Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Side Impact Protection--Light Trucks, Buses and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles |
|---|
Topics: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
|
Barry Felrice
Federal Register
June 15, 1994
[Federal Register: June 15, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 88-06, Notice 23]
RIN: 2127-AE49
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Side Impact Protection--
Light Trucks, Buses and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to extend Standard No. 214's dynamic side
impact protection requirements to multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500 pounds or
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less. These
proposed amendments would require that each of these vehicles must
protect its occupants in a full-scale dynamic crash test in which the
vehicle is struck on either side by a moving deformable barrier
simulating another vehicle. The occupants would be represented by
instrumented test dummies. The dummies would be positioned in the
target vehicle to measure the potential for injuries to an occupant's
thorax and pelvis. Given the differences between these vehicles and
passenger cars and their respective crash experiences, the agency is
proposing possible modifications in the test procedure for these
vehicles.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 15, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers set
forth above and be submitted (preferably in 10 copies) to the Docket
Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, room 5109, 400
Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. Docket hours are from 9:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Joseph Kanianthra, Chief, Side and
Rollover Crash Protection Division, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20590 (202-366-4924).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
IA. Existing Side Impact Requirements
IB. Statutory Requirements
IC. The June 1992 ANPRM
ID. Comments on the ANPRM
II. Overview of Proposal
III. The Safety Problem
IV. Rulemaking Rationale
V. Proposal
VA. Possible Test Procedure Modifications
VB. Performance Requirements
VC. Rear Seat Requirements
VI. Vehicles Covered by Proposal
VII. Benefits
VIII. Costs
IX. Leadtime/Phase-in
X. Reporting Requirements
XI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
XII. Submission of Comments
I. Background
IA. Existing Side Impact Requirements
NHTSA's side impact protection requirements are set forth in
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection.
The standard specifies two sets of requirements: (1) Quasi-static side
door strength requirements for passenger cars and for ``LTVs'' (trucks,
buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) with a gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less), and (2) dynamic
requirements for passenger cars.
Standard No. 214's quasi-static side door strength requirements
seek to mitigate occupant injuries in side impacts by reducing the
extent to which the side structure of a vehicle is pushed into the
occupant compartment during a side impact. Under the requirements, side
doors must resist crush forces that are applied against the door's
outside surface in a laboratory test. The requirements have applied to
passenger cars since January 1, 1973, and were extended to LTVs by a
final rule published in the Federal Register (56 FR 27427) on June 14,
1991. A phase-in for the extension of the requirements to LTVs began on
September 1, 1993.
NHTSA added Standard No. 214's dynamic requirements for passenger
cars in a final rule published in the Federal Register (55 FR 45722) on
October 30, 1990. Under the requirements, a passenger car must provide
protection to occupants' thoracic and pelvic regions as measured by the
accelerations registered on instrumented side impact dummies (SID) in a
full-scale crash test. In the test, the car (known as the ``target''
car) is struck in the side by a moving deformable barrier (MDB)
simulating another vehicle. A phase-in for these new requirements also
began on September 1, 1993.
The MDB specified in Standard No. 214's dynamic test procedure
weighs about 3,000 pounds, and it is 33 inches high (measured from the
ground to the top edge of the barrier face). Under the test procedure,
the front and rear wheels of the MDB are ``crabbed'' at an angle of 27
degrees. With the MDB face oriented at a right angle to the target car,
the MDB moves at an angle of 27 degrees and at a speed of 33.5 mph into
the side of the target car. These aspects of the procedure were
selected so that the test simulates the vehicle kinematics and crash
forces in the struck car in a real world side crash in which a vehicle
traveling at 30 mph perpendicularly strikes the side of a vehicle
traveling at 15 mph. The agency determined that the 30 mph/15 mph
combination represents the threshold speed of serious chest injury, and
that countermeasures designed for the 30 mph/15 mph condition are
likely to be effective in reducing chest injury potential over most of
the range of impact speeds encountered in side crashes.
Standard No. 214's dynamic test procedure includes placing
instrumented SIDs in the outboard front and rear seats on the struck
side of the target car. For the thorax, the performance limit is
expressed in terms of an injury criterion known as the Thoracic Trauma
Index (dummy) or TTI(d). This injury criterion represents the average
of peak acceleration values measured on the lower spine and the greater
of the acceleration values of the upper and lower ribs of the test
dummy. For the pelvis, the performance limit is specified in terms of
the peak acceleration measured on the pelvis of the test dummy.
IB. Statutory Requirements
This notice is being issued pursuant to the NHTSA Authorization Act
of 1991. Section 2503 of that Act requires the agency to address,
through rulemaking, the possible extension of Standard No. 214's
dynamic side impact protection requirements for passenger cars to MPVs
and trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle
weight of 5,500 pounds or less. These vehicles comprise a large
majority of LTVs. Under section 2502 of the Act, the rulemaking must be
conducted under the general provisions of the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act concerning safety standards.
Section 2502 required NHTSA to publish, by a specified date, either
an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) or an NPRM concerning
the extension of Standard No. 214's dynamic side impact requirements to
LTVs. In accordance with this requirement, on June 5, 1992, NHTSA
published in the Federal Register (57 FR 24009) an ANPRM on this
subject.
Section 2502 also provides that this rulemaking action must be
completed within 26 months of publishing the ANPRM. The rulemaking is
considered completed when NHTSA either promulgates a final rule or
decides not to promulgate a rule. In either case, the agency must
publish its decision in the Federal Register.
IC. The June 1992 ANPRM
In the June 1992 ANPRM, NHTSA estimated that the number of LTV
fatalities in side impact crashes will rise by about 11 percent between
1989 and the mid-1990's, with front seat fatalities totaling 1,683 to
1,753 annually, and rear seat fatalities totaling 58. The agency
indicated that approximately 16 percent of the fatalities are expected
to occur in heavy vehicle (GVWR above 10,000 pounds)-LTV side crashes,
39 percent in light vehicle (GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less)-LTV side
crashes, and 45 percent in single vehicle LTV crashes. For the multi-
vehicle side impacts, approximately 71 percent of the LTV fatalities
and 78 percent of serious injuries are caused by passenger cars and
LTVs, with LTVs being the dominant striking vehicles. A much smaller
percentage of passenger car fatalities and injuries is caused by
heavier vehicles in the light-duty vehicle fleet, in multi-vehicle side
impacts.
NHTSA explained that the possible extension of Standard No. 214's
dynamic requirements to LTVs would primarily address LTV occupant
fatalities and serious injuries which result from contacts between the
side interior of LTVs and the shoulder, chest, abdomen, back and pelvis
of an occupant. The agency estimated that by the mid-1990's, this
portion of the side impact problem will account for about 245 LTV
occupant fatalities and an additional 825 non-fatal serious injuries
(AIS-3 or greater) annually.
NHTSA stated that it believes that the same types of
countermeasures that reduce the probability of these types of thoracic
and pelvic injuries in passenger cars, i.e., the use of structural
modifications in combination with padding or the use of padding alone,
can provide safety benefits for LTVs. The agency also indicated its
belief that the approach used in Standard No. 214 for passenger cars of
requiring a vehicle to protect its occupants in a full-scale side
impact crash test, utilizing an MDB and instrumented test dummies, may
be appropriate for LTVs.
The agency emphasized, however, that the possible extension of
Standard No. 214's dynamic side impact requirements to LTVs presents
the issue of whether those requirements should be extended with or
without modification. Given the differences between passenger cars and
LTVs and their crash experiences, changes in the dynamic test procedure
might be desirable to make it more appropriate for LTVs. NHTSA
requested responses to a number of questions in the ANPRM, including
whether the weight and height of contact surface of the MDB for side
impact testing of passenger cars should be modified to be more
representative of the vehicles that cause injuries and fatalities in
LTVs.
NHTSA also noted that it had conducted two series of LTV side
impact tests similar to the dynamic Standard No. 214 passenger car
test. In the first test series, the agency tested seven LTVs using an
MDB that was modified to make it more representative of crash
conditions causing fatalities and serious injuries in light trucks. The
weight of the MDB was increased to 4,000 pounds, and the height of the
barrier face was raised between four and 10 inches. In the second test
series, NHTSA tested three small LTVs and a fourth vehicle
representative of a small LTV, using the current dynamic test
procedure, including the 3,000 pound MDB, specified in Standard No. 214
for passenger cars. (The fourth vehicle was a passenger car version of
a vehicle which was then marketed in a four-wheel drive version as an
LTV. The agency believes that both versions of the vehicle provide
similar side impact protection.) The agency noted that the data from
the two test series indicate that many current LTVs, especially heavier
ones, already meet the performance criteria specified for passenger
cars.
ID. Comments on the ANPRM
The three large domestic auto manufacturers were opposed to
extending Standard No. 214's dynamic requirements to LTVs. General
Motors (GM) stated that it is clear, from the examination of field
accident data, that LTVs offer side impact protection superior to that
of passenger cars. GM also argued that a dynamic side impact test for
LTVs would address a very small percentage of LTV occupant serious
injuries and an even smaller percentage of total passenger car and LTV
occupant harm. GM believed that side impact resources would be diverted
from passenger cars where they can be most productive to an area that
would result in little benefit to LTV occupants and society in general.
Ford stated that it strongly believes that the dynamic side impact
requirements should not be extended to LTVs. That company argued that
such an extension would not meet the need for motor vehicle safety.
Ford stated that real world traffic accident data show that LTV
occupants are safer than passenger car occupants (1.01 fatalities per
1000 crashes for LTVs compared to 2.05 fatalities per 1000 crashes for
passenger cars) for non-ejected, near-side occupants in vehicle-to-
vehicle side impacts. That company noted that NHTSA research has found
that the majority of LTVs tested to the passenger car dynamic side
impact procedure would pass the passenger car requirements, supporting
the field experience. Ford concluded that extending the dynamic side
impact requirements to LTVs would represent rulemaking without any
substantiated safety benefit. Ford also argued that the car test
procedures define a scenario that applies to less than one percent of
LTV fatalities, or about 0.2 percent of all motor vehicle occupant
fatalities. That company argued that the use of scarce engineering
resources to implement a rule with the potential to affect only about
0.2 percent of fatalities is not justified, even if proposed
countermeasures were 100 percent effective in every crash.
Chrysler stated that it does not believe that there is support for
the extension of the existing passenger car dynamic side impact
requirements to LTVs, much less for the alternative of a more stringent
test requirement. That company argued that NHTSA has failed to show
that there would be a significant safety benefit from applying a
dynamic side impact requirement to LTVs.
Mitsubishi also questioned the need for dynamic side impact
requirements for LTVs. It argued that: (1) These vehicles are generally
heavier and have higher sill structures which provide substantial side
impact protection, (2) many of the larger LTVs probably already comply
with such requirements without the need for any countermeasures, and
(3) the recent extension of quasi-static side door strength
requirements will provide improved side impact protection for LTVs.
Other vehicle manufacturers recommended that NHTSA extend Standard
No. 214's dynamic requirements for passenger cars to LTVs, but not
adopt more stringent requirements. Toyota stated it believes the
agency's regulations should require, when necessary and practical,
equal levels of safety performance regardless of vehicle category. That
company stated that while there are some LTVs whose construction allows
them to comply already with the passenger car requirements, this is not
true for all LTVs. According to Toyota, there are LTVs whose
construction is similar to that of passenger cars that do not now
comply with the passenger car requirements. Toyota stated that it
believes that the effectiveness of extending the passenger car
requirements to LTVs would be greater than the agency estimates. That
company stated, however, that if the agency were to adopt a more
stringent requirement for LTVs, e.g., by specifying a higher, heavier
MDB, it would impose an unreasonable burden on manufacturers. Toyota
also argued that if the agency were to adopt an LTV rule more stringent
than that applicable to passenger cars, those LTVs whose construction
is similar to passenger cars could be eliminated from the U.S. market.
Volkswagen stated that the dynamic side impact requirements should
be extended to LTV class vehicles under 10,000 pounds GVWR. That
company stated that the barrier was originally specified to represent
the stiffness of light trucks, and that it should therefore remain as
currently specified in Standard No. 214.
Nissan stated that it believes Standard No. 214's passenger car
dynamic test procedure can be applied to LTVs, and that there is no
need to establish a unique test procedure. That manufacturer stated
that data indicate that the incidence of LTVs being struck by passenger
cars is similar to the incidence of side impacts of passenger cars by
other passenger cars. It stated further that these incidence rates
indicate that the mass and dimensions of the MDB currently specified in
Standard No. 214 realistically represent the majority of the striking
vehicle population for both passenger cars and LTVs.
Two trade associations, the National Truck Equipment Association
(NTEA) and the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) expressed
concern about extending the applicability of Standard No. 214's dynamic
requirements in light of potential impacts on their members, which
include final stage manufacturers and alterers of certified vehicles.
NTEA stated that it is concerned that the small businesses which
produce work-related vehicles in multiple stages would not be able to
conduct the dynamic test which may be proposed. It requested that the
agency not propose extending the dynamic requirements to work-related
multi-stage produced vehicles which are not able to pass through an
incomplete vehicle manufacturer's certification or which cannot be
completed within the guidelines provided for completion by the
incomplete vehicle manufacturer. RVIA urged NHTSA to exclude motor
homes, van conversions and other altered vehicles and otherwise limit
the scope of the proposed requirements to those vehicle types that have
a poor side impact injury record.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) argued that
extension of Standard No. 214's dynamic test requirements to LTVs is an
obvious necessity after the decade-long growth of this vehicle class as
a means of daily private transportation. IIHS stated that it disagrees
strongly with the notion that there is no need to require that all
vehicles in the LTV class provide a minimum level of protection to
occupants if many vehicles in the class already provide that
protection. That organization stated that such partial availability
demonstrates that the proposed protection is feasible, practical, and
easily implemented, and that it should encourage, not discourage, the
extension of the test requirements to LTVs.
IIHS argued, however, that the ease with which LTVs are likely to
be able to meet the current requirements for cars does suggest that the
injury criteria should be different for them. That organization stated
that the agency had adopted the existing TTI(d) and pelvic g limits
because lower maximum accelerations might be difficult to achieve in
the car fleet. IIHS argued that while it does not accept the premise
that lower acceleration criteria are not achievable in passenger cars,
the agency's concern about passenger cars in this area is not relevant
to LTVs. IIHS urged the agency to adopt appropriate lower TTI(d) and
pelvic g limits for LTVs.
With respect to the height and weight of the MDB, IIHS stated that
it does not believe that the agency should specify different dynamic
test conditions for cars and LTVs at this time. That organization
stated that the goal of the current rulemaking should be to ensure that
all vehicles likely to be used as light-duty passenger vehicles,
whether cars or LTVs, meet a common, minimum standard of occupant
protection in the crashes to which such vehicles are likely to be
exposed. While IIHS stated that it does not believe that the test
barrier specifications for cars and LTVs should differ at this time, it
suggested that the current barrier (3,000 pounds) may be improperly
specified for both types of vehicles. That organization stated that
with increasing numbers of LTVs in the light vehicle fleet, many light
vehicles struck in the side will be struck by other light vehicles
weighing in excess of 3,000 pounds. IIHS stated that NHTSA should
consider increasing the weight of the MDB to make it more
representative of the vehicle fleet.
The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) stated that
it supports dynamic side impact requirements for LTVs. That
organization emphasized, however, that it is convinced that the agency
must (1) raise the bumper height of the LTV MDB face above 30 inches,
(2) raise the weight, and commensurate mass, of the LTV MDB to 5,000
pounds or more, and (3) increase the test speed of impacts above median
levels to represent more of a worst case impact of a LTV by larger,
heavier vehicles and some fixed objects. Advocates also argued that the
agency should adopt lower TTI(d) and pelvic g limits than it
established for cars, a quantified maximum intrusion standard, and
coordinate this rulemaking with ones on rollover, roof strength and
head injury.
II. Overview of Proposal
After considering the comments on the ANPRM and other available
information, NHTSA has decided to propose extending Standard No. 214's
dynamic side impact protection requirements to LTVs with a GVWR of
8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or
less. Given the differences between passenger cars and LTVs and their
crash experiences, the agency is proposing possible modifications in
the test procedure that would make it more representative of the crash
conditions causing fatalities and serious injuries in LTVs.
NHTSA is proposing two possible modifications: (1) Raising the
height of the MDB, and (2) increasing the weight of the MDB. The agency
is proposing to specify the MDB height within a range of 33 inches to
45 inches as measured from the ground to the top edge of the barrier
face. This would represent up to a 12-inch increase in MDB height as
compared to the height specified for passenger car testing.
Within the 33 inch to 45 inch proposed range, NHTSA is proposing
two alternative methods for specifying MDB height, one of which would
be selected by the agency for a final rule. Under the first method, the
MDB height would be raised to match the driver H-point of the tested
vehicle. Under the second method, the MDB height would be at the same
level for all LTVs, or at the same level for all LTV's within a
particular sub-group, e.g., pickups, vans and utility vehicles, with
different levels specified for different sub-groups. The agency is
proposing to specify the MDB's weight within a range of 3,000 pounds,
the current weight, and 3,800 pounds.
Under the proposal, LTVs, like passenger cars, would be required to
meet specified TTI(d) and pelvic acceleration limits. NHTSA is
proposing to specify a TTI(d) limit of 85 g and a pelvic acceleration
limit of 130 g. In considering a possible extension, NHTSA is
considering whether the requirements should apply to the front and rear
seats of these additional vehicles (as is the case for passenger cars),
or whether they should apply to the front seats only of these vehicles.
To provide manufacturers with sufficient leadtime to design their
LTVs to meet the proposed performance requirements, NHTSA is proposing
two compliance schedules, the choice of which would be at the option of
the manufacturer. Under the first schedule, the standard would be
phased-in in accordance with the following implementation schedule:
10 percent of all LTVs manufactured during the first full
production year (September 1 to August 31) beginning approximately two
years after the issuance of a final rule;
25 percent of all LTVs manufactured during the second full
year after that two-year period;
40 percent of all LTVs manufactured during the third full
year after that two-year period; and
100 percent of all LTVs manufactured on or after the
beginning of the fourth full year after that two-year period.
Under the second schedule, no compliance would be required during
the annual production period beginning approximately two years after
the issuance of a final rule, but full implementation would be required
beginning with the next production period.
The agency is proposing to exclude walk-in vans, motor homes, tow
trucks, dump trucks and ambulances, and is requesting comments on
whether to exclude other special types of vehicles from the dynamic
requirements. NHTSA is also proposing a phase-in exclusion for vehicles
manufactured in two or more stages and for altered vehicles.
III. The Safety Problem
NHTSA has separately analyzed the fatality and injury experience of
LTV occupants involved in side impact crashes. As discussed in the
Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) accompanying this NPRM, the
agency estimates that, by the mid-1990's, side impacts will result in
1763 fatalities for LTV occupants sitting in the front or second seat,
annually. Front seat occupants will account for 1705 of the fatalities,
with occupants of the second seat accounting for 58 fatalities.
Approximately 16 percent of the LTV side impact occupant fatalities are
expected to occur in heavy vehicle-LTV side crashes, 39 percent in
light vehicle-LTV side crashes, and 45 percent in single vehicle LTV
side crashes. (All of the figures in this paragraph and those in the
next several paragraphs take into account the safety benefits of side
door guard beams installed pursuant to the quasi-static requirements.)
Side impacts are also expected to account for about 6,000 serious
but non-fatal (AIS 3-5) injuries to occupants sitting in the front or
second seat, annually.
The extension of Standard No. 214's dynamic requirements to LTVs
would primarily address LTV occupant fatalities and serious injuries
which result from contacts between the side interior of LTVs and the
shoulder, chest, abdomen, back and pelvis of the occupants. NHTSA
estimates that by the mid-1990's, this portion of the side impact
problem will account for 245 LTV occupant fatalities and an additional
970 serious (AIS 3-5) injuries annually. All of the estimated
fatalities would result from thorax injuries. Of the 970 AIS 3-5
injuries, 857 would be thoracic injuries and 113 pelvic injuries.
Looking solely at multi-vehicle side impacts between LTVs and other
light vehicles, approximately 78 percent of the LTV fatal ``trunk''
injuries are caused by LTV's, and only 22 percent by passenger cars.
The agency notes that the fatality rate for occupants of LTVs in
side impact crashes is slightly less than half of that for occupants of
passenger cars. The LTV occupant side impact fatality rate per million
registered vehicles is 25.7, as compared to 53.3 for passenger cars.
The occupant fatality rates for various LTV categories are as follows:
Small pickups, 30.1; large pickups, 19.0; utility vehicles 16.0; small
vans, 19.3, and large vans, 9.7.
IV. Rulemaking Rationale
In multi-vehicle side impact crashes where fatalities and serious
injuries result from contacts between the occupant and the interior
side of the vehicle, the same basic chest injury causing dynamic event
occurs regardless of whether the occupant is in a passenger car or LTV.
The striking vehicle crushes the door of the target vehicle, from
outside to inside. The inside door panel of the struck vehicle moves
toward the occupant seated next to it, and strikes the occupant's
thorax. Depending on the structure of the struck vehicle, the velocity
of impact can be as high as the impact speed of the striking vehicle.
The occupant's thorax is rapidly deformed as a result of the impact,
resulting in injuries to the shoulder, chest, abdomen, back and/or
pelvis. A similar event occurs in single vehicle side impacts with
stationary objects, except that the injury mechanism is more likely to
be related to intrusion than door contact velocity, i.e., the
occupant's thorax is likely to experience more concentrated loading.
LTV occupants generally face a smaller risk of side impact thoracic
injury than passenger car occupants because seating differences between
LTVs and passenger cars make it less likely for the thoracic-injury-
producing dynamic event described above to occur for LTVs than for
passenger cars. LTV occupants typically sit several inches higher from
the ground than passenger car occupants. If a passenger car strikes
another passenger car in a side impact, the striking vehicle typically
pushes the inside door panel of the struck vehicle directly into the
thorax of an occupant sitting next to the door. However, if a passenger
car strikes an LTV in a side impact, the primary part of the side
structure that is pushed inward is more likely to be below the thorax
of an adjacent occupant, thereby resulting in smaller injury-producing
loads to the occupant's thorax. Further, the typically higher sill and
side structure of LTV's offers significant resistance such that smaller
crash loads are transmitted through the door structure to the occupant.
While the thoracic side impact problem is not so great for LTVs as
it is for passenger cars, it is nonetheless a significant problem which
merits attention. As indicated above, NHTSA estimates that by the mid-
1990's, this portion of the side impact problem will account for 245
LTV occupant fatalities and an additional 970 serious (AIS 3-5)
injuries annually. The bulk of these fatalities and serious injuries
occur in side impacts with LTVs, heavy vehicles, and fixed objects,
rather than in side impacts with passenger cars.
Given that the same basic dynamic event causes serious thoracic
injuries and fatalities to both passenger car and LTV occupants in side
impacts, i.e., medium to high velocity contact between the inside door
panel and the thorax of the occupant, NHTSA believes that the same
countermeasures developed for improved passenger car side impact
protection are also appropriate for LTVs. There are two basic options
to improve the side impact protection of a vehicle. It may be possible
to increase the stiffness of the side of the vehicle and thereby reduce
the velocity with which the vehicle side door interior strikes the
occupant. However, given the limited available area along the side of a
vehicle in which structure may be added and the enormous mass of a
striking vehicle, the ability to improve safety by this means may be
somewhat limited. The other available means of improving side impact
protection is to cushion the impact between the side of the vehicle and
the occupant, such as by adding padding to the side of the vehicle.
In the rulemaking establishing dynamic side impact requirements for
passenger cars, NHTSA determined that the risk of thoracic injury can
be substantially reduced by the addition of padding, or a combination
of padding and structure, to the side of a vehicle. For example, the
agency determined, for the driver seating position, that padding is
approximately 21 percent effective (i.e., padding reduces TTI(d) by 21
percent), that structure and padding is about 30 percent effective, and
that heavyweight structure and padding is 43 percent effective. As
discussed in that rulemaking, NHTSA expected manufacturers to meet the
dynamic side impact requirements for passenger cars primarily by adding
padding.
NHTSA believes that the addition of padding, or the addition of
padding and structure, can produce significant safety benefits for LTV
occupants in side impacts. The agency notes that it is intuitively
obvious that it is better for an occupant to be struck by a padded door
than the same door unpadded. In agency research, the addition of three
inches of padding in three LTV's reduced driver TTI(d) by 19.4, 28.6
and 35.0 percent. Pelvic g's were reduced by 24.5, 30.1 and 43.8
percent in the same vehicles.
Given the thoracic side impact problem that exists for LTV
occupants and the fact that this countermeasure is readily available,
NHTSA is currently not accepting the notion that it should decline to
establish dynamic side impact requirements for LTVs simply because the
type of dynamic event causing serious thoracic injuries to occupants of
struck vehicles occurs less frequently for LTVs than for passenger
cars.
The purpose of a dynamic side impact protection requirement is to
ensure that vehicles provide side impact protection to their occupants
in a simulated crash that is representative of a typical real-world
crash with serious-injury-causing potential. In its dynamic side impact
protection rulemaking for passenger cars, the agency developed an
appropriate test procedure and performance requirements for passenger
cars. In this rulemaking, NHTSA is addressing whether those
requirements should be extended to LTVs. Since this rulemaking is
based, in large part, on the passenger car rulemaking, the agency
encourages interested persons to examine the record for that
rulemaking.
As part of considering the possible extension of Standard No. 214's
dynamic side impact protection requirements to LTVs, the agency has
conducted several series of LTV dynamic side impact tests. The tests
employed the dynamic procedure specified by Standard No. 214 for
passenger cars, except that the height and mass of the MDB were varied.
As explained more fully in the PEA, NHTSA has tentatively
concluded, based on the results of these tests, that a simple extension
of Standard No. 214's dynamic side impact protection requirements to
LTVs would result in few, if any, safety benefits. Since the height and
weight of the MDB specified by Standard No. 214 are representative of
passenger cars, the test essentially replicates a crash in which a
passenger car is the striking vehicle. The tests confirm what is
already apparent from the real-world crash data: LTV occupants face a
very small risk of serious thoracic injury in side impacts by striking
passenger cars. As indicated above, this is largely because, given the
relatively high seating position of LTV occupants, if a passenger car
strikes an LTV in a side impact, the primary part of the side structure
of the LTV that is pushed inward is likely to be below the thorax of an
adjacent occupant.
It could be argued that, notwithstanding the lack of benefits that
would result from a simple extension of Standard No. 214's dynamic
requirements to LTVs, NHTSA should adopt that approach to ensure that
all light vehicles provide the same minimum level of side impact
protection to their occupants. It could also be argued that such an
approach would be appropriate because passenger cars and LTV's are
operated in the same traffic environment. However, a significant
concern about such a regulatory approach, particularly in the context
of a requirement incorporating a full-scale dynamic test, is that it
would result in significant compliance costs without concomitant
benefits. Moreover, such an approach would leave unaddressed the risk
of thoracic injury that LTV occupants do face in side impacts with
vehicles other than passenger cars.
A second regulatory approach would be to develop a test procedure
that simulates the crash conditions that produce serious thoracic
injuries in the real world. In developing Federal motor vehicle safety
standards, NHTSA focuses on reducing the number of serious injuries and
fatalities that are occurring in the real world. The agency has
tentatively concluded that this approach is appropriate with respect to
dynamic side impact protection requirements for LTVs. However, comments
are invited on both regulatory approaches.
V. Proposal
The agency has decided to propose extending Standard No. 214's
dynamic side impact protection requirements to LTVs, with possible
modifications in the test procedure to make it more representative of a
typical real-world crash with serious-injury-causing potential to LTV
occupants. The agency is considering two possible modifications: (1)
Raising the height of the MDB, and (2) increasing the mass of the MDB.
In considering a possible extension, NHTSA is considering whether the
requirements should apply to the front and rear seats of these
additional vehicles (as is the case for passenger cars), or whether
they should apply to the front seats only of these vehicles.
VA. Possible Test Procedure Modifications
NHTSA tentatively concludes that the height of the MDB should be
increased because use of this test device with its current height would
not create a dynamic event that is representative of the ones likely to
cause serious chest injuries to LTV occupants in real world crashes. In
particular, with the MDB at a height which is representative of a
passenger car, the primary part of the side structure of the LTV that
is pushed inward is below the thorax of the adjacent LTV occupant.
However, in real world side impact crashes in which LTV occupants are
likely to experience serious chest injuries, the side structure of the
LTV is typically pushed inward at a height near that of the occupant's
thorax. This typically occurs as a result of the LTV being struck in
the side by a vehicle other than a passenger car. Vehicles other than
passenger cars are, of course, typically higher than passenger cars.
There are a number of possible approaches to determining how much
to raise the height of the MDB, assuming that it needs to be raised.
One approach is to focus on the struck vehicle. The agency notes that,
unlike passenger cars for which vehicle and seating height are very
similar, the height of LTVs and LTV seating positions vary
considerably. Since the primary relevant safety problem is an impact in
which the side structure of the vehicle directly adjacent to an
occupant is pushed inward at the height of the thorax of the occupant,
the height of the MDB could be based on the H-point of the struck
vehicle. This approach would ensure that LTVs provide thoracic side
impact protection when they are struck in the side by another LTV of a
height that pushes the side door structure inward toward adjacent
occupants.
Another approach is to focus on striking vehicles. The agency notes
that the two types of striking vehicles that are most likely to cause
severe chest injuries in side impacts are standard pickups and compact
pickups. These vehicles cause 26 percent and 16 percent of all such
injuries, respectively. Thus, MDB height could be based on the heights
of the front ends of these vehicles, which are considerably higher than
passenger cars.
NHTSA notes that since the heights of the front ends of LTVs and
even of pickup trucks vary, specifying a single height that is equally
representative of all LTVs does not appear to be possible. The agency
also notes that specifying a single height could raise practicability
concerns, depending on the height selected. In addition to being
concerned that a test procedure simulates conditions representative of
real world crashes, the agency must also ensure that its safety
standards are practicable. One concern about a test procedure that
specifies a single MDB height that is representative of large pickup
trucks is whether a requirement based on that procedure is practicable
for compact LTVs that have much lower seating heights than the front
end heights of large pickup trucks.
NHTSA is proposing to specify an MDB height within a range of 33
inches to 45 inches as measured from the ground to the top edge of the
barrier face. By way of comparison, the MDB height for passenger car
testing is 33 inches.
Within the proposed range, the agency is proposing two alternative
methods for specifying MDB height, one of which would be selected by
the agency for a final rule. Under the first method, the MDB height
might be raised, as compared to the current height for passenger car
testing, to match the driver H-point of the tested LTV (or possibly the
front passenger H-point for testing the side of the vehicle away from
the driver).
One example of such an approach would be to raise the barrier
height by the amount that the H-point height of the tested vehicle
exceeds 21 inches. Barrier heights would be raised in one-inch
increments up to a maximum of 12 inches. A maximum would be established
to ensure that the barrier face top edge would not be above the window
of the struck vehicle.
Another example, which uses driver H-point ranges for setting
barrier height, would be as follows. For driver H-points 25 inches or
lower, the MDB height would be raised four inches. For driver H-points
higher than 25 inches but lower than 29 inches, the MDB height would be
raised seven inches. For driver H-points at least 29 inches high but
lower than 31 inches, the MDB height would be raised nine inches. For
driver H-points 31 inches or higher, the MDB would be raised 11 inches.
Under the second method, the MDB height would be raised either to
the same level for all LTV's, or to the same level for all LTV's within
a particular sub-group, e.g., pickups, vans and utility vehicles, with
different levels specified for different subgroups. The level could
correspond to the average H-point height of the LTV population as a
whole or to the average H-point height of each LTV sub-group.
NHTSA requests comments on these approaches, and on the appropriate
vehicle groupings and MDB heights to select under such approaches.
If the agency adopts a methodology in which the MDB height is based
on the height of the driver H-point of the tested vehicle, it would be
necessary to specify a method for determining that H-point. The agency
would contemplate adopting, for purposes of a final rule, an approach
based on procedures specified in S4, H-Point Machine, of SAE Standard
J826 (May 1987), Devices for Use in Defining and Measuring Vehicle
Seating Accommodation. NHTSA requests comments on such an approach.
In addition to proposing to raise the height of the MDB for LTV
testing, the agency is also considering increasing its weight. NHTSA
derived the weight of the current barrier from the median curb weight
of passenger cars (3,181 pounds in 1989) and light trucks (3,958 pounds
in 1989). This resulted in a weighted average of 3,423 pounds, which
was adjusted downward to account for the then-projected lower weight of
vehicles in the 1990's. Based on these considerations, NHTSA derived a
barrier weight of 3,000 pounds. Since the late 1980's, however, the
sales weighted average curb weight of the passenger car and LTV fleet
has been increasing, and is now about 3,310 pounds. The average curb
weight of passenger cars is now 2,970 pounds, and the average curb
weight of LTVs is about 3,900 pounds. The above weights were derived
from the sales weighted EPA test weight for 1993 passenger cars and
LTV's, minus 300 pounds.
The agency is proposing to specify the MDB's weight within a range
of 3,000 pounds to 3,800 pounds. The lower end of the range is the
current weight of the MDB, as specified by Standard No. 214 for
passenger car testing. The upper end of the range is based on the
average weight of striking vehicles in LTV crashes where an LTV
occupant had an AIS 3 torso injury, as observed in 1988-91
NASS data. NHTSA is not proposing an MDB weight above 3,800 pounds
because of concerns about practicability. In particular, the agency
believes that as MDB weight is increased much above 3,600 pounds, there
are increasing concerns about the feasibility of smaller LTV's meeting
the dynamic test requirements with such a barrier.
Although NHTSA is proposing alternative approaches for specifying
MDB height and weight, it believes it is desirable, to facilitate more
focused comments, to specifically request comments on certain options,
considering the pros and cons of those options.
There are several possible advantages in specifying a single height
and weight for the barrier. Specification of a single height and a
single weight would result in a simpler test procedure. For example,
there would be no need to determine the precise H-point height or to
adjust the height and weight of the MDB for testing different vehicles.
The agency believes that the combination of raising the MDB to a
height in the middle portion of the proposed range, e.g., seven to nine
inches above the passenger car barrier height, and increasing its
weight to 3600 pounds would be sufficient to create a dynamic event
that is representative of the ones likely to cause serious chest
injuries to occupants in the most vulnerable LTVs in real world
crashes. In particular, the MDB with that combination of height/weight
would, in a dynamic test, push the side structure of the vast majority
of LTV's inward at a level near that of the occupant's thorax.
In addition, assuming that a single height and a single weight were
selected, the agency is concerned that raising the MDB height to a
level above the middle portion of the proposed range and/or increasing
its weight above 3600 pounds could raise practicability problems for
compact LTV's whose H-points are typically only a few inches higher
than passenger cars.
One possible concern about specifying a single height would be
whether some manufacturers might raise occupant seating height to more
easily meet the requirements. Moving the seat too high could increase
the vehicle's propensity to rollover.
Other possible options are to specify the height of the MDB to
match the H-point of the test vehicle individually or select a setting
that would best match the H-point heights of a group of vehicles
belonging to a particular type. Specifying the height of the MDB to
match the H-point height would result in a test that is similar to that
for passenger cars in that the impact of the barrier relative to the
occupant's position would be similar. Manufacturers could not avoid the
need to add padding simply by raising seating height.
While this would simulate an accident severity that is likely to be
experienced by an occupant in that vehicle for thoracic injuries, there
may be practical difficulties encountered in conducting side impact
tests in that manner. When the MDB height is set to match the H-point
of the test vehicle, structurally identical models with different
suspension systems that cause changes in H-point heights, would be
tested at different severities, resulting in the possibility of
requiring different countermeasures for what is essentially the same
vehicle. Also, the added step of determining H-point height could
introduce variability in test results.
The agency seeks comments on the proposal for a single height and
for multiple height settings for the MDB in LTV testing.
The increases in MDB height and weight are the primary test
procedure changes that NHTSA believes may be needed in extending
Standard No. 214's dynamic requirements to LTV's. The agency does not
believe that any changes are needed in the speed or angle of the MDB,
and believes that only minor adjustments may be necessary with respect
to point of impact.
The specified point of impact for passenger cars is generally 37
inches forward of the center line of the wheelbase of the struck
vehicle. However, for cars with wheelbases greater than 114 inches, the
point of impact is 20 inches behind the front axle. This ensures that
the impact point for cars with very long wheelbases is not so far
toward the rear of the car that the front seat dummy does not
experience a full impact. The agency is proposing, with one exception,
the same impact point for LTVs. To ensure that the impact point is not
too far forward for LTVs with very short wheelbases, the agency is
proposing that for LTVs with wheelbases of 98 inches or less, the
impact point would be 12 inches rearward of vehicle's front axle
centerline. This would ensure that the MDB would not likely bridge
across the front and rear axles in short wheelbase LTVs.
NHTSA notes that GM expressed concern that specification of impact
point based on wheelbase could result in the possibility of having to
impact two structurally identical LTV's at two different locations.
This is because manufacturers sometimes offer the same LTV with several
different wheelbases. The agency requests comments on whether the
specified impact point should be adjusted to eliminate this
possibility. For example, should the agency either specify impact point
based on driver H-point instead of wheelbase or provide a manufacturer
option in this area?
The agency also requests comments on whether any other changes
should be made in any part of Standard No. 214's dynamic test
procedure, in order to make it appropriate for LTV's.
The proposed changes in the regulatory text of Standard No. 214 are
set forth at the end of this notice. NHTSA notes that the
specifications for the side impact MDB are set forth in part 587. While
the agency is not setting forth specific changes to part 587, it would,
for purposes of a final rule, specify any necessary changes to reflect
the possibly higher, heavier MDB for LTV testing.
NHTSA notes that the weight of the MDB is adjustable by means of
removable ballast plates located over the rear axle and directly
rearward of the front axle of the carriage (See Figure 2 of Standard
No. 214). The weights are placed such that the weight distribution
front-to-rear remains as close to the weight distribution in the
standard 3000 pound barrier as possible.
The agency notes that the barrier face is vertically adjustable
using the hole patterns on the standard passenger car MDB carriage
front. The hole patterns currently permit the barrier to be raised 4.0
inches, 7.25 inches, 9.25 inches, and 11.25 inches above the standard
passenger car barrier height of 33 inches. (See NHTSA Side Impact
Moving Deformable Barrier Drawing No. DSL-1281, page 5.)
Depending on the height specification that might be adopted in a
final rule, there could be a need to modify the positions of the holes
on the frame. There may also be a need to extend the height of the
frame to provide adequate support for the raised barrier plate. The
agency has conducted its research tests using a barrier modified in
this way.
The agency would also, for purposes of a final rule, make any
necessary conforming changes to Figure 2 of Standard No. 214. This
figure shows the side impact MDB.
VB. Performance Requirements
Standard No. 214 specifies TTI(d) limits of 85 g for 4-door cars
and 90 g for 2-door cars. The standard specifies a pelvic acceleration
limit of 130 g for all cars. NHTSA is proposing to specify a TTI(d)
limit of 85 g, the same limit as applies to 4-door passenger cars, and
a pelvic acceleration limit of 130 g, the same level as applies to all
passenger cars.
While some commenters suggested that LTVs might be able to meet
even more stringent TTI(d) and pelvic acceleration limits than cars,
the agency notes that safety standards are not based on the criterion
of maximum feasible safety. The agency believes that TTI(d) and pelvic
acceleration limits of 85 g and 130 g, respectively, will make a
significant contribution to improve side impact protection for LTVs.
This is particularly true given the fact that the agency is considering
adjusting the passenger car test procedure, making it more stringent in
the case of LTVs, so that it better reflects the types of crashes that
result in serious injuries to LTV occupants.
NHTSA notes that, in establishing a slightly higher TTI(d) limit of
90 g for 2-door passenger cars, it explained that it is generally more
difficult for manufacturers to achieve lower TTI(d) for two-door cars
than four-door cars, given that the door on a two-door model is
typically wider than on a four-door model. The reason two-door cars
usually have wider doors is to provide occupant access to the rear
seat. Two-door LTV's do not typically have wider doors, since the front
doors do not provide occupant access to a rear seat. Moreover, many
LTVs generally have stiffer side structures than small and medium
passenger cars, especially those LTV's equipped with side door beams.
Therefore, the agency believes that the 85 g limit can be specified for
all LTV's. NHTSA requests comment on this issue.
VC. Rear Seat Requirements
As part of considering an extension of Standard No. 214's dynamic
side impact requirements to LTVs, NHTSA is considering whether the
requirements should apply to the front and rear seats of these
additional vehicles (as is the case for passenger cars), or whether
they should apply to the front seats only of these vehicles.
On the subject of whether the requirements should apply to the rear
seats of LTVs, NHTSA wishes to call attention to the cost assessment in
the PEA for this proposal which raises concerns about the cost
effectiveness of requiring the second row of seats in LTVs to meet
these proposed requirements. For instance, Tables VIII-6 and VIII-7 of
the PEA show the ``costs per equivalent life saved'' from covering the
second row of seats are up to 43 times greater than the costs per
equivalent life saved from covering the front seats. These additional
costs would be incurred to achieve much lesser benefits. NHTSA
estimates that only 4 to 15 percent of all potential benefits would
accrue to occupants of rear seats. However, the costs to cover the rear
seats range from 23 percent to as high as 74 percent of the total cost
of this rulemaking, depending on the option.
The agency is very interested in public comments addressing
whether, in view of these cost-effectiveness estimates, second seats in
LTVs should be covered by these requirements. In addition, the agency
is interested in knowing what provision light truck manufacturers would
make for rear-seat occupants if the final rule were limited to the
front seats.
The agency notes that the occupants of second seats are very often
children, especially in minivans, which constitute the majority of LTVs
with more than one row of seats. Thus, a decision to apply the dynamic
side impact requirements to second seats would ensure that children
riding in these seating positions in vehicles designed and sold for
family transportation are afforded the same level of protection offered
to adults in the front seats.1 NHTSA notes that while the
regulatory text set forth in this document does not apply the dynamic
side impact requirements to the second seats of LTVs, the agency may,
depending on the comments, apply the requirements to second seats in a
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\NHTSA's analysis (PEA, pp. V-25 and V-26) indicates that,
depending on the alternative, application of the requirements to
second seats would prevent an additional 4 to 6 fatalities and 7 to
14 serious injuries annually. About \1/3\ of these benefits would
accrue to children under the age of 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA notes that many LTVs have an aisle between one of the rear
outboard seating positions and the side of the vehicle. The agency does
not believe there would be any reason to apply the proposed
requirements to such seating positions, since they are far enough away
from the side of the vehicle that occupants are not likely to
experience thoracic injuries in a side impact. Therefore, if NHTSA were
to cover rear outboard seating positions where the outermost edge of
the rear seat cushion is more than 10 inches away from the interior
surface of the side door or wall.
VI. Vehicles Covered by Proposal
As indicated above, the NHTSA Authorization Act of 1991 required
the agency to address, through rulemaking, the possible extension of
Standard No. 214's dynamic side impact requirements for passenger cars
to MPVs and trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less. The agency has considered
whether the requirements should also be applied to vehicles with a GVWR
greater than 8,500 pounds but less than 10,000 pounds, as well as
whether some vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less should be excluded.
Based on its test series, NHTSA believes that larger, heavier LTVs
already meet the proposed dynamic requirements, even with the higher,
heavier MDB. Therefore, the agency believes there is no reason to apply
the requirements to LTVs with a GVWR above 8,500 pounds.
The agency believes that it may be appropriate to exclude some LTVs
with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of
5,500 pounds or less. NHTSA is proposing to exclude motor homes, walk-
in vans, tow trucks, dump trucks, ambulances, and vehicles which have
no doors or exclusively have doors that are designed to be easily
attached or removed so the vehicle can be operated without doors.
Many motor homes, walk-in vans, tow trucks, dump trucks and
ambulances would already be excluded from the proposed requirements
because they have a GVWR greater than 8,500 pounds. Moreover, most that
are not excluded would likely already meet the proposed requirements
since they would still tend to be among the larger, heavier LTV's.
NHTSA is proposing to exclude these categories of vehicles because of
the combination of two factors: (1) The likelihood that they already
comply with the proposed requirements, and (2) many vehicles within
these categories tend to have unusual side structures and are often
produced in small volumes, making it potentially very expensive, on a
per vehicle basis, to confirm compliance for purposes of certification.
The agency is proposing to exclude vehicles which have no doors, or
exclusively have doors that are designed to be easily attached or
removed so the vehicle can be operated without doors, because it would
be impracticable for such vehicles to meet the proposed requirements.
There is a specialized class of small businesses involved in the
final stage manufacture of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages,
and/or in the conversion or alteration of new vehicles. In several
recent rulemakings, including those extending Standard No. 214's quasi-
static side door strength requirements and Standard No. 208's automatic
crash protection requirements to LTVs, NHTSA has addressed at length
the issue of compliance by these ``final-stage manufacturers.''
The agency believes that the extension of Standard No. 214's
dynamic requirements to LTVs raises the same basic issues concerning
final stage manufacturers as the earlier rulemakings on Standards No.
214 and No. 208. NHTSA has tentatively concluded that the proposed
requirements would not pose an unreasonable burden on final stage
manufacturers, since they have the same means for certifying compliance
as they do for Standard No. 208's automatic crash protection
requirements and Standard No. 214's quasi-static side door strength
requirements.
In many cases, final stage manufacturers can certify compliance
simply by staying with limits set by the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer. Some final stage manufacturers build their own vehicle
body structures. However, these manufacturers are generally larger than
most final stage manufacturers, and have greater engineering and
testing expertise. Final stage manufacturers can also band together to
sponsor testing and/or engineering analysis.
For a full discussion of these issues, see 56 FR 12472, 12477-80,
March 26, 1991 (final rule extending Standard No. 208's automatic
protection requirements to LTVs); 57 FR 26609, 26612-17, June 15, 1992
(response to petitions for reconsideration of extension of Standard No.
208's automatic protection requirements to LTVs); 56 FR 27427, 27435-
36, June 14, 1991 (final rule extending Standard No. 214's quasi-static
side door strength requirements to LTVs); 58 FR 19628-31, April 15,
1993 (response to petition concerning the extension of Standard No.
214's quasi-static side door strength requirements to LTVs).
NHTSA requests comments on the proposed exclusions discussed above
and on whether any other LTVs should be excluded. NHTSA notes that
buses within the specified weight limits are covered by the proposal.
Some vans are classified as buses. While most such vans have a GVWR
above 8,500 pounds, there may be some smaller ones with a lower GVWR.
The agency is aware that some small buses have an unusual side
structure, in that the passenger portion of the bus is wider than the
portion which includes the driver seat. NHTSA specifically requests
comments on whether any such buses have a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less
and, if so, whether the proposed test procedure would be appropriate
for vehicles with that type of side structure. NHTSA also specifically
requests comments on the ability of manufacturers of LTVs designed to
be driven by persons with disabilities to comply with the proposed
requirements.
VII. Benefits
NHTSA's analysis of benefits is presented in the PEA. As discussed
in that document, estimated benefits would vary depending on the
barrier weight and height specified in a final rule. All LTV's are
believed to meet the proposed requirements using the barrier specified
by Standard No. 214 for passenger car testing. Thus, benefits would be
negligible for that option. The benefits would increase as barrier
weight and height increase.
The PEA provides estimates of benefits for six different barrier
height alternatives, with the barrier weight at 3,000 and 3,600 pounds.
The height of the barrier varies between 35 inches and 45 inches for
these alternatives. The estimates of benefits cited below reflect those
alternatives.
If the dynamic side impact requirements were extended to the front
seat only, with a barrier weight of 3,000 pounds, the agency estimates
that there would be 1 to 63 fewer fatalities and 13 to 287 fewer AIS 2-
5 injuries annually, depending on the height of the barrier. With a
barrier weight of 3,600 pounds, NHTSA estimates that there would be 32
to 116 fewer fatalities and 122 to 472 fewer AIS 2-5 injuries annually,
depending on the height of the barrier.
If the requirements were extended to the front and rear seats, with
a barrier weight of 3,000 pounds, the agency estimates that there would
be 5 to 69 fewer fatalities and 20 to 301 fewer AIS 2-5 injuries
annually. With a barrier weight of 3,600 pounds, NHTSA estimates that
there would be 36 to 122 fewer fatalities and 129 to 486 fewer AIS 2-5
injuries annually.
As discussed in the PEA, there are a number of assumptions
underlying these estimates, including the assumption that 12 light
truck make/models for which the agency has test data are representative
of vehicles in their body style/size class. Another assumption is that
either padding or a combination of padding and structure would be
employed as countermeasures.
VIII. Costs
The PEA also presents the agency's analysis of costs. As with
benefits, estimated costs would vary depending on the barrier weight
and height specified in a final rule. Since all LTV's are believed to
meet the proposed requirements using the barrier specified by Standard
No. 214 for passenger car testing, vehicle costs would be negligible
for that option. However, there would be testing costs.
Costs would increase as barrier weight and height increase. The PEA
provides estimates of costs for the same barrier height/weight
alternatives as for benefits. The estimates of costs cited below
reflect those alternatives.
While some LTVs already meet the proposed requirements and would
not require any changes, NHTSA believes that all other LTVs could be
brought into compliance either by the addition of three inches or less
of padding to the door or side of the vehicle adjacent to each outboard
occupant's thorax, or by the addition of a combination of padding and
structure.
If the dynamic side impact requirements were extended to the front
seat only and assuming that the appropriate countermeasures were added
to those vehicles requiring changes, NHTSA estimates the average cost
per LTV of adding the countermeasure to be $5.55 to $37.07, depending
on the weight and height specified for the barrier. (The average cost
per LTV is based on the costs for all LTVs, including those which would
not require the addition of countermeasures.) The addition of the
lifetime fuel costs of carrying the extra weight of the padding/
structure increases the average cost per LTV to $7.91 to $65.90.
Another possible cost relates to secondary weight, i.e., weight
increases in other parts of the vehicle which might be made to
compensate for the additional weight of the padding/structure. With the
addition of secondary weight and the lifetime fuel costs of carrying
the secondary weight, the average cost per LTV would be $10.47 to
$97.22.
If the proposed requirements were extended to the front and rear
seats, NHTSA estimates the average cost per LTV of adding the
countermeasure to be $7.33 to $55.18. The addition of the lifetime fuel
costs of carrying the extra weight of the padding/structure increases
the cost per LTV to $10.59 to $98.69. With the addition of secondary
weight and the lifetime fuel costs of carrying the secondary weight,
the average cost per LTV would be $14.13 to $145.96.
As with its estimates of benefits, NHTSA's costs estimates are
based on a number of assumptions which are discussed in the PEA.
IX. Leadtime/Phase-In
NHTSA believes that the extension of the dynamic side impact
requirements to LTVs would require a similar leadtime to that provided
for passenger cars, since the countermeasures and testing needs are the
same. The agency is therefore proposing to establish the same phase-in
options as it provided for passenger cars.
More specifically, to provide manufacturers with sufficient
leadtime to design their LTVs to meet the proposed performance
requirements, NHTSA is proposing two compliance schedules, the choice
of which would be at the option of the manufacturer. Under the first
schedule, the standard would be phased-in in accordance with the
following implementation schedule:
10 percent of all LTVs manufactured during the first full production
year (September 1 to August 31) beginning approximately two years after
the issuance of a final rule;
25 percent of all LTVs manufactured during the second full year after
that two-year period;
40 percent of all LTVs manufactured during the third full year after
that two-year period; and
100 percent of all LTVs manufactured on or after the beginning of the
fourth full year after that two-year period.
Under the second schedule, no compliance would be required during
the production period beginning approximately two years after the
issuance of a final rule, but full implementation would be required
beginning with the next production period.
X. Reporting Requirements
Whenever the agency specifies a phase-in of some performance
requirement, it is necessary for enforcement of that phase-in to
require manufacturers to report, at the end of each production period
during the phase-in, its total production of vehicles and the number of
such vehicles that are certified as complying with the relevant
performance requirement. While the agency is not setting forth specific
regulatory text concerning reporting in this NPRM, it would, for
purposes of a final rule, establish essentially the same side impact
reporting requirements for LTV manufacturers as it established in part
586 for passenger car manufacturers.
XI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the costs and other impacts that would be
associated with this proposal if it were adopted as a final rule. This
rulemaking document was reviewed under Executive Order 12866,
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This rulemaking action is
considered significant under that executive order and the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures because it could have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The agency's analysis of
costs and benefits is presented in the Preliminary Economic Assessment,
which is being placed in the docket. A summary of costs and benefits is
presented earlier in this notice.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has also considered the effects of this regulatory action
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that it would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, the agency has not prepared a preliminary
regulatory flexibility analysis.
The primary cost effect of the proposed requirements would be on
incomplete vehicle manufacturers, which are not small entities.
Although many final stage manufacturers are small businesses, NHTSA
estimates that the vast majority of those businesses would not be
significantly affected by the proposed requirements. Final stage
manufacturers would have the same means for certifying compliance as
they do for Standard No. 208's automatic crash protection requirements
and Standard No. 214's quasi-static side door strength requirements. In
many cases, final stage manufacturers can certify compliance simply by
staying with limits set by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. Some
final stage manufacturers build their own vehicle body structures.
However, these manufacturers are generally larger than most final stage
manufacturers, and have greater engineering and testing expertise.
Final stage manufacturers can also band together to sponsor testing
and/or engineering analysis.
Small organizations and governmental units should not be
significantly affected since the potential cost impacts associated with
this proposed action should only slightly affect the purchase price of
new motor vehicles.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The addition of padding and structure would
result in increased material usage by manufacturers, primarily plastic
and metal. There could also be increased material usage associated with
possible secondary weight. The agency estimates that LTVs could
increase in average curb weight by 0.07 percent to 1.25 percent. Such
added weight would result in a very slight increase in fuel
consumption. After considering these impacts, the agency has determined
that implementation of this action would not have any significant
impact on the quality of the human environment.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
The agency has analyzed this proposal in accordance with the
principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 12612. NHTSA has
determined that this proposal does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with this
proposed rule are being submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget for approval in accordance with 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 under OMB
No.: 2127-0558; ADMINISTRATION: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration; TITLE: Production Reporting System for Side Impact
Protection Compliance (49 CFR part 586); NEED FOR INFORMATION: To
assess compliance with dynamic side impact protection phase-in
requirements; PROPOSED USE OF INFORMATION: To determine if
manufacturers are complying with the dynamic side impact protection
phase-in schedule; FREQUENCY: Annually; BURDEN ESTIMATE: 384 hours;
RESPONDENTS: 16; FORM(S): None; AVERAGE BURDEN HOURS FOR RESPONDENT: 24
hours.
For further information contact: The Information Requirements Division,
M-34, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-4735, or Edward Clarke, Office of
Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, room 3228,
Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395-7340.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under
section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
(Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), whenever a Federal motor vehicle
safety standard is in effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a
safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is
not identical to the Federal standard, except to the extent that the
State requirement imposes a higher level of performance and applies
only to vehicles procured for the State's use. Section 105 of the
Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1394) sets forth a procedure for judicial review
of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor vehicle
safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.
XII. Submission of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal.
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. 49 CFR part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal
will be available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue
to file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket
after the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons
continue to examine the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber
products, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 would be amended
as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.214 would be amended by revising S2, adding S3(f)
through S3(h), revising S5.1, S6.1, S6.11, and S7, and adding S8.5
through S8.9.3, to read as follows:
Sec. 571.214 Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection.
* * * * *
S2. This standard applies to passenger cars. Effective September 1,
1993, sections S3(a), S3(e), S3.1 through S3.2.3, and S4 of the
standard apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses
with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, except for walk-in vans.
Effective September 1, 1996, sections S3(f) through S3(h) and S5 of the
standard apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses
with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of
5,500 pounds or less, except for walk-in vans, motor homes, tow trucks,
dump trucks, ambulances, and vehicles which have no doors or
exclusively have doors that are designed to be easily attached or
removed so the vehicle can be operated without doors.
* * * * *
S3* * *
(f) When tested according to the conditions of S6, each
multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck and bus manufactured on or after
September 1, 1999 shall meet the requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3
in a 33.5 miles per hour impact in which the vehicle is struck on
either side by a moving deformable barrier. A part 572, subpart F test
dummy is placed in the front outboard seating position on the struck
side of the vehicle.
(g) Except as provided in paragraph (h) of this section, from
September 1, 1996 to August 31, 1999, a specified percentage of each
manufacturer's combined yearly production of multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less, as set forth in S8,
shall, when tested under the conditions of S6, meet the requirements of
S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 in a 33.5 miles per hour impact in which the
vehicle is struck on either side by a moving deformable barrier. A part
572, subpart F test dummy is placed in the front outboard seating
position on the struck side of the vehicle.
(h) A manufacturer may, at its option, comply with the requirements
of this paragraph instead of paragraph (g) of this section. When tested
under the conditions of S6, each multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck
and bus with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle
weight of 5,500 pounds or less manufactured from September 1, 1997 to
August 31, 1999 shall meet the requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 in
a 33.5 miles per hour impact in which the vehicle is struck on either
side by a moving deformable barrier. A part 572, subpart F test dummy
is placed in the front outboard seating position on the struck side of
the vehicle.
* * * * *
S5.1 Thorax. The Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI(d)) shall not exceed
85 g for passenger cars with four side doors, shall not exceed 90 g for
passenger cars with two side doors, and shall not exceed 85 g for
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses, when calculated in
accordance with the following formula:
TTI(d)=1/2 (GR+GLS)
The term ``GR'' is the greater of the peak accelerations of
either the upper or lower rib, expressed in g's and the term
``GLS'' is the lower spine (T12) peak acceleration, expressed in
g's. The peak acceleration values are obtained in accordance with the
procedure specified in S6.13.5.
* * * * *
S6.1 Test weight. Each vehicle is loaded to its unloaded vehicle
weight, plus 300 pounds or its rated cargo and luggage capacity
(whichever is less), secured in the luggage or load-carrying area, plus
the weight of the necessary anthropomorphic test dummies. Any added
test equipment is located away from impact areas in secure places in
the vehicle. The vehicle's fuel system is filled in accordance with the
following procedure. With the test vehicle on a level surface, pump the
fuel from the vehicle's fuel tank and then operate the engine until it
stops. Then, add Stoddard solvent to the test vehicle's fuel tank in an
amount which is equal to not less than 92 percent and not more than 94
percent of the fuel tank's usable capacity stated by the vehicle's
manufacturer. In addition, add the amount of Stoddard solvent needed to
fill the entire fuel system from the fuel tank through the engine's
induction system.
* * * * *
S6.11 Impact reference line. For passenger cars with a wheelbase
of 114 inches or less and for other vehicles with a wheel base of
greater than 98 inches but not greater than 114 inches, on the side of
the vehicle that will be struck by the moving deformable barrier, place
a vertical reference line which is 37 inches forward of the center of
the vehicle's wheelbase. For vehicles with a wheelbase greater than 114
inches, on the side of the vehicle that will be struck by the moving
deformable barrier, place a vertical reference line which is 20 inches
rearward of the centerline of the vehicle's front axle. For vehicles
other than passenger cars, with a wheelbase of 98 inches or less, on
the side of the vehicle that will be struck by the moving deformable
barrier, place a vertical reference line, which is 12 inches rearward
of the centerline of the vehicle's front axle.
* * * * *
S7 Positioning procedure for the Part 572 Subpart F Test Dummy.
Position a correctly configured test dummy, conforming to subpart F of
part 572 of this chapter, in the front outboard seating position on the
side of the test vehicle to be struck by the moving deformable barrier
and, if the vehicle is a passenger car, position another conforming
test dummy in the rear outboard position on the same side of the
vehicle, as specified in S7.1 through S7.4. Each test dummy is
restrained using all available belt systems in all seating positions
where such belt restraints are provided. In addition, any folding
armrest is retracted.
* * * * *
S8.5 Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses
manufactured on or after September 1, 1996 and before September 1,
1997.
S8.5.1 The combined number of multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less complying with the requirements
of S3(g) shall be not less than 10 percent of:
(a) the average annual production of multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less manufactured on or
after September 1, 1993, and before September 1, 1996, by each
manufacturer, or
(b) the manufacturer's annual production of multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less during the period
specified in S8.5.
S8.6 Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses
manufactured on or after September 1, 1997 and before September 1,
1998.
S8.6.1 The combined number of multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less complying with the requirements
of S3(g) shall be not less than 25 percent of:
(a) the average annual production of multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less manufactured on or
after September 1, 1994, and before September 1, 1997, by each
manufacturer, or
(b) the manufacturer's annual production of multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less during the period
specified in S8.6.
S8.7 Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses
manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 and before September 1,
1999.
S8.7.1 The combined number of multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less complying with the requirements
of S3(g) shall be not less than 40 percent of:
(a) the average annual production of multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less manufactured on or
after September 1, 1994, and before September 1, 1997, by each
manufacturer, or
(b) the manufacturer's annual production of multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less during the period
specified in S8.7.
S8.8 Walk-in vans, motor homes, tow trucks, dump trucks,
ambulances, and vehicles which have no doors or exclusively have doors
that are designed to be easily attached or removed so the vehicle can
be operated without doors may be excluded from all calculations of
compliance with S8.5.1, S8.6.1 and S8.7.1.
S8.9 Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses produced by
more than one manufacturer.
S8.9.1 For the purposes of calculating average annual production
of multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of
8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or
less for each manufacturer and the number of multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less manufactured by each
manufacturer under S8.5.1, S8.6.1 and S8.7.1, a vehicle produced by
more than one manufacturer shall be attributed to a single manufacturer
as follows, subject to S8.9.2:
(a) A vehicle which is imported shall be attributed to the
importer.
(b) A vehicle manufactured in the United States by more than one
manufacturer, one of which also markets the vehicle, shall be
attributed to the manufacturer which markets the vehicle.
S8.9.2 A vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer shall be
attributed to any one of the vehicle's manufacturers specified by an
express written contract, reported to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration under 49 CFR part 586, between the manufacturer
so specified and the manufacturer to which the vehicle would otherwise
be attributed under S8.9.1.
S8.9.3 Each multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck and bus with a
GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500
pounds or less that is manufactured in two or more stages or that is
altered (within the meaning of Sec. 567.7 of this chapter) after having
previously been certified in accordance with part 567 of this chapter
is not subject to the requirements of S3(g).
Issued on: June 10, 1994.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 94-14578 Filed 6-14-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P