[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 145 (Friday, July 28, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38749-38762]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-18275]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 88-06, Notice 24]
RIN 2127-AE49
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Side Impact Protection--
Light Trucks, Buses and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule amends Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.
214, ``Side Impact Protection,'' to extend its dynamic testing
requirements to light trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles and buses
with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 6,000 pounds or less.
(Light trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles and buses are
hereinafter referred to as LTVs.) The dynamic testing requirements
currently apply to passenger cars only. This rule extends the dynamic
procedures now used to test passenger cars, without modification, to
LTVs. Based on current vehicle sales data, the agency estimates that
the percentage of LTVs will increase significantly in the future. Small
LTVs, which are potentially vulnerable in side crashes, will comprise
much of the LTV fleet by the year 2000. This extension ensures these
vehicles provide side impact protection for the same crash conditions
under which passenger cars provide such protection. It also furthers
the goal of the NHTSA Authorization Act of 1991 (sections 2500-2509 of
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (``ISTEA'')),
which directed NHTSA to initiate rulemaking on LTV side impact safety.
DATES: This rule is effective on September 1, 1998.
Petitions for reconsideration of the rule must be received by
August 28, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket and
number of this document and must be submitted to: Administrator, Room
5220, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Joseph Kanianthra, Chief, Side and
Rollover Crash Protection Division, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards
(telephone 202-366-4924), or Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Office of the Chief
Counsel (202-366-2992), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
a. Current requirements
b. Purpose of today's rule
c. Side impact safety problem
II. The NPRM
a. Raising the height and weight of the moving deformable
barrier
b. Response to the NPRM
III. Agency Decision
a. Extending the passenger car requirements
b. Related requirements
[[Page 38750]]
1. Vehicles covered by this rule
2. Vehicles manufactured without doors
3. Impact reference line
4. Rear seat
5. Upgrading other aspects of the standard
6. Leadtime
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
a. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
b. Regulatory Flexibility Act
c. Executive Order 12612
d. National Environmental Policy Act
e. Executive Order 12778
I. Background
This rule amends Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214,
``Side Impact Protection,'' to extend its dynamic testing requirements
to LTVs of 6,000 pounds or less gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). The
dynamic testing requirements currently apply to passenger cars. The
effect of this amendment is to ensure that smaller LTVs provide side
impact protection under the same crash conditions under which passenger
cars provide such protection. Larger LTVs and many smaller LTVs will be
able to comply with the requirements of this standard without any
modification. A notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) setting forth the
proposals upon which this rule is based was published June 15, 1994 (59
FR 30756).
a. Current Requirements
Standard 214 specifies two sets of requirements for the vehicles to
which it applies. The first is composed of quasi-static side door
strength requirements for passenger cars and LTVs with a GVWR of 10,000
pounds or less. Those requirements seek to mitigate occupant injuries
in side impacts by reducing the extent to which the side door structure
of a vehicle is pushed into the occupant compartment during a side
impact. Under the requirements, side doors must resist crush forces
that are applied against the door's outside surface in a laboratory
test. The requirements have applied to passenger cars since January 1,
1973, and were extended to LTVs on September 1, 1993 by a final rule
published in the Federal Register (56 FR 27427) on June 14, 1991.
The second set of requirements comprise the dynamic testing
requirements for passenger cars. NHTSA adopted these requirements in a
rule published on October 30, 1990 (55 FR 45722). Under the
requirements, a passenger car must provide protection to occupants'
thoracic and pelvic regions as measured by the accelerations registered
on an instrumented side impact dummy (SID) in a full-scale crash test.
In the test, the car (known as the ``target'' car) is struck in the
side by a moving deformable barrier (MDB) simulating another passenger
car. A phase-in for these new requirements began on September 1, 1993.
The MDB specified in the dynamic test procedure weighs, nominally,
3,000 pounds, and its contact face is 22 inches in height, 66 inches in
width and 33 inches high (measured from the ground to the top edge of
the barrier face). NHTSA derived the weight of the barrier from the
median curb weight of passenger cars (3,181 pounds in 1989) and light
trucks (3,958 pounds in 1989). This resulted in a weighted average of
3,423 pounds, which was adjusted downward to account for the then-
projected lower weight of vehicles in the 1990's.
Under the test procedure, the front and rear wheels of the MDB are
``crabbed'' at an angle of 27 degrees. With the MDB face oriented at a
right angle to the target car, the MDB moves at an angle of 27 degrees
and at a speed of 33.5 mph into the side of the target car. These
aspects of the procedure were selected so that the test simulates the
vehicle kinematics and crash forces that a car would experience in a
real world side crash in which it was traveling at 15 mph and was
struck perpendicularly by a vehicle traveling at 30 mph. The agency
selected the 30 mph/15 mph combination because it represents the mid-
range of the speed in real-world side crashes, is the threshold speed
for serious chest injury, and because countermeasures (e.g., increased
padding and/or reinforced structure) designed for the 30 mph/15 mph
combination are likely to be effective in reducing chest injury
potential over most of the range of impact speeds encountered in real
world side crashes.
b. Purpose of Today's Rule
This rulemaking addresses several NHTSA goals. This rulemaking is a
first step towards establishing appropriate dynamic testing
requirements for LTVs. An advance notice of proposed rulemaking (53 FR
31716) published in 1988 discussed possible side impact protection
requirements for LTVs in areas where requirements had been or were
under consideration for passenger cars. That notice announced that
NHTSA was considering developing dynamic test procedures and
performance requirements for LTVs, similar to those proposed at that
time and later adopted for passenger cars.
Amending Standard 214 to address side impact protection for LTVs
also furthers the goals of the NHTSA Authorization Act of 1991
(sections 2500-2509 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (``ISTEA'')). In 1991, Congress directed the agency to initiate and
complete rulemaking to address the possible extension of Standard 214's
dynamic side impact requirements for passenger cars to MPVs and trucks
with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of
5,500 pounds or less. In response, NHTSA initiated rulemaking by
publishing another advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on
June 5, 1992 (57 FR 24009). Section 2502 of ISTEA provides that
rulemaking is considered completed when NHTSA either promulgates a
final rule or decides not to promulgate a rule. Today's final rule
extending Standard 214's dynamic side impact protection requirements to
LTVs completes the ISTEA-directed rulemaking.
This rulemaking also marks one of the final phases of the agency's
long-term endeavor to extend most of its passenger car standards to
LTVs. This effort has resulted in a number of rulemaking actions over
the past decade. Among the passenger car safety standards extended to
LTVs were Standards 202 (requiring head restraints), 204 (limiting
rearward movement of steering column in a crash), 208 (requiring
dynamic testing of safety belts for LTVs, and in model year 1999,
requiring air bags in 100 percent of LTVs), and 216 (requiring roof
crush strength). NHTSA extended those standards to ensure that LTVs are
as safe as passenger cars in their crashworthiness performance, since
they are being purchased in increasing numbers and are increasingly
being used as passenger-carrying vehicles.
These increases can be illustrated by registration data. Data from
R.L. Polk show that LTV registrations have increased from 33 million in
1983 to 45 million in 1988, and to 57 million in 1993. From 1983 to
1993, the percentage of light trucks in the compact (now termed ``small
and middle'') category increased from 39 percent to 63 percent.
Both Congress' ISTEA directive on LTV side impact protection and
NHTSA's endeavor to extend passenger car standards to LTVs stem from
the convergence of LTVs and passenger cars in terms of their design and
use (with many LTVs in the compact size range used as personal
transportation rather than for cargo). With LTVs carrying more and more
passengers, there has been a commensurate increase in fatalities. The
overall increase in LTV fatalities from 1985 to 1993 was 25 percent. In
the 1985 data from NHTSA's Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS),
there were 6,763 fatalities among occupants of LTVs: 115 in small
[[Page 38751]]
vans; 722 in large vans; 1,686 in small pickups; 3,342 in large pickups
and 898 in other LTVs. By comparison, in 1993, there were 8,487
fatalities that occurred in LTVs. The fatality distribution by LTV
vehicle category was: 576 in small vans; 545 in large vans; 2,519 in
small pickups; 3,357 in large pickups; and 1,389 in sport utility
vehicles.
c. Side Impact Safety Problem
The number of fatalities in LTV side impacts increased faster than
the overall fatality rate. In 1984, LTV side impacts resulted in 1,197
fatalities; in 1991, there were approximately 1,676 fatalities in side
crashes. NHTSA estimates 1 that, by the mid-1990's, side impacts
will result in 1,763 fatalities for LTV occupants sitting in the front
or second seat, annually. Front seat occupants will account for 1,705
of the fatalities, with occupants of the second seat accounting for 58
fatalities (less than 2 percent). Side impacts are also expected to
account for about 6,000 serious but non-fatal injuries to occupants
sitting in the front or second seat, annually. These injuries are of a
level of 3 to 5 on the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). (An AIS level is
a measurement that rates the severity of any injury. For example, a
minor injury is rated at the AIS 1 level. At the other extreme, a fatal
injury is rated at AIS 6.)
\1\ See ``Preliminary Economic Assessment, NPRM for Light
Trucks, Buses and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle Dynamic Side Impact
Protection, FMVSS No. 214'' (June 1994), accompanying the June 1994
NPRM, NHTSA Docket 88-06-N23-001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The side impact protection requirements in Standard 214 are two-
fold. The quasi-static strength requirements address intrusion-related
injuries, such as in narrow object side crashes into poles or trees
(fixed objects), by limiting the amount of intrusion. The standard's
dynamic requirements primarily address LTV occupant fatalities and
serious injuries that are likely to occur due to occupant contact
against the side interior of the struck vehicle in a two-vehicle
collision. (See Final Regulatory Impact Analysis for the rule adopting
dynamic test requirement for passenger cars, Docket number 88-06,
notice 8, DOT HS 807-641, August 1990.)
The dynamic side impact requirements address primarily chest and
pelvic injury, using dummies that are instrumented with four
accelerometers to measure accelerations in the dummy ribs and spine,
and pelvic region. The values measured in the ribs and spine are used
in determining the ``Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI(d)).'' TTI(d) is an
injury criterion that measures the risk of thoracic injury of an
occupant in a side impact. The fourth accelerometer, mounted in the
pelvic cavity, measures the potential risk for pelvic injury. To meet
Standard 214's side impact protection requirements, the TTI(d) and
pelvis measurements must be below specified maximum values.2
\2\ For the thorax, TTI(d) must not exceed 85 g for passenger
cars with four side doors, or 90 g for cars with two side doors. It
is generally more difficult for manufacturers to achieve lower
TTI(d) for two-door cars than four-door cars, given that the door on
a two-door model is typically wider than on a four-door model. For
the pelvis, peak lateral acceleration must not exceed 130 g's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA estimates that, by the mid-1990's, about 14 percent of the
1,763 LTV fatalities (i.e., 245 fatalities per year) and roughly 14
percent of the 6,000 serious (AIS 3-5) thoracic injuries (i.e., 857
injuries per year) would be due to contacts between an occupant's
chest, abdomen, back and pelvis and the struck vehicle's side interior.
The agency believes that approximately 88 percent of these fatalities
and injuries will occur in side impacts with LTVs, heavy vehicles, and
fixed objects, rather than in side impacts with passenger cars. Looking
solely at multi-vehicle side impacts between LTVs and other light
vehicles, approximately 78 percent of the LTV fatal ``torso'' injuries
are caused by other light and heavy trucks, and only 22 percent, by
passenger cars (mostly large passenger cars).
II. The NPRM
Following the ISTEA-directed ANPRM initiating rulemaking on dynamic
side impact protection for LTVs, NHTSA published the June 1994 NPRM
which set forth the proposal upon which todays rule is based. The NPRM
proposed to extend Standard 214's dynamic side impact protection
requirements to LTVs with a GVWR or 8,500 pounds or less and an
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less.
Under the proposal, all of the provisions in the standard that
currently apply to passenger cars would have been extended to LTVs, but
the test procedure would have been modified by raising the height and
weight of the moving barrier used to strike the tested vehicle. The
agency proposed this modification for several reasons. One was the
agency's tentative conclusion that ``a simple extension of Standard No.
214's dynamic side impact protection requirements to LTVs would result
in few, if any, benefits.'' The agency noted its related concern that a
simple extension ``would result in significant compliance costs without
concomitant benefits.'' Another reason was the design differences
between passenger cars and LTVs, and in the size and weight of striking
vehicles that caused the most extensive safety problems in side
crashes. The modifications were intended to make the test ``more
representative of the side impact crash conditions causing fatalities
and serious injuries in LTVs.''
Occupants of LTVs are generally seated higher than those in
passenger cars. Because of this, LTV occupants generally face a smaller
risk of side impact thoracic injury, than passenger car occupants in a
majority of side crashes (i.e., in crashes in which passenger cars are
the striking vehicles). If a passenger car (which composes the majority
of the current vehicle fleet and represents the most probable striking
vehicle) strikes another passenger car in a side impact, the striking
vehicle typically pushes the inside door panel of the struck vehicle at
a relatively high velocity directly into the thorax of an occupant
sitting next to the door. However, if a passenger car strikes an LTV in
a side impact, the primary part of the side structure that is pushed
inward is more likely to be below the thorax of an adjacent occupant,
thereby resulting in smaller injury-producing loads to the occupant's
thorax. Further, LTVs typically have higher sill and side structures
than passenger cars. Those structures limit the loads transmitted by a
passenger car directly to the door, thus reducing the door contact
velocity to the occupant.
Because of these differences, the fatality rate for occupants of
LTVs in all side impact crashes is less than half of that for passenger
cars. The LTV occupant side impact fatality rate per million registered
vehicles is 25.7, as compared to 53.3 for passenger cars.
Although NHTSA recognized in the NPRM that ``the problem of
thoracic injuries in side impacts is not so great for LTV occupants as
it is for passenger car occupants,'' the agency tentatively concluded
that side impact protection requirements should apply to LTVs in a
manner that would reduce the thorax- related fatalities and serious
chest injuries in vehicles struck in side impacts. Most of these
casualties would occur in crashes in which a vehicle other than a
passenger car is the striking vehicle. (The two types of striking
vehicles that are most likely to cause severe chest injuries in side
impacts are standard pickups and compact pickups. These vehicles cause
26 percent and 16 percent of all such injuries, respectively.) NHTSA
tentatively concluded therefore that it would be appropriate to
establish side impact protection requirements for LTVs that simulated
the type of multi-vehicle crash that causes the greatest number of
[[Page 38752]]
serious injuries to LTV occupants in side crashes. That is, the agency
believed that the barrier simulating the striking vehicle and the
simulated injury-producing event should reflect attributes of a vehicle
larger than a passenger car in terms of its weight and front end
profile.
NHTSA also noted in the NPRM that data indicated that many current
LTVs, especially the heavier ones, already meet the criteria specified
for passenger cars. NHTSA conducted two series of LTV side impact tests
similar to the dynamic Standard 214 passenger car test. In the first
test series, the agency tested seven LTVs using an MDB that was
modified to make it more representative of side crash conditions
causing fatalities and serious injuries in light trucks. The weight of
the MDB was increased to 4,000 pounds, and the height of the barrier
face was raised between 4 and 10 inches. In the second test series,
NHTSA tested three small LTVs (1991 Toyota pickup, 1991 Suzuki
Sidekick, and 1989 Dodge Ram D-50) and a fourth vehicle representative
of a small van (1989 Colt Vista-2WD), using the current dynamic test
procedure, including the 3,000 pound MDB specified in Standard 214 for
passenger cars. (The Colt Vista was a passenger car version of a
vehicle that was then marketed in a four-wheel drive version as an LTV.
The agency believes that both versions of the vehicle provide similar
side impact protection.) NHTSA believed the four represented ``at
risk'' vehicles, i.e., LTVs in the fleet that are most likely to
require modifications to meet the passenger car standard. The TTI(d)
and pelvic g's for the four vehicles were as follows: Toyota pickup-55/
53 g's; Suzuki Sidekick-54/104 g's; Dodge Ram-83/72 g's; Colt Vista-
108/69 g's (driver dummy), 111/108 g's (passenger dummy). The Toyota
and Suzuki both readily met the requirements. The Dodge marginally
passed the thoracic requirement, but readily passed the pelvic
requirement. The Colt, which is no longer sold in the United States,
failed the thoracic requirement, but readily met the pelvic
requirement.
a. Raising the Height and Weight of the Moving Deformable Barrier (MDB)
NHTSA proposed in the NPRM to set the height of the MDB within a
range of 33 inches to 45 inches, as measured from the ground to the top
edge of the barrier face. This represented an increase of up to 12
inches in MDB height as compared to the height specified for passenger
car testing (33 inches).
Within the proposed 33 inch to 45 inch range, NHTSA proposed two
alternative methods for specifying MDB height. Under the first method,
the MDB height would be raised to match the driver H-point of the
tested vehicle. This approach focused on attributes of the struck
vehicle. Unlike passenger cars, for which the seating heights are very
similar, the height of LTV seating positions vary considerably. The
agency tentatively concluded that impacting a vehicle at the driver H-
point would ensure that LTVs provide thoracic side impact protection
when they are struck in the side by another LTV at a height that allows
the side door interior to intrude inward at a relatively high velocity
toward the chest area of adjacent occupants. Thus, the struck vehicle's
side impact safety performance is evaluated at a specific height
matching the front end profile of the striking vehicle that has the
potential to cause serious chest injuries.
Under the second method, the MDB height would be at the same level
for all LTVs, or at the same level for all LTVs within a particular
sub-group, e.g., small and large pickups, vans and utility vehicles,
with different levels specified for different sub-groups. This approach
only focuses on attributes of the striking vehicles, taking into
account only the average seating heights of a group of LTVs. Since the
heights of the front ends of LTVs vary, specifying a single height that
is equally representative of all LTVs would be very difficult.
Moreover, specifying a single height raised possible practicability
concerns, since a test procedure that specifies a single MDB height
that is representative of large pickup trucks might simulate crashes in
which compact LTVs could not comply since they have much lower seating
heights than the front end heights of large pickup trucks.
NHTSA also proposed to increase the weight of the MDB for LTV
testing. As noted above, NHTSA derived the weight of the barrier for
passenger car testing from the median curb weight of passenger cars
(3,181 pounds in 1989) and light trucks (3,958 pounds in 1989). This
resulted in a weighted average of 3,423 pounds, which the agency
adjusted downward to account for the then-projected lower weight of
vehicles in the 1990's. Based on these considerations, NHTSA derived a
nominal barrier weight of 3,000 pounds.
The agency proposed to specify the MDB's weight within a range of
3,000 pounds to 3,800 pounds. The lower end of the range is the current
weight of the MDB specified for passenger car testing. The upper end of
the range is based on the average weight of striking vehicles in LTV
crashes where an LTV occupant had an AIS 3 torso injury, as
observed in 1988-91 NASS data. NHTSA did not propose an MDB weight
above 3,800 pounds because of concerns about practicability. In
particular, the agency believed that as MDB weight is increased much
above 3,600 pounds, there are increasing concerns about the feasibility
of smaller LTVs meeting the dynamic test requirements with such a
barrier.
Cognizant that it had proposed a wide range of possible
modifications to the MDB, NHTSA sought to ``facilitate more focused
comments'' with respect to the selection of a single height and weight
for the MDB. The agency narrowed the focus by stating that it believed:
That the combination of raising the MDB to a height in the
middle portion of the proposed range, e.g., seven to nine inches
above the passenger car barrier height, and increasing its weight to
3,600 pounds would be sufficient to create a dynamic event that is
representative of the ones likely to cause serious chest injuries to
occupants in the most vulnerable LTVs in real world crashes. 59 FR
at 30762.
b. Response to the NPRM
The agency received 19 comments on the NPRM. Commenters included
vehicle manufacturers (General Motors, Chrysler, Ford, Mazda, Isuzu,
Mitsubishi, Toyota, Volkswagen, Nissan and Rover Group), multistage
vehicle manufacturers (Starcraft, Flexsteel Industries, and Bornemann
Products), and consumer and industry groups (Advocates for Highway and
Auto Safety, American Automobile Manufacturers Association, Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety, National Association of Independent
Insurers, National Truck Equipment Association, and Recreation Vehicle
Industry Association).
Of all the commenters, only Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
(Advocates) and the National Association of Independent Insurers (NAII)
supported modifying the height and weight of the MDB. Advocates
suggested that the MDB weigh 3,800 pounds, have a bumper, and be
designed so that the distance from the top of the bumper to the ground
is 33 inches and the distance from the top of the barrier face to the
ground is 45 inches. Advocates said that such a barrier would represent
the weight and height of a larger LTV as the striking vehicle. NAII
said the MDB weight should be 3,400 pounds since ``the sales weighted
average curb weight of new passenger cars and LTV fleets * * * now
averages approximately 3400 pounds.''
[[Page 38753]]
The vehicle manufacturers were unanimously opposed to the NPRM, and
wanted the rulemaking either terminated or limited to a straight
extension of the passenger car side impact protection requirements. The
American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA), representing GM,
Ford and Chrysler, strongly believed the rulemaking should be
terminated. Toyota, Isuzu, and Mazda also believed the rulemaking
should be terminated. In the alternative, these commenters, together
with Volkswagen and Nissan, said that if NHTSA decided to proceed with
a final rule, it should adopt no more than the passenger car test
procedures and injury criteria.
The commenters opposing the NPRM raised several main objections:
1. Equity. Each raised an equity argument, contending that it is
unfair for NHTSA to adopt LTV side impact protection requirements based
on test conditions more severe than those used for passenger cars, when
LTV occupants currently face a smaller risk of thoracic injury in side
impacts as compared to passenger car occupants. AAMA said that NHTSA
understated the degree to which LTVs present a smaller risk of injury
when the NPRM stated that the side impact fatality rate for occupants
of LTVs in side impact crashes is slightly less than half of that for
occupants of passenger cars. NHTSA estimated that the LTV occupant side
impact fatality rate per million registered vehicles is 25.7, as
compared to 53.3 for passenger cars. AAMA stated that these rates were
based on all injuries in side impacts, while only thoracic injuries--
``the principal focus of this rulemaking''-- should be calculated. AAMA
said that NHTSA estimated in the NPRM that 245 3 of 1,763 LTV
occupant fatalities, or 13.9 percent for LTVs and 37 percent for
passenger cars, will be due to thorax injuries. According to AAMA,
\3\ In its comment, AAMA later also argues that the NPRM's
estimate of 245 annual fatalities is overstated. AAMA believed those
fatalities include accident conditions that do not relate to the
proposed test procedures, such as single vehicle accidents, medium
and heavy trucks as striking vehicles, and ejections. By excluding
these, AAMA estimates there are only 52 fatalities remaining. AAMA
also argued that NHTSA did not take into account the 58 to 82
fatalities that would be reduced from implementing Standard 214's
quasi-static test requirement for LTVs.
Applying these percentages to the aforementioned fatality rates
yields side impact fatality rates due to thoracic injuries per
million registered vehicles. For LTVs, this rate is approximately
3.6. For passenger cars, it is approximately 19.7. LTV occupants,
therefore, presently face less than one-fifth the risk of receiving
a fatal thoracic injury in a side impact compared to passenger car
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
occupants.
The vehicle manufacturers argued these data demonstrate that LTVs
are already safer than passenger cars in side impacts. Thus, these
commenters concluded, it would be unreasonable to adopt more severe
requirements for LTVs than what is required for passenger cars. AAMA
suggested that rather than promulgate a dynamic side impact requirement
for LTVs, NHTSA could utilize its resources more effectively by working
to increase seat belt usage and reduce impaired driving by LTV users.
Some commenters compared LTV occupant injuries in side impacts to
injuries in other types of crashes and questioned whether the side
impact protection of LTVs constitutes a safety problem of a magnitude
severe enough to justify the proposed rulemaking. Nissan commented that
NHTSA presented data at the 1991 Enhanced Safety Vehicle Conference
which indicated that the portion of fatalities for occupants in LTV
side impact crashes amounted to only 0.92 percent of the total LTV
occupant fatalities.
2. Unrepresentative barrier. Most of the commenters opposed to the
NPRM objected to what they regarded as the unrepresentativeness of the
proposed dynamic side impact test procedure for LTVs. Many opposed
using a barrier representing an LTV to strike vehicles being tested, on
the grounds that such a test would not be representative of a typical
real-world LTV side impact. According to several commenters, an LTV is
more likely to be struck in the side by a passenger car than by another
LTV. Nissan said that data from the National Accident Sampling System
(NASS) for 1988 through 1992 indicate that in side impacts, passenger
vehicles collide with the side of an LTV more than three times as often
as LTVs collide with other LTVs. Volkswagen (VW) and Isuzu believed
that LTVs are exposed to the same traffic environment as passenger
cars, and therefore, their exposure to side impact accidents from other
vehicles would be similar to that of passenger cars. VW stated, ``The
side impact test barrier should be representative of the accident
exposure of the target vehicle and therefore a common barrier should be
used for passenger cars as well as LTVs.'' AAMA said that NHTSA has not
provided data justifying a departure from the ``most likely striking
vehicle'' approach used in the passenger car side impact protection
requirements.
The view that a dynamic side impact test for LTVs should represent
a common real-world event was also shared by the Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety (IIHS). This commenter supported subjecting LTVs to
the same dynamic side impact test as cars. IIHS took issue with the
agency's position in the NPRM that the test procedure for LTVs should
be modified to better represent those crashes most likely to cause
serious and fatal thorax and pelvis injuries among LTV occupants. The
commenter believed NHTSA failed to indicate whether those crash
conditions represent a common real-world event.
Many commenters objected that a modified LTV test procedure would
not be representative of the type of crash most likely to result in
serious injuries and fatalities to LTV occupants. This view is contrary
to the one stated by NHTSA in the NPRM. There the agency had
tentatively concluded that, in order to address the safety problem in
side crashes of LTVs, the barrier used to simulate a striking vehicle
should be increased in height and weight to better represent striking
vehicles that are most likely to cause severe chest injuries in side
impacts, i.e., standard pickups and compact pickups. (The NPRM said
that accident data indicate that 78 percent of LTV side impact
fatalities resulting from a ``torso'' injury involved a LTV or a
heavier vehicle as the striking vehicle in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes.)
Those commenters believed that passenger cars more often cause serious
injuries and fatalities than LTVs as the striking vehicle. Nissan
stated that NHTSA presented data 4 at the 1991 Enhanced Safety
Vehicle Conference which indicated that ``serious injuries and
fatalities in cases where passenger cars strike LTV class vehicles in a
side impact scenario is on the order of six times that of LTV vehicles
impacting another LTV.'' AAMA also refers to the report mentioned in
Nissan's comment. AAMA said that the report shows that 1982-1989 NASS
files indicate there were ``only 13 cases relevant to the test
requirements proposed in the NPRM.'' (``Relevant'' means that these
cases involved side crashes to the near side, and torso injuries only.)
The commenter said that in nine of those 13 cases, a passenger car was
the striking vehicle. AAMA said it conducted a similar study of 1991-
1992 NASS files and found nine cases relevant to the NPRM. In 5 of the
9 cases, a passenger car was the striking vehicle. AAMA stated, ``If
LTV occupants typically suffer serious thoracic injuries when struck in
side impacts by vehicles other than passenger cars, then surely nine
years of NASS data would not show that passenger cars are the most
common
[[Page 38754]]
side impact striking vehicles causing serious thoracic injuries to LTV
occupants.'' AAMA also argued that a test procedure that matches the
bumper height of the MDB to the H-point of the struck vehicle is likely
to result in the MDB overriding the sill and floor structure. AAMA said
this would be inappropriate since NASS data contained only four side
impacts with sill/frame override, which accounts for only 0.03 percent
of LTV side impacts.
\4\ Partyka, S.C., ``Light Truck Side Impacts with Serious
Occupant Injury,'' ESV Report No. 91-S5-O-27.
AAMA commented that the proposed barrier configurations represented
a vehicle or group of vehicles that do not exist. AAMA said that the
proposed heights and weights for the barrier are inconsistent with
manufacturers' fleet data. ``Ford * * * data show that the average
height of Ford light truck bumpers (including vehicles up to 15,000
pounds GVWR) is only 16.6 inches from ground--only 2.1 inches higher
than Ford's average passenger car bumper. The NPRM proposes to raise
the MDB bumper as high as 25 inches above the ground.'' AAMA believed
NHTSA should have attempted to correlate the ``typical striking
vehicle'' dimensional characteristics with the average U.S. LTV fleet,
as the agency did for the MDB in the passenger car side impact
protection rulemaking.
3. Inadequate test program. Some commenters objected to the NPRM
because they believed that the proposal was based on a NHTSA test
program that was inadequate for reasons other than those relating to a
modified MDB. AAMA argued that NHTSA simply extended the impact
conditions (e.g., striking velocity of the barrier) developed for
passenger cars to LTVs without showing that those conditions are
relevant for LTV crashes. AAMA said that NHTSA based its conclusions
about the side impact performance of the entire LTV fleet on a test
program that did not represent the LTV fleet. ``None of the vehicles
tested were equipped with side door beams, which could have a
significant effect on test results.'' Also, AAMA said the test program
did not account for the complexity and variability of LTVs as a group.
For example, AAMA stated, ``(t)he agency did not test extended cab
pickups which are structurally different than regular cab pickups, nor
the right side of a van which is structurally different than the left
side of a van.''
AAMA raised concerns about the agency's tentative conclusions in
the NPRM about the effectiveness of padding and structural
modifications as countermeasures. While NHTSA has shown that three
inches of padding can improve the performance of vehicles in providing
side impact protection, AAMA cautioned that three inches of padding is
an unrealistic countermeasure for LTVs. The commenter believed that
trucks with three front seating positions and three inches of interior
padding would not be possible if customer seating preferences are to be
met. AAMA also stated that the high compression foam used to develop
effectiveness levels may reduce the SID accelerations, but may cause an
increase in real-world side impact injuries, especially for elderly
occupants.
III. Agency Decision
a. Extending the Passenger Car Requirements
NHTSA has decided that it should limit its final action in this
rulemaking to a straight extension of the passenger car requirements to
LTVs. The agency views a straight extension to be a reasonable starting
point for establishing side impact protection for LTVs. While the
agency recognizes that a straight extension of the side impact
protection requirements for passenger cars to LTVs would provide few
benefits when estimated on the basis of historical accident data, it
would prevent any future LTVs being introduced into the market that are
inferior in side crash safety performance to passenger cars. A modified
test procedure for LTVs is not being adopted at this time because of
concerns that NHTSA has about the proposal in light of the public
comments. These issues are discussed below.
As noted earlier, some commenters said that the agency's
information regarding LTV side impact protection is limited because
none of the LTVs tested by NHTSA were equipped with side door beams.
Manufacturers are likely to equip all LTVs with side door beams to meet
Standard 214's quasi-static requirements, which become effective
beginning with MY 1995. These requirements address primarily single
vehicle impacts, such as impacts with poles and trees.
NHTSA does not know what effect side door beams may have on the
performance of LTVs in vehicle-to-vehicle side impacts, especially if
the striking vehicle were high enough to override the door sill of the
struck LTV. The beam and its supporting structures can change how crash
forces are directed at or away from the vehicle occupant in a vehicle-
to-vehicle crash. Accordingly, the agency is concerned that past
accident data of LTVs without door beams may not accurately indicate
the real-world side impact performance of LTVS with beams in vehicle-
to- vehicle crashes.
Another concern relates to the feasibility of the countermeasures
that could be used in LTVs to reduce the TTI(d), if a modified MDB were
adopted. In the preliminary regulatory evaluation (PRE) for the NPRM,
NHTSA stated that padding has been demonstrated to be an effective
countermeasure for reducing TTI(d) and pelvic g's for LTVs. NHTSA's
countermeasure tests evaluated padding material that was used to assess
countermeasure effectiveness for passenger cars. Yet the PRE recognized
that structural modifications to the vehicle might be needed in
addition to padding, depending on the chosen compliance option (page
VI-I). Since the fatalities and serious injuries that are occurring in
LTVs are caused by the heavier and higher profile vehicles, if an MDB
were used to represent these vehicles, the type of padding
countermeasures developed for cars may not be sufficient, by
themselves, for LTV crashes of such severity. It is further noted that
in the second seat of vans, there typically is no door on the left
side, and thus no structural side supports adjacent to that side of the
second seat. There also appears to be limited side wall space for
padding in that area. Further, the agency's cost estimates of
countermeasures and modifications were based on extrapolation from
passenger car data, which may or may not be valid.
Some commenters stated that the agency failed to show that the
proposed test procedure duplicated the real world in terms of impact
direction and speed. The agency analyzed the accident data that are
available to determine accident conditions of LTV crashes. While the
NPRM contained broad ranges for impact height and weight of the MDB,
the agency concluded that the impact conditions based on the current
data are within these ranges. Therefore, the agency rejects these
comments.
By extending Standard 214's passenger car requirements to LTVs,
NHTSA is ensuring that the subject future LTVs will provide side impact
protection under the same crash conditions under which passenger cars
provide such protection. Both passenger cars and LTVs are operated in
the same environment and thus have the same exposure to striking
vehicles. NHTSA is requiring that LTVs provide a minimum level of side
impact protection when struck by the type of vehicle most likely to
strike LTVs in all side impacts. NHTSA has determined that this
approach, based on overall exposure rather than cause of fatality or
serious injury, is appropriate, given the information currently
available. This
[[Page 38755]]
rule will ensure that future LTVs offer a minimum level of side crash
protection.
The agency recognizes there is widespread compliance by today's
LTVs with the dynamic performance requirements when tested according to
Standard 214 for passenger cars. In past regulatory proceedings
involving issues on which there is widespread compliance, the agency
has generally concluded that there is no compelling safety need for it
to act since vehicle manufacturers are already providing the requisite
safety performance in the absence of a Federal requirement. In those
circumstances, NHTSA has frequently determined that rulemaking would
impose a burden on the agency by requiring it to develop appropriate
requirements, conduct a rulemaking proceeding, and use some of its
enforcement budget to monitor compliance. Such rules would also impose
certification and additional paperwork burdens on the manufacturers.
Those burdens would be imposed without a commensurate safety benefit
for the public, and would therefore represent unnecessary burdens.
On other occasions, however, the agency has proceeded with
rulemaking to assure that there is no retreat from the existing level
of safety. For example, NHTSA issued a final rule requiring
installation of lap/shoulder belt systems in the rear seats of cars,
although almost all models were already voluntarily slated to be so
equipped within a few years of the rule.
NHTSA concludes it is similarly appropriate to extend Standard 214
to LTVs, to ensure that future LTVs subject to the standard provide
protection under the same crash conditions as passenger cars. The
dynamic side impact protection represented by the standard is important
for occupant safety in the future, if LTVs under 6,000 pounds GVWR make
up the bulk of the LTV fleet population, as is expected. The fleet
populations of small (i.e., compact) vans (minivans) and utility
vehicles are growing at an appreciable rate, and additional
manufacturers are entering these segments of the market. In the absence
of a federal standard, NHTSA cannot assure the public that the current
level of protection will be continued in the future. Also, it appears
that, in the future, the growth rate of small LTVs will be much higher
than that of large LTVs. NHTSA estimates that the small LTVs may
constitute 60 percent of the total LTV population in 1997 and beyond.
While large pickups and vans meet the injury criteria of this rule
without any modifications, NHTSA believes some small and medium LTVs
may not do so and others may only marginally meet the performance
criteria. As the agency noted above, its test data show that the Dodge
Ram D-50, with a GVWR of approximately 4,900 pounds (a medium size),
met the thoracic requirement only marginally. Some LTVs smaller than
the Dodge Ram D-50 may not be able to meet the requirements, and may
need improvements to ensure that they meet the requirements in the
standard.
As LTVs continue to grow in popularity and sales, NHTSA believes it
is important to ensure that all such vehicles meet at least the minimum
requirements specified in Standard 214. Moreover, NHTSA believes it is
important to ensure that any new entrants to the LTV market will follow
the lead of their competitors in meeting the dynamic side impact
protection requirements. The agency therefore concludes that today's
rule will ensure a minimum safety performance in all LTVs subject to
the standard.
Also, the agency has had a longstanding policy to have equivalent
safety standards for cars and LTVs. Earlier in this document, recent
actions to implement this policy were noted. The agency sees no
compelling reason to deviate from this policy in this instance, given
the information currently available.
The agency notes that a number of commenters suggested that NHTSA
terminate this rulemaking, as permitted by ISTEA. They argued that the
safety problem in LTVs is minor and therefore a termination would be
consistent with the provision in ISTEA permitting the agency to
``complete'' rulemaking on side impact protection for LTVs by deciding
``not to promulgate a rule.'' As discussed above, the agency disagrees
that a termination is warranted. This rule ensures that all future LTVs
subject to the standard offer a minimum level of side crash protection,
and that occupants of cars and LTVs are assured of protection in the
same crashes.
At the same time, the agency is sensitive to the issue of
unnecessary regulatory burdens. As a result and because of the
relatively superior safety performance of the larger LTVs and their
more limited use as passenger-carrying vehicles, NHTSA is limiting the
rule to LTVs with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less. At the time of the
NPRM, the agency had reservations about proceeding with a straight
extension in the absence of benefits, especially in view of the belief
that a straight extension would impose ``significant compliance
costs.'' These costs were estimated based on an extension of all LTVs
up to 8,500 pounds GVWR. However, since this rule is limited to
vehicles at or under 6,000 pounds GVWR, fewer vehicles will have to be
tested. NHTSA estimates that compliance costs will be reduced by about
15 percent due to the GVWR limit, and that they will not be
significant.
NHTSA notes that possible future upgrades of side impact protection
for both passenger cars and LTVs will be an integral part of the
agency's research and development project relating to side impact
protection. This project will analyze the entire light vehicle side
impact problem that will remain after all vehicles with a GVWR of 6,000
pounds or less meet the existing dynamic side impact requirements of
Standard 214. The agency will be considering what performance
requirement upgrades should be made to all these vehicles, based on
problem analysis and appropriate physical vehicle parameters.
b. Related Requirements
As discussed earlier in this notice, commenters raised a number of
issues relating to the NPRM's proposal to adopt a modified MDB for LTV
side impact protection requirements. In addition to the issues to which
the agency has responded above, issues were also raised concerning the
estimated costs and benefits attributable to side impact protection
requirements incorporating a modified MDB; and the effectiveness of
padding as a countermeasure in tests using a modified MDB. Since the
agency has decided not to adopt a modified MDB at this time, these
issues are moot.
Several commenters suggested that recent NASS data indicate that
the vehicle most likely to cause serious injury or death to an LTV
occupant is a passenger car. Those comments were provided in opposition
to a modified MDB, and are also moot.
The remaining issues raised by the commenters are discussed in the
next section.
1. Vehicles Covered by This Rule
This rule applies to LTVs with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less.
However, it does not apply to any LTVs in that weight range that are
walk-in vans, motor homes, tow trucks, dump trucks, ambulances and
other emergency rescue/medical vehicles (including vehicles with fire-
fighting equipment), and vehicles equipped with wheelchair lifts.
The 6,000 pound GVWR limit differs from that mentioned in ISTEA. As
[[Page 38756]]
indicated above, ISTEA required the agency to address the possible
extension of Standard No. 214's dynamic side impact requirements for
passenger cars to LTVs with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less. Having chosen the
barrier currently specified for passenger cars, the agency believes
that it is appropriate to limit the application of the rule to vehicles
with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less. That barrier represents side
crashes in which occupants of the heavier LTVs are relatively unlikely
to suffer death or serious injury. Further, LTVs with GVWRs over 6,000
pounds should easily meet the dynamic requirements adopted today
without any modification. NHTSA conducted several side impact tests of
production LTVs. Analysis of these data show that the performance of
the vehicles in producing TTI(d) values has an inverse relationship to
the curb weight of the test vehicle. Vehicles with a curb weight of
over 3,800 pounds produced TTI(d) values below 50 g's. Since curb
weight of 4,000 pounds is approximately equivalent to a GVWR of about
6,000 pounds, NHTSA concluded that vehicles with a GVWR of more than
6,000 pounds would meet the TTI(d) performance requirement of 85 g's
with a large margin of safety (i.e., at least 30 to 35 g's below the
specified performance requirement). In the interest of reducing
unnecessary regulatory burdens associated with certifying vehicles to
the FMVSSs, NHTSA has not applied this rule to large (over 6,000 pounds
GVWR) LTVs.
Vehicles manufactured in more than one stage; altered vehicles.
Limiting the application of this rule to LTVs with a GVWR of 6,000
pounds or less excludes a substantial number of vehicles produced by
businesses involved in manufacturing vehicles in more than one stage,
and in converting, or altering, LTVs (e.g., van converters). Many of
these are small businesses. Final-stage manufacturers typically install
truck bodies and/or work-related equipment on chassis. Alterers modify
the structure of new, completed vehicles. Under NHTSA's regulations, a
final-stage manufacturer must certify that the completed vehicle
conforms to all applicable safety standards, and alterers must certify
that the altered vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety
standards.
The GVWR limit of 6,000 pounds or less is the same one that is used
in Standard 216, ``Roof Crush Resistance'' (49 CFR section 571.216).
Standard 216 prescribes static roof strength requirements for LTVs to
increase the resistance of the roof to crush and intrusion. The
standard originally applied to passenger cars, and was extended to LTVs
in a 1991 final rule. In a comment on the rule, NTEA indicated that
commercial LTVs produced from incomplete chassis generally have a GVWR
above 6,000 pounds. Due to the agency's need to further examine the
feasibility of applying the standard to LTVs with higher GVWRs, NHTSA
limited the standard to LTVs with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less.
NHTSA is not aware that a significant number of vehicles produced
by final-stage manufacturers and alterers have GVWRs below 6,000
pounds. No commenter provided information showing the existence or
estimate of the population of multistage manufacturers or alterers of
vehicles in that weight class. To the extent they exist, the means that
these final-stage manufacturers and alterers will use in certifying
compliance with the dynamic side impact requirements of Standard 214
will not differ significantly from the means they already use to
certify compliance with other requirements, such as Standard 214's
quasi-static side door strength requirements and Standard 208's
automatic crash protection requirements. Those means are briefly
described below.
First, a final-stage manufacturer could complete the vehicle within
the limits set by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer for assuring
continued compliance. This is the simplest course of action that a
final-stage manufacturer can take to ensure that its completed vehicle
performs safely. NHTSA's certification regulations require
manufacturers of incomplete vehicles (chassis) used by final-stage
manufacturers to provide information regarding the limitations on the
center of gravity, weight, and other attributes that must be observed
by a final-stage manufacturer in completing a vehicle if that
manufacturer is to avoid affecting the vehicle's compliance with
applicable safety standards. When the final-stage manufacturer observes
the limits set by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, it may certify
the vehicle on that basis. An alterer could modify a certified vehicle
in a way that does not affect the vehicle's compliance with FMVSS 214,
such as by refraining from weakening the side structure of the
vehicles.
Second, a final-stage manufacturer could choose not to remain
within the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's limits for a chassis, or
an alterer could affect a vehicle's compliance with the FMVSSs, if the
final-stage manufacturer or alterer took steps sufficient to enable it
to certify, with due care, that the completed vehicle complied with
applicable safety standards, including Standard 214. Final-stage
manufacturers that build their own body structures are generally larger
than most final-stage manufacturers, and have greater engineering and
testing expertise. Also, final-stage manufacturers can band together to
sponsor testing and/or engineering analysis. Similarly, an alterer
could conduct or sponsor testing and/or engineering analyses showing
that the vehicle, as altered, complies with Standard 214.
Issues relating to LTVs produced in more than one stage or altered
were commented on by five parties involved in the multistage
manufacture or conversion of LTVs. They included the National Truck
Equipment Association (NTEA), the Recreation Vehicle Industry
Association (RVIA), two seat suppliers to multistage manufacturers and
alterers (Flexsteel Industries and Bornemann Products), and an alterer
of completed LTVs (Starcraft Automotive Corporation.)
These commenters expressed reservations concerning the first
approach discussed in the NPRM, i.e., that a final-stage manufacturer
could stay within the limits set by the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer, and that an alterer could alter the vehicle in conformity
with the manufacturer's body builder's guide so as not to disturb the
vehicle's compliance with Standard 214. NTEA, representing multistage
manufacturers and distributors of work-related trucks, truck bodies and
equipment, said that, as a result of a dynamic side impact requirement
for LTVs, incomplete vehicle manufacturers might restrict final-stage
manufacturers from making any modification to the side door structure
of their vehicles. The commenter believed such a restriction would
preclude final-stage manufacturers from widening or lengthening doors,
and would thus preclude them from producing vehicles that need large
doors for accessibility purposes, such as ambulances, vehicles for
handicapped persons, or specialty delivery vehicles.
NHTSA has previously considered assertions that incomplete vehicle
manufacturers would establish unreasonably stringent limitations on
their vehicles. In the rules establishing dynamic testing requirements
for manual safety belts in LTVs under Standard 208 (53 FR 50221;
December 14, 1988) and extending Standard 204's steering column
rearward displacement limitations to additional LTVs (54 FR 24344; June
7, 1989), NHTSA noted that
[[Page 38757]]
it did not believe that any incomplete vehicle manufacturer would, as a
practical matter, establish unreasonably stringent limitations for its
incomplete vehicles. If any incomplete vehicle manufacturer were to do
so, final stage manufacturers would purchase their incomplete vehicles
from other manufacturers that had established more realistic
limitations.
The agency's belief that market forces will prevent incomplete
vehicle manufacturers from establishing unreasonably stringent
limitations seems to have been correct. No manufacturer has provided
NHTSA with any evidence that overly stringent limitations have been or
will be imposed on incomplete vehicles subject to any of the existing
crash testing requirements. Thus, NHTSA does not find persuasive NTEA's
suggestion that unreasonably stringent limitations will be imposed on
the completion of incomplete vehicles as a result of extending Standard
214's dynamic test requirements to LTVs.
In any event, NHTSA believes the 6,000 pound GVWR threshold for
this rule excludes most, if not all, LTVs produced by final-stage
manufacturers and thus alleviates many of NTEA's concerns about the
impacts of this rule. Moreover, this rule addresses some of NTEA's
concerns by excluding walk-in vans, motor homes, tow trucks, dump
trucks, ambulances and other emergency rescue/medical vehicles
(including vehicles with fire-fighting equipment), and vehicles
equipped with wheelchair lifts. These categories of vehicles are
excluded because many vehicles within these categories tend to have
unusual side structures that are not suitable for MDB testing (for
example, since some of these excluded vehicles have a body much wider
than their cabs, the MDB cannot hit the driver's door without first
striking the body. The rule differs from the NPRM in adding ``other
emergency rescue/medical vehicles'' and vehicles equipped with a
wheelchair lift, to the list of excluded vehicles. Emergency rescue/
medical vehicles typically have unusual side structures and are thus
excluded for the same reason that the other vehicles are excluded.
Vehicles equipped with a wheelchair lift are excluded because such
vehicles typically have features such as a lowered floor (some are
lowered as much as 10 inches), raised roof, movable seat bases and/or
specially designed removable seats, in addition to the lift itself,
that could raise practicability problems with regard to the ability of
the vehicle to meet the dynamic side impact requirements. While NHTSA
believes that all individuals are entitled to an equivalent level of
occupant crash protection, the agency also believes that the goal of
providing equivalent crash protection should not be achieved at the
expense of the goal of providing mobility to the physically challenged.
This rule excludes vehicles equipped with wheelchair lifts because
those vehicles have unique features which, while improving
accessibility, make it difficult for the vehicle to meet these
requirements. Without the exclusion, these vehicles might not be
produced.
As to LTVs that have not been excluded, if a final-stage
manufacturer or alterer does not stay within the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer's limits or alters the vehicle in a way that could affect
its conformance to side impact protection requirements, the
manufacturer or alterer will have the responsibility of determining
what must be done to certify that the vehicle provides the requisite
safety performance. Those manufacturers already certify to the dynamic
crash test requirements of Standards 208 (``Occupant Crash
Protection''), 212 (``Windshield Mounting''), 219 (``Windshield Zone
Intrusion'') and 301 (``Fuel System Integrity''), and the quasi-static
requirements of Standard 214 and 216, among others. Under the statute,
each manufacturer must certify its vehicles, but the statute does not
require any manufacturer to crash test or undertake any particular
evaluation of its vehicles to make its certification. If crash testing
its vehicles is too burdensome for a final-stage manufacturer, it could
certify its vehicles using similar means to those it now uses to
certify to other standards with dynamic testing requirements, including
appropriate engineering analyses.
The NPRM stated that, if a final-stage manufacturer does not stay
within the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's limits or if an alterer
alters the vehicle in a way that could affect the LTV's conformance to
side impact protection requirements, the final-stage manufacturer or
alterer can band together with other manufacturers and alterers to
sponsor testing and/or engineering analysis to show that a vehicle type
common to all complies with the dynamic side impact requirements. This
is similar to what is done to enable multistage manufacturers and
alterers to certify to the dynamic testing requirements of FMVSS 208,
``Occupant Crash Protection.'' In response, RVIA said that while most
manufacturers engaged in vehicle conversions certify to the automatic
crash protection requirements of Standard 208 by means of ``engineering
analysis,'' using data from seating component suppliers and incomplete
vehicle manufacturers, RVIA argued that engineering analysis would not
be an alternative to full scale crash testing in the case of Standard
214. RVIA stated this is because
[a]dequate simulation of dummy accelerations resulting from side
intrusion contact with interior components, padding and/or seating
components cannot be performed. Full scale impact testing would
therefore be required to be performed on each side of each different
vehicle/seating system configuration.
Similarly, Flexsteel Industries said that
* * * the dynamic side impact requirements of FMVSS 214 on vans
and pickups could well create a larger problem to verify continued
vehicle compliance than that experienced for FMVSS 208. Unlike the
FMVSS 208 requirement where sled testing could be used to make
comparative tests of Flexsteel seating to factory seating, the
proposed side impact test is an intrusive test and both sides of new
vans and pickups may have to be tested.
NHTSA does not agree that engineering analysis is not useful in
assessing a vehicle's compliance with Standard 214. Manufacturers have
computer simulations, component and sled tests using body shells, and
analyses at their disposal to aid in assessing the capability of a
vehicle to meet the requirements under Standard 214. These methods are
considerably less expensive than crash testing. With respect to the
opportunity to use these alternative methods for assessing compliance,
Standard 214 is not any different from Standard 208. Sled tests
simulating side crash tests can be performed in the same manner as in
FMVSS 208. Similarly, component test data from crushing vehicle doors,
seat structures, and other lateral components along with dummy body
block data could be used in developing mathematical models and computer
simulations to analyze safety performance of vehicle designs. This
would enable RVIA, Flexsteel and other companies to determine the
capability of their vehicle designs in meeting the requirements in
FMVSS 214. Further, NHTSA believes that alterers should assure that
they are producing vehicles that are equal to their original
counterparts. Therefore, alterers must certify their vehicles to the
requirements in FMVSS 214 by any available means.
Other Issues
Vehicles with work-performing equipment. NTEA suggested that NHTSA
should exclude vehicles outfitted with a cargo or property carrying
body, or work performing
[[Page 38758]]
equipment. The agency is not adopting this suggestion because the
agency believes references to ``cargo or property carrying body'' are
overly broad. For instance, they would exclude, inappropriately, pickup
trucks. NHTSA further notes that most, if not all, multistage vehicles
equipped with work performing equipment are excluded as a result of
either the 6,000 pound weight threshold for the applicability of the
rule, or the exclusion of vehicles such as dump trucks, tow trucks and
emergency response/medical vehicles from the rule's coverage.
RVIA, NTEA and Starcraft Automotive urged NHTSA to exclude ``second
stage manufacturers'' of LTVs from any dynamic side impact protection
requirement. In NHTSA's view, the statute does not permit such an
exclusion. While the agency must ``consider whether any * * * proposed
standard is reasonable, practicable and appropriate for the particular
type of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which it is
prescribed,'' (49 U.S.C. Sec. 30111(b)(3), formerly section 103(f)(3)
of the Vehicle Safety Act), the agency's authority to establish
different standards for different classes of vehicles is not without
limit. The legislative history of the Vehicle Safety Act reveals that
the consequence of section 30111(b)(3) is that any differences between
standards for different classes of vehicles ``of course [are to] be
based on the type of vehicle rather than its place of origin or any
special circumstances of its manufacturer.'' S. Rept. 1301, 2 U.S.
Code, Cong. & Admin. News, 2714 (1966), cited in Chrysler Corp. v.
Dept. of Transportation, 472 F.2d 659, 679 (6th Cir. 1972). Under that
decision, NHTSA may not exclude vehicles from Standard 214 simply
because they are manufactured in two or more stages. Further, NHTSA is
not authorized when establishing safety standards to differentiate
between manufacturers on the basis of their size or financial
resources.
Strong policy reasons underlie Congress' refusal to differentiate
between vehicles on the basis of the manufacturers' ``special
circumstances.'' A motor vehicle is an inherently dangerous instrument,
composed of multiple components that must function together smoothly
and safely. To protect unsuspecting members of the public from exposure
to unreasonable risks posed by unsafe vehicles, there is good reason to
require that every vehicle of a given type to meet all ``minimum
performance standards'' that are prescribed for vehicles of its type.
Moreover, the statute does not authorize NHTSA to grant permanent
exemptions from safety standards to small manufacturers who otherwise
would be covered by those standards. See Nader v. Volpe, 475 F.2d 916,
918 (D.C. Cir. 1973). While Nader involved a single manufacturer that
sought to be permanently exempted from safety standards, its reasoning
applies equally to classes of manufacturers that seek such exemptions.
Although the Safety Act was amended after the Nader decision to permit
small manufacturers to seek temporary exemptions from safety standards
if they can demonstrate that compliance with the standard would cause
them ``substantial economic hardship'' and that they have made a good
faith effort to comply (49 U.S.C. Sec. 30113, formerly section 123 of
the Vehicle Safety Act), Congress has severely restricted the agency's
authority to grant such exemptions to very narrow, limited
circumstances. These commenters are in effect seeking a permanent
exemption from Standard 214 that the statute does not permit.
NHTSA acknowledges that National Truck Equipment Association v.
NHTSA, 919 F.2d 1148 (6th Cir. 1990), suggests that NHTSA has
authority, somewhere within its enabling statute, to exclude commercial
vehicles manufactured in two or more stages from coverage under a
safety standard. However, even an expansive reading of that case would
not justify an exclusion of all multistage vehicles from the coverage
of the standard.
Compliance using engineering analysis. Bornemann Products asked
NHTSA to consider issuing a rule specifying that NHTSA will determine
whether an LTV complies with a dynamic side impact requirement based on
means other than an actual dynamic test, such as by way of engineering
analysis. As a matter of policy, NHTSA seeks in developing and
implementing its safety standards to use test procedures that not only
determine compliance but also are as predictive of safety performance
in the real world as practicable. Since dynamic crash tests are more
predictive of such performance than engineering analysis, the agency
uses them where practicable in developing compliance test procedures.
While engineering analysis may be adequate for design of the
average vehicle, it may not be sufficient for the agency's purposes to
determine the safety performance of a vehicle, with respect to all
vehicle models. For example, in a particular case, the analysis may not
properly account for all of the relevant crash variables and the
individual interrelationship that exists between those variables.
However, NHTSA acknowledges that manufacturers may use analytical
methods to establish due care, especially if the manufacturers have
limited financial resources.
2. Vehicles Manufactured Without Doors
In addition to the excluded vehicles described in the preceding
section, this rule also excludes vehicles that have no doors or
exclusively have doors that are designed to be easily attached or
removed so that the vehicle can be operated without doors. The proposed
exclusion was based on practicability concerns. Advocates objected to
the proposed exclusion on the basis that it allows the design and sale
of vehicles with an ``inherently dangerous design.''
In response, the agency notes that requiring these vehicles to meet
Standard 214 would necessitate changes in their design which would
adversely affect the utility and original purpose for which these
vehicles were introduced. Accordingly, the agency does not consider the
standard reasonable, practicable and appropriate for these vehicles.
3. Impact Reference Line
This rule makes a slight change to the provision in the NPRM on
specifying the impact reference line (IRL) (S6.11) for the moving
deformable barrier. The IRL is located on the target test vehicle to
determine where the MDB must first contact the target vehicle in the
dynamic test. It determines the distance of the vertical line of first
MDB contact from the center of the wheelbase of the struck vehicle, and
provides the relative position of the test dummy in the front seat of
the target vehicle with respect to the striking MDB at the time of
impact. For a left side impact, the left forward edge (corner) of the
MDB must be aligned so that, when the MDB strikes the test vehicle, a
longitudinal plane tangent to the left forward edge of the MDB passes
through the IRL within a tolerance of 2 inches. As
explained in the NPRM, the specified impact reference line for
passenger cars is generally 37 inches forward of the center line of the
wheelbase of the struck vehicle. However, for cars with wheelbases
greater than 114 inches, the impact reference line is 20 inches behind
the center line of the front axle. This ensures that the impact point
for cars with very long wheelbases is not so far toward the rear of the
car that the front seat dummy does not experience a full impact. The
agency proposed, with one exception, the same impact reference line for
LTVs. To ensure that
[[Page 38759]]
the impact line is not too far forward for LTVs with very short
wheelbases, the agency proposed that for LTVs with wheelbases of 98
inches or less, the impact reference line would be 12 inches rearward
of the vehicle's front axle centerline. This would ensure that the MDB
would not likely bridge across the front and rear axles in short
wheelbase LTVs.
The NPRM noted that GM expressed a concern that specification of
impact point based on wheelbase could result in different test results
for different wheelbase versions of the same model LTV. Manufacturers
sometimes offer the same LTV with several different wheelbases. Basing
the impact point on a vehicle's wheelbase would result in the point of
first contact of the barrier, in two structurally identical LTV's,
being at two different locations. The NPRM requested comments on
whether the specified impact reference line should be adjusted to
eliminate this possibility, such as by specifying the impact reference
line based on driver H-point instead of wheelbase.
In commenting on the NPRM, GM iterated its concern that the same
model vehicle would be tested under two different sets of test
conditions. GM said its regular cab S/T pickup with a standard length
bed has a wheelbase of 108.3 inches, while the S/T pickup with a
regular cab and long bed has a wheelbase of over 114 inches. The
commenter stated, ``According to the proposed procedure, the MDB would
strike these two versions of the same truck at locations which differ
by nearly three inches.'' Rover said the vehicle manufacturer should be
able to choose to impact all ``structurally identical LTVs with
different wheelbases'' at the same point provided that ``the point
chosen was that specified in the standard for one of the range of
wheelbases.''
After reviewing these comments, NHTSA has decided to specify the
impact reference line in the following manner. For vehicles with a
wheelbase of 98 inches or less, or greater than 114 inches, the impact
reference line will generally be placed at the locations proposed in
the NPRM. That is, for LTVs with a wheelbase of 98 inches or less, the
impact reference line is 12 inches behind the vehicle's front axle, to
ensure that the MDB is not so forward as to impact the front wheel, or
bridge between the front and rear axles in a very short wheelbase
vehicle. (NHTSA has adopted this provision for LTVs with wheelbases of
98 inches or less, and not for passenger cars, because to the agency's
knowledge, there are very few passenger cars with such short wheelbases
compared to LTVs sold in this country.) Similar to the specification in
the standard for locating the impact reference line for passenger cars,
for LTVs with wheelbases greater than 114 inches, the impact reference
line generally is 20 inches behind the vehicle's front axle center
line, to ensure that the impact point for vehicles with very long
wheelbases is not so far to the rear of the vehicle that the front seat
dummy does not experience a full impact.
For vehicles with a wheelbase of greater than 98 inches but not
greater than 114 inches, the impact reference line will generally be 37
inches forward of the center of the vehicle's wheelbase, similar to the
specification for passenger cars. However, in response to GM's and
Rover's comments, this rule provides manufacturers producing two or
more different versions of the same model vehicle the option of
determining the impact reference line based on the vehicle with the
shortest wheelbase of the different versions of the model.
NHTSA has selected this optional procedure because it reduces test
burdens on manufacturers producing compact and ``stretch'' versions of
a vehicle model, without compromising safety. The procedure does not
alter the relative longitudinal position between the dummy and the MDB,
thus ensuring that the dummy will be loaded by the barrier in the same
manner in a test. While wheelbases for different versions of the same
LTV model could differ, the difference in length is generally in the
rear part of the vehicle, with the front axle to the front seating
reference point (SgRP) distance remaining essentially the same. That
is, the ``stretching'' resulting in a longer wheelbase version of a
vehicle is rearward of the front seat. Thus, the relative distance
between the front axle and the dummy is constant in different versions
of the same LTV model irrespective of their differences in the location
of the center of their wheelbase. Since the SgRP is located in
virtually the same position in all versions of a specific vehicle
model, the different versions are likely to perform virtually
identically in Standard 214's dynamic test, if the distance between the
barrier impact reference line and the dummy is maintained in the
different versions. That knowledge would be helpful to manufacturers in
certifying different versions of a model.
The procedure bases the IRL to SgRP distance on the vehicle with
the shortest wheelbase, as opposed to a longer wheelbase, because using
the shortest wheelbase ensures that the engagement of the side
structure with the barrier is consistent across all versions of the
same model. If a vehicle with a longer wheelbase were used as the
``base'' vehicle, the procedure could result in the barrier hitting a
tire on a vehicle with a very short wheelbase, which would interfere
with the interaction of the MDB and the side structure of the vehicle
tested.
Under the optional procedure, the distance between the IRL that is
a certain distance forward of the center of the vehicle's wheelbase
(i.e., the vehicle with the shortest wheelbase, if there are several
versions of the same model) or rearward of the front axle, as the case
may be, and the SgRP of the vehicle, is used to determine the impact
reference line for all other versions of the same model vehicle, even
those with a wheelbase over 114 inches when it is a stretch version of
a specific model. The distance between the SgRP and the IRL on the
vehicle with the shortest wheelbase will be the same for all other
versions of the same model.
Stated differently, NHTSA will place the IRL on a test vehicle of a
specific model at the same distance from the SgRP that the IRL is from
the SgRP on the model with the shortest wheelbase. When several
versions of the same model have wheelbases ranging from 98 inches or
less to more than 98 inches, the IRL will be placed 12 inches behind
the centerline of the front axle of the vehicle with the shortest
wheelbase. When the shortest version of a model has a wheelbase greater
than 98 inches but not greater than 114 inches, the IRL will be placed
37 inches forward of the center of the vehicle's wheelbase (i.e., the
vehicle with the shortest wheelbase, if there are several versions of
the same model). When the shortest version of a model has a wheelbase
greater than 114 inches, the IRL will be placed 20 inches rearward of
the shortest vehicle's front axle. In all cases, after the location of
the IRL is determined, the longitudinal distance from this reference
line to the front SgRP is also determined. For tests of all other
versions of the LTV model being tested, the IRL is located such that
the distance between the IRL and the SgRP will be maintained.
4. Rear Seat
The NPRM requested comments on whether an LTV side impact
protection requirement should apply to the front and rear seats of LTVs
(as is the case for passenger cars), or whether they should apply to
the front seats only of these vehicles. The preliminary economic
assessment for the NPRM estimated that, for the rear seat, the target
population consisted of eight fatalities and 17 to 20 AIS 3+ injuries.
Because of the projected growth in LTV
[[Page 38760]]
registrations, the agency has now estimated that the target population
for the rear seats may increase to 20-26 fatalities and 40-55 serious
injuries, in the long run. The National Association of Independent
Insurers (NAII) supported applying a dynamic side impact requirement to
``back doors'' as a means of increasing the safety to children riding
in the passenger areas of mini-vans and sport-utility vehicles. The
commenter said it is surprised by the ``unexpectedly low safety
payoff'' estimated by NHTSA. Advocates acknowledged that the agency's
estimates raise the possibility that applying a dynamic requirement to
rear seats could create an unnecessary cost burden for manufacturers.
However, the commenter argued that NHTSA could have underestimated how
many small LTVs are used as passenger carrying vehicles.
This rule applies the dynamic side impact requirements to both the
front and rear seats of LTVs. The agency believes this is reasonable,
since it will make the requirements for passenger cars and LTVs as
similar as possible. Also, a rear seat requirement will not impose
significant burdens on manufacturers, since currently all LTVs would
probably meet the requirement with little or no change. Most
importantly, NHTSA adopted the rear seat requirement because trends in
LTV registrations and occupancy data indicate that rear seats on LTVs
are likely to be occupied more in the future, compared to the past
twenty years. As more and more LTVs are used for family transportation,
children are increasingly transported in these seats. In fact,
comparing 1981-1986 NASS data for towaway crashes to 1988-1993 data,
the ratio of rear to front seating of minors in LTVs has doubled from
0.2 to 0.4, while only slightly increasing from 0.5 to 0.6 for
passenger cars.
5. Upgrading Other Aspects of the Standard
NHTSA received two comments suggesting that the agency should
consider upgrading aspects of Standard 214 aside from modifications to
the MDB. Advocates supported modifying the MDB to increase its height
and weight, but also urged NHTSA to lower allowable TTI(d) to 80 (from
85) and pelvic g to 90 (from 130).
This rule does not adopt lower limits on the TTI(d) and pelvic g
performance criteria specified in Standard 214. The agency gave no
suggestion in the NPRM that NHTSA would change the performance
criteria, and thus there was no notice for the suggested amendments.
IIHS, while supporting extending the passenger car requirements to
LTVs (this commenter was opposed to a modified MDB for LTVs), urged
NHTSA to ``seriously review ways to upgrade this standard for all
passenger vehicles.'' The commenter was concerned that the rulemaking
signaled that NHTSA is satisfied with the passenger car requirements of
Standard 214, and that the research needed to upgrade the standard does
not have a sufficient priority within the agency.
NHTSA believes it would be premature to decide to upgrade the
passenger car side impact protection requirements before an evaluation
is made of the effectiveness of those requirements. Further, since the
standard will not be fully implemented until September 1, 1996, it is
too early to reassess the efficacy of those requirements. It is common
practice for the agency to conduct an evaluation study of an important
rulemaking action, such as Standard 214's dynamic side impact
protection requirements, when sufficient accident data become available
for analysis. NHTSA believes sufficient data will be available for an
effective evaluation of the passenger car dynamic side impact
requirements by the year 2000. NHTSA has planned to undertake research
on advance dynamic side impact protection for all light passenger
vehicles, including LTVs. The agency has also research underway to
determine the potential for additional injury criteria for chest and
abdominal injuries in side crashes. That research, while more of a
priority at this time than efforts to upgrade the passenger car side
impact protection requirements, is nevertheless likely to yield
important information on matters pertaining to a Standard 214 upgrade
for all regulated vehicles.
6. Leadtime
This rule is effective for all vehicles on September 1, 1998. NHTSA
believes that most, if not all, LTVs subject to the rule are able to
meet the requirements adopted today with little or no modification.
Thus, a phase-in schedule for vehicle compliance with the rule is
unnecessary. On the other hand, some manufacturers of small LTVs may
seek to modify their vehicles to increase the margin with which their
vehicles meet the criteria of the standard, to ensure the TTI
measurements that NHTSA obtains from tests of their vehicles are within
the standard's limits. NHTSA has determined that a September 1, 1998
effective date gives motor vehicle manufacturers sufficient leadtime to
evaluate their products and make any necessary changes to them. In
addition, there may be a number of final-stage manufacturers, many of
which are small businesses, that need a September 1, 1998 effective
date to obtain information sufficient to allow them to certify to the
requirements of the standard. Final-stage manufacturers may not be able
to initiate their compliance work until the chassis manufacturers
publish their guidelines for completing vehicles in compliance with the
dynamic performance requirements of Standard 214 and make those
available. In view of the possible impacts of this amendment on both
large and small manufacturers, NHTSA concludes for good cause shown, it
is in the public interest to have an effective date later than one year
after promulgation of this rule.
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
a. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866,
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' The agency has considered the
impact of this rulemaking action under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures, and has determined
that it is not ``significant'' under them. This rule will ensure that
future new LTV models provide at least the same level of benefits as
are provided to passenger car occupants. The safety benefits accruing
from this rule, as applied to current models, are likely to be small.
As far as the agency knows, all current LTVs meet this final rule.
However, it appears some current models would only marginally meet the
standard as currently manufactured, and may therefore have to be
improved to assure compliance in future testing. The costs of this rule
are negligible. In the preliminary regulatory evaluation for the NPRM,
NHTSA estimated total compliance costs of $1.5 million (1992 dollars),
with the standard applicable to vehicles at or below 8,500 pounds GVWR
(55 vehicles at $27,770 per test, excluding the cost of the test
vehicles). With the final rule applicable to vehicles at or below 6,000
pounds GVWR, potentially 47 vehicles would be subject to testing, with
a total cost of $1.3 million.
b. Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that it will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The small businesses and organizations most
[[Page 38761]]
likely to be affected by this rule are final-stage LTV manufacturers
and alterers. Many of the vehicles produced by final-stage
manufacturers are over 6,000 pounds GVWR. Because the rule applies only
to vehicles at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR, this significantly reduces
the applicability of the rule in terms of both the number of small
businesses affected by the rule, and the number of vehicles produced by
an affected manufacturer. Some van converters (which are ``alterers'')
could be affected by the rule. While there are a significant number of
van converters, there are probably only a small number that convert
mini-vans or other vans at or under 6,000 pounds GVWR, that produce
vehicles types that are subject to this rule and that also change the
side structure of the vehicle (e.g., by putting a larger window in the
side of the vehicle). The van converter that does so would need to
certify that the altered vehicle complies with Standard 214. Van
converters would be able to make their certification using means at
their disposal, such as engineering analyses or sponsored testing,
similar to the methods they now use to certify to dynamic and quasi-
static test requirements in the FMVSSs that apply to their vehicles. (A
detailed discussion of the means available to final-stage manufacturers
and alterers in certifying to the dynamic test requirements adopted
today are discussed in the section, ``Vehicles covered by this rule,''
supra.) In view of the limitations on the applicability of this rule,
and in view of the means available to manufacturers to certify their
vehicles, this rule will not result in a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
c. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This rulemaking action has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and the
agency has determined that this rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
d. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action 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.
e. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
This rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under section 49
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR Part 571 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 revising S1(b) and S2, adding
S3(f), and revising S5.1, S6.1, S6.11 and S7, and by adding S6.11.1 and
S6.11.2 to read as follows:
Sec. 571.214 Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection.
* * * * *
S1. * * *
(b) Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to reduce the risk of
serious and fatal injury to occupants of passenger cars, multipurpose
passenger vehicles, trucks and buses in side impact crashes by
specifying vehicle crashworthiness requirements in terms of
accelerations measured on anthropomorphic dummies in test crashes, by
specifying strength requirements for side doors, and by other means.
S2. This standard applies to--
(a) Passenger cars;
(b) Effective September 1, 1993, sections S3(a), S3(e), S3.1
through S3.2.3, and S4 of the standard apply to multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less,
except for walk-in vans; and
(c) effective September 1, 1998, sections S3(f) and S5 of the
standard apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses
with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less, except for walk-in vans, motor
homes, tow trucks, dump trucks, ambulances and other emergency rescue/
medical vehicles (including vehicles with fire-fighting equipment),
vehicles equipped with wheelchair lifts, and vehicles which have no
doors or exclusively have doors that are designed to be easily attached
or removed so the vehicle can be operated without doors.
* * * * *
S3 * * *
(f) When tested according to the conditions of S6, each
multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck and bus manufactured on or after
September 1, 1998, shall meet the requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3
in a 33.5 miles per hour impact in which the vehicle is struck on
either side by a moving deformable barrier. A part 572, subpart F test
dummy is placed in the front outboard seating position on the struck
side of the vehicle, and if the vehicle is equipped with rear seats,
then another part 572, subpart F test dummy is placed on the outboard
seating position of the second seat on the struck side of the vehicle.
However, the second seat requirements do not apply to side-facing seats
or to vehicles that have second seating areas that are so small that
the part 572, Subpart F dummy can not be accommodated according to the
positioning procedure specified in S7.
* * * * *
S5.1 Thorax. The Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI(d)) shall not exceed:
(a) 85 g for a passenger car with four side doors, and for any
multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, or bus; and,
(b) 90 g for a passenger car with two side doors, when calculated
in accordance with the following formula:
TTI(d) = 1/2 (GR + GLS)
The term ``GR'' is the greater of the peak accelerations of
either the upper or lower rib, expressed in g's and the term
``GLS'' is the lower spine (T12) peak acceleration, expressed in
g's. The peak acceleration values are obtained in accordance with the
procedure specified in S6.13.5.
* * * * *
S6.1 Test weight. Each vehicle is loaded to its unloaded vehicle
weight, plus 300 pounds or its rated cargo and luggage capacity
(whichever is less), secured in the luggage or load-carrying area, plus
the weight of the necessary anthropomorphic test dummies. Any added
test equipment is located away from impact areas in secure places in
the vehicle. The vehicle's fuel system is filled in accordance with the
following procedure. With the test vehicle on a level surface, pump the
fuel from the
[[Page 38762]]
vehicle's fuel tank and then operate the engine until it stops. Then,
add Stoddard solvent to the test vehicle's fuel tank in an amount which
is equal to not less than 92 percent and not more than 94 percent of
the fuel tank's usable capacity stated by the vehicle's manufacturer.
In addition, add the amount of Stoddard solvent needed to fill the
entire fuel system from the fuel tank through the engine's induction
system.
* * * * *
S6.11 Impact reference line. Place a vertical reference line at
the location described below on the side of the vehicle that will be
struck by the moving deformable barrier:
S6.11.1 Passenger cars.
(a) For vehicles with a wheelbase of 114 inches or less, 37 inches
forward of the center of the vehicle's wheelbase.
(b) For vehicles with a wheelbase greater than 114 inches, 20
inches rearward of the centerline of the vehicle's front axle.
S6.11.2 Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses.
(a) For vehicles with a wheelbase of 98 inches or less, 12 inches
rearward of the centerline of the vehicle's front axle, except as
otherwise specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(b) For vehicles with a wheelbase of greater than 98 inches but not
greater than 114 inches, 37 inches forward of the center of the
vehicle's wheelbase, except as otherwise specified in paragraph (d) of
this section.
(c) For vehicles with a wheelbase greater than 114 inches, 20
inches rearward of the centerline of the vehicle's front axle, except
as otherwise specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(d) At the manufacturer's option, for different wheelbase versions
of the same model vehicle, the impact reference line may be located by
the following:
(1) Select the shortest wheelbase vehicle of the different
wheelbase versions of the same model and locate on it the impact
reference line at the location described in (a), (b) or (c) of this
section, as appropriate;
(2) Measure the distance between the seating reference point (SgRP)
and the impact reference line;
(3) Maintain the same distance between the SgRP and the impact
reference line for the version being tested as that between the SgRP
and the impact reference line for the shortest wheelbase version of the
model.
(e) For the compliance test, the impact reference line will be
located using the procedure used by the manufacturer as the basis for
its certification of compliance with the requirements of this standard.
If the manufacturer did not use any of the procedures in this section,
or does not specify a procedure when asked by the agency, the agency
may locate the impact reference line using either procedure.
* * * * *
S7. Positioning procedure for the Part 572 Subpart F Test Dummy.
Position a correctly configured test dummy, conforming to subpart F 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
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 S7.1 through S7.4. Each test dummy is
restrained using all available belt systems in all seating positions
where such belt restraints are provided. In addition, any folding
armrest is retracted.
* * * * *
Issued on: July 20, 1995.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-18275 Filed 7-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P