[Federal Register: June 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 111)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32473-32485]
[DOCID:fr09jn08-7]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 571 and 585

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0104]
RIN 2127-AK27

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Protection in
Interior Impact; Side Impact Protection; Side Impact Phase-In Reporting
Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document responds to petitions for reconsideration of a
September 11, 2007 final rule that substantially upgraded Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 214, ``Side Impact Protection,'' by
incorporating a vehicle-to-pole test into the standard, adopting
technically-advanced test dummies and enhanced injury criteria, and
incorporating the advanced dummies into the standard's moving
deformable barrier test. To respond to petitioners' concerns about lead
time as quickly as possible, the agency is publishing its response to
the petitions in parts. Today's document addresses lead time issues,
and other matters that need to be resolved or clarified concerning lead
time and the phasing-in of the new requirements. A second document will
be published subsequently that addresses the other issues raised by the
petitions.

DATES: Effective date: August 8, 2008. If you wish to petition for
reconsideration of this rule, your petition must be received by July
24, 2008.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule,
you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document
and submit your petition to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building,
Washington, DC 20590.
    The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all documents received into any of our dockets
by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the
comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70;
Pages 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call
Christopher J. Wiacek, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. For legal issues, you may call Deirdre R.
Fujita, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may
send mail to these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington,
DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
    a. Alliance
    b. General Motors (GM)
    c. Toyota
    d. Honda
    e. Nissan
    f. Porsche
    g. Volkswagen (VW)
    h. National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA)
    i. Bosch
III. To Which Issues From the Petitions for Reconsideration Does
This Rule Respond?
IV. The Issues To Be Addressed in a Later Document
V. Response to Petitions
    a. Extension of Lead Time and Phase-In Percentages
    b. Test Speed
    c. Effective Date for Convertible Vehicles
    d. Effective Date for Vehicles Manufactured in More Than One
Stage and for Altered Vehicles
    e. Clarifications and Corrections
    1. Earning Credits for Early Compliance
    2. SID-IIs Dummy Arm Positioning
    3. Definition of Limited Line Manufacturer
    4. Reinstate the Seat Adjustment Procedure for 50th Percentile
SID and SID-HIII Dummy in the MDB and FMVSS No. 201 Pole Tests,
Respectively
VI. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Appendix to Preamble

I. Background

    On September 11, 2007, NHTSA published a final rule that
substantially upgraded Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 214, ``Side impact protection,'' (72 FR 51908, Docket No. NHTSA-
29134).\1\ Until the final rule, FMVSS No. 214 provided only thoracic
and pelvic protection in a test using a moving deformable barrier (MDB)
to simulate an intersection collision with one vehicle being struck in
the side by another vehicle. NHTSA upgraded FMVSS No. 214 to require
all light vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536
kg or less (10,000 lb. or less) to protect front seat occupants in a
vehicle-to-pole test simulating a vehicle crashing sideways into narrow
fixed objects, such as utility poles and trees. By doing so it required
vehicle manufacturers to assure head and improved chest protection in
side crashes for a wide range of occupant sizes and over a broad range
of seating positions. It ensured the installation of new technologies,
such as side curtain air bags \2\ and torso side air bags, which are
capable of improving head and thorax protection to occupants of

vehicles that crash into poles and trees or of vehicles that are
laterally struck by a higher-riding vehicle. The side air bag systems
installed to meet the requirements of the final rule also reduce
fatalities and injuries caused by partial ejections through side
windows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The final rule fulfilled the mandate of the ``Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA-LU),'' which was signed by President George W.
Bush in August 2005. Evidently aware of the agency's then-pending
notice of proposed rulemaking to upgrade FMVSS No. 214, Section
10302 of the Act directed the agency ``to complete a rulemaking
proceeding under chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, to
establish a standard designed to enhance passenger motor vehicle
occupant protection, in all seating positions, in side impact
crashes.''
    \2\ These different side air bag systems are described in a
glossary in Appendix A to the September 11, 2007 final rule (72 FR
at 51954).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the September 11, 2007 final rule, vehicles will be tested
with two new, scientifically advanced test dummies representing a range
of occupants from mid-size males to small females. A test dummy known
as the ES-2re represents mid-size adult male occupants. The ES-2re has
improved biofidelity and enhanced injury assessment capability compared
to all other mid-size adult male dummies used today. A test dummy known
as the SID-IIs, the size of a 5th percentile adult female, represents
smaller stature occupants. This dummy better represents occupants 5
feet 4 inches (163 cm) or less, which crash data indicates comprise 34
percent of all serious and fatal injuries to near-side occupants in
side impacts.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Samaha R. S., Elliott D. S., ``NHTSA Side Impact Research:
Motivation for Upgraded Test Procedures,'' 18th International
Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety Of Vehicles Conference
(ESV), Paper No. 492, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The September 11, 2007 final rule also enhanced FMVSS No. 214's MDB
test by specifying the use of the ES-2re dummy in the front seat and
the SID-IIs dummy in the rear seating position. Through use of both
test dummies, vehicles must provide head, enhanced thoracic and pelvic
protection to occupants ranging from mid-size males to small occupants
in vehicle-to-vehicle side crashes.
    After reviewing the comments to the notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) \4\ preceding the final rule, the results of the agency's FMVSS
No. 214 fleet testing program and manufacturers' production plans which
showed installation of side air bags in vehicles ahead of the schedule
proposed in the NPRM, the September 11, 2007 final rule adopted a two-
year lead time prior to the beginning of the phased-in pole test
requirements. We provided for a four-year phase-in period, made
allowance for use of advanced credits towards meeting the new
requirements, and made other adjustments to the schedule for heavier
vehicles, to enhance the practicability of meeting the new requirements
and provide additional flexibility to manufacturers to meet the
requirements. We also adopted a phase-in for the MDB test and aligned
the phase-in schedule with the oblique pole test requirements,
providing also for the use of advance credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 69 FR 27990; May 17, 2004, Docket No. NHTSA-2004-17694;
reopening of comment period, 70 FR 2105; January 12, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Petitions for Reconsideration

    The agency received petitions for reconsideration of the September
11, 2007 final rule from: the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
(Alliance),\5\ General Motors North America (GM), Toyota Motor North
America, Inc. (Toyota), American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda), Nissan
North America, Inc. (Nissan), Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
(Porsche), the National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA), and Robert
Bosch LLC (Bosch). The issues raised by the petitioners are summarized
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 5 The Alliance is made up of BMW group, Chrysler LLC, Ford
Motor Company, General Motors, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mazda, Mitsubishi
Motors, Porsche, Toyota, and Volkswagen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Alliance

    The Alliance stated that it supports the goal of improving side
impact occupant protection beyond that already accomplished and
generally supports the changes to FMVSS No. 214. The Alliance
petitioned for agency reconsideration of the following issues: \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Categorization of the issues into these nine areas was made
by the Alliance in its petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Lead time. The final rule specifies that manufacturers must
begin meeting the upgraded pole and MDB test requirements on a phased-
in schedule beginning September 1, 2009. The petitioner asked NHTSA to
begin the start of the phase-in on September 1, 2011.
    2. Lower bound on speed range for the pole test. The final rule
specifies that vehicles must meet the requirements of the pole test
when tested ``at any speed up to and including 32 km/h (20 mph).'' The
petitioner asked that the pole test speed be specified as 26 to 32
kilometers per hour (km/h) (16 to 20 miles per hour) (mph).
    3. Clarification of phase-in requirements. The final rule adopted a
phased-in compliance schedule for the MDB test, aligned the phase-in
schedule with the oblique pole test, and provided for the use of
advance credits to meet the MDB requirements. The Alliance asked us to
clarify that for each production year, the agency meant to have
separate, concurrent phase-in requirements for the MDB and pole tests.
    4. Convertibles. The final rule applied the pole test requirements
to convertible vehicles after the agency had made a determination that
it was practicable for the vehicles to meet the requirements. The
Alliance petitioned the agency to allow convertible vehicles to follow
the lead time requirements applicable to vehicles with a GVWR between
8,500 and 10,000 pounds, i.e., 100 percent of vehicles manufactured on
or after September 1 of the fifth production year after the start of
the phase-in.
    5. SID-IIs pelvic criterion. The final rule adopted a pelvic force
injury assessment reference value of 5,525 Newtons (N) for the SID-IIs
small female dummy. The petitioner asked that this value be changed to
8,550 N.
    6. Rear seat dummy arm positioning in the MDB test. The final rule
specifies that the SID-IIs dummy in the rear seat of the vehicle has
its upper arm in the down position. The petitioner asked that the arm
be set in the detent representing a 45 degree angle between the torso
and the arm.
    7. Multi-stage and altered vehicles, including vehicles with
partitions. The petitioner recommended that NHTSA ``exempt'' multi-
stage/altered vehicles (including vehicles with partitions behind the
front seats) from the oblique pole test requirements.
    8. FMVSS No. 301 dummy application. The petitioner asked that the
wording of FMVSS No. 301, ``Fuel system integrity,'' be revised to
specify that the agency will conduct the side crash test of that
standard using whichever dummies the manufacturer has used to certify
the vehicle to FMVSS No. 214.
    9. Corrections of test procedures and typographical errors. The
petitioner cited omissions or errors in the regulatory text in need of
correction.

b. General Motors (GM)

    GM, an Alliance member, expressed support for the Alliance's
petition and elaborated on its concern about the lack of a lower bound
for the speed of the pole test. The petitioner stated that attempts to
comply with the ``up to'' 32 km/h (20 mph) test speed will require
vehicles to sacrifice significant immunity from unwanted deployments
which will increase the frequency of unnecessary air bag deployments.
GM petitioned NHTSA to either bound the test speed at a lower speed of
26 km/h (16 mph) or 23 km/h (14.3 mph), or delay implementation of the
``up to'' aspect of the requirement until the end of the phase-in to
allow for additional sensing technology development.

c. Toyota

    Toyota, an Alliance member, expressed support for the Alliance's
petition and elaborated on its concern about lead time and the pole
impact test speed of ``up to'' 32 km/h (20 mph). Toyota requested that
the phase-in be

effective from September 1, 2011. The petitioner noted that though side
air bags have advanced in the years since NHTSA's NPRM, they are only
one portion of the system and their deployment depends heavily on the
capability of the sensors.
    The petitioner stated that the typical side air bag sensor is a
deceleration sensor, or G sensor. Toyota said that the state of
technology for G sensors, while highly advanced, is limited by
deployment ``gray zones'' that denote the measurement tolerance of the
sensor. The petitioner noted that real-world evidence of inadvertent
deployments exist. In late 2006, the 2005-late 2006 model year Scion tC
vehicles were recalled when complaints were received of inadvertent
deployment of the side air bag when the door was slammed. It noted
there have been other investigations by NHTSA into complaints for other
manufacturers' vehicles as well. Toyota recommended that NHTSA require
26 km/h as the lowest limit of impact velocity in the pole test, since
bounding the lower impact velocity in that way would make it possible
to distinguish the G sensor output necessary for side air bag
deployment from the output characteristic of a door slam or minor
impact event.

d. Honda

    Honda supported the upgraded FMVSS No. 214 and sought correction
and clarification with respect to referenced materials and test
procedures, such as making FMVSS No. 214 consistent with cross-
references to the test dummy used in the FMVSS No. 301 and 305 crash
tests, providing for adjustment of telescopic steering columns, and
clarifying adjustment of seat belt shoulder anchorages.

e. Nissan

    Nissan requested additional lead time before the start of the
phase-in period. The petitioner stated that the upgraded FMVSS No. 214
requirements will necessitate a redesign of the side impact air bag
system, and that the pending rulemaking activity in the area of
ejection mitigation raises concerns that a near-term rulemaking on
ejection mitigation will put significant additional strain on Nissan's
engineering resources and increase costs of compliance for both
regulations.\7\ The petitioner requested that NHTSA begin phasing-in
the requirements on September 1, 2010. Further, the petitioner
requested that we delay the effective date for convertible vehicles
until a year after completion of the phase-in for other vehicle types,
i.e., under the schedule of the September 11, 2007 final rule, until
September 1, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NHTSA has announced that it is developing a proposal for an
ejection mitigation containment requirement. (``NHTSA Vehicle Safety
Rulemaking Priorities and Supporting Research: 2003-2006,'' July
2003, Docket 15505.) Additionally, Sec. 10301 of SAFETEA-LU requires
the Secretary to issue by October 1, 2009 an ejection mitigation
final rule reducing complete and partial ejections of occupants from
outboard seating positions (49 U.S.C. 30128(c)(1)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Porsche

    Porsche, an Alliance member, expressed support for the Alliance's
petition and elaborated on its concern about lead time, the rear seat
dummy arm position, and the pole impact test speed. The petitioner
stated that two years of lead time is inadequate because the final rule
imposes new crash test requirements, incorporates new test dummies with
unresolved issues and new injury criteria, and ``compliance with all of
the requirements, plus adequate compliance margins, has not been
demonstrated by NHTSA.''

g. Volkswagen (VW)

    VW, an Alliance member, expressed support for the Alliance's
petition and elaborated on its belief that convertible models should be
excluded from the pole test due to practicability issues.

h. National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA)

    NTEA requested that NHTSA ``exempt multi-stage produced vehicles
such as specialized work trucks from the new requirements of this
regulation.'' Alternatively, NTEA requested that NHTSA ``consider
amending the phased-in effective dates such that the effective date for
multi-stage produced vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating
greater than 8,500 is September 1, 2014 (one year later than the
effective date for single stage produced vehicles).''

i. Bosch

    Bosch stated that it fully supported the pole test but asked that
NHTSA ``modify the test set-up by optionally allowing information being
made available from the Electronic Stability Control [ESC] on the
vehicle CAN-bus. This would allow advanced restraint electronics to
achieve the same performance and occupant protection as in real world
accidents.'' Bosch stated that in the test set-up specified in the
final rule, no ESC signals are communicated on the vehicle CAN-bus,
since the vehicle is not sliding laterally with wheels moving on the
ground. As a result, the petitioner stated, ``advanced restraint
triggering algorithms cannot utilize any ESC data, resulting in
significantly later TTF [time-to-fire] and thus reduced occupant
protection.'' Bosch believed that certain sensor information should be
used to trigger the side curtain air bags and torso side air bags as
soon as possible. Bosch recommended that the agency should ``directly
feed-in the lateral velocity of 20 mph cos (15[deg]),'' or feed in
``the ESC-data communicated on the CAN-bus during a real lateral pole
crash (with 20 mph under 75[deg])'' provided by the original equipment
manufacturer.

III. To Which Issues From the Petitions for Reconsideration Does This
Rule Respond?

    To respond to petitioners' concerns about lead time as quickly as
possible, the agency is publishing its response to the petitions for
reconsideration in parts. Today's document addresses lead time issues,
and other matters that need to be resolved or clarified concerning lead
time and the phasing-in of the new requirements. A second document will
be published subsequently that addresses the other issues raised by the
petitions.
    This final rule:
    a. Extends the lead time period before manufacturers must begin
phasing in vehicles to meet the upgraded FMVSS No. 214 requirements to
September 1, 2010 and amends the percentages of manufacturers' vehicles
that are required to meet the new requirements from 20/50/75/all to 20/
40/60/80/all \8\;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``All'' vehicles must meet the requirements without the use
of advance credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Specifies the test speed for the pole test as ``26 km/h to 32
km/h'' (16 mph to 20 mph) until the end of the phase-in, at which time
vehicles must meet the requirements of the pole test when tested ``at
any speed up to and including 32 km/h (20 mph)'';
    c. Delays the effective date for convertible vehicles until after
completion of the phase-in for other vehicle types, i.e., until
September 1, 2015;
    d. Delays the effective date for multi-stage vehicles and alterers
until after completion of the phase-in for all other vehicle types,
i.e., until September 1, 2016; and,
    e. Corrects the omissions and minor errors found in the regulatory
text relating to the earning of credits for early compliance, the SID-
IIs dummy arm positioning, the definition of limited line manufacturer,
and the reinstatement of the seat adjustment procedure for the SID
dummy.

    Each of these issues is discussed below in this preamble.

IV. The Issues To Be Addressed in a Later Document

    The issues from the petitions for reconsideration that we will be
resolving in a later notice are listed below. We will address requests
pertaining to:
    a. The SID-IIs pelvic criterion;
    b. Whether vehicles manufactured in more than one stage,
particularly with partitions, should be excluded from the pole test;
    c. The specification as to which test dummy will be used in FMVSS
No. 301 and FMVSS No. 305 crash tests;
    d. Bosch's suggestion to optionally allow sensor information to be
fed into the restraint triggering algorithms; and,
    e. Further correction of typographical and other minor errors in
the regulatory text set forth in the September 11, 2007 final rule.

V. Response to Petitions

a. Extension of Lead Time and Phase-In Percentages

    The Alliance, GM, Nissan, Porsche and Toyota petitioned the agency
to revise the lead time schedule. There was general concern regarding
the technical and practical challenges of meeting the new requirements
with two years of lead time.
    NHTSA specified a two-year lead time in the September 11, 2007
final rule based on an analysis of product plans submitted by seven
vehicle manufacturers, whose combined production accounted for
approximately 90 percent of all light vehicle sales. The data on
planned side air bag installations and projected sales through model
year (MY) 2011 indicated that 90 percent of all MY 2010 light vehicles
will be equipped with side air bags protecting the head, and 72 percent
will be equipped with side air bags protecting the thorax. The
percentage of side air bags protecting the head was fairly uniform
between the manufacturers. Further, according to test results from the
agency's FMVSS No. 214 fleet testing program, we estimated that the
majority of currently available head side air bags would meet the head
protection requirement of this final rule's pole test (about 80 percent
of tested vehicles equipped with head air bags passed the pole test).
However, with regard to thorax bags, the product plans indicated there
were large differences between manufacturers in the percentage of
thorax bags being planned, particularly for light trucks. Also, of the
vehicles tested equipped with thorax bags, only 56 percent met the
chest requirement in the pole test.
    From our FMVSS No. 214 fleet testing program, we believed that side
air bags installed in most passenger cars and small and medium size
light trucks (including SUVs and minivans) would not need extensive
modifications to meet the new FMVSS No. 214 requirements. Instead, we
believed that the rule would only result in current side air bags
having to be widened and the inflators made more robust, redesigns that
we believed could reasonably be made with a two-year lead time and the
phase-in percentages of the final rule.\9\ We believed that, while some
vehicles would need an added sensor at the location of the SID-IIs 5th
percentile female dummy at the full-forward seating position, current
sensor technology used today (e.g., to meet the ``voluntary
commitment'' made by auto manufacturers) \10\ would generally suffice
to enable manufacturers to certify vehicles to the pole test
requirements. We believed that extensive vehicle structural
modifications were not necessary for passenger cars and small and
medium size light trucks to meet the pole test requirements, while it
would take longer than two years to add a thorax bag to a vehicle model
that has not had one previously (e.g., vehicles with a GVWR greater
than 8,500 lb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Under the phase-in schedule adopted in the final rule, the
following percentages of each manufacturer's vehicles were required
to meet the new requirements: 20 percent of a ``light'' vehicles
(GVWR less or equal to 3,855 kilograms (kg)(8,500 pounds)(lb))
manufactured during the period from September 1, 2009 to August 31,
2010; 50 percent of light vehicles manufactured during the period
from September 1, 2010 to August 31, 2011; 75 percent of light
vehicles manufactured during the period from September 1, 2011 to
August 31, 2012; 100 percent of light vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2012, including limited line and small volume
vehicles; 100 percent of vehicles with a GVWR greater than 3,855 kg
(8,500 lb) manufactured on or after September 1, 2013 and vehicles
produced by alterers and multi-stage manufacturers. Vehicle
manufacturers were able to earn credits for meeting the requirements
ahead of schedule.
    \10\ On December 4, 2003, the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers, the Association of International Automobile
Manufacturers (AIAM), and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
(IIHS) announced a new voluntary commitment to enhance occupant
protection in front-to-side and front-to-front crashes. The industry
initiative consisted of improvements and research made in several
phases, focusing, among other things, on accelerating the
installation of side impact air bags. See footnote 8 of the
September 11, 2007 final rule (72 FR 51910).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, based on our experience, if structural changes were
needed, the modification could be done within three to four years since
most vehicle lines would likely experience some level of redesign over
the next three to four years. Accordingly, the 75 percent phase-in
percentage was adopted to elongate the phase-in schedule one year
longer than proposed and to provide vehicle manufacturers the
flexibility of a four-year phase-in schedule to incorporate side
structure and restraint system modifications into their production
cycles for those vehicles needing such changes. The additional phase-in
year provided more opportunity to incorporate side impact protection
design changes during the course of each manufacturer's normal
production cycle.
    After considering the information submitted in the petitions for
reconsideration, NHTSA has decided to provide an additional year of
lead time to the two-year lead time provided in the final rule. The
agency's determination of the lead time of the final rule was based in
large part on the information from the manufacturer survey, on the
conformance dates of the voluntary commitment,\11\ and on the results
of the FMVSS No. 214 fleet testing program. We assumed, based on the
information, that manufacturers would be able to meet the requirements
with current sensor designs and configurations, did not need to
redesign vehicle interior spacing, or to undertake a substantial door
and seat redesign to accommodate the side air bag systems needed to
meet the requirements of the pole test. We recognized that the final
rule would necessitate changes to the air bag design, inflator
characteristics and door trim and roof rail designs, which typically
are associated with a three-year lead time for implementation. However,
we assumed that a two-year lead time would be sufficient given our
estimate that 90 percent of MY 2010 light vehicles will be equipped
with side air bags protecting the head,

presumably in conformance with the voluntary agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Under Phase 1 of the voluntary commitment, manufacturers
agreed that, not later than September 1, 2007, at least 50 percent
of each manufacturer's new passenger car and light truck (GVWR up to
3,855 kg) (8,500 lb) production intended for sale in the U.S. will
be designed in accordance with either of the following head
protection alternatives: (a) HIC36 performance of 1000 or
less for a SID-H3 crash dummy in the driver's seating position in an
FMVSS No. 201 pole impact test, or (b) HIC15 performance
of 779 or less (with no direct head contact with the barrier) for a
SID-IIs crash dummy in the driver's seating position in the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) MDB perpendicular side
impact test. In Phase 2, not later than September 1, 2009, 100
percent of each manufacturer's new passenger car and light truck
(GVWR up to 3,855 kg)(8,500 lb) production will be designed in
accordance with the IIHS MDB recommended practice of
HIC15 performance of 779 or less for a SID-IIs crash
dummy in the driver's seating position. See Docket NHTSA-2003-14623-
13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information submitted by the petitioners indicates that
notwithstanding conformance with the voluntary agreement, new changes
will have to be incorporated into vehicles to meet the pole test
requirements, including new sensors and wider air bags, as well as
changes to interior spacing configurations, door, seat and roof
designs. Current side air bag systems conforming to the voluntary
commitment will need to be made more robust to meet the FMVSS No. 214
pole test,\12\ and that for vehicles that do not meet the pole test,
redesigning the vehicle interior to accommodate systems that meet the
requirements is a significant undertaking that cannot be accomplished
within two years.\13\ Data from pole tests we conducted in support of
NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) support this assessment. We
tested six vehicles that were in conformance with the voluntary
agreement and that had been characterized as ``good'' performers in the
IIHS rating program. Of these, four of the six vehicles did not meet
the criteria of the pole test when tested with the SID-IIs test dummy:
two vehicles need improved head protection, and four vehicles need
better pelvic protection. The results of the testing are set forth in
Table 1, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ E.g., the Alliance stated in its petition for
reconsideration (p. 5): ``NHTSA's fleet data has demonstrated that,
in order to comply with the requirements using the ES2-re and SID-
IIs dummies, a vehicle manufacturer will need to provide
countermeasures beyond the installation of a side curtain air bag or
a combination side air bag.''
    \13\ Toyota petition for reconsideration.

                                        Table 1. SID--IIs Oblique Pole Tests With Vehicles Rated ``Good'' by IIHS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Lower spine     Pelvis
           NHTSA test No. *                    Vehicles               Vehicle class          Side air bag type        HIC36         (Gs)      force (N)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                1000           82         5525
V06287...............................  2007 Honda Pilot........  SUV....................  Curtain + Torso........         3464           68         6649
V06293...............................  2007 Nissan Quest.......  Van....................  Curtain................         5694           79         5786
V06285...............................  2007 Ford Escape........  SUV....................  Curtain + Torso........          407           65         6515
V06284...............................  2006 VW Passat..........  Medium PC..............  Curtain + Torso........          323           40         3778
V06286...............................  2006 Subaru Impreza.....  Medium PC..............  Combo..................          184           58         4377
V06283...............................  2007 Toyota Avalon......  Heavy PC...............  Curtain + Torso........          642           62         6672
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Test numbers correspond to those in the NHTSA vehicle crash test database, http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/nrd-11/veh_db.html.

    To provide manufacturers more time to meet the upgraded FMVSS No.
214 requirements, this document extends the lead time period before
manufacturers must begin phasing in vehicles to meet the upgraded FMVSS
No. 214 requirements to September 1, 2010. Thus, three years of lead
time have been provided to account for redesigns to the vehicle
interior necessitated by the demands of the pole test. At the same
time, we do not believe that more than a total of three years of lead
time should be necessary, since interior redesigns typically can be
achieved in three years and since we have also extended the phase-in
period. To facilitate the installation of side impact air bags and
other safety countermeasures to meet the new requirements in light
vehicles as quickly as possible, we are providing only one additional
year of lead time, but we are adjusting the phase-in schedule of
manufacturers' vehicles that are required to meet the new requirements
from 20/50/75/all to 20/40/60/80/all.\14\ The adjusted schedule will
also continue to couple the phase-in of the MDB with the pole test to
enhance the practicability of meeting the new requirements. Moreover,
Nissan is correct that the agency's upcoming rulemaking on ejection
mitigation containment requirements will build on the foundations laid
by the September 11, 2007 final rule.\15\ For the convenience of the
reader, the revised compliance schedule is shown in Table A of the
Appendix to this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Other amended provisions related to the phase-in
percentages, including the phase-in requirements for convertible
vehicles, vehicles manufactured in more than one stage, and altered
vehicles are addressed in sections below in this preamble.
    \15\ NHTSA believes that side curtains installed pursuant to
FMVSS No. 214's pole test could be one countermeasure developed to
satisfy ejection mitigation requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Test Speed

    The agency has decided to retain in the long run that the FMVSS No.
214 pole test requirements must be met at any speed ``up to'' 32 km/h
(20 mph), but has decided to bound the test speed at a lower speed of
26 km/h (16 mph) until the end of the phase-in to allow for additional
sensing technology development.
    The suggestion that the pole test speed should be limited to 26 to
32 km/h (16 to 20 mph) was made by the Alliance and some other
commenters to the NPRM. In our final rule, we decided against the
suggestion because our crash data showed that crashes with a delta-V of
26 km/h (16 mph) or less resulted in approximately a third of the
fatalities and almost half of the MAIS 3-5 non-fatal injured occupants
in near-side crashes.\16\ Based on the crash data, we believed there
was a safety need to require manufacturers to ensure that vehicles
provide improved protection in crashes below 26 km/h (16 mph). We
wanted to ensure that occupants would be protected if, for example,
head contact could occur with a pole or other rigid narrow object. We
also believed that the threshold for deployment of side impact air bags
would vary based on vehicle design. Establishing a lower test speed
range in the oblique pole test could have the causal effect of
establishing ``design points'' for restraint systems that may or may
not be optimal to vehicle design or occupant protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The analysis was based upon front-outboard adult occupants
with serious or fatal injuries in 1997-2003 NASS non-rollover, near-
side crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We continue to believe that prescribing a 26 km/h (16 mph) lower
bound for the test speed might force a test condition that would not be
ideal for vehicle safety. An occupant's head could strike a pole or
rigid narrow object in crashes at less than 26 km/h (16 mph). To
address the fatalities and serious injuries occurring in near-side
crashes with a delta-V of 26 km/h (16 mph) or less, we again decline
the request to permanently bound the pole test speed to 26 to 32 km/h
(16 to 20 mph).
    However, at the time of the final rule, the agency was not aware of
any technical challenges to manufacturers to comply with the pole test
requirements at the lower range of test speeds. The agency assumed the
side impact sensing technology had developed to the state where sensors
could discriminate between collision events at lower speeds and non-
crash events. The

comments to the NPRM did not raise concerns about the ability of
current sensing technology to operate satisfactorily at the lower test
speeds, and we did not consider in our fleet testing program the
potential problems sensors would have in detecting crashes from non-
crash events at the lower speeds.
    The petitions for reconsideration now bring to light the
limitations of current sensing technology to distinguish between
situations where the side air bag should and should not deploy. GM
confirmed our understanding that the lower speed at which side air bags
will need to deploy will differ based upon the vehicle size, weight and
available crush space between the occupant and the door trim. The
petitioners also suggested that side air bag deployment will depend on
whether the SID-IIs 5th percentile female test dummy or the ES-2re 50th
percentile adult male test dummy is seated in the vehicle. We agree
with the petitioners' explanations that side crashes require the
sensing system to quickly discern whether to deploy the air bag. GM
stated that side crashes not only require a much faster decision-making
process compared to frontal impacts, but they typically require
deployment at much lower vehicle crash energy levels, which makes them
difficult to distinguish from abuse and other non-deployment events.
According to petitioners, current sensing strategies (which use
deceleration sensors, or ``G sensors'') cannot at lower test speeds
distinguish the output needing side air bag deployment from the output
characteristic of a door slamming or minor impact event. Petitioners
also stated that at lower speeds in both the FMVSS No. 214 pole and MDB
tests, the G sensor output is similar in magnitude and profile to door
slams.
    Unintended side air bag deployments have posed problems in the
past, when side air bags were first introduced on the market in the
late 1990s. Table 2 shows investigations conducted by NHTSA's Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI) into unintended side air bag deployments.
Separate from Table 2, there have also been a number of other
manufacturer voluntary recalls involving unintended side air bag
deployments.

  Table 2.--ODI Investigations Into Unintended Side Air Bag Deployments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ODI investigation No.       Vehicle model(s)       ODI resolution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE04-081....................  2001-2002 Volkswagen  Closed without
                               Jetta, Golf and GTI.  recall.
PE99-061....................  1998-1999 Cadillac    02V217 for 215K
                               DeVille.              vehicles.
PE99-017....................  1999 BMW 3-Series...  99V063 for 32,500
                                                     vehicles.
PE00-042....................  1999-2000 Lincoln     Closed without
                               Continental.          recall.
RQ00-013....................  1997 Mercedes Benz E  00V388 for 16,255
                               & SL Class.           vehicles.
PE02-011....................  1999-2001 BMW 3-      02V223 for 20,500
                               Series.               vehicles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the issues raised by the petitioners, we are
concerned about the potential safety implications associated with side
air bags deploying without a side impact crash. NHTSA concludes that if
the pole test speed were not bounded in the near term with a test speed
of 26 km/h (16 mph), unwarranted deployments of the side air bags could
become an issue and could negatively impact public acceptance of side
air bags. The agency has thus decided to provide the manufacturers more
time to select and develop the proper technology for their vehicles.
    Accordingly, we are delaying the implementation of the ``up to''
requirements to the end of the phase-in. To meet the requirement that
the pole test injury criteria must be met at any speed ``up to'' 32 km/
h (20 mph), manufacturers will have to use new technologies and/or more
sophisticated algorithms that distinguish a real crash from a non-
event. GM indicated that it is working on the new sensing technologies,
but needs additional time to develop them. We are therefore granting
the request of the petitioner to bound the test speed range from 26 km/
h to 32 km/h (16 to 20 mph) until the end of the phase-in. By providing
manufacturers one year extra lead time and by extending the phase-in
another year, the manufacturers will have sufficient time to develop
the crash sensing technology to meet the full speed range of the pole
test.

c. Effective Date for Convertible Vehicles

    VW requested that convertibles be excluded from the pole test
altogether ``due to their structural limitations which preclude the
installation of roof-mounted curtain air bags for occupant
protection.'' The Alliance requested that convertible vehicles be
allowed to follow the lead time requirements applicable to vehicles
with a GVWR greater than 8,500 lb, i.e., all vehicles manufactured on
or after September 1 of the fifth production year after the start of
the phase-in. The Alliance stated that it did not believe the
challenges for convertible vehicles to meet the side pole test
requirements are insurmountable. However, the Alliance stated, due to
the inherent design constraints of convertibles (i.e., lack of pillars
and roof rail to store and deploy curtain air bags) and the need to
apply significant structural changes, the lead time needed to ensure
compliance with the pole test is significantly longer for convertibles
than for non-convertible vehicles. Nissan similarly requested that we
delay the effective date for convertible vehicles until the last year
of the phase-in, to provide manufacturers time to develop new potential
countermeasures for convertibles, such as a seat-mounted thorax and
curtain air bag deployed from the door.
    In our FMVSS No. 214 fleet testing program, we tested two
convertible vehicle models, the 2005 model year Saab 9-3 convertible
and 2005 model year Volkswagen Beetle. Both vehicle models were tested
to the oblique pole test requirements using an ES-2re dummy and in each
case, the vehicle met the requirements of the final rule. The tests
were conducted with the ES-2re 50th percentile male dummy because the
agency believed it would be more difficult for convertibles to meet the
pole test with the ES-2re than with the SID-IIs 5th percentile female
dummy. The ES-2re is equipped with more instrumentation in the abdomen
and thorax, and its larger mass requires more energy management by the
restraint system. In their petitions for reconsideration, the Alliance
and VW disagreed that the ES-2re dummy test was more challenging. The
Alliance cited the FMVSS No. 214 fleet testing results and stated
``that the vast majority of these vehicles had larger injury assessment
values when tested with the SID-IIs dummy: six out of ten vehicles had
larger HIC36 values, nine out of ten vehicles had larger
lower spine acceleration values, and all vehicles [footnote in text:
`Pelvic Force data for the SID-IIs was not available for one of the ten
vehicles tested'] had larger

pelvic force values.'' As a result, the Alliance stated, ``NHTSA has
not demonstrated practicability of this rule as applied to
convertibles'' and requested more lead time for convertible vehicles.
    After considering the issues raised by the petitioners, we have
decided against VW's request to exclude convertibles from the pole test
requirements. As explained in the September 11, 2007 final rule, there
is safety need to include convertible vehicles in the pole test. In our
comparative analysis between convertibles and all other passenger cars
in side impact crashes with fixed objects, we found that 11.3 percent
of convertible fatalities are from single vehicle side impacts into
poles/trees, compared to 6.5 percent of other passenger car fatalities
from single vehicle side impacts into poles/trees. The fatality rate
\17\ from single vehicle side impacts into poles/trees is 9.64 for
convertibles, and 6.12 for all other passenger cars. When specifically
looking at pole/tree fatality rates, convertibles are 58 percent higher
than all other passenger cars. In general, NHTSA's crash data indicated
that convertibles have higher rates of fatalities in run-off-the-road
type crashes, such as single vehicle side impacts, rollovers, etc.
Consequently, requiring enhanced protection against tree and pole side
impacts will be paramount in improving the safety of these vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Data source: FARS 1999-2003. Model years 1998-2002 were
used. Total registration years (in millions) were 140.8 for all
other passenger cars and 4.7 for convertibles. The fatalities per
million registration years in single vehicle side crashes were 11.32
for all other passenger cars and 16.71 for convertibles. The
fatalities per million registration years in single vehicle side
``pole/tree'' crashes were 6.12 for all other passenger cars and
9.64 for convertibles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have also demonstrated the practicability of meeting the pole
test for convertible vehicles. The 2005 Saab 9-3 convertible and the
2005 Volkswagen Beetle met the pole test requirements with seat-mounted
head/thorax air bag systems. There are other countermeasures that are
effective and practicable for installation in convertible body types,
such as door-mounted upward-inflating curtains as introduced in the
2006 model year Volvo C70 convertible and which Nissan has indicated
they are now developing for its vehicles. We disagree with the Alliance
that, as shown in the FMVSS No. 214 fleet testing program, we should
not have used the ES-2re dummy to assess the practicability of meeting
the pole test. The Alliance compared the performance of vehicles tested
with the ES-2re and the SID-IIs to conclude that the SID-IIs resulted
in a more rigorous test of the side air bag system. However, almost all
of the vehicles cited by the Alliance (nine of ten vehicles) were
equipped with roof-mounted window curtain side air bags. In determining
which test dummy, the ES-2re or the SID-IIs, would produce a more
demanding evaluation of a countermeasure available to convertible
vehicles, we sought to assess the practicability of meeting the pole
test with a seat-mounted side air bag system since convertibles will
not have the roof-mounted countermeasure available to them. For seat-
mounted systems, we determined that using the ES-2re, with its larger
mass and more complex instrumentation as compared to the SID-IIs, would
be more challenging to manufacturers of convertible vehicles in the
pole test. Our test data showed that the two convertible vehicles
evaluated in the FMVSS No. 214 fleet testing program met the pole test
requirements.
    As for testing with the SID-IIs, practicability was also shown by
the results of the 2005 Subaru Forester tested in the FMVSS No. 214
fleet testing program. While not a convertible, the vehicle had a seat-
mounted head and thorax combination side air bag that met the injury
criteria of the pole test when tested with the SID-IIs. A recent
oblique pole test of the 2006 VW Passat showed that the seat-mounted
torso side air bag passed the lower spine and pelvic force injury
criteria of the pole test with the SID-IIs test dummy (see Table 1,
supra), again demonstrating the potential use of effective seat-mounted
countermeasures for convertible vehicles in protecting small occupants.
    Nonetheless, although data indicate that manufacturers are capable
of installing countermeasures in convertible vehicles to meet the pole
test, we agree that some manufacturers need more time to develop new
countermeasures for convertible vehicles and implement changes to the
door trim, packaging and air bag systems to meet the pole test
requirements. Door-mounted, upwardly deploying curtain air bag
technology remains a feasible option for head protection in
convertibles. To provide manufacturers of convertibles more time to
develop more advanced technologies, this final rule delays the
compliance date for convertibles until September 1, 2015.

d. Effective Date for Vehicles Manufactured in More Than One Stage and
for Altered Vehicles

    The September 11, 2007 final rule specified a compliance date of
September 1, 2013, that applied to vehicles with a GVWR greater than
3,855 kg (8,500 lb), to altered vehicles, and to vehicles manufactured
in more than one stage. NTEA requested that NHTSA amend the compliance
dates ``such that the effective date for multi-stage produced vehicles
with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 8,500 is September 1,
2014 (one year later than the effective date for single stage produced
vehicles).'' NTEA stated that it would not be possible for
manufacturers of vehicles produced in more than one stage (``multi-
stage manufacturers'') of vehicles with a GVWR greater than 3,855 kg
(8,500 lb) to comply on the same date as the chassis manufacturers of
those vehicles, since multi-stage manufacturers ``cannot begin planning
their compliance strategies until the chassis manufacturers have
validated the single stage version of the chassis.''
    NHTSA has decided to grant the request to provide multi-stage
manufacturers additional time to meet the upgraded FMVSS No. 214
requirements. Today's final rule provides vehicles manufactured in more
than one stage and altered vehicles until a year after completion of
the phase-in for all other vehicle types, i.e., until September 1,
2016, to meet the pole test and the upgraded MDB test. To enhance the
ability of manufacturers of these vehicles (which are often small
businesses) to manage resources to meet the upgraded FMVSS No. 214
requirements, NHTSA is delaying the effective date for all vehicles
manufactured in more than one stage and altered vehicles subject to the
upgraded FMVSS No. 214 requirements, and not just vehicles with a GVWR
greater than 3,855 kg (8,500 lb). This is consistent with the agency's
final rule on ``Vehicles Built In Two Or More Stages,'' 70 FR 7414,
February 14, 2005.

e. Clarifications and Corrections

    This final rule corrects some of the omissions and minor errors
found in the regulatory text, as discussed below.

1. Earning Credits for Early Compliance

    The final rule adopted a phased-in compliance schedule for the MDB
test, aligned the phase-in schedule of the MDB test with that of the
pole test, and provided for the use of advance credits to meet the MDB
and pole test requirements. The Alliance asked us to clarify that for
each production year, the agency meant to have separate, concurrent
phase-in requirements for the MDB and pole tests. Stated differently,
the petitioner asked for clarification as to whether

manufacturers may earn a credit toward meeting the upgraded MDB
requirement if a vehicle met the upgraded MDB requirement, and not the
pole test, ahead of schedule, and vice versa (i.e., manufacturers may
earn a credit toward meeting the pole test requirement if a vehicle met
the pole test ahead of schedule, and not the upgraded MDB requirement).
    Our answer is yes. We did not intend that a vehicle may only earn a
credit if it met both the upgraded MDB and pole tests. In the September
11, 2007 final rule, we aligned the MDB and pole test phase-in
schedules, and provided advance credits, to let manufacturers optimize
engineering resources in designing vehicles that met the MDB and pole
test requirements simultaneously, thus reducing costs. We sought to
enable manufacturers the ability to use credits in a manner that
efficiently distributes their resources to meet the requirements. To
enhance manufacturers' ability to optimize the allocation of
engineering resources and to encourage the early introduction of
vehicles meeting the upgraded MDB test or the pole test, the phase-in
schedules for the MDB and pole test requirements were made separate and
concurrent. Thus, a vehicle that is not subject to the MDB test (e.g.,
a vehicle with a GVWR greater than 6,000 lb) may earn a credit toward
the pole test if the manufacturer installed side air bags meeting the
FMVSS No. 214 pole test ahead of schedule. Similarly, with separate
compliance schedules, a manufacturer has incentive to modify a vehicle
to meet the upgraded MDB requirements in the short term, to earn a
credit toward the MDB phase-in, even when the vehicle needs a few years
to meet the pole test. The agency has clarified the regulatory text of
the standard to make clear that the phase-in schedules are separate and
that manufacturers may earn credits for meeting the MDB test separate
from earning credits for meeting the pole test, and vice versa.

2. SID-IIs Dummy Arm Positioning

    In the preamble to the September 11, 2007 final rule, we specified
that the SID-IIs arm position for the dummy seated in the driver and
front passenger seating positions will be 40 degrees relative to torso
(72 FR at 51939).\18\ The Alliance petitioned: (a) To change this
specification to one that specifies that the arm position is set in the
detent representing a 45 degree angle between the torso and the arm;
and (b) to use this specification for all seating positions in both the
pole test and MDB tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ On page 51939 of the September 11, 2007 final rule (72 FR
at 51939), second full sentence of the second column, we described
how the arm of the SID-IIs in the front seating positions would be
raised in the ``MDB'' test. We meant to describe the SID-IIs arm
position in the pole test, since the SID-IIs is not used in the
front seating positions in the MDB test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency agrees to these suggestions. The reference to the 40
degree angle relative to torso was incorrect, as the shoulder-arm joint
allows for discrete arm positions at 0,  45,
90,  135, and 180 degree settings where positive is forward
of the spine, and does not have a discrete 40 degree setting.\19\
Further, the agency inadvertently did not address in the September 11,
2007 final rule the arm position for the rear seat dummy. We agree with
the Alliance that the arm position for the rear seat dummy should be
placed at the 45 degree angle detent position, for the reasons
explained in the September 11, 2007 final rule (testing with the arm up
reduces possible interactions with the armrest--and resulting test
variability--and also will not degrade the robustness of the test).
Further, we agree with the petitioner that testing with the arm up
results in a more meaningful test, as the dummy's thorax is fully
exposed to the door trim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Similarly, the September 11, 2007 regulatory text states
that the dummy's shoulder-arm joint allows for a discrete arm
position at a 140 degree setting where positive is
forward of the spine. The value should be ``135'' degrees rather
than ``140'' degrees. This document makes the correction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Definition of Limited Line Manufacturer

    In the regulatory text of FMVSS No. 214 published in the September
11, 2007 final rule, the definition of ``limited line manufacturer''
states that the term ``carline'' is defined in 49 CFR 585.4. Delphi
pointed out that the reference to 585.4 is incorrect. The correct
reference is 49 CFR 583.4. (See definition of ``limited line
manufacturer'' in Subpart H of Part 585, ``Side Impact Protection
Phase-In Reporting Requirements,'' published with the FMVSS No. 214
final rule, September 11, 2007. 72 FR 51972). This document makes the
correction to FMVSS No. 214.

4. Reinstate the Seat Adjustment Procedure for 50th Percentile SID and
SID-HIII Dummy in the MDB and FMVSS No. 201 Pole Tests, Respectively

    The final rule adopted the seat adjustment procedure for the 50th
percentile male ES-2re dummy proposed in the NPRM and removed from the
regulatory text the procedure previously used for the 50th percentile
male SID dummy in the MDB test. The seat adjustment procedure
referenced for the pole test using the SID-HIII dummy (49 CFR Part 572,
Subpart M) in FMVSS No. 201, ``Occupant protection in interior
impact,'' was also changed to be consistent. The Alliance petitioned
the agency to reinstate the seat adjustment procedure that had been in
FMVSS No. 214 before the September 11, 2007 final rule (``pre-existing
seat adjustment procedure'') to use with the SID and SID-HIII dummy
because the new seat adjustment procedure can result in a different
seat position and dummy location than when using the pre-existing seat
adjustment procedure. The petitioners stated that vehicles currently
certified to FMVSS Nos. 214 and 201 with the SID and SID-HIII would
have to be recertified to account for changes in the seat position and
dummy location.
    The agency agrees with the Alliance that the new seat adjustment
procedure can place the SID and SID-HIII dummy at a slightly different
location in the vehicle when compared to the pre-existing seat
adjustment procedure. It was not our intent for manufacturers to
recertify vehicles to a new dummy position with the SID and SID-HIII
dummy during the phase-out of the pre-existing FMVSS requirements.
Therefore, we agree to reinstitute the pre-existing seat adjustment
procedure for use with the SID in the MDB test until the phase-in of
the new requirements is complete and for use with the SID-HIII in FMVSS
No. 201 pole tests. Thus, when the SID and SID-HIII are used in
compliance testing, the seat adjustment procedure that had been in
FMVSS No. 214 before the September 11, 2007 will be used. When we use
the ES-2re dummy in compliance tests, we will use the new seating
procedure adopted in the September 11, 2007 final rule.

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not considered to be
significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). This document amends
the lead time and phase-in percentages set forth in the September 11,
2007 final rule and specifies the test speed for the pole test as 26
km/h to 32 km/h (16 mph to 20 mph) until the end of the phase-in. These
changes are made to reflect better the capabilities of manufacturers in
meeting the

requirements of the September 11, 2007 final rule. The document also
corrects minor errors and clarifies text of the final rule. The minimal
impacts of today's amendment do not warrant preparation of a regulatory
evaluation.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, requires
agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their proposed and final
rules on small businesses, small organizations and small governmental
jurisdictions. I hereby certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small organizations and small governmental units will not be
significantly affected since the potential cost impacts associated with
this action will not affect the price of new motor vehicles.
    The rule will have a positive effect on motor vehicle
manufacturers. This final rule amends the lead time and phase-in
percentages set forth in the September 11, 2007 final rule and
specifies the test speed for the pole test as 26 km/h to 32 km/h (16
mph to 20 mph) until the end of the phase-in. These changes will
positively affect vehicle manufacturers, including small vehicle
manufacturers, of which there are four,\20\ in that it better reflects
the manufacturing capabilities of the manufacturers in meeting the
September 11, 2007 final rule than the lead time and phase-in
requirements as originally established in that document. The rule also
provides more time to final-stage manufacturers and alterers to meet
the requirements of the September 11, 2007 final rule. This will have a
positive impact on those manufacturers, as they will be given more time
and thus more flexibility to manage their engineering designs and
resources in planning for compliance with the FMVSS No. 214 upgrade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Avanti, Panoz, Saleen, and Shelby.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that
the rule does not have federalism implications because the rule does
not have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.''
    Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect
of today's rule. NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in at least two
ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains
an express preemptive provision: ``When a motor vehicle safety standard
is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of
a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to
the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed
under this chapter.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory
command that preempts State law, not today's rulemaking, so
consultation would be inappropriate.
    In addition to the express preemption noted above, the Supreme
Court has also recognized that State requirements imposed on motor
vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law,
can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of a NHTSA
safety standard. When such a conflict is discerned, the Supremacy
Clause of the Constitution makes their State requirements
unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861
(2000). NHTSA has not outlined such potential State requirements in
today's rulemaking, however, in part because such conflicts can arise
in varied contexts, but it is conceivable that such a conflict may
become clear through subsequent experience with today's requirements.
NHTSA may opine on such conflicts in the future, if warranted. See id.
at 883-86.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than
$100 million annually (adjusted annually for inflation, with base year
of 1995). This final rule will not result in expenditures by State,
local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector
in excess of $100 million annually.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation
of this action will not have any significant impact on the quality of
the human environment.

Civil Justice Reform

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there
is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they
may file suit in court.

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    Under the PRA of 1995, a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection
displays a valid OMB control number. The September 11, 2007 final rule
contained a collection of information because of the phase-in reporting
requirements. There is no burden to the general public.
    The September 11, 2007 final rule required manufacturers of
passenger cars and of trucks, buses and MPVs with a GVWR of 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb) or less, to annually submit a report, and maintain records
related to the report, concerning the number of such vehicles that meet
the vehicle-to-pole and MDB test requirements of FMVSS No. 214 during
the phase-in of those requirements. The purpose of the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements is to assist the agency in determining
whether a manufacturer of vehicles has complied with the requirements
during the phase-in period. Today's final rule extends the lead time
period and phase-in of both the pole and MDB test requirements.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113),

all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards
that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such
technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or
activities determined by the agencies and departments.

    Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, such as the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) and the Society of Automotive Engineers. The
NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when we
decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
    The September 11, 2007 final rule discussed that NHTSA considered a
proposed ISO test procedure found in ISO/SC10/WG1 (October 2001) and
ISO draft technical reports related to side air bags performance to
guide our decision-making to the extent consistent with the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.). In
today's final rule, we explain our reasons for retaining the
requirement that the FMVSS No. 214 pole test injury criteria must be
met at any speed ``up to'' 32 km/h (20 mph).

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please write to us
with your views.

Appendix to Preamble

         Table A of Appendix.--Percent of Each Manufacturer's Vehicles That Must Comply With the Pole and MDB Tests During the Production Period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Pole test                                                    MDB test
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Exclusions from pole test                    Percent of         Percent of
                                                           --------------------------------------------------------   vehicles that      vehicles that
       Production period                                                                                must comply with   must comply with
                                      Pole test speed                                                                pole test during   MDB test during
                                                                  GVWR > 8,500 lb              Convertibles         production period  production period
                                                                                *                  *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 1, 2010 to August     26 to 32 km/h.............  Excluded..................  Excluded..................   20 percent......   20 percent.
 31, 2011.
September 1, 2011 to August     26 to 32 km/h.............  Excluded..................  Excluded..................   40 percent......   40 percent.
 31, 2012.
September 1, 2012 to August     26 to 32 km/h.............  Excluded..................  Excluded..................   60 percent......   60 percent.
 31, 2013.
September 1, 2013 to August     26 to 32 km/h.............  Excluded..................  Excluded..................   80 percent......   80 percent.
 31, 2014.
On or after September 1, 2014.  Up to 32 km/h.............  Excluded..................  Excluded..................  ``All'' vehicles   ``All'' vehicles
                                                                                excluding          excluding
                                                                                altered and        altered and
                                                                                multistage         multistage
                                                                                vehicles; all      vehicles; all
                                                                                vehicles           vehicles
                                                                                produced by        produced by
                                                                                limited line and   limited line and
                                                                                small volume       small volume
                                                                                manufacturers.     manufacturers.
On or after September 1, 2015.  Up to 32 km/h.............  Included..................  Included..................  All vehicles GVWR  .................
                                                                                > 8.500 lb, and
                                                                                convertibles,
                                                                                excluding
                                                                                altered and
                                                                                multistage
                                                                                vehicles.
On or after September 1, 2016.  Up to 32 km/h.............  ..........................  ..........................  All altered and    All altered and
                                                                                multistage         multistage
                                                                                vehicles.          vehicles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Limited line and small volume manufacturers, alterers, and multistage manufacturers are excluded from the 20/40/60/80 phase-in requirements for both
  the pole and MDB tests.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.

49 CFR Part 585

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR Chapter V as
set forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

0
2. Section 571.201 is amended by revising S8.18, S8.19, and the first
sentence of S8.28, to read as follows:

Sec.  571.201  Standard No. 201; Occupant protection in interior
impact.

* * * * *
    S8.18 Adjustable seats--vehicle to pole test. Initially, adjustable
seats shall be adjusted as specified in S<IP_ADDRESS> of Standard 214 (49
CFR 571.214).
    S8.19 Adjustable seat back placement--vehicle to pole test.
Initially, position adjustable seat backs in the manner specified in
S<IP_ADDRESS> of Standard 214 (49 CFR 571.214).
* * * * *

    S8.28 Positioning procedure for the Part 572 Subpart M test dummy--
vehicle to pole test. The part 572, subpart M, test dummy is initially
positioned in the front outboard seating position on the struck side of
the vehicle in accordance with the provisions of S12.1 of Standard 214
(49 CFR 571.214), and the vehicle seat is positioned as specified in
S<IP_ADDRESS> and S<IP_ADDRESS> of that standard. * * *
0
3. Section 571.214 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the definition of ``Limited line manufacturer'' in S3;
0
b. Revising S7.1;
0
c. Revising the heading of S7.2.1, paragraphs S7.2.1(a) and 7.2.1(b),
the heading of S7.2.2, paragraph S7.2.2(a), S7.2.4, and the heading of
S8.3.1;
0
d. Adding S8.3.2, S<IP_ADDRESS>, and S<IP_ADDRESS>;
0
e. Revising S9.1, S9.1.1, S9.1.2, S9.1.3, S12.3.2(c), S12.3.3(c),
S12.3.4(l), S13 heading, S13.1, S13.1.1, S.13.1.2, S13.1.3, and adding
S13.1.4; and
0
f. Revising S13.3, and 13.4.
    The revised and added text reads as follows:

Sec.  571.214  Standard No. 214; Side impact protection.

* * * * *
    S3 Definitions.
    * * *
    Limited line manufacturer means a manufacturer that sells three or
fewer carlines, as that term is defined in 49 CFR 583.4, in the United
States during a production year.
* * * * *
    S7.1 MDB test with SID. For vehicles manufactured before September
1, 2010, the following requirements must be met. The following
requirements also apply to vehicles manufactured on or after September
1, 2010 that are not part of the percentage of a manufacturer's
production meeting the MDB test with advanced test dummies (S7.2 of
this section) or are otherwise excluded from the phase-in requirements
of S7.2. (Vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2010 may meet S7.2,
at the manufacturer's option.)
* * * * *
    S7.2 MDB test with advanced test dummies.
    S7.2.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2010 to
August 31, 2014.
    (a) Except as provided in S7.2.4 of this section, for vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1, 2010 to August 31, 2014, a
percentage of each manufacturer's production, as specified in S13.1.1,
S13.1.2, S13.1.3, and S13.1.4, shall meet the requirements of S7.2.5
and S7.2.6 when tested with the test dummy specified in those sections.
Vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2014 may be certified as
meeting the requirements of S7.2.5 and S7.2.6.
    (b) For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2010 that
are not part of the percentage of a manufacturer's production meeting
S7.2.1 of this section, the requirements of S7.1 of this section must
be met.
* * * * *
    S7.2.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2014.
    (a) Subject to S7.2.4 of this section, each vehicle manufactured on
or after September 1, 2014 must meet the requirements of S7.2.5 and
S7.2.6, when tested with the test dummy specified in those sections.
* * * * *
    S7.2.4 Exceptions from the MDB phase-in; special allowances.
    (a)(1) Vehicles that are manufactured by an original vehicle
manufacturer that produces or assembles fewer than 5,000 vehicles
annually for sale in the United States are not subject to S7.2.1 of
this section (but vehicles that will be manufactured on or after
September 1, 2014 are subject to S7.2.2);
    (2) Vehicles that are manufactured by a limited line manufacturer
are not subject to S7.2.1 of this section (but vehicles that will be
manufactured on or after September 1, 2014 are subject to S7.2.2).
    (b) Vehicles that are altered (within the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7)
before September 1, 2016 after having been previously certified in
accordance with part 567 of this chapter, and vehicles manufactured in
two or more stages before September 1, 2016, are not subject to S7.2.1.
Vehicles that are altered on or after September 1, 2016, and vehicles
that are manufactured in two or more stages on or after September 1,
2016, must meet the requirements of S7.2.5 and S7.2.6, when tested with
the test dummy specified in those sections. Place the Subpart U ES-2re
50th percentile male dummy in the front seat and the Subpart V SID-IIs
5th percentile female test dummy in the rear seat. The test dummies are
placed and positioned in the front and rear outboard seating positions
on the struck side of the vehicle, as specified in S11 and S12 of this
standard (49 CFR 571.214).
* * * * *
    S8.3.1 50th Percentile Male ES-2re Dummy (49 CFR Part 572 Subpart
U) In Front Seats
* * * * *
    S8.3.2  50th Percentile Male SID Dummy (49 CFR Part 572 Subpart F)
in Front and Rear Seats
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Adjustable seats. Adjustable seats are placed in the
adjustment position midway between the forward most and rearmost
positions, and if separately adjustable in a vertical direction, are at
the lowest position. If an adjustment position does not exist midway
between the forward most and rearmost positions, the closest adjustment
position to the rear of the mid-point is used.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Adjustable seat back placement. Place adjustable seat
backs in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position in the
manner specified by the manufacturer. If the position is not specified,
set the seat back at the first detent rearward of 25[deg] from the
vertical. Place each adjustable head restraint in its highest
adjustment position. Position adjustable lumbar supports so that they
are set in their released, i.e., full back position.
* * * * *
    S9. Vehicle-To-Pole Requirements.
    S9.1 Except as provided in S5, when tested under the conditions of
S10:
    S9.1.1 Except as provided in S9.1.3 of this section, for vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1, 2010 to August 31, 2014, a
percentage of each manufacturer's production, as specified in S13.1.1,
S13.1.2, S13.1.3, and S13.1.4 shall meet the requirements of S9.2.1,
S9.2.2, and S9.2.3 when tested under the conditions of S10 into a
fixed, rigid pole of 254 mm (10 inches) in diameter, at any velocity
between 26 km/h to 32 km/h (16 to 20 mph) inclusive. Vehicles
manufactured before September 1, 2014 that are not subject to the
phase-in may be certified as meeting the requirements specified in this
section.
    S9.1.2 Except as provided in S9.1.3 of this section, each vehicle
manufactured on or after September 1, 2014, must meet the requirements
of S9.2.1, S9.2.2 and S9.2.3, when tested under the conditions
specified in S10 into a fixed, rigid pole of 254 mm (10 inches) in
diameter, at any speed up to and including 32 km/h (20 mph). All
vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2014 must meet S9.1.2
without the use of advance credits.
    S9.1.3 Exceptions from the phase-in; special allowances.
    (a)(1) Vehicles that are manufactured by an original vehicle
manufacturer that produces or assembles fewer than 5,000 vehicles
annually for sale in the United States are not subject to S9.1.1 of
this section (but vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2014
by these manufacturers are subject to S9.1.2);
    (2) Vehicles that are manufactured by a limited line manufacturer
are not

subject to S9.1.1 of this section (but vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2014 by these manufacturers are subject to S9.1.2).
    (b) Vehicles that are altered (within the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7)
before September 1, 2016 after having been previously certified in
accordance with part 567 of this chapter, and vehicles manufactured in
two or more stages before September 1, 2016, are not subject to S9.1.1.
Vehicles that are altered on or after September 1, 2016, and vehicles
that are manufactured in two or more stages on or after September 1,
2016, must meet the requirements of S9.1.2, when tested under the
conditions specified in S10 into a fixed, rigid pole of 254 mm (10
inches) in diameter, at any speed up to and including 32 km/h (20 mph).
    (c) Vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 3,855
kg (8,500 lb) manufactured before September 1, 2015 are not subject to
S9.1.1 or S9.1.2 of this section. These vehicles may be voluntarily
certified to meet the pole test requirements prior to September 1,
2015. Vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 3,855 kg
(8,500 lb) manufactured on or after September 1, 2015 must meet the
requirements of S9.2.1, S9.2.2 and S9.2.3, when tested under the
conditions specified in S10 into a fixed, rigid pole of 254 mm (10
inches) in diameter, at any speed up to and including 32 km/h (20 mph).
    (d)(1) Convertibles manufactured before September 1, 2015 are not
subject to S9.1.1 or S9.1.2 of this section. These vehicles may be
voluntarily certified to meet the pole test requirements prior to
September 1, 2015.
    (2) Convertibles manufactured on or after September 1, 2015 must
meet the requirements of S9.2.1, S9.2.2 and S9.2.3, when tested under
the conditions specified in S10 into a fixed, rigid pole of 254 mm (10
inches) in diameter, at any speed up to and including 32 km/h (20 mph).
* * * * *
    S12.3.2 5th percentile female driver dummy positioning.
* * * * *
    (c) Driver arm/hand positioning. Place the dummy's upper arm such
that the angle between the projection of the arm centerline on the
midsagittal plane of the dummy and the torso reference line is 45[deg]
 5[deg]. The torso reference line is defined as the
thoracic spine centerline. The shoulder-arm joint allows for discrete
arm positions at 0, [plus,mn] 45, [plus,mn] 90, [plus,mn] 135, and 180
degree settings where positive is forward of the spine.
    S12.3.3 5th percentile female front passenger dummy positioning.
* * * * *
    (c) Passenger arm/hand positioning. Place the dummy's upper arm
such that the angle between the projection of the arm centerline on the
midsagittal plane of the dummy and the torso reference line is 45[deg]
 5[deg]. The torso reference line is defined as the
thoracic spine centerline. The shoulder-arm joint allows for discrete
arm positions at 0, [plus,mn] 45, [plus,mn] 90, [plus,mn] 135, and 180
degree settings where positive is forward of the spine.
    S12.3.4 5th percentile female in rear outboard seating positions.
* * * * *
    (l) Passenger arm/hand positioning. Place the rear dummy's upper
arm such that the angle between the projection of the arm centerline on
the midsagittal plane of the dummy and the torso reference line is
45[deg]  5[deg]. The torso reference line is defined as the
thoracic spine centerline. The shoulder-arm joint allows for discrete
arm positions at 0, [plus,mn] 45, [plus,mn] 90, [plus,mn] 135, and 180
degree settings where positive is forward of the spine.
    S13 Phase-in of moving deformable barrier and vehicle-to-pole
performance requirements.
    S13.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2010 and
before September 1, 2014. At anytime during the production years ending
August 31, 2011, August 31, 2012, August 31, 2013, and August 31, 2014,
each manufacturer shall, upon request from the Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, provide information identifying the vehicles (by make,
model and vehicle identification number) that have been certified as
complying with the moving deformable barrier test with advanced test
dummies (S7.2), or the vehicles (by make, model and vehicle
identification number) that have been certified as complying with the
vehicle-to-pole test requirements (S9.1) of this standard. The
manufacturer's designation of a vehicle as a certified vehicle meeting
S7.2 or S9.1 is irrevocable.
    S13.1.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2010 and
before September 1, 2011.
    (a) Subject to S13.4, for vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2010 and before September 1, 2011, the number of vehicles
complying with S7.2 shall be not less than 20 percent of:
    (1) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles
manufactured in the three previous production years; or
    (2) The manufacturer's production in the current production year.
    (b) Subject to S13.4, for vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2010 and before September 1, 2011, the number of vehicles
complying with S9.1 shall be not less than 20 percent of:
    (1) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles
manufactured in the three previous production years; or
    (2) The manufacturer's production in the current production year.
    S13.1.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2011 and
before September 1, 2012.
    (a) Subject to S13.4, for vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2011 and before September 1, 2012, the number of vehicles
complying with S7.2 shall be not less than 40 percent of:
    (1) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles
manufactured in the three previous production years; or
    (2) The manufacturer's production in the current production year.
    (b) Subject to S13.4, for vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2011 and before September 1, 2012, the number of vehicles
complying with S9.1 shall be not less than 40 percent of:
    (1) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles
manufactured in the three previous production years; or
    (2) The manufacturer's production in the current production year.
    S13.1.3 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2012 and
before September 1, 2013.
    (a) Subject to S13.4, for vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2012 and before September 1, 2013, the number of vehicles
complying with S7.2 shall be not less than 60 percent of:
    (1) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles
manufactured in the three previous production years; or
    (2) The manufacturer's production in the current production year.
    (b) Subject to S13.4, for vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2012 and before September 1, 2013, the number of vehicles
complying with S9.1 shall be not less than 60 percent of:
    (1) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles
manufactured in the three previous production years; or
    (2) The manufacturer's production in the current production year.
    S13.1.4 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2013 and
before September 1, 2014.
    (a) Subject to S13.4, for vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2013 and before September 1, 2014, the number of vehicles
complying with S7.2 shall be not less than 80 percent of:
    (1) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles
manufactured in the three previous production years; or
    (2) The manufacturer's production in the current production year.
    (b) Subject to S13.4, for vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2013 and before September 1, 2014, the

number of vehicles complying with S9.1 shall be not less than 80
percent of:
    (1) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles
manufactured in the three previous production years; or
    (2) The manufacturer's production in the current production year.
* * * * *
    S13.3(a) For the purposes of calculating average annual production
of vehicles for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles
manufactured by each manufacturer under S13.1.1(a), S13.1.2(a),
S13.1.3(a), and S13.1.4(a), do not count any vehicle that is excluded
by Standard No. 214 from the moving deformable barrier test with the
ES-2re or SID-IIs test dummies (S7.2).
    (b) For the purposes of calculating average annual production of
vehicles for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles manufactured
by each manufacturer under S13.1.1(b), S13.1.2(b), S13.1.3(b), and
S13.1.4(b), do not count any vehicle that is excluded by Standard No.
214 from the vehicle-to-pole test (S9).
    S13.4 Calculation of complying vehicles.
    (a) For the purposes of calculating the vehicles complying with
S13.1.1, a manufacturer may count a vehicle if it is manufactured on or
after October 11, 2007 but before September 1, 2011.
    (b) For purposes of complying with S13.1.2, a manufacturer may
count a vehicle if it--
    (1) Is manufactured on or after October 11, 2007 but before
September 1, 2012 and,
    (2) Is not counted toward compliance with S13.1.1.
    (c) For purposes of complying with S13.1.3, a manufacturer may
count a vehicle if it--
    (1) Is manufactured on or after October 11, 2007 but before
September 1, 2013 and,
    (2) Is not counted toward compliance with S13.1.1 or S13.1.2.
    (d) For purposes of complying with S13.1.4, a manufacturer may
count a vehicle if it--
    (1) Is manufactured on or after October 11, 2007 but before
September 1, 2014 and,
    (2) Is not counted toward compliance with S13.1.1, S13.1.2, or
S13.1.3.
    (e) For the purposes of calculating average annual production of
vehicles for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles manufactured
by each manufacturer, each vehicle that is excluded from having to meet
the applicable requirement is not counted.

PART 585--PHASE-IN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 585 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Subpart H--Side Impact Protection Phase-in Reporting Requirements

0
2. Revise Sec.  585.75 to read as follows.

Sec.  585.75  Response to inquiries.

    At any time during the production years ending August 31, 2011,
August 31, 2012, August 31, 2013, and August 31, 2014, each
manufacturer shall, upon request from the Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, provide information identifying the vehicles (by make,
model and vehicle identification number) that have been certified as
complying with the moving deformable barrier test with advanced test
dummies (S7.2) or the vehicles (by make, model and vehicle
identification number) that have been certified as complying with the
vehicle-to-pole test requirements (S9.1) of FMVSS No. 214 (49 CFR
571.214). The manufacturer's designation of a vehicle as a certified
vehicle that meets S7.2 or S9.1 is irrevocable.

0
3. Revise Sec.  585.76 (a), (b), (c), and (d)(2) to read as follows.

Sec.  585.76  Reporting requirements.

    (a) Advanced credit phase-in reporting requirements. (1) Within 60
days after the end of the production years ending August 31, 2008,
through August 31, 2014, each manufacturer choosing to certify vehicles
manufactured during any of those production years as complying with the
upgraded moving deformable barrier (S7.2 of Standard No. 214)(49 CFR
571.214) or vehicle-to-pole requirements (S9) of Standard No. 214 shall
submit a report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
providing the information specified in paragraph (c) of this section
and in Sec.  585.2 of this part.
    (b) Phase-in reporting requirements. Within 60 days after the end
of each of the production years ending August 31, 2011, August 31,
2012, August 31, 2013, and August 31, 2014, each manufacturer shall
submit a report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
concerning its compliance with the moving deformable barrier
requirements of S7 of Standard No. 214 and with the vehicle-to-pole
requirements of S9 of that Standard for its vehicles produced in that
year. Each report shall provide the information specified in paragraph
(c) of this section and in section 585.2 of this part.
    (c) Advanced credit phase-in report content--(1) Production of
complying vehicles. With respect to the reports identified in Sec.
585.76(a), each manufacturer shall report for the production year for
which the report is filed the number of vehicles, by make and model
year: That are certified as meeting the moving deformable barrier test
requirements of S7.2 of Standard No. 214, Side impact protection (49
CFR 571.214), and that are certified as meeting the vehicle-to-pole
test requirements of S9 of Standard No. 214.
    (d) Phase-in report content--
* * * * *
    (2) Production of complying vehicles. Each manufacturer shall
report for the production year being reported on, and each preceding
production year, to the extent that vehicles produced during the
preceding years are treated under Standard No. 214 as having been
produced during the production year being reported on, information on
the number of vehicles that meet the moving deformable barrier test
requirements of S7 of Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection (49 CFR
571.214), and the number of vehicles that meet the vehicle-to-pole test
requirements of S9 of that standard.
0
4. Revise Sec.  585.77 to read as follows.

Sec.  585.77  Records

    Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the Vehicle
Identification Number for each vehicle for which information is
reported under Sec.  585.76 until December 31, 2018.

    Issued on: May 15, 2008.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E8-11273 Filed 6-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P