small female dummy. The petitioner asked that this value be changed to
8,550 N.
6. Rear seat dummy arm positioning in the MDB test. The final rule
specifies that the SID-IIs dummy in the rear seat of the vehicle has
its upper arm in the down position. The petitioner asked that the arm
be set in the detent representing a 45 degree angle between the torso
and the arm.
7. Multi-stage and altered vehicles, including vehicles with
partitions. The petitioner recommended that NHTSA ``exempt'' multi-
stage/altered vehicles (including vehicles with partitions behind the
front seats) from the oblique pole test requirements.
8. FMVSS No. 301 dummy application. The petitioner asked that the
wording of FMVSS No. 301, ``Fuel system integrity,'' be revised to
specify that the agency will conduct the side crash test of that
standard using whichever dummies the manufacturer has used to certify
the vehicle to FMVSS No. 214.
9. Corrections of test procedures and typographical errors. The
petitioner cited omissions or errors in the regulatory text in need of
correction.
b. General Motors (GM)
GM, an Alliance member, expressed support for the Alliance's
petition and elaborated on its concern about the lack of a lower bound
for the speed of the pole test. The petitioner stated that attempts to
comply with the ``up to'' 32 km/h (20 mph) test speed will require
vehicles to sacrifice significant immunity from unwanted deployments
which will increase the frequency of unnecessary air bag deployments.
GM petitioned NHTSA to either bound the test speed at a lower speed of
26 km/h (16 mph) or 23 km/h (14.3 mph), or delay implementation of the
``up to'' aspect of the requirement until the end of the phase-in to
allow for additional sensing technology development.
c. Toyota
Toyota, an Alliance member, expressed support for the Alliance's
petition and elaborated on its concern about lead time and the pole
impact test speed of ``up to'' 32 km/h (20 mph). Toyota requested that
the phase-in be
[[Page 32475]]
effective from September 1, 2011. The petitioner noted that though side
air bags have advanced in the years since NHTSA's NPRM, they are only
one portion of the system and their deployment depends heavily on the
capability of the sensors.
The petitioner stated that the typical side air bag sensor is a
deceleration sensor, or G sensor. Toyota said that the state of
technology for G sensors, while highly advanced, is limited by
deployment ``gray zones'' that denote the measurement tolerance of the
sensor. The petitioner noted that real-world evidence of inadvertent
deployments exist. In late 2006, the 2005-late 2006 model year Scion tC
vehicles were recalled when complaints were received of inadvertent
deployment of the side air bag when the door was slammed. It noted
there have been other investigations by NHTSA into complaints for other
manufacturers' vehicles as well. Toyota recommended that NHTSA require
26 km/h as the lowest limit of impact velocity in the pole test, since
bounding the lower impact velocity in that way would make it possible
to distinguish the G sensor output necessary for side air bag
deployment from the output characteristic of a door slam or minor
impact event.
d. Honda
Honda supported the upgraded FMVSS No. 214 and sought correction
and clarification with respect to referenced materials and test
procedures, such as making FMVSS No. 214 consistent with cross-
references to the test dummy used in the FMVSS No. 301 and 305 crash
tests, providing for adjustment of telescopic steering columns, and
clarifying adjustment of seat belt shoulder anchorages.
e. Nissan
Nissan requested additional lead time before the start of the
phase-in period. The petitioner stated that the upgraded FMVSS No. 214
requirements will necessitate a redesign of the side impact air bag
system, and that the pending rulemaking activity in the area of
ejection mitigation raises concerns that a near-term rulemaking on
ejection mitigation will put significant additional strain on Nissan's
engineering resources and increase costs of compliance for both
regulations.\7\ The petitioner requested that NHTSA begin phasing-in
the requirements on September 1, 2010. Further, the petitioner
requested that we delay the effective date for convertible vehicles
until a year after completion of the phase-in for other vehicle types,
i.e., under the schedule of the September 11, 2007 final rule, until
September 1, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ NHTSA has announced that it is developing a proposal for an
ejection mitigation containment requirement. (``NHTSA Vehicle Safety
Rulemaking Priorities and Supporting Research: 2003-2006,'' July
2003, Docket 15505.) 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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
f. Porsche
Porsche, an Alliance member, expressed support for the Alliance's
petition and elaborated on its concern about lead time, the rear seat
dummy arm position, and the pole impact test speed. The petitioner
stated that two years of lead time is inadequate because the final rule
imposes new crash test requirements, incorporates new test dummies with
unresolved issues and new injury criteria, and ``compliance with all of
the requirements, plus adequate compliance margins, has not been
demonstrated by NHTSA.''
g. Volkswagen (VW)
VW, an Alliance member, expressed support for the Alliance's
petition and elaborated on its belief that convertible models should be
excluded from the pole test due to practicability issues.
h. National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA)
NTEA requested that NHTSA ``exempt multi-stage produced vehicles
such as specialized work trucks from the new requirements of this
regulation.'' Alternatively, NTEA requested that NHTSA ``consider
amending the phased-in effective dates such that the effective date for
multi-stage produced vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating
greater than 8,500 is September 1, 2014 (one year later than the
effective date for single stage produced vehicles).''
i. Bosch
Bosch stated that it fully supported the pole test but asked that
NHTSA ``modify the test set-up by optionally allowing information being
made available from the Electronic Stability Control [ESC] on the
vehicle CAN-bus. This would allow advanced restraint electronics to
achieve the same performance and occupant protection as in real world
accidents.'' Bosch stated that in the test set-up specified in the
final rule, no ESC signals are communicated on the vehicle CAN-bus,
since the vehicle is not sliding laterally with wheels moving on the
ground. As a result, the petitioner stated, ``advanced restraint
triggering algorithms cannot utilize any ESC data, resulting in
significantly later TTF [time-to-fire] and thus reduced occupant
protection.'' Bosch believed that certain sensor information should be
used to trigger the side curtain air bags and torso side air bags as
soon as possible. Bosch recommended that the agency should ``directly
feed-in the lateral velocity of 20 mph cos (15[deg]),'' or feed in
``the ESC-data communicated on the CAN-bus during a real lateral pole
crash (with 20 mph under 75[deg])'' provided by the original equipment
manufacturer.
III. To Which Issues From the Petitions for Reconsideration Does This
Rule Respond?
To respond to petitioners' concerns about lead time as quickly as
possible, the agency is publishing its response to the petitions for
reconsideration in parts. Today's document addresses lead time issues,
and other matters that need to be resolved or clarified concerning lead
time and the phasing-in of the new requirements. A second document will
be published subsequently that addresses the other issues raised by the
petitions.
This final rule:
a. Extends the lead time period before manufacturers must begin
phasing in vehicles to meet the upgraded FMVSS No. 214 requirements to
September 1, 2010 and amends the percentages of manufacturers' vehicles
that are required to meet the new requirements from 20/50/75/all to 20/
40/60/80/all \8\;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``All'' vehicles must meet the requirements without the use
of advance credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Specifies the test speed for the pole test as ``26 km/h to 32
km/h'' (16 mph to 20 mph) until the end of the phase-in, at which time
vehicles must meet the requirements of the pole test when tested ``at
any speed up to and including 32 km/h (20 mph)'';
c. Delays the effective date for convertible vehicles until after
completion of the phase-in for other vehicle types, i.e., until
September 1, 2015;
d. Delays the effective date for multi-stage vehicles and alterers
until after completion of the phase-in for all other vehicle types,
i.e., until September 1, 2016; and,
e. Corrects the omissions and minor errors found in the regulatory
text relating to the earning of credits for early compliance, the SID-
IIs dummy arm positioning, the definition of limited line manufacturer,
and the reinstatement of the seat adjustment procedure for the SID
dummy.
[[Page 32476]]
Each of these issues is discussed below in this preamble.
IV. The Issues To Be Addressed in a Later Document
The issues from the petitions for reconsideration that we will be
resolving in a later notice are listed below. We will address requests
pertaining to:
a. The SID-IIs pelvic criterion;
b. Whether vehicles manufactured in more than one stage,
particularly with partitions, should be excluded from the pole test;
c. The specification as to which test dummy will be used in FMVSS
No. 301 and FMVSS No. 305 crash tests;
d. Bosch's suggestion to optionally allow sensor information to be
fed into the restraint triggering algorithms; and,
e. Further correction of typographical and other minor errors in
the regulatory text set forth in the September 11, 2007 final rule.
V. Response to Petitions
a. Extension of Lead Time and Phase-In Percentages
The Alliance, GM, Nissan, Porsche and Toyota petitioned the agency
to revise the lead time schedule. There was general concern regarding
the technical and practical challenges of meeting the new requirements
with two years of lead time.
NHTSA specified a two-year lead time in the September 11, 2007
final rule based on an analysis of product plans submitted by seven
vehicle manufacturers, whose combined production accounted for
approximately 90 percent of all light vehicle sales. The data on
planned side air bag installations and projected sales through model
year (MY) 2011 indicated 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 was fairly uniform
between the manufacturers. Further, according to test results from the
agency's FMVSS No. 214 fleet testing program, we estimated 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, with regard to thorax bags, the product plans indicated there
were large differences between manufacturers in the percentage of
thorax bags being planned, particularly for light trucks. Also, of the
vehicles tested equipped with thorax bags, only 56 percent met the
chest requirement in the pole test.
From our FMVSS No. 214 fleet testing program, we believed that side
air bags installed in most passenger cars and small and medium size
light trucks (including SUVs and minivans) would not need extensive
modifications to meet the new FMVSS No. 214 requirements. Instead, we
believed that the rule would only result in current side air bags
having to be widened and the inflators made more robust, redesigns that
we believed could reasonably be made with a two-year lead time and the
phase-in percentages of the final rule.\9\ We believed that, while some
vehicles would need an added sensor at the location of the SID-IIs 5th
percentile female dummy at the full-forward seating position, current
sensor technology used today (e.g., to meet the ``voluntary
commitment'' made by auto manufacturers) \10\ would generally suffice
to enable manufacturers to certify vehicles to the pole test
requirements. We believed that extensive vehicle structural
modifications were not necessary for passenger cars and small and
medium size light trucks to meet the pole test requirements, while it
would take longer than two years to add a thorax bag to a vehicle model
that has not had one previously (e.g., vehicles with a GVWR greater
than 8,500 lb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Under the phase-in schedule adopted in the final rule, the
following percentages of each manufacturer's vehicles were required
to meet the new requirements: 20 percent of a ``light'' vehicles
(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 multi-stage manufacturers. Vehicle
manufacturers were able to earn credits for meeting the requirements
ahead of schedule.
\10\ 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 side impact air bags. See footnote 8 of the
September 11, 2007 final rule (72 FR 51910).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, based on our experience, if structural changes were
needed, the modification could be done within three to four years since
most vehicle lines would likely experience some level of redesign over
the next three to four years. Accordingly, the 75 percent phase-in
percentage was adopted to elongate the phase-in schedule one year
longer than proposed and to provide vehicle manufacturers the
flexibility of a four-year phase-in schedule to incorporate side
structure and restraint system modifications into their production
cycles for those vehicles needing such changes. The additional phase-in
year provided more opportunity to incorporate side impact protection
design changes during the course of each manufacturer's normal
production cycle.
After considering the information submitted in the petitions for
reconsideration, NHTSA has decided to provide an additional year of
lead time to the two-year lead time provided in the final rule. The
agency's determination of the lead time of the final rule was based in
large part on the information from the manufacturer survey, on the
conformance dates of the voluntary commitment,\11\ and on the results
of the FMVSS No. 214 fleet testing program. We assumed, based on the
information, that manufacturers would be able to meet the requirements
with current sensor designs and configurations, did not need to
redesign vehicle interior spacing, or to undertake a substantial door
and seat redesign to accommodate the side air bag systems needed to
meet the requirements of the pole test. We recognized that the final
rule would necessitate changes to the air bag design, inflator
characteristics and door trim and roof rail designs, which typically
are associated with a three-year lead time for implementation. However,
we assumed that a two-year lead time would be sufficient given our
estimate that 90 percent of MY 2010 light vehicles will be equipped
with side air bags protecting the head,
[[Page 32477]]
presumably in conformance with the voluntary agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Under Phase 1 of the voluntary commitment, manufacturers
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
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) MDB perpendicular side
impact test. 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. See Docket NHTSA-2003-14623-
13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information submitted by the petitioners indicates that
notwithstanding conformance with the voluntary agreement, new changes
will have to be incorporated into vehicles to meet the pole test
requirements, including new sensors and wider air bags, as well as
changes to interior spacing configurations, door, seat and roof
designs. Current side air bag systems conforming to the voluntary
commitment will need to be made more robust to meet the FMVSS No. 214
pole test,\12\ and that for vehicles that do not meet the pole test,
redesigning the vehicle interior to accommodate systems that meet the
requirements is a significant undertaking that cannot be accomplished
within two years.\13\ Data from pole tests we conducted in support of
NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) support this assessment. We
tested six vehicles that were in conformance with the voluntary
agreement and that had been characterized as ``good'' performers in the
IIHS rating program. Of these, four of the six vehicles did not meet
the criteria of the pole test when tested with the SID-IIs test dummy:
two vehicles need improved head protection, and four vehicles need
better pelvic protection. The results of the testing are set forth in
Table 1, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ E.g., the Alliance stated in its petition for
reconsideration (p. 5): ``NHTSA's fleet data has demonstrated that,
in order to comply with the requirements using the ES2-re and SID-
IIs dummies, a vehicle manufacturer will need to provide
countermeasures beyond the installation of a side curtain air bag or
a combination side air bag.''
\13\ Toyota petition for reconsideration.
Table 1. SID--IIs Oblique Pole Tests With Vehicles Rated ``Good'' by IIHS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower spine Pelvis
NHTSA test No. * Vehicles Vehicle class Side air bag type HIC36 (Gs) force (N)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1000 82 5525
V06287............................... 2007 Honda Pilot........ SUV.................... Curtain + Torso........ 3464 68 6649
V06293............................... 2007 Nissan Quest....... Van.................... Curtain................ 5694 79 5786
V06285............................... 2007 Ford Escape........ SUV.................... Curtain + Torso........ 407 65 6515
V06284............................... 2006 VW Passat.......... Medium PC.............. Curtain + Torso........ 323 40 3778
V06286............................... 2006 Subaru Impreza..... Medium PC.............. Combo.................. 184 58 4377
V06283............................... 2007 Toyota Avalon...... Heavy PC............... Curtain + Torso........ 642 62 6672
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Test numbers correspond to those in the NHTSA vehicle crash test database, https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/nrd-11/veh_db.html.
To provide manufacturers more time to meet the upgraded FMVSS No.
214 requirements, this document extends the lead time period before
manufacturers must begin phasing in vehicles to meet the upgraded FMVSS
No. 214 requirements to September 1, 2010. Thus, three years of lead
time have been provided to account for redesigns to the vehicle
interior necessitated by the demands of the pole test. At the same
time, we do not believe that more than a total of three years of lead
time should be necessary, since interior redesigns typically can be
achieved in three years and since we have also extended the phase-in
period. To facilitate the installation of side impact air bags and
other safety countermeasures to meet the new requirements in light
vehicles as quickly as possible, we are providing only one additional
year of lead time, but we are adjusting the phase-in schedule of
manufacturers' vehicles that are required to meet the new requirements
from 20/50/75/all to 20/40/60/80/all.\14\ The adjusted schedule will
also continue to couple the phase-in of the MDB with the pole test to
enhance the practicability of meeting the new requirements. Moreover,
Nissan is correct that the agency's upcoming rulemaking on ejection
mitigation containment requirements will build on the foundations laid
by the September 11, 2007 final rule.\15\ For the convenience of the
reader, the revised compliance schedule is shown in Table A of the
Appendix to this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Other amended provisions related to the phase-in
percentages, including the phase-in requirements for convertible
vehicles, vehicles manufactured in more than one stage, and altered
vehicles are addressed in sections below in this preamble.
\15\ NHTSA believes that side curtains installed pursuant to
FMVSS No. 214's pole test could be one countermeasure developed to
satisfy ejection mitigation requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Test Speed
The agency has decided to retain in the long run that the FMVSS No.
214 pole test requirements must be met at any speed ``up to'' 32 km/h
(20 mph), but has decided to bound the test speed at a lower speed of
26 km/h (16 mph) until the end of the phase-in to allow for additional
sensing technology development.
The suggestion that the pole test speed should be limited to 26 to
32 km/h (16 to 20 mph) was made by the Alliance and some other
commenters to the NPRM. In our final rule, we decided against the
suggestion because our crash data showed that crashes with a delta-V of
26 km/h (16 mph) or less resulted in approximately a third of the
fatalities and almost half of the MAIS 3-5 non-fatal injured occupants
in near-side crashes.\16\ Based on the crash data, we believed there
was a safety need to require manufacturers to ensure that vehicles
provide improved protection in crashes below 26 km/h (16 mph). We
wanted to ensure that occupants would be protected if, for example,
head contact could occur with a pole or other rigid narrow object. We
also believed that the threshold for deployment of side impact air bags
would vary based on vehicle design. 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 or occupant protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The analysis was based upon front-outboard adult occupants
with serious or fatal injuries in 1997-2003 NASS non-rollover, near-
side crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We continue to believe that prescribing a 26 km/h (16 mph) lower
bound for the test speed might force a test condition that would not be
ideal for vehicle safety. An occupant's head could strike a pole or
rigid narrow object in crashes at less than 26 km/h (16 mph). To
address the fatalities and serious injuries occurring in near-side
crashes with a delta-V of 26 km/h (16 mph) or less, we again decline
the request to permanently bound the pole test speed to 26 to 32 km/h
(16 to 20 mph).
However, at the time of the final rule, the agency was not aware of
any technical challenges to manufacturers to comply with the pole test
requirements at the lower range of test speeds. The agency assumed the
side impact sensing technology had developed to the state where sensors
could discriminate between collision events at lower speeds and non-
crash events. The
[[Page 32478]]
comments to the NPRM did not raise concerns about the ability of
current sensing technology to operate satisfactorily at the lower test
speeds, and we did not consider in our fleet testing program the
potential problems sensors would have in detecting crashes from non-
crash events at the lower speeds.
The petitions for reconsideration now bring to light the
limitations of current sensing technology to distinguish between
situations where the side air bag should and should not deploy. GM
confirmed our understanding that the lower speed at which side air bags
will need to deploy will differ based upon the vehicle size, weight and
available crush space between the occupant and the door trim. The
petitioners also suggested that side air bag deployment will depend on
whether the SID-IIs 5th percentile female test dummy or the ES-2re 50th
percentile adult male test dummy is seated in the vehicle. We agree
with the petitioners' explanations that side crashes require the
sensing system to quickly discern whether to deploy the air bag. GM
stated that side crashes not only require a much faster decision-making
process compared to frontal impacts, but they typically require
deployment at much lower vehicle crash energy levels, which makes them
difficult to distinguish from abuse and other non-deployment events.
According to petitioners, current sensing strategies (which use
deceleration sensors, or ``G sensors'') cannot at lower test speeds
distinguish the output needing side air bag deployment from the output
characteristic of a door slamming or minor impact event. Petitioners
also stated that at lower speeds in both the FMVSS No. 214 pole and MDB
tests, the G sensor output is similar in magnitude and profile to door
slams.
Unintended side air bag deployments have posed problems in the
past, when side air bags were first introduced on the market in the
late 1990s. Table 2 shows investigations conducted by NHTSA's Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI) into unintended side air bag deployments.
Separate from Table 2, there have also been a number of other
manufacturer voluntary recalls involving unintended side air bag
deployments.
Table 2.--ODI Investigations Into Unintended Side Air Bag Deployments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ODI investigation No. Vehicle model(s) ODI resolution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE04-081.................... 2001-2002 Volkswagen Closed without
Jetta, Golf and GTI. recall.
PE99-061.................... 1998-1999 Cadillac 02V217 for 215K
DeVille. vehicles.
PE99-017.................... 1999 BMW 3-Series... 99V063 for 32,500
vehicles.
PE00-042.................... 1999-2000 Lincoln Closed without
Continental. recall.
RQ00-013.................... 1997 Mercedes Benz E 00V388 for 16,255
& SL Class. vehicles.
PE02-011.................... 1999-2001 BMW 3- 02V223 for 20,500
Series. vehicles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
After considering the issues raised by the petitioners, we are
concerned about the potential safety implications associated with side
air bags deploying without a side impact crash. NHTSA concludes that if
the pole test speed were not bounded in the near term with a test speed
of 26 km/h (16 mph), unwarranted deployments of the side air bags could
become an issue and could negatively impact public acceptance of side
air bags. The agency has thus decided to provide the manufacturers more
time to select and develop the proper technology for their vehicles.
Accordingly, we are delaying the implementation of the ``up to''
requirements to the end of the phase-in. To meet the requirement that
the pole test injury criteria must be met at any speed ``up to'' 32 km/
h (20 mph), manufacturers will have to use new technologies and/or more
sophisticated algorithms that distinguish a real crash from a non-
event. GM indicated that it is working on the new sensing technologies,
but needs additional time to develop them. We are therefore granting
the request of the petitioner to bound the test speed range from 26 km/
h to 32 km/h (16 to 20 mph) until the end of the phase-in. By providing
manufacturers one year extra lead time and by extending the phase-in
another year, the manufacturers will have sufficient time to develop
the crash sensing technology to meet the full speed range of the pole
test.
c. Effective Date for Convertible Vehicles
VW requested that convertibles be excluded from the pole test
altogether ``due to their structural limitations which preclude the
installation of roof-mounted curtain air bags for occupant
protection.'' The Alliance requested that convertible vehicles be
allowed to follow the lead time requirements applicable to vehicles
with a GVWR greater than 8,500 lb, i.e., all vehicles manufactured on
or after September 1 of the fifth production year after the start of
the phase-in. The Alliance stated that it did not believe the
challenges for convertible vehicles to meet the side pole test
requirements are insurmountable. However, the Alliance stated, due to
the inherent design constraints of convertibles (i.e., lack of pillars
and roof rail to store and deploy curtain air bags) and the need to
apply significant structural changes, the lead time needed to ensure
compliance with the pole test is significantly longer for convertibles
than for non-convertible vehicles. Nissan similarly requested that we
delay the effective date for convertible vehicles until the last year
of the phase-in, to provide manufacturers time to develop new potential
countermeasures for convertibles, such as a seat-mounted thorax and
curtain air bag deployed from the door.
In our FMVSS No. 214 fleet testing program, we tested two
convertible vehicle models, the 2005 model year Saab 9-3 convertible
and 2005 model year Volkswagen Beetle. Both vehicle models were tested
to the oblique pole test requirements using an ES-2re dummy and in each
case, the vehicle met the requirements of the final rule. The tests
were conducted with the ES-2re 50th percentile male dummy because the
agency believed it would be more difficult for convertibles to meet the
pole test with the ES-2re than with the SID-IIs 5th percentile female
dummy. 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. In their petitions for reconsideration, the Alliance
and VW disagreed that the ES-2re dummy test was more challenging. The
Alliance cited the FMVSS No. 214 fleet testing results and stated
``that the vast majority of these vehicles had larger injury assessment
values when tested with the SID-IIs dummy: six out of ten vehicles had
larger HIC36 values, nine out of ten vehicles had larger
lower spine acceleration values, and all vehicles [footnote in text:
`Pelvic Force data for the SID-IIs was not available for one of the ten
vehicles tested'] had larger
[[Page 32479]]
pelvic force values.'' As a result, the Alliance stated, ``NHTSA has
not demonstrated practicability of this rule as applied to
convertibles'' and requested more lead time for convertible vehicles.
After considering the issues raised by the petitioners, we have
decided against VW's request to exclude convertibles from the pole test
requirements. As explained in the September 11, 2007 final rule, there
is safety need to include convertible vehicles in the pole test. In our
comparative analysis between convertibles and all other passenger cars
in side impact crashes with fixed objects, we 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
\17\ 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 indicated
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have also demonstrated the practicability of meeting the pole
test for convertible vehicles. The 2005 Saab 9-3 convertible and the
2005 Volkswagen Beetle met the pole test requirements with seat-mounted
head/thorax air bag systems. There are other countermeasures that are
effective and practicable for installation in convertible body types,
such as door-mounted upward-inflating curtains as introduced in the
2006 model year Volvo C70 convertible and which Nissan has indicated
they are now developing for its vehicles. We disagree with the Alliance
that, as shown in the FMVSS No. 214 fleet testing program, we should
not have used the ES-2re dummy to assess the practicability of meeting
the pole test. The Alliance compared the performance of vehicles tested
with the ES-2re and the SID-IIs to conclude that the SID-IIs resulted
in a more rigorous test of the side air bag system. However, almost all
of the vehicles cited by the Alliance (nine of ten vehicles) were
equipped with roof-mounted window curtain side air bags. In determining
which test dummy, the ES-2re or the SID-IIs, would produce a more
demanding evaluation of a countermeasure available to convertible
vehicles, we sought to assess the practicability of meeting the pole
test with a seat-mounted side air bag system since convertibles will
not have the roof-mounted countermeasure available to them. For seat-
mounted systems, we determined that using the ES-2re, with its larger
mass and more complex instrumentation as compared to the SID-IIs, would
be more challenging to manufacturers of convertible vehicles in the
pole test. Our test data showed that the two convertible vehicles
evaluated in the FMVSS No. 214 fleet testing program met the pole test
requirements.
As for testing with the SID-IIs, practicability was also shown by
the results of the 2005 Subaru Forester tested in the FMVSS No. 214
fleet testing program. While not a convertible, the vehicle had a seat-
mounted head and thorax combination side air bag that met the injury
criteria of the pole test when tested with the SID-IIs. A recent
oblique pole test of the 2006 VW Passat showed that the seat-mounted
torso side air bag passed the lower spine and pelvic force injury
criteria of the pole test with the SID-IIs test dummy (see Table 1,
supra), again demonstrating the potential use of effective seat-mounted
countermeasures for convertible vehicles in protecting small occupants.
Nonetheless, although data indicate that manufacturers are capable
of installing countermeasures in convertible vehicles to meet the pole
test, we agree that some manufacturers need more time to develop new
countermeasures for convertible vehicles and implement changes to the
door trim, packaging and air bag systems to meet the pole test
requirements. Door-mounted, upwardly deploying curtain air bag
technology remains a feasible option for head protection in
convertibles. To provide manufacturers of convertibles more time to
develop more advanced technologies, this final rule delays the
compliance date for convertibles until September 1, 2015.
d. Effective Date for Vehicles Manufactured in More Than One Stage and
for Altered Vehicles
The September 11, 2007 final rule specified a compliance date of
September 1, 2013, that applied to vehicles with a GVWR greater than
3,855 kg (8,500 lb), to altered vehicles, and to vehicles manufactured
in more than one stage. NTEA requested that NHTSA amend the compliance
dates ``such that the effective date for multi-stage produced vehicles
with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 8,500 is September 1,
2014 (one year later than the effective date for single stage produced
vehicles).'' NTEA stated that it would not be possible for
manufacturers of vehicles produced in more than one stage (``multi-
stage manufacturers'') of vehicles with a GVWR greater than 3,855 kg
(8,500 lb) to comply on the same date as the chassis manufacturers of
those vehicles, since multi-stage manufacturers ``cannot begin planning
their compliance strategies until the chassis manufacturers have
validated the single stage version of the chassis.''
NHTSA has decided to grant the request to provide multi-stage
manufacturers additional time to meet the upgraded FMVSS No. 214
requirements. Today's final rule provides vehicles manufactured in more
than one stage and altered vehicles until a year after completion of
the phase-in for all other vehicle types, i.e., until September 1,
2016, to meet the pole test and the upgraded MDB test. To enhance the
ability of manufacturers of these vehicles (which are often small
businesses) to manage resources to meet the upgraded FMVSS No. 214
requirements, NHTSA is delaying the effective date for all vehicles
manufactured in more than one stage and altered vehicles subject to the
upgraded FMVSS No. 214 requirements, and not just vehicles with a GVWR
greater than 3,855 kg (8,500 lb). This is consistent with the agency's
final rule on ``Vehicles Built In Two Or More Stages,'' 70 FR 7414,
February 14, 2005.
e. Clarifications and Corrections
This final rule corrects some of the omissions and minor errors
found in the regulatory text, as discussed below.
1. Earning Credits for Early Compliance
The final rule adopted a phased-in compliance schedule for the MDB
test, aligned the phase-in schedule of the MDB test with that of the
pole test, and provided for the use of advance credits to meet the MDB
and pole test requirements. The Alliance asked us to clarify that for
each production year, the agency meant to have separate, concurrent
phase-in requirements for the MDB and pole tests. Stated differently,
the petitioner asked for clarification as to whether
[[Page 32480]]
manufacturers may earn a credit toward meeting the upgraded MDB
requirement if a vehicle met the upgraded MDB requirement, and not the
pole test, ahead of schedule, and vice versa (i.e., manufacturers may
earn a credit toward meeting the pole test requirement if a vehicle met
the pole test ahead of schedule, and not the upgraded MDB requirement).
Our answer is yes. We did not intend that a vehicle may only earn a
credit if it met both the upgraded MDB and pole tests. In the September
11, 2007 final rule, we aligned the MDB and pole test phase-in
schedules, and provided advance credits, to let manufacturers optimize
engineering resources in designing vehicles that met the MDB and pole
test requirements simultaneously, thus reducing costs. We sought to
enable manufacturers the ability to use credits in a manner that
efficiently distributes their resources to meet the requirements. To
enhance manufacturers' ability to optimize the allocation of
engineering resources and to encourage the early introduction of
vehicles meeting the upgraded MDB test or the pole test, the phase-in
schedules for the MDB and pole test requirements were made separate and
concurrent. Thus, a vehicle that is not subject to the MDB test (e.g.,
a vehicle with a GVWR greater than 6,000 lb) may earn a credit toward
the pole test if the manufacturer installed side air bags meeting the
FMVSS No. 214 pole test ahead of schedule. Similarly, with separate
compliance schedules, a manufacturer has incentive to modify a vehicle
to meet the upgraded MDB requirements in the short term, to earn a
credit toward the MDB phase-in, even when the vehicle needs a few years
to meet the pole test. The agency has clarified the regulatory text of
the standard to make clear that the phase-in schedules are separate and
that manufacturers may earn credits for meeting the MDB test separate
from earning credits for meeting the pole test, and vice versa.
2. SID-IIs Dummy Arm Positioning
In the preamble to the September 11, 2007 final rule, we specified
that the SID-IIs arm position for the dummy seated in the driver and
front passenger seating positions will be 40 degrees relative to torso
(72 FR at 51939).\18\ The Alliance petitioned: (a) To change this
specification to one that specifies that the arm position is set in the
detent representing a 45 degree angle between the torso and the arm;
and (b) to use this specification for all seating positions in both the
pole test and MDB tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ On page 51939 of the September 11, 2007 final rule (72 FR
at 51939), second full sentence of the second column, we described
how the arm of the SID-IIs in the front seating positions would be
raised in the ``MDB'' test. We meant to describe the SID-IIs arm
position in the pole test, since the SID-IIs is not used in the
front seating positions in the MDB test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency agrees to these suggestions. The reference to the 40
degree angle relative to torso was incorrect, as the shoulder-arm joint
allows for discrete arm positions at 0, 45,
90, 135, and 180 degree settings where positive is forward
of the spine, and does not have a discrete 40 degree setting.\19\
Further, the agency inadvertently did not address in the September 11,
2007 final rule the arm position for the rear seat dummy. We agree with
the Alliance that the arm position for the rear seat dummy should be
placed at the 45 degree angle detent position, for the reasons
explained in the September 11, 2007 final rule (testing with the arm up
reduces possible interactions with the armrest--and resulting test
variability--and also will not degrade the robustness of the test).
Further, we agree with the petitioner that testing with the arm up
results in a more meaningful test, as the dummy's thorax is fully
exposed to the door trim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Similarly, the September 11, 2007 regulatory text states
that the dummy's shoulder-arm joint allows for a discrete arm
position at a 140 degree setting where positive is
forward of the spine. The value should be ``135'' degrees rather
than ``140'' degrees. This document makes the correction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Definition of Limited Line Manufacturer
In the regulatory text of FMVSS No. 214 published in the September
11, 2007 final rule, the definition of ``limited line manufacturer''
states that the term ``carline'' is defined in 49 CFR 585.4. Delphi
pointed out that the reference to 585.4 is incorrect. The correct
reference is 49 CFR 583.4. (See definition of ``limited line
manufacturer'' in Subpart H of Part 585, ``Side Impact Protection
Phase-In Reporting Requirements,'' published with the FMVSS No. 214
final rule, September 11, 2007. 72 FR 51972). This document makes the
correction to FMVSS No. 214.
4. Reinstate the Seat Adjustment Procedure for 50th Percentile SID and
SID-HIII Dummy in the MDB and FMVSS No. 201 Pole Tests, Respectively
The final rule adopted the seat adjustment procedure for the 50th
percentile male ES-2re dummy proposed in the NPRM and removed from the
regulatory text the procedure previously used for the 50th percentile
male SID dummy in the MDB test. The seat adjustment procedure
referenced for the pole test using the SID-HIII dummy (49 CFR Part 572,
Subpart M) in FMVSS No. 201, ``Occupant protection in interior
impact,'' was also changed to be consistent. The Alliance petitioned
the agency to reinstate the seat adjustment procedure that had been in
FMVSS No. 214 before the September 11, 2007 final rule (``pre-existing
seat adjustment procedure'') to use with the SID and SID-HIII dummy
because the new seat adjustment procedure can result in a different
seat position and dummy location than when using the pre-existing seat
adjustment procedure. The petitioners stated that vehicles currently
certified to FMVSS Nos. 214 and 201 with the SID and SID-HIII would
have to be recertified to account for changes in the seat position and
dummy location.
The agency agrees with the Alliance that the new seat adjustment
procedure can place the SID and SID-HIII dummy at a slightly different
location in the vehicle when compared to the pre-existing seat
adjustment procedure. It was not our intent for manufacturers to
recertify vehicles to a new dummy position with the SID and SID-HIII
dummy during the phase-out of the pre-existing FMVSS requirements.
Therefore, we agree to reinstitute the pre-existing seat adjustment
procedure for use with the SID in the MDB test until the phase-in of
the new requirements is complete and for use with the SID-HIII in FMVSS
No. 201 pole tests. Thus, when the SID and SID-HIII are used in
compliance testing, the seat adjustment procedure that had been in
FMVSS No. 214 before the September 11, 2007 will be used. When we use
the ES-2re dummy in compliance tests, we will use the new seating
procedure adopted in the September 11, 2007 final rule.
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not considered to be
significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). This document amends
the lead time and phase-in percentages set forth in the September 11,
2007 final rule and specifies the test speed for the pole test as 26
km/h to 32 km/h (16 mph to 20 mph) until the end of the phase-in. These
changes are made to reflect better the capabilities of manufacturers in
meeting the
[[Page 32481]]
requirements of the September 11, 2007 final rule. The document also
corrects minor errors and clarifies text of the final rule. The minimal
impacts of today's amendment do not warrant preparation of a regulatory
evaluation.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, requires
agencies to 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 will not affect the price of new motor vehicles.
The rule will have a positive effect on motor vehicle
manufacturers. This final rule amends the lead time and phase-in
percentages set forth in the September 11, 2007 final rule and
specifies the test speed for the pole test as 26 km/h to 32 km/h (16
mph to 20 mph) until the end of the phase-in. These changes will
positively affect vehicle manufacturers, including small vehicle
manufacturers, of which there are four,\20\ in that it better reflects
the manufacturing capabilities of the manufacturers in meeting the
September 11, 2007 final rule than the lead time and phase-in
requirements as originally established in that document. The rule also
provides more time to final-stage manufacturers and alterers to meet
the requirements of the September 11, 2007 final rule. This will have a
positive impact on those manufacturers, as they will be given more time
and thus more flexibility to manage their engineering designs and
resources in planning for compliance with the FMVSS No. 214 upgrade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Avanti, Panoz, Saleen, and Shelby.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 St
