[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 11, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51908-51973]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4360]



[[Page 51907]]

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

Part II





Department of Transportation





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



National Highway Traffic Safety Administration



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



49 CFR Parts 571 and 585



Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Protection in Interior 
Impact; Side Impact Protection; Fuel System Integrity; Electric-Powered 
Vehicles: Electrolyte Spillage and Electrical Shock Protection; Side 
Impact Phase-In Reporting Requirements; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 51908]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 571 and 585

[Docket No. NHTSA-29134]
RIN 2127-AJ10


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Protection in 
Interior Impact; Side Impact Protection; Fuel System Integrity; 
Electric-Powered Vehicles: Electrolyte Spillage and Electrical Shock 
Protection; Side Impact Phase-In Reporting Requirements

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule incorporates a dynamic pole test into Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 214, ``Side impact 
protection.'' To meet the test, vehicle manufacturers will need to 
assure head and improved chest protection in side crashes. It will lead 
to the installation of new technologies, such as side curtain air bags 
and torso side air bags, which are capable of improving head and thorax 
protection to occupants of vehicles that crash into poles and trees and 
vehicles that are laterally struck by a higher-riding vehicle. The side 
air bag systems installed to meet the requirements of this final rule 
will also reduce fatalities and injuries caused by partial ejections 
through side windows.
    Vehicles will be tested with two new, scientifically advanced test 
dummies representing a wide range of occupants, from mid-size males to 
small females. A test dummy known as the ES-2re will represent mid-size 
adult male occupants. A test dummy known as the SID-IIs will represent 
smaller stature occupants. The SID-IIs is the size of a 5th percentile 
adult female.
    This final rule also enhances FMVSS No. 214's moving deformable 
barrier (MDB) test. The current 50th percentile male dummy in the front 
seat of tested vehicles will be replaced with the more biofidelic ES-
2re. In the rear seat, the new 5th percentile female SID-IIs dummy will 
be used, thus improving protection to a greater segment of occupants 
seated in rear seating positions.
    The ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU),'' was enacted in August 2005. 
Section 10302 of the Act directed the agency ``to complete a rulemaking 
proceeding under chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, to 
establish a standard designed to enhance passenger motor vehicle 
occupant protection, in all seating positions, in side impact 
crashes.'' In accordance with Sec.  10302, the side impact air bags 
installed in front seats and vehicle changes made to rear seats will 
enhance, substantially, passenger motor vehicle occupant protection in 
side impacts.

DATES: Effective date: The date on which this final rule amends the CFR 
is November 13, 2007.
    Petition date: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this 
rule, your petition must be received by October 26, 2007.
    Compliance dates: This final rule adopts a four-year phase-in of 
the new test requirements. The phase-in begins on September 1, 2009. By 
September 1, 2012, all vehicles must meet the upgraded pole and barrier 
test requirements of the standard, with certain exceptions. Alterers, 
manufacturers of vehicles produced in more than one stage, and 
manufacturers of vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating greater 
than 3,855 kilograms (kg) (8,500 pounds (lb)) have until September 1, 
2013 to meet the upgraded pole and barrier test requirements. 
Manufacturers can earn credits toward meeting the applicable phase-in 
percentages by producing compliant vehicles ahead of schedule, 
beginning November 13, 2007 and ending at the conclusion of the phase-
in.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, 
you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document 
and submit your petition to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, 
Washington, DC 20590.
    The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search 
the electronic form of all documents received into any of our dockets 
by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the 
comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor 
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in 
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; 
Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call 
Christopher J. Wiacek, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards, 
telephone 202-366-4801. For legal issues, you may call Deirdre R. 
Fujita, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, telephone 202-366-2992. You may 
send mail to these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington, 
DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
    a. Final Rule
    b. How the Final Rule Differs From the NPRM
    c. Congressional Mandate
II. Safety Need
III. NPRM
    a. Summary of Main Aspects of the Proposal Preceding This Final 
Rule
    1. Oblique Pole Test
    2. Moving Deformable Barrier (MDB) Test
    3. Lead Time
    A. Oblique Pole Test
    B. MDB Test
    b. NPRMs on 49 CFR Part 572
    c. Comment Periods Reopened Until April 12, 2005; Request for 
Comment
IV. NHTSA 214 Fleet Testing Program
V. Summary of Comments
VI. Response to Comments
    a. Critical Decisions
    1. 50th Percentile Male Dummy
    A. We Are Denying the Alliance's WorldSID Petition
    B. The Side Impact Dummy Can Be Upgraded Now to the ES-2re 
Without Further Delay
    C. The ES-2re Is an Improvement Over the ES-2
    D. The ES-2re Should Measure More Than HIC
    2. The 5th Percentile Female Dummy
    A. The 5th Percentile Adult Female Dummy Is an Integral Part of 
This Upgrade
    i. Need for the 5th Percentile Dummy in the Pole Test
    ii. Need for the 5th Percentile Dummy in the MDB Test
    iii. Beyond the Voluntary Commitment
    B. However, Not All of the Proposed FRG Changes Are Needed
    b. Aspects of the Pole Test Procedure
    1. Speed
    2. Angle
    3. Positioning the Seat for the Test
    A. Fore-and-Aft Seating Position
    B. Head Restraints
    4. Impact Reference Line
    5. Test Attitude
    6. Rear Seat Pole Test
    7. Door Closed
    8. FMVSS No. 201 Pole Test
    9. Quasi Static Test
    10. Vehicle Exclusions
    11. Practicability
    12. International Harmonization
    c. Aspects of the MDB Test Procedure
    1. The Moving Deformable Barrier
    2. A Reasonable Balancing of the Test Burden
    A. Arm Position
    B. Reducing the Number of Tests
    3. Other
    d. Injury Criteria
    1. Head Injury Criterion

[[Page 51909]]

    2. Thorax (Chest) Criteria
    A. ES-2re
    i. Chest Deflection
    ii. ES-2re Lower Spine Acceleration
    B. SID-IIs Lower Spine Acceleration
    3. ES-2re Abdominal Criterion
    4. Pelvic Criterion
    A. ES-2re
    B. SID-IIs
    e. Lead Time
    1. Pole Test
    2. MDB Test
    f. Related Side Impact Programs
    1. Out-of-Position Testing
    2. Side NCAP
    3. Cross-References to FMVSS No. 214
    g. Comments on the PEA
VII. Costs and Benefits
VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
IX. Appendices

I. Executive Summary

a. Final Rule

    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 214, ``Side 
impact protection,'' currently provides thoracic and pelvic protection 
in a test using a moving deformable barrier to simulate being struck in 
the side by another vehicle. NHTSA is upgrading FMVSS No. 214 by 
requiring all passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating 
(GVWR) of 4,536 kg or less (10,000 lb or less) to protect front seat 
occupants in a vehicle-to-pole test simulating a vehicle crashing 
sideways into narrow fixed objects like utility poles and trees. By 
doing so it requires vehicle manufacturers to assure head and improved 
chest protection in side crashes for a wide range of occupant sizes and 
over a broad range of seating positions. It will ensure the 
installation of new technologies, such as side curtain air bags \1\ and 
torso side air bags, which are capable of improving head and thorax 
protection to occupants of vehicles that crash into poles and trees and 
of vehicles that are laterally struck by a higher-riding vehicle. The 
side air bag systems installed to meet the requirements of this final 
rule will also reduce fatalities and injuries caused by partial 
ejections through side windows.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These different side air bag systems are described in a 
glossary in Appendix A to this preamble.
    \2\ Improving side impact protection and reducing the risk of 
ejection are prominent in the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration's strategies to improve occupant protection. Further 
requirements to mitigate ejection are being developed by the agency 
to fulfill Sec. 10301 of SAFETEA-LU, which amended the National 
Highway and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to 
require the Secretary to issue by October 1, 2009 an ejection 
mitigation final rule reducing complete and partial ejections of 
occupants from outboard seating positions (49 U.S.C. 30128(c)(1)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This will be the first time that head injury criteria must be met 
under the standard. In addition, thoracic, abdominal and pelvic 
protection in the FMVSS No. 214 crash tests must also be provided.
    Vehicles will be tested with two new, scientifically advanced test 
dummies representing a wide range of occupants, from mid-size males to 
small females. A test dummy known as the ES-2re will represent mid-size 
adult male occupants. The ES-2re, a modified version of the European 
ES-2 side impact dummy, has improved biofidelity and enhanced injury 
assessment capability compared to all other mid-size adult male dummies 
used today. A test dummy known as the SID-IIs will represent smaller 
stature occupants. The SID-IIs is the size of a 5th percentile adult 
female. Crash data indicate that 34 percent of all serious and fatal 
injuries to near-side occupants in side impacts occurred to occupants 5 
feet 4 inches (163 cm) or less, who are better represented by the 5th 
percentile dummy.\3\ (Specifications for the ES-2re and SID-IIs dummies 
have already been adopted into the agency's regulation for 
anthropomorphic test dummies, 49 CFR Part 572. For the ES-2re, the 
final rule was published December 14, 2006; 71 FR 75304 (NHTSA Docket 
25441). For the SID-IIs, the final rule published December 14, 2006; 71 
FR 75342 (Docket 25442).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule also enhances FMVSS No. 214's moving deformable 
barrier (MDB) test. In the test, the current 50th percentile male dummy 
in the front seat of tested vehicles will be replaced with the more 
biofidelic ES-2re. In the rear seat, the 5th percentile female SID-IIs 
dummy will be used, to enhance protection to a greater segment of 
occupants seated in rear seating positions. The 50th percentile male 
dummy and the 5th percentile female dummy together better represent the 
at-risk population than one dummy alone. Through use of both test 
dummies, vehicles must provide head, enhanced thoracic and pelvic 
protection to occupants ranging from mid-size males to small occupants 
in vehicle-to-vehicle side crashes.
    We estimate that this final rule will prevent 311 fatalities and 
361 serious injuries a year \4\ when fully implemented throughout the 
light vehicle fleet. Countermeasures that not only reduce head 
injuries, but that also help reduce partial ejections through side 
windows, can save additional lives. The cost of the most likely 
potential countermeasure--a 2-sensor per vehicle window curtain and 
separate thorax side air bag system--compared to no side air bags is 
estimated to be $243 per vehicle. After analyzing the data voluntarily 
submitted by manufacturers on their planned installation of side air 
bag systems, we estimate this final rule will increase the average 
vehicle cost by $33 \5\ and increase total annual costs for the fleet 
by $560 million. We provide sufficient lead time to ensure that 
compliance is practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Benefits and costs are estimated assuming 100 percent 
installation of Electronic Stability Control (ESC) systems in 
vehicles, and are based on manufacturers' current and planned 
installation of side air bags.
    \5\ There are a wide variety of baseline side air bag systems 
planned for MY 2011. Some of these systems meet the final rule 
requirements, while manufacturers need to incorporate wider side air 
bags in others or add wide thorax side air bags or window curtains. 
The $33 incremental cost estimate is a weighted average of the costs 
to bring all these different baseline conditions into compliance 
with the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency's data show that the majority of side air bag systems 
are currently equipped with two side impact sensors. If the market 
share of the two-sensor and four-sensor systems remains unchanged, the 
incremental cost for the most likely air bag system (curtain and thorax 
bag two-sensor countermeasure) would be about $620 million, or $37 per 
vehicle, assuming all light vehicles will be equipped with curtain air 
bags.
    This final rule fulfills the mandate of the ``Safe, Accountable, 
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,'' 
which was signed by President George W. Bush in August 2005. Evidently 
aware of the agency's pending notice of proposed rulemaking to upgrade 
FMVSS No. 214, Section 10302 of the Act directed the agency ``to 
complete a rulemaking proceeding under chapter 301 of title 49, United 
States Code, to establish a standard designed to enhance passenger 
motor vehicle occupant protection, in all seating positions, in side 
impact crashes.''
State of the Art
    The state of knowledge and practicability of measures that can be 
taken to improve side impact protection are considerably greater than 
they were just a decade ago. Extensive work by those involved in the 
design, manufacture and evaluation of vehicle safety systems have led 
to substantial progress in crash test dummies, injury criteria and 
countermeasures used to mitigate side impacts. Inflatable side impact 
air bags (SIABs) have become

[[Page 51910]]

available in current production vehicles. They vary widely in designs, 
sizes, mounting locations, methods of inflation and areas of coverage. 
For example, 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 
curtains, and inflatable tubular structures).
    While varied in design, SIABs make possible vast improvements in 
head and torso protection that can be provided in side impacts. Head 
injuries alone account for 41 percent of the total deaths in the target 
population addressed by this final rule. For smaller-stature 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.\6\ NHTSA estimates that SIABs 
reduce fatality risk for nearside occupants by an estimated 24 percent; 
torso bags alone, by 14 percent.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Samaha, supra.
    \7\ Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, ``FMVSS No. 214; Amending 
side impact dynamic test; Adding oblique pole test.'' Braver and 
Kyrychenko (2003) estimated that torso bags plus head protection 
reduced drivers' fatality risk in nearside impacts by 45 percent 
relative to drivers in cars without SIABs. Braver and Kyrychenko, 
``Efficacy of Side Airbags in Reducing Driver Deaths in Driver-Side 
Collisions,'' IIHS Status Report, Vol. 38, August 26, 2003. That 
study was based on fewer crash data than those used by NHTSA in its 
2005 analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These remarkable improvements can accrue at reasonable costs. 
Vehicle manufacturers are already installing SIABs in some of their new 
vehicles. On December 4, 2003, the Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers, the Association of International Automobile 
Manufacturers (AIAM), and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 
(IIHS) announced a new voluntary commitment to enhance occupant 
protection in front-to-side and front-to-front crashes. The industry 
initiative consisted of improvements and research made in several 
phases, focusing, among other things, on accelerating the installation 
of SIABs.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Docket NHTSA-2003-14623-13. Alliance and AIAM members 
agreed to this voluntary commitment. Under Phase 1 of the voluntary 
commitment, manufacturers 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 3,855 kg (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 perpendicular 
side impact test. HIC36 means the calculation of HIC is 
limited to a maximum time interval of 36 milliseconds. 
HIC15 refers to a HIC calculating using a maximum time 
interval of 15 milliseconds. In Phase 2, not later than September 1, 
2009, 100 percent of each manufacturer's new passenger car and light 
truck (GVWR up to 3,855 kg) (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. The voluntary commitment 
provides exclusions for vehicles ``that a manufacturer determines, 
due to basic practicability and functionality reasons, cannot meet 
the performance criteria, and would have to be eliminated from the 
market if compliance were required.'' (Alliance comment to Docket 
17694, page 4, April 12, 2005.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through voluntary efforts, manufacturers are able to begin 
equipping vehicles with advanced technologies and are able to advance 
safety more quickly than through the regulatory process. In formulating 
this regulation, we have been mindful to remain consistent with the 
technological advances upon which the industry's voluntary commitment 
were based, so as not to discourage further implementation while 
manufacturers develop designs and technologies that are able to comply 
with this regulation. This regulation builds on the same technologies 
that will be used by the industry to meet its voluntary commitment, and 
takes them even further.
    The industry's voluntary commitment demonstrated the feasibility of 
SIABs as a fleet-wide countermeasure and ushered in a new stage in the 
regulatory, research and technological developments relating to side 
impact protection.\9\ This final rule broadens and fortifies this 
stage. Establishing these requirements as an FMVSS assures enhanced 
protection to all purchasers of vehicles, from those buying the most 
economical cars to purchasers of luxury trucks, to consumers in 
between. Together, the near term voluntary commitment and this final 
rule will achieve unprecedented side impact protection benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Section IV of the May 17, 2004 NPRM discusses the 
regulatory, research and technological developments related to FMVSS 
No. 214, from 1990 to the present. 69 FR at 27993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. How the Final Rule Differs From the NPRM

    The noteworthy changes from the NPRM are outlined below and 
explained in detail later in this preamble. More minor changes (e.g., 
arm position of the dummies for the MDB tests, procedures for 
determining vehicle test attitude for the MDB test) are discussed in 
the appropriate sections of this preamble.
    A. The agency proposed to use a SID-IIs Build C small female test 
dummy to which the agency had added ``floating rib guide'' (FRG) 
components to increase the durability of the dummy. The dummy with the 
FRG modification was called the ``SID-IIsFRG.'' Comments to the NPRM 
maintained that the entirety of the FRG modifications was unnecessary, 
and that the totality of the FRG modifications needlessly reduced the 
biofidelity and functionality of the dummy. Some commenters suggested 
alternative means of improving the durability of the Build Level C 
dummy. After reviewing the comments to the NPRM and available test 
data, including the performance of the SID-IIs dummy in vehicle tests 
conducted with 2004-2005 model year (MY) vehicles \10\ [hereinafter 
``214 fleet testing program''], we have decided to adopt some, but not 
all, of the FRG modifications, and to adopt the commenters' alternative 
suggested revisions to Build Level C. The SID-IIs dummy adopted today 
into FMVSS No. 214 is referred to as the SID-IIs ``Build Level D'' 
crash test dummy.\11\ Build Level D incorporates features stemming from 
the FRG and from users' efforts to enhance the functionality of 
predecessor SID-IIs dummies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Section IV of this preamble; also NHTSA's technical 
report of the test program, ``NHTSA Fleet Testing for FMVSS No. 214 
Upgrade MY 2004-2005,'' April 2006, Docket 25441-11 (25441 is the 
docket for the ES-2re test dummy final rule); and memorandum 
regarding location of the test date. December 6, 2006, Docket 25441-
9.
    \11\ Docket 25442; final rule adopting SID-IIs Build Level D 
dummy into 49 CFR Part 572.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. 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 this rulemaking and, based on that analysis, took steps to reduce 
unnecessary test burdens associated with this final rule. After 
reviewing the comments to the NPRM and available test data, including 
MDB testing conducted in the NHTSA 214 fleet testing program, we have 
decided to require one MDB test per side of the vehicle. The MDB test 
specifies use of an ES-2re (50th percentile adult male) dummy in the 
front seating position and a SID-IIs (5th percentile adult female) 
dummy in the rear. Virtually all vehicles tested in the 214 fleet 
testing program met the MDB requirements when tested with SID-IIs in 
the front seat and the ES-2re dummy in the rear. Accordingly, we 
concluded that no additional benefits would accrue from an MDB test 
with the dummies so configured.
    C. After reviewing the comments to the NPRM, the results of the 214 
fleet

[[Page 51911]]

testing program and production plans which show installation of side 
air bags in vehicles ahead of the proposed schedule, we have determined 
that it would be practicable to provide a two-year lead time instead of 
the four-year lead time proposed in the NPRM leading up to the 
beginning of the phased-in pole test requirements. Compared to the 
original schedule, this would accelerate the benefits expected to be 
provided by side air bag systems and other countermeasures by phasing-
in the requirements starting with 20 percent of model year (MY) 2010 
vehicles. As explained in the FRIA, the phase-in schedule and 
percentages of this final rule facilitate the installation of side 
impact air bags and other safety countermeasures in light vehicles as 
quickly as possible, while the allowance of advanced credits provides 
manufacturers a way of allocating their resources in an efficient 
manner to meet the schedule. At the same time, we are also adding a 
fourth year to the proposed 3-year phase-in period and are making other 
adjustments to the schedule for heavier vehicles, to enhance the 
practicability of meeting the new requirements and provide additional 
flexibility to manufacturers to meet the requirements. Accordingly, 
under the phase-in schedule adopted in this final rule, the following 
percentages of each manufacturer's vehicles will be required to meet 
the new requirements:

--20 percent of ``light'' vehicles (gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) 
less or equal to 3,855 kilograms (kg) (8,500 pounds) (lb) manufactured 
during the period from September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2010;
--50 percent of light vehicles manufactured during the period from 
September 1, 2010 to August 31, 2011;
--75 percent of light vehicles manufactured during the period from 
September 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012;
--100 percent of light vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 
2012, including limited line and small volume vehicles;
--100 percent of vehicles with a GVWR greater than 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2013 and vehicles produced by 
alterers and multistage manufacturers.

    In addition, vehicle manufacturers will be able to earn credits for 
meeting the requirements ahead of schedule.
    We are providing more lead time to meet the pole test requirements 
to manufacturers of vehicles with a GVWR greater than 3,855 kg (8,500 
lb) because the vehicles have never been regulated under FMVSS No. 
214's dynamic requirements and are not subject to the industry's 
voluntary commitment to install side air bags. Because more redesign of 
the vehicle side structure, interior trim, and/or optimization of 
dynamically deploying head/side protection systems may be needed in 
these vehicles than in light vehicles, this final rule does not subject 
these vehicles to the pole test requirements until September 1, 2013.
    D. We have decided to adopt a phase-in for the MDB test, and align 
the phase-in schedule with the oblique pole test requirements, with 
advance credits. In our test program, the SID-IIs in the rear seat of 
several vehicles measured elevated rib deflections and high pelvic 
loads that did not meet the injury criterion. This information 
indicated that structural and/or other changes to the rear seat of some 
vehicles are needed to provide improved chest and pelvic protection in 
the MDB test. An aligned phase-in will allow manufacturers to optimize 
engineering resources to design vehicles that meet the MDB and pole 
test requirements simultaneously, thus reducing costs. Manufacturers 
will also be able to use credits to more efficiently distribute their 
resources to meet the requirements.
    E. For this final rule, the agency has re-examined the baseline 
fleet conditions projected to the compliance date of this final rule 
and has therefore adjusted the target population that would benefit 
from this rulemaking. In determining the target population for this 
final rule, the agency has assumed a 100 percent Electronic Stability 
Control (ESC) penetration in the model MY 2011 new vehicle fleet, and 
has further adjusted the estimated benefits of the rule by considering 
data from vehicle manufacturers on their planned installation of side 
air bags and on projected sales through model year MY 2011. Based on 
that information, the agency estimates that this rulemaking will save 
311 fatalities and 361 serious injuries a year.\12\ These values are 
lower than the NPRM's estimated benefits of 1,027 fatalities and 999 
serious injuries saved annually, because the proposed estimates were 
based on the distribution of the different types of side air bag 
systems in the MY 2003 new vehicle fleet and did not assume 100% ESC 
penetration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ This estimates that window curtains, thorax side impact air 
bags, and two sensors per vehicle will be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this final rule, because the agency has used more extensive 
information, including manufacturers' planned installation of side air 
bags through MY 2011, the cost estimates of this final rule are also 
lower than those of the NPRM. The average vehicle incremental cost of 
the curtain and thorax bag two-sensor countermeasure is estimated to 
increase the average vehicle cost by $33, which is lower than the 
estimated NPRM cost of $177 per vehicle.

c. Congressional Mandate

    On August 10, 2005, President Bush signed the ``Safe, Accountable, 
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,'' 
(SAFETEA-LU), Public Law 109-59 (Aug. 10, 2005; 119 Stat. 1144), to 
authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and 
transit programs, and for other purposes. Section 10302(a) of SAFETEA-
LU provides:
Sec. 10302. Side-Impact Crash Protection Rulemaking
    (a) Rulemaking.--The Secretary shall complete a rulemaking 
proceeding under chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, to 
establish a standard designed to enhance passenger motor vehicle 
occupant protection, in all seating positions, in side impact 
crashes. The Secretary shall issue a final rule by July 1, 2008.

    At the time of the enactment of Sec.  10302(a), the agency's notice 
of proposed rulemaking to upgrade FMVSS No. 214 was pending. This final 
rule completes the rulemaking proceeding under consideration, and 
enhances the side impact protection of all the seating positions that 
the NPRM had proposed to upgrade.\13\ In this rulemaking, we considered 
several regulatory alternatives (see Chapter IX of the Final Regulatory 
Impact Analysis) and, consistent with Executive Order 12866, have 
maximized the benefits of those alternatives in the cost effective 
range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Enhancing the protection of the seating positions under 
consideration in the NPRM addresses over 99% of the non-rollover 
side impact fatalities. In our analysis of vehicle sales, we found 
that 0 percent of passenger cars and 22 percent of light trucks have 
3 or more rows of seats (minivans, some SUVs, and some full size 
vans). Assuming that passenger cars and light trucks each have 50 
percent of all light vehicle sales, about 11 percent of all light 
vehicle sales will involve vehicles with 3 or more rows of seating. 
Looking at adult fatalities in side impacts in which non-rollovers 
were the primary event, there were 17 fatalities in the 3rd, 4th, or 
5th rows. In comparison, in the same types of non-rollover side 
impacts, there were 8,570 adult fatalities in all rows. The 3+ row 
seats comprise 0.2 percent of the fatalities in that population (17/
8,570 = 0.002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We interpret SAFETEA-LU as providing us a fair amount of 
discretion. This regulation was initiated by NHTSA prior to enactment 
of SAFETEA-LU and we are required by the statute to complete it. We 
believe that SAFETEA-LU requires us to enhance the occupant protection 
of all seating positions under

[[Page 51912]]

consideration in the NPRM (front and rear outboard seating positions), 
without specifying the particular regulatory instruments or approaches 
that should be used to enhance occupant protection in those seating 
positions. SAFETEA-LU requires that this rulemaking be conducted in 
compliance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 
U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), which includes the directive that our motor 
vehicle safety standards ``shall be practicable, meet the need for 
motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms' (49 U.S.C. 
30111(a)). Thus, in responding to the comments to the NPRM (see section 
VI of this preamble), we must ensure that the upgraded FMVSS No. 214 
final rule meets the criteria of Section 30111 (that it is practicable, 
that it meets the need for safety, and that it is stated in objective 
terms), while meeting the instruction of SAFETEA-LU that the final rule 
enhance occupant side impact protection in the seating positions under 
consideration in the NPRM.
    This final rule enhances side impact protection in the front 
seating positions by requiring manufacturers to provide head protection 
in side impacts for the first time in the Federal safety standards. Due 
to the biofidelity of the current side impact dummy (SID) head and 
neck, the agency had determined that it was not appropriate to assess 
head injury with that dummy.\14\ This final rule adopts into FMVSS No. 
214 two technologically advanced test dummies that have superior injury 
risk measurement capabilities compared to the SID, including the 
ability to assess the likelihood of head injury. The two test dummies 
represent occupants of different sizes: One represents an occupant of 
the size of a 5th percentile adult female, the other a mid-size (50th 
percentile) adult male. Use of both dummies in FMVSS No. 214 assures 
that occupant protection in side impacts is afforded across a wide 
range of occupant sizes. Further, this final rule adopts a dynamic pole 
test into FMVSS No. 214, specifying performance requirements that 
vehicles must meet when tested with the test dummies. Adoption of the 
pole test will result in the installation of new technologies, such as 
side curtain air bags and torso side air bags, which are capable of 
improving protection to an occupant's head, thorax, abdomen and pelvis. 
The use of the two crash test dummies in the pole test will require 
manufacturers to assure whole-body protection of front seat occupants, 
from small stature females sitting as close as they can to the steering 
wheel, to mid-size males sitting mid-track.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Report to Congress, ``Status of NHTSA Plan for Side Impact 
Regulation Harmonization and Upgrade,'' March 1999, Docket NHTSA-98-
3935-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule also enhances front seat occupant protection by 
specifying use of the new mid-size male dummy in the standard's MDB 
test, which simulates a vehicle-to-vehicle crash. With its highly 
developed instrumentation and ability to assess rib deflections, the 
ES-2re will more thoroughly evaluate the degree to which manufacturers 
have designed vehicles' front seats to protect occupants in vehicle-to-
vehicle side crashes.
    This final rule enhances occupant crash protection in rear seats as 
well. For the first time in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, 
a limit is adopted on the risk of head injury for rear seat occupants. 
In addition, this final rule specifies the use of the 5th percentile 
adult female test dummy in testing rear seats in the MDB test of FMVSS 
No. 214. This change will enable NHTSA to assess better the ability of 
the rear seat environment to protect children, the elderly and small 
adults--a more vulnerable population than the mid-size adult male 
population--in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes. The dummy is more 
representative of rear seat occupants than the SID. Further, the injury 
assessment reference values we will use with the dummy are set at 
levels that reflect the effect of aging on tolerance.

II. Safety Need

    In the 2004 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), there were 
9,270 side impact fatalities. For our target population, as described 
in the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA) for this final rule, we 
excluded from these side impact fatalities those cases which were not 
relevant to the oblique pole and/or MDB crash conditions of this final 
rule. This left us with a target population of 2,311 fatalities and 
5,891 non-fatal serious to critical MAIS 3-5 injuries for near-side 
occupants. The 2,311 fatalities were divided into two groups for the 
analysis: (1) Vehicle to pole impacts; and (2) vehicle-to-vehicle or 
other roadside objects impacts, which include partial ejections in 
these cases.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The agency's analysis also found some fatality benefits for 
far-side unbelted occupants. In 2004 FARS, there were 1,441 unbelted 
far-side occupant fatalities in side impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this target population, 41 percent of the total fatalities are 
caused by head/face injuries, 34 percent by chest injuries and 6 
percent by abdominal injuries. In contrast, for the 5,891 non-fatal 
MAIS 3-5 target population, chest injuries are the predominate and 
maximum injury source, accounting for 48 percent. Head/face injuries 
account for 20 percent, and abdominal injuries account for two percent. 
Combining all serious to fatal injuries, chest injuries account for 49 
percent, head/face injuries account for 26 percent, and abdominal 
injuries account for three percent.
    For these two groups, we made an adjustment for estimated benefits 
that would result from the installation of Electronic Stability Control 
(ESC) systems in vehicles, based on an assumption that model year 2011 
vehicles would be equipped with ESC.\16\ The ESC adjustment is shown 
below in Table 1:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Manufacturers' product plans submitted to the agency 
indicated that 71 percent of the MY 2011 light vehicles will be 
equipped with ESC. For the purposes of estimating benefits for 
today's final rule, we have assumed that more vehicles will be ESC-
equipped, in part because the final rule on electronic stability 
control systems requires all MY 2012 vehicles to have ESC (Docket 
27662). Accordingly, to estimate benefits for this FMVSS No. 214 
final rule, we have assumed 100 percent of the MY 2011 light 
vehicles will have ESC.

                                  Table 1.--Target Population Adjusted With ESC
                       [Fatalities and MAIS 3+ for occupants, Delta-V Range of 12-25 mph]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Crash mode                         MAIS 3          MAIS 4          MAIS 5           Fatal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veh-to-Pole.....................................             368             210              72             219
Veh-to-Veh/others...............................           3,713             903             177           1,823
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................           4,081           1,113             249           2,042
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 51913]]

    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.\17\ For the head, chest, 
abdomen and pelvis injuries, the fatalities for each crash mode, as 
adjusted for the effects of ESC and FMVSS No. 201, are shown below in 
Table 2:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 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.

    Table 2.--Fatalities Adjusted, Front Occupants With ESC and FMVSS No. 201 Head, Chest, Abdomen and Pelvis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Crash mode                  Head            Chest          Abdomen         Pelvis           Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veh-to-Pole.....................             142              27               0               0             169
Veh-to-Veh/others...............             493             689             137              63           1,382
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................             635             716             137              63           1,551
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. NPRM

a. Summary of Main Aspects of the Proposal Preceding This Final Rule

    NHTSA published the NPRM for this FMVSS No. 214 final rule on May 
17, 2004 (69 FR 27990, Docket No. 17694). The NPRM provided a 150-day 
comment period on the proposal. The 150-day period closed October 14, 
2004.
1. Oblique Pole Test
    The NPRM proposed a pole test for FMVSS No. 214, and proposed to 
apply it to all passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) 
or less. The vehicle-to-pole test is similar to but more demanding than 
the one currently used optionally in FMVSS No. 201. The proposal was to 
propel a vehicle sideways into a rigid pole at an angle of 75 degrees 
rather than the 90-degree angle used in FMVSS No. 201.\18\ (We refer to 
the test using the 75-degree impact angle as the ``oblique pole 
test.'') The test speed was proposed as any speed up to 32 km/h (20 
mph) \19\ rather than the maximum test speed of FMVSS No. 201's 
optional pole test (29 km/h (18 mph)). The 75-degree angle of impact 
and 32 km/h test speed made the pole test more representative than the 
FMVSS No. 201 test of real world side crashes into narrow objects.\20\ 
Crashes with a delta-V of 32 km/h (20 mph) or higher result in 
approximately half of the seriously injured occupants in narrow object 
near-side crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ FMVSS No. 201 employs an optional pole test to permit the 
installation of dynamically deploying upper interior head protection 
systems. This test was part of a set of amendments adopted in 1998 
to permit, but not require, the installation of dynamically 
deploying upper interior head protection systems that were then 
under development (63 FR 41451; August 4, 1998). In the optional 
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. The pole test injury criterion is HIC of 1000. The May 17, 
2004 NPRM requested comment on adopting the FMVSS No. 201 pole test 
instead of the oblique pole test that was the preferred agency 
approach at the NPRM stage.
    \19\ While 20 mph converts to 32.2 km/h, we are rounding 32.2 
km/h to 32 km/h.
    \20\ When testing the driver side of the vehicle, an impact 
reference line is 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 (see S10.14 of the regulatory text set forth in 
today's document). 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 today's regulatory text. 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 NPRM proposed using the ES-2re (50th percentile adult male) 
test dummy, and the SID-IIs (5th percentile adult female) test dummy as 
modified by the addition of floating rib guide (FRG) modifications.
    The ES-2re is technically superior to both the SID-H3 50th 
percentile male test dummy currently used in the optional pole test of 
FMVSS No. 201 and the SID dummy now used in the MDB test of FMVSS No. 
214. NHTSA proposed injury criteria for the ES-2re's injury measuring 
instrumentation of the dummy's head, thorax, abdomen and pelvis. HIC 
was to be limited to 1,000 measured in a 36 millisecond time interval 
(HIC36). Chest deflection could not be greater than 42 mm 
(1.65 in) for any rib. Resultant lower spine acceleration could not be 
greater than 82 g. Abdominal loads could not exceed 2,500 Newtons (N) 
(562 lb). For pelvic injury, the NPRM proposed to limit pubic symphysis 
force to 6,000 N (1,349 lb).
    The SID-IIs test dummy was developed by the Occupant Safety 
Research Partnership (OSRP), a research group under the umbrella of the 
U.S. Council for Automotive Research (USCAR).\21\ NHTSA proposed to 
modify the dummy by adding the FRG modifications (the modified dummy is 
referred to as the SID-IIsFRG). Injury criteria for the SID-IIsFRG's 
head, thorax, and pelvis were proposed. HIC36 was to be 
limited to 1,000. For thoracic injury, the agency proposed a limit of 
82 g on the resultant lower spine acceleration. A pelvic injury 
criterion of the sum of the iliac and acetabular forces measured on the 
dummy was proposed at 5,100 N. A limitation on rib deflection was not 
proposed because NHTSA wanted to obtain more information on the SID-
IIsFRG's rib deflection measurement capability and the deflection 
criteria that would be appropriate to apply to the dummy. For the same 
reasons, an abdominal injury criterion for the dummy was not proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ USCAR consists of DaimlerChrysler, Ford and General Motors. 
The SID-IIs is used by Transport Canada for research purposes, and 
by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), a nonprofit 
group funded by insurers, in IIHS's 48 km/h (30 mph) side crash test 
consumer information program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM presented test data from full scale oblique pole tests 
using a mid-size male dummy, and a small female dummy, to indicate the 
performance of vehicles in providing occupant protection in these side 
impacts. (These data are presented in Table 1 of Appendix C to this 
final rule.) As discussed in the NPRM, there were nine

[[Page 51914]]

tests using a mid-size male dummy. In four of the tests, the test dummy 
was positioned in the driver's seating position as specified in the 
FMVSS No. 214 MDB test procedure, i.e., the seat was positioned mid-
track. The other tests were conducted with the seat positioned as 
specified in FMVSS No. 201.\22\ Among other things, the NPRM data 
showed that the vehicles with air curtain systems performed well in 
providing head protection to occupants of the size of a 50th percentile 
adult male. Data for the 2004 Honda Accord demonstrated the 
practicability of meeting all of the NPRM's proposed injury criteria 
for the pole test using the FMVSS No. 214 seating procedure with the 
ES-2re dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 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 in) 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 in) B-pillar clearance is 
achieved. If this is not sufficient to produce the desired 
clearance, the seat is moved forward to achieve that result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the NPRM, one of the tests of a combination head/
chest air bag system illustrated how the impact angle of the pole test 
can influence the level of protection provided by a vehicle's side air 
bags. An oblique pole test of a 1999 Nissan Maxima with a head/chest 
side impact air bag resulted in a HIC score of 5,254. The HIC of the 
Maxima in a 90-degree FMVSS No. 201 pole test resulted in a HIC score 
of 130. In the NPRM, NHTSA stated its expectation that, to comply with 
the proposed oblique pole test requirements, manufacturers will likely 
install head protection systems extending sufficiently toward the A-
pillar to protect the head in the 75-degree approach angle test. The 
agency also noted that a 32 km/h (20 mph) oblique pole test has at 
least 15 percent more kinetic energy than an FMVSS No. 201 90-degree 
pole test at 18 mph.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Test results using the FMVSS No. 201 pole test procedures 
were presented in the NPRM, 69 FR at 28008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM also discussed the results of three full scale oblique 
pole tests using the small female dummy on a 2003 Camry with an air 
curtain and thorax bag, a 2000 Saab 9-5 with a combination bag, and a 
2002 Ford Explorer (see Table 2 of Appendix C). The agency stated that 
in the NPRM that the HIC36 values generally exceeded the 
1,000 limit, and pelvic forces exceeded the proposed 5,100 N limit. In 
contrast, a 2003 Camry whose air curtain and thorax bags were remotely 
fired at 11 milliseconds (ms) produced a HIC36 of 512, and a 
4,580 N pelvic force on the dummy.
2. Moving Deformable Barrier (MDB) Test
    The current MDB test uses a 50th percentile adult male test dummy 
that was developed in the 1980s, and does not use a 5th percentile 
female dummy in the test. The NPRM proposed replacing the 50th 
percentile male dummy used with the technically advanced, more 
biofidelic ES-2re, and adding to the test the small female test dummy. 
For the first time in the MDB test, a head injury criterion was 
proposed.
    The NPRM presented test results from FMVSS No. 214 MDB tests of a 
2001 Ford Focus and a 2002 Chevrolet Impala using an ES-2re dummy in 
the driver and rear passenger seating positions (the data are set forth 
in Appendix C). These vehicles did not have side air bags in either 
front or rear seating positions. The test data from the NPRM showed 
that the Focus met the proposed test requirements when tested with the 
ES-2re, while the Impala did not. The Impala failed to meet the 44 mm 
rib deflection criterion for the driver dummy (45.6 mm), and produced 
an abdominal force on the rear seat dummy of 4,409 N (proposed limit 
was between 2,400-2,800 N). An examination of the passenger compartment 
interior revealed a protruding armrest of the Impala that contacted the 
abdominal area of the dummy, causing the high force reading.
    As discussed in the NPRM, tests of a 2001 Ford Focus and 2002 
Chevolet Impala using the SID-IIsFRG in the driver and rear passenger 
seating positions showed that the Focus almost fully complied with the 
proposed MDB test requirements. Only the pelvic force for the driver 
dummy was exceeded in the test, which was attributed to an intruding 
armrest. The Impala was able to meet all of the driver injury criteria 
but failed to meet the limits on lower spine acceleration and pelvic 
force for the SID-IIs in the rear seat, due to an armrest design. As 
discussed in the NPRM, in an MDB test of a 2001 Buick Le Sabre equipped 
with a front seat thorax side air bag, the vehicle met all the proposed 
criteria for both the front and rear seat dummies.
3. Lead Time
A. Oblique Pole Test
    The agency proposed a lead time thought to be sufficient to ensure 
that compliance would be practicable, while seeking to make sure that 
the benefits of the rule can be realized as soon as practicable. The 
NPRM proposed to phase in the upgraded side impact pole test 
requirements. The agency proposed to phase in the new test requirement 
beginning approximately four years from the date of publication of a 
final rule. The phase-in was proposed to be over three years, 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;
    50 percent of each manufacturer's light vehicles manufactured 
during the production year beginning five years after publication of a 
final rule;
    All vehicles manufactured on or after a date six years after 
publication of a final rule.
    NHTSA proposed to include provisions under which manufacturers can 
earn credits toward meeting the applicable phase-in percentages if they 
meet the new requirements ahead of schedule. Alternatives were also 
provided to address the special problems faced by manufacturers 
producing limited line vehicles and vehicles manufactured in more than 
one stage, and vehicle alterers. Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements for manufacturers to administer conformance with the 
phase-in were also proposed.
B. MDB Test
    NHTSA proposed that the upgraded MDB test would be effective 
approximately 4 years after publication of a final rule. The agency 
tentatively concluded that a phase-in was unnecessary because the 
requirements could be met by padding and simple redesigns of the 
armrest area. This contrasted with the agency's belief about the 
vehicle changes entailed by the oblique pole test. Comments were 
requested on whether a phase in for the MDB test was appropriate.

b. NPRMs on 49 CFR Part 572

    The agency issued notices of proposed rulemaking to add the 
specifications and performance requirements for the ES-2re dummy and 
for the SID-IIs dummy into the agency's regulation on anthropomorphic 
test devices (49 CFR part 572). The NPRM on the ES-2re dummy was 
published on September 15, 2004 (69 FR 55550; Docket 18864), and the 
NPRM on the SID-IIs was published on December 8, 2004 (69 FR 70947, 
Docket 18865).

[[Page 51915]]

c. Comment Periods Reopened Until April 12, 2005; Request for Comment

    On January 12, 2005, NHTSA reopened the comment period for the May 
17, 2004 NPRM on FMVSS No. 214 and for the September 15, 2004 NPRM 
adding the ES-2re 50th percentile adult male dummy to 49 CFR Part 572 
(70 FR 2105; Dockets 17694 and 18864). That action responded to a 
petition from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers that requested 
an additional 8 months to submit comments. NHTSA determined that a 90-
day extension of time was sufficient and that an 8-month extension was 
unwarranted and contrary to the public interest. The January 2005 
document also requested comments on an addendum to an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) relating to the NPRM on the 
oblique pole test. The addendum to the IRFA discussed the economic 
impacts of the proposed rule on small vehicle manufacturers. The 
comment periods were reopened until April 12, 2005.
    Later, the Alliance petitioned to extend the comment period for the 
December 8, 2004 NPRM on adding the SID-IIs 5th percentile female test 
dummy to 49 CFR Part 572, which was scheduled to close on March 8, 
2005. NHTSA agreed to extend the comment period for that NPRM to April 
12, 2005, to align the comment closing date for that NPRM with the 
comment closing dates for the NPRMs on FMVSS No. 214 and the ES-2re (70 
FR 11189; March 8, 2005; Docket 18865).

IV. NHTSA 214 Fleet Testing Program

    In 2005, the agency conducted a 214 fleet testing program, a series 
of side impact crash tests to obtain information on how current 
vehicles performed in the oblique pole and MDB tests with the SID-IIs 
and ES-2re test dummies, and, in turn, on how the dummies performed in 
the full vehicle crash tests. Fourteen vehicle models were tested. 
Thirteen models were evaluated in the pole test, 10 of these 13 were 
tested with both the SID-IIs (5th percentile female) and the ES-2re 
(50th percentile male) test dummies. Three of the 13 were tested with 
just the ES-2re test dummy. Seven of the 13 were tested also to the MDB 
tests using the SID-IIs and the ES-2re test dummies. One vehicle model 
was tested only to an MDB test using the SID-IIs (5th percentile 
female) test dummy. (See Table 3, ``Test Matrix.'')
    The agency selected vehicles that represented different vehicle 
classes comprising the current vehicle fleet. Six rated a ``Good'' or 
``Acceptable'' score in IIHS's side impact consumer rating program,\24\ 
three rated a ``Poor,'' and all had head curtains or combination side 
impact air bags. Six of the vehicles had a combination of both a head 
curtain air bag and an additional torso air bag in the front seating 
positions. Four had only a head curtain air bag. Four vehicles had a 
seat-mounted head and torso combination air bag system, two of which 
were convertibles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ IIHS's side impact consumer information program ranks 
vehicles based on performance when impacted perpendicularly by a 
moving barrier at about 30 mph. http://www.iihs.org/ratings/side_test_info.html.

                                                                  Table 3.--Test Matrix
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Side air bag type:  AC=air                                         Oblique pole          FMVSS No. 214 MDB
   Vehicles (model year 2005 unless      curtain;  Comb=head/chest  SIAB;       Vehicle class/weight     -----------------------------------------------
                noted)                       Th=thorax or chest SIAB                                        SID-IIs     ES-2rd      SID-IIs     ES-2re
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Corolla........................  AC + Th..........................  Light PC.....................    [radic]     [radic]     [radic]     [radic]
VW Jetta..............................  AC + Th..........................  Compact PC...................    [radic]     [radic]     [radic]     [radic]
Saturn Ion............................  AC...............................  Compact PC...................    [radic]     [radic]     [radic]     [radic]
Honda Accord*.........................  AC + Th..........................  Medium.......................    [radic]     [radic]     [radic]     [radic]
Suzuki Forenza........................  Comb.............................  Compact PC...................  ..........  ..........    [radic]   ..........
Beetle Convertible....................  Comb.............................  Medium.......................  ..........    [radic]   ..........  ..........
Saab 9-3 Convertible..................  Comb.............................  Medium.......................  ..........    [radic]   ..........  ..........
Ford 500..............................  AC + Th..........................  Heavy PC.....................    [radic]     [radic]     [radic]     [radic]
Toyota Sienna*........................  AC + Th..........................  Minivan......................    [radic]     [radic]   ..........  ..........
Subaru Forester.......................  Comb.............................  Small sport utility vehicle      [radic]     [radic]     [radic]     [radic]
                                                                            (SUV) (certified PC) Curb
                                                                            wt=3143 lb (medium PC).
Honda CRV.............................  AC + Th..........................  Small SUV....................    [radic]     [radic]     [radic]     [radic]
Chevy Colorado (4x2 Ext. Cab).........  AC...............................  Small Pickup.................    [radic]     [radic]   ..........  ..........
Ford Expedition.......................  AC...............................  Large SUV....................    [radic]     [radic]   ..........  ..........
Dodge 2500 (Reg Cab)..................  AC...............................  Large Pickup.................  ..........    [radic]   ..........  ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 2004 Vehicles.
** Vehicles were categorized by their curb weight.

    Light passenger car (PC) = (907-1.133 kg) or (2,000-2,499 lb).
    Compact PC = (1,134-1,360 kg) or (2,500-2,999 lb).
    Medium PC = (1,361-1,587 kg) or (3,000-3,499 lb).
    Heavy PC = (1,588 kg or more) or (3,500 lb or more).
    A detailed summary of the results of the test program is set forth 
in NHTSA's technical report of the test program, ``NHTSA Fleet Testing 
for FMVSS No. 214 Upgrade MY 2004-2005,'' April 2006, (Docket 25441, 
items 9 and 11). Key findings of the test program are highlighted 
below.

Oblique Pole Test With SID-IIs

    As discussed in the test report, 10 of the vehicles in the matrix 
were tested with the SID-IIs dummy in the oblique pole test. The test 
results are presented in Table 4. Thoracic and abdominal rib 
deflections were monitored.

[[Page 51916]]



                               Table 4.--Oblique Pole Test Results--SID-IIs Dummy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Thorax         Abdominal
                                                    Lower spine    Pelvic force     deflection      deflection
             Driver                    HIC36           (Gs)             (N)            (mm)            (mm)
                                                                                    (monitored)     (monitored)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Injury Assessment                  1000              82        ** 5,525              38              45
 Reference Values (IARVs).......
Toyota Corolla..................             418              70             ***              47              49
VW Jetta........................             478              54            7876              33              34
Saturn Ion......................            5203             110            5755              32              52
Honda Accord*...................             567              63           10848              31              30
Ford Five Hundred...............            1173              92            6542              37              57
Toyota Sienna*..................            2019              67            6956              46              58
Subaru Forester.................             160              55            4707              31              45
Honda CRV.......................             531              68            4670              26              36
Chevy Colorado 4x2 ext cab......             896             135            9387              31              59
Ford Expedition.................            5661              96            8249              35             53
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* MY2004.
** See Section VI.d.4.B of this preamble for a discussion of why we increased the proposed 5,100 N requirement
  to 5,525 N.
*** No data.

    Most of the tested vehicles will need some design improvements to 
be certified as meeting the injury criteria limits for HIC, lower spine 
acceleration and/or pelvic force adopted by this final rule. Some 
vehicles will need more redesign than others. Some vehicles produced 
HIC, lower spine acceleration and/or pelvic force values that were 
greater than the injury assessment reference values (IARVs) of this 
final rule, while others were within the values but were close to the 
margin. For purposes of evaluating the current performance of these 
tested vehicles in relation to the IARVs of this final rule, we 
identified ``elevated'' values to be those that were within 80 percent 
of an IARV. The Subaru Forester and Honda CRV were the only vehicles 
that were below the IARVs,\25\ but even these vehicles had lower spine 
acceleration and/or pelvic loads that were elevated (in excess of 80 
percent of the IARVs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The Toyota Corolla was also below the IARVs, for the data 
collected. However, the pelvic force data were not available in the 
test. Like the Subaru Forester and Honda CRV, the lower spine 
acceleration was elevated in the test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HIC (SID-IIs in the Pole Test)

    Four of the 10 vehicles tested with the SID-IIs (40 percent) 
exceeded HIC 1000: the Saturn Ion, Ford Five Hundred, Toyota Sienna, 
and Ford Expedition.
    The Saturn Ion, Ford Expedition, and the Toyota Sienna's side 
curtain air bag deployed but the SID-IIs dummy's head hit the front 
edge of the curtain's front pocket or tethered portion of the curtain, 
which was not inflated so as to cushion the impact.
    The Ford Five Hundred had a head curtain and a thorax bag. It 
appears from test film that the Ford Five Hundred's sensor deployed the 
curtain at approximately 85 ms after time zero, while the dummy's head 
hit the pole at the front edge of the curtain at approximately 60 ms 
after time zero.
    The same four vehicles produced relatively good HIC scores with the 
ES-2re dummy in the oblique pole test.
Lower Spine Acceleration (SID-IIs in the Pole Test)
    The lower spine acceleration readings were generally consistent 
with the SID-IIs's rib deflections. Two of the 10 vehicle tests with 
the SID-IIs resulted in rib deflection measurements exceeding 38 mm for 
the thoracic rib (which corresponds to a 50 percent risk of AIS 3+ 
injury). Six out of 10 exceeded 45 mm for the abdominal rib (45 mm is 
used by IIHS in its consumer information program). In all of these 
tests, the lower spine acceleration values were also elevated 
(exceeding 82 g or within 80 percent of 82 g (i.e., 66 g)). The 6 tests 
were of the: 2005 Toyota Corolla, 2005 Saturn Ion, 2005 Ford Five 
Hundred, 2004/05 Toyota Sienna, 2005 Chevy Colorado 4x2 extended cab, 
and the 2005 Ford Expedition.
Pelvic Force (SID-IIs in the Pole Test)
    Seven of the 10 vehicles exceeded 5,525 N (one vehicle lost data 
completely). The Honda Accord and the Volkswagen (VW) Jetta exceeded 
5,525 N, yet had relatively lower numbers for the other injury 
criteria.

Oblique Pole Test With ES-2re

    Thirteen tests were performed with the ES-2re dummy in the driver's 
seating position. Data from the tests are set forth in Table 5. The 
data were analyzed assuming a 44 mm limit on rib deflection and a 2,500 
N limit for abdominal force. Four vehicles produced results that were 
less than all of the injury assessment reference values: the VW Jetta, 
VW Beetle convertible, Saab 9-3 convertible and the Honda Accord.

                                      Table 5.--ES-2re Oblique Pole Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Thorax                                        Lower spine
             Driver                   HIC 36        deflection       Abdominal     Pelvic force        (G's)
                                                       (mm)          force (N)          (N)         (monitored)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed IARVs..................            1000              44            2500            6000              82
Toyota Corolla..................             473              50            1178            3041              65
VW Jetta........................             652              36            1663            3372              60
Saturn Ion......................             806              50            1494            1585              76
Honda Accord....................             446              31            1397            2463              52
VW Beetle Convertible...........             315              37            1018            3815              69
Saab 93 Convertible.............             254              40             841            2914              49
Ford 500........................             422              35            3020            2133              68

[[Page 51917]]

 
Toyota Sienna...................             667              47            1751            2127              60
Subaru Forester.................            2054              43            1377            2291              46
Honda CRV.......................             639              50             929             903              53
Chevy Colorado 4x2 ext cab......             785              46            2655            3373              90
Ford Expedition.................             689              26            6973            2575              75
Dodge Ram 2500 (GVWR 8800)*.....            5748              47            1846              **             86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Air bag did not deploy.
** No data.

HIC (ES-2re in the Pole Test)
    The tests showed that an effective inflatable head protection 
system can be successful in reducing HIC.
    Most HIC values were less than HIC 1,000. An exception was the 
Subaru Forester, the test of which resulted in a HIC reading of 2,054. 
This vehicle had a head and thorax combination air bag that deployed 
from the vehicle's seat. In the test, the air bag was pushed rearward 
by the intruding B-pillar and door structure. As a result, the dummy's 
head hit the pole, causing the HIC of 2,054.
    Another exception was the Dodge 2500, which is the only heavy duty 
pickup truck with optional side curtains. In the pole test, the curtain 
air bag did not deploy, causing the ES-2re dummy's head to hit the pole 
(HIC 5,748). In a retest using this vehicle model in which the air bags 
were remotely deployed, the HIC was 331.
Rib Deflection (ES-2re in the Pole Test)
    Table 5 shows that six of the vehicles produced chest deflection 
values greater than 44 mm (the Toyota Corolla, Saturn Ion, Toyota 
Sienna, Honda CRV, Chevy Colorado extended cab pick up, and the Dodge 
2500 truck). In another vehicle, the Subaru Forester, the ES-2re 
measured 43 mm of chest deflection. Out of those seven vehicles, three 
had curtains with thorax bags: the Toyota Corolla, Toyota Sienna and 
Honda CRV. The Forester had a combination head/thorax bag. The Ion, 
Chevy Colorado and Dodge 2500 had only a curtain.
    Seven vehicles produced results that were under 44 mm (VW Jetta, 
Honda Accord, VW Beetle convertible, Saab 9-3 convertible, the Ford 
Five Hundred, Subaru Forester, and the Ford Expedition). However, the 
chest deflection measures for five of these vehicles (VW Jetta, VW 
Beetle convertible, Saab 9-3 convertible, Ford Five Hundred, and the 
Subaru Forester) were between 35 and 44 mm (i.e., were within 80 
percent of 44 mm). The VW Jetta, Honda Accord, and Ford Five Hundred 
had a curtain and torso bag. The VW Beetle and Saab 9-3, in addition to 
the Subaru Forester, had combo bags. The Ford Expedition had only a 
curtain.
Lower Spine Acceleration (ES-2re in the Pole Test)
    The ES-2re's lower spine acceleration readings in the pole test 
were relatively consistent with the dummy's rib deflection readings.
    In eleven of the vehicles that measured high rib deflections 
exceeding 44 mm or that were within 80 percent of 44 mm, 5 of these had 
lower spine acceleration values that were also elevated (exceeding 82 g 
or within 80 percent of 82 g). The 5 vehicles were the: Saturn Ion, VW 
Beetle, Ford Five Hundred, Chevy Colorado and the Dodge 2500. The 
Toyota Corolla had an elevated lower spine acceleration of 65 g. The 
lower spine acceleration of the ES-2re was elevated (75 g) in the test 
of the Ford Expedition when the dummy's rib deflection was low (26 mm). 
However, the lower spine could have been detecting the high abdominal 
force reading on the ES-2re in that test (6,973 N).
Abdominal Force (ES-2re in the Pole Test)
    Three vehicles produced abdominal force readings that exceeded 
2,500 N (the Ford Five Hundred, Chevy Colorado and the Ford 
Expedition). The Chevy Colorado and Ford Expedition did not have torso 
air bags.

MDB Tests With SID-IIs

    We conducted eight FMVSS No. 214 MDB tests with the SID-IIs in both 
the driver's seating position and in the left rear occupant's seating 
position. Data from the tests are set forth in Table 6 (driver) and 
Table 7 (rear passenger).
    The data show that all but three vehicles produced dummy 
measurements that were below the proposed IARVs for both the driver and 
rear occupant. The SID-IIs in the driver seat of the Saturn Ion test 
measured a 8,993 N pelvic force. The Saturn Ion was not equipped with a 
thoracic side bag. It appears from the test film that the dummy's 
pelvis impacted a rigid area at the front part of the Ion's armrest. 
The SID-IIs in the rear seat of the Honda Accord measured 6,917 N in 
pelvic force, and the SID-IIs in the rear seat of the Suzuki Forenza 
measured a 6,557 N pelvic force.
    In tests of 4 of the vehicles with the SID-IIs in the rear, the 
monitored rib deflection measurements were high (over 38 mm for the 
thoracic rib and 45 mm for the abdominal rib), and in 2 vehicles they 
were within 80 percent of 38 mm or 45 mm.

                              Table 6.--MDB Test Results Using the SID-IIs--Driver
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Thorax         Abdominal
                                                    Lower spine    Pelvic force     deflection      deflection
             Driver                    HIC36           (Gs)             (N)            (mm)            (mm)
                                                                                    (monitored)     (monitored)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed IARVs..................            1000              82            5525              38              45
Toyota Corolla..................              78              59            4655              17              26
VW Jetta........................              46              30            2639              12              18
Saturn Ion......................             189              53            8993              19              39
Suzuki Forenza..................              69              53            4948              27              27

[[Page 51918]]

 
Honda Accord*...................             104              50            4150              20              22
Ford 500........................              46              31            2140              16              25
Subaru Forrester................              43              37            3066              11              11
Honda CRV.......................              38              32            1350              16               8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* MY 2004.


                        Table 7.--MDB Test Results Using the SID-IIs--Left Rear Passenger
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Thorax         Abdominal
                                                    Lower spine    Pelvic force     deflections     deflections
            Passenger                  HIC36           (Gs)             (N)            (mm)            (mm)
                                                                                    (monitored)     (monitored)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed IARVs..................            1000              82            5525              38              45
Toyota Corolla..................             330              57            3182              35              33
VW Jetta........................             103              52            3026              49              43
Saturn Ion......................             220              73            3964              47              52
Suzuki Forenza..................             773              73            6557              41              46
Honda Accord*...................             298              57            6917              30              32
Ford 500........................             216              42            2925              45              46
Subaru Forrester................             150              43            3572              24              26
Honda CRV.......................             107              56            3149              37              40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* MY 2004.

MDB Test With ES-2re

    We conducted seven FMVSS No. 214 MDB tests with the ES-2re in both 
the driver's seating position and in the left rear occupant's seating 
position. The vehicle models were the same ones that were tested with 
the SID-IIs in the MDB tests, above. Data from the tests are set forth 
in Tables 8 and 9. The dummy responses were low relative to the IARVs.

                                    Table 8.--ES-2re MDB Test Results--Driver
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Thorax                                        Lower spine
             Driver                    HIC36        deflection       Abdominal     Pubic symph.        (G's)
                                                       (mm)         force  (N)      force  (N)      (monitored)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed IARVs..................            1000              44            2500            6000              82
Toyota Corolla..................              73              25             722            3223              40
VW Jetta........................             101              26             733            1969              28
Saturn Ion......................             110              29            1524            2431              52
Honda Accord....................             109              37             557            1983              38
Ford 500........................              66              25            1006            1176              35
Subaru Forrester................              44              21             598            1694              33
Honda CRV.......................             100              35             524            1137              31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                Table 9.--ES-2re MDB Test Results--Rear Passenger
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Thorax                                        Lower spine
            Passenger                  HIC36        deflection       Abdominal     Pubic symph.        (G's)
                                                       (mm)         force  (N)      force  (N)      (monitored)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed IARVs..................            1000              44            2500            6000              82
Toyota Corolla..................             248              20            1355            2771              58
VW Jetta........................             211              29            1378            2542              53
Saturn Ion......................             168              27            1511            2275              47
Honda Accord....................             223              23             810            2405              53
Ford 500........................             213              25            1649            1407              44
Subaru Forrester................             226              23             967            1948              35
Honda CRV.......................             126               5            1192            1847              33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Observations

    NHTSA has made the following general observations from the agency's 
214 fleet testing program.
     Overall, currently installed side impact head protection 
systems (HPS) consisting of an air curtain or combination head/thorax 
air bag were effective in mitigating head accelerations, resulting in 
low to moderate HIC readings for the ES-2re and SID-IIs dummies in both 
MDB and

[[Page 51919]]

oblique pole tests. Vehicles equipped with well-designed combo bags, 
and air curtains that extend toward the A-pillar when inflated, 
generally were the better performers in the oblique pole tests.
     Some currently installed side impact HPS that provide 
relatively low head protection response values to the SID-IIs driver 
dummy in the MDB test do not necessarily provide the same low level 
head responses in the oblique pole test.
     In the oblique pole tests, vehicles that provided adequate 
protection for the ES-2re do not necessarily provide the same level of 
protection for the SID-IIs. The data show the importance of using more 
than one size test dummy to evaluate the overall performance of a 
vehicle in providing head protection to occupants in the oblique pole 
test mode.
     In oblique pole tests using the SID-IIs, most vehicles 
produced pelvic force readings above the proposed criterion. In the MDB 
tests with the SID-IIs seated in the driver's position, only one 
vehicle produced a pelvic force greater than 5,525 N. All other 
vehicles subjected to the MDB test with the SID-IIs seated in the 
driver's position had pelvic force readings below 5,525 N.
     The SID-IIs in the rear seats of vehicles subjected to the 
MDB test had elevated thoracic and/or abdominal rib deflections that 
were not observed in MDB tests of those same vehicles with the ES-2re 
in the rear seats.
     The results of oblique pole tests in which the air curtain 
did not deploy or deployed later in the event indicate needed air bag 
sensor improvement.
     The convertibles equipped with head/thorax combination air 
bags produced measurements that were below the proposed injury 
criteria, demonstrating the effectiveness and feasibility of these HPS 
for convertible body types.
     Some vehicles that received ``Good'' or ``Acceptable'' 
ratings from IIHS for the rear passenger exceeded proposed IARVs in our 
MDB tests using the SID-IIs.
     The vehicles that were tested with the ES-2re that 
produced dummy readings below the proposed IARVs in the pole and MDB 
tests were: 2004 Honda Accord, 2005 Volkswagen Jetta, 2005 Volkswagen 
Beetle Convertible, and the 2005 Saab 93 Convertible. The vehicles that 
were tested with the SID-IIs that produced readings below the proposed 
IARVs in the pole and MDB tests were: 2005 Toyota Corolla, 2005 Subaru 
Forester and the 2005 Honda CRV.

V. Summary of Comments

    This section provides an overview of the significant comments to 
the proposal to upgrade FMVSS No. 214.
    All together, NHTSA received 35 comments to the proposal to upgrade 
FMVSS No. 214.\26\ Commenters included--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The NPRMs proposing to add the ES-2re and SID-IIs dummy 
specifications to 49 CFR part 572 each received comments separately 
from the FMVSS No. 214 NPRM. Those comments are addressed in full in 
final rules that were published separately from this document and 
are discussed here to the extent relevant to the FMVSS No. 214 final 
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Vehicle manufacturers and/or vehicle manufacturer associations (the 
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance \27\), American Honda 
Motor Co., Inc. (Honda), the Association of International Automobile 
Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM \28\), Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan), 
Lotus Engineering (Lotus), Ferrari SpA (Ferrari), Maserati SpA 
(Maserati), the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association, Inc. (RVIA), 
Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA), the National Mobility 
Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA) and the National Truck Equipment 
Association (NTEA));
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The Alliance is made up of BMW group, DaimlerChrysler, Ford 
Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, 
Toyota, and Volkswagen.
    \28\ AIAM Technical Affairs Committee members are: Aston Martin, 
Ferrari/Maserati, Honda, Hyundai, Isuzu, Kia, Nissan, Peugeot, 
Renault, Subaru, Suzuki, Bosch, Delphi, Denso, and Hitachi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Air bag equipment suppliers (Autoliv and TRW);
    Research groups (IIHS), the International Harmonized Research 
Activities (IHRA) Side Impact Working Group (SIWG);
    Consumer groups (Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), 
Public Citizen, and Consumers Union);
    And private individuals.

Overview of the Comments

    The vehicle manufacturers supported enhancing side impact 
protection but had concerns about how the proposed rulemaking would 
comport with the initiatives they have already undertaken or agreed to 
undertake towards that goal (e.g., the ``voluntary commitment'' of 
major automakers in the U.S. to phase in side air bags for drivers in 
vehicles up to 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) GVWR). The vehicle manufacturers 
strongly supported the incorporation of WorldSID \29\ into FMVSS No. 
214, marked by the Alliance submitting, concurrently with its comment 
on the FMVSS No. 214 NPRM, a petition for rulemaking asking NHTSA to 
initiate rulemaking to incorporate WorldSID into Part 572 and to use 
the dummy in the upgrade of FMVSS No. 214 (NHTSA Docket 17252). The 
Alliance further suggested that, prior to use of WorldSID, the ES-2 
dummy should be used (without the rib extensions), and only to the 
extent of protecting the head. The Alliance believed that there was no 
safety need for the 5th percentile SID-IIs adult female crash test 
dummy in the proposed pole and MDB tests. No commenter supported the 
floating rib guide modifications proposed by NHTSA for the SID-IIs 
dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ WorldSID is considered by industry to be the next-
generation 50th percentile male side impact dummy. It was developed 
by industry representatives from the U.S., Europe and Japan and by 
the European and Japanese governments (see Docket No. 2000-17252). 
This future dummy is believed by its developers to have better 
biofidelity than existing dummies, and is intended to better predict 
a wider range of injury potential in side impact testing than 
current dummies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Air bag supplier Autoliv supported use of the ES-2re in tests and 
supported use of the 32 km/h (20 mph) test speed in the oblique pole 
test. Autoliv stated that NHTSA was correct in its belief that an 
oblique pole test will encourage larger bags than a perpendicular pole 
test. Air bag supplier TRW believed that adoption of the NPRM will 
result in substantial reductions in injuries and severity in side 
impacts. TRW stated that technology exists to meet the proposed 
requirements of the NPRM within the timeframe and that it saw no major 
issues with the proposed test conditions. TRW believed that systems 
designed to meet the proposed requirements could have acceptable 
performance in out-of-position situations.
    Vehicle manufacturers raised issues or had questions about aspects 
of conducting the proposed test procedure for the oblique pole test. 
The Alliance supported the 75-degree angle of the test, but suggested 
that the test speed should be bounded at 26 km/h to 32 km/h (16 to 20 
mph) (the NPRM proposed that the test would be conducted at any speed 
up to and including 32 km/h (20 mph)). Maserati and Ferrari supported 
the 90 degree 29 km/h (18 mph) pole test used in the European New Car 
Assessment Program (Euro NCAP). The IHRA SIWG expressed concern about 
the NPRM preempting the outcome of international deliberations of the 
SIWG regarding the side impact pole test procedure. Vehicle 
manufacturers also commented on technical aspects of the test 
procedure, such as how the vehicle seat should be positioned along the 
seat track, where on the pole the vehicle should impact;

[[Page 51920]]

and how the test dummies and head restraints should be positioned.
    Consumer groups generally supported the proposed rule, but 
suggested that the agency should adopt further requirements. Advocates, 
Consumers Union, and Public Citizen wanted more stringent injury 
criteria limits than those proposed (e.g., HIC of 800), and recommended 
extending the oblique pole test to rear seating positions.
    Comments were also received on the types of vehicles that should be 
excluded from the pole test, and on the lead time needed to comply with 
the proposed oblique pole test and with the changes to the MDB test. 
Nissan submitted test data \30\ of one small vehicle and two mid-size 
vehicles tested according to the proposed test procedures for the 
oblique pole test and MDB test. The commenter said that the data 
indicate that curtain air bags may be needed in some vehicles to meet 
the pole test requirements, and that some vehicles could need a full 
redesign of the door structure, including the modification or addition 
of air bags, to meet the MDB test requirements. Nissan requested that 
the MDB test requirements be phased-in along the same schedule that 
would be implemented for the pole test, and that both phase-ins be over 
a 4-year rather than 3-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Submitted under a request for confidential treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments were also received on NHTSA's Preliminary Economic 
Assessment (PEA), which analyzed the costs and benefits and other 
impacts of the proposed rule. Maserati and Ferrari believed that NHTSA 
underestimated their costs to comply with the proposed rule. The 
Alliance believed that: In estimating benefits, we should have 
identified as the target population all potentially injured occupants 
of relatively modern vehicles for whom the countermeasures are 
designed; that the proposed changes to the MDB test should have a 
benefits estimate; that we did not demonstrate the practicability of 
meeting the proposed test requirements, in that ``no one single vehicle 
has been subjected to the entire suite of proposed crash tests''; and 
that the principles set forth in the Data Quality Act were not met (the 
commenter believed that some of the data in the PEA had errors and that 
the PEA contained some unsupported assumptions). The Specialty 
Equipment Market Association (SEMA) stated that ``aftermarket equipment 
manufacturers and other entities that diagnose, service, repair and 
upgrade motor vehicles'' may be affected by the final rule if their 
installed products interact with equipment or systems used by vehicle 
manufacturers to meet the FMVSS No. 214 requirements.
    In October 2006, to estimate the costs and benefits of the final 
rule, NHTSA sent letters asking vehicle manufacturers to submit 
voluntarily information on the installation of side air bags in present 
and future vehicles. Information was received from seven manufacturers, 
whose information related to about 90 percent of light vehicle sales.

VI. Response to the Comments

a. Critical Decisions

    We made several critical decisions in our analysis of the comments. 
These decisions were critical in defining the safety problem, the test 
dummies that should be used to address the safety problem, and the 
crash tests that should be used to evaluate measures to ameliorate the 
safety problem. Specifically, these decisions pertained to:
    Which test dummy should be used to represent the mid-size male;
    Whether the standard should limit more than HIC; and
    Whether FMVSS No. 214 should use a small female dummy in the pole 
and MDB tests.
    These decisions are discussed in this section.
1. 50th Percentile Male Dummy
    The Alliance, AIAM, IIHS, Honda, Maserati, Ferrari, Advocates, and 
Autoliv commented on the proposal to use the ES-2re test dummy to 
represent the mid-size male occupant. Generally, the vehicle 
manufacturers opposed the ES-2re, preferring instead the WorldSID. In 
its petition for rulemaking, the Alliance asked NHTSA to consider 
adopting the WorldSID into Part 572 and using the dummy in the phase-in 
of the pole test requirements.\31\ The Alliance stated that WorldSlD 
would further enhance occupant protection and the international 
harmonization of safety standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf91/325474_web.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, other commenters acknowledged that WorldSID is not yet 
ready for use in a safety standard. IIHS said that while WorldSID might 
be more biofidelic than any other existing dummy, ``developmental 
testing is not complete on the new, state-of-the art dummy, and 
therefore the time is not ripe for its inclusion in rulemaking.'' IIHS 
did not believe that WorldSID was necessary in order for the agency to 
increase the requirements for protection of the midsize male in side 
impacts. In this interim period while the WorldSID continues to be 
evaluated, IIHS supported the ES-2re over the SID and SID-H3 dummies 
because of the improved biofidelity of the ES-2re and the more 
sensitive information the ES-2re can provide on rib deflection 
characteristics and pelvic loading. Autoliv also supported the ES-2re's 
replacing the SID-H3 dummy, based on the improved biofidelity of the 
proposed dummy and the tendency toward closer harmonization with other 
global test requirements. ``Using the same test dummy globally would 
allow manufacturers to focus on optimizing the air bag design to the 
performance requirements of the more biofidelic dummy.''
A. We Are Denying the Alliance's WorldSID Petition
    We are denying the Alliance's petition for rulemaking because the 
WorldSID is not ready for use in Federal regulations, nor has it been 
established that it has achieved a completed design allowing a full 
assessment of the dummy's potential use in FMVSS No. 214. The WorldSID 
committee has been modifying the dummy's design, including 
modifications to the dummy's ribs (June/July 2006), to address 
durability and other problems that NHTSA found during the agency's 
evaluation of the dummy.
    NHTSA has been working with the WorldSID committee to evaluate the 
functionality of the dummy as a potential research and compliance test 
device. We undertook a three-phase program to evaluate the dummy's 
repeatability, durability and usefulness. The program consisted of: (a) 
Laboratory-based anthropometry, mass, instrumentation and extensive 
subsystem evaluations; (b) sled tests; and (c) vehicle crash tests. 
During phase (a) of the program (the subsystem evaluation), we observed 
cracking of rib damping material, which led to several modifications of 
the rib design by the WorldSID committee. The committee sent the 
revised ribs to NHTSA in August 2006 for evaluation in the agency test 
program. During evaluation of the rib modifications, concerns over the 
pelvis design arose when it was observed that the pelvis wing contacted 
on onboard data acquisition component mounted below the lumbar spine. 
The agency and the WorldSID committee are presently evaluating 
modifications to the pelvis design to eliminate this problem.
    Once the pelvis modifications can be evaluated and the internal 
contact issue has been resolved, NHTSA will resume

[[Page 51921]]

evaluation of the modifications to the ribs. However, because we cannot 
know at this point what the outcome of the evaluation will be and 
because we will not know the outcome for a considerable period of time, 
we are denying the Alliance's petition. If the evaluation indicates 
that the WorldSID design is complete, the agency will then consider 
whether rulemaking should be undertaken \32\ to possibly incorporate 
use of the dummy as a test device during the phase-in period of the 
requirements adopted today. In the meantime, advancements in occupant 
protection can be achieved today by upgrading the side impact dummy 
used in FMVSS No. 214 to the ES-2re, without waiting for a future test 
dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The suitability of WorldSID for use in FMVSS No. 214 and as 
a part 572 test device would ultimately be determined through 
notice-and-comment rulemaking, in accordance with statutory 
criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Side Impact Dummy Should Be Upgraded Now to the ES-2re Without 
Further Delay
    The technology of the ES-2re represents a significant advance over 
the SID dummy. The ES-2re has enhanced injury assessment capabilities 
compared to devices existing today, which allows for a fuller 
assessment of the types and magnitudes of the injuries occurring in 
side impacts and of the efficacy of countermeasures in improving 
occupant protection. The ES-2re dummy has provisions for 
instrumentation that can assess the potential for head injury (it 
measures the resultant head acceleration, which is used to calculate 
the Head Injury Criterion (HIC)) and thoracic injuries in terms of rib 
deflections and spine and rib accelerations. Chest deflection has been 
shown to be the best predictor of thoracic injuries in low-speed side 
impact crashes. It is a better injury risk measure than TTI(d) (a chest 
acceleration-based criterion measured by SID). The ES-2re can also 
assess the risk of abdominal injuries through three load cells to 
assess the magnitude of lateral and oblique forces, and the risk of 
pubic symphysis injuries by way of load cell measurements, as well as 
pelvis acceleration.
    The more advanced test dummy makes possible a more complete 
assessment of vehicle performance in side impacts, which, together with 
appropriate injury assessment criteria, will lead to greatly enhanced 
side impact protection for occupants. In an MDB test described in the 
May 2004 NPRM (69 FR at 28010), the ES-2re detected a high abdominal 
force in the Chevrolet Impala at the dummy's abdominal area that was 
caused by an intruding armrest. Because the SID does not measure 
abdominal force, this potential injury risk will be newly detected by 
the ES-2re. Accordingly, this final rule adopts the ES-2re for the pole 
test and for testing the front seat of vehicles in FMVSS No. 214's MDB 
test.
C. The ES-2re Is an Improvement Over the ES-2
    The Alliance supported the ES-2 as a temporary alternative test 
device, pending the availability of WorldSID. The Alliance supported 
the ES-2 because the dummy is already implemented in both EuroNCAP and 
the UN ECE-regulation 95.02 Supplement 1, i.e., ``at least the ES-2 is 
harmonized with Europe and already in widespread use.'' The Alliance 
stated that OSRP gave the ES-2 a biofidelity rating of 4.6 and the ES-
2re an overall rating of 4.3 using the ISO-based ranking. (In the ISO 
ranking system, a dummy with a higher value is considered more 
biofidelic than one with a lower value.)
    The ES-2re is more appropriate for use in FMVSS No. 214 than the 
ES-2 dummy. As explained in the May 2004 NPRM and in the rulemaking 
incorporating the ES-2re into 49 CFR part 572,\33\ the ES-2 dummy has a 
deficiency that limits its usefulness in FMVSS No. 214. The agency 
determined that, in a number of vehicle crash tests, the back plate of 
the ES-2's upper torso grabbed into the seat back of the vehicle, which 
lowered the rib deflections measured by the dummy. (``Design, 
Development, and Evaluation of the ES-2re Side Crash Test Dummy,'' May 
2004, NHTSA Docket No. 17694-11.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ NPRM at 69 FR 55550, September 15, 2004, Docket 18864; 
final rule at 71 FR 75304, December 14, 2006, Docket 25441.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This ``back plate grabbing'' problem has long existed in the ES-2 
line of dummies. Although efforts were undertaken to address the 
problem in dummies preceding the ES-2, the back plate grabbing problem 
has continued with the ES-2. Back plate grabbing has been seen within 
the ES-2 in the non-governmental European New Car Assessment Program 
(EuroNCAP) on side impact. EuroNCAP accounts for the problem by 
adjusting downward the consumer rating scores of vehicles when back 
plate grabbing is deemed to have occurred.
    The ES-2re has rib extensions that solve the back plate grabbing 
problem of the ES-2. The rib extensions provide a continuous loading 
surface that nearly encircles the thorax and encloses the posterior gap 
of the ES-2 ribcage that was responsible for the ``grabbing'' effects. 
Test data show that the rib extensions reduced the back plate grabbing 
force to insignificant amounts in vehicle side impact tests that had 
previously yielded large back plate loads with the ES-2. The rib 
extensions did not affect rib deflection responses in tests of vehicles 
that had not originally yielded high back plate loads.
    The biofidelity, repeatability, reproducibility, and other aspects 
of the ES-2re are discussed at length in the agency's December 14, 2006 
final rule adopting the ES-2re into 49 CFR part 572 (see Docket 25441). 
With regard to Toyota's and the Alliance's comment \34\ that the rib 
extensions reduced the ISO-based biofidelity assessment of the ES-2 
from 4.6 to 4.3, or from ``fair'' to ``marginal,'' we conclude that the 
reduced ISO rating is an acceptable outcome of having the rib 
extensions. The back plate loading problem of the ES-2 renders the ES-2 
non-lifelike. If the rib extensions reduce slightly the ISO biofidelity 
rating but enables NHTSA to use a dummy that has the measurement 
capabilities of the ES-2 and no back plate loading problem, we conclude 
that the lower rating is acceptable. We note that the ISO rating 
represents an improvement over the SID, which received a rating of 2.3 
(Byrnes, et al., ``ES-2 Dummy Biomechanical Responses,'' 2002, Stapp 
Car Crash Journal, Vol. 46, 2002-22-0014, p. 353). The ES-2re 
biofidelity rating also compares favorably to that of the SID-H3, which 
received an overall rating of 3.8. Both the SID and SID-H3 have 
performed well in driving the installation of life-saving 
countermeasures that have substantially improved the safety of 
occupants in side impacts.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The commenters neither provided reference to a published 
report nor provided supporting data related to the claim that the 
overall ISO score for the ES-2re is 4.3. The absence of foundation 
for the comment limits our ability to respond.
    \35\ The ES-2re also has improved injury assessment capability 
compared to the SID and SID-H3 mid-size male dummies. The ES-2re 
dummy will enhance the protection afforded by vehicles to the 
affecting population, especially those represented by a 50th 
percentile male dummy. Thus, this final rule adopts the ES-2re and 
not the SID or the SID-H3 dummies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In short, we cannot accept the ES-2 test dummy because of the back 
plate loading problem. With the rib extensions of the ES-2re, the back 
plate loading problem is solved. The ES-2re will enhance levels of side 
impact protection provided by FMVSS No. 214. The enhancements will be 
seen in vehicles produced in the near term, regardless of the future 
assessment of WorldSID.

[[Page 51922]]

D. The ES-2re Should Measure More Than HIC
    The Alliance suggested that the mid-size male dummy in the upgraded 
requirements of FMVSS No. 214 should measure only HIC. While supporting 
the ES-2 over the ES-2re, the Alliance stated that both test dummies 
have design features that affect the dummies' thoracic responses and 
the resulting rib deflection measurements. According to the commenter, 
the ``limited stroke piston/cylinder mechanism'' of the dummies can 
bind in a lateral impact, and the ``binding potential is further 
compounded as the lateral impact becomes more oblique.''
    The Alliance also stated that both the ES-2 and ES-2re dummies 
incorporate a shoulder design that makes the kinematics of the dummy 
unlike that of a cadaver. The commenter stated that the human shoulder 
compresses inward and moves slightly rearward in impacts from the front 
or side, while the dummies' shoulders are designed to rotate forward, 
preventing the arm from interacting with intruding structures. The 
Alliance stated, ``In full-scale vehicle tests, the WorldSID shoulder 
deflects laterally inward replicating a more human like response.''
    Additionally, the Alliance believed that the ES-2 and ES-2re 
dummies--

are too narrow through the abdomen and pelvis and do not represent 
the anthropometry of either the U.S. or world populations. Also, in 
full-scale tests conducted by the OSRP, the ES-2 measured abdominal 
forces below the Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARV), while 
the WorldSID measured abdominal deflections above the IARV. This 
indicates that the ES-2 abdominal region is too narrow to properly 
interact with intruding vehicle structures and is inadequately 
instrumented, causing it to erroneously miss a potential risk of 
abdominal injury. The WorldSID can better assess the risk of 
abdominal injury because its anthropometry better matches that of 
the human population and it is equipped to measure abdominal 
deflection.

    Because the Alliance believed there are deficiencies with the ES-2, 
the commenter said that NHTSA should just require manufacturers to meet 
a head protection criterion, and not criteria assessing injury to the 
thorax, abdomen or pelvis.
    We are denying this request. Our analysis of the thoracic response 
of the ES-2re demonstrated that the dummy's thoracic responses provided 
valid data. We analyzed crash data from oblique and perpendicular pole 
tests of two vehicles: A 1999 Maxima and a 2001 Saturn. The vehicles 
were not equipped with side air bag systems. The rib deflections of the 
ES-2re in the driver's seating position were almost identical in the 
oblique and perpendicular pole tests. The rib deflections of the 
dummies were consistent in time and were of similar magnitude. There 
was no indication of flat-topping, binding or distortion of the 
deflection signal due to oblique loading. In addition, T1 driver 
lateral acceleration was consistent and did not show differences 
between oblique and perpendicular impacts. (See ``Lateral vs. Oblique 
Impacts of the ES-2 Dummy in Pole and MDB Tests,'' April 2006, a copy 
of which is in Docket 25441).
    Both the lower spine accelerations (T12) and the summed abdominal 
forces for the driver ES-2re were higher in the oblique pole test 
configuration. However, the oblique pole test was run at a higher 
impact speed than the perpendicular test (20 mph versus 18 mph), which 
likely increased the measurements. Also, in the oblique pole test, the 
lower part of the dummy torso appears to be loaded earlier in the crash 
event than in a perpendicular test, which indicates that the T12 and 
abdominal forces could be higher because initial loading is more 
through the lower part of the torso.
    We also analyzed the measurements of the ES-2re in FMVSS No. 214 
MDB tests of a 2001 Ford Focus, 2002 Chevolet Impala equipped with a 
combo head/thorax side air bag for the driver, and a 2004 Honda Accord 
equipped with a thorax bag. Overall, the driver rib deflections were 
higher than the deflections for the rear passenger dummy. However, a 
different loading environment caused the lower rib deflections for the 
ES-2re in the rear seat as compared to the driver. Rib deflections 
showed a slow rise, and the peaks occurred about 10 milliseconds later 
than those of the driver dummy. The loading duration was also 
considerably longer. The passenger rib deflections were consistently 
lower towards the bottom of the ribcage. Id.
    For the Focus, the driver and passenger T12 accelerations were 
comparable. For the Impala and Accord, the rear passenger T12 
acceleration was larger than that of the driver dummy. This difference 
could be attributed to the fact that both the Impala and Accord had a 
thorax side air bag for the driver position and none for the rear 
passenger position.
    The data from the tests did not show a sensitivity to oblique 
loading in the dummy's abdomen. The passenger abdominal force for the 
Impala was very large compared to the driver abdominal force, but this 
was due primarily to large structural intrusions (the test film shows 
the arm rest intruding into the dummy in the MDB test). This indicates 
a localized loading through the abdomen for the Impala passenger 
(resulting in an off-loading condition for the chest and, thus, much 
lower rib deflection measurements as compared to the driver dummy). For 
the Accord, the passenger abdominal force was larger than the driver 
abdominal force, but the difference could be attributed to the side air 
bag in the driver position.
    The Alliance contended that the ES-2re's shoulder has a 
biomechanical flaw in that the shoulder moves forward relative to the 
rest of the dummy, while, according to the commenter, the WorldSID 
dummy's shoulder moves rearward. The Alliance believes that a rearward 
motion is consistent with that exhibited by post mortem human subjects 
(PMHS) in rigid impactor tests. The commenter did not demonstrate the 
relevance to this rulemaking of movement of the dummy's shoulder 
frontward or rearward. Use of the dummy in vehicle crash tests has 
indicated no detrimental effects due to shoulder design, such as rib 
flat-topping or distortion of signals, showing that the shoulder has 
reached its limit for range of motion or has otherwise performed 
unacceptably due to a forward motion of the clavicles.
    In conclusion, the data show that there are no deficiencies with 
the ES-2re that justify limiting its injury assessment to that of HIC 
only. The data show that there is virtually no effect due to oblique 
loading in the driver ES-2re deflection readings in oblique pole tests 
as compared to perpendicular pole impacts. The data also do not 
demonstrate an indication of sensitivity to oblique loading in MDB 
tests. To the contrary, the test data from the Impala test show that 
the abdominal response of the ES-2re in the rear passenger position in 
the MDB test detected critical loading by intruding vehicle structures 
at the lower torso level. Further discussion of the agency's response 
to comments about the biofidelity of the ES-2re can be found in the 
December 14, 2006 49 CFR Part 572 final rule on the ES-2re (see Docket 
25441).
    Anthropomorphic test devices are constantly evolving and advancing 
due in part to worldwide research efforts toward improving the 
biofidelity, durability and injury-measurement capabilities of the test 
devices. Adopting the ES-2re and the injury assessment reference values 
associated with the risk of injury to an occupant's thorax, abdomen and 
pelvis will enhance the safety of occupants in side impacts. In a NASS 
study of side impact crashes, it was estimated that between 8.5 percent

[[Page 51923]]

and 21.8 percent of all AIS 3+ injuries are to the abdomen of 
restrained near side front seat occupants.\36\ The important gains in 
occupant protection that can be achieved by the ES-2re should not be 
delayed or lost on the grounds that a more advanced test dummy may be 
available in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Samaha, R.S., Elliot, D., ``NHTSA Side Impact Research: 
Motivation for Upgraded Test Procedures,'' supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The 5th Percentile Female Dummy
A. The 5th Percentile Adult Female Dummy Is an Integral Part of This 
Upgrade
    The Alliance suggested that NHTSA should incorporate only a 50th 
percentile male test dummy in both the pole and MDB tests and 
completely forego use of the 5th percentile female dummy in the final 
rule. The commenter believed that the agency did not provide data 
showing that real-world safety will be improved by use of the 5th 
percentile dummy ``beyond the benefits provided by the industry's 
front-to-side voluntary commitment and the IIHS side impact rating 
test.''
i. Need for the 5th Percentile Dummy in the Pole Test
    According to the Alliance, crash data \37\ demonstrate that narrow 
object side impacts are ``far more likely to involve 50th percentile-
male-sized occupants than 5th percentile-female-sized occupants.'' \38\ 
According to the Alliance, only 4.7 percent of nearside front outboard 
occupant crashes involved a tree or pole impact, and only 0.28 percent 
of nearside front outboard occupant crashes with trees or poles 
involved occupants with a height of 47 to 61 inches. Therefore, the 
Alliance argued, only the 50th percentile adult male dummy is needed in 
the pole test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ The commenter performed an analysis of 1990-2002 NASS CDS 
side crashes with a lateral delta-V range of 12-25 mph, involving 
model years of 1990 or newer vehicles in non-rollover side impacts 
(nearside front-outboard occupants of age 12 years or older with a 
fatality or known MAIS, and no total ejections).
    \38\ The Alliance believed that the 5th percentile adult female 
dummy represented occupants only of heights of 47 to 61 inches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have considered the Alliance's reasoning but conclude that: (a) 
Tree/pole impacts comprise a significant safety problem (b) involving 
smaller occupants.

Tree/Pole Impacts

    We disagree with several of the Alliance's claims. The first 
concerns the magnitude of the side impact safety problem posed by tree 
or pole impacts. The commenter believes that 4.7 percent of nearside 
front outboard occupant crashes involved a tree of pole impact. That 
determination was based on the commenter's analysis of all side crashes 
occurring in 1990-2002 that resulted in any injury, from minor (AIS 1) 
to fatal.\39\ Because there are many more AIS 1 and 2 injuries in the 
accident database than AIS 3+ injuries, we believe that including AIS 1 
and 2 injuries in the analysis masks the frequency of tree or pole 
impacts in crashes causing serious (AIS 3+) injuries and underestimates 
the harm addressed by this rulemaking. As discussed below and in the 
NPRM , an analysis that is focused on side crashes \40\ resulting in a 
fatal injury shows that 21 percent of these crashes involved side 
impacts with rigid narrow objects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Lateral delta-V range of 12-25 mph, model years of 1990 or 
newer vehicles, non-rollover side impacts, nearside front-outboard 
occupants of age 12 years or older.
    \40\ 2001 FARS nearside non-rollover fatalities, model year 1995 
and newer vehicles struck vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the NPRM, NHTSA analyzed fatalities in the 1991, 
1995, and 1999 FARS files using non-rollover, near-side impact data. We 
have now also updated the analysis for 2004 FARS.\41\ The fatalities 
occurred in the front and rear seats of light vehicles in side impacts 
with various objects. The percentage of vehicle-to-rigid narrow object 
impacts has remained stable at approximately 23 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 in Table 10:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ The slight differences in distributions in Table 10 of this 
preamble and those of Table 1 of the NPRM (69 FR at 27993) are due 
to new runs of the data and minor differences in the definition of 
``other'' vehicle types.

                                    Table 10.--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               27.1               20.1               24.0
 Vehicles...........................
FARS 1995 MY 1991 and Later Light                  24.8               33.0               21.2               21.0
 Vehicles...........................
FARS 1999 MY 1995 and Later Light                  20.5               36.3               21.0               22.2
 Vehicles...........................
FARS 2004 MY 2000 and Later Light                  15.4               38.5               23.2               22.9
 Vehicles...........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the number of tree or pole side crashes that occur, the 
analysis shows that tree or pole side impacts are over-represented in 
terms of fatally injured occupants.
Small Stature Occupants Are Seriously Injured in Tree/Pole Impacts
    The second aspect of the Alliance's reasoning with which we 
disagree concerns the involvement of small stature occupants in tree or 
pole side crashes. The commenter believes that only 0.28 percent of 
nearside front outboard occupant crashes with trees or poles involved 
occupants with a height of 47 to 61 inches, and so the 5th percentile 
female dummy is not needed in the pole test.
    We analyzed accident data on drivers involved in side impacts to 
examine characteristics of drivers seriously injured or killed in tree 
or pole impacts. We found in analyzing 1990-2001 National Automotive 
Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (NASS CDS) \42\ crash data 
that smaller stature drivers (height up to 5 feet 4 inches) comprise 
approximately 28 percent of seriously or fatally injured drivers in 
narrow object side impacts. 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

[[Page 51924]]

collisions. The data suggest that smaller stature occupants have a 
higher proportion of head, abdominal and pelvic injuries than medium 
stature occupants, and a lesser proportion of chest injuries. (``NHTSA 
Side Impact Research: Motivation for Upgraded Test Procedures,'' 
Samaha, et al. (2003).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ NASS CDS has detailed data on a representative, random 
sample of thousands of minor, serious, and fatal crashes. Field 
research teams located at Primary Sampling Units across the country 
study about 5,000 crashes a year involving passenger cars, light 
trucks, vans, and utility vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The appropriateness of an anthropomorphic test device for a dynamic 
test depends in part on its ability to represent occupants involved or 
injured in the crash simulated by the dynamic test. There are only two 
side impact dummies existing today representing the sizes of occupants 
seriously injured in side impacts: the SID-IIs and the mid-size adult 
male dummies (e.g., the ES-2re). The height of a smaller stature (5th 
percentile) adult female is 59 inches (4 feet 11 inches). The height of 
a mid-size adult male is about 69 inches (5 feet 9 inches). The mid-
point between the two is 64 inches (5 feet 4 inches). Drivers less than 
64 inches in height are usually female and/or elderly, and are closer 
in physiology to a 5th percentile female than to a 50th percentile 
male. (Drivers taller than 64 inches could also be represented by the 
SID-IIs since driver height falls along a continuum. However, for 
purposes of our analysis of the impacts of this rulemaking, we had to 
make a cut-off and did so at 64 inches.) Accordingly, we have 
determined that the SID-IIs, with its height of 59 inches (4 feet 11 
inches), is representative of occupants of heights up to 64 inches (5 
feet 4 inches). The assumption that a 5th percentile adult female dummy 
is representative of occupants of heights up to 64 inches (5 feet 4 
inches) is consistent with the approach taken by the agency in 
analyzing the impacts of advanced air bags under FMVSS No. 208, 
``Occupant crash protection.''
    The Alliance recommended that NHTSA assume that the SID-IIs only 
represented occupants with a height of 47 (3 feet 11 inches) to 61 (5 
feet 1 inch) inches. We believe this assumption is overly restrictive. 
Sixty-two-, 63- and 64-inch tall adults, mostly women, are more similar 
in build to the SID-IIs than to the 50th percentile male dummy.
    As explained in the next section, including the 5th percentile 
female dummy in the oblique pole test will gain real world benefits 
beyond those attained using just a mid-size adult male dummy in the 
pole test. We estimate that the inclusion of the SID-IIs in the oblique 
pole test will save an additional 78 lives beyond the fatalities saved 
by changes to vehicle designs to meet an oblique pole test using the 
50th percentile male dummy alone. These lives lost annually of smaller 
stature occupants, many of whom are elderly, constitutes a safety 
problem that incorporation of the SID-IIs will address.
Current Side Air Bags Will Be Made Even Better To Enhance Protection to 
Smaller Stature Drivers
    Current combination head/thorax air bags and side curtains 
generally perform well in the IIHS consumer information program side 
impact tests. They will do even better under our regulation.
    The Alliance believed that we should not be concerned that some 
side air bag systems we tested did not meet the IARVs with the SID-IIs. 
The commenter believed that ``current side air bag systems are proving 
to be very effective in real-world side impacts * * * [and] that the 
agency's concerns are unfounded and unwarranted regarding current side 
airbag designs failing to activate properly or providing sufficient 
coverage in real-world crash situations.''
    The primary impact of this regulation on motor vehicle safety will 
be to ensure that head protection is provided in passenger vehicles, 
and to improve on the protection of current bags. In our 214 fleet 
testing program, current side air bags did not always meet the proposed 
criteria when tested with the SID-IIs dummy. In the agency's tests of 
10 vehicles, seven exceeded the injury criteria for the 5th percentile 
female dummy in the oblique pole test (four exceeded HIC, four exceeded 
the lower spine, and seven exceeded the pelvic force criteria). In the 
Ford Five Hundred and Saturn Ion tests, we observed that the side air 
bags deployed after the 5th percentile female dummy had already moved 
toward the very front of the air bag at pole contact and had hit a 
portion of the air curtain/tether interface that was not inflated to 
cushion the impact, which resulted in HIC readings of 1,173 (Ford Five 
Hundred) and 5,203 (Saturn Ion). In the Ford Expedition test, we 
observed that the SID-IIs rotated around the curtain and contacted a 
portion of the air curtain/tether interface that was not inflated to 
cushion the impact, which resulted in an HIC value of 5,661.
    If the ES-2re were the only test dummy used in the pole test, 
countermeasures installed for the ES-2re might not protect the 
population (shorter and/or elderly drivers) represented by the 5th 
percentile female dummy. In the four air bag curtain tests discussed 
above, the HIC values for the ES-2re were moderate to low. The 5th 
percentile female dummy's head is positioned lower than that of the ES-
2re because of sitting height differences between the two dummies. The 
SID-IIs is also farther forward than the ES-2re adult male dummy, which 
leads to differences in the interplay between the dummy and the vehicle 
side structure, roof and side air bag system. The differences in size 
and sitting position between the two dummies affects more than HIC 
responses. In the agency's oblique pole test of the Volkwagen Jetta, 
the pelvic force reading of the SID-IIs was 7,876 N, while the vehicle 
met all the IARVs for the 50th percentile male dummy.
    Air bag sensors could also be improved. As discussed in the NPRM 
(69 FR at 27998), the side air bags in two vehicles that were certified 
as meeting the requirements of a perpendicular crash test (the FMVSS 
No. 201 90-degree pole test) did not deploy when tested with the 5th 
percentile female dummy in the oblique pole test. We do not consider 
this to be a matter of a test artifact or other anomaly of the 
laboratory test conditions. We conclude that the oblique localized 
loading in the pole test (from the two distinct narrow impact locations 
corresponding to the seating positions of both sizes of test dummies) 
will induce more robust crash sensors that will lead to further 
protection in the field.
ii. Need for the 5th Percentile Dummy in the MDB Test
    The Alliance believed that crash data demonstrate that occupants 
with heights less than 65 inches are involved in vehicle-to-vehicle 
side impacts with a ``significant frequency,'' i.e., that adult male 
and adult females are similarly represented in vehicle-to-vehicle 
crashes in the delta-V range of 12-25 mph, in which a front, outboard 
struck-side occupant receives a serious-to-fatal injury. The commenter 
also determined that vehicle-to-vehicle side impacts are significantly 
more frequent compared to tree/pole side impacts. However, the 
commenter believed that ``[T]he industry's voluntary agreement already 
includes requirements for an MDB test using a 5th percentile female 
dummy; we believe NHTSA has not demonstrated the need to overlay this 
agreement with a 5th percentile female MDB regulatory test 
requirement.''
    Ferrari stated that we did not clearly identify the expected 
benefits from the use of the dummy in the MDB test. Ferrari further 
stated that, even if the population represented by the 5th percentile 
female dummy were at a greater risk of head and abdominal injuries, the 
SID-IIs dummy would not provide any increased benefit to this 
population because the dummy ``does not have any feature able to 
measure abdominal injuries, and the risk of

[[Page 51925]]

injuries to the head is much better assessed by the pole impact test 
(not the MDB test). The introduction of the SID-2s [sic], lacking even 
a chest deflection criterion, would not supplement in any way the 
protection provided by the introduction of the ES-2 or ES-2re.''
    Agency response: Based on our evaluation of available data, we have 
decided to require only one MDB test (per side of the vehicle). The MDB 
test specifies use of an ES-2re (50th percentile adult male) dummy in 
the front seating position and a SID-IIs (5th percentile adult female) 
dummy in the rear.
    The NPRM proposed to use the ES-2re dummy in both the front and 
rear outboard seating positions on both sides of the vehicle, and also 
proposed use of the SID-IIs dummy in the front and rear outboard 
seating positions on both sides of the vehicle. We issued the proposal 
based in part on crash data indicating that 35 percent of all serious 
and fatal injuries to nearside occupants occurred to occupants 5 feet 4 
inches (or 163 centimeters) or less, which are best represented by the 
5th percentile female dummy (69 FR at 27991). We also considered the 
results of two MDB tests with the SID-IIsFRG dummy that had indicated a 
need for the dummy. In a test of a 2001 Ford Focus, the pelvic force 
was exceeded for the driver dummy (5,621 N). In a test of a 2002 
Chevrolet Impala, the left rear dummy's lower spine acceleration and 
pelvic force criteria were exceeded (89 g and 5,711 N, respectively). 
Based on those results, we expected that improvements to the arm rest 
area and other structural components would be required to improve 
protection for the 5th percentile occupants (69 FR at 28011).
    Since the NPRM, we have conducted eight MDB tests with the SID-IIs 
dummy in predominantly model year 2005 vehicles. Our crash test results 
have shown that vehicles newer than the 2001 Focus and the 2002 Impala 
are generally able to meet the proposed injury criteria when tested 
with this dummy. (The 2001 Focus has since undergone a mid-cycle design 
change with head/torso combo bags becoming optional for model year 2005 
vehicles. The 2002 Impala has since been redesigned with model year 
2006 vehicles having curtain and thorax bags as standard equipment.)
MDB Test of the Front Seat
    For the driver dummy, 7 of 8 vehicles met the criteria. The one 
exception for the front seat was the 2005 Saturn Ion, which resulted in 
the SID-IIs driver dummy exceeding the pelvic force criterion (8,993 
N).
    The Saturn Ion in the test was equipped with an air curtain, but 
lacked a thorax-mounted side air bag. The lack of thoracic air bag 
protection may have led to the high pelvic force measured by the dummy. 
In our pole testing, the Saturn Ion exceeded the limits on HIC (5,203), 
lower spine acceleration (110 g) and pelvic force (5,755 N). It also 
scored ``poor'' in the IIHS side impact crashworthiness evaluation. 
Based on this complete array of testing with this vehicle, we believe 
that needed improvements to comply with the oblique pole tests of this 
final rule will likely address the one SID-IIs driver dummy failure 
that the agency observed in its MDB test.
    Thus, based on the available data that show:
    (a) All vehicles except the Ion meeting the MDB test when tested 
with the SID-IIs in the front seat; and
    (b) Countermeasures to address the Ion's failing the pelvic 
criterion in the front seat of the pole test when tested with the SID-
IIs could address the failure of the vehicle to meet the pelvic 
criterion in the MDB front seat test--
    The agency has decided not to adopt an MDB test with the SID-IIs in 
the front seating positions.
    The benefits from an MDB test with the SID-IIs in the front seat 
will likely be absorbed by the SID-IIs front seat oblique pole test 
requirements, as suggested by some of the commenters. That is, a 
countermeasure such as a thorax air bag in the front seat of the Ion 
installed to meet the pole test requirements could also enable the Ion 
to meet the pelvic criterion of the MDB rest. Thus, the MDB test of the 
front seat with the SID-IIs dummy is unlikely to lead to improved 
occupant protection, and is not warranted for adoption into FMVSS No. 
214.
    (On the other hand, adoption of the ES-2re dummy in the MDB tests 
to test the front seat of vehicles is warranted. The reasons for 
adopting the ES-2re in the front seat of this test are explained in 
section VI.c of this preamble.)
MDB Test of the Rear Seat
    The test of the rear seat with the SID-IIs resulted in high pelvic 
forces in the Honda Accord and in the Suzuki Forenza. We were concerned 
about these results because rear seat occupants are predominantly made 
up of smaller stature occupants, e.g., children, who more closely 
resemble the anthropometry of the SID-IIs than a 50th percentile adult 
male. All vehicles met all the criteria proposed in the NPRM when 
tested with the ES-2re 50th percentile male dummy.
    In addition, we observed that in the tests of the VW Jetta, Saturn 
Ion, Ford Five Hundred, and Honda Accord, and the Suzuki Forenza,\43\ 
the SID-IIs dummy in the rear seat of the MDB test had elevated 
thoracic and/or abdominal rib deflections that were not observed with 
the rear seat ES-2re dummy. We felt that the rib deflections of the 
SID-IIs were noteworthy, since many experts consider deflection to be 
the best predictor of thoracic injury.\44\ We believed that the SID-
IIs's elevated rib deflections in the rear seat indicated that side 
impact crashworthiness designs in the rear were possibly in need of 
improvement to better protect rear seat occupants, particularly 
children and other smaller stature occupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The Forenza was not tested with the ES-2re dummy.
    \44\ Kuppa, S., Eppinger, R., McKoy, F., Nguyen, T., Yoganandan, 
N., Pintar, F., ``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, The Stapp Association. A paper demonstrating that deflections 
are the best predictors of injury in frontal impacts is by Kent et 
al. (Kent, R., Crandall, J., Bolton, J., Prasad, P., Nusholtz, G., 
Mertz, H., ``The Influence of Superficial Soft Tissues and Restraint 
Condition on Thoracic Skeletal Injury Prediction,'' Stapp Car Crash 
Journal, Vol. 45, November 2003, The Stapp Association.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Incorporation of the SID-IIs into the rear seat MDB test enables us 
to monitor readily the rib deflections measured in the test \45\ to 
assess how the rear seat environment is protecting children and small 
occupants. While the agency did not propose thoracic and abdominal rib 
deflection requirements for the 5th percentile female dummy and thus is 
not adopting rib deflection limits in this final rule, we are 
considering a future rulemaking to adopt limits on the thoracic and 
abdominal rib deflections measured by the SID-IIs in the FMVSS No. 214 
MDB and pole tests. The rulemaking could be a part of a rulemaking to 
incorporate WorldSID into FMVSS No. 214, if such a rulemaking were to 
ensue, or it could be developed on its own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ We will also monitor the SID-IIs rib deflections in the 
oblique pole test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Incorporation of the SID-IIs into FMVSS No. 214's MDB test of the 
rear seat enhances protection of rear seat occupants also because the 
5th percentile adult female dummy better represents the anthropometry 
of rear seat occupants than the SID or the ES-2re (50th percentile male 
dummies). The average seated height of rear-outboard occupants is 
approximately 81.6 centimeters (cm).\46\ The sitting

[[Page 51926]]

height of the SID-IIs is approximately 78.8 cm, while that of the ES-
2re is 88.4 cm. The SID-IIs is closer in height to the average outboard 
rear seat occupant than the SID or the ES-2re. The SID-IIs's ability to 
assess the risk of head injury through the measurement of HIC will 
better ensure that head protection is provided to children and smaller 
stature adults in rear seating positions than through use of the 50th 
percentile adult male test dummies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ A ratio of sitting height to standing height, developed by 
the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute 
(UMTRI), is approximately 0.54. Applying this ratio to the real 
world rear seat occupant data, the mean sitting height of occupants 
in rear outboard seats (excluding those in infant and toddler child 
restraint systems) is 81.6 cm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Safety will also be enhanced by this final rule using the SID-IIs 
in the rear seat since this smaller sized dummy will fit in more 
vehicles, and therefore exclude few vehicles that cannot accommodate 
the 50th percentile male dummy. (Currently, S3(b) of FMVSS No. 214 
excludes the rear seat in passenger cars that have rear seating areas 
that are so small that the 50th percentile adult male test dummy cannot 
be accommodated according to the positioning procedure specified in the 
standard.) We believe use of the SID-IIs in the rear will provide the 
agency with the ability to test more vehicles that have rear seats too 
small to accommodate the mid-size male dummy. On the other hand, we 
have decided not to adopt the ES-2re dummy in the rear seat of the MDB 
tests. Our reasons are explained in section VI.c of this preamble.
iii. Beyond the Voluntary Commitment
    Test data demonstrate the benefit of having the SID-IIs in the pole 
test, notwithstanding the industry's voluntary agreement.\47\ In the 
agency's side impact test program, vehicles that were rated ``Good'' in 
the IIHS side crashworthiness evaluation when tested with the SID-IIs 
exceeded one or more of the injury criteria of this rule when tested 
with the SID-IIs in our pole test program. In the pole test of the 
Volkwagen Jetta, which IIHS scored ``Good,'' the pelvic force (7,876 N) 
exceeded the IARV (limit 5,525 N). In the pole test of the Honda 
Accord, the SID-IIs's pelvic force criterion was over 10,000 N. The 
industry's voluntary commitment does not commit to reducing these 
pelvic forces. However, we can ensure improvement as a result of 
manufacturers' meeting the pole requirements of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ The industry's voluntary commitment is a commitment to meet 
IIHS's recommended practice of HIC15 performance of 779 
or less for a SID-IIs crash dummy in the driver's seating position 
and does not include at this time performance criteria for other 
body regions, specifically, the thoracic and abdominal regions. The 
voluntary commitment also does not address the right front or rear 
seat passenger positions at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. However, Not All of the Proposed FRG Changes Are Needed
    The SID-IIs test dummy has been used by Transport Canada in crash 
tests since the late 1990s and is used by IIHS in its consumer 
information program for ranking vehicle performance. In its initial 
evaluation of the dummy, NHTSA had found some durability problems with 
the dummy's shoulder and ribcage and some chest transducer mechanical 
failures. To improve the durability of the dummy, NHTSA modified the 
dummy to incorporate, among other things, floating rib guides to better 
stabilize the dummy's ribs. (See 69 FR at 70948.)
    The durability problem arose in 6.7 meters per second (m/s) sled 
tests of the SID-IIs Build C dummy using a rigid wall with a 101 mm 
abdominal offset.\48\ Damage in some of the tests included deformed 
abdominal ribs, bent abdominal potentiometer shafts, and/or gouged 
damping material, caused by vertical motion of the ribs and/or 
excessive rib compression. The agency concluded that, under those test 
circumstances, portions of the abdominal and thorax ribs during their 
extreme compression were extending beyond the boundaries of existing 
rib guides, and that under some test conditions, were moving out of 
their initial plane of translation. Such out of plane translation 
caused the linear deflection transducer pivots to exceed their angular 
motion limits, resulting in transducer shaft failures and rib damping 
material gouging due to interaction between the extended ribs and the 
rib guides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ The agency conducted the tests to replicate biomechanical 
sled test impact configurations previously reported by Maltese et 
al. (``Response Corridors of Human Surrogates in Lateral Impacts,'' 
Technical Paper 2002-22-0017. Proceedings, 46th Stapp Car Crash 
Conference, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA developed the floating rib guide system to prevent the 
compressed ribs from leaving the outside perimeter of the rib guides 
and thereby prevent damage to surrounding areas. Rib guides were used 
to ``float'' with the ribs as they expanded in the anterior-posterior 
direction during rib compression. This was intended not only to 
eliminate the problem of ribs extending outside the boundaries of the 
rib guides, but also retain the ribs in their initial plane and thereby 
prevent damage to the transducer shaft. To further prevent damage 
(bending) of potentiometer shafts and damage to potentiometer housings, 
the rib stops were reshaped and changed from a flexible urethane 
material to vinyl-coated aluminum. The maximum lateral rib deflection 
of the dummy was also reduced from 69 mm to 60 mm to further protect 
the instrumentation.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ The FRG design also encompassed other changes to improve 
the durability of the dummy. The shoulder rib guide of the dummy was 
reshaped and deepened beyond the front edge of the shoulder rib to 
keep the shoulder rib from moving vertically during its compression. 
The damping material of the shoulder rib assembly was made thinner 
and spanned the entire width of the steel band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While NHTSA tentatively determined there was a need for the FRG 
modifications, the agency noted in the December 8, 2004 Part 572 NPRM 
that there were other views as to the need for the FRG changes to the 
dummy (69 FR at 70954). The NPRM noted that Transport Canada, IIHS and 
the industry had used the unmodified SID-IIs dummy for several years to 
their satisfaction.
    Comments on the proposed FRG changes: All commenters responding to 
this issue were opposed to or expressed concern about adopting the FRG 
modifications to the SID-IIs dummy. Commenters believed that the 
unmodified Build Level C and/or Build Level D dummies were sufficiently 
durable for crash tests. In its October 14, 2004 comments on the NPRM, 
the Alliance stated that the OSRP SID-IIs Upgrade Task Group \50\ had 
agreed to enhancements of the SID-IIs Build C dummy or modifications 
incorporated into the Build D dummy, but, the Alliance emphasized, OSRP 
had steadfastly maintained that there was no durability problem 
requiring the floating rib guide change to the dummy's thorax. The 
Alliance believed that NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center 
(VRTC)--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ The Alliance stated in its comment, ``The OSRP SID-IIs 
Upgrade Task Group is responsible for coordinating, evaluating and 
approving any design modifications to the SID-IIs dummy, originally 
designed in 1994-95.''

proposed the addition of floating rib guides to the SID-IIs dummy 
based on a small series of sled tests, including a single abdominal 
offset sled test in which the ribs were damaged and exited the 
original rib guides. The test was performed with an improperly 
positioned and improperly scaled abdominal plate that simulated a 
rigid armrest. This setup produced a very severe impact condition 
for the SID-IIs (AF05) dummy. Instead of being scaled for the AF05, 
the test was performed with an abdominal plate that was offset 100 
mm, which are the test conditions for the ES-2 (AM50) dummy. 
Further, the 100 mm offset is at the extreme end of the range of 
armrest width in typical vehicles. In addition, the abdominal plate 
is rigid and therefore provided a more severe impact surface than do 
typically padded and deformable vehicle armrests. This test setup

[[Page 51927]]

produced an impact condition for the AF05 dummy more severe than 
that of full-scale vehicle tests, since the dummy's ribs were 
damaged in the sled test but no rib damage occurred in the vehicle 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
tests using the SID-IIs Version C.

    The Alliance further stated that the agency's concern about the 
accuracy of the acceleration and deflection measurements of the Build 
Level C dummy due to the ribs not staying in place ``does not follow 
logically because it is quite normal to have the ribs deform during 
impact by expanding in the fore-aft dimension of the chest. The fact 
that they change shape and do not stay in place has nothing to do with 
the accuracy of the deflection measurements.''
    IIHS also objected to the agency's use of the 6.7 m/s test. IIHS 
found the FRG version of the SID-IIs ``an unacceptable and unnecessary 
compromise of the original dummy's biofidelity to address an unproven 
durability problem'' (March 4, 2005 comment to Docket 18865). IIHS 
stated:

    Not only have NHTSA's own vehicle crash tests failed to show any 
durability problems with the original dummy design, but Institute 
and industry experience confirms the dummy is durable enough for 
crash testing. As of October 2004 the Institute had conducted 48 
side impact tests with the SID-IIs dummies positioned in the driver 
and rear outboard seating positions, for a total of 96 SID-IIs test 
exposures. Of these only 6 caused any damage to the dummy; in 4 
tests the dummy's shoulder was damaged, and in 2 tests one of the 
abdominal ribs did not pass post-test verification. Similar trends 
are found in the Occupant Safety Research Partnership (OSRP) 
dataset, which includes tests conducted by DaimlerChrysler, General 
Motors, the Institute, and Transport Canada. Of the 241 SID-IIs test 
exposures (or 1,446 exposures to the dummies' individual ribs), only 
21 tests (8.7 percent) caused any dummy damage; of these only 3 
tests (0.3 percent of total rib exposures) exhibited any evidence of 
ribs catching on the vertical guides.

    IIHS recommended that NHTSA adopt the SID-IIs Build Level C or the 
Build Level D dummy into FMVSS No. 214. IIHS stated (Docket 18865):

    Build Level D would incorporate many of the design upgrades 
currently in the FRG version that would improve the dummy while 
maintaining its high biofidelity rating. The changes IIHS supports 
for build level D include redesign of the shoulder rib and rib 
guide, neck mounting bracket, rib stops, and spine box. Using either 
C- or D-level SID-IIs would permit the agency to draw on the dummy's 
accumulated crash test experience to incorporate rib deflection data 
among the FMVSS 214 requirements.

    Some commenters expressed a view that the SID-IIsFRG dummy was 
itself not an adequate a test device for incorporation into 49 CFR part 
572. The Alliance stated that in full vehicle crash tests, there are 
significant differences in the shape and magnitude of the chest 
deflection responses of the SID-IIsFRG and the Build C dummy, with the 
SID-IIsFRG having ``greatly reduced'' deflections. The Alliance stated 
that researchers at Transport Canada and elsewhere found ``no flat-
topping in the original SID-IIs, but severe flat topping in the SID-
IIsFRG.'' Nissan stated that it has observed scratching of the SID-
IIsFRG's rib guides created by rib contact and was concerned that this 
phenomenon could reduce test repeatability using the dummy over time, 
or may negatively affect the accuracy of the rib data.
    Some commenters believed that it was more advantageous to adopt the 
SID-IIs Build Level C or Build Level D dummy than the SID-IIsFRG. The 
Alliance stated that the ISO 9790 biofidelity rating of the SID-IIsFRG 
is only ``fair'' (5.9), while that of the SID-IIs Build C was ``good'' 
(7.0). IIHS expressed serious concern that the FRG modification ``has 
considerably degraded'' the SID-IIs dummy's biofidelity. IIHS supported 
the Build Level C or D dummies in the rulemaking because it would 
permit the agency to incorporate rib deflection data in test 
requirements. IIHS stated:

    Without rib deflection limits for tests with the small dummy, 
the proposed side impact standard will not establish the same 
minimum levels of protection for vehicle occupants of various sizes. 
It is disappointing that part of NHTSA's reason for not including 
SID-IIsFRG rib deflection limits was the need to study the issue 
further. By favoring the FRG modified dummy the agency is ignoring 
the accumulated test experience with the original dummy.

    Advocates expressed ``misgivings over the lack of chest deflection 
measurement capability for the 5th percentile SID-IIsFRG female 
dummy.'' Honda expressed concern that the SID-IIsFRG is not commonly 
used by automakers today. Honda stated that, ``The use of SID-IIs 
[Build Level C or D] will expand because it is specified in the 
[industry's] voluntarily commitment on FMVSS No. 214.'' TRW said that 
using ``known and accepted'' test dummies could help expedite motor 
vehicle manufacturers' meeting their ``voluntary commitment'' to 
install inflatable side head protection systems.
    Agency response: After reviewing the comments and other 
information, we have decided to use the SID-IIs Build Level D test 
dummy, rather than the FRG dummy, in FMVSS No. 214.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ A final rule adopting the Build Level D into 49 CFR part 
572 was published December 14, 2006, 71 FR 75342, Docket 25442. The 
part 572 final rule discusses the biofidelity, repeatability, 
reproducibility, durability, and other aspects of the dummy. The 
document discusses the agency's decision to adopt some but not the 
entirety of the floating rib guide design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SID-IIsFRG floating rib guide concept was developed to improve 
the durability of the SID-IIs dummy under extremely severe impact 
conditions. We have concluded that data now available to the agency do 
not support a need for all of the floating rib guide design. The test 
conditions precipitating the development of the FRG were exceptionally 
severe and appear to be unlike vehicle crashes to which the crash dummy 
is exposed.
    The OSRP task group and IIHS noted that the type of damage reported 
by NHTSA in VRTC sled tests was not experienced in their full scale 
vehicle crash tests. Our own testing bears this out. Since the time of 
the NPRM, NHTSA has used the SID-IIs (Build D) in over 24 oblique pole 
and MDB crash tests without seeing structural or functional problems 
with the dummy. In addition, the agency evaluated four SID-IIs Build D 
dummies in extensive component, sled, and pole and MDB vehicle crash 
tests without sustaining functionality and durability problems.
    The Build D dummy has many of the enhancements of the SID-IIsFRG 
and some enhancements similar to FRG features, including new rib stops, 
larger motion ranges of potentiometers pivots, \1/2\ inch diameter 
potentiometers, and enhancements to the shoulder structure. The 
shoulder enhancements address bending deformation of the shoulder rib, 
delamination and/or gouging damage to the deflection transducer. All of 
these enhancements have improved the structural integrity of the dummy 
and have eliminated the need for all of the floating rib guide design 
changes.
    We further believe that there are advantages to adopting the SID-
IIs Build D dummy rather than the SID-IIsFRG beyond what is needed for 
the durability of the dummy. As noted by the commenters, while the FRG 
was very successful in containing the ribs within the rib guides and in 
preventing potentiometer-transducer failures, the floating rib guides 
added mass and additional stiffness to the ribs. As a result, the FRG 
became less human-like, rib deflections seriously reduced, and the 
shape of the deflection-time histories changed compared to testing 
under similar loading conditions without the FRG. Id.

[[Page 51928]]

    IIHS uses the SID-IIs in its side impact consumer information 
program. IIHS noted in its comments to the NPRM that Build D would 
incorporate many of the design upgrades currently in the FRG version 
that would improve the dummy while maintaining the dummy's high 
biofidelity rating. Transport Canada plans to continue using the SID-
IIs in its research program. Using Build D in FMVSS No. 214 means that 
the same dummy will be used in governmental and non-governmental 
consumer information and research programs. This consistency will 
enhance the testing of vehicles by making the test results from NHTSA, 
Transport Canada, IIHS and industry in many ways more comparable. Using 
the same test dummy will also more effectively focus research and 
design efforts on more consistent and effective countermeasures that 
will most successfully protect smaller stature occupants. Accordingly, 
this final rule adopts use of the SID-IIs test dummy into the 
compliance tests of FMVSS No. 214.

b. Aspects of the Pole Test Procedure

    In the NPRM, the agency proposed a dynamic vehicle-to-pole test 
that is similar to the one used to test some vehicles under FMVSS No. 
201, except that the test procedure would involve an angle of impact of 
75 degrees (instead of 90 degrees) and a test speed of up to and 
including 32 km/h (20 mph) (instead of 24-29 km/h (15-18 mph)). We 
further proposed to amend FMVSS No. 201 such that, if the oblique 32 
km/h (20 mph) pole test were added to FMVSS No. 214, vehicles certified 
to the latter test would be excluded from having to be certified to 
FMVSS No. 201's 90 degree, 29 km/h (18 mph) pole test.
    Virtually all of the commenters supported the adoption of a pole 
test to enhance side impact occupant protection further. These 
commenters included the Alliance, which supported a 32 km/h (20 mph) 
test using a 75-degree oblique impact angle. However, Ferrari, Lotus, 
and Maserati supported a pole test that was harmonized with the pole 
test of EuroNCAP (perpendicular 29 km/h (18 mph) impact).
1. Speed
    The NPRM proposed (in section S9.1.1 of the proposed regulatory 
text) that each vehicle must meet the oblique pole test requirements 
when tested ``at any speed up to and including 32 km/h (20 mph).'' The 
agency also requested comments on the alternative of a 29 km/h (18 mph) 
test speed, which is used in the optional perpendicular pole test of 
FMVSS No. 201.
    Nearly all commenters supported the 32 km/h (20 mph) test speed. 
The Alliance supported a 32 km/h (20 mph) test speed, but recommended 
bounding it with a lower bound as is done with the FMVSS No. 201 
optional pole test. FMVSS No. 201 sets a lower limit of 24 km/h (15 
mph) in the pole test. In setting the FMVSS No. 201 final rule, NHTSA 
concluded that a 24 km/h (15 mph) lower limit was appropriate because 
24 km/h (15 mph) represented the point at which occupants experience 
moderate to serious (AIS 2 and AIS 3) injuries. The agency believed 
that testing at impact speeds below which a dynamic head protection 
system would deploy or offer any meaningful safety benefits would serve 
no purpose. (64 FR 69665, December 14, 1999.) The Alliance and 
DaimlerChrysler commented that, since the increase in lateral velocity 
from a 29 km/h (18 mph) perpendicular pole test to a 32 km/h (20 mph) 
75-degree oblique test is only 1.3 mph, the minimum oblique test speed 
should be 1 mph over the current minimum perpendicular test speed of 24 
km/h (15 mph) in FMVSS No. 201.
    Public Citizen expressed its support for a 32 km/h (20 mph) test 
speed, stating that such a speed ``appropriately protects from the 
depth of intrusion that occurs when passenger cars are hit in the side 
by a pickup truck or SUV.'' A private individual, Mr. William Watson, 
believed that the designs needed to comply with the higher test speed 
would not place an undue burden upon manufacturers, but simply provide 
a higher margin of safety for occupants. Autoliv supported the higher 
test speed of 32 km/h (20 mph) on the basis that the commenter believed 
it would benefit more occupants in real world crashes. It also stated 
that the higher speed would present some challenges, particularly for 
the new criteria for thorax protection. However, Autoliv did not 
anticipate that these challenges would affect its ability to meet 
product demand during the proposed phase-in requirements. TRW believed 
that the side protection systems designed to meet the requirements of 
the NPRM could perform acceptably for out-of-position (OOP) occupants.
    Opposed to the 32 km/h (20 mph) test speed were Ferrari and 
Maserati. Ferrari believed that increasing the pole test speed from 18 
to 20 mph would be excessively burdensome, forcing manufacturers to 
redesign side structures and head protection side bags. Further, 
Ferrari believed that it would force an increase in the power of the 
head protection side bag, which might lead to an increased injury risk 
for children and occupants that are OOP. The commenter believed that a 
pole test that is consistent with the EuroNCAP side pole impact test, 
i.e., an 18 mph perpendicular pole test, is the only way the test can 
be reasonable and practicable for small volume manufacturers.
    Agency response: After carefully reviewing the comments, the agency 
has decided to adopt the pole test speed proposed in the NPRM. The 
oblique pole test procedure is conducted at any speed up to and 
including 32 km/h (20 mph). A higher test speed than 29 km/h (18 mph) 
will provide for a higher degree of safety and will benefit more 
occupants in the real world. As previously noted in the NPRM for this 
final rule, the agency found that crashes with a delta-V of 32 km/h (20 
mph) or higher result in approximately half of the seriously injured 
occupants in narrow object side impact crashes (69 FR at 27997). A test 
conducted at 32 km/h (20 mph) maximum speed better represents the speed 
of real world crashes that result in serious injury than an 18-mph 
test. Based on our testing, we believe that it is feasible to meet the 
test requirements at 32 km/h (20 mph) and there would be little cost 
differential.
    The practicability of meeting the requirements at the 32 km/h (20 
mph) test speed was evidenced by the results of the agency's testing of 
the model year 2005 Subaru Forester, Volkswagen Beetle and Saab 9-3. We 
further note that the Beetle and the Saab 9-3 were also reported to be 
in compliance with the voluntary TWG requirements for out-of-position 
occupant assessment. Further, Autoliv and TRW commented that 
countermeasures could be designed to meet the higher speed oblique pole 
test, and also perform acceptably for out-of-position occupants.
    We do not agree with the Alliance's suggestion of narrowing the 
oblique pole test speed range to 26 km/h to 32 km/h (16 to 20 mph). 
Limiting the test speed range would not ensure protection for side 
impact crashes that occur at delta-Vs under 26 km/h (16 mph). Our crash 
databases have shown that crashes with a delta-V of 26 km/h (16 mph) or 
less result in approximately a third of the fatalities and almost half 
of the MAIS 3-5 non-fatally injured occupants in near-side crashes. 
This analysis was based on front-outboard adult occupants with serious 
or fatal injuries in 1997-2003 NASS non-rollover, near-side 
crashes.\52\ Based on the crash data, we believe that there is

[[Page 51929]]

a demonstrated safety need to require manufacturers to ensure that 
vehicles provide improved protection in crashes below 26 km/h (16 mph).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Delta-V distributions were derived from 1997-2003 CDS. 
Fatalities were adjusted to the 2001 FARS level, and non-fatal 
injuries to the 2001 GES level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that our motivation for this rulemaking was to establish a 
comprehensive side impact upgrade that required a systems approach to 
improve protection against head, thoracic, abdominal and pelvic 
injuries in a vehicle-to-pole test. It was not to duplicate FMVSS No. 
201, which is primarily intended to address head impacts to the vehicle 
interior compartment. Only as a consideration of regulatory burden did 
we explore the degree to which the oblique pole test duplicated the 
requirements of FMVSS No. 201. While compliance with the FMVSS No. 214 
oblique pole test supersedes the need to conduct a FMVSS No. 201 pole 
test, the agency did not intend to mimic the boundary conditions of 
that test.
    Nor do we want to. When the 24 to 29 km/h (15 to 18 mph) pole test 
speed range was adopted in FMVSS No. 201 in 1999, side impact air bag 
systems were only starting to emerge. The goal of the agency in 
adopting a lower limit in FMVSS No. 201 was to reduce test burdens and 
to facilitate the introduction of these systems. The goal of today's 
rulemaking is to upgrade overall side impact protection, particularly 
in pole-type crashes. Since 1999, side impact air bags have become 
proven countermeasures that are effective in protecting against head, 
chest, abdominal and pelvic injuries, and in helping retain an occupant 
within the safe environment of the vehicle compartment. If the 
countermeasure is effective in reducing the risk of serious injury in 
crashes below 26 km/h (16 mph), we know of no compelling reason not to 
set a performance requirement that would necessitate its employment. If 
deploying the air bag is not needed to meet the injury criteria at a 
speed below a certain threshold, the manufacturer can make a 
manufacturing decision based on that fact when designing the vehicle. 
It may pose a test burden for the manufacturer to determine what that 
threshold should be, but it is a burden that is offset by the 
enhancement to side impact protection achievable in pole-type crashes.
    For different vehicle designs, the threshold of when an air bag is 
needed to meet the injury criteria could differ. Establishing a lower 
test speed range in the oblique pole test could have the causal effect 
of establishing ``design points'' for restraint systems that may or may 
not be optimal to vehicle design. The threshold for air bag deployment 
(gray zone) can be dependent on many vehicle attributes, such as side 
structure strength, energy absorption, air bag characteristics, etc. 
One vehicle design may be able to meet the injury criteria without an 
air bag at 24 km/h (15 mph), while another might need an air bag to 
meet an oblique pole test at that same speed. To prescribe a 26 km/h 
(16 mph) lower bound for the test speed might force a test condition 
that may not be ideal for occupant safety, given individual gray zones 
and compliance margins. Therefore, to ensure occupant protection at 
impact speeds below 26 km/h (16 mph), the final rule adopts the 
proposed oblique pole test conditions up to and including 32 km/h (20 
mph), rather than a reduced range of 26 km/h (16 mph) to 32 km/h (20 
mph).
    The agency is also not persuaded by Ferrari's comments that the 
oblique pole test would be excessively burdensome. As discussed in the 
lead time section of this notice, the agency believes that vehicle 
manufacturers will have ample time to redesign their vehicles to meet 
the new requirements. By complying with the FMVSS No. 214 oblique test, 
excessive burden from complying with the FMVSS No. 201 pole test is 
removed.
2. Angle
    The proposed 75-degree impact angle was generally supported except 
by Ferrari, Lotus and Maserati, which supported a 90-degree test 
similar to that of EuroNCAP. Ferrari added that an oblique pole test 
would force the manufacturers to focus their efforts on specific test 
conditions, detrimental to other ones (e.g., out-of-position 
occupants).
    DaimlerChrysler believed that the perpendicular pole impact versus 
the 75-degree impact is not radically different and would provide 
similar levels of occupant protection. However, it stated that the 
perpendicular approach had qualitative benefits, such as simplicity in 
test setup, reproducibility, test dummy capability, and harmonization. 
The commenter stated that, although the agency has encountered specific 
cases in which a vehicle designed to comply with the perpendicular 
impact failed to detect the 75-degree oblique pole impact, 
DaimlerChrysler was not aware of this as a real world issue.
    In support of the proposed impact angle, William Watson believed 
that the 75-degree pole test is a clear improvement over the 
perpendicular test in terms of the real world applicability and 
occupant protection. However, Mr. Watson stated that choosing one 
specific test angle might lead to restraint and sensor designs that 
perform poorly for other angles. He believed that more than one impact 
angle should be tested, given the agency's data that suggests a 
difference of 15 degrees can produce significantly different sensing 
responses. Therefore, the commenter recommended that we retain the 
current perpendicular pole test and add the 75-degree oblique test as a 
supplemental requirement.
    Agency response: The agency has decided to adopt the 75-degree 
impact angle proposed in the NPRM. The agency concludes that the 
oblique pole test will enhance safety because it is more representative 
of real-world side impact pole crashes than a 90-degree test. Frontal 
oblique crashes account for the highest percentage of seriously injured 
(MAIS 3+) near-side occupants in narrow object crashes, and our 
research indicates that the 75-degree impact is repeatable to simulate 
in a laboratory test.
    A 75-degree approach angle is preferable to a 90-degree angle 
because the oblique impact exposes the dummy's head and thorax to both 
longitudinal and lateral crash forces that are typically experienced in 
real world side impacts. Weighted 1999-2001 NASS CDS side impact data 
show that in narrow object crashes, serious head and chest are dominant 
for both small and large stature occupants (69 FR 27998). The oblique 
pole test thus better emulates real world crash conditions than a 
perpendicular impact. NHTSA estimates that 311 lives would be saved by 
the oblique pole test using a 50th percentile adult male dummy and a 
5th percentile adult female dummy,\53\ while 224 lives would be saved 
by a perpendicular test using the same dummies. At a 3 percent discount 
rate, the cost per equivalent life saved is $1.84 million for an 
oblique impact test requirement, and $2.11 million for a perpendicular 
test requirement. At a 7 percent discount rate, the cost per equivalent 
life saved is $2.31 million for the oblique test, and $2.65 million for 
a perpendicular test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ With a curtain and 2-sensor system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Combination and other SIABs will generally be more protective if 
the agency adopted a 75-degree vehicle-to-pole test instead of a 90-
degree one, particularly if the SID-IIs and ES-2re dummies were both 
used in the pole test. A SIAB just wide enough to meet a perpendicular 
pole test may be less protective in an oblique crash, as the occupant 
in an oblique crash will move laterally and forward at an angle rather 
than moving strictly laterally into the air

[[Page 51930]]

bag.\54\ Some torso air bags may need to be redesigned to extend the 
air pocket further forward toward the A-pillar to provide coverage in a 
75-degree oblique test. The VW Jetta, Honda Accord, and Subaru Forester 
received ``Good'' ratings in IIHS's side impact consumer information 
program when tested with the SID-IIs in a perpendicular impact. 
However, in our 214 fleet testing program with the SID-IIs, the VW 
Jetta resulted in a pelvic force value of 7,876 N, which exceeds the 
5,525 N criterion of this final rule. In an oblique test, the SID-IIs 
in the Honda Accord measured a pelvic force value of 10,848 N. The 
Subaru Forester tested obliquely with the SID-IIs resulted in an 
abdominal deflection value of 45 mm. The oblique pole test will require 
these vehicles to provide protection of the 5th percentile adult 
female's abdomen/pelvis areas; these improvements would not generally 
result from a 90-degree test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Using two dummies in a 90-degree pole test will not 
necessarily lead to wider, more protective SIABs. If the SIAB were 
seat-mounted, the seat-mounted SIAB would travel along the seat 
track with the dummies. A SIAB could be tuned to meet a 90-degree 
pole test with both dummies and not provide benefits in an oblique 
impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other examples of how an oblique versus perpendicular impact can 
affect a vehicle's ability to provide head protection were provided in 
the NPRM. In a 75-degree test of a Nissan Maxima with the ES-2 dummy, 
the head of the dummy rotated into the pole notwithstanding the 
presence of a combination head/thorax side impact air bag. The HIC 
score was 5,254. In a 90-degree test, the same model year Maxima 
produced a HIC score of 130.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Other data from crash tests conducted in support of the 
NPRM showed 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our test program, four of the 10 vehicles tested with the SID-
IIs had side air curtains that exceeded 1,000 HIC in the oblique impact 
(see the agency's docketed technical report on the test program, 
summarized in Section IV of this preamble, for a full discussion of the 
test program). The SID-IIs rotated around the front edge of the air bag 
or hit the front-most pocket of the curtain, which allowed for the 
dummy's head to contact a portion of the air curtain/tether interface 
that did not cushion the impact. HIC values were in the thousands. 
These curtains will be more protective when designed to meet oblique 
pole test requirements.
    Wider and more protective side air curtains resulting from an 
oblique pole test will be beneficial in reducing partial occupant 
ejection through side windows.\56\ There were 5,400 ejected fatalities 
through front side windows in 2001. 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 were from partial 
ejections. Fatal injuries from partial ejection can occur even to 
belted occupants,\57\ when their head protrudes outside the window and 
strikes the ground in a rollover or strikes the striking object (e.g., 
pole or a taller vehicle hood) in a side impact. Window curtains that 
meet the oblique pole test will better protect against these partial 
ejections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ ``Rollover Ejection Mitigation Using Inflatable Tubular 
Structures,'' Simula, et al., 1998; ``Status of NHTSA's Ejection 
Mitigation Research Program,'' Willke, et al., ESV 2003.
    \57\ About 60 percent of the partial ejections occurred to 
belted occupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are not supportive of maintaining both the 75-degree oblique 
pole test and the FMVSS No. 201 pole test in the standard, as suggested 
by Mr. Watson. While the inclusion of both tests could provide more 
assurance of occupant safety, we are concerned whether the test burdens 
are justified. Although we found in our testing that some air bag 
systems that met the FMVSS No. 201 pole test did not deploy the air bag 
in the agency's 75-degree oblique pole test, we do not expect the 
opposite trend from the adoption of this regulation. Vehicles will be 
subject to testing by IIHS in its side impact consumer information 
program, which conducts 90-degree MDB tests. Side air bag sensors will 
therefore be designed to sense such impact orientations. Further, even 
in the absence of the IIHS test, we believe that the use of two test 
dummies, two seating procedures and an oblique angle in the FMVSS No. 
214 pole test will induce the use of sensor designs and mounting 
locations that will be sufficiently robust to detect both 75-degree and 
90-degree impacts.
3. Positioning the Seat for the Test
A. Fore-and-Aft Seating Position
    For the oblique pole test, the agency proposed to position the test 
dummies fore-and-aft along the vehicle seat track, according to the 
current FMVSS No. 214 seat positioning procedure, as opposed to the 
procedure specified in FMVSS No. 201. The proposed procedure would 
place the seat at the full-forward position for the 5th percentile 
female dummy and the mid-track position for the 50th percentile male 
dummy.
    Public Citizen and Advocates supported NHTSA's proposed seating 
position for the dummies. They believed that these positions would 
assure that air bags installed to comply with the standard would 
provide a relatively broad zone of protection. While supporting the two 
proposed seating positions, Mr. Watson believed that NHTSA should also 
test with the seating position fully forward, mid-track, and fully 
rearward to ensure the widest restraint coverage and the most robust 
sensing technique.
    DaimlerChrysler and the Alliance supported the mid-track seating 
position for the ES-2 dummy. However, the Alliance stated that the 
WorldSID test dummy should be positioned according to the seat track 
and seat back adjustment procedure based on a University of Michigan 
Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) Seating Accommodation Model. 
The Alliance stated that the UMTRI model is based on a study of actual 
seating positions selected by drivers who are the same size as the 50th 
percentile adult male frontal dummy and the 5th percentile adult female 
frontal crash test dummy. In its comment, IIHS stated that the UMTRI 
seat position should be used for both the 5th female dummy and for the 
ES-2re 50th percentile dummy. IIHS believed that the UMTRI procedure is 
more representative of real world seating behavior, which IIHS stated 
is typically rearward of the proposed positions. IIHS stated that if 
the agency decides to use the mid-track position for the 50th 
percentile male dummy, the range of occupant sizes protected by the 
proposed head protection will not be as large as intended by the 
agency.
    Nissan did not support the proposed seat positions for the pole 
test. It believed that the dummy in the proposed positions might be 
close enough to the A- or B-pillar that these structures would 
interfere with the dummy's head prior to contact with the pole. Nissan 
believes that this circumstance could result in reduced test 
repeatability, and it therefore recommended the seat positions used in 
the FMVSS No. 201 pole test procedure.
    Ferrari objected to the proposed positioning procedure for the 50th 
percentile male dummy. Ferrari stated that using only the control that 
primarily moves the seat in the fore-and-aft direction, as proposed in 
the new procedure, changes the mid-point of the seating position from 
the current position.

[[Page 51931]]

    Agency response: After carefully reviewing the comments on seating 
procedures, the agency decided to adopt the NPRM proposal on 
positioning the test dummies fore-and-aft along the vehicle seat track. 
We agree with commenters that stated these positions (full forward for 
the 5th percentile female dummy; mid-track for the 50th percentile male 
dummy) would assure that air bags installed to comply with the standard 
would provide a relatively broad zone of protection. While we also 
agree with Mr. Watson's suggestion that testing with the seat 
positioned in the full rearward position could provide even more 
coverage, we also had to maintain a level of practicability in 
establishing the requirements. Positioning the dummy further rearward 
could present potential B-pillar interference and repeatability issues, 
such as those cited by Nissan. Neither the agency nor the commenter has 
data to support such a proposal at this time.
    We were not persuaded by IIHS's suggestion of using the UMTRI seat 
track and seat back adjustment for the SID-IIs and ES-2re dummies in 
the oblique pole test configuration. On February 23, 2004, NHTSA denied 
a petition for rulemaking to adopt the UMTRI procedure in FMVSS No. 
214.\58\ The agency concluded that there was a lack of evidence 
supporting the UMTRI procedure. IIHS noted in their FMVSS No. 214 
comments that the UMTRI seating procedure typically positions both 
dummies rearward of the proposed positions. However, no data was 
provided to support the claim that the UMTRI position provided more 
coverage than that proposed by the NPRM. Furthermore, no data was 
provided to support that such a change in seating procedure would be 
practicable, repeatable, and result in measurable benefit. Therefore, 
we are not considering it for incorporation into FMVSS No. 214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See 69 FR 8161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Alliance's recommendation on how to seat the WorldSID dummy is 
out of scope for this rulemaking. As previously discussed, research 
will need to be conducted in conjunction with the federalization of 
that dummy.
    In response to Nissan, we do not agree that the seating procedure 
would result in A- or B-pillar interference with the dummy's head prior 
to contact with the pole. We have not observed this in our crash tests 
to date. Further, no data was submitted to the agency to support this 
claim. Furthermore, our testing has shown that the oblique pole test 
procedure is repeatable. Accordingly, we do not agree it is necessary 
to adopt the FMVSS No. 201 pole test seating procedure.
    In response to Ferrari, this final rule adopts the specification of 
the new positioning procedure that only the control that primarily 
moves the seat in the fore-and-aft direction is used to position the 
seat along the seat track. This procedure is simpler than the current 
FMVSS No. 214 procedure, and produces more repeatable seat positioning 
of complex power seats than the current procedure. We also believe that 
the differences, if any, in seat placement along the seat track will be 
minimal. The new procedure was used successfully in NHTSA's 214 fleet 
testing program (see Section IV, supra).
B. Head Restraints
    The Alliance and Honda requested clarification of the positioning 
of head restraints for all seating positions. In the proposed 
regulatory text, sections that involve seating the SID-IIs dummy in the 
front and rear seats (proposed 8.3.2.2 and 8.3.3.2, respectively) state 
that any adjustable head restraint is to be positioned in the lowest 
and most forward position. However, sections that involve seating the 
ES-2re dummy in the front and rear seats (sections 8.3.1.2 and 8.3.4) 
state that any adjustable head restraint is to be positioned in the 
lowest and most forward position for the front seat, and in its highest 
position for the rear seat. The Alliance recommended that any 
adjustable head restraints be placed in the manufacturers' specified 
position, while Honda believes the head restraints should be positioned 
in its highest position, as currently required by FMVSS No. 214.
    Agency response: We concur with the need for clarification of the 
proposed regulatory text pertaining to head restraint positioning. The 
agency's intent was to maintain the head restraint positioning 
currently used in the MDB test of FMVSS No. 214 for the ES-2re dummy 
(highest and most forward adjustment position) and to position the head 
restraint in the lowest and most forward position for the SID-IIs 
dummy. Accordingly, we have revised the ES-2re regulatory text to 
reflect our intent. We were not persuaded by the Alliance's 
recommendation to adopt the manufacturer's specified position for head 
restraint adjustment. The highest position of adjustment has been used 
for the SID dummy in FMVSS No. 214 MDB tests for many years, and we do 
not anticipate any significant differences in head restraint 
interaction with the ES-2re dummy that would warrant a change in 
specification. Furthermore, the Alliance did not provide a rationale 
for its requested change.
    The final rule does, however, add clarification in the regulatory 
text for head restraint designs with adjustable backset when tested 
with the ES-2re dummy. Proposed paragraph S8.3.1.2 is amended to 
specify that an adjustable head restraint must be positioned to its 
highest and most forward adjustment position.
4. Impact Reference Line
    S10.12.2 states that 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. 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.
    Ferrari commented that contact between the center line of the rigid 
pole surface and the vehicle does not represent the initial contact 
between the pole and the vehicle. Ferrari requested that the proposed 
test procedure be modified so that the 38 mm tolerance refers to the 
initial impact point rather than the contact point of the center line 
of the pole surface as viewed from the direction of the vehicle motion.
    Agency response: Ferrari provided two schematics to illustrate its 
comments. (http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf92/338984_web.pdf) In the 
schematics, Ferrari erroneously interpreted the forward motion of the 
test vehicle relative to the pole and initial impact point. In order to 
achieve the proper impact configuration, the test vehicle is propelled 
sideways at an angle (285 degrees for right and 75 degree for left side 
impact) into the stationary pole, not perpendicular as shown in the 
schematics. To clarify the test set up, the agency has decided to 
include in the compliance test procedure a schematic depicting the 
impact configuration.
5. Test Attitude
    The NPRM proposed 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

[[Page 51932]]

delivered,'' ``fully loaded,'' and ``pre-test (or as tested)'' 
conditions. The NPRM proposed 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, a test attitude is determined based on door-
sill angle measurements to control the vehicle's pitch attitude.
    The NPRM also proposed 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. NHTSA 
proposed these changes because measuring the angles more directly will 
better facilitate, and more accurately determine, the vehicle attitudes 
than by use of the method in current S6.2 of FMVSS No. 214 (specifying 
test procedures 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 requested comments on keeping the present 
method used to determine vehicle test attitude, but adding a  10 mm tolerance.
    DaimlerChrysler and the Alliance commented that there was no 
proposed specification regarding the vehicle's vertical position 
relative to ground. They believed that, for the MDB test, the resultant 
vehicle setup might not reproduce the intended relationship between the 
vehicle and MDB. The Alliance also stated that while the procedure 
would provide for measurement of vehicle pitch and roll attitude, it is 
not clear that this offers benefit with regard to execution of the 
test. The Alliance recommended that the current set procedure be 
retained with the following exception: in determining the fully loaded 
vehicle weight and attitude, there should be specifications on placing 
weights representing the necessary test dummies in the seating 
positions. Finally, the Alliance suggested that we provide direction on 
determining test attitude and ride height for vehicles equipped with 
dynamic suspension systems that adjust ride height based on vehicle 
velocity or that can be manually set by the driver for differing road 
conditions (e.g., off-road, luxury ride, etc.).
    Agency response: The vehicle attitude specifications assure that 
proper attitude is attained prior to impact. As stated in the NPRM, the 
agency believed that measuring pitch and roll angles more directly and 
more accurately determines the vehicle attitude than using the current 
method. The agency used the proposed method during the 214 fleet 
testing program conducted in support of this final rule. The test 
vehicles were loaded in accordance with S8.1, using instructions in the 
draft test procedure. Ballast representing the weight of the test 
device was placed in the seat to determine the ``fully loaded'' 
condition. The proposed method yielded the intended result of assuring 
proper attitude in the agency's pole tests. For these reasons, the 
agency has decided to adopt the proposed revised method for the pole 
test.
    For the MDB test, the agency agrees that a specification regarding 
the vehicle's vertical position relative to ground is desirable. The 
agency has decided to maintain the present method used to determine 
vertical height measurements, but is adding a  10 mm 
tolerance. In addition, instructions to assure that conventional and 
dynamic suspensions are exercised prior to taking attitude measurements 
have been included in the agency's test procedure.
    Regarding the Alliance's suggestion that there should be 
specifications on placing weights representing the necessary test 
dummies in the seating positions, NHTSA currently allows various forms 
of ballast (other than an actual dummy). We do not believe that 
instructions are needed regarding what ballast should be used or how 
the ballast should be placed on the seat for proper weight 
distribution. For our 214 fleet testing program, one test laboratory 
used a ``ballast dummy'' to attain the fully loaded condition, while 
another used sand bags. Both methods were acceptable, yielding valid 
results.
6. Rear Seat Pole Test
    The NPRM proposed to apply the pole test to only the driver and 
front outboard passenger seats because years of conducting the optional 
pole test in FMVSS No. 201 have yielded substantial information about 
meeting pole test requirements for those seats, while far less 
information was known about the rear seat. The agency also believed 
that rear seat occupants make up a small percentage of the seriously 
injured occupants in side crashes. We also found it compelling that 
side air curtains generally cover both front and rear side window 
openings and thus would also afford some degree of head protection to 
rear seat occupants even in the absence of a test applying to the rear 
seat. We also recognized that applying the test to the rear seats would 
require at least twice as many tests per vehicle, increasing the cost 
and burden of the rulemaking, with minimal assured benefit.
    Consumers Union, Advocates, Public Citizen, and Mr. Watson 
expressed concern about not applying the test to the rear seat. The 
commenters believed that equivalent protection in side impacts should 
be provided to rear seat occupants. Advocates commented that either the 
agency must also apply the pole test to rear seats or should modify the 
current FMVSS No. 214 MDB so that it induces dynamic protection 
countermeasures for the rear seat occupants. Advocates and Public 
Citizen believed that an additional pole test would encourage 
manufacturers to install side air bags for rear occupants and improve 
protection for the elderly and children, who are often seated in the 
rear of the vehicle. Mr. Watson believed that air bag sensing 
arrangements may not be able to deploy the countermeasures for a 
variety of rear door impacts, and therefore recommended that the agency 
require an identical pole test for the rear seat occupant. Autoliv 
suggested possibly regulating only head impacts for rear seat occupants 
since few vehicles have been currently developed for rear seat thorax 
protection during a pole impact.
    Agency response: We have decided against applying the pole test to 
the rear seating positions. As noted earlier in this preamble, rear 
seat safety is enhanced by this final rule in several ways. For the 
first time, a HIC criterion is adopted for rear seat occupants. In 
addition, use of the SID-IIs (5th percentile adult female) test dummy 
in testing rear seats in the MDB test of FMVSS No. 214 (discussed later 
in this preamble) will assess the rear seat environment in protecting 
children, the elderly and small adults--a more vulnerable population 
than the mid-size adult male population--in rear seating positions in 
vehicle-to-vehicle crashes. The SID-IIs dummy is more representative of 
rear seat occupants than SID, and the injury assessment reference 
values we will use with the dummy are set at levels that reflect the 
effect of aging on tolerance.
    However, with specific regard to the pole test, a consideration of 
several factors leads us to decline to apply the pole test to rear 
seating positions. Directly applying the pole test to the rear seat is 
not necessary for the pole test to enhance rear seat safety. Air 
curtains cover both front and rear side window openings, and are 
tethered to the A- and C-pillars of vehicles. Curtains tethered to the 
A- and C-pillars will be large enough to cover both front and rear side 
window openings and will

[[Page 51933]]

afford protection to both front and rear seat occupants in side 
impacts.
    We believe that manufacturers will increasingly install air 
curtains in their vehicles because air curtains can potentially be used 
as a countermeasure in preventing ejection in rollovers. (``NHTSA 
Vehicle Safety Rulemaking Priorities and Supporting Research: 2003-
2006,'' July 2003, Docket 15505.) NHTSA has announced that it is 
developing a proposal for an ejection mitigation containment 
requirement.\59\ NHTSA believes that side curtains installed pursuant 
to FMVSS No. 214's pole test could readily be developed to satisfy the 
desired properties of a countermeasure. (NHTSA report ``Initiatives to 
Address the Mitigation of Rollovers,'' supra.) We believe that 
manufacturers will install curtains in increasing numbers of vehicles 
in response to this final rule, the voluntary commitment, and in 
anticipation of NHTSA's ejection mitigation rulemaking. The curtains 
will provide head protection to front and rear seat occupants in side 
impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Additionally, Sec. 10301 of SAFETEA-LU requires the 
Secretary to issue by October 1, 2009 an ejection mitigation final 
rule reducing complete and partial ejections of occupants from 
outboard seating positions (49 U.S.C. 30128(c)(1)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have also decided against applying the pole test to rear seating 
positions because, as noted in the NPRM, 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 with 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. As stated in the NPRM (69 FR 28011), the 
1997-2001 NASS CDS annualized fatality distribution for rear outboard 
occupants indicates there were 22 fatalities caused by a vehicle-to-
pole side crash, 7 of which were due to head injury.
    In addition, we are not applying the pole test to rear positions 
out of a concern that more needs to be known about seat-mounted SIABs 
in rear seating positions. Currently, almost no vehicle has seat-
mounted air bag systems in rear seats. If a pole test were applied to 
the rear seat, seat-mounted SIABs might emerge to meet chest protection 
requirements. At this time, we have limited information about the 
performance of rear seat-mounted air bag systems in meeting the TWG 
performance guidelines. We believe that more has to be learned about 
the risk to children in rear seating positions before we proceed with 
adopting a requirement that will encourage the installation of seat-
mounted SIABs as a countermeasure to that requirement.
7. Door Closed
    FMVSS No. 214 currently prohibits any side door that is struck by 
the MDB 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: the door shall not 
disengage from the latched position; 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 neither the latch 
nor the hinge systems of the door shall pull out of their anchorages. 
The NPRM proposed to apply the same door separation/opening 
prohibitions to vehicles tested in the vehicle-to-pole tests.
    The only comments on the proposal were from Advocates and Public 
Citizen, which opposed the proposal. The commenters believed that, to 
improve ``anti-ejection countermeasures'' the standard should not 
permit struck doors to become unlatched in the pole test.
    Agency response: This final rule does not make a change from the 
proposal. NHTSA has not observed the struck door unlatching in the 
optional pole test of FMVSS No. 201, or in the agency's vehicle pole 
tests discussed in the technical report on the test program. The test 
data indicate that vehicle manufacturers are already designing their 
vehicles such that the struck door will not unlatch during the pole 
test.
8. FMVSS No. 201 Pole Test
    FMVSS No. 201 specifies an optional 90-degree, 29 km/h (18 mph) 
pole test using a SID-H3 driver dummy (1000 HIC36 test 
criterion). The NPRM proposed to amend FMVSS No. 201 to exclude 
vehicles certified to FMVSS No. 214's oblique 32 km/h (20 mph) pole 
test from the 90-degree, 29 km/h (18 mph) pole test in FMVSS No. 201. 
The agency believed that a vehicle that met the oblique 32 km/h (20 
mph) pole test would also meet FMVSS No. 201's 90-degree 29 km/h (18 
mph) test. Thus, the agency proposed 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.
    Advocates, AIAM and the Alliance supported the agency's proposal to 
exclude vehicles meeting an FMVSS No. 214 pole test from FMVSS No. 
201's 90-degree, 29 km/h (18 mph) pole test. Advocates agreed with the 
NPRM that a vehicle meeting the proposed pole test would also meet the 
optional pole test of FMVSS No. 201.
    Honda suggested a further exclusion of vehicles from a requirement 
of FMVSS No. 201. Honda asked NHTSA to consider excluding vehicles from 
the armrest requirements of S5.5.1 if the vehicles comply with the 
oblique pole test of FMVSS No. 214. Honda believes that: ``If a vehicle 
meets the proposed requirements, that compliance should supercede the 
armrest requirements of FMVSS 201.''\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ FMVSS No. 201 requires each armrest to meet one of the 
following: (a) Be constructed with energy-absorbing material and 
deflect or collapse laterally at least 50 mm without permitting 
contact with the underlying rigid material; (b) be constructed with 
energy-absorbing material that deflects or collapses to within 32 mm 
of a rigid test panel surface without permitting contact with any 
rigid material, and the rigid material between 13 and 32 mm from the 
panel surface must have a minimum vertical height of not less than 
25 mm; or (c) along not less than 50 continuous mm of its length, 
the armrest shall, when measured vertically in side elevation, 
provide at least 55 mm of coverage within the pelvic impact area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency response: The FMVSS No. 214 oblique pole test encompasses 
and goes beyond the FMVSS No. 201 pole crash test and thus renders 
unnecessary the latter test. Seat-mounted side impact air bags that 
deploy into an area far enough forward to cushion a 5th percentile 
female dummy's head in a 32 km/h (20 mph) oblique impact are also 
likely to protect a 50th percentile male's head in a perpendicular one. 
Similarly, an air curtain tethered to the A- and C-pillars that meets 
an oblique crash test is also likely to provide coverage in a 
perpendicular crash. Accordingly, this final rule adopts the proposed 
amendment to FMVSS No. 201. It should be noted that targets near the 
stowed HPS are still 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.
    This final rule does not make Honda's suggested deletion of the arm 
rest requirements of FMVSS No. 201. The suggested change was not 
proposed in the NPRM.
9. Quasi Static Test
    The Alliance, AIAM, Lotus, Maserati, and Ferrari suggested that 
NHTSA delete the quasi-static test requirements from FMVSS No. 214 if 
the pole test is

[[Page 51934]]

adopted. (A summary of FMVSS No. 214's current requirements is in 
Appendix B of this preamble.) 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. Ferrari stated, ``The 
purpose of the static door crush resistance test in the existing FMVSS 
No. 214 is to guarantee the ability of the vehicle to provide some kind 
of protection in a side impact against a narrow object.'' Commenters 
believed that the pole test would assess the same performance, making 
the quasi-static test redundant and burdensome.
    In contrast, Public Citizen recommended that the agency evaluate 
the potential for adding an intrusion limit to the proposed pole test, 
in addition to the dummy injury criteria. The suggested requirement 
would regulate the amount of pole intrusion into the occupant survival 
space. Public Citizen believes that the level of intrusion into the 
occupant space is closely correlated with the level of occupant injury 
risk.
    Agency response: This final rule does not remove the quasi-static 
test from FMVSS No. 214. Removing the test is beyond the scope of the 
NPRM. Further, there is a safety need for the test. To meet the quasi-
static test, vehicle manufacturers have equipped vehicles with side 
door beams which transmit the force sideways to the struck vehicle, 
thus reducing the amount of intrusion toward the occupant and slowing 
down the rate of that intrusion.\61\ NHTSA found that the side door 
beams were 14 percent effective in reducing fatality risk for nearside 
and farside occupants in single-vehicle side impacts.\62\ When this 
group of crashes was further limited to impacts with a single fixed 
object, fatality reduction was 23 percent. The agency believes that the 
beam acts like an internal guard to allow a car to slide past a pole or 
tree, with a longer, shallower crush pattern on the car. Beams were 
also found to be effective in lower-speed multivehicle crashes, 
reducing the risk of nonfatal injuries. Kahane (2007). The quasi-static 
test is needed, particularly for doors of the vehicle that are not 
impacted by the pole in the oblique pole test (such as the rear 
compartment doors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Kahane, C.J., An Evaluation of Side Impact Crash, FMVSS 214 
TTI(d) Improvements and Side air Bags, NHTSA Technical Report No. 
DOT HS 810 748, Washington, DC 2007.
    \62\ Kahane, C.J., An Evaluation of Side Structure Improvements 
in Response to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 214, NHTSA 
Technical Report No. DOT HS 806 314, Washington, DC 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule does not add an intrusion limit to the pole test 
requirements adopted today. Adding an intrusion limit is beyond the 
scope of the NPRM. Further, not enough information is known at this 
time about the need for an intrusion limit, given that the injury 
criteria of the pole test act to limit the risk of injury to an 
occupant.
10. Vehicle Exclusions
    The agency proposed subjecting vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg 
(10,000 lb) or less to the oblique pole test, with certain exceptions. 
The agency proposed excluding: 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, 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. The agency believed that many vehicles within 
these categories tend to have unusual side structures that may not be 
suitable for pole testing or have features that could pose 
practicability problems in meeting the test. Comments were 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.
    The proposed exclusions are adopted, except to the extent discussed 
below in this section.
    i. GVWR. Advocates and Public Citizen supported the inclusion of 
vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, while the 
Alliance believed that vehicles above a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) 
should be excluded. The Alliance believed that the agency did not show 
that the requirement would be practicable for vehicles with a GVWR 
above 3,855 kg (8,500 lb), and also stated that a safety need for 
applying the pole test to those vehicles has not been shown.
    Agency response: After consideration of the comments and test data 
from the NHTSA 214 fleet testing program (see Section IV of this 
preamble, supra) and other information, we are adopting the proposal 
that the performance requirements for the oblique pole test should 
apply to all vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less.
    One of the vehicle models the agency tested in its vehicle research 
program had a 4,082 kg (9,000 lb) GVWR. This was a model year 2005 
Dodge Ram 2500 equipped with side curtain air bags. The agency tested 
this vehicle in two vehicle-to-pole tests with the ES-2re dummy. In the 
first test, the side curtain air bags did not deploy, and consequently, 
the ES-2re dummy resulted in high injury measures, including a HIC of 
5,748, 47 mm of rib deflection, and a lower spine acceleration of 86 g. 
The test results demonstrated a need for improved sensors and side 
impact protection for the occupants of this vehicle. In the second 
test, using the same vehicle model, the side curtain air bags were 
deployed remotely at 12 msec,\63\ and the resulting HIC value was 331. 
The results of this test showed that the deployment of the side curtain 
air bag resulted in significant HIC reductions for the ES-2re dummy 
(from 5,748 to 331). The ES-2re dummy was chosen for use in the 
agency's testing since it is likely to be the most challenging pole 
test configuration of the two required. The ES-2re is equipped with 
more instrumentation in the abdomen and thorax, and its larger mass 
requires more energy management by the restraint system. Although the 
rib deflections and abdominal force measurements for the ES-2re 
exceeded the IARVs, the vehicle was not equipped with a thorax side air 
bag. We believe that these measures would be improved with a thorax 
side air bag, and possible structural enhancements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Since the side crash sensor was unable to deploy the air 
bags in the oblique pole test configuration in the first test, the 
side curtain air bags were deployed remotely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency does not agree with the Alliance that vehicles over 
3,855 kg (8,500 lb) GVWR should be excluded from the pole test. In side 
impacts with poles and trees, the objects struck are typically taller 
than the striking vehicle. There are no indications of any lesser 
safety need for side impact protection for these vehicles. These 
vehicles are driven on the same roads and at the same times as other 
LTVs, and are thus subject to the same safety risks as other LTVs. 
NHTSA is not aware of any special characteristic of these vehicles that 
would reduce such risks.\64\ In addition, the Alliance did not suggest

[[Page 51935]]

why the pole test might be practicable for vehicles with lower GVWR, 
but not for vehicles with a GVWR above 3,855 kg (8,500 lb). We believe 
manufacturers can employ comparable restraint systems and 
countermeasure strategies to comply with the oblique pole test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Moreover, since the industry's voluntary commitment to 
install side air bags in vehicles does not apply to vehicles with a 
GVWR greater than 3,855 kg (8,500 lb), applying the pole test to the 
vehicles assures that SIABs will be provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the test of the Dodge Ram 2500 (9,000 lb GVWR) indicated 
that vehicles with a GVWR greater than 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) may need 
more time than other vehicles to meet the pole test requirements, since 
the vehicles have never been regulated under FMVSS No. 214's dynamic 
requirements and are not subject to the industry's voluntary commitment 
to install side air bags. These vehicles may need more structural 
enhancements than other vehicles since they will be newly subject to 
side crash requirements, and a demanding pole test at that. 
Accordingly, this final rule provides vehicles with a GVWR greater than 
3,855 kg (8,500 lb) until the last year of the phase-in to meet the 
pole test requirements.
    ii. Convertibles. The Alliance, AIAM, Nissan, DaimlerChrysler and 
Lotus recommended the exclusion of convertible vehicles from the pole 
test. The Alliance stated that we did not demonstrate it is practicable 
to implement countermeasures, while meeting the TWG OOP guidelines. It 
also believed that convertible vehicles should be excluded from all 
requirements because the lack of roof structure affects the overall 
response of a vehicle in a pole test, not just the HIC response.
    AIAM believed that the inherent design constraints of convertibles 
prevent the compliance of the proposed pole test. Similarly, Nissan 
believed that convertibles lack the structural components necessary to 
store and deploy a curtain air bag and that these vehicles should be 
excluded from the HIC response requirement in the pole test. 
DaimlerChrysler believed that convertibles should be excluded because, 
the commenter stated, it is not practicable within the architectural 
limitations of convertibles to provide the supplemental structure to 
the vehicle to replace what the roof and roof rail can contribute in 
sedans and coupes to reduce penetration by the pole into the occupant 
compartment. Lotus commented that the lightweight performance 
convertible type vehicle would not be able to comply with the pole test 
requirements without the introduction of some new, and as yet unknown, 
technology.
    Autoliv commented that it is currently working on developing a 
restraint system to protect occupants in a pole impact for applications 
such as a convertible. Autoliv stated that the systems do not, however, 
address the structural challenges that may be involved in applying the 
pole test requirement to all vehicles that lack a roof structure.
    Agency response: After careful consideration of the comments, NHTSA 
has decided against excluding convertibles from the pole test 
requirements. In our comparative analysis between convertibles and all 
other passenger cars in side impact crashes with fixed objects, it was 
found that 11.3 percent of convertible fatalities are from single 
vehicle side impacts into poles/trees, compared to 6.5 percent of other 
passenger car fatalities from single vehicle side impacts into poles/
trees. The fatality rate \65\ from single vehicle side impacts into 
poles/trees is 9.64 for convertibles, and 6.12 for all other passenger 
cars. When specifically looking at pole/tree fatality rates, 
convertibles are 58 percent higher than all other passenger cars. In 
general, NHTSA's crash data indicate that convertibles have higher 
rates of fatalities in run-off-the-road type crashes, such as single 
vehicle side impacts, rollovers, etc. Consequently, requiring enhanced 
protection against tree and pole side impacts will be paramount in 
improving the safety of these vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Data source: FARS 1999-2003. Model years 1998-2002 were 
used. Total registration years (in millions) were 140.8 for all 
other passenger cars and 4.7 for convertibles. The fatalities per 
million registration years in single vehicle side crashes were 11.32 
for all other passenger cars and 16.71 for convertibles. The 
fatalities per million registration years in single vehicle side 
``pole/tree'' crashes were 6.12 for all other passenger cars and 
9.64 for convertibles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have also observed head/thorax countermeasures that are 
effective and practicable for installation in convertible body types. 
While we agree with Nissan that roof-rail design air curtains may not 
be practicable to deploy and store in a convertible vehicle, we do 
believe that head/thorax air bag systems, or even door-mounted 
inflatable curtains, as introduced in the 2006 model year Volvo C70 
convertible, have merit. In our 214 fleet testing program, we included 
two convertible vehicle models in our crash test matrix. These were the 
2005 model year Saab 9-3 convertible and 2005 model year Volkswagen 
Beetle. Both vehicle models were tested in the oblique pole test with 
the ES-2re dummy.\66\ In each case, the vehicle was able to meet the 
requirements of this final rule and demonstrated that compliance with 
the requirements for both head and chest injury criteria is 
practicable. For the Saab, HIC was 254, chest deflection was 40 mm, 
abdominal force was 841 N, and pelvic force was 2914 N. For the Beetle, 
HIC was 315, chest deflection was 37 mm, abdominal force was 1018 N, 
and pelvic force was 3815 N.\67\ The Saab 9-3 and Volkswagen Beetle 
demonstrated practicability along a range of the convertible cost 
spectrum. This fact, combined with the higher fatality risk mentioned 
earlier, leads NHTSA to believe that head/thorax countermeasures will 
be at least as cost-effective for convertibles as they are for other 
vehicles. We are not persuaded that solutions are unknown or not 
available to convertibles as a whole, as suggested by Lotus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ The ES-2re dummy was chosen for use in the agency's testing 
since it is likely to be more challenging pole test configuration 
than the SID-IIs test. We determined that it would dbe more 
difficult for seat-mounted systems to meet the performance criteria 
using the ES-2 than when tested with the SID-IIs. The ES-2re is 
equipped with more instrumentation in the abdomen and thorax, and 
its larger mass requires more energy management by the restraint 
system.
    \67\ Injury criteria are: HIC 1000, chest deflection 44 mm, 
abdominal force 2500 N, and pelvic force 6000 N.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the Alliance's concern about meeting the TWG OOP 
guidelines, we note that vehicle manufacturers for both the Saab 9-3 
and the VW Beetle reported that they comply with the TWG OOP guidelines 
according to our 2005 Buying a Safer Car information. Therefore, we 
believe that the agency has demonstrated practicability of the pole 
test and of meeting the head and chest requirements. Our tests have 
shown that the lack of a roof structure in the pole test was not an 
insurmountable design obstacle for providing improved side crash 
protection. Therefore, we conclude that HIC, and all other applicable 
injury measures, should be regulated in this test.
iii. Proximity to a Door
    Maserati and Ferrari noted that under the current S3(e)(1) of FMVSS 
No. 214's quasi-static test, a vehicle need not meet the static test 
requirements for any side door located so that no point on a 10-inch 
horizontal longitudinal line passing through and bisected by the H-
point of a manikin placed in any seat falls within the transverse, 
horizontal projection of the door's opening. The commenters believed 
that under that provision, a vehicle is excluded from the static test 
requirement if its side door is located so that the H-point of the 
manikin is below the sill of the vehicle. Ferrari stated, ``if a 
vehicle is exempt

[[Page 51936]]

under current S3(e), it should likewise be exempt from the proposed 
pole test.''
    Agency response: We do not agree with Maserati and Ferrari that an 
exclusion from the pole test requirements is appropriate if the H-point 
of a manikin placed in any seat is below the sill of the vehicle, and 
thus does not fall ``within the transverse, horizontal projection of 
the door's opening.'' The agency's rationale for the exclusion in 
question from the static test does not apply to the pole test.
    In the June 14, 1991 FMVSS No. 214 final rule that adopted the 
exclusion (56 FR 27427), the agency stated that there was little safety 
benefit from having a side door beam requirement for those door 
openings that are unlikely to have occupants sitting near them (i.e., 
within 10 inches of the door opening). In the static test, the loading 
device is centered on the door opening, and a load is applied until a 
specified load is achieved. The door must prevent intrusion of the door 
structure. If no occupant will be seated within 10 inches of the door 
opening, the requirement limiting intrusion to 10 inches is 
unnecessary. (As to whether the exclusion should apply to situations 
where the manikin is seated within 10 inches of the door, but below the 
sill, will not be addressed today.)
    In the oblique pole test, the pole is aligned with the head CG of 
the seated dummy. An occupant who is seated ``outboard'' next to a door 
but below the transverse, horizontal projection of the door's opening 
could suffer injuries, especially head injury, in a tree/pole impact if 
side air bags or other countermeasures were not installed. Accordingly, 
the pole test requirement will yield meaningful results for the 
vehicles in question, and the exclusion will not be extended as 
requested.
iv. Removable Doors
    The Alliance and DaimlerChrysler believed that vehicles without 
doors or easily removable doors, now excluded from the MDB and quasi-
static tests under S2(c) and S3(e)(4) of the current standard, 
respectively, should also be excluded from the pole test since the lack 
of door structure makes meeting the test requirements impracticable. On 
the other hand, Advocates objected to excluding vehicles with no or 
removable doors since, the commenter believed, the exclusion would 
allow manufacturers to avoid providing adequate side impact protection.
    Agency response: We agree with excluding vehicles without doors or 
easily removable doors from the oblique pole test since the lack of 
door structure makes meeting the test requirements impracticable, as 
suggested by DaimlerChrysler. No data were provided by Advocates, or 
other commenters, to suggest that there are engineering solutions or 
countermeasures to meet the dynamic pole test requirements for vehicles 
without doors or easily removable doors. We believe that applying the 
pole test to those vehicles would effectively eliminate them from the 
marketplace.
v. Vehicles With Partitions
    NTEA recommended an additional exclusion of vehicles equipped with 
a partition behind the front seat area. NTEA believed that ``a bulkhead 
or partition will almost certainly invalidate any chassis 
manufacturer's compliance statement that may be available for a vehicle 
equipped with side impact protection such as a side curtain air bag.''
    Agency response: We do not agree with an exclusion of partition-
equipped vehicles. We believe the exclusion is too broad and could 
encompass more vehicles than necessary. NTEA noted that the affected 
vehicles typically include panel vans with a bulkhead to separate the 
front seat occupants from bulk cargo placed in the rear, or buses with 
a partition separating the bus driver from the rest of the passenger 
compartment. We note that the vehicles also include police vehicles, 
taxis, and limousines. Although we acknowledge that a bulkhead or 
partition installed by a second-stage manufacturer or alterer is 
incompatible with some current side curtain air bag systems tethered 
from the A- to C-pillars, second-stage manufacturers and alterers have 
alternatives, discussed below, that would enable them to certify to the 
pole test.
    We believe that incomplete vehicles and completed cargo vans will 
be available with seat-mounted or door-mounted head/thorax air bag 
systems. Not all cargo vans will have side curtain air bag systems that 
are tethered from the A- to the C-pillar. Cargo van manufacturers are 
not likely to install A- to C-pillar side curtain air bag systems since 
these vehicles have no rear seats or rear window openings. (Likewise, 
small bus manufacturers are not likely to extend side air curtains the 
full length of the bus.) Since the pole test is only applied to the 
driver and right front passenger seating locations, incomplete cargo 
van manufacturers will likely certify the vehicles to the pole test 
using seat-mounted SIABs (or may develop air curtain technology that 
involve designs other than tethering the curtain to the A- and C-
pillars). A partition can be installed in these vehicles without 
invalidating the incomplete manufacturer's compliance statement.
    We also note that this final rule provides alterers and multi stage 
vehicle manufacturers an extra year of lead time to accommodate any 
necessary changes.\68\ Between now and that date, they can work with 
manufacturers of incomplete and complete vehicles to develop seat-
mounted SIABs and other technologies that would enable them to install 
the life-saving devices in vehicles that have partitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ This accords with the amendments set forth in the agency's 
final rule on ``Vehicles Built in Two or More Stages,'' 70 FR 7414, 
February 14, 2005, Docket 5673. The February 14, 2005 final rule 
also added a new process under which intermediate and final-stage 
manufacturers and alterers can obtain temporary exemptions from 
dynamic performance requirements (49 CFR part 555).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

vi. Wheelchair Restraints
    NMEDA believed that we should exclude vehicles with wheelchair 
restraints that allow the wheelchair to be used as a designated seating 
position. NMEDA noted ``many wheelchair users drive their vehicles from 
a wheelchair or ride in the front row passenger position, again in a 
wheelchair. In these cases, the wheelchair is secured to the vehicle 
floor, and the occupant is restrained with a type 2 seat belt 
assembly.''
    Agency response: An exclusion of any vehicle with wheelchair 
restraints is overly broad. However, we agree that vehicles in which a 
wheelchair is to be used in place of the driver's or right front 
passenger's seating position should be excluded from the pole test for 
that seating position. The vehicles are excluded out of practicability 
concerns. If a seat that had seat-mounted SIABs were removed from a 
front outboard seating position, the vehicle would no longer have the 
countermeasure installed to meet the pole test. Installing a complying 
air curtain in these vehicles is likely beyond the capabilities of most 
small businesses modifying the vehicle. Even if the vehicle were 
originally manufactured with an air curtain, a vehicle tested to the 
oblique pole test with the test dummy in a wheelchair instead of the 
OEM driver or passenger seat might not meet the test requirements. 
Accordingly, vehicles in which the seat for the driver or right front 
passenger has been removed and wheelchair restraints installed in place 
of the seat are excluded from meeting the oblique pole test at that 
removed seating position.

[[Page 51937]]

vii. Altered (Modified) Roof or Lowered Floor
    The agency proposed excluding vehicles with altered or raised roof 
designs from the pole test, and proposed using the definitions for 
``altered roof'' and ``raised roof'' set forth in FMVSS No. 216, ``Roof 
crush resistance.'' \69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ FMVSS No. 216 defines ``altered roof'' as: ``the 
replacement roof on a motor vehicle whose original roof has been 
removed, in part or in total, and replaced by a roof that is higher 
than the original roof. The replacement roof on a motor vehicle 
whose original roof has been replaced, in whole or in part, by a 
roof that consists of glazing materials, such as those in T-tops and 
sunroofs, and is located at the level of the original roof, is not 
considered to be an altered roof.'' FMVSS No. 216 states: ``Raised 
roof means, with respect to a roof which includes an area that 
protrudes above the surrounding exterior roof structure, that 
protruding area of the roof.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NMEDA suggested that vehicles with altered or raised roofs should 
be excluded from both the HIC and thoracic requirements because, the 
commenter believed, side air bag systems may have to be disabled to 
accommodate the raised/altered roof conversion. Similarly, the 
commenter believed that modifiers lowering the floor by modifying the 
SIAB sensor system as originally installed would also have an extremely 
difficult time to certify.
    Agency response: We agree that vehicles that have had the roof rail 
or floor rail modified should be excluded from the pole test.\70\ The 
vehicles are excluded out of practicability concerns, because roof 
rails and floor rails are typically integral parts of side impact 
protection systems. Modifying the roof or floor rail structures may 
affect the vehicle's performance in meeting the oblique pole test 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Vehicles with lowered floors are currently not excluded 
from the MDB test. Alterers and multistage manufacturers have been 
certifying their vehicles with lowered floors to the MDB test since 
1998. Given the practicability of meeting the current MDB test, this 
final rule does not exclude lowered floor vehicles from the 
applicability of the MDB test adopted today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule slightly expands the proposed definition of 
``altered roof,'' because the FMVSS No. 216 definition was too narrow 
to meet the intent of the agency in excluding vehicles with altered 
roof rails. The proposed definition of altered roof (from FMVSS No. 
216) only applied to a replacement roof that is higher than the 
original roof. We have modified the definition such that it is not 
incumbent on the replacement roof being higher than the original roof. 
There would be practicability issues in meeting the pole test for 
entities modifying the original roof rails of a vehicle even if the 
replacement roof were not higher than the original roof. In addition, 
if the original roof rail were modified, there would also be 
practicability problems for entities using glazing materials in the 
replacement roof. Thus, unlike the FMVSS No. 216 definition, the FMVSS 
No. 214 definition does not exclude from the definition replacement 
roofs on vehicles whose original roof has been replaced by a roof that 
consists of glazing materials. This final rule also excludes on 
practicability grounds vehicles that have had their original roof rails 
removed and not replaced, i.e., as in the conversion of a hardtop 
vehicle to a convertible. Entities involved in such conversions are 
usually small businesses. The FMVSS No. 214 definition is changed to 
``modified roof'' to distinguish it from the FMVSS No. 216 definition 
of altered roof.
viii. 6-Way Seats
    NMEDA stated that mobility industry companies commonly replace 
front row seats with extended travel seat bases (``6-way seats'') to 
facilitate vehicle access. It believed that because the modified seat 
bases are generally less stable than the original seats, the pole test 
would result in higher HIC values in vehicles with extended movement 
seating systems than in vehicles with OEM seat bases. NMEDA thus 
recommended that we exclude vehicles with extended travel seating 
systems installed as a part of a second-stage manufacturing process or 
by a vehicle alterer.
    Agency response: We have decided that vehicles with extended travel 
seat bases and other seating systems designed to facilitate vehicle 
access are not excluded from this final rule. NMEDA provided no data to 
support its assertion that a modified seat base would necessarily cause 
extended movement and higher HIC values in the required tests. Further, 
no explanation was provided as to why these seat bases cannot be built 
structurally comparable to the original seat. We do not believe that 
providing additional reinforcements to secure the seat is an 
insurmountable engineering task. If higher HIC values are occurring, 
that supports our belief that better designs are needed for occupants 
of these vehicles.
ix. Multistage Manufacturers
    NTEA suggested that the final rule exclude ``vehicles built in two 
or more stages that are equipped with a cargo carrying, load bearing or 
work-performing body or equipment.'' The commenter stated that its 
members typically certify that their vehicles meet dynamic testing 
standards by ``using so-called `pass-through' compliance.'' NTEA is 
concerned that chassis manufacturers ``may state that subsequent stage 
manufacturers are unable to do anything in the vicinity of'' side 
curtain air bags or head bags.
    The commenter also believed that there are no viable alternatives 
available to its members to demonstrate compliance other than by using 
pass-through compliance. NTEA stated that its members cannot certify 
vehicles based on engineering analyses because its members do not have 
the necessary level of experience with a new requirement of this 
nature, or previous crash test data, which NTEA believed are needed for 
an engineering analyses. NTEA stated that computer modeling is 
unavailable because the commenter believed it would be very expensive 
and not widely available to its members. The commenter stated that 
consortium dynamic testing is unavailable because the FMVSS No. 214 
tests ``are vehicle specific, [so] even minor trim differences in a 
single model could produce significantly different test results, let 
alone varying chassis and body combinations.'' With regard to actual 
crash testing, NTEA stated: ``It would be a practical impossibility for 
these companies to test each of these configurations to sell the one or 
two of each configuration that have been ordered by a customer.''
    Agency response: NHTSA declines NTEA's request to exclude from the 
pole test vehicles built in two or more stages that are equipped with a 
cargo carrying, load bearing or work-performing body or equipment. We 
do not believe that there is a need for a blanket exclusion of these 
vehicles. NTEA was concerned that incomplete vehicle manufacturers 
``may state that subsequent stage manufacturers are unable to do 
anything in the vicinity of'' side curtain air bags or head bags. We 
believe that incomplete vehicle manufacturers will accommodate the 
needs of final-stage manufacturers to produce the vehicles. Chassis-
cabs, a type of incomplete vehicle often acquired by final-stage 
manufacturers for manufacturing vehicles, have a significant portion of 
the occupant compartment completed. Chassis-cab manufacturers will 
likely produce incomplete vehicles with seat-or roof-mounted head/
thorax air bag systems already installed. As long as the final-stage 
manufacturer meets the conditions of the incomplete vehicle document 
(and NTEA has not shown that final stage manufacturers will not be able 
to meet those conditions) the manufacturers may rely on the incomplete 
vehicle manufacturer's

[[Page 51938]]

certification and pass it through when certifying the completed 
vehicle.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ The February 14, 2005 final rule amended the certification 
requirements of 49 CFR part 567 to allow the use of pass-through 
certification so that it can be used not only for multistage 
vehicles based on chassis-cabs, but also for those based on other 
types of incomplete vehicles. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the degree that final stage manufacturers must certify the 
compliance of their vehicles other than by using ``pass-through'' 
certification, we have provided these manufacturers until September 1, 
2014 to work with manufacturers of incomplete vehicles, seating systems 
and SIABs to develop systems that will enable them to certify to FMVSS 
No. 214's pole test. They can obtain seat-mounted SIABs and work with 
the suppliers, individually or as a consortium, to develop the 
information to install the seat-mounted systems in their vehicles. 
Because a wholesale exclusion of vehicles built in two or more stages 
that are equipped with a cargo carrying, load bearing or work-
performing body or equipment has not been justified, we are not 
adopting an across-the-board exclusion of these vehicles.
x. Other Issues
    The NPRM proposed excluding tow trucks and dump trucks from the 
pole test. NTEA commented that it was not aware of any dump trucks or 
tow trucks with GVWRs of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, so the vehicles 
would be excluded from the pole test based on the GVWR of the vehicles. 
Considering this information, the express exclusion is unnecessary, and 
we have removed it from the regulatory text. (For that reason, we have 
also removed the express exclusion from the section excluding vehicles 
from the MDB test requirements.)
11. Practicability
    The Alliance believed that the agency did not demonstrate that 
attaining the IARVs would be practicable. The commenter stated, ``Based 
on the information provided to support the NPRM, the agency has not 
identified one single vehicle that has met all of the proposed injury 
criteria in all of the proposed tests. Indeed, no one single vehicle 
has been subject to the entire suite of proposed crash tests. 
Therefore, the practicability of the proposed rule has not been 
demonstrated.''
    NHTSA disagrees with the commenter's view. In our test program, the 
Subaru Forester and the Honda CRV met the performance criteria for the 
SID-IIs dummy. The Honda Accord and VW Jetta almost met all the IARVs 
when tested with the SID-IIs dummy. The Accord and Jetta had relatively 
low values for HIC and lower spine acceleration, and did not meet only 
the pelvic force criterion. The Honda Accord, VW Jetta, VW Beetle 
convertible, and Saab 9-3 convertible met the performance criteria for 
the ES-2re.
    It is not surprising that the vehicles we tested did not meet the 
IARVs for both the SID-IIs and the ES-2re, because the oblique pole 
test was developed to induce improvements that would protect more 
occupants in more crash situations than current vehicles. NHTSA need 
not demonstrate that any current vehicle meets all the new requirements 
to show that an FMVSS will be practicable within the meaning of the 
Safety Act when fully implemented. A determination of practicability 
calls for an exercise in judgment by the agency, based on information 
about the performance of current designs and the likely effect of 
design improvements and new technologies on performance.
    The fact that no current designs met the requirements when tested 
with both the SID-IIs and the ES-2re does not show the requirements 
will not be practicable, but it does require the agency to use its 
judgment carefully to ensure that the new requirements will be 
practicable within the lead time provided. In this case, we have 
ensured that the provided lead time and phase-in schedule assures that 
manufacturers can make long range plans for improved sensor designs, 
SIABs and arm rests to meet the IARVs for both test dummies. The test 
results from our 2005 test program show that some SIABs performed well 
with the SID-IIs, while others performed well with the ES-2re. We 
believe that current SIAB systems can be redesigned and implemented to 
provide occupant protection to the populations represented by both the 
SID-IIs and the ES-2re test dummies. For example, some window curtains 
adequately protect the head of the mid-size male dummy but may need to 
be widened and lengthened to ensure that the head of the SID-IIs is 
cushioned at the forward edge of the curtain. Some vehicles may need to 
use a seat-mounted SIAB (existing technology), in addition to a 
curtain, to meet the thoracic, abdominal and/or pelvic injury criteria 
for both dummies. We believe that vehicle manufacturers are capable of 
making these and other improvements to SIAB systems.
    Manufacturers have made steady and notable progress in developing, 
improving and implementing SIABs. To illustrate, in 1998, only 0.04% of 
passenger cars sold in the U.S. had head side air bag systems. In 2002, 
22% of passenger cars were so equipped, and by 2009, under the 
voluntary commitment, manufacturers have projected that 100% of 
passenger vehicles will have head side air bag systems. Based on the 
vast knowledge that manufacturers have been able to gain in developing 
and implementing side air bag technologies, we are confident that 
manufacturers will be able to make the improvements to current systems 
that will enable the systems to meet the upgraded FMVSS No. 214 
requirements adopted today.
12. International Harmonization
    The Australian government was concerned that NHTSA's side impact 
proposal would forestall the outcome of deliberations of the 
International Harmonized Research Activities (IHRA) Side Impact Working 
Group (SIWG) regarding a side impact pole test procedure, and the 
dummies used in the test.\72\ Our decisions today should not hamper the 
potential for global harmonization of side impact regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2004-17694-43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's final rule is consistent with NHTSA's policy goal of 
harmonizing with non-U.S. safety requirements except to the extent 
needed to address safety problems here in the U.S. We noted in the NPRM 
that, worldwide, there are numerous countries that have side impact 
protection requirements or governmental or non-governmental side impact 
consumer information programs. 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., due 
in large part to fleet differences. NHTSA's underlying impetus to 
require side impact head protection is purely driven by the hundreds of 
lives that could be saved each year on U.S. roadways.

c. Aspects of the MDB Test Procedure

    A number of commenters responded to the NPRM's proposed changes to 
the dynamic MDB side impact test in FMVSS No. 214. The NPRM did not 
propose changes to the MDB itself.
1. The Moving Deformable Barrier
    IIHS, Advocates, CU and Public Citizen believed that the agency 
should change the design of the moving deformable barrier (MDB) used in 
the dynamic test to better reflect side impact risks in the current 
vehicle fleet. Advocates, CU and Public Citizen believed that an 
upgraded MDB should be used to test all vehicles up to 4,536 kg (10,000 
lb). Advocates further stated:

[[Page 51939]]

``If NHTSA does not extend the proposed oblique pole test to rear 
seating areas in passenger vehicles, only a MDB-based test that 
actually results in head injury'is worthwhile in connection with adding 
a head injury measure and criterion to the current Standard No. 214 
dynamic test.'' IIHS stated: ``If the agency does not take this 
opportunity to improve the barrier and if it decides to accept less 
biofidelic dummy options, it is difficult to see what benefits will 
accrue from the additional MDB tests that have been proposed.''
    Agency response: NHTSA considers a redesign of the MDB as a longer 
term project beyond the scope of the present rulemaking. As noted in 
the NPRM (69 FR at 27992), 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. Further, the 
marketplace is currently fluctuating. When future changes to the fleet 
have been identified, we can then determine how the agency's existing 
MDB should be modified to represent striking vehicles.
    In response to Advocates, we do not agree that the absence of a 
pole test requirement for rear seat occupants necessitates the 
inclusion of a new MDB test that results in head injury. The SID-IIs in 
the rear seat of several of the vehicles in our test program measured 
high pelvic loading in FMVSS No. 214 MDB tests. Use of the dummy in the 
MDB tests and the information it provides about rear seat performance 
will result in improvements to rear seat occupant protection. Contrary 
to IIHS, we believe that the use of the ES-2re and SID-IIs dummies will 
add value to the current upgrade until such a time when a more thorough 
evaluation of the vehicle fleet and its characteristics can be modeled.
2. A Reasonable Balancing of the Test Burden
A. Arm Position
    The NPRM proposed that the driver dummy arm position must be 40 
degrees relative to torso, and that the arm for all dummies other than 
the driver dummy would have the arm in line with the torso. The 
Alliance commented that, to reduce test burdens and test variability, 
the arm position for the dummies should be set in the detent 
representing a 40 degree angle between the torso and the arm for all 
seating positions specified in the MDB test.
    To reduce test burdens and variability, the agency agrees with the 
Alliance's recommendation to set the arm position for the dummy in the 
driver and front passenger seating positions in the detent representing 
a 40 degree angle between the torso and the arm. Under this change, the 
front seat dummies' arms will be angled in the same manner on both the 
right and left sides of the vehicle (i.e., the front seat dummy's arm 
nearest the door will be raised). This helps to reduce the test burden 
of the MDB test without decreasing crash protection, since it should be 
easier for manufacturers to design and better assure that a vehicle 
will meet the MDB requirements when impacted on either the right or 
left sides of the vehicle using data from an MDB test of only one side 
of the vehicle. Based upon pendulum impact tests to the dummy's thorax 
in which the arm was positioned down and another with a dummy without 
an arm, the maximum rib deflection occurred when the thorax was fully 
exposed. We believe that raising the arm of the dummy in the passenger 
seat test exposes the dummy's thorax in the same way achieved by a 
dummy without an arm, and that this change to the procedure will thus 
not degrade the robustness of the test.
B. Reducing the Number of Tests
    To reduce unnecessary test burdens, today's final rule specifies 
that the MDB test will be conducted with an ES-2re in the front seat 
and a SID-IIs in the rear seat. We will not test using a SID-IIs dummy 
in the front seat, for the reasons provided earlier in this preamble in 
the section titled, ``Need for the 5th percentile dummy in the MDB 
test.'' In contrast, the ES-2re in the front seat will enhance safety 
at that seating position because of the dummy's enhanced abilities to 
measure HIC, thoracic and abdominal rib deflections, and pelvic loads. 
(The current FMVSS No. 214 side impact dummy (SID) does not measure 
HIC, rib deflections or have any type mechanism that assesses the risk 
of abdominal injury.)
    However, we will not use an ES-2re in the rear seat. In our side 
impact test program, the ES-2re's responses in the rear seat passed the 
injury assessment reference values and were generally low. Further, 
while the ES-2re dummy has rib and abdominal measurement capabilities, 
the dummy was not able to detect the elevated injury measures found by 
the SID-IIs dummy in the rear seat MDB tests. Out of the nine tests 
conducted with the ES-2re rear passenger dummy, only one vehicle had an 
elevated abdominal force measurement in these tests, as reported in the 
NPRM (69 FR at 28010). The test was of the 2002 Chevrolet Impala, which 
has since been redesigned. The 2002 Impala test also resulted in high 
pelvic force and lower spine measurements when tested with the SID-IIs 
due to an intruding armrest. Because this final rule incorporates the 
SID-IIs dummy in the MDB rear seat test, countermeasures that will be 
installed to reduce the pelvic force and lower spine acceleration 
values of the SID-IIs in the rear seat should also address the 
performance of the rear seat in protecting mid-size adults. Use of the 
ES-2re in the rear seat of the MDB test would not result in an 
enhancement of occupant protection.
    We do not believe that testing with only the SID-IIs dummy in the 
rear will degrade rear seat occupant protection to mid-size adult 
occupants. Our side NCAP program presently uses a mid-sized adult male 
dummy (the SID-H3) in the rear seating position in the MDB NCAP test, 
which complements the FMVSS No. 214 MDB test. We will make sure that 
any future revisions to the NCAP program will continue to complement 
the standard as upgraded today.
3. Other
    NMEDA suggested that: ``Mobility vehicles having raised/altered 
roofs, lowered floors and vehicles equipped with extended travel 
seating systems be required to meet only the MDB test with the new mid-
size male, and therefore be exempt from the MDB requirements for the 
small female test dummy, until such time as the NHTSA can determine if, 
in fact, the small female is the most accurate representation of the 
stature of mobility vehicle occupants.''
    Agency response: We do not support this suggestion. We are not 
persuaded by NMEDA's theory that mobility vehicle occupants could be 
statistically larger than the rest of the population of motor vehicle 
occupants such that testing with the 5th percentile adult female dummy 
would not be beneficial. The SID-IIs 5th percentile adult female dummy 
represents a population that generally has lower impact tolerance 
levels than the 50th percentile adult male represented by the ES-2re. 
As explained in the next section of this preamble, our injury criteria 
for the SID-IIs was developed taking into account the occupant's age, 
bone mass and size. The injury tolerance levels for the SID-IIs were 
normalized to that for a 56-year-old, rather than that for a 45-year-
old as done for the ES-2re. We have no basis for assuming that the SID-
IIs will not be an appropriate test device for testing the rear seat of 
vehicles manufactured for mobility impaired occupants, and in fact have 
good reason to think that it will be.

[[Page 51940]]

    As previously discussed, the agency has reduced the MDB 
requirements to only include the ES-2re dummy in the front seating 
position and the SID-IIs dummy in the rear. This reduces the test 
burden for vehicle manufacturers and should address NMEDA's concerns 
about the driver seating position.

d. Injury Criteria

    In determining the suitability of a dummy for side impact testing, 
the agency considers the dummy's injury assessment capabilities 
relative to human body regions at risk in the real world crash 
environment. Crash data indicate that head, chest, abdomen and pelvic 
injuries are prevalent in side impacts. Accordingly, injury criteria 
were proposed for the ES-2re's head, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis.
    The types of injury criteria proposed by NHTSA for the ES-2re were 
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. Four of NHTSA's proposed injury criteria were specified in EU 
96/27/EC for use with the EuroSID-1 dummy.\73\ For the SID-IIs, injury 
criteria were proposed for the head, lower spine, and pelvis. The NPRM 
did not propose thoracic or abdominal deflection limits using the SID-
IIsFRG.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ NHTSA decided not to use the chest viscous injury criteria, 
V*C <= 1.0, because we did not find the V*C criterion to be 
repeatable and reproducible in our research.
    \74\ The agency did not propose a limit on deflections because, 
in pendulum tests, the FRG design reduced the SID-IIs's dummy's 
deflection measurement capability when the ribs were struck in 
angled pendulum impacts. NHTSA wanted to obtain more information 
about the FRG's effect on rib deflections before proposing 
deflection criteria in FMVSS No. 214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A technical report titled, ``Injury Criteria for Side Impact 
Dummies,'' May, 2004 (NHTSA docket number 17694) was made available to 
the public at http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf89/285284_web.pdf. The 
report was peer reviewed in accordance with the Office of Management 
and Budget's (OMB) June 15, 2005 information quality guidelines. Three 
peer reviewers from academia and industry, considered experts in the 
field of impact biomechanics and side impact, reviewed the document. 
The reviewers' comments and the agency's response thereto are available 
to the public through the DOT peer review website http://www.dot.gov/peerrt.htm.
1. Head Injury Criterion
    NHTSA proposed to require a head injury criterion (HIC) limit of 
1000 (measured in a 36 millisecond time interval). HIC36 
1000 relates to a 50 percent risk of head injury. The HIC36 
1000 criterion is used throughout the FMVSSs and provides a measure 
with which the agency and the industry have substantial experience. The 
HIC36 1000 criterion is used in the optional pole test of 
FMVSS No. 201.
    Comments on HIC proposal: The Alliance, Nissan, Ferrari, Maserati, 
and DaimlerChrysler supported the proposed HIC36 criterion 
of 1000. Advocates and Public Citizen supported a HIC36 
criterion of 800, believing that the criterion would reduce the risk of 
AIS 3+ injury to approximately 35 percent, and that the limit is 
achievable by current vehicles. Dr. Albert King, a private individual, 
submitted a paper he co-authored that hypothesized that brain injury is 
governed by brain response and not the input acceleration. He suggested 
that the brain response to input translation and rotational head 
acceleration can be obtained through finite element models and injury 
potential estimated using strain and strain rates in the brain tissue.
    Agency response: This final rule adopts the HIC36 
criterion of 1000. The HIC36 limit of 1000 was selected to 
accord with the FMVSS No. 201 head protection standard. Vehicle 
manufacturers have experience with the 1000 HIC limit.
    Significant research is needed before the potential for estimating 
brain injury risk using finite element brain models can be assessed. 
NHTSA did not propose to use a finite element brain model for head 
injury assessment and this final rule does not adopt such a method.
2. Thorax (Chest) Criteria
A. ES-2re
    NHTSA proposed two criteria to measure thoracic injury when using 
the ES-2re: Chest deflection and resultant lower spine acceleration. 
Chest deflection has been shown to be the best predictor of thoracic 
injuries for side impact. The agency believed it to be a better injury 
risk measure than TTI(d) for the ES-2re dummy.\75\ We added spinal 
acceleration criteria because we believed that spinal accelerations 
might detect severe loading conditions that are undetected by the 
unidirectional deflection measurements. Lower spine acceleration may 
not have a causal relationship with thoracic injury but is a good 
indicator of the overall loading to the thorax. The agency believed 
that in concert, the two thoracic criteria would enhance injury 
assessment in a vehicle side crash test, and result in reduced chest 
injuries as compared to the use of TTI(d) in current FMVSS No. 214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ 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, D.C.; 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA selected the two criteria based upon a series of 42 side 
impact sled tests using fully instrumented post mortem human subjects 
(PMHS) and 16 sled tests using the ES-2re, conducted at the Medical 
College of Wisconsin (MCW). NHTSA conducted the analysis using logistic 
regression with injury outcome in the PMHS sled tests as the response, 
and ES-2re 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.\76\ This method of analysis 
provided injury criteria that could directly be applied to the ES-2re 
dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Chest Deflection

    Chest deflection was proposed to be not greater than 42 mm for any 
rib (reflecting an approximate 50 percent risk of an AIS 3+ injury). 
The NPRM sought comment on an alternative criterion within the range of 
35 to 44 mm (1.38 to 1.73 in). The 44 mm (1.73 in) value corresponded 
to a 50 percent risk of serious injury for a 45-year-old occupant.\77\ 
The agency determined upon reanalyzing a data set that was used when 
NHTSA undertook the 1990 rulemaking adopting the MDB test into FMVSS 
No. 214 that the current TTI(d) of 85 g's corresponds approximately to 
a 50 percent risk of AIS 3+ injury. Thus, NHTSA tentatively concluded 
that a rib deflection limit of 44 mm (1.73 in) for the ES-2re could be 
acceptable on the basis that it was approximately equivalent to the 
risk of injury

[[Page 51941]]

addressed by the current TTI(d) requirement in FMVSS No. 214.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ 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.
    \78\ NHTSA reanalyzed the Eppinger data set that was used in the 
1990 MDB rulemaking. Kuppa et al., ``Development of Side Impact 
Thoracic Injury Criteria and their Application to the Modified ES-2 
Dummy with Rib Extensions (ES-2re),'' id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments on the ES-2re chest deflection: In an August 16, 2005 
comment, the Alliance noted that the injury risk curve from which NHTSA 
derived its proposed chest deflection limit of 44 mm was based on the 
MCW studies that analyzed the responses of PMHS and the ES-2re. The 
Alliance believed that an injury risk curve developed for the ES-2 
dummy should be used instead, particularly if the agency agrees with 
the Alliance's suggestion to use the ES-2 dummy. Moreover, the 
commenter stated, NHTSA proposed a chest deflection requirement of 42 
mm to harmonize with the EU regulation for the EuroSID-1. The Alliance 
stated that the ES-2 dummy rib deflections have been observed to be 
approximately 25 to 100 percent larger than those for the EuroSID-1 
under the same test conditions. The commenter stated:

    Given the difference in deflections noted between the EuroSID-1 
and ES-2 dummies, the Alliance believes that the injury limit for 
thoracic deflection in the ES-2 should be at least 25% greater than 
the limit derived from the risk curve if the EuroSID-1 is used. 
Therefore, the value of 42 mm in the European regulation derived 
with EuroSID-1 would be multiplied by 1.25, which leads to a value 
of 53 mm for the deflection limit proposed by the Alliance.

    Advocates and Public Citizen believed that even the 35 mm 
deflection limit at the low end of the proposed range was too high to 
protect the elderly population. Advocates believed that the proposal 
``will disproportionately take the lives of, and inflict much more 
serious injuries on, occupants 65 years of age and older'' and stated 
that it did not support any value within the range proposed.
    Agency response: This final rule adopts a chest deflection 
threshold of 44 mm, which corresponds to a 50 percent risk of AIS 3+ 
injury for a 45-year-old. We do not agree with the Alliance's 
suggestion that, because the ES-2 dummy records higher rib defections 
than the EuroSID-1, the chest deflection limit for this final rule 
should be 53 mm.
    Many researchers have shown that the ES-2 dummy records higher rib 
deflections than the EuroSID-1. Samaha et al. reported higher rib 
deflections with the ES-2 dummy than with the EuroSID-1 dummy in 
identical side impact vehicle crash tests conducted in accordance with 
the EU 96/EC/27 side impact procedure.\79\ When developing the NPRM, we 
determined that the thorax of the ES-2 was so different from that of 
the predecessor EuroSID-1 dummy that previously-generated EuroSID-1 
data should not be used in analyzing the ES-2 and its associated 
thoracic injury criteria. Consequently, NHTSA stated in the NPRM that, 
in developing the injury criteria for the ES-2re, we would use risk 
curves and other information resulting from our research conducted with 
the ES-2re. (69 FR at 28002)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Samaha, R., Maltese, M., Bolte, J., (2001), ``Evaluation of 
the ES-2 Dummy in Representative Side Impacts,'' Seventeenth 
International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles, Paper No. 486, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    That research included paired sled tests at the Medical College of 
Wisconsin with PMHS and the ES-2re dummy in various impact wall 
configurations. ``Injury Criteria for Side Impact Dummies,'' supra. The 
analysis of the test data indicated a 50 percent risk of thoracic 
injury at 44 mm of maximum thoracic rib deflection. We viewed favorably 
that a rib deflection limit of approximately 44 mm for the ES-2re would 
be harmonized with the 42 mm limit in the EU regulation, in that the 
IARV of 42 mm in the EU regulation corresponded to a 50 percent risk of 
nine rib fractures, which was associated with serious injury (internal 
organ injuries and flail chest). (69 FR at 28002, footnote 33.) That 
is, the chest deflection limits of the two regulations generally 
correspond to equivalent limits on the risk of serious chest injury, 
which could promote the development of similar countermeasures.
    With regard to the comment from Advocates and Public Citizen, the 
agency acknowledges that the elderly and small size occupants generally 
have lower impact tolerance levels than younger, larger occupants. For 
this reason, the injury tolerance levels for the 5th percentile female 
were normalized to that for a 56-year-old, rather than that for a 45-
year-old as done for the 50th percentile male dummy. These injury 
tolerance levels are reasonable, balancing to the extent possible the 
dual goals of practicability and optimum safety performance. The agency 
thus believes that a final rule that uses both the 5th percentile adult 
female dummy and the 50th percentile male dummy affords practicable 
protection to the elderly as well as to a more generalized population.
ii. ES-2re Lower Spine Acceleration
    Resultant lower spine acceleration was proposed to be not greater 
than 82 g (reflecting a 50 percent risk of an AIS 3+ injury). The upper 
and lower spine of the ES-2re is instrumented with tri-axial 
accelerometers (x, y, and z direction corresponding to anterior-
posterior, lateral medial, and inferior-superior). In both oblique pole 
and MDB side vehicle crashes, loading can be in various directions due 
to the complexities of the intruding surfaces. Therefore, NHTSA 
believed that to account for overall loading, resultant accelerations 
should be measured.
    Comments on ES-2re lower spine acceleration: The Alliance did not 
agree with the use of the lower spine acceleration as a supplementary 
criterion for thoracic injury criterion. The Alliance believed that the 
criterion is a poor predictor of injury outcome. The Alliance stated 
that ``thoracic deflection is a direct measure of injury potential by 
itself and that the addition of acceleration will only unnecessarily 
restrict designs using an unproven and poorly correlated parameter.'' 
Further, the Alliance suggested that the lower spine acceleration 
criterion might be unnecessary for the ES-2re, in that the dummy's rib 
deflection readings alone should detect injurious loading of the 
thorax.
    Agency response: We have determined that it is unnecessary to limit 
lower spine acceleration in the pole and MDB tests of the ES-2re dummy. 
Accordingly, this final rule does not adopt the lower spine 
acceleration limit in this rulemaking for the ES-2re. In the oblique 
pole tests conducted in our 214 fleet testing program, the ES-2re's 
lower spine acceleration readings were relatively consistent with the 
dummy's rib deflection readings. Eleven tests showed elevated rib 
deflections. Of these eleven, five also had elevated lower spine 
acceleration. The lower spine acceleration of the ES-2re was elevated 
(75 g) in one vehicle (the Ford Expedition) when the dummy's rib 
deflection was low (26 mm), but the lower spine response could have 
been elevated due to high abdominal loads (the ES-2 recorded a 6,973 N 
abdominal force in that test). Because the lower spine acceleration 
measurements fairly tracked the ES-2re's rib deflections, we conclude 
that, in the oblique pole and MDB tests, the lower spine acceleration 
criterion is unnecessary for the ES-2re. \80\ The dummy's rib 
deflection

[[Page 51942]]

measurements alone will detect injurious loading of the thorax.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ In its comment, Honda noted that the NPRM May 17, 2004 
specified that acceleration data from the accelerometers on the ES-
2re lower spine would be filtered at channel frequency class of 1000 
Hz (proposed S11.5(b)(3), 69 FR at 28027). Honda believed that SAE 
filter channel class 180 should be used instead, and pointed out 
that NHTSA used SAE filter channel class 180 in developing the 
injury criteria for the side impact dummies. The commenter is 
correct that S11.5(b)(3) of the NPRM should have specified SAE 
filter class 180. NHTSA's intent to adopt SAE filter class 180 is 
shown by the document referenced by Honda, and by the December 14, 
2006 final rule adopting the ES-2re dummy into 49 CFR part 572, 
which specifies SAE filter class 180 in 572.189(4). However, because 
we are not adopting the lower spine acceleration injury assessment 
limit, the specification for the lower spine filter class is not 
necessary and we have removed the filter class specification from 
FMVSS No. 214. In addition, this final rule specifies that the 
dummy's rib deflection data are filtered at channel frequency class 
600 Hz, not 180 Hz, in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice 
J211, ``Instrumentation For Impact Test, Part 1, Electronic 
Instrumentation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although we are not adopting the lower spine acceleration limit as 
suggested by the Alliance, we do not agree with the Alliance's 
suggestion that the addition of acceleration will unnecessarily 
restrict designs. The Alliance submitted no data or any other 
information explaining or substantiating this comment. Further, we have 
not seen inconsistencies between the rib deflection and lower spine 
acceleration criteria that support that contention.
B. SID-IIs Lower Spine Acceleration
    For the SID-IIs dummy, the agency proposed a limit of 82 g on the 
resultant lower spine acceleration, which is a measure of loading 
severity to the thorax. In vehicle crashes, loading can be in various 
directions. Therefore, NHTSA believed that to account for overall 
loading, resultant accelerations should be considered rather than 
lateral acceleration alone. The agency recognized that dummy-measured 
accelerations for the level of loading severities experienced in 
vehicle crashes might not have a causal relationship to injury outcome. 
However, the agency believed that they are good indicators of thoracic 
injury in cadaver testing and of overall loading to the dummy thorax.
    NHTSA selected the 82 g resultant lower spine acceleration based 
upon a Receiver Operator Characteristic curve (ROC) developed using the 
data from the series of MCW PMHS sled tests and the sled tests 
conducted with the SID-IIs dummy under impact conditions identical to 
those of the MCW tests. NHTSA estimated the thoracic criteria that were 
associated with a 50th percent risk of AIS 3+ injury in the PMHS. As 
noted above, accelerations measured in a pole and MDB crash test 
soundly indicate overall loading to the dummy thorax, which, in turn, 
can be used to indicate when the thorax has been exposed to overload 
conditions in a crash. However, to minimize instances where 
accelerations above the threshold value results in no serious injury, 
the agency set the maximum lower spine acceleration at 82 g. (See 
``Injury Criteria for Side Impact Dummies,'' id.) The agency also 
believed 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. (NHTSA normalized the risk curve to the average occupant 
age of 56 years.)
    Comments on SID-IIs lower spine acceleration: The Alliance 
disagreed with the proposal to use a deflection-based criterion for the 
ES-2re and an acceleration-based criterion for the small female 
dummy.\81\ The Alliance believed that limiting accelerations would not 
assure that thoracic injury will not occur, and that chest deflection 
is the best predictor of injury. The Alliance stated: ``It is possible 
to have balanced restraint loads, as indicated by low thoracic spine 
accelerations, but to have large, injurious rib deflections. Limits 
must be placed on thoracic and abdominal rib deflections to assure that 
the risks of thoracic and abdominal injuries are at acceptable levels 
for the simulated accident condition.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ The Alliance stated that it supported use of the SID-IIs 
dummy for research purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IIHS likewise strongly supported the use of deflection measures.
    Advocates took ``no specific position'' on the proposed limit of 82 
g but believed that the value might be excessive with regard to older 
vehicle occupants. The commenter agreed with the NPRM that resultant 
accelerations should be considered rather than lateral acceleration 
alone.
    Agency response: NHTSA agrees with the Alliance and IIHS that the 
SID-IIs thoracic and abdominal rib deflections are a critical part of 
the dummy. However, adopting limits on the rib deflections of the SID-
IIs would be outside the scope of this rulemaking and thus is not a 
part of this final rule. Nonetheless, as stated earlier in this 
preamble, we may undertake future rulemaking to propose to limit the 
thoracic and abdominal rib deflections measured by the SID-IIs in the 
FMVSS No. 214 MDB and pole tests.
    Since we are not adopting in this final rule thoracic and abdominal 
deflections for the SID-IIs, a criterion for lower spine acceleration 
is especially important. The criterion can detect injurious loading 
conditions to the abdomen and lower thorax. Test data from the agency's 
214 fleet testing program indicate that 6 of the 10 vehicle tests with 
the SID-IIs resulted in rib deflection measurements exceeding a limit 
of 38 mm for the thoracic rib (which corresponds to a 50 percent risk 
of AIS 3+ injury), and/or a limit of 45 mm for the abdominal rib (the 
45 mm limit is used by IIHS in its consumer information program). In 
all of these, the lower spine acceleration values were also elevated 
(exceeding 82 g or within 80 percent of 82 g (i.e., 66 g)). The 6 tests 
were of the: 2005 Toyota Corolla, 2005 Saturn Ion, 2005 Ford Five 
Hundred, 2004/05 Toyota Sienna, 2005 Chevy Colorado 4x2 extended cab, 
and the 2005 Ford Expedition. Likewise, the lower spine acceleration 
criterion identified elevated loading conditions in the test of the 
2005 Honda CRV. In that test, the SID-IIs abdominal rib deflection was 
36 mm (within 80 percent of 45 mm), and the lower spine was 68 g 
(within 80 percent of 82 g).
    Thus, the data show that the lower spine acceleration readings were 
generally consistent with the SID-IIs's rib deflections. The criterion 
was generally able to identify tests in which a vehicle was unable to 
keep rib deflections from exceeding threshold levels. The lower spine 
acceleration criterion meets the need for a good indicator of thoracic 
injury and of overall loading to the dummy thorax. The lower spine 
acceleration is particularly needed in the absence of a rib deflection 
criterion for the SID-IIs, or any other mechanism that will ensure that 
vehicles are best designed with abdominal and thoracic protection for 
the small occupant in mind. In the future, if NHTSA were to adopt 
limits on the thoracic and abdominal rib deflections measured by the 
SID-IIs in the FMVSS No. 214 crash tests, the agency would consider as 
part of that rulemaking the need for limiting both lower spine 
acceleration and rib deflections.
    Resultant accelerations will be measured rather than lateral 
acceleration alone, for the reasons provided in the NPRM. In response 
to Advocates, the injury tolerance level for the 5th percentile female 
were normalized to that for a 56 year old, rather than that for a 45 
year old as done for the 50th percentile male dummy. The 82 g injury 
tolerance level is reasonable, balancing to the extent possible the 
dual goals of practicability and optimum safety performance.

[[Page 51943]]

3. ES-2re Abdominal Criterion
    The ES-2re dummy offers abdominal injury assessment capability, a 
feature that is not present in the SID dummy. The agency proposed an 
abdominal injury criterion of 2,500 Newtons (N) (562 pounds). The 
agency sought 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).\82\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments on abdomen proposal: Ferrari supported the proposed 
abdominal force limit of 2,500 N because it was consistent with 
harmonization. The Alliance stated that the 2,500 N limit appears to be 
reasonable. The Alliance also stated that there were inconsistencies in 
the calculations of total abdominal force in the NPRM. In some cases 
the abdominal loading was calculated through instantaneous summation of 
the individual load cells, while in other cases the summation of 
individual peak values was utilized. The Alliance stated that it 
believed that an instantaneous summation of the abdominal load cells is 
the correct method to determine the total abdominal force in the ES-2 
dummy.
    Agency response: This final rule adopts an abdominal force limit of 
2,500 N for the reasons provided in the proposal. In response to the 
Alliance, the abdominal force has and will be calculated as the 
instantaneous summation of the abdominal load cell measurements.
4. Pelvic Criterion
A. ES-2re
    NHTSA proposed an ES-2re pelvic force limit of not greater than 
6,000 N (1,349 pounds) (25 percent risk of AIS 3+ 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).\83\ Pubic rami fractures are the first to occur because it 
is the weak link in the pelvis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM proposed to limit only pubic symphysis force. The agency 
did not propose an acceleration-based criterion because the agency 
believed that an injury threshold limit on pelvic acceleration is 
dependent on the impact location and the type of loading (distributed 
versus concentrated). Therefore, the agency did not believe that pelvic 
acceleration is as good a predictor of pelvic fracture as force. The 
scientific literature has documented that force alone is a good 
predictor of pelvic injury.\84\ 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 lb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments on ES-2re pelvis proposal: The Alliance did not agree with 
the NPRM that the ES-2re dummy has provisions for instrumentation that 
can assess the potential for acetabulum and public symphysis injuries 
by way of load cell measurements. In its August 2005 comment, the 
Alliance stated that although vehicles can meet a 6,000 N criterion, it 
is concerned that no experiments have been published documenting what 
the pubic symphysis load was at time of fracture, or as a function of 
external load for a human subject. The Alliance also stated that there 
are no data on the relationship of pubic symphysis load with impact 
velocity. The commenter recommended further study of the issue before a 
criterion is adopted.
    Ferrari agreed with the pelvic force limit of 6,000 N, while 
Advocates believed that the proposed pelvic force limit of 6,000 N is 
too high to protect the elderly.
    Agency response: NHTSA used the Bouquet pendulum test data to 
relate the applied pelvic force to cadavers to the pubic symphysis 
force of the EuroSID-1 dummy for identical test conditions. The impact 
surface in these tests loaded the iliac crest as well as the 
trochanter.\85\ The impactor mass varied between 12 kg to 16 kg and the 
impactor speed from 6 m/s to 13.7 m/s. Since the EuroSID-1 pelvis is 
similar to that of the ES-2re, the similar relationship would apply to 
the ES-2re. For AIS 2+ injured subjects, the dummy pubic force 
corresponds to 0.455 times applied pelvic force to the cadaver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ The bony protrusion at the top of the femoral shaft 
opposite the ball of the hip joint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reanalysis of the Bouquet data after normalizing for the weight 
of the subject as well as the confirmation of the injury risk curves 
using the Zhu and Cavanaugh test data suggests that NHTSA's injury risk 
curves and applied injury threshold for AIS 3+ pelvic fractures are 
reasonable. While the relationship between the ES-2 pubic loads and the 
cadaver applied force are dependent on the loading condition, similar 
scaling relationships have been used successfully for years for the 
EuroSID-I in the EU regulation.
B. SID-IIs
    For the SID-IIs dummy, 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. 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 force on the cadaveric 
subjects was assumed to be equal to the sum of the iliac and acetabular 
forces measured on the SID-IIs dummy.\86\ Therefore, the pelvic injury 
risk curves developed for the SID-IIs dummy were based on the maximum 
of the sum of the measured acetabular and iliac force. The proposed 
5,100 N force level for the SID-IIs corresponded approximately to a 25 
percent risk of AIS 2+ pelvic fracture.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ 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).
    \87\ 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

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

[[Page 51944]]

    Comments on SID-IIs pelvis proposal: The Alliance commented that 
NHTSA's assumption that the normalized applied pelvic force in the 
cadaver tests was equal to the sum of the forces in iliac wing and 
acetabulum was not based on test data. In a September 2, 2005 comment, 
the Alliance submitted component test data showing the distribution of 
forces between the iliac and acetabulum measured by PMHS and the SID-
IIs. The commenter disagreed with the normalization of pelvic responses 
by the mass of the subject because, the commenter stated, the 
Alliance's data suggest only a weak relationship between pelvic mass 
and geometry with the overall subject mass. The commenter believed that 
the sum of the internal forces (acetabulum plus sacro-iliac) is 
approximately 75 percent of the applied external force on the SID-IIs 
dummy. Based on this information, the Alliance stated that ``Even 
though the injury risk curves and associated relationship between PMHS 
and dummy data would have to [be] re-calculated based on non-normalized 
data, an initial IARV for 25% risk of AIS 3+ pelvic injury could be set 
at 8.55kN (0.75*11.4kN) for maximum combined acetabulum and iliac 
loads.''
    The Alliance also stated that there were inconsistencies in the 
calculations of combined pelvic force in the NPRM. In some cases the 
combined pelvis loading was calculated through instantaneous summation 
of the iliac and acetabulum load cells, while in other cases the 
summation of individual peak values was utilized. The Alliance stated 
that it believed that an instantaneous summation of the iliac and 
acetabulum load cells is the correct method to determine the combined 
pelvic force for the SID-IIs.
    Advocates said that older occupants suffering pelvic fracture are 
at a much higher risk of death. Advocates believed that vehicles 
equipped with side thorax bags could be able to meet a lower value. The 
commenter agreed with NHTSA that resultant accelerations should be 
considered rather than lateral acceleration alone.
    Agency response: The Bouquet pelvic impact test data indicated that 
for the same test conditions, the applied force on a lighter subject 
that results in injury was lower than that on a heavier subject. The 
agency continues to believe that such data should be normalized to a 
representative anthropometric subject. The normalizing procedure 
adopted was that of mass scaling, which has been applied by other 
researchers as well.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Zhu, J., Cavanaugh, J., King, A., ``Pelvic Biomechanical 
Response and Padding Benefits in Side Impact Based on a Cadaveric 
Test Series,'' SAE Paper No. 933128, 37th Stapp Car Crash 
Conference, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To obtain the injury risk curve for a small female, the agency 
normalized the pelvic force data from the Bouquet pelvic impact tests 
to that of a small female weighing 48 kg (105 lb), as indicated in the 
technical document, ``Injury Criteria for Side Impact Dummies,'' supra. 
In addition, the risk curve was adjusted to that for a 56 year old. At 
the time of developing the risk curve, there was no data available to 
relate the applied cadaver pelvic force in the Bouquet tests to 
equivalent acetabular and iliac force measured in the SID-IIs. 
Therefore, it was assumed that the applied cadaver pelvic force is 
equal to the sum of acetabular and iliac force in the SID-IIs.
    NHTSA analyzed the SID-IIs data submitted by the Alliance on 
September 2, 2005 in conjunction with the relevant cadaver tests from 
Bouquet. We believe that the submitted data suggested that the sum of 
acetabular and iliac force of the SID-IIs is approximately 1.21 times 
that of the applied cadaver force under similar impact conditions of 
the Bouquet test setup. Accordingly, rather than the proposed pelvic 
force limit of 5,100 N, we have adopted a pelvic force IARV limit of 
5,525 N, which corresponds to a 25% risk of AIS 2+ injury using also a 
factor for reduced bone strength in older women (0.88). We note that 
IIHS considered a 5,525 N pelvic force to be in the middle of the 
acceptable range for the IIHS consumer ratings program.
    The combined pelvic force is calculated as an instantaneous 
summation of the measurements from the iliac and acetabulum load cells.
    In response to Advocates, the 5,525 N sum of acetabular and iliac 
force corresponds to the pelvic injury tolerance for a 56 year old 5th 
percentile female. This tolerance level thus accounts for the age of 
the occupant, and provides practicable protection to the elderly 
occupant.
    For convenience of the reader, the injury criteria adopted by this 
final rule are summarized below in Table 11:

                                      Table 11.--Final Rule Injury Criteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Chest
                                       HIC36        deflection     Lower  spine      Abdominal     Pelvic  force
                                                       (mm)             (g)         force  (N)          (N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ES-2re..........................           1,000              44             N/A           2,500           6,000
SID-IIs.........................           1,000             N/A              82             N/A           5,525
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Lead Time

1. Pole Test
    The agency proposed a phase-in period for the new vehicle-to-pole 
test based on crash test data (see, e.g., Appendix C of this preamble), 
the technologies that could be used to meet the proposed testing 
requirements, and the relatively low percentage of the fleet that had 
side air bags that were capable of meeting the proposed requirements. 
The NPRM proposed 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. The NPRM proposed the 
following phase-in schedule:

--During the production year beginning four years after publication of 
a final rule, 20 percent of each manufacturer's light vehicles 
manufactured during the production year must comply with the 
requirements of the oblique pole test;
--During the production year beginning five years after publication of 
a final rule, 50 percent of each manufacturer's light vehicles 
manufactured during that production year must comply with the 
requirements;
--All vehicles manufactured on or after September 1 six years after 
publication of a final rule must comply with the requirements.

    In addition, we proposed a separate alternative to address the 
special problems faced by limited line manufacturers, alterers, and 
multistage manufacturers in complying with the

[[Page 51945]]

phase-in. NHTSA accordingly proposed to permit these manufacturers the 
option of achieving full compliance when the phase-in is completed.
    Comments received: The Alliance supported the proposed phase-in 
schedule for the oblique pole test. Air bag supplier TRW believed that 
the technology exists to meet the proposed performance requirements 
within the proposed timeframes and stated that it was prepared to 
respond to the needs of the manufacturers. Advocates, Consumers Union, 
and Public Citizen supported a three-year phase-in but recommended that 
the phase-in period begin two years after publication of a final rule. 
Advocates stated that if the agency were to adopt an earlier starting 
year than what had been proposed, it would support a more protracted 
phase-in of four years for the new pole test and a two-year phase in of 
an upgraded MDB test. These commenters believed that the earlier phase-
in period is supported by agency test results that the commenters 
believed showed that the majority of vehicles could comply relatively 
quickly with the new requirements.
    RVIA supported the agency's proposal to allow alterers and 
multistage manufacturers to certify compliance at the end of the phase-
in period. However, both RVIA and NTEA stated that chassis 
manufacturers do often not provide information until the last possible 
moment before the compliance date. Therefore, these commenters 
requested that we allow multistage manufacturers and alterers an 
additional year for compliance certification.
    Maserati and Ferrari supported the proposal to allow small volume 
vehicle manufacturers until the end of the phase-in period before 
having to certify for compliance.
    Agency response: After reviewing the comments to the NPRM, the 
results of the 214 fleet testing program, and production plans which 
show installation of side air bags in vehicles ahead of the proposed 
schedule, we have determined that it would be practicable to provide a 
2-year lead time instead of the 4-year lead time proposed in the NPRM 
leading up to the beginning of the phased-in pole test requirements. 
Compared to the original schedule, this would accelerate the benefits 
expected to be provided by side air bag systems and other 
countermeasures by phasing-in the requirements starting with 20 percent 
of model year (MY) 2010 vehicles. Comments from air bag suppliers 
indicate that the schedule is practicable.
    As explained in the FRIA, the phase-in schedule and percentages of 
this final rule facilitate the installation of side impact air bags and 
other safety countermeasures in light vehicles as quickly as possible, 
while the allowance of advanced credits provides manufacturers a way of 
allocating their resources in an efficient manner to meet the schedule. 
At the same time, many of the vehicles tested by the agency using the 
ES-2re and SID-IIs dummies produced dummy readings that exceeded the 
new pole test performance requirements. This confirms our belief 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, and in the number and type of vehicles in which air bags 
need to be redesigned). Further, manufacturers' product plans also show 
that they are at different stages with regard to planning for 
installation of side impact air bags, particularly thorax bags in light 
trucks.
    Our rationale for the lead time and phase-in is discussed in detail 
in the FRIA for this final rule, and is summarized below.
     The agency analyzed the product plans submitted by seven 
vehicle manufacturers, whose combined production accounts for 
approximately 90 percent of all light vehicle sales, responding to an 
NHTSA request for planned side air bag installations and projected 
sales through model year (MY) 2011. The data show that 90 percent of 
all MY 2010 light vehicles will be equipped with side air bags 
protecting the head, and 72 percent will be equipped with side air bags 
protecting the thorax. The percentage of side air bags protecting the 
head is fairly uniform between the manufacturers; however, there are 
large differences between manufacturers in the percentage of thorax 
bags being planned, particularly for light trucks.
     The agency's 214 fleet testing program indicated that the 
majority of currently available head side air bags would meet the head 
protection requirement of this final rule's pole test (about 80 percent 
of tested vehicles equipped with head air bags passed the pole test). 
However, of the vehicles tested equipped with thorax bags, only 56 
percent met the chest requirement in the pole test. One large truck 
(GVWR greater than 8,500 lb) that was tested also exceeded the injury 
criteria, indicating that structural changes may be needed.
     From our testing, it appears that the pole test data show 
that side air bags installed in most passenger cars and small and 
medium size light trucks (including SUVs and minivans) may not need 
extensive modifications. While some of the window curtains and thorax 
bags we tested were not wide enough to provide the protection desired 
in the oblique impacts when tested with the SID-IIs 5th percentile 
female dummy, we believe that a two-year lead time is reasonable to 
redesign the head and thorax bags. It also appeared that extensive 
vehicle structural modifications were not necessary for the passenger 
cars and small and medium size light trucks. On the other hand, we 
estimate that it will take longer than two years to add a thorax bag to 
a vehicle model that has not had one previously.
     For large light trucks, the test results indicate that 
structural changes may be needed. This is why we have provided a longer 
lead time for vehicles with a GVWR greater than 8,500 lb. Based on our 
experience, if structural changes are needed, the modification could be 
done within 3-4 years.
    The agency analyzed the above factors in determining the lead time 
and phase-in requirements of this final rule. The 20 percent level at 
the two-year mark reflects the manufacturers' production plans for the 
next two years: for vehicles that already have side air bags but whose 
bags do not comply with the pole test, two years provides sufficient 
time for manufacturers to make bags wider and potentially make other 
changes to pass the test, while it takes longer than two years to add 
one to a vehicle that has not had one previously. The 50 percent phase-
in percentage with a three-year lead time could result in one 
manufacturer introducing side thorax air bags ahead of its plans, but 
we believe it would be practicable to introduce thorax bags with 3 
years of lead time, particularly with the use of advanced credits. The 
75 percent phase-in percentage was adopted to elongate the phase-in 
schedule one year longer than proposed, to provide vehicle 
manufacturers the flexibility of a four-year phase-in schedule to 
incorporate side structure and restraint system modifications into 
their production cycles. Most vehicle lines would likely experience 
some level of redesign over the next three to four years. The 
additional phase-in year provides more opportunity to incorporate side 
impact protection design changes during the course of each 
manufacturer's normal production cycle.
    In addition, as discussed in section IV.b.10 of this preamble, 
``Vehicle exclusions,'' this final rule provides more lead time to meet 
the pole test requirements to manufacturers of vehicles with a GVWR 
greater than

[[Page 51946]]

3,855 kg (8,500 lb) than proposed in the NPRM. These vehicles need more 
lead time because they have never been regulated under FMVSS No. 214's 
dynamic requirements and are not subject to the industry's voluntary 
commitment to install side air bags. Because these vehicles may need 
more redesign of the vehicle side structure, interior trim, and/or 
optimization of dynamically deploying head/side protection systems than 
light vehicles, this final rule does not subject these vehicles to the 
pole test requirements until September 1, 2013.
    In response to the RVIA and NTEA, NHTSA has issued a final rule 
pertaining to certification requirements for vehicles built in two or 
more stages and altered vehicles.\89\ In relevant part, the multi-stage 
certification final rule amended 49 CFR 571.8, Effective Date, to add a 
new subparagraph (b) providing as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ See 70 FR 7414 (Feb. 14, 2005).

    Vehicles built in two or more stages and altered vehicles. 
Unless Congress directs or the agency expressly determines that this 
paragraph does not apply, the date for manufacturer certification of 
compliance with any standard, or amendment to a standard, that is 
issued on or after September 1, 2006 is, insofar as its application 
to intermediate and final-stage manufacturers and alterers is 
concerned, one year after the last applicable date for manufacturer 
certification of compliance. Nothing in this provision shall be 
construed as prohibiting earlier compliance with the standard or 
amendment or as precluding NHTSA from extending a compliance 
effective date for intermediate and final-stage manufacturers and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
alterers by more than one year.

    Applying the above provision of the February 14, 2005 final rule to 
this rulemaking, we have provided final-stage manufacturers and 
alterers an additional year after completion of the phase-in to certify 
compliance of their vehicles with the pole test requirements. The 
manufacturers may voluntarily certify compliance with the standard 
prior to this date.
    For convenience of the reader, the phase-in schedule (with advanced 
credits) adopted by this final rule is summarized below and in Table 
12:

--20 percent of a vehicle manufacturer's ``light'' vehicles (GVWR less 
than or equal to 3,855 kg (8,500 lb)) manufactured during the period 
from September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2010 will be required to comply 
with the standard; \90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Limited line and small volume manufacturers, alterers, and 
multistage manufacturers, are excluded from the 20/50/75 phase-in 
requirements. A small volume manufacturer is an original vehicle 
manufacturer that produces or assembles fewer than 5,000 vehicles 
annually for sale in the United States. Limited line and small 
volume manufacturers, alterers, and multistage manufacturers are 
provided extra lead time so that they may maximize resources in 
planning to comply with the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--50 percent of light vehicles manufactured during the period from 
September 1, 2010 to August 31, 2011;
--75 percent of light vehicles manufactured during the period from 
September 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012;
--All light vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2012, 
including those produced by limited line and small volume 
manufacturers, without use of credits;
--All vehicles with a GVWR greater than 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2013 and all vehicles produced by 
alterers and multistage manufacturers, without use of credits.

                 Table 12.--Final Rule Phase-In Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Percent of each manufacturer's
                                            vehicles that must comply
           Production period               during the production period
                                                       \91\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2010...  20 percent (excluding vehicles
                                          GVWR >8,500 lb).
September 1, 2010 to August 31, 2011...  50 percent of vehicles
                                          (excluding vehicles GVWR
                                          >8,500 lb).
September 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012...  75 percent of vehicles
                                          (excluding vehicles GVWR
                                          >8,500 lb).
On or after September 1, 2012..........  All vehicles (excluding
                                          vehicles GVWR >8,500 lb), all
                                          vehicles produced by limited
                                          line and small volume
                                          manufacturers.
On or after September 1, 2013..........  All vehicles GVWR >8,500 lb,
                                          all vehicles manufactured by
                                          alterers and multistage
                                          manufacturers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. MDB test
    The  agency believed that manufacturers could meet the requirements 
of the upgraded MDB test without the need for a phase-in period. 
Therefore, we proposed that the upgraded MDB test would be effective 4 
years after publication of a final rule. The agency requested comments 
on whether it would be appropriate to establish a phase-in for this 
requirement and whether a lead time shorter than 4 years would be 
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ Limited line and small volume manufacturers, alterers, and 
multistage manufacturers, are excluded from the 20/50/75 phase-in 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Alliance, DaimlerChrysler, Nissan, and Ferrari did not support 
the different effective dates for the pole test and the MDB test. The 
Alliance believed that ``occupant safety benefits are optimized and 
manufacturers' engineering resources are best utilized if the MDB and 
pole test requirements are addressed in vehicle designs 
simultaneously.'' The commenter also suggested that there should be an 
opportunity for limited line manufacturers to apply credits against the 
full compliance requirement for one year. DaimlerChrysler anticipated 
that ``the requirements represented in the oblique pole test may effect 
[sic] structural changes which, in turn, will influence performance in 
the MDB test mode.'' DaimlerChrysler believed that designing to the MDB 
and pole tests ``represents a development task which will require at 
least one product cycle (6 to 8 years) to complete.''
    Nissan stated that its experience with side impact crashes leads it 
to believe that significant changes would be necessary to comply with 
the proposed MDB requirements. It also noted that the application of 
advanced credits would allow Nissan to more efficiently distribute 
resources to meet the proposed requirements.
    Ferrari believed that ``improved chest protection would be needed 
even by vehicles whose armrest is already designed to reduce the risk 
of abdominal injuries, and changes would also be needed to vehicles 
that provide good to optimum chest protection when tested according to 
SINCAP or EuroNCAP.'' In Ferrari's opinion, the upgraded MDB test would 
require equal, if not greater, amount of redesign as the pole test. 
Therefore, it recommended the same phase-in time as was proposed for 
the pole test.
    In contrast, Advocates, Consumers Union, and Public Citizen 
supported not having a phase-in for the upgraded MDB test.
    Agency response: After consideration of the comments, NHTSA has 
decided

[[Page 51947]]

to adopt a phase-in for the MDB test, and align the phase-in schedule 
with the oblique pole test requirements, with advance credits. An 
aligned phase-in will allow manufacturers to optimize engineering 
resources to design vehicles that meet the MDB and pole test 
requirements simultaneously, thus reducing costs. Manufacturers, such 
as Nissan, will also be able to use credits to more efficiently 
distribute their resources to meet the requirements. It will also allow 
limited line manufacturers the opportunity to comply with the phase-in 
schedule with credits, or alternatively to achieve full compliance when 
the phase-in is completed. Final-stage manufacturers and alterers will 
be required to comply with the MDB test requirements at the end of the 
phase in, but may voluntarily certify compliance with the requirements 
prior to this date.
    In response to Advocates, Consumers Union, and Public Citizen, the 
agency believes that it is appropriate to provide flexibility to 
manufacturers to upgrade both the pole and MDB requirements on the same 
schedule. When the agency published the NPRM, we did not anticipate 
that vehicles would need many structural changes to comply with the MDB 
test. We originally thought that the countermeasures necessitated by 
the rulemaking would entail a simple redesign of the door trim armrest 
area with additional padding and/or re-contouring of the door trim 
surface. However, upon review of the comments and the results of our 
own limited testing with the SID-IIs in the MDB tests, we agree with 
Nissan and Ferrari that required changes might involve a redesign of 
the vehicle side structure, particularly to address high pelvic loading 
and elevated rib deflections of the SID-IIs in the rear seats of some 
vehicles. By aligning the phase-in schedule of the new MDB requirements 
with the pole test, the agency believes that vehicle manufacturers can 
better optimize their vehicle designs and the overall occupant 
protection systems for side impact crashes.
    In addition, the Alliance, Honda, and other commenters requested 
NHTSA to consider adopting the WorldSID into 49 CFR part 572 and using 
the dummy in the phase-in of this final rule. We are currently 
evaluating the dummy for possible incorporation into part 572. If 
incorporation of the dummy appears reasonable, we could undertake 
rulemaking on the WorldSID to integrate the dummy into the pole and MDB 
tests of FMVSS No. 214 during the phase-in period of this final rule. 
We may also consider rulemaking to incorporate thoracic and abdominal 
rib deflection criteria for the SID-IIs in the pole and MDB tests 
adopted today. By aligning the phase-in schedule of the new MDB 
requirements with the pole test, more flexibility is provided for the 
possible implementation of those rulemaking actions.

f. Related Side Impact Programs

1. Out-of-Position Testing
    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 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.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ 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 over 110 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 \93\ do not appear to pose a safety risk to OOP children, even 
taking into account exposure risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ For the purposes of this discussion, ``side air bags'' 
means side thorax air bags and combination thorax/head air bags, and 
not window curtains or inflatable tubular structures. Our testing 
found no reason for concern with 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.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ ``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 side 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.'' \95\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ 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:

[[Page 51948]]

    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 between aggressive and non-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 dummies, the TWG test procedures do not 
always find the worst case conditions for some current SIAB systems.
    The NPRM. The NPRM sought information on how meeting the 
requirements proposed by the NPRM would affect manufacturers' ability 
to meet the TWG procedures. The NPRM stated that the agency will 
continue to monitor compliance with the TWG test procedures and 
requirements by automotive manufacturers, and will conduct further 
testing of new air bag designs.
    Comments: DaimlerChrysler commented that at this time, it does not 
know the extent of which the OOP occupants, as specified in the TWG, 
would be affected by the proposed requirements in the NPRM. However, 
DaimlerChrysler anticipated that side air bags designed in accordance 
to the NPRM may be in conflict with the TWG OOP requirements. 
Conversely, TRW believed that the side protection systems designed to 
meet the requirements of the NPRM could perform acceptably for OOP 
occupants. TRW also stated that it supports the efforts of the OOP TWG 
and does not believe there is a need for regulatory activity in this 
area.
    Agency response: We have considered the comments on whether meeting 
the requirements proposed by the NPRM would affect manufacturers' 
ability to meet the TWG procedures. DaimlerChrysler, the only vehicle 
manufacturer commenting on this issue, stated it had no data to support 
its suggestion of a potential conflict between TWG and the proposed 
requirements of the NPRM, but anticipated there may be some.
    NHTSA's testing has shown that, during the course of the 214 fleet 
testing program, there have been vehicles that have met the new 
requirements of this final rule and have also been reported to meet the 
TWG procedures. The Jetta, Volkswagen Beetle Convertible, Saab 9-3 
Convertible and Honda Accord have met the pole test injury criteria 
with the ES-2re and have been certified by their respective 
manufacturer to the TWG OOP requirements. The Honda CRV met the pole 
test criteria with the SID-IIs and also has been certified to TWG OOP. 
These examples show that the oblique pole and MDB test requirements are 
not in conflict with the TWG guidelines. Further, air bag supplier TRW 
stated that side impact protection systems designed to meet the 
requirements of the NPRM could perform acceptably for OOP occupants. 
Based on the available information, we conclude that vehicles are able 
to meet the requirements of this final rule and those of the TWG OOP.
    The agency monitors compliance with the TWG requirements by vehicle 
manufacturers. As part of the agency's Buying a Safer Car consumer 
information program, we publish whether a vehicle was certified to the 
TWG OOP requirements. We only state that a vehicle has met those 
requirements after the manufacturer has provided data showing that it 
conforms to TWG OOP. The agency also conducts spot testing to verify 
those results. If the knowledge we gain from our test program indicates 
that further actions are needed, we will take appropriate actions to do 
so.
2. Side NCAP
    Honda asked that NHTSA use WorldSID in testing vehicles under the 
side impact new car assessment program if the manufacturer uses 
WorldSID for that vehicle's FMVSS No. 214 certification. Autoliv wanted 
NHTSA to address the effects of the rulemaking on NCAP. ``If there is a 
significant difference between Lateral NCAP and FMVSS 214 (MDB) test 
conditions and requirements, there may be significant challenges in 
meeting requirements of both (potentially conflicting) test 
conditions.''
    Agency response: We have carefully considered Honda's suggestion. 
However, since we are not engaged in a rulemaking action on the 
WorldSID dummy at the present time, we can only commit to study the 
merit of Honda's suggestion during the course of our future research.
    In response to Autoliv, we do not anticipate significant challenges 
or potential conflicts in meeting the requirements of both side NCAP 
and the final rule. The upgrade to FMVSS No. 214 is an enhancement to 
the protection currently provided by the standard. Based on our crash 
testing to date, vehicles that achieved a rating of four stars or 
better for both occupants in side NCAP tests will likely be among the 
better performers in meeting the requirements of the final rule. (The 
FMVSS No. 214 test is conducted at a lower speed than the side NCAP 
test.) We believe countermeasures, such as new side structure 
enhancements, new crash sensors and/or algorithms, and/or new head 
protection systems, will only improve a vehicle's performance in side 
NCAP and other side impact crashes.
    Nonetheless, NHTSA carefully ensures that any changes to NCAP are 
based on sound science and careful, objective analysis of supporting 
data.\96\ With the two new crash test dummies and a new crash test 
configuration added to the standard, the agency will continue to 
evaluate how to tailor the side NCAP program to complement the upgraded 
requirements of FMVSS No. 214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ NHTSA has announced plans to evaluate near and long-term 
approaches to enhance NCAP activities. ``The New Car Assessment 
Program; Suggested Approaches for Enhancements,'' 72 FR 3473; 
January 25, 2007, Docket 26555. An enhancement under consideration 
is to include the pole test in NCAP assesssments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Cross-References to FMVSS No. 214
    Honda pointed out that FMVSS Nos. 201, 301 and 305 contain cross-
references to sections of FMVSS No. 214 that will be renumbered by this 
final rule. We are amending those cross-references in FMVSS Nos. 201, 
301 and 305 to achieve consistency with today's final rule.

g. Comments on the PEA

    Several comments were received on the agency's preliminary economic 
assessment (PEA) for the NPRM. Commenters included Maserati and 
Ferrari, the Alliance, and the Specialty Equipment Manufacturers 
Association (SEMA).
    Maserati and Ferrari believed that NHTSA underestimated the costs 
of small manufacturers to comply with the proposed rule. The Alliance 
had questions about how the PEA estimated the benefits of the 
rulemaking, e.g., how the agency identified the target population of 
potentially injured occupants that would be addressed by the 
rulemaking. The Alliance also believed that we did not demonstrate the 
practicability of meeting the proposed test requirements, and stated 
that the principles set forth in the Data Quality Act were not met (the 
commenter believed that some of the data in the PEA had errors and that 
the PEA contained some unsupported assumptions).
    The agency has responded to the comments on the costs and benefits 
analysis and other issues of the PEA in the Final Regulatory Impact 
Analysis (FRIA) \97\ (see Appendix G of the FRIA),

[[Page 51949]]

which has been placed in the agency's docket for this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ The FRIA 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 FRIA will be listed in the docket summary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Costs and Benefits

    As noted above, we have prepared an FRIA to accompany this final 
rule. The FRIA provides an analysis of the potential impacts of the 
vehicle-to-pole side impact test and the modifications to the MDB test. 
It also addresses comments the agency received in response to the 
agency's Preliminary Economic Assessment that accompanied the NPRM. A 
summary of the FRIA follows.
    Benefits. The agency 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. Target 
fatalities and MAIS 3-5 injuries were derived from 2000-2004 CDS. The 
agency limited the target population to crashes in which the delta-V 
was in the range of 19 to 40 km/h (12 to 25 mph). 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 ES-2re), and the remaining occupants were assumed to be 
represented by the 5th percentile female dummy (the SID-IIs). As 
discussed in the FRIA, several additional adjustments were made to the 
target population to address voluntary commitments, belt use, children, 
etc. The target population was then determined to be 2,311 fatalities 
and 5,891 non-fatal serious to critical MAIS AIS 3-5 injuries in 
crashes with a delta-V of 19 to 40 km/h (12-25 mph) for near-side 
occupants.\98\ The 2,311 fatalities were divided into two groups for 
the analysis: (1) Vehicle-to-pole impacts; and (2) vehicle-to-vehicle 
or other roadside object impacts, which include partial ejections in 
these cases. Further adjustments were made for assumed full compliance 
with the FMVSS No. 201 upper interior requirements, 100 percent 
Electronic Stability Control (ESC) penetration in the model year (MY) 
2011 new vehicle fleet, current performance that conforms to the final 
rule requirements adopted today (based on the results of the NHTSA 214 
fleet testing program), and manufacturers' planned installation of side 
air bags.\99\ The incremental benefits of the final rule are estimated 
as:

    \98\ The Agency's analysis also found some fatality benefits for 
far-side unbelted occupants. In 2004 FARS, there were 1,441 unbelted 
far-side occupant fatalities in side impacts.
    \99\ Seven manufacturers (comprising about 90 percent of all 
light vehicle sales) submitted confidential data responding to a 
NHTSA request for planned side air bag and projected sales through 
model year (MY) 2011. For remaining manufacturers, MY 2006 side air 
bag percentages were assumed to remain constant through MY 2011. The 
projected MY 2011 side air bag sales data show that the majority of 
vehicles (about 93%) will be equipped with side air bags. Based on 
the sales data, we expect that about 95% and 78% of these vehicles 
will be equipped with curtain and thorax bags, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--266 fatalities saved and 352 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 costly side air 
bag system that would enable a vehicle to meet the standard.)
--311 fatalities saved and 361 MAIS 3-5 injuries prevented, if a window 
curtain and thorax air bag 2-sensor system were used.
--311 fatalities saved and 371 MAIS 3-5 injuries prevented, if a window 
curtain and thorax air bag 4-sensor system were used.

    Window curtains are estimated to have more benefits than 
combination air bags because we assumed that window curtains would have 
an impact on partial ejections that occur in side impacts without 
rollover, while we assume no benefits for combination air bags in far-
side partial ejections without rollover. No benefits are claimed for 
complete ejections in rollovers, since the effectiveness of the 
combination air bags or window curtains to contain occupants in a 
rollover event has not been established at this time.
    The majority of the benefits are for front seat occupants, but a 
small number of benefits are included for rear seat occupants. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ The benefits of 100 percent of the fleet having side air 
bags compared to 0 percent of the fleet having side air bags, 
assuming 100 percent of vehicles have Electronic Stability Control 
systems, are estimated to be 976 fatalities and 932 AIS 3-5 
injuries.

                          Table 13.--Benefits of the Final Rule by Countermeasure \100\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Combination      Curtain &       Curtain &
                                                                     air bag 2     thorax bags 2   thorax bags 4
                                                                      sensors         sensors         sensors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities......................................................             266             311             311
AIS 3-5 Injuries................................................             352             361             371
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Costs. In the FRIA, the agency discusses the costs of the different 
technologies that could be used to comply with the tests, and also 
estimates compliance tests costs. Based on the results of the 2005 
tests of vehicles with side air bags (Section IV of this preamble, 
supra), the agency estimates that the majority of vehicle manufacturers 
currently installing side head air bag systems will have to widen their 
present air bags. They might not need to add side impact sensors to 
their vehicles or develop more advanced sensors to meet an oblique pole 
test. Potential compliance costs for the pole test vary considerably, 
and are dependent upon the types of head and thorax side air bags 
chosen by the manufacturers and the number of sensors used in the 
system. As noted above, NHTSA estimates that the combination air bag, 
2-sensor system would be the least costly side air bag system that 
would enable a vehicle to meet the standard.
    The costs for installing new systems are estimated to range from:
--a wide combination head/thorax side air bag system with two sensors 
at $126 per vehicle,
--to wide window curtains and wide thorax side air bags with four 
sensors at a cost of $280 per vehicle.
    Given the level of compliance found in our vehicle testing \101\ 
and the manufacturers' planned installation of side air bags in MY 
2011, the total annual incremental cost to meet this final rule with 
the lower cost combination air bag is estimated to be $429 million. The 
total annual incremental cost for the wide window

[[Page 51950]]

curtains and wide thorax side air bags with four sensors is estimated 
to be $1.1 billion (2004 dollars). This amounts to a range of total 
incremental annual cost of $429 million to $1.1 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ We assumed that the performance of side air bags that 
would have been installed in MY 2011 vehicles in the absence of the 
oblique pole test requirements would have been equivalent to the 
performance observed in the agency's tests of MY 2005 vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency's data show that the majority of side air bag systems 
are currently equipped with two side impact sensors. The total annual 
incremental cost for the most likely air bag system (curtain and thorax 
bag two-sensor countermeasure) would be about $560 million.

                              Table 14.--Incremental Total Costs and Vehicle Costs
                                                     [$2004]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Window curtain  Window curtain
                                                                    Combination     and thorax      and thorax
                                                                    head/thorax   side air bags,  side air bags,
                                                                   side air bags     2 sensors       4 sensors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental total costs.........................................           *$429           *$560          **$1.1
Total vehicle cost per system...................................             126             243            280
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Million.
**Billion.

    Cost Per Equivalent Fatality Prevented. NHTSA estimated the costs 
per equivalent life saved, using a 3 and a 7 percent discount rate. The 
low end of the range is $1.6 million per equivalent life saved, using a 
3 percent discount rate. That low end estimate assumes that 
manufacturers will install combination head/thorax air bags rather than 
separate window curtains and thorax air bags, in vehicles that 
currently have no side impact air bags or only thorax side impact air 
bags. The high end of the range is $4.6 million per equivalent life 
saved, using a 7 percent discount rate. The high end estimate assumes 
that manufacturers will install separate window curtains and thorax air 
bags with four sensors.

                       Table 15.--Costs Per Equivalent Life Saved Present Discounted Value
                                                  [in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Window curtain  Window curtain
                                                                    Combination     and thorax      and thorax
                 Cost per equivalent life saved                     head/thorax   side air bags,  side air bags,
                                                                   side air bags     2 sensors       4 sensors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount Rate................................................            $1.6            $1.8            $3.7
7% Discount Rate................................................             2.0             2.3             4.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Net Benefits. Net benefit analysis differs from cost effectiveness 
analysis in that it requires that benefits be assigned a monetary 
value, and that this value is compared to the monetary value of costs 
to derive a net benefit. NHTSA estimates that the high end of the net 
benefits is $561 million for the combination head/thorax air bags using 
a 3 percent discount rate and the low end is negative $225 million for 
the curtain + thorax bags with four sensors, using a 7 percent discount 
rate. Both of these are based on a $3.7 million cost per equivalent 
life saved.

                                Table 16.--Net Benefits With $3.7M Cost per Life
                                                  [In millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Benefit                       Net benefit
                 Countermeasure                  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    3% discount     7% discount     3% discount     7% discount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combo + 2 Sensors...............................            $990            $787            $561            $357
Curtain + 2 Sensors.............................           1,127             895             567             336
Curtain + 4 Sensors.............................           1,131             899               7            -225
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. 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. The FRIA fully 
discusses the estimated costs and benefits of this rulemaking action. 
The costs and benefits are summarized in section VII of this preamble, 
supra.

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 rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small organizations and small governmental units will not be 
significantly affected since the potential cost impacts associated with 
this action

[[Page 51951]]

will not significantly affect the price of new motor vehicles.
    The rule will directly affect motor vehicle manufacturers. NHTSA 
requested comments on an addendum to the initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis (IRFA) that was contained in the Preliminary Economic 
Assessment (PEA) for the May 17, 2004 NPRM on FMVSS No. 214 (Docket No. 
17694). The addendum to the IRFA discusses the economic impacts on 
small vehicle manufacturers, of which there are four \102\ (70 FR 2105; 
January 12, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ Avanti, Panoz, Saleen, and Shelby.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA stated in the addendum that our tentative conclusion was that 
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on the four 
manufacturers. We believed that the small vehicle manufacturers are not 
likely to certify compliance with a vehicle test, but will use a 
combination of component testing by air bag suppliers and engineering 
judgment. Already much of the air bag work for these small vehicle 
manufacturers is done by air bag suppliers. Typically, air bag 
suppliers are supplying larger vehicle manufacturers during the 
development and phase-in period, and do not have the design 
capabilities to handle all of the smaller manufacturers. The rulemaking 
proposal accounted for this limitation by proposing to allow small 
manufacturers that have limited lines to comply with the upgraded 
requirements at the end of the phase-in period, to reduce the economic 
impact of the rule on these small entities.
    As explained in the addendum, we also believed that the rulemaking 
would not have a significant impact on the small vehicle manufacturers 
because the market for the vehicles produced by these entities is 
highly inelastic. Purchasers of these vehicles are attracted by the 
desire to have an unusual vehicle. Further, all light vehicles must 
comply with the upgraded side impact requirements. Since the price of 
complying with the rule will likely be passed on to the final consumer, 
the price of competitor's models will increase by similar amounts. In 
addition, we did not believe that raising the price of a vehicle to 
include the value of a combination head-thorax side air bag will have 
much, if any, effect on vehicle sales.
    The agency received no comments on the addendum to the IRFA 
concerning the impacts of the rule on small vehicle manufacturers.
    For the reasons explained in the IRFA, NHTSA concludes that this 
final rule will not have a significant impact on small vehicle 
manufacturers.
    The final rule indirectly affects air bag manufacturers, dummy 
manufacturers and seating manufacturers. The agency does not believe 
that there are any small manufacturers of air bags. There are several 
manufacturers of dummies and/or dummy parts, some of which are 
considered small businesses. The 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, the cost of the seats will 
increase. However, we believe that the costs will be passed on to the 
consumer. NHTSA believes that air bag manufacturers will 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 final rule on such entities will not be 
significant. Final-stage manufacturers or alterers engaged in raising 
the roofs of vehicles will not be affected by this rulemaking, since 
this final rule excludes vehicles with raised or altered roofs from the 
pole test.
    The Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) believed that 
``aftermarket equipment manufacturers and other entities that diagnose, 
service, repair and upgrade motor vehicles'' may be affected by the 
final rule if their installed products interact with equipment or 
systems used by vehicle manufacturers to meet the FMVSS No. 214 
requirements. SEMA's comment focused on three issues. The following 
discusses those comments and our responses thereto.
    1. SEMA said that, with regard to frontal air bags and air bag 
sensors installed pursuant to FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash 
protection,'' manufacturers of aftermarket leather and fabric seating 
products frequently have not had access to electronic information about 
the frontal air bag sensor in the vehicle seat. Consequently, SEMA 
stated, the aftermarket manufacturer or installer could not reprogram 
the sensor after the product has been installed, and in many instances, 
had to return the vehicle to the dealership for reprogramming. SEMA 
suggested that NHTSA should--

make sure that electronic data is open and available in such a way 
so as not to preclude installation, servicing, or repair of legal 
aftermarket equipment * * * Specifically, SEMA believes it is 
appropriate to follow the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] OBD 
[on-board diagnostic system] precedent in that any and all 
electronic data, or any that can be accessed through the available 
technology, must be made available to the vehicle owner to the 
extent that such access is available to other parties. Further, SEMA 
believes it is appropriate that NHTSA consider setting standards for 
data retrieval communication protocols, connectors and tools, and 
that such information and tools be made available to the public in a 
timely and cost-effective manner.

    Agency response: Requiring vehicle manufacturers to ensure that 
electronic information about the SIABs is ``open and available * * * so 
as not to preclude installation, servicing, or repair'' of aftermarket 
equipment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Furthermore, we do 
not have any information showing that such a requirement is necessary 
or appropriate at this time. Vehicles currently include many complex 
systems, and although dealer involvement may be necessary in some 
cases, the marketplace has made available sufficient information to 
permit convenient maintenance and repair of such systems. We do not 
believe that SIAB technology will prove any different in this regard. 
There are a substantial number of vehicles currently equipped with SIAB 
systems--some portion of which it is expected would have had 
aftermarket modifications of the types suggested by SEMA--and there has 
been no indication of any problem to date. Additional information may 
become available in the future that sheds light on how SIAB systems 
interact with other vehicle equipment and systems. We will monitor the 
data and test information we receive on this issue, and we encourage 
all interested parties to share relevant information with the agency 
and the public as it becomes available. If we later find significant 
safety risks associated with the interaction between SIAB systems and 
items of equipment (aftermarket or otherwise), we will work toward 
addressing these possible problems.
    Further, we are not requiring vehicle manufacturers to share all 
electronic data with the vehicle owner. Such a requirement is 
unnecessary at this time, for the reasons discussed above. We have not 
been presented with any evidence of a safety or compatibility problem 
between SIABs and other vehicle systems or equipment, and the

[[Page 51952]]

market has tended to respond to consumer demands that sufficient 
information be provided to permit third party vehicle servicing. 
Nonetheless, NHTSA strongly encourages SEMA and its members to develop 
relationships with vehicle and SIAB system manufacturers to research 
and find solutions to these questions.
    2. SEMA stated that ``many dealerships have received service 
bulletins from the vehicle manufacturer warning them against the 
installation of aftermarket seat covers, citing concern that 
installation may interfere with the front seat airbag sensors.'' SEMA 
suggested that NHTSA should ``issue a regulation or policy statement 
which states that it is illegal to issue service bulletins or other 
communications that warn dealers about potential warranty denial based 
on the mere presence or installation of aftermarket equipment.''
    Agency response: We are unable to concur with SEMA that NHTSA 
should provide the requested regulation and/or policy statement 
governing the communications between manufacturers and dealers on 
warranties. Communications between vehicle manufacturers and their 
dealers on the warranties is a topic that is beyond the scope of the 
rulemaking. However, we encourage OEMs and the aftermarket sales 
industry to work together to share information on the effect of 
aftermarket equipment on vehicle warranties.
    3. SEMA believed that NHTSA did not consider all of the small 
businesses potentially impacted by the final rule. The commenter 
believed that the rule ``will directly affect a number of small 
entities including manufacturers and installers of seating equipment, 
interior upholstery, sunroofs and running boards. Beyond that, there 
are potentially thousands of small entities that may have the 
opportunity to diagnose, service, repair and upgrade motor vehicles.'' 
SEMA stated, ``While it may be possible to work with the air bag 
manufacturers to design seating equipment, upholstery, sunroofs, 
running boards and other items of equipment that may effect [sic] air 
bag sensors, the information is of little value if the vehicle's 
computer system needs to be reprogrammed to accommodate the new 
equipment. The reg-flex analysis does not take into account that the 
vehicle manufacturers are the source of this information, not the air 
bag manufacturers. Unless such service information is forthcoming, 
thousands of small businesses may be directly impacted by the rule 
change.''
    Agency response: In responding to this comment, we note that NHTSA 
is not required to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis for 
entities not directly impacted by its rulemaking. In its 2003 
publication titled ``A Guide for Government Agencies: How to Comply 
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act'' (``RFA Guide''), the Small 
Business Administration states that ``[t]he courts have held that the 
RFA requires an agency to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis of 
small entity impacts only when a rule directly regulates them.'' \103\ 
The cases cited by the RFA Guide indicate that a rule ``directly 
regulates'' only the entities to which the rule applies--for example, 
electric utilities but not independent electricity cooperatives in a 
FERC rate-setting regulation,\104\ or automobile manufacturers but not 
aftermarket businesses in an EPA `deemed-to-comply' rule.\105\ In Motor 
& Equipment Mfrs. Ass'n v. Nichols, the D.C. Circuit described the 
distinction as follows: ``The RFA itself distinguishes between small 
entities subject to an agency rule, to which its requirements apply, 
and those not subject to the rule, to which the requirements do not 
apply.'' \106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ Office of Advocacy, United States Small Business 
Administration, ``A Guide for Government Agencies: How to Comply 
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act,'' 2003, p. 20.
    \104\ Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (FERC), 773 F.2d 327, 341 (DC Cir. 1985) 
(stating that ``Congress did not intend to require that every agency 
consider every indirect effect that any regulation might have on 
small businesses in any stratum of the national economy.'').
    \105\ Motor & Equipment Mfrs. Ass'n v. Nichols, 142 F.3d 449, 
467 (DC Cir. 1998) (holding that ``Because the deemed-to-comply rule 
did not subject any aftermarket businesses to regulation, EPA was 
not required to conduct a flexibility analysis as to small 
aftermarket businesses. It was only obliged to consider the impact 
of the rule on small automobile manufacturers subject to the rule, 
and it met that obligation.'').
    \106\ Id., fn 18, at 467 (describing 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3) and 
(4)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule establishes performance requirements for side 
impact protection and applies to new motor vehicles. The only entities 
subject to these requirements are vehicle manufacturers. NHTSA has 
already analyzed the potential impacts of the rule on these directly 
affected entities, as the FRIA makes clear. Nothing in this rule 
subjects the entities described by SEMA to NHTSA's regulation.
    With that said, although NHTSA has no obligation to perform a 
regulatory flexibility analysis to consider the potential impacts of 
this final rule on such non-directly regulated entities, we are 
nevertheless concerned about the impact our rules have on all parties. 
Again, we have considered the effects that this final rule might have 
on aftermarket motor vehicle equipment manufacturers and the motor 
vehicle service industry. The agency is not aware of any significant 
compatibility problems between SIAB systems and other vehicle 
equipment, and SEMA provided no evidence that side air bag technology 
will preclude installation, servicing, or repair of aftermarket 
equipment, including whether and the degree to which particular 
aftermarket modifications of a vehicle entail the reprogramming of a 
vehicle's computer system. The agency cannot hypothesize on all 
possible interactions between SIAB technologies and different vehicle 
equipment, and we are unable to address speculative arguments regarding 
compatibility problems for which there is no evidence. There are a 
substantial number of vehicles currently equipped with SIAB systems--
some portion of which it is expected would have had aftermarket 
modifications of the types suggested by SEMA--and there has been no 
indication of any problem to date.
    Nonetheless, we encourage manufacturers of aftermarket equipment 
that cannot independently assess whether their products will affect 
original SIAB systems to collaborate with air bag and vehicle 
manufacturers to make that assessment or to undertake concerted testing 
to develop products that are compatible with the SIABs. SEMA's comment 
indicated that companies that supply leather or fabric seating already 
``have tested their products to ensure that the leather or fabric does 
not adversely impact the air bag seat sensors.'' \107\ We believe that 
the aftermarket installers of other products can likewise embark on 
testing or collaborative work with air bag and vehicle manufacturers to 
ensure that the installation is compatible with the vehicles' SIAB 
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ See also submission from Kugi Florian in NHTSA Docket 
17694 (Walser aftermarket seat cover made compatible with seat-
mounted side air bags).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, aftermarket businesses have already been servicing 
vehicles with SIABs and other complex systems that use computer 
technology. Although vehicle dealer involvement may be necessitated in 
some cases, we do not believe that involvement has resulted in a 
significant economic impact on the businesses. The marketplace has 
generally made available sufficient information to permit the 
aftermarket installation of equipment, and the maintenance and repair 
of vehicles with SIAB and other systems. There is no indication that 
vehicle manufacturers and dealers have not made and will not continue 
to make necessary information reasonably available to the aftermarket 
sales and service industries. However,

[[Page 51953]]

we will continue to monitor the data and test information we receive on 
this issue, and we encourage all interested parties to share relevant 
information with the agency and the public as it becomes available. If 
we later find problems with the information being made available to the 
aftermarket sales and service industries, we will take appropriate 
steps to address these problems.
    For the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that this rule will not 
have a significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ Additional information concerning the potential impacts of 
the requirements on small entities is presented in the FRIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order 
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional 
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is 
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that 
the rule does not have federalism implications because the rule does 
not have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.''
    Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect 
of today's rule. NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in at least two 
ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains 
an express preemptive provision: ``When a motor vehicle safety standard 
is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of 
a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to 
the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle 
equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed 
under this chapter.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory 
command that preempts State law, not today's rulemaking, so 
consultation would be inappropriate.
    In addition to the express preemption noted above, the Supreme 
Court has also recognized that State requirements imposed on motor 
vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law, 
can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of a NHTSA 
safety standard. When such a conflict is discerned, the Supremacy 
Clause of the Constitution makes their State requirements 
unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 
(2000). NHTSA has not outlined such potential State requirements in 
today's rulemaking, however, in part because such conflicts can arise 
in varied contexts, but it is conceivable that such a conflict may 
become clear through subsequent experience with today's standard and 
test regime. NHTSA may opine on such conflicts in the future, if 
warranted. See id. at 883-86.

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 annually (adjusted annually for inflation, with base year 
of 1995). These effects are discussed earlier in this preamble and in 
the FRIA. 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 FRIA identify and consider a number of 
alternatives, concerning factors such as test speed, test angle, number 
and type of dummies used in the test, and phase-in schedule. 
Alternatives considered by and rejected by us would not fully achieve 
the objectives of the alternative preferred by NHTSA (a reasonable 
balance between the benefits and costs of a 20 mph oblique pole test 
with the ES-2re and the SID-IIs, and a reasonable balance of the 
benefits and costs of an upgrade of the MDB test). Further, Section IX 
of the FRIA discusses three alternative regulatory approaches to the 
oblique pole test that we considered: (a) Using the 90 degree pole test 
set forth in FMVSS No. 201; (b) using the Voluntary Commitment approach 
(perpendicular moving barrier test with one test dummy); and (c) 
applying a pole test to front and rear seats. The agency believes that 
it has selected the most cost-effective alternative that achieves the 
objectives of the rulemaking.

e. National Environmental Policy Act

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

f. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, 
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR 
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every 
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies 
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 
defines key terms; and (7) addresses other important issues affecting 
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the 
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive 
effect of this rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there 
is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for 
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they 
may file suit in court.

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 write to us 
with your views.

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 final rule contains a 
collection of information because of the proposed phase-in reporting 
requirements. There is no burden to the general public.

[[Page 51954]]

    The collection of information requires manufacturers of passenger 
cars and of trucks, buses and MPVs with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) 
or less, to annually submit a report, and maintain records related to 
the report, concerning the number of such vehicles that meet the 
vehicle-to-pole and MDB test requirements of FMVSS No. 214 during the 
phase-in of those requirements. The phase-in of both the pole and MDB 
test requirements will cover three years. The purpose of the reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements is to assist the agency in determining 
whether a manufacturer of vehicles has complied with the requirements 
during the phase-in period.
    We are submitting a request for OMB clearance of the collection of 
information required under today's final rule. 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.
    A Federal Register document has provided a 60-day comment period 
concerning the collection of information. The Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) 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,
    (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.
    The NPRM requested that organizations and individuals wishing to 
submit comments on the information collection requirements direct them 
to the docket for the NPRM. The agency did not receive any comments on 
the information collection requirements.

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 
final rule, 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 final rule 
relate to: the diameter of the pole (ISO draft technical reports 
recommend the use of a 350 mm pole, while NHTSA uses a 254 mm pole in 
FMVSS No. 201 and will 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 final rule uses a 75 degree angle). The agency's reasons for 
a 254 mm pole were discussed in the NPRM. The reasons for an oblique, 
32 km/h (20 mph), angle of approach were discussed earlier in this 
document.

IX. Appendices

Appendix A--Glossary

Categories of Side Air Bags
    Combined (also called ``integrated,'' ``combination'' 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,'' ``side curtain air bags,'' ``window curtains,'' ``air 
curtains,'' or ``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 and stored 
un-deployed under the roof rail headliner. When deployed, the curtain 
inflates to provide a cushioned contact surface for the head, spanning 
the side of the vehicle, down from the roof rail across the windows. 
This system would provide head protection for front and possibly rear 
seat occupants in outboard seating positions in side crashes.
    Head air bag system (or head protection system (HPS)). The term 
comprises different types of head protection systems, such as curtain 
bags, installed either as a stand alone system or combined with a 
thorax side air bag.
    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.

Appendix B--Existing FMVSS No. 214

    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 and pelvic protection because contact

[[Page 51955]]

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 
50th percentile adult male 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.

Appendix C--Test Data From NPRM

    The NPRM presented the following data from tests of an ES-2re and a 
SID-IIsFRG dummy in oblique pole and FMVSS No. 214 MDB tests.

                                     Table 1 to Appendix C.--75-Degree Pole Test Results ES-2 Dummy or ES-2re Dummy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                            Lower spine                     Pubic-force
               Test vehicle                          Restraint*                HIC36       Rib-def. (mm)        (g)       Abd.-force (N)        (N)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Proposed limits.............           1,000       *** 35-44              82      ***2,400 -           6,000
                                                                                                                                   2,800
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Test Results Using FMVSS No. 214 Seating Position
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Test Results Using FMVSS No. 201 Seating Position
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
***The agency stated that a particular value within this range would be selected.


                               Table 2 to Appendix C.--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


                                                 Table 3 to Appendix C.--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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The agency stated that a particular value within this range would be selected.


[[Page 51956]]


                                                 Table 4 to Appendix C.--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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The agency stated that a particular value within this range would be selected.


                             Table 5 to Appendix C.--FMVSS No. 214 MDB Test Results
                                               [SID-IIsFRG driver]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Restraint HPS and/or                      Lower spine
             Test vehicle                         SIAB                 HIC36            (g)         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 6 to Appendix C.--FMVSS No. 214 MDB Test Results
                                           [SID-IIsFRG rear passenger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Restraint HPS and/or                      Lower spine
             Test vehicle                         SIAB                 HIC36            (g)         Pelvis  (N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed limits.......................  ........................           1,000              82           5,100
2001 Ford Focus.......................  None....................             526              65           3,997
2002 Chevrolet Impala.................  None....................             153              89           5,711
2001 Buick Le Sabre...................  None....................             221              77           4,041
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 571

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

49 CFR Part 585

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR Chapter V as set 
forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Section 571.201 is amended by revising S6.2(b)(3), adding 
S6.2(b)(4), and revising S8.18, S8.19 and S8.28, to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    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 of 49 CFR 571.214, Side Impact Protection, need not 
comply with the pole test requirements specified in S6.2(b)(3) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    S8.18 Adjustable seats--vehicle to pole test. Initially, adjustable 
seats shall be adjusted as specified in S8.3.1 of Standard 214 (49 CFR 
571.214).
    S8.19 Adjustable seat back placement--vehicle to pole test. 
Initially, position adjustable seat backs in the manner specified in 
S8.3.1 of Standard 214 (49 CFR 571.214).
* * * * *
    S8.28 Positioning procedure for the Part 572 Subpart M test dummy--
vehicle to pole test. The part 572, subpart M, test dummy is initially 
positioned in the front outboard seating position on the struck side of 
the vehicle in accordance with the provisions of S12.1 of Standard 214 
(49 CFR 571.214), and the vehicle seat is positioned as specified in 
S8.3.1 of that standard. The position of the dummy is then measured as 
follows. Locate the horizontal plane passing through the dummy head 
center of gravity. Identify the rearmost point on the dummy head in 
that plane. Construct a line in the plane that contains the rearward 
point of the front door daylight opening and is perpendicular to the 
longitudinal vehicle centerline. Measure the longitudinal distance 
between the rearmost point on the dummy head and this line. If this 
distance is less than 50 mm (2 inches) or the point is not forward of 
the line, then the seat and/or dummy positions is adjusted as follows. 
First, the seat back angle is adjusted, a maximum of 5 degrees, until a 
50 mm (2 inches) distance is achieved. If this is not sufficient to 
produce the 50 mm (2 inches) distance, the seat is moved forward until 
the 50 mm (2 inches) distance is achieved or until the knees of the 
dummy contact the dashboard or knee bolster, whichever comes first. If 
the required distance cannot be achieved through movement of the seat, 
the seat back angle is adjusted even further forward until the

[[Page 51957]]

50 mm (2 inches) distance is obtained or until the seat back is in its 
fully upright locking position.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 571.214 is 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.
    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.
    Lowered floor means the replacement floor on a motor vehicle whose 
original floor has been removed, in part or in total, and replaced by a 
floor that is lower than the original floor.
    Modified roof means the replacement roof on a motor vehicle whose 
original roof has been removed, in part or in total.
    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 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 S7 and 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 S7 and 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 projection 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, 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 V dummy 
representing a 5th percentile adult 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 (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) (wholly or in 
limited part, as set forth below):
    (1) Motor homes;
    (2) Ambulances and other emergency rescue/medical vehicles 
(including vehicles with fire-fighting equipment) except police cars;
    (3) Vehicles with a lowered floor or raised or modified roof and 
vehicles that have had the original roof rails removed and not 
replaced;
    (4) Vehicles in which the seat for the driver or right front 
passenger has been removed and wheelchair restraints installed in place 
of the seat are excluded from meeting the vehicle-to-pole test at that 
position; and
    (5) Vehicles that have no doors, or exclusively have doors that are 
designed to be easily attached or removed so that the vehicle can be 
operated without doors.

[[Page 51958]]

    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 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 is 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 kN (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 51959]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11SE07.000

    S7 Moving Deformable Barrier (MDB) Requirements. Except as provided 
in section S5, when tested under the conditions of S8 each vehicle 
shall meet S7.3 and 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 MDB test with SID. For vehicles manufactured before September 
1, 2009, the following requirements must be met. The following 
requirements also apply to vehicles manufactured on or after September 
1, 2009 that are not part of the percentage of a manufacturer's 
production meeting the MDB test with advanced test dummies (S7.2 of 
this section) or are otherwise excluded from the phase-in requirements 
of S7.2. (Vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2009 may meet S7.2, 
at the manufacturer's option.)
    S7.1.1 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).
    S7.1.2 When using the Part 572 Subpart F dummy (SID), 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:
TI(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 MDB test with advanced test dummies.

[[Page 51960]]

    S7.2.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2009 to 
August 31, 2012.
    (a) Except as provided in S7.2.4 of this section, for vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2012, a 
percentage of each manufacturer's production, as specified in S13.1.1, 
S13.1.2, and S13.1.3, shall meet the requirements of S7.2.5 and S7.2.6 
when tested with the test dummy specified in those sections. Vehicles 
manufactured before September 1, 2012 may be certified as meeting the 
requirements of S7.2.5 and S7.2.6.
    (b) For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2009 that 
are not part of the percentage of a manufacturer's production meeting 
S7.2.1 of this section, the requirements of S7.1 of this section must 
be met.
    (c) Place the Subpart U ES-2re 50th percentile male dummy in the 
front seat and the Subpart V SID-IIs 5th percentile female test dummy 
in the rear seat. The test dummies are 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).
    S7.2.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2012.
    (a) Subject to S7.2.4 of this section, each vehicle manufactured on 
or after September 1, 2012 must meet the requirements of S7.2.5 and 
S7.2.6, when tested with the test dummy specified in those sections.
    (b) Place the Subpart U ES-2re 50th percentile male dummy in the 
front seat and the Subpart V SID-IIs 5th percentile female test dummy 
in the rear seat. The test dummies are 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).
    S7.2.3 [Reserved]
    S7.2.4 Exceptions from the MDB phase-in; special allowances.
    (a)(1) Vehicles that are manufactured on or after September 1, 2012 
by an original vehicle manufacturer that produces or assembles fewer 
than 5,000 vehicles annually for sale in the United States are not 
subject to S7.2.1 of this section (but are subject to S7.2.2);
    (2) Vehicles that are manufactured on or after September 1, 2012 by 
a limited line manufacturer are not subject to S7.2.1 of this section 
(but are subject to S7.2.2).
    (b) Vehicles that are altered (within the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) 
before September 1, 2013 after having been previously certified in 
accordance with part 567 of this chapter, and vehicles manufactured in 
two or more stages before September 1, 2013, are not subject to S7.2.1. 
Vehicles that are altered on or after September 1, 2013, and vehicles 
that are manufactured in two or more stages on or after September 1, 
2013, must meet the requirements of S7.2.5 and S7.2.6, when tested with 
the test dummy specified in those sections. Place the Subpart U ES-2re 
50th percentile male dummy in the front seat and the Subpart V SID-IIs 
5th percentile female test dummy in the rear seat. The test dummies are 
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).
    S7.2.5 Dynamic performance requirements using the Part 572 Subpart 
U dummy (ES-2re 50th percentile male) dummy. Use the 49 CFR Part 572 
Subpart U ES-2re dummy specified in S11 with measurements in accordance 
with S11.5. The following criteria shall be met:
    (a) The HIC shall not exceed 1000 when calculated in accordance 
with the following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11SE07.003


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 44 mm (1.65 inches).
    (c) 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).
    S7.2.6 Dynamic performance requirements using the Part 572 Subpart 
V SID-IIs (5th percentile female) dummy. Use the 49 CFR Part 572 
Subpart V SID-IIs 5th percentile female dummy specified in S11 with 
measurements in accordance with S11.5. The following criteria shall be 
met:
    (a) The HIC shall not exceed 1000 when calculated in accordance 
with the following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11SE07.004


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 5,525 N.
    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. Determine the distance between a level 
surface and a standard reference point on the test vehicle's body, 
directly above each wheel opening, when the vehicle is in its ``as 
delivered'' condition. The ``as delivered'' condition is the vehicle as 
received at the test site, filled to 100

[[Page 51961]]

percent of all fluid capacities and with all tires inflated to the 
manufacturer's specifications listed on the vehicle's tire placard. 
Determine the distance between the same level surface and the same 
standard reference points in the vehicle's ``fully loaded condition.'' 
The ``fully loaded condition'' is the test vehicle loaded in accordance 
with S8.1 of this standard (49 CFR 571.214). The load placed in the 
cargo area is centered over the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. 
The pretest vehicle attitude is equal to either the as delivered or 
fully loaded attitude or between the as delivered attitude and the 
fully loaded attitude, +/-10 mm.
    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 highest and most forward position. Place adjustable 
seat backs in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position in the 
manner specified by the manufacturer. If the position is not specified, 
set the seat back at the first detent rearward of 25[deg] from the 
vertical.
    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 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 [Reserved]
    S8.3.3 5th Percentile Female Dummy 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. Place adjustable 
seat backs in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position in the 
manner specified by the manufacturer. If the position is not specified, 
set the seat back at the first detent rearward of 25[deg] from the 
vertical.
    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.
    S8.4 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.
    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

[[Page 51962]]

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).
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 51963]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11SE07.001


[[Page 51964]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11SE07.002

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
    S9 Vehicle-to-Pole Requirements.
    S9.1 Except as provided in S5, when tested under the conditions of 
S10:
    S9.1.1 Except as provided in S9.1.3 of this section, for vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2012, a 
percentage of each manufacturer's production, as specified in S13.1.1, 
S13.1.2, and S13.1.3, 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, 
2012 that are not subject to the phase-in may be certified as meeting 
the requirements specified in this section.
    S9.1.2 Except as provided in S9.1.3 of this section, each vehicle 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2012, 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).
    S9.1.3 Exceptions from the phase-in; special allowances.
    (a)(1) 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 are not subject to S9.1.1 of 
this section (but are subject to S9.1.2);
    (2) Vehicles that are manufactured by a limited line manufacturer 
are not subject to S9.1.1 of this section (but are subject to S9.1.2).
    (b) Vehicles that are altered (within the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) 
before September 1, 2013 after having been previously certified in 
accordance with part 567 of this chapter, and vehicles manufactured in 
two or more stages before September 1, 2013, are not subject to S9.1.1. 
Vehicles that are altered on or after September 1, 2013, and vehicles 
that are manufactured in two or more stages on or after September 1, 
2013, must meet the requirements of S9, 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).
    (c) Vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 3,855 
kg (8,500 lb) manufactured before September 1, 2013 are not subject to 
S9.1.1 or S9.1.2 of this section. These vehicles may be voluntarily 
certified to meet the pole test requirements prior to September 1, 
2013. Vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 3,855 kg 
(8,500 lb) manufactured on or after September 1, 2013 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,

[[Page 51965]]

rigid pole of 254 mm (10 inches) in diameter, at any speed up to and 
including 32 km/h (20 mph).
    S9.2 Requirements. Each vehicle shall meet these vehicle-to-pole 
test requirements when tested under the conditions of S10 of this 
standard. At NHTSA's option, either the 50th percentile adult male test 
dummy (ES-2re dummy, 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart U) or the 5th percentile 
adult female test dummy (SID-IIs, 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart V) shall be 
used in the test. At NHTSA's option, either front outboard seating 
position shall be tested. The vehicle shall meet the specific 
requirements at all front outboard seating positions.
    S9.2.1 Dynamic performance requirements using the Part 572 Subpart 
U (ES-2re 50th percentile male) dummy. When using the ES-2re Part 572 
Subpart U dummy, use the specifications of 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] TR11SE07.005

    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 44 mm (1.65 inches).
    (c) Force measurements.
    (1) The sum of the front, middle and rear abdominal forces, shall 
not exceed 2,500 N (562 pounds).
    (2) The pubic symphysis force shall not exceed 6,000 N (1,350 
pounds).
    S9.2.2 Dynamic performance requirements using the Part 572 Subpart 
V SID-IIs (5th percentile female) dummy. When using the SID-IIs Part 
572 Subpart V dummy, use the specifications of 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] TR11SE07.006

    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 5,525 N.
    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 is loaded as specified in S8.1 of 
this standard (49 CFR 571.214).
    S10.2 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) is 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.
    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 49 CFR Part 572 
Subpart V 5th percentile female dummy.
    S10.3.2.1 Lumbar support adjustment. Position adjustable lumbar 
supports so that the lumbar support is in its lowest, retracted or 
deflated adjustment position.
    S10.3.2.2 Other seat adjustments. Position any adjustable parts of 
the seat that provide additional support so that they are in the lowest 
or non-deployed adjustment position. Position any adjustable head 
restraint in the lowest and most forward position. Place adjustable 
seat backs in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position in the 
manner specified by the manufacturer. If the position is not specified, 
set the seat back at the first detent rearward of 25[deg] from the 
vertical.
    S10.3.2.3 Seat position adjustment. If the passenger seat does not 
adjust independently of the driver seat, the driver seat controls the 
final position of the passenger seat.
    S10.3.2.3.1 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.
    S10.3.2.3.2 Using only the control that primarily moves the seat 
fore and

[[Page 51966]]

aft, move the seat reference point to the most forward position.
    S10.3.2.3.3 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 S10.3.2.3.1. Mark location of the seat for future 
reference.
    S10.4 Positioning dummies for the vehicle-to-pole test.
    (a) 50th percentile male test dummy (49 CFR Part 572 Subpart U ES-
2re dummy). The 50th percentile male test dummy is 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 (49 CFR Part 572 Subpart V 
SID-IIs dummy). The 5th percentile female test dummy is 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 is 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 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 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart V test dummy 
representing a 5th percentile female is clothed in formfitting cotton 
stretch garments with short sleeves and about the knee length pants. 
Each foot has on a size 7.5W shoe that meets the configuration and size 
specifications of MIL-S-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 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart V 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 (SID) 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

[[Page 51967]]

    (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 U (ES-2re 50th percentile male) test dummy.
    (1) The rib deflection data are filtered at channel frequency class 
600 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.
    (c) Subpart V (SID-IIs 5th percentile female) test dummy.
    (1) The acceleration data from the accelerometers installed inside 
the skull cavity of the SID-IIs 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-IIs 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 SID-IIs 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 (SID) 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.
    (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 (SID) 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 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. 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.

[[Page 51968]]

    S12.1.3 Positioning a Part 572 Subpart F (SID) 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 49CFR 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 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 U 
(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. Restrain the test dummy using 
all available belt systems in the seating positions where the 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 and for the front 
outboard 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.
    (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 V 
(SID-IIs). Position a correctly configured 5th percentile female Part 
572 Subpart V (SID-IIs) 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 pole and, 
for the moving deformable barrier, if the vehicle has a second seat, 
position a conforming test dummy in the second seat outboard position 
on the same side of the vehicle (side to be struck) 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-IIs 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

[[Page 51969]]

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 S10.3.2, use only 
the control that moves the seat fore and aft to place the seat in the 
rearmost position. If the seat cushion reference line angle 
automatically changes as the seat is moved from the full forward 
position, maintain, as closely as possible, the seat cushion reference 
line angle determined in S10.3.2.3.3, for the final forward position 
when measuring the pelvic angle as specified in S12.3.3(a)(11). The 
seat cushion reference line angle position may be achieved through the 
use of any seat or seat cushion adjustments other than that which 
primarily moves the seat or seat cushion fore-aft.
    (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 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 
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 is set to 20.0 degrees  2.5

[[Page 51970]]

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 is used under the heel to support the final foot 
position. The surface of the block in contact with the heel has 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)-(ii). 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 S10.3.2, 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 S10.3.2.3.3, for the final forward position 
when measuring the pelvic angle as specified in S12.3.3(a)(11). The 
seat cushion reference line angle position may be achieved through the 
use of any seat or seat cushion adjustments other than that which 
primarily moves the seat or seat cushion fore-aft.
    (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

[[Page 51971]]

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 is set to 20.0 degrees  2.5 degrees. 
If this is not possible, adjust the pelvic angle as close to 20.0 
degrees as possible while keeping the transverse instrumentation 
platform of the head as level as possible by adjustments specified in 
S12.3.3(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 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.
    S12.3.4 5th percentile female in rear outboard seating positions.
    (a) Set the rear outboard seat at the full rearward, full down 
position determined in S8.3.3.
    (b) Fully recline the seat back, if adjustable. Install the dummy 
into the passenger's 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 is set to 20.0 degrees  2.5 degrees. If 
this is not possible, adjust the pelvic angle as close to 20.0 degrees 
as possible while keeping the transverse instrumentation platform of 
the head as level as possible, 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 rear 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 moving deformable barrier and vehicle-to-pole 
performance requirements for vehicles manufactured on or after 
September 1, 2009 and before September 1, 2012.
    S13.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2009 and 
before September 1, 2012. At anytime during the production years ending 
August 31, 2012 and August 31, 2013, 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 
moving deformable barrier test with advanced test dummies (S7.2) and 
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 S7.2 and 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 S7.2 and 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.

[[Page 51972]]

    S13.1.3 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2011 and 
before September 1, 2012. Subject to S13.4, for vehicles manufactured 
on or after September 1, 2011 and before September 1, 2012, the number 
of vehicles complying with S7.2 and S9.2 shall be not less than 75 
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 585, 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, do not count any 
vehicle that is excluded by Standard No. 214 from the moving deformable 
barrier test with the ES-2re or SID-IIs test dummies (S7.2) or from the 
vehicle-to-pole test requirements.
    S13.4 Calculation of complying vehicles.
    (a) For the purposes of calculating the vehicles complying with 
S13.1.1, a manufacturer may count a vehicle if it is manufactured on or 
after October 11, 2007, 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 October 11, 2007, but before 
September 1, 2011 and,
    (2) Is not counted toward compliance with S13.1.1.
    (c) For purposes of complying with S13.1.3, a manufacturer may 
count a vehicle if it--
    (1) Is manufactured on or after October 11, 2007, but before 
September 1, 2012 and,
    (2) Is not counted toward compliance with S13.1.1 or S13.1.2.
    (c) For the purposes of calculating average annual production of 
vehicles for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles manufactured 
by each manufacturer, each vehicle that is excluded from having to meet 
the applicable requirement is not counted.

0
4. Section 571.301 is amended by revising S6.3(b) and S7.2(b), to read 
as follows:


Sec.  571.301  Standard No. 301; Fuel system integrity.

    S6.3 Side moving barrier crash. * * *
    (b) Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2004. When the 
vehicle is impacted laterally on either side by a moving deformable 
barrier at 53  1.0 km/h with 49 CFR part 572, subpart F 
test dummies at positions required for testing by S7.1.1 of Standard 
214, under the applicable conditions of S7 of this standard, fuel 
spillage shall not exceed the limits of S5.5 of this standard.
* * * * *
    S7.2 Side moving barrier test conditions. * * *
    (b) Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2004. The side 
moving deformable barrier crash test conditions are those specified in 
S8 of Standard 214 (49 CFR 571.214).
0
5. Section 571.305 is amended by revising S6.3 and S7.5, to read as 
follows:


Sec.  571.305  Standard No. 305; Electric-powered vehicles: electrolyte 
spillage and electrical shock protection.

* * * * *
    S6.3 Side moving deformable barrier impact. The vehicle must meet 
the requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 when it is impacted from the 
side by a barrier that conforms to part 587 of this chapter that is 
moving at any speed up to and including 54 km/h, with 49 CFR part 572, 
subpart F test dummies positioned in accordance with S7 of Sec. 571.214 
of this chapter.
* * * * *
    S7.5 Side moving deformable barrier impact test conditions. In 
addition to the conditions of S7.1 and S7.2, the conditions of S8 of 
Sec. 571.214 of this chapter apply to the conduct of the side moving 
deformable barrier impact test specified in S6.3.
* * * * *

PART 585--PHASE-IN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

0
6. The authority citation for part 585 continues to read as follows:

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



0
7. Part 585 is amended by adding Subpart H to read as follows:
Subpart H--Side Impact Protection Phase-in Reporting Requirements
Sec.
585.71 Scope.
585.72 Purpose.
585.73 Applicability.
585.74 Definitions.
585.75 Response to inquiries.
585.76 Reporting requirements.
585.77 Records.

Subpart H--Side Impact Protection Phase-in Reporting Requirements


Sec.  585.71  Scope.

    This part establishes requirements for manufacturers of passenger 
cars, and of trucks, buses and multipurpose 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 moving 
deformable barrier test requirements of S7 of Standard No. 214, Side 
impact protection (49 CFR 571.214), and the vehicle-to-pole test 
requirements of S9 of that standard.


Sec.  585.72  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.  585.73  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.  585.74  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

[[Page 51973]]

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.  585.75  Response to inquiries.

    At anytime during the production years ending August 31, 2010, and 
August 31, 2013, 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 moving deformable barrier and 
vehicle-to-pole tests of FMVSS No. 214 (49 CFR 571.214). The 
manufacturer's designation of a vehicle as a certified vehicle is 
irrevocable.


Sec.  585.76  Reporting requirements

    (a) Advanced credit phase-in reporting requirements. (1) Within 60 
days after the end of the production years ending August 31, 2008, and 
August 31, 2009, each manufacturer choosing to certify vehicles 
manufactured during any of those production years as complying with the 
upgraded moving deformable barrier (S7.2 of Standard No. 214)(49 CFR 
571.214) or vehicle-to-pole requirements (S9) of Standard No. 214 shall 
submit a report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
providing the information specified in paragraph (c) of this section 
and in Sec.  585.2 of this part.
    (b) Phase-in reporting requirements. Within 60 days after the end 
of each of the production years ending August 31, 2010, August 31, 
2011, and August 31, 2012, each manufacturer shall submit a report to 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning its 
compliance with the moving deformable barrier requirements of S7 of 
Standard No. 214 and with the vehicle-to-pole requirements of S9 of 
that Standard for its vehicles produced in that year. Each report shall 
provide the information specified in paragraph (c) of this section and 
in section 585.2 of this part.
    (c) Advanced credit phase-in report content--(1) Production of 
complying vehicles. With respect to the reports identified in Sec.  
585.76(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 moving deformable barrier test 
requirements of S7.2 of Standard No. 214, Side impact protection (49 
CFR 571.214), and the vehicle-to-pole test requirements of S9 of that 
standard.
    (d) Phase-in report content--(1) Basis for phase-in production 
goals. Each manufacturer shall provide the number of vehicles 
manufactured in the current production year, or, at the manufacturer's 
option, in each of the three previous production years. 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 moving deformable 
barrier test requirements of S7 of Standard No. 214, Side Impact 
Protection (49 CFR 571.214), and the vehicle-to-pole test requirements 
of S9 of that standard.


Sec.  585.77  Records

    Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the Vehicle 
Identification Number for each vehicle for which information is 
reported under Sec.  585.76 until December 31, 2016.

    Issued on: August 30, 2007.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 07-4360 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P