Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Side Impact Protection Light Trucks, Buses and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 88-06, Notice 23]

RIN: 2127-AE49

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Side Impact Protection--

Light Trucks, Buses and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to extend Standard No. 214's dynamic side

impact protection requirements to multipurpose passenger vehicles,

trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500 pounds or

less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less. These

proposed amendments would require that each of these vehicles must

protect its occupants in a full-scale dynamic crash test in which the

vehicle is struck on either side by a moving deformable barrier

simulating another vehicle. The occupants would be represented by

instrumented test dummies. The dummies would be positioned in the

target vehicle to measure the potential for injuries to an occupant's

thorax and pelvis. Given the differences between these vehicles and

passenger cars and their respective crash experiences, the agency is

proposing possible modifications in the test procedure for these

vehicles.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 15, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers set

forth above and be submitted (preferably in 10 copies) to the Docket

Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, room 5109, 400

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. Docket hours are from 9:30

a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Joseph Kanianthra, Chief, Side and

Rollover Crash Protection Division, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards,

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20590 (202-366-4924).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

IA. Existing Side Impact Requirements

IB. Statutory Requirements

IC. The June 1992 ANPRM

ID. Comments on the ANPRM

II. Overview of Proposal

III. The Safety Problem

IV. Rulemaking Rationale

V. Proposal

VA. Possible Test Procedure Modifications

VB. Performance Requirements

VC. Rear Seat Requirements

VI. Vehicles Covered by Proposal

VII. Benefits

VIII. Costs

IX. Leadtime/Phase-in

X. Reporting Requirements

XI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

XII. Submission of Comments

I. Background

IA. Existing Side Impact Requirements

NHTSA's side impact protection requirements are set forth in

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection.

The standard specifies two sets of requirements: (1) Quasi-static side

door strength requirements for passenger cars and for ``LTVs'' (trucks,

buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) with a gross vehicle

weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less), and (2) dynamic

requirements for passenger cars.

Standard No. 214's quasi-static side door strength requirements

seek to mitigate occupant injuries in side impacts by reducing the

extent to which the side structure of a vehicle is pushed into the

occupant compartment during a side impact. Under the requirements, side

doors must resist crush forces that are applied against the door's

outside surface in a laboratory test. The requirements have applied to

passenger cars since January 1, 1973, and were extended to LTVs by a

final rule published in the Federal Register (56 FR 27427) on June 14,

1991. A phase-in for the extension of the requirements to LTVs began on

September 1, 1993.

NHTSA added Standard No. 214's dynamic requirements for passenger

cars in a final rule published in the Federal Register (55 FR 45722) on

October 30, 1990. Under the requirements, a passenger car must provide

protection to occupants' thoracic and pelvic regions as measured by the

accelerations registered on instrumented side impact dummies (SID) in a

full-scale crash test. In the test, the car (known as the ``target''

car) is struck in the side by a moving deformable barrier (MDB)

simulating another vehicle. A phase-in for these new requirements also

began on September 1, 1993.

The MDB specified in Standard No. 214's dynamic test procedure

weighs about 3,000 pounds, and it is 33 inches high (measured from the

ground to the top edge of the barrier face). Under the test procedure,

the front and rear wheels of the MDB are ``crabbed'' at an angle of 27

degrees. With the MDB face oriented at a right angle to the target car,

the MDB moves at an angle of 27 degrees and at a speed of 33.5 mph into

the side of the target car. These aspects of the procedure were

selected so that the test simulates the vehicle kinematics and crash

forces in the struck car in a real world side crash in which a vehicle

traveling at 30 mph perpendicularly strikes the side of a vehicle

traveling at 15 mph. The agency determined that the 30 mph/15 mph

combination represents the threshold speed of serious chest injury, and

that countermeasures designed for the 30 mph/15 mph condition are

likely to be effective in reducing chest injury potential over most of

the range of impact speeds encountered in side crashes.

Standard No. 214's dynamic test procedure includes placing

instrumented SIDs in the outboard front and rear seats on the struck

side of the target car. For the thorax, the performance limit is

expressed in terms of an injury criterion known as the Thoracic Trauma

Index (dummy) or TTI(d). This injury criterion represents the average

of peak acceleration values measured on the lower spine and the greater

of the acceleration values of the upper and lower ribs of the test

dummy. For the pelvis, the performance limit is specified in terms of

the peak acceleration measured on the pelvis of the test dummy.

IB. Statutory Requirements

This notice is being issued pursuant to the NHTSA Authorization Act

of 1991. Section 2503 of that Act requires the agency to address,

through rulemaking, the possible extension of Standard No. 214's

dynamic side impact protection requirements for passenger cars to MPVs

and trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle

weight of 5,500 pounds or less. These vehicles comprise a large

majority of LTVs. Under section 2502 of the Act, the rulemaking must be

conducted under the general provisions of the National Traffic and

Motor Vehicle Safety Act concerning safety standards.

Section 2502 required NHTSA to publish, by a specified date, either

an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) or an NPRM concerning

the extension of Standard No. 214's dynamic side impact requirements to

LTVs. In accordance with this requirement, on June 5, 1992, NHTSA

published in the Federal Register (57 FR 24009) an ANPRM on this

subject.

Section 2502 also provides that this rulemaking action must be

completed within 26 months of publishing the ANPRM. The rulemaking is

considered completed when NHTSA either promulgates a final rule or

decides not to promulgate a rule. In either case, the agency must

publish its decision in the Federal Register.

IC. The June 1992 ANPRM

In the June 1992 ANPRM, NHTSA estimated that the number of LTV

fatalities in side impact crashes will rise by about 11 percent between

1989 and the mid-1990's, with front seat fatalities totaling 1,683 to

1,753 annually, and rear seat fatalities totaling 58. The agency

indicated that approximately 16 percent of the fatalities are expected

to occur in heavy vehicle (GVWR above 10,000 pounds)-LTV side crashes,

39 percent in light vehicle (GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less)-LTV side

crashes, and 45 percent in single vehicle LTV crashes. For the multi-

vehicle side impacts, approximately 71 percent of the LTV fatalities

and 78 percent of serious injuries are caused by passenger cars and

LTVs, with LTVs being the dominant striking vehicles. A much smaller

percentage of passenger car fatalities and injuries is caused by

heavier vehicles in the light-duty vehicle fleet, in multi-vehicle side

impacts.

NHTSA explained that the possible extension of Standard No. 214's

dynamic requirements to LTVs would primarily address LTV occupant

fatalities and serious injuries which result from contacts between the

side interior of LTVs and the shoulder, chest, abdomen, back and pelvis

of an occupant. The agency estimated that by the mid-1990's, this

portion of the side impact problem will account for about 245 LTV

occupant fatalities and an additional 825 non-fatal serious injuries

(AIS-3 or greater) annually.

NHTSA stated that it believes that the same types of

countermeasures that reduce the probability of these types of thoracic

and pelvic injuries in passenger cars, i.e., the use of structural

modifications in combination with padding or the use of padding alone,

can provide safety benefits for LTVs. The agency also indicated its

belief that the approach used in Standard No. 214 for passenger cars of

requiring a vehicle to protect its occupants in a full-scale side

impact crash test, utilizing an MDB and instrumented test dummies, may

be appropriate for LTVs.

The agency emphasized, however, that the possible extension of

Standard No. 214's dynamic side impact requirements to LTVs presents

the issue of whether those requirements should be extended with or

without modification. Given the differences between passenger cars and

LTVs and their crash experiences, changes in the dynamic test procedure

might be desirable to make it more appropriate for LTVs. NHTSA

requested responses to a number of questions in the ANPRM, including

whether the weight and height of contact surface of the MDB for side

impact testing of passenger cars should be modified to be more

representative of the vehicles that cause injuries and fatalities in

LTVs.

NHTSA also noted that it had conducted two series of LTV side

impact tests similar to the dynamic Standard No. 214 passenger car

test. In the first test series, the agency tested seven LTVs using an

MDB that was modified to make it more representative of crash

conditions causing fatalities and serious injuries in light trucks. The

weight of the MDB was increased to 4,000 pounds, and the height of the

barrier face was raised between four and 10 inches. In the second test

series, NHTSA tested three small LTVs and a fourth vehicle

representative of a small LTV, using the current dynamic test

procedure, including the 3,000 pound MDB, specified in Standard No. 214

for passenger cars. (The fourth vehicle was a passenger car version of

a vehicle which was then marketed in a four-wheel drive version as an

LTV. The agency believes that both versions of the vehicle provide

similar side impact protection.) The agency noted that the data from

the two test series indicate that many current LTVs, especially heavier

ones, already meet the performance criteria specified for passenger

cars.

ID. Comments on the ANPRM

The three large domestic auto manufacturers were opposed to

extending Standard No. 214's dynamic requirements to LTVs. General

Motors (GM) stated that it is clear, from the examination of field

accident data, that LTVs offer side impact protection superior to that

of passenger cars. GM also argued that a dynamic side impact test for

LTVs would address a very small percentage of LTV occupant serious

injuries and an even smaller percentage of total passenger car and LTV

occupant harm. GM believed that side impact resources would be diverted

from passenger cars where they can be most productive to an area that

would result in little benefit to LTV occupants and society in general.

Ford stated that it strongly believes that the dynamic side impact

requirements should not be extended to LTVs. That company argued that

such an extension would not meet the need for motor vehicle safety.

Ford stated that real world traffic accident data show that LTV

occupants are safer than passenger car occupants (1.01 fatalities per

1000 crashes for LTVs compared to 2.05 fatalities per 1000 crashes for

passenger cars) for non-ejected, near-side occupants in vehicle-to-

vehicle side impacts. That company noted that NHTSA research has found

that the majority of LTVs tested to the passenger car dynamic side

impact procedure would pass the passenger car requirements, supporting

the field experience. Ford concluded that extending the dynamic side

impact requirements to LTVs would represent rulemaking without any

substantiated safety benefit. Ford also argued that the car test

procedures define a scenario that applies to less than one percent of

LTV fatalities, or about 0.2 percent of all motor vehicle occupant

fatalities. That company argued that the use of scarce engineering

resources to implement a rule with the potential to affect only about

0.2 percent of fatalities is not justified, even if proposed

countermeasures were 100 percent effective in every crash.

Chrysler stated that it does not believe that there is support for

the extension of the existing passenger car dynamic side impact

requirements to LTVs, much less for the alternative of a more stringent

test requirement. That company argued that NHTSA has failed to show

that there would be a significant safety benefit from applying a

dynamic side impact requirement to LTVs.

Mitsubishi also questioned the need for dynamic side impact

requirements for LTVs. It argued that: (1) These vehicles are generally

heavier and have higher sill structures which provide substantial side

impact protection, (2) many of the larger LTVs probably already comply

with such requirements without the need for any countermeasures, and

(3) the recent extension of quasi-static side door strength

requirements will provide improved side impact protection for LTVs.

Other vehicle manufacturers recommended that NHTSA extend Standard

No. 214's dynamic requirements for passenger cars to LTVs, but not

adopt more stringent requirements. Toyota stated it believes the

agency's regulations should require, when necessary and practical,

equal levels of safety performance regardless of vehicle category. That

company stated that while there are some LTVs whose construction allows

them to comply already with the passenger car requirements, this is not

true for all LTVs. According to Toyota, there are LTVs whose

construction is similar to that of passenger cars that do not now

comply with the passenger car requirements. Toyota stated that it

believes that the effectiveness of extending the passenger car

requirements to LTVs would be greater than the agency estimates. That

company stated, however, that if the agency were to adopt a more

stringent requirement for LTVs, e.g., by specifying a higher, heavier

MDB, it would impose an unreasonable burden on manufacturers. Toyota

also argued that if the agency were to adopt an LTV rule more stringent

than that applicable to passenger cars, those LTVs whose construction

is similar to passenger cars could be eliminated from the U.S. market.

Volkswagen stated that the dynamic side impact requirements should

be extended to LTV class vehicles under 10,000 pounds GVWR. That

company stated that the barrier was originally specified to represent

the stiffness of light trucks, and that it should therefore remain as

currently specified in Standard No. 214.

Nissan stated that it believes Standard No. 214's passenger car

dynamic test procedure can be applied to LTVs, and that there is no

need to establish a unique test procedure. That manufacturer stated

that data indicate that the incidence of LTVs being struck by passenger

cars is similar to the incidence of side impacts of passenger cars by

other passenger cars. It stated further that these incidence rates

indicate that the mass and dimensions of the MDB currently specified in

Standard No. 214 realistically represent the majority of the striking

vehicle population for both passenger cars and LTVs.

Two trade associations, the National Truck Equipment Association

(NTEA) and the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) expressed

concern about extending the applicability of Standard No. 214's dynamic

requirements in light of potential impacts on their members, which

include final stage manufacturers and alterers of certified vehicles.

NTEA stated that it is concerned that the small businesses which

produce work-related vehicles in multiple stages would not be able to

conduct the dynamic test which may be proposed. It requested that the

agency not propose extending the dynamic requirements to work-related

multi-stage produced vehicles which are not able to pass through an

incomplete vehicle manufacturer's certification or which cannot be

completed within the guidelines provided for completion by the

incomplete vehicle manufacturer. RVIA urged NHTSA to exclude motor

homes, van conversions and other altered vehicles and otherwise limit

the scope of the proposed requirements to those vehicle types that have

a poor side impact injury record.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) argued that

extension of Standard No. 214's dynamic test requirements to LTVs is an

obvious necessity after the decade-long growth of this vehicle class as

a means of daily private transportation. IIHS stated that it disagrees

strongly with the notion that there is no need to require that all

vehicles in the LTV class provide a minimum level of protection to

occupants if many vehicles in the class already provide that

protection. That organization stated that such partial availability

demonstrates that the proposed protection is feasible, practical, and

easily implemented, and that it should encourage, not discourage, the

extension of the test requirements to LTVs.

IIHS argued, however, that the ease with which LTVs are likely to

be able to meet the current requirements for cars does suggest that the

injury criteria should be different for them. That organization stated

that the agency had adopted the existing TTI(d) and pelvic g limits

because lower maximum accelerations might be difficult to achieve in

the car fleet. IIHS argued that while it does not accept the premise

that lower acceleration criteria are not achievable in passenger cars,

the agency's concern about passenger cars in this area is not relevant

to LTVs. IIHS urged the agency to adopt appropriate lower TTI(d) and

pelvic g limits for LTVs.

With respect to the height and weight of the MDB, IIHS stated that

it does not believe that the agency should specify different dynamic

test conditions for cars and LTVs at this time. That organization

stated that the goal of the current rulemaking should be to ensure that

all vehicles likely to be used as light-duty passenger vehicles,

whether cars or LTVs, meet a common, minimum standard of occupant

protection in the crashes to which such vehicles are likely to be

exposed. While IIHS stated that it does not believe that the test

barrier specifications for cars and LTVs should differ at this time, it

suggested that the current barrier (3,000 pounds) may be improperly

specified for both types of vehicles. That organization stated that

with increasing numbers of LTVs in the light vehicle fleet, many light

vehicles struck in the side will be struck by other light vehicles

weighing in excess of 3,000 pounds. IIHS stated that NHTSA should

consider increasing the weight of the MDB to make it more

representative of the vehicle fleet.

The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) stated that

it supports dynamic side impact requirements for LTVs. That

organization emphasized, however, that it is convinced that the agency

must (1) raise the bumper height of the LTV MDB face above 30 inches,

(2) raise the weight, and commensurate mass, of the LTV MDB to 5,000

pounds or more, and (3) increase the test speed of impacts above median

levels to represent more of a worst case impact of a LTV by larger,

heavier vehicles and some fixed objects. Advocates also argued that the

agency should adopt lower TTI(d) and pelvic g limits than it

established for cars, a quantified maximum intrusion standard, and

coordinate this rulemaking with ones on rollover, roof strength and

head injury.

II. Overview of Proposal

After considering the comments on the ANPRM and other available

information, NHTSA has decided to propose extending Standard No. 214's

dynamic side impact protection requirements to LTVs with a GVWR of

8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or

less. Given the differences between passenger cars and LTVs and their

crash experiences, the agency is proposing possible modifications in

the test procedure that would make it more representative of the crash

conditions causing fatalities and serious injuries in LTVs.

NHTSA is proposing two possible modifications: (1) Raising the

height of the MDB, and (2) increasing the weight of the MDB. The agency

is proposing to specify the MDB height within a range of 33 inches to

45 inches as measured from the ground to the top edge of the barrier

face. This would represent up to a 12-inch increase in MDB height as

compared to the height specified for passenger car testing.

Within the 33 inch to 45 inch proposed range, NHTSA is proposing

two alternative methods for specifying MDB height, one of which would

be selected by the agency for a final rule. Under the first method, the

MDB height would be raised to match the driver H-point of the tested

vehicle. Under the second method, the MDB height would be at the same

level for all LTVs, or at the same level for all LTV's within a

particular sub-group, e.g., pickups, vans and utility vehicles, with

different levels specified for different sub-groups. The agency is

proposing to specify the MDB's weight within a range of 3,000 pounds,

the current weight, and 3,800 pounds.

Under the proposal, LTVs, like passenger cars, would be required to

meet specified TTI(d) and pelvic acceleration limits. NHTSA is

proposing to specify a TTI(d) limit of 85 g and a pelvic acceleration

limit of 130 g. In considering a possible extension, NHTSA is

considering whether the requirements should apply to the front and rear

seats of these additional vehicles (as is the case for passenger cars),

or whether they should apply to the front seats only of these vehicles.

To provide manufacturers with sufficient leadtime to design their

LTVs to meet the proposed performance requirements, NHTSA is proposing

two compliance schedules, the choice of which would be at the option of

the manufacturer. Under the first schedule, the standard would be

phased-in in accordance with the following implementation schedule:

10 percent of all LTVs manufactured during the first full

production year (September 1 to August 31) beginning approximately two

years after the issuance of a final rule;

25 percent of all LTVs manufactured during the second full

year after that two-year period;

40 percent of all LTVs manufactured during the third full

year after that two-year period; and

100 percent of all LTVs manufactured on or after the

beginning of the fourth full year after that two-year period.

Under the second schedule, no compliance would be required during

the annual production period beginning approximately two years after

the issuance of a final rule, but full implementation would be required

beginning with the next production period.

The agency is proposing to exclude walk-in vans, motor homes, tow

trucks, dump trucks and ambulances, and is requesting comments on

whether to exclude other special types of vehicles from the dynamic

requirements. NHTSA is also proposing a phase-in exclusion for vehicles

manufactured in two or more stages and for altered vehicles.

III. The Safety Problem

NHTSA has separately analyzed the fatality and injury experience of

LTV occupants involved in side impact crashes. As discussed in the

Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) accompanying this NPRM, the

agency estimates that, by the mid-1990's, side impacts will result in

1763 fatalities for LTV occupants sitting in the front or second seat,

annually. Front seat occupants will account for 1705 of the fatalities,

with occupants of the second seat accounting for 58 fatalities.

Approximately 16 percent of the LTV side impact occupant fatalities are

expected to occur in heavy vehicle-LTV side crashes, 39 percent in

light vehicle-LTV side crashes, and 45 percent in single vehicle LTV

side crashes. (All of the figures in this paragraph and those in the

next several paragraphs take into account the safety benefits of side

door guard beams installed pursuant to the quasi-static requirements.)

Side impacts are also expected to account for about 6,000 serious

but non-fatal (AIS 3-5) injuries to occupants sitting in the front or

second seat, annually.

The extension of Standard No. 214's dynamic requirements to LTVs

would primarily address LTV occupant fatalities and serious injuries

which result from contacts between the side interior of LTVs and the

shoulder, chest, abdomen, back and pelvis of the occupants. NHTSA

estimates that by the mid-1990's, this portion of the side impact

problem will account for 245 LTV occupant fatalities and an additional

970 serious (AIS 3-5) injuries annually. All of the estimated

fatalities would result from thorax injuries. Of the 970 AIS 3-5

injuries, 857 would be thoracic injuries and 113 pelvic injuries.

Looking solely at multi-vehicle side impacts between LTVs and other

light vehicles, approximately 78 percent of the LTV fatal ``trunk''

injuries are caused by LTV's, and only 22 percent by passenger cars.

The agency notes that the fatality rate for occupants of LTVs in

side impact crashes is slightly less than half of that for occupants of

passenger cars. The LTV occupant side impact fatality rate per million

registered vehicles is 25.7, as compared to 53.3 for passenger cars.

The occupant fatality rates for various LTV categories are as follows:

Small pickups, 30.1; large pickups, 19.0; utility vehicles 16.0; small

vans, 19.3, and large vans, 9.7.

IV. Rulemaking Rationale

In multi-vehicle side impact crashes where fatalities and serious

injuries result from contacts between the occupant and the interior

side of the vehicle, the same basic chest injury causing dynamic event

occurs regardless of whether the occupant is in a passenger car or LTV.

The striking vehicle crushes the door of the target vehicle, from

outside to inside. The inside door panel of the struck vehicle moves

toward the occupant seated next to it, and strikes the occupant's

thorax. Depending on the structure of the struck vehicle, the velocity

of impact can be as high as the impact speed of the striking vehicle.

The occupant's thorax is rapidly deformed as a result of the impact,

resulting in injuries to the shoulder, chest, abdomen, back and/or

pelvis. A similar event occurs in single vehicle side impacts with

stationary objects, except that the injury mechanism is more likely to

be related to intrusion than door contact velocity, i.e., the

occupant's thorax is likely to experience more concentrated loading.

LTV occupants generally face a smaller risk of side impact thoracic

injury than passenger car occupants because seating differences between

LTVs and passenger cars make it less likely for the thoracic-injury-

producing dynamic event described above to occur for LTVs than for

passenger cars. LTV occupants typically sit several inches higher from

the ground than passenger car occupants. If a passenger car strikes

another passenger car in a side impact, the striking vehicle typically

pushes the inside door panel of the struck vehicle directly into the

thorax of an occupant sitting next to the door. However, if a passenger

car strikes an LTV in a side impact, the primary part of the side

structure that is pushed inward is more likely to be below the thorax

of an adjacent occupant, thereby resulting in smaller injury-producing

loads to the occupant's thorax. Further, the typically higher sill and

side structure of LTV's offers significant resistance such that smaller

crash loads are transmitted through the door structure to the occupant.

While the thoracic side impact problem is not so great for LTVs as

it is for passenger cars, it is nonetheless a significant problem which

merits attention. As indicated above, NHTSA estimates that by the mid-

1990's, this portion of the side impact problem will account for 245

LTV occupant fatalities and an additional 970 serious (AIS 3-5)

injuries annually. The bulk of these fatalities and serious injuries

occur in side impacts with LTVs, heavy vehicles, and fixed objects,

rather than in side impacts with passenger cars.

Given that the same basic dynamic event causes serious thoracic

injuries and fatalities to both passenger car and LTV occupants in side

impacts, i.e., medium to high velocity contact between the inside door

panel and the thorax of the occupant, NHTSA believes that the same

countermeasures developed for improved passenger car side impact

protection are also appropriate for LTVs. There are two basic options

to improve the side impact protection of a vehicle. It may be possible

to increase the stiffness of the side of the vehicle and thereby reduce

the velocity with which the vehicle side door interior strikes the

occupant. However, given the limited available area along the side of a

vehicle in which structure may be added and the enormous mass of a

striking vehicle, the ability to improve safety by this means may be

somewhat limited. The other available means of improving side impact

protection is to cushion the impact between the side of the vehicle and

the occupant, such as by adding padding to the side of the vehicle.

In the rulemaking establishing dynamic side impact requirements for

passenger cars, NHTSA determined that the risk of thoracic injury can

be substantially reduced by the addition of padding, or a combination

of padding and structure, to the side of a vehicle. For example, the

agency determined, for the driver seating position, that padding is

approximately 21 percent effective (i.e., padding reduces TTI(d) by 21

percent), that structure and padding is about 30 percent effective, and

that heavyweight structure and padding is 43 percent effective. As

discussed in that rulemaking, NHTSA expected manufacturers to meet the

dynamic side impact requirements for passenger cars primarily by adding

padding.

NHTSA believes that the addition of padding, or the addition of

padding and structure, can produce significant safety benefits for LTV

occupants in side impacts. The agency notes that it is intuitively

obvious that it is better for an occupant to be struck by a padded door

than the same door unpadded. In agency research, the addition of three

inches of padding in three LTV's reduced driver TTI(d) by 19.4, 28.6

and 35.0 percent. Pelvic g's were reduced by 24.5, 30.1 and 43.8

percent in the same vehicles.

Given the thoracic side impact problem that exists for LTV

occupants and the fact that this countermeasure is readily available,

NHTSA is currently not accepting the notion that it should decline to

establish dynamic side impact requirements for LTVs simply because the

type of dynamic event causing serious thoracic injuries to occupants of

struck vehicles occurs less frequently for LTVs than for passenger

cars.

The purpose of a dynamic side impact protection requirement is to

ensure that vehicles provide side impact protection to their occupants

in a simulated crash that is representative of a typical real-world

crash with serious-injury-causing potential. In its dynamic side impact

protection rulemaking for passenger cars, the agency developed an

appropriate test procedure and performance requirements for passenger

cars. In this rulemaking, NHTSA is addressing whether those

requirements should be extended to LTVs. Since this rulemaking is

based, in large part, on the passenger car rulemaking, the agency

encourages interested persons to examine the record for that

rulemaking.

As part of considering the possible extension of Standard No. 214's

dynamic side impact protection requirements to LTVs, the agency has

conducted several series of LTV dynamic side impact tests. The tests

employed the dynamic procedure specified by Standard No. 214 for

passenger cars, except that the height and mass of the MDB were varied.

As explained more fully in the PEA, NHTSA has tentatively

concluded, based on the results of these tests, that a simple extension

of Standard No. 214's dynamic side impact protection requirements to

LTVs would result in few, if any, safety benefits. Since the height and

weight of the MDB specified by Standard No. 214 are representative of

passenger cars, the test essentially replicates a crash in which a

passenger car is the striking vehicle. The tests confirm what is

already apparent from the real-world crash data: LTV occupants face a

very small risk of serious thoracic injury in side impacts by striking

passenger cars. As indicated above, this is largely because, given the

relatively high seating position of LTV occupants, if a passenger car

strikes an LTV in a side impact, the primary part of the side structure

of the LTV that is pushed inward is likely to be below the thorax of an

adjacent occupant.

It could be argued that, notwithstanding the lack of benefits that

would result from a simple extension of Standard No. 214's dynamic

requirements to LTVs, NHTSA should adopt that approach to ensure that

all light vehicles provide the same minimum level of side impact

protection to their occupants. It could also be argued that such an

approach would be appropriate because passenger cars and LTV's are

operated in the same traffic environment. However, a significant

concern about such a regulatory approach, particularly in the context

of a requirement incorporating a full-scale dynamic test, is that it

would result in significant compliance costs without concomitant

benefits. Moreover, such an approach would leave unaddressed the risk

of thoracic injury that LTV occupants do face in side impacts with

vehicles other than passenger cars.

A second regulatory approach would be to develop a test procedure

that simulates the crash conditions that produce serious thoracic

injuries in the real world. In developing Federal motor vehicle safety

standards, NHTSA focuses on reducing the number of serious injuries and

fatalities that are occurring in the real world. The agency has

tentatively concluded that this approach is appropriate with respect to

dynamic side impact protection requirements for LTVs. However, comments

are invited on both regulatory approaches.

V. Proposal

The agency has decided to propose extending Standard No. 214's

dynamic side impact protection requirements to LTVs, with possible

modifications in the test procedure to make it more representative of a

typical real-world crash with serious-injury-causing potential to LTV

occupants. The agency is considering two possible modifications: (1)

Raising the height of the MDB, and (2) increasing the mass of the MDB.

In considering a possible extension, NHTSA is considering whether the

requirements should apply to the front and rear seats of these

additional vehicles (as is the case for passenger cars), or whether

they should apply to the front seats only of these vehicles.

VA. Possible Test Procedure Modifications

NHTSA tentatively concludes that the height of the MDB should be

increased because use of this test device with its current height would

not create a dynamic event that is representative of the ones likely to

cause serious chest injuries to LTV occupants in real world crashes. In

particular, with the MDB at a height which is representative of a

passenger car, the primary part of the side structure of the LTV that

is pushed inward is below the thorax of the adjacent LTV occupant.

However, in real world side impact crashes in which LTV occupants are

likely to experience serious chest injuries, the side structure of the

LTV is typically pushed inward at a height near that of the occupant's

thorax. This typically occurs as a result of the LTV being struck in

the side by a vehicle other than a passenger car. Vehicles other than

passenger cars are, of course, typically higher than passenger cars.

There are a number of possible approaches to determining how much

to raise the height of the MDB, assuming that it needs to be raised.

One approach is to focus on the struck vehicle. The agency notes that,

unlike passenger cars for which vehicle and seating height are very

similar, the height of LTVs and LTV seating positions vary

considerably. Since the primary relevant safety problem is an impact in

which the side structure of the vehicle directly adjacent to an

occupant is pushed inward at the height of the thorax of the occupant,

the height of the MDB could be based on the H-point of the struck

vehicle. This approach would ensure that LTVs provide thoracic side

impact protection when they are struck in the side by another LTV of a

height that pushes the side door structure inward toward adjacent

occupants.

Another approach is to focus on striking vehicles. The agency notes

that the two types of striking vehicles that are most likely to cause

severe chest injuries in side impacts are standard pickups and compact

pickups. These vehicles cause 26 percent and 16 percent of all such

injuries, respectively. Thus, MDB height could be based on the heights

of the front ends of these vehicles, which are considerably higher than

passenger cars.

NHTSA notes that since the heights of the front ends of LTVs and

even of pickup trucks vary, specifying a single height that is equally

representative of all LTVs does not appear to be possible. The agency

also notes that specifying a single height could raise practicability

concerns, depending on the height selected. In addition to being

concerned that a test procedure simulates conditions representative of

real world crashes, the agency must also ensure that its safety

standards are practicable. One concern about a test procedure that

specifies a single MDB height that is representative of large pickup

trucks is whether a requirement based on that procedure is practicable

for compact LTVs that have much lower seating heights than the front

end heights of large pickup trucks.

NHTSA is proposing to specify an MDB height within a range of 33

inches to 45 inches as measured from the ground to the top edge of the

barrier face. By way of comparison, the MDB height for passenger car

testing is 33 inches.

Within the proposed range, the agency is proposing two alternative

methods for specifying MDB height, one of which would be selected by

the agency for a final rule. Under the first method, the MDB height

might be raised, as compared to the current height for passenger car

testing, to match the driver H-point of the tested LTV (or possibly the

front passenger H-point for testing the side of the vehicle away from

the driver).

One example of such an approach would be to raise the barrier

height by the amount that the H-point height of the tested vehicle

exceeds 21 inches. Barrier heights would be raised in one-inch

increments up to a maximum of 12 inches. A maximum would be established

to ensure that the barrier face top edge would not be above the window

of the struck vehicle.

Another example, which uses driver H-point ranges for setting

barrier height, would be as follows. For driver H-points 25 inches or

lower, the MDB height would be raised four inches. For driver H-points

higher than 25 inches but lower than 29 inches, the MDB height would be

raised seven inches. For driver H-points at least 29 inches high but

lower than 31 inches, the MDB height would be raised nine inches. For

driver H-points 31 inches or higher, the MDB would be raised 11 inches.

Under the second method, the MDB height would be raised either to

the same level for all LTV's, or to the same level for all LTV's within

a particular sub-group, e.g., pickups, vans and utility vehicles, with

different levels specified for different subgroups. The level could

correspond to the average H-point height of the LTV population as a

whole or to the average H-point height of each LTV sub-group.

NHTSA requests comments on these approaches, and on the appropriate

vehicle groupings and MDB heights to select under such approaches.

If the agency adopts a methodology in which the MDB height is based

on the height of the driver H-point of the tested vehicle, it would be

necessary to specify a method for determining that H-point. The agency

would contemplate adopting, for purposes of a final rule, an approach

based on procedures specified in S4, H-Point Machine, of SAE Standard

J826 (May 1987), Devices for Use in Defining and Measuring Vehicle

Seating Accommodation. NHTSA requests comments on such an approach.

In addition to proposing to raise the height of the MDB for LTV

testing, the agency is also considering increasing its weight. NHTSA

derived the weight of the current barrier from the median curb weight

of passenger cars (3,181 pounds in 1989) and light trucks (3,958 pounds

in 1989). This resulted in a weighted average of 3,423 pounds, which

was adjusted downward to account for the then-projected lower weight of

vehicles in the 1990's. Based on these considerations, NHTSA derived a

barrier weight of 3,000 pounds. Since the late 1980's, however, the

sales weighted average curb weight of the passenger car and LTV fleet

has been increasing, and is now about 3,310 pounds. The average curb

weight of passenger cars is now 2,970 pounds, and the average curb

weight of LTVs is about 3,900 pounds. The above weights were derived

from the sales weighted EPA test weight for 1993 passenger cars and

LTV's, minus 300 pounds.

The agency is proposing to specify the MDB's weight within a range

of 3,000 pounds to 3,800 pounds. The lower end of the range is the

current weight of the MDB, as specified by Standard No. 214 for

passenger car testing. The upper end of the range is based on the

average weight of striking vehicles in LTV crashes where an LTV

occupant had an AIS 3 torso injury, as observed in 1988-91

NASS data. NHTSA is not proposing an MDB weight above 3,800 pounds

because of concerns about practicability. In particular, the agency

believes that as MDB weight is increased much above 3,600 pounds, there

are increasing concerns about the feasibility of smaller LTV's meeting

the dynamic test requirements with such a barrier.

Although NHTSA is proposing alternative approaches for specifying

MDB height and weight, it believes it is desirable, to facilitate more

focused comments, to specifically request comments on certain options,

considering the pros and cons of those options.

There are several possible advantages in specifying a single height

and weight for the barrier. Specification of a single height and a

single weight would result in a simpler test procedure. For example,

there would be no need to determine the precise H-point height or to

adjust the height and weight of the MDB for testing different vehicles.

The agency believes that the combination of raising the MDB to a

height in the middle portion of the proposed range, e.g., seven to nine

inches above the passenger car barrier height, and increasing its

weight to 3600 pounds would be sufficient to create a dynamic event

that is representative of the ones likely to cause serious chest

injuries to occupants in the most vulnerable LTVs in real world

crashes. In particular, the MDB with that combination of height/weight

would, in a dynamic test, push the side structure of the vast majority

of LTV's inward at a level near that of the occupant's thorax.

In addition, assuming that a single height and a single weight were

selected, the agency is concerned that raising the MDB height to a

level above the middle portion of the proposed range and/or increasing

its weight above 3600 pounds could raise practicability problems for

compact LTV's whose H-points are typically only a few inches higher

than passenger cars.

One possible concern about specifying a single height would be

whether some manufacturers might raise occupant seating height to more

easily meet the requirements. Moving the seat too high could increase

the vehicle's propensity to rollover.

Other possible options are to specify the height of the MDB to

match the H-point of the test vehicle individually or select a setting

that would best match the H-point heights of a group of vehicles

belonging to a particular type. Specifying the height of the MDB to

match the H-point height would result in a test that is similar to that

for passenger cars in that the impact of the barrier relative to the

occupant's position would be similar. Manufacturers could not avoid the

need to add padding simply by raising seating height.

While this would simulate an accident severity that is likely to be

experienced by an occupant in that vehicle for thoracic injuries, there

may be practical difficulties encountered in conducting side impact

tests in that manner. When the MDB height is set to match the H-point

of the test vehicle, structurally identical models with different

suspension systems that cause changes in H-point heights, would be

tested at different severities, resulting in the possibility of

requiring different countermeasures for what is essentially the same

vehicle. Also, the added step of determining H-point height could

introduce variability in test results.

The agency seeks comments on the proposal for a single height and

for multiple height settings for the MDB in LTV testing.

The increases in MDB height and weight are the primary test

procedure changes that NHTSA believes may be needed in extending

Standard No. 214's dynamic requirements to LTV's. The agency does not

believe that any changes are needed in the speed or angle of the MDB,

and believes that only minor adjustments may be necessary with respect

to point of impact.

The specified point of impact for passenger cars is generally 37

inches forward of the center line of the wheelbase of the struck

vehicle. However, for cars with wheelbases greater than 114 inches, the

point of impact is 20 inches behind the front axle. This ensures that

the impact point for cars with very long wheelbases is not so far

toward the rear of the car that the front seat dummy does not

experience a full impact. The agency is proposing, with one exception,

the same impact point for LTVs. To ensure that the impact point is not

too far forward for LTVs with very short wheelbases, the agency is

proposing that for LTVs with wheelbases of 98 inches or less, the

impact point would be 12 inches rearward of vehicle's front axle

centerline. This would ensure that the MDB would not likely bridge

across the front and rear axles in short wheelbase LTVs.

NHTSA notes that GM expressed concern that specification of impact

point based on wheelbase could result in the possibility of having to

impact two structurally identical LTV's at two different locations.

This is because manufacturers sometimes offer the same LTV with several

different wheelbases. The agency requests comments on whether the

specified impact point should be adjusted to eliminate this

possibility. For example, should the agency either specify impact point

based on driver H-point instead of wheelbase or provide a manufacturer

option in this area?

The agency also requests comments on whether any other changes

should be made in any part of Standard No. 214's dynamic test

procedure, in order to make it appropriate for LTV's.

The proposed changes in the regulatory text of Standard No. 214 are

set forth at the end of this notice. NHTSA notes that the

specifications for the side impact MDB are set forth in part 587. While

the agency is not setting forth specific changes to part 587, it would,

for purposes of a final rule, specify any necessary changes to reflect

the possibly higher, heavier MDB for LTV testing.

NHTSA notes that the weight of the MDB is adjustable by means of

removable ballast plates located over the rear axle and directly

rearward of the front axle of the carriage (See Figure 2 of Standard

No. 214). The weights are placed such that the weight distribution

front-to-rear remains as close to the weight distribution in the

standard 3000 pound barrier as possible.

The agency notes that the barrier face is vertically adjustable

using the hole patterns on the standard passenger car MDB carriage

front. The hole patterns currently permit the barrier to be raised 4.0

inches, 7.25 inches, 9.25 inches, and 11.25 inches above the standard

passenger car barrier height of 33 inches. (See NHTSA Side Impact

Moving Deformable Barrier Drawing No. DSL-1281, page 5.)

Depending on the height specification that might be adopted in a

final rule, there could be a need to modify the positions of the holes

on the frame. There may also be a need to extend the height of the

frame to provide adequate support for the raised barrier plate. The

agency has conducted its research tests using a barrier modified in

this way.

The agency would also, for purposes of a final rule, make any

necessary conforming changes to Figure 2 of Standard No. 214. This

figure shows the side impact MDB.

VB. Performance Requirements

Standard No. 214 specifies TTI(d) limits of 85 g for 4-door cars

and 90 g for 2-door cars. The standard specifies a pelvic acceleration

limit of 130 g for all cars. NHTSA is proposing to specify a TTI(d)

limit of 85 g, the same limit as applies to 4-door passenger cars, and

a pelvic acceleration limit of 130 g, the same level as applies to all

passenger cars.

While some commenters suggested that LTVs might be able to meet

even more stringent TTI(d) and pelvic acceleration limits than cars,

the agency notes that safety standards are not based on the criterion

of maximum feasible safety. The agency believes that TTI(d) and pelvic

acceleration limits of 85 g and 130 g, respectively, will make a

significant contribution to improve side impact protection for LTVs.

This is particularly true given the fact that the agency is considering

adjusting the passenger car test procedure, making it more stringent in

the case of LTVs, so that it better reflects the types of crashes that

result in serious injuries to LTV occupants.

NHTSA notes that, in establishing a slightly higher TTI(d) limit of

90 g for 2-door passenger cars, it explained that it is generally more

difficult for manufacturers to achieve lower TTI(d) for two-door cars

than four-door cars, given that the door on a two-door model is

typically wider than on a four-door model. The reason two-door cars

usually have wider doors is to provide occupant access to the rear

seat. Two-door LTV's do not typically have wider doors, since the front

doors do not provide occupant access to a rear seat. Moreover, many

LTVs generally have stiffer side structures than small and medium

passenger cars, especially those LTV's equipped with side door beams.

Therefore, the agency believes that the 85 g limit can be specified for

all LTV's. NHTSA requests comment on this issue.

VC. Rear Seat Requirements

As part of considering an extension of Standard No. 214's dynamic

side impact requirements to LTVs, NHTSA is considering whether the

requirements should apply to the front and rear seats of these

additional vehicles (as is the case for passenger cars), or whether

they should apply to the front seats only of these vehicles.

On the subject of whether the requirements should apply to the rear

seats of LTVs, NHTSA wishes to call attention to the cost assessment in

the PEA for this proposal which raises concerns about the cost

effectiveness of requiring the second row of seats in LTVs to meet

these proposed requirements. For instance, Tables VIII-6 and VIII-7 of

the PEA show the ``costs per equivalent life saved'' from covering the

second row of seats are up to 43 times greater than the costs per

equivalent life saved from covering the front seats. These additional

costs would be incurred to achieve much lesser benefits. NHTSA

estimates that only 4 to 15 percent of all potential benefits would

accrue to occupants of rear seats. However, the costs to cover the rear

seats range from 23 percent to as high as 74 percent of the total cost

of this rulemaking, depending on the option.

The agency is very interested in public comments addressing

whether, in view of these cost-effectiveness estimates, second seats in

LTVs should be covered by these requirements. In addition, the agency

is interested in knowing what provision light truck manufacturers would

make for rear-seat occupants if the final rule were limited to the

front seats.

The agency notes that the occupants of second seats are very often

children, especially in minivans, which constitute the majority of LTVs

with more than one row of seats. Thus, a decision to apply the dynamic

side impact requirements to second seats would ensure that children

riding in these seating positions in vehicles designed and sold for

family transportation are afforded the same level of protection offered

to adults in the front seats.1 NHTSA notes that while the

regulatory text set forth in this document does not apply the dynamic

side impact requirements to the second seats of LTVs, the agency may,

depending on the comments, apply the requirements to second seats in a

final rule.

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

\1\NHTSA's analysis (PEA, pp. V-25 and V-26) indicates that,

depending on the alternative, application of the requirements to

second seats would prevent an additional 4 to 6 fatalities and 7 to

14 serious injuries annually. About \1/3\ of these benefits would

accrue to children under the age of 15.

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

NHTSA notes that many LTVs have an aisle between one of the rear

outboard seating positions and the side of the vehicle. The agency does

not believe there would be any reason to apply the proposed

requirements to such seating positions, since they are far enough away

from the side of the vehicle that occupants are not likely to

experience thoracic injuries in a side impact. Therefore, if NHTSA were

to cover rear outboard seating positions where the outermost edge of

the rear seat cushion is more than 10 inches away from the interior

surface of the side door or wall.

VI. Vehicles Covered by Proposal

As indicated above, the NHTSA Authorization Act of 1991 required

the agency to address, through rulemaking, the possible extension of

Standard No. 214's dynamic side impact requirements for passenger cars

to MPVs and trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded

vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less. The agency has considered

whether the requirements should also be applied to vehicles with a GVWR

greater than 8,500 pounds but less than 10,000 pounds, as well as

whether some vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an

unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less should be excluded.

Based on its test series, NHTSA believes that larger, heavier LTVs

already meet the proposed dynamic requirements, even with the higher,

heavier MDB. Therefore, the agency believes there is no reason to apply

the requirements to LTVs with a GVWR above 8,500 pounds.

The agency believes that it may be appropriate to exclude some LTVs

with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of

5,500 pounds or less. NHTSA is proposing to exclude motor homes, walk-

in vans, tow trucks, dump trucks, ambulances, and vehicles which have

no doors or exclusively have doors that are designed to be easily

attached or removed so the vehicle can be operated without doors.

Many motor homes, walk-in vans, tow trucks, dump trucks and

ambulances would already be excluded from the proposed requirements

because they have a GVWR greater than 8,500 pounds. Moreover, most that

are not excluded would likely already meet the proposed requirements

since they would still tend to be among the larger, heavier LTV's.

NHTSA is proposing to exclude these categories of vehicles because of

the combination of two factors: (1) The likelihood that they already

comply with the proposed requirements, and (2) many vehicles within

these categories tend to have unusual side structures and are often

produced in small volumes, making it potentially very expensive, on a

per vehicle basis, to confirm compliance for purposes of certification.

The agency is proposing to exclude vehicles which have no doors, or

exclusively have doors that are designed to be easily attached or

removed so the vehicle can be operated without doors, because it would

be impracticable for such vehicles to meet the proposed requirements.

There is a specialized class of small businesses involved in the

final stage manufacture of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages,

and/or in the conversion or alteration of new vehicles. In several

recent rulemakings, including those extending Standard No. 214's quasi-

static side door strength requirements and Standard No. 208's automatic

crash protection requirements to LTVs, NHTSA has addressed at length

the issue of compliance by these ``final-stage manufacturers.''

The agency believes that the extension of Standard No. 214's

dynamic requirements to LTVs raises the same basic issues concerning

final stage manufacturers as the earlier rulemakings on Standards No.

214 and No. 208. NHTSA has tentatively concluded that the proposed

requirements would not pose an unreasonable burden on final stage

manufacturers, since they have the same means for certifying compliance

as they do for Standard No. 208's automatic crash protection

requirements and Standard No. 214's quasi-static side door strength

requirements.

In many cases, final stage manufacturers can certify compliance

simply by staying with limits set by the incomplete vehicle

manufacturer. Some final stage manufacturers build their own vehicle

body structures. However, these manufacturers are generally larger than

most final stage manufacturers, and have greater engineering and

testing expertise. Final stage manufacturers can also band together to

sponsor testing and/or engineering analysis.

For a full discussion of these issues, see 56 FR 12472, 12477-80,

March 26, 1991 (final rule extending Standard No. 208's automatic

protection requirements to LTVs); 57 FR 26609, 26612-17, June 15, 1992

(response to petitions for reconsideration of extension of Standard No.

208's automatic protection requirements to LTVs); 56 FR 27427, 27435-

36, June 14, 1991 (final rule extending Standard No. 214's quasi-static

side door strength requirements to LTVs); 58 FR 19628-31, April 15,

1993 (response to petition concerning the extension of Standard No.

214's quasi-static side door strength requirements to LTVs).

NHTSA requests comments on the proposed exclusions discussed above

and on whether any other LTVs should be excluded. NHTSA notes that

buses within the specified weight limits are covered by the proposal.

Some vans are classified as buses. While most such vans have a GVWR

above 8,500 pounds, there may be some smaller ones with a lower GVWR.

The agency is aware that some small buses have an unusual side

structure, in that the passenger portion of the bus is wider than the

portion which includes the driver seat. NHTSA specifically requests

comments on whether any such buses have a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less

and, if so, whether the proposed test procedure would be appropriate

for vehicles with that type of side structure. NHTSA also specifically

requests comments on the ability of manufacturers of LTVs designed to

be driven by persons with disabilities to comply with the proposed

requirements.

VII. Benefits

NHTSA's analysis of benefits is presented in the PEA. As discussed

in that document, estimated benefits would vary depending on the

barrier weight and height specified in a final rule. All LTV's are

believed to meet the proposed requirements using the barrier specified

by Standard No. 214 for passenger car testing. Thus, benefits would be

negligible for that option. The benefits would increase as barrier

weight and height increase.

The PEA provides estimates of benefits for six different barrier

height alternatives, with the barrier weight at 3,000 and 3,600 pounds.

The height of the barrier varies between 35 inches and 45 inches for

these alternatives. The estimates of benefits cited below reflect those

alternatives.

If the dynamic side impact requirements were extended to the front

seat only, with a barrier weight of 3,000 pounds, the agency estimates

that there would be 1 to 63 fewer fatalities and 13 to 287 fewer AIS 2-

5 injuries annually, depending on the height of the barrier. With a

barrier weight of 3,600 pounds, NHTSA estimates that there would be 32

to 116 fewer fatalities and 122 to 472 fewer AIS 2-5 injuries annually,

depending on the height of the barrier.

If the requirements were extended to the front and rear seats, with

a barrier weight of 3,000 pounds, the agency estimates that there would

be 5 to 69 fewer fatalities and 20 to 301 fewer AIS 2-5 injuries

annually. With a barrier weight of 3,600 pounds, NHTSA estimates that

there would be 36 to 122 fewer fatalities and 129 to 486 fewer AIS 2-5

injuries annually.

As discussed in the PEA, there are a number of assumptions

underlying these estimates, including the assumption that 12 light

truck make/models for which the agency has test data are representative

of vehicles in their body style/size class. Another assumption is that

either padding or a combination of padding and structure would be

employed as countermeasures.

VIII. Costs

The PEA also presents the agency's analysis of costs. As with

benefits, estimated costs would vary depending on the barrier weight

and height specified in a final rule. Since all LTV's are believed to

meet the proposed requirements using the barrier specified by Standard

No. 214 for passenger car testing, vehicle costs would be negligible

for that option. However, there would be testing costs.

Costs would increase as barrier weight and height increase. The PEA

provides estimates of costs for the same barrier height/weight

alternatives as for benefits. The estimates of costs cited below

reflect those alternatives.

While some LTVs already meet the proposed requirements and would

not require any changes, NHTSA believes that all other LTVs could be

brought into compliance either by the addition of three inches or less

of padding to the door or side of the vehicle adjacent to each outboard

occupant's thorax, or by the addition of a combination of padding and

structure.

If the dynamic side impact requirements were extended to the front

seat only and assuming that the appropriate countermeasures were added

to those vehicles requiring changes, NHTSA estimates the average cost

per LTV of adding the countermeasure to be $5.55 to $37.07, depending

on the weight and height specified for the barrier. (The average cost

per LTV is based on the costs for all LTVs, including those which would

not require the addition of countermeasures.) The addition of the

lifetime fuel costs of carrying the extra weight of the padding/

structure increases the average cost per LTV to $7.91 to $65.90.

Another possible cost relates to secondary weight, i.e., weight

increases in other parts of the vehicle which might be made to

compensate for the additional weight of the padding/structure. With the

addition of secondary weight and the lifetime fuel costs of carrying

the secondary weight, the average cost per LTV would be $10.47 to

$97.22.

If the proposed requirements were extended to the front and rear

seats, NHTSA estimates the average cost per LTV of adding the

countermeasure to be $7.33 to $55.18. The addition of the lifetime fuel

costs of carrying the extra weight of the padding/structure increases

the cost per LTV to $10.59 to $98.69. With the addition of secondary

weight and the lifetime fuel costs of carrying the secondary weight,

the average cost per LTV would be $14.13 to $145.96.

As with its estimates of benefits, NHTSA's costs estimates are

based on a number of assumptions which are discussed in the PEA.

IX. Leadtime/Phase-In

NHTSA believes that the extension of the dynamic side impact

requirements to LTVs would require a similar leadtime to that provided

for passenger cars, since the countermeasures and testing needs are the

same. The agency is therefore proposing to establish the same phase-in

options as it provided for passenger cars.

More specifically, to provide manufacturers with sufficient

leadtime to design their LTVs to meet the proposed performance

requirements, NHTSA is proposing two compliance schedules, the choice

of which would be at the option of the manufacturer. Under the first

schedule, the standard would be phased-in in accordance with the

following implementation schedule:

10 percent of all LTVs manufactured during the first full production

year (September 1 to August 31) beginning approximately two years after

the issuance of a final rule;

25 percent of all LTVs manufactured during the second full year after

that two-year period;

40 percent of all LTVs manufactured during the third full year after

that two-year period; and

100 percent of all LTVs manufactured on or after the beginning of the

fourth full year after that two-year period.

Under the second schedule, no compliance would be required during

the production period beginning approximately two years after the

issuance of a final rule, but full implementation would be required

beginning with the next production period.

X. Reporting Requirements

Whenever the agency specifies a phase-in of some performance

requirement, it is necessary for enforcement of that phase-in to

require manufacturers to report, at the end of each production period

during the phase-in, its total production of vehicles and the number of

such vehicles that are certified as complying with the relevant

performance requirement. While the agency is not setting forth specific

regulatory text concerning reporting in this NPRM, it would, for

purposes of a final rule, establish essentially the same side impact

reporting requirements for LTV manufacturers as it established in part

586 for passenger car manufacturers.

XI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

NHTSA has considered the costs and other impacts that would be

associated with this proposal if it were adopted as a final rule. This

rulemaking document was reviewed under Executive Order 12866,

``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This rulemaking action is

considered significant under that executive order and the DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures because it could have an annual

effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The agency's analysis of

costs and benefits is presented in the Preliminary Economic Assessment,

which is being placed in the docket. A summary of costs and benefits is

presented earlier in this notice.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has also considered the effects of this regulatory action

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that it would

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Accordingly, the agency has not prepared a preliminary

regulatory flexibility analysis.

The primary cost effect of the proposed requirements would be on

incomplete vehicle manufacturers, which are not small entities.

Although many final stage manufacturers are small businesses, NHTSA

estimates that the vast majority of those businesses would not be

significantly affected by the proposed requirements. Final stage

manufacturers would have the same means for certifying compliance as

they do for Standard No. 208's automatic crash protection requirements

and Standard No. 214's quasi-static side door strength requirements. In

many cases, final stage manufacturers can certify compliance simply by

staying with limits set by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. Some

final stage manufacturers build their own vehicle body structures.

However, these manufacturers are generally larger than most final stage

manufacturers, and have greater engineering and testing expertise.

Final stage manufacturers can also band together to sponsor testing

and/or engineering analysis.

Small organizations and governmental units should not be

significantly affected since the potential cost impacts associated with

this proposed action should only slightly affect the purchase price of

new motor vehicles.

National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking for the purposes of the National

Environmental Policy Act. The addition of padding and structure would

result in increased material usage by manufacturers, primarily plastic

and metal. There could also be increased material usage associated with

possible secondary weight. The agency estimates that LTVs could

increase in average curb weight by 0.07 percent to 1.25 percent. Such

added weight would result in a very slight increase in fuel

consumption. After considering these impacts, the agency has determined

that implementation of this action would not have any significant

impact on the quality of the human environment.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

The agency has analyzed this proposal in accordance with the

principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 12612. NHTSA has

determined that this proposal does not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with this

proposed rule are being submitted to the Office of Management and

Budget for approval in accordance with 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 under OMB

No.: 2127-0558; ADMINISTRATION: National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration; TITLE: Production Reporting System for Side Impact

Protection Compliance (49 CFR part 586); NEED FOR INFORMATION: To

assess compliance with dynamic side impact protection phase-in

requirements; PROPOSED USE OF INFORMATION: To determine if

manufacturers are complying with the dynamic side impact protection

phase-in schedule; FREQUENCY: Annually; BURDEN ESTIMATE: 384 hours;

RESPONDENTS: 16; FORM(S): None; AVERAGE BURDEN HOURS FOR RESPONDENT: 24

hours.

For further information contact: The Information Requirements Division,

M-34, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-4735, or Edward Clarke, Office of

Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, room 3228,

Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395-7340.

Civil Justice Reform

This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under

section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act

(Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), whenever a Federal motor vehicle

safety standard is in effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a

safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is

not identical to the Federal standard, except to the extent that the

State requirement imposes a higher level of performance and applies

only to vehicles procured for the State's use. Section 105 of the

Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1394) sets forth a procedure for judicial review

of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor vehicle

safety standards. That section does not require submission of a

petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before

parties may file suit in court.

XII. Submission of Comments

Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal.

It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.

All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).

Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without

regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage

commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.

If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim

of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including

purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to

the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven

copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been

deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for

confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth

the information specified in the agency's confidential business

information regulation. 49 CFR part 512.

All comments received before the close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and

will be available for examination in the docket at the above address

both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed

after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too

late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered

as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal

will be available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue

to file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket

after the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons

continue to examine the docket for new material.

Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their

comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped

postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the

comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber

products, Tires.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 would be amended

as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

1. The authority citation for part 571 would continue to read as

follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407; delegation of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

2. Section 571.214 would be amended by revising S2, adding S3(f)

through S3(h), revising S5.1, S6.1, S6.11, and S7, and adding S8.5

through S8.9.3, to read as follows:

Sec. 571.214 Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection.

* * * * *

S2. This standard applies to passenger cars. Effective September 1,

1993, sections S3(a), S3(e), S3.1 through S3.2.3, and S4 of the

standard apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses

with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, except for walk-in vans.

Effective September 1, 1996, sections S3(f) through S3(h) and S5 of the

standard apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses

with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of

5,500 pounds or less, except for walk-in vans, motor homes, tow trucks,

dump trucks, ambulances, and vehicles which have no doors or

exclusively have doors that are designed to be easily attached or

removed so the vehicle can be operated without doors.

* * * * *

S3* * *

(f) When tested according to the conditions of S6, each

multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck and bus manufactured on or after

September 1, 1999 shall meet the requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3

in a 33.5 miles per hour impact in which the vehicle is struck on

either side by a moving deformable barrier. A part 572, subpart F test

dummy is placed in the front outboard seating position on the struck

side of the vehicle.

(g) Except as provided in paragraph (h) of this section, from

September 1, 1996 to August 31, 1999, a specified percentage of each

manufacturer's combined yearly production of multipurpose passenger

vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an

unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less, as set forth in S8,

shall, when tested under the conditions of S6, meet the requirements of

S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 in a 33.5 miles per hour impact in which the

vehicle is struck on either side by a moving deformable barrier. A part

572, subpart F test dummy is placed in the front outboard seating

position on the struck side of the vehicle.

(h) A manufacturer may, at its option, comply with the requirements

of this paragraph instead of paragraph (g) of this section. When tested

under the conditions of S6, each multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck

and bus with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle

weight of 5,500 pounds or less manufactured from September 1, 1997 to

August 31, 1999 shall meet the requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 in

a 33.5 miles per hour impact in which the vehicle is struck on either

side by a moving deformable barrier. A part 572, subpart F test dummy

is placed in the front outboard seating position on the struck side of

the vehicle.

* * * * *

S5.1 Thorax. The Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI(d)) shall not exceed

85 g for passenger cars with four side doors, shall not exceed 90 g for

passenger cars with two side doors, and shall not exceed 85 g for

multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses, when calculated in

accordance with the following formula:

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

The term ``GR'' is the greater of the peak accelerations of

either the upper or lower rib, expressed in g's and the term

``GLS'' is the lower spine (T12) peak acceleration, expressed in

g's. The peak acceleration values are obtained in accordance with the

procedure specified in S6.13.5.

* * * * *

S6.1 Test weight. Each vehicle is loaded to its unloaded vehicle

weight, plus 300 pounds or its rated cargo and luggage capacity

(whichever is less), secured in the luggage or load-carrying area, plus

the weight of the necessary anthropomorphic test dummies. Any added

test equipment is located away from impact areas in secure places in

the vehicle. The vehicle's fuel system is filled in accordance with the

following procedure. With the test vehicle on a level surface, pump the

fuel from the vehicle's fuel tank and then operate the engine until it

stops. Then, add Stoddard solvent to the test vehicle's fuel tank in an

amount which is equal to not less than 92 percent and not more than 94

percent of the fuel tank's usable capacity stated by the vehicle's

manufacturer. In addition, add the amount of Stoddard solvent needed to

fill the entire fuel system from the fuel tank through the engine's

induction system.

* * * * *

S6.11 Impact reference line. For passenger cars with a wheelbase

of 114 inches or less and for other vehicles with a wheel base of

greater than 98 inches but not greater than 114 inches, on the side of

the vehicle that will be struck by the moving deformable barrier, place

a vertical reference line which is 37 inches forward of the center of

the vehicle's wheelbase. For vehicles with a wheelbase greater than 114

inches, on the side of the vehicle that will be struck by the moving

deformable barrier, place a vertical reference line which is 20 inches

rearward of the centerline of the vehicle's front axle. For vehicles

other than passenger cars, with a wheelbase of 98 inches or less, on

the side of the vehicle that will be struck by the moving deformable

barrier, place a vertical reference line, which is 12 inches rearward

of the centerline of the vehicle's front axle.

* * * * *

S7 Positioning procedure for the Part 572 Subpart F Test Dummy.

Position a correctly configured test dummy, conforming to subpart F of

part 572 of this chapter, in the front outboard seating position on the

side of the test vehicle to be struck by the moving deformable barrier

and, if the vehicle is a passenger car, position another conforming

test dummy in the rear outboard position on the same side of the

vehicle, as specified in S7.1 through S7.4. Each test dummy is

restrained using all available belt systems in all seating positions

where such belt restraints are provided. In addition, any folding

armrest is retracted.

* * * * *

S8.5 Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses

manufactured on or after September 1, 1996 and before September 1,

1997.

S8.5.1 The combined number of multipurpose passenger vehicles,

trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded

vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less complying with the requirements

of S3(g) shall be not less than 10 percent of:

(a) the average annual production of multipurpose passenger

vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an

unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less manufactured on or

after September 1, 1993, and before September 1, 1996, by each

manufacturer, or

(b) the manufacturer's annual production of multipurpose passenger

vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an

unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less during the period

specified in S8.5.

S8.6 Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses

manufactured on or after September 1, 1997 and before September 1,

1998.

S8.6.1 The combined number of multipurpose passenger vehicles,

trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded

vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less complying with the requirements

of S3(g) shall be not less than 25 percent of:

(a) the average annual production of multipurpose passenger

vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an

unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less manufactured on or

after September 1, 1994, and before September 1, 1997, by each

manufacturer, or

(b) the manufacturer's annual production of multipurpose passenger

vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an

unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less during the period

specified in S8.6.

S8.7 Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses

manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 and before September 1,

1999.

S8.7.1 The combined number of multipurpose passenger vehicles,

trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded

vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less complying with the requirements

of S3(g) shall be not less than 40 percent of:

(a) the average annual production of multipurpose passenger

vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an

unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less manufactured on or

after September 1, 1994, and before September 1, 1997, by each

manufacturer, or

(b) the manufacturer's annual production of multipurpose passenger

vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an

unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less during the period

specified in S8.7.

S8.8 Walk-in vans, motor homes, tow trucks, dump trucks,

ambulances, and vehicles which have no doors or exclusively have doors

that are designed to be easily attached or removed so the vehicle can

be operated without doors may be excluded from all calculations of

compliance with S8.5.1, S8.6.1 and S8.7.1.

S8.9 Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses produced by

more than one manufacturer.

S8.9.1 For the purposes of calculating average annual production

of multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of

8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or

less for each manufacturer and the number of multipurpose passenger

vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an

unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less manufactured by each

manufacturer under S8.5.1, S8.6.1 and S8.7.1, a vehicle produced by

more than one manufacturer shall be attributed to a single manufacturer

as follows, subject to S8.9.2:

(a) A vehicle which is imported shall be attributed to the

importer.

(b) A vehicle manufactured in the United States by more than one

manufacturer, one of which also markets the vehicle, shall be

attributed to the manufacturer which markets the vehicle.

S8.9.2 A vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer shall be

attributed to any one of the vehicle's manufacturers specified by an

express written contract, reported to the National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration under 49 CFR part 586, between the manufacturer

so specified and the manufacturer to which the vehicle would otherwise

be attributed under S8.9.1.

S8.9.3 Each multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck and bus with a

GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500

pounds or less that is manufactured in two or more stages or that is

altered (within the meaning of Sec. 567.7 of this chapter) after having

previously been certified in accordance with part 567 of this chapter

is not subject to the requirements of S3(g).

Issued on: June 10, 1994.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

[FR Doc. 94-14578 Filed 6-14-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P