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

Federal RegisterSep 11, 2007

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

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 § 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

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

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.

These different side air bag systems are described in a glossary in Appendix A to this preamble.

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.

(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).)

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

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

and increase total annual costs for the fleet by $560 million. We provide sufficient lead time to ensure that compliance is practicable.

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.

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

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.

NHTSA estimates that SIABs reduce fatality risk for nearside occupants by an estimated 24 percent; torso bags alone, by 14 percent.

Samaha,

supra.

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.

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) HIC

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) HIC

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. HIC

means the calculation of HIC is limited to a maximum time interval of 36 milliseconds. HIC

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 HIC

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.

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.

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

[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.

Build Level D incorporates features stemming from the FRG and from users' efforts to enhance the functionality of predecessor SID-IIs dummies.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 § 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

The ESC adjustment is shown below in Table 1:

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

219

Veh-to-Veh/others

3,713

903

177

1,823

Total

4,081

1,113

249

2,042

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.

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:

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

169

Veh-to-Veh/others

493

689

137

1,382

Total

635

716

137

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.

(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)

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.

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.

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.

While 20 mph converts to 32.2 km/h, we are rounding 32.2 km/h to 32 km/h.

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 (HIC

). 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).

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. HIC

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 HIC

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 HIC

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).

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,

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.

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

Vehicles (model year 2005 unless noted)

Side air bag type:

AC=air curtain;

Comb=head/chest

SIAB;

Th=thorax or chest SIAB

Vehicle class/weight

Oblique pole

SID-IIs

ES-2rd

FMVSS No. 214 MDB

SID-IIs

ES-2re

Toyota Corolla

AC + Th

Light PC

√

VW Jetta

AC + Th

Compact PC

√

Saturn Ion

Compact PC

√

Honda Accord*

AC + Th

Medium

√

Suzuki Forenza

Comb

Compact PC

√

Beetle Convertible

Comb

Medium

√

Saab 9-3 Convertible

Comb

Medium

√

Ford 500

AC + Th

Heavy PC

√

Toyota Sienna*

AC + Th

Minivan

√

Subaru Forester

Comb

Small sport utility vehicle (SUV) (certified PC) Curb wt=3143 lb (medium PC)

√

Honda CRV

AC + Th

Small SUV

√

Chevy Colorado (4x2 Ext. Cab)

Small Pickup

√

Ford Expedition

Large SUV

√

Dodge 2500 (Reg Cab)

Large Pickup

√

* 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.

Table 4.—Oblique Pole Test Results—SID-IIs Dummy

Driver

HIC36

Lower spine (Gs)

Pelvic force (N)

Thorax

deflection

(mm)

(monitored)

Abdominal

deflection

(mm)

(monitored)

Proposed Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARVs)

1000

** 5,525

Toyota Corolla

418

***

VW Jetta

478

7876

Saturn Ion

5203

110

5755

Honda Accord*

567

10848

Ford Five Hundred

1173

6542

Toyota Sienna*

2019

6956

Subaru Forester

160

4707

Honda CRV

531

4670

Chevy Colorado 4x2 ext cab

896

135

9387

Ford Expedition

5661

8249

* 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,

but even these vehicles had lower spine acceleration and/or pelvic loads that were elevated (in excess of 80 percent of the IARVs).

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

Driver

HIC 36

Thorax

deflection

(mm)

Abdominal

force (N)

Pelvic force

(N)

Lower

spine (G's)

(monitored)

Proposed IARVs

1000

2500

6000

Toyota Corolla

473

1178

3041

VW Jetta

652

1663

3372

Saturn Ion

806

1494

1585

Honda Accord

446

1397

2463

VW Beetle Convertible

315

1018

3815

Saab 93 Convertible

254

841

2914

Ford 500

422

3020

2133

Toyota Sienna

667

1751

2127

Subaru Forester

2054

1377

2291

Honda CRV

639

929

903

Chevy Colorado 4x2 ext cab

785

2655

3373

Ford Expedition

689

6973

2575

Dodge Ram 2500 (GVWR 8800)*

5748

1846

* 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

Driver

HIC36

Lower spine

(Gs)

Pelvic force

(N)

Thorax

deflection

(mm)

(monitored)

Abdominal

deflection

(mm)

(monitored)

Proposed IARVs

1000

5525

Toyota Corolla

4655

VW Jetta

2639

Saturn Ion

189

8993

Suzuki Forenza

4948

Honda Accord*

104

4150

Ford 500

2140

Subaru Forrester

3066

Honda CRV

1350

* MY 2004.

Table 7.—MDB Test Results Using the SID-IIs—Left Rear Passenger

Passenger

HIC36

Lower spine

(Gs)

Pelvic force

(N)

Thorax

deflections

(mm)

(monitored)

Abdominal

deflections

(mm)

(monitored)

Proposed IARVs

1000

5525

Toyota Corolla

330

3182

VW Jetta

103

3026

Saturn Ion

220

3964

Suzuki Forenza

773

6557

Honda Accord*

298

6917

Ford 500

216

2925

Subaru Forrester

150

3572

Honda CRV

107

3149

* 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

Driver

HIC36

Thorax

deflection

(mm)

Abdominal

force

(N)

Pubic symph.

force

(N)

Lower spine

(G's)

(monitored)

Proposed IARVs

1000

2500

6000

Toyota Corolla

722

3223

VW Jetta

101

733

1969

Saturn Ion

110

1524

2431

Honda Accord

109

557

1983

Ford 500

1006

1176

Subaru Forrester

598

1694

Honda CRV

100

524

1137

Table 9.—ES-2re MDB Test Results—Rear Passenger

Passenger

HIC36

Thorax

deflection

(mm)

Abdominal

force

(N)

Pubic symph.

force

(N)

Lower spine

(G's)

(monitored)

Proposed IARVs

1000

2500

6000

Toyota Corolla

248

1355

2771

VW Jetta

211

1378

2542

Saturn Ion

168

1511

2275

Honda Accord

223

810

2405

Ford 500

213

1649

1407

Subaru Forrester

226

967

1948

Honda CRV

126

1192

1847

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

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.

Commenters included—

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

), American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda), the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM

), 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));

The Alliance is made up of BMW group, DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota, and Volkswagen.

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

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.

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;

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

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.

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.

The Alliance stated that WorldSlD would further enhance occupant protection and the international harmonization of safety standards.

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

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

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.

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,

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.)

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

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.

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.

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.

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

and 21.8 percent of all AIS 3+ injuries are to the abdomen of restrained near side front seat occupants.

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.

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

demonstrate that narrow object side impacts are “far more likely to involve 50th percentile-male-sized occupants than 5th percentile-female-sized occupants.”

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.

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).

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.

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

resulting in a fatal injury shows that 21 percent of these crashes involved side impacts with rigid narrow objects.

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.

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.

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:

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 passenger cars

(percent)

Collisions with LTVs

(percent)

Collisions with rigid narrow

objects

(percent)

Collisions with other vehicles/

objects

(percent)

FARS 1991 MY 1987 and Later Light Vehicles

28.9

27.1

20.1

24.0

FARS 1995 MY 1991 and Later Light Vehicles

24.8

33.0

21.2

21.0

FARS 1999 MY 1995 and Later Light Vehicles

20.5

36.3

21.0

22.2

FARS 2004 MY 2000 and Later Light Vehicles

15.4

38.5

23.2

22.9

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)

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

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).)

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

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,

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.

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.

The Forenza was not tested with the ES-2re dummy.

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

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.

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).

The sitting

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.

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.

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.

The industry's voluntary commitment is a commitment to meet IIHS's recommended practice of HIC

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.

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.

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.

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

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)—

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

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.

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.

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.

Based on the crash data, we believe that there is

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

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,

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.

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

bag.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

“Rollover Ejection Mitigation Using Inflatable Tubular Structures,” Simula,

et al.,

1998; “Status of NHTSA's Ejection Mitigation Research Program,” Willke,

et al.,

ESV 2003.

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.

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 commente

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.