[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 95 (Monday, May 17, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27990-28034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-10931]



[[Page 27989]]

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

Part IV





Department of Transportation





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



National Highway Traffic Safety Administration



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



49 CFR Parts 571 and 598



Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Side Impact Protection; Side 
Impact Phase-In Reporting Requirements; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 95 / Monday, May 17, 2004 / Proposed 
Rules  

[[Page 27990]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 571 and 598

[Docket No. NHTSA-2004-17694]
RIN 2127-AJ10


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Side Impact Protection; 
Side Impact Phase-In Reporting Requirements

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This NPRM would substantially upgrade the agency's side impact 
protection standard, especially by requiring protection in crashes with 
narrow objects and protection against head injuries in side impact 
crashes with both narrow objects and other vehicles.
    First, it would upgrade the standard by requiring that all 
passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 
kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less protect front seat occupants against 
head, thoracic, abdominal and pelvic injuries in a vehicle-to-pole test 
simulating a vehicle's crashing sideways into narrow fixed objects like 
telephone poles and trees. To meet the head injury criteria in the pole 
test, vehicle manufacturers would likely need to install dynamically 
deploying side head protection systems, such as head air bags or 
inflatable air curtains that drop down from the roof line above the 
door frame. Air curtains can reduce head injuries in side crashes of 
passenger vehicles with poles and trees as well as side impacts from 
vehicles with high front ends. They also can help reduce partial and 
full ejections through side windows. Compliance with the pole test 
would be determined in two test configurations, one using a new, 
second-generation test dummy representing mid-size adult males and the 
other using a new test dummy representing small adult females.
    Second, this NPRM would upgrade the standard's existing vehicle-to-
vehicle test that requires protection of front and rear seat occupants 
against thoracic and pelvic injuries in a test that uses a moving 
deformable barrier to simulate a moving vehicle's being struck in the 
side by another moving vehicle. This NPRM would upgrade that test by 
requiring protection against head injuries. It would replace the mid-
size male dummy currently used in that test with the new mid-size male 
dummy mentioned above and require compliance with the head, thoracic 
and pelvic injury criteria developed for the new dummy. It would also 
enhance protection for small adult occupants by adding the new small 
female test dummy mentioned above and requiring compliance with the 
injury criteria developed for that dummy. Thus, the number of test 
configurations would increase from one to two.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that 
Docket Management receives them not later than October 14, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by the DOT DMS Docket 
Number) by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-001.
     Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this 
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public 
Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information provided. 
Please see the Privacy Act discussion under the Public Participation 
heading.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Dr. 
William Fan of the NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at 202-
366-4922.
    For legal issues, you may call Deirdre R. Fujita of the NHTSA 
Office of Chief Counsel, at 202-366-2992.
    You may send mail to these officials at the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
II. Executive Summary
III. Safety Problem
IV. Regulatory, Research and Technological Developments--1990 to 
Present
    a. 1990 Simulated Vehicle-to-Vehicle Test--Chest and Pelvic 
Injury Criteria
    b. 1995 Establishment of Upper Interior Impact Protection 
Requirements
    c. 1996 First Inflatable Side Impact Protection Systems
    d. 1997 Report to Congress re Possibility of Harmonizing U.S. 
and European Vehicle-to-Vehicle Tests
    e. 1997 Head Injury Protection Criteria and First Generation 
Side Impact Test Dummy Capable of Measuring Head Impact Forces
    f. 1998 Pole Test To Evaluate Inflatable Side Impact Head 
Protection Systems
    g. Grant of 1998 Petition To Upgrade Side Impact Protection 
Standard
    h. 1997-1999 NHTSA Research re Vehicle-to-Vehicle Test 
Harmonization
    i. 1999-2000 Report to Congress and Response to Petition re 
Vehicle-to-Vehicle Test Harmonization
    j. 2000-2003 NHTSA Research re Side Impact Dummies, Injury 
Criteria, and Crash Tests
    k. Current Status of Second and Next Generation Side Impact 
Dummies
    l. Industry Efforts To Improve Compatibility in Vehicle-to-
Vehicle Crashes
V. Existing Standard
VI. Proposed Vehicle-to-Pole Test Procedures, Dummies and Injury 
Criteria
    a. Test Procedure
    1. Speed
    2. Angle of Impact
    3. Positioning the Seat and Impact Reference Line
    b. Dummies and Injury Criteria
    1. 50th Percentile Male Dummy (ES-2re)
    A. Background
    B. Injury Criteria
    C. Oblique Pole Tests With ES-2 and ES-2re
    D. Comparing the ES-2re to the SID-H3
    2. 5th Percentile Female Dummy (SID-IIsFRG)
    A. Background
    B. Injury Criteria
    C. Oblique Pole Tests With 5th Percentile Female Dummy
    c. FMVSS No. 201 Pole Test Conditions
VII. Proposed Improvements of Moving Deformable Barrier Test
    a. Replacement of Existing 50th Percentile Male Dummy With ES-
2re and Addition of Injury Criteria
    b. Addition of 5th Percentile Female Dummy (SID-IIsFRG) and 
Injury Criteria
VIII. Other Issues

[[Page 27991]]

    a. Struck Door Must Not Separate From Vehicle
    b. Rear Seat
    c. Interaction With Other Side Impact Programs
    1. Out-of-Position Criteria
    2. FMVSS No. 201 Pole Test
    d. Harmonization
IX. Estimated Benefits and Costs of Proposed Pole Test
X. Proposed Leadtime and Phase-In
XI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
XII. Public Participation

I. Introduction

    This rulemaking is a first step toward achieving two goals: 
improving side impact protection and reducing the risk of ejection. 
Both goals have been highlighted in recent agency planning documents. 
On July 25, 2002, the agency published a notice requesting public 
comment on a comprehensive multi-year vehicle safety rulemaking and 
research plan (67 FR 48599; Docket No. NHTSA-2002-212391). Two months 
later, NHTSA Administrator Jeffrey W. Runge, M.D., formed Integrated 
Project Teams (IPTs) to conduct an in-depth review of four top priority 
safety areas. Among them are vehicle compatibility and rollover. Those 
two areas were selected because they represent the key safety issues 
presented by the changing composition of the passenger vehicle fleet. 
The sales and registrations of light trucks, buses and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles (LTVs) as a percentage of the light vehicle fleet 
have steadily increased since 1984. In fact, sales of LTVs reached 50 
percent of all new light vehicles sold in 2001. The IPTs were chartered 
to develop comprehensive, science and evidence-based analyses to 
identify innovative solutions and recommend effective strategies.
    Significant progress has been made in addressing these priorities. 
On June 18, 2003, NHTSA announced the availability of two reports, 
``Initiatives to Address Vehicle Compatibility,''\1\ and ``Initiatives 
to Address the Mitigation of Rollovers,''\2\ based on the work of the 
vehicle compatibility and rollover IPTs (68 FR 36534). Initiatives to 
upgrade side impact protection and reduce ejection figure prominently 
in both reports. One month later, the agency announced the availability 
of its final priority plan, ``NHTSA Vehicle Safety Rulemaking and 
Supporting Research: 2003-2006''\3\ (68 FR 43972; July 18, 2003). The 
plan, which reflects the results of a comprehensive examination of 
areas of possible improvements, ``outlines the agency's vehicle safety 
rulemaking actions for the period 2003 to 2006 that offer the greatest 
potential for saving lives and preventing injury.'' Upgrading side 
impact protection is one of the most promising of those actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-11/aggressivity/IPTVehicleCompatibilityReport/.
    \2\ http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/vrtc/ca/capubs/IPTRolloverMitigationReport/.
    \3\ http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/PriorityPlan/FinalVeh/Index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's proposal to upgrade the agency's side impact protection 
standard begins the implementation of the initiatives in the agency's 
report on improving crash compatibility between passenger cars and LTVs 
(``Initiatives to Address Vehicle Compatibility,'' supra.) This 
proposal would require vehicle manufacturers to assure side impact 
protection for a wider range of occupant sizes and over a broader range 
of seating positions. It would likely lead to the installation of new 
technologies, such as side curtain air bags and torso side air bags 
capable of improving head and thorax protection to occupants of 
vehicles that are laterally struck by a higher-riding LTV. (These 
different side air bag systems are described in a glossary set forth in 
Appendix A to this preamble.)

II. Executive Summary

    In 1990, the agency amended its side impact protection standard, 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 214, ``Side Impact 
Protection,'' to include a dynamic test, the first anywhere in the 
world, that assesses occupant protection when a vehicle is struck in 
the side by another vehicle. A moving deformable barrier is crashed 
into the side of a vehicle in a manner that simulates a 90-degree side 
impact between two moving vehicles at an intersection. The standard 
addresses thoracic and pelvic injuries to struck-side occupants in 
those vehicle-to-vehicle crashes.
    However, the standard does not address side crashes into fixed 
narrow objects, which account for approximately 20 percent of deaths 
and serious injuries that occur in side impacts. It also does not 
address head injuries, which account for 43 percent of the total deaths 
and serious injuries in the target population addressed by this NPRM. 
For smaller-statured occupants, head injury represents a higher 
proportion of the serious injuries than it does for larger occupants as 
a result of relatively more head contacts with the striking vehicle.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Samaha R. S., Elliott D. S., ``NHTSA Side Impact Research: 
Motivation for Upgraded Test Procedures,'' 18th International 
Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety Of Vehicles Conference 
(ESV), Paper No. 492, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current state of knowledge and practicability of measures that 
could be taken to improve side impact protection are considerably 
greater than they were just a decade ago. Extensive work by NHTSA, the 
industry, and others in the safety community have led to substantial 
progress in dummies, injury criteria and countermeasures. Inflatable 
side protection systems have become common in current production 
vehicles. They vary widely in designs, sizes, mounting locations and 
methods of inflation, and areas of coverage. For example, variations of 
side impact protection systems include door-mounted thorax bags, seat-
mounted thorax bags, seat-mounted head/thorax bags, and head protection 
systems that deploy from the roof rails (e.g., inflatable tubes and 
curtains).
    Based on this progress and the growing significance of vehicle 
compatibility issues, NHTSA is proposing to upgrade FMVSS No. 214 
substantially by requiring all passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle 
weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (kg) or less (10,000 lb or 
less) to protect front seat occupants against head, thoracic and pelvic 
injuries in a vehicle-to-pole test simulating a vehicle's crashing 
sideways into narrow fixed objects like telephone poles and trees.\5\ 
This would be the first time that head injury criteria would need to be 
met under the standard. The vehicle-to-pole test is similar to the one 
currently used optionally in FMVSS No. 201, except that NHTSA proposes 
to change the angle of impact from 90 to 75 degrees and increase the 
test speed from 29 to 32 kilometers per hour (km/h) (18 to 20 miles per 
hour (mph) \6\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The pole test would apply to the driver and front outboard 
passenger seats, and not to the rear seats. In contrast, the moving 
deformable barrier test applies to both the front and rear outboard 
seating positions on the side of the vehicle struck by the barrier.
    In the pole and MDB tests, both sides of the vehicle are subject 
to testing by NHTSA. Manufacturers must certify that the vehicle 
complies with the standard when either side of the vehicle is tested 
by NHTSA. The standard does not require NHTSA to test both sides of 
the vehicle.
    \6\ While 20 mph converts to 32.2 km/h, we propose rounding 32.2 
km/h to 32 km/h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Vehicles would need to meet the injury criteria using new dummies 
representing mid-size males and small females. Crash data indicate that 
35 percent of all serious and fatal injuries to near-side occupants in 
side impacts occurred to occupants 5 feet 4 inches (or 163 
centimeters)(cm) or less, which are better represented by the small 
female dummy. Thus, the agency believes that use of both dummies, 
instead of just the

[[Page 27992]]

mid-size male dummy, will better represent the at-risk population.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ You may inspect the dummies by contacting our Vehicle 
Research and Test Center in East Liberty, OH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the mid-size or 50th percentile male, NHTSA proposes to adopt a 
modified version of the European side impact dummy, the ES-2 dummy, for 
use in the test, since the overall dummy is technically superior to the 
SID-H3 50th percentile male test dummy currently used in FMVSS No. 201 
and to the SID 50th percentile male test dummy currently used in FMVSS 
No. 214. The modified ES-2 dummy (known as the ES-2re) is superior in 
that it has improved biofidelity and enhanced injury assessment 
capability compared to the other dummies. A predecessor dummy, known as 
EuroSID-1, is currently specified by European governments for use in 
perpendicular side impact testing and work has been undertaken to 
replace that dummy with the ES-2re. The non-governmental European New 
Car Assessment Program (EuroNCAP) on side impact has used the ES-2 
dummy since February 2003 in perpendicular MDB side impact tests.
    The small or 5th percentile female dummy has been used by Transport 
Canada in crash tests in the late 1990s and early 2000, and is used by 
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), a nonprofit group 
funded by insurers, in IIHS's side impact consumer information program 
which ranks vehicles based on performance when impacted perpendicularly 
by a moving barrier at about 30 mph. The countermeasures that are 
installed to meet the proposed pole test would need to enable the 
vehicle to meet the requirements when tested with both dummies, which 
would ensure protection for shorter drivers who sit closer to the 
steering wheel than the mid-size occupant.
    We anticipate that vehicle manufacturers will install dynamically 
deploying side air bags to meet the proposed vehicle-to-pole test. The 
agency estimates that the proposals in this NPRM would prevent 686 
fatalities and 880 MAIS 3 to 5 injuries a year when fully implemented 
throughout the light vehicle fleet.\8\ Those benefits are based on an 
assumption that manufacturers would use a 2-sensor (per vehicle) 
combination air bag system. (This system would be the least costly 
countermeasure that manufacturers could use to achieve compliance. 
Manufacturers might also install side air curtains or other measures 
that not only reduce head injuries, but also can help reduce ejections 
through side windows.) The cost for the 2-sensor combination air bag 
system is estimated to be $121 per vehicle. We are proposing to provide 
significant lead time to ensure that the regulatory burden is 
practicable and feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The AIS, or Abbreviated Injury Scale, is used to rank 
injuries by level of severity. An AIS 1 injury is a minor one, while 
an AIS 6 injury is one that is currently untreatable and fatal. The 
Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale, or MAIS, is the maximum injury per 
occupant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, this NPRM proposes to upgrade the moving deformable 
barrier test in several ways. It would enhance the MDB test's existing 
chest and pelvis protection requirements and require compliance with 
head injury criteria. It proposes replacing the current 50th percentile 
male dummy with the new one mentioned above and requiring compliance 
with the criteria developed for that new dummy. The proposal would also 
enhance protection for smaller adult occupants by adding the new 5th 
percentile female dummy mentioned above and require compliance with the 
injury criteria for that dummy.
    Mindful of the magnitude of this rulemaking and the principles for 
regulatory decisionmaking set forth in Executive Order 12866, 
Regulatory Planning and Review, NHTSA examined the benefits and costs 
of a variety of potential proposals and, based on that analysis, took 
reasonable steps to limit the scope of this NPRM. First, because rear 
seat occupants make up a small percentage of the seriously injured 
occupants in side crashes, NHTSA has focused the proposal for the pole 
test on the front seat. (We note that some side air curtains cover both 
front and rear side window openings and thus would also afford some 
head protection to rear seat occupants in the absence of a test 
applying to the rear seat.)
    Second, the agency is not proposing a limit on chest deflection in 
tests using the 5th percentile female dummy. The modified SID-IIs dummy 
appears to require further refinement in measuring chest deflection for 
oblique loading conditions, such as those present in the oblique pole 
and MDB tests, and so the agency wishes to further analyze test data 
before proceeding with a proposal limiting the chest deflection of the 
dummy in the tests proposed today. However, the agency will continue to 
monitor the chest deflection performance of vehicles in tests using the 
modified SID-IIs dummy.
    Third, NHTSA is also not proposing changes to the standard's MDB at 
this time. Initiatives to improve vehicle compatibility between 
passenger cars and LTVs in side crashes are likely to change the 
characteristics of striking vehicles in the future, as countermeasures 
are pursued to reduce the aggressivity of LTVs in side impacts. Once 
the likely future changes to the fleet have been identified, we can 
determine how the FMVSS No. 214 barrier should be modified to better 
represent future striking vehicles in side impacts. We also believe 
that the countermeasures resulting from today's proposed pole test 
would encompass and go beyond those that would be likely to be 
installed as a result of a higher/heavier barrier.

III. Safety Problem

    In the 2001 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), there were 
9,088 side impact fatalities. For our target population, we excluded 
from these side impact fatalities those cases which included rollovers 
as first event (203), rear seat occupants (732), middle front seat or 
unknown seat occupants (327), far-side occupants (2,601), children 
under 12 in the front seat nearside (71), and delta-Vs not in our 
assumed effectiveness range of 19 to 40 km/h (12 to 25 mph) (2,084). We 
also made an adjustment based on the estimated benefits that would 
result from the FMVSS No. 201 upper interior requirements for the A-
pillar, B-pillar, and roof side rail (160).\9\ This left us with a 
target population of 2,910 fatalities and 7,248 non-fatal serious to 
critical AIS 3-5 injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ NHTSA also adjusted the target population by assuming 
increased seat belt use based on 2003 use rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2,910 fatalities were divided into three groups for the 
analysis: (a) Vehicle to pole impacts (599); (b) vehicle to vehicle or 
other roadside objects impacts, which include partial ejections in 
these cases (1,715); and (c) complete occupant ejections in non-
rollovers (636). In this target population, 40 percent of the total 
fatalities are caused by head/face injuries, 38 percent by chest 
injuries and 8 percent by abdominal injuries. In contrast, for the 
7,248 non-fatal AIS 3-5 target population, chest injuries are the 
predominant maximum injury source accounting for 59 percent, head/face 
injuries account for 13 percent, and abdominal injuries account for 6 
percent. Combining all serious to fatal injuries, chest injuries 
account for 53 percent, head/face injuries account for 20 percent, and 
abdominal injuries account for 7 percent.
    In April 2001, NHTSA analyzed fatalities in the 1991, 1995, and 
1999 FARS files using non-rollover, near-side impact data. The 
fatalities occurred in the first and second rows of seats in

[[Page 27993]]

light vehicles in side impacts with various objects. The percentage of 
vehicle-to-rigid narrow object impacts has remained stable at 
approximately 21 percent of the total number of fatal side impact 
crashes. The percentage of collisions with LTVs has increased, while 
the percentage of collisions with passenger cars has decreased over 
time. The results of the analysis are presented below:

                                    Table 1.--Occupant Fatality Distribution
                                        [Non-rollover near-side impacts]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Collisions with   Collisions with
                                           Collisions with   Collisions with    rigid narrow     other vehicles/
                                           passenger cars    LTVs  (percent)       objects           objects
                                              (percent)                           (percent)         (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FARS 1991 MY 1987 and Later Light                     28.9              26.3              20.1              24.8
 Vehicles...............................
FARS 1995 MY 1991 and Later Light                     24.7              31.8              21.2              21.9
 Vehicles...............................
FARS 1999 MY 1995 and Later Light                     20.5              35.5              21.1              22.9
 Vehicles...............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Regulatory, Research and Technological Developments--1990 to 
Present

a. 1990 Simulated Vehicle-to-Vehicle Test--Chest and Pelvic Injury 
Criteria

    FMVSS No. 214 was amended in 1990 to include dynamic requirements 
to improve the crashworthiness of vehicles in vehicle-to-vehicle side 
impact collisions (55 FR 45722; October 30, 1990). The amendments added 
a dynamic side impact test regulating the level of crash forces that 
can be experienced by an occupant when seated in a vehicle struck in a 
side impact. The dynamic requirements focused on thoracic protection 
because contact between the thorax and the side interior had been a 
primary source of serious injuries and fatalities and because further 
work was needed on head protection countermeasures, head injury 
criterion and test dummies capable of measuring the potential for head 
injuries in a side impact crash. The requirements were phased-in for 
passenger cars, beginning in 1993. They were extended in 1995 (60 FR 
38749; July 28, 1995) to LTVs with a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 lb) 
or less manufactured on or after September 1, 1998.

b. 1995 Upper Interior Impact Protection Requirements

    In 1995, NHTSA issued a final rule amending FMVSS No. 201, 
``Occupant protection in interior impact,'' to require passenger cars, 
and trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross 
vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, to provide 
protection when an occupant's head strikes certain upper interior 
components, including pillars, side rails, headers, and the roof, 
during a crash. The amendments added procedures and performance 
requirements for a new in-vehicle test, which were phased in beginning 
in model year 1999.

c. 1996 First Inflatable Side Impact Protection Systems

    Side impact air bags (SIABs) were first installed in Mercedes E-
class cars and all Volvo passenger cars in model year (MY) 1996. In MY 
1997, BMW, VW/Audi, Cadillac, Nissan, and Toyota chose to install SIABs 
in certain production car models. Since then, SIABs have become more 
commonly available in the nation's passenger vehicles.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In 1996, under 2% of the passenger cars sold in the U.S. 
had chest side air bags installed as compared to around 38% in 2002. 
Also, in 1998, only 0.04% of passenger cars sold in the U.S. had 
head side air bag systems as compared to 22% in 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1996, NHTSA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
(ANPRM) to obtain information in evaluating dynamic head protection 
systems, such as ways of testing these systems to assure that they 
yield sufficient safety benefits to justify amending the new 
requirements of FMVSS No. 201 to permit their installation. (61 FR 
9136; March 7, 1996.)

d. 1997 Report to Congress re Possibility of Harmonizing U.S. and 
European Vehicle-to-Vehicle Tests

    On September 16, 1996, in Congressional Conference Report 104-785 
for the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies' 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1997, the conferees directed NHTSA 
to study the differences between the U.S. and then-proposed European 
side impact regulations and to develop a plan for achieving 
harmonization of these regulations. In response to that directive, 
NHTSA submitted a side impact harmonization plan to Congress in April 
1997 (``Report to Congress NHTSA Plan for Achieving Harmonization of 
the U.S. and European Side Impact Standards,'' April 1997, see docket 
NHTSA 1998-3935-1 of the Department's Docket Management System). NHTSA 
said that it would determine the potential for international 
harmonization by:
    1. Analyzing past research and performing new tests to determine 
the relative safety benefits offered by each regulation.
    2. Coordinating with industry and other interested groups to 
establish consensus on the activities, eliminate duplication of work, 
and reduce cost.
    3. Determining if functional equivalence exists or can be 
established between the two requirements.
    4. Coordinating with the European Union (EU) to assess 
harmonization options and approaches.
    With respect to the third step, we described how we would follow 
our functional equivalence process in determining whether FMVSS No. 214 
and the modified European regulation are functionally equivalent (49 
CFR part 553, Appendix B). This process is used to determine whether 
the vehicles or equipment manufactured under a foreign standard produce 
more or at least as many safety benefits as those produced by the 
vehicles or equipment manufactured under a similar U.S. standard.

e. 1997 Head Injury Protection Criteria and First Generation Side 
Impact Test Dummy Capable of Measuring Head Impact Forces

    The Head Injury Criterion (HIC) for lateral impacts was developed 
in 1997, when the agency published an NPRM proposing to add an optional 
vehicle-to-pole side impact test to FMVSS No. 201. 62 FR 45202; August 
26, 1997. An anthropomorphic test dummy that was capable of measuring 
crash forces to the head in a side impact was also developed in 1997. 
The SID-H3 dummy, specified in 49 CFR part 572, subpart M, is a SID 
dummy with a Hybrid III head/neck system. The Hybrid III head is 
instrumented with a tri-axial accelerometer package,

[[Page 27994]]

positioned to measure the acceleration of the center of gravity. This 
permits the measurement of HIC. The SID-H3 dummy is currently used in 
the FMVSS No. 201 optional vehicle-to-pole test (see below) and in 
NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) for side impact testing.

f. 1998 Pole Test To Evaluate Inflatable Side Impact Head Protection 
Systems

    On August 4, 1998, NHTSA published a final rule amending the upper 
interior impact requirements of FMVSS No. 201, to permit, but not 
require, the installation of dynamically deploying upper interior head 
protection systems that were then being developed by some vehicle 
manufacturers to provide added head protection in lateral crashes (63 
FR 41451). Compliance with the original upper interior impact 
requirements is tested at specified points called ``target points.'' 
Since compliance is often not practicable at target points located near 
the places where these dynamic systems are stored before they are 
deployed, vehicles equipped with the dynamic systems are allowed to 
meet alternative requirements at those points. These vehicles are also 
required to meet new requirements to ensure that these dynamic systems 
enhance safety. That final rule added procedures and performance 
requirements for testing the deployment of these systems and their 
protective capability through a combination of in-vehicle tests and a 
full-scale vehicle-to-pole crash test. In the crash test, the vehicle 
is propelled at a speed between 24 km/h (15 mph) and 29 km/h (18 mph) 
into a rigid pole at an angle of 90 degrees. (This NPRM refers to this 
FMVSS No. 201 pole test as the ``29 km/h (18 mph)'' pole test.) The 
pole is aimed at the head of a SID-H3 dummy seated in the front 
outboard seating position. The pole test injury criterion is HIC of 
1000. (63 FR 41451; August 4, 1998.)

g. Grant of 1998 Petition To Upgrade Side Impact Protection Standard

    In July 1998, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) 
submitted a petition for rulemaking requesting NHTSA to upgrade FMVSS 
No. 214 in several ways. First, Advocates contended that the injury 
criteria are not stringent enough, arguing that neither the occupants 
of passenger cars nor small LTVs are being provided adequate protection 
when their vehicles are struck by higher, heavier, and more aggressive 
LTVs. Second, they believed the MDB is not high/heavy enough because 
the barrier weight/height were originally designed to represent a 
vehicle fleet that was projected to be lighter and smaller than the 
current fleet. They stated that since 1988, the passenger car fleet has 
not changed significantly while the LTV fleet has grown in average 
weight and number. Third, they thought that EuroSID-1 has advantages to 
SID because of additional measurement capability. They recommended the 
following: Amending FMVSS No. 214 to a higher safety performance level 
such that superior side impact air bags would be developed and 
installed in vehicles as standard equipment; replace the quasi-static 
door crush test with a side-to-pole impact test like that used under 
the recent FMVSS No. 201 upgrade; lastly, replace SID with Eurosid-1. 
The agency granted the petition because it believed that the side 
impact research activities it had planned would fully address the 
issues raised by the petition.

h. 1997-1999 NHTSA Research re Vehicle-to-Vehicle Test Harmonization

    As a first step in assessing the functional equivalence of the U.S. 
and European side impact regulations, we tested vehicles that were 
certified to FMVSS No. 214 using the procedures and criteria of EU 96/
27/EC (as modified, with a test dummy placed in the rear outboard 
seating position in addition to the front outboard position). The 
vehicles provided a range of marginal to good performers in FMVSS No. 
214 tests and represented a wide range of manufacturers. The results 
indicated the ranking of the vehicles, according to compliance margin, 
when tested under EU 96/27/EC was not the same as when they were tested 
under FMVSS No. 214.
    Additionally, a measurement anomaly in the European test dummy 
(EuroSID-1) related to the rib displacement was present in most, if not 
all, tests. This anomaly, along with the limited amount of comparative 
test data, did not allow a positive determination of functional 
equivalence of the two side impact regulations.

i. 1999-2000 Report to Congress and Response to Petition re Vehicle-to-
Vehicle Test Harmonization

    Based on our testing of eight vehicles that were certified to FMVSS 
No. 214 using the procedures and criteria of EU 96/27/EC, we informed 
Congress that we could not conclude from this set of testing whether 
vehicles designed to meet FMVSS No. 214 would meet the EU regulation. 
The agency also determined that the lighter and less stiff EU MDB was 
less representative of the current and future U.S. fleet than the 
current FMVSS No. 214 MBD, and that side impact countermeasures that 
would be based on the EU test might therefore not lead to enhanced real 
world safety. (See NHTSA's report to Congress on the agency's progress 
in assessing the functional equivalence of the two regulations: 
``Status of NHTSA Plan for Side Impact Regulation Harmonization and 
Upgrade, Report to Congress, March 1999,'' Docket NHTSA-98-3935-10.)
    Also based on that testing, we denied most aspects of a 1997 
petition for rulemaking from the Association of International 
Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM), the Insurance Institute for Highway 
Safety, and the American Automobile Manufacturers Association. These 
petitioners asked us first to determine that the dynamic side impact 
provisions of a European regulation (consisting of performance 
requirements, crash test barrier, test barrier face, and test 
procedures) are at least ``functionally equivalent'' to those in FMVSS 
No. 214. (65 FR 33508; May 24, 2000.) Based on the assumption that that 
determination would be made, the petitioners then asked that we add the 
dynamic provisions of the European regulation to FMVSS No. 214 as a 
compliance alternative in the short run. Based on their belief that the 
European dynamic provisions are superior to those in FMVSS No. 214 in 
some respects, they also wanted us to replace the current dynamic 
provisions of FMVSS No. 214 with those of the European regulation 
(slightly modified) in the long run. In addition to our inability to 
determine that the European standard was at least functionally 
equivalent to FMVSS No. 214, we noted that the European barrier was 
less representative than the FMVSS No. 214 barrier of the side impact 
crash environment in this country.
    However, we granted the portion of the petition requesting that we 
open a rulemaking proceeding to consider replacing the 50th percentile 
male side impact test dummy (SID) currently specified in FMVSS No. 214 
with an improved version of the dummy (EuroSID-1) specified in the 
European regulation. We said that if the mechanical anomalies with 
EuroSID-1 could be solved, the greater measurement capabilities of the 
dummy would make its adoption attractive as a way of upgrading FMVSS 
No. 214. Thus, we said that our first steps would be to work with the 
Europeans to fix the dummy's mechanical problems. Once that is 
accomplished, we would consider issuing a proposal to replace SID with 
the improved side impact dummy. We noted that adopting a more advanced 
test dummy means that we would also be considering the appropriate 
injury criteria to adopt with

[[Page 27995]]

the dummy into our side impact protection standard. We said that if we 
eventually proposed to replace SID with an improved EuroSID-1, we might 
propose adopting the injury criteria now in EU 96/27/EC as well.

j. 2000-2003 NHTSA Research re Side Impact Dummies, Injury Criteria, 
and Crash Tests

    In the 1999 Report to Congress, we outlined our side impact 
research plan for both harmonization and upgrade of FMVSS No. 214. 
Among other matters, the agency planned to improve the EuroSID-1 dummy 
to a new version, Eurosid-2 (ES-2), pursue incorporating a pole test 
using the ES-2 or SID-H3 dummy currently used in FMVSS No. 201's 
optional pole test, and study the benefits and costs of side air bags 
and the possible risks to out-of-position occupants. Id., Appendix A.
    NHTSA conducted or participated in extensive research following the 
research plan. We analyzed 1990-2001 crash data to determine 
characteristics of the occupants injured in near-side side impacts and 
how they were being injured, and to better understand the crash 
environment of vehicle-to-vehicle and narrow object side crashes, and 
found that head injuries and injuries to small statured occupants 
should be addressed. We fixed back-plate grabbing problems with the ES-
2 dummy,\11\ evaluated a 5th percentile female side impact dummy (SID-
IIs, see later section) and made determinations as to the dummies' 
suitability for crash testing. Injury criteria for occupant head, 
chest, abdomen and pelvis were also developed and/or evaluated. We 
conducted out-of-position testing of side air bags to assess risks of 
the SIABs to children. The agency also closely monitored the Insurance 
Institute for Highway Safety's (IIHS's) progress on developing that 
organization's side impact moving barrier consumer information test 
program, and assessed the degree to which our and IIHS's programs can 
best complement each other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NHTSA and the research arm of the EU (the European Enhanced 
Vehicle Safety Committee) recognized the potential for harmonizing 
on the use of a side impact test dummy and focused efforts on the 
evolution of the Eurosid into the ES-2re.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of these undertakings led us to decide to concentrate 
our efforts on improving head protection in side impacts by way of 
incorporating a pole test into FMVSS No. 214, with new test dummies 
capable of measuring head impact forces. An oblique (75 degree), 32 km/
h (20 mph) crash test was developed. Full-scale oblique pole tests were 
conducted with the ES-2, SID-H3 and SID-IIs dummies, with injury 
assessment references values developed for the injury mechanisms 
measured by the dummies. ``NHTSA Side Impact Research: Motivation For 
Upgraded Test Procedures,'' Samaha, et al. (2003).
    Full-scale side impact tests using a moving barrier were also 
conducted. These research projects were publicly presented in various 
forums, such as in a July 2002 NHTSA Research and Development Public 
Meeting \12\ and in meetings of the International Harmonized Research 
Agenda (IHRA) Side Impact Working Group, and others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ``Side Impact Upgrade Research Update,'' http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-01/Presentations/0702NRDmtg.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

k. Current Status of Second and Next Generation Side Impact Dummies

    Today, there are new side impact dummies capable of measuring HIC 
in addition to the SID-H3 50th percentile male dummy. The ES-2 50th 
percentile male dummy has a well-developed biofidelic head with injury 
measurement capabilities. (The ES-2 has been modified with regard to 
rib extensions to address structural deficiencies identified by NHTSA 
in injury measurement of the chest in the dummy. The modified dummy, 
hereinafter referred to as ``ES-2re,'' is described in detail later in 
this preamble.) There also is a test dummy representing a 5th 
percentile female, the SID-IIs, that is capable of measuring forces to 
the head, neck, shoulder, thorax, abdomen and pelvis body regions. In 
addition, a next-generation 50th percentile male side impact dummy, 
known as WorldSID, is under development by industry representatives 
from the U.S., Europe and Japan and the European and Japanese 
governments (see Docket No. 2000-17252). This future dummy is intended 
to better predict a wider range of injury potential in side impact 
testing than current dummies. However, the dummy is not yet available.

l. Industry Efforts To Improve Compatibility in Vehicle-to-Vehicle 
Crashes

    In response to the NHTSA Administrator's call for action to reduce 
the problem of vehicle incompatibility, some vehicle manufacturers have 
agreed to introduce changes to their LTVs to improve their 
compatibility in crashes with passenger cars. The Alliance of 
Automobile Manufacturers and IIHS announced a new voluntary industry 
commitment on December 4, 2003, to enhance occupant protection in 
front-to-side and front-to-front crashes.\13\ The industry initiative 
consists of improvements and research made in several phases focusing 
on changes to improve the geometric mismatch between the frontal 
structures of LTVs and passenger cars, and on accelerating the 
installation of side impact air bags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Docket NHTSA-2003-14623.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Phase 1 of the initiative concerning front-to-side crashes, 
manufacturers \14\ have agreed that, not later than September 1, 2007, 
at least 50 percent of each manufacturer's new passenger car and light 
truck (GVWR up to 8,500 lb) production intended for sale in the U.S. 
will be designed in accordance with either of the following head 
protection alternatives: (a) HIC36 performance of 1000 or 
less for a SID-H3 crash dummy in the driver's seating position in an 
FMVSS No. 201 pole impact test, or (b) HIC15 performance of 
779 or less (with no direct head contact with the barrier) for a SID-
IIs crash dummy in the driver's seating position in the IIHS MDB side 
impact crash test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ BMW Group, DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, 
General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Isuzu, Kia, Mazda, Mitsubishi, 
Nissan, Subaru, Suzuki, Toyota and Volkswagen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Phase 2, not later than September 1, 2009, 100 percent of each 
manufacturer's new passenger car and light truck (GVWR up to 8,500 lb) 
production will be designed in accordance with the IIHS MDB recommended 
practice of HIC15 performance of 779 or less for a SID-IIs 
crash dummy in the driver's seating position.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Phase 3 consists of research using the IIHS barrier to 
assess the benefits of adding performance criteria for other body 
regions, specifically, the thoracic and abdominal regions. In 
addition, the research will also assess the potential benefits of 
performance criteria for a rear-seat test dummy and a 50th 
percentile male dummy (WorldSID). In Phase 4, the manufacturers and 
IIHS will investigate the opportunities to enhance structural 
interaction between vehicles in front-to-side crashes. The work will 
include an assessment of the IIHS side impact barrier with regard to 
the front-to-front compatibility performance criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency welcomes these efforts. They are important and necessary 
first steps to reduce the problems associated with vehicle 
incompatibility. Voluntary efforts to equip vehicles with these new 
designs and life-saving devices will begin saving increased numbers of 
lives sooner than through the traditional regulatory approach and will 
reduce the cost of complying with government regulations.
    The oblique pole test proposed by this NPRM would be phased-in over 
three years beginning approximately four years from the publication 
date of a final rule. This leadtime is proposed to give adequate time 
for manufacturers to plan

[[Page 27996]]

for and design to specifications enabling their vehicles to meet an 
oblique test. Yet, if manufacturers began installing side impact air 
bags voluntarily on a widespread basis by 2007 with full implementation 
by 2009, we could see the fleet change years before implementation of 
the final rule. Many hundreds of lives could be saved in the near term.
    The near term voluntary installation of side impact air bags would 
be a significant improvement to side crash protection. In the long 
term, installation of side air bag systems meeting our oblique pole 
test would take this improvement even further. The enhanced side impact 
air bags envisioned by this NPRM would save even more lives--hundreds 
more each year--than those saved by present technologies. Together, the 
industry's near term voluntary initiatives and the agency's long term 
regulatory solutions would address the side impact safety problem in a 
comprehensive and complementary way.

V. Existing Standard

    FMVSS No. 214 specifies two types of performance requirements 
intended to protect the thoracic and pelvic regions of an occupant: 
``quasi-static'' requirements and ``dynamic'' requirements. They apply 
to passenger cars and to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and 
buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less and 6,000 lb or less, 
respectively.
    The quasi-static requirements limit the extent to which the side 
door structure of a vehicle is pushed into the passenger compartment 
during a side impact. The standard requires each side door to resist 
crush forces that are applied by a piston pressing a 300 mm (12 inch) 
steel cylinder against the door's outer surface in a laboratory test. 
Since the requirement became effective in 1973, vehicle manufacturers 
have generally chosen to meet the requirement by reinforcing the side 
doors with metal beams.
    The dynamic side impact test currently regulates the level of crash 
forces that can be experienced by an occupant's chest and pelvis when 
seated in a vehicle struck in a side impact. The dynamic requirements 
focus on thoracic pelvic protection because contact between the thorax 
and the side interior has been the primary source of serious injuries 
and fatalities.
    The dynamic side impact test simulates a 90-degree intersection 
impact of a striking vehicle traveling 48 km/h (30 mph) into a target 
(i.e., test) vehicle traveling 24 km/h (15 mph). This is achieved by 
running a moving deformable barrier (MDB), which has all wheels rotated 
27 degrees (crab angle) from the longitudinal axis, into the side of a 
stationary (test) vehicle at a 90-degree contact angle with a 54 km/h 
(33.5 mph) closing speed. At the initial contact, the longitudinal axes 
of the MDB and the test vehicle are perpendicular to each other. Two 
side impact dummies (SIDs) are used in the target vehicle. They are 
positioned on the struck side of the vehicle, one in the front seat 
with the other directly behind in the rear seat.
    The MDB, which simulates the striking (i.e., bullet) vehicle, has a 
mass of 1,361 kilograms (kg) (3,000 lb). The weight of the MDB and the 
geometry and material properties of the MDB's aluminum honeycomb 
contact face were derived from an adjustment of the average properties 
of the vehicle fleet (passenger cars and LTVs) in existence at the time 
of the development of the dynamic side impact regulation.
    The test procedures focus on the dummy's chest and pelvis 
acceleration responses, which have been correlated with crash and test 
data regarding the conditions that produce serious occupant injuries. 
The instrumented dummies must not exhibit chest accelerations and 
pelvic accelerations above specified thresholds in order to pass the 
test. The maximum rib and spine accelerations measured on the chest are 
averaged into a single metric called the Thoracic Trauma Index 
(TTI(d)), which has an 85g limit for 4-door vehicles and a 90g limit 
for 2-door vehicles. The pelvic acceleration has a 130g limit.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ At this time, the agency is conducting an evaluation of 
FMVSS No. 214 to determine the effectiveness of side padding in 
reducing injury risks in side impacts. The first part of the 
evaluation, focusing on older model year vehicles, was completed in 
1999 (DOT HS 809 004, NHTSA Technical Report, October 1999). The 
principal finding of this Phase-1 evaluation was a statistically 
significant association of TTI(d) with side impact fatality risks in 
model year (MY) 1981-1993 passenger cars. The observed relationship 
was stronger in 2-door cars than in 4-door cars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Proposed Vehicle-to-Pole Test Procedures, Dummies and Injury 
Criteria

    This NPRM proposes subjecting all vehicles \17\ with a GVWR of 
4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less to a dynamic vehicle-to-pole test that is 
similar to the one used to test some vehicles under FMVSS No. 201, 
except that we are proposing to change the angle of impact from 90 to 
75 degrees (which would result in bags having to cover a larger area of 
the window exposed to occupant contact), and the test speed from 29 to 
32 km/h (from 18 to 20 mph) (which would increase the severity of the 
test).\18\ The purpose of requiring vehicles to satisfy this test is to 
ensure protection for occupants in a wider range of real world impacts 
than would be the case if we used the FMVSS No. 201 pole test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ We propose excluding certain vehicles from the pole test: 
motor homes, tow trucks, dump trucks, ambulances and other emergency 
rescue/medical vehicles (including vehicles with fire-fighting 
equipment), vehicles equipped with wheelchair lifts, vehicles with 
raised or altered roof designs (see definitions in FMVSS No. 216, 
``Roof crush resistance''), and vehicles which 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. Many 
vehicles within these categories tend to have unusual side 
structures that are not suitable for pole testing or have features, 
such as a lowered floor or raised roof, which could pose 
practicability problems in meeting the test. Comments are requested 
as to whether these vehicles should be excluded from only the HIC 
requirement or from both head and thoracic protection in the pole 
test. Comments are also requested on the need to exclude other types 
of vehicles from the pole test, such as convertibles that lack a 
roof structure enabling the installation of an air curtain. 
Suggestions that NHTSA exclude certain vehicle types should include 
information supporting the exclusion and a discussion of the extent 
of the exclusion (e.g., from only the limit on HIC and not the 
limits on the other injury criteria of this proposal).
    \18\ The lateral component of the velocity would increase only 
1.3 mph and not 2 mph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A test dummy capable of measuring head injury potential would be 
used to represent a 50th percentile male. NHTSA proposes to adopt the 
ES-2re dummy for use in the pole test and in the barrier test, since, 
as discussed in a later section, we have tentatively determined that 
the dummy is technically superior to the SID-H3 test dummy used in 
FMVSS No. 201 and to the SID used in FMVSS No. 214. Alternatively, we 
request comments on using the SID-H3 dummy, since it can measure the 
risk of head injury. In addition, the NPRM proposes to use the modified 
SID-IIs dummy representing a 5th percentile female in both the pole and 
MDB tests. These dummies together better represent the at-risk 
population than those in the current standard.

a. Test Procedure

    The agency is proposing to adopt a vehicle-to-pole test similar to 
that specified in FMVSS No. 201, with modifications relating to the 
angle and speed at which the test vehicle is propelled into the pole 
and to the test dummies used in the test and the positioning of those 
dummies. Based on the agency's experience in the FMVSS No. 201 
compliance test program and in research done in support of today's 
NPRM, NHTSA tentatively concludes that the vehicle-to-pole test 
proposed today would better address the harm

[[Page 27997]]

caused by narrow object impacts in the real world, and lead 
manufacturers to equip their vehicles with upper interior, dynamically 
deploying head protection systems.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The pole test is very similar to the proposed International 
Organization for Standardization (ISO) test procedure found in the 
ISO/TC22/SC10/WG3 draft ISO Technical Report, ``Road Vehicles, 
Dynamic Side Impact Crash Test Procedure for Evaluating Occupant 
Interactions with Side Airbags for a Pole Impact Simulation'' (ISO/
CD 15829, February 9, 1995), with differences noted below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The pole would have the same specifications as the pole used in the 
vehicle-to-pole test specified in FMVSS No. 201. It would be a vertical 
metal structure beginning not more than 102 mm (4 inches) above the 
lowest point of the tires on the striking side of the test vehicle when 
the vehicle is loaded as specified in the standard and extending above 
the highest point of the roof of the test vehicle. The pole would be 
254 mm (10 inches) 6 mm in diameter and set off from any 
mounting surface such as a barrier or other structure, so that a test 
vehicle would not contact such a mount or support at any time within 
100 milliseconds of initiation of vehicle-to-pole impact.
    As we noted in the rulemaking adding the vehicle-to-pole test to 
FMVSS No. 201 (63 FR 41451, 41457; August 4, 1998), the 254 mm (10 
inch) pole diameter differs from the pole diameter specified by ISO in 
its final recommendation. ISO specifies a pole diameter of 350 mm (14 
inches). The diameter of the rigid pole specified in FMVSS No. 201 was 
set at 254 mm in 1998 based on data from the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA) that the pole diameter at the window sill level 
for most poles involved in single vehicle side crashes was 
approximately 254 mm (10 inches). FHWA has informed NHTSA that there 
are 80 million timber utility poles in the roadside environment and 
that the most common size pole would have a diameter of 254 mm (10 
inches) at the mid-height of passenger car doors. (See July 11, 2003 
memorandum, a copy of which is in the docket.) Therefore, the 254 mm 
(10 inch) diameter rigid pole is representative of poles struck in side 
crashes in the U.S.
    In a vehicle-to-pole test, the center line of the rigid pole is 
aligned with an impact reference line drawn on the struck side of the 
vehicle. In the procedures for the proposed oblique pole test, the 
impact reference line is in a vertical plane that passes through the 
center of gravity (CG) of the dummy's head in a direction that is 75 
degrees from the vehicle's longitudinal center line. When conducting a 
test with the 50th percentile male dummy, the dummy and the vehicle 
seat would be positioned as in FMVSS No. 214 (mid-track fore-and-aft). 
When conducting a test with the 5th percentile female dummy, the 
vehicle seat would be positioned full-forward. In today's proposed pole 
test, the initial pole-to-vehicle contact must occur within an area 
bounded by two vertical planes located 38 mm (1.5 inches) forward and 
aft of the impact reference line.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ This NPRM proposes to refine how the vehicle test attitude 
is determined. Currently, the vehicle attitude is defined by 
measurements made from the ground (a level surface) to a reference 
point placed on the vehicle body above each of the wheels. These 
measurements are made with the vehicle in the ``as delivered,'' 
``fully loaded,'' and ``pre test (or as -tested)'' conditions. This 
NPRM proposes that the method used to determine the test attitude be 
revised to align with that used in S13.3 of FMVSS No. 208. In that 
provision (specifying test procedures for a sled test), a test 
attitude is determined based on door-sill angle measurements to 
control the vehicle's pitch attitude. This NPRM also proposes to 
define the vehicle's roll attitude by a left to right angle measured 
along a fixed reference point at the front and rear of the vehicle 
at the vehicle longitudinal center plane. We have placed in the 
docket for comment a document setting forth the test procedures the 
agency is developing for the test.
    NHTSA is proposing these changes because we believe that 
measuring the angles more directly, better facilitates and more 
accurately determines the vehicle attitudes than by use of the 
method in current S6.2 of FMVSS No. 214 (specifying test procedures 
for the MDB test). NHTSA also proposes to use the new method to 
define the vehicle test attitude for the MDB test. In the MDB test, 
the dummy and vehicle instrumentation, high-speed cameras, 
associated brackets and instrumentation umbilical lines that are 
added to the vehicle make it difficult sometimes to achieve the 
corridor between the as delivered and fully loaded attitudes, 
particularly at the right front position of the vehicle. (The agency 
also requests comments on keeping the present method used to 
determine vehicle test attitude, but adding a  10 mm 
tolerance.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency's tests conducted in support of this NPRM demonstrate 
the repeatability of the proposed oblique pole test. NHTSA conducted 
three repeatability tests using the 1999 Nissan Maxima. The test 
results show that the location of first contact between the pole and 
vehicle exterior were in the range of 2 mm (0.08 in) and 15 mm (0.59 
in) rearward of the impact reference line. In all three tests, the head 
of the ES-2 dummy contacted the pole. Later, NHTSA conducted two 
additional oblique pole tests using 1999 Volvo S-80 cars. Test results 
show that the contact lines were 5 mm (0.2 in) and 32 mm (1.26 in) 
rearward of the impact reference line. One test was conducted with a 
SID-H3 dummy and another with an ES-2 dummy. (While the head of both 
dummies contacted the pole, the SID-H3 head rotated off the air curtain 
directly into the pole, resulting in a very high HIC score.) In 
conclusion, in all five tests, the contact lines were within the 38 mm 
(1.5 inch) tolerance limit specified in the FMVSS No. 201 procedure and 
in this proposal, and the dummy's head contacted the pole directly in 
tests without an inflatable head protection system (HPS) or indirectly 
(including head rotating into the pole) in tests with an HPS.
    The aforementioned tests were conducted with the vehicle seat 
positioned as specified in FMVSS No. 201.\21\ Two oblique pole tests 
with the seat positioned mid-track, as specified in FMVSS No. 214, were 
completed with each of the 1999 Volvo S-80 and 2000 Saab vehicles. The 
impact lines for the four tests were all less than 19 mm (0.75 inches), 
well within the tolerance of 38 mm (1.5 inches) of the impact reference 
line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Under the FMVSS No. 201 seating procedure, the dummy's head 
is positioned such that the point at the intersection of the rear 
surface of its head and a horizontal line parallel to the 
longitudinal centerline of the vehicle passing through the head's 
center of gravity is at least 50 mm (2 inches) forward of the front 
edge of the B-pillar. If needed, the seat back angle is adjusted, a 
maximum of 5 degrees, until the 50 mm (2 inches) B-pillar clearance 
is achieved. If this is not sufficient to produce the desired 
clearance, the seat is moved forward to achieve that result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Speed
    The proposed test speed is 32 km/h (20 mph). Crashes with delta-V 
32 km/h (20 mph) or higher result in approximately half of the 
seriously injured occupants in narrow object near-side crashes. The 
derivation of the median delta-V (32 km/h or 20 mph) was based on all 
belted occupants with serious injuries in 1990-2001 NASS near-side 
crashes with narrow objects regardless of impact angles. Based on the 
lateral delta-V, a test speed of 29 km/h (18 mph) for the 90-degree 
pole test would be slightly over 30 km/h (19 mph) in a 75-degree pole 
test. Based on these data, NHTSA tentatively concludes that a 32 km/h 
(20 mph) test would be more appropriate than a 29 km/h (18 mph) test 
speed, because it better corresponds to the speed of real world crashes 
that result in serious injury.
    Comments are requested on the alternative of a 29 km/h (18 mph) 
test speed. The 29 km/h (18 mph) test speed is used in the 
perpendicular pole test of FMVSS No. 201.
2. Angle of Impact
    This NPRM proposes that the angle at which a vehicle is propelled 
into the rigid pole would be 75-degrees rather than the 90-degree angle 
used in FMVSS No. 201. (This test using the 75-degree impact angle is 
sometimes referred to in

[[Page 27998]]

this document as the ``oblique pole test.'')
    In the oblique pole test, when testing the driver side of the 
vehicle, an impact reference line would be drawn on the vehicle's 
exterior where it intersects with a vertical plane passing through the 
head CG of the seated driver dummy at an angle of 75 degrees from the 
vehicle's longitudinal centerline measured counterclockwise from the 
vehicle's positive X axis as defined in S10.14 of the proposed 
standard. When testing the front passenger side, the impact reference 
line would be drawn where it intersects with a vertical plane passing 
through the head CG of the passenger dummy seated in the front outboard 
designated seating position at an angle of 285 degrees from the 
vehicle's longitudinal centerline measured counterclockwise from the 
vehicle's positive X axis as defined in S10.14 of the proposed 
standard. The vehicle is aligned so that, when the pole contacts the 
vehicle, the vertical center line of the pole surface as projected on 
the pole's surface, in the direction of the vehicle motion, is within a 
surface area on the vehicle exterior bounded by two vertical planes in 
the direction of the vehicle motion and 38 mm (1.5 inches) forward and 
aft of the impact reference line. The test vehicle would be propelled 
sideways into the pole. Its line of forward motion would form an angle 
of 75 degrees (or 285 degrees) (3 degrees) in the left (or 
right) side impact measured from the vehicle's positive X-axis in the 
counterclockwise direction.
    The agency tentatively concludes that the proposed oblique pole 
test would enhance safety because it is more representative of real-
world side impact pole crashes than a 90-degree test. Frontal oblique 
crashes, i.e., at a principal direction of force (PDOF) of 74 to 84 
degrees clockwise or counter clockwise from 12 o'clock, account for the 
highest percentage of seriously injured (MAIS 3+) near-side occupants 
in narrow object crashes. However, the crash data also show that the 
PDOF distribution encompasses a wide range of approach angles, where 
the mean cumulative distribution is a 60-degree impact angle. (As 
discussed later in this section, a steeper angle than 75-degrees is not 
considered appropriate because of the need for repeatability of the 
test procedure.)
    The oblique pole test also meets the need for safety because, 
unlike a 90-degree pole test, it exposes the dummy's head and thorax to 
both lateral and longitudinal crash forces that are typically 
experienced in rear world side impacts. Weighted 1990-2001 NASS/CDS 
side impact data show that in narrow object crashes, serious head and 
chest injuries are dominant for both small and large stature occupants. 
Therefore, in developing the oblique pole test procedure, the agency 
sought to establish a performance test that would both emulate the real 
world crash conditions while providing head and chest injury reduction 
benefits in the identified target population.
    NHTSA believes that an oblique impact angle would also serve the 
safety need because the test is likely to result in wider inflatable 
head protection systems and thus protect occupants over a wider range 
of impacts with narrow objects. A head air bag just wide enough to meet 
a perpendicular pole test might not provide benefits during an oblique 
crash, as the head of an occupant could move laterally and forward at 
an angle rather than moving strictly laterally into the head air bag. 
For example, in a 75-degree test of a Nissan Maxima with the ES-2 
dummy, the combination head/thorax side impact air bag was too small to 
prevent the occupant head from rotating into the pole. The HIC score 
was 5,254. In a 90-degree test, the same MY Maxima produced successful 
results, with a HIC score of 130. This contrast in results between the 
75- and 90-degree tests shows up repeatedly in tests of other vehicles 
as well. A 1999 Volvo S-80 with an air curtain and chest air bag tested 
obliquely with the SID-H3 resulted in a HIC of 2,223, while a HIC of 
237 was achieved in a 90-degree test.\22\ These data are presented in 
more detail later in this document and in the Preliminary Economic 
Assessment accompanying this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ However, that huge difference was not present in tests of 
the 1999 Volvo with the ES-2 dummy. Tested obliquely, the Volvo 
achieved a HIC of 465; in a 90-degree test, the HIC was 244.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An air bag might also fail to inflate in an oblique crash if the 
side air bag system were closely tuned to sensing and responding in a 
90-degree test using a 50th percentile male dummy. As discussed later 
in this preamble, data from crash tests conducted in support of this 
rulemaking show that side air bags in a Ford Explorer and a Toyota 
Camry that were certified as meeting the requirements of the 90-degree 
pole test of FMVSS No. 201 did not inflate at all in an oblique (75 
degree) test using a 5th percentile female dummy. The HIC results for 
the 5th percentile female (SID-IIsFRG) dummy placed in the driver's 
seats of these vehicles were in the thousands (13,125 and 8,706, 
respectively).
    Comments are requested on NHTSA's conclusions that combination and 
head protection air bags would generally need to be wider if the agency 
adopted a 75-degree vehicle-to-pole test instead of a 90-degree one, 
particularly if the ES-2re and SID-IIsFRG dummies were both used in 
testing side air bags. NHTSA believes that present seat-mounted head/
thorax air bags would need to be redesigned to extend the air pocket 
substantially further forward toward the A-pillar to provide coverage 
in a 75-degree oblique test. The air bags would likely need a more 
robust inflation system and a larger size to reach the part of the 
vehicle that would be struck by the dummy's head in a 75-degree pole 
test.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Simply using a 5th percentile female dummy in addition to a 
50th percentile male dummy in a 90-degree pole test might not result 
in seat-mounted head/thorax bags being wider. The two dummies would 
be positioned fore-and-aft and horizontally at different places in 
the vehicle. However, if the HPS were seat-mounted, the seat-mounted 
HPS would travel along the seat track with the dummies. That HPS 
could be tuned to a 90-degree pole test and not provide benefits in 
an oblique impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, side curtains might not need to be substantially 
widened to meet an oblique pole test. The agency believes that most 
current side air curtains are tethered to the A- and C-pillars of 
vehicles and generally would need less redesign than seat-mounted bags 
to meet an oblique pole test. Air curtains might thus be the 
countermeasure chosen by many manufacturers to meet the vehicle-to-pole 
test requirements proposed today.
    In addition, after evaluating research conducted on a number of 
HPS, the agency has determined that air curtain systems could be 
effective in preventing or reducing complete and partial occupant 
ejection through side windows. ``Rollover Ejection Mitigation Using 
Inflatable Tubular Structures,'' Simula, et al., 1998; ``Status of 
NHTSA's Ejection Mitigation Research Program,'' Willke, et al., ESV 
2003. This is important because the fatality rate for an ejected 
vehicle occupant is three times as great as that for an occupant who 
remains inside of the vehicle.
    The best way to reduce complete ejection is for occupants to wear 
their safety belts. However, of the 5,400 ejected fatalities through 
front side windows, 2,200 are from partial ejections. Fatal injuries 
from partial ejection can occur even to belted occupants,\24\ when 
their head protrudes outside the window and strikes the ground in a 
rollover or even the striking object (e.g., pole or a taller vehicle 
hood) in a side impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ About 60 percent of the partial ejections occurred to 
belted occupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the cumulative distribution of the angle of approach of near-
side

[[Page 27999]]

narrow object crashes has a mean of 60 degrees, based on its research, 
the agency has concluded that the 75-degree impact is repeatable to 
simulate in a laboratory test while a 60-degree impact is not. The more 
oblique the angle is, as measured from the lateral direction (e.g., 30 
degrees for the 60-degree impact versus 15 degrees for the 75-degree 
impact from the longitudinal direction), the more difficult it is to 
control dummy head and/or body kinematics (specifically, direction of 
the dummy head motion). For more oblique angles (as measured from the 
lateral direction), at the initial pole-to-vehicle contact, the lateral 
distance from the centerline of the pole to the head center of gravity 
is larger, and more of the vehicle structure, specifically the seat, is 
involved in that crush space. Different seat designs and structural 
attachments to the vehicle body could produce inconsistent dummy 
readings because of the varying dummy head/body kinematics and the head 
not consistently contacting the approaching 254 mm (10-inch) pole.
    Comments are requested on the appropriateness and practicability of 
using the 75-degree angle of approach as well as the 90-degree impact 
angle now used in the optional pole test of FMVSS No. 201.
3. Positioning the Seat and Impact Reference Line
    50th percentile male dummy. In the oblique pole test, an impact 
reference line would be placed on the exterior of the vehicle at the 
intersection of the vehicle exterior and a 75-degrees (or 285-degrees, 
for front passenger side) vertical plane passing through the center of 
gravity of the head of the driver (or passenger) dummy seated in the 
front outboard designated seating position. The 50th percentile male 
test dummy and the front vehicle seat would be positioned along the 
seat track as the dummy and front seat are positioned in the MDB test 
of FMVSS No. 214. (As noted below, the agency is also considering 
positioning the dummy and vehicle seat along the seat track using the 
FMVSS No. 201 seating procedure.) Under the FMVSS No. 214 procedure, 
the vehicle seat is positioned mid-track fore-and-aft. (This provision 
would only apply to the front seat, as the pole test would not apply to 
the rear seat.)
    NHTSA test data indicate that the FMVSS No. 201 and FMVSS No. 214 
seating procedures can result in different HIC measurements when using 
the SID-H3 dummy (see Table 4, infra). When a 1999 Volvo S-80 was 
tested in an oblique pole test with a SID-H3 50th percentile dummy, the 
HIC was 2,213 when the FMVSS No. 201 seating position was used, as 
opposed to 395 when the FMVSS No. 214 seating position was used. The 
side air bag system in the Volvo was an air curtain and thorax bag. 
Similarly, when a 2000 Saab was tested obliquely with the SID-H3 50th 
percentile male dummy, the HIC was 5,155 using the FMVSS No. 201 
seating procedure, as opposed to 182 using the FMVSS No. 214 seating 
position. The Saab's side air bag system was a combination bag. 
Compared to the FMVSS No. 201 seating position, the FMVSS No. 214 
seating position can place the dummy rearward and closer to the B-
pillar. Since the production side air bag system was wide enough to 
cover the dummy head trajectory in this seating position, the HIC 
values were significantly lower in these oblique tests.
    However, when the ES-2re dummy was used, differences in HIC were 
not so pronounced. The HIC score for the 1999 Volvo S-80 was 465 when 
using the FMVSS No. 201 procedure, as opposed to 329 when the dummy was 
seated according to FMVSS No. 214 seating specifications. The HIC for 
the Saab was 243 using FMVSS No. 201 seating procedure, and 171 using 
the FMVSS No. 214 procedure. The difference between the results of the 
two dummies is due to small differences in the dummy head/neck/shoulder 
kinematics and the tuning of current head protection air bag systems to 
provide limited coverage in lateral impacts. In both the Volvo S-80 and 
the Saab oblique pole tests with the ES-2, the deploying air bag lifted 
the articulated arm upward and inboard and the head bent laterally and 
contacted the bag along a main air chamber. In the case of the two 
oblique pole tests with the SID-H3, the dummy had rotated slightly 
forward and contacted the bag systems at a more forward section, 
resulting in contact with the intruding pole in the case of the Saab. 
It is also noted that air curtains are currently designed for the FMVSS 
No. 201 pole test, in which the SID-H3 dummy is used. In some cases, 
the air curtain might not be large enough to provide coverage to the 
SID-H3 dummy in an oblique crash.
    Rib deflection measurements differed slightly when the different 
seating positions prescribed in FMVSS No. 201 and No. 214 were used in 
the Volvo. Rib deflections were 40.70 mm (1.6 in) and 48.6 mm (1.91 in) 
when the FMVSS Nos. 201 and 214 procedures, respectively, were used. 
(The 48.6 mm rib deflection value obtained when the FMVSS No. 214 
procedure was used would not meet this NPRM's proposed criterion of 44 
mm.) Chest deflections did not differ significantly in the Saab in 
dummies positioned according to the FMVSS No. 201 and FMVSS No. 214 
procedures (49.9 mm (1.96 in) versus 49.4 mm (1.94 in)).
    We have tentatively decided to use the FMVSS No. 214 seating 
procedure for the vehicle-to-pole test proposed today. The FMVSS No. 
201 procedure is appropriate for that standard's pole test in order to 
place the SID-H3's head in the window opening, thus ensuring contact 
with a deploying head air bag and eliminating head interaction with the 
B-pillar.\25\ In the context of FMVSS No. 201, isolating the head air 
bag in this manner evaluates the effectiveness of the head air bag, 
which accords with the goal of that standard. An air bag in FMVSS No. 
201, though optional, would provide more protection than any interior 
component protected by padding or other energy-absorbing material. 
However, an air bag designed to meet the current proposal would offer 
more protection over a larger area and therefore, is expected to be 
more effective and yield more safety benefits than the air bags offered 
under the optional pole test requirement in FMVSS No. 201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ While the shoulder of the SID-H3 could interfere with the 
chest reading in the perpendicular test, FMVSS No. 201 does not 
specify chest injury criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the FMVSS No. 214 seating procedure has certain advantages 
when used in the oblique pole test. First, many mid-size occupants 
might use the mid-track position more typically than the one closer to 
the steering wheel specified under FMVSS No. 201. Second, using the 
FMVSS No. 214 procedure positions the 50th percentile male dummy 
further back towards the B-pillar than the FMVSS No. 201 seating 
procedure. By having the 50th percentile male dummy sitting at that 
position and the 5th percentile female dummy sitting full forward, the 
agency can ensure a test of as wide an area as possible. The agency 
believes that rearward positioning of the 50th percentile male dummy 
and the much further forward seat position for the 5th percentile 
female dummy (and the lower position of the 5th percentile female 
dummy's head) would result in head air bag designs that provide head 
protection through much or all of the window opening area. For these 
reasons, the agency is proposing to use the FMVSS No. 214 seating 
procedure for the 50th percentile male dummy in the oblique pole test. 
The agency seeks comments on which seating position (FMVSS No. 201 
versus No. 214) is appropriate.

[[Page 28000]]

    5th percentile female dummy. The procedures for determining the 
impact reference line for the test using the 5th percentile female 
dummy would be similar to that discussed above for determining the line 
when using the male dummy.
    Dummy positioning would differ, in that the female dummy would be 
positioned in the vehicle seating position in the manner described in 
S16.3.2 to S16.3.5 of FMVSS No. 208. That is, the dummy would be seated 
with the seat track in the full forward position. The agency 
tentatively concludes that a properly designed inflatable system should 
and can provide protection in that location.

b. Dummies and Injury Criteria

1. 50th Percentile Male Dummy (ES-2re)
    Crash data indicate that the 50th percentile male dummy is 
generally representative of the height and weight of occupants injured 
in collisions with passenger vehicles and with narrow objects.\26\ The 
median height and weight of the injured occupants in crashes with 
passenger cars (on the struck side of a vehicle) are 1,701 mm (67 
inches) and 72.1 kg (159 lb), and 1,701 mm (67 inches) and 71.2 kg 
(159.5 lb) in collisions with LTVs. The median height and weight of the 
injured occupants in crashes with narrow objects are 1,715 mm (67.5 
inches) and 72.3 kg (159.5 lb). Nearly 59 percent of all MAIS 3+ 
injuries occurred to occupants in the medium height stature category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ NHTSA analyzed 1991-2000 NASS cases involving (1) AIS 3 and 
greater injured occupants in near side impacts, (2) non-rollover 
tow-away side crashes without complete ejections, and (3) occupants 
with a height of 1,422 mm (56 inches) or greater. There were a total 
of 1,965 cases: 1,073 male occupants, 891 female occupants, and one 
with unknown gender. The injury distribution was 775 fatalities and 
1,190 seriously injured. These cases were annualized to national 
estimates. The analysis was performed with respect to three 
parameters--(1) gender (male and female), (2) body heights (short, 
medium, and tall categories), and (3) MAIS 3 and greater injured 
body regions (head, chest, abdomen, and others). (``Medium height'' 
was the middle of all occupant height/weight as studied.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted earlier, there are now improved test dummies that 
represent the 50th percentile male better than the SID. In 2000, NHTSA 
granted in part a petition for rulemaking from the AIAM, the Insurance 
Institute for Highway Safety, and the organization then called the 
American Automobile Manufacturers Association. The petitioners asked 
NHTSA to examine replacing the SID with an enhanced side impact dummy 
(see section IV(i), above). The petitioners suggested that NHTSA 
replace the SID with a test dummy (EuroSID-1) used in a European side 
impact standard (EU/96/27/EC). Although the agency concluded that 
EuroSID-1 had problems in measuring chest deflections accurately 
because of ``flat topping'' of responses, which rendered it unsuitable 
for use in FMVSS No. 214, we granted this part of the petition because 
we anticipated that the problems could be cured and that a dummy 
technically superior to the SID could be incorporated into FMVSS No. 
214. (``Flat topping'' refers to sustained peaks (plateaus of flat-
tops) in plots of the dummy's rib displacements over time. NHTSA 
observed sustained peaks as long as 15 milliseconds in rib displacement 
curves in tests using the EuroSID-1. ``Comparative Performance Testing 
of Passenger Cars Relative to FMVSS 214 and the EU 96/EC/27 Side Impact 
Regulations: Phase 1'', Samaha et al, Paper No. 98-S8-O-08, 16th 
International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, 
Windsor, Canada 1998. Rib deflection flat tops were deemed to be of 
concern, especially at low levels of deflection, as they can be an 
indication that the rib deflection mechanism is binding and thus the 
thorax is not responding correctly to the load from the intruding side 
structure. Accordingly, the resulting peak deflections would be of 
questionable usefulness as injury indicators.) Users of the dummy in 
Europe subsequently determined that the EuroSID-1 design allowed a 
spurious load path through the back plate in the dummy and thus 
transferred chest loads through the back plate, giving erroneous chest 
deflection readings.
    The problems of the EuroSID-1 appear to have been eliminated with 
the evolution of the dummy into the ES-2 side impact dummy and the 
subsequent changes made with respect to the ES-2's rib design. The ES-
2re dummy is more biofidelic than SID and offers more injury 
measurement capabilities than the present side impact dummy. Thus, 
using this improved dummy would enhance the protection afforded by 
vehicles to the affected population, especially those represented by a 
50th percentile male dummy.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Association 
des Constructers Europeens d'Automobiles and the Japan Automobile 
Manufacturers Association wrote an October 16, 2002 letter to NHTSA 
urging the agency to ``actively participate in the final development 
of WorldSID with the intention of specifying this device in a future 
upgrade to FMVSS 214.'' NHTSA supports the continuous improvement of 
test dummies. However, the agency will not delay this rulemaking to 
wait for the WorldSID. In the agency's best estimate, it will take a 
considerable amount of time to complete the evaluation of the 
WorldSID for its usefulness in vehicle tests, to determine its 
ability to project the risk of occupant injury, and to implement its 
use into FMVSS No. 214 compliance testing. In contrast, based on 
worldwide use experience of the EuroSID-1 and considerable 
experience with the ES-2, the rulemaking to incorporate the ES-2re 
dummy into Part 572 can be initiated in 2004. Since the dummy is 
available now for use in side impact testing, we estimate that the 
ES-2re could serve the need for an upgraded anthropomorphic test 
device (ATD) until the final development and implementation of the 
WorldSID. This assumes, of course, that WorldSID would ultimately be 
found to be suitable for use in FMVSS No. 214 and that the agency 
would decide through notice-and-comment rulemaking that its use in 
compliance testing is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Background
    The ES-2 dummy evolved from the EuroSID and EuroSID-1 dummies. 
EuroSID existed when NHTSA adopted the dynamic moving deformable 
barrier test into FMVSS No. 214 in 1990. However, when the agency 
examined the dummy, NHTSA determined that EuroSID suffered from a 
number of technical problems involving ``flat topping,''\28\ 
biofidelity, reproducibility of results, and durability. Because of 
these limitations, in 1988 NHTSA decided against adopting EuroSID and 
instead adopted SID as the test device used in the dynamic FMVSS No. 
214 test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The preamble to NHTSA's final rule adopting its current 
side impact dummy (SID) noted that the agency found that the EuroSID 
dummy had problems with flat topping. The agency stated, ``[o]ne of 
the problems discovered in NHTSA's EuroSID sled tests was that the 
ribs were bottoming out, which may have invalidated the V*C 
measurements being made. This condition was characterized by a flat 
spot on the displacement-time history curve, while the acceleration-
time history curve showed an increase with time until the peak g was 
reached. Although considerable attempts were made to correlate V*C 
and TTI(d), the deflection data collected continue to be 
questionable.'' 55 FR 45757, 45765 (October 30, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EuroSID was developed in the 1980s, and a revised version known 
as EuroSID-1 is currently specified as the test dummy to be used in ECE 
Regulation No. 95 and European Union (EU) Directive 96/27/EC 
(hereinafter EU 96/27/EC) for side impact testing. As noted above, in 
1996, Congress asked NHTSA to consider whether the dynamic side impact 
provisions of the European side impact regulation, including those 
specifying use of the EuroSID-1 dummy, were at least functionally 
equivalent to those in FMVSS No. 214. NHTSA developed and provided 
Congress with its side impact harmonization plan \29\ that set forth

[[Page 28001]]

NHTSA's planned research to evaluate the functional equivalence of the 
two standards and later, by update, the results of that research. NHTSA 
performed a series of crash tests of FMVSS No. 214 compliant vehicles 
using the EU test procedures and the EuroSID-1 dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ ``Report to Congress: NHTSA Plan for Achieving 
Harmonization of the U.S. and European Side Impact Standards,'' 
April 1997; ``Report to Congress: Status of NHTSA Plan For Side 
Impact Regulation Harmonization and Upgrade,'' March 1999. NHTSA 
Docket No. 1998-3935-1 and -10 of the DOT Docket Management System 
at www.dms.dot.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A main finding was that in all tests conducted, data for dummy rib 
deflections indicated flat topping. With flat topping, the resulting 
rib deflections and the V*C computations,\30\ which are based on the 
rib deflection, are suspect. Due to this anomaly and others in the 
measurements obtained with the European dummy, the agency determined 
that it was not possible to generate the data necessary to determine 
whether the European standard and its requirements are at least 
functionally equivalent to the provisions in FMVSS No. 214. The data 
did show, however, that the EuroSID-1 dummy was not suitable for use in 
FMVSS No. 214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ V*C, viscous criterion, is another way of measuring 
thoracic injury. It is based upon the product of chest compression 
and the rate of compression.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since that time, the EuroSID line of dummies has made steady 
progress toward resolving these issues, with the ES-2re being the 
latest version. The ES-2 was designed to overcome the concerns raised 
by NHTSA and users of the dummy worldwide.\31\ Beyond flat topping, 
concerns had been raised about the projecting back plate of the dummy 
grabbing into the seat back, upper femur contact with the pubic load 
cell hardware, binding in the shoulder assembly resulting in limited 
shoulder rotation, and spikes in the pubic symphysis load measurements 
associated with knee-to-knee contact. To address these concerns, the 
dummy manufacturer installed hardware upgrades in the ES-2, including 
an improved rib guide system in the thorax, a curved and narrower back 
plate, a new attachment in the pelvis to increase the range of upper 
leg abduction and inclusion of rubber buffers, a high mass flesh system 
in the legs, and beveled edges in the shoulder assembly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ On March 11, 2002, Nissan made a presentation to NHTSA on 
sled test results that Nissan believed showed back plate loading in 
the ES-2. Docket NHTSA-99-7381.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ES-2's back plate continued to grab the seat back in some of 
NHTSA's tests, despite the dummy manufacturer's initial efforts to 
address the problem by reducing the size and shape of the back plate. 
The dummy manufacturer was able to solve the flat topping problem by 
redesigning the rib module. The back plate problem was solved by adding 
rib extensions, i.e., replacement ribs that extend from the lateral 
portion of the non-struck thorax, around the sternum and struck-side, 
and end at the posterior aspect of the spine. The extended ribs provide 
a continuous loading surface that nearly encircles the thorax and 
enclose the posterior gap of the ES-2 ribcage. According to NHTSA's 
test data, these ``rib extensions'' reduce to a great extent the back 
plate grabbing force that had the effect of lowering rib deflection 
responses in tests. The rib extensions also do not appear to affect the 
dummy's rib deflection responses in tests in which high back plate 
loads did not occur.
    The ES-2 dummy has not yet supplanted the EuroSID-1 dummy in Europe 
or elsewhere for use in regulations as of this time. However, based on 
a proposal from the Netherlands, the UN/ECE's Working Party on Passive 
Safety (GRSP) has recommended to the WP.29 that ECE Regulation No. 95 
be amended to use the ES-2 dummy in place of the EuroSID-1.\32\ The 
GRSP's proposal takes into account the modifications that NHTSA has 
done to ES-2 to fix the back plate problem, as well as other minor 
outstanding technical problems raised by other participants. If this is 
adopted, the European Union is expected to also amend its Directive 96/
27/EC to use the ES-2 dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The UN/ECE World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle 
Regulations (WP.29) administers several agreements relating to the 
global adoption of uniform technical regulations. An agreement, 
known as the 1958 Agreement, concerns the adoption of uniform 
technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts 
and the development of motor vehicle safety regulations for 
application primarily in Europe. UN-member countries and regional 
economic integration organizations set up by UN country members may 
participate in a full substantive capacity in the activities of 
WP.29 by becoming a Contracting Party to the Agreement. Various 
expert groups (e.g., the GRSP) within WP.29 make recommendations to 
WP.29 as to whether regulations should be adopted by the Contracting 
Parties to the 1958 Agreement. Under the 1958 Agreement, new 
Regulations and amendments to existing Regulations are established 
by a vote of two-thirds majority of Contracting Parties. The new 
Regulation or amendment becomes effective for all Contracting 
Parties that have not noticed the Secretary-General of their 
objection within six months after notification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the ES-2re in FMVSS No. 214 would also accord with the 
practices of the non-governmental European New Car Assessment Program 
(EuroNCAP) on side impact. EuroNCAP began using the ES-2 dummy with the 
injury criteria specified in EU 96/27/EC in February 2003.
    In light of the above modifications and the anticipated benefits of 
this dummy, NHTSA believes that the ES-2re merits consideration for 
incorporation into Part 572 and for use in FMVSS No. 214 testing. Based 
upon the ES-2re's superior biofidelity and added measurement 
capabilities for injury assessment of many body regions and associated 
instrumentation, we have tentatively decided that the ES-2re is the 
preferred option for the 50th percentile male dummy. As part of a 
separate rulemaking action, NHTSA is currently in the process of 
``Federalizing'' the ES-2re dummy. A technical report and other 
materials describing the ES-2re in detail have been placed in the 
Docket for today's NPRM. A proposal to incorporate the specifications 
for the ES-2re in Part 572 will be published shortly in the Federal 
Register.
    Biofidelity, Repeatability and Reproducibility. Biofidelity is a 
measure of how well a test device duplicates the responses of a human 
being in an impact. The Occupant Safety Research Partnership and 
Transport Canada conducted biomechanical testing on the ES-2 dummy. 
Byrnes, et al., ``ES-2 Dummy Biomechanical Responses,'' 2002, Stapp Car 
Crash Journal, Vol. 46, p. 353. Biomechanical response data were 
obtained by completing a series of drop, pendulum, and sled tests from 
the International Organization of Standardization (ISO) Technical 
Report 9790. Full scale tests were also conducted. For the ISO rating 
system, a dummy with a higher biofidelity rating responds much more 
like a human subject. The overall dummy biofidelity rating was 
determined to be ``fair,'' at 4.6, an improvement over the SID and 
Eurosid-1 (which received ratings classifications of 2.3 and 4.4, 
respectively).
    The agency also used the biofidelity ranking system developed by 
Rhule, et al., ``Development of a New Biofidelity Ranking System for 
Anthropomorphic Test Devices,'' 2002, Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 46, 
p. 477. The assessment included the dummy's External Biofidelity (how 
much like a human the dummy loads the vehicle components) and Internal 
Biofidelity (how much like a human the dummy measures injury criteria 
measurement responses and is calculated for those body regions that 
have an associated injury criterion). The Overall External and Internal 
Biofidelity ranks are an average of each of the external and internal 
body region ranks, respectively. A lower biofidelity rank indicates a 
more biofidelic dummy. A dummy with an External Biofidelity rank of 
less than 2.0 responds much like a human subject. The ES-2re dummy had 
an Overall External Biofidelity rank of 2.6, compared to 2.7 for the 
ES-2 and

[[Page 28002]]

3.8 for the SID-H3. Its overall internal biofidelity rank was 1.6.
    The ES-2re dummy's repeatability and reproducibility were 
determined on the basis of component tests and sled tests of the two 
dummies. The component tests were conducted on head, neck, shoulder, 
upper rib, middle rib, lower rib, abdomen, lumbar spine and pelvis body 
regions. The repeatability assessment was made in terms of percent CV 
(Coefficient of Variance). A CV value of less than 5 percent is 
considered excellent, 5-8 percent good, 8-10 percent acceptable, and 
above 10 percent unacceptable. Nine tests were performed with one of 
the dummies, and 7 tests were performed with the other. The 
reproducibility was established by comparing the average responses of 
both dummies. The reproducibility assessment was made in terms of 
response differences between the two dummies with respect to the mean. 
A difference of less than 5% is considered excellent, 5-8% good, 8-10% 
acceptable, and above 10% unacceptable. The results of the tests 
indicate ``excellent'' repeatability and reproducibility ratings for 
all components except for the pelvis, which has a ``good'' rating. For 
a complete discussion of these tests, interested persons should consult 
the technical paper entitled ``Technical Report--Design, Development 
and Evaluation of the ES-2re Side Crash Test Dummy,'' which has been 
placed in the agency's docket.
B. Injury Criteria
    In assessing the suitability of a dummy for side impact testing, it 
is necessary to consider its injury assessment capabilities relative to 
human body regions at risk in the real world crash environment. Crash 
data indicate that FMVSS No. 214 should encourage vehicle designs that 
protect not only an occupant's head, but also other body regions in the 
vehicle-to-pole test. Accordingly, injury criteria are being proposed 
for the head, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis. A technical report titled, 
``Injury Criteria for Side Impact Dummies,'' and the agency's 
Preliminary Economic Assessment for this NPRM, have a full discussion 
of these injury criteria and supporting data. (Both documents are 
available in the docket.)
    The types of injury criteria proposed by NHTSA are generally 
consistent with those developed by ECE/WP.29, by the European Union in 
its directive EU 96/27/EC, and by EuroNCAP for rating vehicles, 
although some may differ, based upon the results of NHTSA testing. Four 
of NHTSA's proposed injury criteria are specified in EU 96/27/EC for 
use with the EuroSID-1 dummy. NHTSA has tentatively decided not to use 
the chest viscous injury criteria, V*C <= 1.0. NHTSA has not found the 
V*C criterion to be repeatable and reproducible in the agency's 
research.
    While the ES-2 is an upgraded EuroSID-1 dummy, rather than an 
entirely new dummy, we have concluded that the thorax of the ES-2 is so 
different from that of the predecessor dummy that previously-generated 
EuroSID-1 data should not be considered in analyzing the ES-2 and its 
associated thoracic injury criteria. The flat topping and other 
problems of the EuroSID-1 make those earlier data of little value to 
researchers in analyzing the ES-2. Consequently, in developing the 
criteria discussed below, NHTSA limited its analysis to existing ES-2 
data and our own research conducted with the ES-2re. The agency 
believes that these two data sets are interchangeable, except for ES-2 
data affected by the back plate problem. Based upon our assessment of 
these dummies, we believe that the ES-2 with rib extension 
modifications is superior to the unmodified version. Accordingly, the 
agency is proposing use of the ES-2re with the following injury 
criteria.
    Head: NHTSA is proposing to require passenger cars and LTVs to 
limit HIC to 1000 (measured in a 36 millisecond time interval) when the 
ES-2re dummy is used in the proposed 32 km/h (20 mph) oblique vehicle-
to-pole test (and the MDB test). This measure has been chosen because 
the HIC36 1000 criterion is consistent with the optional 
pole test designed to afford head protection under FMVSS No. 201. The 
HIC36 1000 criterion provides a measure with which the 
agency and the industry already have experience. HIC36 1000 
relates to a 52 percent risk of AIS 3+ injury.
    Thorax (Chest): NHTSA has proposed two criteria to measure thoracic 
injury when using the ES-2re. First, chest deflection shall not be 
greater than 42 mm (1.65 in) for any rib (reflecting an approximate 50 
percent risk of an AIS3+ injury). We note that our proposed requirement 
is harmonized with the EU regulation for the EuroSID-1.\33\ However, 
the agency is also considering, and seeking comment on, an alternative 
chest deflection criterion within the range of 35-44 mm (1.38-1.73 in). 
This range corresponds to an approximate 40-50 percent risk of AIS3+ 
injury. Second, resultant lower spine acceleration shall not be greater 
than 82 g's (reflecting a 50 percent risk of an AIS3+ injury).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Based on an analysis of the limited thoracic force-
deflection cadaver data available in the 1980's, the U.S. Advisory 
Group of Working Group 6 of ISO indicated that a rib-to-spine 
deflection of 42 mm would correspond to a 50 percent risk of nine 
rib fractures. According to Dr. Tarriere from Renault, internal 
organ injuries and flail chest (AIS 4) would be more likely to occur 
if the number of rib fracture became higher than nine. Dr. Terriere 
indicated that we could exclude severe internal organ injuries by 
excluding the AIS 4 flail chest injury. Based on that reason, 
European groups concluded that the EuroSID-1 should be based on the 
risk of rib fractures and thus a rib deflection <= 42 mm. It should 
be pointed out that the said rib deflection criterion is a cadaver-
based injury criterion for lower AIS level injuries, and that no 
transformation was made between the EuroSID-1 and the cadaver test 
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency believes that a combination of the two criteria is 
appropriate to provide thoracic injury protection to vehicle occupants. 
NHTSA tentatively selected these two criteria based upon a series of 42 
side impact sled tests using fully instrumented human cadaveric 
subjects and 16 sled tests using the ES-2re conducted at the Medical 
College of Wisconsin. NHTSA conducted the analysis using logistic 
regression with injury outcome in cadaveric sled tests as the response, 
and ES-2 dummy measured physical parameters (maximum rib deflections, 
TTI, maximum spinal accelerations) in similar sled tests as the 
covariates. The subjects' anthropometric data such as age, gender, and 
mass were also included as covariates since the agency believed that 
they might influence injury outcome.\34\ This method of analysis 
provided injury criteria that can directly be applied to the ES-2re 
dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Kuppa, S., Eppinger, R., McKoy, F., Nguyen, T., Pintar, F., 
Yoganandan, Y., ``Development of Side Impact Thoracic Injury 
Criteria and Their Application to the Modified ES-2 Dummy with Rib 
Extensions (ES-2re), Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 47, October, 
2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chest deflection has been shown to be the best predictor of 
thoracic injuries in low-speed crashes. We believe it to be a better 
injury risk measure than TTI(d) for the ES-2re dummy.\35\ We added 
spinal acceleration criteria because we believe that there might be 
injurious loading conditions that are not picked up by the rib 
deflections measured on the ES-2re dummy, and spinal accelerations are 
a good measure of the overall load on the thorax. The

[[Page 28003]]

acceleration at the lower spine (``lower spine acceleration'') is also 
a measure that is less sensitive to direction of impact. Consequently, 
in concert, the two thoracic criteria will enhance injury assessment in 
a vehicle side crash test, and we expect them (and their associated 
reference values) to result in reduced chest injuries as compared to 
the criteria in the current standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ TTI(d), a chest acceleration-based criteria, when combined 
with anthropometric data, was developed by NHTSA (Eppinger, R. H., 
Marcus, J. H., Morgan, R. M., (1984), ``Development of Dummy and 
Injury Index for NHTSA's Thoracic Side Impact Protection Research 
Program,'' SAE Paper No. 840885, Government/Industry Meeting and 
Exposition, Washington, DC; Morgan, R. M., Marcus, J. H., Eppinger, 
R. H., (1986), ``Side Impact--The Biofidelity of NHTSA's Proposed 
ATD and Efficacy of TTI,'' SAE Paper No. 861877, 30th Stapp Car 
Crash Conference) and is included in the FMVSS No. 214 side impact 
protection standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we have tentatively selected 42 mm as the deflection 
criterion, we are also considering a chest deflection limit within the 
range of 35-44 mm (1.38-1.73 in). NHTSA reanalyzed the Eppinger data 
set that was used when NHTSA undertook the rulemaking adopting the MDB 
test into FMVSS No. 214 in 1990 (see preceding footnote concerning 
TTI(d)). The agency analyzed the injury risk curve versus TTI(d) and 
estimated that a rib deflection of 44 mm (1.73 in) for the ES-2re would 
be approximately equivalent to a TTI(d) of 85 g's for the SID.\36\ (A 
TTI(d) limit of 85 g's is specified in the MDB test of FMVSS No. 214 
for 4-door vehicles.) The 44 mm (1.73 in) value corresponds to a 50 
percent risk of injury for a 45-year-old occupant.\37\ Data from NASS 
indicates that chest is still the predominant seriously injured body 
region and that serious chest injuries are prevalent in the modern 
vehicle fleet. A deflection limit of 35 mm, reflecting a 40 percent 
risk of an AIS 3+ injury, could markedly improve the chest protection 
afforded by FMVSS No. 214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Kuppa, S., Eppinger, R., McKoy, F., Nguyen, T., Pintar, F., 
Yoganandan, Y., ``Development of Side Impact Thoracic Injury 
Criteria and their Application to the Modified ES-2 Dummy with Rib 
Extensions (ES-2re), Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 47, October, 
2003.
    \37\ Logistic regression analysis using cadaver injury and 
anthropometry information along with the ES-2 measurements indicate 
that the age of the subject at the time of death had a significant 
influence on the injury outcome (p<0.05). Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed limit for resultant lower spine acceleration would be 
82 g. The upper and lower spine of the ES-2re are instrumented with 
tri-axial accelerometers (x, y, and z direction corresponding to 
anterior-posterior, lateral medial, and inferior-superior). In purely 
lateral loading, one would expect only lateral (y) accelerations. 
Moreover, due to constraints built into their designs, the dummies 
exhibit predominantly y (lateral) acceleration due to lateral loading. 
In the side impact sled tests at the Medical College of Wisconsin 
(MCW), described above, the dummy's lower spine accelerations were 
almost the same as the resultant acceleration 
(sqrt(x2+y2+z2)) since x and z 
accelerations are small. However, due to the complex response of 
humans, vehicle occupants experience x, y, z accelerations even in pure 
lateral loading. In vehicle crashes, loading can be in various 
directions. Therefore, NHTSA believes that to account for overall 
loading, resultant accelerations should be considered rather than 
lateral acceleration alone.
    Abdomen: The ES-2re dummy offers abdominal injury assessment 
capability, a feature that is not present in the SID dummy. The agency 
is proposing an abdominal injury criterion of 2,500 Newtons (N) (562 
pounds). We note that our proposed requirement is harmonized with the 
abdominal load injury criterion used in the European side impact 
regulation, EU 96/27/EC, as well as the EuroNCAP Program for the 
EuroSID-1. However, the agency is also considering, and seeking comment 
on, an alternative abdominal injury criterion within the range of 
2,400-2,800 N (540-629 pounds). This range corresponds to an 
approximate 30-50 percent risk of AIS 3+ injury. The proposed abdominal 
injury criterion was developed using cadaver drop test data from 
Walfisch, et al. (1980).\38\ Analysis of this data indicated that 
applied force was the best predictor of abdominal injury, and an 
applied force of 2,500 N (562 pounds) corresponds to a 33 percent risk 
of AIS 3+ injury. The MCW sled test data indicated that the applied 
abdominal force on the cadavers was approximately equal to the total 
abdominal force in the ES-2re dummy under similar test conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Walfisch, G., Fayon, C., Terriere, J., et al., ``Designing 
of a Dummy's Abdomen for Detecting Injuries in Side Impact 
Collisions, 5th International IRCOBI Conference, 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This abdominal capability of the ES-2re is a potentially 
significant advantage over the SID dummy, and requiring vehicles to 
satisfy this injury criterion to meet FMVSS No. 214 might reduce the 
number of abdominal injuries to the driving population. In a NASS study 
of side impact crashes, it was estimated that between 8.5 percent and 
21.8 percent of all AIS 3+ injuries are to the abdomen of restrained 
near side front seat occupants.\39\ The SID dummy currently used in 
FMVSS No. 214 does not have these detection capabilities, thus leaving 
a gap in the control of injury outcomes in side crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Samaha, R.S., Elliot, D., ``NHTSA Side Impact Research: 
Motivation for Upgraded Test Procedures,'' Proceedings of the 18th 
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV) Conference (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pelvis: NHTSA is proposing a pelvic force limit of not greater than 
6,000 N (1,349 pounds) (25 percent risk of AIS3+ injury). The ES-2re 
has two pelvic measurement capabilities. First, the ES-2re has 
instrumentation to measure pelvic acceleration, as does the SID dummy. 
However, unlike the SID, the ES-2re is also capable of measuring the 
force (load) at the pubic symphysis, which is the region of the pelvis 
where the majority of injuries occur. A field analysis of 219 occupants 
in side impact crashes by Guillemot, et al. (1998) showed that the most 
common injury to the pelvis was fracture of the pubic rami (pelvic ring 
disruption).\40\ Pubic rami fractures are the first to occur because it 
is the weak link in the pelvis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Guillemot H., Besnault B., Robin, S., et al., ``Pelvic 
Injuries In Side Impact Collisions: A Field Accident Analysis And 
Dynamic Tests On Isolated Pelvic Bones,'' Proceedings of the 16th 
ESV Conference, Windsor (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This NPRM would only limit pubic symphysis force. The agency is not 
proposing an acceleration-based criterion because the agency believes 
that an injury threshold limit on pelvic acceleration is dependent on 
the impact location and the type of loading (distributed versus 
concentrated). Therefore, pelvic acceleration is not as good a 
predictor of pelvic fracture as force. The scientific literature has 
documented that force alone is a good predictor of pelvic injury.\41\ 
Further, the pubic symphysis load injury criterion has been applied in 
the European side impact regulation EU 96/27/EC as well as the EuroNCAP 
Program, so there is experience with this measure and some 
demonstration of its usefulness. The criterion in those programs is 
6,000 N (1,349 pounds), the same limit that we are proposing here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Bouquet, et al. (1998) performed cadaver pendulum impact 
tests and showed that the pubic symphysis load cell in the EuroSID-1 
dummy was a good predictor of pelvic fracture. See Bouquet, R, 
Ramet, M, Bermond, F, Caire, Y, Talantikite, Y, Robin, S, Voiglio, 
E, ``Pelvis Human Response to Lateral Impact,'' Proceedings of the 
16th Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV) Conference (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed injury criteria and limits are summarized below in 
Table 2:

[[Page 28004]]



                                  Table 2.--Proposed Injury Criteria for ES-2re
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Rib-Def.     Lower spine                   Public-force
               Criterion                     HIC36         (mm)           (g)       Abd.-force (N)       (N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Limits........................        1,000       * 35-44            82    * 2,400-2,800        6,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* A particular value within this proposed range would be selected.

C. Oblique Pole Tests With ES-2 and ES-2re
    NHTSA has conducted four 32 km/h (20 mph) oblique pole tests using 
the FMVSS No. 214 seating procedure and the ES-2re dummy. The agency 
has conducted five additional tests using the FMVSS No. 201 seating 
procedure. The first four tests were with the ES-2 dummy and the fifth 
test was with the ES-2re dummy. The test results are presented in Table 
3.

     Table 3.--75-Degree Pole Test Results ES-2 Dummy or ES-2re Dummy (Using FMVSS No. 214 seating position)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Rib-def    Lower spine  Abd.- force    Public-
         Test vehicle              Restraint *        HIC36        (mm)         (g)          (N)       force (N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Using FMVSS No. 214 seating position
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed limits...............  .................       1,000      35-44           82     2,400-2800       6,000
1999 Volvo S80 **.............  AC+Th............         329         48.7         51.2        1,550       1,130
2000 Saab 9-5 **..............  Comb.............         171         49.4         49.0        1,370       1,730
2004 Honda Accord **..........  AC+Th............         446         30.7         51.7        1,437       2,463
2004 Toyota Camry **..........  AC+Th............         452         43.4         52.5        1,165       1,849
-------------------------------
                                Test Results Using FMVSS No. 201 Seating Position
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 Nissan Maxima............  Comb.............       5,254         35.7         45.1        1,196       2,368
1999 Volvo S80................  AC+Th............         465         40.7         51.4        1,553       1,700
2000 Saab 9-5.................  Comb.............         243         49.9         58.3        1,382       2,673
2001 Saturn L200..............  AC...............         670         52.3         78.2        1,224       2,377
2002 Ford Explorer **.........  AC...............         629         43.0         98.4        2,674      2,317
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Comb.=combination head/chest SIAB; AC=air curtain; Thorax or Th=chest SIAB
** Test was conducted with the ES-2re dummy.

    Table 3 shows that vehicles with air curtain systems performed well 
in protecting the dummy's head. The head/chest side air bag of the 2000 
Saab 9-5 also passed the limit on HIC. However, the head/chest side air 
bag of the 1999 Nissan Maxima did not perform well (the HIC score was 
5,254).
    The agency's tests of the Maxima illustrate how the impact angle of 
the pole test can influence the level of protection provided by a 
vehicle's side air bags. NHTSA conducted three oblique pole tests using 
a Maxima without a side bag for the purpose of demonstrating test 
repeatability of the oblique pole test procedure. As previously 
mentioned, the HIC score for a Maxima vehicle with a head/chest side 
impact air bag was 5,254 (results presented in Table 3, above), while 
the HIC scores for Maxima cars without a side air bag head protection 
system ranged from 11,983 to 15,591. Although the combination side 
impact air bag system in the Maxima reduced the HIC by up to 66 percent 
to 5,254, the HIC level was nevertheless high enough to have caused 
fatal injuries. On the other hand, the results of the test of the 
Maxima vehicle in a 90-degree FMVSS No. 201 pole test (Table 6, infra) 
showed successful results with a HIC score of 130.
    The 75-degree impact produces a different dummy head trajectory. 
Judging from the film coverage of the Maxima test, in the oblique pole 
test, the combination SIAB in the Maxima did not prevent the occupant 
head from rotating into the pole.\42\ In order to comply with the 
proposed oblique pole test requirements, NHTSA expects that 
manufacturers will install head protection systems extending 
sufficiently toward the A-pillar to protect the head in the 75-degree 
approach angle test. Further, the proposed 32 km/h (20 mph) oblique 
pole test has a lateral component of 31 km/h (19.3 mph). Thus, it has 
at least 15 percent \43\ more kinetic energy than the FMVSS No. 201 90-
degree pole test at 18 mph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ A copy of the film is available from the FHWA/NHTSA 
National Crash Analysis Center Film Library, 20101 Academic Way, 
Suite 203, Ashburn, VA 20147-2604. Telephone: 703-726-8236; Fax: 
703-726-8358.
    \43\ The 15 percent increase in kinetic energy was computed by 
taking the difference in kinetic energy (1/2 mass*velocity \2\) for 
both velocities of 18 mph and 19.3 mph for a given vehicle and 
dividing it by the baseline kinetic energy at 18 mph. Since the mass 
of the vehicle is constant in this example, the percent increase in 
kinetic energy was approximated by the difference between (20 mph) 
\2\ and (18 mph) \2\ divided by (18 mph) \2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the four tests using the FMVSS No. 214 seating position, the ES-
2re rib deflection exceeded the maximum deflection in the proposed 
range (i.e., 44 mm or 1.73 in) in half of the vehicles tested. The ES-
2re rib deflection was exceeded in both tests of the 1999 Volvo and 
2000 Saab vehicles. All of the vehicles in this series were equipped 
with thorax air bags of some type. Of the two vehicles that met the rib 
deflection criteria, the 2004 Toyota Camry test was very close to the 
proposed upper 44 mm (1.73 in) limit with a rib deflection of 43.4 mm 
(1.71 in). However, the other vehicle, the 2004 Honda Accord, met the 
lowest proposed rib deflection criteria with more than 4 mm to spare. 
Thus, the Accord demonstrates the practicability of meeting the 
proposed requirements using the FMVSS No. 214 seating procedure.
    In the five tests using the FMVSS No. 201 seating position, the ES-
2 rib deflection exceeded the proposed upper limit of 44 mm (1.73 in) 
in one of the two vehicles equipped with air curtains

[[Page 28005]]

and no separate chest air bag (Saturn L200). The ES-2 rib deflection 
was also exceeded in one vehicle equipped with a combination head/chest 
side air bag (Saab 9-5). The three remaining vehicle tests (Nissan 
Maxima, Ford Explorer, and Volvo S80) did not result in rib deflection 
readings above the proposed upper limit. The Ford Explorer did, 
however, exceed the limits on lower spine acceleration and abdominal 
force, which might have been partially due to the fact that the vehicle 
only had an air curtain system and no thorax air bag. (See Table 3.)
D. Comparing the ES-2re to the SID-H3
    NHTSA believes that the ES-2re and the SID-H3 would yield similar 
benefits in head protection. Of the two, NHTSA prefers the ES-2re for 
its overall superior biofidelity and additional injury assessment 
capability.
    In comparing the biofidelity of the two dummies, the ISO and other 
researchers (Rhule, et al., 2002) found that the ES-2re dummy 
demonstrates more human-like response than the SID-H3 in virtually 
every category examined.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ ``Development of a New Biofidelity Ranking System for 
Anthropomorphic Test Devices'' (Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 46, 
November 2002, pp. 477-512).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency believes that more effective and encompassing test tools 
should be used to assess the effectiveness of side impact 
countermeasures, particularly those involving head air curtains and 
either seat or door mounted air bags. The ES-2re, with the more human-
like rib cage geometry, mass distribution, and telescopic rib 
compression mechanism, provides the capability of measurement of chest 
compression. It also has an abdomen that is a weighted deformable 
element with internal load cells to measure load transfer through to 
the spine. Given that abdominal injuries constitute up to 20 percent of 
all injuries in side impact, it is desirable that an ATD can assess 
this injury. Of lesser significance, but still of importance, is the 
ES-2re dummy's instrumentation of the pelvis. Besides acceleration, it 
permits the measurement of force through the iliac wing to the sacrum 
and pubic symphysis. \45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Another advantage of the ES-2re dummy is that it is 
equipped with an articulating arm that can be placed at the side of 
the thorax, where it acts as an interposer between the vehicle 
interior and the chest. The arm may also be positioned so that it is 
elevated, simulating the driving position for the driver, leaving 
the thorax exposed to direct contact by the vehicle door. The test 
procedures for the proposed oblique pole test specify elevating the 
arms of the dummy in the driver's seat, simulating the driving 
position. In contrast, the SID-H3 dummy's arm is built into the 
torso jacket and can only simulate the condition where the arm is 
down. Thus, to the extent that the ES-2re dummy's arm can be 
positioned in more than one way, that dummy is better able to 
simulate the results of a variety of side impact crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, as noted above, NHTSA is considering using the SID-H3, 
particularly if all of the injury measures available in ES-2re are not 
adopted in FMVSS No. 214. The SID-H3 has been used for years in the 
optional vehicle-to-pole test in FMVSS No. 201 and is acceptably 
biofidelic as a test device. While SID-H3 is not as advanced an ATD as 
the ES-2re, it can measure head acceleration and is still an 
improvement over the SID. HIC would be limited to 1,000 as it is now in 
FMVSS No. 201. TTI and pelvic acceleration would be limited as they are 
now specified for the SID in the MDB test. TTI(d) would have an 85g 
limit for 4-door vehicles and a 90g limit for 2-door vehicles. The 
pelvic acceleration would be limited to 130g.
    NHTSA has conducted three oblique pole tests with the SID-H3 dummy 
using the FMVSS No. 201 seating procedure. Table 4 shows that all three 
vehicles tested with the SID-H3 dummy would not comply with one or more 
of the proposed injury criteria in that test.

                                 Table 4.--75--Degree Oblique Pole Test Results
                                                 [SID-H3 Dummy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Test vehicle                         Restraint*             HIC 36         TTI(d)        Pelvis-g
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Using FMVSS No. 214 seating position
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Limits.........................  ............................      1,000            **85/90       130
1999 Volvo S80..........................  AC+Th.......................        395               49.0        59.1
2000 Saab 9-5...........................  Comb........................        182               77.0        82.1
-----------------------------------------
                                      Using FMVSS No. 201 seating position
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 Volvo S80..........................  AC+Th.......................      2,213               57.0        55.7
2000 Saab 9-5...........................  Comb........................      5,155               90.5        80.4
2002 Ford Explorer......................  AC..........................        330              105.0        81.3 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Comb.=head/chest SIAB; AC=air curtain; Th=chest SIAB
**4-door/2-door.

    The results of the first oblique pole test using the FMVSS No. 201 
seating position exceeded the HIC-1000 criterion, the last test exceeds 
the TTI(d)-85 criterion, and the second test exceeded both the head and 
the chest injury criteria. The 1999 Volvo S-80 exceeded the HIC-1000 
requirement by 1,213. In this oblique pole test with the SID-H3, using 
the FMVSS No. 201 seating procedure, the SID-H3's head contacted a 
joint area of the air curtain and the tether hardware. The air curtain 
apparently was not large enough to prevent a partial head-to-pole 
contact. In contrast, in the 90-degree pole test shown in Table 7, 
infra, of a Volvo S-80, the SID-H3's HIC score was 237. The HIC score 
of the SID-H3 in the oblique Saab test was 5,155. In the oblique pole 
test of the Saab, the SID-H3's head partially contacted the front upper 
edge of the combination head/chest air bag and then rotated into the 
pole. These HPS designs would likely need to be changed if an oblique 
pole test were adopted, and the SID-H3 dummy were used, to expand the 
contact area covered to prevent the SID-H3 dummy head from rotating 
into the pole.
    It should be noted that when the aforesaid two tests were repeated 
using the FMVSS No. 214 seating procedure, the HIC scores were 
dramatically lower. Compared to the FMVSS No. 201 seating position, the 
FMVSS No. 214 seating position can place the dummy rearward and closer 
to the B-pillar. Since the production HPS was wide enough to cover the 
dummy head

[[Page 28006]]

trajectory in this seating position, the HIC values were significantly 
lower.
2. 5th Percentile Female Dummy (SID-IIsFRG)
    NHTSA's analysis of side impact crash data found that nearly 35 
percent of all MAIS 3+ injuries in near-side, non-rollover, tow-away 
side crashes occurred to small stature occupants (between 56-64 inches 
or 142-163 cm in height). Most of these (93 percent) were female. Id. 
The 1990-2001 NASS/CDS data also indicate that there are differences in 
the body region distribution of serious injuries between small and 
medium stature occupants that are seriously injured in these side 
collisions. The data suggests that small stature occupants have a 
higher proportion of head, abdominal and pelvic injuries than medium 
stature occupants, and a lesser proportion of chest injuries.
    The SID-IIs 5th percentile female dummy has a mass of 44.5 kg (98 
pounds) and a seated height of 790 mm (31.1 inches). The dummy is 
capable of measuring forces to the head, neck, shoulder, thorax, 
abdomen and pelvis body regions and measures compression of the 
thoracic region.\46\ NHTSA proposes to use a modified version of the 
dummy in the oblique pole test to improve the real world protection of 
small stature occupants in side impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ IIHS began using the SID-IIs in June 2003 in a side impact 
consumer information program rating the performance of vehicles in 
tests with a moving deformable barrier. Measures are recorded from 
the dummy's head, neck, chest, abdomen, pelvis and leg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Background
    The development of a small, second generation side impact dummy was 
undertaken in 1993 by the Occupant Safety Research Partnership (OSRP) 
under the umbrella of the U.S. Council on Automotive Safety Research. 
There was a need for an ATD that would be better suited to help 
evaluate the biomechanical performance of advanced side impact 
countermeasures, notably air bags, for occupants that are smaller than 
the 50th percentile size male. Data from frontal testing for similar 
air bag exposures indicated that smaller dummies were generally 
subjected to higher loadings than the 50th percentile male dummies. The 
new dummy was named SID-IIs indicating ``SID'' as side impact dummy, 
``II'' as second generation, and ``s'' as small. The OSRP completed the 
development of the SID-IIs as a beta prototype in late 1998.
    The dummy was extensively tested in the late 1990s and early 2000 
in vehicle crashes by Transport Canada, and to a limited extent by U.S. 
automobile manufacturers and suppliers and the IIHS. NHTSA began an 
extensive laboratory evaluation of the dummy in 2000. Initial testing 
revealed chest transducer mechanical failures and some ribcage and 
shoulder structural problems. NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center 
modified the dummy's thorax in 2001 to incorporate floating rib guides 
(``FRG'') to better stabilize the dummy's ribs. It was visually 
observed in abdominal-loading sled tests of the SID-IIs that the ribs 
did not stay in place in some of the tests, which raised concerns 
regarding the accuracy of the acceleration and deflection measurements, 
as well as the durability of the ribs and the deflection 
potentiometers. NHTSA modified the shoulder and rib guide design to 
remove excessive vertical rib motion. A detailed discussion of these 
modifications is provided in a technical report entitled, ``Development 
of the SID-IIs FRG,'' Rhule and Hagedorn, November 2003, that has been 
placed in the docket for this NPRM.
    NHTSA expects to publish a proposal to incorporate the 
specifications and calibration procedures for the 5th percentile female 
dummy in Part 572 in 2004. The agency has placed a technical report and 
other materials describing the dummy, as modified by NHTSA with 
floating rib guides, in the Docket for today's NPRM. The SID-IIs is 
well-known to industry and researchers since it has been produced and 
used for about 5 years and is extensively used by Transport Canada, by 
IIHS in its consumer ratings program of vehicles' side impact 
performance with a moving barrier, and by industry to meet industry 
standards with respect to the safety performance of side air bags and 
with respect to the risks of side air bags to out-of-position children 
and small adults.
    Biofidelity. The Small Sized Advanced Side Impact Dummy Task Group 
of the OSRP evaluated the SID-IIs Beta-prototype dummy against its 
previously established biomechanical response corridors for its 
critical body regions. (Scherer, et al., ``SID IIs Beta+-Prototype 
Dummy Biomechanical Responses,'' 1998, SAE 983151.) The response 
corridors were scaled from the 50th percentile adult male corridors 
defined in an ISO Technical Report 9790 to corridors for a 5th 
percentile adult female, using established ISO procedures. Tests were 
performed for the head, neck, shoulder, thorax, abdomen and pelvic 
regions of the dummy. Testing included drop tests, pendulum impacts and 
sled tests. The biofidelity of the dummy was calculated using a 
weighted biomechanical test response procedure developed by the ISO. 
The overall biofidelity rating of the SID-IIs beta+-prototype was 7.0, 
which corresponds to an ISO classification of ``good.'' Id.
    The agency also used the biofidelity ranking system developed by 
Rhule, et al., 2002, supra, to assess the biofidelity of the SID-IIs 
with FRG hardware. (See ``Biofidelity Assessment of the SID IIsFRG 
dummy,'' a copy of which has been placed in the docket.) The assessment 
included the dummy's External Biofidelity and Internal Biofidelity. The 
SID-IIsFRG dummy displayed Overall External Biofidelity comparable to 
that of the ES-2re. The SID-IIsFRG provided improved biofidelity over 
the SID-H3 in all body regions except for the head/neck. The Overall 
Internal Biofidelity ranks of the SID-IIsFRG are all better than those 
of the other dummies, with the exception of the ``without abdomen and 
with TTI'' rank. All body region Internal Biofidelity ranks were better 
than, or comparable to, those of the ES-2re, ES-2 original, and SID-H3, 
except for the Thorax-TTI, which had a rank of 2.9. However, the SID-
IIsFRG dummy is a deflection-based design and is not expected to rank 
well in this parameter. Even with an Internal Thorax-TTI rank of 2.9 
included in the Overall rank (without abdomen), the SID-IIs Internal 
Biofidelity rank (1.6) is equivalent to that of the ES-2re (1.6) and 
better than that of the SID-H3 (1.9).
B. Injury Criteria
    Injury criteria are being proposed for the head, lower spine and 
pelvic regions. A complete discussion of these injury criteria and 
supporting data can be found in NHTSA's research paper, ``Injury 
Criteria for Side Impact Dummies,'' and the Preliminary Economic 
Assessment, which have been placed in the Docket for this NPRM.
    Head: The head injury criterion (HIC) shall not exceed 1000 in 36 
ms, when calculated in accordance with the equation specified in S7 of 
FMVSS No. 201. This measure has been chosen for the reasons discussed 
with respect to the ES-2re, supra.
    Thorax (Chest): The agency is not proposing a limit on chest 
deflection at this time. The agency would like to obtain more data on 
the dummy's rib deflection measurement capability under oblique loading 
conditions before proceeding with a proposal limiting such deflections 
in oblique side impact tests. Further assessment of the injury criteria 
applied to the SID-IIsFRG is also needed. NHTSA will continue to

[[Page 28007]]

monitor rib deflections in tests using the SID-IIsFRG for further 
consideration.
    NHTSA is proposing that the resultant lower spine acceleration must 
be no greater than 82 g. The resultant lower spine acceleration is a 
measure of loading severity to the thorax. In vehicle crashes, loading 
can be in various directions. Therefore, NHTSA believes that to account 
for overall loading, resultant accelerations should be considered 
rather than lateral acceleration alone. Though dummy-measured 
accelerations for the level of loading severities experienced in 
vehicle crashes might not have a causal relationship to injury outcome, 
they are good indicators of thoracic injury in cadaver testing and 
overall loading to the dummy thorax.
    NHTSA selected the criterion based upon the series of 42 side 
impact sled tests using fully instrumented human cadaveric subjects, 
previously discussed, conducted at the MCW as well as sled tests 
conducted with the SID-IIs dummy under identical impact conditions as 
the cadaveric sled tests. The agency believes that the age of the 
subject involved in a side impact affects injury outcome. Subject age 
in the MCW sled test data was found to have significant influence on 
injury outcome and so was included in the injury models. The resulting 
thoracic injury risk curves were normalized to the average age of the 
injured population in a side impact crash that is represented by the 
SID-IIs dummy. The average age of AIS 3+ injured occupants less than 
1,63 cm (5 feet 4 inches) involved in side impact crashes with no 
rollovers or ejections was 56 years based on NASS-CDS files for the 
year 1993-2001. Therefore, thoracic injury risk curves were normalized 
to the average occupant age of 56 years.
    However, the agency's research has found that the resultant lower 
spine acceleration might over-predict injury risk at certain levels, or 
in other words, have a high ``false positive'' rate. Consequently, the 
agency selected a conservative resultant lower spine acceleration limit 
of 82 g to ensure a low false positive rate of approximately 5 percent. 
This corresponds to an approximate 60 percent risk of AIS 3+ injury. 
While this risk level is notably higher than that being proposed for 
the 50th percentile male dummy, the agency also balanced the SID-IIsFRG 
injury criteria with the practicability of vehicles being able to meet 
the proposed requirements. For example, if the agency were instead to 
consider a 50 percent AIS 3+ injury risk (as proposed for the 50th 
percentile male dummy) the corresponding lower spine acceleration limit 
would be approximately 62 g. Based on our limited testing to date (see 
Table 5), we believe this limit would be too low for vehicles to 
practicably meet. Therefore, we believe our proposal of 82 g strikes a 
good balance. The agency recognizes that there are construction 
differences in the spine box between the ES-2re and the SID-IIs. NHTSA 
plans to continue testing these dummies in vehicles and monitor the 
differences in lower spine responses, if any.
    Pelvis and Abdomen: As presented in the report ``Injury Criteria 
for Side Impact Dummies,'' the pelvic injury criterion was developed 
from an analysis of the same cadaver impact data that was used for the 
development of the ES-2re pelvic injury criterion. The measured loads 
in these impact tests were distributed over a broad area of the pelvis 
that included the iliac crest and the greater trochanter.\47\ The 
measured applied pelvic force to the cadaveric subjects was mass-scaled 
to represent the applied forces on a 5th percentile female. Under 
similar impact conditions, the scaled applied pelvic forces on the 
cadaveric subjects was assumed to be equal to the sum of the iliac and 
acetabular forces measured on the SID-IIsFRG dummy.\48\ Therefore, the 
pelvic injury risk curves developed for the SID-IIsFRG dummy are based 
on the maximum of the sum of the measured acetabular and iliac force. 
The proposed 5,100 N force level for the SIDIIsFRG corresponds to 
approximately 25 percent risk of AIS 3+ pelvic fracture.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ The bony protrusion at the top of the femoral shaft 
opposite the ball of the hip joint.
    \48\ IIHS used the same assumption when developing performance 
standards for its consumer ratings program. See Arbalaez, R. A., et 
al., ``Comparison of the EuroSID-2 and SID-IIs in Vehicle Side 
Impact Tests with the IIHS Barrier,'' 46th Stapp Car Crash Journal 
(2002).
    \49\ In the IIHS side impact consumer ratings program, 5,100 N 
is the injury parameter cutoff value for the ``Good-Acceptable'' 
range for the combined acetabulum and ilium force values. http://www.highwaysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/measures_side.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with the SID-IIsFRG rib deflection instrumentation, the agency 
would like to obtain more data on the dummy's abdominal measurement 
capability under oblique loading conditions before proceeding with a 
proposal limiting such deflections in oblique side impact tests. Data 
on abdominal deflection and other measures will continue to be 
monitored by NHTSA in all future tests using the SID-IIsFRG dummy.
C. Oblique Pole Tests With 5th Percentile Female Dummy
    NHTSA has conducted three oblique pole tests with the SID-IIsFRG 
dummy seated in the full forward position. The test results are 
presented in the following Table 5:

                                      Table 5.--75-Degree Pole Test Results
                                               [SID-IIsFRG dummy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Lower spine
             Test vehicle                      Restraint*              HIC36            (g)         Pelvis  (N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Limits.......................  ........................           1,000              82           5,100
2003 Toyota Camry (tested April 2003).  AC+Th (remotely fired at             512              70           4,580
                                         11 ms).
2003 Toyota Camry (tested March 2003).  AC+Th (bags did not                8,706              78           5,725
                                         deploy).
2000 Saab 9-5.........................   Comb...................           2,233              67           6,045
2002 Ford Explorer....................  AC (remotely fired at 13           4,595             101          7,141
                                         ms).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Comb.=head/chest SIAB; AC=air curtain; Th=chest SIAB

    These data indicate that the most serious problem in terms of 
protecting small occupants in oblique crashes is lack of head 
protection. NHTSA believes that this can be resolved by providing an 
inflatable head protection system that has been re-designed to address 
small occupants. The practicability of this approach is illustrated by 
the results for the 2003 Camry (air curtain and thorax side air bag 
system) tested in April 2003 (HIC 512). In contrast, in a March 2003 
test of the Camry in which the air curtain and thorax bags did not 
deploy, the SID-IIsFRG had a HIC of 8,706.
    The agency's Preliminary Economic Assessment for this NPRM 
estimates

[[Page 28008]]

that the use of the SID-IIsFRG in the oblique pole test would save an 
additional 164 lives beyond the fatalities saved by changes to vehicle 
designs to meet an oblique pole test using the 50th percentile male 
dummy alone.

c. FMVSS No. 201 Pole Test Conditions

    The agency is considering the possibility of using a 29 km/h (18 
mph) 90 degree impact test, such as that incorporated into FMVSS No. 
201's pole test (or a 90 degree test conducted at a 32 km/h (20-mph) 
test speed). The 90 degree impact angle has proven itself repeatable 
and an acceptable way to ensure some level of performance of head 
protection systems in perpendicular, vehicle-to-narrow-object impacts. 
An advantage to having the impact angle and test speed be the same as 
that used in FMVSS No. 201 would be that inflatable head protection 
systems that are already in place in many vehicles would meet these 
criteria when tested in a 90-degree impact. Using the same test as is 
currently optional would possibly allow the installation of inflatable 
head protection systems in all vehicles faster and at lower cost. A 
disadvantage is that fewer lives would be saved. (NHTSA estimates that 
446 lives would be saved by the FMVSS No. 201 test using the 50th 
percentile male dummy, while 792 lives would be saved by the oblique 
pole test using the 50th percentile male dummy. An estimated 859 lives 
would be saved by the oblique pole test using both the 5th percentile 
female dummy and the 50th percentile male dummy.)
    NHTSA has conducted several 29 km/h (18 mph) 90-degree pole tests 
of vehicles equipped with either the combination head/chest SIAB or 
side window air curtain (AC) systems, using the ES-2 dummy. See Table 
6.

                                                Table 6.--FMVSS No. 201 Pole Test 90-Degree Test Results
                                                                      [ES-2 Dummy]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                            Lower spine     Abd.-force     Public-force
               Test vehicle                          Restraint *               HIC36      Rib-def.  (mm)       (gs)             (N)             (N)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Limits...........................  ............................           1,000           35-44              82     2,400-2,800           6,000
1999 Maxima...............................  Comb........................             130            33.0            45.7           1,450           2,080
1999 Cougar...............................  Comb........................             313            41.5            56.6             859           2.214
1999 Volvo S80............................  AC+Th.......................             244            41.5            36.7           1,217           1,166
1999 Ford Windstar........................  Comb........................             164            31.4            53.5           2,352           1,382
2000 Saab 9-5.............................  Comb........................             114            37.8            40.2             849           1,733
2001 Saturn L200**........................  AC..........................             435            46.0              68           1,084           1,917
2002 Ford Explorer........................  AC..........................             208            45.9            65.5           2,074           1,262
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ITS=inflatable tubular structure; Comb=combination head/thorax air bag; AC=air curtain; Th=chest SIAB.
** Lateral back plate lateral load 2,047 N.

    Based on the test results using the ES-2 dummy, inflatable head 
protection systems appear to be working relatively well in protecting 
the occupant's head in a perpendicular test. All HIC measurements were 
well below the 1,000 limit. The lower spine g's and other force 
measurements were below the proposed limits. However, rib deflections 
exceeded the proposed 44 mm (1.73 in) upper limit in a test of a sport 
utility vehicle (SUV) (Ford Explorer) and a passenger car (Saturn L200) 
(both of which had no additional thorax protection, but just an air 
curtain for the head), and was close to the limit in tests of two other 
passenger cars. This suggests that if a 90-degree vehicle-to-pole test 
with an ES-2 dummy were added to FMVSS No. 214, it is likely that the 
installation of additional chest protection countermeasures would be 
needed in many production vehicles to comply with a rib deflection 
criterion in the range of 35-44 mm.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ The test data also show that the vehicles exceeded or came 
close to exceeding the 42 mm (1.65 inch) limit specified by the 
European Union, EU 96/27/EC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All test results listed in Table 6 were from the ES-2 without the 
``rib extension'' fix, in which back plate lateral loads were 
considered low (under 1000 N)(224.8 lb). As discussed earlier in this 
preamble, the agency has developed a fix (which consists of ``rib 
extensions,'' a set of two needle bearings for each rib plus a Teflon 
coated back plate) to minimize or eliminate the grabbing force. The 
extended ribs provide a continuous loading surface that nearly 
encircles the thorax and enclose the posterior gap of the ES-2 ribcage. 
As such, for tests using the ES-2 without the fix in which there were 
large back plate loads, the rib extensions can result in increased rib 
deflections in the modified dummy since an intruding structure can no 
longer grab the dummy back plate without loading the rest of the 
thorax. As discussed in the agency's technical report for the ES-2re 
dummy, the results of two 2002 Impala side NCAP tests show that the 
agency's fix has reduced the grabbing force from 4.7 kN (989 pounds) to 
practically zero. The tests also show that the rib deflection increased 
from 16-24 mm (0.63-0.94 inches) to 43-51 mm (1.69-2.01 inches).
    NHTSA believes that tests using the ES-2 without the fix in which 
there were small back plate loads reflect the likely performance of 
vehicles in tests with the ES-2re. Two sets of side NCAP tests were 
conducted using a 2003 Toyota Corolla and a 2001 Ford Focus. The 
results showed that the rib extension fix did not adversely affect the 
results when the back plate grabbing force was reported to be low in 
the original ES-2 design.
    With regard to abdominal force in the FMVSS No. 201 pole tests, the 
abdominal force measurements were far below the 2,800 N (629 pound) 
proposed upper limit. However, the ES-2 dummy in the Ford Windstar and 
the Ford Explorer produced a significantly higher abdominal force than 
in the five passenger cars. These two vehicles, being relatively higher 
and heavier than passenger cars, can comply with those requirements 
relatively easily when tested with the MDB. However, as mentioned 
previously, a higher and heavier vehicle would not have much advantage, 
if any, over an average passenger car in the proposed pole test.
    Since 1999, the agency has conducted eleven 29 km/h (18 mph) 90-
degree pole tests using the SID-H3. Ten of these were in the agency's 
compliance test program of FMVSS No. 201, and one was conducted for 
research purposes. The results are tabulated below in Table 7:

[[Page 28009]]



                            Table 7.--FMVSS No. 201 Pole Test 90-Degree Test Results
                                                 [SID-H3 Dummy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Test vehicle                   Restraint*            HIC36             TTI(d)             Pelvis-g
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Limits...................  .....................           1,000  85/90(4-door/2-door)            130
1999 Volvo S80....................  AC+Th                             237  36.0................             44.0
1999 BMW 328i.....................  ITS+Th                            340  47.0................             49.0
2001 Saturn L200..................  AC                                579  63.0................             47.7
2001 Lexus GS-300.................  AC+Th                             336  51.3................             55.7
2001 VW Jetta.....................  AC+Th                             444  38.0................             40.5
2001 Mercedes C240................  AC+Th                             457  78.9................             60.2
2002 Ford Explorer................  AC                                183  83.0................             48.0
2002 Mercedes C230................  AC+Th                             306  47.0................             49.8
2002 Jaguar X-type................  AC+Th                             271  46.6................             44.3
2002 Saturn Vue...................  AC                                533  53.1................             51.5
2003 Cadillac CTS.................  AC+Th                             281  45.8................             46.6 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ITS=inflatable tubular structure; AC=air curtain; Th=chest SIAB.

    These test results indicate that inflatable head protection systems 
perform adequately in protecting an occupant's head in a 90-degree 
impact. The HIC measurements are well below the 1,000 limit. In 
contrast, the 1999 BMW 328i and the 2001 Saturn L200, when tested 
without the HPSs (not shown), received HIC scores of 2,495 and 11,071, 
respectively. The pelvis accelerations in the above tests are also well 
below the 130 g's allowable limit. Based on the above pole test data, 
NHTSA believes that the current production vehicles, when equipped with 
an inflatable head protection system, would comply with the proposed 
90-degree pole test requirements if the tests were performed with a 
SID-H3 dummy (even assuming the FMVSS No. 201 seating position were 
used).
    In general, the TTI(d) measurements are also low. Judging from the 
above limited test results, NHTSA believes that the safety 
countermeasures that have been installed in passenger cars to comply 
with existing FMVSS No. 214 requirements (i.e., the MDB side impact 
requirements (for the chest and the pelvis)) also provide significant 
protection in 90 degree, 29 km/h (18 mph) impacts against a rigid 
narrow object.
    However, these tests indicate also that in vehicles with a greater 
riding height relative to the MDB, the dummy's chest is loaded more 
severely in a pole test than in the standard's MDB test. Thus, many 
LTVs would likely have a harder time in a pole test than in an MDB test 
in meeting the thoracic protection criteria of FMVSS No. 214. For 
example, the Ford Explorer did not comply with the TTI(d)-85g limit in 
the oblique pole test (Table 4). The Explorer barely met the TTI(d)-85g 
limit in a 90-degree test (Table 7). The Ford Explorer had a TTI(d) of 
83 g's, approaching the TTI(d)-85g limit. As noted above, it is easier 
for an SUV to comply with the MDB test requirements because of the 
greater ride height and greater mass of the SUV relative to the MDB. 
(To illustrate, NHTSA tested the 2002 Ford Explorer in the side NCAP 
configuration with the MDB and the results showed that both the driver 
and the rear seat passenger received a low TTI(d) score of 35 g's.)

VII. Proposed Improvements of Moving Deformable Barrier Test

a. Replacement of Existing 50th Percentile Male Dummy With ES-2re and 
Addition of Injury Criteria

    This NPRM proposes to require use of an improved 50th percentile 
male dummy (the ES-2re) in the MDB test in place of the SID and would 
take advantage of the enhanced injury assessment capabilities of the 
dummy by specifying injury criteria consistent with those developed for 
the dummy. These criteria are the same ones proposed above for the 
vehicle-to-pole test. Comments are requested on using the SID-H3 dummy 
in the test.
    This NPRM would also maintain the current FMVSS No. 214 
applicability of the MDB test to LTVs with a GVWR of 2,722 kg (6,000 
lb) or less. \51\ At this time, we do not believe that applying the MDB 
test to LTVs with a GVWR over 2,722 kg (6,000 lb) would provide safety 
benefits to occupants of these heavier vehicles, yet it would add test 
burdens. However, while LTVs with a GVWR over 6,000 lb would continue 
to be excluded from the MDB requirements, today's proposed pole test 
would apply to LTVs with a GVWR of up to 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). The pole 
test is a more stringent test of the thorax of occupants of heavier 
struck LTVs than the MDB test and would result in reduced chest 
injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ LTVs with a GVWR over 6,000 lb were excluded from the MDB 
requirements because they could meet the MDB requirements prior to 
the extension of the requirements to LTVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to thoracic injury criteria, some vehicles that now 
meet the MDB test in FMVSS No. 214 when tested with the SID might 
exceed the proposed rib deflection limit when tested with the ES-2re 
dummy and so might need to be redesigned. NHTSA's 1999 Report to 
Congress (Status of NHTSA Plan for Side Impact Regulation Harmonization 
and Upgrade, March 1999) showed that 3 of 8 FMVSS No. 214 compliant 
vehicles exceeded the European 42 mm (1.65 inch) rib deflection limit 
in tests performed according to the EU 96/27/EC side impact test 
procedures. (The EU 96/27/EC specifies the use of the EuroSID-1 dummy, 
a different barrier, a different angle of impact and different injury 
criteria.) Since the proposed ES-2 dummy is more sensitive than the 
EuroSID-1 dummy to thoracic impact forces, more vehicles would have 
likely exceeded the rib deflection limit in the aforesaid European side 
impact tests if the ES-2 dummy had been used. Additionally, the lateral 
velocity component of the FMVSS No. 214 MDB is roughly equivalent to 
the 50 km/h (30 mph) impact velocity specified in the EU 96/27/EC, but 
the U.S. MDB is much heavier and stiffer than the European barrier. 
Judging from these facts, NHTSA believes that some U.S. vehicles might 
not comply with the proposed upper limits of 44 mm (1.73 inch) upper 
limit for rib deflection and/or the 2,800 N (629 pound) upper limit for 
abdominal force criterion without redesign, if the ES-2re dummy were 
used in FMVSS No. 214 MDB side impact tests. Based on test results of 
certain vehicles, the agency has tentatively concluded that it is 
feasible to meet the proposed requirements.
    The agency has conducted FMVSS No. 214 crash tests using the ES-2re 
and

[[Page 28010]]

MDBs of various configurations and weights moving at various impact 
speeds. These tests are discussed in detail in the ES-2 Technical 
Report that has been placed in the docket. Two FMVSS No. 214 MDB tests 
were conducted using the test procedures specified in the standard and 
the ES-2re in the driver and rear passenger seating positions. Test 
results are tabulated below in Tables 8 and 9 for tests of the dummy in 
the driver and rear passenger positions, respectively.

                                                        Table 8.--FMVSS No. 214 MDB Test Results
                                                                     [ES-2re driver]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                            Lower spine     Abd.-force     Pubic-symph.
               Test vehicle                   Restraint HPS and/or SIAB        HIC36      Rib-def.  (mm)        (g)             (N)             (N)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Limits...........................  ............................           1,000           35-44              82     2,400-2,800           6,000
2001 Ford Focus...........................  None........................             137              36              60           1,648           2,833
2002 Chevrolet Impala.....................  None........................              69              46              49           1,225           1,789
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                        Table 9.--FMVSS No. 214 MDB Test Results
                                                                 [ES-2re rear passenger]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                            Lower spine     Abd.-force     Pubic-symph.
               Test vehicle                   Restraint HPS and/or SIAB        HIC36      Rib-def.  (mm)        (g)             (N)             (N)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Limits...........................  ............................           1,000           35-44              82     2,400-2,800           6,000
2001 Ford Focus...........................  None........................             174              20              59           1,121           2,759
2002 Chevrolet Impala.....................  None........................             187              12              58           4,409           2,784
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tables 8 and 9 show that the 2001 Ford Focus would meet the 
proposed FMVSS No. 214 MDB test requirements when it is tested with the 
ES-2re dummy (using the injury criteria associated with that dummy). 
The Ford Focus is a small car. The task is generally easier for large 
vehicles with a high ride height. The test results of the Ford Focus 
indicate that an upgraded MDB test using the ES-2re dummy with its 
associated injury criteria would be practicable.
    The test results also show that the 2002 Chevrolet Impala would not 
comply with all of the proposed FMVSS No. 214 MDB test requirements. It 
did not meet the 44 mm (1.73 in) rib deflection criterion for the 
driver dummy (45.6 mm). Also, the abdominal force of the rear seat 
dummy exceeds the 2,500 N (562 pounds) limit by a large margin. An 
examination of the passenger compartment interior reveals that the rear 
armrest design and its location might be the problem. The armrest is 
made of foam material and its main portion is approximately 75 mm (3 
inch) in width, 75 mm (3 inch) in height, and 250 mm (12 inch) in 
length. The lower edge of the armrest is approximately 100 mm (4 
inches) above the seat surface. During a MDB side impact test, the 
protruded armrest would contact the abdominal area of a 50th percentile 
male dummy that is placed in the rear outboard seating position on the 
struck side. A severe abdominal impact is likely to create an 
excessively large force resulting in injuries. Since the SID dummy does 
not measure the abdominal force, this potential injury risk would not 
be detected in the existing FMVSS No. 214 MDB test. The use of ES-2re 
dummy in the MDB test would identify this.
    It seems evident that the armrest of the Chevrolet Impala can be 
modified to mitigate this situation. A common modification is to extend 
the lower edge of the armrest to completely cover the lower torso of 
the test dummy. This design has already been used in many vehicles, 
including the 2001 Ford Focus. It is noted that this particular 
modification might reduce the rear seat width by a small amount.

b. Addition of 5th Percentile Female Dummy (SID-IIsFRG) and Injury 
Criteria

    This NPRM also proposes to upgrade the MDB requirements of FMVSS 
No. 214 by requiring vehicles to comply when tested with the 5th 
percentile female dummy (SID-IIsFRG). As noted above in this preamble, 
NASS data show that nearly 35 percent of MAIS 3 and greater side impact 
injuries occurred to occupants represented by the SID-IIsFRG dummy (5 
foot 4 inches and under). The small stature occupant suffered 
relatively more head and abdominal injuries and relatively fewer chest 
injuries. These data indicate a safety need for an injury assessment 
tool representing small stature occupants to supplement the 50th 
percentile male dummy specified in the MDB test.\52\ The agency 
proposes that the criteria proposed for the SID-IIsFRG in the vehicle-
to-pole test must also be met in the MDB test with the SID-IIsFRG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ As noted in an earlier footnote, IIHS is using the SID-IIs 
in its MDB test. Two SID-IIs test dummies are positioned on the 
struck side of the test vehicle, one in the driver seat and one in 
the seat behind the driver. The tests are conducted with a 1,500 
kilogram (3,300 pound) MDB with a 90 degree impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another proposed change to the MDB test in FMVSS No. 214 concerns 
the provision in S3(b) that excludes passenger car rear seats that are 
too small to accommodate the SID. The provision would be amended to 
specify that the seats would be excluded only if they cannot 
accommodate the SID-IIsFRG. If the seat cannot accommodate the mid-size 
male dummy but is able to fit the SID-IIsFRG, the seat would not be 
excluded from the MDB test. Further, the determination as to whether an 
ES-2re (or a SID-IIsFRG) can be accommodated in the rear seat would be 
made when using either the ES-2re or the SID-IIsFRG in the driver's 
seating position. When the SID-IIsFRG is used in the driver's seating 
position, the driver's seat would be positioned full forward. 
Adjustable rear seats would be placed in their most rearward, full down 
position when seating the male or female dummy.
    The technical report for the SID-IIsFRG dummy that accompanies this 
NPRM discusses the crash tests that the agency has conducted using this 
dummy. Several aspects of those tests are discussed below.
    NHTSA tested the Ford Focus and Chevolet Impala to FMVSS No. 214's 
MDB test procedure using the SID-IIsFRG in the driver and rear 
passenger

[[Page 28011]]

seating positions. Test results are tabulated below in Tables 10 and 
11.

                                    Table 10.--FMVSS No. 214 MDB Test Results
                                               [SID-IIsFRG driver]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Restraint HPS and/or                      Lower spine
             Test vehicle                         SIAB                 HIC36           (sg)         Pelvis  (N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Limits.......................  ........................           1,000              82           5,100
2001 Ford Focus.......................  None....................             181              72           5,621
2002 Chevrolet Impala.................  None....................              76              52           2,753
2001 Buick Le Sabre...................  Thorax..................             130              67           4,672
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                    Table 11.--FMVSS No. 214 MDB Test Results
                                           [SID-IIsFRG rear passenger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Restraint HPS and/or                      Lower Spine
             Test vehicle                         SIAB                 HIC36           (sg)         Pelvis  (N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Limits.......................  ........................           1,000              82           5,100
2001 Ford Focus.......................  None....................             526              65           3,997
2002 Chev Impala......................  None....................             153              89           5,711
2001 Buick Le Sabre...................  None....................             221              77         14,041
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary.

    Tables 10 and 11 show that the 2001 Ford Focus would almost fully 
comply with the proposed FMVSS No. 214 MDB test requirements when 
tested with the SID-IIsFRG dummy and its associated injury criteria. 
Only the pelvis force for the driver dummy was exceeded in this test, 
which, judging from the film coverage, could be attributed to the 
intruding armrest.\53\ Alternatively, the 2002 Chevrolet Impala was 
able to meet all of the driver injury criteria with at least a 37 
percent margin. The 2001 Buick Le Sabre also met all the proposed 
criteria for the driver dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ A copy of the film is available from the FHWA/NHTSA 
National Crash Analysis Center Film Library, 20101 Academic Way, 
Suite 203, Ashburn, VA 20147-2604. Telephone: 703-726-8236; Fax: 
703-726-8358.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2002 Chevrolet Impala was the only vehicle that would not 
comply with the proposed rear seat FMVSS No. 214 MDB test requirements, 
since both the lower spine acceleration and the pelvis force of the 
rear seat dummy exceeded the proposed injury limits. As discussed 
previously, the rear armrest design might be the problem, and a simple 
remedy appears to be technically feasible.

VIII. Other Issues

a. Struck Door Must Not Separate From Vehicle

    FMVSS No. 214 currently prohibits any side door that is struck by 
the moving deformable barrier from separating totally from the vehicle 
(currently in S5.3.1 of the standard). The standard also requires any 
door (including a rear hatchback or tailgate) that is not struck by the 
moving deformable barrier to meet the following requirements: (a) The 
door shall not disengage from the latched position; (b) the latch shall 
not separate from the striker, and the hinge components shall not 
separate from each other or from their attachment to the vehicle; and 
(c) neither the latch nor the hinge systems of the door shall pull out 
of their anchorages. This NPRM proposes to have the same door opening 
prohibitions apply to vehicles tested in the vehicle-to-pole tests.

b. Rear Seat

    According to 1999 and 2000 Fatality Analysis Reporting System 
(FARS) data, the front outboard seating positions account for 89.2 
percent of total fatalities and 88.8 percent of total injured occupants 
in passenger cars, and 86.6 percent and 87.6 percent of total 
fatalities and total injured occupants in LTVs. While these are for all 
crash conditions, the percentages for side impacts to narrow objects 
are similar. In nearside crashes, rear occupants make up 7.3 percent, 
10.2 percent and 4.4 percent of seriously injured persons in crashes 
with passenger cars, LTVs and narrow objects, respectively. According 
to 1997-2001 NASS CDS annualized fatality distribution for rear 
outboard occupants, there were 22 fatalities caused by a vehicle-to-
pole side crash, 7 of which were due to head injury.
    The test procedure for the vehicle-to-pole test would call for a 
test dummy in the front outboard seating position nearest to the side 
impacting the pole, as in FMVSS No. 201. FMVSS No. 201 does not use a 
test dummy in the rear seat. Comments are requested on applying the 
pole test to the rear seat.
    We have tentatively decided not to apply the test to the rear seat. 
This NPRM focuses on the front seat because years of conducting the 
optional pole test in FMVSS No. 201 have yielded substantial 
information about meeting pole test requirements in that seat. Less 
information is known about the rear seat. We have also sought to 
contain the costs of this rulemaking. Applying the test to rear seats 
would require at least twice as many tests per vehicle.
    Furthermore, NHTSA believes that the countermeasure likely to be 
widely used to meet the requirements of the proposed vehicle-to-pole 
test will be air curtains, some of which currently cover both front and 
rear side window openings and thus provide protection to rear seat 
occupants. NHTSA tentatively concludes that those air curtains will be 
large enough to cover both front and rear side window openings. 
Comments are requested on manufacturers' plans to tether air curtains 
to the A- and C-pillars of vehicles.

c. Interaction With Other Side Impact Programs

1. Out-of-Position Criteria
    Background. The agency has been concerned about the potential risks 
of side impact air bags (SIAB) to out-of-position (OOP) occupants, 
particularly children, from the first appearance of side air bag 
systems in vehicles. NHTSA initiated research in the fall of 1998 into 
the interactions between OOP children and side air bags. In April 1999, 
NHTSA

[[Page 28012]]

held a public meeting to discuss the potential benefits and risks of 
side impact air bags and the development of possible test procedures to 
assess those risks.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ The agency has placed materials in Docket NHTSA-1999-5098 
relating to the risks to out-of-position occupants from SIAB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Safety Need. The agency has investigated more than 92 side impact 
air bag deployment crashes through NHTSA's Special Crash Investigations 
unit in order to determine whether a problem exists related to OOP 
occupants. There have been no fatalities and only one confirmed AIS 3+ 
injury due to a side air bag, this to a 76-year-old male driver. Side 
air bags \55\ do not appear to pose a safety risk to OOP children, even 
taking into account exposure risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ For the purposes of this discussion, ``side air bags'' 
means side thorax air bags and combination thorax/head air bags, and 
not side head air bags. Our testing found no reason for concern with 
side head air bags (window curtains or inflatable tubular 
structures) and out-of-position children or adults.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Technical Working Group Recommended Procedures. In July 1999, the 
Alliance, AIAM, the Automotive Occupant Restraints Council, and IIHS 
formed a technical working group (TWG) to develop recommended test 
procedures and performance requirements to evaluate the risk of side 
air bags to children who are out-of-position. In August 2000, the TWG 
issued a draft report, ``Recommended Procedures For Evaluating Occupant 
Injury Risk From Deploying Side Air bags,'' The Side Air Bag Out-Of-
Position Injury Technical Working Group, Adrian K. Lund (IIHS) 
Chairman, August 8, 2000. This report was revised in July 2003. The 
proposed procedures were based on the work of Working Group 3 of the 
International Organization of Standard (ISO) Technical Committee 10, 
which had developed draft procedures for evaluating side impact air 
bags. ``Road Vehicles-Test Procedures for Evaluating Occupant 
Interactions with Deploying Side Impact Airbags.'' The ISO procedures 
were finalized in October 2001 (ISO -TR 14933, October 2001).
    Under the TWG procedures, a 5th percentile female side impact dummy 
(SID-IIs), a 3-year-old and a 6-year-old Hybrid III frontal child dummy 
are placed in several positions close to the air bag systems. The TWG 
procedures address side air bags that deploy from the seat backs (seat-
mounted), those that deploy from the door or rear quarter panel, 
typically just below the window sill (side-mounted), those that deploy 
from the roof rail above the door (roof-mounted), and roof-rail and 
seat back/door systems. After the dummy is positioned as specified in 
the procedures, the air bag is deployed statically, and the dummy 
injury measures due to the deployment of the air bag are determined. 
The measured forces are compared to TWG's ``Injury Reference Values'' 
and ``Injury Research Values.''\56\ The TWG's limits on the Injury 
Reference Values are mostly the same as those in FMVSS No. 208 for OOP 
testing of frontal air bags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Injury Reference Values are those that the majority of the 
TWG believed have a strong scientific basis. Injury Research Values 
are those that TWG believes currently have less scientific support 
or insufficient test experience to allow full confidence in their 
accuracy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA initiated a research program to evaluate the TWG procedures 
and propose, if necessary, any alternatives and modifications to assess 
the injury risk to OOP children. The agency's test program included 11 
vehicles equipped with front seat side air bags and one vehicle 
equipped with rear seat side air bags. The TWG OOP test procedures were 
used as the baseline for selecting test positions. However, tests were 
performed with the basic TWG procedures with and without NHTSA 
variations. Many different types of production systems, including door-
mounted thorax bags, seat-mounted head-thorax combination bags, and 
roof mounted head protection systems, were tested using 3-year-old and 
6-year-old Hybrid-III child dummies. The results were reported in a 
technical paper, ``Evaluation of Injury Risk from Side Impact Air 
Bags.'' (Proceedings of the 17th ESV Conference, June 2001, Paper 
 331.) The main purpose of the test program was to assess the 
potential safety risks that any system could pose to OOP small adults 
and children due to deploying side air bags.
    The main observations from the agency's research is summarized in 
the following:
     The TWG procedures address dummy sizes, seating positions, 
and expand the traditional injury assessment measures.
     The TWG procedures are quite comprehensive and are very 
successful at discriminating aggressive SIABs.
     The TWG procedures are adequate baseline procedures for 
SIAB OOP testing to minimize unreasonable risks to children and small 
adults.
     For the 3- and 6-year old occupants, the TWG test 
procedures do not always find the worst case conditions for some 
current SIAB systems.
    Future Action. Door- and seat-mounted side impact head and/or chest 
protection systems in future vehicles might need to be more aggressive 
compared to current systems. Comments are requested on how meeting the 
requirements proposed by this NPRM would affect manufacturers' ability 
to meet the TWG procedures. The agency is conducting additional tests 
of the newer side air bag systems that are able to comply with the pole 
test requirements to assess their risks, if any. The agency will 
continue to monitor compliance with the TWG test procedures and 
requirements by automotive manufacturers. In addition, the agency will 
conduct further testing of new air bag designs. The knowledge gained 
from the test program will allow us to take any appropriate action in 
this area if there are indications it is warranted.
2. FMVSS No. 201 Pole Test
    Currently, FMVSS No. 201 specifies an optional 90-degree, 29 km/h 
(18 mph) pole test using a SID-H3 driver dummy (1000 HIC test 
criterion). As noted above, this test was part of a set of amendments 
adopted to accommodate the installation of head protection systems 
(HPS) in the pillar and side rail areas. If a vehicle complies with the 
pole test requirements, the 24.0 km/h (15 mph) head form test is 
reduced to 19.3 km/h (12 mph) for targets near the stowed HPS.
    This NPRM proposes to amend FMVSS No. 201 such that, if the 
proposed oblique 32 km/h (20 mph) pole test were added to FMVSS No. 
214, vehicles certified to that test would be excluded from the 90-
degree, 29 km/h (18 mph) pole test in FMVSS No. 201. The agency 
tentatively concludes that a vehicle that meets the oblique 32 km/h (20 
mph) pole test would also meet FMVSS No. 201's 90-degree 29 km/h (18 
mph) test. Seat-mounted SIABs that deploy into an area far enough 
forward to cushion an occupant's head in an oblique impact are also 
likely to protect the head in a perpendicular one. Similarly, an air 
curtain tethered to the A- and C-pillars would also provide coverage in 
both an oblique and perpendicular crash. Since the FMVSS No. 214 pole 
test would encompass and go beyond the pole crash replicated by the 
FMVSS No. 201 pole test, there does not seem to be a need for the 
latter test. Thus, the agency proposes to eliminate the FMVSS No. 201 
optional pole test for vehicles certified to the FMVSS No. 214 oblique 
pole test, to delete an unnecessary test burden on manufacturers. Note, 
however, that targets near the stowed HPS would still be subject to the 
head form test of FMVSS No. 201, conducted at the 19.3 km/h (12 mph) 
test speed specified in that standard.

[[Page 28013]]

d. Harmonization

    Today's proposal is consistent with NHTSA's international 
harmonization policy goal of harmonizing with non-U.S. safety 
requirements except to the extent needed to address safety problems 
here in the U.S.
    Dynamic Test For Head Protection. Worldwide, there are numerous 
countries that have side impact protection requirements or governmental 
or non-governmental side impact consumer information programs. Similar 
to NHTSA's NCAP program, the European NCAP (Euro NCAP) program seeks to 
provide consumers with reliable and accurate comparative information 
for use in making purchasing decisions. Euro NCAP incorporates a side 
impact program, which involves a 50 kph (30 mph) barrier impact into 
the driver's side of a car, and an optional 29 km/h (18 mph) 90 degree 
pole test. (EuroNCAP Side impact testing Protocol, Version 4, January 
2003.) While these side impact programs are similar to those of the 
U.S., the safety need addressed by those programs is different from the 
side impact safety need in the U.S. There are more LTVs in the U.S. 
fleet than elsewhere. Vehicle compatibility is a relatively unique U.S. 
problem.
    The European Community's side impact safety regulation, EU 
Directive 96/27/EC, is similar to existing FMVSS No. 214 in specifying 
a side impact of a moving deformable barrier into the stationary target 
vehicle. Similar to the MDB test of FMVSS No. 214, a 50th percentile 
male dummy is placed in the front seat of the target vehicle. (FMVSS 
No. 214 also specifies placement of another 50th percentile dummy in 
the vehicle's rear seat.\57\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ The test differs from FMVSS No. 214 in other ways. The MDB 
has a mass of 950 kg (2,095 lb) compared to 1,367 kg (3,015 lb) for 
the U.S. barrier. The European barrier's face is smaller and much 
softer than the U.S. barrier on the blocks closest to the sides. The 
bottom edge is the most forward part of the European MDB and is 300 
mm (11.8 in) from the ground. The U.S. barrier face's bottom edge is 
280 mm (11.0 in) from the ground and has a 330 mm (13 in) bumper 
height. In EU 96/27/EC, the barrier impacts the target vehicle at 50 
km/h (30 mph) and 90 degrees with no crab angle. (In FMVSS No. 214, 
the stuck vehicle's wheels are crabbed to simulate movement of the 
target vehicle.) The injury criteria associated with the EuroSID-1 
differ from that of SID. EU 96/27/EC limits HIC, rib deflection (42 
mm), Viscous Criterion (1.0), abdominal force (2.5 kN) and the pubic 
symphysis force (6 kN).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency has tentatively concluded that adopting our proposed 
vehicle-to-pole test into FMVSS No. 214 would result in significantly 
greater benefits than those that would accrue from adopting EU 96/27/EC 
or the Euro NCAP side impact test into the standard.\58\ The side 
impact tests of EU 96/27/EC and Euro NCAP moving barrier test address 
mainly the chest injury problem. The barrier used in those tests is not 
representative of the vehicles in the U.S. fleet, which has more SUVs 
and other LTVs as compared to the European fleet. Further, these tests 
do not simulate an impact with an exterior narrow rigid structure--
which constitutes a serious safety problem today--nor do they address 
head protection in the manner addressed by our proposed pole test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ The side impact protection requirements promulgated by 
Japan (Article 18, Attachment 23, ``Technical Standard for the 
Protection of the Occupants in the Event of a Lateral Collision'') 
and Australia (Australian Design Rule 72/00, ``Dynamic Side Impact 
Occupant Protection'') are those in ECE Regulation 95 EU/96/27/EC. A 
U.S. final rule adopting the vehicle-to-pole test proposed today 
would provide greater benefits than those requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Euro NCAP optional pole test is closer to today 's 
NPRM in addressing head protection, the Euro NCAP test is basically the 
same as the optional FMVSS No. 201 test. NHTSA believes that the 
oblique pole test proposed today would provide significantly more 
benefits than those from either of these 90-degree 29 km/h (18 mph) 
tests.
    Work is continuing internationally on a side impact pole test. The 
International Harmonized Research Activities (IHRA)\59\ Side Impact 
Working Group (SIWG) is actively researching the side impact problem 
and has proposed that several test procedures for protecting the struck 
side occupant in side impact crashes be subjected to validation 
testing. The IHRA SIWG has agreed to adopt NHTSA's oblique impact pole 
test, pending the results of those validation tests. It has also agreed 
that head form impact tests similar to that of FMVSS No. 201 is 
necessary for protecting the occupants on the struck side as the tests 
pertain to the targets that are likely to be contacted by an occupant's 
head in a side impact crash.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ IHRA is an inter-governmental initiative that aims to 
facilitate greater harmony of vehicle safety policies through multi-
national collaboration in research.
    \60\ In addition, they are validating two different moving 
deformable barrier tests to accommodate the issues of fleet 
differences between countries. One is the IIHS test, the other is a 
test performed at the same mass and speed, but uses an advanced 
barrier face that better reflects the shape and stiffness of a 
passenger vehicle. The IHRA SIWG also has work underway to validate 
the test procedures developed by the Side Impact Airbag Out-of-
Position Technical Working Group (TWG) for static side impact airbag 
tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Test Dummies and Injury Criteria. Incorporation of the ES-2 dummy 
into FMVSS No. 214 in both the vehicle-to-pole and MDB tests would be a 
step toward harmonizing the standard with non-U.S. regulations. The ES-
2 dummy is used in the non-governmental Euro NCAP side impact program. 
While the ES-2 dummy has not yet replaced the EuroSID-1 dummy in the 
side impact directive of the European Union (EU 96/27/EC), there is 
work underway in WP.29 to replace EuroSID-1 in ECE Regulation 95 with 
the ES-2, and in the European Union to subsequently amend the EU 
Directive accordingly. As noted earlier in this preamble, the GRSP 
Working Party to WP.29 transmitted a recommended amendment to ECE 
Regulation 95 to WP.29 for consideration by AC.1 at its November 2003 
meeting. The GRSP specifically urged consideration of NHTSA's actions 
to fix the back plate of the ES-2 by way of the rib extensions.
    The injury criteria proposed in this notice for the ES-2re dummy 
are consistent with the injury criteria now in EU 96/27/EC. The 
proposed 42 mm (1.65 in) requirement for maximum chest deflection for 
the ES-2re, the 2,500 N (562 lb) abdominal load injury criterion and 
the 6,000 N (1,349 lb) pubic symphysis load injury criterion are the 
same as those applied in the European side impact regulation EU 96/27/
EC.
    At this time, the SID-IIs is not used by other countries for 
regulatory purposes, but Canada uses the dummy for side impact 
research. Canada does not use the FRG version of the dummy.

IX. Estimated Benefits and Costs of Proposed Pole Test

    We are placing in the docket a Preliminary Economic Assessment 
(PEA) to accompany this NPRM.\61\ The PEA analyzes the potential 
impacts of the proposed vehicle-to-pole side impact test and the 
modifications to the MDB test. A summary of the PEA follows. Comments 
are requested on the analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ The PEA may be obtained by contacting Docket Management at 
the address or telephone number provided at the beginning of this 
document. You may also read the document via the Internet, by 
following the instructions in the section below entitled, ``Viewing 
Docket Submissions.'' The PEA will be listed in the docket summary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Benefits. The agency first identified the baseline target 
population and then estimated the fatality or injury reduction rate. 
The target population was defined as occupants who sustained fatal and/
or AIS 3+ injuries to the head, chest, abdomen or pelvis in side 
crashes. The target population was initially estimated to be 2,910 
fatalities and 7,248 AIS 3-5 injuries in crashes with a delta-V of 19 
to 40 km/h (12-25 mph). When adjusted

[[Page 28014]]

using the 2003 seat belt use rate, the target population estimate was 
2,874 fatalities and 7,243 MAIS 3-5 injuries. Target fatalities and 
MAIS 3-5 injuries were derived from 1997-2001 CDS. In identifying the 
target population, occupants with heights of 165 cm (65 inches) or 
taller were assumed to be represented by the 50th percentile male dummy 
(the SID-H3 or the ES-2re), and the remaining occupants were assumed to 
be represented by the 5th percentile female dummy (the SID-IIsFRG).
    The agency estimated the lives and serious injuries prevented by 
wider thorax and head window curtain air bags in pole/tree impacts, 
vehicle-to-vehicle/other road side object crashes (including partial 
ejections), and non-rollover complete ejections. The analysis assumed 
that benefits would only accrue in crashes with delta-V in the 19 to 40 
km/h (12 to 25 mph) range. Taking into account the presence of head and 
thorax side air bags already in the MY 2003 new vehicle fleet, the 
incremental benefits would be 686 fatalities saved and 880 AIS 3-5 
injuries prevented if a combination air bag, 2-sensor (per vehicle) 
system were used. (The combination air bag, 2-sensor system would be 
the least expensive side air bag system that would enable a vehicle to 
meet the standard.) If a window curtain and thorax air bag 2-sensor 
system were used, the benefits would be 1,027 fatalities saved and 999 
MAIS 3-5 injuries prevented. If a window curtain and thorax air bag 4-
sensor system were used, the benefits are estimated to be 1,032 
fatalities saved and 1,037 MAIS 3-5 injuries prevented.
    The agency's estimates are based on the distribution of the 
different types of side air bag systems in the MY 2003 new vehicle 
fleet, i.e., the percentage of side air bags providing head protection 
only, those providing thorax protection only, and those providing both 
head and thorax protection. The distribution of these systems within 
the new vehicle fleet has changed over the years, e.g., head-only and 
head/thorax bags increased from MY 2002 to MY 2003, while thorax-only 
side air bags decreased during that period (see Table V-103 of the PEA 
for a distribution of side air bag systems in MY 1999-2003 vehicles). 
Yet, overall, the MY 2003 new vehicle fleet had a lower percent of side 
air bags than the MY 2002 fleet. Comments are requested on the agency's 
use of MY 2003 side air bag installation rates as a baseline, the trend 
in side air bag installation rates, and the ability of the different 
air bag systems to meet our oblique pole test.
    Costs. In the PEA, the agency discusses the costs of the different 
technologies that could be used to comply with the tests and also 
estimates compliance tests costs. The agency tentatively concludes that 
the majority of vehicle manufacturers currently installing side head 
air bag systems might need to make their present air bags wider. They 
might not need to add side impact sensors to their vehicles or develop 
more advanced sensors to meet an oblique pole test. As noted above, 
NHTSA estimates that the combination air bag, 2-sensor system would be 
the least expensive side air bag system that would enable a vehicle to 
meet the standard. The cost for two wider combination head/thorax side 
air bags with two sensors is estimated to be $121 per vehicle. 
Accounting for the degree to which the MY 2003 fleet already has 
combination side air bags, the average vehicle incremental cost to meet 
the proposed requirements is estimated to be $91 per vehicle. If a 
window curtain, thorax side air bag system were installed with 4 
sensors, the average incremental cost per vehicle would be $264. Given 
the number of vehicles in the MY 2003 fleet that now have wide window 
curtains and wide thorax side air bags with four sensors, the average 
vehicle incremental cost to meet this proposal is estimated to be $208 
per vehicle (2002 dollars). This amounts to a range of $1.6 to $3.6 
billion for the total incremental annual cost of this proposed rule.
    Net Cost Per Fatality Prevented. NHTSA estimated the net costs per 
equivalent life saved, using a 3 and a 7 percent discount rate. 
Assuming manufacturers were to install a combination head/thorax 2-
sensor side air bag system, at a 3 percent discount rate, the cost per 
equivalent life saved would be $1.8 million. Assuming manufacturers 
were to install separate window curtains and thorax air bags with four 
sensors, the high end of the range is estimated to be $3.7 million per 
equivalent life saved, using a 7 percent discount rate.
    Net Benefits. Net benefit analysis differs from cost effectiveness 
analysis in that a net benefits analysis involves assigning a monetary 
value to the estimated benefits. A comparison is then made of the 
monetary value of benefits to the monetary value of costs, to derive a 
net benefit. NHTSA estimates that the high end of the net benefits is 
$1,447 million for the combination head/thorax air bags using a 3 
percent discount rate. The low end is negative $202 million for the 
curtain plus thorax bags with four sensors, using a 7 percent discount 
rate. Both of these are based on a $3.5 million cost per life.

X. Proposed Leadtime and Phase-In

    Oblique Pole Test. Motor vehicle manufacturers will need lead time 
to develop and install side impact air bags that enable their vehicles 
to meet the performance requirements proposed today for the oblique 
pole test. (Substantially less time would be required if the agency 
chose to utilize a 90-degree pole test and/or the SID-H3 in lieu of the 
ES-2re dummy.) NHTSA believes that vehicle manufacturers are at 
different stages with respect to designing side impact air bags, and 
also face different constraints and challenges, e.g., differences in 
the technological advances incorporated in their current air bag 
systems, in engineering resources, in the number of vehicles for which 
air bags need to be redesigned, etc. NHTSA believes that these 
differing situations can best be accommodated by phasing-in the 
upgraded side impact protection requirements proposed today for head 
protection.
    Taking into account all available information, including but not 
limited to the performance of current vehicles when tested obliquely at 
the proposed 32 km/h (20 mph) pole test speed and with the advanced 
dummies proposed today, the technologies that can possibly be used to 
meet the proposed testing requirements (e.g., head curtains, widened 
head/thorax bags), and the relatively low percentage of the fleet that 
has the side air bags capable of meeting the proposed requirements, the 
agency is proposing to phase in the new vehicle-to-pole test 
requirements four years from the date of publication of a final rule. 
The phase-in would be implemented in accordance with the following 
schedule:
     20 percent of each manufacturer's light vehicles 
manufactured during the production year beginning (four years after 
publication of a final rule; for illustration purposes, September 1, 
2009);
     50 percent of each manufacturer's light vehicles 
manufactured during the production year beginning September 1, 2010;
     All vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2011.
    NHTSA believes that the proposed phase-in allows manufacturers to 
focus their resources in an efficient manner. The agency believes that 
it would not be possible for manufacturers that produce large numbers 
of models of passenger cars and LTVs to simultaneously design and 
install side air bags in all of their vehicles at once. Manufacturers 
have limited engineering resources, and the same resources are often 
used for

[[Page 28015]]

different models. Manufacturers have also been using their resources to 
take voluntary actions to improve the compatibility of LTVs and 
passenger cars in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes. NHTSA wants to give the 
vehicle manufacturers sufficient opportunity to adopt the best designs 
possible. At the same time, however, the agency wishes to see head 
protection air bags implemented expeditiously. The agency believes that 
a 3-year phase-in is sufficient. NHTSA estimates that about 22 percent 
of the 2002 model year vehicles sold in the U.S. already have some type 
of head side air bag system (by way of comparison, only 0.04 percent of 
the vehicles sold in 1998 had such systems). The agency believes the 
proposed phase-in balances the above competing concerns.
    We are also proposing to include provisions under which 
manufacturers can earn credits towards meeting the applicable phase-in 
percentages if they meet the new requirements ahead of schedule.
    As we have done with other standards, we are proposing a separate 
alternative to address the special problems faced by limited line and 
multistage manufacturers and alterers in complying with phase-ins. A 
phase-in generally permits vehicle manufacturers flexibility with 
respect to which vehicles they choose to initially redesign to comply 
with new requirements. However, if a manufacturer produces a very 
limited number of lines, a phase-in would not provide such flexibility. 
NHTSA is accordingly proposing to permit ``limited line'' manufacturers 
that produce three or fewer carlines the option of achieving full 
compliance when the phase-in is completed (in the illustration, 
September 1, 2011). (The definition of a limited line manufacturer was 
expanded to manufacturers of three or fewer carlines in a final rule 
published May 5, 2003 (68 FR 23614), as corrected September 25, 2003 
(68 FR 55319).) The same flexibility would be allowed for vehicles 
manufactured in two or more stages and altered vehicles from the phase-
in requirements. All these manufacturers (limited line, multistage and 
alterers) would, of course, be subject to FMVSS No. 214's existing 
requirements before and throughout the phase-in.
    Also as with previous phase-ins, NHTSA is proposing reporting 
requirements to accompany the phase-in. The agency is proposing to 
include the reporting requirements in a new Part 598 in Title 49 of the 
CFR. (NHTSA has proposed to consolidate into Part 585 the phase-in 
reporting requirements for all the FMVSSs with phase-in schedules (68 
FR 46546; 46551; August 6, 2003). If that consolidation is made final, 
a final rule adopting the FMVSS No. 214 reporting requirements would 
set forth the reporting requirements in Part 585.)
    Upgraded MDB Test. The upgraded MDB test would be effective 4 years 
after publication of a final rule. The requirements would not be phased 
in because NHTSA believes that manufacturers can meet them without the 
need for a phase in. Countermeasures that include padding and simple 
redesign of the armrest area are available to some vehicles. Comments 
are requested on whether it would be appropriate to establish a phase-
in for this requirement. Comments are also requested on whether a 
leadtime shorter than 4 years would be appropriate.

XI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

a. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The agency has considered the impact of this rulemaking action 
under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's 
regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking is economically 
significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget 
under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' The rulemaking 
action has also been determined to be significant under the 
Department's regulatory policies and procedures. NHTSA has placed in 
the docket a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) describing the costs 
and benefits of this rulemaking action. The costs and benefits are 
summarized in section IX of this preamble.

b. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, requires 
agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their proposed and final 
rules on small businesses, small organizations and small governmental 
jurisdictions. I hereby certify that this NPRM would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small organizations and small governmental units would not be 
significantly affected since the potential cost impacts associated with 
this proposed action should only slightly affect the price of new motor 
vehicles.
    The proposed rule would directly affect motor vehicle manufacturers 
and indirectly affect air bag manufacturers, dummy manufacturers and 
seating manufacturers.
    This action would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small vehicle manufacturers because the vast 
majority of companies that manufacture motor vehicles in a single stage 
are not small businesses.
    The agency does not believe that there are any small air bag 
manufacturers.
    There are several manufacturers of dummies and/or dummy parts. All 
of them are considered small businesses. The proposed rule is expected 
to have a positive impact on these types of small businesses by 
increasing demand for dummies.
    NHTSA knows of approximately 21 suppliers of seating systems, about 
half of which are small businesses. If seat-mounted head/thorax air 
bags are used to meet the new pole test and upgraded MDB test, the 
proposed requirements would have a positive impact on these suppliers 
since the cost of the seats would increase. NHTSA believes that air bag 
manufacturers would provide the seat suppliers with the engineering 
expertise necessary to meet the new requirements.
    NHTSA notes that final-stage vehicle manufacturers and alterers buy 
incomplete vehicles, add seating systems to vehicles without seats, 
and/or make other modifications to the vehicle, such as replacing 
existing seats with new ones or raising the roofs of vehicles. A 
second-stage manufacturer or alterer modifying a vehicle with a seat-
mounted thorax air bag might need to use the existing seat or rely on a 
seat manufacturer to provide the necessary technology. In either case, 
the impacts of this NPRM on such entities would not be significant. 
Final-stage manufacturers or alterers engaged in raising the roofs of 
vehicles would not be affected by this NPRM. This is because this 
document proposes to exclude vehicles with raised or altered roofs from 
the pole test.
    Additional information concerning the potential impacts of the 
proposed requirements on small entities is presented in the PEA.

c. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable 
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local 
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of

[[Page 28016]]

power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' 
Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a regulation with 
Federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, the agency consults with 
State and local governments, or the agency consults with State and 
local officials early in the process of developing the proposed 
regulation. NHTSA also may not issue a regulation with Federalism 
implications and that preempts State law unless the agency consults 
with State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation.
    We have analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the 
principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132 and have 
determined that this proposal does not have sufficient Federal 
implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or 
the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. The proposal 
would not have any substantial impact on the States, or on the current 
Federal-State relationship, or on the current distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various local officials.

d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal 
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and 
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate 
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than 
$100 million in any one year ($100 million adjusted annually for 
inflation, with base year of 1995). These effects are discussed earlier 
in this preamble and in the PEA. UMRA also requires an agency issuing a 
final rule subject to the Act to select the ``least costly, most cost-
effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives 
of the rule.'' The preamble and the PEA identify and consider a number 
of alternatives to the proposal. However, none of these alternatives 
would fully achieve the objectives of the alternative preferred by 
NHTSA (20 mph oblique pole test with the ES-2re and the SID-IIs). The 
agency believes that it has selected the least costly, most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives 
of the rulemaking. The agency requests comments that will aid the 
agency in ensuring that this is the case.

e. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this proposal for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation 
of this action would not have any significant impact on the quality of 
the human environment.

f. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This proposal would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 
U.S.C. 21403, 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. 21461 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.

g. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in 
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language 
includes consideration of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that 
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or 
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to 
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them 
in your comments on this proposal.

h. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    Under the PRA of 1995, a person is not required to respond to a 
collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection 
displays a valid OMB control number. The proposal contains a collection 
of information because of the proposed phase-in reporting requirements. 
There is no burden to the general public.
    The collection of information would require manufacturers of 
passenger cars and of trucks, buses and MPVs with a GVWR of 4,536 kg 
(10,000 lb) or less, to annually submit a report, and maintain records 
related to the report, concerning the number of such vehicles that meet 
the vehicle-to-pole test requirements of FMVSS No. 214 during the 
phase-in of those requirements. The phase-in of the vehicle-to-pole 
test requirements will be completed three years after publication of a 
final rule. The purpose of the reporting requirements is to aid the 
agency in determining whether a manufacturer of vehicles subject to the 
standard has complied with the vehicle-to-pole test requirements during 
the phase-in of those requirements.
    We are submitting a request for OMB clearance of the collection of 
information required under today's proposal. These requirements and our 
estimates of the burden to vehicle manufacturers are as follows:
     NHTSA estimates that there are 21 manufacturers of 
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with 
a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less;
     NHTSA estimates that the total annual reporting and 
recordkeeping burden resulting from the collection of information is 
1,260 hours;
     NHTSA estimates that the total annual cost burden, in U.S. 
dollars, will be $0. No additional resources will be expended by 
vehicle manufacturers to gather annual production information because 
they already compile this data for their own use.
    Under the PRA, the agency must publish a document in the Federal 
Register providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with 
members of the public and affected agencies concerning each collection 
of information. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
promulgated regulations describing what must be included in such a 
document. Under OMB's regulations (5 CFR 320.8(d)), agencies must ask 
for public comment on the following:
    (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the 
proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether 
the information will have practical utility;
    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and,

[[Page 28017]]

    (4) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.
    Organizations and individuals that wish to submit comments on the 
information collection requirements should direct them to NHTSA's 
docket for this NPRM.

i. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113),

all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards 
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards 
bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out 
policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and 
departments.

    Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., 
materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies, such as the International Organization for 
Standardization (ISO) and the Society of Automotive Engineers. The 
NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when we 
decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    When NHTSA developed the vehicle-to-pole test that was adopted into 
FMVSS No. 201, the agency based the test on a proposed ISO test 
procedure found in ISO/SC10/WG1 (October 2001). In developing today's 
NPRM, we considered the draft ISO standard and ISO draft technical 
reports related to side air bags performance to guide our decision-
making to the extent consistent with the Safety Act. The notable 
differences between the draft ISO standard and this proposal relate to: 
The diameter of the pole (ISO draft technical reports recommend the use 
of 350 mm pole, while NHTSA uses a 254 mm pole in FMVSS No. 201 and 
would use such a pole in FMVSS No. 214), and the angle of approach of 
the test vehicle to the pole (ISO specifies 90 degrees, while our NPRM 
proposes to use a 75 degree angle). The agency's reasons for proposing 
a 254 mm pole and an oblique, 32 km/h (20 mph), angle of approach were 
discussed earlier in this document.

XII. Public Participation

How Can I Influence NHTSA's Thinking on This Proposed Rule?

    In developing this proposal, we tried to address the concerns of 
all our stakeholders. Your comments will help us improve this proposed 
rule. We invite you to provide different views on options we propose, 
new approaches we haven't considered, new data, how this proposed rule 
may affect you, or other relevant information. We welcome your views on 
all aspects of this proposed rule, but request comments on specific 
issues throughout this document. Your comments will be most effective 
if you follow the suggestions below:

--Explain your views and reasoning as clearly as possible.
--Provide solid technical and cost data to support your views.
--If you estimate potential costs, explain how you arrived at the 
estimate.
--Tell us which parts of the proposal you support, as well as those 
with which you disagree.
--Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
--Offer specific alternatives.
--Refer your comments to specific sections of the proposal, such as the 
units or page numbers of the preamble, or the regulatory sections.
--Be sure to include the name, date, and docket number with your 
comments.
How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?
    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). 
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES.
    Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by 
logging onto the Dockets Management System Web site at Click on ``Help 
& Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain instructions for filing the 
document electronically.
How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?
    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?
    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above 
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed 
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover 
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential 
business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)
Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?
    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket 
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in 
developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider 
that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?
    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments 
on the Internet, take the following steps:
    (1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
    (2) On that page, click on ``search.''
    (3) On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the 
four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. 
Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-2002-1234,'' you would type 
``1234.''

[[Page 28018]]

After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
    (4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may 
download the comments. However, since the comments are imaged 
documents, instead of word processing documents, the downloaded 
comments are not word searchable.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material. 
Upon receiving the comments, the docket supervisor will return the 
postcard by mail.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.

Appendix A--Glossary

Categories of Side Air Bags

    Combined (also called ``integrated'' or ``combo'') side air bag 
system. Incorporates both a head air bag system and a torso side air 
bag into one unit that is typically installed in the seat back.
    Curtain. A ``curtain'' type side air bag system (referred to as 
``curtain bags,'' window curtains, or air curtains, AC). A curtain 
is an inflatable device that is fixed at two points, one at the 
front end of the vehicle's A-pillar and the other along the roof 
rail near the C-pillar. It is installed under the roof rail 
headliner. This system would provide head and neck protection for 
front and possibly rear seat occupants in outboard seating positions 
in side crashes. The curtain air bags can be designed to provide 
extended inflation time (compared to frontal air bags), which could 
provide occupant protection during vehicle rollovers (when 
deployed).
    Head air bag system (or head protection system (HPS)). The term 
comprises different types of head protection systems, such as 
curtain bags or ITS, installed either as a stand alone system or 
combined with a thorax side air bag.
    Inflatable Tubular Structure (ITS). The ITS is an inflatable 
device that is fixed at two points, one at the front end of the 
vehicle's A-pillar and the other at the back end to the roof rail 
behind the B-pillar. It is installed under the roof rail headliner. 
When deployed, the ITS inflates to become a self supporting tube 
that spans the vehicle's side window diagonally and provides head 
and neck protection. The ITS remains inflated for a few seconds and 
can provide some additional protection during rollover events and 
secondary impacts.
    Side impact air bag (SIAB). The term refers to side air bags 
generally.
    Torso (or thorax) side air bag. A ``torso'' (or ``thorax'') side 
air bag that can be installed in either the seat back or the vehicle 
door. As the name indicates, the system would provide protection for 
the torso but not for the head.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.

49 CFR Part 598

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
chapter V as set forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for Part 571 would continue 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 571.201 would be amended by revising S6.1(b)(3) and 
S6.2(b)(3), and adding S6.1(b)(4) and S6.2(b)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  571.201  Standard No. 201; Occupant protection in interior 
impact.

* * * * *
    S6.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998. * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Except as provided in S6.1(b)(4), each vehicle shall, when 
equipped with a dummy test device specified in 49 CFR part 572, subpart 
M, and tested as specified in S8.16 through S8.28, comply with the 
requirements specified in S7 when crashed into a fixed, rigid pole of 
254 mm in diameter, at any velocity between 24 kilometers per hour (15 
mph) and 29 kilometers per hour (18 mph).
    (4) Vehicles certified as complying with the vehicle-to-pole 
requirements of S9.2.1, S9.2.2 and S9.2.3 of 49 CFR 571.214, Side 
Impact Protection, need not comply with the requirements specified in 
S7 of this section.
* * * * *
    S6.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2002 and 
vehicles built in two or more stages manufactured after September 1, 
2006. * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Except as provided in S6.2(b)(4), each vehicle shall, when 
equipped with a dummy test device specified in 49 CFR part 572, subpart 
M, and tested as specified in S8.16 through S8.28, comply with the 
requirements specified in S7 when crashed into a fixed, rigid pole of 
254 mm in diameter, at any velocity between 24 kilometers per hour (15 
mph) and 29 kilometers per hour (18 mph).
    (4) Vehicles certified as complying with the vehicle-to-pole 
requirements of S9.2.1, S9.2.2 and S9.2.3 of 49 CFR 571.214, Side 
Impact Protection, need not comply with the requirements specified in 
S7 of this section.
* * * * *
    3. Section 571.214 would be revised to read as follows:


Sec.  571.214  Standard No. 214; Side impact protection.

    S1 Scope and purpose.
    (a) Scope. This standard specifies performance requirements for 
protection of occupants in side impacts.
    (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 impacts by specifying 
strength requirements for side doors, limiting the forces, deflections 
and accelerations measured on anthropomorphic dummies in test crashes, 
and by other means.
    S2 Applicability. This standard applies to passenger cars, and to 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a gross vehicle 
weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds (lb)) or 
less, except for walk-in vans, or otherwise specified.
    S3 Definitions.
    Altered roof is used as defined in paragraph S4 of 49 CFR 571.216.
    Contoured means, with respect to a door, that the lower portion of 
its front or rear edge is curved upward, typically to conform to a 
wheel well.
    Double side doors means a pair of hinged doors with the lock and 
latch mechanisms located where the door lips overlap.
    Limited line manufacturer means a manufacturer that sells three or 
fewer carlines, as that term is defined in 49 CFR 585.4, in the United 
States during a production year.
    Raised roof is used as defined in paragraph S4 of 49 CFR 571.216.
    Walk-in van means a special cargo/mail delivery vehicle that has 
only one designated seating position. That designated seating position 
must be forward facing and for use only by the driver. The vehicle 
usually has a thin and light sliding (or folding) side door for easy 
operation and a high roof

[[Page 28019]]

clearance that a person of medium stature can enter the passenger 
compartment area in an up-right position.
    S4 Requirements. Subject to the exceptions of S5--
    (a) Passenger cars. Passenger cars must meet the requirements set 
forth in S6 (door crush resistance), S7 (moving deformable barrier 
test), and S9 (vehicle-to-pole test), subject to the phased-in 
application of S9.
    (b) Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR 
of 2,722 kg or less (6,000 lb or less). Multipurpose passenger 
vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 2,722 kg or less). (6,000 lb 
or less) must meet the requirements set forth in S6 (door crush 
resistance), S7 (moving deformable barrier test), and S9 (vehicle-to-
pole test), subject to the phased-in application of S9.
    (c) Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR 
greater than 2,722 kg (6,000 lb). Multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
trucks and buses with a GVWR greater than 2,722 kg (6,000 lb) must meet 
the requirements set forth in S6 (door crush resistance) and S9 
(vehicle-to-pole test), subject to the phased-in application of S9.
    S5 General exclusions.
    (a) Exclusions from S6 (door crush resistance). A vehicle need not 
meet the requirements of S6 (door crush resistance) for--
    (1) Any side door located so that no point on a ten-inch horizontal 
longitudinal line passing through and bisected by the H-point of a 
manikin placed in any seat, with the seat adjusted to any position and 
the seat back adjusted as specified in S8.4, falls within the 
transverse, horizontal projection of the door's opening,
    (2) Any side door located so that no point on a ten-inch horizontal 
longitudinal line passing through and bisected by the H-point of a 
manikin placed in any seat recommended by the manufacturer for 
installation in a location for which seat anchorage hardware is 
provided, with the seat adjusted to any position and the seat back 
adjusted as specified in S8.3, falls within the transverse, horizontal 
projection of the door's opening,
    (3) Any side door located so that a portion of a seat, with the 
seat adjusted to any position and the seat back adjusted as specified 
in S8.3, falls within the transverse, horizontal protection of the 
door's opening, but a longitudinal vertical plane tangent to the 
outboard side of the seat cushion is more than 254 mm (10 inches) from 
the innermost point on the inside surface of the door at a height 
between the H-point and shoulder reference point (as shown in Figure 1 
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 (49 CFR 571.210)) and 
longitudinally between the front edge of the cushion with the seat 
adjusted to its forwardmost position and the rear edge of the cushion 
with the seat adjusted to its rearmost position.
    (4) Any side door that is designed to be easily attached to or 
removed (e.g., using simple hand tools such as pliers and/or a 
screwdriver) from a motor vehicle manufactured for operation without 
doors.
    (b) Exclusions from S7 (moving deformable barrier test). The 
following vehicles are excluded from S7 (moving deformable barrier 
test):
    (1) 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.
    (2) Passenger cars with a wheelbase greater than 130 inches need 
not meet the requirements of S7 as applied to the rear seat.
    (3) Passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and 
buses need not meet the requirements of S7 (moving deformable barrier 
test) as applied to the rear seat for side-facing rear seats and for 
rear seating areas that are so small that a part 572 subpart [subpart 
number to be determined] dummy representing a 5th percentile female 
cannot be accommodated according to the positioning procedure specified 
in S12.3.4 of this standard.
    (4) Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR 
of more than 2,722 kg (more than 6,000 lb) need not meet the 
requirements of S7 (moving deformable barrier test).
    (c) Exclusions from S9 (vehicle-to-pole test). The following 
vehicles are excluded from S9 (vehicle-to-pole test):
    (1) Motor homes;
    (2) Tow trucks;
    (3) Dump trucks;
    (4) Ambulances and other emergency rescue/medical vehicles 
(including vehicles with fire-fighting equipment);
    (5) Vehicles equipped with wheelchair lifts,
    (6) Vehicles with a raised roof or altered roof; and
    (7) Vehicles which 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.
    S6 Door crush resistance requirements. Except as provided in 
section S5, each vehicle shall be able to meet the requirements of 
either, at the manufacturer's option, S6.1 or S6.2, when any of its 
side doors that can be used for occupant egress is tested according to 
procedures described in S6.3 of this standard (49 CFR 571.214).
    S6.1 With any seats that may affect load upon or deflection of the 
side of the vehicle removed from the vehicle, each vehicle must be able 
to meet the requirements of S6.1.1 through S6.1.3.
    S6.1.1 Initial crush resistance. The initial crush resistance shall 
not be less than 10,000 N (2,250 lb).
    S6.1.2 Intermediate crush resistance. The intermediate crush 
resistance shall not be less than 1,557 N (3,500 lb).
    S6.1.3 Peak crush resistance. The peak crush resistance shall not 
be less than two times the curb weight of the vehicle or 3,114 N (7,000 
lb), whichever is less.
    S6.2 With seats installed in the vehicle, and located in any 
horizontal or vertical position to which they can be adjusted and at 
any seat back angle to which they can be adjusted, each vehicle must be 
able to meet the requirements of S6.2.1 through S6.2.3.
    S6.2.1 Initial crush resistance. The initial crush resistance shall 
not be less than 10,000 N (2,250 lb).
    S6.2.2 Intermediate crush resistance. The intermediate crush 
resistance shall not be less than 1,946 N (4,375 lb).
    S6.2.3 Peak crush resistance. The peak crush resistance shall not 
be less than three and one half times the curb weight of the vehicle or 
5,338 N (12,000 lb), whichever is less.
    S6.3 Test procedures for door crush resistance. The following 
procedures apply to determining compliance with S6.1 and S6.2 of S6, 
Door crush resistance requirements.
    (a) Place side windows in their uppermost position and all doors in 
locked position. Place the sill of the side of the vehicle opposite to 
the side being tested against a rigid unyielding vertical surface. Fix 
the vehicle rigidly in position by means of tiedown attachments located 
at or forward of the front wheel centerline and at or rearward of the 
rear wheel centerline.
    (b) Prepare a loading device consisting of a rigid steel cylinder 
or semi-cylinder 305 mm (12 inches) in diameter with an edge radius of 
13 mm (\1/2\ inch). The length of the loading device shall be such 
that--
    (1) For doors with windows, the top surface of the loading device 
is at least 13 mm (\1/2\ inch) above the bottom edge

[[Page 28020]]

of the door window opening but not of a length that will cause contact 
with any structure above the bottom edge of the door window opening 
during the test.
    (2) For doors without windows, the top surface of the loading 
device is at the same height above the ground as when the loading 
device is positioned in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section for purposes of testing a front door with windows on the same 
vehicle.
    (c) Locate the loading device as shown in Figure 1 (side view) of 
this section so that--
    (1) Its longitudinal axis is vertical.
    (2) Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this 
section, its longitudinal axis is laterally opposite the midpoint of a 
horizontal line drawn across the outer surface of the door 127 mm (5 
inches) above the lowest point of the door, exclusive of any decorative 
or protective molding that is not permanently affixed to the door 
panel.
    (i) For contoured doors on trucks, buses, and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, if the 
length of the horizontal line specified in this paragraph (c)(2) is not 
equal to or greater than 559 mm (22 inches), the line is moved 
vertically up the side of the door to the point at which the line is 
559 mm (22 inches) long. The longitudinal axis of the loading device is 
then located laterally opposite the midpoint of that line.
    (ii) For double side doors on trucks, buses, and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, its 
longitudinal axis is laterally opposite the midpoint of a horizontal 
line drawn across the outer surface of the double door span, 127 mm (5 
inches) above the lowest point on the doors, exclusive of any 
decorative or protective molding that is not permanently affixed to the 
door panel.
    (3) Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this 
section, its bottom surface is in the same horizontal plane as the 
horizontal line drawn across the outer surface of the door 127 mm (5 
inches) above the lowest point of the door, exclusive of any decorative 
or protective molding that is not permanently affixed to the door 
panel.
    (i) For contoured doors on trucks, buses, and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, its 
bottom surface is in the lowest horizontal plane such that every point 
on the lateral projection of the bottom surface of the device on the 
door is at least 127 mm (5 inches), horizontally and vertically, from 
any edge of the door panel, exclusive of any decorative or protective 
molding that is not permanently affixed to the door panel.
    (ii) For double side doors, its bottom surface is in the same 
horizontal plane as a horizontal line drawn across the outer surface of 
the double door span, 127 mm (5 inches) above the lowest point of the 
doors, exclusive of any decorative or protective molding that is not 
permanently affixed to the door panel.
    (d) Using the loading device, apply a load to the outer surface of 
the door in an inboard direction normal to a vertical plane along the 
vehicle's longitudinal centerline. Apply the load continuously such 
that the loading device travel rate does not exceed 12.7 mm (0.5 inch) 
per second until the loading device travels 457 mm (18 inches). Guide 
the loading device to prevent it from being rotated or displaced from 
its direction of travel. The test must be completed within 120 seconds.
    (e) Record applied load versus displacement of the loading device, 
either continuously or in increments of not more than 25.4 mm (1 inch) 
or 91 kg (200 pounds) for the entire crush distance of 457 mm (18 
inches).
    (f) Determine the initial crush resistance, intermediate crush 
resistance, and peak crush resistance as follows:
    (1) From the results recorded in paragraph (e) of this section, 
plot a curve of load versus displacement and obtain the integral of the 
applied load with respect to the crush distances specified in 
paragraphs (f) (2) and (3) of this section. These quantities, expressed 
in mm-kN (inch-pounds) and divided by the specified crush distances, 
represent the average forces in pounds required to deflect the door 
those distances.
    (2) The initial crush resistance is the average force required to 
deform the door over the initial 152 mm (6 inches) of crush.
    (3) The intermediate crush resistance is the average force required 
to deform the door over the initial 305 mm (12 inches) of crush.
    (4) The peak crush resistance is the largest force recorded over 
the entire 457 mm (18-inch) crush distance.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 28021]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17MY04.000

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
    S7 Moving Deformable Barrier Requirements. Except as provided in 
section S5, when tested under the conditions of S8 each vehicle shall 
meet the following requirements in a 53  1.0 km/h (33.5 
mph) impact in which the vehicle is struck on either side by a moving 
deformable barrier.
    S7.1 Vehicles manufactured before [four years from the publication 
date of the final rule. For illustration purposes, assume that the 4-
year date is September 1, 2009]. For vehicles manufactured before 
September 1, 2009, the test dummy specified in 49 CFR part 572, subpart 
F (SID) is placed in the front and rear outboard seating positions on 
the struck side of the vehicle, as specified in S11 and S12 of this 
standard (49 CFR 571.214). (Vehicles manufactured before September 1, 
2009 may meet S7.2, at the manufacturer's option.) When using the part 
572, subpart F dummy, the following performance requirements must be 
met.
    (a) Thorax. The Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI(d)) shall not exceed:
    (1) 85 g for a passenger car with four side doors, and for any 
multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, or bus; and,
    (2) 90 g for a passenger car with two side doors, when calculated 
in accordance with the following formula:


TTI(d) = \1/2\(GR + GLS)

    Where 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 S11.5.

    (b) Pelvis. The peak lateral acceleration of the pelvis, as 
measured in accordance with S11.5, shall not exceed 130 g's.
    S7.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2009. Vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1,

[[Page 28022]]

2009 must meet the requirements in S7.2.1 and S7.2.2 when tested with 
the test dummy specified in those sections. The agency has the option 
of using either dummy in its compliance test. The test dummy specified 
in S7.2.1 or S7.2.2 is placed and positioned in the front and rear 
outboard seating positions on the struck side of the vehicle, as 
specified in S11 and S12 of this standard (49 CFR 571.214).
    S7.2.1 Dynamic performance requirements using the part 572 subpart 
[to be determined] dummy (ES-2re 50th percentile male) dummy. Use the 
part 572 subpart [to be determined] ES-2re dummy specified in S11 with 
measurements in accordance with S11.5.
    (a) The HIC shall not exceed 1000 when calculated in accordance 
with the following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17MY04.001

    Where the term a is the resultant head acceleration at the center 
of gravity of the dummy head expressed as a multiple of g (the 
acceleration of gravity), and t1 and t2 are any 
two points in time during the impact which are separated by not more 
than a 36 millisecond time interval and where t1 is less 
than t2.

    (b) Thorax. The deflection of any of the upper, middle, and lower 
ribs, shall not exceed 42 mm (1.65 inches).
    (c) The resultant lower spine acceleration must not exceed 82 g.
    (d) Force measurements.
    (1) The sum of the front, middle and rear abdominal forces, shall 
not exceed 2,500 N (562 lb).
    (2) The pubic symphysis force shall not exceed 6,000 N (1,350 
pounds).
    S7.2.2 Dynamic performance requirements using the Part 572 Subpart 
[to be determined](SID-IIsFRG 5th percentile female) dummy. Use the 
Part 572 Subpart [to be determined] SID-IIsFRG 5th percentile female 
dummy specified in S11 with measurements in accordance with S11.5.
    (a) The HIC shall not exceed 1000 when calculated in accordance 
with the following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17MY04.002

    Where the term a is the resultant head acceleration expressed as a 
multiple of g (the acceleration of gravity), and t1 and 
t2 are any two points in time during the impact which are 
separated by not more than a 36 millisecond time interval.

    (b) The resultant lower spine acceleration shall not exceed 82 g.
    (c) The sum of the acetabular and iliac pelvic forces shall not 
exceed 5,100 N (1,147 lb).
    S7.3 Door opening.
    (a) Any side door that is struck by the moving deformable barrier 
shall not separate totally from the vehicle.
    (b) Any door (including a rear hatchback or tailgate) that is not 
struck by the moving deformable barrier shall meet the following 
requirements:
    (1) The door shall not disengage from the latched position;
    (2) The latch shall not separate from the striker, and the hinge 
components shall not separate from each other or from their attachment 
to the vehicle.
    (3) Neither the latch nor the hinge systems of the door shall pull 
out of their anchorages.
    S8. Test conditions for determining compliance with moving 
deformable barrier requirements. General test conditions for 
determining compliance with the moving deformable barrier test are 
specified below. Additional specifications may also be found in S12 of 
this standard (49 CFR 571.214).
    S8.1 Test weight. Each vehicle is loaded to its unloaded vehicle 
weight, plus 136 kg (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 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 that 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.
    S8.2 Vehicle test attitude. When the vehicle is in its ``as 
delivered,'' ``fully loaded'' and ``as tested'' condition, locate the 
vehicle on a flat, horizontal surface to determine the vehicle 
attitude. Use the same level surface or reference plane and the same 
standard points on the test vehicle when determining the ``as 
delivered,'' ``fully loaded'' and ``as tested'' conditions. Measure the 
angles relative to a horizontal plane, front-to-rear and from left-to-
right for the ``as delivered,'' ``fully loaded,'' and ``as tested'' 
conditions. The front-to-rear angle (pitch) shall be measured along a 
fixed reference on the driver's and front passenger's door sill. Mark 
where the angles are taken on the door sill. The left to right angle 
(roll) is measured along a fixed reference point at the front and rear 
of the vehicle at the vehicle longitudinal center plane. Mark where the 
angles are measured. The ``as delivered'' condition is the vehicle as 
received at the test site, with 100 percent of all fluid capacities and 
all tires inflated to the manufacturer's specifications listed on the 
vehicle's tire placard. When the vehicle is in its ``fully loaded'' 
condition, measure the angle between the driver's door sill and the 
horizontal, at the same place the ``as delivered'' angle was measured. 
The ``fully loaded condition'' is the test vehicle loaded in accordance 
with S8.1 of this standard (49 CFR 571.214). The load placed in the 
cargo area is centered over the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. 
The vehicle ``as tested'' pitch and roll angles are between the ``as 
delivered'' and ``fully loaded'' condition, inclusive.
    S8.3 Adjustable seats.
    S8.3.1 50th Percentile Male Dummy In Front Seats.
    S8.3.1.1 Lumbar support adjustment. Position adjustable lumbar 
supports so that the lumbar support is in its lowest, retracted or 
deflated adjustment position.
    S8.3.1.2 Other seat adjustments. Position any adjustable parts of 
the seat that provide additional support so that they are in the lowest 
or non-deployed adjustment position. Position any adjustable head 
restraint in the lowest and most forward position.
    S8.3.1.3 Seat position adjustment. If the passenger seat does not 
adjust independently of the driver seat, the driver seat shall control 
the final position of the passenger seat.
    S8.3.1.3.1 Using only the controls that primarily move the seat and 
seat cushion independent of the seat back in the fore and aft 
directions, move the seat cushion reference point (SCRP) to the 
rearmost position. Using any part of any control, other than those just 
used, determine the full range of angles of the seat cushion reference 
line and set the seat cushion reference line to the middle of the 
range. Using any part of any control other than those that primarily 
move the seat or seat cushion fore and aft, while maintaining the seat 
cushion reference line angle, place the SCRP to its lowest position.
    S8.3.1.3.2 Using only the control that primarily moves the seat 
fore and aft, move the seat cushion reference

[[Page 28023]]

point to the mid travel position. If an adjustment position does not 
exist midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions, the 
closest adjustment position to the rear of the midpoint is used.
    S8.3.1.3.3 If the seat or seat cushion height is adjustable, other 
than by the controls that primarily move the seat or seat cushion fore 
and aft, set the height of the seat cushion reference point to the 
minimum height, with the seat cushion reference line angle set as 
closely as possible to the angle determined in S8.3.1.3.1. Mark 
location of the seat for future reference.
    S8.3.2. 5th Percentile Female Dummy In Front Seats.
    S8.3.2.1 Lumbar support adjustment. Position adjustable lumbar 
supports so that the lumbar support is in its lowest, retracted or 
deflated adjustment position.
    S8.3.2.2 Other seat adjustments. Position any adjustable parts of 
the seat that provide additional support so that they are in the lowest 
or non-deployed adjustment position. Position any adjustable head 
restraint in the lowest and most forward position.
    S8.3.2.3 Seat position adjustment. If the passenger seat does not 
adjust independently of the driver seat, the driver seat shall control 
the final position of the passenger seat.
    S8.3.2.3.1 Using only the controls that primarily move the seat and 
seat cushion independent of the seat back in the fore and aft 
directions, move the seat cushion reference point (SCRP) to the 
rearmost position. Using any part of any control, other than those just 
used, determine the full range of angles of the seat cushion reference 
line and set the seat cushion reference line to the middle of the 
range. Using any part of any control other than those that primarily 
move the seat or seat cushion fore and aft, while maintaining the seat 
cushion reference line angle, place the SCRP to its lowest position.
    S8.3.2.3.2 Using only the control that primarily moves the seat 
fore and aft, move the seat reference point to the most forward 
position.
    S8.3.2.3.3 If the seat or seat cushion height is adjustable, other 
than by the controls that primarily move the seat or seat cushion fore 
and aft, set the seat reference point to the midpoint height, with the 
seat cushion reference line angle set as close as possible to the angle 
determined in S8.3.2.3.1. Mark location of the seat for future 
reference.
    S8.3.3 50th Percentile Male and 5th Percentile Female Dummies in 
Second Row Seat.
    S8.3.3.1 Lumbar support adjustment. Position adjustable lumbar 
supports so that the lumbar support is in its lowest, retracted or 
deflated adjustment position.
    S8.3.3.2 Other seat adjustments. Position any adjustable parts of 
the seat that provide additional support so that they are in the lowest 
or non-deployed adjustment position. Position any adjustable head 
restraint in the lowest and most forward position.
    S8.3.3.3 Seat position adjustment. Using only the controls that 
primarily move the seat and seat cushion independent of the seat back 
in the fore and aft directions, move the seat cushion reference point 
(SCRP) to the rearmost position. Using any part of any control, other 
than those just used, determine the full range of angles of the seat 
cushion reference line and set the seat cushion reference line to the 
middle of the range. Using any part of any control other than those 
that primarily move the seat or seat cushion fore and aft, while 
maintaining the seat cushion reference line angle, place the SCRP to 
its lowest position. Mark location of the seat for future reference.
    S8.3.4 Adjustable seat back placement. When using the 50th 
percentile male dummy, adjustable seat backs are placed in the 
manufacturer's nominal design riding position in the manner specified 
by the manufacturer. If the position is not specified, set the seat 
back at the first detent rearward of 25 degrees from the vertical. Each 
adjustable head restraint is placed in its highest adjustment position. 
Adjustable seat back placement for the 5th percentile female dummy is 
specified in S12.3.
    S8.4 Adjustable steering wheel. Adjustable steering controls are 
adjusted so that the steering wheel hub is at the geometric center of 
the locus it describes when it is moved through its full range of 
driving positions. If there is no setting detent in the mid-position, 
lower the steering wheel to the detent just below the mid-position. If 
the steering column is telescoping, place the steering column in the 
mid-position. If there is no mid-position, move the steering wheel 
rearward one position from the mid-position.
    S8.5 Windows and sunroofs. Movable vehicle windows and vents are 
placed in the fully closed position on the struck side of the vehicle. 
Any sunroof shall be placed in the fully closed position.
    S8.6 Convertible tops. Convertibles and open-body type vehicles 
have the top, if any, in place in the closed passenger compartment 
configuration.
    S8.7 Doors. Doors, including any rear hatchback or tailgate, are 
fully closed and latched but not locked.
    S8.8 Transmission and brake engagement. For a vehicle equipped with 
a manual transmission, the transmission is placed in second gear. For a 
vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission, the transmission is 
placed in neutral. For all vehicles, the parking brake is engaged.
    S8.9 Moving deformable barrier. The moving deformable barrier 
conforms to the dimensions shown in Figure 2 and specified in 49 CFR 
part 587.
    S8.10 Impact configuration. The test vehicle (vehicle A in Figure 
3) is stationary. The line of forward motion of the moving deformable 
barrier (vehicle B in Figure 3) forms an angle of 63 degrees with the 
centerline of the test vehicle. The longitudinal centerline of the 
moving deformable barrier is perpendicular to the longitudinal 
centerline of the test vehicle when the barrier strikes the test 
vehicle. In a test in which the test vehicle is to be struck on its 
left (right) side: All wheels of the moving deformable barrier are 
positioned at an angle of 27  1 degrees to the right (left) 
of the centerline of the moving deformable barrier; and the left 
(right) forward edge of the moving deformable barrier is aligned so 
that a longitudinal plane tangent to that side passes through the 
impact reference line within a tolerance of  51 mm (2 
inches) when the barrier strikes the test vehicle.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 28024]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17MY04.003


[[Page 28025]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17MY04.004

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
    S8.11 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:
    S8.11.1 Passenger cars.
    (a) For vehicles with a wheelbase of 2,896 mm (114 inches) or less, 
940 mm (37 inches) forward of the center of the vehicle's wheelbase.
    (b) For vehicles with a wheelbase greater than 2,896 mm (114 
inches), 508 mm (20 inches) rearward of the centerline of the vehicle's 
front axle.
    S8.11.2 Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses.
    (a) For vehicles with a wheelbase of 2,489 mm (98 inches) or less, 
305 mm (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 2,489 mm (98 
inches) but not greater than 2,896 mm (114 inches), 940 mm (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 2,896 mm (114 
inches), 508 mm (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.
    S8.12 Anthropomorphic test dummies. The anthropomorphic test 
dummies used to evaluate a vehicle's performance in the moving 
deformable barrier test conform to the requirements of S11 and are 
positioned as described in S12 of this standard (49 CFR 571.214).
    S9. Vehicle-to-Pole Requirements.
    S9.1 Except as provided in S5, when tested under the conditions of 
S10:
    S9.1.1 Each vehicle manufactured on or after [date six years after 
the publication date of the final rule; for illustration purposes, 
assume that the 6-year date is September 1, 2011] must meet the 
requirements of S9.2.1, S9.2.2 and S9.2.3, when tested under the 
conditions specified in S10 into a fixed, rigid pole of 254 mm (10 
inches) in diameter, at any speed up to and including 32 km/h (20 mph).
    S9.1.2 Except as provided in S9.1.3 of this section, for vehicles 
manufactured on or after [date four years after the publication date of 
the final rule; for illustration purposes, assume that the 4-year date 
is September 1, 2009] to [date that is the August 31 that is six years 
after the publication date of the final rule; for illustration 
purposes, August 31, 2011], a percentage of each manufacturer's 
production, as specified in S13.1.1 and S13.1.2, shall meet the 
requirements of S9.2.1, S9.2.2 and S9.2.3 when tested under the 
conditions of S10 into a fixed, rigid pole of 254 mm (10 inches) in 
diameter, at any velocity up to and including 32 km/h (20 mph). 
Vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2011

[[Page 28026]]

may be certified as meeting the requirements specified in this section.
    S9.1.3 The following vehicles are not subject to S9.1.2 of this 
section (but are subject to S9.1.1):
    (a) Vehicles that are manufactured by an original vehicle 
manufacturer that produces or assembles fewer than 5,000 vehicles 
annually for sale in the United States;
    (b) Vehicles that are altered (within the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) 
after having been previously certified in accordance with part 567 of 
this chapter;
    (c) Vehicles that are manufactured in two or more stages; and
    (d) Vehicles that are manufactured by a limited line manufacturer.
    S9.2 Requirements.
    S9.2.1 Dynamic performance requirements using the Part 572 Subpart 
[to be determined] (ES-2re 50th percentile male) dummy. Use the ES-2re 
part 572 subpart [to be determined] dummy, as specified in S11 of this 
standard (49 CFR 571.214). When using the dummy, the following 
performance requirements must be met using measurements in accordance 
with S11.5.
    (a) The HIC shall not exceed 1000 when calculated in accordance 
with the following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17MY04.005

Where the term a is the resultant head acceleration at the center of 
gravity of the dummy head expressed as a multiple of g (the 
acceleration of gravity), and t1 and t2 are any 
two points in time during the impact which are separated by not more 
than a 36 millisecond time interval and where t1 is less 
than t2.

    (b) Thorax. The deflection of any of the upper, middle, and lower 
ribs, shall not exceed 42 mm (1.65 inches).
    (c) Resultant lower spine acceleration shall not exceed 82 g.
    (d) Force measurements.
    (1) The sum of the front, middle and rear abdominal forces, shall 
not exceed 2.5 kN (562 pounds).
    (2) The pubic symphysis force shall not exceed 6.0 kN (1,350 
pounds).
    S9.2.2 Dynamic performance requirements using the part 572 subpart 
[to be determined] (SID-IIsFRG 5th percentile female) dummy. Use the 
SID-IIsFRG part 572 subpart [to be determined] dummy, as specified in 
S11 of this standard (49 CFR 571.214). When using the dummy, the 
following performance requirements must be met.
    (a) The HIC shall not exceed 1000 when calculated in accordance 
with the following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17MY04.006

Where the term a is the resultant head acceleration at the center of 
gravity of the dummy head expressed as a multiple of g (the 
acceleration of gravity), and t1 and t2 are any 
two points in time during the impact which are separated by not more 
than a 36 millisecond time interval and where t1 is less 
than t2.

    (b) Resultant lower spine acceleration must not exceed 82 g.
    (c) The sum of the acetabular and iliac pelvic forces must not 
exceed 5,100 N (1,147 lb).
    S9.2.3 Door opening.
    (a) Any side door that is struck by the pole shall not separate 
totally from the vehicle.
    (b) Any door (including a rear hatchback or tailgate) that is not 
struck by the pole shall meet the following requirements:
    (1) The door shall not disengage from the latched position; and
    (2) The latch shall not separate from the striker, and the hinge 
components shall not separate from each other or from their attachment 
to the vehicle.
    (3) Neither the latch nor the hinge systems of the door shall pull 
out of their anchorages.
    S10. General test conditions for determining compliance with 
vehicle-to-pole requirements. General test conditions for determining 
compliance with the vehicle-to-pole test are specified below and in S12 
of this standard (49 CFR 571.214).
    S10.1 Test weight. Each vehicle shall be loaded as specified in 
S8.1 of this standard (49 CFR 571.214).
    S10.2 Vehicle test attitude. The vehicle test attitude is 
determined as specified in S8.2 of this standard (49 CFR 571.214).
    S10.3 Adjustable seats.
    S10.3.1 Driver and front passenger seat set-up for 50th percentile 
male dummy. The driver and front passenger seats are set up as 
specified in S8.3.1 of this standard, 49 CFR 571.214.
    S10.3.2 Driver and front passenger seat set-up for 5th percentile 
female dummy. The driver and front passenger seats are set up as 
specified in S8.3.2 of this standard, 49 CFR 571.214.
    S10.4 Positioning dummies for the vehicle-to-pole test.
    (a) 50th percentile male test dummy (ES-2re dummy). The 50th 
percentile male test dummy shall be positioned in the front outboard 
seating position on the struck side of the vehicle in accordance with 
the provisions of S12.2 of this standard, 49 CFR 571.214.
    (b) 5th percentile female test dummy (SID-IIsFRG). The 5th 
percentile female test dummy shall be positioned in the front outboard 
seating positions on the struck side of the vehicle in accordance with 
the provisions of S12.3 of this standard, 49 CFR 571.214.
    S10.5 Adjustable steering wheel. Adjustable steering controls are 
adjusted so that the steering wheel hub is at the geometric center of 
the locus it describes when it is moved through its full range of 
driving positions. If there is no setting detent in the mid-position, 
lower the steering wheel to the detent just below the mid-position.
    S10.6 Windows and sunroofs. Movable vehicle windows and vents are 
placed in the fully closed position on the struck side of the vehicle. 
Any sunroof shall be placed in the fully closed position.
    S10.7 Convertible tops. Convertibles and open-body type vehicles 
have the top, if any, in place in the closed passenger compartment 
configuration.
    S10.8 Doors. Doors, including any rear hatchback or tailgate, are 
fully closed and latched but not locked.
    S10.9 Transmission and brake engagement. For a vehicle equipped 
with a manual transmission, the transmission is placed in second gear. 
For a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission, the transmission 
is placed in neutral. For all vehicles, the parking brake is engaged.
    S10.10 Rigid pole. The rigid pole is a vertical metal structure 
beginning no more than 102 millimeters (4 inches) above the lowest 
point of the tires on the striking side of the test vehicle when the 
vehicle is loaded as specified in S8.1 and extending above the highest 
point of the roof of the test vehicle. The pole is 254 mm (10 inches) 
 6 mm (0.25 in) in diameter and set off from any mounting 
surface, such as a barrier or other structure, so that the test vehicle 
will not contact such a mount or support at any time within 100 
milliseconds of the initiation of vehicle to pole contact.
    S10.11 Impact reference line. The impact reference line is located 
on the striking side of the vehicle at the intersection of the vehicle 
exterior and a vertical plane passing through the center of gravity of 
the head of the dummy seated in accordance with S12 in the front 
outboard designated seating position. The vertical plane forms an angle 
of 285 (or 75) degrees with the vehicle's longitudinal centerline for 
the right (or left) side impact test. The angle

[[Page 28027]]

is measured counterclockwise from the vehicle's positive X-axis as 
defined in S10.13.
    S10.12 Impact configuration.
    S10.12.1 The rigid pole is stationary.
    S10.12.2 The test vehicle is propelled sideways so that its line of 
forward motion forms an angle of 285 (or 75) degrees (3 
degrees) for the right (or left) side impact with the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline. The angle is measured counterclockwise from 
the vehicle's positive X-axis as defined in S10.13. The impact 
reference line is aligned with the center line of the rigid pole 
surface, as viewed in the direction of vehicle motion, so that, when 
the vehicle-to-pole contact occurs, the center line contacts the 
vehicle area bounded by two vertical planes parallel to and 38 mm (1.5 
inches) forward and aft of the impact reference line.
    S10.13 Vehicle reference coordinate system. The vehicle reference 
coordinate system is an orthogonal coordinate system consisting of 
three axes, a longitudinal axis (X), a transverse axis (Y), and a 
vertical axis (Z). X and Y are in the same horizontal plane and Z 
passes through the intersection of X and Y. The origin of the system is 
at the center of gravity of the vehicle. The X-axis is parallel to the 
longitudinal centerline of the vehicle and is positive to the vehicle 
front end and negative to the rear end. The Y-axis is positive to the 
left side of the vehicle and negative to the right side. The Z-axis is 
positive above the X-Y plane and negative below it.
    S11. Anthropomorphic test dummies. The anthropomorphic test dummies 
used to evaluate a vehicle's performance in the moving deformable 
barrier and vehicle-to-pole tests are specified in 49 CFR part 572. In 
a test in which the test vehicle is to be struck on its left side, each 
dummy is to be configured and instrumented to be struck on its left 
side, in accordance with part 572. In a test in which the test vehicle 
is to be struck on its right side, each dummy is to be configured and 
instrumented to be struck on its right side, in accordance with part 
572.
    S11.1 Clothing.
    (a) 50th percentile male. Each test dummy representing a 50th 
percentile male is clothed in formfitting cotton stretch garments with 
short sleeves and midcalf length pants. Each foot of the test dummy is 
equipped with a size 11EEE shoe, which meets the configuration size, 
sole, and heel thickness specifications of MIL-S-13192 (1976) and 
weighs 0.68  0.09 kilograms (1.25  0.2 lb).
    (b) 5th percentile female. The test dummy representing a 5th 
percentile female is clothed in form fitting cotton stretch garments 
with short sleeves and about the knee length pants. Each foot has on a 
size 7.5W shoe that meets the configuration and size specifications of 
MIL-S-2171E or its equivalent.
    S11.2 Limb joints.
    (a) For the 50th percentile male dummy, set the limb joints at 
between 1 and 2 g. Adjust the leg joints with the torso in the supine 
position. Adjust the knee and ankle joints so that they just support 
the lower leg and the foot when extended horizontally (1 to 2 g 
adjustment).
    (b) For the 5th percentile female dummy, set the limb joints at 
slightly above 1 g, barely restraining the weight of the limb when 
extended horizontally. The force needed to move a limb segment does not 
exceed 2 g throughout the range of limb motion. Adjust the leg joints 
with the torso in the supine position.
    S11.3 The stabilized temperature of the test dummy at the time of 
the test is at any temperature between 20.6 degrees C and 22.2 degrees 
C.
    S11.4 Acceleration data. Accelerometers are installed on the head, 
rib, spine and pelvis components of various dummies as required to meet 
the injury criteria of the standard. Accelerations measured from 
different dummy components may use different filters and processing 
methods.
    S11.5 Processing Data.
    (a) Subpart F test dummy.
    (1) Process the acceleration data from the accelerometers mounted 
on the ribs, spine and pelvis of the subpart F dummy with the FIR100 
software specified in 49 CFR 572.44(d). Process the data in the 
following manner:
    (i) Filter the data with a 300 Hz, SAE Class 180 filter;
    (ii) Subsample the data to a 1600 Hz sampling rate;
    (iii) Remove the bias from the subsampled data, and
    (iv) Filter the data with the FIR100 software specified in 49 CFR 
572.44(d), which has the following characteristics--
    (A) Passband frequency 100 Hz.
    (B) Stopband frequency 189 Hz.
    (C) Stopband gain -50 db.
    (D) Passband ripple 0.0225 db.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (b) Subpart [to be determined] (ES-2re) test dummy.
    (1) The chest and rib deflection data are filtered at channel 
frequency class 180 Hz. Abdominal and pubic force data are filtered at 
channel frequency class of 600 Hz.
    (2) The acceleration data from the accelerometers installed inside 
the skull cavity of the ES-2re test dummy are filtered at channel 
frequency class of 1000 Hz.
    (3) The acceleration data from the accelerometers installed on the 
lower spine of the ES-2re test dummy are filtered at channel frequency 
class of 1000 Hz.
    (c) Subpart [to be determined] (SID-2sFRG) test dummy. (5th 
percentile female)
    (1) The acceleration data from the accelerometers installed inside 
the skull cavity of the SID IIsFRG test dummy are filtered at channel 
frequency class of 1000 Hz.
    (2) The acceleration data from the accelerometers installed on the 
lower spine of the SID IIsFRG test dummy are filtered at channel 
frequency class of 180 Hz.
    (3) The iliac and acetabular forces from load cells installed in 
the pelvis of the SIDIIsFRG are filtered at channel frequency class of 
600 Hz.
    S12. Positioning procedures for the anthropomorphic test dummies.
    S12.1 50th percentile male test dummy--49 CFR part 572, subpart F 
(SID). Position a correctly configured test dummy, conforming to the 
applicable requirements of part 572, subpart F of this chapter, in the 
front outboard seating position on the side of the test vehicle to be 
struck by the moving deformable barrier and, if the vehicle has a 
second seat, position another conforming test dummy in the second seat 
outboard position on the same side of the vehicle, as specified in 
S12.1.3. Each test dummy is restrained using all available belt systems 
in all seating positions where such belt restraints are provided. 
Adjustable belt anchorages are placed at the mid-adjustment position. 
In addition, any folding armrest is retracted. Additional positioning 
procedures are specified below.
    S12.1.1 Positioning a part 572, subpart F dummy in the driver 
position.
    (a) Torso. Hold the dummy's head in place and push laterally on the 
non-impacted side of the upper torso in a single stroke with a force of 
66.7-89.0 N (15-20 lb) towards the impacted side.
    (1) For a bench seat. The upper torso of the test dummy rests 
against the seat back. The midsagittal plane of the test dummy is 
vertical and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, and 
passes through the center of the steering wheel.
    (2) For a bucket seat. The upper torso of the test dummy rests 
against the seat back. The midsagittal plane of the test dummy is 
vertical and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, and 
coincides with the longitudinal centerline of the bucket seat.

[[Page 28028]]

    (b) Pelvis.
    (1) H-point. The H-points of each test dummy coincide within 12.7 
mm (\1/2\ inch) in the vertical dimension and 12.7 mm (\1/2\ inch) in 
the horizontal dimension of a point that is located 6.4 mm (\1/4\ inch) 
below the position of the H-point determined by using the equipment for 
the 50th percentile and procedures specified in SAE J826 (1980) 
(incorporated by reference; see 49 CFR 571.5), except that Table 1 of 
SAE J826 is not applicable. The length of the lower leg and thigh 
segments of the H-point machine are adjusted to 414 and 401 mm (16.3 
and 15.8 inches), respectively.
    (2) Pelvic angle. As determined using the pelvic angle gauge (GM 
drawing 78051-532 incorporated by reference in part 572, subpart E of 
this chapter) which is inserted into the H-point gauging hole of the 
dummy, the angle of the plane of the surface on the lumbar-pelvic 
adaptor on which the lumbar spine attaches is 23 to 25 degrees from the 
horizontal, sloping upward toward the front of the vehicle.
    (3) Legs. The upper legs of each test dummy rest against the seat 
cushion to the extent permitted by placement of the feet. The left knee 
of the dummy is positioned such that the distance from the outer 
surface of the knee pivot bolt to the dummy's midsagittal plane is 
152.4 mm (6.0 inches). To the extent practicable, the left leg of the 
test dummy is in a vertical longitudinal plane.
    (4) Feet. The right foot of the test dummy rests on the undepressed 
accelerator with the heel resting as far forward as possible on the 
floorpan. The left foot is set perpendicular to the lower leg with the 
heel resting on the floorpan in the same lateral line as the right 
heel.
    S12.1.2 Positioning a part 572, subpart F dummy in the front 
outboard seating position.
    (a) Torso. Hold the dummy's head in place and push laterally on the 
non-impacted side of the upper torso in a single stroke with a force of 
66.7-89.0 N (15-20 lb) towards the impacted side.
    (1) For a bench seat. The upper torso of the test dummy rests 
against the seat back. The midsagittal plane of the test dummy is 
vertical and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, and the 
same distance from the vehicle's longitudinal centerline as would be 
the midsagittal plane of a test dummy positioned in the driver position 
under S12.1.1(a)(1).
    (2) For a bucket seat. The upper torso of the test dummy rests 
against the seat back. The midsagittal plane of the test dummy is 
vertical and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, and 
coincides with the longitudinal centerline of the bucket seat.
    (b) Pelvis.
    (1) H-point. The H-points of each test dummy coincide within 12.7 
mm (\1/2\ inch) in the vertical dimension and 12.7 mm (\1/2\ inch) in 
the horizontal dimension of a point that is located 6.4 mm (\1/4\ inch) 
below the position of the H-point determined by using the equipment for 
the 50th percentile and procedures specified in SAE J826 (1980) 
(incorporated by reference; see 49 CFR 571.5), except that Table 1 of 
SAE J826 is not applicable. The length of the lower leg and thigh 
segments of the H-point machine are adjusted to 414 and 409 mm (16.3 
and 15.8 inches), respectively.
    (2) Pelvic angle. As determined using the pelvic angle gauge (GM 
drawing 78051-532 incorporated by reference in part 572, subpart E of 
this chapter) which is inserted into the H-point gauging hole of the 
dummy, the angle of the plane of the surface on the lumbar-pelvic 
adaptor on which the lumbar spine attaches is 23 to 25 degrees from the 
horizontal, sloping upward toward the front of the vehicle.
    (c) Legs. The upper legs of each test dummy rest against the seat 
cushion to the extent permitted by placement of the feet. The initial 
distance between the outboard knee clevis flange surfaces is 292 mm 
(11.5 inches). To the extent practicable, both legs of the test dummies 
in outboard passenger positions are in vertical longitudinal planes. 
Final adjustment to accommodate placement of feet in accordance with 
S12.1.2(d) for various passenger compartment configurations is 
permitted.
    (d) Feet. The feet of the test dummy are placed on the vehicle's 
toeboard with the heels resting on the floorpan as close as possible to 
the intersection of the toeboard and floorpan. If the feet cannot be 
placed flat on the toeboard, they are set perpendicular to the lower 
legs and placed as far forward as possible so that the heels rest on 
the floorpan.
    S12.1.3 Positioning a part 572, subpart F dummy in the rear 
outboard seating positions.
    (a) Torso. Hold the dummy's head in place and push laterally on the 
non-impacted side of the upper torso in a single stroke with a force of 
66.7-89.0 N (15-20 lb) towards the impacted side.
    (1) For a bench seat. The upper torso of the test dummy rests 
against the seat back. The midsagittal plane of the test dummy is 
vertical and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, and, if 
possible, the same distance from the vehicle's longitudinal centerline 
as the midsagittal plane of a test dummy positioned in the driver 
position under S12.1.1(a)(1). If it is not possible to position the 
test dummy so that its midsagittal plane is parallel to the vehicle 
longitudinal centerline and is at this distance from the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline, the test dummy is positioned so that some 
portion of the test dummy just touches, at or above the seat level, the 
side surface of the vehicle, such as the upper quarter panel, an 
armrest, or any interior trim (i.e., either the broad trim panel 
surface or a smaller, localized trim feature).
    (2) For a bucket or contoured seat. The upper torso of the test 
dummy rests against the seat back. The midsagittal plane of the test 
dummy is vertical and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal 
centerline, and coincides with the longitudinal centerline of the 
bucket or contoured seat.
    (b) Pelvis.
    (1) H-point. The H-points of each test dummy coincide within 12.7 
mm (\1/2\ inch) in the vertical dimension and 12.7 mm (\1/2\ inch) in 
the horizontal dimension of a point that is located 6.4 mm (\1/4\ inch) 
below the position of the H-point determined by using the equipment for 
the 50th percentile and procedures specified in SAE J826 (1980) 
(incorporated by reference; see 49 CFR 571.5), except that Table 1 of 
SAE J826 is not applicable. The length of the lower leg and thigh 
segments of the H-point machine are adjusted to 414 and 401 mm (16.3 
and 15.8 inches), respectively.
    (2) Pelvic angle. As determined using the pelvic angle gauge (GM 
drawing 78051-532 incorporated by reference in part 572, subpart E of 
this chapter) which is inserted into the H-point gauging hole of the 
dummy, the angle of the plane of the surface on the lumbar-pelvic 
adaptor on which the lumbar spine attaches is 23 to 25 degrees from the 
horizontal, sloping upward toward the front of the vehicle.
    (c) Legs. Rest the upper legs of each test dummy against the seat 
cushion to the extent permitted by placement of the feet. The initial 
distance between the outboard knee clevis flange surfaces is 292 mm 
(11.5 inches). To the extent practicable, both legs of the test dummies 
in outboard passenger positions are in vertical longitudinal planes. 
Final adjustment to accommodate placement of feet in accordance with 
S12.1.3(d) for various passenger compartment configurations is 
permitted.
    (d) Feet. Place the feet of the test dummy flat on the floorpan and 
beneath the front seat as far as possible without

[[Page 28029]]

front seat interference. If necessary, the distance between the knees 
may be changed in order to place the feet beneath the seat.
    S12.2 50th percentile male test dummy--49 CFR part 572, subpart [to 
be determined] (ES 2re).
    S12.2.1 Positioning an ES-2re dummy in all seating positions. 
Position a correctly configured ES-2re test dummy, conforming to the 
applicable requirements of part 572 of this chapter, in the front 
outboard seating position on the side of the test vehicle to be struck 
by the moving deformable barrier or pole and, for the moving deformable 
barrier test, 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. Restrain each test dummy using all available belt 
systems in all seating positions where such belt restraints are 
provided. Place adjustable belt anchorages at the mid-adjustment 
position. Retract any folding armrest.
    (a) Upper torso.
    (1) The plane of symmetry of the dummy coincides with the vertical 
median plane of the specified seating position.
    (2) Bend the upper torso forward and then lay it back against the 
seat back. Set the shoulders of the dummy fully rearward.
    (b) Pelvis. Position the pelvis of the dummy according to the 
following:
    (1) Position the pelvis of the dummy such that a lateral line 
passing through the dummy H-points is perpendicular to the longitudinal 
center plane of the seat. The line through the dummy H-points is 
horizontal with a maximum inclination of 2 degrees. The 
dummy may be equipped with tilt sensors in the thorax and the pelvis. 
These instruments can help to obtain the desired position.
    (2) The correct position of the dummy pelvis may be checked 
relative to the H-point of the H-point Manikin by using the M3 holes in 
the H-point back plates at each side of the ES-2re pelvis. The M3 holes 
are indicated with ``Hm''. The ``Hm'' position should be in a circle 
with a radius of 10 mm (0.39 inches) round the H-point of the H-point 
Manikin.
    (c) Arms. For the driver seating position, place the dummy's upper 
arms such that the angle between the projection of the arm centerline 
on the mid-sagittal plane of the dummy and the torso reference line is 
40[deg]  5[deg]. The torso reference line is defined as the 
thoracic spine centerline. The shoulder-arm joint allows for discrete 
arm positions at 0, 40, and 90 degree settings forward of the spine. 
For other seating positions, place the upper arms at the 0[deg]  5[deg] setting in the shoulder-arm joint.
    (d) Legs and Feet. Position the legs and feet of the dummy 
according to the following:
    (1) For the driver's seating position, without inducing pelvis or 
torso movement, place the right foot of the dummy on the un-pressed 
accelerator pedal with the heel resting as far forward as possible on 
the floor pan. Set the left foot perpendicular to the lower leg with 
the heel resting on the floor pan in the same lateral line as the right 
heel. Set the knees of the dummy such that their outside surfaces are 
150  10 mm (5.9  0.4 inches) from the plane of 
symmetry of the dummy. If possible within these constraints, place the 
thighs of the dummy in contact with the seat cushion.
    (2) For other seating positions, without inducing pelvis or torso 
movement, place the heels of the dummy as far forward as possible on 
the floor pan without compressing the seat cushion more than the 
compression due to the weight of the leg. Set the knees of the dummy 
such that their outside surfaces are 150  10 mm (5.9  0.4 inches) from the plane of symmetry of the dummy.
    S12.3 5th percentile female test dummy--49 CFR part 572, subpart 
[to be determined] (SID IIsFRG). Position a correctly configured 5th 
percentile female part 572 subpart [to be determined] (SID IIsFRG) test 
dummy, conforming to the applicable requirements of part 572 of this 
chapter, in the front outboard seating position on the side of the test 
vehicle to be struck by the moving deformable barrier or pole and, for 
the moving deformable barrier, if the vehicle has a second seat, 
position another conforming test dummy in the second seat outboard 
position on the same side of the vehicle as specified in S12.3.4. 
Retract any folding armrest. Additional procedures are specified below.
    S12.3.1 General provisions and definitions.
    (a) Measure all angles with respect to the horizontal plane unless 
otherwise stated.
    (b) Adjust the SID-IIsFRG dummy's neck bracket to align the zero 
degree index marks.
    (c) Other seat adjustments. The longitudinal centerline of a bucket 
seat cushion passes through the SgRP and is parallel to the 
longitudinal centerline of the vehicle.
    (d) Driver and passenger manual belt adjustment. Use all available 
belt systems. Place adjustable belt anchorages at the nominal position 
for a 5th percentile adult female suggested by the vehicle 
manufacturer.
    (e) Definitions.
    (1) The term ``midsagittal plane'' refers to the vertical plane 
that separates the dummy into equal left and right halves.
    (2) The term ``vertical longitudinal plane'' refers to a vertical 
plane parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline.
    (3) The term ``vertical plane'' refers to a vertical plane, not 
necessarily parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline.
    (4) The term ``transverse instrumentation platform'' refers to the 
transverse instrumentation surface inside the dummy's skull casting to 
which the neck load cell mounts. This surface is perpendicular to the 
skull cap's machined inferior-superior mounting surface.
    (5) The term ``thigh'' refers to the femur between, but not 
including, the knee and the pelvis.
    (6) The term ``leg'' refers to the lower part of the entire leg 
including the knee.
    (7) The term ``foot'' refers to the foot, including the ankle.
    (8) For leg and thigh angles, use the following references:
    (i) Thigh--a straight line on the thigh skin between the center of 
the \1/2\-13 UNC-2B tapped hole in the upper leg femur clamp and the 
knee pivot shoulder bolt.
    (ii) Leg--a straight line on the leg skin between the center of the 
ankle shell and the knee pivot shoulder bolt.
    (9) The term ``seat cushion reference point'' (SCRP) means a point 
placed on the outboard side of the seat cushion at a horizontal 
distance between 150 mm (5.9 in) and 250 mm (9.8 in) from the front 
edge of the seat used as a guide in positioning the seat.
    (10) The term ``seat cushion reference line'' means a line on the 
side of the seat cushion, passing through the seat cushion reference 
point, whose projection in the vehicle vertical longitudinal plane is 
straight and has a known angle with respect to the horizontal.
    S12.3.2 5th percentile female driver dummy positioning.
    (a) Driver torso/head/seat back angle positioning.
    (1) With the seat in the position determined in S8.3.2, use only 
the control that moves the seat fore and aft to place the seat in the 
rearmost position. If the seat cushion reference line angle 
automatically changes as the seat is moved from the full forward 
position, maintain, as closely as possible, the seat cushion reference 
line angle determined in S8.3.2.3.3, for the final forward position 
when measuring the pelvic angle as specified in

[[Page 28030]]

S12.3.3(a)(11). The seat cushion reference angle position may be 
achieved through the use of any seat or seat cushion adjustments other 
than that which primarily moves the seat or seat cushion fore-aft.
    (2) Fully recline the seat back, if adjustable. Install the dummy 
into the driver's seat, such that when the legs are positioned 120 
degrees to the thighs, the calves of the legs are not touching the seat 
cushion.
    (3) Bucket seats. Center the dummy on the seat cushion so that its 
midsagittal plane is vertical and passes within  10 mm 
( 0.4 in) of the SgRP.
    (4) Bench seats. Position the midsagittal plane of the dummy 
vertical and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline and 
aligned within  10 mm ( 0.4 in) of the center 
of the steering wheel rim.
    (5) Hold the dummy's thighs down and push rearward on the upper 
torso to maximize the dummy's pelvic angle.
    (6) Place the legs at 120 degrees to the thighs. Set the initial 
transverse distance between the longitudinal centerlines at the front 
of the dummy's knees at 160 to 170 mm (6.3 to 6.7 in), with the thighs 
and legs of the dummy in vertical planes. Push rearward on the dummy's 
knees to force the pelvis into the seat so there is no gap between the 
pelvis and the seat back or until contact occurs between the back of 
the dummy's calves and the front of the seat cushion.
    (7) Gently rock the upper torso relative to the lower torso 
laterally in a side to side motion three times through a  5 
degree arc (approximately 51 mm (2 in) side to side).
    (8) If needed, extend the legs slightly so that the feet are not in 
contact with the floor pan. Let the thighs rest on the seat cushion to 
the extent permitted by the foot movement. Keeping the leg and the 
thigh in a vertical plane, place the foot in the vertical longitudinal 
plane that passes through the centerline of the accelerator pedal. 
Rotate the left thigh outboard about the hip until the center of the 
knee is the same distance from the midsagittal plane of the dummy as 
the right knee  5 mm ( 0.2 in). Using only the 
control that moves the seat fore and aft, attempt to return the seat to 
the full forward position. If either of the dummy's legs first contacts 
the steering wheel, then adjust the steering wheel, if adjustable, 
upward until contact with the steering wheel is avoided. If the 
steering wheel is not adjustable, separate the knees enough to avoid 
steering wheel contact. Proceed with moving the seat forward until 
either the leg contacts the vehicle interior or the seat reaches the 
full forward position. (The right foot may contact and depress the 
accelerator and/or change the angle of the foot with respect to the leg 
during seat movement.) If necessary to avoid contact with the vehicle's 
brake or clutch pedal, rotate the test dummy's left foot about the leg. 
If there is still interference, rotate the left thigh outboard about 
the hip the minimum distance necessary to avoid pedal interference. If 
a dummy leg contacts the vehicle interior before the full forward 
position is attained, position the seat at the next detent where there 
is no contact. If the seat is a power seat, move the seat fore and aft 
to avoid contact while assuring that there is a maximum of 5 mm (0.2 
in) distance between the vehicle interior and the point on the dummy 
that would first contact the vehicle interior. If the steering wheel 
was moved, return it to the position described in S10.5. If the 
steering wheel contacts the dummy's leg(s) prior to attaining this 
position, adjust it to the next higher detent, or if infinitely 
adjustable, until there is 5 mm (0.2 in) clearance between the wheel 
and the dummy's leg(s).
    (9) For vehicles without adjustable seat backs, adjust the lower 
neck bracket to level the head as much as possible. For vehicles with 
adjustable seat backs, while holding the thighs in place, rotate the 
seat back forward until the transverse instrumentation platform of the 
head is level to within  0.5 degree, making sure that the 
pelvis does not interfere with the seat bight. Inspect the abdomen to 
ensure that it is properly installed. If the torso contacts the 
steering wheel, adjust the steering wheel in the following order until 
there is no contact: telescoping adjustment, lowering adjustment, 
raising adjustment. If the vehicle has no adjustments or contact with 
the steering wheel cannot be eliminated by adjustment, position the 
seat at the next detent where there is no contact with the steering 
wheel as adjusted in S10.5. If the seat is a power seat, position the 
seat to avoid contact while assuring that there is a maximum of 5 mm 
(0.2 in) distance between the steering wheel as adjusted in S10.5 and 
the point of contact on the dummy.
    (10) If it is not possible to achieve the head level within 0.5 degrees, minimize the angle.
    (11) Measure and set the dummy's pelvic angle using the pelvic 
angle gage. The angle shall be set to 20.0 degrees 2.5 
degrees. If this is not possible, adjust the pelvic angle as close to 
20.0 degrees as possible while keeping the transverse instrumentation 
platform of the head as level as possible by adjustments specified in 
S12.3.2(a)(9) and (10).
    (12) If the dummy is contacting the vehicle interior after these 
adjustments, move the seat rearward until there is a maximum of 5 mm 
(0.2 in) between the contact point of the dummy and the interior of the 
vehicle or if it has a manual seat adjustment, to the next rearward 
detent position. If after these adjustments, the dummy contact point is 
more than 5 mm (0.2 in) from the vehicle interior and the seat is still 
not in its forwardmost position, move the seat forward until the 
contact point is 5 mm (0.2 in) or less from the vehicle interior, or if 
it has a manual seat adjustment, move the seat to the closest detent 
position without making contact, or until the seat reaches its 
forwardmost position, whichever occurs first.
    (b) Driver foot positioning.
    (1) If the vehicle has an adjustable accelerator pedal, adjust it 
to the full forward position. If the heel of the right foot can contact 
the floor pan, follow the positioning procedure in S12.3.2(b)(1)(i). If 
not, follow the positioning procedure in S12.3.2(b)(1)(ii).
    (i) Rest the right foot of the test dummy on the un-depressed 
accelerator pedal with the rearmost point of the heel on the floor pan 
in the plane of the pedal. If the foot cannot be placed on the 
accelerator pedal, set it initially perpendicular to the leg and then 
place it as far forward as possible in the direction of the pedal 
centerline with the rearmost point of the heel resting on the floor 
pan. If the vehicle has an adjustable accelerator pedal and the right 
foot is not touching the accelerator pedal when positioned as above, 
move the pedal rearward until it touches the right foot. If the 
accelerator pedal in the full rearward position still does not touch 
the foot, leave the pedal in that position.
    (ii) Extend the foot and lower leg by decreasing the knee flexion 
angle until any part of the foot contacts the un-depressed accelerator 
pedal or the highest part of the foot is at the same height as the 
highest part of the pedal. If the vehicle has an adjustable accelerator 
pedal and the right foot is not touching the accelerator pedal when 
positioned as above, move the pedal rearward until it touches the right 
foot.
    (2) If the ball of the foot does not contact the pedal, increase 
the ankle plantar flexion angle such that the toe of the foot contacts 
or is as close as possible to contact with the un-depressed accelerator 
pedal.
    (3) If, in its final position, the heel is off of the vehicle 
floor, a spacer block must be used under the heel to support the final 
foot position. The surface of the block in contact with the heel has

[[Page 28031]]

an inclination of 30 degrees, measured from the horizontal, with the 
highest surface towards the rear of the vehicle.
    (4) Place the left foot on the toe-board with the rearmost point of 
the heel resting on the floor pan as close as possible to the point of 
intersection of the planes described by the toe-board and floor pan, 
and not on or in contact with the vehicle's brake pedal, clutch pedal, 
wheel-well projection or foot rest, except as provided in 
S12.3.2(b)(6).
    (5) If the left foot cannot be positioned on the toe board, place 
the foot perpendicular to the lower leg centerline as far forward as 
possible with the heel resting on the floor pan.
    (6) If the left foot does not contact the floor pan, place the foot 
parallel to the floor and place the leg perpendicular to the thigh as 
possible. If necessary to avoid contact with the vehicle's brake pedal, 
clutch pedal, wheel-well, or foot rest, use the three foot position 
adjustments listed in S12.3.2(b)(1)(i)-(iii). The adjustment options 
are listed in priority order, with each subsequent option incorporating 
the previous. In making each adjustment, move the foot the minimum 
distance necessary to avoid contact. If it is not possible to avoid all 
prohibited foot contact, priority is given to avoiding brake or clutch 
pedal contact:
    (i) Rotate (abduction/adduction) the test dummy's left foot about 
the lower leg;
    (ii) Planar flex the foot;
    (iii) Rotate the left leg outboard about the hip.
    (c) Driver arm/hand positioning.
    (1) Place the dummy's upper arm such that the angle between the 
projection of the arm centerline on the midsagittal plane of the dummy 
and the torso reference line is 40[deg]  5[deg]. The torso 
reference line is defined as the thoracic spine centerline. The 
shoulder-arm joint allows for discrete arm positions at 0, 40,  90,  140, and 180 degree settings 
where positive is forward of the spine.
    (2) [Reserved]
    S12.3.3 5th percentile female front passenger dummy positioning.
    (a) Passenger torso/head/seat back angle positioning.
    (1) With the seat at the mid-height in the full-forward position 
determined in S8.3.2, use only the control that primarily moves the 
seat fore and aft to place the seat in the rearmost position, without 
adjusting independent height controls. If the seat cushion reference 
angle automatically changes as the seat is moved from the full forward 
position, maintain, as closely as possible, the seat cushion reference 
line angle determined in S8.3.2.3.3, for the final forward position 
when measuring the pelvic angle as specified in S12.3.3(a)(11). The 
seat cushion reference line angle position may be achieved through the 
use of any seat or seat cushion adjustments other than that which 
primarily moves the seat or seat cushion fore-aft.
    (2) Fully recline the seat back, if adjustable. Place the dummy 
into the passenger's seat, such that when the legs are positioned 120 
degrees to the thighs, the calves of the legs are not touching the seat 
cushion.
    (3) Bucket seats. Place the dummy on the seat cushion so that its 
midsagittal plane is vertical and passes through the SgRP within + 10 
mm ( 0.4 in).
    (4) Bench seats. Position the midsagittal plane of the dummy 
vertical and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline and the 
same distance from the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, within + 10 
mm ( 0.4 in), as the midsagittal plane of the driver dummy.
    (5) Hold the dummy's thighs down and push rearward on the upper 
torso to maximize the dummy's pelvic angle.
    (6) Place the legs at 120 degrees to the thighs. Set the initial 
transverse distance between the longitudinal centerlines at the front 
of the dummy's knees at 160 to 170 mm (6.3 to 6.7 in), with the thighs 
and legs of the dummy in vertical planes. Push rearward on the dummy's 
knees to force the pelvis into the seat so there is no gap between the 
pelvis and the seat back or until contact occurs between the back of 
the dummy's calves and the front of the seat cushion.
    (7) Gently rock the upper torso relative to the lower torso 
laterally in a side to side motion three times through a  5 
degree arc (approximately 51 mm (2 in) side to side).
    (8) If needed, extend the legs slightly so that the feet are not in 
contact with the floor pan. Let the thighs rest on the seat cushion to 
the extent permitted by the foot movement. With the feet perpendicular 
to the legs, place the heels on the floor pan. If a heel will not 
contact the floor pan, place it as close to the floor pan as possible. 
Using only the control that primarily moves the seat fore and aft, 
attempt to return the seat to the full forward position. If a dummy leg 
contacts the vehicle interior before the full forward position is 
attained, position the seat at the next detent where there is no 
contact. If the seats are power seats, position the seat to avoid 
contact while assuring that there is a maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) 
distance between the vehicle interior and the point on the dummy that 
would first contact the vehicle interior.
    (9) For vehicles without adjustable seat backs, adjust the lower 
neck bracket to level the head as much as possible. For vehicles with 
adjustable seat backs, while holding the thighs in place, rotate the 
seat back forward until the transverse instrumentation platform of the 
head is level to within  0.5 degree, making sure that the 
pelvis does not interfere with the seat bight. Inspect the abdomen to 
ensure that it is properly installed.
    (10) If it is not possible to achieve the head level within  0.5 degrees, minimize the angle.
    (11) Measure and set the dummy's pelvic angle using the pelvic 
angle gage. The angle shall be set to 20.0 degrees  2.5 
degrees. If this is not possible, adjust the pelvic angle as close to 
20.0 degrees as possible while keeping the transverse instrumentation 
platform of the head as level as possible by adjustments specified in 
S12.3.3(a)(9) and (10).
    (12) If the dummy is contacting the vehicle interior after these 
adjustments, move the seat rearward until there is a maximum of 5 mm 
(0.2 in) between the contact point of the dummy and the interior of the 
vehicle or if it has a manual seat adjustment, to the next rearward 
detent position. If after these adjustments, the dummy contact point is 
more than 5 mm (0.2 in) from the vehicle interior and the seat is still 
not in its forwardmost position, move the seat forward until the 
contact point is 5 mm (0.2 in) or less from the vehicle interior, or if 
it has a manual seat adjustment, move the seat to the closest detent 
position without making contact, or until the seat reaches its 
forwardmost position, whichever occurs first.
    (b) Passenger foot positioning.
    (1) Place the front passenger's feet flat on the toe board.
    (2) If the feet cannot be placed flat on the toe board, set them 
perpendicular to the leg center lines and place them as far forward as 
possible with the heels resting on the floor pan.
    (3) Place the rear seat passenger's feet flat on the floor pan and 
beneath the front seat as far as possible without front seat 
interference.
    (c) Passenger arm/hand positioning. Place the dummy's upper arm 
such that the angle between the projection of the arm centerline on the 
mid-sagittal plane of the dummy and the torso reference line is 0[deg] 
 5[deg]. The torso reference line is defined as the 
thoracic spine centerline. The shoulder-arm joint allows for discrete 
arm positions at 0,  40,  90,  140, 
and 180 degree settings where positive is forward of the spine.
    S12.3.4 5th percentile female in rear outboard seating positions.
    (a) Set the seat at the full rearward, full down position 
determined in S8.3.3.

[[Page 28032]]

    (b) Fully recline the seat back, if adjustable. Install the dummy 
into the passenger seat, such that when the legs are 120 degrees to the 
thighs, the calves of the legs are not touching the seat cushion.
    (c) Place the dummy on the seat cushion so that its midsagittal 
plane is vertical and coincides with the vertical longitudinal plane 
through the center of the seating position SgRP within 10 
mm ( 0.4 mm).
    (d) Hold the dummy's thighs down and push rearward on the upper 
torso to maximize the dummy's pelvic angle.
    (e) Place the legs at 120 degrees to the thighs. Set the initial 
transverse distance between the longitudinal centerlines at the front 
of the dummy's knees at 160 to 170 mm (6.3 to 6.7 in), with the thighs 
and legs of the dummy in vertical planes. Push rearward on the dummy's 
knees to force the pelvis into the seat so there is no gap between the 
pelvis and the seat back or until contact occurs between the back of 
the dummy's calves and the front of the seat cushion.
    (f) Gently rock the upper torso laterally side to side three times 
through a  5 degree arc (approximately 51 mm (2 in) side to 
side).
    (g) If needed, extend the legs slightly so that the feet are not in 
contact with the floor pan. Let the thighs rest on the seat cushion to 
the extent permitted by the foot movement. With the feet perpendicular 
to the legs, place the heels on the floor pan. If a heel will not 
contact the floor pan, place it as close to the floor pan as possible.
    (h) For vehicles without adjustable seat backs, adjust the lower 
neck bracket to level the head as much as possible. For vehicles with 
adjustable seat backs, while holding the thighs in place, rotate the 
seat back forward until the transverse instrumentation platform of the 
head is level to within  0.5 degrees, making sure that the 
pelvis does not interfere with the seat bight. Inspect the abdomen to 
insure that it is properly installed.
    (i) If it is not possible to orient the head level within  0.5 degrees, minimize the angle.
    (j) Measure and set the dummy's pelvic angle using the pelvic angle 
gauge. The angle shall be set to 20.0 degrees  2.5 degrees. 
If this is not possible, adjust the pelvic angle as close to 20.0 
degrees as possible while keeping the transverse instrumentation 
platform of the head as level as possible, as specified in S12.3.4(h) 
and (i).
    (k) Passenger foot positioning.
    (1) Place the passenger's feet flat on the floor pan.
    (2) If the either foot does not contact the floor pan, place the 
foot parallel to the floor and place the leg as perpendicular to the 
thigh as possible
    (l) Passenger arm/hand positioning. Place the dummy's upper arm 
such that the angle between the projection of the arm centerline on the 
midsagittal plane of the dummy and the torso reference line is 0[deg] 
 5[deg]. The torso reference line is defined as the 
thoracic spine centerline. The shoulder-arm joint allows for discrete 
arm positions at 0,  40,  90,  140, 
and 180 degree settings where positive is forward of the spine.
    S13 Phase-in of vehicle-to-pole test and performance requirements 
for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2009 and before 
September 1, 2011.
    S13.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2009 and 
before September 1, 2011. At anytime during the production years ending 
August 31 of each year, each manufacturer shall, upon request from the 
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, provide information identifying 
the vehicles (by make, model and vehicle identification number) that 
have been certified as complying with the vehicle-to-pole test 
requirements (S9.2) of this standard. The manufacturer's designation of 
a vehicle as a certified vehicle is irrevocable.
    S13.1.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2009 and 
before September 1, 2010. Subject to S13.4, for vehicles manufactured 
on or after September 1, 2009 and before September 1, 2010, the number 
of vehicles complying with S9.2 shall be not less than 20 percent of:
    (a) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles 
manufactured in the three previous production years; or
    (b) The manufacturer's production in the current production year.
    S13.1.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2010 and 
before September 1, 2011. Subject to S13.4, for vehicles manufactured 
on or after September 1, 2010 and before September 1, 2011, the number 
of vehicles complying with S9.2 shall be not less than 50 percent of:
    (a) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles 
manufactured in the three previous production years; or
    (b) The manufacturer's production in the current production year.
    S13.2 Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer.
    S13.2.1 For the purpose of calculating average annual production of 
vehicles for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles manufactured 
by each manufacturer under S13.1.1 and S13.1.2, a vehicle produced by 
more than one manufacturer shall be attributed to a single manufacturer 
as follows, subject to S13.2.2.
    (a) A vehicle that is imported shall be attributed to the importer.
    (b) A vehicle manufactured in the United States by more than one 
manufacturer, one of which also markets the vehicle, shall be 
attributed to the manufacturer that markets the vehicle.
    S13.2.2 A vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer shall be 
attributed to any one of the vehicle's manufacturers specified by an 
express written contract, reported to the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration under 49 CFR part 598, between the manufacturer 
so specified and the manufacturer to which the vehicle would otherwise 
be attributed under S13.2.1.
    S13.3 For the purposes of calculating average annual production of 
vehicles for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles manufactured 
by each manufacturer under S13.1.1 and S13.1.2, each vehicle that is 
excluded by S5(c) from the vehicle-to-pole test requirements is not 
counted.
    S13.4 Calculation of complying vehicles.
    (a) For the purposes of complying with S13.1.1, a manufacturer may 
count a vehicle if it is manufactured on or after [date that is 30 days 
after publication of a final rule], but before September 1, 2010.
    (b) For purposes of complying with S13.1.2, a manufacturer may 
count a vehicle if it--
    (1) Is manufactured on or after [date that is 30 days after 
publication of a final rule], but before September 1, 2011 and,
    (2) Is not counted toward compliance with S13.1.1.
    3. Part 598 would be added to read as follows:

PART 598--SIDE IMPACT PHASE-IN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Sec.
598.1 Scope.
598.2 Purpose.
598.3 Applicability.
598.4 Definitions.
598.5 Response to inquiries.
598.6 Reporting requirements.
598.7 Records.
598.8 Petition to extend period to file report.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


Sec.  598.1  Scope.

    This part establishes requirements for manufacturers of passenger 
cars, and of trucks, buses and multipurpose

[[Page 28033]]

passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 
kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds) or less, to submit a report, and 
maintain records related to the report, concerning the number of such 
vehicles that meet the vehicle-to-pole test requirements of S9 of 
Standard No. 214, Side impact protection (49 CFR 571.214).


Sec.  598.2  Purpose.

    The purpose of these reporting requirements is to assist the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in determining whether a 
manufacturer has complied with the requirements of Standard No. 214, 
Side Impact Protection (49 CFR 571.214).


Sec.  598.3  Applicability.

    This part applies to manufacturers of passenger cars, and of 
trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 
kg (10,000 lb) or less. However, this part does not apply to vehicles 
excluded by S2 and S5 of Standard No. 214 (49 CFR 571.214) from the 
requirements of that standard.


Sec.  598.4  Definitions.

    (a) All terms defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102 are used in their 
statutory meaning.
    (b) Bus, gross vehicle weight rating or GVWR, multipurpose 
passenger vehicle, passenger car, and truck are used as defined in 
Sec.  571.3 of this chapter.
    (c) Production year means the 12-month period between September 1 
of one year and August 31 of the following year, inclusive.
    (d) Limited line manufacturer means a manufacturer that sells three 
or fewer carlines, as that term is defined in 49 CFR 583.4, in the 
United States during a production year.


Sec.  598.5  Response to inquiries.

    At anytime during the production years ending August 31, 2010, 
August 31, 2011, and August 31, 2012, each manufacturer shall, upon 
request from the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, provide 
information identifying the vehicles (by make, model and vehicle 
identification number) that have been certified as complying with the 
vehicle-to-pole test of FMVSS No. 214 (49 CFR 571.214).


Sec.  598.6  Reporting requirements.

    (a) Advanced credit phase-in reporting requirements. (1) Within 60 
days after the end of the production years ending August 31, 2006, 
August 31, 2007, August 31, 2008, and August 31, 2009, each 
manufacturer choosing to certify vehicles manufactured during any of 
those production years as complying with the vehicle-to-pole 
requirements of S9 of Standard No. 214 (49 CFR 571.214) shall submit a 
report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as 
specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (2) Each report shall--
    (i) Identify the manufacturer;
    (ii) State the full name, title, and address of the official 
responsible for preparing the report;
    (iii) Identify the production year being reported on;
    (iv) Provide the information specified in paragraph (c) of this 
section;
    (v) Be written in the English language; and
    (vi) Be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
    (b) Phase-in reporting requirements. Within 60 days after the end 
of each of the production years ending August 31, 2010 and August 31, 
2011, each manufacturer shall submit a report to the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration concerning its compliance with the 
vehicle-to-pole requirements of S9 of Standard No. 214 for its vehicles 
produced in that year. Each report shall--
    (1) Identify the manufacturer;
    (2) State the full name, title, and address of the official 
responsible for preparing the report;
    (3) Identify the production year being reported on;
    (4) Contain a statement regarding whether or not the manufacturer 
complied with the vehicle-to-pole requirements of S9 of Standard No. 
214 for the period covered by the report and the basis for that 
statement;
    (5) Provide the information specified in paragraph (d) of this 
section, except that this information need not be submitted with the 
report due 60 days after August 31, 2010 if the manufacturer chooses 
the compliance option specified in S9.1.3 of 49 CFR 571.214;
    (6) Specify the number of advance credit vehicles, if any, that are 
being applied to the production year being reported on;
    (7) Be written in the English language; and
    (8) Be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
    (c) Advanced credit phase-in report content--(1) Production of 
complying vehicles. With respect to the reports identified in Sec.  
598.6(a), each manufacturer shall report for the production year for 
which the report is filed the number of vehicles, by make and model 
year, that are certified as meeting the vehicle-to-pole requirements of 
S9 of Standard No. 214.
    (2) Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer. Each 
manufacturer whose reporting of information is affected by one or more 
of the express written contracts permitted by S13.2.2 of Standard No. 
214 shall:
    (i) Report the existence of each contract, including the names of 
all parties to the contract and explain how the contract affects the 
report being submitted.
    (ii) Report the number of vehicles covered by each contract in each 
production year.
    (d) Phase-in report content--(1) Basis for phase-in production 
goals. Each manufacturer shall provide the number of passenger cars 
manufactured for sale in the United States for each of the three 
previous production years, or, at the manufacturer's option, for the 
current production year. A new manufacturer that is, for the first 
time, manufacturing passenger cars for sale in the United States must 
report the number of passenger cars manufactured during the current 
production year.
    (2) Production of complying vehicles. Each manufacturer shall 
report for the production year being reported on, and each preceding 
production year, to the extent that vehicles produced during the 
preceding years are treated under Standard No. 214 as having been 
produced during the production year being reported on, information on 
the number of passenger vehicles that meet the vehicle-to-pole 
performance requirements of Standard No. 214.
    (3) Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer. Each 
manufacturer whose reporting of information is affected by one or more 
of the express written contracts permitted by S13.2.2 of Standard No. 
214 shall:
    (i) Report the existence of each contract, including the names of 
all parties to the contract, and explain how the contract affects the 
report being submitted.
    (ii) Report the actual number of vehicles covered by each contract.


Sec.  598.7  Records.

    Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the Vehicle 
Identification Number for each vehicle for which information is 
reported under Sec.  598.6(c)(1) and Sec.  598.6(d)(2) until December 
31, 2011.


Sec.  598.8  Petition to extend period to file report.

    A petition for extension of the time to submit a report must be 
received not later than 15 days before expiration of the time stated in 
Sec.  598.6. The petition

[[Page 28034]]

must be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. The 
filing of a petition does not automatically extend the time for filing 
a report. A petition will be granted only if the petitioner shows good 
cause for the extension and if the extension is consistent with the 
public interest.

    Issued on May 10, 2004.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 04-10931 Filed 5-12-04; 1:30 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P