Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Part IV

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 571 and 585 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Roof Crush Resistance; Phase-In Reporting Requirements; Final Rule

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 22348 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION approved by the Director of the Federal b. How This Final Rule Differs From the Register as of July 13, 2009. NPRM and/or SNPRM National Highway Traffic Safety Compliance dates: II. Overall Rollover Problem and the Administration Passenger cars and multipurpose Agency’s Comprehensive Response a. Prevention passenger vehicles, trucks and buses b. Occupant Containment 49 CFR Parts 571 and 585 with a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 c. Occupant Protection [Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0093] pounds) or less. This final rule adopts III. The Role of Roof Intrusion in the Rollover a phase-in of the upgraded roof crush Problem RIN 2127–AG51 resistance requirements for these IV. The Agency’s Proposed Rule vehicles. The phase-in begins on a. NPRM Federal Motor Vehicle Safety September 1, 2012. By September 1, b. SNPRM Standards; Roof Crush Resistance; 2015, all of these vehicles must meet the c. Congressional Mandate Phase-In Reporting Requirements V. Overview of Comments upgraded requirements, with certain VI. Agency Decision and Response to AGENCY: National Highway Traffic exceptions. Vehicles produced in more Comments Safety Administration (NHTSA), than one stage and altered vehicles need a. Primary Decisions Department of Transportation. not meet the upgraded requirements 1. Basic Nature of the Test Requirements— Quasi-Static vs. Dynamic Tests ACTION: Final rule. until September 1, 2016. Multipurpose passenger vehicles, 2. Vehicle Application SUMMARY: As part of a comprehensive trucks and buses with a GVWR greater 3. Single-Sided or Two-Sided Tests plan for reducing the risk of rollover than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) 4. Upgraded Force Requirement—Specified and less than or equal to 4,536 Strength to Weight Ratio (SWR) crashes and the risk of death and serious 5. Performance Criteria—Headroom, Platen injury in those crashes, this final rule kilograms (10,000 pounds). All of these Travel, or Both upgrades the agency’s safety standard vehicles must meet the requirements 6. Leadtime and Phase-In on roof crush resistance in several ways. beginning September 1, 2016, with b. Aspects of the Test Procedure First, for the vehicles currently certain exceptions. Vehicles produced 1. Tie-Down Procedure subject to the standard, i.e., passenger in more than one stage and altered 2. Platen Angle and Size cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles need not meet the requirements 3. Testing Without Windshields and/or vehicles, trucks and buses with a Gross until September 1, 2017. Other Glazing in Place 4. Deletion of Secondary Plate Positioning Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 2,722 ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for Procedure kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less, the reconsideration of this rule, you should 5. Removal of Roof Components rule doubles the amount of force the refer in your petition to the docket 6. Tolerances vehicle’s roof structure must withstand number of this document and submit c. Requirements for Multi-Stage and in the specified test, from 1.5 times the your petition to: Administrator, Altered Vehicles vehicle’s unloaded weight to 3.0 times National Highway Traffic Safety d. Other Issues the vehicle’s unloaded weight. Second, Administration, 1200 New Jersey 1. Convertibles and Open Bodied Vehicles the rule extends the applicability of the 2. Vehicles Without B-Pillars Avenue, SE., West Building, 3. Heavier Vehicles With a High Height to standard so that it will also apply to Washington, DC 20590. Width Aspect Ratio vehicles with a GVWR greater than The petition will be placed in the 4. Active Roofs 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds), but not docket. Anyone is able to search the 5. Whether an Additional SNPRM Is greater than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 electronic form of all documents Needed pounds). The rule establishes a force received into any of our dockets by the 6. Rear Seat Occupants requirement of 1.5 times the vehicle’s name of the individual submitting the 7. New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) unloaded weight for these newly document (or signing the document, if 8. Possible Energy Requirement included vehicles. Third, the rule submitted on behalf of an association, 9. Advanced Restraints requires all of the above vehicles to VII. Costs and Benefits business, labor union, etc.). You may VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices meet the specified force requirements in review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Appendix A—Analysis of Comments a two-sided test, instead of a single- Statement in the Federal Register Concerning Dynamic Testing sided test, i.e., the same vehicle must published on April 11, 2000 (Volume Appendix B—Two-Sided Test Results meet the force requirements when tested 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you Appendix C—Single-Sided Test Results first on one side and then on the other may visit http://www.dot.gov/ side of the vehicle. Fourth, the rule privacy.html. I. Executive Summary establishes a new requirement for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For maintenance of headroom, i.e., survival a. Final Rule non-legal issues, you may call space, during testing in addition to the Christopher J. Wiacek, NHTSA Office of As part of a comprehensive plan for existing limit on the amount of roof Crashworthiness Standards, telephone reducing the serious risk of rollover crush. The rule also includes a number 202–366–4801. For legal issues, you crashes and the risk of death and serious of special provisions, including ones may call J. Edward Glancy, NHTSA injury in those crashes, this final rule related to leadtime, to address the needs Office of Chief Counsel, telephone 202– upgrades Federal Motor Vehicle Safety of multi-stage manufacturers, alterers, 366–2992. You may send mail to these Standard (FMVSS) No. 216, Roof Crush and small volume manufacturers. officials at the National Highway Traffic Resistance. DATES: If you wish to petition for Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey For the vehicles currently subject to reconsideration of this rule, your Avenue, SE., West Building, the standard, passenger cars and petition must be received by June 26, Washington, DC 20590. multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks 2009. and buses with a GVWR of 2,722 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective date: The date on which this kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less, the final rule amends the CFR is July 13, Table of Contents rule doubles the amount of force the 2009. The incorporation by reference of I. Executive Summary vehicle’s roof structure must withstand a publication listed in the rule is a. Final Rule in the specified test, from 1.5 times the

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 22349

vehicle’s unloaded weight to 3.0 times serious problem of rollover crashes, this Maintaining intrusion limit in the vehicle’s unloaded weight. The rule action, by itself, addresses a relatively addition to new headroom requirement. also extends the applicability of the small subset of that problem. There are In the NPRM, we proposed to replace standard so that it will also apply to more than 10,000 fatalities in rollover the current limit on intrusion (platen vehicles with a GVWR greater than crashes each year. To address that travel requirement) with a new 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds), but not problem, our comprehensive plan headroom requirement. For this final greater than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 includes actions to (1) reduce the rule, we are maintaining the intrusion pounds), establishing a force occurrence of rollovers, (2) mitigate limit as well as adopting the proposed requirement of 1.5 times the vehicle’s ejection, and (3) enhance occupant headroom requirement. unloaded weight for these heavier protection when rollovers occur Use of headform positioning fixture vehicles. (improved roof crush resistance is instead of a test dummy. In the NPRM, Under today’s rule, all of the above included in this third category). we proposed to use test dummies as part vehicles must meet the specified force Our analysis shows that of the more of the test procedure for measuring requirements in a two-sided test instead than 10,000 fatalities that occur in headroom. For this final rule, we are of a single-sided test, i.e., the same rollover crashes each year, roof strength using headform positioning fixtures for vehicle must meet the force is relevant to only about seven percent this purpose. requirements when tested first on one (about 667) of those fatalities. We Phase-in. We did not include a phase- side and then on the other side of the estimate that today’s rule will prevent in in the NPRM. For this final rule, we vehicle. The rule also establishes a new 135 of those 667 fatalities. are phasing in the upgraded roof requirement for maintenance of The portions of our comprehensive strength requirements for the lighter headroom, i.e., survival space, during plan that will have the highest life- vehicles previously subject to FMVSS testing, in addition to the existing limit saving benefits are the ones to reduce No. 216, and providing longer leadtime on the amount of roof crush. The rule the occurrence of rollovers (prevention) (without a phase-in) for the heavier light also includes special provisions to and to mitigate ejection (occupant vehicles. Limited exclusion for certain multi- address the needs of multi-stage containment). We estimate that by stage trucks. Due to concerns about manufacturers, alterers, and small preventing rollovers, electronic stability practicability, we are excluding from volume manufacturers. control (ESC) will reduce the more than NHTSA developed its proposal to FMVSS No. 216 a very limited group of 10,000 fatalities that occur in rollover upgrade roof crush resistance multistage trucks with a GVWR greater crashes each year by 4,200 to 5,500 requirements after considerable analysis than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds), fatalities (and also provide significant and research, including considering ones not built on either a chassis cab or additional life-saving benefits by comments received in response to a an incomplete vehicle with a full preventing other types of crashes). In Request for Comments (RFC) notice exterior van body. published in 2001. Prior to publishing the area of mitigating ejection, Updated benefits and costs. We have the RFC, the agency conducted a significant life-benefits are and/or will updated our analysis of benefits and research program to examine potential occur by our continuing efforts to costs. Our analysis appears in summary methods for improving the roof crush increase seat belt use and our upcoming form in this document, and in its resistance requirements. The agency rulemaking on ejection mitigation. A entirety in the agency’s Final Regulatory testing program included full vehicle more complete discussion of our Impact Analysis (FRIA). dynamic rollover testing, inverted comprehensive plan is discussed later We estimate that the changes in vehicle drop testing, and comparing in this document. FMVSS No. 216 will prevent 135 inverted vehicle drop testing to a b. How This Final Rule Differs From the fatalities and 1,065 nonfatal injuries modified FMVSS No. 216 test. After NPRM and/or SNPRM annually. The agency estimates that considering the results of the testing and compliance with the upgraded roof other available information, the agency The more noteworthy changes from strength standard will increase lifetime concluded that the quasi-static the NPRM are outlined below and consumer costs by $69–114 per affected procedure provides a suitable explained in detail later in this vehicle. Redesign costs are expected to representation of the real-world preamble. More minor changes are increase affected vehicle prices by an dynamic loading conditions, and the discussed in the appropriate sections of average of about $54. Added weight is most appropriate one on which to focus this preamble. estimated to increase the lifetime cost of our upgrade efforts. Higher force requirement (strength-to- fuel usage by $15 to $62 for an average Today’s rule reflects careful weight ratio (SWR level)). While we affected vehicle. Total consumer costs consideration of comments we received proposed an SWR level of 2.5 in the are expected to range from $875 million in response to the notice of proposed NPRM for the vehicles that have been to $1.4 billion annually. rulemaking (NPRM) published in 2005 subject to the standard, we noted in the Implied Preemption. We have and a supplemental notice of proposed SNPRM that the agency could adopt a reconsidered the tentative position rulemaking (SNPRM) published in higher or lower value for this final rule. presented in the NPRM. We do not January 2008. NHTSA published the We are adopting an SWR of 3.0 for them foresee any potential State tort SNPRM to obtain public comment on a in this final rule. An SWR of 1.5 will requirements that might conflict with number of issues that might affect the apply to the heavier light vehicles that today’s final rule. Without any conflict, content of the final rule, including have previously not been subject to the there could not be any implied possible variations in the proposed standard. preemption. requirements. In the SNPRM, the agency Two-sided test. While we proposed a also announced the release of the results single-sided test in the NPRM, we II. Overall Rollover Problem and the of various vehicle tests conducted since conducted additional testing and Agency’s Comprehensive Response the NPRM. addressed the possibility of a two-sided Addressing vehicle rollovers is one of While this rulemaking action to test in the SNPRM. Today’s rule adopts NHTSA’s highest safety priorities. improve roof strength is part of our a two-sided test requirement for all According to 2007 FARS crash data, comprehensive plan for addressing the vehicles subject to the standard. 10,196 people were killed as occupants

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 22350 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

in light vehicle rollover crashes, which FMVSS No. 126, ‘‘Electronic stability Doors represent another common represents 35 percent of all occupants control systems,’’ to require ESC on ejection route. As part of the agency’s killed that year in crashes. FARS passenger cars, multipurpose passenger comprehensive approach to rollover, reported that approximately 57 percent vehicles, trucks, and buses with a and to harmonize with the first Global were partially or completely ejected GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 Technical Regulation, NHTSA upgraded from the vehicle (including pounds) or less. ESC systems use FMVSS No. 206, ‘‘Door locks and door approximately 47 percent who were automatic computer-controlled braking retention components,’’ in a final rule completely ejected). of individual wheels to assist the driver published on February 6, 2007. This Rollover crashes are complex and in maintaining control in critical driving final rule added test requirements for chaotic events. Rollovers can range from situations in which the vehicle is sliding doors, upgraded the door a single quarter turn to eight or more beginning to lose directional stability at retention requirements, added quarter turns, with the duration of the the rear wheels or directional control at secondary latch requirements for doors rollover crash lasting from one to the front wheels. ESC systems other than hinged side doors and back several seconds. The wide range of effectively monitor driver steering input doors, and provided a new test rollover conditions occurs because these and limit vehicle oversteer and procedure for assessing inertial forces. crashes largely occur off road where the understeer, as appropriate. To comply To comply with the new requirements, vehicle motion is highly influenced by with the new ESC standard, vehicles it is anticipated that passenger vehicles roadside conditions. Also, rollover will need individually adjustable with sliding doors designed with one crashes tend to occur at higher speeds braking at all four wheels, and computer latch and pin locking mechanism will than other crash types due to the energy electronics to utilize this capability, a need to be redesigned with two latches. required to initiate the rollover motion. means for engine torque adjustability The technology needed to meet the NHTSA has been pursuing a and various onboard sensors (to upgraded standard would benefit comprehensive and systematic approach measure yaw rate, lateral acceleration, vehicles in rollover crashes where door towards reducing the fatalities and steering wheel angle and speed). The openings were identified as a problem. serious injuries that result from rollover agency estimates that ESC will save c. Occupant Protection crashes. As part of our safety standard 5,300 to 9,600 lives in all types of rulemaking, this approach establishes crashes annually once all light vehicles Finally, when a rollover crash does various repeatable test procedures and on the road are equipped with ESC. The occur and the occupants have been performance requirements that will agency further anticipates that ESC contained within the vehicle generate countermeasures effective in systems will substantially reduce (by compartment, it is important for the roof the chaotic real-world events. Due to the 4,200 to 5,500 deaths) the more than structure to remain intact and maintain complex nature of a rollover event and 10,000 deaths each year resulting from survival space. That is the safety need the particularized effect of each element rollover crashes. addressed by today’s final rule. of the comprehensive approach taken by b. Occupant Containment III. The Role of Roof Intrusion in the the agency to address these crashes, Rollover Problem each element addresses a specific Studies have shown that the fatality segment of the total rollover problem. rate for an ejected vehicle occupant is Due to the high effectiveness of ESC Accordingly, each initiative has a three times as great as that for an in preventing an increasing number of different target population and interacts occupant who remains inside of the rollover crashes, and seat belts at with each of the other rollover vehicle. Thus, mitigating ejections offers preventing ejection, the remaining target population relevant to roof crush strategies. NHTSA has initiatives in potential for significant safety gains. occupant protection is a relatively small place to: Safety belts are the most effective 1. Reduce the occurrence of rollover crashworthiness countermeasure in subset of the occupants injured in reducing ejected rollover fatalities. rollovers. For fatalities, the estimated crashes (e.g., the requirement for ESC on 2 all light vehicles and the NCAP rollover Studies have found that safety belts total for the target population is about ratings), reduce fatalities in rollovers by 74 seven percent (about 667) of all non- 2. Keep occupants inside the vehicle percent in passenger cars and 80 percent convertible light vehicle rollover when rollovers occur (e.g., NHTSA’s for light trucks.1 NHTSA requires all fatalities. Although the target unyielding commitment to get vehicles manufactured after 1968 to population and potential for lives saved passengers to buckle their seat belts have safety belts as standard equipment. are substantially smaller than can be every time they ride in a vehicle, as well However, of the 6,164 ejected attained by the first two strategies of our as the requirement for enhanced door occupant fatalities in light vehicle comprehensive rollover plan, it is latches and the forthcoming rulemaking rollover crashes, as reported by 2006 nevertheless a very important aspect of for ejection mitigation), and FARS, 1,135 were classified as partial the plan. 3. Better protect the occupants kept ejections. Fatal injuries from partial Looking at the target population inside the vehicle during the rollover ejection can occur even to belted relevant to roof crush occupant (e.g., the requirement for upper interior occupants, e.g., when their head protection more specifically, Table 1 below shows a breakdown of the target head protection and this rulemaking for protrudes outside the window and population that could potentially enhanced roof crush resistance). strikes the ground in a rollover. Each of these three initiatives must Therefore, as mandated by SAFETEA- benefit from roof crush improvements. work together to address the various LU, NHTSA is working to establish The target population for all light aspects of the rollover problem. performance standards to reduce partial vehicles is stratified by injury severity. and complete ejection from outboard The injury mechanism due to roof crush a. Prevention seating position windows. for belted occupants is that the roof The most effective way to reduce crushes during the roll event, intrudes deaths and injuries in rollover crashes is 1 Kahane, C. J., Fatality Reduction by Safety Belts to prevent the rollover crash from for Front-Seat Occupants of Cars and Light Trucks: 2 The target population estimates were based Updated and Expanded Estimates Based on 1986– upon the results from the 1997–2006 National occurring. On April 6, 2007, NHTSA 99 FARS Data (NHTSA Report No. DOT HS 809 Automotive Sampling System-Crashworthiness published a final rule establishing 199). Data System (NASS–CDS).

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 22351

into the occupant compartment, and reducing serious and fatal injuries. For injury was not to the head, neck, or face causes head, face, or neck injury. The example, a stronger roof would not be due to the intruding roof. table demonstrates how the final target expected to provide benefits in cases The final target populations are population is derived from the broad where the roof was not involved; where shown in bold at the bottom of the table. category of rollovers by eliminating the occupant was totally ejected from A full discussion of the basis for the cases in which roof strength the vehicle,3 or where the most serious target population is included in the improvements would not be effective in FRIA.

TABLE 1—TARGET POPULATION POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY IMPROVED ROOF STRENGTH 4

AIS 1 AIS 2 AIS 3–5 Fatalities

All Light Vehicles

All Vehicles: Non-Convertible Light Vehicles in Rollovers ...... 199,822 37,305 21,673 10,150 Roof-Involved Rollover ...... 164,213 32,959 19,262 8,645 Some Fixed Object Collision on Top ...... 153,520 29,419 17,766 7,559 Not Totally Ejected ...... 149,850 26,033 12,355 3,654 Using Safety Restraints ...... 116,670 14,327 8,970 2,096 Outboard Seats ...... 115,018 14,241 8,781 2,096 Roof Component Intrusion ...... 68,730 10,922 6,842 1,444

Head, Neck, or Face Injury From Intruding Roof Component ...... 24,035 6,580 2,993 957 Injury—Not MAIS 5 ...... 0 ¥1,900 ¥1,252 ¥237 Injury at MAIS—Not Sole Injury ...... ¥17,818 ¥292 ¥253 ¥53

Sole MAIS Injury ...... 6,216 4,388 1,487 667

Light Vehicles With a GVWR of 2,722 Kilograms (6,000 Pounds) or Less

PC & LT < 6,000 lbs: Non-Convertible Light Vehicles in Rollovers ...... 172,846 33,170 18,929 8,719 Roof-Involved Rollover ...... 144,410 29,098 17,360 7,536 Some Fixed Object Collision on Top ...... 136,080 26,270 16,122 6,484 Not Totally Ejected ...... 133,241 23,400 11,406 3,142 Using Safety Restraints ...... 104,571 12,421 8,379 1,936 Outboard Seats ...... 103,249 12,373 8,190 1,936 Roof Component Intrusion ...... 60,061 9,370 6,372 1,304

Head, Neck, or Face Injury From Intruding Roof Component ...... 20,687 5,868 2,615 842 Injury—Not MAIS ...... 0 ¥1,771 ¥1,119 ¥157 Injury at MAIS—Not Sole Injury ...... ¥16,082 ¥262 ¥212 ¥50

Sole MAIS Injury ...... 4,605 3,835 1,283 635

Light Vehicles With a GVWR above 2,722 Kilograms (6,000 Pounds)

LT > 6,000 lbs: Non-Convertible Light Vehicles in Rollovers ...... 26,975 4,135 2,744 1,431 Roof-Involved Rollover...... 19,803 3,861 1,902 1,110 Some Fixed Object Collision on Top ...... 17,440 3,149 1,644 1,075 Not Totally Ejected ...... 16,608 2,634 949 511 Using Safety Restraints ...... 12,099 1,906 591 160 Outboard Seats ...... 11,770 1,868 591 160 Roof Component Intrusion ...... 8,669 1,552 471 140

Head, Neck, or Face Injury From Intruding Roof Component ...... 3,348 712 378 116 Injury—Not MAIS ...... 0 ¥128 ¥133 ¥80 Injury at MAIS—Not Sole Injury ...... ¥1,736 ¥31 ¥40 ¥3

Sole MAIS Injury ...... 1,611 553 205 33

The most significant exclusions (2) the damage was not caused by ejected, and (4) those occupants were resulted from requirements that collision with a fixed object, (3) the belted. fatalities occurred in rollovers in which fatally injured occupants were not It is important to understand what (1) the roof was damaged in a rollover, Table 1 indicates about the safety

3 Strashny, ‘‘The Role of Vertical Roof Intrusion completely ejection occupants were excluded from ‘‘Sole MAIS Injury.’’ Also, the numbers reflect in Predicting Occupant Ejection,’’ 2009. Strashny the target population. However, partial ejections rounding errors. found that there was no statistically significant that meet the established criteria are included. 5 Injury—Not MAIS: This means that the most relationship between the level of roof intrusion and 4 Note: The relevant target population used for the serious injury was to a portion of the body other the probability of complete ejection. For this reason estimation of benefits is identified in the row titled than the head, neck or face.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 22352 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

potential of addressing roof crush. Even to publishing the RFC, the agency fewer non-fatal injuries each year. The if there were some way to prevent every conducted a research program to total estimated recurring fleet cost was single rollover death resulting from roof examine potential methods for $88 to $95 million. We estimated that crush, the total lives saved would be improving the roof crush resistance approximately 32 percent of the current 667, not the approximately 10,000 requirements. The agency testing vehicle fleet would need improvements deaths that result from rollover each program included full vehicle dynamic to meet the proposed upgraded year. This is why each initiative in rollover testing, inverted vehicle drop requirements. NHTSA’s comprehensive program to testing, and comparing inverted drop b. SNPRM address the different aspects of the testing to a modified FMVSS No. 216 rollover problem is so important. test. After considering the results of the On January 30, 2008, NHTSA The details of today’s rule upgrading testing and other available information, published in the Federal Register (73 roof crush occupant protection, the agency concluded that the quasi- FR 5484) an SNPRM for our ongoing including costs and benefits and the static procedure provides a suitable roof crush resistance rulemaking.8 In agency’s analysis of the public representation of the real-world that document, we asked for public comments on our NPRM and SNPRM, dynamic loading conditions, and the comment on a number of issues that are discussed in the rest of this most appropriate one on which to focus might affect the content of the final rule, document. our upgrade efforts. including possible variations in the In our August 2005 NPRM, to better proposed requirements. We also IV. The Agency’s Proposed Rule address fatalities and injuries occurring announced the release of the results of a. NPRM in roof-involved rollover crashes, we various vehicle tests conducted since On August 23, 2005, NHTSA proposed to extend the application of the proposal. In the SNPRM, we noted that we had published in the Federal Register (70 the standard to vehicles with a GVWR been carefully analyzing the numerous FR 49223) a NPRM to upgrade FMVSS of up to 4,536 kilograms (10,000 comments we had received on the No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance.6 pounds), and to strengthen the NPRM, as well as the various additional FMVSS No. 216 seeks to reduce deaths requirements of FMVSS No. 216 by vehicle tests, including both single- and serious injuries resulting from the mandating that the vehicle roof sided tests and two-sided tests, roof being crushed and pushed into the structures withstand a force equivalent conducted since the NPRM. We invited occupant compartment when the roof to 2.5 times the unloaded vehicle strikes the ground during rollover weight, and to eliminate the 22,240 comments on how the agency should crashes. Newton (5,000 pound) force limit for factor the new information into its Current requirements. passenger cars. decision. We noted that while the FMVSS No. 216 currently applies to Further, in recognition of the fact that NPRM focused on a specified force passenger cars, and to multipurpose the pre-test distance between the equivalent to 2.5 times the unloaded passenger vehicles, trucks and buses interior surface of the roof and a given vehicle weight, the agency could adopt with a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 occupant’s head varies from vehicle a higher or lower value for the final rule. pounds) or less. model to vehicle model, we proposed to We explained, with respect to two-sided The standard requires that when a regulate roof strength by requiring that testing, that we believed there was now large steel test plate (sometimes referred the crush not exceed the available sufficient available information for the to as a platen) is placed in contact with headroom. Under the proposal, this agency to consider a two-sided the roof of a vehicle and then pressed requirement would replace the current requirement as an alternative to the downward, simulating contact of the limit on test plate movement. single-sided procedure described in the roof with the ground during a rollover The proposed new limit would NPRM. We stated that we planned to crash, with steadily increasing force prohibit any roof component from evaluate both the single-sided and two- until a force equivalent to 1.5 times the contacting the head of a seated 50th sided testing alternatives for the final unloaded weight of the vehicle is percentile male dummy when the roof rule and requested comments that reached, the distance that the test plate is subjected to a force equivalent to 2.5 would help us reach a decision on that has moved from the point of contact times the unloaded vehicle weight. We issue. must not exceed 127 mm (5 inches). The note that this value is sometimes We also noted in the SNPRM that the criterion of the test plate not being referred to as the strength-to-weight agency had conducted additional permitted to move more than a specified ratio (SWR), e.g., a SWR of 1.5, 2.5, and analysis concerning the role of vertical amount is sometimes referred to as the so forth. roof intrusion and post-crash headroom ‘‘platen travel’’ criterion. Under S5 of We also proposed to: in predicting roof contact injuries to the the standard, the application of force is • Allow vehicles manufactured in head, neck or face during FMVSS No. limited to 22,240 Newtons (5,000 two or more stages, other than chassis- 216 rollovers. At the time of the NPRM, pounds) for passenger cars, even if the cabs, to be certified to the roof crush the agency estimated benefits based on unloaded weight of the car times 1.5 is requirements of FMVSS No. 220, School post-crash headroom, the only basis for greater than that amount. bus rollover protection, instead of which a statistical relationship with Proposed upgrade. FMVSS No. 216. injury reduction had been established. As discussed in the August 2005 • Clarify the definition and scope of After the NPRM, with additional years NPRM, we developed our proposal to exclusion for convertibles. of data available, a statistically upgrade roof crush resistance • Revise the vehicle tie-down significant relationship between requirements after considerable analysis procedure to minimize variability in intrusion and injury for belted and research, including considering testing. occupants was established. comments received in response to a RFC To accompany our proposal, we published in the Federal Register (66 prepared a Preliminary Regulatory c. Congressional Mandate FR 53376) 7 on October 22, 2001. Prior Impact Analysis (PRIA) describing the Section 10301 of SAFETEA–LU costs and benefits. We estimated that, if generally required the Secretary to issue 6 Docket No. NHTSA–2005–22143. adopted, the proposal would result in 7 Docket No. NHTSA–1999–5572. 13–44 fewer fatalities and 498–793 8 Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0015.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 22353

a final rule upgrading roof crush concerns about SWRs higher than 2.5, a 50th percentile adult male dummy to resistance by July 1, 2008, while including potential adverse effects on measure headroom and by reducing the providing for a later date under certain safety resulting from increased mass. amount of platen travel that is circumstances. That section provides: Consumer advocacy organizations and permitted. Sec. 10301. VEHICLE ROLLOVER a number of other commenters argued Vehicle manufacturers urged the PREVENTION AND CRASH MITIGATION. that it is not enough to upgrade the agency to retain the current platen travel (a) In General.—Subchapter II of chapter current quasi-static requirement, and criterion instead of adopting a 301 is amended by adding at the end the that a dynamic test requirement is headroom reduction criterion. They following: needed. While specific argued, among other things, that using § 30128. Vehicle rollover prevention and recommendations varied, one was for the headroom reduction criterion would crash mitigation the agency to adopt an upgraded quasi- add unnecessary complexity to the test (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall static requirement now, and to proceed procedure and result in problems initiate rulemaking proceedings, for the with further rulemaking for a dynamic related to repeatability and purpose of establishing rules or standards test. practicability. Some manufacturers that will reduce vehicle rollover crashes and Advocates for Highway Safety stated that if the agency adopts a mitigate deaths and injuries associated with (Advocates) stated that the proposed headroom reduction criterion, it should such crashes for motor vehicles with a gross quasi-static test cannot demonstrate adopt a test procedure using a head vehicle weight rating of not more than 10,000 actual roof crush resistance in rollover positioning fixture instead of a test pounds. crashes and that a dynamic test would dummy. * * * * * address occupant kinematics and injury IIHS stated that relating the allowable (d) Protection of Occupants.—One of the responses in actual rollover crashes. amount of roof crush in the quasi-static rulemaking proceedings initiated under Public Citizen stated that a dynamic test test to the headroom in specific vehicles subsection (a) shall be to establish could simultaneously evaluate the is a good concept but that, in practice, performance criteria to upgrade Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216 performance of seat belts, doors, the agency’s research tests have not relating to roof strength for driver and ejection and the roof. A number of shown that replacing the 5-inch platen passenger sides. The Secretary may consider commenters supported specific dynamic travel criterion with the headroom industry and independent dynamic tests that tests. requirement would be a meaningful realistically duplicate the actual forces The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) change to the standard and may not transmitted during a rollover crash. The stated that while it strongly supports a justify the added complications to the Secretary shall issue a proposed rule by dynamic test, it believes rollover test procedure. December 31, 2005, and a final rule by July protection can be dramatically 1, 2008. improved with a well-crafted quasi- Single- or Two-Sided Testing The statute provides that if the static test. It argued that test procedure Several consumer advocacy Secretary determines that the July 1, changes related to roll angle and pitch organizations and other commenters 2008 deadline for the final rule cannot angle are needed to ensure that the roof strongly supported two-sided testing. be met, the Secretary is to notify receives appropriate shear stress. Public Citizen stated that in a vast Congress and explain why that deadline As to the SWR for an upgraded quasi- majority of rollover cases, the injured cannot be met, and establish a new date. static test requirement, consumer party was typically seated on the far The Secretary provided such advocacy organizations and a number of side, that is, the side of the second notifications to Congress, and other commenters argued that the SWR impact. It argued that it is not possible established a date of April 30, 2009. should be significantly higher than 2.5. to upgrade FMVSS No. 216 without a Many of these commenters two-sided test requirement. V. Overview of Comments recommended a SWR of 3.5, with some IIHS stated that while it supports any NHTSA received comments from a recommending higher levels. changes that would increase the level of wide variety of interested parties, The Insurance Institute for Highway roof strength of the vehicle fleet, it has including vehicle manufacturers and Safety (IIHS) submitted a new study no real-world data to address the their trade associations, suppliers of which it said supports increasing the potential benefits of two-sided testing. It automobile equipment and a supplier SWR beyond 2.5. It stated that based on stated that a single-sided test with a trade association, consumer advocacy the current evidence, it supports a SWR higher SWR may be more effective at and other organizations, trial lawyers, of 3.0 to 3.5. promoting robust roof designs than a engineering firms and consultants, two-sided test with a lower SWR Performance Criterion members of academia, elected officials requirement. and government organizations, and The agency received a variety of The comments of vehicle private individuals. All of the comments comments on the proposed headroom manufacturers were somewhat mixed on may be found in the docket for the reduction criterion. Some commenters, the issue of single- or two-sided testing. NPRM or SNPRM. In this section, we including consumer groups, supported a The Alliance of Automobile provide a broad overview of the headroom reduction criterion but Manufacturers (Alliance) stated that it significant comments. Where we argued that a platen travel criterion is believes the agency has provided identify specific commenters, we cite also needed. Several commenters insufficient justification for two-sided representative comments. expressed concern that, for some testing. It stated that the agency has not vehicles, the proposed headroom provided analysis demonstrating that General Approach and SWR reduction criterion would be less two-sided testing relates to real-world Vehicle manufacturers were generally stringent and less protective than the safety. The Alliance also expressed supportive of the agency’s proposal, current platen travel criterion. The concern that two-sided testing would while recommending a number of agency also received comments amplify variability and repeatability specific modifications. They generally recommending that the agency make problems. supported a SWR of 2.5, with caveats these criteria more stringent to protect The Association of International about sufficient leadtime and test taller occupants, e.g., by using a 95th Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM) procedure issues. They expressed percentile adult male dummy instead of stated that based on the information and

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 22354 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

analysis provided by the agency Attorneys General and the National risk in midsize SUVs and small cars. regarding the two-sided test, it believes Conference of State Legislatures. That organization indicated that the that the test shows enough potential to boundary for a good rating in the IIHS Other Issues merit further consideration by the program will be a SWR of 4.0 in a one- agency. AIAM argued that additional We received comments on many other sided platen test similar to the existing analysis would be needed before it issues. Commenters addressed a number FMVSS No 216 test procedure. IIHS could provide a preferred regulatory of issues concerning the FMVSS No. 216 indicated that it does not plan to rate approach, but indicated that the two- test procedure, including the vehicle tie- the larger, heavier light vehicles, i.e., sided approach would more directly down procedure, platen angle and size, ones likely to have GVWRs greater than address the multiple roof contact and whether the vehicle should be 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds). weakening phenomenon. tested with the windshield and/or other On March 24, 2009, IIHS issued a glazing in place. Commenters also press release announcing a number of Leadtime addressed requirements for multi-stage details about its new rating system, Vehicle manufacturers argued that a vehicles. including ratings for 12 small SUVs. For an acceptable rating, the minimum SWR phase-in is needed for the upgraded roof June 2008 Congressional Hearing and is 3.25. A marginal rating value is 2.5. crush requirements. The Alliance stated Letters that if the final rule reflected a Anything lower than that is rated as On June 4, 2008. the Subcommittee on reasonable accommodation of the issues poor. In order to earn IIHS’s ‘‘top safety Consumer Affairs, Insurance, and raised in its comments, it would be pick’’ award for 2010, vehicles will need Automotive Safety of the Senate reasonable for a phase-in to begin, with to have a good roof strength rating, i.e., Commerce, Science and Transportation a compliance percentage of 20 percent, SWR of 4.0. Of the 12 small SUVs tested Committee held an oversight hearing on on the first September 1, that occurred by IIHS, eight were rated by that passenger vehicle roof strength. Former more than 36 months after issuance of organization as good, five as acceptable, NHTSA Deputy Administrator James the final rule. That organization stated two as marginal, and one as poor. Ports testified at the hearing. At the that it would not be practicable to apply hearing and also in a subsequent letter VI. Agency Decision and Response to the upgraded requirements to all new to Secretary Peters dated June 19, 2008, Comments vehicles at once, since far more vehicle several Senators encouraged the agency models require redesigns than a. Primary Decisions to extend the July 1, 2008 date for anticipated by NHTSA. The Alliance completing a final rule. They 1. Basic Nature of the Test requested a phase-in that incorporates encouraged the agency to ensure a Requirements—Quasi-Static vs. carryforward credits. It stated that Dynamic Tests rulemaking that would maximize additional leadtime would be necessary vehicle safety and significantly reduce As noted above and discussed in if the agency adopted a head contact deaths and injuries for drivers and detail in the NPRM, we developed our criterion instead of platen travel, a two- passengers in vehicle rollover crashes. proposal to upgrade roof crush sided test or a SWR higher than 2.5. Several Senators encouraged NHTSA resistance requirements after Costs and Benefits to consider a two-sided test requirement considerable analysis and research, and a higher SWR requirement than the including conducting a research Many commenters addressed the proposed 2.5 level, and to provide program to examine potential methods PRIA, which analyzed the costs and detailed information concerning for improving the roof crush resistance benefits and other impacts of the alternatives considered by the agency. requirements. The agency testing proposed rule, and a later discussion of They also raised concerns about the use program included full vehicle dynamic these impacts included in the SNPRM. of 50th percentile adult male test rollover testing, inverted vehicle drop Among other things, commenters dummies instead of ones representing testing, and comparing inverted drop addressed the target population, the taller occupants. The Senators also testing to a modified FMVSS No. 216 pass/fail rate of the current fleet, cost expressed significant concerns about test. After considering the results of the and weight impacts, and estimates of possible preemption of common law tort testing and other available information, benefits. actions, and asked that such a provision the agency concluded that the quasi- Preemption not be included in the final rule. static procedure provides a suitable In a letter to Secretary Peters dated representation of the real-world We received numerous comments on June 27, 2008, Chairman Henry dynamic loading conditions, and the our discussion in the NPRM of the Waxman of the House Committee on most appropriate one on which to focus possible preemptive effect of an Oversight and Government Reform, our upgrade efforts. upgraded roof crush standard on State raised similar concerns to those of the We did not propose a dynamic test common law tort claims. Vehicle Senators. procedure in either the NPRM or the manufacturers and one organization SNPRM. We did discuss in the NPRM strongly supported the view that an New IIHS Roof Strength Consumer a number of types of dynamic tests and upgraded roof crush standard would Information Program why we were not including them in the conflict with and therefore impliedly On February 19, 2009, IIHS met with proposal. We stated our belief that the preempt State rules of tort law imposing NHTSA representatives to provide the current quasi-static test procedure is more stringent requirements than the agency information about a new roof repeatable and capable of simulating one ultimately adopted by NHTSA. strength consumer information program real-world deformation patterns. We Consumer advocacy groups, members of that the organization is initiating. IIHS also stated that we were unaware of any Congress and State officials, trial believes the FMVSS No. 216 test dynamic test procedure that provides a lawyers, consultants, members of procedure is a meaningful structural sufficiently repeatable test environment. academia, and private individuals assessment of real-world rollover Consumer advocacy organizations and strongly opposed that view. The crashworthiness as shown by recent a number of other commenters argued opposing comments from State officials studies it has conducted showing that that it is not enough to upgrade the included one signed by 27 State improved roof strength reduces injury current quasi-static requirement, and

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 22355

that a dynamic test requirement is happens to the vehicle and any repeatability, a dummy, and lack of needed. While specific specified test dummies; (2) for the injury criteria. We are pursuing further recommendations varied, one was for specific aspect of performance at issue, research for a dynamic test, but we the agency to adopt an upgraded quasi- whether the test is sufficiently expect that it will take a number of static requirement now, and to proceed representative of enough relevant real- years to resolve these issues. In the with further rulemaking at this time for world crashes to drive appropriate meantime, we do not want to delay a a dynamic test. countermeasures and, if not, the number significant upgrade of FMVSS No. 216 Advocates stated that the proposed and nature of necessary tests to achieve that will save 135 lives each year. quasi-static test cannot demonstrate that purpose; (3) whether the test is 2. Vehicle Application actual roof crush resistance in rollover repeatable and reproducible so that the crashes and that a dynamic test would standard will be objective; and (4) FMVSS No. 216 currently applies to address occupant kinematics and injury whether the test dummies to be passenger cars, and to multipurpose responses in actual rollover crashes. specified are biofidelic for the purposes passenger vehicles, trucks and buses Public Citizen stated that a dynamic test used. with a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 could simultaneously evaluate the We have reviewed the comments pounds) or less. In our August 2005 performance of seat belts, doors, recommending a dynamic test and are NPRM, in addition to proposing ejection mitigation and the roof. A including our analysis of those upgraded performance requirements, we number of commenters made specific comments in an appendix to this proposed to extend the application of recommendations concerning the type document. NHTSA appreciates the the standard to vehicles with a GVWR of dynamic test that the agency should information and data that have been of up to 4,536 kilograms (10,000 propose, e.g., with a number provided on this subject. We decline, pounds). We proposed to permit recommending the FMVSS No. 208 however, to pursue a dynamic test as vehicles manufactured in two or more dolly test and/or the Jordan Rollover part of this rulemaking, or to initiate at stages, other than chassis-cabs, to be System (JRS) test. this time a separate rulemaking for a certified to the roof crush requirements As part of our considering the merits dynamic test. of FMVSS No. 220, instead of FMVSS of a dynamic test and comments on the As noted above, we explained in the No. 216. We stated that we believed that JRS, on February 23, 2007, NHTSA NPRM that we were unaware of any the requirements of FMVSS No. 220 representatives met with Xprts, LLC dynamic test procedure that provides a appeared to offer a reasonable avenue to (Xprts) at its test facility in Goleta, CA, sufficiently repeatable test environment. balance the desire to respond to the to view and discuss the device. CAS and After reviewing the public comments needs of multi-stage manufacturers and Center for Injury Research (CFIR) also and for reasons discussed in the the need to increase safety in rollover submitted additional test data to the appendix, we continue to take that crashes. agency using the JRS. position. While some commenters The commenters generally supported We note that the agency is also aware argued that certain procedures are extending the application of FMVSS No. of tests used by manufacturers to assess repeatable, the agency was not 216 to vehicles with a GVWR of up to a vehicle’s rollover performance during persuaded by the arguments and data 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). The vehicle development and conditions they presented. Moreover, for reasons National Transportation Safety Board they are designed to represent such as discussed in the appendix, there are (NTSB) stated that heavier vehicles such the curb trip, soil trip, the bounce over, significant issues associated with each as 12- and 15-passenger vans, not currently subjected to the standard, are etc.9 of the cited dynamic test procedures As noted earlier in this document, related to possible use in a Federal experiencing patterns of roof intrusion rollover crashes are complex and motor vehicle safety standard. greater than vehicles already subject to chaotic events. Rollovers can range from Also of importance for this the requirements. That commenter also a single quarter turn to eight or more rulemaking, even if NHTSA were to cited two investigations it conducted quarter turns, with the duration of the identify a particular dynamic test concerning the safety need for vehicles between 6,000 and 10,000 pounds rollover crash lasting from one to procedure, among the many known to GVWR to meet roof crush resistance several seconds. The wide range of be available, as likely to be suitable for requirements. rollover conditions occurs because these assessing roof crush resistance (something we have not been able to do We received a number of comments crashes largely occur off road where the thus far), we would need additional concerning requirements for multi-stage vehicle motion is highly influenced by years of research to evaluate and refine, vehicles and vehicles with altered roofs, roadside conditions. including ones from Advocates, the The variety and complexity of real- as necessary, the procedure to develop National Truck Equipment Association world rollover crashes create significant a proposal, including evaluating it in (NTEA), the Recreation Vehicle Industry challenges in developing dynamic tests the context of the current vehicle fleet. Association (RVIA) and the National suitable for a Federal motor vehicle It is also not known whether any Mobility Equipment Dealers Association safety standard. Rollover crash tests can dynamic test requirement that might be (NMEDA). The concerns and have an undesirable amount of identified by NHTSA’s research would recommendations of these commenters variability in vehicle and occupant produce significant additional benefits varied considerably. We discuss and kinematics. beyond those that will be produced by address the comments later in this In assessing whether a potential the substantial upgrade of the quasi- document. For purposes of this more dynamic test would be appropriate for static procedure that we are adopting in general section concerning applicability, a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, this rule. NHTSA agrees, however, with we note that we are providing a FMVSS the agency must consider such issues as pursuing a dynamic test as our ultimate No. 220 option for some but not all (1) whether the test is representative of goal. We would like to have one for multi-stage vehicles and for vehicles real-world crashes with respect what rollover crashes just as we do for front which are altered in certain ways to 9 Viano D., Parenteau C., ‘‘Rollover Crash Sensing and side crashes. Unfortunately, we raise the height of the roof. We also note and Safety Overview,’’ SAE International, 2004–01– cannot adopt or even propose one now that, for reasons discussed in that 0342. because of issues related to test section, we are excluding a narrow

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 22356 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

category of multi-stage trucks from the roof on the second side of some information for the agency to consider a FMVSS No. 216 altogether. vehicles may have been increased or two-sided test requirement for the final Subject to the limited exceptions/ decreased as a result of the deformation rule. We stated that we would evaluate alternatives/exclusions noted in the of the first side of the roof. The agency both the single-sided and two-sided previous paragraph or already included indicated that it planned to conduct testing alternatives for the final rule, in FMVSS No. 216, and for the reasons further research before proposing and requested comments to help us discussed in the NPRM and in this rulemaking in this area. reach a decision on that issue. document, we are extending the In commenting on the NPRM, a Comments application of the standard to vehicles number of consumer advocacy with a GVWR of up to 4,536 kilograms organizations and other commenters In commenting on the SNPRM, a (10,000 pounds).10 strongly supported a two-sided test number of consumer advocacy requirement. These commenters organizations continued to strongly 3. Single-Sided or Two-Sided Tests included, among others, Public Citizen, support a two-sided test requirement. Under the current version of FMVSS CFIR, CAS, and Advocates. Supporters Public Citizen stated that in a vast No. 216, vehicles must meet the of a two-sided test requirement argued majority of rollover cases, the injured standard’s requirements for both the that more damage occurs to the far (or party was typically seated on the far driver and passenger sides of the trailing) side of the vehicle in a rollover side, that is, the side of the second vehicle. Thus, roof crush resistance crash, and a two-sided test would better impact. It argued that it is not possible protection is required for both the driver reflect this real-world intrusion. They to upgrade FMVSS No. 216 without a and passenger sides of the vehicle. The further argued that when the near side two-sided test requirement. Some standard specifies a single-sided test. roof and windshield are compromised commenters argued, as they had in While a vehicle must meet the in a rollover, the far side will not be able commenting on the NPRM, that they standard’s test requirements, regardless to withstand the forces of the event, believe SAFETEA–LU requires a two- of whether it is tested on the driver or and, consequently, facilitate roof sided test. passenger side, a particular vehicle is collapse. ARCCA, Inc., Consumers IIHS stated that while it supports any tested on only one side. Union, and Safety Analysis and changes that would increase the level of As discussed in the NPRM, a number Forensic Engineering (SAFE) suggested roof strength of the vehicle fleet, it has of commenters on our 2001 RFC a two-sided test would simulate the no real-world data to address the suggested that the agency specify a two- impact that occurs in the majority of potential benefits of two-sided testing. It sided test requirement, i.e., a rollover incidents. stated that a single-sided test with a requirement that each vehicle must In light of the substantial interest in higher SWR may be more effective at meet the standard’s test requirements a two-sided test requirement, NHTSA promoting robust roof designs than a when tested sequentially, first on one expanded the series of two-sided roof two-sided test with a lower SWR side of the vehicle, and then on the crush tests discussed in the NPRM. In requirement. other side. Commenters making this our January 2008 SNPRM, we explained The Alliance stated that it believes the recommendation included Public that we had, by that time, conducted a agency has provided insufficient Citizen and CFIR. The commenters total of 26 sequential two-sided tests, justification for two-sided testing. It stated that vehicle occupants on the far and announced that we were releasing stated that the agency has not provided side of the rollover have a much greater these data to the public in conjunction analysis demonstrating that two-sided risk of serious injury than occupants on with the SNPRM. testing relates to real-world safety. the near side,11 and argued that a two- We stated in the SNPRM that the two- The Alliance also expressed concern sided requirement is needed to protect sided test results showed the first side that two-sided testing would amplify far side occupants. test generally produces a weakening of variability and repeatability problems. In the NPRM, the agency summarized the structure. This was shown by the That organization argued that the the results of six two-sided tests it had fact that the recorded SWR for the agency’s limited repeatability testing for conducted in light of those comments. second side was generally lower than a potential two-sided requirement The testing sought to evaluate the for the first side. On average, the peak indicates poor repeatability in SWR strength of the second side of the roof strength for the second side was between the first and second side tests of vehicles whose first side had already reduced by 8.7 percent. However, for for the same vehicle. The Alliance cited been tested. In this testing, after the several of the vehicles, we observed agency tests of the Lincoln LS and Buick force was applied to one side of the roof considerably higher reductions in peak LaCrosse. over the front seat area of a vehicle, the strength. Of the 26 vehicles that had According to the Alliance, these vehicle was repositioned and force was been tested by that time, excluding the differences may be due solely to lack of then applied on the opposite side of the Chevrolet Express, six experienced test procedure repeatability and test lab roof over the front seat area. In reductions in strength of 19 percent or reproducibility, rather than any real performing these tests on both sides of greater. We excluded the Chevrolet weakening or strengthening of the roof structure due to the first side test. That a vehicle, the agency used the platen Express because of a test anomaly.12 angle currently specified in FMVSS No. With respect to two-sided vehicle commenter stated that in a two-sided 216 (5 degree pitch forward and 25 testing, we stated that we believed that scenario, the deformed shape of a degree rotation outward, along its lateral the post-NPRM tests provided the vehicle tested for roof strength on one axis). We concluded that the strength of agency with sufficient additional side between any two tests is not identical. The starting point for the roof- 10 This final rule will address the NTSB’s 12 Between the first and second side tests, the strength testing on the second side is recommendation H–03–16, to include 12- and 15- front door on the tested side was opened. Because therefore, according to the Alliance, passenger vans in FMVSS No. 216, to minimize the of damage to the vehicle during the first side test, inherently different and results in extent to which survivable space is compromised in the door would not properly close. The door was substantial variability in measured roof the event of a rollover accident. clamped until the latch engaged, locking the door 11 Near side is the side toward which the vehicle in place. This may have compromised the structural strength. begins to roll and the far side is the trailing side integrity of the roof and reduced the measured peak AIAM stated that based on the of the roll. load on the second side. information and analysis provided by

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 22357

the agency regarding the two-sided test, To help evaluate the merits of a two- had 9.2 cm (3.6 inches) of near-side it believes that the test shows enough sided test requirement, the agency intrusion compared to 12.2 cm (4.8 potential to merit further consideration analyzed 1997 through 2006 NASS–CDS inches) of far-side intrusion. The by the agency. AIAM argued that rollover crash data, involving restrained analysis concluded for crashes with additional analysis would be needed occupants.13 Only vehicles that multiple roof-to-ground contacts (or before it could provide a preferred overturned and experienced 2 or more severe rollovers), there is a statistically regulatory approach, but indicated that quarter turns were included. This study insignificant bias on the far side. the two-sided approach would more included 4,030 NASS–CDS investigated Since the publication of the SNPRM, directly address the multiple roof vehicles, and excluded convertibles and the agency has conducted an additional contact weakening phenomenon. vehicles that had a concentrated loading five tests 14 as part of its evaluation, for due to a collision between a fixed object a total of 31 two-sided tests.15 The test Agency Response (pole or tree) and the roof. results for all 31 two-sided tests are After carefully considering the The data were analyzed for summarized in Appendix B of this comments and available information, differences in injury risk for the near document. we have decided, for the reasons and far side occupants and also to On average, the peak strength for the discussed below, to adopt a two-sided ascertain any disparity in the amount of second side was reduced by 8.4 percent. test requirement. roof intrusion. For all rollovers This reduction in strength is consistent In responding to the comments, we involving two or more quarter turns, the with our NASS–CDS analysis, showing begin by addressing the argument raised data showed that there are a similar a slight increase of intrusion on the by some commenters that SAFETEA–LU number of near and far side occupants second side. This also may explain the requires a two-sided test. Public Citizen involved in the event. A further review increased risk to injury for far side stated that the agency has ‘‘ignored the of the injury outcomes showed that the occupants. In all the tests, the express requirement of a two-sided injuries to far side occupants occur at a windshield fractured during the first test.’’ That organization cited the slightly higher frequency than injuries side test and there was not a statutory language requiring NHTSA to to near side occupants. catastrophic collapse of the roof on the upgrade FMVSS No. 216 related to roof The occupant injury data were further second side. strength ‘‘for driver and passenger analyzed to determine whether the In general, there was a good sides.’’ (Emphasis added by Public relative proportion of near and far side correlation in peak strength between the Citizen.) injured occupants varied with the first and second side. The agency did amount of roof intrusion. The injury As discussed earlier in this document, test four vehicles that resulted in outcomes for occupants in vehicles with under the current version of FMVSS No. increased strength on the second side. less than 12 cm (5 inches) of near side 216, vehicles must meet the standard’s However, for several of the vehicles, we roof intrusion show higher frequency of requirements for both the driver and observed considerably higher reductions injury for the far side occupant at the passenger sides of the vehicle, i.e., a in peak strength. Of the 31 vehicles various injury levels. The outcomes for vehicle must meet the standard’s test tested, again excluding the Chevrolet injured occupants in vehicles with 12 requirements regardless of whether it is Express, seven experienced reductions cm (5 inches) or greater near side tested on the driver or passenger side. in strength of 19 percent or greater. The intrusion have similar percentages of Thus, while the standard specifies a two-sided testing conducted by NHTSA severe injuries between near and far single-sided test, roof crush resistance indicated an average difference of occupants. Based on this analysis, the protection is required for both the driver approximately 7.1 percent lower peak data indicate there may be some higher and passenger sides of the vehicle. force for the second side in vehicles risk for far side occupants at lower Similarly, upgrading the current under 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) levels of intrusion; however, none of the performance requirements so that GVWR and 14.9 percent lower peak results was statistically significant. force for the second side in vehicles vehicles must provide protection at a The analysis investigated the over 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) significantly higher SWR under a single- difference in roof intrusion between the GVWR. sided test procedure would result in near and far side of the vehicle that We have decided to adopt a two-sided upgraded protection for both the driver experienced two quarter turns or more. test in light of several considerations. and passenger sides. Thus, while we For the 4,030 NASS–CDS vehicles, there First, we believe a two-sided test is understand the safety arguments raised was a weighted average maximum more representative of the higher by Public Citizen and other commenters vertical intrusion of 7.9 cm (3.1 inches) severity rollover crashes in which a favoring a two-sided test, we believe on the near side and 10.9 cm (4.3 vehicle experiences multiple quarter that the language in SAFETEA–LU does inches) on the far side of the rollover- turns. In such crashes, the vehicles not mandate a two-sided test involved vehicle. The far side of the sometimes experiences a significant requirement, only that upgraded vehicle averaged 3 cm (1.2 inches) more impact on one side of the vehicle and, protection be provided for both the vertical intrusion than the near side. driver and passenger sides. The analysis also investigated the We also note that the issue of whether 14 The test reports for the additional vehicle tests intrusion difference between the near conducted by NHTSA are being made available to to adopt a two-sided test is related to the and far side grouped by the severity of the public through the agency’s internet vehicle decision of what stringency to adopt. the rollover. (Severity of the rollover crash test database. We are placing a memorandum For any baseline single-sided test was defined by single or multiple roof- in the docket which provides the Web address for requirement at a particular SWR, either that database and lists the vehicle models and test to-ground contacts). The data showed a numbers that are needed to reference the increasing the SWR for the single-sided 3 cm (1.2 inch) bias toward the far side information in the database. The agency test or adding a two-sided test intrusion, independent of the severity of incorporates by reference these test reports as part requirement at the same SWR would the rollover. For example, vehicles of the record for this rulemaking. represent an increase in stringency. 15 We note that we also conducted a test of a experiencing five or more quarter turns Smart ForTwo. However, we did not include these Therefore, in reaching a decision on test results as part of our evaluation because the these issues, we have considered them 13 See report Evaluation of 2 Side Roof Crush vehicle is not typical of a significant number of together. Testing placed in the docket with this notice. vehicles in the fleet.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 22358 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

as the vehicle continues to turn, another relate to vehicle performance instead of previously conducted a study 16 (Rains significant impact on the other side of test procedure issues. study) that measured peak forces the vehicle. A two-sided test will help It is important to note that the Lincoln generated during quasi-static testing ensure that the impact on the first side LS and Buick Lacrosse vehicles were under FMVSS No. 216 and under of the vehicle does not cause excess not subject to an FMVSS incorporating Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) damage that will prevent the vehicle a two-sided requirement or an SWR J996 inverted drop testing. In the Rains from providing protection during the requirement above 1.5, so they were not study, nine quasi-static tests were first impact on the second side of the designed to meet such a requirement conducted. The energy absorption was vehicle. (two-sided test requirement at the tested measured and used to determine the Moreover, as discussed in the FRIA, SWR). Manufacturers can ensure that a appropriate corresponding height for the the greater stringency associated with a vehicle meets a two-sided test inverted drop conditions. Six of the two-sided test requirement will provide requirement by designing it so that they vehicles were then dropped onto a load greater benefits. will be able to meet the second-side test plate. The roof displacement was While we recognize that a two-sided despite whatever damage may occur in measured using a string potentiometer test requirement affects the stringency of the first side test. As a general matter, connected between the A-pillar and roof the standard, as compared to a single- the greater the structural damage that attachment and the vehicle floor. The sided test requirement at the same SWR, occurs in the first-side test, the greater peak force from the drop tests was we believe that it does not raise the variability one would expect in the limited to only the first 74 mm (3 concerns related to test procedure second-side test. We note that the inches) of roof crush because some of repeatability and test lab performance requirement is not the vehicles rolled and contacted the reproducibility. expressed in terms of the percentage ground with the front of the hood. In addressing this issue, we note that difference in damage between the first- Similarly, the peak quasi-static force the test conducted on the second side is side test and the second test; instead, was limited during the first 127 mm (5 identical to the test conducted on the the vehicle must meet the same inches) of plate movement. first side. Thus, the second side test by specified performance criteria in both This report showed that for the nine itself is repeatable and reproducible, for tests. We also note that the first-side test quasi-static tests, the peak force-to- the same reasons the first side test is is conducted only up to the SWR weight ratio ranged from 1.8 to 2.5. Six repeatable and reproducible. specified in the standard. of these vehicle models were dropped at As noted by the Alliance, the ‘‘starting Finally, we note that issues raised by a height calculated to set the potential point’’ for the second side test is commenters concerning varying platen energy of the suspended vehicle equal different than for the first side test in angle and size for the second-side test to the static tests. For these dynamic that the vehicle may have experienced are addressed later in this document in tests, the peak force-to-weight ratio damage during the first side test. the section addressing aspects of the test ranged from 2.1 to 3.1. In sum, the However, it is the purpose of a two- procedure. agency tentatively concluded that 2.5 sided test requirement to limit such 4. Upgraded Force Requirement— was a good representation of the damage, to the extent such damage Specified Strength to Weight Ratio observed range of peak force-to-weight would prevent compliance with the (SWR) ratio. standard’s performance requirements As to eliminating the 22,240 Newton during the second side test. As discussed earlier, FMVSS No. 216 currently requires that the lower surface force limit for passenger cars, the agency As to the Lincoln LS and Buick noted that the limit was included when Lacrosse repeat tests cited by the of the test platen not move more than 127 mm (5 inches), when it is used to the standard was first issued. The effect Alliance, the change in peak SWR of the limit was that passenger cars between the first and second side test apply a force equal to 1.5 times the ¥ ¥ unloaded vehicle weight to the roof over weighing more than 1,512 kilograms was 21.3 percent and 8.7 percent for (3,333 pounds) were subjected to less the two Lincoln LS vehicles tested, and the front seat area. In the NPRM, the ¥ ¥ agency proposed to require that the roof stringent requirements. The purpose of 13.5 percent and 3.4 percent for the the limit was to avoid making it two Buick Lacrosse vehicles tested. For over the front seat area withstand a force increase equal to 2.5 times the unloaded necessary for manufacturers to redesign the Lincoln LS, there was good large cars that could not meet the full correlation between the load- weight of the vehicle, and to eliminate the 22,240 Newton (5,000 pound) force roof strength requirements of the deformation curves on the first side in 17 limit for passenger cars. standard. At the time, the agency the two tests. However, on the second believed that requiring larger passenger side, the load-deformation curves NHTSA explained that it believes that FMVSS No. 216 could protect front seat cars to comply with the full (1.5 times diverge prior to the peak SWR. Further, the unloaded vehicle weight) in one Lincoln LS test, the second side occupants better if the applied force requirement reduced the extent of roof requirement would be unnecessary correlated well with the first side. The because heavy passenger cars had lower other test did not show the same crush occurring in real world crashes. That is, the increased applied force rollover propensity. However, as correlation on the second side, which discussed in the NPRM, the agency led us to believe internal structural requirement would lead to stronger roofs and reduce the roof crush severity tentatively concluded that occupants of damage to the roof during the first side passenger cars weighing more than test was the cause. With respect to the observed in real world crashes. We observed that in many real-world 1,512 kilograms (3,333 pounds) are Buick Lacrosse, the agency identified a sustaining rollover-related injuries and pre-test windshield crack as the likely rollovers, vehicles subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 216 that those cars should be able to comply reason for the difference in outcome with the proposed requirements. between the two tests. The load- experienced vertical roof intrusion deformation curves for the first side did greater than the test plate movement limit of 127 mm (5 inches). 16 Glen C. Rains and Mike Van Voorhis, ‘‘Quasi not reach the same peak load; however, Static and Dynamic Roof Crush Testing,’’ DOT HS there is good correlation on the second In explaining the proposed 2.5 value 808–873, 1998. side. Thus, we believe the differences for SWR, the agency noted that it 17 See 54 FR 46276.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 18:08 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 22359

The agency stated in the NPRM that procedure, but expressed concern about SWR of 3.5, because it has a lower UVW it believed that manufacturers would raising the SWR further. The Alliance as compared to a full size pickup, does comply with the upgraded standard by cautioned against increasing the SWR not mean that 3.5 should be the strengthening reinforcements in roof beyond 2.5 due to the potential adverse regulatory requirement. pillars, by increasing the gauge of steel effects of increased mass. It stated that Comments on the SNPRM used in roofs or by using higher strength recommendations in the docket for materials. higher levels did not attempt to account In commenting on the SNPRM, In the SNPRM, we noted that we had for the potential effect on the static vehicle manufacturers continued to been carefully analyzing the numerous stability factor (SSF) of adding structure support an SWR of 2.5, with safety comments received in response to the necessary to comply with higher advocacy groups recommending a more proposal, and the various additional standards. stringent requirement. vehicle tests conducted after publication Commenters supporting a 3.5 SWR The Alliance recommended that all of the NPRM. We invited comments on included Lipsig, Shapey, Manus & vehicles should be held to the same how the agency should factor in this Moverman (LSMM), Consumers Union, requirements and that a separate new information into its decision. We Center for the Study of Responsive Law requirement should not be afforded for stated that while the NPRM focused on (CSRL), Mr. Sances, Perrone Forensic heavy vehicles. Mercedes-Benz a specified force equivalent to 2.5 times Consulting (Perrone), Ms. Lawlor, Mr. suggested that, for a two-sided test the unloaded vehicle weight, the agency Clough, Xprts, Mr. Nash, Mr. Friedman, requirement, the SWR on the second could adopt a higher or lower value for and Forensic Engineering (FEI). side should be lower than what would the final rule. Consumers Union, LSMM, Ms. Lawlor, be required for the first side. This would In the SNPRM, we observed from the Mr. Clough, and Mr. Sances supported reflect the lower force levels in a recent vehicle testing (focusing on the a 3.5 SWR based on, among other rollover that it said the second side single-sided test results) that the range things, the performance of the Volvo would experience. of SWRs for vehicles with a GVWR of XC90. Commenters stated that the Volvo IIHS supported raising the SWR to 3.0 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less XC90 has heightened roof strength or higher in a one-sided test. IIHS stated tended to be higher than the range of resistance through light-weight that its new analysis justifies such a SWRs for vehicles with a GVWR greater materials making it possible to avoid requirement. than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds). any unnecessary increases in vehicle Agency Decision and Response The SWR of many late model vehicles weight which could adversely affect with a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 rollover propensity. In supporting more After carefully considering the pounds) or less was substantially higher stringent roof crush resistance comments and available information, than the 2.5 value the agency focused on requirements, the CSRL stated that and for the reasons discussed below, we in the NPRM. Conversely, only two NHTSA should consider using its have decided to adopt an SWR vehicles we tested with a GVWR greater technology-forcing authority. requirement of 3.0 for vehicles with a than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) Several commenters supported an GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 exceeded the 2.5 value. SWR of 4.0 or higher. These pounds) or less, and 1.5 for vehicles We noted in the SNPRM that the PRIA commenters included Mr. Slavik, with a GVWR greater than 2,722 had examined the proposed SWR of 2.5 ARCCA, Technical Services, and FEI. kilograms (6,000 pounds). and the alternative SWR of 3.0 times the The commenters suggested that higher While this rulemaking involves a unloaded vehicle weight. The agency strength steel alloy, changes to the cross number of key decisions, the selection included in the SNPRM discussion and sectional thickness of roof components, of an SWR requirement is the most analysis concerning a number of factors and other design changes would make important one for both costs and expected to change the estimated increasing the SWR feasible and cost benefits. Our analysis, presented in impacts, and sought comments effective. detail in the FRIA, shows that for the concerning impacts of SWR levels of In connection with arguments that the alternatives we evaluated, benefits in 2.5, 3.0 and 3.5. agency should base the level of the terms of reduced fatalities continue to standard on the performance of the rise with higher SWR levels due to Comments on the NPRM Volvo XC90, Ford commented that in reduced intrusion. The benefits In general, vehicle manufacturers considering the stringency of an SWR continue to rise because, for vehicles supported an SWR of 2.5, while safety requirement, roof SWR does not designed to have higher SWR levels, the advocacy groups recommended a more discriminate vehicles by roof strength. It vehicle roofs experience less intrusion stringent standard with the majority noted that the roof strength required to in higher severity crashes. However, supporting a 3.5 SWR requirement. achieve a specific SWR depends on the costs also increase substantially with Vehicle manufacturers, including vehicle’s unloaded vehicle weight higher SWR levels, so NHTSA must General Motors Corporation (GM), Ford (UVW). Ford stated that two vehicles select the appropriate balance of safety Motor Company (Ford), DaimlerChrysler with the same SWR, but different benefits to added costs. Corporation,18 Porsche Cars North UVWs, may have roof strength levels Under the Safety Act, NHTSA must America (Porsche), Toyota Motor North that are actually several thousand issue safety standards that are both America (Toyota), and Nissan North pounds apart. That company argued that practicable and meet the need for motor America (Nissan), and the Alliance the agency’s 2.5 SWR proposal is very vehicle safety. 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). The supported the proposed 2.5 SWR level, stringent. Ford stated that vehicle roof agency considers economic factors, with caveats about sufficient leadtime designs are essentially the same for all including costs, as part of ensuring that and other requested changes to the test passenger carrying vehicles, and that A standards are reasonable, practicable, pillars are A pillars and B pillars are B and appropriate. 18 In August 2007, Daimler and Chrysler pillars, regardless of vehicle type, i.e., In Motor Vehicle Manufacturers separated. All comments submitted to the agency the constraints on a roof system design Association v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29, prior to that date will be noted in this document as DaimlerChrysler. Mercedes-Benz USA and are applicable to all affected vehicles. 54–55 (1983), the Supreme Court Chrysler LLC submitted comments separately That company argued that because a indicated that the agency must, in afterwards and will be referenced accordingly. particular vehicle can achieve a roof making decisions about safety

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 22360 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

standards, consider reasonableness of weighs 2,268 kilograms (5,000 pounds) Our decision to adopt a 3.0 SWR monetary and other costs associated must have a roof structure capable of requirement for vehicles with a GVWR with the standard. It stated, however, withstanding 44,482 N (10,000 pounds) of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) or that ‘‘(i)n reaching its judgment, NHTSA of force. This means more structure or less, i.e., the vehicles currently subject should bear in mind that Congress reinforcement are needed for the heavier to the standard, reflects the higher life- intended safety to be the preeminent vehicle, which means more cost and saving benefits associated with that factor under the Motor Vehicle Safety weight. Moreover, vehicles in the requirement. It also reflects our Act:’’ heavier category have not previously consideration of the test results of The Committee intends that safety shall be been subject to FMVSS No. 216, so they current vehicles. We believe the high the overriding consideration in the issuance have not been required to meet the SWR levels that are currently being of standards under this bill. The Committee existing 1.5 SWR single-sided achieved for a range of light vehicles recognizes * * * that the Secretary will requirement. demonstrate that manufacturers can necessarily consider reasonableness of cost, At the same time, these heavier achieve this SWR level for these feasibility and adequate leadtime. S. Rep. No. vehicles account for only a very small vehicles. 1301, at 6, U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News part of the target population of An SWR requirement of 3.0 prevents 1966, p. 2714. occupants who might benefit from about 66 percent more fatalities than In establishing standards the Secretary must conform to the requirement that the improved roof strength. Only 5 percent one at 2.5, 133 instead of 80. However, standard be practicable. This would require of the fatalities in the overall target costs increase by a considerably higher consideration of all relevant factors, population (33 in terms of a specific percentage, resulting in a less favorable including technological ability to achieve the number) occur in vehicles over 2,722 cost per equivalent life saved, $5.7 goal of a particular standard as well as kilograms (6,000 pounds) GVWR. million to $8.5 million for 3.0 SWR as consideration of economic factors. Motor Ninety-five percent of the fatalities (635 compared to $3.8 million to $7.2 million vehicle safety is the paramount purpose of in terms of a specific number) occur in for 2.5 SWR. this bill and each standard must be related vehicles under 2,722 kilograms (6,000 In these particular circumstances, we thereto. H.Rep. No. 1776, at 16. pounds) GVWR. These differences believe that a 3.0 SWR requirement is Thus, in making our decision reflect the fact that there are far fewer appropriate and the costs reasonable concerning SWR, we are guided by the vehicles in this category in the on-road given the increased benefits. While the statutory language, legislative history, fleet, and may also reflect the vehicles’ cost per equivalent life saved is and the Supreme Court’s construction of size and weight as well as their relatively high compared to other the Safety Act, as well as by the specific frequency of use as working vehicles. NHTSA rulemakings, we conclude that requirement in SAFETEA–LU for us to Heavier vehicles generally are less likely the higher safety benefits, the legislative upgrade FMVSS No. 216 relating to roof to roll over than lighter vehicles. mandate for an upgrade, the technical strength for driver and passenger sides We recognize the argument that all feasibility of making roofs this strong, for motor vehicles with a GVWR of not light vehicles should meet the same and the fact that these costs are more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 SWR requirements, to ensure the same generally within the range of accepted pounds). We consider both costs and minimum level of protection in a values justify moving NHTSA’s roof benefits, bearing in mind that Congress rollover crash. However, in selecting crush standards to a 3.0 SWR for intended safety to be the preeminent particular requirements for a final rule, vehicles that have been subject to the factor under the Safety Act. we believe that our focus must be on 1.5 SWR requirements. As indicated above, while benefits saving lives while also considering costs We decline, however, to adopt an continue to rise with higher SWR levels, and relative risk. What is necessary to even higher SWR requirement. In costs also increase substantially. The meet the need for safety and is considering higher SWR requirements at challenge is to push to a level where the practicable for one type or size of this level, costs continue to increase at safety benefits are still reasonable in vehicle may not be necessary or a considerably higher rate than benefits. relation to the associated costs. As part reasonable, practicable and appropriate The FRIA estimates that while a 3.5 of this, we consider issues related to for another type or size of vehicle. Thus, SWR requirement for these vehicles cost effectiveness. The agency’s analysis to the extent the goal of establishing the would result in higher benefits, of cost effectiveness is presented in the same SWR requirements for all light preventing 175 instead of 133 fatalities, FRIA and summarized in this vehicles would have the effect of either total costs would increase to $1.6 billion document. unnecessarily reducing the number of to $2.3 billion (about $800 million to Another important factor in the lives saved in lighter vehicles or $1.1 billion above the total costs for the selection of the SWR requirements is imposing substantially higher, 3.0 SWR requirement) and the overall that there are much higher costs relative unreasonable costs on heavier vehicles cost per equivalent life saved for these to benefits associated with any level despite their lesser relative risk, we vehicles would increase to $8.8 to $12.3 SWR requirement for vehicles with a believe it is appropriate to adopt million. A 3.5 SWR requirement would GVWR greater than 2,722 kilograms different requirements for different thus result in an approximate doubling (6,000 pounds) as compared to the vehicles. We also observe that because of the costs beyond those of a 3.0 SWR lighter vehicles currently subject to the the same SWR requirement is requirement, and deliver about 1⁄3 more standard. significantly more stringent for heavier benefits. There are a number of reasons for this vehicles than lighter vehicles (due to Vehicles with a GVWR greater than differential between heaver and lighter SWR being a multiple of unloaded 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) and less vehicles. The absolute strength needed vehicle weight), establishing the same than or equal to 4,536 kilograms (10,000 to meet a specific SWR is a function of SWR requirement for heavier vehicles is pounds). the vehicle’s weight. By way of not simply a matter of expecting Vehicles with a GVWR greater than example, to meet a 2.0 SWR, a vehicle manufacturers to provide the same 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) are not that weighs 1,360 kilograms (3,000 countermeasures as they do for light currently subject to FMVSS No. 216 pounds) must have a roof structure vehicles. and, because of their greater unloaded capable of withstanding 26,690 N (6,000 Vehicles with a GVWR of 2,722 vehicle weight, these vehicles pose pounds) of force, while a vehicle that kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less. greater design challenges. Moreover,

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 22361

given the relatively small target changes that manufacturers will initiate requirement that applies to each population for these vehicles, the in response to this rule, there are vehicle. Using a weight higher than benefits will necessarily be small numerous ways to address both roof unloaded vehicle weight would simply regardless of the SWR selected. strength and rollover propensity represent another means of increasing After considering our original simultaneously. This final rule provides stringency and would be equivalent to proposal of a SWR of 2.5 and the substantial leadtime within which to a requirement for a higher SWR. available information, we have choose among those ways and make However, the agency has already concluded that a SWR of 1.5 is design changes that avoid adversely considered alternative higher SWR appropriate for these heavier vehicles. affecting that propensity. There is levels, as well as a two-sided test The requirement we are adopting is evidence from current NCAP ratings requirement, which also represent an more stringent than the longstanding that manufacturers are routinely doing increase in stringency. Thus, the other requirement that has applied to lighter so. Manufacturers generally strive to issues we have considered ensure an vehicles until this rulemaking because it maintain or improve their NCAP ratings appropriate level of stringency. is a two-sided requirement. The FRIA to help market their vehicles. The estimates that two fatalities and 46 agency believes that this concern over 5. Performance Criteria—Headroom, nonfatal injuries will be prevented NCAP ratings would preclude a design Platen Travel, or Both annually by this requirement. Because strategy that unnecessarily increases CG In the NPRM, we proposed to replace of the high cost relative to the benefits and degrades SSF. Further, agency the current limit on platen travel (test for all of the alternatives for these testing of 10 redesigned vehicles with plate movement) during the specified heavier vehicles, from the 1.5 SWR higher roof strengths found that quasi-static test with a requirement that alternative and above, any alternative manufacturers had maintained SSF the crush not exceed the available we select would adversely affect the levels while increasing roof strength in headroom. We were concerned that the overall cost effectiveness of this newly redesigned models. platen travel limit does not provide rulemaking (covering all light vehicles). A detailed discussion of issues related adequate protection to front outboard We believe that a SWR of 1.5 is to added weight and SSF is included in occupants of vehicles with a small appropriate for these heavier vehicles. the FRIA, and there is also additional amount of occupant headroom. We also Given the requirements of SAFETEA– discussion later in this document. stated that the current requirement may LU, we need to ensure that the standard Mercedes-Benz suggested that, for a impose a needless burden on vehicles results in improved real world roof two-sided test requirement, the SWR on with a large amount of occupant crush resistance for these vehicles. We the second side should be lower than headroom. decline, however, to adopt a SWR what would be required for the first Under our proposal, no roof higher than 1.5 for vehicles with a side. According to Mercedes, this would component or portion of the test device GVWR greater than 2,722 kilograms reflect the lower force levels in a could contact the head or neck of a (6,000 pounds), given the small rollover that it said the second side seated Hybrid III 50th percentile adult additional benefits (4 additional lives would experience. However, as male dummy during the specified test. saved) and substantially higher costs. discussed above in the section on We believed that this direct headroom single-sided or two-sided tests, the Adopting a SWR of 2.0 for these reduction limit would ensure that agency’s analysis of NASS data vehicles would more than double the motorists receive an adequate level of indicates that vehicles experience more costs of this rule for these vehicles to roof crush protection regardless of the intrusion on the far side (second side) prevent 4 additional fatalities and 137 type of vehicle in which they ride. We of the vehicle than the near side. nonfatal injuries. included a definition of the term ‘‘roof Other issues related to strength Therefore, we decline to adopt a lower component’’ as part of the proposal. requirements and SWR. SWR requirement for the second side. We noted a concern that there may be As indicated above, the Alliance We note that the agency took into cautioned against increasing the SWR account the costs and benefits of a two- some low roofline vehicles in which the beyond 2.5 for lighter vehicles due to sided test requirement with the SWR at 50th percentile Hybrid III dummy the potential adverse effects of increased the same level for both sides. would have relatively little available mass. It stated that recommendations in As to the issue raised by CSRL about headroom when positioned properly in the docket for higher levels did not safety standards that are technology- the seat. That is, we were concerned attempt to account for the potential forcing, that commenter did not provide that, in some limited circumstances, the effect on the SSF of adding structure specific information concerning what it headroom between the head of a 50th necessary to comply with higher contemplated in this area. As part of the percentile male dummy and the roof standards. agency’s analysis of costs and benefits, liner is so small that even minimal We do not believe that it is necessary we considered the use of advanced deformation resulting from the to account for that effect. We note that higher strength and lighter weight application of the required force would the agency has considered a number of materials. Our analysis assumes lead to test failure. We requested issues related to added weight as part of significantly greater implementation comments on whether any additional or the FRIA, including possible adverse and use of these advanced materials. substitute requirements would be effects to safety. Based on our analysis, Finally, we note that several appropriate for low roofline vehicles. we believe that today’s rule will not commenters suggested that the agency In the NPRM, the agency estimated result in adverse effects to safety as a use alternative approaches other than benefits based on post-crash headroom, result of added weight. unloaded vehicle weight for purposes of the only basis for which a statistical For a number of reasons, including calculating SWR. Recommendations relationship with injury reduction had ones related to CAFE standards, fuel included using weight of the vehicle been established. In our January 2008 prices, and rollover propensity, we plus two occupants, or GVWR plus two SNPRM, we explained that with believe manufacturers will strive to occupants. We decline to change additional years of available data, a minimize the weight impacts of added FMVSS No. 216’s existing approach of statistically significant relationship roof strength. While there is a great deal using a multiple of unloaded vehicle between intrusion and injury for belted of uncertainty regarding the actual weight for calculating the force occupants had been established. A

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 22362 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

study regarding this relationship was requirement of measuring roof crush performance or movement of interior placed in the docket.19 resistance with a seated Hybrid III trim in a roof crush test. It stated that We also noted in the January 2008 dummy non-repeatable and structural designs must be completed SNPRM that in the most recent agency impracticable. early in the vehicle development testing, headroom reduction had been Porsche also expressed concern with process to facilitate tooling lead time. assessed using a head positioning controlling unwanted movement of the According to GM, the interior trim fixture (HPF) in lieu of a 50th percentile dummy with its roof crush test set-up. components (included in the proposed adult male dummy. We stated that The Porsche roof crush test procedure definition of roof component) are not reports on these tests explain the rotates the vehicle by 90 degrees designed in final form until much later procedure and type of fixture used to because their platen press applies a load in the vehicle development process. assess headroom reduction, and that the parallel to the ground. The dummy is Therefore, according to that commenter, test reports were being made available not fixed into position and, as a result, the roof structure force deflection to the public. We noted further that the would rotate and not be properly characteristics are defined (and roof agency was considering whether this positioned. crush properties established) before fixture should be specified in the final Complexity. IIHS stated that relating manufacturers can take into account the rule. the allowable amount of roof crush in package space and deformation the quasi-static test to the headroom in requirements of the interior trim. Comments specific vehicles is a good concept but Reduced stringency of the standard The agency received a variety of that, in practice, the agency’s research Several commenters, including Public comments on the proposed headroom tests have not shown that replacing the Citizen, IIHS, and LSMM expressed reduction criterion. 127 mm (5 inch) platen travel criterion concern that the proposed head contact One group of commenters, including with the headroom requirement would criteria could reduce the residual safety advocacy organizations, generally be a meaningful change to the standard occupant headroom required after supported adding a headroom reduction and may not justify the added testing, be less stringent for vehicles criterion but, in some cases, argued that complications to the test procedure. with existing headroom greater than 127 a platen travel criterion is also needed. Possible conflicts with FMVSS No. mm (5 inches), and thereby allow more Some of these commenters also argued 201 ‘‘Occupant protection in interior than 127 mm (5 inches) of crush. As a that these criteria should be made more impact.’’ A number of commenters, result, according to these commenters, stringent to protect taller occupants. including DaimlerChrysler, Ford, GM, the stringency would be reduced for Another group of commenters, Ferrari and Toyota commented that the vehicles with greater than 127 mm (5 including vehicle manufacturers, urged proposed headroom requirement inches) of headroom, such as many the agency to retain the current platen conflicts with the intent of the upper trucks and Sport Utility Vehicles travel criterion instead of adopting a interior requirements of FMVSS No. (SUVs). We note that Ford commented headroom reduction criterion. They 201, Occupant Protection in Interior that most of its light trucks, argued, among other things, that using Impact. DaimlerChrysler and GM stated multipurpose passenger vehicles and the headroom reduction criterion would that FMVSS No. 201U 20 vans (LTVs) have more than 127 mm (5 add unnecessary complexity to the test countermeasures have been specifically inches) of platen travel prior to head procedure and result in problems developed to manage head impact contact, while passenger cars generally related to repeatability and energy and mitigate injury potential by have less. practicability. the dissipation of the impact energy Alternative headroom requirement Specific issues raised by commenters through deformation of the trim and approaches A number of commenters include: FMVSS No. 201U countermeasures recommended alternative approaches to the proposed headroom requirement. Repeatability and practicability themselves. Ford stated that head Biomech Incorporated (Biomech) issues. Several commenters, including impact mitigation technologies often suggested using a one gravity static the Alliance, DaimlerChrysler, GM, result in the upper interior trim, inversion test (using the FMVSS No. 301 Ford, and Porsche, cited concerns particularly the roof side rail trim, being fixture) to learn where the inverted related to reliability and practicability of closer to the head of occupants, thereby dummy head position would be. It using a test dummy for purposes of the reducing the available distance for suggested that deformation in the roof FMVSS No. 216 quasi-static test. achieving the SWR requirement prior to crush test should not be permitted to DaimlerChrysler, Ford and GM stated headform contact. It stated that these reach the measured position of the that variations in test dummy placement technologies are designed to reduce the likelihood of head impact injuries, and inverted dummy’s head. cause variability in the distance GM, DaimlerChrysler, Toyota, Ferrari that the proposed no-contact between the dummy head and the roof and Porsche recommended that if the requirement does not account for the side rails. In test results cited by GM, agency establishes a headroom potential benefits of these technologies horizontal and vertical variations of an reduction criterion, it consider using a in a roof deformation situation. GM inch or more occurred in the dummy’s headform position procedure (HPF) that further stated that NHTSA’s headroom seating position. GM stated that this essentially represents a headform analysis does not establish a correlation variability is further complicated when secured to an adjustable vertical support between injuries and head contact with vehicles with different trim and seating that is rigidly attached to the floor pan trim components. options (cloth or leather, manual or of the tested vehicle at the seat power adjusters) are provided using the Effects on vehicle manufacturing process GM stated that since the vehicle anchorages. same vehicle architecture structure. It A number of these commenters also roof structure is designed very early in suggested that such options add to the suggested that the agency consider the vehicle development process, it is variability and make the proposed removing any roof trim components not possible to reliably predict the (i.e., all headliner, trim, deployable 19 Strashny, Alexander, ‘‘The Role of Vertical Roof Intrusion and Post-Crash Headroom in 20 FMVSS 201U, refers to those aspects of FMVSS countermeasures and grab handles) Predicting Roof Contact Injuries to the Head, Neck, No. 201 pertaining to the upper interior trim head prior to testing. Further, these or Face during FMVSS 216 Rollovers.’’ protection requirements. commenters also recommended that

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 22363

head contact with the roof structure contact’’ criterion, whether it is additional years of data available, a itself be the only assessment criteria for determined by use of a test dummy or statistically significant relationship compliance certification. GM via the use of an HPF with an associated between intrusion and injury for belted recommended that manufacturers contact force. The Alliance stated that occupants was established. provide the headform location to the platen travel requirement would NHTSA cited its new headroom and NHTSA prior to a compliance test based yield essentially the same roof strength roof intrusion analysis 22 in the SNPRM. upon the nominal design seating and avoid unnecessary test-to-test The agency added two years of NASS– positions. Toyota, by contrast, variability and testing complexity. That CDS data to each analysis and found a recommended the agency determine the organization stated that if the agency new, stronger negative correlation location for the 50th percentile male adopts a head contact criterion in the between post-crash headroom and head position with the Head Restraint final rule, it is essential that the head maximum injury severity of head, neck Measuring Device (HRMD) 21 after first contact device be a headform on a stand or face from roof contact. Also, for the determining the H-point using the SAE located at a position specified by the first time, the agency was able to find a J826 procedure, and then position the manufacturer and not a crash test statistically significant correlation headform in the vehicle. dummy or a headform located based on between vertical roof intrusion and DaimlerChrysler recommended what it claimed would be very head, neck, or face injury from roof verifying compliance by a 200 N (44 unreliable and unrepeatable location contact. Based upon this new analysis, pounds) resultant contact force in the data estimated from a test dummy or we believe that maintaining headroom, upper neck load cell of a 50th percentile SAE J826 manikin (OSCAR) location. as well as restricting the amount of adult male Hybrid III head fixture at the The Alliance stated that possible use of intrusion (retaining the platen travel location specified in the NPRM. a 222 N (50 pound) contact criterion has requirement) will yield benefits in DaimlerChrysler recommended that in not been supported by any scientific rollover crashes. Therefore, we believe the event the platen does not stop data. both criteria should be included in the quickly enough after the resultant neck In commenting on the SNPRM, GM final rule. force reaches 200 N (44 pounds); the stated that use of the 127 mm (5 inch) Commenters opposing adoption of a head fixture should be designed to platen travel criterion rather than either headroom requirement raised a number either withdraw or become compliant a dummy or head contact fixture is of concerns, including ones related to by using a force limiting device in order required to prevent unnecessary test the test procedure, practicability to prevent any damage to the load cell variation and complication while concerns, and whether a headroom in the dummy’s head. GM also maintaining a comparable level of requirement would result in benefits recommended a similar approach and stringency. beyond those of the platen travel suggested the agency consider a range of AIAM did not endorse the HPF requirement. The issues related to the loads on the headform of 100 N (22 approach but suggested that the fixture test procedure and practicability pounds) to 400 N (88 pounds). might be equipped to measure neck concerns are addressed below. Advocates recommended a maximum load, to exclude incidental contact with As to the issue of additional benefits intrusion limit of no more than 76.2 mm trim items. associated with the headroom criterion, (3 inches) in order to protect occupants Public Citizen stated that defining we note that, based on our testing, in the taller than the 50th percentile male. head contact with the HPF by using vast majority of vehicles it is likely that Public Citizen recommended that force-deflection criteria would result in the limit on platen travel will be NHTSA require that vehicle roof a significant number of front seat encountered before the one on structures resist more than 76.2 mm (3 occupants suffering head and neck headroom reduction. For these vehicles, inches) of roof crush, and maintain the injuries. the new requirement will not pose any minimum amount of headroom significant challenges for manufacturers, Agency Response proposed in the NPRM in order to particularly in light of the changes we reduce side window breakage and After carefully considering the are making in the test procedure. prevent B-pillar deformation, which it comments, the agency has decided to However, as we also consider vehicles believes can alter seat belt geometry. adopt the proposed headroom with less headroom and potential future ARCCA, Mr. Slavik and the Advocates requirement, but with a different test vehicles, we believe there is a need to also recommended the agency use a procedure. Instead of specifying a adopt a headroom reduction 95th percentile adult male dummy procedure using a seated Hybrid III requirement to help ensure post-crash instead of the smaller 50th percentile adult male dummy, we are specifying survival space. male to increase the stringency of the use of a HPF that positions the In the NPRM, we raised a concern that standard and further limit intrusion. headform at the location of a 50th for vehicles with greater than 127 mm Testing with HPF: As noted above, the percentile adult male. To help ensure (5 inches) of headroom, limiting platen agency indicated in the SNPRM that it objectivity and in light of concerns travel to 127 mm (5 inches) may impose was considering whether to specify a about incidental contact with trim, head a needless burden on these vehicles. test using a HPF in the final rule. We contact is defined as occurring when a However, manufacturers generally received a number of comments 222 N (50 pound) resultant load is supported retaining the platen travel concerning this issue. measured by a load cell on the HPF. limit, suggesting that the requirement is The Alliance reiterated its Finally, to better ensure safety, we are not burdensome. Moreover, as indicated recommendation that NHTSA maintain retaining the current 127 mm (5 inch) above, we now have a new analysis the use of the 127 mm (5 inch) platen platen travel requirement as well as showing a statistically significant travel criterion. That organization stated adopting a headroom requirement. relationship between intrusion and that it does not support a ‘‘no head Primary Rationale: At the time of the injury for belted occupants. NPRM, the agency estimated benefits Basic Test Procedure for Measuring 21 HRMD means the SAE J826 three-dimensional based on post-crash headroom, the only Head Contact: To help analyze manikin with a headform attached, representing the head position of a seated 50th percentile male, with basis for which a statistical relationship comments raising repeatability concerns sliding scale at the back of the head for the purpose with injury reduction had been of measuring head restraint backset. established. After the NPRM, with 22 ibid

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 22364 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

with the Hybrid III dummy and shown that the skin on the Hybrid III vehicle with respect to the load press identifying when head contact occurred, dummy’s head added a level of testing when conducting roof crush tests. the agency conducted a series of tests complexity that was unnecessary to the Because head contact is defined as a using alternative approaches. In the first goal of identifying when roof contact load on the headform, the test result is series of tests conducted at NHTSA’s occurs at a point in space. Therefore, the more objective/repeatable, and not Vehicle Research and Test Center agency developed a simpler HPF using sensitive to incidental contact with (VRTC), the agency used a head an FMVSS No. 201 headform that is interior surfaces that may disengage positioning fixture developed by GM currently used for testing instrument during testing. (GM–HPF).23 The GM–HPF is a panels and seat backs. (This headform is We disagree with comments from headform secured to an adjustable effectively a 16.5 cm (6.5 inch) diameter manufacturers that recommended the vertical support that is rigidly attached metallic hemisphere). removal of the roof’s interior trim prior to the floor pan at the seat anchorages. During roof crush test series to testing in order to simplify the The GM–HPF rigidly holds a headform conducted at General Testing procedure. The agency’s headroom in the location of a normally-seated 50th Laboratories,25 the HPF was developed analysis established a correlation percentile male head and measures the by mounting the FMVSS No. 201 between injuries and head contact with load on the headform from contact with headform to a cantilevered levering arm a NASS–CDS roof component when the the interior roof as it is crushed. which was then attached to a tri-pod. injury source was the A–Pillar, B–Pillar, The headform consists of a skull, The levering arm was maintained in front or rear header, roof rail or the roof headskin, and 6-axis upper neck load position by air pressure and designed to itself. These interior surfaces are cell from a 50th percentile male Hybrid- collapse after a 222 N (50 pound) load considered interior trim. We believe III dummy (Part 572, subpart E). This was applied. The purpose of the they should be factored in when assembly is mounted to the end of a cantilever design was to allow some considering the available headroom in channeled square tube (upper post). A downward movement so as not to the test. By defining head contact as second, similar tube (lower post) is damage the device after head contact is occurring when a 222 N (50 pound) load perpendicularly mounted to a reached. The HPF was positioned in the is applied to the headform, we are rectangular aluminum mounting plate. vehicle at the 50th percentile male head addressing concerns about incidental The upper and lower posts attach to position using the FMVSS No. 214 contact with trim. This definition of each other and are parallel. The upper seating procedure recently adopted (72 head contact also addresses concerns post can slide along the lower post. This FR 51908) and modified to use the about possible conflicts with the intent provides vertical adjustment of the OSCAR with a Head Restraint of FMVSS No. 201U, with respect to headform once the fixture is mounted in Measuring Device attached for concerns with incidental contact. If the the vehicle. The GM–HPF also includes repeatable placement. The HPF tri-pod headform experiences a 222 N (50 four metal support straps that attach apparatus was then rigidly secured to pound) load, the contact is not between the upper/lower post and the the floor of the vehicle. The FMVSS No. incidental and there is a safety issue mounting plate, in a pyramid 201 headform was mounted on a 3-axis related to available headroom. configuration. These straps provide dummy neck load cell, and all loads and We also disagree with comments from rigidity to the fixture and are attached moments were recorded. The roof was manufacturers recommending that the after final positioning of the headform. then crushed until the unmodified head contact device be a headform on a In the testing conducted at VRTC,24 interior roof made contact with the HPF stand located at a position specified by the head position of a normally seated and the resultant load, as measured by the manufacturer and not a crash test 50th percentile male Hybrid-III dummy the load cell, exceeded 222 N (50 dummy or a headform located based on was determined by placing the seat at pounds). During our evaluation we SAE J826 manikin (OSCAR) location. the mid-track position and using the defined ‘‘head contact’’ as occurring The HPF test procedure (as would a test SAE J826 (OSCAR) device to locate the when a 222 N (50 pound) load is procedure using a test dummy) H-point. A 50th percentile male Hybrid- applied to the sphere, in the belief that measures head contact in the vehicle III dummy was then positioned per the this load level would correspond to being tested. However, the approach of FMVSS No. 208 seating procedure and structural roof contact rather than using a headform on a stand located at the head location was documented interior trim components coming loose. a position specified by the manufacturer using a 3-dimensional measurement This was consistent with comments would not necessarily represent the device. The dummy and seat were then from DaimlerChrysler and GM that used actual vehicle build. removed. The GM–HPF mounting plate a force load approach as a reliable We note that the SAE J826 mannequin was attached to the vehicle floor and the method of identifying head contact and has long been incorporated in NHTSA’s headform was then raised until its removing the uncertainty of random safety standards for purposes of vertical position matched that interior trim contact. determining the H-point location. Issues determined from dummy placement. Our test experience with the simpler concerning the accuracy of After gaining experience with the HPF proved to be repeatable in the tests measurements using this device and the GM–HPF, the agency developed its own, and easier than using the Hybrid III HRMD were addressed at length in our simpler HPF approach for evaluating dummy itself during the test. rulemaking upgrading our head post crash headroom. In doing so, the We believe specification of the HPF restraints standard. Manufacturers can agency determined that it is not appropriately addresses commenters’ address concerns about different trim necessary to use a test device with the concerns regarding variability with and seating options by factoring in the complexity of a headform based on the regard to locating the dummy’s head. location where the headform (and also Hybrid III dummy head, given the With the HPF rigidly fixed to the the head of a typical average size male nature of the performance criterion vehicle, we also believe this addresses occupant) will be under those different being measured. Earlier testing had the concerns of manufacturers, such as options. Porsche, which alter the attitude of the Definition of head contact: 23 See Docket Number NHTSA–2005–22143–195 As noted above, the Alliance stated 24 See docket entry NHTSA 2008–0015–003 for 25 See report Two-Sided Roof Crush Testing that possible use of a 222 N (50 pound) the vehicles tested with the GM–HPF. Analysis placed in the docket with this notice. contact criterion has not been supported

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 22365

by any scientific data. Public Citizen percentile occupant is similar to reduced frontal area and low drag. It expressed concern that defining head limiting the platen displacement to 76.3 further stated that this modified contact with the HPF by means of force- mm (3 inches) in increasing stringency. requirement should also apply to other deflection criteria would result in a As indicated above, we believe the other kinds of vehicles, such as any two-seater significant number of front seat issues we have considered ensure an that is designed with a more occupants suffering head and neck appropriate level of stringency. aggressively raked windshield. injuries. Moreover, we believe that the DaimlerChrysler recommended that We note that the load as defined is not relationship between vehicle headroom vehicles of this type could be identified intended to be an injury criterion, for and occupant size is insignificant in or defined based on a set of which one would expect supporting most cases. It is likely that taller front characteristics such as the Static scientific data, but is instead simply an seat occupants adjust the seat positions Stability Factor (SSF) (e.g., ≥1.4), NCAP objective way of defining head contact to prevent uncomfortable proximity to rollover rating (e.g., ≥4 stars), height-to- and avoiding treating incidental contact the roof such as by lowering the seat width ratio (e.g., ≤0.75), windshield rake with loose trim as head contact. Our cushion bottom, increasing the seat back angle, vehicle height, etc. testing has shown, on average, once angle and/or adjusting the seat position Ford stated that low roofline vehicles physical contact between the interior further rearward. are not the only vehicles that have roof trim and the headform occurred Low roofline vehicles: In the NPRM, problems with limited headform resulting in the onset of a load on the we discussed possible concerns with clearance. It stated that vehicles that headform, the platen traveled 6 mm vehicles that have relatively little may be considered as ‘‘high roofline’’ (0.24 inches) prior to the load reaching available headroom when the 50th can also have limited headform-to-roof 220 N (50 pounds). Therefore, we do not percentile adult male dummy is clearance due to interior package expect increased head and neck injuries positioned properly in the seat. Vehicles design. Based on the interior package from this approach. Moreover, retention with these aerodynamically sloped roofs design of a particular vehicle, regardless of the current platen travel requirement will hereafter be referred as ‘‘low of roof line characteristics, the critical will also prevent such increased roofline vehicles.’’ We stated that we dimension (distance between the injuries. We selected the 222 N (50 were concerned that, in some limited outboard side of dummy’s headform and pound) contact criterion based on circumstances, the headroom between the roof side rail trim) can be minimal. comments from GM and the head of a 50th percentile male Mitsubishi commented that headform- DaimlerChrysler and our own testing dummy and the interior headliner is so to-roof clearance is a concern for not experience. small that even minimal deformation only low roofline vehicles but may be Possible Reduced Stringency: resulting from the application of the more generically classified as being an IIHS, LSMM and Public Citizen required force would lead to test failure. issue for limited headroom vehicles. expressed concern that if the platen NHTSA requested comments on Porsche expressed concern that low travel requirement were not retained in whether any additional or substitute roofline vehicles have less opportunity addition to adopting the headroom requirements would be appropriate for for enhanced roof structures because the criterion, adoption of the proposed low roofline vehicles in order to make focus on performance and aerodynamics headroom criterion would represent a the standard practicable. virtually eliminates the option of taller decrease in stringency for the standard’s Several commenters, including pillar supports. performance criterion. This is not an DaimlerChrysler, Ford, Porsche, Hyundai stated it will be challenging issue since we are retaining the platen Mitsubishi Motors R&D of America, Inc. for low roofline vehicles and travel requirement. (Mitsubishi) and Hyundai America particularly two door coupe vehicles to Possible more restrictive Technical Center, Inc. (Hyundai), meet the upgraded standard because of requirements. We disagree with provided comments on low roofline the lack of headroom and the possibility commenters which recommended that vehicles. The commenters the B-pillar may not be loaded because the agency reduce the platen travel recommended that the requirements be it is further away from the A-pillar requirement to 76.3 mm (3 inches). limited to 127 mm (5 inches) of compared to a sedan. It requested that On average, the vehicles the agency deflection for a load of 2.5 SWR in order the agency define a low roofline vehicle has tested have reached the maximum to minimize the negative impact on to explicitly include two-door coupe SWR in 90 mm (3.5 inches) of platen continued availability of this type of vehicles in the definition. It also travel. A requirement for reduced platen vehicle if the agency were to adopt a requested that these types of vehicles be travel would represent an increase in headroom requirement. DaimlerChrysler allowed to meet the current stringency and, in many respects, would stated that the proposed standard was requirements until it can be be similar to a requirement for a higher not reasonable, practicable and demonstrated that practicability with SWR. We note that the agency has appropriate for these types of motor the upgrade is feasible. already been considering the possibility vehicles as required by the Motor Based on its analysis, the agency of a higher SWR, as well as two-sided Vehicle Safety Act. It further stated that believes the requirements it is adopting test requirement, which would also the agency had not demonstrated in the will not create new problems for low increase stringency. We have not NPRM or the PRIA, the feasibility of roofline vehicles. In our most recent conducted testing to analyze the going beyond 1.5 times the UVW in roof two-sided research program, the agency appropriateness of applying a 3 inch strength without head contact for tested a 2006 Chrysler Crossfire, a platen travel requirement to all vehicles. vehicles with steeply raked windshields vehicle identified as a low roofline However, we believe the other issues we and reduced headroom. vehicle. During the first-side test, the have considered ensure an appropriate DaimlerChrysler suggested its vehicle had a peak SWR of 2.9 at 97 mm level of stringency. recommendation would be applicable to (3.85 inches) of platen displacement. We also do not agree with the Chrysler Crossfire, Dodge Viper, and Head contact based upon our criteria commenters recommending the use of McLaren Mercedes models and (222 N load on the headform) occurred the 95th percentile dummy (or successors, which are generally at 107 mm (4.21 inches) of platen travel. equivalent HPF) for measuring head designed with a steeply raked This showed the maximum SWR was contact. Restricting headroom to a 95th windshield and a low roofline for reached prior to head contact. On the

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 22366 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

second side, the Crossfire reached a 2.7 redesign than estimated by the agency. Agency Decision/Response SWR prior to head contact at 135 mm The Alliance, Ford and GM stated that After carefully considering the (5.31 inches) of platen travel. approximately 60 percent of their fleets comments and available information, The agency tested another low would need to be redesigned, and and for the reasons discussed below, we roofline vehicle, the 2007 Scion tC. This Hyundai commented that 75 percent of have decided to adopt different vehicle achieved a maximum SWR of its vehicles would need changes to implementation schedules for vehicles 4.6 on the first side at 113.3 mm (4.46 comply with the requirements. with a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 inches) of platen travel. Head contact Toyota, Ford, GM, Hyundai, Nissan pounds) or less, i.e., the vehicles occurred at 119 mm (4.68 inches) of and DaimlerChrysler stated that the currently covered by FMVSS No. 216, platen travel. On the second side, the agency underestimated the necessary and those with a higher GVWR. The Scion achieved a 4.1 SWR prior to head modifications to vehicle design and implementation schedules we are contact at 95.0 mm (3.74 inches) of manufacturing challenges that must be adopting are as follows: platen travel. From these tests we overcome to comply with the proposal. Passenger cars, multipurpose believe it is feasible and practicable for Ford, GM, DaimlerChrysler, and Toyota passenger vehicles, trucks and buses smaller vehicles with less initial stated that the challenges are especially with a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 headroom to meet the requirements. true for heavier vehicle over 2,722 kg pounds) or less. We are adopting a Since both are two-door vehicles, we (6,000 pounds) GVWR which have not phase-in of the upgraded roof crush disagree with Hyundai’s assertion that been required to meet FMVSS No. 216. resistance requirements for these two-door vehicles pose an unreasonable GM and Ford stated that they rely on vehicles. The phase-in requirement for challenge. outside suppliers for advanced high We agree with Ford’s observations manufacturers of these vehicles (with strength material and currently there is certain exceptions) is as follows: that some vehicles that may appear to be an insufficient supply base for high ‘‘high roofline’’ vehicles, but may —25 percent of the vehicles strength steel. They also cited experience head contact in less platen manufactured during the period from significant manufacturing challenges travel than a ‘‘low roofline’’ vehicle. The September 1, 2012 to August 31, 2013; that must be overcome to adapt ultra 2007 Buick Lucerne, a large full size —50 percent of the vehicles high strength steel to the mass vehicle reached a maximum SWR of 2.3 manufactured during the period from production environment. They argued at a platen displacement of 110 mm September 1, 2013 to August 31, 2014; that leadtime with a phase-in is (4.33 inches). The vehicle did not reach —75 percent of the vehicles necessary to permit growth in the the proposed SWR of 2.5. In this test, manufactured during the period from supply base and allow the platen travel at head contact was less September 1, 2014 to August 31, 2015; manufacturers to resolve than the Crossfire. Therefore, the —100 percent of light vehicles manufacturability issues for high arguments being made for excluding manufactured on or after September 1, volume production requirements. low roofline vehicles may not be unique 2015. to low roofline vehicles. Ford’s The vehicle manufacturers generally Credits may be earned during the comments also illustrate the difficulty requested a 3-year leadtime followed by phase-in, i.e., beginning September 1, in identifying what is or is not a low a multi-year phase-in. Most supported a 2012, and carried forward through roofline vehicle. minimum 3-year phase-in. GM August 31, 2015. DaimlerChrysler suggested SSF or requested a 4-year phase-in period, and Small volume manufacturers are not other vehicle parameters could be used DaimlerChrysler requested a 5-year subject to the phase-in but must meet to define low roofline vehicles and phase-in only for vehicles over 3,855 kg the requirements beginning on exclude them from the headroom (8,500 pounds). The AIAM requested September 1, 2015. Vehicles produced requirement. However, we believe that compliance credits for an early phase in, in more than one stage and altered this exclusion is not warranted based on while the Alliance, Ford and Mitsubishi vehicles must meet the upgraded our testing. Moreover, we are concerned requested carryforward credits. The requirements beginning September 1, about the safety impact of unnecessarily AIAM and Ferrari requested that small 2016. excluding vehicles from the upgraded volume manufacturers be permitted to Multipurpose passenger vehicles, requirements. comply at the end of the phase-in due trucks and buses with a GVWR greater to compliance difficulties, long product than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) 6. Leadtime and Phase-In cycles and cost penalties associated and less than or equal to 4,536 NHTSA proposed that manufacturers with running structural changes to kilograms (10,000 pounds). All of these be required to comply with the new vehicle programs. vehicles must meet the requirements requirements three years after the In commenting on the SNPRM, the beginning September 1, 2016,26 with the issuance of the final rule. At that time, Alliance reiterated points made in its following exceptions. Vehicles based upon vehicle testing, we comment on the NPRM, stating that the produced in more than one stage and estimated that 68 percent of the current final rule needs to provide at least three altered vehicles must meet the fleet already complied with the years initial leadtime followed by a requirements beginning September 1, proposed roof strength criteria. We multi-year phase-in with carryforward 2017. anticipated the proposal would not credits. It stated that additional time is Our rationale for this implementation require fleet-wide roof structural needed if the agency adopted the schedule is as follows. changes and believed the manufacturers proposed head contact criterion, a two- As discussed in the FRIA, a had engineering and manufacturing side test requirement, or an SWR higher significantly larger proportion of the resources to meet the new requirements than 2.5. Ford suggested that if the vehicle fleet will require changes than within that timeframe. agency adopted a more stringent estimated at the time of the NPRM. This In commenting on the NPRM, vehicle requirement than the one it focused on manufacturers and their associations in the NPRM, that vehicles meeting a 26 If heavier vehicles are designed to meet the new requirements early, their production volumes argued that additional leadtime was 2.5 SWR/one-sided test requirement are not to be included when calculating the light needed, and that a significantly greater earn compliance credits before and vehicle fleet phase-in percent compliance. The portion of the fleet would require during the phase-in. phase-in schedule for the two fleets are separate.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 22367

would be true even for a 2.5 SWR/one- not the earning of advance credits prior DaimlerChrysler, Ford, GM, Toyota, sided test requirement, and the to the beginning of the phase-in, AIAM, Mr. Chu, Hyundai and BMW proportion is higher for the 3.0 SWR/ balances encouraging early compliance Group (BMW). A number of commenters two-sided requirement. We therefore and manufacturer flexibility with also agreed with the agency’s intention to agree that a combination of encouraging manufacturers to continue revise the tie-down procedure for the approximately three years leadtime plus to improve roof strength during the quasi-static test to improve test a multi-year phase-in is appropriate. years of the phase-in. repeatability. However, manufacturers In developing the implementation As with a number of other raised specific concerns about the schedule, we have considered costs and rulemakings, we are establishing special proposed procedure. AIAM, Mr. Chu, benefits. The vast majority of the requirements for small volume Hyundai and BMW alternatively benefits of the rule come from vehicles manufacturers and for vehicles recommended retention of the current with a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 produced in more than one stage and tie-down procedure. Advocates and pounds) and less. Of the 135 fatalities altered vehicles. SAFE supported the revised tie-down that will be prevented each year, 133 Given the leadtime needed for procedure because it has the potential to will come from these lighter vehicles. manufacturers to redesign their vehicles ensure less vehicle movement during Moreover, the lighter vehicles are to meet the upgraded roof crush testing. generally redesigned more often than requirements, we find good cause for Ford suggested that the proposed tie- the heavier vehicles. Also, the compliance dates included in this down procedure can cause localized, manufacturers are familiar with document. unrealistic floor pan deformations that designing and testing the lighter can reduce the measured strength of the vehicles to meet the current FMVSS No. b. Aspects of the Test Procedure roof. The Alliance, DaimlerChrysler, 216 requirements. 1. Tie-down Procedure Ford, GM and Toyota recommended In order to implement the upgraded providing one vehicle support per requirements in a cost effective manner, In the NPRM, we proposed to revise vehicle pillar. However, they we believe it is appropriate to provide the vehicle tie-down procedure in order recommended placing the support along approximately three years of leadtime to improve test repeatability. the sill, as opposed to the jack points, coupled with a 25 percent/50 percent/ Specifically, we proposed to specify that since they stated that jack points are not 75 percent/100 percent phase-in for the the vehicle be secured with four vertical designed to withstand the forces lighter vehicles, and longer leadtime for supports welded or fixed to both the generated during a roof crush test. The the heavier vehicles. The benefits for the vehicle and the test fixture. If the commenters suggested that this would heavier vehicles are relatively small, vehicle support locations are not minimize unwanted body displacement and approximately seven years leadtime metallic, a suitable epoxy or an adhesive by providing a direct load path during will generally permit manufacturers to could be used in place of welding. testing which the proposal does not improve roof strength at the same time Under the proposal, the vertical address. For body-on-frame vehicles, they redesign these vehicles for other supports would be located at the DaimlerChrysler also recommended purposes. manufacturers’ designated jack points. If support of the vehicle frame, in addition While vehicle manufacturers made the jack points were not sufficiently to the pillar supports, to further prevent varying recommendations for the defined, the vertical supports would be sag of the body. In the event that the specific provisions of a phase-in, the located between the front and rear axles agency adopts the practice of supporting phase-in we are adopting for lighter on the vehicle body or frame such that the body at the pillars, the Alliance, vehicles is within the general range of the distance between the fore and aft GM, and BMW also requested that a those recommendations. We recognize locations was maximized. If the jack minimum area of support be provided to that manufacturers argued that longer points were located on the axles or avoid concentrated loading. leadtime should be provided for suspension members, the vertical stands The Alliance, BMW and Ford also had requirements more stringent than a 2.5 would be located between the front and concerns about welding supports to the SWR/one-sided test requirement. rear axles on the vehicle body or frame vehicle body. The commenters stated However, while the 3.0 SWR/two-sided such that the distance between the fore that welding could decrease the material test requirement will increase the and aft locations was maximized. All properties of the body reducing the number of vehicles requiring redesign non-rigid body mounts would be made measured roof strength, and welding and the specific countermeasures that rigid to prevent motion of the vehicle might not be practical or possible for are needed, we believe that body relative to the vehicle frame. non-ferrous or composite materials. approximately three years of leadtime We explained that we believed this BMW alternatively recommended coupled with a 25 percent/50 percent/ method of securing the vehicle would clamping instead of welding, citing 75 percent/100 percent phase-in increase test repeatability. Welding the concerns about welding certain provides sufficient time for support stands to the vehicle would materials and the possibility of failure of manufacturers to make these changes. reduce testing complexity and the sills due to the welding. Ford We note that the vehicles likely to variability of results associated with the recommended contacting the present the greatest design challenges use of chains and jackstands. We also manufacturer for instructions about under our proposal were the ones with stated that we believed that using the welding aluminum sills, if the agency a GVWR above 2,722 kilograms (6,000 jacking point for vertical support proceeded with the welding protocol. pounds), for which we are providing attachment is appropriate because the AIAM, Mr. Chu, Hyundai and Nissan longer leadtime and a lower SWR jacking points are designed to recommended maintaining the existing requirement. Vehicle manufacturers accommodate attachments and procedure that supports the entire have not provided persuasive evidence withstand certain loads without length of the sill in order to reduce that longer leadtime is needed, or that damaging the vehicle. complexities and unwanted body a less stringent requirement should be deformation with the tie-down proposal. Comments established for an initial period. Nissan suggested supporting the We believe that providing for carry Commenters on the proposed tie- wheelbase at the sill flange pinch welds forward credits during the phase-in, but down procedure included the Alliance, between the two channels that grab the

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 22368 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

pinch weld on the bottom of the sill. accurately evaluate the strength of the FMVSS No. 216 requirement supported The side sill flange would be roof because the body was not isolated by AIAM, Mr. Chu, Hyundai, and constrained to prevent transverse body in the simulation. The loading of the Nissan. movement when tested. Hyundai body mounts is also unrealistic in a For the fleet testing,29 the vehicle’s recommended that the current rollover. The results were consistent sill at the body flange weld was fully procedure be permitted at the with Ford’s comment that suggested supported along the wheelbase between manufacturer’s option since it believes supporting a vehicle by its frame at the two box tubes and securely fixed into the revised tie down procedure is body mount locations could cause floor place with high strength epoxy. For burdensome. DaimlerChrysler and pan deformation and thereby reduce the body-on-frame vehicles, additional Toyota also recommended continuous measured strength of the roof. supports were placed under the frame to mounting along the sills suggesting this The results of the other simulations reduce body sag created by an would prevent unwanted body (vehicle secured under the pillars and unsupported frame, as recommended by deformation at the jack point locations. vehicle secured along the rocker/sill) DaimlerChrysler. Epoxy was selected in For vehicles without B-pillars, the showed higher roof strength than the response to the Alliance, BMW and Alliance, Ford, and GM recommended NPRM procedure. There was nearly a 7 Ford’s comments that welding may that a support be placed at the seam percent increase in roof strength within adversely alter the vehicle’s structure between the doors as if a pillar existed 127 mm (5 inches) of platen travel when prior to testing. We believe the epoxy between the doors. The Alliance stated the vehicle’s body was supported under will not alter the material properties of that doors connected without a pillar the pillars compared to the NPRM the vehicle structure or cause often have reinforcements to procedure. The simulation results using complications for sills made of non- compensate for the structure that would the continuous sill support tie-down ferrous or composite materials. The be afforded by a pillar if it were part of showed a 3 percent increase in roof revised test procedure provided support the vehicle design, and therefore, the strength compared to the NPRM for each of the vehicle pillars and joint between the doors will act as one procedure. Overall, in both simulations, provided a stable load path when tested, of the direct load paths from the roof to the body sag in the floor pan did not consistent with the recommendations by the rocker. Without a support at the appear to be a concern and produced a the Alliance, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, GM door joint, the Alliance suggested that more realistic loading of the roof. The and Toyota. Also, by supporting the the roof strength cannot be accurately load-deformations curves were also vehicle along the wheelbase, which measured in these types of vehicles. similar, whereas the results from the includes the door seam for vehicles simulation using the NPRM tie-down Agency Response without a B-pillar (the joint between the procedure diverged early in the analysis doors), a reactionary surface is provided As part of analyzing the comments on at approximately 18,000 N or 0.8 SWR. for the applied load when tested, We note that the full sill tie-down the proposed tie-down procedure for the addressing the Alliance, GM and Ford’s procedure generated a lower peak force quasi-static test, the agency conducted concerns. when compared to the vehicle analytical simulations using a finite During our evaluation of the tie-down supported under the pillars. The element model on a late model Ford procedure,30 dial indicators were placed 27 simulation for the full sill tie-down Explorer. First the agency performed at the sill below the vehicle’s pillars on procedure did not include any an analysis of the proposed procedure the opposite side of the platen travel to constraints for the Explorer’s frame. where the vehicle was supported at the check for vehicle displacement during However, when the vehicle body was jack locations. Two additional models the test. The tie-down procedure were also developed to evaluate supported under each pillar, a number of vertical supports were added to showed on average less than a supporting the vehicle body under the millimeter (0.04 inches) of body pillars and continuously along the support the mass of the frame. This could explain the slight difference in displacement at all measurement length of the body sill, as the locations, parallel to the direction of commenters suggested. the maximum strength of the roof. However, we believe the difference is platen motion for both unibody and The Ford Explorer was modeled body-on-frame vehicles. For 28 negligible. because it is a body-on-frame vehicle, comparison, the agency also tested a and according to the comments, the After considering the comments and the computer simulations, we decided, Buick Lacrosse that was rigidly proposed procedure would not supported along the entire wheelbase accurately evaluate the roof strength of for purposes of fleet testing, to revise the tie-down procedure to support the and compared the result to another that type of vehicle. The first Explorer Lacrosse test where the sill was tie-down model followed the NPRM vehicle continuously under the sill. We believe this approach further reduces supported along the wheelbase only at procedure where the vehicle was 152.4 mm (6 inch) increments. The supported at its jack point locations. any variability compared to the Alliance recommendation because the entire Lacrosse was also supported under the This was along the frame mounted pillars, as recommended by the inward of the vehicle body sill in the wheelbase of the vehicle is supported case of the Explorer. The analysis and not just under each pillar. Also, the peak force difference in the computer 29 See report, Two-Sided Roof Crush Strength showed that the NPRM procedure Analysis, placed in the docket of this notice. produced compression of the body-to- models was not a significant issue 30 The agency measured the sill displacement at frame rubber body mounts. We believe because both methods addressed the three locations along the wheelbase on the side this tie-down simulation did not commenters’ main concern of opposite to the force application on the roof, for 13 inappropriate floor pan deformation. vehicles. Ten of the tests were single-sided and three were two-sided. The sill displacement ranged 27 See report, Finite Element Simulation of For body-on-frame vehicles, additional from 0 to 2.3 mm (0.09 inches). The VW Jetta FMVSS No. 216 Test Procedures, placed in the supports would be placed under the achieved the highest SWR level at 5.7 in this data docket with this notice. frame as this constraint was not set and experienced almost no sill movement. In the 28 A body-on-frame vehicle is constructed by included in the computer simulation three two-sided tests in this series, conducted with attaching a vehicle body to a rigid frame which the Subaru Tribeca and two Buick Lacrosses, the supports the drivetrain. At the attachment points, and might account for the difference in agency did not observe any significant difference in rubber body mounts are used to isolate the body peak force. The full sill tie-down sill displacement on the second side compared to from vibration. procedure is consistent with the existing the first.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 22369

Alliance. The results showed that the number of the comments were from pitch and roll angles.32 The commenter body displacement was lower for the safety advocacy groups. Some stated that the smaller plate more full sill tie-down when compared to the commenters recommending a 2-sided aggressively loads the A-pillar. It results where the sill was only partially test requirement recommended that we showed the roof achieved a lower SWR supported. use different criteria for the two tests. on the second side by as much as 40– After considering the comments and Consumers Union cited comments it 70 percent compared to the current in light of the testing and simulations, had made on the agency’s 2001 RFC and FMVSS No. 216 procedure. we are adopting the revised tie-down the agency’s discussion in the NPRM. Agency Response procedure, where the vehicle is That commenter noted that it had supported at the sill, along the entire recommended that the agency modify After carefully considering the wheelbase. This procedure reduces the test plate load and size. It stated that comments, we have decided to maintain vehicle displacement, more accurately it continues to believe that the current the current platen size and the pitch and measures the strength of the roof, and is plate load and size does not reflect real- roll angle. We note that many of the more robust than the procedure world rollover conditions. Consumers issues raised by the commenters were recommended by the Alliance and its Union stated that it believes that more ones that were also raised in comments members. Furthermore, the revised test of the roof crush force is absorbed by the on the 2001 RFC. procedure addresses the comments to A-pillar than accounted for by the Prior to issuing the NPRM, the agency the NPRM because it supports the current or proposed procedure. It conducted a test series to evaluate vehicle pillars during testing and recommended that the agency conduct alternative platen angles using the reduces the likelihood of vertical and additional studies concerning this issue. FMVSS No 216 platen.33 A finite horizontal translation of the body. IIHS commented that testing roof element study was first conducted to We note that, in light of the fact that crush strength at multiple load angles evaluate a range of platen configurations the test procedure is consistent with the would add to the meaningfulness of the and to select appropriate conditions for current FMVSS No. 216 test procedure quasi-static test requirement that testing. NHTSA tested four vehicle pairs × while providing improved clarity, the NHTSA currently specifies. However, it using 5 degree 25 degree and 10 × agency has adopted it for use in current also stated that in the absence of a range degree 45 degree platen angles. The FMVSS No. 216 31 compliance tests. of plate angles, any distinct test angle peak SWR from these tests did not This procedure has been used for 19 choice should be supported by evidence demonstrate a consistent pattern fiscal year 2007 and 2008 OVSC that such an angle is representative of a between the two test conditions. For × compliance tests. significant percentage of real-world two vehicle models, the 10 degree 45 rollovers. degree tests generated a higher peak 2. Platen Angle and Size × Various commenters recommended SWR, whereas, the 10 degree 45 In the NPRM, we did not propose to that the agency change the platen pitch degree tests generated a lower peak change the test device orientation or the in ways they believe would better reflect SWR in the others. Therefore, the test size of the test plate. However, we the more aggressive loading angles that results were inconclusive. included a discussion of comments are frequently sustained in real-world To help evaluate the comments related to test device orientation and rollover crashes, particularly for SUVs submitted in the NPRM docket, the size that we had received in response to and pickups. The general agency extended the previous finite the October 2001 RFC. recommendation was to increase the element studies to evaluate alternative Under the current test procedure pitch angle of the platen to 10 degrees platen angles in conjunction with a 34 specified in FMVSS No. 216, the test because commenters believed the smaller platen. The finite element plate is tilted forward at a 5-degree pitch proposed 5 degree pitch is not realistic. model of a 1997 Dodge Caravan was angle, along its longitudinal axis, and CAS stated that the pitch angle must used to evaluate two-sided simulations rotated outward at a 25-degree angle, with a 5 degree × 25 degree orientation be increased to at least 10 degrees to × along its lateral axis, so that the plate’s emulate actual rollovers where damage on the first side and a 10 degree 45 outboard side is lower than its inboard to front fenders is testimony to the fact degree orientation on the second side. side. The test plate size of 762 mm (30 The reduction in peak SWR for using a that in a rollover, the pitch angles are × inches) wide by 1,829 mm (72 inches) this high. Advocates suggested that 10 degree 45 degree platen angle on long is designed to load the roof over vehicles be evaluated at different platen a second side test was 18.7 percent. The the occupant compartment. The edges of angles, up to and including 10 degrees 18 percent reduction in peak SWR, the test plate are positioned based on pitch × 45 degrees roll. while significant, is much less than the fixed points on the vehicle’s roof. The Mr. Chu suggested a series of 40 to 70 percent shown in the test forward edge of the plate is positioned procedures he believed would best results submitted to the docket. The 254 mm (10 inches) forward of the address the plate angle issue. His 6-step results were also in line with our two- forwardmost point on the roof, sided vehicle test results using the 5 procedure would test each front corner × including the windshield trim. We note of the roof three times, with the roll degree 25 degree platen orientation for that, as discussed later in this angle of the plate maintained at 25 both sides. On average there was an 8.7 document, there is a secondary test degrees, and the pitch angle from 5 to percent reduction of strength on the procedure for certain vehicles with 10 degrees. second side compared to the first. raised roofs or altered roofs, which we Consumers Union and Mr. Friedman Furthermore, we found an average proposed to eliminate. encouraged the agency to consider the 32 Friedman D., et al., ‘‘Result From Two Sided Comments use of a smaller platen in order to load Quasi-Static (M216) and Repeatable Dynamic the A-Pillar and not extensively load the The agency received numerous Rollover Test (JRS) Relative to FVMSS 216 Tests,’’ B-pillar. Mr. Friedman submitted two- 20th ESV Conference, Lyon, France, 2007. comments and recommendations to sided test data published in a recent 33 See Docket NHTSA 2005–22143–57: Load Plate change the platen test angle and size. A technical publication using a smaller Angle Determination and Initial Fleet Evaluation. 34 See, Finite Element Simulation of FMVSS No. 31 TP–216–05 Laboratory Test Procedure for platen 301 mm (11.8 inches) wide by 216 Test Procedures, placed in the docket with this FMVSS No. 216, November 16, 2006. 610 mm (24 inches) long and at different notice.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 22370 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

difference of approximately 7.1 percent current protocol. We are further not windshield significantly reduces the lower peak force for the second side in persuaded by CFIR, Mr. Chu, and LSSM force and energy required to produce an vehicles under 2,722 kilograms (6,000 comments to require testing on both incremental amount of intrusion. pounds) GVWR and 14.9 percent lower sides with a smaller platen size. Technical Services recommended that peak force for the second side in Analytical simulations 36 conducted by the side window glass should be vehicles over 2,722 kilograms (6,000 the agency using a Dodge Caravan required to be preserved during testing pounds) GVWR. showed that a smaller platen is sensitive to improve vehicle rollover To evaluate how a smaller platen to positioning and can result in edge performance. Xprts and Mr. Friedman affects roof strength measurements, the contact. As a result, a smaller test plate also recommended that the side agency also conducted simulations with can produce unrealistic contact with the windows should not be permitted to fail a smaller 305 × 610 mm (12 × 24 inch) roof and highly localized loading, during the test. Both commenters platen using a 10 degree × 45 degree inconsistent with real world rollover referenced Volvo’s internal criteria and platen angle on a Dodge Caravan model. crashes. CFIR’s finding of a 40–70 suggested that tempered glass windows The results showed an approximate six percent reduction in roof strength for can remain intact. percent decrease in peak force the second side tests it conducted may ARCCA, Consumer Union, Specialty compared to our baseline results with a be attributed to its smaller platen adding Equipment Market Association (SEMA) larger platen using the same unrealistic stress on the roof. and Hyundai raised concerns with configuration. However, the simulations regard to vehicles equipped with showed the potential for platen edge-to- 3. Testing Without Windshields and/or sunroofs. ARCCA and Consumers Union roof contact. Since the platen-to-roof Other Glazing in Place suggested vehicles equipped with contact is intended to be a surrogate for We did not propose to change the sunroofs meet the roof crush vehicles rolling on the ground, localized current FMVSS No. 216 procedure and requirements. Hyundai noted that loading from the platen edge can cause test the vehicle without the windshield vehicles equipped with sunroofs have unrealistic loading conditions. or side windows in place. In the NPRM, reduced headroom compared with those Therefore, the results demonstrated how we stated: without sunroofs. SEMA requested the a smaller platen localized the stress on The agency believes that windshields agency ensure aftermarket sunroofs be the A-pillar, reducing the measured provide some structural support to the roof permitted because they are installed strength during the evaluation, but the even after the windshield breaks because the inside the roof’s perimeter cage. crush deformation does not appear to force-deflection plots in some of the recent Agency Response represent real-world crash results. test vehicles (e.g., Ford Explorer, Ford Many of the commenters assumed Mustang, Toyota Camry, Honda CRV) show After considering the comments, we that a higher pitch angle leads to a more little or no drop off in force level after the decline to change the current test demanding test procedure and also windshield integrity was compromised. procedure in which the windshield and Further examination of real-world crashes side windows remain in place during assumed it is more reflective of real indicates that the windshield rarely separates world rollovers, particularly for pickups from the vehicle, and therefore, does provide FMVSS No. 216 tests. We also disagree and SUVs. However, only limited some crush resistance. Because NHTSA with the recommendation that the anecdotal evidence (based on believes that the vehicle should be tested agency require side windows to be interpretation of crash photos) was with all structural components that would be preserved during test. The agency was provided to support these conclusions. present in a real-world rollover crash, we not presented with new information Due to the extremely complex and decline to propose testing without the showing windshield breakage in a chaotic nature of rollover crashes, it is windshield or other glazing. 70 FR 49238. rollover significantly contributed to a impossible for any one test to fully A number of commenters, including reduction in roof strength. replicate all of the loading forces that ones from safety advocacy groups, We have examined the post crash occur in all real-world crashes. questioned the contribution of the windshield status for 1997–2006 NASS However, we believe the platen size and windshield to the overall strength of the investigated rollover crashes with pitch/roll angles proposed and currently roof and generally recommended the greater than one quarter turn. The incorporated in the standard produce windshield be removed prior to the test. majority of the windshields were coded roof crush damage patterns that are Advocates, Boyle, et al., CFIR, as either ‘‘in place and cracked’’ or ‘‘in representative of the crash damage Consumers Union, DVExperts, IIHS, place and holed.’’ Less than 10 percent patterns observed in real-world Public Citizens, Penn Engineering, and of weighted incidents indicate the crashes.35 The use of the smaller platen Perrone commented that windshields windshield is ‘‘out of place.’’ would result in edge contact and often break in a rollover, and stated that While Mr. Slavik stated he conducted unrealistic buckling of the roof. We did the agency should not specify a test testing, the agency was not provided not propose to alter these parameters in procedure with windshields in place. data to evaluate. He asserted that there the NPRM or SNPRM. Consumers Union expressed concern is anecdotal acknowledgement by some We are also not persuaded by about aftermarket windshield manufacturers that the windshield commenters that recommended varying installation and the unquantifiable provides upwards of 30 percent of the the pitch and roll angle in a two-sided strength of the windshield in a crash. measured roof strength. We note that test. As discussed above, the agency The Engineering Institute (EI) and Mr. that the agency’s testing showed that conducted analytical simulations Hauschild recommended that if the windshield breakage has not been a varying the platen angles. Based on the agency maintains the 2.5 SWR factor in the maximum strength of the similarity of the post test damage requirement then the windshield should roof for some vehicles.37 The peak load pattern in that research, there was not be removed. Mr. Slavik stated he continued to increase after windshield sufficient evidence to justify changing conducted tests which confirm that on breakage in the testing of the 2003 Ford the load plate configuration from our some vehicles, damage to the Focus, 2003 Chevrolet Cavalier, and 2002 Nissan Xterra. In the case of the 35 See Docket NHTSA 2005–22143–56: Roof 36 See, Finite Element Simulation of FMVSS No. Crush Analysis Using 1997–2001 NASS Case 216 Test Procedures, placed in the docket with this 37 See NHTSA–2005–22143–0049: Roof Crush Review, 2004. notice. Research: Phase 3—Expanded Fleet Evaluation.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 22371

Cavalier, the windshield did not generally past 127 mm (5 inches) of unrealistic loading of aerodynamic contribute to a decrease in strength until platen travel. The breakage of the rear roofs. This issue was considered in the 170 mm (6.7 inches) of platen travel. window glass resulted in a slight drop 1999 final rule (64 FR 22567) where the The windshield is a structural in the strength of the roof particularly in agency adopted a revised platen element for some vehicles, and we pick-up trucks where the vertical glass positioning procedure to reduce the continue to believe that vehicles should is loaded by the test device and can add likelihood of unrealistic loading on be tested with all structural components some strength. Overall, the impact of the vehicles with rounded roofs. The that would be present in a real-world side and rear glass had little impact on agency’s recent testing of modern rollover crash. We declined to propose the strength of the roof. We also note vehicles has shown the current plate testing without the windshield or other that such a requirement is outside the positioning procedure does distribute glazing for that reason, and we are not scope of notice of the proposal. the load between the A- and B-pillars. persuaded that there is sufficient Generally, the plate’s initial point of justification to revise our position. 4. Deletion of Secondary Plate Positioning Procedure contact with the roof is slightly behind The agency also wanted to ascertain the A-pillar including the Volvo XC90 the influence of sunroofs on roof In the NPRM, we proposed to apply which had a large amount of curvature strength. The Scion tC, Cadillac SRX the primary plate procedure for all to the roof in the test area compared to and Ford Edge were tested with large vehicles, removing the secondary plate most vehicles tested. panoramic sunroofs. The glass panel procedure that applies to some raised However, we continue to believe that sunroof in the Scion tC shattered during and altered roof vehicles. We explained edge contact induced by the secondary the two-sided test, yet the glass panel in that the secondary plate positioning plate procedure results in unrealistic the SRX did not fail during the single- procedure produces rear edge plate loading specifically when the roof is sided only test. After review of the load- loading onto the roof of some raised and raised or altered. In some deformation curves for both vehicles, altered roof vehicles that may cause circumstances, the plate will essentially the test results showed the effect of the excessive deformation uncharacteristic punch through the sheetmetal instead of sunroof was insignificant to the overall of real-world rollover crashes. Because loading the roof structure. We also do strength of the roof. In the case of the an optimum plate position cannot be not believe vehicles with steeply raked Scion tC, at the point when the sunroof established for all roof shapes, the A-pillars are common architectures for glass broke during the first side test, testing of some raised and altered roof raised and altered roof vehicles. Vans there was no change in the platen load. vehicles will result in loading the roof with more upright A-pillars are rearward of the front seat area. We In the case of the Ford Edge, the rear generally modified to have their roofs stated that we believe this is preferable glass panel of the sun roof failed in the raised or altered. We are not aware of to edge contact because edge contact second-sided test; however, the front such changes to traditional passenger glass panel over the front row occupants produces localized concentrated forces cars with steeply raked A-pillars. remained intact. This occurred well upon the roof typically resulting in after 125 mm of platen travel. As a excessive shear deformation of a small 5. Removal of Roof Components result, we believe it is practicable for region. We also stated that we believe FMVSS No. 216 currently specifies vehicles with sunroofs (including large that removing the secondary plate removal of roof racks prior to platen panoramic roofs) to meet the position would make the test more positioning or load application. We did requirements and we do not foresee this objective and practicable. not propose to change this provision. Advocates was the only commenter upgrade inhibiting aftermarket sunroofs Xprts recommended that the roof be on this issue and opposed eliminating mounted within the roof structure. tested as the vehicle is to be sold, with In response to Consumers Union, the the secondary plate positioning. It stated roof racks or other equipment in place. possibility exists that aftermarket that reverting back to the primary plate That commenters stated that removal of windshield installations may not position for aerodynamic roof vehicles roof racks prior to conducting the roof perform to OEM standards. However, would induce unrealistic loads in that crush test eliminates a typical roof we do not believe this possibility the proportion of force applied to the failure mode. It states that roof rack justifies changing roof strength roof is excessively concentrated over the mountings initiate buckling of the roof, requirements for all new vehicles. B-pillars. It stated that as a consequence, increasing the risk of occupant injury Xprts and Mr. Friedman test conditions and roof response to from roof panel buckling. recommended a requirement that the plate loading can be substantially After considering this comment, we side windows not break during the roof different than the loading that actually decline to change the current test strength test. The agency investigated occurs in real-world rollovers of these procedure. No data were provided by the contribution of side windows to the vehicles where the A-pillars receive a Xprts to support its contention that roof strength of the roof structure. Our proportionately greater force. Advocates racks result in a typical roof failure testing showed that side window suggested this is crucial because some mode and thereby increase the risk of breakage is directly correlated to platen vehicles with severely sloped A-pillars occupant injury from roof panel displacement with limited effect on the are candidates for A-pillar collapse in buckling. We reviewed several NASS– strength of the roof. In reviewing the rollover crashes and the percentage of CDS cases 39 of utility vehicles with roof load-deformation curves at the point new vehicles with severely raked A- racks that had undergone rollover where the side glass breaks, there is no pillars and aerodynamically sloped crashes. Our review did not support the measurable drop in load of the roof and roofs has increased each year since their contention that the presence of a roof it generally occurs well after the peak use began in the early to mid-1990s. strength of the roof has been reached.38 rack initiated buckling of the roof and For completeness, the agency also Agency Response increased the risk of occupant injury. assessed the impact of rear window After considering Advocates’ There was also no general trend breakage. The rear windows broke well comment, we have decided to remove 39 Photographs collected from NASS–CDS Case after peak strength was reached and the secondary plate procedure. We do Query Page. NASS–CDS cases examined: 100121, not agree that the FMVSS No. 216 102005185, 146004985, 161005827, 656500082, 38 Ibid. platen size and positioning produces 471300143, and 129005218.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 22372 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

concerning injury severity and presence stage vehicles are built from chassis- concluded that these state requirements of a roof rack in the reviewed cases. cabs that, by definition, have a show the burden on multi-stage We further reviewed our fatal completed occupant compartment. A manufacturers for evaluating roof hardcopy case files 40 and could not chassis-cab’s roof is an integral part of strength in accordance with FMVSS No. identify a single case where the roof its body structure surrounding the seats 220 is not unreasonable, and applying rack appeared to aggravate the for the occupants. Other vehicles are FMVSS No. 220 to these vehicles would deformation of the roof structure. built using incomplete vehicles that do ensure that there are some requirements not have a completed occupant for roof crush protection where none 6. Tolerances compartment. These include a van currently exist. In response to comments from the cutaway, which consists of the frame, Comments Alliance and Chrysler LLC, we are drive train, steering, suspension, brakes, adding several tolerances in the axles, and the front body section of a We received comments concerning regulatory text to help improve test van that has no body structure behind requirements for multi-stage and altered repeatability. We note that platen angles the two front seats. Another example is vehicles from Advocates, NTEA, are measured from the horizontal and a stripped chassis. A final stage NMEDA and RVIA. not from the vehicle’s frame of manufacturer would typically complete Advocates stated that it opposes reference. Measuring platen angles with the occupant compartments of these permitting FMVSS No. 220 as an respect to the ground is more objective incomplete vehicles by adding body alternative for multi-stage vehicles. It than using the test vehicle’s frame of components to produce a truck (e.g., claimed that FMVSS No. 220 is a reference because the latter would work truck) or multipurpose passenger ‘‘weak’’ standard whose effects on roof introduce manufacturing variability. We vehicle (e.g., motor home). strength in actual rollover crashes are note that we are not including a In developing our proposal, we mostly unknown. specification concerning platen considered whether the proposed NTEA recommended that all multi- overshoot on the first side test since we standard would be appropriate for the stage vehicles be excluded from roof will not conduct compliance tests type of motor vehicle for which it would crush resistance requirements. It stated beyond the specified SWR. be prescribed. We stated that we that manufacturers of non-chassis-cab We decline to add a calibration believed it was appropriate to consider vehicles will not be able to conduct the procedure for the test device or to make incomplete vehicles, other than those tests or perform engineering analysis to changes relating to load application rate incorporating chassis-cabs, as a vehicle ensure conformance to FMVSS No. 220. or to add platen material specifications. type subject to different regulatory NTEA also disagreed with the The basic FMVSS No. 216 test requirements. We anticipated that final assumption that the presence of state procedure has been used for many stage manufacturers using chassis cabs requirements for FMVSS No. 220 years, and the commenters did not to produce multi-stage vehicles would compliance demonstrates that final provide persuasive evidence that be in position to take advantage of stage manufacturers can actually changes are needed in these areas. As to ‘‘pass-through certification’’ of chassis- comply. It stated that the ability of platen materials, we believe the current cabs, and therefore did not believe the school bus and para-transit bus specification for a rigid unyielding option of alternative compliance with manufacturers to comply with FMVSS block is sufficient. FMVSS No. 220 was appropriate. No. 220 does not reflect the ability of We noted that while we believed that typical final stage manufacturers to c. Requirements for Multi-Stage and the requirements in FMVSS No. 220 comply with FMVSS No. 220. Altered Vehicles have been effective for school buses, we NTEA also stated it is impractical for For vehicles manufactured in two or were concerned that they may not be as the agency to assume manufacturers of more stages,41 other than vehicles effective for other vehicle types. As multi-stage vehicles built on chassis- incorporating chassis-cabs,42 we noted above, the FMVSS No. 216 test cabs will be able to use pass-through proposed to give manufacturers the procedure results in roof deformations certification for compliance. That option of certifying to either the existing that are consistent with the observed organization stated that these type of roof crush requirements of FMVSS No. crush patterns in the real world for light vehicles are generally unique and built 220, School Bus Rollover Protection, or vehicles. Because of this, we explained to customer specifications. It also raised the new roof crush requirements of that our preference would be to use the a concern that some manufacturers of FMVSS No. 216. FMVSS No. 220 uses FMVSS No. 216 test procedure for light chassis-cabs may not provide the a horizontal plate, instead of the angled vehicles. We believed, however, that necessary specifications for the final plate of Standard No. 216. this approach would fail to consider the stage manufacturer to rely on pass- As explained in the NPRM, multi- practicability problems and special through certification as it applies to roof stage vehicles are aimed at a variety of issues for multi-stage manufacturers. strength. It argued that the final stage niche markets, most of which are too We stated that in these circumstances, manufacturer would therefore be small to be serviced economically by we believed that the requirements of responsible for conducting costly single stage manufacturers. Some multi- FMVSS No. 220 appeared to offer a analysis and testing to verify reasonable avenue to balance the desire compliance with FMVSS No. 216. 40 See Docket Number NHTSA 2005–22143–56: to respond to the needs of multi-stage NMEDA expressed concern that the Roof Crush Analysis Using 1997–2001 NASS Case manufacturers and the need to increase FMVSS No. 220 option would only be Review. safety in rollover crashes. Several states available for multi-stage vehicles. It 41 Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages already require ‘‘para-transit’’ vans and asked that the FMVSS No. 220 option be are assembled by several independent entities with the ‘‘final stage’’ manufacturer in most cases other buses, which are typically extended to raised or altered roof assuming the ultimate responsibility for certifying manufactured in multiple stages, to vehicles. To encompass the modifiers in the completed vehicle. comply with the roof crush the proposed upgrade to FMVSS No. 42 Under 49 CFR § 567.3, chassis-cab means an requirements of FMVSS No. 220. These 216, NMEDA asked that a vehicle roof incomplete vehicle, with a completed occupant compartment, that requires only the addition of states include Pennsylvania, Minnesota, that is altered after first retail sale be cargo-carrying, work-performing, or load-bearing Wisconsin, Tennessee, Michigan, Utah, considered in compliance if it meets the components to perform its intended functions. Alabama, and California. We tentatively requirements of FMVSS No. 216 or

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 22373

FMVSS No. 220. NMEDA also stated No. 216 is to improve occupant safety in Multi-stage trucks with a GVWR that raising a roof increases the available the event of a rollover. If a multi-stage greater than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 headroom and that the roof therefore vehicle is involved in a rollover, the pounds) not built on a chassis cab and can crush more before there is any vehicle’s roof strength will be an not built on an incomplete vehicle with contact with an occupants head. important factor in providing occupant a full exterior van body. NMEDA requested the agency account protection. Therefore, while we seek to We have decided to exclude from for the additional headroom beyond the address the special needs and FMVSS No. 216 a very limited group of original vehicle’s headroom in circumstances of multi-stage multi-stage trucks with a GVWR greater establishing any requirement. manufacturers, we decline to provide than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds), RVIA supported our proposal to any blanket exclusion for all multi-stage ones not built on a chassis cab and ones permit FMVSS No. 220 as an option for vehicles. We will address the issues not built on an incomplete vehicle with small motor homes as this would allow raised by that commenter separately for a full exterior van body. We note that manufacturers to address the unique multi-stage vehicles built on chassis-cab some incomplete vehicles with a full issues concerning such specialized incomplete vehicles, multi-stage trucks exterior van body might not be included vehicles built in two or more stages. with a GVWR greater than 2,722 in the definition of chassis-cab but would still have an intact roof design. Agency Response kilograms (6,000 pounds) not built on a chassis cab and not built on an For the reasons discussed in the After carefully considering the incomplete vehicle with a full exterior previous section, final stage comments and as explained below, we van body, and other multi-stage vehicles manufacturers can rely on the IVD for are providing a FMVSS No. 220 option not built on chassis cabs. pass-through certification of compliance for multi-stage vehicles, except those Multi-stage vehicles built on chassis- with FMVSS No. 216 for vehicles built built on chassis-cab incomplete cab incomplete vehicles. using chassis cabs. For multi-stage vehicles, and for vehicles which are trucks built on an incomplete vehicle A chassis-cab is an incomplete changed in certain ways to raise the with a full exterior van body, the vehicle, with a completed occupant height of the roof. For example, a van manufacturer can rely on either the IVD compartment, that requires only the may be altered by replacing its roof with for pass-through certification of addition of cargo-carrying, work- a taller structure (referred to as a raised compliance with FMVSS No. 216, or use performing, or load-bearing components roof) to better accommodate a person in the FMVSS No. 220 option. Since the to perform its intended functions. As a wheelchair. We are also excluding a incomplete vehicle will have an intact such, chassis-cabs have intact roof narrow category of multi-stage vehicles roof design and will be similar to ones designs. Chassis-cabs are based on from FMVSS No. 216 altogether, multi- sold as non-multi-stage vehicles, the stage trucks built on incomplete vehicles that are sold as complete roof will have been designed to comply vehicles other than chassis cabs. vehicles, e.g., medium and full size with FMVSS No. 216. Therefore, it is In discussing the issues raised by pickup trucks, so their roof structure likely that the final stage manufacturer commenters, we begin by addressing the will be designed to meet the upgraded can pass through FMVSS No. 216 comment of Advocates. That requirements of FMVSS No. 216. certification. Since the vehicle at issue organization opposed permitting After considering the comments of will be based on an incomplete vehicle FMVSS No. 220 as an alternative for NTEA, we believe that final stage with a full exterior van body, the multi-stage vehicles because it believes manufacturers can rely on the FMVSS No. 220 procedure is likely to that FMVSS No. 220 is not sufficiently incomplete vehicle documents (IVD) for also be an appropriate one for the final stringent and that its effects on actual pass-through certification of compliance stage vehicle. rollover crashes are mostly unknown. with FMVSS No. 216 for vehicles built We are concerned, however, that for As we discussed in the NPRM, we using chassis cabs. To do this, final other multi-stage trucks, e.g., van believe the requirements in FMVSS No. stage manufacturers will need to remain cutaways, there may be practicability 220 have been effective for school buses, within specifications contained in the problems for final stage manufacturers. but we are concerned that they may not IVD. Since the stringency of FMVSS No. Because the incomplete vehicle will not be as effective for other vehicle types. 216 is dependent on a vehicle’s have an intact roof and because the We explained that our preference would unloaded vehicle weight, the final stage strength of the roof may be dependent be to use the FMVSS No. 216 test manufacturer would need to remain on the structure to be added by the final procedure for light vehicles, but that within the specification for unloaded stage manufacturer, the incomplete this approach would fail to consider the vehicle weight. If they did not, the roof vehicle manufacturer may not provide practicability problems and special would not likely have the strength to IVD or similar information that would issues for multi-stage manufacturers. comply with FMVSS No. 216. Also, permit pass-through certification. Advocates did not provide analysis or final stage manufacturers will need to Moreover, the design of the completed data addressing the special avoid changes to the vehicle that would truck may be such that it is not possible circumstances faced by multi-stage affect roof strength. to test the vehicle to FMVSS No. 216 manufacturers, or explain why it We note that some changes made by (due to interference with the FMVSS believes these manufacturers can certify final stage manufacturers could affect test device) or inappropriate for testing compliance of their vehicles to FMVSS the ability to conduct an FMVSS No. with FMVSS No. 220. As noted earlier, No. 216. Therefore, that commenter has 216 test, e.g., for a truck, the addition of the FMVSS No. 220 test was designed not provided a basis for us to take a a cargo box structure higher than the for school buses and uses a horizontal different position than we took in the occupant compartment, which could plate over the driver and passenger NPRM. interfere with the placement of the compartment instead of the angled plate We next turn to the issues raised by FMVSS No. 216 test device. To address of Standard No. 216. This test may not NTEA. As a general matter, we believe this concern, we are including a be appropriate for a truck with a cargo that it is neither necessary nor would it specification in the final rule that such box that is higher than the occupant be appropriate to exclude all multi-stage structures are removed prior to testing. compartment. vehicles from roof crush resistance (They are still counted as part of a Given these practicability issues, we requirements. The purpose of FMVSS vehicle’s unloaded weight.) have decided to exclude this limited

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 22374 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

group of multi-stage trucks from the pounds) or less. Here we are discussing As to NMEDA’s specific requirements of FMVSS No. 216. vehicles with a GVWR greater than recommendation, we believe that Other multi-stage vehicles not built on 2,722 kilograms (6000 pounds). organization has not demonstrated a chassis cabs. We believe that practicability issues need for a different requirement in this For other multi-stage vehicles not arise for vehicles with a GVWR greater area. According to that organization, the built on chassis cabs, we continue to than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) typical height of a raised roof is 356–406 believe, for the reasons discussed in the whose roofs are raised. Moreover, we mm (14–16 inches). Its members have NPRM, that permitting FMVSS No. 220 believe that the FMVSS No. 220 option designed raised roofs that meet FMVSS as an option is a reasonable way to is appropriate for the ‘‘para-transit’’ No. 220, and FMVSS No. 216 as balance the desire to respond to the vans and buses. The FMVSS No. 220 amended will permit this option. In needs of multi-stage manufacturers and option will help ensure that these addition, vans which are typically the need to increase safety in rollover occupants are afforded a level of altered or modified in this manner will crashes. As we noted, several states protection that is currently not required. have an electronic stability control already require ‘‘para-transit’’ vans and We are not providing this option to system as standard equipment. Also, other buses, which are typically vehicles with raised roofs and a GVWR different vehicles can be used for higher manufactured in multiple stages, to of less than or equal to 2,722 kilograms raised roofs, i.e., those with dual rear comply with the roof crush (6,000 pounds). wheels. We note that the GVWR of those requirements of FMVSS No. 220. We We believe that the practicability vehicles is greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 also note that RVIA supported our issues for vehicle alterers which raise pounds) and FMVSS No. 216 would not proposal. roofs on the vehicles at issue are apply. Multi-stage vehicles and complete comparable to those of final stage vehicles with a GVWR greater than manufacturers. An alterer may raise a d. Other Issues 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) which roof on a vehicle that was originally 1. Convertibles and Open Bodied have been changed by raising their certified to FMVSS No. 216. We believe Vehicles original roof. that permitting alterers which raise In response to the comments of roofs on these vehicles the option of Convertibles are excluded from the NMEDA, we agree that the FMVSS No. certifying to FMVSS No. 220 balances requirements of FMVSS No. 216. In the 220 option should be available to multi- potential practicability issues with the NPRM, we sought to clarify the stage and complete vehicles with a need to increase safety in rollovers. definition and scope of exclusion for GVWR greater than 2,722 kilograms The FMVSS No. 220 130 mm (5.1 convertibles. (6,000 pounds) which have been inches) limit of platen travel established We explained that FMVSS No. 216 changed by raising their original roof. at the point of contact with the raised does not define the term ‘‘convertible.’’ In considering this issue, we note that roof is consistent with FMVSS No. 216 We noted, however, that S3 of 49 CFR in 1999 the agency published a final requirements. As discussed elsewhere 571.201 defines convertibles as vehicles rule (64 FR 22567) that was in part in in this document, we are maintaining whose A-pillars are not joined with the response to an RVIA petition to allow the current platen travel requirement as B-pillars (or rearmost pillars) by a fixed, vans, motor homes and other well as adding a headroom requirement rigid structural member. In a previous multipurpose vehicles with raised roofs in FMVSS No. 216. Therefore, even if a rulemaking, NHTSA stated that ‘‘open- the option to certify to FMVSS No. 220. roof is raised and the manufacturer or body type vehicles’’ 43 are a subset of The RVIA had argued first that since alterer selects the FMVSS No. 220 convertibles and are therefore excluded raised roof vehicles would have met option, we believe the platen travel from the requirements of FMVSS No. FMVSS No. 216 requirements prior to requirement should be the same, even if 216.44 modification of their roofs, the A-Pillar there is additional headroom. We stated in the NPRM that we had strength has already been demonstrated. In arguing for an alternative reassessed our position with respect to Second, RVIA had claimed that the requirement in this area, NMEDA raised ‘‘open-body type vehicles.’’ Specifically, modifications usually do not affect the a concern about higher center of gravity. we believed that we were incorrect in roof strength near the A-pillar. RVIA NMEDA surveyed its members to stating that ‘‘open-body type vehicles’’ believed that the FMVSS No 220 test obtain, amongst a number of things, an are a subset of convertibles because procedure could be used to test the estimate of the height of raised roofs. It some open-body type vehicles do not strength of the entire modified vehicle found that some raised roofs can be as fall under the definition of convertibles roof without repeating the FMVSS No. high as 762 mm (30 inches). It was in S3 of FMVSS No. 201. We cited the 216 certification test. In the final rule, concerned about the resulting center of example of a Jeep Wrangler, which we we stated that we disagreed with RVIA’s gravity’s effect on rollover propensity of believed to have a rigid structural analysis that concluded FMVSS No. 220 these vehicles. member that connects the A-pillars to is comparable to FMVSS No. 216 and is We note that in raising the roof of a the B-pillars. preferable for testing vehicles with vehicle, a final stage manufacturer or We stated in the NPRM that we raised or modified roofs. We stated that alterer will likely increase the center of believe that ‘‘open-body type vehicles that the agency stood by its tentative gravity of the vehicle, independent of are capable of offering roof crush conclusions stated in the NPRM that the any roof crush resistance requirements. protection over the front seat area.’’ FMVSS No. 220 test is less stringent We believe that it is important that Accordingly, we proposed to limit the than FMVSS No. 216 for testing the manufacturers carefully analyze the exclusion of convertibles from the appropriate roof area. impacts of their changes, and choose requirements of FMVSS No. 216 to only In considering the issues raise by appropriate vehicles for such those vehicles whose A-pillars are not NMEDA, we note that the discussion we modifications. We also believe that if included in the 1999 final rule was in final stage manufacturers or alterers 43 An open-body type vehicle is a vehicle having the context of the version of FMVSS No. raise the roof of a vehicle, it is still no occupant compartment top or an occupant compartment top that can be installed or removed 216 that existed at that time. The necessary that the vehicle have by the user at his convenience. See Part 49 CFR standard was applicable to vehicles appropriate roof strength to provide 571.3. with a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 protection in potential rollovers. 44 See 56 FR 15510 (April 17, 1991).

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 22375

joined with the B-pillars, thus providing believe that to establish a roof crush ease of folding and storage within the consistency with the definition of a requirement on vehicles that do not vehicle or removal by the consumer. convertible in S3 of FMVSS No. 201. We have a permanent roof structure would and we believe consumers readily proposed to add the definition of not be practical from a countermeasure recognize they will afford the occupants convertibles contained in S3 of 49 CFR perspective. A convertible roof would limited protection in a rollover. § 571.201 to the definition section in have to be strong enough to pass the 2. Vehicles Without B-Pillars FMVSS No. 216. quasi-static test, yet flexible enough to fold into the vehicle. Since we are not In the NPRM, we did not specifically Comments aware of any such designs, we do not discuss vehicles that are designed The agency received comments on agree with Advocates on this point. We without B-pillars. At the time we were this issue from Advocates, the Alliance, also note that new rollover and ejection unaware of any technical concerns the AIAM, BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Ferrari requirements for convertibles are manufacturers might have with these and Porsche. Vehicle manufacturers outside the scope of this rulemaking. vehicle, to meet the proposed supported continuing to exclude On the issue of open-body vehicles, requirements. convertibles from the requirements; we agree with DaimlerChrysler that the Ford identified a number of design however they raised some concerns agency misidentified the Wrangler as an challenges for vehicles without B- with regard to the proposed definition. open-body vehicle in the NPRM when it pillars. That company’s concerns were The Alliance commented that there is should have been considered a focused on pickup trucks without B- no evidence that it is practicable for convertible (since the A-pillar is not pillars that have a GVWR of 3,856 convertibles or open body vehicles to rigid and fixed to the B-pillar or other kilograms (8,500 pounds) or more. comply. rearmost pillar). At the time, we were These vehicles have a front-forward DaimlerChrysler disagreed with the unaware that the windshield and opening and a rear-rearward opening agency’s position that the Wrangler is support bars were designed to be side door configuration that latch not a convertible. It claimed that the disassembled. together without a fixed, structural B- Wrangler does not have an A-pillar, Our position on open-body vehicles pillar. Ford expressed concern that there since the structure is not rigid and is has not changed. Under the new is no direct load path to resist the platen hinged to fold down. Further, that definition, open-body vehicles will be during testing and as a result, there are company stated that the padded tube subject to FMVSS No. 216, since they significant design and manufacturing connecting the windshield frame and are capable of offering roof crush issues that must be addressed while the sport bar is not rigid because it is protection over the front seat area. We avoiding a major incremental weight attached with easily-removable screws. note, however, that given penalty. Ford did not make any specific Several commenters addressed the DaimlerChrysler’s comment about the recommendations. proposed definition of convertible. Jeep Wrangler, we are not aware of other Agency Response Ferrari suggested that the definition of vehicles currently available for sale that convertible include ‘‘above the window are considered open-body vehicles. We agree with Ford’s analysis that opening light lowermost point.’’ AIAM We disagree with the Alliance’s certain vehicles without B-pillars may recommended two changes: to add ‘‘not assertion that it is not practicable for raise additional technical challenges permanently joined’’ and to make it open-body vehicles to meet the compared to other vehicles, particularly clear that the referenced connection is requirements of FMVSS No. 216. We for heavier vehicles. However, based ‘‘above the lowest point of the side believe that if a vehicle otherwise upon our fleet testing, we believe that a window opening.’’ This would lead to similar to the Wrangler had roof structure can be designed at the joint the following complete definition: ‘‘A supports that are fixed (as in a roll cage), between the doors that acts as a convertible is a vehicle whose A-pillars it should be capable of providing surrogate B-pillar to resist roof are not permanently joined with the B- protection to the occupants as required displacement during testing. We note pillars (or rearmost pillars) by a fixed, by today’s final rule. that the Alliance’s comments on how rigid structural member above the We are also not making the changes the proposed tie-down procedure lowest point of the window opening.’’ to the proposed definition of convertible adversely affects vehicles without B- DaimlerChrysler suggested changing the suggested by some commenters. The pillars reinforce this view. The revised convertible definition to ‘‘vehicles with definition proposed was previously tie-down procedure for the final rule folding tops or removable hardtops with adopted in FMVSS No. 201 (62 FR will aid vehicles without B-pillars in A-pillars not joined to the B-pillars (or 16725), and the agency believes the complying since support will be placed rearmost pillars) or joined with applicability is the same and is unaware along the complete body sill. removable parts to the B-pillars (or of any concerns. Furthermore, we do not NHTSA tested two vehicles without rearmost pillars).’’ believe further specificity is warranted B-pillars, the 2004 Chevrolet Silverado Advocates disagreed with excluding given our revised position on the HD and 2005 Nissan Frontier. This convertibles from FMVSS No. 216 and Wrangler. We believe our discussion in testing confirmed that the load can be stated further that the agency should the NPRM concerning the Wrangler may successfully transferred to the joint establish rollover requirements for have caused confusion. We also do not between adjacent doors where a B-pillar convertibles that limit ejections and agree that there is a need to specify that would be in a conventional vehicle head and neck injuries. convertibles have folding hardtops or design. The Silverado did not meet the removable hardtops. These roof systems 2.5 SWR proposed in the NPRM, but it Agency Response are not intended as significant structural did exceed 1.5. The Frontier achieved a After considering the comments, we elements but are designed primarily to peak SWR of almost 4.0 within the are adopting the proposed definition of provide protection from inclement allocated platen displacement. convertible for the final rule and we are weather, improve theft protection and While we appreciate the challenges continuing to exclude convertibles are generally offered as a luxury item. manufacturers will incur to meet the within that definition from the FMVSS These types of roof systems are also new requirements, we believe the No. 216 requirements. This includes designed of lighter weight materials, upgrade is feasible for vehicles without retractable hard top convertibles. We such as aluminum or composites, for B-pillars. We note that one of the

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 22376 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

reasons we are providing a phase-in is prevent implementation of active roof We explained, with respect to two-sided to permit manufacturers additional time systems. vehicle testing, that we believed there to make the design changes needed to 5. Whether an Additional SNPRM Is was now sufficient available enable some of the more challenging Needed information for the agency to consider a vehicles to comply with the two-sided requirement as an alternative requirements of the final rule. Several commenters argued that the to the single-sided procedure described agency’s January 2008 SNPRM did not in the NPRM. We stated that we 3. Heavier Vehicles With a High Height provide sufficient information about the to Width Aspect Ratio planned to evaluate both the single- alternatives we were considering and sided and two-sided testing alternatives The Alliance and Mercedes–Benz that an additional SNPRM should be for the final rule and requested published. USA requested that vehicles with a comments that would help us reach a Public Citizen claimed that the GVWR above 3,856 kilograms (8,500 decision on that issue. pounds) GVWR and a height to width January 2008 SNPRM failed to provide aspect ratio greater than 1.2 be enough information for meaningful While the agency did not provide permitted to certify to FMVSS No. 220 public comment. It stated that the complete new cost-benefits analyses to as an option or, at a minimum, use the agency did not spell out the explicit accompany the SNPRM, we included a larger platen specified for FMVSS No. safety benefits of mandating a two-sided detailed discussion in the SNPRM of 220. They argued that the FMVSS No. test, or how using the one-sided test how estimated impacts of the final rule 216 platen results in unrealistic roof would meet the statutory requirement would be changed by a number of deformation for these particular relating to roof strength for driver and relevant factors. See 73 FR 5488–5490. vehicles. passenger sides. Public Citizen argued These factors included the pass/fail rate that a new SNPRM is needed. of the vehicle fleet, the impact of the Agency Response Advocates claimed that the January ESC standard on potential benefits, While we have considered this 2008 SNPRM offered several regulatory revised cost and weight estimates, two- comment, we believe that the alternatives without support from a sided testing implications, and other commenters have not provided cost-benefits analysis. That commenter factors. stated that this denied the public an persuasive evidence that a special Thus, in the NPRM and SNPRM, we opportunity to evaluate the agency’s requirement is needed for these provided detailed information comparative estimates of costs and vehicles. While we did observe edge concerning the alternatives we were benefits before submitting comments. contact in our testing of the Sprinter, it considering and the relevant issues. We Advocates argued that the SNPRM did was not of a nature that prevents also note that both Public Citizen and compliant designs. We note that the 1.5 not fulfill agency’s obligation to present the public with the regulatory Advocates supported a two-sided test SWR we are adopting for vehicles requirement, the alternative we are within this weight range reduces alternatives it is considering. adopting in today’s rule. possible concerns in this area. The AIAM stated that it believes there would not be a fair opportunity for 6. Rear Seat Occupants 4. Active Roofs public comment on a two-sided test Autoliv North America (Autoliv) requirement without an opportunity of As a general comment to the NPRM, stated that the quasi-static test review of revised cost-benefit analysis. the Advocates raised a concern that the procedure does not have a provision for quasi-static platen test is not applicable Agency Response active roof structure systems. Active to rear seat occupants including small roof structures are being developed to We reject the commenters’ arguments children seated in the rear. provide added stiffness during an actual that the agency did not provide a rollover event. The effectiveness of such meaningful opportunity for comment. In Agency Response conjunction with the August 2005 a system may be transient, deployed We note that the large size of the NPRM, the agency’s PRIA included an during a rollover initiation and lasting FMVSS No. 216 platen covers the rear assessment of the 2.5 and 3.0 SWR only as long as required to reduce seat in most vehicles to help ensure alternatives. As discussed above, in our intrusion. The quasi-static test specifies protection for rear seat occupants. We January 2008 SNPRM, we asked for a deformation rate of not more than 13 believe that one of the countermeasures public comment on a number of issues millimeters per second with the total that vehicle manufacturers will use to time for crush not to exceed 120 that might affect the content of the final rule, including possible variations in the meet the upgraded roof strength seconds. According to Autoliv, the requirements is strengthening the B- duration of this test may exceed the proposed requirements. We also announced the release of the results of pillars. In terms of possible benefits to time in which certain active roof small children, belted occupant injuries structures can be effective. various vehicle tests conducted since the proposal. In the SNPRM, we noted sustained due to rollover roof crush are Agency Response that we had been carefully analyzing the to the head, neck, and face from contact We are not aware of the near term numerous comments we had received with roof structures. Appropriately implementation or effectiveness of on the NPRM, as well as the various restrained children are generally not tall active roof structure technology. In additional vehicle tests, including both enough to sustain such injuries. developing performance requirements, single-side tests and two-sided tests, 7. New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) we seek to develop ones that are conducted since the NPRM. We invited appropriate for, and do not comments on how the agency should Several commenters suggested that unnecessarily discourage, new factor the new information into its the agency develop a 5-star rating technologies. However, our ability to do decision. We noted that while the system concerning roof strength for our this is dependent on the amount of NPRM focused on a specified force NCAP program to provide the public information we have. We do not have equivalent to 2.5 times the unloaded with information on roof strength and to sufficient information at this time to vehicle weight, the agency could adopt encourage manufacturers to improve the indicate the quasi-static test will a higher or lower value for the final rule. roof strength of their vehicles.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 22377

Agency Response a. Conclusions of the FRIA prevent a fatality. The cost effectiveness of this rule was estimated under both The purpose of this rulemaking is to The conclusions of the FRIA can be 3% and 7% discount rate assumptions upgrade our roof strength standard. The summarized as follows: for each alternative. Nonfatal injuries issue of whether roof strength might be Countermeasures were translated into fatality equivalents addressed in some way in our NCAP The agency believes that based on comprehensive valuations that program would be considered separately manufacturers will meet this standard included both economic impacts and in the context of that program. by strengthening reinforcements in roof pillars, by increasing the gauge of steel valuations of lost quality of life. To 8. Possible Energy Requirement used in roofs, and/or by using higher reflect the present value of benefits that would be experienced over the vehicle’s We did not propose an energy strength materials. The agency believes useful life, the resulting equivalent requirement in the NPRM but indicated that pressure to improve fuel economy fatalities were discounted over the that we would welcome comments on in vehicles, driven by more stringent vehicle’s life based on annual exposure an energy absorption test that had Corporate Average Fuel Economy to crash involvement as measured by previously been suggested by SAFE and (CAFE) standards as well as by market annual miles traveled. The 135 fatalities Syson-Hille and Associates (Syson). forces, together with safety considerations, will provide a strong and 1,065 nonfatal injuries that will be Agency Response incentive for manufacturers to achieve prevented translate into 190 equivalent fatalities, which are valued at 156 We received several comments. We increased roof strength through use of equivalent fatalities under a 3% appreciate the information provided in light weight materials and stronger roof discount rate, and 125 equivalent the comments but note that we are not designs initiated during the redesign fatalities under a 7% discount rate. considering rulemaking in this area. cycle. The agency believes that the phase-in schedule provided in this rule When compared to total costs, the 9. Advanced Restraints will allow manufacturers to establish results indicate that the new standard will cost from $6.1 million to $9.8 In the NPRM, we presented a such designs in an efficient manner. The million per equivalent life saved. summary of our advanced restraints agency estimates that about 82 percent of all current passenger car and light Net benefits represent the difference research and requested comments in between total costs and the total this area. truck models with GVWRs less than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) will monetary value of benefits. DOT’s Agency Response need changes to meet the 3.0 SWR guidance specifies a value of $5.8 million as the value of a statistical life While advanced restraints are not part requirement, and that 40 percent of vehicles over 2,722 kilograms (6,000 (VSL), with a range of uncertainty of this rulemaking, the agency is covering $3.2 million to $8.4 million. continuing research in this area and pounds) GVWR will need changes to meet the 1.5 SWR requirement. The monetary value of benefits was appreciates the comments that were estimated by assigning a value of $6.1 provided. Benefits The agency estimates that the changes million to each equivalent fatality VII. Costs and Benefits in FMVSS No. 216 will prevent 135 prevented. This value includes the $5.8 fatalities and 1,065 nonfatal injuries million VSL plus approximately At the time of the NPRM, the agency annually. $300,000 of economic savings to prepared a PRIA describing the Costs represent the comprehensive societal estimated costs and benefits of the The design changes made to comply benefit from preventing a fatality. This proposal. While the agency did not with higher test load requirements will means that the standard would be provide complete new cost-benefits add both cost and weight to the vehicle. considered to result in net benefits only analyses to accompany the SNPRM, we This will increase the initial purchase if the cost per equivalent life saved was included a detailed discussion in the price and will increase lifetime fuel below $6.1 million. SNPRM of how estimated impacts of the usage costs. Net benefits represent the difference final rule would be changed by a Taking account of both the costs of between total costs and the total number of relevant factors. See 73 FR design changes and lifetime fuel usage monetary value of benefits. The 5488–5490. These factors included the costs, the agency estimates that monetary value of benefits was pass/fail rate of the vehicle fleet, the compliance with the upgraded roof estimated by assigning a value of $6.1 impact of the ESC standard on potential strength standard will increase lifetime million to each equivalent fatality benefits, revised cost and weight consumer costs by $69–$114 per prevented. This value consists of a value estimates, two-sided testing affected vehicle. Redesign costs are per statistical life saved (VSL) of $5.8 implications, and other factors. expected to increase affected vehicle million plus $300,000 in economic costs Many commenters addressed the prices by an average of about $54. prevented. For the 3.0/1.5 load PRIA and the later discussion of these Added weight is estimated to increase requirements of the final rule, the net impacts included in the SNPRM. the lifetime cost of fuel usage by $15 to impact would range from a net benefit Among other things, commenters $62 for an average affected vehicle. The of $6 million to a net loss of $458 addressed the target population, the range in fuel costs reflects different million. Using an alternate pass/fail rate of the current fleet, cost discount rate assumptions of 7% and comprehensive value of $8.7 million and weight impacts, and estimates of 3%, as well as a range of assumptions (which consists of a VSL of $8.4 million benefits. regarding the ability of manufacturers to plus $300,000 in economic savings), the The agency addresses the comments incorporate advanced weight saving standard could result in a net benefit of concerning its analysis of costs and technology into their redesigned fleet. $388 million to a net loss of $151 benefits in detail in the FRIA. In this Total consumer costs are expected to million. Using an alternate document, we summarize the agency’s range from $875 million to $1.4 billion comprehensive value of $3.5 million estimates of costs and benefits and annually. (which consists of a VSL of $3.2 million discuss the comments concerning target Cost Effectiveness and Net Benefits plus $300,000 in economic savings), the population and roof crush as a cause of Cost effectiveness is a measure of the standard could result in a net loss injury. economic investment that is required to ranging from $376 million to $824

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 22378 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

million. These impacts are vehicles over 6,000 lbs. GVWR. Nearly The following table summarizes the disproportionately influenced by the all alternatives covering vehicles from cost and benefits of this final rule. relatively large contributions to costs 6,001 to 10,000 lbs. GVWR yield net and small contributions to benefits from losses rather than net savings to society.

TABLE 2—COST AND BENEFIT SUMMARY

Total Cost ...... $875 to $1,391 million. Cost per Affected Vehicle ...... $69 to $114. Benefits ...... 135 fatalities, 1,065 injuries, 190 equivalent fatalities. Cost per Equivalent Life Saved ...... $6.1million to $9.8 million. Net Benefits ...... $6 million to ¥$458.

b. Comments ejection. In this study,45 Strashny were excluded from the target examined 36 different Probit models population unless their MAIS level Target Population examining belted cases, unbelted cases, injury occurred inside the vehicle prior The agency received numerous complete ejections, all ejections to ejection. comments concerning the target (including both complete and partial For occupants who were unbelted but population. CAS and Advocates argued ejection), continuous models, not fully ejected, we could not establish that improving roof strength would dichotomous models, adjusted models a relationship between roof crush impact ejection and that mitigated based on both quarter turns and roof injuries and the magnitude of roof ejections should therefore be included exposures, as well as unadjusted crush. Strashny analyzed the in the agency’s benefit calculations. models. In all, there were 18 models for relationship between intrusion and Advocates also argued that rear seat complete ejections and 18 for all injuries to unbelted occupants and occupants should be covered by the ejections. Strashny found that there was found no significant correlation. This is revised standard. SAFE argued that roof no significant relationship between the not unexpected because unbelted crush increases the likelihood of glass level of intrusion and the probability of occupants essentially become flying fracture and vehicle structure complete ejection in any of the 18 full objects inside vehicles as they roll over, deformation, thereby increasing the ejection models. For all ejections, which and head injuries can occur at multiple possibility of ejection. It also argued that include partial ejections, he found some interior locations. Therefore, only belted roof crush reduces the effectiveness of level of significance for 8 of the 18 occupants are included in the target restraint systems, decreases the models, indicating that a minority of the population. effectiveness of rollover air curtains, models found a possibility that some Regarding the other categories of and decreases the ability of occupants to partial ejections might be influenced by injuries noted in the comments, be extricated from the vehicle. The stronger roofs. However, 12 of the partially ejected occupants were already Xprts disagreed with several of models found no statistically significant included in the target population, and NHTSA’s target population restrictions. relationship between intrusion and all the agency has decided to include rear It stated that ejected occupants, rear seat ejections. We note that partial ejections seat occupants in the target population. occupants, and children under 12 that meet the other inclusion criteria are We note that B pillar strength upgrades should be included. It also argued that a part of the target population for this were included in all of our finite roof crush can cause thoracic and spinal rulemaking. element countermeasure analyses, and injuries, and that upper extremity The agency then conducted a detailed this support also provides protection for injuries from ejection through side examination of all fatal complete rear occupants. Moreover, vehicle windows should also be included. Many ejection cases that were excluded from schematics submitted by both industry of these arguments were repeated in a the target population. A panel of three and contractors indicate that some separate submission by CFIR signed by NHTSA safety engineers independently design solutions contemplated for one of the Xprts authors. Consumers examined each case to determine increased roof strength include not only Union and Public Citizen also argued whether (a) for ejections through open stronger A- and B-pillars but also a that stronger roofs would reduce doors, there was deformation in the stronger B- to C-pillar load path to resist ejections and better maintain the door latch area where the root cause platen movement. Such solutions may performance of other safety features could be directly attributed to roof benefit rear seat occupants as well as such as safety belts, air bags, and door crush, and (b) for ejections through front seat occupants. The agency has locks. Public Citizen also argued that windows, if the broken glass through also decided to include belted children unbelted occupants would benefit from which the occupant was ejected was in the target population. stronger roofs. directly related to deformation of the Roof Crush as a Cause of Injury Agency response. We begin our roof rather than dynamic crash impulse A number of commenters including response by noting that Table 1, set loads or side window/door to ground GM, Ford, Nissan, and SAFE stated that forth earlier in this document, shows a contact. The panel concluded that there the statistical correlation Strashny breakdown of the target population that were no cases that met either of these found between roof intrusion and injury could potentially benefit from roof criteria. Therefore, based on these does not establish a causal relationship crush improvements. findings and Strashny’s finding of no To examine the inclusion of different between roof deformation and injury. statistically significant correlation categories of injuries in the target SAFE stated that the studies by both between intrusion and ejection population, the agency has conducted Rains and Strashny merely suggest that probability, all cases of total ejection several analyses of ejections in there is a relationship. SAFE stated that rollovers. The first study was a 45 Strashny, Alexander, ‘‘The Role of Vertical ‘‘ * * * when you compare rollover statistical analysis examining the Roof Intrusion in Predicting Occupant Ejection,’’ accidents that have significant roof/ relationship between intrusion and National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 2009. pillar deformation with other rollover

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 22379

accidents that have very little or no experienced when structures deform The rule directly affects motor vehicle roof/pillar deformation, you are not might cause serious injury. These types manufacturers, second stage or final comparing similar accidents with of injuries were documented by manufacturers, and alterers. The respect to roof-to-ground impact Rechnitzer and Lane in a detailed majority of motor vehicle manufacturers severity. Just the fact that two vehicles investigation of 43 rollover crashes.46 would not qualify as a small business. are in a rollover with greater than 2 The agency believes that the statistically There are six manufacturers of quarter turns does not mean they are in significant relationship between roof passenger cars that are small the same or even similar impact intrusion and belted occupant injury businesses.47 These manufacturers, severities.’’ SAFE also noted an earlier found in the Strashny study indicates along with manufacturers that do not study (matched pair comparison project) not just a suggestion, but a probability qualify as a small business, are already in which production and roll bar- that increasing roof strength reduces required to comply with the current equipped vehicles were tested where injuries. requirements of FMVSS No. 216 for the comprehensive forces measured on Regarding the SAFE matched pair vehicles with a GVWR of 2,722 test dummies were similar regardless of comparison project, the agency notes kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less. the vehicle roof crush. Ford stated that that the dummy necks used in the tests Improving performance as necessary to ‘‘The amount of roof deformation is only were not biofidelic. They are rigid meet the upgraded requirements, and an indication of the severity of the structures that do not allow for the for the requirements for heavier light impact between the roof and the ground normal bending that occurs in the vehicles, can be achieved by means * * *.’’ GM stated that ‘‘Observations of human spine. The agency believes that including strengthening reinforcements injury occurrence at the end of a lateral bending plays an important role in roof pillars, by increasing the gauge rollover collision reveal nothing in determining the degree of injury of steel used in roofs and by using regarding the relationship of roof sustained by humans in rollovers, and higher strength materials. deformation, roof strength, or roof does not view these results as an All of these small manufacturers strength-to-weight ratio injury adequate assessment of injury in could be affected by the upgraded causation.’’ Nissan stated that humans during rollover crashes. requirements. However, the economic deformation and injury severity are both impact upon these entities will not be independently associated with roof VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices significant for the following reasons. impact severity. a. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory (1) Potential cost increases are very Agency Response Planning and Review) and DOT small compared to the price of the Regulatory Policies and Procedures vehicles being manufactured and can be The agency agrees that as a general passed on to the consumer. principle, a statistical correlation does The agency has considered the impact (2) Some of the vehicles manufactured not in itself prove that a causal of this rulemaking action under by these small businesses are relationship exists. However, the Executive Order 12866 and the convertibles not subject to this Strashny study was designed with a Department of Transportation’s requirement. strict focus to only include injury regulatory policies and procedures. This (3) The rule provides several years scenarios where the intruding roof was rulemaking is economically significant leadtime, and small volume the injury source. The study compared and was reviewed by the Office of manufacturers are given the option of cases where there was intrusion to cases Management and Budget under E.O. waiting until the end of the phase-in where there was no intrusion and found 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and (until September 1, 2015) to meet the that as intrusion increases, the Review.’’ The rulemaking action has upgraded requirements for lighter probability of, and severity of injury also been determined to be significant vehicles. All manufacturers are given also increases. The study controlled for under the Department’s regulatory until September 1, 2016 to meet the crash severity using quarter turns, policies and procedures. The FRIA fully requirements for the heavier light which is the best available metric for discusses the estimated costs and vehicles. rollover severity. Contrary to SAFE’s benefits of this rulemaking action. The Most of the intermediate and final contention, the study does not compare costs and benefits are summarized in stage manufacturers of vehicles built in crashes over 2 quarter turns as a group. section VII of this preamble, supra. two or more stages and alterers have Rather, it compares only crashes of 1,000 or fewer employees. Some of these b. Regulatory Flexibility Act similar severity as defined by each companies already are required to iterative quarter turn exposure. Thus, a The Regulatory Flexibility Act of comply with the current requirements of vehicle that experienced 3 quarter turns 1980, as amended, requires agencies to FMVSS No. 216 for vehicles with a would only be compared to other evaluate the potential effects of their GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 vehicles that experienced 3 quarter proposed and final rules on small pounds) or less. We have included turns. SAFE’s and Ford’s arguments businesses, small organizations and several provisions in the final rule to appear to imply that any difference in small governmental jurisdictions. I address the special needs of multi-stage roof intrusion must be due to a hereby certify that this rule will not manufacturers and alterers. While the difference in impact severity rather than have a significant economic impact on number of these small businesses roof strength or design, whereas the a substantial number of small entities. potentially affected by this rule is Strashny study, by controlling for Small organizations and small substantial, the economic impact upon quarter turns, attempts to minimize governmental units will not be these entities will not be significant for differences due to impact severity. significantly affected since the potential the following reasons: Further, the study included only belted cost impacts associated with this action (1) We are providing a FMVSS No. cases which minimized the impact of will not significantly affect the price of 220 option for multi-stage vehicles, ‘‘diving’’ as an injury cause. new motor vehicles. except those built on chassis-cab There are logical reasons to believe incomplete vehicles, and for vehicles that a collapsing roof that strikes an 46 Rechnutzer, George and Lane, John, ‘‘Rollover occupant’s head at the nearly Crash Study, Vehicle Design and Occupant 47 Fisker, Mosler, Panoz, Saleen, Standard Taxi, instantaneous impact velocity Injuries’’, Monash University, 1994. Tesla.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 22380 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

which are changed in certain ways to U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory their vehicles with advanced vehicle raise the height of the roof. This aspect command that unavoidably preempts technologies for reducing rollovers. of our rule affords significant economic non-identical State legislative and • Either a broad State performance relief to small businesses, some of administrative law, not today’s requirement for levels of roof crush which are already required by States to rulemaking, so consultation would be resistance greater than those proposed certify to the requirements of FMVSS unnecessary. or a narrower requirement mandating No. 220. Second, the Supreme Court has that increased roof strength be achieved (2) Small businesses using chassis recognized the possibility of implied by a particular specified means, could cabs will be in position to take preemption: State requirements frustrate the agency’s objectives by advantage of ‘‘pass-through imposed on motor vehicle upsetting the balance between efforts to certification,’’ and therefore are not manufacturers, including sanctions increase roof strength and reduce expected to incur any additional imposed by State tort law, can stand as rollover propensity. expenditures. an obstacle to the accomplishment and • Based on this conflict analysis, if (3) We are excluding a narrow execution of a NHTSA safety standard. the proposal were adopted as a final category of multi-stage vehicles from When such a conflict is discerned, the rule, all conflicting State common law FMVSS No. 216 altogether, multi-stage Supremacy Clause of the Constitution requirements, including rules of tort trucks built on incomplete vehicles makes the State requirements law, would be subject to being found to other than chassis cabs. unenforceable. See Geier v. American be impliedly preempted. (4) Some of the vehicles manufactured Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). by these small businesses are For the reasons explained below, the 1. Public Comments About NHTSA’s convertibles. agency has reconsidered the tentative Tentative Views on Conflict and (5) Final stage manufacturers and position presented in the NPRM and Preemption alterers can wait until one year after the does not currently foresee any potential Vehicle manufacturers and one legal end of the phase-in to meet the new State tort requirements that might advocacy organization strongly requirements. conflict with today’s final rule. supported the view that an upgraded Accordingly, there will not be a In the NPRM, NHTSA considered the roof crush standard would conflict with significant economic impact on small objectives of the proposed roof crush and therefore impliedly preempt State businesses, small organizations, or small resistance upgrade in the context of the rules of tort law imposing more governmental units by these agency’s overall rollover plan and stringent requirements than the one amendments. For these reasons, the addressed whether there might be ultimately adopted by NHTSA. agency has not prepared a regulatory specific conflicts between the standard Consumer advocacy groups, members flexibility analysis. and anticipated State tort law. The of Congress and State officials, trial c. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) agency opined on the possibility that lawyers, consultants and members of certain State tort law actions might academia, and private individuals NHTSA has examined today’s final conflict with an improved Federal roof strongly opposed our view that there rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 crush resistance standard and that those could be conflict. The opposing letters (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and conflicts could result in those actions from State officials included one signed concluded that no additional being determined by a court to be by 27 State Attorneys General and the consultation with States, local impliedly preempted. It presented the National Conference of State governments or their representatives is following tentative conclusions: Legislatures. mandated beyond the rulemaking • Overall, safety would best be A summary of the primary arguments process. The agency has concluded that promoted by the careful balance it had of the commenters on each side follows: the rule does not have federalism struck in the proposal among a variety implications because the rule does not of considerations and objectives A. Primary Arguments for the Existence have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the regarding rollover safety. of Conflict States, on the relationship between the • The proposal to upgrade roof crush • There is a limit to the increases in national government and the States, or resistance was a part of a roof crush resistance or stiffening that on the distribution of power and comprehensive plan for reducing the can practicably be achieved across the responsibilities among the various serious risk of rollover crashes and the fleet without introducing unacceptable levels of government.’’ risk of death and serious injury in those risk of undesirable effects, such as Further, after careful consideration of crashes. The objective of the proposal increases in the height of the center of the public comments and further was to increase the requirement for roof gravity of the vehicle or diverting analysis of the issues, NHTSA crush resistance only to the extent that resources away from other promising concludes that no consultation is it can be done without creating too advanced vehicle technologies for needed to discuss the preemptive effect much risk of negatively affecting vehicle reducing rollovers. of today’s rule. NHTSA’s safety dynamics and rollover propensity. • Small additions of weight and small standards can have preemptive effect in Excessively increasing current roof changes in center of gravity height will, at least two ways. First, the National crush resistance requirements could based on NHTSA’s analysis presented in Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act lead vehicle manufacturers to add Appendix A of the PRIA, have large contains an express preemption weight to vehicle roof and pillars, consequences on the level of rollover provision: ‘‘When a motor vehicle safety thereby raising the vehicle center of risk and risk of associated fatalities and standard is in effect under this chapter, gravity (CG) and increasing rollover injuries. Moreover, the weight impacts a State or a political subdivision of a propensity. of meeting requirements at different State may prescribe or continue in effect • Some methods of improving roof SWR levels are greater than estimated a standard applicable to the same aspect crush resistance are costlier than others by the agency in the PRIA. of performance of a motor vehicle or and the resources diverted to increasing • There is a conflict between the motor vehicle equipment only if the roof strength using one of the costlier agency’s comprehensive rollover policy standard is identical to the standard methods could delay or even prevent and some state common law rules prescribed under this chapter.’’ 49 vehicle manufacturers from equipping related to roof strength. Any state

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 22381

common law rule that would purport to • Given the agency’s New Car principles. Nor does the preemption impose a duty to design vehicles’ roofs Assessment Program, manufacturers provision, the saving provision, or both to meet a more stringent strength would improve roof strength using read together, create some kind of requirement has the potential, as a design changes that avoid a lower star ‘‘special burden’’ beyond that inherent practical matter, to result in a reduction rating. in ordinary preemption principles that in vehicle stability (as measured by • The tort system would provide the would specially disfavor pre-emption. average SSF), at least for some vehicle best incentive for manufacturers to The two provisions, read together, models in the fleet. Such a result would make design decisions that will not reflect a neutral policy, not a specially undercut NHTSA’s overall rollover increase rollover propensity. favorable or unfavorable policy, toward mitigation policy that has been • The premise behind NHTSA’s the application of ordinary conflict developed to balance the competing analysis is incorrect because plaintiffs preemption principles. goals of preventing rollover crashes in alleging a design defect must prove that • The preemption provision itself the first place and of reducing the risk the alternative design would not have reflects a desire to subject the industry of injury when such crashes created more injuries in other accidents. to a single, uniform set of Federal safety • nevertheless occur. The Geier case does not support standards. On the other hand, the • The creation of a patchwork of preemption as the situation it addressed savings clause reflects a congressional different State roof crush resistance involved two key factors that are not determination that occasional requirements across the country would present here: Consumer resistance to air nonuniformity is a small price to pay for not contribute toward achievement of an bags and the need to foster innovation a system in which juries not only create, appropriate balancing of roof strength in passive restraint technology. but also enforce, safety standards, while and rollover propensity. Preemption in this case is inconsistent simultaneously providing necessary • Being required to devote resources with the statutory savings clause. • compensation to victims. Nothing in to increasing roof strength using one of The agency’s statement is overbroad any natural reading of the two the costlier methods could delay or even in being applied to all vehicles covered provisions favors one set of policies prevent manufacturers from installing by the standard, without regard to their over the other where a jury-imposed advanced vehicle technologies for individual design characteristics or their safety standard actually conflicts with a reducing rollovers. manufacturers’ ability to exceed the • Federal safety standard. The agency should also be standard without negatively affecting • A court should not find preemption concerned about another potential vehicle dynamics and rollover too readily in the absence of clear safety conflict, in the area of vehicle propensity. evidence of a conflict. compatibility, as the addition of weight 2. Preemption, Geier and the National • The common-law ‘‘no airbag’’ increases the chances of vehicle mass Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act action before the Court was preempted mismatch in a collision. In Geier, 529 U.S. 861 (2000), the because it actually conflicted with B. Primary Arguments Against the Supreme Court specifically addressed FMVSS No. 208. That standard sought Existence of Conflict the possible preemptive effect of the a gradually developing mix of • NHTSA’s claims that a more National Traffic and Motor Vehicle alternative passive restraint devices for stringent standard could result in Safety Act, taken together with Federal safety-related reasons. The rule of state increased vehicle weight and decreased motor vehicle safety standards issued tort law sought by the petitioner would stability are not supported by the under that Act, on common law tort have required manufacturers of all record. claims. The issue before the court was similar cars to install air bags rather • Manufacturers can strengthen roofs whether the Safety Act, together with than other passive restraint systems, by a variety of means without FMVSS No. 208, preempted a lawsuit thereby presenting an obstacle to the significantly increasing weight, and claiming a 1987 car was defective for variety and mix of devices that the advanced steels and other lightweight lacking a driver air bag. When the car Federal regulation sought. materials can be used to strengthen was manufactured, FMVSS No. 208 had 3. Agency Testing and Discussion roofs without a weight increase. required manufacturers to equip some • NHTSA’s data show that increases but not all of their vehicles with passive In the NPRM, we noted the well- in roof structural strength will not have restraints. established physical relationship a physically measurable influence on The conclusions of Geier can be between center of gravity (CG) and CG height. Production of vehicles that summarized as follows: rollover propensity. It is reflected in our exceed the NHTSA standard would • The Safety Act’s provision NCAP ratings program. All other things enhance the safety objectives of that expressly preempting state ‘‘standards’’ being equal, increasing the CG of a standard. does not preempt common law tort vehicle increases its rollover propensity. • NHTSA did not provide any claims. The issue of whether the term We also posited a second relationship, examples of vehicles with elevated ‘‘standards’’ includes tort law actions is one between CG and SWR. We rollover risk due to weight added to the resolved by another provision in the identified a hypothetical fleet impact in roof. An examination of the vehicle Safety Act—the ‘‘savings’’ clause. That which the weight and center of gravity fleet, including the Volvo XC90 and provision states that ‘‘(c)ompliance effects of complying with a 2.5 SWR vehicles with high SWRs tested after with’’ a Federal safety standard ‘‘does requirement could result in additional publication of the NPRM, shows that the not exempt any person from any rollovers and added fatalities. This agency’s concerns are unfounded. liability under common law.’’ analysis was presented in Appendix A • The agency’s statement that • The savings clause preserves those of the PRIA. As discussed in that resources used to increase roof strength tort actions that seek to establish greater document, there were various could divert resources away from other safety than the minimum safety uncertainties and caveats associated promising advanced vehicle achieved by a Federal regulation with the analysis. The agency believed technologies for reducing rollovers is intended to provide a floor. that manufacturers would take steps to unsupported and speculative. • The savings clause does not bar the avoid negative effects on rollover Manufacturers can do both. working of conflict preemption propensity.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 22382 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

We note that NHTSA has updated that discuss the possible preemptive effects significantly increased SWR as part of analysis for the FRIA, addressing 2.5, of their rulemakings.49 redesigning the vehicle, without 3.0 and 3.5 SWR alternatives. As After considering the public increasing rollover propensity as discussed in the FRIA, the agency comments on the proposal and measured by SSF. Finally, while there believes that, for the alternatives considering today’s final rule, NHTSA would be increasing technical analyzed, manufacturers could and has reconsidered the tentative position challenges for vehicle manufacturers to would take steps sufficient to avoid presented in the NPRM and do not meet successively higher SWR levels negative effects on rollover propensity if currently foresee any potential State tort above the alternatives we analyzed, sufficient leadtime is provided for them requirements that might conflict with those challenges would vary to do so. today’s final rule. Without any conflict, considerably depending on the nature of As noted earlier, NHTSA has done there could not be any implied the vehicle, e.g., weight, size, geometry, testing of vehicles measuring roof crush preemption. etc., making it essentially impossible for resistance performance, much of it In the NPRM, we stated that it was NHTSA to define a level of roof crush completed after publication of the our tentative judgment that safety would stringency likely to cause a conflict with NPRM. Twelve of the vehicles tested by be best promoted by the balance we had our rollover resistance objectives. NHTSA after the NPRM had (one-sided) struck in the proposal among a variety As to another concern we identified SWRs of 3.9 or higher. As part of our of considerations and objectives in the NPRM, the possibility that some fleet testing, NHTSA has also tested regarding rollover safety. We explained kinds of State tort laws requiring three paired vehicles 48 for which that it was the objective of the proposal improved roof crush resistance might manufacturers significantly increased to increase the requirement for roof cause a diversion of resources away SWR as part of redesigning the vehicle. crush resistance only to the extent that from manufacturer efforts to use In each case, SWR was increased it could be done without creating too advanced technologies to reduce without increasing rollover propensity much risk of negatively affecting vehicle rollovers, we have concluded that it is as measured by SSF. In two of the cases, dynamics and rollover propensity. We not possible to identify how such CG stayed about the same (it did not expressed concern that excessively resources would otherwise have been increase); in the other, CG did increase increasing current roof crush resistance used. Specifically, there is not a basis to but other changes (track width) offset requirements could lead vehicle conclude that such resources would the negative effect of higher CG. manufacturers to add weight to vehicle otherwise have been used for improving roof and pillars, thereby raising the rollover resistance or improving safety. 4. Agency Views About Conflict vehicle center of gravity (CG) and Therefore, we believe that such tort laws Preemption increasing rollover propensity. As part do not create a conflict on these As discussed above, the Supreme of our tentative position, we indicated grounds. Court has recognized the possibility of in the NPRM that a broad State Finally, as noted earlier, vehicle implied preemption: State requirements performance requirement for more manufacturers suggested that we imposed on motor vehicle stringent levels of roof crush resistance consider a potential policy conflict in manufacturers, including sanctions could frustrate the agency’s objectives the area of vehicle compatibility. They imposed by State tort law, can stand as by upsetting the balance between efforts stated that the addition of weight would obstacles to the accomplishment and to increase roof strength and reduce increase the chances of vehicle mass execution of a NHTSA safety standard. rollover propensity. mismatch in a collision. However, mass When such a conflict is discerned, the Based on the record for this final rule, mismatch is only one key aspect of Supremacy Clause of the Constitution we cannot identify a level of stringency vehicle-to-vehicle crash compatibility, makes the State requirements of roof crush resistance above which tort particularly in frontal crashes. Vehicle unenforceable. laws would conflict. For example, we stiffness and geometric alignment are Since implied preemption turns upon cannot say that any particular levels of also important factors in vehicle the existence of an actual conflict, we, roof crush resistance above those compatibility. While it is hypothetically as the agency charged with effectively required by today’s rule would likely possible that some kinds of tort laws on carrying out the Act and possessing result in unacceptable levels of rollover roof strength could contribute toward substantial technical expertise regarding resistance. Similarly, we cannot identify greater differential in weight between the subject matter and purposes of the any level of roof crush resistance above some vehicles, e.g., if they resulted in Federal motor vehicle safety standards which it would be expected that net manufacturers adding significant weight and the Vehicle Safety Act, address safety benefits would diminish. to heavier vehicles, we believe it is not whether conflicts exist in our As discussed earlier, there are ways of possible to define any level of rulemaking notices. In most improving roof strength that avoid or stringency of roof crush resistance above rulemakings, we do not foresee the minimize adding weight high in the which tort laws would create a conflict possibility of there being any state vehicle (e.g., use of advanced with our vehicle compatibility requirements that would create lightweight materials), and there are objectives. We note that in redesigning conflicts. other design characteristics that can be vehicles in ways that improve roof Following the principles set forth in used to offset or eliminate any potential strength and also minimize impacts on Geier, we are providing our views change in rollover stability due to vehicle mass, manufacturers have many concerning the issue of whether increased CG (e.g., increased track design options to avoid or minimize conflicts may exist in connection with width). Moreover, during our fleet adding weight (e.g., use of advanced the requirements being adopted in this testing, we observed three paired light materials in various parts of the final rule. We believe that this is vehicles for which manufacturers vehicle, including ones other than those appropriately responsive to statements related to the roof). There may also be by several Supreme Court justices 49 See, e.g., Hillsborough County v. Automated ways of offsetting any possible Medical Laboratories, Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 718 (1985); incremental change in fleet encouraging agencies to consider and Medtronic, Inc., v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 506 (1996) (Justice Breyer, in concurrence); and Geier v. compatibility due to increased weight 48 2002 and 2007 Toyota Camry; 2003 and 2007 American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861, 908 mismatch that might occur with vehicle Toyota Tacoma; 2004 and 2008 Honda Accord. (2000) (Justice Stevens, in dissent). geometric and/or stiffness design

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 22383

modifications. We note that the vehicle regulation; (3) provides a clear legal determining whether a manufacturer of manufacturers did not provide technical standard for affected conduct, while vehicles has complied with the analysis addressing the latter issue. promoting simplification and burden requirements during the phase-in Therefore, although under the reduction; (4) clearly specifies the period. principles enunciated in Geier it is retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately We will submit a request for OMB possible that a rule of State tort law defines key terms; and (6) addresses clearance of the collection of could conflict with a NHTSA safety other important issues affecting clarity information required under today’s final standard if it created an obstacle to the and general draftsmanship under any rule in time to obtain clearance prior to accomplishment and execution of that guidelines issued by the Attorney the beginning of the phase-in at the standard, we do not currently foresee General. This document is consistent beginning of September 2012. the likelihood of any such tort with that requirement. These requirements and our estimates requirements and do not have a basis for Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes of the burden to vehicle manufacturers concluding that any particular levels of as follows. The preemptive effect of this are as follows: stringency would create such a conflict. rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes NHTSA estimates that there are 21 manufacturers of passenger cars, d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for multipurpose passenger vehicles, The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act reconsideration or pursue other trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 2,722 of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal administrative proceeding before they kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less; agencies to prepare a written assessment may file suit in court. NHTSA estimates that the total of the costs, benefits and other effects of annual reporting and recordkeeping proposed or final rules that include a g. Plain Language burden resulting from the collection of Federal mandate likely to result in the Executive Order 12866 requires each information is 1,260 hours; expenditure by State, local or tribal agency to write all rules in plain NHTSA estimates that the total governments, in the aggregate, or by the language. Application of the principles annual cost burden, in U.S. dollars, will private sector, of more than $100 of plain language includes consideration be $0. No additional resources will be million annually (adjusted annually for of the following questions: expended by vehicle manufacturers to inflation, with base year of 1995). These • Have we organized the material to gather annual production information effects are discussed earlier in this suit the public’s needs? because they already compile this data preamble and in the FRIA. UMRA also • Are the requirements in the rule for their own use. requires an agency issuing a final rule clearly stated? A Federal Register document must subject to the Act to select the ‘‘least • Does the rule contain technical provide a 60-day comment period costly, most cost-effective or least language or jargon that isn’t clear? concerning the collection of burdensome alternative that achieves • Would a different format (grouping information. The Office of Management the objectives of the rule.’’ and order of sections, use of headings, and Budget (OMB) promulgated The preamble and the FRIA identify paragraphing) make the rule easier to regulations describing what must be and consider a number of alternatives, understand? included in such a document. Under concerning factors such as single- or • Would more (but shorter) sections OMB’s regulations (5 CFR 320.8(d)), two-sided test requirements, different be better? agencies must ask for public comment SWR levels, and phase-in schedule. • Could we improve clarity by adding on the following: Alternatives considered by and rejected tables, lists, or diagrams? (1) Whether the collection of by us would not fully achieve the • What else could we do to make the information is necessary for the proper objectives of the alternative preferred by rule easier to understand? performance of the functions of the NHTSA (a reasonable balance between If you have any responses to these agency, including whether the the benefits and costs). The agency questions, please write to us with your information will have practical utility; believes that it has selected the most views. (2) The accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed cost-effective alternative that achieves h. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) the objectives of the rulemaking. collection of information, including the Under the PRA of 1995, a person is validity of the methodology and e. National Environmental Policy Act not required to respond to a collection assumptions used; NHTSA has analyzed this final rule of information by a Federal agency (3) How to enhance the quality, for the purposes of the National unless the collection displays a valid utility, and clarity of the information to Environmental Policy Act. The agency OMB control number. The final rule be collected; and, has determined that implementation of contains a collection of information (4) How to minimize the burden of the this action will not have any significant because of the proposed phase-in collection of information on those who impact on the quality of the human reporting requirements. There is no are to respond, including the use of environment. burden to the general public. appropriate automated, electronic, The collection of information requires mechanical, or other technological f. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice manufacturers of passenger cars and collection techniques or other forms of Reform) multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks information technology, e.g., permitting With respect to the review of the and buses with a GVWR of 2,722 electronic submission of responses. promulgation of a new regulation, kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less to section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, annually submit a report, and maintain i. National Technology Transfer and ‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, records related to the report, concerning Advancement Act February 7, 1996) requires that the number of such vehicles that meet Under the National Technology Executive agencies make every the upgraded roof strength Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 reasonable effort to ensure that the requirements. The phase-in will cover (NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104–113), regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the three years. The purpose of the All Federal agencies and departments shall preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies reporting and recordkeeping use technical standards that are developed or the effect on existing Federal law or requirements is to assist the agency in adopted by voluntary consensus standards

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 22384 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

bodies, using such technical standards as a Standard No. 208 (§ 571.208) by means Defining and Measuring Vehicle Seating means to carry out policy objectives or that require no action by vehicle Accommodation,’’ SAE J826 (rev. July activities determined by the agencies and occupants; 1995) is incorporated by reference in departments. (c) Convertibles, except for optional S7.2 of this section. The Director of the Voluntary consensus standards are compliance with the standard as an Federal Register has approved the technical standards (e.g., materials alternative to the rollover test incorporation by reference of this specifications, test methods, sampling requirements in S5.3 of Standard No. material in accordance with 5 U.S.C. procedures, and business practices) that 208; or 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. A copy of SAE are developed or adopted by voluntary (d) Vehicles certified to comply with J826 (rev. Jul 95) may be obtained from consensus standards bodies, such as the § 571.216a. SAE at the Society of Automotive International Organization for * * * * * Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Standardization (ISO) and the Society of ■ 3. Section 571.216a is added to read Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096. Phone: Automotive Engineers (SAE). The as follows: 1–724–776–4841; Web: http:// NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, www.sae.org. A copy of SAE J826 (July through OMB, explanations when we § 571.216a Standard No. 216a; Roof crush 1995) may be inspected at NHTSA’s decide not to use available and resistance; Upgraded standard. Technical Information Services, 1200 applicable voluntary consensus S1. Scope. This standard establishes New Jersey Avenue, Washington, DC standards. strength requirements for the passenger 20590, or at the National Archives and We are incorporating the voluntary compartment roof. Records Administration (NARA). For consensus standard SAE Standard J826 S2. Purpose. The purpose of this information on the availability of this ‘‘Devices for Use in Defining and standard is to reduce deaths and injuries material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, Measuring Vehicle Seating due to the crushing of the roof into the or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ Accommodation,’’ SAE J826 (rev. July occupant compartment in rollover federal_register/ 1995) into the requirements of FMVSS crashes. code_of_federal_regulations/ No. 216a as part of this rulemaking. As S3. Application, incorporation by ibr_locations.html. discussed in the NPRM, we evaluated reference, and selection of compliance S3.3 Selection of compliance option. the SAE inverted drop testing options. Where manufacturer options are procedure, but decided against S3.1 Application. specified, the manufacturer shall select proposing it. (a) This standard applies to passenger the option by the time it certifies the cars, and to multipurpose passenger vehicle and may not thereafter select a List of Subjects vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR different option for the vehicle. Each 49 CFR Part 571 of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or manufacturer shall, upon the request less, according to the implementation from the National Highway Traffic Imports, Incorporation by reference, schedule specified in S8 and S9 of this Safety Administration, provide Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and section. However, it does not apply to— information regarding which of the recordkeeping requirements, Tires. (1) School buses; compliance options it selected for a 49 CFR Part 585 (2) Vehicles that conform to the particular vehicle or make/model. rollover test requirements (S5.3) of S4. Definitions. Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and Standard No. 208 (§ 571.208) by means Altered roof means the replacement recordkeeping requirements. that require no action by vehicle roof on a motor vehicle whose original ■ In consideration of the foregoing, occupants; roof has been removed, in part or in NHTSA amends 49 CFR Chapter V as (3) Convertibles, except for optional total, and replaced by a roof that is set forth below. compliance with the standard as an higher than the original roof. The alternative to the rollover test replacement roof on a motor vehicle PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR requirement (S5.3) of Standard No. 208; whose original roof has been replaced, VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS or in whole or in part, by a roof that (4) Trucks built in two or more stages ■ 1. The authority citation for part 571 consists of glazing materials, such as with a GVWR greater than 2,722 of title 49 continues to read as follows: those in T-tops and sunroofs, and is kilograms (6,000 pounds) not built using located at the level of the original roof, Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, a chassis cab. is not considered to be an altered roof. 30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at (b) At the option of the manufacturer, Convertible means a vehicle whose A- 49 CFR 1.50. vehicles within either of the following pillars are not joined with the B-pillars ■ 2. Section 571.216 is amended by categories may comply with the roof (or rearmost pillars) by a fixed, rigid revising the section heading and S3 to crush requirements (S4) of Standard No. structural member. read as follows: 220 (§ 571.220) instead of the S5. Requirements. requirements of this standard: S5.1 When the test device described § 571.216 Standard No. 216; Roof crush (1) Vehicles built in two or more in S6 is used to apply a force to a resistance; Applicable unless a vehicle is stages, other than vehicles built using a vehicle’s roof in accordance with S7, certified to § 571.216a. chassis cab; first to one side of the roof and then to * * * * * (2) Vehicles with a GVWR greater the other side of the roof: S3. Application. than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) (a) The lower surface of the test (a) This standard applies to passenger that have an altered roof as defined by device must not move more than 127 cars, and to multipurpose passenger S4 of this section. millimeters, and vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR (c) Manufacturers may comply with (b) No load greater than 222 Newtons of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) or the standard in this § 571.216a as an (50 pounds) may be applied to the head less. However, it does not apply to— alternative to § 571.216. form specified in S5.2 of 49 CFR (a) School buses; S3.2 Incorporation by reference. 571.201 located at the head position of (b) Vehicles that conform to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) a 50th percentile adult male in rollover test requirements (S5.3) of Standard J826 ‘‘Devices for Use in accordance with S7.2 of this section.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 22385

S5.2 The maximum applied force to Accommodation,’’ (incorporated by S8.1 Vehicles manufactured on or the vehicle’s roof in Newtons is: reference, see paragraph S3.2), in after September 1, 2012, and before (a) For vehicles with a GVWR of 2,722 accordance to the seating procedure September 1, 2013. For vehicles kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less, any specified in that document, except that manufactured on or after September 1, value up to and including 3.0 times the the length of the lower leg and thigh 2012, and before September 1, 2013, the unloaded vehicle weight of the vehicle, segments of the H-point machine are number of vehicles complying with this measured in kilograms and multiplied adjusted to 414 and 401 millimeters, standard must not be less than 25 by 9.8, and respectively, instead of the 50th percent of: (b) For vehicles with a GVWR greater percentile values specified in Table 1 of (a) The manufacturer’s average annual than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds), SAE J826 (July 1995). production of vehicles manufactured on any value up to and including 1.5 times (b) Remove four torso weights from or after September 1, 2009, and before the unloaded vehicle weight of the the three-dimensional manikin specified September 1, 2012; or vehicle, measured in kilograms and in SAE J826 (July 1995) (two from the (b) The manufacturer’s production on multiplied by 9.8. left side and two from the right side), or after September 1, 2012, and before S6. Test device. The test device is a replace with two HRMD torso weights September 1, 2013. rigid unyielding block whose lower (one on each side), and attach and level surface is a flat rectangle measuring 762 S8.2 Vehicles manufactured on or the HRMD head form. after September 1, 2013, and before millimeters by 1,829 millimeters. (c) Mark the location of the top center S7. Test procedure. Each vehicle must September 1, 2014. For vehicles of the HRMD in three dimensional space manufactured on or after September 1, be capable of meeting the requirements to locate the top center of the head form of S5 when tested in accordance with 2013, and before September 1, 2014, the specified in S5.2 of 49 CFR 571.201. number of vehicles complying with this the procedure in S7.1 through S7.6. S7.3 Orient the test device as shown standard must not be less than 50 S7.1 Support the vehicle off its in Figure 1 of this section, so that— percent of: suspension and rigidly secure the sills (a) Its longitudinal axis is at a forward and the chassis frame (when applicable) angle (in side view) of 5 degrees (± 0.5 (a) The manufacturer’s average annual of the vehicle on a rigid horizontal degrees) below the horizontal, and is production of vehicles manufactured on surface(s) at a longitudinal attitude of 0 or after September 1, 2010, and before ± parallel to the vertical plane through the degrees 0.5 degrees. Measure the vehicle’s longitudinal centerline; September 1, 2013; or longitudinal vehicle attitude along both (b) Its transverse axis is at an outboard (b) The manufacturer’s production on the driver and passenger sill. Determine angle, in the front view projection, of 25 or after September 1, 2013, and before the lateral vehicle attitude by measuring degrees below the horizontal (± 0.5 September 1, 2014. the vertical distance between a level degrees). S8.3 Vehicles manufactured on or surface and a standard reference point S7.4 Maintaining the orientation after September 1, 2014, and before on the bottom of the driver and specified in S7.3 of this section— September 1, 2015. For vehicles passenger side sills. The difference (a) Lower the test device until it manufactured on or after September 1, between the vertical distance measured initially makes contact with the roof of 2014, and before September 1, 2015, the on the driver side and the passenger the vehicle. number of vehicles complying with this side sills is not more than ± 10 mm. (b) Position the test device so that— standard must not be less than 75 Close all windows, close and lock all (1) The longitudinal centerline on its percent of: doors, and close and secure any lower surface is within 10 mm of the (a) The manufacturer’s average annual moveable roof panel, moveable shade, initial point of contact, or on the center production of vehicles manufactured on or removable roof structure in place of the initial contact area, with the roof; or after September 1, 2011, and before over the occupant compartment. and September 1, 2014; or Remove roof racks or other non- (2) The midpoint of the forward edge (b) The manufacturer’s production on structural components. For a vehicle of the lower surface of the test device is or after September 1, 2014, and before built on a chassis-cab incomplete within 10 mm of the transverse vertical September 1, 2015. vehicle that has some portion of the plane 254 mm forward of the S8.4 Vehicles manufactured on or added body structure above the height forwardmost point on the exterior after September 1, 2015. Except as of the incomplete vehicle, remove the surface of the roof, including provided in S8.8, each vehicle entire added body structure prior to windshield trim, that lies in the manufactured on or after September 1, testing (the vehicle’s unloaded vehicle longitudinal vertical plane passing 2015 must comply with this standard. weight as specified in S5 includes the through the vehicle’s longitudinal S8.5 Calculation of complying weight of the added body structure). centerline. S7.2 Adjust the seats in accordance S7.5 Apply force so that the test vehicles. with S8.3 of 49 CFR 571.214. Position device moves in a downward direction (a) For purpose of complying with the top center of the head form specified perpendicular to the lower surface of S8.1, a manufacturer may count a in S5.2 of 49 CFR 571.201 at the the test device at a rate of not more than vehicle if it is certified as complying location of the top center of the Head 13 millimeters per second until reaching with this standard and is manufactured Restraint Measurement Device (HRMD) the force level specified in S5. Guide the on or after September 1, 2012, but before specified in 49 CFR 571.202a, in the test device so that throughout the test it September 1, 2013. front outboard designated seating moves, without rotation, in a straight (b) For purposes of complying with position on the side of the vehicle being line with its lower surface oriented as S8.2, a manufacturer may count a tested as follows: specified in S7.3(a) and S7.3(b). vehicle if it: (a) Position the three dimensional Complete the test within 120 seconds. (1) Is certified as complying with this manikin specified in Society of S7.6 Repeat the test on the other standard and is manufactured on or Automotive Engineers (SAE) Surface side of the vehicle. after September 1, 2012, but before Vehicle Standard J826, revised July S8. Phase-in schedule for vehicles September 1, 2014; and 1995, ‘‘Devices for Use in Defining and with a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 (2) Is not counted toward compliance Measuring Vehicle Seating pounds) or less. with S8.1.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 22386 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

(c) For purposes of complying with to the manufacturer that markets the the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) after S8.3, a manufacturer may count a vehicle. having previously been certified in vehicle if it: S8.6.2 A vehicle produced by more accordance with Part 567 of this chapter (1) Is certified as complying with this than one manufacturer must be are not subject to the requirements of standard and is manufactured on or attributed to any one of the vehicle’s S8.1 through S8.3. Instead, all vehicles after September 1, 2012, but before manufacturers specified by an express produced by these manufacturers on or September 1, 2015; and written contract, reported to the after September 1, 2016 must comply (2) Is not counted toward compliance National Highway Traffic Safety with this standard. with S8.1 or S8.2. Administration under 49 CFR Part 585, S9 Vehicles with a GVWR above 2,722 S8.6 Vehicles produced by more than between the manufacturer so specified kilograms (6,000 pounds). one manufacturer. and the manufacturer to which the S8.6.1 For the purpose of calculating (a) Except as provided in S9(b), each vehicle would otherwise be attributed average annual production of vehicles vehicle manufactured on or after under S8.6.1. for each manufacturer and the number September 1, 2016 must comply with of vehicles manufactured by each S8.7 Small volume manufacturers. this standard. manufacturer under S8.1 through S8.3, Vehicles manufactured during any of (b) Vehicles that are manufactured in a vehicle produced by more than one the three years of the September 1, 2012 two or more stages or that are altered manufacturer must be attributed to a through August 31, 2015 phase-in by a (within the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) single manufacturer as follows, subject manufacturer that produces fewer than after having previously been certified in to S8.6.2: 5,000 vehicles for sale in the United accordance with Part 567 of this chapter (a) A vehicle that is imported must be States during that year are not subject to are not subject to the requirements of attributed to the importer. the requirements of S8.1, S8.2, and S8.3. S8.1 through S8.3. Instead, all vehicles (b) A vehicle manufactured in the S8.8 Final-stage manufacturers and produced by these manufacturers on or United States by more than one alterers. after September 1, 2017 must comply manufacturer, one of which also Vehicles that are manufactured in two with this standard. markets the vehicle, must be attributed or more stages or that are altered (within BILLING CODE P

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 22387

■ 6. The authority citation for Part 585 Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, PART 585—[AMENDED] continues to read as follows: 30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. ■ 7. Part 585 is amended by adding Subpart L to read as follows:

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 ER12MY09.063 22388 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

Subpart L—Roof Crush Resistance Phase- designation of a vehicle as a certified statement regarding whether or not the in Reporting Requirements vehicle is irrevocable. Upon request, the manufacturer complied with the Sec. manufacturer also must specify whether requirements of Standard No. 216a (49 585.111 Scope. it intends to utilize carry-forward CFR 571.216a) as applicable to the 585.112 Purpose. credits, and the vehicles to which those period covered by the report, and the 585.113 Applicability. credits relate. basis for that statement. This statement 585.114 Definitions. must include an explanation concerning 585.115 Response to inquiries. § 585.116 Reporting requirements. 585.116 Reporting requirements. the use of any carry-forward credits. 585.117 Records. (a) General reporting requirements. (4) Vehicles produced by more than Within 60 days after the end of the one manufacturer. Each manufacturer Subpart L—Roof Crush Resistance production years ending August 31, whose reporting of information is Phase-in Reporting Requirements 2013, August 31, 2014, and August 31, affected by one or more of the express 2015, each manufacturer must submit a written contracts permitted by S8.6.2 of § 585.111 Scope. report to the National Highway Traffic Standard No. 216a (49 CFR 571.216a) This subpart establishes requirements Safety Administration concerning its must: for manufacturers of passenger cars, compliance with Standard No. 216a (49 (i) Report the existence of each multipurpose passenger vehicles, CFR 571.216a) for its passenger cars, contract, including the names of all trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle multipurpose passenger vehicles, parties to the contract, and explain how weight rating of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle the contract affects the report being pounds) or less to submit a report, and weight rating of less than 2,722 submitted. maintain records related to the report, kilograms (6,000 pounds) produced in (ii) Report the actual number of concerning the number of such vehicles that year. Each report must — vehicles covered by each contract. that meet the requirements of Standard (1) Identify the manufacturer; No. 216a; Roof crush resistance; (2) State the full name, title, and § 585.117 Records. Upgraded standard (49 CFR 571.216a). address of the official responsible for Each manufacturer must maintain records of the Vehicle Identification § 585.112 Purpose. preparing the report; (3) Identify the production year being Number for each vehicle for which The purpose of these reporting reported on; information is reported under requirements is to assist the National (4) Contain a statement regarding § 585.116(b)(2) until December 31, 2018. Highway Traffic Safety Administration whether or not the manufacturer in determining whether a manufacturer Issued on: April 30, 2009. complied with the requirements of Ronald L. Medford, has complied with Standard No. 216a Standard No. 216a (49 CFR 571.216a) Acting Deputy Administrator. (49 CFR 571.216a). for the period covered by the report and § 585.113 Applicability. the basis for that statement; Appendix A—Analysis of Comments Concerning Dynamic Testing This subpart applies to manufacturers (5) Provide the information specified of passenger cars, multipurpose in paragraph (b) of this section; NHTSA did not propose a dynamic test (6) Be written in the English language; passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses procedure in the NPRM or the SNPRM. and with a gross vehicle weight rating of However, in the NPRM, we discussed (7) Be submitted to: Administrator, 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less. comments received in response to our National Highway Traffic Safety October 2001 RFC concerning whether we However, this subpart does not apply to Administration, 1200 New Jersey should include some type of dynamic test as manufacturers whose production Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. part of the roof crush resistance standard. We consists exclusively of vehicles (b) Report content—(1) Basis for discussed several types of dynamic tests, manufactured in two or more stages, statement of compliance. Each including the inverted drop test, the FMVSS and vehicles that are altered after manufacturer must provide the number No. 208 dolly test, the Controlled Rollover Impact System (CRIS) test, and the Jordan previously having been certified in of passenger cars, multipurpose accordance with part 567 of this Rollover System (JRS) test. We identified a passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses number of concerns about using these tests chapter. In addition, this subpart does with a gross vehicle weight rating of not apply to manufacturers whose in FMVSS No. 216. We noted our belief that 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less, the current quasi-static test procedure is production of motor vehicles for the manufactured for sale in the United repeatable and capable of simulating real- United States market is less than 5,000 States for each of the three previous world rollover deformation patterns. We also vehicles in a production year. production years, or, at the stated that we were unaware of any dynamic test procedures that provide a sufficiently § 585.114 Definitions. manufacturer’s option, for the current production year. A new manufacturer repeatable test environment. For the purposes of this subpart: Several consumer advocacy organizations Production year means the 12-month that has not previously manufactured and a number of other commenters argued period between September 1 of one year these vehicles for sale in the United that the agency should propose a dynamic and August 31 of the following year, States must report the number of such test procedure in lieu of the proposed quasi- inclusive. vehicles manufactured during the static test. Ms. Lawlor and Mr. Clough current production year. suggested a dynamic rollover test is more § 585.115 Response to inquiries. (2) Production. Each manufacturer reflective of real-world rollovers. Boyle et al. At any time prior to August 31, 2018, must report for the production year for suggested that a dynamic test would provide each manufacturer must, upon request which the report is filed: the number of the most accurate data for regulation. Mr. from the Office of Vehicle Safety passenger cars, multipurpose passenger Turner recommended that such a test would Compliance, provide information vehicles, trucks, and buses with a gross better measure the comprehensive interaction among safety systems in a rollover crash. Mr. identifying the vehicles (by make, vehicle weight rating of 2,722 kilograms Friedman and the Center for Injury Research model, and vehicle identification (6,000 pounds) or less that meet (CFIR) recommended the use of the JRS or a number) that have been certified as Standard No. 216a (49 CFR 571.216a). modified FMVSS No. 208 dolly rollover test. complying with Standard No. 216a (49 (3) Statement regarding compliance. Mr. Friedman further stated that when given CFR 571.216a). The manufacturer’s Each manufacturer must provide a the chance, engineers design the structure to

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 22389

deal with the dynamic impact realities developed only as an occupant containment objective test procedures needed for a required to protect occupants and not to meet test and not to evaluate the loads on specified FMVSS. what he characterized as a vaguely related vehicle components. While S5.3 of FMVSS No commenters provided data criteria like SWR. No. 208 specifies that an unbelted Hybrid III demonstrating that the agency’s concerns DVExperts asserted that a static test, such 50th percentile adult male dummy must be about the dolly test lacking sufficient as FMVSS No. 216 or any variation on this, retained inside the vehicle during the test, it repeatability to serve as a vehicle structural is not an effective rollover performance test, does not specify roof strength performance component compliance requirement for just as a load test would be considered criteria or injury assessment reference values assessing roof strength are unfounded. We defective for frontal or side impacts. Public that must be met. We stated in the NPRM that note that our research is consistent with the Citizen recommended a dynamic test because we believed that this test lacks sufficient comments from CFIR concerning it can be improved to better simulate a repeatability to serve as a structural reproducibility problems with respect to rollover. It believes a static test is component compliance requirement. initial roof to ground contact conditions. We inappropriate for a roof crush test. A number of commenters recommended believe that reproducibility in that area Advocates stated that a dynamic test would that the agency propose a dolly rollover test. would be an important issue for show how to model occupant injury Advocates, Bidez & Associates (Bidez), SRS, measurement of roof intrusion in an FMVSS. mechanisms and their prevention to provide Public Citizen, CFIR and Mr. Friedman cited In response to Bidez, we agree that the substantially enhanced roof crush resistance. use of the dolly rollover test in the Volvo ‘‘timing’’ of peak axial neck force was similar Both Advocates and Public Citizen XC90 development program. Several in their submitted test data; however, we also recommended the development of a commenters stated that the dolly rollover test noted that the magnitudes of the neck forces biofidelic rollover anthropomorphic test remains an option for certification in lieu of varied considerably (from 260 N to 5,933 N) device (ATD) to measure forces accurately in FMVSS No. 216. for the passenger side dummy of a driver side a dynamic test. Syson stated that although Advocates and Bidez disagreed with the leading test. Further, the moments and forces some aspects of real rollover crashes are not agency’s statement that the dolly rollover test for the driver side dummy also experienced representative in dynamic tests, useful is not sufficiently repeatable. Bidez presented wide ranges in values despite the similar engineering information can be obtained data from three dolly rollover tests conducted timing of the event. Given the wide range of from the results. Syson also expressed for Ford at the Autoliv Test Center to support reported peak loads and moments, we are not concern with including a dummy in dynamic its position. Bidez concluded that the test convinced that repeatable timing is more testing because biofidelic problems may help was repeatable based on the timing important than repeatable peak values in the obscure the consequences of roof failure or similarities of the peak neck forces and injury measurements. safety belt performance. moments. The Bidez test data further showed the As indicated above, some of the Ford submitted additional comments variation in the range of post-test headroom commenters recommending a dynamic test refuting Bidez’s conclusions and claimed the for these three dolly rollover tests. In two cited potential benefits related to aspects of wide range of amplitude and timing for the tests, the driver post test headroom increased performance other than roof crush resistance, occupant injury measures were not 212 mm and 444 mm (8.3 inches and 15.5 e.g., measuring the performance of seat belts, repeatable. inches), but in the third test, it decreased 31 doors, ejection. We note that the suitability CFIR also stated that dynamic rollover tests mm (¥5.9 inches). The passenger side of a particular dynamic test must be assessed have been widely used to qualify safety showed similar results. It should also be separately for each aspect of performance devices. It stated they are repeatable in that noted that the measured headroom difference that would be addressed. In this rulemaking, the initial conditions are highly controlled, between the driver’s and passenger’s side in we are addressing roof crush resistance, and and it stated that a vehicle designed to pass each test were relatively similar. This our discussion and analysis of the comments can do so repeatedly. CFIR also suggested that the roof deformed equally on focus on that issue. Our discussion and acknowledged, however, that dolly rollover both sides but the amount of deformation analysis below in some instances cite tests do not reproduce the same initial roof- differed from test to test. These results potential problems related to measuring other to-ground contact conditions and small suggest that the current dolly rollover test is aspects of performance which might be changes can cause large differences in not repeatable as a roof crush test. vehicle trajectory and dummy kinematics. measured during a test that evaluates roof As stated in the NPRM, the agency has In support of a dynamic test such as the crush resistance. However, we emphasize conducted prior dolly testing (similar to the dolly test, Technical Services commented that our discussion/analysis does not in any FMVSS No. 208 dolly rollover test) and that while dolly rollover tests do not produce way represent an assessment by the agency determined that the test conditions were so occupant kinematics that are representative as to whether any of the tests would be severe that it was difficult to identify which of highway rollovers, they represent a more suitable for addressing aspects of vehicles had better performing roofs. Based difficult test for the vehicle because of the performance other than roof crush resistance. on these, and other dynamic tests, the agency lateral component. decided that it was best to pursue an FMVSS No. 208 Dolly Rollover Test Agency Response upgraded quasi-static test for this Section 5.3 of FMVSS No. 208 contains a While the FMVSS No. 208 dolly rollover rulemaking. dynamic test commonly known as the ‘‘dolly test has long been an option for Jordan Rollover System (JRS) rollover test.’’ This test was part of early manufacturers in lieu of the FMVSS No. 216 provisions in FMVSS No. 208 which test, it is an option that they have never used. There were a range of comments related to permitted manufacturers the option of Thus, there has not been any experience with the Jordan Rollover System (JRS) test. The providing automatic crash protection in using that test for purposes of compliance JRS device rotates a vehicle body structure on lateral and rollover crashes instead of seat with an FMVSS. a rotating apparatus (‘‘spit’’) while the road belts. We believe that no manufacturer ever Moreover, as noted above, the test was not surface platform moves a track underneath selected the option for purposes of developed to evaluate the loads on specified the vehicle and contacts the roof structure. complying with FMVSS No. 208. Selection of vehicle components. While S5.3 of FMVSS Comments on the JRS were submitted by the the option was ultimately precluded by the No. 208 specifies that an unbelted Hybrid III following groups: Advocates, CFIR, Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 50th percentile adult male dummy be DVExperts, Xprts, and Public Citizen. Some Act of 1991, which required the installation retained inside the vehicle, it does not commenters recommended developing a of lap/shoulder belts. FMVSS No. 216 has specify roof strength performance criteria or safety standard using the test procedure, long contained a provision that excludes injury assessment reference values that must while others recommended that the agency vehicles that conform to the S5.3 rollover test be met. undertake a research program and investigate requirements of FMVSS No. 208 by means Some commenters stated the dolly test was the JRS fully. that require no action by vehicle occupants. used in the development of the Volvo XC90 Advocates recommended using the JRS We are unaware of any vehicle that has been and is therefore an accepted industry procedure. CFIR provided information certified to S5.3 in lieu of FMVSS No. 216. practice. We note, however, that there is a concerning the JRS test procedure and As discussed in our August 2005 NPRM, significant difference between vehicle addressing repeatability of the initial the FMVSS No. 208 dolly test was originally development work by manufacturers and conditions, including data from their JRS

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 22390 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

research program. DVExperts claimed the JRS Test Parameters acceleration in a real world rollover. This is a repeatable, practical, and scientifically • Determination of the drop height (for may have implications when testing with a valid dynamic rollover test procedure. Xprts different vehicles)—The JRS releases the test dummy and potentially measuring submitted summary results from JRS testing vehicle from a predetermined drop height to performance related to some safety of a Jeep Grand Cherokee. It identified roof fall onto a moving roadway. The ideal drop countermeasures (e.g., ejection containment intrusion velocities and roof deformation height is not known. If the drop height is not side curtain bags and pretensioners). If a behavior (buckling) as important criteria for correlated with real world data, some dummy’s position in the test is not correlated determining injury. Public Citizen vehicles could be overloaded beyond what to real-world rollovers, then the assessment commented that NHTSA should thoroughly would be representative of real world of pretensioners and side window air bags in investigate the JRS. Public Citizen and CFIR crashes. Other vehicles could be under- the JRS test is put into question. also commented that the JRS test can be exercised based on accident conditions. A Lack of Real-World Data To Feed Into the conducted with dummies that demonstrate specific drop height or drop height Test Parameters whether vehicle roof performance meets methodology would need to be sensitive to • At this time, NHTSA has only limited objective injury and ejection criteria for the vehicle types and crash conditions in the event data recorder (EDR) data from rollover belted and unbelted occupants. fleet. • sensor-equipped vehicles. It is hoped that CFIR also recommended a maximum axial Determination of the roll rate and roll angle at vehicle release (for different data from these vehicles can provide a better neck load injury measurement (Fz) of 7,000 understanding of the range of initial roll rate N 50 (1,574 pounds) using the Hybrid III vehicles)—The JRS releases the test vehicle at a predetermined roll rate. The roll rate, drop and trip angles for real world rollover dummy in the JRS. The recommendation was height, and angle at which the vehicle is crashes. As voluntarily-installed EDRs based on cadaver and dummy drop and released are carefully coordinated to obtain continue to be installed in the fleet, the impact tests. CFIR also acknowledged that an initial contact between the vehicle and the agency will gather an increasing amount of the Hybrid III dummy has poor biofidelity in moving roadway at the nearside A-pillar/roof data on real world rollover crashes. the rollover mode. As an alternative, it junction. While advocates of the test present Currently, the agency does not have enough recommended using the roof velocity and anecdotal support for the test conditions, the of these data to evaluate how the JRS test intrusion amplitude, as measured by an array appropriateness of the specific test might be optimized to real world rollover of string potentiometers attached to the roof. conditions is not clear. There may be many conditions. The criteria were based on its axial neck load vehicles that miss contacting the near side • The ongoing implementation of ESC research. CFIR claimed to have found a good A-pillar/roof junction and have first contact systems complicates the evaluation of real correlation between neck injury and the with the far side of the roof. Roll rate has a world rollover crashes. ESC systems are speed of head impact. role in the duration of the load on the roof anticipated to be highly effective in reducing In response to the SNPRM, CAS and CFIR and could have a significant effect on the roof single vehicle rollover crashes. These crashes submitted additional instrumented test data performance during the test. If the roll rate tend to have the highest number of quarter using the JRS 51 equipped with a Hybrid III is too slow, intrusion could be minimal. If turns. The federally mandated dummy. The test vehicles were selected from the roll rate is too fast, intrusion could be implementation of ESC systems is expected the agency’s fleet evaluation. They argued, excessive. We believe there is a need to to dramatically alter the distribution of based upon the data, the JRS is highly correlate these parameters to real world data, rollover crash conditions. controlled and repeatable. They further which we do not have. • Assuming that real world representative • suggested that the equipment, and the test Determination of the roadway speed and test conditions could be established, NHTSA costs are modest. The test conditions can be road surface—The JRS drops the vehicle onto would still need to conduct a fleet study to widely varied to emulate actual rollover an instrumented moving roadway that is examine the safety performance in a JRS test, covered with sandpaper to represent the conditions. evaluate how well the test results relate to vehicle-to-ground interaction. The roadway Mr. Nash provided an analysis of NASS real world safety performance, and determine speed and the vehicle-to-ground friction play whether or not there would be any rollover cases. He concluded that the FMVSS a significant role in controlling the transfer No. 216 platen test would not stress the appreciable safety improvement beyond of momentum between the rotating vehicle existing FMVSSs. windshield header and create the type of and the moving roadway. Changing the buckling shown in the NASS cases. Mr. Nash roadway speed may affect how the vehicle Test Dummy Issues claimed that the dynamic JRS test would interacts with the ground for the far side • Lack of test dummy and injury criteria— identify the header deformation. contact. Research would be necessary to At this time, no anthropomorphic test device Agency Response understand this interaction and how the (ATD) or crash test dummy, has been initial contact conditions affect the JRS test While a number of commenters indicated designed for use in rollover crash tests. kinematics. support for the JRS dynamic test procedure, • Existing ATDs used in rollover crash tests, Repeatability of the drop height, roll such as the Hybrid III dummy lack lateral and the developers submitted data for rate, release angle, initial contact with the multiple tests, the agency has remaining kinematic behavior as well as lateral impact roadway and roadway speed—Any biofidelity. In addition, new injury criteria questions regarding the setup, conduct, and regulatory test needs to be repeatable and beyond those currently developed for frontal evaluation of the JRS test procedure despite enforceable. The agency does not have any and side impacts would need to be witnessing the JRS testing in February 2007 experience with the JRS to know what its developed for the types of loading conditions and multiple other meetings. All commenters operating tolerances are. If it is possible to that result in head, neck, and face injuries relied on the JRS tests conducted and first determine optimum or representative reported by CFIR and Xprts. associated with roof contact. conditions, it is then necessary to determine • After considering the data submitted, we the accuracy and repeatability that a test Repeatability of test dummy and initial believe there are a large number of device can provide for those conditions using restraint positioning—Because the JRS is unresolved technical issues related to the JRS a wide variety of vehicle sizes and shapes. spinning prior to initiating the vehicle test, with respect to whether it would be suitable For example, there are some concerns about there are concerns about how to establish the as a potential test procedure to replicate real- whether some vehicle sizes or shapes (such initial belt position on the ATD in a manner world crash damage patterns for a safety as the Sprinter van) would be suitable for that is consistent with real world conditions. standard evaluating vehicle roof crush testing with a JRS device. The lateral acceleration prior to rollover structural integrity. These include: • Vehicle performance criteria and initiation (as discussed previously) can cause instrumentation—There are no generally a belted occupant to introduce slack in the belt. There is also the additional 50 Friedman D., Nash C.E., ‘‘Advanced Roof accepted criteria to evaluate vehicle performance in rollover crashes. We would complication of the timing for firing the Design for Occupant Protection,’’ 17th ESV rollover curtains and/or pretensioners in the Conference, Amsterdam, 2002 need to investigate measurement devices for JRS pre-spin cycle. 51 See Docket NHTSA 2008–0015: 2003 Subaru relevancy with the JRS. Forester, 2004 Subaru Forest, 2004 Volvo XC90, • Initial lateral acceleration—The JRS does There are also issues concerning the 2006 Chrysler 300, 2006 Hyundai Sonata. not take into account the initial lateral biomechanical basis for the CFIR

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 22391

recommended performance criteria. requirement, because the CRIS test is loading, when compared to other dynamic Specifically, we have concerns about CFIR repeatable only up to the initial contact with dolly rollover tests. recommended axial neck load criteria, and the ground. After initial roof impact, the the surrogate (intrusion speed and CRIS test allows the vehicle to continue Agency Response amplitude), having potential to predict neck rolling, resulting in an unrepeatable test We discussed issues related to the inverted injury in the real world. We note that in condition. drop test procedure at some length in the response to CFIR’s injury metrics, Nissan Two commenters provided support for the NPRM, including a discussion of agency submitted an analysis conducted by David C. CRIS test procedure. The commenters were research. NHTSA has previously conducted a 52 Viano, Ph.D. from ProBiomechanics CFIR and Technical Services. CFIR test program to evaluate the relative merits of evaluating their findings. Viano found no provided summary information on the drop testing compared to the current quasi- correlation between impact force and head repeatability of the initial conditions, and static test procedure. The previous evaluation impact velocity based upon the available certain occupant injury measures for the concluded that without a rollover ATD the cadaver data CFIR used in its analysis. We CRIS test procedure. Technical Services roof drop test could not provide a complete believe this is an important issue, and believe recommended that the CRIS test should be that lateral moments may be equally or more considered by the agency for dynamic roof safety performance test. If the test significant than axial force in predicting crush testing. requirement is limited to measuring roof cervical spine injuries. Absent other deformation as a surrogate for occupant information we believe further research Agency Response injury potential, then the more controlled would be needed as to whether the The CRIS test procedure was developed to and repeatable quasi-static test procedure is recommended neck axial loads and/or roof produce repeatable vehicle and occupant preferable. The agency’s research indicated intrusion velocity are appropriate criteria. kinematics for the initial vehicle-to-ground that the static test can be related to the drop As to the issue raised by Mr. Nash, the contact. No data have been provided test with a moderate degree of accuracy. agency reviewed the Toyota NASS cases he indicating that the procedure is repeatable Because of an additional number of provided, and the damage patterns to the roof after initial ground contact, and we would uncontrolled variables, such as consistent were consistent with other cases the agency not expect it to be given that the CRIS test vehicle release, impact location and has analyzed. Neither the agency nor Mr. allows the vehicle to continue rolling. While deformation measurements, drop test results Nash identified a catastrophic collapse of the it is notable that some of the injury criteria can be expected to vary significantly, even header. The integrity of the roof was appear to be repeatable for the first ground for seemingly comparable test conditions.53 maintained in all but one of the crash events contact, the relevance of the dummy Adding a lateral component to this test cited. NHTSA also reviewed the JRS 2007 measurements for rollover impacts has not procedure to address concerns identified by Toyota Camry tests and compared the results been established. Evaluating performance Technical Services would add another level to the NASS data. The Camry was tested criteria for the CRIS test would depend upon of complexity. The comments do not provide twice on the driver’s side of the vehicle. the development of an ATD with biofidelity data or arguments to refute the positions When the driver’s side was tested the first in rollover crash tests. We believe a long-term taken by NHTSA in the NPRM. time, there was no appreciable damage to the research program would be necessary to header. The driver’s side of the same vehicle develop performance measures, evaluate the Weight Drop Onto the Roof Test (WDORT) was then tested again and showed some repeatability, reproducibility, and any In the NPRM, NHTSA did not discuss the minor header damage. This test methodology potential real world correlation of this test weight drop onto the roof test (WDORT) is inconsistent with a real world rollover as procedure. the far side of the vehicle was not damaged since commenters on the prior roof crush in either JRS test and yet the driver’s side Inverted Vehicle Drop Test resistance notice had not addressed this test. was tested twice. In the NPRM, the agency stated that its One commenter, Mr. Chu, recommended that While we appreciate the information research found that the inverted drop test NHTSA develop a dynamic WDORT and set provided by the commenters, we do not does not replicate real-world rollovers better the dynamic intrusion limit as a percentage believe that the information is sufficient for than the current quasi-static test. We stated of the headroom before impact. Chu stated consideration of the JRS as a possible test further that the inverted drop test does not the WDORT is not sensitive to a vehicle’s CG device for a Federal motor vehicle safety produce results as repeatable as the quasi- like the inverted vehicle drop test and the standard at this time. The concept and the static method. test weight can be calibrated and guided ability of the fixture to rotate a vehicle and The agency received three comments on within four rails during the drop. Mr. Chu contact the roadway have been demonstrated. the inverted vehicle drop test. Commenters did not provide a detailed test setup, However, as indicated above, there are included SAFE, Syson, and Technical procedure or test data to support his numerous technical issues related to the test Services. SAFE commented that the inverted recommendation. and potential parameters as well as a suitable drop test is superior to the quasi-static test ATD and associated injury criteria or other because: (1) It is a dynamic evaluation; (2) it Agency Response metric. could evaluate multiple rollover safety No details or test data were provided for systems; (3) it could incorporate restraint the WDORT concept. Consequently, a Controlled Rollover Impact System (CRIS) system effectiveness; and (4) it is a simple considerable research effort would be In the NPRM, NHTSA stated its belief that test procedure. Syson stated that the inverted required to evaluate the appropriateness and the CRIS device is helpful in understanding vehicle drop test procedure provides more practicability of such an approach and occupant kinematics during rollover crashes. useful information about roof structure whether it would provide any safety benefit However, we also stated that we believe that performance. Technical Services questioned beyond the quasi-static procedure. the device does not provide the level of the value of an inverted vehicle drop test less repeatability needed for a regulatory than 3 feet in height and the lack of lateral Appendix B—Two-Sided Test Results

Peak SWR prior to 127 mm of platen Peak force Vehicle travel or head contact change (except as noted) (percent) 1st Side 2nd Side

2007 Toyota Tundra ...... 3.3 2.2 ¥17.5 2008 Honda Accord ** ...... 3.5 4.0 n/a

52 Peltez submitted comments from the Center for was originally submitted to Docket 1999–5572 53 Glen C. Rains and Mike Van Voorhis, ‘‘Quasi Injury Research (CFIR) dated March 22, 2004. This (submission #12). Static and Dynamic Roof Crush Testing,’’ DOT HS 808–873, 1998.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 22392 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

Peak SWR prior to 127 mm of platen Peak force Vehicle travel or head contact change (except as noted) (percent) 1st Side 2nd Side

2007 Ford Edge ...... 3.3 3.2 ¥3.6 2007 Chevrolet Colorado ...... 2.2 1.7 ¥21.4 2007 Toyota Tacoma ...... 3.3 3.7 12.4 2007 Chevrolet Express *** ...... 2.3 1.7 ¥27.3 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee ...... 2.2 1.6 ¥27.1 2007 Pontiac G6 ...... 2.3 1.7 ¥23.8 2005 Lincoln LS * ...... 2.6 2.0 ¥21.3 2007 Saturn Outlook ...... 2.7 2.2 ¥20.8 2003 Ford Crown Victoria * ...... 2.0 1.7 ¥19.5 2007 Ford F–150 ...... 2.3 1.9 ¥19.0 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe ...... 2.1 1.7 ¥16.4 2007 Toyota Yaris ...... 4.0 3.4 ¥15.8 2005 Buick LaCrosse ...... 2.6 2.2 ¥13.5 2007 Toyota Tacoma ...... 4.4 3.9 ¥12.2 2007 Buick Lucerne ...... 2.3 2.1 ¥10.8 2003 Chevrolet Impala * ...... 2.9 2.5 ¥9.9 2004 Lincoln LS * ...... 2.5 2.2 ¥8.7 2006 Subaru Tribeca ...... 3.9 3.5 ¥8.3 2007 Scion tC ...... 4.6 4.3 ¥6.7 2006 Chrysler Crossfire ...... 2.9 2.7 ¥5.6 2007 Dodge Caravan ...... 3.0 2.9 ¥5.3 2007 Honda CRV ...... 2.6 2.5 ¥4.9 2005 Buick LaCrosse ...... 2.4 2.3 ¥3.4 2004 Nissan Quest * ...... 2.8 2.7 ¥3.0 2001 GMC Sierra * ...... 1.9 1.9 ¥1.3 2007 Chrysler 300 ...... 2.5 2.5 1.6 2004 Chrysler Pacifica * ...... 2.2 2.4 7.0 2007 Toyota Camry ...... 4.3 4.7 9.0 2004 Land Rover Freelander * ...... 1.7 2.0 19.2 * Crush of first side stopped at windshield cracking. ** First side test stopped at predetermined SWR. *** Between the first and second side tests, the front door on the tested side was opened. Because of damage to the vehicle during the first side test, the door would not properly close. The door was clamped until the latch engaged, locking the door in place. This may have com- promised the structural integrity of the roof and reduced the measured peak load on the second side.

Appendix C—Single-Sided Test Results

Peak strength within Peak strength prior to Platen Unloaded 127 mm of platen head contact travel Vehicle vehicle travel at head weight contact (kg) N SWR N SWR (mm)

2006 VW Jetta ...... 1,443 72,613 5.1 72,613 5.1 158 2007 Scion tC ...... 1,326 59,749 4.6 59,749 4.6 113 2006 Volvo XC90 ...... 2,020 90,188 4.6 N/A N/A N/A 2006 Honda Civic ...... 1,251 55,207 4.5 55,207 4.5 177 2007 Toyota Tacoma ...... 1,489 64,441 4.4 64,441 4.4 123 2006 Mazda 5 ...... 1,535 66,621 4.4 66,621 4.4 155 2007 Toyota Camry ...... 1,468 62,097 4.3 62,097 4.3 N/A 2007 Toyota Yaris ...... 1,038 41,073 4 41,073 4 115 2006 Ford 500 ...... 1,657 63,181 3.9 63,181 3.9 150 2007 Nissan Frontier ...... 1,615 62,828 3.9 62,828 3.9 167 2006 Subaru Tribeca ...... 1,907 72,306 3.9 72,306 3.9 112 2006 Mitsubishi Eclipse ...... 1,485 51,711 3.6 51,711 3.6 127 2008 Honda Accord ** ...... 1,476 50,959 3.5 50,959 3.5 N/A 2006 Hummer H3 ...... 2,128 70,264 3.4 70,264 3.4 185 2007 Toyota Tacoma ...... 1,752 56,555 3.3 56,555 3.3 N/A 2007 Toyota Tundra ...... 2,345 76,216 3.3 76,216 3.3 N/A 2007 Ford Edge ...... 1,919 61,910 3.3 61,910 3.3 N/A 2006 Hyundai Sonata ...... 1,505 46,662 3.2 46,662 3.2 131 2007 Dodge Caravan ...... 1,759 52,436 3 52,436 3 N/A 2006 Chrysler Crossfire ...... 1,357 38,179 2.9 38,179 2.9 107 2004 Honda Accord ...... 1,413 38,281 2.8 38,281 2.8 140 2007 Saturn Outlook * ...... 2,133 57,222 2.7 57,222 2.7 N/A 2006 Ford Mustang ...... 1,527 40,101 2.7 41,822 2.8 132 2005 Buick Lacrosse ...... 1,590 40,345 2.6 40,345 2.6 126 2006 Sprinter Van * ...... 1,946 49,073 2.6 N/A N/A N/A

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 22393

Peak strength within Peak strength prior to Platen Unloaded 127 mm of platen head contact travel Vehicle vehicle travel at head weight contact (kg) N SWR N SWR (mm)

2004 Cadillac SRX ...... 1,961 50,346 2.6 50,346 2.6 138 2007 Honda CRV ...... 1,529 38,637 2.6 38,637 2.6 N/A 2007 Chrysler 300 ...... 1,684 41,257 2.5 41,257 2.5 N/A 2005 Buick Lacrosse ...... 1,588 37,196 2.4 37,196 2.4 123 2006 Honda Ridgeline ...... 2,036 47,334 2.4 47,334 2.4 172 2007 Ford F–150 * ...... 2,413 54,829 2.3 54,829 2.3 N/A 2007 Buick Lucerne ...... 1,690 38,268 2.3 38,268 2.3 N/A 2004 Chevrolet 2500 HD * ...... 2,450 55,934 2.3 56,294 2.3 171 2007 Pontiac G6 ...... 1,497 33,393 2.3 33,393 2.3 124 2007 Chevrolet Express * ...... 2,471 55,038 2.3 55,038 2.3 N/A 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee ...... 1,941 41,582 2.2 41,582 2.2 117 2007 Chevrolet Colorado ...... 1,560 33,299 2.2 33,299 2.2 N/A 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe * ...... 2,462 49,878 2.1 49,878 2.1 N/A 2006 Dodge Ram * ...... 2,287 37,596 1.7 42,578 1.9 158 2003 Ford F–250 * ...... 2,658 44,776 1.7 44,776 1.7 205 * GVWR greater than 6,000 pounds. ** Test stopped at 3.5 SWR.

[FR Doc. E9–10431 Filed 5–11–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE C

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 May 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2 tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES2