Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Side Impact Protection; Fuel System Integrity; Electric-Powered Vehicles: Electrolyte Spillage and Electrical Shock Protection, 12123-12141 [2010-5575]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
12123
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 49 / Monday, March 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1301(a), 1302(b)(3),
1341, 1344, 1362.
PART 4044—ALLOCATION OF
ASSETS IN SINGLE–EMPLOYER
PLANS
Appendix B to Part 4044—Interest
Rates Used to Value Benefits
5. In appendix B to part 4044, a new
entry for April–June 2010 is added to
the table to read as follows:
*
■
4. The authority citation for part 4044
continues to read as follows:
■
*
*
*
*
The values of it are:
For valuation dates occurring in the months—
it
*
*
*
April–June 2010 ................................................................
Issued in Washington, DC, on this March
9, 2010.
Vincent K. Snowbarger,
Acting Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2010–5541 Filed 3–12–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7709–01–P
for t =
it
*
for t =
*
0.0463
1–20
0.0451
from the Inspection Service or the
Manager, Mailing Standards, USPS
Headquarters, unless an appeal is taken
to the Judicial Officer Department in
accordance with rules of procedure set
out in part 959 of this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
it
*
>20
for t =
*
N/A
N/A
and the scope of its proposed
operations.
*
*
*
*
*
Stanley F. Mires,
Chief Counsel, Legislative.
[FR Doc. 2010–5622 Filed 3–12–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–12–P
■
POSTAL SERVICE
§ 310.6
39 CFR Parts 310 and 320
Restrictions on Private Carriage of
Letters
Postal ServiceTM
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This rule amends the Postal
Service regulations on the enforcement
and suspension of the Private Express
Statutes to correct obsolete addresses.
DATES: Effective Date: March 15, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Garry Rodriguez, 202–268–7281.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Amendment of parts 310 and 320 is
necessary to correct the addresses for
inquiries and other correspondence
regarding enforcement of the Private
Express Statutes.
SUMMARY:
List of Subjects in 39 CFR Parts 310 and
320
Advertising; Computer technology.
For the reasons set forth above, the
Postal Service amends 39 CFR Chapter
I, Subchapter E as follows:
■
PART 310—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 39 CFR
part 310 continues to read as follows:
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
■
Authority: 39 U.S.C. 401, 404, 601–606; 18
U.S.C. 1693–1699.
■
2. Revise § 310.5(b) to read as follows:
§ 310.5
Payment of postage on violation.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The amount equal to postage will
be due and payable not later than 15
days after receipt of formal demand
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:02 Mar 12, 2010
3. Revise § 310.6 to read as follows:
Jkt 220001
Advisory opinions.
An advisory opinion on any question
arising under this part and part 320 of
this chapter may be obtained by writing
the General Counsel, U.S. Postal
Service, 475 L’Enfant Plaza SW.,
Washington, DC 20260–1100. A
numbered series of advisory opinions is
available for inspection by the public in
the Library of the U.S. Postal Service,
and copies of individual opinions may
be obtained upon payment of charges
for duplicating services.
PART 320—[AMENDED]
4. The authority citation for 39 CFR
Part 320 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 39 U.S.C. 401, 404, 601–606; 18
U.S.C. 1693–1699.
5. In § 320.3:
a. Revise paragraph (a) to read as set
forth below; and
■ b. Amend paragraph (b) in the second
sentence by removing the words ‘‘the
RCSC’’ and adding the words ‘‘Mailing
Standards’’ in their place.
■
■
§ 320.3 Operations under suspension for
certain data processing materials.
(a) Carriers intending to establish or
alter operations based on the suspension
granted pursuant to § 320.2 shall, as a
condition to the right to operate under
the suspension, notify the Manager,
Mailing Standards, U.S. Postal Service,
475 L’Enfant Plaza SW, Rm. 3436,
Washington, DC 20260–3436, of their
intention to establish such operations
not later than the beginning of such
operations. Such notification, on a form
available from the office of Mailing
Standards, shall include information on
the identity and authority of the carrier
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0032]
RIN 2127–AK48
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Side Impact Protection;
Fuel System Integrity; ElectricPowered Vehicles: Electrolyte Spillage
and Electrical Shock Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions
for reconsideration.
SUMMARY: This document comprises the
agency’s second of two responses to
petitions for reconsideration of a
September 11, 2007, final rule that
upgraded Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 214, ‘‘Side
impact protection.’’ The final rule
incorporated a vehicle-to-pole test into
the standard, adopted technicallyadvanced test dummies and enhanced
injury criteria, and incorporated the
advanced dummies into the standard’s
moving deformable barrier test. An
earlier response was published on June
9, 2008, which addressed lead time,
phase-in percentages, test speed, and
other issues. Today’s response addresses
the remaining issues raised by the
petitions.
DATES: Effective Date: The date on
which this final rule amends the CFR is
May 14, 2010.
E:\FR\FM\15MRR1.SGM
15MRR1
12124
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 49 / Monday, March 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
If you wish to petition for
reconsideration of this rule, your
petition must be received by April 29,
2010.
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 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:
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
III. June 9, 2008 Response to Petitions for
Reconsideration
IV. Overview of Today’s Document
V. Response to Petitions
a. SID–IIs Pelvic Criterion
b. Multi-Stage Vehicles and Partitioned
Vehicles
c. Test Procedures
1. Vehicle Set Up
i. Positioning the Seat
A. Adjusting the Front Seat for the 50th
Percentile Male Dummies
B. Location of Seat on the Non-Impact Side
C. Seat Cushion Reference Point
ii. Adjustable Head Restraint Position for
the SID–IIs
iii. Adjustable Seat Belt Shoulder Anchor
iv. Adjustable Steering Wheels
v. Impact Point Reference Line
Determination
vi. Vehicle Attitude
vii. Pole Test Pitch and Roll Definitions
2. Test Dummy Set-Up
i. SID–IIs
A. Hip Point Specification
B. Knee and Ankle Spacing
C. Pelvic Angle
D. Adjustment of Lower Neck Bracket to
Level Head
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:02 Mar 12, 2010
Jkt 220001
E. Other Corrections
ii. ES–2re
A. Head CG Location Variability
B. Knee Spacing
C. Corrections
3. Miscellaneous Corrections
i. Exclusion of Rear Seats That Cannot
Accommodate a SID in the MDB Test
ii. FMVSS No. 301 and FMVSS No. 305
Test Dummy Applications
iii. Metric Conversion
iv. Typographical Errors
4. Clarifying Effective Date for Convertibles
in the MDB Test
5. Bosch’s Petition
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
I. Background
On September 11, 2007, NHTSA
published a final rule that upgraded
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 214, ‘‘Side impact
protection,’’ (72 FR 51908, Docket No.
NHTSA–29134).1 Until the final rule,
the only dynamic test in FMVSS No.
214 was a moving deformable barrier
(MDB) test simulating an intersection
collision with one vehicle being struck
in the side by another vehicle. In the
MBD test, vehicles are required to
provide thoracic and pelvic protection
to the driver and rear seat occupant on
the struck side of the vehicle, as
measured by a side impact dummy (SID)
representing a 50th percentile adult
male. NHTSA upgraded FMVSS No. 214
to require all light vehicles with a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536
kilograms (kg) or less (10,000 pounds
(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
vehicles that crash into poles and trees
or of vehicles that are laterally struck by
a higher-riding vehicle. In the final rule,
NHTSA estimated that side impact air
bags reduce fatality risk for nearside
occupants by an estimated 24 percent;
1 The final rule fulfilled the mandate of the ‘‘Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU).’’
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).
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
torso bags alone, by 14 percent.3 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.
The agency estimated that the final rule
will prevent 311 fatalites and 361
serious injuries a year when fully
implemented throughout the light
vehicle fleet.4
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 5 feet 4 inches (163 cm),
which crash data indicates comprise 34
percent of all serious and fatal injuries
to near-side occupants in side impacts.
The SID–IIs better represents small
stature occupants than the SID (50th
percentile adult male dummy) used
today in FMVSS No. 214.5
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 will have to provide head,
enhanced thoracic and pelvic protection
to occupants ranging from mid-size
males to small occupants in vehicle-tovehicle side crashes.
The September 11, 2007, final rule
provided lead time for and phased in
the pole test requirements, making
allowance for use of advanced credits
towards meeting the new requirements,
and other adjustments to the schedule
for heavier vehicles. The rule also
3 Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, ‘‘FMVSS No.
214; Amending side impact dynamic test; Adding
oblique pole test,’’ Docket No. NHTSA–29134. See
also, ‘‘An Evaluation of Side Impact Protection,
FMVSS 214 TTI(d) Improvements and Side Air
Bags,’’ January 2007, NHTSA Technical Report DOT
HS 810 748.
4 The cost of the most likely potential
countermeasure—a 2-sensor per vehicle window
curtain and separate thorax side air bag system—
compared to no side air bags was estimated to be
$243 per vehicle. After analyzing the data
voluntarily submitted by manufacturers on their
planned installation of side air bag systems, NHTSA
estimated the final rule will increase the average
vehicle cost by $33 and increase total annual costs
for the fleet by $560 million.
5 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.
E:\FR\FM\15MRR1.SGM
15MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 49 / Monday, March 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
The agency received petitions for
reconsideration of the September 11,
2007 final rule from: the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance),6
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.
Lead time. The final rule specified
that manufacturers must begin meeting
the upgraded pole and MDB test
requirements on a phased-in schedule
beginning two years from the
publication of the final rule. The
Alliance, Toyota, Nissan, Porsche asked
for more time to begin the start of the
phase-in.
Lower bound on speed range for the
pole test. The final rule specified that
vehicles must meet the requirements of
the pole test when tested ‘‘at any speed
up to and including 32 kilometers per
hour (km/h)(20 mph).’’ The Alliance,
GM, Toyota, Porsche petitioned to
bound the test speed at a lower speed
of 26 km/h (16 mph) or 23 km/h (14.3
mph), or (GM) delay implementation of
the ‘‘up to’’ aspect of the requirement
until the end of the phase-in to allow for
additional development of sensing
technology.
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, Nissan, Porsche, and VW
petitioned the agency to provide more
lead time for convertibles or to exclude
the vehicles from the pole test
requirements.
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
Alliance asked that this value be
changed to 8,550 N.
Multi-stage and altered vehicles,
including vehicles with partitions. The
Alliance and the NTEA recommended
that NHTSA ‘‘exempt’’ multi-stage/
6 At the time of the petition, the Alliance was
made up of BMW group, Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor
Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi
Motors, Porsche, Toyota, and Volkswagen.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:02 Mar 12, 2010
Jkt 220001
altered vehicles (including vehicles
with partitions behind the front seats)
from the oblique pole test requirements.
Amending test procedures and
correcting typographical errors. The
Alliance and Honda cited omissions or
errors in the regulatory text in need of
correction. Honda 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. Bosch 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.’’
III. June 9, 2008, Response to Petitions
for Reconsideration
To respond to petitioners’ concerns
about lead time as quickly as possible,
the agency addressed the lead time issue
first and separate from other substantive
issues raised by the petitions. The lead
time issue, and other matters that
needed to be resolved or clarified
concerning lead time and the phasingin of the new requirements, were
addressed in an initial response to
petitions published June 9, 2008 (73 FR
32473). That final rule:
a. Extended the lead time period
before manufacturers must begin
phasing in vehicles to meet the
upgraded FMVSS No. 214 requirements
to September 1, 2010, and amended the
percentages of manufacturers’ vehicles
that are required to meet the new
requirements from 20/50/75/all to 20/
40/60/80/all; 7
b. Specified 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. Delayed the effective date for
convertible vehicles until September 1,
2015;
d. Delayed 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. Corrected 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
7 All vehicles must meet the requirements
without the use of advance credits.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
12125
limited line manufacturer, and the
reinstatement of the seat adjustment
procedure for the SID dummy.
IV. Overview of Today’s Document
Today’s document denies the requests
to revise the SID–IIs pelvic criterion and
to exclude vehicles manufactured in
more than one stage from the pole test.
This rule grants several suggestions to
clarify or revise aspects of the test
procedures relating to, among other
matters: Vehicle set-up (adjusting the
non-struck side seat; adjusting head
restraints, shoulder belt anchorages, and
adjustable steering wheels, clarifying
the vehicle test attitude tolerance); test
dummy set-up (positioning the SID–IIs;
removing redundant foot positioning
procedures); and corrections (e.g., ES–
2re filter class designation; exclusion of
rear seats that cannot accommodate the
SID in the MDB test during the phasein period; FMVSS No. 301 and FMVSS
No. 305 test dummy applications). In
addition, in response to a July 23, 2008
petition for reconsideration from the
Alliance, this document also makes
clear that the upgraded MDB test does
not apply to convertibles manufactured
before September 1, 2015. For the
reasons explained in this preamble, all
other requests made in the petitions for
reconsideration of the September 11,
2007 final rule to which we have not
previously responded are denied.
V. Response to Petitions
a. SID–IIs Pelvic Criterion
The September 11, 2007 final rule
adopted injury criteria for the ES–2re
and the SID–IIs. For the ES–2re, the
final rule adopted a 6,000 N pubic load
criterion. The agency estimated that this
criterion corresponded to a 25 percent
risk of AIS 3+ pelvic fracture to a 45year-old male occupant involved in a
side crash. For the SID–IIs, the agency
adopted a 5,525 N pelvic injury
criterion limit for the sum of iliac and
acetabular forces measured by the
dummy. The agency estimated that the
criterion corresponded to a 25 percent
risk of AIS 2+ pelvic fracture to a 56year-old small female occupant
involved in a side crash.
In its petition, the Alliance asked that
the SID–IIs pelvic injury criterion be
changed from 5,525 N to 8,550 N. It
stated that an 8,550 N criterion
corresponds to a 25 percent risk of AIS
3+ pelvis injury and would align the
pelvic injury risk with the AIS 3+ level
set by NHTSA for the ES–2re. The
petitioner further suggested that a 5,525
N criterion overemphasizes pelvic
protection, which could result in
designs that overload the thorax. The
E:\FR\FM\15MRR1.SGM
15MRR1
12126
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 49 / Monday, March 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
petitioner suggested that manufacturers
should be provided leeway to balance
the loading to various parts of the body
to prevent any single part from being
overloaded.
In addition, the Alliance suggested
rewording the pelvic injury criterion to
state that the combined pelvis force in
the SID–IIs must correspond to a pubic
symphysis force of 4,280 N. According
to the petitioner, since typically the
external load is twice that measured at
the pubic symphysis, a pubic symphysis
load of 4,280 N is associated with a
combined pelvis load of 8,550 N.
Alternatively, the Alliance suggested
that separate injury criteria for the iliac
wing and the acetabulum be utilized for
the SID–IIs pelvic injury criteria. The
Alliance proposed a force limit of 5,000
N for both.
Agency Response: NHTSA is denying
the Alliance petition to change the
pelvic injury criterion to 8,550 N.
Although the ES–2re criterion
corresponds to a 25% risk of AIS 3+
injury, there are several reasons for
having the SID–IIs injury risk level be
set at AIS 2+ rather than AIS 3+.
First, we believe that the data
estimating injury risk at the AIS 2+ level
is more biomechanically reliable than at
the AIS 3+ level. The agency established
the SID–IIs criterion at a 25% risk level
for AIS 2+ injuries 8 based on available
biomechanical test data from Bouquet et
al.,9 Zhu et al.,10 and Cavanaugh et al.11
NHTSA found inconsistencies in the
researchers’ coding of AIS 2 and 3+
pelvic injuries using the 1990
Abbreviated Injury Scale. Because of
these inconsistencies, the agency
determined that it would be preferable
to use AIS 2+ injury risk to establish
criteria for the SID–IIs. The agency
considered using the AIS 2+ injury risk
for the ES–2re as well, but did not adopt
the AIS 2+ risk level at the time because
an AIS 2+ pelvic injury criterion for the
ES–2re would have been 3,250 N. An
8 Kuppa, S., Injury Criteria for Side Impact
Dummies, 2007, Docket No. NHTSA–2007–29134–
0001, https://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/
component/main.
9 Bouquet, R., Ramet, M., Bermond, F., Vyes, C.
Pelvic Human Response to Lateral Impact, 16th
International Technical Conference on the
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 98–S7–W–
16, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Windsor, Canada, 1998.
10 Zhu, J., Cavanaugh, J., King, A., Pelvic
Biomechanical Response and Padding Benefits in
Side Impact Based on a Cadaveric Test Series, SAE
Paper No. 933128, 37th Stapp Car Crash
Conference, 1993.
11 Cavanaugh, J., Walilko, T., Malhotra, A., Zhu,
Y., King, A., Biomechanical Response and Injury
Tolerance of the Pelvis in Twelve Sled Side
Impacts, Proc. of the Thirty-Fourth Stapp Car Crash
Conference, SAE Paper No. 902305, Society of
Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 1990.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:02 Mar 12, 2010
Jkt 220001
ES–2re pelvic injury criterion of 6,000 N
was used internationally for the ES–2
dummy and not enough was known
about the practicability and other
implications of requiring manufacturers
to meet a criterion that was
approximately twice as stringent as the
criteria used internationally. It was thus
decided that the ES–2re pelvic injury
criterion should remain at the AIS 3+
level, but that the injury risk level for
the SID–IIs pelvic injury criterion would
be at the AIS 2+ level.
Further, in establishing the SID–IIs
criteria, the agency normalized the
pelvic force data from the Bouquet
pelvic impact tests to that of a small
female weighing 48 kg (105 lb). The
agency also adjusted the risk curve to
that for a 56-year-old, since that was the
average age of seriously injured
occupants of a height less than 163 cm
(5 feet 4 inches) involved in side
crashes. 72 FR at 51944, see also, ‘‘Injury
Criteria for Side Impact Dummies,’’
NHTSA Docket 17694. There was a
significant amount of research
indicating that pelvic injuries to older
people were associated with increased
mortality. O’Brien et al.12 and Henry et
al.13 examined patients who sustained a
pelvic fracture during a 5-year period
and found that patients 55 years and
older were more likely to sustain a
lateral compression fracture pattern and
had a higher frequency of mortality due
to the injury than the younger patients
(<55 years old). Thus, the 5,525 N sum
of acetabular and iliac force
corresponded to a 25% risk of AIS 2+
injury, reflecting the reduced bone
strength in and a lower pelvic injury
tolerance of older women.
With regard to the Alliance’s request
to specify the SID–IIs pelvic injury
criterion with respect to the pubic force,
we are denying that request. Specifying
a criterion limit of 4,280 N on the SID–
IIs pubic load measuring device was not
proposed in the NPRM or explored in
the final rule, so the public has not had
an opportunity to comment on the
suggested criterion and the agency has
not had the benefit of those comments.
Furthermore, the Alliance’s assertion
that the external load is twice that
measured at the pubic symphysis of the
SID–IIs is not supported by the SID–IIs
test data it submitted to the agency
(‘‘Injury Criteria for Side Impact
12 O’Brien, D., Luchette, F., Pereira, S., Lim, E.,
Seeskin, C., James, L., Miller, S., Davis, K., Hurst,
J., Johannigman, J., Frame, S. (2002) Pelvic Frature
in the Elderly is Associated with Increased
Mortality, Surgery, Volume 132, pp. 710–715.
13 Henry, S., Pollack, A., Jones, A., Boswell, S.,
Scalea, T. (2002) Pelvic Fracture in Geriatric
Patients: A distinct Clinical Entity, Journal of
Trauma, Volume 53, No. 1, pp. 15–20.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Dummies,’’ NHTSA Docket 17694).14 In
the Alliance-submitted data, the
external load was approximately 8.7 to
28.6 times the load measured at the
public symphysis. Further, we believe
that the pubic load cell for the SID–IIs
is limited in its capacity to measure a
load of 4,280 N because the attachment
sites are too rigid. A design change to
the dummy is likely needed to have a
pubic load criterion for the SID–IIs, and
the petitioner has not demonstrated
justification to undertake this change.
We have also decided to deny the
petitioner’s request to create separate
injury threshold levels of 5,000 N for the
iliac and acetabular load cells. The test
data used to develop the AIS 2+ injury
risk curves for the pelvis measured the
total force applied to the pelvis
(Cavanaugh), as opposed to measuring
separate loads on the iliac and
acetabulum. The injuries resulting from
the total applied pelvic force included
a variety of pelvic injuries observed in
real world crashes: Pubic rami fractures,
sacro iliac joint fractures, iliac wing
fractures, and ischio pubic branch
fractures (Cavanaugh and Bouquet).15
The AIS 2+ injury risk curves that were
independently developed using the
Cavanaugh and Bouquet test data were
nearly identical, demonstrating that the
total pelvic force is a good predictor of
a variety of pelvic injuries. The sum of
iliac force and acetabular force provides
a better estimate of the total load on the
pelvis than the Alliance’s approach, and
consequently, provides better injury
prediction for different type of pelvic
injuries. For this reason, the sum of iliac
and acetabular loads was used for injury
prediction, and adopted in the final
rule. The Alliance provided no analysis
to support its alternative.16
14 The ratio of the sum of acetabular and iliac
forces of the SID–IIs and the applied force on the
cadaver (normalized to that of a 5th percentile
female) from the paired Bouquet cadaver tests
appears to be dependent on the impact velocity.
Considering only the impacts at 10 to 12 m/s, the
average ratio of SID–IIs measured total pelvic force
to the cadaver applied force is 1.21.
15 Fractures due to lateral loading can occur at
several locations on the pelvic ring, including the
pubic rami (pubic rami fractures are typically the
first that occur, as the pubic rami is the weak link
in the pelvis), pubic symphysis, iliac wing, sacroiliac junction, and acetabulum. Moreover, the load
paths through the pelvis in lateral impacts are
complex: loading through the trochanteron can
result in fractures at the sacro-iliac joint; loading
through the iliac wing can cause pubic rami
fractures.
16 We also note that the 5,525 N injury criterion
selected by the agency for the SID–IIs is consistent
with that used by the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety (IIHS) in its side impact consumer
information program, whereas the petitioner’s
suggested criterion of 8,550 N is not. IIHS ranks
vehicles based on performance when impacted
perpendicularly by a moving barrier at about 50
km/h. IIHS uses a maximum limit of 5,100 kN for
E:\FR\FM\15MRR1.SGM
15MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 49 / Monday, March 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Data from recent pole tests we
conducted in support of NHTSA’s New
Car Assessment Program (NCAP)
illustrate the practicability of meeting
the SID–IIs pelvic injury criterion. We
tested six vehicles that were in
conformance with the voluntary
agreement made by auto
manufacturers 17 that had been
characterized as ‘‘good’’ performers in
12127
the IIHS rating program.18 Of the six
vehicles tested, the 2006 VW Passat and
2006 Subaru Impreza met the pelvic
force requirements.19 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
5th Female IARV
2007
2007
2007
2006
2006
2007
Honda Pilot .................
Nissan Quest ..............
Ford Escape ...............
VW Passat ..................
Subaru Impreza ..........
Toyota Avalon .............
HIC36
SAB type
Curtain
Curtain
Curtain
Curtain
Combo
Curtain
+ Torso .................
...............................
+ Torso .................
+ Torso .................
...............................
+ Torso .................
Thorax/rib defl.
(mm)
Abdominal
defl.
(mm)
Lower
spine
(Gs)
Pelvis
force
(N)
1000
Vehicles
38*
45*
82
5525
3464
5694
407
323
184
642
48
50
65
23
51
28
49
56
36
32
38
38
68
79
65
40
58
62
6649
5786
6515
3778
4377
6672
*Note: Injury measurements for reference only; not required in FMVSS No. 214.
b. Multi-Stage Vehicles and Partitioned
Vehicles
In the September 2007 final rule,
NHTSA decided not to exclude vehicles
manufactured in two or more stages
equipped with a cargo carrying, load
bearing or work-performing body or
equipment from the pole test
requirements, as suggested by NTEA’s
comment on the NPRM. 72 FR at 51937.
The agency decided that the exclusion
was unwarranted; there was not
sufficient reason to deny the occupants
of the vehicles the life-saving benefits of
head and enhanced thorax protection
provided by side air bags. (The Final
Regulatory Impact Analysis estimated
those benefits to be a 24 percent
reduction in fatality risk for nearside
occupants by side air bags and an
estimated 14 percent reduction in
fatality risk by torso bags alone. See
Docket No. NHTSA–29134.)
We believed that many incomplete
vehicle manufacturers (which are
typically large vehicle manufacturers,
such as GM and Ford) will
accommodate the needs of final-stage
manufacturers, since the incomplete
vehicles they provide would typically
have a significant portion of the
occupant compartment completed, with
seat- or roof-mounted head/thorax air
bag systems already installed and would
be accompanied by a workable and
reasonable incomplete vehicle
document (IVD). NHTSA determined
that, by using the IVD, final-stage
manufacturers would be able to rely on
the incomplete vehicle manufacturer’s
certification and pass it through to
certify the completed vehicle. 72 FR at
51937.
Under NHTSA’s regulations,21 the
incomplete vehicle manufacturer must
provide an IVD with each incomplete
vehicle it provides to the final-stage
manufacturer. The IVD requirements
were thoroughly explained in a
February 14, 2005, final rule on
certification responsibilities of
manufacturers of vehicles built in two
or more stages and altered vehicles 22
and in NHTSA’s May 15, 2006, final
rule responding to NTEA’s petition for
reconsideration of the rule.23 As
explained in those documents, an IVD
details, with varying degrees of
specificity, the types of future
manufacturing contemplated by the
incomplete vehicle manufacturer and
must provide, for each applicable safety
standard, one of three statements that a
subsequent manufacturer can rely on
when certifying compliance of the
vehicle, as finally manufactured, to
some or all of all applicable FMVSS.
‘‘good’’ vehicles. Vehicles with a combined
acetabulum and ilium force greater than 7,100 N
receive a ‘‘poor’’ injury rating by IIHS. The
Alliances’ suggested criterion of 8,550 N would be
in the poor category.
17 On December 4, 2003, the Alliance, the
Association of International Automobile
Manufacturers (AIAM), and 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),
and Docket NHTSA–2003–14623–13.
18 IIHS’s side impact consumer information
program ranks vehicles based on performance when
impacted perpendicularly by a moving barrier at
about 50 km/h. https://www.iihs.org/ratings/
side_test_info.html.
19 This series of tests with the 5th percentile
female dummy were conducted with the iliac wing
‘‘material #2’’ specified in the December 2006 SID–
IIs final rule. The SID–IIs final rule to address
petitions for reconsideration specifies performance
criteria that allow for use of a stiffer ‘‘material #3’’
for the iliac wing. Material #3 will not increase the
total pelvic force appreciably from that of the SID–
IIs iliac wings used for the 2004–2005 MY vehicle
tests listed in the 2007 final rule. When comparing
material #3 responses to material #2 responses, it
is estimated the material #3 will result in a 12%
increase in the iliac force in the qualification
environment and correspond to a 5% increase in
total pelvis force in these vehicle tests. The VW
Passat and Subaru Impreza are still expected to
meet the pelvic force IARV with the new material.
20 We note that all six vehicles were well below
the 8,550 N pelvic force limit proposed by the
Alliance and consequently, no changes would need
to be made to any of these vehicles to meet its
suggested criterion.
21 49 CFR part 568, ‘‘Vehicles Manufactured in
Two or More Stages—All Incomplete, Intermediate
and Final-Stage Manufacturers of Vehicles
Manufactured in Two or More Stages.’’ Section
§ 568.4 requires the incomplete vehicle
manufacture to furnish the IVD at or before the time
of delivery.
22 70 FR 7414, Docket 99–5673.
23 71 FR 28168, May 15, 2008, Docket 2006–
24664.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Not only did the 2006 VW Passat and
the 2006 Subaru Impreza meet the
pelvic force limit, but both vehicles met
the lower spine and head requirements
as well.20 The VW Passat also had very
low thoracic and abdominal deflection
measurements. The performance of the
VW Passat illustrates the feasibility of
protecting all body regions at the
FMVSS No. 214 levels without
overloading the thorax or any other part
of the occupant. With the additional
lead time and longer phase-in of the
upgraded FMVSS No. 214 requirements
provided by the June 2008 final rule,
manufacturers will have sufficient time
to design the necessary countermeasures
to meet the pelvic criteria established in
the September 11, 2007 final rule.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:02 Mar 12, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\15MRR1.SGM
15MRR1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
12128
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 49 / Monday, March 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
The final-stage manufacturer has to
meet the conditions of the IVD in
producing the final vehicle.
The first type of statement contained
by an IVD is one referred to in 49 CFR
568.4(a)(7) as a ‘‘Type 1 statement.’’
These statements indicate, with respect
to a particular safety standard, that the
vehicle, when completed, will conform
to the standard if no alterations are
made in identified components of the
incomplete vehicle. This representation
is most often made with respect to
chassis-cabs, a type of incomplete
vehicle that has a completed occupant
compartment. 49 CFR 567.3.
The second type of statement is a
‘‘Type 2 statement’’ (§ 568.4(a)(7)). This
is a statement of specific conditions of
final manufacture under which the
completed vehicle will conform to a
particular standard or set of standards.
This statement is applicable in those
instances in which the incomplete
vehicle manufacturer has provided all
or a portion of the equipment needed to
comply with the standard, but
subsequent manufacturing might be
expected to change the vehicle such that
it may not comply with the standard
once finally manufactured. For example,
the incomplete vehicle could be
equipped with a brake system that
would, in many instances, enable the
vehicle to comply with the applicable
brake standard once the vehicle was
complete, but that would not enable it
to comply if the completed vehicle’s
weight or center of gravity height were
significantly altered from those
specified in the IVD.
The third type of statement, a ‘‘Type
3’’ statement, is one which identifies
those standards for which no
representation of conformity is made
because conformity with the standard is
not substantially affected by the design
of the incomplete vehicle. A statement
of this kind could be made, for example,
by a manufacturer of a stripped chassis
who may be unable to make any
representations about conformity to any
crashworthiness standards given that
the incomplete vehicle does not contain
an occupant compartment.
In the September 11, 2007 final rule
amending FMVSS No. 214, the agency
declined NTEA’s suggestion to exclude
the multistage vehicles it identifies from
the pole test requirements. We had, and
still have, every reason to expect that
incomplete vehicle manufacturers will
accommodate the needs of final-stage
manufacturers. We believe that chassiscab manufacturers will produce
incomplete vehicles with seat- or roofmounted head/thorax air bag systems
already installed and with workable
instructions on how the vehicle could
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:02 Mar 12, 2010
Jkt 220001
be completed to enable the final-stage
manufacturer to pass-through the
certification. As NHTSA stated in the
September 11, 2007, final rule, ‘‘As long
as the final-stage manufacturer meets
the conditions of the incomplete vehicle
document (and NTEA has not shown
that final stage manufacturers will not
be able to meet those conditions) the
manufacturers may rely on the
incomplete vehicle manufacturer’s
certification and pass it through when
certifying the completed vehicle.’’ 72 FR
at 51937–51938.
Further, for final-stage manufacturers
that will have to certify the compliance
of the vehicle other than by using ‘‘passthrough’’ certification, the agency
provided manufacturers until
September 1, 2013, approximately six
years under the September 11, 2007,
final rule (which has been extended to
September 1, 2016, under the June 2008
final rule), to work with incomplete
vehicle manufacturers and with seat and
air bag suppliers to revise current air
bag systems and vehicle designs to
enable them to certify to the pole test.
72 FR at 51938. The agency determined
that this long period will provide
enough time for final-stage
manufacturers to work with incomplete
vehicle manufacturers, seat
manufacturers and air bag suppliers,
individually or as a consortium, to
develop the information to install seatmounted systems, or other
countermeasures that could be
developed to meet the pole test. Id.
NTEA and the Alliance petitioned for
reconsideration of the agency’s decision
on this issue. NTEA stated that ‘‘it will
not be possible for chassis [incomplete
vehicle] manufacturers to develop
compliance strategies for this regulation
that would allow multi-stage
manufacturers to continue producing
the range of diversified work trucks
demanded by the marketplace.’’ The
petitioner believed that the side air bag
system is highly complex and that ‘‘it
will not be possible for the chassis
manufacturers to provide a generic
compliance envelope covering any
significant portion of the vehicle
configurations produced by today’s
work truck industry.’’ In the alternative,
NTEA asked that if the rule is to
continue to apply to multi-stage
vehicles, the effective date for multistage produced vehicles with a gross
vehicle weight rating greater than 8,500
pounds be extended to September 1,
2014 (one year later than the effective
date for single stage produced vehicles).
The Alliance petitioned to exclude
multi-stage and altered vehicles from
the pole test requirements because, it
asserted, ‘‘the extensive variation of
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
possible changes that can be made to
vehicles that are built in multiple stages,
including the addition of partitions, will
affect the performance of original
equipment manufacturers’ (OEMs’) side
airbags [sic] systems (side airbags,
curtains, sensing systems, and interior
and structural components).’’ The
petitioner stated: ‘‘Each multi-stage
vehicle developed from a single
incomplete vehicle could potentially
require a unique side airbag system,
which could require a unique
development process for each system
(development process meaning iterative
crash testing for occupant response and
side sensor calibration development).’’
The Alliance further stated that, ‘‘OEMs
will not be in a position to expend
engineering resources to develop unique
side airbag systems in addition to the
systems developed for the associated
completed vehicles’’ and that multistage manufacturers ‘‘will not
necessarily be in a position to
collaborate with OEMs and/or restraint
suppliers to develop unique systems.’’
Agency Response
The petitioners’ contentions that it
would be impossible for incomplete
vehicle manufacturers to develop
strategies that would allow multi-stage
manufacturers to continue producing
diversified work trucks are overly
general and wholly unsupported. No
information was submitted with the
petitions substantiating the petitioners’
views that final-stage manufacturers
will not be able to certify their vehicles
to the pole test. No information was
provided to show that incomplete
vehicle manufacturers will find passthrough certification unachievable.
NHTSA cannot find a basis on which to
conclude that final-stage manufacturers
could not adhere to the instructions of
the IVD, when final-stage manufacturers
are currently certifying the compliance
of their vehicles with FMVSS No. 214,
and with FMVSS No. 208, ‘‘Occupant
crash protection,’’ (frontal air bag
technology), FMVSS No. 301, ‘‘Fuel
system integrity,’’ and other complex
safety standards that include crash
testing vehicles as part of the agency’s
compliance tests.
We believe that it will be feasible for
final-stage manufacturers to certify their
vehicles to the pole test using the IVD
provided by the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer. The IVD framework was
carefully analyzed in the May 15, 2006,
final rule (71 FR 28168) that responded
to NTEA’s petition for reconsideration
of the February 14, 2005, rule amending
the certification requirements for multistage vehicle manufacturers. The agency
examined a GM CK Chassis-Cab IVD
E:\FR\FM\15MRR1.SGM
15MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 49 / Monday, March 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
that NTEA had appended to its petition
for reconsideration as an example of
purported deficiencies in IVDs generally
(71 FR at 28177). To assess the validity
of NTEA’s contentions, NHTSA
carefully examined the certification
statements in the GM IVD that NTEA
identified as inadequate. NHTSA
determined each of NTEA’s claims to be
unsubstantiated.
The agency found that the IVD was
entirely workable as it related to each of
the FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 214.
NTEA had contended that there was no
meaningful pass-through opportunity
for FMVSS No. 214’s crush resistance
requirements and the standard’s moving
deformable barrier test. The GM IVD
stated that the vehicle will comply with
the requirements of FMVSS No. 214 as
long as no alterations were made that
affect the properties, environment, or
vital spatial clearances of various
components and systems in the vehicle,
including the air bag system, the door
assemblies, hinges, and latches, the door
pillars, and the seat and seat belt
anchorages and assemblies. The GM IVD
was practicable, providing a reasonable
envelope within which the final stage
manufacturer could complete the
vehicle and certify it to FMVSS No. 214.
NHTSA determined that (71 FR at
28181)—
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
GM has designed vehicles, including the
doors and associated structural members,
such as pillars, to withstand various forces
applied to the side of the vehicle. Ordinarily,
GM would have tested the side of a single
stage pickup truck. Vehicles completed from
a chassis-cab incomplete vehicle have door
support structures and doors that are
identical to a single stage pickup truck.
Unless the final-stage manufacturer makes
alterations to the door-related structures and
parts enumerated in the IVD, pass-through
certification should be available. * * * It
would be unreasonable to expect GM or any
other incomplete vehicle manufacturer to
provide pass-through certification with
FMVSS 214, which is directly contingent on
the engineering and performance of the
systems set forth in the IVD, without a
limitation on alteration of those systems.
The agency concluded that a finalstage manufacturer can readily complete
its vehicle by mounting a body onto an
incomplete GM vehicle, such as a
chassis cab, without making
modifications that would place it
outside the pass-through certification
provisions of GM’s IVD. Id.
The conclusions of the May 15, 2006
final rule concerning the static door
strength and the MDB test of FMVSS
No. 214 are relevant to today’s
rulemaking and apply to the issues
raised by the petitioners. We anticipate
that the IVDs provided by incomplete
vehicle manufacturers will offer
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:02 Mar 12, 2010
Jkt 220001
compliance strategies to final-stage
manufacturers for meeting the static
door strength and MDB requirements of
FMVSS No. 214 just as the IVDs do
today, by including statements that the
vehicle will comply with the FMVSS
No. 214 requirements as long as no
alterations are made that affect the
properties, environment, or vital spatial
clearances of various components and
systems in the vehicle, such as the door
assemblies, hinges, and latches, the door
pillars, and the seat and seat belt
anchorages and assemblies. These
conditions would be reasonable and
logical, since the side crash protection
provided by the door assemblies,
hinges, latches, structure and padding,
and by the seat and seat belt system
could be affected if the properties,
environment, or vital spatial clearances
were modified by a final-stage
manufacturer. These conditions for
meeting the static door strength and
MDB requirements of FMVSS No. 214
can readily be met by final-stage
manufacturers, just as they are met
today, by making sure that the vehicles
are completed without modifying the
incomplete vehicle’s door assemblies,
hinges, and latches, the door structure,
pillars, and padding, and the seat and
seat belt anchorages and assemblies.
With regard to the pole test
requirements which were newly added
to FMVSS No. 214 by the September 11,
2007 final rule, the findings of the May
15, 2006 final rule are informative and
relevant to this matter as well. The May
15, 2006 final rule discussed NTEA’s
complaint about the pass-through
certification in the GM IVD pertaining to
FMVSS No. 208. This discussion is
instructive today because both FMVSS
No. 208 and the pole test of FMVSS No.
214 specify vehicle crashworthiness
requirements in terms of forces and
accelerations measured on test dummies
in crash tests and by specifying
performance requirements that are met
by air bags.
As discussed in the May 15, 2006
final rule, the GM IVD provided passthrough certification for FMVSS No. 208
for vehicles, provided that the
maximum unloaded vehicle weight
specified by GM is not exceeded and no
alterations are made that affect the
properties, location, or vital spatial
clearances of various components,
including the number, location and
configuration of designated seating
positions and seat belt assemblies, the
instrument panel, steering wheel, air
bag modules and coverings, the Sensor
Diagnostic Module (SDM) (which is
involved in triggering air bag
deployment) and associated wiring, air
bag labels, the vehicle frame and
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
12129
structural members, sheet metal, and the
engine compartment, that would result
in a difference in the modified vehicle’s
deceleration if it were subject to barrier
impact tests under FMVSS No. 208. 71
FR at 28181.
NHTSA found these restrictions in
GM’s Type 1 IVD to be logical and
consistent with a systematic approach to
occupant crash protection employed by
manufacturers. 71 FR at 28182.
Regarding GM’s restriction on unloaded
vehicle weight and GVWR, vehicle
weight is an essential component of
crashworthiness standard certification.
If the vehicle, as completed and loaded,
exceeded the maximum weight for
which the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer provided pass-through
certification (usually based on a crash
test the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer performed), it would not
be reasonable to expect the GM’s
certification to apply because the excess
vehicle weight could cause different and
excessive forces and accelerations on
crash dummies. Final-stage
manufacturers can readily work within
weight requirements by taking care to
purchase the appropriate incomplete
vehicle chassis for the use to which the
vehicle will be put.
NHTSA also found not unreasonable
the restrictions in the GM IVD on
alterations that interfere with the seating
positions, seat belts, instrument panel
and air bags, SDM, and vehicle frame
and body in a way that would result in
a difference from the modified vehicle’s
deceleration if it were subjected to an
FMVSS No. 208 barrier test. The
restrictions were reasonable because
incomplete vehicle manufacturers
typically provide pass-through
certification based on tests performed
on a pickup truck with stock seats
provided by the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer and test dummies in those
seating positions, as specified by
FMVSS No. 208. If the seating positions
were different, the test results as
recorded on the dummies likely would
be different. NHTSA determined that it
was reasonable that GM should not be
held to anticipate performance, as
measured on dummies, in these
circumstances. NHTSA also found it
reasonable that GM would not provide
pass-through certification if the seat belt
system were changed.
The agency further discussed the
IVD’s statements relating to FMVSS No.
208, as follows (71 FR 28182):
Other requirements relate to the air bags
and their control unit. GM could not be
expected to provide pass-through
certification if the final-stage manufacturer
modified these items.
E:\FR\FM\15MRR1.SGM
15MRR1
12130
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 49 / Monday, March 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Finally, the IVD provides that various
structural and sheet metal components
cannot be modified if the modifications
would result in a difference in the modified
vehicle’s deceleration in a barrier test under
FMVSS No. 208. A basic concept in
designing vehicles is to design vehicle
structures that minimize the amount of
injury-causing crash energy that reaches the
occupants. To accomplish this, in part,
manufacturers design into the vehicle
structural zones that collapse and absorb
crash energy. A crashworthy vehicle is
designed to deform according to a
deceleration-time response, or crash pulse.
These vary among vehicles. The frontal
structure largely controls the deceleration
pulse. Ultimately, the deceleration response
of the vehicle affects the response
experienced by the test dummies, as gauged
by regulatory injury criteria such as the
thoracic acceleration of a test dummy.
Modifications by a final-stage manufacturer
to the frame, sheet metal and other
components identified in GM’s IVD may
change the vehicle’s deceleration and its
performance in a crash test, including
measurements on test dummies. GM could
not reasonably be expected to assume
certification responsibility in these
circumstances. But the final-stage
manufacturer could readily satisfy the
conditions of the IVD by not modifying the
identified components of the incomplete
vehicle when it adds equipment to the
chassis of the vehicle. (Id., emphasis added.)
This discussion applies equally to the
IVDs that incomplete vehicle
manufacturers will provide concerning
the FMVSS No. 214 pole test. We
anticipate that the IVD will provide
pass-through certification for FMVSS
No. 214 for vehicles provided that
weight restrictions are not exceeded,
and the vehicle is not modified so as to
affect the properties, location, or vital
spatial clearances of certain
components. These components include
the location and configuration of the
driver and outboard passenger seating
positions, the seat belts installed at
those seating positions, the side door
structure and door assemblies, and the
side air bag system. A side air bag
system includes the side air bag
modules, inflator, sensors triggering air
bag deployment, and associated wiring.
A final-stage manufacturer will be
able to satisfy the conditions of the IVD
in completing the vehicle and certifying
it to FMVSS No. 214, just as it is able
to work with the IVD in certifying
completed vehicles to FMVSS No. 208.
The final-stage manufacturer can readily
adhere to the weight requirements of the
IVD by following the instruction of the
IVD. Further, when completing a work
vehicle, a final-stage manufacturer
typically does not modify the vehicle
door trim, side structure or energy
absorbing material for the front outboard
occupants, and can complete the vehicle
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:02 Mar 12, 2010
Jkt 220001
without modifying the side air bag
system. Because of this, the Alliance’s
contention that ‘‘unique’’ side air bag
systems would have to be developed for
‘‘each multi-stage vehicle’’ developed
from a single incomplete vehicle is not
substantiated. NHTSA cannot concur
with that estimation, based on the
information available. Accordingly, we
find no basis for excluding all cargo
carrying, load bearing and workperforming vehicles manufactured in
more than one stage from the pole test.
The petitioners were particularly
focused on partitions and bulkheads
that final-stage manufacturers install in
work vehicles. NTEA stated that these
components ‘‘protect the driver from
loose cargo in the back of the vehicle.’’
The Alliance stated that the addition of
partitions will affect the performance of
original equipment manufacturers’ side
impact air bag systems (SIABs).
The September 11, 2007 final rule did
not exclude partition-equipped vehicles
from the pole test requirements. NHTSA
determined that an exclusion of
partition-equipped vehicles, or of
vehicles with bulkheads, was overly
broad on its face and unwarranted when
considering the different
countermeasures that may be designed
to meet the requirements. These
possible countermeasures included the
use of seat-mounted or door-mounted
head/thorax air bag systems, the
development of side air curtain
technology that involves designs other
than tethering the curtain to the A- and
C-pillars. 72 FR at 51936. Further, the
final rule provided an extra year of lead
time to accommodate any necessary
manufacturing changes that have to be
made to their vehicles. NHTSA stated:
‘‘Between [September 11, 2007] and that
date, [alterers and final-stage
manufacturers] can work with
manufacturers of incomplete and
complete vehicles to develop seatmounted SIABs and other technologies
that would enable them to install the
life-saving devices in vehicles that have
partitions.’’ Id.
The petitioners did not provide
information substantiating its claim that
compliance is not practicable for
vehicles with partitions or bulkheads.
To the contrary, market-based solutions
are emerging now. The agency is aware
of the availability of partitions 24 in
police vehicles that are advertised as
compatible with side curtain air bags.
For some partition designs, sufficient
24 See https://www.setina.com. Setina
Manufacturing Co. markets side curtain air bag
compatible police equipment partitions for the
Chevrolet Impala, Suburban and Tahoe, Chrysler
Aspen, Dodge Charger, Magnum and Durango and
the Ford Expedition and Explorer.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
space is provided to allow for the
inflation of the air curtain. If a full
width barrier is desired, new air bag
systems are emerging to meet that need.
GM has announced it will offer a police
vehicle with optional front-seat-only
side curtain air bags that allow a fullwidth rear-seat barrier.25 An air curtain
could be tethered from the A- to B-pillar
and be compatible with a partition or
bulkhead. NHTSA is aware of another
manufacturer that intends to build a
police car with side curtains and a
partition.26 Further, as explained by the
agency in the September 11, 2007 final
rule, a head/thorax combination air bag
or an air bag that deploys upwards from
the window sill 27 could be used. With
the lead time provided by the final rule,
we expect that more solutions from
vehicle manufacturers and aftermarket
suppliers will be developed for vehicles
with partitions or bulkheads.
Collaboration
There has been no information
presented that corroborates the
Alliance’s assertion that multi-stage
manufacturers could not collaborate
with OEMs and/or restraint suppliers to
develop side air bag systems that would
work with their vehicles. The May 15,
2006 final rule discusses at length the
cooperative relationships that have
existed for years between incomplete
and final-stage manufacturers. See, e.g.,
71 FR at 28183–28185. Final-stage
manufacturer are motor vehicle
manufacturers, and they have for many
years borne the responsibility under the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act to ensure that their vehicles
are certified to the FMVSSs. For many
years, they have certified their vehicles
to a gamut of crash test and other
standards using the IVD and their
engineering abilities. They have worked
with incomplete vehicle manufacturers
and suppliers, individually or as part of
a consortium, and have the capabilities
to continue to do so to develop
strategies needed to certify their
vehicles to the pole test.
Further, as noted above, in the June 9,
2008, final rule responding to petitions
for reconsideration of the September 11,
25 https://media.gm.com/servlet/
GatewayServlet?target=https://
image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewmonthly
releasedetail.do?domain=74&docid=57260.
26 https://www.carbonmotors.com/pdf/
comparison.pdf.
27 A door-mounted inflatable curtain was
introduced in the 2006 model year Volvo C70
convertible. Nissan has also indicated that a side air
bag system under development for convertibles uses
a seat mounted thorax air bag and a curtain air bag
deployed from the door. See NHTSA–2007–29134–
0007.1. Upwards-deploying air bags could be used
in vehicles with a partition or bulkhead.
E:\FR\FM\15MRR1.SGM
15MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 49 / Monday, March 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
2007, final rule on FMVSS No. 214, the
agency extended the compliance date on
which multi-stage manufacturers and
alterers must certify to the pole test,
providing additional time to meet the
FMVSS No. 214 requirements. That
final rule provided 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. This lead
time provides even more lead time than
the NTEA had requested (petitioner had
asked that if the rule is to continue to
apply to multi-stage vehicles, the
effective date for multi-stage produced
vehicles with a GVWR greater than
8,500 pounds be extended to September
1, 2014) and provides ample
opportunity for multi-stage
manufacturers and alterers to develop
and implement strategies for certifying
compliance with the FMVSS No. 214
pole test.
Accordingly, for the reasons provided
above, we are denying the petitions to
exclude vehicles produced in more than
one stage, altered vehicles, and vehicles
with partitions from the pole test.
c. Test Procedures
1. Vehicle Set Up
i. Positioning the Seat
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
A. Adjusting the Front Seat for the 50th
Percentile Male Dummies
For adjusting the front seat for both
the SID–IIs and the ES–2re dummies,
the final rule adopted the seat
positioning procedure used in FMVSS
No. 208 for the 5th percentile female
Hybrid III dummy (for the ES–2re 50th
percentile adult male dummy, the only
alteration made was to specify the midtrack position as opposed to fullforward). That seat positioning
procedure from FMVSS No. 208 was
adopted for use in FMVSS No. 214
because it was more detailed than any
other procedure used in the FMVSSs
and addressed the wide variety of seat
configurations and multi-way power
seat adjustments available in vehicles.
In its petition, the Alliance requested
that the seat adjustment method for the
ES–2re dummy be the same as that in
FMVSS No. 208 for the Hybrid III 50th
percentile male dummy. It stated it is
unclear why NHTSA prescribes a
different seating procedure for FMVSS
No. 214 than the one prescribed for
FMVSS No. 208. The Alliance further
noted that the seat adjustment method
in FMVSS No. 214 for the SID that had
been in place before the amendment
resulted in a different mid-point
location than the location obtained
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:02 Mar 12, 2010
Jkt 220001
under the amended FMVSS No. 214
procedure. The seating positioning
procedure for the SID (S6.3) used to
state, ‘‘Adjustable seats are placed in the
adjustment position midway between
the forward most and rearmost position
* * *,’’ whereas S8.3.1.3.2 of the final
rule states, ‘‘Using only the control that
primarily moves the seat fore and aft,
move the seat cushion reference point to
the mid travel position.* * *’’
Agency Response
NHTSA is denying the Alliance’s
petition to change the seat positioning
procedure for the ES–2re.28 It is correct
that the FMVSS No. 214 final rule
seating procedure can place the seat,
and thus the position of the ES–2re
dummy, in a slightly different location
compared to the FMVSS No. 208
procedure for the 50th percentile male
Hybrid III.29 Specifically, both the
height and mid-point position of the
final seat location can vary between the
two procedures depending on the
number of degrees of freedom designed
into the seat adjustment mechanism.
However, the FMVSS No. 214 seat
positioning procedure takes into
account the full range of motion of the
seat in determining the seat’s mid-point
and height, which the FMVSS No. 208
procedure does not. The new procedure
is more objective and repeatable than
the FMVSS No. 208 procedure, given
the wide variety of seat configurations
and multi-way power seat adjustments
available in vehicles available today.
NHTSA thus considers the FMVSS No.
214 seat positioning procedure
preferable to the FMVSS No. 208
procedure. As to the petitioner’s
suggestion that the procedures of
FMVSS No. 208 and FMVSS No. 214
should be consistent, we are considering
rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 208 to
adopt the FMVSS No. 214 procedure to
28 The seat position concerns raised by the
Alliance were not raised in the comments to the
NPRM or discussed in the final rule.
29 The seat adjustment procedure first adopted for
the 50th percentile male SID when FMVSS No. 214
was amended to include the dynamic test
requirements with the MDB (55 FR 45722) was
derived from that used in FMVSS No. 208. The
September 2007 FMVSS No. 214 final rule adopted
a revised seat adjustment procedure for the new
requirements as well as for those vehicles being
certified to the pre-existing requirements with the
SID during the phase-in. The June 2008 response to
petitions for reconsideration reinstated the preexisting seat adjustment procedure when testing
with the SID during the phase-in, in response to a
petition from the Alliance. In that document, we
acknowledged the new seat adjustment procedures
can place the SID at a slightly different location in
the vehicle when compared to the pre-existing
procedure and that it was not the agency’s intent
to change the certification responsibilities of
manufacturers that had certified vehicles using the
SID.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
12131
position the seats. (With regard to the
point about positioning the SID, the
June 9, 2008 document reinstituted the
pre-existing seat adjustment procedure
for use with the SID in the MDB test
until the phase-in of the new
requirements is completed. 73 FR at
32480.)
B. Location of Seat on the Non-Impact
Side
The MDB and pole test procedures in
the final rule state (S8.3.1.3 and
S10.3.2.3, respectively): ‘‘If the
passenger seat does not adjust
independently of the driver seat, the
driver seat shall control the final
position of the passenger seat.’’
However, if the passenger seat does
adjust independently of the driver seat,
the final rule was silent on specifying a
seat positioning procedure for the nonimpacted side of the vehicle.
The Alliance noted that the agency’s
FMVSS No. 214 Test Procedure manual
with the SID dummy 30 has stated:
‘‘Adjustable seats (on the impact and
non-impact side) are placed in the
adjustment position midway between
the forwardmost and rearmost position
* * *.’’ That is, the passenger seat is in
the same fore/aft location as the struckside seat. The Alliance recommended
positioning the seat on the nonimpacted side at the same fore/aft
location as the struck-side seat.
Agency Response
We agree with the Alliance that the
seat on the non-struck side should be
aligned with the impacted seat, with
regard to two adjacent seats with the
ability to adjust independently of each
other.
C. Seat Cushion Reference Point
In the ES–2re seating procedure, the
seat cushion reference point (SCRP) is
located: ‘‘* * * on the outboard side of
the seat cushion at a horizontal distance
between 150 mm (5.9 in) and 250 mm
(9.8 in) from the front edge of the seat
* * *’’ To set the height of the SCRP,
section S8.3.1.3.3 of the final rule states:
‘‘* * * set the height of the seat cushion
reference point to the minimum height,
with the seat cushion reference line
angle set as closely as possible to the
angle determined in S8.3.1.3.1.’’
In its petition, the Alliance said that
the seat cushion height adjustment
could result in differences in the
reference line angle, depending on
whether the minimum height was set or
the angle was maintained. The Alliance
noted that a similar situation exists for
seat adjustment to the mid height in
30 (TP214D–08
E:\FR\FM\15MRR1.SGM
15MRR1
Part l); K: Adjustable Seats.
12132
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 49 / Monday, March 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
S10.3.2.3.3. Therefore, the Alliance
recommended that NHTSA specify seat
cushion height and angle for conditions
under which the SCRP should be
determined. The petitioner
recommended that priority be given to
seat cushion height.
Agency Response
We are denying this request. The
SCRP is a guide in locating the seat’s
mid-track position and setting the seat
cushion reference line. The SCRP is
simply a reference point located on the
seat cushion reference line and does not
affect the final location of the seat. In
the seating procedure, the angle of the
seat cushion reference line is used to
define the mid-angle position of the seat
cushion adjustability range.31 Once the
mid-angle position is defined, while
maintaining that angle, the seat is
placed in its lowest possible height
position. Using the SCRP as a reference
point, the seat is then located at the
mid-track position. The priority in the
seat adjustment procedure is given to
seat cushion angle rather than height. If
seat height were given priority over seat
cushion angle, the process would be
similar to the current FMVSS No. 208
procedure, which is not as clear. The
seat adjustment procedure has been
used with the 5th percentile female
Hybrid III dummy in FMVSS No. 208 by
both the agency and industry, and we
are not aware of any issues associated
with it to determine seat location.
ii. Adjustable Head Restraint Position
for the SID–IIs
The final rule requires that the
adjustable head restraint be in the
lowest and most forward position for
the SID–IIs in the pole test. The Alliance
recommended adding clarification as to
what constitutes the lowest possible
range for the head restraint. The
petitioner stated that it considers the
adjustment positions to be determined
by detents on the support bars of the
head restraint and that the lowest
position may not necessarily be the
lowest possible position.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Agency Response
NHTSA agrees with the Alliance that
the potential exists where the lowest
possible detent position may not be the
lowest possible position for the head
restraint adjustment. It was the agency’s
intent to position the head restraint in
contact with the top of the seat back as
the seat back may provide a ‘‘stop’’ for
the downward adjustment of the head
restraint, just as a detent does at other
positions of adjustment. To further
clarify the position of the head restraint
when testing with the SID–IIs dummy,
we are revising the standard to state that
if it is possible to achieve a position
lower than that associated with the
detent range, the head restraint will be
set to its lowest possible position. The
change is consistent with the
positioning head restraints for testing in
FMVSS No. 202, ‘‘Head restraints.’’
iii. Adjustable Seat Belt Shoulder
Anchor
The final rule specified that, when
testing with the 50th percentile adult
male dummies, adjustable belt
anchorages are placed at the midadjustment position (for the SID, see
S12.1 of the regulatory text, and for the
ES–2re, S12.2.1).
The Alliance requested the agency use
the FMVSS No. 208 procedure, which
specifies that the shoulder belt
anchorage is placed at the
manufacturer’s design position. The
Alliance stated it does not understand
the reason for the difference between
FMVSS No. 214 and FMVSS No. 208.
Honda stated that the seat belt shoulder
anchorage adjustment can be unclear
when an adjustable shoulder anchorage
does not have a true mid-position and
requested NHTSA to clarify the
specification.
Agency Response
NHTSA agrees with the Alliance’s
request to use the specification in
FMVSS No. 208 for seat belt anchorage
positioning for the 50th percentile male
dummy. From our experience with
FMVSS No. 208, the adjustable seat belt
anchorage is generally specified by the
manufacturer at the mid-position, or one
detent above or below. We also believe
that the specification will address
Honda’s concern, as the manufacturer
will specify the seat belt anchorage
position. As with our FMVSS No. 208
compliance test program, when testing
to FMVSS No. 214 the agency will
contact the manufacturer to determine
where the anchorage needs to be placed
prior to a vehicle test.
iv. Adjustable Steering Wheels
31 For
some adjustable seats, the seat bottom
cushion can pivot up and down in an arc. The seat
cushion reference line is used to identify the full
range of travel the seat cushion can pivot in the arc.
Once the minimum and maximum positions of
travel for the seat cushion reference line have been
located, the reference line is then placed at the
middle of the range of motion.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:02 Mar 12, 2010
Jkt 220001
The final rule’s test procedures for the
pole test specified procedures for
adjusting the steering wheel (S10.5) but
did not include a procedure for
adjusting telescoping steering columns,
while instructions for the latter were
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
included in the MDB test procedure
(S8.4).
The Alliance and Honda requested
that the agency revise the procedure of
S10.5, ‘‘Adjustable steering wheel,’’ for
the pole test to be consistent with S8.4
for the MDB test.
Agency Response
We agree with the petitioners on the
need for more specificity for adjustable
steering wheels in the pole test. This
was an oversight in the final rule. We
are including a provision in S10.5 that
states that a telescoping steering column
is placed in the mid-position. If there is
no mid-position, the steering wheel is
moved rearward one position from the
mid-position. This is consistent with
S8.4 of the standard.
v. Impact Point Reference Line
Determination
In S10.11, the standard specifies that
the pole test impact reference line is
located at the intersection of the vehicle
exterior and a vertical plane passing
through the center of gravity of the head
of the dummy seated in accordance with
S12 in the front outboard designated
seating position. The vertical plane
forms an angle of 285 (or 75) degrees
with the vehicle’s longitudinal
centerline for the right (or left) side
impact test.32 Under S10.12.2, the test
vehicle is propelled so that its line of
forward motion forms an angle of 285
(or 75) degrees for the right (or left) side
impact with the vehicle’s longitudinal
centerline. The impact reference line is
aligned with the center line of the rigid
pole surface, as viewed in the direction
of vehicle motion, so that when the
vehicle-to-pole contact occurs, the
center line contacts the vehicle area
bounded by two vertical planes parallel
to and 38 mm forward and aft of the
impact reference line.
The Alliance stated that because of
the 75 degree impact angle, the first
impact point does not correspond with
the center of the pole. The petitioner
believes that there is a difference of 34
mm which has to be added to the ±38
mm tolerance provided in the final rule.
Additionally, it noted that the CG
position of the dummy head is not
equivalent to the marking on the outer
surface of the head. It noted there is a
difference of either 16 mm (SID–IIs) or
17.5 mm (ES–2re) between these two
points. See Figure 10 of the petition.
Therefore, the Alliance asked for a
‘‘more repeatable’’ and ‘‘objective’’
definition of the impact point location,
32 The angle is measured counterclockwise from
the vehicle’s positive X-axis as defined in S10.13
of the standard.
E:\FR\FM\15MRR1.SGM
15MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 49 / Monday, March 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
but provided no recommended
definition in its petition or in a
subsequent submission. (The Alliance
stated in its petition that it would
submit additional information on this
issue, but did not do so.)
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Agency Response
NHTSA is denying the request. The
regulatory text for the oblique pole test
is consistent with the pole-to-head
alignment in FMVSS No. 201, and no
repeatability or objectivity problems
have arisen with regard to FMVSS No.
201.
Furthermore, we believe that the
Alliance may have erroneously
interpreted the language of the standard
with respect to aligning the pole with
the center of gravity of the dummy’s
head. It appears that the petitioner
believes that the pole is aligned with a
marker on the outer surface of the
dummy’s head. The regulatory text
clearly states that the center of the pole
is to be aligned directly with the CG of
the dummy’s head and not a marking
that is projected perpendicular to the
surface of the dummy’s head. (See the
Alliance’s petition, Figure 10, page 27,
showing the petitioner’s interpretation
of the impact reference line from the
marker on the side surface of the
dummy’s head.)
In our fleet testing, we aligned the
pole such that the reference line went
through the measured CG of the head of
the dummy. A target was placed on the
dummy’s head but the marker location
was calculated to account for the 75
degree oblique angle to address the
exact issue the Alliance identified in its
petition.
vi. Vehicle Attitude
In the final rule’s specifications for
the MDB test, S8.2 states that the pretest vehicle attitude is ‘‘* * * equal to
either the as delivered or fully loaded
attitude or between the as delivered
attitude and fully loaded attitude, ±10
mm.’’
The Alliance asked for clarification as
to why the agency included a ±10 mm
tolerance to the vehicle attitude
measurement prior to testing with the
MDB because the attitude value is not
exact. The Alliance stated that it is
unclear whether NHTSA intended the
±10 mm tolerance to apply to the full
range of values or to another point such
as the mid-point between the ‘‘as
delivered’’ and ‘‘fully loaded’’ condition.
Agency Response
We agree that the specification needs
to be clarified. The final rule added a
±10 mm tolerance because we became
aware, through our own testing of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:02 Mar 12, 2010
Jkt 220001
vehicles, that it can be difficult to
maintain the corridor between the as
delivered and fully loaded attitudes
because of the weight of the vehicle
instrumentation (e.g., high-speed
cameras, associated brackets and
instrumentation umbilical lines) that are
added to the vehicle prior to testing. A
tolerance was added to account for the
added equipment, to make it slightly
easier to meet the vehicle test attitude
specification. However, we meant to
address the potential weight impact that
added instrumentation has on the
vehicle at its fully loaded condition
only. To clarify the requirement, we are
modifying the wording of S8.2 to state
that the difference in vehicle test
attitude shall not be greater than ±10
mm from ‘‘the vehicle’s fully loaded
condition,’’ and not from ‘‘either the as
delivered or fully loaded condition.’’ We
believe this allowance will not
compromise the results of the test but
will allow some variation in vehicle
attitude for cameras and other
instrumentation. Moreover, we have
also determined that the reference to the
‘‘as delivered’’ condition is unnecessary
and should be removed. S8.2 is revised
to state that the pretest attitude is equal
to the fully loaded attitude ±10 mm.
vii. Pole Test Pitch and Roll Definitions
S10.2, Vehicle test attitude, of the
final rule states, inter alia: ‘‘* * * The
front-to-rear angle (pitch) is measured
along a fixed reference on the driver’s
and front passenger’s door sill * * *
The left to right angle (roll) is measured
along a fixed reference point at the front
and rear of the vehicle at the vehicle
longitudinal center plane * * *.’’
The Alliance believes that there might
be an error in the vehicle attitude and
angle measurements. The petitioner
believes that the pitch reference plane
should be the longitudinal center plane
of the vehicle and the roll angle
reference plane is measured across the
vehicle width. The petitioner also
requested that the agency standardize
the measurement procedure of the MDB
and the oblique pole test such that all
measurements are made in reference to
the vehicle plane defined on the test
vehicle’s body, directly above each
wheel opening.
Agency Response
It appears that the Alliance may have
misunderstood the definitions in the
final rule. A diagram of its
understanding of the final rule, showing
what the Alliance believed to be the
possible error, was provided in Figure
18 of the petition (page 34 of the
petition). In that Figure 18, the
illustrations of pitch and roll appear to
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
12133
be reversed. A vehicle’s pitch is the
angle measured along a fixed reference
line on the driver’s and front
passenger’s door sill measuring any
variation in vehicle height front-to-rear.
The roll is the left to right angles
measured at the front and rear of the
vehicle. (These definitions of pitch and
roll are used in the Test Procedure of
FMVSS No. 201’s pole test.)
NHTSA further believes it is not
necessary to standardize the pole test
attitude requirements with the MDB
test. The pole test approach of directly
measuring the pitch and roll angles will
better facilitate and more accurately
determine the vehicle’s attitude for
aligning the dummy’s head to the pole,
which is more relevant for the pole test
than the MDB test. Conversely,
measuring vehicle height directly is
more critical in aligning the vehicle to
the MDB than to the pole, and so the
MDB test approach is more tailored to
that test than the pitch and roll angle
measurement of the pole test.
2. Test Dummy Set Up
i. SID–IIs
A. Hip Point Specification
Section 12.3 of the final rule provides
a sequence of steps for positioning the
SID–IIs dummy involving adjustment of
the legs and pelvis of the dummy.
The Alliance petitioned the agency to
specify a hip point location when
positioning the SID–IIs dummy in the
seat since it found hip point movement
in its positioning. It noted that as the
dummy is adjusted throughout the steps
in Section 12.3, the hip point moves in
the x-direction, particularly when either
the legs or pelvis is adjusted. The
Alliance provided data that showed the
hip point shifted 12 mm and 16 mm in
the x-direction when the 5th percentile
dummy was seated in the vehicle. It
noted a similar situation exists in
sections S12.3.4(e), (h) and (j) of FMVSS
No. 214.
Agency Response
NHTSA is denying the petition for a
pre-determined hip point position for
the SID–IIs.33 Through our FMVSS No.
208 compliance testing experience we
found that while the hip point may
slightly shift when the 5th percentile
dummy is positioned in the vehicle, we
also found that if the 5th percentile
female dummy is forced into the seat
bight in order to fit an artificial hip
point, the lower legs may be off the
floor. This results in an unnatural leg
position that is not representative of
33 This hip point specification issue was not
raised in the comments to the NPRM or discussed
in the final rule.
E:\FR\FM\15MRR1.SGM
15MRR1
12134
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 49 / Monday, March 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
real-world occupants. This was
observed when we originally adopted
the 5th percentile Hybrid III dummy
and seating position into FMVSS No.
208.34
Furthermore, the Alliance provided
only data consisting of one data point
on two vehicles. While it found that the
dummy’s hip point shifted 12 mm and
16 mm in the two cases, the Alliance
did not show the significance the
differences had on test setup
repeatability (i.e., whether it would
always result in a 12 mm and 16 mm
shift in these two vehicles). It is also not
known how representative these two
vehicles are of the fleet, or whether the
slight shifting of the hip point position
is problematic. For these reasons, we are
denying the request to specify an
‘‘official’’ hip point position.
B. Knee and Ankle Spacing
The final rule states the following
regarding the SID–IIs knee and ankle
spacing (S12.3.3(a)(6) and S12.3.2(a)(6)):
‘‘Place the legs at 120 degrees to the
thighs. Set the initial transverse distance
between the longitudinal centerlines at
the front of the dummy’s knees at 160
to 170 mm (6.3 to 6.7 in.), with the
thighs and legs of the dummy in vertical
planes * * *.’’
The Alliance recommended
specifying spacing measurements for
both the knees and ankles to increase
the accuracy of the leg positioning. The
petitioner stated that some Alliance
members reported difficulty in keeping
the thighs and legs of the dummy
vertical while adjusting the knee
spacing.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Agency Response
NHTSA is denying this
recommendation to add a spacing
measurement for the SID–IIs dummy
knees and ankles. By maintaining the
dummy’s thighs and legs in a vertical
plane while separating the knees to the
prescribed location, we have defined the
location of the knees and ankles. Based
upon agency testing experience, with
the 10 mm knee spacing tolerance, it is
possible to maintain the dummy’s
thighs and legs in a vertical plane with
some manipulation. The positioning of
the dummy’s knees and ankles are not
unmanageable, so no further
specification is necessary.
C. Pelvic Angle
For adjusting the pelvic angle, the
final rule (S12.3.2(a)(ll)) states:
‘‘Measure and set the dummy’s pelvic
34 Unlike the SAE J826 device (OSCAR) used to
locate the 50th percentile male’s hip point, there is
not an equivalent tool for the 5th percentile
dummy.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:02 Mar 12, 2010
Jkt 220001
angle using the pelvic angle gage. The
angle is set to 20.0 degrees ± 2.5 degrees.
If this is not possible, adjust the pelvic
angle as close to 20.0 degrees as possible
while keeping the transverse
instrumentation platform of the head as
level as possible by adjustments
specified in S12.3.2(a)(9) and (10).’’
The Alliance said that it found that it
is difficult and in some cases impossible
to adjust the pelvic angle using the
procedure described in the final rule.
(The petitioner did not provide
examples of vehicles in which this was
reportedly found.) It recommended the
following: (1) Adjust the pelvic angle by
anteflexing or retroflexing the upper
body of the dummy; (2) include
language designating that priority be
given to achieving a level head by the
end of the positioning procedure; and
(3) reference the global coordinate
system as the system relative to which
the pelvic angle should be measured.
Agency Response
NHTSA is denying the request. While
it can be difficult at times adjusting the
pelvis to a 20 degree angle and
maintaining it at that angle to level the
dummy’s head, our experience has
found that it can be done. The Alliance
did not provide information or
examples for the agency to evaluate if
the difficulty is indeed insurmountable.
Further, the regulatory text already gives
priority to maintaining the dummy’s
head level in the procedure by stating:
‘‘* * * adjust the pelvic angle as close
to 20.0 degrees as possible while
keeping the transverse instrumentation
platform of the head as level as possible
* * *’’ The agency believes this
sufficiently addresses the difficulties
and that it is unnecessary to add
additional regulatory text.
We also do not agree with the
Alliance’s recommendation to reference
the global coordinate system as the
system relative to which the pelvic
angle should be measured. S12.3.1(a)
states: ‘‘* * * measure all angles with
respect to the horizontal plane unless
otherwise stated* * *,’’ which includes
the pelvic angle. Hence, a coordinate
system is sufficiently defined. We note
also that the requirements and
procedure to measure the pelvic angle
were first adopted for the 5th percentile
female dummy in FMVSS No. 208 (68
FR 65179). This method has been
reliable and repeatable from our
experience and we believe it is
unwarranted to amend the procedure
based on present knowledge.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
D. Adjustment of Lower Neck Bracket to
Level Head
S12.3.2(a) of the September 11, 2007
final rule adopted a seating procedure
for the SID–IIs driver dummy that
included instructions for driver torso/
head/seat back angle positioning.
Subsections 9 and 10 involve
adjustment of the lower neck bracket
and leveling of the head. These sections
state:
(9) For vehicles without adjustable seat
backs, adjust the lower neck bracket to level
the head as much as possible. For vehicles
with adjustable seat backs, while holding the
thighs in place, rotate the seat back forward
until the transverse instrumentation platform
of the head is level to within ±0.5 degree,
making sure that the pelvis does not interfere
with the seat bight. Inspect the abdomen to
ensure that it is properly installed. If the
torso contacts the steering wheel, adjust the
steering wheel in the following order until
there is no contact: telescoping adjustment,
lowering adjustment, raising adjustment. If
the vehicle has no adjustments or contact
with the steering wheel cannot be eliminated
by adjustment, position the seat at the next
detent where there is no contact with the
steering wheel as adjusted in S10.5. If the
seat is a power seat, position the seat to avoid
contact while assuring that there is a
maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) distance between
the steering wheel as adjusted in S10.5 and
the point of contact on the dummy.
(10) If it is not possible to achieve the head
level within ±0.5 degrees, minimize the
angle.
The Alliance requested clarification of
these instructions, specifically with
regard to the instructions in
S12.3.2(a)(10) to ‘‘minimize the
angle.’’ 35
The petitioner noted that the
adjustment range of the dummy’s lower
neck bracket includes four indices
upward and downward from a reference
point defined as the point where ‘‘0’’
index of the lower neck bracket (Part
#180–2006) 36 and ‘‘0’’ index of the
upper neck bracket (Part #180–3815)
align.37 The petitioner further said that
if, after adjusting the lower neck bracket
the head cannot be leveled, NHTSA
35 The Alliance noted that these issues also apply
to the instructions for seating the SID–IIs in the
rear.
36 See Docket # NHTSA–2006–25442–12 SID–IIs
drawing package. The drawing package has been
slightly changed in response to petitions for
reconsideration of the SID–IIs final rule (see Docket
2009–0002), but drawings referenced in this
discussion are unchanged.
37 The Alliance stated that the reason for the four
calibrations is that it is impossible to adjust beyond
these points. Furthermore, the Alliance noted that
when using the lower neck bracket with a load cell
(SA572–S60) instead of using the upper neck
bracket (180–2006) and lower neck assembly (180–
3816), the adjustable range is modified. It stated
that some mobility is disabled in order to account
for the presence of the load cell.
E:\FR\FM\15MRR1.SGM
15MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 49 / Monday, March 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
should consider the minimum angle at
that condition as the angle referenced in
the instruction to ‘‘minimize the angle.’’
Alternatively, the petitioner suggested
that if a head level position exists
within the adjustable range of the neck,
the closest adjustment detent to head
level should be used.
For vehicles where the seat back angle
is adjustable, the Alliance suggested that
only the seat back is used to level the
head to the ground, and that the lower
neck bracket is not used to level the
head. ‘‘If after all possible efforts to level
the head using the seatback adjustment
are exhausted and the head cannot be
leveled, the minimum angle at that
condition should become the angle
specified as the angle for use when
‘minimi[zing] the angle.’ ’’
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Agency Response
For adjustable seats, we are denying
the suggestion that the lower neck
bracket is not used to level the head.
The FMVSS No. 214 seating procedure
was patterned after the procedure
specified for the 5th percentile Hybrid
III dummy in FMVSS No. 208, including
the adjustment of the dummy’s head. In
fact, S12.9 and S12.10 of FMVSS No.
214, which describe adjustment and
leveling of the SID–IIs head, are almost
exactly the same as S16.3.2.1.9 and
S16.3.2.1.10 of FMVSS No. 208
describing adjustment and leveling of
the Hybrid III 5th percentile female
head.38 However, we note that the
agency’s Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance (OVSC) FMVSS No. 208
test procedure (TP–208–14 Appendix G)
specifies positioning procedures for the
5th percentile Hybrid III dummy that go
into more detail than the procedures for
FMVSS No. 214. The OVSC FMVSS No.
208 test procedure specifically calls out
the process to align the neck for the
Hybrid III 5th percentile dummy as
follows:
*
*
*
*
*
22. If the seat back is adjustable, rotate the
seat back forward while holding the thighs in
place. Continue rotating the seat back
forward until the transverse instrument
platform of the dummy head is level ± 0.5
degrees. If the head cannot be leveled using
the seat back adjustment, or the seat back is
not adjustable, use the lower neck bracket
adjustment to level the head. If a level
position cannot be achieved, minimize the
angle. (S16.3.2.1.9) [Emphasis added.]
llHead Level Achieved. (Check all that
apply)
llHead leveled using the adjustable seat
back
llHead leveled using the neck bracket.
38 There are slight differences in the descriptions
of steering wheel adjustment methods, which are
referenced in these sections of FMVSSs No. 214 and
No. 208.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:02 Mar 12, 2010
Jkt 220001
Head Angle llll degrees.
To make the FMVSS No. 214
procedure consistent with that of TP–
208–14 Appendix G item 22, we will
revise the head leveling procedure in
FMVSS No. 214 TP–214P–00. We will
specify in the latter TP that, in cases
where the head cannot be made level to
the ground when the dummy’s head is
positioned at its default neck position
and after the seat back angle has been
adjusted (as appropriate for seats with
adjustable seat backs), the neck
assembly should be adjusted using the
lower neck bracket. Thus, the lower
neck bracket may be used to position
the dummy’s head when the dummy is
seated in vehicles in which the seat
back angle can be adjusted and in
vehicles in which the seat back angle
cannot be adjusted. If the head level
cannot be set at level +/- .5 degree
tolerance because of lack of mobility,
the head is positioned at the closest
adjustment detent to that head level.
In addition, we are making two
related corrections to S12.3.1(b) of
FMVSS No. 214.
First, the Alliance noted a concern
relating to when the dummy is fitted
with the lower neck load cell (SA572–
S60), instead of the upper neck bracket
(180–2006) and lower neck assembly
(180–3816). According to the SID–IIs
drawing (SA572–S60), the lower neck
load cell assembly is non-adjustable and
duplicates the position of standard
brackets (180–2006 and 180–3815) in
their ‘‘0’’ angle position. Therefore, if the
load cell is used with the SID–IIs, the
dummy’s head may not be able to be
made level. Since the agency does not
measure the load on the dummy’s neck
at this time in FMVSS No. 214
compliance tests, there is no need for
the load cell to be installed at the time
of the test. Without the load cell, the
problem is avoided. To avoid this
problem, we are clarifying the FMVSS
No. 214 test procedure to note that in
the SID–IIs dummy we use in the
compliance test, the fixed lower neck
load cell will not be installed.
Second, there is a sentence in S12.3.2
of FMVSS No. 214, and in S12.3.3 and
S12.3.4, noting that the abdomen of the
dummy is inspected to ensure it is
properly installed. Since the SID–IIs
dummy’s abdomen is not a separate
piece like the Hybrid III 5th percentile
female dummy, this sentence is out of
place. We are thus removing it from
S12.3.2, S12.3.3, and S12.3.4.
E. Other Corrections
This document further corrects the
regulatory text for positioning the SID–
IIs adopted by the September 11, 2007
final rule to address the following:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
12135
• Honda identified misplaced text in
S12.3.3, a section that specifies dummy
positioning procedures for a SID–IIs in
the front passenger position.
S12.3.3(b)(3) specifies a foot positioning
procedure for a dummy in the rear seat
passenger position, which is out of
place in S12.3.3. Honda also noted
redundant text in S12.3.4(k)(1) for
positioning the dummy’s feet in the rear
seat.
• In addition, Honda noted that S11.1
(b) of FMVSS No. 214 final rule
specified the SID–IIs shoe sizes to be as
specified in military regulation MIL–S–
2171E. The correct specification is MIL–
S–21711E.
• The foot positioning procedure for
the SID–IIs front passenger
inadvertently did not include a
provision that is in FMVSS No. 208 for
the Hybrid III 5th percentile female
dummy regarding situations in which
the dummy’s feet do not contact the
floor. We have added the same
specification that is in FMVSS No. 208
to S12.3.3(b)(3) of FMVSS No. 214.
ii. ES–2re
A. Head CG Location Variability
The September 11, 2007 final rule, at
S12.2.1, provides instructions for
positioning the ES–2re dummy. S12.2.1
does not include subsections providing
instructions on positioning the ES–2re
dummy head.
The Alliance noted that the ES–2re
neck assembly does not provide any
mechanism for adjusting the fore-aft
position of the dummy’s head. The
petitioner believed that since the ES–2re
dummy’s neck assembly includes a
flexible rubber neck buffer support, the
actual neck angle (and thus head CG
location) depends on the condition of
the rubber buffer. It stated that the
stiffness of this rubber buffer can vary
from one dummy to another and can
degrade over time. The Alliance
believed that stresses placed on the
dummy’s neck while in storage can also
induce material fatigue and thus affect
the condition of the rubber buffer. The
petitioner provided measurements of
the head CG locations vs. neck bracket
angle for several ES–2 39 dummies. It
believed that there can be large
variations in the actual fore-aft CG
location of the dummy head from one
dummy to another.
Agency Response
The location of the ES–2re head is
based on the dummy positioning
procedure specified in S12. The head
cannot be independently adjusted due
39 The ES–2 and the ES–2re dummies have
identical neck assembly structures.
E:\FR\FM\15MRR1.SGM
15MRR1
12136
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 49 / Monday, March 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
to its design. However, we do not
believe that the concern about head
location variation is warranted. The ES–
2re’s neck assembly includes flexible
rubber neck buffer supports that control
the neck angle and therefore, the
location of the head CG. In 49 CFR part
572, the agency specified neck
qualification procedures and
performance criteria for the ES–2re
dummy’s neck, and we expect the
qualification corridors to be met prior to
any vehicle testing. If the neck is out of
specification for qualification, the
testing laboratory should tune or replace
the neck buffer assemblies accordingly.
It is expected that if the buffers were
significantly degraded, the dummy
would not meet the neck performance
criteria. To the extent that improper
storage or handling of the dummy have
affected the buffers,40 the condition of
the buffers will be assessed in the Part
572 performance test when the neck
qualification tests are conducted.
Finally, the Alliance provided no
recommended approach that would
address their concerns. It stated in its
petition that it is ‘‘currently working on
formulating a practicable solution that
mitigates the risks associated with poor
test repeatability and will submit
additional comments to the agency in
the near future.’’ The agency has not
received that information to date.
For the above reasons, the agency is
denying this aspect of the petition.
B. Knee Spacing
The final rule positions the knees of
the ES–2re dummy such that their
outside surfaces are 150 ±10 mm (5.9
±0.4 inches) from the plane of symmetry
of the dummy. This specific language is
used in United Nations under Economic
Commission for Europe Regulation 95
(ECE R95), ‘‘Uniform provisions
concerning the approval of vehicles
with regard to the protection of the
occupants in the event of a lateral
collision,’’ and was adopted in the
FMVSS No. 214 final rule.
The Alliance was concerned about
how to measure the knee spacing. It
noted that the ES–2re requirements
differ from both the knees spacing
measurements for the 50th percentile
Hybrid III dummy in FMVSS No. 208
and the SID–IIs in FMVSS No. 214. For
the Hybrid III dummy in FMVSS No.
208, S10.5 requires that the ‘‘* * *
40 According to the ES–2re User’s Manual from
First Technology Safety Systems (FTSS), ‘‘ES–2re
Eurosid-2 50th percentile Side Impact Crash Test
Dummy with Rib Extension,’’ when stored, the
dummy should be supported by the eye bolt in the
neck bracket. The FTSS User Manual also states,
‘‘* * * do not forget to support the head in such
a way that the neck is not under tension.’’
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:02 Mar 12, 2010
Jkt 220001
distance between the outboard knee
clevis flange surfaces shall be 10.6
inches [270 mm].’’ S16.3.2.1.6 describes
the driver knee spacing as, ‘‘* * *
transverse distance between the
longitudinal centerlines at the front of
the dummy’s knees at 160 to 170 mm
(6.3 to 6.7 in) * * *.’’ This is similar to
the positioning procedure for the SID–
IIs in FMVSS No. 214 (S12.3.3(a)(6)),
which states: ‘‘Set the initial transverse
distance between the longitudinal
centerlines at the front of the dummy’s
knees at 160 to 170 mm (6.3 to 6.7 in)
* * *.’’
The Alliance petitioned for common
procedures for the ES–2re and SID–IIs
dummies by either adopting the
measurement procedure used for
FMVSS No. 208 Hybrid III dummy or
the measurement procedure used for the
SID–IIs dummy. Alternatively, if the
agency maintains the positioning
procedure for the ES–2re prescribed in
the final rule, the Alliance requested a
more detailed definition for the knee
‘‘outside surface’’ locations.
Agency Response
We are denying the Alliance petition
to adopt the FMVSS No. 208 Hybrid III
or the SID–IIs dummy knee spacing
procedure for the ES–2re. The final rule
harmonized with the ES–2 dummy
installation procedure defined by ECE
R95. That procedure has proven to be
objective and repeatable. The Alliance
provided no justification for changing to
the Hybrid III or SID–IIs knee spacing,
except to make the procedures common,
which are not reason enough to change
the specification at this time. No data
was provided to show that the Hybrid
III or SID–IIs knee spacing is
appropriate for the ES–2re dummy.
Additionally, NHTSA does not find a
need to add specifications in the
regulatory text or the test procedure to
further define the location on the knee
from where to take the measurements.
The outer surface of the knee is
unremarkable, and given the tolerances
specified, we believe that further
elaboration is unwarranted.
C. Corrections
The final rule (S11.5 of FMVSS No.
214 regulatory text) specified a channel
filter class of 600 Hz for the ES–2re rib
deflection data. The Alliance petitioned
to revise the filter class designation
since the current ECE R95 regulation
specifies a channel filter class of 180 Hz
for the ES–2re rib deflection data and
there is already regulatory experience
with the measurement in Europe. The
Alliance also presented data showing
the filter class chosen has little overall
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
effect on the measure rib deflection
data.
Agency Response
The specification of the 600 Hz
channel filter class was in error; we
agree to changing it to 180 Hz. The
testing the agency conducted with the
ES–2re was processed with a 180 Hz
filter to measure the rib deflections and
our intent was to specify this filter. A
180 Hz channel filter was also specified
for the rib deflection measurement in
the final rule incorporating the ES–2re
into Part 572 (71 FR 75335). We are
correcting S11.5 of the regulatory text to
specify that the rib deflection data are
filtered at channel frequency class 180
Hz.
3. Miscellaneous Corrections
i. Exclusion of Rear Seats That Cannot
Accommodate a SID in the MDB Test
Currently, the MDB test generally
specifies that a SID (50th percentile
adult male test dummy) is placed in the
rear seat of the test vehicle. However,
until the September 11, 2007 final rule,
the standard had excluded from the rear
seat requirements (S3(b)) vehicles ‘‘that
have rear seating areas that are so small
that the Part 572, subpart F [SID] test
dummies cannot be accommodated
according to the positioning procedure
specified in S7.’’ The September 11,
2007 final rule amended the MDB test
so that at the end of the phase-in, only
the SID–IIs (5th percentile adult female)
test dummy will be used in the rear and
not the SID. The final rule continued the
complementary provision that has
excluded rear seats from the MDB test
requirements that are too small to
accommodate the relevant test dummy,
specifying at S5(b)(3) that rear seats that
are so small that the SID–IIs cannot be
accommodated are excluded from the
rear seat requirements.
In making the change to the SID–IIs,
however, the agency removed the
provision that had excluded small rear
seats that cannot accommodate the SID
before the effective date for changing
over to the SID–IIs. The Alliance
petitioned the agency to reinstate the
provision to exclude rear seats that are
too small to accommodate the SID until
completion of the phase-in schedule,
since, the petitioner stated, many
vehicles will not be able to be certified
to the MDB requirements without the
exclusion.
Agency Response
We agree to reinstating the exclusion
provision. Removal of the exclusion of
rear seats that are too small to
accommodate the SID was an oversight.
We will reinstate a provision in S5 as
E:\FR\FM\15MRR1.SGM
15MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 49 / Monday, March 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
requested, since the provision is
relevant as long as the SID is used in
FMVSS No. 214.
ii. FMVSS No. 301 and FMVSS No. 305
Test Dummy Applications
The Alliance and Honda petitioned
the agency to revise the regulatory text
in FMVSS No. 301, ‘‘Fuel system
integrity,’’ to account for the use of the
new ES–2re and SID–IIs dummies. The
current regulatory text references the
now interim SID dummy. Honda also
petitioned the agency to revise FMVSS
No. 305, ‘‘Electric-powered vehicles:
electrolyte spillage and electrical shock
protection,’’ for the same reason. The
Alliance and Honda both state the
current regulatory text creates an
inconsistency with the phase-in of the
new dummies required for the MDB
crash test that would preclude using the
same crash test for certification with
FMVSS Nos. 301 and 305.
Agency Response
We agree with the petitioners. It was
an oversight in the final rule not to
account for the use of the new test
dummies in FMVSS No. 301 and No.
305. Referring to the ES–2re and SID–IIs
dummies in those standards facilitates
consolidating the impact tests for the
various standards.
iii. Metric Conversion
The Alliance noted conversion errors
in load requirements in S6.1.2, S6.1.3,
S6.2.2 and S6.2.3. The load
requirements in metric units did not
match the English units in magnitude.
To correct these errors, in S6.1.2, we are
replacing ‘‘1,557 N’’ with ‘‘15,569 N.’’ In
S6.1.3, we are replacing ‘‘3,114 N’’ with
‘‘31,138 N.’’ In S6.2.2, we are replacing
‘‘1,946 N’’ with ‘‘19,460 N.’’ In S6.2.3, we
are replacing ‘‘5,338 N’’ with ‘‘53,378 N.’’
The Alliance also noted that the ES–
2re chest deflection criteria in metric
units (44 mm) did not match the English
units in magnitude in S7.2.5(b) and
S9.2.1(b). We are correcting those errors
by changing ‘‘1.65 inches’’ to ‘‘1.73
inches’’ in those paragraphs.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
iv. Typographical Errors
This document corrects the regulatory
text adopted by the September 11, 2007
final rule to address the following
typographical errors:
• In S12.3.2(a)(1), there is a reference
to ‘‘S12.3.3(a)(11).’’ The correct reference
is to ‘‘S12.3.2(a)(11).’’
• In S12.3.3(a)(1), the word ‘‘line’’ is
missing from the term ‘‘seat cushion
reference line angle’’ when that term is
used in the second sentence for the first
time.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:02 Mar 12, 2010
Jkt 220001
• In S12.3.2(b)(6), there is a reference
to ‘‘S12.3.2(b)(1)(i)–(ii).’’ (72 FR at
51970.) The reference should be to
‘‘S12.3.2(b)(6)(i)–(iii).’’
4. Clarifying Effective Date for
Convertibles in the MDB Test
The June 9, 2008 final rule responding
to petitions for reconsideration delayed
the compliance date on which
convertible vehicles must be certified to
the oblique pole test requirements until
after completion of the phase-in for
other vehicle types, i.e., until September
1, 2015. The Alliance asked for
confirmation that the delay of the
effective date for convertibles also
applied to the upgraded MDB
requirements. In a July 23, 2008 petition
for reconsideration, the Alliance asked
the agency to make clear that the
oblique pole and MDB effective date for
convertibles are aligned, i.e., to specify
that convertibles not be required to meet
the upgraded MDB requirements until
September 1, 2015. The Alliance stated
that due to the use of the new test
dummies and modified seat positioning
procedures, manufacturers cannot be
assured that current-design convertibles
will meet the new MDB requirements
without some redesign. The petitioner
stated that aligning the dates avoids
requiring manufacturers to redesign the
same vehicle twice. Furthermore,
petitioner stated, convertibles have
typically lower sales volumes and thus
have a greater need to spread redesign
costs over fewer total vehicle sales to
reduce burdens.
12137
and phase-in schedule to vehicles other
than convertibles. Moreover, NHTSA
stated that, ‘‘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.’’ (73 FR at 32477.) These
statements show that, for convertibles,
the oblique pole and MDB effective date
are aligned, i.e., convertibles are not
required to meet the upgraded MDB
requirements until September 1, 2015.
We are adding a provision in S7.2.4(a)
to make clear that convertibles
manufactured before September 1, 2015
are not subject to the upgraded MDB
requirements.41
After consideration of the comments,
NHTSA has decided to adopt a phase-in for
the MDB test, and align the phase-in
schedule with the oblique pole test
requirements, with advance credits. An
aligned phase-in will allow manufacturers to
optimize engineering resources to design
vehicles that meet the MDB and pole test
requirements simultaneously, thus reducing
costs.
5. Bosch’s Petition
Bosch’s petition to allow sensor
information to be fed into the restraint
triggering algorithms is denied. It is
beyond the scope of the rulemaking.
In the petition, 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 CANbus,42 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°),’’ or feed in
‘‘the ESC-data communicated on the
CAN-bus during a real lateral pole crash
(with 20 mph under 75°)’’ provided by
the original equipment manufacturer.
In a July 22, 2008 follow-up
submission, Bosch outlined a test
procedure for the agency to consider,
verifying that a vehicle is able to
measure lateral velocity and the
In the June 9, 2008 final rule, NHTSA
‘‘extend[ed] the lead time period before
manufacturers must begin phasing in
vehicles to meet the upgraded FMVSS
No. 214 requirements to September 1,
2010’’ and ‘‘adjust[ed] the phase-in
schedule of manufacturers’ vehicles that
are required to meet the new
requirements. * * *’’ The agency did
not limit the adjusted lead time period
41 Convertibles manufactured prior to September
1, 2015 are subject to current FMVSS No. 214 MDB
requirements that test with the SID.
42 According to Bosch’s Web site, a CAN-bus or
Controller Area Network is a data transmission
architecture that enables the in-vehicle computer(s)
to monitor sensor data and issue commands for
electronic systems such as power door locks,
climate control, electronic stability control and
automatic restraints. https://researchinfo.bosch.com/
content/language2/html/5585.htm.
Agency Response
We are granting the request. It was our
intent to align the MBD effective date
with the pole test, to reduce the burden
on manufacturers for this class of
vehicle. This is shown in the following
passage from the September 11, 2007
final rule (72 FR at 51946–51947):
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\15MRR1.SGM
15MRR1
12138
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 49 / Monday, March 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
restraint algorithm actually uses this
data as part of its crash sensing system
for air bag deployment. The procedure
entailed executing several driving
maneuvers with the vehicle undergoing
lateral sliding. External instrumentation
would be used to directly measure the
vehicle’s lateral velocity as a reference
and determine that the lateral velocity is
read on the CAN-bus. Bosch believed
that this would confirm that in a realworld crash, the side impact restraints
algorithm calculates lateral velocity as
part of its deployment criteria. Bosch
suggested that, once this determination
is made, NHTSA could upload a
reference signal simulating a lateral
velocity onto the CAN-bus prior to an
oblique pole test. The format of the
signal would be agreed upon with the
specific vehicle manufacturer.
Agency Response
Bosch’s petition is beyond the scope
of the rulemaking and is thus denied.
During the course of the rulemaking,43
the agency was not presented with any
suggested modifications to the vehicle
pre-crash test to account for the various
sensors that monitor its real time
dynamic state. Therefore, it was not
considered.
We note some unknowns about
Bosch’s suggestion. The agency does not
know what affect Bosch’s requested test
set-up would have in conducting our
compliance tests (both the potential
benefits and unintended consequences).
It has been agency practice to minimize
the amount of alteration to the vehicle
prior to testing. At this point in time,
there is no way of knowing what affect
artificially inputting a pre-crash test
speed into the restraint algorithm might
have on the pole test when compared to
testing the vehicle in the ‘‘as delivered’’
condition. Bosch stated that it would
result in ‘‘significantly later TTF (time to
fire)’’ but did not provide any
comparative data (specifically dummy
injury data) to support its case. We
would also have to consider the test
burden of a test procedure that entails
the execution of several driving
maneuvers with the vehicle undergoing
lateral sliding, and how such a test
procedure might complicate the
agency’s compliance program and
enforcement efforts. In addition, we
must consider the safety implications of
Bosch’s approach, e.g., how feeding in
ESC data of a 20 mph crash could affect
the real-world performance of the side
impact air bag sensing system in
crashes.
We acknowledge that the oblique pole
test is conducted in a laboratory where
43 RIN
2127–AJ10.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:02 Mar 12, 2010
Jkt 220001
real world conditions are not duplicated
completely. We also appreciate that the
industry continues to consider the latest
sensor technology and the integration of
more data into restraint algorithms to
make continued improvements in realworld safety. We do not want our
FMVSSs to preclude future innovative
technology developments. However,
given the agency focus on other
priorities and the wide array of
technologies that could be utilized for
advanced side impact sensors, we
believe industry is better positioned to
develop proposed test procedure
revisions to encompass these
technologies. The agency is interested in
data showing how the current test
procedures limit advanced sensor
technologies, that take into account
safety implications and test burdens,
and that provide detail on how the
procedures should be revised. With
such information, NHTSA can begin to
assess the role that sensor information
could and should have in an FMVSS
compliance test.
In the meantime, with the additional
lead time that we provided in the June
9, 2008 final rule, we believe that
industry can develop crash sensing
strategies to meet the pole test
requirements without the agency
altering the test set-up to allow for
manually inputting pre-crash
parameters from the ESC sensors, or
other data sources the manufacturers
may otherwise use to make real time air
bag deployment decisions in the field.
Given that vehicles are typically
designed to be sensitive enough to
deploy air bags in the MDB test, the
IIHS side impact test, and the FMVSS
No. 201 pole test, we do not believe that
a vehicle’s time-to-fire would be
‘‘significantly later,’’ as Bosch said,
without the pre-crash ESC input. From
our own fleet testing, we know it is
possible for air bags to deploy in a
timely manner, and for dummies to
meet the requirements without imputing
data into the crash sensing system.
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
corrects or clarifies aspects of the test
procedures specified by the September
11, 2007 final rule or makes minor
adjustments to those procedures. The
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 denies requests to exclude
multistage vehicles or those with
partitions from the upgraded FMVSS
No. 214, for the reasons explained in
this document. However, in the agency’s
June 9, 2008 final rule that provided the
first response to the petitions for
reconsideration, we have provided more
time to final-stage manufacturers and
alterers to meet the requirements of the
September 11, 2007 final rule. That
action 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 sufficient
federalism implications to warrant
either consultation with State and local
officials or preparation of a federalism
summary impact statement. 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 the responsibilities among
the various levels of government.’’
Further, no consultation is needed to
discuss the issue of preemption in
connection with today’s final rule. The
issue of preemption can arise in
connection with NHTSA rules in two
ways.
First, the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act contains an express
preemption provision: ‘‘When a motor
vehicle safety standard is in effect under
E:\FR\FM\15MRR1.SGM
15MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 49 / Monday, March 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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 unavoidably preempts State
legislative and administrative law, not
today’s rulemaking, so consultation is
unnecessary.
Second, the Supreme Court has
recognized the possibility of implied
preemption in some instances. 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 some of the NHTSA safety
standards. When such a conflict is
discerned, the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution makes the State
requirements unenforceable. See Geier
v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S.
861 (2000).
NHTSA has considered the nature
(e.g., the language and structure of the
regulatory text) and purpose of today’s
final rule and does not foresee any
potential State requirements that might
conflict with it. Without any conflict,
there could not be any implied
preemption of State law, including State
tort law.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
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.
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:02 Mar 12, 2010
Jkt 220001
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 issue of preemption is discussed
above in connection with E.O. 13132.
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
was 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. The June 9, 2008 final rule
extended the lead time period and
phase-in of both the pole and MDB test
requirements. Today’s final rule has no
further reporting or recordkeeping
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 adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies, using such technical
standards as a means to carry out policy
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
12139
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.
There are no voluntary consensus
standards applicable to this final rule
that have not been previously discussed
in the September 11, 2007 and June 9,
2008 final rules.
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.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Incorporation by reference,
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Tires.
■ In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA amends 49 CFR Chapter V as
set forth below.
PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR
VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for Part 571
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.214 is amended by:
a. Revising S5(b)(3), S6.1.2, S6.1.3,
S6.2.2, S6.2.3;
■ b. Adding S7.2.4(a)(3); and
■ c. Revising S7.2.5(b), S8.2, S9.2.1(b),
S10.3.2.2, S10.5, S11.1(b), S11.5(b)(1),
■
■
E:\FR\FM\15MRR1.SGM
15MRR1
12140
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 49 / Monday, March 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
S12.1, S12.2.1, S12.3.2(a)(1) and (9),
S12.3.2(b)(6), S12.3.3(a)(1) and (9); and
S12.3.3(b)(3), S12.3.4(h), and S12.3.4(k).
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
§ 571.214 Standard No. 214; Side impact
protection.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
S5 * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Passenger cars, multipurpose
passenger vehicles, trucks and buses
need not meet the requirements of S7
(moving deformable barrier test) as
applied to the rear seat for side-facing
rear seats and for rear seating areas that
are so small that a Part 572 Subpart V
dummy representing a 5th percentile
adult female cannot be accommodated
according to the positioning procedure
specified in S12.3.4 of this standard.
Vehicles that are manufactured before
September 1, 2010, and vehicles that
manufactured on or after September 1,
2010, that are not part of the percentage
of a manufacturer’s production meeting
the moving deformable barrier test
requirements with advanced test
dummies (S7.2 of this section) or are
otherwise excluded from the phase-in
requirements of S7.2, need not meet the
requirements of the moving deformable
barrier test as applied to the rear seat for
rear seating areas that are so small that
a Subpart F dummy (SID) cannot be
accommodated according to the
positioning procedure specified in S12.1
of this standard.
*
*
*
*
*
S6 * * *
S6.1.2 Intermediate crush resistance.
The intermediate crush resistance shall
not be less than 15,569 N (3,500 lb).
S6.1.3 Peak crush resistance. The
peak crush resistance shall not be less
than two times the curb weight of the
vehicle or 31,138 N (7,000 lb),
whichever is less.
*
*
*
*
*
S6.2.2 Intermediate crush resistance.
The intermediate crush resistance shall
not be less than 19,460 N (4,375 lb).
S6.2.3 Peak crush resistance. The
peak crush resistance shall not be less
than three and one half times the curb
weight of the vehicle or 53,378 N
(12,000 lb), whichever is less.
*
*
*
*
*
S7.2.4 * * *
(a) * * *
(3) Convertibles manufactured before
September 1, 2015, are not subject to
S7.2.1 or S7.2.2 of this section. These
vehicles may be voluntarily certified to
meet the MDB test requirements prior to
September 1, 2015. Vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1,
2015 are subject to S7 and S7.2.2.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:02 Mar 12, 2010
Jkt 220001
S7.2.5 * * *
*
*
*
*
(b) Thorax. The deflection of any of
the upper, middle, and lower ribs, shall
not exceed 44 mm (1.73 inches).
*
*
*
*
*
S8.2 Vehicle test attitude. Determine
the distance between a level surface and
a standard reference point on the test
vehicle’s body, directly above each
wheel opening, when the vehicle is in
its fully loaded condition at the test site,
with all tires inflated to the
manufacturer’s specifications listed on
the vehicle’s tire placard, and with the
vehicle filled to 100 percent of all fluid
capacities. The ‘‘fully loaded condition’’
is the test vehicle loaded in accordance
with S8.1 of this standard (49 CFR
571.214). The load placed in the cargo
area is centered over the longitudinal
centerline of the vehicle. The pretest
vehicle attitude is equal to the fully
loaded attitude ± 10 mm.
*
*
*
*
*
S9.2.1 * * * *
(b) Thorax. The deflection of any of
the upper, middle, and lower ribs, shall
not exceed 44 mm (1.73 inches).
*
*
*
*
*
S10.3.2.2 Other seat adjustments.
Position any adjustable parts of the seat
that provide additional support so that
they are in the lowest or non-deployed
adjustment position. Position any
adjustable head restraint in the lowest
and most forward position. If it is
possible to achieve a position lower
than the effective detent range, the head
restraint should be set to its lowest
possible position. Place adjustable seat
backs in the manufacturer’s nominal
design riding position in the manner
specified by the manufacturer. If the
position is not specified, set the seat
back at the first detent rearward of 25°
from the vertical.
*
*
*
*
*
S10.5 Adjustable steering wheel.
Adjustable steering controls are adjusted
so that the steering wheel hub is at the
geometric center of the locus it
describes when it is moved through its
full range of driving positions. If there
is no setting detent in the mid-position,
lower the steering wheel to the detent
just below the mid-position. If the
steering column is telescoping, place the
steering column in the mid-position. If
there is no mid-position, move the
steering wheel rearward one position
from the mid-position.
*
*
*
*
*
S11.1 * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(b) 5th percentile female. The 49 CFR
part 572 subpart V test dummy
*
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
representing a 5th percentile female is
clothed in formfitting cotton stretch
garments with short sleeves and about
the knee length pants. Each foot has on
a size 7.5W shoe that meets the
configuration and size specifications of
MIL–S–21711E or its equivalent.
*
*
*
*
*
S11.5 * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Subpart U (Es-2re 50th percentile
male) test dummy.
(1) The rib deflection data are filtered
at channel frequency class 180 Hz.
Abdominal and pubic force data are
filtered at channel frequency class of
600 Hz.
*
*
*
*
*
S12.1 50th percentile male test
dummy—49 CFR part 572 subpart F
(SID). Position a correctly configured
test dummy, conforming to the
applicable requirements of part 572
Subpart F of this chapter, in the front
outboard seating position on the side of
the test vehicle to be struck by the
moving deformable barrier and, if the
vehicle has a second seat, position
another conforming test dummy in the
second seat outboard position on the
same side of the vehicle, as specified in
S12.1.3. Each test dummy is restrained
using all available belt systems in all
seating positions where such belt
restraints are provided. Place any
adjustable anchorages at the
manufacturer’s nominal design position
for a 50th percentile adult male
occupant. In addition, any folding
armrest is retracted. Additional
positioning procedures are specified
below.
*
*
*
*
*
S12.2.1 Positioning an ES–2re
dummy in all seating positions. Position
a correctly configured ES–2re test
dummy, conforming to the applicable
requirements of part 572 of this chapter,
in the front outboard seating position on
the side of the test vehicle to be struck
by the moving deformable barrier or
pole. Restrain the test dummy using all
available belt systems in the seating
positions where the belt restraints are
provided. Place any adjustable
anchorages at the manufacturer’s
nominal design position for a 50th
percentile adult male occupant. Retract
any folding armrest.
*
*
*
*
*
S12.3.2 * * *
(a) * * *
(1) With the seat in the position
determined in S10.3.2, use only the
control that moves the seat fore and aft
to place the seat in the rearmost
position. If the seat cushion reference
line angle automatically changes as the
E:\FR\FM\15MRR1.SGM
15MRR1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 49 / Monday, March 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
seat is moved from the full forward
position, maintain, as closely as
possible, the seat cushion reference line
angle determined in S10.3.2.3.3, for the
final forward position when measuring
the pelvic angle as specified in
S12.3.2(a)(11). The seat cushion
reference line angle position may be
achieved through the use of any seat or
seat cushion adjustments other than that
which primarily moves the seat or seat
cushion fore-aft.
*
*
*
*
*
(9) For vehicles without adjustable
seat backs, adjust the lower neck bracket
to level the head as much as possible.
For vehicles with adjustable seat backs,
while holding the thighs in place, rotate
the seat back forward until the
transverse instrumentation platform of
the head is level to within ± 0.5 degree,
making sure that the pelvis does not
interfere with the seat bight. If the torso
contacts the steering wheel, adjust the
steering wheel in the following order
until there is no contact: telescoping
adjustment, lowering adjustment,
raising adjustment. If the vehicle has no
adjustments or contact with the steering
wheel cannot be eliminated by
adjustment, position the seat at the next
detent where there is no contact with
the steering wheel as adjusted in S10.5.
If the seat is a power seat, position the
seat to avoid contact while assuring that
there is a maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in)
distance between the steering wheel as
adjusted in S10.5 and the point of
contact on the dummy. Adjust the lower
neck bracket to level the head as much
as possible.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(6) If the left foot does not contact the
floor pan, place the foot parallel to the
floor and place the leg as perpendicular
to the thigh as possible. If necessary to
avoid contact with the vehicle’s brake
pedal, clutch pedal, wheel-well, or foot
rest, use the three foot position
adjustments listed in S12.3.2(b)(6)(i)
through (iii). The adjustment options are
listed in priority order, with each
subsequent option incorporating the
previous. In making each adjustment,
move the foot the minimum distance
necessary to avoid contact. If it is not
possible to avoid all prohibited foot
contact, priority is given to avoiding
brake or clutch pedal contact:
*
*
*
*
*
S12.3.3 * * *
(a) * * *
(1) With the seat at the mid-height in
the full-forward position determined in
S10.3.2, use only the control that
primarily moves the seat fore and aft to
place the seat in the rearmost position,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:02 Mar 12, 2010
Jkt 220001
12141
without adjusting independent height
controls. If the seat cushion reference
line angle automatically changes as the
seat is moved from the full forward
position, maintain, as closely as
possible, the seat cushion reference line
angle determined in S10.3.2.3.3, for the
final forward position when measuring
the pelvic angle as specified in
S12.3.3(a)(11). The seat cushion
reference line angle position may be
achieved through the use of any seat or
seat cushion adjustments other than that
which primarily moves the seat or seat
cushion fore-aft.
*
*
*
*
*
(9) For vehicles without adjustable
seat backs, adjust the lower neck bracket
to level the head as much as possible.
For vehicles with adjustable seat backs,
while holding the thighs in place, rotate
the seat back forward until the
transverse instrumentation platform of
the head is level to within ± 0.5 degree,
making sure that the pelvis does not
interfere with the seat bight.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) If either foot does not contact the
floor pan, place the foot parallel to the
floor pan and place the lower leg as
perpendicular to the thigh as possible.
*
*
*
*
*
S12.3.4 * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(h) For vehicles without adjustable
seat backs, adjust the lower neck bracket
to level the head as much as possible.
For vehicles with adjustable seat backs,
while holding the thighs in place, rotate
the seat back forward until the
transverse instrumentation platform of
the head is level to within ± 0.5 degrees,
making sure that the pelvis does not
interfere with the seat bight.
*
*
*
*
*
(k) Passenger foot positioning.
(1) Place the rear seat passenger’s feet
flat on the floor pan and beneath the
front seat as far as possible without front
seat interference.
(2) If either foot does not contact the
floor pan, place the foot parallel to the
floor and place the leg as perpendicular
to the thigh as possible.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Section 571.301 is amended by
revising S6.3(b), to read as follows:
moving deformable barrier at 53 ± 1.0
km/h with the appropriate 49 CFR part
572 test dummies specified in 571.214
at positions required for testing by
S7.1.1, S7.2.1, or S7.2.2 of Standard 214,
under the applicable conditions of S7 of
this standard, fuel spillage shall not
exceed the limits of S5.5 of this
standard.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Section 571.305 is amended by
revising S6.3 and S7.5, to read as
follows:
§ 571.301
integrity.
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
Standard No. 301; Fuel system
*
*
*
*
*
S6.3 * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2004. When the vehicle is
impacted laterally on either side by a
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
§ 571.305 Standard No. 305; Electricpowered vehicles: electrolyte spillage and
electrical shock protection.
*
*
*
*
*
S6.3 Side moving deformable barrier
impact. The vehicle must meet the
requirements of S5.1, S5.2 and S5.3
when it is impacted from the side by a
barrier that conforms to part 587 of this
chapter that is moving at any speed up
to and including 54 km/h, with the
appropriate 49 CFR part 572 test
dummies specified in 571.214 of this
chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
S7.5 Side moving deformable barrier
impact test conditions. In addition to
the conditions of S7.1 and S7.2, the
conditions of S8.9, S8.10, and S8.11 of
571.214 of this chapter apply to the
conduct of the side moving deformable
barrier impact test specified in S6.3.
*
*
*
*
*
Issued: March 9, 2010.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010–5575 Filed 3–12–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 0907221160–91412–02]
RIN 0648–AY01
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
Provisions; Fisheries of the
Northeastern United States; Monkfish
Fishery
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to
amend the Monkfish Fishery
E:\FR\FM\15MRR1.SGM
15MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 49 (Monday, March 15, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12123-12141]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5575]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0032]
RIN 2127-AK48
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Side Impact Protection;
Fuel System Integrity; Electric-Powered Vehicles: Electrolyte Spillage
and Electrical Shock Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document comprises the agency's second of two responses
to petitions for reconsideration of a September 11, 2007, final rule
that upgraded Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 214,
``Side impact protection.'' The final rule incorporated a vehicle-to-
pole test into the standard, adopted technically-advanced test dummies
and enhanced injury criteria, and incorporated the advanced dummies
into the standard's moving deformable barrier test. An earlier response
was published on June 9, 2008, which addressed lead time, phase-in
percentages, test speed, and other issues. Today's response addresses
the remaining issues raised by the petitions.
DATES: Effective Date: The date on which this final rule amends the CFR
is May 14, 2010.
[[Page 12124]]
If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, your
petition must be received by April 29, 2010.
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 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
III. June 9, 2008 Response to Petitions for Reconsideration
IV. Overview of Today's Document
V. Response to Petitions
a. SID-IIs Pelvic Criterion
b. Multi-Stage Vehicles and Partitioned Vehicles
c. Test Procedures
1. Vehicle Set Up
i. Positioning the Seat
A. Adjusting the Front Seat for the 50th Percentile Male Dummies
B. Location of Seat on the Non-Impact Side
C. Seat Cushion Reference Point
ii. Adjustable Head Restraint Position for the SID-IIs
iii. Adjustable Seat Belt Shoulder Anchor
iv. Adjustable Steering Wheels
v. Impact Point Reference Line Determination
vi. Vehicle Attitude
vii. Pole Test Pitch and Roll Definitions
2. Test Dummy Set-Up
i. SID-IIs
A. Hip Point Specification
B. Knee and Ankle Spacing
C. Pelvic Angle
D. Adjustment of Lower Neck Bracket to Level Head
E. Other Corrections
ii. ES-2re
A. Head CG Location Variability
B. Knee Spacing
C. Corrections
3. Miscellaneous Corrections
i. Exclusion of Rear Seats That Cannot Accommodate a SID in the
MDB Test
ii. FMVSS No. 301 and FMVSS No. 305 Test Dummy Applications
iii. Metric Conversion
iv. Typographical Errors
4. Clarifying Effective Date for Convertibles in the MDB Test
5. Bosch's Petition
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
I. Background
On September 11, 2007, NHTSA published a final rule that upgraded
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 214, ``Side impact
protection,'' (72 FR 51908, Docket No. NHTSA-29134).\1\ Until the final
rule, the only dynamic test in FMVSS No. 214 was a moving deformable
barrier (MDB) test simulating an intersection collision with one
vehicle being struck in the side by another vehicle. In the MBD test,
vehicles are required to provide thoracic and pelvic protection to the
driver and rear seat occupant on the struck side of the vehicle, as
measured by a side impact dummy (SID) representing a 50th percentile
adult male. NHTSA upgraded FMVSS No. 214 to require all light vehicles
with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (kg) or
less (10,000 pounds (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
vehicles that crash into poles and trees or of vehicles that are
laterally struck by a higher-riding vehicle. In the final rule, NHTSA
estimated that side impact air bags reduce fatality risk for nearside
occupants by an estimated 24 percent; torso bags alone, by 14
percent.\3\ 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. The agency estimated that the final
rule will prevent 311 fatalites and 361 serious injuries a year when
fully implemented throughout the light vehicle fleet.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The final rule fulfilled the mandate of the ``Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA-LU).'' 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).
\3\ Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, ``FMVSS No. 214; Amending
side impact dynamic test; Adding oblique pole test,'' Docket No.
NHTSA-29134. See also, ``An Evaluation of Side Impact Protection,
FMVSS 214 TTI(d) Improvements and Side Air Bags,'' January 2007,
NHTSA Technical Report DOT HS 810 748.
\4\ The cost of the most likely potential countermeasure--a 2-
sensor per vehicle window curtain and separate thorax side air bag
system--compared to no side air bags was estimated to be $243 per
vehicle. After analyzing the data voluntarily submitted by
manufacturers on their planned installation of side air bag systems,
NHTSA estimated the final rule will increase the average vehicle
cost by $33 and increase total annual costs for the fleet by $560
million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 5 feet 4 inches (163 cm), which crash data
indicates comprise 34 percent of all serious and fatal injuries to
near-side occupants in side impacts. The SID-IIs better represents
small stature occupants than the SID (50th percentile adult male dummy)
used today in FMVSS No. 214.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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 will have to provide head, enhanced thoracic and
pelvic protection to occupants ranging from mid-size males to small
occupants in vehicle-to-vehicle side crashes.
The September 11, 2007, final rule provided lead time for and
phased in the pole test requirements, making allowance for use of
advanced credits towards meeting the new requirements, and other
adjustments to the schedule for heavier vehicles. The rule also
[[Page 12125]]
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.
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
The agency received petitions for reconsideration of the September
11, 2007 final rule from: the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
(Alliance),\6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ At the time of the petition, the Alliance was made up of BMW
group, Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda,
Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota, and Volkswagen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead time. The final rule specified that manufacturers must begin
meeting the upgraded pole and MDB test requirements on a phased-in
schedule beginning two years from the publication of the final rule.
The Alliance, Toyota, Nissan, Porsche asked for more time to begin the
start of the phase-in.
Lower bound on speed range for the pole test. The final rule
specified that vehicles must meet the requirements of the pole test
when tested ``at any speed up to and including 32 kilometers per hour
(km/h)(20 mph).'' The Alliance, GM, Toyota, Porsche petitioned to bound
the test speed at a lower speed of 26 km/h (16 mph) or 23 km/h (14.3
mph), or (GM) delay implementation of the ``up to'' aspect of the
requirement until the end of the phase-in to allow for additional
development of sensing technology.
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, Nissan, Porsche, and VW petitioned the agency to provide more
lead time for convertibles or to exclude the vehicles from the pole
test requirements.
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 Alliance asked that this value be changed to
8,550 N.
Multi-stage and altered vehicles, including vehicles with
partitions. The Alliance and the NTEA recommended that NHTSA ``exempt''
multi-stage/altered vehicles (including vehicles with partitions behind
the front seats) from the oblique pole test requirements.
Amending test procedures and correcting typographical errors. The
Alliance and Honda cited omissions or errors in the regulatory text in
need of correction. Honda 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. Bosch 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.''
III. June 9, 2008, Response to Petitions for Reconsideration
To respond to petitioners' concerns about lead time as quickly as
possible, the agency addressed the lead time issue first and separate
from other substantive issues raised by the petitions. The lead time
issue, and other matters that needed to be resolved or clarified
concerning lead time and the phasing-in of the new requirements, were
addressed in an initial response to petitions published June 9, 2008
(73 FR 32473). That final rule:
a. Extended the lead time period before manufacturers must begin
phasing in vehicles to meet the upgraded FMVSS No. 214 requirements to
September 1, 2010, and amended the percentages of manufacturers'
vehicles that are required to meet the new requirements from 20/50/75/
all to 20/40/60/80/all; \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ All vehicles must meet the requirements without the use of
advance credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Specified 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. Delayed the effective date for convertible vehicles until
September 1, 2015;
d. Delayed 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. Corrected 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.
IV. Overview of Today's Document
Today's document denies the requests to revise the SID-IIs pelvic
criterion and to exclude vehicles manufactured in more than one stage
from the pole test. This rule grants several suggestions to clarify or
revise aspects of the test procedures relating to, among other matters:
Vehicle set-up (adjusting the non-struck side seat; adjusting head
restraints, shoulder belt anchorages, and adjustable steering wheels,
clarifying the vehicle test attitude tolerance); test dummy set-up
(positioning the SID-IIs; removing redundant foot positioning
procedures); and corrections (e.g., ES-2re filter class designation;
exclusion of rear seats that cannot accommodate the SID in the MDB test
during the phase-in period; FMVSS No. 301 and FMVSS No. 305 test dummy
applications). In addition, in response to a July 23, 2008 petition for
reconsideration from the Alliance, this document also makes clear that
the upgraded MDB test does not apply to convertibles manufactured
before September 1, 2015. For the reasons explained in this preamble,
all other requests made in the petitions for reconsideration of the
September 11, 2007 final rule to which we have not previously responded
are denied.
V. Response to Petitions
a. SID-IIs Pelvic Criterion
The September 11, 2007 final rule adopted injury criteria for the
ES-2re and the SID-IIs. For the ES-2re, the final rule adopted a 6,000
N pubic load criterion. The agency estimated that this criterion
corresponded to a 25 percent risk of AIS 3+ pelvic fracture to a 45-
year-old male occupant involved in a side crash. For the SID-IIs, the
agency adopted a 5,525 N pelvic injury criterion limit for the sum of
iliac and acetabular forces measured by the dummy. The agency estimated
that the criterion corresponded to a 25 percent risk of AIS 2+ pelvic
fracture to a 56-year-old small female occupant involved in a side
crash.
In its petition, the Alliance asked that the SID-IIs pelvic injury
criterion be changed from 5,525 N to 8,550 N. It stated that an 8,550 N
criterion corresponds to a 25 percent risk of AIS 3+ pelvis injury and
would align the pelvic injury risk with the AIS 3+ level set by NHTSA
for the ES-2re. The petitioner further suggested that a 5,525 N
criterion overemphasizes pelvic protection, which could result in
designs that overload the thorax. The
[[Page 12126]]
petitioner suggested that manufacturers should be provided leeway to
balance the loading to various parts of the body to prevent any single
part from being overloaded.
In addition, the Alliance suggested rewording the pelvic injury
criterion to state that the combined pelvis force in the SID-IIs must
correspond to a pubic symphysis force of 4,280 N. According to the
petitioner, since typically the external load is twice that measured at
the pubic symphysis, a pubic symphysis load of 4,280 N is associated
with a combined pelvis load of 8,550 N. Alternatively, the Alliance
suggested that separate injury criteria for the iliac wing and the
acetabulum be utilized for the SID-IIs pelvic injury criteria. The
Alliance proposed a force limit of 5,000 N for both.
Agency Response: NHTSA is denying the Alliance petition to change
the pelvic injury criterion to 8,550 N. Although the ES-2re criterion
corresponds to a 25% risk of AIS 3+ injury, there are several reasons
for having the SID-IIs injury risk level be set at AIS 2+ rather than
AIS 3+.
First, we believe that the data estimating injury risk at the AIS
2+ level is more biomechanically reliable than at the AIS 3+ level. The
agency established the SID-IIs criterion at a 25% risk level for AIS 2+
injuries \8\ based on available biomechanical test data from Bouquet et
al.,\9\ Zhu et al.,\10\ and Cavanaugh et al.\11\ NHTSA found
inconsistencies in the researchers' coding of AIS 2 and 3+ pelvic
injuries using the 1990 Abbreviated Injury Scale. Because of these
inconsistencies, the agency determined that it would be preferable to
use AIS 2+ injury risk to establish criteria for the SID-IIs. The
agency considered using the AIS 2+ injury risk for the ES-2re as well,
but did not adopt the AIS 2+ risk level at the time because an AIS 2+
pelvic injury criterion for the ES-2re would have been 3,250 N. An ES-
2re pelvic injury criterion of 6,000 N was used internationally for the
ES-2 dummy and not enough was known about the practicability and other
implications of requiring manufacturers to meet a criterion that was
approximately twice as stringent as the criteria used internationally.
It was thus decided that the ES-2re pelvic injury criterion should
remain at the AIS 3+ level, but that the injury risk level for the SID-
IIs pelvic injury criterion would be at the AIS 2+ level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Kuppa, S., Injury Criteria for Side Impact Dummies, 2007,
Docket No. NHTSA-2007-29134-0001, https://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main.
\9\ Bouquet, R., Ramet, M., Bermond, F., Vyes, C. Pelvic Human
Response to Lateral Impact, 16th International Technical Conference
on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 98-S7-W-16, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Windsor, Canada, 1998.
\10\ Zhu, J., Cavanaugh, J., King, A., Pelvic Biomechanical
Response and Padding Benefits in Side Impact Based on a Cadaveric
Test Series, SAE Paper No. 933128, 37th Stapp Car Crash Conference,
1993.
\11\ Cavanaugh, J., Walilko, T., Malhotra, A., Zhu, Y., King,
A., Biomechanical Response and Injury Tolerance of the Pelvis in
Twelve Sled Side Impacts, Proc. of the Thirty-Fourth Stapp Car Crash
Conference, SAE Paper No. 902305, Society of Automotive Engineers,
Warrendale, PA, 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, in establishing the SID-IIs criteria, the agency
normalized the pelvic force data from the Bouquet pelvic impact tests
to that of a small female weighing 48 kg (105 lb). The agency also
adjusted the risk curve to that for a 56-year-old, since that was the
average age of seriously injured occupants of a height less than 163 cm
(5 feet 4 inches) involved in side crashes. 72 FR at 51944, see also,
``Injury Criteria for Side Impact Dummies,'' NHTSA Docket 17694. There
was a significant amount of research indicating that pelvic injuries to
older people were associated with increased mortality. O'Brien et
al.\12\ and Henry et al.\13\ examined patients who sustained a pelvic
fracture during a 5-year period and found that patients 55 years and
older were more likely to sustain a lateral compression fracture
pattern and had a higher frequency of mortality due to the injury than
the younger patients (<55 years old). Thus, the 5,525 N sum of
acetabular and iliac force corresponded to a 25% risk of AIS 2+ injury,
reflecting the reduced bone strength in and a lower pelvic injury
tolerance of older women.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ O'Brien, D., Luchette, F., Pereira, S., Lim, E., Seeskin,
C., James, L., Miller, S., Davis, K., Hurst, J., Johannigman, J.,
Frame, S. (2002) Pelvic Frature in the Elderly is Associated with
Increased Mortality, Surgery, Volume 132, pp. 710-715.
\13\ Henry, S., Pollack, A., Jones, A., Boswell, S., Scalea, T.
(2002) Pelvic Fracture in Geriatric Patients: A distinct Clinical
Entity, Journal of Trauma, Volume 53, No. 1, pp. 15-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the Alliance's request to specify the SID-IIs pelvic
injury criterion with respect to the pubic force, we are denying that
request. Specifying a criterion limit of 4,280 N on the SID-IIs pubic
load measuring device was not proposed in the NPRM or explored in the
final rule, so the public has not had an opportunity to comment on the
suggested criterion and the agency has not had the benefit of those
comments. Furthermore, the Alliance's assertion that the external load
is twice that measured at the pubic symphysis of the SID-IIs is not
supported by the SID-IIs test data it submitted to the agency (``Injury
Criteria for Side Impact Dummies,'' NHTSA Docket 17694).\14\ In the
Alliance-submitted data, the external load was approximately 8.7 to
28.6 times the load measured at the public symphysis. Further, we
believe that the pubic load cell for the SID-IIs is limited in its
capacity to measure a load of 4,280 N because the attachment sites are
too rigid. A design change to the dummy is likely needed to have a
pubic load criterion for the SID-IIs, and the petitioner has not
demonstrated justification to undertake this change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The ratio of the sum of acetabular and iliac forces of the
SID-IIs and the applied force on the cadaver (normalized to that of
a 5th percentile female) from the paired Bouquet cadaver tests
appears to be dependent on the impact velocity. Considering only the
impacts at 10 to 12 m/s, the average ratio of SID-IIs measured total
pelvic force to the cadaver applied force is 1.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have also decided to deny the petitioner's request to create
separate injury threshold levels of 5,000 N for the iliac and
acetabular load cells. The test data used to develop the AIS 2+ injury
risk curves for the pelvis measured the total force applied to the
pelvis (Cavanaugh), as opposed to measuring separate loads on the iliac
and acetabulum. The injuries resulting from the total applied pelvic
force included a variety of pelvic injuries observed in real world
crashes: Pubic rami fractures, sacro iliac joint fractures, iliac wing
fractures, and ischio pubic branch fractures (Cavanaugh and
Bouquet).\15\ The AIS 2+ injury risk curves that were independently
developed using the Cavanaugh and Bouquet test data were nearly
identical, demonstrating that the total pelvic force is a good
predictor of a variety of pelvic injuries. The sum of iliac force and
acetabular force provides a better estimate of the total load on the
pelvis than the Alliance's approach, and consequently, provides better
injury prediction for different type of pelvic injuries. For this
reason, the sum of iliac and acetabular loads was used for injury
prediction, and adopted in the final rule. The Alliance provided no
analysis to support its alternative.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Fractures due to lateral loading can occur at several
locations on the pelvic ring, including the pubic rami (pubic rami
fractures are typically the first that occur, as the pubic rami is
the weak link in the pelvis), pubic symphysis, iliac wing, sacro-
iliac junction, and acetabulum. Moreover, the load paths through the
pelvis in lateral impacts are complex: loading through the
trochanteron can result in fractures at the sacro-iliac joint;
loading through the iliac wing can cause pubic rami fractures.
\16\ We also note that the 5,525 N injury criterion selected by
the agency for the SID-IIs is consistent with that used by the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) in its side impact
consumer information program, whereas the petitioner's suggested
criterion of 8,550 N is not. IIHS ranks vehicles based on
performance when impacted perpendicularly by a moving barrier at
about 50 km/h. IIHS uses a maximum limit of 5,100 kN for ``good''
vehicles. Vehicles with a combined acetabulum and ilium force
greater than 7,100 N receive a ``poor'' injury rating by IIHS. The
Alliances' suggested criterion of 8,550 N would be in the poor
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 12127]]
Data from recent pole tests we conducted in support of NHTSA's New
Car Assessment Program (NCAP) illustrate the practicability of meeting
the SID-IIs pelvic injury criterion. We tested six vehicles that were
in conformance with the voluntary agreement made by auto manufacturers
\17\ that had been characterized as ``good'' performers in the IIHS
rating program.\18\ Of the six vehicles tested, the 2006 VW Passat and
2006 Subaru Impreza met the pelvic force requirements.\19\ The results
of the testing are set forth in Table 1, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ On December 4, 2003, the Alliance, the Association of
International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM), and 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), and Docket NHTSA-2003-14623-13.
\18\ IIHS's side impact consumer information program ranks
vehicles based on performance when impacted perpendicularly by a
moving barrier at about 50 km/h. https://www.iihs.org/ratings/side_test_info.html.
\19\ This series of tests with the 5th percentile female dummy
were conducted with the iliac wing ``material 2'' specified
in the December 2006 SID-IIs final rule. The SID-IIs final rule to
address petitions for reconsideration specifies performance criteria
that allow for use of a stiffer ``material 3'' for the
iliac wing. Material 3 will not increase the total pelvic
force appreciably from that of the SID-IIs iliac wings used for the
2004-2005 MY vehicle tests listed in the 2007 final rule. When
comparing material 3 responses to material 2
responses, it is estimated the material 3 will result in a
12% increase in the iliac force in the qualification environment and
correspond to a 5% increase in total pelvis force in these vehicle
tests. The VW Passat and Subaru Impreza are still expected to meet
the pelvic force IARV with the new material.
Table 1--SID-IIs Oblique Pole Tests With Vehicles Rated ``Good'' by IIHS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5th Female IARV
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIC36 Thorax/rib Abdominal Lower spine Pelvis force
Vehicles SAB type ---------------- defl. (mm) defl. (mm) (Gs) (N)
---------------------------------------------------------------
1000 38* 45* 82 5525
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 Honda Pilot.......................... Curtain + Torso............. 3464 48 49 68 6649
2007 Nissan Quest......................... Curtain..................... 5694 50 56 79 5786
2007 Ford Escape.......................... Curtain + Torso............. 407 65 36 65 6515
2006 VW Passat............................ Curtain + Torso............. 323 23 32 40 3778
2006 Subaru Impreza....................... Combo....................... 184 51 38 58 4377
2007 Toyota Avalon........................ Curtain + Torso............. 642 28 38 62 6672
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Note: Injury measurements for reference only; not required in FMVSS No. 214.
Not only did the 2006 VW Passat and the 2006 Subaru Impreza meet
the pelvic force limit, but both vehicles met the lower spine and head
requirements as well.\20\ The VW Passat also had very low thoracic and
abdominal deflection measurements. The performance of the VW Passat
illustrates the feasibility of protecting all body regions at the FMVSS
No. 214 levels without overloading the thorax or any other part of the
occupant. With the additional lead time and longer phase-in of the
upgraded FMVSS No. 214 requirements provided by the June 2008 final
rule, manufacturers will have sufficient time to design the necessary
countermeasures to meet the pelvic criteria established in the
September 11, 2007 final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ We note that all six vehicles were well below the 8,550 N
pelvic force limit proposed by the Alliance and consequently, no
changes would need to be made to any of these vehicles to meet its
suggested criterion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Multi-Stage Vehicles and Partitioned Vehicles
In the September 2007 final rule, NHTSA decided not to exclude
vehicles manufactured in two or more stages equipped with a cargo
carrying, load bearing or work-performing body or equipment from the
pole test requirements, as suggested by NTEA's comment on the NPRM. 72
FR at 51937. The agency decided that the exclusion was unwarranted;
there was not sufficient reason to deny the occupants of the vehicles
the life-saving benefits of head and enhanced thorax protection
provided by side air bags. (The Final Regulatory Impact Analysis
estimated those benefits to be a 24 percent reduction in fatality risk
for nearside occupants by side air bags and an estimated 14 percent
reduction in fatality risk by torso bags alone. See Docket No. NHTSA-
29134.)
We believed that many incomplete vehicle manufacturers (which are
typically large vehicle manufacturers, such as GM and Ford) will
accommodate the needs of final-stage manufacturers, since the
incomplete vehicles they provide would typically have a significant
portion of the occupant compartment completed, with seat- or roof-
mounted head/thorax air bag systems already installed and would be
accompanied by a workable and reasonable incomplete vehicle document
(IVD). NHTSA determined that, by using the IVD, final-stage
manufacturers would be able to rely on the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer's certification and pass it through to certify the
completed vehicle. 72 FR at 51937.
Under NHTSA's regulations,\21\ the incomplete vehicle manufacturer
must provide an IVD with each incomplete vehicle it provides to the
final-stage manufacturer. The IVD requirements were thoroughly
explained in a February 14, 2005, final rule on certification
responsibilities of manufacturers of vehicles built in two or more
stages and altered vehicles \22\ and in NHTSA's May 15, 2006, final
rule responding to NTEA's petition for reconsideration of the rule.\23\
As explained in those documents, an IVD details, with varying degrees
of specificity, the types of future manufacturing contemplated by the
incomplete vehicle manufacturer and must provide, for each applicable
safety standard, one of three statements that a subsequent manufacturer
can rely on when certifying compliance of the vehicle, as finally
manufactured, to some or all of all applicable FMVSS.
[[Page 12128]]
The final-stage manufacturer has to meet the conditions of the IVD in
producing the final vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 49 CFR part 568, ``Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More
Stages--All Incomplete, Intermediate and Final-Stage Manufacturers
of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.'' Section Sec.
568.4 requires the incomplete vehicle manufacture to furnish the IVD
at or before the time of delivery.
\22\ 70 FR 7414, Docket 99-5673.
\23\ 71 FR 28168, May 15, 2008, Docket 2006-24664.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first type of statement contained by an IVD is one referred to
in 49 CFR 568.4(a)(7) as a ``Type 1 statement.'' These statements
indicate, with respect to a particular safety standard, that the
vehicle, when completed, will conform to the standard if no alterations
are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle. This
representation is most often made with respect to chassis-cabs, a type
of incomplete vehicle that has a completed occupant compartment. 49 CFR
567.3.
The second type of statement is a ``Type 2 statement'' (Sec.
568.4(a)(7)). This is a statement of specific conditions of final
manufacture under which the completed vehicle will conform to a
particular standard or set of standards. This statement is applicable
in those instances in which the incomplete vehicle manufacturer has
provided all or a portion of the equipment needed to comply with the
standard, but subsequent manufacturing might be expected to change the
vehicle such that it may not comply with the standard once finally
manufactured. For example, the incomplete vehicle could be equipped
with a brake system that would, in many instances, enable the vehicle
to comply with the applicable brake standard once the vehicle was
complete, but that would not enable it to comply if the completed
vehicle's weight or center of gravity height were significantly altered
from those specified in the IVD.
The third type of statement, a ``Type 3'' statement, is one which
identifies those standards for which no representation of conformity is
made because conformity with the standard is not substantially affected
by the design of the incomplete vehicle. A statement of this kind could
be made, for example, by a manufacturer of a stripped chassis who may
be unable to make any representations about conformity to any
crashworthiness standards given that the incomplete vehicle does not
contain an occupant compartment.
In the September 11, 2007 final rule amending FMVSS No. 214, the
agency declined NTEA's suggestion to exclude the multistage vehicles it
identifies from the pole test requirements. We had, and still have,
every reason to expect that incomplete vehicle manufacturers will
accommodate the needs of final-stage manufacturers. We believe that
chassis-cab manufacturers will produce incomplete vehicles with seat-
or roof-mounted head/thorax air bag systems already installed and with
workable instructions on how the vehicle could be completed to enable
the final-stage manufacturer to pass-through the certification. As
NHTSA stated in the September 11, 2007, final rule, ``As long as the
final-stage manufacturer meets the conditions of the incomplete vehicle
document (and NTEA has not shown that final stage manufacturers will
not be able to meet those conditions) the manufacturers may rely on the
incomplete vehicle manufacturer's certification and pass it through
when certifying the completed vehicle.'' 72 FR at 51937-51938.
Further, for final-stage manufacturers that will have to certify
the compliance of the vehicle other than by using ``pass-through''
certification, the agency provided manufacturers until September 1,
2013, approximately six years under the September 11, 2007, final rule
(which has been extended to September 1, 2016, under the June 2008
final rule), to work with incomplete vehicle manufacturers and with
seat and air bag suppliers to revise current air bag systems and
vehicle designs to enable them to certify to the pole test. 72 FR at
51938. The agency determined that this long period will provide enough
time for final-stage manufacturers to work with incomplete vehicle
manufacturers, seat manufacturers and air bag suppliers, individually
or as a consortium, to develop the information to install seat-mounted
systems, or other countermeasures that could be developed to meet the
pole test. Id.
NTEA and the Alliance petitioned for reconsideration of the
agency's decision on this issue. NTEA stated that ``it will not be
possible for chassis [incomplete vehicle] manufacturers to develop
compliance strategies for this regulation that would allow multi-stage
manufacturers to continue producing the range of diversified work
trucks demanded by the marketplace.'' The petitioner believed that the
side air bag system is highly complex and that ``it will not be
possible for the chassis manufacturers to provide a generic compliance
envelope covering any significant portion of the vehicle configurations
produced by today's work truck industry.'' In the alternative, NTEA
asked that if the rule is to continue to apply to multi-stage vehicles,
the effective date for multi-stage produced vehicles with a gross
vehicle weight rating greater than 8,500 pounds be extended to
September 1, 2014 (one year later than the effective date for single
stage produced vehicles).
The Alliance petitioned to exclude multi-stage and altered vehicles
from the pole test requirements because, it asserted, ``the extensive
variation of possible changes that can be made to vehicles that are
built in multiple stages, including the addition of partitions, will
affect the performance of original equipment manufacturers' (OEMs')
side airbags [sic] systems (side airbags, curtains, sensing systems,
and interior and structural components).'' The petitioner stated:
``Each multi-stage vehicle developed from a single incomplete vehicle
could potentially require a unique side airbag system, which could
require a unique development process for each system (development
process meaning iterative crash testing for occupant response and side
sensor calibration development).'' The Alliance further stated that,
``OEMs will not be in a position to expend engineering resources to
develop unique side airbag systems in addition to the systems developed
for the associated completed vehicles'' and that multi-stage
manufacturers ``will not necessarily be in a position to collaborate
with OEMs and/or restraint suppliers to develop unique systems.''
Agency Response
The petitioners' contentions that it would be impossible for
incomplete vehicle manufacturers to develop strategies that would allow
multi-stage manufacturers to continue producing diversified work trucks
are overly general and wholly unsupported. No information was submitted
with the petitions substantiating the petitioners' views that final-
stage manufacturers will not be able to certify their vehicles to the
pole test. No information was provided to show that incomplete vehicle
manufacturers will find pass-through certification unachievable. NHTSA
cannot find a basis on which to conclude that final-stage manufacturers
could not adhere to the instructions of the IVD, when final-stage
manufacturers are currently certifying the compliance of their vehicles
with FMVSS No. 214, and with FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash
protection,'' (frontal air bag technology), FMVSS No. 301, ``Fuel
system integrity,'' and other complex safety standards that include
crash testing vehicles as part of the agency's compliance tests.
We believe that it will be feasible for final-stage manufacturers
to certify their vehicles to the pole test using the IVD provided by
the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. The IVD framework was carefully
analyzed in the May 15, 2006, final rule (71 FR 28168) that responded
to NTEA's petition for reconsideration of the February 14, 2005, rule
amending the certification requirements for multi-stage vehicle
manufacturers. The agency examined a GM CK Chassis-Cab IVD
[[Page 12129]]
that NTEA had appended to its petition for reconsideration as an
example of purported deficiencies in IVDs generally (71 FR at 28177).
To assess the validity of NTEA's contentions, NHTSA carefully examined
the certification statements in the GM IVD that NTEA identified as
inadequate. NHTSA determined each of NTEA's claims to be
unsubstantiated.
The agency found that the IVD was entirely workable as it related
to each of the FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 214. NTEA had contended that
there was no meaningful pass-through opportunity for FMVSS No. 214's
crush resistance requirements and the standard's moving deformable
barrier test. The GM IVD stated that the vehicle will comply with the
requirements of FMVSS No. 214 as long as no alterations were made that
affect the properties, environment, or vital spatial clearances of
various components and systems in the vehicle, including the air bag
system, the door assemblies, hinges, and latches, the door pillars, and
the seat and seat belt anchorages and assemblies. The GM IVD was
practicable, providing a reasonable envelope within which the final
stage manufacturer could complete the vehicle and certify it to FMVSS
No. 214. NHTSA determined that (71 FR at 28181)--
GM has designed vehicles, including the doors and associated
structural members, such as pillars, to withstand various forces
applied to the side of the vehicle. Ordinarily, GM would have tested
the side of a single stage pickup truck. Vehicles completed from a
chassis-cab incomplete vehicle have door support structures and
doors that are identical to a single stage pickup truck. Unless the
final-stage manufacturer makes alterations to the door-related
structures and parts enumerated in the IVD, pass-through
certification should be available. * * * It would be unreasonable to
expect GM or any other incomplete vehicle manufacturer to provide
pass-through certification with FMVSS 214, which is directly
contingent on the engineering and performance of the systems set
forth in the IVD, without a limitation on alteration of those
systems.
The agency concluded that a final-stage manufacturer can readily
complete its vehicle by mounting a body onto an incomplete GM vehicle,
such as a chassis cab, without making modifications that would place it
outside the pass-through certification provisions of GM's IVD. Id.
The conclusions of the May 15, 2006 final rule concerning the
static door strength and the MDB test of FMVSS No. 214 are relevant to
today's rulemaking and apply to the issues raised by the petitioners.
We anticipate that the IVDs provided by incomplete vehicle
manufacturers will offer compliance strategies to final-stage
manufacturers for meeting the static door strength and MDB requirements
of FMVSS No. 214 just as the IVDs do today, by including statements
that the vehicle will comply with the FMVSS No. 214 requirements as
long as no alterations are made that affect the properties,
environment, or vital spatial clearances of various components and
systems in the vehicle, such as the door assemblies, hinges, and
latches, the door pillars, and the seat and seat belt anchorages and
assemblies. These conditions would be reasonable and logical, since the
side crash protection provided by the door assemblies, hinges, latches,
structure and padding, and by the seat and seat belt system could be
affected if the properties, environment, or vital spatial clearances
were modified by a final-stage manufacturer. These conditions for
meeting the static door strength and MDB requirements of FMVSS No. 214
can readily be met by final-stage manufacturers, just as they are met
today, by making sure that the vehicles are completed without modifying
the incomplete vehicle's door assemblies, hinges, and latches, the door
structure, pillars, and padding, and the seat and seat belt anchorages
and assemblies.
With regard to the pole test requirements which were newly added to
FMVSS No. 214 by the September 11, 2007 final rule, the findings of the
May 15, 2006 final rule are informative and relevant to this matter as
well. The May 15, 2006 final rule discussed NTEA's complaint about the
pass-through certification in the GM IVD pertaining to FMVSS No. 208.
This discussion is instructive today because both FMVSS No. 208 and the
pole test of FMVSS No. 214 specify vehicle crashworthiness requirements
in terms of forces and accelerations measured on test dummies in crash
tests and by specifying performance requirements that are met by air
bags.
As discussed in the May 15, 2006 final rule, the GM IVD provided
pass-through certification for FMVSS No. 208 for vehicles, provided
that the maximum unloaded vehicle weight specified by GM is not
exceeded and no alterations are made that affect the properties,
location, or vital spatial clearances of various components, including
the number, location and configuration of designated seating positions
and seat belt assemblies, the instrument panel, steering wheel, air bag
modules and coverings, the Sensor Diagnostic Module (SDM) (which is
involved in triggering air bag deployment) and associated wiring, air
bag labels, the vehicle frame and structural members, sheet metal, and
the engine compartment, that would result in a difference in the
modified vehicle's deceleration if it were subject to barrier impact
tests under FMVSS No. 208. 71 FR at 28181.
NHTSA found these restrictions in GM's Type 1 IVD to be logical and
consistent with a systematic approach to occupant crash protection
employed by manufacturers. 71 FR at 28182. Regarding GM's restriction
on unloaded vehicle weight and GVWR, vehicle weight is an essential
component of crashworthiness standard certification. If the vehicle, as
completed and loaded, exceeded the maximum weight for which the
incomplete vehicle manufacturer provided pass-through certification
(usually based on a crash test the incomplete vehicle manufacturer
performed), it would not be reasonable to expect the GM's certification
to apply because the excess vehicle weight could cause different and
excessive forces and accelerations on crash dummies. Final-stage
manufacturers can readily work within weight requirements by taking
care to purchase the appropriate incomplete vehicle chassis for the use
to which the vehicle will be put.
NHTSA also found not unreasonable the restrictions in the GM IVD on
alterations that interfere with the seating positions, seat belts,
instrument panel and air bags, SDM, and vehicle frame and body in a way
that would result in a difference from the modified vehicle's
deceleration if it were subjected to an FMVSS No. 208 barrier test. The
restrictions were reasonable because incomplete vehicle manufacturers
typically provide pass-through certification based on tests performed
on a pickup truck with stock seats provided by the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer and test dummies in those seating positions, as specified
by FMVSS No. 208. If the seating positions were different, the test
results as recorded on the dummies likely would be different. NHTSA
determined that it was reasonable that GM should not be held to
anticipate performance, as measured on dummies, in these circumstances.
NHTSA also found it reasonable that GM would not provide pass-through
certification if the seat belt system were changed.
The agency further discussed the IVD's statements relating to FMVSS
No. 208, as follows (71 FR 28182):
Other requirements relate to the air bags and their control
unit. GM could not be expected to provide pass-through certification
if the final-stage manufacturer modified these items.
[[Page 12130]]
Finally, the IVD provides that various structural and sheet
metal components cannot be modified if the modifications would
result in a difference in the modified vehicle's deceleration in a
barrier test under FMVSS No. 208. A basic concept in designing
vehicles is to design vehicle structures that minimize the amount of
injury-causing crash energy that reaches the occupants. To
accomplish this, in part, manufacturers design into the vehicle
structural zones that collapse and absorb crash energy. A
crashworthy vehicle is designed to deform according to a
deceleration-time response, or crash pulse. These vary among
vehicles. The frontal structure largely controls the deceleration
pulse. Ultimately, the deceleration response of the vehicle affects
the response experienced by the test dummies, as gauged by
regulatory injury criteria such as the thoracic acceleration of a
test dummy. Modifications by a final-stage manufacturer to the
frame, sheet metal and other components identified in GM's IVD may
change the vehicle's deceleration and its performance in a crash
test, including measurements on test dummies. GM could not
reasonably be expected to assume certification responsibility in
these circumstances. But the final-stage manufacturer could readily
satisfy the conditions of the IVD by not modifying the identified
components of the incomplete vehicle when it adds equipment to the
chassis of the vehicle. (Id., emphasis added.)
This discussion applies equally to the IVDs that incomplete vehicle
manufacturers will provide concerning the FMVSS No. 214 pole test. We
anticipate that the IVD will provide pass-through certification for
FMVSS No. 214 for vehicles provided that weight restrictions are not
exceeded, and the vehicle is not modified so as to affect the
properties, location, or vital spatial clearances of certain
components. These components include the location and configuration of
the driver and outboard passenger seating positions, the seat belts
installed at those seating positions, the side door structure and door
assemblies, and the side air bag system. A side air bag system includes
the side air bag modules, inflator, sensors triggering air bag
deployment, and associated wiring.
A final-stage manufacturer will be able to satisfy the conditions
of the IVD in completing the vehicle and certifying it to FMVSS No.
214, just as it is able to work with the IVD in certifying completed
vehicles to FMVSS No. 208. The final-stage manufacturer can readily
adhere to the weight requirements of the IVD by following the
instruction of the IVD. Further, when completing a work vehicle, a
final-stage manufacturer typically does not modify the vehicle door
trim, side structure or energy absorbing material for the front
outboard occupants, and can complete the vehicle without modifying the
side air bag system. Because of this, the Alliance's contention that
``unique'' side air bag systems would have to be developed for ``each
multi-stage vehicle'' developed from a single incomplete vehicle is not
substantiated. NHTSA cannot concur with that estimation, based on the
information available. Accordingly, we find no basis for excluding all
cargo carrying, load bearing and work-performing vehicles manufactured
in more than one stage from the pole test.
The petitioners were particularly focused on partitions and
bulkheads that final-stage manufacturers install in work vehicles. NTEA
stated that these components ``protect the driver from loose cargo in
the back of the vehicle.'' The Alliance stated that the addition of
partitions will affect the performance of original equipment
manufacturers' side impact air bag systems (SIABs).
The September 11, 2007 final rule did not exclude partition-
equipped vehicles from the pole test requirements. NHTSA determined
that an exclusion of partition-equipped vehicles, or of vehicles with
bulkheads, was overly broad on its face and unwarranted when
considering the different countermeasures that may be designed to meet
the requirements. These possible countermeasures included the use of
seat-mounted or door-mounted head/thorax air bag systems, the
development of side air curtain technology that involves designs other
than tethering the curtain to the A- and C-pillars. 72 FR at 51936.
Further, the final rule provided an extra year of lead time to
accommodate any necessary manufacturing changes that have to be made to
their vehicles. NHTSA stated: ``Between [September 11, 2007] and that
date, [alterers and final-stage manufacturers] can work with
manufacturers of incomplete and complete vehicles to develop seat-
mounted SIABs and other technologies that would enable them to install
the life-saving devices in vehicles that have partitions.'' Id.
The petitioners did not provide information substantiating its
claim that compliance is not practicable for vehicles with partitions
or bulkheads. To the contrary, market-based solutions are emerging now.
The agency is aware of the availability of partitions \24\ in police
vehicles that are advertised as compatible with side curtain air bags.
For some partition designs, sufficient space is provided to allow for
the inflation of the air curtain. If a full width barrier is desired,
new air bag systems are emerging to meet that need. GM has announced it
will offer a police vehicle with optional front-seat-only side curtain
air bags that allow a full-width rear-seat barrier.\25\ An air curtain
could be tethered from the A- to B-pillar and be compatible with a
partition or bulkhead. NHTSA is aware of another manufacturer that
intends to build a police car with side curtains and a partition.\26\
Further, as explained by the agency in the September 11, 2007 final
rule, a head/thorax combination air bag or an air bag that deploys
upwards from the window sill \27\ could be used. With the lead time
provided by the final rule, we expect that more solutions from vehicle
manufacturers and aftermarket suppliers will be developed for vehicles
with partitions or bulkheads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See https://www.setina.com. Setina Manufacturing Co. markets
side curtain air bag compatible police equipment partitions for the
Chevrolet Impala, Suburban and Tahoe, Chrysler Aspen, Dodge Charger,
Magnum and Durango and the Ford Expedition and Explorer.
\25\ https://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=https://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewmonthlyreleasedetail.do?domain=74&docid=57260.
\26\ https://www.carbonmotors.com/pdf/comparison.pdf.
\27\ A door-mounted inflatable curtain was introduced in the
2006 model year Volvo C70 convertible. Nissan has also indicated
that a side air bag system under development for convertibles uses a
seat mounted thorax air bag and a curtain air bag deployed from the
door. See NHTSA-2007-29134-0007.1. Upwards-deploying air bags could
be used in vehicles with a partition or bulkhead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collaboration
There has been no information presented that corroborates the
Alliance's assertion that multi-stage manufacturers could not
collaborate with OEMs and/or restraint suppliers to develop side air
bag systems that would work with their vehicles. The May 15, 2006 final
rule discusses at length the cooperative relationships that have
existed for years between incomplete and final-stage manufacturers.
See, e.g., 71 FR at 28183-28185. Final-stage manufacturer are motor
vehicle manufacturers, and they have for many years borne the
responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
to ensure that their vehicles are certified to the FMVSSs. For many
years, they have certified their vehicles to a gamut of crash test and
other standards using the IVD and their engineering abilities. They
have worked with incomplete vehicle manufacturers and suppliers,
individually or as part of a consortium, and have the capabilities to
continue to do so to develop strategies needed to certify their
vehicles to the pole test.
Further, as noted above, in the June 9, 2008, final rule responding
to petitions for reconsideration of the September 11,
[[Page 12131]]
2007, final rule on FMVSS No. 214, the agency extended the compliance
date on which multi-stage manufacturers and alterers must certify to
the pole test, providing additional time to meet the FMVSS No. 214
requirements. That final rule provided 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. This lead time provides even more lead
time than the NTEA had requested (petitioner had asked that if the rule
is to continue to apply to multi-stage vehicles, the effective date for
multi-stage produced vehicles with a GVWR greater than 8,500 pounds be
extended to September 1, 2014) and provides ample opportunity for
multi-stage manufacturers and alterers to develop and implement
strategies for certifying compliance with the FMVSS No. 214 pole test.
Accordingly, for the reasons provided above, we are denying the
petitions to exclude vehicles produced in more than one stage, altered
vehicles, and vehicles with partitions from the pole test.
c. Test Procedures
1. Vehicle Set Up
i. Positioning the Seat
A. Adjusting the Front Seat for the 50th Percentile Male Dummies
For adjusting the front seat for both the SID-IIs and the ES-2re
dummies, the final rule adopted the seat positioning procedure used in
FMVSS No. 208 for the 5th percentile female Hybrid III dummy (for the
ES-2re 50th percentile adult male dummy, the only alteration made was
to specify the mid-track position as opposed to full-forward). That
seat positioning procedure from FMVSS No. 208 was adopted for use in
FMVSS No. 214 because it was more detailed than any other procedure
used in the FMVSSs and addressed the wide variety of seat
configurations and multi-way power seat adjustments available in
vehicles.
In its petition, the Alliance requested that the seat adjustment
method for the ES-2re dummy be the same as that in FMVSS No. 208 for
the Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy. It stated it is unclear why
NHTSA prescribes a different seating procedure for FMVSS No. 214 than
the one prescribed for FMVSS No. 208. The Alliance further noted that
the seat adjustment method in FMVSS No. 214 for the SID that had been
in place before the amendment resulted in a different mid-point
location than the location obtained under the amended FMVSS No. 214
procedure. The seating positioning procedure for the SID (S6.3) used to
state, ``Adjustable seats are placed in the adjustment position midway
between the forward most and rearmost position * * *,'' whereas
S8.3.1.3.2 of the final rule states, ``Using only the control that
primarily moves the seat fore and aft, move the seat cushion reference
point to the mid travel position.* * *''
Agency Response
NHTSA is denying the Alliance's petition to change the seat
positioning procedure for the ES-2re.\28\ It is correct that the FMVSS
No. 214 final rule seating procedure can place the seat, and thus the
position of the ES-2re dummy, in a slightly different location compared
to the FMVSS No. 208 procedure for the 50th percentile male Hybrid
III.\29\ Specifically, both the height and mid-point position of the
final seat location can vary between the two procedures depending on
the number of degrees of freedom designed into the seat adjustment
mechanism. However, the FMVSS No. 214 seat positioning procedure takes
into account the full range of motion of the seat in determining the
seat's mid-point and height, which the FMVSS No. 208 procedure does
not. The new procedure is more objective and repeatable than the FMVSS
No. 208 procedure, given the wide variety of seat configurations and
multi-way power seat adjustments available in vehicles available today.
NHTSA thus considers the FMVSS No. 214 seat positioning procedure
preferable to the FMVSS No. 208 procedure. As to the petitioner's
suggestion that the procedures of FMVSS No. 208 and FMVSS No. 214
should be consistent, we are considering rulemaking to amend FMVSS No.
208 to adopt the FMVSS No. 214 procedure to position the seats. (With
regard to the point about positioning the SID, the June 9, 2008
document reinstituted the pre-existing seat adjustment procedure for
use with the SID in the MDB test until the phase-in of the new
requirements is completed. 73 FR at 32480.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ The seat position concerns raised by the Alliance were not
raised in the comments to the NPRM or discussed in the final rule.
\29\ The seat adjustment procedure first adopted for the 50th
percentile male SID when FMVSS No. 214 was amended to include the
dynamic test requirements with the MDB (55 FR 45722) was derived
from that used in FMVSS No. 208. The September 2007 FMVSS No. 214
final rule adopted a revised seat adjustment procedure for the new
requirements as well as for those vehicles being certified to the
pre-existing requirements with the SID during the phase-in. The June
2008 response to petitions for reconsideration reinstated the pre-
existing seat adjustment procedure when testing with the SID during
the phase-in, in response to a petition from the Alliance. In that
document, we acknowledged the new seat adjustment procedu
