Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Roof Crush Resistance; Phase-In Reporting Requirements, 22348-22393 [E9-10431]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 12, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22348-22393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10431]



[[Page 22347]]

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

Part IV





Department of Transportation





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



National Highway Traffic Safety Administration



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



49 CFR Parts 571 and 585



Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Roof Crush Resistance; Phase-In 
Reporting Requirements; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 22348]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 571 and 585

[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0093]
RIN 2127-AG51


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Roof Crush Resistance; 
Phase-In Reporting Requirements

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: As part of a comprehensive plan for reducing the risk of 
rollover crashes and the risk of death and serious injury in those 
crashes, this final rule upgrades the agency's safety standard on roof 
crush resistance in several ways.
    First, for the vehicles currently subject to the standard, i.e., 
passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses 
with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 
pounds) or less, the rule doubles the amount of force the vehicle's 
roof structure must withstand in the specified test, from 1.5 times the 
vehicle's unloaded weight to 3.0 times the vehicle's unloaded weight. 
Second, the rule extends the applicability of the standard so that it 
will also apply to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 2,722 kilograms 
(6,000 pounds), but not greater than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). 
The rule establishes a force requirement of 1.5 times the vehicle's 
unloaded weight for these newly included vehicles. Third, the rule 
requires all of the above vehicles to meet the specified force 
requirements in a two-sided test, instead of a single-sided test, i.e., 
the same vehicle must meet the force requirements when tested first on 
one side and then on the other side of the vehicle. Fourth, the rule 
establishes a new requirement for maintenance of headroom, i.e., 
survival space, during testing in addition to the existing limit on the 
amount of roof crush. The rule also includes a number of special 
provisions, including ones related to leadtime, to address the needs of 
multi-stage manufacturers, alterers, and small volume manufacturers.

DATES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, your 
petition must be received by June 26, 2009.
    Effective date: The date on which this final rule amends the CFR is 
July 13, 2009. The incorporation by reference of a publication listed 
in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of 
July 13, 2009.
    Compliance dates:
    Passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and 
buses with a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less. This final 
rule adopts a phase-in of the upgraded roof crush resistance 
requirements for these vehicles. The phase-in begins on September 1, 
2012. By September 1, 2015, all of these vehicles must meet the 
upgraded requirements, with certain exceptions. Vehicles produced in 
more than one stage and altered vehicles need not meet the upgraded 
requirements until September 1, 2016.
    Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR 
greater than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) and less than or equal to 
4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). All of these vehicles must meet the 
requirements beginning September 1, 2016, with certain exceptions. 
Vehicles produced in more than one stage and altered vehicles need not 
meet the requirements until September 1, 2017.

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 document (or signing the 
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor 
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in 
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; 
Pages 19477-78) or you may visit https://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

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 J. Edward 
Glancy, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, telephone 202-366-2992. You may 
send mail to these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington, 
DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
    a. Final Rule
    b. How This Final Rule Differs From the NPRM and/or SNPRM
II. Overall Rollover Problem and the Agency's Comprehensive Response
    a. Prevention
    b. Occupant Containment
    c. Occupant Protection
III. The Role of Roof Intrusion in the Rollover Problem
IV. The Agency's Proposed Rule
    a. NPRM
    b. SNPRM
    c. Congressional Mandate
V. Overview of Comments
VI. Agency Decision and Response to Comments
    a. Primary Decisions
    1. Basic Nature of the Test Requirements--Quasi-Static vs. 
Dynamic Tests
    2. Vehicle Application
    3. Single-Sided or Two-Sided Tests
    4. Upgraded Force Requirement--Specified Strength to Weight 
Ratio (SWR)
    5. Performance Criteria--Headroom, Platen Travel, or Both
    6. Leadtime and Phase-In
    b. Aspects of the Test Procedure
    1. Tie-Down Procedure
    2. Platen Angle and Size
    3. Testing Without Windshields and/or Other Glazing in Place
    4. Deletion of Secondary Plate Positioning Procedure
    5. Removal of Roof Components
    6. Tolerances
    c. Requirements for Multi-Stage and Altered Vehicles
    d. Other Issues
    1. Convertibles and Open Bodied Vehicles
    2. Vehicles Without B-Pillars
    3. Heavier Vehicles With a High Height to Width Aspect Ratio
    4. Active Roofs
    5. Whether an Additional SNPRM Is Needed
    6. Rear Seat Occupants
    7. New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)
    8. Possible Energy Requirement
    9. Advanced Restraints
VII. Costs and Benefits
VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Appendix A--Analysis of Comments Concerning Dynamic Testing
Appendix B--Two-Sided Test Results
Appendix C--Single-Sided Test Results


I. Executive Summary

a. Final Rule

    As part of a comprehensive plan for reducing the serious risk of 
rollover crashes and the risk of death and serious injury in those 
crashes, this final rule upgrades Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance.
    For the vehicles currently subject to the standard, passenger cars 
and multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 
2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less, the rule doubles the amount of 
force the vehicle's roof structure must withstand in the specified 
test, from 1.5 times the

[[Page 22349]]

vehicle's unloaded weight to 3.0 times the vehicle's unloaded weight. 
The rule also extends the applicability of the standard so that it will 
also apply to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 
pounds), but not greater than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds), 
establishing a force requirement of 1.5 times the vehicle's unloaded 
weight for these heavier vehicles.
    Under today's rule, all of the above vehicles must meet the 
specified force requirements in a two-sided test instead of a single-
sided test, i.e., the same vehicle must meet the force requirements 
when tested first on one side and then on the other side of the 
vehicle. The rule also establishes a new requirement for maintenance of 
headroom, i.e., survival space, during testing, in addition to the 
existing limit on the amount of roof crush. The rule also includes 
special provisions to address the needs of multi-stage manufacturers, 
alterers, and small volume manufacturers.
    NHTSA developed its proposal to upgrade roof crush resistance 
requirements after considerable analysis and research, including 
considering comments received in response to a Request for Comments 
(RFC) notice published in 2001. Prior to publishing the RFC, the agency 
conducted a research program to examine potential methods for improving 
the roof crush resistance requirements. The agency testing program 
included full vehicle dynamic rollover testing, inverted vehicle drop 
testing, and comparing inverted vehicle drop testing to a modified 
FMVSS No. 216 test. After considering the results of the testing and 
other available information, the agency concluded that the quasi-static 
procedure provides a suitable representation of the real-world dynamic 
loading conditions, and the most appropriate one on which to focus our 
upgrade efforts.
    Today's rule reflects careful consideration of comments we received 
in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in 
2005 and a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) published 
in January 2008. NHTSA published the SNPRM to obtain public comment on 
a number of issues that might affect the content of the final rule, 
including possible variations in the proposed requirements. In the 
SNPRM, the agency also announced the release of the results of various 
vehicle tests conducted since the NPRM.
    While this rulemaking action to improve roof strength is part of 
our comprehensive plan for addressing the serious problem of rollover 
crashes, this action, by itself, addresses a relatively small subset of 
that problem. There are more than 10,000 fatalities in rollover crashes 
each year. To address that problem, our comprehensive plan includes 
actions to (1) reduce the occurrence of rollovers, (2) mitigate 
ejection, and (3) enhance occupant protection when rollovers occur 
(improved roof crush resistance is included in this third category).
    Our analysis shows that of the more than 10,000 fatalities that 
occur in rollover crashes each year, roof strength is relevant to only 
about seven percent (about 667) of those fatalities. We estimate that 
today's rule will prevent 135 of those 667 fatalities.
    The portions of our comprehensive plan that will have the highest 
life-saving benefits are the ones to reduce the occurrence of rollovers 
(prevention) and to mitigate ejection (occupant containment). We 
estimate that by preventing rollovers, electronic stability control 
(ESC) will reduce the more than 10,000 fatalities that occur in 
rollover crashes each year by 4,200 to 5,500 fatalities (and also 
provide significant additional life-saving benefits by preventing other 
types of crashes). In the area of mitigating ejection, significant 
life-benefits are and/or will occur by our continuing efforts to 
increase seat belt use and our upcoming rulemaking on ejection 
mitigation. A more complete discussion of our comprehensive plan is 
discussed later in this document.

b. How This Final Rule Differs From the NPRM and/or SNPRM

    The more noteworthy changes from the NPRM are outlined below and 
explained in detail later in this preamble. More minor changes are 
discussed in the appropriate sections of this preamble.
    Higher force requirement (strength-to-weight ratio (SWR level)). 
While we proposed an SWR level of 2.5 in the NPRM for the vehicles that 
have been subject to the standard, we noted in the SNPRM that the 
agency could adopt a higher or lower value for this final rule. We are 
adopting an SWR of 3.0 for them in this final rule. An SWR of 1.5 will 
apply to the heavier light vehicles that have previously not been 
subject to the standard.
    Two-sided test. While we proposed a single-sided test in the NPRM, 
we conducted additional testing and addressed the possibility of a two-
sided test in the SNPRM. Today's rule adopts a two-sided test 
requirement for all vehicles subject to the standard.
    Maintaining intrusion limit in addition to new headroom 
requirement. In the NPRM, we proposed to replace the current limit on 
intrusion (platen travel requirement) with a new headroom requirement. 
For this final rule, we are maintaining the intrusion limit as well as 
adopting the proposed headroom requirement.
    Use of headform positioning fixture instead of a test dummy. In the 
NPRM, we proposed to use test dummies as part of the test procedure for 
measuring headroom. For this final rule, we are using headform 
positioning fixtures for this purpose.
    Phase-in. We did not include a phase-in in the NPRM. For this final 
rule, we are phasing in the upgraded roof strength requirements for the 
lighter vehicles previously subject to FMVSS No. 216, and providing 
longer leadtime (without a phase-in) for the heavier light vehicles.
    Limited exclusion for certain multi-stage trucks. Due to concerns 
about practicability, we are excluding from FMVSS No. 216 a very 
limited group of multistage trucks with a GVWR greater than 2,722 
kilograms (6,000 pounds), ones not built on either a chassis cab or an 
incomplete vehicle with a full exterior van body.
    Updated benefits and costs. We have updated our analysis of 
benefits and costs. Our analysis appears in summary form in this 
document, and in its entirety in the agency's Final Regulatory Impact 
Analysis (FRIA).
    We estimate that the changes in FMVSS No. 216 will prevent 135 
fatalities and 1,065 nonfatal injuries annually. The agency estimates 
that compliance with the upgraded roof strength standard will increase 
lifetime consumer costs by $69-114 per affected vehicle. Redesign costs 
are expected to increase affected vehicle prices by an average of about 
$54. Added weight is estimated to increase the lifetime cost of fuel 
usage by $15 to $62 for an average affected vehicle. Total consumer 
costs are expected to range from $875 million to $1.4 billion annually.
    Implied Preemption. We have reconsidered the tentative position 
presented in the NPRM. We do not foresee any potential State tort 
requirements that might conflict with today's final rule. Without any 
conflict, there could not be any implied preemption.

II. Overall Rollover Problem and the Agency's Comprehensive Response

    Addressing vehicle rollovers is one of NHTSA's highest safety 
priorities. According to 2007 FARS crash data, 10,196 people were 
killed as occupants

[[Page 22350]]

in light vehicle rollover crashes, which represents 35 percent of all 
occupants killed that year in crashes. FARS reported that approximately 
57 percent were partially or completely ejected from the vehicle 
(including approximately 47 percent who were completely ejected).
    Rollover crashes are complex and chaotic events. Rollovers can 
range from a single quarter turn to eight or more quarter turns, with 
the duration of the rollover crash lasting from one to several seconds. 
The wide range of rollover conditions occurs because these crashes 
largely occur off road where the vehicle motion is highly influenced by 
roadside conditions. Also, rollover crashes tend to occur at higher 
speeds than other crash types due to the energy required to initiate 
the rollover motion.
    NHTSA has been pursuing a comprehensive and systematic approach 
towards reducing the fatalities and serious injuries that result from 
rollover crashes. As part of our safety standard rulemaking, this 
approach establishes various repeatable test procedures and performance 
requirements that will generate countermeasures effective in the 
chaotic real-world events. Due to the complex nature of a rollover 
event and the particularized effect of each element of the 
comprehensive approach taken by the agency to address these crashes, 
each element addresses a specific segment of the total rollover 
problem. Accordingly, each initiative has a different target population 
and interacts with each of the other rollover strategies. NHTSA has 
initiatives in place to:
    1. Reduce the occurrence of rollover crashes (e.g., the requirement 
for ESC on all light vehicles and the NCAP rollover ratings),
    2. Keep occupants inside the vehicle when rollovers occur (e.g., 
NHTSA's unyielding commitment to get passengers to buckle their seat 
belts every time they ride in a vehicle, as well as the requirement for 
enhanced door latches and the forthcoming rulemaking for ejection 
mitigation), and
    3. Better protect the occupants kept inside the vehicle during the 
rollover (e.g., the requirement for upper interior head protection and 
this rulemaking for enhanced roof crush resistance).
    Each of these three initiatives must work together to address the 
various aspects of the rollover problem.

a. Prevention

    The most effective way to reduce deaths and injuries in rollover 
crashes is to prevent the rollover crash from occurring. On April 6, 
2007, NHTSA published a final rule establishing FMVSS No. 126, 
``Electronic stability control systems,'' to require ESC on passenger 
cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 
4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. ESC systems use automatic 
computer-controlled braking of individual wheels to assist the driver 
in maintaining control in critical driving situations in which the 
vehicle is beginning to lose directional stability at the rear wheels 
or directional control at the front wheels. ESC systems effectively 
monitor driver steering input and limit vehicle oversteer and 
understeer, as appropriate. To comply with the new ESC standard, 
vehicles will need individually adjustable braking at all four wheels, 
and computer electronics to utilize this capability, a means for engine 
torque adjustability and various onboard sensors (to measure yaw rate, 
lateral acceleration, steering wheel angle and speed). The agency 
estimates that ESC will save 5,300 to 9,600 lives in all types of 
crashes annually once all light vehicles on the road are equipped with 
ESC. The agency further anticipates that ESC systems will substantially 
reduce (by 4,200 to 5,500 deaths) the more than 10,000 deaths each year 
resulting from rollover crashes.

b. Occupant Containment

    Studies have shown that the fatality rate for an ejected vehicle 
occupant is three times as great as that for an occupant who remains 
inside of the vehicle. Thus, mitigating ejections offers potential for 
significant safety gains. Safety belts are the most effective 
crashworthiness countermeasure in reducing ejected rollover fatalities. 
Studies have found that safety belts reduce fatalities in rollovers by 
74 percent in passenger cars and 80 percent for light trucks.\1\ NHTSA 
requires all vehicles manufactured after 1968 to have safety belts as 
standard equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Kahane, C. J., Fatality Reduction by Safety Belts for Front-
Seat Occupants of Cars and Light Trucks: Updated and Expanded 
Estimates Based on 1986-99 FARS Data (NHTSA Report No. DOT HS 809 
199).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, of the 6,164 ejected occupant fatalities in light vehicle 
rollover crashes, as reported by 2006 FARS, 1,135 were classified as 
partial ejections. Fatal injuries from partial ejection can occur even 
to belted occupants, e.g., when their head protrudes outside the window 
and strikes the ground in a rollover. Therefore, as mandated by 
SAFETEA-LU, NHTSA is working to establish performance standards to 
reduce partial and complete ejection from outboard seating position 
windows.
    Doors represent another common ejection route. As part of the 
agency's comprehensive approach to rollover, and to harmonize with the 
first Global Technical Regulation, NHTSA upgraded FMVSS No. 206, ``Door 
locks and door retention components,'' in a final rule published on 
February 6, 2007. This final rule added test requirements for sliding 
doors, upgraded the door retention requirements, added secondary latch 
requirements for doors other than hinged side doors and back doors, and 
provided a new test procedure for assessing inertial forces. To comply 
with the new requirements, it is anticipated that passenger vehicles 
with sliding doors designed with one latch and pin locking mechanism 
will need to be redesigned with two latches. The technology needed to 
meet the upgraded standard would benefit vehicles in rollover crashes 
where door openings were identified as a problem.

c. Occupant Protection

    Finally, when a rollover crash does occur and the occupants have 
been contained within the vehicle compartment, it is important for the 
roof structure to remain intact and maintain survival space. That is 
the safety need addressed by today's final rule.

III. The Role of Roof Intrusion in the Rollover Problem

    Due to the high effectiveness of ESC in preventing an increasing 
number of rollover crashes, and seat belts at preventing ejection, the 
remaining target population relevant to roof crush occupant protection 
is a relatively small subset of the occupants injured in rollovers. For 
fatalities, the estimated total for the target population \2\ is about 
seven percent (about 667) of all non-convertible light vehicle rollover 
fatalities. Although the target population and potential for lives 
saved are substantially smaller than can be attained by the first two 
strategies of our comprehensive rollover plan, it is nevertheless a 
very important aspect of the plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The target population estimates were based upon the results 
from the 1997-2006 National Automotive Sampling System-
Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Looking at the target population relevant to roof crush occupant 
protection more specifically, Table 1 below shows a breakdown of the 
target population that could potentially benefit from roof crush 
improvements. The target population for all light vehicles is 
stratified by injury severity. The injury mechanism due to roof crush 
for belted occupants is that the roof crushes during the roll event, 
intrudes

[[Page 22351]]

into the occupant compartment, and causes head, face, or neck injury. 
The table demonstrates how the final target population is derived from 
the broad category of rollovers by eliminating cases in which roof 
strength improvements would not be effective in reducing serious and 
fatal injuries. For example, a stronger roof would not be expected to 
provide benefits in cases where the roof was not involved; where the 
occupant was totally ejected from the vehicle,\3\ or where the most 
serious injury was not to the head, neck, or face due to the intruding 
roof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Strashny, ``The Role of Vertical Roof Intrusion in 
Predicting Occupant Ejection,'' 2009. Strashny found that there was 
no statistically significant relationship between the level of roof 
intrusion and the probability of complete ejection. For this reason 
completely ejection occupants were excluded from the target 
population. However, partial ejections that meet the established 
criteria are included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final target populations are shown in bold at the bottom of the 
table. A full discussion of the basis for the target population is 
included in the FRIA.

                  Table 1--Target Population Potentially Affected by Improved Roof Strength \4\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       AIS 1           AIS 2          AIS 3-5       Fatalities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               All Light Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Vehicles:
    Non-Convertible Light Vehicles in Rollovers.         199,822          37,305          21,673          10,150
    Roof-Involved Rollover......................         164,213          32,959          19,262           8,645
    Some Fixed Object Collision on Top..........         153,520          29,419          17,766           7,559
    Not Totally Ejected.........................         149,850          26,033          12,355           3,654
    Using Safety Restraints.....................         116,670          14,327           8,970           2,096
    Outboard Seats..............................         115,018          14,241           8,781           2,096
    Roof Component Intrusion....................          68,730          10,922           6,842           1,444
                                                 ===============================================================
    Head, Neck, or Face Injury From Intruding             24,035           6,580           2,993             957
     Roof Component.............................
    Injury--Not MAIS \5\........................               0          -1,900          -1,252            -237
    Injury at MAIS--Not Sole Injury.............         -17,818            -292            -253             -53
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Sole MAIS Injury........................           6,216           4,388           1,487             667
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Light Vehicles With a GVWR of 2,722 Kilograms (6,000 Pounds) or Less
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC & LT < 6,000 lbs:
    Non-Convertible Light Vehicles in Rollovers.         172,846          33,170          18,929           8,719
    Roof-Involved Rollover......................         144,410          29,098          17,360           7,536
    Some Fixed Object Collision on Top..........         136,080          26,270          16,122           6,484
    Not Totally Ejected.........................         133,241          23,400          11,406           3,142
    Using Safety Restraints.....................         104,571          12,421           8,379           1,936
    Outboard Seats..............................         103,249          12,373           8,190           1,936
    Roof Component Intrusion....................          60,061           9,370           6,372           1,304
                                                 ===============================================================
    Head, Neck, or Face Injury From Intruding             20,687           5,868           2,615             842
     Roof Component.............................
    Injury--Not MAIS............................               0          -1,771          -1,119            -157
Injury at MAIS--Not Sole Injury.................         -16,082            -262            -212             -50
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Sole MAIS Injury........................           4,605           3,835           1,283             635
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Light Vehicles With a GVWR above 2,722 Kilograms (6,000 Pounds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LT > 6,000 lbs:
    Non-Convertible Light Vehicles in Rollovers.          26,975           4,135           2,744           1,431
    Roof-Involved Rollover......................          19,803           3,861           1,902           1,110
    Some Fixed Object Collision on Top..........          17,440           3,149           1,644           1,075
    Not Totally Ejected.........................          16,608           2,634             949             511
    Using Safety Restraints.....................          12,099           1,906             591             160
    Outboard Seats..............................          11,770           1,868             591             160
    Roof Component Intrusion....................           8,669           1,552             471             140
                                                 ===============================================================
    Head, Neck, or Face Injury From Intruding              3,348             712             378             116
     Roof Component.............................
    Injury--Not MAIS............................               0            -128            -133             -80
    Injury at MAIS--Not Sole Injury.............          -1,736             -31             -40              -3
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Sole MAIS Injury........................           1,611             553             205              33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The most significant exclusions resulted from requirements that 
fatalities occurred in rollovers in which (1) the roof was damaged in a 
rollover, (2) the damage was not caused by collision with a fixed 
object, (3) the fatally injured occupants were not ejected, and (4) 
those occupants were belted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Note: The relevant target population used for the estimation 
of benefits is identified in the row titled ``Sole MAIS Injury.'' 
Also, the numbers reflect rounding errors.
    \5\ Injury--Not MAIS: This means that the most serious injury 
was to a portion of the body other than the head, neck or face.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to understand what Table 1 indicates about the 
safety

[[Page 22352]]

potential of addressing roof crush. Even if there were some way to 
prevent every single rollover death resulting from roof crush, the 
total lives saved would be 667, not the approximately 10,000 deaths 
that result from rollover each year. This is why each initiative in 
NHTSA's comprehensive program to address the different aspects of the 
rollover problem is so important.
    The details of today's rule upgrading roof crush occupant 
protection, including costs and benefits and the agency's analysis of 
the public comments on our NPRM and SNPRM, are discussed in the rest of 
this document.

IV. The Agency's Proposed Rule

a. NPRM

    On August 23, 2005, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (70 FR 
49223) a NPRM to upgrade FMVSS No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance.\6\ FMVSS 
No. 216 seeks to reduce deaths and serious injuries resulting from the 
roof being crushed and pushed into the occupant compartment when the 
roof strikes the ground during rollover crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Current requirements.
    FMVSS No. 216 currently applies to passenger cars, and to 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 2,722 
kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less.
    The standard requires that when a large steel test plate (sometimes 
referred to as a platen) is placed in contact with the roof of a 
vehicle and then pressed downward, simulating contact of the roof with 
the ground during a rollover crash, with steadily increasing force 
until a force equivalent to 1.5 times the unloaded weight of the 
vehicle is reached, the distance that the test plate has moved from the 
point of contact must not exceed 127 mm (5 inches). The criterion of 
the test plate not being permitted to move more than a specified amount 
is sometimes referred to as the ``platen travel'' criterion. Under S5 
of the standard, the application of force is limited to 22,240 Newtons 
(5,000 pounds) for passenger cars, even if the unloaded weight of the 
car times 1.5 is greater than that amount.
    Proposed upgrade.
    As discussed in the August 2005 NPRM, we developed our proposal to 
upgrade roof crush resistance requirements after considerable analysis 
and research, including considering comments received in response to a 
RFC published in the Federal Register (66 FR 53376) \7\ on October 22, 
2001. Prior to publishing the RFC, the agency conducted a research 
program to examine potential methods for improving the roof crush 
resistance requirements. The agency testing program included full 
vehicle dynamic rollover testing, inverted vehicle drop testing, and 
comparing inverted drop testing to a modified FMVSS No. 216 test. After 
considering the results of the testing and other available information, 
the agency concluded that the quasi-static procedure provides a 
suitable representation of the real-world dynamic loading conditions, 
and the most appropriate one on which to focus our upgrade efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Docket No. NHTSA-1999-5572.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our August 2005 NPRM, to better address fatalities and injuries 
occurring in roof-involved rollover crashes, we proposed to extend the 
application of the standard to vehicles with a GVWR of up to 4,536 
kilograms (10,000 pounds), and to strengthen the requirements of FMVSS 
No. 216 by mandating that the vehicle roof structures withstand a force 
equivalent to 2.5 times the unloaded vehicle weight, and to eliminate 
the 22,240 Newton (5,000 pound) force limit for passenger cars.
    Further, in recognition of the fact that the pre-test distance 
between the interior surface of the roof and a given occupant's head 
varies from vehicle model to vehicle model, we proposed to regulate 
roof strength by requiring that the crush not exceed the available 
headroom. Under the proposal, this requirement would replace the 
current limit on test plate movement.
    The proposed new limit would prohibit any roof component from 
contacting the head of a seated 50th percentile male dummy when the 
roof is subjected to a force equivalent to 2.5 times the unloaded 
vehicle weight. We note that this value is sometimes referred to as the 
strength-to-weight ratio (SWR), e.g., a SWR of 1.5, 2.5, and so forth.
    We also proposed to:
     Allow vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, other 
than chassis-cabs, to be certified to the roof crush requirements of 
FMVSS No. 220, School bus rollover protection, instead of FMVSS No. 
216.
     Clarify the definition and scope of exclusion for 
convertibles.
     Revise the vehicle tie-down procedure to minimize 
variability in testing.
    To accompany our proposal, we prepared a Preliminary Regulatory 
Impact Analysis (PRIA) describing the costs and benefits. We estimated 
that, if adopted, the proposal would result in 13-44 fewer fatalities 
and 498-793 fewer non-fatal injuries each year. The total estimated 
recurring fleet cost was $88 to $95 million. We estimated that 
approximately 32 percent of the current vehicle fleet would need 
improvements to meet the proposed upgraded requirements.

b. SNPRM

    On January 30, 2008, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (73 FR 
5484) an SNPRM for our ongoing roof crush resistance rulemaking.\8\ In 
that document, we asked for public comment on a number of issues that 
might affect the content of the final rule, including possible 
variations in the proposed requirements. We also announced the release 
of the results of various vehicle tests conducted since the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the SNPRM, we noted that we had been carefully analyzing the 
numerous comments we had received on the NPRM, as well as the various 
additional vehicle tests, including both single-sided tests and two-
sided tests, conducted since the NPRM. We invited comments on how the 
agency should factor the new information into its decision. We noted 
that while the NPRM focused on a specified force equivalent to 2.5 
times the unloaded vehicle weight, the agency could adopt a higher or 
lower value for the final rule. We explained, with respect to two-sided 
testing, that we believed there was now sufficient available 
information for the agency to consider a two-sided requirement as an 
alternative to the single-sided procedure described in the NPRM. We 
stated that we planned to evaluate both the single-sided and two-sided 
testing alternatives for the final rule and requested comments that 
would help us reach a decision on that issue.
    We also noted in the SNPRM that the agency had conducted additional 
analysis concerning the role of vertical roof intrusion and post-crash 
headroom in predicting roof contact injuries to the head, neck or face 
during FMVSS No. 216 rollovers. At the time of the NPRM, the agency 
estimated benefits based on post-crash headroom, the only basis for 
which a statistical relationship with injury reduction had been 
established. After the NPRM, with additional years of data available, a 
statistically significant relationship between intrusion and injury for 
belted occupants was established.

c. Congressional Mandate

    Section 10301 of SAFETEA-LU generally required the Secretary to 
issue

[[Page 22353]]

a final rule upgrading roof crush resistance by July 1, 2008, while 
providing for a later date under certain circumstances. That section 
provides:

Sec. 10301. VEHICLE ROLLOVER PREVENTION AND CRASH MITIGATION.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 301 is amended by 
adding at the end the following:

Sec.  30128. Vehicle rollover prevention and crash mitigation

    (a) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary shall initiate rulemaking 
proceedings, for the purpose of establishing rules or standards that 
will reduce vehicle rollover crashes and mitigate deaths and 
injuries associated with such crashes for motor vehicles with a 
gross vehicle weight rating of not more than 10,000 pounds.
* * * * *
    (d) Protection of Occupants.--One of the rulemaking proceedings 
initiated under subsection (a) shall be to establish performance 
criteria to upgrade Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216 
relating to roof strength for driver and passenger sides. The 
Secretary may consider industry and independent dynamic tests that 
realistically duplicate the actual forces transmitted during a 
rollover crash. The Secretary shall issue a proposed rule by 
December 31, 2005, and a final rule by July 1, 2008.

    The statute provides that if the Secretary determines that the July 
1, 2008 deadline for the final rule cannot be met, the Secretary is to 
notify Congress and explain why that deadline cannot be met, and 
establish a new date. The Secretary provided such notifications to 
Congress, and established a date of April 30, 2009.

V. Overview of Comments

    NHTSA received comments from a wide variety of interested parties, 
including vehicle manufacturers and their trade associations, suppliers 
of automobile equipment and a supplier trade association, consumer 
advocacy and other organizations, trial lawyers, engineering firms and 
consultants, members of academia, elected officials and government 
organizations, and private individuals. All of the comments may be 
found in the docket for the NPRM or SNPRM. In this section, we provide 
a broad overview of the significant comments. Where we identify 
specific commenters, we cite representative comments.

General Approach and SWR

    Vehicle manufacturers were generally supportive of the agency's 
proposal, while recommending a number of specific modifications. They 
generally supported a SWR of 2.5, with caveats about sufficient 
leadtime and test procedure issues. They expressed concerns about SWRs 
higher than 2.5, including potential adverse effects on safety 
resulting from increased mass.
    Consumer advocacy organizations and a number of other commenters 
argued that it is not enough to upgrade the current quasi-static 
requirement, and that a dynamic test requirement is needed. While 
specific recommendations varied, one was for the agency to adopt an 
upgraded quasi-static requirement now, and to proceed with further 
rulemaking for a dynamic test.
    Advocates for Highway Safety (Advocates) stated that the proposed 
quasi-static test cannot demonstrate actual roof crush resistance in 
rollover crashes and that a dynamic test would address occupant 
kinematics and injury responses in actual rollover crashes. Public 
Citizen stated that a dynamic test could simultaneously evaluate the 
performance of seat belts, doors, ejection and the roof. A number of 
commenters supported specific dynamic tests.
    The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) stated that while it strongly 
supports a dynamic test, it believes rollover protection can be 
dramatically improved with a well-crafted quasi-static test. It argued 
that test procedure changes related to roll angle and pitch angle are 
needed to ensure that the roof receives appropriate shear stress.
    As to the SWR for an upgraded quasi-static test requirement, 
consumer advocacy organizations and a number of other commenters argued 
that the SWR should be significantly higher than 2.5. Many of these 
commenters recommended a SWR of 3.5, with some recommending higher 
levels.
    The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) submitted a new 
study which it said supports increasing the SWR beyond 2.5. It stated 
that based on the current evidence, it supports a SWR of 3.0 to 3.5.

Performance Criterion

    The agency received a variety of comments on the proposed headroom 
reduction criterion. Some commenters, including consumer groups, 
supported a headroom reduction criterion but argued that a platen 
travel criterion is also needed. Several commenters expressed concern 
that, for some vehicles, the proposed headroom reduction criterion 
would be less stringent and less protective than the current platen 
travel criterion. The agency also received comments recommending that 
the agency make these criteria more stringent to protect taller 
occupants, e.g., by using a 95th percentile adult male dummy instead of 
a 50th percentile adult male dummy to measure headroom and by reducing 
the amount of platen travel that is permitted.
    Vehicle manufacturers urged the agency to retain the current platen 
travel criterion instead of adopting a headroom reduction criterion. 
They argued, among other things, that using the headroom reduction 
criterion would add unnecessary complexity to the test procedure and 
result in problems related to repeatability and practicability. Some 
manufacturers stated that if the agency adopts a headroom reduction 
criterion, it should adopt a test procedure using a head positioning 
fixture instead of a test dummy.
    IIHS stated that relating the allowable amount of roof crush in the 
quasi-static test to the headroom in specific vehicles is a good 
concept but that, in practice, the agency's research tests have not 
shown that replacing the 5-inch platen travel criterion with the 
headroom requirement would be a meaningful change to the standard and 
may not justify the added complications to the test procedure.

Single- or Two-Sided Testing

    Several consumer advocacy organizations and other commenters 
strongly supported two-sided testing. Public Citizen stated that in a 
vast majority of rollover cases, the injured party was typically seated 
on the far side, that is, the side of the second impact. It argued that 
it is not possible to upgrade FMVSS No. 216 without a two-sided test 
requirement.
    IIHS stated that while it supports any changes that would increase 
the level of roof strength of the vehicle fleet, it has no real-world 
data to address the potential benefits of two-sided testing. It stated 
that a single-sided test with a higher SWR may be more effective at 
promoting robust roof designs than a two-sided test with a lower SWR 
requirement.
    The comments of vehicle manufacturers were somewhat mixed on the 
issue of single- or two-sided testing. The Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers (Alliance) stated that it believes the agency has 
provided insufficient justification for two-sided testing. It stated 
that the agency has not provided analysis demonstrating that two-sided 
testing relates to real-world safety. The Alliance also expressed 
concern that two-sided testing would amplify variability and 
repeatability problems.
    The Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM) 
stated that based on the information and

[[Page 22354]]

analysis provided by the agency regarding the two-sided test, it 
believes that the test shows enough potential to merit further 
consideration by the agency. AIAM argued that additional analysis would 
be needed before it could provide a preferred regulatory approach, but 
indicated that the two-sided approach would more directly address the 
multiple roof contact weakening phenomenon.

Leadtime

    Vehicle manufacturers argued that a phase-in is needed for the 
upgraded roof crush requirements. The Alliance stated that if the final 
rule reflected a reasonable accommodation of the issues raised in its 
comments, it would be reasonable for a phase-in to begin, with a 
compliance percentage of 20 percent, on the first September 1, that 
occurred more than 36 months after issuance of the final rule. That 
organization stated that it would not be practicable to apply the 
upgraded requirements to all new vehicles at once, since far more 
vehicle models require redesigns than anticipated by NHTSA. The 
Alliance requested a phase-in that incorporates carryforward credits. 
It stated that additional leadtime would be necessary if the agency 
adopted a head contact criterion instead of platen travel, a two-sided 
test or a SWR higher than 2.5.

Costs and Benefits

    Many commenters addressed the PRIA, which analyzed the costs and 
benefits and other impacts of the proposed rule, and a later discussion 
of these impacts included in the SNPRM. Among other things, commenters 
addressed the target population, the pass/fail rate of the current 
fleet, cost and weight impacts, and estimates of benefits.

Preemption

    We received numerous comments on our discussion in the NPRM of the 
possible preemptive effect of an upgraded roof crush standard on State 
common law tort claims. Vehicle manufacturers and one organization 
strongly supported the view that an upgraded roof crush standard would 
conflict with and therefore impliedly preempt State rules of tort law 
imposing more stringent requirements than the one ultimately adopted by 
NHTSA. Consumer advocacy groups, members of Congress and State 
officials, trial lawyers, consultants, members of academia, and private 
individuals strongly opposed that view. The opposing comments from 
State officials included one signed by 27 State Attorneys General and 
the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Other Issues

    We received comments on many other issues. Commenters addressed a 
number of issues concerning the FMVSS No. 216 test procedure, including 
the vehicle tie-down procedure, platen angle and size, and whether the 
vehicle should be tested with the windshield and/or other glazing in 
place. Commenters also addressed requirements for multi-stage vehicles.

June 2008 Congressional Hearing and Letters

    On June 4, 2008. the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Insurance, 
and Automotive Safety of the Senate Commerce, Science and 
Transportation Committee held an oversight hearing on passenger vehicle 
roof strength. Former NHTSA Deputy Administrator James Ports testified 
at the hearing. At the hearing and also in a subsequent letter to 
Secretary Peters dated June 19, 2008, several Senators encouraged the 
agency to extend the July 1, 2008 date for completing a final rule. 
They encouraged the agency to ensure a rulemaking that would maximize 
vehicle safety and significantly reduce deaths and injuries for drivers 
and passengers in vehicle rollover crashes.
    Several Senators encouraged NHTSA to consider a two-sided test 
requirement and a higher SWR requirement than the proposed 2.5 level, 
and to provide detailed information concerning alternatives considered 
by the agency. They also raised concerns about the use of 50th 
percentile adult male test dummies instead of ones representing taller 
occupants. The Senators also expressed significant concerns about 
possible preemption of common law tort actions, and asked that such a 
provision not be included in the final rule.
    In a letter to Secretary Peters dated June 27, 2008, Chairman Henry 
Waxman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
raised similar concerns to those of the Senators.

New IIHS Roof Strength Consumer Information Program

    On February 19, 2009, IIHS met with NHTSA representatives to 
provide the agency information about a new roof strength consumer 
information program that the organization is initiating. IIHS believes 
the FMVSS No. 216 test procedure is a meaningful structural assessment 
of real-world rollover crashworthiness as shown by recent studies it 
has conducted showing that improved roof strength reduces injury risk 
in midsize SUVs and small cars. That organization indicated that the 
boundary for a good rating in the IIHS program will be a SWR of 4.0 in 
a one-sided platen test similar to the existing FMVSS No 216 test 
procedure. IIHS indicated that it does not plan to rate the larger, 
heavier light vehicles, i.e., ones likely to have GVWRs greater than 
2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds).
    On March 24, 2009, IIHS issued a press release announcing a number 
of details about its new rating system, including ratings for 12 small 
SUVs. For an acceptable rating, the minimum SWR is 3.25. A marginal 
rating value is 2.5. Anything lower than that is rated as poor. In 
order to earn IIHS's ``top safety pick'' award for 2010, vehicles will 
need to have a good roof strength rating, i.e., SWR of 4.0. Of the 12 
small SUVs tested by IIHS, eight were rated by that organization as 
good, five as acceptable, two as marginal, and one as poor.

VI. Agency Decision and Response to Comments

a. Primary Decisions

1. Basic Nature of the Test Requirements--Quasi-Static vs. Dynamic 
Tests
    As noted above and discussed in detail in the NPRM, we developed 
our proposal to upgrade roof crush resistance requirements after 
considerable analysis and research, including conducting a research 
program to examine potential methods for improving the roof crush 
resistance requirements. The agency testing program included full 
vehicle dynamic rollover testing, inverted vehicle drop testing, and 
comparing inverted drop testing to a modified FMVSS No. 216 test. After 
considering the results of the testing and other available information, 
the agency concluded that the quasi-static procedure provides a 
suitable representation of the real-world dynamic loading conditions, 
and the most appropriate one on which to focus our upgrade efforts.
    We did not propose a dynamic test procedure in either the NPRM or 
the SNPRM. We did discuss in the NPRM a number of types of dynamic 
tests and why we were not including them in the proposal. We stated our 
belief that the current quasi-static test procedure is repeatable and 
capable of simulating real-world deformation patterns. We also stated 
that we were unaware of any dynamic test procedure that provides a 
sufficiently repeatable test environment.
    Consumer advocacy organizations and a number of other commenters 
argued that it is not enough to upgrade the current quasi-static 
requirement, and

[[Page 22355]]

that a dynamic test requirement is needed. While specific 
recommendations varied, one was for the agency to adopt an upgraded 
quasi-static requirement now, and to proceed with further rulemaking at 
this time for a dynamic test.
    Advocates stated that the proposed quasi-static test cannot 
demonstrate actual roof crush resistance in rollover crashes and that a 
dynamic test would address occupant kinematics and injury responses in 
actual rollover crashes. Public Citizen stated that a dynamic test 
could simultaneously evaluate the performance of seat belts, doors, 
ejection mitigation and the roof. A number of commenters made specific 
recommendations concerning the type of dynamic test that the agency 
should propose, e.g., with a number recommending the FMVSS No. 208 
dolly test and/or the Jordan Rollover System (JRS) test.
    As part of our considering the merits of a dynamic test and 
comments on the JRS, on February 23, 2007, NHTSA representatives met 
with Xprts, LLC (Xprts) at its test facility in Goleta, CA, to view and 
discuss the device. CAS and Center for Injury Research (CFIR) also 
submitted additional test data to the agency using the JRS.
    We note that the agency is also aware of tests used by 
manufacturers to assess a vehicle's rollover performance during vehicle 
development and conditions they are designed to represent such as the 
curb trip, soil trip, the bounce over, etc.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Viano D., Parenteau C., ``Rollover Crash Sensing and Safety 
Overview,'' SAE International, 2004-01-0342.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted earlier in this document, rollover crashes are complex and 
chaotic events. Rollovers can range from a single quarter turn to eight 
or more quarter turns, with the duration of the rollover crash lasting 
from one to several seconds. The wide range of rollover conditions 
occurs because these crashes largely occur off road where the vehicle 
motion is highly influenced by roadside conditions.
    The variety and complexity of real-world rollover crashes create 
significant challenges in developing dynamic tests suitable for a 
Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Rollover crash tests can have an 
undesirable amount of variability in vehicle and occupant kinematics.
    In assessing whether a potential dynamic test would be appropriate 
for a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, the agency must consider 
such issues as (1) whether the test is representative of real-world 
crashes with respect what happens to the vehicle and any specified test 
dummies; (2) for the specific aspect of performance at issue, whether 
the test is sufficiently representative of enough relevant real-world 
crashes to drive appropriate countermeasures and, if not, the number 
and nature of necessary tests to achieve that purpose; (3) whether the 
test is repeatable and reproducible so that the standard will be 
objective; and (4) whether the test dummies to be specified are 
biofidelic for the purposes used.
    We have reviewed the comments recommending a dynamic test and are 
including our analysis of those comments in an appendix to this 
document. NHTSA appreciates the information and data that have been 
provided on this subject. We decline, however, to pursue a dynamic test 
as part of this rulemaking, or to initiate at this time a separate 
rulemaking for a dynamic test.
    As noted above, we explained in the NPRM that we were unaware of 
any dynamic test procedure that provides a sufficiently repeatable test 
environment. After reviewing the public comments and for reasons 
discussed in the appendix, we continue to take that position. While 
some commenters argued that certain procedures are repeatable, the 
agency was not persuaded by the arguments and data they presented. 
Moreover, for reasons discussed in the appendix, there are significant 
issues associated with each of the cited dynamic test procedures 
related to possible use in a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.
    Also of importance for this rulemaking, even if NHTSA were to 
identify a particular dynamic test procedure, among the many known to 
be available, as likely to be suitable for assessing roof crush 
resistance (something we have not been able to do thus far), we would 
need additional years of research to evaluate and refine, as necessary, 
the procedure to develop a proposal, including evaluating it in the 
context of the current vehicle fleet. It is also not known whether any 
dynamic test requirement that might be identified by NHTSA's research 
would produce significant additional benefits beyond those that will be 
produced by the substantial upgrade of the quasi-static procedure that 
we are adopting in this rule.
    NHTSA agrees, however, with pursuing a dynamic test as our ultimate 
goal. We would like to have one for rollover crashes just as we do for 
front and side crashes. Unfortunately, we cannot adopt or even propose 
one now because of issues related to test repeatability, a dummy, and 
lack of injury criteria. We are pursuing further research for a dynamic 
test, but we expect that it will take a number of years to resolve 
these issues. In the meantime, we do not want to delay a significant 
upgrade of FMVSS No. 216 that will save 135 lives each year.
2. Vehicle Application
    FMVSS No. 216 currently applies to passenger cars, and to 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 2,722 
kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less. In our August 2005 NPRM, in addition 
to proposing upgraded performance requirements, we proposed to extend 
the application of the standard to vehicles with a GVWR of up to 4,536 
kilograms (10,000 pounds). We proposed to permit vehicles manufactured 
in two or more stages, other than chassis-cabs, to be certified to the 
roof crush requirements of FMVSS No. 220, instead of FMVSS No. 216. We 
stated that we believed that the requirements of FMVSS No. 220 appeared 
to offer a reasonable avenue to balance the desire to respond to the 
needs of multi-stage manufacturers and the need to increase safety in 
rollover crashes.
    The commenters generally supported extending the application of 
FMVSS No. 216 to vehicles with a GVWR of up to 4,536 kilograms (10,000 
pounds). The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) stated that 
heavier vehicles such as 12- and 15-passenger vans, not currently 
subjected to the standard, are experiencing patterns of roof intrusion 
greater than vehicles already subject to the requirements. That 
commenter also cited two investigations it conducted concerning the 
safety need for vehicles between 6,000 and 10,000 pounds GVWR to meet 
roof crush resistance requirements.
    We received a number of comments concerning requirements for multi-
stage vehicles and vehicles with altered roofs, including ones from 
Advocates, the National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA), the 
Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) and the National 
Mobility Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA). The concerns and 
recommendations of these commenters varied considerably. We discuss and 
address the comments later in this document. For purposes of this more 
general section concerning applicability, we note that we are providing 
a FMVSS No. 220 option for some but not all multi-stage vehicles and 
for vehicles which are altered in certain ways to raise the height of 
the roof. We also note that, for reasons discussed in that section, we 
are excluding a narrow

[[Page 22356]]

category of multi-stage trucks from FMVSS No. 216 altogether.
    Subject to the limited exceptions/alternatives/exclusions noted in 
the previous paragraph or already included in FMVSS No. 216, and for 
the reasons discussed in the NPRM and in this document, we are 
extending the application of the standard to vehicles with a GVWR of up 
to 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This final rule will address the NTSB's recommendation H-
03-16, to include 12- and 15-passenger vans in FMVSS No. 216, to 
minimize the extent to which survivable space is compromised in the 
event of a rollover accident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Single-Sided or Two-Sided Tests
    Under the current version of FMVSS No. 216, vehicles must meet the 
standard's requirements for both the driver and passenger sides of the 
vehicle. Thus, roof crush resistance protection is required for both 
the driver and passenger sides of the vehicle. The standard specifies a 
single-sided test. While a vehicle must meet the standard's test 
requirements, regardless of whether it is tested on the driver or 
passenger side, a particular vehicle is tested on only one side.
    As discussed in the NPRM, a number of commenters on our 2001 RFC 
suggested that the agency specify a two-sided test requirement, i.e., a 
requirement that each vehicle must meet the standard's test 
requirements when tested sequentially, first on one side of the 
vehicle, and then on the other side. Commenters making this 
recommendation included Public Citizen and CFIR. The commenters stated 
that vehicle occupants on the far side of the rollover have a much 
greater risk of serious injury than occupants on the near side,\11\ and 
argued that a two-sided requirement is needed to protect far side 
occupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Near side is the side toward which the vehicle begins to 
roll and the far side is the trailing side of the roll.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, the agency summarized the results of six two-sided 
tests it had conducted in light of those comments. The testing sought 
to evaluate the strength of the second side of the roof of vehicles 
whose first side had already been tested. In this testing, after the 
force was applied to one side of the roof over the front seat area of a 
vehicle, the vehicle was repositioned and force was then applied on the 
opposite side of the roof over the front seat area. In performing these 
tests on both sides of a vehicle, the agency used the platen angle 
currently specified in FMVSS No. 216 (5 degree pitch forward and 25 
degree rotation outward, along its lateral axis). We concluded that the 
strength of the roof on the second side of some vehicles may have been 
increased or decreased as a result of the deformation of the first side 
of the roof. The agency indicated that it planned to conduct further 
research before proposing rulemaking in this area.
    In commenting on the NPRM, a number of consumer advocacy 
organizations and other commenters strongly supported a two-sided test 
requirement. These commenters included, among others, Public Citizen, 
CFIR, CAS, and Advocates. Supporters of a two-sided test requirement 
argued that more damage occurs to the far (or trailing) side of the 
vehicle in a rollover crash, and a two-sided test would better reflect 
this real-world intrusion. They further argued that when the near side 
roof and windshield are compromised in a rollover, the far side will 
not be able to withstand the forces of the event, and, consequently, 
facilitate roof collapse. ARCCA, Inc., Consumers Union, and Safety 
Analysis and Forensic Engineering (SAFE) suggested a two-sided test 
would simulate the impact that occurs in the majority of rollover 
incidents.
    In light of the substantial interest in a two-sided test 
requirement, NHTSA expanded the series of two-sided roof crush tests 
discussed in the NPRM. In our January 2008 SNPRM, we explained that we 
had, by that time, conducted a total of 26 sequential two-sided tests, 
and announced that we were releasing these data to the public in 
con