[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 todays 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