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 24]

RIN 2127-AE49

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Side Impact Protection--

Light Trucks, Buses and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule amends Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.

214, ``Side Impact Protection,'' to extend its dynamic testing

requirements to light trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles and buses

with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 6,000 pounds or less.

(Light trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles and buses are

hereinafter referred to as LTVs.) The dynamic testing requirements

currently apply to passenger cars only. This rule extends the dynamic

procedures now used to test passenger cars, without modification, to

LTVs. Based on current vehicle sales data, the agency estimates that

the percentage of LTVs will increase significantly in the future. Small

LTVs, which are potentially vulnerable in side crashes, will comprise

much of the LTV fleet by the year 2000. This extension ensures these

vehicles provide side impact protection for the same crash conditions

under which passenger cars provide such protection. It also furthers

the goal of the NHTSA Authorization Act of 1991 (sections 2500-2509 of

the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (``ISTEA'')),

which directed NHTSA to initiate rulemaking on LTV side impact safety.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 1, 1998.

Petitions for reconsideration of the rule must be received by

August 28, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket and

number of this document and must be submitted to: Administrator, Room

5220, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590.

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

Rollover Crash Protection Division, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards

(telephone 202-366-4924), or Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Office of the Chief

Counsel (202-366-2992), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

a. Current requirements

b. Purpose of today's rule

c. Side impact safety problem

II. The NPRM

a. Raising the height and weight of the moving deformable

barrier

b. Response to the NPRM

III. Agency Decision

a. Extending the passenger car requirements

b. Related requirements

[[Page 38750]]

1. Vehicles covered by this rule

2. Vehicles manufactured without doors

3. Impact reference line

4. Rear seat

5. Upgrading other aspects of the standard

6. Leadtime

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

a. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and

Procedures

b. Regulatory Flexibility Act

c. Executive Order 12612

d. National Environmental Policy Act

e. Executive Order 12778

I. Background

This rule amends Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214,

``Side Impact Protection,'' to extend its dynamic testing requirements

to LTVs of 6,000 pounds or less gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). The

dynamic testing requirements currently apply to passenger cars. The

effect of this amendment is to ensure that smaller LTVs provide side

impact protection under the same crash conditions under which passenger

cars provide such protection. Larger LTVs and many smaller LTVs will be

able to comply with the requirements of this standard without any

modification. A notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) setting forth the

proposals upon which this rule is based was published June 15, 1994 (59

FR 30756).

a. Current Requirements

Standard 214 specifies two sets of requirements for the vehicles to

which it applies. The first is composed of quasi-static side door

strength requirements for passenger cars and LTVs with a GVWR of 10,000

pounds or less. Those requirements seek to mitigate occupant injuries

in side impacts by reducing the extent to which the side door structure

of a vehicle is pushed into the occupant compartment during a side

impact. Under the requirements, side doors must resist crush forces

that are applied against the door's outside surface in a laboratory

test. The requirements have applied to passenger cars since January 1,

1973, and were extended to LTVs on September 1, 1993 by a final rule

published in the Federal Register (56 FR 27427) on June 14, 1991.

The second set of requirements comprise the dynamic testing

requirements for passenger cars. NHTSA adopted these requirements in a

rule published on October 30, 1990 (55 FR 45722). Under the

requirements, a passenger car must provide protection to occupants'

thoracic and pelvic regions as measured by the accelerations registered

on an instrumented side impact dummy (SID) in a full-scale crash test.

In the test, the car (known as the ``target'' car) is struck in the

side by a moving deformable barrier (MDB) simulating another passenger

car. A phase-in for these new requirements began on September 1, 1993.

The MDB specified in the dynamic test procedure weighs, nominally,

3,000 pounds, and its contact face is 22 inches in height, 66 inches in

width and 33 inches high (measured from the ground to the top edge of

the barrier face). NHTSA derived the weight of the barrier from the

median curb weight of passenger cars (3,181 pounds in 1989) and light

trucks (3,958 pounds in 1989). This resulted in a weighted average of

3,423 pounds, which was adjusted downward to account for the then-

projected lower weight of vehicles in the 1990's.

Under the test procedure, the front and rear wheels of the MDB are

``crabbed'' at an angle of 27 degrees. With the MDB face oriented at a

right angle to the target car, the MDB moves at an angle of 27 degrees

and at a speed of 33.5 mph into the side of the target car. These

aspects of the procedure were selected so that the test simulates the

vehicle kinematics and crash forces that a car would experience in a

real world side crash in which it was traveling at 15 mph and was

struck perpendicularly by a vehicle traveling at 30 mph. The agency

selected the 30 mph/15 mph combination because it represents the mid-

range of the speed in real-world side crashes, is the threshold speed

for serious chest injury, and because countermeasures (e.g., increased

padding and/or reinforced structure) designed for the 30 mph/15 mph

combination are likely to be effective in reducing chest injury

potential over most of the range of impact speeds encountered in real

world side crashes.

b. Purpose of Today's Rule

This rulemaking addresses several NHTSA goals. This rulemaking is a

first step towards establishing appropriate dynamic testing

requirements for LTVs. An advance notice of proposed rulemaking (53 FR

31716) published in 1988 discussed possible side impact protection

requirements for LTVs in areas where requirements had been or were

under consideration for passenger cars. That notice announced that

NHTSA was considering developing dynamic test procedures and

performance requirements for LTVs, similar to those proposed at that

time and later adopted for passenger cars.

Amending Standard 214 to address side impact protection for LTVs

also furthers the goals of the NHTSA Authorization Act of 1991

(sections 2500-2509 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency

Act (``ISTEA'')). In 1991, Congress directed the agency to initiate and

complete rulemaking to address the possible extension of Standard 214's

dynamic side impact requirements for passenger cars to MPVs and trucks

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

5,500 pounds or less. In response, NHTSA initiated rulemaking by

publishing another advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on

June 5, 1992 (57 FR 24009). Section 2502 of ISTEA provides that

rulemaking is considered completed when NHTSA either promulgates a

final rule or decides not to promulgate a rule. Today's final rule

extending Standard 214's dynamic side impact protection requirements to

LTVs completes the ISTEA-directed rulemaking.

This rulemaking also marks one of the final phases of the agency's

long-term endeavor to extend most of its passenger car standards to

LTVs. This effort has resulted in a number of rulemaking actions over

the past decade. Among the passenger car safety standards extended to

LTVs were Standards 202 (requiring head restraints), 204 (limiting

rearward movement of steering column in a crash), 208 (requiring

dynamic testing of safety belts for LTVs, and in model year 1999,

requiring air bags in 100 percent of LTVs), and 216 (requiring roof

crush strength). NHTSA extended those standards to ensure that LTVs are

as safe as passenger cars in their crashworthiness performance, since

they are being purchased in increasing numbers and are increasingly

being used as passenger-carrying vehicles.

These increases can be illustrated by registration data. Data from

R.L. Polk show that LTV registrations have increased from 33 million in

1983 to 45 million in 1988, and to 57 million in 1993. From 1983 to

1993, the percentage of light trucks in the compact (now termed ``small

and middle'') category increased from 39 percent to 63 percent.

Both Congress' ISTEA directive on LTV side impact protection and

NHTSA's endeavor to extend passenger car standards to LTVs stem from

the convergence of LTVs and passenger cars in terms of their design and

use (with many LTVs in the compact size range used as personal

transportation rather than for cargo). With LTVs carrying more and more

passengers, there has been a commensurate increase in fatalities. The

overall increase in LTV fatalities from 1985 to 1993 was 25 percent. In

the 1985 data from NHTSA's Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS),

there were 6,763 fatalities among occupants of LTVs: 115 in small

[[Page 38751]]

vans; 722 in large vans; 1,686 in small pickups; 3,342 in large pickups

and 898 in other LTVs. By comparison, in 1993, there were 8,487

fatalities that occurred in LTVs. The fatality distribution by LTV

vehicle category was: 576 in small vans; 545 in large vans; 2,519 in

small pickups; 3,357 in large pickups; and 1,389 in sport utility

vehicles.

c. Side Impact Safety Problem

The number of fatalities in LTV side impacts increased faster than

the overall fatality rate. In 1984, LTV side impacts resulted in 1,197

fatalities; in 1991, there were approximately 1,676 fatalities in side

crashes. NHTSA estimates 1 that, by the mid-1990's, side impacts

will result in 1,763 fatalities for LTV occupants sitting in the front

or second seat, annually. Front seat occupants will account for 1,705

of the fatalities, with occupants of the second seat accounting for 58

fatalities (less than 2 percent). Side impacts are also expected to

account for about 6,000 serious but non-fatal injuries to occupants

sitting in the front or second seat, annually. These injuries are of a

level of 3 to 5 on the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). (An AIS level is

a measurement that rates the severity of any injury. For example, a

minor injury is rated at the AIS 1 level. At the other extreme, a fatal

injury is rated at AIS 6.)

\1\ See ``Preliminary Economic Assessment, NPRM for Light

Trucks, Buses and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle Dynamic Side Impact

Protection, FMVSS No. 214'' (June 1994), accompanying the June 1994

NPRM, NHTSA Docket 88-06-N23-001.

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

The side impact protection requirements in Standard 214 are two-

fold. The quasi-static strength requirements address intrusion-related

injuries, such as in narrow object side crashes into poles or trees

(fixed objects), by limiting the amount of intrusion. The standard's

dynamic requirements primarily address LTV occupant fatalities and

serious injuries that are likely to occur due to occupant contact

against the side interior of the struck vehicle in a two-vehicle

collision. (See Final Regulatory Impact Analysis for the rule adopting

dynamic test requirement for passenger cars, Docket number 88-06,

notice 8, DOT HS 807-641, August 1990.)

The dynamic side impact requirements address primarily chest and

pelvic injury, using dummies that are instrumented with four

accelerometers to measure accelerations in the dummy ribs and spine,

and pelvic region. The values measured in the ribs and spine are used

in determining the ``Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI(d)).'' TTI(d) is an

injury criterion that measures the risk of thoracic injury of an

occupant in a side impact. The fourth accelerometer, mounted in the

pelvic cavity, measures the potential risk for pelvic injury. To meet

Standard 214's side impact protection requirements, the TTI(d) and

pelvis measurements must be below specified maximum values.2

\2\ For the thorax, TTI(d) must not exceed 85 g for passenger

cars with four side doors, or 90 g for cars with two side doors. It

is generally more difficult for manufacturers to achieve lower

TTI(d) for two-door cars than four-door cars, given that the door on

a two-door model is typically wider than on a four-door model. For

the pelvis, peak lateral acceleration must not exceed 130 g's.

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

NHTSA estimates that, by the mid-1990's, about 14 percent of the

1,763 LTV fatalities (i.e., 245 fatalities per year) and roughly 14

percent of the 6,000 serious (AIS 3-5) thoracic injuries (i.e., 857

injuries per year) would be due to contacts between an occupant's

chest, abdomen, back and pelvis and the struck vehicle's side interior.

The agency believes that approximately 88 percent of these fatalities

and injuries will occur in side impacts with LTVs, heavy vehicles, and

fixed objects, rather than in side impacts with passenger cars. Looking

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

vehicles, approximately 78 percent of the LTV fatal ``torso'' injuries

are caused by other light and heavy trucks, and only 22 percent, by

passenger cars (mostly large passenger cars).

II. The NPRM

Following the ISTEA-directed ANPRM initiating rulemaking on dynamic

side impact protection for LTVs, NHTSA published the June 1994 NPRM

which set forth the proposal upon which todays rule is based. The NPRM

proposed to extend Standard 214's dynamic side impact protection

requirements to LTVs with a GVWR or 8,500 pounds or less and an

unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less.

Under the proposal, all of the provisions in the standard that

currently apply to passenger cars would have been extended to LTVs, but

the test procedure would have been modified by raising the height and

weight of the moving barrier used to strike the tested vehicle. The

agency proposed this modification for several reasons. One was the

agency's tentative conclusion that ``a simple extension of Standard No.

214's dynamic side impact protection requirements to LTVs would result

in few, if any, benefits.'' The agency noted its related concern that a

simple extension ``would result in significant compliance costs without

concomitant benefits.'' Another reason was the design differences

between passenger cars and LTVs, and in the size and weight of striking

vehicles that caused the most extensive safety problems in side

crashes. The modifications were intended to make the test ``more

representative of the side impact crash conditions causing fatalities

and serious injuries in LTVs.''

Occupants of LTVs are generally seated higher than those in

passenger cars. Because of this, LTV occupants generally face a smaller

risk of side impact thoracic injury, than passenger car occupants in a

majority of side crashes (i.e., in crashes in which passenger cars are

the striking vehicles). If a passenger car (which composes the majority

of the current vehicle fleet and represents the most probable striking

vehicle) strikes another passenger car in a side impact, the striking

vehicle typically pushes the inside door panel of the struck vehicle at

a relatively high velocity directly into the thorax of an occupant

sitting next to the door. However, if a passenger car strikes an LTV in

a side impact, the primary part of the side structure that is pushed

inward is more likely to be below the thorax of an adjacent occupant,

thereby resulting in smaller injury-producing loads to the occupant's

thorax. Further, LTVs typically have higher sill and side structures

than passenger cars. Those structures limit the loads transmitted by a

passenger car directly to the door, thus reducing the door contact

velocity to the occupant.

Because of these differences, the fatality rate for occupants of

LTVs in all side impact crashes is less than half of that for passenger

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

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

Although NHTSA recognized in the NPRM that ``the problem of

thoracic injuries in side impacts is not so great for LTV occupants as

it is for passenger car occupants,'' the agency tentatively concluded

that side impact protection requirements should apply to LTVs in a

manner that would reduce the thorax- related fatalities and serious

chest injuries in vehicles struck in side impacts. Most of these

casualties would occur in crashes in which a vehicle other than a

passenger car is the striking vehicle. (The two types of striking

vehicles that are most likely to cause severe chest injuries in side

impacts are standard pickups and compact pickups. These vehicles cause

26 percent and 16 percent of all such injuries, respectively.) NHTSA

tentatively concluded therefore that it would be appropriate to

establish side impact protection requirements for LTVs that simulated

the type of multi-vehicle crash that causes the greatest number of

[[Page 38752]]

serious injuries to LTV occupants in side crashes. That is, the agency

believed that the barrier simulating the striking vehicle and the

simulated injury-producing event should reflect attributes of a vehicle

larger than a passenger car in terms of its weight and front end

profile.

NHTSA also noted in the NPRM that data indicated that many current

LTVs, especially the heavier ones, already meet the criteria specified

for passenger cars. NHTSA conducted two series of LTV side impact tests

similar to the dynamic Standard 214 passenger car test. In the first

test series, the agency tested seven LTVs using an MDB that was

modified to make it more representative of side crash conditions

causing fatalities and serious injuries in light trucks. The weight of

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

face was raised between 4 and 10 inches. In the second test series,

NHTSA tested three small LTVs (1991 Toyota pickup, 1991 Suzuki

Sidekick, and 1989 Dodge Ram D-50) and a fourth vehicle representative

of a small van (1989 Colt Vista-2WD), using the current dynamic test

procedure, including the 3,000 pound MDB specified in Standard 214 for

passenger cars. (The Colt Vista was a passenger car version of a

vehicle that was then marketed in a four-wheel drive version as an LTV.

The agency believes that both versions of the vehicle provide similar

side impact protection.) NHTSA believed the four represented ``at

risk'' vehicles, i.e., LTVs in the fleet that are most likely to

require modifications to meet the passenger car standard. The TTI(d)

and pelvic g's for the four vehicles were as follows: Toyota pickup-55/

53 g's; Suzuki Sidekick-54/104 g's; Dodge Ram-83/72 g's; Colt Vista-

108/69 g's (driver dummy), 111/108 g's (passenger dummy). The Toyota

and Suzuki both readily met the requirements. The Dodge marginally

passed the thoracic requirement, but readily passed the pelvic

requirement. The Colt, which is no longer sold in the United States,

failed the thoracic requirement, but readily met the pelvic

requirement.

a. Raising the Height and Weight of the Moving Deformable Barrier (MDB)

NHTSA proposed in the NPRM to set the height of the MDB within a

range of 33 inches to 45 inches, as measured from the ground to the top

edge of the barrier face. This represented an increase of up to 12

inches in MDB height as compared to the height specified for passenger

car testing (33 inches).

Within the proposed 33 inch to 45 inch range, NHTSA proposed two

alternative methods for specifying MDB height. Under the first method,

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

tested vehicle. This approach focused on attributes of the struck

vehicle. Unlike passenger cars, for which the seating heights are very

similar, the height of LTV seating positions vary considerably. The

agency tentatively concluded that impacting a vehicle at the driver H-

point would ensure that LTVs provide thoracic side impact protection

when they are struck in the side by another LTV at a height that allows

the side door interior to intrude inward at a relatively high velocity

toward the chest area of adjacent occupants. Thus, the struck vehicle's

side impact safety performance is evaluated at a specific height

matching the front end profile of the striking vehicle that has the

potential to cause serious chest injuries.

Under the second method, the MDB height would be at the same level

for all LTVs, or at the same level for all LTVs within a particular

sub-group, e.g., small and large pickups, vans and utility vehicles,

with different levels specified for different sub-groups. This approach

only focuses on attributes of the striking vehicles, taking into

account only the average seating heights of a group of LTVs. Since the

heights of the front ends of LTVs vary, specifying a single height that

is equally representative of all LTVs would be very difficult.

Moreover, specifying a single height raised possible practicability

concerns, since a test procedure that specifies a single MDB height

that is representative of large pickup trucks might simulate crashes in

which compact LTVs could not comply since they have much lower seating

heights than the front end heights of large pickup trucks.

NHTSA also proposed to increase the weight of the MDB for LTV

testing. As noted above, NHTSA derived the weight of the barrier for

passenger car testing from the median curb weight of passenger cars

(3,181 pounds in 1989) and light trucks (3,958 pounds in 1989). This

resulted in a weighted average of 3,423 pounds, which the agency

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

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

nominal barrier weight of 3,000 pounds.

The agency proposed to specify the MDB's weight within a range of

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

weight of the MDB specified for passenger car testing. The upper end of

the range is based on the average weight of striking vehicles in LTV

crashes where an LTV occupant had an AIS 3 torso injury, as

observed in 1988-91 NASS data. NHTSA did not propose an MDB weight

above 3,800 pounds because of concerns about practicability. In

particular, the agency believed that as MDB weight is increased much

above 3,600 pounds, there are increasing concerns about the feasibility

of smaller LTVs meeting the dynamic test requirements with such a

barrier.

Cognizant that it had proposed a wide range of possible

modifications to the MDB, NHTSA sought to ``facilitate more focused

comments'' with respect to the selection of a single height and weight

for the MDB. The agency narrowed the focus by stating that it believed:

That the combination of raising the MDB to a height in the

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

above the passenger car barrier height, and increasing its weight to

3,600 pounds would be sufficient to create a dynamic event that is

representative of the ones likely to cause serious chest injuries to

occupants in the most vulnerable LTVs in real world crashes. 59 FR

at 30762.

b. Response to the NPRM

The agency received 19 comments on the NPRM. Commenters included

vehicle manufacturers (General Motors, Chrysler, Ford, Mazda, Isuzu,

Mitsubishi, Toyota, Volkswagen, Nissan and Rover Group), multistage

vehicle manufacturers (Starcraft, Flexsteel Industries, and Bornemann

Products), and consumer and industry groups (Advocates for Highway and

Auto Safety, American Automobile Manufacturers Association, Insurance

Institute for Highway Safety, National Association of Independent

Insurers, National Truck Equipment Association, and Recreation Vehicle

Industry Association).

Of all the commenters, only Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety

(Advocates) and the National Association of Independent Insurers (NAII)

supported modifying the height and weight of the MDB. Advocates

suggested that the MDB weigh 3,800 pounds, have a bumper, and be

designed so that the distance from the top of the bumper to the ground

is 33 inches and the distance from the top of the barrier face to the

ground is 45 inches. Advocates said that such a barrier would represent

the weight and height of a larger LTV as the striking vehicle. NAII

said the MDB weight should be 3,400 pounds since ``the sales weighted

average curb weight of new passenger cars and LTV fleets * * * now

averages approximately 3400 pounds.''

[[Page 38753]]

The vehicle manufacturers were unanimously opposed to the NPRM, and

wanted the rulemaking either terminated or limited to a straight

extension of the passenger car side impact protection requirements. The

American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA), representing GM,

Ford and Chrysler, strongly believed the rulemaking should be

terminated. Toyota, Isuzu, and Mazda also believed the rulemaking

should be terminated. In the alternative, these commenters, together

with Volkswagen and Nissan, said that if NHTSA decided to proceed with

a final rule, it should adopt no more than the passenger car test

procedures and injury criteria.

The commenters opposing the NPRM raised several main objections:

1. Equity. Each raised an equity argument, contending that it is

unfair for NHTSA to adopt LTV side impact protection requirements based

on test conditions more severe than those used for passenger cars, when

LTV occupants currently face a smaller risk of thoracic injury in side

impacts as compared to passenger car occupants. AAMA said that NHTSA

understated the degree to which LTVs present a smaller risk of injury

when the NPRM stated that the side impact fatality rate for occupants

of LTVs in side impact crashes is slightly less than half of that for

occupants of passenger cars. NHTSA estimated that the LTV occupant side

impact fatality rate per million registered vehicles is 25.7, as

compared to 53.3 for passenger cars. AAMA stated that these rates were

based on all injuries in side impacts, while only thoracic injuries--

``the principal focus of this rulemaking''-- should be calculated. AAMA

said that NHTSA estimated in the NPRM that 245 3 of 1,763 LTV

occupant fatalities, or 13.9 percent for LTVs and 37 percent for

passenger cars, will be due to thorax injuries. According to AAMA,

\3\ In its comment, AAMA later also argues that the NPRM's

estimate of 245 annual fatalities is overstated. AAMA believed those

fatalities include accident conditions that do not relate to the

proposed test procedures, such as single vehicle accidents, medium

and heavy trucks as striking vehicles, and ejections. By excluding

these, AAMA estimates there are only 52 fatalities remaining. AAMA

also argued that NHTSA did not take into account the 58 to 82

fatalities that would be reduced from implementing Standard 214's

quasi-static test requirement for LTVs.

Applying these percentages to the aforementioned fatality rates

yields side impact fatality rates due to thoracic injuries per

million registered vehicles. For LTVs, this rate is approximately

3.6. For passenger cars, it is approximately 19.7. LTV occupants,

therefore, presently face less than one-fifth the risk of receiving

a fatal thoracic injury in a side impact compared to passenger car

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

occupants.

The vehicle manufacturers argued these data demonstrate that LTVs

are already safer than passenger cars in side impacts. Thus, these

commenters concluded, it would be unreasonable to adopt more severe

requirements for LTVs than what is required for passenger cars. AAMA

suggested that rather than promulgate a dynamic side impact requirement

for LTVs, NHTSA could utilize its resources more effectively by working

to increase seat belt usage and reduce impaired driving by LTV users.

Some commenters compared LTV occupant injuries in side impacts to

injuries in other types of crashes and questioned whether the side

impact protection of LTVs constitutes a safety problem of a magnitude

severe enough to justify the proposed rulemaking. Nissan commented that

NHTSA presented data at the 1991 Enhanced Safety Vehicle Conference

which indicated that the portion of fatalities for occupants in LTV

side impact crashes amounted to only 0.92 percent of the total LTV

occupant fatalities.

2. Unrepresentative barrier. Most of the commenters opposed to the

NPRM objected to what they regarded as the unrepresentativeness of the

proposed dynamic side impact test procedure for LTVs. Many opposed

using a barrier representing an LTV to strike vehicles being tested, on

the grounds that such a test would not be representative of a typical

real-world LTV side impact. According to several commenters, an LTV is

more likely to be struck in the side by a passenger car than by another

LTV. Nissan said that data from the National Accident Sampling System

(NASS) for 1988 through 1992 indicate that in side impacts, passenger

vehicles collide with the side of an LTV more than three times as often

as LTVs collide with other LTVs. Volkswagen (VW) and Isuzu believed

that LTVs are exposed to the same traffic environment as passenger

cars, and therefore, their exposure to side impact accidents from other

vehicles would be similar to that of passenger cars. VW stated, ``The

side impact test barrier should be representative of the accident

exposure of the target vehicle and therefore a common barrier should be

used for passenger cars as well as LTVs.'' AAMA said that NHTSA has not

provided data justifying a departure from the ``most likely striking

vehicle'' approach used in the passenger car side impact protection

requirements.

The view that a dynamic side impact test for LTVs should represent

a common real-world event was also shared by the Insurance Institute

for Highway Safety (IIHS). This commenter supported subjecting LTVs to

the same dynamic side impact test as cars. IIHS took issue with the

agency's position in the NPRM that the test procedure for LTVs should

be modified to better represent those crashes most likely to cause

serious and fatal thorax and pelvis injuries among LTV occupants. The

commenter believed NHTSA failed to indicate whether those crash

conditions represent a common real-world event.

Many commenters objected that a modified LTV test procedure would

not be representative of the type of crash most likely to result in

serious injuries and fatalities to LTV occupants. This view is contrary

to the one stated by NHTSA in the NPRM. There the agency had

tentatively concluded that, in order to address the safety problem in

side crashes of LTVs, the barrier used to simulate a striking vehicle

should be increased in height and weight to better represent striking

vehicles that are most likely to cause severe chest injuries in side

impacts, i.e., standard pickups and compact pickups. (The NPRM said

that accident data indicate that 78 percent of LTV side impact

fatalities resulting from a ``torso'' injury involved a LTV or a

heavier vehicle as the striking vehicle in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes.)

Those commenters believed that passenger cars more often cause serious

injuries and fatalities than LTVs as the striking vehicle. Nissan

stated that NHTSA presented data 4 at the 1991 Enhanced Safety

Vehicle Conference which indicated that ``serious injuries and

fatalities in cases where passenger cars strike LTV class vehicles in a

side impact scenario is on the order of six times that of LTV vehicles

impacting another LTV.'' AAMA also refers to the report mentioned in

Nissan's comment. AAMA said that the report shows that 1982-1989 NASS

files indicate there were ``only 13 cases relevant to the test

requirements proposed in the NPRM.'' (``Relevant'' means that these

cases involved side crashes to the near side, and torso injuries only.)

The commenter said that in nine of those 13 cases, a passenger car was

the striking vehicle. AAMA said it conducted a similar study of 1991-

1992 NASS files and found nine cases relevant to the NPRM. In 5 of the

9 cases, a passenger car was the striking vehicle. AAMA stated, ``If

LTV occupants typically suffer serious thoracic injuries when struck in

side impacts by vehicles other than passenger cars, then surely nine

years of NASS data would not show that passenger cars are the most

common

[[Page 38754]]

side impact striking vehicles causing serious thoracic injuries to LTV

occupants.'' AAMA also argued that a test procedure that matches the

bumper height of the MDB to the H-point of the struck vehicle is likely

to result in the MDB overriding the sill and floor structure. AAMA said

this would be inappropriate since NASS data contained only four side

impacts with sill/frame override, which accounts for only 0.03 percent

of LTV side impacts.

\4\ Partyka, S.C., ``Light Truck Side Impacts with Serious

Occupant Injury,'' ESV Report No. 91-S5-O-27.

AAMA commented that the proposed barrier configurations represented

a vehicle or group of vehicles that do not exist. AAMA said that the

proposed heights and weights for the barrier are inconsistent with

manufacturers' fleet data. ``Ford * * * data show that the average

height of Ford light truck bumpers (including vehicles up to 15,000

pounds GVWR) is only 16.6 inches from ground--only 2.1 inches higher

than Ford's average passenger car bumper. The NPRM proposes to raise

the MDB bumper as high as 25 inches above the ground.'' AAMA believed

NHTSA should have attempted to correlate the ``typical striking

vehicle'' dimensional characteristics with the average U.S. LTV fleet,

as the agency did for the MDB in the passenger car side impact

protection rulemaking.

3. Inadequate test program. Some commenters objected to the NPRM

because they believed that the proposal was based on a NHTSA test

program that was inadequate for reasons other than those relating to a

modified MDB. AAMA argued that NHTSA simply extended the impact

conditions (e.g., striking velocity of the barrier) developed for

passenger cars to LTVs without showing that those conditions are

relevant for LTV crashes. AAMA said that NHTSA based its conclusions

about the side impact performance of the entire LTV fleet on a test

program that did not represent the LTV fleet. ``None of the vehicles

tested were equipped with side door beams, which could have a

significant effect on test results.'' Also, AAMA said the test program

did not account for the complexity and variability of LTVs as a group.

For example, AAMA stated, ``(t)he agency did not test extended cab

pickups which are structurally different than regular cab pickups, nor

the right side of a van which is structurally different than the left

side of a van.''

AAMA raised concerns about the agency's tentative conclusions in

the NPRM about the effectiveness of padding and structural

modifications as countermeasures. While NHTSA has shown that three

inches of padding can improve the performance of vehicles in providing

side impact protection, AAMA cautioned that three inches of padding is

an unrealistic countermeasure for LTVs. The commenter believed that

trucks with three front seating positions and three inches of interior

padding would not be possible if customer seating preferences are to be

met. AAMA also stated that the high compression foam used to develop

effectiveness levels may reduce the SID accelerations, but may cause an

increase in real-world side impact injuries, especially for elderly

occupants.

III. Agency Decision

a. Extending the Passenger Car Requirements

NHTSA has decided that it should limit its final action in this

rulemaking to a straight extension of the passenger car requirements to

LTVs. The agency views a straight extension to be a reasonable starting

point for establishing side impact protection for LTVs. While the

agency recognizes that a straight extension of the side impact

protection requirements for passenger cars to LTVs would provide few

benefits when estimated on the basis of historical accident data, it

would prevent any future LTVs being introduced into the market that are

inferior in side crash safety performance to passenger cars. A modified

test procedure for LTVs is not being adopted at this time because of

concerns that NHTSA has about the proposal in light of the public

comments. These issues are discussed below.

As noted earlier, some commenters said that the agency's

information regarding LTV side impact protection is limited because

none of the LTVs tested by NHTSA were equipped with side door beams.

Manufacturers are likely to equip all LTVs with side door beams to meet

Standard 214's quasi-static requirements, which become effective

beginning with MY 1995. These requirements address primarily single

vehicle impacts, such as impacts with poles and trees.

NHTSA does not know what effect side door beams may have on the

performance of LTVs in vehicle-to-vehicle side impacts, especially if

the striking vehicle were high enough to override the door sill of the

struck LTV. The beam and its supporting structures can change how crash

forces are directed at or away from the vehicle occupant in a vehicle-

to-vehicle crash. Accordingly, the agency is concerned that past

accident data of LTVs without door beams may not accurately indicate

the real-world side impact performance of LTVS with beams in vehicle-

to- vehicle crashes.

Another concern relates to the feasibility of the countermeasures

that could be used in LTVs to reduce the TTI(d), if a modified MDB were

adopted. In the preliminary regulatory evaluation (PRE) for the NPRM,

NHTSA stated that padding has been demonstrated to be an effective

countermeasure for reducing TTI(d) and pelvic g's for LTVs. NHTSA's

countermeasure tests evaluated padding material that was used to assess

countermeasure effectiveness for passenger cars. Yet the PRE recognized

that structural modifications to the vehicle might be needed in

addition to padding, depending on the chosen compliance option (page

VI-I). Since the fatalities and serious injuries that are occurring in

LTVs are caused by the heavier and higher profile vehicles, if an MDB

were used to represent these vehicles, the type of padding

countermeasures developed for cars may not be sufficient, by

themselves, for LTV crashes of such severity. It is further noted that

in the second seat of vans, there typically is no door on the left

side, and thus no structural side supports adjacent to that side of the

second seat. There also appears to be limited side wall space for

padding in that area. Further, the agency's cost estimates of

countermeasures and modifications were based on extrapolation from

passenger car data, which may or may not be valid.

Some commenters stated that the agency failed to show that the

proposed test procedure duplicated the real world in terms of impact

direction and speed. The agency analyzed the accident data that are

available to determine accident conditions of LTV crashes. While the

NPRM contained broad ranges for impact height and weight of the MDB,

the agency concluded that the impact conditions based on the current

data are within these ranges. Therefore, the agency rejects these

comments.

By extending Standard 214's passenger car requirements to LTVs,

NHTSA is ensuring that the subject future LTVs will provide side impact

protection under the same crash conditions under which passenger cars

provide such protection. Both passenger cars and LTVs are operated in

the same environment and thus have the same exposure to striking

vehicles. NHTSA is requiring that LTVs provide a minimum level of side

impact protection when struck by the type of vehicle most likely to

strike LTVs in all side impacts. NHTSA has determined that this

approach, based on overall exposure rather than cause of fatality or

serious injury, is appropriate, given the information currently

available. This

[[Page 38755]]

rule will ensure that future LTVs offer a minimum level of side crash

protection.

The agency recognizes there is widespread compliance by today's

LTVs with the dynamic performance requirements when tested according to

Standard 214 for passenger cars. In past regulatory proceedings

involving issues on which there is widespread compliance, the agency

has generally concluded that there is no compelling safety need for it

to act since vehicle manufacturers are already providing the requisite

safety performance in the absence of a Federal requirement. In those

circumstances, NHTSA has frequently determined that rulemaking would

impose a burden on the agency by requiring it to develop appropriate

requirements, conduct a rulemaking proceeding, and use some of its

enforcement budget to monitor compliance. Such rules would also impose

certification and additional paperwork burdens on the manufacturers.

Those burdens would be imposed without a commensurate safety benefit

for the public, and would therefore represent unnecessary burdens.

On other occasions, however, the agency has proceeded with

rulemaking to assure that there is no retreat from the existing level

of safety. For example, NHTSA issued a final rule requiring

installation of lap/shoulder belt systems in the rear seats of cars,

although almost all models were already voluntarily slated to be so

equipped within a few years of the rule.

NHTSA concludes it is similarly appropriate to extend Standard 214

to LTVs, to ensure that future LTVs subject to the standard provide

protection under the same crash conditions as passenger cars. The

dynamic side impact protection represented by the standard is important

for occupant safety in the future, if LTVs under 6,000 pounds GVWR make

up the bulk of the LTV fleet population, as is expected. The fleet

populations of small (i.e., compact) vans (minivans) and utility

vehicles are growing at an appreciable rate, and additional

manufacturers are entering these segments of the market. In the absence

of a federal standard, NHTSA cannot assure the public that the current

level of protection will be continued in the future. Also, it appears

that, in the future, the growth rate of small LTVs will be much higher

than that of large LTVs. NHTSA estimates that the small LTVs may

constitute 60 percent of the total LTV population in 1997 and beyond.

While large pickups and vans meet the injury criteria of this rule

without any modifications, NHTSA believes some small and medium LTVs

may not do so and others may only marginally meet the performance

criteria. As the agency noted above, its test data show that the Dodge

Ram D-50, with a GVWR of approximately 4,900 pounds (a medium size),

met the thoracic requirement only marginally. Some LTVs smaller than

the Dodge Ram D-50 may not be able to meet the requirements, and may

need improvements to ensure that they meet the requirements in the

standard.

As LTVs continue to grow in popularity and sales, NHTSA believes it

is important to ensure that all such vehicles meet at least the minimum

requirements specified in Standard 214. Moreover, NHTSA believes it is

important to ensure that any new entrants to the LTV market will follow

the lead of their competitors in meeting the dynamic side impact

protection requirements. The agency therefore concludes that today's

rule will ensure a minimum safety performance in all LTVs subject to

the standard.

Also, the agency has had a longstanding policy to have equivalent

safety standards for cars and LTVs. Earlier in this document, recent

actions to implement this policy were noted. The agency sees no

compelling reason to deviate from this policy in this instance, given

the information currently available.

The agency notes that a number of commenters suggested that NHTSA

terminate this rulemaking, as permitted by ISTEA. They argued that the

safety problem in LTVs is minor and therefore a termination would be

consistent with the provision in ISTEA permitting the agency to

``complete'' rulemaking on side impact protection for LTVs by deciding

``not to promulgate a rule.'' As discussed above, the agency disagrees

that a termination is warranted. This rule ensures that all future LTVs

subject to the standard offer a minimum level of side crash protection,

and that occupants of cars and LTVs are assured of protection in the

same crashes.

At the same time, the agency is sensitive to the issue of

unnecessary regulatory burdens. As a result and because of the

relatively superior safety performance of the larger LTVs and their

more limited use as passenger-carrying vehicles, NHTSA is limiting the

rule to LTVs with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less. At the time of the

NPRM, the agency had reservations about proceeding with a straight

extension in the absence of benefits, especially in view of the belief

that a straight extension would impose ``significant compliance

costs.'' These costs were estimated based on an extension of all LTVs

up to 8,500 pounds GVWR. However, since this rule is limited to

vehicles at or under 6,000 pounds GVWR, fewer vehicles will have to be

tested. NHTSA estimates that compliance costs will be reduced by about

15 percent due to the GVWR limit, and that they will not be

significant.

NHTSA notes that possible future upgrades of side impact protection

for both passenger cars and LTVs will be an integral part of the

agency's research and development project relating to side impact

protection. This project will analyze the entire light vehicle side

impact problem that will remain after all vehicles with a GVWR of 6,000

pounds or less meet the existing dynamic side impact requirements of

Standard 214. The agency will be considering what performance

requirement upgrades should be made to all these vehicles, based on

problem analysis and appropriate physical vehicle parameters.

b. Related Requirements

As discussed earlier in this notice, commenters raised a number of

issues relating to the NPRM's proposal to adopt a modified MDB for LTV

side impact protection requirements. In addition to the issues to which

the agency has responded above, issues were also raised concerning the

estimated costs and benefits attributable to side impact protection

requirements incorporating a modified MDB; and the effectiveness of

padding as a countermeasure in tests using a modified MDB. Since the

agency has decided not to adopt a modified MDB at this time, these

issues are moot.

Several commenters suggested that recent NASS data indicate that

the vehicle most likely to cause serious injury or death to an LTV

occupant is a passenger car. Those comments were provided in opposition

to a modified MDB, and are also moot.

The remaining issues raised by the commenters are discussed in the

next section.

1. Vehicles Covered by This Rule

This rule applies to LTVs with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less.

However, it does not apply to any LTVs in that weight range that are

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

other emergency rescue/medical vehicles (including vehicles with fire-

fighting equipment), and vehicles equipped with wheelchair lifts.

The 6,000 pound GVWR limit differs from that mentioned in ISTEA. As

[[Page 38756]]

indicated above, ISTEA required the agency to address the possible

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

passenger cars to LTVs with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an

unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less. Having chosen the

barrier currently specified for passenger cars, the agency believes

that it is appropriate to limit the application of the rule to vehicles

with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less. That barrier represents side

crashes in which occupants of the heavier LTVs are relatively unlikely

to suffer death or serious injury. Further, LTVs with GVWRs over 6,000

pounds should easily meet the dynamic requirements adopted today

without any modification. NHTSA conducted several side impact tests of

production LTVs. Analysis of these data show that the performance of

the vehicles in producing TTI(d) values has an inverse relationship to

the curb weight of the test vehicle. Vehicles with a curb weight of

over 3,800 pounds produced TTI(d) values below 50 g's. Since curb

weight of 4,000 pounds is approximately equivalent to a GVWR of about

6,000 pounds, NHTSA concluded that vehicles with a GVWR of more than

6,000 pounds would meet the TTI(d) performance requirement of 85 g's

with a large margin of safety (i.e., at least 30 to 35 g's below the

specified performance requirement). In the interest of reducing

unnecessary regulatory burdens associated with certifying vehicles to

the FMVSSs, NHTSA has not applied this rule to large (over 6,000 pounds

GVWR) LTVs.

Vehicles manufactured in more than one stage; altered vehicles.

Limiting the application of this rule to LTVs with a GVWR of 6,000

pounds or less excludes a substantial number of vehicles produced by

businesses involved in manufacturing vehicles in more than one stage,

and in converting, or altering, LTVs (e.g., van converters). Many of

these are small businesses. Final-stage manufacturers typically install

truck bodies and/or work-related equipment on chassis. Alterers modify

the structure of new, completed vehicles. Under NHTSA's regulations, a

final-stage manufacturer must certify that the completed vehicle

conforms to all applicable safety standards, and alterers must certify

that the altered vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety

standards.

The GVWR limit of 6,000 pounds or less is the same one that is used

in Standard 216, ``Roof Crush Resistance'' (49 CFR section 571.216).

Standard 216 prescribes static roof strength requirements for LTVs to

increase the resistance of the roof to crush and intrusion. The

standard originally applied to passenger cars, and was extended to LTVs

in a 1991 final rule. In a comment on the rule, NTEA indicated that

commercial LTVs produced from incomplete chassis generally have a GVWR

above 6,000 pounds. Due to the agency's need to further examine the

feasibility of applying the standard to LTVs with higher GVWRs, NHTSA

limited the standard to LTVs with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less.

NHTSA is not aware that a significant number of vehicles produced

by final-stage manufacturers and alterers have GVWRs below 6,000

pounds. No commenter provided information showing the existence or

estimate of the population of multistage manufacturers or alterers of

vehicles in that weight class. To the extent they exist, the means that

these final-stage manufacturers and alterers will use in certifying

compliance with the dynamic side impact requirements of Standard 214

will not differ significantly from the means they already use to

certify compliance with other requirements, such as Standard 214's

quasi-static side door strength requirements and Standard 208's

automatic crash protection requirements. Those means are briefly

described below.

First, a final-stage manufacturer could complete the vehicle within

the limits set by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer for assuring

continued compliance. This is the simplest course of action that a

final-stage manufacturer can take to ensure that its completed vehicle

performs safely. NHTSA's certification regulations require

manufacturers of incomplete vehicles (chassis) used by final-stage

manufacturers to provide information regarding the limitations on the

center of gravity, weight, and other attributes that must be observed

by a final-stage manufacturer in completing a vehicle if that

manufacturer is to avoid affecting the vehicle's compliance with

applicable safety standards. When the final-stage manufacturer observes

the limits set by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, it may certify

the vehicle on that basis. An alterer could modify a certified vehicle

in a way that does not affect the vehicle's compliance with FMVSS 214,

such as by refraining from weakening the side structure of the

vehicles.

Second, a final-stage manufacturer could choose not to remain

within the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's limits for a chassis, or

an alterer could affect a vehicle's compliance with the FMVSSs, if the

final-stage manufacturer or alterer took steps sufficient to enable it

to certify, with due care, that the completed vehicle complied with

applicable safety standards, including Standard 214. Final-stage

manufacturers that build their own body structures are generally larger

than most final-stage manufacturers, and have greater engineering and

testing expertise. Also, final-stage manufacturers can band together to

sponsor testing and/or engineering analysis. Similarly, an alterer

could conduct or sponsor testing and/or engineering analyses showing

that the vehicle, as altered, complies with Standard 214.

Issues relating to LTVs produced in more than one stage or altered

were commented on by five parties involved in the multistage

manufacture or conversion of LTVs. They included the National Truck

Equipment Association (NTEA), the Recreation Vehicle Industry

Association (RVIA), two seat suppliers to multistage manufacturers and

alterers (Flexsteel Industries and Bornemann Products), and an alterer

of completed LTVs (Starcraft Automotive Corporation.)

These commenters expressed reservations concerning the first

approach discussed in the NPRM, i.e., that a final-stage manufacturer

could stay within the limits set by the incomplete vehicle

manufacturer, and that an alterer could alter the vehicle in conformity

with the manufacturer's body builder's guide so as not to disturb the

vehicle's compliance with Standard 214. NTEA, representing multistage

manufacturers and distributors of work-related trucks, truck bodies and

equipment, said that, as a result of a dynamic side impact requirement

for LTVs, incomplete vehicle manufacturers might restrict final-stage

manufacturers from making any modification to the side door structure

of their vehicles. The commenter believed such a restriction would

preclude final-stage manufacturers from widening or lengthening doors,

and would thus preclude them from producing vehicles that need large

doors for accessibility purposes, such as ambulances, vehicles for

handicapped persons, or specialty delivery vehicles.

NHTSA has previously considered assertions that incomplete vehicle

manufacturers would establish unreasonably stringent limitations on

their vehicles. In the rules establishing dynamic testing requirements

for manual safety belts in LTVs under Standard 208 (53 FR 50221;

December 14, 1988) and extending Standard 204's steering column

rearward displacement limitations to additional LTVs (54 FR 24344; June

7, 1989), NHTSA noted that

[[Page 38757]]

it did not believe that any incomplete vehicle manufacturer would, as a

practical matter, establish unreasonably stringent limitations for its

incomplete vehicles. If any incomplete vehicle manufacturer were to do

so, final stage manufacturers would purchase their incomplete vehicles

from other manufacturers that had established more realistic

limitations.

The agency's belief that market forces will prevent incomplete

vehicle manufacturers from establishing unreasonably stringent

limitations seems to have been correct. No manufacturer has provided

NHTSA with any evidence that overly stringent limitations have been or

will be imposed on incomplete vehicles subject to any of the existing

crash testing requirements. Thus, NHTSA does not find persuasive NTEA's

suggestion that unreasonably stringent limitations will be imposed on

the completion of incomplete vehicles as a result of extending Standard

214's dynamic test requirements to LTVs.

In any event, NHTSA believes the 6,000 pound GVWR threshold for

this rule excludes most, if not all, LTVs produced by final-stage

manufacturers and thus alleviates many of NTEA's concerns about the

impacts of this rule. Moreover, this rule addresses some of NTEA's

concerns by excluding walk-in vans, motor homes, tow trucks, dump

trucks, ambulances and other emergency rescue/medical vehicles

(including vehicles with fire-fighting equipment), and vehicles

equipped with wheelchair lifts. These categories of vehicles are

excluded because many vehicles within these categories tend to have

unusual side structures that are not suitable for MDB testing (for

example, since some of these excluded vehicles have a body much wider

than their cabs, the MDB cannot hit the driver's door without first

striking the body. The rule differs from the NPRM in adding ``other

emergency rescue/medical vehicles'' and vehicles equipped with a

wheelchair lift, to the list of excluded vehicles. Emergency rescue/

medical vehicles typically have unusual side structures and are thus

excluded for the same reason that the other vehicles are excluded.

Vehicles equipped with a wheelchair lift are excluded because such

vehicles typically have features such as a lowered floor (some are

lowered as much as 10 inches), raised roof, movable seat bases and/or

specially designed removable seats, in addition to the lift itself,

that could raise practicability problems with regard to the ability of

the vehicle to meet the dynamic side impact requirements. While NHTSA

believes that all individuals are entitled to an equivalent level of

occupant crash protection, the agency also believes that the goal of

providing equivalent crash protection should not be achieved at the

expense of the goal of providing mobility to the physically challenged.

This rule excludes vehicles equipped with wheelchair lifts because

those vehicles have unique features which, while improving

accessibility, make it difficult for the vehicle to meet these

requirements. Without the exclusion, these vehicles might not be

produced.

As to LTVs that have not been excluded, if a final-stage

manufacturer or alterer does not stay within the incomplete vehicle

manufacturer's limits or alters the vehicle in a way that could affect

its conformance to side impact protection requirements, the

manufacturer or alterer will have the responsibility of determining

what must be done to certify that the vehicle provides the requisite

safety performance. Those manufacturers already certify to the dynamic

crash test requirements of Standards 208 (``Occupant Crash

Protection''), 212 (``Windshield Mounting''), 219 (``Windshield Zone

Intrusion'') and 301 (``Fuel System Integrity''), and the quasi-static

requirements of Standard 214 and 216, among others. Under the statute,

each manufacturer must certify its vehicles, but the statute does not

require any manufacturer to crash test or undertake any particular

evaluation of its vehicles to make its certification. If crash testing

its vehicles is too burdensome for a final-stage manufacturer, it could

certify its vehicles using similar means to those it now uses to

certify to other standards with dynamic testing requirements, including

appropriate engineering analyses.

The NPRM stated that, if a final-stage manufacturer does not stay

within the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's limits or if an alterer

alters the vehicle in a way that could affect the LTV's conformance to

side impact protection requirements, the final-stage manufacturer or

alterer can band together with other manufacturers and alterers to

sponsor testing and/or engineering analysis to show that a vehicle type

common to all complies with the dynamic side impact requirements. This

is similar to what is done to enable multistage manufacturers and

alterers to certify to the dynamic testing requirements of FMVSS 208,

``Occupant Crash Protection.'' In response, RVIA said that while most

manufacturers engaged in vehicle conversions certify to the automatic

crash protection requirements of Standard 208 by means of ``engineering

analysis,'' using data from seating component suppliers and incomplete

vehicle manufacturers, RVIA argued that engineering analysis would not

be an alternative to full scale crash testing in the case of Standard

214. RVIA stated this is because

[a]dequate simulation of dummy accelerations resulting from side

intrusion contact with interior components, padding and/or seating

components cannot be performed. Full scale impact testing would

therefore be required to be performed on each side of each different

vehicle/seating system configuration.

Similarly, Flexsteel Industries said that

* * * the dynamic side impact requirements of FMVSS 214 on vans

and pickups could well create a larger problem to verify continued

vehicle compliance than that experienced for FMVSS 208. Unlike the

FMVSS 208 requirement where sled testing could be used to make

comparative tests of Flexsteel seating to factory seating, the

proposed side impact test is an intrusive test and both sides of new

vans and pickups may have to be tested.

NHTSA does not agree that engineering analysis is not useful in

assessing a vehicle's compliance with Standard 214. Manufacturers have

computer simulations, component and sled tests using body shells, and

analyses at their disposal to aid in assessing the capability of a

vehicle to meet the requirements under Standard 214. These methods are

considerably less expensive than crash testing. With respect to the

opportunity to use these alternative methods for assessing compliance,

Standard 214 is not any different from Standard 208. Sled tests

simulating side crash tests can be performed in the same manner as in

FMVSS 208. Similarly, component test data from crushing vehicle doors,

seat structures, and other lateral components along with dummy body

block data could be used in developing mathematical models and computer

simulations to analyze safety performance of vehicle designs. This

would enable RVIA, Flexsteel and other companies to determine the

capability of their vehicle designs in meeting the requirements in

FMVSS 214. Further, NHTSA believes that alterers should assure that

they are producing vehicles that are equal to their original

counterparts. Therefore, alterers must certify their vehicles to the

requirements in FMVSS 214 by any available means.

Other Issues

Vehicles with work-performing equipment. NTEA suggested that NHTSA

should exclude vehicles outfitted with a cargo or property carrying

body, or work performing

[[Page 38758]]

equipment. The agency is not adopting this suggestion because the

agency believes references to ``cargo or property carrying body'' are

overly broad. For instance, they would exclude, inappropriately, pickup

trucks. NHTSA further notes that most, if not all, multistage vehicles

equipped with work performing equipment are excluded as a result of

either the 6,000 pound weight threshold for the applicability of the

rule, or the exclusion of vehicles such as dump trucks, tow trucks and

emergency response/medical vehicles from the rule's coverage.

RVIA, NTEA and Starcraft Automotive urged NHTSA to exclude ``second

stage manufacturers'' of LTVs from any dynamic side impact protection

requirement. In NHTSA's view, the statute does not permit such an

exclusion. While the agency must ``consider whether any * * * proposed

standard is reasonable, practicable and appropriate for the particular

type of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which it is

prescribed,'' (49 U.S.C. Sec. 30111(b)(3), formerly section 103(f)(3)

of the Vehicle Safety Act), the agency's authority to establish

different standards for different classes of vehicles is not without

limit. The legislative history of the Vehicle Safety Act reveals that

the consequence of section 30111(b)(3) is that any differences between

standards for different classes of vehicles ``of course [are to] be

based on the type of vehicle rather than its place of origin or any

special circumstances of its manufacturer.'' S. Rept. 1301, 2 U.S.

Code, Cong. & Admin. News, 2714 (1966), cited in Chrysler Corp. v.

Dept. of Transportation, 472 F.2d 659, 679 (6th Cir. 1972). Under that

decision, NHTSA may not exclude vehicles from Standard 214 simply

because they are manufactured in two or more stages. Further, NHTSA is

not authorized when establishing safety standards to differentiate

between manufacturers on the basis of their size or financial

resources.

Strong policy reasons underlie Congress' refusal to differentiate

between vehicles on the basis of the manufacturers' ``special

circumstances.'' A motor vehicle is an inherently dangerous instrument,

composed of multiple components that must function together smoothly

and safely. To protect unsuspecting members of the public from exposure

to unreasonable risks posed by unsafe vehicles, there is good reason to

require that every vehicle of a given type to meet all ``minimum

performance standards'' that are prescribed for vehicles of its type.

Moreover, the statute does not authorize NHTSA to grant permanent

exemptions from safety standards to small manufacturers who otherwise

would be covered by those standards. See Nader v. Volpe, 475 F.2d 916,

918 (D.C. Cir. 1973). While Nader involved a single manufacturer that

sought to be permanently exempted from safety standards, its reasoning

applies equally to classes of manufacturers that seek such exemptions.

Although the Safety Act was amended after the Nader decision to permit

small manufacturers to seek temporary exemptions from safety standards

if they can demonstrate that compliance with the standard would cause

them ``substantial economic hardship'' and that they have made a good

faith effort to comply (49 U.S.C. Sec. 30113, formerly section 123 of

the Vehicle Safety Act), Congress has severely restricted the agency's

authority to grant such exemptions to very narrow, limited

circumstances. These commenters are in effect seeking a permanent

exemption from Standard 214 that the statute does not permit.

NHTSA acknowledges that National Truck Equipment Association v.

NHTSA, 919 F.2d 1148 (6th Cir. 1990), suggests that NHTSA has

authority, somewhere within its enabling statute, to exclude commercial

vehicles manufactured in two or more stages from coverage under a

safety standard. However, even an expansive reading of that case would

not justify an exclusion of all multistage vehicles from the coverage

of the standard.

Compliance using engineering analysis. Bornemann Products asked

NHTSA to consider issuing a rule specifying that NHTSA will determine

whether an LTV complies with a dynamic side impact requirement based on

means other than an actual dynamic test, such as by way of engineering

analysis. As a matter of policy, NHTSA seeks in developing and

implementing its safety standards to use test procedures that not only

determine compliance but also are as predictive of safety performance

in the real world as practicable. Since dynamic crash tests are more

predictive of such performance than engineering analysis, the agency

uses them where practicable in developing compliance test procedures.

While engineering analysis may be adequate for design of the

average vehicle, it may not be sufficient for the agency's purposes to

determine the safety performance of a vehicle, with respect to all

vehicle models. For example, in a particular case, the analysis may not

properly account for all of the relevant crash variables and the

individual interrelationship that exists between those variables.

However, NHTSA acknowledges that manufacturers may use analytical

methods to establish due care, especially if the manufacturers have

limited financial resources.

2. Vehicles Manufactured Without Doors

In addition to the excluded vehicles described in the preceding

section, this rule also excludes vehicles that have no doors or

exclusively have doors that are designed to be easily attached or

removed so that the vehicle can be operated without doors. The proposed

exclusion was based on practicability concerns. Advocates objected to

the proposed exclusion on the basis that it allows the design and sale

of vehicles with an ``inherently dangerous design.''

In response, the agency notes that requiring these vehicles to meet

Standard 214 would necessitate changes in their design which would

adversely affect the utility and original purpose for which these

vehicles were introduced. Accordingly, the agency does not consider the

standard reasonable, practicable and appropriate for these vehicles.

3. Impact Reference Line

This rule makes a slight change to the provision in the NPRM on

specifying the impact reference line (IRL) (S6.11) for the moving

deformable barrier. The IRL is located on the target test vehicle to

determine where the MDB must first contact the target vehicle in the

dynamic test. It determines the distance of the vertical line of first

MDB contact from the center of the wheelbase of the struck vehicle, and

provides the relative position of the test dummy in the front seat of

the target vehicle with respect to the striking MDB at the time of

impact. For a left side impact, the left forward edge (corner) of the

MDB must be aligned so that, when the MDB strikes the test vehicle, a

longitudinal plane tangent to the left forward edge of the MDB passes

through the IRL within a tolerance of 2 inches. As

explained in the NPRM, the specified impact reference line for

passenger cars is generally 37 inches forward of the center line of the

wheelbase of the struck vehicle. However, for cars with wheelbases

greater than 114 inches, the impact reference line is 20 inches behind

the center line of the front axle. This ensures that the impact point

for cars with very long wheelbases is not so far toward the rear of the

car that the front seat dummy does not experience a full impact. The

agency proposed, with one exception, the same impact reference line for

LTVs. To ensure that

[[Page 38759]]

the impact line is not too far forward for LTVs with very short

wheelbases, the agency proposed that for LTVs with wheelbases of 98

inches or less, the impact reference line would be 12 inches rearward

of the vehicle's front axle centerline. This would ensure that the MDB

would not likely bridge across the front and rear axles in short

wheelbase LTVs.

The NPRM noted that GM expressed a concern that specification of

impact point based on wheelbase could result in different test results

for different wheelbase versions of the same model LTV. Manufacturers

sometimes offer the same LTV with several different wheelbases. Basing

the impact point on a vehicle's wheelbase would result in the point of

first contact of the barrier, in two structurally identical LTV's,

being at two different locations. The NPRM requested comments on

whether the specified impact reference line should be adjusted to

eliminate this possibility, such as by specifying the impact reference

line based on driver H-point instead of wheelbase.

In commenting on the NPRM, GM iterated its concern that the same

model vehicle would be tested under two different sets of test

conditions. GM said its regular cab S/T pickup with a standard length

bed has a wheelbase of 108.3 inches, while the S/T pickup with a

regular cab and long bed has a wheelbase of over 114 inches. The

commenter stated, ``According to the proposed procedure, the MDB would

strike these two versions of the same truck at locations which differ

by nearly three inches.'' Rover said the vehicle manufacturer should be

able to choose to impact all ``structurally identical LTVs with

different wheelbases'' at the same point provided that ``the point

chosen was that specified in the standard for one of the range of

wheelbases.''

After reviewing these comments, NHTSA has decided to specify the

impact reference line in the following manner. For vehicles with a

wheelbase of 98 inches or less, or greater than 114 inches, the impact

reference line will generally be placed at the locations proposed in

the NPRM. That is, for LTVs with a wheelbase of 98 inches or less, the

impact reference line is 12 inches behind the vehicle's front axle, to

ensure that the MDB is not so forward as to impact the front wheel, or

bridge between the front and rear axles in a very short wheelbase

vehicle. (NHTSA has adopted this provision for LTVs with wheelbases of

98 inches or less, and not for passenger cars, because to the agency's

knowledge, there are very few passenger cars with such short wheelbases

compared to LTVs sold in this country.) Similar to the specification in

the standard for locating the impact reference line for passenger cars,

for LTVs with wheelbases greater than 114 inches, the impact reference

line generally is 20 inches behind the vehicle's front axle center

line, to ensure that the impact point for vehicles with very long

wheelbases is not so far to the rear of the vehicle that the front seat

dummy does not experience a full impact.

For vehicles with a wheelbase of greater than 98 inches but not

greater than 114 inches, the impact reference line will generally be 37

inches forward of the center of the vehicle's wheelbase, similar to the

specification for passenger cars. However, in response to GM's and

Rover's comments, this rule provides manufacturers producing two or

more different versions of the same model vehicle the option of

determining the impact reference line based on the vehicle with the

shortest wheelbase of the different versions of the model.

NHTSA has selected this optional procedure because it reduces test

burdens on manufacturers producing compact and ``stretch'' versions of

a vehicle model, without compromising safety. The procedure does not

alter the relative longitudinal position between the dummy and the MDB,

thus ensuring that the dummy will be loaded by the barrier in the same

manner in a test. While wheelbases for different versions of the same

LTV model could differ, the difference in length is generally in the

rear part of the vehicle, with the front axle to the front seating

reference point (SgRP) distance remaining essentially the same. That

is, the ``stretching'' resulting in a longer wheelbase version of a

vehicle is rearward of the front seat. Thus, the relative distance

between the front axle and the dummy is constant in different versions

of the same LTV model irrespective of their differences in the location

of the center of their wheelbase. Since the SgRP is located in

virtually the same position in all versions of a specific vehicle

model, the different versions are likely to perform virtually

identically in Standard 214's dynamic test, if the distance between the

barrier impact reference line and the dummy is maintained in the

different versions. That knowledge would be helpful to manufacturers in

certifying different versions of a model.

The procedure bases the IRL to SgRP distance on the vehicle with

the shortest wheelbase, as opposed to a longer wheelbase, because using

the shortest wheelbase ensures that the engagement of the side

structure with the barrier is consistent across all versions of the

same model. If a vehicle with a longer wheelbase were used as the

``base'' vehicle, the procedure could result in the barrier hitting a

tire on a vehicle with a very short wheelbase, which would interfere

with the interaction of the MDB and the side structure of the vehicle

tested.

Under the optional procedure, the distance between the IRL that is

a certain distance forward of the center of the vehicle's wheelbase

(i.e., the vehicle with the shortest wheelbase, if there are several

versions of the same model) or rearward of the front axle, as the case

may be, and the SgRP of the vehicle, is used to determine the impact

reference line for all other versions of the same model vehicle, even

those with a wheelbase over 114 inches when it is a stretch version of

a specific model. The distance between the SgRP and the IRL on the

vehicle with the shortest wheelbase will be the same for all other

versions of the same model.

Stated differently, NHTSA will place the IRL on a test vehicle of a

specific model at the same distance from the SgRP that the IRL is from

the SgRP on the model with the shortest wheelbase. When several

versions of the same model have wheelbases ranging from 98 inches or

less to more than 98 inches, the IRL will be placed 12 inches behind

the centerline of the front axle of the vehicle with the shortest

wheelbase. When the shortest version of a model has a wheelbase greater

than 98 inches but not greater than 114 inches, the IRL will be placed

37 inches forward of the center of the vehicle's wheelbase (i.e., the

vehicle with the shortest wheelbase, if there are several versions of

the same model). When the shortest version of a model has a wheelbase

greater than 114 inches, the IRL will be placed 20 inches rearward of

the shortest vehicle's front axle. In all cases, after the location of

the IRL is determined, the longitudinal distance from this reference

line to the front SgRP is also determined. For tests of all other

versions of the LTV model being tested, the IRL is located such that

the distance between the IRL and the SgRP will be maintained.

4. Rear Seat

The NPRM requested comments on whether an LTV side impact

protection requirement should apply to the front and rear seats of LTVs

(as is the case for passenger cars), or whether they should apply to

the front seats only of these vehicles. The preliminary economic

assessment for the NPRM estimated that, for the rear seat, the target

population consisted of eight fatalities and 17 to 20 AIS 3+ injuries.

Because of the projected growth in LTV

[[Page 38760]]

registrations, the agency has now estimated that the target population

for the rear seats may increase to 20-26 fatalities and 40-55 serious

injuries, in the long run. The National Association of Independent

Insurers (NAII) supported applying a dynamic side impact requirement to

``back doors'' as a means of increasing the safety to children riding

in the passenger areas of mini-vans and sport-utility vehicles. The

commenter said it is surprised by the ``unexpectedly low safety

payoff'' estimated by NHTSA. Advocates acknowledged that the agency's

estimates raise the possibility that applying a dynamic requirement to

rear seats could create an unnecessary cost burden for manufacturers.

However, the commenter argued that NHTSA could have underestimated how

many small LTVs are used as passenger carrying vehicles.

This rule applies the dynamic side impact requirements to both the

front and rear seats of LTVs. The agency believes this is reasonable,

since it will make the requirements for passenger cars and LTVs as

similar as possible. Also, a rear seat requirement will not impose

significant burdens on manufacturers, since currently all LTVs would

probably meet the requirement with little or no change. Most

importantly, NHTSA adopted the rear seat requirement because trends in

LTV registrations and occupancy data indicate that rear seats on LTVs

are likely to be occupied more in the future, compared to the past

twenty years. As more and more LTVs are used for family transportation,

children are increasingly transported in these seats. In fact,

comparing 1981-1986 NASS data for towaway crashes to 1988-1993 data,

the ratio of rear to front seating of minors in LTVs has doubled from

0.2 to 0.4, while only slightly increasing from 0.5 to 0.6 for

passenger cars.

5. Upgrading Other Aspects of the Standard

NHTSA received two comments suggesting that the agency should

consider upgrading aspects of Standard 214 aside from modifications to

the MDB. Advocates supported modifying the MDB to increase its height

and weight, but also urged NHTSA to lower allowable TTI(d) to 80 (from

85) and pelvic g to 90 (from 130).

This rule does not adopt lower limits on the TTI(d) and pelvic g

performance criteria specified in Standard 214. The agency gave no

suggestion in the NPRM that NHTSA would change the performance

criteria, and thus there was no notice for the suggested amendments.

IIHS, while supporting extending the passenger car requirements to

LTVs (this commenter was opposed to a modified MDB for LTVs), urged

NHTSA to ``seriously review ways to upgrade this standard for all

passenger vehicles.'' The commenter was concerned that the rulemaking

signaled that NHTSA is satisfied with the passenger car requirements of

Standard 214, and that the research needed to upgrade the standard does

not have a sufficient priority within the agency.

NHTSA believes it would be premature to decide to upgrade the

passenger car side impact protection requirements before an evaluation

is made of the effectiveness of those requirements. Further, since the

standard will not be fully implemented until September 1, 1996, it is

too early to reassess the efficacy of those requirements. It is common

practice for the agency to conduct an evaluation study of an important

rulemaking action, such as Standard 214's dynamic side impact

protection requirements, when sufficient accident data become available

for analysis. NHTSA believes sufficient data will be available for an

effective evaluation of the passenger car dynamic side impact

requirements by the year 2000. NHTSA has planned to undertake research

on advance dynamic side impact protection for all light passenger

vehicles, including LTVs. The agency has also research underway to

determine the potential for additional injury criteria for chest and

abdominal injuries in side crashes. That research, while more of a

priority at this time than efforts to upgrade the passenger car side

impact protection requirements, is nevertheless likely to yield

important information on matters pertaining to a Standard 214 upgrade

for all regulated vehicles.

6. Leadtime

This rule is effective for all vehicles on September 1, 1998. NHTSA

believes that most, if not all, LTVs subject to the rule are able to

meet the requirements adopted today with little or no modification.

Thus, a phase-in schedule for vehicle compliance with the rule is

unnecessary. On the other hand, some manufacturers of small LTVs may

seek to modify their vehicles to increase the margin with which their

vehicles meet the criteria of the standard, to ensure the TTI

measurements that NHTSA obtains from tests of their vehicles are within

the standard's limits. NHTSA has determined that a September 1, 1998

effective date gives motor vehicle manufacturers sufficient leadtime to

evaluate their products and make any necessary changes to them. In

addition, there may be a number of final-stage manufacturers, many of

which are small businesses, that need a September 1, 1998 effective

date to obtain information sufficient to allow them to certify to the

requirements of the standard. Final-stage manufacturers may not be able

to initiate their compliance work until the chassis manufacturers

publish their guidelines for completing vehicles in compliance with the

dynamic performance requirements of Standard 214 and make those

available. In view of the possible impacts of this amendment on both

large and small manufacturers, NHTSA concludes for good cause shown, it

is in the public interest to have an effective date later than one year

after promulgation of this rule.

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

a. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866,

``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' The agency has considered the

impact of this rulemaking action under the Department of

Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures, and has determined

that it is not ``significant'' under them. This rule will ensure that

future new LTV models provide at least the same level of benefits as

are provided to passenger car occupants. The safety benefits accruing

from this rule, as applied to current models, are likely to be small.

As far as the agency knows, all current LTVs meet this final rule.

However, it appears some current models would only marginally meet the

standard as currently manufactured, and may therefore have to be

improved to assure compliance in future testing. The costs of this rule

are negligible. In the preliminary regulatory evaluation for the NPRM,

NHTSA estimated total compliance costs of $1.5 million (1992 dollars),

with the standard applicable to vehicles at or below 8,500 pounds GVWR

(55 vehicles at $27,770 per test, excluding the cost of the test

vehicles). With the final rule applicable to vehicles at or below 6,000

pounds GVWR, potentially 47 vehicles would be subject to testing, with

a total cost of $1.3 million.

b. Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under

the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that it will not have

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities. The small businesses and organizations most

[[Page 38761]]

likely to be affected by this rule are final-stage LTV manufacturers

and alterers. Many of the vehicles produced by final-stage

manufacturers are over 6,000 pounds GVWR. Because the rule applies only

to vehicles at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR, this significantly reduces

the applicability of the rule in terms of both the number of small

businesses affected by the rule, and the number of vehicles produced by

an affected manufacturer. Some van converters (which are ``alterers'')

could be affected by the rule. While there are a significant number of

van converters, there are probably only a small number that convert

mini-vans or other vans at or under 6,000 pounds GVWR, that produce

vehicles types that are subject to this rule and that also change the

side structure of the vehicle (e.g., by putting a larger window in the

side of the vehicle). The van converter that does so would need to

certify that the altered vehicle complies with Standard 214. Van

converters would be able to make their certification using means at

their disposal, such as engineering analyses or sponsored testing,

similar to the methods they now use to certify to dynamic and quasi-

static test requirements in the FMVSSs that apply to their vehicles. (A

detailed discussion of the means available to final-stage manufacturers

and alterers in certifying to the dynamic test requirements adopted

today are discussed in the section, ``Vehicles covered by this rule,''

supra.) In view of the limitations on the applicability of this rule,

and in view of the means available to manufacturers to certify their

vehicles, this rule will not result in a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

c. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

This rulemaking action has been analyzed in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and the

agency has determined that this rule does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism

Assessment.

d. National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the

National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that

implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on

the quality of the human environment.

e. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

This rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under section 49

U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in

effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable

to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal

standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a

higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for

the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial

review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor

vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a

petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before

parties may file suit in court.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR Part 571 as

set forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

2. Section 571.214 is amended by revising S1(b) and S2, adding

S3(f), and revising S5.1, S6.1, S6.11 and S7, and by adding S6.11.1 and

S6.11.2 to read as follows:

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

* * * * *

S1. * * *

(b) Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to reduce the risk of

serious and fatal injury to occupants of passenger cars, multipurpose

passenger vehicles, trucks and buses in side impact crashes by

specifying vehicle crashworthiness requirements in terms of

accelerations measured on anthropomorphic dummies in test crashes, by

specifying strength requirements for side doors, and by other means.

S2. This standard applies to--

(a) Passenger cars;

(b) Effective September 1, 1993, sections S3(a), S3(e), S3.1

through S3.2.3, and S4 of the standard apply to multipurpose passenger

vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less,

except for walk-in vans; and

(c) effective September 1, 1998, sections S3(f) and S5 of the

standard apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses

with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less, except for walk-in vans, motor

homes, tow trucks, dump trucks, ambulances and other emergency rescue/

medical vehicles (including vehicles with fire-fighting equipment),

vehicles equipped with wheelchair lifts, and vehicles which have no

doors or exclusively have doors that are designed to be easily attached

or removed so the vehicle can be operated without doors.

* * * * *

S3 * * *

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

multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck and bus manufactured on or after

September 1, 1998, shall meet the requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3

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

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

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

side of the vehicle, and if the vehicle is equipped with rear seats,

then another part 572, subpart F test dummy is placed on the outboard

seating position of the second seat on the struck side of the vehicle.

However, the second seat requirements do not apply to side-facing seats

or to vehicles that have second seating areas that are so small that

the part 572, Subpart F dummy can not be accommodated according to the

positioning procedure specified in S7.

* * * * *

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

(a) 85 g for a passenger car with four side doors, and for any

multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, or bus; and,

(b) 90 g for a passenger car with two side doors, when calculated

in accordance with the following formula:

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

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

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

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

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

procedure specified in S6.13.5.

* * * * *

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

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

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

the weight of the necessary anthropomorphic test dummies. Any added

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

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

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

fuel from the

[[Page 38762]]

vehicle's fuel tank and then operate the engine until it stops. Then,

add Stoddard solvent to the test vehicle's fuel tank in an amount which

is equal to not less than 92 percent and not more than 94 percent of

the fuel tank's usable capacity stated by the vehicle's manufacturer.

In addition, add the amount of Stoddard solvent needed to fill the

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

system.

* * * * *

S6.11 Impact reference line. Place a vertical reference line at

the location described below on the side of the vehicle that will be

struck by the moving deformable barrier:

S6.11.1 Passenger cars.

(a) For vehicles with a wheelbase of 114 inches or less, 37 inches

forward of the center of the vehicle's wheelbase.

(b) For vehicles with a wheelbase greater than 114 inches, 20

inches rearward of the centerline of the vehicle's front axle.

S6.11.2 Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses.

(a) For vehicles with a wheelbase of 98 inches or less, 12 inches

rearward of the centerline of the vehicle's front axle, except as

otherwise specified in paragraph (d) of this section.

(b) For vehicles with a wheelbase of greater than 98 inches but not

greater than 114 inches, 37 inches forward of the center of the

vehicle's wheelbase, except as otherwise specified in paragraph (d) of

this section.

(c) For vehicles with a wheelbase greater than 114 inches, 20

inches rearward of the centerline of the vehicle's front axle, except

as otherwise specified in paragraph (d) of this section.

(d) At the manufacturer's option, for different wheelbase versions

of the same model vehicle, the impact reference line may be located by

the following:

(1) Select the shortest wheelbase vehicle of the different

wheelbase versions of the same model and locate on it the impact

reference line at the location described in (a), (b) or (c) of this

section, as appropriate;

(2) Measure the distance between the seating reference point (SgRP)

and the impact reference line;

(3) Maintain the same distance between the SgRP and the impact

reference line for the version being tested as that between the SgRP

and the impact reference line for the shortest wheelbase version of the

model.

(e) For the compliance test, the impact reference line will be

located using the procedure used by the manufacturer as the basis for

its certification of compliance with the requirements of this standard.

If the manufacturer did not use any of the procedures in this section,

or does not specify a procedure when asked by the agency, the agency

may locate the impact reference line using either procedure.

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

and, if the vehicle has a second seat, position another conforming test

dummy in the second seat outboard position on the same side of the

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

restrained using all available belt systems in all seating positions

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

armrest is retracted.

* * * * *

Issued on: July 20, 1995.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95-18275 Filed 7-27-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P