Rule: Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Occupant Protection in Interior Impact Side Impact Protection Phase-In Reporting Requirements

Tuesday,
September 11, 2007
Part II
Department of
Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Parts 571 and 585

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards;
Occupant Protection in Interior Impact;
Side Impact Protection; Fuel System
Integrity; Electric-Powered Vehicles:
Electrolyte Spillage and Electrical Shock
Protection; Side Impact Phase-In
Reporting Requirements; Final Rule
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:43 Sep 10, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\11SER2.SGM 11SER2
51908 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION complete a rulemaking proceeding Office of Chief Counsel, telephone 202–
under chapter 301 of title 49, United 366–2992. You may send mail to these
National Highway Traffic Safety States Code, to establish a standard officials at the National Highway Traffic
Administration designed to enhance passenger motor Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
vehicle occupant protection, in all Avenue, SE., West Building,
49 CFR Parts 571 and 585 seating positions, in side impact Washington, DC 20590.
[Docket No. NHTSA–29134] crashes.’’ In accordance with § 10302, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
the side impact air bags installed in
RIN 2127–AJ10 front seats and vehicle changes made to Table of Contents
rear seats will enhance, substantially, I. Executive Summary
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety passenger motor vehicle occupant a. Final Rule
Standards; Occupant Protection in protection in side impacts. b. How the Final Rule Differs From the
Interior Impact; Side Impact NPRM
DATES: Effective date: The date on c. Congressional Mandate
Protection; Fuel System Integrity;
which this final rule amends the CFR is II. Safety Need
Electric-Powered Vehicles: Electrolyte
November 13, 2007. III. NPRM
Spillage and Electrical Shock Petition date: If you wish to petition a. Summary of Main Aspects of the
Protection; Side Impact Phase-In for reconsideration of this rule, your Proposal Preceding This Final Rule
Reporting Requirements petition must be received by October 26, 1. Oblique Pole Test
2007. 2. Moving Deformable Barrier (MDB) Test
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 3. Lead Time
Safety Administration (NHTSA), Compliance dates: This final rule
A. Oblique Pole Test
Department of Transportation. adopts a four-year phase-in of the new
B. MDB Test
test requirements. The phase-in begins b. NPRMs on 49 CFR Part 572
ACTION: Final rule.
on September 1, 2009. By September 1, c. Comment Periods Reopened Until April
SUMMARY: This final rule incorporates a 2012, all vehicles must meet the 12, 2005; Request for Comment
dynamic pole test into Federal Motor upgraded pole and barrier test IV. NHTSA 214 Fleet Testing Program
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. requirements of the standard, with V. Summary of Comments
214, ‘‘Side impact protection.’’ To meet certain exceptions. Alterers, VI. Response to Comments
manufacturers of vehicles produced in a. Critical Decisions
the test, vehicle manufacturers will 1. 50th Percentile Male Dummy
need to assure head and improved chest more than one stage, and manufacturers
A. We Are Denying the Alliance’s
protection in side crashes. It will lead to of vehicles with a gross vehicle weight WorldSID Petition
the installation of new technologies, rating greater than 3,855 kilograms (kg) B. The Side Impact Dummy Can Be
such as side curtain air bags and torso (8,500 pounds (lb)) have until Upgraded Now to the ES–2re Without
side air bags, which are capable of September 1, 2013 to meet the upgraded Further Delay
improving head and thorax protection to pole and barrier test requirements. C. The ES–2re Is an Improvement Over the
occupants of vehicles that crash into Manufacturers can earn credits toward ES–2
poles and trees and vehicles that are meeting the applicable phase-in D. The ES–2re Should Measure More Than
percentages by producing compliant HIC
laterally struck by a higher-riding 2. The 5th Percentile Female Dummy
vehicle. The side air bag systems vehicles ahead of schedule, beginning
A. The 5th Percentile Adult Female
installed to meet the requirements of November 13, 2007 and ending at the Dummy Is an Integral Part of This
this final rule will also reduce fatalities conclusion of the phase-in. Upgrade
and injuries caused by partial ejections ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for i. Need for the 5th Percentile Dummy in
through side windows. reconsideration of this rule, you should the Pole Test
Vehicles will be tested with two new, refer in your petition to the docket ii. Need for the 5th Percentile Dummy in
scientifically advanced test dummies number of this document and submit the MDB Test
representing a wide range of occupants, your petition to: Administrator, iii. Beyond the Voluntary Commitment
B. However, Not All of the Proposed FRG
from mid-size males to small females. A National Highway Traffic Safety
Changes Are Needed
test dummy known as the ES–2re will Administration, 1200 New Jersey b. Aspects of the Pole Test Procedure
represent mid-size adult male Avenue, SE., West Building, 1. Speed
occupants. A test dummy known as the Washington, DC 20590. 2. Angle
SID–IIs will represent smaller stature The petition will be placed in the 3. Positioning the Seat for the Test
occupants. The SID–IIs is the size of a docket. Anyone is able to search the A. Fore-and-Aft Seating Position
5th percentile adult female. electronic form of all documents B. Head Restraints
This final rule also enhances FMVSS received into any of our dockets by the 4. Impact Reference Line
No. 214’s moving deformable barrier name of the individual submitting the 5. Test Attitude
comment (or signing the comment, if 6. Rear Seat Pole Test
(MDB) test. The current 50th percentile 7. Door Closed
male dummy in the front seat of tested submitted on behalf of an association, 8. FMVSS No. 201 Pole Test
vehicles will be replaced with the more business, labor union, etc.). You may 9. Quasi Static Test
biofidelic ES–2re. In the rear seat, the review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 10. Vehicle Exclusions
new 5th percentile female SID–IIs Statement in the Federal Register 11. Practicability
dummy will be used, thus improving published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 12. International Harmonization
protection to a greater segment of 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you c. Aspects of the MDB Test Procedure
occupants seated in rear seating may visit http://dms.dot.gov. 1. The Moving Deformable Barrier
positions. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
2. A Reasonable Balancing of the Test
Burden
The ‘‘Safe, Accountable, Flexible, non-legal issues, you may call A. Arm Position
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Christopher J. Wiacek, NHTSA Office of B. Reducing the Number of Tests
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU),’’ was Crashworthiness Standards, telephone 3. Other
enacted in August 2005. Section 10302 202–366–4801. For legal issues, you d. Injury Criteria
of the Act directed the agency ‘‘to may call Deirdre R. Fujita, NHTSA 1. Head Injury Criterion
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51909
2. Thorax (Chest) Criteria standard. In addition, thoracic, vehicle fleet. Countermeasures that not
A. ES–2re abdominal and pelvic protection in the only reduce head injuries, but that also
i. Chest Deflection FMVSS No. 214 crash tests must also be help reduce partial ejections through
ii. ES–2re Lower Spine Acceleration
provided. side windows, can save additional lives.
B. SID–IIs Lower Spine Acceleration
3. ES–2re Abdominal Criterion Vehicles will be tested with two new, The cost of the most likely potential
4. Pelvic Criterion scientifically advanced test dummies countermeasure—a 2-sensor per vehicle
A. ES–2re representing a wide range of occupants, window curtain and separate thorax
B. SID–IIs from mid-size males to small females. A side air bag system—compared to no
e. Lead Time test dummy known as the ES–2re will side air bags is estimated to be $243 per
1. Pole Test represent mid-size adult male vehicle. After analyzing the data
2. MDB Test occupants. The ES–2re, a modified voluntarily submitted by manufacturers
f. Related Side Impact Programs version of the European ES–2 side on their planned installation of side air
1. Out-of-Position Testing
2. Side NCAP
impact dummy, has improved bag systems, we estimate this final rule
3. Cross-References to FMVSS No. 214 biofidelity and enhanced injury will increase the average vehicle cost by
g. Comments on the PEA assessment capability compared to all $33 5 and increase total annual costs for
VII. Costs and Benefits other mid-size adult male dummies the fleet by $560 million. We provide
VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices used today. A test dummy known as the sufficient lead time to ensure that
IX. Appendices SID–IIs will represent smaller stature compliance is practicable.
I. Executive Summary occupants. The SID–IIs is the size of a The agency’s data show that the
5th percentile adult female. Crash data majority of side air bag systems are
a. Final Rule indicate that 34 percent of all serious currently equipped with two side
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety and fatal injuries to near-side occupants impact sensors. If the market share of
Standard (FMVSS) No. 214, ‘‘Side in side impacts occurred to occupants 5 the two-sensor and four-sensor systems
impact protection,’’ currently provides feet 4 inches (163 cm) or less, who are remains unchanged, the incremental
thoracic and pelvic protection in a test better represented by the 5th percentile cost for the most likely air bag system
using a moving deformable barrier to dummy.3 (Specifications for the ES–2re (curtain and thorax bag two-sensor
simulate being struck in the side by and SID–IIs dummies have already been countermeasure) would be about $620
another vehicle. NHTSA is upgrading adopted into the agency’s regulation for million, or $37 per vehicle, assuming all
FMVSS No. 214 by requiring all anthropomorphic test dummies, 49 CFR light vehicles will be equipped with
passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle Part 572. For the ES–2re, the final rule curtain air bags.
weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg or less was published December 14, 2006; 71 This final rule fulfills the mandate of
(10,000 lb or less) to protect front seat FR 75304 (NHTSA Docket 25441). For the ‘‘Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
occupants in a vehicle-to-pole test the SID–IIs, the final rule published Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
simulating a vehicle crashing sideways December 14, 2006; 71 FR 75342 Legacy for Users,’’ which was signed by
into narrow fixed objects like utility (Docket 25442).) President George W. Bush in August
poles and trees. By doing so it requires This final rule also enhances FMVSS 2005. Evidently aware of the agency’s
vehicle manufacturers to assure head No. 214’s moving deformable barrier pending notice of proposed rulemaking
and improved chest protection in side (MDB) test. In the test, the current 50th to upgrade FMVSS No. 214, Section
crashes for a wide range of occupant percentile male dummy in the front seat 10302 of the Act directed the agency ‘‘to
sizes and over a broad range of seating of tested vehicles will be replaced with complete a rulemaking proceeding
positions. It will ensure the installation the more biofidelic ES–2re. In the rear under chapter 301 of title 49, United
of new technologies, such as side seat, the 5th percentile female SID–IIs States Code, to establish a standard
curtain air bags 1 and torso side air bags, dummy will be used, to enhance designed to enhance passenger motor
which are capable of improving head protection to a greater segment of vehicle occupant protection, in all
and thorax protection to occupants of occupants seated in rear seating seating positions, in side impact
vehicles that crash into poles and trees positions. The 50th percentile male crashes.’’
and of vehicles that are laterally struck dummy and the 5th percentile female
State of the Art
by a higher-riding vehicle. The side air dummy together better represent the at-
bag systems installed to meet the risk population than one dummy alone. The state of knowledge and
requirements of this final rule will also Through use of both test dummies, practicability of measures that can be
reduce fatalities and injuries caused by vehicles must provide head, enhanced taken to improve side impact protection
partial ejections through side windows.2 thoracic and pelvic protection to are considerably greater than they were
This will be the first time that head occupants ranging from mid-size males just a decade ago. Extensive work by
injury criteria must be met under the to small occupants in vehicle-to-vehicle those involved in the design,
side crashes. manufacture and evaluation of vehicle
1 These different side air bag systems are We estimate that this final rule will safety systems have led to substantial
described in a glossary in Appendix A to this prevent 311 fatalities and 361 serious progress in crash test dummies, injury
preamble. injuries a year 4 when fully criteria and countermeasures used to
2 Improving side impact protection and reducing
implemented throughout the light mitigate side impacts. Inflatable side
the risk of ejection are prominent in the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s strategies impact air bags (SIABs) have become
3 Samaha R. S., Elliott D. S., ‘‘NHTSA Side Impact
to improve occupant protection. Further
requirements to mitigate ejection are being Research: Motivation for Upgraded Test 5 There are a wide variety of baseline side air bag
developed by the agency to fulfill Sec. 10301 of Procedures,’’ 18th International Technical systems planned for MY 2011. Some of these
SAFETEA–LU, which amended the National Conference on the Enhanced Safety Of Vehicles systems meet the final rule requirements, while
Highway and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Conference (ESV), Paper No. 492, 2003. manufacturers need to incorporate wider side air
Chapter 301) to require the Secretary to issue by 4 Benefits and costs are estimated assuming 100 bags in others or add wide thorax side air bags or
October 1, 2009 an ejection mitigation final rule percent installation of Electronic Stability Control window curtains. The $33 incremental cost
reducing complete and partial ejections of (ESC) systems in vehicles, and are based on estimate is a weighted average of the costs to bring
occupants from outboard seating positions (49 manufacturers’ current and planned installation of all these different baseline conditions into
U.S.C. 30128(c)(1)). side air bags. compliance with the final rule.
available in current production vehicles. Through voluntary efforts, which the agency had added ‘‘floating
They vary widely in designs, sizes, manufacturers are able to begin rib guide’’ (FRG) components to
mounting locations, methods of equipping vehicles with advanced increase the durability of the dummy.
inflation and areas of coverage. For technologies and are able to advance The dummy with the FRG modification
example, side impact protection systems safety more quickly than through the was called the ‘‘SID–IIsFRG.’’
include door-mounted thorax bags, seat- regulatory process. In formulating this Comments to the NPRM maintained that
mounted thorax bags, seat-mounted regulation, we have been mindful to the entirety of the FRG modifications
head/thorax bags, and head protection remain consistent with the was unnecessary, and that the totality of
systems that deploy from the roof rails technological advances upon which the the FRG modifications needlessly
(e.g., inflatable curtains, and inflatable industry’s voluntary commitment were reduced the biofidelity and
tubular structures). based, so as not to discourage further functionality of the dummy. Some
While varied in design, SIABs make implementation while manufacturers commenters suggested alternative
possible vast improvements in head and develop designs and technologies that means of improving the durability of the
torso protection that can be provided in are able to comply with this regulation. Build Level C dummy. After reviewing
side impacts. Head injuries alone This regulation builds on the same the comments to the NPRM and
account for 41 percent of the total technologies that will be used by the available test data, including the
deaths in the target population industry to meet its voluntary performance of the SID–IIs dummy in
addressed by this final rule. For smaller- commitment, and takes them even vehicle tests conducted with 2004–2005
stature occupants, head injury further. model year (MY) vehicles 10 [hereinafter
represents a higher proportion of the The industry’s voluntary commitment ‘‘214 fleet testing program’’], we have
serious injuries than it does for larger demonstrated the feasibility of SIABs as decided to adopt some, but not all, of
occupants, as a result of relatively more a fleet-wide countermeasure and the FRG modifications, and to adopt the
head contacts with the striking vehicle.6 ushered in a new stage in the regulatory, commenters’ alternative suggested
NHTSA estimates that SIABs reduce research and technological revisions to Build Level C. The SID–IIs
fatality risk for nearside occupants by an developments relating to side impact dummy adopted today into FMVSS No.
estimated 24 percent; torso bags alone, protection.9 This final rule broadens 214 is referred to as the SID–IIs ‘‘Build
by 14 percent.7 and fortifies this stage. Establishing Level D’’ crash test dummy.11 Build
These remarkable improvements can these requirements as an FMVSS Level D incorporates features stemming
accrue at reasonable costs. Vehicle assures enhanced protection to all from the FRG and from users’ efforts to
manufacturers are already installing purchasers of vehicles, from those enhance the functionality of predecessor
SIABs in some of their new vehicles. On buying the most economical cars to SID–IIs dummies.
December 4, 2003, the Alliance of purchasers of luxury trucks, to B. Mindful of the magnitude of this
Automobile Manufacturers, the consumers in between. Together, the rulemaking and the principles for
Association of International Automobile near term voluntary commitment and regulatory decisionmaking set forth in
Manufacturers (AIAM), and the this final rule will achieve Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety unprecedented side impact protection Planning and Review, NHTSA
(IIHS) announced a new voluntary benefits. examined the benefits and costs of this
commitment to enhance occupant b. How the Final Rule Differs From the rulemaking and, based on that analysis,
protection in front-to-side and front-to- NPRM took steps to reduce unnecessary test
front crashes. The industry initiative burdens associated with this final rule.
consisted of improvements and research The noteworthy changes from the
After reviewing the comments to the
made in several phases, focusing, among NPRM are outlined below and
NPRM and available test data, including
other things, on accelerating the explained in detail later in this
MDB testing conducted in the NHTSA
installation of SIABs.8 preamble. More minor changes (e.g.,
214 fleet testing program, we have
arm position of the dummies for the
decided to require one MDB test per
6 Samaha, supra. MDB tests, procedures for determining
side of the vehicle. The MDB test
7 Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, ‘‘FMVSS No. vehicle test attitude for the MDB test)
specifies use of an ES–2re (50th
214; Amending side impact dynamic test; Adding are discussed in the appropriate
oblique pole test.’’ Braver and Kyrychenko (2003) percentile adult male) dummy in the
sections of this preamble.
estimated that torso bags plus head protection A. The agency proposed to use a SID– front seating position and a SID–IIs (5th
reduced drivers’ fatality risk in nearside impacts by
IIs Build C small female test dummy to percentile adult female) dummy in the
45 percent relative to drivers in cars without SIABs. rear. Virtually all vehicles tested in the
Braver and Kyrychenko, ‘‘Efficacy of Side Airbags
in Reducing Driver Deaths in Driver-Side limited to a maximum time interval of 36 214 fleet testing program met the MDB
Collisions,’’ IIHS Status Report, Vol. 38, August 26, milliseconds. HIC15 refers to a HIC calculating using requirements when tested with SID–IIs
2003. That study was based on fewer crash data a maximum time interval of 15 milliseconds. In in the front seat and the ES–2re dummy
than those used by NHTSA in its 2005 analysis. Phase 2, not later than September 1, 2009, 100 in the rear. Accordingly, we concluded
8 See Docket NHTSA–2003–14623–13. Alliance percent of each manufacturer’s new passenger car
and AIAM members agreed to this voluntary and light truck (GVWR up to 3,855 kg) (8,500 lb) that no additional benefits would accrue
commitment. Under Phase 1 of the voluntary production will be designed in accordance with the from an MDB test with the dummies so
commitment, manufacturers have agreed that, not IIHS MDB recommended practice of HIC15 configured.
later than September 1, 2007, at least 50 percent of performance of 779 or less for a SID–IIs crash C. After reviewing the comments to
each manufacturer’s new passenger car and light dummy in the driver’s seating position. The
truck (GVWR up to 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) production voluntary commitment provides exclusions for the NPRM, the results of the 214 fleet
intended for sale in the U.S. will be designed in vehicles ‘‘that a manufacturer determines, due to
accordance with either of the following head basic practicability and functionality reasons, 10 See Section IV of this preamble; also NHTSA’s
protection alternatives: (a) HIC36 performance of cannot meet the performance criteria, and would technical report of the test program, ‘‘NHTSA Fleet
1000 or less for a SID–H3 crash dummy in the have to be eliminated from the market if Testing for FMVSS No. 214 Upgrade MY 2004–
driver’s seating position in an FMVSS No. 201 pole compliance were required.’’ (Alliance comment to 2005,’’ April 2006, Docket 25441–11 (25441 is the
impact test, or (b) HIC15 performance of 779 or less Docket 17694, page 4, April 12, 2005.) docket for the ES–2re test dummy final rule); and
(with no direct head contact with the barrier) for a 9 Section IV of the May 17, 2004 NPRM discusses memorandum regarding location of the test date.
SID–IIs crash dummy in the driver’s seating the regulatory, research and technological December 6, 2006, Docket 25441–9.
position in the IIHS MDB perpendicular side developments related to FMVSS No. 214, from 1990 11 Docket 25442; final rule adopting SID–IIs Build
impact test. HIC36 means the calculation of HIC is to the present. 69 FR at 27993. Level D dummy into 49 CFR Part 572.
testing program and production plans industry’s voluntary commitment to are also lower than those of the NPRM.
which show installation of side air bags install side air bags. Because more The average vehicle incremental cost of
in vehicles ahead of the proposed redesign of the vehicle side structure, the curtain and thorax bag two-sensor
schedule, we have determined that it interior trim, and/or optimization of countermeasure is estimated to increase
would be practicable to provide a two- dynamically deploying head/side the average vehicle cost by $33, which
year lead time instead of the four-year protection systems may be needed in is lower than the estimated NPRM cost
lead time proposed in the NPRM these vehicles than in light vehicles, of $177 per vehicle.
leading up to the beginning of the this final rule does not subject these
c. Congressional Mandate
phased-in pole test requirements. vehicles to the pole test requirements
Compared to the original schedule, this until September 1, 2013. On August 10, 2005, President Bush
would accelerate the benefits expected D. We have decided to adopt a phase- signed the ‘‘Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
to be provided by side air bag systems in for the MDB test, and align the phase- Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
and other countermeasures by phasing- in schedule with the oblique pole test Legacy for Users,’’ (SAFETEA–LU),
in the requirements starting with 20 requirements, with advance credits. In Public Law 109–59 (Aug. 10, 2005; 119
percent of model year (MY) 2010 our test program, the SID–IIs in the rear Stat. 1144), to authorize funds for
vehicles. As explained in the FRIA, the seat of several vehicles measured Federal-aid highways, highway safety
phase-in schedule and percentages of elevated rib deflections and high pelvic programs, and transit programs, and for
this final rule facilitate the installation loads that did not meet the injury other purposes. Section 10302(a) of
of side impact air bags and other safety criterion. This information indicated SAFETEA–LU provides:
countermeasures in light vehicles as that structural and/or other changes to Sec. 10302. Side-Impact Crash
quickly as possible, while the allowance the rear seat of some vehicles are Protection Rulemaking
of advanced credits provides needed to provide improved chest and
pelvic protection in the MDB test. An (a) Rulemaking.—The Secretary shall
manufacturers a way of allocating their complete a rulemaking proceeding under
resources in an efficient manner to meet aligned phase-in will allow
chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code,
the schedule. At the same time, we are manufacturers to optimize engineering to establish a standard designed to enhance
also adding a fourth year to the resources to design vehicles that meet passenger motor vehicle occupant protection,
proposed 3-year phase-in period and are the MDB and pole test requirements in all seating positions, in side impact
making other adjustments to the simultaneously, thus reducing costs. crashes. The Secretary shall issue a final rule
schedule for heavier vehicles, to Manufacturers will also be able to use by July 1, 2008.
enhance the practicability of meeting credits to more efficiently distribute At the time of the enactment of
the new requirements and provide their resources to meet the § 10302(a), the agency’s notice of
additional flexibility to manufacturers requirements. proposed rulemaking to upgrade
to meet the requirements. Accordingly, E. For this final rule, the agency has FMVSS No. 214 was pending. This final
under the phase-in schedule adopted in re-examined the baseline fleet rule completes the rulemaking
this final rule, the following percentages conditions projected to the compliance proceeding under consideration, and
of each manufacturer’s vehicles will be date of this final rule and has therefore enhances the side impact protection of
required to meet the new requirements: adjusted the target population that all the seating positions that the NPRM
—20 percent of ‘‘light’’ vehicles (gross would benefit from this rulemaking. In had proposed to upgrade.13 In this
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) less or determining the target population for rulemaking, we considered several
equal to 3,855 kilograms (kg) (8,500 this final rule, the agency has assumed regulatory alternatives (see Chapter IX
pounds) (lb) manufactured during the a 100 percent Electronic Stability of the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis)
period from September 1, 2009 to Control (ESC) penetration in the model and, consistent with Executive Order
August 31, 2010; MY 2011 new vehicle fleet, and has 12866, have maximized the benefits of
—50 percent of light vehicles further adjusted the estimated benefits those alternatives in the cost effective
manufactured during the period from of the rule by considering data from range.
September 1, 2010 to August 31, 2011; vehicle manufacturers on their planned We interpret SAFETEA–LU as
—75 percent of light vehicles installation of side air bags and on providing us a fair amount of discretion.
manufactured during the period from projected sales through model year MY This regulation was initiated by NHTSA
September 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012; 2011. Based on that information, the prior to enactment of SAFETEA–LU and
—100 percent of light vehicles agency estimates that this rulemaking we are required by the statute to
manufactured on or after September 1, will save 311 fatalities and 361 serious complete it. We believe that SAFETEA–
2012, including limited line and small injuries a year.12 These values are lower LU requires us to enhance the occupant
volume vehicles; than the NPRM’s estimated benefits of protection of all seating positions under
—100 percent of vehicles with a GVWR 1,027 fatalities and 999 serious injuries
greater than 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) saved annually, because the proposed 13 Enhancing the protection of the seating
estimates were based on the distribution positions under consideration in the NPRM
manufactured on or after September 1, addresses over 99% of the non-rollover side impact
2013 and vehicles produced by of the different types of side air bag fatalities. In our analysis of vehicle sales, we found
alterers and multistage manufacturers. systems in the MY 2003 new vehicle that 0 percent of passenger cars and 22 percent of
fleet and did not assume 100% ESC light trucks have 3 or more rows of seats (minivans,
In addition, vehicle manufacturers some SUVs, and some full size vans). Assuming
penetration.
will be able to earn credits for meeting For this final rule, because the agency
that passenger cars and light trucks each have 50
the requirements ahead of schedule. percent of all light vehicle sales, about 11 percent
has used more extensive information, of all light vehicle sales will involve vehicles with
We are providing more lead time to
including manufacturers’ planned 3 or more rows of seating. Looking at adult fatalities
meet the pole test requirements to in side impacts in which non-rollovers were the
installation of side air bags through MY
manufacturers of vehicles with a GVWR primary event, there were 17 fatalities in the 3rd,
2011, the cost estimates of this final rule 4th, or 5th rows. In comparison, in the same types
greater than 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) because
of non-rollover side impacts, there were 8,570 adult
the vehicles have never been regulated 12 This estimates that window curtains, thorax fatalities in all rows. The 3+ row seats comprise 0.2
under FMVSS No. 214’s dynamic side impact air bags, and two sensors per vehicle percent of the fatalities in that population (17/8,570
requirements and are not subject to the will be used. = 0.002).
consideration in the NPRM (front and that occupant protection in side impacts assessment reference values we will use
rear outboard seating positions), without is afforded across a wide range of with the dummy are set at levels that
specifying the particular regulatory occupant sizes. Further, this final rule reflect the effect of aging on tolerance.
instruments or approaches that should adopts a dynamic pole test into FMVSS
II. Safety Need
be used to enhance occupant protection No. 214, specifying performance
in those seating positions. SAFETEA– requirements that vehicles must meet In the 2004 Fatality Analysis
LU requires that this rulemaking be when tested with the test dummies. Reporting System (FARS), there were
conducted in compliance with the Adoption of the pole test will result in 9,270 side impact fatalities. For our
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle the installation of new technologies, target population, as described in the
Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), such as side curtain air bags and torso Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA)
which includes the directive that our side air bags, which are capable of for this final rule, we excluded from
motor vehicle safety standards ‘‘shall be improving protection to an occupant’s these side impact fatalities those cases
practicable, meet the need for motor head, thorax, abdomen and pelvis. The which were not relevant to the oblique
vehicle safety, and be stated in objective use of the two crash test dummies in the pole and/or MDB crash conditions of
terms’ (49 U.S.C. 30111(a)). Thus, in pole test will require manufacturers to this final rule. This left us with a target
responding to the comments to the assure whole-body protection of front population of 2,311 fatalities and 5,891
NPRM (see section VI of this preamble), seat occupants, from small stature non-fatal serious to critical MAIS 3–5
we must ensure that the upgraded females sitting as close as they can to injuries for near-side occupants. The
FMVSS No. 214 final rule meets the the steering wheel, to mid-size males 2,311 fatalities were divided into two
criteria of Section 30111 (that it is sitting mid-track. groups for the analysis: (1) Vehicle to
practicable, that it meets the need for The final rule also enhances front seat pole impacts; and (2) vehicle-to-vehicle
safety, and that it is stated in objective occupant protection by specifying use of or other roadside objects impacts, which
terms), while meeting the instruction of the new mid-size male dummy in the include partial ejections in these
SAFETEA–LU that the final rule standard’s MDB test, which simulates a cases.15
enhance occupant side impact vehicle-to-vehicle crash. With its highly
developed instrumentation and ability In this target population, 41 percent of
protection in the seating positions under the total fatalities are caused by head/
consideration in the NPRM. to assess rib deflections, the ES–2re will
more thoroughly evaluate the degree to face injuries, 34 percent by chest
This final rule enhances side impact which manufacturers have designed injuries and 6 percent by abdominal
protection in the front seating positions vehicles’ front seats to protect occupants injuries. In contrast, for the 5,891 non-
by requiring manufacturers to provide in vehicle-to-vehicle side crashes. fatal MAIS 3–5 target population, chest
head protection in side impacts for the This final rule enhances occupant injuries are the predominate and
first time in the Federal safety crash protection in rear seats as well. maximum injury source, accounting for
standards. Due to the biofidelity of the For the first time in the Federal motor 48 percent. Head/face injuries account
current side impact dummy (SID) head vehicle safety standards, a limit is for 20 percent, and abdominal injuries
and neck, the agency had determined adopted on the risk of head injury for account for two percent. Combining all
that it was not appropriate to assess rear seat occupants. In addition, this serious to fatal injuries, chest injuries
head injury with that dummy.14 This final rule specifies the use of the 5th account for 49 percent, head/face
final rule adopts into FMVSS No. 214 percentile adult female test dummy in injuries account for 26 percent, and
two technologically advanced test testing rear seats in the MDB test of abdominal injuries account for three
dummies that have superior injury risk FMVSS No. 214. This change will percent.
measurement capabilities compared to enable NHTSA to assess better the For these two groups, we made an
the SID, including the ability to assess ability of the rear seat environment to adjustment for estimated benefits that
the likelihood of head injury. The two protect children, the elderly and small would result from the installation of
test dummies represent occupants of adults—a more vulnerable population Electronic Stability Control (ESC)
different sizes: One represents an than the mid-size adult male systems in vehicles, based on an
occupant of the size of a 5th percentile population—in vehicle-to-vehicle assumption that model year 2011
adult female, the other a mid-size (50th crashes. The dummy is more vehicles would be equipped with ESC.16
percentile) adult male. Use of both representative of rear seat occupants The ESC adjustment is shown below in
dummies in FMVSS No. 214 assures than the SID. Further, the injury Table 1:
TABLE 1.—TARGET POPULATION ADJUSTED WITH ESC

[Fatalities and MAIS 3+ for occupants, Delta–V Range of 12–25 mph]
Crash mode MAIS 3 MAIS 4 MAIS 5 Fatal
Veh-to-Pole ...................................................................................................... 368 210 72 219

Veh-to-Veh/others ............................................................................................ 3,713 903 177 1,823
Total .......................................................................................................... 4,081 1,113 249 2,042
14 Report to Congress, ‘‘Status of NHTSA Plan for FARS, there were 1,441 unbelted far-side occupant ESC-equipped, in part because the final rule on
Side Impact Regulation Harmonization and fatalities in side impacts. electronic stability control systems requires all MY
16 Manufacturers’ product plans submitted to the
Upgrade,’’ March 1999, Docket NHTSA–98–3935– 2012 vehicles to have ESC (Docket 27662).
10. agency indicated that 71 percent of the MY 2011 Accordingly, to estimate benefits for this FMVSS
15 The agency’s analysis also found some fatality light vehicles will be equipped with ESC. For the No. 214 final rule, we have assumed 100 percent
purposes of estimating benefits for today’s final
benefits for far-side unbelted occupants. In 2004 of the MY 2011 light vehicles will have ESC.
rule, we have assumed that more vehicles will be
We also made an adjustment based on and roof side rail.17 For the head, chest, FMVSS No. 201, are shown below in
the estimated benefits that would result abdomen and pelvis injuries, the Table 2:
from the FMVSS No. 201 upper interior fatalities for each crash mode, as
requirements for the A–pillar, B–pillar, adjusted for the effects of ESC and
TABLE 2.—FATALITIES ADJUSTED, FRONT OCCUPANTS WITH ESC AND FMVSS NO. 201 HEAD, CHEST,
ABDOMEN AND PELVIS
Crash mode Head Chest Abdomen Pelvis Total
Veh-to-Pole .......................................................................... 142 27 0 0 169

Veh-to-Veh/others ................................................................ 493 689 137 63 1,382
Total .............................................................................. 635 716 137 63 1,551
III. NPRM with a delta-V of 32 km/h (20 mph) or group under the umbrella of the U.S.
higher result in approximately half of Council for Automotive Research
a. Summary of Main Aspects of the
the seriously injured occupants in (USCAR).21 NHTSA proposed to modify
Proposal Preceding This Final Rule
narrow object near-side crashes. the dummy by adding the FRG
NHTSA published the NPRM for this The NPRM proposed using the ES–2re modifications (the modified dummy is
FMVSS No. 214 final rule on May 17, (50th percentile adult male) test referred to as the SID–IIsFRG). Injury
2004 (69 FR 27990, Docket No. 17694). dummy, and the SID–IIs (5th percentile criteria for the SID–IIsFRG’s head,
The NPRM provided a 150-day adult female) test dummy as modified thorax, and pelvis were proposed. HIC36
comment period on the proposal. The by the addition of floating rib guide was to be limited to 1,000. For thoracic
150-day period closed October 14, 2004. (FRG) modifications. injury, the agency proposed a limit of 82
1. Oblique Pole Test The ES–2re is technically superior to g on the resultant lower spine
The NPRM proposed a pole test for both the SID–H3 50th percentile male acceleration. A pelvic injury criterion of
FMVSS No. 214, and proposed to apply test dummy currently used in the the sum of the iliac and acetabular
it to all passenger vehicles with a GVWR optional pole test of FMVSS No. 201 forces measured on the dummy was
of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less. The and the SID dummy now used in the proposed at 5,100 N. A limitation on rib
vehicle-to-pole test is similar to but MDB test of FMVSS No. 214. NHTSA deflection was not proposed because
more demanding than the one currently proposed injury criteria for the ES–2re’s NHTSA wanted to obtain more
used optionally in FMVSS No. 201. The injury measuring instrumentation of the information on the SID–IIsFRG’s rib
proposal was to propel a vehicle dummy’s head, thorax, abdomen and deflection measurement capability and
sideways into a rigid pole at an angle of pelvis. HIC was to be limited to 1,000 the deflection criteria that would be
75 degrees rather than the 90-degree measured in a 36 millisecond time appropriate to apply to the dummy. For
angle used in FMVSS No. 201.18 (We interval (HIC36). Chest deflection could the same reasons, an abdominal injury
refer to the test using the 75-degree not be greater than 42 mm (1.65 in) for criterion for the dummy was not
impact angle as the ‘‘oblique pole test.’’) any rib. Resultant lower spine proposed.
The test speed was proposed as any acceleration could not be greater than 82 The NPRM presented test data from
speed up to 32 km/h (20 mph) 19 rather g. Abdominal loads could not exceed full scale oblique pole tests using a mid-
than the maximum test speed of FMVSS 2,500 Newtons (N) (562 lb). For pelvic size male dummy, and a small female
No. 201’s optional pole test (29 km/h injury, the NPRM proposed to limit dummy, to indicate the performance of
(18 mph)). The 75-degree angle of pubic symphysis force to 6,000 N (1,349 vehicles in providing occupant
impact and 32 km/h test speed made the lb). protection in these side impacts. (These
pole test more representative than the The SID–IIs test dummy was data are presented in Table 1 of
FMVSS No. 201 test of real world side developed by the Occupant Safety Appendix C to this final rule.) As
crashes into narrow objects.20 Crashes Research Partnership (OSRP), a research discussed in the NPRM, there were nine
17 In 1995, NHTSA issued a final rule amending pole test injury criterion is HIC of 1000. The May today’s regulatory text. The vehicle is aligned so
FMVSS No. 201, ‘‘Occupant protection in interior 17, 2004 NPRM requested comment on adopting the that, when the pole contacts the vehicle, the vertical
impact,’’ to require passenger cars, and trucks, FMVSS No. 201 pole test instead of the oblique pole center line of the pole surface as projected on the
buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a test that was the preferred agency approach at the pole’s surface, in the direction of the vehicle
gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) NPRM stage.
motion, is within a surface area on the vehicle
or less, to provide protection when an occupant’s 19 While 20 mph converts to 32.2 km/h, we are
head strikes certain upper interior components, exterior bounded by two vertical planes in the
rounding 32.2 km/h to 32 km/h.
including pillars, side rails, headers, and the roof, 20 When testing the driver side of the vehicle, an
direction of the vehicle motion and 38 mm (1.5
during a crash. The amendments added procedures impact reference line is drawn on the vehicle’s inches) forward and aft of the impact reference line.
and performance requirements for a new in-vehicle exterior where it intersects with a vertical plane The test vehicle would be propelled sideways into
test, which were phased in beginning in model year passing through the head CG of the seated driver the pole. Its line of forward motion would form an
1999. dummy at an angle of 75 degrees from the vehicle’s angle of 75 degrees (or 285 degrees) (±3 degrees) in
18 FMVSS No. 201 employs an optional pole test
longitudinal centerline measured counterclockwise the left (or right) side impact measured from the
to permit the installation of dynamically deploying from the vehicle’s positive X axis (see S10.14 of the vehicle’s positive X axis in the counterclockwise
upper interior head protection systems. This test regulatory text set forth in today’s document). When direction.
was part of a set of amendments adopted in 1998 testing the front passenger side, the impact 21 USCAR consists of DaimlerChrysler, Ford and
to permit, but not require, the installation of reference line would be drawn where it intersects
General Motors. The SID–IIs is used by Transport

dynamically deploying upper interior head with a vertical plane passing through the head CG
protection systems that were then under of the passenger dummy seated in the front Canada for research purposes, and by the Insurance
development (63 FR 41451; August 4, 1998). In the outboard designated seating position at an angle of Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), a nonprofit
optional crash test, the vehicle is propelled at a 285 degrees from the vehicle’s longitudinal group funded by insurers, in IIHS’s 48 km/h (30
speed between 24 km/h (15 mph) and 29 km/h (18 centerline measured counterclockwise from the mph) side crash test consumer information
mph) into a rigid pole at an angle of 90 degrees. The vehicle’s positive X axis as defined in S10.14 of program.
tests using a mid-size male dummy. In milliseconds (ms) produced a HIC36 of the rule can be realized as soon as
four of the tests, the test dummy was 512, and a 4,580 N pelvic force on the practicable. The NPRM proposed to
positioned in the driver’s seating dummy. phase in the upgraded side impact pole
position as specified in the FMVSS No. test requirements. The agency proposed
2. Moving Deformable Barrier (MDB)
214 MDB test procedure, i.e., the seat to phase in the new test requirement
Test
was positioned mid-track. The other beginning approximately four years
tests were conducted with the seat The current MDB test uses a 50th from the date of publication of a final
positioned as specified in FMVSS No. percentile adult male test dummy that rule. The phase-in was proposed to be
201.22 Among other things, the NPRM was developed in the 1980s, and does over three years, in accordance with the
data showed that the vehicles with air not use a 5th percentile female dummy following schedule:
curtain systems performed well in in the test. The NPRM proposed
providing head protection to occupants replacing the 50th percentile male 20 percent of each manufacturer’s
of the size of a 50th percentile adult dummy used with the technically light vehicles manufactured during the
male. Data for the 2004 Honda Accord advanced, more biofidelic ES–2re, and production year beginning four years
demonstrated the practicability of adding to the test the small female test after publication of a final rule;
meeting all of the NPRM’s proposed dummy. For the first time in the MDB 50 percent of each manufacturer’s
injury criteria for the pole test using the test, a head injury criterion was light vehicles manufactured during the
FMVSS No. 214 seating procedure with proposed. production year beginning five years
the ES–2re dummy. The NPRM presented test results from after publication of a final rule;
As discussed in the NPRM, one of the FMVSS No. 214 MDB tests of a 2001
All vehicles manufactured on or after
tests of a combination head/chest air bag Ford Focus and a 2002 Chevrolet Impala
a date six years after publication of a
system illustrated how the impact angle using an ES–2re dummy in the driver
and rear passenger seating positions (the final rule.
of the pole test can influence the level
of protection provided by a vehicle’s data are set forth in Appendix C). These NHTSA proposed to include
side air bags. An oblique pole test of a vehicles did not have side air bags in provisions under which manufacturers
1999 Nissan Maxima with a head/chest either front or rear seating positions. can earn credits toward meeting the
side impact air bag resulted in a HIC The test data from the NPRM showed applicable phase-in percentages if they
score of 5,254. The HIC of the Maxima that the Focus met the proposed test meet the new requirements ahead of
in a 90-degree FMVSS No. 201 pole test requirements when tested with the ES– schedule. Alternatives were also
resulted in a HIC score of 130. In the 2re, while the Impala did not. The provided to address the special
NPRM, NHTSA stated its expectation Impala failed to meet the 44 mm rib problems faced by manufacturers
that, to comply with the proposed deflection criterion for the driver producing limited line vehicles and
oblique pole test requirements, dummy (45.6 mm), and produced an vehicles manufactured in more than one
manufacturers will likely install head abdominal force on the rear seat dummy stage, and vehicle alterers. Reporting
protection systems extending of 4,409 N (proposed limit was between and recordkeeping requirements for
sufficiently toward the A-pillar to 2,400–2,800 N). An examination of the manufacturers to administer
protect the head in the 75-degree passenger compartment interior conformance with the phase-in were
approach angle test. The agency also revealed a protruding armrest of the also proposed.
noted that a 32 km/h (20 mph) oblique Impala that contacted the abdominal
pole test has at least 15 percent more area of the dummy, causing the high B. MDB Test
kinetic energy than an FMVSS No. 201 force reading.
NHTSA proposed that the upgraded
90-degree pole test at 18 mph.23 As discussed in the NPRM, tests of a
2001 Ford Focus and 2002 Chevolet MDB test would be effective
The NPRM also discussed the results
Impala using the SID–IIsFRG in the approximately 4 years after publication
of three full scale oblique pole tests
driver and rear passenger seating of a final rule. The agency tentatively
using the small female dummy on a
positions showed that the Focus almost concluded that a phase-in was
2003 Camry with an air curtain and
fully complied with the proposed MDB unnecessary because the requirements
thorax bag, a 2000 Saab 9–5 with a
combination bag, and a 2002 Ford test requirements. Only the pelvic force could be met by padding and simple
Explorer (see Table 2 of Appendix C). for the driver dummy was exceeded in redesigns of the armrest area. This
The agency stated that in the NPRM that the test, which was attributed to an contrasted with the agency’s belief
the HIC36 values generally exceeded the intruding armrest. The Impala was able about the vehicle changes entailed by
1,000 limit, and pelvic forces exceeded to meet all of the driver injury criteria the oblique pole test. Comments were
the proposed 5,100 N limit. In contrast, but failed to meet the limits on lower requested on whether a phase in for the
a 2003 Camry whose air curtain and spine acceleration and pelvic force for MDB test was appropriate.
thorax bags were remotely fired at 11 the SID–IIs in the rear seat, due to an b. NPRMs on 49 CFR Part 572
armrest design. As discussed in the
22 Under the FMVSS No. 201 seating procedure, NPRM, in an MDB test of a 2001 Buick The agency issued notices of
the dummy’s head is positioned such that the point Le Sabre equipped with a front seat proposed rulemaking to add the
at the intersection of the rear surface of its head and
a horizontal line parallel to the longitudinal
thorax side air bag, the vehicle met all specifications and performance
centerline of the vehicle passing through the head’s the proposed criteria for both the front requirements for the ES–2re dummy and
center of gravity is at least 50 mm (2 in) forward and rear seat dummies. for the SID–IIs dummy into the agency’s
of the front edge of the B-pillar. If needed, the seat
back angle is adjusted, a maximum of 5 degrees, 3. Lead Time regulation on anthropomorphic test
until the 50 mm (2 in) B-pillar clearance is devices (49 CFR part 572). The NPRM
achieved. If this is not sufficient to produce the A. Oblique Pole Test on the ES–2re dummy was published on
desired clearance, the seat is moved forward to The agency proposed a lead time September 15, 2004 (69 FR 55550;
achieve that result.
23 Test results using the FMVSS No. 201 pole test thought to be sufficient to ensure that Docket 18864), and the NPRM on the
procedures were presented in the NPRM, 69 FR at compliance would be practicable, while SID–IIs was published on December 8,
28008. seeking to make sure that the benefits of 2004 (69 FR 70947, Docket 18865).
c. Comment Periods Reopened Until Later, the Alliance petitioned to SID–IIs (5th percentile female) and the
April 12, 2005; Request for Comment extend the comment period for the ES–2re (50th percentile male) test
On January 12, 2005, NHTSA December 8, 2004 NPRM on adding the dummies. Three of the 13 were tested
reopened the comment period for the SID–IIs 5th percentile female test with just the ES–2re test dummy. Seven
May 17, 2004 NPRM on FMVSS No. 214 dummy to 49 CFR Part 572, which was of the 13 were tested also to the MDB
and for the September 15, 2004 NPRM scheduled to close on March 8, 2005. tests using the SID–IIs and the ES–2re
adding the ES–2re 50th percentile adult NHTSA agreed to extend the comment test dummies. One vehicle model was
male dummy to 49 CFR Part 572 (70 FR period for that NPRM to April 12, 2005, tested only to an MDB test using the
2105; Dockets 17694 and 18864). That to align the comment closing date for SID–IIs (5th percentile female) test
action responded to a petition from the that NPRM with the comment closing dummy. (See Table 3, ‘‘Test Matrix.’’)
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers dates for the NPRMs on FMVSS No. 214
and the ES–2re (70 FR 11189; March 8, The agency selected vehicles that
that requested an additional 8 months to
2005; Docket 18865). represented different vehicle classes
submit comments. NHTSA determined
comprising the current vehicle fleet. Six
that a 90-day extension of time was IV. NHTSA 214 Fleet Testing Program
sufficient and that an 8-month extension rated a ‘‘Good’’ or ‘‘Acceptable’’ score in
was unwarranted and contrary to the In 2005, the agency conducted a 214 IIHS’s side impact consumer rating
public interest. The January 2005 fleet testing program, a series of side program,24 three rated a ‘‘Poor,’’ and all
document also requested comments on impact crash tests to obtain information had head curtains or combination side
an addendum to an initial regulatory on how current vehicles performed in impact air bags. Six of the vehicles had
flexibility analysis (IRFA) relating to the the oblique pole and MDB tests with the a combination of both a head curtain air
NPRM on the oblique pole test. The SID–IIs and ES–2re test dummies, and, bag and an additional torso air bag in
addendum to the IRFA discussed the in turn, on how the dummies performed the front seating positions. Four had
economic impacts of the proposed rule in the full vehicle crash tests. Fourteen only a head curtain air bag. Four
on small vehicle manufacturers. The vehicle models were tested. Thirteen vehicles had a seat-mounted head and
comment periods were reopened until models were evaluated in the pole test, torso combination air bag system, two of
April 12, 2005. 10 of these 13 were tested with both the which were convertibles.
TABLE 3.—TEST MATRIX

Side air bag type: Oblique pole FMVSS No. 214
AC=air curtain; MDB
Vehicles (model year 2005 unless Comb=head/chest Vehicle class/weight
noted) SIAB; SID–IIs ES–2rd
Th=thorax or chest SID–IIs ES–2re
SIAB
Toyota Corolla ................................. AC + Th ................. Light PC ......................................... √ √ √ √

VW Jetta ......................................... AC + Th ................. Compact PC ................................... √ √ √ √
Saturn Ion ....................................... AC .......................... Compact PC ................................... √ √ √ √
Honda Accord* ................................ AC + Th ................. Medium .......................................... √ √ √ √
Suzuki Forenza ............................... Comb ..................... Compact PC ................................... ................ ................ √ ................
Beetle Convertible ........................... Comb ..................... Medium .......................................... ................ √ ................ ................
Saab 9–3 Convertible ..................... Comb ..................... Medium .......................................... ................ √ ................ ................
Ford 500 .......................................... AC + Th ................. Heavy PC ....................................... √ √ √ √
Toyota Sienna* ............................... AC + Th ................. Minivan ........................................... √ √ ................ ................
Subaru Forester .............................. Comb ..................... Small sport utility vehicle (SUV) √ √ √ √
(certified PC) Curb wt=3143 lb
(medium PC).
Honda CRV ..................................... AC + Th ................. Small SUV ...................................... √ √ √ √
Chevy Colorado (4x2 Ext. Cab) ...... AC .......................... Small Pickup .................................. √ √ ................ ................
Ford Expedition ............................... AC .......................... Large SUV ..................................... √ √ ................ ................
Dodge 2500 (Reg Cab) .................. AC .......................... Large Pickup .................................. ................ √ ................ ................
* 2004 Vehicles.
** Vehicles were categorized by their curb weight.
Light passenger car (PC) = (907–1.133 A detailed summary of the results of Oblique Pole Test With SID–IIs
kg) or (2,000–2,499 lb). the test program is set forth in NHTSA’s
Compact PC = (1,134–1,360 kg) or technical report of the test program, As discussed in the test report, 10 of
(2,500–2,999 lb). ‘‘NHTSA Fleet Testing for FMVSS No. the vehicles in the matrix were tested
Medium PC = (1,361–1,587 kg) or 214 Upgrade MY 2004–2005,’’ April with the SID–IIs dummy in the oblique
(3,000–3,499 lb). 2006, (Docket 25441, items 9 and 11). pole test. The test results are presented
Heavy PC = (1,588 kg or more) or Key findings of the test program are in Table 4. Thoracic and abdominal rib
(3,500 lb or more). highlighted below. deflections were monitored.
24 IIHS’s side impact consumer information
program ranks vehicles based on performance when

impacted perpendicularly by a moving barrier at
about 30 mph. http://www.iihs.org/ratings/
side_test_info.html.
TABLE 4.—OBLIQUE POLE TEST RESULTS—SID–IIS DUMMY

Thorax Abdominal
Lower spine Pelvic force deflection deflection
Driver HIC36 (Gs) (N) (mm) (mm)
(monitored) (monitored)
Proposed Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARVs) ... 1000 82 ** 5,525 38 45

Toyota Corolla ...................................................................... 418 70 *** 47 49
VW Jetta .............................................................................. 478 54 7876 33 34
Saturn Ion ............................................................................ 5203 110 5755 32 52
Honda Accord* ..................................................................... 567 63 10848 31 30
Ford Five Hundred ............................................................... 1173 92 6542 37 57
Toyota Sienna* .................................................................... 2019 67 6956 46 58
Subaru Forester ................................................................... 160 55 4707 31 45
Honda CRV .......................................................................... 531 68 4670 26 36
Chevy Colorado 4x2 ext cab ............................................... 896 135 9387 31 59
Ford Expedition .................................................................... 5661 96 8249 35 53
* MY2004.
** See Section VI.d.4.B of this preamble for a discussion of why we increased the proposed 5,100 N requirement to 5,525 N.
*** No data.
Most of the tested vehicles will need The Saturn Ion, Ford Expedition, and information program). In all of these
some design improvements to be the Toyota Sienna’s side curtain air bag tests, the lower spine acceleration
certified as meeting the injury criteria deployed but the SID–IIs dummy’s head values were also elevated (exceeding 82
limits for HIC, lower spine acceleration hit the front edge of the curtain’s front g or within 80 percent of 82 g (i.e., 66
and/or pelvic force adopted by this final pocket or tethered portion of the g)). The 6 tests were of the: 2005 Toyota
rule. Some vehicles will need more curtain, which was not inflated so as to Corolla, 2005 Saturn Ion, 2005 Ford
redesign than others. Some vehicles cushion the impact. Five Hundred, 2004/05 Toyota Sienna,
produced HIC, lower spine acceleration The Ford Five Hundred had a head 2005 Chevy Colorado 4x2 extended cab,
and/or pelvic force values that were curtain and a thorax bag. It appears from and the 2005 Ford Expedition.
greater than the injury assessment test film that the Ford Five Hundred’s
Pelvic Force (SID–IIs in the Pole Test)
reference values (IARVs) of this final sensor deployed the curtain at
rule, while others were within the approximately 85 ms after time zero, Seven of the 10 vehicles exceeded
values but were close to the margin. For while the dummy’s head hit the pole at 5,525 N (one vehicle lost data
purposes of evaluating the current the front edge of the curtain at completely). The Honda Accord and the
performance of these tested vehicles in approximately 60 ms after time zero. Volkswagen (VW) Jetta exceeded 5,525
relation to the IARVs of this final rule, The same four vehicles produced N, yet had relatively lower numbers for
we identified ‘‘elevated’’ values to be relatively good HIC scores with the ES– the other injury criteria.
those that were within 80 percent of an 2re dummy in the oblique pole test.
Oblique Pole Test With ES–2re
IARV. The Subaru Forester and Honda Lower Spine Acceleration (SID–IIs in Thirteen tests were performed with
CRV were the only vehicles that were the Pole Test) the ES–2re dummy in the driver’s
below the IARVs,25 but even these The lower spine acceleration readings seating position. Data from the tests are
vehicles had lower spine acceleration were generally consistent with the SID– set forth in Table 5. The data were
and/or pelvic loads that were elevated IIs’s rib deflections. Two of the 10 analyzed assuming a 44 mm limit on rib
(in excess of 80 percent of the IARVs). vehicle tests with the SID–IIs resulted in deflection and a 2,500 N limit for
HIC (SID–IIs in the Pole Test) rib deflection measurements exceeding abdominal force. Four vehicles
38 mm for the thoracic rib (which produced results that were less than all
Four of the 10 vehicles tested with the corresponds to a 50 percent risk of AIS of the injury assessment reference
SID–IIs (40 percent) exceeded HIC 1000: 3+ injury). Six out of 10 exceeded 45 values: the VW Jetta, VW Beetle
the Saturn Ion, Ford Five Hundred, mm for the abdominal rib (45 mm is convertible, Saab 9–3 convertible and
Toyota Sienna, and Ford Expedition. used by IIHS in its consumer the Honda Accord.
TABLE 5.—ES–2RE OBLIQUE POLE RESULTS

Thorax Lower
Abdominal Pelvic force
Driver HIC 36 deflection spine (G’s)
force (N) (N)
(mm) (monitored)
Proposed IARVs .................................................................. 1000 44 2500 6000 82

Toyota Corolla ...................................................................... 473 50 1178 3041 65
VW Jetta .............................................................................. 652 36 1663 3372 60
Saturn Ion ............................................................................ 806 50 1494 1585 76
Honda Accord ...................................................................... 446 31 1397 2463 52
VW Beetle Convertible ......................................................... 315 37 1018 3815 69
Saab 93 Convertible ............................................................ 254 40 841 2914 49

Ford 500 ............................................................................... 422 35 3020 2133 68
25 The Toyota Corolla was also below the IARVs, data were not available in the test. Like the Subaru Forester and Honda CRV, the lower spine
for the data collected. However, the pelvic force acceleration was elevated in the test.
TABLE 5.—ES–2RE OBLIQUE POLE RESULTS—Continued

Thorax Lower
Abdominal Pelvic force
Driver HIC 36 deflection spine (G’s)
force (N) (N)
(mm) (monitored)
Toyota Sienna ...................................................................... 667 47 1751 2127 60

Subaru Forester ................................................................... 2054 43 1377 2291 46
Honda CRV .......................................................................... 639 50 929 903 53
Chevy Colorado 4x2 ext cab ............................................... 785 46 2655 3373 90
Ford Expedition .................................................................... 689 26 6973 2575 75
Dodge Ram 2500 (GVWR 8800)* ....................................... 5748 47 1846 ** 86
* Air bag did not deploy.
** No data.
HIC (ES–2re in the Pole Test) Accord, VW Beetle convertible, Saab 9– Abdominal Force (ES–2re in the Pole
The tests showed that an effective 3 convertible, the Ford Five Hundred, Test)
inflatable head protection system can be Subaru Forester, and the Ford
Expedition). However, the chest Three vehicles produced abdominal
successful in reducing HIC.
Most HIC values were less than HIC deflection measures for five of these force readings that exceeded 2,500 N
1,000. An exception was the Subaru vehicles (VW Jetta, VW Beetle (the Ford Five Hundred, Chevy
Forester, the test of which resulted in a convertible, Saab 9–3 convertible, Ford Colorado and the Ford Expedition). The
HIC reading of 2,054. This vehicle had Five Hundred, and the Subaru Forester) Chevy Colorado and Ford Expedition
a head and thorax combination air bag were between 35 and 44 mm (i.e., were did not have torso air bags.
that deployed from the vehicle’s seat. In within 80 percent of 44 mm). The VW
Jetta, Honda Accord, and Ford Five MDB Tests With SID–IIs
the test, the air bag was pushed
rearward by the intruding B-pillar and Hundred had a curtain and torso bag. We conducted eight FMVSS No. 214
door structure. As a result, the dummy’s The VW Beetle and Saab 9–3, in MDB tests with the SID–IIs in both the
head hit the pole, causing the HIC of addition to the Subaru Forester, had driver’s seating position and in the left
2,054. combo bags. The Ford Expedition had rear occupant’s seating position. Data
Another exception was the Dodge only a curtain. from the tests are set forth in Table 6
2500, which is the only heavy duty Lower Spine Acceleration (ES–2re in (driver) and Table 7 (rear passenger).
pickup truck with optional side the Pole Test)
curtains. In the pole test, the curtain air The data show that all but three
bag did not deploy, causing the ES–2re The ES–2re’s lower spine acceleration vehicles produced dummy
dummy’s head to hit the pole (HIC readings in the pole test were relatively measurements that were below the
5,748). In a retest using this vehicle consistent with the dummy’s rib proposed IARVs for both the driver and
model in which the air bags were deflection readings. rear occupant. The SID–IIs in the driver
remotely deployed, the HIC was 331. In eleven of the vehicles that seat of the Saturn Ion test measured a
measured high rib deflections exceeding 8,993 N pelvic force. The Saturn Ion
Rib Deflection (ES–2re in the Pole Test) 44 mm or that were within 80 percent was not equipped with a thoracic side
Table 5 shows that six of the vehicles of 44 mm, 5 of these had lower spine bag. It appears from the test film that the
produced chest deflection values greater acceleration values that were also dummy’s pelvis impacted a rigid area at
than 44 mm (the Toyota Corolla, Saturn elevated (exceeding 82 g or within 80 the front part of the Ion’s armrest. The
Ion, Toyota Sienna, Honda CRV, Chevy percent of 82 g). The 5 vehicles were SID–IIs in the rear seat of the Honda
Colorado extended cab pick up, and the the: Saturn Ion, VW Beetle, Ford Five Accord measured 6,917 N in pelvic
Dodge 2500 truck). In another vehicle, Hundred, Chevy Colorado and the force, and the SID–IIs in the rear seat of
the Subaru Forester, the ES–2re Dodge 2500. The Toyota Corolla had an
the Suzuki Forenza measured a 6,557 N
measured 43 mm of chest deflection. elevated lower spine acceleration of 65
pelvic force.
Out of those seven vehicles, three had g. The lower spine acceleration of the
curtains with thorax bags: the Toyota ES–2re was elevated (75 g) in the test of In tests of 4 of the vehicles with the
Corolla, Toyota Sienna and Honda CRV. the Ford Expedition when the dummy’s SID–IIs in the rear, the monitored rib
The Forester had a combination head/ rib deflection was low (26 mm). deflection measurements were high
thorax bag. The Ion, Chevy Colorado However, the lower spine could have (over 38 mm for the thoracic rib and 45
and Dodge 2500 had only a curtain. been detecting the high abdominal force mm for the abdominal rib), and in 2
Seven vehicles produced results that reading on the ES–2re in that test (6,973 vehicles they were within 80 percent of
were under 44 mm (VW Jetta, Honda N). 38 mm or 45 mm.
TABLE 6.—MDB TEST RESULTS USING THE SID–IIS—DRIVER

Thorax Abdominal
Proposed IARVs .................................................................. 1000 82 5525 38 45

Toyota Corolla ...................................................................... 78 59 4655 17 26
VW Jetta .............................................................................. 46 30 2639 12 18
Saturn Ion ............................................................................ 189 53 8993 19 39
Suzuki Forenza .................................................................... 69 53 4948 27 27
TABLE 6.—MDB TEST RESULTS USING THE SID–IIS—DRIVER—Continued

Thorax Abdominal
Honda Accord* ..................................................................... 104 50 4150 20 22

Ford 500 ............................................................................... 46 31 2140 16 25
Subaru Forrester .................................................................. 43 37 3066 11 11
Honda CRV .......................................................................... 38 32 1350 16 8
* MY 2004.
TABLE 7.—MDB TEST RESULTS USING THE SID–IIS—LEFT REAR PASSENGER

Thorax Abdominal
Lower spine Pelvic force deflections deflections
Passenger HIC36 (Gs) (N) (mm) (mm)
Proposed IARVs .................................................................. 1000 82 5525 38 45

Toyota Corolla ...................................................................... 330 57 3182 35 33
VW Jetta .............................................................................. 103 52 3026 49 43
Saturn Ion ............................................................................ 220 73 3964 47 52
Suzuki Forenza .................................................................... 773 73 6557 41 46
Honda Accord* ..................................................................... 298 57 6917 30 32
Ford 500 ............................................................................... 216 42 2925 45 46
Honda CRV .......................................................................... 107 56 3149 37 40
* MY 2004.
MDB Test With ES–2re driver’s seating position and in the left tests, above. Data from the tests are set
rear occupant’s seating position. The forth in Tables 8 and 9. The dummy
We conducted seven FMVSS No. 214 vehicle models were the same ones that responses were low relative to the
MDB tests with the ES–2re in both the were tested with the SID–IIs in the MDB IARVs.
TABLE 8.—ES–2RE MDB TEST RESULTS—DRIVER

Thorax Abdominal Pubic symph. Lower spine
Driver HIC36 deflection force force (G’s)
(mm) (N) (N) (monitored)
Proposed IARVs .................................................................. 1000 44 2500 6000 82

Toyota Corolla ...................................................................... 73 25 722 3223 40
VW Jetta .............................................................................. 101 26 733 1969 28
Saturn Ion ............................................................................ 110 29 1524 2431 52
Honda Accord ...................................................................... 109 37 557 1983 38
Ford 500 ............................................................................... 66 25 1006 1176 35
Honda CRV .......................................................................... 100 35 524 1137 31
TABLE 9.—ES–2RE MDB TEST RESULTS—REAR PASSENGER

Thorax Abdominal Pubic symph. Lower spine
Passenger HIC36 deflection force force (G’s)
(mm) (N) (N) (monitored)
Proposed IARVs .................................................................. 1000 44 2500 6000 82

Toyota Corolla ...................................................................... 248 20 1355 2771 58
VW Jetta .............................................................................. 211 29 1378 2542 53
Saturn Ion ............................................................................ 168 27 1511 2275 47
Honda Accord ...................................................................... 223 23 810 2405 53
Ford 500 ............................................................................... 213 25 1649 1407 44
Honda CRV .......................................................................... 126 5 1192 1847 33
General Observations • Overall, currently installed side effective in mitigating head

impact head protection systems (HPS) accelerations, resulting in low to
NHTSA has made the following consisting of an air curtain or moderate HIC readings for the ES–2re
general observations from the agency’s combination head/thorax air bag were and SID–IIs dummies in both MDB and
214 fleet testing program.
oblique pole tests. Vehicles equipped V. Summary of Comments marked by the Alliance submitting,
with well-designed combo bags, and air This section provides an overview of concurrently with its comment on the
curtains that extend toward the A-pillar the significant comments to the FMVSS No. 214 NPRM, a petition for
when inflated, generally were the better proposal to upgrade FMVSS No. 214. rulemaking asking NHTSA to initiate
performers in the oblique pole tests. All together, NHTSA received 35 rulemaking to incorporate WorldSID
• Some currently installed side comments to the proposal to upgrade into Part 572 and to use the dummy in
impact HPS that provide relatively low FMVSS No. 214.26 Commenters the upgrade of FMVSS No. 214 (NHTSA
head protection response values to the included— Docket 17252). The Alliance further
SID–IIs driver dummy in the MDB test Vehicle manufacturers and/or vehicle suggested that, prior to use of WorldSID,
do not necessarily provide the same low manufacturer associations (the Alliance the ES–2 dummy should be used
level head responses in the oblique pole of Automobile Manufacturers (without the rib extensions), and only to
test. (Alliance 27), American Honda Motor the extent of protecting the head. The
Co., Inc. (Honda), the Association of Alliance believed that there was no
• In the oblique pole tests, vehicles safety need for the 5th percentile SID–
that provided adequate protection for International Automobile
Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM 28), Nissan IIs adult female crash test dummy in the
the ES–2re do not necessarily provide proposed pole and MDB tests. No
the same level of protection for the SID– North America, Inc. (Nissan), Lotus
Engineering (Lotus), Ferrari SpA commenter supported the floating rib
IIs. The data show the importance of guide modifications proposed by
using more than one size test dummy to (Ferrari), Maserati SpA (Maserati), the
Recreation Vehicle Industry NHTSA for the SID–IIs dummy.
evaluate the overall performance of a Air bag supplier Autoliv supported
vehicle in providing head protection to Association, Inc. (RVIA), Specialty
Equipment Market Association (SEMA), use of the ES–2re in tests and supported
occupants in the oblique pole test mode. use of the 32 km/h (20 mph) test speed
the National Mobility Equipment
• In oblique pole tests using the SID– Dealers Association (NMEDA) and the in the oblique pole test. Autoliv stated
IIs, most vehicles produced pelvic force National Truck Equipment Association that NHTSA was correct in its belief that
readings above the proposed criterion. (NTEA)); an oblique pole test will encourage
In the MDB tests with the SID–IIs seated Air bag equipment suppliers (Autoliv larger bags than a perpendicular pole
in the driver’s position, only one vehicle and TRW); test. Air bag supplier TRW believed that
produced a pelvic force greater than Research groups (IIHS), the adoption of the NPRM will result in
5,525 N. All other vehicles subjected to International Harmonized Research substantial reductions in injuries and
the MDB test with the SID–IIs seated in Activities (IHRA) Side Impact Working severity in side impacts. TRW stated
the driver’s position had pelvic force Group (SIWG); that technology exists to meet the
readings below 5,525 N. Consumer groups (Advocates for proposed requirements of the NPRM
• The SID–IIs in the rear seats of Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), within the timeframe and that it saw no
vehicles subjected to the MDB test had Public Citizen, and Consumers Union); major issues with the proposed test
elevated thoracic and/or abdominal rib And private individuals. conditions. TRW believed that systems
deflections that were not observed in designed to meet the proposed
Overview of the Comments requirements could have acceptable
MDB tests of those same vehicles with
the ES–2re in the rear seats. The vehicle manufacturers supported performance in out-of-position
• The results of oblique pole tests in enhancing side impact protection but situations.
which the air curtain did not deploy or had concerns about how the proposed Vehicle manufacturers raised issues
deployed later in the event indicate rulemaking would comport with the or had questions about aspects of
needed air bag sensor improvement. initiatives they have already undertaken conducting the proposed test procedure
or agreed to undertake towards that goal for the oblique pole test. The Alliance
• The convertibles equipped with (e.g., the ‘‘voluntary commitment’’ of supported the 75-degree angle of the
head/thorax combination air bags major automakers in the U.S. to phase test, but suggested that the test speed
produced measurements that were in side air bags for drivers in vehicles should be bounded at 26 km/h to 32
below the proposed injury criteria, up to 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) GVWR). The km/h (16 to 20 mph) (the NPRM
demonstrating the effectiveness and vehicle manufacturers strongly proposed that the test would be
feasibility of these HPS for convertible supported the incorporation of conducted at any speed up to and
body types. WorldSID 29 into FMVSS No. 214, including 32 km/h (20 mph)). Maserati
• Some vehicles that received ‘‘Good’’ and Ferrari supported the 90 degree 29
or ‘‘Acceptable’’ ratings from IIHS for 26 The NPRMs proposing to add the ES–2re and
km/h (18 mph) pole test used in the
the rear passenger exceeded proposed SID–IIs dummy specifications to 49 CFR part 572 European New Car Assessment Program
each received comments separately from the
IARVs in our MDB tests using the SID– FMVSS No. 214 NPRM. Those comments are (Euro NCAP). The IHRA SIWG
IIs. addressed in full in final rules that were published expressed concern about the NPRM
• The vehicles that were tested with separately from this document and are discussed preempting the outcome of international
here to the extent relevant to the FMVSS No. 214 deliberations of the SIWG regarding the
the ES–2re that produced dummy final rule.
readings below the proposed IARVs in 27 The Alliance is made up of BMW group, side impact pole test procedure. Vehicle
the pole and MDB tests were: 2004 DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, General manufacturers also commented on
Honda Accord, 2005 Volkswagen Jetta, Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota, technical aspects of the test procedure,
and Volkswagen. such as how the vehicle seat should be
2005 Volkswagen Beetle Convertible, 28 AIAM Technical Affairs Committee members
and the 2005 Saab 93 Convertible. The positioned along the seat track, where
are: Aston Martin, Ferrari/Maserati, Honda,
vehicles that were tested with the SID– Hyundai, Isuzu, Kia, Nissan, Peugeot, Renault, on the pole the vehicle should impact;
IIs that produced readings below the Subaru, Suzuki, Bosch, Delphi, Denso, and Hitachi.
29 WorldSID is considered by industry to be the Docket No. 2000–17252). This future dummy is
proposed IARVs in the pole and MDB
next-generation 50th percentile male side impact believed by its developers to have better biofidelity
tests were: 2005 Toyota Corolla, 2005 dummy. It was developed by industry than existing dummies, and is intended to better
Subaru Forester and the 2005 Honda representatives from the U.S., Europe and Japan and predict a wider range of injury potential in side
CRV. by the European and Japanese governments (see impact testing than current dummies.
and how the test dummies and head installed products interact with of the midsize male in side impacts. In
restraints should be positioned. equipment or systems used by vehicle this interim period while the WorldSID
Consumer groups generally supported manufacturers to meet the FMVSS No. continues to be evaluated, IIHS
the proposed rule, but suggested that the 214 requirements. supported the ES–2re over the SID and
agency should adopt further In October 2006, to estimate the costs SID–H3 dummies because of the
requirements. Advocates, Consumers and benefits of the final rule, NHTSA improved biofidelity of the ES–2re and
Union, and Public Citizen wanted more sent letters asking vehicle the more sensitive information the ES–
stringent injury criteria limits than those manufacturers to submit voluntarily 2re can provide on rib deflection
proposed (e.g., HIC of 800), and information on the installation of side characteristics and pelvic loading.
recommended extending the oblique air bags in present and future vehicles. Autoliv also supported the ES–2re’s
pole test to rear seating positions. Information was received from seven replacing the SID–H3 dummy, based on
Comments were also received on the manufacturers, whose information the improved biofidelity of the proposed
types of vehicles that should be related to about 90 percent of light dummy and the tendency toward closer
excluded from the pole test, and on the vehicle sales. harmonization with other global test
lead time needed to comply with the requirements. ‘‘Using the same test
proposed oblique pole test and with the VI. Response to the Comments
dummy globally would allow
changes to the MDB test. Nissan a. Critical Decisions manufacturers to focus on optimizing
submitted test data 30 of one small We made several critical decisions in the air bag design to the performance
vehicle and two mid-size vehicles tested our analysis of the comments. These requirements of the more biofidelic
according to the proposed test decisions were critical in defining the dummy.’’
procedures for the oblique pole test and safety problem, the test dummies that
MDB test. The commenter said that the A. We Are Denying the Alliance’s
should be used to address the safety WorldSID Petition
data indicate that curtain air bags may problem, and the crash tests that should
be needed in some vehicles to meet the be used to evaluate measures to We are denying the Alliance’s petition
pole test requirements, and that some for rulemaking because the WorldSID is
ameliorate the safety problem.
vehicles could need a full redesign of not ready for use in Federal regulations,
Specifically, these decisions pertained
the door structure, including the nor has it been established that it has
to:
modification or addition of air bags, to Which test dummy should be used to achieved a completed design allowing a
meet the MDB test requirements. Nissan represent the mid-size male; full assessment of the dummy’s
requested that the MDB test Whether the standard should limit potential use in FMVSS No. 214. The
requirements be phased-in along the more than HIC; and WorldSID committee has been
same schedule that would be Whether FMVSS No. 214 should use modifying the dummy’s design,
implemented for the pole test, and that a small female dummy in the pole and including modifications to the dummy’s
both phase-ins be over a 4-year rather MDB tests. ribs (June/July 2006), to address
than 3-year period. These decisions are discussed in this durability and other problems that
Comments were also received on section. NHTSA found during the agency’s
NHTSA’s Preliminary Economic evaluation of the dummy.
Assessment (PEA), which analyzed the 1. 50th Percentile Male Dummy NHTSA has been working with the
costs and benefits and other impacts of The Alliance, AIAM, IIHS, Honda, WorldSID committee to evaluate the
the proposed rule. Maserati and Ferrari Maserati, Ferrari, Advocates, and functionality of the dummy as a
believed that NHTSA underestimated Autoliv commented on the proposal to potential research and compliance test
their costs to comply with the proposed use the ES–2re test dummy to represent device. We undertook a three-phase
rule. The Alliance believed that: In the mid-size male occupant. Generally, program to evaluate the dummy’s
estimating benefits, we should have the vehicle manufacturers opposed the repeatability, durability and usefulness.
identified as the target population all ES–2re, preferring instead the The program consisted of: (a)
potentially injured occupants of WorldSID. In its petition for rulemaking, Laboratory-based anthropometry, mass,
relatively modern vehicles for whom the the Alliance asked NHTSA to consider instrumentation and extensive
countermeasures are designed; that the adopting the WorldSID into Part 572 subsystem evaluations; (b) sled tests;
proposed changes to the MDB test and using the dummy in the phase-in of and (c) vehicle crash tests. During phase
should have a benefits estimate; that we the pole test requirements.31 The (a) of the program (the subsystem
did not demonstrate the practicability of Alliance stated that WorldSlD would evaluation), we observed cracking of rib
meeting the proposed test requirements, further enhance occupant protection damping material, which led to several
in that ‘‘no one single vehicle has been and the international harmonization of modifications of the rib design by the
subjected to the entire suite of proposed safety standards. WorldSID committee. The committee
crash tests’’; and that the principles set However, other commenters sent the revised ribs to NHTSA in
forth in the Data Quality Act were not acknowledged that WorldSID is not yet August 2006 for evaluation in the
met (the commenter believed that some ready for use in a safety standard. IIHS agency test program. During evaluation
of the data in the PEA had errors and said that while WorldSID might be more of the rib modifications, concerns over
that the PEA contained some biofidelic than any other existing the pelvis design arose when it was
unsupported assumptions). The dummy, ‘‘developmental testing is not observed that the pelvis wing contacted
Specialty Equipment Market complete on the new, state-of-the art on onboard data acquisition component
Association (SEMA) stated that dummy, and therefore the time is not mounted below the lumbar spine. The
‘‘aftermarket equipment manufacturers ripe for its inclusion in rulemaking.’’ agency and the WorldSID committee are
and other entities that diagnose, service, IIHS did not believe that WorldSID was presently evaluating modifications to
repair and upgrade motor vehicles’’ may necessary in order for the agency to the pelvis design to eliminate this
be affected by the final rule if their increase the requirements for protection problem.
Once the pelvis modifications can be
30 Submitted under a request for confidential 31 http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf91/ evaluated and the internal contact issue
treatment. 325474_web.pdf has been resolved, NHTSA will resume
evaluation of the modifications to the Chevrolet Impala at the dummy’s was responsible for the ‘‘grabbing’’
ribs. However, because we cannot know abdominal area that was caused by an effects. Test data show that the rib
at this point what the outcome of the intruding armrest. Because the SID does extensions reduced the back plate
evaluation will be and because we will not measure abdominal force, this grabbing force to insignificant amounts
not know the outcome for a potential injury risk will be newly in vehicle side impact tests that had
considerable period of time, we are detected by the ES–2re. Accordingly, previously yielded large back plate
denying the Alliance’s petition. If the this final rule adopts the ES–2re for the loads with the ES–2. The rib extensions
evaluation indicates that the WorldSID pole test and for testing the front seat of did not affect rib deflection responses in
design is complete, the agency will then vehicles in FMVSS No. 214’s MDB test. tests of vehicles that had not originally
consider whether rulemaking should be yielded high back plate loads.
undertaken 32 to possibly incorporate C. The ES–2re Is an Improvement Over The biofidelity, repeatability,
use of the dummy as a test device the ES–2 reproducibility, and other aspects of the
during the phase-in period of the The Alliance supported the ES–2 as a ES–2re are discussed at length in the
requirements adopted today. In the temporary alternative test device, agency’s December 14, 2006 final rule
meantime, advancements in occupant pending the availability of WorldSID. adopting the ES–2re into 49 CFR part
protection can be achieved today by The Alliance supported the ES–2 572 (see Docket 25441). With regard to
upgrading the side impact dummy used because the dummy is already Toyota’s and the Alliance’s comment 34
in FMVSS No. 214 to the ES–2re, implemented in both EuroNCAP and the that the rib extensions reduced the ISO-
without waiting for a future test UN ECE-regulation 95.02 Supplement 1, based biofidelity assessment of the ES–
dummy. i.e., ‘‘at least the ES–2 is harmonized 2 from 4.6 to 4.3, or from ‘‘fair’’ to
with Europe and already in widespread ‘‘marginal,’’ we conclude that the
B. The Side Impact Dummy Should Be reduced ISO rating is an acceptable
use.’’ The Alliance stated that OSRP
Upgraded Now to the ES–2re Without outcome of having the rib extensions.
Further Delay gave the ES–2 a biofidelity rating of 4.6
and the ES–2re an overall rating of 4.3 The back plate loading problem of the
The technology of the ES–2re using the ISO-based ranking. (In the ISO ES–2 renders the ES–2 non-lifelike. If
represents a significant advance over the ranking system, a dummy with a higher the rib extensions reduce slightly the
SID dummy. The ES–2re has enhanced value is considered more biofidelic than ISO biofidelity rating but enables
injury assessment capabilities compared one with a lower value.) NHTSA to use a dummy that has the
to devices existing today, which allows The ES–2re is more appropriate for measurement capabilities of the ES–2
for a fuller assessment of the types and use in FMVSS No. 214 than the ES–2 and no back plate loading problem, we
magnitudes of the injuries occurring in dummy. As explained in the May 2004 conclude that the lower rating is
side impacts and of the efficacy of NPRM and in the rulemaking acceptable. We note that the ISO rating
countermeasures in improving occupant incorporating the ES–2re into 49 CFR represents an improvement over the
protection. The ES–2re dummy has part 572,33 the ES–2 dummy has a SID, which received a rating of 2.3
provisions for instrumentation that can deficiency that limits its usefulness in (Byrnes, et al., ‘‘ES–2 Dummy
assess the potential for head injury (it FMVSS No. 214. The agency determined Biomechanical Responses,’’ 2002, Stapp
measures the resultant head that, in a number of vehicle crash tests, Car Crash Journal, Vol. 46, #2002–22–
acceleration, which is used to calculate the back plate of the ES–2’s upper torso 0014, p. 353). The ES–2re biofidelity
the Head Injury Criterion (HIC)) and grabbed into the seat back of the vehicle, rating also compares favorably to that of
thoracic injuries in terms of rib which lowered the rib deflections the SID–H3, which received an overall
deflections and spine and rib measured by the dummy. (‘‘Design, rating of 3.8. Both the SID and SID–H3
accelerations. Chest deflection has been Development, and Evaluation of the ES– have performed well in driving the
shown to be the best predictor of 2re Side Crash Test Dummy,’’ May installation of life-saving
thoracic injuries in low-speed side 2004, NHTSA Docket No. 17694–11.) countermeasures that have substantially
impact crashes. It is a better injury risk This ‘‘back plate grabbing’’ problem improved the safety of occupants in side
measure than TTI(d) (a chest has long existed in the ES–2 line of impacts.35
acceleration-based criterion measured dummies. Although efforts were In short, we cannot accept the ES–2
by SID). The ES–2re can also assess the undertaken to address the problem in test dummy because of the back plate
risk of abdominal injuries through three dummies preceding the ES–2, the back loading problem. With the rib
load cells to assess the magnitude of plate grabbing problem has continued extensions of the ES–2re, the back plate
lateral and oblique forces, and the risk with the ES–2. Back plate grabbing has loading problem is solved. The ES–2re
of pubic symphysis injuries by way of been seen within the ES–2 in the non- will enhance levels of side impact
load cell measurements, as well as governmental European New Car protection provided by FMVSS No. 214.
pelvis acceleration. Assessment Program (EuroNCAP) on The enhancements will be seen in
The more advanced test dummy vehicles produced in the near term,
side impact. EuroNCAP accounts for the
makes possible a more complete regardless of the future assessment of
problem by adjusting downward the
assessment of vehicle performance in WorldSID.
consumer rating scores of vehicles when
side impacts, which, together with
back plate grabbing is deemed to have
appropriate injury assessment criteria, 34 The commenters neither provided reference to
occurred.
will lead to greatly enhanced side a published report nor provided supporting data
The ES–2re has rib extensions that
impact protection for occupants. In an related to the claim that the overall ISO score for
solve the back plate grabbing problem of the ES–2re is 4.3. The absence of foundation for the
MDB test described in the May 2004
the ES–2. The rib extensions provide a comment limits our ability to respond.
NPRM (69 FR at 28010), the ES–2re
continuous loading surface that nearly 35 The ES–2re also has improved injury
detected a high abdominal force in the assessment capability compared to the SID and
encircles the thorax and encloses the
SID–H3 mid-size male dummies. The ES–2re

32 The suitability of WorldSID for use in FMVSS
posterior gap of the ES–2 ribcage that dummy will enhance the protection afforded by
No. 214 and as a part 572 test device would vehicles to the affecting population, especially
ultimately be determined through notice-and- 33 NPRM at 69 FR 55550, September 15, 2004, those represented by a 50th percentile male
comment rulemaking, in accordance with statutory Docket 18864; final rule at 71 FR 75304, December dummy. Thus, this final rule adopts the ES–2re and
criteria. 14, 2006, Docket 25441. not the SID or the SID–H3 dummies.
D. The ES–2re Should Measure More seating position were almost identical in in the MDB test). This indicates a
Than HIC the oblique and perpendicular pole localized loading through the abdomen
The Alliance suggested that the mid- tests. The rib deflections of the for the Impala passenger (resulting in an
size male dummy in the upgraded dummies were consistent in time and off-loading condition for the chest and,
requirements of FMVSS No. 214 should were of similar magnitude. There was thus, much lower rib deflection
measure only HIC. While supporting the no indication of flat-topping, binding or measurements as compared to the driver
ES–2 over the ES–2re, the Alliance distortion of the deflection signal due to dummy). For the Accord, the passenger
stated that both test dummies have oblique loading. In addition, T1 driver abdominal force was larger than the
design features that affect the dummies’ lateral acceleration was consistent and driver abdominal force, but the
thoracic responses and the resulting rib did not show differences between difference could be attributed to the side
oblique and perpendicular impacts. (See air bag in the driver position.
deflection measurements. According to
‘‘Lateral vs. Oblique Impacts of the ES– The Alliance contended that the ES–
the commenter, the ‘‘limited stroke 2re’s shoulder has a biomechanical flaw
2 Dummy in Pole and MDB Tests,’’
piston/cylinder mechanism’’ of the in that the shoulder moves forward
April 2006, a copy of which is in Docket
dummies can bind in a lateral impact, relative to the rest of the dummy, while,
25441).
and the ‘‘binding potential is further Both the lower spine accelerations according to the commenter, the
compounded as the lateral impact (T12) and the summed abdominal forces WorldSID dummy’s shoulder moves
becomes more oblique.’’ for the driver ES–2re were higher in the rearward. The Alliance believes that a
The Alliance also stated that both the oblique pole test configuration. rearward motion is consistent with that
ES–2 and ES–2re dummies incorporate However, the oblique pole test was run exhibited by post mortem human
a shoulder design that makes the at a higher impact speed than the subjects (PMHS) in rigid impactor tests.
kinematics of the dummy unlike that of perpendicular test (20 mph versus 18 The commenter did not demonstrate the
a cadaver. The commenter stated that mph), which likely increased the relevance to this rulemaking of
the human shoulder compresses inward measurements. Also, in the oblique pole movement of the dummy’s shoulder
and moves slightly rearward in impacts test, the lower part of the dummy torso frontward or rearward. Use of the
from the front or side, while the appears to be loaded earlier in the crash dummy in vehicle crash tests has
dummies’ shoulders are designed to event than in a perpendicular test, indicated no detrimental effects due to
rotate forward, preventing the arm from which indicates that the T12 and shoulder design, such as rib flat-topping
interacting with intruding structures. abdominal forces could be higher or distortion of signals, showing that the
The Alliance stated, ‘‘In full-scale because initial loading is more through shoulder has reached its limit for range
vehicle tests, the WorldSID shoulder the lower part of the torso. of motion or has otherwise performed
deflects laterally inward replicating a We also analyzed the measurements unacceptably due to a forward motion of
more human like response.’’ of the ES–2re in FMVSS No. 214 MDB the clavicles.
Additionally, the Alliance believed tests of a 2001 Ford Focus, 2002 In conclusion, the data show that
that the ES–2 and ES–2re dummies— Chevolet Impala equipped with a combo there are no deficiencies with the ES–
are too narrow through the abdomen and head/thorax side air bag for the driver, 2re that justify limiting its injury
pelvis and do not represent the and a 2004 Honda Accord equipped assessment to that of HIC only. The data
anthropometry of either the U.S. or world with a thorax bag. Overall, the driver rib show that there is virtually no effect due
populations. Also, in full-scale tests deflections were higher than the to oblique loading in the driver ES–2re
conducted by the OSRP, the ES–2 measured deflections for the rear passenger deflection readings in oblique pole tests
abdominal forces below the Injury dummy. However, a different loading as compared to perpendicular pole
Assessment Reference Values (IARV), while
the WorldSID measured abdominal
environment caused the lower rib impacts. The data also do not
deflections above the IARV. This indicates deflections for the ES–2re in the rear demonstrate an indication of sensitivity
that the ES–2 abdominal region is too narrow seat as compared to the driver. Rib to oblique loading in MDB tests. To the
to properly interact with intruding vehicle deflections showed a slow rise, and the contrary, the test data from the Impala
structures and is inadequately instrumented, peaks occurred about 10 milliseconds test show that the abdominal response
causing it to erroneously miss a potential risk later than those of the driver dummy. of the ES–2re in the rear passenger
of abdominal injury. The WorldSID can The loading duration was also position in the MDB test detected
better assess the risk of abdominal injury considerably longer. The passenger rib critical loading by intruding vehicle
because its anthropometry better matches deflections were consistently lower structures at the lower torso level.
that of the human population and it is towards the bottom of the ribcage. Id. Further discussion of the agency’s
equipped to measure abdominal deflection. For the Focus, the driver and response to comments about the
Because the Alliance believed there passenger T12 accelerations were biofidelity of the ES–2re can be found
are deficiencies with the ES–2, the comparable. For the Impala and Accord, in the December 14, 2006 49 CFR Part
commenter said that NHTSA should just the rear passenger T12 acceleration was 572 final rule on the ES–2re (see Docket
require manufacturers to meet a head larger than that of the driver dummy. 25441).
protection criterion, and not criteria This difference could be attributed to Anthropomorphic test devices are
assessing injury to the thorax, abdomen the fact that both the Impala and Accord constantly evolving and advancing due
or pelvis. had a thorax side air bag for the driver in part to worldwide research efforts
We are denying this request. Our position and none for the rear passenger toward improving the biofidelity,
analysis of the thoracic response of the position. durability and injury-measurement
ES–2re demonstrated that the dummy’s The data from the tests did not show capabilities of the test devices. Adopting
thoracic responses provided valid data. a sensitivity to oblique loading in the the ES–2re and the injury assessment
We analyzed crash data from oblique dummy’s abdomen. The passenger reference values associated with the risk
and perpendicular pole tests of two abdominal force for the Impala was very of injury to an occupant’s thorax,
vehicles: A 1999 Maxima and a 2001 large compared to the driver abdominal abdomen and pelvis will enhance the
Saturn. The vehicles were not equipped force, but this was due primarily to large safety of occupants in side impacts. In
with side air bag systems. The rib structural intrusions (the test film shows a NASS study of side impact crashes, it
deflections of the ES–2re in the driver’s the arm rest intruding into the dummy was estimated that between 8.5 percent
and 21.8 percent of all AIS 3+ injuries side impacts are ‘‘far more likely to 2 injuries in the accident database than
are to the abdomen of restrained near involve 50th percentile-male-sized AIS 3+ injuries, we believe that
side front seat occupants.36 The occupants than 5th percentile-female- including AIS 1 and 2 injuries in the
important gains in occupant protection sized occupants.’’ 38 According to the analysis masks the frequency of tree or
that can be achieved by the ES–2re Alliance, only 4.7 percent of nearside pole impacts in crashes causing serious
should not be delayed or lost on the front outboard occupant crashes (AIS 3+) injuries and underestimates the
grounds that a more advanced test involved a tree or pole impact, and only harm addressed by this rulemaking. As
dummy may be available in the future. 0.28 percent of nearside front outboard discussed below and in the NPRM , an
occupant crashes with trees or poles analysis that is focused on side
2. The 5th Percentile Female Dummy involved occupants with a height of 47 crashes 40 resulting in a fatal injury
A. The 5th Percentile Adult Female to 61 inches. Therefore, the Alliance shows that 21 percent of these crashes
Dummy Is an Integral Part of This argued, only the 50th percentile adult involved side impacts with rigid narrow
Upgrade male dummy is needed in the pole test. objects.
We have considered the Alliance’s
The Alliance suggested that NHTSA reasoning but conclude that: (a) Tree/ As discussed in the NPRM, NHTSA
should incorporate only a 50th pole impacts comprise a significant analyzed fatalities in the 1991, 1995,
percentile male test dummy in both the safety problem (b) involving smaller and 1999 FARS files using non-rollover,
pole and MDB tests and completely occupants. near-side impact data. We have now
forego use of the 5th percentile female also updated the analysis for 2004
dummy in the final rule. The Tree/Pole Impacts FARS.41 The fatalities occurred in the
commenter believed that the agency did We disagree with several of the front and rear seats of light vehicles in
not provide data showing that real- Alliance’s claims. The first concerns the side impacts with various objects. The
world safety will be improved by use of magnitude of the side impact safety percentage of vehicle-to-rigid narrow
the 5th percentile dummy ‘‘beyond the problem posed by tree or pole impacts. object impacts has remained stable at
benefits provided by the industry’s The commenter believes that 4.7 percent approximately 23 percent of the total
front-to-side voluntary commitment and of nearside front outboard occupant number of fatal side impact crashes. The
the IIHS side impact rating test.’’ crashes involved a tree of pole impact. percentage of collisions with LTVs has
i. Need for the 5th Percentile Dummy in That determination was based on the increased, while the percentage of
the Pole Test commenter’s analysis of all side crashes collisions with passenger cars has
occurring in 1990–2002 that resulted in decreased over time. The results of the
According to the Alliance, crash any injury, from minor (AIS 1) to fatal.39 analysis are presented below in Table
data 37 demonstrate that narrow object Because there are many more AIS 1 and 10:
TABLE 10.—OCCUPANT FATALITY DISTRIBUTION

[Non-rollover near-side impacts]
Collisions with Collisions with

Collisions with Collisions with rigid narrow other vehicles/
passenger cars LTVs objects objects
(percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
FARS 1991 MY 1987 and Later Light Vehicles ...................... 28.9 27.1 20.1 24.0
Given the number of tree or pole side crashes. The commenter believes that National Automotive Sampling System
crashes that occur, the analysis shows only 0.28 percent of nearside front Crashworthiness Data System (NASS
that tree or pole side impacts are over- outboard occupant crashes with trees or CDS) 42 crash data that smaller stature
represented in terms of fatally injured poles involved occupants with a height drivers (height up to 5 feet 4 inches)
occupants. of 47 to 61 inches, and so the 5th comprise approximately 28 percent of
percentile female dummy is not needed seriously or fatally injured drivers in
Small Stature Occupants Are Seriously
in the pole test. narrow object side impacts. The 1990–
Injured in Tree/Pole Impacts
We analyzed accident data on drivers 2001 NASS CDS data also indicate that
The second aspect of the Alliance’s involved in side impacts to examine there are differences in the body region
reasoning with which we disagree characteristics of drivers seriously distribution of serious injuries between
concerns the involvement of small injured or killed in tree or pole impacts. small and medium stature occupants
stature occupants in tree or pole side We found in analyzing 1990–2001 that are seriously injured in these side
36 Samaha, R.S., Elliot, D., ‘‘NHTSA Side Impact 38 The Alliance believed that the 5th percentile NPRM (69 FR at 27993) are due to new runs of the
Research: Motivation for Upgraded Test adult female dummy represented occupants only of data and minor differences in the definition of
Procedures,’’ supra. heights of 47 to 61 inches. ‘‘other’’ vehicle types.
39 Lateral delta-V range of 12–25 mph, model
37 The commenter performed an analysis of 1990– 42 NASS CDS has detailed data on a
years of 1990 or newer vehicles, non-rollover side
2002 NASS CDS side crashes with a lateral delta- representative, random sample of thousands of
impacts, nearside front-outboard occupants of age
V range of 12–25 mph, involving model years of 12 years or older. minor, serious, and fatal crashes. Field research
1990 or newer vehicles in non-rollover side impacts 40 2001 FARS nearside non-rollover fatalities, teams located at Primary Sampling Units across the
(nearside front-outboard occupants of age 12 years model year 1995 and newer vehicles struck vehicle. country study about 5,000 crashes a year involving
or older with a fatality or known MAIS, and no total 41 The slight differences in distributions in Table passenger cars, light trucks, vans, and utility
ejections). 10 of this preamble and those of Table 1 of the vehicles.
collisions. The data suggest that smaller lives lost annually of smaller stature is also farther forward than the ES–2re
stature occupants have a higher occupants, many of whom are elderly, adult male dummy, which leads to
proportion of head, abdominal and constitutes a safety problem that differences in the interplay between the
pelvic injuries than medium stature incorporation of the SID–IIs will dummy and the vehicle side structure,
occupants, and a lesser proportion of address. roof and side air bag system. The
chest injuries. (‘‘NHTSA Side Impact differences in size and sitting position
Current Side Air Bags Will Be Made
Research: Motivation for Upgraded Test between the two dummies affects more
Even Better To Enhance Protection to
Procedures,’’ Samaha, et al. (2003).) than HIC responses. In the agency’s
The appropriateness of an Smaller Stature Drivers
oblique pole test of the Volkwagen Jetta,
anthropomorphic test device for a Current combination head/thorax air the pelvic force reading of the SID–IIs
dynamic test depends in part on its bags and side curtains generally perform was 7,876 N, while the vehicle met all
ability to represent occupants involved well in the IIHS consumer information the IARVs for the 50th percentile male
or injured in the crash simulated by the program side impact tests. They will do dummy.
dynamic test. There are only two side even better under our regulation. Air bag sensors could also be
impact dummies existing today The Alliance believed that we should improved. As discussed in the NPRM
representing the sizes of occupants not be concerned that some side air bag (69 FR at 27998), the side air bags in two
seriously injured in side impacts: the systems we tested did not meet the vehicles that were certified as meeting
SID–IIs and the mid-size adult male IARVs with the SID–IIs. The commenter the requirements of a perpendicular
dummies (e.g., the ES–2re). The height believed that ‘‘current side air bag crash test (the FMVSS No. 201 90-
of a smaller stature (5th percentile) systems are proving to be very effective degree pole test) did not deploy when
adult female is 59 inches (4 feet 11 in real-world side impacts * * * [and] tested with the 5th percentile female
inches). The height of a mid-size adult that the agency’s concerns are dummy in the oblique pole test. We do
male is about 69 inches (5 feet 9 inches). unfounded and unwarranted regarding not consider this to be a matter of a test
The mid-point between the two is 64 current side airbag designs failing to artifact or other anomaly of the
inches (5 feet 4 inches). Drivers less activate properly or providing sufficient laboratory test conditions. We conclude
than 64 inches in height are usually coverage in real-world crash situations.’’ that the oblique localized loading in the
female and/or elderly, and are closer in The primary impact of this regulation pole test (from the two distinct narrow
physiology to a 5th percentile female on motor vehicle safety will be to ensure impact locations corresponding to the
than to a 50th percentile male. (Drivers that head protection is provided in seating positions of both sizes of test
taller than 64 inches could also be passenger vehicles, and to improve on dummies) will induce more robust crash
represented by the SID–IIs since driver the protection of current bags. In our sensors that will lead to further
height falls along a continuum. 214 fleet testing program, current side protection in the field.
However, for purposes of our analysis of air bags did not always meet the
proposed criteria when tested with the ii. Need for the 5th Percentile Dummy
the impacts of this rulemaking, we had
SID–IIs dummy. In the agency’s tests of in the MDB Test
to make a cut-off and did so at 64
inches.) Accordingly, we have 10 vehicles, seven exceeded the injury The Alliance believed that crash data
determined that the SID–IIs, with its criteria for the 5th percentile female demonstrate that occupants with heights
height of 59 inches (4 feet 11 inches), is dummy in the oblique pole test (four less than 65 inches are involved in
representative of occupants of heights exceeded HIC, four exceeded the lower vehicle-to-vehicle side impacts with a
up to 64 inches (5 feet 4 inches). The spine, and seven exceeded the pelvic ‘‘significant frequency,’’ i.e., that adult
assumption that a 5th percentile adult force criteria). In the Ford Five Hundred male and adult females are similarly
female dummy is representative of and Saturn Ion tests, we observed that represented in vehicle-to-vehicle
occupants of heights up to 64 inches (5 the side air bags deployed after the 5th crashes in the delta-V range of 12–25
feet 4 inches) is consistent with the percentile female dummy had already mph, in which a front, outboard struck-
approach taken by the agency in moved toward the very front of the air side occupant receives a serious-to-fatal
analyzing the impacts of advanced air bag at pole contact and had hit a portion injury. The commenter also determined
bags under FMVSS No. 208, ‘‘Occupant of the air curtain/tether interface that that vehicle-to-vehicle side impacts are
crash protection.’’ was not inflated to cushion the impact, significantly more frequent compared to
The Alliance recommended that which resulted in HIC readings of 1,173 tree/pole side impacts. However, the
NHTSA assume that the SID–IIs only (Ford Five Hundred) and 5,203 (Saturn commenter believed that ‘‘[T]he
represented occupants with a height of Ion). In the Ford Expedition test, we industry’s voluntary agreement already
47 (3 feet 11 inches) to 61 (5 feet 1 inch) observed that the SID–IIs rotated around includes requirements for an MDB test
inches. We believe this assumption is the curtain and contacted a portion of using a 5th percentile female dummy;
overly restrictive. Sixty-two-, 63- and the air curtain/tether interface that was we believe NHTSA has not
64-inch tall adults, mostly women, are not inflated to cushion the impact, demonstrated the need to overlay this
more similar in build to the SID–IIs than which resulted in an HIC value of 5,661. agreement with a 5th percentile female
to the 50th percentile male dummy. If the ES–2re were the only test MDB regulatory test requirement.’’
As explained in the next section, dummy used in the pole test, Ferrari stated that we did not clearly
including the 5th percentile female countermeasures installed for the ES– identify the expected benefits from the
dummy in the oblique pole test will 2re might not protect the population use of the dummy in the MDB test.
gain real world benefits beyond those (shorter and/or elderly drivers) Ferrari further stated that, even if the
attained using just a mid-size adult male represented by the 5th percentile female population represented by the 5th
dummy in the pole test. We estimate dummy. In the four air bag curtain tests percentile female dummy were at a
that the inclusion of the SID–IIs in the discussed above, the HIC values for the greater risk of head and abdominal
oblique pole test will save an additional ES–2re were moderate to low. The 5th injuries, the SID–IIs dummy would not
78 lives beyond the fatalities saved by percentile female dummy’s head is provide any increased benefit to this
changes to vehicle designs to meet an positioned lower than that of the ES–2re population because the dummy ‘‘does
oblique pole test using the 50th because of sitting height differences not have any feature able to measure
percentile male dummy alone. These between the two dummies. The SID–IIs abdominal injuries, and the risk of
injuries to the head is much better The Saturn Ion in the test was In addition, we observed that in the
assessed by the pole impact test (not the equipped with an air curtain, but lacked tests of the VW Jetta, Saturn Ion, Ford
MDB test). The introduction of the SID– a thorax-mounted side air bag. The lack Five Hundred, and Honda Accord, and
2s [sic], lacking even a chest deflection of thoracic air bag protection may have the Suzuki Forenza,43 the SID–IIs
criterion, would not supplement in any led to the high pelvic force measured by dummy in the rear seat of the MDB test
way the protection provided by the the dummy. In our pole testing, the had elevated thoracic and/or abdominal
introduction of the ES–2 or ES–2re.’’ Saturn Ion exceeded the limits on HIC rib deflections that were not observed
Agency response: Based on our (5,203), lower spine acceleration (110 g) with the rear seat ES–2re dummy. We
evaluation of available data, we have and pelvic force (5,755 N). It also scored felt that the rib deflections of the SID–
decided to require only one MDB test ‘‘poor’’ in the IIHS side impact IIs were noteworthy, since many experts
(per side of the vehicle). The MDB test crashworthiness evaluation. Based on consider deflection to be the best
specifies use of an ES–2re (50th this complete array of testing with this predictor of thoracic injury.44 We
percentile adult male) dummy in the vehicle, we believe that needed believed that the SID–IIs’s elevated rib
front seating position and a SID–IIs (5th improvements to comply with the deflections in the rear seat indicated
percentile adult female) dummy in the oblique pole tests of this final rule will that side impact crashworthiness
rear. likely address the one SID–IIs driver designs in the rear were possibly in
The NPRM proposed to use the ES– dummy failure that the agency observed need of improvement to better protect
2re dummy in both the front and rear in its MDB test. rear seat occupants, particularly
outboard seating positions on both sides Thus, based on the available data that children and other smaller stature
of the vehicle, and also proposed use of show: occupants.
the SID–IIs dummy in the front and rear (a) All vehicles except the Ion meeting Incorporation of the SID–IIs into the
outboard seating positions on both sides the MDB test when tested with the SID– rear seat MDB test enables us to monitor
of the vehicle. We issued the proposal readily the rib deflections measured in
IIs in the front seat; and
based in part on crash data indicating the test 45 to assess how the rear seat
(b) Countermeasures to address the
that 35 percent of all serious and fatal environment is protecting children and
Ion’s failing the pelvic criterion in the
injuries to nearside occupants occurred small occupants. While the agency did
front seat of the pole test when tested
to occupants 5 feet 4 inches (or 163 not propose thoracic and abdominal rib
with the SID–IIs could address the
centimeters) or less, which are best deflection requirements for the 5th
represented by the 5th percentile female failure of the vehicle to meet the pelvic
percentile female dummy and thus is
dummy (69 FR at 27991). We also criterion in the MDB front seat test—
not adopting rib deflection limits in this
considered the results of two MDB tests The agency has decided not to adopt
final rule, we are considering a future
with the SID–IIsFRG dummy that had an MDB test with the SID–IIs in the rulemaking to adopt limits on the
indicated a need for the dummy. In a front seating positions. thoracic and abdominal rib deflections
test of a 2001 Ford Focus, the pelvic The benefits from an MDB test with measured by the SID–IIs in the FMVSS
force was exceeded for the driver the SID–IIs in the front seat will likely No. 214 MDB and pole tests. The
dummy (5,621 N). In a test of a 2002 be absorbed by the SID–IIs front seat rulemaking could be a part of a
Chevrolet Impala, the left rear dummy’s oblique pole test requirements, as rulemaking to incorporate WorldSID
lower spine acceleration and pelvic suggested by some of the commenters. into FMVSS No. 214, if such a
force criteria were exceeded (89 g and That is, a countermeasure such as a rulemaking were to ensue, or it could be
5,711 N, respectively). Based on those thorax air bag in the front seat of the Ion developed on its own.
results, we expected that improvements installed to meet the pole test Incorporation of the SID–IIs into
to the arm rest area and other structural requirements could also enable the Ion FMVSS No. 214’s MDB test of the rear
components would be required to to meet the pelvic criterion of the MDB seat enhances protection of rear seat
improve protection for the 5th rest. Thus, the MDB test of the front seat occupants also because the 5th
percentile occupants (69 FR at 28011). with the SID–IIs dummy is unlikely to percentile adult female dummy better
Since the NPRM, we have conducted lead to improved occupant protection, represents the anthropometry of rear
eight MDB tests with the SID–IIs and is not warranted for adoption into seat occupants than the SID or the ES–
dummy in predominantly model year FMVSS No. 214. 2re (50th percentile male dummies).
2005 vehicles. Our crash test results (On the other hand, adoption of the The average seated height of rear-
have shown that vehicles newer than ES–2re dummy in the MDB tests to test outboard occupants is approximately
the 2001 Focus and the 2002 Impala are the front seat of vehicles is warranted. 81.6 centimeters (cm).46 The sitting
generally able to meet the proposed The reasons for adopting the ES–2re in
injury criteria when tested with this the front seat of this test are explained 43 The Forenza was not tested with the ES–2re
dummy. (The 2001 Focus has since in section VI.c of this preamble.) dummy.
44 Kuppa, S., Eppinger, R., McKoy, F., Nguyen, T.,
undergone a mid-cycle design change MDB Test of the Rear Seat Yoganandan, N., Pintar, F., ‘‘Development of Side
with head/torso combo bags becoming Impact Thoracic Injury Criteria and their
optional for model year 2005 vehicles. The test of the rear seat with the SID– Application to the Modified ES–2 Dummy with Rib
The 2002 Impala has since been IIs resulted in high pelvic forces in the Extensions (ES–2re),’’ Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol.
47 October 2003, The Stapp Association. A paper
redesigned with model year 2006 Honda Accord and in the Suzuki demonstrating that deflections are the best
vehicles having curtain and thorax bags Forenza. We were concerned about predictors of injury in frontal impacts is by Kent et
as standard equipment.) these results because rear seat occupants al. (Kent, R., Crandall, J., Bolton, J., Prasad, P.,
are predominantly made up of smaller Nusholtz, G., Mertz, H., ‘‘The Influence of
MDB Test of the Front Seat stature occupants, e.g., children, who
Superficial Soft Tissues and Restraint Condition on
Thoracic Skeletal Injury Prediction,’’ Stapp Car
For the driver dummy, 7 of 8 vehicles more closely resemble the Crash Journal, Vol. 45, November 2003, The Stapp
met the criteria. The one exception for anthropometry of the SID–IIs than a Association.)
45 We will also monitor the SID–IIs rib deflections
the front seat was the 2005 Saturn Ion, 50th percentile adult male. All vehicles
in the oblique pole test.
which resulted in the SID–IIs driver met all the criteria proposed in the 46 A ratio of sitting height to standing height,
dummy exceeding the pelvic force NPRM when tested with the ES–2re developed by the University of Michigan
criterion (8,993 N). 50th percentile male dummy. Continued
height of the SID–IIs is approximately we can ensure improvement as a result and changed from a flexible urethane
78.8 cm, while that of the ES–2re is 88.4 of manufacturers’ meeting the pole material to vinyl-coated aluminum. The
cm. The SID–IIs is closer in height to the requirements of this final rule. maximum lateral rib deflection of the
average outboard rear seat occupant dummy was also reduced from 69 mm
B. However, Not All of the Proposed
than the SID or the ES–2re. The SID– to 60 mm to further protect the
FRG Changes Are Needed
IIs’s ability to assess the risk of head instrumentation.49
injury through the measurement of HIC The SID–IIs test dummy has been While NHTSA tentatively determined
will better ensure that head protection used by Transport Canada in crash tests there was a need for the FRG
is provided to children and smaller since the late 1990s and is used by IIHS modifications, the agency noted in the
stature adults in rear seating positions in its consumer information program for December 8, 2004 Part 572 NPRM that
than through use of the 50th percentile ranking vehicle performance. In its there were other views as to the need for
adult male test dummies. initial evaluation of the dummy, the FRG changes to the dummy (69 FR
Safety will also be enhanced by this NHTSA had found some durability at 70954). The NPRM noted that
final rule using the SID–IIs in the rear problems with the dummy’s shoulder Transport Canada, IIHS and the industry
seat since this smaller sized dummy and ribcage and some chest transducer had used the unmodified SID–IIs
will fit in more vehicles, and therefore mechanical failures. To improve the dummy for several years to their
exclude few vehicles that cannot durability of the dummy, NHTSA satisfaction.
accommodate the 50th percentile male modified the dummy to incorporate, Comments on the proposed FRG
dummy. (Currently, S3(b) of FMVSS No. among other things, floating rib guides changes: All commenters responding to
214 excludes the rear seat in passenger to better stabilize the dummy’s ribs. (See this issue were opposed to or expressed
cars that have rear seating areas that are 69 FR at 70948.) concern about adopting the FRG
so small that the 50th percentile adult The durability problem arose in 6.7 modifications to the SID–IIs dummy.
male test dummy cannot be meters per second (m/s) sled tests of the Commenters believed that the
accommodated according to the SID–IIs Build C dummy using a rigid unmodified Build Level C and/or Build
positioning procedure specified in the wall with a 101 mm abdominal offset.48 Level D dummies were sufficiently
standard.) We believe use of the SID–IIs Damage in some of the tests included durable for crash tests. In its October 14,
in the rear will provide the agency with deformed abdominal ribs, bent 2004 comments on the NPRM, the
the ability to test more vehicles that abdominal potentiometer shafts, and/or Alliance stated that the OSRP SID–IIs
have rear seats too small to gouged damping material, caused by Upgrade Task Group 50 had agreed to
accommodate the mid-size male vertical motion of the ribs and/or enhancements of the SID–IIs Build C
dummy. On the other hand, we have excessive rib compression. The agency dummy or modifications incorporated
decided not to adopt the ES–2re dummy concluded that, under those test into the Build D dummy, but, the
in the rear seat of the MDB tests. Our circumstances, portions of the Alliance emphasized, OSRP had
reasons are explained in section VI.c of abdominal and thorax ribs during their steadfastly maintained that there was no
this preamble. extreme compression were extending durability problem requiring the floating
beyond the boundaries of existing rib rib guide change to the dummy’s thorax.
iii. Beyond the Voluntary Commitment guides, and that under some test The Alliance believed that NHTSA’s
Test data demonstrate the benefit of conditions, were moving out of their Vehicle Research and Test Center
having the SID–IIs in the pole test, initial plane of translation. Such out of (VRTC)—
notwithstanding the industry’s plane translation caused the linear
proposed the addition of floating rib guides
voluntary agreement.47 In the agency’s deflection transducer pivots to exceed to the SID–IIs dummy based on a small series
side impact test program, vehicles that their angular motion limits, resulting in of sled tests, including a single abdominal
were rated ‘‘Good’’ in the IIHS side transducer shaft failures and rib offset sled test in which the ribs were
crashworthiness evaluation when tested damping material gouging due to damaged and exited the original rib guides.
with the SID–IIs exceeded one or more interaction between the extended ribs The test was performed with an improperly
of the injury criteria of this rule when and the rib guides. positioned and improperly scaled abdominal
tested with the SID–IIs in our pole test NHTSA developed the floating rib plate that simulated a rigid armrest. This
guide system to prevent the compressed setup produced a very severe impact
program. In the pole test of the
condition for the SID–IIs (AF05) dummy.
Volkwagen Jetta, which IIHS scored ribs from leaving the outside perimeter Instead of being scaled for the AF05, the test
‘‘Good,’’ the pelvic force (7,876 N) of the rib guides and thereby prevent was performed with an abdominal plate that
exceeded the IARV (limit 5,525 N). In damage to surrounding areas. Rib guides was offset 100 mm, which are the test
the pole test of the Honda Accord, the were used to ‘‘float’’ with the ribs as conditions for the ES–2 (AM50) dummy.
SID–IIs’s pelvic force criterion was over they expanded in the anterior-posterior Further, the 100 mm offset is at the extreme
10,000 N. The industry’s voluntary direction during rib compression. This end of the range of armrest width in typical
commitment does not commit to was intended not only to eliminate the vehicles. In addition, the abdominal plate is
rigid and therefore provided a more severe
reducing these pelvic forces. However, problem of ribs extending outside the impact surface than do typically padded and
boundaries of the rib guides, but also deformable vehicle armrests. This test setup
Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI), is retain the ribs in their initial plane and
approximately 0.54. Applying this ratio to the real thereby prevent damage to the 49 The FRG design also encompassed other
world rear seat occupant data, the mean sitting
height of occupants in rear outboard seats transducer shaft. To further prevent changes to improve the durability of the dummy.
(excluding those in infant and toddler child damage (bending) of potentiometer The shoulder rib guide of the dummy was reshaped
restraint systems) is 81.6 cm. and deepened beyond the front edge of the shoulder
shafts and damage to potentiometer rib to keep the shoulder rib from moving vertically
47 The industry’s voluntary commitment is a
housings, the rib stops were reshaped during its compression. The damping material of
commitment to meet IIHS’s recommended practice
of HIC15 performance of 779 or less for a SID–IIs the shoulder rib assembly was made thinner and
crash dummy in the driver’s seating position and 48 The agency conducted the tests to replicate spanned the entire width of the steel band.
does not include at this time performance criteria biomechanical sled test impact configurations 50 The Alliance stated in its comment, ‘‘The OSRP
for other body regions, specifically, the thoracic and previously reported by Maltese et al. (‘‘Response SID–IIs Upgrade Task Group is responsible for
abdominal regions. The voluntary commitment also Corridors of Human Surrogates in Lateral Impacts,’’ coordinating, evaluating and approving any design
does not address the right front or rear seat Technical Paper 2002–22–0017. Proceedings, 46th modifications to the SID–IIs dummy, originally
passenger positions at this time. Stapp Car Crash Conference, 2002). designed in 1994–95.’’
produced an impact condition for the AF05 incorporation into 49 CFR part 572. The Level D test dummy, rather than the
dummy more severe than that of full-scale Alliance stated that in full vehicle crash FRG dummy, in FMVSS No. 214.51
vehicle tests, since the dummy’s ribs were tests, there are significant differences in The SID–IIsFRG floating rib guide
damaged in the sled test but no rib damage concept was developed to improve the
occurred in the vehicle tests using the SID– the shape and magnitude of the chest
deflection responses of the SID–IIsFRG durability of the SID–IIs dummy under
IIs Version C.
and the Build C dummy, with the SID– extremely severe impact conditions. We
The Alliance further stated that the have concluded that data now available
IIsFRG having ‘‘greatly reduced’’
agency’s concern about the accuracy of to the agency do not support a need for
deflections. The Alliance stated that
the acceleration and deflection all of the floating rib guide design. The
measurements of the Build Level C researchers at Transport Canada and
elsewhere found ‘‘no flat-topping in the test conditions precipitating the
dummy due to the ribs not staying in development of the FRG were
place ‘‘does not follow logically because original SID–IIs, but severe flat topping
in the SID–IIsFRG.’’ Nissan stated that it exceptionally severe and appear to be
it is quite normal to have the ribs unlike vehicle crashes to which the
deform during impact by expanding in has observed scratching of the SID–
crash dummy is exposed.
the fore-aft dimension of the chest. The IIsFRG’s rib guides created by rib The OSRP task group and IIHS noted
fact that they change shape and do not contact and was concerned that this that the type of damage reported by
stay in place has nothing to do with the phenomenon could reduce test NHTSA in VRTC sled tests was not
accuracy of the deflection repeatability using the dummy over experienced in their full scale vehicle
measurements.’’ time, or may negatively affect the crash tests. Our own testing bears this
IIHS also objected to the agency’s use accuracy of the rib data. out. Since the time of the NPRM,
of the 6.7 m/s test. IIHS found the FRG Some commenters believed that it was NHTSA has used the SID–IIs (Build D)
version of the SID–IIs ‘‘an unacceptable more advantageous to adopt the SID–IIs in over 24 oblique pole and MDB crash
and unnecessary compromise of the Build Level C or Build Level D dummy tests without seeing structural or
original dummy’s biofidelity to address than the SID–IIsFRG. The Alliance functional problems with the dummy.
an unproven durability problem’’ stated that the ISO 9790 biofidelity In addition, the agency evaluated four
(March 4, 2005 comment to Docket rating of the SID–IIsFRG is only ‘‘fair’’ SID–IIs Build D dummies in extensive
18865). IIHS stated: (5.9), while that of the SID–IIs Build C component, sled, and pole and MDB
Not only have NHTSA’s own vehicle crash was ‘‘good’’ (7.0). IIHS expressed vehicle crash tests without sustaining
tests failed to show any durability problems serious concern that the FRG functionality and durability problems.
with the original dummy design, but Institute
modification ‘‘has considerably The Build D dummy has many of the
and industry experience confirms the enhancements of the SID–IIsFRG and
dummy is durable enough for crash testing. degraded’’ the SID–IIs dummy’s
some enhancements similar to FRG
As of October 2004 the Institute had biofidelity. IIHS supported the Build
features, including new rib stops, larger
conducted 48 side impact tests with the SID– Level C or D dummies in the rulemaking
IIs dummies positioned in the driver and rear motion ranges of potentiometers pivots,
because it would permit the agency to 1⁄2 inch diameter potentiometers, and
outboard seating positions, for a total of 96 incorporate rib deflection data in test
SID–IIs test exposures. Of these only 6 enhancements to the shoulder structure.
requirements. IIHS stated: The shoulder enhancements address
caused any damage to the dummy; in 4 tests
the dummy’s shoulder was damaged, and in Without rib deflection limits for tests with bending deformation of the shoulder rib,
2 tests one of the abdominal ribs did not pass the small dummy, the proposed side impact delamination and/or gouging damage to
post-test verification. Similar trends are standard will not establish the same the deflection transducer. All of these
found in the Occupant Safety Research minimum levels of protection for vehicle enhancements have improved the
Partnership (OSRP) dataset, which includes occupants of various sizes. It is disappointing
tests conducted by DaimlerChrysler, General
structural integrity of the dummy and
that part of NHTSA’s reason for not including have eliminated the need for all of the
Motors, the Institute, and Transport Canada.
Of the 241 SID–IIs test exposures (or 1,446 SID–IIsFRG rib deflection limits was the need floating rib guide design changes.
exposures to the dummies’ individual ribs), to study the issue further. By favoring the We further believe that there are
only 21 tests (8.7 percent) caused any FRG modified dummy the agency is ignoring advantages to adopting the SID–IIs
dummy damage; of these only 3 tests (0.3 the accumulated test experience with the Build D dummy rather than the SID–
percent of total rib exposures) exhibited any original dummy. IIsFRG beyond what is needed for the
evidence of ribs catching on the vertical durability of the dummy. As noted by
guides. Advocates expressed ‘‘misgivings over the commenters, while the FRG was
IIHS recommended that NHTSA the lack of chest deflection very successful in containing the ribs
adopt the SID–IIs Build Level C or the measurement capability for the 5th within the rib guides and in preventing
Build Level D dummy into FMVSS No. percentile SID–IIsFRG female dummy.’’ potentiometer-transducer failures, the
214. IIHS stated (Docket 18865): Honda expressed concern that the SID– floating rib guides added mass and
IIsFRG is not commonly used by additional stiffness to the ribs. As a
Build Level D would incorporate many of
automakers today. Honda stated that, result, the FRG became less human-like,
the design upgrades currently in the FRG
version that would improve the dummy ‘‘The use of SID–IIs [Build Level C or D] rib deflections seriously reduced, and
while maintaining its high biofidelity rating. will expand because it is specified in the shape of the deflection-time
The changes IIHS supports for build level D the [industry’s] voluntarily commitment histories changed compared to testing
include redesign of the shoulder rib and rib on FMVSS No. 214.’’ TRW said that under similar loading conditions
guide, neck mounting bracket, rib stops, and using ‘‘known and accepted’’ test without the FRG. Id.
spine box. Using either C- or D-level SID–IIs dummies could help expedite motor
would permit the agency to draw on the
vehicle manufacturers’ meeting their 51 A final rule adopting the Build Level D into 49
dummy’s accumulated crash test experience CFR part 572 was published December 14, 2006, 71
‘‘voluntary commitment’’ to install
to incorporate rib deflection data among the FR 75342, Docket 25442. The part 572 final rule
FMVSS 214 requirements. inflatable side head protection systems. discusses the biofidelity, repeatability,
Agency response: After reviewing the reproducibility, durability, and other aspects of the
Some commenters expressed a view dummy. The document discusses the agency’s
that the SID–IIsFRG dummy was itself comments and other information, we decision to adopt some but not the entirety of the
not an adequate a test device for have decided to use the SID–IIs Build floating rib guide design.
IIHS uses the SID–IIs in its side Nearly all commenters supported the OOP. The commenter believed that a
impact consumer information program. 32 km/h (20 mph) test speed. The pole test that is consistent with the
IIHS noted in its comments to the Alliance supported a 32 km/h (20 mph) EuroNCAP side pole impact test, i.e., an
NPRM that Build D would incorporate test speed, but recommended bounding 18 mph perpendicular pole test, is the
many of the design upgrades currently it with a lower bound as is done with only way the test can be reasonable and
in the FRG version that would improve the FMVSS No. 201 optional pole test. practicable for small volume
the dummy while maintaining the FMVSS No. 201 sets a lower limit of 24 manufacturers.
dummy’s high biofidelity rating. km/h (15 mph) in the pole test. In Agency response: After carefully
Transport Canada plans to continue setting the FMVSS No. 201 final rule, reviewing the comments, the agency has
using the SID–IIs in its research NHTSA concluded that a 24 km/h (15 decided to adopt the pole test speed
program. Using Build D in FMVSS No. mph) lower limit was appropriate proposed in the NPRM. The oblique
214 means that the same dummy will be because 24 km/h (15 mph) represented pole test procedure is conducted at any
used in governmental and non- the point at which occupants experience speed up to and including 32 km/h (20
governmental consumer information moderate to serious (AIS 2 and AIS 3) mph). A higher test speed than 29 km/
and research programs. This consistency injuries. The agency believed that h (18 mph) will provide for a higher
will enhance the testing of vehicles by testing at impact speeds below which a degree of safety and will benefit more
making the test results from NHTSA, dynamic head protection system would occupants in the real world. As
Transport Canada, IIHS and industry in deploy or offer any meaningful safety previously noted in the NPRM for this
many ways more comparable. Using the benefits would serve no purpose. (64 FR final rule, the agency found that crashes
same test dummy will also more 69665, December 14, 1999.) The with a delta-V of 32 km/h (20 mph) or
effectively focus research and design Alliance and DaimlerChrysler higher result in approximately half of
efforts on more consistent and effective commented that, since the increase in the seriously injured occupants in
countermeasures that will most lateral velocity from a 29 km/h (18 mph) narrow object side impact crashes (69
successfully protect smaller stature perpendicular pole test to a 32 km/h (20 FR at 27997). A test conducted at 32
occupants. Accordingly, this final rule mph) 75-degree oblique test is only 1.3 km/h (20 mph) maximum speed better
adopts use of the SID–IIs test dummy mph, the minimum oblique test speed represents the speed of real world
into the compliance tests of FMVSS No. should be 1 mph over the current crashes that result in serious injury than
214. minimum perpendicular test speed of an 18-mph test. Based on our testing, we
24 km/h (15 mph) in FMVSS No. 201. believe that it is feasible to meet the test
b. Aspects of the Pole Test Procedure Public Citizen expressed its support requirements at 32 km/h (20 mph) and
In the NPRM, the agency proposed a for a 32 km/h (20 mph) test speed, there would be little cost differential.
dynamic vehicle-to-pole test that is stating that such a speed ‘‘appropriately The practicability of meeting the
similar to the one used to test some protects from the depth of intrusion that requirements at the 32 km/h (20 mph)
vehicles under FMVSS No. 201, except occurs when passenger cars are hit in test speed was evidenced by the results
that the test procedure would involve an the side by a pickup truck or SUV.’’ A of the agency’s testing of the model year
angle of impact of 75 degrees (instead of private individual, Mr. William Watson, 2005 Subaru Forester, Volkswagen
90 degrees) and a test speed of up to and believed that the designs needed to Beetle and Saab 9–3. We further note
including 32 km/h (20 mph) (instead of comply with the higher test speed that the Beetle and the Saab 9–3 were
24–29 km/h (15–18 mph)). We further would not place an undue burden upon also reported to be in compliance with
proposed to amend FMVSS No. 201 manufacturers, but simply provide a the voluntary TWG requirements for
such that, if the oblique 32 km/h (20 higher margin of safety for occupants. out-of-position occupant assessment.
mph) pole test were added to FMVSS Autoliv supported the higher test speed Further, Autoliv and TRW commented
No. 214, vehicles certified to the latter of 32 km/h (20 mph) on the basis that that countermeasures could be designed
test would be excluded from having to the commenter believed it would benefit to meet the higher speed oblique pole
be certified to FMVSS No. 201’s 90 more occupants in real world crashes. It test, and also perform acceptably for
degree, 29 km/h (18 mph) pole test. also stated that the higher speed would out-of-position occupants.
Virtually all of the commenters present some challenges, particularly for We do not agree with the Alliance’s
supported the adoption of a pole test to the new criteria for thorax protection. suggestion of narrowing the oblique
enhance side impact occupant However, Autoliv did not anticipate that pole test speed range to 26 km/h to 32
protection further. These commenters these challenges would affect its ability km/h (16 to 20 mph). Limiting the test
included the Alliance, which supported to meet product demand during the speed range would not ensure
a 32 km/h (20 mph) test using a 75- proposed phase-in requirements. TRW protection for side impact crashes that
degree oblique impact angle. However, believed that the side protection occur at delta-Vs under 26 km/h (16
Ferrari, Lotus, and Maserati supported a systems designed to meet the mph). Our crash databases have shown
pole test that was harmonized with the requirements of the NPRM could
that crashes with a delta-V of 26 km/h
pole test of EuroNCAP (perpendicular perform acceptably for out-of-position
(16 mph) or less result in approximately
29 km/h (18 mph) impact). (OOP) occupants.
Opposed to the 32 km/h (20 mph) test a third of the fatalities and almost half
1. Speed speed were Ferrari and Maserati. Ferrari of the MAIS 3–5 non-fatally injured
The NPRM proposed (in section believed that increasing the pole test occupants in near-side crashes. This
S9.1.1 of the proposed regulatory text) speed from 18 to 20 mph would be analysis was based on front-outboard
that each vehicle must meet the oblique excessively burdensome, forcing adult occupants with serious or fatal
pole test requirements when tested ‘‘at manufacturers to redesign side injuries in 1997–2003 NASS non-
any speed up to and including 32 km/ structures and head protection side rollover, near-side crashes.52 Based on
h (20 mph).’’ The agency also requested bags. Further, Ferrari believed that it the crash data, we believe that there is
comments on the alternative of a 29 km/ would force an increase in the power of 52 Delta-V distributions were derived from 1997–
h (18 mph) test speed, which is used in the head protection side bag, which 2003 CDS. Fatalities were adjusted to the 2001
the optional perpendicular pole test of might lead to an increased injury risk FARS level, and non-fatal injuries to the 2001 GES
FMVSS No. 201. for children and occupants that are level.
a demonstrated safety need to require vehicle attributes, such as side structure perform poorly for other angles. He
manufacturers to ensure that vehicles strength, energy absorption, air bag believed that more than one impact
provide improved protection in crashes characteristics, etc. One vehicle design angle should be tested, given the
below 26 km/h (16 mph). may be able to meet the injury criteria agency’s data that suggests a difference
We note that our motivation for this without an air bag at 24 km/h (15 mph), of 15 degrees can produce significantly
rulemaking was to establish a while another might need an air bag to different sensing responses. Therefore,
comprehensive side impact upgrade that meet an oblique pole test at that same the commenter recommended that we
required a systems approach to improve speed. To prescribe a 26 km/h (16 mph) retain the current perpendicular pole
protection against head, thoracic, lower bound for the test speed might test and add the 75-degree oblique test
abdominal and pelvic injuries in a force a test condition that may not be as a supplemental requirement.
vehicle-to-pole test. It was not to ideal for occupant safety, given
duplicate FMVSS No. 201, which is Agency response: The agency has
individual gray zones and compliance
primarily intended to address head decided to adopt the 75-degree impact
margins. Therefore, to ensure occupant
impacts to the vehicle interior protection at impact speeds below 26 angle proposed in the NPRM. The
compartment. Only as a consideration of km/h (16 mph), the final rule adopts the agency concludes that the oblique pole
regulatory burden did we explore the proposed oblique pole test conditions test will enhance safety because it is
degree to which the oblique pole test up to and including 32 km/h (20 mph), more representative of real-world side
duplicated the requirements of FMVSS rather than a reduced range of 26 km/ impact pole crashes than a 90-degree
No. 201. While compliance with the h (16 mph) to 32 km/h (20 mph). test. Frontal oblique crashes account for
FMVSS No. 214 oblique pole test The agency is also not persuaded by the highest percentage of seriously
supersedes the need to conduct a Ferrari’s comments that the oblique pole injured (MAIS 3+) near-side occupants
FMVSS No. 201 pole test, the agency test would be excessively burdensome. in narrow object crashes, and our
did not intend to mimic the boundary As discussed in the lead time section of research indicates that the 75-degree
conditions of that test. this notice, the agency believes that impact is repeatable to simulate in a
Nor do we want to. When the 24 to vehicle manufacturers will have ample laboratory test.
29 km/h (15 to 18 mph) pole test speed time to redesign their vehicles to meet A 75-degree approach angle is
range was adopted in FMVSS No. 201 the new requirements. By complying preferable to a 90-degree angle because
in 1999, side impact air bag systems with the FMVSS No. 214 oblique test, the oblique impact exposes the
were only starting to emerge. The goal excessive burden from complying with dummy’s head and thorax to both
of the agency in adopting a lower limit the FMVSS No. 201 pole test is longitudinal and lateral crash forces that
in FMVSS No. 201 was to reduce test removed. are typically experienced in real world
burdens and to facilitate the side impacts. Weighted 1999–2001
introduction of these systems. The goal 2. Angle
NASS CDS side impact data show that
of today’s rulemaking is to upgrade The proposed 75-degree impact angle in narrow object crashes, serious head
overall side impact protection, was generally supported except by and chest are dominant for both small
particularly in pole-type crashes. Since Ferrari, Lotus and Maserati, which and large stature occupants (69 FR
1999, side impact air bags have become supported a 90-degree test similar to 27998). The oblique pole test thus better
proven countermeasures that are that of EuroNCAP. Ferrari added that an emulates real world crash conditions
effective in protecting against head, oblique pole test would force the than a perpendicular impact. NHTSA
chest, abdominal and pelvic injuries, manufacturers to focus their efforts on estimates that 311 lives would be saved
and in helping retain an occupant specific test conditions, detrimental to by the oblique pole test using a 50th
within the safe environment of the other ones (e.g., out-of-position percentile adult male dummy and a 5th
vehicle compartment. If the occupants). percentile adult female dummy,53 while
countermeasure is effective in reducing DaimlerChrysler believed that the
224 lives would be saved by a
the risk of serious injury in crashes perpendicular pole impact versus the
perpendicular test using the same
below 26 km/h (16 mph), we know of 75-degree impact is not radically
dummies. At a 3 percent discount rate,
no compelling reason not to set a different and would provide similar
the cost per equivalent life saved is
performance requirement that would levels of occupant protection. However,
$1.84 million for an oblique impact test
necessitate its employment. If deploying it stated that the perpendicular
requirement, and $2.11 million for a
the air bag is not needed to meet the approach had qualitative benefits, such
perpendicular test requirement. At a 7
injury criteria at a speed below a certain as simplicity in test setup,
percent discount rate, the cost per
threshold, the manufacturer can make a reproducibility, test dummy capability,
equivalent life saved is $2.31 million for
manufacturing decision based on that and harmonization. The commenter
the oblique test, and $2.65 million for a
fact when designing the vehicle. It may stated that, although the agency has
perpendicular test.
pose a test burden for the manufacturer encountered specific cases in which a
to determine what that threshold should vehicle designed to comply with the Combination and other SIABs will
be, but it is a burden that is offset by the perpendicular impact failed to detect generally be more protective if the
enhancement to side impact protection the 75-degree oblique pole impact, agency adopted a 75-degree vehicle-to-
achievable in pole-type crashes. DaimlerChrysler was not aware of this pole test instead of a 90-degree one,
For different vehicle designs, the as a real world issue. particularly if the SID–IIs and ES–2re
threshold of when an air bag is needed In support of the proposed impact dummies were both used in the pole
to meet the injury criteria could differ. angle, William Watson believed that the test. A SIAB just wide enough to meet
Establishing a lower test speed range in 75-degree pole test is a clear a perpendicular pole test may be less
the oblique pole test could have the improvement over the perpendicular protective in an oblique crash, as the
causal effect of establishing ‘‘design test in terms of the real world occupant in an oblique crash will move
points’’ for restraint systems that may or applicability and occupant protection. laterally and forward at an angle rather
may not be optimal to vehicle design. However, Mr. Watson stated that than moving strictly laterally into the air
The threshold for air bag deployment choosing one specific test angle might
(gray zone) can be dependent on many lead to restraint and sensor designs that 53 With a curtain and 2-sensor system.
bag.54 Some torso air bags may need to Wider and more protective side air place the seat at the full-forward
be redesigned to extend the air pocket curtains resulting from an oblique pole position for the 5th percentile female
further forward toward the A-pillar to test will be beneficial in reducing partial dummy and the mid-track position for
provide coverage in a 75-degree oblique occupant ejection through side the 50th percentile male dummy.
test. The VW Jetta, Honda Accord, and windows.56 There were 5,400 ejected Public Citizen and Advocates
Subaru Forester received ‘‘Good’’ ratings fatalities through front side windows in supported NHTSA’s proposed seating
in IIHS’s side impact consumer 2001. The fatality rate for an ejected position for the dummies. They believed
information program when tested with vehicle occupant is three times as great that these positions would assure that
the SID–IIs in a perpendicular impact. as that for an occupant who remains air bags installed to comply with the
However, in our 214 fleet testing inside of the vehicle. The best way to standard would provide a relatively
program with the SID–IIs, the VW Jetta reduce complete ejection is for broad zone of protection. While
resulted in a pelvic force value of 7,876 occupants to wear their safety belts. supporting the two proposed seating
N, which exceeds the 5,525 N criterion However, of the 5,400 ejected fatalities positions, Mr. Watson believed that
of this final rule. In an oblique test, the through front side windows, 2,200 were NHTSA should also test with the seating
SID–IIs in the Honda Accord measured from partial ejections. Fatal injuries position fully forward, mid-track, and
a pelvic force value of 10,848 N. The from partial ejection can occur even to fully rearward to ensure the widest
Subaru Forester tested obliquely with belted occupants,57 when their head restraint coverage and the most robust
the SID–IIs resulted in an abdominal protrudes outside the window and sensing technique.
deflection value of 45 mm. The oblique strikes the ground in a rollover or strikes DaimlerChrysler and the Alliance
pole test will require these vehicles to the striking object (e.g., pole or a taller supported the mid-track seating position
provide protection of the 5th percentile vehicle hood) in a side impact. Window for the ES–2 dummy. However, the
adult female’s abdomen/pelvis areas; curtains that meet the oblique pole test Alliance stated that the WorldSID test
these improvements would not will better protect against these partial dummy should be positioned according
generally result from a 90-degree test. ejections. to the seat track and seat back
We are not supportive of maintaining adjustment procedure based on a
Other examples of how an oblique
both the 75-degree oblique pole test and University of Michigan Transportation
versus perpendicular impact can affect
the FMVSS No. 201 pole test in the Research Institute (UMTRI) Seating
a vehicle’s ability to provide head
standard, as suggested by Mr. Watson. Accommodation Model. The Alliance
protection were provided in the NPRM.
While the inclusion of both tests could stated that the UMTRI model is based
In a 75-degree test of a Nissan Maxima
provide more assurance of occupant on a study of actual seating positions
with the ES–2 dummy, the head of the
safety, we are concerned whether the selected by drivers who are the same
dummy rotated into the pole size as the 50th percentile adult male
notwithstanding the presence of a test burdens are justified. Although we
found in our testing that some air bag frontal dummy and the 5th percentile
combination head/thorax side impact adult female frontal crash test dummy.
air bag. The HIC score was 5,254. In a systems that met the FMVSS No. 201
pole test did not deploy the air bag in In its comment, IIHS stated that the
90-degree test, the same model year UMTRI seat position should be used for
Maxima produced a HIC score of 130.55 the agency’s 75-degree oblique pole test,
we do not expect the opposite trend both the 5th female dummy and for the
In our test program, four of the 10 ES–2re 50th percentile dummy. IIHS
vehicles tested with the SID–IIs had side from the adoption of this regulation.
Vehicles will be subject to testing by believed that the UMTRI procedure is
air curtains that exceeded 1,000 HIC in more representative of real world
the oblique impact (see the agency’s IIHS in its side impact consumer
seating behavior, which IIHS stated is
docketed technical report on the test information program, which conducts
typically rearward of the proposed
program, summarized in Section IV of 90-degree MDB tests. Side air bag
positions. IIHS stated that if the agency
this preamble, for a full discussion of sensors will therefore be designed to
decides to use the mid-track position for
the test program). The SID–IIs rotated sense such impact orientations. Further,
the 50th percentile male dummy, the
around the front edge of the air bag or even in the absence of the IIHS test, we
range of occupant sizes protected by the
hit the front-most pocket of the curtain, believe that the use of two test
proposed head protection will not be as
which allowed for the dummy’s head to dummies, two seating procedures and
large as intended by the agency.
contact a portion of the air curtain/ an oblique angle in the FMVSS No. 214 Nissan did not support the proposed
tether interface that did not cushion the pole test will induce the use of sensor seat positions for the pole test. It
impact. HIC values were in the designs and mounting locations that believed that the dummy in the
thousands. These curtains will be more will be sufficiently robust to detect both proposed positions might be close
protective when designed to meet 75-degree and 90-degree impacts. enough to the A- or B-pillar that these
oblique pole test requirements. 3. Positioning the Seat for the Test structures would interfere with the
dummy’s head prior to contact with the
A. Fore-and-Aft Seating Position
54 Using two dummies in a 90-degree pole test pole. Nissan believes that this
will not necessarily lead to wider, more protective For the oblique pole test, the agency circumstance could result in reduced
SIABs. If the SIAB were seat-mounted, the seat- proposed to position the test dummies
mounted SIAB would travel along the seat track
test repeatability, and it therefore
with the dummies. A SIAB could be tuned to meet fore-and-aft along the vehicle seat track, recommended the seat positions used in
a 90-degree pole test with both dummies and not according to the current FMVSS No. 214 the FMVSS No. 201 pole test procedure.
provide benefits in an oblique impact. seat positioning procedure, as opposed Ferrari objected to the proposed
55 Other data from crash tests conducted in
to the procedure specified in FMVSS positioning procedure for the 50th
support of the NPRM showed that side air bags in
a Ford Explorer and a Toyota Camry that were
No. 201. The proposed procedure would percentile male dummy. Ferrari stated
certified as meeting the requirements of the 90- that using only the control that
degree pole test of FMVSS No. 201 did not inflate 56 ‘‘Rollover Ejection Mitigation Using Inflatable
primarily moves the seat in the fore-
at all in an oblique (75 degree) test using a 5th Tubular Structures,’’ Simula, et al., 1998; ‘‘Status of and-aft direction, as proposed in the
percentile female dummy. The HIC results for the NHTSA’s Ejection Mitigation Research Program,’’
5th percentile female (SID–IIsFRG) dummy placed Willke, et al., ESV 2003. new procedure, changes the mid-point
in the driver’s seats of these vehicles were in the 57 About 60 percent of the partial ejections of the seating position from the current
thousands (13,125 and 8,706, respectively). occurred to belted occupants. position.
Agency response: After carefully the FMVSS No. 201 pole test seating Alliance did not provide a rationale for
reviewing the comments on seating procedure. its requested change.
procedures, the agency decided to adopt In response to Ferrari, this final rule The final rule does, however, add
the NPRM proposal on positioning the adopts the specification of the new clarification in the regulatory text for
test dummies fore-and-aft along the positioning procedure that only the head restraint designs with adjustable
vehicle seat track. We agree with control that primarily moves the seat in backset when tested with the ES–2re
commenters that stated these positions the fore-and-aft direction is used to dummy. Proposed paragraph S8.3.1.2 is
(full forward for the 5th percentile position the seat along the seat track. amended to specify that an adjustable
female dummy; mid-track for the 50th This procedure is simpler than the head restraint must be positioned to its
percentile male dummy) would assure current FMVSS No. 214 procedure, and highest and most forward adjustment
that air bags installed to comply with produces more repeatable seat position.
the standard would provide a relatively positioning of complex power seats than 4. Impact Reference Line
broad zone of protection. While we also the current procedure. We also believe
agree with Mr. Watson’s suggestion that S10.12.2 states that the test vehicle is
that the differences, if any, in seat
testing with the seat positioned in the propelled sideways so that its line of
placement along the seat track will be
full rearward position could provide forward motion forms an angle of 285
minimal. The new procedure was used
even more coverage, we also had to (or 75) degrees (+/¥3 degrees) for the
successfully in NHTSA’s 214 fleet
maintain a level of practicability in right (or left) side impact with the
testing program (see Section IV, supra).
establishing the requirements. vehicle’s longitudinal centerline. The
Positioning the dummy further rearward B. Head Restraints angle is measured counterclockwise
could present potential B-pillar from the vehicle’s positive X-axis. The
The Alliance and Honda requested
interference and repeatability issues, impact reference line is aligned with the
clarification of the positioning of head
such as those cited by Nissan. Neither center line of the rigid pole surface, as
restraints for all seating positions. In the
the agency nor the commenter has data viewed in the direction of vehicle
proposed regulatory text, sections that
to support such a proposal at this time. motion, so that, when the vehicle-to-
involve seating the SID–IIs dummy in
We were not persuaded by IIHS’s pole contact occurs, the center line
the front and rear seats (proposed
suggestion of using the UMTRI seat contacts the vehicle area bounded by
8.3.2.2 and 8.3.3.2, respectively) state
track and seat back adjustment for the two vertical planes parallel to and 38
that any adjustable head restraint is to
SID–IIs and ES–2re dummies in the mm (1.5 inches) forward and aft of the
be positioned in the lowest and most
oblique pole test configuration. On impact reference line.
forward position. However, sections that Ferrari commented that contact
February 23, 2004, NHTSA denied a
involve seating the ES–2re dummy in between the center line of the rigid pole
petition for rulemaking to adopt the
the front and rear seats (sections 8.3.1.2 surface and the vehicle does not
UMTRI procedure in FMVSS No. 214.58
and 8.3.4) state that any adjustable head represent the initial contact between the
The agency concluded that there was a
restraint is to be positioned in the pole and the vehicle. Ferrari requested
lack of evidence supporting the UMTRI
lowest and most forward position for that the proposed test procedure be
procedure. IIHS noted in their FMVSS
the front seat, and in its highest position modified so that the 38 mm tolerance
No. 214 comments that the UMTRI
for the rear seat. The Alliance refers to the initial impact point rather
seating procedure typically positions
recommended that any adjustable head than the contact point of the center line
both dummies rearward of the proposed
positions. However, no data was restraints be placed in the of the pole surface as viewed from the
provided to support the claim that the manufacturers’ specified position, while direction of the vehicle motion.
UMTRI position provided more Honda believes the head restraints Agency response: Ferrari provided
coverage than that proposed by the should be positioned in its highest two schematics to illustrate its
NPRM. Furthermore, no data was position, as currently required by comments. (http://dmses.dot.gov/
provided to support that such a change FMVSS No. 214. docimages/pdf92/338984_web.pdf) In
in seating procedure would be Agency response: We concur with the the schematics, Ferrari erroneously
practicable, repeatable, and result in need for clarification of the proposed interpreted the forward motion of the
measurable benefit. Therefore, we are regulatory text pertaining to head test vehicle relative to the pole and
not considering it for incorporation into restraint positioning. The agency’s initial impact point. In order to achieve
FMVSS No. 214. intent was to maintain the head restraint the proper impact configuration, the test
The Alliance’s recommendation on positioning currently used in the MDB vehicle is propelled sideways at an
how to seat the WorldSID dummy is out test of FMVSS No. 214 for the ES–2re angle (285 degrees for right and 75
of scope for this rulemaking. As dummy (highest and most forward degree for left side impact) into the
previously discussed, research will need adjustment position) and to position the stationary pole, not perpendicular as
to be conducted in conjunction with the head restraint in the lowest and most shown in the schematics. To clarify the
federalization of that dummy. forward position for the SID–IIs dummy. test set up, the agency has decided to
In response to Nissan, we do not agree Accordingly, we have revised the ES– include in the compliance test
that the seating procedure would result 2re regulatory text to reflect our intent. procedure a schematic depicting the
in A- or B-pillar interference with the We were not persuaded by the impact configuration.
dummy’s head prior to contact with the Alliance’s recommendation to adopt the
pole. We have not observed this in our manufacturer’s specified position for 5. Test Attitude
crash tests to date. Further, no data was head restraint adjustment. The highest The NPRM proposed to refine how
submitted to the agency to support this position of adjustment has been used for the vehicle test attitude is determined.
claim. Furthermore, our testing has the SID dummy in FMVSS No. 214 MDB Currently, the vehicle attitude is defined
shown that the oblique pole test tests for many years, and we do not by measurements made from the ground
procedure is repeatable. Accordingly, anticipate any significant differences in (a level surface) to a reference point
we do not agree it is necessary to adopt head restraint interaction with the ES– placed on the vehicle body above each
2re dummy that would warrant a change of the wheels. These measurements are
58 See 69 FR 8161. in specification. Furthermore, the made with the vehicle in the ‘‘as
delivered,’’ ‘‘fully loaded,’’ and ‘‘pre-test determines the vehicle attitude than rulemaking, with minimal assured
(or as tested)’’ conditions. The NPRM using the current method. The agency benefit.
proposed that the method used to used the proposed method during the Consumers Union, Advocates, Public
determine the test attitude be revised to 214 fleet testing program conducted in Citizen, and Mr. Watson expressed
align with that used in S13.3 of FMVSS support of this final rule. The test concern about not applying the test to
No. 208. In that provision, a test attitude vehicles were loaded in accordance the rear seat. The commenters believed
is determined based on door-sill angle with S8.1, using instructions in the draft that equivalent protection in side
measurements to control the vehicle’s test procedure. Ballast representing the impacts should be provided to rear seat
pitch attitude. weight of the test device was placed in occupants. Advocates commented that
The NPRM also proposed to define the seat to determine the ‘‘fully loaded’’ either the agency must also apply the
the vehicle’s roll attitude by a left to condition. The proposed method pole test to rear seats or should modify
right angle measured along a fixed yielded the intended result of assuring the current FMVSS No. 214 MDB so that
reference point at the front and rear of proper attitude in the agency’s pole it induces dynamic protection
the vehicle at the vehicle longitudinal tests. For these reasons, the agency has countermeasures for the rear seat
center plane. NHTSA proposed these decided to adopt the proposed revised occupants. Advocates and Public
changes because measuring the angles method for the pole test. Citizen believed that an additional pole
more directly will better facilitate, and For the MDB test, the agency agrees test would encourage manufacturers to
more accurately determine, the vehicle that a specification regarding the install side air bags for rear occupants
attitudes than by use of the method in vehicle’s vertical position relative to and improve protection for the elderly
current S6.2 of FMVSS No. 214 ground is desirable. The agency has and children, who are often seated in
(specifying test procedures for the MDB decided to maintain the present method the rear of the vehicle. Mr. Watson
test). In the MDB test, the dummy and used to determine vertical height believed that air bag sensing
vehicle instrumentation, high-speed measurements, but is adding a ± 10 mm arrangements may not be able to deploy
cameras, associated brackets and tolerance. In addition, instructions to the countermeasures for a variety of rear
instrumentation umbilical lines that are assure that conventional and dynamic door impacts, and therefore
added to the vehicle make it difficult suspensions are exercised prior to recommended that the agency require
sometimes to achieve the corridor taking attitude measurements have been an identical pole test for the rear seat
between the as delivered and fully included in the agency’s test procedure. occupant. Autoliv suggested possibly
loaded attitudes, particularly at the right regulating only head impacts for rear
front position of the vehicle. The agency Regarding the Alliance’s suggestion
that there should be specifications on seat occupants since few vehicles have
also requested comments on keeping the been currently developed for rear seat
present method used to determine placing weights representing the
necessary test dummies in the seating thorax protection during a pole impact.
vehicle test attitude, but adding a ± 10
positions, NHTSA currently allows Agency response: We have decided
mm tolerance.
DaimlerChrysler and the Alliance various forms of ballast (other than an against applying the pole test to the rear
commented that there was no proposed actual dummy). We do not believe that seating positions. As noted earlier in
specification regarding the vehicle’s instructions are needed regarding what this preamble, rear seat safety is
vertical position relative to ground. ballast should be used or how the enhanced by this final rule in several
They believed that, for the MDB test, the ballast should be placed on the seat for ways. For the first time, a HIC criterion
resultant vehicle setup might not proper weight distribution. For our 214 is adopted for rear seat occupants. In
reproduce the intended relationship fleet testing program, one test laboratory addition, use of the SID–IIs (5th
between the vehicle and MDB. The used a ‘‘ballast dummy’’ to attain the percentile adult female) test dummy in
Alliance also stated that while the fully loaded condition, while another testing rear seats in the MDB test of
procedure would provide for used sand bags. Both methods were FMVSS No. 214 (discussed later in this
measurement of vehicle pitch and roll acceptable, yielding valid results. preamble) will assess the rear seat
attitude, it is not clear that this offers environment in protecting children, the
6. Rear Seat Pole Test elderly and small adults—a more
benefit with regard to execution of the
test. The Alliance recommended that The NPRM proposed to apply the pole vulnerable population than the mid-size
the current set procedure be retained test to only the driver and front adult male population—in rear seating
with the following exception: in outboard passenger seats because years positions in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes.
determining the fully loaded vehicle of conducting the optional pole test in The SID–IIs dummy is more
weight and attitude, there should be FMVSS No. 201 have yielded representative of rear seat occupants
specifications on placing weights substantial information about meeting than SID, and the injury assessment
representing the necessary test dummies pole test requirements for those seats, reference values we will use with the
in the seating positions. Finally, the while far less information was known dummy are set at levels that reflect the
Alliance suggested that we provide about the rear seat. The agency also effect of aging on tolerance.
direction on determining test attitude believed that rear seat occupants make However, with specific regard to the
and ride height for vehicles equipped up a small percentage of the seriously pole test, a consideration of several
with dynamic suspension systems that injured occupants in side crashes. We factors leads us to decline to apply the
adjust ride height based on vehicle also found it compelling that side air pole test to rear seating positions.
velocity or that can be manually set by curtains generally cover both front and Directly applying the pole test to the
the driver for differing road conditions rear side window openings and thus rear seat is not necessary for the pole
(e.g., off-road, luxury ride, etc.). would also afford some degree of head test to enhance rear seat safety. Air
Agency response: The vehicle attitude protection to rear seat occupants even in curtains cover both front and rear side
specifications assure that proper the absence of a test applying to the rear window openings, and are tethered to
attitude is attained prior to impact. As seat. We also recognized that applying the A- and C-pillars of vehicles.
stated in the NPRM, the agency believed the test to the rear seats would require Curtains tethered to the A- and C-pillars
that measuring pitch and roll angles at least twice as many tests per vehicle, will be large enough to cover both front
more directly and more accurately increasing the cost and burden of the and rear side window openings and will
afford protection to both front and rear we have limited information about the oblique pole test, to delete an
seat occupants in side impacts. performance of rear seat-mounted air unnecessary test burden on
We believe that manufacturers will bag systems in meeting the TWG manufacturers.
increasingly install air curtains in their performance guidelines. We believe that Advocates, AIAM and the Alliance
vehicles because air curtains can more has to be learned about the risk to supported the agency’s proposal to
potentially be used as a countermeasure children in rear seating positions before exclude vehicles meeting an FMVSS No.
in preventing ejection in rollovers. we proceed with adopting a requirement 214 pole test from FMVSS No. 201’s 90-
(‘‘NHTSA Vehicle Safety Rulemaking that will encourage the installation of degree, 29 km/h (18 mph) pole test.
Priorities and Supporting Research: seat-mounted SIABs as a Advocates agreed with the NPRM that a
2003–2006,’’ July 2003, Docket 15505.) countermeasure to that requirement. vehicle meeting the proposed pole test
NHTSA has announced that it is would also meet the optional pole test
developing a proposal for an ejection 7. Door Closed of FMVSS No. 201.
mitigation containment requirement.59 FMVSS No. 214 currently prohibits Honda suggested a further exclusion
NHTSA believes that side curtains any side door that is struck by the MDB of vehicles from a requirement of
installed pursuant to FMVSS No. 214’s from separating totally from the vehicle FMVSS No. 201. Honda asked NHTSA
pole test could readily be developed to (currently in S5.3.1 of the standard). to consider excluding vehicles from the
satisfy the desired properties of a The standard also requires any door armrest requirements of S5.5.1 if the
countermeasure. (NHTSA report (including a rear hatchback or tailgate) vehicles comply with the oblique pole
‘‘Initiatives to Address the Mitigation of that is not struck by the moving test of FMVSS No. 214. Honda believes
Rollovers,’’ supra.) We believe that deformable barrier to meet the following that: ‘‘If a vehicle meets the proposed
manufacturers will install curtains in requirements: the door shall not requirements, that compliance should
increasing numbers of vehicles in disengage from the latched position; the supercede the armrest requirements of
response to this final rule, the voluntary latch shall not separate from the striker, FMVSS 201.’’60
commitment, and in anticipation of and the hinge components shall not Agency response: The FMVSS No. 214
NHTSA’s ejection mitigation separate from each other or from their oblique pole test encompasses and goes
rulemaking. The curtains will provide attachment to the vehicle; and neither beyond the FMVSS No. 201 pole crash
head protection to front and rear seat the latch nor the hinge systems of the test and thus renders unnecessary the
occupants in side impacts. door shall pull out of their anchorages. latter test. Seat-mounted side impact air
We have also decided against The NPRM proposed to apply the same bags that deploy into an area far enough
applying the pole test to rear seating door separation/opening prohibitions to forward to cushion a 5th percentile
positions because, as noted in the vehicles tested in the vehicle-to-pole female dummy’s head in a 32 km/h (20
NPRM, according to 1999 and 2000 tests. mph) oblique impact are also likely to
Fatality Analysis Reporting System The only comments on the proposal protect a 50th percentile male’s head in
(FARS) data, the front outboard seating were from Advocates and Public a perpendicular one. Similarly, an air
positions account for 89.2 percent of Citizen, which opposed the proposal. curtain tethered to the A- and C-pillars
total fatalities and 88.8 percent of total The commenters believed that, to that meets an oblique crash test is also
injured occupants in passenger cars, and improve ‘‘anti-ejection likely to provide coverage in a
86.6 percent and 87.6 percent of total countermeasures’’ the standard should perpendicular crash. Accordingly, this
fatalities and total injured occupants in not permit struck doors to become final rule adopts the proposed
LTVs. While these are for all crash unlatched in the pole test. amendment to FMVSS No. 201. It
conditions, the percentages for side Agency response: This final rule does should be noted that targets near the
impacts with narrow objects are similar. not make a change from the proposal. stowed HPS are still subject to the head
In nearside crashes, rear occupants NHTSA has not observed the struck form test of FMVSS No. 201, conducted
make up 7.3 percent, 10.2 percent and door unlatching in the optional pole test at the 19.3 km/h (12 mph) test speed
4.4 percent of seriously injured persons of FMVSS No. 201, or in the agency’s specified in that standard.
in crashes with passenger cars, LTVs vehicle pole tests discussed in the This final rule does not make Honda’s
and narrow objects, respectively. As technical report on the test program. suggested deletion of the arm rest
stated in the NPRM (69 FR 28011), the The test data indicate that vehicle requirements of FMVSS No. 201. The
1997–2001 NASS CDS annualized manufacturers are already designing suggested change was not proposed in
fatality distribution for rear outboard their vehicles such that the struck door the NPRM.
occupants indicates there were 22 will not unlatch during the pole test. 9. Quasi Static Test
fatalities caused by a vehicle-to-pole
8. FMVSS No. 201 Pole Test The Alliance, AIAM, Lotus, Maserati,
side crash, 7 of which were due to head
injury. FMVSS No. 201 specifies an optional and Ferrari suggested that NHTSA
In addition, we are not applying the 90-degree, 29 km/h (18 mph) pole test delete the quasi-static test requirements
pole test to rear positions out of a using a SID–H3 driver dummy (1000 from FMVSS No. 214 if the pole test is
concern that more needs to be known HIC36 test criterion). The NPRM
60 FMVSS No. 201 requires each armrest to meet
about seat-mounted SIABs in rear proposed to amend FMVSS No. 201 to
one of the following: (a) Be constructed with
seating positions. Currently, almost no exclude vehicles certified to FMVSS No. energy-absorbing material and deflect or collapse
vehicle has seat-mounted air bag 214’s oblique 32 km/h (20 mph) pole laterally at least 50 mm without permitting contact
systems in rear seats. If a pole test were test from the 90-degree, 29 km/h (18 with the underlying rigid material; (b) be
applied to the rear seat, seat-mounted mph) pole test in FMVSS No. 201. The constructed with energy-absorbing material that
deflects or collapses to within 32 mm of a rigid test
SIABs might emerge to meet chest agency believed that a vehicle that met panel surface without permitting contact with any
protection requirements. At this time, the oblique 32 km/h (20 mph) pole test rigid material, and the rigid material between 13
would also meet FMVSS No. 201’s 90- and 32 mm from the panel surface must have a
59 Additionally, Sec. 10301 of SAFETEA–LU
degree 29 km/h (18 mph) test. Thus, the minimum vertical height of not less than 25 mm;
requires the Secretary to issue by October 1, 2009 or (c) along not less than 50 continuous mm of its
an ejection mitigation final rule reducing complete
agency proposed to eliminate the length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically
and partial ejections of occupants from outboard FMVSS No. 201 optional pole test for in side elevation, provide at least 55 mm of
seating positions (49 U.S.C. 30128(c)(1)). vehicles certified to the FMVSS No. 214 coverage within the pelvic impact area.
adopted. (A summary of FMVSS No. Beams were also found to be effective in requirements for the oblique pole test
214’s current requirements is in lower-speed multivehicle crashes, should apply to all vehicles with a
Appendix B of this preamble.) The reducing the risk of nonfatal injuries. GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less.
quasi-static requirements limit the Kahane (2007). The quasi-static test is One of the vehicle models the agency
extent to which the side door structure needed, particularly for doors of the tested in its vehicle research program
of a vehicle is pushed into the passenger vehicle that are not impacted by the had a 4,082 kg (9,000 lb) GVWR. This
compartment during a side impact. The pole in the oblique pole test (such as the was a model year 2005 Dodge Ram 2500
standard requires each side door to rear compartment doors). equipped with side curtain air bags. The
resist crush forces that are applied by a This final rule does not add an agency tested this vehicle in two
piston pressing a 300 mm (12 inch) steel intrusion limit to the pole test vehicle-to-pole tests with the ES–2re
cylinder against the door’s outer surface requirements adopted today. Adding an dummy. In the first test, the side curtain
in a laboratory test. Since the intrusion limit is beyond the scope of air bags did not deploy, and
requirement became effective in 1973, the NPRM. Further, not enough consequently, the ES–2re dummy
vehicle manufacturers have generally information is known at this time about resulted in high injury measures,
chosen to meet the requirement by the need for an intrusion limit, given including a HIC of 5,748, 47 mm of rib
reinforcing the side doors with metal that the injury criteria of the pole test deflection, and a lower spine
beams. Ferrari stated, ‘‘The purpose of act to limit the risk of injury to an acceleration of 86 g. The test results
the static door crush resistance test in occupant. demonstrated a need for improved
the existing FMVSS No. 214 is to 10. Vehicle Exclusions sensors and side impact protection for
guarantee the ability of the vehicle to the occupants of this vehicle. In the
provide some kind of protection in a The agency proposed subjecting second test, using the same vehicle
side impact against a narrow object.’’ vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg model, the side curtain air bags were
Commenters believed that the pole test (10,000 lb) or less to the oblique pole deployed remotely at 12 msec,63 and the
would assess the same performance, test, with certain exceptions. The resulting HIC value was 331. The results
making the quasi-static test redundant agency proposed excluding: motor of this test showed that the deployment
and burdensome. homes, tow trucks, dump trucks, of the side curtain air bag resulted in
In contrast, Public Citizen ambulances and other emergency significant HIC reductions for the ES–
recommended that the agency evaluate rescue/medical vehicles (including 2re dummy (from 5,748 to 331). The ES–
the potential for adding an intrusion vehicles with fire-fighting equipment), 2re dummy was chosen for use in the
limit to the proposed pole test, in vehicles equipped with wheelchair lifts, agency’s testing since it is likely to be
addition to the dummy injury criteria. vehicles with raised or altered roof the most challenging pole test
The suggested requirement would designs, and vehicles which have no configuration of the two required. The
regulate the amount of pole intrusion doors, or exclusively have doors that are ES–2re is equipped with more
into the occupant survival space. Public designed to be easily attached or instrumentation in the abdomen and
Citizen believes that the level of removed so that the vehicle can be thorax, and its larger mass requires more
intrusion into the occupant space is operated without doors. The agency energy management by the restraint
closely correlated with the level of believed that many vehicles within system. Although the rib deflections and
occupant injury risk. these categories tend to have unusual abdominal force measurements for the
Agency response: This final rule does side structures that may not be suitable ES–2re exceeded the IARVs, the vehicle
not remove the quasi-static test from for pole testing or have features that was not equipped with a thorax side air
FMVSS No. 214. Removing the test is could pose practicability problems in bag. We believe that these measures
beyond the scope of the NPRM. Further, meeting the test. Comments were would be improved with a thorax side
there is a safety need for the test. To requested on the need to exclude other air bag, and possible structural
meet the quasi-static test, vehicle types of vehicles from the pole test, enhancements.
manufacturers have equipped vehicles such as convertibles that lack a roof The agency does not agree with the
with side door beams which transmit structure enabling the installation of an Alliance that vehicles over 3,855 kg
the force sideways to the struck vehicle, air curtain. (8,500 lb) GVWR should be excluded
thus reducing the amount of intrusion The proposed exclusions are adopted, from the pole test. In side impacts with
toward the occupant and slowing down except to the extent discussed below in poles and trees, the objects struck are
the rate of that intrusion.61 NHTSA this section. typically taller than the striking vehicle.
found that the side door beams were 14 i. GVWR. Advocates and Public
There are no indications of any lesser
percent effective in reducing fatality risk Citizen supported the inclusion of
safety need for side impact protection
for nearside and farside occupants in vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg
for these vehicles. These vehicles are
single-vehicle side impacts.62 When this (10,000 lb) or less, while the Alliance
driven on the same roads and at the
group of crashes was further limited to believed that vehicles above a GVWR of
same times as other LTVs, and are thus
impacts with a single fixed object, 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) should be excluded.
subject to the same safety risks as other
fatality reduction was 23 percent. The The Alliance believed that the agency
LTVs. NHTSA is not aware of any
agency believes that the beam acts like did not show that the requirement
special characteristic of these vehicles
an internal guard to allow a car to slide would be practicable for vehicles with
that would reduce such risks.64 In
past a pole or tree, with a longer, a GVWR above 3,855 kg (8,500 lb), and
addition, the Alliance did not suggest
shallower crush pattern on the car. also stated that a safety need for
applying the pole test to those vehicles 63 Since the side crash sensor was unable to
61 Kahane, C.J., An Evaluation of Side Impact has not been shown. deploy the air bags in the oblique pole test
Crash, FMVSS 214 TTI(d) Improvements and Side Agency response: After consideration configuration in the first test, the side curtain air
air Bags, NHTSA Technical Report No. DOT HS 810 of the comments and test data from the bags were deployed remotely.
748, Washington, DC 2007. NHTSA 214 fleet testing program (see 64 Moreover, since the industry’s voluntary
62 Kahane, C.J., An Evaluation of Side Structure commitment to install side air bags in vehicles does
Improvements in Response to Federal Motor
Section IV of this preamble, supra) and not apply to vehicles with a GVWR greater than
Vehicle Safety Standard 214, NHTSA Technical other information, we are adopting the 3,855 kg (8,500 lb), applying the pole test to the
Report No. DOT HS 806 314, Washington, DC 1982. proposal that the performance vehicles assures that SIABs will be provided.
why the pole test might be practicable a pole impact for applications such as vehicle was able to meet the
for vehicles with lower GVWR, but not a convertible. Autoliv stated that the requirements of this final rule and
for vehicles with a GVWR above 3,855 systems do not, however, address the demonstrated that compliance with the
kg (8,500 lb). We believe manufacturers structural challenges that may be requirements for both head and chest
can employ comparable restraint involved in applying the pole test injury criteria is practicable. For the
systems and countermeasure strategies requirement to all vehicles that lack a Saab, HIC was 254, chest deflection was
to comply with the oblique pole test. roof structure. 40 mm, abdominal force was 841 N, and
However, the test of the Dodge Ram Agency response: After careful pelvic force was 2914 N. For the Beetle,
2500 (9,000 lb GVWR) indicated that consideration of the comments, NHTSA HIC was 315, chest deflection was 37
vehicles with a GVWR greater than has decided against excluding mm, abdominal force was 1018 N, and
3,855 kg (8,500 lb) may need more time convertibles from the pole test pelvic force was 3815 N.67 The Saab 9–
than other vehicles to meet the pole test requirements. In our comparative 3 and Volkswagen Beetle demonstrated
requirements, since the vehicles have analysis between convertibles and all practicability along a range of the
never been regulated under FMVSS No. other passenger cars in side impact convertible cost spectrum. This fact,
214’s dynamic requirements and are not crashes with fixed objects, it was found combined with the higher fatality risk
subject to the industry’s voluntary that 11.3 percent of convertible fatalities mentioned earlier, leads NHTSA to
commitment to install side air bags. are from single vehicle side impacts into believe that head/thorax
These vehicles may need more poles/trees, compared to 6.5 percent of countermeasures will be at least as cost-
structural enhancements than other other passenger car fatalities from single effective for convertibles as they are for
vehicles since they will be newly vehicle side impacts into poles/trees. other vehicles. We are not persuaded
subject to side crash requirements, and The fatality rate 65 from single vehicle that solutions are unknown or not
a demanding pole test at that. side impacts into poles/trees is 9.64 for available to convertibles as a whole, as
Accordingly, this final rule provides convertibles, and 6.12 for all other suggested by Lotus.
vehicles with a GVWR greater than passenger cars. When specifically
3,855 kg (8,500 lb) until the last year of In response to the Alliance’s concern
looking at pole/tree fatality rates, about meeting the TWG OOP guidelines,
the phase-in to meet the pole test convertibles are 58 percent higher than
requirements. we note that vehicle manufacturers for
all other passenger cars. In general, both the Saab 9–3 and the VW Beetle
ii. Convertibles. The Alliance, AIAM, NHTSA’s crash data indicate that
Nissan, DaimlerChrysler and Lotus reported that they comply with the
convertibles have higher rates of TWG OOP guidelines according to our
recommended the exclusion of fatalities in run-off-the-road type
convertible vehicles from the pole test. 2005 Buying a Safer Car information.
crashes, such as single vehicle side Therefore, we believe that the agency
The Alliance stated that we did not impacts, rollovers, etc. Consequently,
demonstrate it is practicable to has demonstrated practicability of the
requiring enhanced protection against pole test and of meeting the head and
implement countermeasures, while
tree and pole side impacts will be chest requirements. Our tests have
meeting the TWG OOP guidelines. It
paramount in improving the safety of shown that the lack of a roof structure
also believed that convertible vehicles
these vehicles. in the pole test was not an
should be excluded from all
We have also observed head/thorax insurmountable design obstacle for
requirements because the lack of roof
countermeasures that are effective and providing improved side crash
structure affects the overall response of
practicable for installation in protection. Therefore, we conclude that
a vehicle in a pole test, not just the HIC
convertible body types. While we agree HIC, and all other applicable injury
response.
AIAM believed that the inherent with Nissan that roof-rail design air measures, should be regulated in this
design constraints of convertibles curtains may not be practicable to test.
prevent the compliance of the proposed deploy and store in a convertible
vehicle, we do believe that head/thorax iii. Proximity to a Door
pole test. Similarly, Nissan believed that
convertibles lack the structural air bag systems, or even door-mounted Maserati and Ferrari noted that under
components necessary to store and inflatable curtains, as introduced in the the current S3(e)(1) of FMVSS No. 214’s
deploy a curtain air bag and that these 2006 model year Volvo C70 convertible, quasi-static test, a vehicle need not meet
vehicles should be excluded from the have merit. In our 214 fleet testing the static test requirements for any side
HIC response requirement in the pole program, we included two convertible door located so that no point on a 10-
test. DaimlerChrysler believed that vehicle models in our crash test matrix. inch horizontal longitudinal line
convertibles should be excluded These were the 2005 model year Saab 9– passing through and bisected by the H-
because, the commenter stated, it is not 3 convertible and 2005 model year point of a manikin placed in any seat
practicable within the architectural Volkswagen Beetle. Both vehicle models falls within the transverse, horizontal
limitations of convertibles to provide were tested in the oblique pole test with projection of the door’s opening. The
the supplemental structure to the the ES–2re dummy.66 In each case, the commenters believed that under that
vehicle to replace what the roof and roof 65 Data source: FARS 1999–2003. Model years
provision, a vehicle is excluded from
rail can contribute in sedans and coupes 1998–2002 were used. Total registration years (in the static test requirement if its side
to reduce penetration by the pole into millions) were 140.8 for all other passenger cars and door is located so that the H-point of the
the occupant compartment. Lotus 4.7 for convertibles. The fatalities per million manikin is below the sill of the vehicle.
commented that the lightweight registration years in single vehicle side crashes Ferrari stated, ‘‘if a vehicle is exempt
were 11.32 for all other passenger cars and 16.71
performance convertible type vehicle for convertibles. The fatalities per million
would not be able to comply with the registration years in single vehicle side ‘‘pole/tree’’ criteria using the ES–2 than when tested with the
pole test requirements without the crashes were 6.12 for all other passenger cars and SID–IIs. The ES–2re is equipped with more
introduction of some new, and as yet 9.64 for convertibles. instrumentation in the abdomen and thorax, and its
66 The ES–2re dummy was chosen for use in the larger mass requires more energy management by
unknown, technology. the restraint system.
agency’s testing since it is likely to be more
Autoliv commented that it is challenging pole test configuration than the SID–IIs 67 Injury criteria are: HIC 1000, chest deflection
currently working on developing a test. We determined that it would dbe more difficult 44 mm, abdominal force 2500 N, and pelvic force
restraint system to protect occupants in for seat-mounted systems to meet the performance 6000 N.
under current S3(e), it should likewise impracticable, as suggested by vehicles without invalidating the
be exempt from the proposed pole test.’’ DaimlerChrysler. No data were provided incomplete manufacturer’s compliance
Agency response: We do not agree by Advocates, or other commenters, to statement.
with Maserati and Ferrari that an suggest that there are engineering We also note that this final rule
exclusion from the pole test solutions or countermeasures to meet provides alterers and multi stage vehicle
requirements is appropriate if the H- the dynamic pole test requirements for manufacturers an extra year of lead time
point of a manikin placed in any seat is vehicles without doors or easily
to accommodate any necessary
below the sill of the vehicle, and thus removable doors. We believe that
does not fall ‘‘within the transverse, changes.68 Between now and that date,
applying the pole test to those vehicles
horizontal projection of the door’s they can work with manufacturers of
would effectively eliminate them from
opening.’’ The agency’s rationale for the incomplete and complete vehicles to
the marketplace.
exclusion in question from the static test develop seat-mounted SIABs and other
does not apply to the pole test. v. Vehicles With Partitions technologies that would enable them to
In the June 14, 1991 FMVSS No. 214 NTEA recommended an additional install the life-saving devices in vehicles
final rule that adopted the exclusion (56 exclusion of vehicles equipped with a that have partitions.
FR 27427), the agency stated that there partition behind the front seat area. vi. Wheelchair Restraints
was little safety benefit from having a NTEA believed that ‘‘a bulkhead or
side door beam requirement for those partition will almost certainly invalidate NMEDA believed that we should
door openings that are unlikely to have any chassis manufacturer’s compliance exclude vehicles with wheelchair
occupants sitting near them (i.e., within statement that may be available for a restraints that allow the wheelchair to
10 inches of the door opening). In the vehicle equipped with side impact be used as a designated seating position.
static test, the loading device is centered protection such as a side curtain air NMEDA noted ‘‘many wheelchair users
on the door opening, and a load is bag.’’ drive their vehicles from a wheelchair
applied until a specified load is Agency response: We do not agree or ride in the front row passenger
achieved. The door must prevent with an exclusion of partition-equipped position, again in a wheelchair. In these
intrusion of the door structure. If no vehicles. We believe the exclusion is too cases, the wheelchair is secured to the
occupant will be seated within 10 broad and could encompass more vehicle floor, and the occupant is
inches of the door opening, the vehicles than necessary. NTEA noted restrained with a type 2 seat belt
requirement limiting intrusion to 10 that the affected vehicles typically assembly.’’
inches is unnecessary. (As to whether include panel vans with a bulkhead to
the exclusion should apply to situations separate the front seat occupants from Agency response: An exclusion of any
where the manikin is seated within 10 bulk cargo placed in the rear, or buses vehicle with wheelchair restraints is
inches of the door, but below the sill, with a partition separating the bus overly broad. However, we agree that
will not be addressed today.) driver from the rest of the passenger vehicles in which a wheelchair is to be
In the oblique pole test, the pole is compartment. We note that the vehicles used in place of the driver’s or right
aligned with the head CG of the seated also include police vehicles, taxis, and front passenger’s seating position
dummy. An occupant who is seated limousines. Although we acknowledge should be excluded from the pole test
‘‘outboard’’ next to a door but below the that a bulkhead or partition installed by for that seating position. The vehicles
transverse, horizontal projection of the a second-stage manufacturer or alterer is are excluded out of practicability
door’s opening could suffer injuries, incompatible with some current side concerns. If a seat that had seat-
especially head injury, in a tree/pole curtain air bag systems tethered from mounted SIABs were removed from a
impact if side air bags or other the A- to C-pillars, second-stage front outboard seating position, the
countermeasures were not installed. manufacturers and alterers have vehicle would no longer have the
Accordingly, the pole test requirement alternatives, discussed below, that countermeasure installed to meet the
will yield meaningful results for the would enable them to certify to the pole pole test. Installing a complying air
vehicles in question, and the exclusion test. curtain in these vehicles is likely
will not be extended as requested. We believe that incomplete vehicles beyond the capabilities of most small
and completed cargo vans will be businesses modifying the vehicle. Even
iv. Removable Doors available with seat-mounted or door- if the vehicle were originally
The Alliance and DaimlerChrysler mounted head/thorax air bag systems. manufactured with an air curtain, a
believed that vehicles without doors or Not all cargo vans will have side curtain vehicle tested to the oblique pole test
easily removable doors, now excluded air bag systems that are tethered from with the test dummy in a wheelchair
from the MDB and quasi-static tests the A- to the C-pillar. Cargo van instead of the OEM driver or passenger
under S2(c) and S3(e)(4) of the current manufacturers are not likely to install A- seat might not meet the test
standard, respectively, should also be to C-pillar side curtain air bag systems requirements. Accordingly, vehicles in
excluded from the pole test since the since these vehicles have no rear seats which the seat for the driver or right
lack of door structure makes meeting the or rear window openings. (Likewise, front passenger has been removed and
test requirements impracticable. On the small bus manufacturers are not likely wheelchair restraints installed in place
other hand, Advocates objected to to extend side air curtains the full of the seat are excluded from meeting
excluding vehicles with no or length of the bus.) Since the pole test is the oblique pole test at that removed
removable doors since, the commenter only applied to the driver and right seating position.
believed, the exclusion would allow front passenger seating locations,
manufacturers to avoid providing incomplete cargo van manufacturers 68 This accords with the amendments set forth in
adequate side impact protection. will likely certify the vehicles to the the agency’s final rule on ‘‘Vehicles Built in Two
Agency response: We agree with pole test using seat-mounted SIABs (or or More Stages,’’ 70 FR 7414, February 14, 2005,
excluding vehicles without doors or may develop air curtain technology that Docket 5673. The February 14, 2005 final rule also
added a new process under which intermediate and
easily removable doors from the oblique involve designs other than tethering the final-stage manufacturers and alterers can obtain
pole test since the lack of door structure curtain to the A- and C-pillars). A temporary exemptions from dynamic performance
makes meeting the test requirements partition can be installed in these requirements (49 CFR part 555).
vii. Altered (Modified) Roof or Lowered the original roof. In addition, if the called ‘pass-through’ compliance.’’
Floor original roof rail were modified, there NTEA is concerned that chassis
The agency proposed excluding would also be practicability problems manufacturers ‘‘may state that
vehicles with altered or raised roof for entities using glazing materials in subsequent stage manufacturers are
designs from the pole test, and proposed the replacement roof. Thus, unlike the unable to do anything in the vicinity of’’
FMVSS No. 216 definition, the FMVSS side curtain air bags or head bags.
using the definitions for ‘‘altered roof’’
No. 214 definition does not exclude The commenter also believed that
and ‘‘raised roof’’ set forth in FMVSS
from the definition replacement roofs on there are no viable alternatives available
No. 216, ‘‘Roof crush resistance.’’ 69
vehicles whose original roof has been to its members to demonstrate
NMEDA suggested that vehicles with
replaced by a roof that consists of compliance other than by using pass-
altered or raised roofs should be
glazing materials. This final rule also through compliance. NTEA stated that
excluded from both the HIC and
excludes on practicability grounds its members cannot certify vehicles
thoracic requirements because, the
vehicles that have had their original roof based on engineering analyses because
commenter believed, side air bag
rails removed and not replaced, i.e., as its members do not have the necessary
systems may have to be disabled to
in the conversion of a hardtop vehicle level of experience with a new
accommodate the raised/altered roof to a convertible. Entities involved in
conversion. Similarly, the commenter requirement of this nature, or previous
such conversions are usually small crash test data, which NTEA believed
believed that modifiers lowering the businesses. The FMVSS No. 214
floor by modifying the SIAB sensor are needed for an engineering analyses.
definition is changed to ‘‘modified roof’’ NTEA stated that computer modeling is
system as originally installed would to distinguish it from the FMVSS No.
also have an extremely difficult time to unavailable because the commenter
216 definition of altered roof. believed it would be very expensive and
certify.
Agency response: We agree that viii. 6-Way Seats not widely available to its members. The
vehicles that have had the roof rail or commenter stated that consortium
NMEDA stated that mobility industry dynamic testing is unavailable because
floor rail modified should be excluded companies commonly replace front row
from the pole test.70 The vehicles are the FMVSS No. 214 tests ‘‘are vehicle
seats with extended travel seat bases specific, [so] even minor trim
excluded out of practicability concerns, (‘‘6-way seats’’) to facilitate vehicle
because roof rails and floor rails are differences in a single model could
access. It believed that because the produce significantly different test
typically integral parts of side impact modified seat bases are generally less
protection systems. Modifying the roof results, let alone varying chassis and
stable than the original seats, the pole
or floor rail structures may affect the body combinations.’’ With regard to
test would result in higher HIC values
vehicle’s performance in meeting the actual crash testing, NTEA stated: ‘‘It
in vehicles with extended movement
oblique pole test requirements. would be a practical impossibility for
seating systems than in vehicles with
This final rule slightly expands the these companies to test each of these
OEM seat bases. NMEDA thus
proposed definition of ‘‘altered roof,’’ configurations to sell the one or two of
recommended that we exclude vehicles
because the FMVSS No. 216 definition each configuration that have been
with extended travel seating systems
was too narrow to meet the intent of the ordered by a customer.’’
installed as a part of a second-stage
agency in excluding vehicles with Agency response: NHTSA declines
manufacturing process or by a vehicle
altered roof rails. The proposed NTEA’s request to exclude from the pole
alterer.
definition of altered roof (from FMVSS Agency response: We have decided test vehicles built in two or more stages
No. 216) only applied to a replacement that vehicles with extended travel seat that are equipped with a cargo carrying,
roof that is higher than the original roof. bases and other seating systems load bearing or work-performing body
We have modified the definition such designed to facilitate vehicle access are or equipment. We do not believe that
that it is not incumbent on the not excluded from this final rule. there is a need for a blanket exclusion
replacement roof being higher than the NMEDA provided no data to support its of these vehicles. NTEA was concerned
original roof. There would be assertion that a modified seat base that incomplete vehicle manufacturers
practicability issues in meeting the pole would necessarily cause extended ‘‘may state that subsequent stage
test for entities modifying the original movement and higher HIC values in the manufacturers are unable to do anything
roof rails of a vehicle even if the required tests. Further, no explanation in the vicinity of’’ side curtain air bags
replacement roof were not higher than was provided as to why these seat bases or head bags. We believe that
cannot be built structurally comparable incomplete vehicle manufacturers will
69 FMVSS No. 216 defines ‘‘altered roof’’ as: ‘‘the
to the original seat. We do not believe accommodate the needs of final-stage
replacement roof on a motor vehicle whose original that providing additional manufacturers to produce the vehicles.
roof has been removed, in part or in total, and
reinforcements to secure the seat is an Chassis-cabs, a type of incomplete
replaced by a roof that is higher than the original vehicle often acquired by final-stage
roof. The replacement roof on a motor vehicle insurmountable engineering task. If
whose original roof has been replaced, in whole or higher HIC values are occurring, that manufacturers for manufacturing
in part, by a roof that consists of glazing materials, supports our belief that better designs vehicles, have a significant portion of
such as those in T-tops and sunroofs, and is located
are needed for occupants of these the occupant compartment completed.
at the level of the original roof, is not considered Chassis-cab manufacturers will likely
to be an altered roof.’’ FMVSS No. 216 states: vehicles.
‘‘Raised roof means, with respect to a roof which produce incomplete vehicles with seat-
includes an area that protrudes above the ix. Multistage Manufacturers or roof-mounted head/thorax air bag
surrounding exterior roof structure, that protruding NTEA suggested that the final rule systems already installed. As long as the
area of the roof.’’ final-stage manufacturer meets the
70 Vehicles with lowered floors are currently not exclude ‘‘vehicles built in two or more
excluded from the MDB test. Alterers and stages that are equipped with a cargo conditions of the incomplete vehicle
multistage manufacturers have been certifying their carrying, load bearing or work- document (and NTEA has not shown
vehicles with lowered floors to the MDB test since performing body or equipment.’’ The that final stage manufacturers will not
1998. Given the practicability of meeting the be able to meet those conditions) the
current MDB test, this final rule does not exclude
commenter stated that its members
lowered floor vehicles from the applicability of the typically certify that their vehicles meet manufacturers may rely on the
MDB test adopted today. dynamic testing standards by ‘‘using so- incomplete vehicle manufacturer’s
certification and pass it through when Accord and Jetta had relatively low side air bag systems. In 2002, 22% of
certifying the completed vehicle.71 values for HIC and lower spine passenger cars were so equipped, and by
To the degree that final stage acceleration, and did not meet only the 2009, under the voluntary commitment,
manufacturers must certify the pelvic force criterion. The Honda manufacturers have projected that 100%
compliance of their vehicles other than Accord, VW Jetta, VW Beetle of passenger vehicles will have head
by using ‘‘pass-through’’ certification, convertible, and Saab 9–3 convertible side air bag systems. Based on the vast
we have provided these manufacturers met the performance criteria for the ES– knowledge that manufacturers have
until September 1, 2014 to work with 2re. been able to gain in developing and
manufacturers of incomplete vehicles, It is not surprising that the vehicles implementing side air bag technologies,
seating systems and SIABs to develop we tested did not meet the IARVs for we are confident that manufacturers
systems that will enable them to certify both the SID–IIs and the ES–2re, will be able to make the improvements
to FMVSS No. 214’s pole test. They can because the oblique pole test was to current systems that will enable the
obtain seat-mounted SIABs and work developed to induce improvements that systems to meet the upgraded FMVSS
with the suppliers, individually or as a would protect more occupants in more No. 214 requirements adopted today.
consortium, to develop the information crash situations than current vehicles.
to install the seat-mounted systems in NHTSA need not demonstrate that any 12. International Harmonization
their vehicles. Because a wholesale current vehicle meets all the new The Australian government was
exclusion of vehicles built in two or requirements to show that an FMVSS concerned that NHTSA’s side impact
more stages that are equipped with a will be practicable within the meaning proposal would forestall the outcome of
cargo carrying, load bearing or work- of the Safety Act when fully deliberations of the International
performing body or equipment has not implemented. A determination of Harmonized Research Activities (IHRA)
been justified, we are not adopting an practicability calls for an exercise in Side Impact Working Group (SIWG)
across-the-board exclusion of these judgment by the agency, based on regarding a side impact pole test
vehicles. information about the performance of procedure, and the dummies used in the
current designs and the likely effect of test.72 Our decisions today should not
x. Other Issues
design improvements and new hamper the potential for global
The NPRM proposed excluding tow technologies on performance. harmonization of side impact
trucks and dump trucks from the pole The fact that no current designs met regulations.
test. NTEA commented that it was not the requirements when tested with both Today’s final rule is consistent with
aware of any dump trucks or tow trucks the SID–IIs and the ES–2re does not NHTSA’s policy goal of harmonizing
with GVWRs of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or show the requirements will not be with non-U.S. safety requirements
less, so the vehicles would be excluded practicable, but it does require the except to the extent needed to address
from the pole test based on the GVWR agency to use its judgment carefully to safety problems here in the U.S. We
of the vehicles. Considering this ensure that the new requirements will noted in the NPRM that, worldwide,
information, the express exclusion is be practicable within the lead time there are numerous countries that have
unnecessary, and we have removed it provided. In this case, we have ensured side impact protection requirements or
from the regulatory text. (For that that the provided lead time and phase- governmental or non-governmental side
reason, we have also removed the in schedule assures that manufacturers impact consumer information programs.
express exclusion from the section can make long range plans for improved While these side impact programs are
excluding vehicles from the MDB test sensor designs, SIABs and arm rests to similar to those of the U.S., the safety
requirements.) meet the IARVs for both test dummies. need addressed by those programs is
The test results from our 2005 test different from the side impact safety
11. Practicability program show that some SIABs need in the U.S., due in large part to
The Alliance believed that the agency performed well with the SID–IIs, while fleet differences. NHTSA’s underlying
did not demonstrate that attaining the others performed well with the ES–2re. impetus to require side impact head
IARVs would be practicable. The We believe that current SIAB systems protection is purely driven by the
commenter stated, ‘‘Based on the can be redesigned and implemented to hundreds of lives that could be saved
information provided to support the provide occupant protection to the each year on U.S. roadways.
NPRM, the agency has not identified populations represented by both the
one single vehicle that has met all of the SID–IIs and the ES–2re test dummies. c. Aspects of the MDB Test Procedure
proposed injury criteria in all of the For example, some window curtains A number of commenters responded
proposed tests. Indeed, no one single adequately protect the head of the mid- to the NPRM’s proposed changes to the
vehicle has been subject to the entire size male dummy but may need to be dynamic MDB side impact test in
suite of proposed crash tests. Therefore, widened and lengthened to ensure that FMVSS No. 214. The NPRM did not
the practicability of the proposed rule the head of the SID–IIs is cushioned at propose changes to the MDB itself.
has not been demonstrated.’’ the forward edge of the curtain. Some
NHTSA disagrees with the vehicles may need to use a seat- 1. The Moving Deformable Barrier
commenter’s view. In our test program, mounted SIAB (existing technology), in IIHS, Advocates, CU and Public
the Subaru Forester and the Honda CRV addition to a curtain, to meet the Citizen believed that the agency should
met the performance criteria for the thoracic, abdominal and/or pelvic injury change the design of the moving
SID–IIs dummy. The Honda Accord and criteria for both dummies. We believe deformable barrier (MDB) used in the
VW Jetta almost met all the IARVs when that vehicle manufacturers are capable dynamic test to better reflect side
tested with the SID–IIs dummy. The of making these and other impact risks in the current vehicle fleet.
improvements to SIAB systems. Advocates, CU and Public Citizen
71 The February 14, 2005 final rule amended the Manufacturers have made steady and believed that an upgraded MDB should
certification requirements of 49 CFR part 567 to notable progress in developing, be used to test all vehicles up to 4,536
allow the use of pass-through certification so that
it can be used not only for multistage vehicles based
improving and implementing SIABs. To kg (10,000 lb). Advocates further stated:
on chassis-cabs, but also for those based on other illustrate, in 1998, only 0.04% of
types of incomplete vehicles. Id. passenger cars sold in the U.S. had head 72 See Docket No. NHTSA–2004–17694–43.
‘‘If NHTSA does not extend the driver and front passenger seating pelvic force and lower spine
proposed oblique pole test to rear positions in the detent representing a 40 measurements when tested with the
seating areas in passenger vehicles, only degree angle between the torso and the SID–IIs due to an intruding armrest.
a MDB-based test that actually results in arm. Under this change, the front seat Because this final rule incorporates the
head injury’is worthwhile in connection dummies’ arms will be angled in the SID–IIs dummy in the MDB rear seat
with adding a head injury measure and same manner on both the right and left test, countermeasures that will be
criterion to the current Standard No. sides of the vehicle (i.e., the front seat installed to reduce the pelvic force and
214 dynamic test.’’ IIHS stated: ‘‘If the dummy’s arm nearest the door will be lower spine acceleration values of the
agency does not take this opportunity to raised). This helps to reduce the test SID–IIs in the rear seat should also
improve the barrier and if it decides to burden of the MDB test without address the performance of the rear seat
accept less biofidelic dummy options, it decreasing crash protection, since it in protecting mid-size adults. Use of the
is difficult to see what benefits will should be easier for manufacturers to ES–2re in the rear seat of the MDB test
accrue from the additional MDB tests design and better assure that a vehicle would not result in an enhancement of
that have been proposed.’’ will meet the MDB requirements when occupant protection.
Agency response: NHTSA considers a impacted on either the right or left sides We do not believe that testing with
redesign of the MDB as a longer term of the vehicle using data from an MDB only the SID–IIs dummy in the rear will
project beyond the scope of the present test of only one side of the vehicle. degrade rear seat occupant protection to
rulemaking. As noted in the NPRM (69 Based upon pendulum impact tests to mid-size adult occupants. Our side
FR at 27992), initiatives to improve the dummy’s thorax in which the arm NCAP program presently uses a mid-
vehicle compatibility between passenger was positioned down and another with sized adult male dummy (the SID–H3)
cars and LTVs in side crashes are likely a dummy without an arm, the maximum in the rear seating position in the MDB
to change the characteristics of striking rib deflection occurred when the thorax NCAP test, which complements the
vehicles in the future. Further, the was fully exposed. We believe that FMVSS No. 214 MDB test. We will
marketplace is currently fluctuating. raising the arm of the dummy in the make sure that any future revisions to
When future changes to the fleet have passenger seat test exposes the dummy’s the NCAP program will continue to
been identified, we can then determine thorax in the same way achieved by a complement the standard as upgraded
how the agency’s existing MDB should dummy without an arm, and that this today.
be modified to represent striking change to the procedure will thus not
vehicles. degrade the robustness of the test. 3. Other
In response to Advocates, we do not B. Reducing the Number of Tests NMEDA suggested that: ‘‘Mobility
agree that the absence of a pole test vehicles having raised/altered roofs,
requirement for rear seat occupants To reduce unnecessary test burdens,
today’s final rule specifies that the MDB lowered floors and vehicles equipped
necessitates the inclusion of a new MDB with extended travel seating systems be
test that results in head injury. The SID– test will be conducted with an ES–2re
in the front seat and a SID–IIs in the rear required to meet only the MDB test with
IIs in the rear seat of several of the the new mid-size male, and therefore be
seat. We will not test using a SID–IIs
vehicles in our test program measured exempt from the MDB requirements for
dummy in the front seat, for the reasons
high pelvic loading in FMVSS No. 214 the small female test dummy, until such
provided earlier in this preamble in the
MDB tests. Use of the dummy in the time as the NHTSA can determine if, in
section titled, ‘‘Need for the 5th
MDB tests and the information it fact, the small female is the most
percentile dummy in the MDB test.’’ In
provides about rear seat performance accurate representation of the stature of
contrast, the ES–2re in the front seat
will result in improvements to rear seat mobility vehicle occupants.’’
will enhance safety at that seating
occupant protection. Contrary to IIHS, Agency response: We do not support
position because of the dummy’s
we believe that the use of the ES–2re this suggestion. We are not persuaded
enhanced abilities to measure HIC,
and SID–IIs dummies will add value to thoracic and abdominal rib deflections, by NMEDA’s theory that mobility
the current upgrade until such a time and pelvic loads. (The current FMVSS vehicle occupants could be statistically
when a more thorough evaluation of the No. 214 side impact dummy (SID) does larger than the rest of the population of
vehicle fleet and its characteristics can not measure HIC, rib deflections or have motor vehicle occupants such that
be modeled. any type mechanism that assesses the testing with the 5th percentile adult
2. A Reasonable Balancing of the Test risk of abdominal injury.) female dummy would not be beneficial.
Burden However, we will not use an ES–2re The SID–IIs 5th percentile adult female
in the rear seat. In our side impact test dummy represents a population that
A. Arm Position program, the ES–2re’s responses in the generally has lower impact tolerance
The NPRM proposed that the driver rear seat passed the injury assessment levels than the 50th percentile adult
dummy arm position must be 40 degrees reference values and were generally male represented by the ES–2re. As
relative to torso, and that the arm for all low. Further, while the ES–2re dummy explained in the next section of this
dummies other than the driver dummy has rib and abdominal measurement preamble, our injury criteria for the
would have the arm in line with the capabilities, the dummy was not able to SID–IIs was developed taking into
torso. The Alliance commented that, to detect the elevated injury measures account the occupant’s age, bone mass
reduce test burdens and test variability, found by the SID–IIs dummy in the rear and size. The injury tolerance levels for
the arm position for the dummies seat MDB tests. Out of the nine tests the SID–IIs were normalized to that for
should be set in the detent representing conducted with the ES–2re rear a 56-year-old, rather than that for a 45-
a 40 degree angle between the torso and passenger dummy, only one vehicle had year-old as done for the ES–2re. We
the arm for all seating positions an elevated abdominal force have no basis for assuming that the SID–
specified in the MDB test. measurement in these tests, as reported IIs will not be an appropriate test device
To reduce test burdens and in the NPRM (69 FR at 28010). The test for testing the rear seat of vehicles
variability, the agency agrees with the was of the 2002 Chevrolet Impala, manufactured for mobility impaired
Alliance’s recommendation to set the which has since been redesigned. The occupants, and in fact have good reason
arm position for the dummy in the 2002 Impala test also resulted in high to think that it will be.
As previously discussed, the agency (measured in a 36 millisecond time believed that spinal accelerations might
has reduced the MDB requirements to interval). HIC36 1000 relates to a 50 detect severe loading conditions that are
only include the ES–2re dummy in the percent risk of head injury. The HIC36 undetected by the unidirectional
front seating position and the SID–IIs 1000 criterion is used throughout the deflection measurements. Lower spine
dummy in the rear. This reduces the test FMVSSs and provides a measure with acceleration may not have a causal
burden for vehicle manufacturers and which the agency and the industry have relationship with thoracic injury but is
should address NMEDA’s concerns substantial experience. The HIC36 1000 a good indicator of the overall loading
about the driver seating position. criterion is used in the optional pole test to the thorax. The agency believed that
of FMVSS No. 201. in concert, the two thoracic criteria
d. Injury Criteria Comments on HIC proposal: The would enhance injury assessment in a
In determining the suitability of a Alliance, Nissan, Ferrari, Maserati, and vehicle side crash test, and result in
dummy for side impact testing, the DaimlerChrysler supported the reduced chest injuries as compared to
agency considers the dummy’s injury proposed HIC36 criterion of 1000. the use of TTI(d) in current FMVSS No.
assessment capabilities relative to Advocates and Public Citizen supported 214.
human body regions at risk in the real a HIC36 criterion of 800, believing that NHTSA selected the two criteria
world crash environment. Crash data the criterion would reduce the risk of based upon a series of 42 side impact
indicate that head, chest, abdomen and AIS 3+ injury to approximately 35 sled tests using fully instrumented post
pelvic injuries are prevalent in side percent, and that the limit is achievable mortem human subjects (PMHS) and 16
impacts. Accordingly, injury criteria by current vehicles. Dr. Albert King, a sled tests using the ES–2re, conducted
were proposed for the ES–2re’s head, private individual, submitted a paper he at the Medical College of Wisconsin
thorax, abdomen, and pelvis. co-authored that hypothesized that (MCW). NHTSA conducted the analysis
The types of injury criteria proposed brain injury is governed by brain using logistic regression with injury
by NHTSA for the ES–2re were response and not the input acceleration. outcome in the PMHS sled tests as the
generally consistent with those He suggested that the brain response to response, and ES–2re dummy measured
developed by ECE/WP.29, by the input translation and rotational head physical parameters (maximum rib
European Union in its directive EU 96/ acceleration can be obtained through deflections, TTI, maximum spinal
27/EC, and by EuroNCAP for rating finite element models and injury accelerations) in similar sled tests as the
vehicles. Four of NHTSA’s proposed potential estimated using strain and covariates. The subjects’ anthropometric
injury criteria were specified in EU 96/ strain rates in the brain tissue. data such as age, gender, and mass were
27/EC for use with the EuroSID–1 Agency response: This final rule
also included as covariates since the
dummy.73 For the SID–IIs, injury adopts the HIC36 criterion of 1000. The
agency believed that they might
criteria were proposed for the head, HIC36 limit of 1000 was selected to
influence injury outcome.76 This
lower spine, and pelvis. The NPRM did accord with the FMVSS No. 201 head
method of analysis provided injury
not propose thoracic or abdominal protection standard. Vehicle
criteria that could directly be applied to
deflection limits using the SID– manufacturers have experience with the
the ES–2re dummy.
IIsFRG.74 1000 HIC limit.
A technical report titled, ‘‘Injury Significant research is needed before i. Chest Deflection
Criteria for Side Impact Dummies,’’ the potential for estimating brain injury
Chest deflection was proposed to be
May, 2004 (NHTSA docket number risk using finite element brain models
not greater than 42 mm for any rib
17694) was made available to the public can be assessed. NHTSA did not
(reflecting an approximate 50 percent
at http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/ propose to use a finite element brain
risk of an AIS 3+ injury). The NPRM
pdf89/285284_web.pdf. The report was model for head injury assessment and
sought comment on an alternative
peer reviewed in accordance with the this final rule does not adopt such a
criterion within the range of 35 to 44
Office of Management and Budget’s method.
mm (1.38 to 1.73 in). The 44 mm (1.73
(OMB) June 15, 2005 information 2. Thorax (Chest) Criteria in) value corresponded to a 50 percent
quality guidelines. Three peer reviewers risk of serious injury for a 45-year-old
from academia and industry, considered A. ES–2re
occupant.77 The agency determined
experts in the field of impact NHTSA proposed two criteria to upon reanalyzing a data set that was
biomechanics and side impact, measure thoracic injury when using the used when NHTSA undertook the 1990
reviewed the document. The reviewers’ ES–2re: Chest deflection and resultant rulemaking adopting the MDB test into
comments and the agency’s response lower spine acceleration. Chest FMVSS No. 214 that the current TTI(d)
thereto are available to the public deflection has been shown to be the best of 85 g’s corresponds approximately to
through the DOT peer review website predictor of thoracic injuries for side a 50 percent risk of AIS 3+ injury. Thus,
http://www.dot.gov/peerrt.htm. impact. The agency believed it to be a NHTSA tentatively concluded that a rib
1. Head Injury Criterion better injury risk measure than TTI(d) deflection limit of 44 mm (1.73 in) for
for the ES–2re dummy.75 We added the ES–2re could be acceptable on the
NHTSA proposed to require a head spinal acceleration criteria because we
injury criterion (HIC) limit of 1000 basis that it was approximately
75 TTI(d), a chest acceleration-based criteria,
equivalent to the risk of injury
73 NHTSA decided not to use the chest viscous when combined with anthropometric data, was
injury criteria, V*C ≤ 1.0, because we did not find developed by NHTSA (Eppinger, R. H., Marcus, 76 Kuppa, S., Eppinger, R., McKoy, F., Nguyen, T.,
the V*C criterion to be repeatable and reproducible J. H., Morgan, R. M., (1984), ‘‘Development of Pintar, F., Yoganandan, Y., ‘‘Development of Side
in our research. Dummy and Injury Index for NHTSA’s Thoracic Impact Thoracic Injury Criteria and their
74 The agency did not propose a limit on Side Impact Protection Research Program,’’ SAE Application to the Modified ES–2 Dummy with Rib
deflections because, in pendulum tests, the FRG Paper No. 840885, Government/Industry Meeting Extensions (ES–2re),’’ Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol.
design reduced the SID–IIs’s dummy’s deflection and Exposition, Washington, D.C.; Morgan, R. M., 47, October, 2003.
measurement capability when the ribs were struck Marcus, J. H., Eppinger, R. H., (1986), ‘‘Side 77 Logistic regression analysis using cadaver
in angled pendulum impacts. NHTSA wanted to Impact—The Biofidelity of NHTSA’s Proposed ATD injury and anthropometry information along with
obtain more information about the FRG’s effect on and Efficacy of TTI,’’ SAE Paper No. 861877, 30th the ES–2 measurements indicate that the age of the
rib deflections before proposing deflection criteria Stapp Car Crash Conference) and is included in the subject at the time of death had a significant
in FMVSS No. 214. FMVSS No. 214 side impact protection standard. influence on the injury outcome (p<0.05). Id.
addressed by the current TTI(d) accordance with the EU 96/EC/27 side ii. ES–2re Lower Spine Acceleration
requirement in FMVSS No. 214.78 impact procedure.79 When developing Resultant lower spine acceleration
Comments on the ES–2re chest the NPRM, we determined that the was proposed to be not greater than 82
deflection: In an August 16, 2005 thorax of the ES–2 was so different from g (reflecting a 50 percent risk of an AIS
comment, the Alliance noted that the that of the predecessor EuroSID–1 3+ injury). The upper and lower spine
injury risk curve from which NHTSA dummy that previously-generated of the ES–2re is instrumented with tri-
derived its proposed chest deflection EuroSID–1 data should not be used in axial accelerometers (x, y, and z
limit of 44 mm was based on the MCW analyzing the ES–2 and its associated direction corresponding to anterior-
studies that analyzed the responses of thoracic injury criteria. Consequently, posterior, lateral medial, and inferior-
PMHS and the ES–2re. The Alliance NHTSA stated in the NPRM that, in superior). In both oblique pole and MDB
believed that an injury risk curve side vehicle crashes, loading can be in
developing the injury criteria for the
developed for the ES–2 dummy should various directions due to the
ES–2re, we would use risk curves and
be used instead, particularly if the complexities of the intruding surfaces.
other information resulting from our
agency agrees with the Alliance’s Therefore, NHTSA believed that to
suggestion to use the ES–2 dummy. research conducted with the ES–2re. (69
FR at 28002) account for overall loading, resultant
Moreover, the commenter stated, accelerations should be measured.
NHTSA proposed a chest deflection That research included paired sled Comments on ES–2re lower spine
requirement of 42 mm to harmonize tests at the Medical College of acceleration: The Alliance did not agree
with the EU regulation for the EuroSID– Wisconsin with PMHS and the ES–2re with the use of the lower spine
1. The Alliance stated that the ES–2 dummy in various impact wall acceleration as a supplementary
dummy rib deflections have been configurations. ‘‘Injury Criteria for Side criterion for thoracic injury criterion.
observed to be approximately 25 to 100 Impact Dummies,’’ supra. The analysis The Alliance believed that the criterion
percent larger than those for the of the test data indicated a 50 percent is a poor predictor of injury outcome.
EuroSID–1 under the same test risk of thoracic injury at 44 mm of The Alliance stated that ‘‘thoracic
conditions. The commenter stated: maximum thoracic rib deflection. We deflection is a direct measure of injury
Given the difference in deflections noted viewed favorably that a rib deflection potential by itself and that the addition
between the EuroSID–1 and ES–2 dummies, limit of approximately 44 mm for the of acceleration will only unnecessarily
the Alliance believes that the injury limit for ES–2re would be harmonized with the restrict designs using an unproven and
thoracic deflection in the ES–2 should be at 42 mm limit in the EU regulation, in poorly correlated parameter.’’ Further,
least 25% greater than the limit derived from the Alliance suggested that the lower
the risk curve if the EuroSID–1 is used. that the IARV of 42 mm in the EU
Therefore, the value of 42 mm in the regulation corresponded to a 50 percent spine acceleration criterion might be
European regulation derived with EuroSID– risk of nine rib fractures, which was unnecessary for the ES–2re, in that the
1 would be multiplied by 1.25, which leads associated with serious injury (internal dummy’s rib deflection readings alone
to a value of 53 mm for the deflection limit organ injuries and flail chest). (69 FR at should detect injurious loading of the
proposed by the Alliance. 28002, footnote 33.) That is, the chest thorax.
Advocates and Public Citizen Agency response: We have
deflection limits of the two regulations
believed that even the 35 mm deflection determined that it is unnecessary to
generally correspond to equivalent
limit at the low end of the proposed limit lower spine acceleration in the
limits on the risk of serious chest injury,
range was too high to protect the elderly pole and MDB tests of the ES–2re
which could promote the development dummy. Accordingly, this final rule
population. Advocates believed that the of similar countermeasures.
proposal ‘‘will disproportionately take does not adopt the lower spine
With regard to the comment from acceleration limit in this rulemaking for
the lives of, and inflict much more
Advocates and Public Citizen, the the ES–2re. In the oblique pole tests
serious injuries on, occupants 65 years
agency acknowledges that the elderly conducted in our 214 fleet testing
of age and older’’ and stated that it did
and small size occupants generally have program, the ES–2re’s lower spine
not support any value within the range
lower impact tolerance levels than acceleration readings were relatively
proposed.
Agency response: This final rule younger, larger occupants. For this consistent with the dummy’s rib
adopts a chest deflection threshold of 44 reason, the injury tolerance levels for deflection readings. Eleven tests showed
mm, which corresponds to a 50 percent the 5th percentile female were elevated rib deflections. Of these eleven,
risk of AIS 3+ injury for a 45-year-old. normalized to that for a 56-year-old, five also had elevated lower spine
We do not agree with the Alliance’s rather than that for a 45-year-old as acceleration. The lower spine
suggestion that, because the ES–2 done for the 50th percentile male acceleration of the ES–2re was elevated
dummy records higher rib defections dummy. These injury tolerance levels (75 g) in one vehicle (the Ford
than the EuroSID–1, the chest deflection are reasonable, balancing to the extent Expedition) when the dummy’s rib
limit for this final rule should be 53 possible the dual goals of practicability deflection was low (26 mm), but the
mm. and optimum safety performance. The lower spine response could have been
Many researchers have shown that the agency thus believes that a final rule elevated due to high abdominal loads
ES–2 dummy records higher rib that uses both the 5th percentile adult (the ES–2 recorded a 6,973 N abdominal
deflections than the EuroSID–1. Samaha female dummy and the 50th percentile force in that test). Because the lower
et al. reported higher rib deflections male dummy affords practicable spine acceleration measurements fairly
with the ES–2 dummy than with the protection to the elderly as well as to a tracked the ES–2re’s rib deflections, we
EuroSID–1 dummy in identical side more generalized population. conclude that, in the oblique pole and
impact vehicle crash tests conducted in MDB tests, the lower spine acceleration
criterion is unnecessary for the ES–2re.
79 Samaha, R., Maltese, M., Bolte, J., (2001),

80 The dummy’s rib deflection
78 NHTSA reanalyzed the Eppinger data set that ‘‘Evaluation of the ES–2 Dummy in Representative
was used in the 1990 MDB rulemaking. Kuppa et Side Impacts,’’ Seventeenth International Technical
al., ‘‘Development of Side Impact Thoracic Injury Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, 80 In its comment, Honda noted that the NPRM
Criteria and their Application to the Modified ES– Paper No. 486, National Highway Traffic Safety May 17, 2004 specified that acceleration data from
2 Dummy with Rib Extensions (ES–2re),’’ id. Administration, Washington, DC. Continued
measurements alone will detect indicate overall loading to the dummy important. The criterion can detect
injurious loading of the thorax. thorax, which, in turn, can be used to injurious loading conditions to the
Although we are not adopting the indicate when the thorax has been abdomen and lower thorax. Test data
lower spine acceleration limit as exposed to overload conditions in a from the agency’s 214 fleet testing
suggested by the Alliance, we do not crash. However, to minimize instances program indicate that 6 of the 10 vehicle
agree with the Alliance’s suggestion that where accelerations above the threshold tests with the SID–IIs resulted in rib
the addition of acceleration will value results in no serious injury, the deflection measurements exceeding a
unnecessarily restrict designs. The agency set the maximum lower spine limit of 38 mm for the thoracic rib
Alliance submitted no data or any other acceleration at 82 g. (See ‘‘Injury Criteria (which corresponds to a 50 percent risk
information explaining or substantiating for Side Impact Dummies,’’ id.) The of AIS 3+ injury), and/or a limit of 45
this comment. Further, we have not agency also believed that the age of the mm for the abdominal rib (the 45 mm
seen inconsistencies between the rib subject involved in a side impact affects limit is used by IIHS in its consumer
deflection and lower spine acceleration injury outcome. Subject age in the MCW information program). In all of these, the
criteria that support that contention. sled test data was found to have lower spine acceleration values were
significant influence on injury outcome also elevated (exceeding 82 g or within
B. SID–IIs Lower Spine Acceleration and so was included in the injury 80 percent of 82 g (i.e., 66 g)). The 6
For the SID–IIs dummy, the agency models. (NHTSA normalized the risk tests were of the: 2005 Toyota Corolla,
proposed a limit of 82 g on the resultant curve to the average occupant age of 56 2005 Saturn Ion, 2005 Ford Five
lower spine acceleration, which is a years.) Hundred, 2004/05 Toyota Sienna, 2005
measure of loading severity to the Comments on SID–IIs lower spine Chevy Colorado 4x2 extended cab, and
thorax. In vehicle crashes, loading can acceleration: The Alliance disagreed the 2005 Ford Expedition. Likewise, the
be in various directions. Therefore, with the proposal to use a deflection- lower spine acceleration criterion
NHTSA believed that to account for based criterion for the ES–2re and an identified elevated loading conditions
overall loading, resultant accelerations acceleration-based criterion for the
in the test of the 2005 Honda CRV. In
should be considered rather than lateral small female dummy.81 The Alliance
that test, the SID–IIs abdominal rib
acceleration alone. The agency believed that limiting accelerations
deflection was 36 mm (within 80
recognized that dummy-measured would not assure that thoracic injury
percent of 45 mm), and the lower spine
accelerations for the level of loading will not occur, and that chest deflection
was 68 g (within 80 percent of 82 g).
severities experienced in vehicle is the best predictor of injury. The
crashes might not have a causal Alliance stated: ‘‘It is possible to have Thus, the data show that the lower
relationship to injury outcome. balanced restraint loads, as indicated by spine acceleration readings were
However, the agency believed that they low thoracic spine accelerations, but to generally consistent with the SID–IIs’s
are good indicators of thoracic injury in have large, injurious rib deflections. rib deflections. The criterion was
cadaver testing and of overall loading to Limits must be placed on thoracic and generally able to identify tests in which
the dummy thorax. abdominal rib deflections to assure that a vehicle was unable to keep rib
NHTSA selected the 82 g resultant the risks of thoracic and abdominal deflections from exceeding threshold
lower spine acceleration based upon a injuries are at acceptable levels for the levels. The lower spine acceleration
Receiver Operator Characteristic curve simulated accident condition.’’ criterion meets the need for a good
(ROC) developed using the data from IIHS likewise strongly supported the indicator of thoracic injury and of
the series of MCW PMHS sled tests and use of deflection measures. overall loading to the dummy thorax.
the sled tests conducted with the SID– Advocates took ‘‘no specific position’’ The lower spine acceleration is
IIs dummy under impact conditions on the proposed limit of 82 g but particularly needed in the absence of a
identical to those of the MCW tests. believed that the value might be rib deflection criterion for the SID–IIs,
NHTSA estimated the thoracic criteria excessive with regard to older vehicle or any other mechanism that will ensure
that were associated with a 50th percent occupants. The commenter agreed with that vehicles are best designed with
risk of AIS 3+ injury in the PMHS. As the NPRM that resultant accelerations abdominal and thoracic protection for
noted above, accelerations measured in should be considered rather than lateral the small occupant in mind. In the
a pole and MDB crash test soundly acceleration alone. future, if NHTSA were to adopt limits
Agency response: NHTSA agrees with on the thoracic and abdominal rib
the accelerometers on the ES–2re lower spine the Alliance and IIHS that the SID–IIs deflections measured by the SID–IIs in
would be filtered at channel frequency class of 1000 thoracic and abdominal rib deflections the FMVSS No. 214 crash tests, the
Hz (proposed S11.5(b)(3), 69 FR at 28027). Honda are a critical part of the dummy. agency would consider as part of that
believed that SAE filter channel class 180 should However, adopting limits on the rib
be used instead, and pointed out that NHTSA used rulemaking the need for limiting both
SAE filter channel class 180 in developing the deflections of the SID–IIs would be lower spine acceleration and rib
injury criteria for the side impact dummies. The outside the scope of this rulemaking and deflections.
commenter is correct that S11.5(b)(3) of the NPRM thus is not a part of this final rule.
should have specified SAE filter class 180. Nonetheless, as stated earlier in this Resultant accelerations will be
NHTSA’s intent to adopt SAE filter class 180 is measured rather than lateral
shown by the document referenced by Honda, and preamble, we may undertake future
by the December 14, 2006 final rule adopting the rulemaking to propose to limit the acceleration alone, for the reasons
ES–2re dummy into 49 CFR part 572, which thoracic and abdominal rib deflections provided in the NPRM. In response to
specifies SAE filter class 180 in 572.189(4). measured by the SID–IIs in the FMVSS Advocates, the injury tolerance level for
However, because we are not adopting the lower the 5th percentile female were
spine acceleration injury assessment limit, the No. 214 MDB and pole tests.
specification for the lower spine filter class is not Since we are not adopting in this final normalized to that for a 56 year old,
necessary and we have removed the filter class rule thoracic and abdominal deflections rather than that for a 45 year old as done
specification from FMVSS No. 214. In addition, this for the SID–IIs, a criterion for lower for the 50th percentile male dummy.
final rule specifies that the dummy’s rib deflection The 82 g injury tolerance level is
data are filtered at channel frequency class 600 Hz, spine acceleration is especially
not 180 Hz, in accordance with SAE Recommended
reasonable, balancing to the extent
Practice J211, ‘‘Instrumentation For Impact Test, 81 The Alliance stated that it supported use of the possible the dual goals of practicability
Part 1, Electronic Instrumentation.’’ SID–IIs dummy for research purposes. and optimum safety performance.
3. ES–2re Abdominal Criterion dummy. However, unlike the SID, the limit of 6,000 N is too high to protect
The ES–2re dummy offers abdominal ES–2re is also capable of measuring the the elderly.
injury assessment capability, a feature force (load) at the pubic symphysis, Agency response: NHTSA used the
that is not present in the SID dummy. which is the region of the pelvis where Bouquet pendulum test data to relate
The agency proposed an abdominal the majority of injuries occur. A field the applied pelvic force to cadavers to
injury criterion of 2,500 Newtons (N) analysis of 219 occupants in side impact the pubic symphysis force of the
(562 pounds). The agency sought crashes by Guillemot, et al. (1998) EuroSID–1 dummy for identical test
comment on an alternative abdominal showed that the most common injury to conditions. The impact surface in these
injury criterion within the range of the pelvis was fracture of the pubic rami tests loaded the iliac crest as well as the
2,400–2,800 N (540–629 pounds). This (pelvic ring disruption).83 Pubic rami trochanter.85 The impactor mass varied
range corresponds to an approximate fractures are the first to occur because between 12 kg to 16 kg and the impactor
30–50 percent risk of AIS 3+ injury. it is the weak link in the pelvis. speed from 6 m/s to 13.7 m/s. Since the
The proposed abdominal injury The NPRM proposed to limit only EuroSID–1 pelvis is similar to that of the
criterion was developed using cadaver pubic symphysis force. The agency did ES–2re, the similar relationship would
drop test data from Walfisch, et al. not propose an acceleration-based apply to the ES–2re. For AIS 2+ injured
(1980).82 Analysis of this data indicated criterion because the agency believed subjects, the dummy pubic force
that applied force was the best predictor that an injury threshold limit on pelvic corresponds to 0.455 times applied
of abdominal injury, and an applied acceleration is dependent on the impact pelvic force to the cadaver.
force of 2,500 N (562 pounds) The reanalysis of the Bouquet data
location and the type of loading
corresponds to a 33 percent risk of AIS after normalizing for the weight of the
(distributed versus concentrated).
3+ injury. The MCW sled test data subject as well as the confirmation of
Therefore, the agency did not believe
indicated that the applied abdominal the injury risk curves using the Zhu and
that pelvic acceleration is as good a
force on the cadavers was Cavanaugh test data suggests that
predictor of pelvic fracture as force. The
approximately equal to the total NHTSA’s injury risk curves and applied
scientific literature has documented that
abdominal force in the ES–2re dummy injury threshold for AIS 3+ pelvic
force alone is a good predictor of pelvic
under similar test conditions. fractures are reasonable. While the
injury.84 Further, the pubic symphysis
Comments on abdomen proposal: relationship between the ES–2 pubic
load injury criterion has been applied in
Ferrari supported the proposed loads and the cadaver applied force are
the European side impact regulation EU dependent on the loading condition,
abdominal force limit of 2,500 N 96/27/EC as well as the EuroNCAP
because it was consistent with similar scaling relationships have been
Program, so there is experience with used successfully for years for the
harmonization. The Alliance stated that this measure and some demonstration of
the 2,500 N limit appears to be EuroSID–I in the EU regulation.
its usefulness. The criterion in those
reasonable. The Alliance also stated that programs is 6,000 N (1,349 lb). B. SID–IIs
there were inconsistencies in the Comments on ES–2re pelvis proposal: For the SID–IIs dummy, the pelvic
calculations of total abdominal force in The Alliance did not agree with the injury criterion was developed from an
the NPRM. In some cases the abdominal NPRM that the ES–2re dummy has analysis of the same cadaver impact
loading was calculated through provisions for instrumentation that can data that was used for the development
instantaneous summation of the assess the potential for acetabulum and of the ES–2re pelvic injury criterion.
individual load cells, while in other
public symphysis injuries by way of The measured loads in these impact
cases the summation of individual peak
load cell measurements. In its August tests were distributed over a broad area
values was utilized. The Alliance stated
2005 comment, the Alliance stated that of the pelvis that included the iliac crest
that it believed that an instantaneous
although vehicles can meet a 6,000 N and the greater trochanter. The
summation of the abdominal load cells
criterion, it is concerned that no measured applied pelvic force to the
is the correct method to determine the
experiments have been published cadaveric subjects was mass-scaled to
total abdominal force in the ES–2
documenting what the pubic symphysis represent the applied forces on a 5th
dummy.
Agency response: This final rule load was at time of fracture, or as a percentile female. Under similar impact
adopts an abdominal force limit of 2,500 function of external load for a human conditions, the scaled applied pelvic
subject. The Alliance also stated that force on the cadaveric subjects was
N for the reasons provided in the
there are no data on the relationship of assumed to be equal to the sum of the
proposal. In response to the Alliance,
pubic symphysis load with impact iliac and acetabular forces measured on
the abdominal force has and will be
velocity. The commenter recommended the SID–IIs dummy.86 Therefore, the
calculated as the instantaneous
further study of the issue before a pelvic injury risk curves developed for
summation of the abdominal load cell
criterion is adopted. the SID–IIs dummy were based on the
measurements.
Ferrari agreed with the pelvic force maximum of the sum of the measured
4. Pelvic Criterion limit of 6,000 N, while Advocates acetabular and iliac force. The proposed
A. ES–2re believed that the proposed pelvic force 5,100 N force level for the SID–IIs
corresponded approximately to a 25
NHTSA proposed an ES–2re pelvic percent risk of AIS 2+ pelvic fracture.87
83 Guillemot H., Besnault B., Robin, S., et al.,
force limit of not greater than 6,000 N ‘‘Pelvic Injuries In Side Impact Collisions: A Field
(1,349 pounds) (25 percent risk of AIS Accident Analysis And Dynamic Tests On Isolated 85 The bony protrusion at the top of the femoral
3+ injury). The ES–2re has two pelvic Pelvic Bones,’’ Proceedings of the 16th ESV shaft opposite the ball of the hip joint.
measurement capabilities. First, the ES– Conference, Windsor (1998). 86 IIHS used the same assumption when
2re has instrumentation to measure 84 Bouquet, et al. (1998) performed cadaver developing performance standards for its consumer
pendulum impact tests and showed that the pubic ratings program. See Arbalaez, R. A., et al.,
pelvic acceleration, as does the SID symphysis load cell in the EuroSID–1 dummy was ‘‘Comparison of the EuroSID–2 and SID–IIs in
a good predictor of pelvic fracture. See Bouquet, R, Vehicle Side Impact Tests with the IIHS Barrier,’’
82 Walfisch, G., Fayon, C., Terriere, J., et al., Ramet, M, Bermond, F, Caire, Y, Talantikite, Y, 46th Stapp Car Crash Journal (2002).
‘‘Designing of a Dummy’s Abdomen for Detecting Robin, S, Voiglio, E, ‘‘Pelvis Human Response to 87 In the IIHS side impact consumer ratings
Injuries in Side Impact Collisions, 5th International Lateral Impact,’’ Proceedings of the 16th Enhanced program, 5,100 N is the injury parameter cutoff
IRCOBI Conference, 1980. Safety of Vehicles (ESV) Conference (1998). Continued
Comments on SID–IIs pelvis proposal: peak values was utilized. The Alliance the SID–IIs. Therefore, it was assumed
The Alliance commented that NHTSA’s stated that it believed that an that the applied cadaver pelvic force is
assumption that the normalized applied instantaneous summation of the iliac equal to the sum of acetabular and iliac
pelvic force in the cadaver tests was and acetabulum load cells is the correct force in the SID–IIs.
equal to the sum of the forces in iliac method to determine the combined NHTSA analyzed the SID–IIs data
wing and acetabulum was not based on pelvic force for the SID–IIs. submitted by the Alliance on September
test data. In a September 2, 2005 Advocates said that older occupants 2, 2005 in conjunction with the relevant
comment, the Alliance submitted suffering pelvic fracture are at a much cadaver tests from Bouquet. We believe
component test data showing the higher risk of death. Advocates believed that the submitted data suggested that
distribution of forces between the iliac that vehicles equipped with side thorax the sum of acetabular and iliac force of
and acetabulum measured by PMHS and bags could be able to meet a lower the SID–IIs is approximately 1.21 times
the SID–IIs. The commenter disagreed value. The commenter agreed with that of the applied cadaver force under
with the normalization of pelvic NHTSA that resultant accelerations similar impact conditions of the
responses by the mass of the subject should be considered rather than lateral Bouquet test setup. Accordingly, rather
because, the commenter stated, the acceleration alone. than the proposed pelvic force limit of
Alliance’s data suggest only a weak Agency response: The Bouquet pelvic 5,100 N, we have adopted a pelvic force
relationship between pelvic mass and impact test data indicated that for the IARV limit of 5,525 N, which
geometry with the overall subject mass. same test conditions, the applied force corresponds to a 25% risk of AIS 2+
The commenter believed that the sum of on a lighter subject that results in injury injury using also a factor for reduced
the internal forces (acetabulum plus was lower than that on a heavier bone strength in older women (0.88).
sacro-iliac) is approximately 75 percent subject. The agency continues to believe We note that IIHS considered a 5,525 N
of the applied external force on the SID– that such data should be normalized to pelvic force to be in the middle of the
IIs dummy. Based on this information, a representative anthropometric subject. acceptable range for the IIHS consumer
the Alliance stated that ‘‘Even though The normalizing procedure adopted was ratings program.
the injury risk curves and associated that of mass scaling, which has been
relationship between PMHS and applied by other researchers as well.88 The combined pelvic force is
dummy data would have to [be] re- To obtain the injury risk curve for a calculated as an instantaneous
calculated based on non-normalized small female, the agency normalized the summation of the measurements from
data, an initial IARV for 25% risk of AIS pelvic force data from the Bouquet the iliac and acetabulum load cells.
3+ pelvic injury could be set at 8.55kN pelvic impact tests to that of a small In response to Advocates, the 5,525 N
(0.75*11.4kN) for maximum combined female weighing 48 kg (105 lb), as sum of acetabular and iliac force
acetabulum and iliac loads.’’ indicated in the technical document, corresponds to the pelvic injury
The Alliance also stated that there ‘‘Injury Criteria for Side Impact tolerance for a 56 year old 5th percentile
were inconsistencies in the calculations Dummies,’’ supra. In addition, the risk female. This tolerance level thus
of combined pelvic force in the NPRM. curve was adjusted to that for a 56 year accounts for the age of the occupant,
In some cases the combined pelvis old. At the time of developing the risk and provides practicable protection to
loading was calculated through curve, there was no data available to the elderly occupant.
instantaneous summation of the iliac relate the applied cadaver pelvic force For convenience of the reader, the
and acetabulum load cells, while in in the Bouquet tests to equivalent injury criteria adopted by this final rule
other cases the summation of individual acetabular and iliac force measured in are summarized below in Table 11:
TABLE 11.—FINAL RULE INJURY CRITERIA

Chest Lower Abdominal Pelvic
HIC36 deflection spine force force
(mm) (g) (N) (N)
ES–2re ................................................................................. 1,000 44 N/A 2,500 6,000

SID–IIs ................................................................................. 1,000 N/A 82 N/A 5,525
e. Lead Time can earn credits towards meeting the rule, 50 percent of each
applicable phase-in percentages if they manufacturer’s light vehicles
1. Pole Test
meet the new requirements ahead of manufactured during that production
The agency proposed a phase-in schedule. The NPRM proposed the year must comply with the
period for the new vehicle-to-pole test following phase-in schedule: requirements;
based on crash test data (see, e.g., —During the production year beginning —All vehicles manufactured on or after
Appendix C of this preamble), the four years after publication of a final September 1 six years after
technologies that could be used to meet rule, 20 percent of each publication of a final rule must
the proposed testing requirements, and manufacturer’s light vehicles comply with the requirements.
the relatively low percentage of the fleet manufactured during the production In addition, we proposed a separate
that had side air bags that were capable year must comply with the alternative to address the special
of meeting the proposed requirements. requirements of the oblique pole test; problems faced by limited line
The NPRM proposed to include —During the production year beginning manufacturers, alterers, and multistage
provisions under which manufacturers five years after publication of a final manufacturers in complying with the
value for the ‘‘Good-Acceptable’’ range for the 88 Zhu, J., Cavanaugh, J., King, A., ‘‘Pelvic Paper No. 933128, 37th Stapp Car Crash
combined acetabulum and ilium force values. Biomechanical Response and Padding Benefits in Conference, 1993.
http://www.highwaysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ Side Impact Based on a Cadaveric Test Series,’’ SAE
measures_side.pdf
phase-in. NHTSA accordingly proposed rule facilitate the installation of side small and medium size light trucks
to permit these manufacturers the impact air bags and other safety (including SUVs and minivans) may not
option of achieving full compliance countermeasures in light vehicles as need extensive modifications. While
when the phase-in is completed. quickly as possible, while the allowance some of the window curtains and thorax
Comments received: The Alliance of advanced credits provides bags we tested were not wide enough to
supported the proposed phase-in manufacturers a way of allocating their provide the protection desired in the
schedule for the oblique pole test. Air resources in an efficient manner to meet oblique impacts when tested with the
bag supplier TRW believed that the the schedule. At the same time, many of SID–IIs 5th percentile female dummy,
technology exists to meet the proposed the vehicles tested by the agency using we believe that a two-year lead time is
performance requirements within the the ES–2re and SID–IIs dummies reasonable to redesign the head and
proposed timeframes and stated that it produced dummy readings that thorax bags. It also appeared that
was prepared to respond to the needs of exceeded the new pole test performance extensive vehicle structural
the manufacturers. Advocates, requirements. This confirms our belief modifications were not necessary for the
Consumers Union, and Public Citizen that vehicle manufacturers are at passenger cars and small and medium
supported a three-year phase-in but different stages with respect to size light trucks. On the other hand, we
recommended that the phase-in period designing side impact air bags, and also estimate that it will take longer than two
begin two years after publication of a face different constraints and challenges years to add a thorax bag to a vehicle
final rule. Advocates stated that if the (e.g., differences in the technological model that has not had one previously.
agency were to adopt an earlier starting advances incorporated in their current • For large light trucks, the test
year than what had been proposed, it air bag systems, in engineering results indicate that structural changes
would support a more protracted phase- resources, and in the number and type may be needed. This is why we have
in of four years for the new pole test and of vehicles in which air bags need to be provided a longer lead time for vehicles
a two-year phase in of an upgraded redesigned). Further, manufacturers’ with a GVWR greater than 8,500 lb.
MDB test. These commenters believed product plans also show that they are at Based on our experience, if structural
that the earlier phase-in period is different stages with regard to planning changes are needed, the modification
supported by agency test results that the for installation of side impact air bags, could be done within 3–4 years.
commenters believed showed that the particularly thorax bags in light trucks. The agency analyzed the above factors
majority of vehicles could comply Our rationale for the lead time and in determining the lead time and phase-
relatively quickly with the new phase-in is discussed in detail in the in requirements of this final rule. The 20
requirements. FRIA for this final rule, and is percent level at the two-year mark
RVIA supported the agency’s proposal summarized below. reflects the manufacturers’ production
to allow alterers and multistage • The agency analyzed the product plans for the next two years: for vehicles
manufacturers to certify compliance at plans submitted by seven vehicle that already have side air bags but
the end of the phase-in period. manufacturers, whose combined whose bags do not comply with the pole
However, both RVIA and NTEA stated production accounts for approximately test, two years provides sufficient time
that chassis manufacturers do often not 90 percent of all light vehicle sales, for manufacturers to make bags wider
provide information until the last responding to an NHTSA request for and potentially make other changes to
possible moment before the compliance planned side air bag installations and pass the test, while it takes longer than
date. Therefore, these commenters projected sales through model year (MY) two years to add one to a vehicle that
requested that we allow multistage 2011. The data show that 90 percent of has not had one previously. The 50
manufacturers and alterers an additional all MY 2010 light vehicles will be percent phase-in percentage with a
year for compliance certification. equipped with side air bags protecting three-year lead time could result in one
Maserati and Ferrari supported the the head, and 72 percent will be manufacturer introducing side thorax
proposal to allow small volume vehicle equipped with side air bags protecting air bags ahead of its plans, but we
manufacturers until the end of the the thorax. The percentage of side air believe it would be practicable to
phase-in period before having to certify bags protecting the head is fairly introduce thorax bags with 3 years of
for compliance. uniform between the manufacturers; lead time, particularly with the use of
Agency response: After reviewing the however, there are large differences advanced credits. The 75 percent phase-
comments to the NPRM, the results of between manufacturers in the in percentage was adopted to elongate
the 214 fleet testing program, and percentage of thorax bags being the phase-in schedule one year longer
production plans which show planned, particularly for light trucks. than proposed, to provide vehicle
installation of side air bags in vehicles • The agency’s 214 fleet testing manufacturers the flexibility of a four-
ahead of the proposed schedule, we program indicated that the majority of year phase-in schedule to incorporate
have determined that it would be currently available head side air bags side structure and restraint system
practicable to provide a 2-year lead time would meet the head protection modifications into their production
instead of the 4-year lead time proposed requirement of this final rule’s pole test cycles. Most vehicle lines would likely
in the NPRM leading up to the (about 80 percent of tested vehicles experience some level of redesign over
beginning of the phased-in pole test equipped with head air bags passed the the next three to four years. The
requirements. Compared to the original pole test). However, of the vehicles additional phase-in year provides more
schedule, this would accelerate the tested equipped with thorax bags, only opportunity to incorporate side impact
benefits expected to be provided by side 56 percent met the chest requirement in protection design changes during the
air bag systems and other the pole test. One large truck (GVWR course of each manufacturer’s normal
countermeasures by phasing-in the greater than 8,500 lb) that was tested production cycle.
requirements starting with 20 percent of also exceeded the injury criteria, In addition, as discussed in section
model year (MY) 2010 vehicles. indicating that structural changes may IV.b.10 of this preamble, ‘‘Vehicle
Comments from air bag suppliers be needed. exclusions,’’ this final rule provides
indicate that the schedule is practicable. • From our testing, it appears that the more lead time to meet the pole test
As explained in the FRIA, the phase- pole test data show that side air bags requirements to manufacturers of
in schedule and percentages of this final installed in most passenger cars and vehicles with a GVWR greater than
3,855 kg (8,500 lb) than proposed in the the agency expressly determines that this credits) adopted by this final rule is
NPRM. These vehicles need more lead paragraph does not apply, the date for summarized below and in Table 12:
time because they have never been manufacturer certification of compliance
with any standard, or amendment to a —20 percent of a vehicle manufacturer’s
regulated under FMVSS No. 214’s standard, that is issued on or after September ‘‘light’’ vehicles (GVWR less than or
dynamic requirements and are not 1, 2006 is, insofar as its application to equal to 3,855 kg (8,500 lb))
subject to the industry’s voluntary intermediate and final-stage manufacturers manufactured during the period from
commitment to install side air bags. and alterers is concerned, one year after the September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2010
Because these vehicles may need more last applicable date for manufacturer will be required to comply with the
redesign of the vehicle side structure, certification of compliance. Nothing in this standard; 90
interior trim, and/or optimization of provision shall be construed as prohibiting
earlier compliance with the standard or —50 percent of light vehicles
dynamically deploying head/side manufactured during the period from
amendment or as precluding NHTSA from
protection systems than light vehicles, extending a compliance effective date for September 1, 2010 to August 31, 2011;
this final rule does not subject these intermediate and final-stage manufacturers —75 percent of light vehicles
vehicles to the pole test requirements and alterers by more than one year. manufactured during the period from
until September 1, 2013. September 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012;
Applying the above provision of the
In response to the RVIA and NTEA, February 14, 2005 final rule to this —All light vehicles manufactured on or
NHTSA has issued a final rule rulemaking, we have provided final- after September 1, 2012, including
pertaining to certification requirements stage manufacturers and alterers an those produced by limited line and
for vehicles built in two or more stages additional year after completion of the small volume manufacturers, without
and altered vehicles.89 In relevant part, phase-in to certify compliance of their use of credits;
the multi-stage certification final rule vehicles with the pole test requirements. —All vehicles with a GVWR greater
amended 49 CFR 571.8, Effective Date, The manufacturers may voluntarily than 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) manufactured
to add a new subparagraph (b) providing certify compliance with the standard on or after September 1, 2013 and all
as follows: prior to this date. vehicles produced by alterers and
Vehicles built in two or more stages and For convenience of the reader, the multistage manufacturers, without use
altered vehicles. Unless Congress directs or phase-in schedule (with advanced of credits.
TABLE 12.—FINAL RULE PHASE-IN SCHEDULE

Percent of each manufacturer’s vehicles that must comply
Production period during the production period 91
September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2010 ................................................... 20 percent (excluding vehicles GVWR >8,500 lb).
September 1, 2010 to August 31, 2011 ................................................... 50 percent of vehicles (excluding vehicles GVWR >8,500 lb).
September 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012 ................................................... 75 percent of vehicles (excluding vehicles GVWR >8,500 lb).
On or after September 1, 2012 ................................................................ All vehicles (excluding vehicles GVWR >8,500 lb), all vehicles pro-
duced by limited line and small volume manufacturers.
On or after September 1, 2013 ................................................................ All vehicles GVWR >8,500 lb, all vehicles manufactured by alterers
and multistage manufacturers.
2. MDB test simultaneously.’’ The commenter also distribute resources to meet the
suggested that there should be an proposed requirements.
The agency believed that
manufacturers could meet the opportunity for limited line Ferrari believed that ‘‘improved chest
requirements of the upgraded MDB test manufacturers to apply credits against protection would be needed even by
without the need for a phase-in period. the full compliance requirement for one vehicles whose armrest is already
Therefore, we proposed that the year. DaimlerChrysler anticipated that designed to reduce the risk of
upgraded MDB test would be effective 4 ‘‘the requirements represented in the abdominal injuries, and changes would
years after publication of a final rule. oblique pole test may effect [sic] also be needed to vehicles that provide
The agency requested comments on structural changes which, in turn, will good to optimum chest protection when
whether it would be appropriate to influence performance in the MDB test tested according to SINCAP or
establish a phase-in for this requirement mode.’’ DaimlerChrysler believed that EuroNCAP.’’ In Ferrari’s opinion, the
and whether a lead time shorter than 4 designing to the MDB and pole tests upgraded MDB test would require equal,
years would be appropriate. ‘‘represents a development task which if not greater, amount of redesign as the
The Alliance, DaimlerChrysler, will require at least one product cycle pole test. Therefore, it recommended the
Nissan, and Ferrari did not support the (6 to 8 years) to complete.’’ same phase-in time as was proposed for
different effective dates for the pole test Nissan stated that its experience with the pole test.
and the MDB test. The Alliance believed side impact crashes leads it to believe In contrast, Advocates, Consumers
that ‘‘occupant safety benefits are that significant changes would be Union, and Public Citizen supported not
optimized and manufacturers’ necessary to comply with the proposed having a phase-in for the upgraded MDB
engineering resources are best utilized if MDB requirements. It also noted that the test.
the MDB and pole test requirements are application of advanced credits would Agency response: After consideration
addressed in vehicle designs allow Nissan to more efficiently of the comments, NHTSA has decided
89 See 70 FR 7414 (Feb. 14, 2005). manufacturer that produces or assembles fewer than they may maximize resources in planning to
90 Limited line and small volume manufacturers, 5,000 vehicles annually for sale in the United comply with the final rule.
alterers, and multistage manufacturers, are States. Limited line and small volume 91 Limited line and small volume manufacturers,
excluded from the 20/50/75 phase-in requirements. manufacturers, alterers, and multistage alterers, and multistage manufacturers, are
A small volume manufacturer is an original vehicle manufacturers are provided extra lead time so that excluded from the 20/50/75 phase-in requirements.
to adopt a phase-in for the MDB test, criteria for the SID–IIs in the pole and developed draft procedures for
and align the phase-in schedule with MDB tests adopted today. By aligning evaluating side impact air bags.94
the oblique pole test requirements, with the phase-in schedule of the new MDB Under the TWG procedures, a 5th
advance credits. An aligned phase-in requirements with the pole test, more percentile female side impact dummy
will allow manufacturers to optimize flexibility is provided for the possible (SID–IIs), a 3-year-old and a 6-year-old
engineering resources to design vehicles implementation of those rulemaking Hybrid III frontal child dummy are
that meet the MDB and pole test actions. placed in several positions close to the
requirements simultaneously, thus side air bag systems. The TWG
f. Related Side Impact Programs procedures address side air bags that
reducing costs. Manufacturers, such as
Nissan, will also be able to use credits 1. Out-of-Position Testing deploy from the seat backs (seat-
to more efficiently distribute their Background. The agency has been mounted), those that deploy from the
resources to meet the requirements. It concerned about the potential risks of door or rear quarter panel, typically just
will also allow limited line side impact air bags (SIAB) to out-of- below the window sill (side-mounted),
manufacturers the opportunity to position (OOP) occupants, particularly those that deploy from the roof rail
comply with the phase-in schedule with children, from the first appearance of above the door (roof-mounted), and
credits, or alternatively to achieve full side air bag systems in vehicles. NHTSA roof-rail and seat back/door systems.
compliance when the phase-in is initiated research in the fall of 1998 into After the dummy is positioned as
completed. Final-stage manufacturers the interactions between OOP children specified in the procedures, the air bag
and alterers will be required to comply and side air bags. In April 1999, NHTSA is deployed statically, and the dummy
with the MDB test requirements at the held a public meeting to discuss the injury measures due to the deployment
end of the phase in, but may voluntarily potential benefits and risks of side of the air bag are determined. The
certify compliance with the impact air bags and the development of measured forces are compared to TWG’s
requirements prior to this date. possible test procedures to assess those ‘‘Injury Reference Values’’ and ‘‘Injury
In response to Advocates, Consumers risks.92 Research Values.’’ 95 The TWG’s limits
Union, and Public Citizen, the agency Safety Need. The agency has on the Injury Reference Values are
believes that it is appropriate to provide investigated over 110 side impact air mostly the same as those in FMVSS No.
flexibility to manufacturers to upgrade bag deployment crashes through 208 for OOP testing of frontal air bags.
both the pole and MDB requirements on NHTSA’s Special Crash Investigations NHTSA initiated a research program
the same schedule. When the agency unit in order to determine whether a to evaluate the TWG procedures and
published the NPRM, we did not propose, if necessary, any alternatives
problem exists related to OOP
anticipate that vehicles would need and modifications to assess the injury
occupants. There have been no fatalities
many structural changes to comply with risk to OOP children. The agency’s test
and only one confirmed AIS 3+ injury
the MDB test. We originally thought that program included 11 vehicles equipped
due to a side air bag, this to a 76-year-
the countermeasures necessitated by the with front seat side air bags and one
old male driver. Side air bags 93 do not
rulemaking would entail a simple vehicle equipped with rear seat side air
appear to pose a safety risk to OOP
redesign of the door trim armrest area bags. The TWG OOP test procedures
children, even taking into account
with additional padding and/or re- were used as the baseline for selecting
exposure risks.
contouring of the door trim surface. test positions. However, tests were
Technical Working Group
However, upon review of the comments performed with the basic TWG
Recommended Procedures. In July 1999,
and the results of our own limited procedures with and without NHTSA
the Alliance, AIAM, the Automotive
testing with the SID–IIs in the MDB variations. Many different types of
Occupant Restraints Council, and IIHS
tests, we agree with Nissan and Ferrari production systems, including door-
formed a technical working group
that required changes might involve a mounted thorax bags, seat-mounted
(TWG) to develop recommended test
redesign of the vehicle side structure, head-thorax combination bags, and roof-
procedures and performance
particularly to address high pelvic mounted head protection systems, were
requirements to evaluate the risk of side
loading and elevated rib deflections of tested using 3-year-old and 6-year-old
air bags to children who are out-of-
the SID–IIs in the rear seats of some Hybrid–III child dummies. The results
position. In August 2000, the TWG were reported in a technical paper,
vehicles. By aligning the phase-in
issued a draft report, ‘‘Recommended ‘‘Evaluation of Injury Risk from Side
schedule of the new MDB requirements
Procedures For Evaluating Occupant Impact Air Bags.’’ (Proceedings of the
with the pole test, the agency believes
Injury Risk From Deploying Side Air 17th ESV Conference, June 2001, Paper
that vehicle manufacturers can better
Bags,’’ The Side Air Bag Out-Of-Position # 331.) The main purpose of the test
optimize their vehicle designs and the
Injury Technical Working Group, program was to assess the potential
overall occupant protection systems for
Adrian K. Lund (IIHS) Chairman, safety risks that any system could pose
side impact crashes.
In addition, the Alliance, Honda, and August 8, 2000. This report was revised to OOP small adults and children due
other commenters requested NHTSA to in July 2003. The proposed procedures to deploying side air bags.
consider adopting the WorldSID into 49 were based on the work of Working The main observations from the
CFR part 572 and using the dummy in Group 3 of the International agency’s research is summarized in the
the phase-in of this final rule. We are Organization of Standard (ISO) following:
currently evaluating the dummy for Technical Committee 10, which had
possible incorporation into part 572. If 92 The
94 ‘‘Road Vehicles—Test Procedures for
agency has placed materials in Docket Evaluating Occupant Interactions with Deploying
incorporation of the dummy appears NHTSA–1999–5098 relating to the risks to out-of- Side Impact Airbags.’’ The ISO procedures were
reasonable, we could undertake position occupants from SIAB. finalized in October 2001 (ISO–TR 14933, October
rulemaking on the WorldSID to integrate 93 For the purposes of this discussion, ‘‘side air 2001).
the dummy into the pole and MDB tests bags’’ means side thorax air bags and combination 95 Injury Reference values are those that the
of FMVSS No. 214 during the phase-in thorax/head air bags, and not window curtains or majority of the TWG believed have a strong
inflatable tubular structures. Our testing found no scientific basis. Injury Research Values are those
period of this final rule. We may also reason for concern with window curtains or that TWG believes currently have less scientific
consider rulemaking to incorporate inflatable tubular structures and out-of-position support or insufficient test experience to allow full
thoracic and abdominal rib deflection children or adults. confidence in their accuracy.
The TWG procedures address dummy and also has been certified to TWG new side structure enhancements, new
sizes, seating positions, and expand the OOP. These examples show that the crash sensors and/or algorithms, and/or
traditional injury assessment measures. oblique pole and MDB test requirements new head protection systems, will only
The TWG procedures are quite are not in conflict with the TWG improve a vehicle’s performance in side
comprehensive and are very successful guidelines. Further, air bag supplier NCAP and other side impact crashes.
at discriminating between aggressive TRW stated that side impact protection Nonetheless, NHTSA carefully
and non-aggressive SIABs. systems designed to meet the ensures that any changes to NCAP are
The TWG procedures are adequate requirements of the NPRM could based on sound science and careful,
baseline procedures for SIAB OOP perform acceptably for OOP occupants. objective analysis of supporting data.96
testing to minimize unreasonable risks Based on the available information, we With the two new crash test dummies
to children and small adults. conclude that vehicles are able to meet and a new crash test configuration
For the 3- and 6-year-old dummies, the requirements of this final rule and added to the standard, the agency will
the TWG test procedures do not always those of the TWG OOP. continue to evaluate how to tailor the
find the worst case conditions for some The agency monitors compliance with side NCAP program to complement the
current SIAB systems. the TWG requirements by vehicle upgraded requirements of FMVSS No.
The NPRM. The NPRM sought manufacturers. As part of the agency’s 214.
information on how meeting the Buying a Safer Car consumer
requirements proposed by the NPRM 3. Cross-References to FMVSS No. 214
information program, we publish
would affect manufacturers’ ability to whether a vehicle was certified to the Honda pointed out that FMVSS Nos.
meet the TWG procedures. The NPRM TWG OOP requirements. We only state 201, 301 and 305 contain cross-
stated that the agency will continue to that a vehicle has met those references to sections of FMVSS No. 214
monitor compliance with the TWG test requirements after the manufacturer has that will be renumbered by this final
procedures and requirements by provided data showing that it conforms rule. We are amending those cross-
automotive manufacturers, and will to TWG OOP. The agency also conducts references in FMVSS Nos. 201, 301 and
conduct further testing of new air bag spot testing to verify those results. If the 305 to achieve consistency with today’s
designs. knowledge we gain from our test final rule.
Comments: DaimlerChrysler program indicates that further actions
commented that at this time, it does not g. Comments on the PEA
are needed, we will take appropriate
know the extent of which the OOP actions to do so. Several comments were received on
occupants, as specified in the TWG, the agency’s preliminary economic
would be affected by the proposed 2. Side NCAP assessment (PEA) for the NPRM.
requirements in the NPRM. However, Honda asked that NHTSA use Commenters included Maserati and
DaimlerChrysler anticipated that side WorldSID in testing vehicles under the Ferrari, the Alliance, and the Specialty
air bags designed in accordance to the side impact new car assessment Equipment Manufacturers Association
NPRM may be in conflict with the TWG program if the manufacturer uses (SEMA).
OOP requirements. Conversely, TRW WorldSID for that vehicle’s FMVSS No. Maserati and Ferrari believed that
believed that the side protection 214 certification. Autoliv wanted NHTSA underestimated the costs of
systems designed to meet the NHTSA to address the effects of the small manufacturers to comply with the
requirements of the NPRM could rulemaking on NCAP. ‘‘If there is a proposed rule. The Alliance had
perform acceptably for OOP occupants. significant difference between Lateral questions about how the PEA estimated
TRW also stated that it supports the NCAP and FMVSS 214 (MDB) test the benefits of the rulemaking, e.g., how
efforts of the OOP TWG and does not conditions and requirements, there may the agency identified the target
believe there is a need for regulatory be significant challenges in meeting population of potentially injured
activity in this area. requirements of both (potentially occupants that would be addressed by
Agency response: We have considered conflicting) test conditions.’’ the rulemaking. The Alliance also
the comments on whether meeting the Agency response: We have carefully believed that we did not demonstrate
requirements proposed by the NPRM considered Honda’s suggestion. the practicability of meeting the
would affect manufacturers’ ability to However, since we are not engaged in a proposed test requirements, and stated
meet the TWG procedures. rulemaking action on the WorldSID that the principles set forth in the Data
DaimlerChrysler, the only vehicle dummy at the present time, we can only Quality Act were not met (the
manufacturer commenting on this issue, commit to study the merit of Honda’s commenter believed that some of the
stated it had no data to support its suggestion during the course of our data in the PEA had errors and that the
suggestion of a potential conflict future research. PEA contained some unsupported
between TWG and the proposed In response to Autoliv, we do not assumptions).
requirements of the NPRM, but anticipate significant challenges or The agency has responded to the
anticipated there may be some. potential conflicts in meeting the comments on the costs and benefits
NHTSA’s testing has shown that, requirements of both side NCAP and the analysis and other issues of the PEA in
during the course of the 214 fleet testing final rule. The upgrade to FMVSS No. the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis
program, there have been vehicles that 214 is an enhancement to the protection (FRIA) 97 (see Appendix G of the FRIA),
have met the new requirements of this currently provided by the standard.
final rule and have also been reported Based on our crash testing to date, 96 NHTSA has announced plans to evaluate near
to meet the TWG procedures. The Jetta, vehicles that achieved a rating of four and long-term approaches to enhance NCAP
activities. ‘‘The New Car Assessment Program;
Volkswagen Beetle Convertible, Saab 9– stars or better for both occupants in side Suggested Approaches for Enhancements,’’ 72 FR
3 Convertible and Honda Accord have NCAP tests will likely be among the 3473; January 25, 2007, Docket 26555. An
met the pole test injury criteria with the better performers in meeting the enhancement under consideration is to include the
ES–2re and have been certified by their requirements of the final rule. (The pole test in NCAP assesssments.
97 The FRIA may be obtained by contacting
respective manufacturer to the TWG FMVSS No. 214 test is conducted at a Docket Management at the address or telephone
OOP requirements. The Honda CRV met lower speed than the side NCAP test.) number provided at the beginning of this document.
the pole test criteria with the SID–IIs We believe countermeasures, such as You may also read the document via the Internet,
which has been placed in the agency’s represented by the 5th percentile female air bag, 2-sensor per vehicle system
docket for this final rule. dummy (the SID–IIs). As discussed in were used. (The combination air bag,
the FRIA, several additional 2-sensor system would be the least
VII. Costs and Benefits
adjustments were made to the target costly side air bag system that would
As noted above, we have prepared an population to address voluntary enable a vehicle to meet the standard.)
FRIA to accompany this final rule. The commitments, belt use, children, etc.
FRIA provides an analysis of the —311 fatalities saved and 361 MAIS 3–
The target population was then 5 injuries prevented, if a window
potential impacts of the vehicle-to-pole determined to be 2,311 fatalities and
side impact test and the modifications curtain and thorax air bag 2-sensor
5,891 non-fatal serious to critical MAIS system were used.
to the MDB test. It also addresses AIS 3–5 injuries in crashes with a delta-
comments the agency received in —311 fatalities saved and 371 MAIS 3–
V of 19 to 40 km/h (12–25 mph) for
response to the agency’s Preliminary 5 injuries prevented, if a window
near-side occupants.98 The 2,311
Economic Assessment that accompanied curtain and thorax air bag 4-sensor
fatalities were divided into two groups
the NPRM. A summary of the FRIA system were used.
for the analysis: (1) Vehicle-to-pole
follows. impacts; and (2) vehicle-to-vehicle or Window curtains are estimated to
Benefits. The agency identified the
other roadside object impacts, which have more benefits than combination air
baseline target population and then
include partial ejections in these cases. bags because we assumed that window
estimated the fatality or injury reduction
rate. The target population was defined Further adjustments were made for curtains would have an impact on
as occupants who sustained fatal and/or assumed full compliance with the partial ejections that occur in side
AIS 3+ injuries to the head, chest, FMVSS No. 201 upper interior impacts without rollover, while we
abdomen or pelvis in side crashes. requirements, 100 percent Electronic assume no benefits for combination air
Target fatalities and MAIS 3–5 injuries Stability Control (ESC) penetration in bags in far-side partial ejections without
were derived from 2000–2004 CDS. The the model year (MY) 2011 new vehicle rollover. No benefits are claimed for
agency limited the target population to fleet, current performance that conforms complete ejections in rollovers, since
crashes in which the delta–V was in the to the final rule requirements adopted the effectiveness of the combination air
range of 19 to 40 km/h (12 to 25 mph). today (based on the results of the bags or window curtains to contain
In identifying the target population, NHTSA 214 fleet testing program), and occupants in a rollover event has not
occupants with heights of 165 cm (65 manufacturers’ planned installation of been established at this time.
inches) or taller were assumed to be side air bags.99 The incremental benefits The majority of the benefits are for
represented by the 50th percentile male of the final rule are estimated as: front seat occupants, but a small number
dummy (the ES–2re), and the remaining —266 fatalities saved and 352 AIS 3–5 of benefits are included for rear seat
occupants were assumed to be injuries prevented, if a combination occupants.
TABLE 13.—BENEFITS OF THE FINAL RULE BY COUNTERMEASURE 100

Combination Curtain & Curtain &
air bag thorax bags thorax bags
2 sensors 2 sensors 4 sensors
Fatalities ....................................................................................................................................... 266 311 311

AIS 3–5 Injuries ........................................................................................................................... 352 361 371
Costs. In the FRIA, the agency Potential compliance costs for the pole —a wide combination head/thorax side
discusses the costs of the different test vary considerably, and are air bag system with two sensors at
technologies that could be used to dependent upon the types of head and $126 per vehicle,
comply with the tests, and also thorax side air bags chosen by the —to wide window curtains and wide
estimates compliance tests costs. Based manufacturers and the number of thorax side air bags with four sensors
on the results of the 2005 tests of sensors used in the system. As noted at a cost of $280 per vehicle.
vehicles with side air bags (Section IV above, NHTSA estimates that the Given the level of compliance found
of this preamble, supra), the agency combination air bag, 2-sensor system in our vehicle testing 101 and the
estimates that the majority of vehicle would be the least costly side air bag manufacturers’ planned installation of
manufacturers currently installing side system that would enable a vehicle to side air bags in MY 2011, the total
head air bag systems will have to widen meet the standard. annual incremental cost to meet this
their present air bags. They might not The costs for installing new systems final rule with the lower cost
need to add side impact sensors to their are estimated to range from: combination air bag is estimated to be
vehicles or develop more advanced $429 million. The total annual
sensors to meet an oblique pole test. incremental cost for the wide window
by following the instructions in the section below model year (MY) 2011. For remaining having side air bags, assuming 100 percent of
entitled, ‘‘Viewing Docket Submissions.’’ The FRIA manufacturers, MY 2006 side air bag percentages vehicles have Electronic Stability Control systems,
will be listed in the docket summary. were assumed to remain constant through MY 2011. are estimated to be 976 fatalities and 932 AIS 3–
98 The Agency’s analysis also found some fatality The projected MY 2011 side air bag sales data show 5 injuries.
benefits for far-side unbelted occupants. In 2004 that the majority of vehicles (about 93%) will be 101 We assumed that the performance of side air
FARS, there were 1,441 unbelted far-side occupant equipped with side air bags. Based on the sales
bags that would have been installed in MY 2011
fatalities in side impacts. data, we expect that about 95% and 78% of these
99 Seven manufacturers (comprising about 90 vehicles will be equipped with curtain and thorax vehicles in the absence of the oblique pole test
bags, respectively. requirements would have been equivalent to the
percent of all light vehicle sales) submitted
confidential data responding to a NHTSA request 100 The benefits of 100 percent of the fleet having performance observed in the agency’s tests of MY
for planned side air bag and projected sales through side air bags compared to 0 percent of the fleet 2005 vehicles.
curtains and wide thorax side air bags The agency’s data show that the bag system (curtain and thorax bag two-
with four sensors is estimated to be $1.1 majority of side air bag systems are sensor countermeasure) would be about
billion (2004 dollars). This amounts to currently equipped with two side $560 million.
a range of total incremental annual cost impact sensors. The total annual
of $429 million to $1.1 billion. incremental cost for the most likely air
TABLE 14.—INCREMENTAL TOTAL COSTS AND VEHICLE COSTS

[$2004]
Window cur- Window cur-

Combination tain and thorax tain and thorax
head/thorax side air bags, side air bags,
side air bags 2 sensors 4 sensors
Incremental total costs ................................................................................................................. *$429 *$560 **$1.1

Total vehicle cost per system ...................................................................................................... 126 243 280
*Million.
**Billion.
Cost Per Equivalent Fatality assumes that manufacturers will install equivalent life saved, using a 7 percent
Prevented. NHTSA estimated the costs combination head/thorax air bags rather discount rate. The high end estimate
per equivalent life saved, using a 3 and than separate window curtains and assumes that manufacturers will install
a 7 percent discount rate. The low end thorax air bags, in vehicles that separate window curtains and thorax air
of the range is $1.6 million per currently have no side impact air bags bags with four sensors.
equivalent life saved, using a 3 percent or only thorax side impact air bags. The
discount rate. That low end estimate high end of the range is $4.6 million per
TABLE 15.—COSTS PER EQUIVALENT LIFE SAVED PRESENT DISCOUNTED VALUE

[in millions]
Window cur- Window cur-

Combination tain and thorax tain and thorax
Cost per equivalent life saved head/thorax side air bags, side air bags,
side air bags 2 sensors 4 sensors
3% Discount Rate ........................................................................................................................ $1.6 $1.8 $3.7

7% Discount Rate ........................................................................................................................ 2.0 2.3 4.6
Net Benefits. Net benefit analysis of costs to derive a net benefit. NHTSA end is negative $225 million for the
differs from cost effectiveness analysis estimates that the high end of the net curtain + thorax bags with four sensors,
in that it requires that benefits be benefits is $561 million for the using a 7 percent discount rate. Both of
assigned a monetary value, and that this combination head/thorax air bags using these are based on a $3.7 million cost
value is compared to the monetary value a 3 percent discount rate and the low per equivalent life saved.
TABLE 16.—NET BENEFITS WITH $3.7M COST PER LIFE

[In millions]
Benefit Net benefit

Countermeasure
3% discount 7% discount 3% discount 7% discount
Combo + 2 Sensors ......................................................................................... $990 $787 $561 $357

Curtain + 2 Sensors ......................................................................................... 1,127 895 567 336
Curtain + 4 Sensors ......................................................................................... 1,131 899 7 ¥225
VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and evaluate the potential effects of their
Review.’’ The rulemaking action has proposed and final rules on small
a. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
also been determined to be significant businesses, small organizations and
Planning and Review) and DOT
under the Department’s regulatory small governmental jurisdictions. I
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
policies and procedures. The FRIA fully hereby certify that this rule will not
The agency has considered the impact discusses the estimated costs and have a significant economic impact on
of this rulemaking action under benefits of this rulemaking action. The a substantial number of small entities.
Executive Order 12866 and the costs and benefits are summarized in
Small organizations and small

Department of Transportation’s section VII of this preamble, supra.
regulatory policies and procedures. This governmental units will not be
rulemaking is economically significant b. Regulatory Flexibility Act significantly affected since the potential
and was reviewed by the Office of The Regulatory Flexibility Act of cost impacts associated with this action
Management and Budget under E.O. 1980, as amended, requires agencies to
will not significantly affect the price of The final rule indirectly affects air bag the dealership for reprogramming.
new motor vehicles. manufacturers, dummy manufacturers SEMA suggested that NHTSA should—
The rule will directly affect motor and seating manufacturers. The agency make sure that electronic data is open and
vehicle manufacturers. NHTSA does not believe that there are any small available in such a way so as not to preclude
requested comments on an addendum to manufacturers of air bags. There are installation, servicing, or repair of legal
the initial regulatory flexibility analysis several manufacturers of dummies and/ aftermarket equipment * * * Specifically,
(IRFA) that was contained in the or dummy parts, some of which are SEMA believes it is appropriate to follow the
Preliminary Economic Assessment considered small businesses. The rule is EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] OBD
(PEA) for the May 17, 2004 NPRM on expected to have a positive impact on [on-board diagnostic system] precedent in
that any and all electronic data, or any that
FMVSS No. 214 (Docket No. 17694). these types of small businesses by can be accessed through the available
The addendum to the IRFA discusses increasing demand for dummies. technology, must be made available to the
the economic impacts on small vehicle NHTSA knows of approximately 21 vehicle owner to the extent that such access
manufacturers, of which there are suppliers of seating systems, about half is available to other parties. Further, SEMA
four 102 (70 FR 2105; January 12, 2005). of which are small businesses. If seat- believes it is appropriate that NHTSA
NHTSA stated in the addendum that mounted head/thorax air bags are used consider setting standards for data retrieval
our tentative conclusion was that the to meet the new pole test, the cost of the communication protocols, connectors and
rule will not have a significant seats will increase. However, we believe tools, and that such information and tools be
economic impact on the four made available to the public in a timely and
that the costs will be passed on to the
cost-effective manner.
manufacturers. We believed that the consumer. NHTSA believes that air bag
small vehicle manufacturers are not manufacturers will provide the seat Agency response: Requiring vehicle
likely to certify compliance with a suppliers with the engineering expertise manufacturers to ensure that electronic
vehicle test, but will use a combination necessary to meet the new requirements. information about the SIABs is ‘‘open
of component testing by air bag NHTSA notes that final-stage vehicle and available * * * so as not to
suppliers and engineering judgment. manufacturers and alterers buy preclude installation, servicing, or
Already much of the air bag work for incomplete vehicles, add seating repair’’ of aftermarket equipment is
these small vehicle manufacturers is systems to vehicles without seats, and/ beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
done by air bag suppliers. Typically, air or make other modifications to the Furthermore, we do not have any
bag suppliers are supplying larger vehicle, such as replacing existing seats information showing that such a
vehicle manufacturers during the with new ones or raising the roofs of requirement is necessary or appropriate
development and phase-in period, and vehicles. A second-stage manufacturer at this time. Vehicles currently include
do not have the design capabilities to or alterer modifying a vehicle with a many complex systems, and although
handle all of the smaller manufacturers. seat-mounted thorax air bag might need dealer involvement may be necessary in
The rulemaking proposal accounted for to use the existing seat or rely on a seat some cases, the marketplace has made
this limitation by proposing to allow manufacturer to provide the necessary available sufficient information to
small manufacturers that have limited technology. In either case, the impacts permit convenient maintenance and
lines to comply with the upgraded of this final rule on such entities will repair of such systems. We do not
requirements at the end of the phase-in not be significant. Final-stage believe that SIAB technology will prove
period, to reduce the economic impact manufacturers or alterers engaged in any different in this regard. There are a
of the rule on these small entities. raising the roofs of vehicles will not be substantial number of vehicles currently
As explained in the addendum, we affected by this rulemaking, since this equipped with SIAB systems—some
also believed that the rulemaking would final rule excludes vehicles with raised portion of which it is expected would
not have a significant impact on the or altered roofs from the pole test. have had aftermarket modifications of
small vehicle manufacturers because the The Specialty Equipment Market the types suggested by SEMA—and
market for the vehicles produced by Association (SEMA) believed that there has been no indication of any
these entities is highly inelastic. ‘‘aftermarket equipment manufacturers problem to date. Additional information
Purchasers of these vehicles are and other entities that diagnose, service, may become available in the future that
attracted by the desire to have an repair and upgrade motor vehicles’’ may sheds light on how SIAB systems
unusual vehicle. Further, all light be affected by the final rule if their interact with other vehicle equipment
vehicles must comply with the installed products interact with and systems. We will monitor the data
upgraded side impact requirements. equipment or systems used by vehicle and test information we receive on this
Since the price of complying with the manufacturers to meet the FMVSS No. issue, and we encourage all interested
rule will likely be passed on to the final 214 requirements. SEMA’s comment parties to share relevant information
consumer, the price of competitor’s focused on three issues. The following with the agency and the public as it
models will increase by similar discusses those comments and our becomes available. If we later find
amounts. In addition, we did not believe responses thereto. significant safety risks associated with
that raising the price of a vehicle to 1. SEMA said that, with regard to the interaction between SIAB systems
include the value of a combination frontal air bags and air bag sensors and items of equipment (aftermarket or
head-thorax side air bag will have installed pursuant to FMVSS No. 208, otherwise), we will work toward
much, if any, effect on vehicle sales. ‘‘Occupant crash protection,’’ addressing these possible problems.
The agency received no comments on manufacturers of aftermarket leather Further, we are not requiring vehicle
the addendum to the IRFA concerning and fabric seating products frequently manufacturers to share all electronic
the impacts of the rule on small vehicle have not had access to electronic data with the vehicle owner. Such a
manufacturers. information about the frontal air bag requirement is unnecessary at this time,
For the reasons explained in the sensor in the vehicle seat. Consequently, for the reasons discussed above. We
IRFA, NHTSA concludes that this final SEMA stated, the aftermarket have not been presented with any
rule will not have a significant impact manufacturer or installer could not evidence of a safety or compatibility
on small vehicle manufacturers. reprogram the sensor after the product problem between SIABs and other
has been installed, and in many vehicle systems or equipment, and the
102 Avanti, Panoz, Saleen, and Shelby. instances, had to return the vehicle to
market has tended to respond to flexibility analysis for entities not service industry. The agency is not
consumer demands that sufficient directly impacted by its rulemaking. In aware of any significant compatibility
information be provided to permit third its 2003 publication titled ‘‘A Guide for problems between SIAB systems and
party vehicle servicing. Nonetheless, Government Agencies: How to Comply other vehicle equipment, and SEMA
NHTSA strongly encourages SEMA and with the Regulatory Flexibility Act’’ provided no evidence that side air bag
its members to develop relationships (‘‘RFA Guide’’), the Small Business technology will preclude installation,
with vehicle and SIAB system Administration states that ‘‘[t]he courts servicing, or repair of aftermarket
manufacturers to research and find have held that the RFA requires an equipment, including whether and the
solutions to these questions. agency to perform a regulatory degree to which particular aftermarket
2. SEMA stated that ‘‘many flexibility analysis of small entity modifications of a vehicle entail the
dealerships have received service impacts only when a rule directly reprogramming of a vehicle’s computer
bulletins from the vehicle manufacturer regulates them.’’ 103 The cases cited by system. The agency cannot hypothesize
warning them against the installation of the RFA Guide indicate that a rule on all possible interactions between
aftermarket seat covers, citing concern ‘‘directly regulates’’ only the entities to SIAB technologies and different vehicle
that installation may interfere with the which the rule applies—for example, equipment, and we are unable to
front seat airbag sensors.’’ SEMA electric utilities but not independent address speculative arguments regarding
suggested that NHTSA should ‘‘issue a electricity cooperatives in a FERC rate- compatibility problems for which there
regulation or policy statement which setting regulation,104 or automobile is no evidence. There are a substantial
states that it is illegal to issue service manufacturers but not aftermarket number of vehicles currently equipped
bulletins or other communications that businesses in an EPA ‘deemed-to- with SIAB systems—some portion of
warn dealers about potential warranty comply’ rule.105 In Motor & Equipment which it is expected would have had
denial based on the mere presence or Mfrs. Ass’n v. Nichols, the D.C. Circuit aftermarket modifications of the types
installation of aftermarket equipment.’’ described the distinction as follows: suggested by SEMA—and there has been
Agency response: We are unable to ‘‘The RFA itself distinguishes between no indication of any problem to date.
concur with SEMA that NHTSA should small entities subject to an agency rule, Nonetheless, we encourage
provide the requested regulation and/or to which its requirements apply, and manufacturers of aftermarket equipment
policy statement governing the those not subject to the rule, to which that cannot independently assess
communications between manufacturers the requirements do not apply.’’ 106 whether their products will affect
and dealers on warranties. This final rule establishes original SIAB systems to collaborate
Communications between vehicle performance requirements for side with air bag and vehicle manufacturers
manufacturers and their dealers on the impact protection and applies to new to make that assessment or to undertake
warranties is a topic that is beyond the motor vehicles. The only entities subject concerted testing to develop products
scope of the rulemaking. However, we to these requirements are vehicle that are compatible with the SIABs.
encourage OEMs and the aftermarket manufacturers. NHTSA has already SEMA’s comment indicated that
sales industry to work together to share analyzed the potential impacts of the companies that supply leather or fabric
information on the effect of aftermarket rule on these directly affected entities, seating already ‘‘have tested their
equipment on vehicle warranties. as the FRIA makes clear. Nothing in this products to ensure that the leather or
3. SEMA believed that NHTSA did rule subjects the entities described by fabric does not adversely impact the air
not consider all of the small businesses SEMA to NHTSA’s regulation. bag seat sensors.’’ 107 We believe that the
potentially impacted by the final rule. With that said, although NHTSA has aftermarket installers of other products
The commenter believed that the rule no obligation to perform a regulatory
can likewise embark on testing or
‘‘will directly affect a number of small flexibility analysis to consider the
collaborative work with air bag and
entities including manufacturers and potential impacts of this final rule on
installers of seating equipment, interior vehicle manufacturers to ensure that the
such non-directly regulated entities, we
upholstery, sunroofs and running installation is compatible with the
are nevertheless concerned about the
boards. Beyond that, there are vehicles’ SIAB systems.
impact our rules have on all parties. Further, aftermarket businesses have
potentially thousands of small entities Again, we have considered the effects already been servicing vehicles with
that may have the opportunity to that this final rule might have on
SIABs and other complex systems that
diagnose, service, repair and upgrade aftermarket motor vehicle equipment
use computer technology. Although
motor vehicles.’’ SEMA stated, ‘‘While it manufacturers and the motor vehicle
may be possible to work with the air bag vehicle dealer involvement may be
manufacturers to design seating 103 Office of Advocacy, United States Small
necessitated in some cases, we do not
equipment, upholstery, sunroofs, Business Administration, ‘‘A Guide for Government believe that involvement has resulted in
running boards and other items of Agencies: How to Comply with the Regulatory a significant economic impact on the
Flexibility Act,’’ 2003, p. 20. businesses. The marketplace has
equipment that may effect [sic] air bag 104 Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Federal
sensors, the information is of little value generally made available sufficient
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), 773 F.2d
if the vehicle’s computer system needs 327, 341 (DC Cir. 1985) (stating that ‘‘Congress did information to permit the aftermarket
to be reprogrammed to accommodate not intend to require that every agency consider installation of equipment, and the
the new equipment. The reg-flex
every indirect effect that any regulation might have maintenance and repair of vehicles with
on small businesses in any stratum of the national SIAB and other systems. There is no
analysis does not take into account that economy.’’).
the vehicle manufacturers are the source 105 Motor & Equipment Mfrs. Ass’n v. Nichols, indication that vehicle manufacturers
of this information, not the air bag 142 F.3d 449, 467 (DC Cir. 1998) (holding that and dealers have not made and will not
manufacturers. Unless such service
‘‘Because the deemed-to-comply rule did not continue to make necessary information
subject any aftermarket businesses to regulation, reasonably available to the aftermarket
information is forthcoming, thousands EPA was not required to conduct a flexibility
of small businesses may be directly analysis as to small aftermarket businesses. It was sales and service industries. However,
impacted by the rule change.’’ only obliged to consider the impact of the rule on
small automobile manufacturers subject to the rule, 107 See also submission from Kugi Florian in
Agency response: In responding to and it met that obligation.’’). NHTSA Docket 17694 (Walser aftermarket seat
this comment, we note that NHTSA is 106 Id., fn 18, at 467 (describing 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3) cover made compatible with seat-mounted side air
not required to perform a regulatory and (4)). bags).
we will continue to monitor the data unenforceable. See Geier v. American f. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice
and test information we receive on this Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). Reform)
issue, and we encourage all interested NHTSA has not outlined such potential With respect to the review of the
parties to share relevant information State requirements in today’s promulgation of a new regulation,
with the agency and the public as it rulemaking, however, in part because section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988,
becomes available. If we later find such conflicts can arise in varied ‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729,
problems with the information being contexts, but it is conceivable that such February 7, 1996) requires that
made available to the aftermarket sales a conflict may become clear through Executive agencies make every
and service industries, we will take subsequent experience with today’s reasonable effort to ensure that the
appropriate steps to address these standard and test regime. NHTSA may regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
problems. opine on such conflicts in the future, if preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies
For the aforementioned reasons, we warranted. See id. at 883–86. the effect on existing Federal law or
conclude that this rule will not have a
d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act regulation; (3) provides a clear legal
significant negative economic impact on
standard for affected conduct, while
a substantial number of small
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act promoting simplification and burden
entities.108
of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal reduction; (4) clearly specifies the
c. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) agencies to prepare a written assessment retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
NHTSA has examined today’s final of the costs, benefits and other effects of defines key terms; and (7) addresses
rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 proposed or final rules that include a other important issues affecting clarity
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Federal mandate likely to result in the and general draftsmanship under any
concluded that no additional expenditure by State, local or tribal guidelines issued by the Attorney
consultation with States, local governments, in the aggregate, or by the General. This document is consistent
governments or their representatives is private sector, of more than $100 with that requirement.
mandated beyond the rulemaking million annually (adjusted annually for Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes
process. The agency has concluded that inflation, with base year of 1995). These as follows. The preemptive effect of this
the rule does not have federalism effects are discussed earlier in this rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes
implications because the rule does not preamble and in the FRIA. UMRA also further that there is no requirement that
have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the requires an agency issuing a final rule individuals submit a petition for
States, on the relationship between the subject to the Act to select the ‘‘least reconsideration or pursue other
national government and the States, or costly, most cost-effective or least administrative proceeding before they
on the distribution of power and burdensome alternative that achieves may file suit in court.
responsibilities among the various the objectives of the rule.’’ g. Plain Language
levels of government.’’ The preamble and the FRIA identify
Further, no consultation is needed to Executive Order 12866 requires each
and consider a number of alternatives, agency to write all rules in plain
discuss the preemptive effect of today’s concerning factors such as test speed,
rule. NHTSA rules can have preemptive language. Application of the principles
test angle, number and type of dummies of plain language includes consideration
effect in at least two ways. First, the used in the test, and phase-in schedule.
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle of the following questions:
Alternatives considered by and rejected • Have we organized the material to
Safety Act contains an express by us would not fully achieve the
preemptive provision: ‘‘When a motor suit the public’s needs?
objectives of the alternative preferred by • Are the requirements in the rule
vehicle safety standard is in effect under NHTSA (a reasonable balance between
this chapter, a State or a political clearly stated?
the benefits and costs of a 20 mph • Does the rule contain technical
subdivision of a State may prescribe or oblique pole test with the ES–2re and
continue in effect a standard applicable language or jargon that isn’t clear?
the SID–IIs, and a reasonable balance of • Would a different format (grouping
to the same aspect of performance of a the benefits and costs of an upgrade of
motor vehicle or motor vehicle and order of sections, use of headings,
the MDB test). Further, Section IX of the paragraphing) make the rule easier to
equipment only if the standard is FRIA discusses three alternative
identical to the standard prescribed understand?
regulatory approaches to the oblique • Would more (but shorter) sections
under this chapter.’’ 49 U.S.C. pole test that we considered: (a) Using
30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command be better?
the 90 degree pole test set forth in • Could we improve clarity by adding
that preempts State law, not today’s FMVSS No. 201; (b) using the Voluntary
rulemaking, so consultation would be tables, lists, or diagrams?
Commitment approach (perpendicular • What else could we do to make the
inappropriate. moving barrier test with one test
In addition to the express preemption rule easier to understand?
dummy); and (c) applying a pole test to If you have any responses to these
noted above, the Supreme Court has front and rear seats. The agency believes
also recognized that State requirements questions, please write to us with your
that it has selected the most cost- views.
imposed on motor vehicle effective alternative that achieves the
manufacturers, including sanctions objectives of the rulemaking. h. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
imposed by State tort law, can stand as
e. National Environmental Policy Act Under the PRA of 1995, a person is
an obstacle to the accomplishment and
not required to respond to a collection
execution of a NHTSA safety standard.
NHTSA has analyzed this final rule of information by a Federal agency
When such a conflict is discerned, the
for the purposes of the National unless the collection displays a valid
Supremacy Clause of the Constitution
Environmental Policy Act. The agency OMB control number. The final rule
makes their State requirements
has determined that implementation of contains a collection of information
108 Additional information concerning the this action will not have any significant because of the proposed phase-in
potential impacts of the requirements on small impact on the quality of the human reporting requirements. There is no
entities is presented in the FRIA. environment. burden to the general public.
The collection of information requires information technology, e.g., permitting system and a torso side air bag into one
manufacturers of passenger cars and of electronic submission of responses. unit that is typically installed in the seat
trucks, buses and MPVs with a GVWR The NPRM requested that back.
of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, to organizations and individuals wishing Curtain. A ‘‘curtain’’ type side air bag
annually submit a report, and maintain to submit comments on the information system (referred to as ‘‘curtain bags,’’
records related to the report, concerning collection requirements direct them to ‘‘side curtain air bags,’’ ‘‘window
the number of such vehicles that meet the docket for the NPRM. The agency curtains,’’ ‘‘air curtains,’’ or ‘‘AC’’). A
the vehicle-to-pole and MDB test did not receive any comments on the curtain is an inflatable device that is
requirements of FMVSS No. 214 during information collection requirements. fixed at two points, one at the front end
the phase-in of those requirements. The of the vehicle’s A-pillar and the other
i. National Technology Transfer and
phase-in of both the pole and MDB test along the roof rail near the C-pillar. It is
Advancement Act
requirements will cover three years. The installed and stored un-deployed under
purpose of the reporting and Under the National Technology the roof rail headliner. When deployed,
recordkeeping requirements is to assist Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 the curtain inflates to provide a
the agency in determining whether a (NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104–113), cushioned contact surface for the head,
manufacturer of vehicles has complied all Federal agencies and departments shall spanning the side of the vehicle, down
with the requirements during the phase- use technical standards that are developed or from the roof rail across the windows.
in period. adopted by voluntary consensus standards This system would provide head
We are submitting a request for OMB bodies, using such technical standards as a protection for front and possibly rear
clearance of the collection of means to carry out policy objectives or seat occupants in outboard seating
activities determined by the agencies and
information required under today’s final departments.
positions in side crashes.
rule. These requirements and our Head air bag system (or head
estimates of the burden to vehicle Voluntary consensus standards are protection system (HPS)). The term
manufacturers are as follows: technical standards (e.g., materials comprises different types of head
NHTSA estimates that there are 21 specifications, test methods, sampling protection systems, such as curtain bags,
manufacturers of passenger cars, procedures, and business practices) that installed either as a stand alone system
multipurpose passenger vehicles, are developed or adopted by voluntary or combined with a thorax side air bag.
trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 consensus standards bodies, such as the Side impact air bag (SIAB). The term
kg (10,000 lb) or less; International Organization for refers to side air bags generally.
NHTSA estimates that the total Standardization (ISO) and the Society of Torso (or thorax) side air bag. A
annual reporting and recordkeeping Automotive Engineers. The NTTAA ‘‘torso’’ (or ‘‘thorax’’) side air bag that
burden resulting from the collection of directs us to provide Congress, through can be installed in either the seat back
information is 1,260 hours; OMB, explanations when we decide not or the vehicle door. As the name
NHTSA estimates that the total to use available and applicable indicates, the system would provide
annual cost burden, in U.S. dollars, will voluntary consensus standards. protection for the torso but not for the
be $0. No additional resources will be When NHTSA developed the vehicle- head.
expended by vehicle manufacturers to to-pole test that was adopted into
FMVSS No. 201, the agency based the Appendix B—Existing FMVSS No. 214
gather annual production information
because they already compile this data test on a proposed ISO test procedure FMVSS No. 214 specifies two types of
for their own use. found in ISO/SC10/WG1 (October performance requirements intended to
A Federal Register document has 2001). In developing today’s final rule, protect the thoracic and pelvic regions
provided a 60-day comment period we considered the draft ISO standard of an occupant: ‘‘quasi-static’’
concerning the collection of and ISO draft technical reports related requirements and ‘‘dynamic’’
information. The Office of Management to side air bags performance to guide requirements. They apply to passenger
and Budget (OMB) promulgated our decision-making to the extent cars and to multipurpose passenger
regulations describing what must be consistent with the Safety Act. The vehicles, trucks, and buses with a
included in such a document. Under notable differences between the draft GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less
OMB’s regulations (5 CFR 320.8(d)), ISO standard and this final rule relate and 6,000 lb or less, respectively.
agencies must ask for public comment to: the diameter of the pole (ISO draft The quasi-static requirements limit
on the following: technical reports recommend the use of the extent to which the side door
(1) Whether the collection of a 350 mm pole, while NHTSA uses a structure of a vehicle is pushed into the
information is necessary for the proper 254 mm pole in FMVSS No. 201 and passenger compartment during a side
performance of the functions of the will use such a pole in FMVSS No. 214), impact. The standard requires each side
agency, including whether the and the angle of approach of the test door to resist crush forces that are
information will have practical utility; vehicle to the pole (ISO specifies 90 applied by a piston pressing a 300 mm
(2) The accuracy of the agency’s degrees, while our final rule uses a 75 (12 inch) steel cylinder against the
estimate of the burden of the proposed degree angle). The agency’s reasons for door’s outer surface in a laboratory test.
collection of information, including the a 254 mm pole were discussed in the Since the requirement became effective
validity of the methodology and NPRM. The reasons for an oblique, 32 in 1973, vehicle manufacturers have
assumptions used; km/h (20 mph), angle of approach were generally chosen to meet the
(3) How to enhance the quality, discussed earlier in this document. requirement by reinforcing the side
utility, and clarity of the information to doors with metal beams.
be collected; and, IX. Appendices The dynamic side impact test
(4) How to minimize the burden of the Appendix A—Glossary currently regulates the level of crash
collection of information on those who forces that can be experienced by an

are to respond, including the use of Categories of Side Air Bags occupant’s chest and pelvis when seated
appropriate automated, electronic, Combined (also called ‘‘integrated,’’ in a vehicle struck in a side impact. The
mechanical, or other technological ‘‘combination’’ or ‘‘combo’’) side air bag dynamic requirements focus on thoracic
collection techniques or other forms of system. Incorporates both a head air bag and pelvic protection because contact
between the thorax and the side interior vehicle. They are positioned on the occupant injuries. The instrumented
has been the primary source of serious struck side of the vehicle, one in the dummies must not exhibit chest
injuries and fatalities. front seat with the other directly behind accelerations and pelvic accelerations
The dynamic side impact test in the rear seat. above specified thresholds in order to
simulates a 90-degree intersection The MDB, which simulates the pass the test. The maximum rib and
impact of a striking vehicle traveling 48 striking (i.e., bullet) vehicle, has a mass spine accelerations measured on the
km/h (30 mph) into a target (i.e., test) of 1,361 kilograms (kg) (3,000 lb). The chest are averaged into a single metric
vehicle traveling 24 km/h (15 mph). weight of the MDB and the geometry called the Thoracic Trauma Index
This is achieved by running a moving and material properties of the MDB’s
(TTI(d)), which has an 85g limit for 4-
deformable barrier (MDB), which has all aluminum honeycomb contact face were
door vehicles and a 90g limit for 2-door
wheels rotated 27 degrees (crab angle) derived from an adjustment of the
from the longitudinal axis, into the side average properties of the vehicle fleet vehicles. The pelvic acceleration has a
of a stationary (test) vehicle at a 90- (passenger cars and LTVs) in existence 130g limit.
degree contact angle with a 54 km/h at the time of the development of the Appendix C—Test Data From NPRM
(33.5 mph) closing speed. At the initial dynamic side impact regulation.
contact, the longitudinal axes of the The test procedures focus on the The NPRM presented the following
MDB and the test vehicle are dummy’s chest and pelvis acceleration data from tests of an ES–2re and a SID–
perpendicular to each other. Two 50th responses, which have been correlated IIsFRG dummy in oblique pole and
percentile adult male side impact with crash and test data regarding the FMVSS No. 214 MDB tests.
dummies (SIDs) are used in the target conditions that produce serious
TABLE 1 TO APPENDIX C.—75-DEGREE POLE TEST RESULTS ES–2 DUMMY OR ES–2RE DUMMY
Rib-def. Lower spine Abd.-force Pubic-force
Test vehicle Restraint* HIC36 (mm) (g) (N) (N)
Proposed limits .... 1,000 *** 35–44 82 ***2,400 – 6,000

2,800
Test Results Using FMVSS No. 214 Seating Position
1999 Volvo S80** .............................. AC+Th ................. 329 48.7 51.2 1,550 1,130
2000 Saab 9–5** ............................... Comb ................... 171 49.4 49.0 1,370 1,730
2004 Honda Accord** ........................ AC+Th ................. 446 30.7 51.7 1,437 2,463
2004 Toyota Camry** ........................ AC+Th ................. 452 43.4 52.5 1,165 1,849
Test Results Using FMVSS No. 201 Seating Position
1999 Nissan Maxima ......................... Comb ................... 5,254 35.7 45.1 1,196 2,368
1999 Volvo S80 ................................. AC+Th ................. 465 40.7 51.4 1,553 1,700
2000 Saab 9–5 .................................. Comb ................... 243 49.9 58.3 1,382 2,673
2001 Saturn L200 .............................. AC ........................ 670 52.3 78.2 1,224 2,377
2002 Ford Explorer** ......................... AC ........................ 629 43.0 98.4 2,674 2,317
*Comb. = combination head/chest SIAB; AC = air curtain; Thorax or Th=chest SIAB.
**Test was conducted with the ES–2re dummy.
***The agency stated that a particular value within this range would be selected.
TABLE 2 TO APPENDIX C.—75-DEGREE POLE TEST RESULTS

[SID–IIsFRG dummy]
Lower spine Pelvis

Test vehicle Restraint * HIC36 (g) (N)
Proposed limits ............................................... ......................................................................... 1,000 82 5,100

2003 Toyota Camry (tested April 2003) ......... AC+Th (remotely fired at 11 ms) ................... 512 70 4,580
2003 Toyota Camry (tested March 2003) ...... AC+Th (bags did not deploy) ......................... 8,706 78 5,725
2000 Saab 9–5 ............................................... Comb .............................................................. 2,233 67 6,045
2002 Ford Explorer ......................................... AC (remotely fired at 13 ms) ......................... 4,595 101 7,141
* Comb.=head/chest SIAB; AC=air curtain; Th=chest SIAB
TABLE 3 TO APPENDIX C.—FMVSS NO. 214 MDB TEST RESULTS

[ES–2re driver]
Restraint HPS Rib-def. Lower spine Abd.-force Pubic-symph.

Test vehicle HIC36
and/or SIAB (mm) (g) (N) (N)
Proposed limits .................................. .............................. 1,000 * 35–44 82 * 2,400–2,800 6,000

2001 Ford Focus ............................... None .................... 137 36 60 1,648 2,833
2002 Chevrolet Impala ...................... None .................... 69 46 49 1,225 1,789
* The agency stated that a particular value within this range would be selected.

[ES–2re rear passenger]
Restraint HPS Rib-def. Lower spine Abd.-force Pubic-symph.

Test vehicle HIC36
and/or SIAB (mm) (g) (N) (N)
Proposed limits .................................. .............................. 1,000 35–44 82 *2,400–2,800 6,000

2001 Ford Focus ............................... None .................... 174 20 59 1,121 2,759
2002 Chevrolet Impala ...................... None .................... 187 12 58 4,409 2,784
*The agency stated that a particular value within this range would be selected.

[SID–IIsFRG driver]
Lower spine
Test vehicle Restraint HPS and/or SIAB HIC36 Pelvis (N)
(g)
Proposed limits ........................................................................ ................................................ 1,000 82 5,100

2001 Ford Focus ..................................................................... None ...................................... 181 72 5,621
2002 Chevrolet Impala ............................................................ None ...................................... 76 52 2,753
2001 Buick Le Sabre ............................................................... Thorax .................................... 130 67 4,672

[SID–IIsFRG rear passenger]
Lower spine Pelvis

Test vehicle Restraint HPS and/or SIAB HIC36 (g) (N)
Proposed limits ........................................................................ ................................................ 1,000 82 5,100

2001 Ford Focus ..................................................................... None ...................................... 526 65 3,997
2002 Chevrolet Impala ............................................................ None ...................................... 153 89 5,711
2001 Buick Le Sabre ............................................................... None ...................................... 221 77 4,041
List of Subjects (b) * * * position on the struck side of the

(3) Except as provided in S6.2(b)(4), vehicle in accordance with the
49 CFR Part 571
each vehicle shall, when equipped with provisions of S12.1 of Standard 214 (49
Imports, Incorporation by reference, a dummy test device specified in 49 CFR 571.214), and the vehicle seat is
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and CFR part 572, subpart M, and tested as positioned as specified in S8.3.1 of that
recordkeeping requirements, Tires. specified in S8.16 through S8.28, standard. The position of the dummy is
49 CFR Part 585 comply with the requirements specified then measured as follows. Locate the
in S7 when crashed into a fixed, rigid horizontal plane passing through the
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and pole of 254 mm in diameter, at any dummy head center of gravity. Identify
recordkeeping requirements. velocity between 24 kilometers per hour the rearmost point on the dummy head
■ In consideration of the foregoing, (15 mph) and 29 kilometers per hour (18 in that plane. Construct a line in the
NHTSA amends 49 CFR Chapter V as mph). plane that contains the rearward point
set forth below. (4) Vehicles certified as complying of the front door daylight opening and
with the vehicle-to-pole requirements of is perpendicular to the longitudinal
PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR S9 of 49 CFR 571.214, Side Impact
VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS vehicle centerline. Measure the
Protection, need not comply with the longitudinal distance between the
■ 1. The authority citation for part 571 pole test requirements specified in rearmost point on the dummy head and
continues to read as follows: S6.2(b)(3) of this section. this line. If this distance is less than 50
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, * * * * * mm (2 inches) or the point is not
30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at S8.18 Adjustable seats—vehicle to forward of the line, then the seat and/
49 CFR 1.50. pole test. Initially, adjustable seats shall or dummy positions is adjusted as
be adjusted as specified in S8.3.1 of follows. First, the seat back angle is
■ 2. Section 571.201 is amended by Standard 214 (49 CFR 571.214). adjusted, a maximum of 5 degrees, until
revising S6.2(b)(3), adding S6.2(b)(4), S8.19 Adjustable seat back a 50 mm (2 inches) distance is achieved.
and revising S8.18, S8.19 and S8.28, to placement—vehicle to pole test. If this is not sufficient to produce the 50
read as follows: Initially, position adjustable seat backs mm (2 inches) distance, the seat is
§ 571.201 Standard No. 201; Occupant in the manner specified in S8.3.1 of moved forward until the 50 mm (2
protection in interior impact. Standard 214 (49 CFR 571.214). inches) distance is achieved or until the
* * * * * * * * * * knees of the dummy contact the
S6.2 Vehicles manufactured on or S8.28 Positioning procedure for the dashboard or knee bolster, whichever
after September 1, 2002 and vehicles Part 572 Subpart M test dummy— comes first. If the required distance
built in two or more stages vehicle to pole test. The part 572, cannot be achieved through movement
manufactured after September 1, 2006. subpart M, test dummy is initially of the seat, the seat back angle is
* * * positioned in the front outboard seating adjusted even further forward until the
50 mm (2 inches) distance is obtained S4 Requirements. Subject to the between the front edge of the cushion
or until the seat back is in its fully exceptions of S5— with the seat adjusted to its
upright locking position. (a) Passenger cars. Passenger cars forwardmost position and the rear edge
* * * * * must meet the requirements set forth in of the cushion with the seat adjusted to
S6 (door crush resistance), S7 (moving its rearmost position.
■ 3. Section 571.214 is revised to read
deformable barrier test), and S9 (4) Any side door that is designed to
as follows:
(vehicle-to-pole test), subject to the be easily attached to or removed (e.g.,
§ 571.214 Standard No. 214; Side impact phased-in application of S7 and S9. using simple hand tools such as pliers
protection. (b) Multipurpose passenger vehicles, and/or a screwdriver) from a motor
S1 Scope and purpose. trucks and buses with a GVWR of 2,722 vehicle manufactured for operation
(a) Scope. This standard specifies kg or less (6,000 lb or less). without doors.
performance requirements for protection Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks (b) Exclusions from S7 (moving
of occupants in side impacts. and buses with a GVWR of 2,722 kg or deformable barrier test). The following
(b) Purpose. The purpose of this less (6,000 lb or less) must meet the vehicles are excluded from S7 (moving
standard is to reduce the risk of serious requirements set forth in S6 (door crush deformable barrier test):
and fatal injury to occupants of resistance), S7 (moving deformable (1) Motor homes, ambulances and
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger barrier test), and S9 (vehicle-to-pole other emergency rescue/medical
test), subject to the phased-in vehicles (including vehicles with fire-
vehicles, trucks and buses in side
application of S7 and S9. fighting equipment), vehicles equipped
impacts by specifying strength
(c) Multipurpose passenger vehicles, with wheelchair lifts, and vehicles
requirements for side doors, limiting the
trucks and buses with a GVWR greater which have no doors or exclusively
forces, deflections and accelerations
than 2,722 kg (6,000 lb). Multipurpose have doors that are designed to be easily
measured on anthropomorphic
passenger vehicles, trucks and buses attached or removed so the vehicle can
dummies in test crashes, and by other
with a GVWR greater than 2,722 kg be operated without doors.
means.
(6,000 lb) must meet the requirements (2) Passenger cars with a wheelbase
S2 Applicability. This standard set forth in S6 (door crush resistance)
applies to passenger cars, and to greater than 130 inches need not meet
and S9 (vehicle-to-pole test), subject to the requirements of S7 as applied to the
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks the phased-in application of S9.
and buses with a gross vehicle weight rear seat.
S5 General exclusions. (3) Passenger cars, multipurpose
rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (kg) (a) Exclusions from S6 (door crush passenger vehicles, trucks and buses
(10,000 pounds (lb)) or less, except for resistance). A vehicle need not meet the need not meet the requirements of S7
walk-in vans, or otherwise specified. requirements of S6 (door crush (moving deformable barrier test) as
S3 Definitions. resistance) for— applied to the rear seat for side-facing
Contoured means, with respect to a (1) Any side door located so that no rear seats and for rear seating areas that
door, that the lower portion of its front point on a ten-inch horizontal are so small that a Part 572 Subpart V
or rear edge is curved upward, typically longitudinal line passing through and dummy representing a 5th percentile
to conform to a wheel well. bisected by the H–point of a manikin adult female cannot be accommodated
Double side doors means a pair of placed in any seat, with the seat according to the positioning procedure
hinged doors with the lock and latch adjusted to any position and the seat specified in S12.3.4 of this standard.
mechanisms located where the door lips back adjusted as specified in S8.4, falls (4) Multipurpose passenger vehicles,
overlap. within the transverse, horizontal trucks and buses with a GVWR of more
Limited line manufacturer means a projection of the door’s opening, than 2,722 kg (6,000 lb) need not meet
manufacturer that sells three or fewer (2) Any side door located so that no the requirements of S7 (moving
carlines, as that term is defined in 49 point on a ten-inch horizontal deformable barrier test).
CFR 585.4, in the United States during longitudinal line passing through and (c) Exclusions from S9 (vehicle-to-
a production year. bisected by the H–point of a manikin pole test). The following vehicles are
Lowered floor means the replacement placed in any seat recommended by the excluded from S9 (vehicle-to-pole test)
floor on a motor vehicle whose original manufacturer for installation in a (wholly or in limited part, as set forth
floor has been removed, in part or in location for which seat anchorage below):
total, and replaced by a floor that is hardware is provided, with the seat (1) Motor homes;
lower than the original floor. adjusted to any position and the seat (2) Ambulances and other emergency
Modified roof means the replacement back adjusted as specified in S8.3, falls rescue/medical vehicles (including
roof on a motor vehicle whose original within the transverse, horizontal vehicles with fire-fighting equipment)
roof has been removed, in part or in projection of the door’s opening, except police cars;
total. (3) Any side door located so that a (3) Vehicles with a lowered floor or
Raised roof is used as defined in portion of a seat, with the seat adjusted raised or modified roof and vehicles that
paragraph S4 of 49 CFR 571.216. to any position and the seat back have had the original roof rails removed
Walk-in van means a special cargo/ adjusted as specified in S8.3, falls and not replaced;
mail delivery vehicle that has only one within the transverse, horizontal (4) Vehicles in which the seat for the
designated seating position. That projection of the door’s opening, but a driver or right front passenger has been
designated seating position must be longitudinal vertical plane tangent to removed and wheelchair restraints
forward facing and for use only by the the outboard side of the seat cushion is installed in place of the seat are
driver. The vehicle usually has a thin more than 254 mm (10 inches) from the excluded from meeting the vehicle-to-
and light sliding (or folding) side door innermost point on the inside surface of pole test at that position; and
for easy operation and a high roof the door at a height between the H– (5) Vehicles that have no doors, or
clearance that a person of medium point and shoulder reference point (as exclusively have doors that are designed
stature can enter the passenger shown in Figure 1 of Federal Motor to be easily attached or removed so that
compartment area in an up-right Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 (49 the vehicle can be operated without
position. CFR 571.210)) and longitudinally doors.
S6 Door Crush Resistance 13 mm (1⁄2 inch) above the bottom edge the bottom surface of the device on the
Requirements. Except as provided in of the door window opening but not of door is at least 127 mm (5 inches),
section S5, each vehicle shall be able to a length that will cause contact with any horizontally and vertically, from any
meet the requirements of either, at the structure above the bottom edge of the edge of the door panel, exclusive of any
manufacturer’s option, S6.1 or S6.2, door window opening during the test. decorative or protective molding that is
when any of its side doors that can be (2) For doors without windows, the not permanently affixed to the door
used for occupant egress is tested top surface of the loading device is at panel.
according to procedures described in the same height above the ground as (ii) For double side doors, its bottom
S6.3 of this standard (49 CFR 571.214). when the loading device is positioned surface is in the same horizontal plane
S6.1 With any seats that may affect in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of as a horizontal line drawn across the
load upon or deflection of the side of this section for purposes of testing a outer surface of the double door span,
the vehicle removed from the vehicle, front door with windows on the same 127 mm (5 inches) above the lowest
each vehicle must be able to meet the vehicle. point of the doors, exclusive of any
requirements of S6.1.1 through S6.1.3. (c) Locate the loading device as decorative or protective molding that is
S6.1.1 Initial crush resistance. The shown in Figure 1 (side view) of this not permanently affixed to the door
initial crush resistance shall not be less section so that— panel.
than 10,000 N (2,250 lb). (1) Its longitudinal axis is vertical.
S6.1.2 Intermediate crush resistance. (2) Except as provided in paragraphs (d) Using the loading device, apply a
The intermediate crush resistance shall (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, its load to the outer surface of the door in
not be less than 1,557 N (3,500 lb). longitudinal axis is laterally opposite an inboard direction normal to a vertical
S6.1.3 Peak crush resistance. The the midpoint of a horizontal line drawn plane along the vehicle’s longitudinal
peak crush resistance shall not be less across the outer surface of the door 127 centerline. Apply the load continuously
than two times the curb weight of the mm (5 inches) above the lowest point of such that the loading device travel rate
vehicle or 3,114 N (7,000 lb), whichever the door, exclusive of any decorative or does not exceed 12.7 mm (0.5 inch) per
is less. protective molding that is not second until the loading device travels
S6.2 With seats installed in the permanently affixed to the door panel. 457 mm (18 inches). Guide the loading
vehicle, and located in any horizontal or (i) For contoured doors on trucks, device to prevent it from being rotated
vertical position to which they can be buses, and multipurpose passenger or displaced from its direction of travel.
adjusted and at any seat back angle to vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg The test is completed within 120
which they can be adjusted, each (10,000 lb) or less, if the length of the seconds.
vehicle must be able to meet the horizontal line specified in this (e) Record applied load versus
requirements of S6.2.1 through S6.2.3. paragraph (c)(2) is not equal to or greater displacement of the loading device,
S6.2.1 Initial crush resistance. The either continuously or in increments of
than 559 mm (22 inches), the line is
initial crush resistance shall not be less not more than 25.4 mm (1 inch) or 91
moved vertically up the side of the door
than 10,000 N (2,250 lb). kg (200 pounds) for the entire crush
S6.2.2 Intermediate crush resistance. to the point at which the line is 559 mm
(22 inches) long. The longitudinal axis distance of 457 mm (18 inches).
The intermediate crush resistance shall
not be less than 1,946 N (4,375 lb). of the loading device is then located (f) Determine the initial crush
S6.2.3 Peak crush resistance. The laterally opposite the midpoint of that resistance, intermediate crush
peak crush resistance shall not be less line. resistance, and peak crush resistance as
than three and one half times the curb (ii) For double side doors on trucks, follows:
weight of the vehicle or 5,338 N (12,000 buses, and multipurpose passenger (1) From the results recorded in
lb), whichever is less. vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg paragraph (e) of this section, plot a
S6.3 Test procedures for door crush (10,000 lb) or less, its longitudinal axis curve of load versus displacement and
resistance. The following procedures is laterally opposite the midpoint of a obtain the integral of the applied load
apply to determining compliance with horizontal line drawn across the outer with respect to the crush distances
S6.1 and S6.2 of S6, Door crush surface of the double door span, 127 specified in paragraphs (f)(2) and (3) of
resistance requirements. mm (5 inches) above the lowest point on this section. These quantities, expressed
(a) Place side windows in their the doors, exclusive of any decorative or in mm-kN (inch-pounds) and divided by
uppermost position and all doors in protective molding that is not the specified crush distances, represent
locked position. Place the sill of the side permanently affixed to the door panel. the average forces in kN (pounds)
of the vehicle opposite to the side being (3) Except as provided in paragraphs required to deflect the door those
tested against a rigid unyielding vertical (c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section, its distances.
surface. Fix the vehicle rigidly in bottom surface is in the same horizontal
plane as the horizontal line drawn (2) The initial crush resistance is the
position by means of tiedown average force required to deform the
attachments located at or forward of the across the outer surface of the door 127
mm (5 inches) above the lowest point of door over the initial 152 mm (6 inches)
front wheel centerline and at or of crush.
rearward of the rear wheel centerline. the door, exclusive of any decorative or
(b) Prepare a loading device protective molding that is not (3) The intermediate crush resistance
consisting of a rigid steel cylinder or permanently affixed to the door panel. is the average force required to deform
semi-cylinder 305 mm (12 inches) in (i) For contoured doors on trucks, the door over the initial 305 mm (12
diameter with an edge radius of 13 mm buses, and multipurpose passenger inches) of crush.
(1⁄2 inch). The length of the loading vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (4) The peak crush resistance is the
device shall be such that— (10,000 lb) or less, its bottom surface is largest force recorded over the entire
(1) For doors with windows, the top in the lowest horizontal plane such that 457 mm (18-inch) crush distance.
surface of the loading device is at least every point on the lateral projection of BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
S7 Moving Deformable Barrier the phase-in requirements of S7.2. (2) 90 g for a passenger car with two
(MDB) Requirements. Except as (Vehicles manufactured before side doors, when calculated in
provided in section S5, when tested September 1, 2009 may meet S7.2, at the accordance with the following formula:
under the conditions of S8 each vehicle manufacturer’s option.) TI(d) = 1⁄2(GR + GLS)
shall meet S7.3 and the following S7.1.1 The test dummy specified in
requirements in a 53 ± 1.0 km/h (33.5 Where the term ‘‘GR’’ is the greater of
49 CFR Part 572 Subpart F (SID) is the peak accelerations of either the
mph) impact in which the vehicle is placed in the front and rear outboard
struck on either side by a moving upper or lower rib, expressed in g’s and
seating positions on the struck side of the term ‘‘GLS’’ is the lower spine (T12)
deformable barrier. the vehicle, as specified in S11 and S12
S7.1 MDB test with SID. For vehicles peak acceleration, expressed in g’s. The
of this standard (49 CFR 571.214). peak acceleration values are obtained in
manufactured before September 1, 2009,
the following requirements must be met. S7.1.2 When using the Part 572 accordance with the procedure specified
The following requirements also apply Subpart F dummy (SID), the following in S11.5.
to vehicles manufactured on or after performance requirements must be met. (b) Pelvis. The peak lateral
September 1, 2009 that are not part of (a) Thorax. The Thoracic Trauma acceleration of the pelvis, as measured
the percentage of a manufacturer’s Index (TTI(d)) shall not exceed: in accordance with S11.5, shall not
production meeting the MDB test with (1) 85 g for a passenger car with four exceed 130 g’s.
advanced test dummies (S7.2 of this side doors, and for any multipurpose S7.2 MDB test with advanced test
ER11SE07.000</GPH>
section) or are otherwise excluded from passenger vehicle, truck, or bus; and, dummies.
S7.2.1 Vehicles manufactured on or subject to S7.2.1. Vehicles that are g (the acceleration of gravity), and t1
after September 1, 2009 to August 31, altered on or after September 1, 2013, and t2 are any two points in time during
2012. and vehicles that are manufactured in the impact which are separated by not
(a) Except as provided in S7.2.4 of two or more stages on or after more than a 36 millisecond time
this section, for vehicles manufactured September 1, 2013, must meet the interval.
on or after September 1, 2009 to August requirements of S7.2.5 and S7.2.6, when (b) The resultant lower spine
31, 2012, a percentage of each tested with the test dummy specified in acceleration shall not exceed 82 g.
manufacturer’s production, as specified those sections. Place the Subpart U ES– (c) The sum of the acetabular and iliac
in S13.1.1, S13.1.2, and S13.1.3, shall 2re 50th percentile male dummy in the pelvic forces shall not exceed 5,525 N.
meet the requirements of S7.2.5 and front seat and the Subpart V SID–IIs 5th S7.3 Door opening.
S7.2.6 when tested with the test dummy percentile female test dummy in the rear (a) Any side door that is struck by the
specified in those sections. Vehicles seat. The test dummies are placed and moving deformable barrier shall not
manufactured before September 1, 2012 positioned in the front and rear separate totally from the vehicle.
may be certified as meeting the outboard seating positions on the struck (b) Any door (including a rear
requirements of S7.2.5 and S7.2.6. side of the vehicle, as specified in S11 hatchback or tailgate) that is not struck
(b) For vehicles manufactured on or and S12 of this standard (49 CFR by the moving deformable barrier shall
after September 1, 2009 that are not part 571.214). meet the following requirements:
of the percentage of a manufacturer’s S7.2.5 Dynamic performance (1) The door shall not disengage from
production meeting S7.2.1 of this requirements using the Part 572 Subpart
the latched position;
section, the requirements of S7.1 of this U dummy (ES–2re 50th percentile male)
(2) The latch shall not separate from
section must be met. dummy. Use the 49 CFR Part 572
the striker, and the hinge components
(c) Place the Subpart U ES–2re 50th Subpart U ES–2re dummy specified in
shall not separate from each other or
percentile male dummy in the front seat S11 with measurements in accordance
from their attachment to the vehicle.
and the Subpart V SID–IIs 5th percentile with S11.5. The following criteria shall
(3) Neither the latch nor the hinge
female test dummy in the rear seat. The be met:
(a) The HIC shall not exceed 1000 systems of the door shall pull out of
test dummies are placed and positioned their anchorages.
in the front and rear outboard seating when calculated in accordance with the
following formula: S8 Test conditions for determining
positions on the struck side of the compliance with moving deformable
vehicle, as specified in S11 and S12 of barrier requirements. General test
t
this standard (49 CFR 571.214). 1 2
( t 2 − t1 ) ∫t1
HIC = [ adt ] 2.5 ( t 2 − t1 ) conditions for determining compliance
S7.2.2 Vehicles manufactured on or
with the moving deformable barrier test
after September 1, 2012.
(a) Subject to S7.2.4 of this section, are specified below. Additional
Where the term a is the resultant head specifications may also be found in S12
each vehicle manufactured on or after
acceleration at the center of gravity of of this standard (49 CFR 571.214).
September 1, 2012 must meet the
the dummy head expressed as a S8.1 Test weight. Each vehicle is
requirements of S7.2.5 and S7.2.6, when
multiple of g (the acceleration of loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight,
tested with the test dummy specified in
gravity), and t1 and t2 are any two plus 136 kg (300 pounds) or its rated
those sections. points in time during the impact which
(b) Place the Subpart U ES–2re 50th cargo and luggage capacity (whichever
are separated by not more than a 36 is less), secured in the luggage or load-
percentile male dummy in the front seat
millisecond time interval and where t1 carrying area, plus the weight of the
and the Subpart V SID–IIs 5th percentile
is less than t2. necessary anthropomorphic test
female test dummy in the rear seat. The
test dummies are placed and positioned (b) Thorax. The deflection of any of dummies. Any added test equipment is
in the front and rear outboard seating the upper, middle, and lower ribs, shall located away from impact areas in
positions on the struck side of the not exceed 44 mm (1.65 inches). secure places in the vehicle. The
(c) Force measurements. vehicle’s fuel system is filled in
vehicle, as specified in S11 and S12 of (1) The sum of the front, middle and
this standard (49 CFR 571.214). accordance with the following
rear abdominal forces, shall not exceed procedure. With the test vehicle on a
S7.2.3 [Reserved]
2,500 N (562 lb). level surface, pump the fuel from the
S7.2.4 Exceptions from the MDB
(2) The pubic symphysis force shall vehicle’s fuel tank and then operate the
phase-in; special allowances.
not exceed 6,000 N (1,350 pounds). engine until it stops. Then, add
(a)(1) Vehicles that are manufactured S7.2.6 Dynamic performance
on or after September 1, 2012 by an Stoddard solvent to the test vehicle’s
requirements using the Part 572 Subpart fuel tank in an amount that is equal to
original vehicle manufacturer that V SID–IIs (5th percentile female)
produces or assembles fewer than 5,000 not less than 92 percent and not more
dummy. Use the 49 CFR Part 572 than 94 percent of the fuel tank’s usable
vehicles annually for sale in the United Subpart V SID–IIs 5th percentile female
States are not subject to S7.2.1 of this capacity stated by the vehicle’s
dummy specified in S11 with manufacturer. In addition, add the
section (but are subject to S7.2.2); measurements in accordance with
(2) Vehicles that are manufactured on amount of Stoddard solvent needed to
S11.5. The following criteria shall be fill the entire fuel system from the fuel
or after September 1, 2012 by a limited
met: tank through the engine’s induction
line manufacturer are not subject to (a) The HIC shall not exceed 1000
S7.2.1 of this section (but are subject to system.
when calculated in accordance with the
S7.2.2). S8.2 Vehicle test attitude. Determine
following formula:
(b) Vehicles that are altered (within the distance between a level surface and
ER11SE07.004</MATH>
the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) before t a standard reference point on the test
2
1
September 1, 2013 after having been
previously certified in accordance with
HIC = [ ∫
( t 2 − t1 ) t1
adt ] 2.5 ( t 2 − t1 ) vehicle’s body, directly above each
wheel opening, when the vehicle is in
part 567 of this chapter, and vehicles its ‘‘as delivered’’ condition. The ‘‘as
manufactured in two or more stages Where the term a is the resultant head delivered’’ condition is the vehicle as
ER11SE07.003</MATH>
before September 1, 2013, are not acceleration expressed as a multiple of received at the test site, filled to 100
percent of all fluid capacities and with S8.3.1.3.3 If the seat or seat cushion S8.6 Convertible tops. Convertibles
all tires inflated to the manufacturer’s height is adjustable, other than by the and open-body type vehicles have the
specifications listed on the vehicle’s tire controls that primarily move the seat or top, if any, in place in the closed
placard. Determine the distance seat cushion fore and aft, set the height passenger compartment configuration.
between the same level surface and the of the seat cushion reference point to S8.7 Doors. Doors, including any
same standard reference points in the the minimum height, with the seat rear hatchback or tailgate, are fully
vehicle’s ‘‘fully loaded condition.’’ The cushion reference line angle set as closed and latched but not locked.
‘‘fully loaded condition’’ is the test closely as possible to the angle S8.8 Transmission and brake
vehicle loaded in accordance with S8.1 determined in S8.3.1.3.1. Mark location engagement. For a vehicle equipped
of this standard (49 CFR 571.214). The of the seat for future reference. with a manual transmission, the
load placed in the cargo area is centered S8.3.2 [Reserved] transmission is placed in second gear.
over the longitudinal centerline of the S8.3.3 5th Percentile Female For a vehicle equipped with an
vehicle. The pretest vehicle attitude is Dummy in Second Row Seat. automatic transmission, the
equal to either the as delivered or fully S8.3.3.1 Lumbar support transmission is placed in neutral. For all
loaded attitude or between the as adjustment. Position adjustable lumbar vehicles, the parking brake is engaged.
delivered attitude and the fully loaded supports so that the lumbar support is S8.9 Moving deformable barrier. The
attitude, +/¥10 mm. in its lowest, retracted or deflated moving deformable barrier conforms to
S8.3 Adjustable seats. adjustment position. the dimensions shown in Figure 2 and
S8.3.3.2 Other seat adjustments. specified in 49 CFR Part 587.
S8.3.1 50th Percentile Male Dummy
Position any adjustable parts of the seat S8.10 Impact configuration. The test
In Front Seats.
that provide additional support so that vehicle (vehicle A in Figure 3) is
S8.3.1.1 Lumbar support they are in the lowest or non-deployed
adjustment. Position adjustable lumbar stationary. The line of forward motion
adjustment position. Position any of the moving deformable barrier
supports so that the lumbar support is adjustable head restraint in the lowest
in its lowest, retracted or deflated (vehicle B in Figure 3) forms an angle
and most forward position. Place of 63 degrees with the centerline of the
adjustment position. adjustable seat backs in the
S8.3.1.2 Other seat adjustments. test vehicle. The longitudinal centerline
manufacturer’s nominal design riding of the moving deformable barrier is
Position any adjustable parts of the seat position in the manner specified by the
that provide additional support so that perpendicular to the longitudinal
manufacturer. If the position is not centerline of the test vehicle when the
they are in the lowest or non-deployed specified, set the seat back at the first
adjustment position. Position any barrier strikes the test vehicle. In a test
detent rearward of 25° from the vertical. in which the test vehicle is to be struck
adjustable head restraint in the highest S8.3.3.3 Seat position adjustment.
and most forward position. Place on its left (right) side: All wheels of the
Using only the controls that primarily moving deformable barrier are
adjustable seat backs in the move the seat and seat cushion
manufacturer’s nominal design riding positioned at an angle of 27 ± 1 degrees
independent of the seat back in the fore to the right (left) of the centerline of the
position in the manner specified by the and aft directions, move the seat
manufacturer. If the position is not moving deformable barrier; and the left
cushion reference point (SCRP) to the (right) forward edge of the moving
specified, set the seat back at the first rearmost position. Using any part of any
detent rearward of 25° from the vertical. deformable barrier is aligned so that a
control, other than those just used, longitudinal plane tangent to that side
S8.3.1.3 Seat position adjustment. If determine the full range of angles of the passes through the impact reference line
the passenger seat does not adjust seat cushion reference line and set the within a tolerance of ± 51 mm (2 inches)
independently of the driver seat, the seat cushion reference line to the when the barrier strikes the test vehicle.
driver seat shall control the final middle of the range. Using any part of S8.11 Impact reference line. Place a
position of the passenger seat. any control other than those that vertical reference line at the location
S8.3.1.3.1 Using only the controls primarily move the seat or seat cushion described below on the side of the
that primarily move the seat and seat fore and aft, while maintaining the seat vehicle that will be struck by the
cushion independent of the seat back in cushion reference line angle, place the moving deformable barrier.
the fore and aft directions, move the seat SCRP to its lowest position. Mark S8.11.1 Passenger cars.
cushion reference point (SCRP) to the location of the seat for future reference. (a) For vehicles with a wheelbase of
rearmost position. Using any part of any S8.4 Adjustable steering wheel. 2,896 mm (114 inches) or less, 940 mm
control, other than those just used, Adjustable steering controls are adjusted (37 inches) forward of the center of the
determine the full range of angles of the so that the steering wheel hub is at the vehicle’s wheelbase.
seat cushion reference line and set the geometric center of the locus it (b) For vehicles with a wheelbase
seat cushion reference line to the describes when it is moved through its greater than 2,896 mm (114 inches), 508
middle of the range. Using any part of full range of driving positions. If there mm (20 inches) rearward of the
any control other than those that is no setting detent in the mid-position, centerline of the vehicle’s front axle.
primarily move the seat or seat cushion lower the steering wheel to the detent S8.11.2 Multipurpose passenger
fore and aft, while maintaining the seat just below the mid-position. If the vehicles, trucks and buses.
cushion reference line angle, place the steering column is telescoping, place the (a) For vehicles with a wheelbase of
SCRP to its lowest position. steering column in the mid-position. If 2,489 mm (98 inches) or less, 305 mm
S8.3.1.3.2 Using only the control there is no mid-position, move the (12 inches) rearward of the centerline of
that primarily moves the seat fore and steering wheel rearward one position the vehicle’s front axle, except as
aft, move the seat cushion reference from the mid-position. otherwise specified in paragraph (d) of
point to the mid travel position. If an S8.5 Windows and sunroofs. this section.
adjustment position does not exist Movable vehicle windows and vents are (b) For vehicles with a wheelbase of
midway between the forwardmost and placed in the fully closed position on greater than 2,489 mm (98 inches) but
rearmost positions, the closest the struck side of the vehicle. Any not greater than 2,896 mm (114 inches),
adjustment position to the rear of the sunroof shall be placed in the fully 940 mm (37 inches) forward of the
midpoint is used. closed position. center of the vehicle’s wheelbase, except
as otherwise specified in paragraph (d) location described in (a), (b) or (c) of this standard. If the manufacturer did
of this section. this section, as appropriate; not use any of the procedures in this
(c) For vehicles with a wheelbase (2) Measure the distance between the section, or does not specify a procedure
greater than 2,896 mm (114 inches), 508 seating reference point (SgRP) and the when asked by the agency, the agency
mm (20 inches) rearward of the impact reference line; may locate the impact reference line
centerline of the vehicle’s front axle, (3) Maintain the same distance using either procedure.
except as otherwise specified in between the SgRP and the impact
paragraph (d) of this section. reference line for the version being S8.12 Anthropomorphic test
(d) At the manufacturer’s option, for tested as that between the SgRP and the dummies. The anthropomorphic test
different wheelbase versions of the same impact reference line for the shortest dummies used to evaluate a vehicle’s
model vehicle, the impact reference line wheelbase version of the model. performance in the moving deformable
may be located by the following: (e) For the compliance test, the impact barrier test conform to the requirements
(1) Select the shortest wheelbase reference line will be located using the of S11 and are positioned as described
vehicle of the different wheelbase procedure used by the manufacturer as in S12 of this standard (49 CFR
versions of the same model and locate the basis for its certification of 571.214).
on it the impact reference line at the compliance with the requirements of BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
ER11SE07.001</GPH>
BILLING CODE 4910–59–C S9.2.1, S9.2.2 and S9.2.3, when tested subject to S9.1.1. Vehicles that are
S9 Vehicle-to-Pole Requirements. under the conditions specified in S10 altered on or after September 1, 2013,
S9.1 Except as provided in S5, when into a fixed, rigid pole of 254 mm (10 and vehicles that are manufactured in
tested under the conditions of S10: inches) in diameter, at any speed up to two or more stages on or after
S9.1.1 Except as provided in S9.1.3 and including 32 km/h (20 mph). September 1, 2013, must meet the
of this section, for vehicles S9.1.3 Exceptions from the phase-in; requirements of S9, when tested under
manufactured on or after September 1, special allowances. the conditions specified in S10 into a
2009 to August 31, 2012, a percentage (a)(1) Vehicles that are manufactured fixed, rigid pole of 254 mm (10 inches)
of each manufacturer’s production, as by an original vehicle manufacturer that in diameter, at any speed up to and
specified in S13.1.1, S13.1.2, and produces or assembles fewer than 5,000 including 32 km/h (20 mph).
S13.1.3, shall meet the requirements of vehicles annually for sale in the United (c) Vehicles with a gross vehicle
S9.2.1, S9.2.2, and S9.2.3 when tested States are not subject to S9.1.1 of this weight rating greater than 3,855 kg
under the conditions of S10 into a fixed, section (but are subject to S9.1.2); (8,500 lb) manufactured before
rigid pole of 254 mm (10 inches) in (2) Vehicles that are manufactured by September 1, 2013 are not subject to
diameter, at any velocity up to and a limited line manufacturer are not S9.1.1 or S9.1.2 of this section. These
including 32 km/h (20 mph). Vehicles subject to S9.1.1 of this section (but are vehicles may be voluntarily certified to
manufactured before September 1, 2012 subject to S9.1.2). meet the pole test requirements prior to
that are not subject to the phase-in may (b) Vehicles that are altered (within September 1, 2013. Vehicles with a
be certified as meeting the requirements the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) before gross vehicle weight rating greater than
specified in this section. September 1, 2013 after having been 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) manufactured on or
S9.1.2 Except as provided in S9.1.3 previously certified in accordance with after September 1, 2013 must meet the
of this section, each vehicle part 567 of this chapter, and vehicles requirements of S9.2.1, S9.2.2 and
manufactured on or after September 1, manufactured in two or more stages S9.2.3, when tested under the
ER11SE07.002</GPH>
2012, must meet the requirements of before September 1, 2013, are not conditions specified in S10 into a fixed,
rigid pole of 254 mm (10 inches) in t 2 received at the test site, with 100
1
( t 2 − t1 ) ∫t1
diameter, at any speed up to and HIC = [ adt ] 2.5 ( t 2 − t1 ) percent of all fluid capacities and all
including 32 km/h (20 mph). tires inflated to the manufacturer’s
S9.2 Requirements. Each vehicle specifications listed on the vehicle’s tire
Where the term a is the resultant head placard. When the vehicle is in its
shall meet these vehicle-to-pole test acceleration at the center of gravity of
requirements when tested under the ‘‘fully loaded’’ condition, measure the
the dummy head expressed as a angle between the driver’s door sill and
conditions of S10 of this standard. At multiple of g (the acceleration of
NHTSA’s option, either the 50th the horizontal, at the same place the ‘‘as
gravity), and t1 and t2 are any two delivered’’ angle was measured. The
percentile adult male test dummy (ES– points in time during the impact which
2re dummy, 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart U) ‘‘fully loaded condition’’ is the test
are separated by not more than a 36 vehicle loaded in accordance with S8.1
or the 5th percentile adult female test millisecond time interval and where t1
dummy (SID–IIs, 49 CFR Part 572 of this standard (49 CFR 571.214). The
is less than t2. load placed in the cargo area is centered
Subpart V) shall be used in the test. At (b) Resultant lower spine acceleration
NHTSA’s option, either front outboard over the longitudinal centerline of the
must not exceed 82 g. vehicle. The vehicle ‘‘as tested’’ pitch
seating position shall be tested. The (c) The sum of the acetabular and iliac
vehicle shall meet the specific and roll angles are between the ‘‘as
pelvic forces must not exceed 5,525 N. delivered’’ and ‘‘fully loaded’’
requirements at all front outboard S9.2.3 Door opening.
seating positions. condition, inclusive.
(a) Any side door that is struck by the
S10.3 Adjustable seats.
S9.2.1 Dynamic performance pole shall not separate totally from the
S10.3.1 Driver and front passenger
requirements using the Part 572 Subpart vehicle.
(b) Any door (including a rear seat set-up for 50th percentile male
U (ES–2re 50th percentile male) dummy.
hatchback or tailgate) that is not struck dummy. The driver and front passenger
When using the ES–2re Part 572 Subpart
by the pole shall meet the following seats are set up as specified in S8.3.1 of
U dummy, use the specifications of S11
requirements: this standard, 49 CFR 571.214.
of this standard (49 CFR 571.214). When
using the dummy, the following (1) The door shall not disengage from S10.3.2. Driver and front passenger
performance requirements must be met the latched position; and seat set-up for 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart
using measurements in accordance with (2) The latch shall not separate from V 5th percentile female dummy.
S11.5. the striker, and the hinge components S10.3.2.1 Lumbar support
shall not separate from each other or adjustment. Position adjustable lumbar
(a) The HIC shall not exceed 1000 supports so that the lumbar support is
when calculated in accordance with the from their attachment to the vehicle.
(3) Neither the latch nor the hinge in its lowest, retracted or deflated
following formula: adjustment position.
systems of the door shall pull out of
t their anchorages. S10.3.2.2 Other seat adjustments.
2
1 Position any adjustable parts of the seat
HIC = [ ∫
( t 2 − t1 ) t1
adt ] 2.5 ( t 2 − t1 ) S10. General test conditions for
determining compliance with vehicle-to- that provide additional support so that
pole requirements. General test they are in the lowest or non-deployed
Where the term a is the resultant head conditions for determining compliance adjustment position. Position any
acceleration at the center of gravity of with the vehicle-to-pole test are adjustable head restraint in the lowest
the dummy head expressed as a specified below and in S12 of this and most forward position. Place
multiple of g (the acceleration of standard (49 CFR 571.214). adjustable seat backs in the
gravity), and t1 and t2 are any two S10.1 Test weight. Each vehicle is manufacturer’s nominal design riding
points in time during the impact which loaded as specified in S8.1 of this position in the manner specified by the
are separated by not more than a 36 standard (49 CFR 571.214). manufacturer. If the position is not
millisecond time interval and where t1 S10.2 Vehicle test attitude. When specified, set the seat back at the first
is less than t2. the vehicle is in its ‘‘as delivered,’’ detent rearward of 25° from the vertical.
‘‘fully loaded’’ and ‘‘as tested’’ S10.3.2.3 Seat position adjustment.
(b) Thorax. The deflection of any of condition, locate the vehicle on a flat, If the passenger seat does not adjust
the upper, middle, and lower ribs, shall horizontal surface to determine the independently of the driver seat, the
not exceed 44 mm (1.65 inches). vehicle attitude. Use the same level driver seat controls the final position of
(c) Force measurements. surface or reference plane and the same the passenger seat.
(1) The sum of the front, middle and standard points on the test vehicle when S10.3.2.3.1 Using only the controls
rear abdominal forces, shall not exceed determining the ‘‘as delivered,’’ ‘‘fully that primarily move the seat and seat
2,500 N (562 pounds). loaded’’ and ‘‘as tested’’ conditions. cushion independent of the seat back in
Measure the angles relative to a the fore and aft directions, move the seat
(2) The pubic symphysis force shall
horizontal plane, front-to-rear and from cushion reference point (SCRP) to the
not exceed 6,000 N (1,350 pounds).
left-to-right for the ‘‘as delivered,’’ rearmost position. Using any part of any
S9.2.2 Dynamic performance ‘‘fully loaded,’’ and ‘‘as tested’’ control, other than those just used,
requirements using the Part 572 Subpart conditions. The front-to-rear angle determine the full range of angles of the
V SID–IIs (5th percentile female) (pitch) is measured along a fixed seat cushion reference line and set the
dummy. When using the SID–IIs Part reference on the driver’s and front seat cushion reference line to the
572 Subpart V dummy, use the passenger’s door sill. Mark where the middle of the range. Using any part of
specifications of S11 of this standard (49 angles are taken on the door sill. The any control other than those that
CFR 571.214). When using the dummy, left to right angle (roll) is measured primarily move the seat or seat cushion
ER11SE07.006</GPH>
the following performance requirements along a fixed reference point at the front fore and aft, while maintaining the seat
must be met. and rear of the vehicle at the vehicle cushion reference line angle, place the
(a) The HIC shall not exceed 1000 longitudinal center plane. Mark where SCRP to its lowest position.
when calculated in accordance with the the angles are measured. The ‘‘as S10.3.2.3.2 Using only the control
ER11SE07.005</GPH>
following formula: delivered’’ condition is the vehicle as that primarily moves the seat fore and
aft, move the seat reference point to the mounting surface, such as a barrier or vehicle is to be struck on its right side,
most forward position. other structure, so that the test vehicle each dummy is to be configured and
S10.3.2.3.3 If the seat or seat will not contact such a mount or instrumented to be struck on its right
cushion height is adjustable, other than support at any time within 100 side, in accordance with part 572.
by the controls that primarily move the milliseconds of the initiation of vehicle S11.1 Clothing.
seat or seat cushion fore and aft, set the to pole contact. (a) 50th percentile male. Each test
seat reference point to the midpoint S10.11 Impact reference line. The dummy representing a 50th percentile
height, with the seat cushion reference impact reference line is located on the male is clothed in formfitting cotton
line angle set as close as possible to the striking side of the vehicle at the stretch garments with short sleeves and
angle determined in S10.3.2.3.1. Mark intersection of the vehicle exterior and midcalf length pants. Each foot of the
location of the seat for future reference. a vertical plane passing through the test dummy is equipped with a size
S10.4 Positioning dummies for the center of gravity of the head of the 11EEE shoe, which meets the
vehicle-to-pole test. dummy seated in accordance with S12 configuration size, sole, and heel
(a) 50th percentile male test dummy in the front outboard designated seating thickness specifications of MIL–S–
(49 CFR Part 572 Subpart U ES–2re position. The vertical plane forms an 13192 (1976) and weighs 0.68 ± 0.09
dummy). The 50th percentile male test angle of 285 (or 75) degrees with the kilograms (1.25 ± 0.2 lb).
dummy is positioned in the front vehicle’s longitudinal centerline for the (b) 5th percentile female. The 49 CFR
outboard seating position on the struck right (or left) side impact test. The angle Part 572 Subpart V test dummy
side of the vehicle in accordance with is measured counterclockwise from the representing a 5th percentile female is
the provisions of S12.2 of this standard, vehicle’s positive X-axis as defined in clothed in formfitting cotton stretch
49 CFR 571.214. S10.13. garments with short sleeves and about
(b) 5th percentile female test dummy S10.12 Impact configuration. the knee length pants. Each foot has on
(49 CFR Part 572 Subpart V SID–IIs S10.12.1 The rigid pole is stationary. a size 7.5W shoe that meets the
dummy). The 5th percentile female test S10.12.2 The test vehicle is configuration and size specifications of
dummy is positioned in the front propelled sideways so that its line of MIL–S–2171E or its equivalent.
outboard seating positions on the struck forward motion forms an angle of 285 S11.2 Limb joints.
side of the vehicle in accordance with (or 75) degrees (±3 degrees) for the right (a) For the 50th percentile male
the provisions of S12.3 of this standard, (or left) side impact with the vehicle’s dummy, set the limb joints at between
49 CFR 571.214. longitudinal centerline. The angle is 1 and 2 g. Adjust the leg joints with the
S10.5 Adjustable steering wheel. measured counterclockwise from the torso in the supine position. Adjust the
Adjustable steering controls are adjusted vehicle’s positive X-axis as defined in knee and ankle joints so that they just
so that the steering wheel hub is at the S10.13. The impact reference line is support the lower leg and the foot when
geometric center of the locus it aligned with the center line of the rigid extended horizontally (1 to 2 g
describes when it is moved through its pole surface, as viewed in the direction adjustment).
full range of driving positions. If there of vehicle motion, so that, when the (b) For the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart
is no setting detent in the mid-position, vehicle-to-pole contact occurs, the V 5th percentile female dummy, set the
lower the steering wheel to the detent center line contacts the vehicle area limb joints at slightly above 1 g, barely
just below the mid-position. bounded by two vertical planes parallel restraining the weight of the limb when
S10.6 Windows and sunroofs. to and 38 mm (1.5 inches) forward and extended horizontally. The force needed
Movable vehicle windows and vents are aft of the impact reference line. to move a limb segment does not exceed
placed in the fully closed position on S10.13 Vehicle reference coordinate 2 g throughout the range of limb motion.
the struck side of the vehicle. Any system. The vehicle reference Adjust the leg joints with the torso in
sunroof is placed in the fully closed coordinate system is an orthogonal the supine position.
position. coordinate system consisting of three S11.3 The stabilized temperature of
S10.7 Convertible tops. Convertibles axes, a longitudinal axis (X), a the test dummy at the time of the test
and open-body type vehicles have the transverse axis (Y), and a vertical axis is at any temperature between 20.6
top, if any, in place in the closed (Z). X and Y are in the same horizontal degrees C and 22.2 degrees C.
passenger compartment configuration. plane and Z passes through the S11.4 Acceleration data.
S10.8 Doors. Doors, including any intersection of X and Y. The origin of Accelerometers are installed on the
rear hatchback or tailgate, are fully the system is at the center of gravity of head, rib, spine and pelvis components
closed and latched but not locked. the vehicle. The X-axis is parallel to the of various dummies as required to meet
S10.9 Transmission and brake longitudinal centerline of the vehicle the injury criteria of the standard.
engagement. For a vehicle equipped and is positive to the vehicle front end Accelerations measured from different
with a manual transmission, the and negative to the rear end. The Y-axis dummy components may use different
transmission is placed in second gear. is positive to the left side of the vehicle filters and processing methods.
For a vehicle equipped with an and negative to the right side. The Z- S11.5 Processing Data.
automatic transmission, the axis is positive above the X-Y plane and (a) Subpart F (SID) test dummy.
transmission is placed in neutral. For all negative below it. (1) Process the acceleration data from
vehicles, the parking brake is engaged. S11 Anthropomorphic test the accelerometers mounted on the ribs,
S10.10 Rigid pole. The rigid pole is dummies. The anthropomorphic test spine and pelvis of the Subpart F
a vertical metal structure beginning no dummies used to evaluate a vehicle’s dummy with the FIR100 software
more than 102 millimeters (4 inches) performance in the moving deformable specified in 49 CFR 572.44(d). Process
above the lowest point of the tires on barrier and vehicle-to-pole tests are the data in the following manner:
the striking side of the test vehicle when specified in 49 CFR part 572. In a test (i) Filter the data with a 300 Hz, SAE
the vehicle is loaded as specified in S8.1 in which the test vehicle is to be struck Class 180 filter;
and extending above the highest point on its left side, each dummy is to be (ii) Subsample the data to a 1600 Hz
of the roof of the test vehicle. The pole configured and instrumented to be sampling rate;
is 254 mm (10 inches) ± 6 mm (0.25 in) struck on its left side, in accordance (iii) Remove the bias from the
in diameter and set off from any with part 572. In a test in which the test subsampled data; and
(iv) Filter the data with the FIR100 (1) For a bench seat. The upper torso (1) For a bench seat. The upper torso
software specified in 49 CFR 572.44(d), of the test dummy rests against the seat of the test dummy rests against the seat
which has the following back. The midsagittal plane of the test back. The midsagittal plane of the test
characteristics— dummy is vertical and parallel to the dummy is vertical and parallel to the
(A) Passband frequency 100 Hz. vehicle’s longitudinal centerline, and vehicle’s longitudinal centerline, and
(B) Stopband frequency 189 Hz. passes through the center of the steering the same distance from the vehicle’s
(C) Stopband gain ¥50 db. wheel. longitudinal centerline as would be the
(D) Passband ripple 0.0225 db. (2) For a bucket seat. The upper torso midsagittal plane of a test dummy
(2) [Reserved.] of the test dummy rests against the seat positioned in the driver position under
(b) Subpart U (ES–2re 50th percentile back. The midsagittal plane of the test S12.1.1(a)(1).
male) test dummy. dummy is vertical and parallel to the (2) For a bucket seat. The upper torso
(1) The rib deflection data are filtered vehicle’s longitudinal centerline, and of the test dummy rests against the seat
at channel frequency class 600 Hz. coincides with the longitudinal back. The midsagittal plane of the test
Abdominal and pubic force data are centerline of the bucket seat. dummy is vertical and parallel to the
filtered at channel frequency class of (b) Pelvis. vehicle’s longitudinal centerline, and
600 Hz. (1) H–point. The H–points of each test coincides with the longitudinal
(2) The acceleration data from the dummy coincide within 12.7 mm (1⁄2 centerline of the bucket seat.
accelerometers installed inside the skull inch) in the vertical dimension and 12.7 (b) Pelvis.
cavity of the ES–2re test dummy are mm (1⁄2 inch) in the horizontal (1) H–point. The H–points of each test
filtered at channel frequency class of dimension of a point that is located 6.4 dummy coincide within 12.7 mm (1⁄2
1000 Hz. mm (1⁄4 inch) below the position of the inch) in the vertical dimension and 12.7
(c) Subpart V (SID–IIs 5th percentile H–point determined by using the mm (1⁄2 inch) in the horizontal
female) test dummy. equipment for the 50th percentile and dimension of a point that is located 6.4
(1) The acceleration data from the procedures specified in SAE J826 (1980) mm (1⁄4 inch) below the position of the
accelerometers installed inside the skull (incorporated by reference; see 49 CFR H–point determined by using the
cavity of the SID–IIs test dummy are 571.5), except that Table 1 of SAE J826 equipment for the 50th percentile and
filtered at channel frequency class of is not applicable. The length of the procedures specified in SAE J826 (1980)
1000 Hz. lower leg and thigh segments of the H– (incorporated by reference; see 49 CFR
(2) The acceleration data from the point machine are adjusted to 414 and 571.5), except that Table 1 of SAE J826
accelerometers installed on the lower 401 mm (16.3 and 15.8 inches), is not applicable. The length of the
spine of the SID–IIs test dummy are respectively. lower leg and thigh segments of the H–
filtered at channel frequency class of (2) Pelvic angle. As determined using point machine are adjusted to 414 and
180 Hz. the pelvic angle gauge (GM drawing 401 mm (16.3 and 15.8 inches),
(3) The iliac and acetabular forces 78051–532 incorporated by reference in respectively.
from load cells installed in the pelvis of part 572, Subpart E of this chapter) (2) Pelvic angle. As determined using
the SID–IIs are filtered at channel which is inserted into the H–point the pelvic angle gauge (GM drawing
frequency class of 600 Hz. gauging hole of the dummy, the angle of 78051–532 incorporated by reference in
S12 Positioning procedures for the the plane of the surface on the lumbar- part 572, Subpart E of this chapter)
anthropomorphic test dummies. pelvic adaptor on which the lumbar which is inserted into the H–point
S12.1 50th percentile male test spine attaches is 23 to 25 degrees from gauging hole of the dummy, the angle of
dummy—49 CFR Part 572 Subpart F the horizontal, sloping upward toward the plane of the surface on the lumbar-
(SID). Position a correctly configured the front of the vehicle. pelvic adaptor on which the lumbar
test dummy, conforming to the (3) Legs. The upper legs of each test spine attaches is 23 to 25 degrees from
applicable requirements of part 572 dummy rest against the seat cushion to the horizontal, sloping upward toward
Subpart F of this chapter, in the front the extent permitted by placement of the the front of the vehicle.
outboard seating position on the side of feet. The left knee of the dummy is (c) Legs. The upper legs of each test
the test vehicle to be struck by the positioned such that the distance from dummy rest against the seat cushion to
moving deformable barrier and, if the the outer surface of the knee pivot bolt the extent permitted by placement of the
vehicle has a second seat, position to the dummy’s midsagittal plane is feet. The initial distance between the
another conforming test dummy in the 152.4 mm (6.0 inches). To the extent outboard knee clevis flange surfaces is
second seat outboard position on the practicable, the left leg of the test 292 mm (11.5 inches). To the extent
same side of the vehicle, as specified in dummy is in a vertical longitudinal practicable, both legs of the test
S12.1.3. Each test dummy is restrained plane. dummies in outboard passenger
using all available belt systems in all (4) Feet. The right foot of the test positions are in vertical longitudinal
seating positions where such belt dummy rests on the undepressed planes. Final adjustment to
restraints are provided. Adjustable belt accelerator with the heel resting as far accommodate placement of feet in
anchorages are placed at the mid- forward as possible on the floorpan. The accordance with S12.1.2(d) for various
adjustment position. In addition, any left foot is set perpendicular to the passenger compartment configurations
folding armrest is retracted. Additional lower leg with the heel resting on the is permitted.
positioning procedures are specified floorpan in the same lateral line as the (d) Feet. The feet of the test dummy
below. right heel. are placed on the vehicle’s toeboard
S12.1.1 Positioning a Part 572 S12.1.2 Positioning a Part 572 with the heels resting on the floorpan as
Subpart F (SID) dummy in the driver Subpart F (SID) dummy in the front close as possible to the intersection of
position. outboard seating position. the toeboard and floorpan. If the feet
(a) Torso. Hold the dummy’s head in (a) Torso. Hold the dummy’s head in cannot be placed flat on the toeboard,
place and push laterally on the non- place and push laterally on the non- they are set perpendicular to the lower
impacted side of the upper torso in a impacted side of the upper torso in a legs and placed as far forward as
single stroke with a force of 66.7–89.0 single stroke with a force of 66.7–89.0 possible so that the heels rest on the
N (15–20 lb) towards the impacted side. N (15–20 lb) towards the impacted side. floorpan.
S12.1.3 Positioning a Part 572 feet. The initial distance between the seating position, place the dummy’s
Subpart F (SID) dummy in the rear outboard knee clevis flange surfaces is upper arms such that the angle between
outboard seating positions. 292 mm (11.5 inches). To the extent the projection of the arm centerline on
(a) Torso. Hold the dummy’s head in practicable, both legs of the test the mid-sagittal plane of the dummy
place and push laterally on the non- dummies in outboard passenger and the torso reference line is 40° ± 5°.
impacted side of the upper torso in a positions are in vertical longitudinal The torso reference line is defined as the
single stroke with a force of 66.7–89.0 planes. Final adjustment to thoracic spine centerline. The shoulder-
N (15–20 lb) towards the impacted side. accommodate placement of feet in arm joint allows for discrete arm
(1) For a bench seat. The upper torso accordance with S12.1.3(d) for various positions at 0, 40, and 90 degree settings
of the test dummy rests against the seat passenger compartment configurations forward of the spine.
back. The midsagittal plane of the test is permitted. (d) Legs and Feet. Position the legs
dummy is vertical and parallel to the (d) Feet. Place the feet of the test and feet of the dummy according to the
vehicle’s longitudinal centerline, and, if dummy flat on the floorpan and beneath following:
possible, the same distance from the the front seat as far as possible without (1) For the driver’s seating position,
vehicle’s longitudinal centerline as the front seat interference. If necessary, the without inducing pelvis or torso
midsagittal plane of a test dummy distance between the knees may be movement, place the right foot of the
positioned in the driver position under changed in order to place the feet dummy on the un-pressed accelerator
S12.1.1(a)(1). If it is not possible to beneath the seat. pedal with the heel resting as far
position the test dummy so that its S12.2 50th percentile male test forward as possible on the floor pan. Set
midsagittal plane is parallel to the dummy—49 CFR Part 572 Subpart U the left foot perpendicular to the lower
vehicle longitudinal centerline and is at (ES–2re). leg with the heel resting on the floor pan
this distance from the vehicle’s S12.2.1 Positioning an ES–2re in the same lateral line as the right heel.
longitudinal centerline, the test dummy dummy in all seating positions. Position Set the knees of the dummy such that
is positioned so that some portion of the a correctly configured ES–2re test their outside surfaces are 150 ± 10 mm
test dummy just touches, at or above the dummy, conforming to the applicable (5.9 ± 0.4 inches) from the plane of
seat level, the side surface of the requirements of part 572 of this chapter, symmetry of the dummy. If possible
vehicle, such as the upper quarter panel, in the front outboard seating position on within these constraints, place the
an armrest, or any interior trim (i.e., the side of the test vehicle to be struck thighs of the dummy in contact with the
either the broad trim panel surface or a by the moving deformable barrier or seat cushion.
smaller, localized trim feature). pole. Restrain the test dummy using all
(2) For a bucket or contoured seat. (2) For other seating positions,
available belt systems in the seating without inducing pelvis or torso
The upper torso of the test dummy rests positions where the belt restraints are
against the seat back. The midsagittal movement, place the heels of the
provided. Place adjustable belt dummy as far forward as possible on the
plane of the test dummy is vertical and anchorages at the mid-adjustment
parallel to the vehicle’s longitudinal floor pan without compressing the seat
position. Retract any folding armrest. cushion more than the compression due
centerline, and coincides with the (a) Upper torso.
longitudinal centerline of the bucket or to the weight of the leg. Set the knees
(1) The plane of symmetry of the
contoured seat. of the dummy such that their outside
dummy coincides with the vertical
(b) Pelvis. surfaces are 150 ± 10 mm (5.9 ± 0.4
median plane of the specified seating
(1) H–point. The H–points of each test inches) from the plane of symmetry of
position.
dummy coincide within 12.7 mm (1⁄2 (2) Bend the upper torso forward and the dummy.
inch) in the vertical dimension and 12.7 then lay it back against the seat back. S12.3 5th percentile female test
mm (1⁄2 inch) in the horizontal Set the shoulders of the dummy fully dummy—49 CFR Part 572 Subpart V
dimension of a point that is located 6.4 rearward. (SID–IIs). Position a correctly configured
mm (1⁄4 inch) below the position of the (b) Pelvis. Position the pelvis of the 5th percentile female Part 572 Subpart
H–point determined by using the dummy according to the following: V (SID–IIs) test dummy, conforming to
equipment for the 50th percentile and (1) Position the pelvis of the dummy the applicable requirements of part 572
procedures specified in SAE J826 (1980) such that a lateral line passing through of this chapter, in the front outboard
(incorporated by reference; see 49CFR the dummy H–points is perpendicular seating position on the side of the test
571.5), except that Table 1 of SAE J826 to the longitudinal center plane of the vehicle to be struck by the pole and, for
is not applicable. The length of the seat. The line through the dummy H– the moving deformable barrier, if the
lower leg and thigh segments of the H– points is horizontal with a maximum vehicle has a second seat, position a
point machine are adjusted to 414 and inclination of ± 2 degrees. The dummy conforming test dummy in the second
401 mm (16.3 and 15.8 inches), may be equipped with tilt sensors in the seat outboard position on the same side
respectively. thorax and the pelvis. These of the vehicle (side to be struck) as
(2) Pelvic angle. As determined using instruments can help to obtain the specified in S12.3.4. Retract any folding
the pelvic angle gauge (GM drawing desired position. armrest. Additional procedures are
78051–532 incorporated by reference in (2) The correct position of the dummy specified below.
part 572, Subpart E of this chapter) pelvis may be checked relative to the H– S12.3.1 General provisions and
which is inserted into the H–point point of the H–point Manikin by using definitions.
gauging hole of the dummy, the angle of the M3 holes in the H–point back plates (a) Measure all angles with respect to
the plane of the surface on the lumbar- at each side of the ES–2re pelvis. The the horizontal plane unless otherwise
pelvic adaptor on which the lumbar M3 holes are indicated with ‘‘Hm’’. The stated.
spine attaches is 23 to 25 degrees from ‘‘Hm’’ position should be in a circle (b) Adjust the SID–IIs dummy’s neck
the horizontal, sloping upward toward with a radius of 10 mm (0.39 inches) bracket to align the zero degree index
the front of the vehicle. round the H–point of the H–point marks.
(c) Legs. Rest the upper legs of each Manikin. (c) Other seat adjustments. The
test dummy against the seat cushion to (c) Arms. For the driver seating longitudinal centerline of a bucket seat
the extent permitted by placement of the position and for the front outboard cushion passes through the SgRP and is
parallel to the longitudinal centerline of seat is moved from the full forward steering wheel is not adjustable,
the vehicle. position, maintain, as closely as separate the knees enough to avoid
(d) Driver and passenger manual belt possible, the seat cushion reference line steering wheel contact. Proceed with
adjustment. Use all available belt angle determined in S10.3.2.3.3, for the moving the seat forward until either the
systems. Place adjustable belt final forward position when measuring leg contacts the vehicle interior or the
anchorages at the nominal position for the pelvic angle as specified in seat reaches the full forward position.
a 5th percentile adult female suggested S12.3.3(a)(11). The seat cushion (The right foot may contact and depress
by the vehicle manufacturer. reference line angle position may be the accelerator and/or change the angle
(e) Definitions. achieved through the use of any seat or of the foot with respect to the leg during
(1) The term ‘‘midsagittal plane’’ seat cushion adjustments other than that seat movement.) If necessary to avoid
refers to the vertical plane that separates which primarily moves the seat or seat contact with the vehicle’s brake or
the dummy into equal left and right cushion fore-aft. clutch pedal, rotate the test dummy’s
halves. (2) Fully recline the seat back, if left foot about the leg. If there is still
(2) The term ‘‘vertical longitudinal adjustable. Install the dummy into the interference, rotate the left thigh
plane’’ refers to a vertical plane parallel driver’s seat, such that when the legs are outboard about the hip the minimum
to the vehicle’s longitudinal centerline. positioned 120 degrees to the thighs, the distance necessary to avoid pedal
(3) The term ‘‘vertical plane’’ refers to calves of the legs are not touching the interference. If a dummy leg contacts
a vertical plane, not necessarily parallel seat cushion. the vehicle interior before the full
to the vehicle’s longitudinal centerline. (3) Bucket seats. Center the dummy forward position is attained, position
(4) The term ‘‘transverse on the seat cushion so that its the seat at the next detent where there
instrumentation platform’’ refers to the midsagittal plane is vertical and passes is no contact. If the seat is a power seat,
transverse instrumentation surface through the SgRP within ±10 mm (±0.4 move the seat fore and aft to avoid
inside the dummy’s skull casting to in). contact while assuring that there is a
which the neck load cell mounts. This (4) Bench seats. Position the maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) distance
surface is perpendicular to the skull midsagittal plane of the dummy vertical between the vehicle interior and the
cap’s machined inferior-superior and parallel to the vehicle’s longitudinal point on the dummy that would first
mounting surface. centerline and aligned within ±10 mm contact the vehicle interior. If the
(5) The term ‘‘thigh’’ refers to the (±0.4 in) of the center of the steering steering wheel was moved, return it to
femur between, but not including, the wheel rim. the position described in S10.5. If the
knee and the pelvis. (5) Hold the dummy’s thighs down steering wheel contacts the dummy’s
(6) The term ‘‘leg’’ refers to the lower and push rearward on the upper torso leg(s) prior to attaining this position,
part of the entire leg including the knee. to maximize the dummy’s pelvic angle. adjust it to the next higher detent, or if
(7) The term ‘‘foot’’ refers to the foot, (6) Place the legs at 120 degrees to the infinitely adjustable, until there is 5 mm
including the ankle. thighs. Set the initial transverse distance (0.2 in) clearance between the wheel
(8) For leg and thigh angles, use the between the longitudinal centerlines at and the dummy’s leg(s).
following references: the front of the dummy’s knees at 160 (9) For vehicles without adjustable
(i) Thigh—a straight line on the thigh to 170 mm (6.3 to 6.7 in), with the seat backs, adjust the lower neck bracket
skin between the center of the 1⁄2-13 thighs and legs of the dummy in vertical to level the head as much as possible.
UNC–2B tapped hole in the upper leg planes. Push rearward on the dummy’s For vehicles with adjustable seat backs,
femur clamp and the knee pivot knees to force the pelvis into the seat so while holding the thighs in place, rotate
shoulder bolt. there is no gap between the pelvis and the seat back forward until the
(ii) Leg—a straight line on the leg skin the seat back or until contact occurs transverse instrumentation platform of
between the center of the ankle shell between the back of the dummy’s calves the head is level to within ± 0.5 degree,
and the knee pivot shoulder bolt. and the front of the seat cushion. making sure that the pelvis does not
(9) The term ‘‘seat cushion reference (7) Gently rock the upper torso interfere with the seat bight. Inspect the
point’’ (SCRP) means a point placed on relative to the lower torso laterally in a abdomen to ensure that it is properly
the outboard side of the seat cushion at side to side motion three times through installed. If the torso contacts the
a horizontal distance between 150 mm a ± 5 degree arc (approximately 51 mm steering wheel, adjust the steering wheel
(5.9 in) and 250 mm (9.8 in) from the (2 in) side to side). in the following order until there is no
front edge of the seat used as a guide in (8) If needed, extend the legs slightly contact: telescoping adjustment,
positioning the seat. so that the feet are not in contact with lowering adjustment, raising
(10) The term ‘‘seat cushion reference the floor pan. Let the thighs rest on the adjustment. If the vehicle has no
line’’ means a line on the side of the seat seat cushion to the extent permitted by adjustments or contact with the steering
cushion, passing through the seat the foot movement. Keeping the leg and wheel cannot be eliminated by
cushion reference point, whose the thigh in a vertical plane, place the adjustment, position the seat at the next
projection in the vehicle vertical foot in the vertical longitudinal plane detent where there is no contact with
longitudinal plane is straight and has a that passes through the centerline of the the steering wheel as adjusted in S10.5.
known angle with respect to the accelerator pedal. Rotate the left thigh If the seat is a power seat, position the
horizontal. outboard about the hip until the center seat to avoid contact while assuring that
S12.3.2 5th percentile female driver of the knee is the same distance from there is a maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in)
dummy positioning. the midsagittal plane of the dummy as distance between the steering wheel as
(a) Driver torso/head/seat back angle the right knee ± 5 mm (± 0.2 in). Using adjusted in S10.5 and the point of
positioning. only the control that moves the seat fore contact on the dummy.
(1) With the seat in the position and aft, attempt to return the seat to the (10) If it is not possible to achieve the
determined in S10.3.2, use only the full forward position. If either of the head level within ± 0.5 degrees,
control that moves the seat fore and aft dummy’s legs first contacts the steering minimize the angle.
to place the seat in the rearmost wheel, then adjust the steering wheel, if (11) Measure and set the dummy’s
position. If the seat cushion reference adjustable, upward until contact with pelvic angle using the pelvic angle gage.
line angle automatically changes as the the steering wheel is avoided. If the The angle is set to 20.0 degrees ± 2.5
degrees. If this is not possible, adjust the possible to contact with the un- controls. If the seat cushion reference
pelvic angle as close to 20.0 degrees as depressed accelerator pedal. angle automatically changes as the seat
possible while keeping the transverse (3) If, in its final position, the heel is is moved from the full forward position,
instrumentation platform of the head as off of the vehicle floor, a spacer block maintain, as closely as possible, the seat
level as possible by adjustments is used under the heel to support the cushion reference line angle determined
specified in S12.3.2(a)(9) and (10). final foot position. The surface of the in S10.3.2.3.3, for the final forward
(12) If the dummy is contacting the block in contact with the heel has an position when measuring the pelvic
vehicle interior after these adjustments, inclination of 30 degrees, measured angle as specified in S12.3.3(a)(11). The
move the seat rearward until there is a from the horizontal, with the highest seat cushion reference line angle
maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) between the surface towards the rear of the vehicle. position may be achieved through the
contact point of the dummy and the (4) Place the left foot on the toe-board use of any seat or seat cushion
interior of the vehicle or if it has a with the rearmost point of the heel adjustments other than that which
manual seat adjustment, to the next resting on the floor pan as close as primarily moves the seat or seat cushion
rearward detent position. If after these possible to the point of intersection of fore-aft.
adjustments, the dummy contact point the planes described by the toe-board (2) Fully recline the seat back, if
is more than 5 mm (0.2 in) from the and floor pan, and not on or in contact adjustable. Place the dummy into the
vehicle interior and the seat is still not with the vehicle’s brake pedal, clutch passenger’s seat, such that when the legs
in its forwardmost position, move the pedal, wheel-well projection or foot rest, are positioned 120 degrees to the thighs,
seat forward until the contact point is 5 except as provided in S12.3.2(b)(6). the calves of the legs are not touching
mm (0.2 in) or less from the vehicle (5) If the left foot cannot be positioned the seat cushion.
interior, or if it has a manual seat on the toe board, place the foot (3) Bucket seats. Place the dummy on
adjustment, move the seat to the closest perpendicular to the lower leg the seat cushion so that its midsagittal
detent position without making contact, centerline as far forward as possible plane is vertical and passes through the
or until the seat reaches its forwardmost with the heel resting on the floor pan. SgRP within ± 10 mm (± 0.4 in).
(6) If the left foot does not contact the (4) Bench seats. Position the
position, whichever occurs first.
floor pan, place the foot parallel to the midsagittal plane of the dummy vertical
(b) Driver foot positioning. and parallel to the vehicle’s longitudinal
(1) If the vehicle has an adjustable floor and place the leg perpendicular to
the thigh as possible. If necessary to centerline and the same distance from
accelerator pedal, adjust it to the full the vehicle’s longitudinal centerline,
forward position. If the heel of the right avoid contact with the vehicle’s brake
pedal, clutch pedal, wheel-well, or foot within + 10 mm (± 0.4 in), as the
foot can contact the floor pan, follow the midsagittal plane of the driver dummy.
positioning procedure in rest, use the three foot position
adjustments listed in S12.3.2(b)(1)(i)– (5) Hold the dummy’s thighs down
S12.3.2(b)(1)(i). If not, follow the and push rearward on the upper torso
positioning procedure in (ii). The adjustment options are listed in
priority order, with each subsequent to maximize the dummy’s pelvic angle.
S12.3.2(b)(1)(ii). (6) Place the legs at 120 degrees to the
(i) Rest the right foot of the test option incorporating the previous. In
making each adjustment, move the foot thighs. Set the initial transverse distance
dummy on the un-depressed accelerator between the longitudinal centerlines at
pedal with the rearmost point of the the minimum distance necessary to
avoid contact. If it is not possible to the front of the dummy’s knees at 160
heel on the floor pan in the plane of the to 170 mm (6.3 to 6.7 in), with the
pedal. If the foot cannot be placed on avoid all prohibited foot contact,
priority is given to avoiding brake or thighs and legs of the dummy in vertical
the accelerator pedal, set it initially planes. Push rearward on the dummy’s
perpendicular to the leg and then place clutch pedal contact:
(i) Rotate (abduction/adduction) the knees to force the pelvis into the seat so
it as far forward as possible in the there is no gap between the pelvis and
test dummy’s left foot about the lower
direction of the pedal centerline with the seat back or until contact occurs
leg;
the rearmost point of the heel resting on between the back of the dummy’s calves
(ii) Planar flex the foot;
the floor pan. If the vehicle has an (iii) Rotate the left leg outboard about and the front of the seat cushion.
adjustable accelerator pedal and the the hip. (7) Gently rock the upper torso
right foot is not touching the accelerator (c) Driver arm/hand positioning. relative to the lower torso laterally in a
pedal when positioned as above, move (1) Place the dummy’s upper arm side to side motion three times through
the pedal rearward until it touches the such that the angle between the a ± 5 degree arc (approximately 51 mm
right foot. If the accelerator pedal in the projection of the arm centerline on the (2 in) side to side).
full rearward position still does not midsagittal plane of the dummy and the (8) If needed, extend the legs slightly
touch the foot, leave the pedal in that torso reference line is 40° ± 5°. The torso so that the feet are not in contact with
position. reference line is defined as the thoracic the floor pan. Let the thighs rest on the
(ii) Extend the foot and lower leg by spine centerline. The shoulder-arm joint seat cushion to the extent permitted by
decreasing the knee flexion angle until allows for discrete arm positions at 0, ± the foot movement. With the feet
any part of the foot contacts the un- 40, ± 90, ± 140, and 180 degree settings perpendicular to the legs, place the
depressed accelerator pedal or the where positive is forward of the spine. heels on the floor pan. If a heel will not
highest part of the foot is at the same (2) [Reserved.] contact the floor pan, place it as close
height as the highest part of the pedal. S12.3.3 5th percentile female front to the floor pan as possible. Using only
If the vehicle has an adjustable passenger dummy positioning the control that primarily moves the seat
accelerator pedal and the right foot is (a) Passenger torso/head/seat back fore and aft, attempt to return the seat
not touching the accelerator pedal when angle positioning. to the full forward position. If a dummy
positioned as above, move the pedal (1) With the seat at the mid-height in leg contacts the vehicle interior before
rearward until it touches the right foot. the full-forward position determined in the full forward position is attained,
(2) If the ball of the foot does not S10.3.2, use only the control that position the seat at the next detent
contact the pedal, increase the ankle primarily moves the seat fore and aft to where there is no contact. If the seats are
plantar flexion angle such that the toe place the seat in the rearmost position, power seats, position the seat to avoid
of the foot contacts or is as close as without adjusting independent height contact while assuring that there is a
maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) distance ± 40, ± 90, ± 140, and 180 degree settings the head as level as possible, as
between the vehicle interior and the where positive is forward of the spine. specified in S12.3.4(h) and (i).
point on the dummy that would first S12.3.4 5th percentile female in rear (k) Passenger foot positioning.
contact the vehicle interior. outboard seating positions. (1) Place the passenger’s feet flat on
(9) For vehicles without adjustable (a) Set the rear outboard seat at the the floor pan.
seat backs, adjust the lower neck bracket full rearward, full down position (2) If the either foot does not contact
to level the head as much as possible. determined in S8.3.3. the floor pan, place the foot parallel to
For vehicles with adjustable seat backs, (b) Fully recline the seat back, if the floor and place the leg as
while holding the thighs in place, rotate adjustable. Install the dummy into the perpendicular to the thigh as possible.
the seat back forward until the passenger’s seat, such that when the legs (l) Passenger arm/hand positioning.
transverse instrumentation platform of are 120 degrees to the thighs, the calves Place the rear dummy’s upper arm such
the head is level to within ± 0.5 degree, of the legs are not touching the seat that the angle between the projection of
making sure that the pelvis does not cushion. the arm centerline on the midsagittal
interfere with the seat bight. Inspect the (c) Place the dummy on the seat plane of the dummy and the torso
abdomen to ensure that it is properly cushion so that its midsagittal plane is reference line is 0° ± 5°. The torso
installed. vertical and coincides with the vertical reference line is defined as the thoracic
(10) If it is not possible to achieve the longitudinal plane through the center of spine centerline. The shoulder-arm joint
head level within ± 0.5 degrees, the seating position SgRP within ± 10 allows for discrete arm positions at 0,
minimize the angle. mm (± 0.4 mm). ± 40, ± 90, ± 140, and 180 degree settings
(d) Hold the dummy’s thighs down
(11) Measure and set the dummy’s where positive is forward of the spine.
and push rearward on the upper torso
pelvic angle using the pelvic angle gage. S13 Phase-in of moving deformable
to maximize the dummy’s pelvic angle.
The angle is set to 20.0 degrees ± 2.5 barrier and vehicle-to-pole performance
(e) Place the legs at 120 degrees to the
degrees. If this is not possible, adjust the requirements for vehicles manufactured
thighs. Set the initial transverse distance
pelvic angle as close to 20.0 degrees as on or after September 1, 2009 and
between the longitudinal centerlines at
possible while keeping the transverse before September 1, 2012.
the front of the dummy’s knees at 160
instrumentation platform of the head as S13.1 Vehicles manufactured on or
to 170 mm (6.3 to 6.7 in), with the
level as possible by adjustments after September 1, 2009 and before
thighs and legs of the dummy in vertical
specified in S12.3.3(a)(9) and (10). September 1, 2012. At anytime during
planes. Push rearward on the dummy’s
(12) If the dummy is contacting the knees to force the pelvis into the seat so the production years ending August 31,
vehicle interior after these adjustments, there is no gap between the pelvis and 2012 and August 31, 2013, each
move the seat rearward until there is a the seat back or until contact occurs manufacturer shall, upon request from
maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) between the between the back of the dummy’s calves the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,
contact point of the dummy and the and the front of the seat cushion. provide information identifying the
interior of the vehicle or if it has a (f) Gently rock the upper torso vehicles (by make, model and vehicle
manual seat adjustment, to the next laterally side to side three times through identification number) that have been
rearward detent position. If after these a ± 5 degree arc (approximately 51 mm certified as complying with the moving
adjustments, the dummy contact point (2 in) side to side). deformable barrier test with advanced
is more than 5 mm (0.2 in) from the (g) If needed, extend the legs slightly test dummies (S7.2) and vehicle-to-pole
vehicle interior and the seat is still not so that the feet are not in contact with test requirements (S9.2) of this standard.
in its forwardmost position, move the the floor pan. Let the thighs rest on the The manufacturer’s designation of a
seat forward until the contact point is 5 seat cushion to the extent permitted by vehicle as a certified vehicle is
mm (0.2 in) or less from the vehicle the foot movement. With the feet irrevocable.
interior, or if it has a manual seat perpendicular to the legs, place the S13.1.1 Vehicles manufactured on
adjustment, move the seat to the closest heels on the floor pan. If a heel will not or after September 1, 2009 and before
detent position without making contact, contact the floor pan, place it as close September 1, 2010. Subject to S13.4, for
or until the seat reaches its forwardmost to the floor pan as possible. vehicles manufactured on or after
position, whichever occurs first. (h) For vehicles without adjustable September 1, 2009 and before
(b) Passenger foot positioning. seat backs, adjust the lower neck bracket September 1, 2010, the number of
(1) Place the front passenger’s feet flat to level the head as much as possible. vehicles complying with S7.2 and S9.2
on the toe board. For vehicles with adjustable seat backs, shall be not less than 20 percent of:
(2) If the feet cannot be placed flat on while holding the thighs in place, rotate (a) The manufacturer’s average annual
the toe board, set them perpendicular to the seat back forward until the production of vehicles manufactured in
the leg center lines and place them as transverse instrumentation platform of the three previous production years; or
far forward as possible with the heels the head is level to within ± 0.5 degrees, (b) The manufacturer’s production in
resting on the floor pan. making sure that the pelvis does not the current production year.
(3) Place the rear seat passenger’s feet interfere with the seat bight. Inspect the S13.1.2 Vehicles manufactured on
flat on the floor pan and beneath the abdomen to insure that it is properly or after September 1, 2010 and before
front seat as far as possible without front installed. September 1, 2011. Subject to S13.4, for
seat interference. (i) If it is not possible to orient the vehicles manufactured on or after
(c) Passenger arm/hand positioning. head level within ± 0.5 degrees, September 1, 2010 and before
Place the dummy’s upper arm such that minimize the angle. September 1, 2011, the number of
the angle between the projection of the (j) Measure and set the dummy’s vehicles complying with S7.2 and S9.2
arm centerline on the mid-sagittal plane pelvic angle using the pelvic angle shall be not less than 50 percent of:
of the dummy and the torso reference gauge. The angle is set to 20.0 degrees (a) The manufacturer’s average annual
line is 40° ± 5°. The torso reference line ± 2.5 degrees. If this is not possible, production of vehicles manufactured in
is defined as the thoracic spine adjust the pelvic angle as close to 20.0 the three previous production years; or
centerline. The shoulder-arm joint degrees as possible while keeping the (b) The manufacturer’s production in
allows for discrete arm positions at 0, transverse instrumentation platform of the current production year.
S13.1.3 Vehicles manufactured on (c) For purposes of complying with PART 585—PHASE–IN REPORTING
or after September 1, 2011 and before S13.1.3, a manufacturer may count a REQUIREMENTS
September 1, 2012. Subject to S13.4, for vehicle if it—
vehicles manufactured on or after (1) Is manufactured on or after ■ 6. The authority citation for part 585
September 1, 2011 and before October 11, 2007, but before September continues to read as follows:
September 1, 2012, the number of 1, 2012 and, Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
vehicles complying with S7.2 and S9.2 (2) Is not counted toward compliance 30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at
shall be not less than 75 percent of: with S13.1.1 or S13.1.2. 49 CFR 1.50.
(a) The manufacturer’s average annual (c) For the purposes of calculating
production of vehicles manufactured in average annual production of vehicles ■ 7. Part 585 is amended by adding
the three previous production years; or for each manufacturer and the number Subpart H to read as follows:
(b) The manufacturer’s production in of vehicles manufactured by each Subpart H—Side Impact Protection Phase-
the current production year. manufacturer, each vehicle that is in Reporting Requirements
S13.2 Vehicles produced by more excluded from having to meet the Sec.
than one manufacturer. applicable requirement is not counted. 585.71 Scope.
S13.2.1 For the purpose of 585.72 Purpose.
■ 4. Section 571.301 is amended by
calculating average annual production 585.73 Applicability.
revising S6.3(b) and S7.2(b), to read as
of vehicles for each manufacturer and 585.74 Definitions.
follows:
the number of vehicles manufactured by 585.75 Response to inquiries.
each manufacturer under S13.1.1 and § 571.301 Standard No. 301; Fuel system 585.76 Reporting requirements.
S13.1.2, a vehicle produced by more integrity. 585.77 Records.
than one manufacturer shall be S6.3 Side moving barrier crash.
attributed to a single manufacturer as Subpart H—Side Impact Protection
* * *
follows, subject to S13.2.2. Phase-in Reporting Requirements
(b) Vehicles manufactured on or after
(a) A vehicle that is imported shall be September 1, 2004. When the vehicle is § 585.71 Scope.
attributed to the importer. impacted laterally on either side by a This part establishes requirements for
(b) A vehicle manufactured in the moving deformable barrier at 53 ± 1.0 manufacturers of passenger cars, and of
United States by more than one km/h with 49 CFR part 572, subpart F trucks, buses and multipurpose
manufacturer, one of which also test dummies at positions required for passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle
markets the vehicle, shall be attributed testing by S7.1.1 of Standard 214, under weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536
to the manufacturer that markets the the applicable conditions of S7 of this kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds) or less,
vehicle. standard, fuel spillage shall not exceed
S13.2.2 A vehicle produced by more to submit a report, and maintain records
the limits of S5.5 of this standard. related to the report, concerning the
than one manufacturer shall be
attributed to any one of the vehicle’s * * * * * number of such vehicles that meet the
manufacturers specified by an express S7.2 Side moving barrier test moving deformable barrier test
written contract, reported to the conditions. * * * requirements of S7 of Standard No. 214,
National Highway Traffic Safety (b) Vehicles manufactured on or after Side impact protection (49 CFR
Administration under 49 CFR part 585, September 1, 2004. The side moving 571.214), and the vehicle-to-pole test
between the manufacturer so specified deformable barrier crash test conditions requirements of S9 of that standard.
and the manufacturer to which the are those specified in S8 of Standard
§ 585.72 Purpose.
vehicle would otherwise be attributed 214 (49 CFR 571.214).
■ 5. Section 571.305 is amended by The purpose of these reporting
under S13.2.1. requirements is to assist the National
S13.3 For the purposes of revising S6.3 and S7.5, to read as
follows: Highway Traffic Safety Administration
calculating average annual production in determining whether a manufacturer
of vehicles for each manufacturer and § 571.305 Standard No. 305; Electric- has complied with the requirements of
the number of vehicles manufactured by powered vehicles: electrolyte spillage and Standard No. 214, Side Impact
each manufacturer under S13.1.1 and electrical shock protection. Protection (49 CFR 571.214).
S13.1.2, do not count any vehicle that * * * * *
is excluded by Standard No. 214 from S6.3 Side moving deformable barrier § 585.73 Applicability.
the moving deformable barrier test with impact. The vehicle must meet the This part applies to manufacturers of
the ES–2re or SID–IIs test dummies requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 passenger cars, and of trucks, buses and
(S7.2) or from the vehicle-to-pole test when it is impacted from the side by a multipurpose passenger vehicles with a
requirements. barrier that conforms to part 587 of this GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less.
S13.4 Calculation of complying chapter that is moving at any speed up However, this part does not apply to
vehicles. to and including 54 km/h, with 49 CFR vehicles excluded by S2 and S5 of
(a) For the purposes of calculating the part 572, subpart F test dummies Standard No. 214 (49 CFR 571.214) from
vehicles complying with S13.1.1, a positioned in accordance with S7 of the requirements of that standard.
manufacturer may count a vehicle if it Sec. 571.214 of this chapter.
is manufactured on or after October 11, § 585.74 Definitions.
2007, but before September 1, 2010. * * * * * (a) All terms defined in 49 U.S.C.
(b) For purposes of complying with S7.5 Side moving deformable barrier 30102 are used in their statutory
S13.1.2, a manufacturer may count a impact test conditions. In addition to meaning.
vehicle if it— the conditions of S7.1 and S7.2, the (b) Bus, gross vehicle weight rating or
(1) Is manufactured on or after conditions of S8 of Sec. 571.214 of this GVWR, multipurpose passenger vehicle,
October 11, 2007, but before September chapter apply to the conduct of the side passenger car, and truck are used as
1, 2011 and, moving deformable barrier impact test defined in § 571.3 of this chapter.
(2) Is not counted toward compliance specified in S6.3. (c) Production year means the 12-
with S13.1.1. * * * * * month period between September 1 of
one year and August 31 of the following report to the National Highway Traffic production year, or, at the
year, inclusive. Safety Administration providing the manufacturer’s option, in each of the
(d) Limited line manufacturer means information specified in paragraph (c) of three previous production years. A new
a manufacturer that sells three or fewer this section and in § 585.2 of this part. manufacturer that is, for the first time,
carlines, as that term is defined in 49 (b) Phase-in reporting requirements. manufacturing passenger cars for sale in
CFR 583.4, in the United States during Within 60 days after the end of each of the United States must report the
a production year. the production years ending August 31, number of passenger cars manufactured
2010, August 31, 2011, and August 31, during the current production year.
§ 585.75 Response to inquiries. 2012, each manufacturer shall submit a (2) Production of complying vehicles.
At anytime during the production report to the National Highway Traffic Each manufacturer shall report for the
years ending August 31, 2010, and Safety Administration concerning its production year being reported on, and
August 31, 2013, each manufacturer compliance with the moving deformable each preceding production year, to the
shall, upon request from the Office of barrier requirements of S7 of Standard extent that vehicles produced during the
Vehicle Safety Compliance, provide No. 214 and with the vehicle-to-pole preceding years are treated under
information identifying the vehicles (by requirements of S9 of that Standard for Standard No. 214 as having been
make, model and vehicle identification its vehicles produced in that year. Each produced during the production year
number) that have been certified as report shall provide the information being reported on, information on the
complying with the moving deformable specified in paragraph (c) of this section number of passenger vehicles that meet
barrier and vehicle-to-pole tests of and in section 585.2 of this part. the moving deformable barrier test
FMVSS No. 214 (49 CFR 571.214). The (c) Advanced credit phase-in report requirements of S7 of Standard No. 214,
manufacturer’s designation of a vehicle content—(1) Production of complying Side Impact Protection (49 CFR
as a certified vehicle is irrevocable. vehicles. With respect to the reports 571.214), and the vehicle-to-pole test
identified in § 585.76(a), each requirements of S9 of that standard.
§ 585.76 Reporting requirements manufacturer shall report for the
(a) Advanced credit phase-in production year for which the report is § 585.77 Records
reporting requirements. (1) Within 60 filed the number of vehicles, by make Each manufacturer shall maintain
days after the end of the production and model year, that are certified as records of the Vehicle Identification
years ending August 31, 2008, and meeting the moving deformable barrier Number for each vehicle for which
August 31, 2009, each manufacturer test requirements of S7.2 of Standard information is reported under § 585.76
choosing to certify vehicles No. 214, Side impact protection (49 CFR until December 31, 2016.
manufactured during any of those 571.214), and the vehicle-to-pole test
production years as complying with the Issued on: August 30, 2007.
requirements of S9 of that standard.
upgraded moving deformable barrier (d) Phase-in report content—(1) Basis Nicole R. Nason,
(S7.2 of Standard No. 214)(49 CFR for phase-in production goals. Each Administrator.
571.214) or vehicle-to-pole requirements manufacturer shall provide the number [FR Doc. 07–4360 Filed 9–5–07; 8:45 am]
(S9) of Standard No. 214 shall submit a of vehicles manufactured in the current BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

Rule: Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Occupant Protection in Interior Impact Side Impact Protection Phase-In Reporting Requirements

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Rule: Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Occupant Protection in Interior Impact Side Impact Protection Phase-In Reporting Requirements

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Tuesday,

September 11, 2007

49 CFR Parts 571 and 585

TABLE 1.—TARGET POPULATION ADJUSTED WITH ESC

Crash mode MAIS 3 MAIS 4 MAIS 5 Fatal

Veh-to-Pole ...................................................................................................... 368 210 72 219

Total .......................................................................................................... 4,081 1,113 249 2,042

Veh-to-Pole .......................................................................... 142 27 0 0 169

Total .............................................................................. 635 716 137 63 1,551

General Motors. The SID–IIs is used by Transport

TABLE 3.—TEST MATRIX

Toyota Corolla ................................. AC + Th ................. Light PC ......................................... √ √ √ √

24 IIHS’s side impact consumer information

program ranks vehicles based on performance when

TABLE 4.—OBLIQUE POLE TEST RESULTS—SID–IIS DUMMY

Proposed Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARVs) ... 1000 82 ** 5,525 38 45

TABLE 5.—ES–2RE OBLIQUE POLE RESULTS

Proposed IARVs .................................................................. 1000 44 2500 6000 82

Saab 93 Convertible ............................................................ 254 40 841 2914 49

TABLE 5.—ES–2RE OBLIQUE POLE RESULTS—Continued

Toyota Sienna ...................................................................... 667 47 1751 2127 60

TABLE 6.—MDB TEST RESULTS USING THE SID–IIS—DRIVER

Proposed IARVs .................................................................. 1000 82 5525 38 45

TABLE 6.—MDB TEST RESULTS USING THE SID–IIS—DRIVER—Continued

Honda Accord* ..................................................................... 104 50 4150 20 22

TABLE 7.—MDB TEST RESULTS USING THE SID–IIS—LEFT REAR PASSENGER

Proposed IARVs .................................................................. 1000 82 5525 38 45

TABLE 8.—ES–2RE MDB TEST RESULTS—DRIVER

Proposed IARVs .................................................................. 1000 44 2500 6000 82

TABLE 9.—ES–2RE MDB TEST RESULTS—REAR PASSENGER

Proposed IARVs .................................................................. 1000 44 2500 6000 82

General Observations • Overall, currently installed side effective in mitigating head

SID–H3 mid-size male dummies. The ES–2re

TABLE 10.—OCCUPANT FATALITY DISTRIBUTION

Collisions with Collisions with

79 Samaha, R., Maltese, M., Bolte, J., (2001),

TABLE 11.—FINAL RULE INJURY CRITERIA

ES–2re ................................................................................. 1,000 44 N/A 2,500 6,000

TABLE 12.—FINAL RULE PHASE-IN SCHEDULE

TABLE 13.—BENEFITS OF THE FINAL RULE BY COUNTERMEASURE 100

Fatalities ....................................................................................................................................... 266 311 311

TABLE 14.—INCREMENTAL TOTAL COSTS AND VEHICLE COSTS

Window cur- Window cur-

Incremental total costs ................................................................................................................. *$429 *$560 **$1.1

TABLE 15.—COSTS PER EQUIVALENT LIFE SAVED PRESENT DISCOUNTED VALUE

Window cur- Window cur-

3% Discount Rate ........................................................................................................................ $1.6 $1.8 $3.7

TABLE 16.—NET BENEFITS WITH $3.7M COST PER LIFE

Benefit Net benefit

Combo + 2 Sensors ......................................................................................... $990 $787 $561 $357

Small organizations and small

collection of information on those who forces that can be experienced by an

Proposed limits .... 1,000 *** 35–44 82 ***2,400 – 6,000

Test Results Using FMVSS No. 214 Seating Position

Test Results Using FMVSS No. 201 Seating Position

TABLE 2 TO APPENDIX C.—75-DEGREE POLE TEST RESULTS

Lower spine Pelvis

Proposed limits ............................................... ......................................................................... 1,000 82 5,100

TABLE 3 TO APPENDIX C.—FMVSS NO. 214 MDB TEST RESULTS

Restraint HPS Rib-def. Lower spine Abd.-force Pubic-symph.

Proposed limits .................................. .............................. 1,000 * 35–44 82 * 2,400–2,800 6,000

TABLE 4 TO APPENDIX C.—FMVSS NO. 214 MDB TEST RESULTS

Restraint HPS Rib-def. Lower spine Abd.-force Pubic-symph.

Incremental total costs ................................................................................................................. $429 $560 **$1.1

Proposed limits .... 1,000 * 35–44 82 *2,400 – 6,000